Four point minimum 117&121

[WAcoyotehunter]

I was a little suprised that the WDFW biologists were opposed.  They presented some science that showed how is should/could work and some science that showed potential problems.  It has worked in other states and more convincingly in other hunting districts.  Voluntary anter point restricitions have been encouraging better herds for decades in the midwest.  I know we are different than that area but the deer are the same.  Pennsyvania is a really good example of a state has has had huge success with an APR. They have similar rugged mountainous terrain and broken ag (at least in the West part, where I've been).

There were other options that would have made a bigger difference.  In my opinon (very unpopular) the late rut rifle season could be cut and the herd would be awesome pretty quick.  Not too many well managed herds are hunted with modern firearms during the rut. 

The phrase "time will tell" is my way of saying "give it time and you'll see results"  Let's give it a chance to prove it's worth a shot.

[WAcoyotehunter]

Mature bucks are going to have better escapement.  That's kind of the idea.  I am VERY DOUBTFUL that all the mature bucks are going to get killed this winter. 

[Miles]

   I am VERY DOUBTFUL that all the mature bucks are going to get killed this winter. 

Me too, but do we really want the yearling bucks to pick up the slack?  You stated that there are already does that aren't being bred.  If there is a shortage of "mature effective breeders" now, just wait till next year.   They aren't all going to escape, especially when they are the only ones being targeted...

[Miles]

Don't bother responding directly to me unless you feel the need.  I am done with this thread.  I have been involved in way to many threads on this topic, and it's not worth my time.  I think there are a few here that understand some of the driving forces behind what happened...and it certainly wasn't science.

 

[bobcat]

I wasn't really a fan of the 4 point minimum restriction when it was proposed, but I am very interested in seeing how it affects deer numbers in those units. I do think that it could have positive impact on overall deer numbers, and the buck/doe ratio. The one thing I really can't agree with is only having the restriction in two GMU's. I think if they're going to do it, it should have been the entire NE region. Otherwise, the adjacent units that do not have the restriction are going to see increased hunting pressure. I also wonder why mule deer are still just a 3 point minimum in those units. Why didn't they make the restriction for both species? What about those people who can't tell a mule deer from a whitetail? Maybe it won't be an issue but it just seems that it would be logical to have the same restriction for both species.
 
As far as the idea that more of the mature bucks will now be harvested, as Miles is arguing, that was my concern as well. But one thing to think about is that with the 4 point restriction, it may actually work to protect even those deer that do have 4 points on a side, because now a hunter will need to take more time to count points before taking the shot. In the time it takes to verify a buck is legal, many deer may end up getting away without a shot fired, and otherwise they would have been harvested. So I don't know. This could go either way.

I do think it would have been nice to let kids shoot any buck. The other good option which would have been at the top of my list is to go to permit only hunting in those units with deer population numbers that are below objective. But of course that is a very unpopular option. Another factor that may come into play is that more people may begin hunting those units just because of the trophy potential (me included). I probably would never have considered hunting there but now I'm thinking in a year or two I might be making a trip over there for the late hunt.

[bearpaw]

Here is my 2 cents worth. I also talked with Dana Base as well as the regional biologist from Spokane and Jerry Nelson head biologist from Olympia. They are ALL AGAINST this 4 point restriction. No scientific basis. It was pushed through by the Game Commissioner from Kettle Falls. I was warned about this going through by a local game warden last September. And I quote" the commissioner from Kettle Falls is in the back pocket of some large land owners and sportsman clubs and they want the restriction so they can shoot bigger bucks and then be able to charge more for their hunts"  NOT my words. These came from the warden who said" don't use my name." Everyone I talked to in the Wildlife Dept. told me not to use their names but stated pretty much the same. Political CRAP. Trophy hunting is a personal choice not a management tool. I do not shoot small bucks but I don't think I have the right to tell everyone including youth, disabled, and senior hunters that they can't shoot smaller bucks.Especially when it does nothing to increase the overall herd. Ask Mr. Nelson. I have read that this worked in Alabama and Pennsylvania. Do they have 7 feet of snow during the winter? Or huge populations of bear, cougar, coyotes, and now wolves? Hell no.I am in the field 12 months of the year in Stevens County and there are lots of mature bucks that escape to breed every year. I see them!!! No fawns is the result of the predators. Not unbred does.   ASK the biologists that were hired by the State of Washington to manage the deer herds. I have. In addition the local business' from Fruitland to Chewelah will feel the economic impact of this selfish restriction. They depend on the seasonal influx of out of area hunters to help them through the lean winters. Remember, hunting whitetail deer in Units 121&117 is for ALL hunters from everywhere. Not just the local and vocal "sportsman clubs and land owners. I know I'll get blasted by the trophy hunters and citizen scientists out there but I have a right to my position just as you do. You gotta have thick skin to put something like this up for comment!!! Also, If you have cancelled your hunting plans this year to 121 or 117 because of the 4 point restriction please let me know via PM or just reply.  Thanks.

That summed it up rather well.  A person would have to be blind to not see what just happened.   I love how Bearpaw keeps mentioning these "landowners" that were there supporting this.  Gee, I wonder why...perhaps the expected increase in cash that will come in from leasing their land out to local guides (who can then advertise their hunts on private land in "trophy managed units").  It makes me sick.

Miles, I am sorry I make you sick and that you seem to hate guides for some unknown reason. But I think your imagination is getting away with your thoughts. There are fewer hunting guides in Washington than in any other western state I know of except maybe California. The working group was comprised of numerous local sporting groups, the county commissioners, plus a westside sporting group. Most were hunters but there are also a lot of those local hunters who own land locally. Most of these people simply want to see the herd recover, they don't lease their land, their families hunt it, they simply care about the wildlife. It's questionable what long term results will be and that's why it needs to be looked at in a few years to consider if it's wise to continue with the program. I will be the first to say that there are still good bucks in these units, the problem is the overall herd numbers, they are down. I don't think anyone including you can prove otherwise.

While I can't speak for any other member of the whitetail working group, I do have my own opinions which I should be able to share without being blasted as some sort of non-caring money greedy a$$hat. 

As I have mentioned many times, the Commission wisely closed most doe hunting to help the herd. It is universally understood that doe hunts are used to reduce ungulate herds or to keep herds from growing, we do not need that to happen in 117/121, at this time we need the herds to grow. The reduction in doe hunting obviously forces everyone who used to hunt does in those units to now hunt bucks. So more hunters will be hunting fewer bucks, that can only decrease the buck to doe ratio, there is no way that scenario can improve the buck to doe ratio. I invite anyone complaining about this point restriction to explain how you can reduce the number of doe hunters thus forcing more hunters to hunt bucks and in the process improve the buck/doe ratio. 

So the real question is now that the harvest of does has been reduced, "How do you reduce the Buck harvest to mantain the buck/doe ratio while the herd grows?"

As has been mentioned many times, there were numerous methods considered, but by far the most popular option was to let everyone hunt the full season, but under an antler point restriction. I argued at the meeting in favor of exempting youth and seniors, so they could still shoot any buck, but it was pointed out by WDFW personnel that if we try to implement the restriction and do not make it an across the board rule, it will be hard to gauge the results, so on the final vote I also voted for an across the board implementation of the 4 point rule. As I have said, I think it may be wise to remove the rule from youth (and maybe even seniors and handicapped) as soon as we are seeing results.

For the short term this rule should help our herd grow for a few years since the overall harvest will be reduced on does and bucks. For the long term I have my own concerns similar to many of you regarding age class and long term genetics. It makes sense to me that once the herd numbers rebound, the 4 pt rule will need to be re-assessed. My main concern is to increase the herd size in the short term, and it's likely that will happen with the 4 pt rule.

If a perfect world was possible, I see biologists with fewer studies on non-game species and more attention on deer/elk so they can recommend a reduction of doe/cow and bull/buck harvest in the first year following a winter kill. The way the WDFW system currently works, biologist seem to spend more time on non-game species and the following year's harvest dictates our game management. By the time its discovered by the WDFW that our herds have been reduced by an extreme winter, liberal hunting seasons have already reduced the herds further. Some other states that we envy for their quality management are much more proactive on their deer/elk management.
_________________________

I manage the deer on the ranches I lease, that's why the hunting is so much better. Currently I only have 1 ranch leased in 121. My concern is for the deer on our public lands, the herds are devastated on our public lands. From what I can see the deer season this year (especially on public lands) is going to be tougher than last year. There are fewer bucks out there because too many were killed over the last couple seasons after the winter kill. Compound that with high predator numbers and we have fewer deer. If you doubt what I say, look through the trail cam photos on this forum for NE Whitetails this year compared to trail cam photos from last year or years before.....the NE whitetail bucks are fewer.

I forecast that the harvest will be down further this year in 101, 105, 108, 111, 117, and 121. 
I'm not sure about 113 and 124, I think they may be in better condition than the other units and may still have comparable harvest to previous seasons.
__________________________

Bobcat, the WDFW told us in the meetings if we ask for a 4 pt area that we needed to have a large enough area to determine the results, but we needed areas to compare the results to, that is why we didn't recommend the restriction for the entire NE. Otherwise, I agree, I would like to have seen the rule on the whole NE for 2 or 3 years until overall herd numbers recover. 

[724wd]

the rut rifle hunt up here is crazy.  i've rifle hunted a lot down in 154 and now archery hunt in 117.  in 154, there are only a few rut rifle tags given out.  it made those hunting the rut really appreciate the opportunity.  i know that would be an unpopular opinion up here, but if you want bigger bucks around to breed, they shouldn't be getting hammered by rifle hunters in the rut. 

Bearpaw, you've been citing landowners saying "these people simply want to see the herd recover, they don't lease their land, their families hunt it, they simply care about the wildlife."  if it's just them and their families that hunt it, why not just tell their families not to shoot 3 points? 

[Elkslayer]

I agree, the quickest way to boost the mature buck to doe ratio is to close down the late rifle rut hunt like they did a few years back. Dont even need to close down the whole late season, just knock off the last week and it would save alot of mature bucks.

The problem is, it's already a done deal. We can sit around and complain about it all want, wont do any good though. Lets just cross our fingers that if it proves to be hurting the herd rather than helping it that WDFW will agree to restore it to the original way.

In my honest opinion one of the best ways to be able to help this herd out is to be able to manage the predators, specifically the cougars and bears. Problem is I dont see that changing any time soon either.

[bobcat]

I agree, the quickest way to boost the mature buck to doe ratio is to close down the late rifle rut hunt like they did a few years back. Dont even need to close down the whole late season, just knock off the last week and it would save alot of mature bucks.

   

I agree with that as well. They could also make the late hunt a permit only and keep the season length the same. Just limit the number of hunters to about half of what it generally is.

[popeshawnpaul]

Many of you are commenting that we will wait and see if the antler point restriction helps.  This is not going to happen conclusively, however.  Because they took out all the special tags/permits, that might be the cause for a short term bump in population.  It might also be because we are going to let a few spikes and 2 points run around for the next year or two.  The point is, we don't know and it might naturally rebound to previous levels based on the weather, etc.

The biologists were against doing this because we have real world examples of the restrictions not helping to create more "trophy bucks" in our state.  Notice how most of our state has a 3/4 point restriction on whitetails already?  It has not had that effect in the other parts of WA.  The conclusion the biologists came up with was it won't have that effect in these GMU's.  Rather, more bucks overall will survive because the spikes and 2 points will live.  However, more mature deer will die because they will now have increased hunting pressure.  The science and experts all agree...this will not increase trophy bucks long term and it is not why they implemented this.  It will only increase young buck survival.  The older, mature deer generally find a way to survive under the current hunting pressure but with increased pressure, an additional amount will die.  This is thick timber/cover with lots of hiding places for big bucks, not open farmland in the midwest or east coast where mature bucks can die easier.

There is no evidence that does are going un-bred or that young bucks can't do that breeding.  It's a non-issue at this point and not why this was implemented.  Beyond that, we don't even know for sure the population isn't at a healthy level.  That is one of the reasons they appropriated funds to study why there are issues with fawn survival and why the population is down overall.  When it's said the population is down overall, that doesn't mean it's not at a healthy level.  It might also be that it's below the level we have had historically but we may have been overpopulated some years back.

[Colville]

We're nibbling at the edges. Weather and doe permits will drive the herd size.  My prediction is that if this 4 pt rule is found to be a success, it will parallel a couple good winters. I'll also bet that the region's herds will more or less have comparable outcomes. IE, my bet is that there won't be a serious fecundity boost by this reg when you compare herd numbers to surrounding units. IMO, controlling for maturity of bucks is around the 3rd or 4th most impactful feedback to herd numbers. 

With respect to the impact on bucks by reducing doe permits. Not important.  Doe permits still permit shooting a buck. With no more doe permits, that's only shifting 50 guys back to open general. He's not going to have a greater success rate than the average person at finding a buck. So eliminating 50 doe permits means 50 guys at about a 15% clip kill another 7 bucks. That's a statistical rounding error. They did end Archery late, prior open to doe in these two units, but someone would have to inform me on the number of 2010 archery doe kills in those two units to see if it's significant. I'm guessing there's not enough count there to drive real results either.  Of course, to keep the test contolled, late archery should have been closed to doe in the other NE units. If we are going to test the hypothesis that its the lack of mature bucks, then we should hold static the other factors in the surrounding units, like doe kills.

Lastly, the late hunt is not a rut hunt. Been doing it for a very long time. I've had true rut happen once in that time. That was back when the season lasted out to the 22nd or 23rd. The late hunt is pre-rut, not rut.  There may be some local variability and no doubt pre-rut deer are more active in general but there's a good reason the rifle season doesn't go through thanksgiving. Because that's the rut.

I'd rather see an elimination of all doe hunting for all weapon types and reduced total number of hunting season days before APR rules. A traditional multi family camp with granpa's and kids based on a history of open seasons shouldn't go down the tubes.  I don't see this as a guide issue. I do see it a a quality vs opportunity issue. In almost every poll taken, opportunity wins out to quality in public demand. However, quality has the lobby. All the money interests are on the side of quality. It's fine to say did you show up to meeting X. But you'll note that the WDFW doesn't put the two choices to a public vote of last year's licensed hunters. The outcome of such a vote would be overwhelmingly in favor of opportunity.

The fact is, both management methods work. They have to be adjusted to season length, doe permits and season timing. But either can be used with healthy herds. It's not an either-or propsition. So the end game question is what do we want? I suggest that we question who "we" are. Because if anyone was being honest about it, there's a lot more "we" that want opportunity seasons than quality regs and it's not really very close.  On hunting boards it may be 50-50 or even 75-25 quality but the vast majority of hunters don't post on any site.  I think as a class of people who are losing participation as a whole and therefore our collective strength, we reduce our paticipation at our peril.

[muleyguy]

the science is actually fairly clear on these types of antler point restrictions;  here is what will happen:

1.  When you protect the younger age class you focus the harvest on the older age classes;  in 2010 there were a total 359 5pt+ bucks shot in these units;  my prediction for 2011 is that this will increase significantly.  Anyone want to venture a guess what this regulation, coupled with a rifle hunt during the rut, is going to produce.  hint:  all the hunting pressure will be focused on the mature bucks.  We can check back in a year on this when the data comes in. 

2.   You will end up with a "stockpile" of 1.5 yr old bucks in the population as they are the protected class;  over time, this age class of buck will come to dominate the make up of the buck population, and will consequently end doing the most breeding;  you are basically going to have the equivalent of 13 yr old boys doing the bulk of the breeding;  lots of science to show that does that are bread by immature bucks do not throw as fit as fawns.

3.  The average year of harvest will shift from 1.5 yr old animals, which it is now, to 2.5 yr old animals;  this is where it gets tricky, and were the real damage is done;  because the avg hunter shoots the first legal buck he sees;  so, now, hunters will see more bucks in the field (1.5 yr olds that they cannot shoot), and will harvest a 2.5 yr old animal instead.  This "looks" like success and the avg hunter thinks he is seeing mature bucks, but, they really are just one age class older;  this is why these APR's are so well liked on the east coast. 

4.  You will end up with no more mature bucks (4.5 yr old or older), and quite possibly, due to the extreme hunting pressure in those units coupled with the rut hunt, it is actually more likely that over time the number of mature animals will decrease.

5.  You end up with bucks of poor genetics being "protected" in the population

The biggest fallacy is that this regulation is going to produce more mature animals;  it is not;  it will actually hurt that age group of the buck population, especially in the short run.

All it will do is shift the majority of the harvest from 1.5 yr old animals to 2.5 yr old animals

And, probably the biggest damage of all, is that it makes the 1.5 yr old group of bucks the dominate age class in the population, which in turn will results in them doing the bulk of the breeding.

The first casualty of this regulation will be the late hunt in about 3 or 4 yrs due to the pressure it puts on the older age classes.

All these APR's are are gimmicks to try and get around the real problem, which is too much hunting pressure on the resource.........

all they achieve are screwed up buck population dynamics

[bobcat]

Muleyguy- glad to see you chime in on this again. So do you think this will have any benefits if it only is left in place for say, three years? What do you think would be the best management scheme? Permit only for the late season? Or no  late season at all?

[bearpaw]

the rut rifle hunt up here is crazy.  i've rifle hunted a lot down in 154 and now archery hunt in 117.  in 154, there are only a few rut rifle tags given out.  it made those hunting the rut really appreciate the opportunity.  i know that would be an unpopular opinion up here, but if you want bigger bucks around to breed, they shouldn't be getting hammered by rifle hunters in the rut. 

Bearpaw, you've been citing landowners saying "these people simply want to see the herd recover, they don't lease their land, their families hunt it, they simply care about the wildlife."  if it's just them and their families that hunt it, why not just tell their families not to shoot 3 points?

724wd, there are very few landowners who own more than a few hundred acres. Most do not own enough property to manage the deer on their place because the deer get killed by the surrounding property owners.

Regarding comments from others, I completely agree that the quality would go through the roof if late season was eliminated (rifle and bow) or if limited-entry was implemented. If I was only pursueing my business interest or if I was only interested in trophy hunting, I would have supported one of those options, but that's not what most people wanted and I don't think that's the only answer for increasing the herd size. 

Some of you may say this was done as a trophy hunting measure, I can tell you that is not why I supported it, I supported it to get greater escapement and build herd numbers, I think that despite what anyone tries to say, herd numbers will most likely increase since both doe and buck opportunity is being restricted.

NE WA has heavy cover and is much different from the other pt restriction areas, so a point restriction in this area is an entirely new animal for Washington. Older whitetail bucks can survive extreme pressure during most of the season, it's the yearling bucks that are so easily overhunted. I think the goal of increasing the herd numbers will most likely be accomplished, I also think it's an unknown how the big buck population will be affected since these units have such heavy cover, to make a statement that the big bucks will not exist seems like a stretch to me, but again, I don't know any more than anyone else at this point, all we can due is debate what we think will happen. In 3 to 5 years, we can all discuss what actually happened and make more intelligent decisions on future management. 

The real question is how long this rule is needed and/or desireable. Again, that is unknown. The best answer to that question will be found at the end of the trial period when 117/121 can be compared to the surrounding units. 

[jackmaster]

this my piss a few people off but sorry i am gonna say it anyways, i wish the whole state would go to a 4pt restriction on the east side for whitetail and mule deer and a 3pt restriction on the westside, except exclude the seniors, youth and disabled hunters, let that class shoot any deer and then move all rut hunts to a permit only including the west side, now i dont know when the rut is for muleys and whitetails but i do know the heart of the rut for blacktail is around the 1st of november through the middle of november and then a short one again in december, if we did this youth hunters would have a far greater chance of getn a decent deer at a young age and it would help the disabled guys and the old timers which would be great, and they would be able to increase the number of rut tags which would give us all a better chance of whackn a pig of a buck, and with this they could open up a class of permits for kull deer and does, and also add those to the youth tags which again would give the youngsters a better chance of getn somethn, all of us that have or have had youth hunters know its hard to keep them interested in deer huntn when they go a couple days without seeing a deer or a deer they have a chance to shoot, i know the vail tree farm could sure use some kind of management because the numbers in there are dropping dramatically, i believe it is mostly do to the huge increase in the cat population but that is a differant subject,