Mule Deer Initiative for WA State

[257 Wby Mag]

Draw only for modern, similar to Oregon.. Predators are next on the list.

With all due respect, you are 100% backwards on this. And a draw only for WA state would never be needed. Predator control is everything for Washington (and yes, I have plenty of time as a resident of WA and OR)

It isn't possible to compare OR to WA when it comes to mule deer country. Eastern OR is vastly different from eastern WA. Anyone who has spent any amount of time in both will know this. Eastern OR has minimal thick brush and brush-choked timber when compared to eastern WA. Being farther south and a dryer climate, OR has less cover for the mule deer. There is virtually no comparison though many hunters over the years have tried to compare them and say WA needs to adapt the same initiatives as Or.
Oregon's far more open eastern country led to a higher success rate on the mule deer (partially due to more hunters and the ability to shoot at rather long ranges) which resulted to tighter measures on antler restrictions and hunter numbers. Washington's 3 point minimum was a success compared to Oregon because of buck escapement during the hunting season. They can't escape without cover.
Again - there is absolutely no comparing OR to WA on the east side and mule deer.
The 3 point rule did not work in OR for obvious reasons but it is working well in WA.
A 'draw only' for eastern WA is not necessary and probably never will be. There is abundant cover for the deer in eastern WA and getting the predators under control would benefit WA and OR immensely. We have suffered from too many predators for the past 30 years now and we are seeing our hunting opportunities vanish due to this destructive management practice. This is part of agenda 21. Until hunters get management back, hunting opportunities will continue to suffer.

Just comparing the tag/draw system, not the habit/deer numbers· There are simply too many folks and not enough ground in Washington to continue down the same path we're going...  states could learn ally from the jicarilla, limit harvest , aggressive predator management. Most folks won't go for it though, as they would rather hunt every year and have a Schitty experience.

[bobcat]

I agree with 257 Wby Mag. Mule deer harvest needs to be limited in some way.

Also, Oregon and Washington aren't any different, other than Oregon has a lot more public land AND less hunters than our state. Yet they still have a permit only system for modern firearm mule deer hunting. And we sell unlimited tags and have a general season open to all. It's backwards.

[Bigshooter]

I agree with 257 Wby Mag and bobcat.  Mule deer harvest needs to be cut back.  And the only way that I see of doing it is by limiting tags.

[elkinrutdrivemenuts]

I for one would like to see a push to bring the Mule Deer population back to historical numbers in the Blue Mountains.   I have chatted with the old biologist that worked the area before he retired, and he stated that a big factor to the decrease in population was the predators.  Once dogs were no longer allowed to hunt,  the survival rates of fawns decreased.  I understand that there has to be a happy medium for harvest rates of all the animals that call the Blues home, but if we can focus on finding that and giving the Mulies a better chance of survival, that would be great.  If you haven't been there, take a drive out of Pomeroy and you will understand what I am talking about.  Its Mulie country to a T and it is depressing when you don't see a healthy herd.

[Gringo31]

tag

[Curly]

Another thing that should be seriously looked into is the amount of does that get harvested.  If numbers are down, why have any doe permits?   

[baldopepper]

Just my  worth based on over 50 years of mule deer hunting;
1)  Buck/doe management-seems during the so called glory years management was based on herd counts taken during the winter season.  Herds were counted from year to year and management decisions were based on the herds being up or down. We then seemed to switch to management based on buck to doe ratio and I saw many areas (most of my experience is in Utah) where the total herd numbers dropped dramatically, but management was happy because the buck to doe ratio was good.  I could never quite figure how it was good management when a winter count herd  dropped from 2,000 to 200 but you were happy because the buck doe ratio was proper. 
2) Access pressure - again during the glory years access was much more limited to remote areas than it is now.  Not only are there more roads due to expanded mineral and oil exploration, not everyone had a vehicle that allowed them to go into many areas.  Now virtually everyone has a four wheel drive at least and most have quads and ATV's that allow them to penetrate deeper and deeper into areas that used to have very little pressure.  Not only are hunters taking advantage of this, but we also have homes in more remote areas and other recreationalists invading year around areas that were once mule deer sanctuaries. Deer seem to be under year around human pressure.
3) Quality hunt management- I sometimes wonder if management for more quality hunts is in the best interest of overall deer management.  I seem to run into a lot of hunters who openly say they would prefer to see a lot less deer but seeing much bigger ones when they do see deer.  Seems to be a lot more antlerless hunts in some quality hunt units because they want to keep the  buck/ratio in sync at the expense of overall herd numbers.  I personally believe the limited entry hunts and emphasis on only taking trophy bucks has discouraged many younger hunters from taking up the sport.  Fewer hunter voices obviously makes it more difficult to have a say in overall game management decisions.
4) More micro management of herds- while I'm not a big fan of limited drawings, it makes sense to me to have limited drawings to better manage the herds on a more selective basis.  I also believe that many management decisions are made based on large areas at the expense of smaller herds in the area.  I also believe that many regulations are set in cement way to early to get a good read on winter kill and fawn productivity in specific areas.  I can't remember seeing an emergency closure because winter went on longer than expected or a wet cold spring decimated fawn production in an area. (It will be interesting to see if any changes are made in the fire damaged areas) 
5)  Hunter expectations-even during the glory years there wasn't a deer behind every tree. Successful hunters then scouted hard, hunted hard and devoted a lot of time and effort to tag a deer every year. Seems some of the young hunters I know now think it should be like a video game-just go out and buy the best equipment, sit on a hill and a big buck will pop out for you to shoot.  Are there as many deer as there once were?  I don't think so.  Are there still good, huntable numbers for those willing to put in the time and effort to go after them.  Yes.
6) Management pressure- 40 years ago deer numbers were managed pretty much by and for hunters.  Now?  We all know the answer to that.  With budgets dropping every year and more people clamoring to make their voice heard, managers are caught in a real vice.  We all know many decisions are made to keep voters happy at the expense of sound game management.  We can't change that until we have a united, strong group of hunters willing to make their voice (and vote) better heard. 
Just my thoughts-I don't have a lot of answers or solutions and maybe I'm off base.

[Alchase]

Another thing that should be seriously looked into is the amount of does that get harvested.  If numbers are down, why have any doe permits?   

DING DING DING! WINNER!

If it is numbers we are talking about, the the blatantly obvious solution is quit killing does period. The amount of bucks killed during the general season, I do not believe is what makes the biggest impact.

Second, give landowners incentive to keep their lands in a natural state that is beneficial to Mule Deer.

Third kill the predators. Coyotes, cougars, wolves were impact is felt.

Scrap the pay to play auctions completely!
Give the average hunter a shot at those tags. Who honestly thinks one man paying 25k for a state mule deer tag is more beneficial then 2000 people paying $12.50 for a shot at the same tag.
One ticket, one chance. You now have 2000 people with a vested interest, instead of one rich guy buying the governors tags in every state.

Limiting tags, points systems do nothing to promote hunting, and I honestly believe deter a large amount of hunters from participating.

Lastly, change the mindset of the Fish and game, Department of wild life etc..
Without a total change in priorities back to sustaining a quality "hunting" resource, none of the above will make a difference.

[KFhunter]

visibility is going to be a problem,  folks will be blasting trophy animals from long distance.  Ya it'll be fantastic hunting - too good really.
Poaching - seeing trophy's out there so easily killed from a road

feed this winter,  even with a fall planting of grasses the snow will cover it up.  With the sage gone there won't be air holes and pockets to get down into the snow.



I'm leaning towards emergency closure and setting up some winter feed stations.

 Oh for crying out loud, how about we wait for the end of the summer at least before we call for knee jerk reactions to the fires.

 Yes, there has been a lot of winter feed destroyed by the fire, but there are still plenty of units, hundreds of thousands of acres of wintering ground and food left for deer to move to.
 
 Some of you guys act like the deer that migrate into Chiliwist and the burned parts of Pearrygin will get there, see that their normal wintering hole is burned, and then just sit down and starve to death.

 My guess is they will do what other animals looking to survive things like this do, "migrate" until they find the places that have food.

I said I'm leaning towards closure but certainly not lobbying for it. 

Don't you think the hunting will be too good in the burned areas?   I'd be concerned the trophy animals would be slaughtered.


I don't hunt that area, so I'm all ears and following rather than leading this thread.


The suggestion is knee jerk by nature as it needs to happen this hunting season,  it's a short term loss prevention idea for 1-2 years max.

[bigmacc]

Hello Dan and welcome,I too have 50 years of experience hunting mule deer in this state and my familes mule deer hunting heritage in Washington state goes back to the early 1920,s. I would like to suggest a book "THE OKANOGAN MULE DEER" written by Don Zeigler,it was published in 1978 and is one of the(if not the best)book i,ve read concerning mule deer in this state.The book has many studies done in Washington, from predator issues,winter kill,fawn mortality,land and forest management,history of harvest numbers and season dates going back to 1919, you name it, if it has anything to do with mule deer and what it takes for them to thrive and prosper in the Methow(and in Washington state) its part of this study and in this book, the most comprehensive studies on mule deer,their habitat and survival i have ever read.The study was conducted from 1972 to 1975 mainly in the Methow with info also researched in other parts of the state with strong mule deer densitys.The  study was conducted and finished by the Washington Dept of Fish and Game and the forest service including a few folks that I and some of you on this website may know(Jim Mountjoy and Sig Bakke).I know new studies are being done and as others have said their always seems to be agendas that may or may not influence these studies that have been done in the last 10 or so years .The reason i,m recomending this book is because this study was actualy done to improve deer numbers and help manage deer herds for the sportsman that hunt them.No hidden agenda! Its a Recomended read just to see how studies should be done to actualy help a herd grow and help hunting for the future.Somehow things have changed concerning these herds over the last 10 to 15 years and how they are managed...as always,my and thanks again for your effort.

[Alchase]

Big Jim, use to stop in our camp every year before the opener. He was a great source of knowledge about mule deer, or just about anything in the Methow.

Definitely going to get that book thanks for the reference!

[whacker1]

Mule deer initiative definitely needs to treat regions differently.

The 200 series units are different that the southeast and the North east and they should not all be treated alike.

[sakoshooter]

More cougars need to be harvested and wolves need to be delisted statewide and hunters allowed to harvest them also.
I might also comment on the 'big' houses that are popping up here and there in the middle of good mule deer habitat and winter range. Is the almighty dollar so freakin important that we're willing to displace hundreds of mule deer.

[REHJWA]

If the question is what can been done to improve the mule deer herds in Washington first ask what and when the herds started to decline. It seems to me that the decline started about the same time this state decided to ban hounds and bait?

While human encroachment may have a temporary impact on a local herds use of an area, mule deer are very adaptive and will gorge themselves on some expensive landscaping. To see how well mule deer can adapt to human encroachment I would give Colorado as an example....

 

[rasbo]

less tags sold..off season hound hunts for cougar.Permits to bait bears with strict details on bait and clean sites..