Post by: Pigfuz on May 15, 2013, 05:04:11 AM
To Whom it may concern,
I have been setting up trail cameras and talking to landowners in GMU 564 (Battle Ground Unit) for the past year because I noticed that all of the elk in our unit have disappeared west of the NE 120th avenue line. After having trail cameras set up in the only area that I knew still had a few elk in it I discovered that there are only three elk (pictured in the attachments) left in the area that I am describing. I am a hunter in the Battle Ground unit and I know that my license fees go to funding for the WDFW. What I do not understand is that we "hire" the WDFW to manage wildlife, not to allow their eradication. On your own website it says that your two goals are "Protect and enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats. Provide sustainable, fish- and wildlife-related recreational and commercial opportunities." Well in the battleground unit by allowing either sex hunting for elk you have allowed them to be dwindled down to nothing. The rest of the unit is on the same course along with the deer in our unit. WDFW is not upholding either of their goals. If someone could give me any ex[planation for why GMU 564 is being managed the way that it is I would love to hear about it. Otherwise I want to know what it will take to get them to regulate hunting in this unit to some degree such as 3pt. minimum for elk and buck only for deer. Also if this message should be going to someone else I would like to get those email addresses.
Thanks,
Craig Murray
Post by: ELKBURGER on May 15, 2013, 06:32:21 AM
Post by: Pigfuz on May 15, 2013, 05:45:31 PM
Post by: Pigfuz on May 15, 2013, 10:13:40 PM
Post by: elk247 on May 15, 2013, 10:23:39 PM
Post by: Pigfuz on May 15, 2013, 10:40:08 PM
Post by: bobcat on May 15, 2013, 10:48:34 PM
david.ware@dfw.wa.gov
You could also send it to the Fish & Wildlife Commissioners
commission@dfw.wa.gov
Post by: Bob33 on May 15, 2013, 10:57:48 PM
Post by: Pigfuz on May 15, 2013, 10:59:01 PM
Post by: bobcat on May 15, 2013, 11:02:50 PM
Post by: Pigfuz on May 15, 2013, 11:22:40 PM
Post by: bobcat on May 15, 2013, 11:30:33 PM
Post by: Pigfuz on May 15, 2013, 11:36:12 PM
Post by: bobcat on May 15, 2013, 11:49:06 PM
It would be a good idea to talk to the regional biologist for tha area and get his take on it.
Post by: Pigfuz on May 16, 2013, 12:04:49 AM
Post by: washingtonhunter121 on May 16, 2013, 12:40:19 AM
Post by: ELKBURGER on May 16, 2013, 07:49:18 AM
I completely agree that "They" don't want elk in 564 but unless they are going to explain to the public why, then I don't think they should make decisions to eradicate a species out of an area. I realize that it is quite obvious that they don't want them here but I think that those of us that enjoy hunting elk in our local area deserve a right to know why WDFW is allowing people to hunt them completely out of the unit. Just my opinion :dunno:You are right......They need to explain thier goals, reasoning and plans how to acheive the goals.
Post by: jackmaster on May 16, 2013, 07:53:53 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 16, 2013, 08:05:19 AM
Post by: Pigfuz on May 16, 2013, 08:46:13 AM
Post by: Pigfuz on May 16, 2013, 09:48:02 AM
Thank you for your interest in elk in the Battle Ground GMU. You are correct, elk in this GMU are managed to keep the population low, with either sex seasons as you reference. This is done on purpose so that a significant elk population does not manifest in the suburban habitats and private property that dominate the Battle Ground GMU. Situations such as this are an unfortunate reality in places like Longview, Packwood and Sequim, WA and Estes Park Colorado. Elk in such settings damage private property, eat ornamental and commercial plants, cause traffic issues, etc. While some people like them, many do not, and once established, they can be difficult, expensive and dangerous to manage.
Note that the elk in the Battle Ground GMU are managed as part of the Mt. St. Helens Elk Herd. You can find the herd plan at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00771/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00771/) The plan will be updated at some point but significant changes related to management of the Battle Ground GMU elk population aren’t likely.
:yeah: :bdid:
Well if private landowners get to influence the regs that much then I am going to start trying to get leagal beaver hunting. Beavers have caused thousands of dollars of damage for us but if i shoot one of them and get caught then I will be fined thousands more and possibly get jail time.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 16, 2013, 09:52:52 AM
Well I guess I might as well give up on this argument because clearly I will not be able to change anything. Here is the reply that i got from the Vancouver team for WDFW.
Thank you for your interest in elk in the Battle Ground GMU. You are correct, elk in this GMU are managed to keep the population low, with either sex seasons as you reference. This is done on purpose so that a significant elk population does not manifest in the suburban habitats and private property that dominate the Battle Ground GMU. Situations such as this are an unfortunate reality in places like Longview, Packwood and Sequim, WA and Estes Park Colorado. Elk in such settings damage private property, eat ornamental and commercial plants, cause traffic issues, etc. While some people like them, many do not, and once established, they can be difficult, expensive and dangerous to manage.
Note that the elk in the Battle Ground GMU are managed as part of the Mt. St. Helens Elk Herd. You can find the herd plan at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00771/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00771/) The plan will be updated at some point but significant changes related to management of the Battle Ground GMU elk population aren’t likely.
:yeah: :bdid:
Well if private landowners get to influence the regs that much then I am going to start trying to get leagal beaver hunting. Beavers have caused thousands of dollars of damage for us but if i shoot one of them and get caught then I will be fined thousands more and possibly get jail time.
One of the major goals of successful wildlife management is to limit the opportunity for wildlife/human conflict. The Master Hunter program was developed specifically to deal with such conflicts on a case-by-case basis and some wildlife management goals and quotas are developed to deal with these conflicts with an overall plan, such as the one ongoing in 564. Your comment about beaver fits right in with that. Damage beaver permits are easy to get as long as you can show damage.
Post by: Humptulips on May 16, 2013, 11:53:07 AM
Well I guess I might as well give up on this argument because clearly I will not be able to change anything. Here is the reply that i got from the Vancouver team for WDFW.
Thank you for your interest in elk in the Battle Ground GMU. You are correct, elk in this GMU are managed to keep the population low, with either sex seasons as you reference. This is done on purpose so that a significant elk population does not manifest in the suburban habitats and private property that dominate the Battle Ground GMU. Situations such as this are an unfortunate reality in places like Longview, Packwood and Sequim, WA and Estes Park Colorado. Elk in such settings damage private property, eat ornamental and commercial plants, cause traffic issues, etc. While some people like them, many do not, and once established, they can be difficult, expensive and dangerous to manage.
Note that the elk in the Battle Ground GMU are managed as part of the Mt. St. Helens Elk Herd. You can find the herd plan at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00771/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00771/) The plan will be updated at some point but significant changes related to management of the Battle Ground GMU elk population aren’t likely.
:yeah: :bdid:
Well if private landowners get to influence the regs that much then I am going to start trying to get leagal beaver hunting. Beavers have caused thousands of dollars of damage for us but if i shoot one of them and get caught then I will be fined thousands more and possibly get jail time.
If the beaver are on your land and doing damage you are completely legal to shoot or trap them year around. No permit required except if you wish to use bodygripping traps. Call the Regional office. I'm sure they will confirm that.
Post by: jackmaster on May 16, 2013, 11:59:25 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 16, 2013, 12:06:28 PM
WOW........ so i sure hope they decide to manage wolves the same way :dunno: :dunno: :chuckle:
No, only non-cuddly critters are managed with game management and scientific data. Cuddlies are managed with emotion and dreadlocks! :tup:
Post by: jackmaster on May 16, 2013, 12:27:11 PM
Post by: Pigfuz on May 16, 2013, 12:39:48 PM
WOW........ so i sure hope they decide to manage wolves the same way :dunno: :dunno: :chuckle:
No, only non-cuddly critters are managed with game management and scientific data. Cuddlies are managed with emotion and dreadlocks! :tup:
WOW........ so i sure hope they decide to manage wolves the same way :dunno: :dunno: :chuckle:
No, only non-cuddly critters are managed with game management and scientific data. Cuddlies are managed with emotion and dreadlocks! :tup:
^^^^ So true :yeah:
Post by: Humptulips on May 16, 2013, 08:59:30 PM
WOW........ so i sure hope they decide to manage wolves the same way :dunno: :dunno: :chuckle:
Small game, furbearers and unclassified wildlife get managed that way. Big game, most birds and Threatened & Endangered wildlife, you will need a permit that they probably won't give you.
Another thing that plays into your question, You can get reimbursed for damage caused by elk to crops from WDFW. Hence the Departments bias to limit elk damage. Sorry, they won't pay for beaver damage.