Post by: SuperX on March 01, 2019, 12:26:04 PM
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on March 01, 2019, 01:54:57 PM
When there are only young bulls breeding, cows delay breeding seeking large mature bulls which they have evolved to select as mates. In addition to desynchronizing calving, having breeding done by yearlings and raghorns can result in reduced survival post-rut of those smaller bulls. When there are mature bulls in the herd, reproductive effort by young bulls is suppressed, and they go into fall and winter with higher fat reserves and better overwinter survival.
Post by: SuperX on March 01, 2019, 02:31:17 PM
Yes. Having an older age structure in an elk herd isn't just for big bulls to shoot, it synchronizes calf drop and results in less newborn mortality by predators that can only efficiently hunt elk in their first 1-2 weeks of age (coyotes, bobcats, black bear). Having all the calves hit the ground as close together as possible reduces the impact of neonate predation.
When there are only young bulls breeding, cows delay breeding seeking large mature bulls which they have evolved to select as mates. In addition to desynchronizing calving, having breeding done by yearlings and raghorns can result in reduced survival post-rut of those smaller bulls. When there are mature bulls in the herd, reproductive effort by young bulls is suppressed, and they go into fall and winter with higher fat reserves and better overwinter survival.
Hmm, seems unlikely, and pretty counter intuitive to say that under increasing pressure from predators, we need to hunt the cows and leave the bulls alone.
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on March 01, 2019, 03:14:37 PM
I don't think I wrote anything about needing to hunt cows. Antler point restrictions are about maintaining sufficient bull age structure to synchronize breeding. Cow hunting is a tool for maintaining or reducing herd size, not managing for trophy bulls.Yes. Having an older age structure in an elk herd isn't just for big bulls to shoot, it synchronizes calf drop and results in less newborn mortality by predators that can only efficiently hunt elk in their first 1-2 weeks of age (coyotes, bobcats, black bear). Having all the calves hit the ground as close together as possible reduces the impact of neonate predation.
When there are only young bulls breeding, cows delay breeding seeking large mature bulls which they have evolved to select as mates. In addition to desynchronizing calving, having breeding done by yearlings and raghorns can result in reduced survival post-rut of those smaller bulls. When there are mature bulls in the herd, reproductive effort by young bulls is suppressed, and they go into fall and winter with higher fat reserves and better overwinter survival.
Hmm, seems unlikely, and pretty counter intuitive to say that under increasing pressure from predators, we need to hunt the cows and leave the bulls alone.
Post by: KFhunter on March 01, 2019, 04:14:13 PM
I just can't get over it, pissing me off so bad. I don't blame the Indians at all, but I'm freaking hating on Washington bad.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on March 01, 2019, 04:20:37 PM
I applaud the Colville's for doing something I cannot, but GAAAAAWWDang!!! does it stick in my craw they're doing things in the national forest that I cannot only because I'm white....There are tribes that didn't push for treaties and ended up without any extra rights.
I just can't get over it, pissing me off so bad. I don't blame the Indians at all, but I'm freaking hating on Washington bad.
Post by: SuperX on March 01, 2019, 04:27:24 PM
I don't think I wrote anything about needing to hunt cows. Antler point restrictions are about maintaining sufficient bull age structure to synchronize breeding. Cow hunting is a tool for maintaining or reducing herd size, not managing for trophy bulls.Yes. Having an older age structure in an elk herd isn't just for big bulls to shoot, it synchronizes calf drop and results in less newborn mortality by predators that can only efficiently hunt elk in their first 1-2 weeks of age (coyotes, bobcats, black bear). Having all the calves hit the ground as close together as possible reduces the impact of neonate predation.
When there are only young bulls breeding, cows delay breeding seeking large mature bulls which they have evolved to select as mates. In addition to desynchronizing calving, having breeding done by yearlings and raghorns can result in reduced survival post-rut of those smaller bulls. When there are mature bulls in the herd, reproductive effort by young bulls is suppressed, and they go into fall and winter with higher fat reserves and better overwinter survival.
Hmm, seems unlikely, and pretty counter intuitive to say that under increasing pressure from predators, we need to hunt the cows and leave the bulls alone.
Yeah, that last sentence is what I believe too. The trade off I wanted to discuss is should we switch the focus to growing herds as a buffer to depredation while keeping opportunity and success for hunters at a reasonable level (to be determined). I fear that the current system, with an additional apex predator or two introduced to the equation, will have to get more restrictive on human hunters and we'll lose opportunity to hunt at all in some places.
As to bull maturity affecting spring cow/calf ratios is an old theory that hasn't held up according to a quick search "Sire age had no effect on mean dates of calf births or on calf weights. Neither sire age nor season of grazing by cattle had significant effects on calf weights".
If it were true, killing herd bulls would be a bad thing to do, so we should end antler restrictions?
https://bioone.org/journals/wildlife-biology/volume-19/issue-3/12-051/Reproduction-in-North-American-elk-i--span-classgenus-speciesCervus/10.2981/12-051.full
Post by: SuperX on March 01, 2019, 04:30:23 PM
I applaud the Colville's for doing something I cannot, but GAAAAAWWDang!!! does it stick in my craw they're doing things in the national forest that I cannot only because I'm white....
I just can't get over it, pissing me off so bad. I don't blame the Indians at all, but I'm freaking hating on Washington bad.
I didn't post this in wolves, can we stop with the racist BS?
Post by: Skyvalhunter on March 01, 2019, 04:40:51 PM
Post by: SuperX on March 01, 2019, 04:42:48 PM
Really much of our so called quality deer or elk hunts are no longer quality hunts but buck or bull hunts. That line between a quality hunt and buck or bull hunt to shrinking.:yeah: Sadly too true
Post by: vandeman17 on March 01, 2019, 04:47:13 PM
I applaud the Colville's for doing something I cannot, but GAAAAAWWDang!!! does it stick in my craw they're doing things in the national forest that I cannot only because I'm white....
I just can't get over it, pissing me off so bad. I don't blame the Indians at all, but I'm freaking hating on Washington bad.
I didn't post this in wolves, can we stop with the racist BS?
Wolves are predators correct? I think his post has relevance in this thread :twocents:
I also do not see anything racist in his post. He just made a point about two different groups having different rights :dunno:
Post by: hunter399 on March 01, 2019, 05:02:57 PM
It's the fact he used indian instead of native American or just native.I applaud the Colville's for doing something I cannot, but GAAAAAWWDang!!! does it stick in my craw they're doing things in the national forest that I cannot only because I'm white....
I just can't get over it, pissing me off so bad. I don't blame the Indians at all, but I'm freaking hating on Washington bad.
I didn't post this in wolves, can we stop with the racist BS?
Wolves are predators correct? I think his post has relevance in this thread :twocents:
I also do not see anything racist in his post. He just made a point about two different groups having different rights :dunno:
People are so touchy these days on racist stuff it's really unbelievable but it is what it is .I don't wig out of someone calls me whitety but I'm a little more racist chill. :dunno:
Post by: blackveltbowhunter on March 01, 2019, 05:08:07 PM
I don't think I wrote anything about needing to hunt cows. Antler point restrictions are about maintaining sufficient bull age structure to synchronize breeding. Cow hunting is a tool for maintaining or reducing herd size, not managing for trophy bulls.Yes. Having an older age structure in an elk herd isn't just for big bulls to shoot, it synchronizes calf drop and results in less newborn mortality by predators that can only efficiently hunt elk in their first 1-2 weeks of age (coyotes, bobcats, black bear). Having all the calves hit the ground as close together as possible reduces the impact of neonate predation.
When there are only young bulls breeding, cows delay breeding seeking large mature bulls which they have evolved to select as mates. In addition to desynchronizing calving, having breeding done by yearlings and raghorns can result in reduced survival post-rut of those smaller bulls. When there are mature bulls in the herd, reproductive effort by young bulls is suppressed, and they go into fall and winter with higher fat reserves and better overwinter survival.
Hmm, seems unlikely, and pretty counter intuitive to say that under increasing pressure from predators, we need to hunt the cows and leave the bulls alone.
Yeah, that last sentence is what I believe too. The trade off I wanted to discuss is should we switch the focus to growing herds as a buffer to depredation while keeping opportunity and success for hunters at a reasonable level (to be determined). I fear that the current system, with an additional apex predator or two introduced to the equation, will have to get more restrictive on human hunters and we'll lose opportunity to hunt at all in some places.
As to bull maturity affecting spring cow/calf ratios is an old theory that hasn't held up according to a quick search "Sire age had no effect on mean dates of calf births or on calf weights. Neither sire age nor season of grazing by cattle had significant effects on calf weights".
If it were true, killing herd bulls would be a bad thing to do, so we should end antler restrictions?
https://bioone.org/journals/wildlife-biology/volume-19/issue-3/12-051/Reproduction-in-North-American-elk-i--span-classgenus-speciesCervus/10.2981/12-051.full
I get from that article that if bred, the offspring is not affected by the age of the sire. However it does not address breeding COMPETITION which is an important factor if trying to have calves drop in a short window. Competitive breeding rights help assure cows get bred quickly, even if bred by younger bulls that are competing. Another thing left out is cow competition as well.
If trying to grow a herd, I think reducing pressure on cows is the most important thing given those cows get covered. If that coincides with a breeding structure where calves drop in a short window reducing calf mortality, double win.
Post by: SuperX on March 01, 2019, 06:45:40 PM
I don't think I wrote anything about needing to hunt cows. Antler point restrictions are about maintaining sufficient bull age structure to synchronize breeding. Cow hunting is a tool for maintaining or reducing herd size, not managing for trophy bulls.Yes. Having an older age structure in an elk herd isn't just for big bulls to shoot, it synchronizes calf drop and results in less newborn mortality by predators that can only efficiently hunt elk in their first 1-2 weeks of age (coyotes, bobcats, black bear). Having all the calves hit the ground as close together as possible reduces the impact of neonate predation.
When there are only young bulls breeding, cows delay breeding seeking large mature bulls which they have evolved to select as mates. In addition to desynchronizing calving, having breeding done by yearlings and raghorns can result in reduced survival post-rut of those smaller bulls. When there are mature bulls in the herd, reproductive effort by young bulls is suppressed, and they go into fall and winter with higher fat reserves and better overwinter survival.
Hmm, seems unlikely, and pretty counter intuitive to say that under increasing pressure from predators, we need to hunt the cows and leave the bulls alone.
Yeah, that last sentence is what I believe too. The trade off I wanted to discuss is should we switch the focus to growing herds as a buffer to depredation while keeping opportunity and success for hunters at a reasonable level (to be determined). I fear that the current system, with an additional apex predator or two introduced to the equation, will have to get more restrictive on human hunters and we'll lose opportunity to hunt at all in some places.
As to bull maturity affecting spring cow/calf ratios is an old theory that hasn't held up according to a quick search "Sire age had no effect on mean dates of calf births or on calf weights. Neither sire age nor season of grazing by cattle had significant effects on calf weights".
If it were true, killing herd bulls would be a bad thing to do, so we should end antler restrictions?
https://bioone.org/journals/wildlife-biology/volume-19/issue-3/12-051/Reproduction-in-North-American-elk-i--span-classgenus-speciesCervus/10.2981/12-051.full
I get from that article that if bred, the offspring is not affected by the age of the sire. However it does not address breeding COMPETITION which is an important factor if trying to have calves drop in a short window. Competitive breeding rights help assure cows get bred quickly, even if bred by younger bulls that are competing. Another thing left out is cow competition as well.
If trying to grow a herd, I think reducing pressure on cows is the most important thing given those cows get covered. If that coincides with a breeding structure where calves drop in a short window reducing calf mortality, double win.
Read the study at the link, your idea of what is happening to make calves drop at the same time isn't really happening because of the maturity of the bull. The study proved the bull has little to do with it and cows breed with 9 month old bulls as readily as older bulls, but older bulls are able to bully the younger bulls away from her until she was ready. Typical rut stuff, big guy wins, no big guy in the herd, no problem.
Post by: Jonathan_S on March 01, 2019, 08:17:54 PM
Post by: SuperX on March 02, 2019, 07:58:42 AM
It's the timing that comes from herd bulls breeding that youre.missing which @DOUBLELUNG (who is uniquely qualified to comment on the subject) is pointing out
I didn't miss it, I just said the study points out that younger bulls always are a part of the breeding pool, even when mature bulls exist, and that by removing mature bulls from breeding did not decrease synchronicity or size or number of calves. In short, the idea that this is because of mature bulls somehow bunching up the births is not supported by evidence including testing the parentage of calves showing they are not all bred by the same bulls to begin with.
So we could do away with antler restrictions without causing the herds cows to stop having synchronous birthing in the spring.
Post by: huntnfmly on March 02, 2019, 09:23:05 AM
Post by: SuperX on March 02, 2019, 11:08:04 AM
I would think removing point restrictions would eventually lead to only the lesser bulls breeding therefore breeding out the better genes leading to inferior health in herds
An inadvertent argument against targeting mature bulls? J/K :) I suspect the genes in the herd are not going to change because younger bulls without big antlers aren't sickly, they're just the young of the bigger bulls with all of their robust genetics. We may find out some day that antler size is controlled by the cows like male pattern baldness is passed through the mother's line.
The best way to grow the herd is to stop hunting completely and control predators. I'm thinking about how, without the ability to control predators, do we keep the opportunity to hunt alive for the people who want to.
Post by: blackveltbowhunter on March 02, 2019, 11:16:07 AM
I am not a big fan of APR but it does keep opportunity while also somewhat maintaining bull to cow ratio.
Post by: KFhunter on March 02, 2019, 11:21:18 AM
The argument seems to be timely breeding, can anyone show me where cows are even getting bred late?
Post by: SuperX on March 02, 2019, 11:31:07 AM
With the current system :dunno:
I am not a big fan of APR but it does keep opportunity while also somewhat maintaining bull to cow ratio.
Agree, and I am not against APR if warranted. I'm more against permit only access to quality bulls. Permit only is opportunity for the few and results in closed off GMUs to maintain the quality hunt experience. If the whole state went 3pt or better and permits only to hunt spike or 2pt or cow (if needed to manage B:C or over population)I think the herds would get bigger. I would expect average antler size to go down, but there would still be big bulls, they would just be harder to find and hunt, and they would be open for whoever can find them. If local herds get threatened, close or reduce days to hunt these unit(s) should let them rebound in a coupe years. I bet this would work for deer as well.
Post by: KFhunter on March 02, 2019, 11:48:24 AM
Post by: bobcat on March 02, 2019, 11:50:13 AM
Post by: KFhunter on March 02, 2019, 12:09:17 PM
I applaud the Colville's for doing something I cannot, but GAAAAAWWDang!!! does it stick in my craw they're doing things in the national forest that I cannot only because I'm white....
I just can't get over it, pissing me off so bad. I don't blame the Indians at all, but I'm freaking hating on Washington bad.
I didn't post this in wolves, can we stop with the racist BS?
There's nothing racist about my post so best put on your big girl panties and quit being such a snowflake.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/roadshow/fts/bismarck_200504A16.html
Quote
But despite the supposed political correctness of Native American, it has not become the preferred term. "The acceptance of Native American has not brought about the demise of Indian," according to the fourth edition of the American Heritage Book of English Usage, published in 2000. "Unlike Negro, which was quickly stigmatized once black became preferred, Indian never fell out of favor with a large segment of the American population."
Nor did the word Indian fall out of favor with the people it described. A 1995 Census Bureau survey that asked indigenous Americans their preferences for names (the last such survey done by the bureau) found that 49 percent preferred the term Indian, 37 percent Native American, and 3.6 percent "some other name." About 5 percent expressed no preference.
Moreover, a large number of Indians actually strongly object to the term Native American for political reasons. In his 1998 essay "I Am An American Indian, Not a Native American!", Russell Means, a Lakota activist and a founder of the American Indian Movement (AIM), stated unequivocally, "I abhor the term 'Native American.'" He continues:
So for your point of calling me a racist, you can go pound sand sir.
To your point about predators...hey! if you want to ignore the elephant in the room and squabble over left overs that's your business, but don't expect the rest of us to do so.
You didn't specify which elk herd or which location in your question. Each location has it's challenges and those challenges are quickly evolving. If predators haven't supplanted people in reducing the elk herd you're thinking about, be rest assured they soon will!
Any discussion not talking about predator reduction is an exercise in futility.
Post by: Bowhunter3 on March 02, 2019, 01:12:43 PM
Post by: HoofsandWings on March 02, 2019, 03:12:02 PM
In addition to desynchronizing calving, having breeding done by yearlings and raghorns can result in reduced survival post-rut of those smaller bulls. When there are mature bulls in the herd, reproductive effort by young bulls is suppressed, and they go into fall and winter with higher fat reserves and better overwinter survival.
With the Yakima and Clockum herds spike only. I would think survival of young bulls would be important.
Post by: SuperX on March 04, 2019, 03:13:54 PM
This is a mixed bag post, so for the racist remark, you played the race card right in your first sentence. I bolded the relevant part. Not only is it racially based but it is not on topic... doesn't that at least violate one TOS?I applaud the Colville's for doing something I cannot, but GAAAAAWWDang!!! does it stick in my craw they're doing things in the national forest that I cannot only because I'm white....
I just can't get over it, pissing me off so bad. I don't blame the Indians at all, but I'm freaking hating on Washington bad.
I didn't post this in wolves, can we stop with the racist BS?
There's nothing racist about my post so best put on your big girl panties and quit being such a snowflake.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/roadshow/fts/bismarck_200504A16.htmlQuoteBut despite the supposed political correctness of Native American, it has not become the preferred term. "The acceptance of Native American has not brought about the demise of Indian," according to the fourth edition of the American Heritage Book of English Usage, published in 2000. "Unlike Negro, which was quickly stigmatized once black became preferred, Indian never fell out of favor with a large segment of the American population."
Nor did the word Indian fall out of favor with the people it described. A 1995 Census Bureau survey that asked indigenous Americans their preferences for names (the last such survey done by the bureau) found that 49 percent preferred the term Indian, 37 percent Native American, and 3.6 percent "some other name." About 5 percent expressed no preference.
Moreover, a large number of Indians actually strongly object to the term Native American for political reasons. In his 1998 essay "I Am An American Indian, Not a Native American!", Russell Means, a Lakota activist and a founder of the American Indian Movement (AIM), stated unequivocally, "I abhor the term 'Native American.'" He continues:
So for your point of calling me a racist, you can go pound sand sir.
To your point about predators...hey! if you want to ignore the elephant in the room and squabble over left overs that's your business, but don't expect the rest of us to do so.
You didn't specify which elk herd or which location in your question. Each location has it's challenges and those challenges are quickly evolving. If predators haven't supplanted people in reducing the elk herd you're thinking about, be rest assured they soon will!
Any discussion not talking about predator reduction is an exercise in futility.
As for ignoring wolves, I am... Instead, I am thinking about what we can do for the herds without managing predators. We can't count on the feds letting us hunt them any more than they did in the great lakes after they were delisted. Since we are screwed if we don't do something, I was throwing it out as a possible way to help the herds grow and sustain under this un-planned for pressure. As to each herd being different, yes, and we would continue to manage them by GMU and open the overpopulated areas up for cow harvest and longer seasons. Some GMUs would need to close. It's what other states have been doing forever.
As to my panties, you would probably be able to swim in them
Post by: blackveltbowhunter on March 04, 2019, 04:16:49 PM
Hoof rot gets blamed ALOT for the demise of the SouthWest Washington elk herds, Its a terrible thing. But IMO its a drop in the bucket compared to the late december and January slaughter fests that began around 08 when WDFW mismanaged the herd so poorly and caved to big timber at sportsmans expense. Thousands of permits to the tune of 50 plus percent success rate, and your future along with that; it is going to wreak havoc. Its a scalpel and cuts may have been warranted, but instead of a one or two year plan they ran with it for the better part of a decade.
Post by: KFhunter on March 04, 2019, 04:35:51 PM
I think you simply wanted to shut down that particular line of conversation and didn't want this thread to be about wolves, so you called me racist and tried to shut it down. You don't get to call me a racist and walk away unscathed.
My point is the Colville tribe is killing wolves off the reservation in national forest lands which is benefiting Elk, Deer and Moose. It galls me that due to Washington ineptness I cannot do the same even though it's my woods too, just as much as it is theirs.
The feds have already delisted wolves, we could hunt them and the feds wouldn't care. We could trap them and the feds wouldn't care. They've turned over wolf management to the state. The feds aren't holding us back, it's WDFW.
They need to modify the wolf plan and delist everything east of the Cascades immediately and work hard on documenting everything west of the Cascades.
Wolves are replacing all human hunting if we take ourselves out of the equation by limiting hunting or closing GMU's then we'll never see those GMU's reopen without predator control.
Look, Washington isn't reinventing the wheel here. Other western states (ID, MT, WY) have already ran this cycle of wolf expansion, they've already dealt with collapsing herds and have built herds back up with wolf presence but they had to kill back a lot of wolves to do it. They also have tools (hounds, trapping) that Washington doesn't have so that only exacerbates Washington's problems.
simply put:
Any discussion that doesn't talk about predators is mute.
Post by: SuperX on March 04, 2019, 06:18:17 PM
Superx What is your idea exactly? Perhaps my reading comp is not working up to par, I basically read the thread title and your OP as asking if we can continue managing herds for quality versus quantity with unchecked predator control. My short answer is yes. I would argue we have to. I hunt westside in Wa, but from what I observe the BM, Colockum, and Yakima herds are all under siege. All units have reduced cow harvest, and limited antlered take in areas with true spike. Other than closing general seasons completely I am not sure there is a solution better than the current one. If we went to general bull seasons, and no antlereless take IMO we would have many more uncovered cows. You need covered cows to grow a herd, protect the cows by limiting take by permit and weapon, and protect the breeding age bulls through the draw.
Hoof rot gets blamed ALOT for the demise of the SouthWest Washington elk herds, Its a terrible thing. But IMO its a drop in the bucket compared to the late december and January slaughter fests that began around 08 when WDFW mismanaged the herd so poorly and caved to big timber at sportsmans expense. Thousands of permits to the tune of 50 plus percent success rate, and your future along with that; it is going to wreak havoc. Its a scalpel and cuts may have been warranted, but instead of a one or two year plan they ran with it for the better part of a decade.
The post is probably titled poorly, but my hope was that we could talk about only the growth side of the problem, since IMO the chance to manage big predators in any big way will take years or decades to happen.
I agree that the areas you mention on the east side are getting some of the same relief I suggest full time... I've always felt that if a cow is in heat, it will get bred by something, that is the QDM argument to control bull/buck gene pool, it can't be both ways, right?
The one thing I know for sure is that hunting opportunity will always be lower in a quality state than a quantity one. I don't want to have to draw a regular season tag to hunt in my home state.
Post by: SuperX on March 04, 2019, 06:23:54 PM
I didn't see anything racist with my post and there certainly wasn't any racist intent with it; but I don't believe that was purpose of calling me a racist was it?You got your rant in, congratulations you win. RHIP Can we stop, please?
I think you simply wanted to shut down that particular line of conversation and didn't want this thread to be about wolves, so you called me racist and tried to shut it down. You don't get to call me a racist and walk away unscathed.
My point is the Colville tribe is killing wolves off the reservation in national forest lands which is benefiting Elk, Deer and Moose. It galls me that due to Washington ineptness I cannot do the same even though it's my woods too, just as much as it is theirs.
The feds have already delisted wolves, we could hunt them and the feds wouldn't care. We could trap them and the feds wouldn't care. They've turned over wolf management to the state. The feds aren't holding us back, it's WDFW.
They need to modify the wolf plan and delist everything east of the Cascades immediately and work hard on documenting everything west of the Cascades.
Wolves are replacing all human hunting if we take ourselves out of the equation by limiting hunting or closing GMU's then we'll never see those GMU's reopen without predator control.
Look, Washington isn't reinventing the wheel here. Other western states (ID, MT, WY) have already ran this cycle of wolf expansion, they've already dealt with collapsing herds and have built herds back up with wolf presence but they had to kill back a lot of wolves to do it. They also have tools (hounds, trapping) that Washington doesn't have so that only exacerbates Washington's problems.
simply put:
Any discussion that doesn't talk about predators is mute.
Post by: fishwhackin on March 04, 2019, 06:37:35 PM
Post by: SuperX on March 04, 2019, 06:58:20 PM
For every action there is a reaction. I have read several discussions on this topic in this forum and I am surprised when it comes to talking about how to help the herd with reducing harvest in one form or another that it rarely comes up that it could be detrimental for a few years down the road. I am not trying to push wolves into the equation alone but it is all predators. We have to manage the predators as a whole, more responsibly, before we look at cutting numbers of harvest. Reality is that people get fat at a buffet. Animals not only get fat and healthy but reproduce greatly and successfully with a buffet. A buffet is what we will be feeding them and as they grow in numbers the number of elk will not likely increase as a person would expect with our reduced harvest but instead slightly increase before decreasing for a period of time until the threshold of not enough starves out a large portion of the predators. Then you will see the cycle repeat itself until there is balance. However, balance that keeps permit seekers as well as what I would venture to say "most" hunters happy will not ever be achieved without extreme changes to the predator management. I may be out in left field on this one, but I think we will see short lived bursts in the population of elk and deer if we were to continue to harvest them with the quotas that we currently hunt them at. This is the quickest way to reducing their predator numbers. Just a thought.What I'm reading is that we need habitat management for that 'buffet' you mentioned. I agree for sure. We should be managing public lands for wildlife not just trying to preserve them as some shrine to ecology or something. Logging is something we need not just for jobs or wood, but because of the boost it gives to wildlife! Building herds while locking them away from their food and grounds is another problem, for sure that is an issue in some of the 300 units.
Some predators respond to threats by reproducing in higher numbers, some follow prey population in cycles, they all seem to get their dinner because they haven't gone extinct yet, so why can't we just factor them in at some number and manage to it instead of being over run then exterminating back. Manage them like big game.
Post by: Not selected on March 05, 2019, 07:52:09 PM
I didn't see anything racist with my post and there certainly wasn't any racist intent with it; but I don't believe that was purpose of calling me a racist was it?:yeah: you sir win the inter web today!
I think you simply wanted to shut down that particular line of conversation and didn't want this thread to be about wolves, so you called me racist and tried to shut it down. You don't get to call me a racist and walk away unscathed.
My point is the Colville tribe is killing wolves off the reservation in national forest lands which is benefiting Elk, Deer and Moose. It galls me that due to Washington ineptness I cannot do the same even though it's my woods too, just as much as it is theirs.
The feds have already delisted wolves, we could hunt them and the feds wouldn't care. We could trap them and the feds wouldn't care. They've turned over wolf management to the state. The feds aren't holding us back, it's WDFW.
They need to modify the wolf plan and delist everything east of the Cascades immediately and work hard on documenting everything west of the Cascades.
Wolves are replacing all human hunting if we take ourselves out of the equation by limiting hunting or closing GMU's then we'll never see those GMU's reopen without predator control.
Look, Washington isn't reinventing the wheel here. Other western states (ID, MT, WY) have already ran this cycle of wolf expansion, they've already dealt with collapsing herds and have built herds back up with wolf presence but they had to kill back a lot of wolves to do it. They also have tools (hounds, trapping) that Washington doesn't have so that only exacerbates Washington's problems.
simply put:
Any discussion that doesn't talk about predators is mute.