4 pt. restriction 117/121

[MtnMuley]

It's not really rocket science, just common sense on how to rebuild herds!

Unfortunately those with the say chose to make it lean much heavier to rocket science rather than common sense.

[bobcat]

We'd definitely be much better off if voters hadn't outlawed hounds for bear and cat hunting, and baiting for bears.

At least the WDFW doubled spring bear permits in the NE. It's probably not enough but it's better than nothing.

[MtnMuley]

 

[Hunting7mm]

It's not really rocket science, just common sense on how to rebuild herds!

Unfortunately those with the say chose to make it lean much heavier to rocket science rather than common sense.

  

[Colville]

Bear, you'vre read in thoughts that aren't there.  I'm think guide services are great businesses.  I'm not opposed to them or even to personally using one.  However they are a business and their interests do not necessarilly go hand in hand with the any buck hunting contingent.  A contingent that is the majority by a long shot.  It's not an insult to you to point out that what really sells guide services is pictures of successful clients with big bucks.

The numbers available do not agree with your premise.  The simple truth is that kills went op all over the district, as fast or faster than 117/121.  The only discernable difference between 117/121 and the district overall is that 117/121 are puting out a smaller % of the district harvest by -20% compared to historic norms.  All units had doe permit reductions and the other winter benefits.  Bottom line, those units didn't get any better than the district as a whole.  The experience on one ranch or one piece of public, those are anecdotes.  The district and unit numbers are the tale of the tape.  That tale says that you can have good and improving hunting under both management styles, one though will result in fewer total harvested bucks.  That's a fine position for anyone to hold as a better outcome.  You just have to aknowlege that it's the minority opinion among hunters.

I'm 100% for cutting off doe to all use classes and ages if winter jeopordizes the herd numbers. Heck, if needed to take other drastic actions in a unit to restore populations, great.  Kill more predators, yes.  I am however not pro APR, I'd prefer the herd be managed to produce the maximum deer taken per year than improving the average age of a deer by 1 year.  It's ok to disagree.

[bearpaw]

You left three words off the end of that quote:  for my business.  It worked for crap for people who felt the loss of opportunity to get what they wanted, any buck, and either didn't hunt or had to move elsewhere.  Your quote was exactly what any buck hunters have been saying.  The minority; land owners, guides and some locals wanted something and they got it for a while. 

Bear, you'vre read in thoughts that aren't there.

Sorry, I guess I misunderstood your comments? 

Much of the opposition to 4 pt came from hunters who view 117/121 as a place to bag anything after they've been unsuccessful everywhere else. That perception is good for my business but I don't view it as particularly healthy for the deer herd. You said it yourself, "It worked for crap for people who felt the loss of opportunity to get what they wanted, any buck".

I didn't want to get into an in depth discussion especially since the 4 pt rule has been abandoned, it's a moot discussion. But it's tough to read some of the comments without replying. There was good data behind getting the rule implemented in the first place or the commission would have never tried the rule. I had a discussion with a Pennsylvania game commissioner who told me that after you get past the initial reduction in harvest that the quality of the herd increases and the harvest numbers return. We were seeing that trend in 117/121. The Dept (certain individuals in particular) never liked the rule. Most locals I know liked the rule and every year more of the hunters who didn't at first like the rule but who continued hunting in the unit said they changed there mind and liked the rule after they saw the improvements in the herd.

Data was presented to the commission showing how 117/121 was trending and beginning to outperform other units. I think the Dept was afraid to let the program go any farther because it was beginning to prove certain persons wrong, unfortunately they were able to convince the commission (consisting of several new commissioners) by 1 vote to abandon the rule, in another 3 years we would have had conclusive evidence that the rule works, I believe the Dept could see that coming and didn't want it to happen.

Hunters who want better quality hunting are welcome to hunt with us in Montana. We lease a ranch large enough to control the harvest, we do not shoot bucks with less than 4 points. Every hunter sees multiple 4x4 or better bucks every single day, 10 to 30 bucks are sighted almost every day we hunt, in 3 days we'll look at a lot of bucks and shoot the best buck seen. Fortunately we lease a ranch in Montana large enough to control the herd. The hunting all around the property is not as good, it took about 4-5 years of not shooting the small bucks but now we are shooting more bucks every year than the owner says have ever come off the property and they are 4 point or better, in addition we take almost an equal number of doe off the property and some years more does.

The sad thing is that NE WA will actually support more deer per acre than Montana! We could easily have had better hunting than MT with more deer harvested than we harvest now, but only if more hunters and the Dept would have wanted it.

I concede, the shoot everything crowd wins! I will continue providing hunters in Washington with high success hunts. Yes, we'll still kill some nice bucks and so will others, but it's a bit disappointing knowing we had better management that was really beginning to show results and we let it go.

[jasnt]

I wish they would have stuck it out just a few more years!

[Colville]

Bear.  It's not a crime that APR works out for your business!  It's not a failing that you would support management that is good for your business.  It does flesh out a bias to your position that has nothing to do with overall herd dynamics.  What can be good for your business can and is bad for people who want a different hunting experience.

What I don't understand is this.  If you think you have a compelling argument that APR leads to little or no real cost to hunters in terms of opportunity, why the heck aren't you making that case?  Why anecdotes and stories instead of data?  Private land stories are valueless.  They are controlling everything not just APR and most importantly, they limit the number of hunters.  Is the MT ranch open to the public, of course not.  I have no problem believing that the management of a large private ranch is working to produce big bucks.

Here's the math straight from the harvest reports. From 2010 back to 2003 117/121 contributed this % to the district 1 totals (normalizing the district to be as currently constructed):  55, 56, 59, 56, 57, 56, 62, 52%.  In 2012 and 2013, 43 & 45%.  Total Rifle bucks killed in '13 district wide 3500, bucks from 117/121 1588.  Two comparable years for total bucks taken in the district are '10 and '09 with 3563 and 3635 to compare with 2013 at 3504.  117/121 in '10 and '09 contributed 2205 and 1892 bucks killed.  Total 121/117 in '13 and '12:  1332 abd 1588.  There's the math.  I don't have '14 stats but those two units after two years of letting the young buck buildup take place are putting out 500 to 600 fewer bucks than before on comparable district wide kill years. 

No emotion. No big stories. Those are the numbers. APR distributed to the region would reduce harvest by about 1000 bucks a year.  I think that's very bad for hunting. If you think the numbers are pointing another way or have even better 2014 data we haven't seen I'm all eyes.  This is not about good guy - bad guy. Based on the numbers I've found the loss of opportunity is greater than I'd be willing to support. I would support some loss of net kills to get "better" hunting.  Convince me. 

[bearpaw]

So that you clearly understand, as mentioned before, my business sells more hunts in the open areas. It's my personal preference as a hunter for the 4 pt rule just as with many other hunters who increasingly supported the rule.

What you don't seem to understand or admit, whichever, and for whatever reason, is that the 4 pt rule was closing the gap on harvest differences and producing more and better bucks each year, data detailing that info was presented to the commission. Anyone who has hunted much in the units need no other verification as they know how positively the rule affected the units. The success was holding true unit wide on private and public. I can see you were very philosophically opposed to the rule but I don't hold it against you and I don't expect you to admit to any success due the rule. I really have too much to do to continue with this discussion and it's really OK for us to let this go, you and the Dept have won the battle, the commission voted in your favor. As you said earlier, it's ok to disagree. So please no hard feelings. 

[SkookumHntr]

-What a shame, 

[Wanttohuntmore]

I'm pro APR.  It was working and was definitely helping rebuild an area devastated from winter kill.  I'm afraid that going back to any buck will reduce the herd and eventually create the need for an APR again.  It's two units, why not keep this experiment going?  I'm thinking the wdfw just sells out to popular opinion and does not really manage the resource like they should.

[bobcat]

Proper management, in my opinion, would be hunting by permit only, so the number of hunters can be managed by GMU. That's what really needs to happen if the deer population is truly below management objective. However, popular opinion would be against that  type of management even more so than the antler point restriction type of management. A 4 point minimum actually does the opposite of what people think it does. It puts all the pressure on the older bucks, when in reality there are more younger bucks and they are more expendable.

[Seabass]

Wrong

[csaaphill]

good to see them change it even if I dont live up there I've lives with the 3pt restricitons for long enough. At first it was ok seen more bucks in general, but after a while all you seen was spikes and two pts. Sounds to me like 4pt is backwards thinking because your shooting all the breeding stock, and causing for more poaching as in some of our 3pt only areas where you get like a split second to judge and some just shoot then pray later.
changing things up a bit isn't a bad thing and anyone who hates crowds shouldn't be hunting for it's numbers that keeps our politicol pull not selfishness!

4pt whitetail are often not breeding stock. Likes said earlier a1 1/2 year old whitetail can be 4pt. They are not like mule deer!

Hey we have our share of WHitetail down here as well and I assure you they are mating at what ever age or point they are allowed to by the does. Watched small 3 and 4pt whitetails with does even 3pts so yes they do breed Generally Typically or anyother word that fits there. I've chased one ok looking 4pt on some Feel free to  hunt land down here and the last two years he's had does with him and assured he's breeding with them.
I know that a 4pt doesn't mean he's old doesn't mean he's not either so Yes I will agree on that point but that was one of the reasons they put in 3pt minimums down here was to allow the older bucks a chance to mate and have more bucks. if theye not mating at 3 and 4pts then somethings wrong with thier reasoning for doing this. In te same area I've seen a spike yes muley but for the last two years he's been running with does with his tongue out.
So while there may be some truth in what you say there is truth in what I say too because I've seen it. and yes they do as I said typically or Generally because most any good whitetail I've seen has had does. 3-4-5pts typically.

[Colville]

Wantohunt,  all I have from those in favor of APR is pronouncements and anecdotes about how it's working.

Is it?  Is there data?  Let's have it?  The other units have improved in harvest (see data posted prior) and doe numbers according to WDFW.  The outcomes in neighboring units is comparable to these units in terms of herd numbers.  When you say "it's working" I think you mean it's working to the end that the harvest is all older bucks and as a result people see more total bucks.... no argument here.  But that doesn't mean that the herd in those units is performing any better than the others.

I've been asking for any data or WDFW statements that make your case rather than personal observations but have seen none in these threads. Again, it's a given that the bucks taken now are older, but how is the doe count, fawn count and population "better" than the other units?  And yes this does matter.

It  matters because any buck folks have argued that APR reduces the total buck harvest potential without delivering a noteworthy difference in the herd size.  APR guys keep saying no no no, it's better for the herd as well as managing toward an older class of bucks.  Any buck folks are from Missouri.  No one is showing, just saying.  I've shown (not having 2014 numbers) that the buck harvest is way off in these units compared to what they can produce historically. Any buck guys can be convinced to agree with you.  What do you offer them as a tangible, verifiable benefit to the herd that isn't being seen where any buck is in play?  The question isn't really pointed at you, it's open to all APR guys... what data do you have to support the position that this is a better management choice, not just one of two equal choices that you prefer?

Bobcat, when the herd suffers a real crash in population I'd be for APR, permit only or even closing a unit(s).  When the population will support any buck hunting, I support that until someone can make a compelling case that any buck isn't sustainable.