Post by: bearpaw on December 13, 2011, 08:51:02 PM
I added a poll to gather your opinions before the upcoming commission meeting!
Post by: colockumelk on December 13, 2011, 09:22:35 PM
The basic issue is this. Yearling bull recruitment is extremely low. Only about 20% live through the general season. A large increase in tribal hunting and poaching is having a growing impact on mature bulls. Cow harvest has been eliminated since 2004 so the harvest has been completely focused on bulls. So tje cow population has increased and the bull population has decreased. The bull:cow ratio is 5:100 which is 4x lower than what it should be. The low bull to cow ratio significantly increases the bull populations natural mortality rate and also decreases the calf:cow ratio which is 27:100, which is 2x lower than it should be.
The reason for the low spike recruitment is a couple of things. For one the herd is not migratory. Unlike other herds which stays high far away from roads until tje snow flies, the Colockum herd stays low amongst the roads all year long. Speaking of roads the Colockum has a lot of roads and coupled with tje open terrain makes it so the elk don't have many places to escape hunting pressure. The area is open so there isn't a lot of places to hide. Also tje area is extremely popular so a lot of people hunt it.
This part might be getting into the weeds a bit. There is a game preserve called the Arthur Coffin Game Preserve. The elk know they are safe there so by the time the hunting season rolls around 50% of the elk herd is in or around the preserve. There are a lot of roads around the preserve. So it makes these elk very susceptible to poaching and tribal hunters. During the general season the place is literally ringed with camps. Since the place is so crowded with elk the least dominant elk get kicked out. The less dominant being spikes. So they hang around the outside of the preserve and are very vulnerable to licensed hunters.
What needs to happen is this. Start with antlerless tags given out. Try to cut tje cow population from 3,690 to 2,700. This will focus some of the harvest off of yearling bulls creating some escapement. Start some road closures to provide escapement. I suggested to the WDFW to create a roadless area around the game preserve of 1 mile. This would create the most amount of escapement for the most amount of elk for the cheapest. Them they need to close off a lot of the spur roads on the Naneum Basin. Again creating more escapement. In the Quilomene they need to continue with road closures during the winter to protect wintering elk from harassment, poachers and to decrease tribal harvest during the winter months. All of the road closures I mentioned would not only create escapement for the elk during tje general season nut it would also protect them from poachers and reduce tribal harvest.
Road closures would create escapement for yearling bulls and mean a higjer bull recruitment. The cow permits wpuld also raise bull recruitmemt by focusing some of the harvest on cows. A decrease in cows due to harvest and increased bull recruitment would double the bull to cow ratio in 3 years. GUARANTEED! No matter what we do we are still not going to fix the herd unless the Yakamas do the right thing and restrict their harvest or at the very least start reporting harvest. The Colockum has become very popular amongst the Yakamas and is a trophy hunt for them. They have a significant impact on the herd. In 2006 it was estimated ny tje WDFW that they harvested 40 bulls. That number is definately higher since more of their members hunt the Colockum. The only thing the WDFW can do is close roads to restrict road access.
The WDFW could give out 225 cow tags to archery, 90 to muzzle loader, and 230 for rifle. These numbers would harvest about 300 cows a year. A last resort would be to go permit only for bulls. If this happened the WDFW could hand out 150 any bull tags to archery, 60 to muzzle loader and 160 to rifle.
Hope that answered your question Dale.
Post by: bobcat on December 13, 2011, 09:44:00 PM
Use SCIENCE and manage the herd by issuing the appropriate number of special permits for both antlerless elk and bulls. Eliminate tribal hunting or at the least, reduce it by 90%, which probably means gates on most roads.
Pretty simple really. I'm sure the WDFW knows what needs to be done. They just don't know how to do it without losing money.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on December 13, 2011, 09:49:51 PM
No more general seasons.
Use SCIENCE and manage the herd by issuing the appropriate number of special permits for both antlerless elk and bulls. Eliminate tribal hunting or at the least, reduce it by 90%, which probably means gates on most roads.
Pretty simple really. I'm sure the WDFW knows what needs to be done. They just don't know how to do it without losing money.
:yeah:
Post by: gotshot on December 13, 2011, 09:52:52 PM
Post by: GoPlayOutside on December 13, 2011, 10:32:27 PM
I hate to say it, but go to draw only for Any Bull. Make it so you can draw the hunt every 2 or 3 years. Hopefully, this would limit the hunters, and make it more of a quality hunt.
Possibly make it so there is no vehicle traffic within 3-5 miles of the Game Reserve on top. This would make it so you had to hike your spike camp in to stay on top. This has worked pretty well in Idaho.
Post by: huntergreg on December 13, 2011, 10:59:59 PM
No more general seasons.
Use SCIENCE and manage the herd by issuing the appropriate number of special permits for both antlerless elk and bulls. Eliminate tribal hunting or at the least, reduce it by 90%, which probably means gates on most roads.
Pretty simple really. I'm sure the WDFW knows what needs to be done. They just don't know how to do it without losing money.
:yeah:
Post by: colockumelk on December 14, 2011, 07:11:44 AM
I forgot to mention one thing. We need to restore alot of the habitat up there. Like Elkahawlic Dawg has said time and time again. DNR has gone in there and removed WAY too much timber and hasn't restored any of it. Alot of places that once offered cover and concealment (aka escapement) is now bare. We need to work with the RMEF and start planting some trees. If I lived there I would volunteer my time. Maybe some of you Master Hunters could do this? Or anyone that loves the Colockum? So habitat restoration is also key.
I think in the next three years if we do some road managment, habitat restoration and cow harvest the elk herd can recover. But I do think that after three years of this we should take another serious hard look at the Colockum elk herd and if bull recruitment has not improved by at least 15% then yes I think it is time for permit only.
Post by: leed on December 14, 2011, 07:43:12 AM
Post by: idahoelkhunter300wby on December 14, 2011, 08:06:46 AM
As far as saving the herd, its not gonna happen until the tribal poaching is stopped. I have said it repeatetly but ill say it again, you all have no idea how many animals are being brought off of that mountain. I do, and if you did, it would make you all sick and pissed off.
Somehow Phill Lancaster from East Wenatchee has got to be stopped. If anyone would like to stop by and talk to him about it, his home address is 45 south June, East wenatchee. This guy is single handidly destroying the herd. He isnt helping the deer herds around here either.
Thats enough to chew on for now. Im curious to hear other's thoughts on my toughts.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on December 14, 2011, 08:32:32 AM
Post by: provider on December 14, 2011, 08:33:23 AM
Quote
No more general seasons.
Use SCIENCE and manage the herd by issuing the appropriate number of special permits for both antlerless elk and bulls. Eliminate tribal hunting or at the least, reduce it by 90%, which probably means gates on most roads.
Pretty simple really. I'm sure the WDFW knows what needs to be done. They just don't know how to do it without losing money.
This is the solution.
Post by: colockumelk on December 14, 2011, 08:34:02 AM
No matter what we do we are still not going to fix the herd unless the Yakamas do the right thing and restrict their harvest or at the very least start reporting harvest. The Colockum has become very popular amongst the Yakamas and is a trophy hunt for them. They have a significant impact on the herd. In 2006 it was estimated ny tje WDFW that they harvested 40 bulls. That number is definately higher since more of their members hunt the Colockum. The only thing the WDFW can do is close roads to restrict road access.
I agree idaho.
Post by: colockumelk on December 14, 2011, 08:40:10 AM
I already said it in public and private conversations with WDFW. Permit only. I'd rather have a nice shot at a bull or cow tag every three or four years than aggrevating combat hunting that brings every road hunting idiot to the Colockum. Suppose I'll get backlash on that.
So something along the lines of this. We could afford to harvest 300 cows a year and 200 bulls a year from that herd. And the herd would stay at 4,500 elk which is the WDFW objective. These numbers would also bring the bull:cow ratio up to 15:100 within 5 years. This is a total of 1,155 total permits. So in this instance we would only be displacing 1,855 hunters from 328/329. Also you would be pulling 205 Muzzle Loader guys from the Yakima herd, so really we would only be displacing 1,650 hunters each year. Since there is 12,500 hunters that hunt the Yakima herd every year 1,650 really isn't all that much more and I don't think would impact the Yakima elk herd like some seem to think. Especially since 10 years ago 23,000 hunters hunted the Yakima herd for elk. Currently there are only 7 Any Bull tags given out in the Colockum so the 475 that could be given out would be an increase of 68X more than what is currently given out. So you would be 68X more likely to draw a Any Bull tag. Tell me what you all think. I will write it up if you all want and send it to the WDFW. Again displacing these elk hunters is not going to affect the Yakima elk herd. :twocents:
Rifle: 228 cows x 85% success rate equals 270 cow permits
ML: 52 cows x 40% success rate equals permits 130 cow permits
Archery: 70 cows x 25% success rate equals 280 cow permits
Total Permits 680
Rifle: 130 bulls x 65% success rate equals 200 Any Bull permits
ML: 30 bulls x 40% success rate equals 75 Any bull permits
Arhcery: 40 bulls x 20% success rate equals 200 Any bull permits.
Total Permits 475
Post by: pat2bear on December 14, 2011, 04:30:31 PM
:yeah: Yep. I suggest they do the same thing with the deer in some of the 300 gmu's. But I doubt it will ever happen because they'll loose too much $$$. Which boggles my mind why they want wolves here so bad.... They don't buy tags. :dunno:QuoteNo more general seasons.
Use SCIENCE and manage the herd by issuing the appropriate number of special permits for both antlerless elk and bulls. Eliminate tribal hunting or at the least, reduce it by 90%, which probably means gates on most roads.
Pretty simple really. I'm sure the WDFW knows what needs to be done. They just don't know how to do it without losing money.
This is the solution.
Post by: gonehuntin68 on December 15, 2011, 12:56:26 PM
Post by: colockumelk on December 15, 2011, 02:57:16 PM
Also road closures like I mentioned above would reduce tribal harvest there by half if not more.
Post by: Rainier10 on December 15, 2011, 03:56:07 PM
Post by: 400out on December 15, 2011, 03:58:12 PM
Post by: colockumelk on December 15, 2011, 04:08:08 PM
There is plenty of feed. I am not sure why their herd goal is only 4,500. In 2000 it was 6,500. The only thing I can Thu.k of is the WDFW lowered their standards and goals. Since they can't accomplish much.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on December 15, 2011, 04:51:19 PM
The WDFW has the right/power/ability/authority whatever you want to call it to limit/regulate tribal harvest for the purpose of preserving/conserving the species. If there is a general season then the WDFW doesn't have the authority. But if its permit only the WDFW does. Kind of like in the Nooksak.
Also road closures like I mentioned above would reduce tribal harvest there by half if not more.
Okay....here it is with a lot of oldtimer blathering mixed in
"A few of you guys know this herd intimately, if you could change the management to try and improve this herd, what changes do you think would work the best to improve this herd?"
I may not have done the research numbers like Colockumelk has, but we are 46 years and four generations intimate with the Colockum Elk herd and it's central to northern range.
Throughout the majority of the years spent hunting there things were fine. Before green dot we drove almost anywhere. And yes the Game Reserve was bordered on 3 sides by open roads. Before 1972 the Colockum Pass road was the eastern boundary of the reserve, not Brewton road. There were a lot more hunters up there then than now
In the early 80s They came up with resource allocation and, moved the season from November to the last week of October. Didn't didn't like it but What could WE do?
Before this time elk season started either on a Sunday,or Monday.They also came up with an early and late tag and moved the opener for the early tag to Saturday, late tag on Monday. WHY some would ask, would anyone then buy a late tag?!?!?!?! Here is your answer. Special permits were only available to those who had purchased LATE tags. This was obviously before they discovered their cash cow. There also was no east or west tag....there was western, Blue mountain, Yakima,or Colockum tags, so you were more restricted east than you are now as to where you could go.
Was it 1994 that they expanded the Blue mountain "Spike only" to the Yakama, and Colockum herds.
Didn't like that either, but (once again)What could we do? In the early years there was a very noticeable increase in branched animals. and we ALL started feeding the cash cow! there were about 60 any bull permits issued in the Naneum, Mission, and Quilomene GMU's at that time. Now we have what, 6 all weapons? Colockum/Mission has become an OIL tag.
Things were okay for about 10 years and IT happened.What was it? would we call it racial discrimination, or just Gregoire, Casino campaign money? DNR Logging ? whatever it is, it has ruined a great area
In 2008 I attended the March final 3 year season setting Comm. meeting in Ellensburg and commented I would rather close the area for a couple years than go permit only. Since then it has got no better. we have been sacrificing since 1994 for what......
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Somehow Phill Lancaster from East Wenatchee has got to be stopped. If anyone would like to stop by and talk to him about it, his home address is 45 south June, East wenatchee. This guy is single handidly destroying the herd. He isnt helping the deer herds around here either."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now this is only ONE individual! I also hear there is another "problem child" family on the other side of the hump.
This year at the meeting in Moses lake I will be promoting Permit only since I hear in an emergency OTC closure to permit only will put the NA's and us on the same level. Am I wrong on that CE
Rifle: 228 cows x 85% success rate equals 270 cow permits
ML: 52 cows x 40% success rate equals permits 130 cow permits
Archery: 70 cows x 25% success rate equals 280 cow permits
Total Permits 680
Rifle: 130 bulls x 65% success rate equals 200 Any Bull permits
ML: 30 bulls x 40% success rate equals 75 Any bull permits
Arhcery: 40 bulls x 20% success rate equals 200 Any bull permits.
Total Permits 475
They would probably be wise to increase the group size for this particular SP,since there are some large camps up there/OR in our case there are 4 separate families in camp and many of us just love the experience of just being there ,so we would probably put in in 3-4 smaller groups so that the chances would be better we would have a reason to go at all.
If not we would certainly invade someone else's area.
Now as a 1/2, or 1, or 5 mile buffer around the Art Coffin Game RESERVE ( not refuge or preserve) and all other road closure issues .......Comparing the roads in the 328/329 and the 251 is definately apples to oranges. In the 251 you have only 2 access roads Colockum Pass and Schaller/Jumpoff with Naneum road connecting them bordering the reserve. There is much more cover on the open side of this road than Colockum pass rd. until you get to the DNR mess beyond 4 corners( which is abou3/8 mile from the reserve.)
In the four miles between the monument at Colockum/Naneum junction to the Wood line at four corners there were (M/R) less than 10 camps. Now lets compare that to the number (Colockum pass) of camps from the the reserve south toward that steel line. How many, and LARGE camps, and much more wide open flat country. I would estimate at least five times more camps and hunters,and that's only about a 3 mile distance.
I suppose you could close the Brewton,and then the Reserve would only have a road on the north border. But as we have read in other threads, that there are some N. A's that don't need a road, or the lands commissioner has passed out keys
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
My idea is permit only (ech!) Colockum. Consider the early/late tag thing again if not permit only. and figure out whatever it is that can stop the slaughter of our big bulls by unlicensed untagged hunters who have months to do their damage,and have been for too long.
Or close it all together for a couple years
Sorry for all the added history........
Post by: colockumelk on December 15, 2011, 06:53:08 PM
Post by: bearpaw on December 18, 2011, 02:45:12 PM
Post by: danderson on December 18, 2011, 04:48:28 PM
Post by: jechicdr on December 18, 2011, 09:28:07 PM
Post by: bone collector 12 on December 18, 2011, 09:33:56 PM
Its pretty obvious at this point in the overall managment of the colockum heard that its not working, close the access off to all EXCEPT ground powders only, for one year, then see what happens, then if the ratio of bulls to cows doesnt improve, go to 3-point minimum.:yeah:
Post by: C-Money on December 18, 2011, 10:12:25 PM
Post by: Happy Gilmore on December 18, 2011, 11:20:19 PM
Many non-hunters have helped keep these types of areas available for recreation and us hunters need to reasonably support the "others" to keep the balance of use. Without use by many, it means we will have less as a group.
Post by: colockumelk on December 19, 2011, 07:21:36 AM
Yes if the WDFW takes an area from OTC to permit only to preserve the herd due to failing numbers and considers it for conservation then yes they have the legal right to restrict tribal harvest. There are some things that we as citizens would need to do to ensure that the WDFW actually does this. Just because the WDFW has the legal right to do so, doesn't mean they will. Because the WDFW has shown a pattern of not standing up for hunters rights if it means any sort of tribal confrontation. So the answer to your question Elkaholic dawg is yes they have the legal right to do so. But the question I have is would they. This is where us as hunters need to start holding the WDFW feet to the fire.
The other part of this is people mistakingly reference the Boldt Decision with big game. The Boldt Decision has NOTHING to do with big game. It was solely about fishing and specifically about commercial fishing. I have read it a few times and I have NEVER seen anything about big game. So people tribal and non-tribal associate the Boldt Decision with big game. The other mistake people make is the Boldt Decision gave the tribal commercial fisherman the right to their "fair share". Most people take this as that the tribes get half of everything. This is also not true. The Boldt Decision specifies what it means by "fair share". And "fair share" means if you have 9 licensed hunters and 1 tribal hunter. And there is 10 elk. The licensed hunters have a right to 9 elk and the tribal hunter gets one elk. It does not mean that the 1 tribal hunter gets 5 elk to himself and the 9 licensed hunters have to share the other 5. This is probably the biggest misunderstanding about the Boldt Decision.
Now if the WDFW did limit tribal harvest then I am sure the Yakama's would take them to court. But this would take a few years so the elk would be safe. For that time. Now even though the Boldt Decision does not deal with big game hunting, it could be used as legal precidence. But this would be a good thing for licensed hunters.
I think that smart road managment would have the largest impact on unrestricted tribal harvest. The more you make these guys walk the less animals they are going to kill. Lets face it the Colockum as far as terrain goes is pretty tame. And with all the roads up there you have some pretty easy access to some big bulls. You can get a big bull without much effort. So the guys that are up there dropping multiple big bulls are not the guys who are willing to burn some boot leather and hike in for a couple of miles like Plateau. These guys want the biggest kill with the least amount of effort. So you do some smart road managment and you are going to severely put a damper on the amount of bulls they have access to.
Elkaholic thank you for the heads up and input on exactly where and how many camps there are. But your example brings up a good point. Less people hunt the 251 side because there are less roads. Alot less roads. There are also alot less animals killed. IMHO this shows that road managment does work. Also your description of where the roads are and exact roads in relation to the coffin game reserve shows that maybe a perfect 1 mile circle would not work. It might look more like an ameoba. But I am firm in the belief that the best thing we can do for that elk herd is make sure that there is as large a buffer as possible between the boundaries of the game reserve and an open road. I think the impact would be very dramatic. In a positive way. Even if this means that you can no longer drive from Colockum Pass road to Coleman etc.
My goal in road managment is to close the least amount of roads possible, and still get the results we need. Which is more escapement for the spikes from the licensed hunters and more escapement for the branch bulls from the tribal hunters and poachers.
Post by: colockumelk on December 19, 2011, 07:50:26 AM
Plenty of grass for the deer, elk and cattle up in the Colockum. If permit only would put us all on a level playing field, let look hard at doing it! I must say it again, we need to figure out how to let folks who are not breaking any laws, continue to access to the land, and green dot roads.
Yeah plenty of grass for all mentioned above. I don't want it to go permit only yet. I would like some cow managment and some smart road managment and then see how that does before going to permit only. Going to permit only is a big step one that we may never get back. I would like to see that done as a last resort. But.... if we have to do it to save the herd then I am 100% for it.
As far as road managment goes. I would like to close the least amount of roads possible and still achieve our goal. I think the road closures I mentioned that creates a 1 mile buffer betweent he resrve boundaries and an open road would do this, without having to close other roads down. The other thing I would like to see is all those roads that don't have a green dot and that have a red sign. They need to actually CLOSE those roads. The WDFW mentioned that they are having problems with road managment and enforcement. Well no :crap: you think. Does the WDFW really think that a red sign nailed to a tree on the side of the road is going to stop people from driving passed it? No of course it wont. So they need to put up gates or mine fields or whatever so that those closed roads are actually closed.
So if I was boss for a day. I would do 2 things. Step 1.) Physically close and barrier the roads that are already posted. Step 2.) create the 1 mile buffer around the game reserve. Then monitor. And see if this is enough.
Because you guys are correct. Hunters are not the only ones that use those roads. However I will provide this little caveat. Alot of times we complain about how DNR manages their roads. And how they do not create enough escapement or they cut too many trees down or not enough trees. Their job is forest managment and not elk and deer managment. So they should manage their roads and forests based on their goal. Which is to make money off of trees. Now the WDFW job is todo two things, properly manage the elk and deer herds, so they are at the proper sustainment level and so that the deer and elk herds are at the proper boy:girl ratio. Therefore I believe that the WDFW should manage the roads on their property based upon creating enough escapement to accomplish the afore mentioned goals.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on December 19, 2011, 08:23:21 AM
Its pretty obvious at this point in the overall managment of the colockum heard that its not working, close the access off to all EXCEPT ground powders only, for one year, then see what happens, then if the ratio of bulls to cows doesnt improve, go to 3-point minimum.
If you want the most bang for your buck,lets make it everyone! (for one year)
3 years ago I spoke at the 2008 final 3 year commission meeting in E-burg an said I would rather see it closed completely for a couple years ago than go to permit only. Colockumelk (who I never really met) spoke up in support of permit only. I'm seeing they N/A impact now and they could do either and have a greater effect than closing any road, locking out many non hunters (motorized ) to their recreation opportunities.
By the way, A family member was up there on his Quad with friend and got to piss off some NA's in a suburban headed down toward the west bar area. didn't like the added noise I guess. have a license # if anyone cares. We need weather up there badly
Post by: Recurve-Elk on December 19, 2011, 08:55:07 AM
I personally hate the idea of draw only. I love to hunt i don't care if I am successful or not. If I was to lose my general season I would be a saaaad sad camper. I don't even hunt the Colockum anymore, but know if they make one area permit only it is only easier to make others permit only as well.
Post by: PlateauNDN on December 19, 2011, 09:47:01 AM
Post by: Rainier10 on December 19, 2011, 10:11:42 AM
There are cattle up there. But I don't tho.k there is a lack of feed. Rainier if it went permit only you would only displace maybe 1,800 hunters. 12,000 guys already hunt the Yakima herd so another 1,800 wouldn't do much. Especially since in 2001 just ten years ago 23,000 hunters hunted the Yakima herd.Are you saying they are only displacing 1800 hunters because your proposal would be to have 1200 permits in the area for bull and cow harvest?
There is plenty of feed. I am not sure why their herd goal is only 4,500. In 2000 it was 6,500. The only thing I can Thu.k of is the WDFW lowered their standards and goals. Since they can't accomplish much.
As far as feed, there are cattle grazing the upper elevations in the summer. This is another one up for debate. My cabin in 328 is part of a township that for revenue to maintain our roads use to lease the land to a cattle rancher from May to August. Many times the cattle would get dropped off in April and not picked up until September adding 2 months of additional grazing to the resource. If it was a late spring the grasses were barely coming in when the cattle arrived and wouldn't get a chance to take good root before the cattle were pulling them up. When they were in until September they just ate too much. For the past few years we haven't leased the land under advice of others that the cattle were eating the natural vegetation down to far. The deer and elk move through as they graze, the cattle stay in one area longer and really eat the vegetation down. Since we stopped leasing the land the grasses are taller and thicker providing more feed for the deer and elk. The adjacent state and DNR land still gets leased to ranchers and has cattle on it during the summer so I am sure this land has less feed for the deer and elk because of the cattle grazing.
Post by: Rainier10 on December 19, 2011, 10:23:37 AM
The grazing in the summer by cattle is in part to lower fire danger on DNR land because the cattle eat the grasses down farther than the deer and elk do. DNR is trying to protect the trees that they make money off of. If you stop the cattle grazing you first have to close more roads and patrol it because with taller grasses the fire danger will be higher and if you still have lots of motor vehicle traffic in there during the dry months it is a recipe for disaster. They have closed some roads by my cabin for elk calving but people don't know that is the reason so they just drive around the tank traps because that is what they have always done. They think they are getting more taken away unfairly and don't realize that it is for the better health of the wildlife to close certain areas down. Take the long way around, you don't have to take a short cut through the elk calving nursery.
Post by: colockumelk on December 19, 2011, 10:41:57 AM
And Plateau we are doing road managment. But I have to agree with some. We are doing our part to try and save this elk herd. There have always been this many roads open if not more. Plus there were more hunters and more liberal seasons in the past. And until the Colockum became a popular destination for Yakama tribal hunters the branch bull population was on the rise. Now licensed hunters have the least amount of opportunities than ever, we have the most restrictive set of rules in the entire West (true-spike) and the least amount of branch bull tags of any unit in WA, and still our branch bull population is on the decline. I don't think poaching has increased and in fact with the closing off of the winter range and closing of more and more roads in the Colockum, I would guess that poaching has slightly declined.
Not to stir the pot but the simple truth is we can close as many roads as we want to, but unless we turn the Colockum into a wilderness area, true spike and road closures are not going to work unless the Yakama's step up and manage their hunters.
Post by: PlateauNDN on December 19, 2011, 11:04:11 AM
Post by: C-Money on December 19, 2011, 11:12:26 AM
So if I was boss for a day. I would do 2 things. Step 1.) Physically close and barrier the roads that are already posted. Step 2.) create the 1 mile buffer around the game reserve. Then monitor. And see if this is enough.
:yeah: I like it. Seal up the " no unauthorized vehicles beyond this point " roads, and buffer the reserve. This would I feel do A LOT to help the elk, and yet allow familys to still camp and enjoy this wounderful place to spend lawful time.
I agree, if we go permit only, we will never go back to OTC. What ever we do, I would like to harvest a branch bull in my life time, and I hope my wife and kids can do the same with me.
Post by: whiteeyes on December 19, 2011, 11:12:48 AM
Post by: Rainier10 on December 19, 2011, 11:20:20 AM
I have noticed in our area with the cattle out that we have way more grass and brush vegetation than in years past and that vegetation, even though it is dry and dead in the winter, is used by the deer and elk for winter feed.
Post by: C-Money on December 19, 2011, 11:25:06 AM
Post by: colockumelk on December 19, 2011, 11:31:59 AM
Plateau you know my stance. I agree without evidence it's just hearsay. I just look at the numbers and herd survey reports and put two and two together. But without pictures its just hearsey. As far as a wilderness area I would not support it. Yes I can hike in deep but alot of people can't. The area shouldn't have to be shut down to all vehicle traffic just because of the actions of a few. The majority of people shouldnt' lose opportunity and shouldn't be punished because of the actions of a few. Especially when those actions could be stopped by those in power.
People can blame the Yakamas all they want, the problem is you cant cram 10 people in a 2 person car.
Not sure what this means. Could you please elaborate.
Post by: NoBark on December 19, 2011, 11:41:13 AM
Apparently no one in the WDFW agrees with your reading of the Boldt Discision. When the Nooksack herd was opened to harvest, it went 50-50 public-native. While I like your version, the attourney general of this state reads it differently.
Post by: Rainier10 on December 19, 2011, 11:45:13 AM
The thing about grazing is it is really complicated. They want to have the cattle graze the land for revenue and to keep the grasses down so the fire hazard stays low and they don't lose their real money maker, logging. If the grazing were better managed it might work for cattle and elk, but more management costs more money and nobody has that right now. The almighty dollar reigns supreme and in the end it is the wildlife that suffers.
Post by: colockumelk on December 19, 2011, 11:48:09 AM
NoBark, thank you for using the Nooksack herd. That reminds me, that is one area and one situation where the WDFW used its legal right to restrict tribal harvest. So I don't see why it couldn't happen in the Colockum.
Post by: Rainier10 on December 19, 2011, 12:49:08 PM
I think this question about hunters got missed. Are you saying 1800 hunters will be displaced because there are currently 3000 hunting it and your proposal would give out 1200 permits if it went permit only or do you have numbers saying only 1800 people hunt it now?There are cattle up there. But I don't tho.k there is a lack of feed. Rainier if it went permit only you would only displace maybe 1,800 hunters. 12,000 guys already hunt the Yakima herd so another 1,800 wouldn't do much. Especially since in 2001 just ten years ago 23,000 hunters hunted the Yakima herd.Are you saying they are only displacing 1800 hunters because your proposal would be to have 1200 permits in the area for bull and cow harvest?
There is plenty of feed. I am not sure why their herd goal is only 4,500. In 2000 it was 6,500. The only thing I can Thu.k of is the WDFW lowered their standards and goals. Since they can't accomplish much.
Post by: colockumelk on December 19, 2011, 01:03:30 PM
Post by: Happy Gilmore on December 19, 2011, 01:07:15 PM
Closing the roads negatively affects all of the other users while only doing a little to "reduce" access to elk by the tribal hunters. If you make a policy for the public or suggest a policy for the public with only ONE user in mind, it will fail.
The only arguement I've seen here in reading again is that road closures will keep out what we know are poachers. I've talked to F&W about it, my buddies who live in Ellensburg and have been hunting it all their lives talk to F&W about it. The only thing that people can do, that F&W can do is issue trespassing violations when the Tribal hunting is occuring.
Best policy would be to set up a citizens' patrol and report illegal off-roading to local Enforcement. So, make more roads off limits and it can give Enforcement a tool to reduce illegal use. Ok, but, that in turns limits use for the rest of the people and the rest of the year.
I am NEVER against limiting use of public land. It always bites hunters back later at some point and time. For each thing we give up, we'll never get back.
Post by: colockumelk on December 19, 2011, 01:18:12 PM
Road closure takes away recreational opportunities for the area. There are fewer and fewer areas where you can go for a ORV Ride or take a 4x4 up in the hills for an afternoon with friends, sight in your gun, look for sheds, campout...whatever. There is still plenty of roads to drive in the Colockum.
Closing the roads negatively affects all of the other users while only doing a little to "reduce" access to elk by the tribal hunters. If you make a policy for the public or suggest a policy for the public with only ONE user in mind, it will fail. What will fail. Road closures will do more to protect our elk herds and provide escapement than all the things you have listed. Study after study proves this.
The only arguement I've seen here in reading again is that road closures will keep out what we know are poachers. I've talked to F&W about it, my buddies who live in Ellensburg and have been hunting it all their lives talk to F&W about it. The only thing that people can do, that F&W can do is issue trespassing violations when the Tribal hunting is occuring. Yes. Or they could put up physical barriers instead of a red sign. The red signs are a joke and local hunters take them down or disregard them all the time.
Best policy would be to set up a citizens' patrol and report illegal off-roading to local Enforcement. So, make more roads off limits and it can give Enforcement a tool to reduce illegal use. Ok, but, that in turns limits use for the rest of the people and the rest of the year. The citizens patrol isn't gonna work. Why because people are not going to volunteer for this. Or at least in numbers that will be effective. Road management is the easiest, most effective and cheapest way to limit poaching, tribal harvest and to provide escapement for yearling bulls from hunters.
I am NEVER against limiting use of public land. It always bites hunters back later at some point and time. For each thing we give up, we'll never get back. Road managmnet ALWAYS make for a healthier game population. There is a TON of road access in the Colockum. The road managment ideas I provided isn't going to put a dent in the amount of miles you can still drive in the Colockum. The sky isn't falling. Its not going to become a wilderness area. You shouldn't be able to drive up to a game reserve designed to protect elk.
Happy Gilmore I appreciate your input and I hope you continue your stance on road managment. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean that I don't appreciate and welcome your input. I think that you are wrong. But that doesn't mean I'm 100% right either. :tup:
Post by: Rainier10 on December 19, 2011, 01:39:16 PM
To stay on topic I agree with Happy that I would prefer roads not close because I too use the area for hunting, recreation, atv and snowmobile use. There are tons of user groups that would be affected but my main concern is the health of the herd and what is best for that. That is where I have to agree with Colockum in that road closures are good for wildlife.
This is a tough one that the WDFW is struggling with also, nobody knows what the answer is but the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Well if they keep letting the tribes harvest unrestricted amounts of animals and expect the herd to recover they are insane. If they don't enforce the green dot system they have now and expect people to obey it they are insane.
Post by: Happy Gilmore on December 19, 2011, 01:57:26 PM
Colockum, thanks for the clarification on the hunter numbers, now I see where you are coming from. Those numbers for the Yakima area are interesting, that is quite a drop and probably a whole different discussion of what caused that.
To stay on topic I agree with Happy that I would prefer roads not close because I too use the area for hunting, recreation, atv and snowmobile use. There are tons of user groups that would be affected but my main concern is the health of the herd and what is best for that. That is where I have to agree with Colockum in that road closures are good for wildlife.
This is a tough one that the WDFW is struggling with also, nobody knows what the answer is but the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Well if they keep letting the tribes harvest unrestricted amounts of animals and expect the herd to recover they are insane. If they don't enforce the green dot system they have now and expect people to obey it they are insane.
That is the entire problem with the road closure argument. It is limiting the recreational opportunities of ALL other users of the area. We all know why we want roads closed. To stop tribal hunting. Seasonal road closures would have to be significant to stop the poaching. As hunters, we've already got our hands tied by the general public and specifically looking at a major management change which only is aimed at reducing the harvest by ONE group of bad seeds isn't good for any of us and really isn't doing much more than taking away opportunities from the average guy who's been hunting the same spot, year after year.
It would upset me if it went to a draw area and all the roads were closed because that was the only way to keep "some" people out.
Post by: C-Money on December 19, 2011, 02:02:16 PM
Post by: Happy Gilmore on December 19, 2011, 02:12:14 PM
I'm on the CAB with F&W for the units from Carnation to Everett. I was pleasantly surprised that the lady representing the Tundra Swan group was not opposed to hunters and was interested in working WITH us to get more money from private groups to plant habitat, feed and remove blackberries and create more nesting areas.
After our last meeting I am more convinced that an open approach with various users of areas is positive and "responsible" management. There is a wildflower group interested in helping out, bird watchers etc. If we as "hunters" went in with the idea of closing access to our "huntable" areas, other groups will turn a cold shoulder on us. They'd rather just see hunting closed all together to solve the problem. Rather than closures, working together to gain momentum will be a positive. If people are up interested in picking flowers get to see elk grazing in their meadows, they in turn start having pride in the area. If bird watchers see elk in an area where they've installed some nesting boxes, they have more pride in the area, if kids are taken on field trips and given lectures on the habitat they take pride in that down the road.
I don't know the answer but, maybe limiting grazing, getting a group who is interested in wildflowers and meadow improvements to become involved, a bird watching group? I don't know? but, just saying "close the gates" for the elk doesn't seem like a responsible well thought out plan to make long term improvements to any public area.
Post by: Rainier10 on December 19, 2011, 02:52:28 PM
And you are spot on about enforcement of the current road system and hunting rules, that is exactly what they need, the problem is that costs money and we all know that is limited.
Post by: Happy Gilmore on December 19, 2011, 03:01:27 PM
I think by closing roads I was talking about some of the roads, I don't want to see it a wildneress walk in only area. Right now there are roads everywhere and you can drive to every nook and cranny up there giving the elk no where to hide. If you close some of the roads people can still get access, just not be able to drive every square inch, that would give the elk some room to have escapement and a place to calve.
And you are spot on about enforcement of the current road system and hunting rules, that is exactly what they need, the problem is that costs money and we all know that is limited.
The reality is that escapement is only an issue during hunting season. Elk don't care about cars driving by. They care when they start getting shot at. Elk are happy to have their picture taken while grazing at all the feeding stations. They are just as happy to have their pictures taken when folks spot them in a canyon on a hillside from a nearby road. They don't panic and run.
This is my whole point. Maybe I've taken the discussion the wrong way? I'm hearing permanent closures or until further notice type of closures. I just wouldn't agree with that in any way shape or form. This is a specific closure which may "need" to happen during hunting season only. This closure "might" help reduce poaching of the big bulls during a specific period of time affecting only ONE group of users, hunters. I'd say 90% of the general population is fine with closing roads to hunters.
Do all the hunters here on this page agree we should close roads to reduce poachers and tribal harvests? I'd guess probably not.
Post by: bobcat on December 19, 2011, 03:05:41 PM
The reality is that escapement is only an issue during hunting season. Elk don't care about cars driving by. They care when they start getting shot at. Elk are happy to have their picture taken while grazing at all the feeding stations. They are just as happy to have their pictures taken when folks spot them in a canyon on a hillside from a nearby road. They don't panic and run.
That may be true, but isn't "hunting season" up there from the first of August through the end of March?
Post by: Happy Gilmore on December 19, 2011, 03:11:26 PM
The reality is that escapement is only an issue during hunting season. Elk don't care about cars driving by. They care when they start getting shot at. Elk are happy to have their picture taken while grazing at all the feeding stations. They are just as happy to have their pictures taken when folks spot them in a canyon on a hillside from a nearby road. They don't panic and run.
That may be true, but isn't "hunting season" up there from the first of August through the end of March?
Tribal? yeah....I know, it's kind of my whole point. Something needs to be done and I agree 100% but, closing access specifically due to a the poor use by a small group doing a lot of damage is tough to swallow for me.
Post by: Rainier10 on December 19, 2011, 03:35:03 PM
We are probably going to have to agree to disagree on this one, we just have different opinion on the reality of escapement, I think it is a year round thing you think it only happens during the hunting season.
Post by: predatorpro on December 19, 2011, 03:44:00 PM
Post by: Happy Gilmore on December 19, 2011, 03:45:55 PM
Well in the area around my cabin they do alright if you don't get to close to them, but people never keep their distance, they have to drive closer and then when the elk run they drive around to the road in front of them and cut them off for a closer view. Elk definately don't like the quads circling them and trying to get close enough to get pictures or the quads taking short cuts between roads and scaring the newborn calves laying down waiting for their mothers to return. Or the snowmobilers chasing them down to get pictures of big bulls or worse chasing them to get the antlers to fall off so they can keep the sheds. I ride quads on the roads, and I ride my snowmobile but don't harrass the wildlife, all I am saying is if they closed some of the roads it would give the animals a little more room to be animals without as much pressure.
We are probably going to have to agree to disagree on this one, we just have different opinion on the reality of escapement, I think it is a year round thing you think it only happens during the hunting season.
No, you are right and I agree with that and know that it happens. I know that they are not going to be driven nearly as far as if someone is hunting. If hunting and folks are on quads they will likely continue pursuit with more devotion for the prize, especially those who can take long shots. I haven't ventured into the area during modern rifle for many years because the few times I did I was scared for my safety.
Post by: colockumelk on December 19, 2011, 03:49:34 PM
Happy you are going way out on some limbs. The flower pickers and bird watchers are not gonna help us out. But prove me wrong. Go out and get their help. Work your angles and I will work mine. Your plans have a lot of what its.
Here is what I am gonna do. I am going to push for road managment. I am going to push to have gates and tank traps put up physically blocking the roads that are already posted. Then when that is done I am going to push to do closures to create a 1 mile buffer around the game reserve. Then if there is still money left push to close spur roads that lead nowhere. This will provide A LOT of escapement and won't hardly put a dent in the amount of miles you can drive in the colockum.
At the same time I am going to collect evidence and try to make my case for tribal managment and cooperation. As well as bringing these issues to the publics attention. You mentioned that not everyone would support road closures which maybe true. But I guarantee you that they ALL would rather see road management than permit only.
Post by: colockumelk on December 19, 2011, 03:58:46 PM
Post by: Happy Gilmore on December 19, 2011, 04:04:10 PM
I mentioned this in another forum but in order to hunt tje Colockum with a bow you would have to be a complete moron. :tup:
I don't know of a year where an animal has not been taken by the guys in our camp.
I think we should just close the roads to rifle hunters, that would eliminate all the morons in the Colockum. :tup:
Post by: colockumelk on December 19, 2011, 04:23:46 PM
I mentioned this in another forum but in order to hunt tje Colockum with a bow you would have to be a complete moron. :tup:
I don't know of a year where an animal has not been taken by the guys in our camp.
I think we should just close the roads to rifle hunters, that would eliminate all the morons in the Colockum. :tup:
Happy I was just kidding. I am a moron because I hunt the Colockum with a bow everyear. I also got one this year. As far as your comment about rifle hunters :peep:
Post by: Happy Gilmore on December 19, 2011, 11:20:04 PM
I mentioned this in another forum but in order to hunt tje Colockum with a bow you would have to be a complete moron. :tup:
I don't know of a year where an animal has not been taken by the guys in our camp.
I think we should just close the roads to rifle hunters, that would eliminate all the morons in the Colockum. :tup:
Happy I was just kidding. I am a moron because I hunt the Colockum with a bow everyear. I also got one this year. As far as your comment about rifle hunters :peep:
you hunt it every year then you know the doctor......and a couple of guys who work in grocery stores in E-Burg....
Post by: NWBREW on December 20, 2011, 03:13:01 AM
I think we should just close the roads to rifle hunters, that would eliminate all the morons in the Colockum. :tup:
Yeah......I'll say it. If you close the roads to rifle hunters why would not close them to bow hunters? or were you just being a moron when you stated that.
Post by: bearpaw on December 20, 2011, 07:21:00 AM
Are predators an issue in the colockum or is it mostly human impact combined with easy access and limited cover that are the primary limiting factors?
Post by: colockumelk on December 20, 2011, 07:46:16 AM
We have some road closures on mule deer winter range in GMU 101 that I think run Dec 1 to March 31. I am sure they help save a few deer, but our predator population is so high that a year round road closure probably wouldn't solve the problem. Our mule deer numbers are only a fraction of what they used to be and are basically in a predator pit and unable to rebound.
Are predators an issue in the colockum or is it mostly human impact combined with easy access and limited cover that are the primary limiting factors?
I think predators are always somewhat of an issue, but it isn't the issue in the Colockum. The problem with the Colockum is the easy access with limited cover. We don't have wolves like you guys in the NE do. There are bears in the Colockum but not even close to the number you have in the NE. Not even close. And I'm sure there are cougars in the Colockum I just have never seen one or seen cougar sign. This year was only the second time I have seen bear sign.
Happy Gilmore I do not know the doctor or any of the guys who work in the grocery stores in Eburg. Other than I met one guy who works in Albertson's who's brother or brother in law drew the first Rifle Rut tag in the Colockum. He showed me the picture and it was impressive. Where I hunt in the Colockum I don't really ever see anybody, other than if I am sitting in camp for lunch and guys drive by.
NWBREW not defending his statement. But the rifle season has a much much much larger impact on the Colockum elk herd than the bow season does. According to harvest reports in the last three years on average bow hunters only have killed 21.33 true spikes a year. Where rifle hunters have killed on average 184.33. So if the Colockum went permit only for rifle hunters but stayed over the counter for bow (something I would not support) it would be okay for the herd. Archers have a very minimal impact on the herd. I would venture to say there is one person (who we shall not name) and a family (who we shall not name) that combines for easily twice what archers take out of the Colockum each year.
Post by: Rainier10 on December 20, 2011, 08:33:14 AM
If one guy or a couple of guys is actually taking 20 plus animals a year that is a really big problem.
Post by: Happy Gilmore on December 20, 2011, 09:04:48 AM
We have some road closures on mule deer winter range in GMU 101 that I think run Dec 1 to March 31. I am sure they help save a few deer, but our predator population is so high that a year round road closure probably wouldn't solve the problem. Our mule deer numbers are only a fraction of what they used to be and are basically in a predator pit and unable to rebound.
Are predators an issue in the colockum or is it mostly human impact combined with easy access and limited cover that are the primary limiting factors?
I think predators are always somewhat of an issue, but it isn't the issue in the Colockum. The problem with the Colockum is the easy access with limited cover. We don't have wolves like you guys in the NE do. There are bears in the Colockum but not even close to the number you have in the NE. Not even close. And I'm sure there are cougars in the Colockum I just have never seen one or seen cougar sign. This year was only the second time I have seen bear sign.
Happy Gilmore I do not know the doctor or any of the guys who work in the grocery stores in Eburg. Other than I met one guy who works in Albertson's who's brother or brother in law drew the first Rifle Rut tag in the Colockum. He showed me the picture and it was impressive. Where I hunt in the Colockum I don't really ever see anybody, other than if I am sitting in camp for lunch and guys drive by.
NWBREW not defending his statement. But the rifle season has a much much much larger impact on the Colockum elk herd than the bow season does. According to harvest reports in the last three years on average bow hunters only have killed 21.33 true spikes a year. Where rifle hunters have killed on average 184.33. So if the Colockum went permit only for rifle hunters but stayed over the counter for bow (something I would not support) it would be okay for the herd. Archers have a very minimal impact on the herd. I would venture to say there is one person (who we shall not name) and a family (who we shall not name) that combines for easily twice what archers take out of the Colockum each year.
My two buddies where up scouting on the south east side of the refuge this year and walked into three cats together. They had a stare off. They also found three calves dead in the draw near our ground blinds. Couldn't determine what killed them as they were a little old and chewed on.
Post by: groundhog on December 20, 2011, 09:53:01 AM
I have always been in favor of closing roads. Like many of you I like the idea of roadless country and being able to hike in and get away from the crowds. Just for the sake of argument lets look at the other side of the coin for a minute. The local Field and Stream club is against closing roads and limiting access. The club has a lot of older gentleman as members and they see road closures as loosing access to country they have always been able to access. They say road closures will help young "in shape hunters" and horseman but it well displace all other hunters and recreational users. I hear what they are saying and have to agree that my motives for closing roads may be a little selfish.
If we went to permit only we would not have to close any roads to proactively manage wildlife and the NA hunting would not be allowed.
Colockumelk, I disagree with your numbers with regard to a permit only hunt. Presently we have 3000 hunters each year in the Colockum. I think if we went to permit only we would have 10,000 or 12,000 hunters putting in for 1200 permits. Everyone would put in (all the eastside hunters) because it would be their best odds of drawing a good permit. Of the 3,000 hunters that hunt the Colockum only three or four hundred would draw tags and the rest of us would be forced hunt somewhere else.
I am not sure what the answer is but so far it looks like permit only is the only way to solve the unaccountability of the native harvest and it would ensure that the wdfw could proactively manage towards the goal of a healthy herd. If we went to three point minimum or five point minimum we would be right back where we were 17 years ago in about two years.
Post by: Rainier10 on December 20, 2011, 10:38:41 AM
The exception to this is when cattle are left to "camp out" for long periods of time in one area.:yeah:
I think most of the problems are exceptions. One or two native americans abusing rights, a few people not staying on the current road system, a rancher or two leaving cattle in to long or dropping them off too early, and a few too many predators because of the loss of hound hunting and baiting statewide.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on December 20, 2011, 10:56:49 AM
Post by: bobcat on December 20, 2011, 11:01:33 AM
As much as the thought of permit only usually turns my stomach, I must agree with groundhog in his last paragraph. Funny thing is, is that some regulars that normally promote "permit only" eastern elk are for road closures as the answer on this thread. Young uns I guess?
I'm for a combination of permit only hunting and road closures. The number of permits issued for each GMU would depend on the degree of road closures. More roads closed = more permits issued.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on December 20, 2011, 11:10:39 AM
Post by: bobcat on December 20, 2011, 11:16:32 AM
Where do you normally hunt elk? The Colockum?
No, I won't hunt spike only seasons.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on December 20, 2011, 11:18:32 AM
Post by: colockumelk on December 20, 2011, 11:19:27 AM
Post by: bobcat on December 20, 2011, 11:23:52 AM
Pre 1994 before spike only?
Only time I hunted the Colockum was when they had the early muzzleloader season. Other than that I was in the Teanaway, Taneum, Little Naches.
Post by: groundhog on December 20, 2011, 01:21:53 PM
I think in one of your post you mentioned that out of the 3,000 hunters that annually hunt the colockum only 1,800 would be forced to hunt else where because the other 1200 would draw permits. At least I think that is what you said.
I was just pointing out that everyone with an eastside tag can and probally will put in for a Colockum permit. Because of this only a small percentage of the annual Colockum hunters will draw permits and the rest of us will be forced to hunt somewhere else. If annual Colockum hunters only drew 25% of the permits (300) then 2700 hunters would be looking for a new hunting area. In this scenario 900 permits would go to other east side hunters that would leave their usual hunting area so the increase to other hunting areas would be 1,800 but 2,700 of the Colockum hunters would have to relocate.
It sounds crazy but I think we could have 10,000 or 12,000 applicants for 1200 permits if we went to permit only in the Colockum. Right now we have 5,520 rifle hunters apply for 120 peaches ridge tags and 4,993 rifle hunters apply for 63 Manashtash tags. If the scenario was this bad then you might only draw every ten years.
Post by: colockumelk on December 20, 2011, 03:53:27 PM
I will say this is my opinion and that is your opinion. Its tough to say exactly how tje cards would fall.
Post by: groundhog on December 20, 2011, 04:14:19 PM
It seems to me that whether we choose 3 point min, 5 point min, or permit only we are going to wipe out all the big old bulls in the first few years. I guess it is better than growing them for the Wolves, Cats and Indians.
Post by: colockumelk on December 20, 2011, 06:07:51 PM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on December 20, 2011, 06:36:27 PM
Post by: bobcat on December 20, 2011, 06:39:36 PM
That and we seem to have a DFW that wants westside tag holders to be able to apply for eastside permits. MORONS!
It's not the DFW that wants that- it's hunters.
Post by: colockumelk on December 20, 2011, 06:40:58 PM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on December 20, 2011, 07:56:58 PM
That and we seem to have a DFW that wants westside tag holders to be able to apply for eastside permits. MORONS!
It's not the DFW that wants that- it's hunters.
Wasn't there a thread/topic on here a couple months ago with many of us unhappy with the number of non and anti hunters that took that survey and their anti hunting comments?.
Was there not the suggestion that no one without a wild ID should be able to take it?
Post by: fremont on December 20, 2011, 08:14:54 PM
:yeah: Yep. I suggest they do the same thing with the deer in some of the 300 gmu's. But I doubt it will ever happen because they'll loose too much $$$. Which boggles my mind why they want wolves here so bad.... They don't buy tags. :dunno:QuoteNo more general seasons.
Use SCIENCE and manage the herd by issuing the appropriate number of special permits for both antlerless elk and bulls. Eliminate tribal hunting or at the least, reduce it by 90%, which probably means gates on most roads.
Pretty simple really. I'm sure the WDFW knows what needs to be done. They just don't know how to do it without losing money.
This is the solution.
Yes. Yes. Yes.
Post by: jechicdr on December 20, 2011, 09:47:23 PM
I have always been in favor of closing roads. Like many of you I like the idea of roadless country and being able to hike in and get away from the crowds. Just for the sake of argument lets look at the other side of the coin for a minute. The local Field and Stream club is against closing roads and limiting access. The club has a lot of older gentleman as members and they see road closures as loosing access to country they have always been able to access. They say road closures will help young "in shape hunters" and horseman but it well displace all other hunters and recreational users. I hear what they are saying and have to agree that my motives for closing roads may be a little selfish.
The "older gentleman" could still hunt the edges of the closed areas. They would have the benefit of a larger elk heard with more "leakage" of animals out of the closed road areas. More elk benefits everyone, not just the people who make the trek into areas with closed roads and wilderness. People who hunt the wilderness of Bumping and Rimrock and Little Naches probably see more elk overall, but the people who hunt near the roads below those areas still see lots of elk, and the reason for the lots of elk is the huge reservoir of elk in the more inaccessible areas. Every GMU with elk should have a safety zone (either wilderness or closed road). Ever notice how the harvest numbers are greatest in the GMU's that have one?
Post by: idahoelkhunter300wby on December 21, 2011, 06:36:57 AM
However, I dont think it would be as big of an impact as some think. To start with, the state is never gonna close colockum pass rd. not gonna happen. Ive been told that is a county road and it is an alternative hiway if you will.
The state is never gonna close off jumpoff ridge road up to four corners. not gonna happen.
I would doubt that they will ever close off the north fork of tarpiscan.
Coleman and cooke, I dont see those ever beeing closed either.
Now, assuming im rite, people are still gonna be able to get to the top of that mnt. range with their vehicles. poachers are still gonna have plenty of access. "oldtimers" are still gonna be able to drive up to the reserve on colockum pass and rifle hunt. This is why I say that the whole road closure idea will only help, not solve the elk herd's situation.
Permit only,if colockumelk is correct, and it would allow the state to regulate what the tribes kill, then im ok with going permit only. Id rather only hunt every 5-6 years up there rather than see things continue the way they are.
Colockumelk, I asked you earlier but my queston got lost in conversation. What do you think about a system where you could hunt the colockum every other year? My idea was if your wild ID number ended in an even number, you hunt even years. Odd number, odd years. Our SS# could be used also. This way you could plan ahead and know for sure where you were gonna hunt every year.
Post by: danderson on December 21, 2011, 07:10:51 AM
Post by: bobcat on December 21, 2011, 07:30:32 AM
Just for clarifacation what units make up the colockum unit, according to the WDFW its all the units north of I-90 from the top of snoqualime pass to vantage.
I'd think more like north of I-90 and east of highway 97, to the Columbia River.
Post by: colockumelk on December 21, 2011, 09:32:55 AM
Cook Canyon is already closed just before the bridge on the upper end. So it no longer connect with Colockum Pass. I think the should do the same thing with Coleman Canyon. I think that they should close off all those spur roads that connect it to Cooke Canyon and the roads that spider web across the basin. Basically if you look at a Washington Atlas and Gazetteer and look at GMU 328 if you closed all the dashed and dotted lined roads and kept all the solid lined roads open it would create enough escapement that we could keep it OTC for the Colockum.
As far as hunting the Colockum every other year I wouldn't support it. The Yakamas and poachers would still be in there hammering away at the branch bulls which would continue to decline. Plus it would be too hard to enforce. There would be too many people for the game wardens to check. I like the brain storming but I am not sure I would like it or that it would work. :twocents: But just because I think it would not work doesn't mean that it wouldn't work. I have been wrong before. Just ask my wife :chuckle:
Post by: Happy Gilmore on December 21, 2011, 09:54:59 AM
I think you could still get that almost 1 mile buffer and keep Colockum Pass road open. Looking at a map you could close Colockum Pass rd 1.5 miles south of where Colockum Pass forms the eastern border of the refuge. There is a road that goes right off of Colockum Pass road meanders to the North East and then meets back up with Colockum Pass road just north east of the game preserve. That would take two gates and would create the 1 mile buffer around the preserve needed (except for the North East corner)
Cook Canyon is already closed just before the bridge on the upper end. So it no longer connect with Colockum Pass. I think the should do the same thing with Coleman Canyon. I think that they should close off all those spur roads that connect it to Cooke Canyon and the roads that spider web across the basin. Basically if you look at a Washington Atlas and Gazetteer and look at GMU 328 if you closed all the dashed and dotted lined roads and kept all the solid lined roads open it would create enough escapement that we could keep it OTC for the Colockum.
As far as hunting the Colockum every other year I wouldn't support it. The Yakamas and poachers would still be in there hammering away at the branch bulls which would continue to decline. Plus it would be too hard to enforce. There would be too many people for the game wardens to check. I like the brain storming but I am not sure I would like it or that it would work. :twocents: But just because I think it would not work doesn't mean that it wouldn't work. I have been wrong before. Just ask my wife :chuckle:
it would be nearly impossible to gate of the Eastern side. People would just drive around any gates. Much easier obviously to close off Coleman / Cooke because most spur roads are dodging up a steep hill or in timber. I think attempting to close anything should occur on top closest to the refuge if it was going to happen. The more open areas are where the guys driving are doing the road hunting. Down in Cooke and Coleman there aren't hardly any big open areas where you can do much road hunting or shooting long distances. A short run and the elk are out of sight. Up on top, where the meadows open up and timber gets thinner is the only area I'd support closing up a bit.
Post by: colockumelk on December 21, 2011, 09:58:26 AM
The "older gentleman" could still hunt the edges of the closed areas. They would have the benefit of a larger elk heard with more "leakage" of animals out of the closed road areas. More elk benefits everyone, not just the people who make the trek into areas with closed roads and wilderness. People who hunt the wilderness of Bumping and Rimrock and Little Naches probably see more elk overall, but the people who hunt near the roads below those areas still see lots of elk, and the reason for the lots of elk is the huge reservoir of elk in the more inaccessible areas. Every GMU with elk should have a safety zone (either wilderness or closed road). Ever notice how the harvest numbers are greatest in the GMU's that have one?
Exactly well said and this is what I keep trying to say. Just because you close a road doesn't mean you take opportunity away. And more roads does not equal more opportunity to the disabled, elderly and the lazy. In fact more roads equals LESS opportunity. Here is why. FACT: More roads equals less animals. FACT: More roads means you have to go farther and deeper to find animals. Places that the disabled and elderly and lazy can not go. Lets look at an example.
The top of Colockum Pass is fairly flat. Somewhat easy to walk around if you can't get around so good. But its criss crossed with roads. Roads all over. Animals avoid the roads like the plague. FACT: On average they try and move 1 mile from a well used road. Since there is a bunch of roads up on top in order to escape these roads and the mass amounts of hunters that drive them they must bomb off the side and go down into the deep and steep canyons that the elderly and disabled can't get too. In order to see animals you must get off the roads. How it is now getting "off the road" means going down hill into a deep canyon.
Now lets say that we closed off all those spur roads that spiderweb across the top. The roads are still there, you can still walk them. Because of the lack of vehicle traffic the elk now stay up on top of the basin (which is where they hang out pre-season) and are up on the flat parts where the disabled and elderly can still get to. Now getting "off the road" doesn't mean going down into a deep canyon it means walking across a flat.
Road closures create escapement. Escapement creates more animals. More animals to hunt equals more opportunity. Opportunity is not measured in how many miles you can drive in your truck or ride on you 4 wheeler. Opportunity is measured in how many legal animals there are to harvest. The Anti-Road Managment crowd always call the Pro-Road Mangement crowd "elitist" and we just want to take away opportunity. They alway take the word "road-management" to the extreme and instantly think that we want to turn it into a Wilderness area. LITERALLY every single time this comes up. Talk about gross-exageration. They always say if we want to hunt in a "wilderness area" or far from roads than go there. Okay here is my response to that.
We are not trying to make it a wilderness area. We are not trying to take away opportunity, we are not trying to be elitist. 100% of studies show that less roads equals more animals. I want to create more opportunity for people. This means solving the main issue in the Colockum. Which is there are TOO... MANY.... ROADS! Whether it is easy access to branch bulls from poachers and the Yakamas or easy access for "true-spikes" for the licensed hunters. In order to grow your bull population you need a place for them to escape, to hide, to survive. Roads take this away.
We can both close roads creating escapement and also keep enough roads open that still gives people many many miles to drive. You say go somewhere else if you don't like it, well same to you. If you dont' like road closures go hunt somewhere else. I think people who are given the facts of what road closures do to protect and grow our herd, yet are still selfish enough to not want to do what is right by the herd are "elitist" If you want a place to drive everywhere then the Manastash is the place for you. We have a responsibility to ensure that we maintain a viable and healthy elk herd in the Colockum. We do not however have a responsibility to ensure that you have as many roads open as possible to drive around. Especially on WDFW lands. Their responsibility has nothing to do with road access, it has to do with properly managing our herds.
I might have gotten carried away. But I get sick of being called an "elitist" and how I am steeling opportunity. This is the same as class warfare that is used by Obama. The EXACT same tactics. I don't own horses, I don't want to turn the Colockum into a wilderness area. If I want to hunt in a wilderness area (I do often, and in which case I go to a wilderness area.) I want to be able to hunt with my 56 year old father who is overweight and has bad knees. I can't hunt in a wilderness area with him. I can hunt in the Colockum with him. But the Colockum sucks. I say this even though I shot my spike this year there. The health sucks. Its because there are too much roads. My Dad can't go far from a road. But more roads does not and has not created more access for him. It has taken away access. My Dad says that. He is basically disabled because of his knees and lower back (although he is too stubborn to get a placard) and he isa gainst all the roads that are open in there. I want to create more opportunity for my Dad and other people like him. More roads is not the answer. Less roads is. Smart road-managment is the answer.
Post by: colockumelk on December 21, 2011, 10:06:39 AM
I think you could still get that almost 1 mile buffer and keep Colockum Pass road open. Looking at a map you could close Colockum Pass rd 1.5 miles south of where Colockum Pass forms the eastern border of the refuge. There is a road that goes right off of Colockum Pass road meanders to the North East and then meets back up with Colockum Pass road just north east of the game preserve. That would take two gates and would create the 1 mile buffer around the preserve needed (except for the North East corner)
Cook Canyon is already closed just before the bridge on the upper end. So it no longer connect with Colockum Pass. I think the should do the same thing with Coleman Canyon. I think that they should close off all those spur roads that connect it to Cooke Canyon and the roads that spider web across the basin. Basically if you look at a Washington Atlas and Gazetteer and look at GMU 328 if you closed all the dashed and dotted lined roads and kept all the solid lined roads open it would create enough escapement that we could keep it OTC for the Colockum.
As far as hunting the Colockum every other year I wouldn't support it. The Yakamas and poachers would still be in there hammering away at the branch bulls which would continue to decline. Plus it would be too hard to enforce. There would be too many people for the game wardens to check. I like the brain storming but I am not sure I would like it or that it would work. :twocents: But just because I think it would not work doesn't mean that it wouldn't work. I have been wrong before. Just ask my wife :chuckle:
it would be nearly impossible to gate of the Eastern side. People would just drive around any gates. Much easier obviously to close off Coleman / Cooke because most spur roads are dodging up a steep hill or in timber. I think attempting to close anything should occur on top closest to the refuge if it was going to happen. The more open areas are where the guys driving are doing the road hunting. Down in Cooke and Coleman there aren't hardly any big open areas where you can do much road hunting or shooting long distances. A short run and the elk are out of sight. Up on top, where the meadows open up and timber gets thinner is the only area I'd support closing up a bit.
My last post was not directed at you Happy. I typed it up and hit send before your post had come up.
Yeah this is another thing about the WDFW and their gates. They almost always gate the road right where it starts. Even if there is a meadow on either side of it. Instead of gating it like 1/4 mile or 1/2 mile in where there is timber on either side. So you are right people just drive around it. I don't like the argument against gates that "people will ignore it" IMHO fines for driving around a gate should be treated like poaching. They lose their license for a year and all their possessions in or on that vehicle become property of the state. As of right now the penalty is laughable. Putting a gate WILL stop 90% of people from driving it. Yes there is always that loser 10% that think they are above the law. But it would keep out most people.
I am adamant about closing those spur roads. Looking at my map there is LITERALLY a spur road that comes off of Coleman every 1/2 mile or less. These roads drive across the flats and interconnect each other and connect with Cooke, Colockum Pass and Schnebly and Naneum. This is ridicoulous you can't tell me that there needs to be an open spur road every half mile. Yes I realize that most peopel road hunt in the open on Colockum Pass. But this high number of roads is not neaded. Its insane. This is what I mean by too much roads. Where can the elk go to escape people when there are roads every 1/2 mile. Can you please tell me why there needs to be an open road every 1/2 mile. And how closing even half those roads would be taking away "opportunity"?
Creating a 1 mile buffer around the game preserve up on top would be tough. It would be a challenge, however it doesnt mean it shouldn't be done. Who cares if its hard. Nothing good in life comes easy.
Post by: Happy Gilmore on December 21, 2011, 10:56:18 AM
Post by: colockumelk on December 21, 2011, 11:50:31 AM
I would however prefer like I have said to to try and provide a buffer area around the game reserve since this is where the majority of the elk hang. Again most bang for the buck. And like I have said over and over again, close the least amount of roads you can and still achieve your escapement objectives. :tup:
Post by: Happy Gilmore on December 21, 2011, 01:30:49 PM
Is there a Colockum Citizens Advisory Board? If not, call the biologist and get a few people lined up who are interested in working on improvements to the area. I'm sure you could find a snomobile group person, ORV person, birdwatcher, 4x4 club, hunters etc.
I don't think anything will happen without a broad spectrum of people voice that they are in agreement with the plan/proposed actions.
Post by: colockumelk on December 21, 2011, 01:35:51 PM
For now I would be happy to block the roads that are already closed. Thanks happy.
Post by: colockumelk on December 21, 2011, 01:37:46 PM
Post by: Happy Gilmore on December 21, 2011, 02:08:23 PM
I like the idea of a Colockum wildlife foundation. Although maybe just a branch of WFW like a Kittitas county one would suffice.
I would try to put together a plan, get people from as many different users to get together for a quick meeting. Put it on paper as a written request to the biologist in charge of the area. As I mentioned, I think to be successful the group must represent all users. This mentality also opens up more resources. You never know when a bird watching group members' husband happens to own a heavy equipment rental company or something like that- I don't think you're off on what you'd like to see done. I think any action or plan must be acceptable to everyone who uses the area and serve more than one purpose.
Closing a road just to help elk isn't going to get it done. Closing it to protect and rehabilitate previously destroyed meadow, provide quiet to a bird nesting area, provide additional elk escapement, stop dumping of trash, or whatever...the longer the list of reasons the better.
Two, it must make sense to all of the users sitting around you. So far, everything I've read is very one sided. Close roads for elk escapement. The area is not only a elk hunting area. F&W must manage land for everyone. Just because we like hunting elk there doesn't mean we are the only users or should be in charge of what is and isn't available for people to use. Otherwise, I'm all for closing roads which are not green dots but, are passable and used.
Post by: colockumelk on December 21, 2011, 02:19:21 PM
Post by: idahoelkhunter300wby on December 22, 2011, 06:06:55 AM
You make some excellent points.
Post by: Rainier10 on December 22, 2011, 07:56:21 AM
Post by: colockumelk on December 22, 2011, 11:27:58 AM
Post by: Rainier10 on December 22, 2011, 11:35:20 AM
Post by: colockumelk on December 22, 2011, 11:38:22 AM
Post by: PlateauNDN on December 22, 2011, 12:16:28 PM
Cool that would be awesom if you could manage that. Anything we can do without the involvement of the WDFW is ideal. It is always easier and better when us as ordinary citizens (the private sector) does it than when the government and big brother does it. Its always cheaper and better quality.
Coming from a Government employee! :lol4:
Sorry hit enter by accident. That sounds like a very good plan if it works Rainier keep pushing it. :tup:
Post by: colockumelk on December 22, 2011, 08:46:46 PM
Cool that would be awesom if you could manage that. Anything we can do without the involvement of the WDFW is ideal. It is always easier and better when us as ordinary citizens (the private sector) does it than when the government and big brother does it. Its always cheaper and better quality.
Coming from a Government employee! :lol4:
Sorry hit enter by accident. That sounds like a very good plan if it works Rainier keep pushing it. :tup:
Hey as soon as the private sector starts flying Apaches Ill gladly become a nasty civilian :chuckle:
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on December 26, 2011, 03:26:25 PM
That and we seem to have a DFW that wants westside tag holders to be able to apply for eastside permits. MORONS!
It's not the DFW that wants that- it's hunters.
Wasn't there a thread/topic on here a couple months ago with many of us unhappy with the number of non and anti hunters that took that survey and their anti hunting comments?.
Was there not the suggestion that no one without a wild ID should be able to take it?
Found it...
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,86719.0.html
Now they required wild id#s before you could respond to the follow up surveys, but the one that steered them to those issues did not. Antis love those things may not be able to stop us yet, but they can sure do their best to make it hard
Post by: colockumelk on December 26, 2011, 05:01:37 PM
Post by: doyourtime89 on February 04, 2012, 10:32:59 AM
Post by: colockumelk on February 04, 2012, 07:08:29 PM
Post by: bobcat on February 04, 2012, 07:13:18 PM
Post by: colockumelk on February 04, 2012, 07:33:31 PM
Late archery season in 328 is open for spikes and cows.
Yeah I just looked at that. Also if you draw a Colockum bull tag you can not only hunt 328 and 329 like always. But you can now hunt 335 teannaway as well.
Post by: danderson on February 05, 2012, 07:48:23 AM
Post by: NWWABOWHNTR on February 05, 2012, 08:04:07 AM
That's it?? That's all the tags they want to give up? Guess. im gonna be having a word with the wdfw. 40 and 30 tags is a slap in the face. This wont help out at all. That population will still grow. Not sure why no cow tags for bow hunters. They were supposed to give out tags for all three user groups. Wonder if its just gonna be a general season for them?
They gave us late season in 328 but I think the tags for early season should have been split amongst all 3 user groups... and all 3 GMU's...
Post by: colockumelk on February 05, 2012, 10:34:40 AM
Post by: doyourtime89 on February 05, 2012, 12:30:49 PM
Post by: danderson on February 05, 2012, 12:50:21 PM
Post by: colockumelk on February 06, 2012, 06:24:26 AM
Danderson I think the muzzle loader guys have had the biggest shaft since they dont have a season there. But for the past 8 years ALL licensed hunters have been getting hosed in that area. No cow permits for anyone, no muzzle loader season, no antlerless hunting for archery and a total of 6 branch bull permits between the three user groups, and best of all true spike. And still the bull to cow ratio declines. The people who benefit are the Yakamas who have easy access to trophy bulls.
And WTF is up with the WDFW. They will let the master hunters kill two cows each to try and stem the Sharp and rapid increase in the cow population but they wouldnt give out cow permits? And now that they do they give out a measly 70 total. That herd needs to have its cow population cut by 300-400. FACT!
Post by: danderson on February 06, 2012, 07:03:55 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on February 06, 2012, 10:57:10 AM
Late archery season in 328 is open for spikes and cows.
Yeah I just looked at that. Also if you draw a Colockum bull tag you can not only hunt 328 and 329 like always. But you can now hunt 335 teanaway as well.
WOW great news there eh? Didn't mention that last year between those (M/R) dates there were A WHOLE 3 quality permits for 328/329/and335, whereas this year there are whopping 2!!
Post by: colockumelk on February 06, 2012, 07:12:25 PM
Late archery season in 328 is open for spikes and cows.
Yeah I just looked at that. Also if you draw a Colockum bull tag you can not only hunt 328 and 329 like always. But you can now hunt 335 teanaway as well.
WOW great news there eh? Didn't mention that last year between those (M/R) dates there were A WHOLE 3 quality permits for 328/329/and335, whereas this year there are whopping 2!!
Whoa 2 permits! It feels like Christmas :chuckle: I didn't see anything positive in the proposals. I saw a few scraps tossed our way. Actually the bull and cow permit numbers are more insulting than anything. They make me want to :puke:
Post by: luvtohnt on February 06, 2012, 07:26:31 PM
I wonder if the WDFW could do something like close 328 for a year or two, then when it reopens close 329 for a year or two. I am not sure if this would allow the conservation clause to stop tribal hunting to be enacted but it would create escapement. It could be done for 6 or 8 years and the bull numbers should rebound. This would also alleviate the problem of overcrowding in the Yakima units as the majority of people would still hunt in the open unit. Just a thought, and I am not sure if it is plausible, especially because I do not hunt the Colockum herd.
Post by: danderson on February 06, 2012, 11:24:26 PM
Post by: bearpaw on April 09, 2012, 04:02:48 PM
Please let me know if you want any options added.
Post by: C-Money on April 09, 2012, 04:18:54 PM
Post by: bearpaw on April 09, 2012, 04:23:38 PM
Post by: bearpaw on April 10, 2012, 07:30:09 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on April 10, 2012, 08:55:29 PM
Post by: Recurve-Elk on April 11, 2012, 01:17:59 PM
Post by: bearpaw on April 11, 2012, 06:38:11 PM
I just voted but one thing that was not addressed was the number of cows killed because of damage to farmers fences. I would like to see a fence built and an area set aside for the elk to feed in the lowlands close to Ellensburg. Over 150 elk are getting shot by master hunters trying to discourage the elk from coming onto the farmland but all it does is scare the elk up until the hunters are done gutting their kill and often times within hours the herd is back down on private lands. Just my :twocents:
This a good comment with a solution included, I will add it to my message to the commission. :tup:
Be sure and get your vote in, I am forwarding the results to the commission right before their meeting... :tup:
Post by: jstone on April 11, 2012, 07:10:13 PM
Post by: danderson on April 11, 2012, 07:18:49 PM
Post by: bearpaw on April 12, 2012, 09:38:50 PM