I don't know the exact head count for the night but I estimate around 30 citizens attended the meeting. Locals from Columbia and Garfield counties seemed to make up the majority of those in attendance. The management plan presentation lasted around thirty minutes. After Wik was finished with the presentation the floor was opened for questions.
The remainder of the night consisted of the citizens passionately stating their displeasure with the lack of predator control. Some of the citizens pointed out that the elk plan's population objective seems out of reach unless more focus is placed on reducing cougar population (as discussed in the plan, the Blue Mountain cougar population is the densest in the state). Bears and wolves were also discussed. Questions were raised regarding spring bear tags. A clever strategy for increasing the number of spring bear permits was also discussed during one person's question.
When asked why they were not personally doing more to control predator population and represent the interests of big game hunters and ungulate herds, the biologists responded to most of the questions with something along the lines of 'we want to see more cougars get killed but it is difficult to control predator populations because of the way the decision making process in WDFW is structured'. That is not an exact quote - just a generalization of their typical response. Another generalization: 'people with the polar opposite views of the folks in this room have just as large of voice as hunters in this state. It is our job to manage game based on the desires of ALL of our constituents.' Again that is not an exact quote. I'm going off of memory here
It was revealed that WDFW is going to conduct a bear population study in the blue mountains starting next year. Right now they have zero statistical data with which to justify increasing spring bear tag numbers. The study will take a few years to complete.
My personal takeaways from the meeting:
1. The biologists at the meeting got to see firsthand the passion that exists for the blue mountain elk herd. Even though the citizens were quite coarse at times, it was obvious that we value a large and healthy blue mountain elk herd much more than predator population. I hope the biologists carry that thought with them as they move forward and and that they push harder to adjust herds in a manner that reflects the desires of the citizens that utilize this resource.
2. In contrast to my previous point, I came to the realization that the biologists conducting this meeting are NOT the individuals that we will be able to rely on to adjust herd numbers in favor of ungulate populations. I think if they had different personalities an individual in their position might be able to push for the change that hunters desire. Over time, maybe with enough pressure, the biologists could potentially start to represent our desire to bolster our ungulate populations. Unfortunately I think the brunt of that burden will be placed on us as citizens and hunters.
3. As hunters we need to organize. We need a larger organized voice and presence with the commission. Our voice needs to be loud and persistent but not belligerent. This topic has been discussed in several threads over the past few years. I certainly have not done my part to contribute to this part of my life that I enjoy so much. I intend to become more active in an organization where I can make a difference to help sway the tide in our favor.
Please let me know your thoughts.
Thanks,
10heiau
