Call to Action - Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Commission Meeting

[more_cowbell]

There is a “Predator/Prey Project” being completed by the Department. What is Washington's Predator-Prey Project Aimed at Achieving? Assessing the effects of predation on ungulate populations in managed landscapes with wolves. Determining the degree of influence wolves have on cougar space use, foraging ecology, and population dynamics. This is incomplete at this time.

To save time and money (jk) maybe WDFW needs to team up with or get data from Oregon DFW, if the latter is farther along studying similar types of things. Oregon by ballot banned hound hunting of cougars and bears in mid 1990s, and we had wolves by early 2000s so we're quite a ways down the road of having all three predators roaming where the ungulates used to roam.

 

[Hammsolo]

To save time and money (jk) maybe WDFW needs to team up with or get data from Oregon DFW, if the latter is farther along studying similar types of things. Oregon by ballot banned hound hunting of cougars and bears in mid 1990s, and we had wolves by early 2000s so we're quite a ways down the road of having all three predators roaming where the ungulates used to roam.

A novel concept would be all these states teaming up on research…

 

[Big Fin]

Maybe i need to re listen to your series with Mahoney but what would keep the trustees from simply ending hunting? It would ensure complete elimination of markets for dead wildlife. It would ensure the most corpus for the most beneficiaries with the most even allocation of those resources.

By the end of his responses to the commissioner's questions I felt like the NAM doesn't actually support hunting. It merely allows certain hunting if desired, under certain conditions.

Bullseye!

I don’t think you need to relisten. You’ve nailed it.

If hunters and anglers cannot show a net benefit associated with their involvement, in the many ways they are involved, the Trustees could easily end hunting, fishing, trapping, distributing wildlife in any manner, antler picking, mountain biking, you name it.

And that’s the worry many have had for years. If hunters can’t demonstrate value to the big picture, we’re not gonna be around for too long. If the Public Trust Corpus of wildlife suffers rather than benefits from hunting and hunters, we aren’t giving a “reasonable and prudent” Trustee any option that favors hunting.

You’ve summarized the issue in one question better than I did in multiple paragraphs.

Q: Are hunters and hunting doing enough benefit to the Trust and Trust Corpus to continue our historical role as primary Stakeholders that a Trustee must consider?

I’d answer that as “YES.” But in some instances our apathy, our resistance to more funding, our use of selective science for confirmation (bias), our tone deaf response to some issues, and other actions/inaction measured unfavorably allows that a case can be made to the contrary by those opposed to hunting.

 

[JLS]

Bullseye!

I don’t think you need to relisten. You’ve nailed it.

If hunters and anglers cannot show a net benefit associated with their involvement, in the many ways they are involved, the Trustees could easily end hunting, fishing, trapping, distributing wildlife in any manner, antler picking, mountain biking, you name it.

And that’s the worry many have had for years. If hunters can’t demonstrate value to the big picture, we’re not gonna be around for too long. If the Public Trust Corpus of wildlife suffers rather than benefits from hunting and hunters, we aren’t giving a “reasonable and prudent” Trustee any option that favors hunting.

You’ve summarized the issue in one question better than I did in multiple paragraphs.

Q: Are hunters and hunting doing enough benefit to the Trust and Trust Corpus to continue our historical role as primary Stakeholders that a Trustee must consider?

I’d answer that as “YES.” But in some instances our apathy, our resistance to more funding, our use of selective science for confirmation (bias), our tone deaf response to some issues, and other actions/inaction measured unfavorably allows that a case can be made to the contrary by those opposed to hunting.

This

 

[JLS]

This whole situation is also a good example of how quickly a situation can go south.

Inslee has been governor for over 10 years. Historically, he has appointed some very good commissioners. One of the best was an Audubon Society member, never hunted, drives a Subaru, etc. She was one of the best commissioners I’ve seen in my lifetime in the western states I’ve lived in.

However, Inslee began taking a lot of heat over lethal wolf removal in northeast Washington. He tried to pressure WDFW, but the director pointed out they were directly following the approved wolf management plan. Inslee also stepped in and put a procedural halt on an effort to increase cougar quotas.

WDFW has had a lot of conflict, both external and internal with respect to predator management over the last ten years. I think the commissioner stacking was a direct end around when WDFW didn’t acquiesce to his pressure, and what we’ve seen since is collateral damage.

To the points raised above, the NAM does not guarantee hunting. It merely enables to common man to take part in the process. Washington law speaks to public use of resources, to include harvest, so absent legislative change, hunting isn’t going away anytime soon.

This should be a wake up call on a number of levels. Hunters don’t have a monopoly on wildlife management. Political damage can come from both parties. Existing paradigms for predator management likely aren’t sustainable nor beneficial in the long run.

 

[JLS]

A novel concept would be all these states teaming up on research…

The current study could actually be very informative. I think it could potentially advance some existing research on this topic.

That said, I’d like to see it replicated in different ecosystems. The Selkirk region might yield far different results because of prey base and habitat than say the Blue Mountains/Hells Canyon region.

 

[375H&H]

To save time and money (jk) maybe WDFW needs to team up with or get data from Oregon DFW, if the latter is farther along studying similar types of things. Oregon by ballot banned hound hunting of cougars and bears in mid 1990s, and we had wolves by early 2000s so we're quite a ways down the road of having all three predators roaming where the ungulates used to roam.

No need to team up, Washington has that exact same info from being in the same situation as Oregon. Just depends on how they want to “interpret” the data.

 

[elkduds]

Excellent discussion, taken in parallel to current issues w CO Parks & Wildlife.

One question, Won't making a change to factors being studied negate the whole study; meaning no findings, no conclusions, waste of time, $, research opportunity? And violate agency policy, state laws? How long is the current research supposed to last?

 

[44hunter45]

Just tourist observations. The three days we were in the Alpine Lake Wilderness, we or someone around us reported seeing bears at least one each day. Same bear? I can't say as I never actually witnessed it. My son's girlfriend did and our camp neighbors did.

One a day is comparable to what I've seen in SE AK.

 

[more_cowbell]

The current study could actually be very informative. I think it could potentially advance some existing research on this topic.

That said, I’d like to see it replicated in different ecosystems. The Selkirk region might yield far different results because of prey base and habitat than say the Blue Mountains/Hells Canyon region.

True, apparently wolves virtually eliminated a small caribou herd that had started in the Selkirks.

But there’s also a lot of overlap like in the Blue mountains straddling Washington and Oregon where I hunt. And the moose in NE Oregon that had started, haven’t prospered due mainly to predators.

Hers an article from this year that discusses both those Selkirk caribou and NE Oregon moose:

The state of moose

I was on Salmo Mountain in Washington state, way up next to the border with British Columbia when I found an odd track, about 4 inches long — not an

www.lagrandeobserver.com

 

[44hunter45]

True, apparently wolves virtually eliminated a small caribou herd that had started in the Selkirks.

But there’s also a lot of overlap like in the Blue mountains straddling Washington and Oregon where I hunt. And the moose in NE Oregon that had started, haven’t prospered due mainly to predators.

Hers an article from this year that discusses both those Selkirk caribou and NE Oregon moose:

The state of moose

I was on Salmo Mountain in Washington state, way up next to the border with British Columbia when I found an odd track, about 4 inches long — not an

www.lagrandeobserver.com

I'm not saying the woofs fart rainbows.

Mr Lewis implies that predators are the only factor in the demise of the Boundary County Caribou and the Shiras moose. It's a LOT more nuanced than that.

Bart George probably knows more about Idaho caribou than anyone on earth and he says predators, yes, but other ungulates who out-competed them too, as well as changing climate.
The Caribou rely on a very specific moss as their primary food source and it is dying out as well. There is a reason Bart loves to chase lions. I met Bart once and he was happy to talk caribou and lions all evening.

It is not true, as the article implies, that moose are increasing in other states. They may have been, but they are not now. They are declining in Washington and Idaho.

I was intrigued by the photo of the cow moose by Troy. I was in Troy a couple of days before the Grizzly Bear fire tore through there in 2015. How many times has the Grande Ronde burned since then? I've spent a lot of time on the Washington side on the Tucannon. That valley has gone from lush timber and bighorns everywhere to bare hills and stumps.
Tough neighborhood.

I used to make the Clarkston to Enterprise run a couple of times a year and miss it. I need to get back to Joseph and re-supply on Stein's amazing Straight Rye.

 

[JLS]

I met Bart once and he was happy to talk caribou and lions all evening.

Great guy

Caribou herd of the S. Selkirk mountains may be extinct

The South Selkirk mountain caribou herd may be extinct after aerial surveys found only three remaining animals."The Selkirk mountains are still going to be a big…

www.lmtribune.com

 

[JLS]

Excellent discussion, taken in parallel to current issues w CO Parks & Wildlife.

One question, Won't making a change to factors being studied negate the whole study; meaning no findings, no conclusions, waste of time, $, research opportunity? And violate agency policy, state laws? How long is the current research supposed to last?

I believe the project is in its final year. If not, it’s coming close.

I guess i don’t understand your questions about factors being studied?

 

[JLS]

One a day is comparable to what I've seen in SE AK.

The Cascades have a very high bear density. The bio in the Blues did a hair DNA study and found the population estimates might be the highest density in the state.

 

[more_cowbell]

It is not true, as the article implies, that moose are increasing in other states. They may have been, but they are not now. They are declining in Washington and Idaho.

The article says they’ve decreased in Washington:

According to Coggins, one of his counterparts in Washington thinks there is just a handful of moose left in the Evergreen State. “He told me about one that was just killed that had produced twin calves a lot of years.”

This is not an unfamiliar story.
“The average person doesn’t have a clue as to how fast these wolves reproduce,” Coggins said. “As the wolf numbers have increased the moose have decreased and that’s a fact. I know of a number of moose that have been killed by wolves recently. There are virtually wolf packs in every unit. At least one pack in each unit and most have a couple packs,” Coggins said.

 

[JLS]

one of his counterparts in Washington thinks there is just a handful of moose left in the Evergreen State.

I don’t think this is accurate. Decreased, yes. Handful, no.

 

[more_cowbell]

I don’t think this is accurate. Decreased, yes. Handful, no.

Maybe but this guy was an ODFW district biologist who apparently got that info from a counterpart in Washington. I didn’t see the article implying moose numbers were increasing in all other states such as Washington

 

[JLS]

Maybe but this guy was an ODFW district biologist who apparently got that info from a counterpart in Washington. I didn’t see the article implying moose numbers were increasing in all other states such as Washington

I’m not saying he didn’t, but if you look at permit numbers and harvest data it certainly doesn’t support “a handful”.

I’m not sure there is a western state where moose aren’t decreasing in numbers.

 

[elkduds]

I believe the project is in its final year. If not, it’s coming close.

I guess i don’t understand your questions about factors being studied?

If a policy change alters the environment during a research study, the factors being studied are no longer the only variable being measured. A study usually has a dependent variable and an independent variable. Studies measure how much a dependent variable changes the independent variable. If there is another variable introduced, then whatever change occurs to the independent variable cannot be attributed solely to the dependent variable. By keeping a research study to the original design and time specified, valid conclusions can be found. Altering any variable during the course of the study invalidates the study, wasting all the time and resources invested in the study. Clear as mud?

 

[JLS]

If a policy change alters the environment during a research study, the factors being studied are no longer the only variable being measured. A study usually has a dependent variable and an independent variable. Studies measure how much a dependent variable changes the independent variable. If there is another variable introduced, then whatever change occurs to the independent variable cannot be attributed solely to the dependent variable. By keeping a research study to the original design and time specified, valid conclusions can be found. Altering any variable during the course of the study invalidates the study, wasting all the time and resources invested in the study. Clear as mud?

Yeah I think I see what you’re driving at. To my knowledge, the only variable that has changed has been the elimination of spring bear hunting, which was pretty conservative in terms of permit allocations. I don’t know if that’s enough to invalidate the study or not.