According to Spokesman review the 4pt APR passed

[bearpaw]

Thanks Tman for staying with us in the past, I appreciate that.

You could be right, I may be wrong, I honestly do not know for sure, but neither does anyone who is against APR in NE WA because nobody knows. As I have stated before, I didn't used to support a restriction. I voiced my opinion against it to the group in NE WA in the past. But after watching our herd decline and knowing that with reduced doe hunting (which is good thing) it places nearly all hunting pressure on bucks of all sizes, I felt it was time to reduce harvest on bucks too, in order to prevent erosion of the current buck/doe ratio. Is it not obvious that if we only hunt bucks that the ratio will be reduced from where it currently is at. Somehow buck harvest needs reduced.

If I was to say that I wanted a limited-entry system I would be attacked even worse because it would be pointed out I may profit when the bucks get big. People are so busy worrying if others may benefit, they forget that everyone may benefit.

If I was to say lets close it down for two years (that would do the herd more good than anything) do you think I would be able to walk down the street or log onto this forum without being shouted at?

If I was to suggest closing the late buck, that would be a huge mistake, everyone wants to hunt late buck season. So this leaves us with a choice. Find the option that works for the greatest number of people or do nothing.

I have looked at this from every side and listened to all the choices. To reduce buck harvest this is the method with the least impact on the greatest number of hunters. No its not the best option for building the herd. No its not the best option for youth hunters. No its not the best option for seniors. No its not the best option for all my hunters who come here for meat hunts. But, I honestly beleive it has the broadest support of any option other than doing nothing, and that hasn't worked.

It dissapoints me to hear all this bashing of the commission. They are in the same boat as I am. They can try something new or they can do nothing. Honestly, there is data to support the issue both ways. The commission is actually trying to set up two units for a comparison with neighboring units so herd dynamics can be compared over the next 5 years. I commend them for having the fortitude to risk a vote in the favor of giving science a chance to prove itself one way or the other.

This whole argument about how it's unfair to do this and it goes against science is not a valid argument, there is no science either way in NE WA, but there will be in 5 years thanks to our commission. I humbly ask, how can we know, if we don't try APR in NE WA. 

Now please take one moment and think outside the box. Is there a wildlife issue in your area that you think needs tweeked. Seriously, is there something that needs work because the status quo is not working and a resource is in decline or not doing as well as it should?

Now let me ask you, has the WDFW listened to you?

Now let me point out, if you can show this commission a good reason to make a change, this commission might just be the commission with the fortitude to make a change. 

Again Tman, I may be wrong, I will admit it now that it's possible I am wrong, (but we really don't know). In 5 years we will know and if I am wrong, I will admit it, and I will ask for different management based on the new science that we will have to work with.

In the meantime please try to think outside the box and see the real benefits of this commission which is willing to look at other points of view and other science, because this is a commission that is obviously listening to everyone, not just rubber stamping the WDFW recommendations.

 

[Wenatcheejay]

DBHAWTHORNE

I am not a biologist, so how can I truly understand any evidence accept on faith? And, with WDFW that is not saying much.

I don't hunt the area in General or Late season, and I have no interest in shooting a spike or fork horn buck, so honestly I don't have a direct dog in the fight. I don't mind just stepping back. My general mistrust is that any restriction placed on harvesting animals in Washington is a one way street. Year after year we learn of new slices to our opportunity to do more than glass and take pictures regardless of the species or the method of hunting. We are loosing the act of honest hunting a slice at a time. This could be the answer, but I don't see anyone saying this WILL fix anything. It is a "Hope & Change" kind of thing. Limiting the season would be the answer IMHO, but there is money involved. 

(Act 2)

Dale, if your posts were at me, the "profiteers" I was talking about are more like biologists who create a scenario to do a study blah blah IE "Government" people not Guides like you. I don't think you are bathing in Gold and Platinum tubs with the wife. (But maybe I am wrong. ) If you thought I was directing it to your Profession that was not the attempt; Just trying to not drag the "wolf/Gov/Bio/drama" into it in words. I think of "them" as modern day profiteers who create scenarios and problems and then make us pay them to fix it. Maybe this will do it, but I fear it is the beginning of the loss of harvest opportunity first by restriction then by limit of season all without any real study or evidence. And it is the last part, dismissing "study and evidence" IMO looking to the future it is dangerous to allow restrictions based on conjecture and opinion either way.

I might be totally wrong. I'd love to see it work!

Anyway, apologies if I gave offence, I'll sign off for a while. 

[bobcat]

This whole argument about how it's unfair to do this and it goes against science is not a valid argument, there is no science either way in NE WA, but there will be in 5 years thanks to our commission. I humbly ask, how can we know, if we don't try APR in NE WA. 

There still will be no science to prove whether this worked, one way or the other, after 5 years. I listened to the entire audio file of the meeting today, and they even talked about how this is NOT going to be a valid science experiment, because it's not designed with that in mind. It won't be a valid comparison, to compare neighboring units with these two, because there are other factors that come into play that aren't being controlled. The thing is I doubt if the WDFW will even have the resources to actually go in and count the deer to determine before and after overall populations, and buck/doe ratios. Maybe the Steven's County Commissioners should come up with the money for such a study, since this whole thing was their idea?
 
Because in the end, there still be no more known about whether this was a good idea or not, than there is now. It will still be opinions and no facts. I'm not 100% set against the 4 pt restriction, but then I don't hunt over there either. The problem I do have with it is that I feel if something was needed to restrict harvest in those two units, then it should have been done in the other units as well. The adjacent units are now going to see more hunting pressure from those hunters who don't want to be limited on what size buck they can shoot. So those units will see an even larger decrease in deer numbers than they would have otherwise seen if everything would have remained the same.

[Armadillo]

Still how many people will know what they're shooting at from a distance when they see antlers. I think its much easier to distinguish a 2pt from a 3 pt rather than a 3pt to a 4pt

If people can't take the time to distinguish a 3pt from a 4pt before shooting they deserve a penalty and probably shouldn't be hunting at all. I think we don't give fellow hunters enough credit. Do I believe there may be a few taken and left by unethical or dangerous individuals....Yes...but I don't believe it will be as big of a problem as everyone is saying and will certainly have less impact on the herd itself than having a wholesale slaughter of yearlings.

Its already hard enough to distinguish 3 pts from 4pts for the average guy, I just dont see it having an extremely profound effect when....as someone else put it... there is a huge amount of poaching going on, wouldny that be a good problem to address? We'll se how it works

[Armadillo]

Still how many people will know what they're shooting at from a distance when they see antlers. I think its much easier to distinguish a 2pt from a 3 pt rather than a 3pt to a 4pt

If people can't take the time to distinguish a 3pt from a 4pt before shooting they deserve a penalty and probably shouldn't be hunting at all. I think we don't give fellow hunters enough credit. Do I believe there may be a few taken and left by unethical or dangerous individuals....Yes...but I don't believe it will be as big of a problem as everyone is saying and will certainly have less impact on the herd itself than having a wholesale slaughter of yearlings.

I found this as part of the 10 commandments of Hunter's Safety.

3. Be sure of the target and what is in front of it and beyond it.
Know the identifying features of the game you hunt. Make sure you have an adequate backstop—don’t shoot at a flat, hard surface or water.

I think I've heard that somewhere before..

[bearpaw]

Thanks Wenatcheejay, I did completely misunderstand you. Glad there are no personal hard feelings, none here either, sorry about reading your post the wrong way.   

Bobcat I wasn't at the meeting and I did not listen to the recordings. But was it the WDFW testifying that they had no data or was it opposition hunters claiming there was no data?

There is data to support our greatly decreased herd size. Every August, transects are run in numerous areas, there is a good history of these transect counts. Myself and several working group members rode along on the transects, they have data showing the herd is low in numbers. I went on two transects in the Huckleberry Unit with Dana Base last august. Buck/doe ratio wasn't too bad, but overall numbers are low. Transects around Deer Park it seems were the worst, low numbers and bad buck/doe ratio.

Armadillo, I agree there is poaching, the local wardens work on that on a regular basis. It's not all local hunters, I have heard of plenty of cases by out of the area hunters too. We also have a prblem with predators and local dogs. Lots of problems to work on for sure.

[Armadillo]

yeah you're right the problems abound through many causes. The sad thing is that changing the rules probably doesnt affect the poaching one bit. Too much land and too little resources to invest into getting enough officers. Im all for an experiment like this, just makes things interesting to see what the results will bring

[Utah]

I'm glad to hear this!  Alot of hunters will be upset for a couple years till they start putting tags on STUD bucks..    I hope it lasts!  Be neat to see how quality bucks will improve the overall health and size!!

[SkookumHntr]

I wish the whole state was 4pt or better!

[WAcoyotehunter]

People have been arguing that there will be 3 pts left dead all over...I don't think that will be the case, but as many have mentioned- we should all know what we're shooting at before pulling the trigger. 

I also don't think the science is against the antler point restriction.  There is a lack of good science that would paint an accurate picture of what can happen up here.  It seems very simple to me; saving young bucks is going to help the herd.   Biologically, what can it hurt?

The people in opposition to the antler point restrictions are the ones that are more interested in killing a deer than they are in the quality and health of the herd.  If you cannot pass on a deer and appreciate seeing a young buck while hunting, then your motive for hunting becomes pretty clear. 

The people opposing the APR are only interested because they spend a week or so a year up here hunting.  The locals tend to be very supportive (the Pend Oreille Sportsman Club passed the vote almost unanimously and the Stevens County Club sponsored it).   We're the ones that spend evenings watching the deer enjoy them throughout the year- not only during the hunting season.  The focus group that met and decided to send this forward was comprised of several groups.  Only two groups (if my memory serves me...) were opposed to this APR.  A group from Bellingham and the INWC from Spokane were against it.  The others wanted to see the herd recover and were willing to give this a try.

I think it can only help and I strongly support the APR.  It's only two units and I suspect in a few years the results will be favorable.  If not, I'll eat my words.   

[huntnnw]

+1 WAcoyotehunter

[bobcat]

Bobcat I wasn't at the meeting and I did not listen to the recordings. But was it the WDFW testifying that they had no data or was it opposition hunters claiming there was no data?

Actually it was hard to know who was talking but I'm sure it was WDFW biologists, and it wasn't that they said they had no data at all, but that there wouldn't be any way to scientifically show what effect the 4 point restriction had on the deer herd, even after 5 years.

To do that you would have to control all the variables, and they're not doing that. The number of hunters is likely to change, so if the deer population does in fact increase over five years, was it due to the 4 point restriction, or was it due to less hunting pressure? Or was it due to something not even related to the 4 point restriction, such as weather, or predators, or both of those factors? That's just one example.

However, of course what will be known after a couple years is what the effect was on hunter numbers. And that will be an interesting thing to keep an eye on. I think I've said it before, but I'm not arguing against this so much as just commenting on certain aspects of it.

I really don't know if it is a good thing to do or not. My preference for deer (and elk) management in this state would be for them to eliminate general seasons completely and go to permit only hunting statewide. But I suppose in areas like the NE where to animals do have good escapement due to heavy cover, this 4 point minimum may actually work.

I just don't like it being in only 2 GMU's. Why not make it the entire NE region, and then have limited numbers of permits for youth and seniors for any buck in all the same GMU's?

This has got me thinking if it's a good thing over there for whitetails why wouldn't it work over here for blacktail deer as well? It sure would bring the buck/doe ratios up.

I can see myself heading over to hunt one of those units in another year or two, and trying for a trophy whitetail buck. So I could actually see that there might be others like me that might do the same. There may not be the loss of hunters over there spending money as some have said.

[huntnnw]

I agree it shoulda been the whole corner..no way to study the effects of this or control this...I beleive it will increase hunting pressure from the bow guys and decrease with the rifle guys. I know I will be hitting it hard up there in 2 years and possibly next year

[bearpaw]

It will be interesting to see how this results.

[PolarBear]

They should have made it 204 on over to the Idaho border!