Post by: huntnnw on April 09, 2011, 06:27:30 AM
Starting this fall, only whitetail bucks with four or more antler points on one side will be legal for hunters to target in Game Management Units 117 and 121.
The split vote by the commissioners disregarded the input by game managers and wildlife biologists who advised against it.
It disregarded the concerns of Fish and Wildlife police over the potential for illegal kills.
It disregarded the commission's own frequent requests to the agency managers to simplify rules.
It disregarded the public meetings held around the state in which the majority of sportsmen at every meeting had concerns about the proposal.
It disregarded the concensus off the commission itself that this could not be considered an experiement that would lead to biologically significant information.
It disregarded the high pecentage of sportsmen and agency managers who expressed concern that it will be a setback for youth hunting and the family nature of hunting in the two most popular whitetail units in the state.
This vote was an embarrassment to wildlife management in this state.
Post by: rasbo on April 09, 2011, 06:33:04 AM
Post by: huntnnw on April 09, 2011, 06:37:30 AM
Post by: Armadillo on April 09, 2011, 06:58:30 AM
Post by: Ridgerunner on April 09, 2011, 06:59:57 AM
Post by: ICEMAN on April 09, 2011, 07:25:55 AM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on April 09, 2011, 07:44:43 AM
How much does it cost to buy a vote on the Wildlife Commission these days?
Post by: turkey slayer on April 09, 2011, 08:01:29 AM
Post by: dscubame on April 09, 2011, 08:10:51 AM
And as far as the illegal harvest goes....it is year around by a suprisingly large number of locals. Deer carcus are everywhere year around, a indication of the economy in the region going on a decade now. Unless your local or close to it you may think you understand but you do not.
Post by: 1bugman on April 09, 2011, 08:29:50 AM
Post by: bearpaw on April 09, 2011, 10:58:42 AM
But honestly, unless we try it in NE Washington, we have no idea how it will work because biology has been presented which supports both sides of the argument.
The spokesman was against this from the beginning and you can see right through their spin. It will get a comepletely different review from media biased in favor of the restriction. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on April 09, 2011, 11:02:10 AM
Post by: huntnnw on April 09, 2011, 11:22:05 AM
Post by: bobcat on April 09, 2011, 01:29:47 PM
Commission Approves 4-pt Rule For 2 NE WA Whitetail Units (Fri, 08 Apr 2011 22:48:08 +0000)
Washington Fish & Wildlife Commissioners today approved a four-point-minimum antler restriction for whitetail deer hunting in a pair of units northwest of Spokane.
According to WDFW spokesman Darren Friedel, the vote was 5-2, with commissioners David Jennings and Brad Smith voting against.
The rule affects hunting in Game Management Units 117, 49 Degrees North, and GMU 121, Huckleberry, in central Stevens and Pend Oreille Counties.
Not much more information was immediately available.
The change was proposed by a stakeholder group from Stevens County, but was not widely supported outside of that.
A local outdoors columnist, scratching his head about how the proposal had made it so far (there were at least four public meetings), wondered if one of its proponents, Fish & Wildlife Commission vice chair Gary Douvia, had compromising pictures (http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/aug/19/evidence-doesnt-support-antler-restrictions-in/) of the rest of the commission, a theme he followed up on last week with an unusually harsh article (http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2011/mar/31/deer-recommendation-based-on-misinformation/).
“The record provides a clear answer on how the vote should go,” wrote Rich Landers of the Spokane Spokesman-Review — and it wasn’t the way it went.
Another reporter who’d followed the issue emailed me just now to say, “Well, it’s not biologically sound, but at least they didn’t take in two or more counties, like the 4 pt. fanatics wanted. Now wait ’til the local restaurants, gun shops, motels, bars, etc., start getting way less hunter traffic. Suddenly, those pro-4 pointers will get lots of flack. “
The antler restriction was requested in spring 2010 by the Stevens County Fish and Wildlife Advisory Committee in a petition to the commission which requested that WDFW staffers get additional public input before considering it for this coming hunting season.
Northeast Washington has seen a decline in whitetail in recent years, blamed largely on a pair of severe winters in the late 2000s that also took a big bite out of turkey populations. Local hunters have been looking at ways to bring the deer back. This past February, they held a coyote hunting derby that took 227 animals, an estimated 90 of which were female.
“Hopefully this will give our whitetail deer population a shot in the arm,” wrote Freddie Giannecchini of the Stevens County committee in a derby wrap-up. “Their numbers have been going down for years with very little positive and proactive management from (WDFW). Yes the WDFW has restricted the taking of does recently in 2009 and 2010, and have restricted the youth, senior and disabled hunters in a time when our buck to doe ratios are very low. Without proactively adding bucks to the population, by point restrictions or shortening the late portion of the season, to help the low buck to doe ratio, the dept is going to flood the area with more does making breeding for what bucks are out there even tougher allowing many more does not to breed when nature intends them to be bred, causing later and later fawn births. This is the only hope we have at this time to try to help the Whitetail Deer herd in this area.”
According to WDFW’s 2010 game status report, however, today’s buck ratio for Northeast Washington is better than where it was at in the late 1990s.
“In the late 1990s there was unprecedented low representation of mature white-tail bucks in the harvest,” writes Colville-based district wildlife biologist Dana Base. “This concern was addressed by maintaining conservative late buck seasons that did not extend beyond the middle of the rut. From 1999 until 2005 there was consistent improvement in the percentage of older bucks based on monitoring antlers. Improvement in the general trend toward more bucks 4 years or older was also supported by cementum analysis of deer teeth. Since 2005 this trend leveled out at least for 5+ antler point bucks. We are currently at a level that has reasonably good representation of mature bucks in the white-tail population. At least 1 in 5 white-tail bucks harvested is 5 point or better.”
Stay tuned. I’m sure Landers will have something on this, and have no doubt that WDFW will fire off a press release about 10 minutes after quitting time.
Copyright © 2011. Media Index Publishing Group. All Rights Reserved.
Post by: Curly on April 09, 2011, 01:52:01 PM
Hunting- A controversial antler point restriction for whitetail deer, proposed by a Stevens County sportsmen's group, was approved by the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission today during its meeting in Olympia.
Starting this fall, only whitetail bucks with four or more antler points on one side will be legal for hunters to target in Game Management Units 117 and 121.
The split vote by the commissioners disregarded the input by game managers and wildlife biologists who advised against it.
It disregarded the concerns of Fish and Wildlife police over the potential for illegal kills.
It disregarded the commission's own frequent requests to the agency managers to simplify rules.
It disregarded the public meetings held around the state in which the majority of sportsmen at every meeting had concerns about the proposal.
It disregarded the concensus off the commission itself that this could not be considered an experiement that would lead to biologically significant information.
It disregarded the high pecentage of sportsmen and agency managers who expressed concern that it will be a setback for youth hunting and the family nature of hunting in the two most popular whitetail units in the state.
This vote was an embarrassment to wildlife management in this state.
:yeah:
The commission is an embarrassment. Sometimes I wish the commission would just go away. I have a hard time seeing what good they are anymore.....
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on April 09, 2011, 01:58:46 PM
This might however keep those pesky Non Native NE Washington folks off that land making more room for Locals to take larger animals in a few years. Think about all those folks with leases who now can sell more trophy hunts to schmucks.
How much does it cost to buy a vote on the Wildlife Commission these days?
You mention there will larger animals in a few years. If this is in true wouldn't this actually increase the number of hunters? :dunno: That has been my experience.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on April 09, 2011, 02:02:10 PM
Still how many people will know what they're shooting at from a distance when they see antlers. I think its much easier to distinguish a 2pt from a 3 pt rather than a 3pt to a 4pt
If people can't take the time to distinguish a 3pt from a 4pt before shooting they deserve a penalty and probably shouldn't be hunting at all. I think we don't give fellow hunters enough credit. Do I believe there may be a few taken and left by unethical or dangerous individuals....Yes...but I don't believe it will be as big of a problem as everyone is saying and will certainly have less impact on the herd itself than having a wholesale slaughter of yearlings.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on April 09, 2011, 02:21:20 PM
This might however keep those pesky Non Native NE Washington folks off that land making more room for Locals to take larger animals in a few years. Think about all those folks with leases who now can sell more trophy hunts to schmucks.
How much does it cost to buy a vote on the Wildlife Commission these days?
You mention there will larger animals in a few years. If this is in true wouldn't this actually increase the number of hunters? :dunno: That has been my experience.
A zoo is a zoo is a zoo. People hunt it (non locals) because it is any buck. I kind of laugh at the whole thing. WDFW was against it, everone is against it accept people who will potentially profit from it. It makes sense from that standpoint. I wonder how many people would cheer the closing of the late season as a way to increase buck population? That season is big $$$ for hunting profiteers.
I don't really care, I don't hunt it for deer. As far as I am concerned close it down, close the whole state down and go to draw. It seems now days science is out the window. I swear the "wolf scenario" makes more and more sense every day. (Just get rid of the surplus.) I don't mean to be a dick but I would love to see real and honest science be behind a wildlife management program. The idea of "Hope and Change" for a five year turn around is a bit to Obammie for me to swallow.
Post by: Ridgeratt on April 09, 2011, 02:27:44 PM
Still how many people will know what they're shooting at from a distance when they see antlers. I think its much easier to distinguish a 2pt from a 3 pt rather than a 3pt to a 4pt
If people can't take the time to distinguish a 3pt from a 4pt before shooting they deserve a penalty and probably shouldn't be hunting at all. I think we don't give fellow hunters enough credit. Do I believe there may be a few taken and left by unethical or dangerous individuals....Yes...but I don't believe it will be as big of a problem as everyone is saying and will certainly have less impact on the herd itself than having a wholesale slaughter of yearlings.
I found this as part of the 10 commandments of Hunter's Safety.
3. Be sure of the target and what is in front of it and beyond it.
Know the identifying features of the game you hunt. Make sure you have an adequate backstop—don’t shoot at a flat, hard surface or water.
Post by: Curly on April 09, 2011, 02:33:51 PM
A zoo is a zoo is a zoo. People hunt it (non locals) because it is any buck. I kind of laugh at the whole thing. WDFW was against it, everone is against it accept people who will potentially profit from it. It makes sense from that standpoint. I wonder how many people would cheer the closing of the late season as a way to increase buck population? That season is big $$$ for hunting profiteers.
I don't really care, I don't hunt it for deer. As far as I am concerned close it down, close the whole state down and go to draw. It seems now days science is out the window. I swear the "wolf scenario" makes more and more sense every day. (Just get rid of the surplus.) I don't mean to be a dick but I would love to see real and honest science be behind a wildlife management program. The idea of "Hope and Change" for a five year turn around is a bit to Obammie for me to swallow.
:yeah:
Wouldn't that be great to manage based on science. :dunno: Letting a commission vote on issues like this is almost as bad as letting the public vote on bear baiting, trapping and hound hunting issues........
Post by: Wenatcheejay on April 09, 2011, 02:40:07 PM
A zoo is a zoo is a zoo. People hunt it (non locals) because it is any buck. I kind of laugh at the whole thing. WDFW was against it, everone is against it accept people who will potentially profit from it. It makes sense from that standpoint. I wonder how many people would cheer the closing of the late season as a way to increase buck population? That season is big $$$ for hunting profiteers.
I don't really care, I don't hunt it for deer. As far as I am concerned close it down, close the whole state down and go to draw. It seems now days science is out the window. I swear the "wolf scenario" makes more and more sense every day. (Just get rid of the surplus.) I don't mean to be a dick but I would love to see real and honest science be behind a wildlife management program. The idea of "Hope and Change" for a five year turn around is a bit to Obammie for me to swallow.
:yeah:
Wouldn't that be great to manage based on science. :dunno: Letting a commission vote on issues like this is almost as bad as letting the public vote on bear baiting, trapping and hound hunting issues........
Exactly! Thanks for seeing my point ;)
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on April 09, 2011, 03:56:46 PM
This might however keep those pesky Non Native NE Washington folks off that land making more room for Locals to take larger animals in a few years. Think about all those folks with leases who now can sell more trophy hunts to schmucks.
How much does it cost to buy a vote on the Wildlife Commission these days?
You mention there will larger animals in a few years. If this is in true wouldn't this actually increase the number of hunters? :dunno: That has been my experience.
A zoo is a zoo is a zoo. People hunt it (non locals) because it is any buck. I kind of laugh at the whole thing. WDFW was against it, everone is against it accept people who will potentially profit from it. It makes sense from that standpoint. I wonder how many people would cheer the closing of the late season as a way to increase buck population? That season is big $$$ for hunting profiteers.
I don't really care, I don't hunt it for deer. As far as I am concerned close it down, close the whole state down and go to draw. It seems now days science is out the window. I swear the "wolf scenario" makes more and more sense every day. (Just get rid of the surplus.) I don't mean to be a dick but I would love to see real and honest science be behind a wildlife management program. The idea of "Hope and Change" for a five year turn around is a bit to Obammie for me to swallow.
What science have you seen the state put out that shows protecting yearling whitetail bucks in Washington state is not the right thing for the herd? I have yet to see it. Nearly all scientific studies I have read read support protecting yearling whitetail bucks as a good practice for the health of the herd.
I tend to think more non-local's hunt because there is a late general season, a high percentage of public land and it is some of the best quality whitetail habitat in the state. When I have asked hunters in the past why they chose to hunt there they don't tell me because it is any buck. They have in fact told me it was because of the late general and the ease of access.
Post by: bearpaw on April 09, 2011, 04:40:05 PM
Before pt restrictions were placed on elk, most bulls killed in eastern wa were spikes, now we have big bulls doing the breeding. Why is it so bad to try it on whitetails in two of the many NE Units and try to improve the herd? :dunno:
I think the commission should be commended for listening to local concerns and considering the biology from both sides of the isle.
I am a hunting guide, really no different than the game wardens who make their living off charging to hunt for wildlife, or the local motels, gas stations, call and decoy makers, clothing makers, optics, guns, tv shows, dvd makers, or the chamber of commerce here in colville, we all profit off wildlife. The chamber advertises all over the state for hunters to come to the area. Sorry but I get sick and tired of hearing the lame argument that its all about the people who will profit off wildlife. Hunting is big business in America and thats one of the reasons it will likely survive. :twocents:
The real truth is, everyone will benefit if we can improve the herds. Whether it is 4 pt or spike, stays the same, or is doe only, I am going to offer cabins for rent, guided hunts, unguided hunts, hunting maps, shed hunting trips and hunting schools soon, and anything else I can offer that hunters need and want. Peope who don't want my services will not purchase them and I have no resentment about that, however, I would appreciate the same consideration. :twocents:
Post by: Wenatcheejay on April 09, 2011, 04:48:56 PM
I took the time to read the articles others posted. In them (a link) was the opinion of Washington Association of Fish and Wildlife Professionals. They stated:
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
I am in favor of ending the late season if the bucks are truly in jeopardy. I would bet that the people shooting for the restriction would not want that. But, if a person really wants to have less bucks harvested that is how to do it. And, I will be writing hard to get that late season closed in the next year. It seems that the bucks are in peril.
Post by: Tman on April 09, 2011, 04:56:37 PM
I'm sorry but I simply fail to see what the problem is with trying to improve the whitetail herd. A great portion of the state has restrictions on mule deer and elk to try and improve the herds.
Before pt restrictions were placed on elk, most bulls killed in eastern wa were spikes, now we have big bulls doing the breeding. Why is it so bad to try it on whitetails in two of the many NE Units and try to improve the herd? :dunno:
I think the commission should be commended for listening to local concerns and considering the biology from both sides of the isle.
I am a hunting guide, really no different than the game wardens who make their living off charging to hunt for wildlife, or the local motels, gas stations, call and decoy makers, clothing makers, optics, guns, tv shows, dvd makers, or the chamber of commerce here in colville, we all profit off wildlife. The chamber advertises all over the state for hunters to come to the area. Sorry but I get sick and tired of hearing the lame argument that its all about the people who will profit off wildlife. Hunting is big business in America and thats one of the reasons it will likely survive. :twocents:
The real truth is, everyone will benefit if we can improve the herds. Whether it is 4 pt or spike, stays the same, or is doe only, I am going to offer cabins for rent, guided hunts, unguided hunts, hunting maps, shed hunting trips and hunting schools soon, and anything else I can offer that hunters need and want. Peope who don't want my services will not purchase them and I have no resentment about that, however, I would appreciate the same consideration. :twocents:
I usually agree with most points you make bearpaw, except this one. We may have current restrictions on Mule deer and Elk in this state, but have we seen an improvement in the herds? Not general, and very few local improvements, those restrictions were also placed with the intent to improve the herds, and then remove the restrictions. We have all seen that this doesn't work and the restrictions will never be lifted due to the number of legal animals it would create in the herds and further decimate the herds that never recovered as anticipated. What the Stevens county and WA state wildlife commisions have done is fail hunters again and proven themselves as useless. This should have never happened, and the seasons should have been reduced if the herd was in such dire position, then maybe, just maybe we would have seen an increase and possible removal of the restrictions in the future. Just what percentage of bucks do you think are killed in the last week of the late season in those units.... I'm sure more hunters and those whos opinions actually mattered would have more likely supported a slightly shorter season over APRS's anyday.
Like I said before, I generally respect your idealogy, and have even rented a cabin at your place for a hunt, but on this one, I think alot of you guys have been mislead and are now dazed and confused.
Post by: dscubame on April 09, 2011, 05:11:15 PM
What the real kicker is all the nay sayers now that are against it will be the first in line to hunt these units in 3 years :bash:
Ain't that the truth.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on April 09, 2011, 05:28:41 PM
Jay,
Thanks for posting. On one of the other threads I have my reply to this article that Landers wrote but I will try to sum up some of my issues below.
DBHAWTHORNE
I took the time to read the articles others posted. In them (a link) was the opinion of Washington Association of Fish and Wildlife Professionals. They stated:
My first question is does even one of these wildlife professionals specialize in whitetail management. Being from Washington I doubt it. Secondly is this opinion of the professionals actually a scientific opinion based on an actual scientific study or just an opinion made by scientist? I have looked all over the web for this report and have yet to find it. I am considering calling them and requesting the report.
Biological considerations do not support an antler-point restriction
If this were true then it would be a non-starter and we shouldn't have an Antler Point Restriction. However, what are the biological considerations? If the biological considerations are that protecting yearling bucks is not in the best interest of the herd then where is evidence. This is contrary to what is considered a standard whitetail management practice that is backed up by scientific research conducted by scientist who actually specialize in whitetail deer. If they have some research that goes against that then they should present it at the next Quality Deer Management convention because that will be some ground breaking stuff. Of course I will agree with them that there are better ways to protect the yearling bucks than and APR..but as I have said many times..it is better than nothing. I will eventually get my hands on this report but due to the "other" factors given below I see it as more of an opinion of scientist but not based on real research.
Surveyed hunters prefer no antler restrictions
This could also be a non-starter but I can find hunters on this website for and against. But isn't the argument of many that are "against" on here that we should let science decide?? Because I agree with that statement...lets pull out the research that has been done on this and we will find that the very few studies that are against protecting yearlings are very weak in scientific validity. All of this being said the number seems much closer to 50/50 for/against from what I can tell. I would like to know the details on how they conducted their research and see their results.
The restrictions would reduce hunter opportunity
Wouldn't that depend on how they define opportunity? If we are just talking about on bucks in general I think maybe the first year or two. After that it will all balance out. Which is what we want to get the numbers up.
Economic impacts are possible as general hunters head elsewhere
I would especially love to see where they come up with this. Maybe the first year or two again but I don't see where they are getting their evidence. It sounds like so called wildlife professionals giving their opinion on social science issues.
I am in favor of ending the late season if the bucks are truly in jeopardy. I would bet that the people shooting for the restriction would not want that. But, if a person really wants to have less bucks harvested that is how to do it. And, I will be writing hard to get that late season closed in the next year. It seems that the bucks are in peril.
I would be in favor of ending hunting entirely if the deer where in jeopardy but I don't think that is the case at all nor do I think ending/shortening the late season is the answer. This falls in line with three of the four issues you posted above.
1. Hunters won't support
2. It truly will reduce opportunity (no research required to prove that)
3. There WILL be economic impacts. ( I think that is a no brainer)
All that being said I don't think anyone is saying the buck herd is in dire straights and if they do then they are misstating the facts. Is the population lower than normal...yes..is there are areas with a serious buck/doe ratio imbalance....yes. An APR will be just fine for the herd and protecting yearling whitetail bucks is supported by science.
Post by: NoBark on April 09, 2011, 05:39:46 PM
Post by: Bob33 on April 09, 2011, 05:41:26 PM
Post by: dscubame on April 09, 2011, 06:16:07 PM
What I don't understand is this: if the biologists were against this change, why do the commissioners think they know better? Who am I supposed to trust and respect: the biologists who study things like this for a living, or the commissioners? Why do we need biologists?
The clear point is...the biologists don't know or claim to know if a 4 APR would be beneficial. That is at the heart of one of the many arguments for or against. Why do we need biologists???? For many additional reasons of course.
Post by: bearpaw on April 09, 2011, 06:29:42 PM
You could be right, I may be wrong, I honestly do not know for sure, but neither does anyone who is against APR in NE WA because nobody knows. As I have stated before, I didn't used to support a restriction. I voiced my opinion against it to the group in NE WA in the past. But after watching our herd decline and knowing that with reduced doe hunting (which is good thing) it places nearly all hunting pressure on bucks of all sizes, I felt it was time to reduce harvest on bucks too, in order to prevent erosion of the current buck/doe ratio. Is it not obvious that if we only hunt bucks that the ratio will be reduced from where it currently is at. Somehow buck harvest needs reduced. :twocents:
If I was to say that I wanted a limited-entry system I would be attacked even worse because it would be pointed out I may profit when the bucks get big. People are so busy worrying if others may benefit, they forget that everyone may benefit.
If I was to say lets close it down for two years (that would do the herd more good than anything) do you think I would be able to walk down the street or log onto this forum without being shouted at?
If I was to suggest closing the late buck, that would be a huge mistake, everyone wants to hunt late buck season. So this leaves us with a choice. Find the option that works for the greatest number of people or do nothing.
I have looked at this from every side and listened to all the choices. To reduce buck harvest this is the method with the least impact on the greatest number of hunters. No its not the best option for building the herd. No its not the best option for youth hunters. No its not the best option for seniors. No its not the best option for all my hunters who come here for meat hunts. But, I honestly beleive it has the broadest support of any option other than doing nothing, and that hasn't worked.
It dissapoints me to hear all this bashing of the commission. They are in the same boat as I am. They can try something new or they can do nothing. Honestly, there is data to support the issue both ways. The commission is actually trying to set up two units for a comparison with neighboring units so herd dynamics can be compared over the next 5 years. I commend them for having the fortitude to risk a vote in the favor of giving science a chance to prove itself one way or the other.
This whole argument about how it's unfair to do this and it goes against science is not a valid argument, there is no science either way in NE WA, but there will be in 5 years thanks to our commission. I humbly ask, how can we know, if we don't try APR in NE WA. :dunno:
Now please take one moment and think outside the box. Is there a wildlife issue in your area that you think needs tweeked. Seriously, is there something that needs work because the status quo is not working and a resource is in decline or not doing as well as it should?
Now let me ask you, has the WDFW listened to you?
Now let me point out, if you can show this commission a good reason to make a change, this commission might just be the commission with the fortitude to make a change. :twocents:
Again Tman, I may be wrong, I will admit it now that it's possible I am wrong, (but we really don't know). In 5 years we will know and if I am wrong, I will admit it, and I will ask for different management based on the new science that we will have to work with.
In the meantime please try to think outside the box and see the real benefits of this commission which is willing to look at other points of view and other science, because this is a commission that is obviously listening to everyone, not just rubber stamping the WDFW recommendations. :twocents:
:hello: :hello: :hello:
Post by: Wenatcheejay on April 09, 2011, 06:51:37 PM
I am not a biologist, so how can I truly understand any evidence accept on faith? And, with WDFW that is not saying much.
I don't hunt the area in General or Late season, and I have no interest in shooting a spike or fork horn buck, so honestly I don't have a direct dog in the fight. I don't mind just stepping back. My general mistrust is that any restriction placed on harvesting animals in Washington is a one way street. Year after year we learn of new slices to our opportunity to do more than glass and take pictures regardless of the species or the method of hunting. We are loosing the act of honest hunting a slice at a time. This could be the answer, but I don't see anyone saying this WILL fix anything. It is a "Hope & Change" kind of thing. Limiting the season would be the answer IMHO, but there is money involved. :twocents:
(Act 2)
Dale, if your posts were at me, the "profiteers" I was talking about are more like biologists who create a scenario to do a study blah blah IE "Government" people not Guides like you. I don't think you are bathing in Gold and Platinum tubs with the wife. (But maybe I am wrong. :o ) If you thought I was directing it to your Profession that was not the attempt; Just trying to not drag the "wolf/Gov/Bio/drama" into it in words. I think of "them" as modern day profiteers who create scenarios and problems and then make us pay them to fix it. Maybe this will do it, but I fear it is the beginning of the loss of harvest opportunity first by restriction then by limit of season all without any real study or evidence. And it is the last part, dismissing "study and evidence" IMO looking to the future it is dangerous to allow restrictions based on conjecture and opinion either way.
I might be totally wrong. I'd love to see it work!
Anyway, apologies if I gave offence, I'll sign off for a while. :hello:
Post by: bobcat on April 09, 2011, 07:18:23 PM
This whole argument about how it's unfair to do this and it goes against science is not a valid argument, there is no science either way in NE WA, but there will be in 5 years thanks to our commission. I humbly ask, how can we know, if we don't try APR in NE WA. :dunno:
There still will be no science to prove whether this worked, one way or the other, after 5 years. I listened to the entire audio file of the meeting today, and they even talked about how this is NOT going to be a valid science experiment, because it's not designed with that in mind. It won't be a valid comparison, to compare neighboring units with these two, because there are other factors that come into play that aren't being controlled. The thing is I doubt if the WDFW will even have the resources to actually go in and count the deer to determine before and after overall populations, and buck/doe ratios. Maybe the Steven's County Commissioners should come up with the money for such a study, since this whole thing was their idea?
Because in the end, there still be no more known about whether this was a good idea or not, than there is now. It will still be opinions and no facts. I'm not 100% set against the 4 pt restriction, but then I don't hunt over there either. The problem I do have with it is that I feel if something was needed to restrict harvest in those two units, then it should have been done in the other units as well. The adjacent units are now going to see more hunting pressure from those hunters who don't want to be limited on what size buck they can shoot. So those units will see an even larger decrease in deer numbers than they would have otherwise seen if everything would have remained the same.
Post by: Armadillo on April 09, 2011, 07:50:51 PM
Still how many people will know what they're shooting at from a distance when they see antlers. I think its much easier to distinguish a 2pt from a 3 pt rather than a 3pt to a 4pt
If people can't take the time to distinguish a 3pt from a 4pt before shooting they deserve a penalty and probably shouldn't be hunting at all. I think we don't give fellow hunters enough credit. Do I believe there may be a few taken and left by unethical or dangerous individuals....Yes...but I don't believe it will be as big of a problem as everyone is saying and will certainly have less impact on the herd itself than having a wholesale slaughter of yearlings.
Its already hard enough to distinguish 3 pts from 4pts for the average guy, I just dont see it having an extremely profound effect when....as someone else put it... there is a huge amount of poaching going on, wouldny that be a good problem to address? We'll se how it works
Post by: Armadillo on April 09, 2011, 07:57:09 PM
Still how many people will know what they're shooting at from a distance when they see antlers. I think its much easier to distinguish a 2pt from a 3 pt rather than a 3pt to a 4pt
If people can't take the time to distinguish a 3pt from a 4pt before shooting they deserve a penalty and probably shouldn't be hunting at all. I think we don't give fellow hunters enough credit. Do I believe there may be a few taken and left by unethical or dangerous individuals....Yes...but I don't believe it will be as big of a problem as everyone is saying and will certainly have less impact on the herd itself than having a wholesale slaughter of yearlings.
I found this as part of the 10 commandments of Hunter's Safety.
3. Be sure of the target and what is in front of it and beyond it.
Know the identifying features of the game you hunt. Make sure you have an adequate backstop—don’t shoot at a flat, hard surface or water.
I think I've heard that somewhere before..
Post by: bearpaw on April 09, 2011, 08:23:37 PM
Bobcat I wasn't at the meeting and I did not listen to the recordings. But was it the WDFW testifying that they had no data or was it opposition hunters claiming there was no data?
There is data to support our greatly decreased herd size. Every August, transects are run in numerous areas, there is a good history of these transect counts. Myself and several working group members rode along on the transects, they have data showing the herd is low in numbers. I went on two transects in the Huckleberry Unit with Dana Base last august. Buck/doe ratio wasn't too bad, but overall numbers are low. Transects around Deer Park it seems were the worst, low numbers and bad buck/doe ratio.
Armadillo, I agree there is poaching, the local wardens work on that on a regular basis. It's not all local hunters, I have heard of plenty of cases by out of the area hunters too. We also have a prblem with predators and local dogs. Lots of problems to work on for sure.
Post by: Armadillo on April 09, 2011, 08:32:40 PM
Post by: Utah on April 09, 2011, 08:46:26 PM
Post by: SkookumHntr on April 09, 2011, 08:56:43 PM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on April 09, 2011, 08:57:36 PM
I also don't think the science is against the antler point restriction. There is a lack of good science that would paint an accurate picture of what can happen up here. It seems very simple to me; saving young bucks is going to help the herd. Biologically, what can it hurt?
The people in opposition to the antler point restrictions are the ones that are more interested in killing a deer than they are in the quality and health of the herd. If you cannot pass on a deer and appreciate seeing a young buck while hunting, then your motive for hunting becomes pretty clear.
The people opposing the APR are only interested because they spend a week or so a year up here hunting. The locals tend to be very supportive (the Pend Oreille Sportsman Club passed the vote almost unanimously and the Stevens County Club sponsored it). We're the ones that spend evenings watching the deer enjoy them throughout the year- not only during the hunting season. The focus group that met and decided to send this forward was comprised of several groups. Only two groups (if my memory serves me...) were opposed to this APR. A group from Bellingham and the INWC from Spokane were against it. The others wanted to see the herd recover and were willing to give this a try.
I think it can only help and I strongly support the APR. It's only two units and I suspect in a few years the results will be favorable. If not, I'll eat my words.
Post by: huntnnw on April 09, 2011, 10:20:34 PM
Post by: bobcat on April 09, 2011, 10:28:27 PM
Bobcat I wasn't at the meeting and I did not listen to the recordings. But was it the WDFW testifying that they had no data or was it opposition hunters claiming there was no data?
Actually it was hard to know who was talking but I'm sure it was WDFW biologists, and it wasn't that they said they had no data at all, but that there wouldn't be any way to scientifically show what effect the 4 point restriction had on the deer herd, even after 5 years.
To do that you would have to control all the variables, and they're not doing that. The number of hunters is likely to change, so if the deer population does in fact increase over five years, was it due to the 4 point restriction, or was it due to less hunting pressure? Or was it due to something not even related to the 4 point restriction, such as weather, or predators, or both of those factors? That's just one example.
However, of course what will be known after a couple years is what the effect was on hunter numbers. And that will be an interesting thing to keep an eye on. I think I've said it before, but I'm not arguing against this so much as just commenting on certain aspects of it.
I really don't know if it is a good thing to do or not. My preference for deer (and elk) management in this state would be for them to eliminate general seasons completely and go to permit only hunting statewide. But I suppose in areas like the NE where to animals do have good escapement due to heavy cover, this 4 point minimum may actually work.
I just don't like it being in only 2 GMU's. Why not make it the entire NE region, and then have limited numbers of permits for youth and seniors for any buck in all the same GMU's?
This has got me thinking if it's a good thing over there for whitetails why wouldn't it work over here for blacktail deer as well? It sure would bring the buck/doe ratios up.
I can see myself heading over to hunt one of those units in another year or two, and trying for a trophy whitetail buck. So I could actually see that there might be others like me that might do the same. There may not be the loss of hunters over there spending money as some have said.
Post by: huntnnw on April 09, 2011, 10:53:40 PM
Post by: bearpaw on April 10, 2011, 01:02:15 AM
Post by: PolarBear on April 10, 2011, 01:36:28 AM
Post by: Tman on April 10, 2011, 07:27:23 AM
Thanks for the response, and thanks for keeping it professional. Nothing in these threads is personal and I believe we all have passionate opinions about a sport/pasttime that most of us hold very close..
I would think that many of us that are against, aren't against because we don't want the deer herds to recover. We too realize that the whitetails in these units aren't what they used to be. The biggest issue for myself and I assume many others is that once an APR is voted in it will most likely be here to stay. The commisions have not had the power to correct the defiencies with the APR's for Mule deer or Elk and actually push the WDFW to do something that will help build the herds again. If they used restrictions on season length or went permit only for several years, I believe eventually we would see our original seasons, or a better version again. The APR's are here to stay, and the commisions will not have the power to help change this. :twocents: If you ask me, the Stevens County Commissioners, have no business lobbying to enact state laws.. It just fits the bill of to many bean counters making decisions that are based off a "best guess" scenario. There will be many greeny conservation groups involved if the WDFW ever considers removing a the restriction. Look at the wolve scenario..
If you look at many other states that have instituted APR's or even worse, minimum spreads. Almost all of them never went back to their original seasons after the herds recovered (If they even did show an improvement) and the hunters have watched their seasons erode even further.
You outfit in Idaho it quite a bit every season, and the hunting is much better in most areas, why is it that we weren't more proactive in trying to adopt some of the theories and practices of IDFG? The Northeast is the same as the panhandle as far as territory is concerned.
For those who say its for profiteers, etc. Most reasonable people know that this is un true as most of these state "biologists" are going to be paid with your money whether their right or wrong, and will continue to be paid as long as King county runs the elections. Outfitters like Bearpaw and other businesses will suffer in the long run due to decreased hunting in these units.
I just would have liked to see some proven "methodology" used to protect and improve our deer herds. Currently, I don't believe my kids will be able to grow up and enjoy hunting this state when they are older.
This is the start of many other restrictions, that we as people have been blindfolded into accepting. :twocents:
Post by: turkey slayer on April 10, 2011, 07:41:55 AM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on April 10, 2011, 08:46:33 AM
I agree with everything you said. I was the one who started the "profettering" issue. I also have tried to be very clear that is isn't Dale that I was talking about. I could have said a lot more than that phrase but it would have brought in so much of the other drama that this board wants to shy away from. It could have hijacked the thread. I could have, maybe should have, left it out but that is what frustrates me. I have no problem speaking my mind. Even Bearpaw has said closing the late season for a few years would help but if he were to say it people would say he has ulterior motives. I think he probably does/done/will do/cares/knows more than many on the board. :twocents: He also DOES have a vested intrest in protecting and growing the States natural resources. So, when he talks I think most of us here will listen. (Me included)
I was talking about Government, which now includes Defenders of Wildlife and all their funds to do studies, and lawsuits, and change regulation, according to their findings, blah, blah, I think the USDFW/WDFW/DefoWild combo is unethical when our license/Tag goes up and we can't even get a valid study. Lawsuits, Bios, Dept time and energy, is now spent on things that I don't think should be, and I am tying it into why there is not a study. I see all of it as related. (I guess I am :tinfoil: ) But, it kind of makes me want to concentrate on just myself and my hunting, and not bother with the fuel, time, and energy involved in fighting for the cause. I am pretty good at details and I did my time as a Planning Commissioner in the past. I can't stand the thankless infighting. I don't know, like I say, maybe it is better to just concentrate on my own. :dunno:
I am like you in the sense that it is not that I am apposed to the APR I am apposed to how it is being enacted.
It's done, I didn't think it would be but it is. We will see how it goes.
Post by: Cougeyes on April 10, 2011, 09:14:01 AM
I do know that eliminating antlerless harvest would benefit the herd numbers, not sure if they are already doing this or not up there.
Post by: Bob33 on April 10, 2011, 09:21:58 AM
Post by: NWBREW on April 10, 2011, 11:02:49 AM
Now they can sell more "Quality Deer" special permit applications...
You know that is right around the corner.
Like huntnw had stated earlier, "I wish the whole corner would go to 4pt. That would not break my heart. I see many, many more bucks with 4pts or more then I do spikes and forkys. As for deer being left dead because they are 3pt or less, those shooting should be dealt with as poachers. I am 47 and I have no problem seeing and knowing EXACTLY what I am shooting.
Post by: bearpaw on April 10, 2011, 11:38:31 AM
After doing transects last August I can't remember the exact figures but it seems our numbers were roughly half of the good years. But, in the mountains away from fields where the transects are done, I think the deer herds may be at only 30% to 40% of normal, I don't have any data to support my estimate for the mountains, but I do think it's more depressed than the ag areas. But we'll assume the best and say the whole population is down 50%.
We all know that doe tags and antlerless opportunity has been nearly eliminated to help the herd grow. Maybe 5%-10% of the harvest will be antlerless deer this year. What that does is force the majority of hunters to be buck hunters. So this fall there will likely be far more buck hunters than there were in the good years, all of them hunting for bucks in a herd that's half the size that it used to be.
What will that do to the buck/doe ratio?
The APR is likely a very proactive approach to prevent a worsening problem before it occurs in these units. In the end I don't think you will see that much difference in hunter density after the first year. I think it will even out in future years. I have to ask what is so bad if this program is successful and the herd recovers and everyone is shooting at least 2 1/2 year old bucks instead of a large percentage of yearling bucks. I don't understand why that is bad?
Some of you have concerns with surrounding units. I agree, I would rather that the whole NE corner had a APR, but that would never happen because it was tough enough just getting 2 units as a trial. Imagine the uprising if we asked for a half dozen units.
I do understand if there are no improvements to the herd, then it should be discontinued. I also understand that extended use of APR may be bad for genetics over a long period of time. In some ways, I think the APR may need to removed after we recover the deer herd. In 5 years I am sure there will be some more heavy discussion to determine whether or not to continue APR in this area. Maybe we can't totally control every part of the science during this 5 years, but at least we will know more than we would have by not doing anything.
The "lack of scientific controls" argument is comparable to jumping in a car and driving until you run out of gas. For some reason the car quit going down the road, we don't know exactly how much gas was in the car but unless you check the fuel tank, you can't conclusively say you are out of fuel, but either way, your car isn't running anymore whether you check the tank or not. :twocents:
In my opinion, the wildlife commission just refueled the car so we don't run out of gas. :chuckle:
I figured I should lighten the discussion a little.... :chuckle:
Post by: Dave Workman on April 11, 2011, 01:57:11 PM
I forgot to mention, the purpose was to create greater buck escapement (reduce the harvest) without reducing opportunity to recreate. If it was 3pt then any fork horn buck with one eye guard would have been legal, and that would not have resulted in the kind of harvest reduction that we need.
You mean...a chance to go camping with guns?
An opportunity to walk through the woods with a gun...but shame on you if you use it?
That kind of opportunity?
Post by: Dave Workman on April 11, 2011, 02:19:05 PM
I do understand if there are no improvements to the herd, then it should be discontinued. I also understand that extended use of APR may be bad for genetics over a long period of time.
But Bearpaw, do you also understand that the state imposed the antler restriction on mule deer as a (hopefuly) temporary 3-10 year effort to build back the mule deer herd, and we have yet to see it disappear.
Once the proponents of restrictions get their nose under a tent, they keep it there. I don't see this 4-point restriction ever going away.
Post by: bearpaw on April 11, 2011, 02:30:27 PM
I do understand if there are no improvements to the herd, then it should be discontinued. I also understand that extended use of APR may be bad for genetics over a long period of time.
But Bearpaw, do you also understand that the state imposed the antler restriction on mule deer as a (hopefuly) temporary 3-10 year effort to build back the mule deer herd, and we have yet to see it disappear.
Once the proponents of restrictions get their nose under a tent, they keep it there. I don't see this 4-point restriction ever going away.
I honestly can't comment on the APR being good or bad for most of Washington.
But in the northeast I think it is a good thing, we have some mature bucks again, we still have a population problem which is likely linked to predators. To date I haven't seen anything showing the muledeer apr is bad in northeast washington. From what I have been told, it seems people like the APR and there are more whitetail bucks in the Southeast Region too.
In my opinion, I think we have to see the results before we can judge the effectiveness in northeast on whitetails.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on April 11, 2011, 02:51:21 PM
I do understand if there are no improvements to the herd, then it should be discontinued. I also understand that extended use of APR may be bad for genetics over a long period of time.
But Bearpaw, do you also understand that the state imposed the antler restriction on mule deer as a (hopefuly) temporary 3-10 year effort to build back the mule deer herd, and we have yet to see it disappear.
Once the proponents of restrictions get their nose under a tent, they keep it there. I don't see this 4-point restriction ever going away.
I honestly can't comment on the APR being good or bad for most of Washington.
But in the northeast I think it is a good thing, we have some mature bucks again, we still have a population problem which is likely linked to predators. To date I haven't seen anything showing the muledeer apr is bad in northeast washington. From what I have been told, it seems people like the APR and there are more whitetail bucks in the Southeast Region too.
In my opinion, I think we have to see the results before we can judge the effectiveness in northeast on whitetails.
Have you ever seen the massive genetic 2 point Mule Deer of GMU 133? I am sure Big Wally's at Banks Lake still as some pictures of them. I Have seen dozens in a day of hunting out there before. I agree that time will tell if this is like a (steroid) shot in the arm but those shots often only help temporally. I think if people are serious they are going to have to realize that ending the Late Season in the answer.
Post by: bearpaw on April 11, 2011, 07:15:30 PM
Quote
Have you ever seen the massive genetic 2 point Mule Deer of GMU 133? I am sure Big Wally's at Banks Lake still as some pictures of them. I Have seen dozens in a day of hunting out there before. I agree that time will tell if this is like a (steroid) shot in the arm but those shots often only help temporally. I think if people are serious they are going to have to realize that ending the Late Season in the answer.
No I haven't seen that, but I believe you. I know that studies have shown that extended use of APR over many years is suspected to have a negative affect on antler genetics. Once the NE herd is hopefully recovered, it may be wise to consider different management. I have stated this before. We will know more in time, it may be wise to remove the restriction in the future.
Perhaps if mature 2 points are a problem in 133, a different strategy should be used to allow harvest of those bucks. I would suggest if this is happening a mule deer committee in WFW should try to come up with a proposal. Some of you others who know that unit will need to be involved in the committee and weigh in on the issue and come up with a good solution with merit through a group concensus. I will have no problem supporting a good proposal for our members.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on April 11, 2011, 07:46:17 PM
I would have liked to see a 3 pt minimum rather than a 4 pt, but i think that this is a great start.
I also think removing the 3 pt minimum would be a bad idea for the mule deer. I thought the DFW did something to address that..did they give special permits for 2 pts or something? There would be far fewer deer in the open country.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on April 12, 2011, 09:25:08 AM
QuoteHave you ever seen the massive genetic 2 point Mule Deer of GMU 133? I am sure Big Wally's at Banks Lake still as some pictures of them. I Have seen dozens in a day of hunting out there before. I agree that time will tell if this is like a (steroid) shot in the arm but those shots often only help temporally. I think if people are serious they are going to have to realize that ending the Late Season in the answer.
No I haven't seen that, but I believe you. I know that studies have shown that extended use of APR over many years is suspected to have a negative affect on antler genetics. Once the NE herd is hopefully recovered, it may be wise to consider different management. I have stated this before. We will know more in time, it may be wise to remove the restriction in the future.
Perhaps if mature 2 points are a problem in 133, a different strategy should be used to allow harvest of those bucks. I would suggest if this is happening a mule deer committee in WFW should try to come up with a proposal. Some of you others who know that unit will need to be involved in the committee and weigh in on the issue and come up with a good solution with merit through a group concensus. I will have no problem supporting a good proposal for our members.
I have seen some ideas posted by people that APR's may degrade antler quality but I have not seen a scientific study that is valid to a 4pt APR that points towards that. My personal logic tells me that it won't have an impact.
I believe you on the Mule Deer but Mule Deer are different than whitetail. I have hunted south of the river for years and I have never seen a single massive 2pt whitetail..and I have easily seen over a thousand bucks in those units over the years.
This is why I think there won't be much of an impact.
1. Recent studies show that there is little predictabiltiy between yearling antler size and antler size at maturity. 4pt yearlings are rare anyway and even if they were genetically superior it will make little difference. If a person would shoot a yearling 4pt prior to the rule they would still shoot it and vice versa so it is practically a wash.
2. Under the 4pt APR nearly all yearling bucks will survive and some of them will breed.
3. The yearlings that are most likely to breed are actually the ones that are genetically superior because they will outcompete the others.
4. Most 2 1/2 year old whitetail are at least a 4pt. and thus legal under the current rule and legal under the old rules. Of course there will be a few bucka with less than 4pts that survive but that doesn't mean they are genetically inferior (there is still little predictablity between a 2 1/2 year old's antlers and his antlers at maturity).
5. I personally have never seen a 3 1/2+ year old whitetail with less than 4pt.'s in WA state..(seen a decent number down south and areas with the worst quality soils)..and I have viewed thousands of WA whitetail. I am sure a few exist but they are so rare that there will be little to no impact.
6. The APR results I have witnessed south of the river has appeared to only have positive impacts from what I can tell.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on April 12, 2011, 11:14:45 AM
http://www.seafwa.org/resource/dynamic/private/PDF/general-session-1-9.pdf (http://www.seafwa.org/resource/dynamic/private/PDF/general-session-1-9.pdf)
The problem is there are so many holes in this study that it's nearly useless as far as I am concerned. They basically measured antlers at WMA's before and after the restriction and found that they were smaller after. Yet I can do a similarly simple and just as valid comparison by looking at the B&C record before and after the APR and I will come up with an exact opposite conclusion.
The APR started in 1995. I input 1997 as the starte date because I believe that is where you would start to see the effects of the APR. This is what I come up with
1997-2010 (After APR)
Typicals: 38
Non-Typicals: 25
1983-1996
Typicals: 18
Non-Typicals: 12
This was their final conclusion:
"We conclude that Mississippi’s 4-point antler regulation has caused significant
negative biological effects on antler development of older males on numerous public
hunting areas in Mississippi. Additionally, protection of yearling males did not result
in equivalent increases in harvest of older males. These combined circumstances
indicate that alternative solutions should be pursued to improve the male age structure
on public hunting areas in Mississippi. Antler restrictions should be considered
a short-term solution to age-structure problems because of the potential negative
biological effects. The long-term solution should focus on teaching hunters the benefits
of an older male age structure."
I definitley agree with the last line and I think a 4pt APR will help us get there. As I have said a milliion times before 4pt APR is not the "best" solution to the problem but it is better than nothing. Perhaps the 4pt APR did have an impact on the antler size on public land but there are many other factors they are not weighing and they start off with the assumption that spikes are genetically inferior. Newer studies have shown this not to be the case. For this and many other reasons I can't put a lot of weight on this particular study.
Post by: C-Money on April 12, 2011, 11:30:25 AM
Post by: bearpaw on April 12, 2011, 12:24:26 PM
I think the real question will be whether to continue it after the 5 year trial. I think the question is whether long-term APR is smart. In 5 years after the herd has hopefully recovered we will have to re-assess, we may want to consider some modifications to the APR or even elimination. But I don't see how we will know until we are there. This is a good story here:
http://www.mississippigameandfish.com/hunting/ms_aa122902a/ (http://www.mississippigameandfish.com/hunting/ms_aa122902a/)
Is the 4-Point Rule Working?
The requirement that legal bucks have at least 4 points has been in effect for a couple of seasons. Is it working? Let's have a look.
By Jill J. Easton
Nose to the ground, a buck ambles down a game trail in the Delta National Forest. He continues to work his way closer toward your tree stand. It's a heavy-racked 8-point with a thickened neck and love on his mind. Thousands of hunters across Mississippi say this is an increasingly common occurrence seven years after the groundbreaking 4-point rule was put into effect.
"Hunters are seeing an older age-class of deer when they hunt, which means bigger antlers. For most hunters bigger is better," said Larry Castle, deer coordinator for the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks (MDWFP). "We've had an 85 percent approval rating since the law went into effect, and the average age of bucks harvested has risen from 2.1 years to 3 years old."
Obviously, most hunters in Mississippi are strongly in favor of the 4-point rule for bucks. They say they have been seeing more and bigger bucks since the rule was put into practice in 1995. Getting a larger percentage of bucks past their second birthday was the aim of the regulation. But are there other effects?
In the intervening years a lot of research has been completed both in laboratory-style studies and in real-life situations on the effects of point restrictions on antler development. These studies and evidence from some wildlife management areas suggest that harvest rates of older bucks have not increased substantially and the overall quality of harvested bucks within age-classes is going down.
One can even find grounds for the argument that the statewide imposition of the regulation has actually had no effect or has decreased the Boone and Crocket scores on bucks harvested in wildlife management areas (WMAs) across the state.
SCIENCE AND THE 4-POINT
"We are drawing a tine-line that places most bucks harvested at the upper end of 1 1/2 (years of age)," pointed out Stephen Demarais, professor of Wildlife Management at Mississippi State University, in discussing the harvest on Sunflower WMA.
His statistics show a decrease of 19 inches of antlers in the Boone and Crockett (B&C) scores of 3 1/2-year-old bucks taken on the WMA since the 4-point rule was adopted. This is exactly the effect that some biologists forewarned, because the restrictive rule protects smaller antlered yearlings and allows the harvest of larger antlered yearlings.
Graduate student Bronson Strickland, along with Demarais, Castle and others, produced a paper titled Effects of Selective-Harvest Strategies on White-Tailed Deer Antler Size. The study used antler measurements from pen-raised deer to simulate the effects of antler-based selective-harvest strategies on the breeding population for a number of years. Those findings were then compared to antler statistics from bucks harvested on Mississippi's WMAs.
The simulations showed that selectively removing a large proportion of the larger-antlered young bucks and leaving a large proportion of the smaller-antlered young bucks can reduce antler size of bucks at 4 years of age. The researchers found similar results when they compared antler development within ages for the four seasons prior to the antler restrictions (1991-1994 seasons) with those from the first three seasons after the regulations (1996-1998).
The biggest effect documented in Mississippi was in the Delta region at Sunflower WMA.
"In the years before the regulation, 2 1/2-year-old bucks harvested averaged 87 inches on the Boone and Crockett scale. After the 4-point, they averaged 78 inches," Demarais explained. "Before the regulation, a 3 1/2-year-old deer averaged 113 inches; now it's down to 94 inches."
Such statistics suggest that harvested bucks are actually losing some of the length and mass of antler that the 4-point rule was set up to increase.
The rule is designed to protect yearling deer, which it clearly accomplishes. In the process, however, it seems to best protect the yearling bucks produced each year with the smallest racks.
The second goal is to have these yearling deer that survive harvested in older age-classes. Unfortunately, there is no clear evidence that this is happening. On many WMAs, the total number of bucks harvested within older age-classes didn't change much. The major difference was that the average age of harvested bucks increased by only about a year. There was no significant increase in the number of 3 1/2- and 4 1/2-year-old bucks being harvested.
The researchers found that the negative effects were not universal throughout the state. There was a similar, but not as significant, decrease in antler size at some WMAs in the Upper Coastal Plain. At WMAs in the Lower Coastal Plain, there were no measurable negative effects on antler development. The overall statewide effect still appears to be smaller antler mass on the deer that make it to maturity.
"We have to be very careful with selective harvest regulations because we are hi-grading our deer population on our better quality soils," said Demarais.
The professor is harking back to a timber-harvest term for cutting out only the healthiest, best-quality trees and leaving inferior specimens to continue regeneration.
"The better quality deer are being removed, leaving bucks with less quality to carry on breeding. The 4- to 8-point yearlings are being taken before they have a chance to enter the breeding population."
Demarais suggests that the answer to this problem is to set the bar a bit higher. If antler restrictions are to be imposed, they should be stricter.
THE POSITIVE EFFECTS
Of course, there are some good things coming out of the 4-point rule as well. Game managers and hunters across the state agree that it encourages table hunters to shoot more does, rather than taking a spike buck for the larder. The regulation also got hunters thinking about deer from a quality management perspective. For the first time in 50 years, younger bucks have at least one round in the breeding cycle, providing additional diversity to the gene pool.
"Every time a hunter pulls the trigger, he's making a management decision," said Randy Browning, a field biologist in Hattiesburg with the Mississippi Fish and Wildlife Foundation. "There was a time when a hunter wouldn't let a spike come out of the woods; now most stop and let the young deer walk."
The other attitude change concerns harvesting does. This practice has finally become acceptable among a large proportion of hunters in the state.
"The 4-point rule has been great in terms of helping us reach our hunting club's objectives," noted Ronnie Bailey of Long Beach, who has a family farm and lease in Greene County. "We worked with a state biologist to manage our herd properly, but our 320 acres is surrounded by paper company land and private land that was leased out."
Their club had a rule that allowed spikes to walk, but as soon as the deer left their property they were harvested on the surrounding land.
"Before the regulation, the biologist told us we were wasting our time trying to protect the young deer," said Bailey. "Now, everyone is on the same page and we have a more balanced herd."
Bailey believes the biggest effect of the 4-point rule is encouraging more hunters to take does.
"Years ago, on an average day we'd see 40 to 50 deer during a hunt on the property, but a 100-pound buck was huge," Bailey recalled. "Seven or eight of every 10 animals would be does. Since the 4-point rule, the number of bucks has gone up considerably, and it appears that the overall weight of deer in the area has improved."
Prior to the 4-point rule going into effect, the club provided jawbones to the state as part of the Deer Management Assistance Program and kept a careful record of each deer harvested. Biologists from the MDWFP issued the club additional doe permits to help balance the buck-to-doe ratio. In return the club received a detailed printout listing of all the deer taken in the area and got a lot of help from their area biologist.
"This allowed us to see where we've been and where we are going," Bailey explained. "Each year we saw fewer deer, but the weight and antler mass of the animals harvested increased. This year, with fewer days in the woods, the six hunters in the club harvested two 6-points and a 4-point, in addition to two does, which is about right for the general pool of deer available due to the soil's nutrition and the small acreage of the hunting property."
DOWN THE ROAD
Mississippi's deer herd is somewhere around 1,800,000 animals, and those numbers have remained somewhere below 2 million for nearly a decade. Within that herd, not all of our deer get an equal break. Coastal deer and those in some other parts of the state will never reach the size attained in the black soil Delta region. A 2 1/2-year-old deer from the Mississippi River bottoms near Rolling Fork may be a 170-pound 8-point. The same age-class deer along the lower Pascagoula River would have to be winter wet to tip the scale at 110 pounds and may not get his fourth point until his third year.
Soil quality and the resulting nutrition of the forage it supports have major effects on the size and condition of deer that grow up in an area. In addition many areas of the state have seen a major change in land use during the last decade. Large farms were broken up and paper company lands that traditionally provided huge tracts of managed woodlands have being sold off. New 5-acre "farms" are cutting down woods and turning farm fields into pasture. For generations the edge lands provided deer with nearly perfect habitat. Now thousands of acres hold only a few horses, goats or cows or just provide status yards.
In other areas, urbanization has jammed deer into the few remaining corridors of woods, causing overcrowding. The deer then move into backyard gardens and onto roadsides to find groceries. Besides destroying expensive shrubs and lawns, the animals become hazards in our roadways.
Mississippi's legislative plunge into a statewide mandated 4-point rule broke new ground in wildlife management. We were revolutionary - the first state in the region to implement such a statewide antler regulation for white-tailed deer. The program was put into effect because the Legislature thought it was an idea whose time had come and that it would have a positive effect on Mississippi's deer. The 4-point rule was an amazing step, and one that has been studied, modified and tried to some extent in an increasing number of states.
New times and new problems often require new solutions. Perhaps deer experts like Stephen Demarais think it may be time to revisit and modify, or add to the regulations. The best way to improve our deer herd now may be to allow flexibility in the application of the 4-point rule. Wildlife biologists incorporating specific biological data into local harvest objectives to develop antler-based harvest recommendations that are best suited to regional circumstances might be a good option. The decision on the number of antler points a legal deer would have to sport could be based on a number of factors in a soil region. The area's natural ability to produce large-antlered bucks, animal population density, the goals of landowners and hunters, and the overall quality of deer forage could be included in the equation.
As the regulation stands now, it is one-size-fits-all management with no consideration for specific situations. Since the implementation of the 4-point rule, the MDWFP has returned to the Legislature each year seeking the ability to control and customize harvest regulations in certain areas of the state. They also want to get special permit ability for deer herds that have specific problems caused by overproduction, weather or disease. For the past four years, the Legislature turned down the idea.
"We've made some great steps, progressive steps; this is revolutionary groundwork," said Bo Sloan of the United States Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services. "The seeds have been planted; now all we've got to do is continue to evaluate what we know, and make the next step."
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on April 12, 2011, 12:40:44 PM
Post by: muleyguy on April 12, 2011, 10:20:29 PM
I will make a prediction, and since this is a hot topic, and since the WDFW keeps much better harvest stats now, it will be easy to confirm the predictable outcome of this; since units 117 and 121 have huge amounts of public land, and high hunting pressure, along with a modern, general season, rut hunt, the result in these units will be much different then the other whitetail units that have gone to 3 pt or better and consist of primarily private ground;
Here is my prediction:
2011: overall buck harvest will be down; harvest of 4+ and 5+ whitetail bucks will increase by 25% over the three year average hmmmm, why is this?? will there suddenly be more 4 and 5 pt + bucks in the population this fall??? nope......the answer is simple......the harvest will be focused on this age group; so, right off the bat, the population will start the process of getting skewed; fewer older bucks, more younger bucks;
Going into 2012, there will be vastly fewer mature bucks because the harvest of 4 and 5 pt bucks was way above norm in 2011 without a corresponding increase in their populations; you essentially just put dagger in two age classes;
2012: overall buck harvest will be simalar to the 2008/2009/2010 avg; almost all of the 1,2,3 pt bucks will be shot once they reach 4 pts; the harvest of 4 pt bucks will be huge, and 5+ pt bucks will be higher although not 25% higher then the previous three year average; but, once again, how is this possible??? The reason is the year before you took out two age classes, and there hasn't been enough time to recruit enough bucks into those older age classes to make up for it, so there can't be "more" 5+ bucks in the population. Well, it is simple, more pressure on the older age classes.
end result of year 2: fewer mature bucks; almost all of the 4 pt bucks being shot, very little recruitment into the 4.5 yr old class; another post season stockpile of 1.5 yr old bucks
2013/2014/2015: overall buck harvest simalar to the 2008/2009/2010 avg; slowly declining mature buck population because of the hole the first year created and the low amount of recruitment into 4.5 yr old class; harvest will primarily consist of 2.5 yr old deer, with the majority of the rest being 3.5 yr old deer; populations of 4.5 yr old deer will be lower; the age class of the bucks, pre hunting season, now consists primarily of 1.5 yr old bucks and 2.5 yr old bucks; might be a few more 3.5 yr old bucks in the mix; lower levels of 4.5+ yr old bucks then before APR;
Spring 2016: WDFW says "houston, we have a problem"........ average hunter says: "What are you talking about?? I am now shooting a 4pt buck every year instead of a spike or two point......AND, last hunting season I saw seven 2pt bucks while I was hunting! This APR thing is great!!"
Fall of 2016: 4pt APR stays in effect; WDFW drastically curtails or eliminates the late buck season because of poor mature buck escapement; reduced season length, just like in every other APR unit in the State;
Also, no way to get out of APR anyway for the WDFW without a bunch of pain.........you have now created a buck population that is primarily made up of 1.5 and 2.5 yr old bucks going into the hunting season; for lack of a better word, the buck population now primarily consists of the "stupidest" age classes.......they hang around does, other little bucks, etc. So, WDFW gets rid of the APR and, you have a massive harvest of these age classes; you now just took out the two youngest age classes, and your previous 5 yrs of APR took out the oldest age classes;
You are now looking at another 5 yrs just to get the population balanced out again, if it ever does.........
So, where does this leave us???? If anybody seriously thinks that these APR's are going to be for 5 yrs and then seriously looked at, you are fooling yourself......they are with us forever......and, just like every other APR in highly hunted, public ground, in this state, your season length will slowly erode......APR is the death knell for the late, whitetail modern rifle seasons in these units.........thats my prediction.....it won't be hard to find out if my 2011 prediction that you will see a 25% increase in harvest of 4 and 5 pt bucks; we will be able to find that out about this time next year when they come out with harvest reports......
Post by: huntnnw on April 12, 2011, 10:41:46 PM
Post by: muleyguy on April 12, 2011, 11:55:17 PM
Quote
your wrong on the private vs the public land...
according to the WDFW harvest stats, in 2009 unit 121 had a total of about 6000 hunters; in 2009, units 127,130 and 133 had a total of about 6000 hunters;
difference is, that 127,130 and 133 cumulatively are about twice the land size of unit 121; the hunting pressure in 121 is far greater then 127,130 and 133;
the really huge difference though is in number of hunter days: 121 had over 32,000 hunter days in 2009; 127-133 had 22,000 hunter days;
twice the size land wise in 127-130 and 33% less hunter days= way less hunting pressure in those units compared to 121;
statistically, hunting pressure is 2/3 less in 127-130 per unit of land vs 121;
117 has just about the same numbers as 121, so no difference there either;
APR's will be a disaster in these units because of the hunting pressure and the late season general rut hunt; all the research says that the effects of APR's are muted on private land vs public land; the bottom line is, this rule was pushed by an outfitter and private land owners; all of you public land hunters have been hoodwinked.......
Post by: huntnnw on April 13, 2011, 02:30:36 AM
I cant wait to see these units in 4 years it will be great! :)