Post by: seaduckhunter on March 06, 2010, 12:11:39 PM
Why cant we change some of these units to 4 point or better to have just some trophy areas for the serious trophy hunters. I was wondering what your opinions are on this.
Post by: huntnphool on March 06, 2010, 12:18:51 PM
Post by: fishunt247 on March 07, 2010, 03:36:27 PM
Post by: DeerHarvester on March 07, 2010, 03:37:45 PM
Post by: head hunter on March 07, 2010, 03:58:58 PM
Post by: seaduckhunter on March 07, 2010, 05:20:40 PM
Post by: alecvg on March 07, 2010, 05:38:05 PM
Post by: DeerHarvester on March 07, 2010, 07:09:08 PM
We have gone over this before. I am not gonna go into detail on why my opinions are what they are, but I think most units on the east side should be 4 point or better, especially those in the Methow/Okanagon County.well you can't throw that out and not explain why. I'm not against the idea but I really don't think it would help.
Post by: muleyguy on March 07, 2010, 07:30:52 PM
this is from the Wyoming Mule Deer Initiative; this study was part of a larger study conducted by a group of all Western States (not WA though.......) who came together to study the long term decline of mule deer in Western States through a group called the North American Mule Deer Conservation Plan; the data is pretty clear from many sources that 4 pt or better does nothing to help, and actually hurts the mature buck population in the long run.
antler pt restrictions are at best, a very, very short term "trick" to raise seriously depressed buck to doe ratio's.
Quote
Another harvest strategy sometimes employed to improve depressed buck:doe ratios is a “four-point or better” hunting season. It may seem counterintuitive, but antler point
restrictions do not necessarily produce more large bucks. In a 4-point or better season, the hunter is restricted to harvesting bucks with 4 points or more on either antler. Consequently, all harvest pressure is redirected to the largest deer in the population, which reduces their number. Since most yearlings and some 2-year old bucks are protected until they become small 4-point deer, the overall ratio of bucks to does will increase somewhat as a result of having more young bucks in the population. However, harvest is merely delayed until a buck grows its first set of 4-point antlers. The maximum benefit of a 4-point season is typically realized after the season has been in place 2 or 3 years, at which time most 4-point bucks are being harvested. Thereafter, the buck:doe ratio does not continue to increase and fewer bucks actually survive to grow truly large antlers. Over the long-term, persistently targeting large bucks may also eliminate desirable genetics (the ability to grow large antlers) from the population. If the objective is to produce more large deer, the 4-point restriction must be lifted after 2 years so harvest is once again spread over more age classes. This allows more of the incoming cohort of 4-point bucks to survive to an older age and potentially grow much larger antlers. Should the overall buck:doe ratio again decline to an unacceptably low level, the 4-point or better season can be reinstated for another 2-3 years to augment the number of bucks in the population, and the process is repeated. Permanent 4-point or better seasons do not produce more large bucks and actually reduce the harvestable surplus because some of the younger bucks that could have been harvested will die from other causes before they grow 4-point antlers. In addition, some small bucks are mistaken for legal bucks and are illegally killed and abandoned.
Post by: muleyguy on March 07, 2010, 07:41:55 PM
Quote
Antler Rules Do They Work?
A few years ago,I heard that the Southern Guides were recomending a four -point restriction on mule deer. It sounds good to the average hunter, but after much reading, and research I found that point-restrictions in fact have never worked.
One would figure a professional guide, would know that placing all hunting pressure on the older age class bucks has significantly eroded that portion of the buck herd.
The truth of the matter is antler point restrictions do not produce the result for which they were intended.
Article done by,Albert Yendes,Antler Rules:Do They Work?
The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife admitted futility of antler rules in the state's 1987 big game regulations.A breif anouncement stated that after 12 years of a four-point-and -larger regulation in South Steens Mountains, the legal harvest had plummeted 50 percent and buck ratios had declined 30 percent.
"Point restrictions have always been a disaster," said Len Carpenter, wildlife research leader for Colarado Division of Wildlife.Regulating harvest with 4 point restrictions is a fallacy; it has never worked anywhere in the West.''
Rudy Drobnick recently retired as wildlife program coordinator for Utah Division of Wildlife Resourses said 3 point or better rules cause a gradual increase of small-antlered deer due to selective removal of large-antlered deer.
Antler shape, size, number of the points and total configuration is genetically controlled, and only secondarily influenced by age, nutrition, weather and disease. "In Utah, if we had continued to harvest the largest-antlered bucks because of three-point-or-better requirement, the smaller-antlered bucks would have been protected and would increase in population. "Only one in 50,000 to 100,000 bucks will ever become a candidate for Boone &Crockett. Normally, the B&C buck would have been a yearling with two or three points. By yearling, I mean a buck that is 16-18 months old are mature. A yearling has the potential to carry four points with the proper genetic predisposition.
He said that professional and personal attitudes must change for Western states to maintain large-antlered mule deer.
The first change may be the elimination of hunting during the rut Large bucks are reclusive and elusive except during the rut, when they become susceptible to hunters.
The second change , which could improve the genetic pool of a deer herd, would be culling process during the rut. Have your standard deer season on October where the skills of a hunter, and a little luck, will determine his success.. Then in November, at the peak of the rut, hold a season for two-point or fewer bucks that would help remove geneticallly inferior deer.
Wyoming has had it's share of Point Restrictions
by Albert Yendes
Wyoming has had it share of point restriction, and have not pleased Harry Harju, the supervisor of biological services with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department.
"Greys River was one of your so called trophy deer areas until we placed a four-point-or-better deer season on it for eight years. "During that eight-year period, hunter success dropped from 60 percent to 18 percent. The outfitters in that area wanted to hunt the big bucks up high, so an earlier season with point restrictions was implemented. During the later season, the number of does and small bucks harvested remained virtually the same for the entire eight years.
"Not only did the number of trophy animals decline, but the average size of their racks did as well. If your goal is to discourage hunters, we have found that a four-point-or better restriction will cut the numbers in half. Fish and Game departments cannot afford to lose any more political support from hunters; we need them. But as far as point restrictions with the end being quality hunting, the public has been sold a bill of goods."
In short, point restrictions do not promote better fawn production, nor do they produce a surplus of larger animals. Instead, they increase hunting pressure on the older age class of animals and quite possible ruin the gene pool in the process. With such weighty evidence that point restrictons are useless, why do they persist?
Post by: bobcat on March 07, 2010, 09:33:00 PM
Post by: DeerHarvester on March 07, 2010, 10:21:37 PM
Post by: alecvg on March 07, 2010, 10:30:35 PM
We have gone over this before. I am not gonna go into detail on why my opinions are what they are, but I think most units on the east side should be 4 point or better, especially those in the Methow/Okanagon County.well you can't throw that out and not explain why. I'm not against the idea but I really don't think it would help.
Alright, here is my opinion why:
With the three point or better rule, young two points with eyegaurds (good genetics) are legaly killed. When people shoot young two points with eyegaureds, it takes out all the good genetics, like in the methow, you rarely see a nice buck with eye guards (well, at least I dont). It seems too many people shoot a young two point with eyeguards. Also, even deer with out eyegaurds, most people will shoot a young three point with out any questions asked. This also will often kill youg bucks with decent genetics. With all the good genetics being taken at a young age, not many genetics are left, except for those of lucky bucks. So today, after years of the three point or better law, good genetics are rare. Yes they are pulled out, genetics are here, just rare. With four point or better, those young bucks with great genetics won't be killed so young, and they will live to be nice trophey bucks. Yeah, people who don't care will be pissed that they can't get the young stupid bucks, get over it. The health of our deer are more important. And face it, would you rather see a couple little bucks, or a true trophey. :twocents:
Post by: alecvg on March 07, 2010, 10:32:28 PM
People complain about all the giant 2-points right now. They would be complaining about giant 3-points if it were a 4-point min.
Have youth tags for two point or bigger, or have a late season tag for two point or bigger with out eye gaurds.
Post by: Buschingc on March 08, 2010, 12:37:12 AM
Post by: Bigshooter on March 08, 2010, 12:46:52 AM
People complain about all the giant 2-points right now. They would be complaining about giant 3-points if it were a 4-point min.
+1
Post by: head hunter on March 08, 2010, 06:48:03 AM
Post by: Atroxus on March 08, 2010, 09:21:18 AM
This way, hunters that don't want trophy animals would be able to hunt does or antlerless/spike bucks for meat, and trophy hunters would be free to pursue whatever size trophies they want. Thats just my 2 cents though.
Post by: Curly on March 08, 2010, 10:01:43 AM
Post by: Mudeater on March 08, 2010, 12:23:53 PM
Post by: huntnphool on March 08, 2010, 12:31:24 PM
The only thing I can think of while reading this, is how well the wolf population would do in these trophy areas. If we don't get that issue under control, what good is it?
Don't hold your breath Mudeater, this is one of the questions that continues to get swept under the rug while waving the "Permit Only" banner around here. ;)
Post by: boneaddict on March 08, 2010, 12:34:32 PM
Post by: sako223 on March 08, 2010, 01:11:57 PM
As far as a point minimum I think 2 point minimum is the most efficient. 2 point is easy to identify and results in far less shoot n run kills.
If we allow permit only hunting to be implemented, be prepared to watch hunting shows on tv and become an even smaller voice in the WDFW budget.
Post by: Houndhunter on March 08, 2010, 01:28:50 PM
Post by: Mudeater on March 08, 2010, 07:31:01 PM
Agreed 100%The only thing I can think of while reading this, is how well the wolf population would do in these trophy areas. If we don't get that issue under control, what good is it?
Don't hold your breath Mudeater, this is one of the questions that continues to get swept under the rug while waving the "Permit Only" banner around here. ;)
Post by: Mudeater on March 08, 2010, 07:35:49 PM
My blurred mind kinda likes what Mudeater has to say. HAVE to limit access so the tribal guys don't reap the harvest. (No offense Yak). and do some more agressive predator control.Again agreed and my mind was a little burred when I said it, :chuckle: :chuckle: but that harvest should be equaly shared, one hunter=one tag= one bull if your lucky, even a half drunk Indian knows thats the only way to make it work. :P :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: bobcat on March 08, 2010, 07:46:15 PM
Post by: Mudeater on March 08, 2010, 08:34:02 PM
It doesn't make any sense to me to disregard proper wildlife management just because there may be some wolves in the area that we have to share our deer with. Sure the wolves should be controlled, that's a given. But how can you say because of the wolves there shouldn't be any limits on the number of animals we hunters harvest? Actually it seems the opposite would be true. Because of the wolves, hunters should be more limited in the number of deer that we are allowed to harvest. I don't like it, but from a biological perspective that would seem to make sense.Proper wildlife management went out the window when wolfs where reintroduced, IMHO. and if bow and muzzy were once again a primitive seasons as intended allot of the guys hunting those methods would go back to rifle or not hunt at all. If the easy to access areas went draw only, that would be self limiting for # of hunters. If we had trophy only areas that aren't so easy to access, hike or pack animals only, We would have fewer hunters harvesting fewer animals, just like it used to be before we had quads, 350 fps bows, muzzy that shoot to 200 yards as fast as a 30-30. That seems like at least better management then we have now. Like I said, just a thought. I'm certainly not an expert on game management, I only remember what it used to be like before all these problems came up and it wasn't the animals that caused it, besides the wolfs anyway. Just out of curiosity, do you work for the game dept?
Post by: bobcat on March 08, 2010, 08:40:57 PM
Just out of curiosity, do you work for the game dept?
No, and if I did I sure wouldn't admit it on here!
Post by: Mudeater on March 08, 2010, 09:06:15 PM
Dont blame you, :chuckle: wasnt trying to offend, so I hope you didnt take it that way.Just out of curiosity, do you work for the game dept?
No, and if I did I sure wouldn't admit it on here!
Post by: steen on March 09, 2010, 10:48:27 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on March 09, 2010, 11:31:37 AM
Post by: boneaddict on March 09, 2010, 11:54:55 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on March 09, 2010, 12:00:11 PM
Post by: PolarBear on March 09, 2010, 12:07:25 PM
I've had one of those 4 point tags now for about 15 or so years. :):yeah:
Same here for whitetail, blacktail and mule deer.
Post by: bullchaser on March 09, 2010, 12:15:10 PM
Post by: boneaddict on March 09, 2010, 12:24:21 PM
Quote
Not counting that Alta tag you had a couple years back? Thats atleast a 4 point or better permit!!Ironically thats the tag I had in my pocket that I MOST wanted to shoot a Two point with and be legal. (menaing, I thought about dropping a huge two with it.)
Post by: huntnphool on March 09, 2010, 01:36:58 PM
I've had one of those 4 point tags now for about 15 or so years.
Me too Bone, although I could not let that big ugly *censored* walk this year, those genes won't be spreading. :chuckle:
Post by: Ray on March 09, 2010, 01:39:59 PM
The dynamic of slob hunters shooting first and counting points later probably would not change if the point restriction went higher or lower. Rifle seasons are crammed into 10-15 day windows with everyone crowding the woods. They need to open it up to longer seasons. I don't think the avenue for that is restrictions on antlers. As long as the rifle seasons are 10-15 days long I will continue to buy archery tags.
Post by: huntnphool on March 09, 2010, 01:48:17 PM
I pretty much think that there should not be a restriction on antler points. If there simply is not enough deer to hunt open season then create a permit season for the area. Otherwise they can make it any deer or doe only or buck only.
The dynamic of slob hunters shooting first and counting points later probably would not change if the point restriction went higher or lower. Rifle seasons are crammed into 10-15 day windows with everyone crowding the woods. They need to open it up to longer seasons. I don't think the avenue for that is restrictions on antlers. As long as the rifle seasons are 10-15 days long I will continue to buy archery tags.
With the exception of the archery tag statement this is pretty much my thoughts as well, although I think the mule deer season wasn't even 10 days last year.
Post by: bobcat on March 09, 2010, 02:21:19 PM
I pretty much think that there should not be a restriction on antler points. If there simply is not enough deer to hunt open season then create a permit season for the area. Otherwise they can make it any deer or doe only or buck only.
Exactly!
Post by: bobcat on March 10, 2010, 10:02:33 AM
pemits to hunt geneal season?
No... it's not a general season anymore if it requires a permit...
Post by: colockumelk on March 10, 2010, 11:04:38 AM
And get the quads out of the woods unless your disabled. Just a thought!
:yeah: Couldn't agree more. If you have a hunting license during your hunting season then quads should be illegal unless you are disabled or above a certain age. Couldn't agree more Mudeater. :brew:
This would do more to help out our herd than most people think. People wonder why despite the fact that we have fewer hunters than ever before and shorter seasons than in the past, we have fewer numbers of deer and the hunting is way worse than during the "golden years." It's simple, TECHNOLOGY!!! Now people have all sorts of tools to make them better shots. Such as better scopes, range finders. We have better and lighter binos. People have GPS so they can go in deeper without getting lost. Camo, scent eliminators, the advent of calling and better tree-stands. Like Mudeater said our bows and ML are better and more accurate and easier to use. And of course more people have 4 wheel drive vehicles now than before, and there are WAY, WAY, WAY more ATV's out there than ever before. Technology can be a blessing but it's also a curse. Killing an animal is easier than ever before.
Post by: Viszla on March 10, 2010, 11:49:31 AM
Post by: Ray on March 10, 2010, 12:24:41 PM
pemits to hunt geneal season?
No... it's not a general season anymore if it requires a permit...
Seemed obvious to me too. I definitely don't hunt roads or clear cuts close to roads often. I certainly wasn't asking for a month either. I certainly don't believe in shell restrictions. I think it was pretty clear what I said had nothing to do with his childish response. In fact this concept I speak about exists today. Some areas are open for permits only.
Post by: seaduckhunter on March 10, 2010, 12:39:20 PM
Post by: bobcat on March 10, 2010, 04:11:34 PM
That's why I would just like to see permit only hunting, in a lot of areas anyway.
Post by: Young Buck on March 17, 2010, 11:42:26 AM
Post by: Bob33 on March 19, 2010, 09:14:21 AM
aahh master hunters? hhhmmm didnt they have a special hunt up on hwy 20 , for elk with bow's and arrow'sThe Skagit hunt that resulted in the media spectacle was regular archery hunters, not master hunters.
Post by: huntnphool on March 19, 2010, 12:36:34 PM
Quote
:chuckle J :chuckle:O :chuckle:K :chuckle:E:twocents:
Post by: sako223 on March 19, 2010, 07:26:04 PM
Quote
I agree, the length of some seasons should be reduced. There is just too much pressure on deer and elk for too long.
I have been saying this for a few years and have been attacked by several posters.
Seasons did not used to last for 5-6 months. now shed hunting adds longer pressure.
Post by: bobcat on March 19, 2010, 07:33:20 PM
Post by: 30.06 on March 20, 2010, 07:53:44 PM
Post by: Curly on March 21, 2010, 11:57:38 AM
Size of average bucks has gone DOWN in recent years thanks in part to the present 3 pt. min and long archery/smokepole seasons.
A lot of what you say is true......but I don't think one week for Muzzleloader is considered a long season.
Post by: AKBowman on March 21, 2010, 01:32:00 PM
4 point or better (draw)
2 point or smaller (OTC)
Leave the 3 points alone for a year so they can contribute and less people will confuse 3's for 2's.
Post by: coachcw on March 24, 2010, 08:38:27 PM
Post by: hornhunter on March 25, 2010, 11:51:49 AM
Post by: Curly on March 25, 2010, 01:08:29 PM
If you want a 4 point then hold off and shoot a 4 point. We don't need any antler restrictions at all or permits either. We just need to shorten the seasons. The deer are hunted pretty much solid from Sept. 1st to mid Dec. How do you expect the herds to increase when we are hunting them 4 months out the year? Give all user groups one week and one week only. Only then will our mule deer herds be able to grow. Also, no doe tags at all except for damage control areas.
+1
Post by: colockumelk on March 25, 2010, 02:27:42 PM
I like the draw only with no point restrictions, Gate more roads yould have throphy bucks . :twocents:
I agree with the roads. The east side has far too much road access. How do we expect enough bucks and bulls to live through the hunting season if they have nowhere to escape too.? I challenge anyone to answer that question.
Post by: Viszla on March 26, 2010, 09:55:07 AM
Post by: colockumelk on March 26, 2010, 11:56:08 AM
I would love to see more roads gated as well but what makes me mad is when they open up the roads during bow and muzzle seasons and then close them during rifle. Either keep them closed to everyone or open them up. Openig and closing to certain user groups is just plain BS.
Does this really happen? It probably has more to do with the DNR or forest service company. Probably more to do with the time of year the seasons fall than what season it is. Or maybe it could be because way more people hunt with a rifle than a bow or ML so they don't want to deal with that many people and the problems they create??
On a side note as a bowhunter if it is the WDFW playing user games I think it is BS as well.
Post by: spikehunter on April 02, 2010, 04:14:14 PM