Let 'em go- so they can grow.

[cully]

I see alot of big mulies, just not always during the rifle season, this year may have seemed lean. I think the moon and weather had more to do with it.

The herds have no bucks or only young ones on the outskirts. I have seen some big in's up high and young ones with awesome potential.

Do you guys see them out in the open with their harems usually? I know bulls protect there harems even from people but with mulies it's the harems who usually protect the males. I've rarely seen big mulies anywhere but by themselves. Did it use to be different?

[DOUBLELUNG]

Three point minimum was never implemented to produce big mature bucks.  It was implemented to have enough bucks - any bucks - to adequately breed.  In the open country of the Columbia Basin, with really poor buck escapement (bucks surviving long enough to breed), it has produced that result - we let them escape as yearlings, and kill most of them their first legal year.  Buck escapement has reached target minimums.  (BTW, that is why spike-only was implemented for elk, too - it was a tool to reach adequate escapement, the giant bulls are a bonus).

Unfortunately, because 3-point was implemented at the same time as shorter, earlier seasons, improved buck escapement - including increased escapement of older bucks - has been attributed to 3-point rather than ending the general MF season prior to the migration for the migratory public lands herds of the east Cascades.  When the season was lengthened in response to improved age structure and escapement in Chelan and Okanogan counties, Okanogan bucks got slaughtered and Chelan bucks got dinged.  THEN, to take it back to a 9-day season in those two counties, the collective hunting community insisted on more late permits in exchange for the general season reduction.  Those guys can really thump the cream of the bucks rutting and on winter ranges.  So, now buck numbers are again improving, but the higher numbers of late permits continue to crop the biggest and best.  At the core of all of this, is our collective understandable but unreasonable desire to hunt mule deer every year on general licenses.  

Every one of us can come up with a different system we like better, the problem is getting enough of us to agree on one plan.  I think WDFW is doing as good a job as can be expected in that regard (hunting season structure), but they could do a lot more to benefit populations.  

In my ideal world, influenced by a fair understanding of big game management in all the western states, I would retain general seasons for white-tailed and black-tailed deer, and west-side elk, under pretty similar seasons as we have currently.  East-side elk and mule deer would be permit only, for either antlerless or any antlered male (you could probably draw antlerless elk and deer tags pretty frequently, buck/bull would be harder).  Elk permit seasons would occur October 15-Nov 30, with seasons split up between weapon user groups by GMUs on either a fixed, or rotating basis.  Mule deer permit seasons would start September 1 and end October 15.  For both species, damage permit hunts would be scheduled as necessary to handle recurrent, annual bonafide agricultural problems by targeting antlerless animals; bucks and bulls could only be taken for damage by using licensed hunters, with no fees to landowners for those permits.  

Because bucks and bulls would still be tough to kill, outside of the rut, far more permits could be allowed, especially in combination with elimination of the general harvest.  This would also put some quality and initiative back into the trophy hunter, who would have to work for an opportunity to kill a trophy animal; rather than the current sense of entitlement to a trophy kill too many of our hunters feel by "putting in the years" to acquire points and draw tags to kill a testosterone-poisoned breeder.  Under this scheme, archers might draw every other year for mule deer bucks, muzzleloaders every third year or so, and modern rifle every 5 years or so, to make up frequencies.  In other years, if you want to hunt mule deer and east-side elk more frequently, go for the antlerless permits.  To hunt every year for both deer and elk, we'd probably need to learn some new areas in western WA, and/or hunt whitetails.  

This would also work, even if we kept spike-only general eastern elk seasons and general mule deer seasons FOR SPIKES AND FORKED HORNS ONLY; to shoot a buck with at least 3-points on each side, you'd need to draw a mule deer buck permit.  This would result in less branched buck and bull permits than going permit only, but by keeping the permits during the seasons when they AREN'T RUT DUMB, AND ARE HARD TO KILL, there would still be more opportunity.  (We might still need to further restrict harvest of nonmigratory mule deer bucks in the open country, as we've pretty well proven we can kill nearly all of whatever kind of legal deer the state allows out there.)  Of course, to manage tribal hunting impacts, we'd all have to put up with a bunch of road closures, for indians, non-indian state-licensed hunters, and non-hunters on public lands.  

Gee, what a great plan!  But wait, what about the poor dumb schmos who've put in for permits for 10+ years and have max points (they'd draw, but not the premier execution opportunity they've waited to get).  What about enhanced opportunities for youths, seniors, disabled, etc., etc.??  They'd lose out.  What about the very best of our hunters, those who consistently already have GREAT general hunts by working hard to get where the big boys live, and let the terrain and distance weed out everyone else?  They'd lose out too.  Point is, everyone's great scheme ultimately is designed to enhance their own opportunity, at the expense of someone else.

[boneaddict]

I love your insight.  Only had three seconds on the board and checked to see if huntnphool bagged his moose yet, and wanted to see what this thread was about.  I drew this year so with no more points we can go to this system.   Increased photo ops in November I am thinking.   

[nw_bowhunter]

General comment (not to 1 particular person): why do you hunt? Is it for the adventure, hanging with friends and family and you enjoy eating venison? Or all of the same with the possibilities of getting some decent horns, or is it just for Trophy type animals so you can get into Eastman’s, Trophy Hunter ,etc? No one plan will me everyone’s needs because as Doublelung said "everyone wants to enhance their own opportunity."
I personally hardly ever apply for special permit hunts, and it’s not a big deal for me.(I applied twice in ten years)  I just want to get out and hunt and have fun. Do not get me wrong I want a nice elk or mule deer rack, but I'm not willing to sacrifice being able to buy OTC tags and have the ability to hunt year after year. As an example I do not want it how Utah does it and have to wait ten years for elk tag... I can understand the desire for changes and have the ability to hunt for the big bucks and monster elk racks is appealing. I guess if that was my ultimate goal I would persue other areas that provide better opportunity...
We also need to consider that we do not have the game compared to other states..(shear volume).  I guess we need to really decide what’s most important… being able to hunt consistently year after year or having limited hunting to build bigger racks.
In unit 328 the cows were taken away during archery season, and its only spike only for the different weapons. The bulls really developed over the years and it was very exciting. Of course the side effects of of the changes Unit 328 brought attention and Native American took full advantage of the area and what was left to us? The Fish and game was not able to control the senseless killing and it’s in my opinion this would become even greater problem across the state. Now for guys waiting on those permits everyone would have been screwed.
I close with this, be careful what you ask for and what you really think you want.

[boneaddict]

I'm an indecisive bugger.  I want all that.      hence what the problem is, so does everyone. 

PS, I'm not sure what unit 328 is offhand, but if its the Clockum or Naneum then THAT IS A HUGE problem and I agree.  One user group gives, the other taketh away.  i think we should (tongue and cheek) transplant a few wolves in there and then none of us will have anything to worry about. 

[nw_bowhunter]

Yes unit 328 is Clockum...

[boneaddict]

Before someone shoots me, I was kidding about the wolves by the way, though I do understand there are reports.....

[PA BEN]

Wow, this is a great discussion. I shot a spike and we got 3 pages of good comments. 

[GoldTip]

I fully agree that we need to limit the number of Mule Deer hunters per year, as opposed to the current no limit of hunters we have.  I would like to see it go to a first come first served process for Mule deer tags and just cut it right in half.  Then every person knows and can plan to hunt Mule deer this year or next.  If there are 40,000 people who report they hunted Mule deer in this state this year, then next year there will only be 20,000 Mule deer only tags available, you can either get a "general tag" to hunt whitetails and balcktails.  Or get down there with your buddies and all buy a Mule deer tag as soon as the office open on Jan. 1.  Next year however you don't get to hunt Mulies, this would decrease hunter numbers in the woods during Mule deer season and increase hunter satisfaction with decreased Orange dots on every horizon.  If you didn't get a tag this year cuz you waited to long then you get one next year. 

Also, in my opinion, anyone under 18 can kill any deer for Mulies.  This would weed out some of more inferior gened monster forkies and also get rid of some does, do away with a special permit system for does.  Keep the rest of it at 3pt minimum, but run the season from Oct 26 to Nov 8, to give more people a chance to hunt Mule deer bucks during the rut.

[Colville]

We go round and round on this. Invariably everyone has a "great" idea that steals opportunity from one group and gives it to another. They all claim it's in "everyone's best interest".

It's not. Before a person puts up a supposed solution, they should first put up a specific and qualified problem. There's no need for any solution until we can agree that there's even a problem and demonstrate that problem factually.

So, buck numbers aren't a problem. If someone would like to post a study that shows that mule deer aren't breeding at an appropriate rate because of the number of escaping bucks, necessitating the need for more escapement, post it. I've read a ton of stuff at the WDFW site and for the most part herd numbers are attributed to habitat and weather and I've seen no conclusion that the 3 pt restriction is reducing the birth rates and therefore the health of the herd. I'll be the first to say I'm wrong if you can post otherwise. We can manage the herd for more bucks of X quality or less, resulting in more hunting opportunity, but the WDFW does not suggest that breeding rates are a problem based on the current system. However, even if more buck escapement was needed moving the season earlier a few days and shorter a day might solve the problem while retaining open seasons. Either way, you have to decide if the problem exists before you fix it.

That brings us to the real deal. This isn't about a biology problem. It's about desires. Some people WANT to hunt deer where they have better odds at a bigger buck and get to do that later in the season. To do that we have to cut the number of hunters. F&G has to hit a certain number of bucks escaping overall, if we define that certain number by the number of points on their head rather than in total and then make it easier to kill the multi point deer, we won't be able to have open seasons. That's not a problem/solution. That's one group telling the other we don't care if you can't hunt because it serves our desires.

The herd can be  managed either way without a biological problem; for max opportunity or max quality but not both. I grow weary of those wanting better quality trying to suggest that it's "needed", you know, for the health of the herd. Problem is they never point to the WDFW coming to that conclusion.

Vastly more people want to hunt every year and accept the resulting quality than want to hunt every 5 years but know they're likely to get a big buck. I'd bet it's far more than 2 to 1. Why should 66% of hunters have to subsidize the desires of 33% when biologically it's not needed?

Want to insure big buck hunting every 5 years? How bout not allowing anyone putting in for a late season permit to hunt general deer? The numbers of apps will plummet and those willing to sit out will be rewarded with big deer hunts. It would have the same net effect, really high quality hunts every X years and having to sit out in the mean time.

BTW... if you do go draw for mule deer you'll end up having to go draw for whitetails or 4pt or better type regs. All those not drawing mule deer will flood to open Whitetail areas and herds that can sustain any buck right now will not be able to overnight. Can't look at mule deer alone and not figure out that people want to hunt and when they can't hunt mule deer they are going to send that pressure to any other open season, changing the dynamics and viability of those seasons.

Also, rather than having hearings and surveys on the wdfw site, I think big issues like draw only should be put to a question on your hunter reporting on line. You report your kill and answer yes or no to the question would you rather hunt every 3rd year but have improved quality or prefer general seasons. That way you get all the hunters to reply (most anyhow) rather than just the most motivated by their POV and who keep on top of what the WDFW is doing. I'm sure people will hate that idea, of course, because they know what they want isn't what most hunters want. Go figure.

[WAcoyotehunter]

This thread sort of took an ugly turn. My intent was to remind people that- if they want to harvest a trophy buck- they should not kill a 1.5 yr old buck this year.  It's not about point restrictions (though i am in favor) it's about trigger control.  If you don't need the meat- what's the point in killing a little buck??? to have more little antlers in a pile in your shop?  Is it really that embarrassing to tell the folks at the cocktail party that you didn't get you buck this year because you passed on a couple immature deer? 

A friends wife killed her first deer this year- a spike, she was stoked...so was I.  I think that's great for her.  But I'm not going to shoot a small buck because I want a big one...if my tag's on a dink there's one less potential trophy and I'm done for the year. 

[WAcoyotehunter]

This isn't just about trophy potential either.  Having a tighter buck:doe ratio is better for the herd.  More dominant deer get to breed and pass better genetics.  Mature deer also get the breeding done more effeciently, which means a shorter rut and less wear and tear on the breeders as well as a tighter timeframe for birth, which leads to less predation and deer more prepared to survive the following winter.   

I'll also urge doe tag holders to fill their doe tag and not shoot a buck.  More harvested does will lead to a better ratio also. 

Big antlers are a result of a healthier herd.  They're not the intent of the management, they're a byproduct.  Look at midwestern and eastern states (Iowa, Kansas, Pennsylvania) to see the results of the management.  Harvest is as high as ever and people are getting bigger deer.  Passing on a small buck is the first step to making a big one.

[Colville]

It's not ugly coyote! People need to have this debate. It's healthy. It really puts a focus on the situation.

I've passed on any number of deer for the same reasons. I just don't pass judgment on the guys happy to make a different decission.

[Bean Counter]

...I'm not going to shoot a small buck because I want a big one...if my tag's on a dink there's one less potential trophy and I'm done for the year. 

As long as you practice what you preach I have no problem with you raising the idea.  What makes me nervous, in all honesty, is someone else telling everyone else not to shoot smaller bucks just to improve his or her odds.  Again, I have no way of knowing whether this is you or not, but I was a bit reserved at first.

[MichaelJ]

There's not as many hunters in the woods these days and we are losing more and more all the time. Put a point restriction on and we will lose the last of the hold outs who are getting disgusted with all the rules and cost of hunting we have now.

I personally would love to see fewer hunters in the woods.  The folks that are giving up because of too many regulations are casual and not the hardcore or true hunters anyway.  I have said for years that a large portion of the "hunters" in the woods these days shouldn't be there.  The true hunters are not the folks who are showing disregard for property, game and local laws, it is the half assed hunters that are the largest portion of violators.  If increasing point restrictions will lower the number of half assed hunters in the woods, I'm all for it.  The major bonus is more and bigger bucks, it is a win-win situation.

WOW    Folks that give up are not true hunters, not hardcore hunters and you have said for years that a large portion should not even be there! wow I had to think about that a few moments and I think that may be the most egotistical ,ignorant, self serving thing ive ever heard or seen put in print!

People are selfish by nature... you have your beliefs and you want to impliment or maintain a system that benefits YOUR beliefs... He has HIS beliefs... you don't like 'em, then TOUGH *censored*!  But quit with the personal attacks, you can respectfully disagree but we don't need more personal attacks on this site.  Get off your high horse there partner!
 

Michael   I was arguing against attacking others for their lawful taking of game.If you cant keep up maybe you should not comment until you can grasp the converstion, partner!

PM sent to keep this argument off the boards and annoying others....  

Michael