Post by: bowtech721 on February 11, 2009, 10:23:01 AM
Post by: ThePascoKid on February 11, 2009, 10:25:40 AM
Post by: fishermanjoe on February 11, 2009, 10:30:42 AM
Post by: BLUEBULLS on February 11, 2009, 11:45:43 AM
PascoKid is right, it's designed to reduce the bull harvest, making the mature bull numbers rise and getting a better ratio to the herd. Eastern Washington has way too good of access to elk habitat and without this rule we wouldn't have enough bulls to make a quality hunt.
excellent rule in my opinion.
Post by: woodywsu on February 11, 2009, 11:49:54 AM
Post by: colockumelk on February 11, 2009, 02:44:06 PM
the beer and whiskey mfgs came up with it. keeps a lot of guys in camp just drinking their sorrows away.
PascoKid is right, it's designed to reduce the bull harvest, making the mature bull numbers rise and getting a better ratio to the herd. Eastern Washington has way too good of access to elk habitat and without this rule we wouldn't have enough bulls to make a quality hunt.
excellent rule in my opinion.
I think that it is a good rule. However I would much rather they restrict the road access than impose antler restrictions. If you're not willing to work for an animal than you do not deserve an animal. Just my :twocents:
Post by: 270Shooter on February 11, 2009, 04:41:30 PM
Personally I don't think finding a spike is as hard as people think, but it takes a lot of luck. The spikes are usually hanging out with a herd of cows. So you just have to hunt the easier areas where the cows are, and if you're lucky maybe a spike will be tagging along. :twocents:
Post by: ThePascoKid on February 11, 2009, 04:47:52 PM
Post by: 270Shooter on February 11, 2009, 04:49:35 PM
easy areas huh, have you ever hunted the bluesnope 8). I stick to the gentle rolling hills of west yakima :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: funkster on February 11, 2009, 05:07:22 PM
Post by: gasman on February 11, 2009, 07:18:54 PM
>:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
Being a spike only area, allows the WDFW to create a number of any bull special permits, then we as hunters buy these permits in hopes to get drawn to hunt these monsters that we see when we do not getting drawn for the permit. This years new proposal is a prime example. 1 permit to hunt each of the yakima area units durring the rut is going to bring in more money on permit sales.
Look at the number of permits sold for the spike only areas verses the 3 point areas and you will get a clue.
It is only a matter of time before they make the wet side in to a spike only area.
And it will be just for the almighty dollar.................................................................
Post by: bobcat on February 11, 2009, 07:32:01 PM
It is only a matter of time before they make the wet side in to a spike only area.
The west side WAS spike only for one year. Then by popular opinion they changed it back to 3 pt. minimum the following year. At least that's the way I remember it. Seems like it was 4 or 5 years ago, but maybe longer. Or maybe it was just a proposal and was changed before it was finalized. I'm not positive on that because I only switched to hunting the westside two years ago. Can anyone confirm that the west side was spike only for one season?
Post by: gasman on February 11, 2009, 07:44:58 PM
It is only a matter of time before they make the wet side in to a spike only area.
The west side WAS spike only for one year. Then by popular opinion they changed it back to 3 pt. minimum the following year. At least that's the way I remember it. Seems like it was 4 or 5 years ago, but maybe longer. Or maybe it was just a proposal and was changed before it was finalized. I'm not positive on that because I only switched to hunting the westside two years ago. Can anyone confirm that the west side was spike only for one season?
I do remember some thing to this matter. I do believe it was only a proposal, and was changed by the time the regs came out due to hunter demand.
I may be wrong :dunno:
Post by: bobcat on February 11, 2009, 08:03:18 PM
Quote
Elk antler point restrictions de-mystified
by Rolf Johnson, Big Game Manager
Many hunters are confused by the differences — and apparent contradiction in management strategy — in elk antler point restrictions between eastern and western Washington.
The eastern half of the state is mainly spike-bull-only general seasons, with branch-antlered bulls by permit only. The western half of the state is mostly under a three-antler point minimum.
Both strategies are designed to ensure that enough bull elk survive or "escape" the hunting season to breed and perpetuate the herd. WDFW "bull escapement" goals are 12 bulls per 100 cows in post-hunting-season surveys.
A spike-bull-only rule protects older bulls, which are more efficient breeders because they tend to breed cows on their first estrous cycle. For long-term herd health, this strategy is optimum. A three-point minimum rule protects younger bulls, but over time may not be as effective.
In eastern Washington's Blue Mountains, Yakima, and Colockum elk areas, hiding cover is limited and elk vulnerability to hunter take is high. On the westside of the state, hiding cover is more abundant and mature bulls are less vulnerable to hunter harvest.
No matter which side of the Cascades elk reside, they are under intensive hunting pressure. Washington is the smallest of the western states and has the highest number of hunters per elk of any state. Bull elk in Washington are hunted in seasons that start in September and extend until the middle of December in some areas. Historically, general elk seasons were open to any bull. But after years of heavy harvest, bull escapement failed to meet management goals in most areas.
In the 1980's, bull elk ratios in the Blue Mountains dropped to 4 or 5 bulls per 100 cows.
A spike bull only general season was initiated in 1989. By the 1990's, bull ratios in the Yakima and Colockum areas dropped to 5 or 6 bulls per 100 cows. In 1994 these areas were also changed to the spike bull only general season.
The results have been very encouraging. The Blue Mountains now maintains a 14 bulls per 100 cows ratio. The Colockum area is up to 9 bulls per 100 cows, and the Yakima area is up to 14 bulls per 100 cows. Hunters have been very supportive because now they see — and have permit-only chances to hunt — many more mature bulls.
On the west side, bull ratios have been near the management goal of 12 per 100 cows in the three-point areas, but below goals in any-bull areas. Biologists calculated that if at least five of those 12 bulls were mature animals (2-1/2 years or older), optimal herd management could be reached. To that end, in 1997 about half of western Washington Game Management Units were made spike-bull-only in general seasons and the other half were under the three-point minimum.
Westside elk hunters voiced their preference for the three-point rule and the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission elected to drop the five mature bull escapement goal. In response, this year all westside elk units are under the three-point minimum rule, except for damage areas. This strategy is not optimum because it can't ensure the escapement of mature bulls, but it will meet the basic 12 bulls per 100 cow ratio goal, especially when coupled with just nine days of modern firearm hunting.
Road management programs are also important in achieving bull escapement goals and WDFW has been working with landowners and hunter organizations to develop road management in areas of marginal bull escapement.
Post by: Slayock on February 11, 2009, 09:05:18 PM
Post by: ThePascoKid on February 11, 2009, 09:47:00 PM
Post by: funkster on February 12, 2009, 11:20:46 AM
Post by: alanger on February 12, 2009, 10:27:13 PM
Yeah where i go elk hunting it is spike only and there are about 5,000 hunters with 4 spikes in the gmu, i think it is more of a camping trip with guns. Still fun though.
sounds like the colockum!!
Post by: Scottystyle on February 12, 2009, 10:52:24 PM
Post by: colockumelk on February 12, 2009, 11:24:09 PM
Post by: Scottystyle on February 12, 2009, 11:31:14 PM
Post by: ThePascoKid on February 13, 2009, 07:01:38 AM
Post by: MIKEXRAY on February 14, 2009, 07:08:07 AM
Post by: colockumelk on February 15, 2009, 11:56:21 AM
In my opinion this would work alot better than putting further restrictions on us. The restricitons should be onthe roads not our seasons. It's been spike only for 15 years now and we still don't have the quality of hunting that was promised us. Spike only obviously does not work.
Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and each time expecting a different outcome.
Sound like a certain department of wildlife to you?
Post by: 270Shooter on February 15, 2009, 12:47:58 PM
Maybe they should move to a 5 point minimum :dunno:.
Post by: skybusterbo on February 15, 2009, 04:13:22 PM
yeah, I agree mosquitoes, wasps and house fly'sDon't forget hornets. I hate those damn things. Oh yeah,spike only sucks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: mossback91 on February 15, 2009, 05:35:16 PM
Post by: logger on February 15, 2009, 10:29:22 PM
Post by: fc2038 on February 15, 2009, 11:11:51 PM
go out in the south fork of bethel in the spring and tell me all of the bones you see are winter kill, less than a hundred feet from the road. permit only is horse*censored* till they admit to the real problems in that area.after that i am all for restrictions once they admit what the problems are. the bull to cow ratios have not changed since implementing these rulse so oblisvouly it's not working.
Really? You think nothing has changed since the implementation of spike only hunting. Have you been to the feeding station in the last 15 years. Doesn't sound like it. I remamber going to the station in the early 90's late 80's you would be hard pressed to see ten branch antler bulls there at any one time. Now there are hundreds of large bulls. It is nice to see. You can't tell me that a spike only hunting has had no effect on that herd. There are ten times as many large bulls than there was in the late 80's early 90's.
Post by: MHWASH on February 16, 2009, 07:10:59 AM
Post by: logger on February 16, 2009, 07:55:03 AM
Post by: 270Shooter on February 16, 2009, 02:30:22 PM
you see hundreds of bulls? where?Oak creek feeding station.
Post by: jdb on February 16, 2009, 02:35:02 PM
Post by: logger on February 16, 2009, 04:36:46 PM
Post by: colockumelk on February 16, 2009, 06:28:45 PM
1.)Tribal hunting. We are the ONLY STATE that tribes have unrestricted hunting off their reservation.
2.) Road access. There are far to many roads that lead to no where. They need to keep the main roads open and close down the roads to nowhere. This will help with three things.
a. During hunting season it will give the animals a place to escape to. Right now ATV's can follow them anywhere. How do we expect to grow branch bulls if the spikes don't have anywhere to escape to?
b. Most poachers (both tribal and non-tribal) don't go far from the roads. Restrict their road access and you restrict their poaching access and possibilities.
c. If people have to actually get out and walk many well quite hunting which will help out with the next issue. Also with fewer roads the elk and deer wont be nearly so stressed out all year and will thus be in better health (ie able to fight off hair loss and other diseases) and will birth more fawns and calves.
3.) GO TO PERMIT ONLY. WE have the highest hunter to elk ration in the world. We have too many hunters and not enough ellk. Easy enough cut down the numbers of hunters. If the spikes live then our branch numbers will begin to sky rocket after a few years. Determine how many branch bull elk you want harvested every year and put that amount of permits out. Example lets say in the Observatory you determine that 100 bulls can be harvested. With a 10% success rate this means that you could put out 1000 branch bull tags between the three seasons. Or even if youwanted to play it safe give out 750 tags a year. Then have a separate draw system for cow permits with a separate point system and give out the amount of tags just like you did for the bulls. I would love this. I'd rather get to hunt elk every other year or every three years if I knew it was going to be a quality hunt than hunt every year that has poor quality.
If the WDFW would do what I just mentioned we would get to see hunting like you see in Montana etc. But they all have to be implemented in order for this to happen. And who knows maybe if #'s 1 and 2 happened then maybe the third option would be needed. Just my :twocents: What do you all think?
Post by: bobcat on February 16, 2009, 06:46:48 PM
Post by: fc2038 on February 16, 2009, 06:48:52 PM
Was out there this weekend at at the station I counted 176 bulls just down by the hay. If you head out towards the sheep station on the left side there is another viewing opportunity right before the junction with 410 I counted 43 more bulls there. (Branched) The magic total for the weekend was 219 branched antlered bulls. Those were the ones I could see. Can't get behind the station to count all them. Did not want to stay and wait until they fed to see all the others coming out of the hills. One thing this year I have noticed was the lack of spikes at the station. Only counted 4 spikes. So the spike only idea is working to increase the number of larger mature breading bulls in the herd. you should make a trip out to the feeding station to see for yourself. Like I said I remember going to the station after hunting season in the late 80's and early 90's and those animals were shot up. Ten bulls at the station was a good day.
Clock-- I agree with the permit only idea. just like eastern Oregon, and a lot of other states for that matter
Post by: jdb on February 16, 2009, 06:54:44 PM
Spike only has yes given us more branch bulls. But it doesn't work because everywhere else in this nation it's either any bull or 3pt min. and they have plenty of branch bulls to go around. So why can't we? I have three reasons for this.You make some very good points and I agree on most, but I cant agree that spike only hasnt worked. It has greatly increased the trohpy potential of the yakima herd imo.
1.)Tribal hunting. We are the ONLY STATE that tribes have unrestricted hunting off their reservation.
2.) Road access. There are far to many roads that lead to no where. They need to keep the main roads open and close down the roads to nowhere. This will help with three things.
a. During hunting season it will give the animals a place to escape to. Right now ATV's can follow them anywhere. How do we expect to grow branch bulls if the spikes don't have anywhere to escape to?
b. Most poachers (both tribal and non-tribal) don't go far from the roads. Restrict their road access and you restrict their poaching access and possibilities.
c. If people have to actually get out and walk many well quite hunting which will help out with the next issue. Also with fewer roads the elk and deer wont be nearly so stressed out all year and will thus be in better health (ie able to fight off hair loss and other diseases) and will birth more fawns and calves.
3.) GO TO PERMIT ONLY. WE have the highest hunter to elk ration in the world. We have too many hunters and not enough ellk. Easy enough cut down the numbers of hunters. If the spikes live then our branch numbers will begin to sky rocket after a few years. Determine how many branch bull elk you want harvested every year and put that amount of permits out. Example lets say in the Observatory you determine that 100 bulls can be harvested. With a 10% success rate this means that you could put out 1000 branch bull tags between the three seasons. Or even if youwanted to play it safe give out 750 tags a year. Then have a separate draw system for cow permits with a separate point system and give out the amount of tags just like you did for the bulls. I would love this. I'd rather get to hunt elk every other year or every three years if I knew it was going to be a quality hunt than hunt every year that has poor quality.
If the WDFW would do what I just mentioned we would get to see hunting like you see in Montana etc. But they all have to be implemented in order for this to happen. And who knows maybe if #'s 1 and 2 happened then maybe the third option would be needed. Just my :twocents: What do you all think?
Post by: colockumelk on February 17, 2009, 01:25:58 PM
JDB I'm not saying it hasn't worked to increase the amount of branch bulls. There is no doubt about it. I'm just saying if they went to permit only then they'd be able to give out alot more tags and you'd stand a chance at getting drawn every other year or three. Just like in Montana. I'd rather have a good quality hunt every three years than a crappy hunt every year. As it is how many people have ten points and still havn't been drawn. In many areas they give out a rediculously low amount of tags. I also thought about this. What if.
For the the permit system. You had an A tag and a B tag. With the A tag you put in all your branch bull choices. For your B tag you put in all your antlerless choices. With the A tag there would be preference points just like now. If you didn't get drawn for your A tag you would automatically be eligible for the B tag drawings. For the B tag there is no preference points and thus if you got drawn it wouldn't take away from your preference points. Sort of like how the second doe tag used to be.
And instead of giving out only 10 bull permits here and there in each unit. Instead they figure out how many bulls and cows can be harvested each year and then they give out 5 times as many tags since the average success rate is only 10% but this gives you some fluff in case there's a freak year like an early winter and you have like 40% success rates. Since the spikes would be living through the year every year you would instantly see a dramatic rise in the amount of brow tine bulls out there. Thus every year for the first five years or so you would see more and more branch tags being issued especially once all the bugs were worked out. Eventually the numbers would platue but not until they'd be giving out like 5 times more tags than they do now. Think about it every year in the Colockum 300 or so spikes are killed. If those spikes were allowed to become branch bulls then that's three hundred branch bulls being produced a year. Now subtract 10% natural mortality (30) and subract current Indian Harvest numbers (40 a year. Ha wishfull thinking) then that's 230 spikes that live to become branch bulls. That means you could give out 600 bull tags a YEAR between the three seasons. Wouldn't that be nice. This would also mean that all the other areas would also be able to see an increase in those same amount of numbers. Currently they only give out like 30 branch bull tags a year in the Colockum. That's a increase of 20 times more tags.
But the revenue of the WDFW would go down and since all they care about is more money and a bunch of cry babies would piss and moan about it this will never happen and thus all we have to look forward to is spike or antlerless and maybe if we're lucky every 8 years or so we get the opportunity to hunt for a branch bull. Yay. If some one disagrees or see where there might be a problem let me know. Because I might be bringing this to the attention of the WDFW. And any flaws in it that you all see would help me out greatly.
Post by: Curly on February 17, 2009, 01:41:01 PM
I wouldn't mind permit only for elk in E WA, but at least the current way is still okay for the health of the herds. It does seem like they could have a higher amount of permits than they currently give out though.
BTW - pretty much no matter what they do w/ permits or OTC tags (w/in reason) the elk hunting in this state will never be as good as other states in the West like Montana, Oregon, ID, Utah, CO........those states have a lot more habitat and much, much more land available for the elk. We have too many people w/ less area for elk every year.
Post by: colockumelk on February 17, 2009, 02:40:17 PM
This opinion by the way is strictly for the east side. Obviously the west side has excellant elk numbers and since it's not broke why fix it? Just my :twocents:. Keep the ideas coming I'll need all I can get.
Post by: elksnout on February 17, 2009, 07:40:01 PM
Post by: colockumelk on February 18, 2009, 02:11:02 PM
I think there are many differences.
1.) We have more hunters now than we did back then.
2.) With the advent of ATV's all those super nasty roads are now accessible to most people.
- I don't know if there are more roads now then there was back then but because of the ATV's it means guys can go a lot more places than back in the day so this makes closing the roads more important.
3.) I think that there is more poaching now then there was. With the upsurge in ATV's snowmobiles night vision etc it has made it alot easier to poach then ever before.
So like I said before the only way to control this is to control the numbers of hunters and control the amount of access available. IE close the roads so the poachers, and Indians are kept out as well as the animals get some actual escapement during hunting season.
So it's agreed then it'll be permit only for now on. I'll just let the game department know how it's gonna be on March 6th. I'm sure that will go over pretty smooth and I don't foresee any hangups with our plan. Of course I hope you all know that last paragraph was :liar:
Post by: elksnout on February 18, 2009, 08:28:18 PM
Post by: Yak-NDN on February 28, 2009, 09:15:10 AM
Think about it every year in the Colockum 300 or so spikes are killed. If those spikes were allowed to become branch bulls then that's three hundred branch bulls being produced a year. Now subtract 10% natural mortality (30) and subract current Indian Harvest numbers (40 a year. Ha wishfull thinking) then that's 230 spikes that live to become branch bulls. That means you could give out 600 bull tags a YEAR between the three seasons. Wouldn't that be nice. This would also mean that all the other areas would also be able to see an increase in those same amount of numbers. Currently they only give out like 30 branch bull tags a year in the Colockum. That's a increase of 20 times more tags.
300 or so spikes a year what is the real problem? I am back in town and it looks like I missed out big time and I see we now have some new members. I don't want this to turn into the same squabble as last week so I will just ask you about the Boldt decision and how you think that will play out with game, I don't see that Yakama tribal members are taking 300 a year off the reservation and the state is doing it in one unit just with spikes. What about the other tags? What about the other units?
Use your imagination and insert elk or deer in the Boldt decision and it also defines in common with.
Of this, Judge Boldt wrote: "By dictionary definition and as intended and used in the Indian treaties and in this decision, 'in common with' means sharing equally the opportunity to take fish…therefore, non-treaty fishermen shall have the opportunity to take up to 50% of the harvestable number of fish…and treaty right fishermen shall have the opportunity to take up to the same percentage."
Post by: mossback91 on February 28, 2009, 09:25:28 AM
Well I'm all for the permit only any bull seasons rather than the spike only general seasons we have now, but just so you know, at least two other states use spike only management with their elk...Utah and Oregon.
+1
Post by: mossback91 on February 28, 2009, 09:30:50 AM
Think about it every year in the Colockum 300 or so spikes are killed. If those spikes were allowed to become branch bulls then that's three hundred branch bulls being produced a year. Now subtract 10% natural mortality (30) and subract current Indian Harvest numbers (40 a year. Ha wishfull thinking) then that's 230 spikes that live to become branch bulls. That means you could give out 600 bull tags a YEAR between the three seasons. Wouldn't that be nice. This would also mean that all the other areas would also be able to see an increase in those same amount of numbers. Currently they only give out like 30 branch bull tags a year in the Colockum. That's a increase of 20 times more tags.
300 or so spikes a year what is the real problem? I am back in town and it looks like I missed out big time and I see we now have some new members. I don't want this to turn into the same squabble as last week so I will just ask you about the Boldt decision and how you think that will play out with game, I don't see that Yakama tribal members are taking 300 a year off the reservation and the state is doing it in one unit just with spikes. What about the other tags? What about the other units?
Use your imagination and insert elk or deer in the Boldt decision and it also defines in common with.
Of this, Judge Boldt wrote: "By dictionary definition and as intended and used in the Indian treaties and in this decision, 'in common with' means sharing equally the opportunity to take fish…therefore, non-treaty fishermen shall have the opportunity to take up to 50% of the harvestable number of fish…and treaty right fishermen shall have the opportunity to take up to the same percentage."
To me it has nothing to do about the numbers in your situation how you talk........
If we all are hunting the same piece of public land as us citizens then we all should follow the SAME rules being treated EQAULLY!!
no matter what religion race or belief...........
Post by: Yak-NDN on February 28, 2009, 09:39:16 AM
Post by: bobcat on February 28, 2009, 10:01:15 AM
Quote
Of this, Judge Boldt wrote: "By dictionary definition and as intended and used in the Indian treaties and in this decision, 'in common with' means sharing equally the opportunity to take fish…therefore, non-treaty fishermen shall have the opportunity to take up to 50% of the harvestable number of fish…and treaty right fishermen shall have the opportunity to take up to the same percentage."
This 50% number I don't agree with. I know that's the way it is but I don't have to agree with it being the correct way to interpret the treaty. It should be that if the tribal members make up say, 5% of the total population of Washington state, then they get 5% of the fish (and game.) Or 1%, or whatever that number is.
How's that sound?
Post by: colockumelk on March 01, 2009, 08:45:18 PM
When I mentioned that 300 spike bulls were harvested last year in the Colockum it was so I could make a point that one of the big problems in the Colockum as far as why the bull to cow ratio is so low is because of very poor spike recruitment. Therefore not many spikes are living to become branch bulls.
The reason that the branch bull population has declines so rapidly since 2002 is because more branch bulls are killed every year by licensed hunters, poachers and Native-Hunters than you have spikes living to become mature bulls. I would like to close many of the roads in that area. This would solve about 75% of the problem. As for the other 25%......
One way you can help the herd is to regulate how many branch bulls are taken every year. Every year the WDFW gives out fewer and fewer branch bull tags to licensed hunters. Last year they gave out six. If you take average success rates this means that only 2 or 3 branch bulls were killed last year by licensed hunters. Poachers you can not control. The only method I know of is to restrict they're access by closing roads. Which is one of my main focuses. Law Enforcment and game wardens do their best. Now the third variable is the amount of bulls taken by native-hunters. What I would like to see and what many on this site would like to see is the tribes to step up and work with the WDFW and other biologists to determine just how many animals they can take in an area like the Colockum and still manage a quality herd and then putting a limit on the amount of animals it's members can take out of an area while still maintaining a quality herd. Whatever that number may be would obviously be determined by surveys and studies done between the WDFW biologists and the Tribal biologists.
I don't think that this would be too much to ask. Especially since the WDFW biologists and the tribal biologists already work together to set limits for salmon and steelhead. Why not do the same thing for big game?
YAK-NDN and anyother tribal member on here do you think that this would be an achievable goal for ourselves, the WDFW and the various tribes to achieve and work towards? Along with accountability and harvest reports would there be any interest in this happening?
Oh also part of the Boldt Decision was that while it did create equality in salmon harvests it also reserved the right of the state to control all harvests in the name of conservation. So if someone could prove that the deer and elk herds in certain areas needed to have hunting restrictions such as permit only then it could control the hunting in those areas. Which I would be okay with because if you have read some of my previous posts you would know that I am a huge advocate for permit only hunting for elk. I think that in todays modern world with the large amount of hunters that is the only way to create quality elk hunting in eastern washington.
Post by: rezboy on March 02, 2009, 09:12:24 AM
I think this is an attainable goal. Good post Colockum. :tup:
Post by: colockumelk on March 03, 2009, 08:43:59 PM