Washington Governor Tag

[Bowhunter3]

I totally get what you last two guys are saying.

I guess I just really do prefer the North American model, where the public owns the animals and you can't just buy them. 

I do wonder if these tags put a single additional elk into the herd.

They do not.  And to make matters worse - you have to take opportunity from the public in order to ensure they are worth anything. 

And I want to be real clear - I have no ill-will or fault towards the hunters who obtain them - it's the state and wildlife managers who are to blame for this obvious deviation from the NAMWC.

If the money isn't going to conservation of the species as you claim, can you show where the money is going?

Sounds like you have links to where it is specifically going? I would love to know where all of this conservation money is going. Looking forward to the sources.

[idahohuntr]

I totally get what you last two guys are saying.

I guess I just really do prefer the North American model, where the public owns the animals and you can't just buy them. 

I do wonder if these tags put a single additional elk into the herd.

They do not.  And to make matters worse - you have to take opportunity from the public in order to ensure they are worth anything. 

And I want to be real clear - I have no ill-will or fault towards the hunters who obtain them - it's the state and wildlife managers who are to blame for this obvious deviation from the NAMWC.

If the money isn't going to conservation of the species as you claim, can you show where the money is going?

I think conservation is subjective at best in this case.  Manging to ensure trophy potential no doubt takes away from a management scheme around opportunity in general.  So the masses lose and you end with enough funds for a pet project that may be species specific but very likely has no tangible benefit therefore ending in a net loss to all but the auction or raffle tag holder.

Exactly. 

[NOCK NOCK]

I totally get what you last two guys are saying.

I guess I just really do prefer the North American model, where the public owns the animals and you can't just buy them. 

I do wonder if these tags put a single additional elk into the herd.

They do not.  And to make matters worse - you have to take opportunity from the public in order to ensure they are worth anything. 

And I want to be real clear - I have no ill-will or fault towards the hunters who obtain them - it's the state and wildlife managers who are to blame for this obvious deviation from the NAMWC.

If the money isn't going to conservation of the species as you claim, can you show where the money is going?

I think conservation is subjective at best in this case.  Manging to ensure trophy potential no doubt takes away from a management scheme around opportunity in general.  So the masses lose and you end with enough funds for a pet project that may be species specific but very likely has no tangible benefit therefore ending in a net loss to all but the auction or raffle tag holder.

Exactly.

Agree, also

Again, folks Never trust the government........unless it fits their narrative.
I worked for a gov. agency that was all over the spectrum of loved/hated. I can Guarantee you there was ALOT of money hiding/wasting/redirecting, even with monies they collected for a SPECIFIC application.

[bearpaw]

I totally get what you last two guys are saying.

I guess I just really do prefer the North American model, where the public owns the animals and you can't just buy them. 

I do wonder if these tags put a single additional elk into the herd.

They do not.  And to make matters worse - you have to take opportunity from the public in order to ensure they are worth anything. 

And I want to be real clear - I have no ill-will or fault towards the hunters who obtain them - it's the state and wildlife managers who are to blame for this obvious deviation from the NAMWC.

If the money isn't going to conservation of the species as you claim, can you show where the money is going?

I think conservation is subjective at best in this case.  Manging to ensure trophy potential no doubt takes away from a management scheme around opportunity in general.  So the masses lose and you end with enough funds for a pet project that may be species specific but very likely has no tangible benefit therefore ending in a net loss to all but the auction or raffle tag holder.

Exactly.

Agree, also

Again, folks Never trust the government........unless it fits their narrative.
I worked for a gov. agency that was all over the spectrum of loved/hated. I can Guarantee you there was ALOT of money hiding/wasting/redirecting, even with monies they collected for a SPECIFIC application.

So in answer to my question, none of you have shown that the money isn't going where it's supposed to go. I'm always suspect of government spending too, I was just wondering if anyone knew for sure or if this is all based on personal opinion and/or what you think is happening?

[bearpaw]

I think conservation is subjective at best in this case.  Manging to ensure trophy potential no doubt takes away from a management scheme around opportunity in general.  So the masses lose and you end with enough funds for a pet project that may be species specific but very likely has no tangible benefit therefore ending in a net loss to all but the auction or raffle tag holder.

Haven't the masses already lost because most eastern WA areas are draw only for branch bulls, which is the primary reason there are any trophy bulls?

I can remember before WDFW went to limited entry elk hunts, the elk were managed for the masses, anyone could buy a bull elk tag for eastern Washington, but the consequence of that was that most bulls taken were yearling bulls. There were few opportunities at even a respectable 6x6 much less a trophy class bull.

[Mtnwalker]

I think conservation is subjective at best in this case.  Manging to ensure trophy potential no doubt takes away from a management scheme around opportunity in general.  So the masses lose and you end with enough funds for a pet project that may be species specific but very likely has no tangible benefit therefore ending in a net loss to all but the auction or raffle tag holder.

Haven't the masses already lost because most eastern WA areas are draw only for branch bulls, which is the primary reason there are any trophy bulls?

I can remember before WDFW went to limited entry elk hunts, the elk were managed for the masses, anyone could buy a bull elk tag for eastern Washington, but the consequence of that was that most bulls taken were yearling bulls. There were few opportunities at even a respectable 6x6 much less a trophy class bull.

Now that branched tags have been cut by 90+ percent and basically become OIL one could certainly make that argument. It was a pretty decent system when a guy could draw an archery tag every 4-7 years and then kill spikes and cows in the mean time

[NOCK NOCK]

@bearpaw
I don’t believe anyone, without doing a massive FOIA request, can prove either way on the spending.
Even if done, no way to positive your getting correct info

[Tbar]

I think conservation is subjective at best in this case.  Manging to ensure trophy potential no doubt takes away from a management scheme around opportunity in general.  So the masses lose and you end with enough funds for a pet project that may be species specific but very likely has no tangible benefit therefore ending in a net loss to all but the auction or raffle tag holder.

Haven't the masses already lost because most eastern WA areas are draw only for branch bulls, which is the primary reason there are any trophy bulls?

I can remember before WDFW went to limited entry elk hunts, the elk were managed for the masses, anyone could buy a bull elk tag for eastern Washington, but the consequence of that was that most bulls taken were yearling bulls. There were few opportunities at even a respectable 6x6 much less a trophy class bull.

Very fair question but flawed initial assessment of loss in first paragraph.  The APR is a management scheme to control overall harvest while continuing to provide OTC opportunities.  The state basically tried to make it difficult to be successful hence the very low success rates. Once you transition to step two it comes down to biological needs. This may require a second look if spike escapement drops.

You then look at age structure within the herd.  If you maintain some balance amongst different cohorts your breeding needs will be met.  You can then manipulate  harvest as needed with weapons and dates.  The state could hunt the structure down almost to one year if your spike escapement is adequate.  So providing more branched tags to the masses would seem reasonable.  You would still find big bulls but not at the current levels.  I think we got an unsustainable appetite when Pat Fowler grew giants in the blues but so much has changed since then,  management has to evolve with those changes including closer attention to impacts and margins by producers. This is a major limiting factor of herd growth.  Nearly all of the critical winter habitat is prioritized for agriculture.  An agricultural industry that is not as tolerant as past generations. 

Lots of factors but many are just arbitrary choices often driven by the desire to see more inches vs more opportunity. 

[Tbar]

I think conservation is subjective at best in this case.  Manging to ensure trophy potential no doubt takes away from a management scheme around opportunity in general.  So the masses lose and you end with enough funds for a pet project that may be species specific but very likely has no tangible benefit therefore ending in a net loss to all but the auction or raffle tag holder.

Haven't the masses already lost because most eastern WA areas are draw only for branch bulls, which is the primary reason there are any trophy bulls?

I can remember before WDFW went to limited entry elk hunts, the elk were managed for the masses, anyone could buy a bull elk tag for eastern Washington, but the consequence of that was that most bulls taken were yearling bulls. There were few opportunities at even a respectable 6x6 much less a trophy class bull.

Now that branched tags have been cut by 90+ percent and basically become OIL one could certainly make that argument. It was a pretty decent system when a guy could draw an archery tag every 4-7 years and then kill spikes and cows in the mean time

This is likely due to survey methodology.  There has been several reactive measures where they seemingly lost significant numbers.  Once found they made the odd choice to continue with otc but exercise the precautionary principle with branched bulls. 

[bearpaw]

I think conservation is subjective at best in this case.  Manging to ensure trophy potential no doubt takes away from a management scheme around opportunity in general.  So the masses lose and you end with enough funds for a pet project that may be species specific but very likely has no tangible benefit therefore ending in a net loss to all but the auction or raffle tag holder.

Haven't the masses already lost because most eastern WA areas are draw only for branch bulls, which is the primary reason there are any trophy bulls?

I can remember before WDFW went to limited entry elk hunts, the elk were managed for the masses, anyone could buy a bull elk tag for eastern Washington, but the consequence of that was that most bulls taken were yearling bulls. There were few opportunities at even a respectable 6x6 much less a trophy class bull.

Now that branched tags have been cut by 90+ percent and basically become OIL one could certainly make that argument. It was a pretty decent system when a guy could draw an archery tag every 4-7 years and then kill spikes and cows in the mean time

This is likely due to survey methodology.  There has been several reactive measures where they seemingly lost significant numbers.  Once found they made the odd choice to continue with otc but exercise the precautionary principle with branched bulls.

The points I'm making is that the management style used to get trophy bulls on the ground has already reduced opportunity for the masses, and the failure to manage predators certainly has taken even more opportunity away from the masses. One wolf or one cougar has more impact on the opportunity for the masses than all the auction tags combined. When you consider that there are probably two or three times as many cougar and way more wolves than we should have in this state, it becomes obvious the enormity of the predator impact outweighs a handful of auction tags by at least a thousand times. The argument of auction tags taking opportunity from the masses holds little weight.

[bearpaw]

I think conservation is subjective at best in this case.  Manging to ensure trophy potential no doubt takes away from a management scheme around opportunity in general.  So the masses lose and you end with enough funds for a pet project that may be species specific but very likely has no tangible benefit therefore ending in a net loss to all but the auction or raffle tag holder.

Haven't the masses already lost because most eastern WA areas are draw only for branch bulls, which is the primary reason there are any trophy bulls?

I can remember before WDFW went to limited entry elk hunts, the elk were managed for the masses, anyone could buy a bull elk tag for eastern Washington, but the consequence of that was that most bulls taken were yearling bulls. There were few opportunities at even a respectable 6x6 much less a trophy class bull.

Very fair question but flawed initial assessment of loss in first paragraph.  The APR is a management scheme to control overall harvest while continuing to provide OTC opportunities.  The state basically tried to make it difficult to be successful hence the very low success rates. Once you transition to step two it comes down to biological needs. This may require a second look if spike escapement drops.

You then look at age structure within the herd.  If you maintain some balance amongst different cohorts your breeding needs will be met.  You can then manipulate  harvest as needed with weapons and dates.  The state could hunt the structure down almost to one year if your spike escapement is adequate.  So providing more branched tags to the masses would seem reasonable.  You would still find big bulls but not at the current levels.  I think we got an unsustainable appetite when Pat Fowler grew giants in the blues but so much has changed since then,  management has to evolve with those changes including closer attention to impacts and margins by producers. This is a major limiting factor of herd growth.  Nearly all of the critical winter habitat is prioritized for agriculture.  An agricultural industry that is not as tolerant as past generations. 

Lots of factors but many are just arbitrary choices often driven by the desire to see more inches vs more opportunity.

agree with most all of that

[idahohuntr]

The argument of auction tags taking opportunity from the masses holds little weight.

The argument auction tags have put a single additional elk on the landscape holds little weight. 

[bearpaw]

@bearpaw
I don’t believe anyone, without doing a massive FOIA request, can prove either way on the spending.
Even if done, no way to positive your getting correct info

I mostly agree!

However, there is nothing to back up this statement made earlier in this topic: "very likely has no tangible benefit therefore ending in a net loss to all but the auction or raffle tag holder"

[bearpaw]

The argument of auction tags taking opportunity from the masses holds little weight.

The argument auction tags have put a single additional elk on the landscape holds little weight.

I can't see where anyone has made that statement?

[Tbar]

@bearpaw
I don’t believe anyone, without doing a massive FOIA request, can prove either way on the spending.
Even if done, no way to positive your getting correct info

I mostly agree!

However, there is nothing to back up this statement made earlier in this topic: "very likely has no tangible benefit therefore ending in a net loss to all but the auction or raffle tag holder"

Most of the pet projects are showcased at the given event.  There should also be a summary from the section manager.