2pt minimum

[grundy53]

Hows this for a management tactic,similar to south dakota and Arizona, you draw for a tag.........In south dakota the average is once every three years,in Arizona it's 4............ unless your a landowner of 160 acres or more in south dakota...........

That would suck.

sent from my typewriter

[wildweeds]

I had a great plan to increase the season by double and limit the hunters by half, pick an odd or even year and get a deer tag one year and an elk tag the next,removes half the hunters and increases the time by the diminished hunters.BEST plan I had was to FIRE EVERYBODY in the game department and get some A+ biologists and non money grubbing managers.

But that is the way it works in S Dakota and Arizona folks,you DRAW for a RESIDENT tag.

[abe1989]

DEFINITELY not in favor of a draw for regular season tags. you think wdfw could manage that very well? we would never get to hunt! i, along with many others, want to hunt deer and elk every year.

[boomstick]

Just thought this was interesting.  And look no elk hunting in 1905-06. And all predators had a bounty.

[MountainWalk]

Fire weeds, that would suck big time. You only want to hunt every four years, be my guest.  Why do you yhink AZ has that system?  I can bet that WA has more hunters.  Does it have something to do with everybody and their grandmas putting for AZ?  People all over put in for there, cuz the genetics and mild wimters help grow big critters. WA, isnt a go to hot spot, and I dont think non res"s are lining up yr after yr to hunt/waste their money , vacay time.



This aint AZ, and never will.

Too many hunters? Whats wrong with that?  Another like minded individual out there who prolly VOTES!  One more in the orange army who thinks along our lines in this crazy a$$ state. One more person carrying the torch of self suffincy and self reliance and tradition, or one more who has finally taken it up.  No, I wish more folks took it up. More newly converted hunters means money, votes, clout.

[snowpack]

Why would some of you only want to hunt every 3 or 4 years opposed to every year?  Voluntarily?  There's still quite a few big blacktails running around the woods.  Just because you would want the state to go 2 pt min or draw only, doesn't mean the tribes would.

[Tbob]

Is it possible that we're seeing deer evolution at its finest? Maybe the deer have finally learned if I'm out in the open I get shot at.. Maybe they're just hiding much better than they used to. I mean the wdfw can't even get an accurate count and goes on avg's correct? When I don't see "as many" deer as I used to I feel like I just need to hunt better/smarter... But maybe the numbers are down I don't know?

[pianoman9701]

I was talking to one of the Westside bios (Eric) last night and he explained why a 2-pt minimum isn't great. Many yearlings will sprout a fork due to a better diet or better genes. So, you still end up killing immature bucks by going 2-pt. If you're going to have an antler restriction more than just buck only, it should be 3 pt or better. The explanation made sense to me.

[deltaops]

Make all GMUS a 2 or 3 point min. That seems like a stupid idea to me. People talk about how to get more youths into hunting and then we get a thread like this!

I really do not give a crap if a 2 point min or a 3 point min was to go in effect but leave the youths and elders alone. Matter of fact, we need to open some more GMUs to any dear for the youth and elders.

If a 2 or 3 point goes into effect across the board, lmao, Eastern WA will have a lot more visitors.

Like it has been said before, manage the land and the predators and the population will come back.

[bobcat]

But WDFW does not have the ability to manage land. All they can do is control harvest by hunters.

[deltaops]

But WDFW does not have the ability to manage land. All they can do is control harvest by hunters.

I know.. Either way, make it a 2 point, just let the youth and elders have different minimums.

As it is now I head over to Eastern WA for any deer for my son. If he could hunt on the wet side for any dear, I would be more than happy.

[JimmyHoffa]

But WDFW does not have the ability to manage land. All they can do is control harvest by hunters.

They do habitat projects all over.  Either on their own land or in cooperation with all kinds of other groups.  I've seen WDFW waterfowl projects, tidelands projects, salmon recovery projects, cooperative projects with RMEF and tribes for elk, etc. 

[bobcat]

But WDFW does not have the ability to manage land. All they can do is control harvest by hunters.

They do habitat projects all over.  Either on their own land or in cooperation with all kinds of other groups.  I've seen WDFW waterfowl projects, tidelands projects, salmon recovery projects, cooperative projects with RMEF and tribes for elk, etc.

Maybe so, but to increase deer numbers all across western Washington, it would have to be a very large scale "habitat project" to make any significant difference.

That's not going to happen unless Weyerhaeuser suddenly begins allowing the WDFW to manage their land in a way which is more beneficial to deer than to growing timber.

[deltaops]

I was talking to one of the Westside bios (Eric) last night and he explained why a 2-pt minimum isn't great. Many yearlings will sprout a fork due to a better diet or better genes. So, you still end up killing immature bucks by going 2-pt. If you're going to have an antler restriction more than just buck only, it should be 3 pt or better. The explanation made sense to me.

That makes good sense. Others have been for a blanket antler minimum and even permit only for all blacktail hunting. While this might help in a select few areas that get a ton of pressure around the cities, it would do nothing in other areas. These ideas need to be used on a GMU only basis. My property is in what should be, and used to be prime blacktail country. The game cams prove we have way to many predators (bear, coyotes, cougar, and bobcats), and very few deer left in the area. And the hunting pressure around me is little to none, in fact the entire GMU I'm in and the bordering one we hunt just a few miles down the road is the same situation. They could end all hunting and it would have little effect on this result. I'm a broken record on this on this forum, but until there is some real management in this state for predators other efforts or ideas or restrictions are futile.

I would be all for a 3 point or better restriction in the areas that get heavy hunting pressure and it could help, but there is no point in doing that in the areas that have low hunting pressure. Most guys around here choose not to shoot babies on their own. I would though be all for ending all doe hunting around the state, with the exception of the areas that do have to high of a number of them.

It all comes down to management, especially it the predators are going to continue to have free reign. Each gmu needs to be managed according to its unique situation. The one size fits all solutions on deer will just continue to make things worse as we will lose hunters and not see hunting get better for the most part. It would be easier for them to just put more restriction on things, than actually address the real problems. That is what has happened for to long, and that is why we are at the place we are at.

cboom


you are fired...   

[bobcat]

It would be easy to manage land for better deer habitat. I'm sure the WDFW could do that if they had enough money and owned all the timberland in western Washington.

Not sure why you think I'm focused on only the "populated areas of the state."    Aren't blacktail deer numbers low almost everywhere, except on some of the islands and within certain cities where they don't get hunted?

Isn't it reasonable to think that some sort of different type of management system could help to bring numbers back up? You've said management by GMU is a good thing. Well, we don't have anything close to that. We have unlimited tags with no control over where people hunt.