Post by: baldopepper on April 02, 2015, 02:26:31 PM
Post by: vandeman17 on April 02, 2015, 02:31:57 PM
Post by: baldopepper on April 02, 2015, 02:38:03 PM
Post by: bobcat on April 02, 2015, 02:39:54 PM
I'd guess that they have already made a decision, but we don't know yet what that may be. The Fish & Wildlife Commission meeting next Thursday is when that decision will be made public.
Post by: baldopepper on April 02, 2015, 02:46:55 PM
Post by: bobcat on April 02, 2015, 02:56:38 PM
Post by: bearpaw on April 02, 2015, 03:18:24 PM
WDFW never liked the restriction from the beginning. It took a lot of work to get the 4 pt rule approved by the Commission. We recently compared data for 117/121 with data from surrounding units and the rule seems to be resulting in greater herd/buck recovery than in surrounding GMU's. It also appears that the hunter ratio hunting in the 4 pt area is practically back to pre-rule numbers. Another words the lost hunter revenue for local business is disappearing.
I agree with the Dept that deer numbers are rebounding and I think some doe hunting will not hurt. That would especially benefit youth hunters who live in the area who cannot easily hunt other areas. I would also suggest allowing youth hunters to take any buck now that buck numbers are improving.
In theory once deer numbers recover equal numbers of doe and buck need to be taken or the result will be more does in the herd, which is a low buck to doe ratio.
If the commission will keep the rule for another 3 years I think there will be a clearer picture of the results.
Post by: Bigshooter on April 02, 2015, 03:29:13 PM
Okay, I found it and you're right. It sounds like it will be going to any buck.
Can you post the link.
Post by: Bean Counter on April 02, 2015, 03:30:13 PM
Post by: bobcat on April 02, 2015, 03:35:06 PM
Post by: buglebrush on April 02, 2015, 03:54:40 PM
Why don't they do a 6 point restriction instead of spike on elk? Seems like a no brainer to me!
Post by: Bigshooter on April 02, 2015, 04:04:33 PM
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2015/04/apr09_2015_15_summary.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2015/04/apr09_2015_15_summary.pdf)
Thanks. Can you post the same link for elk. I can not find it.
Post by: bobcat on April 02, 2015, 04:08:08 PM
Post by: Bigshooter on April 02, 2015, 04:08:38 PM
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2015/04/apr09_2015_14_summary.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2015/04/apr09_2015_14_summary.pdf)
Thank you.
Post by: bearpaw on April 02, 2015, 04:49:33 PM
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2015/04/apr09_2015_15_summary.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2015/04/apr09_2015_15_summary.pdf)Thanks for the links bobcat. :tup:
This rule is like every other rule in hunting, there are some who agree and some who disagree. It will be interesting to see what the commission decides. :)
Post by: kball4 on April 02, 2015, 06:43:45 PM
Post by: johnaferrera on April 02, 2015, 07:04:28 PM
Post by: buckcanyonlodge on April 02, 2015, 07:50:06 PM
Wasn't there a point where it was any whitetail buck was to help the mule deer herd from the more aggressive more territorial whitetail. To slow the whitetails movement west. I may be mistaken.
I feed about 25 mule deer and 30 whitetail every winter and spring two times a day.. The mule deer are the aggressive ones.. Even yearling mulies chase mature whitetail bucks away from the food. Have never seen a whitetail show aggression towards a mulie without getting put in it's place.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on April 02, 2015, 07:57:54 PM
Post by: PA BEN on April 03, 2015, 07:47:40 AM
Post by: dscubame on April 03, 2015, 09:48:39 AM
Post by: Jonathan_S on April 03, 2015, 10:16:31 AM
Wasn't there a point where it was any whitetail buck was to help the mule deer herd from the more aggressive more territorial whitetail. To slow the whitetails movement west. I may be mistaken.
I feed about 25 mule deer and 30 whitetail every winter and spring two times a day.. The mule deer are the aggressive ones.. Even yearling mulies chase mature whitetail bucks away from the food. Have never seen a whitetail show aggression towards a mulie without getting put in it's place.
:yeah: whitetail aren't aggressive, they are just better at proliferating than are mule deer.
Post by: bearpaw on April 03, 2015, 11:01:45 AM
To bad the youth only option wasn't on the table.
The commission has the authority to go with the youth option if they choose. I'm curious how it will end up.
Post by: buckcanyonlodge on April 03, 2015, 11:15:24 AM
Wasn't there a point where it was any whitetail buck was to help the mule deer herd from the more aggressive more territorial whitetail. To slow the whitetails movement west. I may be mistaken.
I feed about 25 mule deer and 30 whitetail every winter and spring two times a day.. The mule deer are the aggressive ones.. Even yearling mulies chase mature whitetail bucks away from the food. Have never seen a whitetail show aggression towards a mulie without getting put in it's place.
:yeah: whitetail aren't aggressive, they are just better at proliferating than are mule deer.
11 of the mulie does had 20 fawns last year. Of the 20 fawns only 5 have survived until now. I know of 2 that were hit by cars. The rest were killed by cougar and coyotes I believe. Maybe even a bear took some. Whitetail seem to have had a good crop also.
Post by: jasnt on April 03, 2015, 11:16:07 PM
Post by: csaaphill on April 04, 2015, 02:20:51 AM
Post by: bowhunterforever on April 06, 2015, 03:33:15 PM
Dang I wish they would leave it 4 pt min.:yeah:
Post by: muleyguy on April 06, 2015, 10:01:08 PM
the reality of this rule is that it is not the APR restriction itself, that caused any rebound in the herd; what the other side is not telling you is that hunter pressure dropped by 25% in unit 117 and 30% in unit 121 the immediate year after the rule was implemented, and despite what you are hearing on here, bounced around at those much lower levels the entire time the rule has been in effect; in addition, you have had very mild winters since the rule was implemented.
where the outcry is going to happen, and, why it is very,very difficult to unwind these APR's is that with the rule, there effectively has been a "stockpile" of yearling bucks (and those with fewer then 4 pts) built into the population because this is the age group that is protected;
so, once you rescind the rule, you will see hunting pressure rise back up dramatically; with the stockpile of immature bucks running around, and you will see hunter success rates go dramatically back up in short order.
in the short run, this is actually great for mature bucks, as most of the hunting pressure will now be put back where it belongs, on the younger, immature bucks.
That area is going to have to suffer probably some lower buck numbers here for several years down the road because of the outsized harvest that is going to happen here in the next few years.
But, as time goes on, those ripple effects will go away, and those units can get back to how they used to be without all the skewing of the age class lower.
The reality is that almost all of the gains that have been achieved in those two units can be attributed to the dramatically lower hunter numbers, and not the APR; so, the APR is really a blunt tool they used to reduce hunter pressure, while not reducing hunter opportunity (and thats the backstory to this whole thing); but, at the end of the day, all of the age class skewing that comes from the APR's only does longer term harm.
Next time, if we all decide a herd needs to be helped, lets just be straight up, and reduce the hunting pressure through a short term limited draw situation, or a short term shortening of the season, or in those units, if you just shut down the late season hunt for a few years it probably would have had the same effect.
But, lets not use poorly designed APR's that just cause all these other issues.....
Post by: dreamunelk on April 06, 2015, 10:14:32 PM
APR are only a tool to reduce harvest.
Post by: bobcat on April 06, 2015, 10:18:26 PM
Post by: stigalla on April 07, 2015, 12:33:24 AM
Post by: huntnnw on April 07, 2015, 05:07:15 AM
Wasn't there a point where it was any whitetail buck was to help the mule deer herd from the more aggressive more territorial whitetail. To slow the whitetails movement west. I may be mistaken.
I feed about 25 mule deer and 30 whitetail every winter and spring two times a day.. The mule deer are the aggressive ones.. Even yearling mulies chase mature whitetail bucks away from the food. Have never seen a whitetail show aggression towards a mulie without getting put in it's place.
:yeah: Anytime I have mulies on cam they push the whitetails out
Post by: TommyH on April 07, 2015, 07:35:11 AM
Post by: benhuntin on April 07, 2015, 08:27:20 AM
Post by: blindluck on April 07, 2015, 10:13:42 AM
Post by: skeeter 20i on April 07, 2015, 10:38:54 AM
I wish they would make the mule deer 4 pt min the three point rule has made some great bucks the last few years, in my opinion.
I've seen quite a few really big two points that will never see a third point, same area every year same few deer that are always two points. Seems the genetics for the third point have been shot out of that area. :bash:
Post by: combs338 on April 07, 2015, 10:41:08 AM
:yeah:I wish they would make the mule deer 4 pt min the three point rule has made some great bucks the last few years, in my opinion.
I've seen quite a few really big two points that will never see a third point, same area every year same few deer that are always two points. Seems the genetics for the third point have been shot out of that area. :bash:
Post by: buglebrush on April 07, 2015, 10:58:43 AM
Post by: benhuntin on April 07, 2015, 11:19:01 AM
I am curious how many of you actually live in 117? And I am not talking about those that live in Spokane. Not that your opinion doesn't count if you don't, but I am just curious. Everyone I know that, like me, actually lives here loves the restriction. The only gripe we have is that there needs to be more antlerless harvest to keep the herd balanced. And I for one love it if a few of the out of area people go somewhere else. There should be a longer season only open to those who are actually residents of a particular area. With the short season in Washington it is ridiculous how many people are out in the woods at the same time. :twocents:Where do you suggest everyone else go, and why do you think you get to tell people to leave your unit? It's people like you that give locals a bad name. Everyone has a right to hunt any public land so live with it.
Post by: baldopepper on April 07, 2015, 12:18:53 PM
I am curious how many of you actually live in 117? And I am not talking about those that live in Spokane. Not that your opinion doesn't count if you don't, but I am just curious. Everyone I know that, like me, actually lives here loves the restriction. The only gripe we have is that there needs to be more antlerless harvest to keep the herd balanced. And I for one love it if a few of the out of area people go somewhere else. There should be a longer season only open to those who are actually residents of a particular area. With the short season in Washington it is ridiculous how many people are out in the woods at the same time. :twocents:I live in 121 and I can't say everyone around me is thrilled about the restriction. From a "greedy" point of view I like it, it's kept the number of hunters down for the early general season for sure. But, I look at it from a couple of other points of view. Several of the local small businesses in the area used to look forward to the deer hunt as kind of a top off to help them get thru the year financially. They've felt it hard and, frankly, say it's not gotten any better as the restrictions wore on. Secondly, I'm not convinced it's really helped the herd. The majority of the deer I'm seeing taken are barely legal 3 points with eyeguards making them legal. Seems for the most part we've just held off shooting them for one more year. Personally I think the reduction in hunter pressure and the mild winters have contributed far more to the rebound than the APR. Theres a lot of public ground in 121 and I think hunters from any area should be encouraged to hunt it. May seem like a lot of hunters, but our numbers (and influence) continue to decline and finding more reasons to discourage young hunters is not a wise thing in my opinion. Just my :twocents:
Post by: buglebrush on April 07, 2015, 01:23:41 PM
I am curious how many of you actually live in 117? And I am not talking about those that live in Spokane. Not that your opinion doesn't count if you don't, but I am just curious. Everyone I know that, like me, actually lives here loves the restriction. The only gripe we have is that there needs to be more antlerless harvest to keep the herd balanced. And I for one love it if a few of the out of area people go somewhere else. There should be a longer season only open to those who are actually residents of a particular area. With the short season in Washington it is ridiculous how many people are out in the woods at the same time. :twocents:Where do you suggest everyone else go, and why do you think you get to tell people to leave your unit? It's people like you that give locals a bad name. Everyone has a right to hunt any public land so live with it.
I never told anyone to leave the unit, nor did I say people shouldn't hunt. I was simply making the observation that if the 4-point restriction sends some people elsewhere to hunt I will enjoy the less crowded woods, and most of the local hunters I know feel the same way. A lot of comments on the thread were trashing the 4-point restriction, and I was just curious if that was coming from locals or not. :dunno:
As I stated it doesn't mean your opinion doesn't count I was just curious if what I was hearing was actually from locals or people that are driving up to hunt. Sorry if that makes you all defensive.
Post by: buglebrush on April 07, 2015, 01:26:57 PM
I would like to see the youth and seniors go to any deer and stay 4point min for the rest of us. At least till 2019. I like the challenge my self
This is exactly what I would prefer.
Post by: TheHunt on April 07, 2015, 02:58:23 PM
:bdid: I love the restriction! IMO every area should have a 4 point restriction with antlerless opportunities to keep the herd balanced. Also have a youth/senior any deer tag.
Why don't they do a 6 point restriction instead of spike on elk? Seems like a no brainer to me!
I am with you on that idea. :yeah:
Post by: skeeter 20i on April 07, 2015, 04:06:04 PM
I would like to see the youth and seniors go to any deer and stay 4point min for the rest of us. At least till 2019. I like the challenge my self
This is exactly what I would prefer.
:yeah:
Post by: stigalla on April 07, 2015, 04:16:37 PM
I never told anyone to leave the unit, nor did I say people shouldn't hunt. I was simply making the observation that if the 4-point restriction sends some people elsewhere to hunt I will enjoy the less crowded woods, and most of the local hunters I know feel the same way. A lot of comments on the thread were trashing the 4-point restriction, and I was just curious if that was coming from locals or not. :dunno:
As I stated it doesn't mean your opinion doesn't count I was just curious if what I was hearing was actually from locals or people that are driving up to hunt. Sorry if that makes you all defemoosive.
[/quote]
I out right own MY land in 117.. as much as I dislike the hoards of Orange it's good for the small town of Newport/old town... It also allows the heard to be managed in a way that will decrease road kill. As a resident you CANT say you haven't noticed a rise of deer on the side of the road. Like previously stated if you want 4pts take 4pts or better.. but the does and stunted deer need to be harvested too. if anything the easley targeted immature bucks will be harvested while the old timers will continue to hideout and thrive..
Post by: jasnt on April 07, 2015, 06:18:09 PM
I am curious how many of you actually live in 117? And I am not talking about those that live in Spokane. Not that your opinion doesn't count if you don't, but I am just curious. Everyone I know that, like me, actually lives here loves the restriction. The only gripe we have is that there needs to be more antlerless harvest to keep the herd balanced. And I for one love it if a few of the out of area people go somewhere else. There should be a longer season only open to those who are actually residents of a particular area. With the short season in Washington it is ridiculous how many people are out in the woods at the same time. :twocents:i do
Post by: muleyguy on April 07, 2015, 10:16:50 PM
honestly, that is how the discussion SHOULD have been framed in the first place with this rule; instead, voodoo biology and comparisons to Eastern US whitetail herds was used to justify it all in the noble cause of, "we have to do something to save the herd"
it's perfectly acceptable to make an argument that "we want the APR put in place to reduce hunter pressure, and, with an APR, we can still maintain maximum hunter opportunity"
I happen to not at all agree that an APR is the best way to achieve less hunting pressure because of the skewing of age classes and other problems, but, at least that would have been an upfront argument on the issue.
The discussion from day 1 on this topic should have centered on: "we need to reduce hunter pressure on the bucks, so what is the best way to go about this?"
the data is crystal clear from the harvest reports that right after the APR went into effect, the harvest of 5+ pt whitetail bucks INCREASED from the years before, EVEN though hunting pressure was 30% lower;
how did that happen?? did suddenly many more mature bucks show up because of the APR? no way, the APR had not been in effect long enough
it is simply because all of the hunting pressure was directed at the older bucks;
in all likelihood, the number of truly mature bucks (5.5yr or older) is probably quite a bit lower then if the rule would have never been implemented;
but, what you do have now is a ton of immature bucks stockpiled up; so, that is the lasting effect of this rule;
as I said in the previous post, if they rescind the rule, that will be a very healthy thing for the mature bucks because it will get all the hunting pressure off of them;
mark my words, the first year the APR is lifted, the number of mature bucks harvested will be lower then the previous years;
does that mean that suddenly there are fewer of them???
nope, it just means that the harvest is now being directed at a different age class
Post by: Bango skank on April 07, 2015, 10:30:19 PM
well I have to congratulate the brave ones on here, who are in favor of the APR, actually state why they are in favor of it.......that it has been very successful in reducing hunter numbers;
honestly, that is how the discussion SHOULD have been framed in the first place with this rule; instead, voodoo biology and comparisons to Eastern US whitetail herds was used to justify it all in the noble cause of, "we have to do something to save the herd"
it's perfectly acceptable to make an argument that "we want the APR put in place to reduce hunter pressure, and, with an APR, we can still maintain maximum hunter opportunity"
I happen to not at all agree that an APR is the best way to achieve less hunting pressure because of the skewing of age classes and other problems, but, at least that would have been an upfront argument on the issue.
The discussion from day 1 on this topic should have centered on: "we need to reduce hunter pressure on the bucks, so what is the best way to go about this?"
the data is crystal clear from the harvest reports that right after the APR went into effect, the harvest of 5+ pt whitetail bucks INCREASED from the years before, EVEN though hunting pressure was 30% lower;
how did that happen?? did suddenly many more mature bucks show up because of the APR? no way, the APR had not been in effect long enough
it is simply because all of the hunting pressure was directed at the older bucks;
in all likelihood, the number of truly mature bucks (5.5yr or older) is probably quite a bit lower then if the rule would have never been implemented;
but, what you do have now is a ton of immature bucks stockpiled up; so, that is the lasting effect of this rule;
as I said in the previous post, if they rescind the rule, that will be a very healthy thing for the mature bucks because it will get all the hunting pressure off of them;
mark my words, the first year the APR is lifted, the number of mature bucks harvested will be lower then the previous years;
does that mean that suddenly there are fewer of them???
nope, it just means that the harvest is now being directed at a different age class
With a name like muleyguy, if youre so upset about not being able to shoot a whitetail that still has its milk teeth, in only TWO UNITS, why arent you crying about the statewide 3x min on muleys? Personally i think that protecting the bucks that are the most susceptible to hunters to improve the buck/doe ratio is a good thing. If you cant control your trigger finger when you see a baby deer with a couple inches of antler, just get on the right side of the highway. Then you can kill a "nice fat spike."
Post by: NumaJohn on April 07, 2015, 10:55:40 PM
I could be wrong, but I think benhuntin's issue was with your statement, "There should be a longer season only open to those who are actually residents of a particular area."
And I have to confess, that statement doesn't strike me as being fair to other hunters. If it's public land in a GMU, I do not see why someone who lives close to that public land "should" get to hunt longer. Why, specifically, should proximity entitle you to hunt longer than the rest of us? If it's public land, it is land that belongs to us all, right?
Now, if you take public land out of the equation and want landowners (only) to have special hunting privileges pertaining to length of seasons, then I guess that is something I could get behind, depending on the circumstances. But why "should" someone who lives in Colville have a longer season to hunt, say, the Colville National Forest near town, than someone who lives in Metaline Falls who wants to hunt that same public land near Colville?
Just curious to see your reasoning. Thanks.
John
Post by: jasnt on April 08, 2015, 05:30:10 AM
Post by: TommyH on April 08, 2015, 05:52:43 AM
Post by: huntnnw on April 08, 2015, 06:22:16 AM
Post by: Colville on April 08, 2015, 12:11:21 PM
Bottom line is that the Game dept knows that the hunting demand (not those responding on this site, but out of all hunters) is vastly more interested in opportunity than quality. It's not close either. These two units got the chance because of the large blocks of private and the interest that they had in quality management. It's never really been a question of whether the herd can be managed by either method, it can. The question is who will decide. If it's decided by hunters, then it's no APR.
The NE is the only part of the state with a herd that can afford any buck hunting, period. The very best bucks will continue to be hard to find and get because they're mature whitetails. Will a guy who owns 100 acres or 1000 see as many as before, nope. But will hundreds more people go back to hunting where they used to? Yep. When they take away the open season, they just push all the pressure to other units that still have it. Again, no surprise that the units that were selected for the trial.
The three big deals on deer numbers; winter, doe harvest, predation. Only one of those does the department have strong control over. The others are going to create cyclic variation in opportunity. Reduce doe harvest and either shrorten or limit late season dates if the herd is in real trouble. The whitetails are the most resilient and flexible of our herds and we shouldn't limit opportunity on the only herds in the state that can actually support the maximum hunter days in an open general format. Especially in the light of the fact that hunters overwhelmingly prefer this option. The big deer will still be there hiding where they always were.
But I don't live in 117 or 121 so you can toss all of that.
Post by: buglebrush on April 08, 2015, 12:54:33 PM
buglebrush,
I could be wrong, but I think benhuntin's issue was with your statement, "There should be a longer season only open to those who are actually residents of a particular area."
And I have to confess, that statement doesn't strike me as being fair to other hunters. If it's public land in a GMU, I do not see why someone who lives close to that public land "should" get to hunt longer. Why, specifically, should proximity entitle you to hunt longer than the rest of us? If it's public land, it is land that belongs to us all, right?
Now, if you take public land out of the equation and want landowners (only) to have special hunting privileges pertaining to length of seasons, then I guess that is something I could get behind, depending on the circumstances. But why "should" someone who lives in Colville have a longer season to hunt, say, the Colville National Forest near town, than someone who lives in Metaline Falls who wants to hunt that same public land near Colville?
Just curious to see your reasoning. Thanks.
John
Fair point. On consideration I'm not sure I would agree with what I said either. Really it was just my frustration with Washington's short seasons. Growing up in Idaho where I could chase deer for the entire month of September with my bow, October 10-November 30 with Rifle, and in December agian with Bow I just cannot stand how WDFW has their seasons. We had lost of out of area hunters in Idaho too, but with such a long season they would come for their 7-10 days, and leave without really affecting us locals. Here with such a short season we are all compressed into the same couple of weeks, and it really inhibits the experience when every gate, trail, etc... has rigs parked at it. Don't tell me we are forced to have short season's, because the deer can't handle it either. That may be true, but it is due to this state's refusal to agressively manage their predators. :bash:
Really with such short season's the sacrifice in pay etc... we choose to accept, in order to live in prime hunting territories, almost doesn't make sense. In Idaho we just hunted evenings and weekends over almost 3 full months of hunting opportunity, but here I may as well move to the city, make more money, and then take the ten measly days of season off.
As to Muleyguy's points: Lower hunting pressure isn't why I am in favor of the APR. It is a bonus for sure, but definitely not the reason I support it. I can't speak to mule deer, but whitetail apr work great! We had 400 acres backed up to NF land with the only access being through our land. We made a decision to not shoot anything smaller than a nice 4x4 on our property. If we were unable to score a big buck we took out does, but by the fifth year we were consistently killing big mature bucks every year. I am for APR, because it makes an area's trophy potential improve enormously! You aren't killing future giants when they are dumb little fork horns. Again this is for Whitetail which is totally different from Mule Deer. Also as I stated earlier I would also strongly suport increased youth/senior any deer opportunities to go with it.
Post by: buglebrush on April 08, 2015, 12:59:40 PM
127 is nothing geographically like 117 or 121, which are full of forest lands and have more whitetails to begin with.
Bottom line is that the Game dept knows that the hunting demand (not those responding on this site, but out of all hunters) is vastly more interested in opportunity than quality. It's not close either. These two units got the chance because of the large blocks of private and the interest that they had in quality management. It's never really been a question of whether the herd can be managed by either method, it can. The question is who will decide. If it's decided by hunters, then it's no APR.
The NE is the only part of the state with a herd that can afford any buck hunting, period. The very best bucks will continue to be hard to find and get because they're mature whitetails. Will a guy who owns 100 acres or 1000 see as many as before, nope. But will hundreds more people go back to hunting where they used to? Yep. When they take away the open season, they just push all the pressure to other units that still have it. Again, no surprise that the units that were selected for the trial.
The three big deals on deer numbers; winter, doe harvest, predation. Only one of those does the department have strong control over. The others are going to create cyclic variation in opportunity. Reduce doe harvest and either shrorten or limit late season dates if the herd is in real trouble. The whitetails are the most resilient and flexible of our herds and we shouldn't limit opportunity on the only herds in the state that can actually support the maximum hunter days in an open general format. Especially in the light of the fact that hunters overwhelmingly prefer this option. The big deer will still be there hiding where they always were.
But I don't live in 117 or 121 so you can toss all of that.
Actually this is wrong. The department has direct control of predation too. This state's refusal to agressively manage predator's is ridiculous! Please don't lump predator's in with factors like winter! Learn from Idaho! Have OTC spring bear, reduced second bear, wolf tags, and for the love of sanity let us use dogs to run kill cats! Cannot understand washington hunter's complacency regarding this issue.
Post by: Colville on April 08, 2015, 01:06:15 PM
It's a liberal state! The department takes the opinions of non hunters with equal weight to hunters with respect to these issues. I'm not saying they should, but, they do. They can't waive a wand at the problem. Coyote/cat/wolf are essentially uncontrollable in the NE rightn now. Yes they could reduce bear with an extension of the season but I doubt you can put a real dent in deer numbers managing just bear. The state has no budget for state hunters of predators either so there you have it. There's only a little bit they can do about predation. Without fixes for wolf and cat that aren't in place now, predation is really unmanageable.
Post by: buglebrush on April 08, 2015, 03:19:48 PM
Bugle, the people voted on Cats. The people voted on baiting bear.
It's a liberal state! The department takes the opinions of non hunters with equal weight to hunters with respect to these issues. I'm not saying they should, but, they do. They can't waive a wand at the problem. Coyote/cat/wolf are essentially uncontrollable in the NE rightn now. Yes they could reduce bear with an extension of the season but I doubt you can put a real dent in deer numbers managing just bear. The state has no budget for state hunters of predators either so there you have it. There's only a little bit they can do about predation. Without fixes for wolf and cat that aren't in place now, predation is really unmanageable.
Didn't realize that was how they got rid of Hound hunting, thanks for educating me. (It happened before I lived in Washington.) That is just sad. You would think the WDFW would have the authority to work around it somehow. How did it ever end up in a vote? They also could do much better with the wolf issue.
As for bears they kill a lot of fawns and calves. More than we give them credit for. Maybe we all need to band together in the NE, and start putting money in the pot for a coyote bounty. Might help.
Post by: bearpaw on April 08, 2015, 05:20:51 PM
Bugle, the people voted on Cats. The people voted on baiting bear.
It's a liberal state! The department takes the opinions of non hunters with equal weight to hunters with respect to these issues. I'm not saying they should, but, they do. They can't waive a wand at the problem. Coyote/cat/wolf are essentially uncontrollable in the NE rightn now. Yes they could reduce bear with an extension of the season but I doubt you can put a real dent in deer numbers managing just bear. The state has no budget for state hunters of predators either so there you have it. There's only a little bit they can do about predation. Without fixes for wolf and cat that aren't in place now, predation is really unmanageable.
Didn't realize that was how they got rid of Hound hunting, thanks for educating me. (It happened before I lived in Washington.) That is just sad. You would think the WDFW would have the authority to work around it somehow. How did it ever end up in a vote? They also could do much better with the wolf issue.
As for bears they kill a lot of fawns and calves. More than we give them credit for. Maybe we all need to band together in the NE, and start putting money in the pot for a coyote bounty. Might help.
Please, let's get this straight:
Cougar
WDFW has significantly cut back on cougar harvest by reducing harvest quotas in many units. Prior to cutting back the harvest quotas boot hunters were taking more cougars. The reduced harvest and high cougar numbers in many units is a direct result of WDFW minimal predator management policies.
Bear
All that needs to happen to increase harvest is start the fall hunt a little earlier or open up spring hunting more.
Wolf
WDFW purposefully implemented the most liberal wolf plan in the west. This lack of ability to manage wolves was greatly self inflicted by WDFW.
Post by: bearpaw on April 08, 2015, 05:30:40 PM
I anxiously await to see what they do.
Post by: Bango skank on April 08, 2015, 06:17:50 PM
An august 1st bear opener and 2 bear limit here would make a real difference.
Post by: Wacenturion on April 08, 2015, 06:21:43 PM
First I want thank the Commission for supporting and trying the 4pt rule and for reducing doe harvest throughout the NE so herd numbers could build back faster.
WDFW never liked the restriction from the beginning. It took a lot of work to get the 4 pt rule approved by the Commission. We recently compared data for 117/121 with data from surrounding units and the rule seems to be resulting in greater herd/buck recovery than in surrounding GMU's. It also appears that the hunter ratio hunting in the 4 pt area is practically back to pre-rule numbers. Another words the lost hunter revenue for local business is disappearing.
I agree with the Dept that deer numbers are rebounding and I think some doe hunting will not hurt. That would especially benefit youth hunters who live in the area who cannot easily hunt other areas. I would also suggest allowing youth hunters to take any buck now that buck numbers are improving.
In theory once deer numbers recover equal numbers of doe and buck need to be taken or the result will be more does in the herd, which is a low buck to doe ratio.
If the commission will keep the rule for another 3 years I think there will be a clearer picture of the results.
Absolutely agree......WDFW is not giving it a sufficient time. If they did they might have to live with it. Apparently they don't like it, so ending it earlier rather than later nulifies data that would go against their "I think" biological assessment. :twocents:
Of course WDFW plays on the average Joe hunter wanting to kill any buck.....sad.
Post by: Wacenturion on April 08, 2015, 06:28:38 PM
I'll bet there's more mature bucks now than before.
Ya think.... :chuckle:
Post by: jasnt on April 08, 2015, 07:49:03 PM
:yeah:
An august 1st bear opener and 2 bear limit here would make a real difference.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on April 08, 2015, 07:54:41 PM
We have that on the coast, plus the tree farms have houndsmen (the hound guys get a ton of bears), but because there are so many cougars, I don't see it really upping the deer. But the deer here seem to be more affected by logging.:yeah:
An august 1st bear opener and 2 bear limit here would make a real difference.
Post by: Bango skank on April 08, 2015, 08:56:20 PM
We have that on the coast, plus the tree farms have houndsmen (the hound guys get a ton of bears), but because there are so many cougars, I don't see it really upping the deer. But the deer here seem to be more affected by logging.:yeah:
An august 1st bear opener and 2 bear limit here would make a real difference.
Im not saying it would be a cure all, but it would be a much easier change to get made than major overhauls in our cougar / wolf policies, and i think it would have a noticeable positive impact on our deer, elk and moose over time. Our september 1st opener is bad for bear harvest in two ways. One is that people dont have a full month to focus specifically on bears before more "important" seasons open. The other is that, unlike much of the west side, september here is after our prime berry time, making the bears harder to locate. How would the west side bear harvest go if it wasnt opened until the berries were dried up and elk/deer opened? Add a 1 bear limit to that and i think your deer and elk would suffer significantly
Post by: huntnnw on April 08, 2015, 10:12:26 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on April 09, 2015, 10:42:02 AM
I wish you guys could get the extra bear/extra season, and even get higher quotas on cats. I think it's nuts you have to check online every few days to see if your cat season is still open. Any predator down helps, so yeah, I guess if you have a certain area you scout/hunt hard you could probably boost the local herd a little.We have that on the coast, plus the tree farms have houndsmen (the hound guys get a ton of bears), but because there are so many cougars, I don't see it really upping the deer. But the deer here seem to be more affected by logging.:yeah:
An august 1st bear opener and 2 bear limit here would make a real difference.
Im not saying it would be a cure all, but it would be a much easier change to get made than major overhauls in our cougar / wolf policies, and i think it would have a noticeable positive impact on our deer, elk and moose over time. Our september 1st opener is bad for bear harvest in two ways. One is that people dont have a full month to focus specifically on bears before more "important" seasons open. The other is that, unlike much of the west side, september here is after our prime berry time, making the bears harder to locate. How would the west side bear harvest go if it wasnt opened until the berries were dried up and elk/deer opened? Add a 1 bear limit to that and i think your deer and elk would suffer significantly
I don't know too many people on westside that go for more than one bear, I think most bears get shot during mod deer/elk season..most guns in the woods.
Post by: jasnt on April 09, 2015, 04:30:59 PM
Post by: pd on April 09, 2015, 06:53:03 PM
Having said that, I don't know the Commission is reading this. Best of luck to you all.
Post by: buckfvr on April 09, 2015, 07:18:17 PM
And Ill add guys should be climbing all over each other trying to get to the 4pt or better units with the way above average success rates...........no brainer.
Post by: buckfvr on April 09, 2015, 07:32:36 PM
Post by: jasnt on April 09, 2015, 10:26:09 PM
....people with the common sense educated right out of them. :twocents:thats awesome right there. I may have to use that
Post by: csaaphill on April 09, 2015, 10:55:06 PM
changing things up a bit isn't a bad thing and anyone who hates crowds shouldn't be hunting for it's numbers that keeps our politicol pull not selfishness!
Post by: jasnt on April 09, 2015, 11:20:32 PM
:tup: good to see them change it even if I dont live up there I've lives with the 3pt restricitons for long enough. At first it was ok seen more bucks in general, but after a while all you seen was spikes and two pts. Sounds to me like 4pt is backwards thinking because your shooting all the breeding stock, and causing for more poaching as in some of our 3pt only areas where you get like a split second to judge and some just shoot then pray later.4pt whitetail are often not breeding stock. Likes said earlier a1 1/2 year old whitetail can be 4pt. They are not like mule deer!
changing things up a bit isn't a bad thing and anyone who hates crowds shouldn't be hunting for it's numbers that keeps our politicol pull not selfishness!
Post by: muleyguy on April 10, 2015, 01:46:34 AM
Quote
" just pausing here to look at my stock pile of immature bucks.....................what a joke............people with the common sense educated right out of them. :twocents:
Utah Department of Wildlife:
• Antler point restrictions focus all the hunting pressure on the oldest age classes of bucks, gradually decrease the average age of the buck segment of the population, and make it more difficult for bucks to reach the older age classes due to the displaced harvest pressure.
• Antler point restrictions have been shown to reduce the number of trophy bucks over time by protecting only the smaller-antlered young bucks.
Ken McCaffery; Research Biologist Wisconsin:
As studies continued, two major disappointments were discovered.First was finding an unacceptable level of accidental-illegal kill of animals with inadequate antler condition.Counting points in the wild can be difficult.
The second was noting that ARs focused harvests more heavily on the mature males, virtually wiping them out. One cannot produce “old” bucks by targeting old bucks. They found better age structures were achieved when harvests were spread across all age classes of males. States also found that the best way to have more mature animals was to limit license sales
Wyoming Department of Wildlife:
“A harvest strategy sometimes employed to improve depressed buck:doe ratios is a “four-point or better” hunting season. It may seem counterintuitive, but antler point restrictions do not necessarily produce more large bucks. In a ≥4 point season, the hunter is restricted to harvesting bucks with 4 points or more on either antler. Consequently, all harvest pressure is redirected to the largest deer in the population, which reduces their number. Since most yearlings and some 2-year old bucks are protected until they become small 4-point deer, the overall ratio of bucks to does will increase somewhat as a result of having more young bucks in the population. However, harvest is merely delayed until a buck grows its first set of 4-point antlers. Thereafter, the buck:doe ratio does not continue to increase and fewer bucks actually survive to grow truly large antlers. Over the long-term, persistently targeting large bucks may also eliminate desirable genetics (the ability to grow large antlers) from the population.
Specific 4pt APR whitetail research:
“Before the regulation, a 3 1/2-year-old deer averaged 113 inches; now it’s down to 94 inches.”
Such statistics suggest that harvested bucks are actually losing some of the length and mass of antler that the 4-point rule was set up to increase.
The rule is designed to protect yearling deer, which it clearly accomplishes. In the process, however, it seems to best protect the yearling bucks produced each year with the smallest racks.
The second goal is to have these yearling deer that survive harvested in older age-classes. Unfortunately, there is no clear evidence that this is happening. On many WMAs, the total number of bucks harvested within older age-classes didn’t change much. The major difference was that the average age of harvested bucks increased by only about a year. There was no significant increase in the number of 3 1/2- and 4 1/2-year-old bucks being harvested.
Would you like more examples???? unfortunately, your "common sense" in this case is slightly wrong.......
I mean I can go on and on with data if you would like.......but, I guess data doesn't rule the day around here.......
the 4pt rule is expressly designed to protect yearling bucks, so, go with me here.......I know its a stretch for you to comprehend this.......but, if you protect (don't kill) yearling bucks, and only allow killing of older bucks, then, what does that result in..........a stockpile of yearling bucks...........
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on April 10, 2015, 03:42:19 AM
Post by: Bango skank on April 10, 2015, 06:09:28 AM
Quote" just pausing here to look at my stock pile of immature bucks.....................what a joke............people with the common sense educated right out of them. :twocents:
Utah Department of Wildlife:
• Antler point restrictions focus all the hunting pressure on the oldest age classes of bucks, gradually decrease the average age of the buck segment of the population, and make it more difficult for bucks to reach the older age classes due to the displaced harvest pressure.
• Antler point restrictions have been shown to reduce the number of trophy bucks over time by protecting only the smaller-antlered young bucks.
Ken McCaffery; Research Biologist Wisconsin:
The second was noting that ARs focused harvests more heavily on the mature males, virtually wiping them out.
Specific 4pt APR whitetail research:
“Before the regulation, a 3 1/2-year-old deer averaged 113 inches; now it’s down to 94 inches.”
Such statistics suggest that harvested bucks are actually losing some of the length and mass of antler that the 4-point rule was set up to increase.
The second goal is to have these yearling deer that survive harvested in older age-classes. Unfortunately, there is no clear evidence that this is happening. On many WMAs, the total number of bucks harvested within older age-classes didn’t change much. The major difference was that the average age of harvested bucks increased by only about a year. There was no significant increase in the number of 3 1/2- and 4 1/2-year-old bucks being harvested.
Would you like more examples???? unfortunately, your "common sense" in this case is slightly wrong.......
I mean I can go on and on with data if you would like.......but, I guess data doesn't rule the day around here.......
the 4pt rule is expressly designed to protect yearling bucks, so, go with me here.......I know its a stretch for you to comprehend this.......but, if you protect (don't kill) yearling bucks, and only allow killing of older bucks, then, what does that result in..........a stockpile of yearling bucks...........
Utah? Pretty sure that is about mule deer. irrelevant. and look at the contradictions youre posting. one says older bucks are being "virtually wiped out" and another says APR has not changed avg age of harvest much, so which is it? what point are you trying to make? the stuff youre posting is completely contradictory. and im sorry but the apr does NOT mean our mature bucks are being wiped out. The kind of guys who want to shoot peckerheads and fork horns are absolutely not the kind of guys who kill mature whitetails. And if you can go on and on with the data like you say, i would like to know, for that stuff you posted about the avg antler size of 3.5 year old antlers shrinking, where did this occur? how many 3.5 year old bucks did they measure to come to this conclusion, and over how long of a time? and when did this occur? which years? were they drought years? could it be possible that a bad year or two for wild forage and/or crops had anything to do with this supposed antler shrinking? If you care to look up antler restrictions benefits you will find many many pages of data that go "on and on" and say the exact opposite of the crap youre posting. the bottom line is that the majority of residents here WANT the antler restriction. All the guys who want to kill baby deer have plenty of other units to choose from. leave these two alone.
Post by: baldopepper on April 10, 2015, 06:19:47 AM
Post by: Jarhead Chase on April 10, 2015, 10:42:28 AM
Post by: zike on April 10, 2015, 12:28:11 PM
Post by: grundy53 on April 10, 2015, 12:46:41 PM
Post by: muleyguy on April 10, 2015, 02:17:25 PM
Quote
Utah? Pretty sure that is about mule deer. irrelevant. and look at the contradictions youre posting. one says older bucks are being "virtually wiped out" and another says APR has not changed avg age of harvest much, so which is it? what point are you trying to make? the stuff youre posting is completely contradictory. and im sorry but the apr does NOT mean our mature bucks are being wiped out. The kind of guys who want to shoot peckerheads and fork horns are absolutely not the kind of guys who kill mature whitetails. And if you can go on and on with the data like you say, i would like to know, for that stuff you posted about the avg antler size of 3.5 year old antlers shrinking, where did this occur? how many 3.5 year old bucks did they measure to come to this conclusion, and over how long of a time? and when did this occur? which years? were they drought years? could it be possible that a bad year or two for wild forage and/or crops had anything to do with this supposed antler shrinking? If you care to look up antler restrictions benefits you will find many many pages of data that go "on and on" and say the exact opposite of the crap youre posting. the bottom line is that the majority of residents here WANT the antler restriction. All the guys who want to kill baby deer have plenty of other units to choose from. leave these two alone
yup, it is Utah; I included two mule deer references (Utah and Wyoming) and two Whitetail references; the first whitetail reference is research done on Wisconsin whitetail deer and APR's; the second one with is Phd research on the Missouri whitetail herds concerning the shrinking antler size;
each data reference that I posted speaks to the same issue.......that YOUNGER bucks are protected and older bucks are targeted;
all of those articles speak to very similar problems over both whitetail and mule deer APR's;
APR's just move the harvest up one age class; from 1.5 yr old bucks to 2.5 yr old bucks, that has been shown time after time, that recruitment into older age classes (4.5 yrs or older) does not increase with APR's; this is because 85% of hunters shoot the first legal buck that they see, and , in APR units that is usually 2.5 yr old bucks;
bottom line is this: you take ANY hunting unit in the United States, and suddenly decrease the hunting pressure by 30% for 5 yrs and couple that with mild winters, you are going to see an increase in bucks.
That is what happened exactly in these units;
Post by: Colville on April 10, 2015, 03:37:48 PM
These units were historically any buck. The herd dynamics from these units to those surrounding it are comparable. Meaning that this APR could be used or NOT used and the outcome to herd stability is comparable. That's what the state is saying, APR doesn't move the needle, doe harvest/weather/predation are running the show.
Thereafter, it all comes down to one thing. What do hunters want? Despite the name calling and protests of a few on this site, the state will tell you that their polling is 2 to 1 or better in favor of any buck. So there you have it. APR doesn't deliver demonstrable herd benefits and hunters don't want it.
If you go use the harvest reports, make sure you make District 1 the same back in 08/07 by removing the additional GMU's above 121, because it was different then. Take the modern firearm buck deer killed District 1 and those killed in just 117 and 121. From 2007 to 2010, units 117 and 121 accounted for an average 56.7% of the bucks killed in District 1. From 2011 to 2013 117 and 121 accounted for 42.0% of District 1 bucks. (you have to calculate this manually they don't have it for you).
Average Bucks killed '08 to '10: District 3700 Units 117/121 2105
Average Bucks killed '11 to '13: District 3023 Units 117/121 1292
Reduction in bucks killed in the district: 19%
Reduction in bucks killed in 117/121: 39%
If 117/121 produced the same rate of bucks as the other units it would have averaged 1705 killed. APR has reduced opportunity to kill deer by 413 bucks per year in exchange for bigger bucks. The people who prefer opportunity have a damn solid argument that they are being robbed of 400 deer per year.
Call them whatever name you want. These units will support far greater production than they are putting out. APR is about trophy management, not herd management.
Post by: MLBowhunting on April 10, 2015, 04:22:29 PM
Post by: bearpaw on April 10, 2015, 07:01:20 PM
I think its funny.
These units were historically any buck. The herd dynamics from these units to those surrounding it are comparable. Meaning that this APR could be used or NOT used and the outcome to herd stability is comparable. That's what the state is saying, APR doesn't move the needle, doe harvest/weather/predation are running the show.
Thereafter, it all comes down to one thing. What do hunters want? Despite the name calling and protests of a few on this site, the state will tell you that their polling is 2 to 1 or better in favor of any buck. So there you have it. APR doesn't deliver demonstrable herd benefits and hunters don't want it.
If you go use the harvest reports, make sure you make District 1 the same back in 08/07 by removing the additional GMU's above 121, because it was different then. Take the modern firearm buck deer killed District 1 and those killed in just 117 and 121. From 2007 to 2010, units 117 and 121 accounted for an average 56.7% of the bucks killed in District 1. From 2011 to 2013 117 and 121 accounted for 42.0% of District 1 bucks. (you have to calculate this manually they don't have it for you).
Average Bucks killed '08 to '10: District 3700 Units 117/121 2105
Average Bucks killed '11 to '13: District 3023 Units 117/121 1292
Reduction in bucks killed in the district: 19%
Reduction in bucks killed in 117/121: 39%
If 117/121 produced the same rate of bucks as the other units it would have averaged 1705 killed. APR has reduced opportunity to kill deer by 413 bucks per year in exchange for bigger bucks. The people who prefer opportunity have a damn solid argument that they are being robbed of 400 deer per year.
Call them whatever name you want. These units will support far greater production than they are putting out. APR is about trophy management, not herd management.
Your post is misleading because the number of mature bucks killed the first year or two was low for obvious reasons.
In the last year or two those units have shown the greatest increase of bucks being killed each year. This year will likely be a shootfest and we will lose some of what we gained. There is a possibility that a greater percentage of hunters will shoot small bucks since anything can be killed now, but the unit may get flooded with hunters looking to take advantage of the improved buck to doe ratio which will result in the ratio being taken back to the same low buck/doe ratio as the rest of the area.
I think it's unfortunate we didn't follow through with the 4 point, I don't see how it was unfair to have two units with more mature bucks and a higher buck to doe ratio as a trial, but at least the guys who have been whining got their way so we won't have to listen to them sniveling over those two units being used to test the rule.
The last 2 years in GMU 117 and 121 was the best hunting we've had in NE WA for a decade. A ranch we have hunted for 20 years produced more bucks than it has for more than a decade. On top of producing better than in a decade the bucks also had at least 4 points. The rule was working awesome. I guess this fall will be an even bigger year since we might as well shoot any buck like everyone around us will be doing. :dunno:
We normally run a very high success rate anyway, but it was really nice to see an area that had plenty of bucks left over after hunting season, now it will likely end up like the other units, lower buck/doe ratio.
Post by: Miles on April 10, 2015, 08:08:56 PM
Sure, the response will be something about how it's due to it not going the full five years.... i call bs. I think the whole five year plan was an attempt to get everyone used to it, and therefore easier to keep in place. All in the name of marketing and creating " trophy unit" hype.
Post by: Miles on April 10, 2015, 08:15:33 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on April 10, 2015, 08:18:42 PM
yup, it is Utah; I included two mule deer references (Utah and Wyoming) and two Whitetail references; the first whitetail reference is research done on Wisconsin whitetail deer and APR's; the second one with is Phd research on the Missouri whitetail herds concerning the shrinking antler size;
each data reference that I posted speaks to the same issue.......that YOUNGER bucks are protected and older bucks are targeted;
all of those articles speak to very similar problems over both whitetail and mule deer APR's;
APR's just move the harvest up one age class; from 1.5 yr old bucks to 2.5 yr old bucks, that has been shown time after time, that recruitment into older age classes (4.5 yrs or older) does not increase with APR's; this is because 85% of hunters shoot the first legal buck that they see, and , in APR units that is usually 2.5 yr old bucks;
bottom line is this: you take ANY hunting unit in the United States, and suddenly decrease the hunting pressure by 30% for 5 yrs and couple that with mild winters, you are going to see an increase in bucks.
That is what happened exactly in these units;
Here's the rub nobody is mentioning. Not only does it protect the young buck, and put emphasis on the older bucks, but it also puts added pressure on the young buck that have the genes to become real trophies. They develop 4 pt antlers at 1.5 so they are still legal. What is protected is the young bucks with the genes for less points and smaller racks. So these are the bucks that you are protecting to pass on their genes. You aren't protecting the young bucks with the superior antler genes.
That is why you end up with a bunch of bucks like mulies with huge forks or 3 pts. Or fork horn whitetails in the 3 or 4 pt units. I don't know about the other 3 pt units, but I hunted Steptoe a few times and you just don't see a real trophy whitetail there, but you do see a lot of average or smaller racks. I'm sure there are a few big bucks that survive there if they have some private property with no hunting to hide out in, but taking out the large antlered bucks before the rut does nothing to pass on the good genes.
Think about this. The privately managed hunting ranches in places like Illinois and Texas don't protect their small bucks. They are called management bucks and hunters are encouraged to take them out. The really big bucks are protected to some degree, because that is the breeding stock, the future of the ranch. They only let so many of them be shot in a given year and it will cost you plenty to take one of them. These ranches use the opposite of a point restriction rule and they also harvest a lot of does to keep a good balance in their herds. Many of them cull a lot of does every year and if enough smaller bucks weren't harvested, they cull them too. As for the big boys, they want to protect their blood lines.
I was invited to hunt the Montgomery Ranch in Jacksboro Texas a few years ago. I was given a "classic" hunt, which was for any buck under 150 B&C gross. These were considered the management bucks. Since I was just after meat, they also let me take a doe as they cull over 100 does a year there. They donate the meat to local food banks.
http://www.mprhunts.com/texas-whitetail-hunts/texas-classic-whitetail-hunt (http://www.mprhunts.com/texas-whitetail-hunts/texas-classic-whitetail-hunt)
The real trophies are another hunt altogether.
http://www.mprhunts.com/texas-whitetail-hunts/texas-whitetail-hunt (http://www.mprhunts.com/texas-whitetail-hunts/texas-whitetail-hunt)
They don't get bucks like this by killing the big ones and protecting the little ones.
Post by: Bango skank on April 10, 2015, 10:33:34 PM
All the good thats been done for the deer here will be reversed in the blink of an eye thanks to all the people who feel entitled to kill whatever just because they bought a tag. Why would anyone even want to drive 300+ miles to kill a spike anyway? And the "im a meat hunter" argument holds no water when that little baby deer cost you 200 bucks in fuel, not to mention license, etc etc
Post by: JimmyHoffa on April 10, 2015, 10:53:56 PM
Edit--should be NOT breeding the does. :bash:
Post by: Bango skank on April 10, 2015, 11:40:01 PM
Using helicopters and net guns, Koerth and Kroll captured bucks in late January through February from 1999 to 2007. Initially, they captured as many fawns and yearlings as possible … to serve as known-age animals. All handled animals were aged and marked for individual identification with ear tags color-coded to year of birth. In subsequent years, the researchers attempted to recapture and examine as many of the marked animals as possible. Some were also taken by hunters.
Yearling bucks were divided into two antler-point categories, those with three or fewer antler points and those with four or more antler points. Then, the researchers compared recaptured bucks in the two antler-point categories to determine differences in antler growth at 2½ years, 3½ years, 4½ years, and 5½ or more years in age. Antler measurements included number of antler points, inside spread, total beam length, total tine length, total antler circumference, and gross B&C score. (See Table 1, above).
Interesting Results
At 2½ years of age, males that started with three or less antler points remained smaller in all measured antler traits, as compared to those starting with four or more points.
Even at 3½ years of age, the small-antlered yearlings still had smaller B&C antler measurements except for circumference.
However, those starting with three or fewer antler points appeared to be accelerating antler growth at a faster rate as compared to those in the larger yearling antler group.
By 4½ years of age there were no differences in any antler measurements regardless of the yearling antler-point category.
By that age, smaller antlered yearlings had attained a mean antler size equal in width, mass, length and number of points to those starting with larger antlers at yearling age. The same was true for bucks handled when 5½ years of age or older.
Assuming a trophy buck has antlers scoring 150 points or more, the data revealed that a yearling buck with small antlers is just as likely to attain trophy status as one with larger antlers at yearling age. About 17 percent of the yearlings in the small antler category and 13 percent of the yearlings in the large antler category achieved such stature when mature.
Therefore, this research showed that a whitetail buck’s first set of antlers was a poor predictor of antler growth at maturity in a wild population. In other words, selective removal of small-antlered yearling bucks will not increase overall mature buck antler size.
Antler Growth Patterns
Although antler measurements increased for all males as they matured, small-antlered yearlings added antler mass at a faster rate in succeeding years, as compared to large-antlered yearlings. This resulted in no difference in antler size, regardless of their yearling antler size, by the time bucks grew their fourth set of antlers when 4½ years old.
- See more at: http://www.deeranddeerhunting.com/articles/thecullingmythexposed#sthash.ggWu3WXZ.dpuf (http://www.deeranddeerhunting.com/articles/thecullingmythexposed#sthash.ggWu3WXZ.dpuf)
Post by: popeshawnpaul on April 11, 2015, 05:58:24 AM
Post by: PA BEN on April 11, 2015, 06:07:01 AM
Sitka, the cull buck thing has been pretty well debunked. Antler size at 1.5 years old has at least as much to do with time of birth as genetics. Start digging into qdma and youll find many examples of this. Spike bucks that overtake little basket racks after a year or two. I think we all went to school with kids who were little pipsqueaks until about 16 or so, then all the sudden they were the biggest kids around. Just because a year old buck has forks or spikes doesnt mean he doesnt have good genes, and wont amount to anything. Anyway, texas has a LOT of diff stuff going on besides selective buck harvest. Hell half the state is high fence ranches with feeding programs, aggressive doe harvest etc. Comparing wa to texas is a joke. But hey, you whiny, entitled baby killers got your way so time to stop arguing. See you all here this fall as you drive around shooting any deer with a little bit of antler over its milk teeth. Im sure youll feel bafass when you go home and tell all your buddies how you killed a nice fat spike.I don't know who you are or where you live, but calling out someone for being a meat hunter is wrong on the forum.
All the good thats been done for the deer here will be reversed in the blink of an eye thanks to all the people who feel entitled to kill whatever just because they bought a tag. Why would anyone even want to drive 300+ miles to kill a spike anyway? And the "im a meat hunter" argument holds no water when that little baby deer cost you 200 bucks in fuel, not to mention license, etc etc
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on April 11, 2015, 08:58:35 AM
Sitka, the cull buck thing has been pretty well debunked. Antler size at 1.5 years old has at least as much to do with time of birth as genetics. Start digging into qdma and youll find many examples of this. Spike bucks that overtake little basket racks after a year or two. I think we all went to school with kids who were little pipsqueaks until about 16 or so, then all the sudden they were the biggest kids around. Just because a year old buck has forks or spikes doesnt mean he doesnt have good genes, and wont amount to anything. Anyway, texas has a LOT of diff stuff going on besides selective buck harvest. Hell half the state is high fence ranches with feeding programs, aggressive doe harvest etc. Comparing wa to texas is a joke. But hey, you whiny, entitled baby killers got your way so time to stop arguing. See you all here this fall as you drive around shooting any deer with a little bit of antler over its milk teeth. Im sure youll feel bafass when you go home and tell all your buddies how you killed a nice fat spike.I don't know who you are or where you live, but calling out someone for being a meat hunter is wrong on the forum.
All the good thats been done for the deer here will be reversed in the blink of an eye thanks to all the people who feel entitled to kill whatever just because they bought a tag. Why would anyone even want to drive 300+ miles to kill a spike anyway? And the "im a meat hunter" argument holds no water when that little baby deer cost you 200 bucks in fuel, not to mention license, etc etc
Your concern is appreciated PA Ben. I have pretty thick skin though. If I didn't I'd have been long gone from this site years ago. It seems some people think that name calling makes their argument stronger, while most of us got over that by Jr. High.
As for my motivation for hunting, it really has nothing to do with the discussion at hand nor does Bango skank have a clue. I suspect you and I have a lot in common from what I've seen you post about hunting. Any more, it's more about spending time with friends and family in the great outdoors and is as much a vacation as anything. I still love venison, but I'm in the fortunate position where being cost effective isn't the #1 priority. I've done plenty of trips where 100 gallons of fuel took 4 or more of us out to harvest 5 deer apiece.
For some people though, instead of enjoying and learning about nature and time with friends and family, hunting is a competition and the amount of bone they collect is directly related to how they feel about themselves and their machismo. The bigger the rack, the better they feel about themselves and the more disdain they feel for other hunters. I get it. But unless their name is Milo Hanson, they will never measure up.
To these guys, spending $200 in fuel to shoot a spike, or God forbid, a doe, is unthinkable, but spending $5,000 for a guide to up their chances to get a buck that meets some arbitrary score so they can see their name in a book, is somehow cost effective. I guess if being "cost effective" is the true measure of hunting, we all have to walk out our back door with one bullet in our pocket and bring home the most meat possible. Oh, and with the most bone on it's head so we can feel like macho men.
Meanwhile, just because the 4 pt restriction goes away doesn't mean everyone will start shooting spikes. There will be plenty of hunters who hold out, even passing on 4 pointers, because that is how they roll. Some will do it because they like to challenge themselves, some because they want an older, bigger animal that will provide more meat, and others because they would be too embarrassed to put their picture with a spike on Hunt Washington.
Post by: jasnt on April 11, 2015, 10:10:41 AM
Post by: Miles on April 11, 2015, 10:37:01 AM
Every bio but one agreed they should not do the 4 point restriction, but if we do then only for a few years to get a bump back up in the herd numbers. GMAC voted and it was advised they should not implement the 4 point restriction. Somehow, a special interest group of armchair biologists and greedy locals showed up at commission meetings and got this passed. If they did it, the plan was only for a few years. This was never about trophy management but those that passed it had that in their mind. Glad to see WDFW follow through on their plan to take off the restriction.
I'm glad someone else can see through the bs and remember the way things played out. Nothing but a marketing ploy for those with something to gain via their bank account. Land owners and the largest outfitter in the area. Hmmm...
Post by: bobcat on April 11, 2015, 10:39:32 AM
FYI. Antler genetics come from the mother not from the father.
I've never heard that. I believe the genetics come from both.
Post by: jasnt on April 11, 2015, 11:44:44 AM
according to whitetail institute of North America the antler gene comes from the doe and milk production genes come from the buck.FYI. Antler genetics come from the mother not from the father.
I've never heard that. I believe the genetics come from both.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on April 11, 2015, 12:06:02 PM
I've been reading that more and more. There was a huge amount of influence from the doe toward the antlers. Kind of like how women pass on the gene for male baldness. But wasn't there something about the buck that fathered the doe, needed to have certain antler characteristics?according to whitetail institute of North America the antler gene comes from the doe and milk production genes come from the buck.FYI. Antler genetics come from the mother not from the father.
I've never heard that. I believe the genetics come from both.
Post by: jasnt on April 11, 2015, 01:21:19 PM
yes that is correct she does have to have those genes from her father. The sex of the fawn determined by the buck seems to also decide which parents genes to put where. I'm not educated when it comes to DNA but how I understand it and this goes for many farm animals as well. Females take on more of there fathers genetic traits and males take more of there mothers genetic traits. Idk if this only pertains to the traits we look for in these animals but it does ring true for milk production, body size, antler or horn growth, and future off springs sex.I've been reading that more and more. There was a huge amount of influence from the doe toward the antlers. Kind of like how women pass on the gene for male baldness. But wasn't there something about the buck that fathered the doe, needed to have certain antler characteristics?according to whitetail institute of North America the antler gene comes from the doe and milk production genes come from the buck.FYI. Antler genetics come from the mother not from the father.
I've never heard that. I believe the genetics come from both.
Post by: Wacenturion on April 11, 2015, 02:14:56 PM
according to whitetail institute of North America the antler gene comes from the doe and milk production genes come from the buck.FYI. Antler genetics come from the mother not from the father.
I've never heard that. I believe the genetics come from both.
The doe does have a father you know..... :chuckle:
Post by: Hunting7mm on April 11, 2015, 03:26:34 PM
Post by: bobcat on April 11, 2015, 03:47:36 PM
You can look at the seasons here:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2015/04/apr09_2015_15_summary.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2015/04/apr09_2015_15_summary.pdf)
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on April 12, 2015, 01:25:11 AM
according to whitetail institute of North America the antler gene comes from the doe and milk production genes come from the buck.FYI. Antler genetics come from the mother not from the father.
I've never heard that. I believe the genetics come from both.
Yah and that's why the big whitetail hunting ranches pay hundreds of thousands for big racked bucks and their genetic lines. They pay $2,500 and more just for a straw of semen to breed one doe. http://texaswhitetailbreeders.info/buck-semen.html (http://texaswhitetailbreeders.info/buck-semen.html)
And here's another study that debunks whatever it is you think you learned from the Whitetail institute. http://tpwd.texas.gov/huntwild/wild/game_management/deer/genetics/ (http://tpwd.texas.gov/huntwild/wild/game_management/deer/genetics/)
This one repeats the findings you read about and then debunks them. Check out the growth charts. http://tpwd.texas.gov/huntwild/wild/game_management/deer/antlers_inherited/ (http://tpwd.texas.gov/huntwild/wild/game_management/deer/antlers_inherited/)
Post by: PA BEN on April 12, 2015, 08:59:56 AM
New hunting rules approved today by the WA Fish & Wildlife Commission will expand hunting opportunities for virtually every big game species and gear type, including:
• Add two more days to modern firearm deer season.
• Drop 4-antler-point restriction on white-tailed deer in northeast GMUs 117 & 121, returning to any buck
• Shift archery elk season to start Saturday after Labor Day for opportunity in cooler weather.
• Double amount of spring bear permits in northeast Washington.
• Allow muzzleloader elk hunters to hunt in more GMUs.
• Increase moose permits to 170 from 136 in the northeast
A proposal to restrict the use of bait when hunting for deer and elk was tabled until work with stakeholders can develop new options for future consideration. All hunting rules will be included in the 2015 Big Game Hunting pamphlet,
Post by: buglebrush on April 12, 2015, 09:27:51 AM
I think its funny.
These units were historically any buck. The herd dynamics from these units to those surrounding it are comparable. Meaning that this APR could be used or NOT used and the outcome to herd stability is comparable. That's what the state is saying, APR doesn't move the needle, doe harvest/weather/predation are running the show.
Thereafter, it all comes down to one thing. What do hunters want? Despite the name calling and protests of a few on this site, the state will tell you that their polling is 2 to 1 or better in favor of any buck. So there you have it. APR doesn't deliver demonstrable herd benefits and hunters don't want it.
If you go use the harvest reports, make sure you make District 1 the same back in 08/07 by removing the additional GMU's above 121, because it was different then. Take the modern firearm buck deer killed District 1 and those killed in just 117 and 121. From 2007 to 2010, units 117 and 121 accounted for an average 56.7% of the bucks killed in District 1. From 2011 to 2013 117 and 121 accounted for 42.0% of District 1 bucks. (you have to calculate this manually they don't have it for you).
Average Bucks killed '08 to '10: District 3700 Units 117/121 2105
Average Bucks killed '11 to '13: District 3023 Units 117/121 1292
Reduction in bucks killed in the district: 19%
Reduction in bucks killed in 117/121: 39%
If 117/121 produced the same rate of bucks as the other units it would have averaged 1705 killed. APR has reduced opportunity to kill deer by 413 bucks per year in exchange for bigger bucks. The people who prefer opportunity have a damn solid argument that they are being robbed of 400 deer per year.
Call them whatever name you want. These units will support far greater production than they are putting out. APR is about trophy management, not herd management.
Your post is misleading because the number of mature bucks killed the first year or two was low for obvious reasons.
In the last year or two those units have shown the greatest increase of bucks being killed each year. This year will likely be a shootfest and we will lose some of what we gained. There is a possibility that a greater percentage of hunters will shoot small bucks since anything can be killed now, but the unit may get flooded with hunters looking to take advantage of the improved buck to doe ratio which will result in the ratio being taken back to the same low buck/doe ratio as the rest of the area.
I think it's unfortunate we didn't follow through with the 4 point, I don't see how it was unfair to have two units with more mature bucks and a higher buck to doe ratio as a trial, but at least the guys who have been whining got their way so we won't have to listen to them sniveling over those two units being used to test the rule.
The last 2 years in GMU 117 and 121 was the best hunting we've had in NE WA for a decade. A ranch we have hunted for 20 years produced more bucks than it has for more than a decade. On top of producing better than in a decade the bucks also had at least 4 points. The rule was working awesome. I guess this fall will be an even bigger year since we might as well shoot any buck like everyone around us will be doing. :dunno:
We normally run a very high success rate anyway, but it was really nice to see an area that had plenty of bucks left over after hunting season, now it will likely end up like the other units, lower buck/doe ratio.
:yeah: couldn't agree more bear paw.
Post by: Colville on April 12, 2015, 12:21:26 PM
Those two units did put out more bucks each year. But proportionally so did the other units. IE, the outcome of increased buck count was not demonstrably better in 117 and 121 over non APR units.
I agree that the units can be managed for APR or Any Buck and both can produce herd stability outcomes. Only one will improve the Age (not quality) of the average deer taken. This is not about biology or herd necessity. The other units have improved in terms of kills and overall population the same as 117 and 121. No one here has attempted to make anything but an anecdotal claim that 117/121 are improvements over the rest of the district.
This is strictly a debate about how to manage herds and to what outcome. I own and run a business. If I owned yours I know damn well which way I'd want these units managed. You couldn't have made my point or the point of the any buck hunters any better when you said:
"A ranch we have hunted for 20 years produced more bucks than it has for more than a decade. On top of producing better than in a decade the bucks also had at least 4 points. The rule was working awesome."
You left three words off the end of that quote: for my business. It worked for crap for people who felt the loss of opportunity to get what they wanted, any buck, and either didn't hunt or had to move elsewhere. Your quote was exactly what any buck hunters have been saying. The minority; land owners, guides and some locals wanted something and they got it for a while.
The honest thing to do is to admit that your desire is not a scientific one. It's one that benefits your business and it benefits those who want game managed for older age class for the average deer taken (by one year in most cases). That's it. Don't cloak this argument as a wholesome one about biology. The math is in and the herds can be managed by either approach, reasonably. The question is and was, who should decide. Any buck hunters outnumber APR guys massively. Again, I admit the units can be run with APR sustainably. They just don't need to be and I think hunters should decide not just certain hunters, land owners and businesses. Your position is completely valid and reasonable, don't make it less so by implying it's also necessary.
Post by: bearpaw on April 12, 2015, 12:34:00 PM
Bearpaw, if we remove the first year 2011, that's the first year with no buck buildup, the next two years have a % of the district ModF bucks killed in 117/121 of 44%. 43% in 2012, 45% 2013. That's pretty telling about what will be on the come as far as production numbers because the young buck buildup is already accounted for by 2013. Herds, based on other factors, may get bigger or smaller but those two units will now contribute mid 40"s of % instead of the historic mid 50%. There's no way around that math. Depending on the size of the herd overall, there will be between 250 and 500 fewer bucks killed because of the use of APR. If you don't like that math, use the kill stats and show everyone otherwise.
Those two units did put out more bucks each year. But proportionally so did the other units. IE, the outcome of increased buck count was not demonstrably better in 117 and 121 over non APR units.
I agree that the units can be managed for APR or Any Buck and both can produce herd stability outcomes. Only one will improve the Age (not quality) of the average deer taken. This is not about biology or herd necessity. The other units have improved in terms of kills and overall population the same as 117 and 121. No one here has attempted to make anything but an anecdotal claim that 117/121 are improvements over the rest of the district.
This is strictly a debate about how to manage herds and to what outcome. I own and run a business. If I owned yours I know damn well which way I'd want these units managed. You couldn't have made my point or the point of the any buck hunters any better when you said:
"A ranch we have hunted for 20 years produced more bucks than it has for more than a decade. On top of producing better than in a decade the bucks also had at least 4 points. The rule was working awesome."
You left three words off the end of that quote: for my business. It worked for crap for people who felt the loss of opportunity to get what they wanted, any buck, and either didn't hunt or had to move elsewhere. Your quote was exactly what any buck hunters have been saying. The minority; land owners, guides and some locals wanted something and they got it for a while.
The honest thing to do is to admit that your desire is not a scientific one. It's one that benefits your business and it benefits those who want game managed for older age class for the average deer taken (by one year in most cases). That's it. Don't cloak this argument as a wholesome one about biology. The math is in and the herds can be managed by either approach, reasonably. The question is and was, who should decide. Any buck hunters outnumber APR guys massively. Again, I admit the units can be run with APR sustainably. They just don't need to be and I think hunters should decide not just certain hunters, land owners and businesses. Your position is completely valid and reasonable, don't make it less so by implying it's also necessary.
That's really classy! :dunno:
I will spell this out more clearly so you can't twist my words to support you stab at me because you apparently don't like guides:
The last two years we killed more bucks each year on the property than in the last decade plus all those bucks were 4 point or better.
More bucks plus all of them were 4 pt or better, (not any spikes or forks) what's not to like about that? Why on earth can anyone not support that is beyond me? (other than simply not being willing to admit they are wrong) :dunno:
Post by: JimmyHoffa on April 12, 2015, 12:37:46 PM
Post by: bobcat on April 12, 2015, 12:45:02 PM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on April 12, 2015, 12:47:03 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on April 12, 2015, 12:49:23 PM
I think people might not support the 4 point minimum because it decreases their chance of killing a buck. Even if there are more bucks available, just having to count points before shooting makes killing a buck a lot harder. Many times you will only have a split second to shoot. Even if the buck you're looking at is an above average 4 point, it takes time to verify that. That's why I don't care for point restrictions. If I'm looking at a buck with heavy antlers, and a least one fork, I want to take the shot, but with an APR, you can't, until you take the time to count points. That's especially hard to do with a bow or a muzzleloader since you won't be looking through a scope.I agree with that assessment Bobcat. I have had to pass on so many bull elk in the jungle because of the 3 pt rule.
Post by: Hunting7mm on April 12, 2015, 12:55:45 PM
Post by: bobcat on April 12, 2015, 12:58:40 PM
Post by: Hunting7mm on April 12, 2015, 12:59:43 PM
Actually the WDFW did not make the decision, the Fish & Wildlife Commission did. The WDFW only makes recommendations.
Thank you I stand corrected..
Post by: bobcat on April 12, 2015, 01:06:14 PM
Actually the WDFW did not make the decision, the Fish & Wildlife Commission did. The WDFW only makes recommendations.
Thank you I stand corrected..
Well, your point is still valid. I just wanted to clarify that so people can blame the right entity. :chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on April 12, 2015, 01:14:15 PM
I think people might not support the 4 point minimum because it decreases their chance of killing a buck. Even if there are more bucks available, just having to count points before shooting makes killing a buck a lot harder. Many times you will only have a split second to shoot. Even if the buck you're looking at is an above average 4 point, it takes time to verify that. That's why I don't care for point restrictions. If I'm looking at a buck with heavy antlers, and a least one fork, I want to take the shot, but with an APR, you can't, until you take the time to count points. That's especially hard to do with a bow or a muzzleloader since you won't be looking through a scope.
How much of that was due to reduced hunter numbers as opposed to the antler restrictions?
This is really a moot discussion now that the rule no longer exists. But to answer:
My wife and I have had the same conversations. She didn't like the 4 pt because many of our hunters did not want to hunt in the 4 pt area because they were afraid it would deprive them of shooting a deer. So from a business standpoint the 4 pt rule probably had a negative affect on my business contrary to what the people who dislike guides may think or say. From a perception standpoint people think they have more opportunity where they can shoot any buck.
From a results standpoint (after we got past the initial implementation of the rule) the 4 pt resulted in increased harvest and better quality harvest. Theoretically if we are killing more bucks on the same size property then so could anyone on the same land they hunt anywhere else in the GMU (public or private). :dunno:
There is another important aspect to this increased buck harvest that most people are overlooking. At the same time we restricted buck harvest we also restricted doe harvest. There has been fewer does harvested so there have been more surviving does which results in more fawns born and which results in more bucks on the ground.
Post by: bobcat on April 12, 2015, 01:22:44 PM
Post by: bearpaw on April 12, 2015, 01:24:50 PM
When we have a winter kill I am paying for and I expect the WDFW to recognize the loss and for the commission to reduce harvest opportunity (especailly in the first year or two following a winter kill).
We are paying these people to manage our wildlife, they should be on top of their game. Instead what we get for our money spent on wildlife management is a dept that can't recognize winter kill when it happens and until they have two dismal years of hunter harvest they keep handing out high numbers of doe tags. That is unacceptable as it only worsens and lengthens to damage from the winter kill. This is a major reason why it has taken our herds longer to recover after the back to back winter kill a few years ago.
The whitetail working group insisted on better resource monitoring, with the changes they've made in monitoring, I'm hopeful the Dept will monitor the deer population more closely and that we can reduce doe harvest immediately after a winter kill rather than killing off the remaining does and lengthening the recovery.
Post by: bearpaw on April 12, 2015, 01:47:34 PM
Idaho allows 5 wolves, 2 cougar, and 2 bear to be taken by 1 hunter in areas where herds are below objective.
It's not really rocket science, just common sense on how to rebuild herds!
Post by: MtnMuley on April 12, 2015, 01:53:44 PM
Unfortunately those with the say chose to make it lean much heavier to rocket science rather than common sense. >:(
It's not really rocket science, just common sense on how to rebuild herds!
Post by: bobcat on April 12, 2015, 01:57:03 PM
At least the WDFW doubled spring bear permits in the NE. It's probably not enough but it's better than nothing.
Post by: MtnMuley on April 12, 2015, 02:00:15 PM
Post by: Hunting7mm on April 12, 2015, 02:17:05 PM
Unfortunately those with the say chose to make it lean much heavier to rocket science rather than common sense. >:(
It's not really rocket science, just common sense on how to rebuild herds!
:yeah: :tup: :tup:
Post by: Colville on April 12, 2015, 02:52:56 PM
The numbers available do not agree with your premise. The simple truth is that kills went op all over the district, as fast or faster than 117/121. The only discernable difference between 117/121 and the district overall is that 117/121 are puting out a smaller % of the district harvest by -20% compared to historic norms. All units had doe permit reductions and the other winter benefits. Bottom line, those units didn't get any better than the district as a whole. The experience on one ranch or one piece of public, those are anecdotes. The district and unit numbers are the tale of the tape. That tale says that you can have good and improving hunting under both management styles, one though will result in fewer total harvested bucks. That's a fine position for anyone to hold as a better outcome. You just have to aknowlege that it's the minority opinion among hunters.
I'm 100% for cutting off doe to all use classes and ages if winter jeopordizes the herd numbers. Heck, if needed to take other drastic actions in a unit to restore populations, great. Kill more predators, yes. I am however not pro APR, I'd prefer the herd be managed to produce the maximum deer taken per year than improving the average age of a deer by 1 year. It's ok to disagree.
Post by: bearpaw on April 13, 2015, 04:37:55 AM
Quote
You left three words off the end of that quote: for my business. It worked for crap for people who felt the loss of opportunity to get what they wanted, any buck, and either didn't hunt or had to move elsewhere. Your quote was exactly what any buck hunters have been saying. The minority; land owners, guides and some locals wanted something and they got it for a while.
Quote
Bear, you'vre read in thoughts that aren't there.
Sorry, I guess I misunderstood your comments? :dunno:
Much of the opposition to 4 pt came from hunters who view 117/121 as a place to bag anything after they've been unsuccessful everywhere else. That perception is good for my business but I don't view it as particularly healthy for the deer herd. You said it yourself, "It worked for crap for people who felt the loss of opportunity to get what they wanted, any buck".
I didn't want to get into an in depth discussion especially since the 4 pt rule has been abandoned, it's a moot discussion. But it's tough to read some of the comments without replying. There was good data behind getting the rule implemented in the first place or the commission would have never tried the rule. I had a discussion with a Pennsylvania game commissioner who told me that after you get past the initial reduction in harvest that the quality of the herd increases and the harvest numbers return. We were seeing that trend in 117/121. The Dept (certain individuals in particular) never liked the rule. Most locals I know liked the rule and every year more of the hunters who didn't at first like the rule but who continued hunting in the unit said they changed there mind and liked the rule after they saw the improvements in the herd.
Data was presented to the commission showing how 117/121 was trending and beginning to outperform other units. I think the Dept was afraid to let the program go any farther because it was beginning to prove certain persons wrong, unfortunately they were able to convince the commission (consisting of several new commissioners) by 1 vote to abandon the rule, in another 3 years we would have had conclusive evidence that the rule works, I believe the Dept could see that coming and didn't want it to happen.
Hunters who want better quality hunting are welcome to hunt with us in Montana. We lease a ranch large enough to control the harvest, we do not shoot bucks with less than 4 points. Every hunter sees multiple 4x4 or better bucks every single day, 10 to 30 bucks are sighted almost every day we hunt, in 3 days we'll look at a lot of bucks and shoot the best buck seen. Fortunately we lease a ranch in Montana large enough to control the herd. The hunting all around the property is not as good, it took about 4-5 years of not shooting the small bucks but now we are shooting more bucks every year than the owner says have ever come off the property and they are 4 point or better, in addition we take almost an equal number of doe off the property and some years more does.
The sad thing is that NE WA will actually support more deer per acre than Montana! We could easily have had better hunting than MT with more deer harvested than we harvest now, but only if more hunters and the Dept would have wanted it.
I concede, the shoot everything crowd wins! I will continue providing hunters in Washington with high success hunts. Yes, we'll still kill some nice bucks and so will others, but it's a bit disappointing knowing we had better management that was really beginning to show results and we let it go.
Post by: jasnt on April 13, 2015, 04:46:15 AM
Post by: Colville on April 13, 2015, 07:53:24 AM
What I don't understand is this. If you think you have a compelling argument that APR leads to little or no real cost to hunters in terms of opportunity, why the heck aren't you making that case???? Why anecdotes and stories instead of data? Private land stories are valueless. They are controlling everything not just APR and most importantly, they limit the number of hunters. Is the MT ranch open to the public, of course not. I have no problem believing that the management of a large private ranch is working to produce big bucks.
Here's the math straight from the harvest reports. From 2010 back to 2003 117/121 contributed this % to the district 1 totals (normalizing the district to be as currently constructed): 55, 56, 59, 56, 57, 56, 62, 52%. In 2012 and 2013, 43 & 45%. Total Rifle bucks killed in '13 district wide 3500, bucks from 117/121 1588. Two comparable years for total bucks taken in the district are '10 and '09 with 3563 and 3635 to compare with 2013 at 3504. 117/121 in '10 and '09 contributed 2205 and 1892 bucks killed. Total 121/117 in '13 and '12: 1332 abd 1588. There's the math. I don't have '14 stats but those two units after two years of letting the young buck buildup take place are putting out 500 to 600 fewer bucks than before on comparable district wide kill years.
No emotion. No big stories. Those are the numbers. APR distributed to the region would reduce harvest by about 1000 bucks a year. I think that's very bad for hunting. If you think the numbers are pointing another way or have even better 2014 data we haven't seen I'm all eyes. This is not about good guy - bad guy. Based on the numbers I've found the loss of opportunity is greater than I'd be willing to support. I would support some loss of net kills to get "better" hunting. Convince me.
Post by: bearpaw on April 13, 2015, 10:54:17 AM
What you don't seem to understand or admit, whichever, and for whatever reason, is that the 4 pt rule was closing the gap on harvest differences and producing more and better bucks each year, data detailing that info was presented to the commission. Anyone who has hunted much in the units need no other verification as they know how positively the rule affected the units. The success was holding true unit wide on private and public. I can see you were very philosophically opposed to the rule but I don't hold it against you and I don't expect you to admit to any success due the rule. I really have too much to do to continue with this discussion and it's really OK for us to let this go, you and the Dept have won the battle, the commission voted in your favor. As you said earlier, it's ok to disagree. So please no hard feelings. :tup:
Post by: SkookumHntr on April 13, 2015, 12:03:35 PM
Post by: Wanttohuntmore on April 14, 2015, 07:28:40 PM
Post by: bobcat on April 14, 2015, 07:38:17 PM
Post by: Seabass on April 14, 2015, 09:30:03 PM
Post by: csaaphill on April 14, 2015, 10:17:32 PM
Hey we have our share of WHitetail down here as well and I assure you they are mating at what ever age or point they are allowed to by the does. Watched small 3 and 4pt whitetails with does even 3pts so yes they do breed Generally Typically or anyother word that fits there. I've chased one ok looking 4pt on some Feel free to hunt land down here and the last two years he's had does with him and assured he's breeding with them.:tup: good to see them change it even if I dont live up there I've lives with the 3pt restricitons for long enough. At first it was ok seen more bucks in general, but after a while all you seen was spikes and two pts. Sounds to me like 4pt is backwards thinking because your shooting all the breeding stock, and causing for more poaching as in some of our 3pt only areas where you get like a split second to judge and some just shoot then pray later.4pt whitetail are often not breeding stock. Likes said earlier a1 1/2 year old whitetail can be 4pt. They are not like mule deer!
changing things up a bit isn't a bad thing and anyone who hates crowds shouldn't be hunting for it's numbers that keeps our politicol pull not selfishness!
I know that a 4pt doesn't mean he's old doesn't mean he's not either so Yes I will agree on that point but that was one of the reasons they put in 3pt minimums down here was to allow the older bucks a chance to mate and have more bucks. if theye not mating at 3 and 4pts then somethings wrong with thier reasoning for doing this. In te same area I've seen a spike yes muley but for the last two years he's been running with does with his tongue out.
So while there may be some truth in what you say there is truth in what I say too because I've seen it. and yes they do as I said typically or Generally because most any good whitetail I've seen has had does. 3-4-5pts typically.
Post by: Colville on April 15, 2015, 09:28:13 AM
Is it? Is there data? Let's have it? The other units have improved in harvest (see data posted prior) and doe numbers according to WDFW. The outcomes in neighboring units is comparable to these units in terms of herd numbers. When you say "it's working" I think you mean it's working to the end that the harvest is all older bucks and as a result people see more total bucks.... no argument here. But that doesn't mean that the herd in those units is performing any better than the others.
I've been asking for any data or WDFW statements that make your case rather than personal observations but have seen none in these threads. Again, it's a given that the bucks taken now are older, but how is the doe count, fawn count and population "better" than the other units? And yes this does matter.
It matters because any buck folks have argued that APR reduces the total buck harvest potential without delivering a noteworthy difference in the herd size. APR guys keep saying no no no, it's better for the herd as well as managing toward an older class of bucks. Any buck folks are from Missouri. No one is showing, just saying. I've shown (not having 2014 numbers) that the buck harvest is way off in these units compared to what they can produce historically. Any buck guys can be convinced to agree with you. What do you offer them as a tangible, verifiable benefit to the herd that isn't being seen where any buck is in play? The question isn't really pointed at you, it's open to all APR guys... what data do you have to support the position that this is a better management choice, not just one of two equal choices that you prefer?
Bobcat, when the herd suffers a real crash in population I'd be for APR, permit only or even closing a unit(s). When the population will support any buck hunting, I support that until someone can make a compelling case that any buck isn't sustainable.
Post by: SkookumHntr on April 15, 2015, 08:15:13 PM
Post by: Wanttohuntmore on April 16, 2015, 05:09:57 AM
Post by: jasnt on April 16, 2015, 05:28:14 AM
Post by: Colville on April 16, 2015, 11:02:16 AM
UNIT YEAR 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 AVG 07-10 2013 from Avg From worst year
101 561 545 604 553 393 463 549 565 -3% +40%
105 299 307 332 306 254 252 256 283 -5.5% 0%
108 282 267 254 296 278 308 317 274 +12% +25%
111 360 320 299 340 347 400 415 329 +26% +38%
113 297 273 230 300 260 320 352 275 +28% +53%
117 1029 878 743 783 417 452 614 858 -29% -17%
121 1425 1342 1100 1109 540 790 974 1244 -22% -11%
What happened in 2011 again? The kill stats have been averaged for the 4 years preceding APR and I've used the best kill year we have #'s for to compare to the norm (this makes 117/121 look better than an average of 2011 to 2013 would, IE the best case scenario). The results speak for themselves. The other units are either barely beneath the average or passed it up. 2 units produce drastically less than the past. If 2014 improved dramatically over 2013 we have something to discuss. If not, APR delivers a pile fewer bucks per year (500ish averaged) than any buck.
Note: 117/121 last column compared 2013 kills only to the worst year up to 2010 before APR. 117/121 can't even produce up to the worst years pre APR, by a long ways.
If 117/121 had improved over the 07 to 10 average by 10%, in line with the other units, they would have produced 943/1368 bucks. Left Any buck, these units produce 723 more kills in 2013. You can chose to argue that they would have behaved like the worst units not the average improvement over that time. That's fine, they under-produced by 500 then.
Post by: PA BEN on April 17, 2015, 12:11:02 PM
Post by: curlewkiller on April 17, 2015, 12:37:39 PM
Wasn't there a point where it was any whitetail buck was to help the mule deer herd from the more aggressive more territorial whitetail. To slow the whitetails movement west. I may be mistaken.
I feed about 25 mule deer and 30 whitetail every winter and spring two times a day.. The mule deer are the aggressive ones.. Even yearling mulies chase mature whitetail bucks away from the food. Have never seen a whitetail show aggression towards a mulie without getting put in it's place.
:yeah: whitetail aren't aggressive, they are just better at proliferating than are mule deer.
in other words...smarter...
Post by: buglebrush on April 17, 2015, 04:33:03 PM
Post by: vandeman17 on April 17, 2015, 04:34:35 PM
The gloves are off in 121 and 117, any deer for archery and muzzleloader.
This disappoints me. Just when I was seeing improvement in numbers and quality on my cameras.... :bdid:
Post by: PA BEN on April 17, 2015, 06:27:36 PM
What's really bad is the Game Dept. said the 4 point rule in the first place was to increase the deer numbers not just big bucks. So why open up more doe harvests. :dunno: Does are the ones who increase the herd.The gloves are off in 121 and 117, any deer for archery and muzzleloader.
This disappoints me. Just when I was seeing improvement in numbers and quality on my cameras.... :bdid:
Post by: vandeman17 on April 17, 2015, 07:43:30 PM
What's really bad is the Game Dept. said the 4 point rule in the first place was to increase the deer numbers not just big bucks. So why open up more doe harvests. :dunno: Does are the ones who increase the herd.The gloves are off in 121 and 117, any deer for archery and muzzleloader.
This disappoints me. Just when I was seeing improvement in numbers and quality on my cameras.... :bdid:
100% agree. Lost on this one
Post by: bearpaw on April 17, 2015, 08:09:07 PM
Post by: AKBowman on April 17, 2015, 11:42:46 PM
Here's a fact guy...he personally spent time hunting the area and first hand saw more deer, small and large than he had seen in the past. Same as many of the other posters on this subject. You keep asking for facts, debunking first hand observations and yet you regurgitate figures that we all know are completely subjective.
I don't have an opinion one way or the other on the APR except that it was introduced for a reason and it would have been nice to see it in place for at least 7 years to see long term effects. Don't you know 90% of all stats are 33% believable half the time. I take those stats that you so proudly posted for what they are and I take the hunters who posted first hand knowledge/experiences for what they are. Both are important.
Post by: jasnt on April 18, 2015, 10:02:33 PM
maybe they just want us to get some deer before the wolves eat too manyWhat's really bad is the Game Dept. said the 4 point rule in the first place was to increase the deer numbers not just big bucks. So why open up more doe harvests. :dunno: Does are the ones who increase the herd.The gloves are off in 121 and 117, any deer for archery and muzzleloader.
This disappoints me. Just when I was seeing improvement in numbers and quality on my cameras.... :bdid:
Post by: MTMule on May 01, 2015, 09:36:09 AM
Post by: rice201 on May 01, 2015, 10:08:05 AM
I've been bringing my son out to 121 for the past 3 years, and this will be his last youth season. He's been exited about getting his doe and filling the freezer while keeping watch for a legal buck. It's always been a fun and relaxing time going out to the fields and spending the day looking for 'his' deer. But now I wonder if this will change due to an increase of pressure.
Post by: mfswallace on May 01, 2015, 12:53:10 PM
Post by: cryder on May 11, 2015, 07:01:01 AM
Post by: PA BEN on May 12, 2015, 05:56:44 AM
Post by: lewy on May 12, 2015, 08:44:31 AM
Post by: LeviD1 on May 12, 2015, 10:14:15 AM
Post by: bearpaw on May 13, 2015, 12:13:30 PM
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 5:38 AM
To: Bearpaw Outfitters
Subject: Re: 4pt rule
Dale,
PA implemented antler restriction in 2003. The goal was to get a more balanced age-class of bucks. Prior to AR Pa hunters killed 85% of all bucks before they reached 2 years old. Remember, PA has one-million hunters in the field on the first day of deer season.
In most of the state the AR rules required a minimum of 3-points on one side. In western PA where the habitat was so good a 1-1/2 year old deer might carry a 6-8 point rack (we count both sides), so the AR rules were raised to a minimum 4-points on one side.
We are now considering modifying the 4-point area to a 3-on top or 3-up rule, where the brow tine doesn't count. We found that since 8-point racks are the common configuration for mature bucks, hunters were seeing these bucks during hunting season, but couldn't pull the trigger because it was so difficult to see a brow tine.
Our records show that 88% of 8-points have brow tines. So this change will only result in an additional 12% of bucks being removed from the age class distribution. We do not feel this will adversely affect the age-class distribution.
Obviously not all hunters like antler restrictions, but after a few years it reached a 68% approval rate.
I hope this helps.
-Commissioner R. Martone
Post by: cryder on May 13, 2015, 09:25:08 PM
Post by: Miles on May 09, 2016, 06:41:59 AM
Post by: Grizman on May 09, 2016, 07:20:55 AM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on May 09, 2016, 07:54:47 AM
The purpose there was to REDUCE the herd, which was wreaking havoc on the habitat, and balance out doe/buck ratios. Besides antler restrictions, doe harvest was increased by a large amount. Things to consider are hunter success rates and hunter interest. In 2000 hunters in Pennsylvania harvested over 500,000 deer. in 2016 they harvested just over 315,000. The number of hunting licenses sold in Pennsylvania has also declined significantly, over 10% since 2000.
In Washington, the 4 point rule was put into place after bad winters reduced the herds and doe hunting was reduced. This was an event where the herd could and did recover from on their own as seen by a similar recovery in neighboring units where no antler restrictions were put in place.
This story is from 2010 and is a fairly even handed look at how things were going then in Penn. Be sure to read the second page too.
http://www.northamericanwhitetail.com/land-management/huntingtactics_naw_0907_10/2/
Here's a look at the 2000/2001 and the 2001/2002 deer harvest stats.
http://www.biggamehunt.net/news/deer-harvest-results
And here are the 2015/2016 harvest stats.
http://www.whitetailhuntingnetwork.com/2016/03/28/pennsylvania-2015-2016-deer-harvest-report/
Post by: Miles on May 10, 2016, 04:05:57 PM
Post by: tgomez on May 10, 2016, 10:28:33 PM
Post by: MTMule on May 11, 2016, 07:14:16 PM
Post by: MTMule on May 11, 2016, 07:26:10 PM
That seems like pretty lame argument. Wonder how many 1.5-2.5 year old deer have 4 points on one side. If it's not 100%, then are you not saving deer?
The 2nd argument was gene pool. Why would you kill all the older bucks.
Even sillier. Bucks get smarter as they get older, meaning the chances of you killing him are smaller. Secondly, how does that even make sense. With such a wide variety of hunters gene selection is mute. The same as deer at 1.5-2.5 years old being killed, gene selection is mute.
Then the newest argument. Wdfw stats?
What stats? The ones that list all the locals loving the new restrictions. The ones that list year in and out population. How bout the one that lists less people hunting it, making the number of bucks being killed lower. That didn't seem to get mentioned.
I feel like it's such a shame to do this experiment for an unserviceable amount of time, only to have thousands more hunters come in and take over 700 bucks 3 point or less in gmu 121. What a shame and disservice to conservation. Killing a buck is not your right. It's a privelage. If no sacrifice is ever made, quality of hunts will continue to suffer.
Its just shocking to me the amount of people who want to kill a baby deer. Make no fuss about it. A deer 1.5 years old is a baby. Possibly the end of a blood line.
Post by: jasnt on May 11, 2016, 08:04:03 PM
The biggest argument I have heard against this is that some young deer are 8 points.awe yes shame on anyone with different views than yours 🙃
That seems like pretty lame argument. Wonder how many 1.5-2.5 year old deer have 4 points on one side. If it's not 100%, then are you not saving deer?
The 2nd argument was gene pool. Why would you kill all the older bucks.
Even sillier. Bucks get smarter as they get older, meaning the chances of you killing him are smaller. Secondly, how does that even make sense. With such a wide variety of hunters gene selection is mute. The same as deer at 1.5-2.5 years old being killed, gene selection is mute.
Then the newest argument. Wdfw stats?
What stats? The ones that list all the locals loving the new restrictions. The ones that list year in and out population. How bout the one that lists less people hunting it, making the number of bucks being killed lower. That didn't seem to get mentioned.
I feel like it's such a shame to do this experiment for an unserviceable amount of time, only to have thousands more hunters come in and take over 700 bucks 3 point or less in gmu 121. What a shame and disservice to conservation. Killing a buck is not your right. It's a privelage. If no sacrifice is ever made, quality of hunts will continue to suffer.
Its just shocking to me the amount of people who want to kill a baby deer. Make no fuss about it. A deer 1.5 years old is a baby. Possibly the end of a blood line.
Post by: MTMule on May 11, 2016, 08:26:31 PM
Post by: popeshawnpaul on May 11, 2016, 08:30:52 PM
Really disappointed a rule like this can be overturns so easily.
Funny, because I was really disappointed a rule like this could be put in place when every bio in the state but one did not recommend the restriction, the GMAC recommended against implementing the restriction, and the WDFW recommended the commission not implement a 4 point restriction yet it still gets through the commission...
Post by: SkookumHntr on May 12, 2016, 10:36:02 AM
:bash:Really disappointed a rule like this can be overturns so easily.
Funny, because I was really disappointed a rule like this could be put in place when every bio in the state but one did not recommend the restriction, the GMAC recommended against implementing the restriction, and the WDFW recommended the commission not implement a 4 point restriction yet it still gets through the commission...
Post by: Colville on May 12, 2016, 11:17:28 AM
I feel like it's such a shame to do this experiment for an unserviceable amount of time, only to have thousands more hunters come in and take over 700 bucks 3 point or less in gmu 121. What a shame and disservice to conservation. Killing a buck is not your right. It's a privelage. If no sacrifice is ever made, quality of hunts will continue to suffer.
There are other units, that based on your premise, should be suffering horrible hunting because they stayed any buck. But the stats don't show a collapse in those units. Why? Right, because you can have an any buck harvest and still have a completely healthy herd dynamic. People who want APR, in this thread and elsewhere, have offered only anecdotes about more bucks seen (duh, can't shoot hundreds of them so you see them) and bigger bucks shot (they have to be by definition) and fewer people (of course, pushed many out to the other units worsening the experience in those units created by the new pressure).
A young fish, a young turkey, young bear, young...... meaningless distinction. Game can be managed for certain aesthetics like age class or inches of horn. By definition, it costs lots of opportunity to get a deer, show in previous stats to be about 500/year reduced regional kill. There's no evidence that the productivity of does and population of does improves inside the APR unit vs outside the APR unit. The does still get bred.
This is, was and will be a simple argument about personal preferences. APR guys are trying to create a scientific necessity for APR because they know without it, people prefer opportunity to quality. The math just doesn't support them. We can have either method of management and a healthy herd. The only question is what do the people want? By a wide margin, they prefer opportunity. Calling them baby killers won't help your brand. This is a game of persuasion and no one ever created a convert to their way of thinking with the starting point of questioning their integrity.
Post by: SkookumHntr on May 12, 2016, 01:35:39 PM
:puke:I feel like it's such a shame to do this experiment for an unserviceable amount of time, only to have thousands more hunters come in and take over 700 bucks 3 point or less in gmu 121. What a shame and disservice to conservation. Killing a buck is not your right. It's a privelage. If no sacrifice is ever made, quality of hunts will continue to suffer.
There are other units, that based on your premise, should be suffering horrible hunting because they stayed any buck. But the stats don't show a collapse in those units. Why? Right, because you can have an any buck harvest and still have a completely healthy herd dynamic. People who want APR, in this thread and elsewhere, have offered only anecdotes about more bucks seen (duh, can't shoot hundreds of them so you see them) and bigger bucks shot (they have to be by definition) and fewer people (of course, pushed many out to the other units worsening the experience in those units created by the new pressure).
A young fish, a young turkey, young bear, young...... meaningless distinction. Game can be managed for certain aesthetics like age class or inches of horn. By definition, it costs lots of opportunity to get a deer, show in previous stats to be about 500/year reduced regional kill. There's no evidence that the productivity of does and population of does improves inside the APR unit vs outside the APR unit. The does still get bred.
This is, was and will be a simple argument about personal preferences. APR guys are trying to create a scientific necessity for APR because they know without it, people prefer opportunity to quality. The math just doesn't support them. We can have either method of management and a healthy herd. The only question is what do the people want? By a wide margin, they prefer opportunity. Calling them baby killers won't help your brand. This is a game of persuasion and no one ever created a convert to their way of thinking with the starting point of questioning their integrity.
Post by: buglebrush on May 12, 2016, 02:22:30 PM
I have yet to talk to a local hunter ( and I talk to many, many of them ) who didn't support the APR. But hey let's just keep slaughtering future giants when they are fork horns! :IBCOOL: :yike:
Post by: buglebrush on May 12, 2016, 02:59:35 PM
Post by: Odell on May 12, 2016, 03:17:01 PM
My opinion is that it almost entirely about hunting pressure and days in the field. The last two years most likely the the people who hunted there spent longer in the field (looking for a 4pt takes time) with far less pressure around them (people chose to hunt elsewhere). Less pressured deer means more active deer during daylight hours. Spending more time in the field with less pressured deer can only increase your odds of seeing better quality deer.
None of that means there are more or less quality bucks alive and walking in 121.
Post by: buglebrush on May 12, 2016, 03:29:34 PM
Buglebrush, I can appreciate your point of view but you aren't seeing the big picture. There is a reason that anecdotal evidence isn't considered as valuable as empirical evidence. No one is doubting what you are seeing, but there are far too many factors involved to say that your experience should set the management practice for an entire unit.
My opinion is that it almost entirely about hunting pressure and days in the field. The last two years most likely the the people who hunted there spent longer in the field (looking for a 4pt takes time) with far less pressure around them (people chose to hunt elsewhere). Less pressured deer means more active deer during daylight hours. Spending more time in the field with less pressured deer can only increase your odds of seeing better quality deer.
None of that means there are more or less quality bucks alive and walking in 121.
I did state that a little strongly. But to summarize I would say this. " Local knowledge and opinion is undervalued ". Take the wolf issue. Ask any local who truly has spent a lot of time in the woods and we can give you a more accurate picture of how many wolves are around than WDFW's "EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE".
Post by: hunter399 on May 12, 2016, 03:36:21 PM
Post by: Colville on May 12, 2016, 03:40:26 PM
Post by: buglebrush on May 12, 2016, 03:52:10 PM
Hmmm.... How ironic ;)
Post by: Colville on May 12, 2016, 03:57:47 PM
Post by: buglebrush on May 12, 2016, 04:22:45 PM
You must not know what irony is. I think you have a legitimate point of view. I just disagree with it. I have posted a bunch of data on this thread in the past that argues that APR reduced the district's yield of bucks by about 500/year. I feel that's too much of a loss of opportunity, in exchange for quality. That's how I base my opinion without insulting guys who want APR. YOU, in specific, being called a knob for suggesting people shooting 1 year younger deer than you think is right are immoral, or maybe unethical? That's just fair and I think a very modest way of putting how you're behaving toward your brothers and sisters in the tradition. I'm sure you are more angry and less believing the way you put that. ;)
" But hey let's just keep slaughtering future giants when they are fork horns! "
I guess you are talking about this? I'm not sure how that is this?
"I do think your a knob for impugning everyone else who wants something different. "
Slaughter is just another way to say kill. I never said anything about it being "immoral" or "Unethical". Just simply giving my opinion just like you or anyone else. Are you sure you aren't lumping me in with some other posts on this thread? Anyhow, I think one thing that really gets lost in internet threads is tone. I am sure any of us could have a civil and enjoyable discussion about this in person, but everything gets blown out of proportion on an internet forum where you can't gauge what is being said with a smile and what is not. Cheers!
Post by: Colville on May 12, 2016, 04:47:49 PM
I want to hunt deer every year and eat deer every year I can. If I have to chose between better deer when I can hunt them, and getting them far fewer years overall, vs the status quo. Give me the status quo. Unless there's good hard facts that herd size can't be sustained. Hard to make that case that buck restrictions are needed for the herd while still handing out doe opportunity to Sr and Youth. Doesn't help my attitude that we hunt in an area with really weak antler genetics... even really old bucks pale compared to 117.
Post by: PA BEN on June 23, 2016, 11:26:37 AM
The biggest argument I have heard against this is that some young deer are 8 points.Yep and you would shoot a baby spike elk too. But I guess that doesn't end a blood line.
That seems like pretty lame argument. Wonder how many 1.5-2.5 year old deer have 4 points on one side. If it's not 100%, then are you not saving deer?
The 2nd argument was gene pool. Why would you kill all the older bucks.
Even sillier. Bucks get smarter as they get older, meaning the chances of you killing him are smaller. Secondly, how does that even make sense. With such a wide variety of hunters gene selection is mute. The same as deer at 1.5-2.5 years old being killed, gene selection is mute.
Then the newest argument. Wdfw stats?
What stats? The ones that list all the locals loving the new restrictions. The ones that list year in and out population. How bout the one that lists less people hunting it, making the number of bucks being killed lower. That didn't seem to get mentioned.
I feel like it's such a shame to do this experiment for an unserviceable amount of time, only to have thousands more hunters come in and take over 700 bucks 3 point or less in gmu 121. What a shame and disservice to conservation. Killing a buck is not your right. It's a privelage. If no sacrifice is ever made, quality of hunts will continue to suffer.
Its just shocking to me the amount of people who want to kill a baby deer. Make no fuss about it. A deer 1.5 years old is a baby. Possibly the end of a blood line.
Post by: MTMule on June 23, 2016, 02:06:32 PM
Here would be my perfect plan. Allow youth and seniors to shoot any deer. Everyone else 3 point not counting eyeguards. I cannot fathom why people wouldn't support this. :dunno:
I have yet to talk to a local hunter ( and I talk to many, many of them ) who didn't support the APR. But hey let's just keep slaughtering future giants when they are fork horns! :IBCOOL: :yike:
I agree with this.
I simply do not support killing young deer. Its a personal preference. Give the little guys a chance to live, get to breeding age.
They're generally to stupid to get out of the way. So yes, let the young hunters, disabled, elderly have a chance at them. But if you are an able bodied man or women and just want to take the fastest kill then you aren't really out there for the experience of hunting. You want to "slaughter" something, anything.
I just don't get it. Maybe because I've been hunting longer then most people. There's never been a year in my life where I couldn't of harvested a younger deer. Yet success rates are atrocious relatively.
My advice to the spike killers of the world. Start learning the woods, learning to hunt, and quit looking to just slaughter.
I hope this ruffles some feathers, because while I understand someone has differing opinions, the opinion to kill young animals disgusts me.
Post by: bearpaw on June 23, 2016, 03:08:01 PM
I spent the entire spring out in the woods hunting turkey/bear and have been counting deer. Yes we probably still have more deer than any other area of the state but without good management that could change. But hey, if they are going to have a liberal season we are going to hunt it too. I've still got buck and doe hunts available for anyone who wants to kill a deer and according to some people the herd is as good as it's ever been!
Post by: grundy53 on June 23, 2016, 03:15:20 PM
Don't fall off your high horse. You might get hurt....Here would be my perfect plan. Allow youth and seniors to shoot any deer. Everyone else 3 point not counting eyeguards. I cannot fathom why people wouldn't support this. :dunno:
I have yet to talk to a local hunter ( and I talk to many, many of them ) who didn't support the APR. But hey let's just keep slaughtering future giants when they are fork horns! :IBCOOL: :yike:
I agree with this.
I simply do not support killing young deer. Its a personal preference. Give the little guys a chance to live, get to breeding age.
They're generally to stupid to get out of the way. So yes, let the young hunters, disabled, elderly have a chance at them. But if you are an able bodied man or women and just want to take the fastest kill then you aren't really out there for the experience of hunting. You want to "slaughter" something, anything.
I just don't get it. Maybe because I've been hunting longer then most people. There's never been a year in my life where I couldn't of harvested a younger deer. Yet success rates are atrocious relatively.
My advice to the spike killers of the world. Start learning the woods, learning to hunt, and quit looking to just slaughter.
I hope this ruffles some feathers, because while I understand someone has differing opinions, the opinion to kill young animals disgusts me.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on June 23, 2016, 04:05:38 PM
This study has photos to help drive the point home. Another point is look at all the game ranches around the country who manage their herds specifically for larger antlers. You think they kill off all the youngsters that show great potential and leave the spikes and small forks? Heck no! in fact they have special rates and will actually let you take extra deer if you kill what they consider a "management" buck, or one with inferior antler genetics. They also cull lots of does so the habitat isn't stressed assuring the superior bucks are well fed and healthy. This is the opposite of what most of the 4 point or better inclined people on this site push for. But you don't get great bucks by taking out the best young deer and leaving the rest to breed.
http://tpwd.texas.gov/huntwild/wild/game_management/deer/genetics/
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on June 23, 2016, 04:17:49 PM
http://texnat.tamu.edu/files/2010/09/TheRoleofGeneticsinWhitetailedDeerManagement2ndEdition.pdf
Post by: bearpaw on June 23, 2016, 04:39:41 PM
Here is another good read on the subject. Go down to page 22 to read about predicting future antler size by the size of the antler as a yearling. Forked or better spikes definitely grow larger antlers in succeeding years than spikes do.
http://texnat.tamu.edu/files/2010/09/TheRoleofGeneticsinWhitetailedDeerManagement2ndEdition.pdf
I suppose if NE WA was open country and all 4 point bucks could be shot out your comments might carry some value. Rather, the evidence showed that we were gaining on 4 point bucks so your argument is void. Additionally there are studies that say the size of horns the first year have no relevance to the size of horns in future years, in fairness I do tend to believe that first year bucks with larger antlers will more often grow larger antlers later in life. But, the fact is there is no evidence that all the first year 4 points were being killed? So again your points really are baseless. On the other side of the coin, the harvest stats show that the harvest of mature bucks was increasing and if the APR would have continued for another couple years the harvest of all 4pt bucks would likely have equaled or exceeded previous years harvest.
Post by: bearpaw on June 23, 2016, 04:48:25 PM
A while back I had tried to find this message I received back from a Pennsylvania Game Commission member, I just happened to stumble upon it and thought I would post it.
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 5:38 AM
To: Bearpaw Outfitters
Subject: Re: 4pt rule
Dale,
PA implemented antler restriction in 2003. The goal was to get a more balanced age-class of bucks. Prior to AR Pa hunters killed 85% of all bucks before they reached 2 years old. Remember, PA has one-million hunters in the field on the first day of deer season.
In most of the state the AR rules required a minimum of 3-points on one side. In western PA where the habitat was so good a 1-1/2 year old deer might carry a 6-8 point rack (we count both sides), so the AR rules were raised to a minimum 4-points on one side.
We are now considering modifying the 4-point area to a 3-on top or 3-up rule, where the brow tine doesn't count. We found that since 8-point racks are the common configuration for mature bucks, hunters were seeing these bucks during hunting season, but couldn't pull the trigger because it was so difficult to see a brow tine.
Our records show that 88% of 8-points have brow tines. So this change will only result in an additional 12% of bucks being removed from the age class distribution. We do not feel this will adversely affect the age-class distribution.
Obviously not all hunters like antler restrictions, but after a few years it reached a 68% approval rate.
I hope this helps.
-Commissioner R. Martone
Post by: hunter399 on June 23, 2016, 04:55:57 PM
Post by: bearpaw on June 23, 2016, 06:05:37 PM
Post by: Rooster1981 on June 23, 2016, 07:08:38 PM
Post by: bobcat on June 23, 2016, 08:10:22 PM
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuploads.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F20160623%2Fcd69ae674b0f3297f581285c02353cef.jpg&hash=bfcad32ca87c43b261f6ca9acb68e4632492d01b)
http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01799/2016_big_game_regulations_errata.pdf
Post by: jasnt on June 23, 2016, 10:39:36 PM
Post by: PA BEN on June 24, 2016, 03:05:47 AM
I spent a lot of years feeding my family on a low income, my wife stayed home with the girls, 5 daughter's. It was about putting meat on the table. You can't eat horns. And I doubt you hunted longer than most and you must be a Democrat by the way you want your way for everyone.Here would be my perfect plan. Allow youth and seniors to shoot any deer. Everyone else 3 point not counting eyeguards. I cannot fathom why people wouldn't support this. :dunno:
I have yet to talk to a local hunter ( and I talk to many, many of them ) who didn't support the APR. But hey let's just keep slaughtering future giants when they are fork horns! :IBCOOL: :yike:
I agree with this.
I simply do not support killing young deer. Its a personal preference. Give the little guys a chance to live, get to breeding age.
They're generally to stupid to get out of the way. So yes, let the young hunters, disabled, elderly have a chance at them. But if you are an able bodied man or women and just want to take the fastest kill then you aren't really out there for the experience of hunting. You want to "slaughter" something, anything.
I just don't get it. Maybe because I've been hunting longer then most people. There's never been a year in my life where I couldn't of harvested a younger deer. Yet success rates are atrocious relatively.
My advice to the spike killers of the world. Start learning the woods, learning to hunt, and quit looking to just slaughter.
I hope this ruffles some feathers, because while I understand someone has differing opinions, the opinion to kill young animals disgusts me.
Post by: Bango skank on June 24, 2016, 03:19:08 AM
Those of us who wanted the apr just wanted the option of having our way, while still leaving the option of hunting any buck units to the brown is down guys.
Post by: Gobble on June 24, 2016, 05:26:27 AM
I spent a lot of years feeding my family on a low income, my wife stayed home with the girls, 5 daughter's. It was about putting meat on the table. You can't eat horns. And I doubt you hunted longer than most and you must be a Democrat by the way you want your way for everyone.Here would be my perfect plan. Allow youth and seniors to shoot any deer. Everyone else 3 point not counting eyeguards. I cannot fathom why people wouldn't support this. :dunno:
I have yet to talk to a local hunter ( and I talk to many, many of them ) who didn't support the APR. But hey let's just keep slaughtering future giants when they are fork horns! :IBCOOL: :yike:
I agree with this.
I simply do not support killing young deer. Its a personal preference. Give the little guys a chance to live, get to breeding age.
They're generally to stupid to get out of the way. So yes, let the young hunters, disabled, elderly have a chance at them. But if you are an able bodied man or women and just want to take the fastest kill then you aren't really out there for the experience of hunting. You want to "slaughter" something, anything.
I just don't get it. Maybe because I've been hunting longer then most people. There's never been a year in my life where I couldn't of harvested a younger deer. Yet success rates are atrocious relatively.
My advice to the spike killers of the world. Start learning the woods, learning to hunt, and quit looking to just slaughter.
I hope this ruffles some feathers, because while I understand someone has differing opinions, the opinion to kill young animals disgusts me.
Couldn't agree more PA Ben, Not everyone give a rats a$$ about horns, I have killed many, many deer in my 51 years, esp back when I was in my 20s and 30s I generally killed an elk and a deer every year (Mostly with archery and ML) but after starting a family and the massive amount of time/money that's involved with that along with being a year round fastpitch coach I have had reduced time in the woods, my family loves venison and TBH, I have no problem dropping a 2, 3 or small 4pt in the late WT season if that is what is out in front of me, do I take big un's when they give me a chance, you bet, would I prefer too, you bet, but when all is said and done, I want some meat for the table and if a smaller buck comes along during the later part of the hunt its a no brainer for me, this shaming of those who decide to put some meat on the table as opposed to being a "Trophy hunter" first to make your self sound like someone important is exactly the reason so many of these hunting show types are getting busted for unethical hunting practices, just so they can take a big buck. No one is in the wrong with the choice they make, been there done that, shaming someone because they want to put some meat on the table is just wrong IMHO
Post by: PA BEN on June 24, 2016, 05:47:52 AM
There were only 2 units with the apr, plenty of any buck units left to choose from. So the people who wanted the apr gone also must be "democrats who want their way for everyone."That's not what I meant, this guy talks like it's his way or the highway no middle ground. At first I didn't want the 4 point rule. I know the process that took place to get it in, it started back in the 90's when a local group of gun hunters started having meetings and invited all hunters to attend in the local news paper. I was a bowhunter and they bashed our way of hunting and the poor muzzleloader guys didn't have a chance. Well they ran us off, that group said they were for all hunters and we need to come to common ground, but it was all smoke. They wanted to push the 4 point rule and shorten all the other seasons and add days to the gun season. So I was pretty bitter about it when it started. I hunt so I saw what it has done for the buck population, I do support it now. BUT, back then and I still do now, I would like any buck for youth, seniors and disabled.
Those of us who wanted the apr just wanted the option of having our way, while still leaving the option of hunting any buck units to the brown is down guys.