N/E washington?

[bearpaw]

Whatever is done if anything must be very simple for all hunters to easily understand and comply. The more complicated the less chance of it working. Thus I think the simple 4 pt restriction is the best option.

If this occurs, there will be a greatly reduced buck harvest the first year in those two units, but in subsequent years the harvest should catch back up. In 4 or 5 years the restriction may not even be needed as buck/doe ratios may be inline.

Currently we do not have a large enough deer herd to support much doe harvest, and I totally agree with WDFW cutting back doe permits in 2010 and hope they continue with fewer permits for a couple more years. When our herd hopefully grows in 3 to 5 years, then I would fully support a much increased doe harvest.

Plenty of folks have said they don't want an antler restriction, but if we get it and in a couple years when buck numbers and quality improves, watch how popular those units will be for hunters.

[DBHAWTHORNE]

Whatever is done if anything must be very simple for all hunters to easily understand and comply. The more complicated the less chance of it working. Thus I think the simple 4 pt restriction is the best option.

If this occurs, there will be a greatly reduced buck harvest the first year in those two units, but in subsequent years the harvest should catch back up. In 4 or 5 years the restriction may not even be needed as buck/doe ratios may be inline.

Currently we do not have a large enough deer herd to support much doe harvest, and I totally agree with WDFW cutting back doe permits in 2010 and hope they continue with fewer permits for a couple more years. When our herd hopefully grows in 3 to 5 years, then I would fully support a much increased doe harvest.

Plenty of folks have said they don't want an antler restriction, but if we get it and in a couple years when buck numbers and quality improves, watch how popular those units will be for hunters.

I definitely think this will help get the herd back to where it needs to be and helps buffer any hard winters we may have in the future.

[ribka]

Whatever is done if anything must be very simple for all hunters to easily understand and comply. The more complicated the less chance of it working. Thus I think the simple 4 pt restriction is the best option.

If this occurs, there will be a greatly reduced buck harvest the first year in those two units, but in subsequent years the harvest should catch back up. In 4 or 5 years the restriction may not even be needed as buck/doe ratios may be inline.

Currently we do not have a large enough deer herd to support much doe harvest, and I totally agree with WDFW cutting back doe permits in 2010 and hope they continue with fewer permits for a couple more years. When our herd hopefully grows in 3 to 5 years, then I would fully support a much increased doe harvest.

Plenty of folks have said they don't want an antler restriction, but if we get it and in a couple years when buck numbers and quality improves, watch how popular those units will be for hunters.

Great idea. Agree with the 4 pt restriction in some units. Great trophy potential up there

[walt]

I am far from convinced it is a good idea.  Every 5 years or so we have a harsher than usual winter, sometimes two in a row and the herd declines, a year or three later it has rebounded and the complaints about too many deer start.  Then ma nature hits them again.  It has been going on for decades.  We had two hard winters in a row before this last mild one and there was no shortage of mature bucks this year, or any past year.  If you want to help the herd adjust the season dates, most of the mature bucks get killed in the last few days of the late season when the rut is in full swing.  Many hunters are looking for meat not antlers.  Also what effect would this restriction have on the surrounding units?  It seems that the ones pushing the hardest for this are the ones that will benefit from it.  Not talking about you specifically bearpaw but from talking to many friends and family up there that seems to be the concensus.  Adjust the season not the size if there is really an issue with too few deer and the herd not recovering.  I'm a little skeptical that is the motivation though.   

[gjbruny]

I am far from convinced it is a good idea.  Every 5 years or so we have a harsher than usual winter, sometimes two in a row and the herd declines, a year or three later it has rebounded and the complaints about too many deer start.  Then ma nature hits them again.  It has been going on for decades.  We had two hard winters in a row before this last mild one and there was no shortage of mature bucks this year, or any past year.  If you want to help the herd adjust the season dates, most of the mature bucks get killed in the last few days of the late season when the rut is in full swing.  Many hunters are looking for meat not antlers.  Also what effect would this restriction have on the surrounding units?  It seems that the ones pushing the hardest for this are the ones that will benefit from it.  Not talking about you specifically bearpaw but from talking to many friends and family up there that seems to be the concensus.  Adjust the season not the size if there is really an issue with too few deer and the herd not recovering.  I'm a little skeptical that is the motivation though.    

yes there was a shortage of mature bucks this year. in '07, there was no shortage.... but this year?.... the problem is, most people can't tell a 3 year old (not mature) from a 6 year old. i have seen plenty of 3 year olds in the130-140" range..... to most people, that is a monster and they will assume it is fully mature (and probably be convinced they saw a booner ). how many times have you talked with people that have a decently sized bodied deer on the ground and they are swearing that it s a old buck that is in the decline when infact it is just a healthy 3-4 year old? i have seen that plenty of times. conversely, i have over 40 sets of sheds that are from 5 and 6 year olds that are in the 130-140" range. people far too often judge an animal's age by the size of his rack.... and most people aren't all that good at judging horns..... let alone an animals age through skeletal and facial features. lets not forget.... the hansen buck was a 3 year old.

what i don't understand is people saying there are too many deer even in a "banner" year. for instance, last year WI killed over 400,000 deer..... that is not estimated 400,000 animals in the state..... that is deer harvested!!! that is roughly 4 times the total whitetails estimated to be living in WA.

if there are too many, Ma Nature will take care of it, be it weather, predation, or disease. the key is how fast the herd bounces back and a poor buck to doe ratio is the worst answer for it.

i know some people don't think that regularly killing does is a good idea...... i was on that bandwagon until i started hunting the midwest and don't kid yourself, WI,IA, and ND winters are consistently brutal..... not an every 5 year thing. but they have it completely figured out but trying to convince guys out here that have never been to the midwest to kill does when total herd numbers are down is next to impossible..... i think you truly have to see it and how it has worked to believe it.

bottom line is that the land will always have a "carrying capacity" and it doesn't care if the number is a buck to doe ratio 1:30 or 1:1. so lets say that we have 10,000 deer each in two units that is hit with a massive winter and a 50% kill rates. one unit was managed for 5-8 years under an "earn a buck" program and has a 1:3 buck to doe ratio (3333 bucks 6667 does) the other has a 1:10 ratio (1000 bucks to 9000 does). after a 50% kill off, unit 1 has 1666 bucks and 3333 does while unit two has 500 bucks to 4500 does.

it has been shown that most whitetails have the capacity to breed on average 5-7 does/ season.

in unit 1 that means all the does were bred and more than 3333 fawns should be born (assuming 100% survival rate)

in unit 2 only 50-70% of the does would be bred. lets call it 60% or 2700 fawns with a 100% survival.

*****year two shows that unit 1 now has 8333 deer with a healthy buck to doe ratio while unit two has 7700 deer and the buck to doe ratio is still out of whack.

lets say you have a second back to back winter with another 50% kill.... assuming that the buck to doe ratio quatas were kept in check after that year's hunting season and we went off the year prior's breeding buck and does.

unit 1 would have another 100% or 3333 does bred while unit two had another 60% or 2700 bred does.

now winter hits and half the deer die. 4167 in unit one survive and 3850 survive in unit 2. now take half of the bred does  made it and add their fawns to the population.

unit one how has 5833 total deer (4167 with 1666 fawns)
unit two now has 5200 total deer (3850 with 1350 fawns)

now obviously this is an example and would only happen in a perfect world but it is dang close to what actually happens in the midwest. throw in some QDM and now you have more bucks making it through the hunting season since they get wiser with age.

not only that, but where there is a healthy buck to doe ratio, only the strongest bucks breed since competition is SO high to breed.

i am not sure how many of you get to hunt the midwest on a regular basis, but the ones that do can attest to just how aggressive the older bucks are during the rut. the strongest bucks get the does and they pass on those strong genes to the fawns.

not only that, but the overall health of the herd is better, the number of buck (and big buck) sightings is WAY up during the season and both deer and hunters are happy.

there is no secret.... or atleast the secret is getting out that eastern WA has some big deer.... we have the potential to have A LOT of great deer but the management is just not here.... partly because most believe that killing does (even when total deer numbers are down) will further hurt the herd.... that just isn't the case and the number of deer will actually grow as the buck to doe ratio is brought back into line. in times of crisis (more fawns will result the following year than a unit with a poor buck to doe ratio and the number of bucks seen during hunting season won't seem so bleak.....this grows exponentially with each passing year if those ratios are kept inline.

again, there is a carrying capacity for all tracts of land and it doesn't discriminate between the sex of the animal. but when there are so many does, that only 50-70% are reproducing each year, that means another 30-50% of those animals could have been bucks if the ratios were kept in check meaning more fawns born the following year. as mentioned before, our brutal weather patterns are indeed cyclical..... so when do we as a state finally decide to get the buck to doe ratio in line?..... i doubt Ma Nature is going to open up a window especially for us to do it.... we just have to suck it up and do it.

how many times have you heard  the same phrase "i sure didn't see many does with fawns this year?" now ask yourself why? the yotes and the cats aren't totally responsible for it...... we are partly to blame...... besides, the number of yotes and cats come and go with the number of deer..... again, "carrying capacity."

[Decker]

We had two hard winters in a row before this last mild one and there was no shortage of mature bucks this year

Of course there wasn't. Two hard winters in a row like that will take out a great of deer. The ones that survived had to be the toughest of the tough. One of the reasons we're seeing so many big bucks taken this year is because they had the genetics to survive those harsh winters. I'm just hoping that we'll see an uptrend in the genetics of our area as a whole due to this, i.e. a lot of the lesser genetics didn't make it and now all of these great bucks we're seeing are doing the breeding. 

[gjbruny]

One of the reasons we're seeing so many big bucks taken this year is because they had the genetics to survive those harsh winters.

more than genes, we have to be honest with ourselves....... the two BIGGEST reasons a number of good deer were taken are (most importantly) we had a record snowfall in the month of November which concentrated the deer around food sources..... and the other is more and more hunters each year set their stands right over bait...... this year, the two went hand in hand.

the midwest has their baiting laws dialed as well. example...... WI= 2gallons or less of bait on a pile at any given time. IA= no bait.

WI + IA + QDM + sound buck to doe ratios=..... WORLD CLASS HUNTING.

[bearpaw]

Most of our buck/doe ratios are not too far out of whack in most units here in NE WA. What is way off is our total deer numbers. To bring numbers back, studies have shown the need to reduce anlerless harvest while at the same time maintaining an adequate buck/doe ratio. WDFW has already reduced antlerless harvest, now we need to reduce buck harvest to prevent the buck /doe ratio from slipping.

This is a compound problem becuase when antlerless harvest is reduced it forces a greater percentage of hunters to hunt bucks. This has a negative effect on ratios. By reducing buck harvest, whether by reduced season or by antler restriction, buck/doe ratios will benefit.

I have attended numerous meetings in NE WA over many years on this antler restriction and to be honest, I used to oppose it. I felt it would have a negative impact. However given the current herd numbers something must be done. When asked if people would prefer shorter seasons or an antler restriction, more people were in favor of an antler restriction than limiting season lenght, but in all honesty either option can have the same positive effect on buck/doe ratios.

FYI - I really don't care which happens, but something really needs to happen and the antler restrictions seems to be the more popular option with the people I know. One thing I have noticed is that some people from out of the area really don't care what happens to the deer in NE WA, they are only concerned with being able to come hunting here when they fail to kill a deer somewhere else. While I don't blame anyone for having that attitude and I do understand everyone is entitled to hunt here, I want to remind those people that they will kill more deer if we all try to properly manage the herd in the best way possible.

[DBHAWTHORNE]

I am certainly not against shooting does (I have taken antlerless on the last days of the season the past two year) but I haven't noticed the ratios being far out of whack in most areas.. I have seen buck to doe ratios out of whack on certain properties but on a GMU scale they seem to be fine overall. Certain areas of 124 and 127 seem to be a little unbalanced. I think the more rugged mountain units could benefit from a restricted doe harvest combined with an antler restriction.

[gjbruny]

we fly quite a bit...... i can tell you that our buck to doe ratios ARE out of whack as a whole...... WAY more so than most think. sure some fields will have a ton of bucks in it during the summer while others primarily hold does. that is typical of summer time and how bachelor groups work. we as hunters as well as outfitters primarily focus on the bucks bulls ect and avoid the areas that hold the females (partly because we are only allowed kill bucks and bulls) so it is easy to see how sometimes perceptions can get skewed. cover hundreds of square miles in a few hours from a plane, record actual sightings and perceptions change in a real hurry......... then hunt states where there an actual healthy buck to doe ratio and it becomes REALLY clear that our state needs to get it's shnat together.

i know that here in my home state, talking about killing does even when total deer herds are down is about as effective as beating my head against a wall when trying to convince people that we DO have too many does compared to bucks. i sometimes wish i had an unlimited amount of financial resources so that i can take many of the more staunch supporters and/or managers of our "status quo" out to Iowa or Wisconsin to see what a healthy buck to do ratio is, and just how many BIG mature deer are seen on a regular basis. so for now, i just agree to disagree and if we as a state run our animals into the ground...... then so be it. maybe then people will realize that you can't expect different results when you keep using the same tactics.

if guys want to keep their season lengths, i think that a great way to get harvest numbers down yet keep the same # of days in the field would be to eliminate baiting...... make guys actually learn how to hunt again and let the newer hunters learn to hunt for the first time. if baiting were outlawed for a period of time, we would come away with more animals, better hunters that have  more of an understanding of the animal they hunt, and more time to hunt. couple no baiting with antler restrictions and it would be a win-win.

[whacker1]

http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,65013.0.html

For purposes of seeing what the majority thinks, I started a poll on the subject.

[mdbuck5x5]

Bruny you make some valid points but you have to remember that Washington for one has one of the highest hunter to game ratios in the nation. That doesnt exactly help herd numbers increase.

so that i can take many of the more staunch supporters and/or managers of our "status quo" out to Iowa or Wisconsin to see what a healthy buck to do ratio is, and just how many BIG mature deer are seen on a regular basis

Now as far as this goes you also need to take into consideration that while Wisconsin and Iowa have big mature deer regularly, they also dont have as many predators working against them ie. wolves, bears, cougars, coyotes. Then couple that with harsh winters where the mountains can get completely hammered and also the tough rugged thick terrain that our state has. You put  all that together and it doesnt bode well for the game. I agree Washington could be doing a better management job, but the fact is we don't have flatter terrain where its virtually wide open rolling hills. With corn and alfalfa fields at practically every corner that help the deer easily fatten up and provide good genetics for antler growth. All I'm saying is you cant really compare what theyre doing in the midwest with what we do here.

I agree we should completely do away with baiting. In my opinion theres no place for that in hunting. Also I saw it mentioned on here somewhere before but I think they should ban using cams during hunting season. I mean whatever happened to the thrill of going hunting and not knowing what you might see and where you might see it. I know using them doesnt guarantee success but I'm a little old school in the fact I like having a little bit of mystery in the hunt. I think these days too many people rely on baiting and electronics and have forgotten about the very basics of hunting.

[grundy53]

we fly quite a bit...... i can tell you that our buck to doe ratios ARE out of whack as a whole...... WAY more so than most think. sure some fields will have a ton of bucks in it during the summer while others primarily hold does. that is typical of summer time and how bachelor groups work. we as hunters as well as outfitters primarily focus on the bucks bulls ect and avoid the areas that hold the females (partly because we are only allowed kill bucks and bulls) so it is easy to see how sometimes perceptions can get skewed. cover hundreds of square miles in a few hours from a plane, record actual sightings and perceptions change in a real hurry......... then hunt states where there an actual healthy buck to doe ratio and it becomes REALLY clear that our state needs to get it's shnat together.

i know that here in my home state, talking about killing does even when total deer herds are down is about as effective as beating my head against a wall when trying to convince people that we DO have too many does compared to bucks. i sometimes wish i had an unlimited amount of financial resources so that i can take many of the more staunch supporters and/or managers of our "status quo" out to Iowa or Wisconsin to see what a healthy buck to do ratio is, and just how many BIG mature deer are seen on a regular basis. so for now, i just agree to disagree and if we as a state run our animals into the ground...... then so be it. maybe then people will realize that you can't expect different results when you keep using the same tactics.

if guys want to keep their season lengths, i think that a great way to get harvest numbers down yet keep the same # of days in the field would be to eliminate baiting...... make guys actually learn how to hunt again and let the newer hunters learn to hunt for the first time. if baiting were outlawed for a period of time, we would come away with more animals, better hunters that have  more of an understanding of the animal they hunt, and more time to hunt. couple no baiting with antler restrictions and it would be a win-win.

like was said before... let's dump a ton of cougars, bears, coyotes, and wolves in there and take away most of the agricultural feilds and see how your herd does.  That's like comparing the westsides winter kill to the eastsides. it's apples to oranges. they are 2 completley different places. .  That's the answer... lets ban some more *censored* and take away more hunting practices. That should help our cause. i don't bait (except for my game cams which i pull before season), but i have absoslutely no problem with people that do. look what happened to the bear population when they banned bear baiting. i wish people would actually consider other people before they start spouting *censored* about banning other peoples hunting methods.

[DBHAWTHORNE]

GJ, I certainly don't have the aircraft census's to my advantage. I am surprised they are effective (for whitetail more so than other game animals) because of how thick the cover is. Though I am sure since our deer winter it may make it easier to spot them.

 I know in Texas they used aircraft a lot but when I talked to the biologist in Arkansas they depended more on cameras and on ground observations because the thickness of the security cover.

My observations purely come from boots on ground (pretty much every free moment) and running cameras in 30-40 locations per year. I do indeed hone in on areas with the biggest bucks but I don't ignore the does because in the rut that is where I want to be. I can tell you have plenty of time with boots on ground yourself so I would love to get together some time and compare notes.

This is an excerpt from a 2005 article about a study of the NW Montana deer herd:

"In this case, it turns out that northwestern Montana deer hunters were right all along.
For years, these whitetail hunters resisted attempts by wildlife managers to liberalize doe hunting opportunities. In 1999, fearing that northwestern deer populations had been severely damaged by a brutal winter a few years earlier, hunters went so far as to demand a closure to the region’s doe harvest.
“No doubt about it. Hunters up here are very conservative when it comes to deer regulations,” says Dr. Alan Wood, a white-tailed deer expert in Kalispell who works as the Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks wildlife mitigation coordinator.
Results from a monumental FWP study on white-tailed deer in the state’s northwestern region indicate hunters had it right. “The study suggests regulations designed to encourage doe harvest might go too far and reduce population size in years when adult doe survival is notably impacted by other types of mortality,” says Gary Dusek, another FWP whitetail expert. Wood and lead author Dusek wrote the study report, “Population Ecology of White-tailed Deer in Northwestern Montana.”

Like I said..don't get me wrong... I do take does on the last day if I don't connect on a buck I want. But I do it in areas that I believe need it. From what I have seen I don't think our herds in the mountains of Colville/Kanisku national forest need me to remove a doe.

mdbuck:

I have to disagree that baiting and more specifically trail cameras have no place in hunting. I hunted without them for years and my success rates have not improved since using them (probably gone down because I am even more selective...hard to shoot a 3 1/2 or 4 1/2 year old 140 when you know a 180 and a couple 150-160 bucks are roaming the area). To me there is still plenty of mystery... possibly even more mystery. There is nothing like having a giant on camera and never being able to cross his path during daylight to throw a little mystery into the mix. When I put up cameras or bait it's not like I can ignore the basic hunting principles/strategies that I used for the largest majority of my life.. these two things go hand in hand. If anything I have learned more about deer behavior since I started baiting and using trial cameras. I believe it has made me a better hunter than before. My biggest increase in success came 14 years ago when I moved to an area that actually had mature bucks in any real numbers.

I have no issue with people not wanting to use modern technology..I just wish people wouldn't try to force everyone else to conform to their idea of what constitutes a hunting experience. The largest majority of people using bait are whitetail bowhunters so it won't surprise me to see it go away some time in the future. I will say I can understand that argument a bit because I do believe there are times where the bucks become more nocturnal due to presence of bait and that would impact another persons hunt...in addition to it changing the deers pattern to some extent. That being said I can understand why some want it gone. I personally like that I can use it here but if I want a different experience I can go to Idaho where baiting isn't allowed. In addition to that I believe there is plenty of space left in the mountains without bait. I have some areas on public land where I don't see hunters for several miles in any direction. The real problem I have is that the majority of whitetail bowhunter use it but it will likely get banned in the future because of people who are not whitetail bowhunters...basically.. it doesn't effect them and it doesn't appeal to their idea of hunting so let's get rid of it. I wish I had the power to return the favor and ban their choice of modern gadgets/hunting methods for a couple years. Perhaps they would change their views.

[grundy53]

GJ, I certainly don't have the aircraft census's to my advantage. I am surprised they are effective (for whitetail more so than other game animals) because of how thick the cover is. Though I am sure since our deer winter that it may make it easier to spot them.

 I know in Texas they used aircraft a lot but when I talked to the biologist in Arkansas they depended more on cameras and on ground observations because the thickness of the security cover.

My observations purely come from boots on ground (pretty much every free moment) and running cameras in 30-40 locations per year. I do indeed hone in on areas with the biggest bucks but I don't ignore the does because in the rut that is where I want to be. I can tell you have plenty of time with boots on ground yourself so I would love to get together some time and compare notes.

This is an excerpt from a 2005 article about a study of the NW Montana deer herd:

"In this case, it turns out that northwestern Montana deer hunters were right all along.
For years, these whitetail hunters resisted attempts by wildlife managers to liberalize doe hunting opportunities. In 1999, fearing that northwestern deer populations had been severely damaged by a brutal winter a few years earlier, hunters went so far as to demand a closure to the region’s doe harvest.
“No doubt about it. Hunters up here are very conservative when it comes to deer regulations,” says Dr. Alan Wood, a white-tailed deer expert in Kalispell who works as the Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks wildlife mitigation coordinator.
Results from a monumental FWP study on white-tailed deer in the state’s northwestern region indicate hunters had it right. “The study suggests regulations designed to encourage doe harvest might go too far and reduce population size in years when adult doe survival is notably impacted by other types of mortality,” says Gary Dusek, another FWP whitetail expert. Wood and lead author Dusek wrote the study report, “Population Ecology of White-tailed Deer in Northwestern Montana.”

Like I said..don't get me wrong... I do take does on the last day if I don't connect on a buck I want. But I do it in areas that I believe need it. From what I have seen I don't think our herds in the mountains of Colville/Kanisku national forest need me to remove a doe.

mdbuck:

I have to disagree that baiting and more specifically trail cameras have no place in hunting. I hunted without them for years and my success rates have not improved since using them (probably gone down because I am even more selective...hard to shoot a 3 1/2 or 4 1/2 year old 140 when you know a 180 and a couple 150-160 bucks are roaming the area). To me there is still plenty of mystery... possibly even more mystery. There is nothing like having a giant on camera and never being able to cross his path during daylight to throw a little mystery into the mix. When I put up cameras or bait it's not like I can ignore the basic hunting principles/strategies that I used for the largest majority of my life.. these two things go hand in hand. If anything I have learned more about deer behavior since I started baiting and using trial cameras. I believe it has made me a better hunter than before. My biggest increase in success came 14 years ago when I moved to an area that actually had mature bucks in any real numbers.

I have no issue with people not wanting to use modern technology..I just wish people wouldn't try to force everyone else to conform to their idea of what constitutes a hunting experience. The largest majority of people using bait are whitetail bowhunters so it won't surprise me to see it go away some time in the future. I will say I can understand that argument a bit because I do believe there are times where the bucks become more nocturnal due to presence of bait and that would impact another persons hunt...in addition to it changing the deers pattern to some extent. That being said I can understand why some want it gone. I personally like that I can use it here but if I want a different experience I can go to Idaho where baiting isn't allowed. In addition to that I believe there is plenty of space left in the mountains without bait. I have some areas on public land where I don't see hunters for several miles in any direction. The real problem I have is that the majority of whitetail bowhunter use it but it will likely get banned in the future because of people who are not whitetail bowhunters...basically.. it doesn't effect them and it doesn't appeal to their idea of hunting so let's get rid of it. I wish I had the power to return the favor and ban their choice of modern gadgets/hunting methods for a couple years. Perhaps they would change their views.

couldn't have said it any better.