2x2 Bucks only in Roosevelt, Harrington, and Steptoe

[BIGDOG]

I think Muleyguy is right on when were talking about the wide open units,has anyone hunted on the P.L.W.M.U 201 or Buckrun over in Wilson creek,I have seen first hand how he manages the deer herd there and the buck to doe ratio is high and there is
a high number of mature bucks,It is like hunting in eastern Montana.I think the state
should let Derek Stevens manage the deer herd in the open area units!

[muleyguy]

"you need to do a little more research,  however I'm not going to get into a pissing match over them."

I am not in a pissing match, and, the research is quite clear.  You indicated that there had been success in many states with 3 pt minimum rules, but, no states, except for WA have them in any significant way.  And, if you take the time to read the reports from other states, you will see the reason they do not have 3 pt minimums is because they DO NOT WORK.   I can take the time posting each state's proxy if you like, I know the "research" because I hunt these states every year. 

here is some selected opinions on antler restrictions, the first is straight out of the Mule Deer Working Group, which is a multi state taskforce set up to look at the decline of mule deer across the West:


Antler point restrictions

Creating mule deer harvest sea-
sons with antler point restrictions is
popular amongst hunters who think
it will help increase the number of
mature bucks and buck:doe ratios in
mule deer populations. But research
in many western states shows that
antler point restrictions do not pro-
duce more deer or larger-antlered
deer.
Colorado implemented antler
point restrictions statewide for six
years, and in a number of game
units for seven years. The result was
a shift of hunting from pressure on
all age classes of bucks (primarily
yearlings) to bucks two years and
older, and an increase in illegal or
accidental harvest of yearling bucks.
The number of mature bucks did not
increase over time.



"many wildlife biologists maintain that point restrictions are not the best way to manage deer other than as a short-term stimulus when buck populations are depressed.

"In general, point regulations result in illegal kill of sub-legal bucks, hunters' expectations of a quality experience are not realized, and both the total numbers of legal bucks available and the total harvest decrease," claimed the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife's 2003 Mule deer management plan."


"WDFW's Okanogan District wildlife biologist Scott Fitkin for his perspective on the issue.

"My personal bias is that I'm not a big fan of point restrictions," Fitkin said. "I don't like focusing hunting on older animals. I'd prefer to let the older bucks do most of the breeding."

Fitkin says that mature bucks - the ones that are the only legal targets under antler-point regulations - tend to successfully breed during a doe's first estrus cycle in the fall better than younger deer. Deer that breed early tend to have fawns earlier, which, in turn, grow larger and survive winter better than later fawns. In addition, Fitkin says research suggests that "synchronous breeding," where the majority of the does conceive at the same time, also gives fawns an advantage against predators in the spring because it "floods" the area with young deer.

Despite widespread public perception that point restrictions were the driving force behind the recovery of Okanogan deer, Fitkin says other factors were probably more important. "We haven't had a hard winter since '96-'97," he said. "And in terms of buck numbers, it is how long and where you place the season that makes the difference." He believes that reducing the season to nine days and having it in early October, when many of the deer were still on summer range where they are harder to hunt, had more to do with the population expansion than point restrictions. He points out that last year, after the season was expanded to 14 days, buck escapement fell to 18 per 100 does, down from 26 in 2002.

In addition, Fitkin says that Okanogan County still has many areas where mule deer can escape the efforts of casual hunters. "It depends on how much access there is," he said. "If we were all roaded like some areas, there would hardly be any 3-pointers standing at the end of the season."


"When Oregon mule deer populations consistently fell below management targets in the late 1980s, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife created a new mule deer plan. It established a baseline management objective of 12 post-season bucks region-wide. But rather than impose point restrictions to rebuild populations, it changed all eastern Oregon wildlife management units to controlled hunts. For the first time in many years, an Oregon mule deer hunter could not assume they would be able to purchase a tag every year, and the new regulations required hunters to determine the area they wanted to hunt well in advance of the season. Not surprisingly, this was a highly unpopular move initially.


The ODFW cites its experience in the Steens Mountain WMU in its argument against antler-point restrictions. Historically well known for broad-beamed trophies, Steens Mountain was managed under open entry, 4-point-or-better regulations between 1978 and 1986. According to the agency, the incidence of poaching increased significantly after point restrictions were implemented, and the number of 4-point bucks available for harvest declined 30 percent. By the end of the 12-year period of the regulations, the legal buck harvest in the unit had fallen 50 percent.


"Point regulations are often suggested as a way to increase the number of older bucks in a deer population," the ODFW's 2003 deer management plan observed. "In theory, point regulations are designed to increase the number of older bucks in the population by limiting harvest to only larger bucks, allowing younger bucks to mature. However, past experience in Oregon has shown that three-point or four-point regulations do not produce additional older bucks in an area unless hunters' numbers are seriously limited."


Has Oregon's adoption of controlled hunts worked? Only 16 of 47 eastern Oregon WMUs were at or above their MOs at the conclusion of the 1990 season, the year of the last general-season hunt. Twelve of these units were already managed as controlled hunts, because of population problems that began in the early 1980s. The following year, the first with region-wide limited entry, hunter numbers fell from 104,745 to 90,661. At the end of the first year, 37 of the units were at or slightly below MOs for bucks. At the end of the 2001 season, 33 of the 47 units were at or above the management objectives.

From Utah biologist:

"The idea that if you don't shoot the little ones there will be more big ones seems logical; however, what deer managers across the west have found out is that antler point restrictions have been a huge disappointment everywhere they have been tired.. You cannot expect to grow lots of bigger bucks if you only allow hunters to shoot the big bucks!

Mule deer bucks typically have high rates of mortality because in most years they enter the winter in poor physical shape following the rut. This, together with only allowing only the harvest of the older more mature bucks (3 points or better) siginicantly lowers the number of large deer in the population. So, what managers have found is that even if harvest is reduced, the number of large bucks doesn't increase because many of the older bucks that did escape harvest die of natural causes."

[270Shooter]

That is some really good info muley guy.

I changed my mind. because of the population of washington. We need a permit only plan for mule deer.

[swanny]

To bad this wasn't in place last year, I would of had my deer in 133 then. I think this is a great choice for at least a couple of years. I saw at least 10 different huge two point bucks last year during the modern season all with hand full of does surrounding them. Give it to the kids though, this would be great for them to get a good buck with a decent sized rack.

[bobcat]

Great posts muleyguy. You're one of the few who really understand how Washington mule deer should be managed. I agree with everything that you have said.

[huntnphool]

Muleyguy there are a number of points in your last post that spell it out perfectly. One of which is "

that three-point or four-point regulations do not produce additional older bucks in an area unless hunters' numbers are seriously limited.

"

This is exactly what F&W have done. They set a 3 point restriction and at the same time reduced the number of hunters in the field by going to a draw and backing the season up by a week or two and limiting it to 8 hunting days, the combination of the two has resulted in fewer bucks being harvested during the "general" modern season which is when the majority of the bucks used to be harvested. Where they fu$%ed up is when they started handing out late hunt permits like candy to a child.

[boneaddict]

wish my hand didn't hurt, I'd argue with you all night.  You keep mentioning other states.  Thats your problem, this ain't no Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, etc etc.  THIS IS WASHINGTON.  Hunt here much in the general season?  Seen how many  hunters there are in the field here......anyway, I'm not going to argue with you either, but think you are WRONG. 

[bobcat]

boneaddict, you don't think the mule deer hunting would be better if the general seasons were eliminated and the number of hunters in each GMU was controlled by allowing a limited number of permits in each unit? If they did that the 3 point minimum could be eliminated.

[whacker1]

Very good information Muleyguy.  One of Washington's largest problems as mentioned before, is that our population is too high (human population).  I could support a permit draw only for Mule Deer in WA, but I think it would put additional pressure/competition on the neighboring states Non-resident application process.  Thank you for sharing.  Keep up the research - we expect more good feedback from you on a miriad of topics...

[huntnphool]

you don't think the mule deer hunting would be better if the general seasons were eliminated and the number of hunters in each GMU was controlled by allowing a limited number of permits in each unit? If they did that the 3 point minimum could be eliminated.

Hey bobcat, I'm going to assume you dont mind me giving my opinion before Bone, He is obviously at work Anyhow, I would agree with your question however it would be a matter of opinion. For those of us that believe the hunting would be better if this happened is based upon the "trophy" hunter, that being the hunter looking for a large high scoring rack. The opposite could be argued by the hunter that simply wants to go every year and get a shot at a meat buck. Unfortunately the majority of the revenue is generated by the later and that is counter productive for us and the herds both.

You have to admit that the 3 point min rule has helped tremendously to alleviate the harvest of young bucks in the general modern season, lets not get this confused with the late tag harvest.

[muleyguy]

"Hunt here much in the general season?  Seen how many  hunters there are in the field here......"

yes, and yes........and, the high numbers of hunters in the field is exactly one of the reasons why you need to get rid of the 3 pt minimum;  high numbers of hunters exacerbate the problem with it because the problem is it focus' all of the hunting pressure onto the larger animals.  More hunting pressure  under a 3pt or better system equals more pressure on mature animals.  It would actually work better if there was less hunting pressure.  The  3pt or better management scheme is a viscious cycle;  over the long run it depresses mature animal levels and  buck to doe ratio's, thereby necessitating more restrictive seasons.

The one management technique that has shown time and time again to produce more mature animals is a restriction in season length, season timing, and numbers of hunters.  WA has been able to achieve what few mature animals it does have by a drastically shortened season that falls in the middle of October.  That is the reason for the mature animals, not the 3pt minimum.


3 pt or better rules NECESSITATE the need for shorter seasons, or buck to doe ratio's fall or stagnate and numbers of mature animals fall.  Get rid of it, and over time, if you leave the season length alone, you will slowly see better buck to doe ratio's and better numbers of mature animals.  Over time, you probably could raise the number of late season tags, or slightly lengthen the season.

if 3 pt or better rules are so good, then why don't other Western states do it??   Are WA biologist that much smarter??  Are we on the cutting edge of herd management in this state??  Other states have problems with high hunter pressure (utah areas outside of salt lake and Colorado for instance)

Just think of what Montana could be if they only instituted a 3 pt or better rule………. If antler restrictions like 3pt or better, are so good, then why did the WDFW not adopt a "brow tined" bull antler restriction instead spike only restriction in the Yakima herd??  (it is because they know 3pt or better or brow tined or better restrictions do not work very well)  It says you live in selah, I am not sure how long you have lived in the Yakima area, but, did you go to the feeding stations before the spike only restrictions and, then after??  The difference is literally, night and day. 

the biologists in this state know that the 3 pt or better restriction is not doing the herd any good, they have admitted as much. And, ALL the data and research backs it up.  And, if it was effective, other states would be doing it.  But, as usual in this State, decisions get made not what is in the best interest of the mule deer, but, what is politically and finanically the easiest. 

the only reason the department ever went to 3 pt or better in the first place was because of the extreme winter kill years in the 1990's, and that was the right choice because the buck to doe ratio's were decimated.  The  correct management decision was putting it in place after the winter kills;  the mistake was not undoing it after the buck to doe ratio's had been built back up.

What this state needs to do is junk the 3 pt or better;  go to statewide draw only system for the general season units.  Continue to manage for some trophy hunting in some units, and, potentially look at some 2pt or less restrictions, with big buck tags in some of the more open country units.  Over time, the herd health and age structure will improve, hunter levels will be reduced, and, while you might not get to hunt every year, your experience when you do hunt will be that much better.

Washington has the highest population and lowest land mass of any Western state;  over the long run, the above management rules, or some combination of them, is the only one that makes sense.  3 pt or better rules are just gimmicks that do nothing to solve the long term problem WA state has. 

And for those out there that might be affiliated with the WDFW, I am not bashing on you, as there are politcal and financial realities to deal with when you make unpopular decisions.   But, you have created a beast with the 3pt or better rules that will be unpopular to unwind and will be difficult to unwind from a management point of view because you risk suppressing the buck to doe ratio’s the first year after getting rid of it.  Unfortunately, to get rid of it, you are going to have to probably have very restrictive seasons the first two years after getting rid of it.  This is probably the single biggest factor holding them back from getting rid of it.

And, I give you high praise for getting it right with the Yakima elk herd, that has been a resounding success, and when you get drawn for an any bull tag in the Yakima area, you get to enjoy some of the finest elk hunting in the West, all, in Yakima.  A simple, out of the box thinking, management change, turned an elk herd 2 hrs from a population base of several million people, with huge amounts of hunting pressure, and poor success rates, especially on mature bulls, into one of the best in the West.  Who would have thunk it?? 

[muleyguy]

data on 4 pt or better seasons from the Wyoming Mule Deer Initiative:


Another harvest strategy sometimes employed to improve depressed buck:doe ratios is a “four-point or
better” hunting season.  It may seem counterintuitive, but antler point restrictions do not necessarily
produce more large bucks.  In a 4-point or better season, the hunter is restricted to harvesting bucks with 4
points or more on either antler.  Consequently, all harvest pressure is redirected to the largest deer in the
population, which reduces their number.  Since most yearlings and some 2-year old bucks are protected
until they become small 4-point deer, the overall ratio of bucks to does will increase somewhat as a result
of having more young bucks in the population.  However, harvest is merely delayed until a buck grows its
first set of 4-point antlers.  The maximum benefit of a 4-point season is typically realized after the season
has been in place 2 or 3 years, at which time most 4-point bucks are being harvested.  Thereafter, the
buck:doe ratio does not continue to increase and fewer bucks actually survive to grow truly large antlers. 
Over the long-term, persistently targeting large bucks may also eliminate desirable genetics (the ability to
grow large antlers) from the population.  If the objective is to produce more large deer, the 4-point
restriction must be lifted after 2 years so harvest is once again spread over more age classes.  This allows
more of the incoming cohort of 4-point bucks to survive to an older age and potentially grow much larger
antlers.  Should the overall buck:doe ratio again decline to an unacceptably low level, the 4-point or better
season can be reinstated for another 2-3 years to augment the number of bucks in the population, and the
process is repeated.  Permanent 4-point or better seasons do not produce more large bucks and actually
reduce the harvestable surplus because some of the younger bucks that could have been harvested will die
from other causes before they grow 4-point antlers.  In addition, some small bucks are mistaken for legal
bucks and are illegally killed and abandoned.  Those deer represent a resource that is lost from the
population and impact hunter opportunity in future years.

[boneaddict]

course it would be better bobcat, but for some of us that kill a big buck every year (not being conceded) and enjoy hunting and grew up on the east side and spent the first half of their life wishing the "coasties" woulkd stay on their own side of the mountain, would rather hunt every year.  I've put in for Oregons general for the east side of their state for 5 years now and haven't drawn.  So that means I hunt every five years here.  Are you kidding me.  Yes thats part of the same idealism of looking out for what I want, but I want to hunt.  I don't have to settle for a meat buck.  So my kids can hunt in their yard like I do/did, they can do it maybe every 3rd year or so.

Not going to argue with you muleyguy.  You obviously have your agenda, and I just have my experience. Some of what you are saying is true about season length etc, but again I disagree with theory about antler restriction being bad.  Too much experience shows me otherwise.  I was raised in the heaviest hunted areas in the state, if not one of the ones in the West.  Essentially eliminating all deer at the age of 1.5 doesn't do anything for adding bucks to the pool.  Giving them that extra year to become woods wise does wonders.  AND.....to keep it short, theres more to management than just one rule. It takes the big picture.

[bobcat]

you don't think the mule deer hunting would be better if the general seasons were eliminated and the number of hunters in each GMU was controlled by allowing a limited number of permits in each unit? If they did that the 3 point minimum could be eliminated.

Hey bobcat, I'm going to assume you dont mind me giving my opinion before Bone, He is obviously at work Anyhow, I would agree with your question however it would be a matter of opinion. For those of us that believe the hunting would be better if this happened is based upon the "trophy" hunter, that being the hunter looking for a large high scoring rack. The opposite could be argued by the hunter that simply wants to go every year and get a shot at a meat buck. Unfortunately the majority of the revenue is generated by the later and that is counter productive for us and the herds both.

You have to admit that the 3 point min rule has helped tremendously to alleviate the harvest of young bucks in the general modern season, lets not get this confused with the late tag harvest.

Well, I don't consider myself a trophy hunter. What a buck scores means nothing to me. Sure, like anybody else, I won't pass up a big buck, and if given a choice I'll take the buck with the biggest antlers out of a group of bucks. But I like to have deer meat in the freezer and if it's the end of the season I have no problem shooting a spike if it's legal. But I still would like to see our state have a healthy mule deer herd with a balanced buck to doe ratio and an appropriate age class mix. I don't feel I need or deserve to hunt mule deer every year. I'd like to if I could but not if it's detrimental to the mule deer population. Are you familiar with Oregon's mule deer management? Draw only but there are many units that a guy can draw every year, especially if you're a resident. And most of the rest can be drawn every other year. Then there are those that have fewer permits, maybe better habitat and possibly better genetics, and have a higher buck to doe ratio with more mature bucks, and those units may take 4 or 5 years to draw. If Oregon can do it why can't we? To me it just doesn't make sense with the enormous hunting pressure we have here in Washington, to allow unlimited hunting of mule deer with no control on the number of hunters in each individual unit. Heck even non-residents can come here and buy an over-the-counter tag and hunt any unit they want except for the Desert. And many do. Why is it that this state feels it can afford to be so liberal with the number of deer tags given out?  It makes absolutely no sense. The only reason for it is for some reason the WDFW bases their management decisions on popular opinion rather than biological facts.

Oh, by the way, Oregon has a quota of only 5% of their tags to Non-Residents. Why doesn't Washington do something similar?

[boneaddict]

units like the Entiat or the Methow.  How often do you think I could hunt where I was raised, take my kids home.   Exactly every 5 years or so.  That would suck. 

Lets talk about the desert.  Why is it that it isn't booming with animals? Tons of feed.... Well 90% of the harvest in it is poaching for one.  Go to permit only, let the natives start creaming more of the crop.  Lots of things could be fixed in this state.   Another thing, Wyoming, Idaho and MT don't have to deal with much......