Antlerless Deer Hunt Opened in the Methow

[csaaphill]

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.     

[bigmacc]

three nails, I know for a fact not all doe are bred each year, for whatever reason.  I should have included in my post, something about the quality of the genetics in breeding the does. Mother nature makes the biggest and the best fight for the privilege of being able to breed, we shouldn't be letting spikes, two points and young three points repopulate the herd, in my opinion that is not the best thing for the herd.
  Big Mac, everybody's it advocates not using these permits is an armchair advisor to the WDFW. It just happens to be your opinion and everybody on here has a different one.
  WSM, my point was that there is nothing going to make these deer all of the sudden utilize winter range that hasn't been used in the past, as posted. Some deer will find this area but, they're not all going to say"hey, lets go over to that hillside we've been savin for after a fire"

Phool, I agree, after watching what happened with the elk in the little Naches unit and the antler restrictions, I would advicate shooting spikes and two points and having to draw a permit to shoot four points and larger.
  I know these are all just opinions.  a little background on me, I'm not just a coaster, I learned to fish at the mouth of Libby Creek 49 years ago and have been hunting the valley since I was old enough to carry a rifle.  My family has lived in the Valley since the early 60s and still does.  I care what happens to that deer herd as much as if I lived in the valley 24, 7, 365.
 

I will only speak to my part of this Katmai,call me an "armchair advisor" if you like,like i said earlier thats the problem(IMHO). the wdfw should listen to opinions from sportsman,people who grew up in the valley and know these deer.There was some game guys back in the 60,s and 70,s ,in the methow that you could actually talk to about this kind of stuff and sometimes they would disagree and other times would agree and actually pass on information,thaughts and ideas to the higher-ups.In the late 60,s and early 70,s my family(mostly my dad)had long discussions with some game people about migration routes my dad and my family knew of, these discussions were instrumental in getting some gates put up in the methow to help keep the motorhome camps and such from setting up shop smack dab in the middle of these routes, trying to ease up on the slaughters that would take place when weather hit.One year, before gates were put up,the weather did hit and triggered a pretty good migration,one of those camps(with about 3 motorhomes and a couple trailers) shot the snot out of them,they had a bunch of big bucks hanging and when my dad talked to one of the "hunters" he bragged to my dad how they shot 4 or 5 of them from their lawnchairs while sittin around the fire! After conversations with my dad about different routes and his concern for these deer along with a family hunting history in this valley dating back to 1919,they listened and alot of roads were closed or gated,some in exact spots my dad and a warden drove to and my dad pointed at a spot in the road and said "gate it hear".Katmai,there are alot of folks that in live in that valley,grew up in that valley,theres folks on this site and hunters with years of hunting that valley who may have ideas and thaughts that might be worth listening to,but unfortunatly as far as this days wdfw goes, your right,we are all just "armchair advisors" just as you said....and that is whats so wrong nowadays....

 Sig was a good guy!

Yes he was phool

[bigmacc]

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

What??? You kill a doe you almost certainly kill a fawn. If the doe/buck ratio is 1-1 or 15-1 you still get all the does bread. You really don't believe killing a buck prevents 20-30 does from being bread!!!!! 

Well said 3nails.

[Curly]

I hope Doublelung doesn't mind me quoting him from earlier in the year on another thread, but since he knows what he's talking about on this subject I think it's worthy of a repost here:

I'd rather see additional harvest to address conflicts where they occur, rather than guessing proactively - give the deer a chance to find other areas.  Our mule deer are below carrying capacity because social tolerance limits their numbers, not limited forage.  These are huge fires but still only a fraction of the winter range.

I would prefer to NOT see any winter feeding on winter ranges.  The crucial plant on these winter ranges, bitterbrush, lives a long time (about 70 years, give or take), and only establishes successfully following a big die-off in the herd; a stand of bitterbrush usually only has one, two or 3 age classes, reproductionfrom seed fails every other year due to herbivory or drought.  When you winter feed, you can pretty much guarantee the deer using that feeding station will devour every palatable woody sprout and seedling for about a two-mile radius, essentially destroying the subsequent winter range quality for decades to come. 

The failure to recover in the Swakane and Entiat wasn't due to doe slaughters, as popular as that belief may be.  Two things spanked that herd - winter feeding on the winter ranges, and soil-sterilizing intense fire following decades of suppression. 

IF they are going to winter feed, I would like to see it done on the transitional ranges, around 2500-3000' elevation, so the deer don't nuke the shrub recruitment on the crucial winter ranges.  Better, though, to not feed at all.  Deer that try to winter on the burned crucial winter ranges should die, whether through harvest or starvation.  I'd far rather see some seedling bitterbrush, elderberry, buckbrush/ceanothus, fire cherry, serviceberry, etc. surviving in the low country next spring, to provide a few decades of natural winter forage, for a dispersed deer herd.

Look at where deer feeding has occurred in the past - Swakane, Entiat, Methow, Bridgeport, Chiliwist - hardly squat for winter shrub forage when there is deep crusted snow.

[huntnphool]

I hope Doublelung doesn't mind me quoting him from earlier in the year on another thread, but since he knows what he's talking about on this subject I think it's worthy of a repost here:

I'd rather see additional harvest to address conflicts where they occur, rather than guessing proactively - give the deer a chance to find other areas.  Our mule deer are below carrying capacity because social tolerance limits their numbers, not limited forage.  These are huge fires but still only a fraction of the winter range.

I would prefer to NOT see any winter feeding on winter ranges.  The crucial plant on these winter ranges, bitterbrush, lives a long time (about 70 years, give or take), and only establishes successfully following a big die-off in the herd; a stand of bitterbrush usually only has one, two or 3 age classes, reproductionfrom seed fails every other year due to herbivory or drought.  When you winter feed, you can pretty much guarantee the deer using that feeding station will devour every palatable woody sprout and seedling for about a two-mile radius, essentially destroying the subsequent winter range quality for decades to come. 

The failure to recover in the Swakane and Entiat wasn't due to doe slaughters, as popular as that belief may be.  Two things spanked that herd - winter feeding on the winter ranges, and soil-sterilizing intense fire following decades of suppression. 

IF they are going to winter feed, I would like to see it done on the transitional ranges, around 2500-3000' elevation, so the deer don't nuke the shrub recruitment on the crucial winter ranges.  Better, though, to not feed at all.  Deer that try to winter on the burned crucial winter ranges should die, whether through harvest or starvation.  I'd far rather see some seedling bitterbrush, elderberry, buckbrush/ceanothus, fire cherry, serviceberry, etc. surviving in the low country next spring, to provide a few decades of natural winter forage, for a dispersed deer herd.

Look at where deer feeding has occurred in the past - Swakane, Entiat, Methow, Bridgeport, Chiliwist - hardly squat for winter shrub forage when there is deep crusted snow.

Spot on!

[bigmacc]

I hope Doublelung doesn't mind me quoting him from earlier in the year on another thread, but since he knows what he's talking about on this subject I think it's worthy of a repost here:

I'd rather see additional harvest to address conflicts where they occur, rather than guessing proactively - give the deer a chance to find other areas.  Our mule deer are below carrying capacity because social tolerance limits their numbers, not limited forage.  These are huge fires but still only a fraction of the winter range.

I would prefer to NOT see any winter feeding on winter ranges.  The crucial plant on these winter ranges, bitterbrush, lives a long time (about 70 years, give or take), and only establishes successfully following a big die-off in the herd; a stand of bitterbrush usually only has one, two or 3 age classes, reproductionfrom seed fails every other year due to herbivory or drought.  When you winter feed, you can pretty much guarantee the deer using that feeding station will devour every palatable woody sprout and seedling for about a two-mile radius, essentially destroying the subsequent winter range quality for decades to come. 

The failure to recover in the Swakane and Entiat wasn't due to doe slaughters, as popular as that belief may be.  Two things spanked that herd - winter feeding on the winter ranges, and soil-sterilizing intense fire following decades of suppression. 

IF they are going to winter feed, I would like to see it done on the transitional ranges, around 2500-3000' elevation, so the deer don't nuke the shrub recruitment on the crucial winter ranges.  Better, though, to not feed at all.  Deer that try to winter on the burned crucial winter ranges should die, whether through harvest or starvation.  I'd far rather see some seedling bitterbrush, elderberry, buckbrush/ceanothus, fire cherry, serviceberry, etc. surviving in the low country next spring, to provide a few decades of natural winter forage, for a dispersed deer herd.

Look at where deer feeding has occurred in the past - Swakane, Entiat, Methow, Bridgeport, Chiliwist - hardly squat for winter shrub forage when there is deep crusted snow.

I like the part about feeding at transitional ranges,it makes sense. If the winter is like the last couple ones(hopefully)this may not even have to happen.Last year alot of deer in that valley didnt even migrate and some of the ones that did(because of the 2wks of storms in sept) turned around and went back up a month or so later .There is a lot of feed available for these deer even up to 6 and 7 thousand feet as long as they dont get pushed out by temps and heavy snow....Fingers crossed

[steen]

So far I see only whitetail does being targeted.  No harm in that.  I am now a recipient of that second tag. Muledeer don't do well on hay but whitetails do, so if you are going to feed them you are helping the whitetail more than  the muledeer.