Post by: yakimanoob on April 15, 2025, 09:31:46 AM
https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/02608/wdfw02608.pdf
Post by: Mfowl on April 15, 2025, 09:40:23 AM
Post by: GOcougsHunter on April 15, 2025, 10:19:24 AM
Post by: fishngamereaper on April 15, 2025, 10:39:27 AM
Post by: ipkus on April 15, 2025, 12:18:15 PM
"Here is what hunting in Washington looks like now, just go volunteer to fix fence on a ranch with no deer"
Post by: trophyhunt on April 15, 2025, 12:24:57 PM
So politically correct they can't even put a harvest picture on the cover...Just what I was thinking, odd cover. But, I kinda think it's cool.
"Here is what hunting in Washington looks like now, just go volunteer to fix fence on a ranch with no deer"
Post by: CarbonHunter on April 15, 2025, 02:33:05 PM
Post by: jstone on April 15, 2025, 03:25:24 PM
Post by: bobcat on April 15, 2025, 03:44:25 PM
When can we start buying our tags
January 1st I think.
Post by: jstone on April 15, 2025, 04:43:00 PM
Post by: Ridgerunner on April 15, 2025, 06:49:13 PM
Post by: hunter399 on April 15, 2025, 07:09:41 PM
Few areas probably won't even open.
Added a few more GMU for the bear test.
i can't tell for sure ,moose permits look different to me.
Post by: Mtnwalker on April 15, 2025, 07:36:28 PM
Post by: str8meat on April 15, 2025, 08:12:52 PM
Post by: CarbonHunter on April 15, 2025, 08:20:52 PM
How in gods green earth do they think the goose prairie archery hunting gmu can only handle 2 archery bulls to be taken. Do the bios even do anything or are they still blaming covid? I do believe they have caught the stupid.
They don’t think it can handle 2 bulls being taken by archers. Typically archery is calculated at about a 50% success rate so if they take 2 this year there probably won’t be a season next year…
Post by: SWHUNTER on April 15, 2025, 08:58:12 PM
How in gods green earth do they think the goose prairie archery hunting gmu can only handle 2 archery bulls to be taken. Do the bios even do anything or are they still blaming covid? I do believe they have caught the stupid.It makes no sense.
Post by: goldenhtr on April 15, 2025, 10:19:19 PM
How in gods green earth do they think the goose prairie archery hunting gmu can only handle 2 archery bulls to be taken. Do the bios even do anything or are they still blaming covid? I do believe they have caught the stupid.
Well Muzzy gets (1)
Post by: str8meat on April 16, 2025, 03:22:58 AM
Post by: dreamingbig on April 16, 2025, 05:41:00 AM
I would like a 1v1 for 4 hours with the department and hear how they have arrived at the permit levels for quality elk in the Yakima units for all weapon types. I don’t think it is based on science but rather politics at this point.
Let’s keep emailing them, calling them and posting here (little value but at least it gets the word out) and maybe they finally pull their head out. Maybe…
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: fishngamereaper on April 16, 2025, 06:16:10 AM
The reductions make no sense to guys that spend time in the woods...
I don't think the State really cares though... they'll still get their thousands of apps for a handful of tags. The money is still coming in without having to provide equal access to the resource.
Post by: CarbonHunter on April 16, 2025, 06:42:12 AM
Where have you all been? I have been talking the Yakima permit decline for the past 5 years. It isn’t just this year. Archery could get 50 permits easy for most of the units. The biologists have stated the herd size is larger now than it was when they were giving north of a 100.
I would like a 1v1 for 4 hours with the department and hear how they have arrived at the permit levels for quality elk in the Yakima units for all weapon types. I don’t think it is based on science but rather politics at this point.
Let’s keep emailing them, calling them and posting here (little value but at least it gets the word out) and maybe they finally pull their head out. Maybe…
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The reason for the reduction in quality tags about 5 years ago was because they saw a 50% reduction in mature bulls in the herd in one year. Poaching? Tribal hunting? I never saw if they actually figured out why.
So even though the herd is healthy and that is why you are seeing hundreds of cow tags again I haven’t seen numbers to suggest the mature bulls numbers have recovered.
Post by: Ghost Hunter on April 16, 2025, 07:28:51 AM
Yes I see that, I do believe the department of fish and wildlife hates the entire muzzleloader season.
Gave them a lot of love last year. :dunno: ;)
Post by: dreamingbig on April 16, 2025, 07:31:22 AM
Trail cameras would suggest there are more than enough.Where have you all been? I have been talking the Yakima permit decline for the past 5 years. It isn’t just this year. Archery could get 50 permits easy for most of the units. The biologists have stated the herd size is larger now than it was when they were giving north of a 100.
I would like a 1v1 for 4 hours with the department and hear how they have arrived at the permit levels for quality elk in the Yakima units for all weapon types. I don’t think it is based on science but rather politics at this point.
Let’s keep emailing them, calling them and posting here (little value but at least it gets the word out) and maybe they finally pull their head out. Maybe…
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The reason for the reduction in quality tags about 5 years ago was because they saw a 50% reduction in mature bulls in the herd in one year. Poaching? Tribal hunting? I never saw if they actually figured out why.
So even though the herd is healthy and that is why you are seeing hundreds of cow tags again I haven’t seen numbers to suggest the mature bulls numbers have recovered.
That survey was done on a low snow year with all the bulls back up high already. Duh.
50 archery elk permits is not hundreds but maybe you were adding all user groups together.
I will say one benefit of turning these units into OIL permits is that the age class is WAY up. I have seen the evidence.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: CarbonHunter on April 16, 2025, 08:35:14 AM
Trail cameras would suggest there are more than enough.Where have you all been? I have been talking the Yakima permit decline for the past 5 years. It isn’t just this year. Archery could get 50 permits easy for most of the units. The biologists have stated the herd size is larger now than it was when they were giving north of a 100.
I would like a 1v1 for 4 hours with the department and hear how they have arrived at the permit levels for quality elk in the Yakima units for all weapon types. I don’t think it is based on science but rather politics at this point.
Let’s keep emailing them, calling them and posting here (little value but at least it gets the word out) and maybe they finally pull their head out. Maybe…
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The reason for the reduction in quality tags about 5 years ago was because they saw a 50% reduction in mature bulls in the herd in one year. Poaching? Tribal hunting? I never saw if they actually figured out why.
So even though the herd is healthy and that is why you are seeing hundreds of cow tags again I haven’t seen numbers to suggest the mature bulls numbers have recovered.
That survey was done on a low snow year with all the bulls back up high already. Duh.
50 archery elk permits is not hundreds but maybe you were adding all user groups together.
I will say one benefit of turning these units into OIL permits is that the age class is WAY up. I have seen the evidence.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes talking all weapons. There are 250 rifle 346 cow tags and the most I ever remember was 400 from years ago.
The archery cow season should just be opened back up given the numbers because if I remember right the harvest numbers for umtanum was around 60 cows each year when it was open season for archery. You can also see the decline in archery hunting for the Yakima area since they removed the open cow season. That is also affecting how many tags are available to archery hunters.
Keep in mind that the mature bulls numbers dropped from around 800 to 400 in one year. If the poaching or tribal hunting is still occurring at that rate it will take a long time to get back to a number near 8% of the herd being mature bulls. The bios are being pretty quiet about the situation with mature bulls.
Post by: Mtnwalker on April 16, 2025, 09:00:16 AM
Trail cameras would suggest there are more than enough.Where have you all been? I have been talking the Yakima permit decline for the past 5 years. It isn’t just this year. Archery could get 50 permits easy for most of the units. The biologists have stated the herd size is larger now than it was when they were giving north of a 100.
I would like a 1v1 for 4 hours with the department and hear how they have arrived at the permit levels for quality elk in the Yakima units for all weapon types. I don’t think it is based on science but rather politics at this point.
Let’s keep emailing them, calling them and posting here (little value but at least it gets the word out) and maybe they finally pull their head out. Maybe…
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The reason for the reduction in quality tags about 5 years ago was because they saw a 50% reduction in mature bulls in the herd in one year. Poaching? Tribal hunting? I never saw if they actually figured out why.
So even though the herd is healthy and that is why you are seeing hundreds of cow tags again I haven’t seen numbers to suggest the mature bulls numbers have recovered.
That survey was done on a low snow year with all the bulls back up high already. Duh.
50 archery elk permits is not hundreds but maybe you were adding all user groups together.
I will say one benefit of turning these units into OIL permits is that the age class is WAY up. I have seen the evidence.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes talking all weapons. There are 250 rifle 346 cow tags and the most I ever remember was 400 from years ago.
The archery cow season should just be opened back up given the numbers because if I remember right the harvest numbers for umtanum was around 60 cows each year when it was open season for archery. You can also see the decline in archery hunting for the Yakima area since they removed the open cow season. That is also affecting how many tags are available to archery hunters.
Keep in mind that the mature bulls numbers dropped from around 800 to 400 in one year. If the poaching or tribal hunting is still occurring at that rate it will take a long time to get back to a number near 8% of the herd being mature bulls. The bios are being pretty quiet about the situation with mature bulls.
Where are you finding the data on mature bulls?
Post by: CarbonHunter on April 16, 2025, 09:22:48 AM
Trail cameras would suggest there are more than enough.Where have you all been? I have been talking the Yakima permit decline for the past 5 years. It isn’t just this year. Archery could get 50 permits easy for most of the units. The biologists have stated the herd size is larger now than it was when they were giving north of a 100.
I would like a 1v1 for 4 hours with the department and hear how they have arrived at the permit levels for quality elk in the Yakima units for all weapon types. I don’t think it is based on science but rather politics at this point.
Let’s keep emailing them, calling them and posting here (little value but at least it gets the word out) and maybe they finally pull their head out. Maybe…
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The reason for the reduction in quality tags about 5 years ago was because they saw a 50% reduction in mature bulls in the herd in one year. Poaching? Tribal hunting? I never saw if they actually figured out why.
So even though the herd is healthy and that is why you are seeing hundreds of cow tags again I haven’t seen numbers to suggest the mature bulls numbers have recovered.
That survey was done on a low snow year with all the bulls back up high already. Duh.
50 archery elk permits is not hundreds but maybe you were adding all user groups together.
I will say one benefit of turning these units into OIL permits is that the age class is WAY up. I have seen the evidence.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes talking all weapons. There are 250 rifle 346 cow tags and the most I ever remember was 400 from years ago.
The archery cow season should just be opened back up given the numbers because if I remember right the harvest numbers for umtanum was around 60 cows each year when it was open season for archery. You can also see the decline in archery hunting for the Yakima area since they removed the open cow season. That is also affecting how many tags are available to archery hunters.
Keep in mind that the mature bulls numbers dropped from around 800 to 400 in one year. If the poaching or tribal hunting is still occurring at that rate it will take a long time to get back to a number near 8% of the herd being mature bulls. The bios are being pretty quiet about the situation with mature bulls.
Where are you finding the data on mature bulls?
There was an article posted about 5 years ago when they first lowered the quota for bull permits. I haven’t seen any updates since then but that is the reason for the low quality tags.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on April 16, 2025, 09:36:05 AM
Remember too folks, they gave out additional tags last year due to their draw screw up. Those chickens were most certainly going to come home to roost and they did. There is no free lunch.
Post by: Mtnwalker on April 16, 2025, 09:47:50 AM
The permit numbers are an absolute insult and completely unwarranted imo. Hell they didn't even count elk during covid but continued with this silliness. Count the feed lots and call it good. Nevermind the hundreds of bulls that don't come down at all :bash:
Remember too folks, they gave out additional tags last year due to their draw screw up. Those chickens were most certainly going to come home to roost and they did. There is no free lunch.
This is what I was getting at. They don't fly on light winter years so they rely on feed lot counts for mature bulls. Yet on light winter years mature bulls are less likely to come down to the feed areas. They even self admit that their counts were inaccurate the year the major reductions began (see below). Also, there were tons of mature bulls at the feed lots this year despite the light weather yet they still had to go and shave an already miniscule number of tags down even lower. It is completely unjustifiable IMO
Post by: Karl Blanchard on April 16, 2025, 10:09:42 AM
Post by: Dhoey07 on April 16, 2025, 10:22:30 AM
Post by: dreamingbig on April 16, 2025, 10:57:13 AM
The permit numbers are an absolute insult and completely unwarranted imo. Hell they didn't even count elk during covid but continued with this silliness. Count the feed lots and call it good. Nevermind the hundreds of bulls that don't come down at all :bash:Amen!
Remember too folks, they gave out additional tags last year due to their draw screw up. Those chickens were most certainly going to come home to roost and they did. There is no free lunch.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: dreamingbig on April 16, 2025, 10:58:23 AM
It's frustrating for sure. Elk herds are bursting at the seams but we still don't get tags. You can't bank animals. That's not how that works. Use em or lose em. If bull numbers were a real issue we wouldn't be seeing herd growth. That's how that works. It's just perplexing how we can have hundreds of bull tags for a single unit for years with lower elk numbers than we have now but now that the herd is bigger than it's ever been we can only spare single digit permits. If it wasn't so insulting it would be laughable.This is what I have been saying. Insulting our intelligence!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: RC on April 16, 2025, 12:48:19 PM
Post by: ipkus on April 16, 2025, 01:17:33 PM
Part of me wonders if the state is intentionally trying to keep the elk numbers high hoping there will be a correlating increase in predator numbers? Afterall, every deer or elk we take is one less for a cougar or wolf to eat.
Yep...just dragging their feet until the wolf population builds south of I-90 to take care of the issue.
I truly hate what this state has turned into. And yes, I blame the people that vote in the politicians that lead the charge. We all reap what you sow.
Post by: Stein on April 16, 2025, 06:08:34 PM
Post by: Cougartail on April 16, 2025, 08:16:00 PM
Posting cell-camera pictures will be considered poaching.
I'll post dead animals from Alaska so you remember how hunting once was. :chuckle:
Post by: hunter100 on April 17, 2025, 06:15:18 AM
Post by: crabcreekhunter on April 17, 2025, 07:42:15 AM
Post by: dreamingbig on April 17, 2025, 10:49:15 AM
Not that I'll ever draw a bull tag but I do think its cool they switched some EA tags to start Sept 1st. Based on what I have seen that first week without the crowds would be absolutely the time to be out there!Yeah, ~ 12 folks will get to take advantage of that.
So generous of them.Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Loup Loup on April 17, 2025, 01:44:14 PM
I haven’t bought a deer or elk tag in 6 years. With the exception of a deer tag 3 years ago.
I won’t buy deer or elk or cougar tags this season.
I’ll shoot two bears and pick up a couple three good roadkills.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on April 17, 2025, 02:06:28 PM
You don’t have to encourage them by buying tags.That's exactly what they want. They want you to not buy tags. They want you to stop caring. They want you to stop hunting. You're giving them exactly what they want which is no opposition :twocents:
I haven’t bought a deer or elk tag in 6 years. With the exception of a deer tag 3 years ago.
I won’t buy deer or elk or cougar tags this season.
I’ll shoot two bears and pick up a couple three good roadkills.
Post by: trophyhunt on April 17, 2025, 03:05:20 PM
Post by: Cougartail on April 17, 2025, 03:08:37 PM
You don’t have to encourage them by buying tags.That's exactly what they want. They want you to not buy tags. They want you to stop caring. They want you to stop hunting. You're giving them exactly what they want which is no opposition :twocents:
I haven’t bought a deer or elk tag in 6 years. With the exception of a deer tag 3 years ago.
I won’t buy deer or elk or cougar tags this season.
I’ll shoot two bears and pick up a couple three good roadkills.
They already won years ago. I literally was told by a leftist hunters should only be able to take picture of animals they find. :chuckle: :bash:
Post by: Loup Loup on April 17, 2025, 03:12:16 PM
Again, quit buying no product.
And remember this, every decision should pass this test: is it best for the resource.
The best path for OUR resources is to quit being a part of the mismanagement.
Post by: crabcreekhunter on April 17, 2025, 03:32:12 PM
Post by: Loup Loup on April 17, 2025, 03:48:06 PM
I can’t wrap my head around someone wanting to continue to give money to an agency that has driven the opportunity for the customer to obtain a product into extinction. Through no other name then mismanagement. The people that pay for multiseason tag are extremely gullible.
This situation is like watching lemmings jumping off a cliff.
Post by: ganghis on April 17, 2025, 04:44:51 PM
How in gods green earth do they think the goose prairie archery hunting gmu can only handle 2 archery bulls to be taken. Do the bios even do anything or are they still blaming covid? I do believe they have caught the stupid.
Yeah, I've probably had 10 shooter bulls on a few cameras in there within a 2 x 2 mi square radius. What are they thinking, that by decreasing bull tags they'll get some monster bull that will break world records? I don't think we have the genetics for that, honestly. Though if you want to increase quality, thin out the herd a little! Meanwhile there are 50 cow archery tags for the same unit. :rolleyes:
Post by: Buckhunter24 on April 17, 2025, 06:24:59 PM
A product without a product is a non issue with me. No meat = no license, no tag, no hunting, period.
I can’t wrap my head around someone wanting to continue to give money to an agency that has driven the opportunity for the customer to obtain a product into extinction. Through no other name then mismanagement. The people that pay for multiseason tag are extremely gullible.
This situation is like watching lemmings jumping off a cliff.
The draw situation sucks but there's otc deer and elk tags that can be filled every year if meat is your goal :twocents:
Post by: westside bull on April 17, 2025, 07:14:18 PM
Agree Karl, when people want to protest and want everyone to not buy or hunt, that’s just what the anti commission want. They don’t give two chits about the money.They give 2 chits about the money it's all about the money!
Post by: trophyhunt on April 17, 2025, 08:51:48 PM
I think the anti’s would rather we lose our hunting then have a budget. They’d give up all they have to take away our passion.Agree Karl, when people want to protest and want everyone to not buy or hunt, that’s just what the anti commission want. They don’t give two chits about the money.They give 2 chits about the money it's all about the money!
Post by: stickbuck on April 17, 2025, 09:21:02 PM
A product without a product is a non issue with me. No meat = no license, no tag, no hunting, period.I wouldn’t say gullible is the right word. I buy it every time I draw it because of what it allows me to do. Having a tag that allows me to be in the woods chasing an animal through three different weapon’s season is pretty dang awesome.
I can’t wrap my head around someone wanting to continue to give money to an agency that has driven the opportunity for the customer to obtain a product into extinction. Through no other name then mismanagement. The people that pay for multiseason tag are extremely gullible.
This situation is like watching lemmings jumping off a cliff.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: NOCK NOCK on April 18, 2025, 06:28:18 AM
Part of me wonders if the state is intentionally trying to keep the elk numbers high hoping there will be a correlating increase in predator numbers? Afterall, every deer or elk we take is one less for a cougar or wolf to eat.
WINNER WINNER.........not elk for you for dinner!
Post by: NOCK NOCK on April 18, 2025, 06:43:13 AM
A product without a product is a non issue with me. No meat = no license, no tag, no hunting, period.
I can’t wrap my head around someone wanting to continue to give money to an agency that has driven the opportunity for the customer to obtain a product into extinction. Through no other name then mismanagement. The people that pay for multiseason tag are extremely gullible.
This situation is like watching lemmings jumping off a cliff.
Sounds to me like you were a "hunter" for the wrong reasons. :dunno:
Its hunting, not "getting." Some of us LOVE to hunt, there is no shame in doing that no matter how much it costs, or how crappy the opportunities are.
With a little time and effort one can notch tags every year in this state, but if you dont.....well you still get to enjoy your passion of hunting :twocents:
Post by: yakimanoob on April 18, 2025, 09:53:40 AM
Its hunting, not "getting." Some of us LOVE to hunt, there is no shame in doing that no matter how much it costs, or how crappy the opportunities are.:yeah:
With a little time and effort one can notch tags every year in this state, but if you dont.....well you still get to enjoy your passion of hunting :twocents:
I think this point is missing in a lot of the above discussion. Criticize the state if you want, but they're managing for opportunity - the opportunity to enjoy the elk woods with a tag in your pocket. It's ironic to criticize them for "just wanting to sell tags." OF COURSE that's what they want. That's literally the definition of managing for opportunity.
Using the Yakima herd as an example: stable populations and steadily increasing harvests look to me like the system is working. Keep in mind that the "over objective" total population is largely related to the Rattlesnake subherd that's way above objective but on mostly federal and private land outside the purview of WDFW. I want to hunt them too, but if you think the DoE is ever going to allow the public to hunt the Hanford site, you're kidding yourself. MAYBE they'd let some master hunters or special tag holders into the Waluke or Rattlesnake units of the National Monument, but I'd be shocked to see that happen. Basically the entire range of the Rattlesnake subherd is already "any elk" during general rifle, so there's not a lot more the state can do.
Post by: OutHouse on April 18, 2025, 11:00:44 AM
The elk issue truly is bizarre. In the last four years I have seen more elk in the Yakima units than ever. The Cowiche feeding station had tons this year even with the mild winter.
Post by: CarbonHunter on April 18, 2025, 06:04:51 PM
Its hunting, not "getting." Some of us LOVE to hunt, there is no shame in doing that no matter how much it costs, or how crappy the opportunities are.:yeah:
With a little time and effort one can notch tags every year in this state, but if you dont.....well you still get to enjoy your passion of hunting :twocents:
I think this point is missing in a lot of the above discussion. Criticize the state if you want, but they're managing for opportunity - the opportunity to enjoy the elk woods with a tag in your pocket. It's ironic to criticize them for "just wanting to sell tags." OF COURSE that's what they want. That's literally the definition of managing for opportunity.
Using the Yakima herd as an example: stable populations and steadily increasing harvests look to me like the system is working. Keep in mind that the "over objective" total population is largely related to the Rattlesnake subherd that's way above objective but on mostly federal and private land outside the purview of WDFW. I want to hunt them too, but if you think the DoE is ever going to allow the public to hunt the Hanford site, you're kidding yourself. MAYBE they'd let some master hunters or special tag holders into the Waluke or Rattlesnake units of the National Monument, but I'd be shocked to see that happen. Basically the entire range of the Rattlesnake subherd is already "any elk" during general rifle, so there's not a lot more the state can do.
These tables show the decline in bull numbers and even though they have rebounded they still have a ways to go to get back to where they were when we had bull tags we all want to see. Given the fires since the decline I suspect the herd numbers should begin to grow rapidly.
Post by: Dhoey07 on April 19, 2025, 09:04:49 AM
A product without a product is a non issue with me. No meat = no license, no tag, no hunting, period.
I can’t wrap my head around someone wanting to continue to give money to an agency that has driven the opportunity for the customer to obtain a product into extinction. Through no other name then mismanagement. The people that pay for multiseason tag are extremely gullible.
This situation is like watching lemmings jumping off a cliff.
Sounds to me like you were a "hunter" for the wrong reasons. :dunno:
Its hunting, not "getting." Some of us LOVE to hunt, there is no shame in doing that no matter how much it costs, or how crappy the opportunities are.
With a little time and effort one can notch tags every year in this state, but if you dont.....well you still get to enjoy your passion of hunting :twocents:
It is “getting” for some. Calling it the wrong reason for hunting is a pretty shallow opinion.
I hope the definition of hunting doesn’t get adjusted due the cost or crappy opportunities you mentioned.
Post by: goldenhtr on April 19, 2025, 09:29:59 AM
Yes I see that, I do believe the department of fish and wildlife hates the entire muzzleloader season.
:yeah:
Post by: Dan-o on April 19, 2025, 10:51:14 AM
Post by: CarbonHunter on April 19, 2025, 01:12:55 PM
It just seems unreal that trophy deer and elk tags in this state are turning into OIL tags right in front of our eyes. :'(
And the moose, goat and sheep are turning into never in your lifetime (NIL) tags.
Post by: teanawayslayer on April 19, 2025, 06:14:03 PM
there’s nothing wrong with the numbers. Numbers are good. Just less opportunity :dunno:Its hunting, not "getting." Some of us LOVE to hunt, there is no shame in doing that no matter how much it costs, or how crappy the opportunities are.:yeah:
With a little time and effort one can notch tags every year in this state, but if you dont.....well you still get to enjoy your passion of hunting :twocents:
I think this point is missing in a lot of the above discussion. Criticize the state if you want, but they're managing for opportunity - the opportunity to enjoy the elk woods with a tag in your pocket. It's ironic to criticize them for "just wanting to sell tags." OF COURSE that's what they want. That's literally the definition of managing for opportunity.
Using the Yakima herd as an example: stable populations and steadily increasing harvests look to me like the system is working. Keep in mind that the "over objective" total population is largely related to the Rattlesnake subherd that's way above objective but on mostly federal and private land outside the purview of WDFW. I want to hunt them too, but if you think the DoE is ever going to allow the public to hunt the Hanford site, you're kidding yourself. MAYBE they'd let some master hunters or special tag holders into the Waluke or Rattlesnake units of the National Monument, but I'd be shocked to see that happen. Basically the entire range of the Rattlesnake subherd is already "any elk" during general rifle, so there's not a lot more the state can do.
These tables show the decline in bull numbers and even though they have rebounded they still have a ways to go to get back to where they were when we had bull tags we all want to see. Given the fires since the decline I suspect the herd numbers should begin to grow rapidly.
Post by: CarbonHunter on April 19, 2025, 06:31:00 PM
there’s nothing wrong with the numbers. Numbers are good. Just less opportunity :dunno:Its hunting, not "getting." Some of us LOVE to hunt, there is no shame in doing that no matter how much it costs, or how crappy the opportunities are.:yeah:
With a little time and effort one can notch tags every year in this state, but if you dont.....well you still get to enjoy your passion of hunting :twocents:
I think this point is missing in a lot of the above discussion. Criticize the state if you want, but they're managing for opportunity - the opportunity to enjoy the elk woods with a tag in your pocket. It's ironic to criticize them for "just wanting to sell tags." OF COURSE that's what they want. That's literally the definition of managing for opportunity.
Using the Yakima herd as an example: stable populations and steadily increasing harvests look to me like the system is working. Keep in mind that the "over objective" total population is largely related to the Rattlesnake subherd that's way above objective but on mostly federal and private land outside the purview of WDFW. I want to hunt them too, but if you think the DoE is ever going to allow the public to hunt the Hanford site, you're kidding yourself. MAYBE they'd let some master hunters or special tag holders into the Waluke or Rattlesnake units of the National Monument, but I'd be shocked to see that happen. Basically the entire range of the Rattlesnake subherd is already "any elk" during general rifle, so there's not a lot more the state can do.
These tables show the decline in bull numbers and even though they have rebounded they still have a ways to go to get back to where they were when we had bull tags we all want to see. Given the fires since the decline I suspect the herd numbers should begin to grow rapidly.
Do you have another chart that contradicts the charts that were shared? Or do you not understand how to read the charts?
Calf survival is low. Given the mild winters that would point to predators.
The bull to cow ratio dropped as low as 7:100 cows in 2018 and has barely hit a mark of 13:100 cows. That’s not mature bull but all bulls in the herd. Those are not good numbers for herd health and is an indicator that the state still has not gotten the poaching or tribal hunting issues under control. It clearly isn’t because of the state issuing too many tags.
Post by: teanawayslayer on April 20, 2025, 03:50:57 AM
do you know how they do there count. Hey guys it’s time to do a count. Let’s head to the feed lot. There numbers are no where close to correct. But If you believe what they have on paper that’s great.there’s nothing wrong with the numbers. Numbers are good. Just less opportunity :dunno:Its hunting, not "getting." Some of us LOVE to hunt, there is no shame in doing that no matter how much it costs, or how crappy the opportunities are.:yeah:
With a little time and effort one can notch tags every year in this state, but if you dont.....well you still get to enjoy your passion of hunting :twocents:
I think this point is missing in a lot of the above discussion. Criticize the state if you want, but they're managing for opportunity - the opportunity to enjoy the elk woods with a tag in your pocket. It's ironic to criticize them for "just wanting to sell tags." OF COURSE that's what they want. That's literally the definition of managing for opportunity.
Using the Yakima herd as an example: stable populations and steadily increasing harvests look to me like the system is working. Keep in mind that the "over objective" total population is largely related to the Rattlesnake subherd that's way above objective but on mostly federal and private land outside the purview of WDFW. I want to hunt them too, but if you think the DoE is ever going to allow the public to hunt the Hanford site, you're kidding yourself. MAYBE they'd let some master hunters or special tag holders into the Waluke or Rattlesnake units of the National Monument, but I'd be shocked to see that happen. Basically the entire range of the Rattlesnake subherd is already "any elk" during general rifle, so there's not a lot more the state can do.
These tables show the decline in bull numbers and even though they have rebounded they still have a ways to go to get back to where they were when we had bull tags we all want to see. Given the fires since the decline I suspect the herd numbers should begin to grow rapidly.
Do you have another chart that contradicts the charts that were shared? Or do you not understand how to read the charts?
Calf survival is low. Given the mild winters that would point to predators.
The bull to cow ratio dropped as low as 7:100 cows in 2018 and has barely hit a mark of 13:100 cows. That’s not mature bull but all bulls in the herd. Those are not good numbers for herd health and is an indicator that the state still has not gotten the poaching or tribal hunting issues under control. It clearly isn’t because of the state issuing too many tags.
Post by: CarbonHunter on April 20, 2025, 07:02:38 AM
do you know how they do there count. Hey guys it’s time to do a count. Let’s head to the feed lot. There numbers are no where close to correct. But If you believe what they have on paper that’s great.there’s nothing wrong with the numbers. Numbers are good. Just less opportunity :dunno:Its hunting, not "getting." Some of us LOVE to hunt, there is no shame in doing that no matter how much it costs, or how crappy the opportunities are.:yeah:
With a little time and effort one can notch tags every year in this state, but if you dont.....well you still get to enjoy your passion of hunting :twocents:
I think this point is missing in a lot of the above discussion. Criticize the state if you want, but they're managing for opportunity - the opportunity to enjoy the elk woods with a tag in your pocket. It's ironic to criticize them for "just wanting to sell tags." OF COURSE that's what they want. That's literally the definition of managing for opportunity.
Using the Yakima herd as an example: stable populations and steadily increasing harvests look to me like the system is working. Keep in mind that the "over objective" total population is largely related to the Rattlesnake subherd that's way above objective but on mostly federal and private land outside the purview of WDFW. I want to hunt them too, but if you think the DoE is ever going to allow the public to hunt the Hanford site, you're kidding yourself. MAYBE they'd let some master hunters or special tag holders into the Waluke or Rattlesnake units of the National Monument, but I'd be shocked to see that happen. Basically the entire range of the Rattlesnake subherd is already "any elk" during general rifle, so there's not a lot more the state can do.
These tables show the decline in bull numbers and even though they have rebounded they still have a ways to go to get back to where they were when we had bull tags we all want to see. Given the fires since the decline I suspect the herd numbers should begin to grow rapidly.
Do you have another chart that contradicts the charts that were shared? Or do you not understand how to read the charts?
Calf survival is low. Given the mild winters that would point to predators.
The bull to cow ratio dropped as low as 7:100 cows in 2018 and has barely hit a mark of 13:100 cows. That’s not mature bull but all bulls in the herd. Those are not good numbers for herd health and is an indicator that the state still has not gotten the poaching or tribal hunting issues under control. It clearly isn’t because of the state issuing too many tags.
If you have another survey let’s see the numbers?
The Yakima herd is probably one of the easiest herds to count in the entire country. A majority of the herd shows up in feeding stations and since the land is so wide open a quick fly over, glassing from hilltops or a quick drone launch will give you a good idea of what the percentage is in the feed lot.
Elk herds on the coast are basically impossible to count. Other states fly a small area of the winter range every few years and basically guess what the populations are.
Keep in mind all the sub herds that the Yakima herds has as well. Like said above the Rattlesnake herd and I believe the Clockum herds are probably above the charts shown for bull:cow but other areas like the little naches or bumping drainage are likely below those numbers. Those herds are starting to rebound but for a few years they were way down from their historical averages.
Post by: BA Mongor on April 20, 2025, 01:57:49 PM
Post by: CarbonHunter on April 20, 2025, 02:58:01 PM
CH, what gives you the idea that coastal elk herds are "basically impossible to count"? :dunno: They do multiple ariel surveys in 681, 506, 673 and also a large concentration in 550, 556, 524 and the other areas around Mt. St. Helens. What I don't agree with is there mismanagement of the predators in these areas, and how large of an impact they're having on the deer and elk populations.
How accurate do you think an ariel survey is in the heavily wooded areas of the west side? Yes they can count them in the clearcuts but the public ground has little clearcuts these days. The state has published reports going back as far as I can recall that they cannot accurately count blacktail deer because of the thick brush. Do you think it is any different for the elk? Ya they have an estimate but it’s not going to be as accurate as an estimate that is based on a count of the open terrain of the east side.
I agree that predators are being mismanaged and are leading to the low calf survival rates.
Post by: yakimanoob on April 21, 2025, 09:15:45 AM
What a clown show.
Post by: fishngamereaper on April 21, 2025, 09:54:08 AM
I see their numbers and I scratch my head ...if the counts are only from feed lots that's extremely misrepresenting of the actual numbers....
I see a small offering of elk tags throughout 300 series gmus and I scratch my head...it doesn't take a biologist to see the Yakima herd is busting at the seems....and could stand to have allot more tags offered.
There's thing's the State does every year in the name of management that makes no sense.
I don't fault anyone for questioning them...
Especially since we keep losing opportunities....
Unless of course you hunt the firing center..which from the looks of it they want to kill off that herd.
Post by: yakimanoob on April 21, 2025, 12:27:33 PM
But if you doubt them in the absence of better quality information just because you don't like them, especially if you hail the virtues of listening to the biologists when they're saying things you like... then yeah. You're a clown.
Post by: ipkus on April 21, 2025, 04:36:31 PM
Very rarely is anything black and white in this world. You're both right...and wrong.
Post by: yakimanoob on April 21, 2025, 05:01:26 PM
You can call it a clown show, but it's just as naive to assume that just because there is some 'data' from an agency it is automatically good science...or an accurate reflection of reality.
Very rarely is anything black and white in this world. You're both right...and wrong.
You're mistaking my criticism of hypocrisy for support of the WDFW's numbers.
Post by: Sundance on April 23, 2025, 09:32:14 AM
2014/134 tags
2015/126 tags
2016/134 tags
2017/104 tags
2018/58 tags
2019/10 tags
2020/10 tags
2021/9 tags
2022/8 tags
2023/8 tags
2024/6 tags
2025/6 tags
Overall available quality tags by year:
2014/1070 tags
2015/1100 tags
2016/1146 tags
2017/1123 tags
2018/860 tags
2019/558 tags
2020/464 tags
2021/539 tags
2022/469 tags
2023/457 tags
2024/460 tags
2025/366 tags
Post by: Mtnwalker on April 23, 2025, 09:58:22 AM
Its hunting, not "getting." Some of us LOVE to hunt, there is no shame in doing that no matter how much it costs, or how crappy the opportunities are.:yeah:
With a little time and effort one can notch tags every year in this state, but if you dont.....well you still get to enjoy your passion of hunting :twocents:
I think this point is missing in a lot of the above discussion. Criticize the state if you want, but they're managing for opportunity - the opportunity to enjoy the elk woods with a tag in your pocket. It's ironic to criticize them for "just wanting to sell tags." OF COURSE that's what they want. That's literally the definition of managing for opportunity.
Using the Yakima herd as an example: stable populations and steadily increasing harvests look to me like the system is working. Keep in mind that the "over objective" total population is largely related to the Rattlesnake subherd that's way above objective but on mostly federal and private land outside the purview of WDFW. I want to hunt them too, but if you think the DoE is ever going to allow the public to hunt the Hanford site, you're kidding yourself. MAYBE they'd let some master hunters or special tag holders into the Waluke or Rattlesnake units of the National Monument, but I'd be shocked to see that happen. Basically the entire range of the Rattlesnake subherd is already "any elk" during general rifle, so there's not a lot more the state can do.
They state in the GSTR that the Rattlesnake subherd is not included in Yakima herd population estimates.
Post by: yakimanoob on April 23, 2025, 12:27:50 PM
They state in the GSTR that the Rattlesnake subherd is not included in Yakima herd population estimates.
Ah! Indeed; sorry for the mistake and thank you for the correction.
In point of fact, my error continues as the reported population may not even include the (very overpopulated) elk on YTC.
Post by: High Climber on April 23, 2025, 12:36:16 PM
I've made an excel sheet for quality elk by hunt choice, available tags, year-to-year percentage increase/decrease from 2014 to present year. I'm not an excel wiz, so this took awhile to build. Here's an interesting one for Quality elk choice Eastern Archery Peaches Ridge...I knew it was bad but that is terrible. What happened in 2017? And what is 2030 going to look like :bash:
2014/134 tags
2015/126 tags
2016/134 tags
2017/104 tags
2018/58 tags
2019/10 tags
2020/10 tags
2021/9 tags
2022/8 tags
2023/8 tags
2024/6 tags
2025/6 tags
Overall available quality tags by year:
2014/1070 tags
2015/1100 tags
2016/1146 tags
2017/1123 tags
2018/860 tags
2019/558 tags
2020/464 tags
2021/539 tags
2022/469 tags
2023/457 tags
2024/460 tags
2025/366 tags
Post by: ganghis on April 23, 2025, 01:04:46 PM
Post by: Sundance on April 23, 2025, 01:05:53 PM
Post by: fishngamereaper on April 23, 2025, 03:28:43 PM
According to the State bios the Yakima herd is above objective, bull to cow ratio is at the high end of objective, which should both lead to increased opportunities... according to the State..
So where's the opportunities.....
A few cow tags.....? ...
This isn't even taking into consideration my observations that the herd is better off and the bull to cow ratio is higher than the States claims.... :chuckle:
Post by: RC on April 23, 2025, 04:07:29 PM
The numbers above just prove the State isn't managing for our opportunity.
According to the State bios the Yakima herd is above objective, bull to cow ratio is at the high end of objective, which should both lead to increased opportunities... according to the State..
So where's the opportunities.....
A few cow tags.....? ...
This isn't even taking into consideration my observations that the herd is better off and the bull to cow ratio is higher than the States claims.... :chuckle:
Seems to me that the state is not managing for hunting opportunity...only opportunity for more predator food.
Post by: vandeman17 on April 23, 2025, 04:10:26 PM
The numbers above just prove the State isn't managing for our opportunity.
According to the State bios the Yakima herd is above objective, bull to cow ratio is at the high end of objective, which should both lead to increased opportunities... according to the State..
So where's the opportunities.....
A few cow tags.....? ...
This isn't even taking into consideration my observations that the herd is better off and the bull to cow ratio is higher than the States claims.... :chuckle:
Seems to me that the state is not managing for hunting opportunity...only opportunity for more predator food.
They are managing for opportunity but its for a multitude of users groups with non native hunters being lowest on the totem pole.
Post by: CarbonHunter on April 23, 2025, 05:51:55 PM
The numbers above just prove the State isn't managing for our opportunity.
According to the State bios the Yakima herd is above objective, bull to cow ratio is at the high end of objective, which should both lead to increased opportunities... according to the State..
So where's the opportunities.....
A few cow tags.....? ...
This isn't even taking into consideration my observations that the herd is better off and the bull to cow ratio is higher than the States claims.... :chuckle:
What are you talking about? The bull to cow ratio is at the bottom end of the objective not the top. The numbers at the bottom of the graph are years and it’s not 2017.
The herd is over objectives but I personally feel the area can support far more elk than the 10k they are managing for. That is why the cow tags are high and the bull tags are low. I didn’t count the elk this winter but given you feel 13 bulls to 100 cows is above objectives I’m going to side with the state this time.
Post by: fishngamereaper on April 23, 2025, 06:47:17 PM
The numbers above just prove the State isn't managing for our opportunity.
According to the State bios the Yakima herd is above objective, bull to cow ratio is at the high end of objective, which should both lead to increased opportunities... according to the State..
So where's the opportunities.....
A few cow tags.....? ...
This isn't even taking into consideration my observations that the herd is better off and the bull to cow ratio is higher than the States claims.... :chuckle:
What are you talking about? The bull to cow ratio is at the bottom end of the objective not the top. The numbers at the bottom of the graph are years and it’s not 2017.
The herd is over objectives but I personally feel the area can support far more elk than the 10k they are managing for. That is why the cow tags are high and the bull tags are low. I didn’t count the elk this winter but given you feel 13 bulls to 100 cows is above objectives I’m going to side with the state this time.
Their objective is 12...so 13 is higher than objective. Obviously not super high but high enough to allow with confidence more tag allotment...that's how their numbers work..why less tags this year than 18,19,20,21....all under objective years..
They claimed 20 in 2017...ok...( a number that is directly related to the great cow kill off when they issued thousand's of cow tags) ..
The last couple years I'm seeing WAY more bulls than 2017...so I'll defer to my experience over the states feed lot surveys...
Guess at the end of the day we get whatever they want to give us...and based on factual numbers ...that number could very well be zero in a couple years.
Post by: CarbonHunter on April 23, 2025, 07:58:46 PM
The numbers above just prove the State isn't managing for our opportunity.
According to the State bios the Yakima herd is above objective, bull to cow ratio is at the high end of objective, which should both lead to increased opportunities... according to the State..
So where's the opportunities.....
A few cow tags.....? ...
This isn't even taking into consideration my observations that the herd is better off and the bull to cow ratio is higher than the States claims.... :chuckle:
What are you talking about? The bull to cow ratio is at the bottom end of the objective not the top. The numbers at the bottom of the graph are years and it’s not 2017.
The herd is over objectives but I personally feel the area can support far more elk than the 10k they are managing for. That is why the cow tags are high and the bull tags are low. I didn’t count the elk this winter but given you feel 13 bulls to 100 cows is above objectives I’m going to side with the state this time.
Their objective is 12...so 13 is higher than objective. Obviously not super high but high enough to allow with confidence more tag allotment...that's how their numbers work..why less tags this year than 18,19,20,21....all under objective years..
They claimed 20 in 2017...ok...( a number that is directly related to the great cow kill off when they issued thousand's of cow tags) ..
The last couple years I'm seeing WAY more bulls than 2017...so I'll defer to my experience over the states feed lot surveys...
Guess at the end of the day we get whatever they want to give us...and based on factual numbers ...that number could very well be zero in a couple years.
13 bulls per 100 cows is an extremely weak number for a healthy herd. The fact that Washington wants to manage their largest herd to a maximum of 20 bulls to 100 cows shows how much they hate elk.
Typically biologists who know how to manage elk manage a herd to 20-30 bulls per 100 cows post hunting season. For trophy units they will manage to 30-40 bulls per 100 cows post hunting season.
How many bull tags do you think they should issue for this herd? Currently they are managing this herd to a post hunting season total of 1,300-1,400 bulls. If this was a trophy state there would not be a hunting season for bulls with such a low bull to cow ratio.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on April 23, 2025, 09:32:20 PM
The numbers above just prove the State isn't managing for our opportunity.
According to the State bios the Yakima herd is above objective, bull to cow ratio is at the high end of objective, which should both lead to increased opportunities... according to the State..
So where's the opportunities.....
A few cow tags.....? ...
This isn't even taking into consideration my observations that the herd is better off and the bull to cow ratio is higher than the States claims.... :chuckle:
What are you talking about? The bull to cow ratio is at the bottom end of the objective not the top. The numbers at the bottom of the graph are years and it’s not 2017.
The herd is over objectives but I personally feel the area can support far more elk than the 10k they are managing for. That is why the cow tags are high and the bull tags are low. I didn’t count the elk this winter but given you feel 13 bulls to 100 cows is above objectives I’m going to side with the state this time.
Their objective is 12...so 13 is higher than objective. Obviously not super high but high enough to allow with confidence more tag allotment...that's how their numbers work..why less tags this year than 18,19,20,21....all under objective years..
They claimed 20 in 2017...ok...( a number that is directly related to the great cow kill off when they issued thousand's of cow tags) ..
The last couple years I'm seeing WAY more bulls than 2017...so I'll defer to my experience over the states feed lot surveys...
Guess at the end of the day we get whatever they want to give us...and based on factual numbers ...that number could very well be zero in a couple years.
13 bulls per 100 cows is an extremely weak number for a healthy herd. The fact that Washington wants to manage their largest herd to a maximum of 20 bulls to 100 cows shows how much they hate elk.
Typically biologists who know how to manage elk manage a herd to 20-30 bulls per 100 cows post hunting season. For trophy units they will manage to 30-40 bulls per 100 cows post hunting season.
How many bull tags do you think they should issue for this herd? Currently they are managing this herd to a post hunting season total of 1,300-1,400 bulls. If this was a trophy state there would not be a hunting season for bulls with such a low bull to cow ratio.
Montana manages for a min of 10:100
Oregon manages for a min of 10:100
Colorado manages for a min of 20:100
Wyoming manages for a min of 15:100
Utah manages for a min of 8:100
Some LE units are managed for much higher and some states like AZ and NV where pretty much every unit is a trophy unit they shoot to be over 30:100.
All these states have more usable habitat than WA as well. The 300 series GMU's are at capacity and encroaching on mule deer winter range more and more. We don't need more elk but we do need more bull tags and the herds can definitely support it imo.
Post by: 2MANY on April 23, 2025, 09:34:48 PM
:hello:
Post by: Karl Blanchard on April 23, 2025, 09:38:19 PM
Maybe that additional info is out there somewhere but I sure can't find it and the data they do put out doesn't match what I see in my backyard :twocents:
Post by: trophyhunt on April 24, 2025, 05:46:12 AM
Elk HATER!:yeah: :chuckle:
:hello:
Post by: fishngamereaper on April 24, 2025, 06:34:37 AM
The numbers above just prove the State isn't managing for our opportunity.
According to the State bios the Yakima herd is above objective, bull to cow ratio is at the high end of objective, which should both lead to increased opportunities... according to the State..
So where's the opportunities.....
A few cow tags.....? ...
This isn't even taking into consideration my observations that the herd is better off and the bull to cow ratio is higher than the States claims.... :chuckle:
What are you talking about? The bull to cow ratio is at the bottom end of the objective not the top. The numbers at the bottom of the graph are years and it’s not 2017.
The herd is over objectives but I personally feel the area can support far more elk than the 10k they are managing for. That is why the cow tags are high and the bull tags are low. I didn’t count the elk this winter but given you feel 13 bulls to 100 cows is above objectives I’m going to side with the state this time.
Their objective is 12...so 13 is higher than objective. Obviously not super high but high enough to allow with confidence more tag allotment...that's how their numbers work..why less tags this year than 18,19,20,21....all under objective years..
They claimed 20 in 2017...ok...( a number that is directly related to the great cow kill off when they issued thousand's of cow tags) ..
The last couple years I'm seeing WAY more bulls than 2017...so I'll defer to my experience over the states feed lot surveys...
Guess at the end of the day we get whatever they want to give us...and based on factual numbers ...that number could very well be zero in a couple years.
13 bulls per 100 cows is an extremely weak number for a healthy herd. The fact that Washington wants to manage their largest herd to a maximum of 20 bulls to 100 cows shows how much they hate elk.
Typically biologists who know how to manage elk manage a herd to 20-30 bulls per 100 cows post hunting season. For trophy units they will manage to 30-40 bulls per 100 cows post hunting season.
How many bull tags do you think they should issue for this herd? Currently they are managing this herd to a post hunting season total of 1,300-1,400 bulls. If this was a trophy state there would not be a hunting season for bulls with such a low bull to cow ratio.
WA isn't managed as a trophy State.
Bios set their goals... current trend's show they've exceeded those goals. When you reach or exceed management goals you (typically) allow for more opportunity. It's not happening.
If they want 20-30 bulls per, or 12k elk then re write management objectives. I guess fortunately they know the carry capacity limitations so increasing objectives will never happen.
If I saw an issue with herd health I'd be the first to point it out..
The Yakima herd has been an addiction for 35 years.....
Per the State the herd is healthy, it didn't translate to tag allotment... that's my beef.
Post by: fishngamereaper on April 24, 2025, 06:54:45 AM
The States own numbers and acknowledgement of accuracy in estimation for the Clock...
Allot of the Yakima herd behaves the same way....
Post by: Mtnwalker on April 24, 2025, 07:42:05 AM
Every other year since 2009 that has shown the B:C to be under objective have been ground count-only years. I think there may be a correlation
Post by: CarbonHunter on April 24, 2025, 09:12:27 AM
On the flip side, the department by their own omissions know very little about the actual carrying capacity of the landscape. They don't test body fat percentages on deer or elk post hunting season total determine animal health. They count very small portions of these animals actual range at least with deer they only tally adults and yearlings. They don't separate bucks from doe's. We aren't collating calves and fawns to determine main causes of mortality, etc, etc, etc.
Maybe that additional info is out there somewhere but I sure can't find it and the data they do put out doesn't match what I see in my backyard :twocents:
Are you seeing deer and elk that are starving to death in the winter in your backyard? I haven’t heard of any mass die offs in Washington due to starvation. I’ve heard a lot about predators killing deer and elk but haven’t heard about starvation being an issue.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on April 24, 2025, 11:01:56 AM
elk are survivors. Take some very poor elk habitat and a very harsh winter to kill them off. Deer on the other hand, are more suseptible to poor habitat and winters. Our deer are not healthy, full stop. Just because they aren't dying of starvation doesn't mean their health isn't affecting recruitment and retention. Winter range has been reduced to cheat grass. Summer range is choked out by unmanaged conifer forests, and the usable summer range is choked out by elk. Low body fat directly correlates to low reproduction and survival rate of new fawns. All of this is well documented by other states and groups like the Monteith Shop out of Wyoming. Predators are not the leading cause of the Yakima deer herds inability to grow. That's a hill I'll 100% die on. The carrying capacity just isn't there anymore.On the flip side, the department by their own omissions know very little about the actual carrying capacity of the landscape. They don't test body fat percentages on deer or elk post hunting season total determine animal health. They count very small portions of these animals actual range at least with deer they only tally adults and yearlings. They don't separate bucks from doe's. We aren't collating calves and fawns to determine main causes of mortality, etc, etc, etc.
Maybe that additional info is out there somewhere but I sure can't find it and the data they do put out doesn't match what I see in my backyard :twocents:
Are you seeing deer and elk that are starving to death in the winter in your backyard? I haven’t heard of any mass die offs in Washington due to starvation. I’ve heard a lot about predators killing deer and elk but haven’t heard about starvation being an issue.
If I'm wrong I'll eat crow, but I've logged thousands of field days in these GMU's. I've seen first hand the deterioration of the landscape. Deer aren't elk. Elk will move to survive. Deer will live and die in their home area. If those areas dry up they may not be occupied for decades or ever if the habitat isn't restored. The simple fact is the department isn't figuring out the what, why, and how. Maybe that's a funding issue :dunno: Or maybe they don't really care to :dunno:
Post by: dreamingbig on April 24, 2025, 11:03:19 AM
I've made an excel sheet for quality elk by hunt choice, available tags, year-to-year percentage increase/decrease from 2014 to present year. I'm not an excel wiz, so this took awhile to build. Here's an interesting one for Quality elk choice Eastern Archery Peaches Ridge...Thanks for sharing. THIS is what I have been ranting about. It still is not supported by the biology. The herd can support so much more especially in archery season.
2014/134 tags
2015/126 tags
2016/134 tags
2017/104 tags
2018/58 tags
2019/10 tags
2020/10 tags
2021/9 tags
2022/8 tags
2023/8 tags
2024/6 tags
2025/6 tags
Overall available quality tags by year:
2014/1070 tags
2015/1100 tags
2016/1146 tags
2017/1123 tags
2018/860 tags
2019/558 tags
2020/464 tags
2021/539 tags
2022/469 tags
2023/457 tags
2024/460 tags
2025/366 tags
Y’all should see the age class explosion that has happened.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: CarbonHunter on April 24, 2025, 11:52:04 AM
elk are survivors. Take some very poor elk habitat and a very harsh winter to kill them off. Deer on the other hand, are more suseptible to poor habitat and winters. Our deer are not healthy, full stop. Just because they aren't dying of starvation doesn't mean their health isn't affecting recruitment and retention. Winter range has been reduced to cheat grass. Summer range is choked out by unmanaged conifer forests, and the usable summer range is choked out by elk. Low body fat directly correlates to low reproduction and survival rate of new fawns. All of this is well documented by other states and groups like the Monteith Shop out of Wyoming. Predators are not the leading cause of the Yakima deer herds inability to grow. That's a hill I'll 100% die on. The carrying capacity just isn't there anymore.On the flip side, the department by their own omissions know very little about the actual carrying capacity of the landscape. They don't test body fat percentages on deer or elk post hunting season total determine animal health. They count very small portions of these animals actual range at least with deer they only tally adults and yearlings. They don't separate bucks from doe's. We aren't collating calves and fawns to determine main causes of mortality, etc, etc, etc.
Maybe that additional info is out there somewhere but I sure can't find it and the data they do put out doesn't match what I see in my backyard :twocents:
Are you seeing deer and elk that are starving to death in the winter in your backyard? I haven’t heard of any mass die offs in Washington due to starvation. I’ve heard a lot about predators killing deer and elk but haven’t heard about starvation being an issue.
If I'm wrong I'll eat crow, but I've logged thousands of field days in these GMU's. I've seen first hand the deterioration of the landscape. Deer aren't elk. Elk will move to survive. Deer will live and die in their home area. If those areas dry up they may not be occupied for decades or ever if the habitat isn't restored. The simple fact is the department isn't figuring out the what, why, and how. Maybe that's a funding issue :dunno: Or maybe they don't really care to :dunno:
I agree the herd is not as health as it used to be but I’m optimistic that with the wildfires over the last 7 years that the carrying capacity of the Yakima area is actually getting better and not worse. A lot of the decline that occurred with the mule deer was related to disease and then followed by habitat loss. Now that the ground burned and there is logging taking place again the herds should start to recover.
When herds are recovering one of the worse things to do is to open up the hunting too soon. The other is to keep it locked down too long.
I personally feel the reason the herds are so small compared to 20-30 years ago is because of over hunting of the quality animals when the habitat was shrinking and disease was setting in. I feel if we give it a few more years and let the quality animals (squash tribal and poaching) grow we could start to see decent hunting again. If we open it up too soon it’ll never get back to where it should be.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on April 24, 2025, 12:08:23 PM
I'm mildly optimistic as well but the poor quality of the winter ranges is still gonna limit growth. And even if the fire areas in the summer range come back strong, we have to get deer to re-establish in those areas. There's areas that deer haven't moved back into going back to the winter die offs of 96'.elk are survivors. Take some very poor elk habitat and a very harsh winter to kill them off. Deer on the other hand, are more suseptible to poor habitat and winters. Our deer are not healthy, full stop. Just because they aren't dying of starvation doesn't mean their health isn't affecting recruitment and retention. Winter range has been reduced to cheat grass. Summer range is choked out by unmanaged conifer forests, and the usable summer range is choked out by elk. Low body fat directly correlates to low reproduction and survival rate of new fawns. All of this is well documented by other states and groups like the Monteith Shop out of Wyoming. Predators are not the leading cause of the Yakima deer herds inability to grow. That's a hill I'll 100% die on. The carrying capacity just isn't there anymore.On the flip side, the department by their own omissions know very little about the actual carrying capacity of the landscape. They don't test body fat percentages on deer or elk post hunting season total determine animal health. They count very small portions of these animals actual range at least with deer they only tally adults and yearlings. They don't separate bucks from doe's. We aren't collating calves and fawns to determine main causes of mortality, etc, etc, etc.
Maybe that additional info is out there somewhere but I sure can't find it and the data they do put out doesn't match what I see in my backyard :twocents:
Are you seeing deer and elk that are starving to death in the winter in your backyard? I haven’t heard of any mass die offs in Washington due to starvation. I’ve heard a lot about predators killing deer and elk but haven’t heard about starvation being an issue.
If I'm wrong I'll eat crow, but I've logged thousands of field days in these GMU's. I've seen first hand the deterioration of the landscape. Deer aren't elk. Elk will move to survive. Deer will live and die in their home area. If those areas dry up they may not be occupied for decades or ever if the habitat isn't restored. The simple fact is the department isn't figuring out the what, why, and how. Maybe that's a funding issue :dunno: Or maybe they don't really care to :dunno:
I agree the herd is not as health as it used to be but I’m optimistic that with the wildfires over the last 7 years that the carrying capacity of the Yakima area is actually getting better and not worse. A lot of the decline that occurred with the mule deer was related to disease and then followed by habitat loss. Now that the ground burned and there is logging taking place again the herds should start to recover.
When herds are recovering one of the worse things to do is to open up the hunting too soon. The other is to keep it locked down too long.
I personally feel the reason the herds are so small compared to 20-30 years ago is because of over hunting of the quality animals when the habitat was shrinking and disease was setting in. I feel if we give it a few more years and let the quality animals (squash tribal and poaching) grow we could start to see decent hunting again. If we open it up too soon it’ll never get back to where it should be.
And don't even get me started on hunting pressure :chuckle:
Post by: CarbonHunter on April 24, 2025, 04:38:25 PM
I agree there is lots of areas where the critters need to get reestablished and that is a tricky thing make happen. Just look at areas like the Lolo Idaho. This is one reason I don’t support opening up the opportunities too early and think we should let it play out a couple more years before we get too anxious about the lack of tags.
Post by: Mtnwalker on April 24, 2025, 05:10:45 PM
Post by: dvolmer on April 24, 2025, 05:12:55 PM
Post by: CarbonHunter on April 24, 2025, 05:13:54 PM
Aren’t those fires on the Wenas winter range gobbling up sage habitat and filling back in with worthless cheat grass? Seems like we are in desperate need of a replanting program on the heels of those fires, as it stands I don’t think there’s much benefit.
There has been some replanting in those areas. Obviously not the entire area but I know they have had some groups out there planting native grasses for better habitat.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on April 24, 2025, 05:14:38 PM
Aren’t those fires on the Wenas winter range gobbling up sage habitat and filling back in with worthless cheat grass? Seems like we are in desperate need of a replanting program on the heels of those fires, as it stands I don’t think there’s much benefit.it's a barren waste land.
Post by: teanawayslayer on April 24, 2025, 05:23:21 PM
it seems like it burns every year and has no chance to rebound. Sad!Aren’t those fires on the Wenas winter range gobbling up sage habitat and filling back in with worthless cheat grass? Seems like we are in desperate need of a replanting program on the heels of those fires, as it stands I don’t think there’s much benefit.it's a barren waste land.
Post by: Mtnwalker on April 24, 2025, 05:49:16 PM
Aren’t those fires on the Wenas winter range gobbling up sage habitat and filling back in with worthless cheat grass? Seems like we are in desperate need of a replanting program on the heels of those fires, as it stands I don’t think there’s much benefit.it's a barren waste land.
The wintering hill out my living room window sure seems like it is utilized less by the animals since it burned. They still move in on a heavy snow but they are out of there as soon as it subsides. We used to watch elk and deer hang out all winter.
Post by: ganghis on April 24, 2025, 07:42:31 PM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on April 24, 2025, 09:55:07 PM
I'd normally expect fires in winter range sage country to benefit elk at the expense of deer since grasses would presumably regenerate before browse. But if it's being backfilled with low quality cheat grass, that's maybe another story. I'm not an expert, but I have to wonder if invasive species like cheat grass are leading to population declines more than predators are in a lot of places. I knew some people at Colorado Division of Wildlife when I was out there and that was one of their biggest concerns tbh.Idaho has really good data on cheat grass encroachment. It's one of the giant elephants in the room in regards to mule deer habitat issues. You can't plant grass till you're blue in the face but deer need brows on winter range.
Post by: yakimanoob on April 25, 2025, 03:44:00 PM
Predators are not the leading cause of the Yakima deer herds inability to grow. That's a hill I'll 100% die on. The carrying capacity just isn't there anymore.
:yeah:
Post by: jstone on April 29, 2025, 08:52:09 PM