Post by: Blacktail_Slayer on January 22, 2020, 07:52:57 PM
https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/cont...VIE0006790.pdf
All APR strategies resulted in a short term gain in the proportion of males in the population. However, male:female ratios eventually returned to pre-APR levels after varying lengths of time, regardless whether the APR was continued. Most western states have concluded that sustainable improvements in buck:doe ratios and the number of mature bucks can only be realized by reducing harvest through: 1) a limited quota license system that decreases the total buck harvest while allowing some level of doe harvest (Bender 2011); or by setting a very short hunting season.
Further, increases in buck:doe ratios have never been shown empirically to improve either herd production or population size (deVos et al. 2003; Bishop et al. 2005).
Several observations from our analysis of APR use in Wyoming and throughout the west are summarized below:
• APRs DO increase total buck:doe ratios; however results vary and are usually temporary.
• APRs are very popular with the hunting public. However public understanding of the pros and cons appears to be limited, and is complicated by popular literature concerning APRs.
• Most benefits occur in ≤ 3 years; use of APRs beyond this often appear to result in negative impacts to both total buck ratios and mature buck ratios. Continued long term use of APRs (≥3-4 years) may result in lower total male:female ratios.
• No APR strategy produced a long-term increase in adult (mature) male:female ratios, or an increase in the number of adult bucks, except in a handful of cases where hunter participation declined significantly, coupled with good fawn production.
Temporary APRs are most effective following a year of high fawn production and recruitment or when doe harvest is increased.
• Managers have found most effective way to recover from chronically low buck:doe ratios is through a dramatic reduction in harvest pressure on males ≥2 years of age (through a conservative limited quota season or very short season length). Available data also tends to support this.
• APRs have been shown to reduce the number and potentially the quality of mature bucks over time.
• Long-term use of APRs may target legal bucks that have not realized their full antler growth potential while protecting bucks with low antler growth potential (i.e., hunters select against legal bucks with smaller antlers). Although not validated by research, this is a concern among wildlife professionals and the public.
• APRs may dramatically reduce hunter participation, harvest success, and total harvest.
• APRs increase the number of deer shot and illegally left in the field; this can be significant and has been documented in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and Montana.
• APRS do not increase fawn production or population size. Even in herds with singledigit buck:doe ratios, pregnancy rates are well over 90%. Large increases in buck ratios result in relatively few additional fawns (White et al. 2001). The extent to which relative proportions of yearling and mature bucks influence timing of conception and fawn recruitment/survival needs further evaluation.
• Some APRs displace hunting pressure to the oldest age classes of bucks, gradually eroding that segment of the population. Others reduce recruitment to older age classes by displacing harvest pressure to yearling males.
• APRs may decrease interest of hunters whose primary motivation is to obtain meat.
• APRs may discourage beginning and young hunters by increasing the difficulty of locating and identifying legal deer.
• Long-term use of APRs in areas with limited security/escape habitat potentially impedes maintenance of publically acceptable total and mature buck:doe ratios.
• Empirical studies of APR regulations have not been conducted. We recommend this become a priority research topic for the WAFWA.
• APRs should be viewed as a legitimate management tool in areas with chronically low male:female ratios provided they are applied on a time-limited basis. Managers and the public are cautioned that available data and experience suggest APRs result in no long term increase in either the proportion or number of mature bucks, or the total deer population.
Post by: hunter399 on January 22, 2020, 08:48:14 PM
Mule Deer Antler Point Regs (APRs) Don’t Work
https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/cont...VIE0006790.pdf
All APR strategies resulted in a short term gain in the proportion of males in the population. However, male:female ratios eventually returned to pre-APR levels after varying lengths of time, regardless whether the APR was continued. Most western states have concluded that sustainable improvements in buck:doe ratios and the number of mature bucks can only be realized by reducing harvest through: 1) a limited quota license system that decreases the total buck harvest while allowing some level of doe harvest (Bender 2011); or by setting a very short hunting season.
Further, increases in buck:doe ratios have never been shown empirically to improve either herd production or population size (deVos et al. 2003; Bishop et al. 2005).
Several observations from our analysis of APR use in Wyoming and throughout the west are summarized below:
• APRs DO increase total buck:doe ratios; however results vary and are usually temporary.
• APRs are very popular with the hunting public. However public understanding of the pros and cons appears to be limited, and is complicated by popular literature concerning APRs.
• Most benefits occur in ≤ 3 years; use of APRs beyond this often appear to result in negative impacts to both total buck ratios and mature buck ratios. Continued long term use of APRs (≥3-4 years) may result in lower total male:female ratios.
• No APR strategy produced a long-term increase in adult (mature) male:female ratios, or an increase in the number of adult bucks, except in a handful of cases where hunter participation declined significantly, coupled with good fawn production.
Temporary APRs are most effective following a year of high fawn production and recruitment or when doe harvest is increased.
• Managers have found most effective way to recover from chronically low buck:doe ratios is through a dramatic reduction in harvest pressure on males ≥2 years of age (through a conservative limited quota season or very short season length). Available data also tends to support this.
• APRs have been shown to reduce the number and potentially the quality of mature bucks over time.
• Long-term use of APRs may target legal bucks that have not realized their full antler growth potential while protecting bucks with low antler growth potential (i.e., hunters select against legal bucks with smaller antlers). Although not validated by research, this is a concern among wildlife professionals and the public.
• APRs may dramatically reduce hunter participation, harvest success, and total harvest.
• APRs increase the number of deer shot and illegally left in the field; this can be significant and has been documented in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and Montana.
• APRS do not increase fawn production or population size. Even in herds with singledigit buck:doe ratios, pregnancy rates are well over 90%. Large increases in buck ratios result in relatively few additional fawns (White et al. 2001). The extent to which relative proportions of yearling and mature bucks influence timing of conception and fawn recruitment/survival needs further evaluation.
• Some APRs displace hunting pressure to the oldest age classes of bucks, gradually eroding that segment of the population. Others reduce recruitment to older age classes by displacing harvest pressure to yearling males.
• APRs may decrease interest of hunters whose primary motivation is to obtain meat.
• APRs may discourage beginning and young hunters by increasing the difficulty of locating and identifying legal deer.
• Long-term use of APRs in areas with limited security/escape habitat potentially impedes maintenance of publically acceptable total and mature buck:doe ratios.
• Empirical studies of APR regulations have not been conducted. We recommend this become a priority research topic for the WAFWA.
• APRs should be viewed as a legitimate management tool in areas with chronically low male:female ratios provided they are applied on a time-limited basis. Managers and the public are cautioned that available data and experience suggest APRs result in no long term increase in either the proportion or number of mature bucks, or the total deer population.
Your info says it doesn't increase herd ,only shorter seasons,or permit quota can increase deer herd numbers.
But right in the middle it says.
APRs may dramatically reduce hunter participation, harvest success, and total harvest.
So that tells me APRs can increase herd numbers without permits or shorter seasons It has its pro and cons .One way or another sometime in the future your gonna have to pick OTC Hunting or permit hunting for all deer season in Washington.
Post by: bowhunterforever on January 22, 2020, 09:35:05 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on January 23, 2020, 06:59:38 AM
Post by: buckfvr on January 23, 2020, 08:11:24 AM
FOR SURE, it doesnt work for wdfw in n.e. wa. where region 1 (whitetail) is managed for the sole purpose of high yield of young animals.,
Post by: JBar on January 23, 2020, 08:20:04 AM
Post by: buckfvr on January 23, 2020, 09:16:38 AM
Post by: Wsucoug on January 23, 2020, 09:36:11 AM
Here is another. This is for MULE deer.
To be honest there would be zero mule deer in the low lands without APRs. It would be a slaughter with how docile this species is in the open.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/Habitat/Mule%2520Deer%2520Initiative/MULEDEER_ANTLERPOINTREGS_REVIE0006790.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi0q_iBoJrnAhVOLK0KHYO0B0IQFjAAegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw0ATDZhP2ZT_ZXIEbnkq_GB
Post by: bigmacc on January 23, 2020, 11:23:23 AM
I know a lot of folks who I highly respect, some who have great history and/or have worked around wildlife and who,s opinions I respect. It seems that managing healthy, robust deer herds for sportsmen/women and hunters stopped awhile ago in this state, managing healthy predator populations are a much higher priority it seems. Making sure there are just enough deer to sustain thriving predator populations is way ahead of putting a healthy deer herd front and center for us hunters, you don't have to look any farther than the Methow and whats been going on there to see that opinion in action unfortunately.
If they do anything, get rid of the 3 point rule and put restrictions on shooting spikes, at least they are easier to distinguish and it may cut down on the hundreds of 2 points that are left to rot around the state. When my dad was young and no spike shoots were put up in the Methow he said he never found a dead spike in the field, we have found dozens of dead 2 points since the 3 point rule went into effect...... :twocents:
Post by: Bango skank on January 23, 2020, 11:29:59 AM
I know a lot of folks who I highly respect, some who have great history and/or have worked around wildlife and who,s opinions I respect. It seems that managing healthy, robust deer herds for sportsmen/women and hunters stopped awhile ago in this state, managing healthy predator populations are a much higher priority it seems. Making sure there are just enough deer to sustain thriving predator populations is way ahead of putting a healthy deer herd front and center for us hunters, you don't have to look any farther than the Methow and whats been going on there to see that opinion in action unfortunately.
If they do anything, get rid of the 3 point rule and put restrictions on shooting spikes, at least they are easier to distinguish and it may cut down on the hundreds of 2 points that are left to rot around the state. When my dad was young and no spike shoots were put up in the Methow he said he never found a dead spike in the field, we have found dozens of dead 2 points since the 3 point rule went into effect...... :twocents:
I really think that just removing browtines from the applicable points in the apr would have the same effect. Especially for mules, which so often have tiny brows or none at all. A "3 up" rule. I guess that would have to be tried to find out though, and man people would howl about that, not being able to shoot a forkie with brows.
Post by: jstone on January 23, 2020, 12:00:29 PM
Post by: hunter399 on January 23, 2020, 12:05:09 PM
I agree we would have no mule deer if not for the APR.
People that disagree with APR must be in favor for shorter seasons,quota limits,and permits instead of OTC.
Post by: Bango skank on January 23, 2020, 12:07:35 PM
I think people shooting the two points is cause they don’t take the tie to look and study the deer. They see something with points and want to shoot them look. Tell me why it is so hard to let a deer walk if your not sure if it’s legal or not?? I do it every year. You don’t have to shoot something.
Clearly you have a rare ability known as "self control." Many people dont have that. My guess is that a lot of the idiots that shoot forkies do it just hoping that there will be a 1" browtine on it when they walk up to it. I really do think the "3 up" thing would solve a large part of that problem.
Post by: hunter399 on January 23, 2020, 12:23:12 PM
The problem with this is you have to change definition of what a point is.1 inch point is a point.What if it's some 6in eye guard that's a drop tine around the eye but it's a fork on top.I think people shooting the two points is cause they don’t take the tie to look and study the deer. They see something with points and want to shoot them look. Tell me why it is so hard to let a deer walk if your not sure if it’s legal or not?? I do it every year. You don’t have to shoot something.
Clearly you have a rare ability known as "self control." Many people dont have that. My guess is that a lot of the idiots that shoot forkies do it just hoping that there will be a 1" browtine on it when they walk up to it. I really do think the "3 up" thing would solve a large part of that problem.
With a higher APR your reducing the amount of hunters.Which you reduce the amount of accidental shooting of two point.Higher fines for shooting deer under APR.Published in the reg book may discourage the two point shootings.also would like to see higher fines for multiple regulations, road closed,hunting out of season, Hunter orange,ect.
Problem is most game regs are a slap on the wrist with a very affordable fine.
Post by: bigmacc on January 23, 2020, 12:28:58 PM
I think people shooting the two points is cause they don’t take the tie to look and study the deer. They see something with points and want to shoot them look. Tell me why it is so hard to let a deer walk if your not sure if it’s legal or not?? I do it every year. You don’t have to shoot something.
I think what they are saying is that studies are showing that point restrictions don't seem to be doing any good. Now, IMHO, a negative sidebar to point restrictions(3 point or better) is that a lot of 2 points are shot and killed each year then left for coyotes and magpies and no one knows for sure how many, could be hundreds, could be thousands and then that hunter continues to hunt and may or may not kill another buck. IMO, if you put a 4point restriction on your going to find dead 3 points. IMO, finding one rotting 2 point carcas in a 3 point area is too many. Between 9 of us in the Methow, we have found over 30 since the rule went into effect. You are right jstone, it shouldn't happen, if we are taught to "make sure of our target" then it should be just as automatic to "make sure it has 3", if your confused on either, you don't squeeze the trigger. That being said, I would be in favor of spike restrictions, they are much easier to distinguish for some than trying to put a 3rd point onto a massive 2 point running from you. I also love what Bango suggested, I can't tell you how many Bios and Department guys I have brought it up to myself, DO AWAY WITH COUNTING EYEGUARDS ON MULE DEER, they should not be included as a "legal point" in point restricted areas. Will that alone stop the rotting 2 point carcass problem? No, but I bet it would definatly reduce it....... :twocents:
Post by: jstone on January 23, 2020, 12:29:45 PM
The wife and I discuss that we are not normal people anymore. The norm is no common sense.!!!
Post by: hunter399 on January 23, 2020, 12:31:40 PM
People need to grow up and be sure of there target.
Post by: buckfvr on January 23, 2020, 12:54:41 PM
Mule deer hunt this year,my son and I show up at this clear cut.Spot a spike,and another buck on the tree line.I'm almost sure it was a small three point ,but didn't shoot.Even though I had them two deer on game cam for four months before season started.Even knowing that them two bucks been running together all year .But I could not be postive before they got in the timber it was that threepoint ,didn't shoot.
People need to grow up and be sure of there target.
Ya self control but that’s not the norm anymore
The wife and I discuss that we are not normal people anymore. The norm is no common sense.!!!
Self control..........certainly in short supply amongst many hunters. Not shooting obviously young bucks takes self control beyond many hunters capability. Too much emphasis placed on killing a buck, any buck for that matter. I support any buck hunts for youth but my personal opinion is adults should let the baby deer walk.
The best hunting in 121 in a long time was enjoyed during the 4pt minimum period. By the third year, success climbed and better bucks were killed. SInce whitetail are often small 4pts before they even loose their milk teeth, I dont see how the 4pt rule is asking too much of hunters. If you cant tell what the buck is, dont shoot, and thats not something any of us should just now be learning. Ya cant get to the better bucks if you keep killing the young ones. Success is relevant to effort.
Post by: Bango skank on January 23, 2020, 12:56:29 PM
I think people shooting the two points is cause they don’t take the tie to look and study the deer. They see something with points and want to shoot them look. Tell me why it is so hard to let a deer walk if your not sure if it’s legal or not?? I do it every year. You don’t have to shoot something.
I think what they are saying is that studies are showing that point restrictions don't seem to be doing any good. Now, IMHO, a negative sidebar to point restrictions(3 point or better) is that a lot of 2 points are shot and killed each year then left for coyotes and magpies and no one knows for sure how many, could be hundreds, could be thousands and then that hunter continues to hunt and may or may not kill another buck. IMO, if you put a 4point restriction on your going to find dead 3 points. IMO, finding one rotting 2 point carcas in a 3 point area is too many. Between 9 of us in the Methow, we have found over 30 since the rule went into effect. You are right jstone, it shouldn't happen, if we are taught to "make sure of our target" then it should be just as automatic to "make sure it has 3", if your confused on either, you don't squeeze the trigger. That being said, I would be in favor of spike restrictions, they are much easier to distinguish for some than trying to put a 3rd point onto a massive 2 point running from you. I also love what Bango suggested, I can't tell you how many Bios and Department guys I have brought it up to myself, DO AWAY WITH COUNTING EYEGUARDS ON MULE DEER, they should not be included as a "legal point" in point restricted areas. Will that alone stop the rotting 2 point carcass problem? No, but I bet it would definatly reduce it....... :twocents:
Im under no illusions that it would stop it completely, there are just to many slob idiots out there completely lacking in ethics. But i think it would help to a large extent. Really though, its all just supposition on my part. My main concern is whitetail. And there are things written showing aprs arent helpful, but there are numerous things written contradicting that. And my own personal experience, state harvest statistics, and my train of logic says that for whitetail at least, aprs are beneficial.
As far as the browtine thing, the vast majority of whitetails that have a g2 and a g3 are going to have 1" brows. When our apr was in effect in 121 and 117, for 4 years, i found a total of 2 non legal bucks killed. Both were boned out on the spot, heads left behind. And i found these 2 during those 4 years while hiking and hunting lions post season in an area with very heavy deer hunting pressure. Seems that deer that tend to have browtines even at a young age (whitetail) dont end up with as many bucks shot and left. Like the "mistakes" werent happening. The bucks that i did find could not in any way be mistaken for potential 4pts. They were simply bucks that were shot by people who dont care about the regs. Flat out poachers. These types will do what they do regardless of rules. I really dont think that making it legal for everybody to shoot anything, so the poachers are no longer poaching, is a good solution. But i think the fact that there werent a lot of "misidentified" bucks found by myself or anybody i know indicates that the browtine difference between mule and wt is a big part of the problem. If i had the power to change the muley regs to not count browtines for a few years, id bet you a couple paychecks that the sub legal bucks found dead would decrease significantly.
Post by: bobcat on January 23, 2020, 01:04:17 PM
Post by: bigmacc on January 23, 2020, 05:09:34 PM
I think people shooting the two points is cause they don’t take the tie to look and study the deer. They see something with points and want to shoot them look. Tell me why it is so hard to let a deer walk if your not sure if it’s legal or not?? I do it every year. You don’t have to shoot something.
I think what they are saying is that studies are showing that point restrictions don't seem to be doing any good. Now, IMHO, a negative sidebar to point restrictions(3 point or better) is that a lot of 2 points are shot and killed each year then left for coyotes and magpies and no one knows for sure how many, could be hundreds, could be thousands and then that hunter continues to hunt and may or may not kill another buck. IMO, if you put a 4point restriction on your going to find dead 3 points. IMO, finding one rotting 2 point carcas in a 3 point area is too many. Between 9 of us in the Methow, we have found over 30 since the rule went into effect. You are right jstone, it shouldn't happen, if we are taught to "make sure of our target" then it should be just as automatic to "make sure it has 3", if your confused on either, you don't squeeze the trigger. That being said, I would be in favor of spike restrictions, they are much easier to distinguish for some than trying to put a 3rd point onto a massive 2 point running from you. I also love what Bango suggested, I can't tell you how many Bios and Department guys I have brought it up to myself, DO AWAY WITH COUNTING EYEGUARDS ON MULE DEER, they should not be included as a "legal point" in point restricted areas. Will that alone stop the rotting 2 point carcass problem? No, but I bet it would definatly reduce it....... :twocents:
Im under no illusions that it would stop it completely, there are just to many slob idiots out there completely lacking in ethics. But i think it would help to a large extent. Really though, its all just supposition on my part. My main concern is whitetail. And there are things written showing aprs arent helpful, but there are numerous things written contradicting that. And my own personal experience, state harvest statistics, and my train of logic says that for whitetail at least, aprs are beneficial.
As far as the browtine thing, the vast majority of whitetails that have a g2 and a g3 are going to have 1" brows. When our apr was in effect in 121 and 117, for 4 years, i found a total of 2 non legal bucks killed. Both were boned out on the spot, heads left behind. And i found these 2 during those 4 years while hiking and hunting lions post season in an area with very heavy deer hunting pressure. Seems that deer that tend to have browtines even at a young age (whitetail) dont end up with as many bucks shot and left. Like the "mistakes" werent happening. The bucks that i did find could not in any way be mistaken for potential 4pts. They were simply bucks that were shot by people who dont care about the regs. Flat out poachers. These types will do what they do regardless of rules. I really dont think that making it legal for everybody to shoot anything, so the poachers are no longer poaching, is a good solution. But i think the fact that there werent a lot of "misidentified" bucks found by myself or anybody i know indicates that the browtine difference between mule and wt is a big part of the problem. If i had the power to change the muley regs to not count browtines for a few years, id bet you a couple paychecks that the sub legal bucks found dead would decrease significantly.
I agree with your statement, especially with your last sentence, I would make that bet also concerning Mule deer. Like I said in my previous post, I think stumbling onto rotting 2 point mule deer carcasses would be drastically reduced in some areas and putting a "spike restriction" in effect would let the "baby deer" have a better chance to live another year compared to the chances a 2 point has with the 3 point restriction in place. Take away the eye guard being counted as a point(no matter how long it is) concerning mule deer and we may have something a little better than we have now. Keep the eye guard rule permanent and use the point restriction as needed, no spikes for a few years which would actually help thin out some of the big 2 points running around then go back to the 3 point rule for a few years if needed. The other options involve takeaways from us as hunters which we have already sacrificed enough in a lot of peoples opinions. The issues affecting our herds are plain as day and are many, IMHO, most could be tackled and fixed to put forth a quality product for hunters in this state in a matter of 6-8 years, but, like others that I trust and respect have said, these herds being managed for us as hunters are a thing of the past. Things and issues will be talked about, meetings held etc. etc. to opeese us and in the end our quality of hunting will have its ups and downs with the ups being a little worse than the last cycle of ups and the downs a little worse than the last down cycle. We will continue to slowly be chipped away at during the declines as far as time in the field, how many of us will be allowed to be out there and so on, we as hunters will be the most effected in the name of thriving and growing predator populations, which IMHO is the number 1 issue affecting our deer herds, especially in certain select areas of our state, not the ONLY issue but THE big one. Heck, just getting lion numbers down to levels they had pre hound ban would make a HUGE difference in places like the Methow in a matter of 5 or so years, throw in more aggressive seasons, etc to reduce bear numbers and your looking at even a better outlook for the herd which would mean better opportunity for us as hunters. Being realistic, we know that nothing is going to be done about the wolf issue in the near future, hopefully not to far off but tackling exploding cat and bear populations in places like the Methow, where the herd has been decimated could be addressed right now if they were serious about growing that herd without negatively affecting us as hunters or the precious wolves. Aggressively putting a big dent in cougar and bear populations in some areas would show positive trends in some herds within a couple years, period. Are they managing herds for us as hunters? Like some have said, NO, they manage them just enough to keep us hanging on, there are other irons in the fire that are far more important. IMHO, the department could earn respect, heal some wounds and repair some bridges with hunters and sportsmen of this state by maybe implementing some of the many ideas, that yes, selfishly(for us as hunters) would actually benefit growing our herds. No one is asking to eliminate cougars and bears in this state, just reduce them enough where they arnt killing thousands of deer, attacking livestock, killing pets and ending up on city streets and dragging there kills under bridges inside city limits. I have said before, its a matter of time before real bad things happen in certain areas with more and more predators on the landscape, throw in declining prey numbers and its just an old fashioned powder keg that the fuse is becoming shorter and shorter. Sorry for the rant, it comes from growing up in a time where our herds were actually a priority and seeing a bear or cougar was pretty neat because it was so rare, in the Methow at least.... :twocents:, Once again, sorry for the rant.
Post by: Bango skank on January 23, 2020, 05:29:02 PM
Post by: buckfvr on January 23, 2020, 06:39:46 PM
Post by: Bango skank on January 23, 2020, 07:23:51 PM
Wdfw: aprs dont do anything, theyre a social issue
Me: so please remove all aprs on all species statewide
Wdfw: we cant do that, aprs are an important tool for managing healthy game populations
Me: :bash:
Post by: bobcat on January 23, 2020, 07:45:31 PM
Post by: bigmacc on January 23, 2020, 08:24:14 PM
Several years ago the WDFW wanted to remove the 3 point minimum restriction on mule deer. It was in the proposals when they were in the process of setting the hunting seasons, and due to the overwhelming comments against the proposal, the 3 point restriction remained. Just FYI, in case some of you don't remember that.
Yep, I also remember that, I actually hand delivered a letter to an agent stating I was all for it(lifting the 3 point rule) but supported the spike ban I talked about prior. By the sounds of it, it was me and a rag-tag handful of old fools that were the only ones that supported removing it :dunno:
Post by: Humptulips on January 23, 2020, 08:31:08 PM
Do something about predation and we can stop arguing about what is a proper sized buck to shoot at. Hunters are not the problem.
Post by: bigmacc on January 23, 2020, 08:41:11 PM
There is nothing wrong with the horns on deer. There just is not enough deer!
Do something about predation and we can stop arguing about what is a proper sized buck to shoot at. Hunters are not the problem.
:yeah: :yeah: :tup: :tup:
It really isn't that complicated, kind of what I said a few posts ago, aggressively tackling the predator issue would make a HUGE difference within a few years in some areas, just addressing lions and bears. It would also help mend some fences between the department and hunters. Remember, no one is asking for lions and bears to be wiped out of the state, but a big reduction in some areas would be a nice bone to throw to us hunters. Yep I know, some say I,m a dreamer and they are probably right.
Post by: dvolmer on January 23, 2020, 09:08:34 PM
There are a few negative impacts (like large 2X2's surviving and damaging the gene pool) to any thing that is changed but the only other option is to go to a draw only hunt for the entire state and the state will never allow that due to loss of revenue and the majority of the hunters in this state will never agree to sitting out years when they don't draw a tag.
Post by: Okanagan on January 23, 2020, 09:18:25 PM
Mule Deer Antler Point Regs (APRs) Don’t Work
https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/cont...VIE0006790.pdf
• APRs have been shown to reduce the number and potentially the quality of mature bucks over time.
• Long-term use of APRs may target legal bucks that have not realized their full antler growth potential while protecting bucks with low antler growth potential (i.e., hunters select against legal bucks with smaller antlers). Although not validated by research, this is a concern among wildlife professionals and the public.
One of the truisms of life is that we get more of what we protect. Do we want more spikes as a percentage of the bucks in a herd? Sometimes we are protecting something different than what we think we are.
IME/O protecting spikes results eventually in a herd that has a LOT of big old spikes and mature bucks with small racks and few points. Simple genetics. California had a 2 point or better buck season for decades and resulted in a high percentage of spike bucks and huge gnarly old fork horns, though maybe they always had a lot of spikes in California. I hunted it after 50 years of fork horn or better seasons.
In most areas, a healthy 18 month old buck with good genetics will normally be a fork horn, and some will have 3 or more points per side. I'd like to protect THOSE bucks with their exceptional genes rather than spikes.
In Texas behind fences, they kill spikes, protect multi-tined young bucks-- and a high percentage of bucks have BIG antlers.
I have hunted 4 point or better late mule deer seasons and enjoyed them the most of any deer hunting I've done, even though success was low.
Protect spikes? With respect, my opinion differs.
Post by: hunter399 on January 23, 2020, 09:39:15 PM
If APRs dont work, get rid of them......if they DO work, quit telling us they dont work when we ask for them in region 1, AND you still have them in region 1 se. wa. (whitetail)I agree
Your for APR or your not.
How about a quota system for deer.We all run out shoot the first buck we see,harvest,report.And have like a five day season when quotas are hit.
Or no quota and just the five day season with no APR.
OR Permit system where WDFW makes a bucket of 💰 and the point creep is great after one year.
Mule deer changing three point min .
Any changes now that we have that APR.so long .Is gonna be the last nail in the coffin.
Predators ya it's a issue , But if you think WDFW is gonna come up with some magic snake oil
regulations.Wish ya the best of luck,keep dreaming,praying,maybe it will come true.
But I have no faith that we will ever see major predator mangement.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on January 24, 2020, 05:14:11 AM
Post by: hunter399 on January 24, 2020, 05:27:38 AM
So whats YOUR solution?I really don't have one.
I don't want shorter season,quotas,or permit only for deer.OTC deer seasons is fine by me.If we have to have APR for whitetail/higher APR for mule deer. In certain gmu where harvest numbers have dramatic drops are.Then so be it.
I guess harvest reports should tell a story of where deer herds are hurting the most.
Like said your for it , or against it.But with that said being against.You have to remember WDFW job is to keep sustainable populations,so permits,quotas,shorter season are always possible.
If I had to choose between APR /OTC VS PERMIT season I would choose APR any day of the week and have the opportunity to hunt but maybe not harvest.Then press my luck in the draws.
But everybody is different some people might like some gmu going to permit only. :dunno:
Post by: hunter399 on January 24, 2020, 05:59:52 AM
Regs iN NE WASHINGTON gmu 121/117
Would be as follows
Mule deer stays the same 3pt min
Modern firearm
Youth/ whitetail doe hunt early season/late buck any buck
65/disabled /Any buck/early and late season
Everybody eles 2pt min/whitetail
Archery
First 10 days doe season/whitetail
2pt min rest of season
Muzzleloader
Any buck.
I believe if you wanna sell tags , you have to sell opportunity,with sustainable population in mind I'm not all for discouraged hunting or taking hunting opportunity but to create opportunity with some conservative regulations that look out for population for the next hunting season.On top of this plan would be no doe permits for whitetail/mule deer.And season length would stay the same.
Everybody has different ideas of what deer mangement should look. :dunno:
Then with this plan anything could be subject to change based on harvest reports next year.
Example
Youth might go to a any buck one year,back to doe the next.
Muzzleloader might go 2pt min/then back to any buck the next year.
Just based on harvest reports to ensure doe harvest is low/spike buck is kept low.
This plan allows most users to have oppertunity at some meat .
Example
65/disabled can road hunt shoot a spike.
Bow hunters get a doe season but have to do it at the beginning and not the end of season.
Muzzleloader opportunities don't really change at all.
Post by: Miles on January 24, 2020, 06:20:45 AM
I can remember as a kid I shot a very small buck. I was as excited as could be. A family member I was hunting with walked up and said “congratulations, now from this point forward we let ones like that walk”. He was excited for me, but also guiding me to be a better hunter in the future. I think if there was more of this, we wouldn’t need people creating laws for us.
Post by: hunter399 on January 24, 2020, 06:33:05 AM
Some of you arguing could start your suggested improvements by practicing what you preach. It’s pretty easy to keep your finger off the trigger on younger bucks once you decide to. Let the younger hunters just starting out shoot the younger bucks that are generally easier to kill, and let the more experienced hunting groups hold out for the mature bucks. It’ll all average out. I hunt an area where spike and up are legal (mule deer), there’s plenty of opportunity for mature bucks.I'm not sure if your hunting mule deer in Washington, but it's 3pt min with some antlerless areas included.I don't believe there is a spike and up area.But maybe somebody eles might know better. :dunno:
I can remember as a kid I shot a very small buck. I was as excited as could be. A family member I was hunting with walked up and said “congratulations, now from this point forward we let ones like that walk”. He was excited for me, but also guiding me to be a better hunter in the future. I think if there was more of this, we wouldn’t need people creating laws for us.
I do agree with most of your comment,but most hunters have no self control and need regs to keep populations in check.
Post by: bigmacc on January 24, 2020, 11:44:18 AM
Mule Deer Antler Point Regs (APRs) Don’t Work
https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/cont...VIE0006790.pdf
• APRs have been shown to reduce the number and potentially the quality of mature bucks over time.
• Long-term use of APRs may target legal bucks that have not realized their full antler growth potential while protecting bucks with low antler growth potential (i.e., hunters select against legal bucks with smaller antlers). Although not validated by research, this is a concern among wildlife professionals and the public.
One of the truisms of life is that we get more of what we protect. Do we want more spikes as a percentage of the bucks in a herd? Sometimes we are protecting something different than what we think we are.
IME/O protecting spikes results eventually in a herd that has a LOT of big old spikes and mature bucks with small racks and few points. Simple genetics. California had a 2 point or better buck season for decades and resulted in a high percentage of spike bucks and huge gnarly old fork horns, though maybe they always had a lot of spikes in California. I hunted it after 50 years of fork horn or better seasons.
In most areas, a healthy 18 month old buck with good genetics will normally be a fork horn, and some will have 3 or more points per side. I'd like to protect THOSE bucks with their exceptional genes rather than spikes.
In Texas behind fences, they kill spikes, protect multi-tined young bucks-- and a high percentage of bucks have BIG antlers.
I have hunted 4 point or better late mule deer seasons and enjoyed them the most of any deer hunting I've done, even though success was low.
Protect spikes? With respect, my opinion differs.
Spikes have been protected already under the 3 point or better rule for awhile now in this state, with all due respect I,m not seeing any old, monster spikes running around, at least in the areas I hunt in eastern Washington, NOW high fenced deer in Texas etc., I cannot offer a thought on. On the other hand, with rules the way they are now(3 point or better, counting 1" eye guards) I have seen many older, monster 2 points out there that yes, they are doing some breeding and those genes are being spread, not to mention the hundreds of 2 points that are being shot by mistake for no good reason and left to rot. IMHO, point restrictions should not be permanent or go on for decades, they should be used when needed to bolster herd size/ratios or clean up gene pools. All I am really saying is IF they(wdfw) are so deadset on a point restriction philosophy then go to a spike ban, at the very least it will cut down on the hundreds of 2 points that are being wasted out there, 2nd option would be go ahead and keep the 3 point rule but eliminate the counting of eye guards on mule deer. They could get rid of ALL the point restriction garbage AND make headway with hunters and sportsmen/women in this state by taking on aggressively the cougar and bear explosion and possibly even gain some support and respect from the same, heck, I just talked with a buddy in the Methow saying they found 2 yearling lions under someones deck in Winthrop! He said thats not even an oddity anymore over there, he said he knows of 3 or 4 other instances where cougars have been shot right through peoples porches or decks.....The real problem to declining deer herds is right in plain site and here we all are arguing about stupid restrictions they keep slapping on us as hunters, don't anybody ever tell you they don't know exactly what they are doing.... :twocents:
Post by: buckfvr on January 24, 2020, 12:06:28 PM
If I had the POWER!
Regs iN NE WASHINGTON gmu 121/117
Would be as follows
Mule deer stays the same 3pt min
Modern firearm
Youth/ whitetail doe hunt early season/late buck any buck
65/disabled /Any buck/early and late season
Everybody eles 2pt min/whitetail
Archery
First 10 days doe season/whitetail
2pt min rest of season
Muzzleloader
Any buck.
I believe if you wanna sell tags , you have to sell opportunity,with sustainable population in mind I'm not all for discouraged hunting or taking hunting opportunity but to create opportunity with some conservative regulations that look out for population for the next hunting season.On top of this plan would be no doe permits for whitetail/mule deer.And season length would stay the same.
Everybody has different ideas of what deer mangement should look. :dunno:
Then with this plan anything could be subject to change based on harvest reports next year.
Example
Youth might go to a any buck one year,back to doe the next.
Muzzleloader might go 2pt min/then back to any buck the next year.
Just based on harvest reports to ensure doe harvest is low/spike buck is kept low.
This plan allows most users to have oppertunity at some meat .
Example
65/disabled can road hunt shoot a spike.
Bow hunters get a doe season but have to do it at the beginning and not the end of season.
Muzzleloader opportunities don't really change at all.
Good thing youre not in power.......2 pt mini ???? I see less 2 pts than any other configuration, and you must not be getting the point, our herds cant support any buck any more, period, or doe harvest and why do old guys need to kill does (Im 65 and you couldnt get me to shoot a doe) ???? You need meat ???? Its cheaper at the store. Many of the 18mo old bucks here are small 4pts so why any buck.....hence 4pt rule. Youth are the only user group who need any buck, and that needs to be general season only.
Post by: hunter399 on January 24, 2020, 12:26:44 PM
The regulations now are any buck.I'm in favor of the 4pt min don't get me wrong those where great years to hunt.If I had the POWER!
Regs iN NE WASHINGTON gmu 121/117
Would be as follows
Mule deer stays the same 3pt min
Modern firearm
Youth/ whitetail doe hunt early season/late buck any buck
65/disabled /Any buck/early and late season
Everybody eles 2pt min/whitetail
Archery
First 10 days doe season/whitetail
2pt min rest of season
Muzzleloader
Any buck.
I believe if you wanna sell tags , you have to sell opportunity,with sustainable population in mind I'm not all for discouraged hunting or taking hunting opportunity but to create opportunity with some conservative regulations that look out for population for the next hunting season.On top of this plan would be no doe permits for whitetail/mule deer.And season length would stay the same.
Everybody has different ideas of what deer mangement should look. :dunno:
Then with this plan anything could be subject to change based on harvest reports next year.
Example
Youth might go to a any buck one year,back to doe the next.
Muzzleloader might go 2pt min/then back to any buck the next year.
Just based on harvest reports to ensure doe harvest is low/spike buck is kept low.
This plan allows most users to have oppertunity at some meat .
Example
65/disabled can road hunt shoot a spike.
Bow hunters get a doe season but have to do it at the beginning and not the end of season.
Muzzleloader opportunities don't really change at all.
Good thing youre not in power.......2 pt mini ???? I see less 2 pts than any other configuration, and you must not be getting the point, our herds cant support any buck any more, period, or doe harvest and why do old guys need to kill does (Im 65 and you couldnt get me to shoot a doe) ???? You need meat ???? Its cheaper at the store. Many of the 18mo old bucks here are small 4pts so why any buck.....hence 4pt rule. Youth are the only user group who need any buck, and that needs to be general season only.
And I'm not old enough for doe so I'm in my forty something years just a fyi and I'm not a bow Hunter so I'm not looking for a doe tag :chuckle:.The plan up there said 65/disabled would be( any buck.)The only people in My plan that would have a doe tag,youth (early season),bow Hunter (first ten day of bow season)
My plan would lay out a plan WDFW could support.
WDFW won't support the 4pt min its to much of lost revenue .You have to remember WDFW priorities is.
1) money
2)opportunity which =more money
3)sustainable populations
I almost sure in next few years doe harvest will come back to the NE Washington ,youth,65, disabled , or permits.
Its a lost revenue that will come back when populations rebound.
You have to tell yourself do you want a APR.2pt APR is better then no APR which is what we have now.With WDFW you have to sell opportunity which equals money, for change to happen.
Post by: Bango skank on January 24, 2020, 12:30:40 PM
Mule Deer Antler Point Regs (APRs) Don’t Work
https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/cont...VIE0006790.pdf
• APRs have been shown to reduce the number and potentially the quality of mature bucks over time.
• Long-term use of APRs may target legal bucks that have not realized their full antler growth potential while protecting bucks with low antler growth potential (i.e., hunters select against legal bucks with smaller antlers). Although not validated by research, this is a concern among wildlife professionals and the public.
Do we want more spikes as a percentage of the bucks in a herd? those spikes arent going to stay spikes
IME/O protecting spikes results eventually in a herd that has a LOT of big old spikes what?
Big old spikes? Never heard of such a thing
Simple genetics. a bucks antlers at 1.5 yr old doesnt tell you what they will be when he reaches maturity. Spikes can catch up to the bigger yearlings after a couple years. Often small racked yearlings are a result of poor nutrition or being born later than other bucks. Being born later often being caused by a rut that drags out too long, does being bred in 2nd or even 3rd estrous, which is often caused by a poor buck to doe ratio and buck age structure. Protecting the most vulnerable (youngest) bucks via apr is a way to counter this. A better buck to doe ratio and age structure results in a shorter more intense rut. Does get bred in a shorter time period, fawn drop is saturated helping more to survive predation, and bucks dont wear themselves out rutting an extra month, so they go into winter in better condition, resulting in less buck winter kill, further improving buck to doe ratio and buck age structure. Also a better buck to doe ratio and buck age structure means more rubs, more scrapes, more daylight rut activity, in other words, a better hunting experience
In most areas, a healthy 18 month old buck with good genetics will normally be a fork horn, and some will have 3 or more points per side. I'd like to protect THOSE bucks with their exceptional genes rather than spikes. once again, many things go into play that determine a 1.5 yr old bucks rack, its not just genetics
In Texas behind fences, they kill spikes, protect multi-tined young bucks-- and a high percentage of bucks have BIG antlers. are you talking high fence or low fence? High fence operations have really no bearing on low fence free range deer management. So lets talk low fence. Just because people cull spikes doesnt mean they know what theyre doing. They do it because thats what dad did. He did it because thats what grandpa did. In no way can you determine a bucks genetic potential by its first rack. Also, they get half their genes from their mother, can you see her "antler genetics?" And if were talking low fence, especially in a place like texas where rut can run late, theres a very good chance that the "cull buck" spikes theyre killing are only about a month or so from dispersing from their natal range. Whitetail bucks disperse at that age. Those wouldnt be sticking around to breed on that property. Also, the big bucks on these highly managed private texas ranches, well, theyre big chunks of private land with highly regulated hunter access, food plots, feeders and a lack of arge predators. The size these bucks reach can largely be attributed to age and nutrition rather than genetics. The cull buck thing has been thoroughly debunked.
.
Post by: bigmacc on January 24, 2020, 12:59:30 PM
This is the problem folks, this is the REAL problem. If they would address it, tackle it and aggressively do something about it then this all goes away, folks could go out and kill a nice little 2 point meat buck if they liked or could hold out for a big fella. Younger folks could go out and kill a nice little spike or 2 point for their first buck like my son did years ago and as they got older could be more selective, heck, every once in awhile they could even sell doe tags to help reduce herd size and put more money in the coffers. WDFW would sell more tags, it would open up more options for them through special hunts, doe hunts, trophy units/areas and so on and so on, the options could be huge, but sadly that would take healthy deer herds like we had 25 years ago, pre predator boom, instead we just watch our herds continue to slide and sit around debating the more and more restrictions or take-aways they want to hit us as hunters with. Im not kidding, the biggest, most destructive force that is destroying our deer herds is predators, and number 1 on that list is cougars. With a drastic reduction to cougars and bears in places like the Methow, even with the wolf out there, I believe and others I know and respect believe that we could have close to all that which I mentioned above within a handful-8 years.... :twocents:... sorry, carry on :tup:
Post by: hunter399 on January 24, 2020, 01:11:46 PM
Well, well, check out the "Other big game thread"-hungry cougar topic, reply #41(I believe).Don't get me wrong I totally agree.
This is the problem folks, this is the REAL problem. If they would address it, tackle it and aggressively do something about it then this all goes away, folks could go out and kill a nice little 2 point meat buck if they liked or could hold out for a big fella. Younger folks could go out and kill a nice little spike or 2 point for their first buck like my son did years ago and as they got older could be more selective, heck, every once in awhile they could even sell doe tags to help reduce herd size and put more money in the coffers. WDFW would sell more tags, it would open up more options for them through special hunts, doe hunts, trophy units/areas and so on and so on, the options could be huge, but sadly that would take healthy deer herds like we had 25 years ago, pre predator boom, instead we just watch our herds continue to slide and sit around debating the more and more restrictions or take-aways they want to hit us as hunters with. Im not kidding, the biggest, most destructive force that is destroying our deer herds is predators, and number 1 on that list is cougars. With a drastic reduction to cougars and bears in places like the Methow, even with the wolf out there, I believe and others I know and respect believe that we could have close to all that which I mentioned above within a handful-8 years.... :twocents:... sorry, carry on :tup:
But it would take 8 years of cougar study and reports ect .before you would see any progress on cougar harvest.They have a new cougar plan coming out right now you might be interested in .But I wouldn't count it as some magical fix all. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: Bango skank on January 24, 2020, 01:37:48 PM
Well, well, check out the "Other big game thread"-hungry cougar topic, reply #41(I believe).
This is the problem folks, this is the REAL problem. If they would address it, tackle it and aggressively do something about it then this all goes away, folks could go out and kill a nice little 2 point meat buck if they liked or could hold out for a big fella. Younger folks could go out and kill a nice little spike or 2 point for their first buck like my son did years ago and as they got older could be more selective, heck, every once in awhile they could even sell doe tags to help reduce herd size and put more money in the coffers. WDFW would sell more tags, it would open up more options for them through special hunts, doe hunts, trophy units/areas and so on and so on, the options could be huge, but sadly that would take healthy deer herds like we had 25 years ago, pre predator boom, instead we just watch our herds continue to slide and sit around debating the more and more restrictions or take-aways they want to hit us as hunters with. Im not kidding, the biggest, most destructive force that is destroying our deer herds is predators, and number 1 on that list is cougars. With a drastic reduction to cougars and bears in places like the Methow, even with the wolf out there, I believe and others I know and respect believe that we could have close to all that which I mentioned above within a handful-8 years.... :twocents:... sorry, carry on :tup:
Yes predators are the big problem. Everybody wants that fixed. But in the mean time we have to face the reality of our current bad situation and try to manage ungulates properly too. We can get a 4pt apr way before well ever get hounds and leg holds.
Post by: buckfvr on January 24, 2020, 01:45:23 PM
Post by: bigmacc on January 24, 2020, 03:17:08 PM
Well, well, check out the "Other big game thread"-hungry cougar topic, reply #41(I believe).Don't get me wrong I totally agree.
This is the problem folks, this is the REAL problem. If they would address it, tackle it and aggressively do something about it then this all goes away, folks could go out and kill a nice little 2 point meat buck if they liked or could hold out for a big fella. Younger folks could go out and kill a nice little spike or 2 point for their first buck like my son did years ago and as they got older could be more selective, heck, every once in awhile they could even sell doe tags to help reduce herd size and put more money in the coffers. WDFW would sell more tags, it would open up more options for them through special hunts, doe hunts, trophy units/areas and so on and so on, the options could be huge, but sadly that would take healthy deer herds like we had 25 years ago, pre predator boom, instead we just watch our herds continue to slide and sit around debating the more and more restrictions or take-aways they want to hit us as hunters with. Im not kidding, the biggest, most destructive force that is destroying our deer herds is predators, and number 1 on that list is cougars. With a drastic reduction to cougars and bears in places like the Methow, even with the wolf out there, I believe and others I know and respect believe that we could have close to all that which I mentioned above within a handful-8 years.... :twocents:... sorry, carry on :tup:
But it would take 8 years of cougar study and reports ect .before you would see any progress on cougar harvest.They have a new cougar plan coming out right now you might be interested in .But I wouldn't count it as some magical fix all. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Oh I get it and I think most of us get it, thats the way this state operates. The politics have taken over managing our game and therein lies the problem. There is a "magical fix all" or close to it and it doesn't need to involve leg holds and hounds, treat hunting lions for 5-8 years the way we treat coyotes in places like the Methow for example that are being over-run with cougars, something in that vein could be implemented within weeks, but as you said years of study would need to be done costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, for crying out loud they are living under peoples porches, walking down streets in town, killing and dragging prey under bridges within the city limits people are and have seen more and more cougars every year in the Methow for years now and now with the declining herd they are getting more desperate and bold and coming into peoples property, yards etc. to kill the town deer. While they waste their time and our money doing their"studies" to see if the Methow herd has been decimated and predator numbers are climbing some little kid is going to be attacked in their own backyard, like I said and mark my words, Its just a matter of time unfortunately and the clock is ticking, by this time next year theres going to be many, many more cougars in that valley, its plain as the nose on our face, hundreds upon hundreds of mule deer are going to be killed by them and thats a fact and more and more are going to become desperate and bold.
Post by: Bango skank on January 24, 2020, 03:29:56 PM
Post by: buckfvr on January 24, 2020, 05:37:39 PM
Mule Deer Antler Point Regs (APRs) Don’t Work
https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/cont...VIE0006790.pdf
• APRs have been shown to reduce the number and potentially the quality of mature bucks over time.
• Long-term use of APRs may target legal bucks that have not realized their full antler growth potential while protecting bucks with low antler growth potential (i.e., hunters select against legal bucks with smaller antlers). Although not validated by research, this is a concern among wildlife professionals and the public.
One of the truisms of life is that we get more of what we protect. Do we want more spikes as a percentage of the bucks in a herd? Sometimes we are protecting something different than what we think we are.
IME/O protecting spikes results eventually in a herd that has a LOT of big old spikes and mature bucks with small racks and few points. Simple genetics. California had a 2 point or better buck season for decades and resulted in a high percentage of spike bucks and huge gnarly old fork horns, though maybe they always had a lot of spikes in California. I hunted it after 50 years of fork horn or better seasons.
In most areas, a healthy 18 month old buck with good genetics will normally be a fork horn, and some will have 3 or more points per side. I'd like to protect THOSE bucks with their exceptional genes rather than spikes.
In Texas behind fences, they kill spikes, protect multi-tined young bucks-- and a high percentage of bucks have BIG antlers.
I have hunted 4 point or better late mule deer seasons and enjoyed them the most of any deer hunting I've done, even though success was low.
Protect spikes? With respect, my opinion differs.
In many, many years in the woods I cant recall any big ol spikes.........Nothing they do in Texas or california applies to here.. If resourceful, you can find any number of studies to back your thoughts and if you keep digging you can find studies that say those are wrong. Studies, in general are agenda driven..........to believe them is to believe anything you read. Learn to compare apples to apples.
Post by: Jingles on January 24, 2020, 08:32:29 PM
Post by: Okanagan on January 24, 2020, 09:21:31 PM
Selective breeding works to increase desired characteristics for cattle, horses, sheep, pigs, dogs... but we are saying that it does not work for deer??!! That is the core issue of the kill spikes or protect them debate.
Also, let's not attribute to one another positions we have not claimed. I do not believe that most spikes remain spikes. I do believe from my experience that most 18 month old spikes will never grow as big a set of antlers as an 18 month old 2x2 or more. The majority of research I have read supports that experience, including 2019 deer research. Culling has not been repudiated for deer.
The idea to shoot spikes to improve genetics of the herd got its serious start not with grandpa but with a few biologists in the 1980's. I remember when that debate got going in major publications.
Some spikes may catch up in antler growth, which research shows, but not the broad majority, year after year, across a deer population. Nutrition is a bigger factor than genetics for specific deer and in good or bad years. From my observations, I think there are some blacktail areas where most bucks are spikes their first year, where a stubby 2x3 with some mass is as big as the area will normally produce.
Lotta factors, lotta exceptions but spike genetics as a general predictor of mature antler size is a probability with strong evidence from life experience and research on real deer.
That said I have no idea how to protect young bucks with the best genetics on public land in general seasons. Probably all that can be done is to manage for quantity.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 24, 2020, 09:55:30 PM
On the ranches that specialize in growing huge bucks, they know that the really special bucks start showing it with their first set of antlers and instead of spikes they will be 3x3's and 4x4's. They protect those young bucks and let them grow and get some breeding in before they let a hunter take them, usually at the peak or just after in size and breeding capabilities.
As for states, most would agree that Idaho whitetail hunting is superior to Washington in spite of all the extra wolves Idaho has. And Idaho has a six week long modern season in which yo can take any deer. Killing does and small bucks there doesn't seem to affect the herd.
Post by: Bango skank on January 25, 2020, 12:22:53 AM
And lerhaps the fact thst idahos seasons run so long is part of why they dont need aprs. Here you got a million guys all hitting the woods in the same tiny timeframe, with the "gotta notch my tag now" mentality. And with all the hunter pressure, everything goes nocturnal but the stupid yearling bucks, so they get wholesale slaughtered, screwing up our herd structure. Idaho you have z much longer season with more spresd out pressure, maybe huys dont feel desparate to shoot the first peckerhead they see.
Post by: Bango skank on January 25, 2020, 12:27:42 AM
Selective breeding works to increase desired characteristics for cattle, horses, sheep, pigs, dogs... but we are saying that it does not work for deer??!!
Youre comparing selectively breeding captive domestic animals with trying to do the same with wild deer herds, its absurd. For one thing when selectively breeding domestic animals for certain traits, you choose both the male and female which breed. You cant do that with wild deer.
Just for the sake of argument, lets say i agree that a spike buck is always genetically inferior. So you see a spike buck. You think youre going to improve the genetics of the herd by killing it huh? Okay, what about its mom? Going to kill its mom too? Half its genetics come from its mom after all. What about all the doe fawns that doe has birthed over the years. Know where they are? Can you identify them? Theyre out spreading her genetics around. But wait, are the spikes "bad antler genetics" from his moms side, or his dads side? You dont know. Which buck impregnated that doe? You dont know. What time of year is it?
You likely wont even know which doe birthed that buck. By the time our hunting seasons roll around a year and a half old buck is rarely still around its mom to even be able to identify which doe it is. And if the rut is going, that buck very likely has already bred a doe or two and passed on its "inferior genes." Yes spike bucks breed too. Too many variables in wild animals to believe you can cull undesirable traits out of the gene pool. The best we can do is to protect the youngest, most vulnerable to hunters bucks, in order to foster a better, more natural herd structure.
I can tell you here where we had the 4pt apr in my home unit, after a few years you were more likely to see a 4pt+ buck than a spike or forkie. There were just flat out that many more bucks running around with an extra year or two of age on them, because the yearlings had been protected for a few years. Just giving them that one free year lets them become much smarter, much more able to avoid hunters. Yearling whitetail bucks, especially during the rut, are like shooting fish in a barrel. Theyre way too easy to kill. Allowing people to kill them results in a disproportinate number of them being killed, largely taking out an entire future age class of bucks. And i never have seen one mature whitetail that wasnt at least a 4x. None of this "big old spike, big mature forkie" thing going on with whitetail. The apr absolutely worked as intended, and a few years after it was repealed all of the progress made was gone.
Post by: Bango skank on January 25, 2020, 01:09:03 AM
"What had been a 1:1 ratio of bucks to does became 1:6 before the culling was over. Even though bucks that remained in the intensive treatment area had large antlers for their age, there weren’t enough of them to breed all the does on their first estrus cycle during the normal peak of the rut. Average conception dates started falling later and later, which led to more late-born fawns, which had less time in their first year to grow, so they ended up with smaller bodies and antlers for their age.
“We created our own negative feedback loop,” said Donnie. “Even though a fawn might have been genetically superior, their bodies couldn’t express that potential because they were born late, and they ended up getting culled anyway.”
This part in bold is exactly whats happening up here. Lot of fawns getting born late because the buck to doe ratio is so skewed, which can be, and was fixed by, instituting an apr. Late born buck fawns tend to have small antlers for a couple years. Its not because of bad genetics, its cause they were born late.
https://www.qdma.com/qdm-works-culling-doesnt/
Further on it goes on about how some bucks with larger racks regularly produced smaller racked offspring, and vice versa.
"Over years of data, the research team found cull-worthy bucks with low-quality antlers that produced fawns that went on to have above-average antlers. They also found bucks with large antlers for their age that produced fawns with below-average antlers. Without being able to trust antler quality as a guide to a buck’s breeding value, a hunter has no way to selectively cull.
“Looking at antlers is the only way we know how to cull,” said Donnie. “We don’t know how to cull a doe.”
Post by: hunter399 on January 25, 2020, 01:36:53 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on January 25, 2020, 06:17:12 AM
Post by: buckfvr on January 25, 2020, 09:18:31 AM
Post by: buckfvr on January 25, 2020, 10:02:15 AM
I don't eat the horns ,that's not what the 4pt min in NE WASHINGTON is about.We have hade plenty of culling in the past few years.So it has nothing to do with growing trophy deer.It has to do with lower amount of hunters,lower harvest/higher number of bucks.
It has NOTHING to do with lower number of hunters and lower harvest. That will be an initial effect but like the last time the 4pt rule was in place, the harvest increased each year and by the last year harvest rate and success rate was astounding. NWWG has all those figures.
What the 4pt rule is intended to do is allow the less than 4pt 18 month old bucks to escape in order to improve herd age class structure. 18 month old 4pts still get killed. Its about overall herd health, not trophies. The way it is now, escapement numbers for 18 month old bucks is terrible. By 2 1/2 years of age they have moved on and arent hanging with the does. At each additional year of age they become smarter, more hunter educated, and there for some what harder to hunt. Still, the majority of the harvest will be young bucks, with 1 1/2 and 2 1/2 years olds making up the majority of the harvest.
4pt minimum had a huge effect on the condition of the herd here last time and it was obvious to those of us who live in 121 and 117. Now, with the extreme predation problem, we need the 4pt rule more than ever. I can only hope that some people realize that maybe the input from guys LIVING in 121 and 117 is more significant than input from guys who have never been here or only show up for a week or so each year.
Post by: hunter399 on January 25, 2020, 10:26:01 AM
I can tell ya i have lived in 121/117 my whole life.Hunted the 4pt min,harvested the 4pt min,lived the 4pt .Greatest years for hunting for me anyway.local talking to a local I'm sure you have seen the full scope of the condition deer herds are in right now.I will just agree with ya.There are lots of herd benefits to the 4pt min.I don't eat the horns ,that's not what the 4pt min in NE WASHINGTON is about.We have hade plenty of culling in the past few years.So it has nothing to do with growing trophy deer.It has to do with lower amount of hunters,lower harvest/higher number of bucks.
It has NOTHING to do with lower number of hunters and lower harvest. That will be an initial effect but like the last time the 4pt rule was in place, the harvest increased each year and by the last year harvest rate and success rate was astounding. NWWG has all those figures.
What the 4pt rule is intended to do is allow the less than 4pt 18 month old bucks to escape in order to improve herd age class structure. 18 month old 4pts still get killed. Its about overall herd health, not trophies. The way it is now, escapement numbers for 18 month old bucks is terrible. By 2 1/2 years of age they have moved on and arent hanging with the does. At each additional year of age they become smarter, more hunter educated, and there for some what harder to hunt. Still, the majority of the harvest will be young bucks, with 1 1/2 and 2 1/2 years olds making up the majority of the harvest.
4pt minimum had a huge effect on the condition of the herd here last time and it was obvious to those of us who live in 121 and 117. Now, with the extreme predation problem, we need the 4pt rule more than ever. I can only hope that some people realize that maybe the input from guys LIVING in 121 and 117 is more significant than input from guys who have never been here or only show up for a week or so each year.
Post by: blackveltbowhunter on January 25, 2020, 12:40:50 PM
The reason APR's are mostly counter productive in hunter restricted environments, is not because they kill or don't kill a spike or young 4 point. Its because the hunters/managers generally have a very good idea on the AGE of the buck when it is taken, thus while a spike may be killed ( although the common theme is to let most spikes walk and give them a year to redeem themselves) , a young 4 point is given the pass. A large 10 point that is 4 years old is also given the same pass in exchange for the 130" 9 point who is 8 years old. This is due to either A) Fence operations, Heavy monitoring of the herd or both. Not a realistic scenario in general season public land. The reason APRs are not needed in this scenario is mainly due to selective harvest regardless of antler points.
It has been mentioned several time and is very valid, odds are very good you likely don't need an APR ( although they are nice for us horn addicts) in a robust healthy herd with good escapement. If there are surplus deer, you can get away without being to picky on which ones are taken out. Areas with lots of deer and cover for deer to escape into do well with little management. Sure big bucks are not around every corner in this system, but there are plenty of bucks to do breeding, and a variety of age classes. Major environmental impacts are usually the biggest threats. IE..... your mile of big buck ridge gets logged, and death and carnage ensue for 2-3 years until its void of nice bucks. That's usually more local than anything else however.
The other side is APR in the "real" world. Its very hit and miss. I am going to side with the guys who have experience in the WT areas over there being discussed that they work great. But I tend to believe the system was not in play long enough to outlive the glory. I think it would have trended back down or at best stabilized with simply a new level of " dink" buck. This is for mainly BT and WT where habitat offers escape cover. For muley in open country with a lot less escapement APR is a necessary evil for OTC to even be considered, 3 up should be a minimum. Lots of 1.5 year old muleys are forked so APR dropping to a forked buck while it would eliminate wasted deer, would also be counter productive IMO.
Post by: Jingles on January 25, 2020, 12:58:48 PM
Go to a ranch where they specialize in quality deer and you will see they protect the large racked bucks and encourage hunters to cull out the bucks with "inferior" antler genes. I honestly believe that APRs eventually lead to deer with less points. You are putting all the pressure on the animals with the traits you are trying to encourage. And leaving the bucks with the traits you don't want to do the breeding. Back Asswards.
On the ranches that specialize in growing huge bucks, they know that the really special bucks start showing it with their first set of antlers and instead of spikes they will be 3x3's and 4x4's. They protect those young bucks and let them grow and get some breeding in before they let a hunter take them, usually at the peak or just after in size and breeding capabilities.
As for states, most would agree that Idaho whitetail hunting is superior to Washington in spite of all the extra wolves Idaho has. And Idaho has a six week long modern season in which yo can take any deer. Killing does and small bucks there doesn't seem to affect the herd.
Only problem with the above statement is it makes sense and WDFW has proven time and time again that they do not have brains enough to pour Pee out of a boot with instruction written on the heel and an arrow pointing to the heel as thy refuse to even acknowledge time tested surveys by wildlife experts in other areas, thy put a person with a degree in Botany in charge of a program in biology
Post by: bowhunterforever on January 25, 2020, 02:23:51 PM
Post by: Bango skank on January 25, 2020, 02:26:29 PM
4 point or better was working fantastic in 121. hope they bring it back. Also no doe killing unless / until we get our predators under control
Ftfy
Post by: bowhunterforever on January 25, 2020, 03:13:46 PM
4 point or better was working fantastic in 121. hope they bring it back. Also no doe killing unless / until we get our predators under control
Ftfy I like that idea bango :tup:
Post by: huntnphool on February 03, 2020, 01:02:37 PM
I hunted mule deer in Eastern Washington in the 1980's and early 90's before point restrictions.
There were some point restricted units back then, just a FYI. ;)
Post by: dvolmer on February 03, 2020, 03:22:18 PM
I hunted mule deer in Eastern Washington in the 1980's and early 90's before point restrictions.
There were some point restricted units back then, just a FYI. ;)
Not true anywhere in South Eastern Washington. In my post I explained the exact areas I was talking about (Washtucna, Hooper, Prescott, Waitsburg, and Dayton areas) and there were no deer point restrictions until the early-mid 90's. Prescott, Waitsburg, and Dayton areas started point restrictions a few years before the Washtucna and Hooper areas but it was in the early 90's that it all started.
Post by: huntnphool on February 03, 2020, 03:48:35 PM
I hunted mule deer in Eastern Washington in the 1980's and early 90's before point restrictions.
There were some point restricted units back then, just a FYI. ;)
Not true anywhere in South Eastern Washington. In my post I explained the exact areas I was talking about (Washtucna, Hooper, Prescott, Waitsburg, and Dayton areas) and there were no deer point restrictions until the early-mid 90's. Prescott, Waitsburg, and Dayton areas started point restrictions a few years before the Washtucna and Hooper areas but it was in the early 90's that it all started.
Got it, didn’t see the “south” in there.
Post by: nwwanderer on February 03, 2020, 05:30:34 PM
Post by: Bango skank on February 03, 2020, 07:05:55 PM
Here is a couple pictures to demonstrate why the 4 point is a long term problem. From teeth, antler make-up and atlas joint condition this is a first antler buck, decent little four point. He had great potential to be something very special at maturity. With most taken deer being young and this one legal his first antlers his genetics died with him. The spike that was not taken because of the rule may have potential because of environmental conditions but it also likely that that little illegal buck does not have the genes to ever be what any of us would call mature. Surely, anything that limits buck kill improves ratios but if your goal is to have mature four+ point bucks, killing them before any reproductive success decreases mature bucks with this antler style.
Their antlers at a young age dont determine their antlers at maturity, especially when many bucks are born late. Thats established. Besides, its not about antler / trophy potential anyway. Aprs are about protecting the youngest, most vulnerable bucks to increase percentage of bucks in the herd, and the age class of bucks, resulting in a more healthy naturally functioning deer herd, a more intense rut, higher buck winter survival, and s higher fawn survival from a saturation effect of a more condensed fawn birth time.
Post by: buckfvr on February 03, 2020, 08:16:32 PM
Here is a couple pictures to demonstrate why the 4 point is a long term problem. From teeth, antler make-up and atlas joint condition this is a first antler buck, decent little four point. He had great potential to be something very special at maturity. With most taken deer being young and this one legal his first antlers his genetics died with him. The spike that was not taken because of the rule may have potential because of environmental conditions but it also likely that that little illegal buck does not have the genes to ever be what any of us would call mature. Surely, anything that limits buck kill improves ratios but if your goal is to have mature four+ point bucks, killing them before any reproductive success decreases mature bucks with this antler style.
Hog wash.......he most likely would have been one of the average 130" bucks common in all of the whitetails range.
Post by: Wsucoug on February 03, 2020, 08:46:11 PM
Here is a couple pictures to demonstrate why the 4 point is a long term problem. From teeth, antler make-up and atlas joint condition this is a first antler buck, decent little four point. He had great potential to be something very special at maturity. With most taken deer being young and this one legal his first antlers his genetics died with him. The spike that was not taken because of the rule may have potential because of environmental conditions but it also likely that that little illegal buck does not have the genes to ever be what any of us would call mature. Surely, anything that limits buck kill improves ratios but if your goal is to have mature four+ point bucks, killing them before any reproductive success decreases mature bucks with this antler style.
This is misinformation. See the following links.
https://www.growingdeer.tv/#/whitetail-antlers-and-genetics-fact-or-fiction
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://extension.msstate.edu/sites/default/files/publications/publications/p3013.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjC1O2ki7fnAhWdCTQIHb09DIoQFjAAegQIBBAC&usg=AOvVaw1-BCQzYS0AObI54RmVoIVE
Post by: Bango skank on February 03, 2020, 08:59:22 PM
Post by: huntnnw on February 03, 2020, 10:46:18 PM
Post by: huntnphool on February 03, 2020, 11:08:08 PM
Ive come to the realization that no matter how many logical arguments you make, no matter how many scientific studies you source, a number of people here will continue to beat the "young 4x = good genetics, spike = bad genetics" drum. no amount of science debunking that will get through to these folks. They want to believe it, because theyre anti apr, because they just want to kill something to feel successful. They dont care whats best for the health of the herd, they care about going back to work and bragging about filling their deer tag every year. Theyll ignore any data based study out there to stick with their false beliefs that go against aprs. They want to see antlers and shoot, period, even if its a 90lb "buck."
:tup:
Post by: huntnphool on February 03, 2020, 11:08:29 PM
this state needs to be permit for ALL mule deer hunting. Every unit managed or groups of units managed like NV does.
:tup:
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 04, 2020, 12:20:19 AM
Their antlers at a young age dont determine their antlers at maturity, especially when many bucks are born late. Thats established. Besides, its not about antler / trophy potential anyway. Aprs are about protecting the youngest, most vulnerable bucks to increase percentage of bucks in the herd, and the age class of bucks, resulting in a more healthy naturally functioning deer herd, a more intense rut, higher buck winter survival, and s higher fawn survival from a saturation effect of a more condensed fawn birth time.
APRs put the pressure on the breeders. The older more virile animals. Studies have proven that leaving the breeding to yearlings is a big cause of spread out birthing dates. They don't get the job done like the old studs do.
If you want a naturally functioning deer herd, protecting the young at the expense of the mature isn't natural. In a herd that isn't hunted by humans, you will have mostly older mature deer. The young are the first to go in nature be it a bad winter or predators. If you want lots of deer to kill, you take mostly young animals and very few of the breeders. You want just enough young to survive to replace the oldest deer that perish due to old age, predators and hunting. And you also take does to keep the male female ratio in check. You don't get more bucks in the long term by killing bucks and stockpiling does. You end up with a bunch of barren does that way. Or you spread out the birthing dates.
Deer herds fluctuate naturally depending on a variety of factors. Predators are just one of the factors, and so is hunting. Fires. bad winters. crowded ranges. precipitation. and much more. The big problem is hunter expectations. When hunting is good or great, many hunters expect it to be like that every year. It doesn't work that way. Never has and never will. There will be ups and downs. To think it will always be up is wishful thinking. Think of the great years as a bonus, instead of expecting them every year.
Post by: nwwanderer on February 04, 2020, 07:51:57 AM
Post by: buckfvr on February 04, 2020, 08:33:41 AM
Their antlers at a young age dont determine their antlers at maturity, especially when many bucks are born late. Thats established. Besides, its not about antler / trophy potential anyway. Aprs are about protecting the youngest, most vulnerable bucks to increase percentage of bucks in the herd, and the age class of bucks, resulting in a more healthy naturally functioning deer herd, a more intense rut, higher buck winter survival, and s higher fawn survival from a saturation effect of a more condensed fawn birth time.
APRs put the pressure on the breeders. The older more virile animals. Studies have proven that leaving the breeding to yearlings is a big cause of spread out birthing dates. They don't get the job done like the old studs do.
If you want a naturally functioning deer herd, protecting the young at the expense of the mature isn't natural. In a herd that isn't hunted by humans, you will have mostly older mature deer. The young are the first to go in nature be it a bad winter or predators. If you want lots of deer to kill, you take mostly young animals and very few of the breeders. You want just enough young to survive to replace the oldest deer that perish due to old age, predators and hunting. And you also take does to keep the male female ratio in check. You don't get more bucks in the long term by killing bucks and stockpiling does. You end up with a bunch of barren does that way. Or you spread out the birthing dates.
Deer herds fluctuate naturally depending on a variety of factors. Predators are just one of the factors, and so is hunting. Fires. bad winters. crowded ranges. precipitation. and much more. The big problem is hunter expectations. When hunting is good or great, many hunters expect it to be like that every year. It doesn't work that way. Never has and never will. There will be ups and downs. To think it will always be up is wishful thinking. Think of the great years as a bonus, instead of expecting them every year.
Nature is never ending, and so should your learning be. If you are stuck with knowledge from old studies and text books, you are in need of a tune up. Book/study dependency should always be tempered with field experience, ongoing recent acknowledgment of natures changes, experience. No one is 100% correct.
What we are saying, the few of us in north east units, is what we have witnessed for many years as the herd changes and fluctuates. It may be that others dont see what we see as they arent here year round. If you read the latest studies, you will find where whitetail are concerned, results of studies vary greatly. We speak what we see, not what we read in past pull studies and old rhetoric.
Post by: nwwanderer on February 09, 2020, 07:52:48 AM
Post by: hunter399 on February 09, 2020, 08:50:52 AM
District 1. Remember from 2011-2014, a 4-point minimum restriction was imposed for white-tailed deer in GMUs 117 and 121, which led to decreases in the overall harvest, hunter numbers, and hunter success. Available evidence shows this regulation change brought about these decreases and not a dramatic increase in the white-tailed deer population. With the retirement of the 4-point rule within GMUs 117 and 121, the deer harvest increased substantially in 2015 (Figure 4).
And it really pissed me off ,when you look at the numbers 2015 was the year 4pt min ended with the highest harvest .So I guess those Deer just dropped from the sky and the 4pt min didn't create a surplus of animals. The year it was dropped was the highest harvest ever .But it didn't help the populations at all.SUCH BS.
Honestly I really don't care if hunter numbers,harvest,Hunter success was lower .Conservation is not about how many tags you sell.Look at the harvest in 2014 all of that harvest was mature 4pt deer .I don't have 2018 or 2019 numbers handy but I can almost bet the bank it's a steady decrease and that's with shooting anything with a horn.I just don't like being lied too.If you wanna sell more tags just say so,but don't tell me it didn't create surplus animals.
Don't piss down my back and call it rain.
Rant over.
Post by: Okanagan on February 09, 2020, 09:08:01 AM
Their antlers at a young age dont determine their antlers at maturity, especially when many bucks are born late. Thats established.
Sorry, Bang, but that's NOT established. It is established in your mind and in at least one whitetail study, but NOT established among many long experienced hunters nor among the majority of researchers. We could be wrong, but I don't think so. I think you know that I respect you greatly on most matters, but disagree on this one.
Young age antlers are not the only determinate of antler size at maturity, but it is one of the only predictors we can actually see in the field. Our eyes can see a spike, but cannot see his birthday, health of his mother, etc.
Carry on! :)
Post by: Wsucoug on February 09, 2020, 10:20:52 AM
Their antlers at a young age dont determine their antlers at maturity, especially when many bucks are born late. Thats established.
Sorry, Bang, but that's NOT established. It is established in your mind and in at least one whitetail study, but NOT established among many long experienced hunters nor among the majority of researchers. We could be wrong, but I don't think so. I think you know that I respect you greatly on most matters, but disagree on this one.
Young age antlers are not the only determinate of antler size at maturity, but it is one of the only predictors we can actually see in the field. Our eyes can see a spike, but cannot see his birthday, health of his mother, etc.
Carry on! :)
I would love to read up on this research that supports this.
Can you post some links to some publications?
Post by: Jonathan_S on February 09, 2020, 10:47:01 AM
Their antlers at a young age dont determine their antlers at maturity, especially when many bucks are born late. Thats established. Besides, its not about antler / trophy potential anyway. Aprs are about protecting the youngest, most vulnerable bucks to increase percentage of bucks in the herd, and the age class of bucks, resulting in a more healthy naturally functioning deer herd, a more intense rut, higher buck winter survival, and s higher fawn survival from a saturation effect of a more condensed fawn birth time.
APRs put the pressure on the breeders. The older more virile animals. Studies have proven that leaving the breeding to yearlings is a big cause of spread out birthing dates. They don't get the job done like the old studs do.
If you want a naturally functioning deer herd, protecting the young at the expense of the mature isn't natural. In a herd that isn't hunted by humans, you will have mostly older mature deer. The young are the first to go in nature be it a bad winter or predators. If you want lots of deer to kill, you take mostly young animals and very few of the breeders. You want just enough young to survive to replace the oldest deer that perish due to old age, predators and hunting. And you also take does to keep the male female ratio in check. You don't get more bucks in the long term by killing bucks and stockpiling does. You end up with a bunch of barren does that way. Or you spread out the birthing dates.
Deer herds fluctuate naturally depending on a variety of factors. Predators are just one of the factors, and so is hunting. Fires. bad winters. crowded ranges. precipitation. and much more. The big problem is hunter expectations. When hunting is good or great, many hunters expect it to be like that every year. It doesn't work that way. Never has and never will. There will be ups and downs. To think it will always be up is wishful thinking. Think of the great years as a bonus, instead of expecting them every year.
Nature is never ending, and so should your learning be. If you are stuck with knowledge from old studies and text books, you are in need of a tune up. Book/study dependency should always be tempered with field experience, ongoing recent acknowledgment of natures changes, experience. No one is 100% correct.
What we are saying, the few of us in north east units, is what we have witnessed for many years as the herd changes and fluctuates. It may be that others dont see what we see as they arent here year round. If you read the latest studies, you will find where whitetail are concerned, results of studies vary greatly. We speak what we see, not what we read in past pull studies and old rhetoric.
:yeah: and whitetail APRs pressuring "mature animals" significantly more is debatable. In the majority of cases our NE whitetail are breeding on their home range where they are most safe (unlike mule deer) and aren't going to suffer any serious losses regardless of APRs.
Post by: hunter399 on February 09, 2020, 11:13:17 AM
117 harvest is down lower than it was in 2014
121 harvest is about the same.
But with each of these harvest reports u have to remember the 4pt min was at or above current harvest with also leaving surplus animals for next hunting season .Which is what conservation is all about.If the 4pt min would of went longer the results might of been greater ,cause harvest was just starting to increase when it ended.I'm very curious to see 2019 harvest results ,i have a feeling it's going down the rabbit hole.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 09, 2020, 02:00:20 PM
Post by: Wsucoug on February 09, 2020, 02:33:59 PM
Their antlers at a young age dont determine their antlers at maturity, especially when many bucks are born late. Thats established. Besides, its not about antler / trophy potential anyway. Aprs are about protecting the youngest, most vulnerable bucks to increase percentage of bucks in the herd, and the age class of bucks, resulting in a more healthy naturally functioning deer herd, a more intense rut, higher buck winter survival, and s higher fawn survival from a saturation effect of a more condensed fawn birth time.
APRs put the pressure on the breeders. The older more virile animals. Studies have proven that leaving the breeding to yearlings is a big cause of spread out birthing dates. They don't get the job done like the old studs do.
If you want a naturally functioning deer herd, protecting the young at the expense of the mature isn't natural. In a herd that isn't hunted by humans, you will have mostly older mature deer. The young are the first to go in nature be it a bad winter or predators. If you want lots of deer to kill, you take mostly young animals and very few of the breeders. You want just enough young to survive to replace the oldest deer that perish due to old age, predators and hunting. And you also take does to keep the male female ratio in check. You don't get more bucks in the long term by killing bucks and stockpiling does. You end up with a bunch of barren does that way. Or you spread out the birthing dates.
Deer herds fluctuate naturally depending on a variety of factors. Predators are just one of the factors, and so is hunting. Fires. bad winters. crowded ranges. precipitation. and much more. The big problem is hunter expectations. When hunting is good or great, many hunters expect it to be like that every year. It doesn't work that way. Never has and never will. There will be ups and downs. To think it will always be up is wishful thinking. Think of the great years as a bonus, instead of expecting them every year.
Can you post one of these studies? I have been looking for them, but all I can find are opinions pieces.
Post by: nwwanderer on February 09, 2020, 03:37:04 PM
Post by: Jonathan_S on February 09, 2020, 04:01:50 PM
Are you forgetting the blue tongue infestation?
Still haven't recovered from that. Not even close where I'm at
Post by: Bango skank on February 09, 2020, 04:59:23 PM
Regardless of that arguement about genetic potential, the fact is, protecting the 1.5 year old (dumbest, easiest to kill) bucks results in a higher buck to doe ratio, and after a few years also a better, more natural age distribution of bucks. More mature bucks = more scrapes, rubs, daylight rut movement... a better hunt. It also results in more fawns being born at the same time, increasing fawn survival. It also results in bucks not being as worn out come winter from rutting a month too long, so higher buck winter survival. So even if im wrong about the genetic thing, aprs still promote a more naturally functioning herd, better buck winter survival, better fawn survival. If that means the magazine cover genetics are mostly lost, i dont care. Its whats best for the herd. The asthetically pleasing "trophy genetics" are my least concern, i care about a more natural buck:doe ratio and a more natural age distribution of bucks. Thats what makes a healthy naturally functioning herd and a better hunting experience.
And the argument i always see here about aprs putting additional pressure on mature bucks is a complete joke. The guys fighting aprs are doing so because they cant stand the thought of letting a yearling walk. Because thats all they feel theyre capable of killing. The guys that insist they be allowed to kill baby bucks arent capable of killing mature bucks. If a guy could kill mature bucks, he wouldnt get angry about having to hold out for a 2.5 yr old, which most are 4pt, and 2.5 is still far from mature, and still very easy to kill.
The anti apr guys will do whstever mental gymnastics neccessary to rationalize killing yearling deer, no amount of logic or evidence will ever change that. As such, im out of the apr debate, ive said my peace. Enjoy killing off the bulk of yearling bucks and messing up the herd dynamics. God forbid you have to let a forkie walk. The "participation trophy" thing seems strong in this debate.
If killing the peckerhead bucks was increasing trophy genetics by "culling" bad genetics, then every buck in the NE corner should be a booner by 2.5 yrs old now, cause every buck i see on a meatpole here during mf season is a little dink. So if youre improving the genetics so much, how are you all finding peckerheads to kill year after year after year? Shouldnt you all be finding yearling trophy bucks by now?
Post by: Skyvalhunter on February 09, 2020, 05:42:36 PM
Post by: Bango skank on February 09, 2020, 05:55:04 PM
Wow your on a roll. :chuckle:
Yeah well, what can i say? Its a subject that i feel passionate about. I care a lot more about promoting a healthy herd than i do about putting a notch in my belt every year. Id rather eat my tag than contribute to the annual slaughter of stupid, helpless 1.5 yr old bucks.
Post by: idaho guy on February 09, 2020, 06:22:29 PM
Go to a ranch where they specialize in quality deer and you will see they protect the large racked bucks and encourage hunters to cull out the bucks with "inferior" antler genes. I honestly believe that APRs eventually lead to deer with less points. You are putting all the pressure on the animals with the traits you are trying to encourage. And leaving the bucks with the traits you don't want to do the breeding. Back Asswards.
On the ranches that specialize in growing huge bucks, they know that the really special bucks start showing it with their first set of antlers and instead of spikes they will be 3x3's and 4x4's. They protect those young bucks and let them grow and get some breeding in before they let a hunter take them, usually at the peak or just after in size and breeding capabilities.
As for states, most would agree that Idaho whitetail hunting is superior to Washington in spite of all the extra wolves Idaho has. And Idaho has a six week long modern season in which yo can take any deer. Killing does and small bucks there doesn't seem to affect the herd.
Post by: buckfvr on February 09, 2020, 06:23:47 PM
Ill disagree all day that spikes are inherently genetically inferior, especially here where our piss poor buck to doe ratios results in a LOT of late bred does.
Regardless of that arguement about genetic potential, the fact is, protecting the 1.5 year old (dumbest, easiest to kill) bucks results in a higher buck to doe ratio, and after a few years also a better, more natural age distribution of bucks. More mature bucks = more scrapes, rubs, daylight rut movement... a better hunt. It also results in more fawns being born at the same time, increasing fawn survival. It also results in bucks not being as worn out come winter from rutting a month too long, so higher buck winter survival. So even if im wrong about the genetic thing, aprs still promote a more naturally functioning herd, better buck winter survival, better fawn survival. If that means the magazine cover genetics are mostly lost, i dont care. Its whats best for the herd. The asthetically pleasing "trophy genetics" are my least concern, i care about a more natural buck:doe ratio and a more natural age distribution of bucks. Thats what makes a healthy naturally functioning herd and a better hunting experience.
And the argument i always see here about aprs putting additional pressure on mature bucks is a complete joke. The guys fighting aprs are doing so because they cant stand the thought of letting a yearling walk. Because thats all they feel theyre capable of killing. The guys that insist they be allowed to kill baby bucks arent capable of killing mature bucks. If a guy could kill mature bucks, he wouldnt get angry about having to hold out for a 2.5 yr old, which most are 4pt, and 2.5 is still far from mature, and still very easy to kill.
The anti apr guys will do whstever mental gymnastics neccessary to rationalize killing yearling deer, no amount of logic or evidence will ever change that. As such, im out of the apr debate, ive said my peace. Enjoy killing off the bulk of yearling bucks and messing up the herd dynamics. God forbid you have to let a forkie walk. The "participation trophy" thing seems strong in this debate.
If killing the peckerhead bucks was increasing trophy genetics by "culling" bad genetics, then every buck in the NE corner should be a booner by 2.5 yrs old now, cause every buck i see on a meatpole here during mf season is a little dink. So if youre improving the genetics so much, how are you all finding peckerheads to kill year after year after year? Shouldnt you all be finding yearling trophy bucks by now?
:yeah: Every bit of it true........Ill add it gets damn old hearing the same ol whitetail this and whitetail that from old books and bios who cant seem to keep on learning, but I suppose how can they keep on learning about our whitetails when they dont engage them in any meaningful long term way. Only read someones opinion or listen to someones and most likely agenda driven, ofcourse they are because they wrote it and want you to believe they are correct when they are only providing a generalization, no more. Plain and simple, from western Montana to northeat Wa., whitetail are like no where else in their range. If apr doesnt work for whitetail, why has it been in effect for years and years in southeast wa. ?? If it doesnt work here then take it away there and spread out the killing of baby bucks in the management sense of per wdfw "high yield of young animals".
Wa. hunters enamoured with killing baby bucks are as bad as the wolves, cougs, bears, and yotes. WDFW managers and commissioners who support killing baby deer are our deer herds enemy, period. Its about revenue, not herd health. Always has been always will.
Post by: idaho guy on February 09, 2020, 06:28:48 PM
Go to a ranch where they specialize in quality deer and you will see they protect the large racked bucks and encourage hunters to cull out the bucks with "inferior" antler genes. I honestly believe that APRs eventually lead to deer with less points. You are putting all the pressure on the animals with the traits you are trying to encourage. And leaving the bucks with the traits you don't want to do the breeding. Back Asswards.
On the ranches that specialize in growing huge bucks, they know that the really special bucks start showing it with their first set of antlers and instead of spikes they will be 3x3's and 4x4's. They protect those young bucks and let them grow and get some breeding in before they let a hunter take them, usually at the peak or just after in size and breeding capabilities.
As for states, most would agree that Idaho whitetail hunting is superior to Washington in spite of all the extra wolves Idaho has. And Idaho has a six week long modern season in which yo can take any deer. Killing does and small bucks there doesn't seem to affect the herd.
The nearly 2 month rifle season has had a pretty negative effect on both population and number of older bucks for panhandle whitetail. It was a November 1 open and changed I think 10 years ago. The negative result in the panhandle is obvious and a 2 month rifle season is too long. The apr discussion is really interesting but confusing I can see both sides. Just looking at the harvest stats posted it’s hard to argue it wasn’t working great in 117 and 121
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 09, 2020, 08:10:59 PM
https://www.themeateater.com/hunt/whitetail-deer/do-antler-point-restrictions-work
Quote "like it or not, the top-10 states for record-book whitetails impose few or no antler restrictions, unless you count the 3-inch spike rule. According to the Boone and Crockett Club’s online “Trophy Search,” the No. 1 whitetail state since 1999 is Wisconsin with 1,189 typical and nontypical entries, and it has no antler regulations. The other top B&C states this century are Illinois, 874 entries; Ohio, 804; Kentucky, 741; Iowa, 714; Indiana, 632; Missouri, 596; Kansas, 582; Minnesota, 486; and Texas, 423."
And quote #2 "It’s complex and nuanced. APRs protect yearling males and the proportion of males in a herd, but they haven’t produced lots of older males of various age and size. They also increase the number of males 2 ˝ and older in areas where hunters can shoot antlerless deer or elk, but average antler sizes in the harvest usually decrease eventually.”
And Boom.... #3 quote "“Regulations based on antler points alone can cause the most collateral damage,” said Bronson Strickland, a wildlife professor at Mississippi State University."
They go on to explain they in Mississippi they went to and inside spread and main beam length rule for bucks. How would you like to have to estimate that before you shot a buck? And of course you wouldn't know if you guessed right until the animal was dead and it was too late. I don't think many hunters would go for that. As Alaska has found out with their 50 inch rule for moose, a lot of animals get killed and left to rot when the hunter realizes he made a mistake. And a lot of those animals aren't even close to 50 inches. some in the low 30s.
Post by: hunter399 on February 09, 2020, 08:39:45 PM
Habitat in the NE Washington is very diverse with excellent habitat-escapement .In my opinion You could never reach carrying capicity.
Honestly I would like to see if there is huge rises in depredations since the 4pt min was lifted .Create surplus deer ,then you create surplus predators.Then wipe out surplus deer in two seasons what are you left with.
Now we have deer populations that for some reason are have a hard time rebounding,with an explosive amount of predators.
In the next few years they will reap what they sow ,cause I noticed last year there are fewer hunters even with there any buck rules.
I forgot though WDFW says it didn't help the deer populations and the record harvests the year it ended was just nothing .I suppose those deer got transported here .
Post by: Wsucoug on February 09, 2020, 08:47:02 PM
However I did read it and then followed up on the Mississippi publications and studies.
Here is one summary of many studies.
https://ag.tennessee.edu/fwf/craigharper/Documents/Antler%20restrictions--Strickland.pdf
I would say you would have a very hard time correlating results from a study on Mississippi to NE Washington. I mean if you just start reading though the results some of the publications you realize this deer heard is nothing like the heard in NE washington. From rutting times, hunting season, predators, habitat, hunting methods, ect. you realize to much is different to make blank claims about APR.
I would also say that it is complex and nuanced especially if you treat APR equally across the united states. But if you starting reading and understanding the nuances its really easy to see why APRs would work in NE Wa.
The inside spread was implemented because those deer where from the Mississippi delta where the soil is fertile and ag crops are plentiful causing deer express more antler points at a younger age. I would have to say that deer in NE Wa dont have the sample problem.
Post by: Wsucoug on February 09, 2020, 08:53:13 PM
Habitat in the NE Washington is very diverse with excellent habitat-escapement .In my opinion You could never reach carrying capicity.
This is one of those nuances that crosses my mind everytime I think about APRs. The cover is NE washington is nothing like it is the mid west. Older deer avoid pressure because they can just walk into a thick stand of reprod and disappear.
Post by: Okanagan on February 09, 2020, 08:59:58 PM
Can you post one of these studies? I have been looking for them, but all I can find are opinions pieces.
Curiosity induced me dig into deer antler growth research awhile back. I was not doing it to prove anything so did not take written notes. I had no interest in “I'll see your two whitetail studies and raise you one mule deer study,” kind of debate.
To dig again and document feels like going back to grad school and I'll pass. You may cheerfully flunk me! :) For me HuntWA is a casual place to relax and talk hunting with cordial folks rather than proof text, though I wish now that I had jotted notes for myself! I can't find a study I read. Keep trying different word combos in Google. You will get your fingers slapped for using the word “inferior” and antler or buck in the same sentence, but it will likely pop up some sources which lead to others, some good, some not so good.
It would be valuable to have a catalog of deer research projects, and surely some University or maybe game dept. has such a list. I found the same study Bango did, before he posted it, and I think it is from Quality Deer Management but not sure of that. Just be sure to look at several studies and get some sense of consensus rather than one or two, but you know that. Possibles are: Wisconsin, Missouri, PA, Ill., Michigan, maybe Kansas and of course Texas, mostly on whitetails because that's where the money is and the majority of US deer hunters. Texas Parks and Wildlife and the Kerr Management Facility come to mind, plus I think Noble Research Institute and Quality Deer Management post some research conclusions, and there are considerably more.
I am not passionate about spike deer etc. and have no idea how to best manage a hunted deer population on public land. I do think that Sitka Deer is correct that there are wide natural fluctuations in deer populations, etc.
Post by: Wsucoug on February 09, 2020, 09:14:50 PM
Can you post one of these studies? I have been looking for them, but all I can find are opinions pieces.
Curiosity induced me dig into deer antler growth research awhile back. I was not doing it to prove anything so did not take written notes. I had no interest in “I'll see your two whitetail studies and raise you one mule deer study,” kind of debate.
To dig again and document feels like going back to grad school and I'll pass. You may cheerfully flunk me! :) For me HuntWA is a casual place to relax and talk hunting with cordial folks rather than proof text, though I wish now that I had jotted notes for myself! I can't find a study I read. Keep trying different word combos in Google. You will get your fingers slapped for using the word “inferior” and antler or buck in the same sentence, but it will likely pop up some sources which lead to others, some good, some not so good.
It would be valuable to have a catalog of deer research projects, and surely some University or maybe game dept. has such a list. I found the same study Bango did, before he posted it, and I think it is from Quality Deer Management but not sure of that. Just be sure to look at several studies and get some sense of consensus rather than one or two, but you know that. Possibles are: Wisconsin, Missouri, PA, Ill., Michigan, maybe Kansas and of course Texas, mostly on whitetails because that's where the money is and the majority of US deer hunters. Texas Parks and Wildlife and the Kerr Management Facility come to mind, plus I think Noble Research Institute and Quality Deer Management post some research conclusions, and there are considerably more.
I am not passionate about spike deer etc. and have no idea how to best manage a hunted deer population on public land. I do think that Sitka Deer is correct that there are wide natural fluctuations in deer populations, etc.
I thought it would be valuable for the catalog purpose too. It was actually more of what I was getting at. That and also it would be nice to be able to come back to this thread and see how people are actually forming their opinions.