Post by: Dave Workman on April 03, 2011, 06:16:00 PM
Washington State deer hunters are scratching their heads over a proposal to place antler restrictions on whitetail bucks in two northeast management units up in Stevens County, but the real mystery involves an apparent discrepancy in logic.
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/what-s-good-for-wa-whitetails-should-be-good-for-mule-deer (http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/what-s-good-for-wa-whitetails-should-be-good-for-mule-deer)
And be sure to read this too:
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2011/mar/31/deer-recommendation-based-on-misinformation/ (http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2011/mar/31/deer-recommendation-based-on-misinformation/)
Post by: ICEMAN on April 03, 2011, 07:06:05 PM
Post by: Dave Workman on April 03, 2011, 07:22:40 PM
Agree, total illogical comparison. The same arguement could be made about all antler point restrictions for both deer and elk. Did you expect logic to play in their decision making?
Well, I was sorta hopin' :rolleyes:
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on April 04, 2011, 04:30:11 AM
Post by: bearpaw on April 04, 2011, 05:58:59 AM
Rich Landers sure shows his colors in his story, surprised he took the low road that he did.... :dunno:
Post by: Special T on April 04, 2011, 10:46:37 AM
Post by: Dave Workman on April 04, 2011, 11:54:02 AM
Thanks for another great story Dave.
Rich Landers sure shows his colors in his story, surprised he took the low road that he did.... :dunno:
Brother Landers and I go back quite a ways. In the 1980s when the old Fishing & Hunting News was digging into wildlife management, Landers took a nasty shot at me in his column for not telling him what I would do differently. I told him then that if he wanted to know where F&H was headed with our watchdog approach, he needed to keep reading. Instead, he got pissed off because I would not tell him my plans so he could scoop me in his newspaper (and probably add some sneering remarks here and there in the process).
We came back at him with both barrels at about the same time Spokesman Review readers sent several letters to the editor, sticking up for me and F&H.
Ah well.
HOWEVER, in this case I think he is actually on the right side. There is NO need for antler restrictions on whitetails in those units, far as I can tell, except from people who seem to dislike the fact that hunters from all over the state come into the area for the late hunt. None, Zero, Zip. Nada. This "may" be a way to try cutting down competition for the locals.
I just wish the state would apply that same logic to mule deer management. I can't tell you the number of times I have seen or heard from others who saw about fork-horn muley's being killed and left, or about elk that were left because they didn't meet the "true spike" rule.
Post by: woodswalker on April 04, 2011, 12:20:55 PM
I agree with your article Dave, But I couldn't read the the S/R story through all the granola crumbs!
Yeah that one required a gallon of milk just to get through.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on April 04, 2011, 01:08:02 PM
Thanks for another great story Dave.
Rich Landers sure shows his colors in his story, surprised he took the low road that he did.... :dunno:
Brother Landers and I go back quite a ways. In the 1980s when the old Fishing & Hunting News was digging into wildlife management, Landers took a nasty shot at me in his column for not telling him what I would do differently. I told him then that if he wanted to know where F&H was headed with our watchdog approach, he needed to keep reading. Instead, he got pissed off because I would not tell him my plans so he could scoop me in his newspaper (and probably add some sneering remarks here and there in the process).
We came back at him with both barrels at about the same time Spokesman Review readers sent several letters to the editor, sticking up for me and F&H.
Ah well.
HOWEVER, in this case I think he is actually on the right side. There is NO need for antler restrictions on whitetails in those units, far as I can tell, except from people who seem to dislike the fact that hunters from all over the state come into the area for the late hunt. None, Zero, Zip. Nada. This "may" be a way to try cutting down competition for the locals.
I just wish the state would apply that same logic to mule deer management. I can't tell you the number of times I have seen or heard from others who saw about fork-horn muley's being killed and left, or about elk that were left because they didn't meet the "true spike" rule.
Dave,
I disagree with you on some points but good article. I agree if their logic is that they are worried about the number of 3pt whitetail that will be left in the brush (weak logic in my opinion) then they should use that logic for mule deer also.
I was definitely not impressed with Landers piece.
I am not well read on mule deer management but I have lived, eaten and breathed whitetail management for nearly 25 years and I have never read one piece of scientific literature from a whitetail management expert that doen't support protecting yearling bucks. I don't think an antler point restriction is the best way to do this but it is better than nothing.
I may be in the minority but I truly do not believe that the antler restriction will lower the hunting pressure in those units. If it does decrease pressure it will likely only be for a year or two and then I actually look for pressure to increase considerably. I believe those units recieve more pressure than other places primarily due to the public lands, season structure (late general as opposed to 101 or the units south of the river), relative ease of private land access (at least in my experience it hasn't been to difficult to gain access as a bowhunter) and the population of whitetail (which is considerably down but still huntable numbers). For these reasons I do not think an antler restriction will lower the number of hunters much if at all in the longterm and I truly don't think that is the purpose of the people supporting this restriction. If people support this restriction in the hopes that it will lower hunter numbers I think they will be seriously disappointed a few years down the road.
Post by: predatorpro on April 04, 2011, 04:42:31 PM
Post by: Dave Workman on April 05, 2011, 04:23:10 AM
i think the problem with illegal bucks getting left is more because some people shoot first and ask questions later, i have seen people just get excited when they kick up a buck and boom o oops its only a 2 points, you could put a 2 point minimum and people would still shoot spikes and so on and so on, doesnt matter what restrictions they place if those people with bad hunting practices go hunting
Not sure I agree with that 100%, but that certainly explains part of the problem
However, it still puzzles me why an agency says there is no justification for an antler restriction on whitetails, but maintains there is for mule deer.
Post by: 1bugman on April 07, 2011, 04:16:48 PM
Post by: Dave Workman on April 24, 2011, 07:45:21 AM
Great work Dave. That's pretty much how I feel about the APR's. I still wonder what the Biologist say about it. :tup:
Well, I guess we all know the answer now, eh?
:bash:
Post by: Kain on April 24, 2011, 11:37:40 AM
You can use an electronic caller for elk but not for deer. :dunno:
I know it was not done by the department itself (although they were in favor of the bans) but you can bait almost every animal except bears and birds. Hunt raccoons, fox, and rabbits with hounds but not bears, coyote and cats.
Most hunters dont want to point these out because they are afraid of the department eliminating the opportunity instead of fixing the hypocritical rules.
Post by: sakoshooter on April 24, 2011, 12:46:02 PM
Post by: dreamunelk on April 24, 2011, 05:25:17 PM
Just like bear baiting and hound hunting there are still way to many people who choose to be uniformed. This was just another form of ballot box biology. I have seen nothing that indicates that the WDFW supported. I am pretty sure they argued against it.
So long as people choose to be ignorant this type of thing will continue to happen. Others made the choice. Not WDW staff but, everyone immediately blames them. What risk it there for an elected official who supports a pis poor decision when they are not held accountable? Instead they blame the agency or people who have no choice but to follow the ruling! Pretty neat gig if you are the politician.
Sorry for ranting here but, it just seems that even though there is a lot of information on this site and from other sources people just jump to a conclusion and run with it. We keep making the mistake as a user group.
" 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."
Pretty much sums it up, does it not?
Post by: 1bugman on April 24, 2011, 05:55:00 PM
Yes we do, and I'm not surprised.Great work Dave. That's pretty much how I feel about the APR's. I still wonder what the Biologist say about it. :tup:
Well, I guess we all know the answer now, eh?
:bash:
Post by: bearpaw on April 26, 2011, 07:59:57 PM
With all due respect, many of the people commenting on this issue have no basis for making an educated statement as to the number of deer in the area. People who worked hard to get this passed know how many deer the area will support and can see that the herd is severely depressed. No matter what method is used to reduce harvest, someone will complain, the APR still provides for everyone an equal chance to recreate.
As i have stated before, isn't one of the big bitches the fact that the WDFW never listens to sportsmen? :dunno:
Well this time the commission listened to local hunters who have lived a lifetime in the area and know what the deer numbers should be. I know there are issues regarding the elk herds too, just think how nice it would be if we tried a couple different strategies in an attempt to fix some of the problems. The same holds true for salmon, birds, etc.
I also think you misunderstand, people in the NE area want out of the area hunters, but we want to help the herd recover. All hunters can still hunt, you just have to be more selective which will result in fewer bucks being killed for a few years. This hopefully will pay dividends in the future for everyone.
In the future some of you will have concerns for the wildlife in your area, I hope the commission will listen to what the local people in your area have to say.
Post by: notsosneaky on April 30, 2011, 12:50:56 PM
Was this a WDFW decision? Please explain!
Just like bear baiting and hound hunting there are still way to many people who choose to be uniformed. This was just another form of ballot box biology. I have seen nothing that indicates that the WDFW supported. I am pretty sure they argued against it.
So long as people choose to be ignorant this type of thing will continue to happen. Others made the choice. Not WDW staff but, everyone immediately blames them. What risk it there for an elected official who supports a pis poor decision when they are not held accountable? Instead they blame the agency or people who have no choice but to follow the ruling! Pretty neat gig if you are the politician.
Sorry for ranting here but, it just seems that even though there is a lot of information on this site and from other sources people just jump to a conclusion and run with it. We keep making the mistake as a user group.
.
" 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."
Pretty much sums it up, does it not?
Yes the ruling is passed by wdfw. Duvia is the vice chair of the
commision. These seven men alone have the power to change the regs.
Washington association of wildlife professiionals offered rebuttle. They are not wdfw
The blame lies soley on wdfw as it usually does. They deserve it
Post by: Curly on April 30, 2011, 01:16:13 PM
I lost respect for the commission when they approved Dave Ware's plan for categories with the special permits. The plan had several flaws and yet they sill approved it when they should have denied it until they could figure out a way to do the points instead of distributing them to all categories. Several other flaws in the system were brought up but the attitude was "We'll just pass it now and tweek it later as necessary". That was a stupid decision (IMHO) and so is the APR thing. For the biologists to not support it, but yet the commission goes ahead and approves it just doesn't sit right with me.