Wdfw survey

[hunter399]

I got it and live in 101. They took away our doe hunting already, coasties complain the predators are eating all the game, but honestly I hunt/hike/etc everyday and we have 3 possibly 5 elk herds, small and traveling but we have no record of elk before. We have whitetails everywhere and up every drainage. And our turkey flocks are getting big. Now the only animal that’s disappearing is the mule deer herds. 20 years ago they were huge and we can’t shoot does and we have a 3pt antler restriction so clearly those don’t work or there’s a much bigger issue going on there.

So for 101 and whitetails anyone who thinks we need more restrictions hasn’t been hunting it for the past 20 years or are only hunting it from the road.

Picture added of 1 of 4 nice whitetails we just saw while hiking in what used to be muley country. 1 muley doe and we spotted over a dozen whitetails on a quick walk with the dogs up a mountain. Hunters need to hunt and they’ll find plenty of game. Biologist need to do their jobs and figure out population densities and they need to make science and fact based researched proposals - not sending out a questionnaire at random because guy A may never get more than a quarter mile from the main road and only gets out around noon while guy b may be out before sun up and be watching a meadow fill up with deer a mile from any road every day.

Science based game management not opinion based.

There is no late season for rifle deer season in 101 .
Would you be ok with a late season whitetail anybuck season?,and how long do you think whitetail population could hold up with late season attached?
And the Doe hunt for archery late season,I have never been a fan of in any gmu.

[Rainier10]

I have taken both of my daughters hunting in the SE for whitetails but never in the NE.  My daughter got the survey.  8 years ago we hunted 127 Mica Peak but I don't think that was part of the survey.  Getting the survey seemed odd to me.

[Colville]

The improvement in the deer hunting after 4 years of apr, and the decline after the apr was removed, were clear for anybody to see.

Wasn't clear to me.  If your opinion is based on your observations, say so.  If it's based on data, post it.  I've done this multiple times.  The #'s I've posted in other threads do not support your argument, unless what you mean by "improvement" was that the deer killed in the APR units, were "better" deer.  Fewer deer overall were killed. The two units with APR were responsible for 56% of the region's kills pre APR, that fell to about 43% during APR, then returned to 56% after.  During APR those two units produced 20% fewer deer, but deer with more points on their heads.    Point is, the overall herd size was not driven up or down by APR.  Winter, disease, doe hunting, predators are driving the overall herd size.   

I'm sincerely interested in any data you want to share to make your point.  I do not mind that you prefer the "quality" of APR units.  I disagree with it.  That said, you are making a claim that should be supported by data, if it's a scientific point.  If its your preference for hunting esthetic, no need to explain.

[hunter399]

The improvement in the deer hunting after 4 years of apr, and the decline after the apr was removed, were clear for anybody to see.

Wasn't clear to me.  If your opinion is based on your observations, say so.  If it's based on data, post it.  I've done this multiple times.  The #'s I've posted in other threads do not support your argument, unless what you mean by "improvement" was that the deer killed in the APR units, were "better" deer.  Fewer deer overall were killed. The two units with APR were responsible for 56% of the region's kills pre APR, that fell to about 43% during APR, then returned to 56% after.  During APR those two units produced 20% fewer deer, but deer with more points on their heads.    Point is, the overall herd size was not driven up or down by APR.  Winter, disease, doe hunting, predators are driving the overall herd size.   

I'm sincerely interested in any data you want to share to make your point.  I do not mind that you prefer the "quality" of APR units.  I disagree with it.  That said, you are making a claim that should be supported by data, if it's a scientific point.  If its your preference for hunting esthetic, no need to explain.

From what I see from harvest reports Higher numbers across the whole district.
And mature deer harvested. In 121\117

[duckmen1]

I see hundreds of spikes and 2 points in the recent harvest success. Where in 2014 it was a solid number with no spikes or 2 points. Equate that part in and it changes the statistics up quite a bit. Look at 4 and 5 plus point buck comparison and there is no argument to be had.

[Bango skank]

The improvement in the deer hunting after 4 years of apr, and the decline after the apr was removed, were clear for anybody to see.

Wasn't clear to me.  If your opinion is based on your observations, say so.  If it's based on data, post it.  I've done this multiple times.  The #'s I've posted in other threads do not support your argument, unless what you mean by "improvement" was that the deer killed in the APR units, were "better" deer.  Fewer deer overall were killed. The two units with APR were responsible for 56% of the region's kills pre APR, that fell to about 43% during APR, then returned to 56% after.  During APR those two units produced 20% fewer deer, but deer with more points on their heads.    Point is, the overall herd size was not driven up or down by APR.  Winter, disease, doe hunting, predators are driving the overall herd size.   

I'm sincerely interested in any data you want to share to make your point.  I do not mind that you prefer the "quality" of APR units.  I disagree with it.  That said, you are making a claim that should be supported by data, if it's a scientific point.  If its your preference for hunting esthetic, no need to explain.

From what I see from harvest reports Higher numbers across the whole district.
And mature deer harvested. In 121\117

Youre not factoring in number of hunters.  Higher success rate in 14.  Not only was it a higher success rate, they were all 4pt+.  And you need to look again.  121 had a higher total harvest in 2014 than in 2019, and with fewer hunters.  Much better success.  Youre not looking at the whole picture, youre trying to cherry pick data, showing a SLIGHTLY higher total take in unit 117, and disregarding number of hunters.  Also, in 2014, i think late rifle was 5 days shorter than it was in 2019, and still had the higher success.

[hunter399]

The improvement in the deer hunting after 4 years of apr, and the decline after the apr was removed, were clear for anybody to see.

Wasn't clear to me.  If your opinion is based on your observations, say so.  If it's based on data, post it.  I've done this multiple times.  The #'s I've posted in other threads do not support your argument, unless what you mean by "improvement" was that the deer killed in the APR units, were "better" deer.  Fewer deer overall were killed. The two units with APR were responsible for 56% of the region's kills pre APR, that fell to about 43% during APR, then returned to 56% after.  During APR those two units produced 20% fewer deer, but deer with more points on their heads.    Point is, the overall herd size was not driven up or down by APR.  Winter, disease, doe hunting, predators are driving the overall herd size.   

I'm sincerely interested in any data you want to share to make your point.  I do not mind that you prefer the "quality" of APR units.  I disagree with it.  That said, you are making a claim that should be supported by data, if it's a scientific point.  If its your preference for hunting esthetic, no need to explain.

From what I see from harvest reports Higher numbers across the whole district.
And mature deer harvested. In 121\117

Youre not factoring in number of hunters.  Higher success rate in 14.  Not only was it a higher success rate, they were all 4pt+.  And you need to look again.  121 had a higher total harvest in 2014 than in 2019, and with fewer hunters.  Much better success.  Youre not looking at the whole picture, youre trying to cherry pick data, showing a SLIGHTLY higher total take in unit 117, and disregarding number of hunters.

I Agree
Look at 5pt harvest in 2014
Look at 2019 5pt harvest ,it's crazy.

I'm not sure if you are debating me or what bango.
But I've always been for the 4pt min.
So I'm not gonna be very argumentative.
I just posted some harvest rates so people can make there own opinions.

[Rainier10]

The improvement in the deer hunting after 4 years of apr, and the decline after the apr was removed, were clear for anybody to see.

Wasn't clear to me.  If your opinion is based on your observations, say so.  If it's based on data, post it.  I've done this multiple times.  The #'s I've posted in other threads do not support your argument, unless what you mean by "improvement" was that the deer killed in the APR units, were "better" deer.  Fewer deer overall were killed. The two units with APR were responsible for 56% of the region's kills pre APR, that fell to about 43% during APR, then returned to 56% after.  During APR those two units produced 20% fewer deer, but deer with more points on their heads.    Point is, the overall herd size was not driven up or down by APR.  Winter, disease, doe hunting, predators are driving the overall herd size.   

I'm sincerely interested in any data you want to share to make your point.  I do not mind that you prefer the "quality" of APR units.  I disagree with it.  That said, you are making a claim that should be supported by data, if it's a scientific point.  If its your preference for hunting esthetic, no need to explain.

From what I see from harvest reports Higher numbers across the whole district.
And mature deer harvested. In 121\117

Youre not factoring in number of hunters.  Higher success rate in 14.  Not only was it a higher success rate, they were all 4pt+.  And you need to look again.  121 had a higher total harvest in 2014 than in 2019, and with fewer hunters.  Much better success.  Youre not looking at the whole picture, youre trying to cherry pick data, showing a SLIGHTLY higher total take in unit 117, and disregarding number of hunters.

I think he is agreeing and posting the data to prove your point.

More deer killed with antlerpoint restriction and all of the are over 4pt.

[Rainier10]

In 2014 100% of the bucks were 4pt or better.  In 2019 less than 50% of the bucks were 4pt or better and over 50% of the deer killed were 1,2&3pts.  Pretty obvious looking at those numbers that antlerpoint restrictions mean more mature deer and higher number of deer taken.

[Colville]

The improvement in the deer hunting after 4 years of apr, and the decline after the apr was removed, were clear for anybody to see.

Wasn't clear to me.  If your opinion is based on your observations, say so.  If it's based on data, post it.  I've done this multiple times.  The #'s I've posted in other threads do not support your argument, unless what you mean by "improvement" was that the deer killed in the APR units, were "better" deer.  Fewer deer overall were killed. The two units with APR were responsible for 56% of the region's kills pre APR, that fell to about 43% during APR, then returned to 56% after.  During APR those two units produced 20% fewer deer, but deer with more points on their heads.    Point is, the overall herd size was not driven up or down by APR.  Winter, disease, doe hunting, predators are driving the overall herd size.   

I'm sincerely interested in any data you want to share to make your point.  I do not mind that you prefer the "quality" of APR units.  I disagree with it.  That said, you are making a claim that should be supported by data, if it's a scientific point.  If its your preference for hunting esthetic, no need to explain.

From what I see from harvest reports Higher numbers across the whole district.
And mature deer harvested. In 121\117

Talk about a cherry pick.  You've compared one unit on only exactly two specific years in time and think that's a fair representation of how many more 4 pts should be available?

Here's the whole district from all the years that are published now. 

       APR units    DistrictTotal       117/121 %         missing %       Deer not killed
2019     2129          4021               53
2018     2121          3845              55
2017     2505          4494              56
2016     3140          5560              56
2015     3499          6079              58
2014     2074          4478              46    * APR               -10%                 447
2013     1809          4146              43    * APR               -13%                 538

I can go back and search all my posts, but the years preceding the APR, the % that those two units contributed to the total output was consistently approximately 55%.  In the APR, those two units contribute 43 to 45%.

The numbers are clear as day.  Those two units will reduce their yields by 20% under APR.  Because those are the two most productive units in the district, the missing 20% is between 400 and 700 bucks depending on the health of the heard at that time.  In big years 6000 are killed, in bad 3500, but how those units perform is consistent.

If you take APR to the district, you'll reduce harvest of bucks by between 700 and 1300 deer every year.  What makes more kills or less kills on any given year, herd size.  Want larger herds, you have to have more does. It makes no difference if we hunt 4 pts or all bucks, only does make more bucks and there's been no case made by WDFW that does are not getting bred because of the age class of the bucks.

[Bango skank]

2014 was chosen because it was the final season of apr.  Showing the benefit from 4 years of it.  The hunter success was higher under apr.  If 121 and 117 contributed less to overall take, it was because less people hunted it.  And yeah the does get bred still, but not necessarily their first estrous.  A healthy, naturally functioning deer herd has a higher buck to do ratio and a higher age structure than what we get under an any buck limit.  Also, curioys why your handle is colville when you live in everett,

[C-Money]

I hope Washington would follow Pennsylvania with how antler restrictions are framed. PA use to have a 4pt min in the county I hunt. After hunter feedback and a few years it was changed to a "3 up" or 3 points not including the brow tine system. Hunters were having difficulties identifying a brow tine for the 4th point under the 4pt restriction. As we know, Whitetails usually have a brow, but PA felt it a good decision to move to a "3 up". It works. Plenty of nice bucks roaming the PA woods.  It also provides plenty of bucks for youth hunters as they are allowed any buck. I think NE WA could benefit from this.

 https://www.pgc.pa.gov/Wildlife/WildlifeSpecies/White-tailedDeer/Pages/AntlerRestrictionsAreTheyWorking.aspx

[Bango skank]

I hope Washington would follow Pennsylvania with how antler restrictions are framed. PA use to have a 4pt min in the county I hunt. After hunter feedback and a few years it was changed to a "3 up" or 3 points not including the brow tine system. Hunters were having difficulties identifying a brow tine for the 4th point under the 4pt restriction. As we know, Whitetails usually have a brow, but PA felt it a good decision to move to a "3 up". It works. Plenty of nice bucks roaming the PA woods.  It also provides plenty of bucks for youth hunters as they are allowed any buck. I think NE WA could benefit from this.

 https://www.pgc.pa.gov/Wildlife/WildlifeSpecies/White-tailedDeer/Pages/AntlerRestrictionsAreTheyWorking.aspx

Im a fan of the "3 up" thing too.  Thats what i would prefer, for both whitetail and mule.  I hear about a lot of forkey mules getting left to rot.  I would guess thats due to idiots shooting and just hoping for a 1" browtine.  A 3 up rule should largely fix that.

[duckmen1]

That would be a great plan for both. Although the only negative I can see for muledeer is you would still get people doing the same on crabclaw 3 points hoping to get that 1 inch crabclaw point.

[hunter399]

The improvement in the deer hunting after 4 years of apr, and the decline after the apr was removed, were clear for anybody to see.

Wasn't clear to me.  If your opinion is based on your observations, say so.  If it's based on data, post it.  I've done this multiple times.  The #'s I've posted in other threads do not support your argument, unless what you mean by "improvement" was that the deer killed in the APR units, were "better" deer.  Fewer deer overall were killed. The two units with APR were responsible for 56% of the region's kills pre APR, that fell to about 43% during APR, then returned to 56% after.  During APR those two units produced 20% fewer deer, but deer with more points on their heads.    Point is, the overall herd size was not driven up or down by APR.  Winter, disease, doe hunting, predators are driving the overall herd size.   

I'm sincerely interested in any data you want to share to make your point.  I do not mind that you prefer the "quality" of APR units.  I disagree with it.  That said, you are making a claim that should be supported by data, if it's a scientific point.  If its your preference for hunting esthetic, no need to explain.

From what I see from harvest reports Higher numbers across the whole district.
And mature deer harvested. In 121\117

Talk about a cherry pick.  You've compared one unit on only exactly two specific years in time and think that's a fair representation of how many more 4 pts should be available?

Here's the whole district from all the years that are published now. 

       APR units    DistrictTotal       117/121 %         missing %       Deer not killed
2019     2129          4021               53
2018     2121          3845              55
2017     2505          4494              56
2016     3140          5560              56
2015     3499          6079              58
2014     2074          4478              46    * APR               -10%                 447
2013     1809          4146              43    * APR               -13%                 538

I can go back and search all my posts, but the years preceding the APR, the % that those two units contributed to the total output was consistently approximately 55%.  In the APR, those two units contribute 43 to 45%.

The numbers are clear as day.  Those two units will reduce their yields by 20% under APR.  Because those are the two most productive units in the district, the missing 20% is between 400 and 700 bucks depending on the health of the heard at that time.  In big years 6000 are killed, in bad 3500, but how those units perform is consistent.

If you take APR to the district, you'll reduce harvest of bucks by between 700 and 1300 deer every year.  What makes more kills or less kills on any given year, herd size.  Want larger herds, you have to have more does. It makes no difference if we hunt 4 pts or all bucks, only does make more bucks and there's been no case made by WDFW that does are not getting bred because of the age class of the bucks.

I will call you on your full house
And throw this down.
Only does make bucks if they mate,low buck to Doe ratio,hunting pressure,bucks being nocturnal,mature bucks make more babies than spikes.Lower harvest by x amount of bucks on the landscape to ensure higher amount of fawns born .With fawn survival rate,high amount of predators a lot of factors go into the first three months.More fawns born=more fawns survive the first year.These I've heard your argument from many biologists "does only make fawns" Not every Doe is pregnanted .If you want to raise population as in right now.no Doe harvest and you raise buck to Doe ratio.With no Doe harvest last year,this is the perfect time to add bucks in the picture.The next few years would be a fawn explosion.