The Debate about if APR's Work!!

[DBHAWTHORNE]

And for everyone else. I have compared PA APR rules as an example of how it works with whitetails and was told over and over again how you camt compare WA and PA. I've even compared South of I90 with APRs and North of I90 without APRs and was told you can't compare the two. (Really people) but when Dave compares OH with WA (which I think was a good example BTW) no one says anything.  On another thread I said how NY does a better job than WA showing the same type of  stats Dave put up and got ripped by people.  Again you can't compare the two. I guess for some people its easier to dismiss someone's research or sources as "irrelevant" or "apples to oranges" than provide a good counterargument.

The way I read it, you are focusing more on the methods other states are using---ex:  APRs for WT and if that translates to WA muleys.  And it seems like Dave is pointing out the change over time to opportunity because of different game depts--ex:  WA has had a decline in hunters, herd, harvest; but OH is increasing all 3.  What you are discussing is more debateable because it is one of the available tools and there is science for and against as well as personal observations.  What Dave seems to throw around (with the OH comparison) is harder to counter because it isn't the method, it's the numbers.

OH only has a 7 day general season and it's not during the rut. Does Dave support that?

[walt]

I've even compared South of I90 with APRs and North of I90 without APRs and was told you can't compare the two. (Really people)

Yep. There is no late rifle season south, fewer large predators, more private land, better food sources, milder winters,...and I'd be willing to bet my trigger finger that there are more bucks in all age classes north of 90.

[JimmyHoffa]

Yeah, Dave, I'm somehow trying to say that you are comparing how other states Game/Wildlife agencies have been working to increase the amount of animals taken by its hunters and WA seems to be going the other way.  The overall numbers speak for themselves--comparing 1970's OH and WA to 2010 OH and WA.  Colockumelk is discussing some of the methods that other states are using to get to better deer herds and whether or not that would work in WA--not the success/failure of the game agency overall.  (At least that's how I'm reading it).  Hoping this makes sense.
DB, We'll have to let that Dave guy answer your question.
I personally don't see APRs being viable for BT where I hunt.  Just not enough deer to really start playing scientific theory games on them.  Every year I see fewer and fewer deer(wilderness and adjacent NF lands), but am seeing more and more cats/cat sign.  This summer my neighbor had a bobcat attack and kill a small buck in his yard (this is in Port Angeles), and cougars that used to be a yearly sighting are now every couple of weeks.  People have quit calling them in they are so common now.  I think the overall herd needs to be brought back up before trying to manage it such that a handful of people can shoot P&Y/B&C deer.  My guess is that if overall herd size was brought back up, there would be plenty of animals to 'pass up' and therefore more mature animals.

[Elkaholic daWg]

Dave, maybe you need to apply for a job at the WDFW then. It sounds like you have all the answers.

I don't think the Empress would allow him to be DIRECTOR of WDFW, that would ruin decades of regress. I think the guy works a lot harder than most of us (ME included) regarding our rights, heritages etc....

[Miles]

Oh, and Dave, I'd love to hunt out of state every year but I cannot afford it. I think I'll be stuck here in Washington and only Washington for the next 10 years or so.

    I thought Dale (Bearpaw) was giving all his moderators a free out of state hunt every year?   

[bobcat]

Oh, and Dave, I'd love to hunt out of state every year but I cannot afford it. I think I'll be stuck here in Washington and only Washington for the next 10 years or so.

    I thought Dale (Bearpaw) was giving all his moderators a free out of state hunt every year?   

    That would be news to me! 

Is he going to also pay for my licenses/tags and fuel to get there? I have no money for that, which is why I've been hunting no more than 10 miles from my house this year.

[mdbuck5x5]

Cue the wine and cheese! 

[Curly]

I take it you moved here from elsewhere. Or, at the very least, you have not had the experience that others have had over a much longer hunting career.

Lots of hunters believe that the use of unlimited OTC tags is not managing deer numbers and hunters responsibly.  Pointing to the way most other states in the west manage mule deer (special permits) as a possible alternative the the crappy management should not make one assume the person is from elsewhere or not hunted here for long.  I happen to agree with Bobcat and I also have lived in this state my whole life and hunted in this state for over 30 years.  Since I happen to agree with Bobcat, I'll go thru and give my 2 cents on several of your points directed toward Bobcat.

You want fewer people in the woods and lower harvest.  Begging your pardon, but that seems rather selfish.
I know the woods don't belong to me. Others enjoy their time here, too.

It is not selfish to want a better hunting experience and a healthier herd.  The state decided to go with 3 point minimum as a temporary management strategy to help out low mule deer herd numbers after bad winter kills (in lieu of the less popular idea of special permits; hunters keep telling WDFW that they like APR's and don't want to go to a special permit system, so we get stuck short hunting seasons and overcrowding along with bad hunting experiences.

And I am interested in seeing better and more productive hunting and more game animals...and that is possible here because we have the land to do it.

Everybody is interested in seeing better and more productive hunting and more deer; where some of us apparently disagree is how to get to that goal.  I don't believe that we can have no APR's, unlimited OTC mule deer tags, no designation for weapon choice, and long seasons (essentially rules like we had in the 70's and 80's) and accomplish that goal.........actually this seems rather selfish. 

Just because there is a lot of land doesn't mean that the land is productive, quality habitat, that is good for growing deer herds.  A lot of land has been lost since the 70's.  A lot more people live here now.

The "Less is More" approach is not simply wrong, it is wrong-headed. It plays into the hands of wildlife managers who seem more interested in spending their time with studies and data-gathering instead of getting their hands dirty improving habitat and expanding game herds.

Well, I disagree.  The "more is more" approach will get us less.  You can't have it all anymore.............times have changed.  You act like we need to fight the wildlife biologists.  We should be helping them and they should be helping us.  I don't know how a biologist could even be happy working for WDFW; they get bashed by hunters and when they make suggestions for the health of the herd based on science they get shot down by their agency due to politics or get overruled by the game commission. 

My impression of the biologists at WDFW is that the deer/elk bios are pretty good, but the bear and cougar bios are complete morons and some are even real pricks........

Too many people have grown up listening to, and believing, the bull$#!t about "We've got to learn to get along with less."  Tell that to the NWTF, which has enhanced and grown wild turkey populations all over and even helped out in Washington until the WDFW crapped on the turkey program.

Sure it is bull$#!t to some extent, but to go back to rules like we had in the 70's would not accomplish what you wish.  Too bad about the Turkey program. 

Ask those Ohio deer hunters I wrote about earlier. When I first started writing about the disparity between Washington and Ohio, the annual harvest there hovered around 98,000 to 100,000 deer. That's more than doubled in the past 25 years despite a growing population in Ohio that is about twice our population.

Ohio is all whitetails, WA is much different and not really a fair comparison.

I've hunted in other states and seen with they can do with habitat not much different than ours and winter weather that is downright fearsome compared to what you find over most of this state. In Utah, I counted about 400 deer in three days of hunting and deliberately killed a cull buck 2x3 when I could have waited and whacked a big 4x4.

That Utah hunt was a special permit draw, wasn't it.  The Utah mule deer herds couldn't sustain unlimited OTC tags with all weapon choices and long seasons either.

But, of course, in Utah, Wyoming and Montana, the game departments know and APPRECIATE who pays their salaries and they know what makes money...and it sure isn't watching animals at a winter feed station or sitting on one's @$$ listening for the howl of a Frigging wolf. Ditto in Idaho, where I am likely to land next November.

The only way to make these people respond is to hammer them hard and make them accountable. Tell them to produce or pack and make room for someone who can.

This part I can agree with.  I just don't know how we can get there though.  Maybe a new governor will make some changes that will help? 

The WDFW's apparent love for predators is really troubling and that is my main complaint with WDFW...........not the APR thing.  APR's are not here because the WDFW wants them, they are here because that is what hunters tell them we want...........I just can't figure out why they listen to hunters regarding APR's and resource allocation, but not when it comes to managing predators.

[muleyguy]

here's an interesting article from Game and Fish Magazine on WA hunting;  like I indicated earlier, NOBODY is going out of state because the regulations are too difficult, or the restrictions are too great;  Lots of people are going out of state, but it is because of the quality of the hunting is greater in neighboring states that DO regulate their tag sales!!;   the problem in this state is that simply the WDFW has never met a tag it didn't want to sell!!!  we even now have the multi-season tag which increases opportunity even more;  I do agree that the WDFW has a difficult time, but, the primary problem our WDFW has is that it does not want to restrict tag sales (restrict$$$), and, the tradeoff is that if you are going to sell that many tags, our resource cannot sustain it, so, to try and solve this dilemma, they use APR's and shortened seasons in the middle of October to deal with it; 

Bottom line is this:  you can sell a lot of tags and have short seasons, APR's ,etc;  or, you can sell fewer tags, get rid of APR's, stretch the season out longer; 

we all have our own personal preferences;  many on here do not want to give up their right to hunt every year in this state;  thats fine, but you are going to have to accept consequences for that in the form of APR's and continuously shortened seasons and thousands upon thousands of hunters in the field at the same time;

personally, my preference is for some minor restrictions on tag sales to have a much better experience in the field.  I have no problem giving up 1 year out of 3;  I'll just go out of state that year, or hunt elk, etc.

unfortunately, the one scheme we cannot have in this state is unlimited tag sales, long seasons, do whatever you want to do, open hunting conditions;  that WILL destroy the resource;  I don't think anybody outside of a very few on here agree with that.

The reason Wyoming only sells 90,000 deer tags is because their population base is so LOW compared to ours;  so, they do not have to make as difficult a decision as we do here in WA;

We simply have too many people wanting access to the resource (deer tags);  it is unfortunate, but, that is just the way it is.

here is a snippet of the article:

Name the common denominator among the following scenarios:

It is mid-September. You have spent a long day in the saddle, following a steadily climbing trail into the north Cascade Mountains’ Pasayten Wilderness Area. The sky is flawlessly blue, the temperature is in the 60s, and your old Model 70 Winchester .270 is secured to the scabbard on the flanks of an Appaloosa. There are only a couple more miles to your base camp, from which you will hunt mule deer for the next five days.
It is early October. Before daylight you had launched your boat, the one you use in the summer to fish for Hanford Reach salmon, at a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers boat ramp on the upper Snake River. You are nearing the dry creek mouth where you will beach your boat to hunt the brushy canyon above the river for white-tailed deer with a muzzleloader.
It is mid-December. Rain has fallen for the past three days, and you can no longer see Hood Canal far below your stand on a ridge above Thorndyke Bay. You have hiked up to your stand every morning for a week. There was plenty of sign around the intersection of trails in front of your blind during the rut, but none of the blacktail bucks you saw earlier in the season have come within bow range.
The common theme? These events all took place in Washington. Indeed, Evergreen State deer hunters have a wider range of hunting opportunity than hunters enjoy in virtually any other region in the country. This is true in terms of species – with blacktails, whitetails and mule deer inhabiting the state – and the settings and habitats where they live.

The mule deer scenario above, for example, occurred during the September high buck hunt, which opens a number of wilderness areas to modern firearms hunters. At the other end of the calendar, a handful of extended archery seasons allow hunting through December. It’s true that any Washington resident who cannot find a deer hunting situation to their liking simply isn’t looking.

In addition to wide-ranging hunting options, Washington rifle, archery and blackpowder deer hunters also enjoy some of the simplest hunting regulations in the West. It is still possible to purchase a general-season deer license over the counter, and except for a handful of units, a hunter can choose to hunt any region of the state in any given year.

[bobcat]

I agree with that- I don't know how our deer seasons/regulations could be simpler. You go to the store, but a deer tag, and go hunting- almost anywhere in the state. What so complicated about that?

[colockumelk]

Thankyou Curly and Muleyguy once again you two have provided a really contribution cant really add anything to what you said.

My only question is to people who agree with Dave. Why do you think that if we dropped APRs and had longer seasons or could hunt with all three weapons, this would make our deer hunting better? Why do you believe that this would make for more bucks, more deer, older bucks and a better buck:doe ratio? My opinion is that this would segregate our resource (Deer) So how would your plan make deer hunting better in WA. How would it make for a healthier herd?

[high country]

Clockum, guys that would hunt all 3 seasons are guys that like to hunt. I have never hunted with a muzzle loader but i would love to try it....will I give up a year to try it, no. I am one of those who will take a deer every year with 99% certainty, at least since 1993. What difference does it make if I kill it with a scope, stick or smoke? The multi season hunters are largely the 10%ers who are going to tag no matter what.....so why not let them spend the time out there? They are spreading their wealth in the community while doing what they love.

[colockumelk]

I disagree. I am also a 10%. And don't put it for multiseason. Looking at the stats multiseason guys have a 47% and general season tag holders for all weapons is 24%. So based off of the harvest reports if everyone could hunt with multiple weapins we would have almost twice as many deer killed. Not a good way to build a deer herd IMHO.  I disagree with you that most multi season guys are the 10%. I think its the opposite. If your a 10% like you and me why spend $180 on a deer tag when you always get one with your preferred weapon and only spend $40 or how ever much a deer tag costs? I think most guys that buy the multiseason tag are the other 90% who want more opportunity because they feel they need it in order to get a deer.

[high country]

You must have missed the part about me wanting to try muzzle loading....but not willing to burn a tag on it. I bounce back and forth between bow and rifle, I hate that I can't do both here. Perhaps a two tiered season like Idaho has would satisfy us both.

[colockumelk]

I saw that part. Correct me if I am wrong (happens all Tue time) But what I took from your post was if our state was like other states where you could hunt all 3 methods than it would not negatively impact the deer herd and overall harvest success would not chqnge much.  Because most multi season guys get their one deer a year anyways since they are the 10% that kills 90%. 

If so I disagree because looking at harvest reports general season guys (all three methods average) is 24%. Whereas multiseason guys have a 47% success rate. 

PS I hate autospell on my phone