4 pt. restriction 117/121

[jasnt]

I am curious how many of you actually live in 117?  And I am not talking about those that live in Spokane.  Not that your opinion doesn't count if you don't, but I am just curious.  Everyone I know that, like me, actually lives here loves the restriction.  The only gripe we have is that there needs to be more antlerless harvest to keep the herd balanced.  And I for one love it if a few of the out of area people go somewhere else.  There should be a longer season only open to those who are actually residents of a particular area.   With the short season in Washington it is ridiculous how many people are out in the woods at the same time. 

i do

[muleyguy]

well I have to congratulate the brave ones on here, who are in favor of the APR, actually state why they are in favor of it.......that it has been very successful in reducing hunter numbers;

honestly, that is how the discussion SHOULD have been framed in the first place with this rule; instead, voodoo biology and comparisons to Eastern US whitetail herds was used to justify it all in the noble cause of, "we have to do something to save the herd"

it's perfectly acceptable to make an argument that "we want the APR put in place to reduce hunter pressure, and, with an APR, we can still maintain maximum hunter opportunity"

I happen to not at all agree that an APR is the best way to achieve less hunting pressure because of the skewing of age classes and other problems, but, at least that would have been an upfront argument on the issue.

The discussion from day 1 on this topic should have centered on:  "we need to reduce hunter pressure on the bucks, so what is the best way to go about this?"

the data is crystal clear from the harvest reports that right after the APR went into effect, the harvest of 5+ pt whitetail bucks INCREASED from the years before, EVEN though hunting pressure was 30% lower; 

how did that happen?? did suddenly many more mature bucks show up because of the APR?  no way, the APR had not been in effect long enough

it is simply because all of the hunting pressure was directed at the older bucks;

in all likelihood, the number of truly mature bucks (5.5yr or older) is probably quite a bit lower then if the rule would have never been implemented;

but, what you do have now is a ton of immature bucks stockpiled up;   so, that is the lasting effect of this rule; 

as I said in the previous post, if they rescind the rule, that will be a very healthy thing for the mature bucks because it will get all the hunting pressure off of them;

mark my words, the first year the APR is lifted, the number of mature bucks harvested will be lower then the previous years;

does that mean that suddenly there are fewer of them??? 

nope, it just means that the harvest is now being directed at a different age class

[Bango skank]

well I have to congratulate the brave ones on here, who are in favor of the APR, actually state why they are in favor of it.......that it has been very successful in reducing hunter numbers;

honestly, that is how the discussion SHOULD have been framed in the first place with this rule; instead, voodoo biology and comparisons to Eastern US whitetail herds was used to justify it all in the noble cause of, "we have to do something to save the herd"

it's perfectly acceptable to make an argument that "we want the APR put in place to reduce hunter pressure, and, with an APR, we can still maintain maximum hunter opportunity"

I happen to not at all agree that an APR is the best way to achieve less hunting pressure because of the skewing of age classes and other problems, but, at least that would have been an upfront argument on the issue.

The discussion from day 1 on this topic should have centered on:  "we need to reduce hunter pressure on the bucks, so what is the best way to go about this?"

the data is crystal clear from the harvest reports that right after the APR went into effect, the harvest of 5+ pt whitetail bucks INCREASED from the years before, EVEN though hunting pressure was 30% lower; 

how did that happen?? did suddenly many more mature bucks show up because of the APR?  no way, the APR had not been in effect long enough

it is simply because all of the hunting pressure was directed at the older bucks;

in all likelihood, the number of truly mature bucks (5.5yr or older) is probably quite a bit lower then if the rule would have never been implemented;

but, what you do have now is a ton of immature bucks stockpiled up;   so, that is the lasting effect of this rule; 

as I said in the previous post, if they rescind the rule, that will be a very healthy thing for the mature bucks because it will get all the hunting pressure off of them;

mark my words, the first year the APR is lifted, the number of mature bucks harvested will be lower then the previous years;

does that mean that suddenly there are fewer of them??? 

nope, it just means that the harvest is now being directed at a different age class

With a name like muleyguy, if youre so upset about not being able to  shoot a whitetail that still has its milk teeth, in only TWO UNITS, why arent you crying about the statewide 3x min on muleys?  Personally i think that protecting the bucks that are the most susceptible to hunters to improve the buck/doe ratio is a good thing.  If you cant control your trigger finger when you see a baby deer with a couple inches of antler, just get on the right side of the highway.  Then you can kill a "nice fat spike."

[NumaJohn]

buglebrush,

I could be wrong, but I think benhuntin's issue was with your statement, "There should be a longer season only open to those who are actually residents of a particular area."

And I have to confess, that statement doesn't strike me as being fair to other hunters. If it's public land in a GMU, I do not see why someone who lives close to that public land "should" get to hunt longer. Why, specifically, should proximity entitle you to hunt longer than the rest of us? If it's public land, it is land that belongs to us all, right?

Now, if you take public land out of the equation and want landowners (only) to have special hunting privileges pertaining to length of seasons, then I guess that is something I could get behind, depending on the circumstances. But why "should" someone who lives in Colville have a longer season to hunt, say, the Colville National Forest near town, than someone who lives in Metaline Falls who wants to hunt that same public land near Colville?

Just curious to see your reasoning. Thanks.

John

[jasnt]

I don't agree that the 4pt min rule focused all the pressure on mature bucks! Are we forgetting this is whitetail we're talking about. It dosent take much for a whitetail to get 4pt's. Many 1 1/2 year old bucks are 4pt.  I will admit what I liked best about the rule was the lower pressure.  Personally I will not be shooting anything smaller than 4pt no matter if it's changed or not. Jmo

[TommyH]

I'll guarantee there's more mature bucks now than before.

[huntnnw]

pretty sure muleguy doesnt even live in whitetail country....the 4pt apr works in this state just like the 3pt in 127 for whitetails..night and day hunting these units that dont have APR's

[Colville]

127 is nothing geographically like 117 or 121, which are full of forest lands and have more whitetails to begin with. 

Bottom line is that the Game dept knows that the hunting demand (not those responding on this site, but out of all hunters) is vastly more interested in opportunity than quality. It's not close either.  These two units got the chance because of the large blocks of private and the interest that they had in quality management.  It's never really been a question of whether the herd can be managed by either method, it can. The question is who will decide.  If it's decided by hunters, then it's no APR.

The NE is the only part of the state with a herd that can afford any buck hunting, period.  The very best bucks will continue to be hard to find and get because they're mature whitetails.  Will a guy who owns 100 acres or 1000 see as many as before, nope.  But will hundreds more people go back to hunting where they used to? Yep. When they take away the open season, they just push all the pressure to other units that still have it.  Again, no surprise that the units that were selected for the trial.

The three big deals on deer numbers; winter, doe harvest, predation.  Only one of those does the department have strong control over. The others are going to create cyclic variation in opportunity. Reduce doe harvest and either shrorten or limit late season dates if the herd is in real trouble. The whitetails are the most resilient and flexible of our herds and we shouldn't limit opportunity on the only herds in the state that can actually support the maximum hunter days in an open general format. Especially in the light of the fact that hunters overwhelmingly prefer this option.  The big deer will still be there hiding where they always were.

But I don't live in 117 or 121 so you can toss all of that.

[buglebrush]

buglebrush,

I could be wrong, but I think benhuntin's issue was with your statement, "There should be a longer season only open to those who are actually residents of a particular area."

And I have to confess, that statement doesn't strike me as being fair to other hunters. If it's public land in a GMU, I do not see why someone who lives close to that public land "should" get to hunt longer. Why, specifically, should proximity entitle you to hunt longer than the rest of us? If it's public land, it is land that belongs to us all, right?

Now, if you take public land out of the equation and want landowners (only) to have special hunting privileges pertaining to length of seasons, then I guess that is something I could get behind, depending on the circumstances. But why "should" someone who lives in Colville have a longer season to hunt, say, the Colville National Forest near town, than someone who lives in Metaline Falls who wants to hunt that same public land near Colville?

Just curious to see your reasoning. Thanks.

John

Fair point.  On consideration I'm not sure I would agree with what I said either.   Really it was just my frustration with Washington's short seasons.  Growing up in Idaho where I could chase deer for the entire month of September with my bow, October 10-November 30 with Rifle, and in December agian with Bow I just cannot stand how WDFW has their seasons.  We had lost of out of area hunters in Idaho too, but with such a long season they would come for their 7-10 days, and leave without really affecting us locals.  Here with such a short season we are all compressed into the same couple of weeks, and it really inhibits the experience when every gate, trail, etc... has rigs parked at it.   Don't tell me we are forced to have short season's, because the deer can't handle it either.  That may be true, but it is due to this state's refusal to agressively manage their predators.     

Really with such short season's the sacrifice in pay etc... we choose to accept, in order to live in prime hunting territories, almost doesn't make sense.  In Idaho we just hunted evenings and weekends over almost 3 full months of hunting opportunity, but here I may as well move to the city, make more money, and then take the ten measly days of season off. 

As to Muleyguy's points:  Lower hunting pressure isn't why I am in favor of the APR.  It is a bonus for sure, but definitely not the reason I support it.  I can't speak to mule deer, but whitetail apr work great!  We had 400 acres backed up to NF land with the only access being through our land.  We made a decision to not shoot anything smaller than a nice 4x4 on our property.  If we were unable to score a big buck we took out does, but by the fifth year we were consistently killing big mature bucks every year.  I am for APR, because it makes an area's trophy potential improve enormously!  You aren't killing future giants when they are dumb little fork horns.  Again this is for Whitetail which is totally different from Mule Deer.  Also as I stated earlier I would also strongly suport increased youth/senior any deer opportunities to go with it. 

[buglebrush]

127 is nothing geographically like 117 or 121, which are full of forest lands and have more whitetails to begin with. 

Bottom line is that the Game dept knows that the hunting demand (not those responding on this site, but out of all hunters) is vastly more interested in opportunity than quality. It's not close either.  These two units got the chance because of the large blocks of private and the interest that they had in quality management.  It's never really been a question of whether the herd can be managed by either method, it can. The question is who will decide.  If it's decided by hunters, then it's no APR.

The NE is the only part of the state with a herd that can afford any buck hunting, period.  The very best bucks will continue to be hard to find and get because they're mature whitetails.  Will a guy who owns 100 acres or 1000 see as many as before, nope.  But will hundreds more people go back to hunting where they used to? Yep. When they take away the open season, they just push all the pressure to other units that still have it.  Again, no surprise that the units that were selected for the trial.

The three big deals on deer numbers; winter, doe harvest, predation.  Only one of those does the department have strong control over. The others are going to create cyclic variation in opportunity. Reduce doe harvest and either shrorten or limit late season dates if the herd is in real trouble. The whitetails are the most resilient and flexible of our herds and we shouldn't limit opportunity on the only herds in the state that can actually support the maximum hunter days in an open general format. Especially in the light of the fact that hunters overwhelmingly prefer this option.  The big deer will still be there hiding where they always were.

But I don't live in 117 or 121 so you can toss all of that.

Actually this is wrong.  The department has direct control of predation too.  This state's refusal to agressively manage predator's is ridiculous!  Please don't lump predator's in with factors like winter!  Learn from Idaho!  Have OTC spring bear, reduced second bear, wolf tags, and for the love of sanity let us use dogs to run kill cats!  Cannot understand washington hunter's complacency regarding this issue.

[Colville]

Bugle, the people voted on Cats. The people voted on baiting bear.

It's a liberal state!  The department takes the opinions of non hunters with equal weight to hunters with respect to these issues. I'm not saying they should, but, they do.  They can't waive a wand at the problem.  Coyote/cat/wolf are essentially uncontrollable in the NE rightn now.  Yes they could reduce bear with an extension of the season but I doubt you can put a real dent in deer numbers managing just bear.  The state has no budget for state hunters of predators either so there you have it. There's only a little bit they can do about predation.  Without fixes for wolf and cat that aren't in place now, predation is really unmanageable.

[buglebrush]

Bugle, the people voted on Cats. The people voted on baiting bear.

It's a liberal state!  The department takes the opinions of non hunters with equal weight to hunters with respect to these issues. I'm not saying they should, but, they do.  They can't waive a wand at the problem.  Coyote/cat/wolf are essentially uncontrollable in the NE rightn now.  Yes they could reduce bear with an extension of the season but I doubt you can put a real dent in deer numbers managing just bear.  The state has no budget for state hunters of predators either so there you have it. There's only a little bit they can do about predation.  Without fixes for wolf and cat that aren't in place now, predation is really unmanageable.

Didn't realize that was how they got rid of Hound hunting, thanks for educating me. (It happened before I lived in Washington.)  That is just sad.  You would think the WDFW would have the authority to work around it somehow.  How did it ever end up in a vote?  They also could do much better with the wolf issue. 

As for bears they kill a lot of fawns and calves.  More than we give them credit for.  Maybe we all need to band together in the NE, and start putting money in the pot for a coyote bounty.  Might help. 

[bearpaw]

Bugle, the people voted on Cats. The people voted on baiting bear.

It's a liberal state!  The department takes the opinions of non hunters with equal weight to hunters with respect to these issues. I'm not saying they should, but, they do.  They can't waive a wand at the problem.  Coyote/cat/wolf are essentially uncontrollable in the NE rightn now.  Yes they could reduce bear with an extension of the season but I doubt you can put a real dent in deer numbers managing just bear.  The state has no budget for state hunters of predators either so there you have it. There's only a little bit they can do about predation.  Without fixes for wolf and cat that aren't in place now, predation is really unmanageable.

Didn't realize that was how they got rid of Hound hunting, thanks for educating me. (It happened before I lived in Washington.)  That is just sad.  You would think the WDFW would have the authority to work around it somehow.  How did it ever end up in a vote?  They also could do much better with the wolf issue. 

As for bears they kill a lot of fawns and calves.  More than we give them credit for.  Maybe we all need to band together in the NE, and start putting money in the pot for a coyote bounty.  Might help.

Please, let's get this straight:

Cougar
WDFW has significantly cut back on cougar harvest by reducing harvest quotas in many units. Prior to cutting back the harvest quotas boot hunters were taking more cougars. The reduced harvest and high cougar numbers in many units is a direct result of WDFW minimal predator management policies.

Bear
All that needs to happen to increase harvest is start the fall hunt a little earlier or open up spring hunting more.

Wolf
WDFW purposefully implemented the most liberal wolf plan in the west. This lack of ability to manage wolves was greatly self inflicted by WDFW.

[bearpaw]

The hunting in 117 and 121 is noticeably better than many surrounding units because we reduced harvest for a few years. So at least we benefited by bringing the herd back faster. Even if the commission doesn't want to see the rule through for another 3 years so they can more accurately weigh the outcome of the rule over a longer term, at least the herd has already benefited. That is a good thing for us hunters too. 

I anxiously await to see what they do.

[Bango skank]

An august 1st bear opener and 2 bear limit here would make a real difference.