Post by: colockumelk on March 25, 2010, 03:18:36 PM
Post by: colockumelk on March 25, 2010, 03:53:24 PM
Post by: Bob33 on March 25, 2010, 04:01:43 PM
Post by: colockumelk on March 25, 2010, 04:45:43 PM
Post by: WSU on March 25, 2010, 04:52:57 PM
Post by: colockumelk on March 25, 2010, 05:10:31 PM
If the number of cows overall has not changed, is the herd really being "exterminate?"
If you don't have any bulls, the cows don't get bred. Once you hit a certain point (which we are at if not close to it) where more elk die from natural causes than are bred each year. This is why even though there isn't an antlerless season in the Colockum the cow population has dropped 26%.
Post by: bowhunterforever on March 25, 2010, 06:16:51 PM
Post by: AKBowman on March 25, 2010, 09:13:20 PM
If the number of cows overall has not changed, is the herd really being "exterminate?"
If you don't have any bulls, the cows don't get bred. Once you hit a certain point (which we are at if not close to it) where more elk die from natural causes than are bred each year. This is why even though there isn't an antlerless season in the Colockum the cow population has dropped 26%.
God read but I think one bull can bread a TON of cows...I wouldnt mind being a bull in that unit! :chuckle:
Post by: duckmen1 on March 26, 2010, 08:31:52 AM
don't get me wrong i think we should shorten up season a little bit, but these tribes have it made
i don't know the exact situation on them over there, but in western washington they are shooting them and letting them lye.
they will cut the antlers of and every once in a while the backstrap but the whole elk ends up going to waste.
Post by: WSU on March 26, 2010, 08:57:25 AM
If the number of cows overall has not changed, is the herd really being "exterminate?"
If you don't have any bulls, the cows don't get bred. Once you hit a certain point (which we are at if not close to it) where more elk die from natural causes than are bred each year. This is why even though there isn't an antlerless season in the Colockum the cow population has dropped 26%.
I guess I misunderstood when you said that the overall number of cows hadn't changed. It is obvious that they aren't getting bred if the cow numbers have dropped 26%.
I'm also curious about the tribal portion of your paper. You say the Yakamas kill an estimated 40 bulls per year (if I remember correctly), but that if we went to a draw system we could regulate them in the name of conservation. It would seem to me that, given the "in common" language and how that has been interpreted, we would have to be killing less than 40 bulls per year under the permit system to even have a leg to stand on regarding "conservation." Did you do any research that elaborates on the point you made in the paper?
Post by: colockumelk on March 26, 2010, 09:50:56 AM
Permit only falls under the definitions of conservation. The purpose of "controlling" the tribes isn't to restrict their harvest, considering we harvest 10x more than they do. The purpose would be to make them go to a "permit" system in which case we'd finally be able to document the amount of animals taken. Basically they would be finally held accountable, just like you and I are to the amount of harvests.
Post by: WSU on March 26, 2010, 10:03:25 AM
I agree that it would be good to have accurate numbers of tribal harvest. That seems like the only way to effectively manage the herd, and game in general. My question was attempting to address if this is actually a feasible idea.
And to answer your question: yes, I have done some research on these issues, especially regarding regulation of the tribes by the state.
Post by: Viszla on March 26, 2010, 10:19:52 AM
Post by: colockumelk on March 26, 2010, 10:47:10 AM
Viszla with all due respect your solution would only make the situation worse. There are currently 85 (as of 2009) branch bulls in the Colockum. If it went to any bull you'd have 2-3 times more rifle hunters in there than there already is. Since its so open with so many roads these 85 branch bulls wouldn't have any where to escape to. Maybe 5 would live through the season. So what would happen is the same amount if not more spikes would be killed and also all of the branch bulls would get slaughtered as well.
Within two seasons like this the bull to cow ratio would be 0:100.
Post by: WSU on March 26, 2010, 10:58:40 AM
Post by: Viszla on March 26, 2010, 11:16:27 AM
Post by: colockumelk on March 26, 2010, 11:24:13 AM
I think it's ironic that they try to act like they are the original "conservationists" yet have the mentality that they should be able to take what they want. As far as big game goes they have YET to help out and I doubt the ever will. It's very sad. In my paper I'd like to say they have a bigger impact but I can't inject my opinions into the paper. I can only use the facts at hand.
Post by: fisheral87 on March 26, 2010, 11:44:15 AM
Al
Post by: colockumelk on March 26, 2010, 11:53:01 AM
The two main things are too many roads and too much logging. Unfortunately the WDFW doesn't own all the land up there. Most of it is DNR or Forest Service so the WDW can't close all the roads up there or do anything to stop the increase in logging. The only thing they can control is how many spikes live through the year through regulations. The WDFW does need to do some more road closures on the land they do own. I know road closures are not popular with many but for the people who think that road access has nothing to do with the dismall % of spikes that live every year need to do some research.
Post by: whiteeyes on March 26, 2010, 12:06:10 PM
That's true Viszla. Those numbers come from estimates based on what our Game Wardens see/witness and from local butchers. IMHO it's very unethical what the Yakama's do. I also think that its not right that they don't have any accountability over their members and don't have to report any harvest data.
I think it's ironic that they try to act like they are the original "conservationists" yet have the mentality that they should be able to take what they want. As far as big game goes they have YET to help out and I doubt the ever will. It's very sad. In my paper I'd like to say they have a bigger impact but I can't inject my opinions into the paper. I can only use the facts at hand.
You said it right your opinions are your opinions and facts are facts.
Post by: colockumelk on March 26, 2010, 12:10:37 PM
Fortunately the WDFW and resident hunters have taken the highroad and know that two wrongs don't make a right. If the WDW were to manage game like the tribes manage game there wouldn't be any game left.
The point of this thread and my paper wasn't to even talk about the tribes. Unfortunately the Yakama's do have an impact on the Colockum elk herd so I guess its inevitable that the topic will come up. The purpose is how we as resident hunters and conservationists can come together to make a bad situation better. I was trying to enlighten people and get the word out about why the Colockum elk herd is huring pretty bad.
Post by: WSU on March 26, 2010, 12:34:53 PM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on March 26, 2010, 12:35:12 PM
Permit only falls under the definitions of conservation. The purpose of "controlling" the tribes isn't to restrict their harvest, considering we harvest 10x more than they do. The purpose would be to make them go to a "permit" system in which case we'd finally be able to document the amount of animals taken. Basically they would be finally held accountable, just like you and I are to the amount of harvests.
Best part of the idea right there....Level the field. But since ethics aren't followed now......would they be then???
Post by: colockumelk on March 26, 2010, 01:21:33 PM
Did you find out what the harvest was this past year?
No those stats havn't come out yet. But from what it sounded like the true spike didn't help out much. The WDFW only expects it to help out by 10%.
I also purposely left out the year 2002 and the year 2009 survey results since those two years had too many errors. In the case of 2002 in both herds the WDFW estimates for bulls was way, way, way, way off. Like if the 2002 survey was true then in PMU 33 and in the Colockum we lost 50% of our bulls in one year. In the case of 2009 since the winter was so mild accurate counts wasn't possible so again going by those numbers compared to 2009 both herds would have lost 50% of their bulls.
Post by: WSU on March 26, 2010, 01:33:07 PM
Post by: elksnout on March 26, 2010, 08:00:01 PM
Post by: duckmen1 on March 27, 2010, 06:39:35 PM
so they kept putting out nets for the chinooks and were getting silver
900 silvers were left on shore dead baking in the sun because by law they were able to net kings because that quota was'nt met, but they were getting silver and just throwing them on shore dead
does'nt make since to me
on the elk issue i agree we need to lesson haarvest each year but that needs to limit one bull per tribe member also
it needs to go both ways
Post by: elksnout on March 27, 2010, 08:27:13 PM
I have to believe all {well maybe} of what I've have read concerning the demise of these once great herds of elk. Is the situation really that dire ? Seems awful darn sad to me.
Post by: TheHunt on March 28, 2010, 07:53:10 PM
Personally, I think just let it go. When the elk numbers start to affect the Indians, the situation will get some propaganda behind it. I am sure the news org would love to see your report year after year telling the situation but the Fish and Game department continues to do nothing.
You have made it very clear that with the number of breeding bulls dropping and the number of cows getting bred verses cows just getting old and dieing will finally come to equilibrium of population that the herd will be just a fraction of the current herd with five to seven years.
Anyway, good job and keep doing this every year as you can lead a mule to water but you can not make it drink.
Post by: colockumelk on March 29, 2010, 10:02:35 AM
So what would that be? A recruit of an extra 40 or 50 bulls each year? How would it effect the bull/cow ratio over the long term if we were recruiting 40 extra bulls per year?
Good question. Obviously every little bit helps but........? How long will it take for that extra 40-50 bulls a year to make a difference? The goal for the WDFW for that herd to get it back to par is for 50% of the spikes to live through the hunting season. If this is truely the WDFW goal then true spike just isn't going to cut it.
TheHunt thank-you very much. I never thought about sending it to the papers. I will do that so thankyou for that good idea. I am sending it to as many RMEF branches I can including their main office. Thanks again hunt for the good idea.
Post by: colockumelk on March 30, 2010, 08:22:51 AM
As hunters we are very optimistic about things. (Afterall this is what keeps us coming back year after year; the hope of getting that buck or bull) But this is one thing we can't be optimistic about. For the past ten years this herd has steadily declined. Does anyone think that the WDFW is going to do anything to change this trend. No one likes to rock the boat and to make waves but sometimes its gotta be done. Thank you for your time and support.
Post by: duckmen1 on March 30, 2010, 12:42:56 PM
the non true spikes will only go to the indians anyway :bash:
Post by: Slamadoo on March 30, 2010, 10:43:14 PM
Post by: littlemac on March 30, 2010, 11:30:18 PM
For some reason he never got the bug for elk. In the last years of the deer and elk season overlap for the 3 days when it was antlerless (as I recall) I would often see elk cows and wonder about hunting elk.
In 1995 I submitted for an antlerless tag that overlapped and drew it. That year I got my deer and an elk.
We have watched what has been laid out here so well with Colockum's paper happen before our eyes. Some years we do see many more hunters than others. I would say that the hunter count was down significantly at least by the number of camps up there this year or lack of camps. At least on the lower Reecer side above Deer Gulch and Liberty.
For sure something needs to be done with access though, you don't even need to camp up there its so easy to drive in from E'burg and CleElum. Make it a draw only would be the best in my mind, that way you may be able to control the number of hunters that get an opportunity with the survival of the herd as the goal to achieve the viable spike numbers you need each year.
Otherwise it will be like the opener of 2008 where I saw spikes hanging in camps all over the place, 6 in one camp as I recall and only 8 hunters. They were tagged out and gone on Sunday afternoon. I can really see where the access is a critical point.
If it weren't for tradition of hunting there (329) I'd listen to my brother who claims there never were many animals in there and go elsewhere, I know better though because I have had reasonable success over the last 20 years of more serious hunting.
Post by: colockumelk on March 31, 2010, 08:16:21 AM
Closing roads would definately help with spike recruitment. I think that this option is much more attractive than turning those units into permit only.
I agree I would rather see road closures as well. The less restrictive we can make it and still make it work the better. HOWEVER...... as I said in my paper, most of the land in the Colockum is owned by DNR and the Forest Service so the WDFW CAN'T close many of the roads that need to be closed. Like I always tell my Soldiers "worry about the things that you can control." The WDFW can't control road closures on land it doesn't own. They can control the amount of spikes harvested through season lengths or permit only.
I've heard that the RMEF has bought some land or done something in the Colockum. Does anybody know anything about this????
littlemac that was a very insightful post thankyou for your input.
Post by: fremont on April 11, 2010, 10:30:14 PM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on April 12, 2010, 10:14:19 AM
Closing roads would definately help with spike recruitment. I think that this option is much more attractive than turning those units into permit only.
But would that qualify as an emergency, and put us on level field with Tribal hunter? It would be good for the young, and the fit (not disabled)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have hunted the 329 area for most of my life. I use the term hunt loosely as for many years we walked in the woods on the weekend and spent great time with dad and siblings. Honestly, dad was a hunter in those days and would stay the entire deer season.
I can say that myself Littlemac, except for the weekend part, and also did 328/251
Post by: halflife65 on April 12, 2010, 10:28:27 AM
Post by: Cougeyes on April 12, 2010, 04:10:59 PM
Post by: Whitefoot on April 13, 2010, 11:19:35 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on April 13, 2010, 11:47:56 AM
Post by: Whitefoot on April 13, 2010, 01:37:25 PM
I remember in the late 70's going out in the evenings while my father was logging up there watching the enormous bulls and hundreds of cows.
It still is that way! That's why I was asking how often you guys are in the Clock..?
Post by: 6x6in6 on April 13, 2010, 01:52:39 PM
Last year when I was wandering around 328 I came across a couple of brand new gates on roads that had signs on them that the RMEF was at least partially responsible for putting those in. I don't know if they've purchased land or not, I just saw the gates. (More, please!)Been there since the late summer of 2008 IIRC.
They channeled some funds that way to help with enhancement of range with the money primarily earmarked for gates and berms.
Post by: colockumelk on April 13, 2010, 02:41:54 PM
Post by: grundy53 on April 13, 2010, 03:03:39 PM
Post by: Whitefoot on April 13, 2010, 07:52:09 PM
I have to say a lot of people are finding the Clock now tho.. I can't keep track of all the people that are up there now. ..But nicely done Aaron..
I did notice a lot of archer's.. I mean a lot.. Like 4 times more this last year....
Post by: fremont on April 13, 2010, 09:23:45 PM
Post by: madmack76 on April 13, 2010, 11:18:19 PM
Post by: colockumelk on April 15, 2010, 03:47:30 PM
Yep! I agree they don't have anywhere to go but to the river a couple miles away.. The number of 40 bull elk killed a year, that is a prety big number. It's a lot lower than that.. But I do like the paper..
I have to say a lot of people are finding the Clock now tho.. I can't keep track of all the people that are up there now. ..But nicely done Aaron..
I did notice a lot of archer's.. I mean a lot.. Like 4 times more this last year....
Thanks Aaron for the kind words. The WDFW estimates 40 bulls. They can only estimate since tribal members are not required to document their kills. Not to get political but at least in the Colockum since year to year bull recruitment is such a razors edge, I wish the Yakama Nation would require their members to document harvests in the Colockum.
As far as more Tribal Hunters each year.... The one of the biologists I spoke to agrees with your statement. Its like any good hunting spot, eventually word gets out and soon your not the only one in your honey hole anymore. I'm sure we can all relate to that scenario. As far as more archers in that area that's strange. I would have thought that this year since it was "True Spike" only that there would have been less archers in there. I hunt it after work with my bow only because I live 10 minutes from my hunting spot but I didn't see anyone. But then again I never do.
As far as guys hunting your spot Aaron I'll provide the sugar if you pour it in their tanks :chuckle:
Post by: duckmen1 on April 16, 2010, 03:06:27 PM
and they are the greediest people i have ever seen
this is coming from a west sude perspective
to kill and leave them lay so others can't get a chance to harvest
its rediculus and they need to do something about it
Post by: 6x6in6 on April 16, 2010, 03:27:38 PM
indians got it made
and they are the greediest people i have ever seen
this is coming from a west sude perspective
to kill and leave them lay so others can't get a chance to harvest
its rediculus and they need to do something about it
How do they got it made?
Providing some documented proof of this leave them lay wouldn't be a bad idea.
Want to do something about it? Go ahead, write your lawmakers, tell them to revisit the treaties written many years ago. Ask them to open up discussion on re-writing. Let us all know how that works for ya, OK.
Somebody should take your keyboard away from you before you hurt yourself.
Post by: colockumelk on April 17, 2010, 10:12:47 AM
Now, if you'd write a paper on the sorry state of the Colockum mule deer herds. :bash:
Oh that's simple. And this applies to Yakima County as well.
1.) Bears and Coyotes eat the fawns.
2.) Cougars eat the weak and old.
3.) Hairloss doesn't discriminate
4.) Poachers kill the big bucks (I know 6 bucks that got poached last year alone)
5.) Hunters kill the 3pts.
Now all your left with are a ton of fawnless does and some 2pts left to do the breeding. Man WDFW sure knows how to manage game properly :bash:
Post by: duckmen1 on April 17, 2010, 12:08:53 PM
have called in on them trustpassing onto properties in satsop unleasing into herds and leaving them for the land owners but the authority is afraid to get a mess on their hands
i know many cops that say its rediculus and say that can't do anything about it
Post by: colockumelk on April 19, 2010, 10:25:04 AM
Post by: duckmen1 on April 19, 2010, 10:46:45 AM
thanks
Post by: bankwalker on April 19, 2010, 01:32:37 PM
we left and on the way back home noticed that they left 3 dead elk just laying on the hillside. all 3 cows...i guess they didnt hit any bulls.
Post by: grundy53 on April 19, 2010, 03:19:06 PM
Post by: stewcamp on May 06, 2010, 10:10:42 AM
Post by: duckmen1 on May 11, 2010, 08:28:37 AM
Post by: colockumelk on May 12, 2010, 03:41:09 PM
Dear Mr. Blanchard:
Thank you for your recent email and report to the Director regarding harvest management of the Colockum elk herd. The Director asked that I respond to your information. You did a fairly good job summarizing the issues of this herd in your paper and using the information provided by the Department. As you describe, the greatest issue for management of bulls is the low yearling bull escapement and the issue of meeting population objectives in excess antlerless harvest.
While you may not agree with the current management strategies, the issues of low bull recruitment and antlerless harvest are being addressed. Antlerless harvest has been reduced over time and the total herd is now slightly above the objective of 4,500 elk. This was accomplished with curtailment of antlerless harvest within the core range, and only taking antlerless animals to address damage situations.
Historical harvest data shows an average of 34% of Colockum yearling bulls are branched on one side. Therefore, under the “true-spike” regulation, depending on hunter compliance with the regulations and overall productivity for the elk population, yearling bull survival and recruitment could be even higher than the Yakima elk herd.
There are pros and cons to every management action. While the bull objective could be reached under a permit only system, this would eliminate the majority of Colockum elk hunters. It is fairly likely that this would result in a shift of hunters into the Yakima area, causing crowding issues and potential problems in achieving population objectives.
There is no guarantee that the “true-spike” regulation will work, though early indications are good. Initial harvest and survey data indicate that “true-spike” increased the yearling bull escapement in the Colockum to 25-30% during the first year. Regulations generally become more effective as their acceptance improves over time, so we think that a 30% yearling bull survival in the Colockum herd is possible and bull ratios similar to the Yakima herd may result over time.
We appreciate your concern and interest in improving management of the Colockum elk herd and the effort you expended in writing your paper. If there is no continued improvement in the yearling bull survival and bull ratios, we will consider other strategies for 2012.
Sincerely,
Dave Ware, Game Division Manager
Wildlife Program
(360) 902-2509
Post by: colockumelk on May 12, 2010, 03:52:19 PM
Post by: alanger on May 13, 2010, 05:15:07 PM
Post by: colockumelk on June 01, 2010, 07:45:33 PM
Post by: halflife65 on June 01, 2010, 10:37:40 PM
Just thought I'd bump this because the Yakima Herald is going to write a feature in their outdoor section in two weeks. :IBCOOL:
On what basis? Did you provide info? Did they just come up with this on their own? Do you know who they're interviewing? Biologists? F&W? Tribes?
The only worry I have is some sort of over reaction by uninformed public where someone gets it in their head to try to permanently stop hunting instead of doing more for habitat (primarily abandoning roads or throwing up gates) and make it a limited draw hunt, at least until some recovery takes place and get gates are up.
Post by: halflife65 on June 01, 2010, 10:39:19 PM
Post by: colockumelk on June 15, 2010, 09:31:46 AM
Post by: luvtohnt on June 15, 2010, 09:53:01 AM
Brandon
Post by: colockumelk on November 04, 2010, 03:06:41 PM