Post by: PA BEN on December 26, 2018, 05:59:08 AM
https://www.capitalpress.com/ag_sectors/livestock/wolf-advisory-group-looks-at-boosting-deer-elk-populations/article_4baa9810-fef0-11e8-bf94-1b3157632dfa.html
Post by: Taco280AI on December 26, 2018, 06:11:18 AM
Post by: JBar on December 26, 2018, 06:12:54 AM
Post by: STARVATION on December 26, 2018, 06:15:56 AM
The goal of ending hunting has been long known
[/qu
For at least the past thirty years I've been following the nonsense the Department of Predator Propagation has been spewing.
Post by: boneaddict on December 26, 2018, 06:20:01 AM
The goal of ending hunting has been long knownYep!
Post by: Southpole on December 26, 2018, 06:27:56 AM
The goal of ending hunting has been long knownI’ve been talking about that for years with my hunting pals and aquatintances. Funny thing I’m not seeing as much eye rolling from them like I used to.
Post by: ljsommer on December 26, 2018, 07:19:08 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 26, 2018, 07:47:11 AM
Post by: boneaddict on December 26, 2018, 08:42:07 AM
Post by: Taco280AI on December 26, 2018, 08:49:10 AM
And after hunting is ended, then what? Take away something else....
There's many that want to end the consumption of all meat.
If a conservative doesn't like guns, they don't buy them. If a lib doesn't like guns, they don't want anyone to have them.
If a conservative doesn't like hunting, they don't hunt. If a lib doesn't like hunting, they don't want anyone to hunt.
Same applies for many things
Post by: ctwiggs1 on December 26, 2018, 08:56:03 AM
Apparently there are so many deer in the NE Corner that they're switched to any buck/any deer for rifle/others.
But we need more??
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 26, 2018, 09:20:34 AM
The goal of ending hunting has been long known
I and many other have been saying this since before the adoption of the outrageous wolf plan.
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 26, 2018, 09:26:30 AM
Post by: Magnum_Willys on December 26, 2018, 09:32:54 AM
Post by: jrebel on December 26, 2018, 09:35:03 AM
Post by: Jake Dogfish on December 26, 2018, 09:42:51 AM
I think its a great approach - increased game through habitat and predator management is good for all as long as hunting opportunities are managed positively .:yeah:
It’s amazing how many just comment on the thread title.
Post by: huntnphool on December 26, 2018, 09:52:23 AM
Quote
I feel a lot better about the direction this particular meeting took than a lot of the meetings I've been at prior," said group member Andy Hover, who represents hunters on the group. He is also an Okanogan County commissioner and has a ranching background.
I don't know Andy Hover but I'd like to know what he is saying while representing us as hunters. :dunno:
Post by: wolfbait on December 26, 2018, 10:08:43 AM
And after hunting is ended, then what? Take away something else....
Just another step towards a huge land grab, no hunting won't stop or even slow down wolf predation on livestock. Next will be no range permits and as we have already seen the USFS etc. have been closing road for quit some time now. Bring the grizzly bear in and that will shut down huge chunks of public access.
Welcome to the Y2Y implemented through predators, fish etc..
Massive Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y) Land Grab Will Hurt You
-----The Washington State Senate has just had introduced again a bill (SB 5064) that would create in Washington the Yellowstone to Yukon to Eco-Region.
A huge amount of Washington State is affected.
Urgent Action By You Is Required
-----The bill says:
"SB 5064 -- Participating in the management of Washington's portion of the Yukon to Yellowstone Rocky mountain ecosystem."
This bill was introduced in 2008 and much to everyone's surprise, passed the Washington State Senate. So you cannot take your Senator for granted. You must deluge your Washington State Senator with phone calls and e-mails. Faxes too.
Why you should oppose SB 5064:
You can get the direct phone number for your Washington State Senator or Representative by calling 1-800-562-6000
"Proponents of protecting the Y2Y corridor say they want to foster the coexistence of humans and the ecosystem and hope to see land-use decisions in the region based primarily on ecological principles."
Y2Y will do great damage to ranchers, miners, forestry, farmers, and all kinds of other users? It would strangle rural communities with new regulations. A vast series of new series of land regulations will be imposed to control land use jeopardizing private property rights and economic growth.
-----This massive Eco-System land grab affects large portions of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming.
If Y2Y passes into law in Washington, it will set the stage to pass it into law in the other states. People living in other states affected by Y2Y must get in touch with their legislators immediately and head Y2Y off.
Here is the Greens former website with a map of Y2Y so you can get an idea of how huge this proposal is.
www.y2y.net
Excerpt from Rep. Joel Kretz Press Release Feb 18, 2008
Kretz thinks bill to authorize Y2Y territory is harebrained.
Shaking his head in exasperation, Rep. Joel Kretz today said he's never seen such harebrained legislation in all his years.
Senate Bill 5318 would create the Yellowstone to Yukon wildlife corridor (Y2Y). The measure was the subject of debate in the Senate recently.
Kretz said Senate Bill 5318 (Now SB 5064), which would require American fish and wildlife officials to work with their Canadian counterparts to protect a massive wildlife corridor known as the Yukon to Yellowstone Eco-Region, has raised ire in his district. The 2,000-mile-long swath includes the entire northeast corner of Washington, most of Idaho and much of Montana.
"The plan to auction off the Seventh District to be part of the Yukon to Yellowstone wildlife corridor is pure idiocy!" exclaimed Kretz. "What would the reaction be if the Legislature created an urban Washington wildlife corridor to make sure that grizzlies and other dangerous wildlife could roam free from British Columbia to Olympia."
Kretz added that maybe then, they would leave the little coyote in Seattle and the opossums on the governor's lawn alone.
Kretz said he's convinced the governor's and Democrat's "One Washington" plan is solely about King County. He said the Y2Y bill, sponsored by a King County Democrat, is a prime example. The entire 7th District is included in the Y2Y plan, with Spokane being the "capital" of the region, he said.
The Nature Conservancy, working with several other environmental groups, was in Olympia this year asking for $5.5 million to purchase land in the Okanogan-Similkameen area of Okanogan County, which is one of two parts in the effort to turn the 7th District into one big wildlife corridor.
The funding, according to information presented to lawmakers, would "begin the work to secure an ecologically viable wildlife corridor, linking the North Cascades with the Okanogan Highlands and the Selkirk Mountains through conservation easements and acquisition. The letter continues, "the project will help secure 10,000 acres of this 80,000 [acre] corridor and provide long-term protection for threatened and endangered species - including wide ranging carnivores and 24 other species..."
If the wildlife corridor bill were to pass, Kretz said it would devastate his district.
"Property values would plummet and dangerous wildlife would be free to attack children, pets and livestock," explained Kretz. "Folks that own their land would basically be renting it from an out-of-town environmental group."
http://www.landrights.org/Alert_2009Feb08_Y2YGrab.htm
Look at the WDFW thirty year plan!
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. s: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
The Methow won't be affected by no hunting as there is not much left to hunt, we are on the other hand having more trouble with wolf predation on livestock.
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 26, 2018, 10:22:13 AM
I think its a great approach - increased game through habitat and predator management is good for all as long as hunting opportunities are managed positively .They're not going to improve predator management. They're unable to override the vote of the people and allow hounds and baiting for cougars and bears. We're not going to be able to hunt wolves and either are the ranchers, probably ever. To increase ungulate numbers, they'll have to decrease hunter opportunity. It's simple math. Improving habitat is only slightly effective, as actually increasing habitat is impossible with current human population expansion. But regardless, until wolves fear man, they'll continue to habituate themselves to what man offers - livestock, pets, garbage, and eventually, children and small adults. Livestock is far easier prey than wild animals. The DFW and our state government are living in a Dances with Wolves fantasy world where we all co-exist and dance around on the plains. I'm so disgusted.
I think its a great approach - increased game through habitat and predator management is good for all as long as hunting opportunities are managed positively .:yeah:
It’s amazing how many just comment on the thread title.
I read the article completely. They're blowing smoke up our butts.
Post by: Rainier10 on December 26, 2018, 11:01:05 AM
The only predator that there is no limit on is coyotes. We can get more aggressive with cougar hunting but they will just close the season sooner. We have to get them to adjust the quota if we want less cats.
As for bears there is no quota, just general seasons. We can get more aggressive with bear hunting and push for more spring bear permits. My guess is the reason they don't have more spring bear permits is they feel the bear harvest is right where they want it to be to maintain the population where they want it.
So if they want more ungulates there is two choices assuming they are happy with predator populations at current levels. Restrict the harvest of ungulates by shortening seasons and reducing special permit seasons or improving the habitat.
Like PMan said you can't create more habitat, it is getting gobbled up by development. You can however improve the land that is out there and that will increase ungulate populations.
Just to recap, we need to get them to adjust quotas for cougars, we need to get them to give out more spring bear permits and start improving the habitat that we do have left if we want to see increased ungulate numbers without a decrease in hunting opportunity.
Post by: Jake Dogfish on December 26, 2018, 11:04:47 AM
There have been several long threads on this site recently about how to manage deer and elk like other states. Everyone has there own ideas but most complain there is too much “opportunity”(which wdfw manages for) and not enough deer. Lots of discussion about moving to drawing only, more points on antlers etc. The problem is if the state manages game that way they get everyone complaining more.I think its a great approach - increased game through habitat and predator management is good for all as long as hunting opportunities are managed positively .They're not going to improve predator management. They're unable to override the vote of the people and allow hounds and baiting for cougars and bears. We're not going to be able to hunt wolves and either are the ranchers, probably ever. To increase ungulate numbers, they'll have to decrease hunter opportunity. It's simple math. Improving habitat is only slightly effective, as actually increasing habitat is impossible with current human population expansion. But regardless, until wolves fear man, they'll continue to habituate themselves to what man offers - livestock, pets, garbage, and eventually, children and small adults. Livestock is far easier prey than wild animals. The DFW and our state government are living in a Dances with Wolves fantasy world where we all co-exist and dance around on the plains. I'm so disgusted.I think its a great approach - increased game through habitat and predator management is good for all as long as hunting opportunities are managed positively .:yeah:
It’s amazing how many just comment on the thread title.
I read the article completely. They're blowing smoke up our butts.
It’s anti hunting, the liberals, the environmentalists, there coming for your guns... :dunno::bash:
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 26, 2018, 11:10:34 AM
They have already increased predator hunting to the levels they want to see them reduced. When dogs were allowed there was a cougar permit quota, you had to get drawn to hunt cougars with dogs. When hound hunting went away they lengthen the season and once the quota was met they closed the season. Then they realized the quota was getting met before the first season closed so this year they shortened the season quota review date.
The only predator that there is no limit on is coyotes. We can get more aggressive with cougar hunting but they will just close the season sooner. We have to get them to adjust the quota if we want less cats.
As for bears there is no quota, just general seasons. We can get more aggressive with bear hunting and push for more spring bear permits. My guess is the reason they don't have more spring bear permits is they feel the bear harvest is right where they want it to be to maintain the population where they want it.
So if they want more ungulates there is two choices assuming they are happy with predator populations at current levels. Restrict the harvest of ungulates by shortening seasons and reducing special permit seasons or improving the habitat.
Like PMan said you can't create more habitat, it is getting gobbled up by development. You can however improve the land that is out there and that will increase ungulate populations.
Just to recap, we need to get them to adjust quotas for cougars, we need to get them to give out more spring bear permits and start improving the habitat that we do have left if we want to see increased ungulate numbers without a decrease in hunting opportunity.
Without a proper accounting of how many cougars are actually out there, management is hit and miss. If the study from ID is accurate, it's quite possible we have twice as many cougars as we think we do. They have no idea. With all the cougar/human interactions increasing steadily over the last 10 years, it seems evident that cougar populations are more than healthy.
Post by: Rainier10 on December 26, 2018, 11:23:25 AM
After hunting with Bearpaw for cougars in Idaho with dogs last year I am confident that the estimates for cougars in this state are grossly underestimated.They have already increased predator hunting to the levels they want to see them reduced. When dogs were allowed there was a cougar permit quota, you had to get drawn to hunt cougars with dogs. When hound hunting went away they lengthen the season and once the quota was met they closed the season. Then they realized the quota was getting met before the first season closed so this year they shortened the season quota review date.
The only predator that there is no limit on is coyotes. We can get more aggressive with cougar hunting but they will just close the season sooner. We have to get them to adjust the quota if we want less cats.
As for bears there is no quota, just general seasons. We can get more aggressive with bear hunting and push for more spring bear permits. My guess is the reason they don't have more spring bear permits is they feel the bear harvest is right where they want it to be to maintain the population where they want it.
So if they want more ungulates there is two choices assuming they are happy with predator populations at current levels. Restrict the harvest of ungulates by shortening seasons and reducing special permit seasons or improving the habitat.
Like PMan said you can't create more habitat, it is getting gobbled up by development. You can however improve the land that is out there and that will increase ungulate populations.
Just to recap, we need to get them to adjust quotas for cougars, we need to get them to give out more spring bear permits and start improving the habitat that we do have left if we want to see increased ungulate numbers without a decrease in hunting opportunity.
Without a proper accounting of how many cougars are actually out there, management is hit and miss. If the study from ID is accurate, it's quite possible we have twice as many cougars as we think we do. They have no idea. With all the cougar/human interactions increasing steadily over the last 10 years, it seems evident that cougar populations are more than healthy.
The GMU or whatever they call it over there was the size of one of our GMU's. Bearpaw took 4 or 5 cats out of there. There were other houndsman in that same area that I am sure took cats and we were seeing more tracks. My guess is 9-11 cats get taken in that area each year and the next year another 9-10 are taken.
I have a cabin in GMU 328 here in washington, it is lumped into a three GMU quota area 328,329,335 and they only allow 6-7 cats to be taken a year from those GMUS combined. In Idaho that same area would have would allow up to 33 cats to be harvest without damaging the resource.
The point is I think we have way more predators than the WDFW thinks there are here and if we increased the quotas and seasons on predators I think it would help out the ungulates massively.
With that being said, if we are going to do that and increase ungulate numbers we have to improve the habitat and slow down the loss of critical habitat.
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 26, 2018, 11:29:08 AM
There have been several long threads on this site recently about how to manage deer and elk like other states. Everyone hasI think its a great approach - increased game through habitat and predator management is good for all as long as hunting opportunities are managed positively .They're not going to improve predator management. They're unable to override the vote of the people and allow hounds and baiting for cougars and bears. We're not going to be able to hunt wolves and either are the ranchers, probably ever. To increase ungulate numbers, they'll have to decrease hunter opportunity. It's simple math. Improving habitat is only slightly effective, as actually increasing habitat is impossible with current human population expansion. But regardless, until wolves fear man, they'll continue to habituate themselves to what man offers - livestock, pets, garbage, and eventually, children and small adults. Livestock is far easier prey than wild animals. The DFW and our state government are living in a Dances with Wolves fantasy world where we all co-exist and dance around on the plains. I'm so disgusted.I think its a great approach - increased game through habitat and predator management is good for all as long as hunting opportunities are managed positively .:yeah:
It’s amazing how many just comment on the thread title.
I read the article completely. They're blowing smoke up our butts.theretheir own ideas but most complain there is too much “opportunity”(which wdfw manages for) and not enough deer. Lots of discussion about moving to drawing only, more points on antlers etc. The problem is if the state manages game that way they get everyone complaining more.
It’s anti hunting, the liberals, the environmentalists, there coming for your guns... :dunno::bash:
You say "everyone...complains there is too much opportunity." I don't think everyone has been saying that. "Everyone complaining more..." and then off on some tangent which includes gun control, liberals, etc. It's like trying to hit an out-of-control drone with a slingshot. Try and focus.
Which other states should we emulate and how so? Do those states have the same restrictions we have on predator harvest (no hounds, 14% +/- 2% cougar harvest based on no real knowledge of cougar populations at all, few spring bear opportunities, no wolf harvest)? It sounds like you think that our ungulate populations are suffering and curtailing hunter opportunity is the best option. One ongoing problem in this state is the lack of actual data before management decisions and changes are made. It's like they have a big dartboard they use to set harvest numbers and seasons, especially to do with predators.
Post by: Rainier10 on December 26, 2018, 11:38:14 AM
The problem is it is all a numbers game and I can juggle the harvest data numbers to say that the herds are in great shape and can handle an increase in hunting pressure and at the same time prove that the numbers show a decline in herd numbers to justify a decrease in hunting opportunity.
And the biggest problem is they are managing people and complaints from all sides. Too many predators, not enough deer, too many two points, not enough mature deer, too many deer eating apples out of the orchards, not enough deer for the predators to eat.... and on and on.
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 26, 2018, 11:51:46 AM
After hunting with Bearpaw for cougars in Idaho with dogs last year I am confident that the estimates for cougars in this state are grossly underestimated.They have already increased predator hunting to the levels they want to see them reduced. When dogs were allowed there was a cougar permit quota, you had to get drawn to hunt cougars with dogs. When hound hunting went away they lengthen the season and once the quota was met they closed the season. Then they realized the quota was getting met before the first season closed so this year they shortened the season quota review date.
The only predator that there is no limit on is coyotes. We can get more aggressive with cougar hunting but they will just close the season sooner. We have to get them to adjust the quota if we want less cats.
As for bears there is no quota, just general seasons. We can get more aggressive with bear hunting and push for more spring bear permits. My guess is the reason they don't have more spring bear permits is they feel the bear harvest is right where they want it to be to maintain the population where they want it.
So if they want more ungulates there is two choices assuming they are happy with predator populations at current levels. Restrict the harvest of ungulates by shortening seasons and reducing special permit seasons or improving the habitat.
Like PMan said you can't create more habitat, it is getting gobbled up by development. You can however improve the land that is out there and that will increase ungulate populations.
Just to recap, we need to get them to adjust quotas for cougars, we need to get them to give out more spring bear permits and start improving the habitat that we do have left if we want to see increased ungulate numbers without a decrease in hunting opportunity.
Without a proper accounting of how many cougars are actually out there, management is hit and miss. If the study from ID is accurate, it's quite possible we have twice as many cougars as we think we do. They have no idea. With all the cougar/human interactions increasing steadily over the last 10 years, it seems evident that cougar populations are more than healthy.
The GMU or whatever they call it over there was the size of one of our GMU's. Bearpaw took 4 or 5 cats out of there. There were other houndsman in that same area that I am sure took cats and we were seeing more tracks. My guess is 9-11 cats get taken in that area each year and the next year another 9-10 are taken.
I have a cabin in GMU 328 here in washington, it is lumped into a three GMU quota area 328,329,335 and they only allow 6-7 cats to be taken a year from those GMUS combined. In Idaho that same area would have would allow up to 33 cats to be harvest without damaging the resource.
The point is I think we have way more predators than the WDFW thinks there are here and if we increased the quotas and seasons on predators I think it would help out the ungulates massively.
With that being said, if we are going to do that and increase ungulate numbers we have to improve the habitat and slow down the loss of critical habitat.
I absolutely agree that predator numbers and influence on ungulate populations are grossly underestimated. I'm unsure how you think you can halt or even slow habitat destruction because it's mainly caused by development. You can't limit landowners on what they choose to do with their land unless we, as a state, buy it all up and keep it untouched in perpetuity. Some benefit is gained by habitat restoration and it is needed on an ongoing basis. However, without curtailing development AND the effects of out-of-control depredation on ungulates by cougars, bears and wolves, the opportunities from ungulate population rebounds are severely limited.
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 26, 2018, 11:56:12 AM
I assure you it is not a dartboard that they are using.
The problem is it is all a numbers game and I can juggle the harvest data numbers to say that the herds are in great shape and can handle an increase in hunting pressure and at the same time prove that the numbers show a decline in herd numbers to justify a decrease in hunting opportunity.
And the biggest problem is they are managing people and complaints from all sides. Too many predators, not enough deer, too many two points, not enough mature deer, too many deer eating apples out of the orchards, not enough deer for the predators to eat.... and on and on.
And I can assure you that our DFW has not the foggiest idea of the real size of our cougar or wolf populations. And if harvest data is being "juggled", they may as well use a dartboard to set harvest goals.
Post by: Jake Dogfish on December 26, 2018, 12:33:27 PM
Wow! You misquoted me completely and blatantly, also edited the quote, commented on stuff I didn’t say, then went to “it sounds like your saying” (enter opposite information here). Then you comment that I should “ try and focus”. :dunno:There have been several long threads on this site recently about how to manage deer and elk like other states. Everyone hasI think its a great approach - increased game through habitat and predator management is good for all as long as hunting opportunities are managed positively .They're not going to improve predator management. They're unable to override the vote of the people and allow hounds and baiting for cougars and bears. We're not going to be able to hunt wolves and either are the ranchers, probably ever. To increase ungulate numbers, they'll have to decrease hunter opportunity. It's simple math. Improving habitat is only slightly effective, as actually increasing habitat is impossible with current human population expansion. But regardless, until wolves fear man, they'll continue to habituate themselves to what man offers - livestock, pets, garbage, and eventually, children and small adults. Livestock is far easier prey than wild animals. The DFW and our state government are living in a Dances with Wolves fantasy world where we all co-exist and dance around on the plains. I'm so disgusted.I think its a great approach - increased game through habitat and predator management is good for all as long as hunting opportunities are managed positively .:yeah:
It’s amazing how many just comment on the thread title.
I read the article completely. They're blowing smoke up our butts.theretheir own ideas but most complain there is too much “opportunity”(which wdfw manages for) and not enough deer. Lots of discussion about moving to drawing only, more points on antlers etc. The problem is if the state manages game that way they get everyone complaining more.
It’s anti hunting, the liberals, the environmentalists, there coming for your guns... :dunno::bash:
You say "everyone...complains there is too much opportunity." I don't think everyone has been saying that. "Everyone complaining more..." and then off on some tangent which includes gun control, liberals, etc. It's like trying to hit an out-of-control drone with a slingshot. Try and focus.
Which other states should we emulate and how so? Do those states have the same restrictions we have on predator harvest (no hounds, 14% +/- 2% cougar harvest based on no real knowledge of cougar populations at all, few spring bear opportunities, no wolf harvest)? It sounds like you think that our ungulate populations are suffering and curtailing hunter opportunity is the best option. One ongoing problem in this state is the lack of actual data before management decisions and changes are made. It's like they have a big dartboard they use to set harvest numbers and seasons, especially to do with predators.
My point is that wdfw cannot win until the wolf plan is changed. Some of the commissioners don’t want to open that “can of worms”. It is necessary.
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 26, 2018, 12:36:10 PM
Post by: bobcat on December 26, 2018, 12:38:46 PM
And I can assure you that our DFW has not the foggiest idea of the real size of our cougar or wolf populations. And if harvest data is being "juggled", they may as well use a dartboard to set harvest goals.
I don't believe they're as dumb as some may think. I think the WDFW has a very good idea of the actual cougar population. At least a relatively close estimate. But, for some reason they won't tell the public. Sounds crazy I know. But I have a hard time believing with all their college educated biologists that they don't at least realize that the official cougar population estimate is not even close. And that their cougar harvest quotas by GMU are a complete joke.
Post by: wildweeds on December 26, 2018, 12:39:57 PM
I assure you it is not a dartboard that they are using.
The problem is it is all a numbers game and I can juggle the harvest data numbers to say that the herds are in great shape and can handle an increase in hunting pressure and at the same time prove that the numbers show a decline in herd numbers to justify a decrease in hunting opportunity.
And the biggest problem is they are managing people and complaints from all sides. Too many predators, not enough deer, too many two points, not enough mature deer, too many deer eating apples out of the orchards, not enough deer for the predators to eat.... and on and on.
And I can assure you that our DFW has not the foggiest idea of the real size of our cougar or wolf populations. And if harvest data is being "juggled", they may as well use a dartboard to set harvest goals.
Post by: emac on December 26, 2018, 12:48:25 PM
I disagree we had a meeting with two biologists in the Southeast corner of the state and both of them said they had no clue how many cougars are down here and that they haven't done a study or a count in a long time because there is no funding for thatAnd I can assure you that our DFW has not the foggiest idea of the real size of our cougar or wolf populations. And if harvest data is being "juggled", they may as well use a dartboard to set harvest goals.
I don't believe they're as dumb as some may think. I think the WDFW has a very good idea of the actual cougar population. At least a relatively close estimate. But, for some reason they won't tell the public. Sounds crazy I know. But I have a hard time believing with all their college educated biologists that they don't at least realize that the official cougar population estimate is not even close. And that their cougar harvest quotas by GMU are a complete joke.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Post by: bigmacc on December 26, 2018, 02:05:10 PM
I assure you it is not a dartboard that they are using.
The problem is it is all a numbers game and I can juggle the harvest data numbers to say that the herds are in great shape and can handle an increase in hunting pressure and at the same time prove that the numbers show a decline in herd numbers to justify a decrease in hunting opportunity.
And the biggest problem is they are managing people and complaints from all sides. Too many predators, not enough deer, too many two points, not enough mature deer, too many deer eating apples out of the orchards, not enough deer for the predators to eat.... and on and on.
I have said it over and over and it is coming home to roost, since the inception of the "WDFW" we as hunters became just another group that has an iron in the fire. I told friends years ago when the word "Game" was dropped from the dept. that it was the beginning of the end as far as the quality of hunting goes in this state, I remember a time when the health and numbers of some of our prize herds was the top priority to the Game Dept. in this state, putting forth a quality product(for a lack of better words) for the sportsmen and women of this state was job one, taking care of and growing our herds was how they sold tags and helped bring in money. Then the word "Game" was dropped and they morphed into a new dept. with new plans and new money coming in from other directions, some of which who are in direct conflict with our elk, deer and moose herds, along with many more irons that were put into the fire, the "hunting iron" has become a lot smaller and not as hot as the many other new irons that have been added to the fire and what we are seeing as far as predators and many other critters being coddled and nurtured above our elk, deer and other big game is no surprise to me unfortunately.... :twocents:
Post by: boneaddict on December 26, 2018, 02:15:05 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 26, 2018, 02:27:20 PM
And I can assure you that our DFW has not the foggiest idea of the real size of our cougar or wolf populations. And if harvest data is being "juggled", they may as well use a dartboard to set harvest goals.
I don't believe they're as dumb as some may think. I think the WDFW has a very good idea of the actual cougar population. At least a relatively close estimate. But, for some reason they won't tell the public. Sounds crazy I know. But I have a hard time believing with all their college educated biologists that they don't at least realize that the official cougar population estimate is not even close. And that their cougar harvest quotas by GMU are a complete joke.
I don't think they're dumb. I'm sure many of them are a lot smarter than I. However, I don't think they're using anything that resembles accurate data when it comes to cougar and wolf numbers, and setting quotas for cougars.
Post by: huntnphool on December 26, 2018, 02:57:45 PM
https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,158010.msg2093401.html#msg2093401
Quote
"hunting seasons may necessarily need to be adjusted"
Don't know why people are so shocked to see it beginning. :twocents:
Post by: huntnphool on December 26, 2018, 03:03:58 PM
However, I don't think they're using anything that resembles accurate data when it comes to cougar and wolf numbers, and setting quotas for cougars.
Hmmmm, similar to my take back at the intital proposal meetings. ;)
https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,84720.msg1060531.html#msg1060531
Post by: bigmacc on December 26, 2018, 05:49:13 PM
And I can assure you that our DFW has not the foggiest idea of the real size of our cougar or wolf populations. And if harvest data is being "juggled", they may as well use a dartboard to set harvest goals.
I don't believe they're as dumb as some may think. I think the WDFW has a very good idea of the actual cougar population. At least a relatively close estimate. But, for some reason they won't tell the public. Sounds crazy I know. But I have a hard time believing with all their college educated biologists that they don't at least realize that the official cougar population estimate is not even close. And that their cougar harvest quotas by GMU are a complete joke.
I don't think they're dumb. I'm sure many of them are a lot smarter than I. However, I don't think they're using anything that resembles accurate data when it comes to cougar and wolf numbers, and setting quotas for cougars.
I think "accurate data" went out the window years ago, like I said, when the word "Game" was dropped and they morphed into the WDFW, they have so many special interest groups to cater to now I think a lot of "data" is thrown out there to opese and try to calm some of these groups. During all this many have lost faith in them because a lot of what they say is not being seen or experienced by some of the user groups that are out there with boots on the ground. Heck, back in the day the Game dept. gave forecasts and numbers for upcoming seasons also and I remember a lot of years being better than what they forecasted, I remember talking to a Game fella I knew about a season that was supposed to be bleak for a few years due to a rough winter and it along with the next few years were actually unchanged from the previous years, I asked him what happened :chuckle:, his honest response was something close to this - It was not easy to get an accurate projection last year because the deer were not in places they normally would be and it was tricky because of different variables that hit all at once, it doesn't happen often that we can't be pretty accurate as far as a projection but if we error we would rather have our hunters be pleasantly surprised rather than have them wondering what the hell we,re doing out here ha-ha. Pretty refreshing that the Dept. wanted the sportsman to be happy and we would be considered considered as A, "our hunters" and B, that they would rather have us be "pleasantly surprised than wondering what the hell they were doing" :chuckle:....oh the good ole days when the "Game dept." wanted nothing more than to make sure we as hunters were successful and happy :tup:
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 26, 2018, 07:18:07 PM
One thing to kind of note for blacktail and whitetail, is development seems to increase their numbers while many predators don't really move into those areas. What is improved or gain in habitat for a few species is a loss for the others. Take Ocean Shores for example, see deer wandering all over in much higher densities than anywhere nearby. Go ten miles east and hardly a sign, but plenty of predator sign.After hunting with Bearpaw for cougars in Idaho with dogs last year I am confident that the estimates for cougars in this state are grossly underestimated.They have already increased predator hunting to the levels they want to see them reduced. When dogs were allowed there was a cougar permit quota, you had to get drawn to hunt cougars with dogs. When hound hunting went away they lengthen the season and once the quota was met they closed the season. Then they realized the quota was getting met before the first season closed so this year they shortened the season quota review date.
The only predator that there is no limit on is coyotes. We can get more aggressive with cougar hunting but they will just close the season sooner. We have to get them to adjust the quota if we want less cats.
As for bears there is no quota, just general seasons. We can get more aggressive with bear hunting and push for more spring bear permits. My guess is the reason they don't have more spring bear permits is they feel the bear harvest is right where they want it to be to maintain the population where they want it.
So if they want more ungulates there is two choices assuming they are happy with predator populations at current levels. Restrict the harvest of ungulates by shortening seasons and reducing special permit seasons or improving the habitat.
Like PMan said you can't create more habitat, it is getting gobbled up by development. You can however improve the land that is out there and that will increase ungulate populations.
Just to recap, we need to get them to adjust quotas for cougars, we need to get them to give out more spring bear permits and start improving the habitat that we do have left if we want to see increased ungulate numbers without a decrease in hunting opportunity.
Without a proper accounting of how many cougars are actually out there, management is hit and miss. If the study from ID is accurate, it's quite possible we have twice as many cougars as we think we do. They have no idea. With all the cougar/human interactions increasing steadily over the last 10 years, it seems evident that cougar populations are more than healthy.
The GMU or whatever they call it over there was the size of one of our GMU's. Bearpaw took 4 or 5 cats out of there. There were other houndsman in that same area that I am sure took cats and we were seeing more tracks. My guess is 9-11 cats get taken in that area each year and the next year another 9-10 are taken.
I have a cabin in GMU 328 here in washington, it is lumped into a three GMU quota area 328,329,335 and they only allow 6-7 cats to be taken a year from those GMUS combined. In Idaho that same area would have would allow up to 33 cats to be harvest without damaging the resource.
The point is I think we have way more predators than the WDFW thinks there are here and if we increased the quotas and seasons on predators I think it would help out the ungulates massively.
With that being said, if we are going to do that and increase ungulate numbers we have to improve the habitat and slow down the loss of critical habitat.
Post by: HighlandLofts on December 26, 2018, 08:09:50 PM
Wolves will decrease their livestock depredations when we start killing them while depredating on livestock. They needed to be delisted years ago and will fear man only when we give them a reason to do so.
They will still.be out there doing what they do best, eat any type of of animal.they catch alive.
Post by: Humptulips on December 26, 2018, 09:22:03 PM
Inclusion of those cats in the total could easily triple the population estimate.
Post by: bearpaw on December 26, 2018, 09:35:07 PM
After hunting with Bearpaw for cougars in Idaho with dogs last year I am confident that the estimates for cougars in this state are grossly underestimated.They have already increased predator hunting to the levels they want to see them reduced. When dogs were allowed there was a cougar permit quota, you had to get drawn to hunt cougars with dogs. When hound hunting went away they lengthen the season and once the quota was met they closed the season. Then they realized the quota was getting met before the first season closed so this year they shortened the season quota review date.
The only predator that there is no limit on is coyotes. We can get more aggressive with cougar hunting but they will just close the season sooner. We have to get them to adjust the quota if we want less cats.
As for bears there is no quota, just general seasons. We can get more aggressive with bear hunting and push for more spring bear permits. My guess is the reason they don't have more spring bear permits is they feel the bear harvest is right where they want it to be to maintain the population where they want it.
So if they want more ungulates there is two choices assuming they are happy with predator populations at current levels. Restrict the harvest of ungulates by shortening seasons and reducing special permit seasons or improving the habitat.
Like PMan said you can't create more habitat, it is getting gobbled up by development. You can however improve the land that is out there and that will increase ungulate populations.
Just to recap, we need to get them to adjust quotas for cougars, we need to get them to give out more spring bear permits and start improving the habitat that we do have left if we want to see increased ungulate numbers without a decrease in hunting opportunity.
Without a proper accounting of how many cougars are actually out there, management is hit and miss. If the study from ID is accurate, it's quite possible we have twice as many cougars as we think we do. They have no idea. With all the cougar/human interactions increasing steadily over the last 10 years, it seems evident that cougar populations are more than healthy.
The GMU or whatever they call it over there was the size of one of our GMU's. Bearpaw took 4 or 5 cats out of there. There were other houndsman in that same area that I am sure took cats and we were seeing more tracks. My guess is 9-11 cats get taken in that area each year and the next year another 9-10 are taken.
I have a cabin in GMU 328 here in washington, it is lumped into a three GMU quota area 328,329,335 and they only allow 6-7 cats to be taken a year from those GMUS combined. In Idaho that same area would have would allow up to 33 cats to be harvest without damaging the resource.
The point is I think we have way more predators than the WDFW thinks there are here and if we increased the quotas and seasons on predators I think it would help out the ungulates massively.
With that being said, if we are going to do that and increase ungulate numbers we have to improve the habitat and slow down the loss of critical habitat.
Historically 20 to 40 cats are taken every year in that one unit. Idaho F&G recently doubled my outfitter cougar quota starting this season. They want more cats, bears, and wolves killed so ungulates can recover!
Post by: Special T on December 26, 2018, 09:45:13 PM
How many different directions do you think they are pulled now? I think thier funds come from about 5 different direction making a core priority a huge problem.I assure you it is not a dartboard that they are using.
The problem is it is all a numbers game and I can juggle the harvest data numbers to say that the herds are in great shape and can handle an increase in hunting pressure and at the same time prove that the numbers show a decline in herd numbers to justify a decrease in hunting opportunity.
And the biggest problem is they are managing people and complaints from all sides. Too many predators, not enough deer, too many two points, not enough mature deer, too many deer eating apples out of the orchards, not enough deer for the predators to eat.... and on and on.
I have said it over and over and it is coming home to roost, since the inception of the "WDFW" we as hunters became just another group that has an iron in the fire. I told friends years ago when the word "Game" was dropped from the dept. that it was the beginning of the end as far as the quality of hunting goes in this state, I remember a time when the health and numbers of some of our prize herds was the top priority to the Game Dept. in this state, putting forth a quality product(for a lack of better words) for the sportsmen and women of this state was job one, taking care of and growing our herds was how they sold tags and helped bring in money. Then the word "Game" was dropped and they morphed into a new dept. with new plans and new money coming in from other directions, some of which who are in direct conflict with our elk, deer and moose herds, along with many more irons that were put into the fire, the "hunting iron" has become a lot smaller and not as hot as the many other new irons that have been added to the fire and what we are seeing as far as predators and many other critters being coddled and nurtured above our elk, deer and other big game is no surprise to me unfortunately.... :twocents:
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: bearpaw on December 26, 2018, 09:52:27 PM
Post by: bearpaw on December 26, 2018, 10:01:34 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 27, 2018, 07:10:15 AM
One thing to kind of note for blacktail and whitetail, is development seems to increase their numbers while many predators don't really move into those areas. What is improved or gain in habitat for a few species is a loss for the others. Take Ocean Shores for example, see deer wandering all over in much higher densities than anywhere nearby. Go ten miles east and hardly a sign, but plenty of predator sign.After hunting with Bearpaw for cougars in Idaho with dogs last year I am confident that the estimates for cougars in this state are grossly underestimated.They have already increased predator hunting to the levels they want to see them reduced. When dogs were allowed there was a cougar permit quota, you had to get drawn to hunt cougars with dogs. When hound hunting went away they lengthen the season and once the quota was met they closed the season. Then they realized the quota was getting met before the first season closed so this year they shortened the season quota review date.
The only predator that there is no limit on is coyotes. We can get more aggressive with cougar hunting but they will just close the season sooner. We have to get them to adjust the quota if we want less cats.
As for bears there is no quota, just general seasons. We can get more aggressive with bear hunting and push for more spring bear permits. My guess is the reason they don't have more spring bear permits is they feel the bear harvest is right where they want it to be to maintain the population where they want it.
So if they want more ungulates there is two choices assuming they are happy with predator populations at current levels. Restrict the harvest of ungulates by shortening seasons and reducing special permit seasons or improving the habitat.
Like PMan said you can't create more habitat, it is getting gobbled up by development. You can however improve the land that is out there and that will increase ungulate populations.
Just to recap, we need to get them to adjust quotas for cougars, we need to get them to give out more spring bear permits and start improving the habitat that we do have left if we want to see increased ungulate numbers without a decrease in hunting opportunity.
Without a proper accounting of how many cougars are actually out there, management is hit and miss. If the study from ID is accurate, it's quite possible we have twice as many cougars as we think we do. They have no idea. With all the cougar/human interactions increasing steadily over the last 10 years, it seems evident that cougar populations are more than healthy.
The GMU or whatever they call it over there was the size of one of our GMU's. Bearpaw took 4 or 5 cats out of there. There were other houndsman in that same area that I am sure took cats and we were seeing more tracks. My guess is 9-11 cats get taken in that area each year and the next year another 9-10 are taken.
I have a cabin in GMU 328 here in washington, it is lumped into a three GMU quota area 328,329,335 and they only allow 6-7 cats to be taken a year from those GMUS combined. In Idaho that same area would have would allow up to 33 cats to be harvest without damaging the resource.
The point is I think we have way more predators than the WDFW thinks there are here and if we increased the quotas and seasons on predators I think it would help out the ungulates massively.
With that being said, if we are going to do that and increase ungulate numbers we have to improve the habitat and slow down the loss of critical habitat.
It's possible this is more the movement of the ungulates from high predation areas to areas where predators aren't comfortable. I believe we've seen this in WA where wolves are thick, the ungulates move down into town. Any NE residents want to comment on this?
Post by: Rainier10 on December 27, 2018, 07:43:11 AM
Is hunting allowed in Ocean Shores? I have seen a ton of deer there and some real mashers. I know if I lived there and had one walking through my yard the population would be down by one for sure.One thing to kind of note for blacktail and whitetail, is development seems to increase their numbers while many predators don't really move into those areas. What is improved or gain in habitat for a few species is a loss for the others. Take Ocean Shores for example, see deer wandering all over in much higher densities than anywhere nearby. Go ten miles east and hardly a sign, but plenty of predator sign.After hunting with Bearpaw for cougars in Idaho with dogs last year I am confident that the estimates for cougars in this state are grossly underestimated.They have already increased predator hunting to the levels they want to see them reduced. When dogs were allowed there was a cougar permit quota, you had to get drawn to hunt cougars with dogs. When hound hunting went away they lengthen the season and once the quota was met they closed the season. Then they realized the quota was getting met before the first season closed so this year they shortened the season quota review date.
The only predator that there is no limit on is coyotes. We can get more aggressive with cougar hunting but they will just close the season sooner. We have to get them to adjust the quota if we want less cats.
As for bears there is no quota, just general seasons. We can get more aggressive with bear hunting and push for more spring bear permits. My guess is the reason they don't have more spring bear permits is they feel the bear harvest is right where they want it to be to maintain the population where they want it.
So if they want more ungulates there is two choices assuming they are happy with predator populations at current levels. Restrict the harvest of ungulates by shortening seasons and reducing special permit seasons or improving the habitat.
Like PMan said you can't create more habitat, it is getting gobbled up by development. You can however improve the land that is out there and that will increase ungulate populations.
Just to recap, we need to get them to adjust quotas for cougars, we need to get them to give out more spring bear permits and start improving the habitat that we do have left if we want to see increased ungulate numbers without a decrease in hunting opportunity.
Without a proper accounting of how many cougars are actually out there, management is hit and miss. If the study from ID is accurate, it's quite possible we have twice as many cougars as we think we do. They have no idea. With all the cougar/human interactions increasing steadily over the last 10 years, it seems evident that cougar populations are more than healthy.
The GMU or whatever they call it over there was the size of one of our GMU's. Bearpaw took 4 or 5 cats out of there. There were other houndsman in that same area that I am sure took cats and we were seeing more tracks. My guess is 9-11 cats get taken in that area each year and the next year another 9-10 are taken.
I have a cabin in GMU 328 here in washington, it is lumped into a three GMU quota area 328,329,335 and they only allow 6-7 cats to be taken a year from those GMUS combined. In Idaho that same area would have would allow up to 33 cats to be harvest without damaging the resource.
The point is I think we have way more predators than the WDFW thinks there are here and if we increased the quotas and seasons on predators I think it would help out the ungulates massively.
With that being said, if we are going to do that and increase ungulate numbers we have to improve the habitat and slow down the loss of critical habitat.
Post by: Tbar on December 27, 2018, 08:26:26 AM
Can you find any data to combat "their data"? It's tough to combat inaccuracy with an empty bag. "My friend said" or "it's not like it used to be" is all sportsman have. We are also so fragmented it's not likely to change any tine soon.And I can assure you that our DFW has not the foggiest idea of the real size of our cougar or wolf populations. And if harvest data is being "juggled", they may as well use a dartboard to set harvest goals.
I don't believe they're as dumb as some may think. I think the WDFW has a very good idea of the actual cougar population. At least a relatively close estimate. But, for some reason they won't tell the public. Sounds crazy I know. But I have a hard time believing with all their college educated biologists that they don't at least realize that the official cougar population estimate is not even close. And that their cougar harvest quotas by GMU are a complete joke.
I don't think they're dumb. I'm sure many of them are a lot smarter than I. However, I don't think they're using anything that resembles accurate data when it comes to cougar and wolf numbers, and setting quotas for cougars.
Post by: bearpaw on December 27, 2018, 08:40:44 AM
Can you find any data to combat "their data"? It's tough to combat inaccuracy with an empty bag. "My friend said" or "it's not like it used to be" is all sportsman have. We are also so fragmented it's not likely to change any tine soon.And I can assure you that our DFW has not the foggiest idea of the real size of our cougar or wolf populations. And if harvest data is being "juggled", they may as well use a dartboard to set harvest goals.
I don't believe they're as dumb as some may think. I think the WDFW has a very good idea of the actual cougar population. At least a relatively close estimate. But, for some reason they won't tell the public. Sounds crazy I know. But I have a hard time believing with all their college educated biologists that they don't at least realize that the official cougar population estimate is not even close. And that their cougar harvest quotas by GMU are a complete joke.
I don't think they're dumb. I'm sure many of them are a lot smarter than I. However, I don't think they're using anything that resembles accurate data when it comes to cougar and wolf numbers, and setting quotas for cougars.
Some of the best data to combat WDFW would be historic harvest stats from previous years, I don't think you can find much online, and WDFW has probably deleted as much of it as possible! Kinda like having the fox guard the data in the hen house?
Post by: idaho guy on December 27, 2018, 08:52:12 AM
One thing to kind of note for blacktail and whitetail, is development seems to increase their numbers while many predators don't really move into those areas. What is improved or gain in habitat for a few species is a loss for the others. Take Ocean Shores for example, see deer wandering all over in much higher densities than anywhere nearby. Go ten miles east and hardly a sign, but plenty of predator sign.After hunting with Bearpaw for cougars in Idaho with dogs last year I am confident that the estimates for cougars in this state are grossly underestimated.They have already increased predator hunting to the levels they want to see them reduced. When dogs were allowed there was a cougar permit quota, you had to get drawn to hunt cougars with dogs. When hound hunting went away they lengthen the season and once the quota was met they closed the season. Then they realized the quota was getting met before the first season closed so this year they shortened the season quota review date.
The only predator that there is no limit on is coyotes. We can get more aggressive with cougar hunting but they will just close the season sooner. We have to get them to adjust the quota if we want less cats.
As for bears there is no quota, just general seasons. We can get more aggressive with bear hunting and push for more spring bear permits. My guess is the reason they don't have more spring bear permits is they feel the bear harvest is right where they want it to be to maintain the population where they want it.
So if they want more ungulates there is two choices assuming they are happy with predator populations at current levels. Restrict the harvest of ungulates by shortening seasons and reducing special permit seasons or improving the habitat.
Like PMan said you can't create more habitat, it is getting gobbled up by development. You can however improve the land that is out there and that will increase ungulate populations.
Just to recap, we need to get them to adjust quotas for cougars, we need to get them to give out more spring bear permits and start improving the habitat that we do have left if we want to see increased ungulate numbers without a decrease in hunting opportunity.
Without a proper accounting of how many cougars are actually out there, management is hit and miss. If the study from ID is accurate, it's quite possible we have twice as many cougars as we think we do. They have no idea. With all the cougar/human interactions increasing steadily over the last 10 years, it seems evident that cougar populations are more than healthy.
The GMU or whatever they call it over there was the size of one of our GMU's. Bearpaw took 4 or 5 cats out of there. There were other houndsman in that same area that I am sure took cats and we were seeing more tracks. My guess is 9-11 cats get taken in that area each year and the next year another 9-10 are taken.
I have a cabin in GMU 328 here in washington, it is lumped into a three GMU quota area 328,329,335 and they only allow 6-7 cats to be taken a year from those GMUS combined. In Idaho that same area would have would allow up to 33 cats to be harvest without damaging the resource.
The point is I think we have way more predators than the WDFW thinks there are here and if we increased the quotas and seasons on predators I think it would help out the ungulates massively.
With that being said, if we are going to do that and increase ungulate numbers we have to improve the habitat and slow down the loss of critical habitat.
It's possible this is more the movement of the ungulates from high predation areas to areas where predators aren't comfortable. I believe we've seen this in WA where wolves are thick, the ungulates move down into town. Any NE residents want to comment on this?
In Idaho first the deer then a lot of elk moved into town. I was able to get my elk right by town this year which I guess is nice but elk don't really belong there. I can guarantee you they did not come down because the habitat was so much better. Funny thing is the remote areas, with great habitat, that used to hold elk have very little now.They are trying to escape 24/7 pressure from wolves. I see well meaning hunters calling for reduced seasons and tags etc. Wanting to self regulate hunting harvest to help the herds. This is the plan of the pro wolf crowd. First step is to limit seasons and tags a little every year. Long term goal is to eliminate hunting as we know it. Idaho has gone ballistic on all predators to help the herds but I don't think its helping that much. Where I hunt we had WAY more lions and bears in the early 90s and WAY more elk and deer! I noticed the decrease in elk when the wolves finally made it to the panhandle in large numbers. IDFG did a study and said lions are a major predator of elk in the panhandle but that does not make sense to me. The majority of the lion kills I find are deer and I cant get away from finding a lot more lion tracks years ago when we seemed to have more elk. Washington has a major lion problem but I think the main culprit is the wolf. In Idaho I know its when the wolves show up elk start disappearing. Back to the point and the article. How can they increase the deer and elk to make sure the wolf has enough to eat? The only answer is to limit hunting harvest. Liberals have confused the meaning of the second amendment to mean uncle Joe has the right to own a shotgun so he can shoot ducks! They should probably read it and then they will hopefully realize it has NOTHING to do with hunting. Here is what I think is their playbook- introduce and protect predators so there is no surplus game to hunt. The article said they need more deer and elk for the WOLVES to eat not more for hunters. Once they eliminate hunting why should anyone own a gun?
Post by: bearpaw on December 27, 2018, 09:15:16 AM
One thing to kind of note for blacktail and whitetail, is development seems to increase their numbers while many predators don't really move into those areas. What is improved or gain in habitat for a few species is a loss for the others. Take Ocean Shores for example, see deer wandering all over in much higher densities than anywhere nearby. Go ten miles east and hardly a sign, but plenty of predator sign.After hunting with Bearpaw for cougars in Idaho with dogs last year I am confident that the estimates for cougars in this state are grossly underestimated.They have already increased predator hunting to the levels they want to see them reduced. When dogs were allowed there was a cougar permit quota, you had to get drawn to hunt cougars with dogs. When hound hunting went away they lengthen the season and once the quota was met they closed the season. Then they realized the quota was getting met before the first season closed so this year they shortened the season quota review date.
The only predator that there is no limit on is coyotes. We can get more aggressive with cougar hunting but they will just close the season sooner. We have to get them to adjust the quota if we want less cats.
As for bears there is no quota, just general seasons. We can get more aggressive with bear hunting and push for more spring bear permits. My guess is the reason they don't have more spring bear permits is they feel the bear harvest is right where they want it to be to maintain the population where they want it.
So if they want more ungulates there is two choices assuming they are happy with predator populations at current levels. Restrict the harvest of ungulates by shortening seasons and reducing special permit seasons or improving the habitat.
Like PMan said you can't create more habitat, it is getting gobbled up by development. You can however improve the land that is out there and that will increase ungulate populations.
Just to recap, we need to get them to adjust quotas for cougars, we need to get them to give out more spring bear permits and start improving the habitat that we do have left if we want to see increased ungulate numbers without a decrease in hunting opportunity.
Without a proper accounting of how many cougars are actually out there, management is hit and miss. If the study from ID is accurate, it's quite possible we have twice as many cougars as we think we do. They have no idea. With all the cougar/human interactions increasing steadily over the last 10 years, it seems evident that cougar populations are more than healthy.
The GMU or whatever they call it over there was the size of one of our GMU's. Bearpaw took 4 or 5 cats out of there. There were other houndsman in that same area that I am sure took cats and we were seeing more tracks. My guess is 9-11 cats get taken in that area each year and the next year another 9-10 are taken.
I have a cabin in GMU 328 here in washington, it is lumped into a three GMU quota area 328,329,335 and they only allow 6-7 cats to be taken a year from those GMUS combined. In Idaho that same area would have would allow up to 33 cats to be harvest without damaging the resource.
The point is I think we have way more predators than the WDFW thinks there are here and if we increased the quotas and seasons on predators I think it would help out the ungulates massively.
With that being said, if we are going to do that and increase ungulate numbers we have to improve the habitat and slow down the loss of critical habitat.
It's possible this is more the movement of the ungulates from high predation areas to areas where predators aren't comfortable. I believe we've seen this in WA where wolves are thick, the ungulates move down into town. Any NE residents want to comment on this?
In Idaho first the deer then a lot of elk moved into town. I was able to get my elk right by town this year which I guess is nice but elk don't really belong there. I can guarantee you they did not come down because the habitat was so much better. Funny thing is the remote areas, with great habitat, that used to hold elk have very little now.They are trying to escape 24/7 pressure from wolves. I see well meaning hunters calling for reduced seasons and tags etc. Wanting to self regulate hunting harvest to help the herds. This is the plan of the pro wolf crowd. First step is to limit seasons and tags a little every year. Long term goal is to eliminate hunting as we know it. Idaho has gone ballistic on all predators to help the herds but I don't think its helping that much. Where I hunt we had WAY more lions and bears in the early 90s and WAY more elk and deer! I noticed the decrease in elk when the wolves finally made it to the panhandle in large numbers. IDFG did a study and said lions are a major predator of elk in the panhandle but that does not make sense to me. The majority of the lion kills I find are deer and I cant get away from finding a lot more lion tracks years ago when we seemed to have more elk. Washington has a major lion problem but I think the main culprit is the wolf. In Idaho I know its when the wolves show up elk start disappearing. Back to the point and the article. How can they increase the deer and elk to make sure the wolf has enough to eat? The only answer is to limit hunting harvest. Liberals have confused the meaning of the second amendment to mean uncle Joe has the right to own a shotgun so he can shoot ducks! They should probably read it and then they will hopefully realize it has NOTHING to do with hunting. Here is what I think is their playbook- introduce and protect predators so there is no surplus game to hunt. The article said they need more deer and elk for the WOLVES to eat not more for hunters. Once they eliminate hunting why should anyone own a gun?
The best thing you can do in Idaho is join and support this organization. There are trappers out catching wolves because this org reimburses them for expenses, up to $1000 per wolf! Over half the wolves taken in Idaho are associated with reimbursement from this org. If you live in WA and plan to hunt Idaho, support this org, they are working for Idaho wildlife! Even Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation supports this org.
https://www.foundationforwildlifemanagement.org/
Post by: KFhunter on December 27, 2018, 09:16:47 AM
I got ridiculed by our resident HW pro-wolf advocacy group, but seems like I may have been right (again).
Post by: bearpaw on December 27, 2018, 09:19:04 AM
A few years back here on HW I said that wolves will drive elk out of traditional cover and people will see them more often in non-traditional areas, it'll appear like there's more elk than ever when in reality there's fewer Elk, just that the wolves are driving them out in the open more and they'll come into town.
I got ridiculed by our resident HW pro-wolf advocacy group, but seems like I may have been right (again).
:chuckle: The wolfers have pretty much backed off, too many of our predictions about wolves are proving true!
Post by: KFhunter on December 27, 2018, 09:20:59 AM
A few years back here on HW I said that wolves will drive elk out of traditional cover and people will see them more often in non-traditional areas, it'll appear like there's more elk than ever when in reality there's fewer Elk, just that the wolves are driving them out in the open more and they'll come into town.
I got ridiculed by our resident HW pro-wolf advocacy group, but seems like I may have been right (again).
:chuckle: The wolfers have pretty much backed off, too many of our predictions about wolves are proving true!
My favorite:
"wolves will make you a better hunter"
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 27, 2018, 09:22:14 AM
Can you find any data to combat "their data"? It's tough to combat inaccuracy with an empty bag. "My friend said" or "it's not like it used to be" is all sportsman have. We are also so fragmented it's not likely to change any tine soon.And I can assure you that our DFW has not the foggiest idea of the real size of our cougar or wolf populations. And if harvest data is being "juggled", they may as well use a dartboard to set harvest goals.
I don't believe they're as dumb as some may think. I think the WDFW has a very good idea of the actual cougar population. At least a relatively close estimate. But, for some reason they won't tell the public. Sounds crazy I know. But I have a hard time believing with all their college educated biologists that they don't at least realize that the official cougar population estimate is not even close. And that their cougar harvest quotas by GMU are a complete joke.
I don't think they're dumb. I'm sure many of them are a lot smarter than I. However, I don't think they're using anything that resembles accurate data when it comes to cougar and wolf numbers, and setting quotas for cougars.
That's sort of an odd question. Population and harvest data only comes from the wildlife managers. But admittedly, they really don't know what the numbers are because they've done no real count, and the ID study from a few years ago indicates that previous estimates of cougars per square mile were grossly underestimated. I believe WA still estimates population and harvest quotas based on old information. I only know that the reports of human/cougar interactions have increased steadily. You can see it here in posts on cougar kills and sightings. And when you look at the harvest quotas for the different GMUs, they seem to be incredibly low. I've used as an example in the past, the harvest quotas for one of the largest GMUs in the SW corner, 560. The harvest guideline is 5-6 animals. That means in that whole unit, which covers 3 different counties, they believe only 35-42 cougars exist. I think they're way off just from the cougar sign I've seen in a very limited section of that unit and from the reports of other hunters, trail cam photos, etc.
Post by: idaho guy on December 27, 2018, 11:26:26 AM
One thing to kind of note for blacktail and whitetail, is development seems to increase their numbers while many predators don't really move into those areas. What is improved or gain in habitat for a few species is a loss for the others. Take Ocean Shores for example, see deer wandering all over in much higher densities than anywhere nearby. Go ten miles east and hardly a sign, but plenty of predator sign.After hunting with Bearpaw for cougars in Idaho with dogs last year I am confident that the estimates for cougars in this state are grossly underestimated.They have already increased predator hunting to the levels they want to see them reduced. When dogs were allowed there was a cougar permit quota, you had to get drawn to hunt cougars with dogs. When hound hunting went away they lengthen the season and once the quota was met they closed the season. Then they realized the quota was getting met before the first season closed so this year they shortened the season quota review date.
The only predator that there is no limit on is coyotes. We can get more aggressive with cougar hunting but they will just close the season sooner. We have to get them to adjust the quota if we want less cats.
As for bears there is no quota, just general seasons. We can get more aggressive with bear hunting and push for more spring bear permits. My guess is the reason they don't have more spring bear permits is they feel the bear harvest is right where they want it to be to maintain the population where they want it.
So if they want more ungulates there is two choices assuming they are happy with predator populations at current levels. Restrict the harvest of ungulates by shortening seasons and reducing special permit seasons or improving the habitat.
Like PMan said you can't create more habitat, it is getting gobbled up by development. You can however improve the land that is out there and that will increase ungulate populations.
Just to recap, we need to get them to adjust quotas for cougars, we need to get them to give out more spring bear permits and start improving the habitat that we do have left if we want to see increased ungulate numbers without a decrease in hunting opportunity.
Without a proper accounting of how many cougars are actually out there, management is hit and miss. If the study from ID is accurate, it's quite possible we have twice as many cougars as we think we do. They have no idea. With all the cougar/human interactions increasing steadily over the last 10 years, it seems evident that cougar populations are more than healthy.
The GMU or whatever they call it over there was the size of one of our GMU's. Bearpaw took 4 or 5 cats out of there. There were other houndsman in that same area that I am sure took cats and we were seeing more tracks. My guess is 9-11 cats get taken in that area each year and the next year another 9-10 are taken.
I have a cabin in GMU 328 here in washington, it is lumped into a three GMU quota area 328,329,335 and they only allow 6-7 cats to be taken a year from those GMUS combined. In Idaho that same area would have would allow up to 33 cats to be harvest without damaging the resource.
The point is I think we have way more predators than the WDFW thinks there are here and if we increased the quotas and seasons on predators I think it would help out the ungulates massively.
With that being said, if we are going to do that and increase ungulate numbers we have to improve the habitat and slow down the loss of critical habitat.
It's possible this is more the movement of the ungulates from high predation areas to areas where predators aren't comfortable. I believe we've seen this in WA where wolves are thick, the ungulates move down into town. Any NE residents want to comment on this?
In Idaho first the deer then a lot of elk moved into town. I was able to get my elk right by town this year which I guess is nice but elk don't really belong there. I can guarantee you they did not come down because the habitat was so much better. Funny thing is the remote areas, with great habitat, that used to hold elk have very little now.They are trying to escape 24/7 pressure from wolves. I see well meaning hunters calling for reduced seasons and tags etc. Wanting to self regulate hunting harvest to help the herds. This is the plan of the pro wolf crowd. First step is to limit seasons and tags a little every year. Long term goal is to eliminate hunting as we know it. Idaho has gone ballistic on all predators to help the herds but I don't think its helping that much. Where I hunt we had WAY more lions and bears in the early 90s and WAY more elk and deer! I noticed the decrease in elk when the wolves finally made it to the panhandle in large numbers. IDFG did a study and said lions are a major predator of elk in the panhandle but that does not make sense to me. The majority of the lion kills I find are deer and I cant get away from finding a lot more lion tracks years ago when we seemed to have more elk. Washington has a major lion problem but I think the main culprit is the wolf. In Idaho I know its when the wolves show up elk start disappearing. Back to the point and the article. How can they increase the deer and elk to make sure the wolf has enough to eat? The only answer is to limit hunting harvest. Liberals have confused the meaning of the second amendment to mean uncle Joe has the right to own a shotgun so he can shoot ducks! They should probably read it and then they will hopefully realize it has NOTHING to do with hunting. Here is what I think is their playbook- introduce and protect predators so there is no surplus game to hunt. The article said they need more deer and elk for the WOLVES to eat not more for hunters. Once they eliminate hunting why should anyone own a gun?
The best thing you can do in Idaho is join and support this organization. There are trappers out catching wolves because this org reimburses them for expenses, up to $1000 per wolf! Over half the wolves taken in Idaho are associated with reimbursement from this org. If you live in WA and plan to hunt Idaho, support this org, they are working for Idaho wildlife! Even Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation supports this org.
https://www.foundationforwildlifemanagement.org/
:tup: have a membership its a great organization-will be running a trap line for wolf as well
Post by: bigmacc on December 28, 2018, 01:46:40 PM
How many different directions do you think they are pulled now? I think thier funds come from about 5 different direction making a core priority a huge problem.I assure you it is not a dartboard that they are using.
The problem is it is all a numbers game and I can juggle the harvest data numbers to say that the herds are in great shape and can handle an increase in hunting pressure and at the same time prove that the numbers show a decline in herd numbers to justify a decrease in hunting opportunity.
And the biggest problem is they are managing people and complaints from all sides. Too many predators, not enough deer, too many two points, not enough mature deer, too many deer eating apples out of the orchards, not enough deer for the predators to eat.... and on and on.
I have said it over and over and it is coming home to roost, since the inception of the "WDFW" we as hunters became just another group that has an iron in the fire. I told friends years ago when the word "Game" was dropped from the dept. that it was the beginning of the end as far as the quality of hunting goes in this state, I remember a time when the health and numbers of some of our prize herds was the top priority to the Game Dept. in this state, putting forth a quality product(for a lack of better words) for the sportsmen and women of this state was job one, taking care of and growing our herds was how they sold tags and helped bring in money. Then the word "Game" was dropped and they morphed into a new dept. with new plans and new money coming in from other directions, some of which who are in direct conflict with our elk, deer and moose herds, along with many more irons that were put into the fire, the "hunting iron" has become a lot smaller and not as hot as the many other new irons that have been added to the fire and what we are seeing as far as predators and many other critters being coddled and nurtured above our elk, deer and other big game is no surprise to me unfortunately.... :twocents:
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
It could be 5, or 6 or even 10 or 20. The bottom line or the jist is, no matter the number and since the switch to the WDFW a lot of those other "irons in the fire" conflict with growing our ungulate herds and unlike it was when they were the Game Department our deer and elk herds have slipped down in the pecking order of priorities. Most if not all the Game Dept. folks my family knew up until the 80,s and into the 90,s (roughly) were all avid hunters and outdoorsman, yep most had schooling and degrees but when you would talk with them, the reason they pursued that line of work was their love of hunting, fishing and the outdoors and more times than not, it was given in that order. Well the old guard has and is slowly being replaced because of a new direction(I guess I,ll call it)that the WDFW is heading and I would bet good money that more and more of the "new guard" did NOT pursue this line of work because of their love of hunting, fishing and the outdoors and yes, in that order.....as always, just my opinion and my :twocents:
Post by: mfswallace on December 29, 2018, 04:22:54 PM
A few years back here on HW I said that wolves will drive elk out of traditional cover and people will see them more often in non-traditional areas, it'll appear like there's more elk than ever when in reality there's fewer Elk, just that the wolves are driving them out in the open more and they'll come into town.
I got ridiculed by our resident HW pro-wolf advocacy group, but seems like I may have been right (again).
:chuckle: The wolfers have pretty much backed off, too many of our predictions about wolves are proving true!
My favorite:
"wolves will make you a better hunter"
Sounds like a newer lib biologist ?
Post by: Goshawk on January 12, 2019, 08:21:08 AM
The goal of ending hunting has been long known
Indeed.
Back in the 1990's I was on a mailing list by default since I frequently contributed to a bird watching group out of Seattle. When the Washington Bear-Baiting Act, Initiative 655 (1996) was presented many of the emails going back and forth spoke of this ban as the first step in bringing a predator so far up in numbers that there will be no human hunting needed as part of the natural balance, or even allowed. That was one of the long term goals even back then.
Goshawk
Post by: KFhunter on January 12, 2019, 05:48:31 PM
A few years back here on HW I said that wolves will drive elk out of traditional cover and people will see them more often in non-traditional areas, it'll appear like there's more elk than ever when in reality there's fewer Elk, just that the wolves are driving them out in the open more and they'll come into town.
I got ridiculed by our resident HW pro-wolf advocacy group, but seems like I may have been right (again).
:chuckle: The wolfers have pretty much backed off, too many of our predictions about wolves are proving true!
My favorite:
"wolves will make you a better hunter"
Sounds like a newer lib biologist ?
Let's go train a new bird dog, but first go kill 80% of your pigeons. Less birds makes a better bird dog! Right?
Post by: buckfvr on January 12, 2019, 05:57:13 PM
Post by: idaho guy on January 13, 2019, 11:37:17 AM
A few years back here on HW I said that wolves will drive elk out of traditional cover and people will see them more often in non-traditional areas, it'll appear like there's more elk than ever when in reality there's fewer Elk, just that the wolves are driving them out in the open more and they'll come into town.
I got ridiculed by our resident HW pro-wolf advocacy group, but seems like I may have been right (again).
:chuckle: The wolfers have pretty much backed off, too many of our predictions about wolves are proving true!
My favorite:
"wolves will make you a better hunter"
:yeah: usually followed up with a statement that "sure they wont just stand out in the open looking at you anymore" but the GOOD hunters will still get their elk :chuckle: I don't remember elk standing out in the open looking at me ever! last two elk I killed were the easiest of my life because the wolves pushed them right to the edge of town! Its not right they are being forced into areas they don't really belong. Meanwhile great remote elk habitat is a ghost town for elk.
Post by: KFhunter on January 13, 2019, 11:44:19 AM
Post by: ironhead14 on January 13, 2019, 12:51:35 PM
Post by: Igor on January 13, 2019, 01:22:12 PM
Stop voting Democrat!!!!Every major anti-gun piece of legislation since 1934 has been authored by the Democrats:
--- The National Firearms Act (NFA), (1934)
--- The Gun Control Act of 1968, (1968)
--- The Brady Violence Handgun Protection Act, (1993)
--- Every anti-gun law and initiative in the state of Washington, including I-594 & I-1639
--- and there will be more to come, believe it
If you are a Democrat, and have helped to vote Democrats into office, then you are complicit. You can bob and weave and duck and make excuses, but the Democrat Party in this country has a long history of making life difficult for those of us who believe that gun-ownership "shall not be infringed".
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 13, 2019, 01:42:19 PM
Reagan signed the Hughes amendment.
Post by: Igor on January 13, 2019, 02:05:45 PM
George HW Bush banned the import of foreign made 'assault rifles'.
Reagan signed the Hughes amendment.
Reagan didn't "sign" the Hughes Amendment.....it was added to the FOPA (Firearm Owner Protection Act) bill that Reagan signed. William J. Hughes, an anti-liberty New Jersey Democrat, slipped in the amendment to FOPA, which was a bill designed to PROTECT gun owners.