4-point rule 117/121

[GEARHEAD]

This is where the giants live, ya want a 175 WT, or better, this is the place to go.

[popeshawnpaul]

The population has "rebounded".  It's time to lift it next year.

Great observation from Bellevue !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

If I only cared about and exclusively hunted these two particular units I would share your bias towards this management decision.  I completely see how it puts less people in your honey hole and puts more bucks in front of your weapon.  To that end, I can understand why you feel the way you do.  I suppose you could make this statement and be devisive towards people that don't live in these units or question their intelligence based on their opinion regarding this difficult management decision.  Or we could debate the issue intelligently to gain better understanding of the issue on a more regional and statewide level and how it effects other hunters across the state.  Major engagement changes in areas has impact on other units and regions.  Balancing the interests of this is the difficult task.

[Jonathan_S]

This is where the giants live, ya want a 175 WT, or better, this is the place to go.

See a lot of 'em do you?   

[GEARHEAD]

Actually yes.......but only on a game cam in the dark, or peoples front lawns at night as well.

[buckfvr]

This is where the giants live, ya want a 175 WT, or better, this is the place to go.

Big whitetails are where you find them.....and in this state, that can be anywhere there is a season for them........for 175 and up bucks, a gander at the whitetail record book will show you just how slim your chances are................

Ill add to this, I still hunt in any buck units and one of those has actually been my unit of choice based on what I see there.  I hunt based on sightings regardless of the unit or its management objectives.

[buckfvr]

The population has "rebounded".  It's time to lift it next year.

Great observation from Bellevue !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

If I only cared about and exclusively hunted these two particular units I would share your bias towards this management decision.  I completely see how it puts less people in your honey hole and puts more bucks in front of your weapon.  To that end, I can understand why you feel the way you do.  I suppose you could make this statement and be devisive towards people that don't live in these units or question their intelligence based on their opinion regarding this difficult management decision.  Or we could debate the issue intelligently to gain better understanding of the issue on a more regional and statewide level and how it effects other hunters across the state.  Major engagement changes in areas has impact on other units and regions.  Balancing the interests of this is the difficult task.

Cant let it go, can you.........

Id be good with 4pt for the entire n.e..  You assume that all of us in support of the ruling only hunt in the unit we live in......and there for dont otherwise care.......theres another mistake in your logic, a chink in your armor....what ever.  Get some practical experience to back your education and learn more about the folks you judge.............

Oh ya, and so far, you are a perfect fit for wdfw..............

[popeshawnpaul]

The population has "rebounded".  It's time to lift it next year.

Great observation from Bellevue !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

If I only cared about and exclusively hunted these two particular units I would share your bias towards this management decision.  I completely see how it puts less people in your honey hole and puts more bucks in front of your weapon.  To that end, I can understand why you feel the way you do.  I suppose you could make this statement and be devisive towards people that don't live in these units or question their intelligence based on their opinion regarding this difficult management decision.  Or we could debate the issue intelligently to gain better understanding of the issue on a more regional and statewide level and how it effects other hunters across the state.  Major engagement changes in areas has impact on other units and regions.  Balancing the interests of this is the difficult task.

Cant let it go, can you.........

Id be good with 4pt for the entire n.e..  You assume that all of us in support of the ruling only hunt in the unit we live in......and there for dont otherwise care.......theres another mistake in your logic, a chink in your armor....what ever.  Get some practical experience to back your education and learn more about the folks you judge.............

Oh ya, and so far, you are a perfect fit for wdfw..............

I give up.  You win.  Another pointless exercise in internet futility.

[buckfvr]

Boy phool......if thats what you come up with after reading this topic, you're reading something no one else is seeing.....Id guess the two of you either are, or are trying to become co-workers.  Pass those two another ........

[huntnphool]

Boy phool......if thats what you come up with after reading this topic, you're reading something no one else is seeing.....Id guess the two of you either are, or are trying to become co-workers.  Pass those two another ........

Still reading

[huntnphool]

Also- it was NEVER pushed along by outfitters as a trophy objective.  It was sportsman's groups and locals that care about the deer that made it happen.

Regardless what "objective" excuse was used, outfitters did indeed participate in the "push" to impliment the restriction, Dale was one of them.

I was at every meeting and in the stakeholders group that supported this change.  I think it will be good for the herd, hopefully the folks here that are in opposition can live with a few years of change in two units...

Here in 121 we have a different scenario. It's not that we have too many does, we really have too few bucks.

Like WACoyote, I was also on the whitetail group.


Due to heavy winter kill and heavy predator losses it appeared to me that our deer numbers were at about 40% of previous years before the 2 back to back hard winters. Rightfully the WDFW commission cut back on doe permits to let the herd grow.

But when you cut back on doe permits it places more hunters after bucks at a time when herd numbers are already low. The only sensible thing to do is also cut back on buck harvest to prevent further destruction of the buck/doe ratio. By cutting back harvest of both bucks and does, the herd will recover faster and with a better buck/doe ratio.

I am uncertain if it's a good long term rule, we will know more in 4 more years, but for reducing the buck harvest immediately it worked well and that was my intention in supporting the rule.

There is a lot of private land and there is a lot of public access in these units. Because the public land gets hunted harder, and there are no crops on public land, I would say there are definitely more deer on most of the private land. However, the Clayton transect which I think is in a mostly private land agricultural area, had about the worst buck/doe ratio. It's also more open country in many areas so that could also be why it has a lower buck/doe ratio.

[huntnphool]

Here are a couple quotes from one of our fellow members from last year, some great points in his posts.

have to keep hammering this point home because nobody ever seems to want to talk about it..............QDMA and EVERY eastern US whitetail antler restriction rules are part of a two tier system;

they are predicated on a large antlerless harvest because whitetail herds back East are probably 5 times as productive as our herds here;  when you couple an APR, with an "option" for the hunter to take an antlerless animal, they have found that in many cases hunters will simply shoot an antlerless deer instead of waiting around for a 4 pt animal;  ALL the data (and I have posted it on here numerous times) shows that with these large antlerless quota's, combined with APR's there is a very, very, very tiny increase in the recruitment of animals into the 4.5 yr old class;  what they have found is that the APR just "shifts" the harvest up one age class;  if everybody used to be shooting 1.5 yr old deer, they are now shooting 2.5 yr old deer;  AND, very few bucks are making it past their second year;

now, contrast this with what WA state has going on;  we have un-productive herds, so we cannot offer any meaningful antlerless component;  so ALL the harvest is focused on bucks and none on does;

Another HUGE difference is that in many Eastern states, the whitetail hunt occur AFTER the rut;  so, at least you have some of the mature bucks still in the population at that point;  AND the bucks are in a post rut situation where they are not running around looking for a piece of a$$ all day long; 

  our whitetail harvest is before, and in the middle of rut, in these units;

So, as huntnw likes to point out, comparing our whitetail herds to those in Eastern US is comparing apples to oranges...........what works back there (APR's) will not work here because of the different type of whitetail population we have, no antlerless opportunities to "pull" harvest away from bucks, and hunts that occur in the middle of the rut.

the numbers I ran are pretty simple:

I use "hunter days" because this is a much  better reflection of what is going on;

Bottom line is that in 2011 there were 30% FEWER hunter days, but, the harvest of 4pt+ animals went UP 10%;

So, sitting here right now, you have decreased the number of mature bucks in the population by more then you would have with a normal season;  and, you increased the number of immature bucks in the population because you protected them;

so, during the breeding season this year in these units, you most likely had a lower age class buck doing the breeding (on average) then you have in the past;  statistically this has to be the outcome because you protected ALL of the 1.5 yr old bucks and increased the harvest of the mature bucks.

  there is LOTS of data that shows that lowering the age class of the bucks that are doing the breeding results in lower fawn recruitment.  and, this makes intuitive sense........how productive would the US be if 13 yr old boys were making all the babies???

I counted 92 extra 4pt+ bucks harvested in those units, so, right off the bat, after year #1, that herd has 92 fewer mature bucks in it; 

next year, when all the hunters return, and "hunter days" return to normal (probably goes higher actually) then you are going to see a huge increase in the level of harvest of the 5pt+ category;

you obviously will see a big increase in the 4pt class;  but, if you look at the "data"  what it shows is that in other APR whitetail areas, where there is a huge antlerless component, and the hunt does not occur during the rut, and the herd is much more productive, they see very tiny improvements of recruitment into the 4.5 yr age class;

now, contrast that with what we have here;  low productivity herds, no antlerless component, hunting allowed during the rut;  it isn't hard to see how  this is going to end...........

bottom line is we have year #1 down and there are fewer mature bucks in the population and more immature bucks;  the rule has successfully, after year 1, reduced the average age of the buck in these units;

for all the proponents, you had better hope hunter days stays 30% lower permanently..........because that is the only thing that will prevent this rule from permenantly reducing the average age class in these units;

[/b]

couple of points;  I don't consider a 4 pt whitetail "mature" but, it is certainly at least 1 yr and possibly 2 yr's older then the yearling bucks that this rule protected;

bottom line is this:  the average age structure of that buck population is younger then it would have been without this rule after year 1.  Like I said in the earlier post, all of the eastern US areas where APR's have been implemented show little, if any increased recruitment into the 4.5 yr old class, and this is with the large antlerless tags "pulling" hunting pressure from the buck population.

without that "pull" from the antlerless tags, there would be no bucks recruited in the older age classes and most likely a reduction;   mother nature set it up so mature bucks would do the bulk of the breeding;  there is a reason for this;  you are correct that there are recent studies that say a lot of the breeding is being done by 1.5 yr old animals;  but, that is because in our modern day of big game populations that is dominant age class!! 

In 20 yrs I suspect( just a personal opinion......) that biologists will come to believe that 60 years of poor age structure bucks doing the breeding has contributed to the chronically low fawn recruitment levels in our big game herds.

the legacy of APR's in this state, a state that cannot support large antlerless tags, is a slow erosion of season length, with seasons backed up further into October;  and massive hunter pressure packed into a 9 day season, and you NEVER get rid of it.........

The pattern is so clear:  1.  initiate an APR    2. shorten the season   3.  all the hunting pressure is focused into 9 day seasons  4.  very poor hunter experience   5.  no help to the herd because the increased hunting pressure in such a short window puts further strains on the herd.  6.  Department of game under all kinds of pressure, cannot get rid of the APR, but cannot shorten seasons any more because of hunter disastifaction;   7.  the management of our herds get stuck with an APR and shortened seasons;

anybody who thinks that this APR will EVER be gotten rid of does not understand how they work......make no mistake, this isn't some  5 yr experiment.....the reason you can't get rid of it is because the first year you get rid of it, the buck population gets absoulutely hammered because you open it back up to all the age classes;  it is just the reverse of what you have the first year of an APR when you protect the 1.5 yr old age class;  the only realistic way to unwind an APR would be to have restricted tag sales the first year you get rid of it;  how likely is that???

the first causality of this APR will be the elimination of the modern rut hunt........this will happen in 2 to 3yrs when the it becomes clear that you cannot sustain this hunt when all the pressure is focused on the older age classes of bucks;  and, we will be well on our way to the legacy of shorter seasons........

[/b]

[boneaddict]

If he was so concerned about shooting all the big bucks, then maybe he should lay off those late hunts and bust a spike or two point with one of those tags. 

[bearpaw]

I think there are some serious holes in this post and that the reasoning is flawed, I'll explain:

Here are a couple quotes from one of our fellow members from last year, some great points in his posts.

have to keep hammering this point home because nobody ever seems to want to talk about it..............QDMA and EVERY eastern US whitetail antler restriction rules are part of a two tier system;

they are predicated on a large antlerless harvest because whitetail herds back East are probably 5 times as productive as our herds here;  when you couple an APR, with an "option" for the hunter to take an antlerless animal, they have found that in many cases hunters will simply shoot an antlerless deer instead of waiting around for a 4 pt animal;  ALL the data (and I have posted it on here numerous times) shows that with these large antlerless quota's, combined with APR's there is a very, very, very tiny increase in the recruitment of animals into the 4.5 yr old class;  what they have found is that the APR just "shifts" the harvest up one age class;  if everybody used to be shooting 1.5 yr old deer, they are now shooting 2.5 yr old deer;  AND, very few bucks are making it past their second year;

I have detailed this before in this topic but I will gladly repeat it again. WE HAVE TOO MANY PREDATORS! I don't think WA whitetail have that many fewer fawns than eastern states, the problem is the survival rate of WA fawns and adult deer. We have 3000 to 4000 cougar in Washington, a huge bloated population and according to government studies one cougar eats from 25 to 50 deer per year, so WA cougar are eating from 75,000 minimum to 200,000 maximum deer per year in Washington. Add an increasing bear and coyote population and that explains why Washington deer herds are not as productive. Only WDFW can fix this with better predator management.

Here is the other side of the coin on NE WA doe/buck harvest. As a result of our declining deer population doe seasons were mostly eliminated, so that puts all the hunting pressure on bucks therefore the buck to doe ratio would decrease, that is unavoidable if all hunting pressure is on any size buck, by protecting the young bucks (formerly about half the buck harvest, we insure there are more bucks after the season. Since doe seasons were mostly eliminated increased doe harvest is simply not an issue until the herds grow and it is decided we need more doe harvested and doe seasons are liberalized. The point he makes about taking more doe seem completely invalid.

now, contrast this with what WA state has going on;  we have un-productive herds, so we cannot offer any meaningful antlerless component;  so ALL the harvest is focused on bucks and none on does;
agreed, but will add that half the bucks formerly harvested are now living through the end of the season

Another HUGE difference is that in many Eastern states, the whitetail hunt occur AFTER the rut;  so, at least you have some of the mature bucks still in the population at that point;  AND the bucks are in a post rut situation where they are not running around looking for a piece of a$$ all day long; 

  our whitetail harvest is before, and in the middle of rut, in these units;
The heavy cover in the NE prevents all the older bucks from being taken, a later hunt in the NE would be more detrimental due to the deer migrating from higher elevations.

So, as huntnw likes to point out, comparing our whitetail herds to those in Eastern US is comparing apples to oranges...........what works back there (APR's) will not work here because of the different type of whitetail population we have, no antlerless opportunities to "pull" harvest away from bucks, and hunts that occur in the middle of the rut.

the numbers I ran are pretty simple:

I use "hunter days" because this is a much  better reflection of what is going on;

Bottom line is that in 2011 there were 30% FEWER hunter days, but, the harvest of 4pt+ animals went UP 10%;

So, sitting here right now, you have decreased the number of mature bucks in the population by more then you would have with a normal season;  and, you increased the number of immature bucks in the population because you protected them;

so, during the breeding season this year in these units, you most likely had a lower age class buck doing the breeding (on average) then you have in the past;  statistically this has to be the outcome because you protected ALL of the 1.5 yr old bucks and increased the harvest of the mature bucks.

The numbers are incorrect and I will explain why, because spikes and forks previously comprised 50% of the harvest, we are saving 50% more bucks each fall. He claims harvest on 4pts+ increased by 10%, that sounds like a 40% gain in the buck population to me!

  there is LOTS of data that shows that lowering the age class of the bucks that are doing the breeding results in lower fawn recruitment.  and, this makes intuitive sense........how productive would the US be if 13 yr old boys were making all the babies???

I counted 92 extra 4pt+ bucks harvested in those units, so, right off the bat, after year #1, that herd has 92 fewer mature bucks in it; 

OK we lost 92 more mature bucks, but we added hundreds of younger bucks that were not killed! Even if we lose 10% more of these younger bucks the following year, you still have far more 2 1/2 year bucks at the end of the second season, do the math! I think it's also safe to say that over 5 years the buck ratio will increase further for older bucks as the surviving younger bucks continue to age.

next year, when all the hunters return, and "hunter days" return to normal (probably goes higher actually) then you are going to see a huge increase in the level of harvest of the 5pt+ category;

Because we are conserving the younger bucks to grow older each year, we should expect more older bucks in a few years.

you obviously will see a big increase in the 4pt class;  but, if you look at the "data"  what it shows is that in other APR whitetail areas, where there is a huge antlerless component, and the hunt does not occur during the rut, and the herd is much more productive, they see very tiny improvements of recruitment into the 4.5 yr age class;

Obviously there will be many more 2 1/2 year bucks and even 3 1/2 yr bucks after two years of the 4pt rule, if we also are getting tiny increases in 4.5 year bucks, then I would say that is a definite improvement and a successful program.

now, contrast that with what we have here;  low productivity herds, no antlerless component, hunting allowed during the rut;  it isn't hard to see how  this is going to end...........

We've had 2 years of the rule, currently I am seeing more bucks. 

bottom line is we have year #1 down and there are fewer mature bucks in the population and more immature bucks;  the rule has successfully, after year 1, reduced the average age of the buck in these units;

Math was figured incorrectly, yes there are 92 fewer 4 1/2 yr bucks, but we have hundreds more 2 1/2 yr and 3 1/2 yr bucks after 2 seasons, you forgot to include all the young bucks being saved each season. In your previous statement you said there will be slight increases in the 4 1/2 yr bucks, so we have more 2 1/2, 3 1/2, and 4 1/2 bucks. 

for all the proponents, you had better hope hunter days stays 30% lower permanently..........because that is the only thing that will prevent this rule from permenantly reducing the average age class in these units;

[/b]

Please see my last sentence.

couple of points;  I don't consider a 4 pt whitetail "mature" but, it is certainly at least 1 yr and possibly 2 yr's older then the yearling bucks that this rule protected;

bottom line is this:  the average age structure of that buck population is younger then it would have been without this rule after year 1.  Like I said in the earlier post, all of the eastern US areas where APR's have been implemented show little, if any increased recruitment into the 4.5 yr old class, and this is with the large antlerless tags "pulling" hunting pressure from the buck population.

This is deceiving the first year because we have saved all the young bucks (formerly 50% of the harvest), but as you said there was only a 10% increase in adult buck harvest so that means in 2 to 5 years there should be more older aged bucks as well, you said there would be slight increases yourself. I think it will actually be more than slight increases.

without that "pull" from the antlerless tags, there would be no bucks recruited in the older age classes and most likely a reduction;   mother nature set it up so mature bucks would do the bulk of the breeding;  there is a reason for this;  you are correct that there are recent studies that say a lot of the breeding is being done by 1.5 yr old animals;  but, that is because in our modern day of big game populations that is dominant age class!! 

Again, your math was incorrect.

In 20 yrs I suspect( just a personal opinion......) that biologists will come to believe that 60 years of poor age structure bucks doing the breeding has contributed to the chronically low fawn recruitment levels in our big game herds.

I hope that in 20 years they understand that cougars are eating 3 to 5 times as many deer as hunters are taking and that a 50% reduction in cougar population would mean a far more liberal hunting season for hunters and more revenue for WDFW.

the legacy of APR's in this state, a state that cannot support large antlerless tags, is a slow erosion of season length, with seasons backed up further into October;  and massive hunter pressure packed into a 9 day season, and you NEVER get rid of it.........

Washington is the smallest western state and has no meaningful cougar or other predator management and the largest human population except for CA, that is the reason our herds are declining.

The pattern is so clear:  1.  initiate an APR    2. shorten the season   3.  all the hunting pressure is focused into 9 day seasons  4.  very poor hunter experience   5.  no help to the herd because the increased hunting pressure in such a short window puts further strains on the herd.  6.  Department of game under all kinds of pressure, cannot get rid of the APR, but cannot shorten seasons any more because of hunter disastifaction;   7.  the management of our herds get stuck with an APR and shortened seasons;

The pattern seems pretty clrear to me, more cougars, bear, and coyotes means fewer animals survive. WDFW continues to cut cougar hunting. 

anybody who thinks that this APR will EVER be gotten rid of does not understand how they work......make no mistake, this isn't some  5 yr experiment.....the reason you can't get rid of it is because the first year you get rid of it, the buck population gets absoulutely hammered because you open it back up to all the age classes;  it is just the reverse of what you have the first year of an APR when you protect the 1.5 yr old age class;  the only realistic way to unwind an APR would be to have restricted tag sales the first year you get rid of it;  how likely is that???

From what I have been told it's hard to get rid of the rule because people like it and want to keep it.

the first causality of this APR will be the elimination of the modern rut hunt........this will happen in 2 to 3yrs when the it becomes clear that you cannot sustain this hunt when all the pressure is focused on the older age classes of bucks;  and, we will be well on our way to the legacy of shorter seasons........

We are going into the 3rd year and I am seeing good numbers of bucks. 

[/b]

[bearpaw]

Also- it was NEVER pushed along by outfitters as a trophy objective.  It was sportsman's groups and locals that care about the deer that made it happen.

Regardless what "objective" excuse was used, outfitters did indeed participate in the "push" to impliment the restriction, Dale was one of them.

So wth, because I am an outfitter you are saying I don't care about the deer. 

I'll guarantee I care more than most people, no offense to anyone but it's pretty easy to figure out. I grew up here hunting from the time I could follow my dad in the woods and most all my family and friends hunt. My business depends on good deer numbers, why on earth would I want to hurt the deer herds. The whole NE economy depends on good wildlife numbers.

This is getting pretty old hearing I am some kind of anti-christ because I am an outfitter. Some of you people need to get over it, the deer, elk, and other wildlife are more important to me than most other people.   

JEESH.....

[huntnphool]

Also- it was NEVER pushed along by outfitters as a trophy objective.  It was sportsman's groups and locals that care about the deer that made it happen.

Regardless what "objective" excuse was used, outfitters did indeed participate in the "push" to impliment the restriction, Dale was one of them.

So wth, because I am an outfitter you are saying I don't care about the deer. 

I'll guarantee I care more than most people, no offense to anyone but it's pretty easy to figure out. I grew up here hunting from the time I could follow my dad in the woods and most all my family and friends hunt. My business depends on good deer numbers, why on earth would I want to hurt the deer herds. The whole NE economy depends on good wildlife numbers.

This is getting pretty old hearing I am some kind of anti-christ because I am an outfitter. Some of you people need to get over it, the deer, elk, and other wildlife are more important to me than most other people.   

JEESH.....

Come on Dale, you should know better than that. He said it was NEVER pushed by outfitters, suggesting that any and all outfitters had nothing to do with it, I simply reminded him that you are indeed a outfitter and admittedly was part of "the whitetail group". Never once did I insinuate that you don't care about the herds or are the anti Christ, I reserve that title to certain politians.