Mule Deer Initiative for WA State

[Todd_ID]

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

Darn good starts!
I think a two tag system like Idaho's would be good.  The whitetail/blacktail tag would get you long seasons with little restrictions.  The mule deer tag would get you very short seasons in few areas and draw chances for most of the rest.  Predators may be the number one problem, but hunter harvest is easier to manage.

[grundy53]

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

Darn good starts!
I think a two tag system like Idaho's would be good.  The whitetail/blacktail tag would get you long seasons with little restrictions.  The mule deer tag would get you very short seasons in few areas and draw chances for most of the rest.  Predators may be the number one problem, but hunter harvest is easier to manage.

I really like your Idaho style, two tag idea.

sent from my typewriter

[jackelope]

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

Darn good starts!
I think a two tag system like Idaho's would be good.  The whitetail/blacktail tag would get you long seasons with little restrictions.  The mule deer tag would get you very short seasons in few areas and draw chances for most of the rest.  Predators may be the number one problem, but hunter harvest is easier to manage.

I really like your Idaho style, two tag idea.

sent from my typewriter

That's all well and good except for the massive concentration of new whitetail/blacktail hunters when they don't get a mule deer tag. Maybe I'm missing something.

[lamrith]

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

Predators may be the number one problem, but hunter harvest is easier to manage.

Soo lets mess with everyone and make them change rather than address the underlying predator and habitat issues.  Also add extra complexity for Hunter and more load on wdfw staff to administer.
 
Sounds like a great idea, take my guns too since crazy people use them to kill people...

Sorry don't mean to attack you personally, You are far from the only person to have this idea.
But the "have to do something" because it is easier solutions bother me as they don't solve problems, just mask them to everyone's long term detriment.  I deal with it at work too, one dept does double work because another dept manager not want to hold his workers accountable.

[grundy53]

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

Darn good starts!
I think a two tag system like Idaho's would be good.  The whitetail/blacktail tag would get you long seasons with little restrictions.  The mule deer tag would get you very short seasons in few areas and draw chances for most of the rest.  Predators may be the number one problem, but hunter harvest is easier to manage.

I really like your Idaho style, two tag idea.

sent from my typewriter

That's all well and good except for the massive concentration of new whitetail/blacktail hunters when they don't get a mule deer tag. Maybe I'm missing something.

It's either or. You either buy a mule deer tag or whitetail/blacktail tags. So there is no switching back and forth. Kind of like east/west elk you can't put in for east and then hunt west.

sent from my typewriter

[bearpaw]

Isn't the WDFW formulating the next 3 year plan, I don't think we have much time?

I think we need to know more about the study from Dan, at least some preliminary indicators if the study isn't completed, we also need a rough draft of the mule deer plan, and we need to remember that to gain support the plan/initiative will have to be palatable to hunters, if you go into this with ideas that are unpopular with most hunters the initiative will be harder to sell to the Wildlife Commission.

There are usually several ways to accomplish any goal. If we know the science we can do some polls on this forum to quickly figure out what management ideas to address the science will be opposed by most hunters or accepted by most hunters, then we have a better idea of which management proposals to include in the initiative. My thought is that a comprehensive mix of ideas to address the issue in each region of the state will likely work best.

[KFhunter]

The decision seems to be unanimous Dale,  we need predator control.


Obvious choice up here in the 100 GMU's with our small struggling little herds of Mule Deer


Not sure how that factors into the MDI, or if that's a separate deal like the cougar plan?  Can the MDI call for a new cougar plan?

[baldopepper]

Probably get a lot of disagreement, BUT I think the habitat/predator effect on mule deer is way overblown.  Frankly, in the late 50's early sixties with the exception of wolves there were considerably more predators (Mt. Lions, coyotes and bears) than there are now. In the more remote summer habitat lions and bears were quite common (at least in Utah, a major mule deer state and pretty good study of long term mule deer management) Herds were doing very well.  In the mid 60's when herds began to decline the state put an emphasis on habitat restoration and cleared thousands of acres of winter habitat of non browse vegetation (junipers and other evergreens) in an effort to create better winter browse. Results: negligible.
Bottom Line-the major reason for mule deer decline is humans.  Not just hunters, but the overall impact of a much bigger population intruding upon mule deer habitat.  Homes built on prime winter ground.  Better highways leading to higher road kill numbers.  Year around off road recreation not only during the harsh winter period, but during the early fawning season.  Hunting seasons that extend from late August into (and sometimes thru) December. (not just deer hunting, but, as an example, a late fall/winter turkey hunt that chases deer from prime wintering ground at times)  Big game management always seems to be reactive instead of proactive.  Case after case can be cited where late hunts, antlerless hunts take place one year and the next year theres either a total closure or prohibitive permit system put in place.  We always seem to wait until the horses are out before we close the barn doors.  We watch herds decline with hunters reporting seeing less and less deer, but it's ok-the buck/doe ratio is good.  How do manage against this?  You can't stop people from building or recreating.  You can't stop highways from being built and keep more cars off the road.  You can't blame it all on hunting.  Guess I'm glad in a way to be old, I don't have many answers for these new problems.     

[wence5]

Axle is right. I have hunted both eastern Oregon and eastern Washington and they are two different areas geographically and topographically, so an Oregon style management system would not have the same results. I personally see predation as the #1 issue and how Washington will deal with this. So far the stopping hound hunting for Cougar and bear has had a dramatic effect on our deer and elk populations and now with the game commission taking a "leave the wolves alone for five years and then take a look see" is going to be devastating to our deer and elk herds that may never recover. I think best thing we could do for management of ALL our game is have a shake up in the commission, and get rid of the political types. Management should start with people with the interests of healthy herds at heart and not money or an environmental agenda.

[BOWHUNTER45]

Probably get a lot of disagreement, BUT I think the habitat/predator effect on mule deer is way overblown.  Frankly, in the late 50's early sixties with the exception of wolves there were considerably more predators (Mt. Lions, coyotes and bears) than there are now. In the more remote summer habitat lions and bears were quite common (at least in Utah, a major mule deer state and pretty good study of long term mule deer management) Herds were doing very well.  In the mid 60's when herds began to decline the state put an emphasis on habitat restoration and cleared thousands of acres of winter habitat of non browse vegetation (junipers and other evergreens) in an effort to create better winter browse. Results: negligible.
Bottom Line-the major reason for mule deer decline is humans.  Not just hunters, but the overall impact of a much bigger population intruding upon mule deer habitat.  Homes built on prime winter ground.  Better highways leading to higher road kill numbers.  Year around off road recreation not only during the harsh winter period, but during the early fawning season.  Hunting seasons that extend from late August into (and sometimes thru) December. (not just deer hunting, but, as an example, a late fall/winter turkey hunt that chases deer from prime wintering ground at times)  Big game management always seems to be reactive instead of proactive.  Case after case can be cited where late hunts, antlerless hunts take place one year and the next year theres either a total closure or prohibitive permit system put in place.  We always seem to wait until the horses are out before we close the barn doors.  We watch herds decline with hunters reporting seeing less and less deer, but it's ok-the buck/doe ratio is good.  How do manage against this?  You can't stop people from building or recreating.  You can't stop highways from being built and keep more cars off the road.  You can't blame it all on hunting.  Guess I'm glad in a way to be old, I don't have many answers for these new problems.   

I am not sure I buy there are less predators than the 50's ...I think we have more predators now than back then ..Especially now that we do not have a general hound hunting season ..I do not care what the Bio's think or know ..I am very sure there are predators that never see man and have no way of being counted by Bio's who anyone else that thinks they know so ....

[JimmyHoffa]

I remember reading about some rather successful predator bounty hunters from E Washington back in the 50's.  Just a few guys, but they were really putting the hurt on the predators.  I think they were getting as many animals per person in a GMU back in those days than all the hunters combined for a GMU are allowed to take for the same GMUs today.

[KFhunter]

Probably get a lot of disagreement, BUT I think the habitat/predator effect on mule deer is way overblown.  Frankly, in the late 50's early sixties with the exception of wolves there were considerably more predators (Mt. Lions, coyotes and bears) than there are now. In the more remote summer habitat lions and bears were quite common (at least in Utah, a major mule deer state and pretty good study of long term mule deer management) Herds were doing very well.  In the mid 60's when herds began to decline the state put an emphasis on habitat restoration and cleared thousands of acres of winter habitat of non browse vegetation (junipers and other evergreens) in an effort to create better winter browse. Results: negligible.
Bottom Line-the major reason for mule deer decline is humans.  Not just hunters, but the overall impact of a much bigger population intruding upon mule deer habitat.  Homes built on prime winter ground.  Better highways leading to higher road kill numbers.  Year around off road recreation not only during the harsh winter period, but during the early fawning season.  Hunting seasons that extend from late August into (and sometimes thru) December. (not just deer hunting, but, as an example, a late fall/winter turkey hunt that chases deer from prime wintering ground at times)  Big game management always seems to be reactive instead of proactive.  Case after case can be cited where late hunts, antlerless hunts take place one year and the next year theres either a total closure or prohibitive permit system put in place.  We always seem to wait until the horses are out before we close the barn doors.  We watch herds decline with hunters reporting seeing less and less deer, but it's ok-the buck/doe ratio is good.  How do manage against this?  You can't stop people from building or recreating.  You can't stop highways from being built and keep more cars off the road.  You can't blame it all on hunting.  Guess I'm glad in a way to be old, I don't have many answers for these new problems.   

I am not sure I buy there are less predators than the 50's ...I think we have more predators now than back then ..Especially now that we do not have a general hound hunting season ..I do not care what the Bio's think or know ..I am very sure there are predators that never see man and have no way of being counted by Bio's who anyone else that thinks they know so ....

There were a lot of houndsmen back then,  less people sure but most of the logging roads were open too.   Wasn't the "close all the roads" mentality.
I wasn't around in the 50's though so I can't argue if there were more or less predators back then.



...But I do know we got our fair share of predators now!

[grundy53]

Probably get a lot of disagreement, BUT I think the habitat/predator effect on mule deer is way overblown.  Frankly, in the late 50's early sixties with the exception of wolves there were considerably more predators (Mt. Lions, coyotes and bears) than there are now. In the more remote summer habitat lions and bears were quite common (at least in Utah, a major mule deer state and pretty good study of long term mule deer management) Herds were doing very well.  In the mid 60's when herds began to decline the state put an emphasis on habitat restoration and cleared thousands of acres of winter habitat of non browse vegetation (junipers and other evergreens) in an effort to create better winter browse. Results: negligible.
Bottom Line-the major reason for mule deer decline is humans.  Not just hunters, but the overall impact of a much bigger population intruding upon mule deer habitat.  Homes built on prime winter ground.  Better highways leading to higher road kill numbers.  Year around off road recreation not only during the harsh winter period, but during the early fawning season.  Hunting seasons that extend from late August into (and sometimes thru) December. (not just deer hunting, but, as an example, a late fall/winter turkey hunt that chases deer from prime wintering ground at times)  Big game management always seems to be reactive instead of proactive.  Case after case can be cited where late hunts, antlerless hunts take place one year and the next year theres either a total closure or prohibitive permit system put in place.  We always seem to wait until the horses are out before we close the barn doors.  We watch herds decline with hunters reporting seeing less and less deer, but it's ok-the buck/doe ratio is good.  How do manage against this?  You can't stop people from building or recreating.  You can't stop highways from being built and keep more cars off the road.  You can't blame it all on hunting.  Guess I'm glad in a way to be old, I don't have many answers for these new problems.   

I am not sure I buy there are less predators than the 50's ...I think we have more predators now than back then ..Especially now that we do not have a general hound hunting season ..I do not care what the Bio's think or know ..I am very sure there are predators that never see man and have no way of being counted by Bio's who anyone else that thinks they know so ....

  without hound hunting there is no effective way to control cougars. I don't care what the game department says, they are seriously low balling the cougar population. There are more cougars now then there probably ever has been. There are definitely way more Coyotes then ever before. Also the bear population is extremely high.

sent from my typewriter

[bullcanyon]

I remember as a kid growing up in the 80's that a cougar sighting was a big deal.  I can remember hearing people saying that most wouldn't see a cat in the wild in their lifetime.  I see a cat almost every season without looking for them.  There most certainly are more predators now than when I first started hunting. 

Only someone in denial will say our deer herds are better off without hound hunting and baiting for bears.

[huntnphool]

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

Predators may be the number one problem, but hunter harvest is easier to manage.

Soo lets mess with everyone and make them change rather than address the underlying predator and habitat issues.  Also add extra complexity for Hunter and more load on wdfw staff to administer.
 
Sounds like a great idea, take my guns too since crazy people use them to kill people...

Sorry don't mean to attack you personally, You are far from the only person to have this idea.
But the "have to do something" because it is easier solutions bother me as they don't solve problems, just mask them to everyone's long term detriment.  I deal with it at work too, one dept does double work because another dept manager not want to hold his workers accountable.

 And some of this is what I was hitting on.

 The "have to do something" idea, especially with hasty decisions based on "Isn't the WDFW formulating the next 3 year plan, I don't think we have much time?" is not thinking the situation through, let alone addressing my earlier question of "is there a problem in the first place?"

 There are three mind sets, mule deer numbers are fine, mule deer numbers are declining and I'm not sure which/I don't know.

 On one hand you have WDFW's Mr. Fitkin, strongly behind the wolves and saying the mule deer numbers are in good shape, here are more late permits to show you I mean what I say.

 Then there are those like MDF's Mr. McKinley, that believe there is a issue in Washington with decreasing mule deer numbers.

 The third is self explanatory

 Obviously, one of these is BS, and before we go any further in voluntarily giving away more of our hunting, we had better all figure out which one is legit and deal with that first!