new info on 4 pt restriction

[walt]

I think a 4pt APR in all GMU's would be nice but I doubt that will happen. I see your point with displacing hunters...but I think it would equal out because for the hunters moving to other units there will likely be a near equal amount of hunters primarily hunting that unit due to the 4pt minimum. I know it would be more appealing to me.

It may be that early in the season the APR units will attract more hunters but towards the end of the late season I would imagine most folks with a tag and an empty freezer will head across the street to an any buck unit, just in time for the rut.  I can't say it will happen for sure but I see it as a significant problem that hasn't been addressed. 

[WAcoyotehunter]

In 5 yrs, the buck population will consist of a high amount of 1.5 and 2.5 yr old animals;  these are the most vulnerable bucks in the buck group;

if you suddenly open the season to any buck after 5 yrs of APR, you will have a wholesale slaughter of this age class of bucks;  especially with the late season structure that is place.

That is the current problem...If they bagged the APR in a few years, there would be a bunch of young bucks killed...like what happens every fall in NE Washington now.
I think the APR would attract a bunch of hunters.  Maybe not in year one, but in subsequent years it will be an attraction for those guys wanting to hunt bigger deer.

IMO, it's worth a try.

[grundy53]

BP,

Are you saying that APR was not effective at building a better deer herd south of Spokane? Most of the people seem to like the APR south of Spokane.

what I am saying is that south of spokane is a vastly different unit then north of spokane;  now, HNW can say what he wants, but, nobody that is knowledgeable of the units would say that north of the river units and south of the river units are the same.

They are vastly different;

APR's are less destructive in these situations:

1.  high private ground
2.  thicker vegetation terrain
3.  lower hunter pressure

but, the bottom line is, they always result in the same general problem:  harvest is focused on older age class animals.

I dare say, that more older age class deer would be available south of the river without it........just my opinion..........

if anybody thinks that north of the river is going to equal south of the river whitetail's in 5 yrs with APR's is just wrong.........that seems to be what HNW is saying;
if only we had APR's north of the river, it would be the same as south of the river;

My main problem with APR's is they are just a short term solution to a long term problem in this State, and they inflict a HIGH cost on the structure of the population.

Like any good idea, lets discuss the exit strategy first......

I will go back to the idea of how do you get of APR's?

In 5 yrs, the buck population will consist of a high amount of 1.5 and 2.5 yr old animals;  these are the most vulnerable bucks in the buck group;

if you suddenly open the season to any buck after 5 yrs of APR, you will have a wholesale slaughter of this age class of bucks;  especially with the late season structure that is place.

the reason APR's work is it guarantees a steady recruitmant of 1.5 yr old deer into the 2.5 yr old deer class (the harvest group).

If you open it up, there will be virtually zero bucks that make it past 2.5 yrs old;  you will almost guaranteee that you have lower recruitment into the 3.5 yr old class.

this is why it is a trap;  there is no easy "out" once you institute it;  once you get rid of it, you have to somehow "regulate" the harvest of 1.5 and 2.5 yr old bucks to make sure they don't get all shot.to say that we will simply "get rid of it" is not realistic....yes, you can get rid of it, but, you will essentially take out two age classes of bucks with it when you do.

define the exit strategy........

How is that any different then whats going on now?

[DBHAWTHORNE]

BP,

Are you saying that APR was not effective at building a better deer herd south of Spokane? Most of the people seem to like the APR south of Spokane.

what I am saying is that south of spokane is a vastly different unit then north of spokane;  now, HNW can say what he wants, but, nobody that is knowledgeable of the units would say that north of the river units and south of the river units are the same.

I believe HNW is extremely knowledgeable of the units. He was pointing to Mica Peak specifically in a few examples and that is very similar to the environment you see north of the river. While it is not national forest much of it is timber company land that is similar to the land up north and actually seems to receive more pressure than some areas of the national forest lands in the GMU's north of the river. I don't think he is referring to the entire unit.

They are vastly different;

APR's are less destructive in these situations:

1.  high private ground
2.  thicker vegetation terrain
3.  lower hunter pressure

Can you provide scientific references for APR's being destructive outside of your given parameters?

I have read about this since the mid/late 80's and I have never read anything that supports your position that these requirements are necessary for APR's to be less destructive. That being said if there is something scientific that supports your position I would love to read about. I don't like being uninformed when it comes to whitetail.

but, the bottom line is, they always result in the same general problem:  harvest is focused on older age class animals.

I dare say, that more older age class deer would be available south of the river without it........just my opinion..........

if anybody thinks that north of the river is going to equal south of the river whitetail's in 5 yrs with APR's is just wrong.........that seems to be what HNW is saying;
if only we had APR's north of the river, it would be the same as south of the river;

While north and south of the river are different they both offer their own unique protections. South of the river there is less pressure and more private land (as you stated)..north of the river there is more cover (cover is one of the most important aspects to survival from hunting pressure). By protecting the yearlings you will lead to a higher recruitment to the 2 1/2+ age class. Thus the 2 1/2 plus age class will support the extra focus....and every year you will be recruiting X number of yearlings since they are protected so it's a wash. You are basically just ensuring there are more bucks in the herd after any given hunting season. However, I don't see it as a drastic measure nor do I believe drastic measures are required at this time.

One point to be made is that we would protect genetically inferior 3pt's and thus pass on that gene.. I have hunted whitetail all over the country in high pressure areas with genetics and nutrition inferior to what we have here in Washington and I can count on one hand the number of 3pt or less mature bucks that I have seen (all in the deep south and this includes 4pt APR areas). Now..that being said I have probably seen well over 100 supposedly mature 3pt or less bucks "on the downhill slide" (per the hunters claims) bucks but in actuality nearly all of them were yearlings.

 My main problem with APR's is they are just a short term solution to a long term problem in this State, and they inflict a HIGH cost on the structure of the population.

Like any good idea, lets discuss the exit strategy first......

I will go back to the idea of how do you get of APR's?

In 5 yrs, the buck population will consist of a high amount of 1.5 and 2.5 yr old animals;  these are the most vulnerable bucks in the buck group;

if you suddenly open the season to any buck after 5 yrs of APR, you will have a wholesale slaughter of this age class of bucks;  especially with the late season structure that is place.

the reason APR's work is it guarantees a steady recruitmant of 1.5 yr old deer into the 2.5 yr old deer class (the harvest group).

If you open it up, there will be virtually zero bucks that make it past 2.5 yrs old;  you will almost guaranteee that you have lower recruitment into the 3.5 yr old class.

this is why it is a trap;  there is no easy "out" once you institute it;  once you get rid of it, you have to somehow "regulate" the harvest of 1.5 and 2.5 yr old bucks to make sure they don't get all shot.

to say that we will simply "get rid of it" is not realistic....yes, you can get rid of it, but, you will essentially take out two age classes of bucks with it when you do.

define the exit strategy........

This is a personal observation: Out of thousands of whitetail bucks that I have seen there is only a small number of 2.5 year olds that do not meet the 4pt minimum...thus legal under the 4pt rule. Therefore opening it after 5 years would not have some huge impact on the 2.5 year olds that you mention. Please let me know if your personal observations are different on this.. I would be very interested if they are.

You also mention if we open the season to any buck after 5 yrs of APR that we will see a wholesale slaughter of the 1.5 age class. I contend....isn't that what we already see???...and if not....then why the resistance to the 4pt. minimums.. to me it appears the point you are arguing and what you are against contradict each other in this instance. Either a current wholesale slaughter of yearlings exists currently and we should protect them....or....a wholesale slaughter of yearlings doesn't exist and a 4pt minimum would make little difference aside from protecting a number of yearlings for recruitment to the older age classes (which almost all hunters prefer to kill anyway)

To summarize my ramblings. Why do we need an exit strategy or protections (when coming off a 4pt rule) if nearly all 2.5 year olds would be legal under a 4pt APR anyway?....and why would we need protections for 1.5 year old bucks when there will be no less recruitement and no less harvest pressure under the current rule of no 4pt minimum. Again from my deductions of your position I don't see the validity of your argument in this case. However, I am definitely interested in hearing more in case I misunderstood your position (which I am commonly known to do).

[/color]

[DBHAWTHORNE]

This is what I have read/experienced with APR's and why I support them

1. They are supported by the majority of wildlife managers that specialize in whitetail deer. Quality Deer Management Association has three principles that must be met prior to them endorsing a yearling protection program such as APR's.

A.  The proposed buck harvest standard must be biologically sound for the area being considered.
B.  The majority must support.
C.  The must be a commitment and mechanism to monitor the effectiveness.

2. They work!!!!  Given the criteria above they do work. This has been proven time and time again thorough numerous scientific studies. (again I agree there are more effective ways than a 4pt minimum but on a wide scale it is better than nothing)

3. It's not about creating a trophy hunt!! It is about overall herd management and it's purpose is to obtain a more balanced age structure.

4. Yes..there will be more mature bucks!! I have yet to meet a hunter that when pressed doesn't prefer to harvest a mature buck. I have heard some claims to the contrary but then seen those same individuals ecstatic over killing a mature buck....far more ecstatic than they were with the yearling they killed the year before.

5. It's even better for strictly meat hunters. I think we all know that 2 1/2 plus year old deer carry more meat on average than a yearling.

6. Most people are against the loss of choice yet loss of choice is part of nearly every wildlife/fisheries management program. This is no different. Dead deer don't grow. By passing on a yearling you don't lose a resource (generally speaking..of course some go to predators/winter...but likely far less than goes to hunting)

7. There is no scientific basis to cull 1 1/2 year old bucks. The age structure argument is not against APR scientifically but for APR scientifically. There is new recruitment of yearlings every year...but your recruitment of older age classes largely depend on the survival of those yearlings...thus the basis of an APR to balance the herd.. (along with strategic doe management)..In addition we will be helping our herd recover faster...particuarly the older age class bucks which are often hardest hit by bad winters.

[dreamingbig]

How does the rising wolf population come into play in this discussion?

[WAcoyotehunter]

I'm not sure it does.  Undoubtedly, they're going to take some deer.  It's a pretty predator rich environment with coyotes, lions, and bears already. 

[Curly]

In my opinion it shouldn't become a 4 pt restriction until such time as they make all of Eastern WA permit only...........(and that isn't ever going to happen because there is little support for permit only by hunters.)

[bearpaw]

I read through your post muleyguy, it appears most of why you say APR's will not work is speculation. You presented no facts showing APR will not work in NE WA, and in fact made several statements that define what is currently happening in NE WA, which is the basis of why people want to try APR's in NE WA. DBHAWTHORNE did an outstanding job of replying. I know we have no conclusive facts that APR's will work, but the only way to find out what works best, is to try other options.  

How does the rising wolf population come into play in this discussion?

WAcoyote was exactly correct in his explanation of our predator rich environment and it is undoubtedly one reason we have low fawn recruitment, one of the core problems.

The addition of wolves over time is exactly what occured in many areas of Idaho which are now below management objectives. In simple words, there are already enough predators eating deer and elk in NE WA, with the addition of wolves the herd will become even less productive. If wolves populate before the herds recover, there is less chance of the herd recovering. This was basically what happened to the elk herd in the Lolo zone. It went from nearly 20,000 elk before a bad winter and increasing wolves to currently only about 1700 animals.

An outfitter just sold his outfitting business in the lolo zone that he paid $250,000 in the 90's for only a small fraction of that amount. The new outfitter (a friend) plans to hunt bear, lion, and hopefully wolves soon. He says he can't find enough deer and elk to justify hunting them, thus the reason he got the business so cheap. This illustrates the significance of the wolf issue.

[walt]

I read through your post muleyguy, it appears most of why you say APR's will not work is speculation. You presented no facts showing APR will not work in NE WA, and in fact made several statements that define what is currently happening in NE WA, which is the basis of why people want to try APR's in NE WA.

Ok, now my question is: If this is what is currently happening, and the speculation of what will happen with an APR is the same, how is this a benefit to the population?

Also, I still want to know what thought has gone in to the effects this will have on the surrounding units.

[DBHAWTHORNE]

Walt,

I think that is why the principle of having a commitment and mechanism to monitor the effectiveness is very important. I do think you bring up a very valid point that we need to look at what will happen in the other units. I don't think the impact will be that great if at all....but I could be wrong.

[walt]

I hope you're right.  I just see a whole bunch of hunters migrating to an any buck unit late in the season to fill their tag, especially in the first few years.  The problem they are pitching is throughout the NE, not just confined to the proposed APR units, so increasing pressure on the deer in the adjoining units could be devastating.  I think this whole proposal is poorly thought out and being pushed for the wrong reasons.  Now that we have had a few mild years and the population is on the rise they are pushing even harder to get it done immediately.  I think a little more time to study this and see what happens is a much better idea.

[grundy53]

I hope you're right.  I just see a whole bunch of hunters migrating to an any buck unit late in the season to fill their tag, especially in the first few years.  The problem they are pitching is throughout the NE, not just confined to the proposed APR units, so increasing pressure on the deer in the adjoining units could be devastating.  I think this whole proposal is poorly thought out and being pushed for the wrong reasons.  Now that we have had a few mild years and the population is on the rise they are pushing even harder to get it done immediately.  I think a little more time to study this and see what happens is a much better idea.

and just as many will migrate from other units to these units for a shot at a trophy later in the season. the meat hunters might leave but the trophy hunters will come. although i'm not sure too many people will actually leave. How hard is it really to find a dink three point with an eyegaurd?

[jess]

im all for it.. I hunt mature deer and they always have at least four points.. It would be nice to see it... Take a drive through colville nov 15th and look at forty dead two and a half year old bucks in the back of pickups and just think how many more mature bucks there would be if it was mature buck or go home empty handed.. And on that note i dont think there should be a late rifle season either in NE washington ferry county dont have one and the age and trophy class of the witetails is far greater than on the other side of the river... I think that is proof that late buck hurts the whitetal numbers severly in stevens county...

[DBHAWTHORNE]

im all for it.. I hunt mature deer and they always have at least four points.. It would be nice to see it... Take a drive through colville nov 15th and look at forty dead two and a half year old bucks in the back of pickups and just think how many more mature bucks there would be if it was mature buck or go home empty handed.. And on that note i dont think there should be a late rifle season either in NE washington ferry county dont have one and the age and trophy class of the witetails is far greater than on the other side of the river... I think that is proof that late buck hurts the whitetal numbers severly in stevens county...

What's that? There are not mature bucks in Ferry county. Wolves got them all.