Post by: Hangfire on March 18, 2011, 07:05:00 AM
According to the information there is one commissioner on the fence, the remaining ones are split 50/50. I was told know is the time for your feelings to be passed to the commission and the governors office. All the WDFW people I have talked to are against the proposal.
Post by: Sneaky on March 18, 2011, 09:08:39 AM
All I can see coming of this is lost revenue and 3 point deer hitting the dirt and rotting.
Post by: Miles on March 18, 2011, 09:14:28 AM
While attending the Spokane sports show yesterday, I received some new information on part of the reason behind the 4 point restriction proposal. I was talking to a high ranking sports club member. I was told the 4 point restriction is almost a done deal. There is one commission member that has political ambitions. He has large land owner friends that want the 4 point restriction. A scratch my back and I will help you situation. This is the second time I have heard this from two independent sources.
Very interesting....but not surprising.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on March 19, 2011, 06:12:20 PM
Post by: buck man on March 19, 2011, 06:48:24 PM
Post by: bearpaw on March 19, 2011, 07:04:33 PM
What amazes me is that so many people say antler point restrictions will not work in NE WA, and many of the same people support some type of antler point restriction in another part of the state.
The Bighon Show is put on by the INWC which is a great group, but they have opposed this from the time they heard about it and my thoughts are this is just a rumor created to undermine the 4pt APR.
I do not know of any such motivation regarding this rule. It started as a grass roots effort from Stevens county residents. :twocents:
Post by: Skyvalhunter on March 19, 2011, 07:08:23 PM
Post by: BULLBLASTER on March 19, 2011, 08:08:13 PM
:)bring it on! I hope it happens!
so do I! but i thought this thread would explode like the last one. :bash:
Post by: Armadillo on March 19, 2011, 08:31:47 PM
Post by: muleyguy on March 19, 2011, 10:12:30 PM
the only state that even uses them anymore in the West is WA; that should tell you something right there;
if you want to solve the problem of low buck numbers and/or low numbers of mature bucks in the population, then you need to restrict the harvest of the animals;
a much better strategy is to not put antler pt restrictions in, but, rather restrict tag numbers;
but, the WDFW and all the hunters in this state all want to think there is some silver bullet to fix things without the hard medicine of reduced opportunities
Post by: NWBREW on March 19, 2011, 11:10:01 PM
Am I the only one who doesn't see a lack of bucks in the NE? I get into big bucks every year and have only ever harvested one decent one. They are there, just smarter than the average bear, which I think the trail cam forum has proven.
All I can see coming of this is lost revenue and 3 point deer hitting the dirt and rotting.
I agree. People will be shooting without thinking that it might not have eyeguards. The area I hunt (for 20+years) is "Any buck" but I don't hunt it till the Late hunt. I Hunt for a week at a time and am always seeing bucks.......of all sizes, so I'm not sure if it will help or not. It will make it a little tougher on road hunters. :chuckle:
Post by: hokey97 on March 20, 2011, 08:08:37 PM
Post by: NWBREW on March 20, 2011, 08:59:02 PM
they should let youth shoot 2pt and adults shoot 4pt so kids like me get a taste :twocents:
I would like to see a better youth hunt with a 2 pt. min..
Post by: bearpaw on March 20, 2011, 09:26:43 PM
Post by: Ridgeratt on March 20, 2011, 09:38:27 PM
We already have a 3 point Min on Mulie's which means most folks have to study the big 2 to see if it has the eye guards. If it has 3 on a beam most likely it has eye guards also. So this just slows down the snap shooters.
I would like to see it go all of the 3 eastern counties as well. (Ferry.Stevens,Pend Orielle)
Post by: TeacherMan on March 20, 2011, 09:40:13 PM
Post by: Ridgeratt on March 20, 2011, 10:01:34 PM
they should let youth shoot 2pt and adults shoot 4pt so kids like me get a taste :twocents:
What would be a bonus for you is upon the completion of your hunter's ed class and graduating the WDFG would issue the youth a (complimentry) open tag to harvest any deer. Regardless of species. It would give the youth a chance to fill a tag. If that year they weren't successful they could turn the tag back in and be reissued for the following year. Once the tag was punched the youth would be in the same pool as the rest. When I used to hit the deer park game check and talked to several folks. Seems at times we have proud fathers and hush mouth kid's. :dunno:
Post by: TeacherMan on March 20, 2011, 10:05:22 PM
they should let youth shoot 2pt and adults shoot 4pt so kids like me get a taste :twocents:
What would be a bonus for you is upon the completion of your hunter's ed class and graduating the WDFG would issue the youth a (complimentry) open tag to harvest any deer. Regardless of species. It would give the youth a chance to fill a tag. If that year they weren't successful they could turn the tag back in and be reissued for the following year. Once the tag was punched the youth would be in the same pool as the rest. When I used to hit the deer park game check and talked to several folks. Seems at times we have proud fathers and hush mouth kid's. :dunno:
thats funny :chuckle:
Post by: sakoshooter on March 20, 2011, 10:26:43 PM
oh god I just see the scouting pics of all the dead three pts that'll turn up :bdid:
I heard that a lot when the 3pt min was first introduced. I know it happens once in a while unfortunately but it sure improved the branched antler mule deer population. I'm sure it'd do the same for the whitetail population. Hunters just need to make darn sure of what they're shooting at.
With that said, what 4pt restriction are you talking about?
Post by: muleyguy on March 21, 2011, 10:46:43 AM
Quote
All the WDFW people I have talked to are against the proposal
there all against it because they know its a failed policy; all it is going to do is exacerbate the problem; sure, it will result in an increase in 1.5 yr old animals; but, it will result in a decrease of 3.5 yr old animals and older;
all that will happen is the harvest will shift to 2.5 yr old animals; you will have an increase in bucks, but, they will just be 1.5 yr old bucks; yes, in a year there will be more 2.5 yr old bucks to shoot, but over time, there will also be less 3.5 yr old bucks also;
so, at best, it is a very short term "fix" to get a few more bucks into the population;
The real problem, and why I suspect that the WDFW is against it, is because the real problem comes when you want to "unwind" the antler pt restriction;
what happens in a few years is almost ALL of your bucks are in the 1.5 yr old and 2.5 yr old class; so, what do you think happens when they want to try and get rid of it????
They CAN'T.........because it would be a wholesale slaughter of bucks because the population is made up of yearling bucks.....and, you find yourself right back where you where to begin with.....
So, they get trapped into the antler pt restriction management scheme, and, slowly, over the years, the number of truly mature animals in the population slowly erodes because you are focusing the harvest on older age class animals; there is also evidence to suggest that part of the long term problem in deer herds (more muleys then whitetail) is the fact that the age structure of the bucks is all screwed up;
mother nature set it up so that "mature" animals would do the majority of the breeding; man has shifted this into lower age class animals, especially in mule deer herds;
if buck to doe ratio's are off, or, if the age class of bucks is off, gimmicks like shooting more does to increase the buck to doe ratio (which is insane......) or gimmicks like antler pt restrictions do not solve the longer term underlying problem......
this state is stuck in a management quagmire from the 3 pt antler restrictions on mule deer; over the long run, it does not increase the buck numbers, only the year of harvest, and it actually hurts the mature animals; the WDFW can't unwind the antler restritions because it would dramatically lower buck populations, so what do they do???? Shorten the season;
we know have 3pt better rules and a 9 day mule deer season, and nothing is better;
where are they going to next?? heck, lets make it 5 pt or better and shorten the season to 3 days........thats where this management scheme is going.......
here's a better idea:
cut the tag numbers by 1/3; lengthen the season out to spread the hunter numbers; get rid of these antler pt gimicks;
you get to hunt 2/3 years; you get a longer season; less hunting pressure, and the buck numbers and maturity level in the buck population is better;
but, nope......not this state, its our god given right to hunt every year.......
Post by: bowhunterforever on March 21, 2011, 09:27:12 PM
IMO,I don't think that theory is right at all. Over time i think we will see more & more 3 1/2 and older bucks as time progresses with 4 point or better in the NE corner. When whitetails get older they get ALOT smarter and therefore live longer and become very nocturnal.I hope they pass the 4 point rule :twocents:QuoteAll the WDFW people I have talked to are against the proposal
there all against it because they know its a failed policy; all it is going to do is exacerbate the problem; sure, it will result in an increase in 1.5 yr old animals; but, it will result in a decrease of 3.5 yr old animals and older;
all that will happen is the harvest will shift to 2.5 yr old animals; you will have an increase in bucks, but, they will just be 1.5 yr old bucks; yes, in a year there will be more 2.5 yr old bucks to shoot, but over time, there will also be less 3.5 yr old bucks also;
so, at best, it is a very short term "fix" to get a few more bucks into the population;
The real problem, and why I suspect that the WDFW is against it, is because the real problem comes when you want to "unwind" the antler pt restriction;
what happens in a few years is almost ALL of your bucks are in the 1.5 yr old and 2.5 yr old class; so, what do you think happens when they want to try and get rid of it????
They CAN'T.........because it would be a wholesale slaughter of bucks because the population is made up of yearling bucks.....and, you find yourself right back where you where to begin with.....
So, they get trapped into the antler pt restriction management scheme, and, slowly, over the years, the number of truly mature animals in the population slowly erodes because you are focusing the harvest on older age class animals; there is also evidence to suggest that part of the long term problem in deer herds (more muleys then whitetail) is the fact that the age structure of the bucks is all screwed up;
mother nature set it up so that "mature" animals would do the majority of the breeding; man has shifted this into lower age class animals, especially in mule deer herds;
if buck to doe ratio's are off, or, if the age class of bucks is off, gimmicks like shooting more does to increase the buck to doe ratio (which is insane......) or gimmicks like antler pt restrictions do not solve the longer term underlying problem......
this state is stuck in a management quagmire from the 3 pt antler restrictions on mule deer; over the long run, it does not increase the buck numbers, only the year of harvest, and it actually hurts the mature animals; the WDFW can't unwind the antler restritions because it would dramatically lower buck populations, so what do they do???? Shorten the season;
we know have 3pt better rules and a 9 day mule deer season, and nothing is better;
where are they going to next?? heck, lets make it 5 pt or better and shorten the season to 3 days........thats where this management scheme is going.......
here's a better idea:
cut the tag numbers by 1/3; lengthen the season out to spread the hunter numbers; get rid of these antler pt gimicks;
you get to hunt 2/3 years; you get a longer season; less hunting pressure, and the buck numbers and maturity level in the buck population is better;
but, nope......not this state, its our god given right to hunt every year.......
Post by: bobcat on March 21, 2011, 09:35:58 PM
QuoteAll the WDFW people I have talked to are against the proposal3 days........thats where this management scheme is going.......
here's a better idea:
cut the tag numbers by 1/3; lengthen the season out to spread the hunter numbers; get rid of these antler pt gimicks;
you get to hunt 2/3 years; you get a longer season; less hunting pressure, and the buck numbers and maturity level in the buck population is better;
but, nope......not this state, its our god given right to hunt every year.......
:yeah: Well said! I wish you would go to work for the WDFW.
Post by: muleyguy on March 21, 2011, 10:18:06 PM
Quote
IMO,I don't think that theory is right at all. Over time i think we will see more & more 3 1/2 and older bucks as time progresses with 4 point or better in the NE corner. When whitetails get older they get ALOT smarter and therefore live longer and become very nocturnal.I hope they pass the 4 point rule
well, here is the data from various places across the US on antler pt restrictions:
WA biologist talking about Whitetail antler pt restrictions in Oregon:
"Biologists are concerned that forcing all the harvest to mature bucks could have the consequence of reducing the number of bucks reaching five-point or larger size – as it did in Oregon before that state dropped its brief fling with whitetail antler point restrictions."
Data from the Whitetail Institute:
"Where it has been instituted, either through regulations or through voluntary cooperation by clubs and individual hunters, antler restrictions have resulted in more bigger bucks in the entire population. Bigger, however, is a relative term. Data compiled by the PGC shows that while yearling bucks are indeed surviving at higher rates, most are being harvested the first year they are legal. Prior to the new rules, about 20 percent of the total buck harvest consisted of mature (two years or older) deer. Now, 2-1/2-year-old bucks make up 75 percent of Pennsylvania’s “mature” buck harvest."
"After examining the effect of antler restrictions for 14 years, biologists in Mississippi found that selective harvest of bucks with at least four points on one side resulted in a reduction in bucks with larger antlers in subsequent years. In other words, the best bucks were being taken out of the population early because they grew legal antlers at younger ages than lower-quality bucks of the same age. Called “high-grading,” it ultimately resulted in an overall decline in antler size of 3 1/2-year old and older bucks. It’s happening mostly on public property where hunting pressure is high and hunters are still less willing to let a legal deer pass."
“We were seeing a decrease in antler quality because the poor-quality yearling bucks were doing most of the breeding. By increasing the overall antler quality, we expect to see a long-term increase in antler size as well as a shorter breeding season,” he explains. “When we had the four-point rule in place, the breeding season was lasting as long as 50 days and we saw some fawns born as late as October. That’s not a sign of a healthy deer herd.”
Like I explained, it will simply result in a shift from 1.5 yr old animals to 2.5 yr old animals; it will reduce the numbers of truly mature bucks in the population because it focus harvest on the older age classes and it is taking out the bucks with the best genetics.
It's not a soultion, its a gimmick....
the reason it is so "popular" with sportsmen, and why they mistakenly "think" it is creating larger bucks is because most hunters all they have ever shot in their life is 1.5 yr old bucks, and a few older ones; with antler pt restrictions, they are now shooting 2.5 yr old animals instead of 1.5 yr olds; basket racked, 2.5 yr old 4pt whitetails are not mature bucks; 19" basket racked, 2.5 yr old, mule deer, while they might look great in your rifle scope, are not mature mule deer.
yes, you shift harvest to deer 1 yr older, and yes, a 2.5 yr old buck has a bigger rack; but, the consequences of achieving this slight gain in buck quality comes at a heavy price.
Post by: Miles on March 23, 2011, 07:54:55 AM
Maybe some people are thinking....
Post by: jackmaster on March 23, 2011, 09:23:04 AM
Post by: Miles on March 23, 2011, 10:43:11 AM
i hope they make it 3pt min for blacktail except youth and seniors let them shoot spikes and 2 pts but everyone else 3pt or better :IBCOOL:
This proposal has nothing to do with blacktail.
Post by: 1bugman on March 23, 2011, 11:32:46 AM
Post by: jackmaster on March 23, 2011, 12:18:03 PM
ok, well its still my opinion,maybe we will get lucky and they will make that a proposal as well, wouldnt that be SWEET?i hope they make it 3pt min for blacktail except youth and seniors let them shoot spikes and 2 pts but everyone else 3pt or better :IBCOOL:
This proposal has nothing to do with blacktail.
Post by: muleyguy on March 23, 2011, 01:04:36 PM
but, in 2009, 1,390 antlerless deer were killed in region 1; of which almost all I would suppose are whitetails; I am sure it is lower in 2010, but, looking at the Regulations for 2010 shows continued all kinds of antlerless opportunities in region 1 for 2010;
if you want to get more bucks, and older bucks, in the population, you need to stop killing the does.......unless the habitat is at carrying capacity, which it isn't.
when you run the math of how many more bucks there would be in the population after 5 yrs if these 1,390 does weren't killed, it looks pretty shocking;
I understand that there are areas in region 1 that have high concentrations of whitetails, but, this is ALL private ground; if you are going to give out antlerless tags, target them to private land;
but, once again, this requires a sacrifice on the part of the hunting community.
antlerless tags in WA should be the exception instead of the norm which they have become; when deer numbers are high, then it is fine to provide some extra opportunities; but, the reality is that in most years in WA deer populations are below objective;
instead, we are subjected to things like antler pt restrictions and shortened seasons to try and fix the problem; all the while, our deer herds slowly erode;
I know it sounds like heresy to think that 1 out of every 3 years you couldn't go hunting, but, ask yourself, how good is the experience right now?? Shortened seasons, antler pt restrictions, massive pressure on public ground, etc, etc.
Project out 10 yrs....does anybody really think anything is going to get any better??? The management scheme of antlerless opportuniteis and antler pt restrictions is only going to put more pressure on reducing season length;
cut harvest by 1/3; lengthen the season, get rid of antler pt restrictions; and, I can guarantee you that the quality of the experience would triple; 2 great experiences instead of 3 terrible ones.
Post by: bearpaw on March 23, 2011, 02:16:49 PM
It is pretty universally agreed that doe harvest should only occur when populations are at carrying capacity and used to maintain deer numbers or reduce deer numbers. I agree, doe deer need protected while herds are depressed. Our advisory group shares that opinion.
For the record there are plenty of studies indicating point restrictions do work. We can play a game of showing various studies from around the country to support the argument either way, but I think what matters are the conditions involved in the hunt area. As bowhunterforever stated, whitetail bucks get smarter when they get older and NE WA has plenty of cover for the smart bucks to hide in. So I honestly think your analysis is very incorrect due to the conditions in NE WA.
The goal of this proposal is to reduce buck harvest now to help the herds while at the same time maintaining reasonable hunter opportunity. What some of you fail to understand is that there are a lot of local hunters who simply hunt where they live here in NE WA. They do not travel around the state hunting, what about all the kids who hunt out the back door, you put deer on a draw and you will stop these kids from hunting. :twocents:
All we are asking for is two units for 5 years, analize the effects of the rule, reassess the effects after 5 years, and then move forward with the best management policy. At the end of 5 years if data shows that the APR did not work, then it should not be continued. We may learn that it worked well for 2 or 3 years and then is not needed. It may be a sensational sucess and everyone wants it contunued.
I can tell you this for absolute certain and you can not say this is wrong: "If the state is too narrow minded to try an APR in NE WA, we will never know if it would have worked or not worked."
Please answer these questions:
If APR's don't work then why do we have them all over the state?
If you are saying they don't work, then why don't we remove them all?
Post by: walt on March 23, 2011, 06:48:40 PM
Quote
I have been involved in this discussion for about 6 to 8 years and I used to oppose it. I openly agreed with Steve Zender before his retirement at the Advisory Committee meeting. But things have changed much since then. Our deer are probably at only 40% in numbers of what they were then. Right now we need this to build deer numbers.
Didn't this first come up after the harsh winters in the late 90's? The population recovered and numbers were up before the 2 hard winters of '07 and '08, they dropped and now they are on the rise again. Why do we have to do something right now? Why not give it another two years. The population has gone up and down with the weather for decades and every time we have a decline it's the same story. "the sky is falling" and "we have to act now to save our herd"...
Show me a study on population numbers over the last 30 years. Anyone? That herd is not struggling, it is going through its natural cycle. If this was really about increasing numbers they would shift the season to eliminate rifle hunting during the rut.
It's all about the money and it makes me sick.
Post by: bobcat on March 23, 2011, 08:34:02 PM
Please answer these questions:
If APR's don't work then why do we have them all over the state?
If you are saying they don't work, then why don't we remove them all?
The reason we still have point restrictions is because they are popular with hunters. The WDFW wanted to do away with it a couple years ago but they were outvoted by the general public. That's what's wrong with the WDFW- they listen to what hunters want instead of doing what is biologically best for the animals. IMO
Post by: Skyvalhunter on March 23, 2011, 08:38:22 PM
Post by: bobcat on March 23, 2011, 08:41:55 PM
Post by: 257 Wby Mag on March 23, 2011, 08:48:43 PM
Post by: lokidog on March 23, 2011, 10:01:00 PM
You folks are lucky up there, I wish they would make it 3 point or better blacktail on the west side...
i hope they make it 3pt min for blacktail except youth and seniors let them shoot spikes and 2 pts but everyone else 3pt or better :IBCOOL:
Sorry to say this but bite me on this blanket three-point idea.... Where I live, there are very few three point bucks because we do not have the genetics for eyeguards on the forkies. In five years I have seen three deer on this island that had more than three points on a side. Last season, I saw maybe three three points of all the bucks seen. We have shot three bucks that were over 2 1/2 years old here that were stilll only forks. Maybe it should just be deer with five points or a 24" spread??
It is shortsighted to manage large diverse areas in the same manner as each other because habitat differences determine the management needs of herds in different areas.
Post by: Miles on March 23, 2011, 11:08:11 PM
I can tell you this for absolute certain and you can not say this is wrong: "If the state is too narrow minded to try an APR in NE WA, we will never know if it would have worked or not worked."
That's like telling someone if they don't try meth, they will never know if it would have harmed them or not... It's still a bad idea.
Post by: bearpaw on March 24, 2011, 10:18:01 AM
The difference between APR's and meth is that there are no studies that show meth to be beneficial, so no reason to try it and every reason to avoid it. :twocents:
If my only concern was making money, I would certainly want to make 117 and 121 a draw and grow the biggest bucks possible so I could sell $5000 trophy hunts. I see the issue as a compromise, reduce the buck harvest and still allow local people an opportunity to hunt.
If I am not mistaken in many threads I see hunters complaining that the WDFW doesn't consider the local hunter's wishes. Now in this thread by some poster's standards, it seems the WDFW should ignore the local people. What gives?
Let me ask you this, where you live is there an issue that you wished you could change to help improve fish or wildlife? Don't you wish you could make a difference? That is exactly what is at issue here. People see a problem and want to make a difference. There is several solutions to any problem, APR happens to be the solution most preferred.
I am nearly certain if we were asking to make this a limited-entry area, more people would be opposed. What do some of you members have to say about that?
Yes we can do nothing, the wolves will continue multiplying and we could end up just like the Lolo zone in Idaho. Right now the people of Idaho wished their F&G would have recovered that herd before the wolves multiplied. Now it may take decades if it ever recovers. If some of you do not know the history of the Lolo and don't know what a "predator pit" is, I will be glad to elaborate.
Sorry for being so long winded. :chuckle:
Post by: huntnnw on March 24, 2011, 03:35:19 PM
Post by: buck man on March 24, 2011, 09:28:05 PM
Our buck to does ratios are out of wack our populations are down and I personally believe we should shorten the hunting during the rut along with antler restrictions. :twocents:
Post by: 257 Wby Mag on March 24, 2011, 09:32:38 PM
You folks are lucky up there, I wish they would make it 3 point or better blacktail on the west side...i hope they make it 3pt min for blacktail except youth and seniors let them shoot spikes and 2 pts but everyone else 3pt or better :IBCOOL:
Sorry to say this but bite me on this blanket three-point idea.... Where I live, there are very few three point bucks because we do not have the genetics for eyeguards on the forkies. In five years I have seen three deer on this island that had more than three points on a side. Last season, I saw maybe three three points of all the bucks seen. We have shot three bucks that were over 2 1/2 years old here that were stilll only forks. Maybe it should just be deer with five points or a 24" spread??
It is shortsighted to manage large diverse areas in the same manner as each other because habitat differences determine the management needs of herds in different areas.
Never hunted your neck of the woods, the skook would be a real world burner though.....
Post by: huntnnw on March 24, 2011, 09:44:03 PM
Post by: buck man on March 24, 2011, 09:55:54 PM
The Buck to doe ratio has been outta whack long before the bad winters.. love the input and comments from people who live no where near here :chuckle: useless:yeah:
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Most have no clue about OUR deer issues. Not even our own biologists!
Post by: bearpaw on March 24, 2011, 10:37:00 PM
Washington didn't have too much of a whitetail plan, but it appears they are trying to get a better handle on our whitetails. Several members of our NE group went on counts and it was a good experience that I would recommend to anyone.
At times I am pretty critical of WDFW but I do understand they have a lot of different people to try and please and you can never please all the poeple all the time. No doubt it's a tough job to keep the all people of Washington even somewhat satisfied. Hunters can't even agree and we are only a small percent of the population. :twocents:
Post by: Miles on March 24, 2011, 11:16:06 PM
Instead, open a wolf season and all those deer hunters can target wolves instead. It's a win/win situation...
Post by: bearpaw on March 25, 2011, 08:20:54 AM
I say SHUT IT DOWN. No whitetail season this year. :chuckle:
Instead, open a wolf season and all those deer hunters can target wolves instead. It's a win/win situation...
No doubt that would increase the deer herd... :chuckle:
Post by: huntnnw on March 25, 2011, 11:56:01 AM
Post by: muleyguy on March 25, 2011, 03:39:18 PM
Quote
I can tell you this for absolute certain and you can not say this is wrong: "If the state is too narrow minded to try an APR in NE WA, we will never know if it would have worked or not worked."
Is there something magical about NE WA that will make it "work" there?? The studies I linked to were from the Pennsylvania Game Commission and Mississippi Game commisions;
the argument "for" APR's many times is that in thick habitat bucks will get more escapement out of the 2.5 yr old class; but, the data does not show that; it shows the same thing happens in whitetail populations that it does in mule deer populations over time. The habitat in Pennsylvania and Mississippi is very simalar to NE WA;
There is nothing to suggest that NE WA is some special place where APR's will mysteriously work.
Quote
If APR's don't work then why do we have them all over the state?
Because WA state is trying to find gimmicks to the problem instead of taking the hard medicine of reducing tag's;
Here is a better questions to ask: WHY is WA the only Western State that still has APR's for its mule deer herd????
are we just "smarter" here??? no, the answer is all the rest of the states have scrapped APR's for mule deer because they are a disaster and not a solution.
Quote
If you are saying they don't work, then why don't we remove them all?
We SHOULD get rid of them all; especially in our mule deer herds as every other Western State has gotten rid of them;
Here is research from the Mule Deer Working Group of APR:
Quote
Antler point restrictions
Creating mule deer harvest seasons with antler point restrictions is popular amongst hunters who think it will help increase the number of mature bucks and buck:doe ratios in mule deer populations. But research in many western states shows that antler point restrictions do not produce more deer or larger-antlered deer.
Colorado implemented antler point restrictions statewide for six years, and in a number of game units for seven years. The result was a shift of hunting from pressure on all age classes of bucks (primarily yearlings) to bucks two years and older, and an increase in illegal or accidental harvest of yearling bucks. The number of mature bucks did not increase over time.
Idaho and Montana implemented two points or less seasons to reduce hunting pressure on older bucks and improve buck:doe ratios at the end of hunting seasons. Over the long term, two point seasons did not improve buck:doe ratios at the end of the hunting seasons.
Wyoming’s experience with four point or better seasons resulted in fewer hunters and a reduction in total harvest, fewer mature bucks, and a significant number of deer harvested with fewer than four points.
Utah abandoned efforts to implement antler point restrictions after five years when officials documented illegal harvest, reductions in overall harvest and fewer mature bucks.
Attempts to increase the number of mature bucks and buck:doe ratios using four-point seasons in Montana reduced buck harvest by 28 percent, increased illegal harvest of bucks with 3x3 points or less by about 40 percent, and increased harvest of bucks having more than 3x4 points.
Washington tried antler point restrictions in a few of their hunting units and experienced a smaller harvest of mule deer bucks, a switch in harvest from mule deer to white-tailed deer, and no increase in the number of mature bucks.
Oregon abandoned antler point restrictions in a few popular hunting areas when the number of older bucks and buck:doe ratios decreased after 12 years.
Most western states have concluded that changes in buck:doe ratios and increases in the number of mature bucks can only be accomplished through reductions in harvest of bucks.
If your goal is to shift harvest from 1.5 yr old animals to 2.5 yr old animals and have no corressponding increase in bucks, and have lower mature buck populations, then, by all means APR's are the way to go. If your goal is "increase" deer herds, it isn't going to help in that regard; if your goal is increase total numbers of bucks, it isn't going to do that either; and, if it is your goal to increase mature bucks, it isn't going to do that one either;
It will simply shift harvest up 1 yr and create a bubble of 1.5 yr old deer in your population; and, over time, will degrade your mature buck population;
The reason APR's are popular in WA is because we all think that will solve the problem so we don't have to take the hard medicine of reduced tag numbers;
There are a number of eastern states that use APR's; but, the reason they do is the same reason why people want them here: They want to shoot 2.5 yr old animals instead of 1.5 yr old animals;
once again, the "cost" of shooting one age class higher bucks takes a tremendous long term toll on the buck structure of the population;
Post by: 1bugman on March 25, 2011, 04:33:42 PM
Post by: huntnnw on March 25, 2011, 09:12:09 PM
Post by: Miles on March 26, 2011, 02:06:54 AM
Come take a drive with me this Nov in 127 and tell me apr dont work... then I will take you for a drive in some of the best areas in 121,117 and 124 and u can observe... The deer in 127 get hunted harder than most of the whitetails in this state and the cover is much thinner and the bowhunting pressure is tremendous.
Shane,
We have already discussed this numerous times, yet you keep going back there. There are so many differences between the units south of the river, and those to the north. Habitat, winter severity(snow accumulation), terrain, no late rifle season, shorter rifle season, etc... To attribute the higher number of bucks seen to a 3 pt APR is a little much, don't you think?
Post by: Miles on March 26, 2011, 02:12:44 AM
Post by: huntnnw on March 26, 2011, 05:38:19 AM
Post by: Miles on March 26, 2011, 08:03:18 AM
nope.. I seen it before rifle rut..then it opened for 4 years with a general rifle rut hunt then now to what it is with the permit.. it still is,was and has been way better for bucks. The winters are the same, from the area to area I am describing, both are limited shooting zones to mostly bow only. The bowhunter density is greater south of river and the cover is heavier in the north part. I am not talking all the units in the south half or the the ones all over up north. I am basically talking south spokane to north spokane.. alot being the same in every aspect..but one rule 3 pt min. HUGE difference in buck density... and alot it of has to do with 3pt min... almost all the areas described dont get hit with gun hunters no matter what due to no shooting zones.They are compareble in almost everyway. These arent little areas either, from ID line to 195 .I have places where I can hunt almost on the spokane river on the northside, no shooting zone and see some bucks, almost never see them when driving the areas, 5 min and over the river and bucks everywhere, immediate difference. Night and day difference.
Ok.
Good thing the deer can't swim the river...wouldn't want them getting shot by the bowhunter sitting on the northside.
Post by: Miles on March 26, 2011, 08:10:26 AM
Post by: muleyguy on March 26, 2011, 08:55:31 AM
Quote
nope.. I seen it before rifle rut..then it opened for 4 years with a general rifle rut hunt then now to what it is with the permit.. it still is,was and has been way better for bucks. The winters are the same, from the area to area I am describing, both are limited shooting zones to mostly bow only. The bowhunter density is greater south of river and the cover is heavier in the north part. I am not talking all the units in the south half or the the ones all over up north. I am basically talking south spokane to north spokane.. alot being the same in every aspect..but one rule 3 pt min. HUGE difference in buck density... and alot it of has to do with 3pt min... almost all the areas described dont get hit with gun hunters no matter what due to no shooting zones.They are compareble in almost everyway. These arent little areas either, from ID line to 195 .I have places where I can hunt almost on the spokane river on the northside, no shooting zone and see some bucks, almost never see them when driving the areas, 5 min and over the river and bucks everywhere, immediate difference. Night and day difference.
none of this matters; the reason you are seeing "way better buck density" is because the APR protects yearling bucks from harvest, so, you see them because they are protected; all you have to do is go look at the harvest report for 127 and you see exactly what the effect of APR's are; your reference to come take a drive and you can see the difference, explains it perfect..........you are seeing yearling bucks, thats what you see driving around;
all of the harvest is focused on older age class bucks; and, it just shifts the harvest from 1.5 yr old deer to 2.5 yr old deer; then compare it the harvest in 121 or 124 and you see a much better spreading of the harvest over all the age classes;
3pt and 4 pt APR's protect the yearling class of bucks, and shifts the harvest up one age class; so, in the typical deer season now, the average hunter is seeing a bunch of yearling bucks running around (because they are protected) and shoots a 2.5 yr old buck.
To a WA hunter, this seems like heaven; you see more bucks during the day (even though they are yearlings) and you can tell all your buddies that saw 7 bucks today instead of 1; and, you get to shoot a 2.5 yr old deer with a slightly bigger rack;
If that is your goal, then 3pt or 4pt APR's will achieve that very well; the problem is that it comes at a high cost to the buck structure of the population; can skew genetics towards smaller animals and results in younger bucks doing more of the breeding.
If you want an APR structure that would work much better (even these have problems though), then this would be the structure:
2 pt or less;
you instantly protect every age class of buck above 1.5yr old; every buck that makes it past his 1st year is "safe"; after several years, when you achieve proper buck to doe ratio's, then you can give out special tags for 3pt or larger bucks;
this type of APR protects the OLDER age class bucks, and lets them do the breeding; you eventually get a stockpile of older age class bucks and you can give out special opportunities to harvest those bucks;
anybody who has lived in Yakima and spends any time elk hunting can see the dramatic difference spike only APR has had on the bull population and the age class of the bulls in the population; it is nothing short of dramatic to those who have watched the herd between the two management schemes.
I am not necessarily advocating 2pt or less, I am just pointing out that different APR's have different consequences; 3pt and 4pt APR's focus the harvest on older age class bucks; 2pt or less focus' the harvest on yearlings;
The best management scheme is to just reduce tags though; the average hunter will shoot the first buck to pop up in front of him, so the average hunter focus' his harvest on yearling bucks; 3pt and 4pt minimums are all about not having to reduce tag numbers and to let everybody hunt every year;
If you reduce the tags, most hunters will still focus on yearling bucks, leaving lots of older animals in the population and providing better herd dynamics; that is the best scheme; 2pt or less is the "better" form of APR's and 3pt or 4pt APR's are the WORST form of managment.
Post by: bearpaw on March 26, 2011, 09:34:42 AM
ARE ANTLER RESTRICTIONS REALLY WORKING?
By Tom Fegely
Time was when passing up a buck anywhere in Pennsylvania was a rarity. No matter if it was a hat-rack 10-pointer or a scrawny spike, it didn’t stand much chance of getting by an alert hunter.
Last year, however, all that changed as some 40,000 bucks that might have been shot in previous seasons were let go to grow at least another year, some longer. It wasn’t necessarily a charitable move by any of the Keystone State’s near-million deer hunters, rather abidance to a new, controversial antler restriction regulation in its first trial season that had game managers and serious deer hunters from across the nation keeping close watch. Like Pennsylvania, many other states also kill a disproportionate number of yearling bucks each fall.
Harvest statistics from the last bow, gun and muzzleloader seasons stretching from late September to mid-January strongly indicate that the move to save young bucks was a colossal success. Consider that in 2001, 203,247 antlered deer were tagged by hunters. In the 2002 seasons, the buck harvest dropped to 165,416, the result of a new 3-points-on-one-antler restriction imposed by the Pennsylvania Game Commission.
Previously, Pennsylvania’s only antler-related regulation was that any buck with spikes of three or more inches or two or more points to an antler – no matter what the length – was legal. The regulation was in effect for 50 years. The 3-point-on-one-side antler restriction has been in effect only one year.
The most restrictive antler minimum in the nation is in a 10-county region of northwestern Pennsylvania woodland, farm and swamp country south of Lake Erie where a 4-points-per-antler restriction is enforced. Studies here, in habitat perfect for growing big and old whitetails, show that as many as 56 percent of yearling bucks sport eight or more points at age 1-1/2, hence, the more stringent regulation.
40,000 Bucks Spared
“We were expecting a large harvest (of bucks and does) last year and we got it,” said Dr. Gary Alt, chief of the Pennsylvania Game Commission’s Deer Management Section. “However, about 40,000 more antlered bucks made it through the winter than in years past and that’s what we hoped would happen.”
Although pleased at the eventual acceptance of the antler restriction program by a vast majority of Pennsylvania hunters – followed by fewer small bucks hanging from meat poles around the state – Alt had hoped for an even bigger “save” of the state’s young, antlered deer.
“We fully expected the number of bucks making it through the season to at least increase by 2-1/2 times but we only roughly doubled it,” said Alt. “However, we are extremely pleased with what was accomplished in the first year.”
Alt, formerly a black bear biologist, spent the better part of two years traveling the state with a slide show on his new deer management plan, appearing before overflow audiences and greeted by everything from cheers to jeers. By the time the 2002 seasons were on the horizon, however, Alt’s support had mushroomed to a welcome 75 percent, Game Commission surveys showed.
Mississippi and Arkansas lead the way
Pennsylvania may be making the biggest buck management news but historically the state yields to Mississippi and Arkansas, which began their antler restriction programs in 1995 and 1998, respectively. Also showing interest in setting new standards via antler restrictions are nearly 20 other states that have adopted antler minimums in experimental regions or on specific wildlife management areas. This year Mississippi hunters will be honoring a minimum 4-point (total) antler point requirement for the eighth year. Arkansas has protected young bucks with a 3-point-on-one-antler rule – like Pennsylvania’s – for the past five years.
As in most states, Arkansas hunters have historically killed more yearling bucks than any other age group. Prior to the institution of antler restrictions, 79 percent of the buck harvest was composed of 1-1/2-year-old deer. Afterward, the harvest of yearling bucks plummeted to 28 percent. Furthermore, the percentage of 2-1/2-year-old bucks – sporting an average 7.3 points – has doubled and the percentage of older age class has grown in recent years.
Mississippi hunters have had a longer period in which to analyze buck harvest figures and make up their minds about the effectiveness of point restrictions.
“The program had widespread support after the first year,” said Larry Castle, deer management coordinator for the Mississippi Dept. of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks. “There was also a tremendous increase in 2-1/2-year-old bucks.”
Biological Backlash?
Although Castle declares his support for antler restrictions, he is quick to note that studies carried out in cooperation with Dr. Stephen Demarais of Mississippi State University show a possible biological backlash. In one study, conducted at the Sunflower Wildlife Management Area, an average decline of 19 inches of antlers in the Boone & Crockett scores of 3-1/2-year-old bucks (shot since the 4-point rule was imposed in 1995) was evident. The reason, says Castle, is that smaller antlered yearling bucks were protected because of the 4-point rule but other yearlings with larger antlers and more points were legally killed. The bigger yearlings, said Castle, are the bucks that should have been spared. In a related study using penned deer, select harvests were simulated by physically removing certain deer that, in the wild, would have been shot. Similar declines in the antler quality of older bucks were evident.
Alt has also noted the great variation in antler sizes of 1-1/2-year-old bucks, although he forms different conclusions than in the Mississippi study as to whether it makes any difference if a spike or a thin-tined 8-pointer is taken by a hunter.
“There are a lot of factors affecting what kind of rack a deer will have in its second year” explains Alt. “But the size of a yearling’s (first) antlers does not correlate with what it may become.”
Alt’s contention is that “environmental factors” strongly influence the development of a buck’s first antlers.
“A 6-inch spike is not necessarily inferior to a 12-inch, 8-pointer,” said Alt. “The spike may have been born late, maybe it was raised in an over-browsed forest or, perhaps, was one of three fawns raised by the same mother.”
The 8-pointer, conversely, may have been born with the proverbial “silver spoon,” ideally the product of a lone birth with no siblings with which to share milk and living in farm country surrounded by apple orchards, cornfields, alfalfa pastures and woodlots raining acorns.
Yearling Dispersal
Completing the young buck’s natural urges is the tendency to disperse, perhaps offering the aforementioned spike new habitat and sustenance and the opportunity to catch up or surpass its 8-point counterpart. Pennsylvania studies show that 50 to 80 percent of young bucks will disperse an average of five miles from their natal ranges, although shifts exceeding 30 miles have also been documented. Currently the Pennsylvania Game Commission is conducting radiotelemetry studies on 500 bucks that are expected to yield more information on a little known aspect of whitetail behavior than ever before – including dispersal, aging and antler growth.
Yet another factor entering the buck survival equation is the identification and conservation of button bucks, some of which never reach antler-production age. In some states where special permits are needed to hunt antlerless deer (note that the hunting regulations are labeled as “antlerless deer seasons” and not “doe seasons”), bucks going into their initial winter produce nothing more than hair-covered “bumps” on their noggins. At close range or when viewed through binoculars, most experienced hunters can pick out the “bumps” atop the head of a button buck, bowhunters in particular, and pass on them even though in most states they may be legally tagged as “antlerless deer.”
A substantial 20 percent of Pennsylvania’s antlerless deer kill each year is composed of button bucks. Passing on them will account for more yearlings come the next hunting season.
Doe Bonus Control
Point restrictions have brought an additional benefit to deer management programs. As buck kills drop, doe kills are rising. Hunters who may have once shot smaller bucks for venison are now filling their licenses or permits with antlerless deer that, with few exceptions, are at the core of deer overpopulation problems. Prior to 1998, end-of-year figures showed that Arkansas hunters took 70 percent bucks and only 30 percent does. In the first year point restrictions were enforced the doe kill increased by more than 60 percent and the buck take fell by almost 40 percent. In Pennsylvania, antlerless deer harvests jumped from 283,000 in 2001 to 352,000 in 2002. A change in the traditional bucks-only season was necessary to permit filling county-issued doe licenses during the two-week, post-Thanksgiving season.
Do antler restrictions really work?
The answer is… maybe. Antler restrictions appear to improve quality at least in the short term. But many states are proceeding with a bit of hesitation. Unlike Mississippi, Arkansas and Pennsylvania, some states are first sticking their toes in the pond with experimental studies before instituting antler restrictions statewide. Georgia, New Jersey, Florida, Alabama and others are utilizing state-owned management units for point restriction research. Mississippi State University is delving into findings that older bucks in antler restriction areas are losing length and mass of their antlers. A Kentucky study is focusing on restrictions that include beam widths. Even in Arkansas, after five years of antler restrictions, some initial supporters of the concept are questioning whether the management plan is actually improving buck quality.
Antler restrictions will continue as the most contentious and controversial of deer hunting issues this season and in the years ahead. Look for variations on the minimum antler size theme that will sooner or later affect every one of us who hunts whitetails.
Post by: bearpaw on March 26, 2011, 09:38:16 AM
Do Antler Point Restrictions work?
Whether antler point restrictions work or not depends on what you think the objective is. If the objective is for hunters to see more mature bucks while hunting, then it works. If the objective is to increase buck harvest or to improve herd genetics, then maybe it doesn’t.
A story from Michigan:
Beginning in 1993 with the “Dooly County Experiment” in Georgia, several counties and deer management units (DMUs) across the U.S. have been placed under state-regulated antler restrictions.
Today, numerous counties or DMUs in Georgia, Michigan, Louisiana, Texas, New Jersey, and other states are operating under some form of minimum antler restriction. These are in addition to statewide antler restrictions in Mississippi, Arkansas, and Pennsylvania. Collectively, these restrictions have resulted from the growing support among sportsmen for opportunities to manage and hunt whitetails under the Quality Deer Management (QDM) approach.
The notoriety of the Dooly County project spurred the interest of Michigan schoolteacher and avid whitetail hunter, Marc Yenkel of Claire, Michigan. In 1996, Marc petitioned the Executive Director of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MIDNR) for an antler restriction in his immediate hunting area of about three square miles. It was politely refused.
“We wanted a chance to harvest 2 1/2- or 3 1/2-year-old bucks,” said Marc. “People around here had bushel baskets of 4-point racks. We wanted the opportunity, the challenge of hunting an older deer. I have 160 acres and the guy next to me has 3,000 and it really snowballed from there.”
Despite the failed first effort, Marc gathered several local supporters and petitioned the Michigan Natural Resources Commission (MNRC) in 1997 for a larger area of about 20 square miles. This also was rejected on the basis that it would break-up an existing DMU. Marc then joined the Mid-Michigan Branch of the Quality Deer Management Association (QDMA) and together they drafted a proposal for all of DMU 118 (173,000 acres) with input from the MIDNR Wildlife Division.
Based on this request, the MIDNR adopted guidelines similar to those used in Georgia, which require, among other things, landowner and hunter surveys to be conducted in the affected area to gauge support. A minimum of 66 percent support from both landowners and hunters is then required for the antler restriction to be implemented. Eventually, a survey was conducted, which revealed 68 percent support from landowners and 53 percent support from hunters for a mandatory 3-points-on-one-side minimum antler restriction in DMU 118. The MIDNR withdrew their support due to the hunter survey not meeting the 66 percent minimum support requirement. Still undeterred, Marc and his supporters petitioned the MINRC again in 1999 and were successful in obtaining the necessary 4-vote majority within the Commission to proceed with the regulation for a minimum of five years.
Unlike most other county-wide antler restrictions, DMU 118 provides a unique opportunity to objectively assess the potential of this approach because deer harvest data have been regularly collected for many years, both pre- and post-implementation of the restrictions. Now, four years into the 5-year program, the results have been very encouraging. The following results were prepared from data provided by the MIDNR.
Results
- total deer harvest in DMU 118 peaked in 1999 (the year following implementation of the antler restriction) at 416 deer and appears to be stabilizing around 250 animals, or slightly above the 3-year base average of 235 before the initiative began.
Importantly, the sex ratio within the harvest has improved considerably. Prior to introduction of the antler restriction, an average of 1.9 bucks were harvested for every doe harvested. The 4-year average during this initiative was 1.3 bucks harvested per doe (range 1.1-1.7). Also, the total antlerless harvest exceeded the 3-year base average of 104 during each of the four years, including 2002 when 109 antlerless deer were harvested. The steady decline in antlerless harvest during the four years of this initiative is likely due to a reduction in total deer density as reported by many hunters in the area.
One of the most encouraging results was that, contrary to many predictions, total buck harvest did not decline under this restriction. In fact, in all four years, except 2001, total buck harvest exceeded the 3-year base average of 131 (range 117-203).
Another positive result was the decline in the percentage of button bucks in the antlerless harvest (Figure 2). The 3-year base average prior to the restriction was 19 percent, compared to the 4-year average during the project of 11.5 percent — a 39 percent reduction. It is likely that the increased survival of button bucks was a major reason why total buck harvest remained above the 3-year base average when the total herd was being reduced through increased antlerless harvest.
The impact of the restriction on the ages of bucks in the harvest also was encouraging (Figure 3). Following a slight increase in the number of yearling bucks harvested in 1999, this number has declined to around 60 — a 41 percent reduction from the 3-year base average of 102. This decrease occurred despite the fact that the 3-points-on-one-side restriction only protects around 50 percent of the yearling bucks in this area.
As expected, the protection of yearling bucks resulted in an increased harvest of older bucks. For example, the 3-year base averages for 2 1/2-, 3 1/2-, and 4 1/2+-year-old bucks were 21, seven, and one percent, respectively. In contrast, the 4-year averages for these age classes following the restriction were 49, 23, and four percent, respectively. This translates to increases of 133 percent, 229 percent, and 300 percent for 2 1/2, 3 1/2, and 4 1/2+ year olds, respectively.
While the data show a drastic improvement, the regulations were a hit with many hunters in the area.
“It only took about two years to see the results and it just keeps getting better,” Marc said. “This year I took a buck that grossed 107 inches and my son took a buck 97 inches, and they were heavy deer. The buck to doe ratio has improved drastically.”
Discussion
The results from this study provide strong evidence that state-regulated antler restrictions can produce positive outcomes in whitetail herds, and in a relatively short period of time. At least in this example, it appears that the three primary objectives of this antler restriction — increased antlerless harvest, decreased button buck harvest, and increased harvest of older bucks — are being achieved. The increased antlerless harvest has apparently reduced deer density, which provides obvious benefits to landowners and agricultural producers. The decreased button buck harvest demonstrates that hunter education and commitment to a QDM-type program are determining factors to hunter selectivity. The increased number of older bucks has resulted in a more balanced adult sex ratio and an increased number of older, larger-antlered bucks available for harvest. The increased presence of older bucks also increases the intensity of rutting activities and provides opportunities for hunters to incorporate rattling and calling techniques into their hunting strategies.
Despite the obvious success of this initiative, a recent survey by the MIDNR revealed that landowner and hunter support for continuation of the restriction is still below 66 percent. It remains unclear if the MIDNR will continue the restriction beyond the 2003 hunting season, the end of the initial 5-year period. Regardless, the results of this study reveal that the combination of proper doe harvest and protection of yearling bucks can produce positive outcomes for deer herds, deer habitats, and deer hunters.
Post by: bearpaw on March 26, 2011, 09:45:45 AM
Our goal in Units 117 and 121 are first to decrease buck harvest, and to allow yearling bucks to become older bucks while at the same time providing hunting opportunity to the public. In regards to these goals I beleive APR will work in these units to help recover the deer herd.
In 5 years it is likely that APR will be determined not necessary or that it is wise to discontinue its use for the same reasons that I used to be opposed APR, it may be unwise to leave it in place permanently as there is strong evidence that it can cause a degration of trophy quality over time. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on March 26, 2011, 09:50:15 AM
full story included below in pdf....
Antler Regulation Effects on White-tailed Deer on Mississippi Public Hunting Areas
Stephen Demarais, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries,
Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762
Bronson K. Strickland, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries,
Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762
Larry E. Castle, Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and
Parks, 1505 Eastover Drive, Jackson, MS 39221-6374
Abstract: Antler restrictions, intended to protect younger, male white-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus) from harvest and increase harvest of older bucks, are prevalent
throughout the Southeast. Mississippi’s statewide regulation, initiated in 1995,
protects bucks with less than four antler points. We quantified the regulation’s effects
on age composition, harvest rate, and antler size by analyzing harvest data collected
prior to (1991–1994) and after (1997–2001) the regulation was initiated on 22 public
areas encompassing 240,000 ha. Relative composition of harvest shifted (P<0.001)
from 59% 1.5-year males prior to the regulation to 83% 2.5- and ≥ 3.5-year males 3–8
years later, primarily due to a reduction in harvest of 1.5-year males. Harvest rate of
2.5-year males did not change and there was only a small increase (P<0.05) in harvest
of ≥3.5-year males. Total harvest decreased (P< 0.01) from 3.1 to 1.8 males per 405
ha. Antler size within age classes generally declined during the post-regulation period
across the range of soil resource regions. Antler restrictions should be considered a
short-term solution to age-structure problems because of the potential negative biological
effects. Long-term solutions should focus on teaching hunters benefits of an older
male age structure.
Post by: bearpaw on March 26, 2011, 10:11:08 AM
To ask if APR's work or are effective is an incomplete question. You must identify the purpose of the APR then you can answer if it is effective.
In every state that implemented APR, total buck harvest was significantly reduced for the first couple years. The real controversy comes when you discuss the long term effects.
After the 5 year trial period is complete, we will need to ask ourselves, should APR be continued? At that time I think it may be wise to remove the APR, but at this time I really do not know, until we see the effects over 5 years, it will be hard to say what the outcome will be. :twocents:
But as I said before, we do not know unless we try, and these 2 units are a large enough area to provide a good analysis. :twocents:
The main problem I see with limited-entry permits is that you remove opportunity for young hunters wanting to try hunting. Over time, you will destroy young peoples interest in hunting which could help lead to the eventual loss of hunting altogether. I get a large portion of my hunting clients from Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and Utah. These people tell me, "we have all kinds of trophy animals that we would love to hunt, but you can never draw a tag, maybe once every 5 or 6 years we get to hunt our home state".
Post by: muleyguy on March 26, 2011, 02:18:29 PM
here is what you are not understanding:
NE WA is different then Mississippi and Pennsylvania; those areas have large and growing whitetail populations; many of those APR's were put into effect back East to drive people to shoot more antlerless deer; so the reason why in those states that it isn't quite as bad is because the hunter population has the choice to shoot EITHER a 4 pt buck or better, or a DOE; many of the hunters choose to shoot a doe instead of waiting for a 4pt or better buck;
so, much of the hunting pressure is spread out amongst not only 4pt or better bucks, but also the doe population.
We do not have the same luxury here.......NE WA cannot afford any more does being shot, and, the general tag will not allow for it; So, ALL of the general season hunters will be focused on the larger buck classes.
This is a COMPLETELY different scenario. Much of their general hunting population chooses to just shoot a doe; our general hunting population does not have that ability because our whitetail herd is in decline. When these hunters choose to shoot a doe, that is potential buck they did not shoot.
So, the hunting pressure is spread out amongs a wider portion of the deer population then just the older age class bucks.
The other reason that APR's cannot be temporary, and become permanent, especially in a state like WA is because how do you unwind it????
The buck population under your APR proposal in 5 yrs will consist primarily of 1.5 yr old and 2.5 yr old bucks, the most vulnerable buck class there is; if you suddenly do away with APR's after 5 yrs, it will be a wholesale slaughter;
That is why it is so difficult to get out of the APR management scheme, especially in this State; So, you are right back where you started; the only way to get out of the APR treadmill is to massively restrict buck harvest for a few years after you get rid of it;
How well do you think that is going to go in this state???
So, what does the department do??? They get stuck in the endless rut of APR's, can't get out of them because it would be politically too hard to restrict the tag numbers to get out of it, and, just shorten the season; The shortened seasons focus more pressure on an already pressured resource.
If hunters are faced with a choice of APR's, which result in the avg hunter shooting a 2.5 yr old buck and seeing a bunch of 1.5 yr old bucks while he is hunting OR having to face several years of very restricted tag sales to get out of the APR, he will choose to continue the APR every time;
It's a trap..........explain to me how we are going to get out of the APR after 5 yrs?????
Isn't it just much simpler and better in the long run to restrict tags for a few years, grow the buck population quickly, and hopefully the herd recovers by this time to support a general season again??
That program results in much better buck population dynamics, works very quickly, does not have any genetic problems, and is very easy to "get" out of. How much opposition do you think there will be in 3 yrs when you want to go back from a draw to a general season hunt??
APR's have had limited success in Eastern populations that are large and growing; our whitetail population is completely different; it is stagnant at best, and is being subjected to massive predation by cougars and now wolves;
We aren't talking about limiting the ability to hunt once every 5 or 6 years; A simple 1/3 reduction in buck harvest for several years would do the trick; at worst, you are only looking at not being able to hunt 1 out of 3 years; if the population recovers quickly, (which it can) you can probably quickly go back to general seasons very quickly.
That is a tremendously small price to pay; at some point, we have to stop the "its all about the children" argument; I would rather have my child hunt 2 out every 3 years and enjoy a good experience then be able to hunt all 3 years and have a terrible experience;
If you want to get young people excited about hunting, you need to increase the quality of experience of it; its that simple; 9 day seasons, restricted to 3 pts or better, with 5,000 yahoo's on every ridge around you is not a good experience, and, is what is ultimately driving young hunters away from the sport.
The defining question is:
"How do propose the State unwind the APR in 5 yrs ???"
You can't just get rid of it in this state with the hunting pressure and general season structure we have;
Post by: huntnnw on March 26, 2011, 03:27:28 PM
Post by: muleyguy on March 26, 2011, 04:50:53 PM
and, I have seen lots of bucks; nothing in the 130" class though......lots of 1.5 yr old and 2.5 yr old bucks though; nice little basket racks that most in WA would mistake for a 130" class buck.
funny also, my buddies set out apples, salt licks etc and never seem to get anything much in quality in their trail cams in the back of their house either;
I am sure there are decent bucks, there always are in area with HIGH levels of private ground, like 127; I have a buddy who does manage to get a nice 130" class type buck out of 127 occassionaly but this has nothing to do with the 3pt rule; it has everything to do with being able to hunt a very private piece of ground, of which there is lots of in 127;
The areas north of the river have much more public ground, so the hunting pressure is completely different then 127;
The latest numbers from the WDFW for hunter numbers:
Areas North of River: 30,000 hunters
Areas South of River: 5475 hunters
Take a look at your WA Gazetteer also and it doesn't take long to see that 127 is almost all private; and there are millions of acres of public ground north of the river;
comparing 127 to north of the river is not a valid comparison as the situation is completely different both in terms of hunter numbers and public ground.
the 3pt rule is not making bigger bucks in 127; but, less hunting pressure and more private ground probably is.
You cannot compare 127 with the other areas, completely different. Anybody, regardless of where they live should be able to understand this.
Post by: muleyguy on March 26, 2011, 04:59:28 PM
now, I'm not privvy to what is in the proposal, sounds like BP is, so maybe they are going to intitate the APR and do away with the late season?
But, instead of taking the drastic step of APR's, why not just get rid of the the general late season for a few years???
Much easier to do, will work very quickly to get more bucks into the population, and a general season can be reinstated quickly and easily??
Doesn't that sound like a much better route?
I mean if we can't agree on reducing tag numbers, then getting rid of the rut hunt for a couple of years would seem to be a quick and efficient means of getting more bucks into the population.
Post by: C-Money on March 26, 2011, 05:14:32 PM
Post by: ladybug on March 26, 2011, 08:15:16 PM
hang tough!! other guy cool move there then bitc* p.s long time lurker few times poster like since 07
Post by: huntnnw on March 26, 2011, 10:05:55 PM
Post by: BULLBLASTER on March 26, 2011, 10:36:54 PM
i know the same is true, i have hunted both areas and much prefer the south with the APR.
... and i think huntnnw knows what a true 130" buck is, considering he doesnt even give a buck a second look until it hits at least 150...
Post by: TheSkyBuster on March 26, 2011, 10:54:16 PM
That's what's wrong with the WDFW- they listen to what hunters want instead of doing what is biologically best for the animals. IMO
:tree1:
Post by: huntnnw on March 26, 2011, 10:59:31 PM
Post by: huntnnw on March 27, 2011, 05:32:52 PM
Post by: huntnnw on March 28, 2011, 12:25:48 AM
Post by: huntnnw on March 28, 2011, 01:25:10 AM
I have brought up valid points and you cant anwser them..you just move to another item to argue and fight over..seems all you do on here anymore.
Post by: Miles on March 28, 2011, 01:26:27 AM
haha and this comes after a post about me posting pics...holy chit :chuckle:
I have brought up valid points and you cant anwser them..you just move to another item to argue and fight over..seems all you do on here anymore.
You are delusional.
Post by: huntnnw on March 28, 2011, 04:18:26 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on March 28, 2011, 05:28:29 AM
Post by: Miles on March 28, 2011, 05:29:55 AM
This place gets a little slow from midnight on...
Post by: bearpaw on March 28, 2011, 12:02:51 PM
In 5 years if a group feels the 4pt APR needs removed, you can petition the WDFW for it's removal, this is what was done to get the APR considered. Then the commission will have to reconsider the rule.
I like the 3 pt APR for mule deer in our area. We don't have a lot of mule deer and they are stuck in a predator pit with cougar and coyotes eating them as fast as they can reproduce. But since the APR has been in effect at least we have some older bucks showing up in the harvest. Prior to the APR, I don't think we had many MD bucks that made it past 1.5 years.
The early and late whitetail seasons are both proposed to occur as always.
I agree we are much different than any other state or even the area south of Spokane which has APR's on whitetail, thus the need to try a test in 2 NE GMU's so that effectiveness can be analized here in NE Washington. Due to the sheer amount of cover in NE WA, the APR may work even more effectively than in those other other areas. Once you get these yearling bucks past that 1st year, they are much wiser and more likely to survive, especially in our cover.
Are you saying that APR was not effective at building a better deer herd south of Spokane? Most of the people seem to like the APR south of Spokane. :dunno:
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on March 28, 2011, 06:20:08 PM
I love the whitetail APR south of the river. Some of the biggest bucks I have seen were south of the river. In 2006 my friends and I took three P&Y bucks (140-150) from one stand location (in a period of less than two weeks) and saw at least a dozen others from the same stand.
Post by: HornHoarder on March 28, 2011, 07:15:43 PM
Post by: bearpaw on March 29, 2011, 10:26:58 AM
I do know this, if noone took a chance, the US would not even exist, it was discovered, pioneered, settled, and protected by people who all took a chance and tried something which they did not know the outcome. This APR is an unknown for NE Washington, science is all about trying and learning, so let's try and learn from this in 117 and 121. Then we can let science tell us what to do. :twocents:
Post by: walt on March 29, 2011, 12:05:01 PM
Post by: grundy53 on March 29, 2011, 12:09:40 PM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on March 29, 2011, 02:27:22 PM
They already knocked a few days off the late season during prime time in the last few years. The bow season used to begin 20 Nov. Now it begins 25 Nov.
Do you think the herd is in any shape to handle another back to back hard winter or blue toungue outbreak? Eastern Montanta whitetails population has been decimated by such things. I don't want us to be where they are. At the same time I don't think it is necessary to remove a whole late season. However, if we ended up like Eastern Montana maybe that would be an option that would need to go on the table. The herd is recovering but I would rather help it recover quickly. The APR is one way to do that and it has the added benefit of creating a higher quality hunt a couple years down the road.
The downside I see is that guys on very limited time may not harvest their deer due to this and it may present issues for new hunters who are figuring it out on their own....but... we aren't talking about making every unit in the state a 4pt minimum so they have places they can go to harvest their animals. That being said I can't see the downside nor have I seen it articulated here...but I do see an upside for everyone.
Post by: 1bugman on March 29, 2011, 02:37:47 PM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on March 29, 2011, 02:41:47 PM
Post by: 1bugman on March 29, 2011, 02:43:13 PM
Less antlerless permits will help population.
More deer meant more deer competing for food, bad winter means more dead deer. APR won't change that :) Just Saying :P
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on March 29, 2011, 02:43:47 PM
Post by: 1bugman on March 29, 2011, 02:48:19 PM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on March 29, 2011, 02:52:12 PM
Post by: 1bugman on March 29, 2011, 03:00:42 PM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on March 29, 2011, 03:34:42 PM
Post by: millertime89 on March 29, 2011, 03:44:42 PM
Thanks DB. Got him in GMU 121. :chuckle:
haha no no no.. you got him in 204! ;)
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on March 29, 2011, 06:12:20 PM
Post by: walt on March 29, 2011, 06:26:08 PM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on March 29, 2011, 06:37:26 PM
I hear you DB, I really do. I just don't buy that an APR is the way to go for the reasons they are selling it, especially for a 5 year trial. If they want to create an area where hunters can flock to kill a 4 point buck and the local communities can reap the financial benefits that's cool with me, I have plenty of family and friends that will benefit, just don't tell me it's because the herd is in dire straits, or is it because of the ratio, or the predators, or... If it's about any of those there are much quicker and more effective ways that will have much better long term effects, and if the real goal is to have more trophy bucks roaming around then APR makes even less sense.
I agree there are quicker ways to recover a herd and like you I don't believe they are in dire straights...which is why I think an APR will be sufficient....of course there are certainly other methods that will be equally effective at restricting harvest to recover the herd.
There are certainly better ways to have more trophy bucks than an APR. Some counties in Georgia have implemented spread restrictions and had much greater success growing mature bucks than counties with APR. However, from my experience there does seem to be a very slight (but definitely existent) increase in mature bucks in areas with APR's. When it comes to whitetails I haven't seen the issues with APR's that some people see with mule deer. I don't there will be a unit full of big 3pt's running around. When it comes to buck to doe ratios it really depends on where I am at within the unit. In the more agricultural areas it appears to be off balance. In the deep woods it's fairly even.
Post by: walt on March 29, 2011, 07:00:12 PM
Quote
In the more agricultural areas it appears to be off balance. In the deep woods it's fairly even.Yep, that's what I see too.
Post by: 724wd on March 29, 2011, 08:23:16 PM
Post by: TeacherMan on March 29, 2011, 08:26:19 PM
is this going to be across the board, ie, rifle, muzzleloader and archery?
good question, what about does in the archery season.
Post by: Ridgeratt on March 29, 2011, 08:49:47 PM
is this going to be across the board, ie, rifle, muzzleloader and archery?
good question, what about does in the archery season.
Perhaps another good choice would to be the elimination of the archery chum lines as well. :twocents:
This post to the topic isn't intended to "Thread Jack" it but will also do to increase the over all quality of the deer population.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on March 29, 2011, 09:16:54 PM
is this going to be across the board, ie, rifle, muzzleloader and archery?
good question, what about does in the archery season.
Perhaps another good choice would to be the elimination of the archery chum lines as well. :twocents:
This post to the topic isn't intended to "Thread Jack" it but will also do to increase the over all quality of the deer population.
"but will also do to increase the over all quality of the deer population." ..... How so?
Post by: bobcat on March 29, 2011, 09:17:32 PM
For those who say there is no downside to a 4 pt. minimum restriction: what about all the other units in the NE that many hunters will be displaced to, and the additional harvest of bucks that that will be sure to cause?
If it's going to be 4 point minimum, shouldn't it be for ALL the NE GMU's?
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on March 29, 2011, 09:20:47 PM
Post by: muleyguy on March 29, 2011, 11:48:33 PM
Quote
Are you saying that APR was not effective at building a better deer herd south of Spokane? Most of the people seem to like the APR south of Spokane.
what I am saying is that south of spokane is a vastly different unit then north of spokane; now, HNW can say what he wants, but, nobody that is knowledgeable of the units would say that north of the river units and south of the river units are the same.
They are vastly different;
APR's are less destructive in these situations:
1. high private ground
2. thicker vegetation terrain
3. lower hunter pressure
but, the bottom line is, they always result in the same general problem: harvest is focused on older age class animals.
I dare say, that more older age class deer would be available south of the river without it........just my opinion..........
if anybody thinks that north of the river is going to equal south of the river whitetail's in 5 yrs with APR's is just wrong.........that seems to be what HNW is saying;
if only we had APR's north of the river, it would be the same as south of the river;
My main problem with APR's is they are just a short term solution to a long term problem in this State, and they inflict a HIGH cost on the structure of the population.
Like any good idea, lets discuss the exit strategy first......
I will go back to the idea of how do you get of APR's????
In 5 yrs, the buck population will consist of a high amount of 1.5 and 2.5 yr old animals; these are the most vulnerable bucks in the buck group;
if you suddenly open the season to any buck after 5 yrs of APR, you will have a wholesale slaughter of this age class of bucks; especially with the late season structure that is place.
the reason APR's work is it guarantees a steady recruitmant of 1.5 yr old deer into the 2.5 yr old deer class (the harvest group).
If you open it up, there will be virtually zero bucks that make it past 2.5 yrs old; you will almost guaranteee that you have lower recruitment into the 3.5 yr old class.
this is why it is a trap; there is no easy "out" once you institute it; once you get rid of it, you have to somehow "regulate" the harvest of 1.5 and 2.5 yr old bucks to make sure they don't get all shot.
to say that we will simply "get rid of it" is not realistic....yes, you can get rid of it, but, you will essentially take out two age classes of bucks with it when you do.
define the exit strategy........
Post by: walt on March 30, 2011, 06:45:10 AM
I think a 4pt APR in all GMU's would be nice but I doubt that will happen. I see your point with displacing hunters...but I think it would equal out because for the hunters moving to other units there will likely be a near equal amount of hunters primarily hunting that unit due to the 4pt minimum. I know it would be more appealing to me.
It may be that early in the season the APR units will attract more hunters but towards the end of the late season I would imagine most folks with a tag and an empty freezer will head across the street to an any buck unit, just in time for the rut. I can't say it will happen for sure but I see it as a significant problem that hasn't been addressed.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on March 30, 2011, 08:16:59 AM
In 5 yrs, the buck population will consist of a high amount of 1.5 and 2.5 yr old animals; these are the most vulnerable bucks in the buck group;
if you suddenly open the season to any buck after 5 yrs of APR, you will have a wholesale slaughter of this age class of bucks; especially with the late season structure that is place.
That is the current problem...If they bagged the APR in a few years, there would be a bunch of young bucks killed...like what happens every fall in NE Washington now.
I think the APR would attract a bunch of hunters. Maybe not in year one, but in subsequent years it will be an attraction for those guys wanting to hunt bigger deer.
IMO, it's worth a try.
Post by: grundy53 on March 30, 2011, 09:17:51 AM
BP,QuoteAre you saying that APR was not effective at building a better deer herd south of Spokane? Most of the people seem to like the APR south of Spokane.
what I am saying is that south of spokane is a vastly different unit then north of spokane; now, HNW can say what he wants, but, nobody that is knowledgeable of the units would say that north of the river units and south of the river units are the same.
They are vastly different;
APR's are less destructive in these situations:
1. high private ground
2. thicker vegetation terrain
3. lower hunter pressure
but, the bottom line is, they always result in the same general problem: harvest is focused on older age class animals.
I dare say, that more older age class deer would be available south of the river without it........just my opinion..........
if anybody thinks that north of the river is going to equal south of the river whitetail's in 5 yrs with APR's is just wrong.........that seems to be what HNW is saying;
if only we had APR's north of the river, it would be the same as south of the river;
My main problem with APR's is they are just a short term solution to a long term problem in this State, and they inflict a HIGH cost on the structure of the population.
Like any good idea, lets discuss the exit strategy first......
I will go back to the idea of how do you get of APR's????
In 5 yrs, the buck population will consist of a high amount of 1.5 and 2.5 yr old animals; these are the most vulnerable bucks in the buck group;
if you suddenly open the season to any buck after 5 yrs of APR, you will have a wholesale slaughter of this age class of bucks; especially with the late season structure that is place.
the reason APR's work is it guarantees a steady recruitmant of 1.5 yr old deer into the 2.5 yr old deer class (the harvest group).
If you open it up, there will be virtually zero bucks that make it past 2.5 yrs old; you will almost guaranteee that you have lower recruitment into the 3.5 yr old class.
this is why it is a trap; there is no easy "out" once you institute it; once you get rid of it, you have to somehow "regulate" the harvest of 1.5 and 2.5 yr old bucks to make sure they don't get all shot.to say that we will simply "get rid of it" is not realistic....yes, you can get rid of it, but, you will essentially take out two age classes of bucks with it when you do.
define the exit strategy........
How is that any different then whats going on now?
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on March 30, 2011, 09:24:28 AM
BP,[/color]QuoteAre you saying that APR was not effective at building a better deer herd south of Spokane? Most of the people seem to like the APR south of Spokane.
what I am saying is that south of spokane is a vastly different unit then north of spokane; now, HNW can say what he wants, but, nobody that is knowledgeable of the units would say that north of the river units and south of the river units are the same.
I believe HNW is extremely knowledgeable of the units. He was pointing to Mica Peak specifically in a few examples and that is very similar to the environment you see north of the river. While it is not national forest much of it is timber company land that is similar to the land up north and actually seems to receive more pressure than some areas of the national forest lands in the GMU's north of the river. I don't think he is referring to the entire unit.
They are vastly different;
APR's are less destructive in these situations:
1. high private ground
2. thicker vegetation terrain
3. lower hunter pressure
Can you provide scientific references for APR's being destructive outside of your given parameters?
I have read about this since the mid/late 80's and I have never read anything that supports your position that these requirements are necessary for APR's to be less destructive. That being said if there is something scientific that supports your position I would love to read about. I don't like being uninformed when it comes to whitetail.
but, the bottom line is, they always result in the same general problem: harvest is focused on older age class animals.
I dare say, that more older age class deer would be available south of the river without it........just my opinion..........
if anybody thinks that north of the river is going to equal south of the river whitetail's in 5 yrs with APR's is just wrong.........that seems to be what HNW is saying;
if only we had APR's north of the river, it would be the same as south of the river;
While north and south of the river are different they both offer their own unique protections. South of the river there is less pressure and more private land (as you stated)..north of the river there is more cover (cover is one of the most important aspects to survival from hunting pressure). By protecting the yearlings you will lead to a higher recruitment to the 2 1/2+ age class. Thus the 2 1/2 plus age class will support the extra focus....and every year you will be recruiting X number of yearlings since they are protected so it's a wash. You are basically just ensuring there are more bucks in the herd after any given hunting season. However, I don't see it as a drastic measure nor do I believe drastic measures are required at this time.
One point to be made is that we would protect genetically inferior 3pt's and thus pass on that gene.. I have hunted whitetail all over the country in high pressure areas with genetics and nutrition inferior to what we have here in Washington and I can count on one hand the number of 3pt or less mature bucks that I have seen (all in the deep south and this includes 4pt APR areas). Now..that being said I have probably seen well over 100 supposedly mature 3pt or less bucks "on the downhill slide" (per the hunters claims) bucks but in actuality nearly all of them were yearlings.
My main problem with APR's is they are just a short term solution to a long term problem in this State, and they inflict a HIGH cost on the structure of the population.
Like any good idea, lets discuss the exit strategy first......
I will go back to the idea of how do you get of APR's????
In 5 yrs, the buck population will consist of a high amount of 1.5 and 2.5 yr old animals; these are the most vulnerable bucks in the buck group;
if you suddenly open the season to any buck after 5 yrs of APR, you will have a wholesale slaughter of this age class of bucks; especially with the late season structure that is place.
the reason APR's work is it guarantees a steady recruitmant of 1.5 yr old deer into the 2.5 yr old deer class (the harvest group).
If you open it up, there will be virtually zero bucks that make it past 2.5 yrs old; you will almost guaranteee that you have lower recruitment into the 3.5 yr old class.
this is why it is a trap; there is no easy "out" once you institute it; once you get rid of it, you have to somehow "regulate" the harvest of 1.5 and 2.5 yr old bucks to make sure they don't get all shot.
to say that we will simply "get rid of it" is not realistic....yes, you can get rid of it, but, you will essentially take out two age classes of bucks with it when you do.
define the exit strategy........
This is a personal observation: Out of thousands of whitetail bucks that I have seen there is only a small number of 2.5 year olds that do not meet the 4pt minimum...thus legal under the 4pt rule. Therefore opening it after 5 years would not have some huge impact on the 2.5 year olds that you mention. Please let me know if your personal observations are different on this.. I would be very interested if they are.
You also mention if we open the season to any buck after 5 yrs of APR that we will see a wholesale slaughter of the 1.5 age class. I contend....isn't that what we already see???...and if not....then why the resistance to the 4pt. minimums.. to me it appears the point you are arguing and what you are against contradict each other in this instance. Either a current wholesale slaughter of yearlings exists currently and we should protect them....or....a wholesale slaughter of yearlings doesn't exist and a 4pt minimum would make little difference aside from protecting a number of yearlings for recruitment to the older age classes (which almost all hunters prefer to kill anyway)
To summarize my ramblings. Why do we need an exit strategy or protections (when coming off a 4pt rule) if nearly all 2.5 year olds would be legal under a 4pt APR anyway?....and why would we need protections for 1.5 year old bucks when there will be no less recruitement and no less harvest pressure under the current rule of no 4pt minimum. Again from my deductions of your position I don't see the validity of your argument in this case. However, I am definitely interested in hearing more in case I misunderstood your position (which I am commonly known to do).
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on March 30, 2011, 09:57:21 AM
1. They are supported by the majority of wildlife managers that specialize in whitetail deer. Quality Deer Management Association has three principles that must be met prior to them endorsing a yearling protection program such as APR's.
A. The proposed buck harvest standard must be biologically sound for the area being considered.
B. The majority must support.
C. The must be a commitment and mechanism to monitor the effectiveness.
2. They work!!!! Given the criteria above they do work. This has been proven time and time again thorough numerous scientific studies. (again I agree there are more effective ways than a 4pt minimum but on a wide scale it is better than nothing)
3. It's not about creating a trophy hunt!! It is about overall herd management and it's purpose is to obtain a more balanced age structure.
4. Yes..there will be more mature bucks!! I have yet to meet a hunter that when pressed doesn't prefer to harvest a mature buck. I have heard some claims to the contrary but then seen those same individuals ecstatic over killing a mature buck....far more ecstatic than they were with the yearling they killed the year before.
5. It's even better for strictly meat hunters. I think we all know that 2 1/2 plus year old deer carry more meat on average than a yearling.
6. Most people are against the loss of choice yet loss of choice is part of nearly every wildlife/fisheries management program. This is no different. Dead deer don't grow. By passing on a yearling you don't lose a resource (generally speaking..of course some go to predators/winter...but likely far less than goes to hunting)
7. There is no scientific basis to cull 1 1/2 year old bucks. The age structure argument is not against APR scientifically but for APR scientifically. There is new recruitment of yearlings every year...but your recruitment of older age classes largely depend on the survival of those yearlings...thus the basis of an APR to balance the herd.. (along with strategic doe management)..In addition we will be helping our herd recover faster...particuarly the older age class bucks which are often hardest hit by bad winters.
Post by: dreamingbig on March 30, 2011, 10:14:04 AM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on March 30, 2011, 10:36:43 AM
Post by: Curly on March 30, 2011, 10:50:42 AM
Post by: bearpaw on March 30, 2011, 11:30:01 AM
How does the rising wolf population come into play in this discussion?
WAcoyote was exactly correct in his explanation of our predator rich environment and it is undoubtedly one reason we have low fawn recruitment, one of the core problems.
The addition of wolves over time is exactly what occured in many areas of Idaho which are now below management objectives. In simple words, there are already enough predators eating deer and elk in NE WA, with the addition of wolves the herd will become even less productive. If wolves populate before the herds recover, there is less chance of the herd recovering. This was basically what happened to the elk herd in the Lolo zone. It went from nearly 20,000 elk before a bad winter and increasing wolves to currently only about 1700 animals.
An outfitter just sold his outfitting business in the lolo zone that he paid $250,000 in the 90's for only a small fraction of that amount. The new outfitter (a friend) plans to hunt bear, lion, and hopefully wolves soon. He says he can't find enough deer and elk to justify hunting them, thus the reason he got the business so cheap. This illustrates the significance of the wolf issue. :twocents:
Post by: walt on March 30, 2011, 12:33:30 PM
Quote
I read through your post muleyguy, it appears most of why you say APR's will not work is speculation. You presented no facts showing APR will not work in NE WA, and in fact made several statements that define what is currently happening in NE WA, which is the basis of why people want to try APR's in NE WA.Ok, now my question is: If this is what is currently happening, and the speculation of what will happen with an APR is the same, how is this a benefit to the population?
Also, I still want to know what thought has gone in to the effects this will have on the surrounding units.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on March 30, 2011, 12:42:36 PM
I think that is why the principle of having a commitment and mechanism to monitor the effectiveness is very important. I do think you bring up a very valid point that we need to look at what will happen in the other units. I don't think the impact will be that great if at all....but I could be wrong.
Post by: walt on March 30, 2011, 12:57:52 PM
Post by: grundy53 on March 30, 2011, 03:52:47 PM
I hope you're right. I just see a whole bunch of hunters migrating to an any buck unit late in the season to fill their tag, especially in the first few years. The problem they are pitching is throughout the NE, not just confined to the proposed APR units, so increasing pressure on the deer in the adjoining units could be devastating. I think this whole proposal is poorly thought out and being pushed for the wrong reasons. Now that we have had a few mild years and the population is on the rise they are pushing even harder to get it done immediately. I think a little more time to study this and see what happens is a much better idea.
and just as many will migrate from other units to these units for a shot at a trophy later in the season. the meat hunters might leave but the trophy hunters will come. although i'm not sure too many people will actually leave. How hard is it really to find a dink three point with an eyegaurd?
Post by: jess on March 30, 2011, 04:34:38 PM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on March 30, 2011, 05:01:53 PM
im all for it.. I hunt mature deer and they always have at least four points.. It would be nice to see it... Take a drive through colville nov 15th and look at forty dead two and a half year old bucks in the back of pickups and just think how many more mature bucks there would be if it was mature buck or go home empty handed.. And on that note i dont think there should be a late rifle season either in NE washington ferry county dont have one and the age and trophy class of the witetails is far greater than on the other side of the river... I think that is proof that late buck hurts the whitetal numbers severly in stevens county...
What's that? There are not mature bucks in Ferry county. Wolves got them all. :chuckle:
Post by: jess on March 30, 2011, 05:21:03 PM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on March 30, 2011, 05:28:25 PM
Post by: bearpaw on March 30, 2011, 06:44:50 PM
I hope you're right. I just see a whole bunch of hunters migrating to an any buck unit late in the season to fill their tag, especially in the first few years. The problem they are pitching is throughout the NE, not just confined to the proposed APR units, so increasing pressure on the deer in the adjoining units could be devastating. I think this whole proposal is poorly thought out and being pushed for the wrong reasons. Now that we have had a few mild years and the population is on the rise they are pushing even harder to get it done immediately. I think a little more time to study this and see what happens is a much better idea.
Currently hunters migrate to NE WA to hunt the late season from everywhere else throughout the state. But I think grundy is right, it will even out.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on March 30, 2011, 06:47:22 PM
Post by: walt on March 31, 2011, 06:38:52 AM
If anyone has a copy of the letter by the Washington Association of Fish and Wildlife Professionals please post it up.
Quote
Similar inbred and misinformed logic is driving the Stevens County Fish and Wildlife Advisory Committee's antler restriction proposal.
The Washington Association of Fish and Wildlife Professionals has submitted a clear rebuttal to the proposal. The two-page letter cites points that have been documented in detail by state biologists and supported by the majority of sportsmen commenting on the proposal in meetings and surveys:
* Biological considerations do not support an antler-point restriction.
* Surveyed hunters prefer no antler restrictions.
* The restrictions would reduce hunter opportunity.
* Economic impacts are possible as general hunters head elsewhere.
Enforcement agents are concerned about the number of three-point whitetails that might end up dead in the brush after a season with four-point antler restrictions. Sure there's a restriction in Whitman County, but counting antler points is a lot easier in wheat fields than in Stevens County thickets.
Wildlife managers agree northeast deer numbers are down, but studies have shown better methods for improving the populations. Little research indicates that a four-point restriction would result in more does bred.
Northeastern Washington offers escape cover for a good percentage of bucks to avoid hunters and grow to larger sizes without antler restrictions.
Here's what's funny: After a Fish and Wildlife official made a presentation on hunting-season proposals at the Spokane meeting, it was Douvia who took the floor to remind him that the public doesn't want unnecessary regulations.
To that, most sportsmen can heartily agree, and so should the commission.
Unfortunately, George Orr, former Fish and Wildlife commissioner from Spokane, won't be at the April 8 meeting to reiterate the crux of the issue:
"Without a good reason," he said, "I'd rather not add the possibility of putting a kid in a situation where he knocks down a buck that's one-point shy of legal."
Get more news and information at Spokesman.com
Post by: walt on March 31, 2011, 07:32:28 AM
Quote
How hard is it really to find a dink three point with an eyegaurd?
Not hard at all, that's my point. There are lots of bucks in all age classes if you get off the valley floor.
Quote
Take a drive through colville nov 15th and look at forty dead two and a half year old bucks in the back of pickups and just think how many more mature bucks there would be if it was mature buck or go home empty handed.
I see at least twice and maybe 3x the number of 4 pt or better bucks killed up there than dinks, every year, and have for as long as I can remember. The majority being 3 1/2 year old 4 points.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on March 31, 2011, 08:37:23 AM
http://m.spokesman.com/stories/2011/mar/30/landers-deer-recommendation-based-misinformation/ (http://m.spokesman.com/stories/2011/mar/30/landers-deer-recommendation-based-misinformation/)[/url]QuoteOn April 8, Washington sportsmen will finally learn if Fish and Wildlife Commissioner Gary Douvia of Kettle Falls has compromising photos of other commission members.
C'mon Landers is this a fact or just a poor atempt at humor. This is the best lead you could come up with?? Where is the Journalism??
The proof will be in the commission’s vote on a Stevens County proposal to establish a minimum four-point antler restriction for whitetail bucks in Game Management Units 117 and 121 – the state’s two most popular whitetail deer hunting units.
The record provides a clear answer on how the vote should go.
But vice-chair Douvia seems to have a spell over the current seven-member panel.
Considering the statewide realm of fish and wildlife issues, Douvia has helped orchestrate a disproportional amount of commission and agency time to Stevens County rants on everything from wolves to wilderness.
Much of it has been of pitiful quality.
For example, at the commission’s meeting in Spokane this month, the only county commissioner from the region to bend the panel’s ear was Don Dashiell of – surprise – Stevens County.
After summarizing his desires for fish and wildlife management, Dashiell was asked by Douvia to comment on northeastern Washington wilderness proposals.
What that has to do with the Fish and Wildlife Commission went over the head of just about everyone there, but on they went for 15 minutes of uncontested misinformation. They trashed conservationists, trounced wilderness as an elitist job-killing concept and pooh-poohed their neighbors on the Northeast Washington Forestry Coalition.
“I think if we go to a wilderness area, 90 percent of the people who use those forests now would not be able to use them,” Douvia said.
“If we did a wilderness in the Sherman Range, the only way you could hunt and recreate there would be to have your own horses or have guides to take you in to get your animals out. If they close those roads, you can’t get back into that Sherman Range. There’s no way you can do it.”
Coincidentally, Derrick Knowles, was there to point out that no roads would be closed in the areas proposed for wilderness by the Forestry Coalition.
Minor detail.
This isn’t meant to be an argument for or against wilderness. It’s a question about what testimony should sway the Fish and Wildlife Commission.
Knowles is a Spokane hunter who shot a six-point bull elk in a walk-in area in northeast Washington two years ago and packed it out 3 miles on his mountain bike. He’s also a board member of the Forest Coalition that’s been negotiating the proposals.
After requesting time to comment to the panel, he shot the Stevens County rant so full of holes it looked like one of the county’s road signs.
He pointed out that the coalition’s board is comprised of some of Steven’s County’s major employers as well as conservation groups, a partnership that would not have endured since 2003 if it meant the loss of jobs.
Not sure what any of the above has to do with APR reccomendations being based on misinformation.
Similar inbred and misinformed logic is driving the Stevens County Fish and Wildlife Advisory Committee’s antler restriction proposal.
The Washington Association of Fish and Wildlife Professionals has submitted a clear rebuttal to the proposal. The two-page letter cites points that have been documented in detail by state biologists and supported by the majority of sportsmen commenting on the proposal in meetings and surveys:
Biological considerations do not support an antler-point restriction.
This would be a show stopper I am definitley intersted in what these biological considerations are.
Surveyed hunters prefer no antler restrictions.
What percentage of surveyed hunters?
Of course some hunters aren't going to prefer AR's. It appears to me that it is closer to 50/50.
The restrictions would reduce hunter opportunity.
Really?? By what standard are they measuring? Maybe for a year or two while the herd recovers there will be less bucks killed. After that hunter opportunity will increase. I am no wildlife professional but I would venture to say that none of these professionals specialize in whitetail deer management (I could be wrong but I doubt it). If we want facts on this matter we should probably consult real professionals.
Economic impacts are possible as general hunters head elsewhere.
Again is this a known fact? For reasons already stated by myself, bearpaw and grundy I don't think this will be so dramatic as people are proposing. Wildlife professionals or not this is not science. As they say...it's possible...it is also just as possible that more hunter will hunt there and increase economic opportunities.
Enforcement agents are concerned about the number of three-point whitetails that might end up dead in the brush after a season with four-point antler restrictions. Sure there’s a restriction in Whitman County, but counting antler points is a lot easier in wheat fields than in Stevens County thickets.
What enforcement agents? I am not going to say that no three-points will be shot inadvertantly (poor excuse for a hunter not knowing his target..and thus poor excuse) but the whole deal about not being able to count the points because of thick cover??? are they kidding....don't shoot if you can't count points. I like to think that most hunter are law abiding citizens and safe hunters and will confirm their target before shooting. I see that Landers obviously doesn't hold this position on his fellow hunters.
Wildlife managers agree northeast deer numbers are down, but studies have shown better methods for improving the populations. Little research indicates that a four-point restriction would result in more does bred.
Northeastern Washington offers escape cover for a good percentage of bucks to avoid hunters and grow to larger sizes without antler restrictions.
Finally a real and relevant fact. I don't think more drastic measures are required to increase the deer numbers and if we want to talk about truly losing opportunity that is what those measures would require.
Here’s what’s funny: After a Fish and Wildlife official made a presentation on hunting-season proposals at the Spokane meeting, it was Douvia who took the floor to remind him that the public doesn’t want unnecessary regulations.
To that, most sportsmen can heartily agree, and so should the commission.
Unfortunately, George Orr, former Fish and Wildlife commissioner from Spokane, won’t be at the April 8 meeting to reiterate the crux of the issue:
“Without a good reason,” he said, “I’d rather not add the possibility of putting a kid in a situation where he knocks down a buck that’s one-point shy of legal.”
Really...this is the crux... This is a non-issue. If the kid is responsible enough to be hunting on his own he won't be killing illegal deer.
Post by: 1bugman on March 31, 2011, 08:47:05 AM
[/quote]
If this is true, then why are some elk hunts Spike or True Spike only?
Post by: grundy53 on March 31, 2011, 08:50:02 AM
QuoteHow hard is it really to find a dink three point with an eyegaurd?
Not hard at all, that's my point. There are lots of bucks in all age classes if you get off the valley floor.QuoteTake a drive through colville nov 15th and look at forty dead two and a half year old bucks in the back of pickups and just think how many more mature bucks there would be if it was mature buck or go home empty handed.
I see at least twice and maybe 3x the number of 4 pt or better bucks killed up there than dinks, every year, and have for as long as I can remember. The majority being 3 1/2 year old 4 points.
so then why would hunters leave to flood other unit?
Post by: 1bugman on March 31, 2011, 08:52:11 AM
They Don't Have to, But They Will.QuoteHow hard is it really to find a dink three point with an eyegaurd?
Not hard at all, that's my point. There are lots of bucks in all age classes if you get off the valley floor.QuoteTake a drive through colville nov 15th and look at forty dead two and a half year old bucks in the back of pickups and just think how many more mature bucks there would be if it was mature buck or go home empty handed.
I see at least twice and maybe 3x the number of 4 pt or better bucks killed up there than dinks, every year, and have for as long as I can remember. The majority being 3 1/2 year old 4 points.
so then why would hunters leave to flood other unit?
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on March 31, 2011, 08:57:56 AM
7. There is no scientific basis to cull 1 1/2 year old bucks. The age structure argument is not against APR scientifically but for APR scientifically. There is new recruitment of yearlings every year...but your recruitment of older age classes largely depend on the survival of those yearlings...thus the basis of an APR to balance the herd.. (along with strategic doe management)..In addition we will be helping our herd recover faster...particuarly the older age class bucks which are often hardest hit by bad winters.
If this is true, then why are some elk hunts Spike or True Spike only?
[/quote]
Bugman....elk management and whitetail management are two totally different issues. I know very little about elk management and I am certainly no credentialed whitetail management specialist (I think you will find that we probably have none in the state) but I have literally read every whitetail management study I could get my hand on for the past 20+ years. I could be wrong on this but I believe spike only units exist in elk management to develop a hierarchy to herd bulls. Dr. James Kroll, aka. Dr. Deer, one of the leading whitetail managers in the world has done numerous studies on spike culling in whitetail management and has scientifically proven that it is seriously flawed in more ways than one.
Post by: jess on March 31, 2011, 09:13:30 AM
Post by: 1bugman on March 31, 2011, 09:16:34 AM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on March 31, 2011, 09:59:24 AM
i dont consider a three and a half year old a mature buck and i hope you dont either....
I am not sure who this was in response to. A whitetail generally reaches maturity around 5 years of age.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on March 31, 2011, 10:04:42 AM
Elk are awesome but I have always been to crazed about whitetail to really do much research on them. While I know elk management is different I believe that the spike culling philosophy is just as flawed with elk as it is with whitetail. I am not sure if there have been any studies done. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the state was managing for $$$ like you suggest.
Post by: 1bugman on March 31, 2011, 10:26:06 AM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on March 31, 2011, 10:42:24 AM
Post by: 1bugman on March 31, 2011, 11:00:23 AM
Post by: AKBowman on April 04, 2011, 06:57:03 PM
QuoteIMO,I don't think that theory is right at all. Over time i think we will see more & more 3 1/2 and older bucks as time progresses with 4 point or better in the NE corner. When whitetails get older they get ALOT smarter and therefore live longer and become very nocturnal.I hope they pass the 4 point rule
well, here is the data from various places across the US on antler pt restrictions:
WA biologist talking about Whitetail antler pt restrictions in Oregon:
"Biologists are concerned that forcing all the harvest to mature bucks could have the consequence of reducing the number of bucks reaching five-point or larger size – as it did in Oregon before that state dropped its brief fling with whitetail antler point restrictions."
Data from the Whitetail Institute:
"Where it has been instituted, either through regulations or through voluntary cooperation by clubs and individual hunters, antler restrictions have resulted in more bigger bucks in the entire population. Bigger, however, is a relative term. Data compiled by the PGC shows that while yearling bucks are indeed surviving at higher rates, most are being harvested the first year they are legal. Prior to the new rules, about 20 percent of the total buck harvest consisted of mature (two years or older) deer. Now, 2-1/2-year-old bucks make up 75 percent of Pennsylvania’s “mature” buck harvest."
"After examining the effect of antler restrictions for 14 years, biologists in Mississippi found that selective harvest of bucks with at least four points on one side resulted in a reduction in bucks with larger antlers in subsequent years. In other words, the best bucks were being taken out of the population early because they grew legal antlers at younger ages than lower-quality bucks of the same age. Called “high-grading,” it ultimately resulted in an overall decline in antler size of 3 1/2-year old and older bucks. It’s happening mostly on public property where hunting pressure is high and hunters are still less willing to let a legal deer pass."
“We were seeing a decrease in antler quality because the poor-quality yearling bucks were doing most of the breeding. By increasing the overall antler quality, we expect to see a long-term increase in antler size as well as a shorter breeding season,” he explains. “When we had the four-point rule in place, the breeding season was lasting as long as 50 days and we saw some fawns born as late as October. That’s not a sign of a healthy deer herd.”
Like I explained, it will simply result in a shift from 1.5 yr old animals to 2.5 yr old animals; it will reduce the numbers of truly mature bucks in the population because it focus harvest on the older age classes and it is taking out the bucks with the best genetics.
It's not a soultion, its a gimmick....
the reason it is so "popular" with sportsmen, and why they mistakenly "think" it is creating larger bucks is because most hunters all they have ever shot in their life is 1.5 yr old bucks, and a few older ones; with antler pt restrictions, they are now shooting 2.5 yr old animals instead of 1.5 yr olds; basket racked, 2.5 yr old 4pt whitetails are not mature bucks; 19" basket racked, 2.5 yr old, mule deer, while they might look great in your rifle scope, are not mature mule deer.
yes, you shift harvest to deer 1 yr older, and yes, a 2.5 yr old buck has a bigger rack; but, the consequences of achieving this slight gain in buck quality comes at a heavy price.
I like the idea of backing your ideas with facts but "Pennsylvania's" whitetails see an enormous amount of pressure compared to a pacific NW whitetail. Unlike around here escape cover is minimal. A 120" WT is big there and a 150" WT is HUGE because yes they get the crap shot out of them as soon as they become legal. I agree with the 4 pt min regulation. I think with the deer having sufficient escape terrain they will survive and we will end up seeing more mature bucks than we do today.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on April 04, 2011, 08:32:30 PM
QuoteIMO,I don't think that theory is right at all. Over time i think we will see more & more 3 1/2 and older bucks as time progresses with 4 point or better in the NE corner. When whitetails get older they get ALOT smarter and therefore live longer and become very nocturnal.I hope they pass the 4 point rule
well, here is the data from various places across the US on antler pt restrictions:
WA biologist talking about Whitetail antler pt restrictions in Oregon:
"Biologists are concerned that forcing all the harvest to mature bucks could have the consequence of reducing the number of bucks reaching five-point or larger size – as it did in Oregon before that state dropped its brief fling with whitetail antler point restrictions."
Are these whitetail experts or Oregon granola biologists who don't know anything about whitetail management? I am surprised this is still out there. This is essentially the hunting mature deer reverses natural selection by allowing the weak and scrawny to survive argument put out by animal rights activists. Even first year biology student can see the major flaw in that argument. Without getting into the science of it I think we only need to look at recorded history to see that in the past 20-25 years (when the monster buck craze really picked up steam) there have been a far higher percentage of the worlds biggest whitetail taken than at any other time in recorded history.
Data from the Whitetail Institute:
"Where it has been instituted, either through regulations or through voluntary cooperation by clubs and individual hunters, antler restrictions have resulted in more bigger bucks in the entire population. Bigger, however, is a relative term. Data compiled by the PGC shows that while yearling bucks are indeed surviving at higher rates, most are being harvested the first year they are legal. Prior to the new rules, about 20 percent of the total buck harvest consisted of mature (two years or older) deer. Now, 2-1/2-year-old bucks make up 75 percent of Pennsylvania’s “mature” buck harvest."
Of interesting note...since the antler restrictions PA has had more Boone and Crockett entries than any other time since the late 40's early 50's when there was less hunting pressure..now even with some of the highest hunting pressure in the nation they are seeing an improvement in herd structure and again proves the granola Oregon biologist very wrong...obviously it works to some extent. I think it is obvious that you will see a shift in the harvest from yearling bucks to 2 1/2 year old bucks. Prior to the protection 80% of the bucks taken were yearlings and the majority of the rest were probably 2 1/2. Now there is roughly 5% more than before that live beyond 2 1/2. It also appears that 25% of the bucks are now older than 2 1/2 where as the 20% before were 2 1/2 or older...so obviously some success in balancing the herd there... though it would be near impossible with their hunting pressure.
"After examining the effect of antler restrictions for 14 years, biologists in Mississippi found that selective harvest of bucks with at least four points on one side resulted in a reduction in bucks with larger antlers in subsequent years. In other words, the best bucks were being taken out of the population early because they grew legal antlers at younger ages than lower-quality bucks of the same age. Called “high-grading,” it ultimately resulted in an overall decline in antler size of 3 1/2-year old and older bucks. It’s happening mostly on public property where hunting pressure is high and hunters are still less willing to let a legal deer pass."
First I agree and have said this many times here that point restrictions are by far not the best way to protect the yearlings...but...it is better than nothing. Now...I will give you that this is a scientific study done somewhat recently by people who actually specialize in whitetail deer for a living unlike most NW biologist. However, they failed in this study on several points...a major point being that this study "assumed" (important) that spikes were genetically inferior yearlings (they used old research in this assumption and that research was also faulty so it has truly never been proven) to the contrary a newer and scientifically sound study shows that there is no predictability between a bucks first set of antlers and what he will have when he reaches maturity.
“We were seeing a decrease in antler quality because the poor-quality yearling bucks were doing most of the breeding. By increasing the overall antler quality, we expect to see a long-term increase in antler size as well as a shorter breeding season,” he explains. “When we had the four-point rule in place, the breeding season was lasting as long as 50 days and we saw some fawns born as late as October. That’s not a sign of a healthy deer herd.”
Again this comes from the flawed MS study and what is interesting is the other state are not noting the same issues example PA/MO.
Like I explained, it will simply result in a shift from 1.5 yr old animals to 2.5 yr old animals; it will reduce the numbers of truly mature bucks in the population because it focus harvest on the older age classes and it is taking out the bucks with the best genetics.
Okay...let me tackle this misconception.....1. Does a buck have to be old to have the best genetics? Answer: Obviously no..so focusing the harvest on the older age class does not take out the bucks with the best genetics. Those bucks have bred and have yearlings with those great genetics. 2. Can you judge a bucks genetics when he is a yearling? Answer: No not really.. so doesn't it make sense to let them get older if you want to ensure you allow the young bucks with superior genetics to breed? 3. Is it easier to see a bucks genetics at 2 1/2 than it is 1 1/2. Yes..still not optimal (5 1/2 is where he really shows his potential) but definitely better than 1 1/2. Protecting the yearlings will have the opposite effect of what you propose.
It's not a soultion, its a gimmick....
That is not what Missouri experienced..there were obviosly a growing number of mature bucks in their herd after the antler restrictions. http://mdc.mo.gov/conmag/2008/09/experimental-antler-point-restriction/ (http://mdc.mo.gov/conmag/2008/09/experimental-antler-point-restriction/)[color]
the reason it is so "popular" with sportsmen, and why they mistakenly "think" it is creating larger bucks is because most hunters all they have ever shot in their life is 1.5 yr old bucks, and a few older ones; with antler pt restrictions, they are now shooting 2.5 yr old animals instead of 1.5 yr olds; basket racked, 2.5 yr old 4pt whitetails are not mature bucks; 19" basket racked, 2.5 yr old, mule deer, while they might look great in your rifle scope, are not mature mule deer.
Probably true but creating larger bucks isn't the point...creating a well balanced herd is...so if they think it is strictly due to larger bucks that is fine by me.. no harm/no foul
yes , you shift harvest to deer 1 yr older, and yes, a 2.5 yr old buck has a bigger rack; but, the consequences of achieving this slight gain in buck quality comes at a heavy price.
Unless it is easier to judge the genetic quality of a yearling I am not sure what price you are talking about.
Post by: Cougeyes on April 04, 2011, 08:47:41 PM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on April 04, 2011, 08:52:19 PM