The goal is to end hunting for deer and elk

[Jake Dogfish]

I think its a great approach - increased game through habitat and predator management is good for all as long as hunting opportunities are managed positively .

It’s amazing how many just comment on the thread title.

[huntnphool]

I feel a lot better about the direction this particular meeting took than a lot of the meetings I've been at prior," said group member Andy Hover, who represents hunters on the group. He is also an Okanogan County commissioner and has a ranching background.

 I don't know Andy Hover but I'd like to know what he is saying while representing us as hunters.

[wolfbait]

And after hunting is ended, then what?  Take away something else....

Just another step towards a huge land grab, no hunting won't stop or even slow down wolf predation on livestock. Next will be no range permits and as we have already seen the USFS etc. have been closing road for quit some time now. Bring the grizzly bear in and that will shut down huge chunks of public access.

Welcome to the Y2Y implemented through predators, fish etc..


Massive Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y) Land Grab Will Hurt You

-----The Washington State Senate has just had introduced again a bill (SB 5064) that would create in Washington the Yellowstone to Yukon to Eco-Region.

A huge amount of Washington State is affected.

Urgent Action By You Is Required

-----The bill says:

"SB 5064 -- Participating in the management of Washington's portion of the Yukon to Yellowstone Rocky mountain ecosystem."

This bill was introduced in 2008 and much to everyone's surprise, passed the Washington State Senate. So you cannot take your Senator for granted. You must deluge your Washington State Senator with phone calls and e-mails. Faxes too.

Why you should oppose SB 5064:

You can get the direct phone number for your Washington State Senator or Representative by calling 1-800-562-6000

"Proponents of protecting the Y2Y corridor say they want to foster the coexistence of humans and the ecosystem and hope to see land-use decisions in the region based primarily on ecological principles."

Y2Y will do great damage to ranchers, miners, forestry, farmers, and all kinds of other users? It would strangle rural communities with new regulations. A vast series of new series of land regulations will be imposed to control land use jeopardizing private property rights and economic growth.

-----This massive Eco-System land grab affects large portions of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming.

If Y2Y passes into law in Washington, it will set the stage to pass it into law in the other states. People living in other states affected by Y2Y must get in touch with their legislators immediately and head Y2Y off.

Here is the Greens former website with a map of Y2Y so you can get an idea of how huge this proposal is.

www.y2y.net



Excerpt from Rep. Joel Kretz Press Release Feb 18, 2008


Kretz thinks bill to authorize Y2Y territory is harebrained.
Shaking his head in exasperation, Rep. Joel Kretz today said he's never seen such harebrained legislation in all his years.

Senate Bill 5318 would create the Yellowstone to Yukon wildlife corridor (Y2Y). The measure was the subject of debate in the Senate recently.

Kretz said Senate Bill 5318 (Now SB 5064), which would require American fish and wildlife officials to work with their Canadian counterparts to protect a massive wildlife corridor known as the Yukon to Yellowstone Eco-Region, has raised ire in his district. The 2,000-mile-long swath includes the entire northeast corner of Washington, most of Idaho and much of Montana.

"The plan to auction off the Seventh District to be part of the Yukon to Yellowstone wildlife corridor is pure idiocy!" exclaimed Kretz. "What would the reaction be if the Legislature created an urban Washington wildlife corridor to make sure that grizzlies and other dangerous wildlife could roam free from British Columbia to Olympia."

Kretz added that maybe then, they would leave the little coyote in Seattle and the opossums on the governor's lawn alone.

Kretz said he's convinced the governor's and Democrat's "One Washington" plan is solely about King County. He said the Y2Y bill, sponsored by a King County Democrat, is a prime example. The entire 7th District is included in the Y2Y plan, with Spokane being the "capital" of the region, he said.

The Nature Conservancy, working with several other environmental groups, was in Olympia this year asking for $5.5 million to purchase land in the Okanogan-Similkameen area of Okanogan County, which is one of two parts in the effort to turn the 7th District into one big wildlife corridor.

The funding, according to information presented to lawmakers, would "begin the work to secure an ecologically viable wildlife corridor, linking the North Cascades with the Okanogan Highlands and the Selkirk Mountains through conservation easements and acquisition. The letter continues, "the project will help secure 10,000 acres of this 80,000 [acre] corridor and provide long-term protection for threatened and endangered species - including wide ranging carnivores and 24 other species..."

If the wildlife corridor bill were to pass, Kretz said it would devastate his district.

"Property values would plummet and dangerous wildlife would be free to attack children, pets and livestock," explained Kretz. "Folks that own their land would basically be renting it from an out-of-town environmental group."


http://www.landrights.org/Alert_2009Feb08_Y2YGrab.htm

Look at the WDFW thirty year plan!




In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only.  s:  http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml


The Methow won't be affected by no hunting as there is not much left to hunt, we are on the other hand having more trouble with wolf predation on livestock.

[pianoman9701]

I think its a great approach - increased game through habitat and predator management is good for all as long as hunting opportunities are managed positively .

They're not going to improve predator management. They're unable to override the vote of the people and allow hounds and baiting for cougars and bears. We're not going to be able to hunt wolves and either are the ranchers, probably ever. To increase ungulate numbers, they'll have to decrease hunter opportunity. It's simple math. Improving habitat is only slightly effective, as actually increasing habitat is impossible with current human population expansion. But regardless, until wolves fear man, they'll continue to habituate themselves to what man offers - livestock, pets, garbage, and eventually, children and small adults. Livestock is far easier prey than wild animals. The DFW and our state government are living in a Dances with Wolves fantasy world where we all co-exist and dance around on the plains. I'm so disgusted.

I think its a great approach - increased game through habitat and predator management is good for all as long as hunting opportunities are managed positively .

It’s amazing how many just comment on the thread title.

I read the article completely. They're blowing smoke up our butts.

[Rainier10]

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.

[Jake Dogfish]

I think its a great approach - increased game through habitat and predator management is good for all as long as hunting opportunities are managed positively .

They're not going to improve predator management. They're unable to override the vote of the people and allow hounds and baiting for cougars and bears. We're not going to be able to hunt wolves and either are the ranchers, probably ever. To increase ungulate numbers, they'll have to decrease hunter opportunity. It's simple math. Improving habitat is only slightly effective, as actually increasing habitat is impossible with current human population expansion. But regardless, until wolves fear man, they'll continue to habituate themselves to what man offers - livestock, pets, garbage, and eventually, children and small adults. Livestock is far easier prey than wild animals. The DFW and our state government are living in a Dances with Wolves fantasy world where we all co-exist and dance around on the plains. I'm so disgusted.

I think its a great approach - increased game through habitat and predator management is good for all as long as hunting opportunities are managed positively .

It’s amazing how many just comment on the thread title.

I read the article completely. They're blowing smoke up our butts.

There have been several long threads on this site recently about how to manage deer and elk like other states.  Everyone has there own ideas but most complain there is too much “opportunity”(which wdfw manages for) and not enough deer.  Lots of discussion about moving to drawing only, more points on antlers etc. The problem is if the state manages game that way they get everyone complaining more. 
It’s anti hunting, the liberals, the environmentalists, there coming for your guns...   

[pianoman9701]

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.

[Rainier10]

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.

[pianoman9701]

I think its a great approach - increased game through habitat and predator management is good for all as long as hunting opportunities are managed positively .

They're not going to improve predator management. They're unable to override the vote of the people and allow hounds and baiting for cougars and bears. We're not going to be able to hunt wolves and either are the ranchers, probably ever. To increase ungulate numbers, they'll have to decrease hunter opportunity. It's simple math. Improving habitat is only slightly effective, as actually increasing habitat is impossible with current human population expansion. But regardless, until wolves fear man, they'll continue to habituate themselves to what man offers - livestock, pets, garbage, and eventually, children and small adults. Livestock is far easier prey than wild animals. The DFW and our state government are living in a Dances with Wolves fantasy world where we all co-exist and dance around on the plains. I'm so disgusted.

I think its a great approach - increased game through habitat and predator management is good for all as long as hunting opportunities are managed positively .

It’s amazing how many just comment on the thread title.

I read the article completely. They're blowing smoke up our butts.

There have been several long threads on this site recently about how to manage deer and elk like other states.  Everyone has there their own ideas but most complain there is too much “opportunity”(which wdfw manages for) and not enough deer.  Lots of discussion about moving to drawing only, more points on antlers etc. The problem is if the state manages game that way they get everyone complaining more. 
It’s anti hunting, the liberals, the environmentalists, there coming for your guns...   

You say "everyone...complains there is too much opportunity." I don't think everyone has been saying that. "Everyone complaining more..." and then off on some tangent which includes gun control, liberals, etc. It's like trying to hit an out-of-control drone with a slingshot. Try and focus.

Which other states should we emulate and how so? Do those states have the same restrictions we have on predator harvest (no hounds, 14% +/- 2% cougar harvest based on no real knowledge of cougar populations at all, few spring bear opportunities, no wolf harvest)? It sounds like you think that our ungulate populations are suffering and curtailing hunter opportunity is the best option. One ongoing problem in this state is the lack of actual data before management decisions and changes are made. It's like they have a big dartboard they use to set harvest numbers and seasons, especially to do with predators.

[Rainier10]

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.

[pianoman9701]

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.

I absolutely agree that predator numbers and influence on ungulate populations are grossly underestimated. I'm unsure how you think you can halt or even slow habitat destruction because it's mainly caused by development. You can't limit landowners on what they choose to do with their land unless we, as a state, buy it all up and keep it untouched in perpetuity. Some benefit is gained by habitat restoration and it is needed on an ongoing basis. However, without curtailing development AND the effects of out-of-control depredation on ungulates by cougars, bears and wolves, the opportunities from ungulate population rebounds are severely limited.

[pianoman9701]

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.

[Jake Dogfish]

I think its a great approach - increased game through habitat and predator management is good for all as long as hunting opportunities are managed positively .

They're not going to improve predator management. They're unable to override the vote of the people and allow hounds and baiting for cougars and bears. We're not going to be able to hunt wolves and either are the ranchers, probably ever. To increase ungulate numbers, they'll have to decrease hunter opportunity. It's simple math. Improving habitat is only slightly effective, as actually increasing habitat is impossible with current human population expansion. But regardless, until wolves fear man, they'll continue to habituate themselves to what man offers - livestock, pets, garbage, and eventually, children and small adults. Livestock is far easier prey than wild animals. The DFW and our state government are living in a Dances with Wolves fantasy world where we all co-exist and dance around on the plains. I'm so disgusted.

I think its a great approach - increased game through habitat and predator management is good for all as long as hunting opportunities are managed positively .

It’s amazing how many just comment on the thread title.

I read the article completely. They're blowing smoke up our butts.

There have been several long threads on this site recently about how to manage deer and elk like other states.  Everyone has there their own ideas but most complain there is too much “opportunity”(which wdfw manages for) and not enough deer.  Lots of discussion about moving to drawing only, more points on antlers etc. The problem is if the state manages game that way they get everyone complaining more. 
It’s anti hunting, the liberals, the environmentalists, there coming for your guns...   

You say "everyone...complains there is too much opportunity." I don't think everyone has been saying that. "Everyone complaining more..." and then off on some tangent which includes gun control, liberals, etc. It's like trying to hit an out-of-control drone with a slingshot. Try and focus.

Which other states should we emulate and how so? Do those states have the same restrictions we have on predator harvest (no hounds, 14% +/- 2% cougar harvest based on no real knowledge of cougar populations at all, few spring bear opportunities, no wolf harvest)? It sounds like you think that our ungulate populations are suffering and curtailing hunter opportunity is the best option. One ongoing problem in this state is the lack of actual data before management decisions and changes are made. It's like they have a big dartboard they use to set harvest numbers and seasons, especially to do with predators.

Wow! You misquoted me completely and blatantly, also edited the quote, commented on stuff I didn’t say, then went to “it sounds like your saying” (enter opposite information here). Then you comment that I should “ try and focus”. 
My point is that wdfw cannot win until the wolf plan is changed.  Some of the commissioners don’t want to open that “can of worms”.   It is necessary.

[pianoman9701]

Well, I can't help your inability to adequately express yourself. Sorry.

[bobcat]

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.