AWESOME 3pt min vs Spike only Aricle. PLEASE READ!!!!

[colockumelk]

I started this new thread since it deals with elk hunting throughout all of Washington State and not just the Colockum.   Its very informative.    As most people know I have been in favor of permit hunting in Eastern, WA.  Well lately I have been on the fence of 3pt min or 5pt min etc in Eastern, WA for elk.  Well this article has put me in the opinion that Eastern, WA should and can go to 3 pt min.  But with some changes.  For those super elk/biology nerds such as my self I attached the whole article.  But for the majority of people on here who actually have a life I have pasted the abstract and also pasted the highlights of the paper.  Bold print is my words.  Italics are from the paper.

The super short story of this article from what I can gather is this.  3pt min and spike only increases the bull:cow ratio over any bull hunting areas.  Spike only does not increase the bull:cow ratio much more than 3pt min does.  It only increases the  Mature bulls (>4.5 years old) to Cow ratio.  The biggest effect on bull:cow ratio and especially mature bull:cow ratio is limiting access.  This can be road closures or permit only.  Limiting hunter access made the biggest difference.  So it is my opinion.  MY OPINION (Do not take this as fact or the gospel) I believe that if the east side went to 3pt min and did some responsible road closures and limited access that way then 3pt min would work.  We would see the same amount of bulls we see now they just wouldnt' be as big.  So you would ask yourself.  Would your rather hunt spike only and draw a tag every 6-10 years and have a good shot at a 330" bull.  Or hunt 3pt min every year and work your butt off for a 260" bull.  Hopefully they would keep a couple GMU's (like one per PMU) Permit only.  So we could still have areas with big mature bulls to help out each sub-herd and keep the age class dynamics of each subherd somewhat stable. 

ABSTRACT:

The impacts of differing bull harvest strategies on elk (Cervus elaphus) population
demographics have been widely speculated but poorly documented. We documented
bull:cow ratios, bull age structure, and annual bull mortality rates under 4 differing
bull harvest strategies (open-entry any-bull, open-entry >3-point, and 2 levels of
limited-entry bull harvest) in Southwest Washington. Mean annual bull:cow ratios
increased from 22 to 54/100 from any-bull harvesting to the most restrictive limited entry
strategy, reflecting a decrease in mean annual bull mortality rates from 0.70 to
0.36. Limited-entry harvesting allowed significantly greater (P<0.001) bull survivorship
into prime age classes (22-26%) than did open entry harvesting (10%). The magnitude
of population response to limited-entry harvesting was dependent on degree of
hunter-access restriction. Among open-entry strategies, 3-point strategies allowed
greater yearling survivorship and consequently slightly increased bull:cow ratios compared
to the any-bull strategy, but did not increase survivorship into older age classes.
Herd productivity did not differ among strategies.

The first part basically says that studies have shown that in areas that are 3pt min the amount of Mature bulls (>4.5 years old) did not increase without also enacting measures to decrease the amount of hunting pressure.  ie decrease in number of hunting days or road closures.  

Various antler regulations have been used to increase total numbers of bulls or numbers of older age class bulls (Weigand and Mackie 1987). Most schemes limit either number of yearlings or number of adult animals taken.  Regulations designed to save young bulls (i.e., harvest of only >3- 4-point bulls) without simultaneous measures to decrease hunting pressure have not resulted in greater numbers of mature bulls in populations (Weigand and Mackie 1987, Carpenter 1991, Vore and DeSmone 1991).

Protecting spikes does not increase the numbers of older bulls

Hernbrode (1987) similarly found that protecting spikes would not increase numbers of older bulls.  Thus, Colorado's quality hunting areas do not have point restrictions; they simply limit total numbers of bull permits.  This practice allows hunters the opportunity to harvest a spike if they choose, which allows more bulls to reach older age classes (Hernbrode 1987).

3pt min decreased overall bull mortality and marginally increased bull:cow ratios but did not increase bull survivorship into mature age classes.  Thus, while overall bull mortality decreased due to protection of spike bulls, harvest mortality remained comparable in the >2.5 year old age classes when compared to any bull units.  If a managment objective is to increase numbers of older bulls, antler point regulations must be accompanied with restrictions in hunter numbers or access (Carpenter 1991, Unsworth et al. 1993).

This next part is what I believe is happening in the Colockum and some parts of the Yakima units.

An effective increase in numbers of cows (as yearling males are more closely associated with cows and calves than adult bulls) thereby increasing adult male mortality if sexes are competing for limited resources (Carpenter and Gill 1987)

It says this about road access and its effects on elk

The magnitude of response was related to the degree of access limitation.  As access became increasingly restricted, bull mortality decreased, bull:cow ratios increased, and proportions of mature bulls increased. 

It talks about restricting hunter numbers.  I think that limited road access has the same effect.

Thus, hunter numbers must be limited (e.g., limited-entry strategies) if bull escapement into older age classes or substantial increases in bull proportions are desired in a population.

It has this to say about spike only hunting

Alternatively, increased survival of bulls in general and branched bulls in particular also may be accomplished through antler regulations that place the bulk of the harvest pressure on the younger age classes, such as open-entry spike bull with branched bull by permit strategies (Vore and DeSimone 1991; Hugh banks and Irby 1993; P. Fowler, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, unpublished data).

[dreamunelk]

What was the source journal?  Authors?  link at bottom does not work. 

[colockumelk]

What was the source journal?  Authors?  link at bottom does not work.

Weird the attachment worked for me. 

Here is the link though.  In the upper right hand corner click on "+Show Full Citation"

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3783663

[wraithen]

So overall what I've gathered is this: If you shrink the number of bulls you can take, and make it so that way less hunters are able to take an animal, numbers will get better. So lets have a zero bull hunting for 5 years... That way there will be tons of them!

I'm sorry but I do believe the wdfw will never be less restrictive. Even if the elk were over populated they would just give out more tags with a price increase.

Am I correct that the elk weren't native to this state anyway? Had heard that :stir:

[colockumelk]

Okay the super, super super simple bare bones version.  Since the other "super short version" kind of got in the weeds a little bit.   

-3pt min increases the amount of total bulls and the bull:cow ratio compared to "Any Bull" units.
-3pt min does not significantly increase the number of Mature bulls compared to Any Bull units.
-Spike only increases the amount of total bulls and the bull:cow ratio and the amount of mature bulls compared to "Any Bull" units
-Spike only doesn't increase the amount of total bulls or the bull:cow ratio compared to 3pt min units.
-Spike only does increase the amount of Mature Bulls compared to 3pt min units.

The only way to increase the number of Mature Bulls in 3pt min units is to reduce hunting pressure. Reducing hunting pressure can be less road access, shorter hunting seasons to more restrictive methods such as permit only. 

The only way to increase bull:cow ratio in spike only units is to reduce hunting pressure. Reducing hunting pressure can be less road access, shorter hunting seasons to more restrictive methods such as permit only. 

I don't know why everytime I say "reduce hunting pressure" people automatically think "Quality Deer Managment" and permit only.  Reducing hunting pressure doesn't instantly mean 5 tags per GMU.  Closing roads or reducing the archery season by two days can be reducing hunting pressure.  I say reduce hunting pressure only as much as you have to, to get the desired results.      

Wraithan whoever told you that elk are not native to WA is full of it.  Elk are 100% native to both Western and Eastern Washington. 

[leed]

I agree with your information however you keep missing a couple key points in all of this. (in my opinion) A) DNR owns most of the Colockum (Naneum Rifge State Forest. They have no plans to abandon roads. In fact, they have been talking about improving access and putting in campgrounds.  B) The numan dynamics - if you create a three point mimimum rea you will get MORE hunters and the place is over crowded as it is.  Personally, I'd like to see it all go permit only and get a tag once evry three./four years for a bull and every two/three years for a cow. Give or take a year.  Just my opinion. I'd rather have more quality hunts than an over crowded true spike only hunt every year.  You did say something I liked, keep a permit only unit in each PMU. The Colockum could be it. I could go hunt the Taneum or manastash or anywhere close the other years I didn't get a permit draw.

[JLS]

So overall what I've gathered is this: If you shrink the number of bulls you can take, and make it so that way less hunters are able to take an animal, numbers will get better. So lets have a zero bull hunting for 5 years... That way there will be tons of them!

I'm sorry but I do believe the wdfw will never be less restrictive. Even if the elk were over populated they would just give out more tags with a price increase.

Am I correct that the elk weren't native to this state anyway? Had heard that :stir:

Lewis & Clark killed elk in Washington.

[colockumelk]

That's true.  Thanks for reminding me.  As far as road closures go in the Colockum you are right most of that land is DNR which means that they can't do anything about it.  But....  on the roads they do own they need to do some closures.  Also the RMEF bought up a bunch of DNR land and are trying to close things up. 

When I meant 3pt min I meant the entire East Side with road closures. 

[PlateauNDN]

Road Closures, good read Clock.

[Curly]

Well lately I have been on the fence of 3pt min or 5pt min etc in Eastern, WA for elk.  Well this article has put me in the opinion that Eastern, WA should and can go to 3 pt min.  But with some changes.

I think you may need to be reminded why permit only is the way to go for the Colockum.  Remember the Native American take of elk and how we need to go to permit only to be able to have any influence on the amount of elk taken by the natives......

Maybe you're saying permit only for the Colock and 3 point min for the rest of E WA??? 

[rtspring]

CLOCK,  Great read.

The trouble I see is that the state would never go 3pt Min for all of the eastside. So if they open lets say  three units to 3pt min, Can you imagine the pressure these units would have for the first season. There would be no big bulls left.

I commend you for your write ups and research, I for one will never go for a permit only hunt. I would truly quit hunting all together if Washington goes that route.

At the end of the day lets face it, we have way more hunters than we do game and everyone wants a piece of the pie handed to them.

[slim9300]

So overall what I've gathered is this: If you shrink the number of bulls you can take, and make it so that way less hunters are able to take an animal, numbers will get better. So lets have a zero bull hunting for 5 years... That way there will be tons of them!

I'm sorry but I do believe the wdfw will never be less restrictive. Even if the elk were over populated they would just give out more tags with a price increase.

Am I correct that the elk weren't native to this state anyway? Had heard that :stir:

Lewis & Clark killed elk in Washington.

But it was very difficult due to the indigenous hunting pressure and they almost starved. Lol

I used to have a great academic study done out of Alberta I think it was that covered this topic at great lengths. Now this is all I can find... http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/11/031120073620.htm

Not trying to hi-jack. Good thread colockumelk. My personal belief is that 5 point or bigger would have more of an impact but then again I didn't read the entire article, just what you posted.

[bobcat]

This is a good read on the history of elk in the Cascades:


http://www.nps.gov/mora/naturescience/upload/A%20History%20of%20Native%20Elk%20in%20Mount%20Rainier%20National%20Park.pdf

[colockumelk]

Well lately I have been on the fence of 3pt min or 5pt min etc in Eastern, WA for elk.  Well this article has put me in the opinion that Eastern, WA should and can go to 3 pt min.  But with some changes.

I think you may need to be reminded why permit only is the way to go for the Colockum.  Remember the Native American take of elk and how we need to go to permit only to be able to have any influence on the amount of elk taken by the natives......

Maybe you're saying permit only for the Colock and 3 point min for the rest of E WA???

I think permit is the way to go in the Colockum to reverse the downward trend of the bull population there.  I would like for one day to see it go back to a general season though.  I should have been alot more specific when I said I support 3pt min.  There would have to be some very specific things happen for me to support that though. 

We all want more opportunities but we also have to realize that with more opportunity comes less recruitment.  And we have to balance the two so that we have enough recruitment to continue the herd.  Slim9300 I agree about the 5 pt min.  It would create more escapement.  The 3pt min thing is just what the article used. 

[wraithen]

Thanks bobcat