Post by: Biggerhammer on December 03, 2011, 02:36:55 PM
http://www.fws.gov/hanfordreach/management.html
Post by: B.G.hunter on December 03, 2011, 02:54:49 PM
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 03, 2011, 02:58:16 PM
Post by: PolarBear on December 03, 2011, 03:01:50 PM
Post by: plugger on December 03, 2011, 03:35:20 PM
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 03, 2011, 03:49:50 PM
They said in the tri-city paper only cows. No hunting the bulls
That wasnt mentioned in the article I read but it goes to figure they aren't giving up those bulls without the proper $$$$$$$ figure attached.
Post by: fishingnut71 on December 03, 2011, 04:17:24 PM
Post by: plugger on December 03, 2011, 05:24:11 PM
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 03, 2011, 05:28:03 PM
It also said there working in conjunction with the tribes (Yakama) It was a pretty thurough artical. A max of Ten hunters a day. I wonder how much a goveners tag would go for in there?
They did mention that the Yakima tribe was in on it for whatever reason, that's why I figured no chance of any bulls.
Post by: jager on December 03, 2011, 05:43:25 PM
So if they do manage to eliminate 350 cows and half of those would have calves thats 550 elk they are killing :dunno:
Why not relocate some like they did several years back. I mean that's a lot of elk.
But, in their minds I'm sure it's another special permit fee...$$$
Post by: fishingnut71 on December 03, 2011, 05:50:58 PM
Post by: carpsniperg2 on December 03, 2011, 05:59:53 PM
So if they do manage to eliminate 350 cows and half of those would have calves thats 550 elk they are killing :dunno:
Why not relocate some like they did several years back. I mean that's a lot of elk.
But, in their minds I'm sure it's another special permit fee...$$$
I could not agree more! They just don't want to spend any money to relocate them. They just want the money.
Post by: dreamunelk on December 03, 2011, 06:31:06 PM
Post by: adamR on December 03, 2011, 06:32:38 PM
I started reading through all of it but as usual with the WDFW. Fairly spread out, lack of full detail with allot of wiggle room. A damage control deal Dec-March I believe. So it can turn into a real circus by next year with who can hunt it. Who can apply and such, I don't see them turning anyone loose on those bulls but they didn't mention cow or bull just herd reduction.page 7 part c spells it out fairly clearly I thought, sounds like just cows from oct to march
Post by: huntmando on December 03, 2011, 06:49:07 PM
Post by: PlateauNDN on December 03, 2011, 06:50:55 PM
Like I said. The TRIBES WILL RAPE IT FOR ALL ITS WORTH! :twocents:
Wow! Read my post on the other hanford thread before you practice ignorance.
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 03, 2011, 06:51:12 PM
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 03, 2011, 06:54:05 PM
Like I said. The TRIBES WILL RAPE IT FOR ALL ITS WORTH! :twocents:
Wow! Read my post on the other hanford thread before you practice ignorance.
You and that word " Ignorance" I wouldn't expect you to be any other way when it comes to the tribes. You are what you are but it doesn't make you right. :tup:
Post by: jager on December 03, 2011, 06:59:16 PM
This plan is from 2000 but very interesting.....
http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00775/wdfw00775.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00775/wdfw00775.pdf)
"The elk population goal of 300-400 was selected in consultation between USFWS and WDFW following review of biological information, hunter harvest information, and landowner concerns. Some uncertainty exists whether removing 500 elk will eliminate or significantly reduce damage potential. The specific animals removed may not be the problem animals moving onto private lands."
Fencing
Restricting elk movements off the ALE to neighboring private lands through fencing is one alternative for addressing damage potential. We roughly estimate that 91 kilometers of elk-proof fencing would be needed to enclose the ALE completely. Current costs estimated for construction of elk-proof fencing is $6.50 - 7.50 per linear foot (Kenneth Nolan, personal communications 2000).
Immunocontraception
This method of population control is still in the experimental stage. Miller et al. (1998) report, “After 4 decades of research, contraceptive programs for effective wildlife damage control have not been developed and implemented (Kennelly and Converse 1997).” He concludes, “Immunocontraception as a technology is available today, but only in laboratory settings, pen
studies, and limited field situations with small numbers of animals.” This technique is recognized as a possibility in the future, but it does not meet the objective for short term resolution of this issue.
Lethal removal
Lethal removal is an option that requires few personnel to administer. It is a technique that requires detailed planning to ensure humaneness and social acceptance. Use of trained sharpshooters can accomplish lethal removal.
Shooting with trained sharpshooters - WDF&W, Tribes, and/or U.S. Government (USFWS or APHIS-Animal Damage Control) personnel could harvest the elk. We estimate that a team of four could harvest and process five elk per day. Agency hunters could concentrate efforts after the twenty- three days of elk season to maximize harvest outside ALE.
Overall cost of this option could be reduced by hiring people to care for the meat. The estimate of $250/day/person is based on using enforcement personnel. The estimated cost of removing 475 animals would be $95,000.
Using four “shooters” with many “processors” would decrease the cost. Using a helicopter to remove dead elk out of the field to a processing area may reduce processing time but increase cost.
An important benefit would be the salvage of the carcasses for the needy and for Native American use or sale to help defray cost of the removal program. This method of control often has a serious social stigma that may prevent its application, though a majority express approval.
Hunting - Hunting by licensed hunters is an option that provides recreational opportunity as a primary benefit. Hunting can be managed to maintain populations and provide opportunities for hunting including all citizens’ hunts, special permit hunts, Advanced Hunter Education (AHE) hunts or other special hunting seasons established by Fish and Wildlife Commission authority. As co-managers of the wildlife resources tribal hunting may also be used as an elk population management tool/opportunity.
Using hunting as a tool to reduce current elk numbers on the ALE and surrounding area would require increased hunter access. Hunting on the ALE would require sanctioning by USFWS and obtaining legal authorization. An elk hunting seasons on the ALE would need regulatory approval by the Fish and Wildlife Commission regardless of land ownership.
The planning needed to address all of the concerns to potentially implement a hunting program on the ALE will require close cooperation and coordination with DOE, USFWS, WDFW, and Indian tribes.
Allocating the Rattlesnake Hills elk resource to various non tribal hunter user groups under current policy will be challenging to WDFW since the primary impetus and objective for the immediate management need of this resource is not to provide recreational opportunity but to control the growth of the elk population and lessen the adverse impacts of elk in the area as soon as possible. Hunting safety issues are also of concern since hunting would occur in proximity to human developments. After the initial push to reduce elk numbers is completed, administration of a hunt would be much easier. Provisions for allocation of wildlife resources (elk) between non tribal hunters and tribal hunters are not provided and is beyond the scope of this plan.
Hunting alone is currently not a preferred option in reducing herd size. Permit controlled hunts are not currently allowed within ALE. Hunting within the ALE may move elk into undesirable areas and/or create more potential for damage.
Hunting used as a management tool to maintain control of elk numbers on the ALE could be administered by USFWS pending final approval of their Comprehensive Conservation Plan and a step- down plan for elk management. Once the elk population is reduced to or near objective levels a limited-entry hunting program would be one way to control the number of hunters and the number and sex of animals to be removed through harvest. A liberal general hunting season, longer than currently allowed, on lands adjacent to the ALE would provide significant harvest annually if private landowners cooperate.
Live removal
Permanent corral drive trapping - Live capture removal includes a variety of techniques that can be very effective under certain conditions. Drive trapping is perhaps the least expensive method of capture over the long term. Animals are herded via a helicopter, and guided by wing fences toward a corral. The gate to the corral is closed when animals enter the confines of the pen. Animals that escape while being driven between the wing fences and the corral pen may become “trap shy” and be very difficult, or impossible, to drive into a trap again. The advantage of this method of trapping is the relative low cost of constructing a trap. However, one of the biggest disadvantages is the permanent location of the trap. Large numbers of animals may be captured in a single attempt, although multiple attempts in a single day are not likely. We estimated helicopter rates at $475/hr. WDFW will attempt to select adult cows for live trapping and removal. In some cases’ bulls will be inadvertently captured. Captured bulls with antlers will be darted and antlers removed once in the corral.
There are two options in corral trapping - a permanent trap or portable trap. Relative costs of the two options are estimated as follows:
1) Helicopter contract - 2) Materials for corral (50 panels) and wing fence - 3) Drugs for darting bulls - 4) Technical staff including veterinarian- 5) Contract Labor * - 6) Transport to new area - 7) Disease testing for instate transplant Total
$ 7,000 $10,000 $ 9,000 $ 5,000 $10,500 $ 9,500 $66,000
- $25,000
$ 3,000 - $15,000 $10,500 $ 9,500 $83,000 - $95,000
Permanent Corral $15,000
Portable Corral $15,000 $25,000 $10,000 $10,000
- $86,000 *Low figure using Washington Conservation Corp (WCC), high figure using state engineering.
Estimating the efficiency of this method is difficult. Elk location, group size, cooperation and pilot skill will determine the success of the operation. All costs are probably high. Labor costs could be further reduced with the use of Americorps or volunteers.
There are significant advantages to the use of a portable corral trap. Counting on a single trap location can be risky, especially when animals become trap shy and the element of surprise is lost. An added advantage is that the trap can be moved to a new location and animals will not have to be herded extreme distances to remove specific segments of a population. The cost of manufacturing a portable corral trap is higher than constructing a permanent trap, but the utility of a portable trap and its use in other locations when needs and conditions change, offset the cost differential. Considering other alternatives for live capture, corral trapping is probably most efficient, least costly, and relatively safe technique.
Corral trapping on the ALE required archeological clearance. Sites where historical artifacts are present require more effort and expense for site clearance.
Helicopter net gunning - Net gunning operations provide a great amount of flexibility in capture operations. This technique is the most expensive but requires no trap site clearance and far fewer support personnel to handle animals. Capture locations could be changed daily with little on the ground preparation. With two helicopters working simultaneously, it would be possible to capture approximately 25-30 animals in a single day, but not consecutive days. Carl Meyer (1999 personal communications) of Hawkins and Powers Aviation stated, “Experience has taught us that the
pressure placed on a resident elk herd by the presence of the helicopter will in very short order drive that herd out of a given area, regardless of their normal reluctance to leave.” Given this fact, net gunning operations should be conducted in a spaced out schedule over several weeks or months.
Estimates of cost for net gunning operations ($350-400/elk) from two reputable companies that have considerable experience in net gunning elk capture operations suggest a combination of corral drive trapping and net gunning for remaining animals. A net gun operation could occur after the hunting season, using a professional wildlife capture crew. A conservative cost of $325 per elk was estimated using the aerial net gunning technique. The cost of trucking elk to release locations (assuming volunteers are not available) is estimated to be $1.90 per mile and twenty-five elk per truck. Calculated personnel cost assumes a minimum of four people per day for twelve days.
Net gunning would have the least impact to the soil and vegetation within ALE, but has higher risk to personnel and animals. The operation is very mobile but the most expensive. This technique would allow the targeting of specific elk residing on private lands outside the ALE.
DISPOSITION OF ANIMALS REMOVED
Every effort will be made to salvage animals that die and we will provide carcasses to charitable organizations or Indian tribes. Non-edible parts could be salvaged and provided to native Americans. A tribal representative could provide assistance in salvage of usable parts to meet their needs best. Elk that die after being drugged will not be salvaged for consumption.
Live animals will be used for augmentation within Washington for which site clearance has been approved in advance. Transplant sites within the state will receive priority. Several potential sites have been identified and special requests for augmentation initially as follows:
(1) Blue Mountains - GMU 175 (Lick Creek) in Garfield and Asotin counties. (2) Pend Oreille - GMU 113 (Selkirk) and GMU 117 (49 Degrees North) in Pend Oreille County. (3) Nooksack - GMU 418 (Nooksack) in Whatcom County. (4) Green River Watershed - GMU 485 (Green River) in King County.
Several questions have been raised about the advisability of moving elk from eastern Washington to western Washington. GMUs 418, 478, and 485 are in historical Roosevelt elk range, however, these sites have previously received Rocky Mountain elk and are currently considered genetically mixed. The State of Washington received a total of 412 elk (Appendix E) from Yellowstone National Park from1912 - 1930, Thomas et al. (1982). No DNA analysis has been done on the existing populations in the potential augmentation sites or on the Hanford Site.
Several states are actively engaged in an elk transplant or augmentation planning and clearance process. Kentucky is currently actively releasing elk and dependent upon outside sources for elk augmentation (Roy Grimes, 1999 personal communications). They have a very ambitious program to restore a wild, population of elk in southeastern Kentucky. They are interested in receiving elk from Washington. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Director has the authority to transfer animals out of state as authorized by RCW 77.12.140. Elk in eastern Washington were reestablished from stock received from Yellowstone National Park and the State of Montana. Restoration efforts often require cooperation between states and sharing of resources.
RELEASE CRITERIA ! The Wildlife Program must write a release site plan, gain clearance from Land Management
Agencies and Tribes, and reach consensus among private landowners of the affected area. ! A release site plan will address specific actions to handle damage problems should they arise. ! There must be sufficient biological justification for releasing elk into the proposed site. ! The proposal must meet the tests of good science to achieve the goals and objectives of the release
site plan. (1) Disease free certification (2) Genetic compatibility
The release is affordable and beneficial . The Blue Mountains and Pend Oreille release sites are the highest priorities and the only sites identified for receiving elk in March 2000.
Post by: jager on December 03, 2011, 07:00:21 PM
1. BLUE MOUNTAINS ELK AUGMENTATION SITE PLAN - GMU-175 LICK CREEK
A. Background and Justification The proposed release of Rattlesnake Hills elk into the Blue Mountains would occur in GMU-175 Lick Creek. The elk population management objective for this unit is 1000 elk. The current (spring 1999) population in GMU-175 is 680 elk, which is 320 below the management objective. A transfer of approximately 100 elk from ALE would increase this population’s potential to reach the management objective quickly.
B. Site Description 1) Specific release sites: The proposed release site is on WDFW property in the Lick Creek
drainage. The area known as the Asotin Wildlife Area is adjacent to the Umatilla National Forest. Access should not be a problem. No alternate site is necessary.
2) Potential dispersal: The elk drift fence borders the Lick Creek unit (GMU-175) on the north. However, the fence ends at the east section line of T9N, R43E, Sec. 2, which does not prevent
elk from occasionally moving around the fence onto agricultural land in GMU-178 Peola. Also, any significant movement of released elk to the east (five air miles) would put them on private agricultural lands. Two major landowners are adjacent to the Asotin Wildlife Area.
3) Land ownership: The U. S. Forest Service, Umatilla National Forest is a major landowner and has been contacted regarding the proposed release. They did not express concern with the WDFW proposed release sites. The WDFW owns the Asotin Wildlife Area, and Department of Natural Resources administered lands. Private lands in agricultural production dominate the lower elevations.
4) Coordination and cooperation: The proposed elk release site, GMU-175 Lick Creek, is within the ceded area of the Nez Perce tribe. The Nez Perce possess hunting rights, guaranteed by treaty, on open and unclaimed lands east of the Tucannon River in southeast Washington. Elk is an extremely significant cultural and spiritual resource for the Nez Perce, and tribal members desire to see the Lick Creek population continue to exist as a healthy herd. WDFW is committed to working with the Tribe cooperatively to manage the Lick Creek herd. The Tribe has expressed support for the augmentation of elk in this site pending radiological clearance. WDFW and the Tribe have also begun discussions that will lead to cooperative monitoring, population assessment and management of the Lick Creek herd.
5) Site Clearance: The proposed release site is in an area where a seasonal road closure is in effect on the Lick Creek Road. Access into the proposed release site is not normally a problem although unusual late winter storms can occur. Access problems are not anticipated.
The WDFW contacted the following stakeholders to obtain their support and comments on the proposal:
a) Nez Perce, Umatilla, and Yakama Tribes. b) The Pomeroy Ranger District, USFS. c) Adjacent landowners
6) Potential conflicts and resolutions: Two issues stand out that need to be addressed. They are; (1) potential for increased damage to agricultural crops on private lands adjacent to the release area on Lick Creek and (2) issues related to harvest of transplanted elk.
A monitoring program has been developed to determine movements of transplanted elk. These monitoring efforts will greatly help in determining potential for damage and quick response to damage issues. WDFW has initiated a contingency action to fund costs of helicopter hazing for controlling potential damage.
Hunting season recommendations for the area of released elk will be considered as a part of the Three Year Hunting Season Recommendation packages. We will also maintain continued negotiations and cooperative management efforts with the Nez Perce Tribe.
C. Biological Considerations 1) Numbers and composition of elk: We propose a minimum of 100 to a maximum of 200 elk for
release in GMU-175. 2) Genetics: No genetic concerns have been expressed with releasing Rattlesnake Hills elk into
GMU-175 Lick Creek. 3) Transport: Elk will be transported in cattle trucks or large stock trailers. Winter accessability is
not a major concern for this area. 4) Timing of capture and release: The capture and release of cows\calves and yearling bulls will
occur in March. The Nez Perce Tribe has expressed concern about potential stress-related complications resulting from the capture and transport operations. WDFW will work to minimize stress to animals during capture.
D. Monitoring of Released Animals 1) Marking: Approximately 10% of the animals will be radio collared. We will attempt to mark
released elk with plastic, color coded, numbered ear tags depending on processing time. 2) Monitoring: Radio collared elk will be monitored a minimum of twice monthly for
approximately twelve months using volunteer(s) and WDFW staff. During the initial release period we will conduct more frequent monitoring until animals settle. Particular attention will be given to movements onto private lands and potential damage conflicts. Department personnel will maintain a record of sightings of marked elk. Radio collared elk will be monitored from the air by fixed-wing aircraft and on a limited basis from ground surveys. Monitoring is estimated to require approximately three hours of flight time per survey and a minimum of thirteen aerial flights. Radio telemetry equipment and other monitoring tools will be purchased. Monitoring costs are estimated at $17,000.
E. Issue Analysis The financial expenditure to capture and release 100-200 Rattlesnake Hills elk into GMU-175 will be cost effective. The value of elk to the state and local economy was estimated to be as high as $1,945 per harvested elk in the Blue Mountains (Myers 1999). The 1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation reported that trip and equipment expenditures for big game hunting in 1996 averaged $860 per hunter (U.S. Dept. of Interior, et al. 1996). In 1998 there were 5,501 elk hunters reported hunting the Blue Mountains of Washington. Using the $860 average expenditure per hunter from the National Survey, Blue Mountain elk hunters added $4,730,860 to the local and state economy in 1996. Releasing 100-200 Rattlesnake Hills elk into the Lick Creek elk population will increase the herd’s potential to reach management objectives, increase recreational opportunity, increase financial returns to the local economy, and address tribal hunting rights for the Nez Perce Tribe.
The social and political realities of the proposal present some challenges. An augmentation of elk on the Asotin Wildlife Area could potentially be a significant concern to local agricultural producers. A long history of damage related problems exist with elk in this area. The elk proof fence has helped to address this problem, but does not completely prevent elk from occasionally moving onto private land. Agricultural damage complaints could increase if transplanted elk move around the fence or to agricultural land five miles to the east. Personal contacts will be made with large landowners adjacent to the proposed release site. Agricultural damage complaints resulting from transplanted animals will be handled consistent with established response protocol and procedures. The following control methods are available; herding, hazing, landowner preference permits, hot spot hunts and monetary payment for assessed damage.
For an elk augmentation program to be successful, all hunting may require close monitoring and short term hunting closures may be necessary to take full advantage of increased productivity from released animals. Tribal and all citizens hunting and harvest of elk in the release site should be coordinated and managed cooperatively.
Post by: jager on December 03, 2011, 07:00:38 PM
A. Background and Justification While elk are widely distributed through most of Pend Oreille County, many people feel the area can support greater numbers. There is support for increasing the elk population to improve hunter and watchable wildlife opportunities, and in turn tourism. The WDFW Draft Selkirk Elk Herd Plan also states an objective of increasing the population in the Pend Oreille Population Management Unit (PMU) which includes all of Pend Oreille County.
Augmentation of elk in the south-central portion of Pend Oreille County is suggested. There has been a dramatic increase in the amount of early successional forest stands due to the diversity of landowners and the intensity of forest management activities. Elk are present in small scattered groups throughout this area. We speculate that elk may be unable to break through or beyond the environmental resistance factors limiting population growth. An augmentation of 20-50 animals into a drainage may surge beyond some threshold of the current population dynamics, allow survival to exceed mortality, and give us the desired population growth.
Transplanted elk into the Pend Oreille County area are not considered a threat to the Selkirk Mountains woodland caribou herd augmentation project. The proposed release sites already contain small populations of elk. The caribou release sites are north and east of Sullivan Lake in the Salmo- Priest Wilderness Area on the Colville National Forest. Radio telemetry frequencies have been coordinated to ensure no overlaps while tracking released caribou, elk, or other species that have been collared.
B. Site Description 1) Specific release sites: On the east side of the Pend Oreille River in GMU 113 the target area is
the East Branch LeClerc Creek, Mill Creek, and Cee Cee Ah Peak. The best logistical site for release is the WDFW LeClerc Creek Wildlife Area land on the West Branch LeClerc Creek County Road, T35, R44, S6. If access is unavailable (snow, mud) we would prefer to release off the Mill Creek Forest Road 1200 (USFS, Newport Ranger District) or a nearby road into rock pits owned by Stimson Lumber Company near Loop Creek, T35, R44, S33 or T34,
R44, S4. On the west side of the Pend Oreille River in GMU 117 the target area is the Calispell Creek watershed. The best logistical site is off the Flowery Trail County Road or rock pit site at Gletty Creek, (USFS and Stimson) T32, R42, S12. An additional or alternate site is the Bartlett Middle Fork Calispell Road (USFS), T32, R43, S21.
Another site near Indian Creek T32, R45, S17 in GMU 113 holds promise. This site has received considerable RMEF funded habitat project improvements and road closures. At least eleven elk habitat improvement projects in the general areas described for elk release have been funded through RMEF and carried out by USFS, WDFW, Kalispel Tribe, and Pend Oreille County Sportsmen’ Club. RMEF has funded at least $50,740 worth of projects and they matched these with $52,520 from cooperators. Completed projects (Power Winchester Habitat Improvement, Dry Canyon Burn, Cee Cee Ah Habitat Improvement, Pend Oreille East Habitat Improvement, LeClerc Creek Habitat Enhancement, July Creek Burn, South Dry Canyon Burn) fall right into the proposed release locations. These projects date from 1989 to 1998.
2) Potential dispersal: Often transplanted animals disperse over many miles and we expect some of these elk to do the same. It is generally expected that released elk will associate with the fragmented groups of elk and use much the same habitats. Some individuals will likely strike out for longer movements but will not be unlike the elk that currently emigrate from the area regularly now.
3) Land ownership: The Colville National Forest, Newport and Sullivan Lake Ranger Districts have been contacted and generally support the effort to increase elk. There are concerns that these particular elk may move to open farm fields more readily than the current local elk and could pose a problem to local hay and cattle ranchers. The USFS livestock grazing permittee was contacted and is supportive of the elk release. The proposed release sites are acceptable but there may be other sites recommended to keep numbers down at a site or to encourage elk dispersal into other areas.
Stimson Lumber Company was contacted and recognizes the local interest in elk viewing and hunting and their role as a major forest landowner in the county in providing elk habitats. They generally support the release of elk, but have some concerns for damage by elk to young conifer plantations and how the WDFW might address a problem if it occurs. They will be supportive with opening roads and identifying parking for release sites.
The Department of Natural Resources has not had any history of problems with elk and does not expect any related to a release on their lands.
Several hay and cattle ranchers near Calispell Lake were contacted by a representative of the local sportsmen’s club because they currently have a few elk coming into their fields each spring. They do not oppose a release in the Calispell watershed.
The wildlife biologist with the Kalispel Tribe (KT) was supportive of the proposal and generally agreed to the proposed release sites.
The Pend Oreille County Commissioners have sent letters of support and encouragement for the augmentation proposal.
While many sportsmen indicate a desire to have larger numbers released, there was a common thread to the agencies, KT, and Stimson Lumber Company comments. All recognized that elk exist throughout the area now and they hope new animals do well. There is the lingering question of why the current animals are not doing better if we expect these new animals to flourish. Everyone recognizes the risk of these animals becoming a damage problem. One common recommendation is that WDFW not release more than fifty elk at a single site. There is a consensus that an elk augmentation is something many people in the county want and these major land managers support those wishes.
4) Coordination and cooperation: The primary sportsmen’s organizations and agencies involved in this augmentation proposal are:
Pend Oreille County Sportsmen’s Club Inland Northwest Wildlife Council Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Stimson Lumber Company Washington Department of Natural Resources Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Colville National Forest
Kalispel Tribe of Indians Pend Oreille County Commissioners Pend Oreille County Road Department
News releases and media will be coordinated through Madonna Luers, WDFW, Spokane. The local newspaper is the Newport Minor.
5) Site Clearance: Depending on the snow or mud (county restrictions) we may need to coordinate with the Pend Oreille County Road Department. Landowners have said that they would agree to working out arrangements to release elk at the proposed sites if logistically feasible.
6) Potential Conflicts and Resolutions: There is a potential for elk causing damage to farms or forest plantations. WDFW needs to make it clear to those interested in increased elk numbers that elk must be managed within biological and social constraints. Where damage becomes a problem, WDFW will use the tools available, e.g., hot spot hunts, to alleviate these problems. Landowners prefer small releases of elk; the use of smaller transport vehicles; and multiple release sites. Road restriction or access difficulties due to snow or soft roads could present problems. Smaller vehicles and lighter loads are advisable. Soliciting volunteers to plow out access roads to release sites may be necessary.
C. Biological Considerations: 1) Number and composition of elk: The current plan is to release 100 elk in Pend Oreille County
with approximately fifty going to each side of the river. We would prefer more than one site on each side of the river can be used so that the release at each site can be held to less than thirty elk, to alleviate landowner concerns. The age and composition of the released animals are not an issue as they will mix with resident elk.
2) Genetics: Elk in the Selkirk Herd are Rocky Mountain Elk (Cervus elaphus nelson). Elk were translocated from the Yakima Herd to Pend Oreille County in 1969 and 1970 and are considered the source of the present population. Rattlesnake Hills elk are probably genetically similar to Selkirk elk.
3) Transport: Conservation groups will organize volunteers with stock trailers or trucks to transport elk. In addition, WDFW has one 6-horse stock trailer that will hold about ten elk.
4) Contingencies: Should there be a need to euthanize an injured animal at a release site, volunteer sportsmen would process and donate the animal to a local food bank. In the event any drugs, not compatible for human consumption, were administered to animals then those elk must be disposed of properly.
Damage problems caused by elk in central Pend Oreille County has not been a significant concern to date. Agriculture is primarily limited to cattle and grass hay production rather than seed crops or alfalfa. Some elk do frequent farm fields during spring green-up and likely cause damage to fences but formal complaints have not occurred. The Rattlesnake Hills elk will likely mix in with the resident elk and some may be associated with those that show up in agricultural fields but, like the resident elk, we expect they will pull back to the forest cover as spring approaches. Damage caused by released elk will be handled according to WDFW policy. Sportsmen have suggested they would volunteer to help with efforts to haze elk or fix fences to help make this augmentation a success. This augmentation is an experiment that has some potential to cause damage and if serious chronic depredation problems result, they will be addressed with increased harvest strategies over time.
5) Timing of capture and release: The animals would likely adjust best to a release as the snow is melting and the new forage growth is beginning. Some private fields may be used at this time, but there should also be snow-free access to the forested lands and early successional browse areas available for elk use. Primary state and county road restrictions should be off by that time. Soft forest roads will still likely be a problem so that is why we have planned the release sites for low elevations and primary roads.
D. Monitoring of Released Animals 1) Marking: We will attempt to mark released elk with plastic, color coded, numbered ear tags.
At least one in ten elk will be fitted with a radio telemetry collar. At this point the recommendation is to collar only females so that we can gather the most information possible (calving, group movements, lower mortality than bulls).
2) Monitoring: WDFW will provide volunteers with the Pend Oreille Sportsmen’s Club, Inland Northwest Wildlife Council (INC), and Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (Newport Chapter) with radio telemetry equipment and training to monitor movements or mortality. Local wildlife biologists will provide training, assistance, and compile and summarize the data provided.
The INC will provide aerial telemetry tracking of elk as it becomes difficult for the ground crews to find them. About four flights in the first four months and another four flights during the following winter will be conducted.
In the first month or two monitoring will be conducted weekly and supervised by WDFW staff. Valuable information on initial movements, survival and areas used for calving will be gained. During the following winter we expect the collared elk to intermix with the resident elk and provide valuable data for mapping elk winter range. We have never studied elk in northeast Washington and very little is known about their movements or winter use areas. This study will help provide the needed data to target areas for habitat improvement projects such as burns, road closures, and seeding. The public and agency forest workers will be asked to report locations of tagged animals to supplement the data gathered from the radio marked individuals.
We propose that this project use volunteers to monitor radio collared elk movements and habitat selection. This cooperative project will cost about $7,000 for one year.
D. Issue Analysis Elk are currently widely distributed in Pend Oreille County. An augmentation of approximately 100 elk in the area could have some positive benefits by establishing additional herds and increasing distribution and density of elk throughout the area where currently vacant and under utilized habitats exist.
The local citizens of the area are very supportive of this proposal. They recognize the potential for providing additional hunting and wildlife observation opportunities in the region. The expenditures of funds to achieve this plan are viewed as cost effective and good for the local economy in the long term. The Pend Oreille County Commission has written a letter of support for this project. Natural Resource agencies, Timber Companies, and Tribes have expressed support. There is some concern for released elk causing damage to local agriculture.
However, agricultural producers contacted have endorsed the augmentation of elk into the area.
ANIMAL HEALTH AND PROCESSING OF CAPTURED ANIMALS
Disease Testing: Elk health certification will be achieved by sampling approximately twenty-five animals and testing them for Brucellosis, Leptospirosis, Anaplasmosis, Johne’s, Blue tongue, and other diseases and parasites as needed. WDFW will conduct these disease tests before full scale trap initiation. In future years if we approve animals for shipment out of state, the receiving state will encumber costs of health testing and quarantine before shipment. Disease testing may require holding animals for up to seventy-two hours while tests are completed. A person will be assigned to tend these animals while they are being held.
The cost of testing for disease before releasing animals within the state is about $9,500. The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation has granted $4,750 matched with $4,750 from the Inland Northwest Wildlife Council to fund the disease testing project. The largest expense for disease testing will be capturing animals for sampling.
Radiological Testing: There is some concern that elk from the ALE have been exposed to radiation from Department of Energy activities on the Hanford Site. Although frequent monitoring of vegetation, air, water on and adjacent to the Hanford Site has been ongoing there are continued concerns that elk are contaminated. Past testing of deer and other animals, on and near the site, have tested well below radiological threshold concerns.
The PNNL research and monitoring team will continue to sample and test elk from the ALE. Hunter harvested animals adjacent to the Hanford Site were sampled during the 1999 hunting season and an additional five animals were collected from the Hanford Site to test for radiation contamination. The results of past and current tests were provided to the public at open houses in early January. PNNL personnel have participated in additional public meetings to answer questions concerning safety in handling and consuming elk from the Rattlesnake Hills population.
Depending on processing time, we will attempt to mark released elk with plastic, color coded, numbered ear tags. A sample of approximately 10% of the animals will be radio collared for follow-up monitoring on releases made within the state. There will be some unavoidable stress to elk and increased risk of injury to animals as tagging, collaring and blood collection is conducted.
Transportation costs are anticipated to be offset by local conservation organizations. Volunteers who offer their equipment and time to provide transportation of elk will be welcomed.
Post by: jager on December 03, 2011, 07:02:08 PM
February 08, 2000
Contact: Madonna Luers, (509) 456-4073
WDFW plans to move surplus Hanford elk to Selkirk and Blue Mountains
Responding to complaints about agricultural damage, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) next month plans to move about 200 elk from the Hanford Reservation near the Tri-Cities to the Selkirk Mountains in northeast Washington and the Blue Mountains in the southeast part of the state.
The relocation proposal was presented last month in public open houses, attended by about 300 people in Kennewick, Clarkston and Newport. Most voiced or submitted written comment supporting the relocation.
The elk population on and around the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Hanford nuclear site and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service's (USFWS) Fitzner-Eberhardt Arid Lands Ecology reserve (ALE) in Benton County has grown from eight animals in 1975 to over 800 today. The growing herds, mostly unchecked by hunting because of public access restrictions, are causing damage to private agricultural lands. Under state law, WDFW is responsible for responding to complaints about agricultural damage caused by wildlife.
Over the next few years WDFW plans to capture and relocate up to 500 elk to other areas of the state. WDFW also may seek to control the Hanford elk population through future permit-controlled hunting on the ALE reserve. The decision whether to allow hunting will be made by USFWS in cooperation with WDFW, DOE and the tribes.
About 200 elk will be captured in early March. The first 100 will go to the Selkirk and 49 Degrees North Game Management Units (GMU) in Pend Oreille County, and the second 100 will go to the Lick Creek GMU in the Blue Mountains of Garfield and Asotin counties.
In addition to DOE and USFWS, WDFW is working cooperatively on the Hanford elk relocation operation with county officials, the Yakama, Umatilla, Nez Perce, and Kalispel Indian tribes, Inland Northwest Wildlife Council (INWC), other wildlife conservation organizations and private landowners.
Post by: PlateauNDN on December 04, 2011, 01:49:21 PM
Like I said. The TRIBES WILL RAPE IT FOR ALL ITS WORTH! :twocents:
Wow! Read my post on the other hanford thread before you practice ignorance.
You and that word " Ignorance" I wouldn't expect you to be any other way when it comes to the tribes. You are what you are but it doesn't make you right. :tup:
That's right hammer I am what I am and no matter what you think I will always be who I am.
As a Tribal Member I'm going to offer an opinion in regards to Tribal
Matters and some times I may agree with the rest and sometimes I won't. All I've ever requested is
The debates remain civil other than that you have your opinion and I have mine.
Post by: groundhog on December 05, 2011, 11:23:50 AM
Post by: colockumelk on December 05, 2011, 11:52:51 AM
And as far as property owners. Yeah they are a big punch of cry babies. My family owns a farm and doesn't cry or complain when elk are in their Alfalfa. If the elk are such a problem make it hunt by written permission only. Bam problem solved. But no they want the free $MONEY$ instead. The example I like to use is in Kittitas County the hay farmers complain about "elk" damage. How they tear their DORMANT hay fields up in the winter. Yet drive around there in the winter and look at all the cattle that winter in those same hay fields. Your'e telling me elk do damage but the cattle don't? Yeah give me a break, tell me its not about the free money. But try getting permission to hunt their property with a bow even. Yeah good luck with that. Here's an idea if you live in the mountains next to free ranging deer and elk PUT UP AN ELK FENCE! But then again that doesn't give you free money. This is the purpose for the Master Hunter program and its use in the Kittitas valley to help curb damage claims. Its a band-aid not a fix.
Post by: jager on December 05, 2011, 12:13:01 PM
Whether hunting or relocating, that is only a temporary answer. Hunting will push them out of the huntable portion of the reserve into the obviously marginal habitat as well as onto private property. Which leads to the problem of some farmers only wanting $$$ for access = landowner tags and compensation for damage. Who knows maybe they have some pull due to the $$ involved.
They relocated once why not again I ask.
There were plenty of grants and volunteer hours in that project well as funding spread across many organizations.
I enjoyed knowing that there were great genetics and more bulls close to the areas that I hunt. (NE) It helped boost the population tremendously in my portion of the state.
They make a few bucks on permits or they pay out to the farmers.... :dunno: If I remember correctly it was right around 100G to move those 400 elk.
I know it's all about the $$ to them but seriously someone needs to B***h slap them back to reality. :twocents:
Post by: Coastal_native on December 05, 2011, 12:14:10 PM
Is there a problem involving elk in this state that you CAN'T fix? Seriously, If the state would only listen to you we'd have plenty of elk and everybody would be happy...well except tribes, farmers, rifle hunters, antis, wolves, biologists, atv riders, disabled hunters, democrats, the creator, me, bigfoot....and just about everyone else on this site who constantly disagree's with your hair brain ideas :chuckle:
Post by: rosscrazyelk on December 05, 2011, 01:00:24 PM
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 05, 2011, 01:12:51 PM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on December 05, 2011, 01:19:02 PM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on December 05, 2011, 01:41:18 PM
Posts like that are a shame. He's clearly not making any effort at beign constructive. :DOH:Like I said. The TRIBES WILL RAPE IT FOR ALL ITS WORTH! :twocents:
Does Fishingnut ever post anything constructive? :bash: I went through a lot of his posts, and I'd say 90% are just like this. I think he needs to change his forum name a bit, drop the fishing and 71
Post by: colockumelk on December 05, 2011, 01:48:05 PM
Colockum,
Is there a problem involving elk in this state that you CAN'T fix? Seriously, If the state would only listen to you we'd have plenty of elk and everybody would be happy...well except tribes, farmers, rifle hunters, antis, wolves, biologists, atv riders, disabled hunters, democrats, the creator, me, bigfoot....and just about everyone else on this site who constantly disagree's with your hair brain ideas :chuckle:
Hey I resemble that remark. :chuckle: In my last post I actually didn't offer and advice to solve any problems. I just made complaints and pissed and moaned without any constructive ways to fix things. :IBCOOL:
Maybe we should all pitch in and move them all to the clockum :twocents:
I would 100% support this if the WDFW and DNR would help solve the road access issues which are the main reason why there is such low escapement. This would be an excellant way to help solve the shortage of branch bulls, but.... it would only be short term since within a few years they would all be dead and we would be back to square one. :bash:
Post by: jager on December 05, 2011, 01:48:34 PM
I'm glad they're bringing some more up to Pend Oreille County. It was a boon for the elk herd a decade or so back and I hope it will further increase genetic diversity. :tup:
I don't think they are! That info I posted was from 2000.
That was my point. Why not augment other herds?
I would like to see it completely restructured so that the head of the WDFW, could be voted in and voted out by the people.
Yes exactly...
Is there anyone on this forum that is knowledgeable enough to be willing to guide "us" through the processes that need to happen in regards to our state wildlife dept?
Post by: colockumelk on December 05, 2011, 04:21:22 PM
Post by: NWWABOWHNTR on December 05, 2011, 04:23:43 PM
Post by: colockumelk on December 05, 2011, 07:12:18 PM
Post by: huntnnw on December 05, 2011, 10:27:37 PM
Relocation is very expensive. Also there is often a low survival of relocated elk. If you do not move far enough they will find there way back. They have been know to travel very long distances. If memory serves me correct there is a documented case of approximately 200km (124miles) as the crow flies. So how many 100's of miles she really travel was unknown. took her year or two. Now it you find an area with top grade food than they may stay. Short an simple, hunting is a cost effective way to achieve the goal and provides opportunity.
They captured elk at hanford and released 75 in 113 years ago and if I remember right only 2 died
Post by: coachcw on December 06, 2011, 06:55:06 AM
Post by: BAR C3 on December 06, 2011, 07:46:56 AM
:yeah: :bdid:Posts like that are a shame. He's clearly not making any effort at beign constructive. :DOH:Like I said. The TRIBES WILL RAPE IT FOR ALL ITS WORTH! :twocents:
Does Fishingnut ever post anything constructive? :bash: I went through a lot of his posts, and I'd say 90% are just like this. I think he needs to change his forum name a bit, drop the fishing and 71
Post by: TheHunt on December 06, 2011, 08:09:08 AM
He has the right to say what every he wants. I cannot tell you how many people have died for him to have that right. So use the technology provided to ignore his legal right.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on December 06, 2011, 08:16:49 AM
wELL IT SURE WORKED WHERE I Live :dunno:Relocation is very expensive. Also there is often a low survival of relocated elk. If you do not move far enough they will find there way back. They have been know to travel very long distances. If memory serves me correct there is a documented case of approximately 200km (124miles) as the crow flies. So how many 100's of miles she really travel was unknown. took her year or two. Now it you find an area with top grade food than they may stay. Short an simple, hunting is a cost effective way to achieve the goal and provides opportunity.
They captured elk at hanford and released 75 in 113 years ago and if I remember right only 2 died
Post by: 400out on December 06, 2011, 05:48:39 PM
Colockum,:yike: OH you are a brave soul! you better get with them before the meeting and explain how much time you are going to need :chuckle: JK
No worries, if the WDFW is going to talk about it, I want to make sure they get some solid feedback/ideas.
Colockum has some out of the box ideas I tend to agree with ;)
Post by: 400out on December 06, 2011, 05:58:40 PM
I guess realistically the elk will move to the un-huntable areas across the highway. :dunno:K to start out I will admitt I didn't read all the posts you put on Jager but if my memory serves my correctly when they did that years back it ended with very stressed elk that a good portion died as a result of and as for the ones that survived the transplant, a good amount migrated back to Hanford! :dunno: Please don't read this as the bible, I am quoting my memory not any reports or forms! Just thought I would throw out the what I have. :hello:
So if they do manage to eliminate 350 cows and half of those would have calves thats 550 elk they are killing :dunno:
Why not relocate some like they did several years back. I mean that's a lot of elk.
But, in their minds I'm sure it's another special permit fee...$$$
Post by: DeerThug on December 06, 2011, 06:32:58 PM
DWFW cant get anything right...
Post by: jager on December 06, 2011, 06:48:43 PM
My point was the hunting will only exacerbate the problem by pushing the elk across the highway. and onto private property where they will do damage. Both of these end results will have drastic consequences. :twocents:
Why kill all cows when they are the ones that will carry the young? As I said, 1 cow killed = 2 elk.
They have been talking about reducing and controlling the population since before the relocation...They have failed..... surprise, surprise.
There were a couple of different "roundups"
I do know the NE corner got about a hundred elk...and with all due respect 400,...I'm pretty sure those elk didn't migrate back.
Are people opposed to relocating?
It just seems like such a waste to kill them. Don't get me wrong...I have no problem with hunting them...but It seems like a bad idea to me.
Relocation may be costly but we have the resources why not utilize them...I'd much rather pay for this than wolf feasibility studies.
According to what I've read the Hanford population grows by about 25% +/- per year.
So, do they then open the hunting back up in 5 years to cull more elk or do they have a continual season?
Without spending all night researching, this is what I could find...
Fifteen elk died in a three-day roundup at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation this week, seven from stress after being too tightly packed into a corral, a state wildlife manager said Friday.
Earlier this week, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service acknowledged only four deaths when it said the roundup was ending prematurely because of problems getting and keeping the elk corralled.
Two elk also died during a February test roundup of 20 head.
All told, "we handled 174 elk and lost 17," said Dale Bambrick, regional director in Yakima for the state Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Though the projected mortality rate for the project was 5 percent to 10 percent, based.
Thursday, March 9, 2000
Hanford elk roundup suddenly goes awry
By Linda Ashton
The Associated Press
YAKIMA - Sixty elk broke free of a corral at the Hanford nuclear reservation yesterday, severely injuring three and bringing an early end to a wildlife roundup. The injured elk were destroyed.
"It ended not really well," said Kathy Criddle, an information specialist for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
A helicopter cowboy had herded the elk from the Rattlesnake Hills into the figure-eight corral yesterday morning, the second day the animals had been brought in.
"It all went perfectly, like (Tuesday). Then they busted through the fence, knocked about 20 feet down, and they all escaped," Criddle said.
Three elk were trampled as the herd bolted. They were humanely destroyed, and Wanapum tribal members butchered the carcasses.
Wildlife managers had hoped to round up 200 elk this week from the 120-square-mile Arid Lands Ecology Reserve on the western edge of the nuclear reservation.
They ended up with 130 elk, half of which were transported by livestock trailer to the Selkirk Range in northeastern Washington and half to the Blue Mountains in southeastern Washington. Twenty other elk were moved to the Blue mountains last month after they were tested for disease and radiation exposure.
"Basically, that's it. We're done for the year," Criddle said.
What had been called the largest wildlife roundup in the state was a challenge from the beginning. On Monday the helicopter crew couldn't move the herd from a chute through the gate into the corral. One elk died.
Several modifications were made to the gateway, including doubling its width to 20 feet, in hopes of eliminating whatever had alarmed the herd.
On Tuesday the aerial cowboys rounded up 150 elk, and 130 were moved to the Blue Mountains. Twenty were released yesterday morning because they'd been held captive too long, Criddle said.
The relocation program is part of a plan to manage the size of the fast-growing Hanford elk herd, which is estimated at nearly 1,000 head.
The big animals pose a threat to fragile shrub-steppe vegetation on the no-hunting reserve, and they have wandered outside its boundaries to eat nearby farmers' crops.
Copyright (c) 2000 Seattle Times Company, All Rights Reserved
Post by: buckfvr on December 06, 2011, 07:11:53 PM
Post by: gaddy on December 06, 2011, 07:20:37 PM
get them away from the farms & into the woods. the feet need to eat too.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on December 11, 2011, 09:40:46 AM
Colockum,
that issue with the roads is being addressed at the next GMAC meeting (this coming Saturday), here is a cut and paste from the agenda:
9:30 Colockum Elk Herd – Road Management Plan
Did anyone go?
Post by: colockumelk on December 12, 2011, 06:36:39 AM
The other paper was about the reasons why they should give out cow permits for all three user groups. I do not know how the meeting went so you will have to ask NWWABOWHNTR.
Post by: danderson on December 12, 2011, 06:59:04 AM
Post by: colockumelk on December 12, 2011, 07:21:54 AM
Why do the master hunters get all the easy hunts , if there masters then make-em have to work for it like the rest of us, if the WDFW doesnt start spreading opportunity to all the user groups, everyone will be forced to become a master hunter just to fill there freezer.
Because the WDFW gets free labor out of the master hunters. So therefore in return they get some easy hunts, basically guaranteed freezer filling hunts.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on December 12, 2011, 07:24:28 AM
Post by: colockumelk on December 12, 2011, 07:47:33 AM
and they've passed a shooting proficiency test and more strenuous ethics test- they don't want to open some areas to people that have not been more heavily screened.
Yes and that as well. Personally if I had it my way I think a better way to run the Master-Hunter program would be this.
For the hunts that go on in the Kittitas Valley where they are damage control hunts, in the hay fields. I think that Master-Hunters should not get the go ahead for these harvests. I think that they should go to the Disabled, like the can't walk disabled, not the heart condition or over weight disabled. After the severely disabled have had their "turn" then let it go to the youth hunters. So yeah all these damage control hunts on private dirt should go to these two groups.
The Master-Hunters could still have their extended antlerless seasons in the sage brush. And they should keep their MH special permits. I have no qualms with that. I just think that for these super easy hunts where you have a 90% probability of kill from the road, that they should go to the people who can ONLY hunt from a road. And that is the disabled. Then the youth. :twocents:
Post by: jstone on December 12, 2011, 12:18:33 PM
Post by: krism83 on December 12, 2011, 12:57:28 PM
Post by: PlateauNDN on December 12, 2011, 01:54:58 PM
The master hunter tag thing is new to me, I read the Draft Proposal for this plan a week or so ago and it made no mention of it being a "Master Hunter" draw. It simply laid out the ground work of how many per year, hunters per day and such. I did not that it was going to be a modern firearm only permit to "elevate the level of success." I guess I am naive and don't see the problem with 10 hunters a day in selected 1 month groupings going out and trying to harvest 75 head per season. Without trying to rub anyone the wrong way, it would almost appear that some people did no further research then read the newspaper articles and then jump to heavy conclusions...
I think they were just giving ideas about how to best approach the plan. :dunno: You are correct, in that the plan does not say anything about MH's.
Post by: krism83 on December 12, 2011, 02:39:28 PM
I can see how some were trying to offer a ideas as to the "solution", I was referring to the comments made about the Yakima tribe "raping" this opportunity. Obviously someone didn't do their homework, as the YN is one of the agencies presenting this idea to the state, along with the DOE. The way I read it also seemed like a lot of people on this thread assumed that WDFW was going to just let a bunch of guys out onto a set piece of property and chase the elk around. Again, it may be that I don't understand completely, but I don't see how 10 hunters a day are going to spook 700 elk into the "no go" zone. I think that limiting the type/amount of animals to be harvested per year is going to cull the population without damaging the herds to greatly from year to year. They will still be able to breed and be able raise younger bulls and cows, while slowly "downsizing" its population.
Post by: danderson on December 12, 2011, 08:25:49 PM
Post by: rotty33 on December 12, 2011, 10:08:57 PM
Post by: loper on December 13, 2011, 03:57:08 PM
Wish they would show success rates for us. I'm sure it is very low.
Here is a summary of the 2010 Game Harvest Reports for Elk - Master Hunter: :)
379 permits available
288 hunter reports returned
180 actual hunters
119 elk harvested
Permit Success (# of elk harvested/# of permits available) = 31.4%
Report Success (# of elk harvested/# of reports returned) = 41.3%
Hunter Success (# of elk harvested/# of actual hunters) = 66.1%
Specific permit units might be troublesome; overall, those numbers look pretty good (IMO).
Post by: plugger on December 13, 2011, 06:10:27 PM
Post by: TampicoElk on December 16, 2011, 11:14:10 PM
But the bigger question is written in their proposal; just what exactly does the following imply under V. C page 8: " Disturbance from hunting could result in elk crossing Highway 240 and moving into the central portion of the Hanford Site where environmental issues from past DOE activities could impact the herd." Just what is keeping the herd from crossing over to the actual "Works" portion east of hwy 240 now? The 3 strand barbed wire fences along Hwy 240 were replaced with a single strand smooth wire in 2005 to prevent the buildup of tumbleweeds, their fire danger and so the deer & elk won't scratch their bellies jumping over it. FWS & DOE acknowledge that the lands east of hwy 240 pose environmental issues to all life forms; in fact the "Works" area is under DOE administration and only those lands west of the hwy are under FWS as they specifically do not manage hazardous sites. In fact, FWS has told DOE to clean up around all of the old NIKE missile batteries on the ALE & Walluke Slope because of the use of DDT, 245T, & other herbicides at those sites. The question in my mind is, what is the health of the herd considering the potential for contamination from God knows what? Have there been any studies looking for contamination in the blood & bone samples from these relatively short lived mammals? Maybe I'm overly cautious but I think we can all appreciate that elk know no boundaries and although Hanford played a key part to our national defense we have been paying and will continue to pay for it's cleanup to now protect us from all the contamination from that program...
Post by: krism83 on December 16, 2011, 11:50:18 PM
Seeing this post inspired me to join this site. It seems so highly unlikely that under the terms of the Proclamation 7319 - Establishment of the Hanford Reach National Monument (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=62329#axzz1glYx1qOG) & the mission statement of the USFWS (http://www.fws.gov/planning/Mission.html) that any hunt could occur no matter what WDFW or the YN wants. I didn't see how the USFWS proposal even addressed legally justifying a hunt when preservation & conservation are so clearly written into 7319. I thought that's why they first tried relocation! It isn't within 7319 to allow hunting!
But the bigger question is written in their proposal; just what exactly does the following imply under V. C page 8: " Disturbance from hunting could result in elk crossing Highway 240 and moving into the central portion of the Hanford Site where environmental issues from past DOE activities could impact the herd." Just what is keeping the herd from crossing over to the actual "Works" portion east of hwy 240 now? The 3 strand barbed wire fences along Hwy 240 were replaced with a single strand smooth wire in 2005 to prevent the buildup of tumbleweeds, their fire danger and so the deer & elk won't scratch their bellies jumping over it. FWS & DOE acknowledge that the lands east of hwy 240 pose environmental issues to all life forms; in fact the "Works" area is under DOE administration and only those lands west of the hwy are under FWS as they specifically do not manage hazardous sites. In fact, FWS has told DOE to clean up around all of the old NIKE missile batteries on the ALE & Walluke Slope because of the use of DDT, 245T, & other herbicides at those sites. The question in my mind is, what is the health of the herd considering the potential for contamination from God knows what? Have there been any studies looking for contamination in the blood & bone samples from these relatively short lived mammals? Maybe I'm overly cautious but I think we can all appreciate that elk know no boundaries and although Hanford played a key part to our national defense we have been paying and will continue to pay for it's cleanup to now protect us from all the contamination from that program...
I like this guy already!! Welcome aboard Tampico
Post by: conwaydave on December 17, 2011, 11:11:54 PM
Post by: JJB11B on December 18, 2011, 12:28:30 AM
Post by: JJB11B on December 18, 2011, 12:31:26 AM