Post by: WSU on January 13, 2012, 10:13:37 AM
I find myself questing whether hundreds of cow tags in the Coweeman, Stella, etc. are going to eleviate the problem. Killing elk west of I-5 seems unlikely to affect elk living at Johnson Ridge. Shouldn't the harvest be concentrated in the handful of units right around St. Helens, or perhaps in an elk area created for that purpose?
Post by: Huntbear on January 13, 2012, 10:19:59 AM
Also, with the lack of logging.. ie lack of grass and forage in the Nat'l. Forest, due to logging restrictions, the elk will migrate down to lower elevations for feed. So yes it is a BIGGER issue around the volcano, but not restricted to that specific area.
Post by: WSU on January 13, 2012, 10:27:32 AM
Post by: wrongway on January 13, 2012, 10:33:52 AM
Post by: Huntbear on January 13, 2012, 10:49:07 AM
Do not complain, as soon as the wolves get to capacity, there will not be any elk to hunt anyway....
Post by: Arteman on January 13, 2012, 10:49:43 AM
Post by: wrongway on January 13, 2012, 10:54:27 AM
Post by: Arteman on January 13, 2012, 11:06:05 AM
The Mud Flow elk are the ones that are starving or dying of old age not the ones in the other local units, but they are the ones that are being hit hard, they need to increase the tags in the mud flow not the other areas.:yeah: but a lot of Elk drop down out of the Margaret, Winston, and Toutle to winter there late in the year after general seasons are over, and then starve. So they need to conduct these hunts in those areas earlier. The gripe is to many wintering elk on the flow are starving and competing for food.
Post by: Huntbear on January 13, 2012, 11:24:45 AM
The Mud Flow elk are the ones that are starving or dying of old age not the ones in the other local units, but they are the ones that are being hit hard, they need to increase the tags in the mud flow not the other areas.:yeah: but a lot of Elk drop down out of the Margaret, Winston, and Toutle to winter there late in the year after general seasons are over, and then starve. So they need to conduct these hunts in those areas earlier. The gripe is to many wintering elk on the flow are starving and competing for food.
Not to mention the Coweeman, and Lewis (the old Marble portion anyway) contribute to the issues. It is still a bull to cow ratio plan when it comes to other units. I am not sure that the ryderwood or stella units benefit or not, since I have yet to see an elk in these units. In the Washougal unit, dominated by the Weyerhauser tree farm above Yacolt, it is either sex for elk (has been since I can remember) and there are not that many there. :dunno: the locals all get into elk though every year.
Post by: HntnFsh on January 13, 2012, 05:20:41 PM
I think I counted a total of 690 cow tags available for the Winston and Toledo units this last season.Which all come out of Winston.Beings Toledo is just an area of Winston.To me its way overkill. One of the reasons for such a high # of tags.According to WDFW is landowner damage complaints.My guess is Weyco,who has made great strides in allowing access during big game seasons.And a very small handful of farmers.The problem with the farmers is that they complain like crazy.But very few allow hunting or harvest of elk on their property.So they are also a part of the problem.
I think that WDFW has to find a better way of targeting small,very specific areas.And getting greater support from the farmers with damage complaints.
I hope that the cow permits available next year are a fraction of the ones they allowed this year.
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on January 13, 2012, 05:36:19 PM
Increase harvest reduces total herd numbers, yet allows cows to survive and produce calves for future seasons,
if you reduce a herd from 13000 to 9000 by harvesting cows, you lose more elk than 4000, you lose elk for future seasons, and it will take the herd several years to recuperate.
If you increase harvest on legal bulls, and allow hunters more time afield, the antler restrictions will help with recruitment for next year (s) and keep numbers in acceptable levels for hunters to feel they have a reasonable chance of success, it is SUPPOSED to be a renewable resource, if it was a cornfield, would you kill half your seed before planting ?
Or would you lower your prices on your harvest to sell more ?
:bash: Oh, I figured it out... :o
Post by: furbearer365 on January 13, 2012, 05:55:38 PM
Post by: elksnout on January 13, 2012, 08:47:29 PM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on January 13, 2012, 09:00:05 PM
Post by: Arteman on January 13, 2012, 10:12:04 PM
I was very surprised to see no fat at all on my sons elk ... plus there was hardly any meat around the neck ...if I shot one up here where I live I know I would of been carving fat off of it by the bucket loads .... :yeah:Welcome to the Weco tree farm BowHunter, should have seen it in its glory about two months ago. :chuckle:
Post by: AKBowman on January 14, 2012, 09:16:14 AM
I have been a firm that the amount of pressure on the elk in this area has more effect than anything. The fish and game has set seasons from August to January. The elk here are literally hunted for half of the year. The article today in the Daily News talks about these January cow tags, and the fact that these tag holders are taking cows with fetus's. I think there is a way to thin the herd without having such a dramatic effect on the animals themselves. There is no lax time for them to forage and conserve much need energy. I think they should lengthen the general seasons we have and do away with stretching out the total numbers of months in the field.
I could'nt agree any more with this statement. The constant pressure and stress that the pressure puts on the elk will lead to more disease. I can't quote studies but I know there has been studies on elk from hunting pressure of wolves in other states and how the constant pressure from not being able to relax all year leads to malnutrition and illness.
IMO there needs to be some consideration that the added pressure from the cow permits may be a leading cause of the spread of HOOF ROT.
Post by: furbearer365 on January 14, 2012, 09:46:43 AM
Post by: buckhorn2 on January 14, 2012, 10:05:09 AM
Post by: WDFW Hates ME!!! on January 14, 2012, 05:36:58 PM
I have a problem with the january cow tags, you might take one cow out of a group but now the rest of the group is on the run, wasting valuable energy that they don't have this time of year.
If they wanted added harvest they should have added tags to the general hunt.
Post by: buckhorn2 on January 14, 2012, 06:01:45 PM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on January 14, 2012, 06:01:55 PM
my sons elk had no hoof rot but my buddies did ...plus it had one really long toe on the back hoof ... weird !I have been a firm that the amount of pressure on the elk in this area has more effect than anything. The fish and game has set seasons from August to January. The elk here are literally hunted for half of the year. The article today in the Daily News talks about these January cow tags, and the fact that these tag holders are taking cows with fetus's. I think there is a way to thin the herd without having such a dramatic effect on the animals themselves. There is no lax time for them to forage and conserve much need energy. I think they should lengthen the general seasons we have and do away with stretching out the total numbers of months in the field.
I could'nt agree any more with this statement. The constant pressure and stress that the pressure puts on the elk will lead to more disease. I can't quote studies but I know there has been studies on elk from hunting pressure of wolves in other states and how the constant pressure from not being able to relax all year leads to malnutrition and illness.
IMO there needs to be some consideration that the added pressure from the cow permits may be a leading cause of the spread of HOOF ROT.
Post by: steelnducks on January 14, 2012, 08:50:10 PM
Post by: Arteman on January 14, 2012, 11:37:23 PM
I dont believe that the increase of cow tags are needed in some units. And if they are worried about the elk starving why do they pick a time of the year when increased stress will do more bad then good?Yeah that's a great point, makes since doesn't it?
Post by: Basket Rack on January 15, 2012, 09:23:15 AM
Post by: Huntbear on January 15, 2012, 09:33:36 AM
All the elk in the units in SW Washington are considered part of the St. Helens herd. So they are ALL managed the same way. Does not make it right. If they would make these hunts specific to certain PARTS of the area, or shorten the season, or whatever, I am sure we would have guys on here bitching about how they lost opportunity to hunt. Is January hunts, with 300 guys all looking to fill tags in a couple of units a good idea? No. Are the elk stressed beyond belief? Yes.
So get involved with Washington For Wildlife and get some solutions on the board, and taken to Olympia to see if it can be changed....
We have to be PROactive not REactive if we want to be able to have quality hunting in this state.
Post by: Arteman on January 15, 2012, 10:40:33 AM
I am not sure how WDFW correlates some elk starving in the mudflow a few years ago to needing to kill cows in the Winston unit. It is probably more timber company browse complaints that spurred these January tags. What I want to see if this is a one time deal to reduce herd numbers or if we will see these late cow tags year after year. My guess is they are a money maker for WDFW and we will not see them go away. A good example is the Wildwood and Boistfort units, these late Jan. cow tag #'s keep increasing along with the cow tags in the general seasons as well. Elk numbers in these units have dramatically dropped due to the elevated cow harvest and I am sure the hoof rot issues have contributed as well. Is WDFW doing any management on these units that is best for the herds or is it their typical maximize the income to the department approach.Yeah and i just found out yesterday that after the muzzleload Ryderwood cow hunt is over on the 15th or 16th that some modern guys get to go in and slay them tell like the 30th. Not sure what modern group it is, haven't even picked up the regs.
Post by: bobcat on January 15, 2012, 10:58:53 AM
Post by: Salmo on January 21, 2012, 03:38:02 PM
Otherwise, I agree with more cow permits.. Higher the Bull to Cow ratio the healthier the herd. I hunted my arse of this last season. Every timber stand, every creek bottom and swamp, hrs glassing in a gated unit. End Result this year, 19spikes, 85 cows. Not how it should be.. Had I not spent so much time in the brush the spike and cow numbers woulda been alot higher.
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on January 22, 2012, 01:17:55 AM
I think they should give more tags for the environmentalist. It's sickening to watch the National Forest to go to hell.. They need to log that sum biatch! No kitchen=no food=no elk..Wow ! I only spent 5 days in a gated unit, called in 7 Branched antlered bulls, and 3 cows (different times, not together) saw 37 other Elk, including another branched bull but not able to close the distance, this does not count the 9 other bulls I heard bugle, but never got to see...
Otherwise, I agree with more cow permits.. Higher the Bull to Cow ratio the healthier the herd. I hunted my arse of this last season. Every timber stand, every creek bottom and swamp, hrs glassing in a gated unit. End Result this year, 19spikes, 85 cows. Not how it should be.. Had I not spent so much time in the brush the spike and cow numbers woulda been alot higher.
I beleive a FEW cow permits are no big deal, it is when they offer 100's to reduce the herd that I object.
I feel that if they want to reduce the herd, it should be by allowing an additional week for all user groups, and reduce the herd by allowing a larger overall harvest, not by eliminating calf recruitment by killing cows, and eliminating production.
as their own mission statement is,
Quote
sustain –
and even enhance – hunting opportunities,
care for our wildlife areas, and meet our other
responsibilities for wildlife stewardship in the
coming years.
sustain - and even enhance - hunting opportunities, does not include herd reduction to decrease future harvest. :bash:
Post by: buckhorn2 on January 28, 2012, 09:46:20 PM
Post by: wrongway on January 28, 2012, 09:51:30 PM
Post by: AKBowman on January 29, 2012, 06:48:28 AM
I think they should give more tags for the environmentalist. It's sickening to watch the National Forest to go to hell.. They need to log that sum biatch! No kitchen=no food=no elk..Wow ! I only spent 5 days in a gated unit, called in 7 Branched antlered bulls, and 3 cows (different times, not together) saw 37 other Elk, including another branched bull but not able to close the distance, this does not count the 9 other bulls I heard bugle, but never got to see...
Otherwise, I agree with more cow permits.. Higher the Bull to Cow ratio the healthier the herd. I hunted my arse of this last season. Every timber stand, every creek bottom and swamp, hrs glassing in a gated unit. End Result this year, 19spikes, 85 cows. Not how it should be.. Had I not spent so much time in the brush the spike and cow numbers woulda been alot higher.
I beleive a FEW cow permits are no big deal, it is when they offer 100's to reduce the herd that I object.
I feel that if they want to reduce the herd, it should be by allowing an additional week for all user groups, and reduce the herd by allowing a larger overall harvest, not by eliminating calf recruitment by killing cows, and eliminating production.
as their own mission statement is,Quotesustain –
and even enhance – hunting opportunities,
care for our wildlife areas, and meet our other
responsibilities for wildlife stewardship in the
coming years.
sustain - and even enhance - hunting opportunities, does not include herd reduction to decrease future harvest. :bash:
Stik- You are right on but if they lengthened the season to reduce elk numbers rather than giving out permits they would miss out on the revenue. Apparently, teh WDFW should change their mission statement to
"pillage the hell out of the people of Washingtons wild game, fleece the hell out of the hunters who provide our wages and over everything else bend over backwards to create revenue and take nothing else above the almighty dollar"
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on January 31, 2012, 01:23:42 PM
Quote
"sustain –Have you seen the new "activity reports" ? sure wish I got a salary to do almost nothing but write a few sentences about a day in the woods once a week. :bash:
and even enhance – OUR paycheck,
care for our wildlife areas, and meet OUR OTHER responsibilities in the
coming years, so WE have jobs.
Post by: Huntbear on January 31, 2012, 01:32:07 PM
I think they should give more tags for the environmentalist. It's sickening to watch the National Forest to go to hell.. They need to log that sum biatch! No kitchen=no food=no elk..
Otherwise, I agree with more cow permits.. Higher the Bull to Cow ratio the healthier the herd. I hunted my arse of this last season. Every timber stand, every creek bottom and swamp, hrs glassing in a gated unit. End Result this year, 19spikes, 85 cows. Not how it should be.. Had I not spent so much time in the brush the spike and cow numbers woulda been alot higher.
You should see how bad it is on the south side of Mt. St. Helens, in the N.F. They have done some land swaps so bits and pieces could be logged, but anything near the monument area is hands off..... almost wish for a forest fire, at least there would be grass to feed the elk. The reprod where I hunt elk is 20 yrs. old now. they finally thinned it and the huckleberry brush took off. More bear sign than I have ever seen. Elk? not so much...
Post by: elksnout on January 31, 2012, 09:24:44 PM
Post by: ICEMAN on February 01, 2012, 06:24:10 AM
On one hand, I always want to see herd size increase, no matter what, and I feel that thinning the cows is a bad idea. But, I am supposed to trust that Wildlife has the herds best interest in mind, that they are the professional managers of the resource and I should trust their decision making process. ( Have they reduced cow hunt numbers in other units?)
On the other hand, there may just be more elk there than we know. My cow hunt lasted until 10am of day 1. At dawn I found a sizeable herd, but they were busted up by a couple of other hunters shooting at greater distance than I was from the animals. I claimed my cow on the second encounter of the morning. There are obviously elk in the area, even after a long long hunting season of a lot of pressure.
So, this is the rub, I want herd size to increase, yet there I was applying for the new hunt to help keep my freezer full. I guess I am part of the problem? :dunno: If I was a better bull hunter maybe I would not apply for these types of hunts...
Do I fully trust that wildlife is sponsoring hunts that are needed to keep the herd healthy? :dunno:
Has greed caused me to apply for a hunt I am not sure needed to be exercised? :dunno:
My biggest concern regarding all of the permit hunts in this state is that I do feel they may be about money. Sell off the herds to fatten the state coffers, not about proper game management. I envision a future where every single hunt in the state is a pay to play permit hunt, where all of us are just robotically submitting permit apps and paying fees in order to simply be considered to even be able to hunt. The odds of getting drawn for any hunt worsen every year and I do not see how they can change the methodology of it. How can they now yank points out from guys feet after they have applied for years? Just like welfare. Get us invested in the program and you are committed to it. Do guys want to see the system scrapped and watch their quality hunt app points zeroed out for a better plan? A lot of guys have max points for quality hunts and cringe at the thought of others like myself blowing points on a lousy cow hunt. I hear you. I am a meat hunter, so it feel like I have thrown caution to the wind when applying for a meat hunt.
So hear I sit not sure if I am part of the problem of; or part of a solution to game management.
Post by: Arteman on February 01, 2012, 11:08:02 AM
I drew a tag and claimed a winston cow this January on a new hunt this year, designed to thin the herd. I am conflicted on the topic.Iceman, I live here and have hunted the unit my whole life, I believe these cow hunts have more to do with the timber companies than anything else. There are a lot of elk in the Winston but the herd is not unhealthy other than hoof rot issues, but these cow hunts won't solve that problem. These hunts are more in Wecos best interest than the herds. These elk don't have a tough winter there with a lot of lowlands in the unit, and with it being one of heaviest logged areas in recent years there is a lot of fresh feed. So i cant say if hunting them at this time hurts them or not in that area, but my guess would be yes, especially heavy with calves. I know Weco wanted to give out cow hunts to employees as Christmas gifts but got shot down on the idea. Not long ago I talked to a good recourse of a neighboring timber companie that told me they push for these permits to reduce damage to their trees on their lands. I can't argue that the timing of the hunts might not be the best time for these Elk, but ill continue to put in for the late hunts as long as they offer them. This way I can concentrate on bulls during regular season and if unsuccessful I know I have meat coming in the late. It makes my decision easy because I can tell you if had to decide to take a cow before a bull there would be one less guy to compete for tags against.
On one hand, I always want to see herd size increase, no matter what, and I feel that thinning the cows is a bad idea. But, I am supposed to trust that Wildlife has the herds best interest in mind, that they are the professional managers of the resource and I should trust their decision making process. ( Have they reduced cow hunt numbers in other units?)
On the other hand, there may just be more elk there than we know. My cow hunt lasted until 10am of day 1. At dawn I found a sizeable herd, but they were busted up by a couple of other hunters shooting at greater distance than I was from the animals. I claimed my cow on the second encounter of the morning. There are obviously elk in the area, even after a long long hunting season of a lot of pressure.
So, this is the rub, I want herd size to increase, yet there I was applying for the new hunt to help keep my freezer full. I guess I am part of the problem? :dunno: If I was a better bull hunter maybe I would not apply for these types of hunts...
Do I fully trust that wildlife is sponsoring hunts that are needed to keep the herd healthy? :dunno:
Has greed caused me to apply for a hunt I am not sure needed to be exercised? :dunno:
My biggest concern regarding all of the permit hunts in this state is that I do feel they may be about money. Sell off the herds to fatten the state coffers, not about proper game management. I envision a future where every single hunt in the state is a pay to play permit hunt, where all of us are just robotically submitting permit apps and paying fees in order to simply be considered to even be able to hunt. The odds of getting drawn for any hunt worsen every year and I do not see how they can change the methodology of it. How can they now yank points out from guys feet after they have applied for years? Just like welfare. Get us invested in the program and you are committed to it. Do guys want to see the system scrapped and watch their quality hunt app points zeroed out for a better plan? A lot of guys have max points for quality hunts and cringe at the thought of others like myself blowing points on a lousy cow hunt. I hear you. I am a meat hunter, so it feel like I have thrown caution to the wind when applying for a meat hunt.
So hear I sit not sure if I am part of the problem of; or part of a solution to game management.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on February 01, 2012, 11:49:05 AM
Post by: Tbar on February 01, 2012, 12:11:17 PM
The whole point of such a long late hunt is to reduce the herds on there wintering grounds.... highly doubt there is that many elk hanging around in some of these areas in Sept or early Nov... Am I wrong ? All I can say is that cow my son got may be one of the best dang elk I ever layed my lips on :chuckle: :tup: :drool::yeah:
IMO that is the reason for a late season. They have a controlled harvest by giving them a few weeks to settle down into their winter areas. The late muzzy season can be feast or famine in these areas. The area always hold elk but not the #'s that are there in january. This also is the time when they do the most damage to weyco land because of the depleted nutritional value of the available food sources they turn to eating the tree buds...... Imo
Post by: WSU on February 01, 2012, 02:32:17 PM
The whole point of such a long late hunt is to reduce the herds on there wintering grounds.... highly doubt there is that many elk hanging around in some of these areas in Sept or early Nov... Am I wrong ? All I can say is that cow my son got may be one of the best dang elk I ever layed my lips on :chuckle: :tup: :drool:
Yes, you are wrong. The vast majority of the area inside the hunting areas are not wintering grounds. The elk live in these areas 12 months a year and, for the most part, are not migratory.
Post by: HntnFsh on February 02, 2012, 06:18:32 AM
Post by: wrongway on February 02, 2012, 07:16:49 AM
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on February 04, 2012, 09:37:43 PM
Quote
So, this is the rub, I want herd size to increase, yet there I was applying for the new hunt to help keep my freezer full. I guess I am part of the problem? If I was a better bull hunter maybe I would not apply for these types of hunts...I have nothing against exercising your rights as a citizen (any ethnic faction), it is anger against the WDFW that offers these, the reason they offer is twofold, to make applicants happy enough to continue to apply, but still feel that herd reduction would best be served by a BALANCED harvest, from all age classes, not HERD REDUCTION, by slaughtering the reproductive majority of the herd...
Do I fully trust that wildlife is sponsoring hunts that are needed to keep the herd healthy?
Has greed caused me to apply for a hunt I am not sure needed to be exercised?
Figure it like this...
St Helens Herd = 13,000 animals (all inclusive units)
WDFW offers 500 cow permits a season for 3 years = 1300 cows killed (wdfw estimate of +/- 90% success on permits and non participants)
This reduces the herd the first year by 500, yet count out the 150-200 calves, (survival of newborns, and calf mortality in the first year of 30%) annually, takes 700 elk out of herd, so, next (2nd year) another 700, and the third, 700, total of 2,100 cows/calves.
Now the herd is +/- 10,000, a 30% reduction in TOTAL herd size, in only the permit areas, closer to an increase of OVER 100% harvest TOTAL IN THAT AREA !!, concentrating harvest in those areas, reduces future opportunity, while in areas without the harvest increase suffer a loss from herd dispersal, and in areas w/o the additional permits are already either under-hunted (due to access), or permit only there is only a minimal change in herd structure, Bull/cow ratio has been increased, yet due to low calf recruitment mostly mature (3+ y/o bulls) makes hunting better for branched bull harvest (further reducing herd size), now the WDFW has 8,000 Elk in the St.Helens herd, a few lucky hunters are happy about harvesting their animals in past seasons, but their kids say, ... The hunting sucks around here, why, back in the day, you saw them hanging in almost all the camps, the old guys complain about how there just is not the same "quality" of hunting, and everyone blames the WDFW (rightly so) and wonder :dunno:
IT IS SIMPLE MATH, REDUCE THE NUMBER OF BREEDING COWS = LESS ELK, I will continue to say, offer a few days more season, give hunters more days to hunt = more animals harvested, cows still produce = still more animals for hunters... Why complain about losing days from ALL user groups, when we allow an already imbalanced Elk:Hunter ratio with more hunters than Elk, and the WDFW "manages" by herd reduction ?
That is just plain ignorant, and they all should study economics to understand the relationship between supply and demand.
More Elk = more days to hunt = increased harvest = happy hunters = more revenue...
Less Elk = decreased harvest = fewer days to hunt = unhappy hunters = more hunters hunting other states = less revenue :bash:
If the herd needs reduction, open the season for more days GENERAL season, so EVERYONE can hunt !!
Again, it is all about making $$$ now, to hell with the future, 3 years from now, they will just open more "Watchable" wildlife areas, where you can park at a field and watch the birds and coyotes, read a sign about how the Elk "coexist" and the food cycle of a Salmon in the little creek that flows through, the life cycle of a tree..and wonder why there are no Elk standing there...