Yakama Nation Sheep Tags

[Rainier10]

Isn't this the 1st year it went to 2 tags? The state could expand to include the Asotin herd? Or open up other areas?

2016 was the year they changed it to two tags.  So the last two it has been two tags.  This year was going to be two tags until the Yakama introduced two more tags.

The auction tag is the wild card and and up until the world record was shot in Swakane most of the auction tags were filled in the Manson unit I believe.

Again I am not a sheep guy but trying to be.

Most of the auction tags weren't filled in Manson, but that's a mute point.

So where do you think they were harvested @MtnMuley ? The trend report says the auction/raffle tags were harvested in Swakane in 2002&2016, in Chelan Butte in 2015&2015 and in Manson in 2006,2010,2011,2012&2014.

Are you saying the report is wrong or people are false reporting where they harvest the sheep?

I’m not a sheep guy and just going off what the report says. If the report is wrong about that then I don’t know if we can trust any of the statistics in it.

Please help me understand your denial of where the sheep were taken.

[PlateauNDN]

The wolf issue is they are still federally protected in most of the areas of wa. Now if they weren't then sh.. would be different.

As far as Nez Perce and their ram management, I dont know, I'm not Nez Perce.

[Oh Mah]

thanks plat for your response.Yes relief for the cattle farmers in WA. is only a federal wolf delisting away.No matter what the states opinion is on it.

[tlbradford]

WOW,All the complaining about wdfw band the state experts they listen too through the years and then boom just like that the tribes do this then all of a sudden the experts that do so good for our hunting opportunities in this state are the shining experts and deserve this much praise.   

Does WDFW and their experts do what you want for conservation or not. If they are then quit complaining about them,and if not quit praising them on this. 

It isn't all about conservation.  They manage the herd for hunting opportunities, viewing opportunities, etc.  Tag limits are set accordingly.

The question was answered...the status report clearly acknowledges harvest is set conservatively to maintain non consumptive viewing opportunities.  WDFW was intentionally not maximizing sustainable harvest...so any inference that 3 tags was a max safe harvest level is incorrect.

Read your two sentences and try to find how they contradict one another.  If you need help I am here.

They don't.  Harvest levels were conservative, 3 tags is not the upper limit.  Pretty straightforward.

First sentence is about what the plan is and how tags are set.  Second is a different plan strictly based on harvest and invented by you.

[tlbradford]

WOW,All the complaining about wdfw band the state experts they listen too through the years and then boom just like that the tribes do this then all of a sudden the experts that do so good for our hunting opportunities in this state are the shining experts and deserve this much praise.   

Does WDFW and their experts do what you want for conservation or not. If they are then quit complaining about them,and if not quit praising them on this. 

It isn't all about conservation.  They manage the herd for hunting opportunities, viewing opportunities, etc.  Tag limits are set accordingly.

The question was answered...the status report clearly acknowledges harvest is set conservatively to maintain non consumptive viewing opportunities.  WDFW was intentionally not maximizing sustainable harvest...so any inference that 3 tags was a max safe harvest level is incorrect.

Read your two sentences and try to find how they contradict one another.  If you need help I am here.

hunting opportunities?you have got to be kidding.With all the complaining of lack if hunting opportunity in this state by a large percent of members on this site with this state you throw that out. WOW.

There aren't many states with this many OTC tags where you get to hunt every year.  We have often debated on this site, if the state should go to draw only to manage the number of hunters to make it a more enjoyable experience, and manage for more trophy animals.

[idahohuntr]

WOW,All the complaining about wdfw band the state experts they listen too through the years and then boom just like that the tribes do this then all of a sudden the experts that do so good for our hunting opportunities in this state are the shining experts and deserve this much praise.   

Does WDFW and their experts do what you want for conservation or not. If they are then quit complaining about them,and if not quit praising them on this. 

It isn't all about conservation.  They manage the herd for hunting opportunities, viewing opportunities, etc.  Tag limits are set accordingly.

The question was answered...the status report clearly acknowledges harvest is set conservatively to maintain non consumptive viewing opportunities.  WDFW was intentionally not maximizing sustainable harvest...so any inference that 3 tags was a max safe harvest level is incorrect.

Read your two sentences and try to find how they contradict one another.  If you need help I am here.

They don't.  Harvest levels were conservative, 3 tags is not the upper limit.  Pretty straightforward.

First sentence is about what the plan is and how tags are set.  Second is a different plan strictly based on harvest and invented by you.

Lookup the word conservative.  There is no contradiction.  Wdfw managed conservatively with 3 tags.  If the plan said bios had set maximum sustainable harvest at 3, then we could assume 5 tags might be too high.  That's not what the report says.  Words mean things. 

[tlbradford]

And why do you think they set conservative tag numbers?  Probably for unknowns that could happen, such as vehicle kills, predator kills, weather related kills? Conservative should be the norm.   Again, if they thought you could take 4 sheep, they would have issued more tags.

[NOCK NOCK]

A lot of talk about only 2 (more/extra) tags for this year.....what if that is the new norm? 2 extra kills this year shouldn’t put the herd in a nose dive, but, 5 a year is prolly to many I would guess.

[X-Force]

A lot of talk about only 2 (more/extra) tags for this year.....what if that is the new norm? 2 extra kills this year shouldn’t put the herd in a nose dive, but, 5 a year is prolly to many I would guess.

The herd is at the high end of its population objectives and the total number of harvests discussed are 4% if the total population.

[baker5150]

A lot of talk about only 2 (more/extra) tags for this year.....what if that is the new norm? 2 extra kills this year shouldn’t put the herd in a nose dive, but, 5 a year is prolly to many I would guess.

The herd is at the high end of its population objectives and the total number of harvests discussed are 4% if the total population.

Source please.

I have been unable to find data on what the bio's believe is the max objective and ratio.
I'd also like to know what the Tribe bio believes is the max objective and ratio.

[baker5150]

WOW,All the complaining about wdfw band the state experts they listen too through the years and then boom just like that the tribes do this then all of a sudden the experts that do so good for our hunting opportunities in this state are the shining experts and deserve this much praise.   

Does WDFW and their experts do what you want for conservation or not. If they are then quit complaining about them,and if not quit praising them on this. 

It isn't all about conservation.  They manage the herd for hunting opportunities, viewing opportunities, etc.  Tag limits are set accordingly.

The question was answered...the status report clearly acknowledges harvest is set conservatively to maintain non consumptive viewing opportunities.  WDFW was intentionally not maximizing sustainable harvest...so any inference that 3 tags was a max safe harvest level is incorrect.

Read your two sentences and try to find how they contradict one another.  If you need help I am here.

They don't.  Harvest levels were conservative, 3 tags is not the upper limit.  Pretty straightforward.

First sentence is about what the plan is and how tags are set.  Second is a different plan strictly based on harvest and invented by you.

Lookup the word conservative.  There is no contradiction.  Wdfw managed conservatively with 3 tags.  If the plan said bios had set maximum sustainable harvest at 3, then we could assume 5 tags might be too high.  That's not what the report says.  Words mean things. 

[baker5150]

WOW,All the complaining about wdfw band the state experts they listen too through the years and then boom just like that the tribes do this then all of a sudden the experts that do so good for our hunting opportunities in this state are the shining experts and deserve this much praise.   

Does WDFW and their experts do what you want for conservation or not. If they are then quit complaining about them,and if not quit praising them on this. 

It isn't all about conservation.  They manage the herd for hunting opportunities, viewing opportunities, etc.  Tag limits are set accordingly.

The question was answered...the status report clearly acknowledges harvest is set conservatively to maintain non consumptive viewing opportunities.  WDFW was intentionally not maximizing sustainable harvest...so any inference that 3 tags was a max safe harvest level is incorrect.

Read your two sentences and try to find how they contradict one another.  If you need help I am here.

They don't.  Harvest levels were conservative, 3 tags is not the upper limit.  Pretty straightforward.

First sentence is about what the plan is and how tags are set.  Second is a different plan strictly based on harvest and invented by you.

Lookup the word conservative.  There is no contradiction.  Wdfw managed conservatively with 3 tags.  If the plan said bios had set maximum sustainable harvest at 3, then we could assume 5 tags might be too high.  That's not what the report says.  Words mean things. 

It is your opinion that because they listed their quota as conservative, that 2 more tags is *censored* dory. 
That isn't from the State's mouth, it's from yours. 

I've emailed the state bio, if they approve, i'll post the response.

[idahohuntr]

You also need to account for the other data presented...150-160 sheep, 73 rams:100 ewes...59% of observed rams were 3/4 curl or better.  I know idaho keeps harvest at 20% or less on rams in any one population, so doing the math...Killing 5 rams is not a risk to the population.  Ewes, or any adult female in Ungulate populations, are the driver in population dynamics anyways.

Concerns with 5 rams being harvested are social/political...not biological.

[Tbar]

And why do you think they set conservative tag numbers?  Probably for unknowns that could happen, such as vehicle kills, predator kills, weather related kills? Conservative should be the norm.   Again, if they thought you could take 4 sheep, they would have issued more tags.

Seriously?  The conservative tag numbers are set for a couple reasons and it does not revolve around opportunities to the general pool of hunters.

[Tbar]

It baffles me how there is support for pimping wildlife and trending towards Utard but if a tribe wants to exercise their reserved right on the land it's catastrophic.