Should Washington Move to a Draw Only Management for Yakima, Colockum, and Blues

[villajac29]

So much of this is assuming that herds are down and need help. I can't and won't speak to the blues but theres nothing wrong in Colockum and yakima short of poor counting and slight dip in numbers following an all time high of just a few years ago.

KF's article is very telling. Colockum and yakima populations haven't really changed in the last 30 years because that's what the land will support.  Despite the "explosion" of predators elk are still thriving. Weird.

I'm sorry to get back into discussion about this but from what I understand from talking to two biologists in the area who have been working in this field for 30+ years the elk are likely below objective. 2019 had a substantial late snow and counts were accurate enough to get an idea about overall population. Calf to Cow ratios are easy to get with feed sights because calves distribute more evenly within these populations. It's not just about overall populations. 800 animals below the "9000" objective line isn't much but it's enough to realize that at that number for whatever reason the elk aren't recruiting like when the total is at 10000+. If recruitment is low then harvest will be low.

Just like a bank account if you are taking more out than what goes in then you loose money. Very simple metaphor. Until the calf recruitment increases to 30+ we won't be able to harvest at a more liberal number.

I'd like to believe circumstantial evidence in you spending time in there but since your not the scientist doing surveys and data analysis which can sometimes be more insightful than actual surveys I'm incline to believe the people whose job its been for most of their lives.

counting a feed lot on a mild winter is what we like to call phoning it in. Just because a guy has been on the payroll for 30 years doesnt mean he is good at his job.  I spend a whole lot of time in the hills and they are missing a lot of animals. They just are.

We could spend our whole life in those hills and not be able to see everything... data analysis means that they are looking at more than just their survey data. I used to be skeptical like you but after two long discussions face to face with biologist's I'm incline to believe they know what they are doing.

For me 30 years is better resume than I spend a lot of time in the hills... sorry

[Karl Blanchard]

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never once said herds are over objective. In fact I said several times that we are in a slight dip. A slight dip from an unsustainable number of animals doesn't justify the knee jerk tag cuts.

Furthermore, try not to think that you are the only one who has talked to the region 3 boys. Some of us have been having these conversations LOOOONG before you even started hunting. Plenty of folks are very aware of how they conduct their counts. I'll say it for the 100th time, counting the feed lot on a dry winter is not accurate science and the tag allocations are garbage.

[Karl Blanchard]

Let's start with the easy stuff. Get better at counting. Restrict the application process. Give more tags. Then if it doesn't get better look at other options. Let's not put the cart in front of the horse.

[carlyoungs]

So much of this is assuming that herds are down and need help. I can't and won't speak to the blues but theres nothing wrong in Colockum and yakima short of poor counting and slight dip in numbers following an all time high of just a few years ago.

KF's article is very telling. Colockum and yakima populations haven't really changed in the last 30 years because that's what the land will support.  Despite the "explosion" of predators elk are still thriving. Weird.

I'm sorry to get back into discussion about this but from what I understand from talking to two biologists in the area who have been working in this field for 30+ years the elk are likely below objective. 2019 had a substantial late snow and counts were accurate enough to get an idea about overall population. Calf to Cow ratios are easy to get with feed sights because calves distribute more evenly within these populations. It's not just about overall populations. 800 animals below the "9000" objective line isn't much but it's enough to realize that at that number for whatever reason the elk aren't recruiting like when the total is at 10000+. If recruitment is low then harvest will be low.

Just like a bank account if you are taking more out than what goes in then you loose money. Very simple metaphor. Until the calf recruitment increases to 30+ we won't be able to harvest at a more liberal number.

I'd like to believe circumstantial evidence in you spending time in there but since your not the scientist doing surveys and data analysis which can sometimes be more insightful than actual surveys I'm incline to believe the people whose job its been for most of their lives.

counting a feed lot on a mild winter is what we like to call phoning it in. Just because a guy has been on the payroll for 30 years doesnt mean he is good at his job.  I spend a whole lot of time in the hills and they are missing a lot of animals. They just are.

We could spend our whole life in those hills and not be able to see everything... data analysis means that they are looking at more than just their survey data. I used to be skeptical like you but after two long discussions face to face with biologist's I'm incline to believe they know what they are doing.

For me 30 years is better resume than I spend a lot of time in the hills... sorry

I would normally agree with you on the last statement. Talk to the biologist in the methow area about how the deer populations is. He will tell you they are thriving and doing great. I use to hunt the methow 20 years ago up till a couple years ago. I can tell you for a fact the deer numbers are terrible. Anyone who has any history in the methow will tell you the biologist for the area are dead wrong in their "expert opinions "

[fishngamereaper]

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never once said herds are over objective. In fact I said several times that we are in a slight dip. A slight dip from an unsustainable number of animals doesn't justify the knee jerk tag cuts.

Furthermore, try not to think that you are the only one who has talked to the region 3 boys. Some of us have been having these conversations LOOOONG before you even started hunting. Plenty of folks are very aware of how they conduct their counts. I'll say it for the 100th time, counting the feed lot on a dry winter is not accurate science and the tag allocations are garbage.

 

[KFhunter]

Shoet term    you guys are talking the end of elk hunting. Itll take 20 years to get sustainable herds back. By then a large portion of WA elk hunters will be dead or too old to hunt. There will be almost no new recruitment in that time period. I'm all for shaking the tree but it has to make sense.

I wasn't advocating schorched earth otc any elk, that would be terrible.

It was just the only way I could think to get the tribe to thr negotiations table.

That and going roadless

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[predatorpro]

Why not open up hound hunting and trapping  and baiting so we can effectively manage predator populations.  Or maybe someone here can tell me about how predators dont affect deer and elk populations...just winging it here but maybe managing wildlife would be more effective than managing special permit applications...people failing to harvest animals because they failed to find them doesnt have anything to do with populations and shouldnt have anything to do with how we manage wildlife.

[B4noon]

 counting a feed lot on a mild winter is what we like to call phoning it in. Just because a guy has been on the payroll for 30 years doesnt mean he is good at his job.  I spend a whole lot of time in the hills and they are missing a lot of animals. They just are.
[/quote]


Spot on 30 plus years doesn’t make you good at your job being vested in it does and when they spend more time counting eagles and marking bumblebees in the colockum because it comes with outside funding sources elk managment takes a back seat and basing permit numbers on feed lot counts makes no sense especially the way the last few winters have gone not to mention way to much shoot from the hip and crazy adjustment in permit levels every year managment should be done looking at the long game not extreme swings wdfw needs a bio who solely manages ungulates in the Yakima valley and can spend the time to do so rather then continuing to spread themselves to thin chasing federal contracts on endangered species we will continue to see a downturn in all recreational opportunities as wdfw makes a shift in priorities from the hook and bullet club and they focus on the desire of the rest of the population

[idahohuntr]

Shoet term    you guys are talking the end of elk hunting. Itll take 20 years to get sustainable herds back. By then a large portion of WA elk hunters will be dead or too old to hunt. There will be almost no new recruitment in that time period. I'm all for shaking the tree but it has to make sense.

I wasn't advocating schorched earth otc any elk, that would be terrible.

It was just the only way I could think to get the tribe to thr negotiations table.

That and going roadless

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

You are not going to get the tribe to the negotiating table with such an ill informed idea...what you'll get is a trip to the court room where the United States steps in on behalf of Tribes and their treaty rights and next thing you know...we'll have a Boldt like decision for wildlife and the non tribal harvest of elk will be a fraction of what it is today.

[Karl Blanchard]

Shoet term    you guys are talking the end of elk hunting. Itll take 20 years to get sustainable herds back. By then a large portion of WA elk hunters will be dead or too old to hunt. There will be almost no new recruitment in that time period. I'm all for shaking the tree but it has to make sense.

I wasn't advocating schorched earth otc any elk, that would be terrible.

It was just the only way I could think to get the tribe to thr negotiations table.

That and going roadless

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

You are not going to get the tribe to the negotiating table with such an ill informed idea...what you'll get is a trip to the court room where the United States steps in on behalf of Tribes and their treaty rights and next thing you know...we'll have a Boldt like decision for wildlife and the non tribal harvest of elk will be a fraction of what it is today.

  the tribes would still be elk hunting and we would have no seasons at all. Jerky sales would still be on

[KFhunter]

Probably right..

roadless it is


or status quo, but most likely OTC hunts will end for elk..

IDH knows what I think about roadless areas, so I don't say that on a whim.  It might not be a perminant roadless area, could just be gates oct - april

[Limhangerslayer]

So much of this is assuming that herds are down and need help. I can't and won't speak to the blues but theres nothing wrong in Colockum and yakima short of poor counting and slight dip in numbers following an all time high of just a few years ago.

KF's article is very telling. Colockum and yakima populations haven't really changed in the last 30 years because that's what the land will support.  Despite the "explosion" of predators elk are still thriving. Weird.

I'm sorry to get back into discussion about this but from what I understand from talking to two biologists in the area who have been working in this field for 30+ years the elk are likely below objective. 2019 had a substantial late snow and counts were accurate enough to get an idea about overall population. Calf to Cow ratios are easy to get with feed sights because calves distribute more evenly within these populations. It's not just about overall populations. 800 animals below the "9000" objective line isn't much but it's enough to realize that at that number for whatever reason the elk aren't recruiting like when the total is at 10000+. If recruitment is low then harvest will be low.

Just like a bank account if you are taking more out than what goes in then you loose money. Very simple metaphor. Until the calf recruitment increases to 30+ we won't be able to harvest at a more liberal number.

I'd like to believe circumstantial evidence in you spending time in there but since your not the scientist doing surveys and data analysis which can sometimes be more insightful than actual surveys I'm incline to believe the people whose job its been for most of their lives.

counting a feed lot on a mild winter is what we like to call phoning it in. Just because a guy has been on the payroll for 30 years doesnt mean he is good at his job.  I spend a whole lot of time in the hills and they are missing a lot of animals. They just are.

We could spend our whole life in those hills and not be able to see everything... data analysis means that they are looking at more than just their survey data. I used to be skeptical like you but after two long discussions face to face with biologist's I'm incline to believe they know what they are doing.

For me 30 years is better resume than I spend a lot of time in the hills... sorry

all your talk about how the Bio Is Doing Such A great job figuring everything out on the count and your avatar is three big mature "Rocky Mountain bull elk" sheds in deep snow.  LMAO!  They aren't spending the money or time doing sound research.  If you can't see that, you might want to clean your glasses.  I listened to the podcast you were on.  You admitted the elk were doing great prior to 2016.  Then they were hit with the perfect storm of problems that did knock the herd down, but not to what the game department is claiming. 

[idahohuntr]

IDH knows what I think about roadless areas, so I don't say that on a whim. 

You enthusiastically support them and you've picked up a lifetime membership for BHA?    I jest 

I was talking to a bio from Colorado today regarding a deer tag I drew...just some prelim chit chat to help with scouting...guy says to me, "and you don't need to be one of those head to toe new gear guys that thinks deer are only found 10 miles from a combustion engine"  I thought maybe you'd moved to CO 

[Colville]

No one has addressed a simple point.  The state WANTS the yak herd at 10k max. Period. 

If you cant grow the herd to 15k, you cant really change much about harvest.  There's ZERO evidence that they will move the needle.  Go back and read the report i posted. The AG interests are heavy opposed to a higher herd count.  They eat the groceries all winter.  Anyone who is in the "lets reduce hunting and grow the herd for a few years" camp doesnt understand that you can't.

Where will,the new huntable bulls come from if the max herd is the same its been for 30 years???

[Special T]

I would also be all for opening up the units the Indians hunt for any elk in all seasons until they are gone. Hopefully it would open their eyes and get the Indians on board with some sort of a management plan and them rebuild the herds back up. It would suck short term but would be worth it long term.

It saddens me how many hunters are saying this... this is not management and conservation, it is throwing a temper tantrum. I spoke with a biologist today who has worked for the Yakamas and understands their harvest and the data surrounding it. According to him it is unlikely that out of 10,000 registered Yakamas (including babies, children and the elderly) that the hunting population which is even smaller harvests enough elk for it to become problematic.

We have to start looking big picture. If tribal members were over-harvesting to the point many of you saying they are the numbers wouldn't be stagnant they would be decreasing significantly each year. It just doesn't add up. Maybe just maybe if non-tribal hunters were less antagonistic towards something we can't change and started a conversation with tribal members and tried to connect with them to start to build a relationship maybe they would see the importance of reporting their harvest. It will be impossible to change anything if you are always so fervently opposed to tribes harvesting elk. It happened before the decline whether you were seeing it or not... it is sustainable. I just hope some people on here stop acting like children and being mindful enough to be patient and think through what really can be done to help things. And if its us that's sacrificing something that goes to show we really care about the wildlife not just "what I want".

Sorry for the soapbox but its hard listening to another person say we should just kill all the elk and start back where we were 100 years ago, makes me sick...

The Tribe has a long history of not trusting the department and  non Tribal members. If the tribal Bio has good data that could be shared it would help a lot. I also wouldn't be surprised that old grudges die hard.

More communication is necessary to overcome this issue and neither side seems overly interested.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk