Four point minimum 117&121

[turkey slayer]

We dont have his first tiny set. We have his 2.5. And 3.5 set. We watched  this buck for a long time. He's 4.5 years old. Id even missed the buck in 2010. He didn't grow much in a year.

I agree Maverick that buck is atleast a 4 year old

[muleyguy]

Muleyguy so what would you really like to see happen. Shut the area down keep hunting it and kill everything since you don't think this will work.

what I would like to see is a draw only for the entire State;  that way you can manage the herd, age structure, and buck to doe ratio how it needs to be handled for this State, given its high population base, small land base and large amounts of predators and periodic winter kills;  in the long run, that is the only answer;

The last 20 yrs of management in this State has been focused on open general tags with no restrictions on hunter numbers;  and, when the population gets into trouble we run to APR's;  the populations still doesn't recover, and they continually shorten the season to get better buck escapement.  Problem is, without corresponding cuts in tags, it just forces more hunters into the unit in those given days;

the result is high hunter pressure, no better buck escapement, and extremely poor quality of experience;  If you restricted tag numbers enough to get a 1/3 reduction in buck harvest you could lengthen out the season dramatically, have much better age structure, increase buck to doe ratio's, and provide a high quality experience;  all this, for basically giving up the right to hunt 1 out of 3 years;

Those are the kind of hard decisions that need to be made to recover our deer herds;   this idea in this state that it is a god given right for everybody to hunt every year is driving the quality of the hunting and the quality of the experience into the toilet!

Our mule deer seasons are down to 9 days in the middle of October with APR's and there are literally 10,000 of thousands of hunters in the field at the same time;  with a 20% success rate on 2.5 yr old 18" basket racked 2x3 being the avg harvest. 

The end result of the APR's in 117 and 121 will be that they will be with us forever;  and, not too far down the road, you will end up losing the late season in these units also;  That is the legacy of APR's in this state.  You will lose the late season because there will be too much pressure on the mature buck population.

Project forward 20 yrs when your grandkids are hunting.......there will be hundreds of thousands of more people in this state, more hunting pressure, more encroachment into the rural areas by people putting more pressure on habitat, more poaching, etc.   Does anybody here honestly think we are going to be to continue this "management" of just letting everybody hunt and no restrictions on tag levels??

Were going to be down to 5 day seasons at this pace!!

How about this for an idea:

1.  1/3 less tags;  resulting in getting to hunt 2 out of 3 yrs
2.  4 week deer season from mid october until the 1st week of november
3.  No APR's;

something along these lines would boost the herd,  spread out the hunting pressure, and would increase the experience exponentially from what it is now.

Imagine bringing your kids and family out hunting 2 out of 3 years, seeing lots of bucks, seeing good numbers of mature bucks, having much fewer people in the woods, and lots of weekends to choose from to take them hunting and spend time;  and, your son or daughter, or your 75 yr old grandfather can actually have a better then 2% chance of harvesting a buck.

Contrast that with what we have now, where sure, we get to go hunting every year, but we have  drastically shortened seasons in the Middle of october with unlimited amounts of people (idiots) running all over in the field, and, almost no chance of success for your son or daughter or 75 yr old grandfather;  Bucks getting shot out from underneath you, people cutting you off, camping in your spot, etc, etc   

The bottom line is in this State, we have choosen to try and use APR's and shortened seasons so everybody can continue to hunt unrestricted;  this has been going on for some time, and the herds continue to struggle, and the quality of the experience continues to decline.  These are failed policies;   its time to go another direction:  fewer tags, longer seasons, no APR's

your trying to put a band-aid on a heart attack...................

[muleyguy]

We have his 2.5. And 3.5 set

ok, lets see some pics of these sheds;  that will "shed" some light on it

the 2.5 yr old sheds will tell the story..........

[bobcat]

I'm with you 100% on all of that muleyguy! 

[huntnnw]

Mule guy you seem to have missed an important piece of information..this state doing good management of our herds? hahaha   its all about the mighty dollar here

[huntnnw]

We have his 2.5. And 3.5 set

ok, lets see some pics of these sheds;  that will "shed" some light on it

the 2.5 yr old sheds will tell the story..........

 

[KopperBuck]

Sad to say, but within 8 weeks or so I won't have to worry about this argument anymore in 2 seasons from now. Maybe I'll finally be paying resident prices for those OR tags that I hold so dearly, or hell bent for ID. I like the draw idea.

[muleyguy]

Mule guy you seem to have missed an important piece of information..this state doing good management of our herds? hahaha   its all about the mighty dollar here

I don't totally disagree with this;  with good management of the herd, we might be able to keep the general tag system going longer.

The biggest problem I see with the management is that it isn't responsive enough, and quick enough to deal with the changing herd dynamics;   they are using blunt tools for something that requires a more precise handling.

A big problem I see is that these antlerless tags have gotten institutionalized into the system;  we need more babies........and for that we need more mommas;  even this year in NE WA, there are still antlerless tags; even after two horrible winter losses in a row;  antlerless tags need to be the exception and not the rule in this state;  and, if they are given out, they need to be targeted;  for example:  in NE WA there are times that there are too many deer on the agricultural lands but not the national forsest ground;  but, the state will just issue tags for the whole unit;  since most of the hunters in this state are hunting public ground, those antlerless animals end up getting harvested from the ground that does not have an overpopulation problem (national forest ground).

So, if they do antlerless hunts, I would like to see targeted antlerless hunts that shoot for the problem areas and don't spill over into the areas that don't have a problem.

In 2010, they still harvested over 300 antlerless in 117 and 121;  what people have to realize is that deer populations grow geometrically;  it is not unreasonable to think that these 300 antlerless could have produced an additional 600 to 900 deer over a 3 or 4 year period if they hadn't of been harvested.

Now, some of those could have been or would have been killed by cars, predators, etc anyway;  but, the point is still valid;  there is a ton of pressure on our antlerless populations, we don't need to increase the harvest pressure from humans anymore then it already is from nature.

The problem is that antlerless hunts are popular with the public, and they are a revenue generator for the department;

My problem with the APR is that there is really no way it can biologically "recover" the herd;  all it is doing is is protecting 1.5 yr old bucks for an extra 12 months;

If you want to recover he herd you need more babies.........so, you need to focus on making more babies, and making more healthy babies.......more, healthy babies will be able to handle predators much better then less, weaker babies.

If you stop shooting antlerless, that helps make more babies;  if you have good populations of mature bucks doing the breeding, that helps make healthier, more robust babies.......

APR's do nothing for making more babies, and, the current way the APR is structured, you are going to be stockpiling 1.5 yr old bucks into the population, which will mean a lot of does will be getting bred by very immature bucks.

So, they key is making greater number of healthier babies........

[bearpaw]

Mule guy you seem to have missed an important piece of information..this state doing good management of our herds? hahaha   its all about the mighty dollar here

I don't totally disagree with this;  with good management of the herd, we might be able to keep the general tag system going longer.

The biggest problem I see with the management is that it isn't responsive enough, and quick enough to deal with the changing herd dynamics;   they are using blunt tools for something that requires a more precise handling.

A big problem I see is that these antlerless tags have gotten institutionalized into the system;  we need more babies........and for that we need more mommas;  even this year in NE WA, there are still antlerless tags; even after two horrible winter losses in a row;  antlerless tags need to be the exception and not the rule in this state;  and, if they are given out, they need to be targeted;  for example:  in NE WA there are times that there are too many deer on the agricultural lands but not the national forsest ground;  but, the state will just issue tags for the whole unit;  since most of the hunters in this state are hunting public ground, those antlerless animals end up getting harvested from the ground that does not have an overpopulation problem (national forest ground).

So, if they do antlerless hunts, I would like to see targeted antlerless hunts that shoot for the problem areas and don't spill over into the areas that don't have a problem.

In 2010, they still harvested over 300 antlerless in 117 and 121;  what people have to realize is that deer populations grow geometrically;  it is not unreasonable to think that these 300 antlerless could have produced an additional 600 to 900 deer over a 3 or 4 year period if they hadn't of been harvested.

Now, some of those could have been or would have been killed by cars, predators, etc anyway;  but, the point is still valid;  there is a ton of pressure on our antlerless populations, we don't need to increase the harvest pressure from humans anymore then it already is from nature.

The problem is that antlerless hunts are popular with the public, and they are a revenue generator for the department;

My problem with the APR is that there is really no way it can biologically "recover" the herd;  all it is doing is is protecting 1.5 yr old bucks for an extra 12 months;

If you want to recover he herd you need more babies.........so, you need to focus on making more babies, and making more healthy babies.......more, healthy babies will be able to handle predators much better then less, weaker babies.

If you stop shooting antlerless, that helps make more babies;  if you have good populations of mature bucks doing the breeding, that helps make healthier, more robust babies.......

APR's do nothing for making more babies, and, the current way the APR is structured, you are going to be stockpiling 1.5 yr old bucks into the population, which will mean a lot of does will be getting bred by very immature bucks.

So, they key is making greater number of healthier babies........

I emphatically agree with every part of your post except you are still missing the short term point of the APR. Exactly what I wanted to occur, did occur, the buck harvest was reduced this year. This means more deer on the ground and more bucks to breed does.

You failed to point out that doe permits were cut again in 2011, so the doe harvest was less in 2011 than in 2010. You also are not taking into account that when you remove doe permits you then force even more hunters to be buck hunters. So unless you do something to reduce the buck harvest, at the very time the herd needs a break, you are actually putting more pressure on bucks than when there were far more deer. Thus without doing something to save bucks, you will effectively reduce the buck/doe ratio. Please explain how this is not true!

There are some areas in these units that not only have far fewer deer, but the buck/doe ratio is already suffering. The APR will help prevent further deteriation of the buck/doe ratio. When and if the herds recover, this may need further review, but for the short term, the APR was effective at conserving bucks. No matter how you try to scew what you say, that fact cannot be ignored. Just sayin.....

[Elkaholic daWg]

Muleyguy so what would you really like to see happen. Shut the area down keep hunting it and kill everything since you don't think this will work.

I think this is the best thing that could ever happen in this area. We have had property in the Fruitland are since 94 and have family that owns property from Fruitland to Cediona that farm a lot of the property. I tell ya what it is sure nice to finally see bucks while we are hiking and driving around. Ya they are spikes and 2 points but be for this 4 point min came into affect we never seen that. I have driving HWY 25 a lot this winter and now I can count 15 to 20 bucks from Spokane res. to Kettle Falls. Ya maybe 20% are 3 1/2 year old buck but at least we are seeing the difference finally and this was the first year.

A lot of people can't tell what a 3 1/2 year old buck looks like and we are really talking about WT so half the time to can't really judge them in less you have them on trail cam or sitting in tree stand or ground blind.You know just like I know a lot of people run and gun them and you aren't going to shot a mature buck in less you are real lucky. A lot of people will see a 4pt main frame or a 3pt with eye guards and shot it. That isn't going to change people from hunting and shotting a 2 1/2 old buck.

I really didn't want to get involved in this debate but I just had to put my  in.

Thanks Brandon

 But it really made the late hunt in the neighboring units a much lesser experience  due to increased pressure early and late.

[jdurham]

I like the point restriction but it would be nice if they gave us time to hunt during the rut when the larger bucks are more likely to be harvested.  I remember them cutting late buck season for just a few years to allow for mature buck survival...................what was that, twenty years ago or so!  With the wolves moving in and breeding like rabbits we will not have to worry about mature bucks, the weak and run down will make excellent prey for the wolves.

[muleyguy]

This means more deer on the ground and more bucks to breed does.

you certainly put more 1.5 yr old bucks on the ground.......you most likely had less 2.5 yr old and older bucks on the ground because that was were the harvest was focused;  so your rule increased the harvest of more mature bucks and decreased the harvest of 1.5 yr old bucks;

you indeed put more bucks on the ground, but they are the wrong kind of bucks;  and unfortunately, every credible APR study in the country strongly suggests that all of the extra 1.5 yr old bucks you put on the ground this year will just get shot next year.

so, you increased the number of 1.5 yr old bucks breeding the does.......that is exactly what we DON"T want for the herds;

The buck to doe ratio's were certainly high enough to get all the does bred;  nobody ever thought the buck to doe ratio was so low that there would be unbred does.

So, what you did was take out older age bucks, and replaced them with immature bucks, which every credible study suggests is not a positive for the deer herds when immature bucks breed the does.

You failed to point out that doe permits were cut again in 2011, so the doe harvest was less in 2011 than in 2010.

yup you cut them again, but, there were still plenty of does killed;  most people have no concept of how populations can grow geometrically;  even 100 extra does killed this year could result in 300 to 400 extra deer in a couple of years'

The dept squandered two years now with allowing doe harvests of any size;  they should have cut it to zero last year and left it at zero this year;  that is what I am talking about, you don't put a band aid on a heart attack;

You also are not taking into account that when you remove doe permits you then force even more hunters to be buck hunters.

EXACTLY!!  now you are starting to understand......without doe permits, the harvest is focused on bucks!  When you layer an APR onto units with no antlerless opportunities, you further "force" (your words) hunters onto mature bucks!!

Thus without doing something to save bucks, you will effectively reduce the buck/doe ratio. Please explain how this is not true!

EXACTLY true again!  the difference between you and I is that I want to restrict buck harvest through a reduction in tag numbers, which will preserve the age structure of the population;

you want to restrict buck harvest through APR's, which only serve to stockpile immature bucks in the population and force them to do the breeding, which makes for unfit fawns.

My solution is the one that takes biology into account first, and hunter wants second......

Your solution is the one that takes biology into account second, and hunter wants first......

Your solution is why our herds continue to suffer, because nobody is willing to individually sacrifice........we all think we can have our cake and eat it too in this State;

You have stated over and over how this rule was put into place so "no hunter days would be lost".  That is the exact problem;

Your solution (APR's) have a cost........and, when you cannot couple liberal antlerless seasons with  an APR (which we can't) AND you do not cut hunter days, what do you think is going to happen??  You are going to have too much pressure on the mature bucks;

APR's only work when coupled with liberal antlerless harvests;  if you cannot have an antlerless harvest, and you still want to have an APR; then you must cut hunter days!

That is the legacy of APR's in this state;  since our state does not have productive herds, we cannot support antlerless harvests, so all the pressure is focused on bucks;  when we have an APR with no antlerless, the only solution quickly becomes to cut hunter days because the pressure is all focused on mature bucks.

Your solution perputuates the problem of immature bucks doing the breeding, ever shorter hunting seasons, ever crowded seasons, and reduced hunter satisfaction.  It is a failed policy;

My solution decreases numbers of hunters, but increases hunter days, and keeps the age structure of the population healthy which will make for healthier herds and more hunter satisfaction.

You are kidding yourself if you think you are ever going to get rid of APR's in 117 and 121..........Maverick very eloquently pointed this out........here is a guy who would normally be happy shooting 1.5 yr old deer;  now that an APR is in place, he is shooting 2.5 yr and 3.5 yr old bucks and having the time of his life and telling everybody within shouting distance he is shooting "mature" bucks; 

You think he is going to vote to go back?   nope........

We have had over 10 years in the Palouse region with APR's, and it is mostly private ground, one would think that if the APR's were going to produce many more "mature"bucks we would be seeing all kinds of 160 or better whitetail bucks showing up on this website........but, we don't........we get guys showing up with 130 class whitetails swearing up and down they are shooting mature bucks.

And, after 10 yrs of APR's in the Palouse, they still can't stretch the season out any longer then 9 days.........EVERY APR unit in this state ends up with very shortened seasons;  that is the legacy

it is simply foolish thinking that you are ever going to get rid of them, and it is foolish thinking that you think you can maintain the same length of season in 117 and 121 with APR's;

You will never get rid of them, and, in the not too distant future, they will eliminate the general late buck hunt.

Bottom line is that it is an admirable goal to raise the buck to doe ratio;  but, you need to raise it with mature bucks, not immature bucks;  immature bucks doing the breeding just perpetuate the long term problem our deer herds are under

[bearpaw]

So, what you did was take out older age bucks, and replaced them with immature bucks, which every credible study suggests is not a positive for the deer herds when immature bucks breed the does.

I would like to see your proof that more mature bucks were killed this season than the previous season. My guides or I were hunting here nearly every day of the early and late season and there were so many fewer hunters that I am willing to bet you are making a false statement based solely on your personal beliefs.

even 100 extra does killed this year could result in 300 to 400 extra deer in a couple of years'

EXACTLY!!  now you are starting to understand......without doe permits, the harvest is focused on bucks!  When you layer an APR onto units with no antlerless opportunities, you further "force" (your words) hunters onto mature bucks!!

Your solution is the one that takes biology into account second, and hunter wants first......

Totally agree that if 100 does were killed that was too many. But we used to have thousands of doe tags in these units, this year there were only 25. So the rifle hunters who used to hunt those does would now have to hunt bucks or go elsewhere. With the 4 pt rule, many decided to go elsewhere. I will restate my position, this year the goal of putting more bucks on the ground was accomplished. I also think fewer mature bucks were killed than the previous year, because of less hunting pressure, but I have not verified that.

The APR actually took biologuy into account first because we want to improve the herd numbers. The APR secondly provides days in the field (opportunity) that your preferred methods would not offer.

I think you need to reconsider your personnal bias on this issue. The balance of NE WA is still any buck the way you seem like it. The east Okanogan has limited entry for late whitetail hunting and is any buck, the way you seem to prefer.

Southeast WA with APR seems to make many people happy who think there is a better age class of deer than before, except for you and maybe a couple others who are unilaterally opposed to APR whether it works or not. I still say I think you are afraid that APR will work in 117/121.

I am willing to look at APR in 5 years and I am big enough to admit if it failed or if it is only a good short term fix and I will be happy if it succeeds as both a short term and long term fix. But honestly, the science of it working or not working in these units is totally unknown until the 5 year trial is complete and data is compared. Anyone saying it will or will not work is simply speaking out of personnal bias because it has never been tried in Washington in the same type of environment. I will stand by what I said before, "Science is learned by conducting controlled experiments, if you don't experiment you will never learn anything new."

[grundy53]

This means more deer on the ground and more bucks to breed does.

you certainly put more 1.5 yr old bucks on the ground.......you most likely had less 2.5 yr old and older bucks on the ground because that was were the harvest was focused;  so your rule increased the harvest of more mature bucks and decreased the harvest of 1.5 yr old bucks;

you indeed put more bucks on the ground, but they are the wrong kind of bucks;  and unfortunately, every credible APR study in the country strongly suggests that all of the extra 1.5 yr old bucks you put on the ground this year will just get shot next year.

so, you increased the number of 1.5 yr old bucks breeding the does.......that is exactly what we DON"T want for the herds;

The buck to doe ratio's were certainly high enough to get all the does bred;  nobody ever thought the buck to doe ratio was so low that there would be unbred does.

So, what you did was take out older age bucks, and replaced them with immature bucks, which every credible study suggests is not a positive for the deer herds when immature bucks breed the does.

You failed to point out that doe permits were cut again in 2011, so the doe harvest was less in 2011 than in 2010.

yup you cut them again, but, there were still plenty of does killed;  most people have no concept of how populations can grow geometrically;  even 100 extra does killed this year could result in 300 to 400 extra deer in a couple of years'

The dept squandered two years now with allowing doe harvests of any size;  they should have cut it to zero last year and left it at zero this year;  that is what I am talking about, you don't put a band aid on a heart attack;

You also are not taking into account that when you remove doe permits you then force even more hunters to be buck hunters.

EXACTLY!!  now you are starting to understand......without doe permits, the harvest is focused on bucks!  When you layer an APR onto units with no antlerless opportunities, you further "force" (your words) hunters onto mature bucks!!

Thus without doing something to save bucks, you will effectively reduce the buck/doe ratio. Please explain how this is not true!

EXACTLY true again!  the difference between you and I is that I want to restrict buck harvest through a reduction in tag numbers, which will preserve the age structure of the population;

you want to restrict buck harvest through APR's, which only serve to stockpile immature bucks in the population and force them to do the breeding, which makes for unfit fawns.

My solution is the one that takes biology into account first, and hunter wants second......

Your solution is the one that takes biology into account second, and hunter wants first......

Your solution is why our herds continue to suffer, because nobody is willing to individually sacrifice........we all think we can have our cake and eat it too in this State;

You have stated over and over how this rule was put into place so "no hunter days would be lost".  That is the exact problem;

Your solution (APR's) have a cost........and, when you cannot couple liberal antlerless seasons with  an APR (which we can't) AND you do not cut hunter days, what do you think is going to happen??  You are going to have too much pressure on the mature bucks;

APR's only work when coupled with liberal antlerless harvests;  if you cannot have an antlerless harvest, and you still want to have an APR; then you must cut hunter days!

That is the legacy of APR's in this state;  since our state does not have productive herds, we cannot support antlerless harvests, so all the pressure is focused on bucks;  when we have an APR with no antlerless, the only solution quickly becomes to cut hunter days because the pressure is all focused on mature bucks.

Your solution perputuates the problem of immature bucks doing the breeding, ever shorter hunting seasons, ever crowded seasons, and reduced hunter satisfaction.  It is a failed policy;

My solution decreases numbers of hunters, but increases hunter days, and keeps the age structure of the population healthy which will make for healthier herds and more hunter satisfaction.

You are kidding yourself if you think you are ever going to get rid of APR's in 117 and 121..........Maverick very eloquently pointed this out........here is a guy who would normally be happy shooting 1.5 yr old deer;  now that an APR is in place, he is shooting 2.5 yr and 3.5 yr old bucks and having the time of his life and telling everybody within shouting distance he is shooting "mature" bucks; 

You think he is going to vote to go back?   nope........

We have had over 10 years in the Palouse region with APR's, and it is mostly private ground, one would think that if the APR's were going to produce many more "mature"bucks we would be seeing all kinds of 160 or better whitetail bucks showing up on this website........but, we don't........we get guys showing up with 130 class whitetails swearing up and down they are shooting mature bucks.

And, after 10 yrs of APR's in the Palouse, they still can't stretch the season out any longer then 9 days.........EVERY APR unit in this state ends up with very shortened seasons;  that is the legacy

it is simply foolish thinking that you are ever going to get rid of them, and it is foolish thinking that you think you can maintain the same length of season in 117 and 121 with APR's;

You will never get rid of them, and, in the not too distant future, they will eliminate the general late buck hunt.

Bottom line is that it is an admirable goal to raise the buck to doe ratio;  but, you need to raise it with mature bucks, not immature bucks;  immature bucks doing the breeding just perpetuate the long term problem our deer herds are under

Just because people started hunting mature deer doesn't mean they were successful at it. It's not like it's a cake walk to kill a mature whitetail. You make it sound like people were were shooting 1.5 year old deer because that was better then shooting a 4.5 year old deer. No they were shooting those 1.5 year old deer because they COULDN'T shoot those 4.5 year old deer. Now that there are APR in that unit they all of the sudden became better hunters? I doubt it.

[huntnnw]

if the state was serious about deer management for whities it would be for either sex for them. But a big hell no they would lose way too much in the almighty special permit apps