Post by: C-Money on March 01, 2009, 05:04:39 PM
Post by: gasman on March 01, 2009, 05:08:19 PM
Post by: bowhuntin on March 01, 2009, 05:09:01 PM
Post by: agchawk on March 01, 2009, 05:18:07 PM
I'm sure there will be folks that pull the trigger too early without making for certain that it's a "true" spike though.
Post by: C-Money on March 01, 2009, 06:51:43 PM
Post by: alanger on March 01, 2009, 06:55:46 PM
Post by: colockumelk on March 02, 2009, 09:02:09 PM
One of the big problems in this area is spike recruitment. If you don't believe me in 2007 despite the lack of a muzzle loader season and very few bow huntes because it's spike only in 328 146 spikes were harvested and in 329 120 spikes were harvested. This is total of 246 spikes killed in this area. It's estimated that between 75 to 80% of the spikes are harvested every year. I'm not sure if this includes the 10% natural mortality rate that yearling bulls suffer as well. If not then wow 90% of spikes die every year. No other GMU comes even close. The closest one is GMU 368 that had 99 spikes harvested but they have all three hunting seasons. In 352 the NILE a whopping 23 spikes were harvested. Most of the other 300 series GMUs had harvest levels between 40-60 spikes killed. This is one reason why the Colockum has seen a sharp downfall in the amount of branch bulls. Frankly more branch bulls are harvested every year than you have spikes living to become branch bulls. The only way to curb this is through road managment or permit only.
Post by: Slider on March 03, 2009, 07:29:59 AM
Post by: C-Money on March 03, 2009, 09:25:44 PM
Post by: Yak-NDN on March 03, 2009, 09:32:18 PM
I herd that the Yakimas has 21 spike heads lined up along the road last year before modern season for all to see up by the reserve. Damn shame.
Please don't :stirthepot:
Post by: colockumelk on March 04, 2009, 10:21:58 AM
I herd that the Yakimas had 21 spike heads lined up along the road last year before modern season for all to see up by the reserve. Damn shame.
Is there any photographic evidence to prove this? If so we could use this. Otherwise I'm afraid that I will have to agree with YAK-NDN. It's just stirring the pot and it wont do anybody anygood
Post by: Buckrub on March 08, 2009, 11:08:18 AM
Why do we have a difference in East / West Management....three point or better elk westside?? and spike only east?
Why should we be hunting spikes at all when we could and should have five point or better eastside...works in many other states.
Everytime they try to make a trophy hunt for us (ya right) the tribes get the trophy hunt and we get nothing.
5 Point or better eastside....the permit system is just a way to control hunters.
Post by: billythekidrock on March 08, 2009, 12:20:00 PM
The problem is our all mighty WDFW...trying to manage the state for trophy hunts when they should be trying to just manage the herds.
Maybe in some areas, but generally they are managing for quantity and not quality.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on March 08, 2009, 12:56:43 PM
found out at the gun club today that WDFW has changed the spike rule to two smooth spikes above the ear in the Colockum. No more 1x2's and so on. Is this true?? Sorry if it has already been posted.
[/quote
After what I heard in Ellensburg yesterday..I think they might throw that one out. Patheticly there were ony 4 of us that had any comment on this problem. 2 were so gloom and doom that the a commissioner asked if he would be open to closing the area for a year totally ,to which he said yes. They (2 speakers) were for the SP option which I do not want. I'd rather see it closed for a year which unfortunately wouldn't bring in the 3000 plus fees for applying for them even though I would put in for a ghost hunt "any bull" tag to increase the 14 points we already have. When we started putting in for this you had to give up the first weekend of general bull to even get the chance for it. What happend there? Not enough revenue. Let's see...what roads will they close (another option) so that the older and disabled hunters get squeezed into a smaller area. My biggest @#$%@&* is that the DNR has logged out all the cover in MANY areas up there that the problem we have WAS caused. Take out hundreds of acres of cover up there and what would be the imminent result. This has happened. How can they expect bull escapement when so much to escape to has been removed???
I also brought up the group size limit for SP's What would they be? hopefully bigger than the 12 limit they have for most others since many camps are much bigger than that number. H
How about poaching? Has anyone noticed how many more animals (elk and deer) you see on the Ellensburg sideas compared to the Wenatchee side? Last year we didn't see squat from the lower basin loop ( Schaller or Jumpoff) clear to the Jumpoff line shack.
Now what does the north side of this area have more of than the south? Orchards and workers maybe?
By they way...we have been hunting this area in one form or another for 44 years.
Also our governess has proposed putting DFW enforcement under the State patrol control... the legislature is increasing license fees by at least 10%, and there are noises of DISSOLVING the game commission to be replaced by what kind of bureocratic mess??
Post by: MichaelJ on March 08, 2009, 03:35:54 PM
found out at the gun club today that WDFW has changed the spike rule to two smooth spikes above the ear in the Colockum. No more 1x2's and so on. Is this true?? Sorry if it has already been posted.
[/quote
After what I heard in Ellensburg yesterday..I think they might throw that one out. Patheticly there were ony 4 of us that had any comment on this problem. 2 were so gloom and doom that the a commissioner asked if he would be open to closing the area for a year totally ,to which he said yes. They (2 speakers) were for the SP option which I do not want. I'd rather see it closed for a year which unfortunately wouldn't bring in the 3000 plus fees for applying for them even though I would put in for a ghost hunt "any bull" tag to increase the 14 points we already have. When we started putting in for this you had to give up the first weekend of general bull to even get the chance for it. What happend there? Not enough revenue. Let's see...what roads will they close (another option) so that the older and disabled hunters get squeezed into a smaller area. My biggest @#$%@&* is that the DNR has logged out all the cover in MANY areas up there that the problem we have WAS caused. Take out hundreds of acres of cover up there and what would be the imminent result. This has happened. How can they expect bull escapement when so much to escape to has been removed???
I also brought up the group size limit for SP's What would they be? hopefully bigger than the 12 limit they have for most others since many camps are much bigger than that number. H
How about poaching? Has anyone noticed how many more animals (elk and deer) you see on the Ellensburg sideas compared to the Wenatchee side? Last year we didn't see squat from the lower basin loop ( Schaller or Jumpoff) clear to the Jumpoff line shack.
Now what does the north side of this area have more of than the south? Orchards and workers maybe?
By they way...we have been hunting this area in one form or another for 44 years.
Also our governess has proposed putting DFW enforcement under the State patrol control... the legislature is increasing license fees by at least 10%, and there are noises of DISSOLVING the game commission to be replaced by what kind of bureocratic mess??
The "Doom and Gloom" guy you describe is ColockumElk... I was right next to him in the front row... Did you hear ANY of the stats??? There was only 127 or something bulls reported in '07 vs 340 something in '05 I believe... tell me why we SHOULDN'T close the colockum for all hunting or go to a permit only... I say close it off for a year or two, then make it a permit only hunt with 100 rifle branch tags, 200 archery bull tags, and 75 muzz tags... throw in some cow tags and I think you'd be doing well. With 300 bulls being born every year in just a couple years of closure there's going to be a lot more branched bulls running around... you figure 65% success for rifle, 25% for archery, and 35% for muzzloader and you have less than 150 bulls being taken per year with an added 150+ bulls per year from calving (300- ~150)... (btw the success ratios I just pulled out of my ass, but I'm sure they'd be close...)
Michael
Post by: colockumelk on March 08, 2009, 09:47:49 PM
In the past 5 years the branch bull population in the Colockum has been absolutely decimated. Currently the branch bull to cow ratio is 5:100. In 2002 there were 391 branch bulls in the Colockum and as of 2007 there are only 116 branch bulls left. This is a decline of 70%. LET ME REITERATE THAT. That is a decline of 70%. That is a decline of 14% a year. If this trend continues by 2011 there wont be any branch bulls left in the Colockum.
You need to act now, now 3 years from now. You need to go to permit only now. The elk need a stimulus package worse than our country does. There are various reasons why the branch bull population has been decimated. They are poaching, tribal-hunting, and far too much road access. Some of these are out of your hands and others will take alot of time and resources to change. Time that the Colockum elk do not have. You need to control what you can which is spike recruitment. You have the power to make things happen now which is what you need to do.
The main problem with the Colockum elk herd is spike recruitment. In the Colockum the average harvest is 135 per GMU. In the Yakima herd the average spike harvest per GMU is only 57. The Colockum has a spike harvest average per GMU of almost 3 times that of the Yakima GMUs. 85% of all yearling bulls are killed every year. Only 15% of yearling bulls in the Colockum survive their first two years. In 2005 only 46 spikes made it through the hunting season in the entire Colockum.
The best course of action is to go to Permit only now, not later. Do what is right even if it is unpopular. Sometimes the right choice isn't the popular choice. Often the popular opinion isn't always an ethical one. In any case during the surveys over the past year the public favored permit only over the "True Spike" proposition. So why did you not go to permit only like the public wanted? For those that oppose this what many people don't realize is that every year in the Colockum 300 or more spikes are harvested by hunters. If it were permit only this would mean 300 more spikes would survive to become branch antlered bulls every year. With special permit success rates being about 30% this would mean you could give out 600-900 branch bull permits in the Colockum every year instead of the 6 that were given out last year.
For the sake of the elk in the Colockum please do the right thing. True Spike might have been a good idea ten years ago but right now the True Spike concept would be too little and too late.
After the meeting I talked to the commissioner. This is what I said. I said I WOULD support a closure for one year on three conditions.
1. It would be closed to everyone, licensed hunters, Master-Hunters and Tribal Hunters.
2. After a year of closures they go to permit only and not a general season, because in three years we'd just be right back where we are now.
3. They give out at alot more permits based on the model I previously gave which is; Every year around 400 bull calves are born. With a 10% natural mortality rate that is 360 spikes that become branch bulls every year. Special permits typically have about a 30% successrate. This means that they should give out at least 600 branch bull permits a year.
Oh and for those that think that permit only or closing the unit down is only going to take our rights and give the Yakama's a super hunting unit consider this.
While the Boldt Decision of February 12, 1974 did grant the tribes 50% of all the harvest it did reserve the state's right to
The courts have ruled that state regulation of tribal exercise of off-reservation hunting rights on open and unclaimed land is preempted by the Stevens Treaties, except where state regulation is necessary for conservation purposes
Post by: colockumelk on March 08, 2009, 10:16:05 PM
found out at the gun club today that WDFW has changed the spike rule to two smooth spikes above the ear in the Colockum. No more 1x2's and so on. Is this true?? Sorry if it has already been posted.
[/quote
After what I heard in Ellensburg yesterday..I think they might throw that one out. Patheticly there were ony 4 of us that had any comment on this problem. 2 were so gloom and doom that the a commissioner asked if he would be open to closing the area for a year totally ,to which he said yes. They (2 speakers) were for the SP option which I do not want. I'd rather see it closed for a yearYeah but in three years we'd be back where we are now! which unfortunately wouldn't bring in the 3000 plus fees for applying for them even though I would put in for a ghost hunt "any bull" tag to increase the 14 points we already have. When we started putting in for this you had to give up the first weekend of general bull to even get the chance for it. What happend there? Not enough revenue. Let's see...what roads will they close (another option) so that the older and disabled hunters get squeezed into a smaller area.How is physically closing all of the roads that are already closed going to restrict them. They are not supposed to be there anyways. I wouldn't want this if it wasn't for all the lazy people out there that drive their ATV's all over the closed roads. The reason 3x more spikes are killed per GMU in the Colockum than in the Yakima herd's GMU's is because THE ELK HAVE NOWHERE TO ESCAPE TOO. There's too many people driving too many roads. My biggest @#$%@&* is that the DNR has logged out all the cover in MANY areas up there that the problem we have WAS caused. Take out hundreds of acres of cover up there and what would be the imminent result. This has happened. How can they expect bull escapement when so much to escape to has been removed???I completely agree with this statement
I also brought up the group size limit for SP's What would they be? hopefully bigger than the 12 limit they have for most others since many camps are much bigger than that number. HI suggested this. If you have 350 or so spike elk becoming branch bulls every year than you can give out easily 600 branch bull permits a year between the three user groups. The successrates for special permits is about 30% on a good year. This means you'd kill 200 branch bulls with an increase of 100 branch bulls a year plus the 350 spikes you have. Eventually I foresee them giving out 1000 permits a year out once the herd is big enough.
How about poaching? Has anyone noticed how many more animals (elk and deer) you see on the Ellensburg sideas compared to the Wenatchee side? Last year we didn't see squat from the lower basin loop ( Schaller or Jumpoff) clear to the Jumpoff line shack.
Now what does the north side of this area have more of than the south? Orchards and workers maybe?The north side also has a lack of road access. If you restrict the road access you take away the poachers opportunities. You also will have much higher spike recruitment.
By they way...we have been hunting this area in one form or another for 44 years.
Also our governess has proposed putting DFW enforcement under the State patrol control... the legislature is increasing license fees by at least 10%, and there are noises of DISSOLVING the game commission to be replaced by what kind of bureocratic mess??
Elkaholic. I understand you have alot of tradition in that area. What matters more to you. The quality of the Colockum elk herd or your traditions in the Colockum when you could start new traditions in another unit? I think we all know the answer to that one. Personally I would rather have a healthy elk herd in the Colockum, if I have to give up a general season in that area then so be it. In any case I would rather hunt the Colockum every other year or every three years and have a quality hunt going after quality bulls then hunt it every year and have it the poor over-crowded quality it is chasing after baby elk. Why is it that so many are against road closures. All the good areas in this state, have one thing in common. Road access is limited. Do you honestly believe that the vast amount of road accesss in the Colockum has absolutely no effect on the elk herd there? As for the disabled there are disabled hunts out there. We can put in gates and open them up for the disabled for the disabled hunts. So no-one's trying to take their hunting away. Plus the Manastash has ATV access all over.
I've also heard you mention 5 pt minimum. :yike: :bdid: If 85% of spikes are killed every year what do you think would happen in a 5 pt minimum hunt? 85% of your mature bulls would get killed. Do you have any scientific research to back up any of your ideas. I'm not trying to be rude but please share with us why you think a 5 pt minimum would be a good idea. If you have good hard facts to back this up and change my mind I will be on board 100%. Please share with us why road closures is a bad idea in the Colockum and wouldn't help out. Currently there's no where for them to hide. They'd get slaughtered. Yes you are right I am campaigning hard for a permit only. I have the facts to back this up. They already told me the next step if "True Spike" doesn't work is permit only. So after this year when "True Spike" fails, and it WILL fail the next step is permit only.
Post by: MichaelJ on March 08, 2009, 10:26:43 PM
Michael
Post by: Buckrub on March 09, 2009, 07:25:04 AM
I think we all agree that spike only is a terrible management practice.
Are the spike escapement numbers you quote actual?...last time I checked they hadn't done any spike escapement studies surprisingly because they haven't met bull ratio numbers.
Road closures and 5 point restrictions will work.
Spike elk generally do not have the savy for escapement as an older bulls. I believe with road closures we could have a much higher bull escapement as a 5 point or better. I can only provide you with numbers from other areas which wouldn't be a fair assessment without actual numbers from the area.
For the sake of argument lets say we close it all together....will the tribes quit hunting? can the state stop them? I think not.
Why do we manage mule deer and west side elk with antler restrictions and not the east side elk? Why the difference in management?
Maybe the difference is we are a lottery state and the WDFW makes $$ from the permit applications and raffle tickets.
Why do hunters have 10+ points for a chance at a bull? That would be 10 years! Wouldn't we better off like Colorado and other states with a antler restriction rule?
Post by: Cougeyes on March 09, 2009, 08:39:40 AM
Post by: colockumelk on March 09, 2009, 09:33:20 AM
The reason it's not 3 pt minimum is because it doesn't work over here. Remember what it was like prior to 1994 over here. You never saw any bulls of a decent size. The reason is there is just too many hunters and too many roads. You would decimate the herd. And in my opinion the 3pt min for Mule Deer doesn't work either. Our deer herds suck in Central WA.
I would be all for a 3 pt. minimum or other antler restriction rules like other states. I really do. In my dream world of WA it would be a 3pt minimum for elk everywhere. But also in that dream world we have twice as many elk. I just don't see us being able to do a 3pt min or a 5 pt min general season hunt. If you have data that suggests that it would work I would love to see it. But comparing Colorado with an elk herd of 390,000 to Washington with an elk herd of 70,000 is again comparing apples to oranges.
Post by: colockumelk on March 09, 2009, 10:53:05 AM
For the sake of argument lets say we close it all together....will the tribes quit hunting? can the state stop them? I think not.
Why do hunters have 10+ points for a chance at a bull? That would be 10 years! Wouldn't we better off like Colorado and other states with a antler restriction rule?
On your first point read my previous post which said;
Oh and for those that think that permit only or closing the unit down is only going to take our rights and give the Yakama's a super hunting unit consider this.
While the Boldt Decision of February 12, 1974 did grant the tribes 50% of all the harvest it did reserve the state's right to
The courts have ruled that state regulation of tribal exercise of off-reservation hunting rights on open and unclaimed land is preempted by the Stevens Treaties, except where state regulation is necessary for conservation purposes
I wasn't lieing when I said this. I did not make that up. Someone else said that since it's currently permit only for conservation and they can still hunt. This is not true, while it is permit only for branch bulls, there is still a general hunt, therefore it's not "permit only" for conservation purposes. If it closes for a year and then goes to permit only then yes this is for conservation purposes since the state is now controlling the harvest for conservation purposes. Where if there's still a general season there is no conservation since technically we could kill every single spike out there.
As far as permits go. Again read my previous posts which said;
I suggested this. If you have 350 or so spike elk becoming branch bulls every year than you can give out easily 600 branch bull permits a year between the three user groups. The successrates for special permits is about 30% on a good year. This means you'd kill 200 branch bulls with an increase of 100 branch bulls a year plus the 350 spikes you have. Eventually I foresee them giving out 1000 permits a year out once the herd is big enough.
Again if you went to permit only the WDFW would have to give out hundreds of permits otherwise the elk population would grow too fast. You would definately get drawn every three years if not every year.
I think that the Yakima herds should go to permit only as well. Later today I'll post some numbers that show just how many permits would be available if it went to permit only compared to how it is now.
Post by: MichaelJ on March 09, 2009, 11:25:05 AM
Michael
Post by: gasman on March 09, 2009, 11:59:00 AM
How would you adress that issue?
:dunno:
Post by: Ridgerunner on March 09, 2009, 11:59:40 AM
Post by: MichaelJ on March 09, 2009, 12:51:30 PM
I'm against going to permit only, there is only one group that would benefit from that.
Who would benefit from that Brian? The tribes? Not if the state allows them only half the harvest which is within their rights to do (but only if we do a permit only system). This means that any time of the year a tribal member is caught without a tag hunting then they can be punished... Or atleast kept from hunting. I know it would deter a lot of them...
Michael
Post by: Ridgerunner on March 09, 2009, 01:57:23 PM
Post by: MichaelJ on March 09, 2009, 02:05:48 PM
InsideWDFW even stated that the department knows they can't do *censored* right now... Atleast if they went to permit only they'd have the authority to do something...
Michael
Post by: colockumelk on March 09, 2009, 03:33:03 PM
Road closures and 5 point restrictions will work.
5 pt minimum wont work. In 2007 rifle hunters had a 87.5 success rate. I could go in there any day of the week and knock over a 5pt minimum bull. I can't say the same for a spike. Just like the spikes the Colockum has a much higher success rate than the Yakima area does. I guarantee you if it were 3 or 5 pt minimum you'd have over a 50% kill off every year of your branch bulls. It would be just like before 1994. No big bulls with little ones doing all the breeding. It didn't work back then so what makes anyone think it would work now?
Okay here's my facts on how the permit only would work well in the Colockum. Here's how I figured out my numbers. I looked up the amount of spikes killed every year in each area. I then distributed those numbers to each user group using the formula already in place that the WDFW uses to determine which user group gets what permits. I then took those numbers and multiplied them by the average success rate for each user group in each hunt. I then added the amount of permits already given out. So here they are
CHANCE TO DRAW BY YEAR
CURRENTLY PERMIT ONLY INCREASE IN TAGS 1 Pts 2 Pts 3 Pts 4 Pts
MODERN 9 230 25.56X more tags 7.8% 31.2% 70.2% 125%
MUZZLE 2 60 30X more tags 18.9% 75.6% 170% 302%
BOW 3 100 33.3X more tags 13.2% 52.8% 118% 211%
TOTAL 14 390 28.56X more tags 13.3% 53.2% 118.9% 212.6%
Doesn't seem so bad now does it. Now that you know you'll be chasing mature bull elk at least every 3 years.
Post by: Buckrub on March 09, 2009, 04:17:21 PM
What about the tribes? How do you put the teeth into the tribal hunting?
Post by: gasman on March 09, 2009, 04:25:33 PM
What or where do the rest of the hunters go?
You know, the general hunting population for the area. The hundreds in not thousands (I do not know the exact number) of hunters that have hunted that area regularly and/or occationally for years as family traditions.
is there a ara that can sustain a dramidick increase in hunting pressure.
Or maybe we just identify those people and tell them they can not hunt unless,mthey draw a permit.
Not trying to stir the pot, but this is some thing that needs to be addressed also.
Post by: Buckrub on March 09, 2009, 05:06:31 PM
Will the tribes take half the permits for their share?
Post by: colockumelk on March 09, 2009, 05:18:30 PM
I'll bite....
What about the tribes? How do you put the teeth into the tribal hunting?
I'm not going to answer that question for the third time. I've alread answered your question. Read the previous threads.
The anwer to that is in the article I wrote at Washington Sportsmen.com go this link if you want to know how.
http://www.washingtonsportsmen.com/?q=node/80 (http://www.washingtonsportsmen.com/?q=node/80)
Post by: colockumelk on March 09, 2009, 05:23:43 PM
Again, i pose the question.
What or where do the rest of the hunters go?
They can still hunt the other areas. There are many, many other GMU's in this state that is not permit only.
You know, the general hunting population for the area. Yes it was 3893 in 2007 The hundreds if not thousands (I do not know the exact number) of hunters that have hunted that area regularly and/or occationally for years as family traditions. No one is saying they can't hunt. They will just have to hunt somewhere else unless they get drawn. Which as I have proven would be at the longest every 3 years.
is there a area that can sustain a dramatic increase in hunting pressure. Not all 3893 people would go to the same GMU.
Or maybe we just identify those people and tell them they can not hunt unless,mthey draw a permit.
Not trying to stir the pot, but this is some thing that needs to be addressed also.
Post by: gasman on March 09, 2009, 06:16:13 PM
To think that all or even 50% of the hunters will spread out over the rest of the state is not realistic. I would bet 90% would stay in the surrounding units and adding extra pressure to those units.
When they closed the Tennaway (or maybe it was cow only, i do not remeber the exact reason) about 3or4 years ago i seen a dramic increase in bow hunters in the Bumping unit during that year. We talked with many others that said "they moved because of the new regulations " "they wanted to hunt cow or spike and could not do that, so they headed to the closes open unit that would allow them to".
Just food for thought.......... :twocents:
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on March 09, 2009, 06:22:11 PM
I've also heard you mention 5 pt minimum.]
Huh? Where and when?
Post by: Cougeyes on March 09, 2009, 06:39:27 PM
I've read some of your posts and want to say thanks for taking the stance that you are and the effort that you're employing on this topic. 390 permits just seems way too many, and i know you're basing that off hunter success and spike recruitment etc.. I mean look at Peaches ridge unit that has a quality heard with some big bulls and has a general spike season, they only issued 267 permits last year between the 3 user groups. Although your calculations and everything lines up with me, 390 seems too many, at least to begin with. I dont disagree with going to permit only for the colockum, but disagree with issuing that many permits for a herd that needs to recover. I understand the recruitment of spikes would be exponential, however by issuing that many permits your larger bulls would get hammered right away, the main breeders leaving lesser bulls to breed....just seems like the permits should even be cut back at first until the number rebounds and the quality of branch bulls returns and can sustain issuing 390 permits. If 85% of spikes are killed every year just think about the success rate of permit hunters who could harverst a branched bull. I didn't read all your posts and maybe missed this in a discussion, sorry if you already mentioned this.
Post by: MichaelJ on March 09, 2009, 07:27:27 PM
Colockumelk,
I've read some of your posts and want to say thanks for taking the stance that you are and the effort that you're employing on this topic. 390 permits just seems way too many, and i know you're basing that off hunter success and spike recruitment etc.. I mean look at Peaches ridge unit that has a quality heard with some big bulls and has a general spike season, they only issued 267 permits last year between the 3 user groups. Although your calculations and everything lines up with me, 390 seems too many, at least to begin with. I dont disagree with going to permit only for the colockum, but disagree with issuing that many permits for a herd that needs to recover. I understand the recruitment of spikes would be exponential, however by issuing that many permits your larger bulls would get hammered right away, the main breeders leaving lesser bulls to breed....just seems like the permits should even be cut back at first until the number rebounds and the quality of branch bulls returns and can sustain issuing 390 permits. If 85% of spikes are killed every year just think about the success rate of permit hunters who could harverst a branched bull. I didn't read all your posts and maybe missed this in a discussion, sorry if you already mentioned this.
Why not split the 390 tags between cows/spike/bulls???
Michael
Post by: Cougeyes on March 09, 2009, 08:09:09 PM
Post by: colockumelk on March 09, 2009, 09:40:02 PM
Colockumelk,
I've read some of your posts and want to say thanks for taking the stance that you are and the effort that you're employing on this topic. 390 permits just seems way too many, and i know you're basing that off hunter success and spike recruitment etc.. I mean look at Peaches ridge unit that has a quality heard with some big bulls and has a general spike season, they only issued 267 permits last year between the 3 user groups. Although your calculations and everything lines up with me, 390 seems too many, at least to begin with. I dont disagree with going to permit only for the colockum, but disagree with issuing that many permits for a herd that needs to recover. I understand the recruitment of spikes would be exponential, however by issuing that many permits your larger bulls would get hammered right away, the main breeders leaving lesser bulls to breed....just seems like the permits should even be cut back at first until the number rebounds and the quality of branch bulls returns and can sustain issuing 390 permits. If 85% of spikes are killed every year just think about the success rate of permit hunters who could harverst a branched bull. I didn't read all your posts and maybe missed this in a discussion, sorry if you already mentioned this.
Thank you Cougeyes for taking the time to read my post. When I calculated the 390 number I meant for the 2010 hunting season not the 2009 hunting season. Ideally they would close it down for 2009 in order to get a quick bounce of an additional 350 spikes that would turn into branch bulls. Either that or make it permit only for 2009 and just keep the amount of branch permits that they were originally going to give out this year. As for why there would be more permits given in the Colockum than in the Peaches Ridge unit; Most people agree that the WDFW is super stingy on giving out their branch bull permits and could as of right now give out way more permits than they do. Especially since the Yakima herd is above the goal for a good bull to cow ratio. Here's an example of how I came up with my stuff.
CSPCurrent amount of bull permits given out.
SPIKE HARVEST Amount of Spikes killed in that unit that could have become branch bulls
RATIO % Percent of Animals that go to that user group/Number of animals entitled to that user group.
ADD Additional amount of special permits that would now be available.
TOTAL The new amount of special permits that would now be given out.
MODERN
GMU CSP SPIKE HARVEST RATIO% ADD. TOTAL
Colockum 9 266 64%/170 221 230
Peaches Ridge 150 115 55%/63 110 260
Observatory 80 136 41%/56 70 160
Goose Prairie 96 59 39%/23 44 140
Bethel 62 63 53%/33 58 120
Rimrock 123 42 53%22 47 170
Cowiche 24 99 48%/48 26 50
TOTAL: 567 780 AVG.50%/415 576 1143
NOTEWhile the Colockum only accounts for 25% of the 300 series elk population. It accounts for 34% of the spike harvest. Compare this to Peaches Ridge/Observatory which accounts for 32% of the spike harvest, Goose Prairie/Bethel which accounts for 15% of the harvest and Rimrock/Cowiche which accounts for 18% of the spike harvests. This is why if the Colockum would greatly benefit from a permit only system (with an increase of 25.5x more special permits given out) while the Yakima herd if it went to permit only would not benefit nearly as much (only an increase of only 1.6X more permits given out)
Post by: Cougeyes on March 10, 2009, 08:33:23 AM
Post by: colockumelk on March 10, 2009, 12:06:13 PM
In another thread I realized many misunderstood what my main goal is. It's my fault because I forgot to completely mention it. My goal is not for the Colockum to go to permit only forever. I just want it to go to permit only so we can build the herd back up. The following explains what I would like to see happen and why.
It would go permit only for the next three or four years. This year it would be permit only and they would give out the amount of permits that they have already specified. 9 for modern, 4 for bow and 1 for ML. Then they would for the next three years set the branch permit levels by their surveys just like they do now. Like I said I don't think that 390 permits would be that big of a stretch, but who knows it is the WDFW we are talking about. Like you I also believe, actually I KNOW it's all about the revenue.
This three year pause in the general hunting season would give the herd time to rebuild it's bull to cow ratio to a healthy ratio. It would also give us the time needed to close down enough roads to actually make a difference. If it stayed general season we wouldn't have time this summer to close enough roads to help the herd out. I don't want it to be permit only just like all of you. I just don't see how with the current situation there is any other choice.
I also want to get support for permit only in there so we can have an affect on the circumstances and stipulations of going to permit only because it is going to happen whether we like it or not. The "True Spike" only thing is a last resort before they close it or go to permit only. If it doesn't work then it's permit only and the WDFW even said they only expect it to have a 10% improvement on the yearling bull survival. So even they don't think it will work. I know this is not what many want to hear but like I said it's coming whether we want it to or not.
Post by: Cougeyes on March 10, 2009, 01:35:16 PM
I am concerned though with where these user groups will go if the colockum is shut down and the impacts they may have in other GMU's. Hopefully they dont all pile into one GMU and harvest a bunch of spikes hurting that herd. I can't think of other GMU's though that are comparable to the Colockum in terms of habitat and access and the openness.
I really hope some of the access is limited up there, although if gates are installed i know we will have those that will find a way around. If tribal members want to hunt up there hopefully they will have to work for their take and then wont shoot as many and anyone else attempting to poach up there.
Post by: colockumelk on March 12, 2009, 01:03:10 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on March 12, 2009, 05:36:31 AM
Post by: colockumelk on March 12, 2009, 11:37:29 AM
Thats a big "IF" and you maybe be hoping for a while.
What do you mean by that. Please explain.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on March 12, 2009, 11:54:22 AM
Post by: SpotandStalk on March 12, 2009, 07:48:09 PM
Whichever option DFW chooses (personally I think road closures is the easiest and am in somewhat favor of a permit only system for the Quilomene, true spike is just stupid) the option will be implemented for Quilomene, Naneum, Teanaway, and Mission....sorry, but the Teanaway is no where near similar to the Quilomene and shouldn't be managed the same, not even the Naneum and Quilomene can be considered comparable. Personally I think the boundaries of GMU 329 need to be changed to include a few canyons west, and this would allow for a intense management of that particular unit, which IMHO is the only problem.
Post by: colockumelk on March 12, 2009, 08:16:27 PM
"IF" we go permit only for 3 years.
Oh okay. Yeah I sort of agree, it seems that when they take something from us they never give it back. IE the late muzzle loader elk season. We do need to prepare for the permit only thing, since I was told the "true spike"only thing is their last resort before that. Which is a stupid idea. I think we can all agree the only thing that will do is create a bunch of accidental poachers.
Spot and stalk you are pretty much dead on. I do not know why the Teanaway is being included in the spike only thing. Yeah 328/329 have a combined harvest of 300 spikes a year but the Teanaway only has like a 30-40 spike per year harvest. Their recruitment is fine.
I understand many do not want a permit only. But the truth of the matter is the area has too much road access and is too open, and the rifle guys are just knocking the piss out of the spike herd. Muzzle Loaders aren't in there and the bow guys don't harvest very many spikes. I'm not trying to play one group against another but it's just facts. Look at the harvest reports.
We all know that there is a massive problem with spike recruitment. Road access would help out but that will take time. Let me ask you all this. If so many hate the idea of permit only would anyone rather have the rifle season in there taken away and replaced with a muzzle loader season?
This would dramatically increase the recruitment of spikes and guys could still have a general season. Shoot even maybe make a modern/muzzle loader season where guys can use scopes any type of bullet and the muzzle loaders that are sealed to the elements. What do you all think?
Post by: colockumelk on March 14, 2009, 06:41:08 PM
Please send the below message to the wildlife commission. Things need to happen as soon as possible. We are on a time crunch so we need max participation. The Colockum elk herd needs you. So please carefully read what's below. If you agree then please send it. If not then don't. If there's something you'd like to change in it then let me know and I'll change it. So please for the sake of the elk herd send it to the commission. Thank you for your support.
wildthing@dfw.wa.gov
Dear Wildlife Commission,
My name is:
My email address is:
I agree with the following letter that Mr. Aaron Blanchard has typed up. This needs to happen as soon as possible not later, as later will be too late for the Colockum elk herd. I am sending this to you to let you know that I support a Permit only system for the Colockum (GMU's 328 and 329) instead of the proposed "true spike" rule.
Dear Wildlife Commission,
My name is Aaron Blanchard and I represent a group known as Washington Sportsmen. Recently I attended the meeting that was held in Ellensburg, WA. First of all I would like to thank you for the time I was allowed to speak and I again thank you for taking the time to read this. The following are the facts of the situation. It is also exactly what I said at the meeting in Ellensburg. All of the following facts and statistics are from your website. They have been taken from harvest reports, game trend reports and also the studies done for the elk herd plans. I was also asked a question that I should have answered more thoroughly. At the end is the response to that question.
In the past 5 years the branch bull population in the Colockum has been absolutely decimated. Currently the branch bull to cow ratio is 5:100. In 2002 there were 391 branch bulls in the Colockum and as of 2007 there are only 116 branch bulls left. This is a decline of 70%. LET ME REITERATE THAT. That is a decline of 70%. That is a decline of 14% a year. If this trend continues by 2011 there wont be any branch bulls left in the Colockum.
You need to act now, now 3 years from now. You need to go to permit only now. The elk need a stimulus package worse than our country does. There are various reasons why the branch bull population has been decimated. They are poaching, tribal-hunting, and far too much road access. Some of these are out of your hands and others will take alot of time and resources to change. Time that the Colockum elk do not have. You need to control what you can which is spike recruitment. You have the power to make things happen now which is what you need to do.
The main problem with the Colockum elk herd is spike recruitment. In the Colockum the average harvest is 135 per GMU. In the Yakima herd the average spike harvest per GMU is only 57. The Colockum has a spike harvest average per GMU of almost 3 times that of the Yakima GMUs. 85% of all yearling bulls in the Colockum are killed every year. Only 15% of yearling bulls in the Colockum survive their first two years. In 2005 only 46 spikes made it through the hunting season in the entire Colockum.
The best course of action is to go to Permit Only now, not later. Do what is right even if it is unpopular. Sometimes the right choice isn't the popular choice. Often the popular opinion isn't always an ethical one. In any case during the surveys over the past year the public favored permit only over the "True Spike" proposition. So why did you not go to permit only like the public wanted? For those that oppose this what many people don't realize is that every year in the Colockum 300 or more spikes are harvested by hunters. If it were permit only this would mean 300 more spikes would survive to become branch antlered bulls every year. With special permit success rates being about 50% this would mean you could give out 600 branch bull permits in the Colockum every year instead of the 6 that were given out last year.
For the sake of the elk in the Colockum please do the right thing. True Spike might have been a good idea ten years ago but right now the True Spike concept would be too little and too late.
I was asked this question at the end of my speech. "Would I support the closure of all elk hunting in the Colockum for one year."
My answer was a definate yes. But under four conditions.
1.) It's closed to everyone for that year. Licensed-Hunters, Master-Hunters, and Tribal-Hunters. The courts have ruled that state regulation of tribal exercise of off-reservation hunting rights on open and unclaimed land is preempted by the Stevens Treaties, except where state regulation is necessary for conservation purposes While the Boldt Decision of February 12, 1974 did grant the tribes 50% of all the fish harvest it did reserve the state's right to
The courts have ruled that state regulation of tribal exercise of off-reservation hunting rights on open and unclaimed land is preempted by the Stevens Treaties, except where state regulation is necessary for conservation purposes
2.) After a year when you do open it up it goes to permit only for at least three years in order to moniter how well the herd is doing. If it goes back to the status quo we will be in the same boat we are in right now.
3.) When it is permit only you issue far more permits than are currently issued. Without the massive amounts of spikes being harvested every year, you would have these spikes living to become branch bulls so you could afford to give out far more branch bull permits. I have submitted an example of just how many permits you could give out. I came up with the numbers by this method. I took (Avg. # of spikes harvested in the Colockum 266.) And disributed those amongst the three user groups utilizing your distribution ratios. (Modern would get 170 of the 266.) I then multiplied that number by the average special permit success rate. (170 x 70%= 221) I then added the amount that is already given out to get my total of permits you could and should give out. (221 + 9 = 230) So for example if it goes to permit only you could give out 230 branch bull permits instead of 9 and still grow the herd. Below are the numbers. Obviously this is just an example of how many numbers could be possible. This is obviously not the exact number that would be used and I'm sure you guys would set your own numbers.
CSP Current amount of bull permits given out.
SPIKE HARVEST Total Amount of Spikes killed in that unit that could have become branch bulls
RATIO % Percent of Animals that go to that user group/Number of animals entitled to that user group.
ADD Additional amount of special permits that would now be available.
TOTAL The new amount of special permits that would now be given out.
CSP SPIKE HARVEST RATIO% ADD. TOTAL
MODERN 9 266 64%170 221 230
MUZZLE 1 266 15%/40 59 60
BOW 4 266 21%/56 96 100
TOTAL 14 376 390
4.) After three years do a study to see if the Colockum elk herd can again be hunted using a general season now that road closures have had a chance to be implemented. The intent of the permit only is not to make the permit only a permanent change but only a temporary one in order to build the herd back up. And to give us time to create physical barriers to limit some of the road access that is available in GMU's 328 and 329.
With 390 branch permits given out and a success rate of 65% this would only lead to the harvest of 256 bull elk a year. Far short of the 300 plus spikes killed a year with the current seasons. Again thank you for your time. And I hope that you will listen to us and take our ideas into consideration. We are not doing this to promote some sort of trophy hunt. We are doing this so for the Colockum elk herd. We all want to see the Colockum elk herd thrive so that our children and our childrens children can enjoy the same type of hunting that we currently enjoy.
Respectfully Aaron Blanchard and the Washington Sportsmen
Post by: colockumelk on March 14, 2009, 06:42:59 PM
Also for those that don't like everything I said or wrote about please feel free to write your own version of what you would like to see happen involving a permit only system for three years. I know many feel it's completely the Indians fault. They are part of the problem in the Colockum but it's only a piece of the pie. I guarantee you they kill far more in the Yakima herds and they are fine. We need to look at ourselves first before we point the fingers and correct ourselves before we try and correct others. That's how I was raised and that's what I believe. YAK-NDN had an excellant point. How can we go over to them screaming about them killing off all of our bulls when they can come back with the amount of bulls both branch and spikes (future bulls) that we kill a year.
Post by: elksnout on March 14, 2009, 08:22:56 PM
Post by: Buckrub on March 14, 2009, 09:36:35 PM
Why should one have to wait TEN FRIGGIN years or more to draw a permit! While others draw with one point
If you have 900 bulls put into the herd in three years by not hunting spikes and you want a total harvest of 35% just reduce the amount of days of a general season antler restricted hunt for everybody.
FAQ IT...make it ten point or better...there is your quality hunt but do it for everybody! ok...maybe 10 point or better is tooooo much.
Post by: colockumelk on March 15, 2009, 01:00:15 PM
Why go back to spike only? isn't this what destroyed the herd?
Actually spike only works in the Yakima herd. The difference between them and the Colockum is the amount of road access and how wide and open the Colockum is. Have you ever hunted in the Colockum?
Why should one have to wait TEN FRIGGIN years or more to draw a permit! While others draw with one point
It's called a lottery system. It has nothing to do with revenue and no one is out to get you. It's called luck of the draw. Most western states have some type of point system. We are no different.
If you have 900 bulls put into the herd in three years by not hunting spikes and you want a total harvest of 35% just reduce the amount of days of a general season antler restricted hunt for everybody.
Yeah this would work but you'd have to restrict the general season to only a day or two. That would be some quality hunting. NOT
FAQ IT...make it ten point or better...there is your quality hunt but do it for everybody! ok...maybe 10 point or better is tooooo much.
So what you're saying is who cares about the elk, you want to hunt branch bull all year long. Prove how this would work. Prove using facts and statistics from any research that this could work
I understand you believe that a 5 pt minimum system would work with a season reduction. It might work but how far are you willing to retrict the season? If you've ever hunted the Colockum you'd know that by the end of opening day over half of that seasons harvest is over. By the end of the weekend over 2/3's of the elk that will be killed that year are already dead. So should we limit people to one weekend a year to hunt? And you said 35% does that mean we should close the season after 12 0'clock on opening day? You're being way more restrictive than a permit only would be.
You say that point restrictions work on the West Side. So are you comparing the thick timber of the west side to the open timber and sage brush of the Colockum? It's kind of apples to oranges isn't it. 3 pt minimum works over there because the terrain is so thick. An elk can be gone in two steps. Plus there is a whole hell of alot more places for the elk to escape to out west than the Colockum have. The Colockum have virtually nowhere to escape to. Also unlike the West side, if an elk is seen and starts to run off a guy has enough time to empty his gun at the elk. Then the elk still isn't safe because there's probably ten more guys that saw the same elk.
The problem is too much road access, not enough cover and too many hunters which all equal not enough spikes live through the year to become branch bulls. Do you realize that on average 4,280 guys cram into two GMU's to hunt about 2,500 elk? That is almost 2 hunters for every elk. But in reality that equals about 11 hunters for every legal spike running around. That's not hunting that is a slaughter.
I've come up with alot of facts to prove that my way would work. You however have not been able to do the same. You seem to only care about one thing, and that's being able to hunt branch bulls every year no matter the consequences to the elk. Do you not realize that if it was 5 pt minimum that within three years your branch bull population in the Colockum would cease to exist? It was any elk on the east side before 1994 and it didn't work then and it definately wont work now. I know you think it worked but it didn't. If you ever went to the feed stations during the winter you would know that. You'd be lucky to see a 6 pt that would score 280. Now a 280 bull is a dime a dozen.
I'm trying to bring up solutions to a problem that we can actually implement. You are bringing up dreams and fantasies. If the "true spike" thing doesn't work THEY WILL GO to permit only. At least now if we try to change things ourselves instead of it being completely on their terms.
Post by: Buckrub on March 15, 2009, 02:13:45 PM
One hundred thousand Washington elk hunters harvest approximately 7,000 elk annually from
an estimated population of approximately 56,000. Washington has more elk hunters per elk than
any other western state and has no limit on the number of elk licenses sold. Because anyone can
purchase a license and hunt elk, success rates for general season hunters are low. Without carefully managed season timing, antler point restrictions, and relatively short seasons, the male
sub-population would be over-harvested. Opportunities to hunt and spend time afield must be
balanced against achieving or maintaining elk population objectives. As herd population levels
increase, harvest levels will increase as well.
As mandated by the Washington State Legislature (RCW 77.04.012), “… the department shall
preserve, protect, perpetuate, and manage the wildlife…”; “the department shall conserve the
wildlife… in a manner that does not impair the resource…”; and “The commission shall attempt
to maximize the public recreational… hunting opportunities of all citizens, including juvenile,
disabled, and senior citizens.” It is this mandate that sets the overall policy and direction for
managing hunted wildlife. Hunters and hunting will continue to play a significant role in the
conservation and management of Washington’s wildlife.
This is from the wdfw...now on to your questions.
Have I ever hunted the Clockum?
next year will be my 39th year hunting Washington...what do you think? Yes.
Yes it is a lottery system and YOU may never hunt for bull elk on the eastside in your entire life, and we still don't meet bull to cow ratio.
Ok...rifle hunters only get a weekend hunt...better than never! select road closures would enhance escapement...at least you would get to hunt. With no general season and a e/w tag, you don't draw you don't hunt that year and maybe you don't hunt there ever again, even with 15 points. 15 points only allows 45 entries into the draw system.
How could a weekend with a 1 in 3 chance of harvesting a mature bull be more restrictive than NEVER hunting.
I've hunted elk long enough to know mature bulls are very weary and even without cover they can put a man to shame in seconds....especially in the clockum.
Wouldn't road closures be considered habitat enhancement?
You yourself have said it would work in your comment but it would be a short season...why do I have to prove anything?
5 or 6 point antler restriction to a general season would be short for a lead thrower but I'd bet WE could figure out how to lengthen the season with select habitat enhancement (road closures).
Post by: Snapshot on March 15, 2009, 06:04:38 PM
Post by: Thenewguy on March 15, 2009, 06:08:25 PM
Post by: Snapshot on March 15, 2009, 06:57:20 PM
Post by: colockumelk on March 15, 2009, 07:49:06 PM
Post by: colockumelk on March 15, 2009, 07:53:52 PM
Have I ever hunted the Clockum?
next year will be my 39th year hunting Washington...what do you think? Yes.
Yes it is a lottery system and YOU may never hunt for bull elk on the eastside in your entire life, and we still don't meet bull to cow ratio.
I'll most likely get drawn this year and I only have four points. Archery guys get drawn on average every four years in the Yakima GMU"s where the ML's and the rifle guys average every 6 years. Unless you put in for the Colockum only or the Blue MT units only you should as well.
Most of the Yakima herds meet their bull to cow ratio objectives. The Colockum doesn't because too many spikes are killed every year. Spike only works for the Yakima herd because they have alot less road access then we do. I know we both agree on limiting road access so no need toget into that.
Ok...rifle hunters only get a weekend hunt...better than never! select road closures would enhance escapement...at least you would get to hunt. With no general season and a e/w tag, you don't draw you don't hunt that year and maybe you don't hunt there ever again, even with 15 points. 15 points only allows 45 entries into the draw system.
How could a weekend with a 1 in 3 chance of harvesting a mature bull be more restrictive than NEVER hunting.
You must not be familiar with how the point system work. They square the points you have. Which means if you have 15 points then you would have 15x15=225 points. Again with this much points you could easily draw any Yakima unit even with a rifle tag.
Where do you think hunters couldn't hunt at all. I would rather get drawn every three years in the Colockum and get to have an awsome hunt, and; still get to hunt every year just in another GMU (There are 10 other GMU's to hunt) then only get to hunt for two days. In order to meet your 5 pt minimum objective the season would be so short it wouldn't even be worth it. Many take an entire week to go hunting and your plan would limit them to two days at the most.
I've hunted elk long enough to know mature bulls are very weary and even without cover they can put a man to shame in seconds....especially in the clockum.
Yes but with a rifle it's mostly about chance. Maybe in thicker areas a weary bull can survive but not in the open like that. They may evade one guy but are they going to be able to evade 9 other guys in one draw that's super open, when the bull is pushed? It's not a matter of how weary and cagey the bull is. When guys can shoot and see 400 yds the bull doesn't stand a chance. A chance that I'm trying to give these elk.
Wouldn't road closures be considered habitat enhancement?
Obviously there needs to be some major road restrictions in these GMU's. This will be my major goal this year is physically closing down as many roads as they'll let me close.
You yourself have said it would work in your comment but it would be a short season...why do I have to prove anything?
Because I've already proven myself to people with alot of facts and stats. I've shown that my method would indeed work. I've shown how mathematically you would get drawn every 3 years and many would get drawn every 2 years. Now YOU NEED to show us stats etc how your plan would work. How many days could guys hunt. What would the restrictions be, when would the season be. Who knows it might be a good idea and I'l incorporate it into my plans when I go before the commission and when I go to the big game round table discussions. Make a believer out of me. The more ideas the better.
5 or 6 point antler restriction to a general season would be short for a lead thrower but I'd bet WE could figure out how to lengthen the season with select habitat enhancement (road closures).
Post by: Buckrub on March 16, 2009, 05:01:39 AM
Begging your pardon, Buckrub, but I think (someone correct me if I'm wrong) that Washington 'squares' the points. So if a guy has accumulated 15 points, his name will be "in the hat" 225 times.
Glad somebody caught that....does 225 entries get someone a tag?
15 points = 15years without a tag....careful what you wish for.
Post by: Snapshot on March 16, 2009, 08:32:59 PM
What I wish for is that the Westside will always have general season '3 point minimum' units where a guy who only hunts elk for the occasional chance to slow dance with a good bull will always have a place to go to attempt to make that happen.
Snappy
Post by: MichaelJ on March 16, 2009, 08:47:23 PM
IMHO from what I've read you're pretty dillusional about your management proposals... You just want to be able to hunt year after year and want to be able to hunt branch bulls every year regardless of herd conditions... Well I got some solutions for you... go hunt Oregon, go hunt Idaho, go hunt the Westside of the state and let the colockum be managed by those who care more about the elk than getting their hunting time in year after year...
Michael
Post by: colockumelk on March 16, 2009, 10:39:01 PM
Nice Michael. Nice.
Post by: colockumelk on March 16, 2009, 11:37:29 PM
Post by: MichaelJ on March 17, 2009, 12:34:58 AM
Michael
Post by: bowhuntin on March 17, 2009, 12:42:46 AM
Go to this link and it will show you just how many more branch bull permits there could be given out every year if it was permit only. I also added the numbers for if the Yakima herd was permit only. It's an increas of about 3.42 times more permits given out. This means you all would get drawn 3.42 times more often for a big bull. For some archery units that would be every single year. :drool:
I think this is the link you forgot to post...
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,22997.msg264574/topicseen.html#new
Post by: Buckrub on March 17, 2009, 12:42:10 PM
Buckrub, is it better to have a system where you can put in with only a few bonus points and have a chance at drawing a tag or do only the older generations who have been putting in for tags and have those 15+ bonus points get their tags before those with less points get drawn? With what you're complaining about, I would NEVER draw a tag as I've only had a few years of hunting to acquire bonus points and improve my odds but if we make sure only those with max points draw then I'll never have a chance.
IMHO from what I've read you're pretty dillusional about your management proposals... You just want to be able to hunt year after year and want to be able to hunt branch bulls every year regardless of herd conditions... Well I got some solutions for you... go hunt Oregon, go hunt Idaho, go hunt the Westside of the state and let the colockum be managed by those who care more about the elk than getting their hunting time in year after year...
Michael
You are forgetting the thousands of general season hunters who don't draw or didn't put in.
Clockum throws out tons of numbers but forgets about all the hunters and where they would go. Quote" some hunters would just quit" IMO less hunters is less of a voice and you already getting screwed. Maybe you are one of those hunters who would just quit.
Never once did I say hunt without regard to the elk population....I am fighting for you to have a good hunt every year. I have killed my big bulls and don't have enough room for more. I am a public land bowhunter.
Your statement conflicts itself...if you can't think past yourself don't try to post a crazy statement like this one, in other words "grow up".
Simple fact...escapement can be controlled and the general season hunter deserves to hunt and elk deserve better management.
Post by: Buckrub on March 17, 2009, 12:51:21 PM
Go to this link and it will show you just how many more branch bull permits there could be given out every year if it was permit only. I also added the numbers for if the Yakima herd was permit only. It's an increas of about 3.42 times more permits given out. This means you all would get drawn 3.42 times more often for a big bull. For some archery units that would be every single year. :drool:
Your numbers are flawed...you try to make it sound like the average hunter would get drawn more often but you can't control the amount of permits given out or the thousands of new entries from general season hunters.
It takes about 4 years to draw a permit on average...you might see ten year average with your proposal...one hunt every ten years...now there is something to look forward to.
You forget why the elk are even there, because us older hunters wanted better, this current system is not what we had in mind when they said temporary.
Post by: Cougeyes on March 17, 2009, 02:47:46 PM
I'm all for shutting down roads as i've been a firm believer that will stop a lot of people and subsequently lower harvest. I do agree that those "other" hunters are not accounted for and agree that if it went to permit only there would be a lot more applicants. I'm one of those hunters that only put in for the bull tags and dont even bother hunting for spike. I just can't see those hunters that hunt spikes just quiting.
Post by: colockumelk on March 17, 2009, 11:01:37 PM
My numbers and my FACTS and STATS are true. I took them from sources I can site using permit techniques that the WDFW currently uses, using harvest reports and data done by surveys and studies. My numbers are not flawed. I'd say you're numbers are flawed but you don't have any. You just pull things out of your assumptions. Please explain to us how and why if it was permit only where they are giving out 3.42 times more permits that it would take 10 years to draw a permit when on average it only takes 6 for rifle and 4 for bow? I'm wondering what sort of math you use?
Here's the math that I use. More permits equals getting drawn more often. Pretty simple. So please share with us the research that you have done that debunks all of my research. Cite some sources and show us your numbers if mine are so flawed. I don't mind a good debate and a difference of opinion, hell that's why I come here but when someone calls me a liar and says my info is flawed when that person doesn't have anything but opinions and assumptions then I get pissed and take offense.
I doubt I'll respond to anymore of your lies until you show me some research and cold hard facts.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on March 22, 2009, 01:41:26 PM
I believe this is Colockumelk.... (Summaries)
Go Permit only on the Colockum. Bulls are down 70% in five years. True spike is not the answer.
Now the agency response
"There are over 6000 hunters that hunt the Colockum elk herd during the general season. The agency is not ready to implement that drastic of of a measure at this time"
Next comment
supports true spike in the Colockum, unless it needs to be closed for conservation
Response
"the Colockum herd is not in a condition that would require a conservation closure at this time. Thank you for the support
Next comment
If youneed to go permit only on the Colockum, then close it for a year.
Response
"the Colockum herd is not in a condition that would require a conservation closure at this time"
Looks like it will be true spike for now.
Post by: colockumelk on March 22, 2009, 06:35:57 PM
The others must have been from other people.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on March 23, 2009, 09:33:41 AM
Here it is from the Friday WDFW Alert. links should get you there
From: WDFW Public Affairs (do.not.reply@dfw.wa.gov)
Sent: Fri 3/20/09 5:30 PM
WDFW NEWS RELEASE
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov/
March 20, 2009
Contact: Susan Yeager, (360) 902-2267
Fish and Wildlife Commission will consider
proposed hunting rules for 2009-11
OLYMPIA - The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission will consider adopting a three-year package of statewide hunting seasons and rules during a public meeting scheduled April 3-4 in Olympia.
The commission, which sets policy for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), will meet both days at 8:30 a.m. in Room 172 of the Natural Resources Building at 1111 Washington St. S.E.
Hunting seasons under consideration include those for deer, elk, moose, bighorn sheep, mountain goat, black bear, cougar and small game in 2009, 2010 and 2011.
Commissioners also will consider proposed revisions in special seasons and hunting restrictions; opportunities for terminally ill and disabled hunters; landowner hunting permits and damage-prevention permit hunts; trapping seasons; big game and wild turkey auctions, raffle and special-incentive permits; special closures and game management unit boundary descriptions; non-toxic shot requirements; and hunting equipment restrictions.
The commission is scheduled to take action on the three-year hunting plan April 4, the second day of the public meeting. Proposals now before the commission are posted at http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/game/seasonsetting/index.htm#recommendations on the WDFW website.
Several of those proposals reflect changes made in response to public testimony at the commission's meeting last month in Ellensburg, said Dave Ware, WDFW game manager. No further public testimony is scheduled on the three-year hunting plan at the April 3-4 commission meeting.
The proposals, developed after extensive public involvement, are based on the 2009-15 Game Management Plan, available at http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/game/management/2009-2015/ .
On the first day of the meeting, the commission is scheduled to take action on two proposed land transactions and will receive briefings from WDFW staff on issues ranging from the state's aquaculture industry to illegal marijuana growing on public lands.
A meeting agenda and background materials are posted on the commission's website at http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings.html .
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on March 23, 2009, 09:43:01 AM
one of the other 2 was me.
Here it is from the Friday WDFW Alert. links should get you there
From: WDFW Public Affairs (do.not.reply@dfw.wa.gov)
Sent: Fri 3/20/09 5:30 PM
WDFW NEWS RELEASE
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov/
March 20, 2009
Contact: Susan Yeager, (360) 902-2267
Fish and Wildlife Commission will consider
proposed hunting rules for 2009-11
OLYMPIA - The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission will consider adopting a three-year package of statewide hunting seasons and rules during a public meeting scheduled April 3-4 in Olympia.
The commission, which sets policy for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), will meet both days at 8:30 a.m. in Room 172 of the Natural Resources Building at 1111 Washington St. S.E.
Hunting seasons under consideration include those for deer, elk, moose, bighorn sheep, mountain goat, black bear, cougar and small game in 2009, 2010 and 2011.
Commissioners also will consider proposed revisions in special seasons and hunting restrictions; opportunities for terminally ill and disabled hunters; landowner hunting permits and damage-prevention permit hunts; trapping seasons; big game and wild turkey auctions, raffle and special-incentive permits; special closures and game management unit boundary descriptions; non-toxic shot requirements; and hunting equipment restrictions.
The commission is scheduled to take action on the three-year hunting plan April 4, the second day of the public meeting. Proposals now before the commission are posted at http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/game/seasonsetting/index.htm#recommendations on the WDFW website.
Several of those proposals reflect changes made in response to public testimony at the commission's meeting last month in Ellensburg, said Dave Ware, WDFW game manager. No further public testimony is scheduled on the three-year hunting plan at the April 3-4 commission meeting.
The proposals, developed after extensive public involvement, are based on the 2009-15 Game Management Plan, available at http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/game/management/2009-2015/ .
On the first day of the meeting, the commission is scheduled to take action on two proposed land transactions and will receive briefings from WDFW staff on issues ranging from the state's aquaculture industry to illegal marijuana growing on public lands.
A meeting agenda and background materials are posted on the commission's website at http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings.html .
Anyone going?