Post by: Goshawk on February 06, 2013, 02:58:40 PM
I heard that the WDFW is going to start shooting hoof rotted elk in hopes of clearing up the hoof rot epidemic before more damage is done to the west side herd.
Stay Tuned!
Post by: MLBowhunting on February 06, 2013, 03:04:07 PM
Post by: kentrek on February 06, 2013, 03:14:59 PM
ive heard of them doing this years ago when the hoof rot started getting bad,it was rummer but i still have proof of over 60 head of elk disappearing over the course of one winter..its that or the rot killed them all at once which seems unlikely
this was..give or take 6 years ago in the Stella and the elk haven't been back since, there is a small group of 4 that show up now but 2 of them still have the rot
hopefuly we can still hunt elk in the next 5 years after they do this "culling"
Post by: WDFW Hates ME!!! on February 06, 2013, 05:28:00 PM
Post by: Curly on February 06, 2013, 05:30:28 PM
Maybe they should look into the herbicides being used. I don't buy for one bit that the herbicides don't have any effect on the deer and elk. Hair loss? Hoof rot? I think the herbicides are compromising there immune systems. But what the hell do i know. Just seems coincidental.:yeah:
Post by: D-Rock425 on February 06, 2013, 06:10:18 PM
Post by: Griiz on February 06, 2013, 06:11:38 PM
Maybe they should look into the herbicides being used. I don't buy for one bit that the herbicides don't have any effect on the deer and elk. Hair loss? Hoof rot? I think the herbicides are compromising there immune systems. But what the hell do i know. Just seems coincidental.
I've been wondering the same thing for a few years now.
Post by: chukar hunter on February 06, 2013, 06:45:37 PM
Introduce Wolves into SW Washington
I realize I'm going to take some flak for this idea, but I can defend to the end that I hate wolves as much as any other and I consider myself a true ethical hunter and an outdoor activist. My idea is based off of three simple facts:
1. Due to wildlife laws, wolves are here to stay. Like it or not, political and anti-hunting activists have forced us as hunters to enter a post wolf re-introduction era that hunters in WA and many other states will face the rest of our lives.
2. Wolf management by hunters will not begin to take place until all regions have the appropriate number of breeding pairs as outlined by the WA Wolf Management Plan. The more people who "shoot, shovel, & shut-up" in regions with less than adequate numbers of breeding pairs are only slowing the legal process by which we as hunters will be able to hunt these predators. Introducing wolves into SW Washinton will lead to achieving this requirement faster.
I personally believe that wolf populations will become well over management objectives prior to naturally migrating into SW Washington and west of I-5. Therefore huge tolls on our deer and elk herds will be taken prior to achieving the Management Plan objectives. Thus we currently have a flawed management plan, and introducing wolves in these areas will lead to a more even wolf dispersal throughout our state.
3. In THEORY predators including wolves are opportunistic feeders. Given the choice between a large mature bull or a weak limping yearly cow with hoof rot, I'll put my life savings on the line that they'll kill the injured cow. This predator food source theory makes the herd stronger as they eliminate the contagious elk that may not be culled from the WDFW efforts.
Just my :twocents: like it or not! What do you think? Flaws in my idea?
Post by: skywalker253 on February 06, 2013, 07:18:29 PM
I don't want to hi-jack this thread, but was thinking about another, possibly more effective solution a few days ago, that I was wanting to bring up for discussion on this forum:
Introduce Wolves into SW Washington
I realize I'm going to take some flak for this idea, but I can defend to the end that I hate wolves as much as any other and I consider myself a true ethical hunter and an outdoor activist. My idea is based off of three simple facts:
1. Due to wildlife laws, wolves are here to stay. Like it or not, political and anti-hunting activists have forced us as hunters to enter a post wolf re-introduction era that hunters in WA and many other states will face the rest of our lives.
2. Wolf management by hunters will not begin to take place until all regions have the appropriate number of breeding pairs as outlined by the WA Wolf Management Plan. The more people who "shoot, shovel, & shut-up" in regions with less than adequate numbers of breeding pairs are only slowing the legal process by which we as hunters will be able to hunt these predators. Introducing wolves into SW Washinton will lead to achieving this requirement faster.
I personally believe that wolf populations will become well over management objectives prior to naturally migrating into SW Washington and west of I-5. Therefore huge tolls on our deer and elk herds will be taken prior to achieving the Management Plan objectives. Thus we currently have a flawed management plan, and introducing wolves in these areas will lead to a more even wolf dispersal throughout our state.
3. In THEORY predators including wolves are opportunistic feeders. Given the choice between a large mature bull or a weak limping yearly cow with hoof rot, I'll put my life savings on the line that they'll kill the injured cow. This predator food source theory makes the herd stronger as they eliminate the contagious elk that may not be culled from the WDFW efforts.
Just my :twocents: like it or not! What do you think? Flaws in my idea?
So what if they never find a cure for hoof rott? You would then have hoof rott killing elk off, and wolves. It seems like it would be a double whammy and potentially decimate the herds. Even if the WSDFW starts killing hoof rott elk off; how do we know that it will cure the problem. Either they know what the problem is or they are speculating. They should get a definitive answer before any solution is put into play. Perhaps they don't have enough time to determine the problem, so they are better off shooting them off to see what happens versus waiting it out. I don't like the idea of wolves in WA. We don't have near the herd numbers of the other western states to support quality hunting and wolve predation. Not at the rates wolves breed and thrill kill game.
Post by: Crunchy on February 06, 2013, 07:30:22 PM
So what if they never find a cure for hoof rott? You would then have hoof rott killing elk off, and wolves. It seems like it would be a double whammy and potentially decimate the herds. Even if the WSDFW starts killing hoof rott elk off; how do we know that it will cure the problem. Either they know what the problem is or they are speculating. They should get a definitive answer before any solution is put into play. Perhaps they don't have enough time to determine the problem, so they are better off shooting them off to see what happens versus waiting it out. I don't like the idea of wolves in WA. We don't have near the herd numbers of the other western states to support quality hunting and wolve predation. Not at the rates wolves breed and thrill kill game.
[/quote]
Exactly my thoughts. Wolves we just dont need.
Post by: kentrek on February 06, 2013, 07:35:05 PM
I don't want to hi-jack this thread, but was thinking about another, possibly more effective solution a few days ago, that I was wanting to bring up for discussion on this forum:
Introduce Wolves into SW Washington
I realize I'm going to take some flak for this idea, but I can defend to the end that I hate wolves as much as any other and I consider myself a true ethical hunter and an outdoor activist. My idea is based off of three simple facts:
1. Due to wildlife laws, wolves are here to stay. Like it or not, political and anti-hunting activists have forced us as hunters to enter a post wolf re-introduction era that hunters in WA and many other states will face the rest of our lives.
2. Wolf management by hunters will not begin to take place until all regions have the appropriate number of breeding pairs as outlined by the WA Wolf Management Plan. The more people who "shoot, shovel, & shut-up" in regions with less than adequate numbers of breeding pairs are only slowing the legal process by which we as hunters will be able to hunt these predators. Introducing wolves into SW Washinton will lead to achieving this requirement faster.
I personally believe that wolf populations will become well over management objectives prior to naturally migrating into SW Washington and west of I-5. Therefore huge tolls on our deer and elk herds will be taken prior to achieving the Management Plan objectives. Thus we currently have a flawed management plan, and introducing wolves in these areas will lead to a more even wolf dispersal throughout our state.
3. In THEORY predators including wolves are opportunistic feeders. Given the choice between a large mature bull or a weak limping yearly cow with hoof rot, I'll put my life savings on the line that they'll kill the injured cow. This predator food source theory makes the herd stronger as they eliminate the contagious elk that may not be culled from the WDFW efforts.
Just my :twocents: like it or not! What do you think? Flaws in my idea?
i dont like your idea..at all
wolfs are not going to just kill the hoof rot elk but they will kill everything
why make the same mistake as the idaho ??
i would rather have them kill off all the elk and then have them rebuild the herd then to introduce a random species of wolf that we would never be able to get rid of
wolfs could have moved into these regions long ago but they haven't yet so why force them ???
should we start helping sealions over populate just so we can get a law passed allowing us to "manage" them ?? or should we just go down to the river and do what needs to be done ?? seems silly to screw up sw wa just so you can do what you can already do...
dont play god to solve mans issues with red tape
Post by: Mudman on February 06, 2013, 07:55:49 PM
Post by: kentrek on February 06, 2013, 08:18:13 PM
What! Dont ya guys know there already are wolves at St Helens. Pack of 4 have been spotted many times now. Wolves are there to stay. :bash: Plenty of food for em. I think this is the plan to manage hoof rot make greenies happy and it will help lead to delisting wolves for eastern Wa. Win Win! :twocents:
there are no wolves up at st helens...sorry mudman
i know there's a bunch of rumors but really..ive even talked to a guy that shot one and seen four more all in different locations all in one year :yike: but then i spend all summer up there watching elk an never even seen a single wolf track ?? not one ?????? mhmmm must be loads of wolves up there..they just know how not to leave any tracks behind :dunno:
sorry off topic
Post by: Lcl 66 Tinner on February 06, 2013, 08:20:59 PM
Post by: chukar hunter on February 07, 2013, 07:49:29 AM
But as previously stated, they are here to stay whether we like it or not due to federal laws. The only LEGAL methods of removal other than the WA Wolf Management Plan would be repeated documented livestock depredation, which I don't see happening.
dont play god to solve mans issues with red tape
Kentrek, Isn't the WDFW doing the same thing by shooting hoof rot animals?
Post by: kentrek on February 07, 2013, 10:29:32 AM
I think that we can all agree that we don't like wolves and we don't want them in WA.
But as previously stated, they are here to stay whether we like it or not due to federal laws. The only LEGAL methods of removal other than the WA Wolf Management Plan would be repeated documented livestock depredation, which I don't see happening.
dont play god to solve mans issues with red tape
Kentrek, Isn't the WDFW doing the same thing by shooting hoof rot animals?
yes..that statement sounds radical but don't take it that way,i think with human populations WDFW has to "play god" to a certain point but.. moving an invasive species into the sw corner just to bypass some redtape seems to cross the line in my eyes
just my :twocents:
Post by: Mudman on February 07, 2013, 10:37:34 AM
Post by: bobcat on February 07, 2013, 10:41:40 AM
Post by: Bob33 on February 07, 2013, 10:46:02 AM
Post by: kentrek on February 07, 2013, 10:46:15 AM
But after elk are culled and wolf pop. is high then what? :chuckle:
then i no longer hunt in WA
im a customer of the state,if they dont have better options than their competitors (montana,wyoming) i will move on
its their choice :tup:
Post by: Mudman on February 07, 2013, 10:46:43 AM
"They" (the WDFW) did not introduce wolves in eastern Washington, and they won't over here either. (IMO)Ya, maybe. Not public. :chuckle: But?? Wolves would solve the problem right? Dont ya wonder whats up? Many believe they are already there? Im not sure yet. The wolf plan doesnt it want packs over here too? If so then delisting would come and east Wa wolf hunt could take place.
Post by: Curly on February 07, 2013, 03:15:43 PM
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/packs/packs_map_20121004.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/packs/packs_map_20121004.pdf)
If you look at the wolf map on the link above, it shows the Southern Cascades and Northwest Coast region as one of the areas where they want wolves before delisting (if I remember correctly). So, wolves aren't necessarily needed in W WA before delisting (because that region extends over into E WA).
That is how I understand it anyway. Feel free to correct me. :hello:
Post by: bobcat on February 07, 2013, 04:01:06 PM
Just keep them on the east side of the mountains, we don't need any stinkin' wolves over here.
Post by: Dbax129 on February 07, 2013, 06:40:02 PM
Kindof strange how everything I hear about wolves in wa makes the subject sound like an elaborate conspiracy...
Post by: skywalker253 on February 07, 2013, 11:38:41 PM
But after elk are culled and wolf pop. is high then what? :chuckle:
then i no longer hunt in WA
im a customer of the state,if they dont have better options than their competitors (montana,wyoming) i will move on
its their choice :tup:
Unfortunately the game department does not view you as a customer of Wa. Hunting in Wa is viewed as a priviledge, not a right, not a population of customers, etc. I understand your point. Montana and Wyoming may have better options for hunting, but that is because they have a substantially bigger herd sizes and a number of different game species to provide.
Back to the hoof rott issue- I am curious to hear when the first documented case was discovered? I would also like to know what changes in fertilizers, pesticides, etc. the tree companies have made over the years. It would be interesting to see if a new chemical was entered into the habitat and if there is a coralation between it being introduced and the birth of hoof rott. I don't ever remember hearing of elk having hoof rott in the 80's or 90's. Fill me in....
Post by: kentrek on February 07, 2013, 11:56:25 PM
Back to the hoof rott issue- I am curious to hear when the first documented case was discovered?
my dad shot a bull in the late 90's that had it..it was in the stella
il get the exact date tommarow tho
Post by: Curly on February 08, 2013, 07:29:25 AM
Post by: IBspoiled on February 08, 2013, 08:16:24 AM
Wife
Post by: AKBowman on February 09, 2013, 08:57:05 AM
But after elk are culled and wolf pop. is high then what? :chuckle:
then i no longer hunt in WA
im a customer of the state,if they dont have better options than their competitors (montana,wyoming) i will move on
its their choice :tup:
I think I have one more year of elk hunting in WA then I will spend my money on a tag in OR. The WDFW just does not have a solid plan for managent, seasons, permits etc, etc. I'm tired of feeding them my money.
Until hunter start standing up and boycotting WDFW by choosing not to purchase a tag that is worth less and less every year but is costing more and more every year than nothing will change. One more yr for me than I am done, I will hunt elk in OR and deer in ID.
Post by: Mudman on February 09, 2013, 04:46:23 PM
Post by: Mudman on February 10, 2013, 10:31:16 AM
Post by: Mudman on February 10, 2013, 03:58:50 PM
:chuckle: Is it all cut and dry for Liberals? Take your jab and run! :chuckle: Where are your facts you claim? Hipocritical. Yes they get plenty of $ just not as much as they think they should, or spend. Why is that? Because we are tired of getting the shaft and flipping the bill for their million dollar bathrooms and parks in the city. Where are your facts??? Or do you just bekieve everything they tell you? Your score is funny, did that come from your scientific proven statistics?I dont need to goggle anything to know the discover pas(which is junk charging us to enter our own land) was created to build million dollar bathrooms in Elbe with no plumbing infrastructure from town in place to feed it. I dont need google to know pass funds parks in seattle and other crap not related to wdfw. I dont need google to know our moneys as hunters doesnt solely go to wdfw and our cause. I dont need google to know our liberal Gov. mismanages its money then ask for more and we have a new charge or pass invented. I dont need google to view state funding reports that dont tell the whole story of our states greedy spending problem. The dis. pass isnt bringing in $ because we are tired of this crap!!! We dont miss-understand it we refuse to buy it!! :twocents:
Thats funny! You said in your original post that the Discover Pass was one of the things that was bringing in plenty of money to invest in WDFW programs. Now your saying it isnt bringing in $ because we are tired of this crap!. Your all over the place. I have read your posts with other forum members. You seem to like to make irrational statements wtih no factual information to back them. I read your posts arguing with several other forum members. Your arguments won score is....
Mudman 0
Forum Members 1000
No need to argue it any further. Enjoy your day.
Post by: Mudman on February 10, 2013, 04:25:55 PM
Post by: billythekidrock on February 10, 2013, 04:34:06 PM
Wa state expects to bring in 64 million$ the next 2 years on discovery pass sales. So far 84% of money raised has gone to parks with the remaining 16% being split between DNR and WDFW. So there ya go!!!!!! 8%. Like I said above they (wdfw) would have plenty of money if the state spent our money on WDFW. Skywalker your attacking hipocritical comments are not factual or appreciated.
Where did you get that info? How about posting a link?
They may hope for that, but they won't get it. To top it off, state parks is spending hundreds thousands of dollars for new signs and entrances right now..
Post by: Mudman on February 10, 2013, 04:46:00 PM
I dont know how to copy n paste, I keep forgetting. I googled like suggested. It is an AP article in the Seattle times.Wa state expects to bring in 64 million$ the next 2 years on discovery pass sales. So far 84% of money raised has gone to parks with the remaining 16% being split between DNR and WDFW. So there ya go!!!!!! 8%. Like I said above they (wdfw) would have plenty of money if the state spent our money on WDFW. Skywalker your attacking hipocritical comments are not factual or appreciated.
Where did you get that info? How about posting a link?
They may hope for that, but they won't get it. To top it off, state parks is spending hundreds thousands of dollars for new signs and entrances right now..
Post by: billythekidrock on February 10, 2013, 04:49:15 PM
Select
Right click>Copy
New post.
Right click>Paste
Post by: Mudman on February 10, 2013, 05:02:06 PM
Post by: Mudman on February 11, 2013, 12:02:33 AM
Mudman,Very good. Now we are on the same page. :tup: We spend plenty of money as sportsman and they dont use it for WDFW, Thats is the problem. Granted they should I agree and wish more was spent/done for the hoof disease. I dont want to keep giving more money under false pretense that we dont give them enuff. The State Gov. budget is the issue. Hunters/sportsmans recognize this and are upset with Disc. pass. Without our support they hurt themselves as well as us I think.
I understand your point about the state not dividing up the money. Whether Wa State has $1.00 or $84 million dollars, I could careless. All I am saying is the WDFW lacks funding and the Govenor and the WDFW need to develop ways to provide the WDFW with more money to support programs, such as Hoof Rott research. Whether the Wa State gives them money or they create ways to generate it; I don't care. Just get more money to the WDFW to support these programs. I never said Wa State did not have any money. I said the WDFW lacks money to support these programs.
Post by: Goshawk on March 02, 2013, 10:21:47 AM
And here I thought this posting was about hoof rot.
Post by: Goshawk on March 02, 2013, 10:28:56 AM
Consider if you would, what if the hoof rot pathogen was normally killed off by a hard freeze every winter much as the intestinal worm cycle is. The past few winters have had some snow, but not single digit freezes. It's been quite some time since my kids could skate on the duck ponds around here.
Something has indeed changed. Is it the weather? Different herbicides (One theory as to why the ruffed grouse population is so low. Grouse ingesting herbicide contaminated gravel.) Did we shoot out the best of the heard leaving the weak to spread bad genetics? Over stressed the elk from 4 months of hunting?
Lots of variables here that need exploring; Quickly Please!
Post by: kentrek on March 02, 2013, 10:37:39 AM
I can't help but wonder if the mild winters we have had over the past few years might have something to do with it. :dunno:
Consider if you would, what if the hoof rot pathogen was normally killed off by a hard freeze every winter much as the intestinal worm cycle is. The past few winters have had some snow, but not single digit freezes. It's been quite some time since my kids could skate on the duck ponds around here.
Something has indeed changed. Is it the weather? Different herbicides (One theory as to why the ruffed grouse population is so low. Grouse ingesting herbicide contaminated gravel.) Did we shoot out the best of the heard leaving the weak to spread bad genetics? Over stressed the elk from 4 months of hunting?
Lots of variables here that need exploring; Quickly Please!
:yeah: could be everything...... acting as the "perfect storm"
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on March 02, 2013, 11:16:15 AM
But after elk are culled and wolf pop. is high then what? :chuckle:
then i no longer hunt in WA
im a customer of the state,if they dont have better options than their competitors (montana,wyoming) i will move on
its their choice :tup:
Unfortunately the game department does not view you as a customer of Wa. Hunting in Wa is viewed as a priviledge, not a right, not a population of customers, etc. I understand your point. Montana and Wyoming may have better options for hunting, but that is because they have a substantially bigger herd sizes and a number of different game species to provide.
Back to the hoof rott issue- I am curious to hear when the first documented case was discovered? I would also like to know what changes in fertilizers, pesticides, etc. the tree companies have made over the years. It would be interesting to see if a new chemical was entered into the habitat and if there is a coralation between it being introduced and the birth of hoof rott. I don't ever remember hearing of elk having hoof rott in the 80's or 90's. Fill me in....
Hey, if you want to get even deeper into conspiracies, ask yourself why the state requires so many different organs for sampling if you draw a cow tag in this area? FYI organs are often where chemicals become concentrated in the body. I think the Dept knows there is a problem and is documenting it, but I doubt they'll share that info with us.