northeast antler restrictions

[270Shooter]

Well said muleyguy

And great first post

[Elkstuffer]

 I don't like that the state required us to burn our points for the second tags as the need to reduce the herd size is very necessary. 

I agree. That is not helping to reduce the antlerless population.

[muleyguy]

there is not one hunting unit in this state that has too many deer in it;  above the carrying capacity of the habitat.  All of this talk of expanding
antlerless permits is craziness, and has been fostered by game departments across the West because of one reason:  doe permits are popular
with the public and generate revenue.  And of this crazy notion that antlerless permits increase the buck to doe ratio, thereby increasing the number of bucks in the population;  some of us need to go back to our math class.......it is a ratio of bucks to does;  when you shoot does, you ONLY affect the "doe" side of the ratio, NOT the "buck" side of the ratio.

To get more bucks in the population you need to increase the "buck" side of the population;  you do this through lower harvest levels, and/or higher male recruitment (buck fawns coming into the population)

There are certain, private, agricultural areas, that do have large amounts of deer on them, but, the fact is is that agricultural areas can sustain higher population levels because of the habitat.  But, on public land, Forest Service, etc, there is NO excess deer.  I defy somebody to show me a tract of Forest service land in NE WA (or any other place in this state) that has too many deer for the carrying capacity of the habitat.

doe tags are particularily harmful in the fact that they are sold to the general public, and, where does the general public have access to hunt on???  Public land;  precisely the LAST place you want the antlerless harvest to occur.  If the WDFW is going to allow antlerless harvest, it should require, at the least, that the tags are only good on private land, that is a simple and really non-controversial requirement, but, they will not allow it because the sale of antlerless permits would be drastically lower (less $$).

antlerless permits in units where the population of the herd is well below the carrying capacity of the habitat should be eliminated.  These antlerless permits directly result in FEWER bucks being recruited (buck fawns) into the population.

The management of our deer herds should really not be that complicated:

1.  Manage the herd to achieve population levels close to carrying capacity of habitat;  if herd size increases above population objective, offer antlerless tags to bring it down;  when the level approaches carrying capacity, eliminate antlerless tags immediately;  if antlerless tags are needed, identify if they need to be limited to private land within the unit.

2.  Manage total buck harvest to maintain healthy buck to doe ratio's  (30/100 type of thing)

3.  Manage buck harvest to maintain a post harvest healthy mix of age classes.

It really is not that complicated;  all general units should be managed for the above items because bottom line, is that this is what you need for healthy deer herds.  That should be the first objective.  Once this objective is achieved, you can then match the hunting opportunities to stay within this range. 

[DOUBLELUNG]

there is not one hunting unit in this state that has too many deer in it;  above the carrying capacity of the habitat.    I defy somebody to show me a tract of Forest service land in NE WA (or any other place in this state) that has too many deer for the carrying capacity of the habitat.

There are winter ranges in the Entiat, and Methow, with too many deer for the habitat.  Maybe not this year, but certainly within the past 5. 

Fawns are the only age class where it's a 50:50 buck: doe ratio.  All older age classes - even yearlings under 3-point minimums - are skewed toward females.  When less than 30 fawns per 100 does survive to spring, due to starvation, in a normal winter, there is a net loss of bucks in future years due to poor fawn recruitment, and the herd declines because there are not enough fawns to replace the natural annual adult mortality of 10-15%.  When there are too many deer on a winter range, the adults generally survive, but outcompete the fawns for winter forage.  That's not to be confused with a true killer winter, when fawns will die in high numbers even with adequate forage.  Plus, when shrubs on crucial winter ranges have more than 50% of the last year's annual growth consumed in consecutive years, the vigor of the plants declines and they produce less browse for the next winter, driving down carrying capacity.  We have essentially unlimited spring-summer-fall habitat in the NE Cascades, but winter range is the pinch point that limits populations. 

In at least 2 of the last 3 winters, without killer conditions, spring fawn ratios have only been 10-15 per hundred does; so, total bucks declines due to lack of recruitment of buck fawns, and the herd declines due to lack of fawn recruitment.  Also, when deer compete for limited forage, bucks come out of winter in poorer body condition, and grow smaller antlers.

[caseyv21]

i like what everybody is pointing out different facts.  I have grown up in the yakima valley and hunted just about everywhere down there.  The idea for the restriction is based on what it has done for the areas down there.  i have only lived in spokane for a few years now and through talking to different people i now realize that the only maybe the best option would be to make more antlerless permits available. 

[Big10gauge]

There are certain, private, agricultural areas, that do have large amounts of deer on them, but, the fact is is that agricultural areas can sustain higher population levels because of the habitat.  But, on public land, Forest Service, etc, there is NO excess deer.  I defy somebody to show me a tract of Forest service land in NE WA (or any other place in this state) that has too many deer for the carrying capacity of the habitat.
 

Well said sir, I am in total agreement with the exception that there is some areas that need feeding stations to help carry the deer thru the winter because of habitat loss. IMO mostly this is in Muley country.

[SHANE(WA)]

+1 on that, so true

[muleyguy]

"There are winter ranges in the Entiat, and Methow, with too many deer for the habitat.  Maybe not this year, but certainly within the past 5"

That certainly could be true;  but, what has the average been the last 15 yrs in those areas??  My guess is that it has been more often than not, these areas have been below the carrying capacity of the winter range in the last 15 yrs;  there is nothing wrong with  once in ahwile being slightly above the carrying capacity.  Mother nature generally does a good job of knocking those numbers down all on her own

those areas can also be susceptible to fires, and I understand, that immediately following a severe fire, you could have winter range issues.   But, those are special situations.  Below is what I found in the 2007 WDFW Game Trends for this area and is typical of the problem:

"The drop in harvest in 2005, in combination with observed
increased use of winter range browse and reduced
fawn:doe ratios in 2005, suggest the herd has reached
the biological carrying capacity of the winter range in
this PMU.  As a result, near-term future management
will be directed toward maintaining a stable, to slowly
increasing, mule deer population.   
Antlerless deer harvest was increased in 2006, to slow
population growth, protect winter range, and provide
more harvest opportunity."

This is complete doublespeak;  So, what they are saying is that they reached carrying capacity in 2005, and, mother nature, all on her own has reduced fawn/doe levels, and they are going to manage it toward a stable, to slowly increasing mule deer population.  But, in the very next sentence, they say they are going to increase antlerless harvest to slow the population growth??

They just said in 2005 that they were close to carrying capacity (good) and that fawn/doe ratios were dropping (bad).  Wouldn't it make sense to leave it alone and see how it plays out???  If you are at carrying capacity, and fawn numbers are dropping, you then pile on antlerless tags on top of that???

The key sentence in all of this is "provide more harvest opportunity".  They go through all of this biological mumbo jumbo, and then drop that in the last sentence.  They increased antlerless tags to provide more opportunity, period, that is why they did it.  The whole previous paragraph was an attempt at trying to find some biological justification for it.

you just get the herd to carrying capacity, you have dropping fawn numbers, and you pile antlerless tags on top of it..........does that make sense to anybody??

[DOUBLELUNG]

That certainly could be true;  but, what has the average been the last 15 yrs in those areas??  My guess is that it has been more often than not, these areas have been below the carrying capacity of the winter range in the last 15 yrs;  there is nothing wrong with  once in ahwile being slightly above the carrying capacity.  Mother nature generally does a good job of knocking those numbers down all on her own

those areas can also be susceptible to fires, and I understand, that immediately following a severe fire, you could have winter range issues.   But, those are special situations.  Below is what I found in the 2007 WDFW Game Trends for this area and is typical of the problem:

"The drop in harvest in 2005, in combination with observed
increased use of winter range browse and reduced
fawn:doe ratios in 2005, suggest the herd has reached
the biological carrying capacity of the winter range in
this PMU.  As a result, near-term future management
will be directed toward maintaining a stable, to slowly
increasing, mule deer population.  
Antlerless deer harvest was increased in 2006, to slow
population growth, protect winter range, and provide
more harvest opportunity."

This is complete doublespeak;  So, what they are saying is that they reached carrying capacity in 2005, and, mother nature, all on her own has reduced fawn/doe levels, and they are going to manage it toward a stable, to slowly increasing mule deer population.  But, in the very next sentence, they say they are going to increase antlerless harvest to slow the population growth??

They just said in 2005 that they were close to carrying capacity (good) and that fawn/doe ratios were dropping (bad).  Wouldn't it make sense to leave it alone and see how it plays out???  If you are at carrying capacity, and fawn numbers are dropping, you then pile on antlerless tags on top of that???

The key sentence in all of this is "provide more harvest opportunity".  They go through all of this biological mumbo jumbo, and then drop that in the last sentence.  They increased antlerless tags to provide more opportunity, period, that is why they did it.  The whole previous paragraph was an attempt at trying to find some biological justification for it.

you just get the herd to carrying capacity, you have dropping fawn numbers, and you pile antlerless tags on top of it..........does that make sense to anybody??

Makes perfect sense to me.  Then again, I buy into that biological mumbo jumbo. 

[muleyguy]

so, let me get this straight:

1.  herd is at carrying capacity
2.  fawn production slows because of habitat (that is only speculation by WDFW because WDFW does not have hard data)
3.  50% of fawns are females
4.  So, you have a declining amount of females being recruited into the overall population base
5.  You issue antlerless tags on top of that.

below is the "science" from the report being used to make this management decision:

"It appears the herd reached carrying capacity of the
winter forage base postseason 2005, based on elevated
fawn mortality and heavy browse utilization.  Informal
observations of winter range shrub conditions suggest
deer use of available forage rapidly increased 2001-
2005, and population growth rate has slowed as winter
habitat carrying capacity is approached."



"appears" and "informal" are not scientifically based decision making.

Wouldn't it be smarter to play it conservatively, and not issue the extra antlerless tags, instead of relying on data that is not scientifically based?? 

What happens when you have fewer fawns, have issued your extra antlerless tags, and, you get that 1 in 10 yr snowstorm, all piled up in the same year???

The problem here is that a financial decision (extra tag income) is trying to be justified on the grounds of a scientific/herd health basis. 

I understand the reality, that there isn't enough money to do large scale studies and get perfect biological information, so, that is why, in the absence of proper data, you play it conservative.