Post by: WAcoyotehunter on October 10, 2008, 01:02:02 PM
Post by: X-Force on October 10, 2008, 01:22:45 PM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on October 10, 2008, 01:24:44 PM
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on October 10, 2008, 01:31:41 PM
With all the deer hunters headed out this weekend I thought I would remind some of us that 1 1/2 year old bucks might be legal, but if they get a chance to live a few more years they can grow into real trophies. If you don't need the meat and have the desire to kill a smoker buck one of these years, shoot the little guys with the camera and practice some trigger control until a mature buck crosses your path. Good luck and enjoy your hunt!
Thanks for a fair and balanced plea. I get a bit tired of whining from those who desire to kill a smoker buck, and think EVERYONE should hold off - or be legally denied a harvest opportunity - to increase their odds. With a big hunter population and small big game populations, we already have a ton of necessary restrictions (due to our desire to hunt every year on general licenses). I choose to pass on quite a few harvest opportunities on young bucks, but I don't want to be told to do so.
Post by: DeKuma on October 10, 2008, 01:35:47 PM
Tell that to my wife on her first year this year, or to my Dad who cannot get around as well anymore. Or me, who will take what I can on the last day or two. :bdid:
Post by: cutthroat on October 10, 2008, 01:58:32 PM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on October 10, 2008, 02:14:57 PM
Post by: X-Force on October 10, 2008, 02:32:53 PM
Post by: stlhdr1 on October 10, 2008, 03:20:55 PM
Keith :chuckle:
Post by: X-Force on October 10, 2008, 03:52:01 PM
Post by: mwhite on October 10, 2008, 04:17:23 PM
Post by: PolarBear on October 10, 2008, 06:56:39 PM
Post by: PA BEN on October 10, 2008, 07:04:39 PM
Post by: Red Dawg on October 10, 2008, 07:05:06 PM
Post by: billythekidrock on October 10, 2008, 07:24:36 PM
I'm all for 4 pt mulie, and whities and 3 pt for blackies. But, it'll never happen.
I wonder how hard it would be (how many years) to at least get them to change bt's to a state wide 2pt min with exceptions for youth/ senior/ and disabled hunters. :dunno:
Post by: scoyoc5 on October 10, 2008, 07:53:41 PM
Post by: archery288 on October 10, 2008, 07:58:03 PM
Post by: yelp on October 10, 2008, 08:58:31 PM
Post by: Colville on October 11, 2008, 01:13:36 PM
Almost always this isn't really a population debate but whether the resource should sustain max opportunity or if we should all start hunting every other year or two so that we'll get to pick over a couple deer before we shoot.
Post by: Yummy and Tasty Animal on October 11, 2008, 07:28:05 PM
Post by: PA BEN on October 12, 2008, 08:05:46 AM
Post by: Red Dawg on October 12, 2008, 08:10:00 AM
Post by: PA BEN on October 12, 2008, 08:17:08 AM
Post by: PolarBear on October 12, 2008, 08:23:27 AM
There's not as many hunters in the woods these days and we are losing more and more all the time. Put a point restriction on and we will lose the last of the hold outs who are getting disgusted with all the rules and cost of hunting we have now.I personally would love to see fewer hunters in the woods. The folks that are giving up because of too many regulations are casual and not the hardcore or true hunters anyway. I have said for years that a large portion of the "hunters" in the woods these days shouldn't be there. The true hunters are not the folks who are showing disregard for property, game and local laws, it is the half assed hunters that are the largest portion of violators. If increasing point restrictions will lower the number of half assed hunters in the woods, I'm all for it. The major bonus is more and bigger bucks, it is a win-win situation.
Post by: Red Dawg on October 12, 2008, 08:27:05 AM
Post by: PA BEN on October 12, 2008, 08:30:26 AM
Post by: PolarBear on October 12, 2008, 09:07:06 AM
Post by: shag on October 12, 2008, 11:59:08 AM
I'm all for 4 pt mulie, and whities and 3 pt for blackies. But, it'll never happen.
The biggest problem with point restrictions is all the bucks that get shot by guys who hope to find an eye gard or other phatom point. I feel 3 point restriction on mullies is a must. They seem to be a very sentive animal in many ways. And need more agressive attention than either whitetails or blacktails. I can agree with a 2 point restriction on blacktails. Blacktails are so smart and well addaptive that thousands hunt a season and never see a deer. 3 point rule on blacktails will leave way to many bucks left to rot.
Post by: Yummy and Tasty Animal on October 12, 2008, 12:34:16 PM
I'm all for 4 pt mulie, and whities and 3 pt for blackies. But, it'll never happen.
4 pt whitetails??? are you serious??? whitetails are like fly's...they're EVERYWHERE!!! they need to give out more doe tags for whitetails! whitetails are pushing mule deer out of certain areas and are overpopulated as it is. if you put a 4 pt restriction on whitetails more whitetails would starve to death every year than be killed by hunters. quit complaining about public hunting and get permission to hunt some private land and you will have a very easy time finding multiple 3 pt or bigger whitetails. if you can't find any private land to hunt, walk at least 2 miles into the woods from the nearest road and start hunting. you will have almost identical results it just won't be as easy.
Post by: PolarBear on October 12, 2008, 01:01:08 PM
Haahaaa... Now that is funny! If that is directed towards me you obviously do not know my record. I do own right at 200 acres of land in Ferry County and do not hunt it or allow anyone else to. I also have taken close to a dozen P&Y bucks and bulls all on PUBLIC LAND. I will not hunt private land just because it is easy, that is the lazy man's way out, IMO. All of my P&Y bucks were taken during general archery season, on heavily hunted public land and in hell holes where the vast majority of "hunters" are too afraid to venture. I do not complain about the lack of quality bucks because I don't feel that there is a shortage. I support the point restriction as a way to cull out some of the half assed road hunters. I also believe in adding more senior, youth and disabled any buck hunts to thin out the herd but the general season should be point restricted.I'm all for 4 pt mulie, and whities and 3 pt for blackies. But, it'll never happen.quit complaining about public hunting and get permission to hunt some private land and you will have a very easy time finding multiple 3 pt or bigger whitetails. if you can't find any private land to hunt, walk at least 2 miles into the woods from the nearest road and start hunting. you will have almost identical results it just won't be as easy.
Post by: SHANE(WA) on October 12, 2008, 01:18:51 PM
Post by: Dadsbirddog on October 12, 2008, 02:51:05 PM
Post by: asotin on October 12, 2008, 05:16:45 PM
Post by: buckmaster_wa on October 15, 2008, 03:22:40 PM
Post by: SHANE(WA) on October 16, 2008, 02:22:52 AM
Post by: huntnphool on October 16, 2008, 09:14:00 AM
I personally would love to see fewer hunters in the woods. The folks that are giving up because of too many regulations are casual and not the hardcore or true hunters anyway. I have said for years that a large portion of the "hunters" in the woods these days shouldn't be there. The true hunters are not the folks who are showing disregard for property, game and local laws, it is the half assed hunters that are the largest portion of violators. If increasing point restrictions will lower the number of half assed hunters in the woods, I'm all for it. The major bonus is more and bigger bucks, it is a win-win situation.
I have been writting and emailing F&W for years asking for a 4 point restriction in certain units in the Methow but its always politely explained to me that it won't work. I have pointed out the success other states have had in certain units doing this and they continue to say the same thing. I'm sure there are those of you with doubt too but check out the 4 point only units in Montana for example, they are now the most applied for hunts in the state and the amount of big bucks is unreal.
I was actually told by someone at F&W that "if there were a 4 point restriction, then only mature bucks would be harvested" :dunno: Don;t they understand that it would allow those young bucks to mature so there would be more of them? Rather than that 2 year old buck being harvested this year, maybe he would make it to 4 or 5 before he was dropped. If he is going to be harvested I would much rather have him at age 4 than age 2.
There is a problem over there right now that this would not address either and thats the amount of genome deficient 2 and 3 points. These bucks simply dont have the 4 point gene and will never have the head gear to qualify for a 4 point restriction. I think there should be a permit for maybe youth or seniors or handicap that targets these bucks. :twocents: These are just my opinions and I'm not claiming to have all the answers, I am not trying to ruin everyone elses hunts either, just posting what I would like to see happen.
Post by: boneaddict on October 16, 2008, 09:55:17 AM
Its an honest plea and I respect it. I usually turn down alot of deer every year for the one I want and then I have self imposed or harder limits (trad bow) versus 06, just to make it more fun and challenging. ANyway, if you don't have the need to kill something, let it walk. Might be there next year. For those that its their first deer, third or whatever, enjoy, its your season.
Post by: PA BEN on October 22, 2008, 08:13:31 AM
Post by: deaddog on October 22, 2008, 08:36:54 AM
Post by: singleshot12 on October 22, 2008, 08:52:39 AM
Post by: PA BEN on October 22, 2008, 09:13:28 AM
sounds to me like the trophy hunter want it all there way. trophy or nothing for any one, incredibel. now we have hunters attacking hunters for what they legaly shoot! incredibel. and you want fewer hunters in the woods, why so you can have it your way. incredibel! the fewer hunters the stronger the antis will be and thats what you would do so you have a better opp for your trophy! incredibel and very very stupid. time to remember what hunting is all about and if you cant, and you care so much about the point count ,maybe you should be the one to quit hunting! this is not directed at anyone, just grist for the mill. THIS MESSAGE IS APPROVED BY DEADDOGVERY WELL SAID :chuckle:
Post by: cully on October 22, 2008, 10:07:38 AM
I've seen years with lots of good sized bucks and lean years also. They always come back, even the mulies. Besides, most of us know they don't get big by being stupid our easy targets. I would venture to say, most hunters would not even know they are there.
Post by: deaddog on October 22, 2008, 10:23:09 AM
WOW Folks that give up are not true hunters, not hardcore hunters and you have said for years that a large portion should not even be there! wow I had to think about that a few moments and I think that may be the most egotistical ,ignorant, self serving thing ive ever heard or seen put in print!There's not as many hunters in the woods these days and we are losing more and more all the time. Put a point restriction on and we will lose the last of the hold outs who are getting disgusted with all the rules and cost of hunting we have now.I personally would love to see fewer hunters in the woods. The folks that are giving up because of too many regulations are casual and not the hardcore or true hunters anyway. I have said for years that a large portion of the "hunters" in the woods these days shouldn't be there. The true hunters are not the folks who are showing disregard for property, game and local laws, it is the half assed hunters that are the largest portion of violators. If increasing point restrictions will lower the number of half assed hunters in the woods, I'm all for it. The major bonus is more and bigger bucks, it is a win-win situation.
Post by: huntnphool on October 22, 2008, 10:23:23 AM
Post by: MichaelJ on October 22, 2008, 10:44:20 AM
WOW Folks that give up are not true hunters, not hardcore hunters and you have said for years that a large portion should not even be there! wow I had to think about that a few moments and I think that may be the most egotistical ,ignorant, self serving thing ive ever heard or seen put in print!There's not as many hunters in the woods these days and we are losing more and more all the time. Put a point restriction on and we will lose the last of the hold outs who are getting disgusted with all the rules and cost of hunting we have now.I personally would love to see fewer hunters in the woods. The folks that are giving up because of too many regulations are casual and not the hardcore or true hunters anyway. I have said for years that a large portion of the "hunters" in the woods these days shouldn't be there. The true hunters are not the folks who are showing disregard for property, game and local laws, it is the half assed hunters that are the largest portion of violators. If increasing point restrictions will lower the number of half assed hunters in the woods, I'm all for it. The major bonus is more and bigger bucks, it is a win-win situation.
People are selfish by nature... you have your beliefs and you want to impliment or maintain a system that benefits YOUR beliefs... He has HIS beliefs... you don't like 'em, then TOUGH *censored*! But quit with the personal attacks, you can respectfully disagree but we don't need more personal attacks on this site. Get off your high horse there partner!
:twocents:
Michael
Post by: Gutpile on October 22, 2008, 10:51:19 AM
Quote
WOW Folks that give up are not true hunters, not hardcore hunters and you have said for years that a large portion should not even be there! wow I had to think about that a few moments and I think that may be the most egotistical ,ignorant, self serving thing ive ever heard or seen put in print!
I think you misunderstood him deaddog. I think he's saying more casual hunters will just quit trying and stop hunting. I don't think he's calling anybody out. If you think about it you know who he means. The guys who drive by your camp site 3,4,5 times a day "hunting". the guys who have no spot picked out and are just winging it then start crowding your spot., the guys who walk out in the field at 8:00 and head back to the truck at 10, don't sight in there rifles, say things like "whadaya mean 3 point mimimum", or leave there deer laying in the sun for two days, or don't know what unit there in.........need more examples??? You know, the casual guys. These are the guys who like to hunt "kind of" but are not really into hunting like most of us on this site. They may buy a tag next year they may not. They bring a buck in to mount and never pick it up. Ask any Taxi about that. CASUAL guys. If they all stayed home it wouldn't hurt my feeling one bit.
It infuriates me when anybody tells another he should have passed on any animal that was shot. If a guy shoots a small one and someone disagrees you need to keep it to yourself. there's a time and place for everything. I'm no dummy, I understand the whole QDM thing but I don't give a rats ass about it as far as whitys are concerned. Deer hunting has turned into a big money big antler competition. It makes me sick watching these "hunters" shooting deer from blinds at a feeder or food plot and bragging about how big it is, then preaching to me about QDM. "Look what management did" they say. "I could have never shot this deer without good management". We are talking about "wildlife" right? It bothers me to no end. I give way more credit to a guy who shoots a 130 public lander than any tame deer at a feeder no matter how big it is.
Do I like big deer?? Heck yeah, who doesn't? I want big deer but I'm not going home empty handed either just to please other people who say I should have passed. As far as I'm concerned whitys don't need even MORE help. I Love the way it is now especially southeast. Lots of doe tags, youth and seniors can shoot a doe, and late buck is draw only. But I do agree that something really does need to be done with the muleys to give the trophy hunter a better opportunity and to keep the meat hunter happy. I'd almost say open up 2 and 3 points for a while, make 4 point or better draw only. And just see what happens. Maybe that'd cull out the inferior bucks and get better genes running. I don't know.
Whatever a guy shoots is HIS business as long as it's legal. You'll never hear me knock someone for shooting a little one other than a little campfire ribbing between friends.
As far as guys shooting illegal buck and leaving them lay. We all know it happens but I don't think it's as widespread as some would try to lead us to believe. Besides those are the casual *censored* hunters doing it anyways.
Wow that was a mouthfull. Time to go do something fun.
Post by: huntnphool on October 22, 2008, 10:57:01 AM
Post by: Swiftkid on October 22, 2008, 11:04:00 AM
Post by: cully on October 22, 2008, 11:46:39 AM
Post by: Let er Fly on October 22, 2008, 12:13:34 PM
Post by: huntnphool on October 22, 2008, 12:19:46 PM
Post by: deaddog on October 22, 2008, 12:35:54 PM
WOW Folks that give up are not true hunters, not hardcore hunters and you have said for years that a large portion should not even be there! wow I had to think about that a few moments and I think that may be the most egotistical ,ignorant, self serving thing ive ever heard or seen put in print!There's not as many hunters in the woods these days and we are losing more and more all the time. Put a point restriction on and we will lose the last of the hold outs who are getting disgusted with all the rules and cost of hunting we have now.I personally would love to see fewer hunters in the woods. The folks that are giving up because of too many regulations are casual and not the hardcore or true hunters anyway. I have said for years that a large portion of the "hunters" in the woods these days shouldn't be there. The true hunters are not the folks who are showing disregard for property, game and local laws, it is the half assed hunters that are the largest portion of violators. If increasing point restrictions will lower the number of half assed hunters in the woods, I'm all for it. The major bonus is more and bigger bucks, it is a win-win situation.
People are selfish by nature... you have your beliefs and you want to impliment or maintain a system that benefits YOUR beliefs... He has HIS beliefs... you don't like 'em, then TOUGH *censored*! But quit with the personal attacks, you can respectfully disagree but we don't need more personal attacks on this site. Get off your high horse there partner!
:twocents:
Michael I was arguing against attacking others for their lawful taking of game.If you cant keep up maybe you should not comment until you can grasp the converstion, partner!
Post by: huntnphool on October 22, 2008, 12:40:09 PM
Post by: Gutpile on October 22, 2008, 12:50:11 PM
Post by: Sagedawg on October 22, 2008, 12:54:13 PM
Dang, I can't believe where this has headed. Some CH's guys do ruin it for others especially concerning private land. They absolutely ruin it. Open gates, trash, driving on winter wheat. You name it. Casual hunters who play by the rules don't bother any body. But if you in any way affect the quality of another guys hunt by crowiding him or breaking rules your a dick. If I see others where I want to go, I go somewhere else and I expect the same. besides argueing about the revenue they'll generate is a mute point because they'll always be there. Maybe less at times but they'll never just go away completely. If they do, oh'well. This whole debate has morphed into a stupid pissing contest that is way off point. Treat others the way you want to be treated and treat the land like it's yours and everything will be cool.
Well said Gutpile. I agree 100% especially after the expeiance I had opening day.
Sage
Post by: poulsbo on October 22, 2008, 01:27:41 PM
Post by: cully on October 22, 2008, 01:32:22 PM
Anyways, being new here, let me apologize if I helped take this off topic.
Post by: GoldTip on October 22, 2008, 01:59:02 PM
Kind of sounds almost exactly like how a herd of elk works, doesn't it? Big Bull gathers a harem, has several younger satellite bulls trying to steal them and then when he can the herd bull does most of the breeding of those cows.
So riddle me this, if big mulies and breeding pretty much mimics big elk breeding, why is it that the Spike only requirement which has been in place in the blues for elk since I moved to this state 14 some odd years ago, why is it that it has worked so tremendously well for the elk with multiple huge bulls killed down there every year and MANY more monster bulls seen down there. But then why do we have a three point restriction on Mulies? And if it should work so well, then why in the hell is our season set up so that only the larger bucks get killed each year and we kill them before the breeding even starts every year?
Elk and Mule deer rutting activity essentially mimic each other, but instead we have a three point minimum for Mule deer. And yet I don't see humongous Mulies falling every year, in fact I am pretty sure a easy search of this website would show that most people believe the Mule deer herd is still in decline and that even the Raffle tag holder last year had a hard time finding a buck that would even come close to the bare lowest minimum to qualify for B&C record books and this was with multiple people scouting for him and telling him honey holes and his hunting all the traditional HUGE Mulie hot spots and even hunting well into the rut and into the migration.
Please, please, someone tell me why I should believe the 3 point rule is working.
Post by: DeKuma on October 22, 2008, 02:07:03 PM
Post by: Gutpile on October 22, 2008, 02:08:01 PM
Post by: cully on October 22, 2008, 02:35:21 PM
The herds have no bucks or only young ones on the outskirts. I have seen some big in's up high and young ones with awesome potential.
Do you guys see them out in the open with their harems usually? I know bulls protect there harems even from people but with mulies it's the harems who usually protect the males. I've rarely seen big mulies anywhere but by themselves. Did it use to be different?
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on October 22, 2008, 03:09:05 PM
Unfortunately, because 3-point was implemented at the same time as shorter, earlier seasons, improved buck escapement - including increased escapement of older bucks - has been attributed to 3-point rather than ending the general MF season prior to the migration for the migratory public lands herds of the east Cascades. When the season was lengthened in response to improved age structure and escapement in Chelan and Okanogan counties, Okanogan bucks got slaughtered and Chelan bucks got dinged. THEN, to take it back to a 9-day season in those two counties, the collective hunting community insisted on more late permits in exchange for the general season reduction. Those guys can really thump the cream of the bucks rutting and on winter ranges. So, now buck numbers are again improving, but the higher numbers of late permits continue to crop the biggest and best. At the core of all of this, is our collective understandable but unreasonable desire to hunt mule deer every year on general licenses.
Every one of us can come up with a different system we like better, the problem is getting enough of us to agree on one plan. I think WDFW is doing as good a job as can be expected in that regard (hunting season structure), but they could do a lot more to benefit populations.
In my ideal world, influenced by a fair understanding of big game management in all the western states, I would retain general seasons for white-tailed and black-tailed deer, and west-side elk, under pretty similar seasons as we have currently. East-side elk and mule deer would be permit only, for either antlerless or any antlered male (you could probably draw antlerless elk and deer tags pretty frequently, buck/bull would be harder). Elk permit seasons would occur October 15-Nov 30, with seasons split up between weapon user groups by GMUs on either a fixed, or rotating basis. Mule deer permit seasons would start September 1 and end October 15. For both species, damage permit hunts would be scheduled as necessary to handle recurrent, annual bonafide agricultural problems by targeting antlerless animals; bucks and bulls could only be taken for damage by using licensed hunters, with no fees to landowners for those permits.
Because bucks and bulls would still be tough to kill, outside of the rut, far more permits could be allowed, especially in combination with elimination of the general harvest. This would also put some quality and initiative back into the trophy hunter, who would have to work for an opportunity to kill a trophy animal; rather than the current sense of entitlement to a trophy kill too many of our hunters feel by "putting in the years" to acquire points and draw tags to kill a testosterone-poisoned breeder. Under this scheme, archers might draw every other year for mule deer bucks, muzzleloaders every third year or so, and modern rifle every 5 years or so, to make up frequencies. In other years, if you want to hunt mule deer and east-side elk more frequently, go for the antlerless permits. To hunt every year for both deer and elk, we'd probably need to learn some new areas in western WA, and/or hunt whitetails.
This would also work, even if we kept spike-only general eastern elk seasons and general mule deer seasons FOR SPIKES AND FORKED HORNS ONLY; to shoot a buck with at least 3-points on each side, you'd need to draw a mule deer buck permit. This would result in less branched buck and bull permits than going permit only, but by keeping the permits during the seasons when they AREN'T RUT DUMB, AND ARE HARD TO KILL, there would still be more opportunity. (We might still need to further restrict harvest of nonmigratory mule deer bucks in the open country, as we've pretty well proven we can kill nearly all of whatever kind of legal deer the state allows out there.) Of course, to manage tribal hunting impacts, we'd all have to put up with a bunch of road closures, for indians, non-indian state-licensed hunters, and non-hunters on public lands.
Gee, what a great plan! But wait, what about the poor dumb schmos who've put in for permits for 10+ years and have max points (they'd draw, but not the premier execution opportunity they've waited to get). What about enhanced opportunities for youths, seniors, disabled, etc., etc.?? They'd lose out. What about the very best of our hunters, those who consistently already have GREAT general hunts by working hard to get where the big boys live, and let the terrain and distance weed out everyone else? They'd lose out too. Point is, everyone's great scheme ultimately is designed to enhance their own opportunity, at the expense of someone else.
Post by: boneaddict on October 22, 2008, 03:37:04 PM
Post by: nw_bowhunter on October 22, 2008, 04:05:53 PM
I personally hardly ever apply for special permit hunts, and it’s not a big deal for me.(I applied twice in ten years) I just want to get out and hunt and have fun. Do not get me wrong I want a nice elk or mule deer rack, but I'm not willing to sacrifice being able to buy OTC tags and have the ability to hunt year after year. As an example I do not want it how Utah does it and have to wait ten years for elk tag... I can understand the desire for changes and have the ability to hunt for the big bucks and monster elk racks is appealing. I guess if that was my ultimate goal I would persue other areas that provide better opportunity...
We also need to consider that we do not have the game compared to other states..(shear volume). I guess we need to really decide what’s most important… being able to hunt consistently year after year or having limited hunting to build bigger racks.
In unit 328 the cows were taken away during archery season, and its only spike only for the different weapons. The bulls really developed over the years and it was very exciting. Of course the side effects of of the changes Unit 328 brought attention and Native American took full advantage of the area and what was left to us? The Fish and game was not able to control the senseless killing and it’s in my opinion this would become even greater problem across the state. Now for guys waiting on those permits everyone would have been screwed.
I close with this, be careful what you ask for and what you really think you want.
Post by: boneaddict on October 22, 2008, 04:14:11 PM
PS, I'm not sure what unit 328 is offhand, but if its the Clockum or Naneum then THAT IS A HUGE problem and I agree. One user group gives, the other taketh away. i think we should (tongue and cheek) transplant a few wolves in there and then none of us will have anything to worry about.
Post by: nw_bowhunter on October 22, 2008, 04:16:32 PM
Post by: boneaddict on October 22, 2008, 04:19:34 PM
Post by: PA BEN on October 22, 2008, 07:38:00 PM
Post by: GoldTip on October 23, 2008, 07:11:50 AM
Also, in my opinion, anyone under 18 can kill any deer for Mulies. This would weed out some of more inferior gened monster forkies and also get rid of some does, do away with a special permit system for does. Keep the rest of it at 3pt minimum, but run the season from Oct 26 to Nov 8, to give more people a chance to hunt Mule deer bucks during the rut.
Post by: Colville on October 23, 2008, 12:37:05 PM
It's not. Before a person puts up a supposed solution, they should first put up a specific and qualified problem. There's no need for any solution until we can agree that there's even a problem and demonstrate that problem factually.
So, buck numbers aren't a problem. If someone would like to post a study that shows that mule deer aren't breeding at an appropriate rate because of the number of escaping bucks, necessitating the need for more escapement, post it. I've read a ton of stuff at the WDFW site and for the most part herd numbers are attributed to habitat and weather and I've seen no conclusion that the 3 pt restriction is reducing the birth rates and therefore the health of the herd. I'll be the first to say I'm wrong if you can post otherwise. We can manage the herd for more bucks of X quality or less, resulting in more hunting opportunity, but the WDFW does not suggest that breeding rates are a problem based on the current system. However, even if more buck escapement was needed moving the season earlier a few days and shorter a day might solve the problem while retaining open seasons. Either way, you have to decide if the problem exists before you fix it.
That brings us to the real deal. This isn't about a biology problem. It's about desires. Some people WANT to hunt deer where they have better odds at a bigger buck and get to do that later in the season. To do that we have to cut the number of hunters. F&G has to hit a certain number of bucks escaping overall, if we define that certain number by the number of points on their head rather than in total and then make it easier to kill the multi point deer, we won't be able to have open seasons. That's not a problem/solution. That's one group telling the other we don't care if you can't hunt because it serves our desires.
The herd can be managed either way without a biological problem; for max opportunity or max quality but not both. I grow weary of those wanting better quality trying to suggest that it's "needed", you know, for the health of the herd. Problem is they never point to the WDFW coming to that conclusion.
Vastly more people want to hunt every year and accept the resulting quality than want to hunt every 5 years but know they're likely to get a big buck. I'd bet it's far more than 2 to 1. Why should 66% of hunters have to subsidize the desires of 33% when biologically it's not needed?
Want to insure big buck hunting every 5 years? How bout not allowing anyone putting in for a late season permit to hunt general deer? The numbers of apps will plummet and those willing to sit out will be rewarded with big deer hunts. It would have the same net effect, really high quality hunts every X years and having to sit out in the mean time.
BTW... if you do go draw for mule deer you'll end up having to go draw for whitetails or 4pt or better type regs. All those not drawing mule deer will flood to open Whitetail areas and herds that can sustain any buck right now will not be able to overnight. Can't look at mule deer alone and not figure out that people want to hunt and when they can't hunt mule deer they are going to send that pressure to any other open season, changing the dynamics and viability of those seasons.
Also, rather than having hearings and surveys on the wdfw site, I think big issues like draw only should be put to a question on your hunter reporting on line. You report your kill and answer yes or no to the question would you rather hunt every 3rd year but have improved quality or prefer general seasons. That way you get all the hunters to reply (most anyhow) rather than just the most motivated by their POV and who keep on top of what the WDFW is doing. I'm sure people will hate that idea, of course, because they know what they want isn't what most hunters want. Go figure.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on October 23, 2008, 12:49:08 PM
A friends wife killed her first deer this year- a spike, she was stoked...so was I. I think that's great for her. But I'm not going to shoot a small buck because I want a big one...if my tag's on a dink there's one less potential trophy and I'm done for the year.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on October 23, 2008, 12:53:49 PM
I'll also urge doe tag holders to fill their doe tag and not shoot a buck. More harvested does will lead to a better ratio also.
Big antlers are a result of a healthier herd. They're not the intent of the management, they're a byproduct. Look at midwestern and eastern states (Iowa, Kansas, Pennsylvania) to see the results of the management. Harvest is as high as ever and people are getting bigger deer. Passing on a small buck is the first step to making a big one.
Post by: Colville on October 23, 2008, 12:57:51 PM
I've passed on any number of deer for the same reasons. I just don't pass judgment on the guys happy to make a different decission.
Post by: Bean Counter on October 23, 2008, 01:11:15 PM
...I'm not going to shoot a small buck because I want a big one...if my tag's on a dink there's one less potential trophy and I'm done for the year.
As long as you practice what you preach I have no problem with you raising the idea. What makes me nervous, in all honesty, is someone else telling everyone else not to shoot smaller bucks just to improve his or her odds. Again, I have no way of knowing whether this is you or not, but I was a bit reserved at first. :twocents:
Post by: MichaelJ on October 23, 2008, 01:12:42 PM
WOW Folks that give up are not true hunters, not hardcore hunters and you have said for years that a large portion should not even be there! wow I had to think about that a few moments and I think that may be the most egotistical ,ignorant, self serving thing ive ever heard or seen put in print!There's not as many hunters in the woods these days and we are losing more and more all the time. Put a point restriction on and we will lose the last of the hold outs who are getting disgusted with all the rules and cost of hunting we have now.I personally would love to see fewer hunters in the woods. The folks that are giving up because of too many regulations are casual and not the hardcore or true hunters anyway. I have said for years that a large portion of the "hunters" in the woods these days shouldn't be there. The true hunters are not the folks who are showing disregard for property, game and local laws, it is the half assed hunters that are the largest portion of violators. If increasing point restrictions will lower the number of half assed hunters in the woods, I'm all for it. The major bonus is more and bigger bucks, it is a win-win situation.
People are selfish by nature... you have your beliefs and you want to impliment or maintain a system that benefits YOUR beliefs... He has HIS beliefs... you don't like 'em, then TOUGH *censored*! But quit with the personal attacks, you can respectfully disagree but we don't need more personal attacks on this site. Get off your high horse there partner!
:twocents:
Michael I was arguing against attacking others for their lawful taking of game.If you cant keep up maybe you should not comment until you can grasp the converstion, partner!
PM sent to keep this argument off the boards and annoying others.... :hello:
Michael
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on October 23, 2008, 01:31:39 PM
...I'm not going to shoot a small buck because I want a big one...if my tag's on a dink there's one less potential trophy and I'm done for the year.
As long as you practice what you preach I have no problem with you raising the idea. What makes me nervous, in all honesty, is someone else telling everyone else not to shoot smaller bucks just to improve his or her odds. Again, I have no way of knowing whether this is you or not, but I was a bit reserved at first. :twocents:
I do practice that. I did shoot a small deer a few years ago- I wanted to get my first deer in Washington and I shot a smallish buck on the last day of late season. Actually, since I moved to Wa I've only killed three deer and two were does. I just like to hunt and get outdoors. Killing a small buck doesn't give me much satisfaction. I grew up in Iowa watching small bucks turn into big ones, shooting a b&c buck is much more satisfying. It also makes sense for the herd, which is more important.
My wife and I both got elk this year, so meat isn't an issue. I doubt I'll deer hunt at all this year.
Post by: deaddog on October 23, 2008, 04:54:45 PM
Post by: huntnphool on October 23, 2008, 05:15:39 PM
Im sorry wacoyotehunter, but I dont get it. read your first post then your last one. Im i missing something. no attack here just trying to understand when is it ok to harvest a small buck and when is it ok to harvest a large buck?
Bottom line deaddog, to each his own I say. If someone wants to harvest a small buck its entirely their decision, assuming they can shoot strait :chuckle: If someone has a tag and decides they want to pass on that 2 year old 3 point, then again its their choice. I don't think anyone has the right to criticise someone based on the size of the rack of an animal someone harvests. The state will decide when its okay and not okay to harvest whatever we are hunting and we all have to live with it, we should all worry about what we harvest ourselves and stop passing judgement on others based on rack size :twocents:
Post by: scoyoc5 on October 23, 2008, 05:53:59 PM
:yeah:
Post by: deaddog on October 24, 2008, 07:49:55 AM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on October 24, 2008, 12:39:21 PM
Im sorry wacoyotehunter, but I dont get it. read your first post then your last one. Im i missing something. no attack here just trying to understand when is it ok to harvest a small buck and when is it ok to harvest a large buck?
I'm not saying it's WRONG to kill a small buck- but it's not favorable to the health of the herd. It's not up to me to tell anyone what they can and cannot (should/should not) shoot- instead the intent is to get poeple thinking about management when they hunt.
Phool- you're right- it's up to the hunter. If someone wants to shoot a small buck, fine. But to me, and some others, it's not particularly satisfying. I would rather wait for a big one and possibly eat my tag. So, the intent was to get people thinking about that when they're hunting... do they really want to kill an immature deer, or is it more satisfying to know that perhaps you just helped the health of the herd and have the potential to see that deer in the future?
not criticizing anyone- just asking people to consider it? Is that so bad?
Post by: boneaddict on October 24, 2008, 07:53:43 PM
I also don't think this has turned ugly. Its a great discussion.