Should we let the wildlife starve

[bow4elk]

I'm sure you've all heard about the three puppy mills that were recently busted.  Now there are hundreds of pregnant dogs to the tune of 1,500 total animals.  It's all over the news.  The public is throwing money at saving these animals left and right.  At some point, I'm sure there will be state funds secretly distributed to make it all better for the dogs.  I love dogs but give me a break!  Hold the breeders accountable, save as many dogs as possible and place them in homes.  Some should probably be put to sleep based on the sores and overall bad health they are suffereing from.  This is the public heart string that gets yanked on the evening news that will generate tons of money.

That's all fine and good but why do we have to turn the same behavior - taking care of Washington Wildlife - into a government cluster phuck!  Just do what's right for God's sake!! 

[FrankDown]

If critters are starving in normal years, we need to shoot more of them.

This seems to be more along the lines of management.    I dont want to see animals starving, but the state of Washington appears to have a hidden agenda with its wildlife.  Perhaps the people at HSUS or other eco group has infiltrated it and wishes to end hunting altogether.

[bow4elk]

Most wildlife managment programs at some of the best schools are starting to teach that hunting is not necessary in modern wildlife management.  You can bet that there are many more "green" or "eco" types infiltrating the state agencies.  It's only going to get worse over time.  Until there is a focus on science rather than emotion, it will be difficult issue.  Many people are OK with Mother Nature's methods as opposed to human involvement.  Shooting a healthy animal that might not starve during the winter doesn't sit well.  Mother Nature naturally selects those to live and die.  People can stomach that because they don't have to SEE it in the back of some guys truck at Safeway, tongue hanging out with blue tarps and gas cans...

[DOUBLELUNG]

Most wildlife managment programs at some of the best schools are starting to teach that hunting is not necessary in modern wildlife management. 

I don't think that's true.  Some other types of programs (Environmental Philosophy, etc.), probably teach that.  I think it would be accurate to say that "Most wildlife managment programs at some of the best schools are starting to teach that some hunting is not necessary in modern wildlife management." 

I received my BS in wildlife management in 1988, and stay current with the field.  I can think of no wildlife management program that teaches that hunting is not necessary in modern wildlife management.  Where the division is, and it is a healthy debate, is what hunting is necessary, and what hunting is desired by hunters.  Hunting mature bucks and bulls on summer ranges, mountain goats, and backcountry black bears is not necessary; as an old school bio, I agree it is not necessary, but is highly desirable.  That's where a lot of disagreement arises.

A lot of people tolerate and approve of necessary hunting (crop protection, population control, reducing human-wildlife conflicts, reducing deer or elk for habitat benefits).  However, a lot of those same folks think recreational hunting, where it is not providing those benefits, but can be done without harming populations, is not desirable.  That's a reality.

Personally, I tell them to be careful what they advocate - most of what they like to do (hug trees, munch granola in the alpine areas, hike, sightsee, heliski, ride atvs, etc) - are also unneccessary for environmental health, and have some negative consequences.  Those of us who use our public lands for human enjoyment, should stick together against those who want to kick everyone out of public lands.

[runamuk]

I'm sure you've all heard about the three puppy mills that were recently busted.  Now there are hundreds of pregnant dogs to the tune of 1,500 total animals.  It's all over the news. 

gotta love how a couple hundred confiscated dogs turns into 1500....first thats crap numbers created by anti's....second I saw very few dogs that looked bad in that raid.....third the same people who want to take away your hunting also call  (all) breeders puppymills I don't like that term it just creates problems.....

They could put down some of the dogs and easily abort all pregnancies but...eeegads that would be sensible....animal rights isn't about sense    just like wildlife management it isn't about whats sensible and right... its about cash in the coffers and someones agenda   

[boneaddict]

u go girl!
(I thought those animals looked pretty healthy actually)

[FrankDown]

Personally, I tell them to be careful what they advocate - most of what they like to do (hug trees, munch granola in the alpine areas, hike, sightsee, heliski, ride atvs, etc) - are also unneccessary for environmental health, and have some negative consequences.  Those of us who use our public lands for human enjoyment, should stick together against those who want to kick everyone out of public lands.

When I lose my hunting rights Im gonna start on the hikers and tree huggers that took away my hunting.  Theres a lot of hikers that want hunters out of the woods.

[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. Helen's.

So it's OK if they starve to death because that's natures course, but if a wolf kills an elk everyone is up in arms.   

I never said it was OK for the animals to starve to death.

Wolves are a whole nother cup of tea, and its more like  , same with the St Helen's elk. They are starving because of People, and piss poor decisions. Kind of like our Economy. Wrong people making the wrong decisions  Wish I had answers for all the problems in this world. There is too many rights and too many wrongs.

[Huntbear]

I think WDFW does not care if the elk are starving.  If population control was the point, they would not have cut out over 1/2 the cow tags for the coming seasons.   

That said, I think we should be able to feed the elk when they need it.  Heck, they do it in Jackson Hole, and many other places.  In Jewel, Oregon they feed the elk just to keep them off the farm land....

Maybe, if we have anybody with any pull with the RMEF, they can help with this issue.? 

[bucklucky]

Here is a valid question, How many elk were around the St Helens area before it blew its top? Wasnt it open to general hunts?? My relatiives hunted up there in the 70s , never had the winter kill or the high elk numbers. Personally I think that they will die until there is the right number of elk that the forest can hold population wise. Elk numbers will go down, thats a fact . They wont all die, the strong will survive .It is a shame this does happen. I know alot of the feed stations were put up to keep the elk off of farm lands. I dunno. Just a thought.

[FrankDown]

Wouldnt it make more sense to remove some of those animals through hunting rather than to let them all starve or endur harder winters than necessary?

[bobcat]

They've been trying for the last couple years to reduce elk numbers in the St Helens herd. That's why they added some of those new permits like Mud Flow, Upper Smith Creek, and Mount Whittier, plus all the additional cow permits they added in Coweeman, Winston Creek, Toutle, etc. Now why they drastically reduced some of those cow permits for 2009, I don't understand. But they did at least begin to make an attempt to bring elk numbers down.

[bow4elk]

Wouldnt it make more sense to remove some of those animals through hunting rather than to let them all starve or endur harder winters than necessary?

Ah-ha, good old Common Sense.  No thanks, Liberals don't think that way.  (but, yes, you're correct!).

[dbllunger]

We could feed them for a fraction of the cost WDFW spent in 96 and do 10 times better.  It would require management from WDFW and that has not happened yet.  So, let them starve because they won't make it the next three years of the proposals happen.    No on the serious side.  I believe that they should be fed in minimal and very isolated cases to benefit the hunting opportunities.  Just to feed without better hunting opportunities is a waste of time, money, and wildlife.

[bucklucky]

Wouldnt it make more sense to remove some of those animals through hunting rather than to let them all starve or endur harder winters than necessary?

Thats been my thoughts for some time and have said that on one of the ST Helens Elk posts. And as Bobcat stated , I couodnt believe they want to cut tags around there.