How should we manage our Mule Deer in WA?

[MuleDeer]

Voting here is just to get an idea of where the consensus falls.  After the poll, we will be able to talk about options and methods of managing for quantity, quality, or a mix of both across WA.  Our hope with this poll is that it will give us a clear idea of what the hunting public wants, and if that is off-base from where we have been currently going.  Thanks for voting!

[bearpaw]

I think the majority of hunters have wanted quantity, the ability to hunt any buck every year. I would like to see some of both, our current system wouldn't be bad if we reduced Washington's cougar population from 4000 to 2000 cats so it's similar to what it used to be years ago. WDFW used to say we have 2000 cougar, then for a while they said 3000, now this spring it was said by WDFW that we likely have 4000 cougar in Washington.

Simple math tells the story. Studies have shown a cougar will eat 25 to 50 deer per year. If we have 2000 more cougar than we did 40 years ago, then no wonder we don't have as many deer.

2000 Cougar x 25 Deer per year = 50,000 Deer per year
2000 Cougar x 50 Deer per year = 100,000 Deer per year

The first 2000 cats are likely eating 50,000 to 100,000 deer per year and the excess 2000 cats are likely eating 50,000 to 100,000 deer per year. So 100,000 to 200,000 deer are likely being eaten by cats every year in WA. If we cut the cougar population in half by implementing more liberal cougar quotas our deer herd is most likely going to grow.

[lamrith]

Quantity first.  People use this to put food on the table, it is a resource not a trophy race.  Lets not make this like medieval England where you can't hunt  the king forest.  Don't get drawn, NO FOOD FOR U!!
Fix the problem with predators/  habitat loss and give it a few years then let's talk about changing Hunter harvest.

[JimmyHoffa]

Quantity first.  People use this to put food on the table, it is a resource not a trophy race.  Lets not make this like medieval England where you can't hunt  the king forest.  Don't get drawn, NO FOOD FOR U!!
Fix the problem with predators/  habitat loss and give it a few years then let's talk about changing Hunter harvest.

Those were my kinds of thoughts.  Get the population up high enough to allow tag holders a reasonable harvest %.  Then start doing buck to doe ratio work or antler point experiments.  And I agree, if you aren't going to improve the habitat quality to increase the population, then you have to focus on where the losses center on--predators, cars, harvest, etc.  Seems to me reducing the predator losses would be most effective way to raise the population.

[tonymiller7]

Yep, bring back cat and bear hunting with hounds.  I've seen a drastic decrease in deer statewide since that law passed in 1996.

[bobcat]

I voted for quality, statewide. But to me, that doesn't mean "trophy"quality, but simply a healthy deer herd with the best possible buck to doe ratio in order to provide plenty of "quantity" to go along with the quality.

[BetoBow]

Manage both quantity and quality depending on the unit. Depending on the available habitat and resources available to support wildlife.

[DOUBLELUNG]

This is like asking fishermen what they want without defining trade-offs: they will tell you they want more bigger fish.

First question: do you want to be able to hunt mule deer every year on a general license?  In past surveys the answer has always been a resounding yes, that puts a big strain on any management for quality. 

Next question: are you willing to give up special permit opportunities, especially late buck permits during the rut, for better quality during general seasons?  I don't know the answer to that one, as far as the hunter population goes; I'm in favor of it, I know many are not.

Third question: How do you define quality?  Opportunity to hunt uncrowded areas, good chance of harvesting a 4-point buck, seeing multiple bucks every day?  Opportunity to see a legal deer without getting out of the vehicle (few admit this, but after 15 seasons of jawjacking from road hunters in two states, I can tell you there are a LOT of hunters who define good hunting this way).

Increasing quality nearly always means reducing the current opportunity, either short-term or long-term. 

[MuleDeer]

To make it very simple,

Quantity=numbers of deer without on emphasis on size of bucks being a concern (or at least a major mgmt. concern)

Quality=the size of trophy deer that are available for harvest.  This generally means draw only hunts in those units. 

[bigmacc]

I think the majority of hunters have wanted quantity, the ability to hunt any buck every year. I would like to see some of both, our current system wouldn't be bad if we reduced Washington's cougar population from 4000 to 2000 cats so it's similar to what it used to be years ago. WDFW used to say we have 2000 cougar, then for a while they said 3000, now this spring it was said by WDFW that we likely have 4000 cougar in Washington.

Simple math tells the story. Studies have shown a cougar will eat 25 to 50 deer per year. If we have 2000 more cougar than we did 40 years ago, then no wonder we don't have as many deer.

2000 Cougar x 25 Deer per year = 50,000 Deer per year
2000 Cougar x 50 Deer per year = 100,000 Deer per year

The first 2000 cats are likely eating 50,000 to 100,000 deer per year and the excess 2000 cats are likely eating 50,000 to 100,000 deer per year. So 100,000 to 200,000 deer are likely being eaten by cats every year in WA. If we cut the cougar population in half by implementing more liberal cougar quotas our deer herd is most likely going to grow.

 ...Pretty much my thaughts also.

[Rooster1981]

With out proper preditor control muledeer will only suffer under the current system. In my mind this state needs an entire overhaul with deer management. With unlimited tags available we are seriously over harvesting a very weak resource.I think there are ways to manage these animals and still give everyone a chance to hunt them without a draw system.
  I firmly believe in a tag quota system. Base the number of tags for each region on deer harvest and winter kill. I think Idaho has the right idea. I think a first come first serve on tag purchases until the unit or region sells out is the way to go. If we can't reduce the cats we have to reduce the number of hunters in each unit. And I for one will not participate in a draw to hunt state and I fear that's the way things are going.
  I also think it's time to consider separate tags for deer and having to choose a deer species. That would greatly reduce the number of  hunters in eastern Washington, and paired with a quota system the deer would see less than half the pressure from today's system. Something has to give, either let me hunt cats with my hounds again or limit the number of hunters.

[kevinlisa06]

Knock the predators down considerably jump the population of mulies up then you can regulate the harvest to what you want. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this stuff out but hey it's Washington right! 10 months to go!

[KFhunter]

I think the majority of hunters have wanted quantity, the ability to hunt any buck every year. I would like to see some of both, our current system wouldn't be bad if we reduced Washington's cougar population from 4000 to 2000 cats so it's similar to what it used to be years ago. WDFW used to say we have 2000 cougar, then for a while they said 3000, now this spring it was said by WDFW that we likely have 4000 cougar in Washington.

Simple math tells the story. Studies have shown a cougar will eat 25 to 50 deer per year. If we have 2000 more cougar than we did 40 years ago, then no wonder we don't have as many deer.

2000 Cougar x 25 Deer per year = 50,000 Deer per year
2000 Cougar x 50 Deer per year = 100,000 Deer per year

The first 2000 cats are likely eating 50,000 to 100,000 deer per year and the excess 2000 cats are likely eating 50,000 to 100,000 deer per year. So 100,000 to 200,000 deer are likely being eaten by cats every year in WA. If we cut the cougar population in half by implementing more liberal cougar quotas our deer herd is most likely going to grow.

Cougar, Bears, Coyote, Bobcat and now Wolves

It's a wonder we have huntable deer populations at all.

[KFhunter]

To make it very simple,

Quantity=numbers of deer without on emphasis on size of bucks being a concern (or at least a major mgmt. concern)

Quality=the size of trophy deer that are available for harvest.  This generally means draw only hunts in those units.

Why not both?

Some units for population and some for trophy

[MuleDeer]

First, let me make a couple things clear....I am for predator hunting and management, and the MDF has been very vocal in supporting the same.  Yes, predators have an impact on Mule Deer, but there are bigger issues: let me play devil's advocate...
Look at other states and their studies on the effect of predators on Mule Deer.  Comparison of units with active predator mgmt. plans vs no predator mgmt. showed no appreciable difference in the numbers of Mule Deer decline, proving that there are other factors that are affecting Mule Deer populations.
Also, all Western states are seeing a decrease in Mule Deer; some with no real predator threats to speak of.  So, yes, predator control can and will have some affect on our Mule Deer, but we need to look at the bigger issues that are causing a decrease in our herds, both here and nation-wide.
I agree with your comments as a whole so far, but we need to take all factors into account and find the base reasons our herds are falling in WA and the entire West.  If we could find the base of the problem, we could help not only our herds but those all over the West.
But let's not only look at perceived problems, but bring up intelligent, thought out solutions.  That proves to be a better approach with state and federal agencies.  An example is the over-grazing of our public lands.  That over grazing results in a multitude of problems that lead to decreased Mule Deer numbers.  But grazing rights are a VERY touchy and sometimes taboo issue with the agencies because of the $$$.  So, one solution is to show the cattlemen a way to increase yield by 100%, meaning we could reclaim 1/2 of the land currently allocated to grazing.  Is it possible?  YES!  I've spoken with specialists who have proven it.  But it will take proving it to the agencies and cattlemen to see a change.  And this change will take a growing season or two.  Long term solutions are out there; we just need to find them and then find a way to implement the solutions. 
The more ideas we come up with here, the more likely we are to succeed.  Thanks for your help!