Post by: caseyv21 on November 04, 2008, 04:16:59 PM
Post by: Jason on November 04, 2008, 04:21:06 PM
Post by: SHANE(WA) on November 04, 2008, 10:17:48 PM
Post by: Schmalzfam on November 05, 2008, 05:15:08 AM
I'm not against antler restriction, I am just asking.
Post by: Palmer on November 05, 2008, 05:58:54 AM
The ratio of 1:3, bucks:doe is very good already and the bucks respond well to grunts and rattling. So I'm more in favor of more anterless permits over opening up anterless altother.
Post by: Gobble on November 05, 2008, 06:08:59 AM
just wondering if anybody else was in favor of a 3 or 4 point antler restriction for northeastern whitetails. The population has exploded and the potential for big bucks is out there but there's just too many guys shooting little spikes that have no chance to grow up. I think if the wdfw makes new antler restrictions that washington could produce some of the biggest bucks in the country. Right now in the late season its any buck for rifle hunters north of spokane. This in particular needs to change.
Nope, I think there is far too many WT already. They are pushing out the Mule deer that are much more desirable IMHO. I think they should leave it the way it is.
Post by: DeKuma on November 05, 2008, 06:18:37 AM
Post by: Sagedawg on November 05, 2008, 06:21:09 AM
Sage
Post by: MHWASH on November 05, 2008, 06:28:41 AM
You need to keep in mind most hunters are looking for any deer to shoot. If a person is looking for a quality deer there are plenty up there. You just need to change your hunting style.
The down side to antler restrictiond in the N.E. would be lots of small bucks shot and left to rot. Much of the N.E. is so thick the only shot is a running one.
Post by: croix on November 05, 2008, 09:58:59 AM
With regard to spike antlers, they found that bucks with spike antlers their first year rarely grew more than 7 points even after 5.5 years with exceptional food. Truly trophy racks were only grown by bucks with forked antlers their first year. Additionally, bucks that were spikes their first year almost never produced offspring that were bigger than spikes on year one. The only exception was when spikes were bred with one particular doe, that doe's dna was such that forked bucks were still produced.
The bottom line was:
If you want more bucks with average racks, then let the spikes walk.
If you want bucks with larger (trophy) racks, pull the trigger on those spikes.
This study completely changed my views on antler restrictions. Not being able to cull the genetically inferior spikes would be detrimental to the development of big racks. It seems that a restriction of spike OR greater than four point would be the best way to get some trophies out there.
More food for thought.
Post by: caseyv21 on November 05, 2008, 12:05:30 PM
Post by: CP on November 05, 2008, 12:56:23 PM
I’d rather see deer managed for healthy sustainable numbers rather than rack size. Then maybe we could have larger limits. I’d much rather have 2, 3 or 4 average deer over 1 big buck.
But if we really want big racks, why do we shoot a large racked mature buck at the prime of his life? He has the right genetics and is the most capable of passing those genetics on. Shoot him and pencil rack takes his place and starts passing on the pencil rack genes. Antler restrictions go the wrong way; it should 4 point or less.
Maybe we need a new “big buck” ( 6x6 or better) tag for those who want trophy racks. When you buy your license you can choose the “multiple average deer” tags, or opt for a big buck tag, but not both. We would probable need to go to a draw on the big buck tag.
Post by: shanevg on November 05, 2008, 02:09:50 PM
I also think there should be more second deer doe tags to get some of the does out of there. And second deer tags should not use points.
Post by: Colville on November 05, 2008, 03:05:22 PM
There are miles and miles of roadless areas guys can chase low pressure deer to their hearts content. Tons of NF/State/BLM/Wilderness/Wildlife Refuge. There are big bucks there even in the high pressure areas they are just harder to hunt. Also, there are muzz and archery seasons that are true rut hunts that improve the odds of seeing mature deer.
Invariably it's not just about the numbers of big bucks, but guys want them to be easy to find and kill. Problem is you have to steal the hunting opportunity from everyone to provide it to the minority that think the most important thing about their hunt is the rack.
The NE is that last place a family camp can go with decent odds of harvest where the old and young can participate with ease. Tons of these family camps are there that could give a fig about racks. That herd is already offering both quantity and quality for those willing to pursue it. I just don't understand why some folks feel they are entitled to antler restrictions when it's not required to ensure the herd and it costs so many others their hunting tradition. The big bucks are there, go get em and let everyone else keep their hunts as they've been doing em now for years and years.
Post by: MHWASH on November 05, 2008, 03:17:51 PM
I could not have said it better. Good point.
Post by: DeKuma on November 05, 2008, 03:19:52 PM
Post by: Gobble on November 05, 2008, 03:35:04 PM
Post by: croix on November 05, 2008, 03:35:48 PM
Of course the whole herd would get out of whack if there isn't also an allowance for antlerless deer. Allowing antlerless increases the buck:doe ratio (which has been proven to increase overall herd strength, quality, and size) and provides even more opportunities for those family hunts - which I also value a great deal.
I wouldn't be happy if the only chance my 14 yo daughter had of harvesting a deer was 4 point or better, but I feel there are ways to offer opportunity and increase overall genetic quality of the whitetails in NE Wa.
Post by: Palmer on November 05, 2008, 04:20:47 PM
Post by: rasbo on November 05, 2008, 04:33:14 PM
Couldn't have said it better myself Colville. Not everyone in completely engulfed in the Antler hunt. I love to shoot the big uns as much as the next guy but I also love venison as does my family. If I can take a lesser buck near the end of the latehunt I will :dunno:at the price of tags,Im not to picky,Ive got two packs of deer left,if its legal its going down.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on November 05, 2008, 04:47:12 PM
Post by: hambone on November 05, 2008, 09:59:32 PM
Post by: bornforhorns on November 05, 2008, 10:31:17 PM
Post by: SHANE(WA) on November 05, 2008, 10:42:43 PM
Post by: SHANE(WA) on November 05, 2008, 10:51:52 PM
Post by: Colville on November 05, 2008, 11:08:09 PM
Rack hunters always assume there's no drift in pressure and everyone is hunting for their reasons. NE WA is the only ultra productive area that can stand 2 general any buck seasons by rifle in the state. Take that away and the incentive to hunt there disappears and all the easy access east slope mule deer areas get the pressure. Why drive 8 hours when you get the same odds in the Klickitat, Manastash, Manson, Okanogan etc. This hunt provides, (mind you without consequence to the herd, it's doing marvelously) fantastic hunting opportunity for tons of days afield. Restrict it by antler and you redistribute those hunters. Almost NO ONE lives in that part of the state so most of it's hunters migrate there for the season and will think twice before doing so if their traditional success rates are halved.
There's no post suggesting any study that says NE whitetail herds are harmed by the way they are hunted now and for the last decade. They can be managed for either maximum quality or maximum opportunity but not both. Move to quality and you have to able to apply the law of supply/demand and that of diminishing returns to hunter pressure and distribution.
The continuous push for rack hunting means less success, fewer hunters, fewer hunter days per year and fewer families continuing their traditional hunting camps. The whole thing reeks of hunt elitism. As if the reason we pursue our hunts with our fathers, sons and daughters is strictly one of horns. As though we don't have the option to pursue horns without taking this opportunity from them.
Bone has killed enough to carry stick and string in a rifle draw season. God bless him, that's cool and a position I completely respect. But one he's chosen and not one he's been forced to make. Another young family man has a 65 year old father with limited eye sight and mobility, a son who's 13 and daughter who's 11. They make sausage, jerky and roasts all off season and relive their experiences. They've hunted the same camp for 20 years. Their enjoyment comes from their family, memories and hunts re-experienced in the venison they process and sustain themselves by all year. Horn hunters are dropping trow and pissing on their tradition because it doesn't make big enough racks and what kills me is they feel righteous as they do it.
Post by: croix on November 06, 2008, 08:07:17 AM
Here are some of the highlights:
58% of bucks taken were yearlings
18-19% of bucks taken had 5 pts or more on their high side
Antlerless harvests were up 27%
Buck to doe ratios are as high as 35:100
Bucks taken over the age of 4 was 26-27%
Overall whitetail harvest increased 19% (congruent with 19% increase in hunter participation)
Although I would personally like to see a higher buck:doe ratio, I think that the current plan of allowing the increased harvest of antlerless deer (limited second tags, youth, senior, and ADA tags) is a step in the right direction.
Bottom line - Based on this data there is NO WAY that I can support any form of antler restrictions in the NE.
Thanks to Colville for pointing out "There's no post suggesting any study that says NE whitetail hers are harmed by the way they are hunted now...", but I gotta say that I don't think all rack hunters "always" assume anything.
Post by: bobcat on November 06, 2008, 08:24:12 AM
I'm in favor of the three point restriction. more mature deer in the herd makes a healthier herd.
How would a 3 point restriction provide more mature deer? Seems to me it would do the opposite. With the restriction, all the guys who would have shot little spikes and 2 points will end up shooting a bigger buck (or nothing at all.) So won't the harvest of mature bucks increase, and therefore decrease the number of mature bucks in the herd? Just asking as I'm confused as to how putting more pressure on the mature bucks will increase their numbers.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on November 06, 2008, 08:35:21 AM
Restrict this northern whitetail herd that can take a tremendous pressure and still be viable and you will distribute those folks back to mule deer. If the odds of a kill become comparable to mule deer because you have a 4 pt reg, why skip general mule deer near home to drive for late whites?I think you're right on this point. There's likely to be some hunter movement if there's a 3 pt regulation.
What some people are not understanding is that the harvest will not be halved...for long. The deer will still be there, but for a season or two they may not be legal. The # of bucks that mature will go up and in a couple of seasons we'll see harvest in line with current stats, except the % of mature deer harvest will be higher. It's going to take a few seasons, but everyone is likely to benefit from this regulation.
There are several advantages to having more mature deer in the herd. The mature bucks are more successful breeders. This creates a more tightly defined rut and therefore a more tightly defined fawning period. The fawning period is critical for two reasons, does can "flood the market" for predators for the first few weeks of the fawns life to decrease predation and the fawns are more prepared for a winter if they're concieved on the first estrus cycle.
Some argue that there will be more two points left dead in the woods...I'm not sure how to approach this. I guess it's like everything else- if we (hunters) can't police ourselves, no regulations will work. I don't see lots of dead 2 pt mule deer left in the woods, I'm not sure why we would expect to see that with white tails?
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on November 06, 2008, 08:39:32 AM
I'm in favor of the three point restriction. more mature deer in the herd makes a healthier herd.
How would a 3 point restriction provide more mature deer? Seems to me it would do the opposite. With the restriction, all the guys who would have shot little spikes and 2 points will end up shooting a bigger buck (or nothing at all.) So won't the harvest of mature bucks increase, and therefore decrease the number of mature bucks in the herd? Just asking as I'm confused as to how putting more pressure on the mature bucks will increase their numbers.
Good question- there will be more mature deer to hunt because the spikes and forks (highest percentage of harvest) will have the chance to mature into three points.
There may also be more escapement becasue hunters will have to id their target and the deer might have a chance to run.
Post by: bobcat on November 06, 2008, 08:57:21 AM
There may also be more escapement becasue hunters will have to id their target and the deer might have a chance to run.
Now that part I can believe. That makes sense. And yes, I could see that there might be more little 3 points, but are those really "mature" deer? A 3 point buck could very likely be just a 2 1/2 year old deer.
In my opinion if you really want more quality mature bucks in the herd you would have to get rid of the general season and make it by permit only.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on November 06, 2008, 09:13:13 AM
you're right on there. Lot's of 2 1/2 yr old deer have three points and quite a few will get taken. But, quite a few will live too...and hopefully mature, which is better than we have now.There may also be more escapement becasue hunters will have to id their target and the deer might have a chance to run.
Now that part I can believe. That makes sense. And yes, I could see that there might be more little 3 points, but are those really "mature" deer? A 3 point buck could very likely be just a 2 1/2 year old deer.
Post by: Colville on November 06, 2008, 11:26:21 AM
No one has put up anything that suggests the breeding rate is a problem. No facts that the number of mature whites are inadequate. No facts that herd numbers are declining or in danger relative to our harvest, buck doe ratios etc as opposed to weather. None.
Pretty hard to tell everyone that you have a solution to a problem you haven't proven exists, that it'll take away their traditional hunts and that it's in their best interest all on "I say so". I don't deny that more mature bucks would be available under the suggestions. I deny that there's any underlying problem. There's just a desire for a certain buck demographic and it's arbitrary. If you think it's not arbitrary I'm open minded, lets have the evidence.
Post by: 7mmfan on November 11, 2008, 09:26:03 AM
Post by: hambone on November 11, 2008, 12:17:55 PM
Post by: SHANE(WA) on November 12, 2008, 01:02:40 AM
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on November 12, 2008, 05:39:45 AM
I'm in favor of the three point restriction. more mature deer in the herd makes a healthier herd.
How would a 3 point restriction provide more mature deer? Seems to me it would do the opposite. With the restriction, all the guys who would have shot little spikes and 2 points will end up shooting a bigger buck (or nothing at all.) So won't the harvest of mature bucks increase, and therefore decrease the number of mature bucks in the herd? Just asking as I'm confused as to how putting more pressure on the mature bucks will increase their numbers.
Two possible outcomes with minimum antler point restrictions and no other changes: 1) legal buck harvest increases, total buck harvest decreases, and post-season total buck survival increases. Harvest moves toward primarily 2-year old bucks, with few legal bucks surviving to prime ages (it's called age structure truncation); or 2) buck harvest vulnerability is low enough that there is good survival of legal bucks, and total buck harvest declines.
The only way minimum antler point restrictions make sense is when total buck survival is low. Scenario one above is typical of what 3-point has done for mule deer in the Okanogan and Columbia Basin. Scenario two is typical of what occurred in Chelan Co. with 3-point, where the early, shorter MF season allows for good buck escapement regardless of antler point restriction.
The only way to increase escapement of mature bucks, is to reduce total buck harvest. That can be done with or without antler point restrictions, if hunter numbers are limited (i.e., Desert unit), and is functionally what we do with late hunt opportunities instead of running general seasons late - reduce hunter numbers when bucks are vulnerable. Based on the info Croix posted, with no other changes I predict the only outcome of a minimum antler point restriction for NE whitetails would be an increase in harvest of legal bucks their first year (2-year olds); a decrease in total buck harvest; and a decrease in harvest numbers of 4+ aged bucks.
I'm not familiar enough with the condition of the forage base up there to comment - but - if whitetails are nutritionally stessed and competing for winter forage, reducing overall deer densities (increased antlerless harvest) would result in larger antlers on same-aged bucks. Bucks can only reach their genetic potential for antler growth if they are not nutritionally limited.
I think the NE whitetail season SCREAMS, if it aint broke - don't fix it.
Post by: high country on November 12, 2008, 06:03:39 AM
Post by: TeacherMan on November 12, 2008, 09:33:51 AM
Post by: pendoreilleadventures on November 12, 2008, 10:51:35 AM
Post by: DeKuma on November 12, 2008, 11:03:21 AM
There are many people who road hunt because that is what they are capable of. Does not mean they are inferior.
My father is a road hunter, but he is also 67 years old. Does that make him lazy that he cannot do it anymore like he used to?
Further posts such as the above will be removed or edited to show respect to other hunters.
Post by: pendoreilleadventures on November 12, 2008, 11:16:35 AM
Post by: DeKuma on November 12, 2008, 11:27:13 AM
I understand your frustration, and did not intend to come across so harsh, but it is frustration for me to see people getting bashed so much on this site lately, that maybe I jumped the gun.
I appreciate your opinion and willingness to underestand my point.
Post by: pendoreilleadventures on November 12, 2008, 11:29:40 AM
Post by: muleyguy on November 12, 2008, 12:14:32 PM
And, other studies have shown that antler restrictions can actually HURT the mature buck population because it results in hunters staying in the field longer, thus increasing their odds of running into a truly mature animal.
So, the effect can be one of just lifting the harvest to 2.5 yr old animals, and FEWER mature bucks. Antler restrictions tend to be popular because when people start shooting 2.5 yr old deer vs 1.5 yr old deer, they are many times the biggest animals they have ever shot, so everybody thinks they are shooting a "mature" buck now.
It is very important for deer herds to have good numbers of mature bucks because studies have shown that offspring from does that are breed from mature bucks have a lower mortality rate. But, as many have pointed out, whitetails in NE washington have great habitat and lots of private ground. This habitat and land ownership creates plenty of mature whitetails in the population. I would hazard a guess that many whitetail bucks die of old age.
the other issue I see cropping up is this idea you need to issue more doe tags, so as to increase the buck to doe ratio. That is nonsense. Think of it this way: if there are a 100 deer that live there, and 35 of them are bucks, that means 65 are does (35/100). If you kill 15 does through doe tags, you now have a "better" ratio, but, you have not made 1 more buck in the population, there are still only 35 bucks.
If you want to increase the buck to doe ratio, you have to limit the number of bucks you shoot, not decrease the number of does in the population.
The only reason to issue doe tags is if the habitat cannot support the current deer levels; that is not the case in NE WA; the habitat can easily sustain the current deer population, and probably more. By issuing doe tags, when the habitat is not at carrying levels, will actually have the opposite effect and result in fewer bucks being recruited into the population.
really, NE WA is perfect for the most part. It has good population levels, good buck to doe ratio's, and a good mix of younger and older bucks in the population because of the nature of whitetail bucks (secretive) and the good habitat. As someone pointed out, it really has everything, it can accomodate ALL hunters, regardless of preference for rack size, etc.
Now mule deer are a different story, mostly because of their nature (always giving you that look back...) and their preference for more open territory. Their are many, many areas in WA state and many other Western states were the age class in the herd is completely screwed up and you have immature bucks doing the bulk of the breeding. In some areas you also have pathetically low buck to doe ratio's.
In these areas, you need to adopt a strategy very simalar to what they have done with the Yakima elk herd, or the SE Idaho mule deer herd, anybody who has witnessed the elk herd in Yakima before and after the spike only rule, can attest to it. In SE Idaho they restrict the general season to 2 pt or smaller. And, like the yakima elk herd, give out a number of "any buck" tags. In this way, they cull out the younger bucks on an annual basis, leaving the mature animals to do the breeding. This type of arrangement provides hunting opportunities to people that just want a buck, fixes the screwed up age classes, and improves the buck to doe ratio, while providing an opportunity for antler hunters to find what they are looking for, although not on an ever year basis. It also provides the weekend warrior mule deer hunter an opportunity to harvest a truly trophy animal.
This has worked beautifully in the elk herd around Yakima. The chances of an "average joe" shooting a large, mature bull elk, is actually better now, than it was pre-spike only. There were so few mature animals in the population before, that your chances of shooting one were very remote. Now, while you may only draw a big bull tag once over 6 or 7 years, your chances of shooting a mature elk are fairly high when you eventually do. For those of you who cannot remember, if you went to the feeding station pre-spike only it was pathetic for bulls (very few, mostly spikes), now, it is simply amazing what this simply rule change has done to the population. You have a healthy population with a good mix of age classes, with lots of general season hunting opportunity with the spike only for people, and a chance once ever 5 to 7 yrs to shoot a bull that many people only dream of, or have to pay $10,000 to.
Post by: 270Shooter on November 12, 2008, 04:21:27 PM
And great first post 8)
Post by: Elkstuffer on November 12, 2008, 04:44:50 PM
I agree. That is not helping to reduce the antlerless population.
Post by: muleyguy on November 12, 2008, 09:18:06 PM
antlerless permits is craziness, and has been fostered by game departments across the West because of one reason: doe permits are popular
with the public and generate revenue. And of this crazy notion that antlerless permits increase the buck to doe ratio, thereby increasing the number of bucks in the population; some of us need to go back to our math class.......it is a ratio of bucks to does; when you shoot does, you ONLY affect the "doe" side of the ratio, NOT the "buck" side of the ratio.
To get more bucks in the population you need to increase the "buck" side of the population; you do this through lower harvest levels, and/or higher male recruitment (buck fawns coming into the population)
There are certain, private, agricultural areas, that do have large amounts of deer on them, but, the fact is is that agricultural areas can sustain higher population levels because of the habitat. But, on public land, Forest Service, etc, there is NO excess deer. I defy somebody to show me a tract of Forest service land in NE WA (or any other place in this state) that has too many deer for the carrying capacity of the habitat.
doe tags are particularily harmful in the fact that they are sold to the general public, and, where does the general public have access to hunt on??? Public land; precisely the LAST place you want the antlerless harvest to occur. If the WDFW is going to allow antlerless harvest, it should require, at the least, that the tags are only good on private land, that is a simple and really non-controversial requirement, but, they will not allow it because the sale of antlerless permits would be drastically lower (less $$).
antlerless permits in units where the population of the herd is well below the carrying capacity of the habitat should be eliminated. These antlerless permits directly result in FEWER bucks being recruited (buck fawns) into the population.
The management of our deer herds should really not be that complicated:
1. Manage the herd to achieve population levels close to carrying capacity of habitat; if herd size increases above population objective, offer antlerless tags to bring it down; when the level approaches carrying capacity, eliminate antlerless tags immediately; if antlerless tags are needed, identify if they need to be limited to private land within the unit.
2. Manage total buck harvest to maintain healthy buck to doe ratio's (30/100 type of thing)
3. Manage buck harvest to maintain a post harvest healthy mix of age classes.
It really is not that complicated; all general units should be managed for the above items because bottom line, is that this is what you need for healthy deer herds. That should be the first objective. Once this objective is achieved, you can then match the hunting opportunities to stay within this range.
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on November 13, 2008, 10:29:52 AM
there is not one hunting unit in this state that has too many deer in it; above the carrying capacity of the habitat. I defy somebody to show me a tract of Forest service land in NE WA (or any other place in this state) that has too many deer for the carrying capacity of the habitat.
There are winter ranges in the Entiat, and Methow, with too many deer for the habitat. Maybe not this year, but certainly within the past 5.
Fawns are the only age class where it's a 50:50 buck: doe ratio. All older age classes - even yearlings under 3-point minimums - are skewed toward females. When less than 30 fawns per 100 does survive to spring, due to starvation, in a normal winter, there is a net loss of bucks in future years due to poor fawn recruitment, and the herd declines because there are not enough fawns to replace the natural annual adult mortality of 10-15%. When there are too many deer on a winter range, the adults generally survive, but outcompete the fawns for winter forage. That's not to be confused with a true killer winter, when fawns will die in high numbers even with adequate forage. Plus, when shrubs on crucial winter ranges have more than 50% of the last year's annual growth consumed in consecutive years, the vigor of the plants declines and they produce less browse for the next winter, driving down carrying capacity. We have essentially unlimited spring-summer-fall habitat in the NE Cascades, but winter range is the pinch point that limits populations.
In at least 2 of the last 3 winters, without killer conditions, spring fawn ratios have only been 10-15 per hundred does; so, total bucks declines due to lack of recruitment of buck fawns, and the herd declines due to lack of fawn recruitment. Also, when deer compete for limited forage, bucks come out of winter in poorer body condition, and grow smaller antlers.
Post by: caseyv21 on November 13, 2008, 01:21:35 PM
Post by: Big10gauge on November 13, 2008, 01:34:32 PM
There are certain, private, agricultural areas, that do have large amounts of deer on them, but, the fact is is that agricultural areas can sustain higher population levels because of the habitat. But, on public land, Forest Service, etc, there is NO excess deer. I defy somebody to show me a tract of Forest service land in NE WA (or any other place in this state) that has too many deer for the carrying capacity of the habitat.
Well said sir, I am in total agreement with the exception that there is some areas that need feeding stations to help carry the deer thru the winter because of habitat loss. IMO mostly this is in Muley country.
Post by: SHANE(WA) on November 14, 2008, 12:12:18 AM
Post by: muleyguy on November 14, 2008, 09:15:59 AM
That certainly could be true; but, what has the average been the last 15 yrs in those areas?? My guess is that it has been more often than not, these areas have been below the carrying capacity of the winter range in the last 15 yrs; there is nothing wrong with once in ahwile being slightly above the carrying capacity. Mother nature generally does a good job of knocking those numbers down all on her own
those areas can also be susceptible to fires, and I understand, that immediately following a severe fire, you could have winter range issues. But, those are special situations. Below is what I found in the 2007 WDFW Game Trends for this area and is typical of the problem:
"The drop in harvest in 2005, in combination with observed
increased use of winter range browse and reduced
fawn:doe ratios in 2005, suggest the herd has reached
the biological carrying capacity of the winter range in
this PMU. As a result, near-term future management
will be directed toward maintaining a stable, to slowly
increasing, mule deer population.
Antlerless deer harvest was increased in 2006, to slow
population growth, protect winter range, and provide
more harvest opportunity."
This is complete doublespeak; So, what they are saying is that they reached carrying capacity in 2005, and, mother nature, all on her own has reduced fawn/doe levels, and they are going to manage it toward a stable, to slowly increasing mule deer population. But, in the very next sentence, they say they are going to increase antlerless harvest to slow the population growth?????
They just said in 2005 that they were close to carrying capacity (good) and that fawn/doe ratios were dropping (bad). Wouldn't it make sense to leave it alone and see how it plays out??? If you are at carrying capacity, and fawn numbers are dropping, you then pile on antlerless tags on top of that???
The key sentence in all of this is "provide more harvest opportunity". They go through all of this biological mumbo jumbo, and then drop that in the last sentence. They increased antlerless tags to provide more opportunity, period, that is why they did it. The whole previous paragraph was an attempt at trying to find some biological justification for it.
you just get the herd to carrying capacity, you have dropping fawn numbers, and you pile antlerless tags on top of it..........does that make sense to anybody??
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on November 14, 2008, 10:55:40 AM
That certainly could be true; but, what has the average been the last 15 yrs in those areas?? My guess is that it has been more often than not, these areas have been below the carrying capacity of the winter range in the last 15 yrs; there is nothing wrong with once in ahwile being slightly above the carrying capacity. Mother nature generally does a good job of knocking those numbers down all on her own
those areas can also be susceptible to fires, and I understand, that immediately following a severe fire, you could have winter range issues. But, those are special situations. Below is what I found in the 2007 WDFW Game Trends for this area and is typical of the problem:
"The drop in harvest in 2005, in combination with observed
increased use of winter range browse and reduced
fawn:doe ratios in 2005, suggest the herd has reached
the biological carrying capacity of the winter range in
this PMU. As a result, near-term future management
will be directed toward maintaining a stable, to slowly
increasing, mule deer population.
Antlerless deer harvest was increased in 2006, to slow
population growth, protect winter range, and provide
more harvest opportunity."
This is complete doublespeak; So, what they are saying is that they reached carrying capacity in 2005, and, mother nature, all on her own has reduced fawn/doe levels, and they are going to manage it toward a stable, to slowly increasing mule deer population. But, in the very next sentence, they say they are going to increase antlerless harvest to slow the population growth?????
They just said in 2005 that they were close to carrying capacity (good) and that fawn/doe ratios were dropping (bad). Wouldn't it make sense to leave it alone and see how it plays out??? If you are at carrying capacity, and fawn numbers are dropping, you then pile on antlerless tags on top of that???
The key sentence in all of this is "provide more harvest opportunity". They go through all of this biological mumbo jumbo, and then drop that in the last sentence. They increased antlerless tags to provide more opportunity, period, that is why they did it. The whole previous paragraph was an attempt at trying to find some biological justification for it.
you just get the herd to carrying capacity, you have dropping fawn numbers, and you pile antlerless tags on top of it..........does that make sense to anybody??
Makes perfect sense to me. Then again, I buy into that biological mumbo jumbo.
Post by: muleyguy on November 14, 2008, 02:29:26 PM
1. herd is at carrying capacity
2. fawn production slows because of habitat (that is only speculation by WDFW because WDFW does not have hard data)
3. 50% of fawns are females
4. So, you have a declining amount of females being recruited into the overall population base
5. You issue antlerless tags on top of that.
below is the "science" from the report being used to make this management decision:
"It appears the herd reached carrying capacity of the
winter forage base postseason 2005, based on elevated
fawn mortality and heavy browse utilization. Informal
observations of winter range shrub conditions suggest
deer use of available forage rapidly increased 2001-
2005, and population growth rate has slowed as winter
habitat carrying capacity is approached."
"appears" and "informal" are not scientifically based decision making.
Wouldn't it be smarter to play it conservatively, and not issue the extra antlerless tags, instead of relying on data that is not scientifically based??
What happens when you have fewer fawns, have issued your extra antlerless tags, and, you get that 1 in 10 yr snowstorm, all piled up in the same year???
The problem here is that a financial decision (extra tag income) is trying to be justified on the grounds of a scientific/herd health basis.
I understand the reality, that there isn't enough money to do large scale studies and get perfect biological information, so, that is why, in the absence of proper data, you play it conservative.