(poll added) Management input on Colockum Elk

[Elkaholic daWg]

Its pretty obvious at this point in the overall managment of the colockum heard that its not working, close the access off to all EXCEPT  ground powders only, for one year, then see what happens, then if the ratio of bulls to cows doesnt improve, go to 3-point minimum.

 If you want the most bang for your buck,lets make it everyone! (for one year)

 3 years ago I spoke at the 2008 final 3 year commission  meeting in E-burg an said I would rather see it closed completely for a couple years ago than go to permit only. Colockumelk (who I never really met) spoke up in support of permit only.  I'm seeing  they N/A impact now and they could do either and have a greater effect than closing any road, locking out many non hunters (motorized ) to their recreation opportunities.
   By the way, A family member was up there on his Quad with friend and got to piss off some NA's in a suburban headed down toward the west bar area. didn't like the added noise I guess. have a license # if anyone cares. We need weather up there badly

[Recurve-Elk]

Start with blocking off a good amount of the roads.  Most hunters don't hike more than a mile from their truck.  See how the herd responds, then if need be install some kind of restriction such as 3 point min. 

I personally hate the idea of draw only.  I love to hunt i don't care if I am successful or not.  If I was to lose my general season I would be a saaaad sad camper.  I don't even hunt the Colockum anymore, but know if they make one area permit only it is only easier to make others permit only as well.

[PlateauNDN]

Close more roads, restrict the access for motorized vehicles and give the animals a chance.  Then we can see how bad some want to hunt.

[Rainier10]

There are cattle up there. But I don't tho.k there is a lack of feed. Rainier if it went permit only you would only displace maybe 1,800 hunters. 12,000 guys already hunt the Yakima herd so another 1,800 wouldn't do much. Especially since in 2001 just ten years ago 23,000 hunters hunted the Yakima herd.

There is plenty of feed. I am not sure why their herd goal is only 4,500. In 2000 it was 6,500. The only thing I can Thu.k of is the WDFW lowered their standards and goals. Since they can't accomplish much.

Are you saying they are only displacing 1800 hunters because your proposal would be to have 1200 permits in the area for bull and cow harvest?

As far as feed, there are cattle grazing the upper elevations in the summer.  This is another one up for debate.  My cabin in 328 is part of a township that for revenue to maintain our roads use to lease the land to a cattle rancher from May to August.  Many times the cattle would get dropped off in April and not picked up until September adding 2 months of additional grazing to the resource.  If it was a late spring the grasses were barely coming in when the cattle arrived and wouldn't get a chance to take good root before the cattle were pulling them up.  When they were in until September they just ate too much.  For the past few years we haven't leased the land under advice of others that the cattle were eating the natural vegetation down to far.  The deer and elk move through as they graze, the cattle stay in one area longer and really eat the vegetation down.  Since we stopped leasing the land the grasses are taller and thicker providing more feed for the deer and elk.  The adjacent state and DNR land still gets leased to ranchers and has cattle on it during the summer so I am sure this land has less feed for the deer and elk because of the cattle grazing.

[Rainier10]

I say the first thing to slow NA harvest and poaching is to close more roads, second would be to stop the cattle grazing leases in the upper elevations during the summer and then as last ditch go permit only.

The grazing in the summer by cattle is in part to lower fire danger on DNR land because the cattle eat the grasses down farther than the deer and elk do.  DNR is trying to protect the trees that they make money off of.  If you stop the cattle grazing you first have to close more roads and patrol it because with taller grasses the fire danger will be higher and if you still have lots of motor vehicle traffic in there during the dry months it is a recipe for disaster.  They have closed some roads by my cabin for elk calving but people don't know that is the reason so they just drive around the tank traps because that is what they have always done.  They think they are getting more taken away unfairly and don't realize that it is for the better health of the wildlife to close certain areas down.  Take the long way around, you don't have to take a short cut through the elk calving nursery.

[colockumelk]

Rainier that was some excellant input.  Thank you for that.  That is something I never thought about or new, in regards to cattle and grazing rights.  I think you are correct in that they do graze down the grasses alot.  But I am not sure how that affects the elk and deer for winter forage.  Maybe it does for deer.  But most elk winter in the Quilomene in the open so I don't know for sure if the cattle grazing up on the DNR land impacts winter kill for elk.  I don't know if any cattle graze in the Quilomene. 

And Plateau we are doing road managment.  But I have to agree with some.  We are doing our part to try and save this elk herd.  There have always been this many roads open if not more.  Plus there were more hunters and more liberal seasons in the past.  And until the Colockum became a popular destination for Yakama tribal hunters the branch bull population was on the rise.  Now licensed hunters have the least amount of opportunities than ever, we have the most restrictive set of rules in the entire West (true-spike) and the least amount of branch bull tags of any unit in WA, and still our branch bull population is on the decline.  I don't think poaching has increased and in fact with the closing off of the winter range and closing of more and more roads in the Colockum, I would guess that poaching has slightly declined. 

Not to stir the pot but the simple truth is we can close as many roads as we want to, but unless we turn the Colockum into a wilderness area, true spike and road closures are not going to work unless the Yakama's step up and manage their hunters. 

[PlateauNDN]

Wilderness works for me since I hike in to hunt anyways and since I don't hunt the Colockum it doesn't bother me a whole lot.  Again, without documentation proving the reduction in BA herd status I don't see anything occurring anytime soon.  The way it's looking now we just might get the documentation needed.

[C-Money]

From Colockumelk......
So if I was boss for a day.  I would do 2 things.  Step 1.) Physically close and barrier the roads that are already posted.  Step 2.) create the 1 mile buffer around the game reserve.  Then monitor.  And see if this is enough.


  I like it. Seal up the " no unauthorized vehicles beyond this point " roads, and buffer the reserve. This would I feel do A LOT to help the elk, and yet allow familys to still camp and enjoy this wounderful place to spend lawful time.
I agree, if we go permit only, we will never go back to OTC. What ever we do, I would like to harvest a branch bull in my life time, and I hope my wife and kids can do the same with me.

[whiteeyes]

People can blame the Yakamas all they want, the problem is you cant cram 10 people in a 2 person car. 

[Rainier10]

The comment on the grazing in the upper areas does a couple of things.  Number one with the cattle in the upper areas they eat more of the forage that the elk could eat.  If there were no cattle there would be additional forage in the summer and maybe the area holds more elk than the 4500 they are saying it now holds.  Number two with the grazing they are damaging the root system of the grasses by having grazing occur to early  in the spring and thus lowering the amount of future grasses, the resource is depleting each year.  With the grasses eaten down so far it makes way for non native plants to take over that the deer and elk don't graze on.  And last of all, as fall arrives the cows move down to the lower elevations eating the vegetation as they go.  The elk can stay up higher and work their way down as the snow arrives and dig down to the vegetation below but if the cattle have already depleted it then there is nothing to dig to or there is less to get to so they have to dig a larger area to get enough food.

I have noticed in our area with the cattle out that we have way more grass and brush vegetation than in years past and that vegetation, even though it is dry and dead in the winter, is used by the deer and elk for winter feed.

[C-Money]

I dont have any fancy numbers to back it up, but from what my two eyes tell me is that there are a lot of spikes making it threw the seasons. I see many spikes, every winter and spring after the seasons close. I saw lots of spikes even before the "true spike" crap came about. It would be nice to see more mature bulls in the Colockum. It would be nice to see more hounds running lions, more LEO's on patrol, more binoculars looking at elk, and less riflescopes looking at elk after season ends. More dirt covered faces of familys riding lawfuly on green dots. Its a great place, I want to keep it Great!

[colockumelk]

Rainier that is some really insightfull information on cattle grazing.  Thankyou.  You definately know alot more about this stuff than I do.  I imagine that maybe the lack of forage doesn't have a large impact on winter kill but I bet it does play a part in the low calf:cow ratio.  Thank you for your input.  I learned something today.

Plateau you know my stance.  I agree without evidence it's just hearsay.  I just look at the numbers and herd survey reports and put two and two together.  But without pictures its just hearsey. As far as a wilderness area I would not support it.  Yes I can hike in deep but alot of people can't.  The area shouldn't have to be shut down to all vehicle traffic just because of the actions of a few. The majority of people shouldnt' lose opportunity and shouldn't be punished because of the actions of a few. Especially when those actions could be stopped by those in power.

People can blame the Yakamas all they want, the problem is you cant cram 10 people in a 2 person car. 

Not sure what this means.  Could you please elaborate.   

[NoBark]

"The other part of this is people mistakingly reference the Boldt Decision with big game.  The Boldt Decision has NOTHING to do with big game.  It was solely about fishing and specifically about commercial fishing.  I have read it a few times and I have NEVER seen anything about big game.  So people tribal and non-tribal associate the Boldt Decision with big game.  The other mistake people make is the Boldt Decision gave the tribal commercial fisherman the right to their "fair share".  Most people take this as that the tribes get half of everything.  This is also not true.  The Boldt Decision specifies what it means by "fair share".  And "fair share" means if you have 9 licensed hunters and 1 tribal hunter.  And there is 10 elk.  The licensed hunters have a right to 9 elk and the tribal hunter gets one elk.  It does not mean that the 1 tribal hunter gets 5 elk to himself and the 9 licensed hunters have to share the other 5.  This is probably the biggest misunderstanding about the Boldt Decision."


Apparently no one in the WDFW agrees with your reading of the Boldt Discision.  When the Nooksack herd was opened to harvest, it went 50-50  public-native.  While I like your version, the attourney general of this state reads it differently. 

[Rainier10]

Cmoney, I think you are right on about the quads staying on the green dot roads, the hounds for lions and I would love to add baiting of bears in this area also.   This year we have an increased number of lions and bears in our area.  I will be more deligent about always having weapon with me next season, I am a bow hunter but will have a rifle with me everytime I go to my cabin next year to do a little predator control.

The thing about grazing is it is really complicated.  They want to have the cattle graze the land for revenue and to keep the grasses down so the fire hazard stays low and they don't lose their real money maker, logging.  If the grazing were better managed it might work for cattle and elk, but more management costs more money and nobody has that right now.  The almighty dollar reigns supreme and in the end it is the wildlife that suffers.

[colockumelk]

I think the WDFW and the state just rolls over to the tribes and doesn't defend us or stand up for us.  Yes I am not an attorney but I have read the Boldt Decision a couple times and I did not see anything in it that talked about or referred to big game.  It only references fish.  Maybe someone else can read it on here and give us all a second opinon.  One BTW that I would much appreciate.  Maybe I missed something.     Wouldn't be the first time.  I would also like someone to read the part that describes "fair share" and show me or explain where my interpretation or how I read it was wrong. 

NoBark, thank you for using the Nooksack herd.  That reminds me, that is one area and one situation where the WDFW used its legal right to restrict tribal harvest.  So I don't see why it couldn't happen in the Colockum.