Post by: bobcat on February 01, 2009, 05:38:27 PM
Quote
Roosevelt A Sept. 26 - Oct. 16 ONLY 2 pt. x 2 pt. Bucks GMU 133 20
Harrington A Sept. 26 - Oct. 16 ONLY 2 pt. x 2 pt. Bucks GMU 136 20
Steptoe A Sept. 26 - Oct. 16 ONLY 2 pt. x 2 pt. Bucks GMU 139 20
Post by: whacker1 on February 01, 2009, 05:50:06 PM
Post by: 270Shooter on February 01, 2009, 05:59:17 PM
Post by: bobcat on February 01, 2009, 06:01:21 PM
Post by: huntnphool on February 01, 2009, 06:55:38 PM
Post by: huntnphool on February 01, 2009, 06:57:48 PM
Post by: bobcat on February 01, 2009, 07:16:29 PM
Quote
Antler Restrictions: APPLIES TO ALL HUNTERS DURING ANY GENERAL SEASON AND
DESIGNATED SPECIAL PERMIT SEASONS((!)). Buck deer taken in antler
restricted GMUs must meet minimum antler point requirements.
Minimum antler point requirements are antler points on one side
only. Eye guards are antler points when they are at least one
inch long.
Post by: yelp on February 01, 2009, 07:40:01 PM
http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/game/seasonsetting/final_surveysummary_10272008.pdf
19. ISSUE 34: Mule Deer Antler Point Restrictions BACKGROUND: The current 3-point antler restriction for mule deer buck
hunting seasons varies in its effectiveness. The intent of the restriction is to provide adequate survival of a cross section of
age classes, including yearling bucks, through the hunting season. The effectiveness of this antler restriction is related to how
open the habitat is, as well as whether the local mule deer populations are migratory or relatively stationary. In some places
where habitat is open and bucks are highly vulnerable, WDFW research has shown that 90% of 1.5 year-old bucks that exhibit a
legal buck antler configuration are killed. In many of these same locations, bucks surviving past the hunting season are made
up entirely of yearling bucks. In these situations, different hunting season structures might be more effective in producing older
age classes, given the habitat and the local mule deer population dynamics. In some Districts, the current 3-point minimum
antler restriction would continue to be used. In other Districts, other approaches to hunting season structure might be
necessary. Which of the following alternatives do you prefer?
ALTERNATIVES:
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Change one PMU to 2 point or less,
with mature mule deer bucks by
special permit only, and monitor for
three years.46.2% 1836
No change; retain 3 point antler
restriction for all mule deer hunting.
41.8% 1659
No preference. 12.0% 477
Comments: 258
answered question 3971
skipped question 1009
Post by: yelp on February 01, 2009, 07:48:14 PM
Well its about damn time they figured this out, I have suggested this for a number of years. The dissapointing part of it is they could have really helped their image if they had made this a youth hunt.
I would like them to give out some prehunt education on what these mature 2-points look like, so that the permitees aren't harvesting yearling bucks. Kids tend to shoot what is available unless they are with someone to say shoot that one. I think some type of education would be helpful..I also think they should have added more permits to have an affect genetically. :twocents:
Post by: huntnphool on February 01, 2009, 07:52:59 PM
I also think they should have added more permits to have an affect genetically. :twocents:
Not sure what good that would do, you would then be limiting the number of these genetically deficient deer to the number of permits handed out, I think there are more of these deer out there than they think.
Post by: bobcat on February 01, 2009, 07:53:54 PM
Post by: whacker1 on February 01, 2009, 09:06:19 PM
And that is an accurate depiction of how WDFW made the changes this year...
Post by: colockumelk on February 01, 2009, 09:17:00 PM
Post by: yelp on February 01, 2009, 09:18:30 PM
We have to work within general seasons with antler restrictions and I feel that 3 pt or better is a great tool for herd recovery after tough winters...but it seems overtime we maybe culling out the 3 pts (especially in heavily hunted public land units (i.e. Okanogan County)). The large mature 2 pts should be targeted through general harvest or permit to keep them from spreading the genetics of 2 pt only, which I believe is the goal of this experiment
The other option I was thinking of is..I see open it (GMU) up to any buck for a few years... then bring an antler restirciton back of some sort. I think most hunters would harvest smaller bucks knowing they can harvest them, this would cull out the mature 2 pts and young bucks so recruitement would be hampered for a few seasons but this may create a higher percentage of 3 pt/betters to do the breeding.
Without going to something like Desert A (where you have control)..I think the premise of the experiment is to target mature 2 pts to keep them from breeding does.
Just thinking out load...maybe I'm crazy...I do see a lot of mature two points on winter range breeding does for the last 10 years...what effect is it having??? Not sure. :twocents:
Post by: bowhunterforever on February 01, 2009, 09:20:53 PM
Post by: muleyguy on February 02, 2009, 11:11:45 PM
And, most importantly, what happens is you end with 1.5 yr old deer doing a lot of the breeding.
Research has also shown (and it makes complete sense) that does breed by mature bucks, have fawns with a higher recruitment into the population base. So, to get healthy deer populations, you need mature bucks breeding does. You need age representation in all classes.
my guess is that the 2 pt rule has nothing to do with trying to harvest mature 2 pts out of the population, but, rather, to insure that mature bucks end up doing most of the breeding instead of 1.5 yr olds, and, to raise the number of older bucks in the population.
this is the same concept as what the WDFW has done with the elk management in the Yakima herd, and, it has worked wonderful. Before this rule change, mature bulls in the Yakima herd were few and far between, after the rule, the age structure of the bulls is much better, with mature bulls doing most of the breeding.
my guess is that also after a few years after enough older bucks get into the population they will start issuing permits for "any buck", just like they do with the elk herd. This is great news because this kind of management scheme lets people hunt everyear, but, once every 5 or 6 years be able to get drawn for a "big buck tag". Just like the elk situation, this will result in the opportunity to harvest a great animal, once in awhile.
for the most part, all over the West, mule deer have not been managed so that a majority of the breeding is done by mature bucks; I am sure the trend over the last 30 yrs in western mule deer populations has been one of ever decreasing age of bucks doing the breeding. And, it is just an educated guess, but, I am sure that is partly responsible for the decline in mule deer populations in the West. Even areas of great habitat and low populations have seen declines in mule deer fawn recruitment.
3 pt or better rules are not the solution, and are actually hurting the mule deer populations over the long run. They are a short term feel good fix. If you have a hard winter, and end up with very low buck to doe ratio's, it is much better just to restrict the hunting aggressively for one year to get them back up. One year of aggressive cutbacks will get the same result without all the other problems 3 pt or better causes.
Post by: huntnphool on February 02, 2009, 11:30:31 PM
Post by: bobcat on February 03, 2009, 06:39:05 AM
As he said,
Quote
In migratory populations in the mountains, there is greater ability for escapement for bucks, so, you naturally end up with a few mature animals in the population.
I believe it is simply the terrain and cover that has enabled our mule deer in certain areas, like the east slope of the Cascades, to remain in relatively good shape, and that it is not due to the minimum antler restriction. The best way to manage our mule deer, in my opinion, would be to go to permit only hunting so that the biologists can balance the number of hunters in each unit. But by popular opinion they are keeping the over-the-counter tag system so that is what we're stuck with, because most people want to hunt every year whether it's good for the mule deer population or not.
my guess is that also after a few years after enough older bucks get into the population they will start issuing permits for "any buck", just like they do with the elk herd. This is great news because this kind of management scheme lets people hunt everyear, but, once every 5 or 6 years be able to get drawn for a "big buck tag". Just like the elk situation, this will result in the opportunity to harvest a great animal, once in awhile.
muleyguy I'm not sure you're aware...these three units are still open for the general 3 point minimum season. So it seems to me these permits are simply to provide a little more "opportunity" and probably not a part of any sort of management strategy by the WDFW. :twocents:
Post by: muleyguy on February 03, 2009, 10:59:51 AM
yeah, I realized that, but I was making more of a broad statement concerning the three point rule. This is a step in the right direction though, and hopefully will turn into a management scheme, especially for some of the more open terrain units.
"the antler restriction has already been proven to work very well in other states. Don't get caught up in all the negative talk, there are plenty of mature mule deer bucks breeding, you're just not seeing as many because there are fewer hunters and the general season has been cut short for a few years."
huntphool,
I have hunted extensively in most of the western states for over 25 yrs. Very few other Western states employ a three-point antler restriction in any kind of meaningful way, certainly nothing on the scale of WA state. Wyoming has 2 areas I believe that are 4 pt or better restrictions, but they are not highly thought of units. Idaho has already moved the SW portion of the state (owyhee) to 2 pt or less and has had great success, but has no 3 pt rules in any other parts of the state. Montana has few if any antler restrictions, same with SD. So, I am not really sure what states you are referring to. I believe it was done some years ago in Utah for a short period of time after a severe winter kill, but, it is not currently being used. Utah does give out "management tags", good for 3 pt or less, they are strictly controlled, but, this is done because the buck to doe ratio's are very high in two of their limited draw areas (paunsaguant, henry mts).
On a bigger note, the average age of bucks doing the breeding across the West has decreased over the last 25 years, I can guarantee you that, and obviously that is not due to 3pt minimum rules across the west, but, it is a fact nonetheless, and it is not doing the herds any good. The 3pt minimum rules ends up just exacerbating this trend, creating a stockpile of 1.5 yr old male deer in the population base, that is common sense. This is the only "protected" part of the male population, so over time, it becomes the dominant percentage of the population. The dominant percentage of the population is going to end up statistically being the dominant part of the population that does the breeding. Sure, there will b e a few mature bucks and they will do some breeding, but, they won't be able to do it all.
3pt or better does nothing to increase 4.5 yr old animals in the population and permanently increase buck to doe ratio's, if it did, Eastern Wa state would have big bucks running all around it and buck to doe ratio's of 25 or better.......but we don't, even with drastically shortened seasons, and a 3 pt minimum rule that has been in effect for years.
the real problem with 3 pt or better rules is: "how do you get rid of them, once you have them?" that is the problem the WDFW have..........the 3 pt rule does very little to help the overall herd, and probably actually hurts it in the long run. But, what happens if you want to get rid of the rule and go to a new management scheme? What do you think is going to happen the first year??? You are going to have a precipitous drop in the buck to doe ratio because if you open it up without restrictions, almost all of the 1.5 yr old and 2.5 yr old deer are going to get harvested.
if you want to achieve better age structure in mule deer bucks, you have to prevent people from shooting mature bucks.......you do that through limited entry type hunts, physically demanding or remote habitat, or by restricting harvest to 2 pt or less.
Post by: Curly on February 03, 2009, 12:03:33 PM
Post by: boneaddict on February 03, 2009, 12:18:56 PM
Post by: boneaddict on February 03, 2009, 12:21:46 PM
Post by: Sneaky on February 03, 2009, 01:33:41 PM
Post by: bankwalker on February 03, 2009, 02:42:33 PM
then comes the 3pt min, the younger bucks go a few years without pressure. they grow dumb to the hunting season. then we take away the 3pt min, there will be alot of young bucks taken. maybe it will be a good thing, maybe it will be bad. idk.
personaly i would love the chance to take a monster 2pt.
in my years of hunting you could really see the affect of the 3pt or better rule after a few years. but for now i think it has taken its toll in the units i listed above. now almost all bucks i see in those given units are 3pt or smaller, and the 3pts and 4pts i do see are NOt mature bucks. antler growth is pathetic at best on alot of the mature bucks i do see.
they should place an any buck change for a couple years and see where that gets us. give a chance to get alot of the weaker bucks to be taken out of the herds. and get rid of alot of they bucks that wont get bigger then 2pt's.
THEN. make the eastern...at least central washington units permit only. AND 4pt or better.
Post by: boneaddict on February 03, 2009, 02:51:19 PM
Post by: muleyguy on February 03, 2009, 03:19:47 PM
They did help, but, that was because they were put into place after the horrible winter kills of 1992/93 and 1996 when the populations, especially the bigger buck populations were decimated. So, you were coming off a very low base of buck to doe ratio and mature bucks in the population. So, the rule change looked like it made a big difference, and it did, in the very short run.
don't get me wrong, I believe the 3pt or better rule has its place, but, its place is not of a long term management strategy. Its place should be used short term following times of heavy winter kill because it does do a good job of quickly restoring buck to doe ratio's because it instantly protects an age class (1.5 yrs old) that next year. After these winters lets assume you had only 5 bucks per 100 does survive, but, previously to that, the average was 20/100. 3pt or better will help in quickly getting back up to those previous averages.
I am pretty sure the reason you are seeing a change has nothing to do with the 3 pt rule, rather, the fact that the hunting seasons have become so restrictive. This would be especially true in the migratory units. The general season in the Okanogon used to go to November 5th. Goldendale used to go Nov 13th. Like I said earlier, if the 3 pt rule was that effective over the long run, we would have great buck/doe ratio's and lots of mature animals in the population, and, we don't in WA. I know that you have had success finding mature animals in this state, but, as an average across the state, WA is the poorest of all western states for mature buck's and buck to doe ratio's.
Post by: bankwalker on February 03, 2009, 03:35:56 PM
Post by: 270Shooter on February 03, 2009, 03:39:18 PM
Then after 2 or 3 years of 2 point minimum they should switch to 4 point minumum with longer seasons. This should give the younger bucks a chance to grow larger racks. I believe success rates will be down with a 4 point restiction and people will be unhappy. But longer seasons should make up for the lower success rates.
I am just throwing ideas around. :)
Post by: muleyguy on February 03, 2009, 03:41:26 PM
this is exactly the problem; these guys stay in the field longer, because it takes longer to find a 2.5 yr old deer vs a 1.5 yr old deer, and it is much harder to identify a 3 pt, then any legal buck, and over time, and multiple seasons, they end up stumbling once in awhile into actual mature animals, which slowly erodes the numbers of bigger bucks. And, this is why 3 pt or better is "popular" is because most people (regardless of what you read on this site and MM) shoot the first legal buck they see. When all you have shot is spikes and little 2 pts, and now you are shooting 18" 3 pts, you are much happier and think you are shooting mature animals, when, in fact all you are shooting is 2.5 yr old deer.
2 pt or less rules, with "any buck" tags will work EXACTLY like it has with the elk population in the Yakima herd. But, with the deer populations much higher throughout eastern wa then elk numbers, there could be lots of "any buck" tags given out each year. I would be willing to bet you could have the opportunity, after good numbers of mature animals were built up in the population, to draw an "any buck" tag every 3rd year or better.
This would fix the age structure in the buck population, and, at the same time afford people the opportunity to hunt every year (for 2 pts) and, every 3 or 4th year for a truly mature animal.
Post by: huntnphool on February 03, 2009, 03:45:06 PM
Post by: BIGDOG on February 03, 2009, 04:08:36 PM
a high number of mature bucks,It is like hunting in eastern Montana.I think the state
should let Derek Stevens manage the deer herd in the open area units! :twocents:
Post by: muleyguy on February 03, 2009, 04:33:45 PM
I am not in a pissing match, and, the research is quite clear. You indicated that there had been success in many states with 3 pt minimum rules, but, no states, except for WA have them in any significant way. And, if you take the time to read the reports from other states, you will see the reason they do not have 3 pt minimums is because they DO NOT WORK. I can take the time posting each state's proxy if you like, I know the "research" because I hunt these states every year.
here is some selected opinions on antler restrictions, the first is straight out of the Mule Deer Working Group, which is a multi state taskforce set up to look at the decline of mule deer across the West:
Antler point restrictions
Creating mule deer harvest sea-
sons with antler point restrictions is
popular amongst hunters who think
it will help increase the number of
mature bucks and buck:doe ratios in
mule deer populations. But research
in many western states shows that
antler point restrictions do not pro-
duce more deer or larger-antlered
deer.
Colorado implemented antler
point restrictions statewide for six
years, and in a number of game
units for seven years. The result was
a shift of hunting from pressure on
all age classes of bucks (primarily
yearlings) to bucks two years and
older, and an increase in illegal or
accidental harvest of yearling bucks.
The number of mature bucks did not
increase over time.
"many wildlife biologists maintain that point restrictions are not the best way to manage deer other than as a short-term stimulus when buck populations are depressed.
"In general, point regulations result in illegal kill of sub-legal bucks, hunters' expectations of a quality experience are not realized, and both the total numbers of legal bucks available and the total harvest decrease," claimed the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife's 2003 Mule deer management plan."
"WDFW's Okanogan District wildlife biologist Scott Fitkin for his perspective on the issue.
"My personal bias is that I'm not a big fan of point restrictions," Fitkin said. "I don't like focusing hunting on older animals. I'd prefer to let the older bucks do most of the breeding."
Fitkin says that mature bucks - the ones that are the only legal targets under antler-point regulations - tend to successfully breed during a doe's first estrus cycle in the fall better than younger deer. Deer that breed early tend to have fawns earlier, which, in turn, grow larger and survive winter better than later fawns. In addition, Fitkin says research suggests that "synchronous breeding," where the majority of the does conceive at the same time, also gives fawns an advantage against predators in the spring because it "floods" the area with young deer.
Despite widespread public perception that point restrictions were the driving force behind the recovery of Okanogan deer, Fitkin says other factors were probably more important. "We haven't had a hard winter since '96-'97," he said. "And in terms of buck numbers, it is how long and where you place the season that makes the difference." He believes that reducing the season to nine days and having it in early October, when many of the deer were still on summer range where they are harder to hunt, had more to do with the population expansion than point restrictions. He points out that last year, after the season was expanded to 14 days, buck escapement fell to 18 per 100 does, down from 26 in 2002.
In addition, Fitkin says that Okanogan County still has many areas where mule deer can escape the efforts of casual hunters. "It depends on how much access there is," he said. "If we were all roaded like some areas, there would hardly be any 3-pointers standing at the end of the season."
"When Oregon mule deer populations consistently fell below management targets in the late 1980s, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife created a new mule deer plan. It established a baseline management objective of 12 post-season bucks region-wide. But rather than impose point restrictions to rebuild populations, it changed all eastern Oregon wildlife management units to controlled hunts. For the first time in many years, an Oregon mule deer hunter could not assume they would be able to purchase a tag every year, and the new regulations required hunters to determine the area they wanted to hunt well in advance of the season. Not surprisingly, this was a highly unpopular move initially.
The ODFW cites its experience in the Steens Mountain WMU in its argument against antler-point restrictions. Historically well known for broad-beamed trophies, Steens Mountain was managed under open entry, 4-point-or-better regulations between 1978 and 1986. According to the agency, the incidence of poaching increased significantly after point restrictions were implemented, and the number of 4-point bucks available for harvest declined 30 percent. By the end of the 12-year period of the regulations, the legal buck harvest in the unit had fallen 50 percent.
"Point regulations are often suggested as a way to increase the number of older bucks in a deer population," the ODFW's 2003 deer management plan observed. "In theory, point regulations are designed to increase the number of older bucks in the population by limiting harvest to only larger bucks, allowing younger bucks to mature. However, past experience in Oregon has shown that three-point or four-point regulations do not produce additional older bucks in an area unless hunters' numbers are seriously limited."
Has Oregon's adoption of controlled hunts worked? Only 16 of 47 eastern Oregon WMUs were at or above their MOs at the conclusion of the 1990 season, the year of the last general-season hunt. Twelve of these units were already managed as controlled hunts, because of population problems that began in the early 1980s. The following year, the first with region-wide limited entry, hunter numbers fell from 104,745 to 90,661. At the end of the first year, 37 of the units were at or slightly below MOs for bucks. At the end of the 2001 season, 33 of the 47 units were at or above the management objectives.
From Utah biologist:
"The idea that if you don't shoot the little ones there will be more big ones seems logical; however, what deer managers across the west have found out is that antler point restrictions have been a huge disappointment everywhere they have been tired.. You cannot expect to grow lots of bigger bucks if you only allow hunters to shoot the big bucks!
Mule deer bucks typically have high rates of mortality because in most years they enter the winter in poor physical shape following the rut. This, together with only allowing only the harvest of the older more mature bucks (3 points or better) siginicantly lowers the number of large deer in the population. So, what managers have found is that even if harvest is reduced, the number of large bucks doesn't increase because many of the older bucks that did escape harvest die of natural causes."
Post by: 270Shooter on February 03, 2009, 05:11:05 PM
I changed my mind. because of the population of washington. We need a permit only plan for mule deer.
Post by: swanny on February 03, 2009, 05:21:48 PM
Post by: bobcat on February 03, 2009, 06:21:32 PM
Post by: huntnphool on February 03, 2009, 06:24:03 PM
Quote
that three-point or four-point regulations do not produce additional older bucks in an area unless hunters' numbers are seriously limited."
This is exactly what F&W have done. They set a 3 point restriction and at the same time reduced the number of hunters in the field by going to a draw and backing the season up by a week or two and limiting it to 8 hunting days, the combination of the two has resulted in fewer bucks being harvested during the "general" modern season which is when the majority of the bucks used to be harvested. Where they fu$%ed up is when they started handing out late hunt permits like candy to a child.
Post by: boneaddict on February 03, 2009, 08:49:15 PM
Post by: bobcat on February 03, 2009, 09:08:06 PM
Post by: whacker1 on February 03, 2009, 11:14:09 PM
Post by: huntnphool on February 04, 2009, 01:07:19 AM
you don't think the mule deer hunting would be better if the general seasons were eliminated and the number of hunters in each GMU was controlled by allowing a limited number of permits in each unit? If they did that the 3 point minimum could be eliminated.
Hey bobcat, I'm going to assume you dont mind me giving my opinion before Bone, He is obviously at work ;) Anyhow, I would agree with your question however it would be a matter of opinion. For those of us that believe the hunting would be better if this happened is based upon the "trophy" hunter, that being the hunter looking for a large high scoring rack. The opposite could be argued by the hunter that simply wants to go every year and get a shot at a meat buck. Unfortunately the majority of the revenue is generated by the later and that is counter productive for us and the herds both.
You have to admit that the 3 point min rule has helped tremendously to alleviate the harvest of young bucks in the general modern season, lets not get this confused with the late tag harvest.
Post by: muleyguy on February 04, 2009, 02:21:48 AM
yes, and yes........and, the high numbers of hunters in the field is exactly one of the reasons why you need to get rid of the 3 pt minimum; high numbers of hunters exacerbate the problem with it because the problem is it focus' all of the hunting pressure onto the larger animals. More hunting pressure under a 3pt or better system equals more pressure on mature animals. It would actually work better if there was less hunting pressure. The 3pt or better management scheme is a viscious cycle; over the long run it depresses mature animal levels and buck to doe ratio's, thereby necessitating more restrictive seasons.
The one management technique that has shown time and time again to produce more mature animals is a restriction in season length, season timing, and numbers of hunters. WA has been able to achieve what few mature animals it does have by a drastically shortened season that falls in the middle of October. That is the reason for the mature animals, not the 3pt minimum.
3 pt or better rules NECESSITATE the need for shorter seasons, or buck to doe ratio's fall or stagnate and numbers of mature animals fall. Get rid of it, and over time, if you leave the season length alone, you will slowly see better buck to doe ratio's and better numbers of mature animals. Over time, you probably could raise the number of late season tags, or slightly lengthen the season.
if 3 pt or better rules are so good, then why don't other Western states do it????? Are WA biologist that much smarter?? Are we on the cutting edge of herd management in this state?? Other states have problems with high hunter pressure (utah areas outside of salt lake and Colorado for instance)
Just think of what Montana could be if they only instituted a 3 pt or better rule………. If antler restrictions like 3pt or better, are so good, then why did the WDFW not adopt a "brow tined" bull antler restriction instead spike only restriction in the Yakima herd?? (it is because they know 3pt or better or brow tined or better restrictions do not work very well) It says you live in selah, I am not sure how long you have lived in the Yakima area, but, did you go to the feeding stations before the spike only restrictions and, then after?? The difference is literally, night and day.
the biologists in this state know that the 3 pt or better restriction is not doing the herd any good, they have admitted as much. And, ALL the data and research backs it up. And, if it was effective, other states would be doing it. But, as usual in this State, decisions get made not what is in the best interest of the mule deer, but, what is politically and finanically the easiest.
the only reason the department ever went to 3 pt or better in the first place was because of the extreme winter kill years in the 1990's, and that was the right choice because the buck to doe ratio's were decimated. The correct management decision was putting it in place after the winter kills; the mistake was not undoing it after the buck to doe ratio's had been built back up.
What this state needs to do is junk the 3 pt or better; go to statewide draw only system for the general season units. Continue to manage for some trophy hunting in some units, and, potentially look at some 2pt or less restrictions, with big buck tags in some of the more open country units. Over time, the herd health and age structure will improve, hunter levels will be reduced, and, while you might not get to hunt every year, your experience when you do hunt will be that much better.
Washington has the highest population and lowest land mass of any Western state; over the long run, the above management rules, or some combination of them, is the only one that makes sense. 3 pt or better rules are just gimmicks that do nothing to solve the long term problem WA state has.
And for those out there that might be affiliated with the WDFW, I am not bashing on you, as there are politcal and financial realities to deal with when you make unpopular decisions. But, you have created a beast with the 3pt or better rules that will be unpopular to unwind and will be difficult to unwind from a management point of view because you risk suppressing the buck to doe ratio’s the first year after getting rid of it. Unfortunately, to get rid of it, you are going to have to probably have very restrictive seasons the first two years after getting rid of it. This is probably the single biggest factor holding them back from getting rid of it.
And, I give you high praise for getting it right with the Yakima elk herd, that has been a resounding success, and when you get drawn for an any bull tag in the Yakima area, you get to enjoy some of the finest elk hunting in the West, all, in Yakima. A simple, out of the box thinking, management change, turned an elk herd 2 hrs from a population base of several million people, with huge amounts of hunting pressure, and poor success rates, especially on mature bulls, into one of the best in the West. Who would have thunk it?????
Post by: muleyguy on February 04, 2009, 02:48:51 AM
Another 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 or better 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. The maximum benefit of a 4-point season is typically realized after the season
has been in place 2 or 3 years, at which time most 4-point bucks are being harvested. 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. If the objective is to produce more large deer, the 4-point
restriction must be lifted after 2 years so harvest is once again spread over more age classes. This allows
more of the incoming cohort of 4-point bucks to survive to an older age and potentially grow much larger
antlers. Should the overall buck:doe ratio again decline to an unacceptably low level, the 4-point or better
season can be reinstated for another 2-3 years to augment the number of bucks in the population, and the
process is repeated. Permanent 4-point or better seasons do not produce more large bucks and actually
reduce the harvestable surplus because some of the younger bucks that could have been harvested will die
from other causes before they grow 4-point antlers. In addition, some small bucks are mistaken for legal
bucks and are illegally killed and abandoned. Those deer represent a resource that is lost from the
population and impact hunter opportunity in future years.
Post by: boneaddict on February 04, 2009, 06:23:50 AM
Not going to argue with you muleyguy. You obviously have your agenda, and I just have my experience. Some of what you are saying is true about season length etc, but again I disagree with theory about antler restriction being bad. Too much experience shows me otherwise. I was raised in the heaviest hunted areas in the state, if not one of the ones in the West. Essentially eliminating all deer at the age of 1.5 doesn't do anything for adding bucks to the pool. Giving them that extra year to become woods wise does wonders. AND.....to keep it short, theres more to management than just one rule. It takes the big picture.
Post by: bobcat on February 04, 2009, 06:25:39 AM
you don't think the mule deer hunting would be better if the general seasons were eliminated and the number of hunters in each GMU was controlled by allowing a limited number of permits in each unit? If they did that the 3 point minimum could be eliminated.
Hey bobcat, I'm going to assume you dont mind me giving my opinion before Bone, He is obviously at work ;) Anyhow, I would agree with your question however it would be a matter of opinion. For those of us that believe the hunting would be better if this happened is based upon the "trophy" hunter, that being the hunter looking for a large high scoring rack. The opposite could be argued by the hunter that simply wants to go every year and get a shot at a meat buck. Unfortunately the majority of the revenue is generated by the later and that is counter productive for us and the herds both.
You have to admit that the 3 point min rule has helped tremendously to alleviate the harvest of young bucks in the general modern season, lets not get this confused with the late tag harvest.
Well, I don't consider myself a trophy hunter. What a buck scores means nothing to me. Sure, like anybody else, I won't pass up a big buck, and if given a choice I'll take the buck with the biggest antlers out of a group of bucks. But I like to have deer meat in the freezer and if it's the end of the season I have no problem shooting a spike if it's legal. But I still would like to see our state have a healthy mule deer herd with a balanced buck to doe ratio and an appropriate age class mix. I don't feel I need or deserve to hunt mule deer every year. I'd like to if I could but not if it's detrimental to the mule deer population. Are you familiar with Oregon's mule deer management? Draw only but there are many units that a guy can draw every year, especially if you're a resident. And most of the rest can be drawn every other year. Then there are those that have fewer permits, maybe better habitat and possibly better genetics, and have a higher buck to doe ratio with more mature bucks, and those units may take 4 or 5 years to draw. If Oregon can do it why can't we? To me it just doesn't make sense with the enormous hunting pressure we have here in Washington, to allow unlimited hunting of mule deer with no control on the number of hunters in each individual unit. Heck even non-residents can come here and buy an over-the-counter tag and hunt any unit they want except for the Desert. And many do. Why is it that this state feels it can afford to be so liberal with the number of deer tags given out? It makes absolutely no sense. The only reason for it is for some reason the WDFW bases their management decisions on popular opinion rather than biological facts.
Oh, by the way, Oregon has a quota of only 5% of their tags to Non-Residents. Why doesn't Washington do something similar?
Post by: boneaddict on February 04, 2009, 06:30:12 AM
Lets talk about the desert. Why is it that it isn't booming with animals? Tons of feed.... Well 90% of the harvest in it is poaching for one. Go to permit only, let the natives start creaming more of the crop. Lots of things could be fixed in this state. Another thing, Wyoming, Idaho and MT don't have to deal with much......
Post by: bobcat on February 04, 2009, 06:33:29 AM
That's another good question. Of all the Western states, why is Washington the only one that has this tremendous problem of the indians killing excessive amounts of wildlife, OFF the reservations?
Post by: boneaddict on February 04, 2009, 07:00:25 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on February 04, 2009, 07:24:17 AM
Post by: bowhuntin on February 04, 2009, 07:50:28 AM
Is anyone aware how the other states handle the Indian problem? Let me guess no problem other places. I know some of the other states reservations make some big bucks on their hunts
A few years ago I was talking to a guy from Wyoming and he said that indians can only hunt the reservations in the state of Wyoming. If they want to hunt off the reservation they have to buy a tag like everyone else. It is to bad indians didn't have to follow the same rules in this state.
Post by: whacker1 on February 04, 2009, 08:09:23 AM
I too want my kids to be able to hunt year in and year out, but that may not be a viable option in a few years based on the growing human population in WA. I think this is a good conversation that we aren't probably going to solve on this thread, but does expose us to some other ideas that need to be considered and weighed.
I am actually hoping that as the Baby Boomers grow older that our number of hunters will begin to decrease due to loss of the physical ability to do so. Not sure what the numbers specifically are for the state, but Nationally you are looking at a generation of 120 million being replaced by Gen X at 80 million. Natural attrition in age and ability should begin to reduce the numbers of hunters in 10 years or so, but that is still some time from now. Other factors are involved as well, so it may not go down at all or possibly even rise, so it is a set of statistics that need to be observed to identify trends.
Post by: Curly on February 04, 2009, 08:32:42 AM
I've put in for Oregons general for the east side of their state for 5 years now and haven't drawn. So that means I hunt every five years here. Are you kidding me.
Correct me if I'm wrong.....but can't you hunt with archery gear in most of Eastern Oregon every year? I think a lot of guys put in for the rifle permit and if they don't get drawn, they go hunting with their bow.
I do agree, though, that this state would have to get the indians in check before going to permit only like Oregon does. Why create a bunch of big bucks for the indians to slaughter?
Post by: huntnphool on February 04, 2009, 10:32:26 AM
Quote
The one management technique that has shown time and time again to produce more mature animals is a restriction in season length, season timing, and numbers of hunters. WA has been able to achieve what few mature animals it does have by a drastically shortened season that falls in the middle of October. That is the reason for the mature animals, not the 3pt minimum.
Muleyguy, again at the risk of sounding repetitive its a combination of all of them. Is it really your contention that if you restrict the season length, season timing and number of hunters without the 3 point minimum, that there will actually be fewer deer harvested in the 8 day general modern season than if you did have the 3 point min? :bash: Not a chance!!!, as you said earlier most would be happy taking the first buck they saw and would be out there dropping every buttonhook that walked by.
I understand what you are saying, we need sound management and I agree, however its my contention that its counter productive to shorten the season, place it in the time of month where there are few migrating bucks out of the extreme high areas, limit the hunters and then turn around and tell them they can kill anything with a button or larger.
Therefor by limiting the harvest of 1.5 year olds they are ensuring at least 2.5 year olds for the following year, and the cycle continues. In the mean time its also counter productive to do all these things and turn around and hand out hundreds of permits that enable the hunter to target those mature bucks in November. I believe the number of permits should be drastically reduced :twocents:
Let me ask you a question, if there were no antler restrictions this past season would there have been more animals harvested or less? I think its a no brainer but in your opinion the 3 point restriction had no affect :bash:
Post by: muleyguy on February 04, 2009, 11:45:45 AM
I have provided extensive, biological documentation, from at least 5 seperate sources that say basically three things about 3 pt and 4pt or better rules, here are the conclusions:
1. They work as a short term stimulus to better buck to doe ratio's
2. The buck to doe ratio stagnates at best over time; goes down at worst
3. The number of "mature" animals, over time, is decreased because it focus' the hunting pressure on mature animals instead of over the entire herd.
that is what the rules do; that has been the experience and what the research has shown, biologists all over the West. It isn't my opinion and has nothing to with any agenda. All these different studies and biologist could be wrong; I doubt it though.
"Is it really your contention that if you restrict the season length, season timing and number of hunters without the 3 point minimum, that there will actually be fewer deer harvested in the 8 day general modern season than if you did have the 3 point min?"
once again, it is not "my" contention, it is the collective contention of biologists over many different states who have looked. What the data shows is that if you get rid of the 3 pt minimum, and leave the season alone, as you suggested, it will:
1. have little or no effect on the buck to doe ratio (although it will the first year unless you put some restrictions in)
2. and, over time, will result in MORE mature animals being in the population because it diffuses the harvest out over all the age classes instead of concentrating it into the older age classes.
it is a simple as that. That is what the research and data show. Once again, these are not "my" contention's; it is the "contention" of research that has been done over many different biologist over many different states.
my only agenda is to get WA state to enact rules that will result in the long term health of our mule deer herds, every biological opinion out there supports getting rid of 3 pt minimum rules. I guess if you call that an agenda, then I guess it is. But, the problem historically with the WDFW has been that they do not act decisively enough when managing big game animals. It takes an act of congress to get them to change management direction, and they tend to bow to public pressure. They are bowing to public pressure on the 3pt minimum rules; not doing what is biologically the best for the herd. The problem with mule deer management is that there are many factors you just cannot control or have little control over: tribal hunting, wolves, precipitation trends, etc. But, you can control harvest levels, antler restrictions, season lenghths etc.
So, it becomes imperative to make sure you are "getting it right" with these decisions. I am done, I said my piece, but, this state for too long has made management decisions based not on what is best for the herd, but, what people want. At the end of the day, you have to fall back on what good science and research shows, not what a bunch of hunters on some internet forum "believe". In many cases, the science can be skewed by politics or agenda's or be flawed. But, in this case, that is not true. The data is overwhelming.
Post by: Elkstuffer on February 04, 2009, 12:15:37 PM
Post by: boneaddict on February 04, 2009, 12:30:55 PM
by the way, your thinking that fewer bucks in the older age class will be shot because they will be shooting younger ones is a bit far fetched. There are plenty and I mena plenty of hunters to go around for the deer that are available.
Post by: WDFW-SUX on February 04, 2009, 12:57:55 PM
Post by: huntnphool on February 04, 2009, 01:27:27 PM
Quote
if there were no antler restrictions this past season would there have been more animals harvested or less?
Post by: muleyguy on February 04, 2009, 01:59:42 PM
the question is more complicated then just a more or less. Let me explain:
Right now, the herd composition of bucks, post hunting season, is skewed towards 1.5 yr old animals because of the 3 pt rule. This means that the following hunting season, you are going to have a large number of 2.5 yr old deer, plus the entire incoming crop of 1.5 yr old animals.
So, you have a stockpile of 2.5 yr old animals going into the hunting season, along with the "normal" amount of 1.5 yr old bucks with 3 pt minimum rules. Essentially, a very large percentage of the buck population consists of 1.5 yr old animals and 2.5 yr old animals and very poor representation of older classes because of the 3 pt minimum.
If you suddenly eliminate the 3 pt rules, without any new restrictions the following year, you open up the 1.5 yr old buck age class to harvest in addition to the 2.5 yr olds. What will happen is you will have a huge harvest and it will suppress buck to doe ratio's.
This is because it works in the exact OPPOSITE when you get rid of the 3 pt rule as when you initiated it.
No one is doubting that you get a short term, quick stimulus in buck to doe ratio's when you initiate 3 pt minimum. But, when you get rid of them, without corresponding restrictions, the reverse happens to buck to doe ratio's; you get a short term, quick suppression of buck to doe ratio's.
That is why the department has not gotten rid of them. They won't tell you this publicly, but, it is the truth.
The better question, and the one I think you are asking, is if you took a unit and divided it into two parts, everything being the same; habitat, season lenght, predators, etc
and you divide one half into any buck rules and divide the other half into 3 pt minimum rules, over time, which one will have the better buck to doe ratio's and better age structure of bucks in it.
According the best science on the matter, of which there has been a lot done, this is the outcome:
Unit 1 3 pt minimum
dominate age class will be 1.5 yr old animals
buck to doe ratio's will only be as good as any buck unit; possibly could be worse
harvest will primarily be 2.5 yr old animals
over time, you will see lower levels mature bucks in the population
breeding, on average, will be done by younger males in the population of which research has shown can have an effect on fawn recruitment
Unit 2 any buck
age class will be much more leveled out amongst all the age classes, and not skewed towards one age class
buck to doe ratio's will be the same as 3 pt minimum; possibly better
harvest will primarily be 1.5 yr old animals
over time you will see increasing amounts of mature bucks (as long as the management scheme allows for it)
breeding, on average, will be done by older animals, of which research has shown results in greater fawn recruitment
That is what the science says.
You also indicated to me that other states have had great success with 3 pt minimum rules and that there was research out there supporting that. Before you leave, I would be interested in seeing the success other states have had and the research supporting it.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on February 04, 2009, 02:32:54 PM
Post by: boneaddict on February 04, 2009, 02:39:09 PM
Quote
very poor representation of older classes because of the 3 pt minimumHas nothing to do with 3 point regs. Has to do with playing catch from the slaughter from a couple years ago because of the late season, and early weather. Which takes us to the point of season dates having a much larger impact on the harvest of larger bucks than the 3 point rule. by the way, three point regs were around alot longer than 92. One unit in he Methow had it in affect much earlier and very positive results were seen with it. I know, I" was there as was Phool
Post by: muleyguy on February 04, 2009, 03:12:04 PM
yes, I know, hunted it myself....my roomate lived in Twisp and new it well, personally, he and I didn't see much difference in it, but that was just us. The differences were certainly not extreme, by any means, other then the fact that you saw a lot of 1.5 yr old bucks running around.
and that is exactly the point, it is hard to rely on individual hunters perceptions of things because you see one thing, I see another; at the end of the day, you have to fall back on science.
A good way to restore some of these 3 pt or better units back to any buck would be the following: The first year they should shorten the season to 5 days, and make it 2 pt or less. This would "protect" all of the 2.5 yr olds, allowing them to become 3.5 yr olds; would protect all of the older age classes, and, the shortened season would allow some of the 1.5 yr old bucks to make it through. And, it would allow everybody to still go hunting. The 2nd year following, they should restore it to the same season length and timing as before. This will keep the buck to doe ratio's intact, or even slightly improve them, and put a tremendous amount of 3.5 yr old bucks into the population. In a few years, my guess is that you would have a much higher number of mature animals in the population, and could probably expand the late season tags.
Post by: huntnphool on February 04, 2009, 06:03:25 PM
You stated;
Quote
The one management technique that has shown time and time again to produce more mature animals is a restriction in season length, season timing, and numbers of hunters. WA has been able to achieve what few mature animals it does have by a drastically shortened season that falls in the middle of October. That is the reason for the mature animals, not the 3pt minimum.
My question to you was a simple one and it is a valid one as well. If last season you removed the 3 point min. you would have the exact "management technique" you are describing above. Under your superior "management technique" last year there would have been a hell of a lot more animals harvested thereby reducing the buck to doe ratio drastically and leaving even fewer bucks to mature for years to come, the outcome would repeat itself every year until a restriction would be necessary again.
I agree with you that a 3 point min. alone is not the cure all. You come across as a intelligent person that wants the best for the future, I just find it extremely hard to believe that you cant see that without the restriction your technique would be more detrimental to the herd than with it.
Quote
You also indicated to me that other states have had great success with 3 pt minimum rules and that there was research out there supporting that.
How about unit 270 in Montana for starters.
Post by: bankwalker on February 04, 2009, 06:23:21 PM
what needs to be done again. drop the point restriction for a couple season. let the mature 2pts get taken out of the gene pool. there area alot of inmature 2pts out there right now that will only be 2pts. they need to be taken out.
after a couple seasons place the 3pt restriction back.
even if that has to be done every 5 years or so then so be it. we need to get those mature 2pts taken out of the gene pool.
if we keep the 3pt restriction in place now, then alot of mature bucks will be taken. alot of mature 3pts and bigger that we need to have mating. not a bunch of 2pts that we cant touch.
if that isnt the case, then at least make the late permit hunts any buck. i know i will take the first huge mature 2pt i see.
Post by: bobcat on February 04, 2009, 06:26:38 PM
if that isnt the case, then at least make the late permit hunts any buck. i know i will take the first huge mature 2pt i see.
The late mule deer hunts ARE for "any buck."
Post by: boneaddict on February 04, 2009, 06:29:43 PM
I thought very seriously about dumping a huge two point on my hunt Bank.
Post by: huntnphool on February 04, 2009, 06:38:13 PM
Post by: boneaddict on February 04, 2009, 07:41:06 PM
Post by: bankwalker on February 04, 2009, 08:12:26 PM
if that isnt the case, then at least make the late permit hunts any buck. i know i will take the first huge mature 2pt i see.
The late mule deer hunts ARE for "any buck."
ah i see. i never payed attention to the late hunts.
in that case, there should be a few guys who wouldnt mind taking a mature 2pt...
but i guess the whole point 99% of people put in for those few hunts are to take a monster high scoring buck.
Post by: bankwalker on February 04, 2009, 08:26:36 PM
Bank, thats an interesting idea, every 5 years or so :dunno: At least they have finally realized the need to cull the poor genes, I still think they should make it a win/win situation and make it a full month, Oct. 15th-Nov. 15th, youth hunt. Obviously we would want them with adults but that would be outstanding for our young hunters. :twocents:
yeah. there is really nothing that says hunting seasons have to be the same every single season...
ive got tons of stupid ideas. more then i can sit and type without getting a headache from looking at the comp lol.
here are a few of them.
make all 200 series gmu's ANY buck for youth hunters. do this for 5 years. that right there will get rid of alot of bucks with poor genes. give the youth of our sport something to really look forward to. OR at least make it 2pt or better for youth.
take away all late season mule deer hunts. flat out. no permits no nothing. give the mature bucks a chance to mate and past on genes. even if those bucks have poor genes and never get to be big bucks. the more bucks we have mating the more chance of having more bucks...simple enough.
again. drop the point restriction to 2pt or better, i would love to see those big mature 2pts get taken out. them being the mature bucks passing on those 2pt genes is just no good at all for us. plain and simple. sooner or late we are gonna have just big 2pts running around that we cant touch. UNLESS you get draw for a late tag and even then who in thier right mind is gonna take a big 2pt over a big 4pt...
idk i have no idea about the science behind the point restrictions, or how they set seasons, or decide the number of tags to be given out. \
i just know im a hunter, i hunt my butt off every year on the east side. mainly units 328, 335, 336, 340 for mule deer. and every season i get blanked...luck to see a few bucks that are legal. let alone get them into range and to hold still long enough to even get the thought of shooting.
Post by: huntnphool on February 04, 2009, 08:31:08 PM
Quote
i just know im a hunter, i hunt my butt off every year on the east side. mainly units 328, 335, 336, 340 for mule deer. and every season i get blanked...
The questions is, without a 3 point restriction would you have been blanked this past year?
Post by: bankwalker on February 04, 2009, 08:32:54 PM
this is set in a couple gmu's for archery...this could work out really good if done properly...
the season as it is right now is short for mule deer. 90% of us complain about it.
make the 1st half of the season 3pt or better...the 2nd half of the season any buck OR 2pt or better. (archery is 3pt or better, and antlerless) AND THEN. add one more week to the season.
again...
try out different season settings, weather they are right or wrong. you will see the impact in a couple seasons. if its for the best then leave them...if they are for the worst. well *censored* change them. if our wonderfull biologist really know what they are talking about then they should have no problem seeing a change in the deer numbers and whats being taken just after 1 season...
Post by: bankwalker on February 04, 2009, 08:35:39 PM
Quotei just know im a hunter, i hunt my butt off every year on the east side. mainly units 328, 335, 336, 340 for mule deer. and every season i get blanked...
The questions is, without a 3 point restriction would you have been blanked this past year?
well i would have had alot more chances at taking a buck thats forsure. this season i only seen a couple legal bucks out of those given units. the rests were ALL 2pts...
the couple legal bucks i did see were in the high country in unit 335.
along with 10-13 other guys i talked to this season. they aswell were seeing more 2pts then anything.
Post by: BIGDOG on February 04, 2009, 09:24:04 PM
15 and under shoot them!Also cut back on the late any buck permits for a few years!
just my :twocents:Jerry
Post by: BIGDOG on February 04, 2009, 09:36:11 PM
and several 3 point and a few 4 points were taken off the property,total of about 12 bucks,the last few days of the season all we were seeing were spikes and 2 points,about 25 to 30 in one heard of about 100+,if it were open for any buck in this
particular area I am sure half of the bucks that were harvested would have been spike or 2 point so next year there would have been more mature bucks,and the mature bucks that were not taken would have done more of the breeding!Considering it was private land it might not be relative to public land?
Post by: Elkstuffer on February 04, 2009, 09:39:19 PM
Utah is having management hunts in a couple key areas this year to solve their problems with inferior bucks that get spared in the season because of larger bucks always being taken.
Idaho has a general rifle hunt in the Owyhees in the southwest corner for 2 pt max. This area is also noted for deer in the 30 to 40 inch range during a wet year. It's obviously working down there, getting rid of some inferior bucks.
Post by: muleyguy on February 04, 2009, 09:40:01 PM
I articulated the answer to your question very clearly, if you cannot understand, then I cannot help you. The bottom line is that science is on my side.
"How about unit 270 in Montana for starters."
Unit 270 DOES NOT HAVE 3 pt minimum rules; I understand that you think you are the "resident expert" on montana because you have found some private ground to hunt on in eastern montana, post your pictures here, and, get googled on by all the newbie WA hunters, but, your question tells me that you know little, if anything about montana. Either myself or members of my family have hunted montana since 1971; I can assure you that I understand the rules and regulations quite clearly about montana. I can guarantee you that I have more experience hunting in montana then you do, I have hunted extensively on both private and public in the areas you are hunting, in addition to many other areas. My guess is that you have never even been close to hunting unit 270; I have.
You started this fight; not me; you said you had all this research from other states indicating that 3 pt minimum rules work. In your previous post, you implied that unit 270 in montana has 3pt minimum rules, and it DOESN'T. It is great that you have found some private ground in montana to hunt, I applaud you, but that doesn't make you an expert........for you information, here are the rules, straight from the montana rules booklet, don't pull the "I am so smart, I hunt private ground in Montana" card on me:
Special Permit. Drawing only. Apply by June 2.
270-50: 100 permits. Permit must be used with a valid Deer A License.
Holders may not hunt Antlered Buck Mule Deer in any other HD.
• Sep 06 - Oct 19 – Antlered Buck Mule Deer. Archery Only Season.
• Oct 26 - Nov 30 – Antlered Buck Mule Deer.
• Sep 15 - Oct 25 – Antlered Buck White-tailed Deer.
• Sep 15 - Nov 30 – Antlered Buck Mule Deer.
– Either-sex White-tailed Deer. Only youth ages 12-15.
Post by: huntnphool on February 04, 2009, 10:44:09 PM
Quote
I articulated the answer to your question very clearly,
No you didn't, you avoided it so as not to look like a hypocrite.
Quote
Unit 270 DOES NOT HAVE 3 pt minimum rules
I never said it did, it is my understanding that it had "antler restrictions" having talked with MFW&P a couple years ago. As of last year there were 24 states that had some sort of "antler restriction" I never said 3 point min.
Quote
you think you are the "resident expert" on montana
Another quote, and I never said that either.
Quote
you said you had all this research from other states indicating that 3 pt minimum rules work.
Wrong again, I never mentioned a 3 pt minimum rule. I said "the antler restriction has already been proven to work very well in other states."
Quote
My guess is that you have never even been close to hunting unit 270
Sorry wrong again, man this is getting repetitive.
Quote
"I am so smart, I hunt private ground in Montana"
Another quote and again I never said that either. :dunno:
Its okay you couldn't answer the question, we all know the answer anyway ;)
Post by: bobcat on February 04, 2009, 11:44:47 PM
muleyguy answered your question more than once, in great detail, did you not read his posts? Here is just a portion of one of them in which he answers the question you keep asking:
"Is it really your contention that if you restrict the season length, season timing and number of hunters without the 3 point minimum, that there will actually be fewer deer harvested in the 8 day general modern season than if you did have the 3 point min?"
once again, it is not "my" contention, it is the collective contention of biologists over many different states who have looked. What the data shows is that if you get rid of the 3 pt minimum, and leave the season alone, as you suggested, it will:
1. have little or no effect on the buck to doe ratio (although it will the first year unless you put some restrictions in)
2. and, over time, will result in MORE mature animals being in the population because it diffuses the harvest out over all the age classes instead of concentrating it into the older age classes.
it is a simple as that. That is what the research and data show. Once again, these are not "my" contention's; it is the "contention" of research that has been done over many different biologist over many different states.
And another in which he provided a solution to what could be an excessive harvest in the first year following the elimination of the 3 point minimum restriction:
A good way to restore some of these 3 pt or better units back to any buck would be the following: The first year they should shorten the season to 5 days, and make it 2 pt or less. This would "protect" all of the 2.5 yr olds, allowing them to become 3.5 yr olds; would protect all of the older age classes, and, the shortened season would allow some of the 1.5 yr old bucks to make it through. And, it would allow everybody to still go hunting. The 2nd year following, they should restore it to the same season length and timing as before. This will keep the buck to doe ratio's intact, or even slightly improve them, and put a tremendous amount of 3.5 yr old bucks into the population. In a few years, my guess is that you would have a much higher number of mature animals in the population, and could probably expand the late season tags.
You just need to read his entire posts! Sure they are long but the answers to your questions are in there if you take the time to read through it.
Post by: bankwalker on February 05, 2009, 12:12:35 AM
thats actually a very good idea.
Post by: boneaddict on February 05, 2009, 08:54:25 AM
Post by: boneaddict on February 05, 2009, 09:08:06 AM
Quote
A good way to restore some of these 3 pt or better units back to any buck would be the following: The first year they should shorten the season to 5 days, and make it 2 pt or less. This would "protect" all of the 2.5 yr olds, allowing them to become 3.5 yr olds; would protect all of the older age classes, and, the shortened season would allow some of the 1.5 yr old bucks to make it through. And, it would allow everybody to still go hunting. The 2nd year following, they should restore it to the same season length and timing as before. This will keep the buck to doe ratio's intact, or even slightly improve them, and put a tremendous amount of 3.5 yr old bucks into the population. In a few years, my guess is that you would have a much higher number of mature animals in the population, and could probably expand the late season tags.
You are not figuring in the dynamics of Washington again.... For instance when they closed the Alta unit for three years. OH MAN I WOULD HAVE LOVED to have drawn then. and...had it open to permit only, a compelling arguement for you Bobcat, except never being drawn for it. It took ONE year for it to reach status quo after they opened it back up. If not for the three point minimium, there wouldn't be very many deer. Face it in this current environment, the three point restrictions is what is providing the escapement needed to make sure there is a buck to doe ratio.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on February 05, 2009, 09:16:22 AM
Post by: boneaddict on February 05, 2009, 09:18:54 AM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on February 05, 2009, 09:31:22 AM
The only way that any buck hunts work is if all hunting is by draw so the total harvest can be strictly controlled. 3pt min provides way more escapement + opportunity for the masses. Thats the reality of hunting in Washington.
Post by: boneaddict on February 05, 2009, 09:34:30 AM
Post by: GoldTip on February 05, 2009, 10:02:11 AM
The way I see it, the only true way to reverse this trend of Monster 2 points by using a 3 point minimum is to make the Mule deer season in December, after they have bred, and have a draw only doe season at the time it is now. That way the big bucks are at least around to do some of the breeding come the rut, instead of pressured hard and hunted/killed prior to the rut.
Bone, you know I am not a wildlife biologist, but you do know what I do for a living, so know that I have a pretty good handle on at least Human genetics. Trust me when I say this, I have never seen a NFL lineman come from a set of Parents who are both 5'9" and 160lbs. The same holds true for animals. If we want the bigger bucks to truly do the breeding, then we need to open it up the opposite way around to my thinking, ie; 2points or smaller and draw for does and 4point minimum for drawn buck tags.
Post by: GrainfedMuley on February 05, 2009, 10:38:04 AM
After that rather long rap session, my point is I am seeing some very large two points in north Lincoln county. These are nice big bodied deer too.
Not be nosey...are down in the bluestem area. I have seen some real nice bucks come out of there?
Post by: bankwalker on February 05, 2009, 11:05:10 AM
Im not following the any buck situation............If we are alloud to kill forkies and spikes that = less mature bucks in the long run because every weekend warrior will just blast a 2 point every year and they will never grow into mature deer. Most hunters in Washington just want a deer every year and don't care if its a spike.
The only way that any buck hunts work is if all hunting is by draw so the total harvest can be strictly controlled. 3pt min provides way more escapement + opportunity for the masses. Thats the reality of hunting in Washington.
having it set as 2pt or better or any buck would not be for long. it would be set in place to get rid of all of the buck that have 2pt genes and wont get any bigger then being a 2pt.
Post by: boneaddict on February 05, 2009, 11:45:38 AM
Quote
2pt or better or any buck would not be for longYou do realize that does carry %50 of the gene package right.
Post by: WDFW-SUX on February 05, 2009, 11:47:40 AM
Post by: boneaddict on February 05, 2009, 11:50:18 AM
Post by: boneaddict on February 05, 2009, 12:01:02 PM
Post by: bankwalker on February 05, 2009, 12:12:19 PM
want to really fire up this debate......why not open it back up to any deer for archery. LOL
hell with the amount of doe's ive seen i none weekend trip we might as well. still wont be that many doe's taken. everyone i know that hunts mule deer if for one reason and thats to take a 150"+ buck.
Post by: bankwalker on February 05, 2009, 12:21:13 PM
Quote2pt or better or any buck would not be for longYou do realize that does carry %50 of the gene package right.
yup i sure do.
BUT if oyu get rid of those bucks with the 2pt gene then that cuts that % down alot to have more bucks with only 2pt genes.
kinda like playing the lotto....the more people you get out of playing the better chance you have of scoring it big.
i aint that stupid :P
the more weak factors (2pt genes) you eliminate from the gene pool, the better the herd will be.
having deer with weak antler growth is not a problem. having a bunch of mature 3pt's or 150" or smaller mature bucks is not a problem.
everyone knows that the amount of mature 2pts is getting big. you all post pics every year of multiple huge 2pts that obviously will not get any bigger. those deer need to be taken out of the gene pool. every year they pass on those genes just adds to the % of the bucks that will not get any bigger then being a 2pt. weather the doe has anything to do with it or not. even if 50% of does have the gene. well if all those 50% of does get bread by bucks with the 2pt gene, then that adds up. and will continue to add up.
everyone is so quick to jump on the quick fix solution.
shut down all the units, make it permit only, or youth hunts only.
Post by: bankwalker on February 05, 2009, 12:22:22 PM
i really think as a migration stand point the 3pt or better has been working. all the pics on this site prove that.
its the areas without migration that need the work.
Post by: GoldTip on February 05, 2009, 12:27:48 PM
Post by: boneaddict on February 05, 2009, 12:32:06 PM
Post by: GoldTip on February 05, 2009, 12:33:43 PM
Post by: whacker1 on February 05, 2009, 02:56:03 PM
I don't have any biology background, so much of the dialogue for this thread has been a good thought provoking material for me, and I like hearing the various thought processes on different management ideas.
My opinion is that we have always had a much larger human population than many of our neighboring states and it makes it more difficult to support the game other states support based on the number of huntable acres/habitat for said game population & human population. We have many other challenges some other states don't face including different tribal arrangements and political environment.
I would like to see some changes from WDFW on a trial basis for a few units to see if they can have success with some other biologically supported ideas on game management. I hope for some new ideas, because some of the existing programs aren't working. Letting Elk die in the Mudflows due to lack of habitat/feed and then lowering the number of tags is unacceptable. It isn't rocket science to determine that the blast zone trees are all recovering from 1980, so the trees are all virtually the same age and much more dense than they were prior to the Eruption of St. Helens. WDFW either needs to thin the herd to manage habitat or clear some areas in the habitat for the purpose of growing feed, so it can support a larger population of healthy animals. Neither is happening currently. Sorry this last part was a bit of thread-jacking, but I was trying to illustrate that we are ready for some change in the methodology to current management practices.
Thank you everyone for sharing input - It is obvious that we won't be solving the WDFW's problems on this forum, but there are a lot of thought provoking ideas being floated.
Post by: boneaddict on February 05, 2009, 03:05:21 PM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on February 05, 2009, 03:12:47 PM
Post by: boneaddict on February 05, 2009, 05:28:22 PM
Post by: bankwalker on February 05, 2009, 05:34:20 PM
Certainly would eliminate vehicle deer collisions on 97 and a few other roads. :)
isnt that the prime objective :chuckle:
Post by: boneaddict on February 05, 2009, 05:36:52 PM
Post by: bankwalker on February 05, 2009, 05:41:24 PM
my hunting was over in methow last weekend camping and said he cut a few different sets (of 3) of tracks. they were in the same general area so it could have been the same 3. idk. but that is 3 to many.
Post by: mossback91 on February 05, 2009, 05:42:26 PM
Post by: Slayock on February 10, 2009, 04:33:20 PM