Post by: Sundance on August 17, 2015, 04:09:55 PM
Post by: CP on August 17, 2015, 04:11:20 PM
Post by: tonymiller7 on August 17, 2015, 04:13:29 PM
Let's keep this civil, what would you like to see? Personally I would like to see west of I-5, or at the least sub-categories of Coastal, Lowland, Foothills, Alpine and Crossbred
I would say the cascade crest trail, west of I-5 is ridiculous.
Post by: h20hunter on August 17, 2015, 04:14:02 PM
Post by: tonymiller7 on August 17, 2015, 04:16:44 PM
Post by: tonymiller7 on August 17, 2015, 04:19:37 PM
Post by: CP on August 17, 2015, 04:20:53 PM
Post by: grundy53 on August 17, 2015, 05:26:52 PM
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: AKBowman on August 17, 2015, 11:54:40 PM
OK, why? Seriously I am curious. My argument would be that the genetic purity becomes watered down that close to the PCT.
I would say west of I-5 is ridiculous because I could quite literally shoot a deer east of I-5 where I hunt that would be more westerly than a deer you shoot west of I-5 a bit further south where you hunt.
Post by: AKBowman on August 18, 2015, 12:01:54 AM
I would say a line somewhere in between I5 and the PCT.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
In a perfect world I would agree with that. At some point there is no chance of mulie traits and your still hunting in the same type habitat. IMO, and again this is just my personal opinion, I personally categorize the Goldendale type blackails as something other than a Columbian Blacktail. In my opinion it's similar to killing a Blacktail in North central California. Just not the same thing as a true Columbian Blacktail coming from the jungle somewhere near or west of I-5.
Post by: fishnfur on August 18, 2015, 12:11:33 AM
I think the argument is fun to discuss but something of a waste of time unless we expect P&Y / B&C to care - which I doubt they will in our lifetimes. I am in total agreement with your arguments. People get hung up on classifying deer by what they look like to the eye and make assumptions on genetic purity based on those characteristics they see.
Certainly, we've all seen two brown-eyed parents spawn children with blue eyes. Same with hair color, and any other traits. It works the same in BT deer as well. It is not hard to make a case for intermixed genes down to the foothills (same case on the other side of the mountains as well):
Example A submitted: A BT alpine or pass-level doe that would normally migrate to the foothills with the snow could easily be bred by a benchleg buck with strong muley traits during a low snow or late snow year, especially if she came into estrous in mid-to-late October . The next year, her buck yearling that migrates with her, and likely thereafter, will at least have the genetics to produce offspring with traits that might possibly resemble some characteristics of a benchleg type deer.
When we see that deer down in the foothills, we consider it a pure BT because of it's location when we saw it, which is obviously incorrect in this case. Furthermore, that animal will further pollute resident foothill BTs with it's mixed genes in the coming years, further muddying the picture, but potentially creating some wonderfully endowed bucks.
As you state, coastal deer and valley floor deer have virtually no opportunity to participate in this mixing of genes, and thus display characteristics we consider "normal" for a BT, and oftentimes results in fully mature deer that are not overly impressive by our standards. These deer are apparently very successful in their local environments to the point that they are chosen by the local does to mate with and continue to spread those genetic traits that we consider less impressive.
So I guess, if I had to choose, I would punch a survey tab for a line drawn somewhere in the foothills. Where that line is.... :dunno:
Post by: grundy53 on August 18, 2015, 04:47:45 AM
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: Gobble on August 18, 2015, 05:58:51 AM
Post by: tonymiller7 on August 18, 2015, 09:24:08 AM
Honestly, I really could care less. If its a decent buck, its going down. Also, Don't forget you also have Columbian "Whitetail" down south on the wetside to further mess with the gene pool :dunno:
:yeah:
Post by: Gringo31 on August 18, 2015, 10:12:19 AM
Post by: Gringo31 on August 18, 2015, 03:02:36 PM
I realize it is a touchy issue. It makes the guys who hunt in the ferns mad at bigger buck with a pine tree in the background.
I get that. I also see it as another wedge between hunters....we just can't seem to help ourselves.
That being said, I respect you for setting this thread off to the side as you could see a storm coming. Personally, I don't care as I sit in E. Wa and IMO the bucks just east of the PWT aren't hardly worth harvesting :twocents:
Post by: shanevg on August 18, 2015, 03:52:29 PM
Here is the B&C boundary - it's clear as mud. Seriously though a Mt. Baker Wilderness buck being the same category as a north CA buck seems ridiculous.
Washington — Beginning at the Washington-British Columbia border, the boundary line runs south along the west boundary of North Cascades National Park to the range line between R10E and R11E, Willamette Meridian, which is then followed directly south to its intersection with the township line between T18N and T17N, which is then followed westward until it connects with the north border of Mt. Rainier National Park, then along the north, west and south park boundaries until it intersects with the range line between R9E and R10E, Willamette Meridian, which is then followed directly south to the Columbia River near Cook.
Post by: Okanagan on August 18, 2015, 04:29:18 PM
If CA bucks are considered blacktails...
California blacktails are slightly smaller class of mule deer. They don't look like blacktails, don't act like blacktails and are not rain deer blacktails. I have lived in California and hunted them. To class them with I.e. Olympic Peninsula blacktails is ridiculous. That's always been a peeve of mine.
The problem is that the deer walk back and forth across any line we draw to separate mule deer and blacktails, especially bucks in the rut looking for does. Crossbreeds/hybrids are the rule for miles on both sides of the line. I think the rule makers have tried to err to the west and keep mule deer genes out of the blacktail record book more than the other way. That makes for many fine bucks with big racks in the North Cascades that are excluded from the blacktail records and yet have no chance whatsoever at the mule deer book. We enjoy hunting them anyway, and know that a big old mature buck is a trophy, especially if he is about as big as deer get in his area, whether that is book size or not. Island blacktails come to mind-- not a ghost of a chance at record book size but fine bucks -- on a smaller scale.
I know of two areas, one in WA and one in BC where I have seen what looks like pure blacktails and pure mule deer a few minutes and a few yards apart. Both of them may have been purebreds and both may have been hybrids. No way to tell short of DNA maybe and somehow that feels like overkill science rather than hunting. In those areas over the years we've seen every kind of blended physical features, especially noticeable on the rump and tail. I wish I'd taken a photo of four deer together miles west of the Crest Trail. Each of them had distinctly different rump and tail markings, from close to pure blacktail to pure mule deer with two in the middle part way between.
The problem is clear but not a solution. I kind of like the benchleg or Cascade class of bucks for hybrids, at least to recognize outstanding examples.
Post by: fishnfur on August 18, 2015, 05:17:49 PM
Post by: grundy53 on August 18, 2015, 07:29:36 PM
The fact that people feel the need to argue about this is retarded :twocents:
I see it as more of a discussion then an argument. There will not be a consensus, nor will the issue probably ever be resolved. I don't see the harm in some civil debate. No one is trying to ban anything.
Post by: grundy53 on August 18, 2015, 07:46:40 PM
Sundance,
I realize it is a touchy issue. It makes the guys who hunt in the ferns mad at bigger buck with a pine tree in the background.
I get that. I also see it as another wedge between hunters....we just can't seem to help ourselves.
That being said, I respect you for setting this thread off to the side as you could see a storm coming. Personally, I don't care as I sit in E. Wa and IMO the bucks just east of the PWT aren't hardly worth harvesting :twocents:
This is what we are talking about and it goes both ways. Those "mulies" are smaller and "hardly worth harvesting" just east of the PCT yet that same buck walks a few yards over the PCT to the west side and all of the sudden he is a masher Blacktail. No matter what side he is standing on he is the same deer. But he could be passed off as 2 different sub-species I find that kind of ridiculous. There are Blacktails there are Mulies and there are Bench leg/hybrids. I don't know why people get offended when their buck is called a bench leg. Bench leg is not a derogatory name. It takes nothing away from the beauty nor the size of the animal. It's simply calling it what it actually is. I wouldn't go over to Republic and shoot a big ole mulie and try to pass it off as a Blacktail. That would be ridiculous and inaccurate. I wouldn't go to Forks and shoot a masher blacktail and call it a mule deer. That would be ridiculous and inaccurate. So why not call a bench leg/hybrid what it actually is? Why do people get offended when you call a deer that is from an area of heavy hybridization a hybrid? I don't get it.
Post by: grundy53 on August 18, 2015, 08:00:24 PM
Post by: erk444 on August 18, 2015, 09:57:39 PM
Post by: grundy53 on August 18, 2015, 11:59:23 PM
Is that in Hancock :yike:Yes
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: fishnfur on August 19, 2015, 12:36:52 PM
It's interesting that WDFW has no separation between species when reporting a successful hunt, as they do for salmon. If it is west of the PCT - it's a blacktail. East, it's a muley.
Post by: kodiak 907 on August 21, 2015, 07:47:18 AM