Post by: Ryan308 on December 15, 2011, 07:08:51 PM
Post by: Craig on December 15, 2011, 09:02:30 PM
Post by: dewandgin on December 15, 2011, 09:30:13 PM
Post by: 6x6in6 on December 15, 2011, 09:32:57 PM
May the elk continue to leave little brown golf balls everywhere.
Post by: buck man on December 16, 2011, 12:17:04 AM
Sweet!
May the elk continue to leave little brown golf balls everywhere.
I thought they were milk duds?? :dunno: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: scudmaster on December 16, 2011, 08:31:58 AM
Post by: D-Rock425 on December 16, 2011, 09:02:56 AM
Post by: WSU on December 16, 2011, 10:43:05 AM
Don't always agree with the tree hugger type, but I don't agree with people that build a golf course in the middle of elk country then complain about the elk.
Same can be said for farmers, and housing developments, and on and on....
Post by: elkfins on December 16, 2011, 12:33:44 PM
I'm curious why they don't consider drugging and re-locating some of them? Is the cost too high?
I'm surprised the state hasn't thought about introducing some wolves in there...
Post by: blackbart on December 16, 2011, 12:52:54 PM
Having been one of the hunters shooing them off the course with WDFW, I can tell you there are almost double the elk than the target population in the 4601. City of Snoqualmie has a no hunting ordinance so there are no other methods to keep their numbers in check. Damage hunts are a valuable tool and the only one available with the City ordinance. Once again tree huggers win over the biologist and science.
There are a lot of other golf courses that have animal problems how do they handle them?? How about the other golf courses in western Washington?? The only reason this ever got any traction is becaue of the $$$$ the members can throw at their problems.
Seems to be WDFW's moto whoever throws money their way can acceft their management practices. Must look real good to the general populus.
Post by: Bob33 on December 16, 2011, 01:08:16 PM
I'm not aware of any other golf course in Western WA with the overpopulation of elk that North Bend has.Having been one of the hunters shooing them off the course with WDFW, I can tell you there are almost double the elk than the target population in the 4601. City of Snoqualmie has a no hunting ordinance so there are no other methods to keep their numbers in check. Damage hunts are a valuable tool and the only one available with the City ordinance. Once again tree huggers win over the biologist and science.
There are a lot of other golf courses that have animal problems how do they handle them?? How about the other golf courses in western Washington??
Post by: Ryan308 on December 16, 2011, 01:14:41 PM
Post by: Huntbear on December 16, 2011, 01:20:39 PM
:bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 16, 2011, 01:24:56 PM
A damage control hunt there would be bad idea... remember the bad press last year during the damage hunt up on Hwy 20?
I'm curious why they don't consider drugging and re-locating some of them? Is the cost too high?
I'm surprised the state hasn't thought about introducing some wolves in there...
If you're afraid of the press and the very vocal, tiny majority of anti-hunters, you're right about this or any other hunt. That's the problem - we should be making decisions based on science, targeted herd strengths, etc., not on the opinions and whining of less than 1% of the population. This goes to thinning elk herds, responsible wolf plans, and filling the F&W Commission seats. This decision, like the approved wolf plan, is not based on science or sound game management. Rather it is born of yielding to the emotional, fact-less ravings of animal rights extremists. One well-spoken and knowledgeable wildlife biologist speaking to the press could have convinced 80% of our population that thinning this over-sized herd was the best path to take for the healthy future of the herd and the economic strength of the local economy. WDFW once again chose the path of least resistance, because they think that we hunters will be less trouble than the animal rights extremists. They may be in for a big surprise.
Post by: Bob33 on December 16, 2011, 01:33:59 PM
One well-spoken and knowledgeable wildlife biologist speaking to the press could have convinced 80% of our population that thinning this over-sized herd was the best path to take for the healthy future of the herd and the economic strength of the local economy.I could not agree more. Many on here seem to focus on the "rich" golf course land owners. Not killing some elk will not only result in more property damage - it will cause harm to the herd's overall health and individual elk.
I'm truly surprised at how many oppose killing any.
Post by: MAVsled on December 17, 2011, 09:30:07 AM
why not just raise or assess the Snoqualmie TPC golf club members, SnoqTPC home owners/association & course management/ownership enough dollars $$$$ to build the much needed fence or additional dollars to compensate for repair of the golf course.
golf club or private club members of any sort all KNOW ALL about $ ASSESSMENTS...
then you'd see local support of a damage control hunt.
Post by: jaymark6655 on December 17, 2011, 09:39:40 AM
personally, I wouldn't partake in this kind of "hunt". but I would not judge others in a negative light who choose to do so.True, can't imagine how much 222 acres would cost to fence.
why not just raise or assess the Snoqualmie TPC golf club members, SnoqTPC home owners/association & course management/ownership enough dollars $$$$ to build the much needed fence or additional dollars to compensate for repair of the golf course.
golf club or private club members of any sort all KNOW ALL about $ ASSESSMENTS...
then you'd see local support of a damage control hunt.
Post by: ICEMAN on December 17, 2011, 10:00:45 AM
personally, I wouldn't partake in this kind of "hunt". but I would not judge others in a negative light who choose to do so.True, can't imagine how much 222 acres would cost to fence.
why not just raise or assess the Snoqualmie TPC golf club members, SnoqTPC home owners/association & course management/ownership enough dollars $$$$ to build the much needed fence or additional dollars to compensate for repair of the golf course.
golf club or private club members of any sort all KNOW ALL about $ ASSESSMENTS...
then you'd see local support of a damage control hunt.
Exactly.
Same way I look at anyone griping about wildlife damaging their crops. If you are a farmer, orchard owner or golf course owner and do not like having deer or elk on your farm,...fence it yourself and stop looking to the rest of us to fix your personal problem.
I don't see the state chipping in to help protect cherry growers from damage and losses from birds, or grain growers from losses from bird and rodents...
You need a fence? Looks like you better sell off enough land to afford your own damned fence.
Is a damage control hunt going to work anyway? Seems these go on forever. Deer and elk will not just run and hide cause a hunt was held once....
Fix it forever, build your own fence.
Post by: bobcat on December 17, 2011, 10:13:47 AM
Post by: scudmaster on December 17, 2011, 10:18:42 AM
The course has no problems with deer and bears and fence would substantially impact their habitat. If this was not publicized it would have been done and finished very quickly. Most would not say a word if it was a farmer who was having his crops raided and there was a damage hunt due to his financial loss. But somehow a golf course should be forced to sustain permanent financial losses because of class warfare. Maybe you can form an occupy Snoqulamie movement, they would agree with the sentiment. The local public course in NB had damage hunts and they fenced the entire course over $100K, (and that was with no houses and a fraction of the perimeter) and they still have elk problems and damage hunts. This is not a problem to be solved, like all wildlife issues, it is a problem to be managed. The only permenant solution for the problem is to eradicate the elk.
If the dept Biologist for the region explained the population problem to the press, the reasonable public may understand. The Anti Hunters don't care where a damage hunt occurs or why, they are against hunting period. The argument is not about best practices, it is about killing any elk ever. If we try to appease them in their argument, we have already lost because until there is no hunting, there will be no appeasment with them ever.
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 17, 2011, 10:26:23 AM
personally, I wouldn't partake in this kind of "hunt". but I would not judge others in a negative light who choose to do so.True, can't imagine how much 222 acres would cost to fence.
why not just raise or assess the Snoqualmie TPC golf club members, SnoqTPC home owners/association & course management/ownership enough dollars $$$$ to build the much needed fence or additional dollars to compensate for repair of the golf course.
golf club or private club members of any sort all KNOW ALL about $ ASSESSMENTS...
then you'd see local support of a damage control hunt.
Exactly.
Same way I look at anyone griping about wildlife damaging their crops. If you are a farmer, orchard owner or golf course owner and do not like having deer or elk on your farm,...fence it yourself and stop looking to the rest of us to fix your personal problem.
I don't see the state chipping in to help protect cherry growers from damage and losses from birds, or grain growers from losses from bird and rodents...
You need a fence? Looks like you better sell off enough land to afford your own damned fence.
Is a damage control hunt going to work anyway? Seems these go on forever. Deer and elk will not just run and hide cause a hunt was held once....
Fix it forever, build your own fence.
The problem with that Iceman, is that hunters can easily help with this problem for little or no expense to the landowner or the taxpayer. When you say that farmers should be responsible to protect their own crops, you're not recognizing that most food farms don't make a huge profit, if at all. And, they provide a needed resource - food. The golf course provides a tax base as a commercial business, both in sales tax from pro-shop items, and for its commercial real estate tax value to our community, which is substantial. Both also provide employment to their local residents. They deserve consideration for their economic contribution to our society, whether their owners are rich or not. In addition, both farms and golf courses, and many other business that would be hurt by wildlife depredation and damage, can easily benefit from that which will also be cost effective and benefit us hunters - a controlled hunt under strict guidelines and safety considerations to cull the herd to a manageable level and encourage them to move back into the shelter of the woods.
The problem we face is that increasingly, not only the press and the government agencies, but more recently even our hunters have become so intimidated by the vocal extreme animal rights movement people that we've forgotten that a vast majority of our population will support hunting and proper game management decisions when they're adequately educated about their purpose. Many of us hunters have also lost our intestinal fortitude and now sit idly by while these extremists shape the future of our sport.
I propose that some of us do or actively support a few specific things
1. Use hunters as a game management tool to support economic prosperity and create solutions to game management challenges.
2. Request that our WDFW take initiative in educating the general public about the need for proper and science-based game management actions and policies.
3. Reach down and find your balls and quit cowering from the tiny minority of animal rights extremists and their misinformation.
4. Educate yourself about game management and hunting so you can educate others to better understand what we do.
[/list]
Post by: jaymark6655 on December 17, 2011, 10:28:10 AM
I must have read this wrong, not supporting fencing at all. It is too expensive and impossible. Saying if people were forced to pay, they would quickly change their minds and support this hunt. Not sure where else these elk can be hunting since I have never seen them outside the no hunting areas and there is no pressure to push them out of these areas that seem to be idea habitat for them.personally, I wouldn't partake in this kind of "hunt". but I would not judge others in a negative light who choose to do so.True, can't imagine how much 222 acres would cost to fence.
why not just raise or assess the Snoqualmie TPC golf club members, SnoqTPC home owners/association & course management/ownership enough dollars $$$$ to build the much needed fence or additional dollars to compensate for repair of the golf course.
golf club or private club members of any sort all KNOW ALL about $ ASSESSMENTS...
then you'd see local support of a damage control hunt.
Exactly.
Same way I look at anyone griping about wildlife damaging their crops. If you are a farmer, orchard owner or golf course owner and do not like having deer or elk on your farm,...fence it yourself and stop looking to the rest of us to fix your personal problem.
I don't see the state chipping in to help protect cherry growers from damage and losses from birds, or grain growers from losses from bird and rodents...
You need a fence? Looks like you better sell off enough land to afford your own damned fence.
Is a damage control hunt going to work anyway? Seems these go on forever. Deer and elk will not just run and hide cause a hunt was held once....
Fix it forever, build your own fence.
Post by: ICEMAN on December 17, 2011, 10:37:04 AM
It is entirely possible for the private property owners to completely fence off the entire area to keep Elk and Deer from entering. This one time privately funded effort will permanently fix their problems, at absolutely no cost to taxpayers.
How about gophers affecting the greens? Are we taxpayers expected to help with this too?
Not every issue related to big game should result in a five star panel of wildlife bios and wildlife officials studying and proposing fixes. This is a no brainer.
I see no benefit from wasting our efforts to try to weasel a meager damage control hunt to fix this. Alot could and will go wrong, as well as provide another platform for antis to stand on. Instead, let them fence it off and allow the normal hunt around the area to occur....no changes.
I do not want to spend a dime helping them fix their problem.
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 17, 2011, 10:48:26 AM
Sorry pianoman, this is not a hunting issue, this is a protect your own property issue.
It is entirely possible for the private property owners to completely fence off the entire area to keep Elk and Deer from entering. This one time privately funded effort will permanently fix their problems, at absolutely no cost to taxpayers.
How about gophers affecting the greens? Are we taxpayers expected to help with this too?
Not every issue related to big game should result in a five star panel of wildlife bios and wildlife officials studying and proposing fixes. This is a no brainer.
I see no benefit from wasting our efforts to try to weasel a meager damage control hunt to fix this. Alot could and will go wrong, as well as provide another platform for antis to stand on. Instead, let them fence it off and allow the normal hunt around the area to occur....no changes.
I do not want to spend a dime helping them fix their problem.
Respectfully, there are no efforts or resources to waste, Iceman. As far as the contribution of our tax dollars is concerned, there's no expense at all, save for a 5 minute press release or TV interview explaining what will be done and why it's necessary. That's it. A few $1 bullets and the guidance of a volunteer MC to coordinate hunters.
Why saddle a local business with an expense of hundreds of thousands of dollars and risk the health of that business when another solution is available for almost nothing. Business that contribute to our society deserve some consideration to help keep them contributing profitably. You may not want to pay a dime to help them, and you probably won't. But without commercial businesses in our local communities, our economy would die instantly. Small business represents 80% of the employers in our country. We have to support them. We have no choice and for their contributions, we have an obligation.
And, by the way, I'm neither rich nor a business owner. I'm a middle class worker bee. I just know economics and what drives our society.
Post by: Little Dave on December 17, 2011, 10:56:58 AM
Post by: ICEMAN on December 17, 2011, 11:02:25 AM
How about continued complaints about elk on the course a week after a damage control hunt.
How about wildlife officers having to patrol the hunt area?
How about wildlife officers responding to reports that someone has trespassed onto the grounds to poach an elk, or recover an elk which died 500 yards away from where it was shot?
How about wildlife paying damage to property caused by a stampeding herd of elk being chased by our "best" master hunters?
There will be huge expenses to manage this issue, year after year after year. Don't fool yourself thinking otherwise.
Putting hunters into the middle of a golf course to cull elk is a stupid idea, when you can simply tell them to put up a fence or shut up. Hunters can chase the elk elsewhere.
Edit: Littledave, I believe if we can fence off vast areas in central Washington to cooridor off elk and to keep deer out of the apples, that private investors should be willing to spend the extra cash necessary to protect their investment. They buy insurance, they can surely buy fencing.
Post by: ICEMAN on December 17, 2011, 11:17:15 AM
The average price for the fairway facing homes in today's market is about $700K.
I've participated in the discussion on elk here in the valley over the last few years. The biggest failure in this process has been the community outreach angle. Strange as it seems, there just is not enough interest in educating people. A huge effort was put forth on the interesting research project and a lot of effort was put forth to have a successful hunt, some even calling it a model for the state. However, communtity outreach was the *censored* child of this effort and first to be cut back by WDFW at the end of 2009. I've cataloged all of that here:
USVEMG Discussions (http://snoqualmievalleyelk.org/library)
My wife was the only person on volunteer education/outreach for this for the next year and a half, while the collaring project is now big enough it meets in a larger venue, closely integrated with the master hunter damage hunt.
These research projects were to determine the viability of a master hunter damage control hunt? State funded projects?
Post by: JLS on December 17, 2011, 11:20:41 AM
No expense at all?
How about continued complaints about elk on the course a week after a damage control hunt.
How about wildlife officers having to patrol the hunt area?
How about wildlife officers responding to reports that someone has trespassed onto the grounds to poach an elk, or recover an elk which died 500 yards away from where it was shot?
How about wildlife paying damage to property caused by a stampeding herd of elk being chased by our "best" master hunters?
There will be huge expenses to manage this issue, year after year after year. Don't fool yourself thinking otherwise.
Putting hunters into the middle of a golf course to cull elk is a stupid idea, when you can simply tell them to put up a fence or shut up. Hunters can chase the elk elsewhere.
Edit: Littledave, I believe if we can fence off vast areas in central Washington to cooridor off elk and to keep deer out of the apples, that private investors should be willing to spend the extra cash necessary to protect their investment. They buy insurance, they can surely buy fencing.
I couldn't agree more, particularly with your Edit paragraph.
Post by: Bob33 on December 17, 2011, 11:25:05 AM
No expense at all?Year after year there have been these expenses...already: responding to complaints, dealing with poaching, and so forth. For the past several years various methods have been tried to manage these elk. They have not succeeded.
How about continued complaints about elk on the course a week after a damage control hunt.
How about wildlife officers having to patrol the hunt area?
How about wildlife officers responding to reports that someone has trespassed onto the grounds to poach an elk, or recover an elk which died 500 yards away from where it was shot?
How about wildlife paying damage to property caused by a stampeding herd of elk being chased by our "best" master hunters?
There will be huge expenses to manage this issue, year after year after year. Don't fool yourself thinking otherwise.
I suppose every landowner in Western Washington could also be required to fence his property to keep bears out since WDFW personnel have to respond to quite a few of those calls in the Spring.
You're probably not aware that a master hunter permit hunt has been going on in this area for several years, under the careful guidance of a hunt coordinator. You're probably not aware because you haven't heard about it, because there have been very few issues.
It seems to me that shooting a few elk is a far simpler and less costly solution.
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 17, 2011, 11:30:08 AM
No expense at all?
How about continued complaints about elk on the course a week after a damage control hunt.
How about wildlife officers having to patrol the hunt area?
How about wildlife officers responding to reports that someone has trespassed onto the grounds to poach an elk, or recover an elk which died 500 yards away from where it was shot?
How about wildlife paying damage to property caused by a stampeding herd of elk being chased by our "best" master hunters?
There will be huge expenses to manage this issue, year after year after year. Don't fool yourself thinking otherwise.
Putting hunters into the middle of a golf course to cull elk is a stupid idea, when you can simply tell them to put up a fence or shut up. Hunters can chase the elk elsewhere.
Edit: Littledave, I believe if we can fence off vast areas in central Washington to cooridor off elk and to keep deer out of the apples, that private investors should be willing to spend the extra cash necessary to protect their investment. They buy insurance, they can surely buy fencing.
Iceman, I always respect your opinions. I just don't agree with this one. Here are my answers to your points, one by one, and then I'll humbly bow out.
Complaints don't cost anything.
I don't see there being additional wildlife officers hired for this one situation, or any overtime being paid.
One job of a wildlife officer is to bust poachers wherever they are. Whether they poach on the golf course or in the woods, they're still poachers and will always need to be pursued.
It costs us nothing extra to try a hunt first. It doesn't have to be Master Hunters if you have a bug in a dark place about the MHs. It could be anyone. Whoever is used, there should be a coordinator running the show.
If it happens again a week later, buy a few more bullets. We may eventually have to come up with another solution, but going to the most expensive one first doesn't seem logical. Past history has shown animals leave public places where they lose protection and are harassed and killed. Just ask the towns of Astoria, Seaside, and Cannon Beach where killing a few elk moved them off of the courses and public areas, and back into the hills, except for the occasional return every couple of years. They've lost their sanctuary and hunters have re-instilled their fear of humans.
Lastly and again, putting up the fence is the most costly option and should be held off for last. If we spend a local business out of existence, it hurts more than just the business. It hurts the local and state economy. This is not the time to start stifling business and employers. Hunters have been used as a problem game management tool all over the world since the beginning of problems between man and animals, regardless of whether the wildlife is out in public or in the woods. There's no valid reason not to at least try killing them first.
Thanks for listening. Pianoman out. :)
Post by: Bob33 on December 17, 2011, 11:37:13 AM
This is not a new, fly by night operation.
"The mission of The Upper Snoqualmie Valley Elk Management Group is to work collaboratively to minimize property damage and public safety risks associated with elk and to manage elk for a variety of recreational, educational and aesthetic purposes including hunting, scientific study, cultural and ceremonial uses by Native Americans, wildlife viewing and photography.
Collaborating stakeholder agenciesand interest groups:
Department of Fish and Wildlife
Department of Natural Resources
Department of Transportation
United States Forest Service
King County Water and Land Resources
King County Sheriff’s Office
King County Parks
City of North Bend
City of Snoqualmie
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe
Tulalip Indian Tribe
Snoqualmie Indian Tribe
Hancock Forest Management
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
Mountains to Sound Greenway
Meadowbrook Farm Preservation Association
Hunters, property owners, and concerned citizens."
Post by: bearpaw on December 17, 2011, 11:53:28 AM
In eastern cities they are utilizing special seasons to reduce problem deer populations, another perfect example of why hunting is needed. I think its a good idea for the golf course to rely on hunters to resolve their damage problems.
Post by: MAVsled on December 17, 2011, 12:07:36 PM
Here's a picture of the property to get some perspective on fencing....
and smack dab in the middle just up from the Alice lake road, my uncle, father (and I tagging along as a young boy) as they took a blacktail buck there just about every year...1960-1977.
but we never saw any elk back then around what we called Alice Lake area, now the Snoqualmie TPC and homeowners assoc.
golf courses are cultivated, like private farms, for profit. They should bear any expenses to resolve their problem, fence or otherwise, just like any other business. Now if this area were open to the public for golf and more important other public access, bring forth from the tax fund.
Post by: blacktail luv on December 17, 2011, 12:23:21 PM
Post by: Bob33 on December 17, 2011, 12:35:10 PM
Post by: SniperDanWA on December 17, 2011, 12:59:17 PM
My point, the golf course can't fence the entire property, do to the housing, streets and irregularity of the property lines. There will be elk and deer and other animals in that property no matter what. The fence just can't be made to keep them out, based on my experience of 20 years ranching cattle. Animals have a will and their will drives them to do miraculous things. They are marvelous to watch and a challenge to hunt. My :twocents:
Post by: scudmaster on December 17, 2011, 01:53:29 PM
Post by: ICEMAN on December 17, 2011, 02:20:07 PM
And specivically to Dale's point of a win win for property owners and hunters in an area with minimal other hunting... I hear that. Sounds good, but it does not appear to be working, no matter the incredible efforts of the Snoqualmie valley association.
From my perspective, we have a "group" dedicated to working the situation, to bring hunters and homeowners together, to promote hunting as a big game control strategy, and it appears not to work in this case. Public interest has been slight. Public interest in now huge as this is a focal point for the media. I would love to have hunters save the day here and solve this problem, but it sure does not seem to be working in this case.
Maybe the fix is to get the surrounding area open to bow hunting to help keep the herd in check. I would now concentrate my efforts on the local city council to loosen up their restriction and see if this solves the issue.
Post by: Bob33 on December 17, 2011, 02:52:05 PM
Given the virulent opposition to killing some elk by many on here that I assumed would be more pro hunting, and understanding that is how the general population must see it, it is a wonder they have been able to kill any elk over the years.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 17, 2011, 02:58:24 PM
When you have the best food source for miles there is no way to keep a hungry group of elk out. Period! In my opinion the elk are there to stay, people are just gonna have to deal with it. Hell I might play golf if I could look at some elk while I'm doing it, it's a boring game anyway.Yeah, I was thinking "so they built some really great elk habitat and now are upset that it is attracting elk". My guess would be that it could be solved by hunting for the next few years, until the urban sprawl completely locks the elk out. I too would rather play golf if elk were on the course....probably take better shots at elk than a flag in a hole.
Post by: SniperDanWA on December 17, 2011, 03:59:10 PM
From my perspective, we have a "group" dedicated to working the situation, to bring hunters and homeowners together, to promote hunting as a big game control strategy...
Maybe the fix is to get the surrounding area open to bow hunting to help keep the herd in check. I would now concentrate my efforts on the local city council to loosen up their restriction and see if this solves the issue.
ICEMAN,
I like this approach. I don't live close to this area and don't likely qualify for the hunt for a few reasons, but if the course needs to be saved and offenders removed, sounds like you have an approach.
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 17, 2011, 05:29:28 PM
From my perspective, we have a "group" dedicated to working the situation, to bring hunters and homeowners together, to promote hunting as a big game control strategy...
Maybe the fix is to get the surrounding area open to bow hunting to help keep the herd in check. I would now concentrate my efforts on the local city council to loosen up their restriction and see if this solves the issue.
ICEMAN,
I like this approach. I don't live close to this area and don't likely qualify for the hunt for a few reasons, but if the course needs to be saved and offenders removed, sounds like you have an approach.
Sounds like a good long term approach for a solution to me, Iceman. A dialogue should be started with the city council. There may even be some hunters on it.
Post by: Bob33 on December 17, 2011, 05:33:46 PM
We've got to support hunting even when it may not be exactly the way we want it to be.
10-4 :twocents:
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on December 17, 2011, 05:47:04 PM
Post by: gonehuntin68 on December 17, 2011, 05:49:54 PM
Don't always agree with the tree hugger type, but I don't agree with people that build a golf course in the middle of elk country then complain about the elk.:yeah:
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 17, 2011, 05:51:10 PM
I hate to be cynical, but if you read back through quite a few posts here you can understand why this hunt was cancelled. For goodness sakes, we are hunters and yet there is quite a bit of opposition to this hunt. Imagine how the anti hunters feel about killing a few elk for the sake of those damn rich landowners!
We've got to support hunting even when it may not be exactly the way we want it to be.
10-4 :twocents:
Bob, I agree with you, too. I still feel culling a few from the herd is a good way to move the animals out immediately. Iceman's suggestion about getting the council to loosen up bow hunting around town is a long-term management idea that they may consider under the present conditions.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on December 17, 2011, 06:00:58 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 17, 2011, 06:10:32 PM
Post by: bobcat on December 17, 2011, 10:02:43 PM
Imagine how the anti hunters feel about killing a few elk for the sake of those damn rich landowners!
I posted this one of the other threads on this subject, but this is how the anti's feel about it:
Quote
Gaillard Lee Johnson · Top Commenter · Works at Animal Rights Activisit and Humanitarian
I totally agree,,relocation is a great idea,but why bother when the hunters can get their hateful and murderous 'jollies' ( just in time for xmas) instead by killing innocent animals, who can't defend themlsves. What men they must be, to kill that which has no direct defense. I wonder how they wives think about this....just wow...
Post by: ICEMAN on December 18, 2011, 10:18:11 AM
I hate to be cynical, but if you read back through quite a few posts here you can understand why this hunt was cancelled. For goodness sakes, we are hunters and yet there is quite a bit of opposition to this hunt. Imagine how the anti hunters feel about killing a few elk for the sake of those damn rich landowners!
We've got to support hunting even when it may not be exactly the way we want it to be.
10-4 :twocents:
Wow do I sound arguementative lately....
OK, so I slept on this and have a bit different attitude than yesterday afternoon..
I do not support hunting in all situations. Not even really sure I would call this hunting. Using somebody's hot tub lid for support as I dump a cow which is sleeping near the 8th hole is not hunting IMHO. This is simply freezer filling.
If the goal is to annihilate the herd, maybe trap and slaughter them or something. ( I bet they would magically return even after the entire herd was slaughterd) But it sounds to me that we have a continual problem here with elk, in a manmade situation where those complaining are not in full support of a planned hunt, which to date has not worked to reduce the problem. All this planning, all this continued exposure to bad press, all so 25 guys can shoot cows and not even keep up with the growing herd problem. This is a total failure.
IMHO, it appears that the goal in this case is to prove that hunting is the answer. "Hunting" will solve the problem for these high end home owners who have created the perfect environment for elk.
This problem is not going away. The elk can freely go to and fro without a problem. The food is there, the forest nearby. A hunt is only a temporary fix if that. It is just a constant risk that I would not want to have even on my property. As soon as one arrow or one deflected round strikes somebodies siding or parked Humvee, it is over. Then what?
A fence is the magic bullet for this specific problem, not hunting.
And for all you folks who do not think that a fence will work, go check out Northwest Trek or a Zoo....seems to work for them just fine. It will just cost the private property owners some cash.
Post by: bobcat on December 19, 2011, 09:11:35 AM
If there is more interest among both hunters and the bunny huggers to have the hunting take place out in the woods, it would be a good idea to improve habitat conditions out there. Allow burns, rethink loading the woods with predators.
That's the solution right there! That's what I was talking about in one of the other threads on this topic. Give the elk someting to eat in areas away from civilization. Which means clearcutting and burning. And then don't replant it in fir so densely that nothing else can grow.
Post by: WonkyWapiti on December 19, 2011, 05:50:26 PM
Post by: jaymark6655 on December 19, 2011, 09:31:19 PM
Post by: Bob33 on December 19, 2011, 09:42:15 PM
http://www.snoqualmievalleyelk.org/archive/docs/GuidingDocument.pdf
Problem Statement, Assumptions, Goals
The resident elk herd (Rocky Mountain subspecies, Cervus elaphus nelsoni) in the Upper Snoqualmie Valley is causing damage to private and commercial orchards, tree farms, landscape vegetation, and other commercial and recreational lands. Additionally, the presence of the elk near roads and highways poses a safety hazard. A group of stakeholders has convened to collaboratively address how to manage the elk herd to reduce property damage, establish safe elk viewing areas near roadways, provide educational opportunities, and identify and address any additional issues associated with the elk herd. The group is operating under these six assumptions:
1. Elk are present in the Upper Snoqualmie Valley, and their presence is valued by the community.
2. Evidence suggests the elk population in the valley is not native; however, there is no intent to
remove the entire population.
3. The size of the elk population in the valley is increasing.
4. Elk are associated with damage and loss of personal property and elk-vehicle collisions.
5. Management of the elk herd is necessary to reduce or minimize elk damage to personal property.
6. Management of the elk herd is best accomplished through a collaborative effort among all
stakeholders.
Post by: bobcat on December 19, 2011, 10:06:59 PM
(not that the numbers don't need to be controlled)
I just don't understand how they can say the elk aren't native.
Post by: scudmaster on December 20, 2011, 12:04:52 AM