Free: Contests & Raffles.
Quote from: bigmacc on September 19, 2014, 02:40:04 PMQuote from: idahohuntr on September 18, 2014, 09:28:55 PMIt seems as though winter survival is going to be poor with the dramatic loss of winter range. This is a prime example of compensatory mortality. We know winter mortality is likely going to be higher than normal...probably a lot higher. Why not allow hunters to harvest some of those deer that are certain to die? If there is only enough winter range for 100 deer, and there are 500 deer that are headed down to use it...shall we just let those 400 deer starve to death or shall we try and harvest them? I guess the only way I would be critical of this planned doe hunt would be if it was less than clear that the loss of this winter range posed a risk of higher than usual mortality or if folks had good reasoning as to why this extra hunting harvest would result in additive (as opposed to compensatory) mortality. Your right and wrong in my opinion(read my post from the 17th on page 1).Yes deer will die this winter because of lack of food and depending how rough and long the winter is will determine how many will parish. According to mother nature :ONLY THE FITTEST SURVIVE:unless this doe shoot has a stipulation that only the weak or sick can be shot during this fiasco then the probability of alot of big,healthy breeding stock does who may have made it to the rut,got bread and made it thru the winter to drop fawns in the spring and help in the herd recovery are going to get taken out in about a month .....like others here have said and i will too--Thank you to those who will not use these tags ...and lets all hope and pray for a very mild winter!The goal is overall herd number reduction though. If there is only enough winter food for 100 deer to survive the winter, then it does not matter how fit those extra 400 deer are...still the "fittest" will survive. Appears as though the reduction is also aimed at helping the winter range re-generate more quickly.From WDFW:Brown said natural regeneration of the burned wildlife habitat has already begun, but the area will not be able to support the usual number of deer this winter. WDFW wildlife biologists estimate reducing the population by 7 percent will improve long-term range restoration as well as the herd's overall vitality. Matt Monda, WDFW regional wildlife manager, said the department will issue more special hunting permits to help reduce the number of deer to a level that the remaining winter range can support. "We're being conservative in reducing the size of the herd because we are still assessing the amount of regrowth that is occurring, and we can't predict winter conditions," he said. "The additional deer harvest will be tightly controlled." Reducing the number of deer this year and next will help the winter range recover and will speed the growth of bitterbrush and other shrubs that represent important food sources for mule deer. Too many deer will stunt recovering shrubs, Monda said. "In the long run, fewer deer on the land and our re-vegetation work will help the range recover more quickly and will contribute to a more robust mule deer population," Monda said. This seems sensible to me. Not shooting these surplus deer seems as though it could be detrimental to herd recovery, for those that are considering not using their tags.
Quote from: idahohuntr on September 18, 2014, 09:28:55 PMIt seems as though winter survival is going to be poor with the dramatic loss of winter range. This is a prime example of compensatory mortality. We know winter mortality is likely going to be higher than normal...probably a lot higher. Why not allow hunters to harvest some of those deer that are certain to die? If there is only enough winter range for 100 deer, and there are 500 deer that are headed down to use it...shall we just let those 400 deer starve to death or shall we try and harvest them? I guess the only way I would be critical of this planned doe hunt would be if it was less than clear that the loss of this winter range posed a risk of higher than usual mortality or if folks had good reasoning as to why this extra hunting harvest would result in additive (as opposed to compensatory) mortality. Your right and wrong in my opinion(read my post from the 17th on page 1).Yes deer will die this winter because of lack of food and depending how rough and long the winter is will determine how many will parish. According to mother nature :ONLY THE FITTEST SURVIVE:unless this doe shoot has a stipulation that only the weak or sick can be shot during this fiasco then the probability of alot of big,healthy breeding stock does who may have made it to the rut,got bread and made it thru the winter to drop fawns in the spring and help in the herd recovery are going to get taken out in about a month .....like others here have said and i will too--Thank you to those who will not use these tags ...and lets all hope and pray for a very mild winter!
It seems as though winter survival is going to be poor with the dramatic loss of winter range. This is a prime example of compensatory mortality. We know winter mortality is likely going to be higher than normal...probably a lot higher. Why not allow hunters to harvest some of those deer that are certain to die? If there is only enough winter range for 100 deer, and there are 500 deer that are headed down to use it...shall we just let those 400 deer starve to death or shall we try and harvest them? I guess the only way I would be critical of this planned doe hunt would be if it was less than clear that the loss of this winter range posed a risk of higher than usual mortality or if folks had good reasoning as to why this extra hunting harvest would result in additive (as opposed to compensatory) mortality.
Having seen deer starve to death in the past, I would rather see them taken and put to use. Hunters on this site who talk about quick humane kills and not wanting animals to suffer should think about what starvation really is, a very slow painful death. I can't believe that anyone who cares at all about these animals would rather have them die a long slow painful death rather than a quick humane death. If taking 300 animals keeps this herd from recovering there are more problems than are being put forth here. In the 1988 Swakane hunt after the fires that year they gave out tags to any person who came in and asked for one, the result was an uncontrolled slaughter, and a deer herd that still hasn't recovered to it's previous numbers, be glad that they aren't doing in the Methow what they did in the Swakane.
hopefully if WDFW is dead set on this, then they issue the tags to the locals, and have the season for them before general and clear out some of the little local does. I still do not agree at all.
That's the problem. The winter range on the other side of the river is barely being tapped due to the population being so low already. Whose to say how many would just cross over and do fine. Instead, you just pop 300 arbituary deer in an already struggling herd. Are they going to focus on the North slope deer that migrate into the chiliwist that have no range left per say, or are they going to pop x amount of deer from Pearygin that might have resources across the river.
Quote from: boneaddict on September 18, 2014, 05:13:49 AMThat's the problem. The winter range on the other side of the river is barely being tapped due to the population being so low already. Whose to say how many would just cross over and do fine. Instead, you just pop 300 arbituary deer in an already struggling herd. Are they going to focus on the North slope deer that migrate into the chiliwist that have no range left per say, or are they going to pop x amount of deer from Pearygin that might have resources across the river. +1, I hope nobody participates
First, I'm glad the WDFW has so many armchair advisors, there's no way they can fail, now. Second, if there is un-utilized winter range on the other side of the river, what is going to make the deer on the east side of the river, cross to feed, if they don't know to go there now? Does the scent of uneaten browse blow upon the wind? Third, for those concerned about recovery of a low herd population, maybe limit mature buck harvest to permit only. You shoot a doe, you only kill one, possibly two deer if it's pregnant. You kill 1 mature buck, you potentially prevent, what, 20-30 fawns from being born? Seems doe harvest makes more sense for a struggling herd. JMHO
