Post by: jackelope on June 24, 2021, 08:00:25 AM
Some of you know or know of Pat Fowler, the retired WDFW big game biologist from the Blues.
There is a committee made up of four County Commissioners and four citizen reps from the southeast that are meeting with WDFW staff to address these issues continuously. Support from others that hunt the Blues would benefit all of us.
SCIENCE VS. POLITICS IN ELK MANAGEMENT
DEFINING THE BLUE MOUNTAINS ELK MANAGEMENT PROBLEM
The first step is to acknowledge a problem exists. The second step is to identify the factor/s causing the problem before a solution can be developed.
Once the problem is identified, developing a solution is the next step. Developing a solution to the Blue Mountains elk population decline has two components. The first component is identifying the factor/s responsible for the elk population decline: predation. The second component is to determine the political factors that will prevent implementation of a predator management solution!
IDENTIFYING THE FACTORS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ELK POPULATION DECLINE
Research has already identified the factors causing low calf survival and recruitment in the Blue Mountains. Low calf/cow ratios have plagued the Blue Mountains elk herd for over 30 years. Calf/cow ratios have fluctuated from a high in the mid 30’s per 100 cows to the low teens. Extensive research in Oregon’s Blue Mountains showed high mountain lion (cougar) populations were inflicting significant mortality on calf elk. Oregon implemented a cougar control program and calf/cow ratios improved significantly. However, once Oregon ceased the control program, the cougar population rebounded and calf/cow ratios declined.
A couple moderately severe winters have added to the problem of low calf survival, but those winters have been few and far between over the last 30 years. Research has also confirmed that predation increases during severe winters.
The Blue Mountains ecoregion is inhabited by three apex predators: black bear, wolves, and cougar. Both black bear and cougar populations are at high densities, and the wolf population is increasing rapidly. Herein lies the problem with low calf/cow ratios and a declining elk population.
Predator/Prey research has determined the predation rates for both cougar and wolves, and how they select prey by age and sex. If cougar and wolf populations are known, that data allows biologists to estimate the number of elk killed by predators annually in the Blue Mountains, and predations overall impact on the elk population. The black bear has been identified as the primary predator on elk calves during the first six weeks of life, but cougar and wolves also focus predation on calves from birth into early winter. A triple impact on elk calf survival!
CALCULATING THE IMPACT OF COUGAR PREDATION ON THE CALF ELK POPULATION
Cougar population Blue Mountains: 2.88 – 3.15 ad. / 100 km² (R. Beausoleil)
Blue Mtns. Cougar Habitat: 3,759 km² (R. Beausoleil)
Predation on elk will be calculated using the low – high - mean of the adult cougar population estimate. Predation rate and selection calculations will be made using the ODFW Mt. Emily cougar/prey research.
LOW RANGE ESTIMATE OF CALF ELK LOST TO COUGAR PREDATION
2.88 ad. cougar/100 km² x 37.59 (3,759 km²/100 km² cougar habitat) = 108 ad. cougar
108 ad. cougar x 1.03 ung./wk = 111 ung./wk killed by cougar. 111 ung./wk x 52 wks = 5,772 ung./ year.
Prey selection by cougar was: Deer: 68.6% Elk: 31.4%
Elk Predation by cougar: .314 x 5,772 = 1,812 elk
75.3% of elk killed by cougar are calves according to the Mt. Emily study.
.753 x 1,812 = 1,364 elk calves lost to cougar predation.
HIGH RANGE ESTIMATE OF CALF ELK LOST TO COUGAR PREDATION
3.15 ad. cg./100 km² at 3,759 km² of Blue Mtns. habitat. 3.15 x 37.59 = 118 ad. cougar
118 ad. cg. X 1.03 ung./wk = 122 ung./wk. 122 ung./wk x 52 wks. = 6,344 ung. killed by cougar.
Elk predation by cougar: .314 x 6,344 = 1,992 elk .753 % ca. elk x 1,992 = 1,499 calf elk killed by cougar
MEAN LOSS OF CALF ELK TO COUGAR PREDATION (mean 3.02 ad.cg./100 km²)
3.02 ad. cg x 37.59 = 113 ad. cg. 113 x 1.03 ung/wk = 116 ung/wk 116 x 52 = 6,032 ung/yr
.314 x 6,032 = 1,894 elk killed by cougar. .753 X 1,894 = 1,426 calves lost to cougar predation.
THE RANGE OF CALF ELK LOSSES TO COUGAR PREDATION RANGE FROM A LOW OF 1,364 TO A HIGH OF 1,499 IN THE BLUE MOUNTAINS ACCORDING TO RESEARCH DATA. THE MEAN ESTIMATED LOSS WOULD BE 1,426 CALVES! THESE ARE CALVES LOST TO COUGAR PREDATION ONLY, NOT INCLUDING BLACK BEAR AND WOLF PREDATION, BOTH OF WHICH PREY HEAVILY ON ELK CALVES.
COUGAR PREDATION AND THE DEER POPULATOIN
Predation rate/selection data from Mt. Emily research would also strongly suggest the decline of mule populations in the mountains over the last 30 years is primarily due to cougar predation. As the cougar population increased, the deer population declined.
According to predation rate and selection data, deer make up 68.6% of the ungulate predation by cougar. If we calculate that out!
113 ad. cougar x 1.03 ung./wk. = 116 ung.wk 116 ung./wk x 52 wks = 6,032 ungulates killed
.686 x 6,032 ung/yr. = 4,137 deer killed by cougar in the Blue Mountains/ year; 49.7% fawns.
.497 x 4,137 deer = 2,056 fawns killed by cougar/ year in the Blue Mountains District. Considering most of the cougar population resides in the mountains and foothills, this is a significant number considering the declining deer population in the mountains, and this is only predation by cougar and does not include predation by wolves, black bear, and coyote.
Biologists also need to understand the relationship between prey selection and availability! As mountain deer populations declined, predators would need to put more pressure on elk in order to survive, thereby increasing the percentage of elk taken by predators, and the percentage of calves! So, the actual estimate of calves lost to predation may be low!
Wildlife managers tend to ignore a basic principle of wildlife management when it comes to predator populations; Carrying Capacity. Big game populations are managed under the basic principle of carrying capacity, which means ungulate (deer/elk/moose) populations must be managed at a level that does not exceed the food supply. If ungulate populations exceed carrying capacity, they destroy the habitat and the food supply! The same management principle applies to predators, but is seldom implemented by wildlife managers. If predator populations exceed the ability of the ungulate populations to support it, predators will destroy the ungulate populations, which has a negative impact on both predator and prey! A failure to manage both predator and prey populations within the carrying capacity of the food supply is negligent wildlife management.
POLITICAL FACTORS PREVENTING A SOLUTION TO PREDATOR MANAGEMENT
There are elements within the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife that will actively attempt to prevent implementation of a predator management program. These elements exist within the Predator (cougar/wolf/bear) Section, Diversity (nongame) Division, and some districts. An example of this is the predator sections resistance to increasing the cougar harvest quota. When stakeholders and managers have attempted to increase the cougar harvest quota, the predator section actively resisted, and one time the Governor got involved to prevent an increase in the cougar harvest quota. Anti-hunting groups have also been involved.
In a WDFW Wildlife Program meeting, a discussion about predator/prey relations resulted in a comment from the Chief Scientist (Dr. Pierce) in which he said, “deer and elk are just cougar and wolf food, and if there are no deer and elk left for hunters, so be it!” At another Wildlife Program meeting, Dr. Martorello asked a group of 39 WDFW wildlife biologists, “how many of you support predator hunting?” Only 3 biologists raised their hands in support of hunting predators. If managing predators is necessary to meet big game population objectives and provide a harvestable surplus for hunters, a majority of WDFW biologists would not support predator management to achieve those goals!
Elements within the WDFW and anti-hunting groups outside the agency make it extremely difficult “politically” for the agency to take proactive measures to manage predator populations at levels that maintain elk populations at management objective and provide a harvestable surplus for hunters. There are none so blind as those that refuse to see! Do you see the problem?
Maintaining a high level of calf survival and recruitment is imperative in order to maintain elk populations at objective and provide a harvestable surplus for hunters. As predator populations increase to high densities, the loss of calves and cow elk to predation increases, and the elk population declines, reducing the harvestable surplus available for hunters. If the elk population declines significantly over several years, the harvestable surplus of elk declines to the point there is no harvestable surplus available for hunters!
A solution to the political problem must be developed and implemented before predator/prey management plans can be integrated and executed.
Pat Fowler (wildlife biologist ret.)
Post by: Rainier10 on June 24, 2021, 08:15:36 AM
Post by: ELKBURGER on June 24, 2021, 08:16:20 AM
Post by: trophyhunt on June 24, 2021, 08:32:58 AM
Post by: jackelope on June 24, 2021, 08:50:14 AM
https://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/cougar/docs/Summary_of_Cougar_Research_in_Oregon_March2015.pdf
Post by: trophyhunt on June 24, 2021, 08:58:35 AM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on June 24, 2021, 09:33:45 AM
Post by: trophyhunt on June 24, 2021, 09:36:53 AM
Is there some sort of grounds for legal action against the state. Humans have been eating animals since the beginning of time. I am as much a predator on the landscape as any bear, cougar, or wolf. Ive got just as much of a right to the resource as they do :twocents:I agree but some on here don’t consider hunting a right! It’s a privilege ! But to me, it’s a God given right! Great way to look at it though Karl
Post by: idahohuntr on June 24, 2021, 10:12:14 AM
There is no legitimate path to a successful lawsuit on this issue.Is there some sort of grounds for legal action against the state. Humans have been eating animals since the beginning of time. I am as much a predator on the landscape as any bear, cougar, or wolf. Ive got just as much of a right to the resource as they do :twocents:I agree but some on here don’t consider hunting a right! It’s a privilege ! But to me, it’s a God given right! Great way to look at it though Karl
I believe the single most practical/beneficial thing which could be done would be a more concerted effort to harvest bears in the fall. To heck with gathering for a meeting with bureaucrats...get a few buddies and make sure you kill a few bears before your other fall hunts.
Bear seasons, cougar quotas, and wolf hunts are not likely to change for the better...increasing effort within existing bear season framework is probably the best/only way to help.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on June 24, 2021, 10:33:14 AM
its possible to do both. If there is intentional neglect by wdfw then legal action should be pursued. Thats damn tough country till kill fall bears in. Everyone and their brothers could head out to hunt them and it wouldn't amount to anything. The fact that WA isn't statewide otc for spring bear, when we can realistically kill some of these calf eaters is just insulting.There is no legitimate path to a successful lawsuit on this issue.Is there some sort of grounds for legal action against the state. Humans have been eating animals since the beginning of time. I am as much a predator on the landscape as any bear, cougar, or wolf. Ive got just as much of a right to the resource as they do :twocents:I agree but some on here don’t consider hunting a right! It’s a privilege ! But to me, it’s a God given right! Great way to look at it though Karl
I believe the single most practical/beneficial thing which could be done would be a more concerted effort to harvest bears in the fall. To heck with gathering for a meeting with bureaucrats...get a few buddies and make sure you kill a few bears before your other fall hunts.
Bear seasons, cougar quotas, and wolf hunts are not likely to change for the better...increasing effort within existing bear season framework is probably the best/only way to help.
Post by: TC_outdoorsman on June 24, 2021, 10:45:59 AM
I have also heard there is another factor at play in the blues related to carrying capacity, "which means ungulate (deer/elk/moose) populations must be managed at a level that does not exceed the food supply". I have heard that the committee Pat mentions "made up of four County Commissioners and four citizen reps from the southeast" are a majority cattle ranchers or allies to cattle ranchers that ensure cattle grazing in the blues, which uses up the food supply and doesn't leave enough to allow elk and deer populations to thrive.
Anyone else heard this and is there merit to it? Is this another area where change could be made to allow the elk and deer populations to increase?
Post by: GASoline71 on June 24, 2021, 10:49:04 AM
That allowed bunny huggers, bark eaters and rock lickers to mingle amongst the game and fish managers as "scientists and biologists". Not saying WDFG had a stellar track record before the name change. But I do believe that there were more Hunting and Fishing minded people within the ranks. Now all the "advisory groups" are made up mostly of non-hunters and non-anglers.
:cryriver:
Gary
Post by: idahohuntr on June 24, 2021, 10:52:28 AM
I don't disagree...OTC spring bear would be a great step. But maximum effort on fall bear is about the best thing I can think of given current framework and limitations.its possible to do both. If there is intentional neglect by wdfw then legal action should be pursued. Thats damn tough country till kill fall bears in. Everyone and their brothers could head out to hunt them and it wouldn't amount to anything. The fact that WA isn't statewide otc for spring bear, when we can realistically kill some of these calf eaters is just insulting.There is no legitimate path to a successful lawsuit on this issue.Is there some sort of grounds for legal action against the state. Humans have been eating animals since the beginning of time. I am as much a predator on the landscape as any bear, cougar, or wolf. Ive got just as much of a right to the resource as they do :twocents:I agree but some on here don’t consider hunting a right! It’s a privilege ! But to me, it’s a God given right! Great way to look at it though Karl
I believe the single most practical/beneficial thing which could be done would be a more concerted effort to harvest bears in the fall. To heck with gathering for a meeting with bureaucrats...get a few buddies and make sure you kill a few bears before your other fall hunts.
Bear seasons, cougar quotas, and wolf hunts are not likely to change for the better...increasing effort within existing bear season framework is probably the best/only way to help.
I'm negative on the lawsuit stuff because I think its a distraction/waste of resources and is so unlikely to succeed and won't even have a positive indirect effect (i.e., shape up wdfw or we'll sue you for mismanaging the elk herd). No doubt there is a mountain of neglect and incompetence at WDFW, but I don't see any of it rising to something where legal action can be taken. States have broad powers and discretion, public employees are very insulated...getting standing in a suit...then getting injunctions or court orders to manage wildlife...just no path forward IMO :dunno:
Post by: Rainier10 on June 24, 2021, 10:53:52 AM
:yeah: :yeah: :yeah:The fact that WA isn't statewide otc for spring bear, when we can realistically kill some of these calf eaters is just insulting.There is no legitimate path to a successful lawsuit on this issue.Is there some sort of grounds for legal action against the state. Humans have been eating animals since the beginning of time. I am as much a predator on the landscape as any bear, cougar, or wolf. Ive got just as much of a right to the resource as they do :twocents:I agree but some on here don’t consider hunting a right! It’s a privilege ! But to me, it’s a God given right! Great way to look at it though Karl
I believe the single most practical/beneficial thing which could be done would be a more concerted effort to harvest bears in the fall. To heck with gathering for a meeting with bureaucrats...get a few buddies and make sure you kill a few bears before your other fall hunts.
Bear seasons, cougar quotas, and wolf hunts are not likely to change for the better...increasing effort within existing bear season framework is probably the best/only way to help.
Post by: Stein on June 24, 2021, 11:00:46 AM
Is there some sort of grounds for legal action against the state. Humans have been eating animals since the beginning of time. I am as much a predator on the landscape as any bear, cougar, or wolf. Ive got just as much of a right to the resource as they do :twocents:
You would have to find something they did that was wrong according to the law and their mandate. Unfortunately, the law doesn't require them to maintain or grow elk numbers.
The hound hunting stuff is now law. They could easily argue that their mandate is to return to more "balanced" numbers and kinds of predators which would mean less elk. They appropriate tags in accordance with the available resource.
Not saying I agree at all, just saying that the courts would look at it from a much different perspective than a hunter. It's also the reason I quit playing, I can spend my money and time in a state that has goals and actions much better aligned with hunters.
Post by: Bob33 on June 24, 2021, 11:14:59 AM
"At another Wildlife Program meeting, Dr. Martorello asked a group of 39 WDFW wildlife biologists, “how many of you support predator hunting?” Only 3 biologists raised their hands in support of hunting predators."
Shame on WDFW senior management for allowing that to happen.
Post by: Special T on June 24, 2021, 11:19:11 AM
That's a bleak report by Pat Fowler.
"At another Wildlife Program meeting, Dr. Martorello asked a group of 39 WDFW wildlife biologists, “how many of you support predator hunting?” Only 3 biologists raised their hands in support of hunting predators."
Shame on WDFW senior management for allowing that to happen.
It's only the retired staff that have the freedom to do what is right for sportsmen. That's sad.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on June 24, 2021, 11:32:40 AM
where there's a will there is a way. Hound hunting is banned but id almost wager the state is killing more cats with hounds than hunters ever did. Ive got a buddy here in Yakima that runs dogs for wdfw and its shocking how often he is running cats.Is there some sort of grounds for legal action against the state. Humans have been eating animals since the beginning of time. I am as much a predator on the landscape as any bear, cougar, or wolf. Ive got just as much of a right to the resource as they do :twocents:
You would have to find something they did that was wrong according to the law and their mandate. Unfortunately, the law doesn't require them to maintain or grow elk numbers.
The hound hunting stuff is now law. They could easily argue that their mandate is to return to more "balanced" numbers and kinds of predators which would mean less elk. They appropriate tags in accordance with the available resource.
Not saying I agree at all, just saying that the courts would look at it from a much different perspective than a hunter. It's also the reason I quit playing, I can spend my money and time in a state that has goals and actions much better aligned with hunters.
I'm right there with you and maybe even ahead of you on dipping out from WA hunting but this is still my home state and as we've seen this year and last, out of state tags are becoming harder and harder to come by and its not gonna get any better as these western states tighten the reigns on NR tag allocations. Its past time we get our own house in order.
Idahohuntr- i don't claim to be smart enough or versed enough in the nuances of how the politics worth with this stuff but it seems to me that the anti hunting organizations are pretty good at getting what they want via legal actions. If there are wrong doings we as hunters should take aggressive legal actions upon the state. Like I said, im not the guy to figure that out but there are certainly people like Pat that could figure that out. One thing we can all do is back those people verbally and FINANCIALLY. Hunters are the absolute worst at united for a common cause. A guy will buy a $5,000 custom rifle but won't throw a hundred dollar bill at something that will truly benefit them as a hunter. Its perplexing :twocents:
Post by: trophyhunt on June 24, 2021, 12:02:39 PM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on June 24, 2021, 12:17:07 PM
Running cats but not killing them, I'm just guessing Karl because I know a guy who also ran cats for the wdfw. The politics got so bad in house it just wasn't worth it for him so he quit them last year, sold all his dogs. Pretty sad deal, he lived for and has been running dogs his whole life.oh no they are killing plenty
Post by: whacker1 on June 24, 2021, 12:21:57 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on June 24, 2021, 12:24:58 PM
Well that's a change in policy, a good change. My buddy collared them and took info.Running cats but not killing them, I'm just guessing Karl because I know a guy who also ran cats for the wdfw. The politics got so bad in house it just wasn't worth it for him so he quit them last year, sold all his dogs. Pretty sad deal, he lived for and has been running dogs his whole life.oh no they are killing plenty
Post by: OutHouse on June 24, 2021, 02:03:42 PM
Is there some sort of grounds for legal action against the state. Humans have been eating animals since the beginning of time. I am as much a predator on the landscape as any bear, cougar, or wolf. Ive got just as much of a right to the resource as they do :twocents:
You would have to find something they did that was wrong according to the law and their mandate. Unfortunately, the law doesn't require them to maintain or grow elk numbers.
The hound hunting stuff is now law. They could easily argue that their mandate is to return to more "balanced" numbers and kinds of predators which would mean less elk. They appropriate tags in accordance with the available resource.
Not saying I agree at all, just saying that the courts would look at it from a much different perspective than a hunter. It's also the reason I quit playing, I can spend my money and time in a state that has goals and actions much better aligned with hunters.
I think Stein's opinion is spot on. If they follow the process they are supposed to (and per their mandate) then the court is going to say they didn't do anything wrong, you just don't like the position they took. That's a hard fight. I'm not sure who would have standing to sue, but I suppose an affected hunter might be able to if they didn't follow the right procedure etc.
Post by: MR5x5 on June 24, 2021, 02:16:48 PM
The ONLY leverage we have is $$ but few are willing to skip a year and make a statement so the beat goes on.
I voted my $$ out of this state years ago. Yeah, it cost a little more, it can be inconvenient, but I simply can not support the con in good conscious.
Post by: Bob33 on June 24, 2021, 04:53:49 PM
Post by: jstone on June 24, 2021, 05:03:04 PM
Post by: bearpaw on June 24, 2021, 05:17:08 PM
Post by: jstone on June 24, 2021, 05:19:52 PM
Post by: jstone on June 24, 2021, 05:20:25 PM
Badly
Post by: idahohuntr on June 24, 2021, 05:22:42 PM
I'm with ya on holding them accountable, but I see all the same issues as Stein and Outhouse note. A lot of times enviros are suing to stop stuff...injunctions against wolf killing etc...those sort of discrete issues are a lot easier than suing over general mismanagement of a complex system.where there's a will there is a way. Hound hunting is banned but id almost wager the state is killing more cats with hounds than hunters ever did. Ive got a buddy here in Yakima that runs dogs for wdfw and its shocking how often he is running cats.Is there some sort of grounds for legal action against the state. Humans have been eating animals since the beginning of time. I am as much a predator on the landscape as any bear, cougar, or wolf. Ive got just as much of a right to the resource as they do :twocents:
You would have to find something they did that was wrong according to the law and their mandate. Unfortunately, the law doesn't require them to maintain or grow elk numbers.
The hound hunting stuff is now law. They could easily argue that their mandate is to return to more "balanced" numbers and kinds of predators which would mean less elk. They appropriate tags in accordance with the available resource.
Not saying I agree at all, just saying that the courts would look at it from a much different perspective than a hunter. It's also the reason I quit playing, I can spend my money and time in a state that has goals and actions much better aligned with hunters.
I'm right there with you and maybe even ahead of you on dipping out from WA hunting but this is still my home state and as we've seen this year and last, out of state tags are becoming harder and harder to come by and its not gonna get any better as these western states tighten the reigns on NR tag allocations. Its past time we get our own house in order.
Idahohuntr- i don't claim to be smart enough or versed enough in the nuances of how the politics worth with this stuff but it seems to me that the anti hunting organizations are pretty good at getting what they want via legal actions. If there are wrong doings we as hunters should take aggressive legal actions upon the state. Like I said, im not the guy to figure that out but there are certainly people like Pat that could figure that out. One thing we can all do is back those people verbally and FINANCIALLY. Hunters are the absolute worst at united for a common cause. A guy will buy a $5,000 custom rifle but won't throw a hundred dollar bill at something that will truly benefit them as a hunter. Its perplexing :twocents:
I raise the issues of lawsuits being a tough road because I would hate to see hunters use their limited resources on such futile efforts. Believe me...if I could successfully sue the state over their myriad of negligence, incompetence, and mismanagement I'd be the first guy in line at the court house! From elk, wolves, the permit return bs, private lands program....its really actually sad and shameful...but the courts are not a viable solution for most of these broad concerns. :twocents:
Post by: Special T on June 24, 2021, 05:53:12 PM
I dont think sportsmen have ever sued the WDFW, but pretty much everyone else has. We we as a group are not willing to go that direction why would the WDFW ever side with us... when we have proven we are not willing to go to the matt like everyone else.
Just a thought.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: bearpaw on June 24, 2021, 06:38:28 PM
Have a question for some of you regaurding a lawsuit. Would you be willing to donate to one? Even if you wernt completely certain the case would work?
I dont think sportsmen have ever sued the WDFW, but pretty much everyone else has. We we as a group are not willing to go that direction why would the WDFW ever side with us... when we have proven we are not willing to go to the matt like everyone else.
Just a thought.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Could a GoFundMe work for that or perhaps SCI would consider? Either way I would donate.
Post by: Special T on June 24, 2021, 07:21:13 PM
We are a bunch of head strong independent types that have a really hard time coming together unless THE PERFECT opportunity arrises. The Antis dont need perfection they just move on every opportunity.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: headshot5 on June 24, 2021, 07:34:35 PM
Post by: jackelope on June 24, 2021, 07:57:44 PM
Have a question for some of you regaurding a lawsuit. Would you be willing to donate to one? Even if you wernt completely certain the case would work?
I dont think sportsmen have ever sued the WDFW, but pretty much everyone else has. We we as a group are not willing to go that direction why would the WDFW ever side with us... when we have proven we are not willing to go to the matt like everyone else.
Just a thought.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
I’m in. I don’t have a huge bank roll but I’d throw down some $$.
Post by: trophyhunt on June 24, 2021, 08:01:12 PM
Post by: LDennis24 on June 24, 2021, 08:03:33 PM
Post by: LDennis24 on June 24, 2021, 08:16:21 PM
Is there some sort of grounds for legal action against the state. Humans have been eating animals since the beginning of time. I am as much a predator on the landscape as any bear, cougar, or wolf. Ive got just as much of a right to the resource as they do :twocents:
:yeah:
I like this Karl! I agree and since they have free reign to fight and kill each other over territory then why can't we join in!? My wife's family has been in the Blues for 100 yrs. They own the original cabin on Twin Buttes in the Wenaha. The Knight cabin as it was known for the guy who originally built it. In I think about 1913? They said the elk population decline has always been noticable every since the stop to hound hunting and then the introduction of wolves. Her brother and father got drawn for the watershed a few years ago and the warden told them that they shouldn't have put in for it. He said the herd is all but gone to the South and into Oregon or out into the wheat fields and towards the Snake to escape the wolves. They ate tag soup needless to say. The only thing they saw was a decent bull way up on the opposite side of the canyon and he was moving too fast for them to even attempt to cross over and find him again. They found some nice sheds to bring home and that was it.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on June 24, 2021, 09:39:17 PM
Post by: jackelope on June 24, 2021, 09:51:26 PM
Post by: Timberstalker on June 24, 2021, 09:53:54 PM
Post by: fishngamereaper on June 24, 2021, 09:57:57 PM
Fish Nw is currently having some luck with their lawsuit in regards to how the state rolls over and piggy backs co manager fishing permits every year.... it's interesting watching it play out.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on June 24, 2021, 09:58:02 PM
So you’re saying you’re not a lawyer then?
I mean....I did stay at a holiday inn express one time 8)
Post by: Special T on June 24, 2021, 11:30:15 PM
If someone was to go over management objectives, financial expenditures or lack of to address issues, harvest allowance, etc etc and find those little things that don't line up a lawsuit is not out of the realm of possibility....The department is reactionary and operates from a position of weakness. The antis know whichnis why they have been able to get a the whole salami by just taking lots of small slices gained from threats and compromises.
Fish Nw is currently having some luck with their lawsuit in regards to how the state rolls over and piggy backs co manager fishing permits every year.... it's interesting watching it play out.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: idahohuntr on June 25, 2021, 08:14:36 AM
Have a question for some of you regaurding a lawsuit. Would you be willing to donate to one? Even if you wernt completely certain the case would work?If I thought it could bring positive change, I would. Even if it wasn't a slam dunk case.
I dont think sportsmen have ever sued the WDFW, but pretty much everyone else has. We we as a group are not willing to go that direction why would the WDFW ever side with us... when we have proven we are not willing to go to the matt like everyone else.
Just a thought.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
However - folks should keep in mind there are no shortage of lawyers willing to take your money and accomplish nothing. I would need to see and understand a clear path and legal strategy to how such an effort could be beneficial. I'm not going to just send money in to somebody because someone says they are going to stick it to WDFW via lawsuit...a fool and his money...
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 25, 2021, 08:45:49 AM
The selkirks support a dense population of cougars and they were a MAJOR contributing factor to the recent expiration of caribou. Cougars are also very likely a limiting factor for population growth of the Sullivan lake bighorn sheep herd. In fact, lion predation to be the primary cause of that herds decline, but data is limited to support that theory.
Until we have more tools for cougar management we are going to watch declines in big game herds statewide. I enjoy cougars and want them on the landscape. I also want a healthy and sustainable population of lions (wdfw stated mission for the species) but I need someone to let us know exactly what that means....how many do we want/need to have a healthy/sustainable population?
Post by: Humptulips on June 25, 2021, 09:44:56 AM
What it boils down to is the people at the top. Governor and who he appoints to the Commission. I mean look at who his last three appointments were. WDFW has some tools to do something about cougar but they will not use them. When the Commission tried to increase the cougar quota they got smacked down by the Governor.
The Legislature is not pro-hunting either with guys like Chapman and Van De Wege in positions of power.
It's a blue problem.
Post by: Stein on June 25, 2021, 11:00:05 AM
I honestly don't see a legal path to sue for us. The only possibility I see is if the tribes sued over predator management. Even that is a stretch I think
What it boils down to is the people at the top. Governor and who he appoints to the Commission. I mean look at who his last three appointments were. WDFW has some tools to do something about cougar but they will not use them. When the Commission tried to increase the cougar quota they got smacked down by the Governor.
The Legislature is not pro-hunting either with guys like Chapman and Van De Wege in positions of power.
It's a blue problem.
That's the conclusion I came to, better to spend money with states that are not part of the problem. There is enough ant-hunting PAC money out there that you can't fight both the state and anti-hunters and win. WDFW will fight to a certain extent, but it's extremely limited and seems to be where there are constituents that have sway like timber companies. For the average Joe hunter, not so much if at all.
If I had sentimental hunting areas in WA, I would probably feel different, but I started hunting in my late 30's, so I don't have any emotional ties to WA.
I think you see proof of this at the national level, look where conservation groups spend their money and time. Limited resources means they are accountable to find the areas they can make the greatest impact.
Post by: johnbmyersii on June 25, 2021, 11:10:11 AM
I honestly don't see a legal path to sue for us. The only possibility I see is if the tribes sued over predator management. Even that is a stretch I think
What it boils down to is the people at the top. Governor and who he appoints to the Commission. I mean look at who his last three appointments were. WDFW has some tools to do something about cougar but they will not use them. When the Commission tried to increase the cougar quota they got smacked down by the Governor.
The Legislature is not pro-hunting either with guys like Chapman and Van De Wege in positions of power.
It's a blue problem.
That's the conclusion I came to, better to spend money with states that are not part of the problem. There is enough ant-hunting PAC money out there that you can't fight both the state and anti-hunters and win. WDFW will fight to a certain extent, but it's extremely limited and seems to be where there are constituents that have sway like timber companies. For the average Joe hunter, not so much if at all.
If I had sentimental hunting areas in WA, I would probably feel different, but I started hunting in my late 30's, so I don't have any emotional ties to WA.
I think you see proof of this at the national level, look where conservation groups spend their money and time. Limited resources means they are accountable to find the areas they can make the greatest impact.
You bring up a great point, I do have very sentimental areas that my family has hunted for generations that I wish I could turn my back on and walk away from...In the meantime I'd be willing to do something to help our problem but not sure what I can do except predator hunt harder.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on June 25, 2021, 11:16:24 AM
Post by: Stein on June 25, 2021, 11:45:00 AM
Post by: Farmer72 on June 25, 2021, 12:19:52 PM
Honestly, the best bet would be to find a well funded anti group WDFW and the gov listen to and convince them mule deer are a cute enough species to protect.
Lets start one. I am sure we can do like every other group and convince a bunch of people what we want is pure to just use it for our own gains.
Post by: bigdub257 on June 25, 2021, 12:32:32 PM
Post by: idaho guy on June 25, 2021, 12:44:32 PM
What is the status of the tribes ability to hunt predators? Any limits? Can they shoot wolves? Maybe if they were rewarded in some way it would be beneficial for all. Serious question as I have no idea.
Its a good idea maybe hook them up with the foundation for wildlife management from Idaho they are already reimbursing people up to 1,000 for wolves in idaho trapped or killed. The nez perce of Idaho are already hunting the blues. I know some tribes can run hounds for sure but not sure exactly where they can. feels like the courts rule very favorable towards the tribes and the eco -terrorist are scared to say anything for fear of appearing politically incorrect :chuckle: I would try and recruit them!
Post by: dreamingbig on July 02, 2021, 09:54:41 PM
Until Washington gets a different and conservative governor you will not see any change in WDFW, the governor will not allow the type of management needed, that has already been proven! :twocents:Yep. Amen.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: dreamingbig on July 02, 2021, 09:57:03 PM
What is the status of the tribes ability to hunt predators? Any limits? Can they shoot wolves? Maybe if they were rewarded in some way it would be beneficial for all. Serious question as I have no idea.They don’t hunt hard enough to do that. The incentive isn’t there.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: nwhunter on July 03, 2021, 06:57:37 AM
Post by: trophyhunt on July 03, 2021, 07:10:41 AM
Post by: Dan-o on July 03, 2021, 10:31:25 AM
The predator problem is real and its an uphill battle against the people that really don't care or would rather hear a wolf howl or have nobody hunting at all and they have way more money and power than hunters.. Many of us are members of RMEF on here.. I would a lot rather see them getting in the fight over these kind of issues than sending me crap in the mail every month for "free gifts" and return address labels … They brag at their banquets about land they purchase for hunter access and other things but in the meantime the world class herds we had ten years ago are devastated by things they either wont take a stand on or they are focused on other issues... Same thing could be said for Mule deer foundation probly…. Millions of dollars raised over the last 10-20 years and the herds are at record lows throughout the states so what are they doing for us...?
RMEF does a lot of good work securing critical habitat.
Maybe it's a fair criticism that they could do more, but they are in the fight and they are on the right side.
Personally, I'm OK with RMEF focusing on what they focus on, and not trying to take on every issue related to elk..... I think their impact would get watered down.
Post by: LDennis24 on July 04, 2021, 09:03:05 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on July 04, 2021, 10:02:50 PM
Can someone tell me where in Washington the RMEF has secured critical habitat for elk or done some serious improvements to a specific area in terms of something more than a rain guzzler? I don't know of anything.They negotiated a huge land swap in the colockum, consolidated a bunch of DNR land and turning land locked DNR land into private.
If you want to get into that further it is probably best to start a new thread rather than derailing this one.
Post by: elkchaser54 on July 05, 2021, 06:12:23 AM
Post by: nwhunter on July 05, 2021, 06:46:43 AM
I still remember in 2007 when I drew my Wenaha archery tag and talked at length with Pat Fowler and he basically predicted this demise of the Blue Mtn herd although he thought it would be more caused by increased tag numbers after he retired than anything but the point is that its a herd that can't sustain overhunting or excessive predation .. Glad I got to see it at the pinnacle because of great management and now what we've seen is what a huge turnaround bad management can do to a world class herd...
Post by: LDennis24 on July 05, 2021, 11:07:57 AM
Post by: Special T on July 05, 2021, 11:39:39 AM
Post by: bobdog86 on July 06, 2021, 07:14:28 AM
Post by: Maybach Outdoors on July 06, 2021, 09:09:58 AM
Hunters are a dying breed. Without out serious financial backing there isn't any way to win. You need numbers. There need to be more tangible actions to recruit hunters in the cities. That's the only way... obviosuly it would require you to step out of your comfort zone. Take one from their playbook, "allies".
Post by: Special T on July 06, 2021, 12:16:34 PM
Recruit more hunters from Seattle *gasp* you'd be surprised how many people come around to the idea of hunting. I make it a point to expose people to the topic of hunting in every day conversation. Stop being a bunch of ********
Hunters are a dying breed. Without serious financial backing there isn't any way to win. You need numbers. There need to be more tangible actions to recruit hunters in the cities. That's the only way... obviosuly it would require you to step out of your comfort zone. Take one from their playbook, "allies".
I agree with what I highlighted in red, however you may need to verify your statement depending on how you take his response.
Sportsmen give plenty of $ and so do corporations, but only to critter habitat groups, not sportsmen advocacy. Giving $ to RMEF, MDF, DU, NWFT or nearly any other critter org isn't going to solve problems in this state. I'm not saying you shouldn't belong to one but if you don't belong to an advocacy group then you wasting your $. The best known national Org is SCI. While I'm not a member I am a member of 2 state organizations that advocate for sportsmen.
Post by: Maybach Outdoors on July 06, 2021, 12:45:00 PM
Recruit more hunters from Seattle *gasp* you'd be surprised how many people come around to the idea of hunting. I make it a point to expose people to the topic of hunting in every day conversation. Stop being a bunch of ********
Hunters are a dying breed. Without serious financial backing there isn't any way to win. You need numbers. There need to be more tangible actions to recruit hunters in the cities. That's the only way... obviosuly it would require you to step out of your comfort zone. Take one from their playbook, "allies".
I agree with what I highlighted in red, however you may need to verify your statement depending on how you take his response.
Sportsmen give plenty of $ and so do corporations, but only to critter habitat groups, not sportsmen advocacy. Giving $ to RMEF, MDF, DU, NWFT or nearly any other critter org isn't going to solve problems in this state. I'm not saying you shouldn't belong to one but if you don't belong to an advocacy group then you wasting your $. The best known national Org is SCI. While I'm not a member I am a member of 2 state organizations that advocate for sportsmen.
Hmmm intersting prospective. I would think that "critter organization" and "sportsmans advocacy" was the same thing. What sportsmans advocacy groups are there? I'd be intersted in learning how sportsmanship is promoted
Post by: Special T on July 06, 2021, 12:58:49 PM
Recruit more hunters from Seattle *gasp* you'd be surprised how many people come around to the idea of hunting. I make it a point to expose people to the topic of hunting in every day conversation. Stop being a bunch of ********
Hunters are a dying breed. Without serious financial backing there isn't any way to win. You need numbers. There need to be more tangible actions to recruit hunters in the cities. That's the only way... obviosuly it would require you to step out of your comfort zone. Take one from their playbook, "allies".
I agree with what I highlighted in red, however you may need to verify your statement depending on how you take his response.
Sportsmen give plenty of $ and so do corporations, but only to critter habitat groups, not sportsmen advocacy. Giving $ to RMEF, MDF, DU, NWFT or nearly any other critter org isn't going to solve problems in this state. I'm not saying you shouldn't belong to one but if you don't belong to an advocacy group then you wasting your $. The best known national Org is SCI. While I'm not a member I am a member of 2 state organizations that advocate for sportsmen.
Hmmm intersting prospective. I would think that "critter organization" and "sportsmans advocacy" was the same thing. What sportsmans advocacy groups are there? I'd be intersted in learning how sportsmanship is promoted
I just posted in the RMEF thread, but the short and sweet difference is critter orgs only do warm and fizzles, advocates wade into the politics.
RMEF didn't address the wolf issue because it affects elk... but it is political to engage over predators so they don't.
DU did a bunch of the engineering on many of the salmon habitat enhancement projects. Most of these took away opportunity for those with out boats. Also eliminating groceries from the local areas.
Post by: Rainier10 on July 06, 2021, 04:22:24 PM
https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,262201.msg3557355/topicseen.html#new
Post by: Caseyd on July 07, 2021, 09:24:42 PM
Post by: LDennis24 on July 07, 2021, 11:58:35 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on July 08, 2021, 06:33:43 AM
Post by: Timberstalker on July 08, 2021, 07:53:50 AM
https://inciweb.nwcg.gov/incident/7615/
Post by: jackelope on July 08, 2021, 08:13:40 AM
Post by: Timberstalker on July 08, 2021, 08:14:41 AM
:chuckle:
Post by: Rainier10 on July 08, 2021, 08:42:25 AM
Ice Cream?
Squirrel!
It's like herding cats around here trying to keep these threads on track.
Post by: LDennis24 on July 08, 2021, 09:12:15 AM
Post by: Rainier10 on July 08, 2021, 10:12:04 AM
Well I don't know what squirrels and herding cats has to do with ice cream but I'm going to go get me some Ben & Jerry's! Now... I've asked this in another thread but what's the legality of offering natives a reward for predator control? We could have a huge pot everyone chips into and every time one of the natives gets a wolf he or she wins $250-500 etc...@bearpaw might know about this. There is a program in Idaho that pays for wolf kills I believe.
Post by: idaho guy on July 08, 2021, 10:51:49 AM
Well I don't know what squirrels and herding cats has to do with ice cream but I'm going to go get me some Ben & Jerry's! Now... I've asked this in another thread but what's the legality of offering natives a reward for predator control? We could have a huge pot everyone chips into and every time one of the natives gets a wolf he or she wins $250-500 etc...@bearpaw might know about this. There is a program in Idaho that pays for wolf kills I believe.
foundation for wildlife management pays anywhere from $500-1000 for a harvested wolf in Idaho. Its all paid out of members dues they have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars out and saved countless elk and deer. Justin webb runs it out of bonners ferry I doubt they would want to get involved with the Native harvest in Washington but they actually expanded this year into Montana. It would work but I think it would be a ground up new organization specifically focused on the blues. The different tribes are all a sovereign nation, as we are constantly reminded, they could use there treaty rights to do some real good. I will donate money if somebody organized and got the tribal members on board. I have a friend of a friend type relationship with some Nez Perce that kill plenty in there I will have my freind float the idea. The freako greenies wouldnt say a word in my opinion since they are so "woke" they wouldnt want to offend anyone or God forbid appear politically incorrect.
Post by: bearpaw on July 08, 2021, 10:53:06 AM
Well I don't know what squirrels and herding cats has to do with ice cream but I'm going to go get me some Ben & Jerry's! Now... I've asked this in another thread but what's the legality of offering natives a reward for predator control? We could have a huge pot everyone chips into and every time one of the natives gets a wolf he or she wins $250-500 etc...@bearpaw might know about this. There is a program in Idaho that pays for wolf kills I believe.
Bounties are illegal. The group in Idaho reimburses trappers and hunters for expenses incurred while hunting or trapping. So if you have fuel expenses, bought a snowmobile or Utv, bought firearms, bought traps, bought hunting clothing, etc, you save your reciepts and turn them in to get reimbursed for each wolf you kill. Their organization expanded into Montana this year to do the same thing. I think it would be worth looking into reimbursing tribal members a specific amount per wolf taken for their expenses they incurred. :twocents:
This is the Idaho/Montana group, probably the best group a person who hunts in ID or MT can belong to: https://www.foundationforwildlifemanagement.org/
Post by: idaho guy on July 08, 2021, 10:59:28 AM
Well I don't know what squirrels and herding cats has to do with ice cream but I'm going to go get me some Ben & Jerry's! Now... I've asked this in another thread but what's the legality of offering natives a reward for predator control? We could have a huge pot everyone chips into and every time one of the natives gets a wolf he or she wins $250-500 etc...@bearpaw might know about this. There is a program in Idaho that pays for wolf kills I believe.
Bounties are illegal. The group in Idaho reimburses trappers and hunters for expenses incurred while hunting or trapping. So if you have fuel expenses, bought a snowmobile or Utv, bought firearms, bought traps, bought hunting clothing, etc, you save your reciepts and turn them in to get reimbursed for each wolf you kill. Their organization expanded into Montana this year to do the same thing. I think it would be worth looking into reimbursing tribal members a specific amount per wolf taken for their expenses they incurred. :twocents:
This is the Idaho/Montana group, probably the best group a person who hunts in ID or MT can belong to: https://www.foundationforwildlifemanagement.org/
:tup: I forgot to mention the reimbursement aspect but its almost anything you use to hunt or trap wolves so I bought a new razr with tracks that I use for checking wolf traps that alone gives me 20k in reimbursement before adding in trap costs, the gun, the fuel etc etc
Post by: LDennis24 on July 08, 2021, 11:10:50 AM
Well I don't know what squirrels and herding cats has to do with ice cream but I'm going to go get me some Ben & Jerry's! Now... I've asked this in another thread but what's the legality of offering natives a reward for predator control? We could have a huge pot everyone chips into and every time one of the natives gets a wolf he or she wins $250-500 etc...@bearpaw might know about this. There is a program in Idaho that pays for wolf kills I believe.
Bounties are illegal. The group in Idaho reimburses trappers and hunters for expenses incurred while hunting or trapping. So if you have fuel expenses, bought a snowmobile or Utv, bought firearms, bought traps, bought hunting clothing, etc, you save your reciepts and turn them in to get reimbursed for each wolf you kill. Their organization expanded into Montana this year to do the same thing. I think it would be worth looking into reimbursing tribal members a specific amount per wolf taken for their expenses they incurred. :twocents:
This is the Idaho/Montana group, probably the best group a person who hunts in ID or MT can belong to: https://www.foundationforwildlifemanagement.org/
This is kind of what I was thinking of anyways Dale. Whatever legal definition you would need in place to make it happen and then start pooling money into it to give folks some incentive to get out there. The Blues are very hard to access in some areas. Everything is on the top of the ridge and you have to go down to get somewhere. That means packing out is always uphill so a lot of folks don't like getting into it. I feel like it will be harder than other areas in this state.
Post by: bearpaw on July 08, 2021, 11:18:20 AM
Well I don't know what squirrels and herding cats has to do with ice cream but I'm going to go get me some Ben & Jerry's! Now... I've asked this in another thread but what's the legality of offering natives a reward for predator control? We could have a huge pot everyone chips into and every time one of the natives gets a wolf he or she wins $250-500 etc...@bearpaw might know about this. There is a program in Idaho that pays for wolf kills I believe.
Bounties are illegal. The group in Idaho reimburses trappers and hunters for expenses incurred while hunting or trapping. So if you have fuel expenses, bought a snowmobile or Utv, bought firearms, bought traps, bought hunting clothing, etc, you save your reciepts and turn them in to get reimbursed for each wolf you kill. Their organization expanded into Montana this year to do the same thing. I think it would be worth looking into reimbursing tribal members a specific amount per wolf taken for their expenses they incurred. :twocents:
This is the Idaho/Montana group, probably the best group a person who hunts in ID or MT can belong to: https://www.foundationforwildlifemanagement.org/
This is kind of what I was thinking of anyways Dale. Whatever legal definition you would need in place to make it happen and then start pooling money into it to give folks some incentive to get out there. The Blues are very hard to access in some areas. Everything is on the top of the ridge and you have to go down to get somewhere. That means packing out is always uphill so a lot of folks don't like getting into it. I feel like it will be harder than other areas in this state.
They work together with the agencies, I'm not sure that could happen in WA, but here's info from their web page:
F4WM brings those who want wolves managed- State Game management agencies, outdoor enthusiasts, hunters, and ranchers, together with those who have the ways and means to get the job done!
With wolf hunter success rates at less than 1%, wolves habit of traveling great distances, and reproducing by up to 40% annually, managing their ever growing numbers has proven a daunting task!
F4WM has saved an estimated 150,000+ elk, moose, deer, and livestock, with science-based predator management.
F4WM has removed over 1100 wolves with just over $750,000 membership and sponsor dollars, with zero tax funding. That's less than $700 per wolf, funded by Sportsmen, Ranchers, concerned citizens, and a few Grants. Without the F4WM program, the Idaho Wolf Control Board would be charged with removing the same wolves. Their average expense to investigate livestock depredations and remove problem wolves averaged $9005 per wolf in 2016, $8003 per wolf in early 2017, and more than $9000 per wolf in 2018... 65% of which, has historically been funded by Idaho state tax dollars. 1100 wolves x $9000 per wolf= $9,900,000... 65% Tax funded= $6,435,000 State Tax Dollars potentially saved by implementation of our Wolf Harvest Reimbursement Program.
F4WM has issued almost 1100 reimbursements since its founding, and well over $200,000 in reimbursements for 271 wolves in the 2019/2020 season.
We now have new Montana Fundraising Chapters starting up for Sanders County, Flathead Valley, and Anaconda/Butte areas. We are excited to announce we will be reimbursing F4WM Members Montana Wolf harvest this season! Please email F4WM Executive Director Justin Webb, for more info on how to join or start a new chapter in your area at justin@f4wm.org
Post by: dilleytech on July 28, 2021, 06:24:53 AM
Post by: Rainier10 on July 29, 2021, 09:27:42 AM
Post by: LDennis24 on July 29, 2021, 09:35:00 AM
Post by: dilleytech on July 29, 2021, 10:48:50 AM
What's the name of the antler buyer in that picture? Paul Oatman is a Nez Perce out of Kamiah I see.
I don’t recall. I think I counted 9 bulls in that pic. All big mature bulls. Just being killed for profit.
Post by: trophyhunt on July 29, 2021, 11:02:18 AM
Post by: Rainier10 on July 29, 2021, 11:02:52 AM
I couldn't see the pic very good but it looked like a bunch of those were shed antlers. Are you saying there were antlers attached to skulls of 9 big bulls?What's the name of the antler buyer in that picture? Paul Oatman is a Nez Perce out of Kamiah I see.
I don’t recall. I think I counted 9 bulls in that pic. All big mature bulls. Just being killed for profit.
Is this Paul Oatman the same guy that assualted a police officer in 2014?
Post by: Mtnwalker on July 29, 2021, 11:34:54 AM
I couldn't see the pic very good but it looked like a bunch of those were shed antlers. Are you saying there were antlers attached to skulls of 9 big bulls?What's the name of the antler buyer in that picture? Paul Oatman is a Nez Perce out of Kamiah I see.
I don’t recall. I think I counted 9 bulls in that pic. All big mature bulls. Just being killed for profit.
Is this Paul Oatman the same guy that assualted a police officer in 2014?
I don't think he's talking about the antlers in the pickup, just the ones in the bottom pic. Looks like those could all be on the skull but like you said its hard to see
Post by: LDennis24 on July 29, 2021, 03:34:19 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on July 29, 2021, 03:48:30 PM
Yeah clearly he's trying to sell them to whoever that antler buyer is. They aren't going to do anything about it either. He will just go shoot more this year and the next. The Blues are the first place I ever saw natives taking elk, and leaving elk... Three cows, one still staggering and two dead left behind. There wasn't room with the bulls in the bed of the pickup.Believe you 100%, knowing a game warden who worked over 40 years and heard the same schit from him.
Post by: dilleytech on July 30, 2021, 06:18:04 AM
Post by: Rainier10 on July 30, 2021, 06:50:16 AM
Post by: emac on July 30, 2021, 11:01:36 AM
Looks like nine elk skulls and one deer skull to meBottom one almost looks like a bullwinkle to me
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Post by: LDennis24 on July 30, 2021, 11:11:23 AM
Post by: Rainier10 on July 30, 2021, 11:15:19 AM
I could see that as a possibility also.Looks like nine elk skulls and one deer skull to meBottom one almost looks like a bullwinkle to me
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Post by: emac on July 30, 2021, 12:14:49 PM
If these are from the blues there are starting to get alot more moose up there but the Indians are starting to target them also.I could see that as a possibility also.Looks like nine elk skulls and one deer skull to meBottom one almost looks like a bullwinkle to me
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Post by: HillHound on July 30, 2021, 12:37:01 PM
There are some nice elk in that pile.To us yes.
To him it’s his property walking around waiting to be collected and sold. Complete BS they let them sell these, or jerky, or anything else that comes from them overharvesting. What they harvest should be used for their own food and ceremonies. But whatever we will keep using our money to manage the herd so hopefully they have something left to shoot at year-round. I really wish all the upstanding tribal members which I’m sure are the majority would put these pieces of crap in their place
Post by: Special T on July 30, 2021, 08:36:01 PM
Post by: emac on August 01, 2021, 06:02:55 AM
All these comments regaurding Indians are irrelevant. We need to focus on predators which we can force some control over.Yes we need to focus on predators you are correct there, but something has to be done about the natives also. It is going be a slaughter fest up there now, now that lick creek has burned. That was one of the thickest parts of the blues. But the Indians will have a hay day in there just like they do on willow once the snow flies.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Post by: Special T on August 01, 2021, 09:21:51 AM
All these comments regaurding Indians are irrelevant. We need to focus on predators which we can force some control over.Yes we need to focus on predators you are correct there, but something has to be done about the natives also. It is going be a slaughter fest up there now, now that lick creek has burned. That was one of the thickest parts of the blues. But the Indians will have a hay day in there just like they do on willow once the snow flies.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
"Something has to be done about Natives Also"
THIS is a great volunteer opportunity for you. I encourage you to go down the rabbit hole and report back on what you read and find. Im quite certain it would take at least a year of constant reading just to become knowlegeable enough to realize that for the same effort we could make a difference on predators.
Post by: Rainier10 on August 01, 2021, 09:44:01 AM
:yeah:All these comments regaurding Indians are irrelevant. We need to focus on predators which we can force some control over.Yes we need to focus on predators you are correct there, but something has to be done about the natives also. It is going be a slaughter fest up there now, now that lick creek has burned. That was one of the thickest parts of the blues. But the Indians will have a hay day in there just like they do on willow once the snow flies.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
"Something has to be done about Natives Also"
THIS is a great volunteer opportunity for you. I encourage you to go down the rabbit hole and report back on what you read and find. Im quite certain it would take at least a year of constant reading just to become knowlegeable enough to realize that for the same effort we could make a difference on predators.
Native harvest can be frustrating but it is what it is.
Predator reduction and habitat improvement is something everyone can do and it will help our herds.
Post by: Tbar on August 01, 2021, 12:25:09 PM
So take my :twocents: for what is worth. I won't begin to try to explain blues dynamics beyond the limited knowledge and understanding I have. Something needs done? I do not disagree, but we may have differing opinions on the path forward. I think there is tremendous opportunity in partnership. Natives have tools in the toolbox that the wdfw doesn't. Natives also have an absolute need beyond an interest to perpetuate ungulate populations. So conservation should be a common goal but that conversation seldom happens, instead we (all) cast stones and play the blame game. This is extremely common at every level. Another point, speaking more specifically about the blues and the career efforts of past professionals is mature bull recruitment. This is the root of much of the animosity, this is a management scheme not necessarily a biological necessity. I do not think this scheme (although admirable) should be at the forefront of the conversation. This is a tough one for rank and file hunters. I can tell you first hand that the easiest way out is to throw your hands up and say why try, both sides of the coin. Another reality is threat recognition, it's not native harvest, our numbers continue to fall in terms of overall harvest (I cannot speak for tribes that hunt the blues) just as hunter effort declines. One thing that is true is we are all being pushed into and onto a smaller landscape, thus making any occurrence a greater impact. Predators as well as the development and attention to the conflict portion of wildlife management (conflict management is also not unique to Washington in terms of management metric). Somewhere we stopped measuring yields and started measuring impact, this is even understandable in a corporate local mindset. Many agricultural operations now answer to a larger management group with lobbyists and efficiency audits vs the neighbors who homesteaded or the local co-op. This is an absolute and trackable impact in the blues. There are a few on here that could speak very specifically on the state of affairs through a broad lens but doubt they will speak up. So I guess my thoughts are that the wedge of division is somewhat of a trap that we not only fall into but welcome upon ourselves. So next time somebody wants to "do something about the natives" try starting with a conversation with one. We have years of animosity to unravel but if we want future generations to hunt we have to change our mindset and approach, from both aspects. There is also accountability in management and quite possibly where the conversation should be channeled through. Again that's my :twocents: that could very well be overvalued.All these comments regaurding Indians are irrelevant. We need to focus on predators which we can force some control over.Yes we need to focus on predators you are correct there, but something has to be done about the natives also. It is going be a slaughter fest up there now, now that lick creek has burned. That was one of the thickest parts of the blues. But the Indians will have a hay day in there just like they do on willow once the snow flies.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk