2x2 Bucks only in Roosevelt, Harrington, and Steptoe

[bobcat]

Oh yeah, the indians. That's one good reason right there why it's almost pointless to have a good population of mature bucks and bulls in this state. As soon as they get built up in a unit, the indians go in and wipe them out. So you're right. Until this state has the balls to solve the problem of the indians slaughtering all our wildlife, there is no reason to manage deer and elk the way they should be managed.   

That's another good question. Of all the Western states, why is Washington the only one that has this tremendous problem of the indians killing excessive amounts of wildlife, OFF the reservations?

[boneaddict]

I agree, pretty frustrating.

[Skyvalhunter]

Is anyone aware how the other states handle the Indian problem?  Let me guess no problem other places. I know some of the other states reservations make some big bucks on their hunts

[bowhuntin]

Is anyone aware how the other states handle the Indian problem?  Let me guess no problem other places. I know some of the other states reservations make some big bucks on their hunts

A few years ago I was talking to a guy from Wyoming and he said that indians can only hunt the reservations in the state of Wyoming. If they want to hunt off the reservation they have to buy a tag like everyone else. It is to bad indians didn't have to follow the same rules in this state.

[whacker1]

Muleguy, Bone, phool, bobcat, etc have made some compelling arguments for and against.  I believe that the State needs to make some changes, because the system isn't working at status quo.  Not only do we have tribal concerns that need to be navigated, but the introductions of wolves to WA in unprecedented numbers and a growing Cougar population.  Wolves aren't going to be harvested, and Cougars are limited in the current proposal.  All of these factors are increasing pressure on a game population that is already stressed.  

I too want my kids to be able to hunt year in and year out, but that may not be a viable option in a few years based on the growing human population in WA.   I think this is a good conversation that we aren't probably going to solve on this thread, but does expose us to some other ideas that need to be considered and weighed.  

I am actually hoping that as the Baby Boomers grow older that our number of hunters will begin to decrease due to loss of the physical ability to do so.  Not sure what the numbers specifically are for the state, but Nationally you are looking at a generation of 120 million being replaced by Gen X at 80 million.  Natural attrition in age and ability should begin to reduce the numbers of hunters in 10 years or so, but that is still some time from now.  Other factors are involved as well, so it may not go down at all or possibly even rise, so it is a set of statistics that need to be observed to identify trends.

[Curly]

I've put in for Oregons general for the east side of their state for 5 years now and haven't drawn.  So that means I hunt every five years here.  Are you kidding me. 

Correct me if I'm wrong.....but can't you hunt with archery gear in most of Eastern Oregon every year?  I think a lot of guys put in for the rifle permit and if they don't get drawn, they go hunting with their bow.

I do agree, though, that this state would have to get the indians in check before going to permit only like Oregon does.  Why create a bunch of big bucks for the indians to slaughter?

[huntnphool]

The one management technique that has shown time and time again to produce more mature animals is a restriction in season length, season timing, and numbers of hunters.  WA has been able to achieve what few mature animals it does have by a drastically shortened season that falls in the middle of October.  That is the reason for the mature animals, not the 3pt minimum.

Muleyguy, again at the risk of sounding repetitive its a combination of all of them. Is it really your contention that if you restrict the season length, season timing and number of hunters without the 3 point minimum, that there will actually be fewer deer harvested in the 8 day general modern season than if you did have the 3 point min? Not a chance!!!, as you said earlier most would be happy taking the first buck they saw and would be out there dropping every buttonhook that walked by.

I understand what you are saying, we need sound management and I agree, however its my contention that its counter productive to shorten the season, place it in the time of month where there are few migrating bucks out of the extreme high areas, limit the hunters and then turn around and tell them they can kill anything with a button or larger.

Therefor by limiting the harvest of 1.5 year olds they are ensuring at least 2.5 year olds for the following year, and the cycle continues. In the mean time its also counter productive to do all these things and turn around and hand out hundreds of permits that enable the hunter to target those mature bucks in November. I believe the number of permits should be drastically reduced

Let me ask you a question, if there were no antler restrictions this past season would there have been more animals harvested or less? I think its a no brainer but in your opinion the 3 point restriction had no affect

[muleyguy]

huntnphool/bone

I have provided  extensive, biological documentation, from at least 5 seperate sources that say basically three things about 3 pt and 4pt or better rules, here are the conclusions:

1.  They work as a short term stimulus to better buck to doe ratio's
2.  The buck to doe ratio stagnates at best over time;  goes down at worst
3.  The number of "mature" animals, over time, is decreased because it focus' the hunting pressure on mature animals instead of over the entire herd.

that is what the rules do;  that has been the experience and what the research has shown, biologists all over the West.  It isn't my opinion and has nothing to with any agenda.   All these different studies and biologist could be wrong;  I doubt it though.


 "Is it really your contention that if you restrict the season length, season timing and number of hunters without the 3 point minimum, that there will actually be fewer deer harvested in the 8 day general modern season than if you did have the 3 point min?"

once again, it is not "my" contention, it is the collective contention of biologists over many different states who have looked.  What the data shows is that if you get rid of the 3 pt minimum, and leave the season alone, as you suggested,  it will:

1.  have little or no effect on the buck to doe ratio (although it will the first year unless you put some restrictions in)

2.   and, over time, will result in MORE mature animals being in the population because it diffuses the harvest out over all the age classes instead of concentrating it into the older age classes.

it is a simple as that.  That is what the research and data show.  Once again, these are not "my" contention's;  it is the "contention" of research that has been done over many different biologist over many different states.

my only agenda is to get WA state to enact rules that will result in the long term health of our mule deer herds, every biological opinion out there supports getting rid of 3 pt minimum rules.  I guess if you call that an agenda, then I guess it is.  But, the problem historically with the WDFW has been that they do not act decisively enough when managing big game animals.  It takes an act of congress to get them to change management direction, and they tend to bow to public pressure.  They are bowing to public pressure on the 3pt minimum rules;  not doing what is biologically the best for the herd.  The problem with mule deer management is that there are many factors you just cannot control or have little control over:   tribal hunting, wolves, precipitation trends, etc.  But, you can control harvest levels, antler restrictions, season lenghths etc.

So, it becomes imperative to make sure you are "getting it right" with these decisions.  I am done, I said my piece, but, this state for too long has made management decisions based not on what is best for the herd, but, what people want.  At the end of the day, you have to fall back on what good science and research shows, not what a bunch of hunters on some internet forum "believe".  In many cases, the science can be skewed by politics or agenda's or be flawed.  But, in this case, that is not true.  The data is overwhelming.
 



 

[Elkstuffer]

On my late Entiat archery hunt this year 30 of the 39 bucks that I saw were 2x2 or smaller. It would be great for a youth hunt IMO.

[boneaddict]

depends on some of those sources.  Theres also a bunch of people in this world that are convinced with compelling arguements that Obama is our man, and or wolves are necessary for a sound game management plan.  I know alot of biologists that are essential idiots.  Know only a couple worth their salt, one of which is on here.  He has some opinions on this as well.  I'm glad Phools typers are working well because he is saying what I amthinking. 

by the way, your thinking that fewer bucks in the older age class will be shot because they will be shooting younger ones is a bit far fetched.  There are plenty and I mena plenty of hunters to go around for the deer that are available. 

[WDFW-SUX]

It really gets me hard when I can shoot one with milk on its lips...........

[huntnphool]

Muleyguy, before you leave, having said your piece, I would like to know your answer to my question.

if there were no antler restrictions this past season would there have been more animals harvested or less?

[muleyguy]

"if there were no antler restrictions this past season would there have been more animals harvested or less?"

the question is more complicated then just a more or less.  Let me explain:

Right now, the herd composition of bucks, post hunting season, is skewed towards 1.5 yr old animals because of the 3 pt rule.  This means that the following hunting season, you are going to have a large number of 2.5 yr old deer, plus the entire incoming crop of 1.5 yr old animals.

So, you have a stockpile of 2.5 yr old animals going into the hunting season, along with the "normal" amount of 1.5 yr old bucks with 3 pt minimum rules.  Essentially, a very large percentage of the buck population consists of 1.5 yr old animals and 2.5 yr old animals and very poor representation of older classes because of the 3 pt minimum.

If you suddenly eliminate the 3 pt rules, without any new restrictions the following year, you open up the 1.5 yr old buck age class to harvest in addition to the 2.5 yr olds.  What will happen is you will have a huge harvest and it will suppress buck to doe ratio's. 

This is because it works in the exact OPPOSITE when you get rid of the 3 pt rule as when you initiated it.

No one is doubting that you get a short term, quick stimulus in buck to doe ratio's when you initiate 3 pt minimum.  But, when you get rid of them, without corresponding restrictions, the reverse happens to buck to doe ratio's;  you get a short term, quick suppression of buck to doe ratio's.

That is why the department has not gotten rid of them.  They won't tell you this publicly, but, it is the truth.

The better question, and the one I think you are asking, is if you took a unit and divided it into two parts, everything being the same;  habitat, season lenght, predators, etc
and you divide one half into any buck rules and divide the other half into 3 pt minimum rules, over time, which one will have the better buck to doe ratio's and better age structure of bucks in it.

According the best science on the matter, of which there has been a lot done, this is the outcome:

Unit 1  3 pt minimum

dominate age class will be 1.5 yr old animals
buck to doe ratio's will only be as good as any buck unit;  possibly could be worse
harvest will primarily be 2.5 yr old animals
over time, you will see lower levels mature bucks in the population
breeding, on average, will be done by younger males in the population of which research has shown can have an effect on fawn recruitment

Unit 2  any buck

age class will be much more leveled out amongst all the age classes, and not skewed towards one age class
buck to doe ratio's will be the same as 3 pt minimum;  possibly better
harvest will primarily be 1.5 yr old animals
over time you will see increasing amounts of mature bucks (as long as the management scheme allows for it)
breeding, on average, will be done by older animals, of which research has shown results in greater fawn recruitment

That is what the science says.

You also indicated to me that other states have had great success with 3 pt minimum rules and that there was research out there supporting that.  Before you leave, I would be interested in seeing the success other states have had and the research supporting it.

[Skyvalhunter]

Then throw in in the fact that Roosevelt didnt have any special permits for bucks but 300 doe tags. Buck to doe ratio is achieved thru doe harvest.

[boneaddict]

very poor representation of older classes because of the 3 pt minimum

Has nothing to do with 3 point regs.  Has to do with playing catch from the slaughter from a couple years ago because of the late season, and early weather.  Which takes us to the point of season dates having a much larger impact on the harvest of larger bucks than the 3 point rule.  by the way,  three point regs were around alot longer than 92.  One unit in he Methow had it in affect much earlier and very positive results were seen with it.  I know, I" was there as was Phool