Post by: cougforester on September 20, 2020, 04:38:21 PM
Quote
1. Pursuant to the first bullet point on page vii of the Management Plan, has any formal survey protocol actually been developed or implemented? The 2020 hunting prospects document states quite clearly that these have not, and instead use surrogates. It would seem that as more eyes come onto the NE in all facets, including wolves, mountain caribou extinction, CWD and other diseases, more formal data collection of true elk population numbers should be pursued.
2. The Selkirk Herd has been supplemented with 8 past releases of elk in the past, with the most being in 2000. The stated goal of the department for this sub-herd is to grow the population to an upper limit of 2,500 elk. Are any more releases/supplementations being considered?
We saw some incredible country, throughout both private timberlands and public ownership, that was either devoid of elk or was used solely as transitional habitat. Everything we’ve heard about the elk up north prior to hunting them was they’re highly nomadic, move often and frequently, and are in small bands. To my amateur eye, there could be significantly more elk than 2,500. Between the 3 counties, there is 6,081 sq miles of land, of which the GMUs make up 4,629 sq miles. Using the 2500 mark, that would be 1 elk per 1.85 sq mi (1 elk/ 1185 acres). Yes, there are cities, roads, developed areas to take out of these acres, but that sure still seems like low densities.
The areas I hunted in Montana last year, while slightly over objective, had roughly 2,000 elk in 630 square miles, which equates to 1 elk per 0.32 square miles or 1 elk per 202 acres.
This rolls into another issue of relating this OTC opportunity to declining bull tags in the Yakima/ Blues herd. If this herd could be augmented and increase populations, theoretically less hunters would be chasing spikes during general season in the 300 series GMUs and could hunt in the NE with a reasonable chance of harvesting a mature bull, or any elk for that matter and not chase true spike unicorns. That would allow more bulls to reach mature age, and should increase tag allocations generating more revenue to the department for application fees. Elk from areas that consistently cause crop damage could be relocated to the north and help resolve two issues with one action. Could the Selkirk herd be used to help improve herd conditions for the other major populations in the state?
3. The five year average for all weapon categories for elk harvest, regardless of sex or species, from the 2020 Hunting Prospects is 230. The table in the Selkirk Management Plan from 2001-2010 for the Pend Oreille sub-herd shows an average of 212. Current population estimates for the Pend Oreille Sub-herd shows estimates 1,500 animals, which would leave about 1,300 animals post hunting season. I’ve attached a table showing where elk mortality would come from and animals theoretically left on the landscape post-hunting season. It’s not 100% accurate, as I’ve reduced wolf kills from 17 elk per wolf per year to 10, since I’m assuming they would eat other prey (deer/moose) and not just elk (page 18 of Selkirk Elk Plan).I also used the minimum confirmed population levels, so odds are these numbers and wolf kills are even higher. I also assumed reasonable levels for bear/cougar/poaching based on other data in the elk plan. Are elk numbers in the Selkirk herd being considered to help benefit the growing predator populations in the NE?
As wolf populations should continue to grow, they will need more prey to feed on. The recent move to start black bear season on August 1 statewide and allow 2 bears statewide should help mitigate some of those kills by bears as more hunters harvest more black bears. However wolf populations are going to continue to expand for the foreseeable future and could shift their attention to already vulnerable moose populations for larger prey if elk begin to decline. It would appear that supplementing this herd could further decrease livestock predations, as there are wild sources of prey that wolves could chase and reduce the number of wolves the department would have to lethally remove.
4. Only 1.5 claims of ag damage by the Selkirk herd were recorded during 2001-2010. There is good logic in the Selkirk plan on page 24 regarding ag damage that shows how these costs can be mitigated, and how additional hunters in the area pursuing big game could contribute to fund additional damage claims that may occur with increased elk populations.
5. On page 29, the second question stated on the research needs section seems like a great way to collect data easily and efficiently related to body condition and nutrition and how that relates to overall herd health. I would like to see more of that pushed.
6. New research shows that closed roads are great for security, but actually offer little benefit to elk if there is no habitat to utilize behind the closed roads and in the secured areas. As there will come a push for more intensive management of federal lands in the Selkirk herd area (hopefully state as well) due to our recent fire season and smoke issues, wildlife managers should use this as an opportunity to further expand habitat improvement projects. What other planned work does the department have to improve habitat for the Selkirk herd in the coming years?
In summary, I believe this herd has an excellent opportunity for growth and improvement based on visual observation of habitat quality, current low density of elk, and stated goals from the department wanting to grow this herd.
Any information you could share on plans to follow through on the management plan, or ways that volunteers could help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time.
I knew going into this season that elk numbers were low, but my partner and I just could not wrap our heads around why this herd is being neglected.
More documentation can be found here:
https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/02167/district_1_hunting_prospects_2020.pdf
wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/01350/wdfw01350.pdf
I'd suggest giving these a read. There's some really good information in there, and I think there's tremendous opportunity to improve hunting here that would in turn benefit a number of other goals that WDFW has.
I'd love more input on this as I'm new to that herd and region, but these were just some of our initial thoughts while stomping through an absurd amount of country that didn't have elk in it.
Post by: Buckhunter24 on September 20, 2020, 05:19:29 PM
Post by: buckfvr on September 20, 2020, 05:37:38 PM
Some of the guys took them for their word initially, but soon all/most recognized they took cows from hunters and gave them to the wolves.
N.E. Wa. could hold many more elk if they were managed differently, along with the forests. I am of the opinion wdfw can not be believed under any circumstances as they are thumb screwed by special interests groups and politics.
Post by: cougforester on September 20, 2020, 06:02:13 PM
I definitely am cautious of what WDFW publicly states as their reasoning for things when their actions point to other things.
I'm curious to see what, if any, response from them I get on this and I'm looking forward to learning more about this herd and it's history.
Post by: buckfvr on September 20, 2020, 06:08:12 PM
Post by: Alan K on September 20, 2020, 06:08:32 PM
If there are agricultural lands, especially on winter range, that's be a more likely reason. That or competition for winter range forage with other more desired species? :dunno:
Post by: cougforester on September 20, 2020, 06:23:09 PM
What makes you say/think timber companies do not like elk? Admittedly I'm only involved in timber management on the west side, but ungulate browse damage is rarely significant enough to have a meaningful impact on a stand. Cedar is about the only crop species that get hammered over here. :twocents:Here's what the Selkirk Elk Plan has to say about competing species. Take from it what you will.... (https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200921/47667d85e5da9da1dd701a26e6e80c1f.jpg)
If there are agricultural lands, especially on winter range, that's be a more likely reason. That or competition for winter range forage with other more desired species? :dunno:
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: buckfvr on September 20, 2020, 06:30:04 PM
Also, over the years, there have been plenty of at times free flowing depredation elk tags for wintering elk getting in to hay barns and such....again this I was told by insider and farmer who was a habitual depredation tag recipient.
Post by: Ridgeratt on September 20, 2020, 06:37:47 PM
Post by: cougforester on September 20, 2020, 06:48:54 PM
If you research the trend reports from the wdfw back in the early 2000. Dana Base wrote that the position of the wdfw was to not encourage the expansion of the elk herd west of the Columbia River. Some place in all my files I have the report. But it still should be public information.
The Selkirk Elk Plan that was written in 2014 clearly states that they have a desire to INCREASE the Selkirk herd by roughly 1,000 elk.
EDIT: Did you mean east of the river?
Post by: buckfvr on September 20, 2020, 06:54:35 PM
Post by: Bango skank on September 20, 2020, 07:02:49 PM
So, 6 years later, how do the herds of then and now compare ?
Oh huge improvement! :chuckle:
Post by: cougforester on September 20, 2020, 07:05:54 PM
So, 6 years later, how do the herds of then and now compare ? How have they been impacted by predators and is there tribal hunting ?
Reported harvest has gone up slightly. But any herd gains have likely been negated by wolf predation. I'm not saying they're meeting their stated goals, but that it's at least on paper. I think their goal of 2500 is still ridiculously low and should be at least more in the 3500 level or more. The habitat is there, so they should be taking off.
They say tribal hunting is pretty negligible since it seems the tribes up north don't have off-reservation hunting rights and have to abide by state laws when hunting off reservation. Some elk for sure get whacked on reservation, but I don't think it's the same impact as other areas in the state.
Again, all this is being pulled from their 2020 Hunting Prospects and 2014 Selkirk Elk Herd Management Plan. This is where my skepticism of WDFW comes play with what they say they want to do and what they actually do. On paper it sounds acceptable, but could be better. In practice it's pretty pathetic.
Post by: WapitiTalk1 on September 20, 2020, 07:23:37 PM
Post by: Ridgeratt on September 20, 2020, 07:27:46 PM
If you research the trend reports from the wdfw back in the early 2000. Dana Base wrote that the position of the wdfw was to not encourage the expansion of the elk herd west of the Columbia River. Some place in all my files I have the report. But it still should be public information.
The Selkirk Elk Plan that was written in 2014 clearly states that they have a desire to INCREASE the Selkirk herd by roughly 1,000 elk.
EDIT: Did you mean east of the river?
They were talking about units 101,105
Post by: cougforester on September 20, 2020, 07:43:47 PM
If you research the trend reports from the wdfw back in the early 2000. Dana Base wrote that the position of the wdfw was to not encourage the expansion of the elk herd west of the Columbia River. Some place in all my files I have the report. But it still should be public information.
The Selkirk Elk Plan that was written in 2014 clearly states that they have a desire to INCREASE the Selkirk herd by roughly 1,000 elk.
EDIT: Did you mean east of the river?
They were talking about units 101,105
Gotcha. Hm. I've not seen that but if it's out there, it's out there!
Pre wolf introduction elk herd or 17K down to a bit over 2K now.
The herd used to be 17k?!?
Post by: WapitiTalk1 on September 20, 2020, 07:57:06 PM
If you research the trend reports from the wdfw back in the early 2000. Dana Base wrote that the position of the wdfw was to not encourage the expansion of the elk herd west of the Columbia River. Some place in all my files I have the report. But it still should be public information.
The Selkirk Elk Plan that was written in 2014 clearly states that they have a desire to INCREASE the Selkirk herd by roughly 1,000 elk.
EDIT: Did you mean east of the river?
They were talking about units 101,105
Gotcha. Hm. I've not seen that but if it's out there, it's out there!Pre wolf introduction elk herd or 17K down to a bit over 2K now.
The herd used to be 17k?!?
That’s what the old codger from Elk City told me a few years ago. I also talked to a local outfitter (checking his planned hunting spots as I had scouted a few close areas) and he mimicked very similar numbers.
Post by: Buckhunter24 on September 20, 2020, 08:14:36 PM
Post by: WapitiTalk1 on September 20, 2020, 08:20:47 PM
Post by: cougforester on September 20, 2020, 08:55:21 PM
Post by: bearpaw on September 21, 2020, 04:50:36 AM
When I was a kid there were almost no elk in NE WA, they were only found in a few small areas of the NE, mainly in GMU 113. For many years the WDFW's top priority was to maintain NE WA as primary whitetail habitat. The first unit that was managed for elk was GMU 113. There was open season on any elk you saw in other GMU's, anyone could shoot bulls, cows, or calves. Miraculously the elk ever so slowly increased, elk slowly moved in from Idaho and from B.C., most likely elk numbers increased only because of the heavy cover and many places to hide. Local hunters became more fond of elk hunting and put a lot of pressure on WDFW to stop the killing of cows and calves. After a good many years WDFW finally started managing more GMU's for elk and eventually eliminated the any elk season in other NE units. This took literally decades of complaining to get WDFW to finally allow the elk to increase!
Post by: Cougartail on September 21, 2020, 05:01:08 AM
Some History
When I was a kid there were almost no elk in NE WA, they were only found in a few small areas of the NE, mainly in GMU 113. For many years the WDFW's top priority was to maintain NE WA as primary whitetail habitat. The first unit that was managed for elk was GMU 113. There was open season on any elk you saw in other GMU's, anyone could shoot bulls, cows, or calves. Miraculously the elk ever so slowly increased, elk slowly moved in from Idaho and from B.C., most likely elk numbers increased only because of the heavy cover and many places to hide. Local hunters became more fond of elk hunting and put a lot of pressure on WDFW to stop the killing of cows and calves. After a good many years WDFW finally started managing more GMU's for elk and eventually eliminated the any elk season in other NE units. This took literally decades of complaining to get WDFW to finally allow the elk to increase!
A whitetail hunter who worked at WDFW must of retired?
Post by: hunterofelk on September 21, 2020, 05:48:15 AM
Post by: nwwanderer on September 21, 2020, 05:49:59 AM
Post by: Ridgeratt on September 21, 2020, 06:12:35 AM
https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/00440/wdfw00440.pdf
Population objectives and guidelines
Elk (Cervus elaphus) are managed in two zones
within the Colville District as divided by Game
Management Units (GMUs). Within GMUs 111, 113,
and 117, increasing the numbers of elk along with their
distribution is the goal. Here the elk hunter harvest
objective is to maintain the annual overall bull mortality
rate at less than 50% and a post hunting season bull-tocow ratio of 12 to 20 bulls:100 cows (WDFW 2003).
Antlerless hunting opportunity within these GMUs is by
permit only, except that bow hunters may hunt any elk.
Elk population growth is discouraged within the other
elk management zone, which includes GMUs 101, 105,
108, 121, and 124. Consequently “any elk” seasons are
generally offered within these GMUs.
Post by: KFhunter on September 21, 2020, 09:22:08 AM
They managed to grow in population dispite an OTC free-for-all, now that most cow hunts are stopped they should by all rights grow even faster...but are in decline
They only factor that has changed (that would contribute to herd decline) is introducing wolves and limited cougar, bear hunting.
I've hunted selkirk many years, prior to wolves you'd literally trip over deer while chasing elk, the deer were the biggest noticeable decline, it was drastic. It got to where I didn't bust a single deer in a weeks hunt in elk woods.
Started going down creek drainages and its dead elk after dead elk, having been run to water.
There's still some elk, they tend to be on well worn paths to ag lands, but hump in the higher country and its devastation.
The NE could easily compete with the blues, yaks and other central wa herds, the NE could easily take hunting pressure off those herds allowing them to come back to objectives.
If only it were managed.
I remember the selkirks prior to wolves, its sickening what's happened.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Post by: cougforester on September 21, 2020, 09:35:48 AM
Post by: Ridgeratt on September 21, 2020, 09:58:26 AM
Places that usually hold elk have been void of them. They usually head to them when they get pressured.
Post by: whacker1 on September 21, 2020, 10:24:48 AM
Post by: cougforester on September 21, 2020, 10:32:14 AM
Some HistoryI was hoping the head honcho would chime in! Good history lesson. I'm hoping that more pressure can start coming from hunters about this herd to start actually managing and growing it, rather than just complaining about it and accepting it at face value.
When I was a kid there were almost no elk in NE WA, they were only found in a few small areas of the NE, mainly in GMU 113. For many years the WDFW's top priority was to maintain NE WA as primary whitetail habitat. The first unit that was managed for elk was GMU 113. There was open season on any elk you saw in other GMU's, anyone could shoot bulls, cows, or calves. Miraculously the elk ever so slowly increased, elk slowly moved in from Idaho and from B.C., most likely elk numbers increased only because of the heavy cover and many places to hide. Local hunters became more fond of elk hunting and put a lot of pressure on WDFW to stop the killing of cows and calves. After a good many years WDFW finally started managing more GMU's for elk and eventually eliminated the any elk season in other NE units. This took literally decades of complaining to get WDFW to finally allow the elk to increase!
Post by: KFhunter on September 21, 2020, 10:42:24 AM
Vote Culp...with Inslee it won't change!
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Post by: cougforester on September 21, 2020, 10:46:05 AM
I really don't know, but I'd like to try and get more eyes and attention on it.
Post by: mdbuck5x5 on September 21, 2020, 02:24:39 PM
Post by: idaho guy on September 21, 2020, 03:48:59 PM
A predator explosion with no end in sight is the only thing that I see as well limiting herd growth. The habitat is beautiful and there's lots and lots of it. But if the elk keep getting eaten before they've got a chance to reproduce, there's nowhere to go but down regardless of the habitat availability.
:yeah: Elk numbers won’t improve without significant predator control especially wolves. Wolves are the X factor when it comes to elk populations. They have to control wolves first otherwise habitat, transplants, reducing hunting pressure won’t help at all. Control wolves first then the other things will help increase the elk populations.
Post by: KFhunter on September 21, 2020, 04:21:06 PM
Bears also kill many elk, but they're almost always calves.
Wolves kill breeders, and are the #1 killer of pregger cows
So while bears and cats might be way over population the elk can still grow in numbers, some calves will slip through the gauntlet and grow to breeding age, hopefully enough to cover the dying elk that got too old, but with wolves killing the breeding pops they just can't
Of course there's exceptions
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Post by: 10thmountainarcher on September 21, 2020, 04:27:29 PM
It is argued cats are the #1 elk predator, and while thay may be true by the numbers... cats don't tend to focus on the large mature breeding population, they get younger elk up to yearlings mostly.
Bears also kill many elk, but they're almost always calves.
Wolves kill breeders, and are the #1 killer of pregger cows
So while bears and cats might be way over population the elk can still grow in numbers, some calves will slip through the gauntlet and grow to breeding age, hopefully enough to cover the dying elk that got too old, but with wolves killing the breeding pops they just can't
Of course there's exceptions
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
:yeah: :yeah:
While all predators play a role in the demise of our elk herds, there is no way it’s just a coincidence that the numbers have went way down since the wolf population exploded.
Post by: bearpaw on September 21, 2020, 04:37:45 PM
Post by: callturner on September 21, 2020, 04:51:32 PM
Post by: bearpaw on September 21, 2020, 04:53:25 PM
Post by: Machias on September 21, 2020, 04:55:15 PM
Post by: mdbuck5x5 on September 21, 2020, 05:05:56 PM
Post by: KFhunter on September 22, 2020, 10:22:46 AM
Elk that is, I got a few deer but nothing like years past, down at least 90% from peak deer pops of the 90's early 2000's
Post by: KFhunter on September 22, 2020, 10:28:05 AM
I care not about making hay, I'm turning them into giant food plots and bird hunting.
And maybe a little hay..
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Post by: Ridgeratt on September 22, 2020, 10:46:46 AM
Any suggestions on getting elk in my fields?
I care not about making hay, I'm turning them into giant food plots and bird hunting.
And maybe a little hay..
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Major predator control.
Post by: nwwanderer on September 22, 2020, 05:05:54 PM
Post by: Seabass on September 22, 2020, 06:09:30 PM
I think the blue tongue did a number on the whitetail here in Stevens co. As far as the increased seasons on bears, I knew that was coming when we lost our hound seasons. Uninformed liberal hippies voting a management tool out of the woods. Now they cry when a lion kills their pets or hangs around their house. But personally as far as elk are concerned, the increase in the bear and lion population along with the addition of wolves defiantly has an impact on the herds .
Increased number of bears or increased seasons? We lost hounds and baiting in 1999... it’s taken 20 years to get any movement on increased bear seasons.
Post by: Bango skank on September 22, 2020, 06:10:21 PM
I think the blue tongue did a number on the whitetail here in Stevens co. As far as the increased seasons on bears, I knew that was coming when we lost our hound seasons. Uninformed liberal hippies voting a management tool out of the woods. Now they cry when a lion kills their pets or hangs around their house. But personally as far as elk are concerned, the increase in the bear and lion population along with the addition of wolves defiantly has an impact on the herds .
Increased number of bears or increased seasons? We lost hounds and baiting in 1999... it’s taken 20 years to get any movement on increased bear seasons.
96 i believe. 23 years.
Post by: idaho guy on September 22, 2020, 08:48:47 PM
It's also not X number of wolves eat X number of elk. They have changed the way cow elk graze, thus resulting in more cows not making it to full term, which means less and less calves in the spring.
:yeah: Think about wild dogs chasing your cattle herd 24/7 even if they never kill one they certainly won’t put on any weight and many cows would abort their calves. Wolves do a lot more to elk health besides just killing them. I see elk in places I never have before and they are ridiculous places for elk to live but I think they get pushed there from constant wolf pressure. I read the study on lions killing more elk than wolves that makes no sense to me because where I hunt in Idaho we had way more lions and bears in the 90’s and tons of elk. Once the wolves showed in significant numbers the elk went way down.It’s not my fight in the Selkirks but I will have lots of traps laid for wolves on the Idaho side this year 👍
Post by: callturner on September 22, 2020, 09:13:43 PM
The bear and lions did not magically increase and start problems. The game commissioners who know everything followed the rule of law voted in by the uninformed public. No one who works for the WDFW stood up and said look guys were losing a valuable control tool. Many hounds men , myself included, were approached to do control work when there was a bad kitty or nuisance bear. Some did, I chose to tell them to pound sand. Every year it gets worse, not all at once. If my friends could not hunt them why should I? Every time a hippie gets bit or a pet gets eaten, I smile. Oh well! :chuckle:I think the blue tongue did a number on the whitetail here in Stevens co. As far as the increased seasons on bears, I knew that was coming when we lost our hound seasons. Uninformed liberal hippies voting a management tool out of the woods. Now they cry when a lion kills their pets or hangs around their house. But personally as far as elk are concerned, the increase in the bear and lion population along with the addition of wolves defiantly has an impact on the herds .
Increased number of bears or increased seasons? We lost hounds and baiting in 1999... it’s taken 20 years to get any movement on increased bear seasons.