Post by: WABONEHNTR on February 12, 2015, 10:17:30 PM
These photos came off of one rd that I drove on for about 14 miles.
Post by: WABONEHNTR on February 12, 2015, 10:22:04 PM
Post by: jackelope on February 12, 2015, 10:26:37 PM
Thanks for sharing. Really unfortunate. Hey lets add to the moose's demise and throw 20 more tags out there.
Booooooooo........
Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
Post by: Dan-o on February 12, 2015, 10:31:25 PM
Post by: M_ray on February 12, 2015, 10:36:28 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on February 12, 2015, 10:58:37 PM
Not to mention, if you guys are making another one of those "moose will be gone in 2 years" predictions like we saw in a recent thread on this site, then why not let state hunters take them while there are some left? I mean, if the wolves and the Yakamas are going to devastate the moose anyways...wouldn't you support us getting our share since they are going extinct?
Post by: M_ray on February 12, 2015, 11:06:14 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on February 12, 2015, 11:09:14 PM
Post by: bobcat on February 12, 2015, 11:10:15 PM
http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/2015/wsr_15-04-089.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/2015/wsr_15-04-089.pdf)
Post by: M_ray on February 12, 2015, 11:10:34 PM
Yes, one wants to keep a roll of tinfoil nearby when talking wolves :chuckle:
Good one! :chuckle:
Post by: M_ray on February 12, 2015, 11:15:08 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on February 12, 2015, 11:16:17 PM
The tinfoil is for wrapping the collars. The duct tape is for the wolf. I'm trying to catch one to release in Seattle. There was a new one in the neighborhood, probably looking to join the pack. >:(Yes, one wants to keep a roll of tinfoil nearby when talking wolves :chuckle:
Good one! :chuckle:
Post by: M_ray on February 12, 2015, 11:25:37 PM
The tinfoil is for wrapping the collars. The duct tape is for the wolf. I'm trying to catch one to release in Seattle. There was a new one in the neighborhood, probably looking to join the pack. >:(Yes, one wants to keep a roll of tinfoil nearby when talking wolves :chuckle:
Good one! :chuckle:
See! Whaditellya that only took 10 minutes! :chuckle:
Post by: jackelope on February 13, 2015, 06:00:36 AM
Idaho has over 1,000 wolves, offers 190 bull moose tags in Units 1 and 2 alone, and most (*not all) of those units hover in the 80-90% harvest success range and have for a long time. Some specific sub-units in unit 1 have seen some big declines. However, based on those numbers I really don't see 20 more tags as some panacea of doom in very nearby NE Wa. :dunno:
Not to mention, if you guys are making another one of those "moose will be gone in 2 years" predictions like we saw in a recent thread on this site, then why not let state hunters take them while there are some left? I mean, if the wolves and the Yakamas are going to devastate the moose anyways...wouldn't you support us getting our share since they are going extinct?
You're right. Let's just kill them all. Forget about my ideas.
I'm not making any "moose are going to be gone in 2 years" predictions. It would be neat to maintain the quality Bulls and the great population we have here in Washington. These new proposals aren't going to help that. If you think WABONEHNTR is just some dude throwing some tinfoil hat conspiracy theory pictures out, well there's not much I can do about that. There's probably not too many people on this forum or in wdfw that know washington's moose better than him.
Post by: bhawley76 on February 13, 2015, 06:56:46 AM
Post by: wolfbait on February 13, 2015, 06:57:28 AM
Lets just hope WDFW don't go to predicting the weather this fall in the NE. :bash:
Post by: idahohuntr on February 13, 2015, 07:34:21 AM
If you think wdfw is just making this stuff up about moose populations, bull:cow ratios, and evidence of density dependent regulation...well, there's not much I can do about that. My point is the increase in tags is not going to cause some "destruction". In fact, it's likely to help stabilize moose numbers. Please also note that not all units in NE wa are equal...changes in tag numbers reflect that.Idaho has over 1,000 wolves, offers 190 bull moose tags in Units 1 and 2 alone, and most (*not all) of those units hover in the 80-90% harvest success range and have for a long time. Some specific sub-units in unit 1 have seen some big declines. However, based on those numbers I really don't see 20 more tags as some panacea of doom in very nearby NE Wa. :dunno:
Not to mention, if you guys are making another one of those "moose will be gone in 2 years" predictions like we saw in a recent thread on this site, then why not let state hunters take them while there are some left? I mean, if the wolves and the Yakamas are going to devastate the moose anyways...wouldn't you support us getting our share since they are going extinct?
You're right. Let's just kill them all. Forget about my ideas.
I'm not making any "moose are going to be gone in 2 years" predictions. It would be neat to maintain the quality Bulls and the great population we have here in Washington. These new proposals aren't going to help that. If you think WABONEHNTR is just some dude throwing some tinfoil hat conspiracy theory pictures out, well there's not much I can do about that. There's probably not too many people on this forum or in wdfw that know washington's moose better than him.
Post by: jackelope on February 13, 2015, 07:39:23 AM
If you think wdfw is just making this stuff up about moose populations, bull:cow ratios, and evidence of density dependent regulation...well, there's not much I can do about that. My point is the increase in tags is not going to cause some "destruction". In fact, it's likely to help stabilize moose numbers. Please also note that not all units in NE wa are equal...changes in tag numbers reflect that.Idaho has over 1,000 wolves, offers 190 bull moose tags in Units 1 and 2 alone, and most (*not all) of those units hover in the 80-90% harvest success range and have for a long time. Some specific sub-units in unit 1 have seen some big declines. However, based on those numbers I really don't see 20 more tags as some panacea of doom in very nearby NE Wa. :dunno:
Not to mention, if you guys are making another one of those "moose will be gone in 2 years" predictions like we saw in a recent thread on this site, then why not let state hunters take them while there are some left? I mean, if the wolves and the Yakamas are going to devastate the moose anyways...wouldn't you support us getting our share since they are going extinct?
You're right. Let's just kill them all. Forget about my ideas.
I'm not making any "moose are going to be gone in 2 years" predictions. It would be neat to maintain the quality Bulls and the great population we have here in Washington. These new proposals aren't going to help that. If you think WABONEHNTR is just some dude throwing some tinfoil hat conspiracy theory pictures out, well there's not much I can do about that. There's probably not too many people on this forum or in wdfw that know washington's moose better than him.
ok.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on February 13, 2015, 02:09:10 PM
Post by: M_ray on February 13, 2015, 02:16:50 PM
Idaho has over 1,000 wolves, offers 190 bull moose tags in Units 1 and 2 alone, and most (*not all) of those units hover in the 80-90% harvest success range and have for a long time. Some specific sub-units in unit 1 have seen some big declines. However, based on those numbers I really don't see 20 more tags as some panacea of doom in very nearby NE Wa. :dunno:
Not to mention, if you guys are making another one of those "moose will be gone in 2 years" predictions like we saw in a recent thread on this site, then why not let state hunters take them while there are some left? I mean, if the wolves and the Yakamas are going to devastate the moose anyways...wouldn't you support us getting our share since they are going extinct?
You're right. Let's just kill them all. Forget about my ideas.
I'm not making any "moose are going to be gone in 2 years" predictions. It would be neat to maintain the quality Bulls and the great population we have here in Washington. These new proposals aren't going to help that. If you think WABONEHNTR is just some dude throwing some tinfoil hat conspiracy theory pictures out, well there's not much I can do about that. There's probably not too many people on this forum or in wdfw that know washington's moose better than him.
:yeah:
Post by: KFhunter on February 13, 2015, 04:41:11 PM
If you think wdfw is just making this stuff up about moose populations, bull:cow ratios, and evidence of density dependent regulation...well, there's not much I can do about that. My point is the increase in tags is not going to cause some "destruction". In fact, it's likely to help stabilize moose numbers. Please also note that not all units in NE wa are equal...changes in tag numbers reflect that.Idaho has over 1,000 wolves, offers 190 bull moose tags in Units 1 and 2 alone, and most (*not all) of those units hover in the 80-90% harvest success range and have for a long time. Some specific sub-units in unit 1 have seen some big declines. However, based on those numbers I really don't see 20 more tags as some panacea of doom in very nearby NE Wa. :dunno:
Not to mention, if you guys are making another one of those "moose will be gone in 2 years" predictions like we saw in a recent thread on this site, then why not let state hunters take them while there are some left? I mean, if the wolves and the Yakamas are going to devastate the moose anyways...wouldn't you support us getting our share since they are going extinct?
You're right. Let's just kill them all. Forget about my ideas.
I'm not making any "moose are going to be gone in 2 years" predictions. It would be neat to maintain the quality Bulls and the great population we have here in Washington. These new proposals aren't going to help that. If you think WABONEHNTR is just some dude throwing some tinfoil hat conspiracy theory pictures out, well there's not much I can do about that. There's probably not too many people on this forum or in wdfw that know washington's moose better than him.
Stabilize moose numbers? :lol4:
Post by: KFhunter on February 13, 2015, 04:43:51 PM
Don't worry about the detractors on here they'll try demonize and discredit you but most folks on HW know what the deal is. Keep on posting it helps with awareness and that's what we need now. Pressure and awareness.
Post by: bearpaw on February 13, 2015, 05:00:11 PM
Both of those moose areas are large areas that could probably support additional hunting by splitting the moose units as proposed. There are some moose that are not really being hunted since these areas are so large. Most moose hunters seem to concentrate in specific areas. I do hope WDFW keeps a close eye on areas that are being impacted by wolves, wolf impacts are occurring to an extent in localized areas in both of those units (smackout, meadow creek, hunters/springdale, etc).
Thanks for the post and photos WABONEHNTR, people need to know this is occurring in NE WA!
Post by: quadrafire on February 13, 2015, 05:21:02 PM
Post by: WABONEHNTR on February 14, 2015, 10:44:42 AM
Has anyone ever wondered why the elk in the usk/cusick areas now hang out down in the farm land? Must be because they are over populated? No, they aren't safe in the mnts and they know that.
Another question, why are we still collaring wolves in the NE? Don't we have enough data after 5-7 years? Wolves are all through the cascades and in western Washington. The wildlife in the NE can not handle 5-7-10 years of collaring while packs are formed in western wa, studied for years and years before anyone admits that they are really there.
Why do I care about moose? Because it has really gone from nothing in the 80's and early 90's to undoubtably the best shiras moose population and quality in the US to nothing to brag about.
Post by: timberfaller on February 14, 2015, 11:29:05 AM
THEY weren't "re-introduced" by WDFW, Most came in from Idaho "naturally" :yike:
"Increase" when it comes to any government agency is BASED only on one reason,$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ :o
Post by: wolfbait on February 14, 2015, 12:35:34 PM
I know we aren't all going to agree but to think the WDFW is always making/doing what's best for our wildlife is crazy to me. Wolves are a problem in our state and I really don't see it ever changing. I am pretty confident I have spent more time chasing around moose than anyone on this site and have watched the numbers decline. If the tag increase was 7-10 years, no one would have complained one bit. The population is so far down in these areas from back then that I just don't see how the tag increase can be justified. Yes, there are pockets of moose here and there but that was NEVER the case.
Has anyone ever wondered why the elk in the usk/cusick areas now hang out down in the farm land? Must be because they are over populated? No, they aren't safe in the mnts and they know that.
Another question, why are we still collaring wolves in the NE? Don't we have enough data after 5-7 years? Wolves are all through the cascades and in western Washington. The wildlife in the NE can not handle 5-7-10 years of collaring while packs are formed in western wa, studied for years and years before anyone admits that they are really there.
Why do I care about moose? Because it has really gone from nothing in the 80's and early 90's to undoubtably the best shiras moose population and quality in the US to nothing to brag about.
Well said! :tup:
WDFW refuse to acknowledge the impact that wolves and other predators are having on the game herds in WA, much the same as IDFG game did for years, promoting hunting instead of managing predators, WA won't hold up as long as Idaho did.
Post by: idahohuntr on February 14, 2015, 04:52:48 PM
Currently I support the changes WDFW is proposing.:yeah:
Both of those moose areas are large areas that could probably support additional hunting by splitting the moose units as proposed.
Tens of thousands of Washington hunters will never get a chance to hunt moose in this state ever in their lifetime. WDFW is out actively gathering good moose population information so I have to believe the additional tags are warranted and I too support the modest increase. 20 more hunters will get the hunt of a lifetime this year and I think that is a good thing.
Post by: jasnt on February 14, 2015, 06:05:39 PM
but at what cost for years to come?Currently I support the changes WDFW is proposing.:yeah:
Both of those moose areas are large areas that could probably support additional hunting by splitting the moose units as proposed.
Tens of thousands of Washington hunters will never get a chance to hunt moose in this state ever in their lifetime. WDFW is out actively gathering good moose population information so I have to believe the additional tags are warranted and I too support the modest increase. 20 more hunters will get the hunt of a lifetime this year and I think that is a good thing.
Post by: Dan-o on February 14, 2015, 06:12:54 PM
but at what cost for years to come?Currently I support the changes WDFW is proposing.:yeah:
Both of those moose areas are large areas that could probably support additional hunting by splitting the moose units as proposed.
Tens of thousands of Washington hunters will never get a chance to hunt moose in this state ever in their lifetime. WDFW is out actively gathering good moose population information so I have to believe the additional tags are warranted and I too support the modest increase. 20 more hunters will get the hunt of a lifetime this year and I think that is a good thing.
We'll see soon enough.
But as long as success rates hover in the 90%+ range, how can you argue for fewer moose tags?
Post by: KFhunter on February 14, 2015, 06:38:06 PM
Post by: PA BEN on February 18, 2015, 12:43:27 PM
Idaho has over 1,000 wolves, offers 190 bull moose tags in Units 1 and 2 alone, and most (*not all) of those units hover in the 80-90% harvest success range and have for a long time. Some specific sub-units in unit 1 have seen some big declines. However, based on those numbers I really don't see 20 more tags as some panacea of doom in very nearby NE Wa. :dunno:So why don't you show us this thread where 2 years was predicted.
Not to mention, if you guys are making another one of those "moose will be gone in 2 years" predictions like we saw in a recent thread on this site, then why not let state hunters take them while there are some left? I mean, if the wolves and the Yakamas are going to devastate the moose anyways...wouldn't you support us getting our share since they are going extinct?
Post by: idahohuntr on February 18, 2015, 12:51:22 PM
Idaho has over 1,000 wolves, offers 190 bull moose tags in Units 1 and 2 alone, and most (*not all) of those units hover in the 80-90% harvest success range and have for a long time. Some specific sub-units in unit 1 have seen some big declines. However, based on those numbers I really don't see 20 more tags as some panacea of doom in very nearby NE Wa. :dunno:So why don't you show us this thread where 2 years was predicted.
Not to mention, if you guys are making another one of those "moose will be gone in 2 years" predictions like we saw in a recent thread on this site, then why not let state hunters take them while there are some left? I mean, if the wolves and the Yakamas are going to devastate the moose anyways...wouldn't you support us getting our share since they are going extinct?
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,48084.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,48084.0.html) :tup:
Post by: bearpaw on February 19, 2015, 08:38:39 AM
Last weekend a local horn hunter found a cow moose recently killed by wolves and two sheep which also were most likely killed by wolves last summer. The wolves found him before he made it off the mountain and he had wolves skirting him for a half mile until he was back to his vehicle. Scared him bad, close to the same area the wolves had the bow hunter treed in 121 two seasons ago. He's lucky they didn't attack him like they attacked the elk hunter in GMU 111. He had no gun, but I doubt he will be unarmed in the future, more and more people are packing firearms just for a walk in the neighborhood these days.
Post by: bearpaw on February 19, 2015, 08:40:26 AM
Post by: boneaddict on February 19, 2015, 08:49:17 AM
Like I said Bobcat it's all smoke and mirrors to give the impression that everything is ok but we know it's not, we aren't as dumb as they think! 😡Very common tactic I have noticed used a lot in the Methow. Now we have a simple poor decision about antler less harvest to take some of the blame off the wolves and that stupidity.
Post by: M_ray on February 20, 2015, 03:08:40 AM
Like I said Bobcat it's all smoke and mirrors to give the impression that everything is ok but we know it's not, we aren't as dumb as they think! 😡Very common tactic I have noticed used a lot in the Methow. Now we have a simple poor decision about antler less harvest to take some of the blame off the wolves and that stupidity.
Yep, good point!
Post by: TommyH on February 20, 2015, 08:17:15 AM
Post by: bobcat on February 20, 2015, 08:42:28 AM
Post by: Curly on February 20, 2015, 08:48:00 AM
Wolves do need to eat, and so do cougars.
Not if they're dead. ;)
Post by: jasnt on February 20, 2015, 10:18:18 AM
what if their undead :chuckle:Wolves do need to eat, and so do cougars.
Not if they're dead. ;)
:mgun:
Post by: Jonathan_S on February 20, 2015, 10:24:24 AM
Wolves do need to eat, and so do cougars.
Everybody wants to talk about wolves and that certainly is a salient issue that needs to be addressed but I would wager that most people are wildly unaware at the HUGE cougar numbers in these units too.
Bearpaw...what say you?
Post by: Curly on February 20, 2015, 10:32:44 AM
what if their undead :chuckle:Wolves do need to eat, and so do cougars.
Not if they're dead. ;)
:mgun:
If they're undead, I suggest trying silver bullets. :dunno:
:)
Post by: fishngamereaper on February 20, 2015, 10:40:49 AM
Im curious what the Moose tag holders from last year have to say. Generally those hunters fill out the questionnaire's, ie moose seen, cows seen, bulls seen etc. Seems most of the moose stories I read the hunters saw a fair number of moose before harvesting. If their reports reflect good moose populations Im sure WDFW takes that into consideration.
Post by: bearpaw on February 20, 2015, 10:45:12 AM
Wolves do need to eat, and so do cougars.
Everybody wants to talk about wolves and that certainly is a salient issue that needs to be addressed but I would wager that most people are wildly unaware at the HUGE cougar numbers in these units too.
Bearpaw...what say you?
I think most of us in the NE know about the cougar impacts that are occurring and the big worry is adding wolf impacts to the cougar and bear predation. Overall cougars are by far the most serious problem at this time. WDFW has limited cougar harvest so much that the NE is saturated with cougars to the point they are eating the wolves. Three of the (maybe 10 or 12) collared wolves have been eaten by cougar, no other state has had that high of cougar predation on wolves, that in itself proves that cougars are a problem in the NE.
WDFW listens to a professor at WSU for establishing cougar seasons. Maybe WDFW will figure out that Wielgus is just trying to prevent lethal cougar management. I'm not sure how to convince them their are as many cats as we have, they seem to ignore anything you try and tell them regarding predators. Maybe the fact that they now know a good portion of the wolves are being eaten by cats will bring some intelligent thinking.
Post by: jasnt on February 20, 2015, 11:37:33 AM
:yeah:Wolves do need to eat, and so do cougars.
Everybody wants to talk about wolves and that certainly is a salient issue that needs to be addressed but I would wager that most people are wildly unaware at the HUGE cougar numbers in these units too.
Bearpaw...what say you?
I think most of us in the NE know about the cougar impacts that are occurring and the big worry is adding wolf impacts to the cougar and bear predation. Overall cougars are by far the most serious problem at this time. WDFW has limited cougar harvest so much that the NE is saturated with cougars to the point they are eating the wolves. Three of the (maybe 10 or 12) collared wolves have been eaten by cougar, no other state has had that high of cougar predation on wolves, that in itself proves that cougars are a problem in the NE.
WDFW listens to a professor at WSU for establishing cougar seasons. Maybe WDFW will figure out that Wielgus is just trying to prevent lethal cougar management. I'm not sure how to convince them their are as many cats as we have, they seem to ignore anything you try and tell them regarding predators. Maybe the fact that they now know a good portion of the wolves are being eaten by cats will bring some intelligent thinking.
Post by: bobcat on February 20, 2015, 11:41:32 AM
Post by: jasnt on February 20, 2015, 12:41:41 PM
The current management strategy for cougars by the WDFW has got to be the most moronic thing they have EVER done! It's just amazingly stupid. It sure would be nice if they could use common sense sometimes instead of listening to some college professor.:yeah:
My gmu's closed early this year as usual :bash: I would bet they could double the harvest quota and it would still not lower numbers enough. Just with the presence of the new predators you would think the holding capacity would have been lowered to even out the ecosystem
Post by: Jonathan_S on February 20, 2015, 12:46:33 PM
Post by: jasnt on February 20, 2015, 02:06:40 PM
Since the cougar harvest is unselective based on hunting methods. There shouldn't even be a quota. :twocents:i could live with that
Post by: M_ray on February 20, 2015, 04:15:30 PM
The current management strategy for cougars by the WDFW has got to be the most moronic thing they have EVER done! It's just amazingly stupid. It sure would be nice if they could use common sense sometimes instead of listening to some college professor.
Wow I've been agreeing with you a lot lately, I'm going to have to double my meds! :chuckle:
Post by: Birdguy on February 21, 2015, 08:05:32 AM
The current management strategy for cougars by the WDFW has got to be the most moronic thing they have EVER done! It's just amazingly stupid. It sure would be nice if they could use common sense sometimes instead of listening to some college professor.
Wow I've been agreeing with you a lot lately, I'm going to have to double my meds! :chuckle:
M_ray, keep reading there is still plenty of posts to disagree with Bobcat on :chuckle: :chuckle:
On a serious note I have a good friend that spends a ton of time in the woods of the NE, picking berries, hunting bear, grouse, deer, cutting firewood, and just driving/hiking the hills. We were talking about the moose population last weekend and he said the most alarming thing to him was the lack of calves. He says there are still a fair number of moose, though not as many as the last ten years or so but of all the moose he has seen this year (he estimates around 200) he has only seen 5 calves :yike:. That could be very serious over the next several years, it was a mild year for ungulates and so few calves indicates a big problem heading our way.
Anyone else notice this? I see Bearpaw mentioned it as well
Post by: bearpaw on February 21, 2015, 08:37:03 AM
The current management strategy for cougars by the WDFW has got to be the most moronic thing they have EVER done! It's just amazingly stupid. It sure would be nice if they could use common sense sometimes instead of listening to some college professor.
Wow I've been agreeing with you a lot lately, I'm going to have to double my meds! :chuckle:
M_ray, keep reading there is still plenty of posts to disagree with Bobcat on :chuckle: :chuckle:
On a serious note I have a good friend that spends a ton of time in the woods of the NE, picking berries, hunting bear, grouse, deer, cutting firewood, and just driving/hiking the hills. We were talking about the moose population last weekend and he said the most alarming thing to him was the lack of calves. He says there are still a fair number of moose, though not as many as the last ten years or so but of all the moose he has seen this year (he estimates around 200) he has only seen 5 calves :yike:. That could be very serious over the next several years, it was a mild year for ungulates and so few calves indicates a big problem heading our way.
Anyone else notice this? I see Bearpaw mentioned it as well
The only areas we have noticed that is where the wolf packs are located. In areas that don't have wolf packs we haven't seen a problem. When the offspring are being targeted in 3-5 years you have a serious problem.