Stevens County Petitions Wildlife Commision for 4 pt. minimum restriction

[bobcat]

I was looking at the agenda for the meeting this week, Friday and Saturday, and they have added a topic in there for Saturday morning. They will be discussing a petition by the Stevens County Commissioners. This should be interesting. I hope I can make it to the meeting Saturday morning. I need to find a babysitter.  

*ADDED 3/10/2010
PETITION FOR RULE CHANGE – DECISION:
Pursuant to Pursuant to RCW 34.05.330, the Commission will discuss and consider a petition for rule change submitted by Stevens County Commissioners and related to the next agenda item (#15). The Commission may either (a) deny the petition in writing, stating (i) its reasons for the denial, specifically addressing the concerns raised by the petitioner, and, where appropriate, (ii) the alternative means by which it will address the concerns raised by the petitioner, or (b) initiate rule-making proceedings

Here is the letter from Stevens County:

[bowhunterforever]

Where did you find this info at? For some reason the pdf wont load.

[bobcat]

It's on the WDFW website. Try this:

[bobcat]

If that doesn't work for you, go here:  http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2010/03/agenda_mar1310.html


Scroll down to item #15 and click on "Stevens County Petition."

[WAcoyotehunter]

the pend oreille county sportsmans club voted to support this petition as well (part of unit 117 is in this county) and I think the commissioners will support it.  I think it's for a 3 pt though?

[bearpaw]

Not sure how I feel about this, Zender (biologist, now retired) was not a big fan of this idea. But the local group has mustered support and there's a good chance we will get to see how it will work.

It might really make for some great hunting to let the yearlings survive their stupid year....

[bowhunterforever]

I think it might make the numbers of deer increase and the quality of big bucks decrease.

[bobcat]

the pend oreille county sportsmans club voted to support this petition as well (part of unit 117 is in this county) and I think the commissioners will support it.  I think it's for a 3 pt though?

The letter says 4 point. Did you read it?

[bearpaw]

4 pt is what they were wanting at the meeting I attended.....

We do have a lot of cover, get them past the stupid year and they know how to stay out of sight.

[Wacenturion]

I think 3 pt or better is a winner for whitetails............so I guess 4 pt or better will do the same.  It will take a couple years and you'll see a different age structure and a larger number of bigger whitetails available for harvest.

Biologists all have varying opinions.......where Zender wasn't fond of it, the Biologist in the SE thought it was a good idea many years ago.  It has worked well in the Blues, with excellent buck/doe ratios and lots of bruisers as well as plenty of legal smaller bucks taken every year.

A whitetail is a whitetail......you may see some differences based on habitat type and densities tied to that habitat, but in principal you will see a increase in mature bucks as well as smaller legal bucks available for harvest. 

[bearpaw]

wacenturian that's the way it seems to me, I would at least like to see how it would work out in a few years.

[bobcat]

With a 4 point minimum I'd bet half of the hunters that normally hunt there would find somewhere else to go. And that's a good thing, if the deer numbers are really down that much (at least for the deer, not so much for the businesses that depend on hunters' money in the fall. I think a temporary 4 point minimum wouldn't be a bad idea for a lot of GMU's on the eastside, even for muleys.

[bearpaw]

The Whitetail is a pretty smart critter, get him past that 1 or 2 year old stage and he learns to be a survivor. One bad thing, I can see how it could tend to cause genetics to change over time to favor bucks without eyegaurds or only having 3 points on a side. There's a few places where point restrictions have resulted in big old inferior bucks doing the breeding. It seems that was one of Zenders arguments against point restrictions. He favored limiting hunter numbers to increase escapement and I have to agree that his rational makes sense. However, there's a lot of brush in the units suggested so once bucks get little age, they may all be much better survivors.

There's only one way to know for sure.....a trial

[bobcat]

I'd say to only have the restriction for one year. Point restrictions have been proven to not be a good long term solution. The 3 point minimum we now have for mule deer was originally intended to only be temporary after deer numbers plummeted after a bad winter. And the WDFW wanted to drop the restriction but too many hunters wanted to keep it so they listened to the public   Not sure what the state is paying the biologists for when all they do is whatever the public wants.

[WAcoyotehunter]

having a three year trial period is a great idea.  I suspect it will take AT LEAST three years to start to see the results, but when we do I think they will be significant.  This is a good thing for the deer herd.