Post by: Branden on May 14, 2012, 06:13:02 PM
One thing they have in common is all deer hunting is by draw only. Now, if you want to hunt deer in those states every year it is possible. But you won't get to hunt the best unit or the best time frame every year. I think Washington needs to do kind of the same thing, because then we would manage our deer herds unit by unit instead of having a free for all.
Here is an idea I had.
A couple thoughts on allowing guys to hunt deer every year. All tags that are otc right now, would be a guaranteed draw. Like if you wanted to hunt archery early season it would be guaranteed, but you would have to choose your unit. No hunting late season in the Swakane or late whitetail. Same with the high hunt. You are guaranteed to get drawn, but no regular general season, or late whitetail general season. Also, if you apply for a "general season tag" which you would be guaranteed to draw, you would not be allowed to apply for a "premium tag". All of our quality buck tags would be a "premium tag".
It would reduce hunting pressure in a lot of areas, since you can't first hunt the high hunt, then hunt the opener of regular season, then hunt the late whitetail season. It would also reduce how long it takes to get drawn for a late season hunt since a lot of guys would want to hunt every year.
What do you think of something like that for deer? I know its not exactly a draw system that would limit hunters, but it would spread hunters out for a better hunting experience.
Here is an example how it would reduce pressure.
I would hunt the high hunt opening September 15. If I didn't kill a buck I would then hunt the opener of general season. If I didn't kill a buck during general season in October I would hunt the 4 days of late buck for blacktails. Instead of hunting all those seasons, I would be restricted to choosing just one season.
Please let me know what you guys think yay or nay. And if you have an idea to make this better or a completely new idea post it also. No sense to keep on complaining and not try to make it a better overall hunting experience.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on May 14, 2012, 06:16:53 PM
Post by: CplRaines on May 14, 2012, 06:31:00 PM
I can say the same thing about those that complain about hunting here and those that complain about the rain and weather here.
Ya don't like it - Arizona (or any other state for that matter) is that-a-way. ->
Don't like it, leave.
And especially for those that have moved here from elswhere - quite trying to change "here" to be more like the $H!Thole you left.
I'm jist sayin. ;)
Post by: Hunterman on May 14, 2012, 06:32:48 PM
Hunterman(Tony)
Post by: Humptulips on May 14, 2012, 06:45:20 PM
The problem isn't too many hunters. It's not enough deer on the west side.
East side it looks like it's the screwy season. I mean one week, three point minimum and then close the season before the rut so none of the legal bucks show. Sounds like something designed to keep you from getting a deer, Crazy!
Post by: bobcat on May 14, 2012, 06:51:40 PM
Post by: DeerThug on May 14, 2012, 07:05:04 PM
Post by: Branden on May 14, 2012, 07:39:26 PM
If 90% of hunters are happy with the system then no reason for all the complaining on here right? Cause nobody is suggesting any other change so everybody must be happy with our current system.
And for the record, I am from Washington, and it is way more of a $ht hole then Colorado.
Post by: Branden on May 14, 2012, 07:41:08 PM
Post by: hrd2fnd on May 14, 2012, 07:46:01 PM
Here's my opinion.
I can say the same thing about those that complain about hunting here and those that complain about the rain and weather here.
Ya don't like it - Arizona (or any other state for that matter) is that-a-way. ->
Don't like it, leave.
And especially for those that have moved here from elswhere - quite trying to change "here" to be more like the $H!Thole you left.
I'm jist sayin. ;)
:yeah:
Post by: Moose22 on May 14, 2012, 07:55:27 PM
Post by: 3nails on May 14, 2012, 07:58:55 PM
Post by: h2ofowlr on May 14, 2012, 08:07:51 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on May 14, 2012, 08:08:53 PM
Have any of the hunters that replied, ever hunted deer in any of the states I mentioned? Just curious?Yep, and was surprised that it changed there; had to look it up. It used to be OTC and 1 buck just like WA.
Post by: Branden on May 14, 2012, 08:43:46 PM
Have any of the hunters that replied, ever hunted deer in any of the states I mentioned? Just curious?Yep, and was surprised that it changed there; had to look it up. It used to be OTC and 1 buck just like WA.
I don't see your reply in the thread? Have you never hunted any of them since they went to draw only?
Post by: Branden on May 14, 2012, 08:45:24 PM
You would be managing them for the wolves and N.A. In that case!
I'm not saying to cut tag numbers. I am suggesting spreading hunters out.
Post by: CplRaines on May 14, 2012, 08:48:54 PM
You can only hunt the GMU that you live in. :chuckle: :IBCOOL:
Post by: Branden on May 14, 2012, 08:55:30 PM
I may not agree with your suggestion totally but, I do like your progressive thinking. Having new ideas thrown out there for everyone to debate is much better than the bitching trend that we seem to fall into.Agreed. This idea isn't that popular. No biggie it doesn't hurt my feelings any. But if other guys don't suggest anything else, I don't expect to see anymore complaining on the board about hunting in Washington ;)
I hunt Idaho and Montana as well as WA. They are all different and better/worse in thier own ways. Blacktail hunting in WA is awesome as it is so I say leave it as is.
Thanks for the reply
I got one I'd be all in for -
You can only hunt the GMU that you live in. :chuckle: :IBCOOL:
Certain units nobody could hunt then. But I do like the idea
Post by: Bean Counter on May 14, 2012, 09:16:58 PM
Post by: Alan K on May 14, 2012, 09:43:12 PM
It's amazing the sheds I've found in areas with open access 24/7 year around that I'm sure gets poached often judging by how nocturnal the animals are. You'd never think that mature deer or elk would make it that long in these kind of areas but they do. They might not be around practically every corner like they are in states like Colorado and Idaho, but they are there. Around here you really have to put your time in and understand how the specific areas you're hunting work if you're going to be successful with any regularity on mature animals.
We have draw only units for hunts where nice animals are easy to come by. Sure it'd be great to take a nice animal every year without much effort, but that's just not going to happen here. I like to know I am able to hunt most of the units in the state every year, hunt hard, and tag an animal each year. No way I'd want to have to draw a tag in order to hunt, even if there were a few units that were a guaranteed draw that I could hunt with the other thousands of guys that want to be able to hunt every year.
On the west side if I'm willing to take any buck for meat, I'm 99% certain that I'll fill my tag. Of course elk is a whole different story, but I can't complain about the quality of hunting over here at all.
Post by: Branden on May 14, 2012, 09:59:27 PM
I regularly hunt Idaho and Colorado along with Washington of course. Sure the quality is easier to come by in the other states, but there is plenty of quality in each and every unit on the west side of Washington. I can't speak for the east side since I haven't spent a ton of time over there, but I'd imagine the escapement for some of those open country animals is tougher to come by. Over here on the west side they can take 1 step and elude a hunter in the area.
It's amazing the sheds I've found in areas with open access 24/7 year around that I'm sure gets poached often judging by how nocturnal the animals are. You'd never think that mature deer or elk would make it that long in these kind of areas but they do. They might not be around practically every corner like they are in states like Colorado and Idaho, but they are there. Around here you really have to put your time in and understand how the specific areas you're hunting work if you're going to be successful with any regularity on mature animals.
We have draw only units for hunts where nice animals are easy to come by. Sure it'd be great to take a nice animal every year without much effort, but that's just not going to happen here. I like to know I am able to hunt most of the units in the state every year, hunt hard, and tag an animal each year. No way I'd want to have to draw a tag in order to hunt, even if there were a few units that were a guaranteed draw that I could hunt with the other thousands of guys that want to be able to hunt every year.
On the west side if I'm willing to take any buck for meat, I'm 99% certain that I'll fill my tag. Of course elk is a whole different story, but I can't complain about the quality of hunting over here at all.
Please reread my first post. I think you misread what I wrote.
Every unit that has a general season in it now would have a general tag. You would have to pick the unit, and you couldn't put in for a premium tag then if you wanted to hunt a general season. I am not saying quality of animals would improve. I'm saying the quality of hunts would improve because there would be less crowding.
I mainly hunt New Mexico, Arizona, and Washington. Quality of animals in NM and AZ is way better. I think a lot of WA hunts should go.to.draw only. :twocents:
Exactly. Colorado residents didn't want to go to draw only for deer when they were talking of implementing it. But now it is the best state to hunt for deer. And you can get a tag every year. Also, if Colorado changed one thing about their system, even the best tags in the state wouldn't take more then a few years to draw.
Wyoming used to be a premier deer destination. The herd there has been in the dumps for a while now. This year they are severely limiting non residents, and residents are even saying they should go to draw only to try and bring the herds back.
Post by: Special T on May 14, 2012, 10:20:09 PM
Post by: bobcat on May 14, 2012, 10:47:54 PM
Post by: 3nails on May 15, 2012, 05:14:42 AM
Post by: bobcat on May 15, 2012, 06:53:18 AM
Branden- Are there places with overcrowding? Besides the fuzzy-butt hills I mean? I'm actually surprised how few of hunters I see each year. Maybe it's a east side problem? :dunno:
Ever been to Vail?
Post by: CAMPMEAT on May 15, 2012, 07:21:38 AM
I got one I'd be all in for -
You can only hunt the GMU that you live in. :chuckle: :IBCOOL:
Only for 1 year because the King County hunters would kill each other, thusly reducing the number of hunters in the state dramatically !!! Whining would be reduced by half and we could carry on and leave it the way it is. :chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on May 15, 2012, 08:06:53 AM
Your solution is not a solution I would be in favor of trying, but I respect the fact that you are looking for solutions, not everyone will take the time or effort to do that. :tup:
I agree with Special T that the state needs to do a much better job of managing predators.
Reduce the coyote population by 70% and you will greatly reduce fawn mortality. Reduce the cougar population by 70% and you will nearly eliminate cougar conflicts and you will greatly reduce deer and elk mortality by cougar. Manage wolves like Wyoming, wolves may be shot on sight in 88% of the state and you will prevent further significant losses of our game herds to predators.
We are all living the good old days right now, anyone in Montana or Idaho will tell you exactly what is about to happen in Washington due to wolves.
Predators are killing our game herds 24/7/365, hunters only have a few weeks to hunt, I suggest that we do a much better job of managing predator numbers and there will be much more game for hunters. Why do you think the anti-hunters love predators, they know hunters have to compete for what's left after predators take their share, the more predators, the less game for hunters.
Post by: Chesapeake on May 15, 2012, 10:43:39 AM
I dont like the idea of boxing a guy into a short season or single unit.
Maybe something where you have to choose a "region" for your general over the counter tag. Then you can put in for any "special" draws. Maybe even make the "region" tags be a draw, but with liberal tag numbers. The draw would just be so folks werent all stuffed into the same region. If the draw app. had 4 choices, you would get to hunt, you just might not get your first choice region if its tag quota was filled. Have the unfilled tags go for sale over the counter after the draw.
The high hunt could be left as a general tag hunt available to all. Or if need be make folks draw a wilderness and set limits on tags per wilderness to controll harvest. Draw might not be popular for this though. Guys are pretty well invested in the areas they do the high hunt.
I think we could use some change, but folks are so ingrained with "go camp and hunt the same place every year for 30 years" that they really arent open to any change that might affect that.
I think the East/West split for elk does some good, and I think that same good could benefit deer. I also think Washingtons method of making you choose a weapon before you can enter the draws does some good. I think we can do more of that "making you choose" to controll pressure and improve the quality.
Though I dont know how best to improve the system, I full well know that what we have now isnt the best It could be. There is room for improvement.
Post by: JPhelps on May 15, 2012, 10:56:18 AM
The thing that bothers me in this state is there is nothing in place to prevent everyone in the state with the same deer or elk tag to show up on the general opener and be in the same unit. The current system does not and can not prevent over harvest during the general season. By breaking things up into regions/units an automatic managing tool is put in place.
With that being said I love the freedom we have in this state as far as hunting goes but when it starts to affect the quantity and quality of game animals, I am all for looking into a new system.
Throw predator management into the mix and there may never be a good solution. :twocents:
Post by: Branden on May 15, 2012, 11:09:46 AM
Another idea I had instead was to make hunters choose the species of deer. You would have to choose either blacktail, muley, or whitetail. That would kind of be like choosing regions but they would be very large regions.
I will say this again. I am not trying to control harvest with this plan. Just hunter congestion. Also, if you look at how many guys apply for quality buck tags, and how few tags there are, it is almost an oil tag. So if you had to choose between hunting every year, and applying for a quality permit, it would make the odds go up on getting drawn for a quality tag, and still allow any of the hunters that want a tag every year to hunt. They just would not be allowed to put in for a quality tag.
Bearpaw, I think the state needs to manage predators, but also manage the units. It is not managing units when there is a free for all. You wanted the APR put in place to test out, which may or may not work. How many less hunters hunted those 2 units this year, and crowded into other units?
Curious why you think it is good to restrict harvest with the apr, but not actually manage the units?
I agree better predator control would help a lot. Also less poachers. Maybe winter feeding programs like you mentioned in other threads. But there is still an overcrowding problem in some units during certain seasons.
And again, I am not talking about managing harvest. I am talking about reducing overcrowding for a better overall hunt experience.
Post by: Branden on May 15, 2012, 11:12:25 AM
Branden- Are there places with overcrowding? Besides the fuzzy-butt hills I mean? I'm actually surprised how few of hunters I see each year. Maybe it's a east side problem? :dunno:
What/where are the fuzzy-butt hills? I have never heard that before
Post by: kentrek on May 15, 2012, 11:20:20 AM
i hunt alot,prolly more than i should but its what i love to do. i would go insane if i was stuck in one unit the whole year.also i dont hunt other states because the hunting is better(would pick wa over them),i hunt there because i can hunt more !!! over crowding is just part of the game,the trick is to use it to your advantage.
Post by: kentrek on May 15, 2012, 11:24:10 AM
Branden- Are there places with overcrowding? Besides the fuzzy-butt hills I mean? I'm actually surprised how few of hunters I see each year. Maybe it's a east side problem? :dunno:
What/where are the fuzzy-butt hills? I have never heard that before
low lands,peaple are scarce in the rough country..most of the over crowded spots are full of flat landers :twocents:
Post by: Dhoey07 on May 15, 2012, 11:28:53 AM
#2 should be improving habitat. Just read an article the other day about CRP land managment and pheasants. The same could be applied to big game.
How many thousands of acres do we have enrolled with wdfw and feel free to hunt, hunt by written permission or register to hunt? Improve these lands for game managment.
You build it and they will come!!
Post by: runamuk on May 15, 2012, 12:20:02 PM
I got one I'd be all in for -
You can only hunt the GMU that you live in. :chuckle: :IBCOOL:
:yeah:
Post by: bearpaw on May 15, 2012, 12:27:26 PM
Bearpaw, I think the state needs to manage predators, but also manage the units. It is not managing units when there is a free for all. You wanted the APR put in place to test out, which may or may not work. How many less hunters hunted those 2 units this year, and crowded into other units?
Curious why you think it is good to restrict harvest with the apr, but not actually manage the units?
I agree better predator control would help a lot. Also less poachers. Maybe winter feeding programs like you mentioned in other threads. But there is still an overcrowding problem in some units during certain seasons.
And again, I am not talking about managing harvest. I am talking about reducing overcrowding for a better overall hunt experience.
Brandon, If you review the number of hunters in Washington today verses past decades you will find that there are fewer hunters today than there was in the past. Dave Workman can fill you in better on that than I can, but that is what you will find if you research and compare numbers. :twocents:
If it was up to me I would like to see hunting made a "Right", I think you should have a right to hunt unless you do something to relinquish that right (like poaching). Next, it's the WDFW's job to maximize opportunity while at the same conserving the resources. The WDFW's continuing reductions in predator management are not maximizing recreational opportunity, in fact it's reducing opportunity, either managers need to revise their efforts and make our herds more productive or heads need to roll so that we can hire managers who will get the job done. :twocents:
I like to hunt every year and from hunter surveys I have seen that is what most WA hunters want. I will say it again, I like the fact that you are trying to come up with a better management plan, I just don't agree with the plan you have detailed. :tup:
I recently had a good conversation about hunter crowding with some residents from the Ellensberg area and the continuing decline of deer herds and elk hunting opportunity in that area. From what I was told there definitely needs to be something done to address the problems in that area, but that doesn't mean hunter crowding is that big of a problem in every area of Washington. I think you need to look at specific areas for the problems in that area, I do not believe "one size fits all" management is the answer for the problems in every area of the state.
FYI - The 4 pt rule was not my idea and I used to oppose it. But we needed to do something other than the status quo and even though the APR was not my favorite choice I was confident that it would immediately build the herd and help maintain a resonable buck/doe ratio. The APR allowed all hunters to hunt the units (this is especially important for youth hunters who live within the units) and the APR did not cause anyone to have to draw and hope for a chance to hunt. So I fully supported the concept. As expected, the first year harvest numbers indicate buck harvest was reduced. I am anxious to see what happens in future years, obviously we have no proof at this time how the APR will work over the long term in this area. But I definitely commend the commission for having the fortitude to deviate from the standard text book approach to management in WA.
My suggestion to you is that you come up with a trial plan for a unit or two that hunters will agree needs a change in management and then try to unite hunters to support the new management plan, then lobby the commission and dept and try to make it happen. But I don't think you will gain much support by asking to change the management style of the whole state on a whim. You need to take a measured approach and let hunters see how a new management model may benefit the herds and hunters in a small area first. :twocents:
Post by: bobcat on May 15, 2012, 12:35:35 PM
Post by: Branden on May 15, 2012, 12:36:15 PM
Branden- Are there places with overcrowding? Besides the fuzzy-butt hills I mean? I'm actually surprised how few of hunters I see each year. Maybe it's a east side problem? :dunno:
What/where are the fuzzy-butt hills? I have never heard that before
low lands,peaple are scarce in the rough country..most of the over crowded spots are full of flat landers :twocents:
I backpack hunt. I have ran into other hunters 15-20 miles in that also hiked in. I don't think rough country keeps as many people out anymore. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on May 15, 2012, 12:41:31 PM
Branden- Are there places with overcrowding? Besides the fuzzy-butt hills I mean? I'm actually surprised how few of hunters I see each year. Maybe it's a east side problem? :dunno:
What/where are the fuzzy-butt hills? I have never heard that before
low lands,peaple are scarce in the rough country..most of the over crowded spots are full of flat landers :twocents:
I backpack hunt. I have ran into other hunters 15-20 miles in that also hiked in. I don't think rough country keeps as many people out anymore. :twocents:
If you are after hunting spots of your own you need to lease land. It's not fair to think that you should be the only person hunting on public land. Maybe that's not what you meant, but that last post sorta looks that way. :dunno:
Post by: Branden on May 15, 2012, 12:48:30 PM
I like to hunt every year and from hunter surveys I have seen that is what most WA hunters want.
You could hunt every year under my plan.
I recently had a good conversation about hunter crowding with some residents from the Ellensberg area and the continuing decline of deer herds and elk hunting opportunity in that area. From what I was told there definitely needs to be something done to address the problems in that area, but that doesn't mean hunter crowding is that big of a problem in every area of Washington. I think you need to look at specific areas for the problems in that area, I do not believe "one size fits all" management is the answer for the problems in every area of the state.
My suggestion to you is that you come up with a trial plan for a unit or two that hunters will agree needs a change in management and then try to unite hunters to support the new management plan, then lobby the commission and dept and try to make it happen. But I don't think you will gain much support by asking to change the management style of the whole state on a whim. You need to take a measured approach and let hunters see how a new management model may benefit the herds and hunters in a small area first. :twocents:
The problem with picking out just a couple units and making them totally limited to reduce harvest, overcrowding, etc. Is that then you promote those things in the adjacent units by adding the additional hunters to surrounding units. Also a lot of guys hunt the same areas year after year, and by changing to pick your unit you could still hunt your traditional hunt every year if you want.
Answer's in red.
I realize this idea isn't popular here. But every state is going to management strategies like this of some sort or another. Why? My guess is because then you can actually manage units. Why does it work in other states, but wouldn't work here? Nevada upped their deer licenses about 35% this year. That is pretty good when almost every other states deer herds are declining in the west.
bearpaw said something like, "blanket management doesn't work" I agree, and neither does not managing units at all. :twocents:
Post by: Branden on May 15, 2012, 12:51:12 PM
If you are after hunting spots of your own you need to lease land. It's not fair to think that you should be the only person hunting on public land. Maybe that's not what you meant, but that last post sorta looks that way. :dunno:
No, I meant I don't think rough country keeps as many hunters out now days.
I actually archery hunt now because there are way less hunters in the woods. And if you backpack hunt its rare to see another archer.
Post by: kentrek on May 15, 2012, 01:04:28 PM
If you are after hunting spots of your own you need to lease land. It's not fair to think that you should be the only person hunting on public land. Maybe that's not what you meant, but that last post sorta looks that way. :dunno:
No, I meant I don't think rough country keeps as many hunters out now days.
I actually archery hunt now because there are way less hunters in the woods. And if you backpack hunt its rare to see another archer.
i said scarce and you said rare :chuckle: mean country def ristrics peaples williness to hunt
Post by: Branden on May 15, 2012, 01:15:48 PM
Post by: autodink13 on May 15, 2012, 02:15:40 PM
Thats my simple idea that i believe would benefit most people. You could go one step further and make a couple general tags (like swakane archery, a draw hunt with unlimited tags.
I really enjoy hunting wa just not too happy with the huge change reguarding special hunting categories. I would love to have it back the way it was before all the categories but that will never happen because wdfw would lose too much money. Thats why i think the simple change i mentioned above could help.
Post by: Chesapeake on May 15, 2012, 03:45:37 PM
Restrict all the OIL and Quality draw apps to 1 choice. Require 3 points to enter the draw for Quality hunts.
WDFW could still get all their money. The 1 choice would maybe make some of the less than premier units easier to draw. And the 3 points requirement would thin the crowd a little improving draw odds.
I'd go for the "if you draw a Quality tag you forfiet your regular season tag".
I'd also go for that if you draw Multi-season, you cant enter the Quality draw that year other than to purchase a point.
My favorite change to the draw would be to make it "preference point" and not bonus point. I hate the bonus point system we have.
Post by: autodink13 on May 15, 2012, 03:57:17 PM
Post by: halflife65 on May 15, 2012, 04:09:24 PM
Seriously? If you don't like something, then move. God forbid you try to improve anything - it's WAY better to just give up and move away. I don't like everything the government of the ol' USA is doing right now. Should I just move out of the country? Wow. Whatever you do, DON'T try to think of innovative ways to make things better...because if you do then obviously you're from Arizona.Here's my opinion.
I can say the same thing about those that complain about hunting here and those that complain about the rain and weather here.
Ya don't like it - Arizona (or any other state for that matter) is that-a-way. ->
Don't like it, leave.
And especially for those that have moved here from elswhere - quite trying to change "here" to be more like the $H!Thole you left.
I'm jist sayin. ;)
:yeah:
I'm not sure that I totally agree with the idea but I'm really glad someone is thinking about trying to improve something rather than just moving to another state. If it was up to me, you'd have the general season hunts where you choose a unit or "zone" (like the old elk tags) but if you drew a special hunt you wouldn't be hunting general season, too. So, you choose your hunt in general, put in for your draws and, if you draw, that's your hunt. If you don't, then go general (which could be high hunt, could be some unit/units that you've chosen.) You can then perhaps change some of the draw hunts to give some more opportunity in some areas - something a little similar to Idaho.
Make a higher quality experience, but still give everyone a chance to hunt. Lots of people complain about the deer hunting sucking but then bitches if someone tries to come up with a way to improve it. You don't have to like it, but come up with an alternative rather than just saying "you're obviously from AZ (or pick your state) if you want to improve something. Move back." That's just a good way to keep things sucking.
Post by: bearpaw on May 15, 2012, 04:55:34 PM
I like to hunt every year and from hunter surveys I have seen that is what most WA hunters want.
You could hunt every year under my plan.
I recently had a good conversation about hunter crowding with some residents from the Ellensberg area and the continuing decline of deer herds and elk hunting opportunity in that area. From what I was told there definitely needs to be something done to address the problems in that area, but that doesn't mean hunter crowding is that big of a problem in every area of Washington. I think you need to look at specific areas for the problems in that area, I do not believe "one size fits all" management is the answer for the problems in every area of the state.
My suggestion to you is that you come up with a trial plan for a unit or two that hunters will agree needs a change in management and then try to unite hunters to support the new management plan, then lobby the commission and dept and try to make it happen. But I don't think you will gain much support by asking to change the management style of the whole state on a whim. You need to take a measured approach and let hunters see how a new management model may benefit the herds and hunters in a small area first. :twocents:
The problem with picking out just a couple units and making them totally limited to reduce harvest, overcrowding, etc. Is that then you promote those things in the adjacent units by adding the additional hunters to surrounding units. Also a lot of guys hunt the same areas year after year, and by changing to pick your unit you could still hunt your traditional hunt every year if you want.
Answer's in red.
I realize this idea isn't popular here. But every state is going to management strategies like this of some sort or another. Why? My guess is because then you can actually manage units. Why does it work in other states, but wouldn't work here? Nevada upped their deer licenses about 35% this year. That is pretty good when almost every other states deer herds are declining in the west.
bearpaw said something like, "blanket management doesn't work" I agree, and neither does not managing units at all. :twocents:
There is no doubt your plan would reduce crowding and probably result in more older aged bucks. :tup:
From a business standpoint that would be good for my business to have more bigger bucks avilable. :twocents:
From a personnal standpoint I like being able to have as many days in the field as possible and that is another concern of other hunters as well, under your plan WA hunters would give up days in the field. I'm not sure how many hunters want to do that? :dunno:
I also have concerns that the more restrictive you make hunting the less recruitment we have into the sport and the more hunters who will simply quit. If we keep losing ground with hunter numbers soon there will be no hunters to support our hunting heritage.
We already manage many units in the state differently from each other so that would be nothing new to try something in another unit or two that is different than the others, rather than changing the whole state. :dunno:
I am still convinced the best strategy is to manage predators, habitat, and make our herds more productive rather than take away opportunity because of poor management of our herds.
I am interested in hearing what others have to say.
Post by: Chesapeake on May 15, 2012, 05:10:47 PM
Days in the field isnt a real issue. Most folks hunt a few weekends a year. For the rest of us there is always something open to chase from elk all the way down to shed antlers.
The only proposal that I really dont think I could work with so far is making you choose a hunt that would restrict you to the high buck hunt for your general season. Thats just too short and limited. But if in creating such a system, you could then lenghten that season, then maybe I could go for that.
I pretty well like at least a little bit of all the other proposals on here other than the "Leave if you dont like it" ones.
Post by: Chesapeake on May 15, 2012, 05:20:56 PM
If days in the field was a primary issue then why do most elk hunters choose the Rifle season, the shortest one, to hunt elk? Likewise for deer?
I'd gladly trade lots of unproductive crowded days in the field, a few productive, not so crowded days in the field.
We have many western states to look at as case studies for different ways to run hunting seasons and draws. In fact I believe they are all pretty well different to some degree. There are things I like and dislike about them all. I will say that Washington makes the bottom of the list for me.
Post by: bobcat on May 15, 2012, 06:00:06 PM
Predator management and habitat improvement- both of these things cost a ton of money, that the state doesn't have. So these things just aren't going to get done in any significant amount.
But we can control the number of hunters in the field at any one time, which will reduce harvest somewhat, at least in the areas in which it needs to be reduced. How can the system we have now be called "game management?" There is no control whatsoever on how many people hunt each unit, and when.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on May 15, 2012, 06:30:30 PM
So example would be deer season 1 would be September (early birds, high hunters, warm weather lovers), 2 would be in October, 3 Late Nov-mid Dec (migration hunters, snow lovers). Multi-season tags would allow hunting each season.
It would be more flexible for people to get time off work, make their hunting camp plans, season wouldn't be disjointed early/late. Would stay OTC, special permits would fall in between the different seasons (like rut) and it wouldn't matter which weapon you had or season you hunted to apply for permits.
Also would probably use a portion of license sales for a bounty program for predators, like $10 a yote/bob..$20 for a bear...and $50 for a cougar.
Just some ideas. Like that this thread has all kinds of ideas being tossed around...even if I don't like all the ideas. :tung:
Post by: bearpaw on May 15, 2012, 06:39:15 PM
Post by: 3nails on May 15, 2012, 06:43:14 PM
No, but I'm guessing it's bad.Branden- Are there places with overcrowding? Besides the fuzzy-butt hills I mean? I'm actually surprised how few of hunters I see each year. Maybe it's a east side problem? :dunno:
Ever been to Vail?
Post by: Chesapeake on May 15, 2012, 06:46:35 PM
Yeah, they helped in losing hound hunting, but US the voters are equaly or more to blame for that than they are.
Right now cougar season is pretty darn libral. Coyote is open all year, and Bear also has very libral seasons.
The WDFW has all but handed us the predator management keys. Within their budget and ability they have done their part. We shouldnt complain about predators unless we have killed so many they have to shut down the season to keep us from iradicating them.
Who's willing to bet with the new system they wont be needing to close the late season for cougars? Will that be their fault, or ours?
Have you killed a predator lately? I know I havent done my part, but I get a few of the song dogs a year.
I'm not sure where I stand on feeding, but I dont think thats part of this conversation.
Post by: Special T on May 15, 2012, 08:26:32 PM
I have not yet shot a cougar, bear or bobcat, but i blast every legal coyote, crow, Magpie, and merganser i can! EVERY year my bro and law and i Kill about 40+- mag pies that are in the act of depredation. We have really thinned them down around his farm and his neighbors. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on May 15, 2012, 08:38:16 PM
I dont think predator management is a WDFW issue at this point.
Yeah, they helped in losing hound hunting, but US the voters are equaly or more to blame for that than they are.
Right now cougar season is pretty darn libral. Coyote is open all year, and Bear also has very libral seasons.
The WDFW has all but handed us the predator management keys. Within their budget and ability they have done their part. We shouldnt complain about predators unless we have killed so many they have to shut down the season to keep us from iradicating them.
Who's willing to bet with the new system they wont be needing to close the late season for cougars? Will that be their fault, or ours?
Have you killed a predator lately? I know I havent done my part, but I get a few of the song dogs a year.
I'm not sure where I stand on feeding, but I dont think thats part of this conversation.
If you were speaking to me, I actually don't pull the trigger too often, but I have done my part at helping others pull the trigger on a predator or two. :chuckle:
To explain a little further about the coyotes, the WDFW eliminated dog hunting of coyotes for no real reason and they have very tight limits on coyote contests. If contests could charge an entry fee and provide bigger prizes hunters would be more anxious to do their part. We used to kill a lot of coyotes in WA until the anti's ruined the fur market. This would cost the state nothing to make these changes. They would even benefit by increased small game license sales. If they wanted to hand us a key, they could also remove the license requirement, many states do not require a license for hunting coyotes.
For cougars WDFW has set ridiculously low quotas based on biologists with obvious agendas to save cougars. No keys there... :chuckle:
FYI - The WDFW did not support hounding, baiting, or trapping when the anti's were trying to eliminate those hunting methods, so no, they have not handed us the keys, they have actually helped take them away.
Additionally, it is the WDFW that is forcing 50% more wolves than required by the feds into Washington. The feds delisted wolves in E WA, the WDFW still has the season closed, they avoid hiring experienced trappers who could prove more wolf packs exist, so WDFW definitely has not given up any keys on wolves, not even for livestock eating wolves. :twocents:
Fall bear seasons have been reduced so no keys there either. But I will give credit where credit is due, the WDFW has given us a few spring bear permits across the state. :tup:
Post by: Special T on May 15, 2012, 08:42:50 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on May 15, 2012, 09:11:15 PM
Post by: Chesapeake on May 15, 2012, 09:33:10 PM
No license for coyotes. Any hunt license they sell works for coyote. Do you think folks aren't hunting coyotes cause they don't want to buy a license?
I still believe hunters aren't taking advantage of the predator seasons we have. We didn't before, and we didn't defend what we had before.
Do you eat mergansers? We kill a few sawbills every year but they aren't edible and a bit hard to give away.
I've killed coyotes and a bobcat. I'll kill the first cougar that gives me a shot.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on May 15, 2012, 09:46:13 PM
Post by: Branden on May 16, 2012, 09:15:07 AM
Whoever said they don't think you should have to choose the high hunt as your regular general season cause the season is so short, (I think it was Chesapeake) the high hunt is longer then the regular general season. So why should that not be a season by itself?
Jimmyhoffa sp? I don't think you could have a free for all for 2 weeks each month, because the deer are way to vulnerable in November December.
Bearpaw, if you think it would work to totally limit say 2 deer units, (I think that is what you are saying?) what are you accomplishing? I guess I'm not understanding what doing something like this in a couple units would actually do? Or if you had something else in mind to try in a couple units would you please explain?
Utah used to have general state wide tags. Then they went to region wide tags. Now they are going to unit specific tags.
Why is every state in the west going to a system like this? I think 99% of hunters would agree most of the other western states have better deer hunting then Washington. So why is it so hard to copy the best parts of the other states management practices?
My grandpa used to keep track of deer shot one 150,000 acres on the westside. There were more deer shot during the 4 day late buck in November then the general season in October. Its just to easy to hunt the eastside for a big buck during the general and pass on small bucks when you know you have a 4 day season that is a slamdunk for a meat buck, with a chance of shooting a dumb rutted up wallhanger.
Post by: str8meat on May 16, 2012, 09:22:40 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 16, 2012, 09:26:44 AM
Yes, we can learn some lessons from other states if improved hunting is the goal of the DFW. But we're not clear that is the goal, in fact. To the contrary, many of us believe that generations of liberal, anti-hunting governors have top loaded the commission and the department with people who'd rather just see hunters go away. This is not the case in states like Utah, ID, and MT, where hunters comprise as much as 30% of the population, as opposed to 4% here.
Hunting can only be changed in WA when the hunter is accepted as a necessary tool for game management and conservation, not viewed as an extremist killing machine who cares only about his trophy. It's a culture change that requires the help of the DFW to forward. We won't get that help if we continue to elect liberal, anti-hunting governors and they keep appointing wolf lovers like Jay Kehne to the commission.
Post by: Branden on May 16, 2012, 09:54:16 AM
You can't compare WA to other western states, Branden. First of all, only OR and CA have joined us in voting out baiting and hounds for bears and cougars. When the ballot initiative for the baiting/hounds prohibition took place, the DFW did very little to let people know what the repercussions would be. In addition, they've messed with the predator seasons, (only recently recanting and going back to broader dates and fewer restrictions), and restrictions. To say that the DFW has no blame in predator issues here in WA is absurd in the very least. Delusional is more appropriate. Then, add their aggressive wolf plan, even more so than the USFWS suggestion.
Yes, we can learn some lessons from other states if improved hunting is the goal of the DFW. But we're not clear that is the goal, in fact. To the contrary, many of us believe that generations of liberal, anti-hunting governors have top loaded the commission and the department with people who'd rather just see hunters go away. This is not the case in states like Utah, ID, and MT, where hunters comprise as much as 30% of the population, as opposed to 4% here.
Hunting can only be changed in WA when the hunter is accepted as a necessary tool for game management and conservation, not viewed as an extremist killing machine who cares only about his trophy. It's a culture change that requires the help of the DFW to forward. We won't get that help if we continue to elect liberal, anti-hunting governors and they keep appointing wolf lovers like Jay Kehne to the commission.
So you think we should sit on our hands and do nothing? How many days did you spend hunting bear, cougar, bobcat, and yotes last year? There are 4 predators open to hunting otc with pretty long seasons. I would hope you spent twice as many days hunting predators last year as deer or elk since you have longer seasons and twice as many predator species to choose from.
For all the guys saying dfw is the problem with the predators, I hope you go out and spend more time actually hunting predators then deer or elk. Because like stated above seasons are longer, and there are twice as many species of predators for more variety.
Since this thread is turning into a predator is the problem thread, I came up with an idea. How about we implement a program like they have back east called "earn a buck" You would have to shoot a cougar before they would issue a deer tag. Or 2 bears before they will issue you a tag. How does that sound? Then we will manage predators, and since I am sure everybody is doing their part to kepp the predator population down inspite of dfw, everybody will still get to hunt every year? :P
Post by: buckfvr on May 16, 2012, 10:04:21 AM
Post by: kentrek on May 16, 2012, 10:09:03 AM
You can't compare WA to other western states, Branden. First of all, only OR and CA have joined us in voting out baiting and hounds for bears and cougars. When the ballot initiative for the baiting/hounds prohibition took place, the DFW did very little to let people know what the repercussions would be. In addition, they've messed with the predator seasons, (only recently recanting and going back to broader dates and fewer restrictions), and restrictions. To say that the DFW has no blame in predator issues here in WA is absurd in the very least. Delusional is more appropriate. Then, add their aggressive wolf plan, even more so than the USFWS suggestion.
Yes, we can learn some lessons from other states if improved hunting is the goal of the DFW. But we're not clear that is the goal, in fact. To the contrary, many of us believe that generations of liberal, anti-hunting governors have top loaded the commission and the department with people who'd rather just see hunters go away. This is not the case in states like Utah, ID, and MT, where hunters comprise as much as 30% of the population, as opposed to 4% here.
Hunting can only be changed in WA when the hunter is accepted as a necessary tool for game management and conservation, not viewed as an extremist killing machine who cares only about his trophy. It's a culture change that requires the help of the DFW to forward. We won't get that help if we continue to elect liberal, anti-hunting governors and they keep appointing wolf lovers like Jay Kehne to the commission.
So you think we should sit on our hands and do nothing? How many days did you spend hunting bear, cougar, bobcat, and yotes last year? There are 4 predators open to hunting otc with pretty long seasons. I would hope you spent twice as many days hunting predators last year as deer or elk since you have longer seasons and twice as many predator species to choose from.
For all the guys saying dfw is the problem with the predators, I hope you go out and spend more time actually hunting predators then deer or elk. Because like stated above seasons are longer, and there are twice as many species of predators for more variety.
Since this thread is turning into a predator is the problem thread, I came up with an idea. How about we implement a program like they have back east called "earn a buck" You would have to shoot a cougar before they would issue a deer tag. Or 2 bears before they will issue you a tag. How does that sound? Then we will manage predators, and since I am sure everybody is doing their part to kepp the predator population down inspite of dfw, everybody will still get to hunt every year? :P
if we all had to kill two bear or one couger befor we could go after elk and deer..that would realy cut down on human trafic in the woods.. but realy even if you have to label me as a poacher im still going to hunt elk regardless if i filled a bear/cougar quata
too kill bears let baiting be legal,half the "bear" "hunters" do it anyhow
with cougars give out more hound hunts...problem solved
Post by: bearpaw on May 16, 2012, 10:12:40 AM
The last full season before WDFW outlawed hound hunting I took 23 hunters, I am pretty sure they were all Washington residents (possibly some members on this forum) hunting for cougar. They killed 23 cougar all near Colville. Now we have a biologist that says we should only kill 2 cougars in one of the units where I often killed 2 to 4 per season with my hunters not to mention what other hounders killed. Funny thing is we had a perfectly healthy cougar population when they shut down hunting. :bash:
We used to have from 20 to 40 cougar tags in each of these units in the NE, anyone who denies what kind of cougar production occurs here is either lieing or unknowledgeable. :twocents:
To suggest that hunters are unwilling to do their part in predator management is likely not going to make many friends. I have guys weekly calling me asking if they can somehow hunt cougar with hounds in Washington and I have to tell them no. :twocents:
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 16, 2012, 10:37:41 AM
You can't compare WA to other western states, Branden. First of all, only OR and CA have joined us in voting out baiting and hounds for bears and cougars. When the ballot initiative for the baiting/hounds prohibition took place, the DFW did very little to let people know what the repercussions would be. In addition, they've messed with the predator seasons, (only recently recanting and going back to broader dates and fewer restrictions), and restrictions. To say that the DFW has no blame in predator issues here in WA is absurd in the very least. Delusional is more appropriate. Then, add their aggressive wolf plan, even more so than the USFWS suggestion.
Yes, we can learn some lessons from other states if improved hunting is the goal of the DFW. But we're not clear that is the goal, in fact. To the contrary, many of us believe that generations of liberal, anti-hunting governors have top loaded the commission and the department with people who'd rather just see hunters go away. This is not the case in states like Utah, ID, and MT, where hunters comprise as much as 30% of the population, as opposed to 4% here.
Hunting can only be changed in WA when the hunter is accepted as a necessary tool for game management and conservation, not viewed as an extremist killing machine who cares only about his trophy. It's a culture change that requires the help of the DFW to forward. We won't get that help if we continue to elect liberal, anti-hunting governors and they keep appointing wolf lovers like Jay Kehne to the commission.
So you think we should sit on our hands and do nothing? How many days did you spend hunting bear, cougar, bobcat, and yotes last year? There are 4 predators open to hunting otc with pretty long seasons. I would hope you spent twice as many days hunting predators last year as deer or elk since you have longer seasons and twice as many predator species to choose from.
For all the guys saying dfw is the problem with the predators, I hope you go out and spend more time actually hunting predators then deer or elk. Because like stated above seasons are longer, and there are twice as many species of predators for more variety.
Since this thread is turning into a predator is the problem thread, I came up with an idea. How about we implement a program like they have back east called "earn a buck" You would have to shoot a cougar before they would issue a deer tag. Or 2 bears before they will issue you a tag. How does that sound? Then we will manage predators, and since I am sure everybody is doing their part to kepp the predator population down inspite of dfw, everybody will still get to hunt every year? :P
Did I say we should sit on our hands and do nothing? No, I didn't. If you're looking to pick a fight, pick up the phone and call the DFW. Picking fights with other hunters probably isn't going to get anything positive accomplished.
I'm very active in hunting politics other than just typing in here. The whole DFW knows me by name, as do all of my state and federal reps, and the wildlife commission. When I don't like something, I not only bring it to the attention of other hunters, I speak up to the powers that be. Do I continue to hunt? Yes. I don't believe a boycott is useful and I do believe that the people who pay the bills for the DFW should have the strongest voice. I'm not sure what you do other than typing in forums, but if you do as much as I or more, I applaud your efforts to push for change. If not, you're just another complainer looking to pick fights with people on your side of the argument. Which is it?
Post by: fair-chase on May 16, 2012, 10:48:15 AM
Post by: Dhoey07 on May 16, 2012, 11:02:40 AM
You can't compare WA to other western states, Branden. First of all, only OR and CA have joined us in voting out baiting and hounds for bears and cougars. When the ballot initiative for the baiting/hounds prohibition took place, the DFW did very little to let people know what the repercussions would be. In addition, they've messed with the predator seasons, (only recently recanting and going back to broader dates and fewer restrictions), and restrictions. To say that the DFW has no blame in predator issues here in WA is absurd in the very least. Delusional is more appropriate. Then, add their aggressive wolf plan, even more so than the USFWS suggestion.
Yes, we can learn some lessons from other states if improved hunting is the goal of the DFW. But we're not clear that is the goal, in fact. To the contrary, many of us believe that generations of liberal, anti-hunting governors have top loaded the commission and the department with people who'd rather just see hunters go away. This is not the case in states like Utah, ID, and MT, where hunters comprise as much as 30% of the population, as opposed to 4% here.
Hunting can only be changed in WA when the hunter is accepted as a necessary tool for game management and conservation, not viewed as an extremist killing machine who cares only about his trophy. It's a culture change that requires the help of the DFW to forward. We won't get that help if we continue to elect liberal, anti-hunting governors and they keep appointing wolf lovers like Jay Kehne to the commission.
So you think we should sit on our hands and do nothing? How many days did you spend hunting bear, cougar, bobcat, and yotes last year? There are 4 predators open to hunting otc with pretty long seasons. I would hope you spent twice as many days hunting predators last year as deer or elk since you have longer seasons and twice as many predator species to choose from.
For all the guys saying dfw is the problem with the predators, I hope you go out and spend more time actually hunting predators then deer or elk. Because like stated above seasons are longer, and there are twice as many species of predators for more variety.
Since this thread is turning into a predator is the problem thread, I came up with an idea. How about we implement a program like they have back east called "earn a buck" You would have to shoot a cougar before they would issue a deer tag. Or 2 bears before they will issue you a tag. How does that sound? Then we will manage predators, and since I am sure everybody is doing their part to kepp the predator population down inspite of dfw, everybody will still get to hunt every year? :P
How often do you see cougars in the woods while hunting? Bobcats? Bears? If you were running them with hounds, then how often? Ya the season is open for months right now but cougars, bears and bobcats are not at all like hunting deer and/or elk.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on May 16, 2012, 11:08:10 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 16, 2012, 12:04:58 PM
I do agree with Branden that not enough hunters target the predators. That is why I think cougars and bears shouldn't have a limit. Let the guys that chase them pick up the slack. Kind of hard to get into the pelt business when you can only get one cougar and two bears for the year.
Agreed, and agreed that there should be fewer obstacles to hunting them.
Post by: bearpaw on May 16, 2012, 12:29:02 PM
Post by: Branden on May 16, 2012, 04:26:28 PM
Still, not one of the guys on here said they spend more time predator hunting then deer or elk hunting. If you think to many predators is the main problem, why aren't you doing something about it? :dunno:
Post by: JimmyHoffa on May 16, 2012, 04:50:56 PM
For wetside NF, the yotes are shorter than most of the brush, so hard to find. Usually see them in the road and have the passenger jump out when the yote first jumps in the bushes and then the driver goes past that spot where the yote entered and gets out....then try to triangulate in on the yote. Until the snow melts out up high kind of stuck looking for forest yotes. Once the snow melts, more yote shooting begins...just find the marmot colonies and shoot the yotes that come around.
But I'll be going for yotes tomorrow while dropping off mineral blocks for elk, and the thing that really sucks is there are at least 3 cougars in the area....but I can't shoot them until Sep, and only one at that.
Post by: Dhoey07 on May 16, 2012, 08:10:23 PM
"earn a buck" was a joke, hence the wink face.
Still, not one of the guys on here said they spend more time predator hunting then deer or elk hunting. If you think to many predators is the main problem, why aren't you doing something about it? :dunno:
How much free time do you have?!
Post by: Branden on May 17, 2012, 10:27:53 AM
How much free time do you have?!
I work 2 weeks on, 1 week off. So I have about 17 1/3 weeks off a year :IBCOOL: :IBCOOL:
Ok guys. Out of all the ideas proposed and brought up, what do you guys think would be the best?
Personally I would be down with what I proposed. I would also be down with choosing species of deer every year. Or choosing regions. Or, if you draw a special tag you don't get to hunt general season. There were probably more that I am missing, but I don't want to go back and read the whole thread.
Post by: 3nails on May 17, 2012, 09:52:07 PM
Post by: Dave Workman on May 18, 2012, 07:22:58 PM
I think you've been drinking out of the WDFW toilet and ought to have a frontal lobotomy.
Here is an idea I had.
A couple thoughts on allowing guys to hunt deer every year. All tags that are otc right now, would be a guaranteed draw. Like if you wanted to hunt archery early season it would be guaranteed, but you would have to choose your unit. No hunting late season in the Swakane or late whitetail. Same with the high hunt. You are guaranteed to get drawn, but no regular general season, or late whitetail general season. Also, if you apply for a "general season tag" which you would be guaranteed to draw, you would not be allowed to apply for a "premium tag". All of our quality buck tags would be a "premium tag".
It would reduce hunting pressure in a lot of areas, since you can't first hunt the high hunt, then hunt the opener of regular season, then hunt the late whitetail season. It would also reduce how long it takes to get drawn for a late season hunt since a lot of guys would want to hunt every year.
What do you think of something like that for deer? I know its not exactly a draw system that would limit hunters, but it would spread hunters out for a better hunting experience.
:chuckle:
:bdid: :bdid: :bdid:
The WDFW would LOVE to turn this into a permit state, and they have to start somewhere. Spread people out. Further limit their opportunity and time afield.
Post by: bearpaw on May 19, 2012, 08:00:48 AM
"earn a buck" was a joke, hence the wink face.
Still, not one of the guys on here said they spend more time predator hunting then deer or elk hunting. If you think to many predators is the main problem, why aren't you doing something about it? :dunno:
I have a very good friend who says "earn a buck" accomplished what they wanted, a reduction in deer numbers. He lives near Madison and is a very active hunter, he usually kills numerous deer every season under that rule. However, isn't our the goal in WA to have more deer?
Before the state limited my use of methods and closed hound hunting my hunting time was about 70% predators and 30% turkey/deer/elk every year. Now due to state restrictions that has switched, but If I had my choice I would still be hunting cougar every day for the length of the season and chasing bear from August 1 to early October.
Brandon, I think the deer herds are nowhere near the numbers we used to have resulting in poorer hunting in many areas, but to keep restricting hunters is the wrong answer, as predator numbers grow this problem will only worsen and hunter opportunity will continue to decline. Hunters need to draw the line and tell the WDFW it's time to start managing predators. :twocents:
Post by: buckfvr on May 19, 2012, 08:29:16 AM
[/quote]
:yeah: And not just wolves.....ESPECIALLY once we see where nov elections take us, it will be time to bombard the new Gov and WDFW. WDFW will be considerably more sensative and vulnerable if we get the right governor in there.
Post by: Huntbear on May 19, 2012, 08:42:16 AM
THAT SAID,,,,, NO WAY IN HELL I WOULD EVER GO WITH MORE RESTRICTIONS ON MY HUNTING!!!! WE HUNTERS HAVE GIVEN UP OR HAVE HAD TAKEN AWAY TO MUCH ALREADY!!!!!
Bearpaw, you are on the right track, adn I agree with your comments..
Post by: washelkhunter on May 19, 2012, 09:19:42 AM
Post by: buglebuster on May 19, 2012, 09:28:48 AM
Post by: Wacenturion on May 19, 2012, 09:37:04 AM
"I think you've been drinking out of the WDFW toilet and ought to have a frontal lobotomy.
:chuckle:"
That is hilarious. Just spit coffee on my computer screen. :chuckle:
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on May 19, 2012, 01:30:18 PM
Dave....you said....
"I think you've been drinking out of the WDFW toilet and ought to have a frontal lobotomy.
:chuckle:"
That is hilarious. Just spit coffee on my computer screen. :chuckle:
But in my case it was a n Alaskan Amber :yeah:
Post by: aer212 on May 23, 2012, 08:34:12 PM
"earn a buck" was a joke, hence the wink face.
Still, not one of the guys on here said they spend more time predator hunting then deer or elk hunting. If you think to many predators is the main problem, why aren't you doing something about it? :dunno:
I spend way more time hunting predators than deer or elk. The reason? I have a chance with predators. I had my best season on coyotes ever this past winter but I also targeted them the most. I called in a bear and it was killed. I called in a cougar and didn't get a shot. I spend as much time as I can for deer and elk but the predators have the numbers down so I would agree that the predator problem needs to be addressed. One guy can't do it by himself though. The only EFFECTIVE way to manage the bigger predators is with hounds. I would love be able to run cougars and bears with hounds, in order to manage the population of cougar and bears, bring the hounds back.
Post by: runamuk on May 28, 2012, 03:16:26 PM
"earn a buck" was a joke, hence the wink face.
Still, not one of the guys on here said they spend more time predator hunting then deer or elk hunting. If you think to many predators is the main problem, why aren't you doing something about it? :dunno:
I spend way more time hunting predators than deer or elk. The reason? I have a chance with predators. I had my best season on coyotes ever this past winter but I also targeted them the most. I called in a bear and it was killed. I called in a cougar and didn't get a shot. I spend as much time as I can for deer and elk but the predators have the numbers down so I would agree that the predator problem needs to be addressed. One guy can't do it by himself though. The only EFFECTIVE way to manage the bigger predators is with hounds. I would love be able to run cougars and bears with hounds, in order to manage the population of cougar and bears, bring the hounds back.
The couple years I had a bear tag I spent way more time looking for bears, bobcats, and yotes.... if I had my druthers I would mostly predator hunt but cant afford tags, let alone fuel, so when someone buys me a deer tag I am gonna hunt deer :dunno: last year I had approximately 4 days to hunt and it was spent looking for deer, kept hoping to get out for coyotes and simply couldn't .... some day I will fill a tag, figure I am only going on season 4 .... figure if I give it another 20 years it might happen :P, if they dont make tags draw only or some other stupidity then I wont be able to hunt at all....
Post by: shoot-em-dead on May 28, 2012, 04:54:44 PM
The number 1 thing is closed roads. Now I give credit to you guys who pack in 15 miles to get away- But in the last 15 years that I have lived here I see year after year where road access get shorter and shorter and now lots of these roads are closed out to the asphalt. Open the roads and you will see much of this problem go away.
The number 2 thing would be predators- While a valid point was made that we should be hunting predators more often- I also find it insulting considering the only legal method here is rely on luck putting one foot in front of the other. Yes coyotes and bears can be called- but cougars are another story all together- I've talked with loggers who have spent their entire lives in the woods and have never seen one. And we can't hunt wolves. So the two predators ( cougars and wolves) that have the biggest impact on deer and elk populations are really not that hunt-able.
The number 3 complaint is prices- The last few years have been tough for everyone and with the cost of living (everything from licenses to bread and gas and rent) increasing and wages staying the same there are a lot of us who cannot afford to hunt near as much as we did in the good times.
Fix these things first and we can avoid paying for another draw system.