4 pt. restriction 117/121

[MTMule]

Hey if you want to kill a young deer, own it. Don't hide behind some lame excuse though.

[popeshawnpaul]

Really disappointed a rule like this can be overturns so easily.

Funny, because I was really disappointed a rule like this could be put in place when every bio in the state but one did not recommend the restriction, the GMAC recommended against implementing the restriction, and the WDFW recommended the commission not implement a 4 point restriction yet it still gets through the commission... 

[SkookumHntr]

Really disappointed a rule like this can be overturns so easily.

Funny, because I was really disappointed a rule like this could be put in place when every bio in the state but one did not recommend the restriction, the GMAC recommended against implementing the restriction, and the WDFW recommended the commission not implement a 4 point restriction yet it still gets through the commission...

[Colville]

I feel like it's such a shame to do this experiment for an unserviceable amount of time, only to have thousands more hunters come in and take over 700 bucks 3 point or less in gmu 121. What a shame and disservice to conservation. Killing a buck is not your right.  It's a privelage. If no sacrifice is ever made, quality of hunts will continue to suffer.

There are other units, that based on your premise, should be suffering horrible hunting because they stayed any buck.  But the stats don't show a collapse in those units. Why?  Right, because you can have an any buck harvest and still have a completely healthy herd dynamic.  People who want APR, in this thread and elsewhere, have offered only anecdotes about more bucks seen (duh, can't shoot hundreds of them so you see them) and bigger bucks shot (they have to be by definition) and fewer people (of course, pushed many out to the other units worsening the experience in those units created by the new pressure).

A young fish, a young turkey, young bear, young......  meaningless distinction.  Game can be managed for certain aesthetics like age class or inches of horn.  By definition, it costs lots of opportunity to get a deer, show in previous stats to be about 500/year reduced regional kill. There's no evidence that the productivity of does and population of does improves inside the APR unit vs outside the APR unit.  The does still get bred.

This is, was and will be a simple argument about personal preferences.  APR guys are trying to create a scientific necessity for APR because they know without it, people prefer opportunity to quality.  The math just doesn't support them. We can have either method of management and a healthy herd. The only question is what do the people want? By a wide margin, they prefer opportunity.  Calling them baby killers won't help your brand. This is a game of persuasion and no one ever created a convert to their way of thinking with the starting point of questioning their integrity.

[SkookumHntr]

I feel like it's such a shame to do this experiment for an unserviceable amount of time, only to have thousands more hunters come in and take over 700 bucks 3 point or less in gmu 121. What a shame and disservice to conservation. Killing a buck is not your right.  It's a privelage. If no sacrifice is ever made, quality of hunts will continue to suffer.

There are other units, that based on your premise, should be suffering horrible hunting because they stayed any buck.  But the stats don't show a collapse in those units. Why?  Right, because you can have an any buck harvest and still have a completely healthy herd dynamic.  People who want APR, in this thread and elsewhere, have offered only anecdotes about more bucks seen (duh, can't shoot hundreds of them so you see them) and bigger bucks shot (they have to be by definition) and fewer people (of course, pushed many out to the other units worsening the experience in those units created by the new pressure).

A young fish, a young turkey, young bear, young......  meaningless distinction.  Game can be managed for certain aesthetics like age class or inches of horn.  By definition, it costs lots of opportunity to get a deer, show in previous stats to be about 500/year reduced regional kill. There's no evidence that the productivity of does and population of does improves inside the APR unit vs outside the APR unit.  The does still get bred.

This is, was and will be a simple argument about personal preferences.  APR guys are trying to create a scientific necessity for APR because they know without it, people prefer opportunity to quality.  The math just doesn't support them. We can have either method of management and a healthy herd. The only question is what do the people want? By a wide margin, they prefer opportunity.  Calling them baby killers won't help your brand. This is a game of persuasion and no one ever created a convert to their way of thinking with the starting point of questioning their integrity.

[buglebrush]

Here would be my perfect plan.  Allow youth and seniors to shoot any deer.  Everyone else 3 point not counting eyeguards.  I cannot fathom why people wouldn't support this.      

I have yet to talk to a local hunter ( and I talk to many, many of them ) who didn't support the APR.  But hey let's just keep slaughtering future giants when they are fork horns!      

[buglebrush]

One more thought.  Those of you short selling the value of "local" opinion need to consider that we are here year round.  We notice what deer we see in the fields and crossing the road.  We have game camera's and salt blocks out year round.  We who actually live in an area have a perspective on the deer herd you cannot even come close to matching when you live hours away.  I don't try to say what would be best for managing Blacktail on the coast.  Now if the people who live on the coast would just stop trying to tell us how our deer need managed we would all be happier. 

[Odell]

Buglebrush, I can appreciate your point of view but you aren't seeing the big picture. There is a reason that anecdotal evidence isn't considered as valuable as empirical evidence. No one is doubting what you are seeing, but there are far too many factors involved to say that your experience should set the management practice for an entire unit.

My opinion is that it almost entirely about hunting pressure and days in the field. The last two years most likely the the people who hunted there spent longer in the field (looking for a 4pt takes time) with far less pressure around them (people chose to hunt elsewhere). Less pressured deer means more active deer during daylight hours. Spending more time in the field with less pressured deer can only increase your odds of seeing better quality deer.

None of that means there are more or less quality bucks alive and walking in 121.

[buglebrush]

Buglebrush, I can appreciate your point of view but you aren't seeing the big picture. There is a reason that anecdotal evidence isn't considered as valuable as empirical evidence. No one is doubting what you are seeing, but there are far too many factors involved to say that your experience should set the management practice for an entire unit.

My opinion is that it almost entirely about hunting pressure and days in the field. The last two years most likely the the people who hunted there spent longer in the field (looking for a 4pt takes time) with far less pressure around them (people chose to hunt elsewhere). Less pressured deer means more active deer during daylight hours. Spending more time in the field with less pressured deer can only increase your odds of seeing better quality deer.

None of that means there are more or less quality bucks alive and walking in 121.

I did state that a little strongly.  But  to summarize I would say this.  " Local knowledge and opinion is undervalued ".  Take the wolf issue.  Ask any local who truly has spent a lot of time in the woods and we can give you a more accurate picture of how many wolves are around than WDFW's "EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE". 

[hunter399]

I think they should of took it down slow like a 3pt ,one year,two pt,next year ect.cause you have all the mature bucks killed,then the next year all the young one killed,hurts the herd alot .or just not of messed with it at all.And i do live here and see less deer now .They shoulnd have a 4pt deal in 124,then no pt the next year and see what happens there.

[Colville]

Many people could give a rip about giants.  They just want to hunt. Want to take their family and then take some meat home that they'll enjoy while re-living their camp and great times. Wanting to see more big deer isn't a morally superior position. It's just a preference. I don't think you're an dumb for wanting that and respect your right to the opinion. I do think your a knob for impugning everyone else who wants something different.  Seriously, they are "slaughterers" but when you get a giant, you're what? Gandhi?

[buglebrush]

" I do think your a knob for impugning everyone else who wants something different.  "

Hmmm.... How ironic 

[Colville]

You must not know what irony is.  I think you have a legitimate point of view. I just disagree with it. I have posted a bunch of data on this thread in the past that argues that APR reduced the district's yield of bucks by about 500/year.  I feel that's too much of a loss of opportunity, in exchange for quality.  That's how I base my opinion without insulting guys who want APR.  YOU, in specific, being called a knob for suggesting people shooting 1 year younger deer than you think is right are immoral, or maybe unethical?  That's just fair and I think a very modest way of putting how you're behaving toward your brothers and sisters in the tradition. I'm sure you are more angry and less believing the way you put that.

[buglebrush]

You must not know what irony is.  I think you have a legitimate point of view. I just disagree with it. I have posted a bunch of data on this thread in the past that argues that APR reduced the district's yield of bucks by about 500/year.  I feel that's too much of a loss of opportunity, in exchange for quality.  That's how I base my opinion without insulting guys who want APR.  YOU, in specific, being called a knob for suggesting people shooting 1 year younger deer than you think is right are immoral, or maybe unethical?  That's just fair and I think a very modest way of putting how you're behaving toward your brothers and sisters in the tradition. I'm sure you are more angry and less believing the way you put that.

" But hey let's just keep slaughtering future giants when they are fork horns! "

I guess you are talking about this?  I'm not sure how that is this?
"I do think your a knob for impugning everyone else who wants something different. "

Slaughter is just another way to say kill.  I never said anything about it being "immoral"  or "Unethical".  Just simply giving my opinion just like you or anyone else.  Are you sure you aren't lumping me in with some other posts on this thread?  Anyhow, I think one thing that really gets lost in internet threads is tone.  I am sure any of us could have a civil and enjoyable discussion about this in person, but everything gets blown out of proportion on an internet forum where you can't gauge what is being said with a smile and what is not.  Cheers!

[Colville]

Fair bugle.  When I see the word "slaughter" used as the way to describe fork horn killers I don't come away with a positive or even neutral connotation. Slaughter is kind of a loaded term I'm used to seeing non hunters describe all of our harvests.  I think the idea is that it's so easy, it's a slaughter.  Tell that to the 6 guys in my camp last year who didn't even see hide, let alone antlers.  Lots of them on cameras last couple years, tough finding them up and moving during daylight. You couldn't tell by us how easy it is to find 2 points and we've hunted the same ground for close to 15 years. I take it as you say it that it wasn't your intent.

I want to hunt deer every year and eat deer every year I can. If I have to chose between better deer when I can hunt them, and getting them far fewer years overall, vs the status quo. Give me the status quo. Unless there's good hard facts that herd size can't be sustained.  Hard to make that case that buck restrictions are needed for the herd while still handing out doe opportunity to Sr and Youth.  Doesn't help my attitude that we hunt in an area with really weak antler genetics... even really old bucks pale compared to 117.