Mountain Goats - Final Game Management Plan

[actionshooter]

I think they are just a little timid to open up the hunts again even if we weren't amidst the 3 year plan, seeing as the result of their study (both west and east biologists came and presented twice in classes of mine at UW... once halfway through the study and once at the end) was pretty clear that a few of the struggling populations were only in trouble because they had allowed too many permits. Must be difficult as an agency to recognise and admit that the decline of a population is expressly your fault.. that you overestimated the reproduction rate vs. natural and hunter kills and the populations declined significantly because of it. I think they will end up being on the conservative side of mtn. goat tags for a significant amount of time now.. not saying that its right.. just that it is what I forsee.

 At first glance I could see where this makes sense, but I think its an excuse. It has been stated several times in the past that the department doesn't have enough funding to do accurate population counts. I believe they have way underestimated the populations to begin with. Throughout Wa. we have the highest population in the lower 48 and the lowest amount tags.
 This is just my opinion but I think there are 2 reasons for this.
 1, they are being conservitive b/c they know the counts are innacurate.
 2, The WDFW takes into consideration the other user groups, if there are to many hikers in a given area, no tags.

 I have also wondered if they take into consideration how many goats the natives could possibly take and that would reduce the number of tags.   

[gasman]

 I have also wondered if they take into consideration how many goats the natives could possibly take and that would reduce the number of tags.   
[/quote]

 


Never heard of any leaving the truck to hunt let alone the roads.....

[shanevg]

I have also wondered if they take into consideration how many goats the natives could possibly take and that would reduce the number of tags.   

I think you hit the nail on the head right there.  Look at it this way, WDFW knows that there are multiple native tribes in the state that have their own Fish and Game department that sets their own tag numbers.  Those tribal F&G departments do not need to follow any rules set by WDFW unless there is an actual hunt closure.  In other words, if a herd is open for hunting by the WDFW, then tribes with their own F&G can dictate for themselves how many tags they can hand out to tribal members.  If a herd is closed, then the tribal F&G cannot give tags at all unless the goats are on their reservation. 

Therefore, WDFW knows that if they open up a herd of mountain goats to hunting, not only does it need to support the tag numbers offered by  WDFW, but an unknown amount of tribal hunters that are open to hunt them without any say by WDFW.  It leads to a management problem, if WDFW increases tag numbers and then more than expected tribal hunters kill a mountain goat, WDFW's whole management plan is out the window.  That leads to them being more conservative then they would otherwise have to be in tag numbers and in opening up more fragile herds.

[hirshey]

... but I think its an excuse.

... I have also wondered if they take into consideration how many goats the natives could possibly take and that would reduce the number of tags.   

There are so many variables in the mtn. goat tags they have to consider... yes, they are on the conservative side of estimating populations because their #1 tool for population counts is still point counts by fly-overs. Flight time = $$$ and they'll never get to see all the terrain, so of course the estimate will be low. Their end study did determine that no disease, famine, or natural predation had caused the significant decline in their population estimates, so their only other conclusion was overharvesting (stinks to be punished for being a legal, successful hunter, no?). It was a pretty big deal for them to assume the blame for setting the harvest too high, and a lot of wrists were probably slapped and are still sore. like I said... excuse or not, I think tag numbers will remain fairly low even after the 3 year plan. Debby downer present and accounted for! 

I never asked either biologist about the native harvest dynamics in their decision-making process... while I'm now graduated from UW I have a few friends that will probably have some lectures with these folks again soon... maybe I'll have them ask.

[shanevg]

Well I'll tell you what hirshey, the goat numbers in the Mt. Baker area are higher than they have been in 15 or more years, there is no doubt about that.  Also, there are more politics then just recent goat declines involved here. 

I spoke to a local member of SCI who helped raise money to fund flyovers of the Mt. Baker units to re-open goat hunting in the area in recent years.  Apparently, WDFW has flown over the old Unit 4-1 (Ruth Creek) and counted well over 200 goats, but they still refuse to add any tags there.  SCI apparently refused to continue funding flyovers if WDFW biologists were going to disregard goat tag numbers. 

Just to give you another example browse through this (http://wdfw.wa.gov/science/articles/mtn_goats/mtn_goat_prog_rpt.pdf) research paper written in 2003 about the Mt. Baker mountain goat herds.  Despite knowing the number of mountain goats in the area, WDFW still claimed that goat numbers were too low to sustain goat harvest until the 2007 hunting season.  I was going out during that time and seeing 100+ head a trip and being laughed at by forest service and WDFW employees when I reported it. 

Now, coming back to the original topic on this thread, WDFW is admitting that the Methow herd is not only healthy, but increasing in population, yet they will not even give us a tag there anymore.  I really don't get it.

[hirshey]

Yeah... I understand what you are saying completely. Just playing devil's advocate over here, and unfortunatly pessimistic about additional tags being added anytime soon. Its not that I'm against it at all... especially on healthy populations.

[actionshooter]

I know a WDFW biologist (not going to give his name out) who has put his years in, close to retirement and is COMPLETELY disgusted with his employer. One of his biggest complaints are the newer "biologist" who are just doing the departments bidding, not real management. Maybe he just has been doing it to long and has a bad attitude, but I don't believe that.
 I think that's the biggest problem.

[WDFW-SUX]

Its really frustrating reading this stuff....

[WDFW-SUX]

WDFW has flown over the old Unit 4-1 (Ruth Creek) and counted well over 200 goats, but they still refuse to add any tags there.

Why no tags?

[shanevg]

WDFW has flown over the old Unit 4-1 (Ruth Creek) and counted well over 200 goats, but they still refuse to add any tags there.

Why no tags?

Mostly...: politics.

I think that there are multiple problems with the 4-1 herd.  First of all, the unit is HUGE, but there are a lot of mountains within the unit that holds anywhere from 15 to 45 mountain goats.  Recent mountain goat research is at best ambiguous in regards to how breeding works in "island" populations of mountain goats like that.  They gave 10 tags in the 4-1 unit for years and success was usually around 30%.  I think a large part of that is due to the low goat density in that unit compared to the other side of the highway where hunting is open now.  Now the question is, was the hunting really killing off too many goats, or was the pressure moving them into the National Park or the forest so that they were harder to find? 

Another problem with this herd is that the largest "island" of populations which probably numbers near 100 goats is also the most accessible herd to road hunters and it has been hit pretty hard in the past by native hunters.  WDFW may be somewhat hesitant to open up that herd due to the potential increase in native harvest if the herd is viewed as healthy.

Ultimately, it seems to come down to a lack of knowledge on the breeding of mountain goats.  Do the billies move from "island" to "island" during breeding season, or are the "island" completely separate.  Also, what would happen to those "islands" of populations of nannies were taken out of them?

[shanevg]

BTW, here is a map of the Mt. Baker units (both the closed and open ones).