Observations from Okanogan Area?

[Colville]

I've not seen the case made that does are not getting bred in our current hunt dates/methods.  I'm open to the argument though.

Since the pregnancy rate is the population, unless our curernt hunting is reducing fecundity, chaning it around isn't solving the big problem. The big problem will remain increasing the total population, not just the quality of the buck population. 

Seems to me we need, no doe pmts. Improved winter range and a program that rewards predator harvest and makes for very liberal predator seasons.  I'd be for an extension of the season if a hunter got the extra week after turning in a bear or 5 yotes to earn those days afield. Have the WDF put up carlton, twisp, chewuch check stations on a series of weekends and let hunters go kill predators and earn additional and later hunting time.  I know that's a pipe dream. I've seen nothing that implies WDFW wants to address the problem with emphasis on predator management. They'll stick to people management.

Changing to every 2 out of 3 years is about affecting quality it appears to me without addressing population. It's just reducing pressure and improving buck numbers but unless that drives an improvement in pregancny rates it's not a "solution" to anything but reducing hunter numbers in the field and improving the average buck quality at the expense of oportunity.

I want a bigger pie, not bigger slices of the same pie.

[muleyguy]

your not going to get a "bigger pie" in this State.........the long term trends are not going to be reversed unless you somehow limit population growth and dwindling habitat;  you are not going to stop the reintroduction of wolves into this state;  and reversing popular public opinion in this State against predator control is going to be very challenging;  So, you have to come to grips with what we have got going on here and that is a long term secular stagnation or outright decline in our mule deer herds;

I am not saying you should abandon trying to deal with those things, I am just saying that relying on those things to "make a bigger pie" in this State is most likely not going to be successful.  If you will notice, my first 3 suggestions were things to try and make the bigger pie.

But, honestly, we will be lucky to keep mule deer levels at the current level they are at.

I never said that does were not getting bred;  that is not the problem, you are correct;  so not sure were you got that one.   There is lots of evidence  biologically though that age structure of the breeding male population in ungulates is important to fawn recruitment.  We have now gone several generations were we have permantly lowered the age structure of the and buck to doe ratios in the population.  My guess is that as mule deer biology evolves it will become apparant that the long term consequences of having immature males breed females is having a negative impact on fawn recruitment.  Do, I think this is the only thing causing our mule deer herds problems? Absoulutely not, but, I do believe that significant breeding by immature males is a problem and one of the causes of poor fawn recruitment.

So, yes, in my opinion, I do believe that if you raised the average age of the breeding males in the population that it will result in better fawn recruitment and healthier herds.  With the current APR scheme, the vast majority of the buck population in this state, post harvest, are 1.5 yr old males; it only follows that since this is the dominant age group they are doing a fair amount of the breeding. 

But, those arguments  above aside, you bet I am talking about affecting quality;  not only quality of the animal, but, quality of the hunt.

I mean, isn't that why we hunt???  To have a quality experience???  I guess why else do you hunt??  Sorry, but, I am not going to apologize because I want to have a choice on the quality of  animal I shoot, spike or 4.5 yr old or better buck, without having 9 million hunters in the field, on October 11th.

For the foreseeable future, the size of the current pie right now is about as good as it is going to get, if not worse, that is the reality;   We need to structure the seasons so we do have a quality hunting experience;  a quality hunting experience is not only the size of the animal, but choice of buck, number of hunters, length of season.

[Colville]

The wdfw doesn't need a public vote to improve predator seasons.  It doesn't need one to add incentives that reward successful predator hunters. It doesn't need to remove hound hunting restrictions to accomplish this.  Some of what you are saying "can't" be done, can. It may not, but it can and it's not an issue of public votes or reversing laws.

Can't fix habitat easily. Don't disagree about older average bucks breeding either, but extending the hunt will kill mature migrators, I'm not sure you're going to shift the age much, just going to shift the kill into some of the mature late arrivers. And lets be certain that if an extension of the season comes available, everyone knows when the "best" opportunity for big deer will be and it will shift hunting pressure to that week.

Lastly, I'm not angry in the least, we just have different preferences. My bias is toward opportunity. I don't mind if that means harder work.  I can't have a good or bad experience in hunting, from my couch.  I'm not interested in solutions that restrict opportunity into draws unless viable and reasonable options that can be tried, are tried, and fail.  If we shift these hunts to draw, it will push that hunting activity elsewhere where pressures now permit open general seasons and it may cascade the state into Oregon with a draw for everything.  No thanks, not interested. 

[muleyguy]

I agree with most everything you say also;  it really comes down to what people want, at the end of the day we are a democracy (at least to some point.....), as you say some people will favor opportunity, some will favor quality like myself.

it is just a tough deal in this State with the challenges it has;

I don't disagree that the one issue with what I was proposing is that people might shift to the later of the season and we end up with no better mature buck escapement;  that is an unknown and might have to be dealt with with a slot system.

I do believe in my heart though that we need a better age spectrum in our buck population and that would help on fawn recruitment, and, I think that these APR's are doing lots of harm in that area;

here is some good info on it from the Montana Department of Game;  it pertains to elk, but, this is true of all ungulates:

  At about this
same time, Smith (1980) reported a strong correlation between the presence of older males in the breeding
population and significantly higher pregnancy rates in Roosevelt elk of the Olympic Peninsula.   In an Oregon study
a few years later (Hines et al. 1985) concluded that is it not prudent to depend on yearling breeders, that older
bulls are needed to ensure maximum herd productivity.  Following studies of breeding by known-age bulls in the captive Starkey elk herd,
Noyes et al. (1996) explained the Oregon elk decline with the following rationale:
1. High hunter numbers and limited security results in a long-term total bull kill.

2. Yearling bulls (protected as calves during the preceding hunting season) must do 100% of
     the breeding.   my emphasis:  this is exactly the problem APR's cause

3.  Inexperience and immaturity of those bulls cause most cows to breed at the second estrus,
     which means that calves are born late.
4.  Younger calves have reduced body weight going into their first winter.
5.  Consequently, there is lower overwinter survival and overall reduced productivity.

[SuperDave]

Great points made Muleyguy!

[Buckmark]

Good points muleguy.
This is a good read pertaining to mule deer and APR's
http://www.createstrat.com/muledeerinthewest/harvest.html
*
Something is affecting our mule deer herds, before the 3pt apr's it was any buck and a longer season, alot more deer back then, less predators also. Then after the 2 bad winters and the implementation of apr's it never really rebouned, and with the reduction of days afield it still is declining, why?
 
I am a home body when it comes to hunting the okanogan, i do not hunt the methow area but an area approx 80-100 miles away. I have for 30yrs and i spend alot of time in my area throughout the year so i get to see deer in my core area alot and every year the numbers are lower.

I believe either a draw system for somes area's with tag limits (like other states use successfully) or maybe an east or west deer tag system, still with a limit on tag numbers will help.
Popular idea, well no not since it never has been a part of our heritage, but if nothing is done we wont be hunting mule deer like we do now in 20yrs..

[huntnphool]

 A lot of good points Muleyguy, I agree with most of them. One problem though is there are a lot of hunters in this state, and on this site, that couldn't care less about quality, they are only interested in hunting every year, no compromise, its all about them..............period.

 As far as the loss of habitat in the Methow Valley, I don't see it, at least not because of developement. Little has changed in that area over the last 20+ years, certainly not anything that has reduced mule deer habitat.

 I agree 100% with the pred problem, but with WDFW cowering in the corner whenever animal rights groups get involved I don't see that issue getting any better anytime soon.

 The 2/3 year deal sounds interesting to me, I proposed a similar model, hunting deer and elk with a yearly rotation, that way you hunt each year and not have to sit out yet reduce the hunters in each field. All that happened was people getting upset that it was even suggested that they get limited in any way. They don't realize that either we come up with a system we can live with or WDFW are going to come up with another one that none of us like, and possibly make it every 2 or 3 years that you get to hunt. Once that happens it will be too late for a compromise, we will never get it back.

[muleyguy]

As far as the loss of habitat in the Methow Valley, I don't see it, at least not because of developement. Little has changed in that area over the last 20+ years, certainly not anything that has reduced mule deer habitat.

I don't totally disagree with this;  I sometimes get frustrated at the bio's because they always go right to "the lets run the habitat issue up the flagpole for all our problems";  I think this is sometimes a strategy on their part to deflect criticism off of their inability to deal with the predator issue and/or take the hard pill of reducing opportunities to help the deer herds.

I have hunted in Montana and Wyoming for over 20 yrs, and I can categorically state that to my eye, nothing has changed in these areas;  in fact, in many areas there are actually LESS people and LESS cows, but way lower deer numbers.

But, I have also come to appreciate the argument that a cabin here,  a house there, a change of use here, a change of use there, a new road, bridge, that doesn't allow deer to pass, etc can have some fairly drastic impacts on the winter range just because it is so limited. 

and, I have come to appreciate arguments from bio's that what "looks" like good browse and feed, in fact is not;  fire suppression, aging of the browse, less grazing, changing land use patterns, cheat grass invasions, etc all have combined to slightly change the quality of the habitat. 

what I do know is that there is fairly consistent secular decline of mule deer all over the West, and the causes of it have to be bigger, environmental, increased preadator, etc type of trends to cause this all over the West.   Although E Montana has seemed to not see that, notwithstanding the bad winter kill 2 yrs ago.  I do believe the habitat in E Montana has remained one of the most productive in the US

 Honestly, at least in WA and ID, the mule deer have never been able to recover since the winter of 1993;  and, that was almost 20 yrs ago now;  all we have seen since then is APR's and shortened seasons, and the deer herds still cannot seem to adequatlly recover;  at some point, habitat issues must be coming into play to my way of thinking;

There are no easy answers;  but, that being said, we have to play the hand we are dealt with at the moment, and growing the overall deer population is going to be difficult at this point, so we have to come to grips with making the best of what we got.  I don't mind giving up opportunity to have a better experience in all areas when I do hunt.  But, I certainly respect others who want to have the experience every year, even if that means a poorer experience.

[huntnphool]

As far as the loss of habitat in the Methow Valley, I don't see it, at least not because of developement. Little has changed in that area over the last 20+ years, certainly not anything that has reduced mule deer habitat.

I don't totally disagree with this;  I sometimes get frustrated at the bio's because they always go right to "the lets run the habitat issue up the flagpole for all our problems";  I think this is sometimes a strategy on their part to deflect criticism off of their inability to deal with the predator issue and/or take the hard pill of reducing opportunities to help the deer herds.

I have hunted in Montana and Wyoming for over 20 yrs, and I can categorically state that to my eye, nothing has changed in these areas;  in fact, in many areas there are actually LESS people and LESS cows, but way lower deer numbers.

But, I have also come to appreciate the argument that a cabin here,  a house there, a change of use here, a change of use there, a new road, bridge, that doesn't allow deer to pass, etc can have some fairly drastic impacts on the winter range just because it is so limited. 

and, I have come to appreciate arguments from bio's that what "looks" like good browse and feed, in fact is not;  fire suppression, aging of the browse, less grazing, changing land use patterns, cheat grass invasions, etc all have combined to slightly change the quality of the habitat. 

what I do know is that there is fairly consistent secular decline of mule deer all over the West, and the causes of it have to be bigger, environmental, increased preadator, etc type of trends to cause this all over the West.   Although E Montana has seemed to not see that, notwithstanding the bad winter kill 2 yrs ago.  I do believe the habitat in E Montana has remained one of the most productive in the US

 Honestly, at least in WA and ID, the mule deer have never been able to recover since the winter of 1993;  and, that was almost 20 yrs ago now;  all we have seen since then is APR's and shortened seasons, and the deer herds still cannot seem to adequatlly recover;  at some point, habitat issues must be coming into play to my way of thinking;

There are no easy answers;  but, that being said, we have to play the hand we are dealt with at the moment, and growing the overall deer population is going to be difficult at this point, so we have to come to grips with making the best of what we got.  I don't mind giving up opportunity to have a better experience in all areas when I do hunt.  But, I certainly respect others who want to have the experience every year, even if that means a poorer experience.

I hear ya. I have been hunting Montana for 20+ as well, predominately the SE where I have a lease. In that area we are seeing large numbers of deer, good genes but lacking maturity. Years of high number harvests have reduced the age class of the average buck but its been getting better the last few years with the elimination of guaranteed outfitter tags and loss of some outfitters.