The goal is to end hunting for deer and elk

[wildweeds]

It trancendes it's way to the fish populations as well, if all you do is take a small sample and build a math equation it's a flawed awnser on the pie chart and bargraphs diagrams.

I assure you it is not a dartboard that they are using.

The problem is it is all a numbers game and I can juggle the harvest data numbers to say that the herds are in great shape and can handle an increase in hunting pressure and at the same time prove that the numbers show a decline in herd numbers to justify a decrease in hunting opportunity.

And the biggest problem is they are managing people and complaints from all sides.  Too many predators, not enough deer, too many two points, not enough mature deer, too many deer eating apples out of the orchards, not enough deer for the predators to eat.... and on and on.

And I can assure you that our DFW has not the foggiest idea of the real size of our cougar or wolf populations. And if harvest data is being "juggled", they may as well use a dartboard to set harvest goals.

[emac]

And I can assure you that our DFW has not the foggiest idea of the real size of our cougar or wolf populations. And if harvest data is being "juggled", they may as well use a dartboard to set harvest goals.

I don't believe they're as dumb as some may think. I think the WDFW has a very good idea of the actual cougar population. At least a relatively close estimate. But, for some reason they won't tell the public. Sounds crazy I know. But I have a hard time believing with all their college educated biologists that they don't at least realize that the official cougar population estimate is not even close. And that their cougar harvest quotas by GMU are a complete joke.

I disagree we had a meeting with two biologists in the Southeast corner of the state and both of them said they had no clue how many cougars are down here and that they haven't done a study or a count in a long time because there is no funding for that

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[bigmacc]

I assure you it is not a dartboard that they are using.

The problem is it is all a numbers game and I can juggle the harvest data numbers to say that the herds are in great shape and can handle an increase in hunting pressure and at the same time prove that the numbers show a decline in herd numbers to justify a decrease in hunting opportunity.

And the biggest problem is they are managing people and complaints from all sides.  Too many predators, not enough deer, too many two points, not enough mature deer, too many deer eating apples out of the orchards, not enough deer for the predators to eat.... and on and on.

I have said it over and over and it is coming home to roost, since the inception of the "WDFW" we as hunters became just another group that has an iron in the fire. I told friends years ago when the word "Game" was dropped from the dept. that it was the beginning of the end as far as the quality of hunting goes in this state, I remember a time when the health and numbers of some of our prize herds was the top priority to the Game Dept. in this state, putting forth a quality product(for a lack of better words) for the sportsmen and women of this state was job one, taking care of and growing our herds was how they sold tags and helped bring in money. Then the word "Game" was dropped and they morphed into a new dept. with new plans and new money coming in from other directions, some of which who are in direct conflict with our elk, deer and moose herds, along with many more irons that were put into the fire, the "hunting iron" has become a lot smaller and not as hot as the many other new irons that have been added to the fire and what we are seeing as far as predators and many other critters being  coddled and nurtured above our elk, deer and other big game is no surprise to me unfortunately....

[boneaddict]

 

[pianoman9701]

And I can assure you that our DFW has not the foggiest idea of the real size of our cougar or wolf populations. And if harvest data is being "juggled", they may as well use a dartboard to set harvest goals.

I don't believe they're as dumb as some may think. I think the WDFW has a very good idea of the actual cougar population. At least a relatively close estimate. But, for some reason they won't tell the public. Sounds crazy I know. But I have a hard time believing with all their college educated biologists that they don't at least realize that the official cougar population estimate is not even close. And that their cougar harvest quotas by GMU are a complete joke.

I don't think they're dumb. I'm sure many of them are a lot smarter than I. However, I don't think they're using anything that resembles accurate data when it comes to cougar and wolf numbers, and setting quotas for cougars.

[huntnphool]

 Been pointing it out since it was revealed, the wolf proposal and plan always did have hunting being reduced/eliminated, it was written in for everyone to read.....but few actually took it seriously.

https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,158010.msg2093401.html#msg2093401

 

"hunting seasons may necessarily need to be adjusted"

 Don't know why people are so shocked to see it beginning.

[huntnphool]

However, I don't think they're using anything that resembles accurate data when it comes to cougar and wolf numbers, and setting quotas for cougars.

 Hmmmm, similar to my take back at the intital proposal meetings.

https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,84720.msg1060531.html#msg1060531

[bigmacc]

And I can assure you that our DFW has not the foggiest idea of the real size of our cougar or wolf populations. And if harvest data is being "juggled", they may as well use a dartboard to set harvest goals.

I don't believe they're as dumb as some may think. I think the WDFW has a very good idea of the actual cougar population. At least a relatively close estimate. But, for some reason they won't tell the public. Sounds crazy I know. But I have a hard time believing with all their college educated biologists that they don't at least realize that the official cougar population estimate is not even close. And that their cougar harvest quotas by GMU are a complete joke.

I don't think they're dumb. I'm sure many of them are a lot smarter than I. However, I don't think they're using anything that resembles accurate data when it comes to cougar and wolf numbers, and setting quotas for cougars.

I think "accurate data" went out the window years ago, like I said, when the word "Game" was dropped and they morphed into the WDFW, they have so many special interest groups to cater to now I think a lot of "data" is thrown out there to opese and try to calm some of these groups. During all this many have lost faith in them because a lot of what they say is not being seen or experienced by some of the user groups that are out there with boots on the ground. Heck, back in the day the Game dept. gave forecasts and numbers for upcoming seasons also and I remember a lot of years being better than what they forecasted, I remember talking to a Game fella I knew about a season that was supposed to be bleak for a few years due to a rough winter and it along with the next few years were actually unchanged from the previous years, I asked him what happened , his honest response was something close to this - It was not easy to get an accurate projection last year because the deer were not in places they normally would be and it was tricky because of different variables that hit all at once, it doesn't happen often that we can't be pretty accurate as far as a projection but if we error we would rather have our hunters be pleasantly surprised rather than have them wondering what the hell we,re doing out here ha-ha. Pretty refreshing that the Dept. wanted the sportsman to be happy and we would be considered considered as A, "our hunters" and B, that they would rather have us be "pleasantly surprised than wondering what the hell they were doing" ....oh the good ole days when the "Game dept." wanted nothing more than to make sure we as hunters were successful and happy

[JimmyHoffa]

They have already increased predator hunting to the levels they want to see them reduced.  When dogs were allowed there was a cougar permit quota, you had to get drawn to hunt cougars with dogs.  When hound hunting went away they lengthen the season and once the quota was met they closed the season.  Then they realized the quota was getting met before the first season closed so this year they shortened the season quota review date.

The only predator that there is no limit on is coyotes.  We can get more aggressive with cougar hunting but they will just close the season sooner.  We have to get them to adjust the quota if we want less cats.

As for bears there is no quota, just general seasons.  We can get more aggressive with bear hunting and push for more spring bear permits.  My guess is the reason they don't have more spring bear permits is they feel the bear harvest is right where they want it to be to maintain the population where they want it.

So if they want more ungulates there is two choices assuming they are happy with predator populations at current levels.  Restrict the harvest of ungulates by shortening seasons and reducing special permit seasons or improving the habitat.

Like PMan said you can't create more habitat, it is getting gobbled up by development.  You can however improve the land that is out there and that will increase ungulate populations.

Just to recap, we need to get them to adjust quotas for cougars, we need to get them to give out more spring bear permits and start improving the habitat that we do have left if we want to see increased ungulate numbers without a decrease in hunting opportunity.

Without a proper accounting of how many cougars are actually out there, management is hit and miss. If the study from ID is accurate, it's quite possible we have twice as many cougars as we think we do. They have no idea. With all the cougar/human interactions increasing steadily over the last 10 years, it seems evident that cougar populations are more than healthy.

After hunting with Bearpaw for cougars in Idaho with dogs last year I am confident that the estimates for cougars in this state are grossly underestimated.

The GMU or whatever they call it over there was the size of one of our GMU's.  Bearpaw took 4 or 5 cats out of there.  There were other houndsman in that same area that I am sure took cats and we were seeing more tracks.  My guess is 9-11 cats get taken in that area each year and the next year another 9-10 are taken.

I have a cabin in GMU 328 here in washington, it is lumped into a three GMU quota area 328,329,335 and they only allow 6-7 cats to be taken a year from those GMUS combined.  In Idaho that same area would have would allow up to 33 cats to be harvest without damaging the resource.

The point is I think we have way more predators than the WDFW thinks there are here and if we increased the quotas and seasons on predators I think it would help out the ungulates massively.

With that being said, if we are going to do that and increase ungulate numbers we have to improve the habitat and slow down the loss of critical habitat.

One thing to kind of note for blacktail and whitetail, is development seems to increase their numbers while many predators don't really move into those areas.  What is improved or gain in habitat for a few species is a loss for the others.  Take Ocean Shores for example, see deer wandering all over in much higher densities than anywhere nearby.  Go ten miles east and hardly a sign, but plenty of predator sign.

[HighlandLofts]

Wolves will decrease their livestock depredations when we start killing them while depredating on livestock. They needed to be delisted years ago and will fear man only when we give them a reason to do so.

They will still.be out there doing what they do best, eat any type of of animal.they catch alive.

[Humptulips]

Here is a tidbit I learned about that Cougar population estimate. It is based on so many per square mile but it does not include sub-adults and does not account for cougar in areas closed to hunting eg; Parks and Reservations.
Inclusion of those cats in the total could easily triple the population estimate.
 

[bearpaw]

They have already increased predator hunting to the levels they want to see them reduced.  When dogs were allowed there was a cougar permit quota, you had to get drawn to hunt cougars with dogs.  When hound hunting went away they lengthen the season and once the quota was met they closed the season.  Then they realized the quota was getting met before the first season closed so this year they shortened the season quota review date.

The only predator that there is no limit on is coyotes.  We can get more aggressive with cougar hunting but they will just close the season sooner.  We have to get them to adjust the quota if we want less cats.

As for bears there is no quota, just general seasons.  We can get more aggressive with bear hunting and push for more spring bear permits.  My guess is the reason they don't have more spring bear permits is they feel the bear harvest is right where they want it to be to maintain the population where they want it.

So if they want more ungulates there is two choices assuming they are happy with predator populations at current levels.  Restrict the harvest of ungulates by shortening seasons and reducing special permit seasons or improving the habitat.

Like PMan said you can't create more habitat, it is getting gobbled up by development.  You can however improve the land that is out there and that will increase ungulate populations.

Just to recap, we need to get them to adjust quotas for cougars, we need to get them to give out more spring bear permits and start improving the habitat that we do have left if we want to see increased ungulate numbers without a decrease in hunting opportunity.

Without a proper accounting of how many cougars are actually out there, management is hit and miss. If the study from ID is accurate, it's quite possible we have twice as many cougars as we think we do. They have no idea. With all the cougar/human interactions increasing steadily over the last 10 years, it seems evident that cougar populations are more than healthy.

After hunting with Bearpaw for cougars in Idaho with dogs last year I am confident that the estimates for cougars in this state are grossly underestimated.

The GMU or whatever they call it over there was the size of one of our GMU's.  Bearpaw took 4 or 5 cats out of there.  There were other houndsman in that same area that I am sure took cats and we were seeing more tracks.  My guess is 9-11 cats get taken in that area each year and the next year another 9-10 are taken.

I have a cabin in GMU 328 here in washington, it is lumped into a three GMU quota area 328,329,335 and they only allow 6-7 cats to be taken a year from those GMUS combined.  In Idaho that same area would have would allow up to 33 cats to be harvest without damaging the resource.

The point is I think we have way more predators than the WDFW thinks there are here and if we increased the quotas and seasons on predators I think it would help out the ungulates massively.

With that being said, if we are going to do that and increase ungulate numbers we have to improve the habitat and slow down the loss of critical habitat.

Historically 20 to 40 cats are taken every year in that one unit. Idaho F&G recently doubled my outfitter cougar quota starting this season. They want more cats, bears, and wolves killed so ungulates can recover!

[Special T]

I assure you it is not a dartboard that they are using.

The problem is it is all a numbers game and I can juggle the harvest data numbers to say that the herds are in great shape and can handle an increase in hunting pressure and at the same time prove that the numbers show a decline in herd numbers to justify a decrease in hunting opportunity.

And the biggest problem is they are managing people and complaints from all sides.  Too many predators, not enough deer, too many two points, not enough mature deer, too many deer eating apples out of the orchards, not enough deer for the predators to eat.... and on and on.

I have said it over and over and it is coming home to roost, since the inception of the "WDFW" we as hunters became just another group that has an iron in the fire. I told friends years ago when the word "Game" was dropped from the dept. that it was the beginning of the end as far as the quality of hunting goes in this state, I remember a time when the health and numbers of some of our prize herds was the top priority to the Game Dept. in this state, putting forth a quality product(for a lack of better words) for the sportsmen and women of this state was job one, taking care of and growing our herds was how they sold tags and helped bring in money. Then the word "Game" was dropped and they morphed into a new dept. with new plans and new money coming in from other directions, some of which who are in direct conflict with our elk, deer and moose herds, along with many more irons that were put into the fire, the "hunting iron" has become a lot smaller and not as hot as the many other new irons that have been added to the fire and what we are seeing as far as predators and many other critters being  coddled and nurtured above our elk, deer and other big game is no surprise to me unfortunately....

How many different directions do you think they are pulled now? I think thier funds come from about 5 different direction making a core priority a huge problem.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[bearpaw]

This used to be one of my favorite moose hunting areas in Washington! Look Close & Notice, there is still one moose alive in a sea of canines!

[bearpaw]

The snow in these photos is two days old, we followed the moose tracks, they caught that moose a mile or two later, it was nearly completely eaten in two days.