According to Spokesman review the 4pt APR passed

[Tman]

Bpaw,

Thanks for the response, and thanks for keeping it professional.  Nothing in these threads is personal and I believe we all have passionate opinions about a sport/pasttime that most of us hold very close..

I would think that many of us that are against, aren't against because we don't want the deer herds to recover.  We too realize that the whitetails in these units aren't what they used to be.  The biggest issue for myself and I assume many others is that once an APR is voted in it will most likely be here to stay.  The commisions have not had the power to correct the defiencies with the APR's for Mule deer or Elk and actually push the WDFW to do something that will help build the herds again.  If they used restrictions on season length or went permit only for several years, I believe eventually we would see our original seasons, or a better version again.  The APR's are here to stay, and the commisions will not have the power to help change this.    If you ask me, the Stevens County Commissioners, have no business lobbying to enact state laws.. It just fits the bill of to many bean counters making decisions that are based off a "best guess" scenario.  There will be many greeny conservation groups involved if the WDFW ever considers removing a the restriction.  Look at the wolve scenario..

If you look at many other states that have instituted APR's or even worse, minimum spreads.  Almost all of them never went back to their original seasons after the herds recovered (If they even did show an improvement) and the hunters have watched their seasons erode even further.

You outfit in Idaho it quite a bit every season, and the hunting is much better in most areas, why is it that we weren't more proactive in trying to adopt some of the theories and practices of IDFG?  The Northeast is the same as the panhandle as far as territory is concerned.

For those who say its for profiteers, etc.  Most reasonable people know that this is un true as most of these state "biologists" are going to be paid with your money whether their right or wrong, and will continue to be paid as long as King county runs the elections.  Outfitters like Bearpaw  and other businesses will suffer in the long run due to decreased hunting in these units. 

I just would have liked to see some proven "methodology" used to protect and improve our deer herds.  Currently, I don't believe my kids will be able to grow up and enjoy hunting this state when they are older.

This is the start of many other restrictions, that we as people have been blindfolded into accepting.

[turkey slayer]

I'm glade to see the 4pt and better pass for 117-121. Like Bearpaw said, let these deer grow up and the herds get a better buck to doe. For ones I agree with WFG. Like I said at 1st I am worried about people shotting the 1st thing they see and realizing it's not a 4pt and just leaving it.

[Wenatcheejay]

Tman,

I agree with everything you said. I was the one who started the "profettering" issue. I also have tried to be very clear that is isn't Dale that I was talking about. I could have said a lot more than that phrase but it would have brought in so much of the other drama that this board wants to shy away from. It could have hijacked the thread. I could have, maybe should have, left it out but that is what frustrates me. I have no problem speaking my mind. Even Bearpaw has said closing the late season for a few years would help but if he were to say it people would say he has ulterior motives. I think he probably does/done/will do/cares/knows more than many on the board. He also DOES have a vested intrest in protecting and growing the States natural resources. So, when he talks I think most of us here will listen. (Me included)

I was talking about Government, which now includes Defenders of Wildlife and all their funds to do studies, and lawsuits, and change regulation, according to their findings, blah, blah, I think the USDFW/WDFW/DefoWild combo is unethical when our license/Tag goes up and we can't even get a valid study. Lawsuits, Bios, Dept time and energy, is now spent on things that I don't think should be, and I am tying it into why there is not a study. I see all of it as related. (I guess I am    ) But, it kind of makes me want to concentrate on just myself and my hunting, and not bother with the fuel, time, and energy involved in fighting for the cause. I am pretty good at details and I did my time as a Planning Commissioner in the past. I can't stand the thankless infighting. I don't know, like I say, maybe it is better to just concentrate on my own.

I am like you in the sense that it is not that I am apposed to the APR I am apposed to how it is being enacted.

It's done, I didn't think it would be but it is. We will see how it goes.

[Cougeyes]

I dont necessarily agree with APR, but in cases that are solely used to increase the herd (temporarily) then i'm all for it.  However, as seen with mule deer and spike elk, those regulations never get turned back to where they were once the goal was reached.  I think that this is may be a step in the wrong direction, leading towards management of "quality deer"--bigger bucks rather than opportunity to harvest a deer.   APR does work to increase herds but should not be used as a long-term management strategy...we focus harvest on the prime animals that are the primary breeders.  I would like to think that this is a temporary solution and will be overturned once the goal is met but honestly....that probably wont ever happen. 



I do know that eliminating antlerless harvest would benefit the herd numbers, not sure if they are already doing this or not up there.   

[Bob33]

Now they can sell more "Quality Deer" special permit applications...

[NWBREW]

Now they can sell more "Quality Deer" special permit applications...

You know that is right around the corner.

Like huntnw had stated earlier, "I wish the whole corner would go to 4pt. That would not break my heart. I see many, many more bucks with 4pts or more then I do spikes and forkys. As for deer being left dead because they are 3pt or less, those shooting should be dealt with as poachers. I am 47 and I have no problem seeing and knowing EXACTLY what I am shooting.

[bearpaw]

Let's assume 10,000 hunters hunted deer in GMU's 121 and 117 in past seasons. Maybe 25% to 40% of the deer taken were antlerless deer because it was open for either-sex deer to archers, blackpowder, youth, seniors, plus large numbers of antlerless tags and even second antlerless tags were issued to rifle hunters of all ages. At the time, that was good because the deer herd was large enough and the heavy harvest prevented population growth. The heavy antlerless harvest also can be credited for maintaining a reasonable buck/doe ratio for many years.

After doing transects last August I can't remember the exact figures but it seems our numbers were roughly half of the good years. But, in the mountains away from fields where the transects are done, I think the deer herds may be at only 30% to 40% of normal, I don't have any data to support my estimate for the mountains, but I do think it's more depressed than the ag areas. But we'll assume the best and say the whole population is down 50%.

We all know that doe tags and antlerless opportunity has been nearly eliminated to help the herd grow. Maybe 5%-10% of the harvest will be antlerless deer this year. What that does is force the majority of hunters to be buck hunters. So this fall there will likely be far more buck hunters than there were in the good years, all of them hunting for bucks in a herd that's half the size that it used to be.

What will that do to the buck/doe ratio?

The APR is likely a very proactive approach to prevent a worsening problem before it occurs in these units. In the end I don't think you will see that much difference in hunter density after the first year. I think it will even out in future years. I have to ask what is so bad if this program is successful and the herd recovers and everyone is shooting at least 2 1/2 year old bucks instead of a large percentage of yearling bucks. I don't understand why that is bad?

Some of you have concerns with surrounding units. I agree, I would rather that the whole NE corner had a APR, but that would never happen because it was tough enough just getting 2 units as a trial. Imagine the uprising if we asked for a half dozen units.

I do understand if there are no improvements to the herd, then it should be discontinued. I also understand that extended use of APR may be bad for genetics over a long period of time. In some ways, I think the APR may need to removed after we recover the deer herd. In 5 years I am sure there will be some more heavy discussion to determine whether or not to continue APR in this area. Maybe we can't totally control every part of the science during this 5 years, but at least we will know more than we would have by not doing anything.

The "lack of scientific controls" argument is comparable to jumping in a car and driving until you run out of gas. For some reason the car quit going down the road, we don't know exactly how much gas was in the car but unless you check the fuel tank, you can't conclusively say you are out of fuel, but either way, your car isn't running anymore whether you check the tank or not. 

In my opinion, the wildlife commission just refueled the car so we don't run out of gas. 

I figured I should lighten the discussion a little.... 

[Dave Workman]

I forgot to mention, the purpose was to create greater buck escapement (reduce the harvest) without reducing opportunity to recreate. If it was 3pt then any fork horn buck with one eye guard would have been legal, and that would not have resulted in the kind of harvest reduction that we need.

You mean...a chance to go camping with guns?
An opportunity to walk through the woods with a gun...but shame on you if you use it?

That kind of opportunity?

[Dave Workman]

I do understand if there are no improvements to the herd, then it should be discontinued. I also understand that extended use of APR may be bad for genetics over a long period of time.

But Bearpaw, do you also understand that the state imposed the antler restriction on mule deer as a (hopefuly) temporary 3-10 year effort to build back the mule deer herd, and we have yet to see it disappear.

Once the proponents of restrictions get their nose under a tent, they keep it there.  I don't see this 4-point restriction ever going away.

[bearpaw]

I do understand if there are no improvements to the herd, then it should be discontinued. I also understand that extended use of APR may be bad for genetics over a long period of time.

But Bearpaw, do you also understand that the state imposed the antler restriction on mule deer as a (hopefuly) temporary 3-10 year effort to build back the mule deer herd, and we have yet to see it disappear.

Once the proponents of restrictions get their nose under a tent, they keep it there.  I don't see this 4-point restriction ever going away.

I honestly can't comment on the APR being good or bad for most of Washington.

But in the northeast I think it is a good thing, we have some mature bucks again, we still have a population problem which is likely linked to predators. To date I haven't seen anything showing the muledeer apr is bad in northeast washington. From what I have been told, it seems people like the APR and there are more whitetail bucks in the Southeast Region too.

In my opinion, I think we have to see the results before we can judge the effectiveness in northeast on whitetails.

[Wenatcheejay]

I do understand if there are no improvements to the herd, then it should be discontinued. I also understand that extended use of APR may be bad for genetics over a long period of time.

But Bearpaw, do you also understand that the state imposed the antler restriction on mule deer as a (hopefuly) temporary 3-10 year effort to build back the mule deer herd, and we have yet to see it disappear.

Once the proponents of restrictions get their nose under a tent, they keep it there.  I don't see this 4-point restriction ever going away.

I honestly can't comment on the APR being good or bad for most of Washington.

But in the northeast I think it is a good thing, we have some mature bucks again, we still have a population problem which is likely linked to predators. To date I haven't seen anything showing the muledeer apr is bad in northeast washington. From what I have been told, it seems people like the APR and there are more whitetail bucks in the Southeast Region too.

In my opinion, I think we have to see the results before we can judge the effectiveness in northeast on whitetails.

Have you ever seen the massive genetic 2 point Mule Deer of GMU 133? I am sure Big Wally's at Banks Lake still as some pictures of them. I Have seen dozens in a day of hunting out there before. I agree that time will tell if this is like a (steroid) shot in the arm but those shots often only help temporally. I think if people are serious they are going to have to realize that ending the Late Season in the answer.

[bearpaw]

Have you ever seen the massive genetic 2 point Mule Deer of GMU 133? I am sure Big Wally's at Banks Lake still as some pictures of them. I Have seen dozens in a day of hunting out there before. I agree that time will tell if this is like a (steroid) shot in the arm but those shots often only help temporally. I think if people are serious they are going to have to realize that ending the Late Season in the answer.

No I haven't seen that, but I believe you. I know that studies have shown that extended use of APR over many years is suspected to have a negative affect on antler genetics. Once the NE herd is hopefully recovered, it may be wise to consider different management. I have stated this before. We will know more in time, it may be wise to remove the restriction in the future.

Perhaps if mature 2 points are a problem in 133, a different strategy should be used to allow harvest of those bucks. I would suggest if this is happening a mule deer committee in WFW should try to come up with a proposal. Some of you others who know that unit will need to be involved in the committee and weigh in on the issue and come up with a good solution with merit through a group concensus. I will have no problem supporting a good proposal for our members.

[WAcoyotehunter]

See Pennsylvania as an example of whitetail APR success.  They have brush and deep/dark country too, the 3 pt min they put into effect worked (is working) great. 
I would have liked to see a 3 pt minimum rather than a 4 pt, but i think that this is a great start.

I also think removing the 3 pt minimum would be a bad idea for the mule deer.   I thought the DFW did something to address that..did they give special permits for 2 pts or something?  There would be far fewer deer in the open country. 

[DBHAWTHORNE]

Have you ever seen the massive genetic 2 point Mule Deer of GMU 133? I am sure Big Wally's at Banks Lake still as some pictures of them. I Have seen dozens in a day of hunting out there before. I agree that time will tell if this is like a (steroid) shot in the arm but those shots often only help temporally. I think if people are serious they are going to have to realize that ending the Late Season in the answer.

No I haven't seen that, but I believe you. I know that studies have shown that extended use of APR over many years is suspected to have a negative affect on antler genetics. Once the NE herd is hopefully recovered, it may be wise to consider different management. I have stated this before. We will know more in time, it may be wise to remove the restriction in the future.

Perhaps if mature 2 points are a problem in 133, a different strategy should be used to allow harvest of those bucks. I would suggest if this is happening a mule deer committee in WFW should try to come up with a proposal. Some of you others who know that unit will need to be involved in the committee and weigh in on the issue and come up with a good solution with merit through a group concensus. I will have no problem supporting a good proposal for our members.

I have seen some ideas posted by people that APR's may degrade antler quality but I have not seen a scientific study that is valid to a 4pt APR that points towards that. My personal logic tells me that it won't have an impact.

I believe you on the Mule Deer but Mule Deer are different than whitetail. I have hunted south of the river for years and I have never seen a single massive 2pt whitetail..and I have easily seen over a thousand bucks in those units over the years.
This is why I think there won't be much of an impact.

1. Recent studies show that there is little predictabiltiy between yearling antler size and antler size at maturity. 4pt yearlings are rare anyway and even if they were genetically superior it will make little difference. If a person would shoot a yearling 4pt prior to the rule they would still shoot it and vice versa so it is practically a wash.

2. Under the 4pt APR nearly all yearling bucks will survive and some of them will breed.

3. The yearlings that are most likely to breed are actually the ones that are genetically superior because they will outcompete the others.
 
4. Most 2 1/2 year old whitetail are at least a 4pt. and thus legal under the current rule and legal under the old rules. Of course there will be a few bucka with less than 4pts that survive but that doesn't mean they are genetically inferior (there is still little predictablity between a 2 1/2 year old's antlers and his antlers at maturity).

5. I personally have never seen a 3 1/2+ year old whitetail with less than 4pt.'s in WA state..(seen a decent number down south and areas with the worst quality soils)..and I have viewed thousands of WA whitetail. I am sure a few exist but they are so rare that there will be little to no impact.

6. The APR results I have witnessed south of the river has appeared to only have positive impacts from what I can tell.

[DBHAWTHORNE]

This is one scientific report that I read back in 06' that discusses the negative effects of a 4pt minimum. This is the primary study that people cite when they are referring to negative effects of a 4pt minimum.

http://www.seafwa.org/resource/dynamic/private/PDF/general-session-1-9.pdf

The problem is there are so many holes in this study that it's nearly useless as far as I am concerned. They basically measured antlers at WMA's before and after the restriction and found that they were smaller after. Yet I can do a similarly simple and just as valid comparison by looking at the B&C record before and after the APR and I will come up with an exact opposite conclusion.

The APR started in 1995. I input 1997 as the starte date because I believe that is where you would start to see the effects of the APR. This is what I come up with

1997-2010 (After APR)

Typicals:        38
Non-Typicals: 25

1983-1996

Typicals:        18
Non-Typicals: 12

This was their final conclusion:

"We conclude that Mississippi’s 4-point antler regulation has caused significant
negative biological effects on antler development of older males on numerous public
hunting areas in Mississippi. Additionally, protection of yearling males did not result
in equivalent increases in harvest of older males. These combined circumstances
indicate that alternative solutions should be pursued to improve the male age structure
on public hunting areas in Mississippi. Antler restrictions should be considered
a short-term solution to age-structure problems because of the potential negative
biological effects. The long-term solution should focus on teaching hunters the benefits
of an older male age structure."


I definitley agree with the last line and I think a 4pt APR will help us get there. As I have said a milliion times before 4pt APR is not the "best" solution to the problem but it is better than nothing. Perhaps the 4pt APR did have an impact on the antler size on public land but there are many other factors they are not weighing and they start off with the assumption that spikes are genetically inferior. Newer studies have shown this not to be the case. For this and many other reasons I can't put a lot of weight on this particular study.