Post by: groundhog on January 16, 2013, 04:08:22 PM
I have always felt that the Colockum elk herd was healthy and that the WDFW should be giving more branched bull tags to us sportsman. I felt that they were not counting a large portion of the mature bulls and that their bull to cow ratios were not correct.
I think the recent study indicates that the bull to cow ratio is much better than WDFW previously thought. While checking the overall condition they also pregnancy tested all of the cows that they darted. The WDFW sampled 101 cows ages three to sixteen and the pregnancy rate was 93.5 percent!! The total sampling was 118 cows including ages one through twenty one and the pregnancy rate was 89.1 percent!!!
This tells me that we do not have a bull to cow ratio problem in the Colockum. We have more than enough bulls if 9 out of 10 cows are getting pregnant. I am not a Biologist so maybe I'm missing something... If someone has a different point of view on this I would like to hear it.
The study did not mention cow to calf ratios but I would expect them to be much lower due to natural mortality factors like old and malnourished cows aborting calves, weather, predators, etc.etc
I think there is a problem with our big bulls getting harvested by a small group of Indians but I think it is time that the WDFW allocate more bull tags for the hunters that have sacrificed for the last 17 years. I am interested in your opinion.
If you know how to post this 11MB report PM me and we will get it up so everyone can see it.
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on January 16, 2013, 04:14:02 PM
Post by: Cougeyes on January 16, 2013, 04:58:40 PM
Post by: Woodchuck on January 16, 2013, 05:02:45 PM
Post by: winshooter88 on January 16, 2013, 05:37:15 PM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on January 16, 2013, 07:10:12 PM
Well this should draw the Apache driver out soon, will be interesting to hear his take.Nope he is in Colorado doing high altitude training.
Post by: runamuk on January 16, 2013, 07:26:29 PM
Well this should draw the Apache driver out soon, will be interesting to hear his take.Nope he is in Colorado doing high altitude training.
well I will patiently await his return I am very interested in his opinion
Post by: steeleywhopper on January 16, 2013, 07:39:16 PM
Post by: gaddy on January 16, 2013, 07:43:13 PM
Post by: groundhog on January 17, 2013, 07:34:03 AM
As someone that has been in the cattle business I can tell you that in our domestic cow herd we cull out the old cows and bring in replacement heifers. We preg test the cows and cull out the ones that do not get pregnant.
In a wild herd none of these variables are addressed so 93.5 percent on cows age 3 to 16 is incredible!
If you want to see the entire report PM me with your email and I will forward it to you.
Post by: PlateauNDN on January 18, 2013, 09:03:55 AM
Post by: woodywsu on January 18, 2013, 10:40:42 AM
On the cow to calve note, I looked over 400 head last week and was surpised by the number of calves for the group.
Post by: Special T on January 18, 2013, 11:35:32 AM
Post by: doyourtime89 on January 18, 2013, 01:46:13 PM
Post by: WenHunter on January 19, 2013, 09:11:46 AM
Post by: C-Money on January 21, 2013, 03:52:07 PM
Post by: Elkrunner on January 22, 2013, 09:42:34 AM
Post by: colockumelk on January 22, 2013, 09:56:32 PM
The numbers of pregnant cows is definately encouraging however when the late winter/early spring surveys are conducted only 35% of those pregnant cows still have a calf alive with them. Not sure why the calf survival rate continues to be low? Maybe bears and coyotes are scooping them up when they are new borns. :dunno:
I didn't see anything in that report about the chronically low bull to cow ratio. Looking at the trend reports ( from 2012). From those numbers here's what I took away from it. In 2009 (the last year that it was spike before going true-spike) the overall bull:cow ratio was 4.43:100. The branch bull:cow ratio was 2.28:100. The latest survey (2012) showed an increase in the overall bull:cow ratio. Due to the fact that slowely but surely true spike is allowing more and more yearlong bulls to escape and live to be big boys. In fact in 2009 the split between yearling and big boys was 50:50. Now the split between yearling and big boy is 60/40. This had led to an overall bull:cow ratio of 6.64:100. But the branch bull to cow ratio has increased to 2.72:100.
On average since 2009 we are seeing the yearling bull survival rate almost double. Up from 80 in 2009 to 153 in 2012. Yet the branch bull population has only increased by 22. Here is the million dollar question. Since 2009 270 yearling bulls have survived to become branch bulls. 45 have died from natural causes. About 5 a year are killed by licensed hunters and we know 107 are alive today. So where did the other 103 branch bulls go to. :dunno: That is the question that needs to be answered.
To wrap my opinions up. I say since true spike is having a positive effect (even as slow as it is) then continue with it. Double the amount of cow permits given out. Since the herd is above the objective give out cow permits to bring the population down to the goal number of elk. This will do two things #1 bring the herd size down to the stated goal #2 ease the harvest pressure off of the yearling bulls which will result in more spikes living and a higher bull to cow ratio.
And road closures. Continue to put up physical barriers on the roads which are already closed. Dramatically increase fines for violations. Start looking at strategic, smart and responsible road closures that can provide areas of escapement. If two roads go to the same place close one of them. There should be alot more areas on that map that gets farther than 652 yds (1km) from a road.
Post by: jstone on January 23, 2013, 07:31:22 AM
Post by: danderson on January 23, 2013, 07:49:45 AM
Post by: bobcat on January 23, 2013, 07:55:41 AM
Post by: woodywsu on January 23, 2013, 08:25:55 AM
As for the calf:cow ratio, I personally blame it on predation and road closures occuring too late in the winter. Febuary 1st isn't early enough :twocents: If Kittitas Valley Field and Stream Club could get on board, I think WDFW would try it.
Post by: Special T on January 23, 2013, 02:40:21 PM
Post by: Whitefoot on January 23, 2013, 03:04:24 PM
Post by: mulehunter on January 23, 2013, 03:28:54 PM
Where are the wolves at up there?
I believe between Chelan/Kittiitas BIO and GD already knew about it ( I may be wrong) and they been following the new pack recent, its by Pitcher Canyon below Mission ridge the Rancher with his Webcam caught a PG wolf recent before winter start 2012. There is a Pack hanging out there for sure. I have seen pic from the rancher. Its 100% real PG Wolf! Today Pups are out there! >:(
Post by: luvtohnt on January 23, 2013, 03:38:24 PM
Good luck convincing the Kittitas County Field and Stream of anything that actually aids in conservation!
Disturbance, and starvation are probably the two largest factors contributing to cow:calf numbers. In my opinion that range is severly degraded from years of overgrazing. Cheatgrass just in not palatable to elk. The closure does not prevent disturbance in the most crucial month for elk. I would guess that January sees the highest mortality (other than hunting season) on the elk herd. However looking at numbers from other states our cow:calf ratio for the Colockum herd is on the high side for late winter counts.I still feel the biologists bull counts may be a little low but I have never talked directly with a boi to get info on the counts. Colock seems to be the most up to date on this so for now I will just take his word on it.
Brandon
Post by: Whitefoot on January 23, 2013, 03:41:56 PM
Post by: woodywsu on January 25, 2013, 08:32:01 AM
mulehunter, I saw the wolf pic too. He left there about 2 weeks ago I was told by rancher, but so did the deer and elk
Post by: colockumelk on January 25, 2013, 08:46:57 AM
As far as having troubles growing the population of mature branch bulls. It absolutely falls on the Yakama tribal hunters. In 2006 the WDFW estimated they were harvesting up to 40 branch bulls a year. Members on this website (Whitefoot included) have told me that more and more tribal hunters are hunting that herd. Which is to be expected. Because just like any other good hunting spot, once word of mouth gets around and the "secret" is out about it, people start hoarding in on your honey hole. So the number of branch bulls harvested by tribal members is probably higher. And on our side of the fence I do believe that poaching is on the rise in that GMU. It's a poaching hotspot. It has big huge bulls and has ALOT of roads which means easier access for poachers.
I'm not pointing fingers at any individual group. It is what it is. They are using their treaty rights. I may not like it or agree with it but it is what it is. I do wish the Yakama Tribal council would start to take an active role in establishing proper and ethical game managment rules and regs for that area. Because the only thing that will help the branch bulls out is if they start doing their part. Again my beef isn't with individual tribal hunters. Its with the rules and regs (in this case lack therof) that allow this to happen. Road closures will also help out with this. :twocents:
Post by: woodywsu on January 25, 2013, 09:15:49 AM
Post by: palousehunter on January 25, 2013, 09:34:58 AM