Quilomene buck tags slashed

D

Dmanmastertracker

Guest
Someone may have heard this already, but the Quilomene mod. fire lottery tags are to be dramatically cut next year. When I questioned WDFW on it they said it was due to increased harvest over the last five years. The statistics on the WDFW website do not show an increase in harvest over the last five years but a decrease in both harvest and tag numbers. I guess I just don't understand how a large unit with no regular season could be reduced to just a couple dozen bucks harvested annually. Anyone have any input on this?
 
I always thought that they gave out many tags for that unit. It is a large unit. during the late hunt most all the deer are only in half the unit.
Should make for some better hunting in years to come.
 
That was my other question. Are there any tribal hunts in that area? If you look at total number of deer harvested in neighboring units of similar size, the numbers don't add up.
 
Does anyone know any links that show how many deer and elk are harvested each year through tribal hunting? I was reading something on the state website that made me think that noone, including the state, really knows how many they take each year or where they are taken. Just if a state game officer happens along to a tribal hunter or one is reported as an illegal hunter and the officer finds them while investigating. Do the tribes, some or all, report any hunting numbers? I always thought the state monitored this for an overall game management plan, but it sounds like there is no accounting or it is hush hush. Sorry to take the thread in this direction, just read the posts above and was curious.

Mike
 
Mike, I work with a group that does work with WDFW on monitoring of tribal salmon fisheries, but I'm in the dark too about harvest numbers being kept on hunting seasons in this State. As far as I can tell, the tribe's are on their own recognizance through tribal F and W officers for monitoring themselves and present no formal annual report to WDFW. This should be mandatory and monitored in itself by WDFW and/ or Feds. I do know that it generally takes action at the Federal level to implement such things, because State's do not have authority to enforce tribal harvest quotas, they only make recommendations for harvest quotas.
-Darrel
 
-I just got more information from WDFW on this plan and it makes me scratch my head even more. The plan is to boost permits in 328 Naneum (which had a 9% success rate in 2004) based on more bucks available to help compensate for the lost tags in Quilomene?? 9% is a dismal success rate to base an increase in tags on and will not work. Entiat, Swakane, Manastash, Teanaway, Mission, and Chiwawa (all neighboring units, had mod fire harvestst of approximately 200-almost 400 bucks this season. Quilomene, similar in size to the neighboring units and mostly State land had 47 mod fire bucks harvested and next year that number will be cut in half.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-20-05 AT 04:09PM (MST)[p]Dmanmastertracker, the Quilomene unit is mostly a winter range area for mule deer, and many of the deer that winter there would come out of the Naneum. The Quilomene is a wide open desert unit with almost no timber and very little water. Deer in the Quilomene will be much more vulnerable than in all the other units you mentioned. I don't know why the permit numbers are being changed but just wasn't sure you realized the units you are comparing to the Quilomene are much different and do support a lot more deer.
 
Bob, I've been in all of the units I listed and while the edge of the unit closest to the Columbia is how you described the area, The upper 2/3 of the unit is well forested on top with many folds and canyons, very comparable to Mission, Naneum, Swakane. While terrain may account for some of the lower harvest, it is the sharp decline in permits that I am talking about. Permits are always supposed to be based on WDFW annual studies. Why were the studies so off from just five years ago, to warrant what will result in a 50-60% reduction in permits for 2006 after five years of steady reductions? Can you honestly say that only 30 bucks a year should come out of Quilomene, while neighboring units are giving up hundreds more? It has far greater potential than that. Granted the hunting SHOULD be very good after the reduction, but to me, as a person who still has not been drawn for a lottery tag watching the chances to get drawn somewhere keep being reduced, it just makes me question the current management of certain areas like the Quilomene. My other thought was exactly what you stated, Quilomene lies at a lower elevation, generally than the surrounding units, shouldn't it have a better winter survival rate too?
 
Bob, one more thing I wanted to add. You're probably right about the Naneum herd over-wintering in the Quilomene, that stands to reason. So why can't they open up a general season too, if they are going to cut special permits to nil? I know for a fact that the deer in that region usually do not migrate until after general mod fire season.
-Darrel
 
Darrel,

I really have no idea as to why they would be cutting back permits for the Quilomene so much, except that I'm sure they wouldn't be doing so if deer numbers weren't down. So where are you getting this information? I've never seen them come out with permit numbers this early.

It really does seem like a possibility that the Indians may have been taking a lot of mule deer out of the Quilomene, especially since I heard they've been taking a lot of bull elk out of there also.
 
I know that the state considers Quilomene, Desert and one other ( i think Alkali) unit to be the "trophy" draws where there is no general season and they are trying to limit the number of bucks taken so that the bucks taken are of much better quality. I would guess they are just trying to get another years worth of growth on a few more deer. Once they have an established number of "bigger" bucks then they could gradually open up a few more permits to draw and still be at a regenerating number of "bigger" bucks. Just my guess. Maybe the quality is still not where they want it for a trophy area and it needs more survival to get there.

Mike
 
Bob, the legislation is still in the proposal stage and is in the process of being adopted for next year. Currently there are 75 permits and in WDFW's own words, they want to "drastically" reduce that number next year. I assume the Yakima's are the only tribe that could be harvesting in the Quilomene? Seems like they have enough area south of there to conduct any harvest. I have asked WDFW what type of tribal harvest, if any is going on. We'll see what they say...
-Darrel
 
Mike, your probably right, but going back to 1997 the permits have steadily declined from 130 plus and I can't find any record, but I think the number used to be even higher than that -in the 150's. The bad thing about reserving Quilomene as a trophy hunt zone is that between Desert and Alkali units it is the only one with sizeable State lands (and we had a proposal in the works to help bolster that). It's real hard to sell new license fees to hunters to purchase more lands, if the hunters don't even know if they'll be able to hunt there, or at best have minimal opportunity. This has larger issues to it.
 
the Quilomene is a very vulnerable area because of its openess. It also lies in the "usual and accustomed" hunting area for the Yakama indians.

Since it has been draw only for awhile, it probably is a magnet for indians and poachers. Open habitat, draw only units, are where the indians and poachers go, they don't go to the Naneum, too many trees, not enough roads.

My guess is that DOW reduced the number of tags because the buck harvest has been high due to indians and poaching. You will not get a straight answer out of the DOW because it is too politically hot. The last thing they want to do is tell us hunters that they are doing this because of indian poaching.

Unit 342 used to be a draw only unit up until 2 years ago; it is also an open, wintering type of unit. Strangely, the dept suddenly announced 2 years ago they were scrapping the draw only and returining it to a general season. It is also on the "usual and accustomed" hunting grounds for the tribe. They just got sick and tired of all of the indian hunting going on; truckloads of dead, mature bucks were coming out of the mud lake road all winter.

As far as "requiring" the tribe to report their harvest numbers to the DOW, that is not going to happen. Good luck, they are a sovereign nation, and they have the "right" to do this.

The DOW hands are tied as far as management goes; they have no jurisdiction over the tribe.

What you DO want is to force the DOW to be honest about why they are doing it. They will not want to talk about it, I can guarantee that. But, they are a public agency, and if they are managing our tag numbers around the amount of indian poaching that is going on, then at the very least, they should be open and honest about it to the public.
 
Indian poaching, rediculous limits or both?? From what I know, they don't have to poach, the seasons and bag limits are absurd enough.
 
DM, it will be very interesting to find out what the WDFW's response is to your questions...........I am assuming that you confronted them with the information that you came up with on buck harvests, and how that doesn't square with what they are saying?

Please post their response, that will be interesting.
 
Will post, if they respond. I've also polled the US Fish and Wildlife Service on their take too. One interesting clause in the Northwest treaties is that one of the two reason's that may allow the WDFW to impose hunting restrictions on tribes states; If numbers of the species to be harvested drops below harvestable levels, or essentially is reduced to any non-harvestable level. Aren't we just about there in the Quilomene?
 
I think that they are trying to improve the mature buck numbers for the resident deer. I've been in on two permit hunts in the Quilomene (my permit and my dad's permit) and only saw one mature buck. It was on my permit, I spent 12 days hunting right up to the end of the season. I saw the mature 26" 3x3 which I probably should have shot but I was holding out for a mature 4 point which I never saw. I was trophy hunting and never did take a buck. I hunted the whole unit by access with my quad so it isn't like I didn't cover the unit. I put on alot of shoe leather miles in those remote canyons and couldn't find a big one. My dad couldn't hold out long enough with his permit to look for a big mature buck so he took a young spindly 23" 3x4. It is not a trophy hunt by any means. Maybe they are trying to improve the quality of bucks. That is my best guess.
 
It just occurred to me that the "Wild Horse Wind Power Project" closes off the most productive part of the unit along the Ridge Road between Quilomene Ridge and the Vantage Highway. Most of the deer tend to end up in the bitter brush in the upper end of the Whiskey ##### and Scookumchuck canyons during the permit season, which will be closed to hunting and classified as a "no trespassing" area. That has got to be a big factor in the decline of available permits. Check out the closed area on WDFW website under "Wild Horse Wind Power Project". Maybe that is the biggest reason for this.
 
here we go again, the Yakima tribe and other local tribes are going to continue to hunt where they want when they want without regard to what wdfw stats are. I have heard that there will not be a season next year in the naneum because of the tribe taking to many elk. Id have to check the regs but i think there were only 5 or 6 muzzleload tags issued to sportsmen. Once there is an abundance of deer and elk and the tribes are made aware, watch out because it will not last long.
 
I think they are doing it to increase the # of mature bucks in the unit. I think they should put fewer tags on a lot more of the units. Some of you may think this is crazy, but when I draw a special tag I want it to be worth my time. Just my .02 cents.
 
BB, the Skookumchuck drainage is the 17,000 acre area that would be an immediate focus of a joint purchase with WDFW, as part on the new "sportsmans hunting reserve fund" initiative I've been working on. WDFW needs just a little more funding on that one and we could make a difference there. The WWRC, Wa. Bowhunters Assn. and many members here are already in support of it. Anyone else interested, we're just looking for headcount interest right now, send me an e-mail at [email protected].
 
This is too bad that the fish and game has continued to cut tags for the public when the tribe can hunt where ever they want whenever they want. I know for a fact that 342's permit hunt was stopped because of the tibal hunts on the winter range. How is it that a treaty signed over a hundred years ago still valid. They have thousands of acres of land on the rez. but they continue to kill elk at the feeding stations and kill deer on the winter range. There has to be a better way to manage the tribal hunting. A few of years ago a couple of tribal members killed two of the only big bulls in the nile feeding station. Their resoning for the slaughter was that they needed the elk for a funeral. If you need meat for a funeral why not kill some of the problem elk that are causing all the damage in the orchards or shoot cows, not the only big bulls. just my two cents.
 
"There has to be a better way to manage the tribal hunting."

Unfortunately, there isn't......they are a sovereign nation with a legal right to do what they are doing.

The only tools you have as sportsmen to fight this is the public relations angle.

The first key is to force the dept to admit when they have to manage a unit differently because of the indian poaching. The dept has no business "managing" the information flow, or trying to be politically correct. If the indians are killing too many deer in a unit, and they have to manage it differently, then they need to say it. It is our tax and license fees that run the dept.

When you get the dept to fess up in public what is going on, then it isn't just a bunch of "racist white men" who are saying this.

I do have to give the dept some credit though, that was pretty clever to switch the tags from the open habitat unit (quilomene) to the forested one (naneum). They know the naneum can take it better because of the vegetation.

But, they should stop playing games with the information and just be straight up why they are doing it instead of trying to "hide" behind the biology of it.

I am not a WDFW basher, but this is the exact kind of thing that gets our mule deer in trouble. Decisions are being made for political reasons instead of biological ones. Why should the Naneum herd have to suck up the extra tags, just to make up for the Quilomene problem?

The WDFW should manage each unit on its own, according to what is biologically sound for that unit. If the indians are poaching too many deer in a unit, and there is nothing we can legally do to stop it, then we have to accept that. You don't go and overharvest another herd to make up for it.

Wildlife depts all over the West like to hide behind the "habitat" and "drought" banners. It is much easier to to blame all the problems on those "evil condo" developers or that drought that never seems to go away, even in good rain years. It is not politcally easy to say that predators are decimating the herds, or to say "we screwed up and issued too many tags" or "indian poaching" is the problem.

My novel idea is this: Set a population objective; set a buck/doe ratio; and set a mature buck/buck ratio. After doing this, simply work backwards and provide as many opportunities as you can under these guidelines. Do what is right for the herd first, then set the seasons to maintain this.
 
So if tribal hunting is the problem. What do we do? I wonder even if we were able to get everyone in the entire state on the bandwagon. Would anything be done? Could anything be done?

I wouldn't have near the problem with indians hunting if they didn't only kill the big bulls and bucks. I'm sure some of the indians do kill cows and does, but I don't believe most are on that page. This is something that I think we can use against them.

I'm not up on the political aspect of this situation, but I would like to help get things changed. I've always hoped that there was a sportsman much smarter than I that knew how to get the ball rolling.

Kris
 
All good points. Just so everyone's clear, since I started this thread, I have nothing against Native Americans -I have Blackfoot heritage, one of my good friends is a direct descendant of Sitting Bull and another is half Ojibway. The difference is I respect them because they have respect for our resources and don't take more than they need -ever. I honestly didn't intend this thread to go this direction, but since it has been brought up, it does need to be addressed. As for what we can do, I am looking in to the 50/50 rule because I believe it applies to big game as well. Under the Northwest Treaty Native Americans have the right to harvest 50% of the harvestable game in any geographic region covered by the treaty. Since the Quilomene is a geographic region, it stands to reason that 50% harvest there should be allowed under treaty. The question is and I think all would agree here, -are over 50% of harvestable bucks being taken? -definitely. When you set a 50% harvest goal you have to seperate bucks and does, or you could end up with 100% buck harvest easily. I do know that if we we're to get the State to examine this issue, it would also mean no hunting in Quilomene for us for a few years, but at least the hunt wouldn't be a joke any more. I know I will not put in for a tag in that unit any time soon unless things change.
-Darrel
 
This discussion is interesting; a lot of talk about the indians killing anything and everything. Is there any documentation on this? Just curious, it's making my blood boil but I want some facts before jumping to conclusions.
 
Buckmania, as I said earlier that was not the intent of this post, but since it came up I have been doing some research on it. Please see the links I posted for information about the recent history of the tribal hunting issue in Wa.. As far as any evidence, that is the whole point of the conclusion here, the WDFW, or higher governing body needs to adopt some type of harvest monitoring like they do for salmon to ensure that we won't lose GMU's to hunting all together. Currently there are no public records kept on tribal deer harvest in Wa. and the treaties never specifically stated that harvest records could not be kept. Like everyone else, just my 2 cents.
 
guys, you aren't getting it........their is no higher governing body, as far as big game animals go. WDFW has ZERO jurisdiction over the tribe and its harvests.

the only reason that they are closely monitored in their salmon harvest is because the Fed's are involved; salmon are an endangered species, so the Fed's take control of managment of it. And, where do the tribes get all of their financial assistance? Just follow the pursestrings, that is the only people that can get leverage with the tribe.

Management of Big Game animals is a state issue. Now, if deer and elk become federally endangered, that might be different.

You guys are thinking in terms like us hunters do. The tribe does not enforce any "season" or bag limits. And they especially are not in the business of telling their members what and how they can hunt off of the reservation on the "usual and accustomed" lands.

The way it goes down is this: a legal tribal member and a few of his buddies get in a truck, they take off for the Quilomene (or wherever) during the rut and winter, drive the roads and shoot as many deer or elk as they want. They load them up and go home. Certainly, not every indian hunter is recklessly shooting large quantities of game, but many are.

It is as simple as that. Harvest reports, bag limits, seasons......those are white mans rules......and the white man has no authority to tell me what I can hunt and where I can hunt because my ancerstors have been here for 800 years. It is a power issue, they do it because they can.

Right now, the WDFW will not even admit publically when they try and manage around the indian problem. Step one is to get the dept to admit publically when they have to manage our tags around the indian problem. Right now, the dept won't even admit there is a problem, how can you solve a problem, when the agency in control of it, won't even admit there is a problem???

It is just like AA (alcohlolics anonymous).........you can't solve the problem unti you admit there is a problem.....the very first thing they make you do is stand up and admit there is a problem, then you get onto solving it.

Make the WDFW admit the problem publically........that is the first step.....if you can't get that step done, the rest is a waste of time.

Please do not take this as tribal bashing because it isn't.....if us normal hunters did not have legal bounderies around us, they exact same thing would be happening.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-21-05 AT 10:15PM (MST)[p].. . . . . . ..

"Roadless areas, in general, represent some of the best fish and wildlife habitat on public lands. The bad news is that there is nothing positive about a road where fish and wildlife habitat are concerned -- absolutely nothing." (B&C Professor, Jack Ward Thomas, Fair Chase, Fall 2005, p.10).
 
MG, accurate, sort of. The Supreme Courts have always held sway over all State's in Indian affairs, though most won't go that route. Also, that is the exact point, if tribes we're required to keep harvest statistics for public record, that IS the FIRST logical step in getting the problem out in the open. How can we dispute something that is NOT DOCUMENTED? We all know it happens, it HAS to be documented and there is nothing in the treaties that would forbid this from happening. The State just needs to get the ball rolling on that one. It may take Federal intervention, but there is just no way whatsoever WDFW can adequately manage our herds in Wa. without harvest reports for EVERYONE. Do a little research on States like Minnesota and other States with good hunting opportunities and you will find that in other States, tribes ARE reporting their deer harvests...
 
I will agree that there is nothing in the treaties that forbids documentation, but there is also nothing in the treaties that requires documentation either. The tribe can document it if it wants to certainly. But, it would be a purely voluntary act on their part.

I think the key here is that you cannot rely on the tribe to document it. And, you cannot rely on us sportsmen to document it because it is too emotional on our side, and besides, we are not biologists.

The agency to document it is the WDFW. BUT, they are going to have to document it without much help from the tribe.

The real problem here is that over the last 10 years or so, tribal members have pushed off of the reservation and are now hunting on state,federal and even private lands under the "usual and accustomed" areas arguement. They first did this to make an example to everybody that "they can".

This is the key problem I think: The tribe itself probably tries to regulate hunting within the reservation boundries (although they obviously are not doing a good job because indians are coming out of the res to hunt). And they probably try and document what happens within the reservation. They can do this because they have jurisdiction within the boundries.

But who is in charge of tribal members and their harvest outside the reservation boundries??????? Certainly not the tribe, they cannot control their members outside of the reservation. And, certainly not the WDFW or the sherrifs or whoever. That has been proven in court.

So, you have a group of people completely operating outside the scope of any boundries, rules or laws.

The damage has already been documented by the WFWD; it it wasn't documented somehow within the dept, how can they be making management decisions on specific units like unit 342 and the Quilomene??

It is documented, their management decisions prove it..........you just have to get them to admit it............and admit it publically.........
 
I'm researching a couple avenues on that. I really don't want to piss off WDFW right now, they've been receptive to my proposed initiative and overall, I think they do a pretty good job. I'll talk some more with my contacts there and see if something could be done to get these harvest numbers recorded and available to the public. If other States are doing it, we should be able to also.
-D
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-22-05 AT 10:26AM (MST)[p]Seems to me the best way to cut down on the "indian poaching," (as muleyguy calls it) would be to close many of the roads in those open, winter range type units where the mule deer are most vulnerable. If the roads were closed immediately after hunting season and weren't opened up until after the deer had migrated back up to higher elevations, our mule deer populations could really be improved. Of course they could still walk in and kill deer but how likely is that?
 
I really like the sound of that. That would be totally within WDFW's right's to do so on State lands and could be an option.
 
That is why these discussions are good, because it elicits good ideas that nobody thought of. If you shut down the roads, that would go a long ways toward shutting down the problem. The only problem I could potentially see is that it would limit legitimate public access and that could be a problem. But maybe there is some way around it??

But, these are the kind of ideas I am talking about.

You have to figure out ways to solve the problem without the tribes involvement, because honestly, they have very little control over what their members do, and at the end of the day tribal leadership could really care less about this issue. If they did they would do something about it.

DM, I know you are working hard on your proposal and that is great. But, the WDFW has absolutely no excuse for being completely honest about why they are managing a herd a certain way. If the dept would torpedo your program because you call them to the mat on this tribal hunting issue, then this state is in big trouble as far as public management of our big game animals is concerned.

The other question to ask yourself is this one: If they are secretly managing around this indian poaching issue, how many other little secret "issues" concerning our herd are they managing around?

The WFDW is responsible for the management of big game animals.

What they are not responsible for is the "filtering" of information.

It is not that hard of a public statement to make, here is an example:

"Currently, the Quilomene deer herd is not meeting population and buck to doe objectives due to increased harvests of mature bucks by Yakama indian members. The Yakama indians have a legal right to hunt their historical range. Currently, the WFDW has no authority to regulate this hunting activity, therefore the WDFW must adopt a reactive instead of proactive policy.

To improve the population and buck to doe objectives, the WFDW will be reducing the amount buck tags available. In an effort to replace this lost hunting opportunity, the WFDW has increased the number of late buck tags in the Naneum unit, which is currently within population objectives."

Ok, that was not so hard was it??????? Here is another example for what they did in unit 342:

" Increased tribal harvest of mature mule deer bucks in the Umptanum deer unit has created a situation where the WFDW can no longer manage this unit as a trophy mule deer unit. Units managed for trophy animals call for restrictions on the number of tags availalbe. If the unit cannot be managed properly for trophy mule deer, then a restrictive tag policy is not appropriate. The WFDW will return the Umptanum unit to a general draw unit to increase hunter opportunities"

Once again, that wasn't so bad was it?
 
Good point and exactly why I brought it up, to get everyone's input. I can say that after speaking with some different agencies today, that both my initiative and the research of the tribal hunting issue are being looked at by them. That's all I can say right now, but if anyone would like more info, send me a PM and a will respond. Thanks everyone for all the great input on this, it's what helps make change.
 
Shutting off the roads is one of thoe ideas that you say to yourself. "Why didn't I think of that." That's brilliant. We know they aren't going to hike in anywhere and do there hunting. Shut the door on the wintering grounds and there will be a significant decline in the tribal hunting and non tribal poaching. Win Win situation.

Good job Bob

Kris
 
I didn't read every thread to this topic, so I don't know if anyone mentioned this already, but doesn't it take an act of congress to change a treaty? I feel strongly about updating the subsistance hunting of the tribes to meet todays (twenty-first century) deer and elk herd. Getting the nation to focus on this issue seems unlikely though. I like the idea of closing the roads. Plow'em up and re-seed. Let the fires burn too. Sorry, I'm dreaming again.
 
Hunterofelk, treaties have no authority over road use on State owned lands. The tribes may hunt there, according to treaty boundaries, etc., but their treaty does not dictate how/ when/ why a road can be closed on State owned lands. I believe also that travel can be restricted off-road to protect habitat at any time on State owned lands, if it is necessary. As I stated earlier in this conversation, this is now being looked at by State agencies, I will post any new news.
-Darrel
 
Well' if the have the right to hunt as they will. So be it. But thy dont have the right to drink and drive ,smoke illeagal substance ,speed and all the crap that we know that goes along with certain peoples behavoir. No count on the numbers! In my state they could track all this behavoir and it does not reign on there nation. It's is the law. Hunt THEM on peoples personal behavior and that will be like closing another road.
 
I have to agree with Buckblaster, I have drawn this tag twice also. Once with a rifle and once with a bow. I didnt see a mature buck in two seasons, the only reason I put in twice is that the largest buck I have ever seen was in this unit in 1985 and I was hoping the blood line was still around, well if it is a couldn't find any of them. I wont put in for this unit again. I know people that hunted this unit years ago and it was good, so I dont know whats going on.
 

Similar threads

J
Mule Deer and CWD
Replies
45
Views
2k
HIcountryman
HIcountryman

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

20201105_120110.jpg
1196DDBF-2917-40EB-9CB5-3DAADE97E314.jpeg
Home in the truck.jpg
Screenshot_20230903-225245_Gallery.jpg
IMG_9619.jpeg
8369F96A-B824-4597-899A-24A1508FDA1E.jpeg
FA1293F2-A2E2-4A5D-8DCB-CE6318D473C3.png
657E3824-73A8-4D49-B983-441B488AEF2F.jpeg
9F023D17-321A-4646-B6F6-BCAECEC1D17E.jpeg
52733891-56CE-43D6-8163-60064F795249.jpeg
20231203_183638.jpg
31E00FB5-3E86-47EA-A1CE-8D34CFB03D04.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom