4 pt. minimum whitetail units

[Branden]

Although it's hardly scientific, I think as a general rule, if an outfitter (in this case bearpaw) supports a *more* restrictive rule for hunting in their own territory, it is almost certainly a good idea...

I think you have that completely backwards. (by no means am I saying bearpaw or any other outfitter wanted the 4pt minimum for monetary gains)

Now days bigger more mature animals means bigger price tags. How many guys are going to go on a guided hunt if the expected size is an immature animal? How many guys would go on a guided hunt if it was expected to get a mature animal?

[Sitka_Blacktail]

How in the hell did we all over look the correlation between the St
Helens mud flow ELK heard, and the whitetail of GMU 121 and 117?

 

Bear Paw was bemoaning the lack of winter feeding programs in 121 and 117. I was pointing out why management doesn't like to use them and how they can actually cause more problems than they solve using the St Helens mud flow herd as an example. if you can't see the correlation, I glad you aren't managing our herds.

Here's one study on the St Helens herd that actually sheds light on why managers all over the West are reluctant to start new feeding programs. Besides the down sides, they are hard to get rid of because of public opinion, no matter how misguided. It's just like in the spring when people find "orphaned" baby animals and want to take them and "save" them. People want to do something to "save the animals" which is a good thing, but they let emotions get in the way of cold hard facts and often miss the real problem. It's the Bunny Hugger syndrome and even hunters are susceptible to it.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00771/wdfw00771.pdf

Go to page 24 and read about winter feeding. then continue to habitat management on page 26. You can learn a lot about why decisions are made and the fact that there are way more consideration to be made than the simplistic ones the average Joe has. This quote jumped out at me as far as deer and elk health goes on the west side. I've personally seen a decline in hunting over here since burns were banned and chemicals were used to clear brush.

"The move from prescribed burning of clear-cut units prior to re-forestation to a more intensive
herbicide treatment may be substantially impacting both quality and quantity of forage for elk on
private and state owned timberlands. Intensive chemical site preparation will result in less
species diversity in clear cuts and a likely reduction in nutritive quality (B. Anderson personal
communication 2000)."

This may be one of the biggest issues facing wildlife management on the west side. It's mentioned many times in this report. What's the connection to 121 and 117 you might ask? Maybe nothing right now, but if someone wants to start using chemical defoliants as a common logging practice there, you might want to be ready to fight it. I'm convinced it's part of the blacktail herd decline.

[bobcat]

Maybe nothing right now, but if someone wants to start using chemical defoliants as a common logging practice there, you might want to be ready to fight it. I'm convinced it's part of the blacktail herd decline.

There's no doubt in my mind that that's one of the biggest reasons for the decrease in the number of blacktail deer.

[bearpaw]

Another thing that I will mention is winter feeding. When we have hard winters that push deer from the mid elevation winter ranges, we need to feed them to help them because humans are occupying far too much of the low elevation winter range. When Washington had larger deer numbers we had a strong feeding effort going on. Now there is less winter range and our managers don't want to feed.

The managers don't want to rely on feeding programs because it concentrates too many animals in too small of areas. The result can be catastrophic if disease gets started. It can also cause problems with animal/auto collisions and concentrates animals for predators, both 4 & 2 legged. It also gets animals used to handouts instead of learning to forage on their own. Good habitat and spread out herds is good, feeding programs are a sign of problems in the surrounding habitat. They can actually exacerbate the problem at hand. A good example is the St Helens elk herd. Remember a few years back when whole herds of animals were tipping over and dying?  They had a winter feeding program there, but the problem actually started in the summer range. The animals were getting to their winter range in near starving condition. So it really didn't make sense to feed them in the winter to keep more of them alive to further overcrowd and degrade the summer range even more. I'll see if I can find the link to that study again.

 

That was nearly the exact textbook response that I expected and thanks for elaborating on the St Helens herd too, that was a bonus I didn't expect. 

You cannot blame the lack of summer range at St Helens on the winter feeding program. You actually said it yourself, the animals were arriving in near starving condition from a lack of summer range. The WDFW may be doing the right thing by reducing herd size if the summer range is at it's limit and if the summer range cannot be improved. However, you are comparing apples (elk in St Helens) to oranges (deer). Please show us where mule deer numbers are too high for their summer range in Washington.

The real limiting factors for mule deer are too many predators and too little winter range. 

During the recent hard winters if there would have been feeding programs for whitetails in the NE, we likely would not have had as significant of a loss and subsequently would have likely avoided the need to recover the herd.

It has been proven by the past deer feeding programs in Washington that winter feeding benefits deer, we used to have much larger deer herds, then after winter feeding was stopped and predator management nearly eliminated, the mule deer population in particular has declined.

In addition, Idaho and Wyoming (two of the best mule deer states) still have winter feeding programs, are you suggesting they are wrong to feed their deer? Washington still feeds certain elk herds, are you suggesting that feeding is decreasing our elk herds? Your point regarding the spread of disease is possible, but not probable and that has been proven multiple times. Your point about disease is really little more than a poor excuse commonly used by F&W depts to avoid feeding.

By not feeding the herds that sportsman pay to hunt, the WDFW can use a greater percentage of sportsman's dollars for other uses like manager salaries and non-game programs. This is bad business, essentually what I am saying is that the WDFW needs to reassess their priorities and conduct themselves in a more businesslike fashion by investing in our deer and elk herds. In any business you must invest in your products in order to improve the business, when there is too little investment the business suffers. This is what is happening with game herds in WA. If WDFW would reinstate winter feeding of deer and reduce predators the herds would increase and license sales would increase. That's smart business.

Currently the WDFW is on the hind teat of the wolf, but don't be fooled your wolf dollars will run out and then WDFW will be in the same sorry mess as Idaho and Montana, no more wolf money and far fewer license sales due to greatly reduced herds. Anyone who cannot recognize this scenario is simply  __________.  (fill in the blank however you like)

Chemical Defoilants
In NE WA there is one company starting to use them and I agree that may be a potential problem. A bigger problem currently is the lack of logging on National Forest lands, that has caused huge expanses of low quality range. However, there is no national forest in GMU 121, it is a mozaic of private and state timberlands. GMU 121 was the highest prodiucing deer unit in WA until we lost deer to winter kill. I think Mt Spokane, another unit with high private ownership and little or no USFS is now the highest producing deer unit. But I do agree, chemicals cannot be good for the browse for game herds, the effect will likely be the same as an over mature forest.

[DBHAWTHORNE]

Maybe nothing right now, but if someone wants to start using chemical defoliants as a common logging practice there, you might want to be ready to fight it. I'm convinced it's part of the blacktail herd decline.

There's no doubt in my mind that that's one of the biggest reasons for the decrease in the number of blacktail deer.

I hear this consistently for any deer herds where chemical defoilants are used. Some guys I know back in Arkansas talk about this as a cause for a decline in the number some areas. I am not sure if there have been any studies done on it but I am sure there is something to it.

[Chesapeake]

Around Klickitat herbicides are the norm these days. The logging outfits keep the clearcuts all but barren until their trees are big enough to crowd out all competition.

I call the stuff Douglas desert.

The clear cuts dont grow anything but trees, some grasses, and canadian thistle. The deer herd in Klickitat has fallen greatly in the last 10 years. I believe in great part to the use of herbicides.

The WDFW added a 3 point restriction a few years back. They also cut out the late general season. I havent seen any benefit from the changes yet. Deer numbers seem to continue to drop. Lately logging in the area has really picked up. Hopefully that will help, but I dont hold much hope. They continue to spray and fertilize.

Cougars arent helping matters.

I hope you guys out east fare better than we are. 3 point restriction hasnt appeared to help us even hold ground, let alone improve.

I'm sure someone will say "but these arent whitetails". OK.

West Klickitat
2004: 391 harvested
2005: 412 harvested
2006: 324 harvested
2007: 343 harvested
2008: 318 harvested, 117 forkeys, 112 3x, 55 4x, 21 5x+
3 point rule start
2009: 194 harvested, 113 3x, 54 4x, 16 5x+
2010: 257 harvested, 147 3x, 78 4x, 50 5x+
2011: 163 harvested, 101 3x, 47 4x, 15 5x+