WA management critics can crank up the volume

[fishunt247]

If we seperated the two, we'd be the poorest state in all 50. Though the peace of mind we'd get from no coasties may make up for it.

I've been following this thread and not chiming in, mostly because I don't hunt whitetails but am interested in the antler point restriction debate.

As far as Idaho's 2pt or less units: do they then give out a significant amount of any buck tags, and how were hunter numbers in those units before and after the rule change?

While I think 2pt or less would be great in some units, it wouldn't be best in all (like you said) because of open country and because the average guy (me included...on most days) likes to shoot and eat deer, and is pretty darn happy with a decent 3 or 4pt. And if a guy like me wants to shoot and eat deer, and deer are my only source of meat (I don't buy beef, ever, and eat steak weekly), I don't want to shoot a spike mule deer whose 4 quarters weigh 30 pounds.

Now it would be awesome to have units that were 2pt or less with more any buck tags given out to have a really solid hunt, but that would also force more people into the units that are not 2pt or less, which would probably hurt the population in those units.

There are so many sides, so many options and opinions. We have too many hunters in this state to have no antler restictions, that's for sure. In five years, somebody killing a 4pt muley would be something to put in the newspaper.

[muleyguy]

As far as Idaho's 2pt or less units: do they then give out a significant amount of any buck tags, and how were hunter numbers in those units before and after the rule change?

yes, they do give out a good number;  there are 3 units under the 2 pt rule;  depending on unit they give out from 100 to 200 tags per unit.  not sure of the hunter numbers before and after;  but, it has been a success in these units

My point though in the previous post that I was making was that IF you are going to use an APR as a management choice, then the APR's like the southern Idaho unit were go xx pts or LESS while giving out a certain number of "any buck" tags is the much better choice then APR's that are xx pts or More.

The reason is several:

1.  you focus the harvest on the younger animals instead of the older animals
2.  the age structure of the buck population improves dramatically
3.  you now have truly mature bucks doing the bulk of the breeding;
4.  you do not have the genetics problem that so many are also worried about with the APR's because  with APR's that are xx pts or less you are shooting the bucks with the inferior genes;  for example, big 2pts are culled out because they are legal;   bucks that have a small 4 pt rack there first year (yes, there are those bucks out there even in muleys; lots of them in whitetails) are instantly protected;  so you get rid of the inferior bucks and keep the better ones

My point earlier is that if the people who supported this move to switch to an APR that is 4 pts or more were truly interested in increasing the buck numbers, and doing it in the best way, should have done it with an APR of something like 3 pt or less for whitetails; 

but, if you are a private landowner or an outfitter, how appealing is this?  not very..........

the best way to solve the problem is not with any kind of APR's.......it's with controlling the amount of tags given out.......but, nobody wants to go down that road, so we get these goofy APR's like 4 pt or more that are just going to do more damage to the herd and screw up the age makeup of the buck population

[colockumelk]

 

I agree well said Muleyguy. IMHO permit only is an inevitable thing in this state. Unfortunately I might add.  But... I would rather have permit only hunt every 2-3 years and have awsome hunting and a healthy herd, than no restrictions a poor herd and hunt every year and so little to no legal deer.

[bearpaw]

muleyguy the biggest problem I see with your strategy is that you are talking about building trophy hunting units. That wasn't the intent in 117 and 121, the intent was to increase the buck population and yet you yourself have stated that will happen with the 4pt APR so I don't understand why you say the 4pt APR is the wrong strategy for building the herd. 

I am getting tired of you and a few others trying to say outfitters and greedy landowners did this to make money. Exactly the opposite is true. I would have chosen your strategy of limited-entry to benefit my outfitting business and to make money.

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.....

Honestly that sounds like a lot of personnal opinion with a dash of resentment and a lot of emotion on your part, perhaps your comments weren't directed at me, but I took them to be..... 

I'm pretty sure I was the only outfitter on the group. The intent wasn't to harm anyone or to specifically benefit my outfitter business or any landowner. Most everyone seemed concerned for the herd numbers, buck/doe ratios, and fawn recruitment in the area. Most people bitching about this have it all wrong, the issue was about rebuilding the herd numbers, it wasn't about making a trophy hunting area like you are actually suggesting we should have done.

If I was looking to push for what was best for my outfitting business I would have pushed for a limited-entry, (exactly what you want) but I put my head together with many others and together we discussed and then voted on what we thought was the best solution to decrease buck harvest and preserve hunter opportunity. (THAT IS A FACT)

Your blanket statements are simply not true. There is a lodge owner and guide on this forum who is opposed to the APR and there are many local landowners who are also opposed, who all live in those 2 units.

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

There is actually science both ways refuting and supporting APR's, if you did your homework you would know that. A lot of what determines the success or the science of any management strategy is based on what the goals may be. The reason I supported the APR was to reduce buck harvest for a period of time and then to re-assess the rule in 3 years, (even though WDFW was opposed to the APR idea, they said the APR needed to be in place for 5 years to assess results) so that is what the working group voted for and recommended. We have been told that the working group will be involved again when we look at the results. I will say it again, if the science shows negtive effects I will be opposed to the continuance of the rule and I would think most of the working group members will do the same.

My "opinion" is that the "science" will show buck harvest will be decreased in the short term. I don't know what the science will show over 5 years, but I am concerned about the potential of inferior racked mature bucks not being harvested. In 5 years hopefully the science will tell us more. At any rate, the goal of decreased buck harvest will likely be accomplished with the APR in the short term and then the long term strategy can be worked on.

No one knows for sure how the APR will affect the age class of bucks in those units over the next 5 years, they are much different in geography, cover, and hunter access, than the units south of Spokane, no APR has been tried on whitetails in the NW in similar GMU's.

the area is thick enough cover, and with it being whitetails, you would have good escapement of bucks out of the 2 pt class.

I would suggest that your own strategy holds even truer with the much wiser older whitetail bucks. I see this as a good argument for trying the 4pt APR. 

___________________________________________

Regarding splitting the state:
When can we start drawing the line.... 

[bearpaw]

I agree well said Muleyguy. IMHO permit only is an inevitable thing in this state. Unfortunately I might add.  But... I would rather have permit only hunt every 2-3 years and have awsome hunting and a healthy herd, than no restrictions a poor herd and hunt every year and so little to no legal deer.

Where you and muleyguy are both missing the point is that the northeast is much different than Yakima or Colockum. We have open season on "any elk" and the elk herds are slowly growing. 

Our whitetail deer management was fine even with high predator density until we had back to back hard winters and WDFW continued liberal doe permits and buck harvest which further declined our herd. My personnal opinion is to help the herd numbers rebuild as quickly as possible then the whitetail herd can probably sustain similar mangement as we had before the back to back hard winters. 

I would also suggest that different management is appropriate for different areas of the state. One size does not fit all....

[Wenatcheejay]

Dale, I'll say that if anyone says you support it out of greed they are wrong. (Not that I matter much.) I do think it is greedy that there is a fair amount of money spent of Tags for 117&121 and I would like to see more money spent on management by WDFW. But, they won't cull predators so there are few options. I do think that Eco advocacy groups are greedy, I don't like them. Whitetail breed pretty quick so we will see. Private land owners (many I know of) already had a personal rule of 4pt or better to hunt their ranches. I support more liberal rules for kids I have been pretty outspoken on that, otherwise I truly hope that this gets what many people want accomplished. I fear that unless the late hunt is pulled back it won't though. I agree this might be the lesser of evils but we have to wait and see if it works. In 2016 we will see, I am all for big bucks and a healthy herd.

[dibbs]

Washington wildlife management stinks
I cant speak for the rest of the state, but in several eastern washington counties the deer numbers are down substantially in the past several years.  In stevens/ferry/ and pend oreille counties deer herds haven't rebounded from the winter 3 years ago. I 'm out in the woods all the time, very few animals, few tracks, very little sign!   Part of it is predators, both the two and four legged variety, part of it is winter kill, and part of it is loss of habitat.
 
 However I believe the biggest problem is that our seasons are too freeking long, and the WDFW issues way too many special permits!   Our state population continues to grow, and  deer are hunted from September thru December.  While I love to hunt just as much as the next guy, I believe the wildlife commission needs to give each venue (rifle, archery, muzzleloader) a one week season, period.  Do this for several years until populations come back a bit, and manage for healthy herds, not dollars from license sales. 

The way the deer herds have dwindled, I may very soon not purchase a deer tag, and if WDFW thinks they are going to generate additional revenue with increasing license and tag fees, with crappy herd numbers, then they're sadly mistaken.  Add wolves to the mix, and big game hunting will rapidly become a thing of the past!

I need to get a copy of WA states draft wolf management plan, because if what I heard today is correct,  when they get to the numbers of breeding pairs of wolves that are being proposed,you'll be lucky to see a big game animal, period.  Perhaps that's the ultimate goal???

[bobcat]

I wouldn't mind seeing the late muzzleloader, archery, and rifle seasons eliminated until deer numbers are back up. That's all they'd have to do. Keep the early/regular seasons the same as they are now. And also do away with all antlerless harvest as well. (in most units)

[bearpaw]

I wouldn't mind seeing the late muzzleloader, archery, and rifle seasons eliminated until deer numbers are back up. That's all they'd have to do. Keep the early/regular seasons the same as they are now. And also do away with all antlerless harvest as well. (in most units)

If the herds don't turn around soon in the areas still open for any buck or in the 4pt APR, I may have to agree with you bobcat, I think it depends on what happens after this winter, whether herds show improvement or not will determine if that should be the next step.



Dibbs welcome to the forum, I definitely agree with you on the wolves. There's quite a bit of wolf info here on the forum, here's the link to the state wolf plan:  http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00001/wdfw00001.pdf    (takes a while to load)

[bearpaw]

But, they won't cull predators so there are few options.

Wenatcheejay you are exactly right, pretty much everyone in the working group wanted predator control, but the WDFW will not even discuss it. The only thing they will really discuss is how to reduce human associated take. 

[Wenatcheejay]

I wouldn't mind seeing the late muzzleloader, archery, and rifle seasons eliminated until deer numbers are back up. That's all they'd have to do. Keep the early/regular seasons the same as they are now. And also do away with all antlerless harvest as well. (in most units)

(I do agree with you.)

But, to determine that WDFW would have to dedicate a biologist to set seasons. They seem unwilling to do that. They seem to say it is fine as is. We also know, once they take something away it never comes back, just something to think about. 

[colockumelk]

Dale I support the APR.  I have seen it work in the 3pt minimum gmu's south of Spokane.  The GMU my family has hunted for years is just south of Spokane.  There used to be a general rifle season late hunt for 3pt minimum.  Finding a legal 3pt buck was difficult at best.  The late general season muzzle loader season wasn't any better. 

The WDFW got rid of the late general season and made it permit only.  They give out about 700 buck permits so it only takes 2 or 3 years to draw.  Within a few years the turn around was remarkable.  Now its not a matter of IF we will see a buck (legal or not) its how many legal bucks we will see.  3pt minimum without a very generous/liberal permit hunt in place of a general late season works GREAT!

If tje deer herd north of I-90 doesn't recover I think they should do what works south of I-90 and make the GMU's north of I-90 do away with the general late season hunt and make it permit only and give out a very liberal amount of tags. It can be any buck or 3 pt min or whatever.

[buckfvr]

 SOmething  had to be done............

[bearpaw]

Dale I support the APR.  I have seen it work in the 3pt minimum gmu's south of Spokane.  The GMU my family has hunted for years is just south of Spokane.  There used to be a general rifle season late hunt for 3pt minimum.  Finding a legal 3pt buck was difficult at best.  The late general season muzzle loader season wasn't any better. 

The WDFW got rid of the late general season and made it permit only.  They give out about 700 buck permits so it only takes 2 or 3 years to draw.  Within a few years the turn around was remarkable.  Now its not a matter of IF we will see a buck (legal or not) its how many legal bucks we will see.  3pt minimum without a very generous/liberal permit hunt in place of a general late season works GREAT!

If tje deer herd north of I-90 doesn't recover I think they should do what works south of I-90 and make the GMU's north of I-90 do away with the general late season hunt and make it permit only and give out a very liberal amount of tags. It can be any buck or 3 pt min or whatever.

Sorry, guess I misunderstood your post.

I hope the herd improves so we don't have to go to tougher measures, but if it doesn't soon, I would definitely agree with cutting something back before the herd gets beyond the point of return.

[DBHAWTHORNE]

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. 

That would be a horrible bet and a pretty easy prediction to make. Of course the 5 point harvest will most likely be higher. There will be more bucks recruited into the older age class.

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

The goal isn't focused on creating more mature animals however a small bonus is that there will probably be a slightly higher percentage of mature bucks in the population if we weren't able to blast any yearling buck we see. The goal is to raise the pouplation while limiting hunter opportunity as little as possible.
 

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.

Anytime you protect animals you are going to have better recruitment to the older age classes. The 4 pt minimum is working on the same concept while limiting hunter opportunity as little as possible. Whitetail are not the same as Elk or Mule Deer for that matter. Whitetail are far more adaptable and robust when it comes to hunting pressure. Their populations usually don't require drastic measures to bounce back. That being said a 2pt and under rule is going to focus the pressure on the most vulnerable age group in the herd and lead to low buck recruitment for anything that has two points or less. The only thing that would counter that is the fact that there really aren't many 2pt or less whitetail running around. I have only seen a handful this year while I have seen dozens of 4pt or better.

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..

I agree.

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,...

Actually when it comes to whitetail some of the most successful programs are those that focus harvest on older age class animals. No need to kill the 2pt an unders. Let them live and lets just shoot mature does without fawns and bucks that are 6 1/2 years old or older....of course we can't manage that on a large scale which is why the APR's are in existence...much easier to utilize. A better one that has been used with success in certain counties in the south is a minimum spread size....but again..the goal of this APR isn't "more opportunity" to harvest truly mature animals. I can't believe there are so many hunters that are pushing to seriously limit opportunity more than the current APR when it is uncessary. I think it is a western mentality because of the other species we hunt due to the animals that can't sustain the hunter pressure a whitetail can. Whitetail are one of the only deer species that can survive a rut in sustainable numbers with massive amounts of hunting pressure (unlike we exeprience here). What we consider high hunting pressure here is low to moderate compared to other whitetail habitat in the nation. Lets not limit hunter opportunity for no good reason. I think the limited doe harvest along with the 4 pt APR we have (while not perfect) should do the job. If that doesn't work we should look at adjusting the late rifle so it doesn't fall in the rut. I wouldn't be a proponent of taking away days but adjusting them if necessary. We could make the Modern Rut hunt a special permit hunt so people would still have that opportunity from time to time.

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...

The comment about not being based on science is simply not true. With the 4pt minimum and thick cover you will also have escapement that you speak of while limiting hunter opportunity as little as possible and certainly much less than a 2pt and under.

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???

 Actually an outfitters business would thrive on a situation with two points or less with some special permit hunts for the mature animals. I am assuming that this is an opinion of yours rather than a fact from personal experience becuase it shows a lack of understanding on how an outfitters business works.....You are right...private landowners wouldn't support a 2pt or less...and I don't think many public land hunters (like myself) would either.

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

So your opinion is that we should scrap the 4pt APR and institute a 2pt or less (which by your estimation would also stay in place forever) and seriously limit hunter opportunity forever and for no good reason? If forever is a reality when they institute rules like this I would much rather have the relatively low impact 4pt minimum than have to draw a tag just to hunt a mature animal. That my friend would be the worst whitetail management program for hunter opportunity in this entire nation.