Four point minimum 117&121

[buckcanyonlodge]

Bingo BP. It's the predators.That is exactly what the local "anti-hunting college" educated biologist told me. How does an older buck help prevent the fawns from getting eaten by the predators??If we could trap and transplant bear, cougar, coyotes and now wolves to downtown Seattle,maybe  they wouldn't vote out hound hunting and we could get the predators under control. Should we  fire all our"anti-hunting college professor" biologists and use the money that we spent on their wages and buy a whitetail deer management plan from Pennsylvania or Alabama??? Bottom line........the 4 point restriction is not the answer for growing our herds.And by the way I have hunted this state for 46 years and I have seen the good, the bad , and now the UGLY. No "anti-hunting college professor" has BRAIN WASHED ME. Period

[Maverick]

I agree the predators need to be managed more. I'm killing as many coyotes as possible! As for cougars bears. We need hound hunting back. Wolves need to be managed but any idea seems to piss someone off.

[bearpaw]

This APR is only in two units, it sounds to me like you guys are afraid it might work. Management in NE WA needed changed because current management was not working. From what I can see exactly what we wanted to happen with APR was accomplished, fewer bucks were killed. If you are unhappy that surrounding areas were hunted harder, then I suggest maybe all of NE WA could have tried an APR for 5 years.

When and if this management strategy quits accomplishing the desired goal, or if the desired goal changes after herds recover, then a different strategy may be necessary. I think the herd numbers will tell us what to do in the future. I simply do not buy into the never changing strategy that WDFW seems to like, they can't seem to evolve with the herds and do not seem to know how to react to herd fluctuations. Management may need to change each year depending on herd status. I'm not sure I even agree with keeping the APR for 5 years like they say we must, we may learn the rule is best for only a couple years, but I guess after 5 years we will have data to compare. One thing for sure, without trying this APR there wouldn't be any data to compare and that is an absolute fact.

Montana
I don't hunt the areas that were hit hardest, so I figure it's none of my business. Let those people make their own recommendations based on their knowledge of the herds in their area.

In my MT area the herd was probably knocked back 30% to 50% last winter. On the private property I hunt we still have plenty of whitetails, we have close to a 50/50 whitetail buck/doe ratio. We don't intentionally shoot anything less than a 4x4 buck of either specie.  We've been doing that for about 6-8 years and the buck quality just keeps getting better and better. Except, our mulies were hit pretty hard last winter, numerous bucks we left last season perished as did a lot of does, so we only killed 3 or 4 mulie bucks this year and no mulie doe, we killed mostly whitetail bucks and only 2 whitetail doe. In past years we have taken as many as 30 doe off the place, but the deer need a chance to recover.

Around town I heard people complaining about the public land not having many deer and people want FWP to do something, since I dont hunt it or have enough knowledge about it, I will keep my nose out of it. But the general concensus I heard is that people want FWP to cut back on the deer harvest till herds recover.

Washington
You don't see me saying anything about blacktails, they are basically not my realm of expertise. But, I do know how many deer NE Washington can hold and I don't mind speaking loudly about it. Right now our herd is only at about 30%-35% of what it should be.

[bearpaw]

BuckCanyon
Sounds like we agree on predators, the problem is that WDFW will not touch predators because they are infiltrated by Defenders of Wildlife and Conservation Northwest. So the only choice we have is to limit human harvest to help the herd. The goal of the APR was to reduce human buck harvest and that goal was accomplished this year, fewer bucks were killed. That means we will have better deer numbers that much sooner. Yes we need to kill coyotes and I hope you are lodging some yote hunters.

I don't remember exactly what year you moved in to your current place but did you live anywhere in Stevens County prior to that? I don't know if you realize how many deer this area can and has supported in the past. I've lived and hunted here my whole life including a lot of time in the area where you live. I grew up on the summit, Clintworth and I were longtime hunting buddies. I've been outfitting hunters all over the county since 1977. Anyway, that whole area where you live used to have far more deer.  I'm just trying to point out that I have a lot of experience in Stevens County and I can honestly say, right now the deer herd is at one of the lowest points if not the lowest point that I can ever remember.

I know the local biologist too, but he wasn't here when we had lots of deer, he doesn't know what the area can hold. He has an open mind and he's trying to do the best he can. He's a good guy but honestly, he is still on a learning curve for this area. Steve Zender is the retired bio who knew the area well and he was opposed to the APR just as I used to be. However, just in the last few years I began to see that the staus quo management wasn't working, for about 8-10 years our herd has never recovered, and now is lower than ever.

WDFW had wisely already limitied the doe harvest but then that forces everyone to hunt bucks. So we needed to also limit the buck harvest or risk skewing the buck/doe ratio. There are several ways to limit buck harvest, I supported the APR because it seemed like the most popular and fairest way to limit buck harvest yet still allow people to hunt.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Modern wildlife biology is a joke.

This attitude is setting management up for failure. Modern bios know way more than bios from 40 years ago. First off, they've learned from past mistakes. They have a better understanding of all the complex relationships between different animal species and plants. They have a lot more studies to help them pin-point problems and head them off. The problem is, many modern hunters have expectations that aren't realistic. And they try to force political solutions to biological problems. That will never work in the long run.

This APR is only in two units, it sounds to me like you guys are afraid it might work. Management in NE WA needed changed because current management was not working.

Not afraid it will work at all. Afraid it's not going to have the intended results and in the end it will set management back. 

I get tired of hearing you guys use habitat as an excuse. NE Washington has plenty of winter range and it's empty, almost void of deer. I used to go in the same areas and see hundreds of wintering deer.

Sometimes you can't believe your eyes when it comes to habitat. It may look good when it's low quality.  And all those deer you used to see may have been part of the problem. Those high populations may have stressed habitat.  Maybe the land needed a break from those periods of high deer numbers.  It's hard for a layman to really understand what's going on. That's why it takes people who have studied management to do the job right.

Here's a research article that shows why sometimes, what you see isn't really what is there.

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=wildlifenews.view_article&articles_id=205&issue_id=37

[bearpaw]

This attitude is setting management up for failure. Modern bios know way more than bios from 40 years ago. First off, they've learned from past mistakes. They have a better understanding of all the complex relationships between different animal species and plants. They have a lot more studies to help them pin-point problems and head them off. The problem is, many modern hunters have expectations that aren't realistic. And they try to force political solutions to biological problems. That will never work in the long run.

Recent successes are more like recent failures. Too many bios learning from too many hugger professors. Too many recent failures have created this attitude my friend.

Sometimes you can't believe your eyes when it comes to habitat. It may look good when it's low quality.  And all those deer you used to see may have been part of the problem. Those high populations may have stressed habitat.  Maybe the land needed a break from those periods of high deer numbers.  It's hard for a layman to really understand what's going on. That's why it takes people who have studied management to do the job right.

Maybe you didn't read, there are almost no deer there.....   
I can see exactly how well modern managers do by looking at all these empty winter ranges and by looking at the Lolo where wolves supposedly have no impact...... thus the premise of my first remark, Modern wildlife biology is a joke.

[bearpaw]

I should be careful here, there are actually people in wildlife management that I do have great respect for.

I just have a hard time watching this new breed of predator worshipper bios who want to destroy our herds because they can't stand to see predators managed and have been taught that predators only eat the sick and weak, the rest of the time they must only eat grasshoppers.

[Kowsrule30]

I should be careful here, there are actually people in wildlife management that I do have great respect for.

I just have a hard time watching this new breed of predator worshipper bios who want to destroy our herds because they can't stand to see predators managed and have been taught that predators only eat the sick and weak, the rest of the time they must only eat grasshoppers.

I really know nothing about the WT/MD/Elk herds around you and you hunting areas..... But I feel this is one of the best and most realistic commemts ever made..... That is 100% true!!!!!!   

[sebek556]

Sometimes you can't believe your eyes when it comes to habitat. It may look good when it's low quality.  And all those deer you used to see may have been part of the problem. Those high populations may have stressed habitat.  Maybe the land needed a break from those periods of high deer numbers.  It's hard for a layman to really understand what's going on. That's why it takes people who have studied management to do the job right.

Oh yes I am sure that the huge hay fields need a break from deer and thats why we have no deer sure..

[muleyguy]

Yes that buck on the left is the same as the the bottom pic. That bottom buck is 22 wide.

those are 2.5 and 3.5 yr old bucks............none of those bucks are 4.5 yrs or older.....

those bucks are exactly what I am talking about...........the avg hunter shoots those bucks and thinks they are shooting "mature" bucks, when, in fact, they are only shooting 1 yr older bucks then they would have without the APR;

The APR's in the palouse have achieved exactly what I have predicted;  an increase in harvest age by 1 yr.

congrats to you and your friends.....but, those are not mature, 4.5 yr old or older bucks.

[muleyguy]

what rule impacts an outfitter more:

1.  Let everybody continue to hunt;  keep the seasons them same, including the very popular rut hunt;  don't restrict tags;  but, put in an APR

or

2.  Get rid of the late hunt for a couple of years;  or, restrict tag numbers for a couple of years, to recover the herd


which one of those choices do you think an outfitter is going to want???

Number 1?  or Number 2?

If your an outfitter, you choose the least restrictive regulation so you can still sell hunts..........that is number 2........

A very simple solution that would have increased buck espcapement in NE WA would have simply been to put a 3 yr sunset clause in suspending the late hunt;  by this I mean, you pass a rule that for 3 yrs, there will be no late hunts, but, after that it automatically reverts back to the late hunt.

but, unfortunately, outfitters can charge more for late hunts and the demand is higher for late hunts then regular season hunts.....

Montana
I don't hunt the areas that were hit hardest, so I figure it's none of my business. Let those people make their own recommendations based on their knowledge of the herds in their area.

nice duck............if APR's are good for declining whitetail herds in NE WA, they certainly are good for declining WT herds in Montana.........do you see any big concerted effort by any group in Montana (department people or citizen groups) to move to an APR??

nope........

[bearpaw]

what rule impacts an outfitter more:

1.  Let everybody continue to hunt;  keep the seasons them same, including the very popular rut hunt;  don't restrict tags;  but, put in an APR

or

2.  Get rid of the late hunt for a couple of years;  or, restrict tag numbers for a couple of years, to recover the herd


which one of those choices do you think an outfitter is going to want???

Number 1?  or Number 2?

If your an outfitter, you choose the least restrictive regulation so you can still sell hunts..........that is number 2........

A very simple solution that would have increased buck espcapement in NE WA would have simply been to put a 3 yr sunset clause in suspending the late hunt;  by this I mean, you pass a rule that for 3 yrs, there will be no late hunts, but, after that it automatically reverts back to the late hunt.

but, unfortunately, outfitters can charge more for late hunts and the demand is higher for late hunts then regular season hunts.....

Montana
I don't hunt the areas that were hit hardest, so I figure it's none of my business. Let those people make their own recommendations based on their knowledge of the herds in their area.

nice duck............if APR's are good for declining whitetail herds in NE WA, they certainly are good for declining WT herds in Montana.........do you see any big concerted effort by any group in Montana (department people or citizen groups) to move to an APR??

nope........

You are sort of talking in circles there about what you think an outfitter would want....

This might be real hard for you to grasp, but I did not look at this issue as an outfitter. I looked at this issue as a concerned local citizen, I lived half my life in 121 and as a boy learned how to hunt in the heart of 121 on public land after school and on weekends. I felt that the most important thing was to keep as many hunting days in the field but restrict what a person can shoot. I also listened to what other locals said and that seemed to be the most popular alternative for reducing harvest.

Most of my hunters did not want to hunt that unit this year, we hunted more in the other units. If I looked at it like an outfitter, with revenue being the primary motivating factor, I would have hands down chosen a limited entry system, we all know that will produce the biggest bucks which would result in the best income in the long term for an outfitter.

I am pretty sick and tired of people like you trying to say I supported the APR because I am an outfitter. You are completely wrong and the truth is quite the opposite. Why is it so hard for people to understand that sometimes a person does something for the common good. In addition to aiding population recovery, this rule will allow anyone including our children who live in that unit to still have just as many days in the field. If we went to a limited entry system or cut back half the season, how could we expect to recruit or keep our youth who live in that GMU into hunting.

but, unfortunately, outfitters can charge more for late hunts and the demand is higher for late hunts then regular season hunts.....

FYI - My fees are the same for a 3 day or a 5-Day hunt in either the early or late season. We have similar success at most any time during the seasons because we hunt leased land that we can control the hunting pressure and we have figured out how to hunt with the least impact, we shoot deer the whole season. My busiest day for any specie is the opening day and that is during the early deer season. Again you are wrong about me.

nice duck............if APR's are good for declining whitetail herds in NE WA, they certainly are good for declining WT herds in Montana.........do you see any big concerted effort by any group in Montana (department people or citizen groups) to move to an APR??

Honestly, I don't know what specific proposals or management requests local people have in Montana, if I had to guess, many would probably want to get rid of non-resident hunters first, that's the usual bitch in most states that get a lot of non-resident pressure.

My Montana rancher just told me last fall he is very happy with the buck to doe ratio and all the mature bucks we now have on his ranch. He said the deer herd is just where he wants it to be. It's about 50/50 and maybe even more bucks than does. We got there by hunting 4x4 or better bucks and killing lots of does in years when there are lots of does. We hunted it steady from Oct 27 to Thanksgiving last year, but we try to shoot nothing but the oldest bucks and we let the younger ones grow up. Some bucks are still being killed that are younger than I prefer, I wished we could only kill 4 1/2 or older bucks but we have not gotten to that point yet, but I hope to some day. That is how this outfitter prefers to manage a deer herd, but it's probably not realistic management for all our public lands. I think more of our public hunters are interested in hunter days and success on any deer than in trophy quality.

The APR in NE WA provides hunter days, but success will be lower. That was the intent, allow people to hunt but reduce buck harvest to help the herd numbers recover. For the majority of participants on the working group, this was the most popular alternative to reduce the harvest of bucks.  It will be interesting to see the results of this experiment. Yes, it's an experiment, that is how science is learned by experimenting. Yes I know, you and many WA biologists think they know enough about deer and don't need any further experiments in management. In my opinion, whether the APR proves good or bad, we will know more than if we would not have tried it, and at this point judging by the status of WA deer management, we all need to learn more about what we are doing. 

[buckcanyonlodge]

I have hunted 121 since the '70's. I have seen the boom years when deer were everywhere. I also remember the years of devastating winter kill and the time it took to rebound the herd. No APR's back then and the herd did recover.I have also seen local herds down by Fruitland hit by blue tongue that took a few years to rebound.I counted over 11 winter kill deer in one draw. They recovered with no APR's. Here is what happened to the deer herd in this "Citizen Scientist's" view.(WAY to many Citizen Scientists-my opinion) First they outlaw hound hunting for cougar and bear.. Then outlaw baiting bear and the spring bear hunt is by permit. Along comes two devastating winters of '08 and '09.  6 Ft. of snow for months. Dead deer everywhere. Wildlife Dept keeps issuing hundreds of doe permits along with liberal doe limits for archery, muzzleloader;s, youth hunters, senior hunters, and issuing 2nd deer permits. Whitetail does were hunted from Sept. 1st to December 15th. You CANNOT re-build a deer herd with that kind of pressure on the dwindling numbers of breeding stock...... You can save all the bucks you want with the APR.s but if they do not have any does to breed, how does the help the herd recover? During the two bad winters of '08-'09 I fed over 50 whitetail with the majority does and fawns. Last year and this year I fed about 20 whitetail. Right now I have 15 deer with half of them bucks. One fawn among the does. Plenty of bucks here to breed the does but still no fawns... I could go on and on.I'm DONE

[dreamunelk]

I have hunted 121 since the '70's. I have seen the boom years when deer were everywhere. I also remember the years of devastating winter kill and the time it took to rebound the herd. No APR's back then and the herd did recover.I have also seen local herds down by Fruitland hit by blue tongue that took a few years to rebound.I counted over 11 winter kill deer in one draw. They recovered with no APR's. Here is what happened to the deer herd in this "Citizen Scientist's" view.(WAY to many Citizen Scientists-my opinion) First they outlaw hound hunting for cougar and bear.. Then outlaw baiting bear and the spring bear hunt is by permit. Along comes two devastating winters of '08 and '09.  6 Ft. of snow for months. Dead deer everywhere. Wildlife Dept keeps issuing hundreds of doe permits along with liberal doe limits for archery, muzzleloader;s, youth hunters, senior hunters, and issuing 2nd deer permits. Whitetail does were hunted from Sept. 1st to December 15th. You CANNOT re-build a deer herd with that kind of pressure on the dwindling numbers of breeding stock...... You can save all the bucks you want with the APR.s but if they do not have any does to breed, how does the help the herd recover? During the two bad winters of '08-'09 I fed over 50 whitetail with the majority does and fawns. Last year and this year I fed about 20 whitetail. Right now I have 15 deer with half of them bucks. One fawn among the does. Plenty of bucks here to breed the does but still no fawns... I could go on and on.I'm DONE

Some very good points here.  Another thing that does not seem to compute to a lot of hunters is Bucks compete with does for forage.  A doe has to be in good nutritional condition to become pregnant.  She then has to eat for two or three.  Here I could go on and on.  Overall citizen based science seldom if ever improves things.  When it doesn't they will always find something or someone else to blame.

[bearpaw]

I have hunted 121 since the '70's. I have seen the boom years when deer were everywhere. I also remember the years of devastating winter kill and the time it took to rebound the herd. No APR's back then and the herd did recover.I have also seen local herds down by Fruitland hit by blue tongue that took a few years to rebound.I counted over 11 winter kill deer in one draw. They recovered with no APR's. Here is what happened to the deer herd in this "Citizen Scientist's" view.(WAY to many Citizen Scientists-my opinion) First they outlaw hound hunting for cougar and bear.. Then outlaw baiting bear and the spring bear hunt is by permit. Along comes two devastating winters of '08 and '09.  6 Ft. of snow for months. Dead deer everywhere. Wildlife Dept keeps issuing hundreds of doe permits along with liberal doe limits for archery, muzzleloader;s, youth hunters, senior hunters, and issuing 2nd deer permits. Whitetail does were hunted from Sept. 1st to December 15th. You CANNOT re-build a deer herd with that kind of pressure on the dwindling numbers of breeding stock...... You can save all the bucks you want with the APR.s but if they do not have any does to breed, how does the help the herd recover? During the two bad winters of '08-'09 I fed over 50 whitetail with the majority does and fawns. Last year and this year I fed about 20 whitetail. Right now I have 15 deer with half of them bucks. One fawn among the does. Plenty of bucks here to breed the does but still no fawns... I could go on and on.I'm DONE

I totally agree with nearly all your points and in the whitetail working group we insisted that the WDFW get more proactive at monitoring the herd. As a result they have stepped up their monitoring. We also requested the WDFW do something about predators, but they will not touch predators. They flat out refused to do anything about predators. With this huge surplus of predators and low deer numbers we are likely close to being in a predator pit. I know you don't like the APR but it may be the slight edge that will help bring our herd back before wolves populate further and contribute to the predator pit. Please keep in mind that not all areas in 121 have the same buck/doe ratio that you have in your back yard. For example, the transect counts near Clayton show a very low buck count, so there are areas that needed the APR worse than others.