Huge reduction of special permits

[kselkhunter]

The 2019 Elk Status Report hasn't been published yet, but here are snippets of the details from 2018 report for the Yakima herd.  I'm waiting to see what the 2019 survey results were.  The survey would have been done in February.

"
Population Surveys The Department estimates elk abundance in the Yakima herd area in spring by combining ground count data collected at established feed sites with estimates of elk abundance derived from areas adjacent to feed sites. We derive estimates of abundance and ratios in areas adjacent to feed sites by conducting helicopter surveys and using a sightability model developed for elk in Idaho to correct observed data for biases associated with effects of cover and group sizes (Unsworth et al. 1999). The Department does not conduct the aerial surveys when mild winter conditions fail to concentrate elk at lower elevations (2014, 2015, 2018). In February 2017, the Department estimated elk abundance within the survey area to be 8,326 elk (Figure 2), which is below objective.  The bull:cow ratio had been increasing in recent years (Figure 3). The increase was attributable to winter weather making bulls more visible, as well as decreasing cow numbers.  Estimates of post-hunt calf:cow ratios were relatively stable 2007–2016, but fell to a record low of 22 calves per 100 cows in 2017 (Figure 4).  Feedsites with elk, as well as some surrounding winter range was ground surveyed in February 2018.  A total of 3,908 elk were classified with resulting ratio estimates of 30 calves and 7 bulls per 100 cows. Based on harvest and recrutiment, the population likely declined during 2017-2018.  Low total calves in 2016 led to low spike harvest in 2017, as well as record low recruitment of spikes into the bull population. 
 
Management Concerns The Yakima elk herd had been at or above objective for much of the last decade and has been very productive. The surplus of elk allowed for significant recreational opportunity, including antlerless harvest. Recreational harvest, drought, and severe winter weather in 2015-2016 have reduced herd size and hunting opportunity.  The herd has historically rebounded quickly after poor recruitment years, but did not in 2017.  It will likely take some time to bring elk numbers back to objective.  This may mean reduced antlerless opportunity.  In 2018, all GMU’s will still be open to general season archery hunting, but the seasons will be shortened in an attempt to prevent overharvest.   There are often questions about the winter feeding program and if there are ways to get elk to move from feedsites to natural winter range.  WDFW owns or leases (from DNR) much of the available elk winter range.  One of the management issues with elk feeding is human disturbance.  Feedsites are closed to all access, but away from feedsites winter range is open to recreation throughout the winter.  WDFW lands were originally obtained for elk and deer winter range, but these areas have become very popular for recreation. Elk seek security from human disturbance and would likely concentrate on closed areas even if they were not fed. Closing access to winter range can be controversial. For the foreseeable future, a large portion of the Yakima elk herd will be fed when winter dictates the need.  The trend of managing lands for fire resilency may lead to more open stands with little security for elk.  This is expected to result in a change in elk distribution. When elk do enter high road density areas with minimal cover during hunting seasons, there may be increased harvest.  Managing for a specific harvest to meet population objectives could become more difficult. 

Management Conclusions The Department had been meeting its management objective of maintaining a population with 12– 20 bulls:100 cows in the post-hunt population and expects that to continue.  However, the overall number of bulls recruited into the population has declined as a result of poor calf recruitment in 2017 and an overall reduction in the number of cows in the population. As such, the Department may need to reduce opportunities to harvest bulls in the future to maintain bull:cow ratios that are within objective, in addition to reducing antlerless harvest to prevent further declines in the overall population.  Finally, the Rattlesnake Hills sub-herd remains above objective because hunting is not allowed on ALE or the adjacent federal Hanford Site, which limits the Department’s ability to manage this sub-herd. "

[bobcat]

The permit cuts probably came in as a request from the tribe and WDFW obliged. “Sure we can cut the numbers, any thing else?” “How about some keys to the gates so it’s easier to kill elk?”

 

That's spot on.

The state bends over backwards to make the Indians happy.

[Rainier10]

My guess and my hope is with such deep cuts the herd will rebound quickly and numbers can be adjusted back up.  One or two years of limited opportunity would massively increase numbers.

[sagerat]

My guess and my hope is with such deep cuts the herd will rebound quickly and numbers can be adjusted back up.  One or two years of limited opportunity would massively increase numbers.

Especially if the tribe joined us in actually giving a *censored* about it

[Rainier10]

If they rotated for two years and closed hunting in odd numbered GMU's and then even numbered GMU's just for that two year period I think you would see a jump in numbers.  Some will say there would be overcrowding in units and overharvest but I am thinking most would just take the year off hunting and those that switched units wouldn't have as much knowledge of the unit they switched to so harvest increase would be minimal.

Just my 

[greenhead_killer]

Or go permit only every other year in the gmus closer to otc seasons

[bigmacc]

Cutting tags doesn't result in lost revenue directly.  You pay your $13 and if you draw they mail you the tag, they get no extra money if the double the number of tags issued (talking quality deer/elk here).  It would only result in lost revenue if people stop applying, which doesn't seem to be the case at least through last year.  Thus, their revenue is tied ONLY to how many people apply, not how many draw. 

In fact, the number of people applying has increased while the tags have decreased.  Thus, they make more money while issuing less tags.  Hence, little to no pressure to do anything other than hope next year is better.

For Peaches last year, here is what happened compared to 2017

Tags were reduced from 104 to 58.
Applications increased from 1282 to 1692

That's just one unit, but I bet if you pull statewide numbers, applications do not track with numbers of permits available.  I bet they increase by an almost predictable amount every year.

I believe this is one major cause of the problem, there is no tie between their performance on managing the herd and the money they receive.  You can take it a step further and argue the increases in permit applications shows more and more people think it is working.

So, there is zero financial incentive to do anything as the revenue won't move one way or another.  On top of that, it's easy to delete a few e-mails from us while it is much harder to ignore lawsuits and calls from Olympia.

Add that all up and my theory is that nothing will change until we stop sending checks in.  I don't buy the argument their hands are tied.  Yes, there are treaties, disease, development, winters and stuff like that - just like they exist in other states that do a much better job.  Wyoming and Montana have tribes and wolves, yet they have a huge amount of elk and their tags haven't dropped up to 93% in the last several years.  In fact, they have more wolves, more grizzlies, far worse winter temperatures and they make it work.

For Montana, here are the tag numbers for my application (380):

2014 - 94
2015 - 98
2016 - 100
2017 - 110
2018 - 110
2019 - 135

While ours went down 93%, theirs went up 43%!

The difference is that hunters have a much larger voice in MT and they aren't under constant pressure from Helena to spend resources on pet projects or ignore science (at least to the same level and direction, pet projects always exist).  We see them suing, fighting lawsuits, and in general, doing what their mandate requires.

If we all send our money in faithfully every year, expect what is going on now and the trends to continue.  The plan is to do the same thing and expect different results.

Didnt you yourself say you were gonna dip out of WA because of the permit cutting and mismanagement? Is that not lost revenue?


MT is a different beast all together.  Larger state with far fewer residents so it supports more game.  Also NR license sales makes up something like 90%+ of their revenue.


To Alchases comment on predators I'll argue again that in my THOUSANDS of miles of boot travel in yakima county I see no more predators and or sign as I did 15 years ago so if there is more bear and cat around they must have gotten smarter and also only kill bulls now because cows are already back up to almost herd objective.

Thats a fair statement Karl as far as what you have seen as predators go over the last 15 years, BUT take it back another 15(pre banning of hound hunting and controlling predators) and pre WDFW for that matter, what you get then is a DRASTIC difference. As far as Yakima county goes I can only go by folks I know that have put on the same or more boot miles as yourself but have been doing it a bit longer and they DO see the difference. As far as other counties go that I CAN speak to, predator numbers have put a whacking on deer and elk numbers and I would bet that in another 15 years your view may change in your area. I really hope I am wrong, but as I see it, the lack of management of these predators are not going to do anything good for us as hunters going into the future, maybe it hasn't had a full-blown effect on a county near you that you can see(yet), but it has in many other areas of the state and the momentum or distribution doesn't seem to be slowing.....with all due respect

[Karl Blanchard]

Fair enough but I would argue that it's fairly irrelevant.  Its 2019 not 1975.  I in no way mean that as an insult or an "old timer" remark but management is never ending and always changing. Even at a 5 year low we still have a robust elk herd in yakima compared to what we had back when hounds were running around.  So if predators have exploded like some have said why havent elk populations continually plummeted? I wanna connect the dots more than anyone but the dots dont line up

[Alchase]

I should have quantified my predator comment with the locations I was seeing the dramatic increase. Up through the 90s it was rare to see a cougar tracks or kill while hunting either in the Methow for Muleys or in the Gifford Pinchot or Olympic Peninsula for elk.
My last Methow hunt I saw too many cougar kills to count. Wolf tracks and wolves themselves where all over the Bluebuck and Lightning creek area. I was paced by two wolves as I was hunting they kept their distance but they watched me for about 15 minutes from the ridge line. On the Olympic Peninsula I saw cougar tracks and scat everywhere.

In the campground on the East Chewuch, my wife and I found seven cougar kills in the campground and that was just a day trip.

[Jake T]

In the campground on the East Chewuch, my wife and I found seven cougar kills in the campground and that was just a day trip.

How do you know it was a cougar kill?  What is different about the kill that distinctly identifies it as cougar?  Honest question.

[KFhunter]

Not definitive but generally the carcass is lightly covered with sticks,twigs and leaves. Cats typically go in through the botton of the ribs and chew through bottom 3 ribs.

Bears cover carcass much heavier and eat a lot more in one setting and crap everwhere

Yotea dont cover the carcass and the hind quarters are chewed mangled carcass is scattered

Wolves make a mess and carcass is scattered all over

If yhe carcass has been scavanged by mutiple species and birds its much harder to tell unless you can find cat tracks and scrape marks from their cache

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[SuperX]

weird that deer would be so attracted to campgrounds that a cougar could kill so many deer in the same place.  they aren't spree killers so it couldn't be a case of finding a bunch of deer yarded up.  I wonder if it was poachers and the cats were just feeding on carcasses?  I've seen cat tracks all over a gut pile the morning after it was killed.

[JimmyHoffa]

I disagree.  I think cats, especially young toms, are spree killers.  I've seen the aftermath a few times on small farms with sheep, goats or llamas.  Cat came in and killed everything it could.  Would kill them in the corners of the pasture where they get stuck.  Kills one, runs to the next corner to kill the next.  The livestock would run to the next corner and as soon as the tom finished it ran to the next.

[funkster]

If the general season harvest rates don’t show a decline in elk harvested numbers, I don’t know what does. IMO, the special permits are just a trickle down. Someone is not managing our game properly. I don’t think it really has to do with predators, more so, miscalculating how many elk an area can sustain and issuing special permits based on those inaccurate figures

[Pegasus]

weird that deer would be so attracted to campgrounds that a cougar could kill so many deer in the same place.  they aren't spree killers so it couldn't be a case of finding a bunch of deer yarded up.  I wonder if it was poachers and the cats were just feeding on carcasses?  I've seen cat tracks all over a gut pile the morning after it was killed.

Cats are spree killers. The deer were probably pretty tame in the park making them easy pickings and were probably there to lick the human pee areas craving the minerals in our urine.