Post by: FLIZZ on September 02, 2012, 04:37:43 PM
Post by: DoubleJ on September 02, 2012, 04:40:59 PM
Post by: FLIZZ on September 02, 2012, 04:48:46 PM
Post by: Hunterman on September 02, 2012, 04:54:57 PM
Hunterman(Tony)
Post by: DoubleJ on September 02, 2012, 04:56:38 PM
Post by: FLIZZ on September 02, 2012, 05:10:20 PM
There are plenty of "tanks" running around. By instituting a 2pt minimum, you're ensuring those "tanks" get shot while the immature bucks and bucks with bad genetics get to breed
If they're tanks they're going to be smart enough to stay alive unless they are earned by people who get out of their trucks and actually hunt. Road hunters would probably give up all together. And even if a 2pt bangs a doe, in 5 or 6 years that baby will be a tank regardless of genetics.
Post by: FLIZZ on September 02, 2012, 05:12:02 PM
Post by: JakeLand on September 02, 2012, 05:15:07 PM
Post by: FLIZZ on September 02, 2012, 05:19:10 PM
Post by: DoubleJ on September 02, 2012, 05:20:58 PM
There are plenty of "tanks" running around. By instituting a 2pt minimum, you're ensuring those "tanks" get shot while the immature bucks and bucks with bad genetics get to breed
If they're tanks they're going to be smart enough to stay alive unless they are earned by people who get out of their trucks and actually hunt. Road hunters would probably give up all together. And even if a 2pt bangs a doe, in 5 or 6 years that baby will be a tank regardless of genetics.
I can tell you've put a lot of thought, research, and science into this "2pt minimum everywhere" line of thought :rolleyes:
Post by: FLIZZ on September 02, 2012, 05:28:28 PM
There are plenty of "tanks" running around. By instituting a 2pt minimum, you're ensuring those "tanks" get shot while the immature bucks and bucks with bad genetics get to breed
If they're tanks they're going to be smart enough to stay alive unless they are earned by people who get out of their trucks and actually hunt. Road hunters would probably give up all together. And even if a 2pt bangs a doe, in 5 or 6 years that baby will be a tank regardless of genetics.
I can tell you've put a lot of thought, research, and science into this "2pt minimum everywhere" line of thought :rolleyes:
hahahah YES. countless hours and research have gone into this. no but Seriously though its just a thought fellas. The 636 unit in Mason county is 2pt minimum and there's a lot of hogs taken out of there. Therefor my thinking can't be that wild.
Post by: Tbar on September 02, 2012, 05:43:07 PM
Post by: sirmissalot on September 02, 2012, 06:05:08 PM
The areas I hunt truly have no shortage of deer, besides my favorite deer spot has now been taken over by two young lions on a killing spree.
I've grown tired of even killing 2 points, 1st year or 2nd year two points doesn't matter I'm tired of adding them to the pile, but there are so many it's hard to not pull the trigger.
Post by: Alan K on September 02, 2012, 07:00:21 PM
People probably thought the world was going to come to an end when they made it 3 pt. minimum for elk, and what do you know, most of those spikes it saves get shot as 3 or 4 points now. Bigger bodies, bigger racks, same success rate more less. It has been a great success in my opinion, and I don't see how the 2 pt. minimum for deer would be any different.
Post by: PolarBear on September 02, 2012, 07:04:34 PM
Post by: PolarBear on September 02, 2012, 07:08:39 PM
I'd vote for it. I get sick of people shooting these dinky 80lb spikes left and right, usually right off the road. What a waste, let them grow a little! I'm not sure how much it would help as far as number of nice bucks, but I guess it would help slightly, there are a lot more deer and mature bucks around than most people realize.:yeah:
The areas I hunt truly have no shortage of deer, besides my favorite deer spot has now been taken over by two young lions on a killing spree.
I've grown tired of even killing 2 points, 1st year or 2nd year two points doesn't matter I'm tired of adding them to the pile, but there are so many it's hard to not pull the trigger.
I took my kids up to the check station at Vail a couple of years ago and 2 older men (very obvious that they were from Seattle) had a 60 pound spike (less that 1 1/2") in the back of their rig with 7, 7mm mag holes in it from the head to guts all the way to the butt. They were so proud of the 6 pounds of meat that they were going to get out of it. :bash:
Post by: jaymark6655 on September 02, 2012, 07:13:41 PM
Post by: PolarBear on September 02, 2012, 07:24:09 PM
Post by: Bigshooter on September 02, 2012, 07:33:38 PM
NOT NO BUT HELL NO.. THIS DAMN STATE HAS TOO MANY RESTRICTIONS AS IT IS..SET YOUR OWN RESTRICTIONS NOT MINE!!!
Hunterman(Tony)
:yeah:
I don't think I could have said it any better.
Post by: Bigshooter on September 02, 2012, 07:35:50 PM
There are plenty of "tanks" running around. By instituting a 2pt minimum, you're ensuring those "tanks" get shot while the immature bucks and bucks with bad genetics get to breed
If they're tanks they're going to be smart enough to stay alive unless they are earned by people who get out of their trucks and actually hunt. Road hunters would probably give up all together. And even if a 2pt bangs a doe, in 5 or 6 years that baby will be a tank regardless of genetics.
I can tell you've put a lot of thought, research, and science into this "2pt minimum everywhere" line of thought :rolleyes:
hahahah YES. countless hours and research have gone into this. no but Seriously though its just a thought fellas. The 636 unit in Mason county is 2pt minimum and there's a lot of hogs taken out of there. Therefor my thinking can't be that wild.
I know a lot of units that are any buck. And a lot of hogs get killed in them every year.
Post by: Tbar on September 02, 2012, 07:39:21 PM
Post by: Dhoey07 on September 02, 2012, 07:44:35 PM
Post by: Atroxus on September 02, 2012, 07:47:03 PM
I personally like the idea about the youth being able to shoot spikes, but I don't think there are a shortage of big bucks so why over regulate a season that isn't bad now. I don't shoot spikes but I like having a choice rather than adding more regulations.
:yeah: This, and also for new adult hunters as well. This year will only be my 3rd year hunting, and I have had no success so far. I plan to hunt in an Any Deer, or Any Buck GMU this year. I couldn't care less at this point about size or number of antler points, I just want to get some venison in the freezer instead of having tag soup again.
Post by: gotshot on September 02, 2012, 07:51:39 PM
Post by: FLIZZ on September 02, 2012, 08:02:24 PM
I think 2 pt. minimum would be a great thing, especially if youth hunters were allowed to shoot spikes with a general tag still. :twocents::yeah: Glad there's a couple people who understand my thinking! :tup:
People probably thought the world was going to come to an end when they made it 3 pt. minimum for elk, and what do you know, most of those spikes it saves get shot as 3 or 4 points now. Bigger bodies, bigger racks, same success rate more less. It has been a great success in my opinion, and I don't see how the 2 pt. minimum for deer would be any different.
Post by: deleted BGS on September 02, 2012, 08:57:20 PM
It would be even sweeter if they eliminated doe tags and made it 3 point or better for all of Western WA! :peep:
wrong, we need to control the doe population. I will never shoot a doe, but some people do :dunno:
I like the 2pt min, I have no reason to shoot a spike or even a small 2. Doesnt do anything for me
Post by: rtspring on September 02, 2012, 09:06:46 PM
Post by: jess on September 02, 2012, 09:20:47 PM
Post by: DoubleJ on September 02, 2012, 09:28:12 PM
There are plenty of "tanks" running around. By instituting a 2pt minimum, you're ensuring those "tanks" get shot while the immature bucks and bucks with bad genetics get to breed
If they're tanks they're going to be smart enough to stay alive unless they are earned by people who get out of their trucks and actually hunt. Road hunters would probably give up all together. And even if a 2pt bangs a doe, in 5 or 6 years that baby will be a tank regardless of genetics.
I can tell you've put a lot of thought, research, and science into this "2pt minimum everywhere" line of thought :rolleyes:
hahahah YES. countless hours and research have gone into this. no but Seriously though its just a thought fellas. The 636 unit in Mason county is 2pt minimum and there's a lot of hogs taken out of there. Therefor my thinking can't be that wild.
Mason for archery is any deer
Post by: DoubleJ on September 02, 2012, 09:35:33 PM
Post by: FLIZZ on September 02, 2012, 09:48:32 PM
I'm fairly sure 636 is a 2pt minimum regardless of archery, I may be wrong. But I'm talking modern fire anyways. There ya go! keep archery any deer and make mod fire 2 pt minimum. that way lazy spike killers have to use bows! Now that's a good idea!There are plenty of "tanks" running around. By instituting a 2pt minimum, you're ensuring those "tanks" get shot while the immature bucks and bucks with bad genetics get to breed
If they're tanks they're going to be smart enough to stay alive unless they are earned by people who get out of their trucks and actually hunt. Road hunters would probably give up all together. And even if a 2pt bangs a doe, in 5 or 6 years that baby will be a tank regardless of genetics.
I can tell you've put a lot of thought, research, and science into this "2pt minimum everywhere" line of thought :rolleyes:
hahahah YES. countless hours and research have gone into this. no but Seriously though its just a thought fellas. The 636 unit in Mason county is 2pt minimum and there's a lot of hogs taken out of there. Therefor my thinking can't be that wild.
Mason for archery is any deer
Post by: FLIZZ on September 02, 2012, 09:52:12 PM
Post by: FLIZZ on September 02, 2012, 09:58:23 PM
I completely understand what you meant. do what I want and let other people do what they want, I get it. like I've said, it's a thought, not like I'm going to write congress about it lol.Also, why would you want to kill a spike when there are "plenty of big deer out there" ? :dunno:
Mason isn't even GMU 636 but, don't let your misinformation stop you from posting your opinion.
You completely missed the point of all of what was said. Whatever. keep dreaming of your magical point restrictions that don't need to be made.
Post by: DoubleJ on September 02, 2012, 09:59:33 PM
Post by: FLIZZ on September 02, 2012, 10:02:19 PM
Post by: DoubleJ on September 02, 2012, 10:04:14 PM
Post by: FLIZZ on September 02, 2012, 10:09:07 PM
Sorry for being jumpy. 633 is the "Mason" unit and the unit I thought you were talking about. Some of 636 is in Mason county. 633 is not Mason Lake, it's just Mason. Confusion on both our parts it looks like.
We'll call it even! and if i never talk to you again, good luck this coming season! We've had our friendly debate. :chuckle:
Post by: DoubleJ on September 02, 2012, 10:15:04 PM
Sorry for being jumpy. 633 is the "Mason" unit and the unit I thought you were talking about. Some of 636 is in Mason county. 633 is not Mason Lake, it's just Mason. Confusion on both our parts it looks like.
We'll call it even! and if i never talk to you again, good luck this coming season! We've had our friendly debate. :chuckle:
If you stick around here, I'm sure we will talk again. Good luck on your season. I still hate your idea though :chuckle:
Post by: FLIZZ on September 02, 2012, 10:17:41 PM
Sorry for being jumpy. 633 is the "Mason" unit and the unit I thought you were talking about. Some of 636 is in Mason county. 633 is not Mason Lake, it's just Mason. Confusion on both our parts it looks like.Well I still hate you. :chuckle: I'm kiddin.
We'll call it even! and if i never talk to you again, good luck this coming season! We've had our friendly debate. :chuckle:
If you stick around here, I'm sure we will talk again. Good luck on your season. I still hate your idea though :chuckle:
Post by: bobcat on September 02, 2012, 10:20:33 PM
But before a minimum point restriction, I'd rather see doe seasons eliminated, except in units in which they truly are over carrying capacity.
Post by: Tbar on September 02, 2012, 10:31:02 PM
Post by: MooseStock on September 03, 2012, 10:40:14 AM
Post by: trophyhunt on September 03, 2012, 11:00:41 AM
I think 2 pt. minimum would be a great thing, especially if youth hunters were allowed to shoot spikes with a general tag still. :twocents::yeah: I agree, youths should still be able to hunt them with regular tag.
People probably thought the world was going to come to an end when they made it 3 pt. minimum for elk, and what do you know, most of those spikes it saves get shot as 3 or 4 points now. Bigger bodies, bigger racks, same success rate more less. It has been a great success in my opinion, and I don't see how the 2 pt. minimum for deer would be any different.
Post by: throttlejocky20 on September 03, 2012, 11:29:51 AM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on September 03, 2012, 12:39:37 PM
I've never been a big fan of point restrictions, but I do think a 2 point minimum for blacktail deer would be a good thing, and would really help the numbers rebound. The spikes just don't know anything yet and they often don't have enough sense to get out of the clearcuts before the sun comes up.
But before a minimum point restriction, I'd rather see doe seasons eliminated, except in units in which they truly are over carrying capacity.
Why not just go permit only. That's the goal. :rolleyes:
No does, no spikes, (all gates locked, permit only.) Sounds like a King County wet dream.
Post by: PolarBear on September 03, 2012, 01:02:28 PM
I've never been a big fan of point restrictions, but I do think a 2 point minimum for blacktail deer would be a good thing, and would really help the numbers rebound. The spikes just don't know anything yet and they often don't have enough sense to get out of the clearcuts before the sun comes up.:yeah:
But before a minimum point restriction, I'd rather see doe seasons eliminated, except in units in which they truly are over carrying capacity.
Post by: mossback636 on October 29, 2012, 02:41:42 PM
It would be even sweeter if they eliminated doe tags and made it 3 point or better for all of Western WA! :peep:
I agree with this! let the real hunters kill some "tanks" and keep let the youngins grow!
Post by: Huntbear on October 29, 2012, 03:03:43 PM
Kids, and newbies are usually the ones shooting the spikes. You take that away, you take away their success, they quit hunting, you lose hunters voices when it comes to issues like wolves, and WDFW commissioners, etc..
Blacktails thrive anywhere there is logging. You go up on the state land in certain units, and the blacktail population is unbelievable.
Post by: throttlejocky20 on October 29, 2012, 07:36:23 PM
Show me some data to support your theory on how many spikes are killed....Sit at the main gate to Vail and that should be proof enouf. I agree with the kids being able to shoot a buck if they see one but this could be done with permits. All units east a west should have limited youth tags for any buck. :twocents:
Post by: X-Force on October 29, 2012, 10:18:16 PM
Hopefully my little graph shows up... But if it doesn't here is the break down from 2011 by percent of harvest
Spike 27%
2pt 41%
3pt 20%
4pt 8%
5pt 4%
Post by: RClare1223 on October 30, 2012, 05:25:24 PM
Post by: Jonathan_S on October 30, 2012, 06:47:54 PM
Quote from: Huntbear link=topic=104360.msg1421727#msg1421727 date=
I am completely against, and work adamantly against any more point restrictions/regulations in this state.... how many spikes are actually shot each year compared to forky's and 3x's. Show me some data to support your theory on how many spikes are killed....
Kids, and newbies are usually the ones shooting the spikes. You take that away, you take away their success, they quit hunting, you lose hunters voices when it comes to issues like wolves, and WDFW commissioners, etc..
Blacktails thrive anywhere there is logging. You go up on the state land in certain units, and the blacktail population is unbelievable.
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on October 30, 2012, 07:00:41 PM
I saw way more forkies while living in Western WA and I agree with the rest of your post tooQuote from: Huntbear link=topic=104360.msg1421727#msg1421727 date=I am completely against, and work adamantly against any more point restrictions/regulations in this state.... how many spikes are actually shot each year compared to forky's and 3x's. Show me some data to support your theory on how many spikes are killed....
Kids, and newbies are usually the ones shooting the spikes. You take that away, you take away their success, they quit hunting, you lose hunters voices when it comes to issues like wolves, and WDFW commissioners, etc..
Blacktails thrive anywhere there is logging. You go up on the state land in certain units, and the blacktail population is unbelievable.
:yeah: :yeah:
My daughter could have tagged out by now if not for a 2PT restriction on a west side unit, we passed two spikes in a spike unit yesterday because they were obviously to small, but a different unit next to it has a two pint res. and has a really big spike in it (bigger body size than my 2x3 this year) but no its not legal. Where is the comman sence in this regulation ! :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:
Post by: Dan-o on October 30, 2012, 07:08:22 PM
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on October 30, 2012, 07:17:06 PM
I am a STAUNCH SUPPORTER of the 2-point restriction....... but only for HuntBear.
[/quote
For some reason this made me think that only hunters older than sixteen (when youth doe permits are taken away) should have antler point restictions. I wonder if this has been pitched to WDFW? :tup:
Post by: DaveBTS on October 30, 2012, 07:18:26 PM
Post by: Basket Rack on October 30, 2012, 07:35:07 PM
But before a minimum point restriction, I'd rather see doe seasons eliminated, except in units in which they truly are over carrying capacity.
I couldn't agree more on the doe seasons/permits.
I would be all for the antler restrictions so long as youth and disabled could still take a spike.
Post by: lewy on October 30, 2012, 07:56:40 PM
Post by: deerslyr on October 30, 2012, 08:13:38 PM
My reason for thinking this way, once a BT buck hits maturity they hit the brush for most of there life and you will never see them again except the 2 weeks between general and late buck (the peak of the rut)
The majority of hunters, and the majority commenting on this thread (me included), dont have the wits and skill to beat a mature BT buck on his turf in the thick brush. The ones that do (a few come in mind when thinking of members on this site) kill them year end and year out.
I have hunted all species a fair bit and blacktails are the toughest to hunt IMO. Whitetails being a close second, but they just dont reside in the same type of habitat and weather and there are far greater populations to hunt.
Post by: X-Force on October 30, 2012, 08:34:26 PM
Post by: RifleRidge on October 30, 2012, 08:35:58 PM
:yike: :yike: :yike: :yike: :yike:
Post by: FLIZZ on October 30, 2012, 09:00:30 PM
I am completely against, and work adamantly against any more point restrictions/regulations in this state.... how many spikes are actually shot each year compared to forky's and 3x's. Show me some data to support your theory on how many spikes are killed....
Kids, and newbies are usually the ones shooting the spikes. You take that away, you take away their success, they quit hunting, you lose hunters voices when it comes to issues like wolves, and WDFW commissioners, etc..
Blacktails thrive anywhere there is logging. You go up on the state land in certain units, and the blacktail population is unbelievable.
Ok fine, make it 3pt minimum and save the forkies too. Also, I hope kids and newbies can enjoy themselves in the woods WITHOUT killing an animal. And if they give up because they can't find a decent deer, they should take up fishing.
Post by: bullcanyon on October 30, 2012, 09:21:37 PM
Post by: RifleRidge on October 30, 2012, 09:22:38 PM
:yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup:
I agree!....
Post by: Kc_Kracker on October 30, 2012, 11:52:25 PM
There are plenty of "tanks" running around. By instituting a 2pt minimum, you're ensuring those "tanks" get shot while the immature bucks and bucks with bad genetics get to breed
x2
Post by: PolarBear on October 31, 2012, 12:11:37 AM
How about a point restriction except for youth hunts? And lets quit killing blacktail does!!!!!:yeah:
Amen!!
Post by: coachcw on October 31, 2012, 06:27:27 AM
Post by: Ripper on October 31, 2012, 09:11:27 AM
Post by: bobcat on October 31, 2012, 10:03:24 AM
I am adamantly opposed to any more regulations! We are restricted enough.
Restricted? How? A rifle season from October 13-31 for any buck, in most units, and open to everyone, including non-residents. Then a 4 day season in November, also open to anyone with a tag.
Tags are sold through the end of the year, so many tags are purchased only after a deer is killed.
Doesn't seem very restrictive at all to me. :dunno:
Post by: Curly on October 31, 2012, 10:23:36 AM
I am adamantly opposed to any more regulations! We are restricted enough.
Restricted? How? A rifle season from October 13-31 for any buck, in most units, and open to everyone, including non-residents. Then a 4 day season in November, also open to anyone with a tag.
Tags are sold through the end of the year, so many tags are purchased only after a deer is killed.
Doesn't seem very restrictive at all to me. :dunno:
And don't forget the general season archery for any deer in many Western WA units. And many units have general doe season for muzzleloader.
Eliminate all those general season doe hunts and you could probably get by without making a point restriction too...........
Post by: Ripper on October 31, 2012, 10:58:06 AM
Post by: bobcat on October 31, 2012, 11:03:57 AM
Quote
Make all user groups follow the same regs and you don't need any new ones.
What do mean by that statement? No does for archery and muzzleloader?
Post by: jaymark6655 on October 31, 2012, 11:06:06 AM
Post by: boneaddict on October 31, 2012, 11:09:38 AM
STOP KILLING DOES!
Post by: Woodchuck on October 31, 2012, 11:13:36 AM
Post by: BiggLuke on October 31, 2012, 11:17:02 AM
A deer is a deer right?
You can't eat Antlers......
Post by: boneaddict on October 31, 2012, 11:20:55 AM
Post by: JPhelps on October 31, 2012, 11:28:35 AM
Post by: Woodchuck on October 31, 2012, 11:29:19 AM
Post by: bobcat on October 31, 2012, 11:37:03 AM
Me too?
A deer is a deer right?
You can't eat Antlers......
True, but the only reason to allow the harvest of does, is to decrease, or at least stabilize, the deer population as it currently stands.
Is that what we want? Or do we want the deer population to increase? Because, as others have said, the blacktail (and mule deer) population is well below carrying capacity.
Post by: sirmissalot on October 31, 2012, 11:59:48 AM
I'm all for a two point restriction as well as statewide draw to hunt.
Post by: Ripper on October 31, 2012, 01:31:34 PM
Quote
I'm always amazed at the amount of people who say they hunt for the meat. I don't know many people who can kill a deer for less than just buying a partial beef. If you add up all the money you have into a hunting season I seriously doubt it's less than buying beef. If I kill a doe it's not gonna be for meat it's because I like to kill, I think that's the same reason as most people, although most don't want to admit it that way. Don't get me wrong I love wild game and eat plenty of it, but if it came down to it and I needed meat I would much rather eat beef. Buying beef sure isn't as much fun though.
I couldn't disagree with you more! When we say we hunt for meat it's because we love game meat, not hormone injected tasteless grocery store beef! We hunt for tradition, to go out and bond with our brothers and sister. And yes to kill a deer for the table, for the meat.
And to answer Bob, yes all hunting methods should have the same regulations for what can be taken. I also think the tribes should follow the same rules, but I don't want to get into that here. That topic has been beat to death.
Post by: grundy53 on October 31, 2012, 01:37:35 PM
I should probably read this whole thread, but since I am for APRs I'll stick to the end statements.:yeah:
STOP KILLING DOES!
Post by: deerslyr on October 31, 2012, 05:04:01 PM
Post by: sirmissalot on October 31, 2012, 05:21:44 PM
You can definitely hunt for meat if your an efficient hunter IMO. Ive done it before. Might not be possible for some one who lives in the city though.
I'm not saying you can't hunt for meat. I'm just saying you would be money ahead buying meat. Also not saying I buy beef. I agree some people can meat hunt and be money ahead, but not many if you add up the cost of everything involved. In my opinion it's not about that, it's about the hunt, and I'm not afraid to admit I like to kill things, but it's also not all about that either. If I fished for the meat I can tell you I'd be way money ahead just buying it, same concept, but again I don't buy fish and rarely go without.
Post by: bobcat on October 31, 2012, 05:41:45 PM
So the deal is, I'm going to hunt and spend what I spend, and say I kill a small deer and end up with 50 pounds of boneless meat. I'm not even sure what meat costs in the store, but let's say $5 average, per pound. That makes $250 that I don't have to spend on meat at the store, and that definitely helps to offset the money it cost me to harvest that deer.
For that reason I will take any legal deer, especially towards the end of the season. Like two years ago, I shot a doe with my muzzleloader on Thanksgiving. Yes, it makes me a hypocrite, because I would rather they didn't allow the harvest of does in the unit I was hunting. And I also would not mind if they made it 2 point minimum, but yes, I would still shoot a spike if legal, at the end of the season. I figure if I don't, someone else will.
I just really think that especially the doe harvest needs to be totally eliminated. Archery hunters and muzzleloaders take a lot of does. I'd guess even more than are accounted for in the harvest reports. Many don't get reported, and quite a few are wounded and lost. So I feel if they put an end to doe hunting in most of the blacktail deer areas, the population would increase drastically after just a couple of years.
Post by: billythekidrock on October 31, 2012, 05:55:24 PM
You can definitely hunt for meat if your an efficient hunter IMO. Ive done it before. Might not be possible for some one who lives in the city though.
I'm not saying you can't hunt for meat. I'm just saying you would be money ahead buying meat. Also not saying I buy beef. I agree some people can meat hunt and be money ahead, but not many if you add up the cost of everything involved. In my opinion it's not about that, it's about the hunt, and I'm not afraid to admit I like to kill things, but it's also not all about that either. If I fished for the meat I can tell you I'd be way money ahead just buying it, same concept, but again I don't buy fish and rarely go without.
Not always true.
I know I was way ahead of the spending / buying curve for most of my hunting life.
A single rifle for deer, bear and elk. Usually got 2 out of the 3 every year.
Hunt deer from the house or within 15 minutes of the house. Minimal driving to hunt.
Hunt bear for a week from a camp that was only 2 hours from home. Minimal driving to hunt.
Hunt elk for a week from camp that was only 2 hours from home. No driving around to hunt.
My wife killed deer and bear with the same rifle for awhile.
Yea, so I had to drive to camp. I don't count that. It was my vacation and it was cheaper than Vegas or Hawaii.
Now once I started buying more rifles, better binos, GPS, Trail cams, etc.......I definitely when in the hole per pound.
But I am sure there are guys that have close access to prime country that use the same (minimal equipment) that do good on the pounds to dollar ratio.
Post by: sirmissalot on October 31, 2012, 06:23:43 PM
Bobcat does have a good point that I will be out there anyways, so might as well have something to show for it, and I agree with that. I guess I just have enough meat in the freezer that I don't have to shoot does or little spikes to make it seem worth my while. To each their own.
Post by: Bootfish on October 31, 2012, 06:45:21 PM
From the 2011 hunting stats on WDFW's web page, there were around 120,000 deer hunters last year. Around 23,300 reported bucks harvested, and only 5772 Antlerless harvested. I realize the data may be skewed, doesnt include poaching or Tribal harvest, but an overall success of 23% is pretty darn low.
I would suggest that everyone who buys a hunting license be required to shoot at least one coyote. That would save a heck of a lot more deer than further clamping down on the license buyers who fund what pitifully little "game management" we have in this state.
Post by: grundy53 on October 31, 2012, 07:04:16 PM
Me too?
A deer is a deer right?
You can't eat Antlers......
For each doe allowed to live the population goes up exponentially. If one doe has 6 fawns in her life and half of them are does and they each have 6 fawns and half are does and the have 6 fawns in perpetuity. Now lets say you kill that ONE doe. Look how many deer you actually killed. Think of how many of those fawns would have been bucks? I understand that killing does is part of sound herd management when the herd is AT OR ABOVE carrying capacity (speaking of blacktails and mulies). I don't think any of our gmu's save for the islands are at or above (or even close) to carrying capacity. I personally think if we didn't allow the killing of does we wouldn't even be having this 2 point minimum discussion... just my :twocents:
Post by: lewy on October 31, 2012, 07:25:56 PM
Post by: FLIZZ on October 31, 2012, 07:37:52 PM
Post by: dbor on October 31, 2012, 07:57:12 PM
Post by: JPhelps on October 31, 2012, 08:14:51 PM
As far as BT doe and spike goes we do need to harvest some...
Please explain. I'm almost 100% we DON'T need to harvest some when it comes to our job as a conservationist.
Post by: grundy53 on October 31, 2012, 08:22:57 PM
:yeah: the only time we NEED to harvest any is when the habitat is at or above carrying capacity. Name one place in western Washington that is at or above carrying capacity. MAYBE the islands but that would be the exception to the rule.As far as BT doe and spike goes we do need to harvest some...
Please explain. I'm almost 100% we DON'T need to harvest some when it comes to our job as a conservationist.
Post by: FLIZZ on October 31, 2012, 08:38:45 PM
:yeah: the only time we NEED to harvest any is when the habitat is at or above carrying capacity. Name on place in western Washington that is at or above carrying capacity. MAYBE the islands but that would be the exception to the rule.As far as BT doe and spike goes we do need to harvest some...
Please explain. I'm almost 100% we DON'T need to harvest some when it comes to our job as a conservationist.
:yeah:
Post by: Skyvalhunter on October 31, 2012, 08:41:33 PM
Post by: JPhelps on October 31, 2012, 08:45:33 PM
Your interpetation of the carrying capacity and the biologists will undoubtedly differ. Perfect example is Fitkin in Eastern wa.
I have a feeling they don't use sound science but rather the decision is made from an office desk on what will make the state the most money.
Post by: grundy53 on October 31, 2012, 08:47:05 PM
Your interpetation of the carrying capacity and the biologists will undoubtedly differ. Perfect example is Fitkin in Eastern wa.
I agree. Then again I don't really understand his line of reasoning (if it could be called that) and I'm not sure if it has anything to do with creating a large healthy herd...
Post by: throttlejocky20 on October 31, 2012, 08:47:41 PM
I truly believe this is a correct statement,Your interpetation of the carrying capacity and the biologists will undoubtedly differ. Perfect example is Fitkin in Eastern wa.
I have a feeling they don't use sound science but rather the decision is made from an office desk on what will make the state the most money.
Post by: grundy53 on October 31, 2012, 08:48:11 PM
:yeah:I truly believe this is a correct statement,Your interpetation of the carrying capacity and the biologists will undoubtedly differ. Perfect example is Fitkin in Eastern wa.
I have a feeling they don't use sound science but rather the decision is made from an office desk on what will make the state the most money.
Post by: madmack76 on October 31, 2012, 08:51:22 PM
Post by: sirmissalot on October 31, 2012, 10:00:46 PM
Not sure what to say..... Unit 636 is two point or better and has been for 25 years???? It doesn't have any more BIG BUCKS than anywhere else around it and that thing is HUGE.(BT). I think there is some predator issue that need to be addressed on the wet side. As far as BT doe and spike goes we do need to harvest some...
I do believe there are more and bigger bucks in 636 than surrounding units, but that one is hard to prove and one I don't want to do on an open forum anyways. Not to mention that unit gets hunted HARD and the amount spikes that would get killed every year would without a doubt have an impact.
FLIZZ I love your point of view on this topic!
Post by: FLIZZ on October 31, 2012, 10:14:20 PM
Well thanks man, at least there's one person who catches my drift. lol
Post by: Ripper on November 01, 2012, 06:11:17 AM
Quote
PS: that "you can't eat the horns" quote makes me sick. But if all you spike killers are truly proud of yourself for killing a deer that's dumber than a bag of skittles, to each his own. lol
I could have done without this comment, now you are putting yourself on a pedestal. The last thing we need to do is divide and judge our fellow hunters. We need to respect each others opinions and stay united to fight the anti's and preserve our rights. Saying the a meat hunters opinion makes you sick is extremely offensive to me and a lot of other fellow hunters. Respect is the key to good discussion, which this thread had up to that point.
Post by: coachcw on November 01, 2012, 06:30:43 AM
good point and any one that baits deer in or hunts so called back yards could be lumped into this group . my main reasoning for point restrictions and permit only is to build a herd and to atempt to control the total harvest by all usser groups , when it comes time to cull herds i'm ok with youth and senior , dissabled hunts .QuotePS: that "you can't eat the horns" quote makes me sick. But if all you spike killers are truly proud of yourself for killing a deer that's dumber than a bag of skittles, to each his own. lol
I could have done without this comment, now you are putting yourself on a pedestal. The last thing we need to do is divide and judge our fellow hunters. We need to respect each others opinions and stay united to fight the anti's and preserve our rights. Saying the a meat hunters opinion makes you sick is extremely offensive to me and a lot of other fellow hunters. Respect is the key to good discussion, which this thread had up to that point.
Post by: Dhoey07 on November 01, 2012, 06:55:13 AM
Post by: JPhelps on November 01, 2012, 07:34:57 AM
Increase numbers:
*Breeding (the only way to increase numbers)
Decrease:
*death from Hunters
*death from Predators
*death from old age
We now try and balance that equation. Let's proceed with the notion of increasing the herd size.
We need as many does as possible to get bred which gives us an increase. We must then balance the amount of deer that get killed by hunters (after adding in the projection of predator and old age deaths).
Pretty simple. So in order to allow everyone to hunt every year you would think there would need to be a spike restriction. These young bucks have zero escapement skills. You let them become one year older and their chance for survival increases exponentially.
Plus when you kill a doe think about It. Let's say she and her offspring were all a single doe (that reproduced every year). In 8 years that one doe would be responsible for 128 other deer.
We need kids to stay interested and help recruitment so alloe kids 14 and under kill spikes and that's it. No does and No spikes for anyone else. ALL USER GROUPS.
Also to add to my theory that we as hunters have a HUGE impact here is a little case study in my backyard. After the big floods in Lewis county in 2007, weyco closed its ryderwood tree farm down to motorized access. I will assume that the predator population, deaths from old age and breeding were constant pre and post flood.
Before the flood the area was way down on deer and especially older age class of bucks (avg 4 deer a day maybe). When they opened it up to employees to drive in 2010 the deer hunting was phenomenal! There was an increase across the board. More does, more fawns, more bucks and WAY MORE mature bucks (3.5+ years old). I don't have exact numbers but the deer killed that year were bigger and more plentiful than ever before.Not to mention the late buck season wasn't even needed.
Which brings me to my next point. As much as I love hunting those four days in November , I also believe it needs to go away. It is in the best interest of our declining deer herd.
So to everyone that believes that killing does and spikes is needed please feel free to prove me wrong. I think If we want to continue to hunt every single year something needs to be done to better balance the conservation equation not a budget.
Post by: headshot5 on November 01, 2012, 07:39:31 AM
Post by: poohdog on November 01, 2012, 07:44:46 AM
Post by: Bullkllr on November 01, 2012, 08:23:27 AM
Something to keep in mind regarding the issue as a whole is that the biological answer to harvesting spikes is that killing a spike is arguably going to have the least impact on the overall population of any deer that could be killed. The argument for this is that throughout any deer's life cycle the mortality from any cause decreases from birth to as old as the deer gets. Fawns are more likely to die than yearlings, yearlings are more likely to die than 1.5yo, 1.5yo are more likely to die than 2.5yo, etc. So taking a spike than it less likely to live to see the next season anyway, is statistically less damaging to the population than killing an older deer that would be much more likely to go on to breed successfully. Same arguement could be made for younger vs. older does.
That said, I'm not sure it would really make a difference either way. I think were at a point in Western Wash. where there a lot of factors having a bigger effect on our deer population than whether we shoot spikes or not.
I know the Vail/mini-spike thing has come up a few times. Do you really think a few city yahoos shooting spikes on 4 weekends a year is a limiting factor in that tree farm that has to cover 1000 square miles ?
Post by: bobcat on November 01, 2012, 08:27:41 AM
Take out/manage the predators (coyotes etc).
That is next to impossible, and is not going to happen. We as hunters have virtually no effect on the number of coyotes out there. Bears and cougars? Same thing, no way to keep numbers down without hound hunting and baiting as management tools.
So that leaves us, and how many deer we take every year. This is the only thing we can control, so I think eliminating all doe harvest is what is needed.
Post by: PolarBear on November 01, 2012, 08:29:10 AM
Take Vail for example. The harvest numbers of decent bucks has dropped to almost nothing over the past few years. There are not a ton of predators up there. Look at the number of does and yearlings that are shot in Vail and you will see why the hunting is getting worse. Places like Vail should have a point restriction and zero doe permits for a few years at least to try and get the numbers back up. I know a lot of guys who have hunted up there everyday over the past couple of weekends that haven't seen a single buck of any size.
Post by: Curly on November 01, 2012, 08:30:16 AM
Post by: JPhelps on November 01, 2012, 08:54:48 AM
Quote
Fawns are more likely to die than yearlings, yearlings are more likely to die than 1.5yo, 1.5yo are more likely to die than 2.5yo, etc.
That is my exact point. We help them through that first year (by implementing a point restriction) and then as they get older they continue to do better on their own.
Also how do we get an increased number of older bucks if all of the spikes are shot? I'm sure shooting spikes does have an effect on overall population and an even bigger one on getting a healthy population of older bucks.
Post by: kentrek on November 01, 2012, 09:08:09 AM
Interesting thread. Many good points made.
Something to keep in mind regarding the issue as a whole is that the biological answer to harvesting spikes is that killing a spike is arguably going to have the least impact on the overall population of any deer that could be killed. The argument for this is that throughout any deer's life cycle the mortality from any cause decreases from birth to as old as the deer gets. Fawns are more likely to die than yearlings, yearlings are more likely to die than 1.5yo, 1.5yo are more likely to die than 2.5yo, etc. So taking a spike than it less likely to live to see the next season anyway, is statistically less damaging to the population than killing an older deer that would be much more likely to go on to breed successfully. Same arguement could be made for younger vs. older does.
That said, I'm not sure it would really make a difference either way. I think were at a point in Western Wash. where there a lot of factors having a bigger effect on our deer population than whether we shoot spikes or not.
I know the Vail/mini-spike thing has come up a few times. Do you really think a few city yahoos shooting spikes on 4 weekends a year is a limiting factor in that tree farm that has to cover 1000 square miles ?
:yeah: loads of factors to consider,esp when everyone is seeing the same decrease over the entire west side..personally i think its a habitat issue..i have no scientific data to back me up,just observations..
need more secluded habitat,like already said when there's hard access the deer pop explodes
but if not shooting deer till there a certain age is proven ( more then observations) to be better for deer then great,hunters should do it then regardless of what the book says..maybe they should try an shoot spikes only an permit for older bucks in a few more units..kinda like they do on the east for elk
Post by: grundy53 on November 01, 2012, 09:55:52 AM
Here is what my simplified version of conservation looks like. You can either maintain, increase or decrease your herd. Many factors contributed to this equation.
Increase numbers:
*Breeding (the only way to increase numbers)
Decrease:
*death from Hunters
*death from Predators
*death from old age
We now try and balance that equation. Let's proceed with the notion of increasing the herd size.
We need as many does as possible to get bred which gives us an increase. We must then balance the amount of deer that get killed by hunters (after adding in the projection of predator and old age deaths).
Pretty simple. So in order to allow everyone to hunt every year you would think there would need to be a spike restriction. These young bucks have zero escapement skills. You let them become one year older and their chance for survival increases exponentially.
Plus when you kill a doe think about It. Let's say she and her offspring were all a single doe (that reproduced every year). In 8 years that one doe would be responsible for 128 other deer.
We need kids to stay interested and help recruitment so alloe kids 14 and under kill spikes and that's it. No does and No spikes for anyone else. ALL USER GROUPS.
Also to add to my theory that we as hunters have a HUGE impact here is a little case study in my backyard. After the big floods in Lewis county in 2007, weyco closed its ryderwood tree farm down to motorized access. I will assume that the predator population, deaths from old age and breeding were constant pre and post flood.
Before the flood the area was way down on deer and especially older age class of bucks (avg 4 deer a day maybe). When they opened it up to employees to drive in 2010 the deer hunting was phenomenal! There was an increase across the board. More does, more fawns, more bucks and WAY MORE mature bucks (3.5+ years old). I don't have exact numbers but the deer killed that year were bigger and more plentiful than ever before.Not to mention the late buck season wasn't even needed.
Which brings me to my next point. As much as I love hunting those four days in November , I also believe it needs to go away. It is in the best interest of our declining deer herd.
So to everyone that believes that killing does and spikes is needed please feel free to prove me wrong. I think If we want to continue to hunt every single year something needs to be done to better balance the conservation equation not a budget.
I totally agree. I also think the Ryderwood tree farm closure is a great example.
Post by: Basket Rack on November 01, 2012, 07:23:59 PM
Which brings me to my next point. As much as I love hunting those four days in November , I also believe it needs to go away. It is in the best interest of our declining deer herd.
I could not agree more and have thought the same thing for years. There is no reason given the present state of our southwest WA deer herds to have the late buck season.
Post by: bullcanyon on November 01, 2012, 07:36:05 PM
Post by: FLIZZ on November 01, 2012, 07:49:12 PM
QuotePS: that "you can't eat the horns" quote makes me sick. But if all you spike killers are truly proud of yourself for killing a deer that's dumber than a bag of skittles, to each his own. lol
I could have done without this comment, now you are putting yourself on a pedestal. The last thing we need to do is divide and judge our fellow hunters. We need to respect each others opinions and stay united to fight the anti's and preserve our rights. Saying the a meat hunters opinion makes you sick is extremely offensive to me and a lot of other fellow hunters. Respect is the key to good discussion, which this thread had up to that point.
you are right. I apologize sir. I do believe however that the majority of spikes that are killed, are killed by road hunters. Which I do not respect. that is all.
Post by: JPhelps on November 01, 2012, 08:05:43 PM
So there is a bunch of us on the same page. How many of you have contacted the wdfw and let them know how you feel? Nothing will get done unless they know we support the changes. I've been emailing them for several years asking for these exact changes. Granted nothing has been done, but I still send emails. If more people do the same I think they might make some changes that help get the blacktail herds heading in the right direction. I know I received no negative impact by emailing them. So hit em up....
The reply I got regarding two point or better restriction was "they have this in some other units and it has shown no increase in mature bucks". HA! I may not have a degree in wildlife biology but I don't believe them.
Regarding Doe harvest their response is "the harvest of does is necessary for balance of the herd". Once again a canned answer that I have a hard time believing is founded on any science or population model.
Until the WDFW manages the wildlife without the goal of maximum profit we will continue to get bogus regulations, special permits and non-sense science shoved down our throats.
Post by: billythekidrock on November 01, 2012, 08:15:08 PM
It would only work the first year and then it would be the same ol' same ol'. People complaining about no big bucks, only with a few more spikes running around.
Post by: BENCHLEG on November 01, 2012, 08:24:54 PM
Post by: JPhelps on November 01, 2012, 08:28:12 PM
I would never vote for a 2pt min on BTs, unless it was modern only and Srs/handicap/youth could still shoot spikes.
It would only work the first year and then it would be the same ol' same ol'. People complaining about no big bucks, only with a few more spikes running around.
BTKR,
Do you care to elaborate? I'm interested in hearing everyone's opinion.
Post by: kentrek on November 01, 2012, 08:40:56 PM
The reply I got regarding two point or better restriction was "they have this in some other units and it has shown no increase in mature bucks". HA! I may not have a degree in wildlife biology but I don't believe them.
Until the WDFW manages the wildlife without the goal of maximum profit.
wouldn't WDFW make more money with a limited permit type system ? how would they make less money if people couldn't shoot spikes/does ? if what all of you are saying is correct wouldn't WDFW realize that, and know more people would want to hunt due to the fact there is more opportunity thus making them more money ??
just some thoughts...no harm intended
i agree they are trying to maximize profit in every way possible but that would also mean they would want to maximize the deer herd as well :twocents:
Post by: Whitpirate on November 01, 2012, 08:41:53 PM
QuotePS: that "you can't eat the horns" quote makes me sick. But if all you spike killers are truly proud of yourself for killing a deer that's dumber than a bag of skittles, to each his own. lol
I could have done without this comment, now you are putting yourself on a pedestal. The last thing we need to do is divide and judge our fellow hunters. We need to respect each others opinions and stay united to fight the anti's and preserve our rights. Saying the a meat hunters opinion makes you sick is extremely offensive to me and a lot of other fellow hunters. Respect is the key to good discussion, which this thread had up to that point.
:yeah: I'm with ya Ripper.
Post by: bobcat on November 01, 2012, 08:50:50 PM
I would never vote for a 2pt min on BTs, unless it was modern only and Srs/handicap/youth could still shoot spikes.
It would only work the first year and then it would be the same ol' same ol'. People complaining about no big bucks, only with a few more spikes running around.
I could go either way on the 2 point minimum, but I'm positive if we eliminated ALL doe harvest, the blacktail deer population would increase.
Post by: JPhelps on November 01, 2012, 08:54:51 PM
The reply I got regarding two point or better restriction was "they have this in some other units and it has shown no increase in mature bucks". HA! I may not have a degree in wildlife biology but I don't believe them.
Until the WDFW manages the wildlife without the goal of maximum profit.
wouldn't WDFW make more money with a limited permit type system ? how would they make less money if people couldn't shoot spikes/does ? if what all of you are saying is correct wouldn't WDFW realize that, and know more people would want to hunt due to the fact there is more opportunity thus making them more money ??
just some thoughts...no harm intended
i agree they are trying to maximize profit in every way possible but that would also mean they would want to maximize the deer herd as well :twocents:
Maybe they feel that they would lose more hunters than the money they would make off the permits? I honestly don't know.
Post by: deerslyr on November 01, 2012, 08:55:27 PM
I would never vote for a 2pt min on BTs, unless it was modern only and Srs/handicap/youth could still shoot spikes.
It would only work the first year and then it would be the same ol' same ol'. People complaining about no big bucks, only with a few more spikes running around.
I could go either way on the 2 point minimum, but I'm positive if we eliminated ALL doe harvest, the blacktail deer population would increase.
I completely agree, i dont think APRs will increase pop at all. Eliminating doe harvest would.
Post by: JPhelps on November 01, 2012, 09:11:52 PM
I would never vote for a 2pt min on BTs, unless it was modern only and Srs/handicap/youth could still shoot spikes.
It would only work the first year and then it would be the same ol' same ol'. People complaining about no big bucks, only with a few more spikes running around.
I could go either way on the 2 point minimum, but I'm positive if we eliminated ALL doe harvest, the blacktail deer population would increase.
I completely agree, i dont think APRs will increase pop at all. Eliminating doe harvest would.
How not? If you allow all the spikes that get killed every year a free pass, the population WILL increase.
Post by: deerslyr on November 01, 2012, 09:18:25 PM
I would never vote for a 2pt min on BTs, unless it was modern only and Srs/handicap/youth could still shoot spikes.
It would only work the first year and then it would be the same ol' same ol'. People complaining about no big bucks, only with a few more spikes running around.
I could go either way on the 2 point minimum, but I'm positive if we eliminated ALL doe harvest, the blacktail deer population would increase.
I completely agree, i dont think APRs will increase pop at all. Eliminating doe harvest would.
How not? If you allow all the spikes that get killed every year a free pass, the population WILL increase.
No, they will just get killed as 2 points. Just like the stat some one posted early, 27% of the harvest are spikes and 40% are 2 points, putting the theory that a 2 point is smarter than a spike, to rest.
Post by: Jonathan_S on November 01, 2012, 09:18:54 PM
Post by: JPhelps on November 01, 2012, 09:26:44 PM
I would never vote for a 2pt min on BTs, unless it was modern only and Srs/handicap/youth could still shoot spikes.
It would only work the first year and then it would be the same ol' same ol'. People complaining about no big bucks, only with a few more spikes running around.
I could go either way on the 2 point minimum, but I'm positive if we eliminated ALL doe harvest, the blacktail deer population would increase.
I completely agree, i dont think APRs will increase pop at all. Eliminating doe harvest would.
How not? If you allow all the spikes that get killed every year a free pass, the population WILL increase.
No, they will just get killed as 2 points. Just like the stat some one posted early, 27% of the harvest are spikes and 40% are 2 points, putting the theory that a 2 point is smarter than a spike, to rest.
I disagree! Every spike that makes it to a 2 point will not be killed, but every spike that is killed as a spike is killed. Once again that equals a population increase.
Post by: deerslyr on November 01, 2012, 09:35:13 PM
Post by: Bootfish on November 01, 2012, 09:44:47 PM
Post by: Bullkllr on November 01, 2012, 09:48:13 PM
"The reply I got regarding two point or better restriction was "they have this in some other units and it has shown no increase in mature bucks". HA! I may not have a degree in wildlife biology but I don't believe them."
It doesn't take a lot of research to support their reply as true. Its been tried many years in many places.
Some research I found (both speak specifically to mule deer):
Virtually every type of hunt, season length, weapon restrictions and choices that can be thought up has been tried in one state or another. Some have been done long enough to see valid results one way or another. Others are not tried long enough to be proven or non-proven means at all. Those that seem to work the best, that is to increase buck to doe ratios and allow populations to be managed at or near carrying capacity are those that have a limited number of tags and or those that have a shortened season that is early enough in the year as to not effect the rutting activities of mule deer. Those that do not work are ‘antler point restrictions’ this type of hunting scenario has been tried in several different states with basically the same results. It just doesn’t work.
by Todd A. Black
Could the way we are hunting mule deer in certain areas be further contributing to their decline?
http://www.muleymadness.com/articles/hunt-and-harvest-strategies/ (http://www.muleymadness.com/articles/hunt-and-harvest-strategies/)
and
Antler point restrictions
Creating mule deer harvest seasons with antler point restrictions is popular amongst hunters who think it will help increase the number of mature bucks and buck:doe ratios in mule deer populations. But research in many western states shows that antler point restrictions do not produce more deer or larger-antlered deer.
Colorado implemented antler point restrictions statewide for six years, and in a number of game units for seven years. The result was a shift of hunting from pressure on all age classes of bucks (primarily yearlings) to bucks two years and older, and an increase in illegal or accidental harvest of yearling bucks. The number of mature bucks did not increase over time.
Idaho and Montana implemented two points or less seasons to reduce hunting pressure on older bucks and improve buck:doe ratios at the end of hunting seasons. Over the long term, two point seasons did not improve buck:doe ratios at the end of the hunting seasons.
Wyoming’s experience with four point or better seasons resulted in fewer hunters and a reduction in total harvest, fewer mature bucks, and a significant number of deer harvested with fewer than four points.
Utah abandoned efforts to implement antler point restrictions after five years when officials documented illegal harvest, reductions in overall harvest and fewer mature bucks.
Attempts to increase the number of mature bucks and buck:doe ratios using four-point seasons in Montana reduced buck harvest by 28 percent, increased illegal harvest of bucks with 3x3 points or less by about 40 percent, and increased harvest of bucks having more than 3x4 points.
Washington tried antler point restrictions in many of their hunting units and experienced a smaller harvest of mule deer bucks, a switch in harvest from mule deer to white-tailed deer, and no increase in the number of mature bucks. They did experience an increase in buck:doe ratios because of the lower buck harvest and improved recruitment of fawns.
Oregon abandoned antler point restrictions in a few popular hunting areas when the number of older bucks and buck:doe ratios decreased after 12 years.
Most western states have concluded that changes in buck:doe ratios and increases in the number of mature bucks can only be accomplished through reductions in harvest of bucks.
Mule Deer Working Group. 2003. Mule Deer: Changing landscapes, changing perspectives. Mule Deer Working Group, Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.
Mule Deer, Changing Landscapes, Changing Perspectives, is a series of non-technical articles based on technical papers from the book, “Mule Deer Conservation: Issues and Management Strategies” Published by The Berryman Institute, Utah State University.
"Until the WDFW manages the wildlife without the goal of maximum profit."
[/quote]
Herein lies the real problem. The only way to minimize hunters impact is to reduce harvest by reducing seasons, or permits, or I imagine, access. Regarding access, how many more deer might we have if everything was gated?
Post by: bobcat on November 01, 2012, 09:58:19 PM
Post by: Shoffy on November 01, 2012, 10:00:38 PM
Post by: kentrek on November 01, 2012, 10:01:43 PM
I'm not sure you can use mule deer data to say that point restrictions won't work with blacktails. I do agree though, that the best route to increasing deer populations and improving buck to doe ratios, is through limiting the number of hunters. Which of course would mean permit only
or lock more gates, year round (poachers dont have deer seasons)
Post by: kentrek on November 01, 2012, 10:04:24 PM
I think in the long run it would be better for the serious black tail hunters.
there are very few serious blacktail hunters compared to the average joe
also i havnt met too many serious blacktail hunters who have a hard time finding bucks
Post by: bobcat on November 01, 2012, 10:05:54 PM
I'm not sure you can use mule deer data to say that point restrictions won't work with blacktails. I do agree though, that the best route to increasing deer populations and improving buck to doe ratios, is through limiting the number of hunters. Which of course would mean permit only
or lock more gates, year round (poachers dont have deer seasons)
The gates are locked year 'round at the Vail Tree Farm, yet from the sounds of it there are very few deer, compared to what it used to be.
But I do agree, gates would certainly help reduce poaching on some areas. I do hate to see a total lack of places where a person can go for a drive in the woods though.
Of course the biggest factor in deer populations is habitat. But there isn't a whole lot that can be done to improve that.
Post by: Bullkllr on November 01, 2012, 10:10:53 PM
I'm not sure you can use mule deer data to say that point restrictions won't work with blacktails.
I'm not sure either. But the data on blacktails is not nearly as obvious during a quick search. In Washington, the legal difference between the two subspecies is which side of the Cascade Crest the deer is on...
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on November 02, 2012, 12:12:19 AM
Regarding Doe harvest their response is "the harvest of does is necessary for balance of the herd". Once again a canned answer that I have a hard time believing is founded on any science or population model.
You can't protect bucks by stockpiling does. Think about it. If you hammer bucks and don't allow doe hunting, you eventually end up with a herd population that is heavily dominated by does and and a few young bucks. Many of the does will be older and less productive. The young bucks won't be as efficient at breeding as older bucks would. so many does wont get bred during the main rut. This is bad for the fawn crop not only in less deer being born, but it also makes them more susceptible to predation and fawns enter their first winter at a younger age and smaller size, also not good for them. The reason they are more prone to predation is there is safety in numbers. x amount of predators can only eat x amount of deer in x amount of time. Increase the time that the fawns are being born because does don't get bred in a timely manner, and the herd is vulnerable for a longer time. The older fawns get, the less susceptible they are to predation.
If you want to increase the buck to doe ratio, you can't do it by killing more bucks than you kill does. You have to kill more does than you do bucks. It's simple math. No matter how you protect young bucks to let them mature, the fact is, if you only harvest bucks and protect does, the buck to doe ratio will always be out of whack. That's why the new 4 pt restriction plus reduced doe harvest will never work in the long run. In fact it goes against the very system of managing deer that it was modeled after, the Quality Deer Management or QDM. QDM promotes a fairly large antlerless harvest in order to lower overall deer densities post-hunt so there are more resources (feed) for the remaining deer. An antler restriction and lowering the doe take or eliminating it is probably counter productive. The bucks still get taken, albeit a year later, but now you are stockpiling does and messing with buck/doe ratios.
Post by: FLIZZ on November 02, 2012, 12:30:21 AM
Post by: Houndhunter on November 02, 2012, 01:55:24 AM
You want more mature bucks? Than get on our fish and game dept about predator management. That's my :twocents:
Post by: JPhelps on November 02, 2012, 07:08:35 AM
In my opinion both the carrying capacity and buck to do ratios are lower than what they should be. So in my opinion we need to increase both.
Which means controlling harvest through shorter seasons, limiting hunters, antlers restrictions or whatever other means yield the results of a higher buck:doe ratio and overall population.
Post by: Curly on November 02, 2012, 08:30:24 AM
Post by: Ripper on November 02, 2012, 08:49:18 AM
There are a lot of blacktail's around, at least where I live in Snohomish County. I was amazed at how many deer I saw this spring during the spring bear hunt in Monroe. Just because you may not see a lot of them doesn't mean they aren't there. They are sneaky buggers! Get off the beaten path, sit down, be quiet, watch the wind. The day I shot mine this year, it was the only deer I saw, in fact it was the only one I saw the whole season.
Post by: Curly on November 02, 2012, 08:56:02 AM
Post by: Houndhunter on November 02, 2012, 11:00:31 AM
Something that goes along the lines of increasing the blacktail deer population is food for the deer. One thing that I've been noticing for probably the last 10 years or so is the clearcuts are usually void of any good feed. They get sprayed with roundup and they are all brown and dead looking with little for the deer to eat. I don't know how we could convince managers to not spray for weeds, but I would think that would do a lot to help...(besides eliminating the taking of does).
You know what I've always wondered, how is spraying the clear cuts with chemicals more environmentally friendly compared to the old way of just burning them after they logged???
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on November 02, 2012, 06:15:38 PM
Something that goes along the lines of increasing the blacktail deer population is food for the deer. One thing that I've been noticing for probably the last 10 years or so is the clearcuts are usually void of any good feed. They get sprayed with roundup and they are all brown and dead looking with little for the deer to eat. I don't know how we could convince managers to not spray for weeds, but I would think that would do a lot to help...(besides eliminating the taking of does).
Now you're onto something Curly. I also suspect the spraying to have something to do with the hair slip. While it might not be a direct cause, the chemicals might be suppressing the deer's immune systems. If the spray is as harmless as they say, why do they post sprayed units to keep people out?
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on November 02, 2012, 06:18:43 PM
You know what I've always wondered, how is spraying the clear cuts with chemicals more environmentally friendly compared to the old way of just burning them after they logged???
Too many people complained about air quality when they used to burn. So they turned to chemicals.
I personally miss the old burn days. There were a heck of a lot more deer then.
Post by: Basket Rack on November 02, 2012, 07:12:51 PM
[/quote]
They are posted because it is the law and yes broadcast burning was basically shut down due to air quality complaints even though the state says we can still do it you never get approval to burn. Even when broadcast burning was being done there was still plenty of herbicide use on young plantations.
I think the predators have played a huge role in why our deer herds are so low. It seems that once the hound hunting ban was voted in it corresponded with the drop in our deer numbers. I still think that we need to eliminate most of the anterless harvest but I would like to see the buck harvest lowered by eliminating the general late season. Maybe make the late hunt permit only but this would be extremely unpopular with most hunters but then again so was making most westside elk units branch antler and the elimination of "Doe Day" and looking back on those decisions they seem to have worked out well.
Post by: abe1989 on June 23, 2014, 01:49:56 PM
Post by: kodiak 907 on June 23, 2014, 02:10:48 PM
Ok, here's my final suggestion. Bring hound hunting back for jungle cats, ( Cougars do work on blacktail). Lock EVERY gate, however allow some kind of pass for handicapped folks. That would eliminate Poachers for the most part, also the lazy truck "hunters" would be weeded out of the woods, which then would increase the deer population. Therefor, The deserving outdoorsman would be rewarded with a higher deer population. even if you don't have the best set of legs, you don't have to go far behind a locked gate to get in the deer. PROBLEM SOLVED.:yeah:
Post by: boomstick on June 23, 2014, 06:26:32 PM
Post by: snowpack on June 23, 2014, 09:37:51 PM
Post by: lokidog on June 23, 2014, 10:02:11 PM
It would be even sweeter if they eliminated doe tags and made it 3 point or better for all of Western WA! :peep:
I hope the three point thing is a joke. :bash:
I could see two point, but as Ripper pointed out, many twos are still only a year and a half old.
A blanket three point would simply turn me into a poacher as I plan on feeding my family venison and 2/3 or more of the mature bucks on the island on which I live, are two points when they die of old age. :twocents:
Post by: wildweeds on June 23, 2014, 10:49:06 PM
Post by: huntnnw on June 24, 2014, 06:20:28 AM
Post by: boomstick on June 24, 2014, 12:21:10 PM
Post by: boomstick on June 24, 2014, 12:22:50 PM
Post by: blackveltbowhunter on June 24, 2014, 03:35:20 PM
1) The words "proven" and "science" should never be used in the same sentence when it comes to deer management. Science is a formula.... Or at least the evaluations of formulas. Deer managment is a cookbook....many recipes with alot of different ingredients. All of which will produce different results.
2) Just because one "recipe" is different doesnt mean it wont work, but that individual may want different results than you.
3) We have to many predators
4) We have habitat issues
5) A gmu aproach is much better than one size fits all.
6) This isn't Western Oregon, and we are talking about BT. NOT elk, mule deer, or whitetails. ( Probably my biggest peeve reading through these threads. Are there similarities? Yes. Should we consider using some of them? Very possible? But to randomly compare the results is pointless IMO ).
In my opinion and observation APR's work well to increase the age class of bucks in areas with low predator populations, when the herd is at or above carrying capacity. In this scenario protecting bucks until they are 3.5 or 4.5 will benefit the buck to doe ratio, (assuming an antlerless program is in effect to manage the population within habitat carrying capacity) should increase the overall deer population if below carrying capacity, and give hunters the opportunity to look at more "big" bucks that are experiencing their genetic potential. I would be in favor of a Sundance type APR in this situation 4 point minimum with eyegaurds. Or antler width/mass type restriction.
I have a couple issues with using a 2 point APR in areas with a below carrying capacity herd/high predator volume scenario (insert skookumchuck and many 500 series gmus) First I dont think its going to save alot of bucks to begin with. Many 1.5 year old deer carry a fork on a side. Second, while it may be saving a few, what are we saving them for? To get smacked by a cougar sometime in the next 11 months? It doesnt compute when the odds are already low for that deer to make it to the next season. Third, it puts additional pressure on the 2.5 year and older buck population. All your "testosterone", is more likely to get shot up. Lastly I feel like it is lazy. A halfa$$ solution to a much bigger problem. And keeps the Department from making the tough decisions. Like activily seeking to control predators and improve habitat, without making excuses. Or reducing the number of tags and thus taking the reduction in revenue.
Post by: wildweeds on June 24, 2014, 10:09:48 PM
Post by: huntnnw on June 24, 2014, 10:23:30 PM
Post by: grundy53 on June 24, 2014, 10:26:24 PM
Hows this for a management tactic,similar to south dakota and Arizona, you draw for a tag.........In south dakota the average is once every three years,in Arizona it's 4............ unless your a landowner of 160 acres or more in south dakota...........That would suck.
sent from my typewriter
Post by: wildweeds on June 24, 2014, 10:52:46 PM
But that is the way it works in S Dakota and Arizona folks,you DRAW for a RESIDENT tag.
Post by: abe1989 on June 25, 2014, 06:33:09 AM
Post by: boomstick on June 25, 2014, 06:50:48 AM
Post by: MountainWalk on June 25, 2014, 07:02:09 AM
This aint AZ, and never will.
Too many hunters? Whats wrong with that? Another like minded individual out there who prolly VOTES! One more in the orange army who thinks along our lines in this crazy a$$ state. One more person carrying the torch of self suffincy and self reliance and tradition, or one more who has finally taken it up. No, I wish more folks took it up. More newly converted hunters means money, votes, clout.
Post by: snowpack on June 25, 2014, 09:20:50 AM
Post by: Tbob on June 25, 2014, 12:08:47 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 25, 2014, 12:27:05 PM
Post by: deltaops on June 25, 2014, 03:28:04 PM
I really do not give a crap if a 2 point min or a 3 point min was to go in effect but leave the youths and elders alone. Matter of fact, we need to open some more GMUs to any dear for the youth and elders.
If a 2 or 3 point goes into effect across the board, lmao, Eastern WA will have a lot more visitors.
Like it has been said before, manage the land and the predators and the population will come back.
Post by: bobcat on June 25, 2014, 03:37:09 PM
Post by: deltaops on June 25, 2014, 03:42:57 PM
But WDFW does not have the ability to manage land. All they can do is control harvest by hunters.
I know.. Either way, make it a 2 point, just let the youth and elders have different minimums.
As it is now I head over to Eastern WA for any deer for my son. If he could hunt on the wet side for any dear, I would be more than happy.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 25, 2014, 03:53:36 PM
But WDFW does not have the ability to manage land. All they can do is control harvest by hunters.They do habitat projects all over. Either on their own land or in cooperation with all kinds of other groups. I've seen WDFW waterfowl projects, tidelands projects, salmon recovery projects, cooperative projects with RMEF and tribes for elk, etc.
Post by: bobcat on June 25, 2014, 03:59:02 PM
But WDFW does not have the ability to manage land. All they can do is control harvest by hunters.They do habitat projects all over. Either on their own land or in cooperation with all kinds of other groups. I've seen WDFW waterfowl projects, tidelands projects, salmon recovery projects, cooperative projects with RMEF and tribes for elk, etc.
Maybe so, but to increase deer numbers all across western Washington, it would have to be a very large scale "habitat project" to make any significant difference.
That's not going to happen unless Weyerhaeuser suddenly begins allowing the WDFW to manage their land in a way which is more beneficial to deer than to growing timber.
Post by: deltaops on June 25, 2014, 04:13:19 PM
I was talking to one of the Westside bios (Eric) last night and he explained why a 2-pt minimum isn't great. Many yearlings will sprout a fork due to a better diet or better genes. So, you still end up killing immature bucks by going 2-pt. If you're going to have an antler restriction more than just buck only, it should be 3 pt or better. The explanation made sense to me.
That makes good sense. Others have been for a blanket antler minimum and even permit only for all blacktail hunting. While this might help in a select few areas that get a ton of pressure around the cities, it would do nothing in other areas. These ideas need to be used on a GMU only basis. My property is in what should be, and used to be prime blacktail country. The game cams prove we have way to many predators (bear, coyotes, cougar, and bobcats), and very few deer left in the area. And the hunting pressure around me is little to none, in fact the entire GMU I'm in and the bordering one we hunt just a few miles down the road is the same situation. They could end all hunting and it would have little effect on this result. I'm a broken record on this on this forum, but until there is some real management in this state for predators other efforts or ideas or restrictions are futile.
I would be all for a 3 point or better restriction in the areas that get heavy hunting pressure and it could help, but there is no point in doing that in the areas that have low hunting pressure. Most guys around here choose not to shoot babies on their own. I would though be all for ending all doe hunting around the state, with the exception of the areas that do have to high of a number of them.
It all comes down to management, especially it the predators are going to continue to have free reign. Each gmu needs to be managed according to its unique situation. The one size fits all solutions on deer will just continue to make things worse as we will lose hunters and not see hunting get better for the most part. It would be easier for them to just put more restriction on things, than actually address the real problems. That is what has happened for to long, and that is why we are at the place we are at.
cboom
you are fired... :chuckle:
Post by: bobcat on June 25, 2014, 04:44:29 PM
Not sure why you think I'm focused on only the "populated areas of the state." ??? Aren't blacktail deer numbers low almost everywhere, except on some of the islands and within certain cities where they don't get hunted?
Isn't it reasonable to think that some sort of different type of management system could help to bring numbers back up? You've said management by GMU is a good thing. Well, we don't have anything close to that. We have unlimited tags with no control over where people hunt.
Post by: bobcat on June 25, 2014, 04:46:18 PM
Quote
The WDFW has complete control to manage a ton of land on the westside and has completely failed to do it.
Where is this land? :dunno:
Post by: bobcat on June 25, 2014, 05:03:25 PM
Post by: wildweeds on June 25, 2014, 06:39:00 PM
Fire weeds, that would suck big time. You only want to hunt every four years, be my guest. Why do you yhink AZ has that system? I can bet that WA has more hunters. Does it have something to do with everybody and their grandmas putting for AZ? People all over put in for there, cuz the genetics and mild wimters help grow big critters. WA, isnt a go to hot spot, and I dont think non res"s are lining up yr after yr to hunt/waste their money , vacay time.
This aint AZ, and never will.
Too many hunters? Whats wrong with that? Another like minded individual out there who prolly VOTES! One more in the orange army who thinks along our lines in this crazy a$$ state. One more person carrying the torch of self suffincy and self reliance and tradition, or one more who has finally taken it up. No, I wish more folks took it up. More newly converted hunters means money, votes, clout.
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 26, 2014, 05:14:58 AM
Okay, so it's public land, but still the WDFW doesn't have any control over how it's managed. You're talking about land managed by the federal government. The WDFW doesn't even have much influence on land owned by other state agencies such as the DNR. I thought you were saying the WDFW owned a lot of land on the west side and had failed to manage it currently, but apparently that's not the case.
I do believe the state still has authority for the most part to manage the game on those lands (if I'm wrong on this please let me know)? My point was the actuall\ land and habitat they may not have the control to manage really hasn't changed a bit in 20 years. But the deer numbers defiantly have change dramatically. When we used to see 15-20 blacktails in a day, we see more predators in a day now. And there are less hunters up here than there have ever been hunting those areas.
You're wrong, CB. One of the other things I spoke with the bio about is habitat management of the NFs and the poor state of the ungulate habitat and populations. The state can make suggestions to the USFS and USFWS, but they do what they want. Most of NF forest management is driven by things like the spotted owl, which severely limits the scope of their actions. Unfortunately, even the closely planted Douglas fir plantations that went in in the 80s, it takes an act of God to do any cutting and being that those are so close to the roads, the public goes nuts every time they see a tree lying down.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on June 26, 2014, 05:33:52 AM
Post by: bobcat on June 26, 2014, 06:16:55 AM
Okay, so it's public land, but still the WDFW doesn't have any control over how it's managed. You're talking about land managed by the federal government. The WDFW doesn't even have much influence on land owned by other state agencies such as the DNR. I thought you were saying the WDFW owned a lot of land on the west side and had failed to manage it currently, but apparently that's not the case.
I do believe the state still has authority for the most part to manage the game on those lands (if I'm wrong on this please let me know)? My point was the actuall\ land and habitat they may not have the control to manage really hasn't changed a bit in 20 years. But the deer numbers defiantly have change dramatically. When we used to see 15-20 blacktails in a day, we see more predators in a day now. And there are less hunters up here than there have ever been hunting those areas.
You're wrong, CB. One of the other things I spoke with the bio about is habitat management of the NFs and the poor state of the ungulate habitat and populations. The state can make suggestions to the USFS and USFWS, but they do what they want. Most of NF forest management is driven by things like the spotted owl, which severely limits the scope of their actions. Unfortunately, even the closely planted Douglas fir plantations that went in in the 80s, it takes an act of God to do any cutting and being that those are so close to the roads, the public goes nuts every time they see a tree lying down.
So according to what you posted, the WDFW has no control over management of National Forest lands. Just as I said. :dunno:
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 26, 2014, 06:22:56 AM
Not necessarily it does take public input when proposed sales are developed but logging is being done on USFS land.
It's being done nowhere close to what's needed to improve habitat and forage for the ungulates. The NFs, especially those down here in S. WA/S. Cascades are in horrible shape. Most haven't been logged in 25 years. The ground is choked with dead material and on top of that, if it's not in a wilderness area, they continue to fight forest fires, instead of letting them rejuvenate the forests. The stands which were replanted with Dougs were planted very close together and few of them were thinned at 10 years. There's no space for grasses and really no space to move between them. I've watched these areas change as I've hunted them over the last 20 years. When the big one finally hits, there's going to be little stopping it from burning super hot and super big, and it'll be impossible to control if the conditions of wind and moisture are right.
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 26, 2014, 06:23:51 AM
Post by: huntnnw on June 26, 2014, 06:32:02 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 26, 2014, 09:53:48 AM