2025 Big Game Rules are out!

[ganghis]

Wow, that is striking.  What I don't get with the 300 series units is the high amount of cow tags they still give out for a lot of those units (like 50-200 for a lot of them).  If you want to increase herd size, those are the permits to decrease.  It seems as if the goal is to decrease overall herd size to some type of carrying capacity goal, while maintaining/increasing bull quality.  But I've seen plenty of decent bulls in some of those units. 

[Sundance]

It's wild how some units/hunts have been unchanged for over 10 years, while others have seen a 98% decrease in available bull tags. I know there have been some bad winters, increased predator populations, but enough to warrant that drastic of a cut? I'm starting to look at quality elk as an OIL opportunity. With 17 points I might draw once, but even twice in my lifetime could be a stretch.

[fishngamereaper]

The numbers above just prove the State isn't managing for our opportunity.
According to the State bios the Yakima herd is above objective, bull to cow ratio is at the high end of objective, which should both lead to increased opportunities... according to the State..
So where's the opportunities.....
A few cow tags.....? ...

This isn't even taking into consideration my observations that the herd is better off and the bull to cow ratio is higher than the States claims....

[RC]

The numbers above just prove the State isn't managing for our opportunity.
According to the State bios the Yakima herd is above objective, bull to cow ratio is at the high end of objective, which should both lead to increased opportunities... according to the State..
So where's the opportunities.....
A few cow tags.....? ...

This isn't even taking into consideration my observations that the herd is better off and the bull to cow ratio is higher than the States claims....

Seems to me that the state is not managing for hunting opportunity...only opportunity for more predator food.

[vandeman17]

The numbers above just prove the State isn't managing for our opportunity.
According to the State bios the Yakima herd is above objective, bull to cow ratio is at the high end of objective, which should both lead to increased opportunities... according to the State..
So where's the opportunities.....
A few cow tags.....? ...

This isn't even taking into consideration my observations that the herd is better off and the bull to cow ratio is higher than the States claims....

Seems to me that the state is not managing for hunting opportunity...only opportunity for more predator food.

They are managing for opportunity but its for a multitude of users groups with non native hunters being lowest on the totem pole.

[CarbonHunter]

The numbers above just prove the State isn't managing for our opportunity.
According to the State bios the Yakima herd is above objective, bull to cow ratio is at the high end of objective, which should both lead to increased opportunities... according to the State..
So where's the opportunities.....
A few cow tags.....? ...

This isn't even taking into consideration my observations that the herd is better off and the bull to cow ratio is higher than the States claims....

What are you talking about?  The bull to cow ratio is at the bottom end of the objective not the top. The numbers at the bottom of the graph are years and it’s not 2017.

The herd is over objectives but I personally feel the area can support far more elk than the 10k they are managing for. That is why the cow tags are high and the bull tags are low. I didn’t count the elk this winter but given you feel 13 bulls to 100 cows is above objectives I’m going to side with the state this time.

[fishngamereaper]

The numbers above just prove the State isn't managing for our opportunity.
According to the State bios the Yakima herd is above objective, bull to cow ratio is at the high end of objective, which should both lead to increased opportunities... according to the State..
So where's the opportunities.....
A few cow tags.....? ...

This isn't even taking into consideration my observations that the herd is better off and the bull to cow ratio is higher than the States claims....

What are you talking about?  The bull to cow ratio is at the bottom end of the objective not the top. The numbers at the bottom of the graph are years and it’s not 2017.

The herd is over objectives but I personally feel the area can support far more elk than the 10k they are managing for. That is why the cow tags are high and the bull tags are low. I didn’t count the elk this winter but given you feel 13 bulls to 100 cows is above objectives I’m going to side with the state this time.

Their objective is 12...so 13 is higher than objective. Obviously not super high but high enough to allow with confidence more tag allotment...that's how their numbers work..why less tags this year than 18,19,20,21....all under objective years..
They claimed 20 in 2017...ok...( a number that is directly related to the great cow kill off when they issued thousand's of cow tags) ..

The last couple years I'm seeing WAY more bulls than 2017...so I'll defer to my experience over the states feed lot surveys...
Guess at the end of the day we get whatever they want to give us...and based on factual numbers ...that number could very well be zero in a couple years.

[CarbonHunter]

The numbers above just prove the State isn't managing for our opportunity.
According to the State bios the Yakima herd is above objective, bull to cow ratio is at the high end of objective, which should both lead to increased opportunities... according to the State..
So where's the opportunities.....
A few cow tags.....? ...

This isn't even taking into consideration my observations that the herd is better off and the bull to cow ratio is higher than the States claims....

What are you talking about?  The bull to cow ratio is at the bottom end of the objective not the top. The numbers at the bottom of the graph are years and it’s not 2017.

The herd is over objectives but I personally feel the area can support far more elk than the 10k they are managing for. That is why the cow tags are high and the bull tags are low. I didn’t count the elk this winter but given you feel 13 bulls to 100 cows is above objectives I’m going to side with the state this time.

Their objective is 12...so 13 is higher than objective. Obviously not super high but high enough to allow with confidence more tag allotment...that's how their numbers work..why less tags this year than 18,19,20,21....all under objective years..
They claimed 20 in 2017...ok...( a number that is directly related to the great cow kill off when they issued thousand's of cow tags) ..

The last couple years I'm seeing WAY more bulls than 2017...so I'll defer to my experience over the states feed lot surveys...
Guess at the end of the day we get whatever they want to give us...and based on factual numbers ...that number could very well be zero in a couple years.

13 bulls per 100 cows is an extremely weak number for a healthy herd. The fact that Washington wants to manage their largest herd to a maximum of 20 bulls to 100 cows shows how much they hate elk.

Typically biologists who know how to manage elk manage a herd to 20-30 bulls per 100 cows post hunting season. For trophy units they will manage to 30-40 bulls per 100 cows post hunting season.

How many bull tags do you think they should issue for this herd? Currently they are managing this herd to a post hunting season total of 1,300-1,400 bulls. If this was a trophy state there would not be a hunting season for bulls with such a low bull to cow ratio.

[Karl Blanchard]

The numbers above just prove the State isn't managing for our opportunity.
According to the State bios the Yakima herd is above objective, bull to cow ratio is at the high end of objective, which should both lead to increased opportunities... according to the State..
So where's the opportunities.....
A few cow tags.....? ...

This isn't even taking into consideration my observations that the herd is better off and the bull to cow ratio is higher than the States claims....

What are you talking about?  The bull to cow ratio is at the bottom end of the objective not the top. The numbers at the bottom of the graph are years and it’s not 2017.

The herd is over objectives but I personally feel the area can support far more elk than the 10k they are managing for. That is why the cow tags are high and the bull tags are low. I didn’t count the elk this winter but given you feel 13 bulls to 100 cows is above objectives I’m going to side with the state this time.

Their objective is 12...so 13 is higher than objective. Obviously not super high but high enough to allow with confidence more tag allotment...that's how their numbers work..why less tags this year than 18,19,20,21....all under objective years..
They claimed 20 in 2017...ok...( a number that is directly related to the great cow kill off when they issued thousand's of cow tags) ..

The last couple years I'm seeing WAY more bulls than 2017...so I'll defer to my experience over the states feed lot surveys...
Guess at the end of the day we get whatever they want to give us...and based on factual numbers ...that number could very well be zero in a couple years.

13 bulls per 100 cows is an extremely weak number for a healthy herd. The fact that Washington wants to manage their largest herd to a maximum of 20 bulls to 100 cows shows how much they hate elk.

Typically biologists who know how to manage elk manage a herd to 20-30 bulls per 100 cows post hunting season. For trophy units they will manage to 30-40 bulls per 100 cows post hunting season.

How many bull tags do you think they should issue for this herd? Currently they are managing this herd to a post hunting season total of 1,300-1,400 bulls. If this was a trophy state there would not be a hunting season for bulls with such a low bull to cow ratio.

Montana manages for a min of 10:100
Oregon manages for a min of 10:100
Colorado manages for a min of 20:100
Wyoming manages for a min of 15:100
Utah manages for a min of 8:100

Some LE units are managed for much higher and some states like AZ and NV where pretty much every unit is a trophy unit they shoot to be over 30:100.

All these states have more usable habitat than WA as well. The 300 series GMU's are at capacity and encroaching on mule deer winter range more and more. We don't need more elk but we do need more bull tags and the herds can definitely support it imo.

[2MANY]

Elk HATER!
 

[Karl Blanchard]

On the flip side, the department by their own omissions know very little about the actual carrying capacity of the landscape. They don't test body fat percentages on deer or elk post hunting season total determine animal health. They count very small portions of these animals actual range at least with deer they only tally adults and yearlings. They don't separate bucks from doe's. We aren't collating calves and fawns to determine main causes of mortality, etc, etc, etc. 

Maybe that additional info is out there somewhere but I sure can't find it and the data they do put out doesn't match what I see in my backyard

[trophyhunt]

Elk HATER!
 

[fishngamereaper]

The numbers above just prove the State isn't managing for our opportunity.
According to the State bios the Yakima herd is above objective, bull to cow ratio is at the high end of objective, which should both lead to increased opportunities... according to the State..
So where's the opportunities.....
A few cow tags.....? ...

This isn't even taking into consideration my observations that the herd is better off and the bull to cow ratio is higher than the States claims....

What are you talking about?  The bull to cow ratio is at the bottom end of the objective not the top. The numbers at the bottom of the graph are years and it’s not 2017.

The herd is over objectives but I personally feel the area can support far more elk than the 10k they are managing for. That is why the cow tags are high and the bull tags are low. I didn’t count the elk this winter but given you feel 13 bulls to 100 cows is above objectives I’m going to side with the state this time.

Their objective is 12...so 13 is higher than objective. Obviously not super high but high enough to allow with confidence more tag allotment...that's how their numbers work..why less tags this year than 18,19,20,21....all under objective years..
They claimed 20 in 2017...ok...( a number that is directly related to the great cow kill off when they issued thousand's of cow tags) ..

The last couple years I'm seeing WAY more bulls than 2017...so I'll defer to my experience over the states feed lot surveys...
Guess at the end of the day we get whatever they want to give us...and based on factual numbers ...that number could very well be zero in a couple years.

13 bulls per 100 cows is an extremely weak number for a healthy herd. The fact that Washington wants to manage their largest herd to a maximum of 20 bulls to 100 cows shows how much they hate elk.

Typically biologists who know how to manage elk manage a herd to 20-30 bulls per 100 cows post hunting season. For trophy units they will manage to 30-40 bulls per 100 cows post hunting season.

How many bull tags do you think they should issue for this herd? Currently they are managing this herd to a post hunting season total of 1,300-1,400 bulls. If this was a trophy state there would not be a hunting season for bulls with such a low bull to cow ratio.

WA isn't managed as a trophy State.
Bios set their goals... current trend's show they've exceeded those goals. When you reach or exceed management goals you (typically) allow for more opportunity. It's not happening.
If they want 20-30 bulls per, or 12k elk then re write management objectives.  I guess fortunately they know the carry capacity limitations so increasing objectives will never happen.
If I saw an issue with herd health I'd be the first to point it out..
The Yakima herd has been an addiction for 35 years.....
Per the State the herd is healthy, it didn't translate to tag allotment... that's my beef.

[fishngamereaper]

As an example relevant to my frustrations with the Yakima herd counts and management...
The States own numbers and acknowledgement of accuracy in estimation for the Clock...

Allot of the Yakima herd behaves the same way....

[Mtnwalker]

It's interesting when comparing aerial survey years vs ground count only years for the Yak herd, since 2009 there has only been 1 aerial survey (2019) that resulted in a B:C below objective and it was barely under at 11:100.

Every other year since 2009 that has shown the B:C to be under objective have been ground count-only years. I think there may be a correlation