Four point minimum 117&121

[Sitka_Blacktail]

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.

In other words, create more deer and  big bucks.

Here is a direct quote from you in this  article in Northwest Sportsman.

“I’ve thoroughly researched this, and the consensus is it’s turned their hunt around. They now have a smaller but more productive whitetail herd. The doe-buck ratio is sound, the fawns are coming off on time, and hunters are now shooting bigger bucks.”

"A smaller more productive herd and bigger bucks"

Just what is it I don't understand? I don't understand how you're helping the herd recover (ie making it bigger) by making it smaller. And I don't understand how you implying that hunters are shooting bigger bucks is not "advertising that this rule is going to create BIGGER BUCKS.

And your friend Mr Bell said this in the same article.

"“It’s about first saving, then rebuilding our whitetail herd. I used to see 30 to 40 deer right around my place. Now I see five or six. My neighbor, who has 1,200 acres, used to have hundreds on his land. Now he has a few dozen.

“Our mature breeding buck numbers are way down. The harvest overall has been low in recent years, but 70 percent of the bucks taken were 2 years or younger, so the mature bucks just aren’t out there."

So there's that word "rebuilding" again, making the herd bigger. And "Our mature breeding buck numbers are way down."  So to protect the "mature breeders" the plan your working group came up with was to hammer those same mature breeders before they got a chance to breed? Put all the pressure on them?

But the most ironic part is you two touting how this same plan worked so well in Pennsylvania when back in Jan of 2010 the deer hunters in Pennsylvania were saying this about deer management there. 

http://blog.pennlive.com/pa-sportsman/2010/01/angry_deer_hunters_on_pennsylvania_game_commissions_agenda.html

“The PGC must hear from everyone regarding their failed deer management,” he wrote on USP’s web site, describing the 2009-10 deer hunting season as “the worst deer hunting season in memory.”

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.

WDFG has brought the herd back from other bad winters. Why would you think they don't know what they are doing now?

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.

Basically you are saying, we don't really know if this is going to be good or bad, but we felt we should be able to overrule the professionals on this. 

This is why we should leave the managing to the guys who know what they are doing.

[Archeryoutfitters]

Here is a pic. from this last season, and there was also a set of twin on this same stand that had spots, i lived here in 121 my whole life and have never seen a spotted fawn this late in the year?

[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.

In other words, create more deer and  big bucks.

Here is a direct quote from you in this  article in Northwest Sportsman.

“I’ve thoroughly researched this, and the consensus is it’s turned their hunt around. They now have a smaller but more productive whitetail herd. The doe-buck ratio is sound, the fawns are coming off on time, and hunters are now shooting bigger bucks.”

"A smaller more productive herd and bigger bucks"

Just what is it I don't understand? I don't understand how you're helping the herd recover (ie making it bigger) by making it smaller. And I don't understand how you implying that hunters are shooting bigger bucks is not "advertising that this rule is going to create BIGGER BUCKS.

And your friend Mr Bell said this in the same article.

"“It’s about first saving, then rebuilding our whitetail herd. I used to see 30 to 40 deer right around my place. Now I see five or six. My neighbor, who has 1,200 acres, used to have hundreds on his land. Now he has a few dozen.

“Our mature breeding buck numbers are way down. The harvest overall has been low in recent years, but 70 percent of the bucks taken were 2 years or younger, so the mature bucks just aren’t out there."

So there's that word "rebuilding" again, making the herd bigger. And "Our mature breeding buck numbers are way down."  So to protect the "mature breeders" the plan your working group came up with was to hammer those same mature breeders before they got a chance to breed? Put all the pressure on them?

But the most ironic part is you two touting how this same plan worked so well in Pennsylvania when back in Jan of 2010 the deer hunters in Pennsylvania were saying this about deer management there. 

http://blog.pennlive.com/pa-sportsman/2010/01/angry_deer_hunters_on_pennsylvania_game_commissions_agenda.html

“The PGC must hear from everyone regarding their failed deer management,” he wrote on USP’s web site, describing the 2009-10 deer hunting season as “the worst deer hunting season in memory.”

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.

WDFG has brought the herd back from other bad winters. Why would you think they don't know what they are doing now?

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.

Basically you are saying, we don't really know if this is going to be good or bad, but we felt we should be able to overrule the professionals on this. 

This is why we should leave the managing to the guys who know what they are doing.

Sitka, you are welcome to review any of my comments on this forum about my position on the 4 pt rule. I don't know where you got that quote, either you changed the wording, made it up, or the person who wrote the article mixed my comments with someone elses. That simply is not the way I speak. Anyone can see my position in the 4pt discussions here on the forum.  NICE TRY   

I will reiterate:

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.

[bearpaw]

WDFG has brought the herd back from other bad winters. Why would you think they don't know what they are doing now?

The first difference between winter kills 20 years ago and the winter kills of 2008 and again in 2009 is that they were back to back, two bad winters in a row and WDFW was as usual too slow to respond by reducing doe harvest after the first winter, so then we killed too many doe after the first hard winter and then had another bad winter.

The second difference is that 20 years ago we had half the coyotes, fewer bear, and fewer cougar. There weren't as many cars using the hwy and not as many dogs running at large chasing deer. So there you have it, the likely reason the deer herd continues to drop. You seem to have a little knowledge about biology, does the term "Predator Pit" mean anything to you?

This failure and others by "the professionals" is precisely why many sportsmen don't have much faith in some of "the professionals" who don't seem to be able to figure out why herds keep declining, many of whom are trying to tell us wolves will have no impact on our herds, when in fact the neighboring states are having to hire helicopters to save elk herds and livestock from overpopulated wolves.

Sitka your points are sounding pretty weak to me.

[buckfvr]

Sitka-bt.....now thats funny....hammer the mature breaders......     After all, theres a mature breader behind every bush.  Its more about stopping the slaughter of 18 month old bucks......let them get another year older and wiser to prepair them better for the next season.  I still saw several young 8 ptrs taken this year.....only a couple bucks in the 3 1/2 bracket, and only know of a few in the 4 1/2 and older bracket.   I have seen several true mature breaders, as you call'em.....just in the last few days....even got a few on cam, both horns the evening of the 9th, one the morning of the 10th, and none the eve of the 11th.  the big guys did not get hammered......period.

[Archeryoutfitters]

Now that's funny some one from Hoquiam, telling the residents for the countys & GMU's we live in ALL year long and spend more time in our woods in one year than he will in a LIFE time. Because of a notion you have in your head.

That would be like us spouting off telling you what your deer are doing, and what needs to be done over there, in the rain forest just because i have killed 1/2 dozen black-tails in Quinault you would probaly get a good laught out of that    I couldn't even imagine the kind of a person that would do that.

[sakoshooter]

A 4pt min regulation is not intended to increase herd size, it's intended to increase mature buck numbers. I'm in favor of it.

[bearpaw]

A 4pt min regulation is not intended to increase herd size, it's intended to increase mature buck numbers. I'm in favor of it.

Yes, you are correct, my mistake. Antlerless seasons manage the female population segment of the herd.

I think its important to conserve buck numbers to help the herd grow. At this point antlerless seasons have been nearly eliminated which would result in a greater percentage of hunters hunting bucks and likely resulting in fewer bucks per 100 does. By reducing buck harvest, I think we'll keep a better balance as the herd grows.

[Clancy]

would love to hunt blacktail in a 3 point minimum area with high deer numbers right now. few years from now would make for a blast!   

[Sitka_Blacktail]

I think its impotant to conserve buck numbers to help the herd grow.

Funny choice of words? lol

[Archeryoutfitters]

I think its impotant to conserve buck numbers to help the herd grow.

Funny choice of words? lol

It is to make sure all the does get bred, and get bred in a timely manner, very important to surviving the winter here and perdition.

[jackmaster]

would love to hunt blacktail in a 3 point minimum area with high deer numbers right now. few years from now would make for a blast!   

i wish all the westside would go to a 3pt restriction for blacktail, except the youth hunters they could shoot any buck and in some areas they could take a doe if desired.

[bearpaw]

I think its impotant to conserve buck numbers to help the herd grow.

Funny choice of words? lol

you like my typo... 

[Sitka_Blacktail]

I think its impotant to conserve buck numbers to help the herd grow.

Funny choice of words? lol

you like my typo... 

Yup. lol That's what we need is more impotent bucks. 

[bearpaw]

I fixed it so those bucks can breeeeeeed this coming fall....