Spike Only units?

[mossback91]

Well I'm all for the permit only any bull seasons rather than the spike only general seasons we have now, but just so you know, at least two other states use spike only management with their elk...Utah and Oregon.

+1

[mossback91]

Think about it every year in the Colockum 300 or so spikes are killed.  If those spikes were allowed to become branch bulls then that's three hundred branch bulls being produced a year.  Now subtract 10% natural mortality (30) and subract current Indian Harvest numbers (40 a year.  Ha wishfull thinking) then that's 230 spikes that live to become branch bulls.  That means you could give out 600 bull tags a YEAR between the three seasons.  Wouldn't that be nice.  This would also mean that all the other areas would also be able to see an increase in those same amount of numbers.  Currently they only give out like 30 branch bull tags a year in the Colockum.  That's a increase of 20 times more tags. 

300 or so spikes a year what is the real problem? I am back in town and it looks like I missed out big time and I see we now have some new members. I don't want this to turn into the same squabble as last week so I will just ask you about the Boldt decision and how you think that will play out with game, I don't see that Yakama tribal members are taking 300 a year off the reservation and the state is doing it in one unit just with spikes. What about the other tags?  What about the other units?
Use your imagination and insert elk or deer in the Boldt decision and it also defines in common with.


Of this, Judge Boldt wrote: "By dictionary definition and as intended and used in the Indian treaties and in this decision, 'in common with' means sharing equally the opportunity to take fish…therefore, non-treaty fishermen shall have the opportunity to take up to 50% of the harvestable number of fish…and treaty right fishermen shall have the opportunity to take up to the same percentage."

To me it has nothing to do about the numbers in your situation how you talk........

If we all are hunting the same piece of public land as us citizens then we all should follow the SAME rules being treated EQAULLY!!
no matter what religion race or belief...........

[Yak-NDN]

Very good and respectful responce.

[bobcat]

mossback, now that you quoted me regarding other states with spike only hunts, I realize there's one more I forgot to mention and that is Idaho. Not bringing that up because I like spike only management. I'd prefer permit only for any bull. Spike only really is a joke. They have it just so guys can go camp in the woods every year. If people want to go camp out in the woods with their buddies every year, why not go hunt something else, like cougars. You'd have just about as much success killing a cougar as you would a spike elk.

Of this, Judge Boldt wrote: "By dictionary definition and as intended and used in the Indian treaties and in this decision, 'in common with' means sharing equally the opportunity to take fish…therefore, non-treaty fishermen shall have the opportunity to take up to 50% of the harvestable number of fish…and treaty right fishermen shall have the opportunity to take up to the same percentage."

This 50% number I don't agree with. I know that's the way it is but I don't have to agree with it being the correct way to interpret the treaty. It should be that if the tribal members make up say, 5% of the total population of Washington state, then they get 5% of the fish (and game.)  Or 1%, or whatever that number is.

How's that sound?

[colockumelk]

Hey welcome back YAK-NDN.  How's it been? Missed ya. 

When I mentioned that 300 spike bulls were harvested last year in the Colockum it was so I could make a point that one of the big problems in the Colockum as far as why the bull to cow ratio is so low is because of very poor spike recruitment.  Therefore not many spikes are living to become branch bulls. 

The reason that the branch bull population has declines so rapidly since 2002 is because more branch bulls are killed every year by licensed hunters, poachers and Native-Hunters than you have spikes living to become mature bulls.  I would like to close many of the roads in that area.  This would solve about 75% of the problem.  As for the other 25%......

One way you can help the herd is to regulate how many branch bulls are taken every year.  Every year the WDFW gives out fewer and fewer branch bull tags to licensed hunters.  Last year they gave out six.  If you take average success rates this means that only 2 or 3 branch bulls were killed last year by licensed hunters.  Poachers you can not control.  The only method I know of is to restrict they're access by closing roads.  Which is one of my main focuses.  Law Enforcment and game wardens do their best.  Now the third variable is the amount of bulls taken by native-hunters.  What I would like to see and what many on this site would like to see is the tribes to step up and work with the WDFW and other biologists to determine just how many animals they can take in an area like the Colockum and still manage a quality herd and then putting a limit on the amount of animals it's members can take out of an area while still maintaining a quality herd.  Whatever that number may be would obviously be determined by surveys and studies done between the WDFW biologists and the Tribal biologists. 

I don't think that this would be too much to ask.  Especially since the WDFW biologists and the tribal biologists already work together to set limits for salmon and steelhead.  Why not do the same thing for big game? 

YAK-NDN and anyother tribal member on here do you think that this would be an achievable goal for ourselves, the WDFW and the various tribes to achieve and work towards?  Along with accountability and harvest reports would there be any interest in this happening?

Oh also part of the Boldt Decision was that while it did create equality in salmon harvests it also reserved the right of the state to control all harvests in the name of conservation.  So if someone could prove that the deer and elk herds in certain areas needed to have hunting restrictions such as permit only then it could control the hunting in those areas.  Which I would be okay with because if you have read some of my previous posts you would know that I am a huge advocate for permit only hunting for elk.  I think that in todays modern world with the large amount of hunters that is the only way to create quality elk hunting in eastern washington. 

[rezboy]

"YAK-NDN and anyother tribal member on here do you think that this would be an achievable goal for ourselves, the WDFW and the various tribes to achieve and work towards?"

I think this is an attainable goal.  Good post Colockum.   

[colockumelk]

That would be awsome.  All we ask is that everyone the WDFW, the tribes and the common person all do their equal share in trying to bring about quality hunting in this state.  Times are going to be bad enough in the next two years as it is, it would be nice to at least have some good hunting.