Post by: monster_bull on October 31, 2010, 10:44:44 PM
Post by: D-Rock425 on November 01, 2010, 04:52:01 AM
Post by: hunter-4-life on November 01, 2010, 10:10:28 AM
Post by: banannaclip on November 01, 2010, 10:15:04 AM
Post by: woodywsu on November 01, 2010, 10:18:07 AM
Bull elk taken in these units must have both antlers with no branching originating
more than four inches above where the antlers attach to the skull. Under the
true spike restriction, the taking of an elk that has two points on one side or has
antler points within one inch of the definitions regarding length of point, or point of
origination is an infraction. All other types of violations of the true spike restriction
are subject to current penalties and assessments.
Post by: banannaclip on November 01, 2010, 10:20:19 AM
Post by: Curly on November 01, 2010, 10:20:30 AM
i dont beleive their being poached intentionaly.its just hunters see spikes and shoot then realize they have a problem. a true spike has no points above the length of its ears its damn hard to tell a true spike,thats why that rule was put in place the game department wants failure to recognize a legal target more money for them ,and proves that modern firearm season is in question. if you shoot a spike and there is a 1'' tine above the ear that you failed to spot i would not consider that person a poacher and thats what happening out there. thats too bad it happens its not intentional . say now you shot the spike found a 1'' tine above the ear now its not legal kinda hard to hide an elk they just leave it happens ALL THE TIME . the rule needs changed back as before thats foresure. say hunters are going and shooting big bulls in spike only unit NOW THAT IS POACHING,unless you have in your possion a branched antler tag for the current season. which is like winning the lottery for some units.
:iamwithstupid:
Post by: Hunterman on November 01, 2010, 10:20:42 AM
Hunterman(Tony)
Post by: bobcat on November 01, 2010, 10:23:23 AM
Post by: banannaclip on November 01, 2010, 10:23:47 AM
Post by: 6x6in6 on November 01, 2010, 10:24:30 AM
If your 100% wrong, you man up and turn yourself in.
Pretty simple.
Post by: C-Money on November 01, 2010, 10:25:15 AM
Post by: C-Money on November 01, 2010, 10:25:55 AM
what if they added this to antler restriction a spike antler cannot exceed more than 10'' in total length ,i am surprised they have not done that yet,wouldnt that make it easier. that way no elk would be harvested just camping with guns.
Dont give WDFW any ideas!
Post by: banannaclip on November 01, 2010, 10:28:27 AM
Post by: 6x6in6 on November 01, 2010, 10:36:14 AM
The penalizing part comes with the territory of not making the correct decision when you pulled the trigger.
Post by: woodywsu on November 01, 2010, 10:39:02 AM
Post by: Curly on November 01, 2010, 10:41:04 AM
Post by: banannaclip on November 01, 2010, 10:41:28 AM
Post by: shedcrazy on November 01, 2010, 10:42:10 AM
The rule is to increase the bull:cow ratio. Several factors are limiting the number of bulls in teh Colockum and I think we all know what the #1 factor is. True spike rule will not fix the problem.:yeah:
Post by: woodywsu on November 01, 2010, 10:42:19 AM
Could it be argued that a 3x1 has inferior genes anyway and he should be pulled out of the gene pool. :dunno: Just wondering. ???
you can't argue with wdfw.
Post by: bobcat on November 01, 2010, 10:45:07 AM
NO IT IS DESIGNED FOR FAILUrE THE GAME DEPATMENT DONT GIVE A *censored* ABOUT US ,NOR DOES THE FOREST SERVICE, one fo the members in our camp is a game warden the other is a snohomish county sheriff your wrong its all designed for hunter failure.
I guess that's one way to think of it, but you could also say it is designed for a very low success rate, or a very low number of bull elk harvested while still allowing the maximum number of people that actually get to hunt elk.
Post by: steen on November 01, 2010, 10:45:19 AM
Post by: 6x6in6 on November 01, 2010, 10:49:17 AM
NO IT IS DESIGNED FOR FAILUrE THE GAME DEPATMENT DONT GIVE A *censored* ABOUT US ,NOR DOES THE FOREST SERVICE, one fo the members in our camp is a game warden the other is a snohomish county sheriff your wrong its all designed for hunter failure.WTF does the forest service have to do with it?
No, it is not designed for failure. It is designed for escapement.
Post by: C-Money on November 01, 2010, 10:57:55 AM
Could it be argued that a 3x1 has inferior genes anyway and he should be pulled out of the gene pool. :dunno: Just wondering. ???
I think at this point, we are lucky that there are any genes left to spread at all in the Colockum after other groups are done. If we all played by the same rules, spike only would work great! Lots of branch tags to draw!
Post by: banannaclip on November 01, 2010, 11:07:24 AM
Post by: 6x6in6 on November 01, 2010, 11:11:49 AM
:bash:
Post by: bobcat on November 01, 2010, 11:13:56 AM
DESIGNED FOR HUNTER FAILURE
I don't agree with spike only regulations, because I would like to see even more restrictive seasons with less people hunting elk each year. But what you're saying is ridiculous. If every hunter was successful in killing an elk, there wouldn't be any left!
Post by: banannaclip on November 01, 2010, 11:24:16 AM
Post by: colockumelk on November 01, 2010, 11:42:46 AM
My research speaks for itself and I've beet that horse to death. They wrote articles about my research. People know what the right thing to do is. Now lets pressure the wfdw to do the right thing.
Post by: woodywsu on November 01, 2010, 11:44:52 AM
If there wasn't a 14 day limit, public property would be filled with migrant workers living there throughout the farming season leaving a destroyed area with tons of trash. IMO.
The true spike rule is to bump the bull numbers. If we do not have enough bulls, then not all cows will get bred. Understand? If this means lower success rates, then it is doing its job.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on November 01, 2010, 12:01:16 PM
:pee: on true spike. They should lock up anyone one who shoots a 1x2. (FOREVER) They should loose all gun and hunting rights for all time. And, if they are from Seattle they should loose voting rights as well.
Being serious, there should be no bull hunting of the Clockum herd. They are in trouble. I do my part, I leave them alone.
Post by: banannaclip on November 01, 2010, 12:14:48 PM
Post by: woodywsu on November 01, 2010, 12:20:20 PM
woody the 14 day rule has nothing todo with mexicans and farm work its limiting the outdoorsmen slowly taking over next year a legal spike will not have antler growth exceeding 8''
Maybe not in the Colockum, but in several other areas, it is one of the reasons why there are limits. Its just not migrant workers either.
As for the Colockum area, it is in need of more rules. Its too bad that WDFW can't please everybody.
Post by: banannaclip on November 01, 2010, 12:31:06 PM
Post by: eatonville45 on November 01, 2010, 12:57:24 PM
Post by: banannaclip on November 01, 2010, 01:13:21 PM
Post by: lunchbox on November 01, 2010, 01:13:40 PM
Post by: the1rod on November 01, 2010, 01:37:27 PM
Post by: remington300mag on November 01, 2010, 01:46:12 PM
the way i see it is that true spike is just a management tool. based off other comments, the bull to cow ratios are decreasing, since the regs were already at spike only, they can either close the area or go to draw only, or do the one thing to keep a general season, while protecting more of the bulls and make it true spike. yes it is designed to decrease the number of bulls taken, but its for the good of the heard.
People that make comments like this obviously don't understand that this "management tool" is only helping one thing....and it sure as hell isn't the herd itself......It is only helping the Yakima's to shoot more branched antler bulls later down the road.......
Post by: the1rod on November 01, 2010, 02:53:46 PM
People that make comments like this obviously don't understand that this "management tool" is only helping one thing....and it sure as hell isn't the herd itself......It is only helping the Yakima's to shoot more branched antler bulls later down the road.......
if its helping the yakimas to shoot more branched antlered bulls down the road, then that means that it is creating more branched antler bulls to breed the heard, which would mean that it is succeeding. and if the yaks are shooting the branched bulls that it creates, well thats a different discussion, please lets stay on topic.
Post by: 87samurai on November 01, 2010, 03:13:31 PM
Post by: remington300mag on November 01, 2010, 04:36:50 PM
People that make comments like this obviously don't understand that this "management tool" is only helping one thing....and it sure as hell isn't the herd itself......It is only helping the Yakima's to shoot more branched antler bulls later down the road.......
if its helping the yakimas to shoot more branched antlered bulls down the road, then that means that it is creating more branched antler bulls to breed the heard, which would mean that it is succeeding. and if the yaks are shooting the branched bulls that it creates, well thats a different discussion, please lets stay on topic.
Well that raises a great question that I honestly don't know the answer to......What does it matter if a branched antler bull or a true spike breed the cows.....Wouldn't the genetics be the same when it is a 1 year old spike....or when that same bull is a 9 year old monster?!?!
So, if they are truly trying to "Manage the herd" wouldn't they want the genetically inferior 2x1, 2x3, 2x2 and so on 2,3,4 year old bulls shot?!?! Why does harvesting a "true spike" help anything?!?!
Post by: colockumelk on November 01, 2010, 05:24:31 PM
Its like this. On average abouot 300 bull calves make it through the winter in the Colockum every year. During the last ten years under the "Spike Only" regulations about 200-240 of those were legally harvested by hunters. The Colockum elk herd genetically produces alot of 1x2's dramatically reducing the amount of legal elk that can be harvested. So lets say 1/3 of yearling bulls are 1x2's and can't be harvested. This leaves at least 100 yearlings that WILL make it through the hunting season even if all of the "True Spikes" are harvested. Its the ONLY option that the WDFW has to increase the yearling bull survival rate if the public wants a General Season in the Colockum.
Post by: the1rod on November 01, 2010, 05:36:11 PM
that is a good question, the way i see it, is that there would be no genetic difference, it would just be the act off breeding that i see makeing a difference. if a large branched bull has a large group of cows that he may not be able to breed all of, other bulls are going to try to sneak in and get the extra cows, if a spike trys this he is more likely to get run off with out posing much of a threat, but if he is a few years older he will have a better chance of standing up to a big bull and possibly snagging a couple cows that the big bull dident breed.
Well that raises a great question that I honestly don't know the answer to......What does it matter if a branched antler bull or a true spike breed the cows.....Wouldn't the genetics be the same when it is a 1 year old spike....or when that same bull is a 9 year old monster?!?!
Post by: KINGWOODROW on November 01, 2010, 09:06:18 PM
Post by: bobcat on November 02, 2010, 07:26:12 AM
:dunno: why has no one brought up the FACT that the bull to cow ratio is jacked because the Natives are filling thier trucks with big bulls year round :dunno: Instead, the WDFW is just being its ignorant F'ing self and punishing those who act responsibly and obey the laws. Its going to take the Natives killing every last one of them for the WDFW to pull thier heads out of thier ass :spank_butt:
KINGWOODROW, what do you want the WDFW to do about the indians killing elk in the Colockum?
Post by: Wenatcheejay on November 02, 2010, 07:35:03 AM
:dunno: why has no one brought up the FACT that the bull to cow ratio is jacked because the Natives are filling thier trucks with big bulls year round :dunno: Instead, the WDFW is just being its ignorant F'ing self and punishing those who act responsibly and obey the laws. Its going to take the Natives killing every last one of them for the WDFW to pull thier heads out of thier ass :spank_butt:
KINGWOODROW, what do you want the WDFW to do about the indians killing elk in the Colockum?
(Pretending to be KING) I want the Colockum to go to permit. I hate the idea, but isn't it the best one?
Post by: bobcat on November 02, 2010, 07:40:25 AM
:dunno: why has no one brought up the FACT that the bull to cow ratio is jacked because the Natives are filling thier trucks with big bulls year round :dunno: Instead, the WDFW is just being its ignorant F'ing self and punishing those who act responsibly and obey the laws. Its going to take the Natives killing every last one of them for the WDFW to pull thier heads out of thier ass :spank_butt:
KINGWOODROW, what do you want the WDFW to do about the indians killing elk in the Colockum?
(Pretending to be KING) I want the Colockum to go to permit. I hate the idea, but isn't it the best one?
I'm actually for permit only elk hunting for the entire eastside, and possibly the entire state. But what would this do to stop the excessive harvest by the indians?
Post by: luvtohnt on November 02, 2010, 08:20:07 AM
Well that raises a great question that I honestly don't know the answer to......What does it matter if a branched antler bull or a true spike breed the cows.....Wouldn't the genetics be the same when it is a 1 year old spike....or when that same bull is a 9 year old monster?!?!
So, if they are truly trying to "Manage the herd" wouldn't they want the genetically inferior 2x1, 2x3, 2x2 and so on 2,3,4 year old bulls shot?!?! Why does harvesting a "true spike" help anything?!?!
I have no answer to the second half of you question referring to the older 2x1 ect.. But the true spike breeding question I do, when a true spike breeds there is a lower chance of successful breeding, there is a lower survival rate, and there is a chance the calf will be born late. It basically comes down to immature sperm. I will see if I can find the study I read and post it here. I honestly think that there needs to be something done and soon.
I'm actually for permit only elk hunting for the entire eastside, and possibly the entire state. But what would this do to stop the excessive harvest by the Indians?
If WDFW closes it due to conservation reasons the Indians can not hunt there based on their own regulations. However I am not sure how it would be enforced.
Brandon
Post by: bobcat on November 02, 2010, 08:38:53 AM
I'm actually for permit only elk hunting for the entire eastside, and possibly the entire state. But what would this do to stop the excessive harvest by the Indians?
If WDFW closes it due to conservation reasons the Indians can not hunt there based on their own regulations. However I am not sure how it would be enforced.
Brandon
Well I wasn't talking about it being closed completely, but going to permit only hunting. Even if there if only one bull permit for the entire area, it is still open to hunting and wouldn't it then be open to the indians? I know a few years back when the Umtanum unit was closed for the general deer season, the indians were hunting that unit and killing many bucks on their winter range. I'm sure there are many other examples of indians hunting units that are otherwise closed to general season hunts. Well, what about the Green River GMU? There is no general elk or deer season in that unit but the indians can hunt it. :dunno:
Post by: Wenatcheejay on November 02, 2010, 08:43:34 AM
Now, without sarcasm, we can not control what others do, we can only control what we do. We know that all bull hunting is hurting the Colockum herd right now. We know how many legally harvested bulls are taken by harvest reports and that number is to high. We know that "true spike" is an attempt to bridge the gap of revenue through tag sales vs. the drop in both sales and in hunting related revenue to the towns that generate revenue from hunters. I guess the lesson of this thread is "If you are going to hunt the Colockum for True Spike you had best have very good optics." :twocents:
Post by: Lowedog on November 02, 2010, 08:52:01 AM
Post by: woodywsu on November 02, 2010, 09:16:12 AM
If all the people who complain about the Colockum yet still hunt it would stop hunting it, it might have a positive impact on the herd. Police yourselves. Seems like a pretty simple concept to me. :dunno:
Policing ourselves will not help the Colockum herd. It sounds nice, but tribal hunting will remain and bulls will be harvested and the herd will continue to decline. Permit only hunting is another option that might help, but will be a short-term solution.
Post by: halflife65 on November 02, 2010, 09:16:28 AM
Well that raises a great question that I honestly don't know the answer to......What does it matter if a branched antler bull or a true spike breed the cows.....Wouldn't the genetics be the same when it is a 1 year old spike....or when that same bull is a 9 year old monster?!?!
So, if they are truly trying to "Manage the herd" wouldn't they want the genetically inferior 2x1, 2x3, 2x2 and so on 2,3,4 year old bulls shot?!?! Why does harvesting a "true spike" help anything?!?!
I have no answer to the second half of you question referring to the older 2x1 ect.. But the true spike breeding question I do, when a true spike breeds there is a lower chance of successful breeding, there is a lower survival rate, and there is a chance the calf will be born late. It basically comes down to immature sperm. I will see if I can find the study I read and post it here. I honestly think that there needs to be something done and soon.I'm actually for permit only elk hunting for the entire eastside, and possibly the entire state. But what would this do to stop the excessive harvest by the Indians?
If WDFW closes it due to conservation reasons the Indians can not hunt there based on their own regulations. However I am not sure how it would be enforced.
Brandon
That's exactly right about the elk, Brandon. Try Jack Ward Thomas - I think that he may have done the study.
Post by: colockumelk on November 02, 2010, 09:40:19 AM
King while yes tribal harvest has a negative impact on the Colockum far worse than the Yakamas and the WDFW are willing to admit, the #1 problem in the Colockum is low spike recruitment due to legal hunting. I for one like to police myself up before I point fingers at others. Hence why we need to do our part first. But then again what would I know about the Colockum elk herd? :dunno:
Post by: bigtex on November 02, 2010, 04:39:35 PM
Bobcat the reason that Indians were still allowed to hunt in the Umptanum is because the WDFW does not have a spine. The Boldt Decision leaves our state to regulate tribal harvest in the name of conservation. Our state however doesn't feel the need to EVER excersise this right.
The Boldt decision has nothing to do with wildlife, only fish. The "Treaty with the Yakamas" is what decides where the Yakamas can hunt, which makes up a lot of eastern WA.
Post by: WSU on November 02, 2010, 04:56:51 PM
Regarding the right to regulate tribal harvest in the name of conservation: we need to do our part before we ever attempt to go down that road. This means fix our problems in teh colockum, since we harvest the majority of bulls killed. We have other issues as well, but our harvest is for sure bigger than theirs, and that will be the number one thing that needs to happen before we try to force them to reduce their take.
Post by: KINGWOODROW on November 02, 2010, 05:02:02 PM
I dont expect the WDFW to do anything about it, theyre pretty good at that. Im not trying to sound racist, because i surely am not, but I also am not ignorant to what the problem is here with this herd. I just see the WDFW strong-arming the resposible sportsmen and sportswomen, who they had forgot pay thier salaries. Then try to pass it off as well, its this or that or the other thing... all because the truth might hurt somebodys feelings. Im on board with permit only statewide, for everything, for EVERYONE !!! Alot of states are this way, and it seems to work well.:dunno: why has no one brought up the FACT that the bull to cow ratio is jacked because the Natives are filling thier trucks with big bulls year round :dunno: Instead, the WDFW is just being its ignorant F'ing self and punishing those who act responsibly and obey the laws. Its going to take the Natives killing every last one of them for the WDFW to pull thier heads out of thier ass :spank_butt:
KINGWOODROW, what do you want the WDFW to do about the indians killing elk in the Colockum?
Post by: bigtex on November 02, 2010, 05:03:21 PM
The Boldt decision is directly relevant to hunting and the allocation of animals.
Regarding the right to regulate tribal harvest in the name of conservation: we need to do our part before we ever attempt to go down that road. This means fix our problems in teh colockum, since we harvest the majority of bulls killed. We have other issues as well, but our harvest is for sure bigger than theirs, and that will be the number one thing that needs to happen before we try to force them to reduce their take.
Boldt has nothing to do with wildlife. The word "Boldt" isn't even mentioned on WDFW websites about tribal hunting rights.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/tribal/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/tribal/)
Post by: Wenatcheejay on November 02, 2010, 07:25:25 PM
Post by: Elkrunner on November 04, 2010, 08:57:46 AM
Post by: bobcat on November 04, 2010, 09:20:48 AM
Post by: Elkrunner on November 04, 2010, 09:22:52 AM
Post by: gunnarnewt on November 04, 2010, 02:29:04 PM
Post by: Glockster on November 04, 2010, 02:48:13 PM
The public comment/imput is used to validate whatever decision they ALREADY decided to make!
If the public testimony is favorable to their decision they say they listened to the public and decided based on that.
If the public input is contrary they say they took the side of the resource and didn't cave to public pressure.
I still think it is important to go to the meetings and be counted.
Post by: DuckDr.Duke on November 04, 2010, 03:00:58 PM
Post by: colockumelk on November 04, 2010, 03:02:22 PM
Ding ding ding...we have a winner!
The public comment/imput is used to validate whatever decision they ALREADY decided to make!
If the public testimony is favorable to their decision they say they listened to the public and decided based on that.
If the public input is contrary they say they took the side of the resource and didn't cave to public pressure.
I still think it is important to go to the meetings and be counted.
Yeah that is true. I went to the meetings when they were deciding on whether to do True Spike or Permit only in the Colockum. I provided OVERWHELMING evidence that it needed to go to permit only and how any responsible person with a brain could see that. They didnt' believe that the problem was that bad. The council asked "That sounds pretty radical, where did you get that info?" You should have seen the look on his face when I replied "Studies conducted by the WDFW!" Speechless. Anyways the public didn't want Permit only and wanted True Spike. So WDFW wanted it to so they could still sell more tags so guess which decision they went with. And now people complain about it.
Now in peoples defense most people are not on this forum or are as knowledable as members on here. So most people just did not know how bad it has gotten. The WDFW certainly paints a rosey picture of the Colockum elk herd. Then last spring I wrote a paper and posted it on here. I think this woke alot of people up. Then the Yakima Herald and the Tri-Cities paper did an article on my paper. I think that has awakened alot more people on what the staus of this herd. I'm not saying that Im some sort of MLK, and great things will happen because of this small little article but I think alot of people complain because they just don't know. To be honest I wouldn't know either if I wasn't such an elk nerd and wanted to learn more about the Colockum Elk Herd. Im trying to get the Ellensburgs Daily Record to do an article and Wenatchee's paper to do an article as well but they havn't shown interest yet. But my goal is to educate the public and raise awareness. From there its up to the people.
Post by: bobcat on November 04, 2010, 03:04:32 PM
Post by: Lowedog on November 04, 2010, 09:23:02 PM
My point being that IMO the masses will never go for permit only because to them it is all about the annual elk camp event.
Post by: shedcrazy on November 04, 2010, 09:30:29 PM
Most people I know who hunt the Colockum general elk season do it more for the week long camp out, drinking, playing cards with their buddies than for the actual hunt. I have never hunted in the Colockum and never plan to and am all for permit only elk hunting, that's basically what it is for me anyway.Good point, thats pretty much on the mark!
My point being that IMO the masses will never go for permit only because to them it is all about the annual elk camp event.
Post by: bobcat on November 04, 2010, 09:30:48 PM