3 point min or spike only to improve trophy quality?

[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.