Post by: GoldenRing270 on November 22, 2017, 08:14:18 AM
Post by: boneaddict on November 22, 2017, 08:23:46 AM
Post by: h20hunter on November 22, 2017, 08:24:13 AM
Post by: boneaddict on November 22, 2017, 08:27:45 AM
Post by: Buzz2401 on November 22, 2017, 08:29:53 AM
Post by: boneaddict on November 22, 2017, 08:33:12 AM
Post by: GoldenRing270 on November 22, 2017, 08:39:31 AM
Post by: buglebrush on November 22, 2017, 08:49:09 AM
Post by: 7mmfan on November 22, 2017, 08:50:36 AM
I would not endorse any kind of a fee increase. At $222, that would be more than any special permit in WA except OIL tags. That would effectively eliminate most people from applying for it and nullifying the whole idea behind it.
Post by: boneaddict on November 22, 2017, 08:53:40 AM
Post by: jrebel on November 22, 2017, 08:53:46 AM
100% against a fee increase.
100% for targeting cats.
Post by: bobcat on November 22, 2017, 09:03:41 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on November 22, 2017, 09:13:09 AM
You would think this info (herd objectives) would be included in the mule deer management plan...but its not...its 150 pages of junk, and the only specific numbers or goals provided are when they talk budgets and revenue :chuckle:
Post by: GoldenRing270 on November 22, 2017, 09:23:42 AM
Haha, I'm just trying to be realistic. I don't see them going for any of our ideas to help the deer unless they see $$$ behind it.
Post by: SkookumHntr on November 22, 2017, 09:28:49 AM
Post by: bobcat on November 22, 2017, 09:31:56 AM
Post by: quadrafire on November 22, 2017, 09:37:54 AM
On a side note why does GMU 113 have no spring season? Griz recovery area??
Post by: boneaddict on November 22, 2017, 09:41:18 AM
Post by: Mtnwalker on November 22, 2017, 09:43:20 AM
Post by: GoldenRing270 on November 22, 2017, 09:51:44 AM
Post by: Mtnwalker on November 22, 2017, 09:52:30 AM
Post by: hunter399 on November 22, 2017, 09:57:38 AM
Post by: JLS on November 22, 2017, 10:28:56 AM
I think all these ideas that really only target single issues potentially causing declines are not that helpful. A comprehensive plan for managing predators, hunter harvest, and habitat by region is what we need. Prior to developing this plan we need herd objectives by region or GMU...target population size, buck:doe ratio, proportion of mature bucks in herd etc.
You would think this info (herd objectives) would be included in the mule deer management plan...but its not...its 150 pages of junk, and the only specific numbers or goals provided are when they talk budgets and revenue :chuckle:
Agreed. If one wants anything meaningful to happen, there should be a push for an adaptive management plan and a willingness to accept periodic sacrifices that come with them.
There is absolutely no reason why additional bear opportunity should be more expensive.
Those of you who want hounds allowed for cougar hunting (myself included), should be talking to your legislators and not living in the past about what was or wasn't said 20+ years ago. Citizen's initiatives can be repealed by the legislature, not a departmental entity. Focus your efforts there.
If you want cougar quotas increased, talk to your commissioners. The last increase was reversed because procedure was not followed.
All of the talk about requiring people to hunt predators in order to get a deer tag is silly. It is not legally defensible, and would only serve to put a very negative light on hunters as a whole. Not to mention, recruitment of new hunters would suffer IMO. There is nothing stopping anyone from shooting as many coyotes as they want, and bear hunter participation is very low relative to opportunity. Mandating people take part in this is a recipe for disaster and lawsuits.
Post by: Lowedog on November 22, 2017, 10:29:33 AM
I keep seeing this topic pop up with ideas on how to increase mule deer numbers. The common thing I see is that for the most part, hunters aren't willing to do the one thing that would be the most beneficial for mule deer. That is to go away from an OTC general season for mule deer.
All one has to do is take a look at 20 years of harvest reports to see that us hunters have killed pretty close to the same amount of deer from year to year. Actually over the last several years, even with approximately 20,000 less hunters we have been killing around the same numbers of deer state wide as we did for the last 20 years. Fewer hunters are killing the same amount of deer means of higher success rates. It of course cycles up and down and you can see a drop in harvest in a year that had a high success rate the previous year or two. The last 3 years show high success rates.
This discussion has been going on for as long as discussion boards regarding hunting in this state have been around. I still feel the best way to effectively help mule deer numbers rebound is to reduce hunter harvest. Most likely, WDFW won't stop selling deer tags and most likely, hunters won't stop buying them so we will still be having this discussion for decades to come.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on November 22, 2017, 10:34:41 AM
Post by: boneaddict on November 22, 2017, 10:37:18 AM
Post by: boneaddict on November 22, 2017, 10:38:13 AM
Post by: Mtnwalker on November 22, 2017, 10:47:17 AM
For quite a few years I have mostly been a lurker on this site. Actually have lurked more this year than I have the last 5 or so years.
I keep seeing this topic pop up with ideas on how to increase mule deer numbers. The common thing I see is that for the most part, hunters aren't willing to do the one thing that would be the most beneficial for mule deer. That is to go away from an OTC general season for mule deer.
All one has to do is take a look at 20 years of harvest reports to see that us hunters have killed pretty close to the same amount of deer from year to year. Actually over the last several years, even with approximately 20,000 less hunters we have been killing around the same numbers of deer state wide as we did for the last 20 years. Fewer hunters are killing the same amount of deer means of higher success rates. It of course cycles up and down and you can see a drop in harvest in a year that had a high success rate the previous year or two. The last 3 years show high success rates.
This discussion has been going on for as long as discussion boards regarding hunting in this state have been around. I still feel the best way to effectively help mule deer numbers rebound is to reduce hunter harvest. Most likely, WDFW won't stop selling deer tags and most likely, hunters won't stop buying them so we will still be having this discussion for decades to come.
Unfortunately harvest success rates don't directly correlate with deer population numbers, but they will use it against us as it is a very easy statistic for most people to look at and say "see, hunting is still just as good as it was." But in reality when I used to see 15 bucks before I shot my 1, and now I see maybe 3 bucks before I shoot my 1, that 80% reduction of bucks in the field isn't shown in my hunter success report. Technology is getting better, optics are amazing and guys are shooting 800 yards now on a regular basis. Backpack/backcountry hunting is almost mainstream, Guys are working harder than ever to harvest their deer and all of that I believe is supporting Sort of a false narrative when it comes to harvest numbers vs actual population
Post by: GoldenRing270 on November 22, 2017, 10:54:01 AM
Mother nature has been harsh these last few years. Hopefully we have some easy fire seasons and fairly mild winters to come.
Post by: bobcat on November 22, 2017, 12:58:56 PM
Post by: hunter399 on November 22, 2017, 02:10:11 PM
Anyway otc tags stay just need more regs , that protect younger animals,and harvest more mature surplus ,I can say one thing the habitat here in northeast can support a lot more deer and elk ,we just don't have the management we need without the greed to fill there pockets with money.
Post by: npaull on November 22, 2017, 02:21:54 PM
Quote
Bear really aren’t your problem and no I wouldn’t be paying that much to hunt one. I would love to see some extra spring tags though in places there aren’t any.
Bone I respectfully disagree. I have heard from many deer biologists that black bear are a huge predator - in many places the #1 predator - of deer. Of course, virtually ALL of their predation occurs during just a few weeks in the fawning season. But with their noses and ability to travel, they apparently can have an enormous impact on recruitment of deer in just those few weeks when fawns are dropping.
Post by: npaull on November 22, 2017, 02:23:54 PM
Post by: buglebrush on November 22, 2017, 02:38:06 PM
I would not be in favor of that much of fee increase. I would be behind an OTC spring bear though.
On a side note why does GMU 113 have no spring season? Griz recovery area??
Yes, but it's a joke. Somehow Idaho right next door has OTC spring bear with no Grizz issues. I have plenty of Grizz on Game cams in 113. Bears kill lots and lots of fawns / calves. WDFW worships predators, and if they don't radically change their predator management OTC back-country hunting will be a thing of the past for my children. :bash:
Post by: JLS on November 22, 2017, 02:40:31 PM
I do agree less harvest is needed for mule deer ,but don't like the permit system now.I have said this many times,no Mulley doe hunting at all ,4pt min for mule deer and whitetail in the northeast,numbers will rebound,quality of hunt in a few years with mature animals will be great,and the only way we can support the number of hunters we have now.The only reason the 4pt min went away was hunters complaining,loss of money from people not hunting.Its pretty sad that our wildlife management gets push to the side for money.And the hunters that did complain,now you pay for your tags,and eat tag soup cause you don't even see a spike on public land.
Anyway otc tags stay just need more regs , that protect younger animals,and harvest more mature surplus ,I can say one thing the habitat here in northeast can support a lot more deer and elk ,we just don't have the management we need without the greed to fill there pockets with money.
Antler point restrictions rarely ever achieve their intended result. There is plenty of data from a number of states showing this.
I agree, the NE corner could support more elk, but I don't think it could support near what many folks think it should.
Post by: hunter399 on November 22, 2017, 03:40:56 PM
Everybody's got there own opinion.I do agree less harvest is needed for mule deer ,but don't like the permit system now.I have said this many times,no Mulley doe hunting at all ,4pt min for mule deer and whitetail in the northeast,numbers will rebound,quality of hunt in a few years with mature animals will be great,and the only way we can support the number of hunters we have now.The only reason the 4pt min went away was hunters complaining,loss of money from people not hunting.Its pretty sad that our wildlife management gets push to the side for money.And the hunters that did complain,now you pay for your tags,and eat tag soup cause you don't even see a spike on public land.
Anyway otc tags stay just need more regs , that protect younger animals,and harvest more mature surplus ,I can say one thing the habitat here in northeast can support a lot more deer and elk ,we just don't have the management we need without the greed to fill there pockets with money.
Antler point restrictions rarely ever achieve their intended result. There is plenty of data from a number of states showing this.
I agree, the NE corner could support more elk, but I don't think it could support near what many folks think it should.
I hated the 4pt min at first,but down to the last year it was in effect I could go into a lot of my hunting areas and have no problem seeing 4 or 5 bucks that where 4 pt or better whitetail.Now today it's a joke.So seeing the effects first hand had a real impact on changing my mind on the idea.The mule deer doe should be put on the protected wildlife list,In my opinion what will happen is the wdfw will do nothing in the next 5 years sell as many otc tags as possible,then when numbers are real low it will go to permit only and the cash cow will really open up.All the while if managed correctly now otc could stay for a long time into the future. :twocents:
Post by: boneaddict on November 22, 2017, 03:41:11 PM
Nothing to rebuild with. Nothing
Npaul, I think I wasn’t clear so really we don’t disagree. I know bear kill deer, but they aren’t out of control like cats and our other predators. I’m saying that’s not much of a cure to our problem. Hound hunting and Hunting bear over bait was effective, but not nearly as impactful to the bear population when it was removed as it was to the cat population. Specifically to the Methow, the bear population isn’t out of control. I’d love to see some spring tags though. In fact, have kinda been sitting on my points waiting for it to happen.
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on November 22, 2017, 03:42:31 PM
Ideas are good to bounce. I’m seeing a pattern in your ideas though, and that seems to be increased fees. Are you trying to make it palatable to the money grubbing WDFW or do you have stock in them. :chuckle:
I think he works for them. :lol4: :peep:
Post by: idahohuntr on November 22, 2017, 04:04:21 PM
If there weren’t antler point restrictions in place in the Methow right now, you’d be looking at total annihilation of the herd.This is my observation in much of SE Washington...which is why I would support any sort of hunter harvest restriction...if we stopped or curtailed hunter harvest it would have the most immediate and measurable difference on mule deer herds - especially older age class bucks. Far more immediate impact than any predator or habitat management action.
Nothing to rebuild with. Nothing
Post by: Katmai Guy on November 22, 2017, 04:19:35 PM
Worked for the little naches elk herd over the last 25yrs.
Hunters are going to have to sacrifice something sometime.
Post by: KFhunter on November 22, 2017, 04:35:45 PM
remove Cougar quotas, increase hound permits, multiple tags available + year around hunting
bounty on coyotes ( I can get $10 per pike head, why not a $50 coyote bounty too?)
It's going to take some big doings to make an effectual change
several years ago I floated the idea of giving out quality hunt points in exchange for taking predators, not sure what formula I'd use, but 1 mt lion is worth quite a few elk/deer
Post by: JLS on November 22, 2017, 04:41:28 PM
Montana had a four point minimum APR in the Tobacco Root Mountains for a number of years. They found it had zero affect on growing bigger deer. Illegal harvest, either intentional or accidental, will always be a significant factor in APR units. In addition, you are simply placing increased pressure on the age class of deer that are legal.
If you want to have meaningful impact on recruitment of older age class deer, you HAVE to provide more escapement. This comes through restricted access, shorter seasons, reduced hunter numbers, or a combination thereof. There is no free lunch.
Montana has instituted an unlimited permit system in many western mule deer districts. You must select it as your first choice, and you are guaranteed your permit and you are limited to hunting only that district for mule deer. I don't know what they are seeing as a result of this, but that in and of itself would be a good step in the right direction.
Post by: JLS on November 22, 2017, 04:42:17 PM
bounty on coyotes ( I can get $10 per pike head, why not a $50 coyote bounty too?)
Mule deer aren't an ESA species, yet.
Post by: KFhunter on November 22, 2017, 04:48:24 PM
Maybe I shouldn't use the word "bounty" and substitute incentive instead.
found it, this is what I'm talking about when I say bounty
https://www.foundationforwildlifemanagement.org/
Post by: buglebrush on November 28, 2017, 02:43:07 PM
How about through aggressive predator, especially lion, reduction? How about 4x minimum? Why won't you accept these as viable options? If the only tactics we bring to the table is the elimination of hunter opportunity, then we and our sport is doomed. :bash:
Post by: GoldenRing270 on November 28, 2017, 03:20:50 PM
More aggressive predator control would be helpful but today's mule deer hunters have it made, affordable optics, laser rangefinders, lightweight backpack gear, significantly improved archery equipment, multi-season tags and the list goes on. If we hunters continue harvesting at the rate we have been mule deer are doomed and that is how we lose the sport.
Post by: Humptulips on November 28, 2017, 03:58:22 PM
Post by: jnordwell on November 28, 2017, 04:14:58 PM
The verdict is in and it's clear that mule deer hunters would love to see more opportunity to hunt predators and WDFW loves revenue, another idea came to mind that could to be a great compromise. How would everyone feel about increasing the spring bear quota? Lets say the WDFW adds 500 special permits for spring bear tags and spreads them across different east cascade foothills gmu's but in order to get the WDFW on board with this here's the kicker: If drawn residents could purchase the tags for $222.00 (the cost of a non-resident bear tag). Also, if you punch your tag this would count as your eastern Washington bear and you could no longer hunt bear in the fall unless you headed west. The current spring bear tags we have in place would stay the same and still cost the normal $24 for residents. In MeatEater podcast episode 68 Steve talks with Pat Durkin about how a higher percentage of fawns are killed in the spring by bears than coyotes. They are in Wisconsin and I'm unsure if it is the same here in Washington but I'd like to hear some opinions on this.
Do what Oregon does have a section of the state with a high population and over the counter spring season.. same price as a fall bear tag. I won’t pay more to hunt something. If they feel it’s a problem then it shouldn’t cost us more for there lack of game management. Chase bears with dogs...again and cats...
Post by: Ridgeratt on November 28, 2017, 04:50:35 PM
They're giving bounties on wolves in Idaho, albeit indirectly. I don't need a direct bounty from WDFW, but if mule deer groups want to help they could do something like the co-op in Idaho.
Maybe I shouldn't use the word "bounty" and substitute incentive instead.
found it, this is what I'm talking about when I say bounty
https://www.foundationforwildlifemanagement.org/
I talked to one of your neighbors. He was hunting Idaho and got checked by the IDFW Leo. He asked if any of them had a wolf tag? One in the party did he was told to use it on the last wolf he shot!! :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: idahohuntr on November 28, 2017, 05:54:21 PM
"If you want to have meaningful impact on recruitment of older age class deer, you HAVE to provide more escapement. This comes through restricted access, shorter seasons, reduced hunter numbers, or a combination thereof. There is no free lunch."I completely disagree...and history is on my side. Until the early 1900's there was virtually no regulation on hunting and game populations were severely depleted across the US. This prompted hunters to support regulations (including severe limits on opportunity), excise taxes, the formation of fish and game agencies to manage wildlife (and hunter harvest!)...ultimately resulting in a great expansion of hunting opportunity that exists today. Also note - these severely depleted game populations occurred at a time when there were numerous predator control/extermination programs and bounties...so even though hunters back in the 1920's basically exterminated wolves...game was still extremely sparse before hunter harvest was more regulated.
How about through aggressive predator, especially lion, reduction? How about 4x minimum? Why won't you accept these as viable options? If the only tactics we bring to the table is the elimination of hunter opportunity, then we and our sport is doomed. :bash:
Post by: KFhunter on November 28, 2017, 05:55:46 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on November 28, 2017, 06:00:14 PM
I wish someone would explain to me how you build the herd with APR. Last I heard bucks don't give birth unless you are telling me does are going unbred. Are they?As previously mentioned...APR is allowing for some bucks to survive. My own observations of post hunt herd composition lead me to believe there are many units where virtually no bucks would survive if there was not an APR. If no bucks survived or very, very few...you would have issues with unbred does and ultimately rapidly declining populations.
I do not believe APRs are effective at increasing trophy potential...because nearly all the harvest gets shifted to the age 2 or 3+ bucks as opposed to being spread across all the age classes.
Post by: idahohuntr on November 28, 2017, 06:05:00 PM
The early 1900's have like zero relevance to todayIn the context of needing to regulate hunter harvest to maintain, recover, or increase game populations it is absolutely relevant and a clear cut example demonstrating the success of such actions.
Post by: GoldenRing270 on November 28, 2017, 06:13:23 PM
Post by: KFhunter on November 28, 2017, 06:28:05 PM
I wish someone would explain to me how you build the herd with APR. Last I heard bucks don't give birth unless you are telling me does are going unbred. Are they?As previously mentioned...APR is allowing for some bucks to survive. My own observations of post hunt herd composition lead me to believe there are many units where virtually no bucks would survive if there was not an APR. If no bucks survived or very, very few...you would have issues with unbred does and ultimately rapidly declining populations.
I do not believe APRs are effective at increasing trophy potential...because nearly all the harvest gets shifted to the age 2 or 3+ bucks as opposed to being spread across all the age classes.
The only thing 3pt minimum's do is leave a bunch of 2 pts laying around to rot.
It's about as smart as regulation forcing you to release all salmon with intact adipose fins, and you have sea lions and dogfish following the boat.
Post by: GoldenRing270 on November 28, 2017, 06:50:10 PM
Post by: Humptulips on November 28, 2017, 10:48:25 PM
I wish someone would explain to me how you build the herd with APR. Last I heard bucks don't give birth unless you are telling me does are going unbred. Are they?As previously mentioned...APR is allowing for some bucks to survive. My own observations of post hunt herd composition lead me to believe there are many units where virtually no bucks would survive if there was not an APR. If no bucks survived or very, very few...you would have issues with unbred does and ultimately rapidly declining populations.
That is pure imagination on your part. Take right now. In WA mule deer are all 3 pint minimum. That leaves spikes, two points and surviving larger bucks to breed. How could you possibly ever observe what you say you see you believe in.
I cannot believe there is anyplace where hunters are so successful they could take out every buck or even most.
It takes very few bucks to service a lot of does.
Oh and if we hunters harvest fewer mule deer then it will only leave more for the predators so we should continue to kill them at the exact same rate so that the population continues to decline until there aren't any deer left for the predators to get their grubby paws on. (feeling sarcastic tonight :sry:)
The plain fact is to get more bucks you need more does so stop doing that but don't do the work of the animal rights people by killing hunting.
Post by: KFhunter on November 28, 2017, 10:50:29 PM
Post by: Humptulips on November 28, 2017, 10:57:38 PM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on November 29, 2017, 05:18:49 AM
to get more does you need less predatorsTo get less predators you need longer predator seasons and higher quotas.
Post by: JakeLand on November 29, 2017, 05:47:43 AM
and a practical trapping method ( footholds and snares ) :twocents:to get more does you need less predatorsTo get less predators you need longer predator seasons and higher quotas.
Post by: Tjv28 on November 29, 2017, 01:40:34 PM
http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/
Post by: BULLBLASTER on November 29, 2017, 02:04:18 PM
Post by: BULLBLASTER on November 29, 2017, 02:07:39 PM
Post by: boneaddict on November 29, 2017, 02:09:47 PM
Kill all the bucks or so many that the ratios get out of wack then does aren’t covered or These late-birth fawns typically have a lower body mass come winter, and in northern climates, are much more susceptible to winter mortality during severe winters (Bergman et al., 2014). Secondly, as they mature to a harvestable size, they will typically be smaller than other individuals born in the same year class. A late-season fawn will grow up to be an undersized buck.
I can tell you first hand the difference between no APRs in the Methow and with APRs.
By the way, I don’t think killing doe is the way to fix buck to doe ratios, unless the carrying capacity for the range has been met. As yes. Doe equals more deer, more bucks, more harvest.
Post by: bigmacc on November 29, 2017, 02:24:12 PM
Several quick tips. The survival rate of a buck goes up every year it has under its belt. If you don’t see that with your own experience, google it. I’m sure you’ll find a stat. Kill them all at spike or pisscutter, they never make it there....thus few bigger bucks.
Kill all the bucks or so many that the ratios get out of wack then does aren’t covered or These late-birth fawns typically have a lower body mass come winter, and in northern climates, are much more susceptible to winter mortality during severe winters (Bergman et al., 2014). Secondly, as they mature to a harvestable size, they will typically be smaller than other individuals born in the same year class. A late-season fawn will grow up to be an undersized buck.
I can tell you first hand the difference between no APRs in the Methow and with APRs.
By the way, I don’t think killing doe is the way to fix buck to doe ratios, unless the carrying capacity for the range has been met. As yes. Doe equals more deer, more bucks, more harvest.
:tup:, there you go, some things just make sense :tup:....Hmmmm, may be thats the problem at the WDFW :dunno:
Post by: Elkcollector82 on November 29, 2017, 02:41:08 PM
Post by: hunter399 on November 29, 2017, 03:03:29 PM
It cracks me up. All these people want to spend more money for suppose spring tags. Yet, they fail to do any predator control as we sit now. You read the regs and their are so many ways to kill a predator legally. It’s not even funny. Eastside guys can run around all night with nightvision on. Find a cougar and stock it tell legal hunting hours. Then even if it’s still dark and you can’t see it with a normal scope. Then you wait. Only animals you can’t hunt with nightvision is deer and elk per page 85. But page 78 says big game. So it’s your call. You can hunt all night long with night vision and shoot every bobcat/coyote you come to. Yea. You can’t run cats with dogs. But with as much money as it cost to own a good set of hounds. You can buy top notch night vision and your success rate goes way up. :dunno:I don't know how well you read the regs but hunting any big game with night vision is not legal period plus no night hunt till after deer seasons end ,then Jan 1 , quota kicks in so not as easy as it looks on the east side,let me ask you how many coyote and cougar have you killed this year.
Post by: Elkcollector82 on November 29, 2017, 05:21:10 PM
It cracks me up. All these people want to spend more money for suppose spring tags. Yet, they fail to do any predator control as we sit now. You read the regs and their are so many ways to kill a predator legally. It’s not even funny. Eastside guys can run around all night with nightvision on. Find a cougar and stock it tell legal hunting hours. Then even if it’s still dark and you can’t see it with a normal scope. Then you wait. Only animals you can’t hunt with nightvision is deer and elk per page 85. But page 78 says big game. So it’s your call. You can hunt all night long with night vision and shoot every bobcat/coyote you come to. Yea. You can’t run cats with dogs. But with as much money as it cost to own a good set of hounds. You can buy top notch night vision and your success rate goes way up. :dunno:I don't know how well you read the regs but hunting any big game with night vision is not legal period plus no night hunt till after deer seasons end ,then Jan 1 , quota kicks in so not as easy as it looks on the east side,let me ask you how many coyote and cougar have you killed this year.
I read them about as good as they can write them.
Haven’t gotten serious on cougars tell my late archery season is over. But I’m gonna say I’ll punch my tag before deadline. Coyotes. Idk come look at my pelt’s and decide for yourself. Trust me. I’m not one to sit on a site and complain. But yet, still don’t do anything. I’m the one that’s out in woods no matter the weather hunting pretty much year round.
Post by: hunter399 on November 29, 2017, 07:41:04 PM
It cracks me up. All these people want to spend more money for suppose spring tags. Yet, they fail to do any predator control as we sit now. You read the regs and their are so many ways to kill a predator legally. It’s not even funny. Eastside guys can run around all night with nightvision on. Find a cougar and stock it tell legal hunting hours. Then even if it’s still dark and you can’t see it with a normal scope. Then you wait. Only animals you can’t hunt with nightvision is deer and elk per page 85. But page 78 says big game. So it’s your call. You can hunt all night long with night vision and shoot every bobcat/coyote you come to. Yea. You can’t run cats with dogs. But with as much money as it cost to own a good set of hounds. You can buy top notch night vision and your success rate goes way up. :dunno:I don't know how well you read the regs but hunting any big game with night vision is not legal period plus no night hunt till after deer seasons end ,then Jan 1 , quota kicks in so not as easy as it looks on the east side,let me ask you how many coyote and cougar have you killed this year.
I read them about as good as they can write them.
Haven’t gotten serious on cougars tell my late archery season is over. But I’m gonna say I’ll punch my tag before deadline. Coyotes. Idk come look at my pelt’s and decide for yourself. Trust me. I’m not one to sit on a site and complain. But yet, still don’t do anything. I’m the one that’s out in woods no matter the weather hunting pretty much year round.
As i do agree more hunters should actively hunt predators a lot more,I just got the impression from your post that is east side guys should stock and track cougar intell shooting light with night vision ,i just wanted to clear up what was legal for some guys that may decide to do this .I have heard a lot of talk from guys lately here and in person ,of tracking game animals in the dark ,basic road hunting ,spoting , then waiting till light to hunt.I always thought that hunting hours in the reg book was to give animals a rest from being hunted all day .Then hunters wonder why animals leave public land to private land bucks go nocturnal etc.I feel going to your stand,walking in the dark to access gated areas ,is ok.But active road hunting,tracking,spotting,at night is shady at best for any big game.
Back on topic of mule deer ,the number 1 predator is hunters,top of the food chain,we need more regs to protect mule deer does,and more regs for harvest of mature animals,no more forkinhorn with 1in kicker or 1in eye guards,4pt min at best.
Post by: NRA4LIFE on November 29, 2017, 09:16:09 PM
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on December 01, 2017, 07:53:55 AM
Sorry if this has been brought up. How about more hunters targeting bears specifically in the late summer and early fall? More bears killed in that period = less bears in the spring. Is my math wrong? Why the fascination with spring bear hunting? $6 on your D-E-B-C permit and magically you have an OTC bear permit. No points, no draw, bing bang boom.
D-E-B-C permit? :dunno:
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on December 01, 2017, 08:55:20 AM
Sorry if this has been brought up. How about more hunters targeting bears specifically in the late summer and early fall? More bears killed in that period = less bears in the spring. Is my math wrong? Why the fascination with spring bear hunting? $6 on your D-E-B-C permit and magically you have an OTC bear permit. No points, no draw, bing bang boom.
D-E-B-C permit? :dunno:
Guessing D-E-B-C permit = DEER-ELK-BEAR-COUGAR license...
Post by: KFhunter on December 01, 2017, 09:04:40 AM
Sorry if this has been brought up. How about more hunters targeting bears specifically in the late summer and early fall? More bears killed in that period = less bears in the spring. Is my math wrong? Why the fascination with spring bear hunting? $6 on your D-E-B-C permit and magically you have an OTC bear permit. No points, no draw, bing bang boom.
I wasn't talking about one or the other but both spring and fall bear being OTC.
I think folks like to hunt bear in the spring because other than turkey its about the only thing going and if early enough the rugs are nice.
Dropping a bred sow in the fall would be nice though before she cubs out in the winter and can't be shot in the spring hunt. That's strictly for reducing numbers, which we need.
Post by: ryo on December 01, 2017, 11:39:43 AM
Predators account for a relatively stable deer mortality, and efforts at predator control provide only short-term effects on deer population. It's a nice idea, but habitat control (prescribed fires, wildlife corridors, winter ranges) is the big picture factor.
That said, with contemporary population/weather modelling, biologists can predict fawn recruitment about half a year in advance, and can institute intensive predator control where it might tip the scale.
Post by: Special T on December 01, 2017, 12:07:45 PM
There are lots of great ideas thrown about but they depend upon the WDFW doing something... Something most of us think they are in inclined to do. So sportsmen need to make it happen.
KFhunter touched on the private ID bounty system with wolves...
So here is a proposal. We need a month or 2 long derby fashioned along the lines of the one held in the NE a year or 2 ago. You earn raffle tickets for coyotes dropped off, and you could possibly work in tickets for those that harvest cougar, and bobcats... team up with some manufactures, cattlemens association, Cabellas, Ranch and Home whom ever for check ins and tickets
The solution is to focus on what you can control, and that certainly isn't the WDFW. 2c
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: hunter399 on December 01, 2017, 12:17:20 PM
Kinda of another one ,but he talks about problems with mule deer in the first few min,then goes on to his lame hunt.
Post by: buglebrush on December 01, 2017, 07:06:07 PM
The early 1900's have like zero relevance to todayIn the context of needing to regulate hunter harvest to maintain, recover, or increase game populations it is absolutely relevant and a clear cut example demonstrating the success of such actions.
No because you are talking about Regulation Vs No Regulation. That's a completely separate issue, and I wholeheartedly agree that we need management and regulation. What I don't agree with is that it is the only way, and that we should over-restrict ungulate hunting because we refuse to manage predators. You must be connected with WDFW somehow.
Post by: hunter399 on December 01, 2017, 08:02:52 PM
The early 1900's have like zero relevance to todayIn the context of needing to regulate hunter harvest to maintain, recover, or increase game populations it is absolutely relevant and a clear cut example demonstrating the success of such actions.
No because you are talking about Regulation Vs No Regulation. That's a completely separate issue, and I wholeheartedly agree that we need management and regulation. What I don't agree with is that it is the only way, and that we should over-restrict ungulate hunting because we refuse to manage predators. You must be connected with WDFW somehow.
We do need more predator management, But have to say even if we have zero predators, we still need more regs for better recovery and harvest ,yes numbers are that bad ,with no predators ,hunters will just harvest more,numbers will stay the same or worse,management for hunters and predators is needed . :twocents:
Post by: idahohuntr on December 01, 2017, 09:29:54 PM
The early 1900's have like zero relevance to todayIn the context of needing to regulate hunter harvest to maintain, recover, or increase game populations it is absolutely relevant and a clear cut example demonstrating the success of such actions.
No because you are talking about Regulation Vs No Regulation. That's a completely separate issue, and I wholeheartedly agree that we need management and regulation. What I don't agree with is that it is the only way, and that we should over-restrict ungulate hunting because we refuse to manage predators. You must be connected with WDFW somehow.
:chuckle: :tinfoil: