Post by: silverdalesauer on September 14, 2014, 10:12:31 PM
WINTHROP, Wash. (AP) - State biologists are worried about how deer are going to survive this winter in the Methow Valley, where the largest wildfire in Washington history blackened 400 square miles.
The lightning-sparked Carlton Complex fire destroyed hundreds of homes after it started in July. It also left little for deer to eat.
The Department of Fish and Wildlife is opening an antlerless hunting season this fall to allow hunters to kill an extra 200 to 300 of the animals, and officials are also preparing to supply food to the herds if it looks like a massive die-off is likely.
Fish and Wildlife biologist Scott Fitkin says that over the next six weeks, cold and snow in the mountains will send thousands of deer into lowland areas, where they'd normally munch on brush to survive the winter.
If nothing is done, officials fear the deer will move into farm and orchard lands, which can cause serious agricultural damage, or scavenge for whatever brush is available, inhibiting the land's natural ability to recover after wildfires.
Post by: spin05 on September 15, 2014, 12:57:40 AM
Post by: duckmen1 on September 15, 2014, 08:55:58 AM
Post by: winshooter88 on September 15, 2014, 09:25:51 AM
Post by: duckmen1 on September 15, 2014, 09:28:27 AM
Dang that means I'm outa the game. I didn't put in for that area on permits. Lol
Post by: jason stevens on September 15, 2014, 10:43:42 AM
Post by: nw_bowhunter on September 15, 2014, 06:29:58 PM
Verified they will be starting with youth who did not draw and put in for certain areas then disabled and senior.so excited might kid might draw.
That sounds ok starting with the youths and diabled, I'm glad they didn't just hand out all the tags to the general modern firearm season. I feel they should also open up some for archery/muzzerloader as well.
Post by: steen on September 15, 2014, 06:34:32 PM
Post by: boneaddict on September 15, 2014, 07:04:07 PM
Post by: jason stevens on September 15, 2014, 07:25:30 PM
Post by: Fishnfowler on September 16, 2014, 12:08:06 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on September 16, 2014, 05:14:33 AM
Post by: boneaddict on September 16, 2014, 06:59:08 AM
Post by: C-Money on September 16, 2014, 07:30:49 AM
Post by: jason stevens on September 16, 2014, 07:27:35 PM
Post by: wsmnut on September 16, 2014, 07:49:13 PM
Is Fitkin responding to pressure or is he wondering what will be left to feed his wolves?
Wsmnut
Post by: jason stevens on September 16, 2014, 08:02:06 PM
Post by: bigmacc on September 16, 2014, 08:25:45 PM
Post by: ROCKWHEELER on September 16, 2014, 10:44:31 PM
Post by: RB on September 16, 2014, 10:50:56 PM
Post by: Romulus1297 on September 16, 2014, 10:54:54 PM
Post by: sakoshooter on September 17, 2014, 11:32:14 AM
Killing a few hundred isn't going to help the remaining deer that much. They'll still need to be fed.
Post by: bigmacc on September 17, 2014, 07:57:10 PM
Knowing this going into the fall/winter, I'd like to see a massive feeding program started rather than cull an already suffering herd. I'll bet farmers etc could be supplimented and possibly some winter wheat or ? planted to help in many areas.
Killing a few hundred isn't going to help the remaining deer that much. They'll still need to be fed.
I agreee and here is another angle to ponder about this paricular "doe shoot"....Unfortunatly deer will die this winter,how many?,no person knows for sure, mother nature has the answer. I just have a hard time beleiving taking out 200-- 300 does on top of thousnds :dunno: that are going to parish this winter is going to be good for this herd.Basicaly 200-300 more deer are being taken out,some of which that could be healthy,hearty does that could have rode out the winter,bred and be crucial to help the rebuilding process that for sure will be needed.For simplicity sake lets say 3000 deer parish and then add the 300 from the "doe shoot" and of coarse whats taken during our hunting seasons...My point i guess is that those 300 does may, and probably will be needed this year to help this herd or at least be needed for the CHANCE of helping this herd,taking them out leaves no chance for the 300...my opinon and my :twocents:...Not telling anyone what to do or sugggesting anything to anybody, just giving my opinion only, if i myself had one of these tags i would burn it. Right or wrong-my thoughts only.
Post by: Jingles on September 17, 2014, 08:35:11 PM
Post by: boneaddict on September 18, 2014, 05:13:49 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on September 18, 2014, 05:29:39 AM
Was good to see that show on the guys floating the Methow last night picking up all the debris that went down the river. :tup: to them
Post by: boneaddict on September 18, 2014, 07:05:56 AM
Post by: 7mmfan on September 18, 2014, 07:41:27 AM
Post by: boneaddict on September 18, 2014, 09:07:35 AM
Post by: MtnMuley on September 18, 2014, 12:13:27 PM
Post by: 7mmfan on September 18, 2014, 04:52:56 PM
The whitetail in the Methow have basically zero affect on the mule deer herd there. :twocents:
Right now they don't. This winter may be a different story with more mule deer hitting the bottom to find forage and cover. Food is going to be at a premium for all deer this winter. I would think that in a winter that could make or break the future of this herd for a long time into the future, anything that can be done to minimize competition should be done.
Post by: ROCKWHEELER on September 18, 2014, 06:56:27 PM
Post by: JJB11B on September 18, 2014, 07:00:37 PM
Post by: Rooster1981 on September 18, 2014, 07:26:56 PM
Post by: DeerHarvester on September 18, 2014, 07:54:54 PM
If the state is going to sell permits they should be giving that money back to those that lost homes in the fire. I won't be holding my breath.
Post by: bigmacc on September 18, 2014, 08:05:54 PM
My daughter drew a youth chilliwist doe tag this year, and after the fire we decided to not partake in the hunt. And now after reading about the expanded doe tags and I'm in awe. I'm not a local of the area, but from where I stand the last thing these deer need is more pressure. I say eliminate the doe tags all together and let the deer rebound with out interference. With an amounous winter kill looming why kill more deer? To head off the winter kill? So let's say there is a 70% winter kill, would taking 300 additional does really help the heard? I think every buck making machine in the area is worth preserving not harvesting.
:tup:
Post by: bigmacc on September 18, 2014, 08:06:37 PM
This is just bull. The deer will move to areas that haven't burned. I would hope you guys would not participate in this slaughter.
If the state is going to sell permits they should be giving that money back to those that lost homes in the fire. I won't be holding my breath.
:tup:
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on September 18, 2014, 08:41:07 PM
Post by: jrebel on September 18, 2014, 08:54:24 PM
I cannot for the life of me believe that a biologist with there education can use there common since and come up with this slaughter????? Unbelievable!!!!!! :bash: This is a perfect example of what's wrong with the world today. I'm going to go listen to the song Johny Reb......
Great song....I am a little biased though. :chuckle:
Post by: MtnMuley on September 18, 2014, 08:59:13 PM
The whitetail in the Methow have basically zero affect on the mule deer herd there. :twocents:
Right now they don't. This winter may be a different story with more mule deer hitting the bottom to find forage and cover. Food is going to be at a premium for all deer this winter. I would think that in a winter that could make or break the future of this herd for a long time into the future, anything that can be done to minimize competition should be done.
I agree the herd is in jeopardy and I've been saying this for many years, being a local. This fire is definitely devastating to the wintering grounds. Issuing more tags is as $&! =# as the local bio who wants it. I don't particularly like whitetail, yet I feel the competition for food this winter between the two will be a minor issue.
Post by: idahohuntr on September 18, 2014, 09:28:55 PM
I guess the only way I would be critical of this planned doe hunt would be if it was less than clear that the loss of this winter range posed a risk of higher than usual mortality or if folks had good reasoning as to why this extra hunting harvest would result in additive (as opposed to compensatory) mortality. :dunno:
Post by: boneaddict on September 19, 2014, 06:27:46 AM
My daughter drew a youth chilliwist doe tag this year, and after the fire we decided to not partake in the hunt. And now after reading about the expanded doe tags and I'm in awe. I'm not a local of the area, but from where I stand the last thing these deer need is more pressure. I say eliminate the doe tags all together and let the deer rebound with out interference. With an amounous winter kill looming why kill more deer? To head off the winter kill? So let's say there is a 70% winter kill, would taking 300 additional does really help the heard? I think every buck making machine in the area is worth preserving not harvesting.
Thank you! and please THANK YOUR DAUGHTER for her sacrifice. :tup:
Post by: bigmacc on September 19, 2014, 02:40:04 PM
It seems as though winter survival is going to be poor with the dramatic loss of winter range. This is a prime example of compensatory mortality. We know winter mortality is likely going to be higher than normal...probably a lot higher. Why not allow hunters to harvest some of those deer that are certain to die? If there is only enough winter range for 100 deer, and there are 500 deer that are headed down to use it...shall we just let those 400 deer starve to death or shall we try and harvest them?
I guess the only way I would be critical of this planned doe hunt would be if it was less than clear that the loss of this winter range posed a risk of higher than usual mortality or if folks had good reasoning as to why this extra hunting harvest would result in additive (as opposed to compensatory) mortality. :dunno:
Your right and wrong in my opinion(read my post from the 17th on page 1).Yes deer will die this winter because of lack of food and depending how rough and long the winter is will determine how many will parish. According to mother nature :ONLY THE FITTEST SURVIVE:unless this doe shoot has a stipulation that only the weak or sick can be shot during this fiasco then the probability of alot of big,healthy breeding stock does who may have made it to the rut,got bread and made it thru the winter to drop fawns in the spring and help in the herd recovery are going to get taken out in about a month :bash: :bash: :bash:.....like others here have said and i will too--Thank you to those who will not use these tags :tup: ...and lets all hope and pray for a very mild winter!
Post by: idahohuntr on September 19, 2014, 03:24:49 PM
The goal is overall herd number reduction though. If there is only enough winter food for 100 deer to survive the winter, then it does not matter how fit those extra 400 deer are...still the "fittest" will survive. Appears as though the reduction is also aimed at helping the winter range re-generate more quickly.It seems as though winter survival is going to be poor with the dramatic loss of winter range. This is a prime example of compensatory mortality. We know winter mortality is likely going to be higher than normal...probably a lot higher. Why not allow hunters to harvest some of those deer that are certain to die? If there is only enough winter range for 100 deer, and there are 500 deer that are headed down to use it...shall we just let those 400 deer starve to death or shall we try and harvest them?
I guess the only way I would be critical of this planned doe hunt would be if it was less than clear that the loss of this winter range posed a risk of higher than usual mortality or if folks had good reasoning as to why this extra hunting harvest would result in additive (as opposed to compensatory) mortality. :dunno:
Your right and wrong in my opinion(read my post from the 17th on page 1).Yes deer will die this winter because of lack of food and depending how rough and long the winter is will determine how many will parish. According to mother nature :ONLY THE FITTEST SURVIVE:unless this doe shoot has a stipulation that only the weak or sick can be shot during this fiasco then the probability of alot of big,healthy breeding stock does who may have made it to the rut,got bread and made it thru the winter to drop fawns in the spring and help in the herd recovery are going to get taken out in about a month :bash: :bash: :bash:.....like others here have said and i will too--Thank you to those who will not use these tags :tup: ...and lets all hope and pray for a very mild winter!
From WDFW:
Brown said natural regeneration of the burned wildlife habitat has already begun, but the area will not be able to support the usual number of deer this winter. WDFW wildlife biologists estimate reducing the population by 7 percent will improve long-term range restoration as well as the herd's overall vitality.
Matt Monda, WDFW regional wildlife manager, said the department will issue more special hunting permits to help reduce the number of deer to a level that the remaining winter range can support.
"We're being conservative in reducing the size of the herd because we are still assessing the amount of regrowth that is occurring, and we can't predict winter conditions," he said. "The additional deer harvest will be tightly controlled."
Reducing the number of deer this year and next will help the winter range recover and will speed the growth of bitterbrush and other shrubs that represent important food sources for mule deer. Too many deer will stunt recovering shrubs, Monda said.
"In the long run, fewer deer on the land and our re-vegetation work will help the range recover more quickly and will contribute to a more robust mule deer population," Monda said.
This seems sensible to me. Not shooting these surplus deer seems as though it could be detrimental to herd recovery, for those that are considering not using their tags. :dunno:
Post by: Claymore15 on September 19, 2014, 03:33:06 PM
Post by: MtnMuley on September 19, 2014, 04:11:13 PM
Post by: bigmacc on September 19, 2014, 05:02:13 PM
The goal is overall herd number reduction though. If there is only enough winter food for 100 deer to survive the winter, then it does not matter how fit those extra 400 deer are...still the "fittest" will survive. Appears as though the reduction is also aimed at helping the winter range re-generate more quickly.It seems as though winter survival is going to be poor with the dramatic loss of winter range. This is a prime example of compensatory mortality. We know winter mortality is likely going to be higher than normal...probably a lot higher. Why not allow hunters to harvest some of those deer that are certain to die? If there is only enough winter range for 100 deer, and there are 500 deer that are headed down to use it...shall we just let those 400 deer starve to death or shall we try and harvest them?
I guess the only way I would be critical of this planned doe hunt would be if it was less than clear that the loss of this winter range posed a risk of higher than usual mortality or if folks had good reasoning as to why this extra hunting harvest would result in additive (as opposed to compensatory) mortality. :dunno:
Your right and wrong in my opinion(read my post from the 17th on page 1).Yes deer will die this winter because of lack of food and depending how rough and long the winter is will determine how many will parish. According to mother nature :ONLY THE FITTEST SURVIVE:unless this doe shoot has a stipulation that only the weak or sick can be shot during this fiasco then the probability of alot of big,healthy breeding stock does who may have made it to the rut,got bread and made it thru the winter to drop fawns in the spring and help in the herd recovery are going to get taken out in about a month :bash: :bash: :bash:.....like others here have said and i will too--Thank you to those who will not use these tags :tup: ...and lets all hope and pray for a very mild winter!
From WDFW:
Brown said natural regeneration of the burned wildlife habitat has already begun, but the area will not be able to support the usual number of deer this winter. WDFW wildlife biologists estimate reducing the population by 7 percent will improve long-term range restoration as well as the herd's overall vitality.
Matt Monda, WDFW regional wildlife manager, said the department will issue more special hunting permits to help reduce the number of deer to a level that the remaining winter range can support.
"We're being conservative in reducing the size of the herd because we are still assessing the amount of regrowth that is occurring, and we can't predict winter conditions," he said. "The additional deer harvest will be tightly controlled."
Reducing the number of deer this year and next will help the winter range recover and will speed the growth of bitterbrush and other shrubs that represent important food sources for mule deer. Too many deer will stunt recovering shrubs, Monda said.
"In the long run, fewer deer on the land and our re-vegetation work will help the range recover more quickly and will contribute to a more robust mule deer population," Monda said.
This seems sensible to me. Not shooting these surplus deer seems as though it could be detrimental to herd recovery, for those that are considering not using their tags. :dunno:
OH GEEZE!!!!! :bash: :bash: :bash:
Post by: turkeyfeather on September 19, 2014, 05:26:56 PM
Post by: winshooter88 on September 19, 2014, 06:20:33 PM
Post by: bigmacc on September 19, 2014, 07:47:51 PM
Having seen deer starve to death in the past, I would rather see them taken and put to use. Hunters on this site who talk about quick humane kills and not wanting animals to suffer should think about what starvation really is, a very slow painful death. I can't believe that anyone who cares at all about these animals would rather have them die a long slow painful death rather than a quick humane death. If taking 300 animals keeps this herd from recovering there are more problems than are being put forth here. In the 1988 Swakane hunt after the fires that year they gave out tags to any person who came in and asked for one, the result was an uncontrolled slaughter, and a deer herd that still hasn't recovered to it's previous numbers, be glad that they aren't doing in the Methow what they did in the Swakane. :twocents:
Deer starve every year unfortunatly,and alot will parish this year i,m afraid,with a doe shoot or without one,this winter depending on its severity is going to kill alot or a whole lot of deer. i myself have seen some real bad ones.In the 60,s when the valley recorded the lowest temp. in the continental U.S where deer,predators, livestock and yes pets were being bulldozed into piles in fields,diesel dumped on them and set on fire(we have 8mm film of it), and yes it was the methow,we seen deer wrapped in fences that wernt dead yet that my dad and i cut loose while yotes were nipping at there heals and we actually killed a few with baseball bats! I still have more faith in mother nature than i do the thinking and the decisions of this days WDFW!....I,ve said it before and will SHOUT it again....THIS IS NOT THE GAME DEPT of old anymore,to many irons in the fire and to many other interest groups to please for these guys and gals,not saying theres not good ones in there cause there is and i,m sure some of us know a few but they are in no position to call any shots..... trust the people that actually know these deer,the people who live in this valley,grew up in this valley,know the deers habits,haunts and every move they make,what they eat and where they move to when needed,special spots they move to to find food and where they hunker down to survive.......or go with the guy with a TITLE and hear it as gospel.....That is your choice...as always, my :twocents:....I may be right or wrong with my beleifs on this but i stand behind them 100 percent,i hope and pray for a mild winter....
Post by: bigmacc on September 20, 2014, 10:12:13 AM
hopefully if WDFW is dead set on this, then they issue the tags to the locals, and have the season for them before general and clear out some of the little local does. I still do not agree at all.
If this thinning out is going to happen(which it sounds like it will)this is not a bad idea,let the local population thin out 300 of the garden eating town deer or deer that live in and on peoples property or close to.Kind of a hybrid depredation type hunt that takes place pre-season. :dunno:
Post by: bigmacc on September 24, 2014, 07:16:35 PM
Post by: R2Rcoulee on September 24, 2014, 07:41:47 PM
Post by: huntnphool on September 24, 2014, 08:01:38 PM
That's the problem. The winter range on the other side of the river is barely being tapped due to the population being so low already. Whose to say how many would just cross over and do fine. Instead, you just pop 300 arbituary deer in an already struggling herd. Are they going to focus on the North slope deer that migrate into the chiliwist that have no range left per say, or are they going to pop x amount of deer from Pearygin that might have resources across the river. :dunno:
+1, I hope nobody participates
Post by: bigmacc on September 24, 2014, 08:55:25 PM
That's the problem. The winter range on the other side of the river is barely being tapped due to the population being so low already. Whose to say how many would just cross over and do fine. Instead, you just pop 300 arbituary deer in an already struggling herd. Are they going to focus on the North slope deer that migrate into the chiliwist that have no range left per say, or are they going to pop x amount of deer from Pearygin that might have resources across the river. :dunno:
+1, I hope nobody participates
+2, and amen to that!
Post by: Katmai Guy on September 24, 2014, 09:26:12 PM
Post by: 3nails on September 24, 2014, 09:33:17 PM
First, I'm glad the WDFW has so many armchair advisors, there's no way they can fail, now. ;) Second, if there is un-utilized winter range on the other side of the river, what is going to make the deer on the east side of the river, cross to feed, if they don't know to go there now? Does the scent of uneaten browse blow upon the wind? :dunno: Third, for those concerned about recovery of a low herd population, maybe limit mature buck harvest to permit only. You shoot a doe, you only kill one, possibly two deer if it's pregnant. You kill 1 mature buck, you potentially prevent, what, 20-30 fawns from being born? Seems doe harvest makes more sense for a struggling herd. JMHOWhat???????????? You kill a doe you almost certainly kill a fawn. If the doe/buck ratio is 1-1 or 15-1 you still get all the does bread. You really don't believe killing a buck prevents 20-30 does from being bread!!!!! :o
Post by: jason stevens on September 24, 2014, 09:36:16 PM
Post by: 3nails on September 24, 2014, 09:43:58 PM
Post by: bigmacc on September 24, 2014, 09:47:12 PM
First, I'm glad the WDFW has so many armchair advisors, there's no way they can fail, now. ;) Second, if there is un-utilized winter range on the other side of the river, what is going to make the deer on the east side of the river, cross to feed, if they don't know to go there now? Does the scent of uneaten browse blow upon the wind? :dunno: Third, for those concerned about recovery of a low herd population, maybe limit mature buck harvest to permit only. You shoot a doe, you only kill one, possibly two deer if it's pregnant. You kill 1 mature buck, you potentially prevent, what, 20-30 fawns from being born? Seems doe harvest makes more sense for a struggling herd. JMHO
First,the wdfw doesnt have any armchair advisors,thats part of the problem.
Second,YES those deer will cross the river to find food,I,ve seen more than one winter and i,m sure others here also have seen them pack up and move 40 miles to get to food during a tough winter,and ad to that a feeding program this winter which they have already commited to.
Post by: wsmnut on September 24, 2014, 09:51:47 PM
First, I'm glad the WDFW has so many armchair advisors, there's no way they can fail, now. ;) Second, if there is un-utilized winter range on the other side of the river, what is going to make the deer on the east side of the river, cross to feed, if they don't know to go there now? Does the scent of uneaten browse blow upon the wind? :dunno: Third, for those concerned about recovery of a low herd population, maybe limit mature buck harvest to permit only. You shoot a doe, you only kill one, possibly two deer if it's pregnant. You kill 1 mature buck, you potentially prevent, what, 20-30 fawns from being born? Seems doe harvest makes more sense for a struggling herd. JMHO
The deer cross the river all the time. Next time you drive 153 or 20 just pay attention.
Why do you suppose there is a roughly 400 deer annual road kill in the Methow?
These animals are mobile! They don't respect roads, rivers, creeks or GMU boundaries.
Post by: huntnphool on September 24, 2014, 10:00:48 PM
First, I'm glad the WDFW has so many armchair advisors, there's no way they can fail, now. ;) Second, if there is un-utilized winter range on the other side of the river, what is going to make the deer on the east side of the river, cross to feed, if they don't know to go there now? Does the scent of uneaten browse blow upon the wind? :dunno: Third, for those concerned about recovery of a low herd population, maybe limit mature buck harvest to permit only. You shoot a doe, you only kill one, possibly two deer if it's pregnant. You kill 1 mature buck, you potentially prevent, what, 20-30 fawns from being born? Seems doe harvest makes more sense for a struggling herd. JMHO
First,the wdfw doesnt have any armchair advisors,thats part of the problem.
Second,YES those deer will cross the river to find food,I,ve seen more than one winter and i,m sure others here also have seen them pack up and move 40 miles to get to food during a tough winter,and ad to that a feeding program this winter which they have already commited to. I agree wiyh you on the killing a buck part of your statement....
Yeah, the does will get to their typical draw and stop, then starve to death standing there wondering where all the food went. :chuckle:
Post by: Griz231 on September 24, 2014, 10:01:24 PM
I had this tag a few years ago and the whitetails were tough to find in 242.
Not sure if I'll make it over but sure would enjoy the meat in the freezer.
Post by: huntnphool on September 24, 2014, 10:06:50 PM
Third, for those concerned about recovery of a low herd population, maybe limit mature buck harvest to permit only.
You could start with reducing the late permit tags, rather than increasing them like they have the last couple years. :bash:
Post by: Big game archer on September 24, 2014, 10:10:32 PM
Y'all must think deer are monogamous. :chuckle:
:yeah: :bash: :bash:
Post by: idahohuntr on September 24, 2014, 10:20:24 PM
Y'all must think deer are monogamous. :chuckle::yeah: Males are almost never the limiting factor in a population. :chuckle:
Post by: Katmai Guy on September 24, 2014, 11:15:40 PM
Big Mac, everybody's it advocates not using these permits is an armchair advisor to the WDFW. It just happens to be your opinion and everybody on here has a different one.
WSM, my point was that there is nothing going to make these deer all of the sudden utilize winter range that hasn't been used in the past, as posted. Some deer will find this area but, they're not all going to say"hey, lets go over to that hillside we've been savin for after a fire";)
Phool, I agree, after watching what happened with the elk in the little Naches unit and the antler restrictions, I would advicate shooting spikes and two points and having to draw a permit to shoot four points and larger.
I know these are all just opinions. a little background on me, I'm not just a coaster, I learned to fish at the mouth of Libby Creek 49 years ago and have been hunting the valley since I was old enough to carry a rifle. My family has lived in the Valley since the early 60s and still does. I care what happens to that deer herd as much as if I lived in the valley 24, 7, 365.
Post by: spin05 on September 24, 2014, 11:24:06 PM
Post by: boneaddict on September 25, 2014, 06:16:04 AM
First, I'm glad the WDFW has so many armchair advisors, there's no way they can fail, now. ;) Second, if there is un-utilized winter range on the other side of the river, what is going to make the deer on the east side of the river, cross to feed, if they don't know to go there now? Does the scent of uneaten browse blow upon the wind? :dunno: Third, for those concerned about recovery of a low herd population, maybe limit mature buck harvest to permit only. You shoot a doe, you only kill one, possibly two deer if it's pregnant. You kill 1 mature buck, you potentially prevent, what, 20-30 fawns from being born? Seems doe harvest makes more sense for a struggling herd. JMHO
:yike: :rolleyes:
Post by: bigmacc on September 25, 2014, 04:31:48 PM
Third, for those concerned about recovery of a low herd population, maybe limit mature buck harvest to permit only.
You could start with reducing the late permit tags, rather than increasing them like they have the last couple years. :bash:
Your on the money phool! :tup: :tup:
Post by: turkeyfeather on September 25, 2014, 05:06:01 PM
And give up the extra money from selling useless extra tags. You must be either joking or delerious. :chuckle:Third, for those concerned about recovery of a low herd population, maybe limit mature buck harvest to permit only.
You could start with reducing the late permit tags, rather than increasing them like they have the last couple years. :bash:
Your on the money phool! :tup: :tup:
Post by: bigmacc on September 25, 2014, 05:43:13 PM
three nails, I know for a fact not all doe are bred each year, for whatever reason. I should have included in my post, something about the quality of the genetics in breeding the does. Mother nature makes the biggest and the best fight for the privilege of being able to breed, we shouldn't be letting spikes, two points and young three points repopulate the herd, in my opinion that is not the best thing for the herd.
Big Mac, everybody's it advocates not using these permits is an armchair advisor to the WDFW. It just happens to be your opinion and everybody on here has a different one.
WSM, my point was that there is nothing going to make these deer all of the sudden utilize winter range that hasn't been used in the past, as posted. Some deer will find this area but, they're not all going to say"hey, lets go over to that hillside we've been savin for after a fire";)
Phool, I agree, after watching what happened with the elk in the little Naches unit and the antler restrictions, I would advicate shooting spikes and two points and having to draw a permit to shoot four points and larger.
I know these are all just opinions. a little background on me, I'm not just a coaster, I learned to fish at the mouth of Libby Creek 49 years ago and have been hunting the valley since I was old enough to carry a rifle. My family has lived in the Valley since the early 60s and still does. I care what happens to that deer herd as much as if I lived in the valley 24, 7, 365.
I will only speak to my part of this Katmai,call me an "armchair advisor" if you like,like i said earlier thats the problem(IMHO). the wdfw should listen to opinions from sportsman,people who grew up in the valley and know these deer.There was some game guys back in the 60,s and 70,s ,in the methow that you could actually talk to about this kind of stuff and sometimes they would disagree and other times would agree and actually pass on information,thaughts and ideas to the higher-ups.In the late 60,s and early 70,s my family(mostly my dad)had long discussions with some game people about migration routes my dad and my family knew of, these discussions were instrumental in getting some gates put up in the methow to help keep the motorhome camps and such from setting up shop smack dab in the middle of these routes, trying to ease up on the slaughters that would take place when weather hit.One year, before gates were put up,the weather did hit and triggered a pretty good migration,one of those camps(with about 3 motorhomes and a couple trailers) shot the snot out of them,they had a bunch of big bucks hanging and when my dad talked to one of the "hunters" he bragged to my dad how they shot 4 or 5 of them from their lawnchairs while sittin around the fire! After conversations with my dad about different routes and his concern for these deer along with a family hunting history in this valley dating back to 1919,they listened and alot of roads were closed or gated,some in exact spots my dad and a warden drove to and my dad pointed at a spot in the road and said "gate it hear".Katmai,there are alot of folks that in live in that valley,grew up in that valley,theres folks on this site and hunters with years of hunting that valley who may have ideas and thaughts that might be worth listening to,but unfortunatly as far as this days wdfw goes, your right,we are all just "armchair advisors" just as you said....and that is whats so wrong nowadays.... :twocents:
Post by: huntnphool on September 25, 2014, 10:43:06 PM
three nails, I know for a fact not all doe are bred each year, for whatever reason. I should have included in my post, something about the quality of the genetics in breeding the does. Mother nature makes the biggest and the best fight for the privilege of being able to breed, we shouldn't be letting spikes, two points and young three points repopulate the herd, in my opinion that is not the best thing for the herd.
Big Mac, everybody's it advocates not using these permits is an armchair advisor to the WDFW. It just happens to be your opinion and everybody on here has a different one.
WSM, my point was that there is nothing going to make these deer all of the sudden utilize winter range that hasn't been used in the past, as posted. Some deer will find this area but, they're not all going to say"hey, lets go over to that hillside we've been savin for after a fire";)
Phool, I agree, after watching what happened with the elk in the little Naches unit and the antler restrictions, I would advicate shooting spikes and two points and having to draw a permit to shoot four points and larger.
I know these are all just opinions. a little background on me, I'm not just a coaster, I learned to fish at the mouth of Libby Creek 49 years ago and have been hunting the valley since I was old enough to carry a rifle. My family has lived in the Valley since the early 60s and still does. I care what happens to that deer herd as much as if I lived in the valley 24, 7, 365.
I will only speak to my part of this Katmai,call me an "armchair advisor" if you like,like i said earlier thats the problem(IMHO). the wdfw should listen to opinions from sportsman,people who grew up in the valley and know these deer.There was some game guys back in the 60,s and 70,s ,in the methow that you could actually talk to about this kind of stuff and sometimes they would disagree and other times would agree and actually pass on information,thaughts and ideas to the higher-ups.In the late 60,s and early 70,s my family(mostly my dad)had long discussions with some game people about migration routes my dad and my family knew of, these discussions were instrumental in getting some gates put up in the methow to help keep the motorhome camps and such from setting up shop smack dab in the middle of these routes, trying to ease up on the slaughters that would take place when weather hit.One year, before gates were put up,the weather did hit and triggered a pretty good migration,one of those camps(with about 3 motorhomes and a couple trailers) shot the snot out of them,they had a bunch of big bucks hanging and when my dad talked to one of the "hunters" he bragged to my dad how they shot 4 or 5 of them from their lawnchairs while sittin around the fire! After conversations with my dad about different routes and his concern for these deer along with a family hunting history in this valley dating back to 1919,they listened and alot of roads were closed or gated,some in exact spots my dad and a warden drove to and my dad pointed at a spot in the road and said "gate it hear".Katmai,there are alot of folks that in live in that valley,grew up in that valley,theres folks on this site and hunters with years of hunting that valley who may have ideas and thaughts that might be worth listening to,but unfortunatly as far as this days wdfw goes, your right,we are all just "armchair advisors" just as you said....and that is whats so wrong nowadays.... :twocents:
Sig was a good guy! ;)
Post by: Bango skank on September 25, 2014, 11:25:33 PM
Exactlly if we draw I'm gonna enjoy every minute of my daughter harvesting a big fat doe for the freezer.one doe down one less fawn. One buck down lots of fawns not born . No brainer for us.
Wait, you're saying that one doe will contribute only one fawn to the population, but if a buck dies than a ton of does will not be bred? Like another buck wont fill his shoes? Is this a serious statement? Besides the obvious fact that if buck "A" gets killed, buck "B" will be happy to breed the does, you do realize that a healthy doe will typically give birth to two fawns per year, not one, and that doe will breed more than one year in her lifetime right?
Post by: csaaphill on September 26, 2014, 12:04:38 AM
Exactlly if we draw I'm gonna enjoy every minute of my daughter harvesting a big fat doe for the freezer.one doe down one less fawn. One buck down lots of fawns not born . No brainer for us.:yeah:
doe meat is good eats!
Post by: csaaphill on September 26, 2014, 12:11:58 AM
It seems as though winter survival is going to be poor with the dramatic loss of winter range. This is a prime example of compensatory mortality. We know winter mortality is likely going to be higher than normal...probably a lot higher. Why not allow hunters to harvest some of those deer that are certain to die? If there is only enough winter range for 100 deer, and there are 500 deer that are headed down to use it...shall we just let those 400 deer starve to death or shall we try and harvest them?:yeah:
I guess the only way I would be critical of this planned doe hunt would be if it was less than clear that the loss of this winter range posed a risk of higher than usual mortality or if folks had good reasoning as to why this extra hunting harvest would result in additive (as opposed to compensatory) mortality. :dunno:
Post by: bigmacc on September 26, 2014, 01:05:44 PM
three nails, I know for a fact not all doe are bred each year, for whatever reason. I should have included in my post, something about the quality of the genetics in breeding the does. Mother nature makes the biggest and the best fight for the privilege of being able to breed, we shouldn't be letting spikes, two points and young three points repopulate the herd, in my opinion that is not the best thing for the herd.
Big Mac, everybody's it advocates not using these permits is an armchair advisor to the WDFW. It just happens to be your opinion and everybody on here has a different one.
WSM, my point was that there is nothing going to make these deer all of the sudden utilize winter range that hasn't been used in the past, as posted. Some deer will find this area but, they're not all going to say"hey, lets go over to that hillside we've been savin for after a fire";)
Phool, I agree, after watching what happened with the elk in the little Naches unit and the antler restrictions, I would advicate shooting spikes and two points and having to draw a permit to shoot four points and larger.
I know these are all just opinions. a little background on me, I'm not just a coaster, I learned to fish at the mouth of Libby Creek 49 years ago and have been hunting the valley since I was old enough to carry a rifle. My family has lived in the Valley since the early 60s and still does. I care what happens to that deer herd as much as if I lived in the valley 24, 7, 365.
I will only speak to my part of this Katmai,call me an "armchair advisor" if you like,like i said earlier thats the problem(IMHO). the wdfw should listen to opinions from sportsman,people who grew up in the valley and know these deer.There was some game guys back in the 60,s and 70,s ,in the methow that you could actually talk to about this kind of stuff and sometimes they would disagree and other times would agree and actually pass on information,thaughts and ideas to the higher-ups.In the late 60,s and early 70,s my family(mostly my dad)had long discussions with some game people about migration routes my dad and my family knew of, these discussions were instrumental in getting some gates put up in the methow to help keep the motorhome camps and such from setting up shop smack dab in the middle of these routes, trying to ease up on the slaughters that would take place when weather hit.One year, before gates were put up,the weather did hit and triggered a pretty good migration,one of those camps(with about 3 motorhomes and a couple trailers) shot the snot out of them,they had a bunch of big bucks hanging and when my dad talked to one of the "hunters" he bragged to my dad how they shot 4 or 5 of them from their lawnchairs while sittin around the fire! After conversations with my dad about different routes and his concern for these deer along with a family hunting history in this valley dating back to 1919,they listened and alot of roads were closed or gated,some in exact spots my dad and a warden drove to and my dad pointed at a spot in the road and said "gate it hear".Katmai,there are alot of folks that in live in that valley,grew up in that valley,theres folks on this site and hunters with years of hunting that valley who may have ideas and thaughts that might be worth listening to,but unfortunatly as far as this days wdfw goes, your right,we are all just "armchair advisors" just as you said....and that is whats so wrong nowadays.... :twocents:
Sig was a good guy! ;)
Yes he was phool :tup:
Post by: bigmacc on September 26, 2014, 01:11:32 PM
First, I'm glad the WDFW has so many armchair advisors, there's no way they can fail, now. ;) Second, if there is un-utilized winter range on the other side of the river, what is going to make the deer on the east side of the river, cross to feed, if they don't know to go there now? Does the scent of uneaten browse blow upon the wind? :dunno: Third, for those concerned about recovery of a low herd population, maybe limit mature buck harvest to permit only. You shoot a doe, you only kill one, possibly two deer if it's pregnant. You kill 1 mature buck, you potentially prevent, what, 20-30 fawns from being born? Seems doe harvest makes more sense for a struggling herd. JMHOWhat???????????? You kill a doe you almost certainly kill a fawn. If the doe/buck ratio is 1-1 or 15-1 you still get all the does bread. You really don't believe killing a buck prevents 20-30 does from being bread!!!!! :o
Well said 3nails.
Post by: Curly on September 26, 2014, 01:12:38 PM
I'd rather see additional harvest to address conflicts where they occur, rather than guessing proactively - give the deer a chance to find other areas. Our mule deer are below carrying capacity because social tolerance limits their numbers, not limited forage. These are huge fires but still only a fraction of the winter range.
I would prefer to NOT see any winter feeding on winter ranges. The crucial plant on these winter ranges, bitterbrush, lives a long time (about 70 years, give or take), and only establishes successfully following a big die-off in the herd; a stand of bitterbrush usually only has one, two or 3 age classes, reproductionfrom seed fails every other year due to herbivory or drought. When you winter feed, you can pretty much guarantee the deer using that feeding station will devour every palatable woody sprout and seedling for about a two-mile radius, essentially destroying the subsequent winter range quality for decades to come.
The failure to recover in the Swakane and Entiat wasn't due to doe slaughters, as popular as that belief may be. Two things spanked that herd - winter feeding on the winter ranges, and soil-sterilizing intense fire following decades of suppression.
IF they are going to winter feed, I would like to see it done on the transitional ranges, around 2500-3000' elevation, so the deer don't nuke the shrub recruitment on the crucial winter ranges. Better, though, to not feed at all. Deer that try to winter on the burned crucial winter ranges should die, whether through harvest or starvation. I'd far rather see some seedling bitterbrush, elderberry, buckbrush/ceanothus, fire cherry, serviceberry, etc. surviving in the low country next spring, to provide a few decades of natural winter forage, for a dispersed deer herd.
Look at where deer feeding has occurred in the past - Swakane, Entiat, Methow, Bridgeport, Chiliwist - hardly squat for winter shrub forage when there is deep crusted snow.
Post by: huntnphool on September 26, 2014, 04:32:35 PM
I hope Doublelung doesn't mind me quoting him from earlier in the year on another thread, but since he knows what he's talking about on this subject I think it's worthy of a repost here:I'd rather see additional harvest to address conflicts where they occur, rather than guessing proactively - give the deer a chance to find other areas. Our mule deer are below carrying capacity because social tolerance limits their numbers, not limited forage. These are huge fires but still only a fraction of the winter range.
I would prefer to NOT see any winter feeding on winter ranges. The crucial plant on these winter ranges, bitterbrush, lives a long time (about 70 years, give or take), and only establishes successfully following a big die-off in the herd; a stand of bitterbrush usually only has one, two or 3 age classes, reproductionfrom seed fails every other year due to herbivory or drought. When you winter feed, you can pretty much guarantee the deer using that feeding station will devour every palatable woody sprout and seedling for about a two-mile radius, essentially destroying the subsequent winter range quality for decades to come.
The failure to recover in the Swakane and Entiat wasn't due to doe slaughters, as popular as that belief may be. Two things spanked that herd - winter feeding on the winter ranges, and soil-sterilizing intense fire following decades of suppression.
IF they are going to winter feed, I would like to see it done on the transitional ranges, around 2500-3000' elevation, so the deer don't nuke the shrub recruitment on the crucial winter ranges. Better, though, to not feed at all. Deer that try to winter on the burned crucial winter ranges should die, whether through harvest or starvation. I'd far rather see some seedling bitterbrush, elderberry, buckbrush/ceanothus, fire cherry, serviceberry, etc. surviving in the low country next spring, to provide a few decades of natural winter forage, for a dispersed deer herd.
Look at where deer feeding has occurred in the past - Swakane, Entiat, Methow, Bridgeport, Chiliwist - hardly squat for winter shrub forage when there is deep crusted snow.
Spot on!
Post by: bigmacc on September 26, 2014, 04:40:19 PM
I hope Doublelung doesn't mind me quoting him from earlier in the year on another thread, but since he knows what he's talking about on this subject I think it's worthy of a repost here:I'd rather see additional harvest to address conflicts where they occur, rather than guessing proactively - give the deer a chance to find other areas. Our mule deer are below carrying capacity because social tolerance limits their numbers, not limited forage. These are huge fires but still only a fraction of the winter range.
I would prefer to NOT see any winter feeding on winter ranges. The crucial plant on these winter ranges, bitterbrush, lives a long time (about 70 years, give or take), and only establishes successfully following a big die-off in the herd; a stand of bitterbrush usually only has one, two or 3 age classes, reproductionfrom seed fails every other year due to herbivory or drought. When you winter feed, you can pretty much guarantee the deer using that feeding station will devour every palatable woody sprout and seedling for about a two-mile radius, essentially destroying the subsequent winter range quality for decades to come.
The failure to recover in the Swakane and Entiat wasn't due to doe slaughters, as popular as that belief may be. Two things spanked that herd - winter feeding on the winter ranges, and soil-sterilizing intense fire following decades of suppression.
IF they are going to winter feed, I would like to see it done on the transitional ranges, around 2500-3000' elevation, so the deer don't nuke the shrub recruitment on the crucial winter ranges. Better, though, to not feed at all. Deer that try to winter on the burned crucial winter ranges should die, whether through harvest or starvation. I'd far rather see some seedling bitterbrush, elderberry, buckbrush/ceanothus, fire cherry, serviceberry, etc. surviving in the low country next spring, to provide a few decades of natural winter forage, for a dispersed deer herd.
Look at where deer feeding has occurred in the past - Swakane, Entiat, Methow, Bridgeport, Chiliwist - hardly squat for winter shrub forage when there is deep crusted snow.
I like the part about feeding at transitional ranges,it makes sense. If the winter is like the last couple ones(hopefully)this may not even have to happen.Last year alot of deer in that valley didnt even migrate and some of the ones that did(because of the 2wks of storms in sept) turned around and went back up a month or so later .There is a lot of feed available for these deer even up to 6 and 7 thousand feet as long as they dont get pushed out by temps and heavy snow....Fingers crossed :tup:
Post by: steen on September 26, 2014, 05:02:22 PM