Free: Contests & Raffles.
1. Pursuant to the first bullet point on page vii of the Management Plan, has any formal survey protocol actually been developed or implemented? The 2020 hunting prospects document states quite clearly that these have not, and instead use surrogates. It would seem that as more eyes come onto the NE in all facets, including wolves, mountain caribou extinction, CWD and other diseases, more formal data collection of true elk population numbers should be pursued. 2. The Selkirk Herd has been supplemented with 8 past releases of elk in the past, with the most being in 2000. The stated goal of the department for this sub-herd is to grow the population to an upper limit of 2,500 elk. Are any more releases/supplementations being considered?We saw some incredible country, throughout both private timberlands and public ownership, that was either devoid of elk or was used solely as transitional habitat. Everything we’ve heard about the elk up north prior to hunting them was they’re highly nomadic, move often and frequently, and are in small bands. To my amateur eye, there could be significantly more elk than 2,500. Between the 3 counties, there is 6,081 sq miles of land, of which the GMUs make up 4,629 sq miles. Using the 2500 mark, that would be 1 elk per 1.85 sq mi (1 elk/ 1185 acres). Yes, there are cities, roads, developed areas to take out of these acres, but that sure still seems like low densities. The areas I hunted in Montana last year, while slightly over objective, had roughly 2,000 elk in 630 square miles, which equates to 1 elk per 0.32 square miles or 1 elk per 202 acres. This rolls into another issue of relating this OTC opportunity to declining bull tags in the Yakima/ Blues herd. If this herd could be augmented and increase populations, theoretically less hunters would be chasing spikes during general season in the 300 series GMUs and could hunt in the NE with a reasonable chance of harvesting a mature bull, or any elk for that matter and not chase true spike unicorns. That would allow more bulls to reach mature age, and should increase tag allocations generating more revenue to the department for application fees. Elk from areas that consistently cause crop damage could be relocated to the north and help resolve two issues with one action. Could the Selkirk herd be used to help improve herd conditions for the other major populations in the state?3. The five year average for all weapon categories for elk harvest, regardless of sex or species, from the 2020 Hunting Prospects is 230. The table in the Selkirk Management Plan from 2001-2010 for the Pend Oreille sub-herd shows an average of 212. Current population estimates for the Pend Oreille Sub-herd shows estimates 1,500 animals, which would leave about 1,300 animals post hunting season. I’ve attached a table showing where elk mortality would come from and animals theoretically left on the landscape post-hunting season. It’s not 100% accurate, as I’ve reduced wolf kills from 17 elk per wolf per year to 10, since I’m assuming they would eat other prey (deer/moose) and not just elk (page 18 of Selkirk Elk Plan).I also used the minimum confirmed population levels, so odds are these numbers and wolf kills are even higher. I also assumed reasonable levels for bear/cougar/poaching based on other data in the elk plan. Are elk numbers in the Selkirk herd being considered to help benefit the growing predator populations in the NE? As wolf populations should continue to grow, they will need more prey to feed on. The recent move to start black bear season on August 1 statewide and allow 2 bears statewide should help mitigate some of those kills by bears as more hunters harvest more black bears. However wolf populations are going to continue to expand for the foreseeable future and could shift their attention to already vulnerable moose populations for larger prey if elk begin to decline. It would appear that supplementing this herd could further decrease livestock predations, as there are wild sources of prey that wolves could chase and reduce the number of wolves the department would have to lethally remove. 4. Only 1.5 claims of ag damage by the Selkirk herd were recorded during 2001-2010. There is good logic in the Selkirk plan on page 24 regarding ag damage that shows how these costs can be mitigated, and how additional hunters in the area pursuing big game could contribute to fund additional damage claims that may occur with increased elk populations. 5. On page 29, the second question stated on the research needs section seems like a great way to collect data easily and efficiently related to body condition and nutrition and how that relates to overall herd health. I would like to see more of that pushed.6. New research shows that closed roads are great for security, but actually offer little benefit to elk if there is no habitat to utilize behind the closed roads and in the secured areas. As there will come a push for more intensive management of federal lands in the Selkirk herd area (hopefully state as well) due to our recent fire season and smoke issues, wildlife managers should use this as an opportunity to further expand habitat improvement projects. What other planned work does the department have to improve habitat for the Selkirk herd in the coming years? In summary, I believe this herd has an excellent opportunity for growth and improvement based on visual observation of habitat quality, current low density of elk, and stated goals from the department wanting to grow this herd.Any information you could share on plans to follow through on the management plan, or ways that volunteers could help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time.
What makes you say/think timber companies do not like elk? Admittedly I'm only involved in timber management on the west side, but ungulate browse damage is rarely significant enough to have a meaningful impact on a stand. Cedar is about the only crop species that get hammered over here. If there are agricultural lands, especially on winter range, that's be a more likely reason. That or competition for winter range forage with other more desired species?
If you research the trend reports from the wdfw back in the early 2000. Dana Base wrote that the position of the wdfw was to not encourage the expansion of the elk herd west of the Columbia River. Some place in all my files I have the report. But it still should be public information.
So, 6 years later, how do the herds of then and now compare ?
So, 6 years later, how do the herds of then and now compare ? How have they been impacted by predators and is there tribal hunting ?
Quote from: Ridgeratt on September 20, 2020, 06:37:47 PMIf you research the trend reports from the wdfw back in the early 2000. Dana Base wrote that the position of the wdfw was to not encourage the expansion of the elk herd west of the Columbia River. Some place in all my files I have the report. But it still should be public information.The Selkirk Elk Plan that was written in 2014 clearly states that they have a desire to INCREASE the Selkirk herd by roughly 1,000 elk. EDIT: Did you mean east of the river?
Quote from: cougforester on September 20, 2020, 06:48:54 PMQuote from: Ridgeratt on September 20, 2020, 06:37:47 PMIf you research the trend reports from the wdfw back in the early 2000. Dana Base wrote that the position of the wdfw was to not encourage the expansion of the elk herd west of the Columbia River. Some place in all my files I have the report. But it still should be public information.The Selkirk Elk Plan that was written in 2014 clearly states that they have a desire to INCREASE the Selkirk herd by roughly 1,000 elk. EDIT: Did you mean east of the river?They were talking about units 101,105
Pre wolf introduction elk herd or 17K down to a bit over 2K now.
Quote from: Ridgeratt on September 20, 2020, 07:27:46 PMQuote from: cougforester on September 20, 2020, 06:48:54 PMQuote from: Ridgeratt on September 20, 2020, 06:37:47 PMIf you research the trend reports from the wdfw back in the early 2000. Dana Base wrote that the position of the wdfw was to not encourage the expansion of the elk herd west of the Columbia River. Some place in all my files I have the report. But it still should be public information.The Selkirk Elk Plan that was written in 2014 clearly states that they have a desire to INCREASE the Selkirk herd by roughly 1,000 elk. EDIT: Did you mean east of the river?They were talking about units 101,105Gotcha. Hm. I've not seen that but if it's out there, it's out there! Quote from: WapitiTalk1 on September 20, 2020, 07:23:37 PMPre wolf introduction elk herd or 17K down to a bit over 2K now. The herd used to be 17k?!?
Some HistoryWhen I was a kid there were almost no elk in NE WA, they were only found in a few small areas of the NE, mainly in GMU 113. For many years the WDFW's top priority was to maintain NE WA as primary whitetail habitat. The first unit that was managed for elk was GMU 113. There was open season on any elk you saw in other GMU's, anyone could shoot bulls, cows, or calves. Miraculously the elk ever so slowly increased, elk slowly moved in from Idaho and from B.C., most likely elk numbers increased only because of the heavy cover and many places to hide. Local hunters became more fond of elk hunting and put a lot of pressure on WDFW to stop the killing of cows and calves. After a good many years WDFW finally started managing more GMU's for elk and eventually eliminated the any elk season in other NE units. This took literally decades of complaining to get WDFW to finally allow the elk to increase!
A predator explosion with no end in sight is the only thing that I see as well limiting herd growth. The habitat is beautiful and there's lots and lots of it. But if the elk keep getting eaten before they've got a chance to reproduce, there's nowhere to go but down regardless of the habitat availability.
It is argued cats are the #1 elk predator, and while thay may be true by the numbers... cats don't tend to focus on the large mature breeding population, they get younger elk up to yearlings mostly.Bears also kill many elk, but they're almost always calves.Wolves kill breeders, and are the #1 killer of pregger cowsSo while bears and cats might be way over population the elk can still grow in numbers, some calves will slip through the gauntlet and grow to breeding age, hopefully enough to cover the dying elk that got too old, but with wolves killing the breeding pops they just can't Of course there's exceptions Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Any suggestions on getting elk in my fields?I care not about making hay, I'm turning them into giant food plots and bird hunting. And maybe a little hay..Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
I think the blue tongue did a number on the whitetail here in Stevens co. As far as the increased seasons on bears, I knew that was coming when we lost our hound seasons. Uninformed liberal hippies voting a management tool out of the woods. Now they cry when a lion kills their pets or hangs around their house. But personally as far as elk are concerned, the increase in the bear and lion population along with the addition of wolves defiantly has an impact on the herds .
Quote from: callturner on September 21, 2020, 04:51:32 PMI think the blue tongue did a number on the whitetail here in Stevens co. As far as the increased seasons on bears, I knew that was coming when we lost our hound seasons. Uninformed liberal hippies voting a management tool out of the woods. Now they cry when a lion kills their pets or hangs around their house. But personally as far as elk are concerned, the increase in the bear and lion population along with the addition of wolves defiantly has an impact on the herds . Increased number of bears or increased seasons? We lost hounds and baiting in 1999... it’s taken 20 years to get any movement on increased bear seasons.
It's also not X number of wolves eat X number of elk. They have changed the way cow elk graze, thus resulting in more cows not making it to full term, which means less and less calves in the spring.
