Post by: bbarnes on January 14, 2009, 07:30:28 PM
Their mission is:
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) serves Washington's citizens by protecting, restoring and enhancing fish and wildlife and their habitats, while providing sustainable and wildlife-related recreational and commercial opportunities.
If you or I let our animals on our property starve to death we would be penalized, fined and possibly thrown in jail, yet these department officials are not held accountable for their actions.
We as hunters need to stand up and be heard about our concerns so we can continue to hunt in years to come. We should demand answers for why these elk have been dying. Is it starvation, poisoning from the herbicides and pesticides or hoof rot? The last time a study was done on the Mt. Saint Helen's Elk heard was 1983, the environment has significantly changed in the past 26 years.
>:(
No other states starve wildlife like the state of Washington. Other states realize this is a natural resource for income and should be well taken care of and managed. We must contact our legislators and demand changes. You can also contact the interim Director of Fish and Wildlife at:
Mailing Address
600 Capitol Way N.
Olympia, WA 98501-1091
Phil Anderson
Interim Director
director@dfw.wa.gov
Post by: boneaddict on January 14, 2009, 07:53:34 PM
Post by: bucklucky on January 14, 2009, 11:10:36 PM
Let nature take its course. Just like up St. Helens.
Post by: telof latzi on January 15, 2009, 06:01:52 AM
Because of higher human populations the same amount of deer 500 years ago is too many today. (according to this way of thinking. I'm not saying I agree) So for elk herds to keep from starving we need more land for them and less for us.
Other than that, we're doing what we can, and like boneaddict said, natural process. For any species of animal when populations are too dense there's not enough resources to go around and somebody gets the short end of the stick.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on January 15, 2009, 06:40:45 AM
Post by: ICEMAN on January 15, 2009, 06:56:07 AM
If it is all about the environment, and the winter carrying capacity, isnt encouraging winter browse, or summer watering areas, all of these man made efforts the same? Why would extreme winter conditions be such a bad thing. I dont think we are talking about trying to feed them every year, just the extreme years.
The problem with letting nature take its course, is that if we do that, (like the let it burn policy in yellowstone), it takes eons to recover, and in this case, reduced opportunities for hunters during the recovery.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on January 15, 2009, 08:24:13 AM
If it is all about the environment, and the winter carrying capacity, isnt encouraging winter browse, or summer watering areas, all of these man made efforts the same? Why would extreme winter conditions be such a bad thing. I dont think we are talking about trying to feed them every year, just the extreme years.Right on Iceman- spray weeds and encourage good browse species to enhance the winter grounds and have healthier animals going into the cold season. Smart logging practices and fire can help the wildlife too.
Post by: runamuk on January 15, 2009, 02:07:11 PM
If it is all about the environment, and the winter carrying capacity, isnt encouraging winter browse, or summer watering areas, all of these man made efforts the same? Why would extreme winter conditions be such a bad thing. I dont think we are talking about trying to feed them every year, just the extreme years.
Carrying capacity is not a stagnant thing it is ever changing.
Its not just winter, summer has an effect as well. Over simplified.....
A decent snow pack in a mild winter followed by a mild summer will leave habitat with a much higher carrying capacity, than a hard cold winter followed by a hot dry summer.
The short term options are
1 reduce population in bad years.
2 supplementary feed/water in bad years
Habitat improvement is the best idea but isn't an immediate solution, its going to take time and management which the state seems determined to not consider a priority.
Doing nothing wont work as human development is now a part of nature so we have to be involved in wildlife management if we want wildlife.
Post by: rasbo on January 15, 2009, 02:39:21 PM
Post by: EastWaViking on January 15, 2009, 02:46:40 PM
Post by: runamuk on January 15, 2009, 03:23:52 PM
lets play a numbers game letting nature take its course....
We have an area with 10,000 elk
now if they suffer the 50% winter kill we have 5000 elk. Of those lets just say 50% are reproductively active cows (probably a different percentage in reality but round number keep it simple) so you now have 2500 cows. Now if elk are anything like other species of domestic herbivores only 65% of those will go on to produce live births so we have 1625 calves born. For *censored*s and giggles lets just say they all survive.
Now with zero losses to predation or hunting we now have 6625 elk. Another high kill winter and you lose another 50%. remember we issued zero tags and didn't account for predation old age etc...... how many bad winters will it take to get to zero population? 5 bad years and your down to 1245 (roughly) elk just playing with numbers.
Now go the other way where there are no winter losses no hunting etc...... by year 5 we have 40,836 (roughly)
I realize I am not factoring in the other parts played but both extremes are why if we don't manage wildlife it wont effectively manage itself.
We humans are a predator and we utilize habitat so we are part of the equation.
I also would rather spend money managing wildlife than paying for illegals, and welfare lifers, and politicians big fat paychecks for life.. and.. and... and.....
Post by: elkangel on January 30, 2009, 10:31:42 PM
It Looks like the WDFW want to keep starvation as part of their management plan. Don't worry, we can still bait animals in to kill them we just can't feed them to help keep them alive.
Please contact the sponsors of the bill through the Washington Legislative Web sight and let them know how you feel.
HOUSE BILL 1885
_____________________________________________ javascript:void(0);
State of Washington 61st Legislature 2009 Regular Session
By Representatives Van De Wege, Blake from, Warnick, Takko, Ormsby, and Liias
1 AN ACT Relating to feeding wildlife; amending RCW 77.15.160; adding
2 a new section to chapter 77.15 RCW; creating a new section; and
3 prescribing penalties.
4 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
5 NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. It is the intent of the legislature to
6 protect wildlife from becoming habituated to humans and to protect the
7 public against the serious health and safety risk posed by wildlife who
8 are drawn into contact with humans and related infrastructure by
9 individuals who intentionally feed wildlife.
10 NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. A new section is added to chapter 77.15 RCW
11 to read as follows:
12 (1) A person may not intentionally feed, attempt to feed, or
13 attract wildlife to land or a building.
14 (2)(a) If a fish and wildlife officer or an ex officio fish and
15 wildlife officer has probable cause to believe that the existence or
16 location of food, food waste, or another substance in, upon, or about
17 any land or building poses a risk to the safety of any person because
18 the food, food waste, or other substance is attracting or could attract
1 wildlife to the land or building, the officer may issue a written
2 warning requiring the person to contain, move, or remove the food, food
3 waste, or other substance within two days.
4 (b) If a person who is issued a written warning under (a) of this
5 subsection fails to contain, move, or remove the food, food waste, or
6 other substance as directed, a fish and wildlife officer or an ex
7 officio fish and wildlife officer may issue an infraction, which must
8 be cited and punished as provided under chapter 7.84 RCW.
9 (c) If a person who is issued an infraction under (b) of this
10 subsection fails to contain, move, or remove the food, food waste, or
11 other substance as directed, or commits a new violation of this section
12 within twelve months of being issued an infraction under (b) of this
13 subsection, a fish and wildlife officer or an ex officio fish and
14 wildlife officer may issue another infraction, which must be cited and
15 punished as provided under chapter 7.84 RCW.
16 (3) This section does not apply to:
17 (a) A person who is engaging in hunting or trapping wildlife in
18 accordance with all other applicable provisions of this title or rules
19 of the commission or the director;
20 (b) A person who is engaging in a farming operation that is using
21 best management practices or other generally accepted farming
22 practices;
23 (c) Waste disposal facilities that are operating in accordance with
24 applicable federal, state, and municipal laws; and
25 (d) Zoos and lawfully operated wildlife refuges.
26 (4) The definitions in this subsection apply throughout this
27 section unless the context clearly requires otherwise.
28 (a) "Building" means a private domicile or home or public or
29 commercial building.
30 (b) "Wildlife" means bear, cougar, wolf, coyote, deer, elk, turkey,
31 raccoon, opossum, and skunk.
32 (c) "Food, food waste, or other substance" means human and pet
33 food, or other waste or garbage that could attract wildlife.
34 (d) "Feed, attempt to feed, or attract" means to provide, leave, or
35 place in, upon, or about any land or building, any food, food waste, or
36 other substance that attracts wildlife to that land, building, or
37 location.
HB 1885 p. 2
1 Sec. 3. RCW 77.15.160 and 2000 c 107 s 237 are each amended to
2 read as follows:
3 A person is guilty of an infraction, which shall be cited and
4 punished as provided under chapter 7.84 RCW, if the person:
5 (1) Fails to immediately record a catch of fish or shellfish on a
6 catch record card required by RCW 77.32.430, or required by rule of the
7 commission under this title; ((or))
8 (2) Fishes for personal use using barbed hooks in violation of any
9 rule; ((or))
10 (3) Intentionally feeds wildlife in violation of a written warning
11 or previous infraction issued under section 1 of this act; or
12 (4) Violates any other rule of the commission or director that is
13 designated by rule as an infraction.
--- END ---
p. 3 HB 1885
Post by: FrankDown on January 31, 2009, 12:57:00 AM
The real problem as I see it is loss of habitat, and feeding grounds. Logging, or the lack thereof, has created more of a problem than the tree hugging hippies had foresight for.
Proper logging techniques and better replanting techniques should be looked at.
Private landowners who wish to provide winter graze by planting appropriate trees and shrubbery is another thing that could be done. In the south people plant deer plots like you would in the spring for your family. I ha vent heard of anyone doing that here. Not sure how the elk are here though, just a thought.
I don't understand why they are saying not to feed them now. Spread of disease possibly? I can see getting acclimated to humans and to roadways etc as being a hazard to both people and the elk.
If you don't have elk, you don't have to manage them. This is something I think the animal rights groups figured out with the introduction of wolves. Starving out artificially high numbers of elk can cut hunting out of the equation, they don't care if its humane or not, its just not hunting.
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on January 31, 2009, 03:24:09 AM
Post by: ICEMAN on January 31, 2009, 07:02:02 AM
Why could providing a bit of assistance at critical times be much different for deer and elk. I say feed them if possible, on occasion. Many here suggest altering their winter areas to support them, this seems logical, but in the interim and on occasion when times are really tough, I say feed them.
Post by: bow4elk on January 31, 2009, 07:58:30 AM
That's all fine and good but why do we have to turn the same behavior - taking care of Washington Wildlife - into a government cluster phuck! Just do what's right for God's sake!! >:(
Post by: FrankDown on January 31, 2009, 08:35:34 AM
Quote
If critters are starving in normal years, we need to shoot more of them.
This seems to be more along the lines of management. I dont want to see animals starving, but the state of Washington appears to have a hidden agenda with its wildlife. Perhaps the people at HSUS or other eco group has infiltrated it and wishes to end hunting altogether.
Post by: bow4elk on January 31, 2009, 08:42:52 AM
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on January 31, 2009, 06:25:37 PM
Most wildlife managment programs at some of the best schools are starting to teach that hunting is not necessary in modern wildlife management.
I don't think that's true. Some other types of programs (Environmental Philosophy, etc.), probably teach that. I think it would be accurate to say that "Most wildlife managment programs at some of the best schools are starting to teach that some hunting is not necessary in modern wildlife management."
I received my BS in wildlife management in 1988, and stay current with the field. I can think of no wildlife management program that teaches that hunting is not necessary in modern wildlife management. Where the division is, and it is a healthy debate, is what hunting is necessary, and what hunting is desired by hunters. Hunting mature bucks and bulls on summer ranges, mountain goats, and backcountry black bears is not necessary; as an old school bio, I agree it is not necessary, but is highly desirable. That's where a lot of disagreement arises.
A lot of people tolerate and approve of necessary hunting (crop protection, population control, reducing human-wildlife conflicts, reducing deer or elk for habitat benefits). However, a lot of those same folks think recreational hunting, where it is not providing those benefits, but can be done without harming populations, is not desirable. That's a reality.
Personally, I tell them to be careful what they advocate - most of what they like to do (hug trees, munch granola in the alpine areas, hike, sightsee, heliski, ride atvs, etc) - are also unneccessary for environmental health, and have some negative consequences. Those of us who use our public lands for human enjoyment, should stick together against those who want to kick everyone out of public lands.
Post by: runamuk on January 31, 2009, 08:55:40 PM
I'm sure you've all heard about the three puppy mills that were recently busted. Now there are hundreds of pregnant dogs to the tune of 1,500 total animals. It's all over the news.
gotta love how a couple hundred confiscated dogs turns into 1500....first thats crap numbers created by anti's....second I saw very few dogs that looked bad in that raid.....third the same people who want to take away your hunting also call (all) breeders puppymills I don't like that term it just creates problems.....
They could put down some of the dogs and easily abort all pregnancies but...eeegads that would be sensible....animal rights isn't about sense :bash: :bash: just like wildlife management it isn't about whats sensible and right... its about cash in the coffers and someones agenda >:(
Post by: boneaddict on January 31, 2009, 08:57:59 PM
(I thought those animals looked pretty healthy actually)
Post by: FrankDown on January 31, 2009, 09:09:22 PM
Quote
Personally, I tell them to be careful what they advocate - most of what they like to do (hug trees, munch granola in the alpine areas, hike, sightsee, heliski, ride atvs, etc) - are also unneccessary for environmental health, and have some negative consequences. Those of us who use our public lands for human enjoyment, should stick together against those who want to kick everyone out of public lands.
When I lose my hunting rights Im gonna start on the hikers and tree huggers that took away my hunting. Theres a lot of hikers that want hunters out of the woods.
Post by: bucklucky on January 31, 2009, 09:42:47 PM
The way I look at it there is a reason they are dying, can we fix it? Probably not. Can we make it worse in the long run? Probably
Let nature take its course. Just like up St. Helen's.
So it's OK if they starve to death because that's natures course, but if a wolf kills an elk everyone is up in arms. :dunno:
I never said it was OK for the animals to starve to death.
Wolves are a whole nother cup of tea, and its more like :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse:, same with the St Helen's elk. They are starving because of People, and piss poor decisions. Kind of like our Economy. Wrong people making the wrong decisions :twocents: Wish I had answers for all the problems in this world. There is too many rights and too many wrongs.
Post by: Huntbear on February 01, 2009, 09:22:44 AM
That said, I think we should be able to feed the elk when they need it. Heck, they do it in Jackson Hole, and many other places. In Jewel, Oregon they feed the elk just to keep them off the farm land....
Maybe, if we have anybody with any pull with the RMEF, they can help with this issue.? :dunno:
Post by: bucklucky on February 01, 2009, 07:47:21 PM
Post by: FrankDown on February 01, 2009, 08:32:30 PM
Post by: bobcat on February 01, 2009, 08:38:03 PM
Post by: bow4elk on February 01, 2009, 08:39:14 PM
Wouldnt it make more sense to remove some of those animals through hunting rather than to let them all starve or endur harder winters than necessary?
Ah-ha, good old Common Sense. No thanks, Liberals don't think that way. (but, yes, you're correct!).
Post by: dbllunger on February 01, 2009, 08:42:44 PM
Post by: bucklucky on February 02, 2009, 09:41:29 AM
Wouldnt it make more sense to remove some of those animals through hunting rather than to let them all starve or endur harder winters than necessary?
Thats been my thoughts for some time and have said that on one of the ST Helens Elk posts. And as Bobcat stated , I couodnt believe they want to cut tags around there.
Post by: groundhog on February 02, 2009, 01:45:31 PM
Some of the people that are feeding are doing so to pick up the sheds, others are wanting to protect the elk from hunters. Some say they want to keep the elk off of the highway and they enjoy looking at them. They all seem to be interested in the sheds.
Some of the questions that I have are; Are they feeding enough to sustain the animals through the winter? Do they feed until the animals pull back or just until they drop their antlers? By feeding are they stopping these animals from going to their traditional wintering areas where they would do fine without any supplemental feed?
I know one guy in the Cle Elum area that feeds a half a dozen bulls all winter long. He feeds them twice a day the same amount that he does his horses. He feeds them until they pull back on their own. I think this is OK but I also think that he is a stand up guy and most folks are not feeding as much or as long. I know that each year he has one hell of a feed bill.
I think unsupervised feeding is a bad idea. Most people do not feed enough. It creates small sanctuary's where elk will retreat too when they normally would stay on larger tracts of land. For the record I don't see why we need to be allowed to bait during hunting season either. I am for doing away with feeding all together. :twocents:
Post by: WAcoueshunter on February 03, 2009, 11:34:50 PM
Personally I think that they will die until there is the right number of elk that the forest can hold population wise. Elk numbers will go down, thats a fact . They wont all die, the strong will survive .It is a shame this does happen. I know alot of the feed stations were put up to keep the elk off of farm lands.
Bucklucky's on it...for better or worse (which is debatable), we feed in areas where we cut off their winter ground for farming. Now we're having more problems due to rural development. Whether you like it or not, we're reducing the carrying capacity and animals are going to starve. Our herds are going to decline, not only from the development but also the additional hunting pressure from higher populations. We can bitch and moan all we want about the government (and I do my fare share), but in the end they're only trying to manage a dwindling resource against a sprawling population. Best of luck with that. If anything, if we're not going to do anything about sprawl, might as well let the hunters cull the herd and raise some $$ to buy the winter grounds.
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on February 05, 2009, 11:38:48 AM
OFM projects Washington will have 8.5 million residents by 2030. I project we'll only be able to support harvest of 12,000 deer per year in this state when we have 8.5 million residents. That means in 21 years, the deer hunting in this state may be three times worse than it is now.
I doubt this is accurate, and there are certainly other factors than population size. No question, though, that as human population increases, wildlife decreases. I'd say strategically planning habitat protection, and managing deer and elk populations toward appropriate sizes in balance with available habitat, is probably more effective than feeding starving, overpopulated animals.
Post by: ICEMAN on February 05, 2009, 07:27:41 PM
Post by: FrankDown on February 05, 2009, 07:39:21 PM
Quote
We need a good plague.The brain softening has already started.
Post by: KillzElk on March 24, 2009, 10:30:42 AM
Grant McOmie: Managing wild NW elk
http://www.kgw.com/video/index.html?nvid=344842&shu=1
Mt St Helens has long been a drawing card for visitors who enjoy the volcano’s majestic beauty.
Video: Starving elk herd
But in recent years, a tragic scene of wildlife starvation has clouded the view.
It’s been a struggle to keep elk alive during winter on a state-managed wildlife refuge called the Loowit Wildlife Unit inside the Mt St Helens Wildlife Area.
One man is trying to save as many animals as he can from a terrible fate.
Mark Smith never dreamed he would have so many neighbors show up on his Toutle River property for lunch.
Smith’s acreage is located in the shadow of Mt St Helens and a lingering winter hasn’t left him much choice but to feed the eighty or so hungry elk that show up each day.
Grant McOmie
Hungry elk at Mt. St. Helens
He began feeding the elk last December and has he placed flakes of the hay out on the ground he noted: “We call it a supplemental feeding because we try to get 4-6 pounds of protein to each animal a day. I wouldn’t do this if I felt there was a choice. For me, there simply isn’t one.”
Wildlife starvation has been a fact of the “wild”-life near Mt St Helens for years.
But in 2006, it was also a terribly slow death for scores of majestic elk that starved on the Loowit Unit of the Mt St Helens Wildlife Area.
Smith said it was a winter he’ll never forget because the grisly scene changed his mind about feeding wildlife forever.
He believes that the state should do the same on the refuge as he does on his own property: feed elk in winter to prevent them from starving: “People want to see animals, they want to learn about them and if you give that opportunity, especially along this area where we have such an attraction, I think it could be a greater benefit. In fact, the benefits from that program – as they have found out at Jewell – strongly outweigh the problems.”
The Jewell Wildlife Area in Oregon’s Clatsop County is home to nearly 200 elk in the winter. It’s a place where feeding has been a daily routine for nearly forty years.
In fact, visitors can go along and lend a hand, enjoy close up views to the massive animals and learn a valuable lesson about wildlife too.
Unlike the Loowit Refuge at Mt St Helens, the elk at Jewell are fed to prevent damage on neighboring properties; that is if they weren't on the refuge, they'd be eating on neighboring private properties.”
Still, one thing is certain according to Brian Swearingen, the Jewell Wildlife Area manager, when you provide adequate habitat the elk respond and the people respond too.
“It’s a very good thing for our agency,” he said. “It's popular with thousands of people and it's one of the showcases that our agency uses to explain to folks. Plus, it’s easy to head for Jewell and see the elk.”
But Sondra Jonker, Washington Wildlife Department manager, disagrees with that strategy for the Mt St Helens Wildlife Area. She insists that winter-feeding would pose health risks to the elk.
Moreover, “You're artificially concentrating the animals, changes their behavior, increased likelihood of disease transmission and so for a variety of reasons we don't want to do that. We do understand that (starvation) may be tough to look at, but we also recognize that is a normal process.”
Jonker told KGW that they have chosen to improve the available elk habitat and grow more forage food for the elk to eat. In fact, this spring they will plant 14,000 trees to help stabilize the landscape along the river and prevent erosion.
Brian Calkins, a Washington Wildlife Dept biologist said that habitat is key to survival for the Loowit elk herd: “That’s the long term solution to erosion control - the structures that we'll be building are just to get those trees established so they’re large enough to hold the bank together.”
Still, Mark Smith argues that thousands of dollars have already been poured into habitat projects on the refuge over the last two decades – and many of the projects never took root
He said that a regular and consistent winter-feeding plan would stop starvation in its tracks and perhaps attract more visitors to the area too.
“What I’m trying to do is what I believe is the right thing, he noted. “I don’t think they need to be any more abused than they already have been.”
The Washington Department of Wildlife plans to offer volunteer work sessions on the Loowit Wildlife Area this spring. Volunteers are needed for tree planting projects.
Post by: Wacenturion on March 24, 2009, 11:48:28 AM
Jonker told KGW that they have chosen to improve the available elk habitat and grow more forage food for the elk to eat. In fact, this spring they will plant 14,000 trees to help stabilize the landscape along the river and prevent erosion.
Brian Calkins, a Washington Wildlife Dept biologist said that habitat is key to survival for the Loowit elk herd: “That’s the long term solution to erosion control - the structures that we'll be building are just to get those trees established so they’re large enough to hold the bank together.”
Still, Mark Smith argues that thousands of dollars have already been poured into habitat projects on the refuge over the last two decades – and many of the projects never took root
As I posted in another thread..............
Interesting....the projects the Dept. Biologist talks about were a big waste of time and money. The reason....no freakin common sense applied. Just wasted thousands of dollars on decisions made by people in the WDFW who don't have a clue. Sad
Post by: bbarnes on March 24, 2009, 05:45:21 PM
Post by: funkster on March 24, 2009, 09:47:36 PM
Post by: bbarnes on March 24, 2009, 09:50:48 PM
Post by: KillzElk on March 25, 2009, 01:27:12 PM
If you missed it on Friday, February 6, 2009
In fact, the WDFW doesn’t recommend that anyone else feed elk. ... it's never fun for a huter and wildlife enthusiast to see elk starving...
Link:
http://www.tdn.com/articles/2009/02/06/this_day/doc498c6d3e0fc30585387160.txt
Take Two:
http://www.kvnews.com/articles/2009/02/12/news/doc4993296e1751c307073598.txt
Elk Herd Population Needs Better Management Practices.
Washington needs to take care of its natural renewable resources. The public seems to be able to band together and stop "Elmer" from hunting in the forest as a sound game management practice, but when those same animals are starving, where are they? Logging was attacked here in Washington several years ago. Proper logging techniques promote new understory growth for forage of deer, elk, and many other animals. With logging under such scrutiny less of these forage areas are created, and less food has been the result. The anti-hunting community can't stand for a hunter to go into the woods as he has done since the beginning of time and kill a deer or an elk. However, these same people seem to not care when these animals are starving to death, literally, in the winter time. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife seem to either not have the animals best interest at heart, or have a plan that most others don't understand. It is estimated that 55 percent of the elk herd population has died off in the wintering ranges. With proper management this doesn't need to happen. Letting animals starve to death as a management practice isn't a humane or viable option in managing our natural renewable resources.
Post by: KillzElk on March 25, 2009, 01:33:42 PM
Read it here Hot off the Press :fire.: Wed, Feb 11, 2009 - 10:32 am
Tribe Opposes Increased Elk Hunt Biologist: Herd Is Fragile; Commissioner: Thinning Will Reduce Property Damage...
Go to link here or read below...
http://www.outdoorslc.com/story.php?subaction=showfull&id=1234373577&archive=&start_from=&ucat=5
By Dan Schreiber
dschreiber@chronline.com
Dan Schreiber: (360) 807-8239
A state recommendation for increased elk hunting in East Lewis County has prompted the Puyallup Tribe of Indians to put out a petition aimed at reversing the move, which was prompted in part by residents' damage complaints of trampled yards and gardens.
No solid figure exists for the number of elk that make up the so-called South Rainier herd, which migrate between the mountain and the valley where U.S. Highway 12 passes through Morton, Randle and Packwood. Residents there are accustomed to the roaming and grazing of the animals, which sometimes tromp through fences and hang around the paved areas of the towns.
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife held meetings over the summer in East County to decide what hunting regulations to set for the 2009-2011 biennium, and concluded in a draft report that it would be appropriate to issue hunting tags for 79 female elk, an increase of about 45 over the area's 2008 threshold.
Barbara Moeller, a biologist for the tribe, says that will diminish the herd that she estimates to be about 1,000 large, especially since the taking of females will reduce its reproductive ability.
"It would be devastating," Moeller said, adding that male elk -- called bulls -- tend to roam away from grouped females, or cows, and their young. "It makes them easy targets. This idea that there are too many is not based on science."
Moeller and state biologists have said there is little interaction between the South Rainier herd and the Mount St. Helens herd, which exploded in numbers following the volcano's 1980 eruption that took down trees and provided plenty of low shrub and berry grazing land.
The Mount St. Helens numbers have increased so much that the state has sponsored programs to feed starving elk and then issue tags to thin the herd until the population becomes naturally sustainable.
Moeller describes the smaller Rainier herd as "fragile," but Lewis County Commissioner Lee Grose doesn't see it that way.
"I think that 39 elk cows will not diminish the herd significantly and it will help with the damage complaints," Grose said.
Grose says he has been characterized as an elk-hater at pubic meetings on the issue, but that he actually loves living with the elk in his East County district. They are a boon for tourism, and it is neat to be near such a majestic animal outside a zoo, Grose said.
As chronicled in this newspaper, Grose had somewhat of a late night altercation with an elk after he was awoken by his wife, who wasn't happy when one of the animals was eating flowers in her garden. After the commissioner wielded a piece of firewood to try to scare off the elk, it rose to its hind legs and one of its hoofs came down on Grose's foot.
Aside from that night, the commissioner said he has enjoyed an amicable relationship with his antlered neighbors.
"People have got me all wrong," Grose said. "They think I hate the elk and I don't hate the elk."
Grose contends that it is inappropriate for an Indian tribe to oppose the hunt, when other Native American individuals are permitted to hunt in East County without tags. Grose isn't sure what tribe they belong to, but their activities are common, he said.
"If we're going to talk about limiting the hunt, let's limit the hunt for the Indians, too," Grose said. "Let's limit the hunt for everyone."
How to Comment
The public comment period on WDFW's proposed hunting regulations ends Feb. 20.
Comments can be sent to: WDFW, Wildlife Program, 600 Capitol Way N. Olympia, WA 98501-1091.
E-mail comments can be sent to wildthing@dfw.wa.gov.
The Web site for the tribe's petition is: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/wdfw-proposing-to-kill-79-more-cow-elk-annually-in-the-packwood-area
Post by: lokidog on March 25, 2009, 09:48:30 PM
_____________________________________________ javascript:void(0);
State of Washington 61st Legislature 2009 Regular Session
By Representatives Van De Wege, Blake from, Warnick, Takko, Ormsby, and Liias
1 AN ACT Relating to feeding wildlife; amending RCW 77.15.160; adding
2 a new section to chapter 77.15 RCW; creating a new section; and
3 prescribing penalties.
4 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
5 NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. It is the intent of the legislature to
6 protect wildlife from becoming habituated to humans and to protect the
7 public against the serious health and safety risk posed by wildlife who
8 are drawn into contact with humans and related infrastructure by
9 individuals who intentionally feed wildlife. "
Watch out everyone that has a bird feeder, squirrel feeder or hummingbird feeder, you will all be OUTLAWS! What a bunch of crap.
If the habitat around MSH has deteriorated for the size of the elk herd (it's called succession, look it up in your HS science book), then there should be an increase in permit numbers to reduce the herd to fit the current and future carrying capacity of the habitat.
It's too bad these "biologists" that the WDFW has hired lately were most likely hired for their minority status than actual biological knowledge or field experience.
Post by: Aneoakleaf on March 25, 2009, 10:15:24 PM
Every one should send these Reps a note about signing a death warent for the wildlife that can't make it threw the winter without help.
I wonder how they are going to fund the extra agents that have to arrest grandma for feeding the deer and squirls??? :dunno:
Representatives Van De Wege, Blake from, Warnick, Takko, Ormsby, and Liias
These reps have taken HS money I would Bet!
They sure don't represent the people. Comi Pigs!!
Post by: KillzElk on March 26, 2009, 11:19:45 AM
2009 House Bill 1885 (relating to feeding wildlife)
http://www.washingtonvotes.org/2009-HB-1885
All Members E-mail List fro Wasigton State Legislature
Judy Warnick
Address:
John L. O'Brien Building 403
Capitol Campus, Olympia, WA
98504-0600.
Phone: 360-786-7932.
E-mail: warnick.judy@leg.wa.gov
Members of the 61st Legislature 2009-2010
Name E-mail District Position Party
Rep. Gary Alexander alexander.gary@leg.wa.gov District 20 2 R
Rep. Glenn Anderson anderson.glenn@leg.wa.gov District 5 2 R
Rep. Jan Angel angel.jan@leg.wa.gov District 26 1 R
Rep. Sherry Appleton appleton.sherry@leg.wa.gov District 23 1 D
Rep. Mike Armstrong armstrong.mike@leg.wa.gov District 12 2 R
Rep. Barbara Bailey bailey.barbara@leg.wa.gov District 10 2 R
Senator Randi Becker becker.randi@leg.wa.gov District 2 0 R
Senator Don Benton benton.don@leg.wa.gov District 17 0 R
Senator Jean Berkey berkey.jean@leg.wa.gov District 38 0 D
Rep. Brian Blake blake.brian@leg.wa.gov District 19 2 D
Senator Dale Brandland brandland.dale@leg.wa.gov District 42 0 R
Senator Lisa Brown brown.lisa@leg.wa.gov District 3 0 D
Rep. Tom Campbell campbell.tom@leg.wa.gov District 2 2 R
Rep. Reuven Carlyle carlyle.reuven@leg.wa.gov District 36 1 D
Senator Mike Carrell carrell.michael@leg.wa.gov District 28 0 R
Rep. Bruce Chandler chandler.bruce@leg.wa.gov District 15 1 R
Rep. Maralyn Chase chase.maralyn@leg.wa.gov District 32 1 D
Rep. Frank Chopp chopp.frank@leg.wa.gov District 43 2 D
Rep. Judy Clibborn clibborn.judy@leg.wa.gov District 41 2 D
Rep. Eileen Cody cody.eileen@leg.wa.gov District 34 1 D
Rep. Cary Condotta condotta.cary@leg.wa.gov District 12 1 R
Rep. Steve Conway conway.steve@leg.wa.gov District 29 1 D
Rep. Don Cox cox.don@leg.wa.gov District 9 1 R
Rep. Larry Crouse crouse.larry@leg.wa.gov District 4 1 R
Rep. Bruce Dammeier dammeier.bruce@leg.wa.gov District 25 1 R
Rep. Jeannie Darneille darneille.j@leg.wa.gov District 27 2 D
Rep. Richard DeBolt debolt.richard@leg.wa.gov District 20 1 R
Senator Jerome Delvin delvin.jerome@leg.wa.gov District 8 0 R
Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson dickerson.marylou@leg.wa.gov District 36 2 D
Rep. John Driscoll driscoll.john@leg.wa.gov District 6 2 D
Rep. Hans Dunshee dunshee.hans@leg.wa.gov District 44 1 D
Rep. Deborah Eddy eddy.deborah@leg.wa.gov District 48 2 D
Senator Tracey Eide eide.tracey@leg.wa.gov District 30 0 D
Rep. Mark Ericks ericks.mark@leg.wa.gov District 1 2 D
Rep. Doug Ericksen ericksen.doug@leg.wa.gov District 42 1 R
Senator Darlene Fairley fairley.darlene@leg.wa.gov District 32 0 D
Rep. Fred Finn finn.fred@leg.wa.gov District 35 2 D
Rep. Dennis Flannigan flannigan.dennis@leg.wa.gov District 27 1 D
Senator Rosa Franklin franklin.rosa@leg.wa.gov District 29 0 D
Senator Karen Fraser fraser.karen@leg.wa.gov District 22 0 D
Rep. Roger Goodman goodman.roger@leg.wa.gov District 45 1 D
Rep. Laura Grant-Herriot grant-herriot.laura@leg.wa.gov District 16 2 D
Rep. Tami Green green.tami@leg.wa.gov District 28 2 D
Rep. Kathy Haigh haigh.kathy@leg.wa.gov District 35 1 D
Rep. Larry Haler haler.larry@leg.wa.gov District 8 2 R
Senator James Hargrove hargrove.jim@leg.wa.gov District 24 0 D
Rep. Bob Hasegawa hasegawa.bob@leg.wa.gov District 11 2 D
Senator Brian Hatfield hatfield.brian@leg.wa.gov District 19 0 D
Senator Mary MargaretHaugen haugen.marymargaret@leg.wa.gov District 10 0 D
Rep. Jaime Herrera herrera.jaime@leg.wa.gov District 18 1 R
Senator Mike Hewitt hewitt.mike@leg.wa.gov District 16 0 R
Rep. Bill Hinkle hinkle.bill@leg.wa.gov District 13 2 R
Senator Steve Hobbs hobbs.steve@leg.wa.gov District 44 0 D
Senator Janéa Holmquist holmquist.janea@leg.wa.gov District 13 0 R
Senator Jim Honeyford honeyford.jim@leg.wa.gov District 15 0 R
Rep. Mike Hope hope.mike@leg.wa.gov District 44 2 R
Rep. Sam Hunt hunt.sam@leg.wa.gov District 22 2 D
Rep. Ross Hunter hunter.ross@leg.wa.gov District 48 1 D
Rep. Christopher Hurst hurst.christopher@leg.wa.gov District 31 2 D
Rep. Jim Jacks jacks.jim@leg.wa.gov District 49 1 D
Senator Ken Jacobsen jacobsen.ken@leg.wa.gov District 46 0 D
Senator Fred Jarrett jarrett.fred@leg.wa.gov District 41 0 D
Rep. Norm Johnson johnson.norm@leg.wa.gov District 14 1 R
Rep. Ruth Kagi kagi.ruth@leg.wa.gov District 32 2 D
Senator Jim Kastama kastama.jim@leg.wa.gov District 25 0 D
Senator Claudia Kauffman kauffman.claudia@leg.wa.gov District 47 0 D
Senator Karen Keiser keiser.karen@leg.wa.gov District 33 0 D
Rep. Troy Kelley kelley.troy@leg.wa.gov District 28 1 D
Rep. Phyllis Gutierrez Kenney kenney.phyllis@leg.wa.gov District 46 2 D
Rep. Lynn Kessler kessler.lynn@leg.wa.gov District 24 2 D
Senator Derek Kilmer kilmer.derek@leg.wa.gov District 26 0 D
Senator Curtis King king.curtis@leg.wa.gov District 14 0 R
Rep. Steve Kirby kirby.steve@leg.wa.gov District 29 2 D
Senator Adam Kline kline.adam@leg.wa.gov District 37 0 D
Rep. Brad Klippert klippert.brad@leg.wa.gov District 8 1 R
Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles kohl- welles.jeanne@leg.wa.gov District 36 0 D
Rep. Joel Kretz kretz.joel@leg.wa.gov District 7 2 R
Rep. Dan Kristiansen kristiansen.dan@leg.wa.gov District 39 1 R
Rep. Marko Liias liias.marko@leg.wa.gov District 21 2 D
Rep. Kelli Linville linville.kelli@leg.wa.gov District 42 2 D
Senator Chris Marr marr.chris@leg.wa.gov District 6 0 D
Rep. Marcie Maxwell maxwell.marcie@leg.wa.gov District 41 1 D
Senator Rosemary McAuliffe mcauliffe.rosemary@leg.wa.gov District 1 0 D
Senator Bob McCaslin mccaslin.bob@leg.wa.gov District 4 0 R
Rep. John McCoy mccoy.john@leg.wa.gov District 38 1 D
Rep. Jim McCune mccune.jim@leg.wa.gov District 2 1 R
Senator Joe McDermott mcdermott.joe@leg.wa.gov District 34 0 D
Rep. Mark Miloscia miloscia.mark@leg.wa.gov District 30 1 D
Rep. Jim Moeller moeller.jim@leg.wa.gov District 49 2 D
Rep. Dawn Morrell morrell.dawn@leg.wa.gov District 25 2 D
Rep. Jeff Morris morris.jeff@leg.wa.gov District 40 2 D
Senator Bob Morton morton.bob@leg.wa.gov District 7 0 R
Senator Ed Murray murray.edward@leg.wa.gov District 43 0 D
Rep. Sharon Nelson nelson.sharon@leg.wa.gov District 34 2 D
Rep. Al O'Brien obrien.al@leg.wa.gov District 1 1 D
Senator Eric Oemig oemig.eric@leg.wa.gov District 45 0 D
Rep. Ed Orcutt orcutt.ed@leg.wa.gov District 18 2 R
Rep. Timm Ormsby ormsby.timm@leg.wa.gov District 3 2 D
Rep. Tina Orwall orwall.tina@leg.wa.gov District 33 1 D
Rep. Kevin Parker parker.kevin@leg.wa.gov District 6 1 R
Senator Linda Evans Parlette parlette.linda@leg.wa.gov District 12 0 R
Rep. Kirk Pearson pearson.kirk@leg.wa.gov District 39 2 R
Rep. Jamie Pedersen pedersen.jamie@leg.wa.gov District 43 1 D
Rep. Eric Pettigrew pettigrew.eric@leg.wa.gov District 37 2 D
Senator Cheryl Pflug pflug.cheryl@leg.wa.gov District 5 0 R
Senator Margarita Prentice prentice.margarita@leg.wa.gov District 11 0 D
Senator Craig Pridemore pridemore.craig@leg.wa.gov District 49 0 D
Rep. Skip Priest priest.skip@leg.wa.gov District 30 2 R
Rep. Tim Probst probst.tim@leg.wa.gov District 17 1 D
Rep. Dave Quall quall.dave@leg.wa.gov District 40 1 D
Senator Kevin Ranker ranker.kevin@leg.wa.gov District 40 0 D
Senator Debbie Regala regala.debbie@leg.wa.gov District 27 0 D
Rep. Dan Roach roach.dan@leg.wa.gov District 31 1 R
Senator Pam Roach roach.pam@leg.wa.gov District 31 0 R
Rep. Mary Helen Roberts roberts.maryhelen@leg.wa.gov District 21 1 D
Senator Phil Rockefeller rockefeller.phil@leg.wa.gov District 23 0 D
Rep. Jay Rodne rodne.jay@leg.wa.gov District 5 1 R
Rep. Christine Rolfes rolfes.christine@leg.wa.gov District 23 2 D
Rep. Charles Ross ross.charles@leg.wa.gov District 14 2 R
Rep. Sharon Tomiko Santos santos.sharontomiko@leg.wa.gov District 37 1 D
Rep. Joe Schmick schmick.joe@leg.wa.gov District 9 2 R
Senator Mark Schoesler schoesler.mark@leg.wa.gov District 9 0 R
Rep. Larry Seaquist seaquist.larry@leg.wa.gov District 26 2 D
Rep. Mike Sells sells.mike@leg.wa.gov District 38 2 D
Rep. Matt Shea shea.matt@leg.wa.gov District 4 2 R
Senator Tim Sheldon sheldon.timothy@leg.wa.gov District 35 0 D
Senator Paull Shin shin.paull@leg.wa.gov District 21 0 D
Rep. Shelly Short short.shelly@leg.wa.gov District 7 1 R
Rep. Geoff Simpson simpson.geoff@leg.wa.gov District 47 1 D
Rep. Norma Smith smith.norma@leg.wa.gov District 10 1 R
Rep. Larry Springer springer.larry@leg.wa.gov District 45 2 D
Senator Val Stevens stevens.val@leg.wa.gov District 39 0 R
Rep. Pat Sullivan sullivan.pat@leg.wa.gov District 47 2 D
Senator Dan Swecker swecker.dan@leg.wa.gov District 20 0 R
Rep. Dean Takko takko.dean@leg.wa.gov District 19 1 D
Senator Rodney Tom tom.rodney@leg.wa.gov District 48 0 D
Rep. Dave Upthegrove upthegrove.dave@leg.wa.gov District 33 2 D
Rep. Kevin Van De Wege vandewege.kevin@leg.wa.gov District 24 1 D
Rep. Deb Wallace wallace.deb@leg.wa.gov District 17 2 D
Rep. Maureen Walsh walsh.maureen@leg.wa.gov District 16 1 R
Rep. Judy Warnick warnick.judy@leg.wa.gov District 13 1 R
Rep. Scott White white.scott@leg.wa.gov District 46 1 D
Rep. Brendan Williams williams.brendan@leg.wa.gov District 22 1 D
Rep. Alex Wood wood.alex@leg.wa.gov District 3 1 D
Senator Joseph Zarelli zarelli.joseph@leg.wa.gov District 18 0 R
Post by: KillzElk on March 26, 2009, 12:54:40 PM
All Members E-mail List fro Wasigton State Legislature this should make it easy for everyone..
Sorry about the confusion ... Send it to all of them they should get the hit maybe?
Here is a list Copy & paste below......
warnick.judy@leg.wa.gov
alexander.gary@leg.wa.gov
anderson.glenn@leg.wa.gov
angel.jan@leg.wa.gov
appleton.sherry@leg.wa.gov
armstrong.mike@leg.wa.gov
bailey.barbara@leg.wa.gov
becker.randi@leg.wa.gov
benton.don@leg.wa.gov
berkey.jean@leg.wa.gov
blake.brian@leg.wa.gov
brandland.dale@leg.wa.gov
brown.lisa@leg.wa.gov
campbell.tom@leg.wa.gov
carlyle.reuven@leg.wa.gov
carrell.michael@leg.wa.gov
chandler.bruce@leg.wa.gov
chase.maralyn@leg.wa.gov
chopp.frank@leg.wa.gov
clibborn.judy@leg.wa.gov
cody.eileen@leg.wa.gov
condotta.cary@leg.wa.gov
conway.steve@leg.wa.gov
cox.don@leg.wa.gov
crouse.larry@leg.wa.gov
dammeier.bruce@leg.wa.gov
darneille.j@leg.wa.gov
debolt.richard@leg.wa.gov
delvin.jerome@leg.wa.gov
dickerson.marylou@leg.wa.gov
driscoll.john@leg.wa.gov
dunshee.hans@leg.wa.gov
eddy.deborah@leg.wa.gov
eide.tracey@leg.wa.gov
ericks.mark@leg.wa.gov
ericksen.doug@leg.wa.gov
fairley.darlene@leg.wa.gov
finn.fred@leg.wa.gov
flannigan.dennis@leg.wa.gov
franklin.rosa@leg.wa.gov
fraser.karen@leg.wa.gov
goodman.roger@leg.wa.gov
grant-herriot.laura@leg.wa.gov
green.tami@leg.wa.gov
haigh.kathy@leg.wa.gov
haler.larry@leg.wa.gov
hargrove.jim@leg.wa.gov
hatfield.brian@leg.wa.gov
hasegawa.bob@leg.wa.gov
haugen.marymargaret@leg.wa.gov
herrera.jaime@leg.wa.gov
hewitt.mike@leg.wa.gov
hinkle.bill@leg.wa.gov
hobbs.steve@leg.wa.gov
holmquist.janea@leg.wa.gov
honeyford.jim@leg.wa.gov
hope.mike@leg.wa.gov
hunt.sam@leg.wa.gov
hunter.ross@leg.wa.gov
hurst.christopher@leg.wa.gov
jacks.jim@leg.wa.gov
jacobsen.ken@leg.wa.gov
jarrett.fred@leg.wa.gov
johnson.norm@leg.wa.gov
kagi.ruth@leg.wa.gov
kastama.jim@leg.wa.gov
kauffman.claudia@leg.wa.gov
keiser.karen@leg.wa.gov
kelley.troy@leg.wa.gov
kenney.phyllis@leg.wa.gov
kessler.lynn@leg.wa.gov
kilmer.derek@leg.wa.gov
king.curtis@leg.wa.gov
kirby.steve@leg.wa.gov
kline.adam@leg.wa.gov
klippert.brad@leg.wa.gov
welles.jeanne@leg.wa.gov
kretz.joel@leg.wa.gov
kristiansen.dan@leg.wa.gov
liias.marko@leg.wa.gov
linville.kelli@leg.wa.gov
marr.chris@leg.wa.gov
maxwell.marcie@leg.wa.gov
mcauliffe.rosemary@leg.wa.gov
mccaslin.bob@leg.wa.gov
mccoy.john@leg.wa.gov
mccune.jim@leg.wa.gov
mcdermott.joe@leg.wa.gov
miloscia.mark@leg.wa.gov
moeller.jim@leg.wa.gov
morrell.dawn@leg.wa.gov
morris.jeff@leg.wa.gov
morton.bob@leg.wa.gov
nelson.sharon@leg.wa.gov
oemig.eric@leg.wa.gov
orcutt.ed@leg.wa.gov
ormsby.timm@leg.wa.gov
orwall.tina@leg.wa.gov
parker.kevin@leg.wa.gov
parlette.linda@leg.wa.gov
pearson.kirk@leg.wa.gov
pedersen.jamie@leg.wa.gov
pettigrew.eric@leg.wa.gov
pflug.cheryl@leg.wa.gov
prentice.margarita@leg.wa.gov
pridemore.craig@leg.wa.gov
priest.skip@leg.wa.gov
probst.tim@leg.wa.gov
quall.dave@leg.wa.gov
ranker.kevin@leg.wa.gov
regala.debbie@leg.wa.gov
roach.dan@leg.wa.gov
roach.pam@leg.wa.gov
roberts.maryhelen@leg.wa.gov
rockefeller.phil@leg.wa.gov
rodne.jay@leg.wa.gov
rolfes.christine@leg.wa.gov
ross.charles@leg.wa.gov
santos.sharontomiko@leg.wa.gov
schmick.joe@leg.wa.gov
schoesler.mark@leg.wa.gov
seaquist.larry@leg.wa.gov
sells.mike@leg.wa.gov
shea.matt@leg.wa.gov
sheldon.timothy@leg.wa.gov
shin.paull@leg.wa.gov
short.shelly@leg.wa.gov
simpson.geoff@leg.wa.gov
smith.norma@leg.wa.gov
springer.larry@leg.wa.gov
stevens.val@leg.wa.gov
sullivan.pat@leg.wa.gov
swecker.dan@leg.wa.gov
takko.dean@leg.wa.gov
tom.rodney@leg.wa.gov
upthegrove.dave@leg.wa.gov
vandewege.kevin@leg.wa.gov
wallace.deb@leg.wa.gov
warnick.judy@leg.wa.gov
white.scott@leg.wa.gov
williams.brendan@leg.wa.gov
wood.alex@leg.wa.gov
zarelli.joseph@leg.wa.gov
Post by: InsideWDFW on March 29, 2009, 06:33:09 PM
I am very concerned as a Washington Hunter, with about 55% of our states ELK heard reportedly starved to death in 2008 it seems as though the Department of Fish & Wildlife are not enhancing the life of our wildlife in Washington.
Their mission is:
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) serves Washington's citizens by protecting, restoring and enhancing fish and wildlife and their habitats, while providing sustainable and wildlife-related recreational and commercial opportunities.
If you or I let our animals on our property starve to death we would be penalized, fined and possibly thrown in jail, yet these department officials are not held accountable for their actions.
We as hunters need to stand up and be heard about our concerns so we can continue to hunt in years to come. We should demand answers for why these elk have been dying. Is it starvation, poisoning from the herbicides and pesticides or hoof rot? The last time a study was done on the Mt. Saint Helen's Elk heard was 1983, the environment has significantly changed in the past 26 years.
>:(
No other states starve wildlife like the state of Washington. Other states realize this is a natural resource for income and should be well taken care of and managed. We must contact our legislators and demand changes. You can also contact the interim Director of Fish and Wildlife at:
Mailing Address
600 Capitol Way N.
Olympia, WA 98501-1091
Phil Anderson
Interim Director
director@dfw.wa.gov
Bruce, you are getting old. I'm calling ya on this on, where the hell do you get 50%? Also a couple of points I'm going to nail you on if you choose to respond.. Something happened 28 years ago that drastically altered the landscape to the benefit of the elk, allowing the population to grow larger then normal, know what it was? Next, you seem to think that WDFW has magical trees that sprout money instead of leaves.. mind telling me where we keep em? We could use them to survive the $8,000,000,000 shortfall. And finally I failed to see where WDFW proposed outlawing the feeding of animals in our latest proposals (http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/game/seasonsetting/index.htm). Could it be that some legislature heard too many complaints about suburbanites feeding raccoons and decided to tack on a few more animals to the bill that HE created and sponsored?
WDFW has enough things you can bitch and moan about, there's no reason to make crap up.
Post by: KillzElk on March 30, 2009, 12:01:53 AM
Post by: MichaelJ on March 30, 2009, 12:41:43 AM
Maybe there's other factors like lack of budget, lack of ability to logg places and allow new browse to grow, lack of habitat and increasing amounts of developement??? Maybe the WDFW realizes that the herd is over populated and the only way to bring the numbers down is to let nature take its course, and let the best of the elk survive and let the weaker ones die off and they will bring their numbers back down...
Michael
PS: I don't know a whole lot about that elk herd, so my opinions and conjectures are just things off the top of my head. But I will tell you that I have seen most of InsideWDFW posts and the guy appears honest as far as they allow him to be, and he genuinely wants to give us hunters here an inside look into issues regarding the WDFW...
Michael
Post by: Buckrub on March 30, 2009, 05:10:31 AM
WDFW has enough things you can bitch and moan about, there's no reason to make crap up.
[/quote]
The mountain may have blew and created a vast feeding ground for the elk. This was no reason to create a lottery hunt management system for the area, and the loowit as an elk viewing area :dunno: how else could it turn out? I don't believe the 50% is accurate but also don't agree with the management for this area and others. Why should the elk suffer for lack of management?
The wdfw's inability to manage a herd is what has brought this on.....I would like to know the name of the person who drafted the idea the quality permit revenue system?
This bill is unenforceable and should be killed, once again the left trying to impose a worthless and costly law on the citizens of Washington.
Post by: billythekidrock on March 30, 2009, 06:05:46 AM
Bruce, you are getting old. I'm calling ya on this on, where the hell do you get 50%? Also a couple of points I'm going to nail you on if you choose to respond.. Something happened 28 years ago that drastically altered the landscape to the benefit of the elk, allowing the population to grow larger then normal, know what it was? Next, you seem to think that WDFW has magical trees that sprout money instead of leaves.. mind telling me where we keep em? We could use them to survive the $8,000,000,000 shortfall. And finally I failed to see where WDFW proposed outlawing the feeding of animals in our latest proposals (http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/game/seasonsetting/index.htm). Could it be that some legislature heard too many complaints about suburbanites feeding raccoons and decided to tack on a few more animals to the bill that HE created and sponsored?
WDFW has enough things you can bitch and moan about, there's no reason to make crap up.
I agree 100%
Post by: KillzElk on March 30, 2009, 10:51:14 AM
The Preservation Society has only six members, but donations from a variety of sources cover nearly all the cost of feeding, which Smith estimated at $8,000 to $12,000 for the winter.
The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife feeds elk every winter at its Jewell Meadows Wildlife Area south of Clatskanie, attracting 80,000 visitors per year. In December, reservations for riding on the Jewell hay wagon were all booked in four hours.
But the Washington DFW is not about to follow the Jewell model. In fact, the WDFW doesn’t recommend that anyone else feed elk.
Quote:
“We highly recommend that people not do it,” said Sandra Jonker, the WDFW’s regional wildlife manager. “It causes more problems in the long run than it helps.”
For one thing, it takes the animals a while to adjust from one kind of food supply to another, she said. And elk that rub shoulders in the dinner line are more likely to pass diseases.
The DFW doesn’t want elk to become dependent on food provided by people. “Our goal is to get that herd back into balance so it’s self-sustaining,” Jonker said.
A bill that’s been introduced in the state House of Representatives would prohibit the public from feeding wildlife.
A sponsor, Rep. Brian Blake (D-Aberdeen) told the Olympian he’d try to amend it to allow Smith’s feeding to continue.
Rep. Dean Takko (D-Longview), another co-sponsor, said the bill is meant to address concerns in urban areas and may need revision.
“It’s not my intent to get Mark and his group in some kind of trouble,” Takko said.
DFW watching for hoof rot:
The Department of Fish and Wildlife has been getting reports of limping elk from Longview to Chehalis the past few years.
DFW biologists have said there are about 40 kinds of hoof rot.
Starting in March, the agency will start gathering elk limbs “to try to find out what type of hoof rot this is,” said Sandra Jonker, the DFW’s regional wildlife manager. The disease might be caused by “a host of things,” she said. “Not that we can cure it but hopefully narrow it down to which one is causing it.”
When landowners get special permits to shoot elk eating their crops, a DFW worker will take a piece of the leg for study. They’ll get samples from animals that look healthy and those that don’t, Jonker said.
The state biologists need to get out from behind their desks and get out in the country a bit more often and then maybe they will learn something. My hat is off to Mr. Smith. Lots of you keep hammering bbarnes it looks to me he also is trying to find a solution to help out. This is my overview on things.
If groups of people will donate the money to help feed these starving animals....what is it hurting? Can't believe that the politicians in Olympia would see these animals starve to death. :beatdeadhorse:Goes to show how screwed up our entire system is.....top to bottom.
What would the DFW like to see these elk starve to death? God bless Mr.Smith and the rest of these people that are trying to save these elk. It makes sense that without proper nutrition these animals would have foot rot and other disease. We as humans need proper nutrition as well. So why waste money on studying what is wrong with these animals and instead put the money towards food for them.
Man should feed the elk! Does not the elk feed the man? This is the circle of life. What happens when the circle is broken? If man does not feed the elk now, how can the elk in turn feed the man in the future? Think about it! >:(
Post by: billythekidrock on March 30, 2009, 04:31:25 PM
You sure have a skewed way of looking at things...or you are not conveying your thoughts to text very well. :dunno:
Post by: InsideWDFW on March 30, 2009, 07:26:11 PM
Next WDFW resources. Guys (and gals) I can't stress enough how much is on the chopping block. As an example we got an e-mail today asking us to use a black and white printer over a color printer.. a savings of $.0039, yes that is .39 of a cent, per page. This is how tight the purse strings are. Spending money at this point in time is not an option, especially on something that is not a necessity (relax, I'll explain).
Next I saw a couple of later posts complaining the lack of field work of our biologists. There are 17 District biologists with 1 or 2 biologists underneath them. Add a few odd bios not working for a district, and we have about 60 bios in the field. That's around 60 biologists TOTAL for the 71,303 sq. miles of Washington, or 1188 sq. miles for each bio to cover. Now remember these guys work on ALL of Washington's species, not just the big game that you are interested in. So we have a bio covering 1188 sq miles and thousands of species. Get were I am going? And yes these guys are in the field, rain or shine 75% of the time. Even the Deer/Elk manager for the entire state is trudging up the same hills you do during hunting season on a regular basis. If you happen to live near Olympia, swing by (after the special hunt is over please) and tell me how many people you see in the wildlife office that look like they don't do field work. And the Olympia office is the "paper pushing" hub of the agency.
As far as hoof rot (and hair slip syndrome in deer) it's like dogs and worms. There are remedies, but no cures. You can deworm your dog, but the minute he gets around another pooch with worms, he's got them again. We can take an elk into a vet, fix him good as new, but the minute he gets around another elk with hoof rot, he's hurting again. It would take rounding up every single elk in the state (and neighboring states too, elk don't have to stop at border crossings), giving them the specific remedy for their specific bacteria (there are over 40, each one needed a different fix) and keeping them penned in for a few months while the bacteria die in the wild. I dare someone to figure out the cost for that one. And yes I simplified the problem. Why some people have this idea that WDFW loves to see animals suffer and die is beyond me.
And finally the meat of the thread. Two sources I'm going to cite (you watching Barnes?). The 2007 Status and Trend report (http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/game/status/07trend.pdf) starting on page 89, and the 2006 St. Helens plan (http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/game/elk/sthelens_final_nov2006.pdf). First off the winter mortality rate was not even close to 55% this year. We won't have the numbers for a bit, but talking with one of those guys who "need to get out from behind their desks and get out in the country" we're looking at 10-15%. This may seem like a lot, but in actuality is pretty normal. Though when you take 15% of 12,000 (est. heard population) you can understand how the picture on tv can look graphic. The only place where I could find anything resembling 50% of anything was bull mortality due to hunters (a good thing). Everything else I could find was under 20%, even worse case guesses. I'm realy curious where Bruce pulled 55% out of.
So why don't we want them fed? First it really does create a dependency on humans. What's going to happen to all those elk that Mr. Smith is so gallantly feeding when he stops (aka dies)? They might stick around due to habit and decide that the rose bush (see legislation at the beginning) looks good enough to eat.
Second when you mass elk in a common area, such as a feeding (look at the picture from http://www.tdn.com/articles/2009/02/06/this_day/doc498c6d3e0fc30585387160.txt), you are going to spread hoof rot. Next how do you think they get there? I'm sure they obey all traffic laws when crossing the street. And finally do you think that elk are the only ones hanging around for food? I'm curious how many cats were hanging on the edges.
Third, I'm sure Mr. Smith is happy with spending the $12,000 on his 80 head of elk. Now when he wants to spend the 1.8 million to feed the rest of the herd (12,000 animals) then that would be worthy of a news article. Of course if he wants to feed them something more nutritious than junk food, he'll need around 3. (That is 10% of the shortfall we are looking at next biennium)
And finally the habitat. The St Helen's heard exploded after the mountain blew. Nature is finally getting back to normal, and this includes thinning the heard through loss of prime habitat. Add to the fact that humans are having this lovely time building roads and houses, and hopefully you can understand why the herd needs to shrink. WDFW is not the bad guy here, we just have a crappy PR department.
You all seem like smart folks, so this should come as no surprise but everyone has an agenda. I want to make WDFW a bit better, Bruce has "sky is falling" vendetta against WDFW, and newspapers want to sell newspapers. Can't do much about the newspapers (come on guys, you know they spin crap to yank at the heart), but I can call people like Bruce out on their BS. As far as making WDFW look good, that's what I'm trying to do right now.
Post by: bbarnes on March 30, 2009, 10:25:26 PM
Post by: KillzElk on March 31, 2009, 09:03:30 AM
Thank You bbarnes for making the trip to every meeting in Wa. to help everyone in the Wa area out.. All that you were not there would have liked the statement bbarnes had for the panel very priceless Paul Pierce stands silent after >:( :bash: ...
Anyways see the full article here...
Mount St. Helens panel hears from public on draft plan Monday, March 30, 2009
Link:
http://www.tdn.com/articles/2009/03/31/top_story/doc49d16007f408c282374700.txt
Related articles:
Public access to High Lakes may require major public funding (March 20)
http://www.tdn.com/articles/2009/03/20/this_day/doc49c2c364e563f168529464.txt
Mount St. Helens National Park supporters aren't backing down (March 5)
http://www.tdn.com/articles/2009/03/05/area_news/doc49b099585c73b861331943.txt
The vision for Mount St. Helens (March 2)
http://www.tdn.com/articles/2009/03/02/top_story/doc49ab8d8a97d82576849264.txt
Post by: elkangel on March 31, 2009, 01:15:22 PM
Before the eruption, elk were not so abundant, hunting pressure was so great in 1979 that a herd was pushed up and across the top of the mountain, at that time that was a 9600 foot climb, about 4000 feet above the Mountains timber line. This was documented by the Longview Daily News, Nov, 1979, just 6 months before the eruption.
Then on May 18 1980 the natural volcanic event occurred, changing the landscape and lives of all things within a 150 mile square mile ratio of the mountains north side. That was the last time that the area was in a natural state, that your WDFW keeps referring to. In just a few short months, giant pumps were placed in Spirit Lake to stabilize the lake and keep it from Naturally finding an outlet and Naturally flooding down the N fork toutle river valley. To help stop the Natural erosion effects on the land scape the department of agriculture introduced a helicopter seeding program to seed the area for the next 10 years. This help create the man made vegetation for wildlife coming back to the area. This seeding was so controversial that Weyco did not allow it to happen on their land, seeing that it could create problems in the future.
Next came the problem of mud flow, the Natural path was down the N Fork Toutle River to the Cowlitz, down the Columbia to the Ocean at Long beach. But, do to man's cities down stream, Man threw the US Army Corp constructed two sediment dams, one at approx the 29 mile just above the old camp baker sight and the other at 22mile, we now know as sediment dam road. These man made structures were designed to hold back the Natural flow of sediment from Naturally going down stream. Instead they now back up behind the dams, consuming more and more natural fish and wildlife habitat each year. These acts of man have all but made eliminated all native fish from returning to the N. Fork Toutle River, its tributaries and Spirit Lake. They current Salmon run is only being sustained by man's efforts. They are captured at the Fish Retention facility, tagged, put in a truck and driven up stream around the dam and put back in what in Hoffstad Creek so they can get to spawning streams. Then the smolt have to find their way threw the mud flow, past the sediment dam, over the fish collection facility to the N. Fork and the Green river junction. It is Clear that without Man's help no sea going fish could Naturally survive about the Fish Collection facility. To date the US Army Corp estimates 3.5 mile back up behind the sediment dam, with an estimated 1.4 mil cubic yards of deb re, and their dam is full. They hope to have a new study out addressing this matter this year, but don't hold your breath.
Then of coarse there was the timber salvage and reforestation done by primarily Weyco on their own land. Approximately 48 thousand acres was salvaged and replanted in about 4 years. It help create jobs and keep our economy going. This also created one of the largest uniform forest ever planted by man, making 48 thousand acres of habitat grow at the same controlled rate. Meaning that Wildlife habitat would experience major radical changes from, again man made decisions. There is no way Nature could have replanted over 18,400,000 fir seedlings in 4-5 years over the 48 thousand acres. Make it clear that I agree with Weyco's Decision, but the WDFW Biologist needed to consider the effects of the timber growth over the next 25 years in their carring capacity and habitat management plans.
Wildlife management plan, GMU's and access they all play into the problem. Controlled hunting in the early years was prudent. Access to the area was limited and escape cover was limited so the early rules seamed to make sense. But like most of the WDFW management plans they were made and left alone. They needed to be visited regularly and evaluated in habitat and population control. Instead, like Mt. St. Helens itself they were forgoten, instead they bragged that it had become the largest elk herd in the State, with large bulls and herd numbers seldom seen today. This unfortunately was true and unrecognized by the WDFW the herd had reached dangerous peek, with no plan to deal with them. In 2001 Fred Dobbler, region 5, retired now, started writing the Mt. St Helens Herd plan. If you read it, it was a good plan and pointed out concerns and direction to manage the herd, at least it was a start. But, the plan was not implimented, no plan was until 2005 when Ed Orrcut called for the directors resignation. Then mysteriously the plan was updated and implemented in just 3 short months. The only problem then was that the 2001 plan was based on data collected mostly in 1995 and the 2005 plan updates were based on the 2001 plan. New information was necessary to address the current conditions of the herd, but was not available.
The Elk augmentation program in 2002-2005, under cooperation with the Tribes we trapted and relocated 100 elk, and took them to the Nooksac valley. During the first capture it was clear that the elk being captured were not all in great conditions, as we had been lead to believe. The body conditions were poor going into winter, this was determined by the Cooks, private elk Bio's that were hired to assit with the capture. The data pointed out that the herds health was in reiteration. It pointed out that there was a concern regarding summer habitat as well as winter, but the WDFW did not act on the data.
Habitat Management, has only been a concern since the winter die off of 1998, the WDFW then under public pressure started seeding, fertilizing and planting trees in the Loowit wildlife refuge only. The WDFW has pumped thousands of tax dollars into the habitat restoration in the Loowit Wildlife Area only, I my self work for over 3 year to plan seed and over 6000 trees, our preservation society worked with an adopt an acre program that raised over $67 thousand dollars from private and WDFW Grants. To date the Loowit wildlife area has a net loss in carring capacity and habitat. Yet the WDFW is again this year, doing the same things with new volunteers and thousands more tax payer dollars, that were granted last year, so it's spend them fast, expecting different results. Their is a name for Individuals who do this, but I guess it doesn't apply to State agency's.
The WDFW is always saying that the die off is Natural, the area is Natural, it is all just a Natural process. IF this is true why are they working so hard to change the "Natural" process effecting the Loowit Wildlife Refuge?
Then in 2007 and 2008 under public pressure the WDFW started a feeding program. They first counted 700-800 animals in the area, when the winter mortality was 169,(only dead animals on the flat mud flow counted) this keeps their % at their fictitious 10-15%. It does not matter how many die, what the % is what matters is that we have hoof rot, deformed antlers, small late calf birthing, and generally poor body conditions occurring in our elk. All of the diseases that I read about in elk all lead back to two major causes, over population and lack of habitat, equals starvation. When anything is in poor condition it is more susceptible to disease. We have a sick herd, they are sick year round. The WDFW needs to recognize that the herd was created by man made decisions, both on harvesting and habitat. So, this being know, What is Natural?
Is it not Natural Now that we know how we got here, to Naturally want to help. So, instead of disagreeing, making excuses and name calling. Why don't we all sit down and put our energy into putting together a plan to solve the problem, we created. I don't really like feeding wild animals, but under the current conditions along SR 504, at Mt St Helens I feel that we need to assist with a subsidized feeding program, until the habitat carring capacity for summer and winter is brought in line with the herd population. I also feel this could be accomplished over a 3-5-10 year program that would incorporate feeding, habitat resoration and more selective controlled harvest. I leave you with this thoughts, is Nature a problem or does man create the problem when he tries to change what is Natural? and then uses Nature as his excuse.
Thank you WDFINSIDER, or what ever your name is for bringing your concerns and questions to the table. I have never claimed to know everything, never claimed to have all the answers either. But, I do know that what is happening and it is anything but NATURAL, it is was caused by Man Made Decisions to protect Man with little regard for the Fish, Wildlife and Habitat along the N. Fork Toutle River.
Please feel free to contact me if you need any more information or have any questions, or would like to share your ideas to help solve this problem. Sorry I could not write more, or if I missed anything, I have to go work on my Park.
Mark Smith
Post by: Buckrub on March 31, 2009, 05:47:58 PM
Overpopulation due to lack of proper management is a disgrace.
Revenue based permit hunting has failed in the Margret and the elk viewing area "loowit" was a total failure to the herd.
Let the elk be healthy with feeding, reduce the herd numbers with hunting and preserve habitat to increase the capacity.
I can't help with money but if you need volunteers I'm in....just shoot me a pm. I live near enough to help with manpower.
Post by: actionshooter on March 31, 2009, 07:12:10 PM
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,24114.45.html
Post by: stumprat on March 31, 2009, 07:22:51 PM
Post by: bbarnes on March 31, 2009, 09:14:18 PM
First off, I disagree that there are 12,000 elk in the Mt. Saint Helens area. There may be 12000 in what they consider the Mt. Saint Helens herd which extends to Glenwood WA.
My 50% estimation in the Mt. Saint Helens area came from the dead elk found in the 520, 524, 556, 550, 554, 560 and 572 areas. I witnessed over 1200 dead elk, many while I participated in the mortality count at the Loo-Wit Wildlife refuge.
Yes, we all know what happed on 5/18/1980. I believe Mr. Smith has covered these points in his post and they don’t need to be repeated again..
I never claimed the WDFW had an abundance of money. With a 249 million dollar budget that has 85 percent going to pay employees, I can see that there is little left over to serve the wildlife correctly.
There are many volunteer groups ready to help with these projects in a minutes notice.
I also never blamed that the WDFW for the proposal outlawing the feeding of animals.
Here is what I actually said:
Legislators of the State of Washington I would like to voice my concern’s over House Bill 1885 relating to feeding wildlife. My concern with this Bill isn’t with clawed animals, it’s with the Elk and deer. I think this part of the Bill should be eliminated, I think it’s our responsibility to take care of this natural recourse, to let them starve is not only neglect, but animal cruelty. This problem is our fault and starts with our states inability to manage rural lands, by building subdivisions in the wintering areas for our wildlife. The problem started with lawsuits over logging, and timber companies spraying timber lands with harmful chemicals to increase the growth of the trees and eliminate competing plant life. This has left our wildlife with little or no habitat and caused signs of sickness to these animals in our state. The permitted over pursuit of these animals by the WDFW has left them in poor body condition. This all points to Disease our WDFW doesn’t talk about that’s called, Necrotic Stomatitis also called Fusobacterium Necrophorum it was first discovered in our wildlife in the Olympic Peninsula in 1945. It produces hoof rot, calf diphtheria, oral cavity infections and can affect joints and organs. As a conservationist, hunter and outdoorsman it has been my moral responsibility to help these animals survive the problems we have created. Like all wildlife elk and deer need securities from their predators their chief one happens to be us. Part of keeping good healthy herds in our state, is to make sure they have ample secure habitat with large blocks of land without disturbance. We need a detailed study from the WDFW on these deer and elk before they are gone. Volunteer groups such as mine, MT SAINT HELEN’S RESCUE have raised thousands of dollars and should be able to continue to do so to help our wildlife in need. I’m not advocating feeding wild animals, but until we figure out what’s wrong, I don’t think it will hurt. If we continue to allow the destruction of habitat security, on our state and national forest lands, we are only hurting ourselves because if your not part of the solution your part of the problem. Please take my comments into consideration before making your final decision.
Keeping our public lands public
Post by: InsideWDFW on March 31, 2009, 10:30:17 PM
I am very concerned as a Washington Hunter, with about 55% of our states ELK heard reportedly starved to death in 2008 it seems as though the Department of Fish & Wildlife are not enhancing the life of our wildlife in Washington.
Their mission is:
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) serves Washington's citizens by protecting, restoring and enhancing fish and wildlife and their habitats, while providing sustainable and wildlife-related recreational and commercial opportunities.
If you or I let our animals on our property starve to death we would be penalized, fined and possibly thrown in jail, yet these department officials are not held accountable for their actions.
We as hunters need to stand up and be heard about our concerns so we can continue to hunt in years to come. We should demand answers for why these elk have been dying. Is it starvation, poisoning from the herbicides and pesticides or hoof rot? The last time a study was done on the Mt. Saint Helen's Elk heard was 1983, the environment has significantly changed in the past 26 years.
>:(
No other states starve wildlife like the state of Washington. Other states realize this is a natural resource for income and should be well taken care of and managed. We must contact our legislators and demand changes. You can also contact the interim Director of Fish and Wildlife at:
Mailing Address
600 Capitol Way N.
Olympia, WA 98501-1091
Phil Anderson
Interim Director
director@dfw.wa.gov
Good luck ya'all.