snoqualmie ridge elk saved. barf

[MAVsled]

personally, I wouldn't partake in this kind of "hunt". but I would not judge others in a negative light who choose to do so.

why not just raise or assess the Snoqualmie TPC golf club members, SnoqTPC home owners/association & course management/ownership enough dollars $$$$ to build the much needed fence or additional dollars to compensate for repair of the golf course.
golf club or private club members of any sort all KNOW ALL about $ ASSESSMENTS...

then you'd see local support of a damage control hunt.

[jaymark6655]

personally, I wouldn't partake in this kind of "hunt". but I would not judge others in a negative light who choose to do so.

why not just raise or assess the Snoqualmie TPC golf club members, SnoqTPC home owners/association & course management/ownership enough dollars $$$$ to build the much needed fence or additional dollars to compensate for repair of the golf course.
golf club or private club members of any sort all KNOW ALL about $ ASSESSMENTS...

then you'd see local support of a damage control hunt.

True, can't imagine how much 222 acres would cost to fence.

[ICEMAN]

personally, I wouldn't partake in this kind of "hunt". but I would not judge others in a negative light who choose to do so.

why not just raise or assess the Snoqualmie TPC golf club members, SnoqTPC home owners/association & course management/ownership enough dollars $$$$ to build the much needed fence or additional dollars to compensate for repair of the golf course.
golf club or private club members of any sort all KNOW ALL about $ ASSESSMENTS...

then you'd see local support of a damage control hunt.

True, can't imagine how much 222 acres would cost to fence.

Exactly.

Same way I look at anyone griping about wildlife damaging their crops. If you are a farmer, orchard owner or golf course owner and do not like having deer or elk on your farm,...fence it yourself and stop looking to the rest of us to fix your personal problem.

I don't see the state chipping in to help protect cherry growers from damage and losses from birds, or grain growers from losses from bird and rodents... 

You need a fence? Looks like you better sell off enough land to afford your own damned fence.


Is a damage control hunt going to work anyway? Seems these go on forever. Deer and elk will not just run and hide cause a hunt was held once.... 

Fix it forever, build your own fence.

[bobcat]

I agree- build a fence. These elk can still be hunted, and should be, in the surrounding areas. But the best solution to keep them off the golf course is to fence it.

[scudmaster]

The golf course accepts a small amount of elk damage.  But it is not only money, it takes months and potentially years to repair damaged greens. It would be near impossible to fence that course completely with houses fronting it and streets running through it.  It could make it worse by getting elk trapped in the course and not allowing them out.

The course has no problems with deer and bears and fence would substantially impact their habitat.   If this was not publicized it would have been done and finished very quickly.  Most would not say a word if it was a farmer who was having his crops raided and there was a damage hunt due to his financial loss.  But somehow a golf course should be forced to sustain permanent financial losses because of class warfare. Maybe you can form an occupy Snoqulamie movement, they would agree with the sentiment.   The local public course in NB had damage hunts and they fenced the entire course over $100K,  (and that was with no houses and a fraction of the perimeter) and they still have elk problems and damage hunts.  This is not a problem to be solved, like all wildlife issues, it is a problem to be managed.  The only permenant solution for the problem is to eradicate the elk.

If the dept Biologist for the region explained the population problem to the press, the reasonable public may understand.   The Anti Hunters don't care where a damage hunt occurs or why, they are against hunting period. The argument is not about best practices, it is about killing any elk ever. If we try to appease them in their argument, we have already lost because until there is no hunting, there will be no appeasment with them ever.

[pianoman9701]

personally, I wouldn't partake in this kind of "hunt". but I would not judge others in a negative light who choose to do so.

why not just raise or assess the Snoqualmie TPC golf club members, SnoqTPC home owners/association & course management/ownership enough dollars $$$$ to build the much needed fence or additional dollars to compensate for repair of the golf course.
golf club or private club members of any sort all KNOW ALL about $ ASSESSMENTS...

then you'd see local support of a damage control hunt.

True, can't imagine how much 222 acres would cost to fence.

Exactly.

Same way I look at anyone griping about wildlife damaging their crops. If you are a farmer, orchard owner or golf course owner and do not like having deer or elk on your farm,...fence it yourself and stop looking to the rest of us to fix your personal problem.

I don't see the state chipping in to help protect cherry growers from damage and losses from birds, or grain growers from losses from bird and rodents... 

You need a fence? Looks like you better sell off enough land to afford your own damned fence.


Is a damage control hunt going to work anyway? Seems these go on forever. Deer and elk will not just run and hide cause a hunt was held once.... 

Fix it forever, build your own fence.

The problem with that Iceman, is that hunters can easily help with this problem for little or no expense to the landowner or the taxpayer. When you say that farmers should be responsible to protect their own crops, you're not recognizing that most food farms don't make a huge profit, if at all. And, they provide a needed resource - food. The golf course provides a tax base as a commercial business, both in sales tax from pro-shop items, and for its commercial real estate tax value to our community, which is substantial. Both also provide employment to their local residents. They deserve consideration for their economic contribution to our society, whether their owners are rich or not. In addition, both farms and golf courses, and many other business that would be hurt by wildlife depredation and damage, can easily benefit from that which will also be cost effective and benefit us hunters - a controlled hunt under strict guidelines and safety considerations to cull the herd to a manageable level and encourage them to move back into the shelter of the woods.

The problem we face is that increasingly, not only the press and the government agencies, but more recently even our hunters have become so intimidated by the vocal extreme animal rights movement people that we've forgotten that a vast majority of our population will support hunting and proper game management decisions when they're adequately educated about their purpose. Many of us hunters have also lost our intestinal fortitude and now sit idly by while these extremists shape the future of our sport.

I propose that some of us do or actively support a few specific things



1. Use hunters as a game management tool to support economic prosperity and create solutions to game management challenges.
2. Request that our WDFW take initiative in educating the general public about the need for proper and science-based game management actions and policies.
3. Reach down and find your balls and quit cowering from the tiny minority of animal rights extremists and their misinformation.
4. Educate yourself about game management and hunting so you can educate others to better understand what we do.
[/list]

[jaymark6655]

personally, I wouldn't partake in this kind of "hunt". but I would not judge others in a negative light who choose to do so.

why not just raise or assess the Snoqualmie TPC golf club members, SnoqTPC home owners/association & course management/ownership enough dollars $$$$ to build the much needed fence or additional dollars to compensate for repair of the golf course.
golf club or private club members of any sort all KNOW ALL about $ ASSESSMENTS...

then you'd see local support of a damage control hunt.

True, can't imagine how much 222 acres would cost to fence.

Exactly.

Same way I look at anyone griping about wildlife damaging their crops. If you are a farmer, orchard owner or golf course owner and do not like having deer or elk on your farm,...fence it yourself and stop looking to the rest of us to fix your personal problem.

I don't see the state chipping in to help protect cherry growers from damage and losses from birds, or grain growers from losses from bird and rodents... 

You need a fence? Looks like you better sell off enough land to afford your own damned fence.


Is a damage control hunt going to work anyway? Seems these go on forever. Deer and elk will not just run and hide cause a hunt was held once.... 

Fix it forever, build your own fence.

I  must have read this wrong, not supporting fencing at all.  It is too expensive and impossible.  Saying if people were forced to pay, they would quickly change their minds and support this hunt.  Not sure where else these elk can be hunting since I have never seen them outside the no hunting areas and there is no pressure to push them out of these areas that seem to be idea habitat for them.

[ICEMAN]

Sorry pianoman, this is not a hunting issue, this is a protect your own property issue.

It is entirely possible for the private property owners to completely fence off the entire area to keep Elk and Deer from entering. This one time privately funded effort will permanently fix their problems, at absolutely no cost to taxpayers.

How about gophers affecting the greens? Are we taxpayers expected to help with this too?

Not every issue related to big game should result in a five star panel of wildlife bios and wildlife officials studying and proposing fixes. This is a no brainer.

I see no benefit from wasting our efforts to try to weasel a meager damage control hunt to fix this. Alot could and will go wrong, as well as provide another platform for antis to stand on. Instead, let them fence it off and allow the normal hunt around the area to occur....no changes.

I do not want to spend a dime helping them fix their problem.

[pianoman9701]

Sorry pianoman, this is not a hunting issue, this is a protect your own property issue.

It is entirely possible for the private property owners to completely fence off the entire area to keep Elk and Deer from entering. This one time privately funded effort will permanently fix their problems, at absolutely no cost to taxpayers.

How about gophers affecting the greens? Are we taxpayers expected to help with this too?


Not every issue related to big game should result in a five star panel of wildlife bios and wildlife officials studying and proposing fixes. This is a no brainer.

I see no benefit from wasting our efforts to try to weasel a meager damage control hunt to fix this. Alot could and will go wrong, as well as provide another platform for antis to stand on. Instead, let them fence it off and allow the normal hunt around the area to occur....no changes.

I do not want to spend a dime helping them fix their problem.

Respectfully, there are no efforts or resources to waste, Iceman.  As far as the contribution of our tax dollars is concerned, there's no expense at all, save for a 5 minute press release or TV interview explaining what will be done and why it's necessary. That's it. A few $1 bullets and the guidance of a volunteer MC to coordinate hunters.

Why saddle a local business with an expense of hundreds of thousands of dollars and risk the health of that business when another solution is available for almost nothing. Business that contribute to our society deserve some consideration to help keep them contributing profitably. You may not want to pay a dime to help them, and you probably won't. But without commercial businesses in our local communities, our economy would die instantly. Small business represents 80% of the employers in our country. We have to support them. We have no choice and for their contributions, we have an obligation.

And, by the way, I'm neither rich nor a business owner. I'm a middle class worker bee. I just know economics and what drives our society.

[Little Dave]

Here's a picture of the property to get some perspective on fencing....

[ICEMAN]

No expense at all?

How about continued complaints about elk on the course a week after a damage control hunt.

How about wildlife officers having to patrol the hunt area?

How about wildlife officers responding to reports that someone has trespassed onto the grounds to poach an elk, or recover an elk which died 500 yards away from where it was shot?

How about wildlife paying damage to property caused by a stampeding herd of elk being chased by our "best" master hunters?

There will be huge expenses to manage this issue, year after year after year. Don't fool yourself thinking otherwise.

Putting hunters into the middle of a golf course to cull elk is a stupid idea, when you can simply tell them to put up a fence or shut up. Hunters can chase the elk elsewhere.



Edit: Littledave, I believe if we can fence off vast areas in central Washington to cooridor off elk and to keep deer out of the apples, that private investors should be willing to spend the extra cash necessary to protect their investment. They buy insurance, they can surely buy fencing.

[ICEMAN]

The average price for the fairway facing homes in today's market is about $700K.

I've participated in the discussion on elk here in the valley over the last few years.  The biggest failure in this process has been the community outreach angle.  Strange as it seems, there just is not enough interest in educating people.  A huge effort was put forth on the interesting research project and a lot of effort was put forth to have a successful hunt, some even calling it a model for the state.  However, communtity outreach was the *censored* child of this effort and first to be cut back by WDFW at the end of 2009.  I've cataloged all of that here:
USVEMG Discussions

My wife was the only person on volunteer education/outreach for this for the next year and a half, while the collaring project is now big enough it meets in a larger venue, closely integrated with the master hunter damage hunt.

These research projects were to determine the viability of a master hunter damage control hunt? State funded projects?

[JLS]

No expense at all?

How about continued complaints about elk on the course a week after a damage control hunt.

How about wildlife officers having to patrol the hunt area?

How about wildlife officers responding to reports that someone has trespassed onto the grounds to poach an elk, or recover an elk which died 500 yards away from where it was shot?

How about wildlife paying damage to property caused by a stampeding herd of elk being chased by our "best" master hunters?

There will be huge expenses to manage this issue, year after year after year. Don't fool yourself thinking otherwise.

Putting hunters into the middle of a golf course to cull elk is a stupid idea, when you can simply tell them to put up a fence or shut up. Hunters can chase the elk elsewhere.



Edit: Littledave, I believe if we can fence off vast areas in central Washington to cooridor off elk and to keep deer out of the apples, that private investors should be willing to spend the extra cash necessary to protect their investment. They buy insurance, they can surely buy fencing.

I couldn't agree more, particularly with your Edit paragraph.

[Bob33]

No expense at all?

How about continued complaints about elk on the course a week after a damage control hunt.

How about wildlife officers having to patrol the hunt area?

How about wildlife officers responding to reports that someone has trespassed onto the grounds to poach an elk, or recover an elk which died 500 yards away from where it was shot?

How about wildlife paying damage to property caused by a stampeding herd of elk being chased by our "best" master hunters?

There will be huge expenses to manage this issue, year after year after year. Don't fool yourself thinking otherwise.

Year after year there have been these expenses...already: responding to complaints, dealing with poaching, and so forth.   For the past several years various methods have been tried to manage these elk.  They have not succeeded. 

I suppose every landowner in Western Washington could also be required to fence his property to keep bears out since WDFW personnel have to respond to quite a few of those calls in the Spring.

You're probably not aware that a master hunter permit hunt has been going on in this area for several years, under the careful guidance of a hunt coordinator.  You're probably not aware because you haven't heard about it, because there have been very few issues.

It seems to me that shooting a few elk is a far simpler and less costly solution.

[pianoman9701]

No expense at all?

How about continued complaints about elk on the course a week after a damage control hunt.

How about wildlife officers having to patrol the hunt area?

How about wildlife officers responding to reports that someone has trespassed onto the grounds to poach an elk, or recover an elk which died 500 yards away from where it was shot?

How about wildlife paying damage to property caused by a stampeding herd of elk being chased by our "best" master hunters?

There will be huge expenses to manage this issue, year after year after year. Don't fool yourself thinking otherwise.

Putting hunters into the middle of a golf course to cull elk is a stupid idea, when you can simply tell them to put up a fence or shut up. Hunters can chase the elk elsewhere.



Edit: Littledave, I believe if we can fence off vast areas in central Washington to cooridor off elk and to keep deer out of the apples, that private investors should be willing to spend the extra cash necessary to protect their investment. They buy insurance, they can surely buy fencing.

Iceman, I always respect your opinions. I just don't agree with this one. Here are my answers to your points, one by one, and then I'll humbly bow out.

Complaints don't cost anything.

I don't see there being additional wildlife officers hired for this one situation, or any overtime being paid.

One job of a wildlife officer is to bust poachers wherever they are. Whether they poach on the golf course or in the woods, they're still poachers and will always need to be pursued.

It costs us nothing extra to try a hunt first. It doesn't have to be Master Hunters if you have a bug in a dark place about the MHs. It could be anyone. Whoever is used, there should be a coordinator running the show.

If it happens again a week later, buy a few more bullets. We may eventually have to come up with another solution, but going to the most expensive one first doesn't seem logical. Past history has shown animals leave public places where they lose protection and are harassed and killed. Just ask the towns of Astoria, Seaside, and Cannon Beach where killing a few elk moved them off of the courses and public areas, and back into the hills, except for the occasional return every couple of years. They've lost their sanctuary and hunters have re-instilled their fear of humans.

Lastly and again, putting up the fence is the most costly option and should be held off for last. If we spend a local business out of existence, it hurts more than just the business. It hurts the local and state economy. This is not the time to start stifling business and employers. Hunters have been used as a problem game management tool all over the world since the beginning of problems between man and animals, regardless of whether the wildlife is out in public or in the woods. There's no valid reason not to at least try killing them first.

Thanks for listening. Pianoman out.