If the East Side Went to Permit Only!!!

[Sawbuck]

Sawbuck I think you took my post out of context.  When I'm referring to people who don't want the Colockum to go permit only then yes they are SELFISH!!  If you have a 70% reduction in numbers and you think that that trend is going to change then that person is ignorant or naive.  If they don't care then they are selfish.  But if you still think a herd that has been decimated such as the colockum should still have a general season then let me ask YOU yourself a question.  At what point would you want some conservation to take place.  80, 90 or 95%??? 

When only .75-1 out of every 5 spikes live through the hunting season don't you think something should be done to stop this???  If not then YOU tell me what should be done in the Colockum or the yakima and Kittitas Mule Deer herd (which has taken an over 50% nose dive in the last six years)

First of all, I'm not saying that nothing needs to be done about the Colockum; I'm saying that implementing a permit only system for every elk herd in Washington state and/or eastern Washington, based on problems with one particular herd, is blanket wildlife management, and that is not good wildlife management.  The problems of each herd should be addressed specifically, which is the job of the Dept. of Wildlife.

I am somewhat "ignorant" when it comes to the Colockum herd. Could you tell me a little more about the "70% reduction" in numbers? Is this per year or a number of years? And no, I don't think that an 80% spike mortality rate is something that needs to be stopped. I would bet that that number is a little high; I'll give you that one. A few weeks ago at the Watt feed lot, I counted sixteen spikes and numerous branch antlered bulls, lets just say eighty for an example, out of about five hundred elk. I walked away thinking that that was a pretty good percentage of spikes that made it, and that herd of elk looked pretty balanced (of course, just my opinion; I'm not a biologist, and viewing a few elk is by no means a study). It would be a far different picture if your plan was implemented in the GMUs that those elk migrate to. I believe it would look similar to the way it was before the current draw system was implemented. In eastern Washington, if the branched antlered bulls (3pt or better) are hunted, it won't be very many years until the feed lots are once again full of cows, spikes and only a handfull of branched antlered bulls. When the east side was any bull, which elk made it to the feedlot? One or two big six points, hundreds of cows and some small bulls. The big bulls just didn't survive much and the genetics are with them. The Colockum may be in trouble; I'm in no position to even speculate about what should be done to improve that specific situation.  However, if you want to increase elk numbers in a particular area, it probably wouldn't be smart to target the 3pt or better population and cows.

 I'm going to leave the deer thing alone for now; this is a thread about elk.

[high country]

don't get too tripped up over not seeing spikes in the feed lots. according to valerius geist, it is very typical for spikes to do there own thing and not follow the herd this time of year. often it does lead to mortality, but not always. long story short, the spike counts at the feed lot can be no more accurate then the big bulls.

[bobcat]

First of all, I'm not saying that nothing needs to be done about the Colockum; I'm saying that implementing a permit only system for every elk herd in Washington state and/or eastern Washington, based on problems with one particular herd, is blanket wildlife management, and that is not good wildlife management.  The problems of each herd should be addressed specifically, which is the job of the Dept. of Wildlife.

A permit only system would not be "blanket wildlife management." It would simply be MANAGEMENT. Which we don't have now. With a permit system, each herd WOULD be addressed specifically. That would be the whole point of having a permit system. They could allocate the number of tags per GMU based on the elk population in that unit. In a GMU with a lot of elk, a lot of tags would be issued. In the Coluckum GMU's, obviously, very few permits could be issued until the numbers come back up.

Some of you seem to think it would severely restrict the number of hunters. That isn't necessarily true. They could still allow the same number of hunters in certain GMU's that currently hunt there under the unlimited over-the-counter tag system we have now. And in units that need to have reduced hunting pressure, they could regulate them accordingly. The system we have now... how can that be called management Hunters go randomly wherever they choose. The WDFW does not manage the number of hunters at all.

[Sawbuck]

First of all, I'm not saying that nothing needs to be done about the Colockum; I'm saying that implementing a permit only system for every elk herd in Washington state and/or eastern Washington, based on problems with one particular herd, is blanket wildlife management, and that is not good wildlife management.  The problems of each herd should be addressed specifically, which is the job of the Dept. of Wildlife.

A permit only system would not be "blanket wildlife management." It would simply be MANAGEMENT. Which we don't have now. With a permit system, each herd WOULD be addressed specifically. That would be the whole point of having a permit system. They could allocate the number of tags per GMU based on the elk population in that unit. In a GMU with a lot of elk, a lot of tags would be issued. In the Coluckum GMU's, obviously, very few permits could be issued until the numbers come back up.

Some of you seem to think it would severely restrict the number of hunters. That isn't necessarily true. They could still allow the same number of hunters in certain GMU's that currently hunt there under the unlimited over-the-counter tag system we have now. And in units that need to have reduced hunting pressure, they could regulate them accordingly. The system we have now... how can that be called management Hunters go randomly wherever they choose. The WDFW does not manage the number of hunters at all.

Currently we do have a permit system, and that is MANAGEMENT.  Currently the population is assessed and the bull and cow permits are adjusted accordingly. You might not like it or agree with it, but it is management and say what you want about the WDFW; they probably know more than most of us put together about wildlife management. You can call changing one area because of another what you want, I called it blanket management, but what I should have called it is flat out poor management (IMHO).

[colockumelk]

And no, I don't think that an 80% spike mortality rate is something that needs to be stopped. I would bet that that number is a little high; I'll give you that one. A few weeks ago at the Watt feed lot, I counted sixteen spikes and numerous branch antlered bulls,population and cows.

Well I will tell you that around 70% of yearling bulls ARE killed in the Colockum every year.  Then another 10% die from natural causes.  Yearling bulls have a 10% mortality rate every year.  (ie wounding deaths, cougars, disease, injury)

2nd of all the elk in the Joe Watt feeding station is part of the YAKIMA elk herd, not the Colockum elk herd.  So you really don't think an 80% mortality rate is something that needs to be stopped.  Wow what a bold statement.  You really don't care do you??  That statement truly says something about your priorities.  Just kill them all right???


The Colockum elk herd is also very different from the Yakima elk herd in regards to migration.  2/3 of the Colockum elk herd live east of Highway 97.  In short they don't migrate much.  Where the Yakima elk herd is the opposite.  2/3 or more stay high until the snow comes.  So aerial surveys on the Colockum herd are VERY, VERY accurate.  Where the Yakima surveys can be as much as 30% off.  But who cares right kill em all off.

[bearpaw]

Yes and NE might possibly be the exception and wouldn't need to be on a draw. But there would somehow have to be a requirement that if you apply for a draw only unit and don't draw, you can't hunt the OTC units.

That is exactly how it is done in Utah.

Everyone can apply for a limited-entry elk hunt (roughly half the elk habitat in the state). Then later in the year, over the counter tags go on sale for the over-the-counter areas (roughly the other half of elk habitat in the state). Best of both worlds, that is why Utah gets my vote for best management.

When the Book Cliffs were nearly void of mule deer, the Utah DWR shut deer hunting down for three years. Now the Book Cliffs are again a prized mule deer hunting destination.

They did the same thing in the Henry Mtns, now it's som e of the best mule deer hunting in the west.

[bobcat]

bearpaw,

Is there a quota on the otc units?

[colockumelk]

Bearpaw that's a pretty cool idea.  Part of the reason for this post is not necessarily to say THIS IS THE ONLY WAY!!!!   It was to start an idea and get some free thought flowing and sort of brainstorm how to make things better.  Because while we all have our own ideas of HOW things should go and we may all disagree HOW it should be done I think that we can all agree that the current elk system in E. Washington is BROKEN!!!!!   And I am so thankfull that so many  have voiced their opinions on here (even if I disagree with them) because I have heard some really good stuff from people. 

I think that the permit only thing is gonna come eventually.  I would like to see a permit only system implemented in a way that we can all agree on and live with.  Because if it's done the WDFW way than it's gonna suck!!!

I really like your idea.  Maybe have all the Yakima and Colockum GMU's permit only but leave the wilderness areas open to OTC.  And leave the Spokane and Walla Walla units OTC.  I mistitled it.  It should be if the Yakima and Colockum tags went to permit only. 

[bearpaw]

Utah
Bobcat, yes there is a quota, but it's pretty large. No problem getting a tag if you don't wait till the last minute.


Washington
So far WDFW has unlimited tags for bull or cow in most of NE so that could help fill the gap if more areas were limited-entry only in WA.

[ThePascoKid]

I'm all for going to a permit system if it would really mean increased opportunities at branched antler bulls, I would gladly give up a 3-4  years of hunting for spikes with the occasional cow hunt thrown in if it meant every 4-5 years I could hunt for big bulls.  The years I didn't get drawn I would still go to help buddies who did drawn and to predator hunt.

And leave the Spokane and Walla Walla units OTC

I don't see the Blues being able to handle the increased pressure from people who didn't draw for Yakima/Colockum. I would rather the Blues went permit only also.

[funkster]

So lets say this happens in the near future,how many special permits tags would be issued? Roughly 7,800 applicants put in for a any bull archery tag in the 300 units and 5,200 archer's hunted in the 300 units. How many tags do you all think would be a good quota?

[bobcat]

I have no idea, that is the biologists' job to figure the numbers out. Where did you get your numbers? I can tell you that there was not 7,800 people that applied for archery bull elk permits. I added the numbers up and came up with about that, but that is not the number of people applying, it is the number of times a hunt got applied for, if that makes sense (probably doesn't)

So if every person who applied for an archery bull elk permit in the 300 units put in for 4 choices, you can divide that 7,800 by 4 and that will give you the number of people that applied. I'm guessing not everybody would apply for 4 choices. The average might be 2, so divide it in half and 3,900 people applied.

I'm not sure where you got the 5200 people archery hunting in the 300 units. I haven't found any report that gives that info. Unless you were looking at the 2007 harvest reports. In 2008 they left out all that information. All they give you is the number of animals killed per GMU, not the number of hunters.

[bearpaw]

What it appears Utah did, they have some over the counter hunting in each region of the state. I don't beleive it's fair to make all hunting on the east slope of the cascades draw only, and the same is true for Blue Mtns, Northeast WA, and Westside. In fairness, there should be units of both types in each region of the state.

[bobcat]

Why wouldn't it be fair? Everybody would have the option of applying every year, and hunting every other year or so. And on the years you don't draw you can just go along with friends/family who do draw that year. What's not fair about it?

We don't all get to hunt moose every year. I don't hear anybody saying that's not fair.

[bearpaw]

In order to implement a good elk plan, you need a plan that is suitable to the most people where you can accomplished the goal of bull escapement to meet management objectives and meet public acceptance.

Jeez, can't beleive I have to explain this. 

Not all hunters in this state are trophy hunters.
Not all hunters are meat hunters.
Not all hunters are willing to wait, many like to hunt each year.
Not all hunters will drive 200 miles for a hunt.
Not all hunters believe you should have to drive 200 miles to go hunting.
Not all hunters............and on and on.....

Do you get the idea? By putting some Draw-Only and some OTC in each region you devise a plan that a greater number of people can live with.

A very wise man once told me, "The best plan is a plan where everyone wins."