Four point minimum 117&121

[Sitka_Blacktail]

  What I want here

At least you're honest. You want regs that push hunters into neighboring units so you can have more room for yourself.  BUT, that's not how this rule was advertised. It was advertised to raise the deer population and create more deer,  especially big bucks, for everybody. And if it does what was advertised, then you're going to have more people than ever hunting there with you.

I agree that there should be no doe permits in certain areas, but when the deer numbers were up in those units the buck to doe ratio was horrible!! fields with 50 does and 6 bucks was the norm for most ag areas

First we hear this is to get numbers up to the numbers of the good old days, now you're saying the good old days when hunters took more deer, it wasn't really good, the buck to doe ratios were out of whack.

First off, what you see in a field isn't what's out there, the big bucks know better. Even in the off season, if they show themselves enough, some poacher is gonna take pot shots at them. Unless it's a real bad winter in the cover, they are gonna stick there. But when do you see the most deer in the open fields? It's usually AFTER the season when the bucks are losing their antlers, so a lot of the does you see then may be bucks. If it's between Oct and Dec when hunting season is on, it's pretty understandable why you don't see bucks in the fields.

But lets pretend it really is 50 does to 6 bucks,  or something worse. Then you want to have MORE doe hunts and take less bucks to even up the ratio a bit. You don't try to save bucks and create more does at the same time. There's only so much carrying capacity, so if you save more does, you have room for less bucks.  And at the time populations were up, there WERE more doe hunts, just as you'd suspect. The bios know what they are doing, believe it or not.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

What are you proposing then?  Should we all sit by and watch the deer herds decline?  You're doing a good job of whining and pointing fingers, but you haven't mentioned many solutions.   If you think the deer herds here are healthy and robust, then it's clear that you haven't spent much time in the area.

That's an easy question. I propose listening to the biologists that are trained in these matters, not to groups that have self interest in mind.  You'd best have a real good reason for overruling the professionals that are paid to do a good job managing our resources.

As for whining, I have nothing to whine about.  I'm a newbie to hunting whitetails after hunting blacktails of one kind or another all my life. But decided to give it a try because blacktail numbers are way down on the coast. My buddy and I came over cold turkey to a brand new area for us and he took a 4x4 (counting eyeguards) and I got (a 3x4).  Neither were huge, but we were happy and we both saw a couple real nice bucks that we didn't get shots at, and had a great time.  All in a spike legal area......

[WAcoyotehunter]

Could it be that the professionals that were opposed to it took that opinion because change is difficult and the process is cumbersome?  There were also professionals in favor of it. 

Congrats on your deer.  I'm glad you saw some.  You should have been here 5 yrs ago before the winter kills- you would have saw MANY more deer.  We can't control weather, but we can control our ranks and manage ourselves if that's what it takes to help the deer herd.  I didn't hunt up here this year- and i didn't anyone else come hunt my place in 113- I want the deer to recover and can make a sacrifice to that end.

[Elkaholic daWg]

was in the said units this past rifle season and saw major public lands void of hunters that always had pressure years ago. Numbers are quite decieving and not truth telling

 Saw many of them in the 105

[muleyguy]

lack of hunting pressure  right I am 110% positive there is far greater pressure in 127 during archery season than all of the combined in 121

you are simply wrong with that statement;  one bright spot of WA is that the WDFW gets fairly good data on hunter activity due to the mandatory reporting;  all of the data that I presented to you on hunter days is from WDFW mandatory hunting reporting is straight off of their website.  I am sure it is not 100% accurate, but, I am highly certain that it paints a good picture of the relative hunting pressure each unit receives.

units 117 and 121 have been historically some of the highest hunting pressure units in WA state for DECADES.   This isn't some big new story, 117 and 121 have always been extremely high hunting pressure units.

 Both 127 and 121 are fairly equal in land size, so, when you break it down by "hunter days per square mile" the hunting pressure is dramatically higher in 121 then 127;

Sorry, but that is the simple truth............numbers can be deceiving.....but, not these numbers.......

Certainly the area you hunt in 127 might have lots of hunters;  but basing management decisions off of one persons individual experience in a particular unit is not proper management;   the WDFW has good data on hunter numbers per unit.

I was in the said units this past rifle season and saw major public lands void of hunters that always had pressure years ago. Numbers are quite decieving and not truth telling

Once again, if you take a little more sophisticated view, this is completely predictable;   I am sure the hunting pressure was down in these units this year from the regulation (but my guess is that is not as far down as some of you think)............but, that will only be a short term (one year) phenomnen;

The reason is that people know that the 1st year of an APR is the worst because there is not a stockpile of 2.5 yr old animals in the population;  that takes a year;  I can guarantee you next year that hunting pressure will be right back up to where it was before, or higher.  That is because in year 2 of an APR, you now have a good populaton of legal deer (2.5 yr old) to shoot;

I would be willing to guess that a fair amount of Spokane people who hunt up in 117 and 121 made a phone call to their Aunts cousin, twice removed, sister's, brother's, auto mechanic who owns 15 acres of land in 127 and asked to hunt it.......so, I am sure 127 hunter days probably went up this year because of the regulation in 117 and 121!

That is the other major problem with these APR's is that they just create a "pushing on a balloon" phenomenan;  if there were fewer hunter days in these units this year, the hunters just moved out to other units, increasing the pressure and harvest in those units;  You push on one side of the balloon and make a depression, you just end up with a bulge on the other side.  These units and their hunters do not operate in a vacuum.......overall hunter days in WA state are very stable;  I am sure we did not see any massive reduction in hunter days this year. 

These hunters just moved on to another unit for one year;  they will be back........


The bottom line to all of this is that if you take the time to research APR's, their primary purpose is to increase doe harvest!  They are a management tool that works a little better in the Eastern US were whitetail deer populations are at all time highs, and the herd is marked by very low buck to doe ratio's and, almost all of the bucks being 1.5 yr old bucks.

They used APR's as a way to radically increase doe harvests, that was their primary goal;  they also raised the avg buck killed by 1 yr;  which was popular with hunters because you are now seeing more bucks in the field (albeit yearlings and 2.5 yr olds) and shooting 2.5 yr old bucks instead of 1.5 yr old bucks.

APR's were never meant to be used in low deer or struggling deer population situations;  because..............if you take out the antlerless harvest component, all you do is just focus the harvest on all the older age classes.

I continually scratch my head when people say they are doing this to "recover the herd"...........huh?  how is stockpiling 1.5 yr old male deer in the population for 12 months, and then just shooting them all, going to recover the herd??

You want to recover the herd, stop all the antlerless harvest and increase the predator harvest;  if you want to make more bucks, which is what hunters want.......you need more babies.......more mama's will make more bucks over the long haul then goofy APR's.

[Maverick]

Was bumping it to 4 point min really that big of a deal? I mean usually thats just a forked horn with eyeguards that you can't shoot now. I wouldn't have shot it before personally. Most whitetail have eyeguards, not all, but its more often than muleys. Giving these bucks another year let's them get a Lil smarter and maybe, just maybe one of those bucks will grow into a dandy someday because someone wasnt able to pull the trigger on him this year. How many bucks did you guys see this year in these areas that you would have but couldn't shoot because of the rule change?

[tjthebest]

Was bumping it to 4 point min really that big of a deal? I mean usually thats just a forked horn with eyeguards that you can't shoot now. I wouldn't have shot it before personally. Most whitetail have eyeguards, not all, but its more often than muleys. Giving these bucks another year let's them get a Lil smarter and maybe, just maybe one of those bucks will grow into a dandy someday because someone wasnt able to pull the trigger on him this year. How many bucks did you guys see this year in these areas that you would have but couldn't shoot because of the rule change?

It was any buck last year, not 3 point min. so its bigger of a jump than you thought.

[muleyguy]

Giving these bucks another year let's them get a Lil smarter and maybe, just maybe one of those bucks will grow into a dandy someday because someone wasnt able to pull the trigger on him this year.

NO data supports this conclusion..........all it does is shift the harvest up one year; 

if you want bigger bucks (which it sounds like you do)  and, you want to do it through APR's, then the better APR would be to implement a 3 pt or LESS APR;

this kind of an APR protects the mature bucks which is healthier for the herd because it will result in the mature bucks doing the bulk of the breeding.

I am not advocating this strategy, but, this is one of the primary reasons that this 4pt rule is so laughable.......if the advocates of it really were interested in doing something positive for the herd with an APR,  then a 3 pt or less APR would be much better then a 4pt or more APR.

when the 2011 harvest data for 117 and 121 comes out later in the year, look at the number of 5 pt or more deer harvested in 2011 in those units.  I can almost guarantee you that it will increaese from prior years;  so when all of us are chasing whitetails around in those units next year, we will have the luxury of seeing a bunch of 1.5 yr and 2.5 yr old deer, and ,fewer mature bucks.

Like I said, I am not advocating that there should be a 3 pt or less APR;  I am simply pointing out that if you wanted to use APR's in those units, that would be the more logical, and healthy choice for the herd.

My way of handling it would be to limit the buck tags, keep the longer season, NO APR's,  and get rid of all the doe harvests for a few years.........but, nobody wants to find longer term solutions;  everybody wants a god given right to go hunt every year;  everybody wants to try these small, incremental fixes instead of looking at the bigger picture in this state

[Sitka_Blacktail]

How does an APR actually hurt production of trophy sized deer you might ask?

Well first you start with genetics. It has been shown that bucks that develop those big antlers with lots of points are generally inclined to have larger antlers at a younger age than other bucks.  So while other bucks start as spikes, these bucks may be small forkies or even small three points. The second year when other bucks are forks or three points, these deer with the large antler genes might be 3 or 4 points (not counting eyeguards)  Do you see the problem yet? These bucks with the good genetics are legal at a younger age, therefor have a bigger chance of getting taken out of the gene pool before they do much if any breeding. ESPECIALLY if the season is before the rut. You are then left with bucks which while they are healthy, they pass on smaller antler genes and after a few years, of cherry picking the large bucks out of the gene pool, before they get a chance to breed, you start seeing a decline in antler size. More of your young bucks have smaller racks so the pressure on the few with good antler genetics get hammered some more. Eventually you end up with a unit full of does and sub-legal bucks. You see lots of animals and bucks too. You just cant shoot them.

Alaska has gone to a spike/fork or 50" or three or four browtine  rule for many of their moose units.  In other words, it has to be a spike or a fork on one side or the other, or have a 50"wide rack, or have at least three or in some units 4 point on a browtine to be legal. This was done to get the small paddle bulls to breeding size before they were killed.  This was done because hunting pressure had reduced the mature bull to cow ratio to unacceptable levels and cows weren't getting bred. So the antler restrictions were put in and cow tags were given out.  It was a way to keep seasons longer yet still protect bulls to maturity.  Three things happened because of those restrictions.  One, it seems to have gotten the herds into better balance bull/cow wise. Two, each hunting season, hunters and state troopers find many carcasses of undersized bulls rotting in the woods because they were shot by people who misjudged 50" and hoped they were legal. When they realized they weren't, they left the area. Three, the conformity of the moose antlers in many of these units has changed to where you don't see as many 3 browtine bulls as in the past. You see more bulls with forked browtines.  I suspect the average antler size may be shrinking too.

I know one thing, you want a truly large bull, you hunt unit 6 which is an any bull unit. To keep from overharvesting bulls there, they operate by either a draw hunt, or a registration hunt that closes when a certain # of animals is taken. The draw hunt puts a strict number of hunters after the herd. The registration hunts allow all residents to hunt.  This unit puts out 70+ inch bulls every year. Some years many of them.

Basically,  this APR will select for smaller bucks. If you want lots of smaller bucks, this is the reg for you.

[Maverick]

The 3 point or less rule would suck because then youd have a bunch of big bucks that no one could shoot. Where I hunt has been 3 point min for years and dandy bucks are taken every year still. Whitetail and muleys. I dont see to many big two points or anything like that. Apparently the system works where I'm at...

[Archeryoutfitters]

Why kill all the baby deer 1 1/2 year old's that just stand around saying shoot me. if you are a true meat hunter a 4 year old has twice the meat of that baby, that some are winning about not being able to shoot. Then very little will get to grow up to become a mature deer, which is what we are all after any way, regardless of horn size.

And there is always going to be them hog's out there no matter what laws or rules there is, in place they can hide very well & we have a tremendous amount of habitat/cover in both them units, that is very safe for them to hang out in, if there real reason was to make it a trophy area, all we would have to do is close the gun season down 10 days early then them BIG old bucks wouldn't be killed wile they are not thinking clearly.The peek of the rut is Nov.19th and the 10 days before the Peek, they are very vulnerable.

And as far as 3 point or 4 point min. on white tails it is really the same thing here, all 99.9% or our 3 points have eye guards. making them a 4 on at least one side, the only deer it would help you with being a 3 point min. is shooting a baby fork that happened to have a eye guard.

Life resident off 121, 44 years, and avid deer hunter here, yes i want what is best for our herd bottom line. 

[huntnnw]

Giving these bucks another year let's them get a Lil smarter and maybe, just maybe one of those bucks will grow into a dandy someday because someone wasnt able to pull the trigger on him this year.

NO data supports this conclusion..........all it does is shift the harvest up one year; 

if you want bigger bucks (which it sounds like you do)  and, you want to do it through APR's, then the better APR would be to implement a 3 pt or LESS APR;

this kind of an APR protects the mature bucks which is healthier for the herd because it will result in the mature bucks doing the bulk of the breeding.

I am not advocating this strategy, but, this is one of the primary reasons that this 4pt rule is so laughable.......if the advocates of it really were interested in doing something positive for the herd with an APR,  then a 3 pt or less APR would be much better then a 4pt or more APR.

when the 2011 harvest data for 117 and 121 comes out later in the year, look at the number of 5 pt or more deer harvested in 2011 in those units.  I can almost guarantee you that it will increaese from prior years;  so when all of us are chasing whitetails around in those units next year, we will have the luxury of seeing a bunch of 1.5 yr and 2.5 yr old deer, and ,fewer mature bucks.

Like I said, I am not advocating that there should be a 3 pt or less APR;  I am simply pointing out that if you wanted to use APR's in those units, that would be the more logical, and healthy choice for the herd.

My way of handling it would be to limit the buck tags, keep the longer season, NO APR's,  and get rid of all the doe harvests for a few years.........but, nobody wants to find longer term solutions;  everybody wants a god given right to go hunt every year;  everybody wants to try these small, incremental fixes instead of looking at the bigger picture in this state

YOU couldnt be more wrong..I take you have never ever lived in a unit your whole life that is 3pt min for whiteys. Beacause you wouldnt spewing this rhetoric...Everything you have posted is numbers and studys nothing you see or hunt in.

If they really wanted to increase numbers they coulda just closed the November rifle hunt..how would that of sat with rifle hunters? not well..this was a compromise

[thatdamguy]

lack of hunting pressure right I am 110% positive there is far greater pressure in 127 during archery season than all of the combined in 121..u have no idea how many people archery hunt this area its staggering!! areas that in 2 mi sq have 100 bait sites going. i go north to get away from pressure! I was in the said units this past rifle season and saw major public lands void of hunters that always had pressure years ago. Numbers are quite decieving and not truth telling

There is NO way there is more hunting pressure in 127 during archery season!
The only reason it may seem that is because of the lack of public ground and the only reason the majority of people dont archery hunt the 117 and 121 public ground is because they have the most pressure from modern firearm.

[bearpaw]

BUT, that's not how this rule was advertised. It was advertised to raise the deer population and create more deer,  especially big bucks, for everybody. And if it does what was advertised, then you're going to have more people than ever hunting there with you.

SORRY....
It's obvious to me Sitka that you are guessing as to why you thought the rule was desired.

I am involved with one of the groups that wanted the rule and I was involved in the working group that made the recommendation. There is no doubt some folks want the rule to result in bigger bucks, but the real concern was for reducing the buck harvest so the herd can recover. I was originally opposed to the idea, but with our currently low and dropping deer population and a reduction in doe permits which will result in even greater numbers of hunters pursueing bucks, we needed a method to facilitate better buck escapement. The rule was promoted as a method to reduce the buck harvest, out of numerous alternatives considered, the 4pt rule was by far the most popular alternative to reduce buck harvest. While I can't speak for other working group members, it seemed to me the status quo "which is what the WDFW seemed to want", was not an option for most of the working group members.

The 4 pt rule was wisely adopted for a 5 year period by the Commission. In 5 years we can take a look at the results and it will be reconsidered. I do have concerns regarding the long term use of the rule, we may learn the rule is only needed for the short term or we may see good or bad results over the long term, I can't say at this time and neither can anyone else, considering there are biologist who favor the rule and biologists who oppose the rule, I don't see how we will know how it will affect NE Washington until a few years have passed and the results can be assessed. It seems to me that any so called "biology or science" is nothing more than opinion until the results are seen in NE WA. For the short term I can tell you this, the harvest of bucks was lowered in the 2 units and that was the desired result.

[buck man]

SORRY....
It's obvious to me Sitka that you are guessing as to why you thought the rule was desired.

I am involved with one of the groups that wanted the rule and I was involved in the working group that made the recommendation. There is no doubt some folks want the rule to result in bigger bucks, but the real concern was for reducing the buck harvest so the herd can recover. I was originally opposed to the idea, but with our currently low and dropping deer population and a reduction in doe permits which will result in even greater numbers of hunters pursueing bucks, we needed a method to facilitate better buck escapement. The rule was promoted as a method to reduce the buck harvest, out of numerous alternatives considered, the 4pt rule was by far the most popular alternative to reduce buck harvest. While I can't speak for other working group members, it seemed to me the status quo "which is what the WDFW seemed to want", was not an option for most of the working group members.

The 4 pt rule was wisely adopted for a 5 year period by the Commission. In 5 years we can take a look at the results and it will be reconsidered. I do have concerns regarding the long term use of the rule, we may learn the rule is only needed for the short term or we may see good or bad results over the long term, I can't say at this time and neither can anyone else, considering there are biologist who favor the rule and biologists who oppose the rule, I don't see how we will know how it will affect NE Washington until a few years have passed and the results can be assessed. It seems to me that any so called "biology or science" is nothing more than opinion until the results are seen in NE WA. For the short term I can tell you this, the harvest of bucks was lowered in the 2 units and that was the desired result.

 I couldn't agree more with bearpaw. I have lived in these units for 25 years and seen the good the bad and ugly . I also believe this mild winter will benefit the deer herd more than the the four point minimum rule ever could, however the two coupled together will defenitly bolster the herd. Bucks and does. Trail cameras don't lie and my cameras showed me the same % of mature bucks as they have the last 8 years. They also showed a huge increase in 1 1/2 year old deer. These bucks will be legal tender next year but will also have a year more experience. More will survive to reach maturity. Its just a simple game of %'s.
Lets just sit back guys and watch. As am armchair biologist I believe this new game plan will work. Plus I am sure bearpaw , myself , Brian, and many others have way more field "experience" and alot of us more " more book smarts" , than any of our professional biologists. Good gravy... they want the wolves ...and you want to trust them on game management? Thank God for special interest groups that can take the bull by the horns because the state sure can't get anything done.