DEFINING THE BLUE MOUNTAINS ELK MANAGEMENT PROBLEM

[jackelope]

Got this from a friend in Garfield County, WA. He'd like to put this out there, in his words..."Let's make some noise."
Some of you know or know of Pat Fowler, the retired WDFW big game biologist from the Blues.
There is a committee made up of four County Commissioners and four citizen reps from the southeast that are meeting with WDFW staff to address these issues continuously.  Support from others that hunt the Blues would benefit all of us.   

SCIENCE VS. POLITICS IN ELK MANAGEMENT

DEFINING THE BLUE MOUNTAINS ELK MANAGEMENT PROBLEM

The first step is to acknowledge a problem exists. The second step is to identify the factor/s causing the problem before a solution can be developed.

Once the problem is identified, developing a solution is the next step. Developing a solution to the Blue Mountains elk population decline has two components. The first component is identifying the factor/s responsible for the elk population decline: predation. The second component is to determine the political factors that will prevent implementation of a predator management solution!

IDENTIFYING THE FACTORS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ELK POPULATION DECLINE

Research has already identified the factors causing low calf survival and recruitment in the Blue Mountains. Low calf/cow ratios have plagued the Blue Mountains elk herd for over 30 years. Calf/cow ratios have fluctuated from a high in the mid 30’s per 100 cows to the low teens. Extensive research in Oregon’s Blue Mountains showed high mountain lion (cougar) populations were inflicting significant mortality on calf elk. Oregon implemented a cougar control program and calf/cow ratios improved significantly. However, once Oregon ceased the control program, the cougar population rebounded and calf/cow ratios declined.

A couple moderately severe winters have added to the problem of low calf survival, but those winters have been few and far between over the last 30 years. Research has also confirmed that predation increases during severe winters.

The Blue Mountains ecoregion is inhabited by three apex predators: black bear, wolves, and cougar. Both black bear and cougar populations are at high densities, and the wolf population is increasing rapidly. Herein lies the problem with low calf/cow ratios and a declining elk population.

Predator/Prey research has determined the predation rates for both cougar and wolves, and how they select prey by age and sex. If cougar and wolf populations are known, that data allows biologists to estimate the number of elk killed by predators annually in the Blue Mountains, and predations overall impact on the elk population. The black bear has been identified as the primary predator on elk calves during the first six weeks of life, but cougar and wolves also focus predation on calves from birth into early winter. A triple impact on elk calf survival!

CALCULATING THE IMPACT OF COUGAR PREDATION ON THE CALF ELK POPULATION

Cougar population Blue Mountains: 2.88 – 3.15 ad. / 100 km² (R. Beausoleil)

Blue Mtns. Cougar Habitat: 3,759 km² (R. Beausoleil)

Predation on elk will be calculated using the low – high - mean of the adult cougar population estimate. Predation rate and selection calculations will be made using the ODFW Mt. Emily cougar/prey research.

LOW RANGE ESTIMATE OF CALF ELK LOST TO COUGAR PREDATION

2.88 ad. cougar/100 km² x 37.59 (3,759 km²/100 km² cougar habitat) = 108 ad. cougar

108 ad. cougar x 1.03 ung./wk = 111 ung./wk killed by cougar. 111 ung./wk x 52 wks = 5,772 ung./ year.

Prey selection by cougar was: Deer: 68.6% Elk: 31.4%

Elk Predation by cougar: .314 x 5,772 = 1,812 elk

75.3% of elk killed by cougar are calves according to the Mt. Emily study.

.753 x 1,812 = 1,364 elk calves lost to cougar predation.

HIGH RANGE ESTIMATE OF CALF ELK LOST TO COUGAR PREDATION

3.15 ad. cg./100 km² at 3,759 km² of Blue Mtns. habitat. 3.15 x 37.59 = 118 ad. cougar

118 ad. cg. X 1.03 ung./wk = 122 ung./wk. 122 ung./wk x 52 wks. = 6,344 ung. killed by cougar.

Elk predation by cougar: .314 x 6,344 = 1,992 elk .753 % ca. elk x 1,992 = 1,499 calf elk killed by cougar

MEAN LOSS OF CALF ELK TO COUGAR PREDATION (mean 3.02 ad.cg./100 km²)

3.02 ad. cg x 37.59 = 113 ad. cg. 113 x 1.03 ung/wk = 116 ung/wk 116 x 52 = 6,032 ung/yr

.314 x 6,032 = 1,894 elk killed by cougar. .753 X 1,894 = 1,426 calves lost to cougar predation.

THE RANGE OF CALF ELK LOSSES TO COUGAR PREDATION RANGE FROM A LOW OF 1,364 TO A HIGH OF 1,499 IN THE BLUE MOUNTAINS ACCORDING TO RESEARCH DATA. THE MEAN ESTIMATED LOSS WOULD BE 1,426 CALVES! THESE ARE CALVES LOST TO COUGAR PREDATION ONLY, NOT INCLUDING BLACK BEAR AND WOLF PREDATION, BOTH OF WHICH PREY HEAVILY ON ELK CALVES.

COUGAR PREDATION AND THE DEER POPULATOIN

Predation rate/selection data from Mt. Emily research would also strongly suggest the decline of mule populations in the mountains over the last 30 years is primarily due to cougar predation. As the cougar population increased, the deer population declined.

According to predation rate and selection data, deer make up 68.6% of the ungulate predation by cougar. If we calculate that out!

113 ad. cougar x 1.03 ung./wk. = 116 ung.wk 116 ung./wk x 52 wks = 6,032 ungulates killed

.686 x 6,032 ung/yr. = 4,137 deer killed by cougar in the Blue Mountains/ year; 49.7% fawns.

.497 x 4,137 deer = 2,056 fawns killed by cougar/ year in the Blue Mountains District. Considering most of the cougar population resides in the mountains and foothills, this is a significant number considering the declining deer population in the mountains, and this is only predation by cougar and does not include predation by wolves, black bear, and coyote.

Biologists also need to understand the relationship between prey selection and availability! As mountain deer populations declined, predators would need to put more pressure on elk in order to survive, thereby increasing the percentage of elk taken by predators, and the percentage of calves! So, the actual estimate of calves lost to predation may be low!

Wildlife managers tend to ignore a basic principle of wildlife management when it comes to predator populations; Carrying Capacity. Big game populations are managed under the basic principle of carrying capacity, which means ungulate (deer/elk/moose) populations must be managed at a level that does not exceed the food supply. If ungulate populations exceed carrying capacity, they destroy the habitat and the food supply! The same management principle applies to predators, but is seldom implemented by wildlife managers. If predator populations exceed the ability of the ungulate populations to support it, predators will destroy the ungulate populations, which has a negative impact on both predator and prey! A failure to manage both predator and prey populations within the carrying capacity of the food supply is negligent wildlife management.

POLITICAL FACTORS PREVENTING A SOLUTION TO PREDATOR MANAGEMENT

There are elements within the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife that will actively attempt to prevent implementation of a predator management program. These elements exist within the Predator (cougar/wolf/bear) Section, Diversity (nongame) Division, and some districts. An example of this is the predator sections resistance to increasing the cougar harvest quota. When stakeholders and managers have attempted to increase the cougar harvest quota, the predator section actively resisted, and one time the Governor got involved to prevent an increase in the cougar harvest quota. Anti-hunting groups have also been involved.

In a WDFW Wildlife Program meeting, a discussion about predator/prey relations resulted in a comment from the Chief Scientist (Dr. Pierce) in which he said, “deer and elk are just cougar and wolf food, and if there are no deer and elk left for hunters, so be it!” At another Wildlife Program meeting, Dr. Martorello asked a group of 39 WDFW wildlife biologists, “how many of you support predator hunting?” Only 3 biologists raised their hands in support of hunting predators. If managing predators is necessary to meet big game population objectives and provide a harvestable surplus for hunters, a majority of WDFW biologists would not support predator management to achieve those goals!

Elements within the WDFW and anti-hunting groups outside the agency make it extremely difficult “politically” for the agency to take proactive measures to manage predator populations at levels that maintain elk populations at management objective and provide a harvestable surplus for hunters. There are none so blind as those that refuse to see! Do you see the problem?

Maintaining a high level of calf survival and recruitment is imperative in order to maintain elk populations at objective and provide a harvestable surplus for hunters. As predator populations increase to high densities, the loss of calves and cow elk to predation increases, and the elk population declines, reducing the harvestable surplus available for hunters. If the elk population declines significantly over several years, the harvestable surplus of elk declines to the point there is no harvestable surplus available for hunters!

A solution to the political problem must be developed and implemented before predator/prey management plans can be integrated and executed.

Pat Fowler (wildlife biologist ret.)

[Rainier10]

1996 bear baiting and hound hunting for cougars banned.  25 years ago.  That is exactly why numbers are down from 30 years ago.

[ELKBURGER]

Any actual figures to put on the Wolf population and their impact? This data seems pretty straight forward by an extremely reputable source. Too bad WDFW will continue to turn their heads to any advice.

[trophyhunt]

Wow, Pat puts it all out there!!  Sounds like we are screwed to be honest, even if every person who cares showed up at the meetings and voiced their opinion, the heart of the matter wouldn’t change??? Too many on the inside are anti hunters already! Maybe the locals and once in a while visitors to the blues, can take action to help OUR elk herds! Go hunt and kill all predators! Except wolves of course, no tag available for them……..

[jackelope]

Here's the Mt Emily study that Pat referenced.

https://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/cougar/docs/Summary_of_Cougar_Research_in_Oregon_March2015.pdf

[trophyhunt]

I can see why Pat retired, it must crush him to see all his work go down the drain.

[Karl Blanchard]

Is there some sort of grounds for legal action against the state. Humans have been eating animals since the beginning of time. I am as much a predator on the landscape as any bear, cougar, or wolf. Ive got just as much of a right to the resource as they do

[trophyhunt]

Is there some sort of grounds for legal action against the state. Humans have been eating animals since the beginning of time. I am as much a predator on the landscape as any bear, cougar, or wolf. Ive got just as much of a right to the resource as they do

I agree but some on here don’t consider hunting a right! It’s a privilege !  But to me, it’s a God given right!  Great way to look at it though Karl

[idahohuntr]

Is there some sort of grounds for legal action against the state. Humans have been eating animals since the beginning of time. I am as much a predator on the landscape as any bear, cougar, or wolf. Ive got just as much of a right to the resource as they do

I agree but some on here don’t consider hunting a right! It’s a privilege !  But to me, it’s a God given right!  Great way to look at it though Karl

There is no legitimate path to a successful lawsuit on this issue. 

I believe the single most practical/beneficial thing which could be done would be a more concerted effort to harvest bears in the fall.  To heck with gathering for a meeting with bureaucrats...get a few buddies and make sure you kill a few bears before your other fall hunts.

Bear seasons, cougar quotas, and wolf hunts are not likely to change for the better...increasing effort within existing bear season framework is probably the best/only way to help. 

[Karl Blanchard]

Is there some sort of grounds for legal action against the state. Humans have been eating animals since the beginning of time. I am as much a predator on the landscape as any bear, cougar, or wolf. Ive got just as much of a right to the resource as they do

I agree but some on here don’t consider hunting a right! It’s a privilege !  But to me, it’s a God given right!  Great way to look at it though Karl

There is no legitimate path to a successful lawsuit on this issue. 

I believe the single most practical/beneficial thing which could be done would be a more concerted effort to harvest bears in the fall.  To heck with gathering for a meeting with bureaucrats...get a few buddies and make sure you kill a few bears before your other fall hunts.

Bear seasons, cougar quotas, and wolf hunts are not likely to change for the better...increasing effort within existing bear season framework is probably the best/only way to help.

its possible to do both. If there is intentional neglect by wdfw then legal action should be pursued.  Thats damn tough country till kill fall bears in. Everyone and their brothers could head out to hunt them and it wouldn't amount to anything. The fact that WA isn't statewide otc for spring bear, when we can realistically kill some of these calf eaters is just insulting.

[TC_outdoorsman]

I agree with all of this whole heartedly!

I have also heard there is another factor at play in the blues related to carrying capacity, "which means ungulate (deer/elk/moose) populations must be managed at a level that does not exceed the food supply". I have heard that the committee Pat mentions "made up of four County Commissioners and four citizen reps from the southeast" are a majority cattle ranchers or allies to cattle ranchers that ensure cattle grazing in the blues, which uses up the food supply and doesn't leave enough to allow elk and deer populations to thrive.

Anyone else heard this and is there merit to it? Is this another area where change could be made to allow the elk and deer populations to increase?

[GASoline71]

Back in the 80's when the "Washington Department of Fish and Game" became the "Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife" it has all been downhill from there.  Now ALL species of animals, including non-game species to insects and slugs are being "managed" by the department.

That allowed bunny huggers, bark eaters and rock lickers to mingle amongst the game and fish managers as "scientists and biologists".  Not saying WDFG had a stellar track record before the name change.  But I do believe that there were more Hunting and Fishing minded people within the ranks.  Now all the "advisory groups" are made up mostly of non-hunters and non-anglers. 

 

Gary

[idahohuntr]

Is there some sort of grounds for legal action against the state. Humans have been eating animals since the beginning of time. I am as much a predator on the landscape as any bear, cougar, or wolf. Ive got just as much of a right to the resource as they do

I agree but some on here don’t consider hunting a right! It’s a privilege !  But to me, it’s a God given right!  Great way to look at it though Karl

There is no legitimate path to a successful lawsuit on this issue. 

I believe the single most practical/beneficial thing which could be done would be a more concerted effort to harvest bears in the fall.  To heck with gathering for a meeting with bureaucrats...get a few buddies and make sure you kill a few bears before your other fall hunts.

Bear seasons, cougar quotas, and wolf hunts are not likely to change for the better...increasing effort within existing bear season framework is probably the best/only way to help.

its possible to do both. If there is intentional neglect by wdfw then legal action should be pursued.  Thats damn tough country till kill fall bears in. Everyone and their brothers could head out to hunt them and it wouldn't amount to anything. The fact that WA isn't statewide otc for spring bear, when we can realistically kill some of these calf eaters is just insulting.

I don't disagree...OTC spring bear would be a great step.  But maximum effort on fall bear is about the best thing I can think of given current framework and limitations.

I'm negative on the lawsuit stuff because I think its a distraction/waste of resources and is so unlikely to succeed and won't even have a positive indirect effect (i.e., shape up wdfw or we'll sue you for mismanaging the elk herd).  No doubt there is a mountain of neglect and incompetence at WDFW, but I don't see any of it rising to something where legal action can be taken.  States have broad powers and discretion, public employees are very insulated...getting standing in a suit...then getting injunctions or court orders to manage wildlife...just no path forward IMO 

[Rainier10]

Is there some sort of grounds for legal action against the state. Humans have been eating animals since the beginning of time. I am as much a predator on the landscape as any bear, cougar, or wolf. Ive got just as much of a right to the resource as they do

I agree but some on here don’t consider hunting a right! It’s a privilege !  But to me, it’s a God given right!  Great way to look at it though Karl

There is no legitimate path to a successful lawsuit on this issue. 

I believe the single most practical/beneficial thing which could be done would be a more concerted effort to harvest bears in the fall.  To heck with gathering for a meeting with bureaucrats...get a few buddies and make sure you kill a few bears before your other fall hunts.

Bear seasons, cougar quotas, and wolf hunts are not likely to change for the better...increasing effort within existing bear season framework is probably the best/only way to help.

  The fact that WA isn't statewide otc for spring bear, when we can realistically kill some of these calf eaters is just insulting.

[Stein]

Is there some sort of grounds for legal action against the state. Humans have been eating animals since the beginning of time. I am as much a predator on the landscape as any bear, cougar, or wolf. Ive got just as much of a right to the resource as they do

You would have to find something they did that was wrong according to the law and their mandate.  Unfortunately, the law doesn't require them to maintain or grow elk numbers.

The hound hunting stuff is now law.  They could easily argue that their mandate is to return to more "balanced" numbers and kinds of predators which would mean less elk.  They appropriate tags in accordance with the available resource.

Not saying I agree at all, just saying that the courts would look at it from a much different perspective than a hunter.  It's also the reason I quit playing, I can spend my money and time in a state that has goals and actions much better aligned with hunters.