Post by: starkeybomb on December 07, 2023, 10:30:55 AM
Biologist: Yes, we can definitively say we are not, including depredation
Commissioner: Let me change my question...
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Biologists are having to re-answer questions over and over. Tim Ragen has never met a pro-hunting answer he likes. This guy is smart, but his area of expertise in no way relates to predator management.
They are about to talk about bears if you can tune in.
Post by: starkeybomb on December 07, 2023, 10:38:12 AM
Ragen immediately retorts that the biologist cannot definitively answer the question as he sees things...
Post by: Rainier10 on December 07, 2023, 10:40:14 AM
Post by: starkeybomb on December 07, 2023, 10:43:05 AM
Post by: Stein on December 07, 2023, 10:55:49 AM
Commissioner: Can you definitively say we are not over-harvesting cougars? I have not heard a clear response to that
Biologist: Yes, we can definitively say we are not, including depredation
Commissioner: Let me change my question...
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Biologists are having to re-answer questions over and over. Tim Ragen has never met a pro-hunting answer he likes. This guy is smart, but his area of expertise in no way relates to predator management.
They are about to talk about bears if you can tune in.
Don't worry, they'll follow the science right over to another biologist paid by the anti-hunting crowd.
Post by: Mtnwalker on December 07, 2023, 11:07:33 AM
Post by: Firstgenhunter on December 07, 2023, 11:16:27 AM
Hopefully somebody is recording all of these for future documentationWe are and will have content out soon!
Post by: Special T on December 07, 2023, 11:18:06 AM
Post by: Firstgenhunter on December 07, 2023, 11:18:54 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on December 07, 2023, 11:45:36 AM
Post by: Special T on December 07, 2023, 11:48:06 AM
Some of these (ignorant) commissioners continue to try and make a case that if we don't have perfect information on bear numbers it's possible the populations are actually decreasing...clearly trying to make a case that the sky could be falling and we might not know. The WDFW staff point to their various metrics and nothing concerning jumps out re: declines. Yet, we have extremely clear data on whats going on with Blue Mountains elk...and the contribution of predators...the hypocrisy, while not at all surprising, is absurd.
:yeah:
And yet we know that deer and elk numbers AREdecreasing and in the case of the blues we know it's cougars killing Calfs.
Post by: Special T on December 07, 2023, 12:01:08 PM
Why an increase in Westside bears?
Fuel, 2 bear limit. More people hunting the West side generally and much of the take is incidental to normal hunt seasons...
Except for folks like Drock that don't buy a second tag in bow season and has them was so close he could stab them with the arrow!
:chuckle:
Post by: GOcougsHunter on December 07, 2023, 12:21:43 PM
It would be beneficial, albeit would never happen, to actually describe to the commission "a day in the life of a WA hunter" Bear harvest and bear hunting in WA State is worlds different than other states where traditional bait/hounds are used. I carry a tag in my pocket for the off chance I come across a harvest opportunity. While others are actively pursuing while trying to not run afoul of methods of hunting which could be construed as illegal. There is no bombproof model applicable to Washington State bear hunting.
Post by: hunter399 on December 07, 2023, 12:36:19 PM
Ya there just not smart enough to put two and two together.Some of these (ignorant) commissioners continue to try and make a case that if we don't have perfect information on bear numbers it's possible the populations are actually decreasing...clearly trying to make a case that the sky could be falling and we might not know. The WDFW staff point to their various metrics and nothing concerning jumps out re: declines. Yet, we have extremely clear data on whats going on with Blue Mountains elk...and the contribution of predators...the hypocrisy, while not at all surprising, is absurd.
:yeah:
And yet we know that deer and elk numbers AREdecreasing and in the case of the blues we know it's cougars killing Calfs.
It's pretty much a trend that's happening statewide.
Only difference is blues Mt .is a fact it's happening.
They should be taking the research from the blue Mt. And applying that concept statewide.
If it's happening there,most likely everywhere else too.
Post by: Stein on December 07, 2023, 12:45:44 PM
Some of these (ignorant) commissioners continue to try and make a case that if we don't have perfect information on bear numbers it's possible the populations are actually decreasing...clearly trying to make a case that the sky could be falling and we might not know. The WDFW staff point to their various metrics and nothing concerning jumps out re: declines. Yet, we have extremely clear data on whats going on with Blue Mountains elk...and the contribution of predators...the hypocrisy, while not at all surprising, is absurd.
I don't think ignorance is at play. They need a reason to doubt and ignore WDFW biologists in favor of either a conservative stance or to open the door to varying opinions from alternate sources.
They ask WDFW something, WDFW goes back and collects/fixes/adjusts, comes back and the goalpost moves.
Regarding elk, they simply don't care. There are no "save the elk" progressive groups as they are not cute. Sad but true.
Post by: GOcougsHunter on December 07, 2023, 01:24:14 PM
Some of these (ignorant) commissioners continue to try and make a case that if we don't have perfect information on bear numbers it's possible the populations are actually decreasing...clearly trying to make a case that the sky could be falling and we might not know. The WDFW staff point to their various metrics and nothing concerning jumps out re: declines. Yet, we have extremely clear data on whats going on with Blue Mountains elk...and the contribution of predators...the hypocrisy, while not at all surprising, is absurd.
I don't think ignorance is at play. They need a reason to doubt and ignore WDFW biologists in favor of either a conservative stance or to open the door to varying opinions from alternate sources.
They ask WDFW something, WDFW goes back and collects/fixes/adjusts, comes back and the goalpost moves.
Regarding elk, they simply don't care. There are no "save the elk" progressive groups as they are not cute. Sad but true.
Actually there is one... Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. This is not a dig at the RMEF, but, they have a big dog in this fight and I am not sure why they are kinda silent. They are a big organization and with that comes a lot of responsibilty and risk. But advocating for a rapidly declining elk population would be in their wheelhouse, no?!
Post by: Special T on December 07, 2023, 01:44:21 PM
Some of these (ignorant) commissioners continue to try and make a case that if we don't have perfect information on bear numbers it's possible the populations are actually decreasing...clearly trying to make a case that the sky could be falling and we might not know. The WDFW staff point to their various metrics and nothing concerning jumps out re: declines. Yet, we have extremely clear data on whats going on with Blue Mountains elk...and the contribution of predators...the hypocrisy, while not at all surprising, is absurd.
I don't think ignorance is at play. They need a reason to doubt and ignore WDFW biologists in favor of either a conservative stance or to open the door to varying opinions from alternate sources.
They ask WDFW something, WDFW goes back and collects/fixes/adjusts, comes back and the goalpost moves.
Regarding elk, they simply don't care. There are no "save the elk" progressive groups as they are not cute. Sad but true.
Actually there is one... Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. This is not a dig at the RMEF, but, they have a big dog in this fight and I am not sure why they are kinda silent. They are a big organization and with that comes a lot of responsibilty and risk. But advocating for a rapidly declining elk population would be in their wheelhouse, no?!
Most critter/habitat orgs will have strong words at best. They make too much money from grants and land transfers with the state/feds.
That said RMEF did speak against the proposed conservation policy, so good on them but don't expect more than that.
Post by: MeepDog on December 07, 2023, 01:48:29 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on December 07, 2023, 02:20:31 PM
Uh we changed those in eastern Washington and the same number of bears were harvested in eastern Washington. We changed very little in western Washington and harvest increased.
Why would it increase if you didn’t increase opportunity?
Uh… there are more bears, population is increasing, more people are general season hunting because there is no spring season.
Post by: Griiz on December 07, 2023, 02:57:57 PM
So you changed the season and bag limit and more bears were harvested?
Uh we changed those in eastern Washington and the same number of bears were harvested in eastern Washington. We changed very little in western Washington and harvest increased.
Why would it increase if you didn’t increase opportunity?
Uh… there are more bears, population is increasing, more people are general season hunting because there is no spring season.
Might have irritated people so they put more effort in. Bear hunting definitely has been a hot topic and that extra advertising might have gotten more people to try bear hunting too.
Post by: MeepDog on December 07, 2023, 03:02:01 PM
Why would it increase if you didn’t increase opportunity?
If they saw an increase in participation (which should be measurable) then that could contribute to a higher harvest rate of black bears without an increase in population. More guns would mean more bears, but again they have the participation data to check for this.
In fact you could have more bears taken than last year, with a lower success rate per person if the increase of hunters was high enough.
Post by: KFhunter on December 07, 2023, 03:08:28 PM
So you changed the season and bag limit and more bears were harvested?
Uh we changed those in eastern Washington and the same number of bears were harvested in eastern Washington. We changed very little in western Washington and harvest increased.
Why would it increase if you didn’t increase opportunity?
Uh… there are more bears, population is increasing, more people are general season hunting because there is no spring season.
Speaking about the NE corner I’m seeing changes in historic bear areas - I’m talking history dating back to hound hunting era when I rode around with them running hounds - some of these areas are now utterly devoid of bears, hidden away homestead apple trees with 6 inches of apples rotting on the ground, where it should be covered so deep in bear dung you need muck boots
Other pockets still a ton of bears, but fall bear hunters need to make sure their area they’ve hunted for years is still carrying bears
Only reasoning I’ve got is wolves, harassment near wolf dens, or dragging bears out of dens in winter I’m not sure the cause, but I lean towards persistent wolf harassment near dens or rendezvous areas
Post by: KFhunter on December 07, 2023, 03:10:44 PM
Why would it increase if you didn’t increase opportunity?
If they saw an increase in participation (which should be measurable) then that could contribute to a higher harvest rate of black bears without an increase in population. More guns would mean more bears, but again they have the participation data to check for this.
In fact you could have more bears taken than last year, with a lower success rate per person if the increase of hunters was high enough.
I could see increased participation, given the giant spotlight that has been put on the issue
Post by: Stein on December 07, 2023, 03:20:55 PM
Some of these (ignorant) commissioners continue to try and make a case that if we don't have perfect information on bear numbers it's possible the populations are actually decreasing...clearly trying to make a case that the sky could be falling and we might not know. The WDFW staff point to their various metrics and nothing concerning jumps out re: declines. Yet, we have extremely clear data on whats going on with Blue Mountains elk...and the contribution of predators...the hypocrisy, while not at all surprising, is absurd.
I don't think ignorance is at play. They need a reason to doubt and ignore WDFW biologists in favor of either a conservative stance or to open the door to varying opinions from alternate sources.
They ask WDFW something, WDFW goes back and collects/fixes/adjusts, comes back and the goalpost moves.
Regarding elk, they simply don't care. There are no "save the elk" progressive groups as they are not cute. Sad but true.
Actually there is one... Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. This is not a dig at the RMEF, but, they have a big dog in this fight and I am not sure why they are kinda silent. They are a big organization and with that comes a lot of responsibilty and risk. But advocating for a rapidly declining elk population would be in their wheelhouse, no?!
They are not what I would consider progressive, at least politically.
They also have a set amount of resources and I would expect them to put those resources where they can be best utilized. If I was allocating resources, I wouldn't waste too many with the WDFW commission.
We keep pretending like some testimony is going to make one bit of difference. It won't. You could put up 100 reams of data and not one sentence would make a difference. They were put into place to achieve an objective and it isn't supporting hunting and fishing or deer and elk herds.
Post by: pickardjw on December 07, 2023, 03:27:38 PM
It still bugs me that Lemkuhl said he didn't understand why the numbers aren't as accurate as they are for salmon... :bash:
Post by: GOcougsHunter on December 07, 2023, 03:35:53 PM
They won't drop the, "estimates aren't accurate enough" argument until the WDFW lines up every bear and cougar and counts them one by one.
It still bugs me that Lemkuhl said he didn't understand why the numbers aren't as accurate as they are for salmon... :bash:
And they were asking the bios to reconcile why some habitats have less bear population per square km over others. Why don't the numbers line up? ummm... cities... lakes... interstates...
Post by: Special T on December 07, 2023, 04:42:29 PM
Post by: Jake Dogfish on December 07, 2023, 07:22:43 PM
These are some takeways we have. We cant push the narrative that "predators are the bad guys" anymore. We are harvesting them at sustainable levels and doing so for food should be the narrative. Soon as other topics like hunting vs conflict enter the discussion the waters become muddied quite quickly to say we don't have the science to meet management objectives. 25% tooth submission rates for bears and 47% non reporting at all. This makes us look bad and we all need to do better.:yeah:
It’s time to flip the script. The antis want more predators, with less and less food for them to eat. You would not starve your family pet to death and we should not be doing that to our wildlife. It’s unethical. It’s time for hunters and fishers to take the moral high ground.
Post by: KFhunter on December 07, 2023, 07:51:24 PM
These are some takeways we have. We cant push the narrative that "predators are the bad guys" anymore. We are harvesting them at sustainable levels and doing so for food should be the narrative. Soon as other topics like hunting vs conflict enter the discussion the waters become muddied quite quickly to say we don't have the science to meet management objectives. 25% tooth submission rates for bears and 47% non reporting at all. This makes us look bad and we all need to do better.:yeah:
It’s time to flip the script. The antis want more predators, with less and less food for them to eat. You would not starve your family pet to death and we should not be doing that to our wildlife. It’s unethical. It’s time for hunters and fishers to take the moral high ground.
I’m totally on board with taking the moral and ethical high ground….
Wake me up when we get a governor we can work with
Post by: actionshooter on December 07, 2023, 09:01:01 PM
Some of these (ignorant) commissioners continue to try and make a case that if we don't have perfect information on bear numbers it's possible the populations are actually decreasing...clearly trying to make a case that the sky could be falling and we might not know. The WDFW staff point to their various metrics and nothing concerning jumps out re: declines. Yet, we have extremely clear data on whats going on with Blue Mountains elk...and the contribution of predators...the hypocrisy, while not at all surprising, is absurd.
They aren't ignorant... they know EXACTLY what they are doing, have a plan and are putting it into play.... when predator numbers are to high and ungulate numbers are too low... hunting in Washington is over
Post by: emac on December 07, 2023, 10:19:06 PM
Ding ding ding. Winner winner chicken dinnerSome of these (ignorant) commissioners continue to try and make a case that if we don't have perfect information on bear numbers it's possible the populations are actually decreasing...clearly trying to make a case that the sky could be falling and we might not know. The WDFW staff point to their various metrics and nothing concerning jumps out re: declines. Yet, we have extremely clear data on whats going on with Blue Mountains elk...and the contribution of predators...the hypocrisy, while not at all surprising, is absurd.
They aren't ignorant... they know EXACTLY what they are doing, have a plan and are putting it into play.... when predator numbers are to high and ungulate numbers are too low... hunting in Washington is over
Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk
Post by: Humptulips on December 08, 2023, 01:57:56 AM
The goal is to be able to say the commission is so dysfunctional that it should be eliminated and put directly under the govenor.That is a logical conclusion, It would explain some of the goofs on the Commission. If I wanted a dysfunctional Commission I would put someone like Barbra Baker or Lorna Smith in charge. :DOH:
Post by: Special T on December 08, 2023, 11:38:07 AM
The goal is to be able to say the commission is so dysfunctional that it should be eliminated and put directly under the govenor.That is a logical conclusion, It would explain some of the goofs on the Commission. If I wanted a dysfunctional Commission I would put someone like Barbra Baker or Lorna Smith in charge. :DOH:
First off Baker is wicked smart. Lawyer, measured speaking, patience, strategist. Smith is a useful loud mouth that isn't too bright. I see good cop bad cop game played when I hear about those 2 having meetings with staff. Bakers term should be up, but I'll bet she will stay on long enough to force some Anti hunting change before she leaves. I'll wager she still has a goal or 2 that haven't been completed.
Post by: stickslinger on December 12, 2023, 04:57:54 PM
Post by: ducks4days on December 12, 2023, 06:29:23 PM
And as soon as they end hunting in this state they will be one step closer to taking our guns, its a long game they are trying to play
This is the real answer. Whittle away at a single reason somebody would own a firearm and you lower the number of people willing to defend our right to bear arms for any reason
Post by: idaho guy on December 12, 2023, 06:52:10 PM
:yeah :yeah:And as soon as they end hunting in this state they will be one step closer to taking our guns, its a long game they are trying to play
This is the real answer. Whittle away at a single reason somebody would own a firearm and you lower the number of people willing to defend our right to bear arms for any reason
I have thought this for a long time. Explains the obsession on protecting predators at the expense of most other wildlife. :
Post by: MADMAX on December 12, 2023, 07:05:55 PM
:yeah :yeah:And as soon as they end hunting in this state they will be one step closer to taking our guns, its a long game they are trying to play
This is the real answer. Whittle away at a single reason somebody would own a firearm and you lower the number of people willing to defend our right to bear arms for any reason
I have thought this for a long time. Explains the obsession on protecting predators at the expense of most other wildlife. :
Makes me question where the heck is RMEF,safari club, 2A foundation and the NRA ?
Ive been a member of all of them at one time or another and current in couple
Crickets ???
What the heck ?
Post by: Skyvalhunter on December 13, 2023, 06:19:29 AM
Post by: MADMAX on December 13, 2023, 07:25:23 AM
You ever contacted them and asked them why they are not more involved in Wa state?
I have
They acknowledge and then ask for more money to keep fighting
Same old song
Post by: Stein on December 13, 2023, 07:44:16 AM
Post by: ducks4days on December 13, 2023, 09:52:50 AM
So they pour a ton of money into WA only to get whooped by a ballot initiative that passes easily with a couple rich guys kicking in a very modest amount. It's where we are at. I think the national players cut their loss and move on.
How much money have they spent in WA? "Pour" implies a lot but isnt an actual number.
Post by: bearpaw on December 13, 2023, 10:29:31 AM
Post by: jstone on December 13, 2023, 10:31:29 AM
Post by: hunter399 on December 13, 2023, 11:14:01 AM
Is we have no biologist, research studys,or any kind of factual evidence that is on hunters side. On what's going on.
These wildlife.orgs all have biologists and animal rights people on there side.
Hunters would be better off dumping money on private independent research,Then elections.
Just my opinion.
Example would be , predator/prey study done.
They did use a lot of camera trap in part of the study.
There was some equation,about ungulate/ how long before a predator was caught on cam.
I have many cams that show a deer,in only a minute cougar right on its tracks.
Not sure why hunters using cams for scouting, can't also be used as " research".
Hunters probably set more cam traps than anyone else.
I always think outside the box.
It's just a shame that hunters can't get along enough to coordinate a project on that level.
We will never win on the political/election level.(my opinion)
We could win with on the ground evidence.
Look at the wildlife.org ,they have a 90 page report with there petition.
Hunters need a report with our petition,with actual evidence, photos,ect. That supports us.
You have to be proactive,and copy what they are doing to us.
Hunters probably have more evidence of what's really going on.
Then any wildlife.org.
Right on there cell phone,sitting in there pocket,more evidence.
Yet we can't put together a report against this BS.
Gotta get our stuff together,ship is sinking.
Post by: WWC on December 13, 2023, 12:58:05 PM
SCI chapters in this state are all members of Washingtonians for Wildlife Conservation. Despite the snow on the pass most chapters attended our recent board meeting where we talked about this subject, and others pertaining to the attacks on hunting. I know it s frustrating that every organization isn't rattling sabers at the comission. Our president has made bold statements about the makeup of the comission. Not all work that is being done in public, just like the Anti hunting crowd.:yeah :yeah:And as soon as they end hunting in this state they will be one step closer to taking our guns, its a long game they are trying to play
This is the real answer. Whittle away at a single reason somebody would own a firearm and you lower the number of people willing to defend our right to bear arms for any reason
I have thought this for a long time. Explains the obsession on protecting predators at the expense of most other wildlife. :
Makes me question where the heck is RMEF,safari club, 2A foundation and the NRA ?
Ive been a member of all of them at one time or another and current in couple
Crickets ???
What the heck ?
Our member organizations are the core of our organization. Thier representatives often do the heavy lifting. We can always use members that want to be active, and we have some things in the works to make a difference. If sportsmen want to be active and learn how the system works volunteer. Many of the individuals from our member groups wanted to make a bigger difference and became involved by banding together. Learning and sharing how the sausage is made. If you belong to a trap, archery, or sportsmen club of any kind reach out to us.
Post by: actionshooter on December 13, 2023, 05:52:05 PM
SCI chapters in this state are all members of Washingtonians for Wildlife Conservation. Despite the snow on the pass most chapters attended our recent board meeting where we talked about this subject, and others pertaining to the attacks on hunting. I know it s frustrating that every organization isn't rattling sabers at the comission. Our president has made bold statements about the makeup of the comission. Not all work that is being done in public, just like the Anti hunting crowd.:yeah :yeah:And as soon as they end hunting in this state they will be one step closer to taking our guns, its a long game they are trying to play
This is the real answer. Whittle away at a single reason somebody would own a firearm and you lower the number of people willing to defend our right to bear arms for any reason
I have thought this for a long time. Explains the obsession on protecting predators at the expense of most other wildlife. :
Makes me question where the heck is RMEF,safari club, 2A foundation and the NRA ?
Ive been a member of all of them at one time or another and current in couple
Crickets ???
What the heck ?
Our member organizations are the core of our organization. Thier representatives often do the heavy lifting. We can always use members that want to be active, and we have some things in the works to make a difference. If sportsmen want to be active and learn how the system works volunteer. Many of the individuals from our member groups wanted to make a bigger difference and became involved by banding together. Learning and sharing how the sausage is made. If you belong to a trap, archery, or sportsmen club of any kind reach out to us.
THIS ^^^
If someone belongs to one of the organizations.... good on you, we all should, at least one.
Want to actually make a difference? Participate in one of the organizations, gather signatures, raise funds.... doesn't really matter what. If we had 20% of hunters working toward the goal... this wouldn't even be a discussion.
Post by: MADMAX on December 13, 2023, 06:01:07 PM
SCI chapters in this state are all members of Washingtonians for Wildlife Conservation. Despite the snow on the pass most chapters attended our recent board meeting where we talked about this subject, and others pertaining to the attacks on hunting. I know it s frustrating that every organization isn't rattling sabers at the comission. Our president has made bold statements about the makeup of the comission. Not all work that is being done in public, just like the Anti hunting crowd.:yeah :yeah:And as soon as they end hunting in this state they will be one step closer to taking our guns, its a long game they are trying to play
This is the real answer. Whittle away at a single reason somebody would own a firearm and you lower the number of people willing to defend our right to bear arms for any reason
I have thought this for a long time. Explains the obsession on protecting predators at the expense of most other wildlife. :
Makes me question where the heck is RMEF,safari club, 2A foundation and the NRA ?
Ive been a member of all of them at one time or another and current in couple
Crickets ???
What the heck ?
Our member organizations are the core of our organization. Thier representatives often do the heavy lifting. We can always use members that want to be active, and we have some things in the works to make a difference. If sportsmen want to be active and learn how the system works volunteer. Many of the individuals from our member groups wanted to make a bigger difference and became involved by banding together. Learning and sharing how the sausage is made. If you belong to a trap, archery, or sportsmen club of any kind reach out to us.
THIS ^^^
If someone belongs to one of the organizations.... good on you, we all should, at least one.
Want to actually make a difference? Participate in one of the organizations, gather signatures, raise funds.... doesn't really matter what. If we had 20% of hunters working toward the goal... this wouldn't even be a discussion.
+1
Good points
Even make it an AHE requirement perhaps
Post by: bugs n bones on December 16, 2023, 09:21:10 PM
Some of these (ignorant) commissioners continue to try and make a case that if we don't have perfect information on bear numbers it's possible the populations are actually decreasing...clearly trying to make a case that the sky could be falling and we might not know. The WDFW staff point to their various metrics and nothing concerning jumps out re: declines. Yet, we have extremely clear data on whats going on with Blue Mountains elk...and the contribution of predators...the hypocrisy, while not at all surprising, is absurd.Bingo
They aren't ignorant... they know EXACTLY what they are doing, have a plan and are putting it into play.... when predator numbers are to high and ungulate numbers are too low... hunting in Washington is over
Post by: jstone on December 16, 2023, 09:28:15 PM
Besides voting in a governor who likes to ruin his state and hiring people to ruin all the rest of the state.!!!
How the F did we get to this point.!!!!!!!
Post by: MADMAX on December 16, 2023, 09:38:38 PM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on December 17, 2023, 08:44:49 AM
Don't forget Whatcom, San Juan, and surprisingly Whitman (WSU) counties
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on December 17, 2023, 05:13:01 PM
2) WA Fish & Wildlife Commission says they're limiting the hunt for predators because a group of scientists wrote them a letter. They're not even claiming that the letter is actual research. Can anyone who says they're a "scientist" write laws in WA?
Post by: Skyvalhunter on December 17, 2023, 05:21:39 PM
Post by: hunter399 on December 17, 2023, 06:05:50 PM
Is there any truth to this and if so was it made public. Reason I ask is a lot of there groups have their own so called "Scientists". Why not try and listen to WDFW's scientists.
First you have the definition of "best available science"
Which should not include,here say ,personal opinion,non scientific research, political biased,and so on.
Cougar harvest is based on a percentage of total population.
So some of the graphs and information in there petition only holds true ,if the population estimate is correct.
Bear they just used harvest increase I believe.
Even if there petition was total facts.
We as hunters are over harvested to "unsustainable" .
Which isn't true, The commission could compromise.
Make smaller changes. All these drastic changes also skew the harvest rates from one year to another.
It's better to make small changes,see if harvest rates drop.
Yes the best available science is gonna be from the department.
Out of state research, doesn't always align with our current rules and regulations. Other research always has a very high chance of being biased.
Same case as spring bear.
Our commission should be taking our department recommendations alot more strongly,if there true concerns was "best available science". Cause they already have it.
In the case with cougar. Our current biologist may be under estimate population. To keep a sustainable population level.
Striking a balance of management, opportunity, sustainable.
Which was successful at that balance.
Now that low population number,that was striking that balance.
Is now used against you to restrict hunting opportunities.
Cougar is a lot more complex species to manage.
Now bear there is no way we are below sustainable.
Compromise examples.
August 15 opener,1 bear bag limits,for bear.
Cougar there are many compromise examples that would allow
opportunities yet lower harvest rate.
Hope this explains a bit about the petition and what anti-hunters are claiming.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on December 18, 2023, 08:57:48 AM
Its time to make inputs to the Commission about the conservation policy. updateddraftconservationpolicy@publicinput.com
Post by: bigmacc on December 18, 2023, 04:26:21 PM
I just listened to those that called into the WDFW meeting to express the results of Saturdays vote on the bear/ cougar petition. It was good to hear of the sharp criticism of the WDFW commissioners. One was able to sneak in the snakes names of Smith and Rowland. Lets hope that there's a concerted effort on the public input part to drown out the anti hunting crowd and its agenda.👍👍
Its time to make inputs to the Commission about the conservation policy. updateddraftconservationpolicy@publicinput.com
Post by: ducks4days on December 18, 2023, 06:00:21 PM
Gimme no closed season on cougar. And a third bear tag.
Post by: hunter399 on December 18, 2023, 07:08:45 PM
Can we just start petitioning the commission for the things we would like, science be damned, and hope the direction sways back to the middle? It seems to be the strategy for the antis, and it seems to be working in their favor.Put a 90 page PDF with it.
Gimme no closed season on cougar. And a third bear tag.
Probably stands a chance. 😂 LoL.
Post by: Slamadoo on December 18, 2023, 07:30:25 PM
How much of the commission accepting the petition is about avoiding litigation from WWF?
Post by: Special T on December 20, 2023, 12:13:36 PM
Honest question.
How much of the commission accepting the petition is about avoiding litigation from WWF?
Many of the Comissioners have a relationship With people on the commission, some of them are working in concert with them.
Post by: actionshooter on December 20, 2023, 06:50:28 PM
Honest question.Some of the commissioners are working directly with the anti's... this is a plan being executed.
How much of the commission accepting the petition is about avoiding litigation from WWF?
Post by: Katmai Guy on December 20, 2023, 08:41:29 PM
Post by: hughjorgan on December 20, 2023, 08:43:22 PM
https://wawildlifefirst.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Statement-of-50-Carnivore-Ecologists-re-Cougar-and-Bear-Science-1.pdf
”Cougars DO NOT require hunting to regulate their populations” :rolleyes:
Post by: Slamadoo on December 20, 2023, 10:25:51 PM
If the commission declines that petition. They probably get sued.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on December 21, 2023, 05:28:31 AM
Post by: harveymarv on December 21, 2023, 05:49:46 AM
The WDFW has already been in a exercise to study the Cougar/bear issue. The commission didnt agree to roll back to 2018 regulations for these predators. They merely said yes to the petition in part so that the WDFW could continue their exercise. to say what changes if any will be made to the seasons has yet to be determined and voted upon.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on December 21, 2023, 08:07:09 AM
Post by: fireweed on December 21, 2023, 08:17:48 AM
Post by: hughjorgan on December 21, 2023, 08:46:24 AM
If you listened to the meeting the commissioners said a roll back to 2018 was not approved.
And you believe them? The antis end goal is clear as day in their letter and we have commissioners that are on their side…
Post by: Skyvalhunter on December 21, 2023, 09:15:04 AM
There is a huge new cougar study in the works on the Olympic Peninsula. It is spearheaded by the tribes and a non-profit big cat focused group called Panthera. Because the tribes want to hunt elk and deer, too, their information in the end may be more balanced. They are following 40 or so collared cougars all around, even one crossed I-5. Then they are collecting cougar poop for DNA to see who they are and what they eat. The highest mortality of the collared cougars so far isn't hunting, but depredation (cougar killed for eating llamas, chickens, goats etc). The good news is that young cougars like to eat opossums.
A part of that which is concerning is if there is a depredation killing (I have heard some pretty large numbers thrown out there) done by WDFW that petition wants those numbers to be counted in the GMU quota. Weather or not that is agreed upon might be a bit concerning.
Post by: ducks4days on December 21, 2023, 09:34:44 AM
There is a huge new cougar study in the works on the Olympic Peninsula. It is spearheaded by the tribes and a non-profit big cat focused group called Panthera. Because the tribes want to hunt elk and deer, too, their information in the end may be more balanced. They are following 40 or so collared cougars all around, even one crossed I-5. Then they are collecting cougar poop for DNA to see who they are and what they eat. The highest mortality of the collared cougars so far isn't hunting, but depredation (cougar killed for eating llamas, chickens, goats etc). The good news is that young cougars like to eat opossums.
A part of that which is concerning is if there is a depredation killing (I have heard some pretty large numbers thrown out there) done by WDFW that petition wants those numbers to be counted in the GMU quota. Weather or not that is agreed upon might be a bit concerning.
If there is a depradation killing, it is direct evidence that the quota should be increased
Post by: fireweed on December 21, 2023, 10:38:41 AM
There is a huge new cougar study in the works on the Olympic Peninsula. It is spearheaded by the tribes and a non-profit big cat focused group called Panthera. Because the tribes want to hunt elk and deer, too, their information in the end may be more balanced. They are following 40 or so collared cougars all around, even one crossed I-5. Then they are collecting cougar poop for DNA to see who they are and what they eat. The highest mortality of the collared cougars so far isn't hunting, but depredation (cougar killed for eating llamas, chickens, goats etc). The good news is that young cougars like to eat opossums.
A part of that which is concerning is if there is a depredation killing (I have heard some pretty large numbers thrown out there) done by WDFW that petition wants those numbers to be counted in the GMU quota. Weather or not that is agreed upon might be a bit concerning.
If there is a depradation killing, it is direct evidence that the quota should be increased
If you read that letter link, they argue the opposite--saying more depredation is due to killing cougars and if you don't kill them, the depredation goes down. And they are "scientists", so it must be true! Their logic is this: you kill the big tom in the area, and all the young dispersing toms move in and they eat the livestock. Therefore if you don't kill the big old tom, the little ones stay away from his territory and keep them from killing livestock. But, they never say where the dispersing young cats go then....Do they just starve? Let themselves be killed by the big tom? Also, on the cougar project in the Olympics, one of their star old big mature tom was shot for killing a llama. Ooops.
Post by: hunter399 on December 21, 2023, 10:40:32 AM
Not sure if it may help.There is a huge new cougar study in the works on the Olympic Peninsula. It is spearheaded by the tribes and a non-profit big cat focused group called Panthera. Because the tribes want to hunt elk and deer, too, their information in the end may be more balanced. They are following 40 or so collared cougars all around, even one crossed I-5. Then they are collecting cougar poop for DNA to see who they are and what they eat. The highest mortality of the collared cougars so far isn't hunting, but depredation (cougar killed for eating llamas, chickens, goats etc). The good news is that young cougars like to eat opossums.
A part of that which is concerning is if there is a depredation killing (I have heard some pretty large numbers thrown out there) done by WDFW that petition wants those numbers to be counted in the GMU quota. Weather or not that is agreed upon might be a bit concerning.
If there is a depradation killing, it is direct evidence that the quota should be increased
I've been looking at Idaho's cougar management plan and studys.
One problem is ,they are able to target males,with hounds.
There plan also shows harvest rates and some other good information. Idaho statewide harvest is 500 -700 cougars a year.
Any study's or research that can support us. That cougars do need to be managed is worth a shot.
https://idfg.idaho.gov/form/mountain-lion-management-plan
Might be able to find some good info in, Montana or Oregon cougar management plans as well. Another plus to looking at other states management plan is , climate change and other stuff is about the same. Washington climate change is no different then Idaho or Oregon. So you can't pull the climate change card.
If you ask me. I would look at harvest rates for similar states.
Compare to Washington.
Here is 2022 cougar harvest. Looks to be only half of Idaho's harvest. Yet all there research says they still have a sustainable population. See where I'm going with it.
Post by: slavenoid on December 21, 2023, 02:57:58 PM
Post by: ducks4days on December 21, 2023, 03:23:02 PM
Just look at California, they're still killing cougars. These same groups are continuing the fight to end all cougar deaths. They just collect more money and shift the target. According to their websites now the targets are roads and depredation permits. We're supposed to believe they're just concerned about bag limits. Right...
California is actually killing twice as many cougars now as they were before the hunting ban went into effect.
Post by: pickardjw on December 21, 2023, 05:33:56 PM
Just look at California, they're still killing cougars. These same groups are continuing the fight to end all cougar deaths. They just collect more money and shift the target. According to their websites now the targets are roads and depredation permits. We're supposed to believe they're just concerned about bag limits. Right...
California is actually killing twice as many cougars now as they were before the hunting ban went into effect.
Is there an article or data on that? I always hear about California and government paid sharpshooters but never found anything written on it.
Post by: stickbuck on December 21, 2023, 05:47:04 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: ducks4days on December 21, 2023, 05:52:36 PM
Just look at California, they're still killing cougars. These same groups are continuing the fight to end all cougar deaths. They just collect more money and shift the target. According to their websites now the targets are roads and depredation permits. We're supposed to believe they're just concerned about bag limits. Right...
California is actually killing twice as many cougars now as they were before the hunting ban went into effect.
Is there an article or data on that? I always hear about California and government paid sharpshooters but never found anything written on it.
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=177513&inline - 2011-2020
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=177512&inline - 2001-2010
It fluctuates year to year, with a high of 334 and an average floating around 200
The last year cougar was legal to hunt in california (1971), a total of 118 were harvested. You need to go back to the 40's, about 25 years before they ended the bounty program, to start hitting similar numbers. Im pretty sure methods of take during that time included baiting, trapping, and poisoning, which is wildly more effective than just about any other method of take.
Post by: Special T on December 22, 2023, 02:14:53 PM