4 pt. restriction 117/121

[buglebrush]

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.

   couldn't agree more bear paw.

[Colville]

Bearpaw,  if we remove the first year 2011, that's the first year with no buck buildup, the next two years have a % of the district ModF bucks killed in 117/121 of 44%.  43% in 2012, 45% 2013.  That's pretty telling about what will be on the come as far as production numbers because the young buck buildup is already accounted for by 2013.  Herds, based on other factors, may get bigger or smaller but those two units will now contribute mid 40"s of % instead of the historic mid 50%.  There's no way around that math.  Depending on the size of the herd overall, there will be between 250 and 500 fewer bucks killed because of the use of APR.  If you don't like that math, use the kill stats and show everyone otherwise.

Those two units did put out more bucks each year.  But proportionally so did the other units. IE, the outcome of increased buck count was not demonstrably better in 117 and 121 over non APR units.

I agree that the units can be managed for APR or Any Buck and both can produce herd stability outcomes.  Only one will improve the Age (not quality) of the average deer taken.  This is not about biology or herd necessity.   The other units have improved in terms of kills and overall population the same as 117 and 121. No one here has attempted to make anything but an anecdotal claim that 117/121 are improvements over the rest of the district.

This is strictly a debate about how to manage herds and to what outcome.  I own and run a business. If I owned yours I know damn well which way I'd want these units managed.  You couldn't have made my point or the point of the any buck hunters any better when you said:

"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."

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. 

The honest thing to do is to admit that your desire is not a scientific one. It's one that benefits your business and it benefits those who want game managed for older age class for the average deer taken (by one year in most cases). That's it.  Don't cloak this argument as a wholesome one about biology.  The math is in and the herds can be managed by either approach, reasonably.  The question is and was, who should decide.    Any buck hunters outnumber APR guys massively.   Again, I admit the units can be run with APR sustainably.  They just don't need to be and I think hunters should decide not just certain hunters, land owners and businesses.  Your position is completely valid and reasonable, don't make it less so by implying it's also necessary.

[bearpaw]

Bearpaw,  if we remove the first year 2011, that's the first year with no buck buildup, the next two years have a % of the district ModF bucks killed in 117/121 of 44%.  43% in 2012, 45% 2013.  That's pretty telling about what will be on the come as far as production numbers because the young buck buildup is already accounted for by 2013.  Herds, based on other factors, may get bigger or smaller but those two units will now contribute mid 40"s of % instead of the historic mid 50%.  There's no way around that math.  Depending on the size of the herd overall, there will be between 250 and 500 fewer bucks killed because of the use of APR.  If you don't like that math, use the kill stats and show everyone otherwise.

Those two units did put out more bucks each year.  But proportionally so did the other units. IE, the outcome of increased buck count was not demonstrably better in 117 and 121 over non APR units.

I agree that the units can be managed for APR or Any Buck and both can produce herd stability outcomes.  Only one will improve the Age (not quality) of the average deer taken.  This is not about biology or herd necessity.   The other units have improved in terms of kills and overall population the same as 117 and 121. No one here has attempted to make anything but an anecdotal claim that 117/121 are improvements over the rest of the district.

This is strictly a debate about how to manage herds and to what outcome.  I own and run a business. If I owned yours I know damn well which way I'd want these units managed.  You couldn't have made my point or the point of the any buck hunters any better when you said:

"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."

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. 

The honest thing to do is to admit that your desire is not a scientific one. It's one that benefits your business and it benefits those who want game managed for older age class for the average deer taken (by one year in most cases). That's it.  Don't cloak this argument as a wholesome one about biology.  The math is in and the herds can be managed by either approach, reasonably.  The question is and was, who should decide.    Any buck hunters outnumber APR guys massively.   Again, I admit the units can be run with APR sustainably.  They just don't need to be and I think hunters should decide not just certain hunters, land owners and businesses.  Your position is completely valid and reasonable, don't make it less so by implying it's also necessary.

That's really classy!
I will spell this out more clearly so you can't twist my words to support you stab at me because you apparently don't like guides:

The last two years we killed more bucks each year on the property than in the last decade plus all those bucks were 4 point or better.

More bucks plus all of them were 4 pt or better, (not any spikes or forks) what's not to like about that? Why on earth can anyone not support that is beyond me? (other than simply not being willing to admit they are wrong)

[JimmyHoffa]

How much of that was due to reduced hunter numbers as opposed to the antler restrictions?

[bobcat]

I think people might not support the 4 point minimum because it decreases their chance of killing a buck. Even if there are more bucks available, just having to count points before shooting makes killing a buck a lot harder. Many times you will only have a split second to shoot. Even if the buck you're looking at is an above average 4 point, it takes time to verify that. That's why I don't care for point restrictions. If I'm looking at a buck with heavy antlers, and a least one fork, I want to take the shot, but with an APR, you can't, until you take the time to count points. That's especially hard to do with a bow or a muzzleloader since you won't be looking through a scope.

[BOWHUNTER45]

I will weigh in on this .. I was opposed to the 4 pt restriction in years past because I never was a trophy hunter but it is more rewarding to a hunter to see more quality deer and letting those 1 and 2 year olds grow to reach that 3 yr mark ..Letting them mature and get a little more educated will bring much bigger bucks    I am all for it !

[JimmyHoffa]

I think people might not support the 4 point minimum because it decreases their chance of killing a buck. Even if there are more bucks available, just having to count points before shooting makes killing a buck a lot harder. Many times you will only have a split second to shoot. Even if the buck you're looking at is an above average 4 point, it takes time to verify that. That's why I don't care for point restrictions. If I'm looking at a buck with heavy antlers, and a least one fork, I want to take the shot, but with an APR, you can't, until you take the time to count points. That's especially hard to do with a bow or a muzzleloader since you won't be looking through a scope.

I agree with that assessment Bobcat.  I have had to pass on so many bull elk in the jungle because of the 3 pt rule. 

[Hunting7mm]

Why argue?  WDFW makes the decision.  I often wish they would make at least a two point minimum over in my neck of the woods but thats my opinion. I personally didn't hunt 121 because of the 4pt. minimum even though I have family over there and permission to hunt some property but again thats on me and my decision. Instead I decided I would just stay home and be successful here with blacktail.  I will go over next year mainly to take my youngest daughter for the youth hunt.  While I'm there I'll hunt aswell but the reason I'm going is for her.

[bobcat]

Actually the WDFW did not make the decision, the Fish & Wildlife Commission did. The WDFW only makes recommendations.

[Hunting7mm]

Actually the WDFW did not make the decision, the Fish & Wildlife Commission did. The WDFW only makes recommendations.

Thank you I stand corrected..

[bobcat]

Actually the WDFW did not make the decision, the Fish & Wildlife Commission did. The WDFW only makes recommendations.

Thank you I stand corrected..

Well, your point is still valid. I just wanted to clarify that so people can blame the right entity. 

[bearpaw]

I think people might not support the 4 point minimum because it decreases their chance of killing a buck. Even if there are more bucks available, just having to count points before shooting makes killing a buck a lot harder. Many times you will only have a split second to shoot. Even if the buck you're looking at is an above average 4 point, it takes time to verify that. That's why I don't care for point restrictions. If I'm looking at a buck with heavy antlers, and a least one fork, I want to take the shot, but with an APR, you can't, until you take the time to count points. That's especially hard to do with a bow or a muzzleloader since you won't be looking through a scope.

How much of that was due to reduced hunter numbers as opposed to the antler restrictions?

This is really a moot discussion now that the rule no longer exists. But to answer:

My wife and I have had the same conversations. She didn't like the 4 pt because many of our hunters did not want to hunt in the 4 pt area because they were afraid it would deprive them of shooting a deer. So from a business standpoint the 4 pt rule probably had a negative affect on my business contrary to what the people who dislike guides may think or say. From a perception standpoint people think they have more opportunity where they can shoot any buck.

From a results standpoint (after we got past the initial implementation of the rule) the 4 pt resulted in increased harvest and better quality harvest. Theoretically if we are killing more bucks on the same size property then so could anyone on the same land they hunt anywhere else in the GMU (public or private).

There is another important aspect to this increased buck harvest that most people are overlooking. At the same time we restricted buck harvest we also restricted doe harvest. There has been fewer does harvested so there have been more surviving does which results in more fawns born and which results in more bucks on the ground.

[bobcat]

It may make a difference whether a person is hunting public land or has access to private as far as success rate with a 4 point restriction or no 4 point restriction. I would think  the 4 point restriction wouldn't be as detrimental to success on private lands where the deer are less pressured and the terrain is likely more open and easier to hunt (i.e. farm land).

[bearpaw]

Now to further my last comments:

When we have a winter kill I am paying for and I expect the WDFW to recognize the loss and for the commission to reduce harvest opportunity (especailly in the first year or two following a winter kill).

We are paying these people to manage our wildlife, they should be on top of their game. Instead what we get for our money spent on wildlife management is a dept that can't recognize winter kill when it happens and until they have two dismal years of hunter harvest they keep handing out high numbers of doe tags. That is unacceptable as it only worsens and lengthens to damage from the winter kill. This is a major reason why it has taken our herds longer to recover after the back to back winter kill a few years ago.

The whitetail working group insisted on better resource monitoring, with the changes they've made in monitoring, I'm hopeful the Dept will monitor the deer population more closely and that we can reduce doe harvest immediately after a winter kill rather than killing off the remaining does and lengthening the recovery.

[bearpaw]

In addition to reducing human harvest to build a herd it's important to reduce predator impacts, especially following a winter kill, predator numbers need to be reduced to a level that allows the ungulate herds to rebuild. This is one primary reason of how Idaho is maintaining ungulate harvest while still being home to coyotes, bear, cougar, and wolves. They are managing them all intensely so that the herds can recover.

Idaho allows 5 wolves, 2 cougar, and 2 bear to be taken by 1 hunter in areas where herds are below objective.

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