The goal is to end hunting for deer and elk

[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.

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.

It's possible this is more the movement of the ungulates from high predation areas to areas where predators aren't comfortable. I believe we've seen this in WA where wolves are thick, the ungulates move down into town. Any NE residents want to comment on this?

[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.

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.

Is hunting allowed in Ocean Shores?  I have seen a ton of deer there and some real mashers.  I know if I lived there and had one walking through my yard the population would be down by one for sure.

[Tbar]

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.

Can you find any data to combat "their data"? It's tough to combat inaccuracy with an empty bag. "My friend said" or "it's not like it used to be" is all sportsman have.  We are also so fragmented it's not likely to change any tine soon.

[bearpaw]

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.

Can you find any data to combat "their data"? It's tough to combat inaccuracy with an empty bag. "My friend said" or "it's not like it used to be" is all sportsman have.  We are also so fragmented it's not likely to change any tine soon.

Some of the best data to combat WDFW would be historic harvest stats from previous years, I don't think you can find much online, and WDFW has probably deleted as much of it as possible! Kinda like having the fox guard the data in the hen house?

[idaho guy]

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.

It's possible this is more the movement of the ungulates from high predation areas to areas where predators aren't comfortable. I believe we've seen this in WA where wolves are thick, the ungulates move down into town. Any NE residents want to comment on this?

In Idaho first the deer then a lot of elk moved into town. I was able to get my elk right by town this year which I guess is nice but elk don't really belong there. I can guarantee you they did not come down because the habitat was so much better. Funny thing is the remote areas, with great habitat, that used to hold elk have very little now.They are trying to escape 24/7 pressure from wolves. I see well meaning hunters calling for reduced seasons and tags etc. Wanting to self regulate hunting harvest to help the herds. This is the plan of the pro wolf crowd. First step is to limit seasons and tags a little every year. Long term goal is to eliminate hunting as we know it. Idaho has gone ballistic on all predators to help the herds but I don't think its helping that much. Where I hunt we had WAY more lions and bears in the early 90s and WAY more elk and deer! I noticed the decrease in elk  when the wolves finally made it to the panhandle in large numbers. IDFG did a study and said lions are a major predator of elk in the panhandle but that does not make sense to me. The majority of the lion kills I find are deer and I cant get away from finding a lot more lion tracks years ago when we seemed to have more elk. Washington has a major lion problem but I think the main culprit is the wolf. In Idaho I know its when the wolves show up elk start disappearing. Back to the point and the article. How can they increase the deer and elk to make sure the wolf has enough to eat? The only answer is to limit hunting harvest. Liberals have confused the meaning of the second amendment to mean uncle Joe has the right to own a shotgun so he can shoot ducks! They should probably read it and then they will hopefully realize it has NOTHING to do with hunting. Here is what I think is their playbook- introduce and protect predators so there is no surplus game to hunt. The article said they need more deer and elk for the WOLVES to eat not more for hunters.  Once they eliminate hunting why should anyone own a gun?       

[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.

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.

It's possible this is more the movement of the ungulates from high predation areas to areas where predators aren't comfortable. I believe we've seen this in WA where wolves are thick, the ungulates move down into town. Any NE residents want to comment on this?

In Idaho first the deer then a lot of elk moved into town. I was able to get my elk right by town this year which I guess is nice but elk don't really belong there. I can guarantee you they did not come down because the habitat was so much better. Funny thing is the remote areas, with great habitat, that used to hold elk have very little now.They are trying to escape 24/7 pressure from wolves. I see well meaning hunters calling for reduced seasons and tags etc. Wanting to self regulate hunting harvest to help the herds. This is the plan of the pro wolf crowd. First step is to limit seasons and tags a little every year. Long term goal is to eliminate hunting as we know it. Idaho has gone ballistic on all predators to help the herds but I don't think its helping that much. Where I hunt we had WAY more lions and bears in the early 90s and WAY more elk and deer! I noticed the decrease in elk  when the wolves finally made it to the panhandle in large numbers. IDFG did a study and said lions are a major predator of elk in the panhandle but that does not make sense to me. The majority of the lion kills I find are deer and I cant get away from finding a lot more lion tracks years ago when we seemed to have more elk. Washington has a major lion problem but I think the main culprit is the wolf. In Idaho I know its when the wolves show up elk start disappearing. Back to the point and the article. How can they increase the deer and elk to make sure the wolf has enough to eat? The only answer is to limit hunting harvest. Liberals have confused the meaning of the second amendment to mean uncle Joe has the right to own a shotgun so he can shoot ducks! They should probably read it and then they will hopefully realize it has NOTHING to do with hunting. Here is what I think is their playbook- introduce and protect predators so there is no surplus game to hunt. The article said they need more deer and elk for the WOLVES to eat not more for hunters.  Once they eliminate hunting why should anyone own a gun?       

The best thing you can do in Idaho is join and support this organization. There are trappers out catching wolves because this org reimburses them for expenses, up to $1000 per wolf! Over half the wolves taken in Idaho are associated with reimbursement from this org. If you live in WA and plan to hunt Idaho, support this org, they are working for Idaho wildlife! Even Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation supports this org.

https://www.foundationforwildlifemanagement.org/

[KFhunter]

A few years back here on HW I said that wolves will drive elk out of traditional cover and people will see them more often in non-traditional areas, it'll appear like there's more elk than ever when in reality there's fewer Elk, just that the wolves are driving them out in the open more and they'll come into town. 

I got ridiculed by our resident HW pro-wolf advocacy group, but seems like I may have been right (again).

[bearpaw]

A few years back here on HW I said that wolves will drive elk out of traditional cover and people will see them more often in non-traditional areas, it'll appear like there's more elk than ever when in reality there's fewer Elk, just that the wolves are driving them out in the open more and they'll come into town. 

I got ridiculed by our resident HW pro-wolf advocacy group, but seems like I may have been right (again).

  The wolfers have pretty much backed off, too many of our predictions about wolves are proving true!

[KFhunter]

A few years back here on HW I said that wolves will drive elk out of traditional cover and people will see them more often in non-traditional areas, it'll appear like there's more elk than ever when in reality there's fewer Elk, just that the wolves are driving them out in the open more and they'll come into town. 

I got ridiculed by our resident HW pro-wolf advocacy group, but seems like I may have been right (again).

  The wolfers have pretty much backed off, too many of our predictions about wolves are proving true!

My favorite:

"wolves will make you a better hunter"

[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.

Can you find any data to combat "their data"? It's tough to combat inaccuracy with an empty bag. "My friend said" or "it's not like it used to be" is all sportsman have.  We are also so fragmented it's not likely to change any tine soon.

That's sort of an odd question. Population and harvest data only comes from the wildlife managers. But admittedly, they really don't know what the numbers are because they've done no real count, and the ID study from a few years ago indicates that previous estimates of cougars per square mile were grossly underestimated. I believe WA still estimates population and harvest quotas based on old information. I only know that the reports of human/cougar interactions have increased steadily. You can see it here in posts on cougar kills and sightings. And when you look at the harvest quotas for the different GMUs, they seem to be incredibly low. I've used as an example in the past, the harvest quotas for one of the largest GMUs in the SW corner, 560. The harvest guideline is 5-6 animals. That means in that whole unit, which covers 3 different counties, they believe only 35-42 cougars exist. I think they're way off just from the cougar sign I've seen in a very limited section of that unit and from the reports of other hunters, trail cam photos, etc.

[idaho guy]

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.

It's possible this is more the movement of the ungulates from high predation areas to areas where predators aren't comfortable. I believe we've seen this in WA where wolves are thick, the ungulates move down into town. Any NE residents want to comment on this?

In Idaho first the deer then a lot of elk moved into town. I was able to get my elk right by town this year which I guess is nice but elk don't really belong there. I can guarantee you they did not come down because the habitat was so much better. Funny thing is the remote areas, with great habitat, that used to hold elk have very little now.They are trying to escape 24/7 pressure from wolves. I see well meaning hunters calling for reduced seasons and tags etc. Wanting to self regulate hunting harvest to help the herds. This is the plan of the pro wolf crowd. First step is to limit seasons and tags a little every year. Long term goal is to eliminate hunting as we know it. Idaho has gone ballistic on all predators to help the herds but I don't think its helping that much. Where I hunt we had WAY more lions and bears in the early 90s and WAY more elk and deer! I noticed the decrease in elk  when the wolves finally made it to the panhandle in large numbers. IDFG did a study and said lions are a major predator of elk in the panhandle but that does not make sense to me. The majority of the lion kills I find are deer and I cant get away from finding a lot more lion tracks years ago when we seemed to have more elk. Washington has a major lion problem but I think the main culprit is the wolf. In Idaho I know its when the wolves show up elk start disappearing. Back to the point and the article. How can they increase the deer and elk to make sure the wolf has enough to eat? The only answer is to limit hunting harvest. Liberals have confused the meaning of the second amendment to mean uncle Joe has the right to own a shotgun so he can shoot ducks! They should probably read it and then they will hopefully realize it has NOTHING to do with hunting. Here is what I think is their playbook- introduce and protect predators so there is no surplus game to hunt. The article said they need more deer and elk for the WOLVES to eat not more for hunters.  Once they eliminate hunting why should anyone own a gun?       

The best thing you can do in Idaho is join and support this organization. There are trappers out catching wolves because this org reimburses them for expenses, up to $1000 per wolf! Over half the wolves taken in Idaho are associated with reimbursement from this org. If you live in WA and plan to hunt Idaho, support this org, they are working for Idaho wildlife! Even Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation supports this org.

https://www.foundationforwildlifemanagement.org/

  have a membership its a great organization-will be running a trap line for wolf as well

[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....

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

It could be 5, or 6 or even 10 or 20. The bottom line or the jist is, no matter the number and since the switch to the WDFW a lot of those other "irons in the fire" conflict with growing our ungulate herds and unlike it was when they were the Game Department our deer and elk herds have slipped down in the pecking order of priorities. Most if not all the Game Dept. folks my family knew up until the 80,s and into the 90,s (roughly) were all avid hunters and outdoorsman, yep most had schooling and degrees but when you would talk with them, the reason they pursued that line of work was their love of hunting, fishing and the outdoors and more times than not, it was given in that order. Well the old guard has and is slowly being replaced because of a new direction(I guess I,ll call it)that the WDFW is heading and I would bet good money that more and more of the "new guard" did NOT pursue this line of work because of their love of hunting, fishing and the outdoors and yes, in that order.....as always, just my opinion and my

[mfswallace]

A few years back here on HW I said that wolves will drive elk out of traditional cover and people will see them more often in non-traditional areas, it'll appear like there's more elk than ever when in reality there's fewer Elk, just that the wolves are driving them out in the open more and they'll come into town. 

I got ridiculed by our resident HW pro-wolf advocacy group, but seems like I may have been right (again).

  The wolfers have pretty much backed off, too many of our predictions about wolves are proving true!

My favorite:

"wolves will make you a better hunter"

Sounds like a newer lib biologist ?

[Goshawk]

The goal of ending hunting has been long known

Indeed.
Back in the 1990's I was on a mailing list by default since I frequently contributed to a bird watching group out of Seattle. When the Washington Bear-Baiting Act, Initiative 655 (1996) was presented many of the emails going back and forth spoke of this ban as the first step in bringing a predator so far up in numbers that there will be no human hunting needed as part of the natural balance, or even allowed. That was one of the long term goals even back then.
Goshawk

[KFhunter]

A few years back here on HW I said that wolves will drive elk out of traditional cover and people will see them more often in non-traditional areas, it'll appear like there's more elk than ever when in reality there's fewer Elk, just that the wolves are driving them out in the open more and they'll come into town. 

I got ridiculed by our resident HW pro-wolf advocacy group, but seems like I may have been right (again).

  The wolfers have pretty much backed off, too many of our predictions about wolves are proving true!

My favorite:

"wolves will make you a better hunter"

Sounds like a newer lib biologist ?

Let's go train a new bird dog, but first go kill 80% of your pigeons.  Less birds makes a better bird dog!  Right?