Post by: cboom on September 23, 2014, 02:01:12 PM
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on September 23, 2014, 02:06:27 PM
Post by: Practical Approach on September 23, 2014, 02:18:21 PM
Post by: bobcat on September 23, 2014, 02:22:04 PM
Post by: baker5150 on September 23, 2014, 02:26:45 PM
BS-If you are going to accuse someone or a tribe, lets hear who the tribes are and who your source is. I hate second hand information without supporting evidence posted on these threads.
I wouldn't be calling B.S. just yet. He said he would get the guys info in a PM if he could. Don't be so quick to try and call people out.
Post by: trophyhunt on September 23, 2014, 02:27:18 PM
Post by: Practical Approach on September 23, 2014, 02:31:23 PM
BS-If you are going to accuse someone or a tribe, lets hear who the tribes are and who your source is. I hate second hand information without supporting evidence posted on these threads.
I wouldn't be calling B.S. just yet. He said he would get the guys info in a PM if he could. Don't be so quick to try and call people out.
I will be as quick to call someone out as they are to post something without evidence.
Post by: rtspring on September 23, 2014, 02:31:58 PM
Im not gonna bash any race, but something has to be done.. By all humans or we are screwed!!!
Rtspring
Post by: Practical Approach on September 23, 2014, 02:33:46 PM
Here is a fact! While helping Coach with his raffle tag over three weeks I have seen 6 deer! With the miles we have covered I can assure you the deer population is getting punished, and hard! Be it indians, cats, wolves, coyotes or poaching..
Im not gonna bash any race, but something has to be done.. By all humans or we are screwed!!!
Rtspring
I agree, as with most species in decline there are multiple factors usually at play. Some factors factor in more heavily than others depending on the species and the geographic area.
Post by: Practical Approach on September 23, 2014, 02:37:37 PM
Tribal hunting is just about the #1 issue affecting deer and elk hunting in this state, in my opinion. And the state doesn't seem to care. The tribes are allowed to kill as much as they want, whenever they want. They are even given gate keys so they can drive into areas where everyone else has to walk, as if driving to the tops of mountains is some sort of cultural tradition for them that the white man can't take away.
I disagree as a whole. While tribes might be a major factor in a specific area. Maybe your pet area of focus, it is not a major issue or issue at all everywhere. Bobcat, you have been painting the tribes with a pretty broad paintbrush since I joined this forum. When you refer to tribes from now on, it would be helpful to everyone if you referred to the specific tribes your are speaking of.
Post by: baker5150 on September 23, 2014, 02:42:44 PM
Tribal hunting is just about the #1 issue affecting deer and elk hunting in this state, in my opinion. And the state doesn't seem to care. The tribes are allowed to kill as much as they want, whenever they want. They are even given gate keys so they can drive into areas where everyone else has to walk, as if driving to the tops of mountains is some sort of cultural tradition for them that the white man can't take away.
I disagree as a whole. While tribes might be a major factor in a specific area. Maybe your pet area of focus, it is not a major issue or issue at all everywhere. Bobcat, you have been painting the tribes with a pretty broad paintbrush since I joined this forum. When you refer to tribes from now on, it would be helpful to everyone if you referred to the specific tribes your are speaking of.
Care to back that up with some facts?? Or do you need to be called out as well?
Post by: bobcat on September 23, 2014, 02:44:10 PM
Post by: Billdos Uncle on September 23, 2014, 02:47:39 PM
Tribal hunting is just about the #1 issue affecting deer and elk hunting in this state, in my opinion. And the state doesn't seem to care. The tribes are allowed to kill as much as they want, whenever they want. They are even given gate keys so they can drive into areas where everyone else has to walk, as if driving to the tops of mountains is some sort of cultural tradition for them that the white man can't take away.They are like wolves :tup: :chuckle: :dunno:
No different... UNMANAGED
Post by: Practical Approach on September 23, 2014, 02:47:53 PM
Tribal hunting is just about the #1 issue affecting deer and elk hunting in this state, in my opinion. And the state doesn't seem to care. The tribes are allowed to kill as much as they want, whenever they want. They are even given gate keys so they can drive into areas where everyone else has to walk, as if driving to the tops of mountains is some sort of cultural tradition for them that the white man can't take away.
I disagree as a whole. While tribes might be a major factor in a specific area. Maybe your pet area of focus, it is not a major issue or issue at all everywhere. Bobcat, you have been painting the tribes with a pretty broad paintbrush since I joined this forum. When you refer to tribes from now on, it would be helpful to everyone if you referred to the specific tribes your are speaking of.
Care to back that up with some facts?? Or do you need to be called out as well?
Post by: bowhunterwa87 on September 23, 2014, 02:48:42 PM
I have to agree with bobcat. We would have some of the best hunting in the state if truckloads werent being hauled out daily
Post by: Practical Approach on September 23, 2014, 02:52:46 PM
BS-If you are going to accuse someone or a tribe, lets hear who the tribes are and who your source is. I hate second hand information without supporting evidence posted on these threads.
I did say if you want more info you can PM me. I agree there is plenty of second hand information out there. That second hand info would include the locals seeing truckloads of deer coming out in the dead of winter. You don't have to believe any of that either. You can just believe that the deer have just all but disappeared off prime deer land that they haven't even gotten wolves to yet (its in their plans) for no reason at all.
But you already threw the steak out for the wolves to fight over in my opinion. I see data is collected on harvest by tribal hunters and state hunters. Nothing reflects the permit numbers you mention. I think predators (cougars) play a larger role than what most people think. Especially when on average an adult cat is making a kill about every 7 days.
Post by: Practical Approach on September 23, 2014, 02:54:15 PM
I have to agree with bobcat. We would have some of the best hunting in the state if truckloads werent being hauled out daily
Where are the truckloads pics?
Post by: Practical Approach on September 23, 2014, 02:55:09 PM
Sure, it's specific areas. Look at the Yakima area: worst deer populations in the state. The WDFW blames hair loss caused by lice. But to me it's obvious- Those deer get killed year around by a tribe that has no closed season and no limits. The same thing could be happening in the area described by the original post in this thread.
No it couldn't. Tribes up north have seasons and limits.
Post by: baker5150 on September 23, 2014, 02:57:39 PM
I have to agree with bobcat. We would have some of the best hunting in the state if truckloads werent being hauled out daily
Where are the truckloads pics?
I would like to see those myself.
Do you have the harvest report for the entire state, that includes the Native % for both Deer and Elk? I'd be interested to see what the % is for the Yakima area that Bobcat is talking about.
Also whats the margin for error on that report, or how many hunters do they assume or believe didn't report?
Post by: vandeman17 on September 23, 2014, 03:00:06 PM
BS-If you are going to accuse someone or a tribe, lets hear who the tribes are and who your source is. I hate second hand information without supporting evidence posted on these threads.
I did say if you want more info you can PM me. I agree there is plenty of second hand information out there. That second hand info would include the locals seeing truckloads of deer coming out in the dead of winter. You don't have to believe any of that either. You can just believe that the deer have just all but disappeared off prime deer land that they haven't even gotten wolves to yet (its in their plans) for no reason at all.
But you already threw the steak out for the wolves to fight over in my opinion. I see data is collected on harvest by tribal hunters and state hunters. Nothing reflects the permit numbers you mention. I think predators (cougars) play a larger role than what most people think. Especially when on average an adult cat is making a kill about every 7 days.
I agree it a cumulative problem of too many predators with the likes of cats, bears, wolves and people. The thing with native harvest is that a single person can go in to an area in a weekend and kill a truck bed full of deer or multiple elk, all of which I have seen first hand. My theory, and it is my theory alone, is that if you could actually get accurate numbers that native harvest would be about equal to that of all other predators combined. Non-native hunters also take a large percentage of the animals taken out of an area but at least there is a count of how many are taken, or at least an attempt at it for the sake of conservation. :twocents:
Post by: Practical Approach on September 23, 2014, 03:03:37 PM
I have to agree with bobcat. We would have some of the best hunting in the state if truckloads werent being hauled out daily
Where are the truckloads pics?
I would like to see those myself.
Do you have the harvest report for the entire state, that includes the Native % for both Deer and Elk? I'd be interested to see what the % is for the Yakima area that Bobcat is talking about.
Also whats the margin for error on that report, or how many hunters do they assume or believe didn't report?
No, just the report for the west side tribes on the NWIFC.org website. I am not sure about the error margin, but I have read from WDFW that the state has about a 60-70% reporting rate on any given year for their annual report.
Post by: snowpack on September 23, 2014, 03:04:13 PM
The hunting prospect prepared by WDFW has Indian harvest graphed with state harvest for many of the GMUs. The ones I've seen haven't looked very disproportionate. But those numbers only reflect what was reported.
I have to agree with bobcat. We would have some of the best hunting in the state if truckloads werent being hauled out daily
Where are the truckloads pics?
I would like to see those myself.
Do you have the harvest report for the entire state, that includes the Native % for both Deer and Elk? I'd be interested to see what the % is for the Yakima area that Bobcat is talking about.
Also whats the margin for error on that report, or how many hunters do they assume or believe didn't report?
Post by: Practical Approach on September 23, 2014, 03:06:40 PM
Sure, it's specific areas. Look at the Yakima area: worst deer populations in the state. The WDFW blames hair loss caused by lice. But to me it's obvious- Those deer get killed year around by a tribe that has no closed season and no limits. The same thing could be happening in the area described by the original post in this thread.
Nail on head Bobcat. In fact every area in this state is a specific area by itself! And that is how we are losing everything. Pretty easy for somebody from SW, NE, SE Wa to look at my post and say that sucks for them and even mean it. Until there specific area is hit it has no real affect on them. Our area was great for as long as my granddad, my dad, and most of my life can remember. Didn't take to long to ruin it as soon as a group that can basically do what they want focused on it.
And this area has a lot of country. Lots of high meadows a person could walk into for the day. Some a bit further making a good backpack trip into or horse camp. But 75% of those animals end up in a very concentrated area in the winter. Funny after a few hard hit years of my "second hand information without supporting evidence" the only places there are much for deer to be found in the summer range are the places they migrate into Canada.
What do you think has changed in your area? Tribal hunting has only become more restrictive through court cases over the years. In your dad and granddads times, tribes were hunting with the same weapons just with fewer regulations????
Post by: baker5150 on September 23, 2014, 03:08:47 PM
I have to agree with bobcat. We would have some of the best hunting in the state if truckloads werent being hauled out daily
Where are the truckloads pics?
I would like to see those myself.
Do you have the harvest report for the entire state, that includes the Native % for both Deer and Elk? I'd be interested to see what the % is for the Yakima area that Bobcat is talking about.
Also whats the margin for error on that report, or how many hunters do they assume or believe didn't report?
No, just the report for the west side tribes on the NWIFC.org website. I am not sure about the error margin, but I have read from WDFW that the state has about a 60-70% reporting rate on any given year for their annual report.
I found it, and it has all the elk and deer numbers for the entire state. I can't figure out how to screen shot it like you did. But it shows the native % for the Yakima area at 2% Only 1 Elk taken by a native in 2013.
Page 13 of the revised report
Seems a little hard for me to believe only 1 Elk was taken by a tribal member from that area.
http://nwifc.org/publications/big-game-harvest-reports/ (http://nwifc.org/publications/big-game-harvest-reports/)
Post by: bowhunterwa87 on September 23, 2014, 03:13:07 PM
I have to agree with bobcat. We would have some of the best hunting in the state if truckloads werent being hauled out daily
Where are the truckloads pics?
Why would i take pics?? To support my "theory" on an online forum lol?! You must be a native or someody living under a rock. Take a drive through white swan and admire the mountains of deer and elk heads thrown up on the roofs rotting lol.
Every local around here knows how it is. I feel a defensive rebuttal coming on :chuckle:
Post by: Gringo31 on September 23, 2014, 03:14:40 PM
Newsflash!
1. Russians, Indians, Hispanics and Whites are killing our game illegally.
2. Many folks who care about these natural resources are outraged.
3. Fines are too small and "some" regulations aren't exactly enforced in some areas.
4. Predators are a MAJOR issue....both with 2 feet and 4 feet.
5. Some of the data out there may be a bit incomplete or inaccurate due to poor compliance.
And?
Post by: Practical Approach on September 23, 2014, 03:16:34 PM
I posted last seasons tribal harvest earlier in the thread. The state reports last seasons harvest the following year. Same as the tribes.BS-If you are going to accuse someone or a tribe, lets hear who the tribes are and who your source is. I hate second hand information without supporting evidence posted on these threads.
I did say if you want more info you can PM me. I agree there is plenty of second hand information out there. That second hand info would include the locals seeing truckloads of deer coming out in the dead of winter. You don't have to believe any of that either. You can just believe that the deer have just all but disappeared off prime deer land that they haven't even gotten wolves to yet (its in their plans) for no reason at all.
But you already threw the steak out for the wolves to fight over in my opinion. I see data is collected on harvest by tribal hunters and state hunters. Nothing reflects the permit numbers you mention. I think predators (cougars) play a larger role than what most people think. Especially when on average an adult cat is making a kill about every 7 days.
Show me last seasons tribal harvest? The state now doesn't report actual tribal harvest for several years after the fact. And that is assuming they got honest numbers to begin with.
Post by: Practical Approach on September 23, 2014, 03:17:57 PM
I have to agree with bobcat. We would have some of the best hunting in the state if truckloads werent being hauled out daily
Where are the truckloads pics?
I would like to see those myself.
Do you have the harvest report for the entire state, that includes the Native % for both Deer and Elk? I'd be interested to see what the % is for the Yakima area that Bobcat is talking about.
Also whats the margin for error on that report, or how many hunters do they assume or believe didn't report?
No, just the report for the west side tribes on the NWIFC.org website. I am not sure about the error margin, but I have read from WDFW that the state has about a 60-70% reporting rate on any given year for their annual report.
I found it, and it has all the elk and deer numbers for the entire state. I can't figure out how to screen shot it like you did. But it shows the native % for the Yakima area at 2% Only 1 Elk taken by a native in 2013.
Page 13 of the revised report
Seems a little hard for me to believe only 1 Elk was taken by a tribal member from that area.
http://nwifc.org/publications/big-game-harvest-reports/ (http://nwifc.org/publications/big-game-harvest-reports/)
On the first page of the report it tells you which tribes it reports for. Yakima is not included.
Post by: Practical Approach on September 23, 2014, 03:21:01 PM
Well for one reason many of us don't know you. Most of us don't live where you live or see what you have described. We live in a society where people want to see evidence before believing everything they hear. At least I do.
I have to agree with bobcat. We would have some of the best hunting in the state if truckloads werent being hauled out daily
Where are the truckloads pics?
Why would i take pics?? To support my "theory" on an online forum lol?! You must be a native or someody living under a rock. Take a drive through white swan and admire the mountains of deer and elk heads thrown up on the roofs rotting lol.
Every local around here knows how it is. I feel a defensive rebuttal coming on :chuckle:
Post by: ctwiggs1 on September 23, 2014, 03:21:17 PM
edit: It looks like you posted while I was typing. I see now that the Yakima tribe doesn't report.... Which basically again means your source isn't really valid and argument about the Yakima tribe.
http://nwifc.org/w/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2014/08/2013-2014-big-game-harvest-report.pdf (http://nwifc.org/w/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2014/08/2013-2014-big-game-harvest-report.pdf)
Thanks
Curtis
Post by: Practical Approach on September 23, 2014, 03:22:27 PM
Where did you pull the 4000 number from?Sure, it's specific areas. Look at the Yakima area: worst deer populations in the state. The WDFW blames hair loss caused by lice. But to me it's obvious- Those deer get killed year around by a tribe that has no closed season and no limits. The same thing could be happening in the area described by the original post in this thread.
No it couldn't. Tribes up north have seasons and limits.
They do have limits at least on paper. We get to put in for a drawing to hunt in November for 24 tags. They have 4000 tags between two tribes to use in a season they hunt for several months after us..........
Post by: baker5150 on September 23, 2014, 03:24:06 PM
Maybe I'm missing something but your argument seems completely irrelevant to me. You're giving west side info when the argument seems to be based around the Yakima area. Looking at your referenced website, it shows 0 deer taken by tribes last year in the Yakima area. IMHO that kind of makes your source look... well... Like a bad source I guess.
edit: It looks like you posted while I was typing. I see now that the Yakima tribe doesn't report.... Which basically again means your source isn't really valid and argument about the Yakima tribe.
http://nwifc.org/w/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2014/08/2013-2014-big-game-harvest-report.pdf (http://nwifc.org/w/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2014/08/2013-2014-big-game-harvest-report.pdf)
Thanks
Curtis
Actually the OP was talking about the westside area. I asked for the Yakima areas stats so Bobcat could see them. But the Yakima tribe apparently doesn't participate in the reporting. So the #s are misleading
Post by: Practical Approach on September 23, 2014, 03:26:15 PM
Maybe I'm missing something but your argument seems completely irrelevant to me. You're giving west side info when the argument seems to be based around the Yakima area. Looking at your referenced website, it shows 0 deer taken by tribes last year in the Yakima area. IMHO that kind of makes your source look... well... Like a bad source I guess.
edit: It looks like you posted while I was typing. I see now that the Yakima tribe doesn't report.... Which basically again means your source isn't really valid and argument about the Yakima tribe.
http://nwifc.org/w/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2014/08/2013-2014-big-game-harvest-report.pdf (http://nwifc.org/w/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2014/08/2013-2014-big-game-harvest-report.pdf)
That's the trouble with jumping into a discussion in the middle. It is a wild ride. This area in reference began with the Mt. Baker Wilderness. However, every tribal discussion gets turned into a Yakima discussion.
Thanks
Curtis
Post by: ctwiggs1 on September 23, 2014, 03:26:36 PM
Maybe I'm missing something but your argument seems completely irrelevant to me. You're giving west side info when the argument seems to be based around the Yakima area. Looking at your referenced website, it shows 0 deer taken by tribes last year in the Yakima area. IMHO that kind of makes your source look... well... Like a bad source I guess.
edit: It looks like you posted while I was typing. I see now that the Yakima tribe doesn't report.... Which basically again means your source isn't really valid and argument about the Yakima tribe.
http://nwifc.org/w/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2014/08/2013-2014-big-game-harvest-report.pdf (http://nwifc.org/w/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2014/08/2013-2014-big-game-harvest-report.pdf)
Thanks
Curtis
Actually the OP was talking about the westside area. I asked for the Yakima areas stats so Bobcat could see them. But the Yakima tribe apparently doesn't participate in the reporting. So the #s are misleading
You're right - sorry guys for being a part of the problem on this one. bowing out!
Post by: Gringo31 on September 23, 2014, 03:28:09 PM
Quote
This was an honest post about specific area. Want to add to it great. But this a dipchit post like this does nothing. I have more respect for the indian that claims all this is bs than your worthless thoughts.
Well, glad we didn't try to make this personal. :chuckle:
In the end, I believe that your words will be factual. Specifically, "this does nothing" as I believe that's where it will end up. But carry on! :chuckle:
Post by: Tbar on September 23, 2014, 03:29:13 PM
Post by: baker5150 on September 23, 2014, 03:30:41 PM
I think you need to see if you can back this up somehow.
I have lived in Whatcom my whole life and have a lot of native friends from both the local tribes, and I have never heard of this amount of over hunting.
I don't want to jump to conclusions, but if this is true, we need to know about it.
Post by: Practical Approach on September 23, 2014, 03:32:08 PM
Where did you pull the 4000 number from?Sure, it's specific areas. Look at the Yakima area: worst deer populations in the state. The WDFW blames hair loss caused by lice. But to me it's obvious- Those deer get killed year around by a tribe that has no closed season and no limits. The same thing could be happening in the area described by the original post in this thread.
No it couldn't. Tribes up north have seasons and limits.
They do have limits at least on paper. We get to put in for a drawing to hunt in November for 24 tags. They have 4000 tags between two tribes to use in a season they hunt for several months after us..........
Lummies get 2500 and the Nooksacks get 1500. Or vise versa. That is what the tribes have set.
Where did that number come from? Do you work for the Lummi and Nooksack? How did you gather that information?
Post by: Gringo31 on September 23, 2014, 03:33:19 PM
This cracks me up.
Quote
But this a dipchit post:chuckle:
Post by: Gringo31 on September 23, 2014, 03:37:33 PM
Quote
It probably wont do anything. But I am addressing a serious problem that in the last several years a small group has ruined it for everybody. And you make a joke out of it. At least I am trying to make a difference. I hope now that they have wiped our spot out yours isn't next.
So I recommend that you dig in and research a bit more before you sound the alarm. Make sure you have hard numbers that are solid. You'll need something more than I talked to a guy who knows. :twocents:
We have some dedicated members on this site that are part of the tribes that can make much more progress in native affairs than you or I but they too will need hard data or info before they will stick their neck out.
Post by: Tbar on September 23, 2014, 03:37:41 PM
Post by: Tbar on September 23, 2014, 03:44:20 PM
This post as close to reality as it gets. I would say gringo hit the nail on the head in this specific area(eastern Whatcom County).Here we go again....
Newsflash!
1. Russians, Indians, Hispanics and Whites are killing our game illegally.
2. Many folks who care about these natural resources are outraged.
3. Fines are too small and "some" regulations aren't exactly enforced in some areas.
4. Predators are a MAJOR issue....both with 2 feet and 4 feet.
5. Some of the data out there may be a bit incomplete or inaccurate due to poor compliance.
And?
This was an honest post about specific area. Want to add to it great. But this a dipchit post like this does nothing. I have more respect for the indian that claims all this is bs than your worthless thoughts.
Post by: baker5150 on September 23, 2014, 03:45:37 PM
I would also refute the statement that there are large, easily accessible winter populations in Whatcom County. Even in areas (like Baker) the deer disperse to lowlands areas that maintain relatively low densities.
What about Fairhaven? :o :D
Post by: baker5150 on September 23, 2014, 03:50:20 PM
This post as close to reality as it gets. I would say gringo hit the nail on the head in this specific area(eastern Whatcom County).Here we go again....
Newsflash!
1. Russians, Indians, Hispanics and Whites are killing our game illegally.
2. Many folks who care about these natural resources are outraged.
3. Fines are too small and "some" regulations aren't exactly enforced in some areas.
4. Predators are a MAJOR issue....both with 2 feet and 4 feet.
5. Some of the data out there may be a bit incomplete or inaccurate due to poor compliance.
And?
This was an honest post about specific area. Want to add to it great. But this a dipchit post like this does nothing. I have more respect for the indian that claims all this is bs than your worthless thoughts.
:yeah:
Also added pressure from humans.
Whatcom county is becoming a hub for the outdoor enthusiast. Hikers, climber, mt bikers, utv/atv. They are everywhere now. Trailheads are packed, and the added pressure has to have an effect on natural habitat for Deer.
Post by: Tbar on September 23, 2014, 03:51:47 PM
Post by: 7.62Warbird on September 23, 2014, 03:55:23 PM
Cboom I spend as much time in the field as anybody(that doesn't work in the woods). I can tell you I encounter many people of varying ethnicities including all that gringo mentioned. Many hitting the hills as I'm leaving. I would also urge you to ask the local enforcement officer how many poaching stings they have done and how many were unsuccessful. It'll scare you.
Kinda hard to do a poaching sting with one of two wardens on leave. :o Good point though.
Post by: ribka on September 23, 2014, 03:56:01 PM
Sure, it's specific areas. Look at the Yakima area: worst deer populations in the state. The WDFW blames hair loss caused by lice. But to me it's obvious- Those deer get killed year around by a tribe that has no closed season and no limits. The same thing could be happening in the area described by the original post in this thread.
The Indians take truck loads of deer bucks does fawns out of the LT Murray in NOV Dec, Jan. I see the pick ups loaded -up with dead deer that were shot near the roads in the wintering areas. One red Toyoyta had 8 does and fawns shot by one guy last December morning. I saw that red Toyota pick up loaded with does and fawns on many occassions with the Yak tribal plates. God knows how many deer this "proud native hunter" killed over the years. The hair loss problem is not the true reason why the deer pops are suffereing. This state is a joke in many respects when it comes to wildlife "management"
Post by: vandeman17 on September 23, 2014, 04:03:25 PM
Sure, it's specific areas. Look at the Yakima area: worst deer populations in the state. The WDFW blames hair loss caused by lice. But to me it's obvious- Those deer get killed year around by a tribe that has no closed season and no limits. The same thing could be happening in the area described by the original post in this thread.
The Indians take truck loads of deer bucks does fawns out of the LT Murray in NOV Dec, Jan. I see the pick ups loaded -up with dead deer that were shot near the roads in the wintering areas. One red Toyoyta had 8 does and fawns shot by one guy last December morning. I saw that red Toyota pick up loaded with does and fawns on many occassions with the Yak tribal plates. God knows how many deer this "proud native hunter" killed over the years. The hair loss problem is not the true reason why the deer pops are suffereing. This state is a joke in many respects when it comes to wildlife "management"
First hand knowledge right there from a reputable source :tup:
Post by: 7.62Warbird on September 23, 2014, 04:06:36 PM
I'll try to get cboom in touch with the source for more reliable numbers asap.
Post by: vandeman17 on September 23, 2014, 04:09:59 PM
As far as facts go about cbooms claims...I was part of the conversation of which he is all fired up about. I won't claim to know the exact number of permits issued to the tribes but my recollection was that it was in the neighborhood of 2500 between Nooksack/Lummi. Regardless of the number there is little to nothing we as a state will ever be able to do about it. State laws will never trump federal law and the tribes know this. There is only one solution to poachers and it doesn't have anything to do with a court but that's another matter.
I'll try to get cboom in touch with the source for more reliable numbers asap.
Not to bash your thread at all but we can't call them "poachers" when they technically aren't doing anything illegal. We may not agree with the harvest numbers but unless the kill over what their tribes say or break the rules they aren't. :twocents:
Post by: baker5150 on September 23, 2014, 04:13:21 PM
I would also refute the statement that there are large, easily accessible winter populations in Whatcom County. Even in areas (like Baker) the deer disperse to lowlands areas that maintain relatively low densities.
What about Fairhaven? :o :D
Fairhaven is pretty good. Sudden Valley is the place to be though if your planning a trip. I would concentrate my efforts around the forth hole of the golf course. They love that gals rose bushes.
Quit giving away my honey holes!
Post by: 7.62Warbird on September 23, 2014, 04:21:12 PM
[/quote]
:yeah:
Post by: 7.62Warbird on September 23, 2014, 04:25:15 PM
[/quote]
You are correct. I was thinking about the early post that was referring to Russians etc. poaching deer. I wasn't meaning that Natives were poaching but can clearly see how it was taken that way.
Post by: kirkl on September 23, 2014, 04:27:25 PM
Post by: vandeman17 on September 23, 2014, 04:29:17 PM
Not to bash your thread at all but we can't call them "poachers" when they technically aren't doing anything illegal. We may not agree with the harvest numbers but unless the kill over what their tribes say or break the rules they aren't. :twocents:
You are correct. I was thinking about the early post that was referring to Russians etc. poaching deer. I wasn't meaning that Natives were poaching but can clearly see how it was taken that way.
[/quote]
Not a problem at all. I find myself calling it poaching all the time and have been trying to stop. Gotta be politically correct these days :chuckle:
Post by: buckhorn2 on September 23, 2014, 04:45:32 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on September 23, 2014, 05:12:26 PM
Post by: Tbar on September 23, 2014, 05:37:06 PM
Right now we can access the dike and Sumas, sometimes. 20 years ago we could come from Bellingham come over Y, all the way to Cub, we could take middle fork to blue or saxon or all the way to Baker Lake, we could access Boulder/black/red. I could go on and on. I see the localized herd devastated by all user groups due to lack of access and no public land.
Now the pay to play game is here it may alleviate some pressure. I wouldn't mind Weyco and Sierra making our area fee access. I don't think I would buy a pass though because, even in the tree farms the overall deer densities are far from great.
Post by: huntnnw on September 23, 2014, 10:34:22 PM
Post by: huntnnw on September 23, 2014, 11:08:14 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on September 23, 2014, 11:13:50 PM
I spent 17 days in the blues watching that BS of the Nez Perce slaughtering elk with no care in the world! cutting heads off and taking none of it or just backstraps! This isnt SECOND HAND info pal..I watched it. its disgusting! Shouldnt be allowed and how they are allowed to do this is beyond me. ELK WERE NOT NATIVE to the Blues..WHITE man is responsible for the introduction of elk.I have had similar experience with some Nez Perce in Idaho...very discouraging to see such a lack of respect for wildlife from tribal members. I am unsure if what I witnessed was "poaching"...Is there any cultural reason they would kill elk and take the antlers only and leave the meat? I know nothing about tribal law but it seems difficult to believe they would condone such activity. :dunno:
My observation has always been that most of the "problem" areas are areas where harvest is very limited (e.g., special permit hunts) to non-tribal members. I kind of wonder if that is the "ace" up the sleeve of the states..."hey tribe, this is wdfw...stop with these slaughters and wastage in the Mt. View unit or we are going to open it up to a general any elk season and you will have 10,000 hunters in there and the unit won't be so great for anyone anymore".
Post by: huntnnw on September 23, 2014, 11:16:42 PM
Post by: washelkhunter on September 24, 2014, 12:44:41 AM
Post by: huntnnw on September 24, 2014, 01:20:59 AM
Post by: Tbar on September 24, 2014, 04:04:36 AM
Problem is WDFW does nothing! They dont care.Not true. There are many within the wdfw that do care. If you get the documentation on abuse more times than not the case will be forwarded for prosecution. The key is documentation.
Post by: liljozie495 on September 24, 2014, 04:22:50 AM
Tribal hunting is just about the #1 issue affecting deer and elk hunting in this state, in my opinion. And the state doesn't seem to care. The tribes are allowed to kill as much as they want, whenever they want. They are even given gate keys so they can drive into areas where everyone else has to walk, as if driving to the tops of mountains is some sort of cultural tradition for them that the white man can't take away.
I disagree as a whole. While tribes might be a major factor in a specific area. Maybe your pet area of focus, it is not a major issue or issue at all everywhere. Bobcat, you have been painting the tribes with a pretty broad paintbrush since I joined this forum. When you refer to tribes from now on, it would be helpful to everyone if you referred to the specific tribes your are speaking of.
I don't think he needs to when all tribes are all getting away with murder... No offense
Post by: liljozie495 on September 24, 2014, 04:31:46 AM
I have to agree with bobcat. We would have some of the best hunting in the state if truckloads werent being hauled out daily
Where are the truckloads pics?
I would like to see those myself.
Do you have the harvest report for the entire state, that includes the Native % for both Deer and Elk? I'd be interested to see what the % is for the Yakima area that Bobcat is talking about.
Also whats the margin for error on that report, or how many hunters do they assume or believe didn't report?
No, just the report for the west side tribes on the NWIFC.org website. I am not sure about the error margin, but I have read from WDFW that the state has about a 60-70% reporting rate on any given year for their annual report.
Do you honestly expect us to believe those numbers in that link you posted of the harvest quotas for whites and Indians? Were not all stupid iv seen a lot of deer in tribal rigs in some those gmus then what's reported there
Post by: huntnnw on September 24, 2014, 05:26:01 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on September 24, 2014, 05:31:28 AM
Post by: igotbigbulls on September 24, 2014, 07:22:38 AM
There is nothing WA can do to Indians..document all you want they cant touch them! Until its changed then nothing will happen. WDFW was called about the elk with its head loped off..they didnt even come up when they were told indians did it.
Its the same laws for all the tribes around here. Waste of meat is against the law. If someone shoots an animal and only takes the antlers that is against the law and they will be treated as such. I absolutely do not believe that WDFG would turn away to a report of someone only taking the head of an animal regardless of being told the ethnicity. I know of cases where hunting rights were revoked for doing such things.
Post by: northcoast on September 24, 2014, 07:30:21 AM
Tribal hunting is just about the #1 issue affecting deer and elk hunting in this state, in my opinion. And the state doesn't seem to care. The tribes are allowed to kill as much as they want, whenever they want. They are even given gate keys so they can drive into areas where everyone else has to walk, as if driving to the tops of mountains is some sort of cultural tradition for them that the white man can't take away.
I disagree as a whole. While tribes might be a major factor in a specific area. Maybe your pet area of focus, it is not a major issue or issue at all everywhere. Bobcat, you have been painting the tribes with a pretty broad paintbrush since I joined this forum. When you refer to tribes from now on, it would be helpful to everyone if you referred to the specific tribes your are speaking of.
I don't think he needs to when all tribes are all getting away with murder... No offense
So tired of these racist threads. The same folks bashing natives and blaming every tribe for the decline of hunting opportunities. There are 24 different tribes and nations that have treaty rights to hunt in this state. Not every tribe or tribal member is to blame. Yes I agree there are some bad guys but the problem is the individual not the entire nation.
Post by: Houndhunter on September 24, 2014, 07:44:16 AM
Tribal hunting is just about the #1 issue affecting deer and elk hunting in this state, in my opinion. And the state doesn't seem to care. The tribes are allowed to kill as much as they want, whenever they want. They are even given gate keys so they can drive into areas where everyone else has to walk, as if driving to the tops of mountains is some sort of cultural tradition for them that the white man can't take away.
I disagree as a whole. While tribes might be a major factor in a specific area. Maybe your pet area of focus, it is not a major issue or issue at all everywhere. Bobcat, you have been painting the tribes with a pretty broad paintbrush since I joined this forum. When you refer to tribes from now on, it would be helpful to everyone if you referred to the specific tribes your are speaking of.
I don't think he needs to when all tribes are all getting away with murder... No offense
So tired of these racist threads. The same folks bashing natives and blaming every tribe for the decline of hunting opportunities. There are 24 different tribes and nations that have treaty rights to hunt in this state. Not every tribe or tribal member is to blame. Yes I agree there are some bad guys but the problem is the individual not the entire nation.
Pretty sure giving a certain race special privileges is racist no matter how you look at it :twocents:
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 24, 2014, 07:50:31 AM
Post by: igotbigbulls on September 24, 2014, 07:55:24 AM
Post by: rtspring on September 24, 2014, 07:57:20 AM
It should be equal to all parties. It makes a guy sick that we have rules but not all have to follow..
Rtspring
Post by: idahohuntr on September 24, 2014, 07:59:54 AM
I really, really want to believe it is just a few bad apples...no different than any other group in society. But what I have witnessed is so blatant and so common that it is difficult to believe the tribal government is unaware. My perception is they either condone this wastage or just don't care. I hope I'm wrong...it's why I asked earlier if there is some cultural aspect to killing an elk and only taking the antlers.Tribal hunting is just about the #1 issue affecting deer and elk hunting in this state, in my opinion. And the state doesn't seem to care. The tribes are allowed to kill as much as they want, whenever they want. They are even given gate keys so they can drive into areas where everyone else has to walk, as if driving to the tops of mountains is some sort of cultural tradition for them that the white man can't take away.
I disagree as a whole. While tribes might be a major factor in a specific area. Maybe your pet area of focus, it is not a major issue or issue at all everywhere. Bobcat, you have been painting the tribes with a pretty broad paintbrush since I joined this forum. When you refer to tribes from now on, it would be helpful to everyone if you referred to the specific tribes your are speaking of.
I don't think he needs to when all tribes are all getting away with murder... No offense
So tired of these racist threads. The same folks bashing natives and blaming every tribe for the decline of hunting opportunities. There are 24 different tribes and nations that have treaty rights to hunt in this state. Not every tribe or tribal member is to blame. Yes I agree there are some bad guys but the problem is the individual not the entire nation.
Post by: Practical Approach on September 24, 2014, 08:08:10 AM
I have to agree with bobcat. We would have some of the best hunting in the state if truckloads werent being hauled out daily
Where are the truckloads pics?
I would like to see those myself.
Do you have the harvest report for the entire state, that includes the Native % for both Deer and Elk? I'd be interested to see what the % is for the Yakima area that Bobcat is talking about.
Also whats the margin for error on that report, or how many hunters do they assume or believe didn't report?
No, just the report for the west side tribes on the NWIFC.org website. I am not sure about the error margin, but I have read from WDFW that the state has about a 60-70% reporting rate on any given year for their annual report.
Do you honestly expect us to believe those numbers in that link you posted of the harvest quotas for whites and Indians? Were not all stupid iv seen a lot of deer in tribal rigs in some those gmus then what's reported there
Yet another vague statement. Yes I expect you to believe those numbers. NO I don't expect that the report is 100% accurate, just like any other harvest report. I would appreciate when you refer to truckloads of game in tribal rigs in gmu's you actually refer to the tribe and the GMU. Again, if you read the report I posted, it does not report for all of the tribes, just 20 of them. None on the eastside.
Post by: JohnVH on September 24, 2014, 08:10:22 AM
its a shame there isnt something that can be done.
Ive personally gone with a warden and seen him pull an illegal net in the nooksack, and when he confronted the native that did it, the guy didnt care and thought it was his right. One of the fish in the net was rotten it was in there so long.. live off the land my @ss
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5504%2F10984039624_067a9b2bec_z.jpg&hash=c6c91536d7e1f20db8721797d9c7c8485429ed1f)
Post by: Practical Approach on September 24, 2014, 08:14:20 AM
Tribal hunting is just about the #1 issue affecting deer and elk hunting in this state, in my opinion. And the state doesn't seem to care. The tribes are allowed to kill as much as they want, whenever they want. They are even given gate keys so they can drive into areas where everyone else has to walk, as if driving to the tops of mountains is some sort of cultural tradition for them that the white man can't take away.
I disagree as a whole. While tribes might be a major factor in a specific area. Maybe your pet area of focus, it is not a major issue or issue at all everywhere. Bobcat, you have been painting the tribes with a pretty broad paintbrush since I joined this forum. When you refer to tribes from now on, it would be helpful to everyone if you referred to the specific tribes your are speaking of.
I don't think he needs to when all tribes are all getting away with murder... No offense
So tired of these racist threads. The same folks bashing natives and blaming every tribe for the decline of hunting opportunities. There are 24 different tribes and nations that have treaty rights to hunt in this state. Not every tribe or tribal member is to blame. Yes I agree there are some bad guys but the problem is the individual not the entire nation.
Pretty sure giving a certain race special privileges is racist no matter how you look at it :twocents:
Nothing was given or is being given. Pretty sure the tribes ceded their lands to the U.S. government with the guarantee that they would retain their hunting, fishing and gathering rights. Language is in every treaty signed by Washington treaty tribes.
Post by: PlateauNDN on September 24, 2014, 08:17:39 AM
Rant on................
Post by: bobcat on September 24, 2014, 08:21:38 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 24, 2014, 08:27:54 AM
I have a huge problem with natives taking spike deer in a 3 pt minimum unit. 346 to be exact... I seen it with my own eyes, shot 20 yards off thd road.
It should be equal to all parties. It makes a guy sick that we have rules but not all have to follow..
Rtspring
You're actually emphasizing my point, RT. They don't have those rules for harvest. Change will only come from the Tribal councils and they're not reading these threads. :dunno:
Post by: jstone on September 24, 2014, 08:30:20 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 24, 2014, 08:35:22 AM
Thats why the Entiat is the way it is. Native hunting in the winter with rifles killing the big buck. Our Gov. with little balls.
Our Governor has no say over treaty rights. Native American hunting rights are completely outside of the his jurisdiction. Treaties are passed by Congress as law and endorsed by the President and are done so as with a sovereign nation. Don't get me wrong; I agree our Governor is a real fruitcake and completely ineffective. But, this situation has nothing at all to do with state politics. That's part of the problem with these threads. Some of the OPs and participants have no idea of at whose feet the blame should be laid.
Post by: grundy53 on September 24, 2014, 08:35:42 AM
You know what I get tired of reading and hearing.........I'm sick of the truckloads, I'm sick of unequal rights, I'm tired of tribal poaching, etc etc etc................if people are so tired then step up with documentation, statements pictures anything that you will back up when questioned. That's doing something, not sitting here crying and complaining. Some of you have been provided papers in regards to things I've done and seen the proof of what documentation can do, the rest of you until you back up what you say it's never going to do anything....
Rant on................
Be honest. If folks did all of that would it even make a difference?
Pictures and first hand accounts have been provided in the past. Has anything changed?
I personally think folks post these threads mostly to vent more then anything knowing nothing is going to change. And the people who always ask for proof and documentation are just saying that as a smoke screen knowing full well it's going on and also knowing it won't change.
sent from my typewriter
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 24, 2014, 08:40:22 AM
Post by: igotbigbulls on September 24, 2014, 08:46:26 AM
Thats why the Entiat is the way it is. Native hunting in the winter with rifles killing the big buck. Our Gov. with little balls.
Our Governor has no say over treaty rights. Native American hunting rights are completely outside of the his jurisdiction. Treaties are passed by Congress as law and endorsed by the President and are done so as with a sovereign nation. Don't get me wrong; I agree our Governor is a real fruitcake and completely ineffective. But, this situation has nothing at all to do with state politics. That's part of the problem with these threads. Some of the OPs and participants have no idea of at whose feet the blame should be laid.
That is correct. Know the facts on who is in charge of the things you want to change. But like Plat says.......rant on
Post by: grundy53 on September 24, 2014, 08:51:58 AM
I disagree Grundy. The original intent may be on target , but these threads always go sideways and many who post to vent do so in a manner that's unproductive and paints entire populations with a wide brush. And, the laws which allow these activities were passed by white folks. If you want to lay blame, blame Congress.
Huh? Did I blame anyone? Did I say it was productive? I don't see where you disagree with what I said????
sent from my typewriter
Post by: bobcat on September 24, 2014, 08:54:47 AM
I think these types of threads are great! They're educational to all who read them. Personally I had no clue how bad the problem was until reading about it on here.
Then I read "Operation Cody," retired WDFW officer Todd Vandivert's book, and learned that one of the biggest suppliers of deer and elk meat to the commercial poaching industry in this state are tribal members.
After learning that, it became much more obvious why so many tribal members are seen every winter bringing in truck loads of deer and elk. All my life I thought Indians were just like us- they hunted to provide healthy meat to their families. Now I know different. To many of them, killing deer and elk, and selling the meat (and the heads if they're trophies) is actually a job and how they make their money.
Post by: trophyhunt on September 24, 2014, 09:02:33 AM
I believe the state could address the problem in some way, if they wanted to. Instead, they use the same excuse that you are, Pianoman, that their hands are tied and only the fed's can change things.yeah that👆
I think these types of threads are great! They're educational to all who read them. Personally I had no clue how bad the problem was until reading about it on here.
Then I read "Operation Cody," retired WDFW officer Todd Vandivert's book, and learned that one of the biggest suppliers of deer and elk meat to the commercial poaching industry in this state are tribal members.
After learning that, it became much more obvious why so many tribal members are seen every winter bringing in truck loads of deer and elk. All my life I thought Indians were just like us- they hunted to provide healthy meat to their families. Now I know different. To many of them, killing deer and elk, and selling the meat (and the heads if they're trophies) is actually a job and how they make their money.
Post by: Kc_Kracker on September 24, 2014, 09:09:08 AM
BS-If you are going to accuse someone or a tribe, lets hear who the tribes are and who your source is. I hate second hand information without supporting evidence posted on these threads.a thread shouldnt even stand if it cannot be specific instead of grouping all natives together is a racist comment. it should be ___________ tribe did this.
Post by: Old Man Yager on September 24, 2014, 09:16:06 AM
Post by: boneaddict on September 24, 2014, 09:16:52 AM
Post by: igotbigbulls on September 24, 2014, 09:19:05 AM
BS-If you are going to accuse someone or a tribe, lets hear who the tribes are and who your source is. I hate second hand information without supporting evidence posted on these threads.a thread shouldnt even stand if it cannot be specific instead of grouping all natives together is a racist comment. it should be ___________ tribe did this.
im not sure its racist. i see non indians doing illegal things in the woods all the time. i know non indians poach and sell meat and antlers as well, i know that non indians wound and leave animals every season they hunt, probably wasting more meat then any group around and then harvesting another when they cant find the wounded animal.
Post by: igotbigbulls on September 24, 2014, 09:22:34 AM
It's true that there are alot of different factors that affect herds all over the state, predetation, more hunters, poaching, ect, but it's a FACT in some areas where the deer winter they get hit hard by Natives, and there is no consequence for them. Lots of arguements for both sides, but how can anybody say it's okay to hunt game on a wintering ground where the animals are most vulnerable? No ethics = no animals eventually. :twocents:
i agree 100% that ethics are involved and there needs to be a solution to the wintering grounds issues with certain tribes.
Post by: boneaddict on September 24, 2014, 09:23:28 AM
I think that with current practices its much easier for these folks to get away with criminal activity. I see animals being killed in the Wenas all winter. I suppose I am supposed to report every occurence eventhough 90% of them are probably tribal and not doing anything illegal. Of course this takes resources away from other problems.
Post by: boneaddict on September 24, 2014, 09:24:40 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 24, 2014, 09:27:50 AM
I disagree Grundy. The original intent may be on target , but these threads always go sideways and many who post to vent do so in a manner that's unproductive and paints entire populations with a wide brush. And, the laws which allow these activities were passed by white folks. If you want to lay blame, blame Congress.
Huh? Did I blame anyone? Did I say it was productive? I don't see where you disagree with what I said????
sent from my typewriter
What I disagreed with was the smokescreen comment. I should've been more specific.
Post by: idahohuntr on September 24, 2014, 09:47:04 AM
1. Provide evidence of wastage to tribal councils to seek resolution. Give them license plates, photos, video etc.
2. Publicize as best you can any wastage or unethical behavior. If something aggregious occurs and it can get air time it will put pressure on tribes to make more serious efforts to reduce or eliminate this behavior. Tribes are sovereign...but nobody is immune from bad press.
3. The option I mentioned earlier, and where the state does have some control, take some of these units that the state attempts to manage for quality and trophy potential and turn them into general season units where the quality and trophy aspects are eliminated. If we eliminate the easy pickings I believe the interest in the small group of tribal members who engage in these wasteful practices will be greatly deterred. Do this for a couple traditional units important to tribes and I bet they will have great interest in working with the state on co-managing.
Post by: grundy53 on September 24, 2014, 09:50:11 AM
I also disagree with the notion that nothing can be done. It think there are at least 3 potential avenues:
1. Provide evidence of wastage to tribal councils to seek resolution. Give them license plates, photos, video etc.
2. Publicize as best you can any wastage or unethical behavior. If something aggregious occurs and it can get air time it will put pressure on tribes to make more serious efforts to reduce or eliminate this behavior. Tribes are sovereign...but nobody is immune from bad press.
3. The option I mentioned earlier, and where the state does have some control, take some of these units that the state attempts to manage for quality and trophy potential and turn them into general season units where the quality and trophy aspects are eliminated. If we eliminate the easy pickings I believe the interest in the small group of tribal members who engage in these wasteful practices will be greatly deterred. Do this for a couple traditional units important to tribes and I bet they will have great interest in working with the state on co-managing.
One and two have been done. I think option three would be cutting your nose off to spite your face.... but I'm getting close to agreeing with you.
sent from my typewriter
Post by: boneaddict on September 24, 2014, 09:56:55 AM
Post by: snowpack on September 24, 2014, 09:57:37 AM
The kind of strange thing about this is I don't know if in many cases I would even consider it a race thing. I know quite a few tribal members and most of the ones I've gone hunting or fishing with are 25% native/75% white. I never even guessed they were tribal until they mentioned it.Tribal hunting is just about the #1 issue affecting deer and elk hunting in this state, in my opinion. And the state doesn't seem to care. The tribes are allowed to kill as much as they want, whenever they want. They are even given gate keys so they can drive into areas where everyone else has to walk, as if driving to the tops of mountains is some sort of cultural tradition for them that the white man can't take away.
I disagree as a whole. While tribes might be a major factor in a specific area. Maybe your pet area of focus, it is not a major issue or issue at all everywhere. Bobcat, you have been painting the tribes with a pretty broad paintbrush since I joined this forum. When you refer to tribes from now on, it would be helpful to everyone if you referred to the specific tribes your are speaking of.
I don't think he needs to when all tribes are all getting away with murder... No offense
So tired of these racist threads. The same folks bashing natives and blaming every tribe for the decline of hunting opportunities. There are 24 different tribes and nations that have treaty rights to hunt in this state. Not every tribe or tribal member is to blame. Yes I agree there are some bad guys but the problem is the individual not the entire nation.
Pretty sure giving a certain race special privileges is racist no matter how you look at it :twocents:
Post by: Practical Approach on September 24, 2014, 09:58:17 AM
Post by: boneaddict on September 24, 2014, 09:59:34 AM
Post by: igotbigbulls on September 24, 2014, 10:01:25 AM
I think they manage to get keys, so doesn't that just restrict whites more and make it even nicer for the tribes. :dunno:
Not just whites.
Post by: boneaddict on September 24, 2014, 10:04:00 AM
Post by: igotbigbulls on September 24, 2014, 10:19:09 AM
Post by: Practical Approach on September 24, 2014, 10:35:04 AM
Or there were 124,000 state hunters for deer last year of which at best 70% reported their harvest. So the harvest report does not receive any information for roughly 37,200 state hunters. Average success is 27% so could you say 10,044 deer were not reported or accounted for last year by state hunters?
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 24, 2014, 10:39:56 AM
You know what else isn't discussed......The state does not report the hundreds of elk and deer that are harvested through the damage hunt program.
Or there were 124,000 state hunters for deer last year of which at best 70% reported their harvest. So the harvest report does not receive any information for roughly 37,200 state hunters. Average success is 27% so could you say 10,044 deer were not reported or accounted for last year by state hunters?
I believe those numbers are included in the overall harvest statistics for that GMU.
Post by: Practical Approach on September 24, 2014, 10:41:27 AM
You know what else isn't discussed......The state does not report the hundreds of elk and deer that are harvested through the damage hunt program.
Or there were 124,000 state hunters for deer last year of which at best 70% reported their harvest. So the harvest report does not receive any information for roughly 37,200 state hunters. Average success is 27% so could you say 10,044 deer were not reported or accounted for last year by state hunters?
I believe those numbers are included in the overall harvest statistics for that GMU.
Which numbers? I know the damage harvest animals are not.
Post by: idahohuntr on September 24, 2014, 10:50:14 AM
They are.You know what else isn't discussed......The state does not report the hundreds of elk and deer that are harvested through the damage hunt program.
Or there were 124,000 state hunters for deer last year of which at best 70% reported their harvest. So the harvest report does not receive any information for roughly 37,200 state hunters. Average success is 27% so could you say 10,044 deer were not reported or accounted for last year by state hunters?
I believe those numbers are included in the overall harvest statistics for that GMU.
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 24, 2014, 10:53:08 AM
You know what else isn't discussed......The state does not report the hundreds of elk and deer that are harvested through the damage hunt program.
Or there were 124,000 state hunters for deer last year of which at best 70% reported their harvest. So the harvest report does not receive any information for roughly 37,200 state hunters. Average success is 27% so could you say 10,044 deer were not reported or accounted for last year by state hunters?
I believe those numbers are included in the overall harvest statistics for that GMU.
Which numbers? I know the damage harvest animals are not.
I believe from talking with the game managers that you're incorrect about that. Damage harvest animals are included in total GMU harvest figures. You could write to Nate or Jerry Nelson to confirm if you wanted. :dunno:
Post by: Practical Approach on September 24, 2014, 10:56:41 AM
It has been confirmed that those numbers are not recorded. This is partially the reason for the new WAC that requires landowners who receive damage tags to pay for them. That way it gets entered into the grand online reporting process. If it doesn't get entered via the online reporting system, then it isn't reported.You know what else isn't discussed......The state does not report the hundreds of elk and deer that are harvested through the damage hunt program.
Or there were 124,000 state hunters for deer last year of which at best 70% reported their harvest. So the harvest report does not receive any information for roughly 37,200 state hunters. Average success is 27% so could you say 10,044 deer were not reported or accounted for last year by state hunters?
I believe those numbers are included in the overall harvest statistics for that GMU.
Which numbers? I know the damage harvest animals are not.
I believe from talking with the game managers that you're incorrect about that. Damage harvest animals are included in total GMU harvest figures. You could write to Nate or Jerry Nelson to confirm if you wanted. :dunno:
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 24, 2014, 11:02:28 AM
Post by: ribka on September 24, 2014, 11:03:50 AM
For those who throw out the term "racist" I have on a number of occassions helped tribal members find a ceremonial cow. I will not be so generous when it comes to bulls and bucks.
I also disagree with the notion that nothing can be done. It think there are at least 3 potential avenues:
1. Provide evidence of wastage to tribal councils to seek resolution. Give them license plates, photos, video etc.
2. Publicize as best you can any wastage or unethical behavior. If something aggregious occurs and it can get air time it will put pressure on tribes to make more serious efforts to reduce or eliminate this behavior. Tribes are sovereign...but nobody is immune from bad press.
3. The option I mentioned earlier, and where the state does have some control, take some of these units that the state attempts to manage for quality and trophy potential and turn them into general season units where the quality and trophy aspects are eliminated. If we eliminate the easy pickings I believe the interest in the small group of tribal members who engage in these wasteful practices will be greatly deterred. Do this for a couple traditional units important to tribes and I bet they will have great interest in working with the state on co-managing.
Post by: Practical Approach on September 24, 2014, 11:08:34 AM
You just contradicted yourself. If landowners are now required to purchase a tag and report kills, as are hunters who are issued damage permit tags, then it's being reported. We of course can't account for people who break the law and don't report, much as we can't account for the number of wounded animals that go off to die. And, I wouldn't believe that the reported animals aren't being entered into statistics. :dunno:Not on purpose. This is a new law. Previous harvest reports did not collect this information. This next years report will collect damage tags given to landowners through the new law. However, that is only one type of damage tag. There are multiple damage permits that are still being utilized that are and will not be reported through the online system. Thus, still leaving all damage harvest other than landowner damage permits, unreported.
Post by: bobcat on September 24, 2014, 11:14:24 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 24, 2014, 11:14:42 AM
Post by: curlewkiller on September 24, 2014, 11:24:20 AM
Post by: Practical Approach on September 24, 2014, 11:29:26 AM
I believe that's also not completely correct. The MH damage tags are all reported and added into the numbers, as well. To which other damage tags are you referring that are not reported, other than owner permits and MH permits?Kill permits, hot spot hunts, there are at least 5or 6 different types. I will try to dig them up.
Post by: Practical Approach on September 24, 2014, 11:31:33 AM
I have not read anyone comment on Practical Approach's document that he posted and that the Nooksack tribe takes 75% of the deer in that area? Or am I reading it wrong? :dunno:Are you referring to the deer harvest link I posted for region 4? That report does not report by individual tribe.
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 24, 2014, 11:36:55 AM
I believe that's also not completely correct. The MH damage tags are all reported and added into the numbers, as well. To which other damage tags are you referring that are not reported, other than owner permits and MH permits?Kill permits, hot spot hunts, there are at least 5or 6 different types. I will try to dig them up.
Cool, thanks. :tup:
Post by: curlewkiller on September 24, 2014, 11:40:47 AM
Post by: Practical Approach on September 24, 2014, 11:49:42 AM
I believe that's also not completely correct. The MH damage tags are all reported and added into the numbers, as well. To which other damage tags are you referring that are not reported, other than owner permits and MH permits?Kill permits, hot spot hunts, there are at least 5or 6 different types. I will try to dig them up.
Cool, thanks. :tup:
Here is a link to three types. I know there is or was one called a hot spot hunt as well. Kill permits are the ones I believe that are falling through the cracks as far as being reported for the upcoming years.
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 24, 2014, 11:51:47 AM
Post by: Practical Approach on September 24, 2014, 11:53:57 AM
What other tribes would be hunting in the Nooksack gmu? I guess I mean tribal then... and in rereading the document it looks like tribal members take around 75% or bucks.
[/quote
There are 9 tribes that hunt all of the region 4 GMU's. Essentially the Point Elliott treaty tribes. No, that is not correct. For the Nooksack GMU the tribes took 27% of the bucks and 75% of the does.
Post by: Practical Approach on September 24, 2014, 11:54:53 AM
Invisible link it is, then?
Whoops. http://wdfw.wa.gov/help/questions/90/Are+there+any+circumstances+when+a+landowner+can+legally+set+his%7B47%7Dher+own+hunting+seasons+and+regulations+on+private+property+in+Washington%3F (http://wdfw.wa.gov/help/questions/90/Are+there+any+circumstances+when+a+landowner+can+legally+set+his%7B47%7Dher+own+hunting+seasons+and+regulations+on+private+property+in+Washington%3F)
Post by: boneaddict on September 24, 2014, 11:55:50 AM
why would anyone want to do such a thing
So lets summarize.......being PC of course. All other ethnic groups are under plan A and Native Americans are under plan B.
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 24, 2014, 11:59:29 AM
Post by: grundy53 on September 24, 2014, 12:16:12 PM
sent from my typewriter
Post by: Practical Approach on September 24, 2014, 12:16:40 PM
So really, only the "kill permits" are unrecorded. Are you saying that the numbers of kill permits issued would drastically affect the total statistics or are you just throwing it into the pot against the tribal kill complaints? And, do you know for a fact that when these permits are issued, they're not recorded? That seems to be the only category out of the three which applies to your comments. I have no idea how many kill permits are issued statewide each year.Yes, starting for the 2014 season only kill permits will not be recorded. It is up to the enforcement officers or damage coordinator as to what type of permit they will issue. I don't think statistically statewide it makes a difference, but if you are in a permit area only restricted to a low number of tags and damage killed animals double your trophy bull tags, then think it warrants recording.
I know for a fact that it is up to the regions to record the damage killed animals. However, this information never makes it out to the public because it does not get recorded by the internet based harvest reporting system. There is not a manual mechanism for WDFW employees to enter known harvest into the system.
I am not trying to discount tribal kill complaints, I think it is worthy information that people know what is being disclosed by WDFW and what isn't.
Only the WDFW regions know how many Kill Permits are issued.
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 24, 2014, 12:19:54 PM
Post by: Practical Approach on September 24, 2014, 12:28:21 PM
Data I gathered from the Nooksack GMU.
I understand that there are 50 bull tags for the Nooksack GMU. Split 50/50 with the tribes.
Last season there were 33 Kill Permits issued and 30 of them were for elk. Of these 30 permits 20 elk were killed and went unreported.
If you want to throw in all permits that were not in the state harvest report, 138 total elk damage tags were issued for the Nooksack herd last year. 74 total elk were harvested. None of those showed up in the harvest report.
Post by: Hittm_good on September 24, 2014, 12:39:57 PM
For instance......
Data I gathered from the Nooksack GMU.
I understand that there are 50 bull tags for the Nooksack GMU. Split 50/50 with the tribes.
Last season there were 33 Kill Permits issued and 30 of them were for elk. Of these 30 permits 20 elk were killed and went unreported.
If you want to throw in all permits that were not in the state harvest report, 138 total elk damage tags were issued for the Nooksack herd last year. 74 total elk were harvested. None of those showed up in the harvest report.
I wonder if that includes what the USDA killed over in Day Creek last year? Remember all the big bulls shot in the middle of the night? Just curious is all.
:dunno:
Post by: Practical Approach on September 24, 2014, 12:53:06 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 24, 2014, 01:43:49 PM
"No. The data I am responsible for posting on the web is explicitly labeled general season or special permit or general season / special permit data combined. Although I am not responsible for damage permits and kill permit data analysis, I am fairly sure those in charge of such data do not post them on the web. Damage permits and kill permits were administered for a long time by the Department's Enforcement Program. The new Wildlife Conflict Section of the Wildlife Program has only been up and running a little over a year (I believe) and its administration of such permits and analysis of their data is still evolving."
Post by: igotbigbulls on September 24, 2014, 02:47:49 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 24, 2014, 04:19:16 PM
Wow, sure got you guys down another rabit hole. Maybe time to change the thread name :chuckle:
Darned Indians changing the subject! :chuckle: :chuckle: j/k
Post by: coachcw on September 24, 2014, 06:09:27 PM
Post by: Practical Approach on September 25, 2014, 02:45:48 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 25, 2014, 02:53:44 PM
I know this thread took a turn but I was a little surprised that nobody was concerned that damage hunt information is not being reported. Especially given the level of harvest last year under the guise of damage in the Skagit.
I think there's a difference between the damage hunt not being reported and those numbers not being considered by the bios when making management decisions. Whereas, without reporting, we may not know the numbers but the WDFW does. I'm not sure that it's that big of a deal. I'd find it hard to believe that the scientists/bios aren't using that data in season planning, tag planning, future damage tag distribution, etc. Also, it's kind of a departure from the thread. Maybe a new thread is in order???? :dunno:
Post by: Practical Approach on September 25, 2014, 03:04:40 PM
Post by: grundy53 on September 25, 2014, 03:08:34 PM
Maybe. ... but I get the feeling unreported harvest in the state harvest report just isn't as sexy to the group as a topic that deals with the tribes.
If someone really wanted to know how many animals were taken with damage permits they could file a FIA request and find out. Could we do that with the tribal harvest?
Post by: grundy53 on September 25, 2014, 03:10:14 PM
I know this thread took a turn but I was a little surprised that nobody was concerned that damage hunt information is not being reported. Especially given the level of harvest last year under the guise of damage in the Skagit.
I think there's a difference between the damage hunt not being reported and those numbers not being considered by the bios when making management decisions. Whereas, without reporting, we may not know the numbers but the WDFW does. I'm not sure that it's that big of a deal. I'd find it hard to believe that the scientists/bios aren't using that data in season planning, tag planning, future damage tag distribution, etc. Also, it's kind of a departure from the thread. Maybe a new thread is in order???? :dunno:
:yeah: I'm sure they are using this information in the season setting proccess. Whereas they can only quess with most tribal harvest.
Post by: bobcat on September 25, 2014, 03:11:06 PM
Post by: grundy53 on September 25, 2014, 03:15:06 PM
The difference is damage permits generally are for animals on private land, that we cannot hunt anyway. The tribal harvest comes from mostly public lands, where most of us hunt. That's why we care about that much more so than a lack of information on any damage hunts.
That is probably the main reason.
Post by: Practical Approach on September 25, 2014, 03:15:21 PM
The difference is damage permits generally are for animals on private land, that we cannot hunt anyway. The tribal harvest comes from mostly public lands, where most of us hunt. That's why we care about that much more so than a lack of information on any damage hunts.I am sure you understand that with elk herd management, many of the herds that are on private lands are the same herds that move to public lands as well. If you are negatively impacting a population when it is on private land, it still negatively impacts the very same elk that you are hunting when they are on public land.
And many state hunters do hunt those private lands. Not as many as public lands sure.
Post by: Practical Approach on September 25, 2014, 03:17:47 PM
I know this thread took a turn but I was a little surprised that nobody was concerned that damage hunt information is not being reported. Especially given the level of harvest last year under the guise of damage in the Skagit.
I think there's a difference between the damage hunt not being reported and those numbers not being considered by the bios when making management decisions. Whereas, without reporting, we may not know the numbers but the WDFW does. I'm not sure that it's that big of a deal. I'd find it hard to believe that the scientists/bios aren't using that data in season planning, tag planning, future damage tag distribution, etc. Also, it's kind of a departure from the thread. Maybe a new thread is in order???? :dunno:
:yeah: I'm sure they are using this information in the season setting proccess. Whereas they can only quess with most tribal harvest.
Interesting that you can assume that the state is utilizing this information for management, but you assume the tribal harvest is bogus? (referring to the westside reports not Yakima)
I find assuming dangerous.
Post by: grundy53 on September 25, 2014, 03:24:58 PM
I know this thread took a turn but I was a little surprised that nobody was concerned that damage hunt information is not being reported. Especially given the level of harvest last year under the guise of damage in the Skagit.
I think there's a difference between the damage hunt not being reported and those numbers not being considered by the bios when making management decisions. Whereas, without reporting, we may not know the numbers but the WDFW does. I'm not sure that it's that big of a deal. I'd find it hard to believe that the scientists/bios aren't using that data in season planning, tag planning, future damage tag distribution, etc. Also, it's kind of a departure from the thread. Maybe a new thread is in order???? :dunno:
:yeah: I'm sure they are using this information in the season setting proccess. Whereas they can only quess with most tribal harvest.
Interesting that you can assume that the state is utilizing this information for management, but you assume the tribal harvest is bogus? (referring to the westside reports not Yakima)
I find assuming dangerous.
If you re read what I said I didn't say anything about westside tribes only. I included ALL tribes. Some of the biggest tribal harvests or harvest that have the most affect on critical herds are from tribes that don't report.
I find it amusing that you have the gall to tell me assuming is dangerous then YOU procede to assume that I'm talking about only westside tribes.
Post by: Practical Approach on September 25, 2014, 03:34:12 PM
That is my fault I guess, I didn't follow my own rule and assumed we were talking about the unreported harvest in the Skagit where tribes do report harvest.I know this thread took a turn but I was a little surprised that nobody was concerned that damage hunt information is not being reported. Especially given the level of harvest last year under the guise of damage in the Skagit.
I think there's a difference between the damage hunt not being reported and those numbers not being considered by the bios when making management decisions. Whereas, without reporting, we may not know the numbers but the WDFW does. I'm not sure that it's that big of a deal. I'd find it hard to believe that the scientists/bios aren't using that data in season planning, tag planning, future damage tag distribution, etc. Also, it's kind of a departure from the thread. Maybe a new thread is in order???? :dunno:
:yeah: I'm sure they are using this information in the season setting proccess. Whereas they can only quess with most tribal harvest.
Interesting that you can assume that the state is utilizing this information for management, but you assume the tribal harvest is bogus? (referring to the westside reports not Yakima)
I find assuming dangerous.
If you re read what I said I didn't say anything about westside tribes only. I included ALL tribes. Some of the biggest tribal harvests or harvest that have the most affect on critical herds are from tribes that don't report.
I find it amusing that you have the gall to tell me assuming is dangerous then YOU procede to assume that I'm talking about only westside tribes.
Post by: grundy53 on September 25, 2014, 03:39:32 PM
That is my fault I guess, I didn't follow my own rule and assumed we were talking about the unreported harvest in the Skagit where tribes do report harvest.I know this thread took a turn but I was a little surprised that nobody was concerned that damage hunt information is not being reported. Especially given the level of harvest last year under the guise of damage in the Skagit.
I think there's a difference between the damage hunt not being reported and those numbers not being considered by the bios when making management decisions. Whereas, without reporting, we may not know the numbers but the WDFW does. I'm not sure that it's that big of a deal. I'd find it hard to believe that the scientists/bios aren't using that data in season planning, tag planning, future damage tag distribution, etc. Also, it's kind of a departure from the thread. Maybe a new thread is in order???? :dunno:
:yeah: I'm sure they are using this information in the season setting proccess. Whereas they can only quess with most tribal harvest.
Interesting that you can assume that the state is utilizing this information for management, but you assume the tribal harvest is bogus? (referring to the westside reports not Yakima)
I find assuming dangerous.
If you re read what I said I didn't say anything about westside tribes only. I included ALL tribes. Some of the biggest tribal harvests or harvest that have the most affect on critical herds are from tribes that don't report.
I find it amusing that you have the gall to tell me assuming is dangerous then YOU procede to assume that I'm talking about only westside tribes.
I know the thread started with that but I thought it shifted to a more general state wide discussion.
Post by: huntnphool on September 25, 2014, 04:35:55 PM
You know what I get tired of reading and hearing.........I'm sick of the truckloads, I'm sick of unequal rights, I'm tired of tribal poaching, etc etc etc................if people are so tired then step up with documentation, statements pictures anything that you will back up
Rant on................
I posted a pic of a tribal rig with a bull in velvet laying in the bed, going down the highway a couple months ago, interesting that you natives didn't have a bunch to say in that thread. :dunno:
Post by: PlateauNDN on September 25, 2014, 04:40:50 PM
Post by: huntnphool on September 25, 2014, 04:43:43 PM
I thought I did reply in it??????? I did however save the pic from that thread.
Originally posted in June
Post by: bobcat on September 25, 2014, 04:47:23 PM
Post by: bobcat on September 25, 2014, 04:49:09 PM
I thought I did reply in it??????? I did however save the pic from that thread.
Originally posted in June
I assume that's a Yakama tribal member, and if so, that's probably a legal kill. Their season for bull elk is year around, NO LIMIT.
Post by: PlateauNDN on September 25, 2014, 04:50:22 PM
Post by: huntnphool on September 25, 2014, 04:51:45 PM
Their season for bull elk is year around, NO LIMIT.I thought I did reply in it??????? I did however save the pic from that thread.
Originally posted in June
And responsible for a lot of the outrage these threads exhibit.
Post by: huntnphool on September 25, 2014, 04:56:23 PM
I've checked around and I haven't been able to locate who the person is or what they were hunting for.
:chuckle: Yeah, the fact that the exact day, time of day, location and license plate number was given and does not give adequate information to get answers says a lot too. ;)
This is what adds fuel to the fire Plat, not that I'm suggesting you are the problem.
Post by: PlateauNDN on September 25, 2014, 05:04:05 PM
Post by: huntnphool on September 25, 2014, 05:12:08 PM
Ok, so what does day, time and driving down the highway have to do with identifying the person? Again, it appears to be legal so what are you expecting??? Oh wait, let me get my magic wand and wish something illegal to happen...........I save my favors for incidents that have the high probability of being illegal so I don't waste anybodies time in l.e. I'm not going above and beyond if there's no possibility of illegal activity.......
:chuckle: Okay, okay Plat, I thought I was replying to your "I've checked around and haven't been able to locate who the person is or what they were hunting for"
I thought it rather obvious with a elk in the bed and the license plate in clear view. :chuckle:
After all, you did say you "checked around", so I took you for your word. Now you are saying you actually didn't "check around" because there is no sign of illegal activity. Just pointing out the contradiction.
Post by: PlateauNDN on September 25, 2014, 05:16:20 PM
Post by: grundy53 on September 25, 2014, 05:36:22 PM
Ok, so what does day, time and driving down the highway have to do with identifying the person? Again, it appears to be legal so what are you expecting??? Oh wait, let me get my magic wand and wish something illegal to happen...........I save my favors for incidents that have the high probability of being illegal so I don't waste anybodies time in l.e. I'm not going above and beyond if there's no possibility of illegal activity.......
The fact that it's completely legal to kill a bull in June is a BIG part of the problem.
sent from my typewriter
Post by: boneaddict on September 26, 2014, 05:57:14 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 26, 2014, 06:59:51 AM
Is there an active WFW chapter in this area which has representatives who would be willing to request an audience for a respectful, well thought-out dialogue with the specific tribal council(s) whose members are taking these animals? In lieu of that, how about an independent group of HuntWA members who would be willing to meet and organize a presentation and request an audience?
Post by: igotbigbulls on September 26, 2014, 09:38:03 AM
Post by: grundy53 on September 26, 2014, 09:49:38 AM
One thing about it, is you can't accuse the guy with the velvet bull for trophy hunting. The fact that they can't shoot cows during that time period because they are calving has a lot to do with that. Obviously to me a meat hunt.Non-natives can't shoot ANY elk during that time period.
sent from my typewriter
Post by: igotbigbulls on September 26, 2014, 10:05:39 AM
Post by: singleshot12 on September 26, 2014, 10:11:42 AM
Post by: igotbigbulls on September 26, 2014, 10:43:38 AM
Post by: singleshot12 on September 26, 2014, 11:17:28 AM
Post by: huntnphool on September 26, 2014, 10:48:26 PM
Ok, so what does day, time and driving down the highway have to do with identifying the person? Again, it appears to be legal so what are you expecting??? Oh wait, let me get my magic wand and wish something illegal to happen...........I save my favors for incidents that have the high probability of being illegal so I don't waste anybodies time in l.e. I'm not going above and beyond if there's no possibility of illegal activity.......
The fact that it's completely legal to kill a bull in June is a BIG part of the problem.
Which is what I was pointing out as fuel for the fire.