WA management critics can crank up the volume

[bobcat]

Moving animals around is just too costly. The state could never afford to do it. The best thing right now would be to thin out the coyote population, in my opinion. But I'm not sure what the state can do to accomplish that goal. It's already a year around season. Next thing would be to cut the cougar population in half. But we know that will never happen.

[500 long]

Release the hounds!!  You won't kill them all but you can try. I don't buy that we can't afford it, if the money was better managed by the government then many things would be possable.

[Dave Workman]

I wonder if once the herd grows, will APR be a good thing to continue, it may only be a good temporary measure to grow the herd and then go back to any buck once the herd recovers.

That's the problem Dale. You know it and so do I. No need to wonder about it at all.
Once the state adopts an antler restriction, it's permanent. The point restriction on mule deer has been in place since 1997.

Time to lift it. Give it five years. See what happens.   

[boneaddict]

Release the hounds

Literally!

once again...predator control
trapping etc. 

all ties into struggling populations from Quail birds to moose.  Goats, deer, pheasants all falling somewhere in between.

[CedarPants]

I wonder if once the herd grows, will APR be a good thing to continue, it may only be a good temporary measure to grow the herd and then go back to any buck once the herd recovers.

That's the problem Dale. You know it and so do I. No need to wonder about it at all.
Once the state adopts an antler restriction, it's permanent. The point restriction on mule deer has been in place since 1997.

Time to lift it. Give it five years. See what happens.   

When I started hunting on the property I now own, it was in 117.  Since then the GMU's have moved boundaries a bit and now it's in 121.  Either way, when I started hunting it was 3-point minimum (this was 14 years ago) and we saw legal bucks all the time.  It was that way for several years, then it was changed to any buck.  Just a couple years after that, we were still killing bucks but were seeing fewer and fewer of them .... by far.

From my perspective anyway, I agree with Dale in that we shouldn't be looking at the 4-point restriction as permanent.  I've witnessed first hand that in the very units we are talking about, the Wildlife Commission can and will chang APR's according to the health of the deer herd.

[bearpaw]

I wonder if once the herd grows, will APR be a good thing to continue, it may only be a good temporary measure to grow the herd and then go back to any buck once the herd recovers.

That's the problem Dale. You know it and so do I. No need to wonder about it at all.
Once the state adopts an antler restriction, it's permanent. The point restriction on mule deer has been in place since 1997.

Time to lift it. Give it five years. See what happens.   

Dave, I can't say you are not right, and I think there are some on the whitetail working group who want 4pt APR regardles of herd health, it's in their personnal beliefs. I can honestly say that I want to see the results before I can say whether I agree or disagree with continueing the APR in 5 years. A few have made the comment that the 3 pt APR on mule deer is still a good thing, I agree with this in that our mule deer still need help, except for some areas we seem to be protecting large 2 pts as breeder bucks and that is not good. That is the only reason I am opposed to the continuance of the 3pt APR on mule deer. 15 years ago you could hardly find more than a fork horn mule buck in NE WA, now there are a few big boys taken every year.

Maybe they should allow fork horn mule deer to be taken that have horns twice as long as the ear or something like that.... 
Otherwise we may need a draw system on mule deer in many areas. No doubt if the state would allow predator control, our herds would significantly rebound. 

[Wenatcheejay]

Release the hounds

Literally!

once again...predator control
trapping etc. 

all ties into struggling populations from Quail birds to moose.  Goats, deer, pheasants all falling somewhere in between.

We need public input on it. Not just the hounds but more liberal predator hunting seasons. Some here work pretty hard for that. 

As to the APR, it's here now, I hope it works! (On managed lands it should.)

[buckfvr]

I have heard in a few states, you dont even need a hunting license to kill coyotes.  Darn things woke me up again this morning at 4.........I wish WDFW would come out with a pleading press release encouraging land owners to allow coyote hunting.  Way too many of the buggers protected by trespass signs.  My winter agenda includes serious effort to kill as many coyotes as I can, and get others to do the same.

[bearpaw]

I have heard in a few states, you dont even need a hunting license to kill coyotes.  Darn things woke me up again this morning at 4.........I wish WDFW would come out with a pleading press release encouraging land owners to allow coyote hunting.  Way too many of the buggers protected by trespass signs.  My winter agenda includes serious effort to kill as many coyotes as I can, and get others to do the same.

In Utah you can shoot as many yotes as you want with no license of any kind needed.

[boneaddict]

Just so you are aware, wolves are probably 10 times smarter than coyotes.   We currently have a 24/365 season on coyotes and haven't TOUCHED their population.       Guess where this is going.

[bearpaw]

Just so you are aware, wolves are probably 10 times smarter than coyotes.   We currently have a 24/365 season on coyotes and haven't TOUCHED their population.       Guess where this is going.

Agreed, and to clarify your point further, Idaho wolf season has been going for nearly two months, many deer and elk seasons will be closing in a few days and only 65 wolves have been taken, that small take will not keep up with reproduction. They better hope late hunters and trappers do a lot better.... 

[muleyguy]

It was that way for several years, then it was changed to any buck.  Just a couple years after that, we were still killing bucks but were seeing fewer and fewer of them .... by far.

the reason for this is simple;  the first year you implement an APR, you instantly protect all the 1.5 yr old deer, so you quickly increase the buck population;  problem is, they all just get shot when they are 2.5 yrs old;  so, the APR does increase the buck population, it increases the 1.5 yr old group.

the reason you stopped seeing bucks after they got rid of it is because the exact OPPOSITE happens when you get rid of an APR;  you see a dramatic reduction almost instantly in buck numbers because all the "protected" 1.5 yr olds get shot.  So, when you get rid of an APR, you see a dramatic drop in buck populations.

 

I've witnessed first hand that in the very units we are talking about, the Wildlife Commission can and will chang APR's according to the health of the deer herd.

no, unfortunately, they won't change it back ever, just like the mule deer 3 pt rule;  they can't......the hit to the buck population will be too large, and, in this State, the buck component of the the deer populations simply cannot sustain a big hit to it, they are already under too much stress as it is........it also won't get changed because after so many years of it being in place, the average hunters come to like it.  They start to think they are shooting "mature" bucks, when, in fact, they are just shooting 2.5 yr old deer now instead of the 1.5 yr old deer they used to be shooting.  Thats why people mistakenly believe that this is some kind of thing to make "trophy" animals;  a trophy buck is going to be a 4.5 yr old buck or better;  this APR will not do anything to that portion of the buck population, and, it is highly likely that it will actually hurt it.

The only way they will be able to change it back is if there is a string of good winters in a row and several years of great fawn recruitment;  that is 10x more important for increasing the buck population then the APR will ever do;  unfortunately, with growing predator populations and growing human populations, I doubt great fawn recruitment is going to be in our immediate future.  That is not the trend in this state right now.

[DBHAWTHORNE]

"a trophy buck is going to be a 4.5 yr old buck or better;  this APR will not do anything to that portion of the buck population, and,   it is highly likely that it will actually hurt it."

Rationale? 

[muleyguy]

Rationale? 

because you are focusing the harvest on the older age class animals and protecting the younger age animals;  we can make a side bet on here:   next year, I predict that the number of 5pt+ bucks harvested in 117 and 121 is higher then it was in 2010. 

If APR's are your management choice, and you want to make MORE mature animals in the population, then you need to do just the opposite of a 4 pt or better strategy;  you need to do something like 2 pt or LESS;  that focuses the harvest on the immature animals and lets the mature animals live.  Once a buck gets past being a 2pt he is protected from his biggest and single largest predator:  Human hunters

This is what the have done with the elk management in the Yakima area (spike only), and the mule deer management in the southern Idaho Owyhee units (2 pt or less) and it has produced pretty amazing results;  the age structure of the male animals in the population is now skewed to the older age classes;  these older age classes now do the bulk of the procreating and, there is good science to show that fawns and calf's that come from females bred with mature males are more fit.  Anybody who has lived in the Yakima area and spent any time at the feeding station can attest to the fact that the male elk population is MUCH healthier now then it ever was before.

But, even these APR's can cause problems;  the spike only in the Colucklum has not worked as well because the escapement of spikes has not been as good as Yakima because of the more open nature of the country.  So, these APR's, if used, need to be understood and matched to the habitat and what your goals are.

4pt or more restrictions focus the harvest on older age class animals and just shift the harvest up one age class;  2 pt or less restrictions focus the harvest on the young animals, as long as you have decent escapement out the 2 pt class, then you end up with a great buck structure and more opportunities to harvest truly mature animals,

What is so sad about this 4 pt or better rule in these two units, is that it wasn't based on science, it was based on faulty emotion..........if you want to increase the number of bucks in 117 and 121 by using APR's, then they needed to go to a 2 pt or less...........the area is thick enough cover, and with it being whitetails, you would have good escapement of bucks out of the 2 pt class.  Every buck that makes it past being a 2 pt is forever "safe".  After just a year or two, they could then give out a whole bunch of "any whiteail buck" tags on a draw and still manage it very well.

If you were going to use APR's in these units, that would have been the better way to do it.

But, no private landowners or outfitters are going to go along with 2pt or less now are they???

so, instead of the right mangement tool being implemented, we get a faulty one that will be with us forever.....

[stuckalot]

The best way to fix the management of deer herds in Eastern Wa would be to create two states out of WA.  Then the East side could have an entirely new "Game" department that could do what is necessary to manage the herds.

That would go a long way to fixing ALOT of problems! ;-)