Four point minimum 117&121

[UptheCreek]

So from what I gather from this thread is that the 4 point min. is for increasing herd size.  I like that idea a lot but when coming up with ideas on increasing herd size, hunters are only part of the solution.  A full grown couger needs roughly one deer a week.  While I don't think they always get one a week, they certainly mow through their fair share.  Lets just put the number at 25 per couger.  Times that number by how many couger are in a GMU and do the math.  That is just couger kills not to mention bear.

[jess]

im all for it wish more units were four point min.. Let the young stupid bucks grow up.. And if someone is much of a hunter its not to hard to find a three point with eyeguards.. My two cents

[Elkaholic daWg]

http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,84620.0.html
 Click the link in this thread and think again about what you wish for. How easy do you want to make it for the antis to chip away at your hunting "privileges" ( in WA that's all they are)
 Go ahead and hold the chisel for them.

[bearpaw]

There's no doubt if we could manage predators better there would be a lot more big game animals. 

[buckcanyonlodge]

http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,84620.0.html
 Click the link in this thread and think again about what you wish for. How easy do you want to make it for the antis to chip away at your hunting "privileges" ( in WA that's all they are)
 Go ahead and hold the chisel for them.

   Hold the chisel baby.     Way too many citizen scientists.

[Elkaholic daWg]

 Buckcanyonlodge, I'm going to be driving by your place next Thursday on my way to the 105, (where I have my own personal point restriction) I think I might try to stop and check it out. (if I don't get too late of start) Been driving by that place for many, many  years. Beautiful area.

[buckcanyonlodge]

It would be great to meet ya elkaholic!

[buckfvr]

There is a ton of biology behind the antler point regulation. 
Managing for a higher buck to doe ratio will increase the number of does that get covered.  There are dry does running around that should be covered- the problem is that the ratio is too high. 
The antler pt restriction will increase escapement of young bucks, which turn into mature bucks and are more effective breeders.  More effective breeders generally cover does on the first estrous, which encourages earlier fawning and higher winter survival because yearlings are better equipped for winter conditions. 
The idea is to increase the age structure of the bucks.  time will tell, but I think there will be lots of people singing the praises of the regulation in a few years.

   BINGO.............thats it in a nutshell. 

In my letters to the Commissioners, I repeatedly asked them to make the late modern hunt by permit only.  They implemented a 5 tag trophy hunt for modern guys last time in both the new 4pt units, ( at the expense of the bowhunters ), and now they are whitetail any buck permits, miraculously transformed from trophy tags.  That time frame needs to be given back to where it was taken from. 

We cant allow our herds to be run into the ground to float the local economies......remember, managed scientifically........no where does it say for economic reasons.  When deer numbers are down, ( and they are ), it affects hunters and related businesses, period. 

And yes, at 1 1/2 years of age, a whitetail can be a small 8 pointer........theres plenty of them out there this year, again, not as many as there has been, but its not like there are no harvestable bucks.  Folks need to get back to enjoying the hunt.....every aspect of it, not just the end result for those fortunate enough to be successful.  Ive always felt success is relative to effort.......more so now than ever.  Good luck to all, trophy hunters, meat hunters, Guides, and those that still cherish all aspects of hunting seasons. 

[runningboard]

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

the problem with this was discussed between me & a couple of friends today. we felt that the surrounding units are not going to be the "baseline" they compare to because they will receive more pressure as a result of this restriction in 117/121 and so the data from those adjoining units will be skewed.
good luck to all this season, post pictures & stories so we all can enjoy the hunts together.

[sebek556]

 

[muleyguy]

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?

well, what I would like, and not too many on here would support this.......but, here goes:

what do we have right now for deer hunting seasons in this state???  In mule deer you basically have 3 pt or better and a 9 day season in most units in the middle of October that is jammed packed with thousands of hunters;  poor buck population dynamics, poor numbers of deer, way to many people, etc ,etc.  Not a very good experience.......

The whitetail experience was a little better;  the numbers until recently were better;  longer season, no antler pt restrictions;  but, now, all we are doing is going down the same management path as eastern WA mule deer; 

Here is my solution:

Cut hunting pressure, and consequently, hunter harvest by 1/3 rd for both whitetail and mule deer, this will require a draw for each species;  get rid of the APR's;  open the season up longer to spread the hunting pressure and harvest over a wider period; and, get rid of ALL antlerless tags for both species for ALL weapon choices;  the only antlerless tags that should be issues should be short term situations when the population rises above the carrying capacity of the habitat or winter range;

  my guess is that with this management scheme for mule deer you could keep the special, late season tags, and possibly increase them;  my guess with this is that with the whitetail's you could probably increase the regular season and keep the general late season.

This all comes at a cost though.......you would only get to hunt 2 out of 3 yrs........but, if you managed it right, my guess is that the off year you could hunt the other species;  for example, if you usually hunt mule deer, the 1 yr you don't get to hunt mule deer, you could probably use that year as your whitetail year.

With a scheme like this, you reduce the hunter harvest and pressure, spread the season out longer, maintain good buck numbers in the population, maintain good buck age structure, change the culture of doe harvests so that they are only used in extreme overpopulation situations.

And, all this for simply giving up 1 yr out of 3........and, lots stop all this talk about "we can't do that, what about the kids?"  I can tell you what drives kids away from hunting is going out in a rat race in Mid Oct for two days when 9 million other people are out there and they see two does........you give a kid 2 our of 3 yrs of great hunting experience, I guarantee you that you have a hunter for life......I love going to Hawaii also, but, it isn't my god given right to go every year.  People are not going to run away from the sport of hunting because you give them a better product, but only let them hunt 2 our of 3 yrs.

From this post, I will get the normal:  "well muleyguy, there is great hunting in this State, you just need to work at it"     No, there is not great hunting in this state.......when you have to spend 60 days a year in the field scouting to be able to consistently shoot decent bucks or see consistent numbers of bucks, that is not great hunting.  Kudos to all those out there that put in the hard work, you deserve the success you get;  but, don't confuse that with healthy herds;  you see this phenomenen all over the West;  the only place deer are left are in the most remote areas and/or the best habitat areas. 

The current management scheme of APR's and open general seasons  in this state, coupled with this States high population base compared to its land base, is slowly eroding not only the quality of hunting but the enjoyment of it.  Look were we are at with mule deer, we have had APR's for over a decade now;  we have season length get shortened and shortened;  that is the consequence of trying to use APR's to manage a deer herd.  In the quest to allow all of us to hunt every year, the only management scheme the dept has left is to use APR's and shorten seasons, which just magnifies the problem of a poor experience, puts higher pressure on the resource, screws up the age makeup of the buck population, and just kicks the can down the road.

[Oldtrader3]

I have lived and hunted in other states that have implemented the 4-point deer harvest rules with some interesting fallout.  Several GMA's in Wyoming had this law for many years and it led to a large increase in the number of mature 2-point bucks that were the only dominant, breeding bucks in the local herd.  This is a genetic disaster for a local herd and takes years to breed the herd back to normal horn shape and points distribution.  This is one of the "unintended consequences" that sometimes fall out of these types of decisions.

[baldopepper]

Muelyguy I appreciate the research and compassion you put into this.  I agree with your basic point that, I think, is any changes made must be made with the best interests of the propagation of the herds.  It's obvious from just the replys to this post that mangement is torn between so many interests that any decisions are going to be viewed as bad by a good number of people.  My personal problem with many of the changes seems to be that they are made to appease the growing number "trophy" hunters whose main concern seems to be the propagation of trophy size animals at any cost.  As it is in the corporate world these days, they seem to be willing to go to any length to insure that they come out #1.  I'm not addressing those hunters who are willing to work harder and longer to get their trophy, I'm aiming at those who seem to want more restrictive seasons, more "quality units" , etc., etc. with the sole goal of increasing their chances of getting that bragging size buck. At least someone like yourself looks at this as not being bad, IF it contributes to the health and welfare of the herds.  I'm just of the opinion that many of these changes are not made with that in mind. We all need to always remember that hunting is a tool in the attempt to insure that our game animals thrive in an ever  changing environment. It's not a competitive sport where getting the biggest trophy for your wall is the only reason to go hunting.

[muleyguy]

the other issue going on here that nobody is looking at, is, that once you start APR's it is almost impossible to get rid of them.......here is why.

In the first year of an APR, the total buck harvest goes down dramatically;  but, the harvest of animals above the APR goes up significantly because that is the only legal animals to shoot.  No surprise here.

In the second year and beyond of APR, what happens is that you end up with a normalization of harvest levels, only the avg buck shot now is a 2.5 yr old instead of 1.5 yr old.

You do not end up with any greater buck escapement then you did before because they all get shot in year 2.5 instead of 1.5; 

So, what you end up with going into each hunting season after the APR's has been in place for a couple of years is a stockpile of 1.5 and 2.5 yr old bucks;  and, most likely slightly lower mature buck populations then before the APR;

the fallacy here is this statement:  "well we are going to see how it works for 5 yrs, and then if it isn't doing anything we will get rid of it"

What part of the buck population is the most susceptible???  Especially in a season where you have a November general season hunt??

Answer:  1.5 yr old and 2.5 yr old bucks

The first hunting season they get rid of the APR, it will be an all out slaughter of these two age classes;

You have now taken the two biggest components of the buck population and put a major hole in them;  the result will be a huge hole in those age groups, which will take 3 to 5 more years to recover from.

So, the only real way to get rid of an APR, is, in the year you get rid of it, to have a massive cut back in tag sales, or season length, so the harvest is dramatically reduced.

the dirty little secret of APR's is that once you get em'......you never get rid of em'..........this idea that it is going to be looked at in 5 yrs is a joke

The first year of an APR you get a dramatic lowering of overall buck harvest, but, an increase in mature animal harvest (because those are the only legal animals

The last year of an APR you get the exact opposite:  you get a HUGE increase in harvest because of the "stockpile" of 1.5 and 2.5 yr olds in the population;  BUT, you get less pressure on the mature animals.


you are all fooling yourself if you ever think we will get rid of the APR's...........because nobody is willing to deal with consequences of the year when you get rid of it.

[bearpaw]

To improve the opportunities for bigger bucks (trophy hunting) I would certainly have side with limited-entry permits or muleyguy idea of 2 out of 3 years. Both are similar with Utah management and it helps to produce better quality animals by reducing pressure. Neither of these are bad options, but they were not popular with many people.

Of the options that were available to reduce buck harvest and increase the herd, the pt restriction was by far the most popular as it still allowed everyone to hunt, it's not the best trophy hunting option, but the average hunter can still hunt. I think there was a poll here on the forum that showed about the same results. As someone said, there is no answer that satisfies everyone, but the pt restriction seemed best to the most people.

I too have concerns about the long-term effects of a point restriction, once the herds are recovered in the short-term, it may be best to discontinue the restriction. This is a 5 year trial and in 4 more years it is supposed to be reviewed, I have seen nothing that says otherwise.