Should we let the wildlife starve

[bbarnes]

I am very concerned as a Washington Hunter, with about 55% of our states ELK heard reportedly starved to death in 2008 it seems as though the Department of Fish & Wildlife are not enhancing the life of our wildlife in Washington. 
Their mission is:
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) serves Washington's citizens by protecting, restoring and enhancing fish and wildlife and their habitats, while providing sustainable and wildlife-related recreational and commercial opportunities.

If you or I let our animals on our property starve to death we would be penalized, fined and possibly thrown in jail, yet these department officials are not held accountable for their actions.

We as hunters need to stand up and be heard about our concerns so we can continue to hunt in years to come.  We should demand answers for why these elk have been dying. Is it starvation, poisoning from the herbicides and pesticides or hoof rot?  The last time a study was done on the Mt. Saint Helen's Elk heard was 1983, the environment has significantly changed in the past 26 years. 

 
No other states starve wildlife like the state of Washington.  Other states realize this is a natural resource for income and should be well taken care of and managed. We must contact our legislators and demand changes.  You can also contact the interim Director of Fish and Wildlife at:
Mailing Address
600 Capitol Way N.
Olympia, WA 98501-1091

Phil Anderson
Interim Director

director@dfw.wa.gov

[boneaddict]

THere is a thing called natural process.  I know they tried really hard to help them last year.

[bucklucky]

The way I look at it there is a reason they are dying, can we fix it? Probably not. Can we make it worse in the long run? Probably

 Let nature take its course. Just like up St. Helens.

[telof latzi]

I recently read an article about white tail population that made the claim that the deer are overpopulated and causing harm to natural ecosystems, such as regeneration of forrests because they eat tree seedlings.  According to this article it's estimated that there were 23-34 million white tail in America before European settlers.  About 100 years ago the population had been hunted all the way down to 300,000-500,000.  With modern wild game laws it back up around 27 million.

Because of higher human populations the same amount of deer 500 years ago is too many today. (according to this way of thinking.  I'm not saying I agree)  So for elk herds to keep from starving we need more land for them and less for us. 

Other than that, we're doing what we can, and like boneaddict said, natural process.  For any species of animal when populations are too dense there's not enough resources to go around and somebody gets the short end of the stick.

[Skyvalhunter]

I don't have a problem with the state feeding starving animals. The way I figure it is if there is a big winter kill it takes an awfully long time for the population to come back. Now that there seems to be more hunters this sets the recovery time back more than say 10 or so yrs ago.

[ICEMAN]

Agree. I want more animals to hunt, anyway I we can get them....help them.... 

If it is all about the environment, and the winter carrying capacity, isnt encouraging winter browse, or summer watering areas, all of these man made efforts the same? Why would extreme winter conditions be such a bad thing. I dont think we are talking about trying to feed them every year, just the extreme years.

The problem with letting nature take its course, is that if we do that, (like the let it burn policy in yellowstone), it takes eons to recover, and in this case, reduced opportunities for hunters during the recovery.

[WAcoyotehunter]

If it is all about the environment, and the winter carrying capacity, isnt encouraging winter browse, or summer watering areas, all of these man made efforts the same? Why would extreme winter conditions be such a bad thing. I dont think we are talking about trying to feed them every year, just the extreme years.

Right on Iceman- spray weeds and encourage good browse species to enhance the winter grounds and have healthier animals going into the cold season.   Smart logging practices and fire can help the wildlife too. 

[runamuk]

If it is all about the environment, and the winter carrying capacity, isnt encouraging winter browse, or summer watering areas, all of these man made efforts the same? Why would extreme winter conditions be such a bad thing. I dont think we are talking about trying to feed them every year, just the extreme years.

Carrying capacity is not a stagnant thing it is ever changing. 
Its not just winter, summer has an effect as well.  Over simplified.....
A decent snow pack in a mild winter followed by a mild summer will leave habitat with a much higher carrying capacity, than a hard cold winter followed by a hot dry summer.

The short term options are

1 reduce population in bad years.
2 supplementary feed/water in bad years


Habitat improvement is the best idea but isn't an immediate solution, its going to take time and management which the state seems determined to not consider a priority.

Doing nothing wont work as human development is now a part of nature so we have to be involved in wildlife management if we want wildlife.

[rasbo]

I daho used to have  not sure now.But they have a winter feeding ground for mule deer,they know what the area will support.when the deer come down they count them,if there is to many,if you didnt fill a tag you could do a depredation hunt.between cattle and sheep grazing alot of the natural feed gets used up.I see just before and during rifle season in rimrock cattle feeding all around where I was.

[EastWaViking]

Nature has to be able to run it's course, you can't blame the Dept of Wildlife for everything, but if you really want the Wildlife Dept. to feed all of the animals, voice your opinion to our fine Gov. she is in charge of budgets.  I would rather see more money go to feeding wildlife than health care and education for illegals.   

[runamuk]

I actually don't blame wdfw they simply do what the bureaucracy dictates.  I blame a system of bureaucracy with its head firmly stuffed up its butt.

lets play a numbers game letting nature take its course....

We have an area with 10,000 elk
now if they suffer the 50% winter kill we have 5000 elk.  Of those lets just say 50% are reproductively active cows (probably a different percentage in reality but round number keep it simple)  so you now have 2500 cows.  Now if elk are anything like other species of domestic herbivores only 65% of those will go on to produce live births so we have 1625 calves born.  For *censored*s and giggles lets just say they all survive.

Now with zero losses to predation or hunting we now have 6625 elk.  Another high kill winter and you lose another 50%.  remember we issued zero tags and didn't account for predation old age etc...... how many bad winters will it take to get to zero population? 5 bad years and your down to 1245 (roughly) elk just playing with numbers.

Now go the other way where there are no winter losses no hunting etc...... by year 5 we have 40,836 (roughly)

I realize I am not factoring in the other parts played but both extremes are why if we don't manage wildlife it wont effectively manage itself. 
We humans are a predator and we utilize habitat so we are part of the equation. 

I also would rather spend money managing wildlife than paying for illegals, and welfare lifers, and politicians big fat paychecks for life.. and.. and... and.....

[elkangel]

[bgcolor=#FF1300]Well It finally happen, the WDFW is trying to stop private feeding of wildlife with the HB 1885 [/bgcolor]

It Looks like the WDFW want to keep starvation as part of their management plan.  Don't worry, we can still bait animals in to kill them we just can't feed them to help keep them alive.

Please contact the sponsors of the bill through the Washington Legislative Web sight and let them know how you feel.

 
HOUSE BILL 1885
_____________________________________________ javascript:void(0);
State of Washington 61st Legislature 2009 Regular Session


By Representatives Van De Wege, Blake from, Warnick, Takko, Ormsby, and Liias


 1 AN ACT Relating to feeding wildlife; amending RCW 77.15.160; adding
 2 a new section to chapter 77.15 RCW; creating a new section; and
 3 prescribing penalties.
 4 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
 5 NEW SECTION.  Sec. 1.  It is the intent of the legislature to
 6 protect wildlife from becoming habituated to humans and to protect the
 7 public against the serious health and safety risk posed by wildlife who
 8 are drawn into contact with humans and related infrastructure by
 9 individuals who intentionally feed wildlife.
10 NEW SECTION.  Sec. 2.  A new section is added to chapter 77.15 RCW
11 to read as follows:
12 (1) A person may not intentionally feed, attempt to feed, or
13 attract wildlife to land or a building.
14 (2)(a) If a fish and wildlife officer or an ex officio fish and
15 wildlife officer has probable cause to believe that the existence or
16 location of food, food waste, or another substance in, upon, or about
17 any land or building poses a risk to the safety of any person because
18 the food, food waste, or other substance is attracting or could attract
 1 wildlife to the land or building, the officer may issue a written
 2 warning requiring the person to contain, move, or remove the food, food
 3 waste, or other substance within two days.
 4 (b) If a person who is issued a written warning under (a) of this
 5 subsection fails to contain, move, or remove the food, food waste, or
 6 other substance as directed, a fish and wildlife officer or an ex
 7 officio fish and wildlife officer may issue an infraction, which must
 8 be cited and punished as provided under chapter 7.84 RCW.
 9 (c) If a person who is issued an infraction under (b) of this
10 subsection fails to contain, move, or remove the food, food waste, or
11 other substance as directed, or commits a new violation of this section
12 within twelve months of being issued an infraction under (b) of this
13 subsection, a fish and wildlife officer or an ex officio fish and
14 wildlife officer may issue another infraction, which must be cited and
15 punished as provided under chapter 7.84 RCW.
16 (3) This section does not apply to:
17 (a) A person who is engaging in hunting or trapping wildlife in
18 accordance with all other applicable provisions of this title or rules
19 of the commission or the director;
20 (b) A person who is engaging in a farming operation that is using
21 best management practices or other generally accepted farming
22 practices;
23 (c) Waste disposal facilities that are operating in accordance with
24 applicable federal, state, and municipal laws; and
25 (d) Zoos and lawfully operated wildlife refuges.
26 (4) The definitions in this subsection apply throughout this
27 section unless the context clearly requires otherwise.
28 (a) "Building" means a private domicile or home or public or
29 commercial building.
30 (b) "Wildlife" means bear, cougar, wolf, coyote, deer, elk, turkey,
31 raccoon, opossum, and skunk.
32 (c) "Food, food waste, or other substance" means human and pet
33 food, or other waste or garbage that could attract wildlife.
34 (d) "Feed, attempt to feed, or attract" means to provide, leave, or
35 place in, upon, or about any land or building, any food, food waste, or
36 other substance that attracts wildlife to that land, building, or
37 location.
HB 1885 p. 2
 1 Sec. 3.  RCW 77.15.160 and 2000 c 107 s 237 are each amended to
 2 read as follows:
 3 A person is guilty of an infraction, which shall be cited and
 4 punished as provided under chapter 7.84 RCW, if the person:
 5 (1) Fails to immediately record a catch of fish or shellfish on a
 6 catch record card required by RCW 77.32.430, or required by rule of the
 7 commission under this title; ((or))
 8 (2) Fishes for personal use using barbed hooks in violation of any
 9 rule; ((or))
10 (3) Intentionally feeds wildlife in violation of a written warning
11 or previous infraction issued under section 1 of this act; or
12 (4) Violates any other rule of the commission or director that is
13 designated by rule as an infraction.
--- END ---
p. 3 HB 1885

[FrankDown]

Unfortunately I cant see sustaining a wild artificially fed herd as part of a management system. The carrying capacity being overtaxed will naturally result in this happening whether or not people were in the equations anyway.

The real problem as I see it is loss of habitat, and feeding grounds.  Logging, or the lack thereof, has created more of a problem than the tree hugging hippies had foresight for.

Proper logging techniques and better replanting techniques should be looked at.

Private landowners who wish to provide winter graze by planting appropriate trees and shrubbery is another thing that could be done.  In the south people plant deer plots like you would in the spring for your family.  I ha vent heard of anyone doing that here.  Not sure how the elk are here though, just a thought.

I don't understand why they are saying not to feed them now.  Spread of disease possibly?  I can see getting acclimated to humans and to roadways etc as being a hazard to both people and the elk.

If you don't have elk, you don't have to manage them.  This is something I think the animal rights groups figured out with the introduction of wolves.  Starving out artificially high numbers of elk can cut hunting out of the equation, they don't care if its humane or not, its just not hunting.

[DOUBLELUNG]

Wild animals live short lives and die violent deaths - whether we participate or not.  If critters are starving in normal years, we need to shoot more of them.

[ICEMAN]

Again, I think we should be able to feed them. I consider the deer and elk populations more like a crop. We water and fertilize the foods we eat. We provide feed to farm animals and then slaughter them when they are at their prime.

Why could providing a bit of assistance at critical times be much different for deer and elk.  I say feed them if possible, on occasion. Many here suggest altering their winter areas to support them, this seems logical, but in the interim and on occasion when times are really tough, I say feed them.