According to Spokesman review the 4pt APR passed

[DBHAWTHORNE]

This might however keep those pesky Non Native NE Washington folks off that land making more room for Locals to take larger animals in a few years. Think about all those folks with leases who now can sell more trophy hunts to schmucks.

How much does it cost to buy a vote on the Wildlife Commission these days?

You mention there will larger animals in a few years. If this is in true wouldn't this actually increase the number of hunters?  That has been my experience.

[DBHAWTHORNE]

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.

[Wenatcheejay]

This might however keep those pesky Non Native NE Washington folks off that land making more room for Locals to take larger animals in a few years. Think about all those folks with leases who now can sell more trophy hunts to schmucks.

How much does it cost to buy a vote on the Wildlife Commission these days?

You mention there will larger animals in a few years. If this is in true wouldn't this actually increase the number of hunters?  That has been my experience.

A zoo is a zoo is a zoo. People hunt it (non locals) because it is any buck.  I kind of laugh at the whole thing. WDFW was against it, everone is against it accept people who will potentially profit from it. It makes sense from that standpoint. I wonder how many people would cheer the closing of the late season as a way to increase buck population? That season is big $$$ for hunting profiteers.

I don't really care, I don't hunt it for deer. As far as I am concerned close it down, close the whole state down and go to draw. It seems now days science is out the window. I swear the "wolf scenario" makes more and more sense every day. (Just get rid of the surplus.) I don't mean to be a dick but I would love to see real and honest science be behind a wildlife management program. The idea of "Hope and Change" for a five year turn around is a bit to Obammie for me to swallow.

[Ridgeratt]

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.

[Curly]

A zoo is a zoo is a zoo. People hunt it (non locals) because it is any buck.  I kind of laugh at the whole thing. WDFW was against it, everone is against it accept people who will potentially profit from it. It makes sense from that standpoint. I wonder how many people would cheer the closing of the late season as a way to increase buck population? That season is big $$$ for hunting profiteers.

I don't really care, I don't hunt it for deer. As far as I am concerned close it down, close the whole state down and go to draw. It seems now days science is out the window. I swear the "wolf scenario" makes more and more sense every day. (Just get rid of the surplus.) I don't mean to be a dick but I would love to see real and honest science be behind a wildlife management program. The idea of "Hope and Change" for a five year turn around is a bit to Obammie for me to swallow.

 

Wouldn't that be great to manage based on science.      Letting a commission vote on issues like this is almost as bad as letting the public vote on bear baiting, trapping and hound hunting issues........

[Wenatcheejay]

A zoo is a zoo is a zoo. People hunt it (non locals) because it is any buck.  I kind of laugh at the whole thing. WDFW was against it, everone is against it accept people who will potentially profit from it. It makes sense from that standpoint. I wonder how many people would cheer the closing of the late season as a way to increase buck population? That season is big $$$ for hunting profiteers.

I don't really care, I don't hunt it for deer. As far as I am concerned close it down, close the whole state down and go to draw. It seems now days science is out the window. I swear the "wolf scenario" makes more and more sense every day. (Just get rid of the surplus.) I don't mean to be a dick but I would love to see real and honest science be behind a wildlife management program. The idea of "Hope and Change" for a five year turn around is a bit to Obammie for me to swallow.

 

Wouldn't that be great to manage based on science.      Letting a commission vote on issues like this is almost as bad as letting the public vote on bear baiting, trapping and hound hunting issues........

Exactly! Thanks for seeing my point

[DBHAWTHORNE]

This might however keep those pesky Non Native NE Washington folks off that land making more room for Locals to take larger animals in a few years. Think about all those folks with leases who now can sell more trophy hunts to schmucks.

How much does it cost to buy a vote on the Wildlife Commission these days?

You mention there will larger animals in a few years. If this is in true wouldn't this actually increase the number of hunters?  That has been my experience.

A zoo is a zoo is a zoo. People hunt it (non locals) because it is any buck.  I kind of laugh at the whole thing. WDFW was against it, everone is against it accept people who will potentially profit from it. It makes sense from that standpoint. I wonder how many people would cheer the closing of the late season as a way to increase buck population? That season is big $$$ for hunting profiteers.

I don't really care, I don't hunt it for deer. As far as I am concerned close it down, close the whole state down and go to draw. It seems now days science is out the window. I swear the "wolf scenario" makes more and more sense every day. (Just get rid of the surplus.) I don't mean to be a dick but I would love to see real and honest science be behind a wildlife management program. The idea of "Hope and Change" for a five year turn around is a bit to Obammie for me to swallow.

What science have you seen the state put out that shows protecting yearling whitetail bucks in Washington state is not the right thing for the herd? I have yet to see it. Nearly all scientific studies I have read read support protecting yearling whitetail bucks as a good practice for the health of the herd.

I tend to think more non-local's hunt because there is a late general season, a high percentage of public land and it is some of the best quality whitetail habitat in the state. When I have asked hunters in the past why they chose to hunt there they don't tell me because it is any buck. They have in fact told me it was because of the late general and the ease of access.

[bearpaw]

I'm sorry but I simply fail to see what the problem is with trying to improve the whitetail herd. A great portion of the state has restrictions on mule deer and elk to try and improve the herds.

Before pt restrictions were placed on elk, most bulls killed in eastern wa were spikes, now we have big bulls doing the breeding. Why is it so bad to try it on whitetails in two of the many NE Units and try to improve the herd?   

I think the commission should be commended for listening to local concerns and considering the biology from both sides of the isle.

I am a hunting guide, really no different than the game wardens who make their living off charging to hunt for wildlife, or the local motels, gas stations, call and decoy makers, clothing makers, optics, guns, tv shows, dvd makers, or the chamber of commerce here in colville, we all profit off wildlife. The chamber advertises all over the state for hunters to come to the area. Sorry but I get sick and tired of hearing the lame argument that its all about the people who will profit off wildlife. Hunting is big business in America and thats one of the reasons it will likely survive. 

The real truth is, everyone will benefit if we can improve the herds. Whether it is 4 pt or spike, stays the same, or is doe only, I am going to offer cabins for rent, guided hunts, unguided hunts, hunting maps, shed hunting trips and hunting schools soon, and anything else I can offer that hunters need and want. Peope who don't want my services will not purchase them and I have no resentment about that, however, I would appreciate the same consideration. 

[Wenatcheejay]

DBHAWTHORNE

I took the time to read the articles others posted. In them (a link) was the opinion of Washington Association of Fish and Wildlife Professionals. They stated:

Biological considerations do not support an antler-point restriction

Surveyed hunters prefer no antler restrictions

The restrictions would reduce hunter opportunity

Economic impacts are possible as general hunters head elsewhere

I am in favor of ending the late season if the bucks are truly in jeopardy. I would bet that the people shooting for the restriction would not want that. But, if a person really wants to have less bucks harvested that is how to do it. And, I will be writing hard to get that late season closed in the next year. It seems that the bucks are in peril.

[Tman]

I'm sorry but I simply fail to see what the problem is with trying to improve the whitetail herd. A great portion of the state has restrictions on mule deer and elk to try and improve the herds.

Before pt restrictions were placed on elk, most bulls killed in eastern wa were spikes, now we have big bulls doing the breeding. Why is it so bad to try it on whitetails in two of the many NE Units and try to improve the herd?   

I think the commission should be commended for listening to local concerns and considering the biology from both sides of the isle.

I am a hunting guide, really no different than the game wardens who make their living off charging to hunt for wildlife, or the local motels, gas stations, call and decoy makers, clothing makers, optics, guns, tv shows, dvd makers, or the chamber of commerce here in colville, we all profit off wildlife. The chamber advertises all over the state for hunters to come to the area. Sorry but I get sick and tired of hearing the lame argument that its all about the people who will profit off wildlife. Hunting is big business in America and thats one of the reasons it will likely survive. 

The real truth is, everyone will benefit if we can improve the herds. Whether it is 4 pt or spike, stays the same, or is doe only, I am going to offer cabins for rent, guided hunts, unguided hunts, hunting maps, shed hunting trips and hunting schools soon, and anything else I can offer that hunters need and want. Peope who don't want my services will not purchase them and I have no resentment about that, however, I would appreciate the same consideration. 

I usually agree with most points you make bearpaw, except this one.  We may have current restrictions on Mule deer and Elk in this state, but have we seen an improvement in the herds? Not general, and very few local improvements, those restrictions were also placed with the intent to improve the herds, and then remove the restrictions.  We have all seen that this doesn't work and the restrictions will never be lifted due to the number of legal animals it would create in the herds and further decimate the herds that never recovered as anticipated.  What the Stevens county and WA state wildlife commisions have done is fail hunters again and proven themselves as useless.  This should have never happened, and the seasons should have been reduced if the herd was in such dire position, then maybe, just maybe we would have seen an increase and possible removal of the restrictions in the future.   Just what percentage of bucks do you think are killed in the last week of the late season in those units.... I'm sure more hunters and those whos opinions actually mattered would have more likely supported a slightly shorter season over APRS's anyday.

Like I said before, I generally respect your idealogy, and have even rented a cabin at your place for a hunt, but on this one, I think alot of you guys have been mislead and are now dazed and confused.

[dscubame]

What the real kicker is all the nay sayers now that are against it will be the first in line to hunt these units in 3 years 

Ain't that the truth.

[DBHAWTHORNE]

Jay,

Thanks for posting. On one of the other threads I have my reply to this article that Landers wrote but I will try to sum up some of my issues below.

DBHAWTHORNE

I took the time to read the articles others posted. In them (a link) was the opinion of Washington Association of Fish and Wildlife Professionals. They stated:
My first question is does even one of these wildlife professionals specialize in whitetail management. Being from Washington I doubt it. Secondly is this opinion of the professionals actually a scientific opinion based on an actual scientific study or just an opinion made by scientist? I have looked all over the web for this report and have yet to find it. I am considering calling them and requesting the report.


Biological considerations do not support an antler-point restriction
If this were true then it would be a non-starter and we shouldn't have an Antler Point Restriction. However, what are the biological considerations? If the biological considerations are that protecting yearling bucks is not in the best interest of the herd then where is evidence. This is contrary to what is considered a standard whitetail management practice that is backed up by scientific research conducted by scientist who actually specialize in whitetail deer. If they have some research that goes against that then they should present it at the next Quality Deer Management convention because that will be some ground breaking stuff. Of course I will agree with them that there are better ways to protect the yearling bucks than and APR..but as I have said many times..it is better than nothing. I will eventually get my hands on this report but due to the "other" factors given below I see it as more of an opinion of scientist but not based on real research.


Surveyed hunters prefer no antler restrictions
This could also be a non-starter but I can find hunters on this website for and against. But isn't the argument of many that are "against" on here that we should let science decide?? Because I agree with that statement...lets pull out the research that has been done on this and we will find that the very few studies that are against protecting yearlings are very weak in scientific validity. All of this being said the number seems much closer to 50/50 for/against from what I can tell. I would like to know the details on how they conducted their research and see their results.


The restrictions would reduce hunter opportunity

Wouldn't that depend on how they define opportunity? If we are just talking about on bucks in general I think maybe the first year or two. After that it will all balance out. Which is what we want to get the numbers up.

Economic impacts are possible as general hunters head elsewhere
I would especially love to see where they come up with this. Maybe the first year or two again but I don't see where they are getting their evidence. It sounds like so called wildlife professionals giving their opinion on social science issues.


I am in favor of ending the late season if the bucks are truly in jeopardy. I would bet that the people shooting for the restriction would not want that. But, if a person really wants to have less bucks harvested that is how to do it. And, I will be writing hard to get that late season closed in the next year. It seems that the bucks are in peril.
I would be in favor of ending hunting entirely if the deer where in jeopardy but I don't think that is the case at all nor do I think ending/shortening the late season is the answer. This falls in line with three of the four issues you posted above.
1. Hunters won't support
2. It truly will reduce opportunity (no research required to prove that)
3. There WILL be economic impacts. ( I think that is a no brainer)

All that being said I don't think anyone is saying the buck herd is in dire straights and if they do then they are misstating the facts. Is the population lower than normal...yes..is there are areas with a serious buck/doe ratio imbalance....yes. An APR will be just fine for the herd and protecting yearling whitetail bucks is supported by science.

[NoBark]

It sounds like it's simply a microcosm of the QUALITY vs QUANTITY battle we have in the entire state.  Some want to bag a deer regardless of size and point restrictions make that very hard.  On the other hand, some are counting to days until there's a 4 pt behind every bush.  Well, these two units just went from Quantity to Quality.  See how it plays out.

[Bob33]

What I don't understand is this: if the biologists were against this change, why do the commissioners think they know better?  Who am I supposed to trust and respect: the biologists who study things like this for a living, or the commissioners?  Why do we need biologists?

[dscubame]

What I don't understand is this: if the biologists were against this change, why do the commissioners think they know better?  Who am I supposed to trust and respect: the biologists who study things like this for a living, or the commissioners?  Why do we need biologists?

The clear point is...the biologists don't know or claim to know if a 4 APR would be beneficial.  That is at the heart of one of the many arguments for or against.  Why do we need biologists?  For many additional reasons of course.