Post by: MDGrand on June 29, 2011, 01:19:07 PM
Post by: NWBREW on June 29, 2011, 01:21:42 PM
Post by: GoldTip on June 29, 2011, 01:24:58 PM
Post by: Todd_ID on June 29, 2011, 01:25:51 PM
Short answer is too many hunters in the state and not near enough elk. The only way to write up a rule is by antler size or lack thereof, so we see spike only or spike and antlerless and now some true spike only areas. There'd be many more bulls if the state went to 7+ points on one side being the minimum for the general season, but the hunters would get discouraged and quit buying licenses because the elk that get that big are old and smart and harder to kill. Can't cut the revenue stream, so you hope that enough spikes make it to be big bulls to keep the hunters buying the special permits.
Post by: MDGrand on June 29, 2011, 01:29:11 PM
From a biology standpoint though it cant make any sense.. the same old lucky bull that made it past bieng a spike pretty much has his genes and his genes alone rule the heard as he probably kicks the but of MOST other spikes.
.. interesting.. :rolleyes:
Post by: str8meat on June 29, 2011, 01:33:40 PM
Post by: PlateauNDN on June 29, 2011, 01:49:15 PM
the last meeting i was at the dept. was tryin to get 12 cows to every herd bull. wich would be a good ratio. so in order to protect the future of the herd, a spike bull general seaon was implicated. fortunately for the herd bulls the general season many are protected from hunters as there isnt alot of special permits. the downside is that the tribal memebers will continue to harvest bulls whenever they want to an seems like wherever also. to me it doesnt make sense to harvest a mature bull in dec., jan. or feb. when they are at their leanest and struggling to survive. give me a nice fat calf :tup: thats eating. many neighboring states do and do not have the same theory to their management. smetims ya just have to play the cards delt
I agree with you on this one and it would be beneficial for everybody if regulations were alot more stricter and actually enforced.
Post by: newred on June 29, 2011, 01:53:50 PM
Post by: 6x6in6 on June 29, 2011, 01:58:23 PM
I thought the idea was to kill all the genetically deficient spike bulls, while letting the bigger bodied branch antlered bulls impregnate as many of the heard as possible, leading to more bigger bodied branch antler bulls in the future. Is this not correct?No.
How do you know if one of them harvested spikes didn't have big daddy's gene's in him and in a couple years would be spreading his seed? We don't.
It was all about escapement for branched and the few spikes that survive to keep the cycle going. And, of course, the $ factor of not losing revenue by going to a draw only system.
Stupid idea!!!
Post by: bobcat on June 29, 2011, 02:01:57 PM
Quote
I thought the idea was to kill all the genetically deficient spike bulls, while letting the bigger bodied branch antlered bulls impregnate as many of the heard as possible, leading to more bigger bodied branch antler bulls in the future. Is this not correct?
No, I don't think that has anything to do with it. For one thing, how do you know the spikes are "genetically deficient?" Most spike bull elk are just yearlings and very well could be 6x6 bulls in their 3rd or 4th years. The spike only season is so that the WDFW can continue to sell over-the-counter elk tags, with no limit on the number sold, and still maintain a healthy bull/cow ratio. The younger spike elk are more numerous and therefore, more expendable.
Post by: rtspring on June 29, 2011, 02:02:39 PM
And for those wishing we would go to a draw to hunt type deal, I am totally 100 percent against that crap. I want to hunt each and every year and have lots of money invested in equipment and such to go hunting. So if i could not hunt one year I would probably just give it up and sell all my hunting stuff. Our state is not the best but it really ain't that bad neither.
Post by: MDGrand on June 29, 2011, 02:11:49 PM
When this rule came out our hunting camp almost gave up elk hunting. But it has greatly improved the herd in the area I hunt. Before the spike only rule we had a bunch of raghorns. Now we have some of the best elk hunting in the state. There is no way to please everyone. I don't mind shooting spikes, they really aren't that hard to find.
And for those wishing we would go to a draw to hunt type deal, I am totally 100 percent against that crap. I want to hunt each and every year and have lots of money invested in equipment and such to go hunting. So if i could not hunt one year I would probably just give it up and sell all my hunting stuff. Our state is not the best but it really ain't that bad neither.
With all due respect, I totally hear what you are saying, however, I do not think you understand how much MORE hunting you could do with the proper draw system. WA is WAAAAAY behind other western states when it comes to how they issue their tags.
For example.. in MT, you must be in for a draw every year.. more than likely as a resident, you will get your tag.. odds are in the 80s I think for most popular elk areas and near 100% in popular deer areas, such as the Missouri Breaks... FOR RESIDENTS. For NON residents.. the odds are WAY Lower.
The benefits are:
You actually get a season to hunt, months, not just weeks.
AND.. more importantly...
It keeps the "night before" hunters from going to the store and buying their tag and a cooler full of beer to come join you on the hill.
Besides....
What would happen if you did not get your elk tag that year.. BUT instead got several months to go after that Trophy Mule Deer you have been after?
I would take that in a heart beat because as you were saying.. you want the hunting time.. with a PROPER draw system.. we would get MORE of that and perhaps this "spike only" crap would go away too.
:) :twocents:
Post by: Tbar on June 29, 2011, 02:12:14 PM
Post by: CedarPants on June 29, 2011, 02:16:06 PM
When this rule came out our hunting camp almost gave up elk hunting. But it has greatly improved the herd in the area I hunt. Before the spike only rule we had a bunch of raghorns. Now we have some of the best elk hunting in the state. There is no way to please everyone. I don't mind shooting spikes, they really aren't that hard to find.
And for those wishing we would go to a draw to hunt type deal, I am totally 100 percent against that crap. I want to hunt each and every year and have lots of money invested in equipment and such to go hunting. So if i could not hunt one year I would probably just give it up and sell all my hunting stuff. Our state is not the best but it really ain't that bad neither.
Everyone has a lot of money invested in equipment and such to go hunting. Those of us that don't have the option of hunting branch antlered bulls didn't just give up and sell all of our hunting stuff though, just like the majority of us wouldn't just quit hunting if we had to skip a year here and there. I'm sure plenty of opportunity would exist to still be in camp every year with friends and family, which is 99% of the fun. If your only goal is to kill an animal year in year out, then yes you are absoloutely correct in that the state can't please everyone.
Post by: bucklucky on June 29, 2011, 02:20:28 PM
Post by: 338_Thumper on June 29, 2011, 02:28:39 PM
Post by: Woodchuck on June 29, 2011, 02:34:40 PM
Post by: bucklucky on June 29, 2011, 02:38:05 PM
Soooooo if I understand you Charlie, by hunting spike only for the most part we are in fact culling the "inferior" young bulls from the herd. That leads me to believe that if only the "superior" bulls are left we are hunting ourselves out of spikes as well based on genetics that are passed down. :dunno:
Theres no way you can kill every spike out there, escapement is too great. There will always be spikes to kill!
Post by: Woodchuck on June 29, 2011, 02:41:08 PM
Post by: Elkstuffer on June 29, 2011, 02:47:31 PM
Post by: bucklucky on June 29, 2011, 02:49:32 PM
Id like to see a spike only season on the west side and more opportunity for quality bull permist but at a greatter number of tags so more people could draw and kill some great bulls.
Post by: KopperBuck on June 29, 2011, 02:54:40 PM
Post by: Woodchuck on June 29, 2011, 02:55:31 PM
Post by: Tbar on June 29, 2011, 03:03:05 PM
Post by: brianmtsinc on June 29, 2011, 03:54:19 PM
:yeah:
Im with you rt ..... and can't really understand why others are willing to even discuss this option. My step son lives in NM and he only gets to hunt when he draws a tag. It has now been 4 years without drawing a deer or elk tag :bash: ... The truth is, he is now losing interest.... sad :bash:
Post by: boneaddict on June 29, 2011, 04:03:08 PM
Post by: rtspring on June 29, 2011, 04:11:35 PM
The area I hunt I can tall you a story about this and that about every 100 yds or so, this happened here in what year and how big the animal was.. and so on and so on.. Sure i could just drive up there and camp and do the same thing, but thats not the same..
So no I don't go just to shoot an animal every year. I go because it is a privledge to walk in the footsteps of those that have gone before me and taught me about our great sport.....and I want to do it every year. and not hope that I get drawn :bash: :bash:
sorry for the thread jack
Post by: 6x6in6 on June 29, 2011, 04:12:59 PM
It provides us the opportunity to pick a spike, 3 pt min or an Any bull place to hunt. It keeps the revenue from it here in this state to support the enhancement effort what's left of those funds the General Fund does not pilfer. Otherwise, the licensing dollars could go out of our state to support their enhancement. Have to think of the businesses too that also rely on the hunting dollars spent and those livelihoods it would affect.
Post by: MtnMuley on June 29, 2011, 04:14:10 PM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on June 29, 2011, 04:18:52 PM
Prior to spike only, you could see ONE branch antler bull at the feeding stations and VERY FEW in the woods. Now you have a chance to see MANY branch antlered bulls, AND there are spikes. YOU CHOOSE
Feeding stations are rather a highjackable issue imo. Those that support Wolves want them ended.
I think the question is if "spike" and "true spike" work? To get me to stop hunting the Eastside, yes it works. It seems to manage hunters.
If they move to five point on the Westside it will work to make me no longer need WDFW to hunt Washington at all.
Post by: Austrian Hunter on June 29, 2011, 04:25:56 PM
QuoteI thought the idea was to kill all the genetically deficient spike bulls, while letting the bigger bodied branch antlered bulls impregnate as many of the heard as possible, leading to more bigger bodied branch antler bulls in the future. Is this not correct?
No, I don't think that has anything to do with it. For one thing, how do you know the spikes are "genetically deficient?" Most spike bull elk are just yearlings and very well could be 6x6 bulls in their 3rd or 4th years. The spike only season is so that the WDFW can continue to sell over-the-counter elk tags, with no limit on the number sold, and still maintain a healthy bull/cow ratio. The younger spike elk are more numerous and therefore, more expendable.
:yeah:
Post by: ribka on June 29, 2011, 04:30:52 PM
When this rule came out our hunting camp almost gave up elk hunting. But it has greatly improved the herd in the area I hunt. Before the spike only rule we had a bunch of raghorns. Now we have some of the best elk hunting in the state. There is no way to please everyone. I don't mind shooting spikes, they really aren't that hard to find.
And for those wishing we would go to a draw to hunt type deal, I am totally 100 percent against that crap. I want to hunt each and every year and have lots of money invested in equipment and such to go hunting. So if i could not hunt one year I would probably just give it up and sell all my hunting stuff. Our state is not the best but it really ain't that bad neither.
With all due respect, I totally hear what you are saying, however, I do not think you understand how much MORE hunting you could do with the proper draw system. WA is WAAAAAY behind other western states when it comes to how they issue their tags.
For example.. in MT, you must be in for a draw every year.. more than likely as a resident, you will get your tag.. odds are in the 80s I think for most popular elk areas and near 100% in popular deer areas, such as the Missouri Breaks... FOR RESIDENTS. For NON residents.. the odds are WAY Lower.
The benefits are:
You actually get a season to hunt, months, not just weeks.
AND.. more importantly...
It keeps the "night before" hunters from going to the store and buying their tag and a cooler full of beer to come join you on the hill.
Besides....
What would happen if you did not get your elk tag that year.. BUT instead got several months to go after that Trophy Mule Deer you have been after?
I would take that in a heart beat because as you were saying.. you want the hunting time.. with a PROPER draw system.. we would get MORE of that and perhaps this "spike only" crap would go away too.
:) :twocents:
Take a look at populations in both states:
Washington - 6,395,798
Montana - 944,632
Washington has more than six times the human population and Montana has more much land and more game animals available to hunters
If Washington went to draw one would probably draw once every 5-7 years.
Plus out-of staters would also begin applying too.
I like hunting every year. I think with our game populations, amount of land probably best system possible for all. Even for non-pro team hunters :tung:
Draw only in
Post by: BLKBEARKLR on June 29, 2011, 04:32:59 PM
Post by: gasman on June 29, 2011, 04:43:50 PM
The winter kill of 95-96 ( I believe)..... The winter kill was so bad they changed the rules to spike only for elk and 3 point min. for mule deer. It was suppose to be a 6 year plan to build the herdback up but when the state seen how much money they were making,they just could not stand to lose that revenue.
The herd objectives were met and are better today then they were back then but they won't change it, hence the increase in bull tags over the years. It was not to long ago that the they were giving out 300 cow tags per unit in the Yakima area to keep the numbers down and keep the elk from encroaching to the city and farm. Many farmers were killing elk and leaving them to rot in back of there property because the WDFW would not do any thing about the damage they were causing, the herd numbers were good.
I spoke to some of the Bios. in the Yakima are with the WDFW and FS,and they both recommended to change back to any bull but the commission shot down there recommendation and increased permits to make up for it :bash:
One fear that the WDFW had was, if they opened up to any bull, they the hunting pressure would double and decimate the herd, at least that was there fear or excuse I got when I asked questions and poked around back then.
Post by: rtspring on June 29, 2011, 04:48:59 PM
1. How was your hunt?
2. Would you have been able to kill such a quality bull if it wasn't for the SPIKE ONLY rule?
3. How excited were you when you drew the tag?
Now lets say it was ANY ELK on the eastside, how many of these guys and gals would have had the chance to kill such a magnificent animal?? very few
If you want to kill a branch antlered bull and not hunt SPIKES, travel to the WETSIDE. I did it and had a blast and killed a 4X4 that was huge...
Post by: Fullabull on June 29, 2011, 05:06:42 PM
With the human population in this state and the elk numbers (btw, WA has the highest hunter to elk ratio of any state, not good for draw system) here, I believe the current system is not bad. RT is correct, you can hunt any elk you want, the choice is up to you :)
Fulla
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on June 29, 2011, 05:25:49 PM
Post by: MDGrand on June 29, 2011, 05:41:51 PM
:yeah:
With the human population in this state and the elk numbers (btw, WA has the highest hunter to elk ratio of any state, not good for draw system) here, I believe the current system is not bad. RT is correct, you can hunt any elk you want, the choice is up to you :)
Fulla
We have a higher elk to hunter ratio because of the over counter tag system.
Post by: gasman on June 29, 2011, 05:45:53 PM
And it was after the winter of 95 when they started to move the season in to Oct. and cut the season days to 9 verses 15 (Nov. 1-15). you know, back whenif you put in for cow tags, you coumd not hunt the first three days regardless if you drew a cow tag or not :bash:
Post by: MDGrand on June 29, 2011, 05:49:41 PM
When this rule came out our hunting camp almost gave up elk hunting. But it has greatly improved the herd in the area I hunt. Before the spike only rule we had a bunch of raghorns. Now we have some of the best elk hunting in the state. There is no way to please everyone. I don't mind shooting spikes, they really aren't that hard to find.
And for those wishing we would go to a draw to hunt type deal, I am totally 100 percent against that crap. I want to hunt each and every year and have lots of money invested in equipment and such to go hunting. So if i could not hunt one year I would probably just give it up and sell all my hunting stuff. Our state is not the best but it really ain't that bad neither.
With all due respect, I totally hear what you are saying, however, I do not think you understand how much MORE hunting you could do with the proper draw system. WA is WAAAAAY behind other western states when it comes to how they issue their tags.
For example.. in MT, you must be in for a draw every year.. more than likely as a resident, you will get your tag.. odds are in the 80s I think for most popular elk areas and near 100% in popular deer areas, such as the Missouri Breaks... FOR RESIDENTS. For NON residents.. the odds are WAY Lower.
The benefits are:
You actually get a season to hunt, months, not just weeks.
AND.. more importantly...
It keeps the "night before" hunters from going to the store and buying their tag and a cooler full of beer to come join you on the hill.
Besides....
What would happen if you did not get your elk tag that year.. BUT instead got several months to go after that Trophy Mule Deer you have been after?
I would take that in a heart beat because as you were saying.. you want the hunting time.. with a PROPER draw system.. we would get MORE of that and perhaps this "spike only" crap would go away too.
:) :twocents:
Take a look at populations in both states:
Washington - 6,395,798
Montana - 944,632
Washington has more than six times the human population and Montana has more much land and more game animals available to hunters
If Washington went to draw one would probably draw once every 5-7 years.
Plus out-of staters would also begin applying too.
I like hunting every year. I think with our game populations, amount of land probably best system possible for all. Even for non-pro team hunters :tung:
Draw only in
Comparing the population in both states is not all together sound. Not everyone in WA hunts. In fact most do not. So the proper comparison would be to see how many licenses for hunting each state issues. That would be an interesting statistic.
Finally, for all those against a draw system...
What i am talking about is the right draw system for RESIDENTS. MT residents hardly worry about getting their tag because they are more likely to get it than non residents. Also putting in for a draw requires work... Work a nom serious hunter would not do. WA caters to the non serious hunter by providing tags at will.
$0.02 :-)
Post by: hughjorgan on June 29, 2011, 06:06:38 PM
When this rule came out our hunting camp almost gave up elk hunting. But it has greatly improved the herd in the area I hunt. Before the spike only rule we had a bunch of raghorns. Now we have some of the best elk hunting in the state. There is no way to please everyone. I don't mind shooting spikes, they really aren't that hard to find.
And for those wishing we would go to a draw to hunt type deal, I am totally 100 percent against that crap. I want to hunt each and every year and have lots of money invested in equipment and such to go hunting. So if i could not hunt one year I would probably just give it up and sell all my hunting stuff. Our state is not the best but it really ain't that bad neither.
With all due respect, I totally hear what you are saying, however, I do not think you understand how much MORE hunting you could do with the proper draw system. WA is WAAAAAY behind other western states when it comes to how they issue their tags.
For example.. in MT, you must be in for a draw every year.. more than likely as a resident, you will get your tag.. odds are in the 80s I think for most popular elk areas and near 100% in popular deer areas, such as the Missouri Breaks... FOR RESIDENTS. For NON residents.. the odds are WAY Lower.
The benefits are:
You actually get a season to hunt, months, not just weeks.
AND.. more importantly...
It keeps the "night before" hunters from going to the store and buying their tag and a cooler full of beer to come join you on the hill.
Besides....
What would happen if you did not get your elk tag that year.. BUT instead got several months to go after that Trophy Mule Deer you have been after?
I would take that in a heart beat because as you were saying.. you want the hunting time.. with a PROPER draw system.. we would get MORE of that and perhaps this "spike only" crap would go away too.
:) :twocents:
Take a look at populations in both states:
Washington - 6,395,798
Montana - 944,632
Washington has more than six times the human population and Montana has more much land and more game animals available to hunters
If Washington went to draw one would probably draw once every 5-7 years.
Plus out-of staters would also begin applying too.
I like hunting every year. I think with our game populations, amount of land probably best system possible for all. Even for non-pro team hunters :tung:
Draw only in
Comparing the population in both states is not all together sound. Not everyone in WA hunts. In fact most do not. So the proper comparison would be to see how many licenses for hunting each state issues. That would be an interesting statistic.
Finally, for all those against a draw system...
What i am talking about is the right draw system for RESIDENTS. MT residents hardly worry about getting their tag because they are more likely to get it than non residents. Also putting in for a draw requires work... Work a nom serious hunter would not do. WA caters to the non serious hunter by providing tags at will.
$0.02 :-)
What qualifies as a "non serious hunter" ? So we shouldn't allow certain people to hunt because they aren't serious enough?
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on June 29, 2011, 06:55:02 PM
Well I remember (as good as my memeorie is :rolleyes:) hunting any bull in the winter of 95 up at Bald Mt and haveing so much snow, we had stay below the 1701 because the snow was so deep, it was the worst winter I have ever seen over there.
And it was after the winter of 95 when they started to move the season in to Oct. and cut the season days to 9 verses 15 (Nov. 1-15). you know, back whenif you put in for cow tags, you coumd not hunt the first three days regardless if you drew a cow tag or not :bash:
As us Colockum hunters had been forced to October hunt since the early 80's, We figured that you Yakima tag guys would raise a firestorm and get them both moved back a week. My first tag year was 1997 when you lost the first 3 days (The last year). There were any Bull S/P's (over 90 of 'em) in 1996. (Naneum Quilomene, Mission) Now there are about 5! Spike only started in either 95, or (I believe) '94.
BTW, my memory ain't the greatest either,so I could be wrong about th '96 thing. I Have a buddiy who has saved years and years of game Reg.s and I'm gonna give him a call later tonight.
Post by: CedarPants on June 29, 2011, 07:13:18 PM
sorry for the thread jack
No apology needed my friend, and you have my apologies if my post offended you. Was not my intent.
Post by: MtnMuley on June 29, 2011, 09:14:58 PM
Post by: Ingwe on June 29, 2011, 09:36:50 PM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on June 29, 2011, 09:37:51 PM
I agree with Bobcat for sure !!!QuoteI thought the idea was to kill all the genetically deficient spike bulls, while letting the bigger bodied branch antlered bulls impregnate as many of the heard as possible, leading to more bigger bodied branch antler bulls in the future. Is this not correct?
No, I don't think that has anything to do with it. For one thing, how do you know the spikes are "genetically deficient?" Most spike bull elk are just yearlings and very well could be 6x6 bulls in their 3rd or 4th years. The spike only season is so that the WDFW can continue to sell over-the-counter elk tags, with no limit on the number sold, and still maintain a healthy bull/cow ratio. The younger spike elk are more numerous and therefore, more expendable.
Post by: Deer slayer on June 29, 2011, 10:01:28 PM
I have only hunted the west side and I think the best thing the game department ever did was make it branch bull only. I have been hunting elk since about 1975 and the elk hunting is better now than ever. More bulls now than when you could shoot spikes.I completely agree and everybody else I talk to that has been around for a while say the same. Numbers are up. It drops a little off and on over the years with winter kills.
Post by: hoytem on June 29, 2011, 10:39:31 PM
Post by: mulehunter on June 29, 2011, 11:24:19 PM
Mulehunter
Post by: teanawayslayer on June 30, 2011, 04:29:06 AM
This is a dumb question, but it has been soooo long since I even thought about this one.. but what is the management philosophy behind having the Eastside be spike only?If all you coasties stayed over on the west side and hunted the rosies we would probably be able to hunt branched bulls over here. If you notice during elk season there are more people over here hunting than there is for a holiday weekend. There wouldn't be any elk left! Now we pay for it by true spike only!! :bash:
Post by: gasman on June 30, 2011, 04:49:54 AM
I have only hunted the west side and I think the best thing the game department ever did was make it branch bull only. I have been hunting elk since about 1975 and the elk hunting is better now than ever. More bulls now than when you could shoot spikes.
Would yoy contribute that to teh branch bull or the limited access and less land to hunt now then there was say 20 years ago :dunno:
One thing to remember, is 20 years ago Weyco. left all the land open so hunters can be every where, now they are cramed in to areas that they want them to be and the elk escapement is probably higher today, then it was then.
Post by: dreamingbig on June 30, 2011, 05:59:02 AM
This is a dumb question, but it has been soooo long since I even thought about this one.. but what is the management philosophy behind having the Eastside be spike only?If all you coasties stayed over on the west side and hunted the rosies we would probably be able to hunt branched bulls over here. If you notice during elk season there are more people over here hunting than there is for a holiday weekend. There wouldn't be any elk left! Now we pay for it by true spike only!! :bash:
C'mon man... that just isn't cool. Not everyone from the coast is a liberal democrat looking to screw you over. And tax revenue is spread statewide, it doesn't stay west of the crest my friend.
Post by: GoldTip on June 30, 2011, 06:45:03 AM
When this rule came out our hunting camp almost gave up elk hunting. But it has greatly improved the herd in the area I hunt. Before the spike only rule we had a bunch of raghorns. Now we have some of the best elk hunting in the state. There is no way to please everyone. I don't mind shooting spikes, they really aren't that hard to find.
And for those wishing we would go to a draw to hunt type deal, I am totally 100 percent against that crap. I want to hunt each and every year and have lots of money invested in equipment and such to go hunting. So if i could not hunt one year I would probably just give it up and sell all my hunting stuff. Our state is not the best but it really ain't that bad neither.
With all due respect, I totally hear what you are saying, however, I do not think you understand how much MORE hunting you could do with the proper draw system. WA is WAAAAAY behind other western states when it comes to how they issue their tags.
For example.. in MT, you must be in for a draw every year.. more than likely as a resident, you will get your tag.. odds are in the 80s I think for most popular elk areas and near 100% in popular deer areas, such as the Missouri Breaks... FOR RESIDENTS. For NON residents.. the odds are WAY Lower.
The benefits are:
You actually get a season to hunt, months, not just weeks.
AND.. more importantly...
It keeps the "night before" hunters from going to the store and buying their tag and a cooler full of beer to come join you on the hill.
Besides....
What would happen if you did not get your elk tag that year.. BUT instead got several months to go after that Trophy Mule Deer you have been after?
I would take that in a heart beat because as you were saying.. you want the hunting time.. with a PROPER draw system.. we would get MORE of that and perhaps this "spike only" crap would go away too.
:) :twocents:
Take a look at populations in both states:
Washington - 6,395,798
Montana - 944,632
Washington has more than six times the human population and Montana has more much land and more game animals available to hunters
If Washington went to draw one would probably draw once every 5-7 years.
Plus out-of staters would also begin applying too.
I like hunting every year. I think with our game populations, amount of land probably best system possible for all. Even for non-pro team hunters :tung:
Draw only in
Comparing the population in both states is not all together sound. Not everyone in WA hunts. In fact most do not. So the proper comparison would be to see how many licenses for hunting each state issues. That would be an interesting statistic.
Finally, for all those against a draw system...
What i am talking about is the right draw system for RESIDENTS. MT residents hardly worry about getting their tag because they are more likely to get it than non residents. Also putting in for a draw requires work... Work a nom serious hunter would not do. WA caters to the non serious hunter by providing tags at will.
$0.02 :-)
I'm horribly confused about exactly what "draw" in Montana for resident elk and deer licenses you are referring to? Because my brother, sister, father, father in law, mother, mother in law, sister in law, multiple cousins and Uncles all live in Montana and the only drawing they do as residents for a deer or an elk tag is to "draw" money out of their wallets and hand it across the counter and then they are allowed to hunt somewhere around 90% of the state that hold either deer or elk. There is also NO draw that they must be in for every year. If your thinking that the draw rate is 80% for resident for elk in the Missouri breaks or in area's like the Beartooths or for late season Yellowstone migration hunts, I am sorry to tell you, but you are sadly mistaken. Most popular elk hunting draw tags in MT are like GOLD, just like they are here.
They do have special permit area's that allow them to take any bull instead of a branch bull or take a doe in a buck area and things like that, but those draw tags are far from the slam dunks that you are insinuating. And to compare WA to MT is ludicrous as far as hunting goes, just look at the land mass, you could stick the entire state of WA into MT about 3 times, and yet MT has less than 1/7 the population of WA?
Post by: elkinrutdrivemenuts on June 30, 2011, 07:08:54 AM
I don't mind shooting spikes, they really aren't that hard to find.
I have been elk hunting in the blues since 2001 and have yet to see a spike during rifle season. where the heck do you hunt!@??!?!?!?!?!?!?
Post by: piledup on June 30, 2011, 07:36:00 AM
I don't mind shooting spikes, they really aren't that hard to find.
I have been elk hunting in the blues since 2001 and have yet to see a spike during rifle season. where the heck do you hunt!@??!?!?!?!?!?!?
Try the Yakima area. Last I heard there are more elk over there. :dunno:
I believe this spike system is working to help maintain bigger bulls because if the spikes escape their "Spike years" then we would have more bigger bulls in the future. After every year, I know there are spikes who made it past the hunting seasons.
But maybe I would like to see some of the bull/quality elk hunts be OIL tags since I'm pretty sure some lucky guy has drawn the same tag twice before and others have not drawn it at all. :twocents:
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on June 30, 2011, 07:39:29 AM
Now, I might be wrong, as my memory isn't what it used to be, but ..... :twocents:
Back when I hunted and it was "Any Bull, visible antler" with special permits for cows (rifle/modern), or "Any Elk" for archery, the herd numbers were up, but bull escapement was low.
The majority of the harvested animals were yearling spikes, not due to restrictions, but due to the fact that very few elk survived their first few years.
Even though herd numbers were up, Bull/cow ratios were low (post season) and the number of 4-5 year old bulls was almost 1/100.
The majority of the herd was cows and yearling bulls, that were not old (mature) enough to breed, but tried anyways.
In an effort to increase Bull/cow ratio, something had to be done, so a reduction in Antlered harvest was necessary.
They (WDFW) actually INCREASED antlerless permits, and instituted antler restrictions, due to the nature of the habitat on the East-side (visibility) a "Spike Only" restriction was enacted, TO MAINTAIN THE CURRENT HARVEST NUMBERS AND OPPORTUNITTY, WHILE ALLOWING SOME BULLS TO ESCAPE HARVEST.
This , in turn would allow opportunity for a few permit holders to harvest "mature" Bulls, while , at the same time, increase bull/cow ratio, and augment the number of "mature" (4-6 year old) bulls in relation to yearling (1-3 year) bulls, thereby improving the health of the whole herd.
AMAZINGLY, IT ACTUALLY WORKED !!
Within a few short years, Bull/cow ratio was at or above desired 15-20/100, and surviving bulls were in a decent mix of age classes.
In areas that were not showing significant improvement, (you know where I am talking about) in the number of "mature", or "branched" escapement (due to a variety of influences) they instituted "True Spike" restrictions, I mean if it worked in one place, why not another? (damn biologist/politicians/"Game commission") :bash:
It was when they decided that the population was at or above "carrying capacity" (damn biologist) that they issued more "antlerless" and "any Elk" permits and reduced the herd numbers to what they are now, as compared to the '90's.
I honestly believe, if the Yakima herd was still at 14,000+ animals instead of the 9,000 (or 10,000) they feel is "population objective" there would be a lot less complaining.
And those of you that feel we should go to a "draw only"... THAT IS WHAT WE ARE AT !, SPIKE (or cow) ONLY, UNLESS DRAWN !!
If you want to hunt mature animals, either wait until drawn, or hunt in those units open to hunting them.
If you just want to hunt, then there is opportunity also.
And apply for permits, as we are almost at a "Draw Only" for branch bulls in most East-side units that have significant numbers of mature Bulls, and decent bull/cow ratios, DUE DIRECTLY TO THE RESTRICTIONS THAT YOU ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT !!
If not for those restrictions, we would all be shooting spikes anyways, except for the lucky few, and there would be fewer than there are now.
Once again, a decent bull would be big news.
Post by: MDGrand on June 30, 2011, 08:33:26 AM
The 80% quote was not for Elk in the Missouri breaks.... it was for Deer.
... and I am not comparing WA to MT.. I am trying to show that other Western states like MT do a better job with their Fish and Game dept.
But who gives a crap anyway right? :) .. it does not matter what they do too much in other states, since we are here in WA.. I am just trying to make a comparison to show other management practices that seem to work better..
And.. at the end of the day, MT and other states like CO and UT do a good job of favoring the tags in way so they go to residents, and for the more serious hunter. None of us like a ton of crowds and the little restrictions that WA has implemented because of the OTC tag system here in WA.
Post by: huntnfmly on June 30, 2011, 09:05:32 AM
Post by: bobcat on June 30, 2011, 09:11:42 AM
Post by: runamuk on June 30, 2011, 09:14:00 AM
one thing i read is that the spikes if allowed to breed because the more mature bulls are not getting the job done is that the spike bulls normally are not able to breed the cows till thier second estrus cycle and causes the calves to be born later in the year and less of a chance to be ready for the fall and winter months so less calf survival.This is just one reason of many
if this were legitimate then it would make sense to be a statewide rule rather than just one side of the mountains. they seem to use biology when they want to or when it backs up the politically motivated decisions :dunno:
Post by: Bean Counter on June 30, 2011, 09:26:15 AM
Post by: Pathfinder101 on June 30, 2011, 09:28:01 AM
I thought the idea was to kill all the genetically deficient spike bulls, while letting the bigger bodied branch antlered bulls impregnate as many of the heard as possible, leading to more bigger bodied branch antler bulls in the future. Is this not correct?
That is "whitetail management logic". May apply to whitetail deer herds (still debatable from what I have read), but does NOT apply to elk. Most (nearly all) yearling male bull elk are spikes. Does not mean they are genetically inferior.
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on June 30, 2011, 09:31:17 AM
I think how thick it is on the westside allows for enough escapement of large bulls so the herd dynamics are a bit different :dunno:That was my understanding also, was not every Elk with a hint of antler getting slaughtered, just the ones dumb enough to stand near a road ! :chuckle:
Post by: huntnfmly on June 30, 2011, 09:34:35 AM
this is just elk behaviour in general.But i do agree with the last part of your postone thing i read is that the spikes if allowed to breed because the more mature bulls are not getting the job done is that the spike bulls normally are not able to breed the cows till thier second estrus cycle and causes the calves to be born later in the year and less of a chance to be ready for the fall and winter months so less calf survival.This is just one reason of many
if this were legitimate then it would make sense to be a statewide rule rather than just one side of the mountains. they seem to use biology when they want to or when it backs up the politically motivated decisions :dunno:
Post by: huntnfmly on June 30, 2011, 09:35:32 AM
:yeah:I think how thick it is on the westside allows for enough escapement of large bulls so the herd dynamics are a bit different :dunno:That was my understanding also, was not every Elk with a hint of antler getting slaughtered, just the ones dumb enough to stand near a road ! :chuckle:
Post by: elkinrutdrivemenuts on June 30, 2011, 05:53:22 PM
Post by: AKBowman on June 30, 2011, 10:11:30 PM
This is a dumb question, but it has been soooo long since I even thought about this one.. but what is the management philosophy behind having the Eastside be spike only?If all you coasties stayed over on the west side and hunted the rosies we would probably be able to hunt branched bulls over here. If you notice during elk season there are more people over here hunting than there is for a holiday weekend. There wouldn't be any elk left! Now we pay for it by true spike only!! :bash:
Bud, you live in Cle Elum. Thats pretty much a "bench" city. You're argument is weak and we need to stick together as hunters. You can drive a half hour and hunt 460 and kill as big a bull as you want, the choice is yours, if you're afraid of the jungle we "coasties" understand :chuckle:
Post by: KHebden on July 01, 2011, 07:53:51 PM