3 point min or spike only to improve trophy quality?

[Pete112288]

I have heard quite a bit of debate about this and would like some good opinions. I have heard that the 3 point min is causing the average bull taken in general areas to be smaller, that heard bulls are averaging smaller. A book I read talked about this in detail "Hunting High Pressure Elk" I think is what it was called. The spike only units with having special draw for mature bulls makes sense to me. That way any bull that makes it past those early spike year(s) has a safety cushon to grow bigger. Rather than having to fight to live every year after it hits 3 points. I have seen the same idea work well for bass fishing, you can keep more smaller ones, but only one over into the "trophy" size, this way more trophies stay and it takes out the compitition when they are young so its easier for the survivors to become healthy trophies. Any thoughts anyone? If anyone sees any flaws in my logic please point it out to me. Would you rather have 3 point mins for general season or spike only with special draws for branched bulls? Im thinking about the idea of increasing trophy quality and numbers.

[rtspring]

Huge fan of spike only! You still get to hunt every year. Plus the caliber of bulls is amazing conpared to say the  80'S.  I will hunt spikes until I draw the coveted tags!!! Plus they taste great...

[Jonathan_S]

I'm not sure.  I don't think APR is generally implemented to "improve trophy quality" I think it's more of a herd management tool.

I, for one, would not support a spike only restriction on Roosevelt Elk without seeing some hard evidence that it would help the herd(s). 

[Pete112288]

I like the idea of what rtspring said, that was my exact thoughts. But that is true as well that it would be nice to see some evidence of it working on the westside first. All I know is that in the area of the 550 I hunt, I cant go up without seeing almost more spikes than cows. I see groups of 10-30 animals and it is very common for me to see over half of each group is spikes. The record for me so far just had my jaw dropped. Scouting in August I saw a group of 27 elk, 1 BIG bull (never got a good count on points it was in and out of the trees, I was watching this group from 700 or so yards across a ravine with the spotting scope for an hour or so) 7 cows, 1 calf, 18 spikes. Then on the hike out going the other direction saw another group of 6, 2 were cows, 4 were spikes.

[jay.sharkbait]

Trophy schmofy

I shoot the first legal animal I see.

[Humptulips]

Trophy schmofy

I shoot the first legal animal I see.

 
I killed some big bulls when it was any bull, not since. IMO it's just a way to limit hunters and sell special hunt apps.

[jackmaster]

genetics is what improves the quality, feed and minerals and good genetics is everything, kull out the degens and let good genetics take over

[Halo]

I dont think we can take a one size fits all approch in Washington with all the differences in units, East side vs West side, Rosevelt's vs Rocky's and tribes not on board with the same rules and management plan.

[PlateauNDN]

   I was just going to bring this up since I seeing it going that way.  Less road access would be of better improvement in certain areas/units.

[huntnphool]

  I was just going to bring this up since I seeing it going that way.  Less road access would be of better improvement in certain areas/units.

+1

[JLS]

  I was just going to bring this up since I seeing it going that way.  Less road access would be of better improvement in certain areas/units.

+1

+2

The genetics are already there. 

[bobcat]

I don't think genetics is a very important factor. It's more an issue of age. You have to let the bulls grow up for them to reach their true potential.

That can be done with APR's, limiting access, or limiting the number of hunters.

I'd be a strong supporter of limited access with the use of gates, but the problem is it seems the state wants to give the Indian tribes keys to all the gates. Not sure if the same thing is happening on federal lands.

APR's are kind of the same deal. Why limit us to only spikes, or 3 point minimum, when another group of people don't have to follow the same rules? All it does is create trophy areas for them, and less opportunity for us.

[JLS]

I don't think genetics is a very important factor. It's more an issue of age. You have to let the bulls grow up for them to reach their true potential.

Sure they are.  An old bull or buck with crappy genetics may not equal a four year old with great genetics.

That can be done with APR's, limiting access, or limiting the number of hunters.

I'd be a strong supporter of limited access with the use of gates, but the problem is it seems the state wants to give the Indian tribes keys to all the gates. Not sure if the same thing is happening on federal lands.

APR's are kind of the same deal. Why limit us to only spikes, or 3 point minimum, when another group of people don't have to follow the same rules? All it does is create trophy areas for them, and less opportunity for us.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner.....

Who cares about creating more trophies that can be shot on winter range and sold for a profit?

[Jonathan_S]

The "age vs genetics" debate is valid only if animals are living long enough so in a lot of cases it's a moot point.  Most people would be happy to shoot a 4.5 year old bull with bad genes 

Why limit us to only spikes, or 3 point minimum, when another group of people don't have to follow the same rules? All it does is create trophy areas for them, and less opportunity for us.

  

[bobcat]

I don't think genetics is a very important factor. It's more an issue of age. You have to let the bulls grow up for them to reach their true potential.

Sure they are.  An old bull or buck with crappy genetics may not equal a four year old with great genetics.

I agree, but as you said in your previous post- "the genetics are already there."

[JLS]

I don't think genetics is a very important factor. It's more an issue of age. You have to let the bulls grow up for them to reach their true potential.

Sure they are.  An old bull or buck with crappy genetics may not equal a four year old with great genetics.

I agree, but as you said in your previous post- "the genetics are already there."

Gotcha.  I think I misunderstood what you were getting at.

[Jonathan_S]

I think a lot of people put way too much stock into genes.

For crying out loud the herds managed to keep good genetics for thousands and thousands of years.

Then they see a good buck or bull and think, "wow, great genes! we need to manage this herd and make sure he spreads his seed..." when in reality it was probably just a buck/bull that beat the odds and lived to his full potential. 

For those who can't let go of the genetics argument, you better find out how to identify which does/cows have the best antler traits in their gametes because they contribute 50% to antler genes.

Predator management and winter-range management will be the downfall of herds, and the reason for a lack of "Trophy Quality"

[TheHunt]

I don't think genetics is a very important factor. It's more an issue of age. You have to let the bulls grow up for them to reach their true potential.

Sure they are.  An old bull or buck with crappy genetics may not equal a four year old with great genetics.

That can be done with APR's, limiting access, or limiting the number of hunters.

I'd be a strong supporter of limited access with the use of gates, but the problem is it seems the state wants to give the Indian tribes keys to all the gates. Not sure if the same thing is happening on federal lands.

APR's are kind of the same deal. Why limit us to only spikes, or 3 point minimum, when another group of people don't have to follow the same rules? All it does is create trophy areas for them, and less opportunity for us.

Who cares about creating more trophies that can be shot on winter range and sold for a profit?

If there was not so many trophies killed on winter range.  I would love to see some game management in this state.  Why do you think so many folks hunt out of this state?

[JLS]

Predator management and winter-range management will be the downfall of herds, and the reason for a lack of "Trophy Quality"

Or, simply the number of animals killed. 

[JLS]

I think a lot of people put way too much stock into genes.

Maybe.

I can't tell you if it's a nutritional component or not, but I can give you many examples of areas that produce mediocre deer in terms of true trophy quality relative to other areas.  It could be that genetics play a large role, or a complimentary role.  I don't know.  But to simply dismiss them is somewhat presumptious.

Also, I can show you areas where deer don't have the genetic antler makeup to produce numerical trophies.  Sure, they are good bucks, but they may pale in comparison scorewise to similar age class deer in other areas.

[NOCK NOCK]

I don't think genetics is a very important factor. It's more an issue of age. You have to let the bulls grow up for them to reach their true potential.

That can be done with APR's, limiting access, or limiting the number of hunters.

I'd be a strong supporter of limited access with the use of gates, but the problem is it seems the state wants to give the Indian tribes keys to all the gates. Not sure if the same thing is happening on federal lands.

APR's are kind of the same deal. Why limit us to only spikes, or 3 point minimum, when another group of people don't have to follow the same rules? All it does is create trophy areas for them, and less opportunity for us.

Bobcat, that last sentence summons it up pretty good, I agree

[Jonathan_S]

I think a lot of people put way too much stock into genes.

Maybe.

I can't tell you if it's a nutritional component or not, but I can give you many examples of areas that produce mediocre deer in terms of true trophy quality relative to other areas.  It could be that genetics play a large role, or a complimentary role.  I don't know.  But to simply dismiss them is somewhat presumptious.

Also, I can show you areas where deer don't have the genetic antler makeup to produce numerical trophies.  Sure, they are good bucks, but they may pale in comparison scorewise to similar age class deer in other areas.

Well, I mostly agree with you.  I don't think I dismiss genetics, I just think there are much bigger fish to fry.

Tell you what, I'll agree with you and tell everybody that I'm wrong if you show me where the best genetics are, preferably before next September 

[JLS]

I think a lot of people put way too much stock into genes.

Maybe.

I can't tell you if it's a nutritional component or not, but I can give you many examples of areas that produce mediocre deer in terms of true trophy quality relative to other areas.  It could be that genetics play a large role, or a complimentary role.  I don't know.  But to simply dismiss them is somewhat presumptious.

Also, I can show you areas where deer don't have the genetic antler makeup to produce numerical trophies.  Sure, they are good bucks, but they may pale in comparison scorewise to similar age class deer in other areas.

Well, I mostly agree with you.  I don't think I dismiss genetics, I just think there are much bigger fish to fry.

Tell you what, I'll agree with you and tell everybody that I'm wrong if you show me where the best genetics are, preferably before next September 

Colorado

[Jonathan_S]

Is that a road in GMU 204?

I haven't ever came across it?

[JLS]

Is that a road in GMU 204?

I haven't ever came across it?

You have to buy the super secret GPS decoder chip.  They are not just available anywhere

[jackmaster]

if you have great genetics a young buck or a young bull will start out with a nice healthy antler, with more points than a spike, i have seen first hand what good genetics does in an area, that along with good feed and nutrients creates good bulls and bucks and a great birthing ratio, of course if you cut down access it will help, i wish hancock would gate all roads except the mainlines and i buy a pass every year, i wish a few more spots would do the same thing. you also so need to kull the heards so they arent allowed to pass their bad genetics on to other young bulls, i think if the margeret was managed right, it could be in time as good as the blues or the watershed. it wouldnt break my heart if the whole state went to spike only but they would need to give more to the youth and seniors and disabled guys, like make it cows or a spike for them or somethn or give them a week head start, i really like odd or even, one year you get to hunt deer and the next you get to hunt elk, they should do that for salmon and other sport fishn to, but you gotta get the indians to go along with the same thing

[rosscrazyelk]

I like the idea of what rtspring said, that was my exact thoughts. But that is true as well that it would be nice to see some evidence of it working on the westside first. All I know is that in the area of the 550 I hunt, I cant go up without seeing almost more spikes than cows. I see groups of 10-30 animals and it is very common for me to see over half of each group is spikes. The record for me so far just had my jaw dropped. Scouting in August I saw a group of 27 elk, 1 BIG bull (never got a good count on points it was in and out of the trees, I was watching this group from 700 or so yards across a ravine with the spotting scope for an hour or so) 7 cows, 1 calf, 18 spikes. Then on the hike out going the other direction saw another group of 6, 2 were cows, 4 were spikes.

I normally would have a hard time believing  this . I have never seen more than three spikes in a herd until this weekend.  I saw a herd of 50+ animals with 21 bulls.  7 which were spikes.  Crazy stuff

[bobcat]

There's nothing wrong with having a lot of spikes. Just means calf recruitment is doing well.

[Booman2]

The Montana elkhorn study was commissioned when herd populations crashed several years ago. It showed that bigger bulls bred earlier and the cows produced more and stronger calves. We are not in Montana, but review of this study could be helpful. I think that the Elkhorns subsequently went to spike only.

[Alan K]

Want more big bulls on the west side? Raise the minimum point restrictions. . . Make elk on the west side 5 or 6 pt. minimum and you'd have them running around all over in a few years provided you're outside areas pounded by the tribes.  It would be a couple years of slim pickings though to get to that point.

It'd be just the same as when they went to 3 pt. minimum from any bull.  I'm sure people thought it was the end of the world when they did it, but now those same bulls are taken with another year of antler and body growth.

[STIKNSTRINGBOW]

Not sure if it has been covered, but there is 2 different reasons for antler restrictions, spike only limits the harvest of older bulls, increasing mature bulls and overall bull/cow ratios. 3pt+ antler restrictions maintains bull/cow ratios. There are "trophies" in both situations, but average age of a "mature" bull will be higher in spike only area due to reduced overall harvest of older bulls.

[sakoshooter]

 IMO it's just a way to limit hunters and sell special hunt apps.
[/quote]

Agreed. It was a good idea to get the east side herd built back up with mature bulls but the WDFW was supposed to change it back after a few year. Yeah right.

[STIKNSTRINGBOW]

Ability to maintain populations and provide hunting opportunity is their main focus, because it is all about the $$$
If they did not manage herds by balancing the harvest in some way, then we would soon hunt them out of a job.
By making money by selling permits, they are essentially creating a sustainable market.
"Quality" and OIL tags, raffles, etc. is money to enhance their budget, general season and antlerless permits is their customer base.
That's why they won't change it back, be like breaking their piggy bank.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

The Scandenavians have found that just as the OP suggested, if your intention is to produce trophy animals, you limit the hunting of males to the very young and the trophy sized males.  A spike/2pt combined with a drawing hunt for the trophy animals would suffice in this case. They also produce lots of animals by strictly hunting the young animals and older males thereby protecting their brood stock. This mimics nature where in times of famine, the young and very old die first. But as long as the prime breeding age animals survive, herds can come back rather quickly when habitat conditions improve.

The idea that you protect all the young and hammer the breeding age animals that many in North America espouse is actually counter productive.  Think of a rancher raising cattle. In the fall, he doesn't sell off all his breeding stock and keep his yearlings. If he did, he wouldn't have much of a crop the next year. He sells off his young animals except for what he needs to replace the breeders that have gotten to old to produce, and the older animals that aren't productive any more.

For those who think genetics don't matter I would offer this. Last year I was invited to go on a hunt at one of the premier Texas hunting ranches all expenses paid. The basic hunt was for a 150 class buck. Now this ranch was chuck full of native Texas whitetails. Most of which wouldn't go over 150 gross B&C. Some nice looking bucks to be sure, but no real jaw droppers. Now if you wanted something bigger, they would accommodate you, but you hunted in a special part of the ranch where they had a breeding program that featured bucks with super genetics brought in from the mid-west. These animals were isolated from the native Texas deer and produced eye popping bucks if you're into such things. The point being, on the rest of the ranch, without the genetic infusion, the  native whitetails could have lived forever and never produced a 200 inch buck, but with the genetic infusion and a mineral supplement program, that special part of the ranch produced multiple 200 inch bucks every year, not to mention the 240" and above category.

[erk444]

Genetics are more noticeable on the islands too. A buck can be in his prime and never be more than a nice 2 point.

[chukarchaser]

In horses and cattle some knowledgeable people place the value of genetics on the female at upwards of 80% of the equation and the male 20%. 

[Bullkllr]

I don't think you need to look past the billions of dollars being spent to genetically improve antler growth of deer populations on farms to prove a strong genetic component. Intense culling of inferior or"management" males points toward it also.

[Jonathan_S]

The point being, on the rest of the ranch, without the genetic infusion, the  native whitetails could have lived forever and never produced a 200 inch buck, but with the genetic infusion and a mineral supplement program, that special part of the ranch produced multiple 200 inch bucks every year, not to mention the 240" and above category.

Time to get some of that "mineral supplement" and start dropping it from helicopters   

If the subject is inventing a new maximum trophy quality then I suppose GMO and bringing in elk from AZ would be the answer.

If the goal is just to capitalize on what's already there, then I agree that killing spikes and limited big bulls is the answer.  I wouldn't compare it directly to whitetails though.  Particularly fenced ranches.  I imagine that in free-chase areas, the mature whitetail buck has a much better chance of escaping death by hunter than does a screaming bull elk so in regards to the 4 pt minimum for deer, I think it should stay. 

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Want more big bulls on the west side? Raise the minimum point restrictions. . . Make elk on the west side 5 or 6 pt. minimum and you'd have them running around all over in a few years provided you're outside areas pounded by the tribes.  It would be a couple years of slim pickings though to get to that point.

Here's a couple units that might prove your theory wrong. Matheney 618 and Quinault Ridge 638. When I was growing up and first started hunting in the 70's these two units were any bull and two of the best units to hunt on the west side. My family had a cabin at Quinault and we hunted hard with a fairly big crew of uncles, cousins and friends. Most years we had at least a dozen of us at some point in the season. We probably averaged 5 or 6 bulls a year, sometimes more, not very often less. Wasn't uncommon to have three or four down on opening day. When we wanted to give Quinault a rest we'd hunt Matheny around Higley Peak. We knew a few other big groups and they usually had about the same success as we did. Then they decided to make Quinault ridge a trophy hunt. If I remember right for a while it was 5 pt or better. Now it's 3 pt or better as is Matheney. Been that way for decades.

You know what they get there now? How any big trophy bulls they take out of 638 with all these years of protecting the spikes? Last year the total bull harvest was 14. That is pathetic. Now Lets break it down....... There was 1 three point, 7 four points, 3 five points, and 3 six point or better taken. Hell, our group used to get 2 or 3 five points a year and maybe a six point once in a while and so would our neighbors. And we might take a couple spikes a year. But we never had trouble finding big bulls because we worked for them. Anybody who's ever hunted up from the Quinault Valley knows what I'm talking about. It's steep and the packing out isn't easy. We had guys who never shot an elk, but when it came to packing out, they were gold because they got it done and didn't complain.

But I digress. The point is, more elk and more big bulls were killed there back in the days of spike hunting. The same in the Matheney Unit. So what's the point of those units being 3 pt or better? There is enough cover in those units and few roads in the Quinault unit so animals will get big there without any help.