In a state without predator management...

[SuperX]

It's the timing that comes from herd bulls breeding that youre.missing which @DOUBLELUNG (who is uniquely qualified to comment on the subject) is pointing out

I didn't miss it, I just said the study points out that younger bulls always are a part of the breeding pool, even when mature bulls exist, and that by removing mature bulls from breeding did not decrease synchronicity or size or number of calves.  In short, the idea that this is because of mature bulls somehow bunching up the births is not supported by evidence including testing the parentage of calves showing they are not all bred by the same bulls to begin with.

So we could do away with antler restrictions without causing the herds cows to stop having synchronous birthing in the spring.

[huntnfmly]

I would think removing point restrictions would eventually lead to only the lesser bulls breeding therefore breeding out the better genes leading to inferior health in herds

[SuperX]

I would think removing point restrictions would eventually lead to only the lesser bulls breeding therefore breeding out the better genes leading to inferior health in herds

An inadvertent argument against targeting mature bulls?  J/K   I suspect the genes in the herd are not going to change because younger bulls without big antlers aren't sickly, they're just the young of the bigger bulls with all of their robust genetics.  We may find out some day that antler size is controlled by the cows like male pattern baldness is passed through the mother's line.

The best way to grow the herd is to stop hunting completely and control predators.   I'm thinking about how, without the ability to control predators, do we keep the opportunity to hunt alive for the people who want to.

[blackveltbowhunter]

With the current system

   I am not a big fan of APR but it does keep opportunity while also somewhat maintaining bull to cow ratio.

[KFhunter]

I haven't seen anywhere where the cow/bull ratio is such that cows aren't getting bred.
The argument seems to be timely breeding, can anyone show me where cows are even getting bred late?

[SuperX]

With the current system

   I am not a big fan of APR but it does keep opportunity while also somewhat maintaining bull to cow ratio.

Agree, and I am not against APR if warranted.  I'm more against permit only access to quality bulls.  Permit only is opportunity for the few and results in closed off GMUs to maintain the quality hunt experience.  If the whole state went 3pt or better and permits only to hunt spike or 2pt or cow (if needed to manage B:C or over population)I think the herds would get bigger.  I would expect average antler size to go down, but there would still be big bulls, they would just be harder to find and hunt, and they would be open for whoever can find them.  If local herds get threatened, close or reduce days to hunt these unit(s) should let them rebound in a coupe years.  I bet this would work for deer as well.

[KFhunter]

What I see with APR (especially deer) is a bunch of undersize bucks being left in the bushes to feed scavengers.

[bobcat]

For eastern Washington I'd like to see no general seasons and after a couple years of that, a large increase in permits, and the permit hunts would be for any bull.

[KFhunter]

I applaud the Colville's for doing something I cannot,  but GAAAAAWWDang!!! does it stick in my craw they're doing things in the national forest that I cannot only because I'm white....

I just can't get over it, pissing me off so bad.   I don't blame the Indians at all, but I'm freaking hating on Washington bad.

I didn't post this in wolves, can we stop with the racist BS?

There's nothing racist about my post so best put on your big girl panties and quit being such a snowflake. 
 
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/roadshow/fts/bismarck_200504A16.html

But despite the supposed political correctness of Native American, it has not become the preferred term. "The acceptance of Native American has not brought about the demise of Indian," according to the fourth edition of the American Heritage Book of English Usage, published in 2000. "Unlike Negro, which was quickly stigmatized once black became preferred, Indian never fell out of favor with a large segment of the American population."

Nor did the word Indian fall out of favor with the people it described. A 1995 Census Bureau survey that asked indigenous Americans their preferences for names (the last such survey done by the bureau) found that 49 percent preferred the term Indian, 37 percent Native American, and 3.6 percent "some other name." About 5 percent expressed no preference.

Moreover, a large number of Indians actually strongly object to the term Native American for political reasons. In his 1998 essay "I Am An American Indian, Not a Native American!", Russell Means, a Lakota activist and a founder of the American Indian Movement (AIM), stated unequivocally, "I abhor the term 'Native American.'" He continues:

So for your point of calling me a racist, you can go pound sand sir.


To your point about predators...hey! if you want to ignore the elephant in the room and squabble over left overs that's your business, but don't expect the rest of us to do so. 

You didn't specify which elk herd or which location in your question.   Each location has it's challenges and those challenges are quickly evolving.  If predators haven't supplanted people in reducing the elk herd you're thinking about, be rest assured they soon will!

Any discussion not talking about predator reduction is an exercise in futility. 

[Bowhunter3]

 

[HoofsandWings]

 In addition to desynchronizing calving, having breeding done by yearlings and raghorns can result in reduced survival post-rut of those smaller bulls.  When there are mature bulls in the herd, reproductive effort by young bulls is suppressed, and they go into fall and winter with higher fat reserves and better overwinter survival.

With the Yakima and Clockum herds spike only. I would think survival of young bulls would be important.

[SuperX]

I applaud the Colville's for doing something I cannot,  but GAAAAAWWDang!!! does it stick in my craw they're doing things in the national forest that I cannot only because I'm white....

I just can't get over it, pissing me off so bad.   I don't blame the Indians at all, but I'm freaking hating on Washington bad.

I didn't post this in wolves, can we stop with the racist BS?

There's nothing racist about my post so best put on your big girl panties and quit being such a snowflake. 
 
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/roadshow/fts/bismarck_200504A16.html

But despite the supposed political correctness of Native American, it has not become the preferred term. "The acceptance of Native American has not brought about the demise of Indian," according to the fourth edition of the American Heritage Book of English Usage, published in 2000. "Unlike Negro, which was quickly stigmatized once black became preferred, Indian never fell out of favor with a large segment of the American population."

Nor did the word Indian fall out of favor with the people it described. A 1995 Census Bureau survey that asked indigenous Americans their preferences for names (the last such survey done by the bureau) found that 49 percent preferred the term Indian, 37 percent Native American, and 3.6 percent "some other name." About 5 percent expressed no preference.

Moreover, a large number of Indians actually strongly object to the term Native American for political reasons. In his 1998 essay "I Am An American Indian, Not a Native American!", Russell Means, a Lakota activist and a founder of the American Indian Movement (AIM), stated unequivocally, "I abhor the term 'Native American.'" He continues:

So for your point of calling me a racist, you can go pound sand sir.


To your point about predators...hey! if you want to ignore the elephant in the room and squabble over left overs that's your business, but don't expect the rest of us to do so. 

You didn't specify which elk herd or which location in your question.   Each location has it's challenges and those challenges are quickly evolving.  If predators haven't supplanted people in reducing the elk herd you're thinking about, be rest assured they soon will!

Any discussion not talking about predator reduction is an exercise in futility.

This is a mixed bag post, so for the racist remark, you played the race card right in your first sentence.  I bolded the relevant part.   Not only is it racially based but it is not on topic... doesn't that at least violate one TOS? 

As for ignoring wolves, I am... Instead, I am thinking about what we can do for the herds without managing predators.  We can't count on the feds letting us hunt them any more than they did in the great lakes after they were delisted.  Since we are screwed if we don't do something, I was throwing it out as a possible way to help the herds grow and sustain under this un-planned for pressure.   As to each herd being different, yes, and we would continue to manage them by GMU and open the overpopulated areas up for cow harvest and longer seasons.  Some GMUs would need to close.  It's what other states have been doing forever.

As to my panties, you would probably be able to swim in them

[blackveltbowhunter]

 Superx What is your idea exactly? Perhaps my reading comp is not working up to par, I basically read the thread title and your OP as asking if we can continue managing herds for quality versus quantity with unchecked predator control. My short answer is yes. I would argue we have to. I hunt westside in Wa, but from what I observe the BM, Colockum, and Yakima herds are all under siege. All units have reduced cow harvest, and limited antlered take in areas with true spike. Other than closing general seasons completely I am not sure there is a solution better than the current one. If we went to general bull seasons, and no antlereless take IMO we would have many more uncovered cows. You need covered cows to grow a herd, protect the cows by limiting take by permit and weapon, and protect the breeding age bulls through the draw.

   Hoof rot gets blamed ALOT for the demise of the SouthWest Washington elk herds, Its a terrible thing. But IMO its a drop in the bucket compared to the late december and January slaughter fests that began around 08 when WDFW mismanaged the herd so poorly and caved to big timber at sportsmans expense. Thousands of permits to the tune of 50 plus percent success rate, and your future along with that; it is going to wreak havoc. Its a scalpel and cuts may have been warranted, but instead of a one or two year plan they ran with it for the better part of a decade.

[KFhunter]

I didn't see anything racist with my post and there certainly wasn't any racist intent with it; but I don't believe that was purpose of calling me a racist was it?
I think you simply wanted to shut down that particular line of conversation and didn't want this thread to be about wolves, so you called me racist and tried to shut it down.  You don't get to call me a racist and walk away unscathed.

My point is the Colville tribe is killing wolves off the reservation in national forest lands which is benefiting Elk, Deer and Moose.   It galls me that due to Washington ineptness I cannot do the same even though it's my woods too, just as much as it is theirs.

The feds have already delisted wolves, we could hunt them and the feds wouldn't care.  We could trap them and the feds wouldn't care.  They've turned over wolf management to the state.  The feds aren't holding us back, it's WDFW. 

They need to modify the wolf plan and delist everything east of the Cascades immediately and work hard on documenting everything west of the Cascades.



Wolves are replacing all human hunting if we take ourselves out of the equation by limiting hunting or closing GMU's then we'll never see those GMU's reopen without predator control. 

Look, Washington isn't reinventing the wheel here.  Other western states (ID, MT, WY) have already ran this cycle of wolf expansion, they've already dealt with collapsing herds and have built herds back up with wolf presence but they had to kill back a lot of wolves to do it.  They also have tools (hounds, trapping) that Washington doesn't have so that only exacerbates Washington's problems. 


simply put:
Any discussion that doesn't talk about predators is mute. 

[SuperX]

Superx What is your idea exactly? Perhaps my reading comp is not working up to par, I basically read the thread title and your OP as asking if we can continue managing herds for quality versus quantity with unchecked predator control. My short answer is yes. I would argue we have to. I hunt westside in Wa, but from what I observe the BM, Colockum, and Yakima herds are all under siege. All units have reduced cow harvest, and limited antlered take in areas with true spike. Other than closing general seasons completely I am not sure there is a solution better than the current one. If we went to general bull seasons, and no antlereless take IMO we would have many more uncovered cows. You need covered cows to grow a herd, protect the cows by limiting take by permit and weapon, and protect the breeding age bulls through the draw.

   Hoof rot gets blamed ALOT for the demise of the SouthWest Washington elk herds, Its a terrible thing. But IMO its a drop in the bucket compared to the late december and January slaughter fests that began around 08 when WDFW mismanaged the herd so poorly and caved to big timber at sportsmans expense. Thousands of permits to the tune of 50 plus percent success rate, and your future along with that; it is going to wreak havoc. Its a scalpel and cuts may have been warranted, but instead of a one or two year plan they ran with it for the better part of a decade.

The post is probably titled poorly, but my hope was that we could talk about only the growth side of the problem, since IMO the chance to manage big predators in any big way will take years or decades to happen.

I agree that the areas you mention on the east side are getting some of the same relief I suggest full time... I've always felt that if a cow is in heat, it will get bred by something, that is the QDM argument to control bull/buck gene pool, it can't be both ways, right?

The one thing I know for sure is that hunting opportunity will always be lower in a quality state than a quantity one.  I don't want to have to draw a regular season tag to hunt in my home state.