Post by: PA BEN on July 15, 2013, 06:02:15 AM
Post by: huntnnw on July 15, 2013, 06:17:34 AM
Post by: jackmaster on July 15, 2013, 06:52:30 AM
Post by: dscubame on July 15, 2013, 07:07:59 AM
Post by: boneaddict on July 15, 2013, 07:22:20 AM
Post by: Hunt4ever on July 15, 2013, 07:26:30 AM
Love it. I feel like my honey hole is back!! :tup: and less people too.
:yeah: !!!!
Post by: buckfvr on July 15, 2013, 07:44:37 AM
When I was a kid, all hunters went by the same set of rules........as it should be always. Take the emphasis off killing......teach them to enjoy hunting and being with other hunters.
There is significant improvements in our herd....Id hate to see it go backwards again at the expense of kids and seniors killing deer that should be passed, and that is to include me and my family , even the grand kids. :twocents:
Post by: popeshawnpaul on July 15, 2013, 07:55:23 AM
Post by: buckfvr on July 15, 2013, 08:07:01 AM
The population has "rebounded". It's time to lift it next year.
Great observation from Bellevue !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :bash:
Post by: 92xj on July 15, 2013, 08:13:26 AM
The population has "rebounded". It's time to lift it next year.
Great observation from Bellevue !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :bash:
Really, you know where he scouts, hunts, camps, hikes, researches, takes photographs and studies deer?
I dont agree with his comment about lifting the rule, but Im surely not going to type some smart remark because he happens to live or post a location in his profile a good ways away from the topic area, not knowing where he spends his time out of Bellevue.
Post by: dscubame on July 15, 2013, 11:44:23 AM
The population has "rebounded". It's time to lift it next year.
Cannot disagree more. Not sure why taking away the fix would be a good thing.
Post by: vandeman17 on July 15, 2013, 11:55:10 AM
Post by: Jonathan_S on July 15, 2013, 11:59:26 AM
But all they have to do is hunt an adjoing unit if they dont like the 4pt min..pretty close to hunt another unit. It has helped alot! see way more bucks already!
Yeah GMU 101, 105, 108, 111 etc. are all pretty close nearby.
The population has "rebounded". It's time to lift it next year.
Yeah that's a good point about whiteys with 4 points. 18 month old bucks seem to be 4 pt at least 30-40% of the time in "my" areas.
Cannot disagree more. Not sure why taking away the fix would be a good thing.
:yeah: I think most people don't understand how many 4 pt bucks there are running around now anyway. I see many more bucks in 117 and 121. It might have been rough for a season or so but why would anyone want to get rid of it? It would be like removing the 3 pt minimum for mule deer. See below.
Considering most whitetails unless they still have spots or milk on their lips are 4 points or better(WDFW rules), I was surprised what the big deal was. Glad they put it into effect. The three point or better rules for muledeer saved the Methow herd.
Post by: SkookumHntr on July 15, 2013, 12:06:47 PM
Post by: boneaddict on July 15, 2013, 12:24:37 PM
Post by: Jonathan_S on July 15, 2013, 12:41:18 PM
Im all for the 4pt or better rule! Wish they would start doing this to some of the blacktail units!
4? I could see 3 pt min for blacktail. I hunted the 650 units for a lot of years and most of the good bucks I have seen were 3 pt
I've got a big heavy 2x3 blacktail in 2001 that I would have cried :'( over in a 4 pt minimum hunt.
Post by: Curly on July 15, 2013, 12:47:03 PM
Post by: Jonathan_S on July 15, 2013, 12:59:33 PM
The problem with a 3 point min rule for blacktails is that eyeguards are counted for the legal definition..........you'd end up killing 2 points with eye-guards. But, that might still be better than letting the spikes and little 2 points get wacked like it is now. :dunno: (But I suppose that's another topic than whiteys in 117/121..........)
That was something I was going to bring up in my other post. It seems like there are far fewer blacktails with browtines than whitetails. So yeah there'd be some little racks still harvested but the same can be said for any point rule.
Anyway, back on topic. I am a big fan of the 4 point minimum for ALL user groups, particularly 117 and 121
Post by: popeshawnpaul on July 15, 2013, 01:01:02 PM
The population has "rebounded". It's time to lift it next year.
Cannot disagree more. Not sure why taking away the fix would be a good thing.
It was only a short term 3 year fix to alter the population dynamics such that there were more deer in general in the area due to the "decline" cited by WDFW in the area due to difficult winters and factors they were unaware of. If they were going to do it, it was predicated that it would be lifted after 3 years when all the benefits of it had been realized. It prompted the radio collar study in the area to help determine fawn survival in the area and we just had a full report on it from the bio a few weeks ago at the GMAC. After a few years, studies and science tells us that the short term benefits are nullified. Every WDFW biologist, except one, did not want the 4 point rule in this area. It never received approval from the GMAC either. One commissioner was able to push it through with support from outfitter(s) that it would create a "trophy" area or more big bucks.
It does not create more big bucks despite how many more you deer you are seeing in your "honey hole". Even if it did, are we now managing just for big bucks? There is nothing wrong with letting the 90% of the public that wants to shoot a meat buck do so. Nearly the rest of the state already has 3 point white-tailed restrictions and it doesn't help with more trophy bucks in that area. There are tons of studies on the issue from other states so do some research on the issues. Our bio's aren't stupid, there is a reason most didn't want this. There are many more issues on this population than buck ratios and dynamics. Winters, wolves, etc...
Post by: Jonathan_S on July 15, 2013, 01:06:12 PM
Do you think it is hurting herd management to continue with the 4 pt minimum? If so, do you think lifting it and returning it to ANY BUCK would be a better management strategy?
Post by: dscubame on July 15, 2013, 01:41:28 PM
The population has "rebounded". It's time to lift it next year.
Cannot disagree more. Not sure why taking away the fix would be a good thing.
It was only a short term 3 year fix to alter the population dynamics such that there were more deer in general in the area due to the "decline" cited by WDFW in the area due to difficult winters and factors they were unaware of. If they were going to do it, it was predicated that it would be lifted after 3 years when all the benefits of it had been realized. It prompted the radio collar study in the area to help determine fawn survival in the area and we just had a full report on it from the bio a few weeks ago at the GMAC. After a few years, studies and science tells us that the short term benefits are nullified. Every WDFW biologist, except one, did not want the 4 point rule in this area. It never received approval from the GMAC either. One commissioner was able to push it through with support from outfitter(s) that it would create a "trophy" area or more big bucks.
It does not create more big bucks despite how many more you deer you are seeing in your "honey hole". Even if it did, are we now managing just for big bucks? There is nothing wrong with letting the 90% of the public that wants to shoot a meat buck do so. Nearly the rest of the state already has 3 point whitetails restrictions and it doesn't help with more trophy bucks in that area. There are tons of studies on the issue from other states so do some research on the issues. Our bio's are not stupid, there is a reason most didn't want this. There are many more issues on this population than buck ratios and dynamics. Winters, wolves, etc...
Again and with due respect I cannot disagree more with your added statements. I know for a fact that the commissioners were in full support and I know for a fact they wanted to pass this the year prior to them doing so however at the prior years meeting when it was on the agenda for that meeting there was not quorum. There was even talk among the commissioners to hold a special meeting to pass the 4 point however it was later decided simply to wait until the next season.
3 year plan talk, well maybe but if so that would be not anything but conversation and definitely not part of the minutes with any teeth to it.
Managing for large bucks was none of the conversation I have had with any commissioner, it was always a deer population conversation. Outfitters pressing a commissioner to pass this is absurd. It took the majority and it was no less than a 2 year internal dissuasion among the commissioners, especially since they ended up passing it a year later than they intended.
It definitely does create bigger bucks and that is simply a fact. I get it you may have an agenda and your strong belief's are from your education and experience. If we were talking Mule deer I may tend to agree with you more.
Make it buck only I am fine with that too however I will say my very polite reply and contribution to this thread when i referred to my honey hole is how I feel. Why get all in a tizzy over that, it's simply how I feel.
I can agree to disagree with the best of them pope I simply feel you have much bias and a bit misinformed. cheers however.
Post by: grundy53 on July 15, 2013, 02:12:17 PM
The population has "rebounded". It's time to lift it next year.
Cannot disagree more. Not sure why taking away the fix would be a good thing.
:yeah:
sent from my typewriter
Post by: buckfvr on July 15, 2013, 02:22:11 PM
Living here and witnessing dynamics of the local whitetail herds, for me its about many things. Our deer numbers still dont appear to have fully rebounded from the back to back severe winters of 6 years ago. This rule has allowed more deer to live a bit longer, and what comes with that is an extra season or two of antler developement. WIth the last couple relatively mild winters, and great spring browse, absolutely, we have more mature bucks with guess what.....more horn !!!!
I will point out, if many of you knew how wdfw counts deer, you'd scoff at the idea this hasnt helped.......
Of all the guys around here I hunt with and or share information with, the concensus is in overwhelmng support of this rule.
I suggest popes post is skewed and does not represent actual facts or results.
Where wdfw is concerned, I dont believe anything I read or hear, and only half of what I see. As with the wolves, wanna know whats going on in these hills ??????ask one of the many who live here, and truley care about ALL wildlife.
Post by: 92xj on July 15, 2013, 02:31:05 PM
I was in attendance when they said implement for 4 years, then evaluate.
Living here and witnessing dynamics of the local whitetail herds, for me its about many things. Our deer numbers still dont appear to have fully rebounded from the back to back severe winters of 6 years ago. This rule has allowed more deer to live a bit longer, and what comes with that is an extra season or two of antler developement. WIth the last couple relatively mild winters, and great spring browse, absolutely, we have more mature bucks with guess what.....more horn !!!!
I will point out, if many of you knew how wdfw counts deer, you'd scoff at the idea this hasnt helped.......
Of all the guys around here I hunt with and or share information with, the concensus is in overwhelmng support of this rule.
I suggest popes post is skewed and does not represent actual facts or results.
Where wdfw is concerned, I dont believe anything I read or hear, and only half of what I see. As with the wolves, wanna know whats going on in these hills ??????ask one of the many who live here, and truley care about ALL wildlife.
:tup:
Post by: bearpaw on July 15, 2013, 02:50:52 PM
Post by: bowhunterforever on July 15, 2013, 05:36:06 PM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on July 15, 2013, 05:57:16 PM
Considering most whitetails unless they still have spots or milk on their lips are 4 points or better(WDFW rules), I was surprised what the big deal was. Glad they put it into effect. The three point or better rules for muledeer saved the Methow herd.
Exactly... I see far more 4 pts than 3 pts or less....even the first year.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on July 15, 2013, 06:09:26 PM
The population has "rebounded". It's time to lift it next year.
Cannot disagree more. Not sure why taking away the fix would be a good thing.
It was only a short term 3 year fix to alter the population dynamics such that there were more deer in general in the area due to the "decline" cited by WDFW in the area due to difficult winters and factors they were unaware of. If they were going to do it, it was predicated that it would be lifted after 3 years when all the benefits of it had been realized. It prompted the radio collar study in the area to help determine fawn survival in the area and we just had a full report on it from the bio a few weeks ago at the GMAC. After a few years, studies and science tells us that the short term benefits are nullified. Every WDFW biologist, except one, did not want the 4 point rule in this area. It never received approval from the GMAC either. One commissioner was able to push it through with support from outfitter(s) that it would create a "trophy" area or more big bucks.
It does not create more big bucks despite how many more you deer you are seeing in your "honey hole". Even if it did, are we now managing just for big bucks? There is nothing wrong with letting the 90% of the public that wants to shoot a meat buck do so. Nearly the rest of the state already has 3 point white-tailed restrictions and it doesn't help with more trophy bucks in that area. There are tons of studies on the issue from other states so do some research on the issues. Our bio's are stupid, there is a reason most didn't want this. There are many more issues on this population than buck ratios and dynamics. Winters, wolves, etc...
Are these biologist whitetail specialists? I'd like to hear why they go against what is considered a good practice in whitetail QDM.
I have read the studies from the other states.. there is plenty of scientific studies and evidence to disprove the few naysayers...the "issues"...aren't quite what some want to make them.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on July 15, 2013, 06:14:36 PM
It was supposed to be for 5 years to give it a proper trial. Numbers are still not where they should be but we are gaining, I too am seeing more mature bucks. This rule basically protects most of our first year bucks, by year 5 we should know more. We have so many predators that the herd is recovering pretty slowly.
:yeah:
Every year I see more bears and cats on my cameras and while I haven't seen wolves in most of the areas I hunt (just one) I have heard them and found their scat in all of the areas I hunt.
Post by: SkookumHntr on July 15, 2013, 06:30:58 PM
Well I was meaning antler restriction in general! Like the Mule Deer units, 3pt min!Im all for the 4pt or better rule! Wish they would start doing this to some of the blacktail units!
4? I could see 3 pt min for blacktail. I hunted the 650 units for a lot of years and most of the good bucks I have seen were 3 pt
I've got a big heavy 2x3 blacktail in 2001 that I would have cried :'( over in a 4 pt minimum hunt.
Post by: popeshawnpaul on July 15, 2013, 07:42:24 PM
It definitely does create bigger bucks and that is simply a fact. And the name calling towards our bio's is ridiculous. I get it you may have an agenda and your strong belief's however calling our bio's "stupid" with a broad brush is ignorant.
Name calling would be ridiculous and that's not what I did. I simply left out the "'t" but if you read my whole sentence it makes sense I was standing up for our bio's. What's wrong with nearly every bio recommending one thing and some commissioners changing the management another direction? Anyone see problems with that? On this issue it benefited you but wait until it doesn't and see how you feel. The general public shouldn't be making management decisions.
Buckfvr - first you state it's "head banging against a wall" that I have an opinion or know the facts of the 100 series units because my house is located in Bellevue. Next you state my post is "skewed and does not represent actual facts". I have the facts that I posted and more and they aren't skewed. I have a degree in wildlife management, I talk to the bios and managers, and I was at every meeting and had input in all these issues. I am much more informed that you would ever have imagined when you replied to my post. Your responses are some of the reasons huntwa doesn't get more people on here that are involved with these hunting issues posting.
I listened to the census data and facts about the problem, listened to our bio's and wildlife managers, and have read tons of studies over the last 20+ years on these rules with respect to wildlife management. After listening to the experts and looking at the facts, I came up with my personal opinion. I do respect your opinion and also realize the short terms goals of this management decision. I also realize we are seeing some of the expected "hunting benefits" of this decision.
Post by: dscubame on July 15, 2013, 07:49:03 PM
Post by: Ridgeratt on July 15, 2013, 07:55:04 PM
I'd go statewide all species(deer).......but thats just me. :chuckle:
A wise man Speaks!!!!! :tup:
Post by: turkeyfeather on July 15, 2013, 08:01:18 PM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on July 15, 2013, 08:11:55 PM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on July 15, 2013, 08:21:33 PM
Also- it was NEVER pushed along by outfitters as a trophy objective. It was sportsman's groups and locals that care about the deer that made it happen.
Post by: buckfvr on July 15, 2013, 08:30:06 PM
Post by: popeshawnpaul on July 15, 2013, 08:38:42 PM
If I remember correctly..the biologist were against the 4 pt minimum but came right out and said that they didn't really have any reasonable amount of local research to truly take a stand.
The bios weren't in favor. There was no 3 year cap either. The talk is the benefits are seen for about 3 years... There is tons of research on the issue.
Post by: 3nails on July 15, 2013, 08:48:23 PM
There's just no need for antler restrictions on blacktails. Plenty of mature bucks on the westside.Well I was meaning antler restriction in general! Like the Mule Deer units, 3pt min!Im all for the 4pt or better rule! Wish they would start doing this to some of the blacktail units!
4? I could see 3 pt min for blacktail. I hunted the 650 units for a lot of years and most of the good bucks I have seen were 3 pt
I've got a big heavy 2x3 blacktail in 2001 that I would have cried :'( over in a 4 pt minimum hunt.
Post by: SkookumHntr on July 15, 2013, 09:06:23 PM
Post by: 3nails on July 15, 2013, 09:08:28 PM
lol, what are you smokin dude?? :chuckle:Big mature blacktails....... Every year.
Post by: Bean Counter on July 15, 2013, 09:20:35 PM
Post by: buckfvr on July 15, 2013, 09:21:21 PM
It also seems to me that much research is agenda driven in that it usually is undertaken in hopes of supporting ones, or ones own groups theories, or to dis-prove anothers theories.
We can read and write and educate all we want, but it needs to be tempered with practical experience and time. WIld life management/whitetail deer management isnt a one size fits all discussion, and can and will vary from unit to unit, even within a single unit.
When we think we have learned so much more than the next guy, that we are unwilling to give thought to new ideas or give consideration for what others are experiencing in a boots on the ground enviroment, then maybe its time to take a step back and watch....observe....see if maybe there isnt something else we can learn and catalog for the future. I learn about whitetail nearly every day.....and my class room is the fields and woods of ne wa. Im excited and thankfull every day to live in this enviroment.
Post by: SkookumHntr on July 15, 2013, 09:29:22 PM
Well im not gonna argue on this anymore but I live in the middle of what use to be the one of the best blacktail units in the state, the deer numbers are nothing like they were 15 years ago..Dont take a bio or a wildlife degree to figure this out..lol, what are you smokin dude?? :chuckle:Big mature blacktails....... Every year.
Post by: buckcanyonlodge on July 15, 2013, 09:35:36 PM
Post by: huntnnw on July 15, 2013, 09:57:26 PM
Post by: bullseeker on July 15, 2013, 10:22:40 PM
Post by: muleyguy on July 15, 2013, 10:32:02 PM
what you have to understand is that there is a "cost" to all of this; I have ranted on here about these rules, and if you go back I made a prediction a couple of years ago, I predicted that you would see a very large increase in harvest of 4 and 5 pt bucks; the data bears this out;
The cost to these rules is it puts tremendous pressure on the older age classes, while protecting the younger age class.
Since 2010 when the rule was implemented, the number of 4 and 5 pt bucks harvested in unit 117 has gone up 44%; in unit 121 it has gone up 56%;
And, obviously, the number of bucks harvested smaller then 4 pts has gone to virtually zero;
What do you think is happening here??? what do you think a post harvest age class survey looks like know??
Let me clue you in............you have created a huge bubble of juvenile bucks with very poor antler genetics who are doing the bulk of the breeding.......the reason is, this class of bucks is "protected", whereas the older age classes is not protected.
The increase in harvest from 2011 to 2012 in the 4/5pt was huge..........next year it will be the same thing and will only get worse as more people come back to the units. One of the first casualties of this rule will be the loss or dramatic shortening of the rifle general rut season; if this rule is not dropped, that will happen in a couple of more years.
This is the unfortunate legacy of APR's in WA........ever shortening season structures...........more people, jammed into a smaller hunting season, while its 90 degrees on October 9th; thats a real treat........
In 2012 in unit 121, there was 20,000 hunter days; in 2009, the year before the rule was implemented there was over 31,000 hunter days;
1/3 less hunter days...........56% increase in harvest of 4/5pt's.................sorry, but these units cannot sustain that kind of pressure on the older age classes when the hunter days goes back to historical norms.
Trust me, there isn't some "magical" new population of 4 and 5 pt bucks; the rule change just took essentially the same number of bucks in the population, and reshuffled the avg harvest age class by 1 yr;
and, if anybody thinks this rule will be rescinded, ever, is extremely naive.......the reason is very simple and is mathmatically based..........the very first year that you implement an APR, you "save" a bunch of yearling class bucks and create a bubble of them in the population.
what do you think happens when you unwind the APR and let people shoot any buck???? its a complete wipeout.............huge increase in harvest;
They will never get rid of it;
I find it interesting how every Western state has gotten rid of APR's for both Mule deer and whitetails and have essentially taken that science and deemed it junk;
But, no, we have mysteriously stumbled upon the magical herd management technique of APR's for both mule deer and whitetails here in WA????? When Idaho, Montana, Colorado, Wyoming, Oregon, etc have relegated these APR's to the trash heap of failed deer management.
And, no, our whitetail herds are not he same as Eastern US herds where they have implemented APR's; those herds are highly productive, very low buck to doe herds;
the reason APR's were implemented there was to incentivize hunters to shoot does........that is completely different then what we need;
If you want more deer in WA, focus on saving the does, and keep a stable supply of mature bucks doing the breeding.
Don't run a gimmick that does nothing for the does, and only reduces the age class of breeding bucks, which further causes other biological issues.
Use good science and do whats right for the herd, even if that means slightly reduced hunter opportunities.
Post by: huntnnw on July 15, 2013, 10:41:06 PM
This not correct...DNA is passed on no matter the age...even if his father had a 200" rack and he is the ofspring and one day if able to mature to 200" he still carries this gene no matter the age when he breeds
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on July 15, 2013, 10:50:37 PM
"Let me clue you in............you have created a huge bubble of juvenile bucks with very poor antler genetics who are doing the bulk of the breeding......."
This not correct...DNA is passed on no matter the age...even if his father had a 200" rack and he is the ofspring and one day if able to mature to 200" he still carries this gene no matter the age when he breeds
Don't argue with his "good science" :chuckle:
Post by: grundy53 on July 15, 2013, 10:51:04 PM
sent from my typewriter
Post by: huntnnw on July 15, 2013, 10:55:29 PM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on July 15, 2013, 10:59:35 PM
What is considered high pressure here is moderate pressure there at best.
Post by: huntnnw on July 15, 2013, 11:24:35 PM
Post by: grundy53 on July 16, 2013, 02:20:07 AM
all the 4pt better rule does is increase the average harvested age class by 1 yr..........that is it......ALL the data on whitetail APR's shows that these rules are effective for increasing the average age class of harvested buck by one yr, but VERY little, if any, recruitment into older age classes results from it. The reason these rules are so "popular" is that it creates a stockpile of 2.5 yr old bucks in the population and the ave age of harvest goes from 1.5 yr old bucks to 2.5 yr old bucks; 1 yr old bucks have slightly larger antlers, and so people "think" there is something magical going on.
what you have to understand is that there is a "cost" to all of this; I have ranted on here about these rules, and if you go back I made a prediction a couple of years ago, I predicted that you would see a very large increase in harvest of 4 and 5 pt bucks; the data bears this out;
The cost to these rules is it puts tremendous pressure on the older age classes, while protecting the younger age class.
Since 2010 when the rule was implemented, the number of 4 and 5 pt bucks harvested in unit 117 has gone up 44%; in unit 121 it has gone up 56%;
And, obviously, the number of bucks harvested smaller then 4 pts has gone to virtually zero;
What do you think is happening here??? what do you think a post harvest age class survey looks like know??
Let me clue you in............you have created a huge bubble of juvenile bucks with very poor antler genetics who are doing the bulk of the breeding.......the reason is, this class of bucks is "protected", whereas the older age classes is not protected.
The increase in harvest from 2011 to 2012 in the 4/5pt was huge..........next year it will be the same thing and will only get worse as more people come back to the units. One of the first casualties of this rule will be the loss or dramatic shortening of the rifle general rut season; if this rule is not dropped, that will happen in a couple of more years.
This is the unfortunate legacy of APR's in WA........ever shortening season structures...........more people, jammed into a smaller hunting season, while its 90 degrees on October 9th; thats a real treat........
In 2012 in unit 121, there was 20,000 hunter days; in 2009, the year before the rule was implemented there was over 31,000 hunter days;
1/3 less hunter days...........56% increase in harvest of 4/5pt's.................sorry, but these units cannot sustain that kind of pressure on the older age classes when the hunter days goes back to historical norms.
Trust me, there isn't some "magical" new population of 4 and 5 pt bucks; the rule change just took essentially the same number of bucks in the population, and reshuffled the avg harvest age class by 1 yr;
and, if anybody thinks this rule will be rescinded, ever, is extremely naive.......the reason is very simple and is mathmatically based..........the very first year that you implement an APR, you "save" a bunch of yearling class bucks and create a bubble of them in the population.
what do you think happens when you unwind the APR and let people shoot any buck???? its a complete wipeout.............huge increase in harvest;
They will never get rid of it;
I find it interesting how every Western state has gotten rid of APR's for both Mule deer and whitetails and have essentially taken that science and deemed it junk;
But, no, we have mysteriously stumbled upon the magical herd management technique of APR's for both mule deer and whitetails here in WA????? When Idaho, Montana, Colorado, Wyoming, Oregon, etc have relegated these APR's to the trash heap of failed deer management.
And, no, our whitetail herds are not he same as Eastern US herds where they have implemented APR's; those herds are highly productive, very low buck to doe herds;
the reason APR's were implemented there was to incentivize hunters to shoot does........that is completely different then what we need;
If you want more deer in WA, focus on saving the does, and keep a stable supply of mature bucks doing the breeding.
Don't run a gimmick that does nothing for the does, and only reduces the age class of breeding bucks, which further causes other biological issues.
Use good science and do whats right for the herd, even if that means slightly reduced hunter opportunities.
I don't agree with the way you are interpreting this data. Mainly because you are either over looking or purposefully omitting certain points. For one you are neglecting to touch on escapement. You make it sound like all of these 1.5 year old bucks are just putting off their death for another year. The problem with that is in another year they are no longer 1.5 year old bucks they are 2.5 year old bucks and anyone that hunts whitetails can attest every year a whitetail buck is alive he gets exponentially smarter. Therefore it is more likely to outwit a hunter and survive another year to get even smarter. You say that since these APR's were started the percentage of 4 and 5 points has gone up by 44% and 56%. This was obviously to be expected and I don't think it's a bad thing. The main reason it has gone up is because that is all people can harvest so of course there is going to be more harvested. But also another reason it has gone up is because there are more 4 and 5 point bucks to harvest since they are not being shot when they are 1.5. Also, just because you put in an APR it doesn't mean everyones hunting skills all of the sudden got better. More then likely if you weren't killing mature bucks before the APR was implemented then your probably not killing them now. So I don't see why there would be a huge problem with recruitment. Also you bring up the post harvest survey, although you didn't actually say what the numbers were. The problem with that (besides this state's questionable animal counting ability) is that the post harvest time is also the post breeding time so those numbers are fairly irrelevant especially since by the time breeding time comes again those bucks will pretty much all be at least 4 points. You make it sound like the spikes are doing most of the breeding that in itself is laughable. You talk about how most western states have done away with APRs and how you can't compare our herds to those back east. While I agree with that I also think this state is in a fairly unique situation. Every other state in the west has substantially more area/habitat and substantially less people per square mile. Therefore I argue while we don't have the herds like they do back east we also don't have the habitat of the western states therefore we are stuck in between. Which makes us more likely to benefit from some of the QDM practices in the more populated east. Finally, you say APRs don't build a stronger herd but there is a perfect example of it working right here in this state. Ever since the state went to three point or better for elk in western Washington the herd and hunting as improved dramatically.
Post by: huntnnw on July 16, 2013, 04:26:41 AM
Post by: popeshawnpaul on July 16, 2013, 05:37:50 AM
all the 4pt better rule does is increase the average harvested age class by 1 yr..........that is it......ALL the data on whitetail APR's shows that these rules are effective for increasing the average age class of harvested buck by one yr, but VERY little, if any, recruitment into older age classes results from it. The reason these rules are so "popular" is that it creates a stockpile of 2.5 yr old bucks in the population and the ave age of harvest goes from 1.5 yr old bucks to 2.5 yr old bucks; 1 yr old bucks have slightly larger antlers, and so people "think" there is something magical going on.
what you have to understand is that there is a "cost" to all of this; I have ranted on here about these rules, and if you go back I made a prediction a couple of years ago, I predicted that you would see a very large increase in harvest of 4 and 5 pt bucks; the data bears this out;
The cost to these rules is it puts tremendous pressure on the older age classes, while protecting the younger age class.
Since 2010 when the rule was implemented, the number of 4 and 5 pt bucks harvested in unit 117 has gone up 44%; in unit 121 it has gone up 56%;
And, obviously, the number of bucks harvested smaller then 4 pts has gone to virtually zero;
What do you think is happening here??? what do you think a post harvest age class survey looks like know??
Let me clue you in............you have created a huge bubble of juvenile bucks with very poor antler genetics who are doing the bulk of the breeding.......the reason is, this class of bucks is "protected", whereas the older age classes is not protected.
The increase in harvest from 2011 to 2012 in the 4/5pt was huge..........next year it will be the same thing and will only get worse as more people come back to the units. One of the first casualties of this rule will be the loss or dramatic shortening of the rifle general rut season; if this rule is not dropped, that will happen in a couple of more years.
This is the unfortunate legacy of APR's in WA........ever shortening season structures...........more people, jammed into a smaller hunting season, while its 90 degrees on October 9th; thats a real treat........
In 2012 in unit 121, there was 20,000 hunter days; in 2009, the year before the rule was implemented there was over 31,000 hunter days;
1/3 less hunter days...........56% increase in harvest of 4/5pt's.................sorry, but these units cannot sustain that kind of pressure on the older age classes when the hunter days goes back to historical norms.
Trust me, there isn't some "magical" new population of 4 and 5 pt bucks; the rule change just took essentially the same number of bucks in the population, and reshuffled the avg harvest age class by 1 yr;
and, if anybody thinks this rule will be rescinded, ever, is extremely naive.......the reason is very simple and is mathmatically based..........the very first year that you implement an APR, you "save" a bunch of yearling class bucks and create a bubble of them in the population.
what do you think happens when you unwind the APR and let people shoot any buck???? its a complete wipeout.............huge increase in harvest;
They will never get rid of it;
I find it interesting how every Western state has gotten rid of APR's for both Mule deer and whitetails and have essentially taken that science and deemed it junk;
But, no, we have mysteriously stumbled upon the magical herd management technique of APR's for both mule deer and whitetails here in WA????? When Idaho, Montana, Colorado, Wyoming, Oregon, etc have relegated these APR's to the trash heap of failed deer management.
And, no, our whitetail herds are not he same as Eastern US herds where they have implemented APR's; those herds are highly productive, very low buck to doe herds;
the reason APR's were implemented there was to incentivize hunters to shoot does........that is completely different then what we need;
If you want more deer in WA, focus on saving the does, and keep a stable supply of mature bucks doing the breeding.
Don't run a gimmick that does nothing for the does, and only reduces the age class of breeding bucks, which further causes other biological issues.
Use good science and do whats right for the herd, even if that means slightly reduced hunter opportunities.
:yeah:
But where do you live? If you can't live there you can't have an opinion... :o
To those that "live" there...imagine thinking about the big picture instead of yourself. Those 1/3rd less people have to hunt elsewhere or do. You have now put pressure on other units and seasons. The overall trend in lost opportunity is what many people find concerning. While these people aren't on this forum, there is a huge contingent in the general hunting community that is happy with a spike and that's all they want. I guess we will take those thousands of hunters and not let them shoot that meat buck with a 4 point rule. They keep hunting until they see and shoot a larger 4 point or better buck. More pressure on larger bucks but more deer "artificially" in the short term. What you are seeing out there isn't "success" but just the expected results from this change.
Post by: PA BEN on July 16, 2013, 05:48:52 AM
Many 18 month old bucks are packin 4pts...........And are still running with the does when the season opens. There should be NO entitlements for any user groups other than by permit.Kids are our future hunters, the old and disabled are the ones who earned it. I know for a fact that if it isn't fun and it's hard to harvest a deer they will quit. You think it's cost a lot to hunt now. BTW, I do live here and yes I see some nice bucks, but every year I see nice bucks. But what I don't see is a lot of fawns. Tons of does w/out fawns. And what I do see is tons of coyotes.
When I was a kid, all hunters went by the same set of rules........as it should be always. Take the emphasis off killing......teach them to enjoy hunting and being with other hunters.
There is significant improvements in our herd....Id hate to see it go backwards again at the expense of kids and seniors killing deer that should be passed, and that is to include me and my family , even the grand kids. :twocents:
Post by: dscubame on July 16, 2013, 05:54:00 AM
Post by: huntnnw on July 16, 2013, 06:03:35 AM
Ill see more bucks in 1 day in a 3pt min area than I will all season combined in non restricted areas.
People on here complaining about not hunting their "units" children and seniors being forced to shoot 4pts, well do you know the other option that was on the table? closing it! The bio's said this was the only logical way to keep it open to EVERYONE
Post by: buckcanyonlodge on July 16, 2013, 06:38:42 AM
Not true.... I talked with Dana Base in Colville and closing it was not an option.He and the other bios were never in favor of closing units 121 &117. The closing option was spread by several groups and one commissioner to push their agenda. Too many bear-cougar-coyotes-and now wolves. Very little fawn escapement. And I live here too. Have always seen plenty of breeder bucks after the seasons have ended..I spend LOTS of time in the field. What I have seen less of is does with fawns..
Post by: huntnnw on July 16, 2013, 06:45:40 AM
Post by: jackmaster on July 16, 2013, 06:48:33 AM
Post by: dscubame on July 16, 2013, 07:00:22 AM
Hunting A 3pt min area for whitey for the last 20 years and flipping back and forth between units the same year that have no restrictions is night and day for buck sightings..10x as many in the 3pt areas.
Ill see more bucks in 1 day in a 3pt min area than I will all season combined in non restricted areas.
People on here complaining about not hunting their "units" children and seniors being forced to shoot 4pts, well do you know the other option that was on the table? closing it! The bio's said this was the only logical way to keep it open to EVERYONE
:tup:
Post by: boneaddict on July 16, 2013, 07:12:25 AM
Give a whitetail one year advantage or grace and I say he has a tenfold chance of surviving the next season, and expotentially after that each year he survives. He gets more than just a year.
Apparantly some don't like to see more bucks. FEEEeel the adrenaline rush when you see a flash of antlers but cant notch the tag on that animal. The feel of passing on a smaller buck but know there is a whole age class of deer that are now bigger and harder to harvest...... Its called hunting folks.
You want to decrease hunting pressure in those other units, "MAKE em all" point restricted.
Post by: popeshawnpaul on July 16, 2013, 07:13:13 AM
if you guys are noticing alot of doe without fawns then i am sure the bios are as well, it would be nice if they quit listening to polaticians and start letting us truly manage the predators, what good does all this do if the bobcats, cougars, yotes, bears and wolves kill a good portion of the young that is so important for those units, i dont live there and i dont hunt over there, but we west sideres have a couple units over here that are getting hammered by predators, thats the biggest problem peeps. i am happy to see that the wdfw is trying to help the deer heards in some spots, but without proper predator control isnt it kinda like trying to walk on water :dunno: :tup:
There is a study going on right now in the unit with respect to fawn escapement. We just had an update from the guy leading the study and he is working on it. There is interesting data so far and more to come.
Post by: buckcanyonlodge on July 16, 2013, 07:14:22 AM
Post by: boneaddict on July 16, 2013, 07:16:33 AM
Quote
I know for a fact that if it isn't fun and it's hard to harvest a deer they will quit.
I wonder if that's trumped up more than it used to be due to internet forums etc. Can't have fun without killing something. That's an interesting concept.
Post by: Jonathan_S on July 16, 2013, 08:00:18 AM
"Let me clue you in............you have created a huge bubble of juvenile bucks with very poor antler genetics who are doing the bulk of the breeding......."
This not correct...DNA is passed on no matter the age...even if his father had a 200" rack and he is the ofspring and one day if able to mature to 200" he still carries this gene no matter the age when he breeds
:yeah: :yeah: also I think a lot of people don't take into account the amount of genetics that come from the mother. I've heard as high as 40% can be passed from the mother's line of breeding.
Speaking of genetics...I've noticed the "genetics" improve since the APR was put in place :chuckle:
Post by: CedarPants on July 16, 2013, 08:16:56 AM
and, if anybody thinks this rule will be rescinded, ever, is extremely naive.......the reason is very simple and is mathmatically based..........the very first year that you implement an APR, you "save" a bunch of yearling class bucks and create a bubble of them in the population.
what do you think happens when you unwind the APR and let people shoot any buck???? its a complete wipeout.............huge increase in harvest;
They will never get rid of it;
When I started hunting 121 (it was 117 then) back in the late 90's it was 3 point minimum. They got rid of that a few years later and it was any buck up until just a couple seasons ago. I like the APR but I wouldn't go so far as to say they will never get rid of it :twocents:
Don't run a gimmick that does nothing for the does, and only reduces the age class of breeding bucks, which further causes other biological issues.
Use good science and do whats right for the herd, even if that means slightly reduced hunter opportunities.
But didn't they also reduce the number of doe permits to almost nothing up there compared to what was available before the APR went into effect?
Post by: grundy53 on July 16, 2013, 08:51:35 AM
I am not going to quote science on this statement. I'll go by my anecdotal evidence and make the following statement...in regards to Muley guys opener.
Give a whitetail one year advantage or grace and I say he has a tenfold chance of surviving the next season, and expotentially after that each year he survives. He gets more than just a year.
Apparantly some don't like to see more bucks. FEEEeel the adrenaline rush when you see a flash of antlers but cant notch the tag on that animal. The feel of passing on a smaller buck but know there is a whole age class of deer that are now bigger and harder to harvest...... Its called hunting folks.
You want to decrease hunting pressure in those other units, "MAKE em all" point restricted.
:yeah:
sent from my typewriter
Post by: Jonathan_S on July 16, 2013, 09:09:41 AM
QuoteI know for a fact that if it isn't fun and it's hard to harvest a deer they will quit.
I wonder if that's trumped up more than it used to be due to internet forums etc. Can't have fun without killing something. That's an interesting concept.
:yeah: I think sometimes perspective is lost when we're surfing the web and forgetting the joy of being afield. I know plenty of "Ol' Timers" that hunt year in and year out without success. By and large it isn't because they're hitting it hard and getting screwed by APR, it's because they enjoy sitting at a campfire and storytelling with Jim Beam as much as anything. I imagine this is widespread.
As far as kids go: if a hunting child is bored because they can't blast a doe wherever they go, I think they're parent/mentor has done a poor job of instilling a Sportsman Mindset into that boy or girl. Hunting is a right but killing isn't a right. If deer hunting is too hard, go shoot some grouse or pheasants.
Post by: buckfvr on July 16, 2013, 10:21:53 AM
all the 4pt better rule does is increase the average harvested age class by 1 yr..........that is it......ALL the data on whitetail APR's shows that these rules are effective for increasing the average age class of harvested buck by one yr, but VERY little, if any, recruitment into older age classes results from it. The reason these rules are so "popular" is that it creates a stockpile of 2.5 yr old bucks in the population and the ave age of harvest goes from 1.5 yr old bucks to 2.5 yr old bucks; 1 yr old bucks have slightly larger antlers, and so people "think" there is something magical going on.
what you have to understand is that there is a "cost" to all of this; I have ranted on here about these rules, and if you go back I made a prediction a couple of years ago, I predicted that you would see a very large increase in harvest of 4 and 5 pt bucks; the data bears this out;
The cost to these rules is it puts tremendous pressure on the older age classes, while protecting the younger age class.
Since 2010 when the rule was implemented, the number of 4 and 5 pt bucks harvested in unit 117 has gone up 44%; in unit 121 it has gone up 56%;
And, obviously, the number of bucks harvested smaller then 4 pts has gone to virtually zero;
What do you think is happening here??? what do you think a post harvest age class survey looks like know??
Let me clue you in............you have created a huge bubble of juvenile bucks with very poor antler genetics who are doing the bulk of the breeding.......the reason is, this class of bucks is "protected", whereas the older age classes is not protected.
The increase in harvest from 2011 to 2012 in the 4/5pt was huge..........next year it will be the same thing and will only get worse as more people come back to the units. One of the first casualties of this rule will be the loss or dramatic shortening of the rifle general rut season; if this rule is not dropped, that will happen in a couple of more years.
This is the unfortunate legacy of APR's in WA........ever shortening season structures...........more people, jammed into a smaller hunting season, while its 90 degrees on October 9th; thats a real treat........
In 2012 in unit 121, there was 20,000 hunter days; in 2009, the year before the rule was implemented there was over 31,000 hunter days;
1/3 less hunter days...........56% increase in harvest of 4/5pt's.................sorry, but these units cannot sustain that kind of pressure on the older age classes when the hunter days goes back to historical norms.
Trust me, there isn't some "magical" new population of 4 and 5 pt bucks; the rule change just took essentially the same number of bucks in the population, and reshuffled the avg harvest age class by 1 yr;
and, if anybody thinks this rule will be rescinded, ever, is extremely naive.......the reason is very simple and is mathmatically based..........the very first year that you implement an APR, you "save" a bunch of yearling class bucks and create a bubble of them in the population.
what do you think happens when you unwind the APR and let people shoot any buck???? its a complete wipeout.............huge increase in harvest;
They will never get rid of it;
I find it interesting how every Western state has gotten rid of APR's for both Mule deer and whitetails and have essentially taken that science and deemed it junk;
But, no, we have mysteriously stumbled upon the magical herd management technique of APR's for both mule deer and whitetails here in WA????? When Idaho, Montana, Colorado, Wyoming, Oregon, etc have relegated these APR's to the trash heap of failed deer management.
And, no, our whitetail herds are not he same as Eastern US herds where they have implemented APR's; those herds are highly productive, very low buck to doe herds;
the reason APR's were implemented there was to incentivize hunters to shoot does........that is completely different then what we need;
If you want more deer in WA, focus on saving the does, and keep a stable supply of mature bucks doing the breeding.
Don't run a gimmick that does nothing for the does, and only reduces the age class of breeding bucks, which further causes other biological issues.
Use good science and do whats right for the herd, even if that means slightly reduced hunter opportunities.
:yeah:
But where do you live? If you can't live there you can't have an opinion... :o
To those that "live" there...imagine thinking about the big picture instead of yourself. Those 1/3rd less people have to hunt elsewhere or do. You have now put pressure on other units and seasons. The overall trend in lost opportunity is what many people find concerning. While these people aren't on this forum, there is a huge contingent in the general hunting community that is happy with a spike and that's all they want. I guess we will take those thousands of hunters and not let them shoot that meat buck with a 4 point rule. They keep hunting until they see and shoot a larger 4 point or better buck. More pressure on larger bucks but more deer "artificially" in the short term. What you are seeing out there isn't "success" but just the expected results from this change.
If you spent any time here at all pre, during, and post hunting season, you probably wouldnt make some of the statements you make. Local hunters here are conservative to a fault. Nearly all the guys I am familiar with will eat their tag rather than kill a young buck. As a result, we certainly do not kill an animal each season. We care more about the animals than those that want to kill any buck...............or is it every buck ?????
Post by: 724wd on July 16, 2013, 11:13:10 AM
Hunting is a right but killing isn't a right.
hunting isn't a right in WA. it's a gift from them to us...
Post by: Jonathan_S on July 16, 2013, 11:16:34 AM
Hunting is a right but killing isn't a right.
hunting isn't a right in WA. it's a gift from them to us...
My point was just because anyone with Hunter's Ed certifiation and a .30-06 can purchase a deer tag and traipse the woods, doesn't mean they all of a sudden get to decide what's good for the deer herd because they want to shoot a doe or a yearling buck.
Incidentally, why do we call spikes 'meat bucks'? They weigh next to nothing. :chuckle:
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on July 16, 2013, 12:50:31 PM
I know for a fact that if it isn't fun and it's hard to harvest a deer they will quit.
Considering your statement above it is a good thing that it's actually very, very easy to harvest a 4x4 whitetail in those units...and it's only getting easier with the restrictions....... I actually can't understand how someone can't get their kid on one if they are able to put in a few days of scouting and a few days of effort (I do understand that some people don't have the luxury of that time/money...but then it probably makes more sense for them to scout an area out near home rather than half way across the state)
Where I grew up the hunting was often very difficult and there were times I would go a week or more without seeing a single deer. I can't say that I ever felt like I wanted to quit. If kids are quitting because something is hard then I think the parent needs to mentor and parent their chlildren to understand that things that don't come easy are generally the most rewarding in the end. We definitely don't want to raise a generation of quitters.
After being in the military I am noticing that as part of the problem of this generation. We are having trouble getting kids to make it into my career field because they quit when it's too hard and they don't get that immediate gratification they are used to getting..... It's not really their fault...many of them were raised in this generation where "everyone get's a trophy...even the ones that lost"... of course I understand that philsophy is intended to have the kids best interest in mind.. unfortuantely it doesn't seem to help them in the real world.
Sorry for the rant... back to the topic at hand.
Post by: huntnnw on July 16, 2013, 02:12:57 PM
Post by: huntnnw on July 16, 2013, 02:21:00 PM
Post by: Jonathan_S on July 16, 2013, 03:55:09 PM
:yeah:.....what's even more hilarious about all this and some on here that don't wanna listen to us so called " arm chair biologists" is a few of us spend more time in the units than bios do! I have 15 trail cams out scattered everywhere here in NE WA... Wanna know the branched antler buck to spike ratio? It's in the 8:1 to 10::1 !!! There are FAR more bucks running around with 4+ pts than spikes and forks ! Guys complaining that they can't shoot a spike , your hunting the minority!
:yeah: :yeah: I second what he says and I am new to the trail cam scene. I have a much harder time locating nice bucks than huntnw and I still agree that spikes and little forkies are a minority. Early July and all the bigger bucks started showing up and I realize just how many 3.5 year old + bucks are in the woods.
:chuckle: :chuckle: 150 lb pack eh? That sounds like a pet deer decoy.
Post by: boneaddict on July 16, 2013, 05:17:41 PM
Quote
I've heard as high as 40% can be passed from the mother's line of breeding.
Try 50%. Antlers aren't sex linked.
Post by: PA BEN on July 16, 2013, 06:25:55 PM
FYI, 121 has never been 4 point, at least from 1975 until they started it 3 years ago.and, if anybody thinks this rule will be rescinded, ever, is extremely naive.......the reason is very simple and is mathmatically based..........the very first year that you implement an APR, you "save" a bunch of yearling class bucks and create a bubble of them in the population.
what do you think happens when you unwind the APR and let people shoot any buck???? its a complete wipeout.............huge increase in harvest;
They will never get rid of it;
When I started hunting 121 (it was 117 then) back in the late 90's it was 3 point minimum. They got rid of that a few years later and it was any buck up until just a couple seasons ago. I like the APR but I wouldn't go so far as to say they will never get rid of it :twocents:Don't run a gimmick that does nothing for the does, and only reduces the age class of breeding bucks, which further causes other biological issues.
Use good science and do whats right for the herd, even if that means slightly reduced hunter opportunities.
But didn't they also reduce the number of doe permits to almost nothing up there compared to what was available before the APR went into effect?
Post by: CedarPants on July 16, 2013, 06:29:31 PM
Post by: PA BEN on July 16, 2013, 06:39:14 PM
Obviously you have never started young kids hunting. The first year of the 4 point rule my buddy's daughter was very excited about her first deer, we put several small bucks in front of her. Not legal. Some that were legal she couldn't shoot. It takes a proper rest for young hunters. By the time doe season opened she was so burned out she gave up. She wasn't going to hunt ever again. She did go out last year and harvested a nice doe, now she is hooked. I don't care who you are or what you think, harvesting a deer is very important for a young hunter, and yes the over all experience is important but the bottom line is getting a deer. BTW, I have 5 daughters and started them at age 8 and 9. My youngest is 14 now and like her older sisters love to hunt "AND HARVEST A DEER". They seem to like getting bucks the older they get. The goal is to get them out hunting and enjoying it.QuoteI know for a fact that if it isn't fun and it's hard to harvest a deer they will quit.
I wonder if that's trumped up more than it used to be due to internet forums etc. Can't have fun without killing something. That's an interesting concept.
:yeah: I think sometimes perspective is lost when we're surfing the web and forgetting the joy of being afield. I know plenty of "Ol' Timers" that hunt year in and year out without success. By and large it isn't because they're hitting it hard and getting screwed by APR, it's because they enjoy sitting at a campfire and storytelling with Jim Beam as much as anything. I imagine this is widespread.
As far as kids go: if a hunting child is bored because they can't blast a doe wherever they go, I think they're parent/mentor has done a poor job of instilling a Sportsman Mindset into that boy or girl. Hunting is a right but killing isn't a right. If deer hunting is too hard, go shoot some grouse or pheasants.
Post by: bearpaw on July 16, 2013, 06:50:34 PM
With nearly 50 years hunting in NE WA, every day of many of those seasons, I've been hiking these NE mountains since I was a kid in the 60's, there are very few mountains I have not been on. I can remember all the ups and downs of the deer herds. Every 5 to 10 years we get a hard winter that kills 50% to 80% of the deer and it takes WDFW 2 years of looking at low harvest numbers to figure out the deer were lost 2 winters back and then they cut back doe permits and the herd grows again. :chuckle:
I've never figured out why any biologist would want to continue killing 400 to 2000 does in each of our GMU's after a hard winter, unless they just don't know. For crying out loud, cut off the doe permits for a couple years and we'll be right back in the whitetail business sooner than later and we can justify lots of doe tags. Any biologist data tells you that you hunt females to reduce or maintain a herd, not to grow a herd. Part of the problem is that upper management has these bios spending most of their time counting lynx tracks, bald eagles, martin, fishers, wolverines, pigmy rabbits, or some endangered toad or butterfly, they get to spend very little time with deer and elk. :twocents:
I started guiding cougar hunters in December 1977 and we averaged a week to find a good adult cat for a hunter. Mule Deer were plentiful, you could go and count a couple hundred any winter day in Ferry County, you could even see wintering groups of mule deer in Stevens and Pend Orielle counties. The WDFW used to have feed stations to help the deer through the winter. In addition to all the mule deer there were whitetail by the hundreds in all the major wintering areas.
In the mid 80's the animal huggers killed the fur industry and coyotes exploded, plus WDFW put cougars on permit at about the same time, the coyote and cougar population expanded rapidly and within 2 or 3 years I was offering 3-day Guaranteed Cougar Hunts to lucky permit holders. By the 90's we were averaging about 5 fresh tracks per hunting day and would cherry pick for the biggest toms. We had a strong whitetail population so it was holding it's own during this time but the heavy predator population was diminishing our mule deer rapidly. Then in 1992 we had a hard winter that really set back the whitetails too, they have never fully recovered from that winter. It was slowly improving then we got hammered in about 1996 and again every 5 to 10 years since. In the mid 90's they voted out hound hunting for cats and bear, the cougar and bear population exploded further. Each time we have a hard winter the predators have prevented the deer from coming back to the levels before that bad winter. The deer population has been up and down since, but the highs between winter kills continue to decline because the predators prevent the deer from fully recovering.
My best cougar hunting day ever was in December 1995, found 15 different fresh cougar tracks in one day. Ten or fifteen years before I would have called anyone a liar who said they saw 5 fresh cougar in one day.
For several years we couldn't hound hunt cats. Roughly during 2003 to 2010 we had cougar removal seasons and the Pilot program with limited permits, it helped some but now it's closed again and some quack biologist professor from WSU named Weilgus is driving cougar management for WDFW. He is responsible for the very low cougar quotas. I can show anyone a dozen fresh cougar tracks almost any day during the winter, some drainages almost seem to have nearly more cats than deer. Coyotes are at the highest levels I can ever remember and bear numbers have been high as well.
As long as we have anti predator hunting professors driving the predator management in WDFW it's going to be impossible for deer to fully rebound. To compound things further these anti predator hunting professors are teaching our young bios in school that you shouldn't hunt these predators very much, so we end up with a bunch of bios who don't want to hunt predators. :bash:
The result is a state full of biologists many of which don't really have a clue what kind of predator numbers this state can handle and how many predators need removed to help a deer population fully recover. We have a local biologist here in Colville, he is a great guy I like him, but honestly he never lived here when we had a lot of deer and so he doesn't know what it's like to have a high deer population. Cougar hound season has been closed probably before he came to the area, how can he or his superiors who have been brain washed by anti predator hunting professors possibly call the shots on bringing back our deer herds to previous levels. :dunno:
Washington used to have an estimated 2000 cougars, now we have an estimated 3000 to 4000 cougars. According to government studies an average cougar kills from 25 to 50 deer per year. For easy math let's say every cougar kills 40 deer per year. So when we had 2000 cougars they were killing 80,000 deer per year in Washington. Now that we have 3000 to 4000 cougars (WDFW estimate) they are likely killing 120,000 to 160,000 deer per year. Hunters killed only 29,154 deer in 2011, hhhmmmmm, not to hard for this armchair biologist to figure it out. :bash:
Quote
Washington Deer Harvest Drops Vs. 2010; General Rifle Numbers, Buck Take Reach New Low
By Andy Walgamott, on May 2nd, 2012
Fewer Washington hunters killed 4,000 less deer and were more unsuccessful last fall than in 2010′s season.
Figures fresh out from the Department of Fish & Wildlife show that a total of 29,154 muleys, blacktail and whitetail bucks and does were killed by 125,537 general season and permit hunters last year, including 23,382 bucks for a 23.2 percent success rate.
By comparison, 2010′s stats were 33,391 deer for 131,133 sportsmen, including 27,272 bucks for a 25.5 percent success rate.
The figures confirm some field reports from last year of sharp declines in hunter numbers, but makes puzzles of others.
http://nwsportsmanmag.com/headlines/washington-deer-harvest-hunter-numbers-drop-vs-2010/ (http://nwsportsmanmag.com/headlines/washington-deer-harvest-hunter-numbers-drop-vs-2010/)
Sorry about the rant, but these bios and managers are not deer management gods, many have been brainwashed by anti-hunting professors, many don't know what our herds used to be like, and they don't know how to get the deer back. Killing predators just wasn't taught in their wildlife biology classes.
This is nothing personal toward any biologist or manager, I happen to like most of them on a personal basis, but it's the dead honest truth about the wildlife management situation throughout the west, not only in Washington. :twocents:
Post by: boneaddict on July 16, 2013, 06:52:18 PM
Maybe you forced your agenda on them by starting them at 8. Maybe you should have waited until they were a little older and could understand what hunting was all about. OBVIOUSLY I have no clue.
Post by: steeleywhopper on July 16, 2013, 06:58:48 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on July 16, 2013, 09:23:55 PM
I guess I'm an arm chair biologist.
No...you are a guy with on the ground experience...something that is unfortunately not valued as much as a college degree these days :chuckle: :chuckle:
I don't have much of an opinion on the 4 pt issue but I definitely support people who are willing to share their background/field experience and not just accept a biologists word as the gospel. I say that as a biologist for the feds (I will have to go into hiding now :chuckle:). I deal with a wide range of contentious issues and I never discount experienced, local knowledge. I also never use "Im a biologist" or "I have degrees in fish and wildlife" to support a position...if I can't provide evidence or information or articulate my opinion/position better than "I have a degree" then I probably ought to re-evaluate the issue :twocents:
Post by: huntnnw on July 16, 2013, 09:44:51 PM
In response to PA Bens post
Maybe you forced your agenda on them by starting them at 8. Maybe you should have waited until they were a little older and could understand what hunting was all about. OBVIOUSLY I have no clue.
:yeah:
Post by: huntnnw on July 16, 2013, 09:46:52 PM
I remember when the Dayton are went to "spike only elk" and 3pt min for deer. They said it would be a 3yr trial and then it ended up sticking forever. I don't see it changing. Once the WDFW takes something away your not getting it back. In this case I like it, leave it 4pt min.
The blues will NEVER have a general elk season ever again....WAY to many people in this state to have a season there. Dont you rememeber how terrible it was before the permits started? it was horrendous!
Post by: bearpaw on July 16, 2013, 10:24:01 PM
I guess I'm an arm chair biologist.
No...you are a guy with on the ground experience...something that is unfortunately not valued as much as a college degree these days :chuckle: :chuckle:
I don't have much of an opinion on the 4 pt issue but I definitely support people who are willing to share their background/field experience and not just accept a biologists word as the gospel. I say that as a biologist for the feds (I will have to go into hiding now :chuckle:). I deal with a wide range of contentious issues and I never discount experienced, local knowledge. I also never use "Im a biologist" or "I have degrees in fish and wildlife" to support a position...if I can't provide evidence or information or articulate my opinion/position better than "I have a degree" then I probably ought to re-evaluate the issue :twocents:
No hiding needed, and please don't think I simply dislike biologists, not at all. I was simply trying to point out that they are people like anyone else, that their experiences and agenda does affect their ability to manage our wildlife for the benefit of hunters and fishers. Glad to hear you are a federal bio, it sounds like you have some wisdom. :tup:
Post by: Bean Counter on July 16, 2013, 11:13:11 PM
Post by: PA BEN on July 17, 2013, 06:32:52 AM
In response to PA Bens postNot at all. My girls grew up w/me coming home w/deer, the only meat we ate was deer and they played deer hunter, just like you and me playing army as kids. I took them through hunter safety and they hunted w/me. I didn't have a problem getting my kids on deer. But that was when they could shoot any buck. My 14 year old who has harvested 5 deer still doesn't have the strength to hold a gun w/out a rest. Unless you have taken a kid or two or three out hunting for the first time you don't have a clue about it. BTW, most of the deer my kids shots have been head shots from 50 to 100 yds. Now w/this 4 point rule you have to let the spikes and forky's walk, nothing is more frustrating for a kid's first time buck is one standing there and you can't shoot it. I can get my deer no problem but open it up for the kids. And this is the opinion from most local folks who live here, pay taxes here and the farmers who keep the deer fat on their crops. How would you feel if this happened in your area where you live and hunted for generations? I see a lot of me, me and more me when it comes to hunting. The kids are our future. Bearpaw mentioned the winter of '92/'93, first hard winter since '68 and the deer got blue tong the summer before so they went into winter weak. That year the Game Dept. had double doe tags if you drew and still had the same the next year after the winter kill. :bash:
Maybe you forced your agenda on them by starting them at 8. Maybe you should have waited until they were a little older and could understand what hunting was all about. OBVIOUSLY I have no clue.
Post by: jackmaster on July 17, 2013, 06:48:51 AM
Post by: CedarPants on July 17, 2013, 08:29:11 AM
Never got us anywhere. Never will either :twocents:
Post by: Jonathan_S on July 17, 2013, 08:35:37 AM
I personally think information like Bearpaw's is more useful in conversations like this than attacking each other for how one chooses to hunt, what age one starts their kids at, etc. Common theme among hunters - when we disagree on a concept, it isn't long before the civil discussion diminishes and the personal attacks start.
Never got us anywhere. Never will either :twocents:
I agree with you but I think it's more of just people on the internet in general, not just hunters. :twocents:
Bearpaw's write-up not only refocused the conversation but I actually learned a great deal from it because I've really only been hunting the NE part of the state for a decade.
Post by: bearpaw on July 17, 2013, 09:17:56 AM
The thing to remember is that the goal of the reduction in hunting opportunities was to let the herd recover. The whitetail working group discussed all the possible solutions before recommending the 4 pt rule. I can't speak for others in the group, but the 4pt rule seemed like a way to reduce buck harvest and get more bucks in the woods that are 2 years and older for breeding, while at the same time keeping the same season length. It was the option that the group chose.
Once we get past the 5 year test period so that the results of the rule can be properly assessed, and if the herd can support additional hunting pressure, I think additional hunting opportunity for kids, handicapped, and seniors should be considered first.
Post by: Elkrunner on July 17, 2013, 10:30:54 AM
It was supposed to be for 5 years to give it a proper trial. Numbers are still not where they should be but we are gaining, I too am seeing more mature bucks. This rule basically protects most of our first year bucks, by year 5 we should know more. We have so many predators that the herd is recovering pretty slowly.
Let's fix the real problem and wipe out some predators.
Post by: dscubame on July 17, 2013, 10:42:46 AM
It was supposed to be for 5 years to give it a proper trial. Numbers are still not where they should be but we are gaining, I too am seeing more mature bucks. This rule basically protects most of our first year bucks, by year 5 we should know more. We have so many predators that the herd is recovering pretty slowly.
Let's fix the real problem and wipe out some predators.
Now I like that statement. I specifically take bear and drect people to bear in my elk draw in Idaho just for this reason.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on July 17, 2013, 04:10:13 PM
BTW, most of the deer my kids shots have been head shots from 50 to 100 yds. Now w/this 4 point rule you have to let the spikes and forky's walk, nothing is more frustrating for a kid's first time buck is one standing there and you can't shoot it. I can get my deer no problem but open it up for the kids. And this is the opinion from most local folks who live here, pay taxes here and the farmers who keep the deer fat on their crops. How would you feel if this happened in your area where you live and hunted for generations? I see a lot of me, me and more me when it comes to hunting. The kids are our future.
I won't argue that head shots aren't extremely effective when done correctly.....but... my own personal opinion here... I would never reccomend a head shot and personally consider them unethical on deer (again my own opinion)....a few inches to the left or a few low and now you have a deer with no upper jaw/nose or no lower jaw. a long slow death!.. I have seen a few head shot deer wondering around and it's never a pretty sight.
While I am all about a kid getting their first deer I see no reason to ignore sound QDM practices just to let a kid shoot the first deer that crosses their path. If anything I see the 4pt minimum as an excellent teaching point so that kids understand the importance of managing our resource. In my own experience the childs feelings on the matter are generally tied to the attitude/opinion that their parent/mentor displays. If the mentor is making the 4pt minimum a positive then the child will usually share similar feelings (ultimatey leading to a positive experience even if they have to pass up an animal ..and a positive experience is exactly what we want). If the parent/mentor is very negative about the 4pt minimum then the child is going to have the same negative attitude/opinon regarding that matter (ultimatley leading to a negative experience if they have to pass on a 3 pt or less...which is not what we want)
"And this is the opinion from most local folks who live here, pay taxes here and the farmers who keep the deer fat on their crops. How would you feel if this happened in your area where you live and hunted for generations? I see a lot of me, me and more me when it comes to hunting. The kids are our future."
It would make me happy to see us taking good measures to properly manage the herds.
Post by: PA BEN on July 17, 2013, 06:35:02 PM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on July 17, 2013, 06:45:30 PM
It looks like Charles J. Alsheimer agrees with you PA.
Post by: huntnnw on July 17, 2013, 09:24:40 PM
Ill even do my part to help guys get bears..lotta people are cluless on how to hunt them and thats fine,but gotta learn one way or another. PM me and Ill give you all the info I know on getting bears and areas to go
Post by: Ridgeratt on July 17, 2013, 09:39:01 PM
I think PA Ben has a legitimate concern and I share that concern. Our kids are our future!
The thing to remember is that the goal of the reduction in hunting opportunities was to let the herd recover. The whitetail working group discussed all the possible solutions before recommending the 4 pt rule. I can't speak for others in the group, but the 4pt rule seemed like a way to reduce buck harvest and get more bucks in the woods that are 2 years and older for breeding, while at the same time keeping the same season length. It was the option that the group chose.
Once we get past the 5 year test period so that the results of the rule can be properly assessed, and if the herd can support additional hunting pressure, I think additional hunting opportunity for kids, handicapped, and seniors should be considered first.
For what it is worth!
I have maintained for years that any one who passes a Gun Safety course gets a complementary tag from the WDFW for any deer in this state regardless of species.
Let them shoot a deer! If they aren't successful then they turn the old tag back into the WDFG and the reissue the tag for the next year. until they do fill the tag! The impact on the deer herds would be not that horrific regardless of mulies or Whitetails. It would allow the new hunters able to get a tag under their belts. Then after that they can move to the big end of the pool!! :twocents:
Post by: hambone on July 17, 2013, 10:00:35 PM
Post by: huntnnw on July 17, 2013, 10:08:58 PM
Post by: hambone on July 17, 2013, 10:17:33 PM
Post by: PA BEN on July 18, 2013, 07:54:43 AM
http://www.whitetailinstitute.com/info/news/jul03/2.html (http://www.whitetailinstitute.com/info/news/jul03/2.html)I asked my friend to respond to the idea of no exemptions for first time hunters or youth hunters when it comes to antler restrictions. He said. “I think it's ridiculous to place such rules on kids. Kids are processing a lot of rules when it comes to hunting…. safety, taking good shots, ethics, etc. Overloading them with all this, then requiring that they be able to make a snap decision regarding the size of a buck’s antlers width is a bit much. They cannot handle it. If you place too many rules on youngsters, they’ll quit. Kids want to be successful. There have been many studies done that show that kids who are not successful drop out of the endeavor./b]
It looks like Charles J. Alsheimer agrees with you PA.
Good Article Our young generation is a fast food generation. I've worked w/youth at church, apprentice lineman and my own kids. This one statement says it all. Thanks for posting.
Post by: Hunt4ever on July 18, 2013, 08:07:50 AM
http://www.whitetailinstitute.com/info/news/jul03/2.html (http://www.whitetailinstitute.com/info/news/jul03/2.html)I asked my friend to respond to the idea of no exemptions for first time hunters or youth hunters when it comes to antler restrictions. He said. “I think it's ridiculous to place such rules on kids. Kids are processing a lot of rules when it comes to hunting…. safety, taking good shots, ethics, etc. Overloading them with all this, then requiring that they be able to make a snap decision regarding the size of a buck’s antlers width is a bit much. They cannot handle it. If you place too many rules on youngsters, they’ll quit. Kids want to be successful. There have been many studies done that show that kids who are not successful drop out of the endeavor./b]
It looks like Charles J. Alsheimer agrees with you PA.
Good Article Our young generation is a fast food generation. I've worked w/youth at church, apprentice lineman and my own kids. This one statement says it all. Thanks for posting.
I shot my first deer at 8 y/o and my dad made me pass up at least 5 spike to fork bucks just to get rid of the fever a little and teach me to be selective and make smart shots... I never lost interest... There are antler restrictions of many kinds in this state and others and the idea to start the kids off shooting any moving target because they dont have to follow the rules, then cut them loose a few years down the road and just expect there age to change there judgment (I see some fork muleys hitting the ground in there future).... I love the restriction
Post by: boneaddict on July 18, 2013, 10:31:35 AM
Post by: Jonathan_S on July 18, 2013, 10:46:43 AM
Hunting for spike elk is difficult right? Should the elk herd be threatened further so kids can kill one? Is this much different than the proposed changes for youth hunter for the whitetail in 117/121?
I'm not trying to :stirthepot: I pose these questions because I don't see a big difference here.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on July 18, 2013, 10:51:27 AM
I grew up hunting mule deer and didn't expect to be able to shoot a spike or forky because I was a child. I didn't have a sense of entitlement like that. I hunted for legal bucks unless I drew a doe tag then I hunted.for does. The children can already shoot a doe during.the Whitetail youth seasons...
Post by: dscubame on July 18, 2013, 10:56:53 AM
I really disagree PA, and that's OK. I really don't buy into the Give every Kid an A attitude. Failure brings success. I have a hard time swallowing the Entitlement generations antics. If its too much for them to be able to discern between a legal deer and a not legal deer, then maybe they shouldn't be standing behind a high powered rifle, willing to take a life. :dunno:
:tup:
Post by: PA BEN on July 18, 2013, 12:04:59 PM
Post by: Jonathan_S on July 18, 2013, 02:23:03 PM
I also think there should be cow tags for youth in the North west corner where there are no cow. BTW, it's nice to have civil discussion.
There should be cow tags for where there are no cows? Is that how you meant it? :dunno:
I too was thinking it was nice to have a relatively less flammatory conversation about a "Hot Topic" :tup:
Post by: PA BEN on July 18, 2013, 03:12:30 PM
OOPs that would be no cow tags at all. :sry:I also think there should be cow tags for youth in the North west corner where there are no cow. BTW, it's nice to have civil discussion.
There should be cow tags for where there are no cows? Is that how you meant it? :dunno:
I too was thinking it was nice to have a relatively less flammatory conversation about a "Hot Topic" :tup:
Post by: BULLBLASTER on July 18, 2013, 03:14:05 PM
I would also be on board with that!
Post by: boneaddict on July 18, 2013, 03:28:07 PM
Post by: grundy53 on July 18, 2013, 03:29:46 PM
I'd rather get the population higher first. I only like antlerless hunts when the population needs to be thinned out for health reasons, damage control or carrying capacity. I very much disagree with antlerless hunts just for opportunity.
:yeah:
sent from my typewriter
Post by: MtnMuley on July 18, 2013, 04:15:02 PM
I'd go statewide all species(deer).......but thats just me. :chuckle:
Me too........and that doesn't include eye guards!
Post by: Jonathan_S on July 18, 2013, 04:28:04 PM
I'd go statewide all species(deer).......but thats just me. :chuckle:
Me too........and that doesn't include eye guards!
You've never hunted blacktail have you?
Post by: hambone on July 18, 2013, 07:39:43 PM
Post by: PA BEN on July 18, 2013, 09:12:48 PM
Post by: CedarPants on July 18, 2013, 09:14:25 PM
You can't eat horns :chuckle:
Ray Lewis disagrees :chuckle:
Post by: MtnMuley on July 19, 2013, 10:09:37 AM
I'd go statewide all species(deer).......but thats just me. :chuckle:
Me too........and that doesn't include eye guards!
You've never hunted blacktail have you?
Nope, and have no desire to. I should have rephrased my statement as to the Eastern half of the state, as I realize it'd be very difficult only being able to harvest 4 point blackies..........not including eyeguards. :chuckle:
Post by: Jonathan_S on July 19, 2013, 10:23:59 AM
You can't eat horns :chuckle:
Ray Lewis disagrees :chuckle:
Deer have antlers though :stirthepot:
and if you really can't eat them, I need to tell the porcupines that they're inedible. Maybe then I'll find a decent shed without teeth marks.
Post by: sfrenger on July 19, 2013, 10:45:13 AM
I know we had quite the spirited discussion over this when this rule first came about in GMU 117 and 121. This will be the 3rd year for this rule in these units. What do you guys think now? I still say kids and seniors should be able to shoot any buck. The first year my buddy tried to get his daughter on a 4 point and by the time doe season opened she was burned out and quit hunting. Last year she didn’t hunt until the doe season opened and she got a nice big doe. It’s all about getting the youth out hunting.
Why start up the subject again if the subject was so fiery? I hunt in those two units the most and the whitetails have been destroyed. I have noticed considerable numbers of deer back in those units. I love it, I wish they would keep it 4-pt for at least 3 more years. Then start giving out liberal doe tags again. Just my opinion and :twocents:, for what it's worth.
Post by: sfrenger on July 19, 2013, 10:46:36 AM
Love it. I feel like my honey hole is back!! :tup: and less people too.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Post by: sfrenger on July 19, 2013, 10:48:48 AM
The population has "rebounded". It's time to lift it next year.
Great observation from Bellevue !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :bash:
:yeah:
Post by: sfrenger on July 19, 2013, 10:57:57 AM
While I would love to keep the 4 point min. in place, I know that it can't stay forever. I wouldn't want to see deer starving to death because there's no feed left. Just like china had to manage their population, we have to manage our deer populations. Luckily we aren't canibals. lol
Post by: Rooster1981 on July 19, 2013, 11:16:58 AM
In my opinion it truly is the predators. I live on the west side and hunt on the east side for mule deer & and before true spike I hunted elk there as well. We have been finding bear in places where you couldnt possible imagine. Places where there isn't a tree in sight. Cat tracks on every ridge, busting out coyotes in every draw. The APR is the only thing in my mind that is letting the few deer live a little longer to breed and populate the area.
Post by: WaltAlpine on July 19, 2013, 11:30:53 AM
There's just no need for antler restrictions on blacktails. Plenty of mature bucks on the westside.Well I was meaning antler restriction in general! Like the Mule Deer units, 3pt min!Im all for the 4pt or better rule! Wish they would start doing this to some of the blacktail units!
4? I could see 3 pt min for blacktail. I hunted the 650 units for a lot of years and most of the good bucks I have seen were 3 pt
I've got a big heavy 2x3 blacktail in 2001 that I would have cried :'( over in a 4 pt minimum hunt.
Care to share a general area???
Post by: Maverick on July 19, 2013, 04:09:43 PM
Post by: grundy53 on July 19, 2013, 04:37:11 PM
I am a firm believer of the 4 point rule for whitetail. my reason is most 3 point main beam bucks have eye guards giving them 4 points. for mule deer I think should stay 3 point rule because muleys don't get eye guards as much as whitetail and are usually small. Ive never hunted blacktail. but with the ways the point systems have worked for both mule deer and whitetail I see no reason why having a 3 point minimum wouldn't work great. itd be slow the first year or two but ive noticed here that most black tail bucks taken are young spikes and two points. with a point rule you guys over there would have more bucks and a lot more bigger ones!
While I agree with you on mule deer and whitetail, I disagree with you on blacktail. But only on the amount of points. I think it should be two point minimum. Unlike mule deer and whitetail there is a substantial amount of bucks that will never get bigger then a two point. Combine that with the habitat they live it (brush holes, making it hard to distinguish a 2 point from a 3 or 4 point. I think a 2 point minimum on blacktails would be the equivalent of a three point minimum on mulies and a 4 point minimum on whitetails.
Post by: huntnnw on July 20, 2013, 08:05:04 PM
Post by: returnofsid on July 21, 2013, 08:16:07 AM
Post by: GEARHEAD on July 21, 2013, 10:11:30 AM
Post by: popeshawnpaul on July 22, 2013, 09:13:56 AM
The population has "rebounded". It's time to lift it next year.
Great observation from Bellevue !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :bash:
:yeah:
If I only cared about and exclusively hunted these two particular units I would share your bias towards this management decision. I completely see how it puts less people in your honey hole and puts more bucks in front of your weapon. To that end, I can understand why you feel the way you do. I suppose you could make this statement and be devisive towards people that don't live in these units or question their intelligence based on their opinion regarding this difficult management decision. Or we could debate the issue intelligently to gain better understanding of the issue on a more regional and statewide level and how it effects other hunters across the state. Major engagement changes in areas has impact on other units and regions. Balancing the interests of this is the difficult task.
Post by: Jonathan_S on July 22, 2013, 09:29:17 AM
This is where the giants live, ya want a 175 WT, or better, this is the place to go.
See a lot of 'em do you? :chuckle:
Post by: GEARHEAD on July 22, 2013, 10:00:59 AM
Post by: buckfvr on July 22, 2013, 10:02:15 AM
This is where the giants live, ya want a 175 WT, or better, this is the place to go.
Big whitetails are where you find them.....and in this state, that can be anywhere there is a season for them........for 175 and up bucks, a gander at the whitetail record book will show you just how slim your chances are................
Ill add to this, I still hunt in any buck units and one of those has actually been my unit of choice based on what I see there. I hunt based on sightings regardless of the unit or its management objectives.
Post by: buckfvr on July 22, 2013, 10:06:31 AM
The population has "rebounded". It's time to lift it next year.
Great observation from Bellevue !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :bash:
:yeah:
If I only cared about and exclusively hunted these two particular units I would share your bias towards this management decision. I completely see how it puts less people in your honey hole and puts more bucks in front of your weapon. To that end, I can understand why you feel the way you do. I suppose you could make this statement and be devisive towards people that don't live in these units or question their intelligence based on their opinion regarding this difficult management decision. Or we could debate the issue intelligently to gain better understanding of the issue on a more regional and statewide level and how it effects other hunters across the state. Major engagement changes in areas has impact on other units and regions. Balancing the interests of this is the difficult task.
Cant let it go, can you.........
Id be good with 4pt for the entire n.e.. You assume that all of us in support of the ruling only hunt in the unit we live in......and there for dont otherwise care.......theres another mistake in your logic, a chink in your armor....what ever. Get some practical experience to back your education and learn more about the folks you judge............. :twocents:
Oh ya, and so far, you are a perfect fit for wdfw..............
Post by: popeshawnpaul on July 22, 2013, 11:12:08 AM
The population has "rebounded". It's time to lift it next year.
Great observation from Bellevue !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :bash:
:yeah:
If I only cared about and exclusively hunted these two particular units I would share your bias towards this management decision. I completely see how it puts less people in your honey hole and puts more bucks in front of your weapon. To that end, I can understand why you feel the way you do. I suppose you could make this statement and be devisive towards people that don't live in these units or question their intelligence based on their opinion regarding this difficult management decision. Or we could debate the issue intelligently to gain better understanding of the issue on a more regional and statewide level and how it effects other hunters across the state. Major engagement changes in areas has impact on other units and regions. Balancing the interests of this is the difficult task.
Cant let it go, can you.........
Id be good with 4pt for the entire n.e.. You assume that all of us in support of the ruling only hunt in the unit we live in......and there for dont otherwise care.......theres another mistake in your logic, a chink in your armor....what ever. Get some practical experience to back your education and learn more about the folks you judge............. :twocents:
Oh ya, and so far, you are a perfect fit for wdfw..............
I give up. You win. Another pointless exercise in internet futility.
Post by: buckfvr on July 22, 2013, 03:29:32 PM
Post by: huntnphool on July 22, 2013, 03:41:17 PM
Boy phool......if thats what you come up with after reading this topic, you're reading something no one else is seeing.....Id guess the two of you either are, or are trying to become co-workers. Pass those two another ........Still reading ;)
Post by: huntnphool on July 22, 2013, 04:19:55 PM
Also- it was NEVER pushed along by outfitters as a trophy objective. It was sportsman's groups and locals that care about the deer that made it happen.
Regardless what "objective" excuse was used, outfitters did indeed participate in the "push" to impliment the restriction, Dale was one of them. ;)
I was at every meeting and in the stakeholders group that supported this change. I think it will be good for the herd, hopefully the folks here that are in opposition can live with a few years of change in two units...Quote from: link=topic=97294.msg1261988#msg1261988 date=1336458587
Here in 121 we have a different scenario. It's not that we have too many does, we really have too few bucks.
Like WACoyote, I was also on the whitetail group.
Due to heavy winter kill and heavy predator losses it appeared to me that our deer numbers were at about 40% of previous years before the 2 back to back hard winters. Rightfully the WDFW commission cut back on doe permits to let the herd grow.
But when you cut back on doe permits it places more hunters after bucks at a time when herd numbers are already low. The only sensible thing to do is also cut back on buck harvest to prevent further destruction of the buck/doe ratio. By cutting back harvest of both bucks and does, the herd will recover faster and with a better buck/doe ratio.
I am uncertain if it's a good long term rule, we will know more in 4 more years, but for reducing the buck harvest immediately it worked well and that was my intention in supporting the rule.
There is a lot of private land and there is a lot of public access in these units. Because the public land gets hunted harder, and there are no crops on public land, I would say there are definitely more deer on most of the private land. However, the Clayton transect which I think is in a mostly private land agricultural area, had about the worst buck/doe ratio. It's also more open country in many areas so that could also be why it has a lower buck/doe ratio.
Post by: huntnphool on July 22, 2013, 04:27:57 PM
have to keep hammering this point home because nobody ever seems to want to talk about it..............QDMA and EVERY eastern US whitetail antler restriction rules are part of a two tier system;[/b]
they are predicated on a large antlerless harvest because whitetail herds back East are probably 5 times as productive as our herds here; when you couple an APR, with an "option" for the hunter to take an antlerless animal, they have found that in many cases hunters will simply shoot an antlerless deer instead of waiting around for a 4 pt animal; ALL the data (and I have posted it on here numerous times) shows that with these large antlerless quota's, combined with APR's there is a very, very, very tiny increase in the recruitment of animals into the 4.5 yr old class; what they have found is that the APR just "shifts" the harvest up one age class; if everybody used to be shooting 1.5 yr old deer, they are now shooting 2.5 yr old deer; AND, very few bucks are making it past their second year;
now, contrast this with what WA state has going on; we have un-productive herds, so we cannot offer any meaningful antlerless component; so ALL the harvest is focused on bucks and none on does;
Another HUGE difference is that in many Eastern states, the whitetail hunt occur AFTER the rut; so, at least you have some of the mature bucks still in the population at that point; AND the bucks are in a post rut situation where they are not running around looking for a piece of a$$ all day long;
our whitetail harvest is before, and in the middle of rut, in these units;
So, as huntnw likes to point out, comparing our whitetail herds to those in Eastern US is comparing apples to oranges...........what works back there (APR's) will not work here because of the different type of whitetail population we have, no antlerless opportunities to "pull" harvest away from bucks, and hunts that occur in the middle of the rut.
the numbers I ran are pretty simple:
I use "hunter days" because this is a much better reflection of what is going on;
Bottom line is that in 2011 there were 30% FEWER hunter days, but, the harvest of 4pt+ animals went UP 10%;
So, sitting here right now, you have decreased the number of mature bucks in the population by more then you would have with a normal season; and, you increased the number of immature bucks in the population because you protected them;
so, during the breeding season this year in these units, you most likely had a lower age class buck doing the breeding (on average) then you have in the past; statistically this has to be the outcome because you protected ALL of the 1.5 yr old bucks and increased the harvest of the mature bucks.
there is LOTS of data that shows that lowering the age class of the bucks that are doing the breeding results in lower fawn recruitment. and, this makes intuitive sense........how productive would the US be if 13 yr old boys were making all the babies???
I counted 92 extra 4pt+ bucks harvested in those units, so, right off the bat, after year #1, that herd has 92 fewer mature bucks in it;
next year, when all the hunters return, and "hunter days" return to normal (probably goes higher actually) then you are going to see a huge increase in the level of harvest of the 5pt+ category;
you obviously will see a big increase in the 4pt class; but, if you look at the "data" what it shows is that in other APR whitetail areas, where there is a huge antlerless component, and the hunt does not occur during the rut, and the herd is much more productive, they see very tiny improvements of recruitment into the 4.5 yr age class;
now, contrast that with what we have here; low productivity herds, no antlerless component, hunting allowed during the rut; it isn't hard to see how this is going to end...........
bottom line is we have year #1 down and there are fewer mature bucks in the population and more immature bucks; the rule has successfully, after year 1, reduced the average age of the buck in these units;
for all the proponents, you had better hope hunter days stays 30% lower permanently..........because that is the only thing that will prevent this rule from permenantly reducing the average age class in these units;
couple of points; I don't consider a 4 pt whitetail "mature" but, it is certainly at least 1 yr and possibly 2 yr's older then the yearling bucks that this rule protected;[/b]
bottom line is this: the average age structure of that buck population is younger then it would have been without this rule after year 1. Like I said in the earlier post, all of the eastern US areas where APR's have been implemented show little, if any increased recruitment into the 4.5 yr old class, and this is with the large antlerless tags "pulling" hunting pressure from the buck population.
without that "pull" from the antlerless tags, there would be no bucks recruited in the older age classes and most likely a reduction; mother nature set it up so mature bucks would do the bulk of the breeding; there is a reason for this; you are correct that there are recent studies that say a lot of the breeding is being done by 1.5 yr old animals; but, that is because in our modern day of big game populations that is dominant age class!!
In 20 yrs I suspect( just a personal opinion......) that biologists will come to believe that 60 years of poor age structure bucks doing the breeding has contributed to the chronically low fawn recruitment levels in our big game herds.
the legacy of APR's in this state, a state that cannot support large antlerless tags, is a slow erosion of season length, with seasons backed up further into October; and massive hunter pressure packed into a 9 day season, and you NEVER get rid of it.........
The pattern is so clear: 1. initiate an APR 2. shorten the season 3. all the hunting pressure is focused into 9 day seasons 4. very poor hunter experience 5. no help to the herd because the increased hunting pressure in such a short window puts further strains on the herd. 6. Department of game under all kinds of pressure, cannot get rid of the APR, but cannot shorten seasons any more because of hunter disastifaction; 7. the management of our herds get stuck with an APR and shortened seasons;
anybody who thinks that this APR will EVER be gotten rid of does not understand how they work......make no mistake, this isn't some 5 yr experiment.....the reason you can't get rid of it is because the first year you get rid of it, the buck population gets absoulutely hammered because you open it back up to all the age classes; it is just the reverse of what you have the first year of an APR when you protect the 1.5 yr old age class; the only realistic way to unwind an APR would be to have restricted tag sales the first year you get rid of it; how likely is that???
the first causality of this APR will be the elimination of the modern rut hunt........this will happen in 2 to 3yrs when the it becomes clear that you cannot sustain this hunt when all the pressure is focused on the older age classes of bucks; and, we will be well on our way to the legacy of shorter seasons........
Post by: boneaddict on July 22, 2013, 06:19:16 PM
Post by: bearpaw on July 22, 2013, 10:45:11 PM
Here are a couple quotes from one of our fellow members from last year, some great points in his posts. :tup:have to keep hammering this point home because nobody ever seems to want to talk about it..............QDMA and EVERY eastern US whitetail antler restriction rules are part of a two tier system;[/b]
they are predicated on a large antlerless harvest because whitetail herds back East are probably 5 times as productive as our herds here; when you couple an APR, with an "option" for the hunter to take an antlerless animal, they have found that in many cases hunters will simply shoot an antlerless deer instead of waiting around for a 4 pt animal; ALL the data (and I have posted it on here numerous times) shows that with these large antlerless quota's, combined with APR's there is a very, very, very tiny increase in the recruitment of animals into the 4.5 yr old class; what they have found is that the APR just "shifts" the harvest up one age class; if everybody used to be shooting 1.5 yr old deer, they are now shooting 2.5 yr old deer; AND, very few bucks are making it past their second year;
I have detailed this before in this topic but I will gladly repeat it again. WE HAVE TOO MANY PREDATORS! I don't think WA whitetail have that many fewer fawns than eastern states, the problem is the survival rate of WA fawns and adult deer. We have 3000 to 4000 cougar in Washington, a huge bloated population and according to government studies one cougar eats from 25 to 50 deer per year, so WA cougar are eating from 75,000 minimum to 200,000 maximum deer per year in Washington. Add an increasing bear and coyote population and that explains why Washington deer herds are not as productive. Only WDFW can fix this with better predator management.
Here is the other side of the coin on NE WA doe/buck harvest. As a result of our declining deer population doe seasons were mostly eliminated, so that puts all the hunting pressure on bucks therefore the buck to doe ratio would decrease, that is unavoidable if all hunting pressure is on any size buck, by protecting the young bucks (formerly about half the buck harvest, we insure there are more bucks after the season. Since doe seasons were mostly eliminated increased doe harvest is simply not an issue until the herds grow and it is decided we need more doe harvested and doe seasons are liberalized. The point he makes about taking more doe seem completely invalid.
now, contrast this with what WA state has going on; we have un-productive herds, so we cannot offer any meaningful antlerless component; so ALL the harvest is focused on bucks and none on does;
agreed, but will add that half the bucks formerly harvested are now living through the end of the season
Another HUGE difference is that in many Eastern states, the whitetail hunt occur AFTER the rut; so, at least you have some of the mature bucks still in the population at that point; AND the bucks are in a post rut situation where they are not running around looking for a piece of a$$ all day long;
our whitetail harvest is before, and in the middle of rut, in these units;
The heavy cover in the NE prevents all the older bucks from being taken, a later hunt in the NE would be more detrimental due to the deer migrating from higher elevations.
So, as huntnw likes to point out, comparing our whitetail herds to those in Eastern US is comparing apples to oranges...........what works back there (APR's) will not work here because of the different type of whitetail population we have, no antlerless opportunities to "pull" harvest away from bucks, and hunts that occur in the middle of the rut.
the numbers I ran are pretty simple:
I use "hunter days" because this is a much better reflection of what is going on;
Bottom line is that in 2011 there were 30% FEWER hunter days, but, the harvest of 4pt+ animals went UP 10%;
So, sitting here right now, you have decreased the number of mature bucks in the population by more then you would have with a normal season; and, you increased the number of immature bucks in the population because you protected them;
so, during the breeding season this year in these units, you most likely had a lower age class buck doing the breeding (on average) then you have in the past; statistically this has to be the outcome because you protected ALL of the 1.5 yr old bucks and increased the harvest of the mature bucks.
The numbers are incorrect and I will explain why, because spikes and forks previously comprised 50% of the harvest, we are saving 50% more bucks each fall. He claims harvest on 4pts+ increased by 10%, that sounds like a 40% gain in the buck population to me!
there is LOTS of data that shows that lowering the age class of the bucks that are doing the breeding results in lower fawn recruitment. and, this makes intuitive sense........how productive would the US be if 13 yr old boys were making all the babies???
I counted 92 extra 4pt+ bucks harvested in those units, so, right off the bat, after year #1, that herd has 92 fewer mature bucks in it;
OK we lost 92 more mature bucks, but we added hundreds of younger bucks that were not killed! Even if we lose 10% more of these younger bucks the following year, you still have far more 2 1/2 year bucks at the end of the second season, do the math! I think it's also safe to say that over 5 years the buck ratio will increase further for older bucks as the surviving younger bucks continue to age.
next year, when all the hunters return, and "hunter days" return to normal (probably goes higher actually) then you are going to see a huge increase in the level of harvest of the 5pt+ category;
Because we are conserving the younger bucks to grow older each year, we should expect more older bucks in a few years.
you obviously will see a big increase in the 4pt class; but, if you look at the "data" what it shows is that in other APR whitetail areas, where there is a huge antlerless component, and the hunt does not occur during the rut, and the herd is much more productive, they see very tiny improvements of recruitment into the 4.5 yr age class;
Obviously there will be many more 2 1/2 year bucks and even 3 1/2 yr bucks after two years of the 4pt rule, if we also are getting tiny increases in 4.5 year bucks, then I would say that is a definite improvement and a successful program.
now, contrast that with what we have here; low productivity herds, no antlerless component, hunting allowed during the rut; it isn't hard to see how this is going to end...........
We've had 2 years of the rule, currently I am seeing more bucks. :dunno:
bottom line is we have year #1 down and there are fewer mature bucks in the population and more immature bucks; the rule has successfully, after year 1, reduced the average age of the buck in these units;
Math was figured incorrectly, yes there are 92 fewer 4 1/2 yr bucks, but we have hundreds more 2 1/2 yr and 3 1/2 yr bucks after 2 seasons, you forgot to include all the young bucks being saved each season. In your previous statement you said there will be slight increases in the 4 1/2 yr bucks, so we have more 2 1/2, 3 1/2, and 4 1/2 bucks. :tup:
for all the proponents, you had better hope hunter days stays 30% lower permanently..........because that is the only thing that will prevent this rule from permenantly reducing the average age class in these units;
Please see my last sentence.couple of points; I don't consider a 4 pt whitetail "mature" but, it is certainly at least 1 yr and possibly 2 yr's older then the yearling bucks that this rule protected;[/b]
bottom line is this: the average age structure of that buck population is younger then it would have been without this rule after year 1. Like I said in the earlier post, all of the eastern US areas where APR's have been implemented show little, if any increased recruitment into the 4.5 yr old class, and this is with the large antlerless tags "pulling" hunting pressure from the buck population.
This is deceiving the first year because we have saved all the young bucks (formerly 50% of the harvest), but as you said there was only a 10% increase in adult buck harvest so that means in 2 to 5 years there should be more older aged bucks as well, you said there would be slight increases yourself. I think it will actually be more than slight increases.
without that "pull" from the antlerless tags, there would be no bucks recruited in the older age classes and most likely a reduction; mother nature set it up so mature bucks would do the bulk of the breeding; there is a reason for this; you are correct that there are recent studies that say a lot of the breeding is being done by 1.5 yr old animals; but, that is because in our modern day of big game populations that is dominant age class!!
Again, your math was incorrect.
In 20 yrs I suspect( just a personal opinion......) that biologists will come to believe that 60 years of poor age structure bucks doing the breeding has contributed to the chronically low fawn recruitment levels in our big game herds.
I hope that in 20 years they understand that cougars are eating 3 to 5 times as many deer as hunters are taking and that a 50% reduction in cougar population would mean a far more liberal hunting season for hunters and more revenue for WDFW.
the legacy of APR's in this state, a state that cannot support large antlerless tags, is a slow erosion of season length, with seasons backed up further into October; and massive hunter pressure packed into a 9 day season, and you NEVER get rid of it.........
Washington is the smallest western state and has no meaningful cougar or other predator management and the largest human population except for CA, that is the reason our herds are declining.
The pattern is so clear: 1. initiate an APR 2. shorten the season 3. all the hunting pressure is focused into 9 day seasons 4. very poor hunter experience 5. no help to the herd because the increased hunting pressure in such a short window puts further strains on the herd. 6. Department of game under all kinds of pressure, cannot get rid of the APR, but cannot shorten seasons any more because of hunter disastifaction; 7. the management of our herds get stuck with an APR and shortened seasons;
The pattern seems pretty clrear to me, more cougars, bear, and coyotes means fewer animals survive. WDFW continues to cut cougar hunting. :bash:
anybody who thinks that this APR will EVER be gotten rid of does not understand how they work......make no mistake, this isn't some 5 yr experiment.....the reason you can't get rid of it is because the first year you get rid of it, the buck population gets absoulutely hammered because you open it back up to all the age classes; it is just the reverse of what you have the first year of an APR when you protect the 1.5 yr old age class; the only realistic way to unwind an APR would be to have restricted tag sales the first year you get rid of it; how likely is that???
From what I have been told it's hard to get rid of the rule because people like it and want to keep it.
the first causality of this APR will be the elimination of the modern rut hunt........this will happen in 2 to 3yrs when the it becomes clear that you cannot sustain this hunt when all the pressure is focused on the older age classes of bucks; and, we will be well on our way to the legacy of shorter seasons........
We are going into the 3rd year and I am seeing good numbers of bucks. :dunno:
Post by: bearpaw on July 22, 2013, 11:01:42 PM
Also- it was NEVER pushed along by outfitters as a trophy objective. It was sportsman's groups and locals that care about the deer that made it happen.
Regardless what "objective" excuse was used, outfitters did indeed participate in the "push" to impliment the restriction, Dale was one of them. ;)
So wth, because I am an outfitter you are saying I don't care about the deer. :bash:
I'll guarantee I care more than most people, no offense to anyone but it's pretty easy to figure out. I grew up here hunting from the time I could follow my dad in the woods and most all my family and friends hunt. My business depends on good deer numbers, why on earth would I want to hurt the deer herds. The whole NE economy depends on good wildlife numbers.
This is getting pretty old hearing I am some kind of anti-christ because I am an outfitter. Some of you people need to get over it, the deer, elk, and other wildlife are more important to me than most other people. :twocents:
JEESH.....
Post by: huntnphool on July 22, 2013, 11:26:05 PM
Come on Dale, you should know better than that. He said it was NEVER pushed by outfitters, suggesting that any and all outfitters had nothing to do with it, I simply reminded him that you are indeed a outfitter and admittedly was part of "the whitetail group". Never once did I insinuate that you don't care about the herds or are the anti Christ, I reserve that title to certain politians. ;)Also- it was NEVER pushed along by outfitters as a trophy objective. It was sportsman's groups and locals that care about the deer that made it happen.
Regardless what "objective" excuse was used, outfitters did indeed participate in the "push" to impliment the restriction, Dale was one of them. ;)
So wth, because I am an outfitter you are saying I don't care about the deer. :bash:
I'll guarantee I care more than most people, no offense to anyone but it's pretty easy to figure out. I grew up here hunting from the time I could follow my dad in the woods and most all my family and friends hunt. My business depends on good deer numbers, why on earth would I want to hurt the deer herds. The whole NE economy depends on good wildlife numbers.
This is getting pretty old hearing I am some kind of anti-christ because I am an outfitter. Some of you people need to get over it, the deer, elk, and other wildlife are more important to me than most other people. :twocents:
JEESH.....
Post by: bearpaw on July 22, 2013, 11:44:24 PM
Come on Dale, you should know better than that. He said it was NEVER pushed by outfitters, suggesting that any and all outfitters had nothing to do with it, I simply reminded him that you are indeed a outfitter and admittedly was part of "the whitetail group". Never once did I insinuate that you don't care about the herds or are the anti Christ, I reserve that title to certain politians. ;)Also- it was NEVER pushed along by outfitters as a trophy objective. It was sportsman's groups and locals that care about the deer that made it happen.
Regardless what "objective" excuse was used, outfitters did indeed participate in the "push" to impliment the restriction, Dale was one of them. ;)
So wth, because I am an outfitter you are saying I don't care about the deer. :bash:
I'll guarantee I care more than most people, no offense to anyone but it's pretty easy to figure out. I grew up here hunting from the time I could follow my dad in the woods and most all my family and friends hunt. My business depends on good deer numbers, why on earth would I want to hurt the deer herds. The whole NE economy depends on good wildlife numbers.
This is getting pretty old hearing I am some kind of anti-christ because I am an outfitter. Some of you people need to get over it, the deer, elk, and other wildlife are more important to me than most other people. :twocents:
JEESH.....
OK, my apologies for misreading your comment. :sry:
I may be a little over-sensitive, I have had "he's an outfitter" thrown in my face once to often and I'm done not saying anything when someone comments that way. Outfitters have more skin in the game than anyone, not only do we and our families love hunting, our livelihood depends on good game management and our businesses support all types of other local businesses. Even the WDFW benefits greatly from my business in license sales.
Post by: huntnphool on July 22, 2013, 11:47:04 PM
;)Come on Dale, you should know better than that. He said it was NEVER pushed by outfitters, suggesting that any and all outfitters had nothing to do with it, I simply reminded him that you are indeed a outfitter and admittedly was part of "the whitetail group". Never once did I insinuate that you don't care about the herds or are the anti Christ, I reserve that title to certain politians. ;)Also- it was NEVER pushed along by outfitters as a trophy objective. It was sportsman's groups and locals that care about the deer that made it happen.
Regardless what "objective" excuse was used, outfitters did indeed participate in the "push" to impliment the restriction, Dale was one of them. ;)
So wth, because I am an outfitter you are saying I don't care about the deer. :bash:
I'll guarantee I care more than most people, no offense to anyone but it's pretty easy to figure out. I grew up here hunting from the time I could follow my dad in the woods and most all my family and friends hunt. My business depends on good deer numbers, why on earth would I want to hurt the deer herds. The whole NE economy depends on good wildlife numbers.
This is getting pretty old hearing I am some kind of anti-christ because I am an outfitter. Some of you people need to get over it, the deer, elk, and other wildlife are more important to me than most other people. :twocents:
JEESH.....
OK, my apologies for misreading your comment. :sry:
I may be a little over-sensitive, I have had "he's an outfitter" thrown in my face once to often and I'm done not saying anything when someone comments that way. Outfitters have more skin in the game than anyone, not only do we and our families love hunting, our livelihood depends on good game management and our businesses support all types of other local businesses. Even the WDFW benefits greatly from my business in license sales.
Post by: bearpaw on July 22, 2013, 11:50:16 PM
Post by: huntnphool on July 22, 2013, 11:54:43 PM
no worries, group hug and all that... :tung::chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on July 23, 2013, 12:09:15 AM
There seems this concern that we cannot get rid of the rule for any reason. If at the end of the 5 year trial it appears the rule is harming our herds then I will most assuredly support ending the rule. If it appears the rule has improved our herd, I will continue to support the rule. I can't speak for anyone else but I think most of the members of the group would do the same.
We also recommended better data collection by WDFW as it was seriously lacking. I have to commend WDFW for responding with more August transect counts, a new whitetail study, and overall increased data gathering. :tup:
Now comes the negative about WDFW, we were basically told that predator management was not an option. They won't even consider it. :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:
I have heard that the study is finding that feral dogs are a significant factor in deer mortality. We knew it was a factor, but I heard it may be more significant than some people thought. I am hoping the group gets more updates from WDFW soon.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on July 23, 2013, 02:02:59 AM
"Let me clue you in............you have created a huge bubble of juvenile bucks with very poor antler genetics who are doing the bulk of the breeding......."
This not correct...DNA is passed on no matter the age...even if his father had a 200" rack and he is the ofspring and one day if able to mature to 200" he still carries this gene no matter the age when he breeds
The problem is, generally the bucks that carry the big antler genes generally have bigger antlers/more points at an earlier age than average bucks. With most of Eastern Washington's buck seasons before the rut, the bucks with the best antler genes get taken out before breeding time, leaving the smaller/less point gened bucks to pass on their genes. Sure, some larger gened bucks will survive in the timber and brush of NE Washington and some will survive on private property, but the longer this experiment lasts, the sheer numbers of smaller bucks breeding compared to the few large bucks that survive to breed will tilt the herd to smaller antlered bucks. You may see lots of bucks, but they'll be sub-legal.
A smarter strategy would be a spike/fork hunt before the rut, then a 5 pt or better hunt after the rut to keep the big boy genes in the pool. You could also divide the hunters by making them choose spike/fork hunt or 5 pt hunt, the way elk is managed by east and west side. That would lower the number of hunters in the field during each season and allow people to decide for themselves if they want a meat hunt or a trophy hunt.
Don't argue with his "good science" :chuckle:
Post by: boneaddict on July 23, 2013, 04:54:21 AM
Quote
I have heard that the study is finding that feral dogs are a significant factor in deer mortality
Check out all of these that keep popping up on trail cams. (possible wolf sightings). Imagine all the other fluffies, and then there are those that have a porch to come back to when they are done running and frolicking. Drives me nuts, but that's a whole new topic.
Post by: PA BEN on July 23, 2013, 05:24:44 AM
if you read what I posted you would see why :bash:I know we had quite the spirited discussion over this when this rule first came about in GMU 117 and 121. This will be the 3rd year for this rule in these units. What do you guys think now? I still say kids and seniors should be able to shoot any buck. The first year my buddy tried to get his daughter on a 4 point and by the time doe season opened she was burned out and quit hunting. Last year she didn’t hunt until the doe season opened and she got a nice big doe. It’s all about getting the youth out hunting.
Why start up the subject again if the subject was so fiery? I hunt in those two units the most and the whitetails have been destroyed. I have noticed considerable numbers of deer back in those units. I love it, I wish they would keep it 4-pt for at least 3 more years. Then start giving out liberal doe tags again. Just my opinion and :twocents:, for what it's worth.
Post by: predatorpro on July 23, 2013, 06:15:39 AM
Post by: huntnnw on July 23, 2013, 08:36:42 AM
Post by: MTMule on July 25, 2013, 10:01:08 PM
I want to address a few things that have already been addressed, but I feel they are significant. When a buck gets another year to live. He will be smarter and harder to kill the next year.. This is common sense to anyone who has hunted for more then a few years.
Another thing... The argument all the big bucks are going to be killed now, and leave poor genetics... So many things wrong with that statement. First off, if you weren't killing mature bucks before, it's unlikely you will now. Secondly, genetics are passed on at any age. A buck doesn't have to be fully mature with a huge rack to pass on his genes. If that huge buck passed on his genes at an early age, it's the same thing....
Post by: oneshot12 on July 26, 2013, 01:58:14 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on July 30, 2013, 10:30:07 AM
I don't wantto sound like a dick, and especially since I rarely if ever post here, but you have to be one dense know it all idiot to think this wouldn't work.
Ok let's take a little look at the results of this little experiment so far. The winters of 07 and 08 knocked the herd down so we want to see how hunting has recovered since, and we'll want something to compare the two 4 pt units to, so I'll include the 4 units that surround 117 and 121 since they will have the closest similarities of conditions as for knocking the herd down and recovery ie weather, food, and predators. I'm gonna use harvest stats, cuz that's the bottom line for most hunters.
In the 2008 season, the first after the first bad recent winter, hunters took 1,346 deer in unit 117 and 2,232 deer in unit 121. In surrounding units 108, 111, 113, and 124 hunters took 418 in 108, 441 in 111, 444 in 113, and 2,984 in 124.
Things bottomed out about 2010.
Unit 108, 389 deer
Unit 111, 391 deer
Unit 113, 389 deer
Unit 124, 2,354 deer
Unit 117, 1,053 deer
Unit 121, 1,455 deer
Then things turned around........except in 117 and 121
2012,
In unit 108 the harvest was 425 deer or up 1.6 % from 2008.
In unit 111 the harvest was 441 deer or up 10% from 2008.
In unit 113 the harvest was 444 deer or up .5% from 2008.
In unit 124 the harvest was 2952 deer or down 1% from 2008.
Basically all back to 2008 levels or slightly up, just by keeping things the same and letting nature take it's course.
But in the 4pt or better units........
Unit 117, 884 deer, DOWN 34% from 2008
Unit 121, 1,238 deer, DOWN 44.5% from 2008
Now you might argue that was because the 4 pt restriction reduced the harvest, but that should have been a one year glitch in 2011. In 2011 younger bucks were stockpiled so if the restriction worked 2012 should have eclipsed the harvest gains in the surrounding non restricted units. So far, that hasn't happened. We will see. So far it hasn't translated into hunter success.
You may also try to argue that the reduction is from reduced doe harvest. So lets compare buck harvest.
Unit 117
2008 had 998 bucks harvested, 2012 had 681 bucks or a loss of 31.7%
Unit 121
2008 had 1499 bucks harvested, 2012 had 930 bucks or a loss of 40%.
Now convince me these restrictions are working.
Post by: boneaddict on July 30, 2013, 11:07:42 AM
then throw in say the economy......(depending on how you view the statistics, hunterdays etc)
then throw in how inaccurate they may be in the first place because of hunter bias or lies or withholding of information because of the government, or folks not wanting people to know they can score in any given unit. :chuckle:
I would suggest that maybe ones own observations might be better.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on July 30, 2013, 11:15:23 AM
Post by: boneaddict on July 30, 2013, 11:19:35 AM
Post by: boneaddict on July 30, 2013, 11:22:20 AM
Post by: dscubame on July 30, 2013, 11:27:04 AM
This is about deer population not hunter success.
Post by: snowpack on July 30, 2013, 11:34:34 AM
Do these statistics take in account hunter days, amount of hunters, just deer harvested?The harvest reports have that in them. They also include the number of deer killed that have 'x' number of points. So you can look at how many 5+ pts were killed before and how many now.
Post by: Jonathan_S on July 30, 2013, 11:42:03 AM
Simple. Way less hunters hitting the unit with the 4 point restriction. Way less hunters equal way less harvest.
This is about deer population not hunter success.
:yeah: :yeah: Sitka_Blacktail is acting as though the harvest numbers are directly tied to the population.
Less deer were killed because dumb little spikes and forks can't be killed and escaped, it doesn't mean there were less deer in the unit. Less people hunted the units. Where's the SPIN emoticon?
How could anyone argue that the APR decreases the deer numbers, especially after two years?
Post by: whacker1 on July 30, 2013, 11:45:44 AM
Do these statistics take in account hunter days, amount of hunters, just deer harvested?The harvest reports have that in them. They also include the number of deer killed that have 'x' number of points. So you can look at how many 5+ pts were killed before and how many now.
I did not see hunter days included in the harvest reports. I would like to know how many people hunted those units as compared to prior years.
Post by: bearpaw on July 30, 2013, 11:47:56 AM
I don't wantto sound like a dick, and especially since I rarely if ever post here, but you have to be one dense know it all idiot to think this wouldn't work.
Ok let's take a little look at the results of this little experiment so far. The winters of 07 and 08 knocked the herd down so we want to see how hunting has recovered since, and we'll want something to compare the two 4 pt units to, so I'll include the 4 units that surround 117 and 121 since they will have the closest similarities of conditions as for knocking the herd down and recovery ie weather, food, and predators. I'm gonna use harvest stats, cuz that's the bottom line for most hunters.
In the 2008 season, the first after the first bad recent winter, hunters took 1,346 deer in unit 117 and 2,232 deer in unit 121. In surrounding units 108, 111, 113, and 124 hunters took 418 in 108, 441 in 111, 444 in 113, and 2,984 in 124.
Things bottomed out about 2010.
Unit 108, 389 deer
Unit 111, 391 deer
Unit 113, 389 deer
Unit 124, 2,354 deer
Unit 117, 1,053 deer
Unit 121, 1,455 deer
Then things turned around........except in 117 and 121
2012,
In unit 108 the harvest was 425 deer or up 1.6 % from 2008.
In unit 111 the harvest was 441 deer or up 10% from 2008.
In unit 113 the harvest was 444 deer or up .5% from 2008.
In unit 124 the harvest was 2952 deer or down 1% from 2008.
Basically all back to 2008 levels or slightly up, just by keeping things the same and letting nature take it's course.
But in the 4pt or better units........
Unit 117, 884 deer, DOWN 34% from 2008
Unit 121, 1,238 deer, DOWN 44.5% from 2008
Now you might argue that was because the 4 pt restriction reduced the harvest, but that should have been a one year glitch in 2011. In 2011 younger bucks were stockpiled so if the restriction worked 2012 should have eclipsed the harvest gains in the surrounding non restricted units. So far, that hasn't happened. We will see. So far it hasn't translated into hunter success.
You may also try to argue that the reduction is from reduced doe harvest. So lets compare buck harvest.
Unit 117
2008 had 998 bucks harvested, 2012 had 681 bucks or a loss of 31.7%
Unit 121
2008 had 1499 bucks harvested, 2012 had 930 bucks or a loss of 40%.
Now convince me these restrictions are working.
The intended purpose of the rule was to reduce harvest and leave more deer on the ground alive, looks like it's working perfectly so far to me, the harvest has been reduced. The real test is to see how many deer we have alive in the unit at the end of the 5 year trial. :twocents:
Post by: vandeman17 on July 30, 2013, 11:49:00 AM
I don't wantto sound like a dick, and especially since I rarely if ever post here, but you have to be one dense know it all idiot to think this wouldn't work.
Ok let's take a little look at the results of this little experiment so far. The winters of 07 and 08 knocked the herd down so we want to see how hunting has recovered since, and we'll want something to compare the two 4 pt units to, so I'll include the 4 units that surround 117 and 121 since they will have the closest similarities of conditions as for knocking the herd down and recovery ie weather, food, and predators. I'm gonna use harvest stats, cuz that's the bottom line for most hunters.
In the 2008 season, the first after the first bad recent winter, hunters took 1,346 deer in unit 117 and 2,232 deer in unit 121. In surrounding units 108, 111, 113, and 124 hunters took 418 in 108, 441 in 111, 444 in 113, and 2,984 in 124.
Things bottomed out about 2010.
Unit 108, 389 deer
Unit 111, 391 deer
Unit 113, 389 deer
Unit 124, 2,354 deer
Unit 117, 1,053 deer
Unit 121, 1,455 deer
Then things turned around........except in 117 and 121
2012,
In unit 108 the harvest was 425 deer or up 1.6 % from 2008.
In unit 111 the harvest was 441 deer or up 10% from 2008.
In unit 113 the harvest was 444 deer or up .5% from 2008.
In unit 124 the harvest was 2952 deer or down 1% from 2008.
Basically all back to 2008 levels or slightly up, just by keeping things the same and letting nature take it's course.
But in the 4pt or better units........
Unit 117, 884 deer, DOWN 34% from 2008
Unit 121, 1,238 deer, DOWN 44.5% from 2008
Now you might argue that was because the 4 pt restriction reduced the harvest, but that should have been a one year glitch in 2011. In 2011 younger bucks were stockpiled so if the restriction worked 2012 should have eclipsed the harvest gains in the surrounding non restricted units. So far, that hasn't happened. We will see. So far it hasn't translated into hunter success.
You may also try to argue that the reduction is from reduced doe harvest. So lets compare buck harvest.
Unit 117
2008 had 998 bucks harvested, 2012 had 681 bucks or a loss of 31.7%
Unit 121
2008 had 1499 bucks harvested, 2012 had 930 bucks or a loss of 40%.
Now convince me these restrictions are working.
The intended purpose of the rule was to reduce harvest and leave more deer on the ground alive, looks like it's working perfectly so far to me, the harvest has been reduced. The real test is to see how many deer we have alive in the unit at the end of the 5 year trial. :twocents:
:yeah: :yeah:
Post by: Orion on July 30, 2013, 12:04:51 PM
I don't think the unit will ever support a large deer population until some timber is cut and new browse is grown. No food-No deer. Same situation exists in almost all
GMUs with a majority of National Forest land. It was my first trip to 117 and I don't have any historical knowledge, just my initial opinion.
Post by: snowpack on July 30, 2013, 12:07:53 PM
Yeah, looks like they only have that info easily accessible from 2009 on. :peep:Do these statistics take in account hunter days, amount of hunters, just deer harvested?The harvest reports have that in them. They also include the number of deer killed that have 'x' number of points. So you can look at how many 5+ pts were killed before and how many now.
I did not see hunter days included in the harvest reports. I would like to know how many people hunted those units as compared to prior years.
Post by: whacker1 on July 30, 2013, 12:41:28 PM
Yeah, looks like they only have that info easily accessible from 2009 on. :peep:Do these statistics take in account hunter days, amount of hunters, just deer harvested?The harvest reports have that in them. They also include the number of deer killed that have 'x' number of points. So you can look at how many 5+ pts were killed before and how many now.
I did not see hunter days included in the harvest reports. I would like to know how many people hunted those units as compared to prior years.
can you provide a link, because the harvest reports I was looking at did not show that info. I am sure that I am looking in the wrong spot, as I think I have seen it before.
Post by: huntnnw on July 30, 2013, 02:55:18 PM
Post by: snowpack on July 30, 2013, 03:08:55 PM
Yeah, looks like they only have that info easily accessible from 2009 on. :peep:Do these statistics take in account hunter days, amount of hunters, just deer harvested?The harvest reports have that in them. They also include the number of deer killed that have 'x' number of points. So you can look at how many 5+ pts were killed before and how many now.
I did not see hunter days included in the harvest reports. I would like to know how many people hunted those units as compared to prior years.
can you provide a link, because the harvest reports I was looking at did not show that info. I am sure that I am looking in the wrong spot, as I think I have seen it before.
For 2009 http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/2009/reports/deer_gmu_all.php (http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/2009/reports/deer_gmu_all.php)
2012 http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/2012/reports/deer_gmu_all.php (http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/2012/reports/deer_gmu_all.php)
I only linked 2009 and 2012, you can get to 10 and 11 from either. I wonder if they just didn't ask for the hunter days before 09. They changed the format or something.
Post by: buckfvr on July 30, 2013, 03:18:19 PM
Just an observation but I just spent 3 days scouting moose there and saw more moose than deer. Also noticed a huge lack of Wildlife Feeding Areas (Clear Cuts). Deer were plentiful around all the houses, just not in open hunting areas.
I don't think the unit will ever support a large deer population until some timber is cut and new browse is grown. No food-No deer. Same situation exists in almost all
GMUs with a majority of National Forest land. It was my first trip to 117 and I don't have any historical knowledge, just my initial opinion.
Better go have a few more look sees................... :chuckle:
Post by: huntnnw on July 30, 2013, 03:33:18 PM
Post by: buglebrush on July 30, 2013, 03:39:31 PM
Post by: Whitetail freak on July 30, 2013, 04:29:24 PM
Post by: CedarPants on July 30, 2013, 04:34:51 PM
What's everyone's experience like there? The areas I spend a lot of time in (all public land) in 124 don't have nearly the number of deer they did 5 - 10 years ago
Post by: Whitetail freak on July 30, 2013, 04:38:59 PM
Post by: huntnnw on July 30, 2013, 04:54:33 PM
Post by: whacker1 on July 30, 2013, 05:14:06 PM
Yeah, looks like they only have that info easily accessible from 2009 on. :peep:Do these statistics take in account hunter days, amount of hunters, just deer harvested?The harvest reports have that in them. They also include the number of deer killed that have 'x' number of points. So you can look at how many 5+ pts were killed before and how many now.
I did not see hunter days included in the harvest reports. I would like to know how many people hunted those units as compared to prior years.
can you provide a link, because the harvest reports I was looking at did not show that info. I am sure that I am looking in the wrong spot, as I think I have seen it before.
For 2009 http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/2009/reports/deer_gmu_all.php (http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/2009/reports/deer_gmu_all.php)
2012 http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/2012/reports/deer_gmu_all.php (http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/2012/reports/deer_gmu_all.php)
I only linked 2009 and 2012, you can get to 10 and 11 from either. I wonder if they just didn't ask for the hunter days before 09. They changed the format or something.
Thank you snowpack, that is what I was looking for.
2009 117 modern firearm - 4000 hunters and 21000 hunter days
2012 117 modern firearm - 2882 hunters and 14000 hunter days.
Those numbers by percentage are similar in 121.
I compared 113 to see if more hunters gravitated to 113. The hunters actually went down by 10 bodies, and a few hundred hunter days.
Post by: buglebrush on July 30, 2013, 08:50:53 PM
Perfect example what's wrong with the herd..40 does and 5 bucks.. Lotta area like that around here..I counted 112 does one day in a field ..not 1 antler!
Couldn't agree more.
Post by: huntnnw on July 30, 2013, 09:35:20 PM
Post by: bearpaw on July 30, 2013, 09:40:17 PM
Yeah, looks like they only have that info easily accessible from 2009 on. :peep:Do these statistics take in account hunter days, amount of hunters, just deer harvested?The harvest reports have that in them. They also include the number of deer killed that have 'x' number of points. So you can look at how many 5+ pts were killed before and how many now.
I did not see hunter days included in the harvest reports. I would like to know how many people hunted those units as compared to prior years.
can you provide a link, because the harvest reports I was looking at did not show that info. I am sure that I am looking in the wrong spot, as I think I have seen it before.
For 2009 http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/2009/reports/deer_gmu_all.php (http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/2009/reports/deer_gmu_all.php)
2012 http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/2012/reports/deer_gmu_all.php (http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/2012/reports/deer_gmu_all.php)
I only linked 2009 and 2012, you can get to 10 and 11 from either. I wonder if they just didn't ask for the hunter days before 09. They changed the format or something.
Thank you snowpack, that is what I was looking for.
2009 117 modern firearm - 4000 hunters and 21000 hunter days
2012 117 modern firearm - 2882 hunters and 14000 hunter days.
Those numbers by percentage are similar in 121.
I compared 113 to see if more hunters gravitated to 113. The hunters actually went down by 10 bodies, and a few hundred hunter days.
whacker1 that is an interesting statistic because one of the complaints about the 4pt rule was that hunter numbers would go up in surrounding units, glad to know that excessive pressure did not occur in 113. I think some hunters have quit coming to NE WA from across the state after they have heard that deer numbers are down. The economy no doubt may have some affect on hunter numbers too.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on July 30, 2013, 10:37:25 PM
This is about deer population not hunter success.
It's not about hunter success? Then why bother jacking up the herd? If it doesn't equate to hunter success, it's a wasted effort. The deer were no where near disappearing. This rule was driven by low hunter success and sold as a cure.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on July 30, 2013, 10:46:09 PM
The harvest reports have that in them. They also include the number of deer killed that have 'x' number of points. So you can look at how many 5+ pts were killed before and how many now.
But it's been said, on this thread I believe, this rule wasn't made to create more trophy bucks, it was put in to create more deer.
Post by: bearpaw on July 30, 2013, 10:48:26 PM
This is about deer population not hunter success.
It's not about hunter success? Then why bother jacking up the herd? If it doesn't equate to hunter success, it's a wasted effort. The deer were no where near disappearing. This rule was driven by low hunter success and sold as a cure.
If you have 1000 deer and kill 500 that leaves 500 deer to breed.
If you have 1000 deer and only kill 400 that leaves 600 deer to breed.
If you leave 600 deer this year instead of only 500 deer to breed, then there will likely be more fawns and a larger overall herd next year.
Do this same thing for a few years then it seems to me that the much higher deer numbers will provide much more opportunity in the future?
It also seems that this should be a clear path to recovering deer numbers and maintaining a better buck to doe ratio.
Please correct me if my math is wrong.
Post by: huntnnw on July 30, 2013, 11:38:54 PM
Post by: Bigshooter on July 30, 2013, 11:39:54 PM
Good read about about APR.
Post by: dscubame on July 31, 2013, 07:00:50 AM
This is about deer population not hunter success.
It's not about hunter success? Then why bother jacking up the herd? If it doesn't equate to hunter success, it's a wasted effort. The deer were no where near disappearing. This rule was driven by low hunter success and sold as a cure.
It is obvious you are not familiar with the unit when you make a statement like you did about the deer no where near disappearing. The very fact that the deer numbers have been on a drastic decline in these units were at the fore front of the wdfw research and commissioners meetings.
And the cure is working. Deer numbers are on the rise. :tup:
Post by: boneaddict on July 31, 2013, 07:08:54 AM
Post by: huntnnw on July 31, 2013, 07:29:45 AM
Post by: bearpaw on July 31, 2013, 08:08:18 AM
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20130713/COLUMNISTS01/307130009/Antler-rule-points-buck-survival-issue (http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20130713/COLUMNISTS01/307130009/Antler-rule-points-buck-survival-issue)
Good read about about APR.
I can see how that could happen with a 2pt rule, however, a 2 pt rule is definitely a different animal than a 4pt rule. I do have long term concerns with our 4pt rule. Once our herd numbers rebound I wonder if we'll see older 3 pt whiteys increase in numbers, really not many of them now. There are obviously many differences between NE WA and Vermont and between a 2pt rule and a 4pt rule. That's sort of like comparing apples to oranges, but I do think that the 5 year trial of the plan in these 2 units will provide info to make an educated decision about how to apply or not apply the rule in NE WA in the future. If it is decided to keep the rule then I hope they do it for another 5 year trial and not automatically forever. It's possible we may find that the rule is good for recovering a herd but not necessarily good for long term management. I really don't know, none of us know for sure at this time, but by trying the rule in 5 yr increments we can at least learn what works best. :tup:
Post by: Jonathan_S on July 31, 2013, 08:12:20 AM
It seems the majority of people strongly opposed to APR in 117/121 are those who come over for hunting season and nothing more. :twocents:
I'd venture that a good amount of peoples' observations on the "herd" is something like this, "well I only saw three deer in 2007 but I shot a spike so the herd seemed fine to me. I was there in 2012 with the APR and didn't see one single buck so the APR obviously doesn't work." :-\
Post by: BULLBLASTER on July 31, 2013, 08:42:46 AM
Post by: steen on July 31, 2013, 07:46:11 PM
Im all for the 4pt or better rule! Wish they would start doing this to some of the blacktail units!If you did this with blacktails you would end up with a lot of 2X3s and such that you can't shoot. It happens sometimes with the mulies (huge 2 points). Whitetails can be 4 points the first year with good feed. With that said I am still a meat hunter first and then antlers. I have passed on a few small bucks but meat in the freezer is better than tag soup! You will definitely see bigger bucks if you maximize the points.
Post by: Jonathan_S on July 31, 2013, 08:56:53 PM
Post by: grundy53 on July 31, 2013, 09:17:22 PM
Simple. Way less hunters hitting the unit with the 4 point restriction. Way less hunters equal way less harvest.
This is about deer population not hunter success.
:yeah: :yeah: Sitka_Blacktail is acting as though the harvest numbers are directly tied to the population.
Less deer were killed because dumb little spikes and forks can't be killed and escaped, it doesn't mean there were less deer in the unit. Less people hunted the units. Where's the SPIN emoticon?
How could anyone argue that the APR decreases the deer numbers, especially after two years?
Exactly!!! A 4 point whitetail is infinitely smarter then a spike whitetail. Therefore there are going to be a lot more bucks surviving. If anything I think sitka proved that the plan is working. More deer are surviving to live another year and bolster the herd.
Post by: huntnnw on July 31, 2013, 09:20:35 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on August 01, 2013, 03:36:48 PM
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20130713/COLUMNISTS01/307130009/Antler-rule-points-buck-survival-issue (http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20130713/COLUMNISTS01/307130009/Antler-rule-points-buck-survival-issue)
Good read about about APR.
Less older bucks and smaller antlers on the ones that do manage to survive. That pretty much sums it up.
I see they try pretty hard not to blame it on genetic filtering, but consider this. Evolution is not so much about sudden changes for no apparent reason. It's about passing on traits that help your survival chances such as coloring and size. Adaptability! It's why we end up with sub-species like Coues Whitetails. Smaller body size is better in the desert heat than large body mass. So when we make rules for harvesting game based on antler size, we are making antler size an important factor on whether an animal lives to pass on it's genes. If small antlers means an animal has a better chance to pass on it's genes, I guarantee you, more animals will have smaller antlers.
Post by: grundy53 on August 01, 2013, 03:43:17 PM
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20130713/COLUMNISTS01/307130009/Antler-rule-points-buck-survival-issue (http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20130713/COLUMNISTS01/307130009/Antler-rule-points-buck-survival-issue)
Good read about about APR.
Less older bucks and smaller antlers on the ones that do manage to survive. That pretty much sums it up.
I see they try pretty hard not to blame it on genetic filtering, but consider this. Evolution is not so much about sudden changes for no apparent reason. It's about passing on traits that help your survival chances such as coloring and size. Adaptability! It's why we end up with sub-species like Coues Whitetails. Smaller body size is better in the desert heat than large body mass. So when we make rules for harvesting game based on antler size, we are making antler size an important factor on whether an animal lives to pass on it's genes. If small antlers means an animal has a better chance to pass on it's genes, I guarantee you, more animals will have smaller antlers.
I would agree IF we were killing off all the big bucks. That isn't even close to happening. Big bucks are still doing the majority of the breeding.
Post by: bearpaw on August 01, 2013, 03:46:00 PM
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20130713/COLUMNISTS01/307130009/Antler-rule-points-buck-survival-issue (http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20130713/COLUMNISTS01/307130009/Antler-rule-points-buck-survival-issue)
Good read about about APR.
Less older bucks and smaller antlers on the ones that do manage to survive. That pretty much sums it up.
I see they try pretty hard not to blame it on genetic filtering, but consider this. Evolution is not so much about sudden changes for no apparent reason. It's about passing on traits that help your survival chances such as coloring and size. Adaptability! It's why we end up with sub-species like Coues Whitetails. Smaller body size is better in the desert heat than large body mass. So when we make rules for harvesting game based on antler size, we are making antler size an important factor on whether an animal lives to pass on it's genes. If small antlers means an animal has a better chance to pass on it's genes, I guarantee you, more animals will have smaller antlers.
Comparing a two point rule and 4 pt rule is like comparing apples and oranges for the reasons which have been mentioned. Hasn't science proven that it takes many generations to change genetics? After having only small bucks in their herd for decades PA adopted a 4pt rule and is actually producing better quality bucks than they have in decades.
Post by: snowpack on August 01, 2013, 03:51:06 PM
Comparing a two point rule and 4 pt rule is like comparing apples and oranges for the reasons which have been mentioned. Hasn't science proven that it takes many generations to change genetics? After having only small bucks in their herd for decades PA adopted a 4pt rule and is actually producing better quality bucks than they have in decades.
Many generations for mutations to successfully enter genetics. But you can change genetics very quickly. Small pox changed genetics of the American Indians rather quickly. During the Napoleonic Wars, many of the countries involved rounded up all the tallest men from villages to enter service. Most died and caused the average heights of some countries to go down a bit.
Post by: bearpaw on August 01, 2013, 03:58:16 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on August 01, 2013, 03:59:51 PM
Originally the white deer were protected and only brown deer were shot. Being white meant you had a better chance at survival, thus passing on your genes. This is how the white deer herd of Senaca army base was created.
Dogs came from wolves, but selective breeding by humans has created hundreds of breeds of dogs from Chihuahua to St Bernard, only a few of which resemble wolves any more.
Antler restrictions are a form of selective breeding, especially when most hunts are before or during the rut.
Post by: buckfvr on August 01, 2013, 04:03:58 PM
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20130713/COLUMNISTS01/307130009/Antler-rule-points-buck-survival-issue (http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20130713/COLUMNISTS01/307130009/Antler-rule-points-buck-survival-issue)
Good read about about APR.
Less older bucks and smaller antlers on the ones that do manage to survive. That pretty much sums it up.
I see they try pretty hard not to blame it on genetic filtering, but consider this. Evolution is not so much about sudden changes for no apparent reason. It's about passing on traits that help your survival chances such as coloring and size. Adaptability! It's why we end up with sub-species like Coues Whitetails. Smaller body size is better in the desert heat than large body mass. So when we make rules for harvesting game based on antler size, we are making antler size an important factor on whether an animal lives to pass on it's genes. If small antlers means an animal has a better chance to pass on it's genes, I guarantee you, more animals will have smaller antlers.
So what credentials do you poses that enable you to make such profound guarantees ?????? When can we ( those of us that live here ) expect to see all these mature bucks with shrinking antlers ?????? How will they do this???? Eat less of the abundant forage or skip noon meal ???????
I spend alot of time seeing which bucks make it through til the end of all hunting seasons.......THE BIGGEST BUCKS SURVIVED...................I know them on a near personal basis, pics spring summer, fall and winter......there are so many bucks in my area its near unbelievable.....I dont tell anyone because no one believes it with out seeing it. THE 4pt rule is working for now and some study somewhere else can not convince me it isnt helping in the immediate sense, we'll see how it looks in anothe couple seasons.....but for now, ITS HELPING......
Post by: bearpaw on August 01, 2013, 04:10:43 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seneca_Army_Depot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seneca_Army_Depot)
Originally the white deer were protected and only brown deer were shot. Being white meant you had a better chance at survival, thus passing on your genes. This is how the white deer herd of Senaca army base was created.
Dogs came from wolves, but selective breeding by humans has created hundreds of breeds of dogs from Chihuahua to St Bernard, only a few of which resemble wolves any more.
Antler restrictions are a form of selective breeding, especially when most hunts are before or during the rut.
OK I agree that you can modify genetics when you control the breeders, but you have sidestepped every point we have made which shows the unlikelihood of this happening in NE WA with the 4 point rule.
Post by: grundy53 on August 01, 2013, 04:23:36 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seneca_Army_Depot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seneca_Army_Depot)
Originally the white deer were protected and only brown deer were shot. Being white meant you had a better chance at survival, thus passing on your genes. This is how the white deer herd of Senaca army base was created.
Dogs came from wolves, but selective breeding by humans has created hundreds of breeds of dogs from Chihuahua to St Bernard, only a few of which resemble wolves any more.
Antler restrictions are a form of selective breeding, especially when most hunts are before or during the rut.
Once again this assumes you kill a huge majority of the largest bucks. Which is not going to happen.
sent from my typewriter
Post by: bearpaw on August 01, 2013, 04:26:46 PM
Post by: buckfvr on August 01, 2013, 04:40:30 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on August 01, 2013, 05:39:23 PM
[quote author=Sitka_Blacktail link=topic=129556.msg1741371#msg1741371
Less older bucks and smaller antlers on the ones that do manage to survive. That pretty much sums it up.
I see they try pretty hard not to blame it on genetic filtering, but consider this. Evolution is not so much about sudden changes for no apparent reason. It's about passing on traits that help your survival chances such as coloring and size. Adaptability! It's why we end up with sub-species like Coues Whitetails. Smaller body size is better in the desert heat than large body mass. So when we make rules for harvesting game based on antler size, we are making antler size an important factor on whether an animal lives to pass on it's genes. If small antlers means an animal has a better chance to pass on it's genes, I guarantee you, more animals will have smaller antlers.
So what credentials do you poses that enable you to make such profound guarantees ?????? When can we ( those of us that live here ) expect to see all these mature bucks with shrinking antlers ?????? How will they do this???? Eat less of the abundant forage or skip noon meal ???????
[/quote]
I've got a computer, the internet, and a brain. Just like you.
The story that was linked mentioned that while the restrictions left more 2 1/2 year old bucks, it actually reduced the # of 3 1/2 year and older bucks because of increased pressure on branched bucks. I've seen similar stories from other states with antler restrictions.
Interesting reading... http://deer.fw.msu.edu/docs/effects%20of%20selective%20harvest%20strategies%20on%20deer%20antler%20size.pdf (http://deer.fw.msu.edu/docs/effects%20of%20selective%20harvest%20strategies%20on%20deer%20antler%20size.pdf)
Post by: boneaddict on August 01, 2013, 05:49:45 PM
Post by: dscubame on August 01, 2013, 06:12:16 PM
Post by: CedarPants on August 01, 2013, 06:13:25 PM
I simply cannot understand why certain people are so opposed to trying this in 2 units for 5 years and then assessing the results. :dunno:
Some appear to be arguing just to argue :twocents:
Post by: PA BEN on August 01, 2013, 09:48:08 PM
I simply cannot understand why certain people are so opposed to trying this in 2 units for 5 years and then assessing the results. :dunno:I'm all for it, but open it up for any buck for kids, disabled and seniors. I hope to take out an 80 year old man who doesn't get around very good this fall. It isn't going to drop the buck population at all. :twocents:
Post by: Bigshooter on August 01, 2013, 10:28:27 PM
I can't believe the lack of mule deer hunters that are on this site constantly complaining about all the giant two points that the 3pt apr has caused have not commented about this.
Post by: Bigshooter on August 01, 2013, 10:36:49 PM
Post by: winshooter88 on August 01, 2013, 10:46:20 PM
Post by: grundy53 on August 02, 2013, 04:53:08 AM
sent from my typewriter
Post by: Bigshooter on August 02, 2013, 06:20:59 AM
Whitetail are very different from mule deer. A 4 point whitetail is pretty much equivalent to a2 point muley. Generally their second year thats what they are.
sent from my typewriter
You need to do some more research on wt's. Everything I can find says a wt generally has 2 or 3 points per side his second year and sometimes more. Which sounds a lot like a mule deer.
Post by: dscubame on August 02, 2013, 06:25:52 AM
Post by: grundy53 on August 02, 2013, 06:59:19 AM
Have you ever hunted whitetails? If have then you would know and you wouldn't have go read about it. I don't know about the south or east. But I do about the northwest. Nothing like mulies.Whitetail are very different from mule deer. A 4 point whitetail is pretty much equivalent to a2 point muley. Generally their second year thats what they are.
sent from my typewriter
You need to do some more research on wt's. Everything I can find says a wt generally has 2 or 3 points per side his second year and sometimes more. Which sounds a lot like a mule deer.
sent from my typewriter
Post by: PA BEN on August 02, 2013, 07:19:36 AM
Again it is to increase deer population NOT for managing antler genetics or breeding large bucks.If you want to increase population stop doe harvest and control coyotes, bears, cats and wolves.
Post by: grundy53 on August 02, 2013, 07:56:18 AM
Again it is to increase deer population NOT for managing antler genetics or breeding large bucks.If you want to increase population stop doe harvest and control coyotes, bears, cats and wolves.
I agree with this also. In conjunction with the Apr...
sent from my typewriter
Post by: whacker1 on August 02, 2013, 08:03:34 AM
Again it is to increase deer population NOT for managing antler genetics or breeding large bucks.If you want to increase population stop doe harvest and control coyotes, bears, cats and wolves.
While I agree, the primary tools to control Cats & Bears have been taken away. And furthermore the Cats take has been limited in numbers. No tools exist at this time to control wolves. And we don't have enough people spending time to control coyotes. So without those tools you have to take additional steps and see if they work.
Post by: huntnnw on August 02, 2013, 09:02:52 AM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on August 02, 2013, 09:13:00 AM
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fxa.yimg.com%2Fkq%2Fgroups%2F2969364%2F1893388056%2Fname%2FMule%2BDeer%2BAntler%2BPoint%2BRestrictions%2Bin%2BBC.doc&ei=l9P7UYqjLKOtigLr6oDoBw&usg=AFQjCNGELBaoyYgpVQhTAeAyz9AbgStZYQ&bvm=bv.50165853,d.cGE (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fxa.yimg.com%2Fkq%2Fgroups%2F2969364%2F1893388056%2Fname%2FMule%2BDeer%2BAntler%2BPoint%2BRestrictions%2Bin%2BBC.doc&ei=l9P7UYqjLKOtigLr6oDoBw&usg=AFQjCNGELBaoyYgpVQhTAeAyz9AbgStZYQ&bvm=bv.50165853,d.cGE)
The money quote....
"Many agencies have used antler point restrictions (APRs) in an attempt to balance expectations of hunters with biological considerations for the deer population. A common perception among hunters is that APRs can lead to both more deer and larger antlered bucks but scientific evidence rarely supports this assertion (Carpenter and Gill 1987; Erickson et al. 2003). For example, Colorado experimented with APRs in 8 game management units for 7 years and found only marginal benefits to buck:doe ratios in some situations and no substantial increase in the proportion of mature bucks (Freddy et al. 1993). Similar findings of little to no improvement in buck/doe ratios using APRs have been determined in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Wyoming and Utah. An additional problem of using APRs is that illegal kills can increase, such as reported in Montana where illegal kills increased to 18% of legal harvest following implementation of an APR"
The illegal kills usually result from people shooting first, then finding out the animal was sub-legal. Alaska has had this problem since it went to a spike/fork - 3 or 4 brow tine - 50 inch rule for moose in many areas.
Post by: turkeyfeather on August 02, 2013, 09:26:35 AM
Bears are easily hunted in E WA .. Problem is probably 25% of the deer and elk hunters even try and hunt them. Your part of the problem if your not hèlpingI agree with you. I don't hunt bears cause I don't like the meat and I hate shooting something I'm not gonna eat. Same reason I don't duck hunt.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on August 02, 2013, 09:32:57 AM
"In conclusion, we summarize reasons why we suggest this APR has been successful at maximizing hunter opportunity while sustaining mule deer populations. Firstly, this season structure is a combination of any-buck and four-point season and is not exclusively an APR. This combination serves to maintain hunter opportunity, ensures harvest is not focused only on older age classes of bucks, and limits harvest during vulnerable periods. "
They use a mix of any buck and a 4 pt rule to protect the older bucks for the rut. Washington's rule puts all the pressure on the larger/older bucks and does it pre-rut. BC's rule makes more sense to me.
Post by: dscubame on August 02, 2013, 01:26:17 PM
Again it is to increase deer population NOT for managing antler genetics or breeding large bucks.If you want to increase population stop doe harvest and control coyotes, bears, cats and wolves.
Yep agree. Many many many factors.
Post by: Bigshooter on August 02, 2013, 01:46:28 PM
And if you live in NE WA you are apparently an expert on whitetails.
Post by: buckfvr on August 02, 2013, 02:18:38 PM
:yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah:
Post by: Jonathan_S on August 02, 2013, 02:23:32 PM
Lets just clean the slate on 121 and 117. Make them both identical to 101 for all deer seasons. The sooner the better. :tup::bdid: :bdid:
:yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah:
Post by: buckfvr on August 02, 2013, 02:29:41 PM
Post by: dscubame on August 02, 2013, 03:41:14 PM
All this other spew that Sitka keeps throwing out is in relation to completely different agendas. Has the antler restrictions not worked with the goal that these studies had in mind, perhaps.
/The fact remains the APR in the case of 117/212 units has been a successful tool in the goal of leaving more deer alive by reducing the human hunter harvest. Again there are many, many, many other factors in dealing with deer population that also need to be addressed but for the strict goal to increase deer population in relation to hunter harvest the APR has been a success. How can it not with almost 50 percent less human hunting in the units? Spin other issues all you want but this statement is fact based on WDFW harvest and hunter reports as previously cited in this thread.
Post by: Bigshooter on August 02, 2013, 03:43:50 PM
Post by: dscubame on August 02, 2013, 03:46:32 PM
Do a google search apr dont make deer herds bigger. That's a fact.
It does when the result is 50 percent less human hunting pressure in the unit creating a huge decrease of number harvested. Again what I am saying is the result of the massive decrease in pressure and harvest numbers has resulted in the increased population due to the APR. Fact is less pressure = less harvest = more deer.
Post by: Bigshooter on August 02, 2013, 03:51:24 PM
Lol ok. Your right and I guess that means a whole bunch of studies on this are wrong.
Bucks don't grow heards. Large populations of bucks puts strain on younger deer during the winter competing for food which causes younger deer to die which in turn reduces the sizes of the herd in the long term. Thats another fact.
Post by: dscubame on August 02, 2013, 03:53:23 PM
Do a google search apr dont make deer herds bigger. That's a fact.
It does when the result is 50 percent less human hunting pressure in the unit creating a huge decrease of number harvested. Fact.
Lol ok. Your right and I guess that means a whole bunch if studies on this are your. Bucks don't grow heards. Large populations of bucks puts strain on younger deer during the winter competing for found which causes younger deer to die which in turn reduces the sizes of the herd in the long term. Thats another fact.
You do not understand what I am saying and I cannot say it any more elementary.
And as far as the food thing the units are full of crop farmers and nature habitat that has supported deer herds in numbers so much higher than they are at currently which is why the WDFW is trying to increase numbers to historical norm. Food in these units are not a problem with current numbers, far from it.
Post by: Bigshooter on August 02, 2013, 03:55:09 PM
Post by: dscubame on August 02, 2013, 03:58:08 PM
Do a google search apr dont make deer herds bigger. That's a fact.
It does when the result is 50 percent less human hunting pressure in the unit creating a huge decrease of number harvested. Fact.
Lol ok. Your right and I guess that means a whole bunch if studies on this are your. Bucks don't grow heards. Large populations of bucks puts strain on younger deer during the winter competing for found which causes younger deer to die which in turn reduces the sizes of the herd in the long term. Thats another fact.
You do not understand what I am saying and I cannot say it any more elementary.
And as far as the food thing the units are full of crop farmers and nature habitat that has supported deer herds in numbers so much higher than they are at currently which is why the WDFW is trying to increase numbers to historical norm. Food in these units are not a problem with current numbers, far from it.
Again you do not understand what I am saying. Less attraction to the unit = less hunters = less harvest = more deer at the end of the season. How can I say this any more simplistic?
Post by: Bigshooter on August 02, 2013, 04:00:51 PM
Post by: dscubame on August 02, 2013, 04:03:08 PM
The problem with your argument is there is nothing that backs it up and every study that has been done on this is contrary to what you believe. I am done with this thread unless some one can post something that says apr works.
You want a argument and I do not have one. Mine is a statement that cannot be disputed because it is based on math and for all the other opinions you and Sitka are spewing I have not nor will address.
Post by: Bigshooter on August 02, 2013, 04:04:26 PM
Post by: Bigshooter on August 02, 2013, 04:07:40 PM
Post by: dscubame on August 02, 2013, 04:12:08 PM
To much food. This area has had bad winter kill before has it not? Isn't winter kill some of the reason they went to apr?
Not sure. Unusually deep snow results in the lack of access to food in the high winter kill years. It is not a lack of food or too many deer eating limited amounts it is the snow restricting access to the food. The deer come down to the lower land and when the lower land has 3 -5 feet they are screwed. Like in 1995 (I think it was 1995) No idea how a APR decision would be swayed if at all.
Post by: dscubame on August 02, 2013, 04:15:07 PM
These are not opinions do a search on the internet. There have been many studies on apr by many different states. You are the one giving an opinion.
Please reread my posts directed back at you because I do not think you will find a opinion by me. Just the facts of the harvest reports I had commented on. :brew:
Post by: buckfvr on August 02, 2013, 04:53:03 PM
To much food. This area has had bad winter kill before has it not? Isn't winter kill some of the reason they went to apr?
Not sure. Unusually deep snow results in the lack of access to food in the high winter kill years. It is not a lack of food or too many deer eating limited amounts it is the snow restricting access to the food. The deer come down to the lower land and when the lower land has 3 -5 feet they are screwed. Like in 1995 (I think it was 1995) No idea how a APR decision would be swayed if at all.
The back to back winters of 08 and 09, snow depth prevented deer from getting food and water in 121......deer yarded up along hwy 25, snow was deep all the way to the Lake shore. Many deer died along hwy 25 and on the lake shore. ( along with most other areas of 121 )
This played into the decision to apply apr. Result, less hunters after a deminished resource. Because of that, more of the remaining deer have survived the last few hunting seasons, each followed by mild winters. Like this year, last few have had early green up, and deer pulled through easily. Many of the local annual deer camps have been empty or close to it......
Matters not what this study or that has concluded, we have a couple more seasons of it before change can come, so we shall see.................
Post by: grundy53 on August 03, 2013, 04:22:46 AM
The problem with your argument is there is nothing that backs it up and every study that has been done on this is contrary to what you believe. I am done with this thread unless some one can post something that says apr works.
You want a argument and I do not have one. Mine is a statement that cannot be disputed because it is based on math and for all the other opinions you and Sitka are spewing I have not nor will address.
Come on.... you should know better then to argue with a google biologist. I mean for gosh sakes the internet told him everythi9ng he needs to know....
Post by: dscubame on August 03, 2013, 07:32:23 AM
The problem with your argument is there is nothing that backs it up and every study that has been done on this is contrary to what you believe. I am done with this thread unless some one can post something that says apr works.
You want a argument and I do not have one. Mine is a statement that cannot be disputed because it is based on math and for all the other opinions you and Sitka are spewing I have not nor will address.
Come on.... you should know better then to argue with a google biologist. I mean for gosh sakes the internet told him everythi9ng he needs to know....
My oversight. I should have checked the internet.
Post by: grundy53 on August 03, 2013, 12:06:08 PM
Post by: bearpaw on August 03, 2013, 12:22:34 PM
To much food. This area has had bad winter kill before has it not? Isn't winter kill some of the reason they went to apr?
Not sure. Unusually deep snow results in the lack of access to food in the high winter kill years. It is not a lack of food or too many deer eating limited amounts it is the snow restricting access to the food. The deer come down to the lower land and when the lower land has 3 -5 feet they are screwed. Like in 1995 (I think it was 1995) No idea how a APR decision would be swayed if at all.
The back to back winters of 08 and 09, snow depth prevented deer from getting food and water in 121......deer yarded up along hwy 25, snow was deep all the way to the Lake shore. Many deer died along hwy 25 and on the lake shore. ( along with most other areas of 121 )
This played into the decision to apply apr. Result, less hunters after a deminished resource. Because of that, more of the remaining deer have survived the last few hunting seasons, each followed by mild winters. Like this year, last few have had early green up, and deer pulled through easily. Many of the local annual deer camps have been empty or close to it......
Matters not what this study or that has concluded, we have a couple more seasons of it before change can come, so we shall see.................
:yeah: very accurately stated
Post by: gun-dog on August 10, 2013, 06:36:47 PM
I am in favor of keeping the 4-point rule indefinitely simply because of the mature bucks that I have watched grow up.
Post by: WildlifeAssassin on August 11, 2013, 09:38:50 AM
Post by: Jonathan_S on August 12, 2013, 09:31:53 AM
APR's are a band-aid on a bullet wound. The wolves have devastated the deer in the area of 121 I used to hunt.
I don't think many people believe APR is a cure to the "bullet wound" but in light of the wolves, winters, and cougars that are unbridled in these units, APR does contribute at least.
It would be incredibly dumb to say, "well since wolves are killing deer indiscriminately, we should just remove APR"
Think optimistically about predator control and keep APR for a while, if we can get some form of hound hunting back for cats and wolves delisted...if only...if only...
Post by: boneaddict on August 12, 2013, 09:39:45 AM
Post by: buckfvr on August 12, 2013, 09:50:38 AM
APR's are a band-aid on a bullet wound. The wolves have devastated the deer in the area of 121 I used to hunt.
The only place I can think this might be true would be in the very south end of 121. Id be curious where you " used to hunt ". We are seeing more deer, and we are spread out covering a large area with cams, have pics of everything BUT wolves.
Post by: bearpaw on August 12, 2013, 10:05:46 AM
APR's are a band-aid on a bullet wound. The wolves have devastated the deer in the area of 121 I used to hunt.
I don't think many people believe APR is a cure to the "bullet wound" but in light of the wolves, winters, and cougars that are unbridled in these units, APR does contribute at least.
It would be incredibly dumb to say, "well since wolves are killing deer indiscriminately, we should just remove APR"
Think optimistically about predator control and keep APR for a while, if we can get some form of hound hunting back for cats and wolves delisted...if only...if only...
If we could convince WDFW to quit restricting the cougar harvest then more cougar would be taken by boot hunters, every NW unit closed early last winter. Historical harvest was far higher than the cougar quotas they are placing on our units
Post by: snowpack on August 12, 2013, 10:55:28 AM
If we could convince WDFW to quit restricting the cougar harvest then more cougar would be taken by boot hunters, every NW unit closed early last winter. Historical harvest was far higher than the cougar quotas they are placing on our unitsIs there an alternative method for controlling the cougars in your area? I was talking to an old Indian guy about a month ago that was selling cat and bear rugs and he was telling me all about all the cats they've been killing with hounds. For the areas we were discussing, it sounded like they were taking more than WDFW has quota for non-tribals (and there were still plenty of cats!). This is kind of out there thinking, but is it possible for the deer/elk hunters to help fund/train the tribes for using hounds to kill off a bunch of cougars? Just do some quick cougar cleanout.
Post by: boneaddict on August 12, 2013, 12:37:25 PM
Post by: finnman on August 12, 2013, 02:26:17 PM
Post by: boneaddict on August 13, 2013, 05:05:31 AM
Darn anecdotal evidence. Too bad we couldn't chart that. Then the haters and disbelievers might believe it. :chuckle:
Post by: Skyvalhunter on August 13, 2013, 05:11:00 AM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on August 13, 2013, 11:23:55 AM
Post by: buckfvr on August 13, 2013, 11:32:36 AM
If you want more older, bigger bucks, why didn't they make it spike/2 pt for 5 years? Then all those young bucks with real potential would have been protected. You'd be seeing way more big bucks by now.
When was the last time you were over here for any length of time ??????? When was the last time you hunted here ( 121/117 ) ???? When was the last time you were able to witness first hand what goes on here from season to season, year to year ????? When did you last count bucks before and after hunting season, especially those you would be familiar with and have pictures of ?????
I have a strong suspicion you enjoy the sake of argument, any argument.
Post by: snowpack on August 13, 2013, 11:43:53 AM
Post by: huntnnw on August 13, 2013, 04:47:25 PM
If you want more older, bigger bucks, why didn't they make it spike/2 pt for 5 years? Then all those young bucks with real potential would have been protected. You'd be seeing way more big bucks by now.
When was the last time you were over here for any length of time ??????? When was the last time you hunted here ( 121/117 ) ???? When was the last time you were able to witness first hand what goes on here from season to season, year to year ????? When did you last count bucks before and after hunting season, especially those you would be familiar with and have pictures of ?????
I have a strong suspicion you enjoy the sake of argument, any argument.
I asked the same question in this thread... No response. He's an armchair bio 300 miles away. All he does is argue. Now it's why didn't we shoot spikes and forks ? Another topic that just shows his ignorance to whitetails and the area here
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on August 14, 2013, 07:07:05 PM
If you want more older, bigger bucks, why didn't they make it spike/2 pt for 5 years? Then all those young bucks with real potential would have been protected. You'd be seeing way more big bucks by now.
When was the last time you were over here for any length of time ??????? When was the last time you hunted here ( 121/117 ) ???? When was the last time you were able to witness first hand what goes on here from season to season, year to year ????? When did you last count bucks before and after hunting season, especially those you would be familiar with and have pictures of ?????
I have a strong suspicion you enjoy the sake of argument, any argument.
I asked the same question in this thread... No response. He's an armchair bio 300 miles away. All he does is argue. Now it's why didn't we shoot spikes and forks ? Another topic that just shows his ignorance to whitetails and the area here
Hah, where are your credentials? All you've got is an opinion just like me. Instead of being a smart alek, maybe you can explain to us in scientific terms why suggesting shooting spikes and forks instead of larger bucks is a bad idea as far as getting more larger bigger bucks into the population fast.
My opinion comes from watching antler restrictions at work in other areas, particularly moose restrictions in Alaska. They use a spike/fork 50 inch or either 3 or 4 brow tine restriction. The spike fork is because only about 40% of male moose start their first rack as a spike or a fork. This lets 60% of the males get into the protected under 50" category and get a few years under their belt and a couple breeding seasons before they are legal again as a 50+ inch bull. The jury is still out on the eye guard restriction. It was put in as a safety net for shooting bulls that appear to be 50 inches but are too close to call, another way to be safely legal. But now in areas that get hit hard by hunters a lot of 50 inch bulls have only 2 brow guards. So it looks like it's changed the conformation of the antlers to a degree. The other problem with the rule is a lot of sub legal bulls get shot and left to rot as people shoot first and measure second. This rule was put in place originally to up the bull/100 cow ratio because years of long any bull seasons had reduced the bull numbers in a lot of popular units to precarious numbers and the cows weren't getting bred or weren't getting bred in a timely manner. Timing is important because if calving season is stretched out, it gives predators a longer shot at the newborns in which case they get hammered more so than if they are all born in a short period. And newborns born later in the year have a harder time with their first winter.
All you guys who think you can stockpile females and hammer the males and you'll have more bucks/bulls to hunt should think again. What you end up with is a large herd of females that isn't all that productive. You need balance to have good herd dynamics. If you think having lots of younger males at the expense of the older males will keep the herd going great you need to think again. Number one, that's the opposite of how nature operates. In nature, lots of young are born, but the % that survive to carry on is fairly small. Nature only needs enough young animals to survive to replace animals that die of old age or predation. To have a robust herd with larger harvests, the harvests need to rely on younger animals of both sexes and older males and females. A good example would be Sweden's moose management.
This is from a study of herd dynamics in Sweden. "An increase in the proportion of young animals in the harvest will increase the proportion of adults and productive animals in the winter population, assuming a constant size after harvest." In Sweden, the number of calves in the average harvest is 30-50%. I doubt that would ever go over here as too many people have "don't kill the young and you'll have more older animals". But in the same study you'll find this statement. "a calf has relatively low impact on future population growth compared with an average female that has given birth for the first time." And "productivity and hence population numbers are highly sensitive to changes in the sex-ratio among productive adults and to the age structure among adult females." In other words, If you want a large success rate, mimic nature and take lots of young animals and males, but leave a proper number of males to have a good male/female ratio, and as the productive females move into the unproductive years, make sure you have enough young females to replace them. Trying to save all your young animals, and putting all hunting pressure hunting older male animals isn't the road to a dynamic herd.
And for all you guys wanting more large (trophy) animals. Here's a lesson from the Swedes. From the same study. "the highest trophy male yields were obtained by concentrating hunting pressure on yearling males and trophy males." In other words, exactly as I suggested earlier in this thread for deer. Take spikes and fork horns (early), and have a 5pt season (after the rut) . And if you need to relieve hunting pressure, make hunters choose one hunt or the other, but not both.
And for the record, I've hunted over there the last two years and been successful both times, altho in unit 111. Have hunted 121 a bit, but I enjoy the public land better than the more private land units. Hunting is hunting with small nuances due to local conditions. This will be my 50th hunting season this year. I know a little.
Post by: whacker1 on August 14, 2013, 07:33:30 PM
Post by: bearpaw on August 14, 2013, 07:38:08 PM
If you want more older, bigger bucks, why didn't they make it spike/2 pt for 5 years? Then all those young bucks with real potential would have been protected. You'd be seeing way more big bucks by now.
I don't disagree, and this was talked about, but it was a more stringent option than was desired by the majority of stakeholders.
Post by: jkoziol_85 on August 14, 2013, 10:39:38 PM
Post by: huntnnw on August 15, 2013, 12:13:59 AM
Post by: PA BEN on August 15, 2013, 05:54:18 AM
huntnnw Not to bust your balls, "BUT", Sitka_Blacktail put where he lives on his profile. Where do you live? BTW, we all are armchair bio's to one degree or another. Out of 38 years of hunting white tails I've hunted 121 for 35 years. 2 years in the military and one year when I hunted the westside when I didn't have the time off work to come over. Only 2 of those years I didn't get a deer and that was my first 2 years of bow hunting. Remember you can't eat horns. Most years I started out hunting for the big guys but meat in the frizzier is more important to me. Now that I'm back I've talked to a lot of the locals and hands down they like the 4 point rule and hands down they would like to see kid's, seniors and disabled shoot any buck.If you want more older, bigger bucks, why didn't they make it spike/2 pt for 5 years? Then all those young bucks with real potential would have been protected. You'd be seeing way more big bucks by now.
When was the last time you were over here for any length of time ??????? When was the last time you hunted here ( 121/117 ) ???? When was the last time you were able to witness first hand what goes on here from season to season, year to year ????? When did you last count bucks before and after hunting season, especially those you would be familiar with and have pictures of ?????
I have a strong suspicion you enjoy the sake of argument, any argument.
I asked the same question in this thread... No response. He's an armchair bio 300 miles away. All he does is argue. Now it's why didn't we shoot spikes and forks ? Another topic that just shows his ignorance to whitetails and the area here
Post by: huntnnw on August 15, 2013, 05:57:32 AM
Post by: buckfvr on August 15, 2013, 06:50:05 AM
Post by: CedarPants on August 15, 2013, 09:50:31 AM
Post by: buckfvr on August 15, 2013, 09:54:23 AM
Just wait till it goes to permit only like it did in the Palouse :chuckle: Up here some don't like that they have to hold out for a 4point. Down there, a lot of people can't hunt their own land. We don't have it that bad up here comparatively
:yeah:
My thought is its only a matter of a few more years before the late modern and archery are permit only, or closed period. Unless ofcourse we are allowed to be proactive regarding predators......
Post by: CedarPants on August 15, 2013, 09:56:06 AM
Unless ofcourse we are allowed to be proactive regarding predators......
Thanks, I needed a good laugh this morning :chuckle:
Post by: BULLBLASTER on August 15, 2013, 10:07:58 AM
Just wait till it goes to permit only like it did in the Palouse :chuckle: Up here some don't like that they have to hold out for a 4point. Down there, a lot of people can't hunt their own land. We don't have it that bad up here comparativelyThe palouse is otc for general season in october and archery and muzzy. Only late rifle is permit only. Everyone can hunt their own land every year.
Post by: CedarPants on August 15, 2013, 10:20:36 AM
Just wait till it goes to permit only like it did in the Palouse :chuckle: Up here some don't like that they have to hold out for a 4point. Down there, a lot of people can't hunt their own land. We don't have it that bad up here comparativelyThe palouse is otc for general season in october and archery and muzzy. Only late rifle is permit only. Everyone can hunt their own land every year.
I was implying during the rut
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on September 18, 2013, 12:01:54 PM
Here's a story about this very problem which I think I alluded to earlier. It's about moose on the Kenai Peninsula in one unit (#15). Of the known kills this year, 30% have been non legal animals. 12 out of 40. Let that sink in. Then realize that for sure there are others that are not found. And these are large animals compared to deer. How many sub legal deer do you suppose are shot and left to rot or feed scavengers when the shooter realizes he's shot an illegal animal? Deer sized game is even less likely to be found.
http://forums.outdoorsdirectory.com/showthread.php/135437-Sub-legal-moose (http://forums.outdoorsdirectory.com/showthread.php/135437-Sub-legal-moose)
Post by: boneaddict on September 18, 2013, 01:03:53 PM
Post by: grundy53 on September 19, 2013, 03:45:40 PM
hard to compare a deer to a moose. 50 inches versus 49 is harder to tell than say 3 point versus 2 point. Most ethical legal hunters don't seem to have a problem anyways with growing that third point. An animal like a moose, looks giant even if its a little bugger........ Yes two points get killed (muledeer), but I guarantee a lot of them survive to be bigger that would be easy tablefare.
:yeah:
Post by: Jonathan_S on September 24, 2013, 12:50:23 PM
:chuckle:
I talked to some goofball who said "with this 4 pt minimum you have to kill a trophy to get anything at all." I, for one, don't miss the any buck rules for 117, 121.
Delist wolves, increase cougar harvest methods, and give out 25 bear baiting permits per GMU annually. Then we could go back to any buck :tup:
Post by: boneaddict on September 24, 2013, 12:53:15 PM
Pretty much still has to have milk on its lips :)
Post by: buckfvr on September 24, 2013, 01:00:34 PM
I guess its for the sake of argument, but by god theres no need to go see whats really going on in these woods.........
Post by: Jonathan_S on September 24, 2013, 01:02:14 PM
I am not great at judging ages of bucks but I think the buck I killed was 2.5 years. It seems that 90% of bucks older than 1.5 have 4 pts. :dunno:
Post by: Jonathan_S on September 24, 2013, 01:04:18 PM
How does Kenai moose correlate with 117/121 whitetails ?????????????????? In a relevant way...........
I guess its for the sake of argument, but by god theres no need to go see whats really going on in these woods.........
Hey! >:(
They did a similar study with a deer herd in Pennslyvania or Transylvania or something :o
They discovered that APR doesn't do what I want :(
:chuckle:
Post by: boneaddict on September 24, 2013, 01:07:27 PM
There are studies done all over. Look at the one done on moose turds and how they correlate to the sex of the animal.
Post by: buckfvr on September 24, 2013, 01:16:14 PM
Studies are generally agenda driven, either to prove ones point ( or attempt to ), or to discredit someone elses.
Post by: Cleve on September 24, 2013, 01:21:09 PM
Post by: Jonathan_S on September 24, 2013, 01:23:28 PM
Restrain yourself one minute and kill something with twice as much freezer meat. :dunno:
:yeah: there is much more meat on a 2.5 + year old buck. Not 150# but still :chuckle:
There are studies done all over. Look at the one done on moose turds and how they correlate to the sex of the animal.
Hah! ;) I'll never forget that. I've always given a little nibble instead but that gets boring pretty quick
Post by: snowpack on September 24, 2013, 01:26:04 PM
How does Kenai moose correlate with 117/121 whitetails ?????????????????? In a relevant way...........
I guess its for the sake of argument, but by god theres no need to go see whats really going on in these woods.........
It's commentary about how animals are left by poachers that didn't verify their target first. Some people out there get so excited at seeing a buck/bull and blast first/verify after. Think it causes a lot of spike/true spike confusion in central and eastern Washington and is cause for leaving animals to lay. Then the guys go continue hunting until getting a legal animal they can put a tag to---so how many animals actually die in order to tag one? Kind of the same deal for bulls on the westside--guys shoot 3 pts and when they get to them see that only one point is above the ear; so they leave it and look for another elk.
The comparison is valid because there are guys out there hunting whitetails that will see a big buck and see a few of the tines but not count--that is valuable time that could be spent shooting right? So they'll kill a big 3 pt and walk away from it because it isn't legal--and go kill a 4 (or more) pointer. So instead of stopping at one dead deer they've killed two or more. Not the best approach to rebuilding a herd. The extent of this for deer vs moose, don't know--I'd imagine a moose is harder to measure than a deer is to count.
Post by: buckfvr on September 24, 2013, 01:30:59 PM
Post by: Jonathan_S on September 24, 2013, 01:31:18 PM
The comparison is valid because there are guys out there hunting whitetails that will see a big buck and see a few of the tines but not count--that is valuable time that could be spent shooting right? So they'll kill a big 3 pt and walk away from it because it isn't legal--and go kill a 4 (or more) pointer. So instead of stopping at one dead deer they've killed two or more.
I see what you're getting at but there are very, very few whitetails that this mistake could be made with. I would submit that a "big 3 pt" whitetail is extremely uncommon.
Post by: Jonathan_S on September 24, 2013, 01:33:17 PM
WTF is a big 3pt ?????????????????????That would be ten times harder to find than a huge 4pt........
:chuckle: :yeah:
That's what I was getting at.
Post by: deaner on September 28, 2013, 12:01:11 PM
WTF is a big 3pt ?????????????????????That would be ten times harder to find than a huge 4pt........
:chuckle: :yeah:
That's what I was getting at.
i agree with you guys that it would be hard to mistake a 3x3 whitetail for a 4x4. much easier to screw up moose antler restrictions. but just an example (though i do agree with what you two are saying, and im all for the restriction) this guy here appears to have only one little browtine on his right side that i dont think would make an inch when the velvet comes off, and that crab claw wouldnt cut it either. i think this guy would legally be a 3x3 with the velvet off, though i can see how somebody could mistake him for a legal buck. he is mature, just bad genetics not having browtines.
Post by: deaner on September 28, 2013, 12:04:29 PM
Post by: Jonathan_S on September 30, 2013, 08:40:38 AM
I suppose the chances of somebody willing to take the chance on a not-obviously legal buck running into one of those anachronisms are low enough to not be concern to me.
Thanks for posting those weird bucks.
Post by: deaner on September 30, 2013, 08:50:48 AM
Post by: pwaldee on September 30, 2013, 05:48:28 PM
Post by: PA BEN on October 02, 2013, 05:57:01 AM
Post by: Jonathan_S on October 02, 2013, 10:21:07 AM
50 deer out in this one field. only 5 small bucks. Tons of does this year and looks like a good fawn crop too. I will say it again. It's not going to heart the deer/buck population for kids seniors and disabled to shoot anything.
This is a great year for fawns, I've been seeing that all over the NE. :tup:
Those 5 small bucks are probably not a good indicator of overall buck numbers and size. I drove past a field last weekend with 100+ deer in it and I didn't see a single buck. However, on trail cameras a few miles away, there are dozens of bucks. A few spikes, a few forkhorns, one three pt and the rest are four or better.
I really disagree that letting kids, seniors, and disabled hunters "shoot anything" won't hurt anything. Just because there is a successful fawn crop we should make them open season? :dunno:
Post by: buckfvr on October 02, 2013, 10:29:58 AM
I still say, there needs to be doe permits for the meat hunters......once things get to that point. Catch is, I believe they should ONLY be able to take a doe. No more of this have a doe permit but kill a pecker head buck just so you can say you got your buck. Its not hard to take a doe that weighs more than a pecker head............
Post by: Jonathan_S on October 02, 2013, 10:32:31 AM
Post by: buckfvr on October 02, 2013, 10:36:08 AM
I agree. I think the "any deer" is silly for any area that there is an effort to manage and increase deer herd quality/numbers. The youth hunt currently scheduled for late season has it right, "4 pt min or antlerless"
:yeah:
Post by: dscubame on October 02, 2013, 11:06:13 PM
Right now, in 117/121, they have shifted the focus on " helping " the herd.......killing any deer you see will by no means help the units. The units are still a ways from where they should be, and with wolves in the huckleberries, we cant afford to loose does and fawns.
I still say, there needs to be doe permits for the meat hunters......once things get to that point. Catch is, I believe they should ONLY be able to take a doe. No more of this have a doe permit but kill a pecker head buck just so you can say you got your buck. Its not hard to take a doe that weighs more than a pecker head............
Exactly what you said. :tup:
Post by: dscubame on October 02, 2013, 11:07:43 PM
I agree. I think the "any deer" is silly for any area that there is an effort to manage and increase deer herd quality/numbers. The youth hunt currently scheduled for late season has it right, "4 pt min or antlerless"
Yep. Right on.
Post by: PA BEN on October 03, 2013, 06:25:32 AM
In my opinion they are managing for bigger bucks. I've lived in and hunted the same areas in 121 for the better part of 38 years. The numbers are on the rise. When I say I'm seeing more does now, that has nothing to do w/a 4 point rule. What we need to look at is not our own desire to shoot the big one. Most hunters who know how to hunt can fill there tag. It's sounds like to me, (In My Opinion) that there is an attitude out there of ME, ME, ME and more ME. "I WANT BIG BUCKS WHERE I HUNT, SCREW THE REST. Kids our our future for hunting, we are all getting old. Someday I might not be able to hunt like I use too. I might want to put meat in the frizzier. We've been killing any buck for a 100 years or more in 121, I had no problem filling my tag, there has been years when the numbers were up and years when they were down. Back in the day the night before deer season opener you would see a string of head lights on 395, all hunters. Why do I say all hunters? Because back then you didn't see many head lights on 395. Everybody wants an OUTDOOR CHANNEL place to hunt. Where you pass on bucks most hunters would shoot. The reality is those people have there own land that they spend tons of money on to manage their own honey hole's. Others spend tons of money to hunt those land. No BIG DEER KILLS ON FILM ON MONEY. Ok, I'm done for now have at me. :chuckle: :twocents:I agree. I think the "any deer" is silly for any area that there is an effort to manage and increase deer herd quality/numbers. The youth hunt currently scheduled for late season has it right, "4 pt min or antlerless"
Yep. Right on.
Post by: dscubame on October 03, 2013, 08:07:13 PM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on October 03, 2013, 10:21:18 PM
Post by: UptheCreek on October 04, 2013, 08:53:50 AM
Post by: vandeman17 on October 04, 2013, 10:21:50 AM
Post by: buckfvr on October 04, 2013, 10:56:15 AM
Thats my last comment on this matter that I will continue to support. R
Post by: buckcanyonlodge on October 04, 2013, 02:43:15 PM
In my opinion they are managing for bigger bucks. I've lived in and hunted the same areas in 121 for the better part of 38 years. The numbers are on the rise. When I say I'm seeing more does now, that has nothing to do w/a 4 point rule. What we need to look at is not our own desire to shoot the big one. Most hunters who know how to hunt can fill there tag. It's sounds like to me, (In My Opinion) that there is an attitude out there of ME, ME, ME and more ME. "I WANT BIG BUCKS WHERE I HUNT, SCREW THE REST. Kids our our future for hunting, we are all getting old. Someday I might not be able to hunt like I use too. I might want to put meat in the frizzier. We've been killing any buck for a 100 years or more in 121, I had no problem filling my tag, there has been years when the numbers were up and years when they were down. Back in the day the night before deer season opener you would see a string of head lights on 395, all hunters. Why do I say all hunters? Because back then you didn't see many head lights on 395. Everybody wants an OUTDOOR CHANNEL place to hunt. Where you pass on bucks most hunters would shoot. The reality is those people have there own land that they spend tons of money on to manage their own honey hole's. Others spend tons of money to hunt those land. No BIG DEER KILLS ON FILM ON MONEY. Ok, I'm done for now have at me. :chuckle: :twocents:I agree. I think the "any deer" is silly for any area that there is an effort to manage and increase deer herd quality/numbers. The youth hunt currently scheduled for late season has it right, "4 pt min or antlerless"
Yep. Right on.
:yeah: :yeah: :yeah:
Post by: PA BEN on October 04, 2013, 08:15:19 PM
This has gone on a long time now...........the only me, me, me.....my kids, my kids my kids I see is you PA..............................you know nothing about the rest of us, we have revealed nothing about our hunting preferences or success or lack of, we simply support letting young animals live. On the other hand, you have permeated this thread with " kill anything ". Your comments sound like those from a young hunter who has never tasted success, but I think you have. THere is no entitlement for killing animals. Like most of the rest of us, when your kids gain the skills to kill a 1 1/2 yr old 4pt, then there ya go. Its not asking alot of any hunter to hold out for a 1 1/2 yr old basket rack 7 or 8pt that still has its milk teeth.You have no clue. I never said MY KIDS or ME, ME, ME in reference to myself. Most, not all of the posts is about BIG BUCKS everywhere. SCREW THE REST AS LONG AS WE GET OUR BIG BUCKS TO HUNT. I support any deer for kids, seniors and disabled. Unless you have taken a kid, senior or disabled hunter out hunting you will have no clue. Might as well make kids buy a fishing license too. You should go back and read my posts you might learn something. BTW, you use "WE" and "THE REST OF US" in your post. Are you the spokesmen for the rest. I have not [b permeated this thread with " kill anything "][/b], I have said I can get my deer. Just open it up for kids, seniors and disabled.
Thats my last comment on this matter that I will continue to support. R
Post by: iusmc2002 on October 04, 2013, 08:24:38 PM
The largest majority of bucks I am seeing in 117/121 are legal...at this point I think it would be much tougher finding bucks that aren't legal.
I've seen 2 legal bucks in 121 this year. One was a mulie (today) and the whitetail looked like a blacktail fawn with a whitetail rack. Seen quite a few spikes, some forked-horns and a couple 3 points, but the legal deer must be hiding or something? :dunno:
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on October 05, 2013, 07:45:35 AM
The largest majority of bucks I am seeing in 117/121 are legal...at this point I think it would be much tougher finding bucks that aren't legal.
I've seen 2 legal bucks in 121 this year. One was a mulie (today) and the whitetail looked like a blacktail fawn with a whitetail rack. Seen quite a few spikes, some forked-horns and a couple 3 points, but the legal deer must be hiding or something? :dunno:
How is his true if we are creating a bunch of big bucks like PABEN said. :chuckle:
I am not sure what area you hunt but if are only focusing on a couple of sections then try spreading out a little if you are able. The age structure might be off in that area you are currently hunting for whatever reason. One area I hunt near Chewelah has 7 legal bucks coming in and not one smaller one. :dunno:
Post by: PA BEN on October 05, 2013, 07:14:04 PM
Post by: Seabass on October 06, 2013, 08:23:13 PM
Most kids are entitled little whiners because we made them that way. They are going to have to follow rules they don't agree with there entire lives. If a rule keeps them out of the woods or lack of "success" makes them loose interest then they probably weren't that into it anyway and might not become life long hunters. My 10 year old son had to hunt to the very last day of the season last year before he got it done. It was AWESOME! My kids play a ton of sports and deal with disappointment all the time. Why should hunting be any different?
Post by: Tommythebarber on October 06, 2013, 09:32:28 PM
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.tapatalk.com%2Fd%2F13%2F10%2F07%2Fmyju6e3u.jpg&hash=aedbe2ec22105a74e9bc885aa3b5caeea01eff1b)
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.tapatalk.com%2Fd%2F13%2F10%2F07%2Fyzapa2e4.jpg&hash=5757ea575adbd356d7a31107ceb8a657829a1e00)
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.tapatalk.com%2Fd%2F13%2F10%2F07%2Fe4yne6u6.jpg&hash=1e07ecc1c1c3e9a8311d90e3c70aa9638667e4a1)
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.tapatalk.com%2Fd%2F13%2F10%2F07%2Fy8e5ugyj.jpg&hash=54d44a3f15232713f9166859cd5259008b3b1651)
Post by: pendoreilleadventures on October 06, 2013, 10:58:05 PM
Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatalk 2
Post by: huntnnw on October 06, 2013, 11:12:39 PM
My son and daughter have had no issues killing legal bucks for the last 3 years now. The rule was implemented the first year my daughter hunted. She was 10 at the time. She didn't know what the old days were like. I told her the rules and we hunted. Period. She had to let 2 or 3 walk before she got her chance. Big fricking deal! I looked at it as more days to be in the wods with my little girl. She looked at it as that's just the way it is. We saw a moose that season and had to pass on it as well.
Most kids are entitled little whiners because we made them that way. They are going to have to follow rules they don't agree with there entire lives. If a rule keeps them out of the woods or lack of "success" makes them loose interest then they probably weren't that into it anyway and might not become life long hunters. My 10 year old son had to hunt to the very last day of the season last year before he got it done. It was AWESOME! My kids play a ton of sports and deal with disappointment all the time. Why should hunting be any different?
No kidding...I get the feeling that alot of people are in just a hurry to fill their tags!! I dont get it... I love being in the outdoors and hunting.
Post by: boneaddict on October 07, 2013, 07:06:32 AM
Post by: boneaddict on October 07, 2013, 07:09:56 AM
Post by: PA BEN on October 08, 2013, 06:01:12 AM
Some of us live in the great outdoors and spend tons of time enjoying the outdoors years round. The meat is also more important than horns to some hunters. If you get a big one it's a bonus w/more meat. :twocents:My son and daughter have had no issues killing legal bucks for the last 3 years now. The rule was implemented the first year my daughter hunted. She was 10 at the time. She didn't know what the old days were like. I told her the rules and we hunted. Period. She had to let 2 or 3 walk before she got her chance. Big fricking deal! I looked at it as more days to be in the wods with my little girl. She looked at it as that's just the way it is. We saw a moose that season and had to pass on it as well.
Most kids are entitled little whiners because we made them that way. They are going to have to follow rules they don't agree with there entire lives. If a rule keeps them out of the woods or lack of "success" makes them loose interest then they probably weren't that into it anyway and might not become life long hunters. My 10 year old son had to hunt to the very last day of the season last year before he got it done. It was AWESOME! My kids play a ton of sports and deal with disappointment all the time. Why should hunting be any different?
No kidding...I get the feeling that alot of people are in just a hurry to fill their tags!! I dont get it... I love being in the outdoors and hunting.
Post by: huntnnw on October 08, 2013, 06:39:57 AM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on October 08, 2013, 06:58:33 AM
My son and daughter have had no issues killing legal bucks for the last 3 years now. The rule was implemented the first year my daughter hunted. She was 10 at the time. She didn't know what the old days were like. I told her the rules and we hunted. Period. She had to let 2 or 3 walk before she got her chance. Big fricking deal! I looked at it as more days to be in the wods with my little girl. She looked at it as that's just the way it is. We saw a moose that season and had to pass on it as well.
Most kids are entitled little whiners because we made them that way. They are going to have to follow rules they don't agree with there entire lives. If a rule keeps them out of the woods or lack of "success" makes them loose interest then they probably weren't that into it anyway and might not become life long hunters. My 10 year old son had to hunt to the very last day of the season last year before he got it done. It was AWESOME! My kids play a ton of sports and deal with disappointment all the time. Why should hunting be any different?
A voice of reason. :tup:
Post by: PA BEN on October 09, 2013, 07:01:33 AM
How is this the voice of reason? It's nice to live close to where you hunt, you can take your kids hunting after school and on the weekends, it's nice to not worry about getting your deer meat because you have an elk in the frizzier, but if you don't have an elk in the frizzier and are taking your kids out of school to go on vacation with you to hunt, that's a different story. Time is a factor. It's great that I'm home now and can hunt out the back door, but for the last 8 years I took vacation to come home and hunt, I would take more time off then my kids so I could help my Dad on the farm, the most I could take my daughters out of school was a week, sometimes only a few days, my wife would drive over to visit and take the kids back to the wet side. Not all kids are entitled little whiners, my kids and the ones I've taken hunting except the fact that you don't always fill your tag. I do know it's not going to destroy the deer population to let kids shoot any buck.My son and daughter have had no issues killing legal bucks for the last 3 years now. The rule was implemented the first year my daughter hunted. She was 10 at the time. She didn't know what the old days were like. I told her the rules and we hunted. Period. She had to let 2 or 3 walk before she got her chance. Big fricking deal! I looked at it as more days to be in the wods with my little girl. She looked at it as that's just the way it is. We saw a moose that season and had to pass on it as well.
Most kids are entitled little whiners because we made them that way. They are going to have to follow rules they don't agree with there entire lives. If a rule keeps them out of the woods or lack of "success" makes them loose interest then they probably weren't that into it anyway and might not become life long hunters. My 10 year old son had to hunt to the very last day of the season last year before he got it done. It was AWESOME! My kids play a ton of sports and deal with disappointment all the time. Why should hunting be any different?
A voice of reason. :tup:
Post by: Seabass on October 09, 2013, 10:13:59 AM
I sort of agree with you on this issue but dog gone it you sound kind of whiney in your comments. I have a hard time feeling sorry for you having a farm in Eastern Washington to take a week long vacation with your kids to hunt. I hunt public land for the most part and none of it is very close to my home. I haven't been able to take a week off with my kids either. I simply roll there little butts out of bed at 4:00 am and we drive an hour to the spot, hunt for a few hours and I drop them off at school a few hours late. I pick one of them up after school and we repeat the process until they tag out or wear out. It's a challenge but it's AWESOME and they will never forget it. I look at it like this. Lots of kids get to take a few days off from school to hunt but not many kids can say they shot a buck before school, went to school and still made it to football or soccer practice the same day. I would love to have a family farm to take my kids to for a week but I don't and no amount of complaining is going to change that. We just do what we do because we love it and if it get's to the point that it's no longer fun we will quit.
I hope you didn't feel like I was specifically calling your kids whiners because I wasn't. However a large number of today's youth are in fact entitled, soft and whiney. That is not a debatable issue! They weren't born that way. We made them that way by our own actions. My only point was that if you want it bad enough you can usually figure out a way to make it happen and success isn't always measured by the outcome. Many times it's about the process. I love the process and I think my kids are learning to love it as well. We have been checking trail cameras together for weeks now and they are itching to get to the woods Saturday morning. My son is up first this year and he has a chance to do something epic. He has a football game 3 hours away from where we hunt so he will only get the first hour of light. He has it in his mind that he will shoot a buck and score a TD in the same day. If it happens it will be pretty cool and I will be exhausted!
Post by: PA BEN on October 09, 2013, 12:20:52 PM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on October 09, 2013, 06:56:12 PM
How is this the voice of reason? It's nice to live close to where you hunt, you can take your kids hunting after school and on the weekends, it's nice to not worry about getting your deer meat because you have an elk in the frizzier, but if you don't have an elk in the frizzier and are taking your kids out of school to go on vacation with you to hunt, that's a different story. Time is a factor. It's great that I'm home now and can hunt out the back door, but for the last 8 years I took vacation to come home and hunt, I would take more time off then my kids so I could help my Dad on the farm, the most I could take my daughters out of school was a week, sometimes only a few days, my wife would drive over to visit and take the kids back to the wet side. Not all kids are entitled little whiners, my kids and the ones I've taken hunting except the fact that you don't always fill your tag. I do know it's not going to destroy the deer population to let kids shoot any buck.My son and daughter have had no issues killing legal bucks for the last 3 years now. The rule was implemented the first year my daughter hunted. She was 10 at the time. She didn't know what the old days were like. I told her the rules and we hunted. Period. She had to let 2 or 3 walk before she got her chance. Big fricking deal! I looked at it as more days to be in the wods with my little girl. She looked at it as that's just the way it is. We saw a moose that season and had to pass on it as well.
Most kids are entitled little whiners because we made them that way. They are going to have to follow rules they don't agree with there entire lives. If a rule keeps them out of the woods or lack of "success" makes them loose interest then they probably weren't that into it anyway and might not become life long hunters. My 10 year old son had to hunt to the very last day of the season last year before he got it done. It was AWESOME! My kids play a ton of sports and deal with disappointment all the time. Why should hunting be any different?
A voice of reason. :tup:
In your case it sounds like the lack of time to take the kids hunting was a personal choice. Every part of this state has public land close enough that taking vacation to take a kid deer hunting would be unnecessary unless you worked daylight to dark 7 days a week.
Post by: PA BEN on October 10, 2013, 06:23:15 AM
10 year old, 2001
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi154.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fs276%2FPABEN07%2FImg_0147.jpg&hash=aa35bf5c9fcf535b057b797a2f1dd24e0e94e3ac) (http://s154.photobucket.com/user/PABEN07/media/Img_0147.jpg.html)
13 year old, 2004
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi154.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fs276%2FPABEN07%2FPICT1029.jpg&hash=43856d511386cfdc479cfd50618ac57816fedf92) (http://s154.photobucket.com/user/PABEN07/media/PICT1029.jpg.html)
First Deer age 8
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi154.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fs276%2FPABEN07%2F100_1537.jpg&hash=69f8b2cf66a2230ccd600ee64fbac4b02d5adf06) (http://s154.photobucket.com/user/PABEN07/media/100_1537.jpg.html)
I shot this deer in 1976
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi154.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fs276%2FPABEN07%2FS5001938.jpg&hash=bb60f620a976a9c29aa09bcdf44320cd5e012239) (http://s154.photobucket.com/user/PABEN07/media/S5001938.jpg.html)
Black tail doe age 9
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi154.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fs276%2FPABEN07%2F100_3243.jpg&hash=4205ea5e3aa5e5f9e8260c1299c48ab064365c72) (http://s154.photobucket.com/user/PABEN07/media/100_3243.jpg.html)
2010
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi154.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fs276%2FPABEN07%2FDSCN0812.jpg&hash=5b6bfd45460afe8a1e5efe1e6d27d9a498637529) (http://s154.photobucket.com/user/PABEN07/media/DSCN0812.jpg.html)
age 9 2000
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi154.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fs276%2FPABEN07%2FMAP0001.jpg&hash=a2c125e1b8ed2dca5c04842756da14f253f900f6) (http://s154.photobucket.com/user/PABEN07/media/MAP0001.jpg.html)
2004 age 15
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi154.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fs276%2FPABEN07%2FPICT1128.jpg&hash=c8e5271a25274e614880a6d2aea5c0a05b45a7a8) (http://s154.photobucket.com/user/PABEN07/media/PICT1128.jpg.html)
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 10, 2013, 08:32:13 AM
Post by: Seabass on October 10, 2013, 01:05:21 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 10, 2013, 07:01:14 PM
All but 1 of those bucks would be legal under today's rules.......
And yet they were still around to take when there was an any buck season. ;)
Post by: PA BEN on October 10, 2013, 07:42:58 PM
Post by: Seabass on October 10, 2013, 07:48:59 PM
Those pics are awesome! It looks like most of your kids don't fall under the youth category anymore.
Post by: PA BEN on October 11, 2013, 06:29:26 AM
PA Ben,Just one left home now, she is 14. It's great to spend time with her and not have to break it up for the rest of the kids. I have one in Spokane who I hope will have time to hunt this year, she could use the meat.
Those pics are awesome! It looks like most of your kids don't fall under the youth category anymore.
Post by: Jonathan_S on October 11, 2013, 08:05:01 AM
Post by: PA BEN on October 11, 2013, 08:46:42 AM
Hey Pa Ben, does that one buck have 2 pedicles?Yeah, it was an odd ball, kinda of a blade w/a another point. Two or 3 years later the neighbor shot one just like it. Hope we got it out of the jean pool. Haven't seen one around scene then.
Post by: Jonathan_S on October 11, 2013, 02:24:11 PM
Hey Pa Ben, does that one buck have 2 pedicles?Yeah, it was an odd ball, kinda of a blade w/a another point. Two or 3 years later the neighbor shot one just like it. Hope we got it out of the jean pool. Haven't seen one around scene then.
Weird trait. That buck you killed in the '70s is a beast!
Post by: PA BEN on January 30, 2014, 03:58:05 PM
Yeah, he field dressed out right at 200 lbs.Hey Pa Ben, does that one buck have 2 pedicles?Yeah, it was an odd ball, kinda of a blade w/a another point. Two or 3 years later the neighbor shot one just like it. Hope we got it out of the jean pool. Haven't seen one around scene then.
Weird trait. That buck you killed in the '70s is a beast!
Post by: bearpaw on February 03, 2014, 12:00:25 PM
Post by: sakoshooter on February 03, 2014, 06:19:46 PM
Post by: dscubame on February 03, 2014, 06:42:54 PM
I really noticed the buck population is picking up in 121 this last season, the 4 pt minimum is working. :tup:
I noticed that too Dale. Also noticed the hunting pressure is starting to return.
Post by: Bean Counter on February 04, 2014, 01:53:17 AM
I really noticed the buck population is picking up in 121 this last season, the 4 pt minimum is working. :tup:
Is this personal observation or are there recent population and harvest surveys available?
Post by: vandeman17 on February 04, 2014, 09:21:47 AM
Post by: gvan on February 04, 2014, 02:05:05 PM
Post by: PA BEN on February 06, 2014, 02:11:06 PM
:yeah:I really noticed the buck population is picking up in 121 this last season, the 4 pt minimum is working. :tup:
I noticed that too Dale. Also noticed the hunting pressure is starting to return.
Post by: GEARHEAD on February 06, 2014, 02:52:33 PM
Post by: hunter399 on February 10, 2014, 07:46:30 AM
Post by: Firetwin3 on February 10, 2014, 05:51:56 PM
Post by: runningboard on February 10, 2014, 06:27:54 PM
I live in 117 gmu and think it has done alot good for the deer herd. And have got my 4 point every year so far, It is really hard for youth and senior and first time hunters. I live next to some public land that gets hunted pretty hard during all the seasons. since deer season has closed i havent seen a four point or better .And some of the spikes and smaller bucks are gone too that i had seen before the saeson started.I think its a good rule ,but there needs more enforcement for it to work the way it should.My wife first year of hunting was the first year it happened and she got her first deer this year.She almost wanted to stop hunting ,but i keep on her to keep trying.and now three years later shes ready to hunt for a four point or better every year.I know a few people involved in getting this rule changed and that's one of their selling points, "those of us that live here won't really be affected because we get 4 point or better anyway."
Wouldn't opening up these for youth/seniors to kill any buck just encourage a certain "breed of folks" to shoot their sons spike, drive it back to their house, then run back out the same day and put down a second non-4 deer and if they got caught just pull out the youth tag and say their kid shot it and it was a legal deer?those "breed of folks" will "bend" the rules no matter what so :dunno:
Post by: hunter399 on February 10, 2014, 07:13:26 PM
Post by: Whitpirate on February 10, 2014, 08:24:37 PM
Post by: Jonathan_S on February 11, 2014, 08:23:07 AM
There were alot more bucks this year over 4 points this year.But as to seeing that world class deer, i dont think so. Anything with 4 points are gonna be gone .Theres alot of presure on those deer now.It dont matter to me if they change it or not ,i hunted before the rule and with the rule sometimes got one ,sometimes didnt hunting was still fun for me .I know theres always gonna be a number of deer taken out of season ect. I dont feel that bad for youth and seniors cause they get 4 days to shoot any doe they want.But i do think youth and first time hunters should get a any buck tag(people that have never shoot a deer).I just dont think they should make rules that wdfw cant no way enforce.Cause we wont see the diffrence that we should be seeing from it.I guess if there is one deer saved for next year,better than nothing. :)
I agree with you except for the bolded part. I could never believe that under the current seasons in those units that all those mountain whitetail 4 pt+ will be gone. Too many escape areas in my opinion.
Post by: hunter399 on February 11, 2014, 05:22:30 PM
Post by: stickbuck on February 11, 2014, 06:05:44 PM
Post by: huntnnw on February 12, 2014, 12:09:44 AM
Post by: PA BEN on May 15, 2014, 06:02:57 AM
Once that buck hits 4.5 most hunters dont ever see a 4.5 yr old hunting and thats not because they dont exist they are smart. Give that buck another year at 5.5 and good luck. I read a stat on bucks over the age of 5 that their chance of being killed by a hunter was under 5% !I hope the mentality of most hunters that travel to hunt here is not the OutDoor Channel mentality. "All I have to do is hunt 121/117 and I will have my pick of a world class buck." Between '75, the first year I started hunting and the mid. '90's, there would be nothing but headlights stacked up on HWY 395 the night before season opened, all headed North. After the Blue Tongue out break the fall of '92 and the hard winter of "92/"93, the hunting pressure has dropped. BTW, the deer season of '92, if you drew a doe tag it was a double doe tag and after the big kill the season of "93 was a double doe tag too. All the deer #'s dropped, the hunting pressure dropped and the endless rolls of headlights went away too. Now with all this talk about the numbers of big bucks the pressure will surly be on the rise. If it was about deer #'s there should be no antlerless tags or hunts at all. One buck can breed a lot of does. :twocents:
Post by: huntnnw on May 15, 2014, 06:22:25 AM
Post by: tonymiller7 on May 15, 2014, 07:16:43 AM
Post by: Shane54 on May 16, 2014, 07:48:56 PM
Post by: PA BEN on May 17, 2014, 05:49:52 AM
I have friends who live there who originally hated the idea but after putting in extra time, hunting hard, and shooting some of their biggest bucks ever, they like the rules now. Especially during the late hunt.You are right, but most if not all who live here agree it should be lifted for youth, disabled and seniors.
Post by: PA BEN on May 17, 2014, 05:56:04 AM
rifle pressure has dropped and archery in the last 10 years has increased 400%If the deer population was in that bad of shape then all doe hunting should be done away with. With late archery a hunter hunts those big bucks doesn't get one, the tag is filled w/a meat doe.
Post by: bearpaw on May 18, 2014, 11:44:57 PM
rifle pressure has dropped and archery in the last 10 years has increased 400%If the deer population was in that bad of shape then all doe hunting should be done away with. With late archery a hunter hunts those big bucks doesn't get one, the tag is filled w/a meat doe.
I would have preferred to have seen no doe for the late archery, we would have had an even faster recovery. But that wasn't the way they did it. In the areas I have been turkey and bear hunting the deer numbers are definitely rebounding from a few years ago in 121 and 117.
I hope WDFW is collecting solid data so that we can compare other area units with 117/121 after the 5 year trial is completed. :tup: