An 'ex-WA elk hunter' speaks

[Dave Workman]

As usual, the wise guys have tried to re-direct the thread.

We're talking Washington elk, not Idaho. 

Indeed  we're talking Washington GAME management

Indeed we are, and I expressed my thoughts on how agriculture drastically limits elk opportunity in Washington.  Look at the Skagit debacle.  One damage claim was 25K bucks.  Whether or not the complainant wins, we live in a state where DFW is forced to manage elk herds with a large amount of financial liability and winter range that is fragmented beyond belief.

What would be your solution to this?
True, damage claims roll in because of elk.  look at that growing herd in the Snoqualmie Valley between North Bend and Snoqualmie. They raise hell with the local nurseries and golf course.

One might think that turning loose some bowhunters or guys who have purchased suppressors for their rifles to target those elk and push them back up onto the hillsides where other hunters can go after them would be one solution.

As is, the elk are merely there for the touristas to goggle at, leaving the impression that game management is just peachy and very productive. 

[Special T]

Instead of having the USDA kill some elk the WDFW could have provided a few opportunities for MH/Disabled/General hunters. The WDFW job IS to MANAGE wildlife, not farm out its job/decision making. 

[RG]

I have hunted Washington since the 1960's when my Dad started taking me with him and the ferns were higher than my head. I bought elk and deer tags in the 1970's then bought the primitive weapon stamp so I could use my recurve and flintlock during the extra seasons. I guided hunters in BC, Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming in the 1980's. I hunted myself in Colorado, Utah, and California in the 1980's.  I now live in Washington and still hunt with my flintlock here. There is only one reason I would ever still hunt elk in Washington. That's because I can't afford to hunt out of state every year. I live in the Manastash unit. Elk success ranges from 2 to maybe 4 or 5 percent. Whenever I can I take my horses and hunt Idaho elk. The success runs around 15 to 20 percent and I can shoot a real bull. Last year I drew a bull tag for Bumping muzzleloader and had a wonderful hunt, like the old days, taking a 5 point in the end. Maybe 9 or 10 years from now I can draw another tag and hope I'm not too old to use it.
Workman's original point is spot on. There are few if any real outdoorsmen in WDFW. They are mostly book smart biologists who have never skinned and packed an elk or slept for weeks in a wall tent. They wouldn't know a diamond hitch from a square knot. It's really too bad.

[RG]

Come to think of it that description fits way too many of the hunters too I guess. 

[idahohuntr]

They are mostly book smart biologists who have never skinned and packed an elk or slept for weeks in a wall tent.

Not sure what you mean by this but I can assure you they are not mutually exclusive traits.

[JLS]

As usual, the wise guys have tried to re-direct the thread.

We're talking Washington elk, not Idaho. 

Indeed  we're talking Washington GAME management

Indeed we are, and I expressed my thoughts on how agriculture drastically limits elk opportunity in Washington.  Look at the Skagit debacle.  One damage claim was 25K bucks.  Whether or not the complainant wins, we live in a state where DFW is forced to manage elk herds with a large amount of financial liability and winter range that is fragmented beyond belief.

What would be your solution to this?
True, damage claims roll in because of elk.  look at that growing herd in the Snoqualmie Valley between North Bend and Snoqualmie. They raise hell with the local nurseries and golf course.

One might think that turning loose some bowhunters or guys who have purchased suppressors for their rifles to target those elk and push them back up onto the hillsides where other hunters can go after them would be one solution.

As is, the elk are merely there for the touristas to goggle at, leaving the impression that game management is just peachy and very productive.

If I had the answer to this question I would probably have multiple states calling me to hire me to run their fish and game department.

The boat is so far downstream now I think it'd be pretty tough to change it's course.  Too much precedent has been set for expensive damage claims, too much winter range has become fruit orchards, vineyards, or winter wheat, valley floors have become golf courses, tree farms, berry farms, and flower farms, highways and interstates bissect travel corridors, and so on.

Where there are liberal hunting seasons, even hunters complain.  Look at the nonsense you read on here about how hard the St Helens elk arer hunted and "harrassed".  BFD.  There are elk herds in Montana that are hunted for four months straight and they survive.

I am all for having as liberal hunting seasons as the resource will tolerate.  Unfortunately in certain areas such as the Skagit, hunters have shown what they are really all about and pretty much crapped in their own bed so to speak.  How do you remedy this?  Even Master Hunters have shown themselves to not be completely trustworth, which is to be expected because they are human.

I don't envy DFW one bit with the mess in the Skagit.  In my mind, the optimal solution for elk damage is to issue permits and let hunters shoot them.  I've gotten to participate in these types of hunts and I really enjoyed them.  However, I'm also not so naive as to think that hunters can come with a very hefty price tag in terms of negative PR. 

I digress however, for my initial stance in that agricultural (including hobby farms) interests are and will be the biggest limiting factor in how many elk can inhabit Washington.  It's a culture thing here to whine about animals.  Heaven forbid you see 50 mule deer in your winter wheat.  Even worse, see 50 elk out there.  There is very little tolerance for wildlife and it's quite sad to see.

[RG]

They are mostly book smart biologists who have never skinned and packed an elk or slept for weeks in a wall tent.

Not sure what you mean by this but I can assure you they are not mutually exclusive traits.

They are absolutely not mutually exclusive. It takes training and hands on experience to be any kind of expert. I'm pretty old school sometimes but I think the best person to manage something is a person who has done it themselves enough to be skilled at it. Our state has a lot more issues than that though. Values have changed over the decades and it won't go back. I know that I will find hunting experiences I can really enjoy and value if I go somewhere else or draw the permit here. It's too bad and I wish my grandsons had been here to hunt and fish in the 60's and 70's. when they are old enough Ill take them to Idaho with the horses and see if we can get them a nice bull.  It's not all bad and I don't mean to sound like it is. It's not the same though and, as a  hunter, I've seen a lot of places where I prefer to hunt.

[idahohuntr]

when they are old enough Ill take them to Idaho with the horses and see if we can get them a nice bull.  It's not all bad and I don't mean to sound like it is. It's not the same though and, as a  hunter, I've seen a lot of places where I prefer to hunt.

Probably the best thing you can do to help younger generations see how things could/should be...hunting with my grandpa is something I will cherish forever.

[RG]

You're right. In the end it's the experience of wild country that matters. Chances are better than even that you won't score on a big bull. The motivation comes from knowing you have the opportunity to do so.

[hub]

Seems to me the Yakima herd was once being managed from 13,000 to 15,000 elk. If I recall the latest objective is 9,000 to 10,000. In oder to avoid costly law suits from farmers and ranchers a smaller herd is now the new Objective. I do not blame ranchers and farmers at all. No reason at all the state could not set land aside within the Oak creek area and simply plant food plots in the elk home range. That more than likely would prevent the elk from seeking food well off the there normal range. I do think the game officials have not been supported by the politicians they work for. Dave Ware has a tough job with not enough funding to please all interested parties.  The three point rule on the east side on a permanent basis is rediculous, Each unit should and could be managed based on actual post season counts. I don,t think Dave Ware has the funding to do that. Therefore we get stuck with the cheapest and easiest mangement tool available. The way I see it the spike only rule is just another cheap and easy way out of game management. I,m not blaming Dave ware for poor mangement and the lack of funding. I do blame our elected officials who truely don,t care about hunters. They just want our money. Perhaps Dave Ware may get some of the trillions of dollars from recreational pot sales the state is hoping to make. They say pot money will properly fund our schools. Thats what they said when we voted in the Lottery. That money would pay for schools. Don,t look for better hunting on accessible land open to the public any time soon. The seasons will remain too early. We are stuck with 20 cow tags for the Bethel instead of 300 which used to be common. The draw system is permanent. The spike rule is permanent.The three point or better rule is permanent. I wish I was the governor. There would be no permanent rules. The game dept would be funded to manage game instead of defunded because it is easier to manage hunters without funding.

[bearpaw]

Habitat Loss
Ok no doubt there is habitat loss in Washington, but there are also some other factors at work on our herds because you can visit many remaining winter ranges that have very few animals on them in the winter. We do not even have enough deer to utilize the remaining winter range so there must be other factors reducing our deer herds.

What Has Really Changed In Deer/Elk Mortality?
According to WDFW documentation since 1997 hunter harvest has averaged from 7000 to 9000 elk annually and 30,000 to 40,000 deer annually. This hunter harvest is not significantly different than the previous couple decades. So what else is changing, why do we all think there are fewer deer?

Overall Predator Numbers!
The bottom line is that coyotes, cougar, bear, and wolves eat deer and elk. WDFW has cut back cougar seasons and purposefully expanded, in fact nearly doubled cougar populations in Washington and WDFW is now working toward fulfilling the most liberal wolf plan of any western state. Additionally, trapping and hunting of coyotes has been drastically reduced due to trapping bans and decreased fur markets. Once wolves multiply and decimate certain elk herds as they have historically done in ID/MT/WY then this conversation will arise again and certain people will blame everything except the predators they are in love with. Only people who are capable of performing elementary school math will be able to decipher the true reason for the decline in the herds.

Cougar Predation
Cougar are my favorite animal to hunt so I would never want to see them eliminated, but we have too many cougar and no matter what some people may try to say that cougar do not impact herds, they are either lieing or sadly uninformed. Numerous studies have shown that one cougar eats from 25 to 50 deer per year. In areas with more elk than deer cougar tend to make elk their diet instead of deer.

A NE Washington Cougar study found that the cougar annual kill rate on deer was from 7 days to 11 days.

Cougars in NE Washington
http://www.carnivoreconservation.org/files/thesis/cruickshank_2004_msc.pdf

Across the study area and within The Wedge, cougars selected for mule deer over white-tailed deer during the year. When examined seasonally, cougars strongly selected for mule deer during the summer but not during the winter, and in no season or location did they select for white-tailed deer. The annual kill rate of 7 days for cougars falls within the range of 7 to 11 days reported by other investigators (Hornocker 1970, Beier et al. 1995, and Murphy 1998). The interval may be at the low end because 15 of the 22 intervals were from female cougars with kittens, which typically show a higher kill rate than single adults (Murphy 1998). Only 2 intervals were from a male cougar (8 and 11
days). We found no differences in habitat characteristics between mule deer and whitetailed deer kill sites.

WA Cougar Population and Impacts On Herds
WDFW said at the Colville Wolf Meeting there are likely 3500 to 4000 cougar in Washington (as compared to 2000 estimated population a few decades ago). Therefore according to these statistics from a NE WA cougar study the 1500 to 2000 additional cougar WDFW has in WA are eating anywhere from 49,772 to 104,285 more deer (or substituting elk) than cougar ate when the cougar population was estimated at 2000 animals a few decades ago.

Coyotes Lead Way in Deer Deaths
http://www.jsonline.com/sports/outdoors/115154119.html
I think most people will agree that the coyote population has increased. According to studies that are underway in several Midwest and eastern states, coyotes have a significant impact on deer numbers.

In all, 57 adult deer and 44 fawns have been captured and fitted with tracking devices.

The data are from Jan. 1, 2009 through Aug. 31, 2010. Though preliminary, they are showing some very interesting results.

Coyotes in the study area were responsible for 13 fawn mortalities, followed by bobcat (9), unknown predator (5), abandonment (4), unknown agent (3), black bear (2), vehicle collision (2), wolf (2) and bald eagle (1).

Among adult and yearling female deer, coyote killed 6, followed by wolf (3), black bear (2), drowning (2), birthing complications (1), vehicle collision (1) and unknown predator (1).

Bear predation on Elk in Idaho
http://www.wildlifemanagementinstitute.org/PDF/12-Elk%20and%20Predation....pdf

During 1973 to 1975, neonatal calf survival from birth to October 1 averaged 37.5 percent. Predation by black bears was the primary proximate cause of mortality (Table 3). In 1976, 75 black bears were removed from the study area. Calf survival increased to 67 percent, then approximated preremovallevels 2 years later. Calf-to-cow ratios (an index of recruitment) from aerial surveys showed a similar pattern (Schlegel 1986). Concurrently, the trend in calf-to-cow ratios was similar in surrounding GMUs, where the bear population was not reduced, compromising interpretation of these results (Schlegel 1986). Nevertheless, these data suggest that predation by black bears is additive and can be a significant factor limiting elk recruitment and population growth.

Wolf Impacts on Elk/Deer
I know we have some wolf lovers on the forum but they cannot refute the statistics provided by other western states and published in the WA Wolf Plan. Unless my memory is mistaken, the plan states that each wolf kills an average of 44 deer or 17 elk per year. Wolf impacts have not been felt in most areas of Washington yet because we have not reached our population objective. However, simple math and WDFW wolf plan statistics tell us that 15 breeding pairs which translates to roughly 150 wolves on the ground will consume 2550 elk or 6600 deer per year. That sounds like wolves might possibly fit in if hunters give up a few deer and elk from our annual harvest. However, Idaho's wolf plan called for 10 breeding pairs and they ended up with nearly 800 documented wolves. If Washington's wolf plan is as overly successful as Idaho then our 15 breeding pairs may translate into as many as 1200 wolves that will eat 20,400 elk or 52,800 deer per year.

What's In Store In The Future
I have provided the statistics on predation, they are facts not speculation. How WDFW continues to manage predators will determine the future of our herds. If WDFW continues to increase predator numbers, the increased cougar, bear, coyote, and wolf numbers are statistically bound to have an effect on hunting in Washington.

It doesn't matter how much summer range or winter range you have, if the animals are being eaten the summer range and winter range will not get fully utilized. Herds will decline regardless of how much blame biologists and the WDFW try to pin on every other factor. Perhaps some elk herds have increased in the last decade but deer are declining and when there are no deer the predators will be forced to eat elk so the elk numbers will decline if predator numbers continue to increase. 

[Dave Workman]

Overall Predator Numbers!
The bottom line is that coyotes, cougar, bear, and wolves eat deer and elk. WDFW has cut back cougar seasons and purposefully expanded, in fact nearly doubled cougar populations in Washington and WDFW is now working toward fulfilling the most liberal wolf plan of any western state. Additionally, trapping and hunting of coyotes has been drastically reduced due to trapping bans and decreased fur markets. Once wolves multiply and decimate certain elk herds as they have historically done in ID/MT/WY then this conversation will arise again and certain people will blame everything except the predators they are in love with. Only people who are capable of performing elementary school math will be able to decipher the true reason for the decline in the herds.

Cougar Predation
Cougar are my favorite animal to hunt so I would never want to see them eliminated, but we have too many cougar and no matter what some people may try to say that cougar do not impact herds, they are either lieing or sadly uninformed. Numerous studies have shown that one cougar eats from 25 to 50 deer per year. In areas with more elk than deer cougar tend to make elk their diet instead of deer.

A NE Washington Cougar study found that the cougar annual kill rate on deer was from 7 days to 11 days.

Cougars in NE Washington
http://www.carnivoreconservation.org/files/thesis/cruickshank_2004_msc.pdf

Across the study area and within The Wedge, cougars selected for mule deer over white-tailed deer during the year. When examined seasonally, cougars strongly selected for mule deer during the summer but not during the winter, and in no season or location did they select for white-tailed deer. The annual kill rate of 7 days for cougars falls within the range of 7 to 11 days reported by other investigators (Hornocker 1970, Beier et al. 1995, and Murphy 1998). The interval may be at the low end because 15 of the 22 intervals were from female cougars with kittens, which typically show a higher kill rate than single adults (Murphy 1998). Only 2 intervals were from a male cougar (8 and 11
days). We found no differences in habitat characteristics between mule deer and whitetailed deer kill sites.

WA Cougar Population and Impacts On Herds
WDFW said at the Colville Wolf Meeting there are likely 3500 to 4000 cougar in Washington (as compared to 2000 estimated population a few decades ago). Therefore according to these statistics from a NE WA cougar study the 1500 to 2000 additional cougar WDFW has in WA are eating anywhere from 49,772 to 104,285 more deer (or substituting elk) than cougar ate when the cougar population was estimated at 2000 animals a few decades ago.

Coyotes Lead Way in Deer Deaths
http://www.jsonline.com/sports/outdoors/115154119.html
I think most people will agree that the coyote population has increased. According to studies that are underway in several Midwest and eastern states, coyotes have a significant impact on deer numbers.

In all, 57 adult deer and 44 fawns have been captured and fitted with tracking devices.

The data are from Jan. 1, 2009 through Aug. 31, 2010. Though preliminary, they are showing some very interesting results.

Coyotes in the study area were responsible for 13 fawn mortalities, followed by bobcat (9), unknown predator (5), abandonment (4), unknown agent (3), black bear (2), vehicle collision (2), wolf (2) and bald eagle (1).

Among adult and yearling female deer, coyote killed 6, followed by wolf (3), black bear (2), drowning (2), birthing complications (1), vehicle collision (1) and unknown predator (1).

Bear predation on Elk in Idaho
http://www.wildlifemanagementinstitute.org/PDF/12-Elk%20and%20Predation....pdf

During 1973 to 1975, neonatal calf survival from birth to October 1 averaged 37.5 percent. Predation by black bears was the primary proximate cause of mortality (Table 3). In 1976, 75 black bears were removed from the study area. Calf survival increased to 67 percent, then approximated preremovallevels 2 years later. Calf-to-cow ratios (an index of recruitment) from aerial surveys showed a similar pattern (Schlegel 1986). Concurrently, the trend in calf-to-cow ratios was similar in surrounding GMUs, where the bear population was not reduced, compromising interpretation of these results (Schlegel 1986). Nevertheless, these data suggest that predation by black bears is additive and can be a significant factor limiting elk recruitment and population growth.

Wolf Impacts on Elk/Deer
I know we have some wolf lovers on the forum but they cannot refute the statistics provided by other western states and published in the WA Wolf Plan. Unless my memory is mistaken, the plan states that each wolf kills an average of 44 deer or 17 elk per year. Wolf impacts have not been felt in most areas of Washington yet because we have not reached our population objective. However, simple math and WDFW wolf plan statistics tell us that 15 breeding pairs which translates to roughly 150 wolves on the ground will consume 2550 elk or 6600 deer per year. That sounds like wolves might possibly fit in if hunters give up a few deer and elk from our annual harvest. However, Idaho's wolf plan called for 10 breeding pairs and they ended up with nearly 800 documented wolves. If Washington's wolf plan is as overly successful as Idaho then our 15 breeding pairs may translate into as many as 1200 wolves that will eat 20,400 elk or 52,800 deer per year.

What's In Store In The Future
I have provided the statistics on predation, they are facts not speculation. How WDFW continues to manage predators will determine the future of our herds. If WDFW continues to increase predator numbers, the increased cougar, bear, coyote, and wolf numbers are statistically bound to have an effect on hunting in Washington.

It doesn't matter how much summer range or winter range you have, if the animals are being eaten the summer range and winter range will not get fully utilized. Herds will decline regardless of how much blame biologists and the WDFW try to pin on every other factor. Perhaps some elk herds have increased in the last decade but deer are declining and when there are no deer the predators will be forced to eat elk so the elk numbers will decline if predator numbers continue to increase. 

Bearpaw:
There is another way to look at this, provided the theory is correct.

The season cutbacks, the opportunity reductions; the WDFW may not be managing wildlife so much as it is managing for predation under your scenario. If the agency truly is bent on increasing predator populations, then it would stand to reason that the agency would be managing for minimum harvest by hunters in order to reduce competition, for the benefit of all the predator populations (i.e. wolves, cougars, bears and coyotes), wouldn't it?

My license money isn't supposed to be paying for breakfast, lunch and dinner for cougars and wolves. it's supposed to be paying for GAME / wildlife preservation and enhancement, habitat improvement and access.

In 1949, then Game Director Don W. Clarke wrote in a message to sportsmen, published in that year's Sportsmen's Guide, "The Game Department's goal today is to produce the maximum amount of fish and game for sportsmen to harvest, and yet to insure the perpetuation of our wildlife resource for future generations."

He further noted, "Over 90,000 acres of game ranges and public hunting and fishing areas are managed by the department for the protection and promulgation of big game, upland birds, migratory waterfowl and game fish."

Clarke's philosophy, if you and others are correct, has been replaced by a more narrowly-focused campaign to turn Washington into a utopia for tree huggers and predator lovers, with hunters footing the grocery and access bill.


I speak for nobody but me, and I especially don't speak for anybody who thinks we need fewer hunters, fewer tags, shorter seasons and "less is the new more."

[RG]

Bearpaw, you bring up some interesting statistics.  It would be interesting to read the biography of the members of the game commission and administration at WDFW in the 1970's and compare it to now.  That would tell you where they stand on a lot of issues.  Another interesting stat would be to see what percent of the WDFW budget , (and Dept of Fisheries), came from hunting and fishing license and tag sales in the 1970's compared to now.  The people like Sen. Ranker, who have a management say in the priorities of WDFW, but who have no formal biological or wildlife-related training or formal experience in the field, will always put political interests first because that's the source of their position.  I hate to say people like that who become involved in managing such an important but complex resource often do so, not because they want what's best for that resource and are willing to take an unbiased position and listen to informed reason when making their decisions.  I hate to suggest it but I suspect some of them may even be grazing in the pockets of political interest groups.  Why else would they care to be a part of it?  My final point, because I have already said too much.....When it comes to wildlife management, let those who are the trained, experienced wildlife managers make the decisions. That makes way too much common sense and doesn't allow for special interests to manipulate our government and citizens like they do now.

[baldopepper]

I think you miss the point that to many of these "special interest groups" hunters are seen as a special interest group.  We, as hunters, have done a terrible job of banding together to actually become an influential special interest group. With the exception of a few organizations (RMEF, DU, NWTF) we really have, to my knowledge, no lobbying group that combats some of the better organized special interest groups.  The politics of today really dictate that the squeaky wheel (maybe it's the best paying wheel) gets the grease.  30 years ago PETA was no factor, the Sahara club only worried about whales, the Audubon society was a bunch of old ladies with binoculars and there weren't 1/10th of the various conservation groups there are now. (I can't remember any wolf discussions back in the 70's and eighties) Game departments across the west are bombarded with demands from every direction and the direction that comes with the most votes and most money is going to get the most attention.  Until we as hunters can band together and quit fighting amongst ourselves (heck, even on this forum even mildly controversial topics cant seem to be civily discussed) and form a formidable "special interest group" we are going to continue to get the short end of the stick.

[Dave Workman]

I think you miss the point that to many of these "special interest groups" hunters are seen as a special interest group.  We, as hunters, have done a terrible job of banding together to actually become an influential special interest group. With the exception of a few organizations (RMEF, DU, NWTF) we really have, to my knowledge, no lobbying group that combats some of the better organized special interest groups.  The politics of today really dictate that the squeaky wheel (maybe it's the best paying wheel) gets the grease.  30 years ago PETA was no factor, the Sahara club only worried about whales, the Audubon society was a bunch of old ladies with binoculars and there weren't 1/10th of the various conservation groups there are now. (I can't remember any wolf discussions back in the 70's and eighties) Game departments across the west are bombarded with demands from every direction and the direction that comes with the most votes and most money is going to get the most attention.  Until we as hunters can band together and quit fighting amongst ourselves (heck, even on this forum even mildly controversial topics cant seem to be civily discussed) and form a formidable "special interest group" we are going to continue to get the short end of the stick.

Thirty years ago, Tom Nelson, me and a handful of others launched the Sportsmen's Rights Coalition, and actually put more than 1,000 angry hunters and anglers on the capitol steps...twice.

But one thing about Resource Allocation: It divides hunter and pits user/interest groups against one another for a shrinking piece of the resource and opportunity pie.