Elk article in Yakima Herald newspaper

[Skyvalhunter]

Atleast Native Americans weren't mentioned this time!!

[colockumelk]

now that the article was published someone needs to write an editorial piece talking about the other big pieceof the puzzle that was left out of the article, start the PR campaign that way.

I agree.  But only if people use facts that they can use to back up their argument.  Remember if you give out data but don't have something to back it up with you are viewed as ignorant or worse a racist.  But if you have pictures and petitions etc then you are viewed as a patriot.

As far as the tribal thing goes.  Before we go cleaning someone elses house up we need to make sure our house is clean first.  And in the instance of the Colockum Elk herd; that house is far from clean.  The goal of my paper and of the ensuing article was to raise awareness of a very dramatic problem that exists in the Colockum Elk herd.  Most people until today after reading that article probably didn't have a clue that the problem was that bad let alone that they had lost 70% of the adult bulls.  Hopefully alot of people take notice now and start doing the right thing which is buggin and writing the WDFW.  Hopefully as responsible sportsmen we do take action. 

Especially since its quite obvious that the WDFW isn't going to EVER do the right thing.  To be honest I was very disappointed in their responses to my paper.  It was obvious that they were not prepared and it was obvious that they either are not aware of this problem or do not care.  I think they don't care.  The statement about losing hunters says it all.  We want the money and don't care that they have lost 70% of the branch bull population is not a big deal.     That last part right there says it all where their priorities lie.  Hopefully something is done.   

[bobcat]

colockumelk,

Just curious... do you know if elk are native in the Colockum? I'm thinking not but I don't know for certain.

[colockumelk]

From what I've read there were some on the very western part around the PCT.  And there was some in the Quilomene in the sage brush just like alot of plains type areas.  But as far as an actual "herd" that stayed there it is not beleived that there was any. 

Now there are cave and rock pictures from the Yakamas that show Indians hunting elk in the area.  So there was SOME elk here.  But it is believed that when the Yakamas finally domesticated horses is when the elk in the area disappeared.  When Whites settled the Kittitas Valley there was no record of elk there at that time.  UNTIL.... 1919 when local WHITE Sportsman reintroduced elk into the area. 

Thank you for asking that Bobcat I had completely forgotten that bit of information until now.  I'd forgotten that one of the theories behind why there used to be elk but they disappeared by the time whites got here was because the INDIANS had hunted them to extinction. 

[Bob33]

[I think they don't care.  The statement about losing hunters says it all.  We want the money and don't care that they have lost 70% of the branch bull population is not a big deal. 

I'm just curious who you think they'll sell licenses to when all the elk are gone?

[Special T]

My bet Bob is they will burn that bridge when they get there... Since less people at the WDFW actually hunt anymore they don't seem to have a vested interest.... I think conspiracy theory  would bed that they are tying to change their funding source.... That makes no since since hunting $$$ makes up a large portion of the $$$ they recieve... Unless they are able to raid Pittman-Roberts funds to fund themselves....

[dkhtr]

We were hunting in Idaho a couple years ago and came across a group of Wa. game wardens we spent time with during the week.  I asked them why they hunted Idaho when it would seem they would have a lot of "inside" info as to where to hunt, know owners of private property, etc.  There response was "not enough animals to waste time hunting"

[WSU]

I'm actually a little inclined to agree with WDFW (talk about a popular sentiment!).  With an added yearling bull recruitment of 25-30% this past season, it is not at all clear to me that the true-spike regulation isn't working.  When we last discussed this, Clockum stated that he did not know what the effect of the new regulation is.  It now appears that stats are available.  As Clockum stated, an added 71 bulls survived the season.  That seems like a pretty good start, especially because the herd is not in immediate (as in next year) danger of collapse.  It is presently slightly over management objective.  Assuming that roughly 25 to 30 percent more spikes survive each season, that  is a pretty damn good improvement without having to drastically curtail opportunity.  Like it or not, we have to come to terms with the fact that Washington is the smallest western state, has one of the smallest (if not the smallest) population of elk, has very localized elk herds, and a lot of hunters. 

[SpotandStalk]

I have tried to stay out of this subject because I am of the opinion that I don't know all there is to know about the Colockum elk herd, though I live at the base of the Colockum and I spend a considerable amount of time "following" the herd throughout the year.  I have spike hunted the Colockum since I was 10 (currently 29) and my family has hunted it for generations (and we plan to continue).  I 100% agree with fact that management strategies need to be seriously looked at and changes are needed in some areas. But I have heard too much over the last year how all the branch bulls in the Colockum are disappearing....I say BS and it is more of bull patterns and migrations changing due to a changing landscape.

The first issue that I personally have stressed to many, including WDFW, is my 100% disagreement with managing the Teanaway, Mission, Naneum, and Quilomene units like they are one and the same.  Sorry, its apples to oranges.  Yes, there is major problem with spike recruitment in the Quilomene and maybe the east half of the Naneum, but there is very little spike recruitment problem in the west half of the Naneum, most of the Mission, and all of the Teanaway.  I will 100% agree with Aaron on every subject IF the geographic area is confined to the Quilomene unit, but when you lump in the Mission, Naneum, and Teanaway I cannot agree. 

If you were to ask me if there are less mature bulls now than there were 10 years ago in the Quilomene unit, I would yes, absolutely; but if you were to ask me if there are less mature bulls now than there were 10 years ago in the "Colockum" herd, I would say no, they just have changed their migrations, they have gotten smarter, and have really developed into a couple different sub herds.  A majority of the Teanaway bulls no longer winter in the Quilomene, and even a good number of Naneum and Mission bulls no longer winter in the Quilomene.  So when you see branch bull counts by WDFW show a drastic decline, you have to consider that they only fly the Quilomene and are missing a huge amount of bulls.  So I ask, is this pattern showing a drop in total number of bulls in the "Colockum" or just a change in bull migration?

And I think WDFW missed the mark with "true spike".  Perhaps it will prove a valuable tool and increase spike recruitment, but a much more effective tool that would help address the forbidden subject--tribal hunting--as well, would be road closures.  WDFW greatly missed an opportunity that was served on a platter to FINALLY make a management decision that would address the over-harvest of mature bulls in the Colockum by tribal hunters.  They had all the data they needed to back up a decision for road closures and/or seasonal closures that would have an impact on tribal hunting and they let it slip through the cracks.

I know how I roll my eyes when I see a long post like this, so my apologies for ranting.



 

[colockumelk]

  It is presently slightly over management objective.  Assuming that roughly 25 to 30 percent more spikes survive each season, that  is a pretty damn good improvement without having to drastically curtail opportunity.  Like it or not, we have to come to terms with the fact that Washington is the smallest western state, has one of the smallest (if not the smallest) population of elk, has very localized elk herds, and a lot of hunters. 

#1 why do you let the WDFW fool you with the "above managment objective"  Like I said in the article that is TOTAL 100% SPIN to make themselves look good.  Their #1 goal is to get the branch bull to cow ratio to 12-15:100 cows.  In the past ten years that number has dropped to 2.5:100.  Yes the herd numbers has reached its objective.  Big Whoop.  That herd is made up of 96% cows.  How healthy is that.  WSU you are wrong the WDFW is failing miserably. Its not about managment its about $$$$$.

#2  Assuming 25-30 percent more spikes is a huge assumption.  Because that did not happen.  Not even close.  The spike survival rate went up from 20% up to a whopping 25% survival rate.  Wow 5%.  It'll help but not much. 

#3 just because we have a small state with alot of hunters doesn't mean that we have to have crappy hunting and mismanagment of our herds.  I challenge you to tell me how a 70% decline in a branch bull population is good managment or good business?

[colockumelk]

Spot and Stalk.  Thank you for your post.  I will agree I don't think that the Teanaway should be managed the same as the Naneum and the Quilomene.  Usually when I refer to the "Clockum"  I am referring to GMU's 328 and 329.  The terrain is completely different and so is road access.  

I will have to disagree with you on the branch bull population and its trend.  The WDFW does actually fly the entire Colockum, and not just the Quilomene like you suggest.  They only survey a percentage of the Yakima GMU's but they do overfly 100% of the Colockum GMU's.  Also the reason I wrote this paper is because of what I have witnessed in the passed 4 years.  And yes like yourself I spend alot of time up in the Colockum.  As far as "herd migrations" that is one unique thing about the Colockum elk herd.  They don't really migrate.  The majority of the Yakima herd migrates from the Pacific Crest Trail down to Oak Creek every year.  But in the Colockum 2/3 of the total Colockum elk herd spends its entire life east of Highway 97.  They migrate about 5 miles onto the wildlife refuge just before hunting season starts.  Then as soon as the hunting season ends they bomb farther east to the Columbia.  

One large impact on the herd is the Yakama Indian Tribe.  Word of mouth has gotten around about the quality bulls in the Colockum and even Whitefoot admitted that there's twice as many Indians up there as there was even 4 years ago.  They HAVE become a problem.  Ten years ago maybe one or two hunted up there.  Now there's too many to count.

As far as the road closures go you can thank a local hunting club that is 100% against road closures.  You can also thank our road hunters for writing all those letters complaining about how they can't possible go elk hunting without their ATV's.  Unfortunately people who walk in and are willing to write about it and support road closures are way outnumbered by the road hunting bunch who are more than willing to complain about road closures.  That is why.  

So for all you guys who complain about the Indians but at the same time are against road closures you are a hippo-crite  Again what I just said is definately not popular.  But alot of times the popular thing isn't the right thing.  I look forward to your posts spot and stalk.  especially since youve grown up around the area.  

[colockumelk]

I heard that this article made it in the Seattle Paper. Can anyone confirm this?

[bobcat]

I did a search and didn't find it. But I did find another interesting article somewhat related to elk in this state:



 
Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Experimental Washington state grazing program put on hold
By Lynda V. Mapes

Seattle Times staff reporter

A controversial cattle-grazing program on state wildlife lands has been put on hold for the 2010 season after a sharp rebuke by a Superior Court judge.

The experimental Department of Fish and Wildlife grazing program, begun in 2005 in Southeast Washington, drew criticism from conservationists concerned about damage to native plants, streams and threatened fish runs. The Western Watershed Project, based in Hailey, Idaho, sued in 2008, challenging permits for the program.

Thurston County Superior Court Judge Paula Casey ruled last month that the department had no scientific basis for granting permits for grazing the lands on the promise that the program would benefit wildlife, including elk. The theory was that grazing cattle would stimulate growth of grasses and other plants that wildlife, such as elk, could eat.

"As I began to review the record, I was quite shocked," the judge said, according to a transcript of the proceedings. The department's own scientists had very harsh criticism of the program, the judge found, yet managers making the decisions about the plan "instead of responding with any scientific information countering the information advanced by the biologists seemed more about minimizing the effect of the warnings," the judge said.

Since the ruling, the department has decided to rest the lands grazed under the so-called Pilot Grazing Program. No decision has been announced at the department as to whether to appeal the judge's ruling.

A second, separate grazing effort in Kittitas County is also on hold for lack of funding and staff. That effort is also under challenge by the same group.

Phil Anderson, who recently became director of the agency - long after the experimental program started - said the department is going to take a step back and assess the pilot program before continuing it. For now, he says, he does not favor initiating any more grazing on lands that have not been grazed in the past 10 years, as the pilot program allowed.

"There were a lot of lessons learned," said Jennifer Quan, a lands-division manager in the department. "We could have shored up the research better at the beginning," she said. Also under evaluation are decisions to use lands for the program that were steep, near streams with protected fish, and to the agency's surprise, included large stands of a federally protected plant, Spalding's catchfly.

The pilot program was started with the support of Gov. Chris Gregoire as a way to help the Washington Cattlemen's Association. In November 2005, the department signed an agreement with the cattlemen to launch the experimental program, allowing the cattlemen to run their cows on public wildlife lands at no charge.

The Legislature appropriated hundreds of thousands of dollars for the program. Agency staffers put in nearly 4,000 hours on grazing plans, attending meetings, monitoring, and herding cattle. They installed more than 5 miles of fence, nearly 3 miles of pipeline and five troughs on wildlife lands.

The department had some bad luck and bad outcomes. Two employees were severely injured while stringing fencing. And the state's own reports on the program found missteps in implementation, with ranchers putting out too many cattle or letting them graze too long in one place, damaging habitat.

[colockumelk]

must've missed the part of the article mentioning the poaching of branched bulls by Native Americans...

General D.  Don't fret brother.  I am currently working on the second part of the paper.  It is about how hunting in our state of Washington discriminates based upon race, and how it is wrong.  It will also relate that issue to the Jim Crow laws and how the Yakama's and our Government only follow certain parts of the treaty.  Such as article 4 which states that Indians are not allowed to drink or buy alcohol and how Non-Natives are not allowed to sell alcohol to Indians and how its against the law.  But that one is not enforced.  I will post that paper sometime in August.  I've started working on it but..... I have to go to SERE (Survival Evasion Resistance Escape) School on Monday so I wont be able to write anything.  I can't  wait for the reaction from the media on that one.  It will be very interesting indeed.   

[grundy53]

Good luck with SERE.