Post by: Pete112288 on September 30, 2013, 10:38:39 AM
Post by: rtspring on September 30, 2013, 10:45:26 AM
Post by: Jonathan_S on September 30, 2013, 10:47:27 AM
I, for one, would not support a spike only restriction on Roosevelt Elk without seeing some hard evidence that it would help the herd(s).
Post by: Pete112288 on September 30, 2013, 10:59:19 AM
Post by: jay.sharkbait on September 30, 2013, 11:18:35 AM
I shoot the first legal animal I see.
Post by: Humptulips on September 30, 2013, 11:59:28 AM
Trophy schmofy
I shoot the first legal animal I see.
:yeah:
I killed some big bulls when it was any bull, not since. IMO it's just a way to limit hunters and sell special hunt apps.
Post by: jackmaster on September 30, 2013, 12:04:29 PM
Post by: Halo on September 30, 2013, 12:11:13 PM
Post by: PlateauNDN on September 30, 2013, 12:24:39 PM
Post by: huntnphool on September 30, 2013, 12:32:33 PM
:yeah: I was just going to bring this up since I seeing it going that way. Less road access would be of better improvement in certain areas/units.+1
Post by: JLS on September 30, 2013, 12:41:00 PM
:yeah: I was just going to bring this up since I seeing it going that way. Less road access would be of better improvement in certain areas/units.+1
+2
The genetics are already there.
Post by: bobcat on September 30, 2013, 12:55:42 PM
That can be done with APR's, limiting access, or limiting the number of hunters.
I'd be a strong supporter of limited access with the use of gates, but the problem is it seems the state wants to give the Indian tribes keys to all the gates. Not sure if the same thing is happening on federal lands.
APR's are kind of the same deal. Why limit us to only spikes, or 3 point minimum, when another group of people don't have to follow the same rules? All it does is create trophy areas for them, and less opportunity for us.
Post by: JLS on September 30, 2013, 01:02:21 PM
I don't think genetics is a very important factor. It's more an issue of age. You have to let the bulls grow up for them to reach their true potential.
Sure they are. An old bull or buck with crappy genetics may not equal a four year old with great genetics.
That can be done with APR's, limiting access, or limiting the number of hunters.
I'd be a strong supporter of limited access with the use of gates, but the problem is it seems the state wants to give the Indian tribes keys to all the gates. Not sure if the same thing is happening on federal lands.
APR's are kind of the same deal. Why limit us to only spikes, or 3 point minimum, when another group of people don't have to follow the same rules? All it does is create trophy areas for them, and less opportunity for us.
Winner, winner, chicken dinner.....
Who cares about creating more trophies that can be shot on winter range and sold for a profit?
Post by: Jonathan_S on September 30, 2013, 01:09:27 PM
Why limit us to only spikes, or 3 point minimum, when another group of people don't have to follow the same rules? All it does is create trophy areas for them, and less opportunity for us.
:yeah: :yeah:
Post by: bobcat on September 30, 2013, 01:10:19 PM
Quote
I don't think genetics is a very important factor. It's more an issue of age. You have to let the bulls grow up for them to reach their true potential.
Sure they are. An old bull or buck with crappy genetics may not equal a four year old with great genetics.
I agree, but as you said in your previous post- "the genetics are already there."
Post by: JLS on September 30, 2013, 01:17:31 PM
QuoteI don't think genetics is a very important factor. It's more an issue of age. You have to let the bulls grow up for them to reach their true potential.
Sure they are. An old bull or buck with crappy genetics may not equal a four year old with great genetics.
I agree, but as you said in your previous post- "the genetics are already there."
Gotcha. I think I misunderstood what you were getting at.
Post by: Jonathan_S on September 30, 2013, 01:22:49 PM
For crying out loud the herds managed to keep good genetics for thousands and thousands of years.
Then they see a good buck or bull and think, "wow, great genes! we need to manage this herd and make sure he spreads his seed..." when in reality it was probably just a buck/bull that beat the odds and lived to his full potential.
For those who can't let go of the genetics argument, you better find out how to identify which does/cows have the best antler traits in their gametes because they contribute 50% to antler genes.
Predator management and winter-range management will be the downfall of herds, and the reason for a lack of "Trophy Quality"
Post by: TheHunt on September 30, 2013, 01:28:48 PM
I don't think genetics is a very important factor. It's more an issue of age. You have to let the bulls grow up for them to reach their true potential.
Sure they are. An old bull or buck with crappy genetics may not equal a four year old with great genetics.
That can be done with APR's, limiting access, or limiting the number of hunters.
I'd be a strong supporter of limited access with the use of gates, but the problem is it seems the state wants to give the Indian tribes keys to all the gates. Not sure if the same thing is happening on federal lands.
APR's are kind of the same deal. Why limit us to only spikes, or 3 point minimum, when another group of people don't have to follow the same rules? All it does is create trophy areas for them, and less opportunity for us.
Who cares about creating more trophies that can be shot on winter range and sold for a profit?
If there was not so many trophies killed on winter range. I would love to see some game management in this state. Why do you think so many folks hunt out of this state?
Post by: JLS on September 30, 2013, 01:37:18 PM
Predator management and winter-range management will be the downfall of herds, and the reason for a lack of "Trophy Quality"
Or, simply the number of animals killed.
Post by: JLS on September 30, 2013, 01:42:00 PM
I think a lot of people put way too much stock into genes.
Maybe.
I can't tell you if it's a nutritional component or not, but I can give you many examples of areas that produce mediocre deer in terms of true trophy quality relative to other areas. It could be that genetics play a large role, or a complimentary role. I don't know. But to simply dismiss them is somewhat presumptious.
Also, I can show you areas where deer don't have the genetic antler makeup to produce numerical trophies. Sure, they are good bucks, but they may pale in comparison scorewise to similar age class deer in other areas.
Post by: NOCK NOCK on September 30, 2013, 01:49:29 PM
I don't think genetics is a very important factor. It's more an issue of age. You have to let the bulls grow up for them to reach their true potential.Bobcat, that last sentence summons it up pretty good, I agree
That can be done with APR's, limiting access, or limiting the number of hunters.
I'd be a strong supporter of limited access with the use of gates, but the problem is it seems the state wants to give the Indian tribes keys to all the gates. Not sure if the same thing is happening on federal lands.
APR's are kind of the same deal. Why limit us to only spikes, or 3 point minimum, when another group of people don't have to follow the same rules? All it does is create trophy areas for them, and less opportunity for us.
Post by: Jonathan_S on September 30, 2013, 02:08:36 PM
I think a lot of people put way too much stock into genes.
Maybe.
I can't tell you if it's a nutritional component or not, but I can give you many examples of areas that produce mediocre deer in terms of true trophy quality relative to other areas. It could be that genetics play a large role, or a complimentary role. I don't know. But to simply dismiss them is somewhat presumptious.
Also, I can show you areas where deer don't have the genetic antler makeup to produce numerical trophies. Sure, they are good bucks, but they may pale in comparison scorewise to similar age class deer in other areas.
Well, I mostly agree with you. I don't think I dismiss genetics, I just think there are much bigger fish to fry.
Tell you what, I'll agree with you and tell everybody that I'm wrong if you show me where the best genetics are, preferably before next September :chuckle:
Post by: JLS on September 30, 2013, 02:12:27 PM
I think a lot of people put way too much stock into genes.
Maybe.
I can't tell you if it's a nutritional component or not, but I can give you many examples of areas that produce mediocre deer in terms of true trophy quality relative to other areas. It could be that genetics play a large role, or a complimentary role. I don't know. But to simply dismiss them is somewhat presumptious.
Also, I can show you areas where deer don't have the genetic antler makeup to produce numerical trophies. Sure, they are good bucks, but they may pale in comparison scorewise to similar age class deer in other areas.
Well, I mostly agree with you. I don't think I dismiss genetics, I just think there are much bigger fish to fry.
Tell you what, I'll agree with you and tell everybody that I'm wrong if you show me where the best genetics are, preferably before next September :chuckle:
Colorado 8)
Post by: Jonathan_S on September 30, 2013, 02:18:30 PM
I haven't ever came across it?
Post by: JLS on September 30, 2013, 02:19:52 PM
Is that a road in GMU 204?
I haven't ever came across it?
You have to buy the super secret GPS decoder chip. They are not just available anywhere :)
Post by: jackmaster on September 30, 2013, 03:28:43 PM
Post by: rosscrazyelk on September 30, 2013, 07:34:19 PM
I like the idea of what rtspring said, that was my exact thoughts. But that is true as well that it would be nice to see some evidence of it working on the westside first. All I know is that in the area of the 550 I hunt, I cant go up without seeing almost more spikes than cows. I see groups of 10-30 animals and it is very common for me to see over half of each group is spikes. The record for me so far just had my jaw dropped. Scouting in August I saw a group of 27 elk, 1 BIG bull (never got a good count on points it was in and out of the trees, I was watching this group from 700 or so yards across a ravine with the spotting scope for an hour or so) 7 cows, 1 calf, 18 spikes. Then on the hike out going the other direction saw another group of 6, 2 were cows, 4 were spikes.I normally would have a hard time believing this . I have never seen more than three spikes in a herd until this weekend. I saw a herd of 50+ animals with 21 bulls. 7 which were spikes. Crazy stuff
Post by: bobcat on September 30, 2013, 07:36:52 PM
Post by: Booman2 on September 30, 2013, 07:43:59 PM
Post by: Alan K on September 30, 2013, 07:50:56 PM
It'd be just the same as when they went to 3 pt. minimum from any bull. I'm sure people thought it was the end of the world when they did it, but now those same bulls are taken with another year of antler and body growth.
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on October 02, 2013, 07:11:26 PM
Post by: sakoshooter on October 03, 2013, 11:03:43 PM
[/quote]
Agreed. It was a good idea to get the east side herd built back up with mature bulls but the WDFW was supposed to change it back after a few year. Yeah right.
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on October 04, 2013, 12:08:56 PM
If they did not manage herds by balancing the harvest in some way, then we would soon hunt them out of a job.
By making money by selling permits, they are essentially creating a sustainable market.
"Quality" and OIL tags, raffles, etc. is money to enhance their budget, general season and antlerless permits is their customer base.
That's why they won't change it back, be like breaking their piggy bank.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 04, 2013, 02:00:47 PM
The idea that you protect all the young and hammer the breeding age animals that many in North America espouse is actually counter productive. Think of a rancher raising cattle. In the fall, he doesn't sell off all his breeding stock and keep his yearlings. If he did, he wouldn't have much of a crop the next year. He sells off his young animals except for what he needs to replace the breeders that have gotten to old to produce, and the older animals that aren't productive any more.
For those who think genetics don't matter I would offer this. Last year I was invited to go on a hunt at one of the premier Texas hunting ranches all expenses paid. The basic hunt was for a 150 class buck. Now this ranch was chuck full of native Texas whitetails. Most of which wouldn't go over 150 gross B&C. Some nice looking bucks to be sure, but no real jaw droppers. Now if you wanted something bigger, they would accommodate you, but you hunted in a special part of the ranch where they had a breeding program that featured bucks with super genetics brought in from the mid-west. These animals were isolated from the native Texas deer and produced eye popping bucks if you're into such things. The point being, on the rest of the ranch, without the genetic infusion, the native whitetails could have lived forever and never produced a 200 inch buck, but with the genetic infusion and a mineral supplement program, that special part of the ranch produced multiple 200 inch bucks every year, not to mention the 240" and above category.
Post by: erk444 on October 04, 2013, 05:13:23 PM
Post by: chukarchaser on October 04, 2013, 09:40:22 PM
Post by: Bullkllr on October 05, 2013, 07:14:05 AM
Post by: Jonathan_S on October 08, 2013, 03:22:59 PM
The point being, on the rest of the ranch, without the genetic infusion, the native whitetails could have lived forever and never produced a 200 inch buck, but with the genetic infusion and a mineral supplement program, that special part of the ranch produced multiple 200 inch bucks every year, not to mention the 240" and above category.
Time to get some of that "mineral supplement" and start dropping it from helicopters :tup:
If the subject is inventing a new maximum trophy quality then I suppose GMO and bringing in elk from AZ would be the answer.
If the goal is just to capitalize on what's already there, then I agree that killing spikes and limited big bulls is the answer. I wouldn't compare it directly to whitetails though. Particularly fenced ranches. I imagine that in free-chase areas, the mature whitetail buck has a much better chance of escaping death by hunter than does a screaming bull elk so in regards to the 4 pt minimum for deer, I think it should stay.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 08, 2013, 05:58:19 PM
Want more big bulls on the west side? Raise the minimum point restrictions. . . Make elk on the west side 5 or 6 pt. minimum and you'd have them running around all over in a few years provided you're outside areas pounded by the tribes. It would be a couple years of slim pickings though to get to that point.
Here's a couple units that might prove your theory wrong. Matheney 618 and Quinault Ridge 638. When I was growing up and first started hunting in the 70's these two units were any bull and two of the best units to hunt on the west side. My family had a cabin at Quinault and we hunted hard with a fairly big crew of uncles, cousins and friends. Most years we had at least a dozen of us at some point in the season. We probably averaged 5 or 6 bulls a year, sometimes more, not very often less. Wasn't uncommon to have three or four down on opening day. When we wanted to give Quinault a rest we'd hunt Matheny around Higley Peak. We knew a few other big groups and they usually had about the same success as we did. Then they decided to make Quinault ridge a trophy hunt. If I remember right for a while it was 5 pt or better. Now it's 3 pt or better as is Matheney. Been that way for decades.
You know what they get there now? How any big trophy bulls they take out of 638 with all these years of protecting the spikes? Last year the total bull harvest was 14. That is pathetic. Now Lets break it down....... There was 1 three point, 7 four points, 3 five points, and 3 six point or better taken. Hell, our group used to get 2 or 3 five points a year and maybe a six point once in a while and so would our neighbors. And we might take a couple spikes a year. But we never had trouble finding big bulls because we worked for them. Anybody who's ever hunted up from the Quinault Valley knows what I'm talking about. It's steep and the packing out isn't easy. We had guys who never shot an elk, but when it came to packing out, they were gold because they got it done and didn't complain.
But I digress. The point is, more elk and more big bulls were killed there back in the days of spike hunting. The same in the Matheney Unit. So what's the point of those units being 3 pt or better? There is enough cover in those units and few roads in the Quinault unit so animals will get big there without any help.