The Debate about if APR's Work!!

[colockumelk]

I have seen APRs work for myself. Both here in Eastern WA and in Alabama. My family has hunted around Pullman for over 15 years. Since 3pt min has been implemented the amount of bucks has skyrocketed. Is it a trophy class unit no. Not at all. But that's not what APRs or QDM is about. Only the Antis who try to demonize APRs say it is an elitist policy and all about trophies. And they lie and are wrong. If they read the mission statememt QDM is about herd health. Its about increasing escapement, increasing the overall numbers of bucks and the buck:doe ratio. They say nothing about trophy animals. 

The Antis try to claim Amy buck allows equal harvest distribution of the age class. This is a lie. I have yet to see a study that doesn't say that 3/4 of buck harvest comes from the 1.5 year old age class. That doesnt sound even to me.

Also focusing your harvest on yearling bucks (which is what any buck hunts do) and not shooting any does is horrid  game management. So of course this is what the WDFW has done. APRs do despite tje antis claim evenly distribute the buck harvest across the age spectrum from 2.5 years on up.  Plus it encourages doe harvest.

There is some anti studies out but most don't have sources to cite. There is 10x more research that support the fact that APRs work. Plus I've seen it work for myself. In two different states.

[colockumelk]

Dave have you read any goals that APR or QDM set forth. It doesn't sound like it. Because neither of their mission statements or goals mentions anything about trophy class animals or Boomed and Crockett anything.

There is 10x more literature that supports APR and QDM than the Anti material. How have you not read anything that supports APRs? Also how can you believe that something that provides escapement (you call it loss of opportunity) will not increase the amount of bucks?

[mdbuck5x5]

So I guess you're an expert now! If it works so well, I'm curious how come 117 went from 3 pt to a 4 pt restriction?

[slim9300]

I agree. This state should go to 5x5 or 6x6 or better in non-special permit units for elk too. It's either that or make all elk hunting a 50% chance of drawing a general tag. There are too many young bull elk being killed to sustain a healthy herd in my opinion. And this is coming from a guy that kills his elk every year.

I'm sure this wouldn't happen though because all the rifle hunters wouldn't allow it. It's a shame too because this state could easily be better managed.

Edit: I meant 5 point or 6 point on one side. Not both. That wouldn't make sense. My bad.

[colockumelk]

So I guess you're an expert now! If it works so well, I'm curious how come 117 went from 3 pt to a 4 pt restriction?

Never said I was an expert. I was just asking questions in response to statements he had made. I'm just saying from research I have read and through personal experience APRs work.

I agree slim. Spike only is a failure for elk.

[JimmyHoffa]

I'm sure this wouldn't happen though because all the rifle hunters wouldn't allow it. It's a shame too because this state could easily be better managed.

I don't see why this is about rifle hunters vs others.  Last time I checked rifle hunters generally have fewer doe and any buck areas/seasons.  Quite a few of the bowhunters (traditional guys not compound) and muzzy (not inline) that I know seem to be fine shooting spikes and forkies, saying it is the hunt that mattered.

[Dave Workman]

I have seen APRs work for myself. Both here in Eastern WA and in Alabama. My family has hunted around Pullman for over 15 years. Since 3pt min has been implemented the amount of bucks has skyrocketed. Is it a trophy class unit no. Not at all. But that's not what APRs or QDM is about. Only the Antis who try to demonize APRs say it is an elitist policy and all about trophies. And they lie and are wrong. If they read the mission statememt QDM is about herd health. Its about increasing escapement, increasing the overall numbers of bucks and the buck:doe ratio. They say nothing about trophy animals.

I've hunted around Pullman and the number of bucks is good.  I see a lot of 2-point bucks. Lots and lots of 2-point bucks compared to anywhere else I've hunted the past few years. Very few bucks with more points, however.

I'm not a liar, and I won't be called one simply because you happen to disagree with what I and others know for a fact. I don't give a rat's ass what APRs and QDMs say on paper. You are living in denial if you think for a heartbeat that advocates (not all of 'em) of "Quality Deer management" and "Antler Point Restrictions" aren't pushing this philosophy to produc a bunch of bigger racks. 

All of us who don't agree with APRs and QDMs (gee, ain't it neat to talk with alphabet soup acronyms?) are also interested in herd health, and some of us have been around here long enough to understand generations of weather and herd cycles and how you can manage for all kinds of things but if you ignore the fact that weather can clobber a herd because there are too many post-season bucks around, then you're dumber than rocks.

I remember the big winter kills and what they did to the mule deer and whitetail herds. Back when I wrote for F&H News, I interviewed a bio up in the Methow Valley who told me about all the dead  deer he had in his yard, and deer killed along the highways.

This state hasn't done a very good job of habitat enhancement, and that's a big part of the problem. Very disappointing.

The Antis try to claim Amy buck allows equal harvest distribution of the age class. This is a lie. I have yet to see a study that doesn't say that 3/4 of buck harvest comes from the 1.5 year old age class. That doesnt sound even to me.

We've had the b/a requirement on mule deer for more than ten years. You're telling me that 3/4 of the mule deer bucks taken are 1.5 years old?

Also focusing your harvest on yearling bucks (which is what any buck hunts do) and not shooting any does is horrid  game management. So of course this is what the WDFW has done. APRs do despite tje antis claim evenly distribute the buck harvest across the age spectrum from 2.5 years on up.  Plus it encourages doe harvest.

Where do you get it that any buck regulations focus the harvest on yearling / spike bucks? Besides, what is wrong with taking the pressure off of mature bucks that really don't hit their prime until they're 3-4 years old?

There is some anti studies out but most don't have sources to cite. There is 10x more research that support the fact that APRs work. Plus I've seen it work for myself. In two different states.

I've seen it work here to reduce the number of hunters in the field by the tens of thousands.  If that's what you're after, you're only helping destroy hunting altogether.



But of course, all of this discussion really identifies what is happening with management in WA.  The divisions between B/A advocates and any buck advocates is another symptom of the same disease being spread by Resource Allocation: Divide the user groups against one another, keep them fighting and we're never going to unify to hold the AGENCY accountable for all the things it is not doing.

[Dave Workman]

I agree. This state should go to 5x5 or 6x6 or better in non-special permit units for elk too. It's either that or make all elk hunting a 50% chance of drawing a general tag. There are too many young bull elk being killed to sustain a healthy herd in my opinion. And this is coming from a guy that kills his elk every year.

I'm sure this wouldn't happen though because all the rifle hunters wouldn't allow it. It's a shame too because this state could easily be better managed.

Edit: I meant 5 point or 6 point on one side. Not both. That wouldn't make sense. My bad.

Back in the day when there were no antler restrictions on elk, there were more hunters and less angry hunters. We had a longer general rifle season and it was a week later and lasted a week longer.

Kill an elk every year, eh? You hunt at Woodland Park zoo?
 

[Dave Workman]

Dave i think you prove that a 1 prong approach will only has a small short gain. That said, attacking this issue on many levels  predators, more boots on the ground etc.
will likely have a more meaningful effect. What we lack is LEADERSHIP not studies.

Could you sort of translate this a little more?
 

[slim9300]

I'm sure this wouldn't happen though because all the rifle hunters wouldn't allow it. It's a shame too because this state could easily be better managed.

I don't see why this is about rifle hunters vs others.  Last time I checked rifle hunters generally have fewer doe and any buck areas/seasons.  Quite a few of the bowhunters (traditional guys not compound) and muzzy (not inline) that I know seem to be fine shooting spikes and forkies, saying it is the hunt that mattered.

I get that aspect of hunting but the problem is a declining elk population. Antler restrictions or reduced numbers of hunters would reduce the harvest and allow elk to slowly rebound in this state IMHO. That would mean that hunters would be required to think about what is right for the future and not themselves on a short term basis.

Rifle hunters wouldn't allow it because they would point out bowhunters and some muzzy hunters would still be able to kill cows while their hunting would suck until a few years passed. Did you see the outpouring from rifle hunters (and all hunters for the most part) a few years back when they talked about making some of these changes in a public forum? It's always, "keep things how they are!" I would even go as far to say that during the 2-3 year transition from 3 point or better to 6 point or better that I would be perfectly okay with all cow hunting being shut down. The problem is that most hunters are much too focused on the present to allow that and our game department is too greedy to manage the animals property because revenue would plummet for a few years. As soon as the antler restrictions or elk draw were in place for a few years the hunting would be better and actually sustainable.

[Cougeyes]

The state's objective initially was to implement the 3 point restriction because of the harsh winters in 96 that killed a significant amount of that year's fawns and yearlings which never would recruit into the older age classes.  I would say their objective was met, deer numbers rebounded eventually.  Without that restriction it would have taken a significant amount of time to get the deer numbers back up because hunters would shoot a lot more yearlings (those that didn't die during the winter) further reducing the recruitment of bucks into the overall population and older age class.  So yes, I would say it worked in that sense, allowing another crop of young deer to be recruited into the population and eventually into the older age classes where we were allowed to then harvest them. 

However, since the objective has been met, I wish it would revert back to any buck.  There would be less wasted animals by people not realizing their target (e.g., appropriate amount of antler points).  We hear about game wastage because of this too often.   I agree with Fitkin about having the pressure be on the older age classes rather than spread out.  There are those that wish to harvest a decent buck and those that are looking to put meat in the freezer, possibly more meat hunters.  So this probably would sway the pendulum to one side, with that side being the younger age class deer, but I think the % of harvest wouldn't be significant that it would hurt the overall population and buck:doe ratios. 

Talking with my grandpa and dad about their hunts, prior to the antler point restriction and even from my own experience hunting prior to the restriction, I didn't think there was a problem with deer numbers.  I've read a few WDFW game management reports prior to the change in regulations and there didn't appear to be a decline in deer numbers.  With that, I would have to think that there wasn't a need then to switch to 3 point restriction until the harsh winter.  My dad and his hunting partner never had problems filling their tags.  They would pass up many spikes and small two points and harvest a decent 3 or 4 point.  This all was happening when there was a 3 week season too.

[DBHAWTHORNE]

quote]

This isn't about whitetails per se, it's about the positively stupid perpetuation of APR regulations on mule deer. I don't think BA restrictions work for whitetail, either, and while some folks say "give it time," there is ample experience in other regions with whitetails that pretty much refutes the predictions.

I can't speak for APRs on Mule Deer but when it comes to whitetail I can say that APRs can, have and do work. While they aren't the best option they are probably the most reasonable to implement on a large scale. The "ample experience in other regions" actually is false. There is one study that was funded by the state of TX and is known as the Kerr Study. This study has been proven seriously flawed by one of the most prestigious Whitetail biologist in the nation (Dr. James Kroll)  I can tell you that practically every other study completed that comes up with the failure of APRs draws on an already flawed foundation by using the Kerr Study model. If you can find a study that doesn't base their research on the flawed model of the Kerr Study (and proves APR's for whitetail ineffective) then please let me know.  

Yes, I do remember whitetail herds 10-15 years ago.  In the seasons when I hunted Northeast counties, I saw plenty of whitetails at times, and at other times I didn't. That's why they call it hunting and not shooting...except in the fairytale television shows where a hunt wraps up in 30 minutes and the people sit in blinds, dressed in camo as if deer could see them. 

I remember hundreds of whitetail in some alfalfa fields....now days I see a fraction of that and often none.



You're not getting it at all.  The anti-APR guys are right, it will not create more big bucks. However, that doesn't stop the APR advocates from believing it will create more big bucks.  THAT's where the delusional thinking comes into play. Lecture them, not me. The available evidence appears to suggest that the APR guys are wrong in believing they'll wake up one day and find B&C bucks around every television set.  And, yes, I blame television for a lot of this bull$#!t.

Well we can agree that a B&C buck won't be around any tree. However, I would beg to differ in the fact that there will be a better recruitment into older age classes which will increase the health of the herd I don't expect anything exorbient but studies have shown there is  a 3%-10% increase into older age classes when you have APRs.

The problem with this is what we in these parts known is a pattern that is probably going to get worse if this climate change thing has any veracity.  Place restrictions on deer and the populations will increase for a few years, and then just when it might make sense to drop the restrictions, WHAM! we get hit with a hard winter, there are too many deer, too many bucks competing with pregnant does for available feed, and we have a big winter kill that allows the desk jockeys in Oly and their butt smoochers to wring their hands and recommend continued antler restrictions "to bring back the herd numbers."

They might also believe they hav to remain conservative in the harvest to provide more munchies for the wolves and cougars, the populations of which are both very likely grossly underestimated. 

I can certainly agree with you that winter kill (and likely) predadation is/will be what biologist call a "limiting factor". Since we know the "limiting factors" there are things we can do to help them survive winters/predation. Some good studies have been conducted in Michigan on these exact issues.



Managing the deer herd requires more than just sitting behind a desk crunching numbers from the regions.

if I were suddenly GAME director, I'd hold a fire sale on office furniture and give a lot of people an option: Get out there, come back with five ideas apiece on how to improve the available habitat to support 50,000 more deer and 10,000 more elk within five years, or find a job somewhere else.  We have all of this public land out there that should be good habitat and COULD be good habitat, but it's not. It is just kind of "doing its own thing." What the hell did we buy it for?

As for coyotes, I'd remove the requirement to have a hunting license to kill them, and I would then encourage everybody with a gun to kill every one coyote they see.

I'd go to the Legislature, have them repeal the hound hunting restrictions, put aggressive hound hunting seasons on mountain lions and black bears, and take down the populations fast.

I'd find the money somewhere — probably instead of spending it on wolf studies and management — and put that into habitat improvement; planting good browse brush, clover plots, wild wheat, alfalfa, whatever the game animals eat and has the best nutrients, and plant that stuff wherever it will best benefit the herds.

And I'd lobby our congressional delegation to spend every waking hour to delist wolves in all of Washington state, and call on the Legislature to remove state protections, and then deal with that issue.

I can certainly agree with you on all of the appoints immediately above.....and the one below...

But I'll never be GAME director.   

[slim9300]

I agree. This state should go to 5x5 or 6x6 or better in non-special permit units for elk too. It's either that or make all elk hunting a 50% chance of drawing a general tag. There are too many young bull elk being killed to sustain a healthy herd in my opinion. And this is coming from a guy that kills his elk every year.

I'm sure this wouldn't happen though because all the rifle hunters wouldn't allow it. It's a shame too because this state could easily be better managed.

Edit: I meant 5 point or 6 point on one side. Not both. That wouldn't make sense. My bad.

Back in the day when there were no antler restrictions on elk, there were more hunters and less angry hunters. We had a longer general rifle season and it was a week later and lasted a week longer.

Kill an elk every year, eh? You hunt at Woodland Park zoo?
 

I heard that same line from my dad who spends every working day of his life in the woods up until the last year  or so when he realized that I may have a point. My dad has killed over 40 elk in his life (mostly cows and small bulls with his bow). The problem is that this state exaggerates the number of elk horribly on the west side. I would say that there is half of the elk today that there were in 1980 in Western WA.

I bow hunt, I'm not lazy, I scout two weeks or more every year, I practice shooting daily, I learned to hunt from someone that knows what he is doing, and I shoot mostly cows in WA. It's really not that hard if you are willing to hunt miles from the truck.

[Cougeyes]

I get that aspect of hunting but the problem is a declining elk population. Antler restrictions or reduced numbers of hunters would reduce the harvest and allow elk to slowly rebound in this state IMHO.

What elk populations are you talking about?  The Yakima herd and Colockum herd are at or above objective with numbers, but the Colockum herd bull:cow ratios are hurting severely.  Not sure what elk populations in the state are declining? 

[slim9300]

I get that aspect of hunting but the problem is a declining elk population. Antler restrictions or reduced numbers of hunters would reduce the harvest and allow elk to slowly rebound in this state IMHO.

What elk populations are you talking about?  The Yakima herd and Colockum herd are at or above objective with numbers, but the Colockum herd bull:cow ratios are hurting severely.  Not sure what elk populations in the state are declining?

I only have experience on the west side of the Cascades. (and mostly on the coast) I should have made that clear. Antler restrictions would fix your bull to cow ratio in the Colockum over time. This state has a horrible bull to cow ratio in pretty much every general unit on the west side too.