STOP KILLING THE BABY MAKERS

[mburrows]

My two cents is that legal harvest is such a small drop in the bucket it doesn’t make an impact. I do wish it was all permit though for either sex. Doe harvest should be limited to youth, 65+, disabled, etc. I see so many does hit along I90 and hwy 97, gotta be far more than get punched with an arrow or bullet any given year. Legal harvest is the least of mule deer concern in my book but at the same time it frustrates me that we can shoot mule deer does or bucks unlimited OTC.

Habitat loss, predators and “other legal take” are the biggest impacts on mule deer in my opinion.

It blows my mind that WA hands out unlimited mule deer tags regardless of sex.

PS I was one of the guys that hit up bone when I was figuring out how the hell to kill deer, bone probably knows mule deer better than 99% of the population so I certainly respect his opinion. 

Back to waiting for the clouds to lift so I can go find elk…

[Alchase]

My two cents is that legal harvest is such a small drop in the bucket it doesn’t make an impact. I do wish it was all permit though for either sex. Doe harvest should be limited to youth, 65+, disabled, etc. I see so many does hit along I90 and hwy 97, gotta be far more than get punched with an arrow or bullet any given year. Legal harvest is the least of mule deer concern in my book but at the same time it make frustrates me that we can shoot mule deer does or bucks unlimited OTC.

Habitat loss, predators and “other legal take” are the biggest impacts on mule deer in my opinion.

It blows my mind that WA hands out unlimited mule deer tags regardless of sex.

Back to waiting for the clouds to lift so I can go find elk…

I told myself I would not post in this thread, because I am conflicted.
If the herds were healthy, I believe having Doe hunts is a great way to get youth hunters into hunting.
Then I remember about 10 -12 years ago in the Methow, they had what I now call the massive meat hunt. Hundreds and hundreds of does taken, supposedly by youth hunters.
There was a camp down from us who had fourteen youth hunters in it, with four adults, two men and two women. The women did not hunt. Opening day afternoon, they had 10 does hanging. A group of the kids were playing as we walked by. I asked if they had got their deer yet? One kid says ya we all did! They were looking at each other like they kust got caught steeling cookies. I asked good for you, which one is yours? He got really scared and stopped talking. We continued on and I hear one of them say, it's OK you did not say Uncle Joe shot all the deer! 
They ended up with 14 does and a 3x2 by Monday when they packed up and left.
That was just one of hundreds of camps. That year was just a meat market slaughter of does. There was a dramatic decline in dear numbers the following years. I honestly do not think the Methow ever recovered from that mass slaughter.

So for me personally, I would not shoot a doe. For multiple reasons:
First, there is no hunt in it.
Second, I do not need the meat to warrant taking a doe.
Three, I just can't see how the herds can continue if the mothers are removed, and they are already getting hammered so bad by "other demographic" groups, predators, and loss of habitat.

[jrebel]

What's interesting is that total number of harvested deer (all categories combined) has remained relatively stable in relationship to total number hunters and antlerless tags given out. 

Example:

2013:
Total # Hunters:           123,928
Total # deer harvested:  33,657
Percent:                           27.2%
(Antlerless harvest)  6,209

2021:
Total # Hunters:           102,262
Total # deer harvested:  24,318
Percent:                            24.0%
(Antlerless harvest) 2,653


To me these numbers say a few folks on this site are doom and gloom over the wrong reason.  The numbers would indicate our biggest problem is declining number of hunters over the years.  The percentage of deer kill would indicate a population of deer that has remained relatively stable (not saying it is great...but stable).  It also shows that the doe harvest rate has been cut by over half in just 8 short years....which could indicate our bio's do have a bit of a clue.  These numbers have waxed and waned as the years have gone by but the overall percentage of harvest has remained in the 23-26% ish.  I suspect bearpaw is correct and the largest factor effecting our herds is weather and disease.  In the NE the recovery will likely be slow due to predators.  In the Palouse, the recovery will be quicker due to lack of predators.....as long as the winters and disease don't deal another dose of bad news. 

My point being......right, wrong or indifferent....opportunity from a percentage standpoint has remained the same for at least the last 8 years.  Taking away doe harvest for kids / disabled / over 65 will continue to drop overall hunter participation.  To me that is a bigger danger to us losing our hunting heritage. 

 

[KFhunter]

Does it concern you that less hunters but also less success rates

Example:

2013:
Total # Hunters:           123,928
Total # deer harvested:  33,657
Percent:                           27.2%
(Antlerless harvest)  6,209

2021:
Total # Hunters:           102,262
Total # deer harvested:  24,318
Percent:                            24.0%
(Antlerless harvest) 2,653


20k less hunters -in theory- should yeild increased success rates if the herds had remained the same all else being equal. 
Instead were seeing both declining hunter #'s and lower success rates.

[jackelope]

From Idaho Fish and Game:

https://idfg.idaho.gov/question/mule-deer-doe-hunts

This is in line with some of the things I’ve read on this topic. Thanks for sharing.

[jrebel]

Does it concern you that less hunters but also less success rates

Example:

2013:
Total # Hunters:           123,928
Total # deer harvested:  33,657
Percent:                           27.2%
(Antlerless harvest)  6,209

2021:
Total # Hunters:           102,262
Total # deer harvested:  24,318
Percent:                            24.0%
(Antlerless harvest) 2,653


Less hunters in tbeory, should yeild increased success rstes if the herds had remained the same.  Instead were seeing both declining hunter #'s and lower success rates.

I’m not sure I agree with less hunters and higher success rates.   It’s been proven time and time again that 10% of hunters kill 90% of the game.  Most hunters don’t hunt hunt as hard and have far less success.  They hunt for tradition and the social aspect.   The percentages support my theory…..though only a theory.   

[KFhunter]

From Idaho Fish and Game:

https://idfg.idaho.gov/question/mule-deer-doe-hunts

This is in line with some of the things I’ve read on this topic. Thanks for sharing.

Habitat Habitat Habitat ad nauseum

We can't do anything about people buying land and plopping a house on it.  We can't do anything about highways or other conflicts with migratory corridors and winter ranges on people's lawns.  This article talks about stockpiling wildlife like livestock.

It's just not relevant to a predator pit scenario like we have in much of the state.  If anything more recent changes in forest practices, increased fire activity has improved a great deal of habitats and increased carrying capacity.   We're a long ways from reaching carrying capacity and nursing does not having the fat to carry through a winter kill 

The article from IDFG is irrelevant when habitat isn't a limiting factor.

[KFhunter]

Does it concern you that less hunters but also less success rates

Example:

2013:
Total # Hunters:           123,928
Total # deer harvested:  33,657
Percent:                           27.2%
(Antlerless harvest)  6,209

2021:
Total # Hunters:           102,262
Total # deer harvested:  24,318
Percent:                            24.0%
(Antlerless harvest) 2,653


Less hunters in tbeory, should yeild increased success rstes if the herds had remained the same.  Instead were seeing both declining hunter #'s and lower success rates.

I’m not sure I agree with less hunters and higher success rates.   It’s been proven time and time again that 10% of hunters kill 90% of the game.  Most hunters don’t hunt hunt as hard and have far less success.  They hunt for tradition and the social aspect.   The percentages support my theory…..though only a theory.   

To follow your logic, that would mean the 10% most successful of hunters are the first to quit.  That doesn't make since to me, the newbies and folks that get pissed cause they haven't tagged in 10 years are the ones who quit.  If anything you've proven my point better than I did.

[jrebel]

Does it concern you that less hunters but also less success rates

Example:

2013:
Total # Hunters:           123,928
Total # deer harvested:  33,657
Percent:                           27.2%
(Antlerless harvest)  6,209

2021:
Total # Hunters:           102,262
Total # deer harvested:  24,318
Percent:                            24.0%
(Antlerless harvest) 2,653


Less hunters in tbeory, should yeild increased success rstes if the herds had remained the same.  Instead were seeing both declining hunter #'s and lower success rates.

I’m not sure I agree with less hunters and higher success rates.   It’s been proven time and time again that 10% of hunters kill 90% of the game.  Most hunters don’t hunt hunt as hard and have far less success.  They hunt for tradition and the social aspect.   The percentages support my theory…..though only a theory.   

To follow your logic, that would mean the 10% most successful of hunters are the first to quit.  That doesn't make since to me, the newbies and folks that get pissed cause they haven't tagged in 10 years are the ones who quit.  If anything you've proven my point better than I did.

My logic is we are aging out older hunters and not recruiting new.  I firmly believe that repeated success comes with experience.  We lost 20% (approx.) of the hunters in the last 8 years and success and remained approx the same on a percentage stand point.  We are aging out hunters, they are a dying breed....and we are not recruiting new hunters as quickly as we should.  I suspect  we would see the success percent stay relatively close to the same or drop a little if a bunch of brand new hunters jumped into the game. 

I don't doubt our herds are declining....I just don't believe it as bad as some make out (statewide).  The Entiat, Swakane and Methow have been hit the hardest....but if you look at the history of massive culls after fires and piss pore management, that explains why.  I've hunted the palouse region and have great friends that live and farm the region.  prior to last years blue tongue, they had some of the largest herds they had seen in a decade.  The west side of the state has an abondance of blacktail compared to 20 years ago when all the roads were open and access was significantly easier (another debate for another day).  Elk in the Taneum, Nanum were the best I had seen in many decades before WDFW gave way to many cow tags appox 8-10 years ago.  Fact of the matter....this state is not in 100% doom and gloom scenario.  We have fantastic hunting opportunity.  Some areas, and most NE corners after blue tongue, need special attention....I get it.  I suspect the areas bone takes pictures of mule deer are some of the worst his, thus his rant.  Clearly there are still deer here otherwise there wouldn't be a 25% success rate for all deer hunters combined. 

[KFhunter]

I prefer to raise the alarm and rally for increasing opportunities and deer/elk numbers now than later.  It takes years and much public outcry to move the needle.  Yes there's still a lot of great hunting to be had, and there's a lot of hard hunting to be had as well, but we're loosing opportunities and hunters, and I'd like to see a change in direction.

[boneaddict]

Two questions in my head I’m pondering with some of the aforementioned points. …

-How many of us here got into hunting and remained interested in hunting due to doe hunting. 
It’s been mentioned as recruitment for youngsters.

-how many hunters gave up, stopped hunting due to the lack of game to be able to hunt or cost or the hoops, etc.   I see lots of frustrated folks on here, or many saying no more in this state.  Obviously we can’t answer this, something to think about.

[jrebel]

Two questions in my head I’m pondering with some of the aforementioned points. …

-How many of us here got into hunting and remained interested in hunting due to doe hunting. 
It’s been mentioned as recruitment for youngsters.

-how many hunters gave up, stopped hunting due to the lack of game to be able to hunt or cost or the hoops, etc.   I see lots of frustrated folks on here, or many saying no more in this state.  Obviously we can’t answer this, something to think about.

I’m not embarrassed to say me…..

I started hunting at the age of 8.  My dad was an avid archery hunter so naturally I used archery gear.  We were meat hunters so we didn’t pass a does, or cows for that matter.  I killed deer every year up until I think 2018.   My first buck was killed my first year in college.   So from 8-20, I killed does in this state.  Since, I have killed more bucks than does, but that’s because I filled the freezer with other game (sometimes from other states) and the meat was not needed.   My son has killed one doe and otherwise has killed bucks.   We have changed the tradition of meat hunting because our success in other states and different hunting traditions.   With that said, I don’t have any regrets. I also would not begrudge or deli type any other hunter that legally harvested a doe.   I do believe that youth benefit from having the option to shoot does.  Not all have to, but the ones that do have an equally large smile that says….”I’m hooked”. 

One of my most memorable hunts involved taking my wife’s grandparents out for their final hunt.  They both shot whitetail does…..it was awesome to see their smiles for one last hunt.   

I to see lots of people threatening to leave this state…..the next year they post pics of their hunt.  Talk is cheap….and when people get frustrated they say things they don’t always mean.   

[jackelope]

Two questions in my head I’m pondering with some of the aforementioned points. …

-How many of us here got into hunting and remained interested in hunting due to doe hunting. 
It’s been mentioned as recruitment for youngsters.

-how many hunters gave up, stopped hunting due to the lack of game to be able to hunt or cost or the hoops, etc.   I see lots of frustrated folks on here, or many saying no more in this state.  Obviously we can’t answer this, something to think about.

Pretty sure I shot a whitetail doe as a kid or a younger hunter at least back home in upstate NY. Maybe 1. Definitely not more than 1.  It was not an interest generator for me. It was an “I love venison” moment.

I’ve got no interest in shooting does anymore.

[boneaddict]

Meat is GOOD!

[KFhunter]

I've had this conversation with hunting partners, and we've all collectively come to the conclusion that we got into hunting because of family, but stayed into hunting because of friends.

All of us hunted with fathers, uncles, older brothers.  Once we got into high school age and driving, we hunted with high school buddies (and still family too).

My son hunted with me, but his high school friends played xbox and did sports.  He did not stay into hunting.   None of his college buddies hunted at all.

I hope to rekindle that when he comes back from overseas.