Post by: MuleDeer on July 23, 2014, 07:53:23 PM
Look forward to reading the conversations here!
Post by: grundy53 on July 23, 2014, 07:59:14 PM
Post by: carpsniperg2 on July 23, 2014, 08:09:08 PM
Post by: 257 Wby Mag on July 23, 2014, 08:11:52 PM
Post by: grundy53 on July 23, 2014, 08:17:56 PM
:mgun: Predators. Way to many and they are really hurting the populations.
I agree. We definitely need more predator control.
Post by: BAR C3 on July 23, 2014, 08:19:32 PM
I for one think habitat improvement should be on top of the list. Especially in the wintering grounds.:yeah: Imagine If they gave preference points for volunteer hours to help improve the habitat...
I would be in and I bet hundreds as well.
I would do it regardless but something I guarantee would put a lot of men and women in the woods helping.
Post by: KFhunter on July 23, 2014, 08:36:20 PM
Post by: pd on July 23, 2014, 08:40:35 PM
Okay, let's hear what you all have to say about your ideas and observations for how we should manage our Mule Deer herds over the long term. Let's keep it positive and constructive: this is a legitimate chance for us as hunters and conservationists to play a part in how the state handles our wildlife.
Look forward to reading the conversations here!
OK, I will bite. Tell us about your self. This is your second post here, and you show yourself to be a "lifetime member" of a Mule deer foundation. Clearly you have an agenda---what is it? Tell us first what your thoughts and opinions are; it seems to me that you have some strongly felt ideas about how management should change, and I would really like to hear what those ideas are.
Post by: wackmaster on July 23, 2014, 08:52:55 PM
Post by: KFhunter on July 23, 2014, 08:53:44 PM
Poaching - seeing trophy's out there so easily killed from a road
feed this winter, even with a fall planting of grasses the snow will cover it up. With the sage gone there won't be air holes and pockets to get down into the snow.
I'm leaning towards emergency closure and setting up some winter feed stations.
Post by: 3nails on July 23, 2014, 09:09:45 PM
Post by: huntnphool on July 23, 2014, 09:11:15 PM
visibility is going to be a problem, folks will be blasting trophy animals from long distance. Ya it'll be fantastic hunting - too good really.
Poaching - seeing trophy's out there so easily killed from a road
feed this winter, even with a fall planting of grasses the snow will cover it up. With the sage gone there won't be air holes and pockets to get down into the snow.
I'm leaning towards emergency closure and setting up some winter feed stations.
Oh for crying out loud, how about we wait for the end of the summer at least before we call for knee jerk reactions to the fires.
Yes, there has been a lot of winter feed destroyed by the fire, but there are still plenty of units, hundreds of thousands of acres of wintering ground and food left for deer to move to.
Some of you guys act like the deer that migrate into Chiliwist and the burned parts of Pearrygin will get there, see that their normal wintering hole is burned, and then just sit down and starve to death.
My guess is they will do what other animals looking to survive things like this do, "migrate" until they find the places that have food. :chuckle:
Post by: huntnphool on July 23, 2014, 09:13:07 PM
Okay, let's hear what you all have to say about your ideas and observations for how we should manage our Mule Deer herds over the long term. Let's keep it positive and constructive: this is a legitimate chance for us as hunters and conservationists to play a part in how the state handles our wildlife.
Look forward to reading the conversations here!
OK, I will bite. Tell us about your self. This is your second post here, and you show yourself to be a "lifetime member" of a Mule deer foundation. Clearly you have an agenda---what is it? Tell us first what your thoughts and opinions are; it seems to me that you have some strongly felt ideas about how management should change, and I would really like to hear what those ideas are.
+1
Post by: grundy53 on July 23, 2014, 09:16:34 PM
Post by: grundy53 on July 23, 2014, 09:19:17 PM
This is the time for science-based decisions, on both dealing with this year's crisis, and the long-term future of management for our Mule Deer. A 10+ year study on Mule Deer has just been finished in WA, and now the next step is to have a Mule Deer Initiative (MDI) written for our state. This record fire has just added to the already needed habitat improvement, and now we may need to see season adjustments due to the loss of cover and habitat. (reference the Trinity Ridge fires near Boise, ID and the following slaughter of trophy Mule Deer because a season was left open with no restrictions.)
The gentleman who will be writing the MDI for WA state is looking for any and all information that can help us manage in the long term. I will start up a new thread where we can all submit ideas and concerns, and I'll invite him to join the forum. But, let's keep it civil and based on science and actual observations, so he won't leave after being pummeled verbally. If we want to bash WDFW and it's practices (as we all do at times), let's leave it for another thread. Look forward to reading and conversing with you all on what we can do now and in the future to better manage our Mule Deer herds.
Perhaps the OP's other post will clear things up a little bit. Hopefully he will do a full introduction when he comes back on. :tup:
Post by: AlpineMuley on July 23, 2014, 09:39:42 PM
Post by: huntnphool on July 23, 2014, 09:43:39 PM
This is the time for science-based decisions, on both dealing with this year's crisis, and the long-term future of management for our Mule Deer. A 10+ year study on Mule Deer has just been finished in WA, and now the next step is to have a Mule Deer Initiative (MDI) written for our state. This record fire has just added to the already needed habitat improvement, and now we may need to see season adjustments due to the loss of cover and habitat. (reference the Trinity Ridge fires near Boise, ID and the following slaughter of trophy Mule Deer because a season was left open with no restrictions.)
The gentleman who will be writing the MDI for WA state is looking for any and all information that can help us manage in the long term. I will start up a new thread where we can all submit ideas and concerns, and I'll invite him to join the forum. But, let's keep it civil and based on science and actual observations, so he won't leave after being pummeled verbally. If we want to bash WDFW and it's practices (as we all do at times), let's leave it for another thread. Look forward to reading and conversing with you all on what we can do now and in the future to better manage our Mule Deer herds.
Perhaps the OP's other post will clear things up a little bit. Hopefully he will do a full introduction when he comes back on. :tup:
Yeah, well call me a skeptic but in my experience "science based" studies tend to lean toward the agenda of those doing the study, our recent cougar based plan coming as a result of "science" is just one recent example..........and a crock of sh@t if you ask me!
First off I would like to see this full study and have the background of those involved in implementing it and collecting the data.
Secondly, I'd like to know why they felt the study needed to be done in the first place and who funded it?
Third, Scott Fitkin has stated on numerous occasions that our mule deer herds are in good shape, and he is "the man" when it comes to knowledge in this field correct? WDFW felt the herds are in such good shape that they have increased the late permits the last two years consecutively, and why would they do that unless the herds were in good enough shape to sustain it? So who is really full of Sh@t here, Fitkin and WDFW, or those doing this "science based" study?
Or is this whole concoction made up to have us feel good about giving up more and more of our hunting?.........all in the name of "science"!!!!
This should be interesting! (https://hunting-washington.com/smf/MGalleryItem.php?id=6999)
Post by: MuleDeer on July 23, 2014, 10:05:05 PM
Yes, I am a lifetime member of the Mule Deer Foundation, as well as a member of lots of other groups. I just happen to also work for the MDF as the Regional Director for Washington, Idaho and Alaska (we also do work for Blacktails).
As the RD for this region, my job is to increase awareness and spending in our region for the Mule Deer and Blacktails, and help find alternative ways to fund our (hunters) projects that we need to get done to help our herds. I know from some of the comments on this forum and others that not all of you are big supporters of the conservation groups (read some of the turkey threads). I was here during the "Heyday" of our turkey population growth, and served as the RD for the NWTF back in those days. I know a ton of the guys on this forum that have been involved since the mid 90s, and we did some awesome work back then and had a blast doing it.
For the record, I don't have an agenda, but to help our MDI get written in the best way that it will serve our wildlife. I have worked with and for many different conservation groups, and I chose to work with MDF because of the $$ they put back onto the ground. If any of you would like specifics, let me know and I'd be happy to share examples, like spending over $112,000 in Idaho over two years, when the two chapters there only raised around $50,000. The MDF will spend the dollars where they are needed, when the $$ are available. We are a small group, but that is why we can put more dollars on the ground: we don't have a big staff or building fund that drains money from our fundraising.
This post isn't about this winter and what our needs will be by then, this one's about our MDI and the future of our Mule Deer. As for the fundraising that I'm trying to do for the wildfires, it is completely separate and apart from the Mule Deer Foundation, because I know some don't want to give to a "group", but to a cause.
If any of you have ANY more questions at all, want to see what we've done and are doing locally as chapters, or would like to talk with me about anything that you have a question or concern about, feel free to call me, text me, or email me at the contact info below. We need to make sure and get our suggestions in while we have the chance: this MDI is not being written by WDFW, but a biologist who cares immensely about these animals!
Dan McKinley
509-995-0819
dan@muledeer.org
Post by: MuleDeer on July 23, 2014, 10:11:21 PM
This is the time for science-based decisions, on both dealing with this year's crisis, and the long-term future of management for our Mule Deer. A 10+ year study on Mule Deer has just been finished in WA, and now the next step is to have a Mule Deer Initiative (MDI) written for our state. This record fire has just added to the already needed habitat improvement, and now we may need to see season adjustments due to the loss of cover and habitat. (reference the Trinity Ridge fires near Boise, ID and the following slaughter of trophy Mule Deer because a season was left open with no restrictions.)
The gentleman who will be writing the MDI for WA state is looking for any and all information that can help us manage in the long term. I will start up a new thread where we can all submit ideas and concerns, and I'll invite him to join the forum. But, let's keep it civil and based on science and actual observations, so he won't leave after being pummeled verbally. If we want to bash WDFW and it's practices (as we all do at times), let's leave it for another thread. Look forward to reading and conversing with you all on what we can do now and in the future to better manage our Mule Deer herds.
Perhaps the OP's other post will clear things up a little bit. Hopefully he will do a full introduction when he comes back on. :tup:
Yeah, well call me a skeptic but in my experience "science based" studies tend to lean toward the agenda of those doing the study, our recent cougar based plan coming as a result of "science" is just one recent example..........and a crock of sh@t if you ask me!
First off I would like to see this full study and have the background of those involved in implementing it and collecting the data.
Secondly, I'd like to know why they felt the study needed to be done in the first place and who funded it?
Third, Scott Fitkin has stated on numerous occasions that our mule deer herds are in good shape, and he is "the man" when it comes to knowledge in this field correct? WDFW felt the herds are in such good shape that they have increased the late permits the last two years consecutively, and why would they do that unless the herds were in good enough shape to sustain it? So who is really full of Sh@t here, Fitkin and WDFW, or those doing this "science based" study?
Or is this whole concoction made up to have us feel good about giving up more and more of our hunting?.........all in the name of "science"!!!!
This should be interesting! (https://hunting-washington.com/smf/MGalleryItem.php?id=6999)
Huntnphool, I understand your suspicion and caution with where you devote your time. I've had to work with fish and game agencies for a number of years, sometimes against all odds. But I still had to take every chance I had to try and make a difference, and this is one of those times that we have a real chance. If decisions are based made on science, you wouldn't have a reason to doubt them. Unfortunately, even when faced with the science, many states make decisions based on dollars, as in more opportunity with hunting than quality hunting. You can see this difference with every western state and Canadian province. But our MDI for WA is going to be written according to science and what is the best way to manage our Mule Deer. It will still be necessary for us to keep a strong voice to show WDFW that we have numbers that make a difference. Are we fighting a battle that is getting harder and harder to win? YES! Should we just give up and complain? NO! We still need to work at making a difference, and I'm trying to provide a forum for all of us to voice our ideas and opinions. That's all.
Post by: huntnphool on July 23, 2014, 10:14:26 PM
Okay, introduction is coming now.
Yes, I am a lifetime member of the Mule Deer Foundation, as well as a member of lots of other groups. I just happen to also work for the MDF as the Regional Director for Washington, Idaho and Alaska (we also do work for Blacktails).
As the RD for this region, my job is to increase awareness and spending in our region for the Mule Deer and Blacktails, and help find alternative ways to fund our (hunters) projects that we need to get done to help our herds. I know from some of the comments on this forum and others that not all of you are big supporters of the conservation groups (read some of the turkey threads). I was here during the "Heyday" of our turkey population growth, and served as the RD for the NWTF back in those days. I know a ton of the guys on this forum that have been involved since the mid 90s, and we did some awesome work back then and had a blast doing it.
For the record, I don't have an agenda, but to help our MDI get written in the best way that it will serve our wildlife. I have worked with and for many different conservation groups, and I chose to work with MDF because of the $$ they put back onto the ground. If any of you would like specifics, let me know and I'd be happy to share examples, like spending over $112,000 in Idaho over two years, when the two chapters there only raised around $50,000. The MDF will spend the dollars where they are needed, when the $$ are available. We are a small group, but that is why we can put more dollars on the ground: we don't have a big staff or building fund that drains money from our fundraising.
This post isn't about this winter and what our needs will be by then, this one's about our MDI and the future of our Mule Deer. As for the fundraising that I'm trying to do for the wildfires, it is completely separate and apart from the Mule Deer Foundation, because I know some don't want to give to a "group", but to a cause.
If any of you have ANY more questions at all, want to see what we've done and are doing locally as chapters, or would like to talk with me about anything that you have a question or concern about, feel free to call me, text me, or email me at the contact info below. We need to make sure and get our suggestions in while we have the chance: this MDI is not being written by WDFW, but a biologist who cares immensely about these animals!
Dan McKinley
509-995-0819
dan@muledeer.org
Welcome Dan and thanks for the reply. :hello:
You may or may not be aware of our latest cougar plan implemented in this state and the study that spawned it, or perhaps the study that gives us our current wolf plan, both of which will probably explain my skepticism when someone is selling science based studies to us. I hope you were not offended! ;)
Post by: huntnphool on July 23, 2014, 10:21:26 PM
Part of the issue I have is the need for the study to begin with and part of what I hit on in my first reply. For us to give you ideas and discuss this, means we must first ackmowledge that there is a problem to begin with, correct?
So there in lies the problem. We have MDF suggesting there is a issue, when at the same time we have the mule deer expert (Fitkin) in WDFW telling us that there is no problem.
You can certainly see the conflict here right? :chuckle:
Post by: MuleDeer on July 23, 2014, 10:38:24 PM
I haven't personally met with Fitkin yet. I prefer to go to the source, the man who wrote this study, and who will be writing our MDI. I believe he knows more than anyone in this state on the status of our Mule Deer. He is based in Spokane, so he doesn't have to deal with the building politics in Olympia, and he is a genuinely sincere guy in his agenda.
Maybe this will make you trust me more: last year I had the chance to sit with Jerry Nelson, our deer and elk mgr for WDFW, in his office in a one-on-one discussion. First he wanted to know what we as MDF recommend and how we can help WDFW manage. We had a good talk, but then he asked me about my personal opinions of how they manage and set the rules. We still have a working relationship, but I haven't been invited back to his office!
I hope to work and speak with all of you as we get the chance, and I'd be happy to drive anywhere in the state to meet up with any of you if you'd like to spend more time talking over a coffee or a beer. Just let me know, and I'll be on the road! And, no offense taken; I understand your skepticism, and respect why you have it. My job is to give you a great reason to have less of it by seeing things get done. :)
Post by: Axle on July 23, 2014, 10:41:09 PM
Quote
Draw only for modern, similar to Oregon.. Predators are next on the list.
With all due respect, you are 100% backwards on this. And a draw only for WA state would never be needed. Predator control is everything for Washington (and yes, I have plenty of time as a resident of WA and OR)
It isn't possible to compare OR to WA when it comes to mule deer country. Eastern OR is vastly different from eastern WA. Anyone who has spent any amount of time in both will know this. Eastern OR has minimal thick brush and brush-choked timber when compared to eastern WA. Being farther south and a dryer climate, OR has less cover for the mule deer. There is virtually no comparison though many hunters over the years have tried to compare them and say WA needs to adapt the same initiatives as Or.
Oregon's far more open eastern country led to a higher success rate on the mule deer (partially due to more hunters and the ability to shoot at rather long ranges) which resulted to tighter measures on antler restrictions and hunter numbers. Washington's 3 point minimum was a success compared to Oregon because of buck escapement during the hunting season. They can't escape without cover.
Again - there is absolutely no comparing OR to WA on the east side and mule deer.
The 3 point rule did not work in OR for obvious reasons but it is working well in WA.
A 'draw only' for eastern WA is not necessary and probably never will be. There is abundant cover for the deer in eastern WA and getting the predators under control would benefit WA and OR immensely. We have suffered from too many predators for the past 30 years now and we are seeing our hunting opportunities vanish due to this destructive management practice. This is part of agenda 21. Until hunters get management back, hunting opportunities will continue to suffer.
Post by: huntnphool on July 23, 2014, 10:44:31 PM
I do see your issue, and agree with you. But we need and MDI whether this are problems or not (which there are). MDF was the first "major" conservation group to be vocal about managing the wolf problems, and we weren't afraid to use the word kill. One of the beauties of being a smaller group, is that we can say what we think, and not worry too much about offending the "PCers". Our CEO spent an entire career as a wildlife biologist in Utah, and he wants us to be very active in decisions that are made in our respective states on mgmt.
I haven't personally met with Fitkin yet. I prefer to go to the source, the man who wrote this study, and who will be writing our MDI. I believe he knows more than anyone in this state on the status of our Mule Deer. He is based in Spokane, so he doesn't have to deal with the building politics in Olympia, and he is a genuinely sincere guy in his agenda.
Maybe this will make you trust me more: last year I had the chance to sit with Jerry Nelson, our deer and elk mgr for WDFW, in his office in a one-on-one discussion. First he wanted to know what we as MDF recommend and how we can help WDFW manage. We had a good talk, but then he asked me about my personal opinions of how they manage and set the rules. We still have a working relationship, but I haven't been invited back to his office!
I hope to work and speak with all of you as we get the chance, and I'd be happy to drive anywhere in the state to meet up with any of you if you'd like to spend more time talking over a coffee or a beer. Just let me know, and I'll be on the road! And, no offense taken; I understand your skepticism, and respect why you have it. My job is to give you a great reason to have less of it by seeing things get done. :)
Well that is a breath of fresh air, management without politics, who would have thunk it! :tup:
Thanks again Dan, looking forward to meeting you!
Post by: MuleDeer on July 23, 2014, 10:56:37 PM
Please keep the comments coming, and we'll compile them, together with justifications or further questions, and present them during the initial stages of our MDI writing. Thanks guys!
Post by: Todd_ID on July 23, 2014, 11:01:17 PM
First, I know MuleDeer and Phool personally. Both are above reproach in their desire to advance the species. Both also are stubborn enough to not give in. That is good for the deer.
Second, we need to kill less mule deer in the Blues. Our herd is down 40%. Shooting 3500 bucks a year in this small of an area simply doesn't work. Go to permit only for all mule deer hunting for rifle season for 10 years. Give 250 tags per unit or so to make people feel like they have a chance. Whitetail is still OTC.
I do see your issue, and agree with you. But we need and MDI whether this are problems or not (which there are). MDF was the first "major" conservation group to be vocal about managing the wolf problems, and we weren't afraid to use the word kill. One of the beauties of being a smaller group, is that we can say what we think, and not worry too much about offending the "PCers". Our CEO spent an entire career as a wildlife biologist in Utah, and he wants us to be very active in decisions that are made in our respective states on mgmt.
I haven't personally met with Fitkin yet. I prefer to go to the source, the man who wrote this study, and who will be writing our MDI. I believe he knows more than anyone in this state on the status of our Mule Deer. He is based in Spokane, so he doesn't have to deal with the building politics in Olympia, and he is a genuinely sincere guy in his agenda.
Maybe this will make you trust me more: last year I had the chance to sit with Jerry Nelson, our deer and elk mgr for WDFW, in his office in a one-on-one discussion. First he wanted to know what we as MDF recommend and how we can help WDFW manage. We had a good talk, but then he asked me about my personal opinions of how they manage and set the rules. We still have a working relationship, but I haven't been invited back to his office!
I hope to work and speak with all of you as we get the chance, and I'd be happy to drive anywhere in the state to meet up with any of you if you'd like to spend more time talking over a coffee or a beer. Just let me know, and I'll be on the road! And, no offense taken; I understand your skepticism, and respect why you have it. My job is to give you a great reason to have less of it by seeing things get done. :)
Post by: bearpaw on July 24, 2014, 12:17:24 AM
Question: Was the MDF involved in writing the muledeer initiative in Idaho? There was a lot of talk about how that was going to help southern Idaho but honestly I have not seen much for results. The youth hunts are killing so many mule deer doe that the herd cannot recover plus as soon as we gain a few numbers another winter takes it's toll. When IDFG do feed during a bad winter it's seems so late and limited in scope that I don't think it does much good.
Question: I would like to know who you have writing your mule deer initiative, please send me a pm if you choose to not post the name publicly.
Comment: In Washington think the 3 pt rule has helped maintain a much better ratio of bucks to does than we had 20 years ago, but in the northeast we have so many predators that the overall number of mule deer just continues to drop. Many people blame the Colville tribe but honestly the tribe does not hunt the whole NE corner and all units have declining mule deer numbers. Therefore I say 4 legged predators are the major problem. As long as predators are eating so many deer I don't even think closing mule deer hunting completely will remedy the decline. You can inspect the existing winter range and there are very few mule deer even on closed access winter range. Additionally, we must get the USFS to the table, habitat is probably the next biggest problem, Conservation Northwest is running the USFS and they are not allowing logging, much of our national forests have turned into old growth timber with little habitat for browsing animals. If we lowered predator numbers and started gaining mule deer numbers we would need better habitat if the mule deer population doubled or tripled to what it used to be in the northeast. Winter feeding during harsh winters needs to be considered to save mule deer from these cyclical winter dieoffs, we don't have enough mule deer to recover the herds after natural dieoffs during harsh winters. Other considerations are domestic dogs and auto collisions. For a mule deer initiative to be truly effective it will need to cover all bases to reduce mule deer losses from all causes. :twocents:
Post by: Curly on July 24, 2014, 08:24:25 AM
Draw only for muleys and eliminate the 3 point minimum requirement.
Protect the wintering herds by gating off areas and don't give keys to the tribes.
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 24, 2014, 08:36:41 AM
Post by: RG on July 24, 2014, 09:07:04 AM
I recently joined MDF and am pleased so far.
Post by: 257 Wby Mag on July 24, 2014, 09:18:54 AM
QuoteDraw only for modern, similar to Oregon.. Predators are next on the list.
With all due respect, you are 100% backwards on this. And a draw only for WA state would never be needed. Predator control is everything for Washington (and yes, I have plenty of time as a resident of WA and OR)
It isn't possible to compare OR to WA when it comes to mule deer country. Eastern OR is vastly different from eastern WA. Anyone who has spent any amount of time in both will know this. Eastern OR has minimal thick brush and brush-choked timber when compared to eastern WA. Being farther south and a dryer climate, OR has less cover for the mule deer. There is virtually no comparison though many hunters over the years have tried to compare them and say WA needs to adapt the same initiatives as Or.
Oregon's far more open eastern country led to a higher success rate on the mule deer (partially due to more hunters and the ability to shoot at rather long ranges) which resulted to tighter measures on antler restrictions and hunter numbers. Washington's 3 point minimum was a success compared to Oregon because of buck escapement during the hunting season. They can't escape without cover.
Again - there is absolutely no comparing OR to WA on the east side and mule deer.
The 3 point rule did not work in OR for obvious reasons but it is working well in WA.
A 'draw only' for eastern WA is not necessary and probably never will be. There is abundant cover for the deer in eastern WA and getting the predators under control would benefit WA and OR immensely. We have suffered from too many predators for the past 30 years now and we are seeing our hunting opportunities vanish due to this destructive management practice. This is part of agenda 21. Until hunters get management back, hunting opportunities will continue to suffer.
Just comparing the tag/draw system, not the habit/deer numbers· There are simply too many folks and not enough ground in Washington to continue down the same path we're going... states could learn ally from the jicarilla, limit harvest , aggressive predator management. Most folks won't go for it though, as they would rather hunt every year and have a Schitty experience.
Post by: bobcat on July 24, 2014, 09:31:09 AM
Also, Oregon and Washington aren't any different, other than Oregon has a lot more public land AND less hunters than our state. Yet they still have a permit only system for modern firearm mule deer hunting. And we sell unlimited tags and have a general season open to all. It's backwards.
Post by: Bigshooter on July 24, 2014, 09:38:24 AM
Post by: elkinrutdrivemenuts on July 24, 2014, 09:49:09 AM
Post by: Gringo31 on July 24, 2014, 10:30:05 AM
Post by: Curly on July 24, 2014, 10:38:22 AM
Post by: baldopepper on July 24, 2014, 11:42:53 AM
1) Buck/doe management-seems during the so called glory years management was based on herd counts taken during the winter season. Herds were counted from year to year and management decisions were based on the herds being up or down. We then seemed to switch to management based on buck to doe ratio and I saw many areas (most of my experience is in Utah) where the total herd numbers dropped dramatically, but management was happy because the buck to doe ratio was good. I could never quite figure how it was good management when a winter count herd dropped from 2,000 to 200 but you were happy because the buck doe ratio was proper.
2) Access pressure - again during the glory years access was much more limited to remote areas than it is now. Not only are there more roads due to expanded mineral and oil exploration, not everyone had a vehicle that allowed them to go into many areas. Now virtually everyone has a four wheel drive at least and most have quads and ATV's that allow them to penetrate deeper and deeper into areas that used to have very little pressure. Not only are hunters taking advantage of this, but we also have homes in more remote areas and other recreationalists invading year around areas that were once mule deer sanctuaries. Deer seem to be under year around human pressure.
3) Quality hunt management- I sometimes wonder if management for more quality hunts is in the best interest of overall deer management. I seem to run into a lot of hunters who openly say they would prefer to see a lot less deer but seeing much bigger ones when they do see deer. Seems to be a lot more antlerless hunts in some quality hunt units because they want to keep the buck/ratio in sync at the expense of overall herd numbers. I personally believe the limited entry hunts and emphasis on only taking trophy bucks has discouraged many younger hunters from taking up the sport. Fewer hunter voices obviously makes it more difficult to have a say in overall game management decisions.
4) More micro management of herds- while I'm not a big fan of limited drawings, it makes sense to me to have limited drawings to better manage the herds on a more selective basis. I also believe that many management decisions are made based on large areas at the expense of smaller herds in the area. I also believe that many regulations are set in cement way to early to get a good read on winter kill and fawn productivity in specific areas. I can't remember seeing an emergency closure because winter went on longer than expected or a wet cold spring decimated fawn production in an area. (It will be interesting to see if any changes are made in the fire damaged areas)
5) Hunter expectations-even during the glory years there wasn't a deer behind every tree. Successful hunters then scouted hard, hunted hard and devoted a lot of time and effort to tag a deer every year. Seems some of the young hunters I know now think it should be like a video game-just go out and buy the best equipment, sit on a hill and a big buck will pop out for you to shoot. Are there as many deer as there once were? I don't think so. Are there still good, huntable numbers for those willing to put in the time and effort to go after them. Yes.
6) Management pressure- 40 years ago deer numbers were managed pretty much by and for hunters. Now? We all know the answer to that. With budgets dropping every year and more people clamoring to make their voice heard, managers are caught in a real vice. We all know many decisions are made to keep voters happy at the expense of sound game management. We can't change that until we have a united, strong group of hunters willing to make their voice (and vote) better heard.
Just my thoughts-I don't have a lot of answers or solutions and maybe I'm off base.
Post by: Alchase on July 24, 2014, 12:19:40 PM
Another thing that should be seriously looked into is the amount of does that get harvested. If numbers are down, why have any doe permits? :dunno:
DING DING DING! WINNER!
If it is numbers we are talking about, the the blatantly obvious solution is quit killing does period. The amount of bucks killed during the general season, I do not believe is what makes the biggest impact.
Second, give landowners incentive to keep their lands in a natural state that is beneficial to Mule Deer.
Third kill the predators. Coyotes, cougars, wolves were impact is felt.
Scrap the pay to play auctions completely!
Give the average hunter a shot at those tags. Who honestly thinks one man paying 25k for a state mule deer tag is more beneficial then 2000 people paying $12.50 for a shot at the same tag.
One ticket, one chance. You now have 2000 people with a vested interest, instead of one rich guy buying the governors tags in every state.
Limiting tags, points systems do nothing to promote hunting, and I honestly believe deter a large amount of hunters from participating.
Lastly, change the mindset of the Fish and game, Department of wild life etc..
Without a total change in priorities back to sustaining a quality "hunting" resource, none of the above will make a difference.
Post by: KFhunter on July 24, 2014, 05:49:23 PM
visibility is going to be a problem, folks will be blasting trophy animals from long distance. Ya it'll be fantastic hunting - too good really.
Poaching - seeing trophy's out there so easily killed from a road
feed this winter, even with a fall planting of grasses the snow will cover it up. With the sage gone there won't be air holes and pockets to get down into the snow.
I'm leaning towards emergency closure and setting up some winter feed stations.
Oh for crying out loud, how about we wait for the end of the summer at least before we call for knee jerk reactions to the fires.
Yes, there has been a lot of winter feed destroyed by the fire, but there are still plenty of units, hundreds of thousands of acres of wintering ground and food left for deer to move to.
Some of you guys act like the deer that migrate into Chiliwist and the burned parts of Pearrygin will get there, see that their normal wintering hole is burned, and then just sit down and starve to death.
My guess is they will do what other animals looking to survive things like this do, "migrate" until they find the places that have food. :chuckle:
I said I'm leaning towards closure but certainly not lobbying for it.
Don't you think the hunting will be too good in the burned areas? I'd be concerned the trophy animals would be slaughtered.
I don't hunt that area, so I'm all ears and following rather than leading this thread.
The suggestion is knee jerk by nature as it needs to happen this hunting season, it's a short term loss prevention idea for 1-2 years max.
Post by: bigmacc on July 24, 2014, 06:32:39 PM
Post by: Alchase on July 24, 2014, 09:27:51 PM
Definitely going to get that book thanks for the reference!
Post by: whacker1 on July 24, 2014, 10:04:26 PM
The 200 series units are different that the southeast and the North east and they should not all be treated alike.
Post by: sakoshooter on July 24, 2014, 10:15:09 PM
I might also comment on the 'big' houses that are popping up here and there in the middle of good mule deer habitat and winter range. Is the almighty dollar so freakin important that we're willing to displace hundreds of mule deer.
Post by: REHJWA on July 24, 2014, 11:41:16 PM
While human encroachment may have a temporary impact on a local herds use of an area, mule deer are very adaptive and will gorge themselves on some expensive landscaping. To see how well mule deer can adapt to human encroachment I would give Colorado as an example....
Post by: rasbo on July 25, 2014, 03:53:57 AM
Post by: Todd_ID on July 25, 2014, 06:00:43 AM
less tags sold..off season hound hunts for cougar.Permits to bait bears with strict details on bait and clean sites..Darn good starts!
I think a two tag system like Idaho's would be good. The whitetail/blacktail tag would get you long seasons with little restrictions. The mule deer tag would get you very short seasons in few areas and draw chances for most of the rest. Predators may be the number one problem, but hunter harvest is easier to manage.
Post by: grundy53 on July 25, 2014, 06:06:17 AM
less tags sold..off season hound hunts for cougar.Permits to bait bears with strict details on bait and clean sites..Darn good starts!
I think a two tag system like Idaho's would be good. The whitetail/blacktail tag would get you long seasons with little restrictions. The mule deer tag would get you very short seasons in few areas and draw chances for most of the rest. Predators may be the number one problem, but hunter harvest is easier to manage.
I really like your Idaho style, two tag idea.
sent from my typewriter
Post by: jackelope on July 25, 2014, 07:19:33 AM
less tags sold..off season hound hunts for cougar.Permits to bait bears with strict details on bait and clean sites..Darn good starts!
I think a two tag system like Idaho's would be good. The whitetail/blacktail tag would get you long seasons with little restrictions. The mule deer tag would get you very short seasons in few areas and draw chances for most of the rest. Predators may be the number one problem, but hunter harvest is easier to manage.
I really like your Idaho style, two tag idea.
sent from my typewriter
That's all well and good except for the massive concentration of new whitetail/blacktail hunters when they don't get a mule deer tag. Maybe I'm missing something.
Post by: lamrith on July 25, 2014, 07:46:43 AM
less tags sold..off season hound hunts for cougar.Permits to bait bears with strict details on bait and clean sites..Predators may be the number one problem, but hunter harvest is easier to manage.
Soo lets mess with everyone and make them change rather than address the underlying predator and habitat issues. Also add extra complexity for Hunter and more load on wdfw staff to administer.
Sounds like a great idea, take my guns too since crazy people use them to kill people...
Sorry don't mean to attack you personally, You are far from the only person to have this idea.
But the "have to do something" because it is easier solutions bother me as they don't solve problems, just mask them to everyone's long term detriment. I deal with it at work too, one dept does double work because another dept manager not want to hold his workers accountable.
Post by: grundy53 on July 25, 2014, 07:56:03 AM
less tags sold..off season hound hunts for cougar.Permits to bait bears with strict details on bait and clean sites..Darn good starts!
I think a two tag system like Idaho's would be good. The whitetail/blacktail tag would get you long seasons with little restrictions. The mule deer tag would get you very short seasons in few areas and draw chances for most of the rest. Predators may be the number one problem, but hunter harvest is easier to manage.
I really like your Idaho style, two tag idea.
sent from my typewriter
That's all well and good except for the massive concentration of new whitetail/blacktail hunters when they don't get a mule deer tag. Maybe I'm missing something.
It's either or. You either buy a mule deer tag or whitetail/blacktail tags. So there is no switching back and forth. Kind of like east/west elk you can't put in for east and then hunt west.
sent from my typewriter
Post by: bearpaw on July 25, 2014, 08:23:41 AM
I think we need to know more about the study from Dan, at least some preliminary indicators if the study isn't completed, we also need a rough draft of the mule deer plan, and we need to remember that to gain support the plan/initiative will have to be palatable to hunters, if you go into this with ideas that are unpopular with most hunters the initiative will be harder to sell to the Wildlife Commission.
There are usually several ways to accomplish any goal. If we know the science we can do some polls on this forum to quickly figure out what management ideas to address the science will be opposed by most hunters or accepted by most hunters, then we have a better idea of which management proposals to include in the initiative. My thought is that a comprehensive mix of ideas to address the issue in each region of the state will likely work best. :twocents:
Post by: KFhunter on July 25, 2014, 08:40:15 AM
Obvious choice up here in the 100 GMU's with our small struggling little herds of Mule Deer
Not sure how that factors into the MDI, or if that's a separate deal like the cougar plan? Can the MDI call for a new cougar plan?
Post by: baldopepper on July 25, 2014, 08:51:04 AM
Bottom Line-the major reason for mule deer decline is humans. Not just hunters, but the overall impact of a much bigger population intruding upon mule deer habitat. Homes built on prime winter ground. Better highways leading to higher road kill numbers. Year around off road recreation not only during the harsh winter period, but during the early fawning season. Hunting seasons that extend from late August into (and sometimes thru) December. (not just deer hunting, but, as an example, a late fall/winter turkey hunt that chases deer from prime wintering ground at times) Big game management always seems to be reactive instead of proactive. Case after case can be cited where late hunts, antlerless hunts take place one year and the next year theres either a total closure or prohibitive permit system put in place. We always seem to wait until the horses are out before we close the barn doors. We watch herds decline with hunters reporting seeing less and less deer, but it's ok-the buck/doe ratio is good. How do manage against this? You can't stop people from building or recreating. You can't stop highways from being built and keep more cars off the road. You can't blame it all on hunting. Guess I'm glad in a way to be old, I don't have many answers for these new problems.
Post by: wence5 on July 25, 2014, 08:54:36 AM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on July 25, 2014, 09:06:26 AM
Probably get a lot of disagreement, BUT I think the habitat/predator effect on mule deer is way overblown. Frankly, in the late 50's early sixties with the exception of wolves there were considerably more predators (Mt. Lions, coyotes and bears) than there are now. In the more remote summer habitat lions and bears were quite common (at least in Utah, a major mule deer state and pretty good study of long term mule deer management) Herds were doing very well. In the mid 60's when herds began to decline the state put an emphasis on habitat restoration and cleared thousands of acres of winter habitat of non browse vegetation (junipers and other evergreens) in an effort to create better winter browse. Results: negligible.I am not sure I buy there are less predators than the 50's ...I think we have more predators now than back then ..Especially now that we do not have a general hound hunting season ..I do not care what the Bio's think or know ..I am very sure there are predators that never see man and have no way of being counted by Bio's who anyone else that thinks they know so .... :twocents:
Bottom Line-the major reason for mule deer decline is humans. Not just hunters, but the overall impact of a much bigger population intruding upon mule deer habitat. Homes built on prime winter ground. Better highways leading to higher road kill numbers. Year around off road recreation not only during the harsh winter period, but during the early fawning season. Hunting seasons that extend from late August into (and sometimes thru) December. (not just deer hunting, but, as an example, a late fall/winter turkey hunt that chases deer from prime wintering ground at times) Big game management always seems to be reactive instead of proactive. Case after case can be cited where late hunts, antlerless hunts take place one year and the next year theres either a total closure or prohibitive permit system put in place. We always seem to wait until the horses are out before we close the barn doors. We watch herds decline with hunters reporting seeing less and less deer, but it's ok-the buck/doe ratio is good. How do manage against this? You can't stop people from building or recreating. You can't stop highways from being built and keep more cars off the road. You can't blame it all on hunting. Guess I'm glad in a way to be old, I don't have many answers for these new problems.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on July 25, 2014, 09:13:54 AM
Post by: KFhunter on July 25, 2014, 09:14:49 AM
Probably get a lot of disagreement, BUT I think the habitat/predator effect on mule deer is way overblown. Frankly, in the late 50's early sixties with the exception of wolves there were considerably more predators (Mt. Lions, coyotes and bears) than there are now. In the more remote summer habitat lions and bears were quite common (at least in Utah, a major mule deer state and pretty good study of long term mule deer management) Herds were doing very well. In the mid 60's when herds began to decline the state put an emphasis on habitat restoration and cleared thousands of acres of winter habitat of non browse vegetation (junipers and other evergreens) in an effort to create better winter browse. Results: negligible.I am not sure I buy there are less predators than the 50's ...I think we have more predators now than back then ..Especially now that we do not have a general hound hunting season ..I do not care what the Bio's think or know ..I am very sure there are predators that never see man and have no way of being counted by Bio's who anyone else that thinks they know so .... :twocents:
Bottom Line-the major reason for mule deer decline is humans. Not just hunters, but the overall impact of a much bigger population intruding upon mule deer habitat. Homes built on prime winter ground. Better highways leading to higher road kill numbers. Year around off road recreation not only during the harsh winter period, but during the early fawning season. Hunting seasons that extend from late August into (and sometimes thru) December. (not just deer hunting, but, as an example, a late fall/winter turkey hunt that chases deer from prime wintering ground at times) Big game management always seems to be reactive instead of proactive. Case after case can be cited where late hunts, antlerless hunts take place one year and the next year theres either a total closure or prohibitive permit system put in place. We always seem to wait until the horses are out before we close the barn doors. We watch herds decline with hunters reporting seeing less and less deer, but it's ok-the buck/doe ratio is good. How do manage against this? You can't stop people from building or recreating. You can't stop highways from being built and keep more cars off the road. You can't blame it all on hunting. Guess I'm glad in a way to be old, I don't have many answers for these new problems.
There were a lot of houndsmen back then, less people sure but most of the logging roads were open too. Wasn't the "close all the roads" mentality.
I wasn't around in the 50's though so I can't argue if there were more or less predators back then.
...But I do know we got our fair share of predators now!
Post by: grundy53 on July 25, 2014, 09:16:14 AM
:yeah: without hound hunting there is no effective way to control cougars. I don't care what the game department says, they are seriously low balling the cougar population. There are more cougars now then there probably ever has been. There are definitely way more Coyotes then ever before. Also the bear population is extremely high.Probably get a lot of disagreement, BUT I think the habitat/predator effect on mule deer is way overblown. Frankly, in the late 50's early sixties with the exception of wolves there were considerably more predators (Mt. Lions, coyotes and bears) than there are now. In the more remote summer habitat lions and bears were quite common (at least in Utah, a major mule deer state and pretty good study of long term mule deer management) Herds were doing very well. In the mid 60's when herds began to decline the state put an emphasis on habitat restoration and cleared thousands of acres of winter habitat of non browse vegetation (junipers and other evergreens) in an effort to create better winter browse. Results: negligible.I am not sure I buy there are less predators than the 50's ...I think we have more predators now than back then ..Especially now that we do not have a general hound hunting season ..I do not care what the Bio's think or know ..I am very sure there are predators that never see man and have no way of being counted by Bio's who anyone else that thinks they know so .... :twocents:
Bottom Line-the major reason for mule deer decline is humans. Not just hunters, but the overall impact of a much bigger population intruding upon mule deer habitat. Homes built on prime winter ground. Better highways leading to higher road kill numbers. Year around off road recreation not only during the harsh winter period, but during the early fawning season. Hunting seasons that extend from late August into (and sometimes thru) December. (not just deer hunting, but, as an example, a late fall/winter turkey hunt that chases deer from prime wintering ground at times) Big game management always seems to be reactive instead of proactive. Case after case can be cited where late hunts, antlerless hunts take place one year and the next year theres either a total closure or prohibitive permit system put in place. We always seem to wait until the horses are out before we close the barn doors. We watch herds decline with hunters reporting seeing less and less deer, but it's ok-the buck/doe ratio is good. How do manage against this? You can't stop people from building or recreating. You can't stop highways from being built and keep more cars off the road. You can't blame it all on hunting. Guess I'm glad in a way to be old, I don't have many answers for these new problems.
sent from my typewriter
Post by: bullcanyon on July 25, 2014, 09:35:44 AM
Only someone in denial will say our deer herds are better off without hound hunting and baiting for bears.
Post by: huntnphool on July 25, 2014, 09:45:47 AM
less tags sold..off season hound hunts for cougar.Permits to bait bears with strict details on bait and clean sites..Predators may be the number one problem, but hunter harvest is easier to manage.
Soo lets mess with everyone and make them change rather than address the underlying predator and habitat issues. Also add extra complexity for Hunter and more load on wdfw staff to administer.
Sounds like a great idea, take my guns too since crazy people use them to kill people...
Sorry don't mean to attack you personally, You are far from the only person to have this idea.
But the "have to do something" because it is easier solutions bother me as they don't solve problems, just mask them to everyone's long term detriment. I deal with it at work too, one dept does double work because another dept manager not want to hold his workers accountable.
And some of this is what I was hitting on.
The "have to do something" idea, especially with hasty decisions based on "Isn't the WDFW formulating the next 3 year plan, I don't think we have much time?" is not thinking the situation through, let alone addressing my earlier question of "is there a problem in the first place?"
There are three mind sets, mule deer numbers are fine, mule deer numbers are declining and I'm not sure which/I don't know.
On one hand you have WDFW's Mr. Fitkin, strongly behind the wolves and saying the mule deer numbers are in good shape, here are more late permits to show you I mean what I say.
Then there are those like MDF's Mr. McKinley, that believe there is a issue in Washington with decreasing mule deer numbers.
The third is self explanatory :chuckle:
Obviously, one of these is BS, and before we go any further in voluntarily giving away more of our hunting, we had better all figure out which one is legit and deal with that first! :twocents:
Post by: Wacenturion on July 25, 2014, 09:46:18 AM
Probably get a lot of disagreement, BUT I think the habitat/predator effect on mule deer is way overblown. Frankly, in the late 50's early sixties with the exception of wolves there were considerably more predators (Mt. Lions, coyotes and bears) than there are now. In the more remote summer habitat lions and bears were quite common (at least in Utah, a major mule deer state and pretty good study of long term mule deer management) Herds were doing very well. In the mid 60's when herds began to decline the state put an emphasis on habitat restoration and cleared thousands of acres of winter habitat of non browse vegetation (junipers and other evergreens) in an effort to create better winter browse. Results: negligible.
Bottom Line-the major reason for mule deer decline is humans. Not just hunters, but the overall impact of a much bigger population intruding upon mule deer habitat. Homes built on prime winter ground. Better highways leading to higher road kill numbers. Year around off road recreation not only during the harsh winter period, but during the early fawning season. Hunting seasons that extend from late August into (and sometimes thru) December. (not just deer hunting, but, as an example, a late fall/winter turkey hunt that chases deer from prime wintering ground at times) Big game management always seems to be reactive instead of proactive. Case after case can be cited where late hunts, antlerless hunts take place one year and the next year theres either a total closure or prohibitive permit system put in place. We always seem to wait until the horses are out before we close the barn doors. We watch herds decline with hunters reporting seeing less and less deer, but it's ok-the buck/doe ratio is good. How do manage against this? You can't stop people from building or recreating. You can't stop highways from being built and keep more cars off the road. You can't blame it all on hunting. Guess I'm glad in a way to be old, I don't have many answers for these new problems.
Lot of good points............glad I'm old too... :chuckle:
Post by: Wacenturion on July 25, 2014, 09:52:26 AM
less tags sold..off season hound hunts for cougar.Permits to bait bears with strict details on bait and clean sites..Predators may be the number one problem, but hunter harvest is easier to manage.
Soo lets mess with everyone and make them change rather than address the underlying predator and habitat issues. Also add extra complexity for Hunter and more load on wdfw staff to administer.
Sounds like a great idea, take my guns too since crazy people use them to kill people...
Sorry don't mean to attack you personally, You are far from the only person to have this idea.
But the "have to do something" because it is easier solutions bother me as they don't solve problems, just mask them to everyone's long term detriment. I deal with it at work too, one dept does double work because another dept manager not want to hold his workers accountable.
And some of this is what I was hitting on.
The "have to do something" idea, especially with hasty decisions based on "Isn't the WDFW formulating the next 3 year plan, I don't think we have much time?" is not thinking the situation through, let alone addressing my earlier question of "is there a problem in the first place?"
There are three mind sets, mule deer numbers are fine, mule deer numbers are declining and I'm not sure which/I don't know.
On one hand you have WDFW's Mr. Fitkin, strongly behind the wolves and saying the mule deer numbers are in good shape, here are more late permits to show you I mean what I say.
Then there are those like MDF's Mr. McKinley, that believe there is a issue in Washington with decreasing mule deer numbers.
The third is self explanatory :chuckle:
Obviously, one of these is BS, and before we go any further in voluntarily giving away more of our hunting, we had better all figure out which one is legit and deal with that first! :twocents:
:tup:
Post by: James on July 25, 2014, 10:09:31 AM
Anecdotally I am concerned about migration corridors and tree encroachment. The areas I hunt migratory mule deer, it is obvious that the caring capacity of the environment is not the limiting factor and wintering grounds don’t seem to have changed much in the last 20 years, but the number of extra houses, roads, traffic, etc. in-between the two has substantially increased. Obviously cars kill deer every year and that is a pretty quantifiable number, but I would be interested to know if the ones that don’t get hit are at higher risk for winterkill and predation because of the obstacles they face.
In Baker California they have tons and tons of underpasses and directing fences just for migrating desert Tortoises, you would think we could put some effort into that for ungulates, assuming of course it is significantly impacting the population.
Post by: bearpaw on July 25, 2014, 10:39:44 AM
Probably get a lot of disagreement, BUT I think the habitat/predator effect on mule deer is way overblown. Frankly, in the late 50's early sixties with the exception of wolves there were considerably more predators (Mt. Lions, coyotes and bears) than there are now. In the more remote summer habitat lions and bears were quite common (at least in Utah, a major mule deer state and pretty good study of long term mule deer management) Herds were doing very well. In the mid 60's when herds began to decline the state put an emphasis on habitat restoration and cleared thousands of acres of winter habitat of non browse vegetation (junipers and other evergreens) in an effort to create better winter browse. Results: negligible.I am not sure I buy there are less predators than the 50's ...I think we have more predators now than back then ..Especially now that we do not have a general hound hunting season ..I do not care what the Bio's think or know ..I am very sure there are predators that never see man and have no way of being counted by Bio's who anyone else that thinks they know so .... :twocents:
Bottom Line-the major reason for mule deer decline is humans. Not just hunters, but the overall impact of a much bigger population intruding upon mule deer habitat. Homes built on prime winter ground. Better highways leading to higher road kill numbers. Year around off road recreation not only during the harsh winter period, but during the early fawning season. Hunting seasons that extend from late August into (and sometimes thru) December. (not just deer hunting, but, as an example, a late fall/winter turkey hunt that chases deer from prime wintering ground at times) Big game management always seems to be reactive instead of proactive. Case after case can be cited where late hunts, antlerless hunts take place one year and the next year theres either a total closure or prohibitive permit system put in place. We always seem to wait until the horses are out before we close the barn doors. We watch herds decline with hunters reporting seeing less and less deer, but it's ok-the buck/doe ratio is good. How do manage against this? You can't stop people from building or recreating. You can't stop highways from being built and keep more cars off the road. You can't blame it all on hunting. Guess I'm glad in a way to be old, I don't have many answers for these new problems.
There were a lot of houndsmen back then, less people sure but most of the logging roads were open too. Wasn't the "close all the roads" mentality.
I wasn't around in the 50's though so I can't argue if there were more or less predators back then.
...But I do know we got our fair share of predators now!
I knew and/or hunted with some of the cougar bounty hunters from the 50's. (Cougar Sam) Sam Miller, Bert Edwards, Leo Bruce, to name a few. Most are dead now but they told me about how hard they had to hunt to find cougars and that they had to go back into the mountains to find cougars in those days. When I started hunting cougars in the 70's it was all we could do to find 1 legal cougar (of any sex) in a week when hunting 20 hours a day looking for tracks. By the 90's I offered 3-day guaranteed hunts and we averaged finding 5 tracks per day and would higrade for the best cougar. Then the greenies passed their initiative and since cougars have been even further under managed. I can cover the same country today (with the exception of Ferry County where the tribe hunts cougars with dogs and they aren't quite as over populated) and often find a dozen cougar tracks in a day of looking in Stevens County.
Today the countryside is so saturated with cougars, there are cougars living within 1 mile of most towns in northeast Washington and WDFW knows that too because they have to respond to cougar complaints regularly on the edge of most of these towns.
WDFW admitted in the Colville wolf meeting this spring there are likely 4000 cougar in WA, they used to say there were 2000 cougar in WA, then they said likely 3000 cougars for several years, now it's 4000 cougars. Studies have shown that cougars eat 25 to 50 deer per year, do the math. 2000 more cougar means 50,000 to 100,000 more deer are being eaten today than when we had half as many cougars. If anyone thinks all these cougars are eating grasshoppers and squirrels they are sadly mistaken. We find deer kills all the time made by cougars and I can tell you from my experience and from studies, mule deer is the preferential food for cougars, where there are mule deer cougar will focus on them.
The other biggest predator problem in my region is coyotes, since trapping was eliminated the tool box for reducing the coyote population is very limited, coyote numbers have exploded and they are impacting fawn survival in their first year of life and even impacting adult deer survival at times, especially during hard winters. Currently coyote contests are one of the best tools we have for controlling coyote numbers, but the greenies are working on eliminating that tool too. Anyone who has spent much time watching coyotes has likely seen how 2 or 3 coyotes will work adult deer to get them, I've watched it numerous times, it's truly an organized hunt almost like you read about with wolves but on a smaller scale. Many people have also seen how coyotes seek out small fawns in the summer. The problem is that there are so many coyotes this is all happening far more often.
Don't get me wrong, I love predators, I love hunting predators, they are fascinating critters. But unmanaged numbers of predators overly impact all our other wildlife. As wolves multiply the impacts will likely be even greater as we have seen in many areas of other states. I'm also not saying that habitat is not important, but currently there are not even enough mule deer to find many on the existing winter range in NE Washington that is gated to keep everyone out all winter/spring. That in itself tells me that winter range is not the #1 limiting factor. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on July 25, 2014, 10:45:38 AM
Isn't the WDFW formulating the next 3 year plan, I don't think we have much time?
I think we need to know more about the study from Dan, at least some preliminary indicators if the study isn't completed, we also need a rough draft of the mule deer plan, and we need to remember that to gain support the plan/initiative will have to be palatable to hunters, if you go into this with ideas that are unpopular with most hunters the initiative will be harder to sell to the Wildlife Commission.
There are usually several ways to accomplish any goal. If we know the science we can do some polls on this forum to quickly figure out what management ideas to address the science will be opposed by most hunters or accepted by most hunters, then we have a better idea of which management proposals to include in the initiative. My thought is that a comprehensive mix of ideas to address the issue in each region of the state will likely work best. :twocents:
Post by: baldopepper on July 25, 2014, 11:05:54 AM
Post by: bearpaw on July 25, 2014, 11:15:54 AM
While this may not be a popular opinion here on this forum, I want a game plan that is based off of well executed scientific studies. This is of course because I am a man of science myself. In my discussions with wildlife bio’s the biggest issue with this is cost. They don’t have the funding to obtain the data to put together a comprehensive plan for mule deer, just pieces here and there. Of course there is always the difficulty of surveying blacktails as well…
Anecdotally I am concerned about migration corridors and tree encroachment. The areas I hunt migratory mule deer, it is obvious that the caring capacity of the environment is not the limiting factor and wintering grounds don’t seem to have changed much in the last 20 years, but the number of extra houses, roads, traffic, etc. in-between the two has substantially increased. Obviously cars kill deer every year and that is a pretty quantifiable number, but I would be interested to know if the ones that don’t get hit are at higher risk for winterkill and predation because of the obstacles they face.
In Baker California they have tons and tons of underpasses and directing fences just for migrating desert Tortoises, you would think we could put some effort into that for ungulates, assuming of course it is significantly impacting the population.
In all due respect, Idaho said they had the data and did a major mule deer initiative which in all truthfulness is for the most part ineffective at this point after several years but in another 5 years hopefully we will see some obvious results. I think a major problems slowing results is the failure of IDFG to admit coyotes impact deer numbers, more winter feeding is needed during harsh winters, and the continued harvest of doe mule deer, of course this is my opinion but I think it bears merit when you consider all the facts known about deer management. There is a lot of good info regarding mule deer and habitat but I really think Idaho needs to broaden the scope of their initiative to be more effective.
More info here about the Idaho Mule Deer Initiative: https://fishandgame.idaho.gov/content/mdi
Post by: bearpaw on July 25, 2014, 11:29:10 AM
I'm certainly not any position to debate those numbers and I suspect Bearpaw is correct. BUT, I think the bottom line in this state is that any management plan has to work around the fact that the majority of voters in this state are not going to support any program that allows the taking of more Mt. lions or bears and, in fact, is likely to become more restrictive. Coyotes don't seem to receive the same greenie support as lions, wolves and bears, but I don't suspect we'll ever see the use of poisons again-which are undoubtedly the most effective way to control them. (geeze-they won't even let them use poison on pigeons in Seattle when they are crapping on the heads of workers). The environmentalists are here to stay and to think we'll ever go back to hunting being managed by and for hunters is a pipe dream. Any management plan has to take into consideration the huge block of voters who want to arm chair quarterback game management. We can cry and complain all we want, but that won't help develop a plan that works. None of us like it, but to ignore the impact of these people would be a mistake.
Everyone is saying we need to manage by the science, even the greenies say that but they try to manipulate the science using biologists on their payroll and by infiltrating the ranks of WDFW and USFS. Unless WDFW takes a stand on the science we will continue to see erosion of wildlife numbers and hunting to satisfy greenie agenda. I think we need to look at the science available from all western agencies and then consider how to manage based on the available science and stand by that. To simply give in and say we have too many greenies to manage by the best science first is not correct, most people simply want wildlife managed by the science, we need to get a well thought out initiative together that hunters will support, the wildlife commission will support, and the masses will support it if it is based on the science. :twocents:
Post by: huntnphool on July 25, 2014, 11:53:26 AM
I'm certainly not any position to debate those numbers and I suspect Bearpaw is correct. BUT, I think the bottom line in this state is that any management plan has to work around the fact that the majority of voters in this state are not going to support any program that allows the taking of more Mt. lions or bears and, in fact, is likely to become more restrictive. Coyotes don't seem to receive the same greenie support as lions, wolves and bears, but I don't suspect we'll ever see the use of poisons again-which are undoubtedly the most effective way to control them. (geeze-they won't even let them use poison on pigeons in Seattle when they are crapping on the heads of workers). The environmentalists are here to stay and to think we'll ever go back to hunting being managed by and for hunters is a pipe dream. Any management plan has to take into consideration the huge block of voters who want to arm chair quarterback game management. We can cry and complain all we want, but that won't help develop a plan that works. None of us like it, but to ignore the impact of these people would be a mistake.
BINGO!
Post by: bobcat on July 25, 2014, 11:58:04 AM
Number two certainly wouldn't be popular with many hunters, but I don't think they could argue that it wouldn't be beneficial.
And of course it's pretty hard to say better habitat isn't a good thing.
Reducing predators is a good idea but not likely to ever happen in this state.
Post by: baldopepper on July 25, 2014, 12:09:34 PM
Post by: bearpaw on July 25, 2014, 12:16:37 PM
Bearpaw I couldn't agree more with what you are saying. My point is that somehow we must offer an olive branch to the reasonable (if there are and I think there are) environmental groups out there, sit down and try to work out a plan that can be presented to management to implement. As it stands now we force managers to attempt to mediate the opposing sides and both sides seem to make it into a winner take all situation. Frankly, given the two choices they are going to go everytime with the side that represents the most votes-I think none of us are so naďve as to not see that. Logic and good science have always proven to take a back seat vote counts. With your recent committee work I suspect you may have met some so called "greenies" who might be willing to sit down and help work out an honest, science based proposal that we might not all love, but could live with.
Nothing wrong with meeting in the middle on issues, but what I hear is people throwing in the towel before any negotiating begins, that is not good negotiating. I say go into negotiations with supporting evidence/good science, show how the extremist groups are incorrect, build confidence with the masses on how to have robust populations of all wildlife, and then end up in the middle somewhere with a plan where everyone benefits. :twocents:
Post by: lamrith on July 25, 2014, 12:17:00 PM
Post by: Bigshooter on July 25, 2014, 12:28:02 PM
Cutting Hunter harvest just feeds more predators and will not help overall. Lowering doe harvest? We get one deer a year per Hunter, how is it other states allow a buck and multiple does per Hunter and still have deer everywhere? Habitat improvement and strong predator control will likely reap the greatest benefit vs investment.
There isn't a state that doesn't have decreasing mule deer numbers. Get on any hunting forum and guys from every state say less doe's need to be killed to improve numbers. I think in the next couple years you will see ID end general season youth doe hunts because of declining deer numbers. And it will happen because of hunters.
Post by: baldopepper on July 25, 2014, 12:29:34 PM
Well put! It is a tall mountain to climb, but for sure you can't get to the top without trying!Bearpaw I couldn't agree more with what you are saying. My point is that somehow we must offer an olive branch to the reasonable (if there are and I think there are) environmental groups out there, sit down and try to work out a plan that can be presented to management to implement. As it stands now we force managers to attempt to mediate the opposing sides and both sides seem to make it into a winner take all situation. Frankly, given the two choices they are going to go everytime with the side that represents the most votes-I think none of us are so naďve as to not see that. Logic and good science have always proven to take a back seat vote counts. With your recent committee work I suspect you may have met some so called "greenies" who might be willing to sit down and help work out an honest, science based proposal that we might not all love, but could live with.
Nothing wrong with meeting in the middle on issues, but what I hear is people throwing in the towel before any negotiating begins, that is not good negotiating. I say go into negotiations with supporting evidence/good science, show how the extremist groups are incorrect, build confidence with the masses on how to have robust populations of all wildlife, and then end up in the middle somewhere with a plan where everyone benefits. :twocents:
Post by: Wacenturion on July 25, 2014, 12:42:01 PM
The MDI has three basic goals:
Protect and Improve Habitat
Improve Mule Deer Numbers
Increase Hunter Satisfaction
While these three goals are listed separately, they are not mutually exclusive of each other. Hunter satisfaction can be increased in one of two ways; 1) increase deer populations, or 2) manage the deer hunting season framework to better accommodate the various types of deer hunters identified in the statewide mule deer management plan (2008). Ultimately, mule deer populations can only increase through increased fawn production which is closely associated with habitat abundance, quality, and connectivity. Because of this MDI is a primarily habitat based initiative. Habitat is a key component influencing mule deer populations. Habitat changes have lessened the ability of some areas to support desirable mule deer populations.
Wildlife Vehicle Collisions (WVCs)...........IDFG and ITD are currently working together to increase WVC data collection efforts and identify WVC hotspots. Once these hotspots are identified IDFG and ITD will work cooperatively to mitigate these locations.
Private Lands..........MDI cooperatively funds three positions that provide technical assistance and funding opportunities to landowners who are enrolled in federal programs such as CRP and State Acres for Wildlife Enhancement (SAFE), or are interested in managing their properties for mule deer and other wildlife species. This new direction for the MDI program is helping IDFG to achieve this goal. These positions are cooperatively funded through; IDFG, Pheasants Forever (PF), US Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Intermountain West Joint Venture.
Sage Steppe.............The MDI program has worked to improve sage brush through shrub plantings (over 1 million shrubs since 2004), sagebrush aerial seeding efforts, and working with federal and state land management agencies to improve sage steppe. MDI is also cooperating with the Sage Grouse Initiative (SGI), an NRCS program established to improve sage steppe habitats for both sage grouse, but also benefits mule deer.
Riparian................... MDI is currently working with land management agencies (USFS, BLM, NRCS) to improve riparian areas through better grazing management practices such as fencing and offsite water developments.
Quaking Aspen..........MDI is actively involved in working with land management agencies to increase aspen communities to benefit mule deer and other wildlife.
This initiative is pretty typical of wildlife agency plans. In this case plan was changed to initiative to make you think it's something new. I just wonder if you all see some commonality in the above sections? Do you perhaps see that the term "working with" or similar used throughout? That should be a dead give away.
First....Idaho Fish and Game has no control over other agencies or their agenda. They can influence if they have a good working relationship, but therein lies the problem. Turf, it factors in. Everyone has their own priority or vision, which unfortunately varies greatly.
"Working with" tends to work as it indicates effort, which is pure nonsense in reality. Very little meaningful effort ends up on the ground that actually has a positive result for said wildlife, whatever species. Sounds good, but generally is nothing more that a smokescreen. It does however buy time until the next planning cycle that usually brings with it nomenclature changes to further deflect or mislead the public.
Bearpaw....you said....
"In all due respect, Idaho said they had the data and did a major mule deer initiative which in all truthfulness is for the most part ineffective at this point after several years but in another 5 years hopefully we will see some obvious results."
The front end of your statement rings true and I hate to tell you, it will end up being the same result 5 more years down the road.
If anyone doesn't believe me, just start searching state wildlife agency plans or initiatives or whatever buzz word they use and simply see the year written vs. the current year and reported results. Most don't ever achieve what they say because they are unrealistic as stated above and most of the goals and objectives are not supported by actual work on the ground. They are mearly wish lists that tend to make the public believe something wonderful is about to happen.
I'm not talking about little projects here and there but actual long term ongoing habitat manipulation or restoration that over time influence the overall population in a positive manner. Too much work for most biologists, plus the risk factor of leaving the comfortable realm of speculation rather than putting you money where your mouth is. Easier to say we don't have the funds. Management by meetings....all paper...a bunch of baloney, and the real reason things are going south. :twocents:
Post by: Bigshooter on July 25, 2014, 12:49:54 PM
The things that we can do to improve numbers is to improve winter range and restrict hunter harvest. But both of these things take sacrifice from hunters that most hunters are not will to do.
Post by: baldopepper on July 25, 2014, 12:53:00 PM
Post by: bearpaw on July 25, 2014, 01:15:33 PM
I think a MDI needs to look at things we can control. Predators are something that we would all like to see less of but, we are NEVER going to see baiting legalized, we are Never going to see hound hunting legalized, we are NEVER going to see trapping with steel traps legalized, and we are years away from seeing hunting as a tool to control wolves. The best we can hope for to better control predators is more liberal seasons.
The things that we can do to improve numbers is to improve winter range and restrict hunter harvest. But both of these things take sacrifice from hunters that most hunters are not will to do.
There's more than one way to skin a cat. Simply increasing boot season lengths/quotas on cougars will help that problem. Supporting and publisizing in the right fashion coyote hunting opportunities can improve that problem. Allowing over the counter spring bear permits with a cap/quota on harvest can help with bear impact on fawns/calves. ;)
Post by: Curly on July 25, 2014, 01:16:33 PM
Post by: bearpaw on July 25, 2014, 01:22:04 PM
I don't know how you get a good management plan together when certain tribes won't even contribute to management by providing harvest reports.
I am not willing to throw my arms in the air and give up without trying. Even if the tribes will not provide info (I think for obvious reasons), I bet most will agree that we all would benefit by increased wildlife numbers. Let's try to work with them on issues where we can agree and/or work together, remember nothing ventured nothing gained! :dunno:
Post by: bearpaw on July 25, 2014, 01:23:03 PM
Idaho's Mule Deer Initiative...........a summary
The MDI has three basic goals:
Protect and Improve Habitat
Improve Mule Deer Numbers
Increase Hunter Satisfaction
While these three goals are listed separately, they are not mutually exclusive of each other. Hunter satisfaction can be increased in one of two ways; 1) increase deer populations, or 2) manage the deer hunting season framework to better accommodate the various types of deer hunters identified in the statewide mule deer management plan (2008). Ultimately, mule deer populations can only increase through increased fawn production which is closely associated with habitat abundance, quality, and connectivity. Because of this MDI is a primarily habitat based initiative. Habitat is a key component influencing mule deer populations. Habitat changes have lessened the ability of some areas to support desirable mule deer populations.
Wildlife Vehicle Collisions (WVCs)...........IDFG and ITD are currently working together to increase WVC data collection efforts and identify WVC hotspots. Once these hotspots are identified IDFG and ITD will work cooperatively to mitigate these locations.
Private Lands..........MDI cooperatively funds three positions that provide technical assistance and funding opportunities to landowners who are enrolled in federal programs such as CRP and State Acres for Wildlife Enhancement (SAFE), or are interested in managing their properties for mule deer and other wildlife species. This new direction for the MDI program is helping IDFG to achieve this goal. These positions are cooperatively funded through; IDFG, Pheasants Forever (PF), US Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Intermountain West Joint Venture.
Sage Steppe.............The MDI program has worked to improve sage brush through shrub plantings (over 1 million shrubs since 2004), sagebrush aerial seeding efforts, and working with federal and state land management agencies to improve sage steppe. MDI is also cooperating with the Sage Grouse Initiative (SGI), an NRCS program established to improve sage steppe habitats for both sage grouse, but also benefits mule deer.
Riparian................... MDI is currently working with land management agencies (USFS, BLM, NRCS) to improve riparian areas through better grazing management practices such as fencing and offsite water developments.
Quaking Aspen..........MDI is actively involved in working with land management agencies to increase aspen communities to benefit mule deer and other wildlife.
This initiative is pretty typical of wildlife agency plans. In this case plan was changed to initiative to make you think it's something new. I just wonder if you all see some commonality in the above sections? Do you perhaps see that the term "working with" or similar used throughout? That should be a dead give away.
First....Idaho Fish and Game has no control over other agencies or their agenda. They can influence if they have a good working relationship, but therein lies the problem. Turf, it factors in. Everyone has their own priority or vision, which unfortunately varies greatly.
"Working with" tends to work as it indicates effort, which is pure nonsense in reality. Very little meaningful effort ends up on the ground that actually has a positive result for said wildlife, whatever species. Sounds good, but generally is nothing more that a smokescreen. It does however buy time until the next planning cycle that usually brings with it nomenclature changes to further deflect or mislead the public.
Bearpaw....you said....
"In all due respect, Idaho said they had the data and did a major mule deer initiative which in all truthfulness is for the most part ineffective at this point after several years but in another 5 years hopefully we will see some obvious results."
The front end of your statement rings true and I hate to tell you, it will end up being the same result 5 more years down the road.
If anyone doesn't believe me, just start searching state wildlife agency plans or initiatives or whatever buzz word they use and simply see the year written vs. the current year and reported results. Most don't ever achieve what they say because they are unrealistic as stated above and most of the goals and objectives are not supported by actual work on the ground. They are mearly wish lists that tend to make the public believe something wonderful is about to happen.
I'm not talking about little projects here and there but actual long term ongoing habitat manipulation or restoration that over time influence the overall population in a positive manner. Too much work for most biologists, plus the risk factor of leaving the comfortable realm of speculation rather than putting you money where your mouth is. Easier to say we don't have the funds. Management by meetings....all paper...a bunch of baloney, and the real reason things are going south. :twocents:
Sadly, I couldn't agree more....
Post by: bobcat on July 25, 2014, 01:28:28 PM
I don't know how you get a good management plan together when certain tribes won't even contribute to management by providing harvest reports.
The state needs to get the tribes involved, and convince them to limit their harvest as well. Otherwise, all that happens when mule deer numbers increase, is the tribes kill more deer, while we are taking less. Kind of like what happened with having the spike only elk restriction on the eastside. Now the Yakama tribe kills all the trophy bulls that we don't.
Post by: Bigshooter on July 25, 2014, 01:31:53 PM
What you listed were all things that I was thinking of when I said more liberal seasons. And they are the best we can hope for.
Post by: baldopepper on July 25, 2014, 01:39:17 PM
Post by: jackelope on July 25, 2014, 01:43:47 PM
The decision seems to be unanimous Dale, we need predator control.
Obvious choice up here in the 100 GMU's with our small struggling little herds of Mule Deer
Not sure how that factors into the MDI, or if that's a separate deal like the cougar plan? Can the MDI call for a new cougar plan?
In my mostly uneducated opinion, there's some major mountain lion issues. Last year in SE Washington on 1 trail cam over a 2 month soak, I had 4 different lions on it. This year I have 3. I know 2 of the cats last year got killed by hunters.
Post by: Wacenturion on July 25, 2014, 01:52:36 PM
Don't just buy into a plan or action dictated by meaningless paragraphs that do nothing. Put WDFW and other entities, i.e. conservation groups, etc on the hot seat. Press the issue. Let them know that the usual has done nothing and you are aware of it.
Also....whether you like it or not, tribes may be your best friend. Develop relationships which takes time if you want to change the perception that palefaces don't like them. They have real power. They actually want the same thing....in it's simplest sense...numbers.
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on July 25, 2014, 01:53:33 PM
First, wolves are a game changer (pun intended), and the differences between the presence and absence of wolves will vary greatly - and the effects on mule deer are/will be profound, and very different depending on the fairly local habitat characteristics. However, the net effect will be less mule deer.
In terms of predation in general, I think predation effects are greater even though some predator populations are smaller - because the herds are smaller too. Expecting State or Federal government to do anything different with predation is a waste of resources - expend them elsewhere. Hunters who want predator control need to take it upon themselves and devote more efforts to hunting predators where they like to hunt deer. Predator control is small-scale and its effects are temporary, there is absolutely no way WDFW can control predators even if they want to do so. What we can do is fight aggressively for increased opportunities: bring back effective, body-gripping trapping on private land, over the counter second bear tags statewide, etc.
I would like to address herd size/herd ratios/scientific management too. There is very little scientific basis for managing mule deer hunting - 99% of it is social. We stop hunting populations long before they are in danger of extinction, and wildlife conflicts preclude reaching habitat carrying capacity anywhere people live and grow crops. So, the parameters of minimum viable populations and habitat carrying capacity don't apply very much to harvest management - it's people management, and the key to habitat is the better the quality and quantity of habitat where deer are welcome and tolerated, the larger the deer herd can be allowed to increase. Throw in enough bucks surviving to get the breeding done, and enough fawns surviving to replace the adults that die - that's the end of the biology. Managing for buck escapement ensures the breeding, hence the ratios - but those are quite a bit higher, socially, than what is required for breeding. All of the other biological considerations are fine-tuning - for size of bucks, number of antler points, increased fawn survival through synchrony of breeding and fawning - they may have some effect on herd composition, and a small effect on herd size, but it is small overall, and geared toward social desires: we want big bucks, we want a certain level of probability of hunting success, BUT we want to hunt every year, with OTC licenses. We want high buck survival for the late special permit hunts so they are a virtual gimme for the lottery winners, but then we complain that we are hunting during a lousy time of year. Archers want the rut, modern guys want later dates, muzzleloader guys want more units open.
We as deer hunters are overly dependent on technology: it increases success at the expense of opportunity. The few who would sacrifice their own technology for better season dates or longer seasons are in the minority. We complain about short seasons, but the majority vocally oppose limiting their motorized access.
I have my own preferences and biases. I think we should hunt mule deer in September and October, then leave them alone to do their breeding and get about the business of surviving winter. No late permits, no late general mule deer hunts for modern, muzzy or archers. We should get much more vocal about closing crucial winter ranges to AT LEAST motorized access to protect herds and keep them on lands where they are tolerated; pushing them off the public land and down into peoples' yards and orchards where they are less welcome, is stupid.
We should vocally support management to make our national forests more fire-safe: mule deer don't thrive on closed canopy forests. Thinning and cool burns - rather than firestorms that sterilize soils - would greatly enhance the size of mule deer herds, within the tolerances of existing human population and land uses.
We have around 100,000 mule deer, give or take 50,000. It is biologically correct that our herds are in good shape - in terms of persistence and postseason buck ratios. That is the disconnect, we want more animals to kill, AND with more bucks surviving.
I hope the initiative works - I suspect I know who your author will be. My only piece of advice, really, is for interested sportsmen to really figure out what they want, and to do it. Don't waste efforts trying to get WDFW to do a bunch more for big game species, the funding and demographics of the voters preclude any sudden emphasis and pouring of funds to deer.
When you are in Wenatchee hit me up, I'd love to chat.
Post by: huntnphool on July 25, 2014, 01:56:03 PM
I participated in several North of Falcon meetings and I guarantee they are very, very contentious with many agendas and many hard heads. Every little fact is disputed and everyone is determined to get their own way. At the end, no one walks out totally happy, BUT harvest numbers are determined, seasons are set. The tribes thought the netters and the sportsman got to much and the netters and sportsman thought the tribes got to much and the tribes and sportsman thought the netters should be shot anyway. Thru all that, we are seeing results and no one can debate that salmon are not on the rebound in this state. If that's what it takes to get deer and elk numbers on the rebound then let the neg oations begin. Personally I would hold out to make sure harvestable predator numbers are part of any big game management plan. They have to be, it would be like leaving the tribes or netters out of any salmon negotiations. They're there, they harvest and they have to be controlled like any other harvester must be. You have to come up with some sort of a plan before you can pick it apart.
+1
Post by: baldopepper on July 25, 2014, 02:01:41 PM
Post by: huntnphool on July 25, 2014, 02:02:13 PM
Welcome to the Forum Dan. I've been through many iterations of the "how should we manage our herds?" discussion. I don't have all the answers, but would like to throw out some thoughts and observations.
First, wolves are a game changer (pun intended), and the differences between the presence and absence of wolves will vary greatly - and the effects on mule deer are/will be profound, and very different depending on the fairly local habitat characteristics. However, the net effect will be less mule deer.
In terms of predation in general, I think predation effects are greater even though some predator populations are smaller - because the herds are smaller too. Expecting State or Federal government to do anything different with predation is a waste of resources - expend them elsewhere. Hunters who want predator control need to take it upon themselves and devote more efforts to hunting predators where they like to hunt deer. Predator control is small-scale and its effects are temporary, there is absolutely no way WDFW can control predators even if they want to do so. What we can do is fight aggressively for increased opportunities: bring back effective, body-gripping trapping on private land, over the counter second bear tags statewide, etc.
I would like to address herd size/herd ratios/scientific management too. There is very little scientific basis for managing mule deer hunting - 99% of it is social. We stop hunting populations long before they are in danger of extinction, and wildlife conflicts preclude reaching habitat carrying capacity anywhere people live and grow crops. So, the parameters of minimum viable populations and habitat carrying capacity don't apply very much to harvest management - it's people management, and the key to habitat is the better the quality and quantity of habitat where deer are welcome and tolerated, the larger the deer herd can be allowed to increase. Throw in enough bucks surviving to get the breeding done, and enough fawns surviving to replace the adults that die - that's the end of the biology. Managing for buck escapement ensures the breeding, hence the ratios - but those are quite a bit higher, socially, than what is required for breeding. All of the other biological considerations are fine-tuning - for size of bucks, number of antler points, increased fawn survival through synchrony of breeding and fawning - they may have some effect on herd composition, and a small effect on herd size, but it is small overall, and geared toward social desires: we want big bucks, we want a certain level of probability of hunting success, BUT we want to hunt every year, with OTC licenses. We want high buck survival for the late special permit hunts so they are a virtual gimme for the lottery winners, but then we complain that we are hunting during a lousy time of year. Archers want the rut, modern guys want later dates, muzzleloader guys want more units open.
We as deer hunters are overly dependent on technology: it increases success at the expense of opportunity. The few who would sacrifice their own technology for better season dates or longer seasons are in the minority. We complain about short seasons, but the majority vocally oppose limiting their motorized access.
I have my own preferences and biases. I think we should hunt mule deer in September and October, then leave them alone to do their breeding and get about the business of surviving winter. No late permits, no late general mule deer hunts for modern, muzzy or archers. We should get much more vocal about closing crucial winter ranges to AT LEAST motorized access to protect herds and keep them on lands where they are tolerated; pushing them off the public land and down into peoples' yards and orchards where they are less welcome, is stupid.
We should vocally support management to make our national forests more fire-safe: mule deer don't thrive on closed canopy forests. Thinning and cool burns - rather than firestorms that sterilize soils - would greatly enhance the size of mule deer herds, within the tolerances of existing human population and land uses.
We have around 100,000 mule deer, give or take 50,000. It is biologically correct that our herds are in good shape - in terms of persistence and postseason buck ratios. That is the disconnect, we want more animals to kill, AND with more bucks surviving.
I hope the initiative works - I suspect I know who your author will be. My only piece of advice, really, is for interested sportsmen to really figure out what they want, and to do it. Don't waste efforts trying to get WDFW to do a bunch more for big game species, the funding and demographics of the voters preclude any sudden emphasis and pouring of funds to deer.
When you are in Wenatchee hit me up, I'd love to chat.
:tup:
Post by: bearpaw on July 25, 2014, 02:04:56 PM
Bearpaw and everyone else. My post was more to educate so that when folks are participating at any level ask the hard questions....where's the beef? Actual on the ground major work, increased ability to take predators, etc. The things that will actually make things better....whatever they may be.
Don't just buy into a plan or action dictated by meaningless paragraphs that do nothing. Put WDFW and other entities, i.e. conservation groups, etc on the hot seat. Press the issue. Let them know that the usual has done nothing and you are aware of it.
Also....whether you like it or not, tribes may be your best friend. Develop relationships which takes time if you want to change the perception that palefaces don't like them. They have real power. They actually want the same thing....in it's simplest sense...numbers.
:tup: totally agree
Post by: jackelope on July 25, 2014, 03:11:32 PM
Post by: KFhunter on July 25, 2014, 04:28:44 PM
I think there are two things that could be done to improve mule deer numbers and that most people would agree with: 1) restoration/improvement of habitat and 2) reduce harvest by hunters.
Number two certainly wouldn't be popular with many hunters, but I don't think they could argue that it wouldn't be beneficial.
And of course it's pretty hard to say better habitat isn't a good thing.
Reducing predators is a good idea but not likely to ever happen in this state.
Habitat can always be improved, but many areas of the state are no where near carrying capacity.
reducing harvest by hunters will increase harvest by predators, and increase predators.
I think we can improve habitat where needed, reduce predators and keep hunting restricted during a herd rebuilding phase and in a few short years we could see fantastic hunting.
I think that we're all used to chasing small numbers of animals, we'd all probably freak out if we seen what "could be" if we aggressively managed predators.
Post by: bigmacc on July 25, 2014, 09:42:11 PM
Big Jim, use to stop in our camp every year before the opener. He was a great source of knowledge about mule deer, or just about anything in the Methow.
Definitely going to get that book thanks for the reference!
Great man,someone who has a real passion for the animals he watched over at the time and to this day.He and my dad had many conversations about road closures concerning many of the migration routes in the Methow.Jim would pick my dads brain and even braught Sig to our camp and introduced him to my dad to get a "less scientific" and a more hands on feel of routes from a man that had been hiking and hunting that valley for over 50 years (at that time). Alot of the roads you see closed and gated around the Methow today were contimplated around a campfire between my dad and Jim(specific closers and routes i will not mention).If it was up to my dad for instance,youd only be able to drive to the rifle range going towards Sullivans pond,from that point "get off your a?? and walk". My dad is in his 80,s now and there still isnt enough roads closed! To this day he still thinks Jim walks on water :chuckle:...and you know what i agree,they dont make guys like Jim anymore that watch over our deer in the Methow.... :twocents:
Post by: MuleDeer on July 25, 2014, 10:50:51 PM
The ideas you guys are throwing out are great, and some definitely more critical than others as a starting point. Let me give you all an idea of what we have done or are working on right now in the state. I'll just list a few projects that have or will have an impact on our herds and how we manage.
1. MDF has donated $$ to help WDFW purchase lands to avoid development, and turned those lands into "feel free to hunt" properties. As a matter of fact, I just received an email today about a proposal for WDFW to purchase a 20,000 acre block, bit by bit, just south of the Yakima res. Something we will be looking into helping with.
2. Habitat: major projects we are looking at now...Central and North Central WA habitat improvement after fires is a big one, and we are looking at a number of separate projects to do there. Smaller habitat projects all around E. WA have been or are being done each year as possible. Most of these are funded solely by a local chapter, so our reach has been limited so far, with very few chapters in the state.
3. A study and funding push is being done right now for a 12 mile stretch of Hwy 97 to install 2 underpasses for deer. This is going to cost around $500,000, so it's a big one that we are trying to gain national funding for. Other underpass projects could follow after success in this initial project.
4. Besides the long study that was just done on Mule Deer, we are also funding a current study to monitor fawn mortality in wolf areas vs. non-wolf areas. This will help us in how we recommend management of wolves in the future.
5. Educational and shooting events for youth. These events are not only shooting, but teaching youth the importance of conservation, and being a hunter. Recruitment of new hunters is critical if we are going to be able to continue hunt and have access to the things that we love.
These are just a few of the things we are doing right now. A couple of you mentioned funding...that is our biggest obstacle. That is why my job is to help start more chapters; so we can raise more money to put into these projects. I know some of you are cynical about conservation groups, but remember, we are non profit. That means we have to spend our money...there is nothing left over at the end of the year. And with our low overhead at the national office, that means more $$ on the ground! We've only had a few chapters in WA for the last few years. Our goal is to see WA with around 20-25 chapters statewide, making an even bigger difference for our deer herds.
Thank you all for your comments so far, and keep them coming. I know it's nearing the time to be out scouting, but if any of you would be interested in getting together for a brainstorming session, let's plan it. Ellensburg is usually a good central spot for most of us, but I'll travel anywhere to meet up with you guys, just let me know. I'll be compiling all of the suggestions, working on some legitimate measures to suggest, and present them to our MDI author. As Dale said earlier, the new planning period is right now. That is a great time for you as individuals to have your voices heard. Get online and make your comments. The process of change takes time, but the more we make ourselves heard the better our chance of seeing results. This MDI is not going to be a directive; it is a guideline that we will provide, based on needs and best practices. What's worked in other states will be included, just as what's not worked will be eliminated.
Glad to be here, and I'm glad we're getting some great input here!
Post by: bearpaw on July 25, 2014, 11:05:46 PM
FYI - I do understand both sides of that issue.
How does the MDF stack up, can you give us any numbers/percentages of what happens with state chapter banquet funds and other money raised in the state?
Post by: bearpaw on July 25, 2014, 11:12:15 PM
Post by: MuleDeer on July 25, 2014, 11:32:23 PM
I wish we were on that same level with the local money, but right now we are run on this scale: The local chapter gets 30% right off the top that is earmarked for them specifically. Unfortunately not like SCI, but that number isn't a good representation of where the money is spent, either. I'll give you a couple examples of what I mean.
One I mentioned the other day is Idaho state. In 2011-2012, there were two chapters in Idaho which raised about $50 total for those years, in net dollars, not just chapter funds, but all net dollars. MDF spent over $112,000 in those same two years in Idaho on projects including a highway underpass.
A second example, here in WA is with the new Lewis & Clark chapter. They started their chapter to support the Archery in the Schools program locally. After their first banquet, which was a great event to start off the chapter, they wanted to spend their Chapter Rewards on archery gear for the program. Instead, our youth coordinator wrote them a check for $3500 to pay for the gear. That money came from part of the 70% that does not stay with the chapter. So they were still able to use their chapter rewards for habitat and education.
We list our IRS forms right on our website muledeer.org, so you can see every dime and where it is spent with MDF. We can honestly claim that 91% of our net dollars goes directly towards mission accomplishment. I hope to see the local chapter rewards amount increase in the future as the organization grows. Although we are 26 years old, we really are still a grass roots organization in it's infancy. For a lot of years, MDF was satisfied to just maintain it's "status quo", without much growth. That meant that we didn't raise a lot of money, so a good chunk went to just cover expenses. As we are in the middle of a growth spurt now, we will be able to increase our dollars on ground, because we are not growing our office, just our revenue.
I wish I could have gotten in touch with you yesterday. I was in Colville last night for an "Eyes in the Woods" training, which the MDF is sponsoring all over WA. I'd be happy to sit down with you over coffee and show you some specifics on our numbers, where we are spending our money, and how we work. That also goes for anyone else who wants to know more about the MDF. I firmly believe that absolute transparency needs to be there, so no one needs to question how we do business. It should be very easy to see so folks know they can trust us in what we are doing. Those of you that know me know I'll be the first to bring it to the attention of MDF if things aren't being laid out in the open for all to see.
Post by: MuleDeer on July 25, 2014, 11:42:06 PM
I know there has been some talk of fundraising for some specific things, like the fires this year and the habitat that needs to be replaced. This is where we can make a lot more difference. Through a Conservation Partnership donation, the money can be restricted to only be used on exactly what it is donated for...no marketing, salaries, expenses, etc. the office has the ability to retain up to 10% (usually less) for administration, but at least 90% is guaranteed for that project donated to.
That is why I would suggest donations to go to one fund, then put in under a Conservation Partnership for habitat in N Central WA. The banquets are our bread and butter, and serve an excellent purpose for many reasons besides fund raising, but we can focus more $ with a CP, and get more done quicker. Just a note so you all can see a little better how we operate.
Post by: bearpaw on July 25, 2014, 11:49:44 PM
Back to topic, thanks for the transparency regarding MDF, that's exactly the kind of info that people need to know so they can decide to join or not. THANKS
I like the idea of the CP donation for the fire zone. I have provided support to the MDF in the past and will again, we need these organizations, especially one that puts 90-91% back into wildlife.
We will get together again when our schedules coincide. :tup:
Post by: mtman on July 26, 2014, 06:23:03 AM
Post by: MuleDeer on July 26, 2014, 09:39:23 PM
BTW, just got an email today about a meeting I will be attending on Tuesday about the Methow fires. This meeting is to discuss strategy, teaming up to tackle the issues, etc. Those invited are: MDF, Colville Confederated Tribes, Methow Salmon Recovery Foundation, Okanogan Conservation District, Okanogan County, Okanogan County Cattleman, Okanogan County Farm Bureau, O.C. Health District, O.C. Horticulture Association, O.C. Noxious Weed Board, O.C. PUD, Trout Unlimited, Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board, USDA Forest Service, NRCS, Bureau of Reclamation, US Fish and Wildlife Service, WA State Conservation Commission, WA State Dept of Agriculture, WA State Dept of Ecology, WDFW, WA DNR, WA State, University Cooperative Extension, and the Yakama Nation.
As you can see, they have invited basically everyone. This will be a great time for MDF to stress the importance of restoring the habitat for the herds, and offering ourselves to accomplish these goals, as well as form some partnerships with like-minded groups. I will make sure and post some results of the meeting so you all are in the loop on how things are progressing.
Post by: kevinlisa06 on July 26, 2014, 10:08:55 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: MuleDeer on July 27, 2014, 10:44:22 PM
Post by: KFhunter on July 27, 2014, 10:51:18 PM
I would encourage any of you that have a free minute or two to go to our website and check out our IRS 990 forms. They show where every cent of our money is spent, and it will help you to understand how we operate. We won't hide anything, so if there is something you want to know, if I don't have the answer, I'll get it for you. We are forming new partnerships often, like the Master Stewardship Agreement we recently signed with the Forest Service in this region. It will enable us to procure more dollars, based on timber sales, for mgmt. of Mule Deer, and other partnerships we are getting with local companies, like energy companies and mining industry folks.
BTW, just got an email today about a meeting I will be attending on Tuesday about the Methow fires. This meeting is to discuss strategy, teaming up to tackle the issues, etc. Those invited are: MDF, Colville Confederated Tribes, Methow Salmon Recovery Foundation, Okanogan Conservation District, Okanogan County, Okanogan County Cattleman, Okanogan County Farm Bureau, O.C. Health District, O.C. Horticulture Association, O.C. Noxious Weed Board, O.C. PUD, Trout Unlimited, Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board, USDA Forest Service, NRCS, Bureau of Reclamation, US Fish and Wildlife Service, WA State Conservation Commission, WA State Dept of Agriculture, WA State Dept of Ecology, WDFW, WA DNR, WA State, University Cooperative Extension, and the Yakama Nation.
As you can see, they have invited basically everyone. This will be a great time for MDF to stress the importance of restoring the habitat for the herds, and offering ourselves to accomplish these goals, as well as form some partnerships with like-minded groups. I will make sure and post some results of the meeting so you all are in the loop on how things are progressing.
They missed WPHA
Post by: dingle on July 30, 2014, 10:40:38 AM
Post by: Maverick on July 30, 2014, 02:43:47 PM
Split the state deer tag into three parts and have hunters declare their region. West, east, and northeast. This would help all three deer species. imho.
Agreed!
Post by: Maverick on July 30, 2014, 02:55:29 PM
Draw only for modern, similar to Oregon.. Predators are next on the list.
Problem with this is you'd have a ton of hunting switching to muzzle loader and a bunch guys running around flinging arrows. The 3 point rule works great here. Honestly I disagree with adding anymore restrictions to hunting until the tribes are restricted. Us restricting ourselves is just going to make hunting better for them. Sorry if I offend anyone on here. But tribes being restricted would help.
Post by: bobdog86 on July 30, 2014, 06:14:43 PM
Post by: Stizz on July 31, 2014, 07:27:25 AM
And to be clear, on the cougar and wolf research out of wsu that has helped influence our new management plans...just realize these folks are passionate hunters that care about the resource as much as we do.
Post by: Ironhead on July 31, 2014, 07:38:07 AM
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on July 31, 2014, 08:02:10 AM
Since all the game fence is destroyed on HWY 153 and it will need rebuilt, why don't they go and put in under pass crossing for wildlife to cross the valley and river?
I know it would take a lot due to the fact fence then would have to be on both sides of the road, but hey what a perfect time get it fixed right.
Just lump it in with bill that is already going to get funded hopefully by disaster funds.
And the sand/salt pile in Early Winters state she'd needs to be enclosed some how to keep the attraction to the deer gone.
When ridding off the pass we stop on the east bound wide spot and dress down there often and see and smell dead deer frequently, along with live ones licking the salt off the pile even during the heat in mid day.
Then just down the road the deer/car collision count sign, duh the WASDOT is baiting the deer advertantly to the highway, doesn't take rocket science to see the problem there! :bash:
Post by: grundy53 on July 31, 2014, 08:18:59 AM
I would like to see all Mule Deer hunting go to draw only. Let the Bio's and Science determine the number of permits in each separate unit, Buck and Doe tags. Leave Whitetail and Blacktail OTC. Just my 2 cents.I would be fine with this with one caveat. If you put in for a mule deer permit then you cannot buy a Whitetail/Blacktail tag.
sent from my typewriter
Post by: grundy53 on July 31, 2014, 08:23:12 AM
Theres a huge point being missed here....WHITETAILS. Whitetails have expanded and grown in population throughout eastern wa. What happens is this growing population helps support more predators. A study out of wazzu suggested that cats were selecting mule deer disproportionately over whitetails, maybe because theyre easier to catch. Anyways you get the point here- more whitetail encroachment= more predators=less mule deer. Trying to control the predators is a futile effort in this day and age, so i think we need to focus on more whitetail tags. Like mentioned before, the mule deer doe harvest is ridiculous, maybe we should be making those whitetail doe tags instead!I disagree with your view of those doing the research studies at WSU. Those so called passionate hunters are one of the reason we have such a jacked up cougar plan.
And to be clear, on the cougar and wolf research out of wsu that has helped influence our new management plans...just realize these folks are passionate hunters that care about the resource as much as we do.
sent from my typewriter
Post by: Maverick on July 31, 2014, 08:39:27 AM
I would like to see all Mule Deer hunting go to draw only. Let the Bio's and Science determine the number of permits in each separate unit, Buck and Doe tags. Leave Whitetail and Blacktail OTC. Just my 2 cents.
I disagree with this. Some areas need less seasons. Way to many people can shoot does which is a problem as well. I'd personally like to see a 3 point minimum rule for blacktail as well.
And does anyone thing the bios do all that great of a job in our state?
I'd like to see a way to cull some of the 20+ inch 2 points that I see every year. I personally like the 3 pt rule, i hunt in the SE part of the state. My only grief, is the increase in the large numbers of older, breeding 2 points that I see every year. How about a youth/senior tag for any buck, to include 2 points? or make it 2pt or larger draw option, just an idea. Maybe i'm wrong, and it wouldn't be the first time, but seeing multiple slick 2 points in an area that exceed 20-25" wide seems odd.
Problem with this is how would they decide how big of a two point is legal to shoot. The mature 2 points are the ones that need taken out if the gene pool not the young ones. A lot of people can't tell the differance.
Post by: luvmystang67 on July 31, 2014, 09:38:56 AM
Came down due to drought... bs. It came down because it ate everything up high.
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Cougar-fatally-injures-horse-in-Eastern-Wash-269390491.html (http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Cougar-fatally-injures-horse-in-Eastern-Wash-269390491.html)
Post by: MuleDeer on July 31, 2014, 01:09:20 PM
There are a lot of great comments on this thread and I appreciate all of them. But there is definitely a split between opinions on managing for quality vs. quantity. So, I am starting a simple poll asking which you prefer as a Mule Deer hunter in WA state. That poll will also help show WDFW and the MDI writer, as well as other groups involved what we as a majority want. Make sure to hit the poll and make your voice heard, and thanks!
Post by: bearpaw on July 31, 2014, 01:21:41 PM
Theres a huge point being missed here....WHITETAILS. Whitetails have expanded and grown in population throughout eastern wa. What happens is this growing population helps support more predators. A study out of wazzu suggested that cats were selecting mule deer disproportionately over whitetails, maybe because theyre easier to catch. Anyways you get the point here- more whitetail encroachment= more predators=less mule deer. Trying to control the predators is a futile effort in this day and age, so i think we need to focus on more whitetail tags. Like mentioned before, the mule deer doe harvest is ridiculous, maybe we should be making those whitetail doe tags instead!
And to be clear, on the cougar and wolf research out of wsu that has helped influence our new management plans...just realize these folks are passionate hunters that care about the resource as much as we do.
JEESH... WDFW is supporting the huge predator (cougar) population by having such low harvest quotas on cougar. Open up the cougar season and increase the cougar harvest, predator impacts on mule deer will go down without killing off all the whitetails. :twocents:
Post by: Maverick on July 31, 2014, 01:41:44 PM
Theres a huge point being missed here....WHITETAILS. Whitetails have expanded and grown in population throughout eastern wa. What happens is this growing population helps support more predators. A study out of wazzu suggested that cats were selecting mule deer disproportionately over whitetails, maybe because theyre easier to catch. Anyways you get the point here- more whitetail encroachment= more predators=less mule deer. Trying to control the predators is a futile effort in this day and age, so i think we need to focus on more whitetail tags. Like mentioned before, the mule deer doe harvest is ridiculous, maybe we should be making those whitetail doe tags instead!
And to be clear, on the cougar and wolf research out of wsu that has helped influence our new management plans...just realize these folks are passionate hunters that care about the resource as much as we do.
JEESH... WDFW is supporting the huge predator (cougar) population by having such low harvest quotas on cougar. Open up the cougar season and increase the cougar harvest, predator impacts on mule deer will go down without killing off all the whitetails. :twocents:
Bring back hound hunting!
I remember not too long back reading wsu's study on why cougars have been showing up I'm towns more and more and they said it was due to cougars being over harvested and how the young males are like teenagers and get into trouble. What a bunch of crap! They're over populated!!! Allowing hound hunting for cougars would help a lot!
Post by: bearpaw on July 31, 2014, 02:04:11 PM
Theres a huge point being missed here....WHITETAILS. Whitetails have expanded and grown in population throughout eastern wa. What happens is this growing population helps support more predators. A study out of wazzu suggested that cats were selecting mule deer disproportionately over whitetails, maybe because theyre easier to catch. Anyways you get the point here- more whitetail encroachment= more predators=less mule deer. Trying to control the predators is a futile effort in this day and age, so i think we need to focus on more whitetail tags. Like mentioned before, the mule deer doe harvest is ridiculous, maybe we should be making those whitetail doe tags instead!
And to be clear, on the cougar and wolf research out of wsu that has helped influence our new management plans...just realize these folks are passionate hunters that care about the resource as much as we do.
JEESH... WDFW is supporting the huge predator (cougar) population by having such low harvest quotas on cougar. Open up the cougar season and increase the cougar harvest, predator impacts on mule deer will go down without killing off all the whitetails. :twocents:
Bring back hound hunting!
I remember not too long back reading wsu's study on why cougars have been showing up I'm towns more and more and they said it was due to cougars being over harvested and how the young males are like teenagers and get into trouble. What a bunch of crap! They're over populated!!! Allowing hound hunting for cougars would help a lot!
As a hound hunter I agree, but that requires a political victory in the legislature, that's unlikely to happen anytime real soon. If WDFW simply expanded the cougar quotas for boot hunting (which they could do without the legislature) we could reduce the cougar population sooner than later.
Post by: KFhunter on July 31, 2014, 11:36:35 PM
Theres a huge point being missed here....WHITETAILS. Whitetails have expanded and grown in population throughout eastern wa. What happens is this growing population helps support more predators. A study out of wazzu suggested that cats were selecting mule deer disproportionately over whitetails, maybe because theyre easier to catch. Anyways you get the point here- more whitetail encroachment= more predators=less mule deer. Trying to control the predators is a futile effort in this day and age, so i think we need to focus on more whitetail tags. Like mentioned before, the mule deer doe harvest is ridiculous, maybe we should be making those whitetail doe tags instead!I disagree with your view of those doing the research studies at WSU. Those so called passionate hunters are one of the reason we have such a jacked up cougar plan.
And to be clear, on the cougar and wolf research out of wsu that has helped influence our new management plans...just realize these folks are passionate hunters that care about the resource as much as we do.
sent from my typewriter
:yeah: x1000
I talked with those bio's out in the field many times, was invited to help collar the cougars but man they'd cringe every time I talked about shooting one....and I talked about shooting them quite often :chuckle:
Post by: KFhunter on July 31, 2014, 11:40:28 PM
Theres a huge point being missed here....WHITETAILS. Whitetails have expanded and grown in population throughout eastern wa. What happens is this growing population helps support more predators. A study out of wazzu suggested that cats were selecting mule deer disproportionately over whitetails, maybe because theyre easier to catch. Anyways you get the point here- more whitetail encroachment= more predators=less mule deer. Trying to control the predators is a futile effort in this day and age, so i think we need to focus on more whitetail tags. Like mentioned before, the mule deer doe harvest is ridiculous, maybe we should be making those whitetail doe tags instead!
And to be clear, on the cougar and wolf research out of wsu that has helped influence our new management plans...just realize these folks are passionate hunters that care about the resource as much as we do.
JEESH... WDFW is supporting the huge predator (cougar) population by having such low harvest quotas on cougar. Open up the cougar season and increase the cougar harvest, predator impacts on mule deer will go down without killing off all the whitetails. :twocents:
Bring back hound hunting!
I remember not too long back reading wsu's study on why cougars have been showing up I'm towns more and more and they said it was due to cougars being over harvested and how the young males are like teenagers and get into trouble. What a bunch of crap! They're over populated!!! Allowing hound hunting for cougars would help a lot!
As a hound hunter I agree, but that requires a political victory in the legislature, that's unlikely to happen anytime real soon. If WDFW simply expanded the cougar quotas for boot hunting (which they could do without the legislature) we could reduce the cougar population sooner than later.
and vastly increase the special hound permits they already got going
very poorly ran last year from reading all the threads about it
Post by: huntnphool on August 01, 2014, 12:15:40 AM
And to be clear, on the cougar and wolf research out of wsu that has helped influence our new management plans...just realize these folks are passionate hunters that care about the resource as much as we do.:chuckle:
Post by: Maverick on August 01, 2014, 07:18:35 AM
Theres a huge point being missed here....WHITETAILS. Whitetails have expanded and grown in population throughout eastern wa. What happens is this growing population helps support more predators. A study out of wazzu suggested that cats were selecting mule deer disproportionately over whitetails, maybe because theyre easier to catch. Anyways you get the point here- more whitetail encroachment= more predators=less mule deer. Trying to control the predators is a futile effort in this day and age, so i think we need to focus on more whitetail tags. Like mentioned before, the mule deer doe harvest is ridiculous, maybe we should be making those whitetail doe tags instead!
And to be clear, on the cougar and wolf research out of wsu that has helped influence our new management plans...just realize these folks are passionate hunters that care about the resource as much as we do.
JEESH... WDFW is supporting the huge predator (cougar) population by having such low harvest quotas on cougar. Open up the cougar season and increase the cougar harvest, predator impacts on mule deer will go down without killing off all the whitetails. :twocents:
Bring back hound hunting!
I remember not too long back reading wsu's study on why cougars have been showing up I'm towns more and more and they said it was due to cougars being over harvested and how the young males are like teenagers and get into trouble. What a bunch of crap! They're over populated!!! Allowing hound hunting for cougars would help a lot!
As a hound hunter I agree, but that requires a political victory in the legislature, that's unlikely to happen anytime real soon. If WDFW simply expanded the cougar quotas for boot hunting (which they could do without the legislature) we could reduce the cougar population sooner than later.
and vastly increase the special hound permits they already got going
very poorly ran last year from reading all the threads about it
Would we need legislature in order to increase the amount of special hound permits being given?