4 pt. restriction 117/121

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Glad to see somebody gets it mulieguy.

[Bango skank]

" just pausing here to look at my stock pile of immature bucks.....................what a joke............people with the common sense educated right out of them.   

Utah Department of Wildlife:

• Antler point restrictions focus all the hunting pressure on the oldest age classes of bucks, gradually decrease the average age of the buck segment of the population, and make it more difficult for bucks to reach the older age classes due to the displaced harvest pressure.
• Antler point restrictions have been shown to reduce the number of trophy bucks over time by protecting only the smaller-antlered young bucks.



Ken McCaffery;  Research Biologist Wisconsin:


The second was noting that ARs focused harvests more heavily on the mature males, virtually wiping them out.



Specific 4pt APR whitetail research:

“Before the regulation, a 3 1/2-year-old deer averaged 113 inches; now it’s down to 94 inches.”

Such statistics suggest that harvested bucks are actually losing some of the length and mass of antler that the 4-point rule was set up to increase.


The second goal is to have these yearling deer that survive harvested in older age-classes. Unfortunately, there is no clear evidence that this is happening. On many WMAs, the total number of bucks harvested within older age-classes didn’t change much. The major difference was that the average age of harvested bucks increased by only about a year. There was no significant increase in the number of 3 1/2- and 4 1/2-year-old bucks being harvested.



Would you like more examples?   unfortunately, your "common sense" in this case is slightly wrong.......

I mean I can go on and on with data if you would like.......but, I guess data doesn't rule the day around here.......

the 4pt rule is expressly designed to protect yearling bucks, so, go with me here.......I know its a stretch for you to comprehend this.......but, if you protect (don't kill) yearling bucks, and only allow killing of older bucks, then, what does that result in..........a stockpile of yearling bucks...........

Utah?  Pretty sure that is about mule deer.  irrelevant.  and look at the contradictions youre posting.  one says older bucks are being "virtually wiped out" and another says APR has not changed avg age of harvest much, so which is it?  what point are you trying to make?  the stuff youre posting is completely contradictory.  and im sorry but the apr does NOT mean our mature bucks are being wiped out.  The kind of guys who want to shoot peckerheads and fork horns are absolutely not the kind of guys who kill mature whitetails.  And if you can go on and on with the data like you say, i would like to know, for that stuff you posted about the avg antler size of 3.5 year old antlers shrinking, where did this occur?  how many 3.5 year old bucks did they measure to come to this conclusion, and over how long of a time?  and when did this occur?  which years?  were they drought years?  could it be possible that a bad year or two for wild forage and/or crops had anything to do with this supposed antler shrinking?  If you care to look up antler restrictions benefits you will find many many pages of data that go "on and on" and say the exact opposite of the crap youre posting.  the bottom line is that the majority of residents here WANT the antler restriction.  All the guys who want to kill baby deer have plenty of other units to choose from.  leave these two alone.

[baldopepper]

Bobcat-I , for one, appreciate your updates.  Seems historically somebody always wants to kill the messenger. Thanks for attending and keeping us all informed!!

[Jarhead Chase]

Tag

[zike]

I could never understand the thinking about having the gun season before the rut. Why shoot the bucks before they bred, never made sense to me. What's the logic behind it. You notice that elk gun season is after the rut. Years ago, before AR it didn't make any difference, But now it would make sense to let them bred before they are killed.

[grundy53]

Moot point now. It's been put back to any buck...

[muleyguy]

Utah?  Pretty sure that is about mule deer.  irrelevant.  and look at the contradictions youre posting.  one says older bucks are being "virtually wiped out" and another says APR has not changed avg age of harvest much, so which is it?  what point are you trying to make?  the stuff youre posting is completely contradictory.  and im sorry but the apr does NOT mean our mature bucks are being wiped out.  The kind of guys who want to shoot peckerheads and fork horns are absolutely not the kind of guys who kill mature whitetails.  And if you can go on and on with the data like you say, i would like to know, for that stuff you posted about the avg antler size of 3.5 year old antlers shrinking, where did this occur?  how many 3.5 year old bucks did they measure to come to this conclusion, and over how long of a time?  and when did this occur?  which years?  were they drought years?  could it be possible that a bad year or two for wild forage and/or crops had anything to do with this supposed antler shrinking?  If you care to look up antler restrictions benefits you will find many many pages of data that go "on and on" and say the exact opposite of the crap youre posting.  the bottom line is that the majority of residents here WANT the antler restriction.  All the guys who want to kill baby deer have plenty of other units to choose from.  leave these two alone

yup, it is Utah;  I included two mule deer references (Utah and Wyoming) and two Whitetail references;  the first whitetail reference is research done on Wisconsin whitetail deer and APR's;  the second one with is Phd research on the Missouri whitetail herds concerning the shrinking antler size;

each data reference that I posted speaks to the same issue.......that YOUNGER bucks are protected and older bucks are targeted;

all of those articles speak to very similar problems over both whitetail and mule deer APR's;

APR's just move the harvest up one age class;  from 1.5 yr old bucks to 2.5 yr old bucks, that has been shown time after time, that recruitment into older age classes (4.5 yrs or older) does not increase with APR's;  this is because 85% of hunters shoot the first legal buck that they see, and , in APR units that is usually 2.5 yr old bucks;

bottom line is this:   you take ANY hunting unit in the United States, and suddenly decrease the hunting pressure by 30% for 5 yrs and couple that with mild winters, you are going to see an increase in bucks.

That is what happened exactly in these units;

 

[Colville]

I think its funny.

These units were historically any buck.  The herd dynamics from these units to those surrounding it are comparable.  Meaning that this APR could be used or NOT used and the outcome to herd stability is comparable. That's what the state is saying, APR doesn't move the needle, doe harvest/weather/predation are running the show.

Thereafter, it all comes down to one thing.  What do hunters want?  Despite the name calling and protests of a few on this site, the state will tell you that their polling is 2 to 1 or better in favor of any buck.  So there you have it.  APR doesn't deliver demonstrable herd benefits and hunters don't want it.

If you go use the harvest reports, make sure you make District 1 the same back in 08/07 by removing the additional GMU's above 121,  because it was different then.  Take the modern firearm buck deer killed District 1 and those killed in just 117 and 121.  From 2007 to 2010, units 117 and 121 accounted for an average 56.7% of the bucks killed in District 1.  From 2011 to 2013 117 and 121 accounted for 42.0% of District 1 bucks. (you have to calculate this manually they don't have it for you). 

Average Bucks killed '08 to '10:  District 3700   Units 117/121  2105
Average Bucks killed '11 to '13:  District 3023   Units 117/121  1292
Reduction in bucks killed in the district: 19%
Reduction in bucks killed in 117/121:     39% 

If 117/121 produced the same rate of bucks as the other units it would have averaged 1705 killed.  APR has reduced opportunity to kill deer by 413 bucks per year in exchange for bigger bucks.  The people who prefer opportunity have a damn solid argument that they are being robbed of 400 deer per year.

Call them whatever name you want.  These units will support far greater production than they are putting out.  APR is about trophy management, not herd management.

[MLBowhunting]

Will they ever change the mule deer 3pt min?

[bearpaw]

I think its funny.

These units were historically any buck.  The herd dynamics from these units to those surrounding it are comparable.  Meaning that this APR could be used or NOT used and the outcome to herd stability is comparable. That's what the state is saying, APR doesn't move the needle, doe harvest/weather/predation are running the show.

Thereafter, it all comes down to one thing.  What do hunters want?  Despite the name calling and protests of a few on this site, the state will tell you that their polling is 2 to 1 or better in favor of any buck.  So there you have it.  APR doesn't deliver demonstrable herd benefits and hunters don't want it.

If you go use the harvest reports, make sure you make District 1 the same back in 08/07 by removing the additional GMU's above 121,  because it was different then.  Take the modern firearm buck deer killed District 1 and those killed in just 117 and 121.  From 2007 to 2010, units 117 and 121 accounted for an average 56.7% of the bucks killed in District 1.  From 2011 to 2013 117 and 121 accounted for 42.0% of District 1 bucks. (you have to calculate this manually they don't have it for you). 

Average Bucks killed '08 to '10:  District 3700   Units 117/121  2105
Average Bucks killed '11 to '13:  District 3023   Units 117/121  1292
Reduction in bucks killed in the district: 19%
Reduction in bucks killed in 117/121:     39% 

If 117/121 produced the same rate of bucks as the other units it would have averaged 1705 killed.  APR has reduced opportunity to kill deer by 413 bucks per year in exchange for bigger bucks.  The people who prefer opportunity have a damn solid argument that they are being robbed of 400 deer per year.

Call them whatever name you want.  These units will support far greater production than they are putting out.  APR is about trophy management, not herd management.

Your post is misleading because the number of mature bucks killed the first year or two was low for obvious reasons.

In the last year or two those units have shown the greatest increase of bucks being killed each year. This year will likely be a shootfest and we will lose some of what we gained. There is a possibility that a greater percentage of hunters will shoot small bucks since anything can be killed now, but the unit may get flooded with hunters looking to take advantage of the improved buck to doe ratio which will result in the ratio being taken back to the same low buck/doe ratio as the rest of the area.

I think it's unfortunate we didn't follow through with the 4 point, I don't see how it was unfair to have two units with more mature bucks and a higher buck to doe ratio as a trial, but at least the guys who have been whining got their way so we won't have to listen to them sniveling over those two units being used to test the rule.

The last 2 years in GMU 117 and 121 was the best hunting we've had in NE WA for a decade. A ranch we have hunted for 20 years produced more bucks than it has for more than a decade. On top of producing better than in a decade the bucks also had at least 4 points. The rule was working awesome. I guess this fall will be an even bigger year since we might as well shoot any buck like everyone around us will be doing. 

We normally run a very high success rate anyway, but it was really nice to see an area that had plenty of bucks left over after hunting season, now it will likely end up like the other units, lower buck/doe ratio.

[Miles]

A special interest group got this apr restriction crammed down everyone's throat when they saw the opportunity.  Now some of those same individuals are upset because it's going back to the way it was.   Boo hoo...  it's funny because Dale is now talking about how the bucks are going to get wiped out now when it goes back,  yet he argued with muleguy repeatedly and said that simply wouldn't happen because the apr would have built such a large  population. 

Sure, the response will be something about how it's due to it not going the full five years....  i call bs.  I think the whole five year plan was an attempt to get everyone used to it, and therefore easier to keep in place.  All in the name of marketing and creating " trophy unit" hype.

[Miles]

And no i do not hunt either of those units, nor will I in the future.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

yup, it is Utah;  I included two mule deer references (Utah and Wyoming) and two Whitetail references;  the first whitetail reference is research done on Wisconsin whitetail deer and APR's;  the second one with is Phd research on the Missouri whitetail herds concerning the shrinking antler size;

each data reference that I posted speaks to the same issue.......that YOUNGER bucks are protected and older bucks are targeted;

all of those articles speak to very similar problems over both whitetail and mule deer APR's;

APR's just move the harvest up one age class;  from 1.5 yr old bucks to 2.5 yr old bucks, that has been shown time after time, that recruitment into older age classes (4.5 yrs or older) does not increase with APR's;  this is because 85% of hunters shoot the first legal buck that they see, and , in APR units that is usually 2.5 yr old bucks;

bottom line is this:   you take ANY hunting unit in the United States, and suddenly decrease the hunting pressure by 30% for 5 yrs and couple that with mild winters, you are going to see an increase in bucks.

That is what happened exactly in these units;

Here's the rub nobody is mentioning. Not only does it protect the young buck, and put emphasis on the older bucks, but it also puts added pressure on the young buck that have the genes to become real trophies. They develop 4 pt antlers at 1.5 so they are still legal. What is protected is the young bucks with the genes for less points and smaller racks. So these are the bucks that you are protecting to pass on their genes. You aren't protecting the young bucks with the superior antler genes.

That is why you end up with a bunch of bucks like mulies with huge forks or 3 pts.  Or fork horn whitetails in the 3 or 4 pt units. I don't know about the other 3 pt units, but I hunted Steptoe a few times and you just don't see a real trophy whitetail there, but you do see a lot of average or smaller racks. I'm sure there are a few big bucks that survive there if they have some private property with no hunting to hide out in, but taking out the large antlered bucks before the rut does nothing to pass on the good genes.

Think about this. The privately managed hunting ranches in places like Illinois and Texas don't protect their small bucks. They are called management bucks and hunters are encouraged to take them out. The really big bucks are protected to some degree, because that is the breeding stock, the future of the ranch. They only let so many of them be shot in a given year and it will cost you plenty to take one of them. These ranches use the opposite of a point restriction rule and they also harvest a lot of does to keep a good balance in their herds. Many of them cull a lot of does every year and if enough smaller bucks weren't harvested, they cull them too. As for the big boys, they want to protect their blood lines.

I was invited to hunt the Montgomery Ranch in Jacksboro Texas a few years ago. I was given a "classic" hunt, which was for any buck under 150 B&C gross. These were considered the management bucks. Since I was just after meat, they also let me take a doe as they cull over 100 does a year there. They donate the meat to local food banks.

http://www.mprhunts.com/texas-whitetail-hunts/texas-classic-whitetail-hunt

The real trophies are another hunt altogether.

http://www.mprhunts.com/texas-whitetail-hunts/texas-whitetail-hunt

They don't get bucks like this by killing the big ones and protecting the little ones.

[Bango skank]

Sitka, the cull buck thing has been pretty well debunked.  Antler size at 1.5 years old has at least as much to do with time of birth as genetics.  Start digging into qdma and youll find many examples of this.  Spike bucks that overtake little basket racks after a year or two.  I think we all went to school with kids who were little pipsqueaks until about 16 or so, then all the sudden they were the biggest kids around.  Just because a year old buck has forks or spikes doesnt mean he doesnt have good genes, and wont amount to anything.  Anyway, texas has a LOT of diff stuff going on besides selective buck harvest.  Hell half the state is high fence ranches with feeding programs, aggressive doe harvest etc.  Comparing wa to texas is a joke.  But hey, you whiny, entitled baby killers got your way so time to stop arguing.  See you all here this fall as you drive around shooting any deer with a little bit of antler over its milk teeth.  Im sure youll feel bafass when you go home and tell all your buddies how you killed a nice fat spike.

All the good thats been done for the deer here will be reversed in the blink of an eye thanks to all the people who feel entitled to kill whatever just because they bought a tag.  Why would anyone even want to drive 300+ miles to kill a spike anyway?  And  the "im a meat hunter" argument holds no water when that little baby deer cost you 200 bucks in fuel, not to mention license, etc etc

[JimmyHoffa]

The cull bucks generally weren't the young ones.  They usually gave them a few years and if they didn't get with the program, they got blasted so they would be the ones breeding the does.
 Edit--should be NOT breeding the does.