Sad trip to the NE.

[wolfbait]

WABONEHNTR,  A friend and I spent the winter of 2010 photographing wolf kills from Mazama to Black Canyon, it was sickening watching the slaughter of deer. I think that was the year that WDFW claimed two maybe three wolves in the Methow (lookout pack) the same year we got pictures of 5 different wolves in two weeks. I think Bone took a picture of a female with two, 1 year old pups.

Lets just hope WDFW don't go to predicting the weather this fall in the NE.

[idahohuntr]

Idaho has over 1,000 wolves, offers 190 bull moose tags in Units 1 and 2 alone, and most (*not all) of those units hover in the 80-90% harvest success range and have for a long time.  Some specific sub-units in unit 1 have seen some big declines. However, based on those numbers I really don't see 20 more tags as some panacea of doom in very nearby NE Wa. 

Not to mention, if you guys are making another one of those "moose will be gone in 2 years" predictions like we saw in a recent thread on this site, then why not let state hunters take them while there are some left?  I mean, if the wolves and the Yakamas are going to devastate the moose anyways...wouldn't you support us getting our share since they are going extinct?

You're right. Let's just kill them all. Forget about my ideas. 
I'm not making any "moose are going to be gone in 2 years" predictions.  It would be neat to maintain the quality Bulls and the great population we have here in Washington. These new proposals aren't going to help that. If you think WABONEHNTR is just some dude throwing some tinfoil hat conspiracy theory pictures out, well there's not much I can do about that. There's probably not too many people on this forum or in wdfw that know washington's moose better than him.

If you think wdfw is just making this stuff up about moose populations, bull:cow ratios, and evidence of density dependent regulation...well, there's not much I can do about that.  My point is the increase in tags is not going to cause some "destruction".  In fact, it's likely to help stabilize moose numbers.  Please also note that not all units in NE wa are equal...changes in tag numbers reflect that.

[jackelope]

Idaho has over 1,000 wolves, offers 190 bull moose tags in Units 1 and 2 alone, and most (*not all) of those units hover in the 80-90% harvest success range and have for a long time.  Some specific sub-units in unit 1 have seen some big declines. However, based on those numbers I really don't see 20 more tags as some panacea of doom in very nearby NE Wa. 

Not to mention, if you guys are making another one of those "moose will be gone in 2 years" predictions like we saw in a recent thread on this site, then why not let state hunters take them while there are some left?  I mean, if the wolves and the Yakamas are going to devastate the moose anyways...wouldn't you support us getting our share since they are going extinct?

You're right. Let's just kill them all. Forget about my ideas. 
I'm not making any "moose are going to be gone in 2 years" predictions.  It would be neat to maintain the quality Bulls and the great population we have here in Washington. These new proposals aren't going to help that. If you think WABONEHNTR is just some dude throwing some tinfoil hat conspiracy theory pictures out, well there's not much I can do about that. There's probably not too many people on this forum or in wdfw that know washington's moose better than him.

If you think wdfw is just making this stuff up about moose populations, bull:cow ratios, and evidence of density dependent regulation...well, there's not much I can do about that.  My point is the increase in tags is not going to cause some "destruction".  In fact, it's likely to help stabilize moose numbers.  Please also note that not all units in NE wa are equal...changes in tag numbers reflect that.

ok.

[CAMPMEAT]

Unsworth will come to the rescues...............

[M_ray]

Idaho has over 1,000 wolves, offers 190 bull moose tags in Units 1 and 2 alone, and most (*not all) of those units hover in the 80-90% harvest success range and have for a long time.  Some specific sub-units in unit 1 have seen some big declines. However, based on those numbers I really don't see 20 more tags as some panacea of doom in very nearby NE Wa. 

Not to mention, if you guys are making another one of those "moose will be gone in 2 years" predictions like we saw in a recent thread on this site, then why not let state hunters take them while there are some left?  I mean, if the wolves and the Yakamas are going to devastate the moose anyways...wouldn't you support us getting our share since they are going extinct?

You're right. Let's just kill them all. Forget about my ideas. 
I'm not making any "moose are going to be gone in 2 years" predictions.  It would be neat to maintain the quality Bulls and the great population we have here in Washington. These new proposals aren't going to help that. If you think WABONEHNTR is just some dude throwing some tinfoil hat conspiracy theory pictures out, well there's not much I can do about that. There's probably not too many people on this forum or in wdfw that know washington's moose better than him.

 

[KFhunter]

Idaho has over 1,000 wolves, offers 190 bull moose tags in Units 1 and 2 alone, and most (*not all) of those units hover in the 80-90% harvest success range and have for a long time.  Some specific sub-units in unit 1 have seen some big declines. However, based on those numbers I really don't see 20 more tags as some panacea of doom in very nearby NE Wa. 

Not to mention, if you guys are making another one of those "moose will be gone in 2 years" predictions like we saw in a recent thread on this site, then why not let state hunters take them while there are some left?  I mean, if the wolves and the Yakamas are going to devastate the moose anyways...wouldn't you support us getting our share since they are going extinct?

You're right. Let's just kill them all. Forget about my ideas. 
I'm not making any "moose are going to be gone in 2 years" predictions.  It would be neat to maintain the quality Bulls and the great population we have here in Washington. These new proposals aren't going to help that. If you think WABONEHNTR is just some dude throwing some tinfoil hat conspiracy theory pictures out, well there's not much I can do about that. There's probably not too many people on this forum or in wdfw that know washington's moose better than him.

If you think wdfw is just making this stuff up about moose populations, bull:cow ratios, and evidence of density dependent regulation...well, there's not much I can do about that.  My point is the increase in tags is not going to cause some "destruction".  In fact, it's likely to help stabilize moose numbers.  Please also note that not all units in NE wa are equal...changes in tag numbers reflect that.

Stabilize moose numbers?   

[KFhunter]

WABONEHNTR  - thanks for posting that.   

Don't worry about the detractors on here they'll try demonize and discredit you but most folks on HW know what the deal is.  Keep on posting it helps with awareness and that's what we need now.  Pressure and awareness.

[bearpaw]

Currently I support the changes WDFW is proposing.

Both of those moose areas are large areas that could probably support additional hunting by splitting the moose units as proposed. There are some moose that are not really being hunted since these areas are so large. Most moose hunters seem to concentrate in specific areas. I do hope WDFW keeps a close eye on areas that are being impacted by wolves, wolf impacts are occurring to an extent in localized areas in both of those units (smackout, meadow creek, hunters/springdale, etc).

Thanks for the post and photos WABONEHNTR, people need to know this is occurring in NE WA! 

[quadrafire]

I get into the 113 and 117 areas a fair amount. I followed a single set of wolf tracks 2 wks ago on NF in 117 . Areas I usually (always) see moose I haven't been lately. I see evidence of them being there, scat/tracks, but have not seen them. Timing on my part maybe or they have moved on or are no longer in the area. Was in 113 today for about 5 hrs mostly hiking, again a fair amt of droppings, but I usually see a few moose during these outings. I don't know what to make of it.

[WABONEHNTR]

I know we aren't all going to agree but to think the WDFW is always making/doing what's best for our wildlife is crazy to me.  Wolves are a problem in our state and I really don't see it ever changing.  I am pretty confident I have spent more time chasing around moose than anyone on this site and have watched the numbers decline.  If the tag increase was 7-10 years, no one would have complained one bit.  The population is so far down in these areas from back then that I just don't see how the tag increase can be justified.  Yes, there are pockets of moose here and there but that was NEVER the case. 

Has anyone ever wondered why the elk in the usk/cusick areas now hang out down in the farm land?  Must be because they are over populated?  No, they aren't safe in the mnts and they know that. 

Another question, why are we still collaring wolves in the NE?  Don't we have enough data after 5-7 years?  Wolves are all through the cascades and in western Washington. The wildlife in the NE can not handle 5-7-10 years of collaring while packs are formed in western wa, studied for years and years before anyone admits that they are really there. 
Why do I care about moose? Because it has really gone from nothing in the 80's and early 90's to undoubtably the best shiras moose population and quality in the US to nothing to brag about. 

[timberfaller]

I can remember not to long ago, there were NO moose tags for Washington, NOT even a season

THEY weren't "re-introduced" by WDFW,  Most came in from Idaho "naturally"

"Increase" when it comes to any government agency is BASED only on one reason,$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$    

[wolfbait]

I know we aren't all going to agree but to think the WDFW is always making/doing what's best for our wildlife is crazy to me.  Wolves are a problem in our state and I really don't see it ever changing.  I am pretty confident I have spent more time chasing around moose than anyone on this site and have watched the numbers decline.  If the tag increase was 7-10 years, no one would have complained one bit.  The population is so far down in these areas from back then that I just don't see how the tag increase can be justified.  Yes, there are pockets of moose here and there but that was NEVER the case. 

Has anyone ever wondered why the elk in the usk/cusick areas now hang out down in the farm land?  Must be because they are over populated?  No, they aren't safe in the mnts and they know that. 

Another question, why are we still collaring wolves in the NE?  Don't we have enough data after 5-7 years?  Wolves are all through the cascades and in western Washington. The wildlife in the NE can not handle 5-7-10 years of collaring while packs are formed in western wa, studied for years and years before anyone admits that they are really there. 
Why do I care about moose? Because it has really gone from nothing in the 80's and early 90's to undoubtably the best shiras moose population and quality in the US to nothing to brag about.

Well said!

WDFW refuse to acknowledge the impact that wolves and other predators are having on the game herds in WA, much the same as IDFG game did for years, promoting hunting instead of managing predators, WA won't hold up as long as Idaho did.

[idahohuntr]

Currently I support the changes WDFW is proposing.

Both of those moose areas are large areas that could probably support additional hunting by splitting the moose units as proposed. 

Tens of thousands of Washington hunters will never get a chance to hunt moose in this state ever in their lifetime.  WDFW is out actively gathering good moose population information so I have to believe the additional tags are warranted and I too support the modest increase.  20 more hunters will get the hunt of a lifetime this year and I think that is a good thing.   

[jasnt]

Currently I support the changes WDFW is proposing.

Both of those moose areas are large areas that could probably support additional hunting by splitting the moose units as proposed. 

Tens of thousands of Washington hunters will never get a chance to hunt moose in this state ever in their lifetime.  WDFW is out actively gathering good moose population information so I have to believe the additional tags are warranted and I too support the modest increase.  20 more hunters will get the hunt of a lifetime this year and I think that is a good thing.   

but at what cost for years to come? 

[Dan-o]

Currently I support the changes WDFW is proposing.

Both of those moose areas are large areas that could probably support additional hunting by splitting the moose units as proposed. 

Tens of thousands of Washington hunters will never get a chance to hunt moose in this state ever in their lifetime.  WDFW is out actively gathering good moose population information so I have to believe the additional tags are warranted and I too support the modest increase.  20 more hunters will get the hunt of a lifetime this year and I think that is a good thing.   

but at what cost for years to come?

We'll see soon enough.

But as long as success rates hover in the 90%+ range, how can you argue for fewer moose tags?