Post by: thatdamguy on October 01, 2011, 09:10:17 AM
P.S. If anyone know any of the organized groups that were for this I would like to contact them to ask why they wanted to see this implemented.
Thank You for contacting the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Please forgive our delayed response.
The Fish and Wildlife Commission supported a request from several
organized northeast Washington hunting groups and county commissioners
to implement a four-point antler restriction for white-tailed deer in
Game Management Units 117 and 121.
Between 2008 and 2011, we have received a lot of input from hunters on
this issue. Opinion has always been divided and the split depends on
the group and location. Both sides have been very passionate. The
bottom line is that several organized hunting groups in the northeast
asked for antler point restrictions for many years and the Commission
supported their local request.
We don't expect the antler point restrictions to have any negative
consequences for white-tailed deer conservation and management. We do
anticipate increased yearling buck survival. We have also restricted
antlerless hunting opportunity significantly to allow the population
to rebound more quickly from the winters of 2007-08 and 2008-09.
Just as with all game species - the Department will be assessing the
status of the northeast white-tailed deer population in making future
recommendations on hunting seasons. However, as a newly adopted
change for 2011, the Department does not plan to revisit the antler
point restriction issue this summer during the development of the
2012-14 season setting process.
Sincerely,
Customer Service Section
Wildlife Program
360-902-2515
My email to DFW.......
Hello, I just wanted to give you my 2 cents about the new antler minimum for the 117 and 121 game units. I have lived in Stevens County for most of my life and hunted our family farm and surrounding areas in southwest end of the county. I did notice the deer population was down from years past but I do not feel that it was down far enough for the state to implement a four point minimum. Starting with a three point minimum is in my opinion far more realistic but I feel that it is still not necessary. As a general rule for my family and friends we only allow people to shoot 3 points or higher on our farm unless they are a young hunter. Ultimately I feel that this will hurt some of the sates revenue and small towns around the 117 and 121 game units because they are known to be some of the highest producers of deer in the State of Washington. Also you can see from your 2010 harvest report that 4 points and 3 point were the most commonly harvested animals in the 117 and 121 units. I think I speak for most hunters when I say that we want to shoot mature deer and not one year old bucks. With any luck the state will see the population is not in any danger and will also see that a lot of hunters did not buy tags and hunt the 117 and 121 game units.
Respectfully
Post by: GEARHEAD on October 01, 2011, 09:13:46 AM
Post by: blindpig on October 01, 2011, 11:09:13 AM
Post by: BULLBLASTER on October 01, 2011, 02:28:41 PM
Post by: thatdamguy on October 01, 2011, 03:02:08 PM
Post by: high country on October 01, 2011, 03:35:17 PM
Post by: dscubame on October 01, 2011, 06:02:38 PM
Post by: colockumelk on October 01, 2011, 07:13:41 PM
Post by: vandeman17 on October 01, 2011, 07:34:20 PM
Post by: thatdamguy on October 03, 2011, 01:41:45 PM
Post by: BULLBLASTER on October 03, 2011, 01:51:01 PM
I see know that it was pretty much all the guide services who pushed for the law. It is going to help the trophy hunters in a few years but those being the highest yielding game units in the state is going to prevent a lot of people from even buying tags while there is a 4 point minimum.
The trophy hunters most likely won't see much difference. The guys who have been killing mature bucks will continue to. It will help buck to does ratio and help get some more does bred each year. There are way too many does without fawns.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on October 03, 2011, 01:58:00 PM
Post by: thatdamguy on October 03, 2011, 02:15:39 PM
Post by: jackmaster on October 03, 2011, 02:19:08 PM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on October 03, 2011, 02:21:48 PM
I see know that it was pretty much all the guide services who pushed for the law. It is going to help the trophy hunters in a few years but those being the highest yielding game units in the state is going to prevent a lot of people from even buying tags while there is a 4 point minimum.there were a host of folks supporting the new regulation. The Stevens Co. Sportsmans group was the big push, with Pend Oreille county's group supporting also. County commissioners, hunting groups, and a lot of locals were in support and were involved in the process. We met in Clayton at the fairgrounds several times.
The only groups that were opposed was a Sportsmans group from spokane and one from Bellingham.
I am interested to see how it goes, I would love it if it were a 3 pt, but nonetheless, the deer there are going to be going crazy pretty quick.
Post by: bearpaw on October 03, 2011, 02:31:21 PM
It was discussed to shorten season, go to a permit system, the 4 pt minimum, and even other ideas. By a majority the group chose the 4 pt minimum so that the harvest of bucks would be reduced yet hunters could go hunting.
So it wasn't a bunch of guides, there are only a small handful in the area, it was groups of local hunters and landowners for the most part who pushed for this rule to try and rebuild the herd.
As I have stated probably a hundred times, and as I told Dana Base while we were doing deer counts this August, I will reconsider my position after we see the effects on the herd in 5 years. If it appears we're better off changing back, that is what I will support. In a year or two, it might even make sense to let the kids shoot any buck, but lets see how the herd recovers first.
For anyone who doubts the herd is down, look at harvest statistics for the last 10 or 20 years.
I think BOWHUNTER45 and WACoyote summarized it pretty well, thanks. :twocents:
Post by: bobcat on October 03, 2011, 02:37:45 PM
Quote
the deer there are going to be going crazy pretty quick
What does this mean?
Post by: trophyhunt on October 03, 2011, 02:39:18 PM
We need to up the deer numbers to feed the wolves.:yeah:
Post by: bearpaw on October 03, 2011, 02:42:07 PM
We need to up the deer numbers to feed the wolves.:yeah:
That is another concern. Wolves are multiplying fast in NE WA. The lolo zone in Idaho had an excessive winter kill on elk immediately folloowed by an increase in wolf numbers, the herd continued to decline and is now at 10% of previous numbers. History shows us that its important to recover this deer herd before the wolves multiply.
Post by: thatdamguy on October 03, 2011, 02:47:22 PM
Post by: bearpaw on October 03, 2011, 02:54:31 PM
Bearpaw thank you for the feed back. As you said hopfully in few years the population will be up they can revisit this to see if it still necessary. Now where do we sign to get the hounds back for cougar hunting, now that will get the heard back up ! :tup:
:tup: I agree....
Post by: 724wd on October 03, 2011, 03:03:47 PM
it might even make sense to let the kids shoot any buck
my biggest beef with 4 pt minimum is how it would effect youth hunter recruitment. any buck for 15 year and under kids would be awesome! :tup: let the kids shoot some deer and get hooked on hunting! we have to keep them interested, and trophy hunting isn't the way. there's not that many kids that it would be detrimental to the herd.
my first deer was a doe (button buck in the end) and that started the ball rolling. i'm still a meat hunter primarily, and would have been happy to shoot a doe in early archery with my daughter, but not being able to meant more time in the blind seeing a parade of does stroll by. the lower end of 117 seems to have recovered pretty dang quick, at least in my area!
Post by: thatdamguy on October 03, 2011, 03:09:14 PM
it might even make sense to let the kids shoot any buck
my biggest beef with 4 pt minimum is how it would effect youth hunter recruitment. any buck for 15 year and under kids would be awesome! :tup: let the kids shoot some deer and get hooked on hunting! we have to keep them interested, and trophy hunting isn't the way. there's not that many kids that it would be detrimental to the herd.
my first deer was a doe (button buck in the end) and that started the ball rolling. i'm still a meat hunter primarily, and would have been happy to shoot a doe in early archery with my daughter, but not being able to meant more time in the blind seeing a parade of does stroll by. the lower end of 117 seems to have recovered pretty dang quick, at least in my area!
Couldn't agree with you more every year on our farm we let a kid or someone who has never killed a whitetail harvest one. I really enjoy watching someone become a life long sportsman or woman. Youth should be any buck or maybe only a 3 point minimum
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on October 03, 2011, 03:18:51 PM
Sorry- it means the population will likely rebound quickly and hunters are going to see an increase in quality deer hunting and herd dynamics.Quotethe deer there are going to be going crazy pretty quick
What does this mean?
Post by: popeshawnpaul on October 03, 2011, 03:33:42 PM
The WDFW had indicated they were going to cut the antlerless/special tags and see how that improved the population. I'm surprised this passed somehow with little support this year. From a science standpoint, you'll have hunters continuing to hunt, passing those small deer they would have shot to take out the mature deer. Mature deer will be under more pressure and young deer will do the breeding and more large bucks will die. There was never a problem with large bucks in this general area. However, if you are a small section land owner, this will ensure that your pet buck might survive for you to kill him instead of your neighbor taking him out when he's too young.
Yet another loss of opportunity without first trying the preferred alternative. There is also a lot of hunting pressure on the mature bucks in these 100 series GMU's because the late season hunters (partly bowhunters) have no other places to hunt like throughout the 200 series GMU's due to cuts in late seasons.
Less opportunity, more hunters jammed into less and smaller units. Then we'll have to fix that problem but cutting more units in the upcoming years. See a trend?
Post by: thatdamguy on October 03, 2011, 03:39:56 PM
Post by: buckcanyonlodge on October 03, 2011, 04:17:09 PM
Post by: whacker1 on October 03, 2011, 04:24:45 PM
Quote
Yet another loss of opportunity without first trying the preferred alternative.
Pope - what you were you saying was the preferred alternative? I didn't follow that part of your post.
Post by: walt on October 03, 2011, 04:31:04 PM
Here is my 2 cents worth. I also talked with Dana Base as well as the regional biologist from Spokane and Jerry Nelson head biologist from Olympia. They are ALL AGAINST this 4 point restriction. No scientific basis. It was pushed through by the Game Commissioner from Kettle Falls. I was warned about this going through by a local game warden last September. And I quote" the commissioner from Kettle Falls is in the back pocket of some large land owners and sportsman clubs and they want the restriction so they can shoot bigger bucks and then be able to charge more for their hunts" NOT my words. These came from the warden who said" don't use my name." Everyone I talked to in the Wildlife Dept. told me not to use their names but stated pretty much the same. Political CRAP. Trophy hunting is a personal choice not a management tool. I do not shoot small bucks but I don't think I have the right to tell everyone including youth, disabled, and senior hunters that they can't shoot smaller bucks.Especially when it does nothing to increase the overall herd. Ask Mr. Nelson. I have read that this worked in Alabama and Pennsylvania. Do they have 7 feet of snow during the winter? Or huge populations of bear, cougar, coyotes, and now wolves???? Hell no.I am in the field 12 months of the year in Stevens County and there are lots of mature bucks that escape to breed every year. I see them!!! No fawns is the result of the predators. Not unbred does. ASK the biologists that were hired by the State of Washington to manage the deer herds. I have. In addition the local business' from Fruitland to Chewelah will feel the economic impact of this selfish restriction. They depend on the seasonal influx of out of area hunters to help them through the lean winters. Remember, hunting whitetail deer in Units 121&117 is for ALL hunters from everywhere. Not just the local and vocal "sportsman clubs and land owners. I know I'll get blasted by the trophy hunters and citizen scientists out there but I have a right to my position just as you do. You gotta have thick skin to put something like this up for comment!!! Also, If you have cancelled your hunting plans this year to 121 or 117 because of the 4 point restriction please let me know via PM or just reply. Thanks.
:yeah: Pretty much sums up exactly why I was opposed to it.
Post by: popeshawnpaul on October 03, 2011, 04:31:44 PM
QuoteYet another loss of opportunity without first trying the preferred alternative.
Pope - what you were you saying was the preferred alternative? I didn't follow that part of your post.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. The preferred alternative was to keep it at status quo, eliminate the special tags/antlerless, and we voted to approve funds (50k if I remember right) for a study to find out why the population isn't as healthy as it use to be. We appropriated the 50K and asked for status quo. I expected it to go that way with no opposition, and the WDFW biologists all (but one) agreeing the 4 point minimum would not accomplish the goal of trophy bucks. Rather, it was a short term solution to increase overall population. I don't know how the 4 point rules got into effect this year. Someone has some serious pull within the WDFW to circumvent all the process. Quite frustrating, really.
Post by: dscubame on October 03, 2011, 04:31:58 PM
The end result of this debate will inevitably be proven by the real world results stemming from the restriction implementation. It will take a few years to start seeing the change in the deer management.
I am confident the outcome will show that WDFW, the biologists, and the majority that supported this decision will be positive for ALL interests.
Post by: whacker1 on October 03, 2011, 04:34:36 PM
Here is my 2 cents worth. I also talked with Dana Base as well as the regional biologist from Spokane and Jerry Nelson head biologist from Olympia. They are ALL AGAINST this 4 point restriction. No scientific basis. It was pushed through by the Game Commissioner from Kettle Falls. I was warned about this going through by a local game warden last September. And I quote" the commissioner from Kettle Falls is in the back pocket of some large land owners and sportsman clubs and they want the restriction so they can shoot bigger bucks and then be able to charge more for their hunts" NOT my words. These came from the warden who said" don't use my name." Everyone I talked to in the Wildlife Dept. told me not to use their names but stated pretty much the same. Political CRAP. Trophy hunting is a personal choice not a management tool. I do not shoot small bucks but I don't think I have the right to tell everyone including youth, disabled, and senior hunters that they can't shoot smaller bucks.Especially when it does nothing to increase the overall herd. Ask Mr. Nelson. I have read that this worked in Alabama and Pennsylvania. Do they have 7 feet of snow during the winter? Or huge populations of bear, cougar, coyotes, and now wolves???? Hell no.I am in the field 12 months of the year in Stevens County and there are lots of mature bucks that escape to breed every year. I see them!!! No fawns is the result of the predators. Not unbred does. ASK the biologists that were hired by the State of Washington to manage the deer herds. I have. In addition the local business' from Fruitland to Chewelah will feel the economic impact of this selfish restriction. They depend on the seasonal influx of out of area hunters to help them through the lean winters. Remember, hunting whitetail deer in Units 121&117 is for ALL hunters from everywhere. Not just the local and vocal "sportsman clubs and land owners. I know I'll get blasted by the trophy hunters and citizen scientists out there but I have a right to my position just as you do. You gotta have thick skin to put something like this up for comment!!! Also, If you have cancelled your hunting plans this year to 121 or 117 because of the 4 point restriction please let me know via PM or just reply. Thanks.
I won't blast you.... This has been a very contentious debate the whole way through.
The goals were to improve population. There were lots of options put on the table that all resulted in lower opportunity and they only took action on 3 options: antler restriction and doe permits for deer and the insignificant extension of the spring bear season.
Some other options that were on the table: cut the late modern seasons back, cut the late archery season, go to a permit only, Simplify and extend the cougar season, earlier bear season, and others.
The options that aren't able to be talked about is Cougar and bear baiting or hound hunting. They could have simplified the Cougar season to any weapon Sept - March, but they didn't. So the only predators that we can have an impact on are coyotes and bobcats.
Hopefully, we can address the cougar season next time around.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on October 03, 2011, 04:41:39 PM
Post by: whacker1 on October 03, 2011, 04:45:20 PM
QuoteYet another loss of opportunity without first trying the preferred alternative.
Pope - what you were you saying was the preferred alternative? I didn't follow that part of your post.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. The preferred alternative was to keep it at status quo, eliminate the special tags/antlerless, and we voted to approve funds (50k if I remember right) for a study to find out why the population isn't as healthy as it use to be. We appropriated the 50K and asked for status quo. I expected it to go that way with no opposition, and the WDFW biologists all (but one) agreeing the 4 point minimum would not accomplish the goal of trophy bucks. Rather, it was a short term solution to increase overall population. I don't know how the 4 point rules got into effect this year. Someone has some serious pull within the WDFW to circumvent all the process. Quite frustrating, really.
Thank you for explaining.
Post by: walt on October 03, 2011, 04:47:06 PM
I am basing my opinion off of my experience hunting south of Spokane with 3 pt min and north with no restriction. I in general see more bucks south of town. I have seen loads of times a field in mid November with 30+ does and not a buck to.be seen even a spike. I don't see this south of town where there has been a restriction in place for numerous years.
apples to oranges.
Post by: baldopepper on October 03, 2011, 04:48:40 PM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on October 03, 2011, 04:54:40 PM
Post by: thatdamguy on October 03, 2011, 05:06:14 PM
above is a link to the 2010 deer harvest report.
These number show that most of the deer harvested are 4 points! :bash: I also agree with buck canyon lodge. The result of special interest groups and now the small towns that survive of hunting traffic and all the youth and disabled hunters have to suffer!
Post by: UptheCreek on October 03, 2011, 07:15:18 PM
Post by: Co on October 03, 2011, 07:31:24 PM
Post by: runningboard on October 03, 2011, 11:55:13 PM
but also some of the other groups (sportsman not guides) said they would be in support only if it did not apply to youth, elderly or disabled. well you can see what happened with that.
I guess now we can say, "Only time will tell" if this was the right decision or not & in a few years who will be able to say "I told you so."
Post by: Miles on October 04, 2011, 12:41:57 AM
Here is my 2 cents worth. I also talked with Dana Base as well as the regional biologist from Spokane and Jerry Nelson head biologist from Olympia. They are ALL AGAINST this 4 point restriction. No scientific basis. It was pushed through by the Game Commissioner from Kettle Falls. I was warned about this going through by a local game warden last September. And I quote" the commissioner from Kettle Falls is in the back pocket of some large land owners and sportsman clubs and they want the restriction so they can shoot bigger bucks and then be able to charge more for their hunts" NOT my words. These came from the warden who said" don't use my name." Everyone I talked to in the Wildlife Dept. told me not to use their names but stated pretty much the same. Political CRAP. Trophy hunting is a personal choice not a management tool. I do not shoot small bucks but I don't think I have the right to tell everyone including youth, disabled, and senior hunters that they can't shoot smaller bucks.Especially when it does nothing to increase the overall herd. Ask Mr. Nelson. I have read that this worked in Alabama and Pennsylvania. Do they have 7 feet of snow during the winter? Or huge populations of bear, cougar, coyotes, and now wolves? ??? Hell no.I am in the field 12 months of the year in Stevens County and there are lots of mature bucks that escape to breed every year. I see them!!! No fawns is the result of the predators. Not unbred does. ASK the biologists that were hired by the State of Washington to manage the deer herds. I have. In addition the local business' from Fruitland to Chewelah will feel the economic impact of this selfish restriction. They depend on the seasonal influx of out of area hunters to help them through the lean winters. Remember, hunting whitetail deer in Units 121&117 is for ALL hunters from everywhere. Not just the local and vocal "sportsman clubs and land owners. I know I'll get blasted by the trophy hunters and citizen scientists out there but I have a right to my position just as you do. You gotta have thick skin to put something like this up for comment!!! Also, If you have cancelled your hunting plans this year to 121 or 117 because of the 4 point restriction please let me know via PM or just reply. Thanks.
That summed it up rather well. A person would have to be blind to not see what just happened. I love how Bearpaw keeps mentioning these "landowners" that were there supporting this. Gee, I wonder why...perhaps the expected increase in cash that will come in from leasing their land out to local guides (who can then advertise their hunts on private land in "trophy managed units"). It makes me sick.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on October 04, 2011, 07:04:10 AM
Managing for a higher buck to doe ratio will increase the number of does that get covered. There are dry does running around that should be covered- the problem is that the ratio is too high.
The antler pt restriction will increase escapement of young bucks, which turn into mature bucks and are more effective breeders. More effective breeders generally cover does on the first estrous, which encourages earlier fawning and higher winter survival because yearlings are better equipped for winter conditions.
The idea is to increase the age structure of the bucks. time will tell, but I think there will be lots of people singing the praises of the regulation in a few years.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on October 04, 2011, 07:17:36 AM
Post by: Miles on October 04, 2011, 07:19:56 AM
There is a ton of biology behind the antler point regulation.
Both for and against.
There are dry does running around that should be covered- the problem is that the ratio is too high.The fix is to shoot all the mature bucks this year, and allow all the yearlings to do the breeding?
The antler pt restriction will increase escapement of young bucks, which turn into mature bucks and are more effective breeders.
So shoot the "mature effective breeders", but leave the young ones so they can grow up to be the "mature breeders" that we culled from the herd... Got it.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on October 04, 2011, 07:22:20 AM
There were other options that would have made a bigger difference. In my opinon (very unpopular) the late rut rifle season could be cut and the herd would be awesome pretty quick. Not too many well managed herds are hunted with modern firearms during the rut.
The phrase "time will tell" is my way of saying "give it time and you'll see results" Let's give it a chance to prove it's worth a shot.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on October 04, 2011, 07:23:47 AM
Post by: Miles on October 04, 2011, 07:26:49 AM
I am VERY DOUBTFUL that all the mature bucks are going to get killed this winter.
Me too, but do we really want the yearling bucks to pick up the slack? You stated that there are already does that aren't being bred. If there is a shortage of "mature effective breeders" now, just wait till next year. They aren't all going to escape, especially when they are the only ones being targeted...
Post by: Miles on October 04, 2011, 07:33:55 AM
:hello:
Post by: bobcat on October 04, 2011, 08:15:43 AM
As far as the idea that more of the mature bucks will now be harvested, as Miles is arguing, that was my concern as well. But one thing to think about is that with the 4 point restriction, it may actually work to protect even those deer that do have 4 points on a side, because now a hunter will need to take more time to count points before taking the shot. In the time it takes to verify a buck is legal, many deer may end up getting away without a shot fired, and otherwise they would have been harvested. So I don't know. This could go either way.
I do think it would have been nice to let kids shoot any buck. The other good option which would have been at the top of my list is to go to permit only hunting in those units with deer population numbers that are below objective. But of course that is a very unpopular option. Another factor that may come into play is that more people may begin hunting those units just because of the trophy potential (me included). I probably would never have considered hunting there but now I'm thinking in a year or two I might be making a trip over there for the late hunt.
Post by: bearpaw on October 04, 2011, 08:36:13 AM
Here is my 2 cents worth. I also talked with Dana Base as well as the regional biologist from Spokane and Jerry Nelson head biologist from Olympia. They are ALL AGAINST this 4 point restriction. No scientific basis. It was pushed through by the Game Commissioner from Kettle Falls. I was warned about this going through by a local game warden last September. And I quote" the commissioner from Kettle Falls is in the back pocket of some large land owners and sportsman clubs and they want the restriction so they can shoot bigger bucks and then be able to charge more for their hunts" NOT my words. These came from the warden who said" don't use my name." Everyone I talked to in the Wildlife Dept. told me not to use their names but stated pretty much the same. Political CRAP. Trophy hunting is a personal choice not a management tool. I do not shoot small bucks but I don't think I have the right to tell everyone including youth, disabled, and senior hunters that they can't shoot smaller bucks.Especially when it does nothing to increase the overall herd. Ask Mr. Nelson. I have read that this worked in Alabama and Pennsylvania. Do they have 7 feet of snow during the winter? Or huge populations of bear, cougar, coyotes, and now wolves? ??? Hell no.I am in the field 12 months of the year in Stevens County and there are lots of mature bucks that escape to breed every year. I see them!!! No fawns is the result of the predators. Not unbred does. ASK the biologists that were hired by the State of Washington to manage the deer herds. I have. In addition the local business' from Fruitland to Chewelah will feel the economic impact of this selfish restriction. They depend on the seasonal influx of out of area hunters to help them through the lean winters. Remember, hunting whitetail deer in Units 121&117 is for ALL hunters from everywhere. Not just the local and vocal "sportsman clubs and land owners. I know I'll get blasted by the trophy hunters and citizen scientists out there but I have a right to my position just as you do. You gotta have thick skin to put something like this up for comment!!! Also, If you have cancelled your hunting plans this year to 121 or 117 because of the 4 point restriction please let me know via PM or just reply. Thanks.
That summed it up rather well. A person would have to be blind to not see what just happened. I love how Bearpaw keeps mentioning these "landowners" that were there supporting this. Gee, I wonder why...perhaps the expected increase in cash that will come in from leasing their land out to local guides (who can then advertise their hunts on private land in "trophy managed units"). It makes me sick.
Miles, I am sorry I make you sick and that you seem to hate guides for some unknown reason. But I think your imagination is getting away with your thoughts. There are fewer hunting guides in Washington than in any other western state I know of except maybe California. The working group was comprised of numerous local sporting groups, the county commissioners, plus a westside sporting group. Most were hunters but there are also a lot of those local hunters who own land locally. Most of these people simply want to see the herd recover, they don't lease their land, their families hunt it, they simply care about the wildlife. It's questionable what long term results will be and that's why it needs to be looked at in a few years to consider if it's wise to continue with the program. I will be the first to say that there are still good bucks in these units, the problem is the overall herd numbers, they are down. I don't think anyone including you can prove otherwise.
While I can't speak for any other member of the whitetail working group, I do have my own opinions which I should be able to share without being blasted as some sort of non-caring money greedy a$$hat.
As I have mentioned many times, the Commission wisely closed most doe hunting to help the herd. It is universally understood that doe hunts are used to reduce ungulate herds or to keep herds from growing, we do not need that to happen in 117/121, at this time we need the herds to grow. The reduction in doe hunting obviously forces everyone who used to hunt does in those units to now hunt bucks. So more hunters will be hunting fewer bucks, that can only decrease the buck to doe ratio, there is no way that scenario can improve the buck to doe ratio. I invite anyone complaining about this point restriction to explain how you can reduce the number of doe hunters thus forcing more hunters to hunt bucks and in the process improve the buck/doe ratio. :dunno:
So the real question is now that the harvest of does has been reduced, "How do you reduce the Buck harvest to mantain the buck/doe ratio while the herd grows?"
As has been mentioned many times, there were numerous methods considered, but by far the most popular option was to let everyone hunt the full season, but under an antler point restriction. I argued at the meeting in favor of exempting youth and seniors, so they could still shoot any buck, but it was pointed out by WDFW personnel that if we try to implement the restriction and do not make it an across the board rule, it will be hard to gauge the results, so on the final vote I also voted for an across the board implementation of the 4 point rule. As I have said, I think it may be wise to remove the rule from youth (and maybe even seniors and handicapped) as soon as we are seeing results.
For the short term this rule should help our herd grow for a few years since the overall harvest will be reduced on does and bucks. For the long term I have my own concerns similar to many of you regarding age class and long term genetics. It makes sense to me that once the herd numbers rebound, the 4 pt rule will need to be re-assessed. My main concern is to increase the herd size in the short term, and it's likely that will happen with the 4 pt rule.
If a perfect world was possible, I see biologists with fewer studies on non-game species and more attention on deer/elk so they can recommend a reduction of doe/cow and bull/buck harvest in the first year following a winter kill. The way the WDFW system currently works, biologist seem to spend more time on non-game species and the following year's harvest dictates our game management. By the time its discovered by the WDFW that our herds have been reduced by an extreme winter, liberal hunting seasons have already reduced the herds further. Some other states that we envy for their quality management are much more proactive on their deer/elk management.
_________________________
I manage the deer on the ranches I lease, that's why the hunting is so much better. Currently I only have 1 ranch leased in 121. My concern is for the deer on our public lands, the herds are devastated on our public lands. From what I can see the deer season this year (especially on public lands) is going to be tougher than last year. There are fewer bucks out there because too many were killed over the last couple seasons after the winter kill. Compound that with high predator numbers and we have fewer deer. If you doubt what I say, look through the trail cam photos on this forum for NE Whitetails this year compared to trail cam photos from last year or years before.....the NE whitetail bucks are fewer. :yike:
I forecast that the harvest will be down further this year in 101, 105, 108, 111, 117, and 121. :yike:
I'm not sure about 113 and 124, I think they may be in better condition than the other units and may still have comparable harvest to previous seasons.
__________________________
Bobcat, the WDFW told us in the meetings if we ask for a 4 pt area that we needed to have a large enough area to determine the results, but we needed areas to compare the results to, that is why we didn't recommend the restriction for the entire NE. Otherwise, I agree, I would like to have seen the rule on the whole NE for 2 or 3 years until overall herd numbers recover. :twocents:
Post by: 724wd on October 04, 2011, 09:54:04 AM
Bearpaw, you've been citing landowners saying "these people simply want to see the herd recover, they don't lease their land, their families hunt it, they simply care about the wildlife." if it's just them and their families that hunt it, why not just tell their families not to shoot 3 points?
Post by: Elkslayer on October 04, 2011, 10:14:58 AM
The problem is, it's already a done deal. We can sit around and complain about it all want, wont do any good though. Lets just cross our fingers that if it proves to be hurting the herd rather than helping it that WDFW will agree to restore it to the original way.
In my honest opinion one of the best ways to be able to help this herd out is to be able to manage the predators, specifically the cougars and bears. Problem is I dont see that changing any time soon either.
Post by: bobcat on October 04, 2011, 10:16:46 AM
Quote
I agree, the quickest way to boost the mature buck to doe ratio is to close down the late rifle rut hunt like they did a few years back. Dont even need to close down the whole late season, just knock off the last week and it would save alot of mature bucks.
I agree with that as well. They could also make the late hunt a permit only and keep the season length the same. Just limit the number of hunters to about half of what it generally is.
Post by: popeshawnpaul on October 04, 2011, 11:02:14 AM
The biologists were against doing this because we have real world examples of the restrictions not helping to create more "trophy bucks" in our state. Notice how most of our state has a 3/4 point restriction on whitetails already? It has not had that effect in the other parts of WA. The conclusion the biologists came up with was it won't have that effect in these GMU's. Rather, more bucks overall will survive because the spikes and 2 points will live. However, more mature deer will die because they will now have increased hunting pressure. The science and experts all agree...this will not increase trophy bucks long term and it is not why they implemented this. It will only increase young buck survival. The older, mature deer generally find a way to survive under the current hunting pressure but with increased pressure, an additional amount will die. This is thick timber/cover with lots of hiding places for big bucks, not open farmland in the midwest or east coast where mature bucks can die easier.
There is no evidence that does are going un-bred or that young bucks can't do that breeding. It's a non-issue at this point and not why this was implemented. Beyond that, we don't even know for sure the population isn't at a healthy level. That is one of the reasons they appropriated funds to study why there are issues with fawn survival and why the population is down overall. When it's said the population is down overall, that doesn't mean it's not at a healthy level. It might also be that it's below the level we have had historically but we may have been overpopulated some years back.
Post by: Colville on October 04, 2011, 11:55:05 AM
With respect to the impact on bucks by reducing doe permits. Not important. Doe permits still permit shooting a buck. With no more doe permits, that's only shifting 50 guys back to open general. He's not going to have a greater success rate than the average person at finding a buck. So eliminating 50 doe permits means 50 guys at about a 15% clip kill another 7 bucks. That's a statistical rounding error. They did end Archery late, prior open to doe in these two units, but someone would have to inform me on the number of 2010 archery doe kills in those two units to see if it's significant. I'm guessing there's not enough count there to drive real results either. Of course, to keep the test contolled, late archery should have been closed to doe in the other NE units. If we are going to test the hypothesis that its the lack of mature bucks, then we should hold static the other factors in the surrounding units, like doe kills.
Lastly, the late hunt is not a rut hunt. Been doing it for a very long time. I've had true rut happen once in that time. That was back when the season lasted out to the 22nd or 23rd. The late hunt is pre-rut, not rut. There may be some local variability and no doubt pre-rut deer are more active in general but there's a good reason the rifle season doesn't go through thanksgiving. Because that's the rut.
I'd rather see an elimination of all doe hunting for all weapon types and reduced total number of hunting season days before APR rules. A traditional multi family camp with granpa's and kids based on a history of open seasons shouldn't go down the tubes. I don't see this as a guide issue. I do see it a a quality vs opportunity issue. In almost every poll taken, opportunity wins out to quality in public demand. However, quality has the lobby. All the money interests are on the side of quality. It's fine to say did you show up to meeting X. But you'll note that the WDFW doesn't put the two choices to a public vote of last year's licensed hunters. The outcome of such a vote would be overwhelmingly in favor of opportunity.
The fact is, both management methods work. They have to be adjusted to season length, doe permits and season timing. But either can be used with healthy herds. It's not an either-or propsition. So the end game question is what do we want? I suggest that we question who "we" are. Because if anyone was being honest about it, there's a lot more "we" that want opportunity seasons than quality regs and it's not really very close. On hunting boards it may be 50-50 or even 75-25 quality but the vast majority of hunters don't post on any site. I think as a class of people who are losing participation as a whole and therefore our collective strength, we reduce our paticipation at our peril.
Post by: muleyguy on October 04, 2011, 10:51:09 PM
1. When you protect the younger age class you focus the harvest on the older age classes; in 2010 there were a total 359 5pt+ bucks shot in these units; my prediction for 2011 is that this will increase significantly. Anyone want to venture a guess what this regulation, coupled with a rifle hunt during the rut, is going to produce. hint: all the hunting pressure will be focused on the mature bucks. We can check back in a year on this when the data comes in.
2. You will end up with a "stockpile" of 1.5 yr old bucks in the population as they are the protected class; over time, this age class of buck will come to dominate the make up of the buck population, and will consequently end doing the most breeding; you are basically going to have the equivalent of 13 yr old boys doing the bulk of the breeding; lots of science to show that does that are bread by immature bucks do not throw as fit as fawns.
3. The average year of harvest will shift from 1.5 yr old animals, which it is now, to 2.5 yr old animals; this is where it gets tricky, and were the real damage is done; because the avg hunter shoots the first legal buck he sees; so, now, hunters will see more bucks in the field (1.5 yr olds that they cannot shoot), and will harvest a 2.5 yr old animal instead. This "looks" like success and the avg hunter thinks he is seeing mature bucks, but, they really are just one age class older; this is why these APR's are so well liked on the east coast.
4. You will end up with no more mature bucks (4.5 yr old or older), and quite possibly, due to the extreme hunting pressure in those units coupled with the rut hunt, it is actually more likely that over time the number of mature animals will decrease.
5. You end up with bucks of poor genetics being "protected" in the population
The biggest fallacy is that this regulation is going to produce more mature animals; it is not; it will actually hurt that age group of the buck population, especially in the short run.
All it will do is shift the majority of the harvest from 1.5 yr old animals to 2.5 yr old animals
And, probably the biggest damage of all, is that it makes the 1.5 yr old group of bucks the dominate age class in the population, which in turn will results in them doing the bulk of the breeding.
The first casualty of this regulation will be the late hunt in about 3 or 4 yrs due to the pressure it puts on the older age classes.
All these APR's are are gimmicks to try and get around the real problem, which is too much hunting pressure on the resource.........
all they achieve are screwed up buck population dynamics
Post by: bobcat on October 04, 2011, 11:04:15 PM
Post by: bearpaw on October 05, 2011, 02:55:03 AM
the rut rifle hunt up here is crazy. i've rifle hunted a lot down in 154 and now archery hunt in 117. in 154, there are only a few rut rifle tags given out. it made those hunting the rut really appreciate the opportunity. i know that would be an unpopular opinion up here, but if you want bigger bucks around to breed, they shouldn't be getting hammered by rifle hunters in the rut.
Bearpaw, you've been citing landowners saying "these people simply want to see the herd recover, they don't lease their land, their families hunt it, they simply care about the wildlife." if it's just them and their families that hunt it, why not just tell their families not to shoot 3 points?
724wd, there are very few landowners who own more than a few hundred acres. Most do not own enough property to manage the deer on their place because the deer get killed by the surrounding property owners.
Regarding comments from others, I completely agree that the quality would go through the roof if late season was eliminated (rifle and bow) or if limited-entry was implemented. If I was only pursueing my business interest or if I was only interested in trophy hunting, I would have supported one of those options, but that's not what most people wanted and I don't think that's the only answer for increasing the herd size. :twocents:
Some of you may say this was done as a trophy hunting measure, I can tell you that is not why I supported it, I supported it to get greater escapement and build herd numbers, I think that despite what anyone tries to say, herd numbers will most likely increase since both doe and buck opportunity is being restricted.
NE WA has heavy cover and is much different from the other pt restriction areas, so a point restriction in this area is an entirely new animal for Washington. Older whitetail bucks can survive extreme pressure during most of the season, it's the yearling bucks that are so easily overhunted. I think the goal of increasing the herd numbers will most likely be accomplished, I also think it's an unknown how the big buck population will be affected since these units have such heavy cover, to make a statement that the big bucks will not exist seems like a stretch to me, but again, I don't know any more than anyone else at this point, all we can due is debate what we think will happen. In 3 to 5 years, we can all discuss what actually happened and make more intelligent decisions on future management. :twocents:
The real question is how long this rule is needed and/or desireable. Again, that is unknown. The best answer to that question will be found at the end of the trial period when 117/121 can be compared to the surrounding units. :twocents:
Post by: jackmaster on October 05, 2011, 06:58:56 AM
Post by: UptheCreek on October 05, 2011, 08:00:10 AM
Post by: jess on October 05, 2011, 08:12:01 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on October 05, 2011, 09:21:45 AM
Click the link in this thread and think again about what you wish for. How easy do you want to make it for the antis to chip away at your hunting "privileges" ( in WA that's all they are)
Go ahead and hold the chisel for them.
Post by: bearpaw on October 05, 2011, 09:40:10 AM
Post by: buckcanyonlodge on October 05, 2011, 09:45:21 AM
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,84620.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,84620.0.html)
Click the link in this thread and think again about what you wish for. How easy do you want to make it for the antis to chip away at your hunting "privileges" ( in WA that's all they are)
Go ahead and hold the chisel for them.
:yeah: Hold the chisel baby. Way too many citizen scientists.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on October 05, 2011, 11:22:11 AM
Post by: buckcanyonlodge on October 05, 2011, 12:48:54 PM
Post by: buckfvr on October 05, 2011, 01:52:16 PM
There is a ton of biology behind the antler point regulation.BINGO.............thats it in a nutshell.
Managing for a higher buck to doe ratio will increase the number of does that get covered. There are dry does running around that should be covered- the problem is that the ratio is too high.
The antler pt restriction will increase escapement of young bucks, which turn into mature bucks and are more effective breeders. More effective breeders generally cover does on the first estrous, which encourages earlier fawning and higher winter survival because yearlings are better equipped for winter conditions.
The idea is to increase the age structure of the bucks. time will tell, but I think there will be lots of people singing the praises of the regulation in a few years.
In my letters to the Commissioners, I repeatedly asked them to make the late modern hunt by permit only. They implemented a 5 tag trophy hunt for modern guys last time in both the new 4pt units, ( at the expense of the bowhunters ), and now they are whitetail any buck permits, miraculously transformed from trophy tags. That time frame needs to be given back to where it was taken from.
We cant allow our herds to be run into the ground to float the local economies......remember, managed scientifically........no where does it say for economic reasons. When deer numbers are down, ( and they are ), it affects hunters and related businesses, period.
And yes, at 1 1/2 years of age, a whitetail can be a small 8 pointer........theres plenty of them out there this year, again, not as many as there has been, but its not like there are no harvestable bucks. Folks need to get back to enjoying the hunt.....every aspect of it, not just the end result for those fortunate enough to be successful. Ive always felt success is relative to effort.......more so now than ever. Good luck to all, trophy hunters, meat hunters, Guides, and those that still cherish all aspects of hunting seasons.
Post by: runningboard on October 05, 2011, 09:15:52 PM
Quote
The best answer to that question will be found at the end of the trial period when 117/121 can be compared to the surrounding unitsthe problem with this was discussed between me & a couple of friends today. we felt that the surrounding units are not going to be the "baseline" they compare to because they will receive more pressure as a result of this restriction in 117/121 and so the data from those adjoining units will be skewed.
good luck to all this season, post pictures & stories so we all can enjoy the hunts together.
Post by: sebek556 on October 05, 2011, 09:21:58 PM
Post by: muleyguy on October 06, 2011, 09:32:59 AM
Quote
Muleyguy- glad to see you chime in on this again. So do you think this will have any benefits if it only is left in place for say, three years? What do you think would be the best management scheme? Permit only for the late season? Or no late season at all?
well, what I would like, and not too many on here would support this.......but, here goes:
what do we have right now for deer hunting seasons in this state??? In mule deer you basically have 3 pt or better and a 9 day season in most units in the middle of October that is jammed packed with thousands of hunters; poor buck population dynamics, poor numbers of deer, way to many people, etc ,etc. Not a very good experience.......
The whitetail experience was a little better; the numbers until recently were better; longer season, no antler pt restrictions; but, now, all we are doing is going down the same management path as eastern WA mule deer;
Here is my solution:
Cut hunting pressure, and consequently, hunter harvest by 1/3 rd for both whitetail and mule deer, this will require a draw for each species; get rid of the APR's; open the season up longer to spread the hunting pressure and harvest over a wider period; and, get rid of ALL antlerless tags for both species for ALL weapon choices; the only antlerless tags that should be issues should be short term situations when the population rises above the carrying capacity of the habitat or winter range;
my guess is that with this management scheme for mule deer you could keep the special, late season tags, and possibly increase them; my guess with this is that with the whitetail's you could probably increase the regular season and keep the general late season.
This all comes at a cost though.......you would only get to hunt 2 out of 3 yrs........but, if you managed it right, my guess is that the off year you could hunt the other species; for example, if you usually hunt mule deer, the 1 yr you don't get to hunt mule deer, you could probably use that year as your whitetail year.
With a scheme like this, you reduce the hunter harvest and pressure, spread the season out longer, maintain good buck numbers in the population, maintain good buck age structure, change the culture of doe harvests so that they are only used in extreme overpopulation situations.
And, all this for simply giving up 1 yr out of 3........and, lots stop all this talk about "we can't do that, what about the kids????" I can tell you what drives kids away from hunting is going out in a rat race in Mid Oct for two days when 9 million other people are out there and they see two does........you give a kid 2 our of 3 yrs of great hunting experience, I guarantee you that you have a hunter for life......I love going to Hawaii also, but, it isn't my god given right to go every year. People are not going to run away from the sport of hunting because you give them a better product, but only let them hunt 2 our of 3 yrs.
From this post, I will get the normal: "well muleyguy, there is great hunting in this State, you just need to work at it" No, there is not great hunting in this state.......when you have to spend 60 days a year in the field scouting to be able to consistently shoot decent bucks or see consistent numbers of bucks, that is not great hunting. Kudos to all those out there that put in the hard work, you deserve the success you get; but, don't confuse that with healthy herds; you see this phenomenen all over the West; the only place deer are left are in the most remote areas and/or the best habitat areas.
The current management scheme of APR's and open general seasons in this state, coupled with this States high population base compared to its land base, is slowly eroding not only the quality of hunting but the enjoyment of it. Look were we are at with mule deer, we have had APR's for over a decade now; we have season length get shortened and shortened; that is the consequence of trying to use APR's to manage a deer herd. In the quest to allow all of us to hunt every year, the only management scheme the dept has left is to use APR's and shorten seasons, which just magnifies the problem of a poor experience, puts higher pressure on the resource, screws up the age makeup of the buck population, and just kicks the can down the road.
Post by: Oldtrader3 on October 06, 2011, 10:32:24 AM
Post by: baldopepper on October 06, 2011, 11:08:58 AM
Post by: muleyguy on October 06, 2011, 03:42:12 PM
In the first year of an APR, the total buck harvest goes down dramatically; but, the harvest of animals above the APR goes up significantly because that is the only legal animals to shoot. No surprise here.
In the second year and beyond of APR, what happens is that you end up with a normalization of harvest levels, only the avg buck shot now is a 2.5 yr old instead of 1.5 yr old.
You do not end up with any greater buck escapement then you did before because they all get shot in year 2.5 instead of 1.5;
So, what you end up with going into each hunting season after the APR's has been in place for a couple of years is a stockpile of 1.5 and 2.5 yr old bucks; and, most likely slightly lower mature buck populations then before the APR;
the fallacy here is this statement: "well we are going to see how it works for 5 yrs, and then if it isn't doing anything we will get rid of it"
What part of the buck population is the most susceptible??? Especially in a season where you have a November general season hunt??
Answer: 1.5 yr old and 2.5 yr old bucks
The first hunting season they get rid of the APR, it will be an all out slaughter of these two age classes;
You have now taken the two biggest components of the buck population and put a major hole in them; the result will be a huge hole in those age groups, which will take 3 to 5 more years to recover from.
So, the only real way to get rid of an APR, is, in the year you get rid of it, to have a massive cut back in tag sales, or season length, so the harvest is dramatically reduced.
the dirty little secret of APR's is that once you get em'......you never get rid of em'..........this idea that it is going to be looked at in 5 yrs is a joke
The first year of an APR you get a dramatic lowering of overall buck harvest, but, an increase in mature animal harvest (because those are the only legal animals
The last year of an APR you get the exact opposite: you get a HUGE increase in harvest because of the "stockpile" of 1.5 and 2.5 yr olds in the population; BUT, you get less pressure on the mature animals.
you are all fooling yourself if you ever think we will get rid of the APR's...........because nobody is willing to deal with consequences of the year when you get rid of it.
Post by: bearpaw on October 06, 2011, 04:21:46 PM
Of the options that were available to reduce buck harvest and increase the herd, the pt restriction was by far the most popular as it still allowed everyone to hunt, it's not the best trophy hunting option, but the average hunter can still hunt. I think there was a poll here on the forum that showed about the same results. As someone said, there is no answer that satisfies everyone, but the pt restriction seemed best to the most people.
I too have concerns about the long-term effects of a point restriction, once the herds are recovered in the short-term, it may be best to discontinue the restriction. This is a 5 year trial and in 4 more years it is supposed to be reviewed, I have seen nothing that says otherwise.
Post by: colockumelk on October 06, 2011, 07:54:28 PM
Post by: bobcat on October 06, 2011, 08:00:58 PM
Post by: Glockster on October 07, 2011, 08:19:16 AM
3Pt for all of eWA muledeer went into effect after the bad winter of '96 in an effort to build herds back. Now there are plenty of muley bucks of all ages in most units (with the notable exception of the Yakima and Colockum herds). We have had that restriction for 15yrs and countless young hunters are not killing their first bucks because of it.
Trophy hunting by its nature is a very selfish pursuit which is detrimental to a positive future for decent general population public hunting opportunity in WA.
Post by: Machias Bowhunter on October 07, 2011, 05:46:51 PM
Post by: 724wd on October 07, 2011, 10:02:54 PM
Post by: bornforhorns on November 04, 2011, 09:58:14 PM
1.) I think they should split the hunting population in two groups and start a rotation. "Odds" and "evens" if you will (by your wild id #). This split will dictate everything but you still get to hunt every year. Make seasonal adjustments accordingly by species but I'm using the most sensitive of the three in Mule Deer, this could be used for elk too but not sure it would be needed for species like bear, cougar, small game, etc. . This rule includes all weapon types.
2.) Split the general season's. early general season (2nd week of October, 9 days) and a late season (3rd week of October, 9 days). Same number man days but 1/2 the number in the field for your hunt. Obvious pros/cons but remember it's only for one year and than you flip; early season= first chance, less likely to get cold weather. late season=fewer animals by way of harvest, better hunting weather. It's hard to predict weather but this is what we try to do every year in planning our hunts.
3.) You also do the draw permits by odds and evens (say the early season guys are the ones elgible for draw permits one year and they flip flop the next year). If the WDFW is concerned about losing revenue you allow people to apply for "ghost" permits on their "off" year to increase their chance for their "on" year, don't complain we all put in for ghost permits after getting drawn for the next 10+years again'st the same or more applicants from the year before. Pros=you compete again'st half the applicants and % of successful applicants go to zero points faster, increasing odds further for your "on" year. Cons=you can't get drawn every year but seriously, get real.
4.) Let the Bios. do their jobs in managing antler restrictions, population dynamics, predators etc., with continuing conversations and input from the public as assistance. Allow for catastrophic event adjustments and so on using good science for healthy herds.
A good friend asked: "what about if me and Dad get drawn for opposite seasons because of our numbers"?
I thought, "that would be perfect, now you get twice the opportunity to help each other out" but it maybe a problem in getting time off. Maybe a rule that "immediate family" members be either odds or evens could be adopted...really a small price to pay for the rewards though.
Coolest attractions: 1/2 the number of hunters in the field at one given time. 1/2 the number of applicants elgible for special draw permits in any given year, ie: it would work like this-my last wild id # is a "7", the start of this calendar hunting year was 2011...I would hunt the early general season but would be elgible for the draw my "on" year. The following year 2012 would be my "off" year, but I could apply for ghost points... maybe even right at the counter when the clerk looks up wild id #, include it in the license cost...done deal! Who knows it might even speed up the drawing process since your essentially eliminating half the applicants as elgible.
Incentives could be offered for youth, seniors, handicapped accordingly.
I've seen some other great ideas on this post, what do you think? It may need to be tweaked but I think it would be a great start.
Let's please stay away from a "true draw" system like Oregon and other states. Which brings up the nonresident issue...same rules would apply, once your assigned a wild id # it sticks with you for life so you can't shop seasons.
Thanks,
Todd
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 10, 2012, 08:44:15 PM
There is a ton of biology behind the antler point regulation.
Both for and against.There are dry does running around that should be covered- the problem is that the ratio is too high.The fix is to shoot all the mature bucks this year, and allow all the yearlings to do the breeding?
The antler pt restriction will increase escapement of young bucks, which turn into mature bucks and are more effective breeders.
So shoot the "mature effective breeders", but leave the young ones so they can grow up to be the "mature breeders" that we culled from the herd... Got it.
Thought this was a good time to re-visit this subject and Miles' is one of the many on this thread I agree with. Does it make sense to hammer the large mature bucks pre rut and leave all the younger ones to do the breeding?
I've seen comments that claim this restriction is going to protect the large bucks that breed. Is it really? If that's all that is legal to hunt, how does that protect them. And if the season is pre rut, how do they breed when they are already dead?
I've seen comments that claim this is going to help build the herd. But the herd is already rebuilding it's self. why does it need help? Go back to 97 and 2010 harvest stats look awesome. Compared to the high in 2006 maybe not so awesome, but they don't seem to be in any trouble.
I saw a comment by WAcoyotehunter that stated Pennsylvania had good success with APR. But he didn't mention that they had a different problem than these areas have. They have a huge hunting base in Pennsylvania. The bucks there get hunted so hard that not many bucks grow old. They had the classic "way too many does and not enough mature bucks" syndrome. When that happens, then it makes sense to limit the kill of young bucks and cull a bunch of the does to bring the herd back into balance. But it's not a long term solution. And that wasn't the case in units 117 and 121. They had had a mild setback caused by a couple bad winters. And the bucks/doe ratios were fairly balanced and the age composition of the bucks harvested was balanced. So now you create a rule that takes out your large breeders before they get a chance to breed?
Now I saw a comment by Bear Paw in a newspaper article in which he "cites changes in Pennsylvania whitetail regulations in the early 2000s -- a 4-point rule and more antlerless permits.
“I’ve thoroughly researched this, and the consensus is it’s turned their hunt around. They now have a smaller but more productive whitetail herd. The doe-buck ratio is sound, the fawns are coming off on time, and hunters are now shooting bigger bucks.”
Hmmmm a smaller more productive herd? I thought this rule was meant to increase the herd, not make it smaller. And as I pointed out, IT"S NOT A LONG TERM SOLUTION! Don't believe me? Well here's an article you might find interesting.
http://blog.pennlive.com/pa-sportsman/2010/01/angry_deer_hunters_on_pennsylvania_game_commissions_agenda.html
And a quote from that article......
"Bill Miller, chairman of the board of trustees of Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania, has called for “a very large turnout” of dissatisfied deer hunters at the first day of the upcoming meeting of Pennsylvania Board of Game Commissioners on Sunday, Jan. 24.
deer.jpgThe Associated Press
“The PGC must hear from everyone regarding their failed deer management,” he wrote on USP’s web site, describing the 2009-10 deer hunting season as “the worst deer hunting season in memory.”"
Wow..... weren't we told by WAcoyote hunter and Bear Paw about how good deer hunting is now in Pennsylvania now that the Point restrictions were implemented there?
Post by: huntnnw on January 10, 2012, 10:20:41 PM
Post by: muleyguy on January 11, 2012, 12:41:33 AM
Quote
the pressure in those units is minuscule to the state of PA
that is correct, but that does not paint the right picture; PA does have a huge amount of hunting pressure, BUT, they have a huge amount of excess does in the population so a lot of this excess hunting pressure is sucked up by the high doe harvests. In 2010 PA harvest 193,000 does and 122,000 bucks; the reason the APR's work a little better (not much) in the Eastern US herds is because the habitat is so productive and they have no predators. APR's were put into effect in the East to incentivize people to shoot does. In the Eastern APR's hunters have an option to shoot either 4pt or better bucks OR a doe. So, the shooting of the does takes a lot of the excess pressure off of the mature buck population. Many people will simply opt to shoot a doe; that option to shoot a doe is the critical one, that, everybody around here is not understanding.
Contrast that with units 117 and 121; there is not an excess of does, there is a shortage of does; so there is no "doe option" or very, very little option; so ALL of the pressure is directed to the mature buck population.
The pressure in 117 and 121 is NOT minuscule ;in 2010, units 117 and 121 had a total of 56,000 hunter days worth of hunting pressure, there isn't a unit in the state anywhere close to that much pressure; 117 and 121 get hammered with hunter pressure. And, the vast majority of the hunting pressure will be directed towards mature bucks now because that is the only harvest option. 121 alone had 31,000 hunter days in 2010!
Quote
They have had a 3pt min in effect for years and its noticeably better hunting hands down. I can just drive around the areas south of town and see 10-20 bucks
The effect of the APR in that unit will not be as damaging because the hunting pressure is radically less; In 2010 that unit only had 7,700 hunter days; The other problem is that in 121 not only does it have 450% more hunting pressure then 127, most of that hunting pressure is directed towards public land; that is not the case in 127; 127 is mostly private land with adispersed out hunting pressure.
APR's will increase the buck population, that is not in question; the problem is that it protects the 1.5 yr old buck population at the expense of the older population; but, even then, it only protects it temporarily; every APR study indicates that the majority of those bucks are just shot when they are 2.5 yr old bucks; in the East, they have shown some very slightly better buck escapement out of the 2.5 yr old class, but, once again, that is MOST LIKELY because they have the "doe option". With the extreme hunting pressure that 117 and 121 get, coupled with the general late season, I can pretty much guarantee you that you will not see much buck escapment out of the 2.5 yr old class.
So, you are setting up for a situation in those units where the vast majority of the buck population, post harvest, is 1.5 yr old and 2.5 yr old bucks, and, declining populations of 3.5 and older bucks.
The negative effects of the APR in 127 is simply muted because of the lack of hunting pressure, and the land ownership structure.
Post by: huntnnw on January 11, 2012, 12:48:13 AM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 11, 2012, 01:33:24 AM
i go north to get away from pressure! I was in the said units this past rifle season and saw major public lands void of hunters that always had pressure years ago.
Now why do you suppose that was? I for one hunted 111 and 113 this year because I didn't care to hunt in a 4 pt unit. I talked with at least three different groups who told me they used to hunt in 121 but left it because of the 4 pt rule. So part of what you saw was due to this rule, not due to lack of deer.
Post by: huntnnw on January 11, 2012, 02:30:40 AM
Post by: buckcanyonlodge on January 11, 2012, 05:51:35 AM
IT'S THE DOES STUPID!!!! We need more does to increase the herd. Ask our top biologist Jerry Nelson. Or our local biologist Dana Base. I have and they have both told me the only thing the 4 point restriction will do is increase the number of two year old bucks.
PERIOD.
Post by: huntnnw on January 11, 2012, 05:54:24 AM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on January 11, 2012, 07:31:29 AM
What are you proposing then? Should we all sit by and watch the deer herds decline? You're doing a good job of whining and pointing fingers, but you haven't mentioned many solutions. If you think the deer herds here are healthy and robust, then it's clear that you haven't spent much time in the area.i go north to get away from pressure! I was in the said units this past rifle season and saw major public lands void of hunters that always had pressure years ago.
Now why do you suppose that was? I for one hunted 111 and 113 this year because I didn't care to hunt in a 4 pt unit. I talked with at least three different groups who told me they used to hunt in 121 but left it because of the 4 pt rule. So part of what you saw was due to this rule, not due to lack of deer.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 11, 2012, 07:42:49 AM
:tup: What I want here
At least you're honest. You want regs that push hunters into neighboring units so you can have more room for yourself. BUT, that's not how this rule was advertised. It was advertised to raise the deer population and create more deer, especially big bucks, for everybody. And if it does what was advertised, then you're going to have more people than ever hunting there with you.
I agree that there should be no doe permits in certain areas, but when the deer numbers were up in those units the buck to doe ratio was horrible!! fields with 50 does and 6 bucks was the norm for most ag areas
First we hear this is to get numbers up to the numbers of the good old days, now you're saying the good old days when hunters took more deer, it wasn't really good, the buck to doe ratios were out of whack.
First off, what you see in a field isn't what's out there, the big bucks know better. Even in the off season, if they show themselves enough, some poacher is gonna take pot shots at them. Unless it's a real bad winter in the cover, they are gonna stick there. But when do you see the most deer in the open fields? It's usually AFTER the season when the bucks are losing their antlers, so a lot of the does you see then may be bucks. If it's between Oct and Dec when hunting season is on, it's pretty understandable why you don't see bucks in the fields.
But lets pretend it really is 50 does to 6 bucks, or something worse. Then you want to have MORE doe hunts and take less bucks to even up the ratio a bit. You don't try to save bucks and create more does at the same time. There's only so much carrying capacity, so if you save more does, you have room for less bucks. And at the time populations were up, there WERE more doe hunts, just as you'd suspect. The bios know what they are doing, believe it or not.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 11, 2012, 08:09:46 AM
What are you proposing then? Should we all sit by and watch the deer herds decline? You're doing a good job of whining and pointing fingers, but you haven't mentioned many solutions. If you think the deer herds here are healthy and robust, then it's clear that you haven't spent much time in the area.
That's an easy question. I propose listening to the biologists that are trained in these matters, not to groups that have self interest in mind. You'd best have a real good reason for overruling the professionals that are paid to do a good job managing our resources.
As for whining, I have nothing to whine about. I'm a newbie to hunting whitetails after hunting blacktails of one kind or another all my life. But decided to give it a try because blacktail numbers are way down on the coast. My buddy and I came over cold turkey to a brand new area for us and he took a 4x4 (counting eyeguards) and I got (a 3x4). Neither were huge, but we were happy and we both saw a couple real nice bucks that we didn't get shots at, and had a great time. All in a spike legal area......
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on January 11, 2012, 08:19:20 AM
Congrats on your deer. I'm glad you saw some. You should have been here 5 yrs ago before the winter kills- you would have saw MANY more deer. We can't control weather, but we can control our ranks and manage ourselves if that's what it takes to help the deer herd. I didn't hunt up here this year- and i didn't anyone else come hunt my place in 113- I want the deer to recover and can make a sacrifice to that end.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 11, 2012, 08:43:49 AM
was in the said units this past rifle season and saw major public lands void of hunters that always had pressure years ago. Numbers are quite decieving and not truth telling
Saw many of them in the 105
Post by: muleyguy on January 11, 2012, 10:26:36 AM
Quote
lack of hunting pressure right I am 110% positive there is far greater pressure in 127 during archery season than all of the combined in 121
you are simply wrong with that statement; one bright spot of WA is that the WDFW gets fairly good data on hunter activity due to the mandatory reporting; all of the data that I presented to you on hunter days is from WDFW mandatory hunting reporting is straight off of their website. I am sure it is not 100% accurate, but, I am highly certain that it paints a good picture of the relative hunting pressure each unit receives.
units 117 and 121 have been historically some of the highest hunting pressure units in WA state for DECADES. This isn't some big new story, 117 and 121 have always been extremely high hunting pressure units.
Both 127 and 121 are fairly equal in land size, so, when you break it down by "hunter days per square mile" the hunting pressure is dramatically higher in 121 then 127;
Sorry, but that is the simple truth............numbers can be deceiving.....but, not these numbers.......
Certainly the area you hunt in 127 might have lots of hunters; but basing management decisions off of one persons individual experience in a particular unit is not proper management; the WDFW has good data on hunter numbers per unit.
Quote
I was in the said units this past rifle season and saw major public lands void of hunters that always had pressure years ago. Numbers are quite decieving and not truth telling
Once again, if you take a little more sophisticated view, this is completely predictable; I am sure the hunting pressure was down in these units this year from the regulation (but my guess is that is not as far down as some of you think)............but, that will only be a short term (one year) phenomnen;
The reason is that people know that the 1st year of an APR is the worst because there is not a stockpile of 2.5 yr old animals in the population; that takes a year; I can guarantee you next year that hunting pressure will be right back up to where it was before, or higher. That is because in year 2 of an APR, you now have a good populaton of legal deer (2.5 yr old) to shoot;
I would be willing to guess that a fair amount of Spokane people who hunt up in 117 and 121 made a phone call to their Aunts cousin, twice removed, sister's, brother's, auto mechanic who owns 15 acres of land in 127 and asked to hunt it.......so, I am sure 127 hunter days probably went up this year because of the regulation in 117 and 121!
That is the other major problem with these APR's is that they just create a "pushing on a balloon" phenomenan; if there were fewer hunter days in these units this year, the hunters just moved out to other units, increasing the pressure and harvest in those units; You push on one side of the balloon and make a depression, you just end up with a bulge on the other side. These units and their hunters do not operate in a vacuum.......overall hunter days in WA state are very stable; I am sure we did not see any massive reduction in hunter days this year.
These hunters just moved on to another unit for one year; they will be back........
The bottom line to all of this is that if you take the time to research APR's, their primary purpose is to increase doe harvest! They are a management tool that works a little better in the Eastern US were whitetail deer populations are at all time highs, and the herd is marked by very low buck to doe ratio's and, almost all of the bucks being 1.5 yr old bucks.
They used APR's as a way to radically increase doe harvests, that was their primary goal; they also raised the avg buck killed by 1 yr; which was popular with hunters because you are now seeing more bucks in the field (albeit yearlings and 2.5 yr olds) and shooting 2.5 yr old bucks instead of 1.5 yr old bucks.
APR's were never meant to be used in low deer or struggling deer population situations; because..............if you take out the antlerless harvest component, all you do is just focus the harvest on all the older age classes.
I continually scratch my head when people say they are doing this to "recover the herd"...........huh???? how is stockpiling 1.5 yr old male deer in the population for 12 months, and then just shooting them all, going to recover the herd??
You want to recover the herd, stop all the antlerless harvest and increase the predator harvest; if you want to make more bucks, which is what hunters want.......you need more babies.......more mama's will make more bucks over the long haul then goofy APR's.
Post by: Maverick on January 11, 2012, 10:42:04 AM
Post by: tjthebest on January 11, 2012, 10:54:26 AM
Was bumping it to 4 point min really that big of a deal? I mean usually thats just a forked horn with eyeguards that you can't shoot now. I wouldn't have shot it before personally. Most whitetail have eyeguards, not all, but its more often than muleys. Giving these bucks another year let's them get a Lil smarter and maybe, just maybe one of those bucks will grow into a dandy someday because someone wasnt able to pull the trigger on him this year. How many bucks did you guys see this year in these areas that you would have but couldn't shoot because of the rule change?
It was any buck last year, not 3 point min. so its bigger of a jump than you thought.
Post by: muleyguy on January 11, 2012, 11:17:56 AM
Quote
Giving these bucks another year let's them get a Lil smarter and maybe, just maybe one of those bucks will grow into a dandy someday because someone wasnt able to pull the trigger on him this year.
NO data supports this conclusion..........all it does is shift the harvest up one year;
if you want bigger bucks (which it sounds like you do) and, you want to do it through APR's, then the better APR would be to implement a 3 pt or LESS APR;
this kind of an APR protects the mature bucks which is healthier for the herd because it will result in the mature bucks doing the bulk of the breeding.
I am not advocating this strategy, but, this is one of the primary reasons that this 4pt rule is so laughable.......if the advocates of it really were interested in doing something positive for the herd with an APR, then a 3 pt or less APR would be much better then a 4pt or more APR.
when the 2011 harvest data for 117 and 121 comes out later in the year, look at the number of 5 pt or more deer harvested in 2011 in those units. I can almost guarantee you that it will increaese from prior years; so when all of us are chasing whitetails around in those units next year, we will have the luxury of seeing a bunch of 1.5 yr and 2.5 yr old deer, and ,fewer mature bucks.
Like I said, I am not advocating that there should be a 3 pt or less APR; I am simply pointing out that if you wanted to use APR's in those units, that would be the more logical, and healthy choice for the herd.
My way of handling it would be to limit the buck tags, keep the longer season, NO APR's, and get rid of all the doe harvests for a few years.........but, nobody wants to find longer term solutions; everybody wants a god given right to go hunt every year; everybody wants to try these small, incremental fixes instead of looking at the bigger picture in this state
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 11, 2012, 11:45:41 AM
Well first you start with genetics. It has been shown that bucks that develop those big antlers with lots of points are generally inclined to have larger antlers at a younger age than other bucks. So while other bucks start as spikes, these bucks may be small forkies or even small three points. The second year when other bucks are forks or three points, these deer with the large antler genes might be 3 or 4 points (not counting eyeguards) Do you see the problem yet? These bucks with the good genetics are legal at a younger age, therefor have a bigger chance of getting taken out of the gene pool before they do much if any breeding. ESPECIALLY if the season is before the rut. You are then left with bucks which while they are healthy, they pass on smaller antler genes and after a few years, of cherry picking the large bucks out of the gene pool, before they get a chance to breed, you start seeing a decline in antler size. More of your young bucks have smaller racks so the pressure on the few with good antler genetics get hammered some more. Eventually you end up with a unit full of does and sub-legal bucks. You see lots of animals and bucks too. You just cant shoot them.
Alaska has gone to a spike/fork or 50" or three or four browtine rule for many of their moose units. In other words, it has to be a spike or a fork on one side or the other, or have a 50"wide rack, or have at least three or in some units 4 point on a browtine to be legal. This was done to get the small paddle bulls to breeding size before they were killed. This was done because hunting pressure had reduced the mature bull to cow ratio to unacceptable levels and cows weren't getting bred. So the antler restrictions were put in and cow tags were given out. It was a way to keep seasons longer yet still protect bulls to maturity. Three things happened because of those restrictions. One, it seems to have gotten the herds into better balance bull/cow wise. Two, each hunting season, hunters and state troopers find many carcasses of undersized bulls rotting in the woods because they were shot by people who misjudged 50" and hoped they were legal. When they realized they weren't, they left the area. Three, the conformity of the moose antlers in many of these units has changed to where you don't see as many 3 browtine bulls as in the past. You see more bulls with forked browtines. I suspect the average antler size may be shrinking too.
I know one thing, you want a truly large bull, you hunt unit 6 which is an any bull unit. To keep from overharvesting bulls there, they operate by either a draw hunt, or a registration hunt that closes when a certain # of animals is taken. The draw hunt puts a strict number of hunters after the herd. The registration hunts allow all residents to hunt. This unit puts out 70+ inch bulls every year. Some years many of them.
Basically, this APR will select for smaller bucks. If you want lots of smaller bucks, this is the reg for you.
Post by: Maverick on January 11, 2012, 05:31:50 PM
Post by: Archeryoutfitters on January 11, 2012, 06:25:06 PM
And there is always going to be them hog's out there no matter what laws or rules there is, in place they can hide very well & we have a tremendous amount of habitat/cover in both them units, that is very safe for them to hang out in, if there real reason was to make it a trophy area, all we would have to do is close the gun season down 10 days early then them BIG old bucks wouldn't be killed wile they are not thinking clearly.The peek of the rut is Nov.19th and the 10 days before the Peek, they are very vulnerable.
And as far as 3 point or 4 point min. on white tails it is really the same thing here, all 99.9% or our 3 points have eye guards. making them a 4 on at least one side, the only deer it would help you with being a 3 point min. is shooting a baby fork that happened to have a eye guard.
Life resident off 121, 44 years, and avid deer hunter here, yes i want what is best for our herd bottom line.
Post by: huntnnw on January 11, 2012, 10:30:29 PM
QuoteGiving these bucks another year let's them get a Lil smarter and maybe, just maybe one of those bucks will grow into a dandy someday because someone wasnt able to pull the trigger on him this year.
NO data supports this conclusion..........all it does is shift the harvest up one year;
if you want bigger bucks (which it sounds like you do) and, you want to do it through APR's, then the better APR would be to implement a 3 pt or LESS APR;
this kind of an APR protects the mature bucks which is healthier for the herd because it will result in the mature bucks doing the bulk of the breeding.
I am not advocating this strategy, but, this is one of the primary reasons that this 4pt rule is so laughable.......if the advocates of it really were interested in doing something positive for the herd with an APR, then a 3 pt or less APR would be much better then a 4pt or more APR.
when the 2011 harvest data for 117 and 121 comes out later in the year, look at the number of 5 pt or more deer harvested in 2011 in those units. I can almost guarantee you that it will increaese from prior years; so when all of us are chasing whitetails around in those units next year, we will have the luxury of seeing a bunch of 1.5 yr and 2.5 yr old deer, and ,fewer mature bucks.
Like I said, I am not advocating that there should be a 3 pt or less APR; I am simply pointing out that if you wanted to use APR's in those units, that would be the more logical, and healthy choice for the herd.
My way of handling it would be to limit the buck tags, keep the longer season, NO APR's, and get rid of all the doe harvests for a few years.........but, nobody wants to find longer term solutions; everybody wants a god given right to go hunt every year; everybody wants to try these small, incremental fixes instead of looking at the bigger picture in this state
YOU couldnt be more wrong..I take you have never ever lived in a unit your whole life that is 3pt min for whiteys. Beacause you wouldnt spewing this rhetoric...Everything you have posted is numbers and studys nothing you see or hunt in.
If they really wanted to increase numbers they coulda just closed the November rifle hunt..how would that of sat with rifle hunters? not well..this was a compromise
Post by: thatdamguy on January 12, 2012, 06:23:43 AM
lack of hunting pressure :chuckle: right I am 110% positive there is far greater pressure in 127 during archery season than all of the combined in 121..u have no idea how many people archery hunt this area its staggering!! areas that in 2 mi sq have 100 bait sites going. i go north to get away from pressure! I was in the said units this past rifle season and saw major public lands void of hunters that always had pressure years ago. Numbers are quite decieving and not truth telling
There is NO way there is more hunting pressure in 127 during archery season!
The only reason it may seem that is because of the lack of public ground and the only reason the majority of people dont archery hunt the 117 and 121 public ground is because they have the most pressure from modern firearm.
Post by: bearpaw on January 12, 2012, 09:46:07 AM
BUT, that's not how this rule was advertised. It was advertised to raise the deer population and create more deer, especially big bucks, for everybody. And if it does what was advertised, then you're going to have more people than ever hunting there with you.
SORRY....
It's obvious to me Sitka that you are guessing as to why you thought the rule was desired.
I am involved with one of the groups that wanted the rule and I was involved in the working group that made the recommendation. There is no doubt some folks want the rule to result in bigger bucks, but the real concern was for reducing the buck harvest so the herd can recover. I was originally opposed to the idea, but with our currently low and dropping deer population and a reduction in doe permits which will result in even greater numbers of hunters pursueing bucks, we needed a method to facilitate better buck escapement. The rule was promoted as a method to reduce the buck harvest, out of numerous alternatives considered, the 4pt rule was by far the most popular alternative to reduce buck harvest. While I can't speak for other working group members, it seemed to me the status quo "which is what the WDFW seemed to want", was not an option for most of the working group members.
The 4 pt rule was wisely adopted for a 5 year period by the Commission. In 5 years we can take a look at the results and it will be reconsidered. I do have concerns regarding the long term use of the rule, we may learn the rule is only needed for the short term or we may see good or bad results over the long term, I can't say at this time and neither can anyone else, considering there are biologist who favor the rule and biologists who oppose the rule, I don't see how we will know how it will affect NE Washington until a few years have passed and the results can be assessed. It seems to me that any so called "biology or science" is nothing more than opinion until the results are seen in NE WA. For the short term I can tell you this, the harvest of bucks was lowered in the 2 units and that was the desired result.
Post by: buck man on January 12, 2012, 04:13:31 PM
Quote
SORRY....:yeah:
It's obvious to me Sitka that you are guessing as to why you thought the rule was desired.
I am involved with one of the groups that wanted the rule and I was involved in the working group that made the recommendation. There is no doubt some folks want the rule to result in bigger bucks, but the real concern was for reducing the buck harvest so the herd can recover. I was originally opposed to the idea, but with our currently low and dropping deer population and a reduction in doe permits which will result in even greater numbers of hunters pursueing bucks, we needed a method to facilitate better buck escapement. The rule was promoted as a method to reduce the buck harvest, out of numerous alternatives considered, the 4pt rule was by far the most popular alternative to reduce buck harvest. While I can't speak for other working group members, it seemed to me the status quo "which is what the WDFW seemed to want", was not an option for most of the working group members.
The 4 pt rule was wisely adopted for a 5 year period by the Commission. In 5 years we can take a look at the results and it will be reconsidered. I do have concerns regarding the long term use of the rule, we may learn the rule is only needed for the short term or we may see good or bad results over the long term, I can't say at this time and neither can anyone else, considering there are biologist who favor the rule and biologists who oppose the rule, I don't see how we will know how it will affect NE Washington until a few years have passed and the results can be assessed. It seems to me that any so called "biology or science" is nothing more than opinion until the results are seen in NE WA. For the short term I can tell you this, the harvest of bucks was lowered in the 2 units and that was the desired result.
I couldn't agree more with bearpaw. I have lived in these units for 25 years and seen the good the bad and ugly :chuckle:. I also believe this mild winter will benefit the deer herd more than the the four point minimum rule ever could, however the two coupled together will defenitly bolster the herd. Bucks and does. Trail cameras don't lie and my cameras showed me the same % of mature bucks as they have the last 8 years. They also showed a huge increase in 1 1/2 year old deer. These bucks will be legal tender next year but will also have a year more experience. More will survive to reach maturity. Its just a simple game of %'s.
Lets just sit back guys and watch. As am armchair biologist I believe this new game plan will work. Plus I am sure bearpaw , myself , Brian, and many others have way more field "experience" and alot of us more " more book smarts" , than any of our professional biologists. Good gravy... they want the wolves :dunno:...and you want to trust them on game management? Thank God for special interest groups that can take the bull by the horns because the state sure can't get anything done. :twocents:
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 12, 2012, 04:18:42 PM
BUT, that's not how this rule was advertised. It was advertised to raise the deer population and create more deer, especially big bucks, for everybody. And if it does what was advertised, then you're going to have more people than ever hunting there with you.
SORRY....
It's obvious to me Sitka that you are guessing as to why you thought the rule was desired.
I am involved with one of the groups that wanted the rule and I was involved in the working group that made the recommendation. There is no doubt some folks want the rule to result in bigger bucks, but the real concern was for reducing the buck harvest so the herd can recover.
In other words, create more deer and big bucks.
Here is a direct quote from you in this article in Northwest Sportsman.
“I’ve thoroughly researched this, and the consensus is it’s turned their hunt around. They now have a smaller but more productive whitetail herd. The doe-buck ratio is sound, the fawns are coming off on time, and hunters are now shooting bigger bucks.”
"A smaller more productive herd and bigger bucks"
Just what is it I don't understand? I don't understand how you're helping the herd recover (ie making it bigger) by making it smaller. And I don't understand how you implying that hunters are shooting bigger bucks is not "advertising that this rule is going to create BIGGER BUCKS.
And your friend Mr Bell said this in the same article.
"“It’s about first saving, then rebuilding our whitetail herd. I used to see 30 to 40 deer right around my place. Now I see five or six. My neighbor, who has 1,200 acres, used to have hundreds on his land. Now he has a few dozen.
“Our mature breeding buck numbers are way down. The harvest overall has been low in recent years, but 70 percent of the bucks taken were 2 years or younger, so the mature bucks just aren’t out there."
So there's that word "rebuilding" again, making the herd bigger. And "Our mature breeding buck numbers are way down." So to protect the "mature breeders" the plan your working group came up with was to hammer those same mature breeders before they got a chance to breed? Put all the pressure on them?
But the most ironic part is you two touting how this same plan worked so well in Pennsylvania when back in Jan of 2010 the deer hunters in Pennsylvania were saying this about deer management there.
http://blog.pennlive.com/pa-sportsman/2010/01/angry_deer_hunters_on_pennsylvania_game_commissions_agenda.html
“The PGC must hear from everyone regarding their failed deer management,” he wrote on USP’s web site, describing the 2009-10 deer hunting season as “the worst deer hunting season in memory.”
out of numerous alternatives considered, the 4pt rule was by far the most popular alternative to reduce buck harvest. While I can't speak for other working group members, it seemed to me the status quo "which is what the WDFW seemed to want", was not an option for most of the working group members.
WDFG has brought the herd back from other bad winters. Why would you think they don't know what they are doing now?
we may see good or bad results over the long term, I can't say at this time and neither can anyone else, considering there are biologist who favor the rule and biologists who oppose the rule, I don't see how we will know how it will affect NE Washington until a few years have passed and the results can be assessed.
Basically you are saying, we don't really know if this is going to be good or bad, but we felt we should be able to overrule the professionals on this.
This is why we should leave the managing to the guys who know what they are doing.
Post by: Archeryoutfitters on January 12, 2012, 06:06:31 PM
Post by: bearpaw on January 12, 2012, 06:19:28 PM
BUT, that's not how this rule was advertised. It was advertised to raise the deer population and create more deer, especially big bucks, for everybody. And if it does what was advertised, then you're going to have more people than ever hunting there with you.
SORRY....
It's obvious to me Sitka that you are guessing as to why you thought the rule was desired.
I am involved with one of the groups that wanted the rule and I was involved in the working group that made the recommendation. There is no doubt some folks want the rule to result in bigger bucks, but the real concern was for reducing the buck harvest so the herd can recover.
In other words, create more deer and big bucks.
Here is a direct quote from you in this article in Northwest Sportsman.
“I’ve thoroughly researched this, and the consensus is it’s turned their hunt around. They now have a smaller but more productive whitetail herd. The doe-buck ratio is sound, the fawns are coming off on time, and hunters are now shooting bigger bucks.”
"A smaller more productive herd and bigger bucks"
Just what is it I don't understand? I don't understand how you're helping the herd recover (ie making it bigger) by making it smaller. And I don't understand how you implying that hunters are shooting bigger bucks is not "advertising that this rule is going to create BIGGER BUCKS.
And your friend Mr Bell said this in the same article.
"“It’s about first saving, then rebuilding our whitetail herd. I used to see 30 to 40 deer right around my place. Now I see five or six. My neighbor, who has 1,200 acres, used to have hundreds on his land. Now he has a few dozen.
“Our mature breeding buck numbers are way down. The harvest overall has been low in recent years, but 70 percent of the bucks taken were 2 years or younger, so the mature bucks just aren’t out there."
So there's that word "rebuilding" again, making the herd bigger. And "Our mature breeding buck numbers are way down." So to protect the "mature breeders" the plan your working group came up with was to hammer those same mature breeders before they got a chance to breed? Put all the pressure on them?
But the most ironic part is you two touting how this same plan worked so well in Pennsylvania when back in Jan of 2010 the deer hunters in Pennsylvania were saying this about deer management there.
http://blog.pennlive.com/pa-sportsman/2010/01/angry_deer_hunters_on_pennsylvania_game_commissions_agenda.html
“The PGC must hear from everyone regarding their failed deer management,” he wrote on USP’s web site, describing the 2009-10 deer hunting season as “the worst deer hunting season in memory.”out of numerous alternatives considered, the 4pt rule was by far the most popular alternative to reduce buck harvest. While I can't speak for other working group members, it seemed to me the status quo "which is what the WDFW seemed to want", was not an option for most of the working group members.
WDFG has brought the herd back from other bad winters. Why would you think they don't know what they are doing now?we may see good or bad results over the long term, I can't say at this time and neither can anyone else, considering there are biologist who favor the rule and biologists who oppose the rule, I don't see how we will know how it will affect NE Washington until a few years have passed and the results can be assessed.
Basically you are saying, we don't really know if this is going to be good or bad, but we felt we should be able to overrule the professionals on this.
This is why we should leave the managing to the guys who know what they are doing.
Sitka, you are welcome to review any of my comments on this forum about my position on the 4 pt rule. I don't know where you got that quote, either you changed the wording, made it up, or the person who wrote the article mixed my comments with someone elses. That simply is not the way I speak. Anyone can see my position in the 4pt discussions here on the forum. NICE TRY :chuckle:
I will reiterate:
It's obvious to me Sitka that you are guessing as to why you thought the rule was desired.
I am involved with one of the groups that wanted the rule and I was involved in the working group that made the recommendation. There is no doubt some folks want the rule to result in bigger bucks, but the real concern was for reducing the buck harvest so the herd can recover. I was originally opposed to the idea, but with our currently low and dropping deer population and a reduction in doe permits which will result in even greater numbers of hunters pursueing bucks, we needed a method to facilitate better buck escapement. The rule was promoted as a method to reduce the buck harvest, out of numerous alternatives considered, the 4pt rule was by far the most popular alternative to reduce buck harvest. While I can't speak for other working group members, it seemed to me the status quo "which is what the WDFW seemed to want", was not an option for most of the working group members.
The 4 pt rule was wisely adopted for a 5 year period by the Commission. In 5 years we can take a look at the results and it will be reconsidered. I do have concerns regarding the long term use of the rule, we may learn the rule is only needed for the short term or we may see good or bad results over the long term, I can't say at this time and neither can anyone else, considering there are biologist who favor the rule and biologists who oppose the rule, I don't see how we will know how it will affect NE Washington until a few years have passed and the results can be assessed. It seems to me that any so called "biology or science" is nothing more than opinion until the results are seen in NE WA. For the short term I can tell you this, the harvest of bucks was lowered in the 2 units and that was the desired result.
Post by: bearpaw on January 12, 2012, 06:38:15 PM
Quote
WDFG has brought the herd back from other bad winters. Why would you think they don't know what they are doing now?
The first difference between winter kills 20 years ago and the winter kills of 2008 and again in 2009 is that they were back to back, two bad winters in a row and WDFW was as usual too slow to respond by reducing doe harvest after the first winter, so then we killed too many doe after the first hard winter and then had another bad winter.
The second difference is that 20 years ago we had half the coyotes, fewer bear, and fewer cougar. There weren't as many cars using the hwy and not as many dogs running at large chasing deer. So there you have it, the likely reason the deer herd continues to drop. You seem to have a little knowledge about biology, does the term "Predator Pit" mean anything to you?
This failure and others by "the professionals" is precisely why many sportsmen don't have much faith in some of "the professionals" who don't seem to be able to figure out why herds keep declining, many of whom are trying to tell us wolves will have no impact on our herds, when in fact the neighboring states are having to hire helicopters to save elk herds and livestock from overpopulated wolves.
Sitka your points are sounding pretty weak to me.
Post by: buckfvr on January 12, 2012, 06:57:31 PM
Post by: Archeryoutfitters on January 12, 2012, 07:50:55 PM
That would be like us spouting off telling you what your deer are doing, and what needs to be done over there, in the rain forest just because i have killed 1/2 dozen black-tails in Quinault you would probaly get a good laught out of that :) I couldn't even imagine the kind of a person that would do that.
Post by: sakoshooter on January 12, 2012, 09:08:00 PM
Post by: bearpaw on January 12, 2012, 10:30:41 PM
A 4pt min regulation is not intended to increase herd size, it's intended to increase mature buck numbers. I'm in favor of it.
Yes, you are correct, my mistake. Antlerless seasons manage the female population segment of the herd. :tup:
I think its important to conserve buck numbers to help the herd grow. At this point antlerless seasons have been nearly eliminated which would result in a greater percentage of hunters hunting bucks and likely resulting in fewer bucks per 100 does. By reducing buck harvest, I think we'll keep a better balance as the herd grows.
Post by: Clancy on January 13, 2012, 12:59:42 AM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 13, 2012, 01:36:13 AM
I think its impotant to conserve buck numbers to help the herd grow.
Funny choice of words? lol
Post by: Archeryoutfitters on January 13, 2012, 07:02:21 AM
It is to make sure all the does get bred, and get bred in a timely manner, very important to surviving the winter here and perdition.
I think its impotant to conserve buck numbers to help the herd grow.
Funny choice of words? lol
Post by: jackmaster on January 13, 2012, 07:20:01 AM
would love to hunt blacktail in a 3 point minimum area with high deer numbers right now. few years from now would make for a blast! :twocents: :tup::yeah: i wish all the westside would go to a 3pt restriction for blacktail, except the youth hunters they could shoot any buck and in some areas they could take a doe if desired.
Post by: bearpaw on January 13, 2012, 07:41:35 AM
I think its impotant to conserve buck numbers to help the herd grow.
Funny choice of words? lol
you like my typo... :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 13, 2012, 10:57:50 PM
I think its impotant to conserve buck numbers to help the herd grow.
Funny choice of words? lol
you like my typo... :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Yup. lol That's what we need is more impotent bucks.
Post by: bearpaw on January 14, 2012, 07:50:27 AM
Post by: AKBowman on January 15, 2012, 07:59:38 AM
i wish this would go statewide except for youth , disabled, and the seniors.. and of course this is my opinion,
I hope you mean statewide for WT's! I would like to see most of the west side units go two point min for modern and any buck for archery.
Post by: buckfvr on January 15, 2012, 10:39:07 AM
To see june, july and even august newborns is not good......july newborns struggle to make the first winter, august newbies dont usually make it. They might this year, whats left of them.....we see them born, and we know when they disappear.....coyotes hunt them relentlesly. In the last few days I have seen 3 incidents of coyotes chasing deer, behind posted signs....their private deer killing sanctuaries.
Post by: muleyguy on January 15, 2012, 12:52:44 PM
Quote
I would love to see alot more competition amongst the bucks for the breeding.
well, if your goal is to stockpile 1.5 and 2.5 yr old deer in the population, and make this group of bucks the dominant age class, then this regulation will certainly achieve that......
Quote
does being bred in a timeley manner. To see june, july and even august newborns is not good......july newborns struggle to make the first winter, august newbies dont usually make it. They might this year, whats left of them.....we see them born, and we know when they disappear.....coyotes hunt them relentlesly.
thats a great goal, and is probably one of the major problems in our deer herds in the West..........breeding of does by 1.5 and 2.5 yr old bucks.........causes all of the problems you stated above.......
unfortunately, the 4 pt or more rule is going to achieve exactly what I described above, a stockpiling of immature bucks in the population;
EVERY respectable study on Eastern US Whitetail APR's says that there is very little recuruitment out of the 2.5 yr old class
quote from the Pennsylvania Game Commission (this after 10 yrs of APR's):
Quote
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.
Quote
Now, 2-1/2-year-old bucks make up 75 percent of Pennsylvania’s “mature” buck harvest.
see, the last quote is the one that really helps bring to light the problem; in Penn. even their biologists thing a 2.5 yr old buck is a "mature" buck!
Now some of you will say well, only 75% of the 2.5 yr olds are being killed, so there is recruitment into the 3.5 yr old class; while that is true in Penn. it takes a more sophisticated understanding of what is going on there to understand why it won't work here.
The "big difference" that nobody around here seems to want to admit, or even understand, is that in these Eastern US States with APR's, they set the rules up for either sex;
So, the avg hunter has an ANTLERLESS option. This "pulls" pressure away from the buck population;
In Penn. last year, 60% of the harvest was antlerless deer. That means 60% of the hunter pressure was directed away from bucks and onto the antlerless population.
Where is that extra 25% of hunter harvest going to be directed in 117 and 121 now? On antlerless.................nope..............on bucks older then 2.5 yrs old.
In some states that have APR's now, they even have whats called an "Earn a Buck" program; which means that you MUST shoot a doe, BEFORE you can get a buck tag!
Now contrast that with what is going on here; no antlerless option; and, you have instituted this program in the two hunting units that receive the most hunting pressure of any units in this State;
No reduction in tags, no reduction in season length; they kept the rut hunt.......
I am not saying that this rule is going to kill every mature buck out there, but, the problem is, it exacerbates an already severe problem that our deer herds have, and, that is extremely poor age structure, and the corresponding problems that causes.
It puts increased pressure on an already stressed component of the deer population (the mature bucks)
All the APR does is increase the age of the avg harvested buck by 1 yr; that is what it does; 127 and the Palouse units have had APR's for quite a while now, and those units are mostly private and LOW hunting pressure (compared to 117 and 121);
Explain to me why we are not seeing an explosion of 160 class Whitetail bucks, or better, being harvested in those units??? You guys all think this rule is going to make big bucks??? Where are they in those units?? Certainly by now, they should have shown up in the harvest category if the APR was working to make bigger bucks??
The reason is simple, there is no extra recruitment of bucks into that category because they are just getting shot 1 yr later then they would have!
You mark my words, after next hunting season, this rule will be deemed a "success";
Everybody want to know why??
Because the avg hunter in 117 and 121 will now be shooting a 2.5 yr old deer, and, just like in Penn. everybody will think they are now shooting a "mature" buck;
Recruitment of bucks in the 4.5 yr age class or better will be no different then it was before, AND, more pressure will be directed towards the existing mature bucks (4.5 yr old or older).
AND, we will be stuck with this regulation forever.............with the result being avg age of buck harvested rising to 2.5 yrs old; no better recruitment into the older age classes, and a slow but sure drain on the older age classes from increaesed harvest focus on this age class.
We can all check back in a year, and see where we end up with all of this........
We will see all kinds of pictures on here of 2.5 yr old whitetail bucks, and, in the harvest statistics we will see increased harvest in mature whitetail bucks, not from increased recruitment, but, from more pressure on that component of the population
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 15, 2012, 03:23:41 PM
EVERY respectable study on Eastern US Whitetail APR's says that there is very little recuruitment out of the 2.5 yr old class
quote from the Pennsylvania Game Commission (this after 10 yrs of APR's):
"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."
This is because humans are by far the most efficient predator there is. We are very good at what we do. Some of it is because of our numbers, and some of it is modern technology, and some of it is because we live so long, we have time to learn efficient hunting methods and strategies. This is not good or bad. It just explains why game managers spend as much or more time figuring out how to manage hunters (ie length of season, legal animal for harvest, method of harvest [modern, archery, blackpowder], draw hunts, road closures, etc.) If it was all about managing an un-hunted herd, it would be a relatively easy task. Hunting is generally what causes herds to become unbalanced and usually it is a rule like buck only hunting that causes it. WHATEVER individual animal hunters are forced to concentrate on harvesting will eventually cause a shortage of that animal unless there are strict harvest limits on the hunt.
Now some of you will say well, only 75% of the 2.5 yr olds are being killed, so there is recruitment into the 3.5 yr old class; while that is true in Penn. it takes a more sophisticated understanding of what is going on there to understand why it won't work here.
The "big difference" that nobody around here seems to want to admit, or even understand, is that in these Eastern US States with APR's, they set the rules up for either sex;
So, the avg hunter has an ANTLERLESS option. This "pulls" pressure away from the buck population;
In Penn. last year, 60% of the harvest was antlerless deer. That means 60% of the hunter pressure was directed away from bucks and onto the antlerless population.
Where is that extra 25% of hunter harvest going to be directed in 117 and 121 now? On antlerless.................nope..............on bucks older then 2.5 yrs old.
Now contrast that with what is going on here; no antlerless option; and, you have instituted this program in the two hunting units that receive the most hunting pressure of any units in this State;
No reduction in tags, no reduction in season length; they kept the rut hunt.......
I am not saying that this rule is going to kill every mature buck out there, but, the problem is, it exacerbates an already severe problem that our deer herds have, and, that is extremely poor age structure, and the corresponding problems that causes.
It puts increased pressure on an already stressed component of the deer population (the mature bucks)
All the APR does is increase the age of the avg harvested buck by 1 yr; that is what it does; 127 and the Palouse units have had APR's for quite a while now, and those units are mostly private and LOW hunting pressure (compared to 117 and 121);
Explain to me why we are not seeing an explosion of 160 class Whitetail bucks, or better, being harvested in those units??? You guys all think this rule is going to make big bucks??? Where are they in those units?? Certainly by now, they should have shown up in the harvest category if the APR was working to make bigger bucks??
Excellent point! I hunted a wheat ranch in one of those units for a second deer (whitetail doe) tag I drew. This was the worst year they ever had for bucks. Usually on the first weekend, they take 8 to 10 bucks each year. This year, they were shut out until the last weekend. The total was three small 3x3's for the whole season. This wouldn't even be a good first day of the season in years past. AND one thing I noticed about the bucks taken there (they have lots of pictures from past hunts), while in the past they have taken quite a few bucks , they are almost all small to medium fork, 3, or 4 pt bucks (not counting eye guards). Nothing that would be considered a trophy. Once in a blue moon there might be one buck that garners a little attention. While it satisfies guys who like to see some points on their deer racks, it is definitely not a trophy hunt. The other thing that's happened there is this. This has traditionally been a mule deer unit. The ranch owner told me that when he was a kid they never saw a whitetail. And the mulies they used to take were pretty nice. Now that the whitetails have moved in and taken over, there aren't many mulies left. They don't seem to compete well with the whitetails. This unit also has a very liberal doe hunt (youth and over 65 can take a doe instead of a buck and there is a liberal draw for other hunters) Seeing and taking a doe in this unit isn't hard at all. But seeing a truly large buck is almost impossible.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 27, 2012, 09:28:17 AM
It puts increased pressure on an already stressed component of the deer population (the mature bucks)
Was perusing the Alaska Dept of Fish and Game management section and came upon this interesting article that backs up your contention muleyguy.
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/species/speciesinfo/moose/pdfs/interior_moose_news_fall_2011.pdf
This article is about moose, but it translates to deer in this instance, or even elk. If you scroll down to page 6 of 12, under the heading of Antler Restrictions, Why? is the quote........ " Antler restrictions are put in place on moose populations that are under a lot of hunting pressure. Antler restrictions are not intended to create trophy animals, but actually place more pressure on larger animals."
The article also explains why antlerless hunts are necessary to maintain herd balance and health and take some of the pressure off bulls while still allowing more opportunity for human harvest. Also noted are some of the reasons antlerless hunts are resisted by hunters. Sometimes good intentions go awry from good management.
Post by: muleyguy on January 27, 2012, 02:00:08 PM
the problem is, all this does in the short run is drive the hunters into neighboring units which skews the pressure and harvest higher in the neighboring units then it would have been;
that is the problem when you do not manage the seasons and units in a comprehensive manner.
There is, and was no, scientific basis for this rule change; the biologists knew this and that is why they were so against it.
Using eastern US whitetail herds and APR's rules from these states, as a basis to manage our whitetail herds, is simply naive, at best, and I am trying to be nice with that statement......so the people pushing this were either incredibly naive OR had another agenda.........those are the only two options.....
The real problem here is that with many avg, DIY hunters out there, they think this is a great rule change because they think hey, if nobody is shooting the small bucks its going to make lots of mature bucks!
Others are actually against this rule because they think this is about turning this area into a trophy unit!!
So, the misinformation out there is pretty deep on this from both sides........
its just too bad the WDFW didn't stand up to the pressure and do what their biologists said
Post by: buckcanyonlodge on January 27, 2012, 02:25:26 PM
what has become obvious for me concerning this rule is that the "backstory" most likely ( I have no proof of this, just my opinion) is it was pushed so hard not because it is some magical bullet; but, rather, because the people pushing it knew that it would most likely result, at least in the short run, lower hunter pressure on these units.
the problem is, all this does in the short run is drive the hunters into neighboring units which skews the pressure and harvest higher in the neighboring units then it would have been;
that is the problem when you do not manage the seasons and units in a comprehensive manner.
There is, and was no, scientific basis for this rule change; the biologists knew this and that is why they were so against it.
Using eastern US whitetail herds and APR's rules from these states, as a basis to manage our whitetail herds, is simply naive, at best, and I am trying to be nice with that statement......so the people pushing this were either incredibly naive OR had another agenda.........those are the only two options.....
The real problem here is that with many avg, DIY hunters out there, they think this is a great rule change because they think hey, if nobody is shooting the small bucks its going to make lots of mature bucks!
Others are actually against this rule because they think this is about turning this area into a trophy unit!!
So, the misinformation out there is pretty deep on this from both sides........
its just too bad the WDFW didn't stand up to the pressure and do what their biologists said
AMEN!! Well said.
I know the now retired Assistant to the Director of WDFW. He stated that the commissioner from our area and the "sportsman " groups have wanted to change these areas to 4 point restriction for YEARS. They finally used the low deer numbers to get most of commissioners to go with it.
Post by: bearpaw on January 27, 2012, 02:42:43 PM
If you guys are so correct, why are many Washington deer herds struggling in so many areas?
I would suggest you open your minds to other management styles which have worked in other areas.
Perfect Example: Some of you guys still think wolves will fit in without impacts and that has long been proven incorrect in several other states.
Post by: bearpaw on January 27, 2012, 02:55:14 PM
I get tired of hearing you guys use habitat as an excuse. NE Washington has plenty of winter range and it's empty, almost void of deer. I used to go in the same areas and see hundreds of wintering deer. Don't try to say it's loss of habitat, that's a cop out, there is plenty of winter range on national forest that's nearly barren of deer. The problem is all these predators, there are record numbers of predators, the total predator footprint is staggering.
Post by: Maverick on January 27, 2012, 03:25:54 PM
Post by: muleyguy on January 27, 2012, 03:49:54 PM
Quote
Everyone else got big mature bucks
post the pictures for us to see..........
so all your buddies shot bucks 4.5 yrs old or bigger?????
my guess is your buddies shot a mix of 2.5 yr old and 3.5 yr old bucks
but, post the pics up and prove me wrong
Post by: muleyguy on January 27, 2012, 04:01:08 PM
Quote
If past WA deer management was so good, why was our NE deer herd still declining, even after a mild winter?
past deer management has not been good; never said that.......but you do not follow bad management with further bad management??? what kind of strategy is that??
Quote
If you guys are so correct, why are many Washington deer herds struggling in so many areas?
predators, over hunting, back to back bad winters, declining habitat (in SOME areas) increase of elk, 5 million humans in the smallest western state, and, all the problems that brings (habitat fragmentation, poaching, etc)
Quote
I would suggest you open your minds to other management styles which have worked in other areas.
Find me an area in the US where you have a declining, unproductive whitetail herd, were they have implemented APR's, WITHOUT a corresponding antleless option, but kept all the season's including a rut hunt the same?? The answer is NO WHERE.........using an APR in ours herds is not the right management style........
You outfit in Montana; some areas of Montana have lost 80% of the whitetail herd to Blue Tongue and last winter;
Are you pounding the table with the Montana Fish and Game to move to APR's in their state???? Certainly those herds in the Milk River area are hurting much worse then our NE whitetail herds are???
Quote
Perfect Example: Some of you guys still think wolves will fit in without impacts and that has long been proven incorrect in several other states.
not me......I have never suggested that;
Post by: muleyguy on January 27, 2012, 04:06:30 PM
Quote
Modern wildlife biology is a joke. You guys have all been brainwashed by anti-hunting college professors who promote predators and could care less about our ungulate herds and hunter opportunity. You need to look seriously at how real "Game" Biologists managed wildlife 30-40 years ago when we had large deer herds in most every state in spite of larger numbers of hunters. Reduce the cougar, coyotes, eliminate wolves, and alas, you will have abundant herds of healthy animals.
I get tired of hearing you guys use habitat as an excuse. NE Washington has plenty of winter range and it's empty, almost void of deer. I used to go in the same areas and see hundreds of wintering deer. Don't try to say it's loss of habitat, that's a cop out, there is plenty of winter range on national forest that's nearly barren of deer. The problem is all these predators, there are record numbers of predators, the total predator footprint is staggering.
not sure who you are referring to, but, I have never suggested that habitat is the biggest factor, nor that predators are not a serious problem; I wholeheartedly agree that predators are a serious problem!
Not exactly sure, though why you would think APR's will do anything to solve this problem???
Habitat is great in NE WA; problem is that you have more and more people all the time moving into these areas fragmenting the habitat; you have increased predator numbers, you have changing agricultural make-up, etc.
If predators are the biggest problem, then I suggest putting your energies into solving that problem; not putting time and energy into worthless rule changes that are not going to solve the predator problem (APR's)
Post by: Maverick on January 27, 2012, 04:22:14 PM
Post by: Maverick on January 27, 2012, 04:25:17 PM
Post by: buckcanyonlodge on January 27, 2012, 04:39:42 PM
Post by: Maverick on January 27, 2012, 04:46:38 PM
Post by: bearpaw on January 27, 2012, 06:22:29 PM
When and if this management strategy quits accomplishing the desired goal, or if the desired goal changes after herds recover, then a different strategy may be necessary. I think the herd numbers will tell us what to do in the future. I simply do not buy into the never changing strategy that WDFW seems to like, they can't seem to evolve with the herds and do not seem to know how to react to herd fluctuations. Management may need to change each year depending on herd status. I'm not sure I even agree with keeping the APR for 5 years like they say we must, we may learn the rule is best for only a couple years, but I guess after 5 years we will have data to compare. One thing for sure, without trying this APR there wouldn't be any data to compare and that is an absolute fact.
Montana
I don't hunt the areas that were hit hardest, so I figure it's none of my business. Let those people make their own recommendations based on their knowledge of the herds in their area.
In my MT area the herd was probably knocked back 30% to 50% last winter. On the private property I hunt we still have plenty of whitetails, we have close to a 50/50 whitetail buck/doe ratio. We don't intentionally shoot anything less than a 4x4 buck of either specie. We've been doing that for about 6-8 years and the buck quality just keeps getting better and better. Except, our mulies were hit pretty hard last winter, numerous bucks we left last season perished as did a lot of does, so we only killed 3 or 4 mulie bucks this year and no mulie doe, we killed mostly whitetail bucks and only 2 whitetail doe. In past years we have taken as many as 30 doe off the place, but the deer need a chance to recover.
Around town I heard people complaining about the public land not having many deer and people want FWP to do something, since I dont hunt it or have enough knowledge about it, I will keep my nose out of it. But the general concensus I heard is that people want FWP to cut back on the deer harvest till herds recover.
Washington
You don't see me saying anything about blacktails, they are basically not my realm of expertise. But, I do know how many deer NE Washington can hold and I don't mind speaking loudly about it. Right now our herd is only at about 30%-35% of what it should be.
Post by: bearpaw on January 27, 2012, 06:35:08 PM
Sounds like we agree on predators, the problem is that WDFW will not touch predators because they are infiltrated by Defenders of Wildlife and Conservation Northwest. So the only choice we have is to limit human harvest to help the herd. The goal of the APR was to reduce human buck harvest and that goal was accomplished this year, fewer bucks were killed. That means we will have better deer numbers that much sooner. Yes we need to kill coyotes and I hope you are lodging some yote hunters.
I don't remember exactly what year you moved in to your current place but did you live anywhere in Stevens County prior to that? I don't know if you realize how many deer this area can and has supported in the past. I've lived and hunted here my whole life including a lot of time in the area where you live. I grew up on the summit, Clintworth and I were longtime hunting buddies. I've been outfitting hunters all over the county since 1977. Anyway, that whole area where you live used to have far more deer. I'm just trying to point out that I have a lot of experience in Stevens County and I can honestly say, right now the deer herd is at one of the lowest points if not the lowest point that I can ever remember.
I know the local biologist too, but he wasn't here when we had lots of deer, he doesn't know what the area can hold. He has an open mind and he's trying to do the best he can. He's a good guy but honestly, he is still on a learning curve for this area. Steve Zender is the retired bio who knew the area well and he was opposed to the APR just as I used to be. However, just in the last few years I began to see that the staus quo management wasn't working, for about 8-10 years our herd has never recovered, and now is lower than ever.
WDFW had wisely already limitied the doe harvest but then that forces everyone to hunt bucks. So we needed to also limit the buck harvest or risk skewing the buck/doe ratio. There are several ways to limit buck harvest, I supported the APR because it seemed like the most popular and fairest way to limit buck harvest yet still allow people to hunt.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 27, 2012, 08:17:04 PM
Modern wildlife biology is a joke.
This attitude is setting management up for failure. Modern bios know way more than bios from 40 years ago. First off, they've learned from past mistakes. They have a better understanding of all the complex relationships between different animal species and plants. They have a lot more studies to help them pin-point problems and head them off. The problem is, many modern hunters have expectations that aren't realistic. And they try to force political solutions to biological problems. That will never work in the long run.
This APR is only in two units, it sounds to me like you guys are afraid it might work. Management in NE WA needed changed because current management was not working.
Not afraid it will work at all. Afraid it's not going to have the intended results and in the end it will set management back.
I get tired of hearing you guys use habitat as an excuse. NE Washington has plenty of winter range and it's empty, almost void of deer. I used to go in the same areas and see hundreds of wintering deer.
Sometimes you can't believe your eyes when it comes to habitat. It may look good when it's low quality. And all those deer you used to see may have been part of the problem. Those high populations may have stressed habitat. Maybe the land needed a break from those periods of high deer numbers. It's hard for a layman to really understand what's going on. That's why it takes people who have studied management to do the job right.
Here's a research article that shows why sometimes, what you see isn't really what is there.
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=wildlifenews.view_article&articles_id=205&issue_id=37
Post by: bearpaw on January 27, 2012, 08:29:21 PM
Quote
This attitude is setting management up for failure. Modern bios know way more than bios from 40 years ago. First off, they've learned from past mistakes. They have a better understanding of all the complex relationships between different animal species and plants. They have a lot more studies to help them pin-point problems and head them off. The problem is, many modern hunters have expectations that aren't realistic. And they try to force political solutions to biological problems. That will never work in the long run.
Recent successes are more like recent failures. Too many bios learning from too many hugger professors. Too many recent failures have created this attitude my friend.
Quote
Sometimes you can't believe your eyes when it comes to habitat. It may look good when it's low quality. And all those deer you used to see may have been part of the problem. Those high populations may have stressed habitat. Maybe the land needed a break from those periods of high deer numbers. It's hard for a layman to really understand what's going on. That's why it takes people who have studied management to do the job right.
Maybe you didn't read, there are almost no deer there..... :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
I can see exactly how well modern managers do by looking at all these empty winter ranges and by looking at the Lolo where wolves supposedly have no impact...... thus the premise of my first remark, Modern wildlife biology is a joke.
Post by: bearpaw on January 27, 2012, 08:38:27 PM
I just have a hard time watching this new breed of predator worshipper bios who want to destroy our herds because they can't stand to see predators managed and have been taught that predators only eat the sick and weak, the rest of the time they must only eat grasshoppers.
Post by: Kowsrule30 on January 27, 2012, 11:56:52 PM
I should be careful here, there are actually people in wildlife management that I do have great respect for.
I just have a hard time watching this new breed of predator worshipper bios who want to destroy our herds because they can't stand to see predators managed and have been taught that predators only eat the sick and weak, the rest of the time they must only eat grasshoppers.
I really know nothing about the WT/MD/Elk herds around you and you hunting areas..... But I feel this is one of the best and most realistic commemts ever made..... That is 100% true!!!!!!
Post by: sebek556 on January 28, 2012, 12:03:37 AM
Oh yes I am sure that the huge hay fields need a break from deer and thats why we have no deer sure.. :stup:
Sometimes you can't believe your eyes when it comes to habitat. It may look good when it's low quality. And all those deer you used to see may have been part of the problem. Those high populations may have stressed habitat. Maybe the land needed a break from those periods of high deer numbers. It's hard for a layman to really understand what's going on. That's why it takes people who have studied management to do the job right.
Post by: muleyguy on January 28, 2012, 12:37:31 AM
Quote
Yes that buck on the left is the same as the the bottom pic. That bottom buck is 22 wide.
those are 2.5 and 3.5 yr old bucks............none of those bucks are 4.5 yrs or older.....
those bucks are exactly what I am talking about...........the avg hunter shoots those bucks and thinks they are shooting "mature" bucks, when, in fact, they are only shooting 1 yr older bucks then they would have without the APR;
The APR's in the palouse have achieved exactly what I have predicted; an increase in harvest age by 1 yr.
congrats to you and your friends.....but, those are not mature, 4.5 yr old or older bucks.
Post by: muleyguy on January 28, 2012, 12:51:03 AM
1. Let everybody continue to hunt; keep the seasons them same, including the very popular rut hunt; don't restrict tags; but, put in an APR
or
2. Get rid of the late hunt for a couple of years; or, restrict tag numbers for a couple of years, to recover the herd
which one of those choices do you think an outfitter is going to want???
Number 1? or Number 2?
If your an outfitter, you choose the least restrictive regulation so you can still sell hunts..........that is number 2........
A very simple solution that would have increased buck espcapement in NE WA would have simply been to put a 3 yr sunset clause in suspending the late hunt; by this I mean, you pass a rule that for 3 yrs, there will be no late hunts, but, after that it automatically reverts back to the late hunt.
but, unfortunately, outfitters can charge more for late hunts and the demand is higher for late hunts then regular season hunts.....
Quote
Montana
I don't hunt the areas that were hit hardest, so I figure it's none of my business. Let those people make their own recommendations based on their knowledge of the herds in their area.
nice duck............if APR's are good for declining whitetail herds in NE WA, they certainly are good for declining WT herds in Montana.........do you see any big concerted effort by any group in Montana (department people or citizen groups) to move to an APR??
nope........
Post by: bearpaw on January 28, 2012, 03:19:47 AM
what rule impacts an outfitter more:
1. Let everybody continue to hunt; keep the seasons them same, including the very popular rut hunt; don't restrict tags; but, put in an APR
or
2. Get rid of the late hunt for a couple of years; or, restrict tag numbers for a couple of years, to recover the herd
which one of those choices do you think an outfitter is going to want???
Number 1? or Number 2?
If your an outfitter, you choose the least restrictive regulation so you can still sell hunts..........that is number 2........
A very simple solution that would have increased buck espcapement in NE WA would have simply been to put a 3 yr sunset clause in suspending the late hunt; by this I mean, you pass a rule that for 3 yrs, there will be no late hunts, but, after that it automatically reverts back to the late hunt.
but, unfortunately, outfitters can charge more for late hunts and the demand is higher for late hunts then regular season hunts.....QuoteMontana
I don't hunt the areas that were hit hardest, so I figure it's none of my business. Let those people make their own recommendations based on their knowledge of the herds in their area.
nice duck............if APR's are good for declining whitetail herds in NE WA, they certainly are good for declining WT herds in Montana.........do you see any big concerted effort by any group in Montana (department people or citizen groups) to move to an APR??
nope........
You are sort of talking in circles there about what you think an outfitter would want....
This might be real hard for you to grasp, but I did not look at this issue as an outfitter. I looked at this issue as a concerned local citizen, I lived half my life in 121 and as a boy learned how to hunt in the heart of 121 on public land after school and on weekends. I felt that the most important thing was to keep as many hunting days in the field but restrict what a person can shoot. I also listened to what other locals said and that seemed to be the most popular alternative for reducing harvest.
Most of my hunters did not want to hunt that unit this year, we hunted more in the other units. If I looked at it like an outfitter, with revenue being the primary motivating factor, I would have hands down chosen a limited entry system, we all know that will produce the biggest bucks which would result in the best income in the long term for an outfitter.
I am pretty sick and tired of people like you trying to say I supported the APR because I am an outfitter. You are completely wrong and the truth is quite the opposite. Why is it so hard for people to understand that sometimes a person does something for the common good. In addition to aiding population recovery, this rule will allow anyone including our children who live in that unit to still have just as many days in the field. If we went to a limited entry system or cut back half the season, how could we expect to recruit or keep our youth who live in that GMU into hunting. :bdid:
Quote
but, unfortunately, outfitters can charge more for late hunts and the demand is higher for late hunts then regular season hunts.....
FYI - My fees are the same for a 3 day or a 5-Day hunt in either the early or late season. We have similar success at most any time during the seasons because we hunt leased land that we can control the hunting pressure and we have figured out how to hunt with the least impact, we shoot deer the whole season. My busiest day for any specie is the opening day and that is during the early deer season. Again you are wrong about me.
Quote
nice duck............if APR's are good for declining whitetail herds in NE WA, they certainly are good for declining WT herds in Montana.........do you see any big concerted effort by any group in Montana (department people or citizen groups) to move to an APR??
Honestly, I don't know what specific proposals or management requests local people have in Montana, if I had to guess, many would probably want to get rid of non-resident hunters first, that's the usual bitch in most states that get a lot of non-resident pressure.
My Montana rancher just told me last fall he is very happy with the buck to doe ratio and all the mature bucks we now have on his ranch. He said the deer herd is just where he wants it to be. It's about 50/50 and maybe even more bucks than does. We got there by hunting 4x4 or better bucks and killing lots of does in years when there are lots of does. We hunted it steady from Oct 27 to Thanksgiving last year, but we try to shoot nothing but the oldest bucks and we let the younger ones grow up. Some bucks are still being killed that are younger than I prefer, I wished we could only kill 4 1/2 or older bucks but we have not gotten to that point yet, but I hope to some day. That is how this outfitter prefers to manage a deer herd, but it's probably not realistic management for all our public lands. I think more of our public hunters are interested in hunter days and success on any deer than in trophy quality.
The APR in NE WA provides hunter days, but success will be lower. That was the intent, allow people to hunt but reduce buck harvest to help the herd numbers recover. For the majority of participants on the working group, this was the most popular alternative to reduce the harvest of bucks. It will be interesting to see the results of this experiment. Yes, it's an experiment, that is how science is learned by experimenting. Yes I know, you and many WA biologists think they know enough about deer and don't need any further experiments in management. In my opinion, whether the APR proves good or bad, we will know more than if we would not have tried it, and at this point judging by the status of WA deer management, we all need to learn more about what we are doing. :twocents:
Post by: buckcanyonlodge on January 28, 2012, 06:35:19 AM
Post by: dreamunelk on January 28, 2012, 06:52:17 AM
I have hunted 121 since the '70's. I have seen the boom years when deer were everywhere. I also remember the years of devastating winter kill and the time it took to rebound the herd. No APR's back then and the herd did recover.I have also seen local herds down by Fruitland hit by blue tongue that took a few years to rebound.I counted over 11 winter kill deer in one draw. They recovered with no APR's. Here is what happened to the deer herd in this "Citizen Scientist's" view.(WAY to many Citizen Scientists-my opinion) First they outlaw hound hunting for cougar and bear.. Then outlaw baiting bear and the spring bear hunt is by permit. Along comes two devastating winters of '08 and '09. 6 Ft. of snow for months. Dead deer everywhere. Wildlife Dept keeps issuing hundreds of doe permits along with liberal doe limits for archery, muzzleloader;s, youth hunters, senior hunters, and issuing 2nd deer permits. Whitetail does were hunted from Sept. 1st to December 15th. You CANNOT re-build a deer herd with that kind of pressure on the dwindling numbers of breeding stock...... You can save all the bucks you want with the APR.s but if they do not have any does to breed, how does the help the herd recover? During the two bad winters of '08-'09 I fed over 50 whitetail with the majority does and fawns. Last year and this year I fed about 20 whitetail. Right now I have 15 deer with half of them bucks. One fawn among the does. Plenty of bucks here to breed the does but still no fawns... I could go on and on.I'm DONE
Some very good points here. Another thing that does not seem to compute to a lot of hunters is Bucks compete with does for forage. A doe has to be in good nutritional condition to become pregnant. She then has to eat for two or three. Here I could go on and on. Overall citizen based science seldom if ever improves things. When it doesn't they will always find something or someone else to blame.
Post by: bearpaw on January 28, 2012, 07:21:40 AM
I have hunted 121 since the '70's. I have seen the boom years when deer were everywhere. I also remember the years of devastating winter kill and the time it took to rebound the herd. No APR's back then and the herd did recover.I have also seen local herds down by Fruitland hit by blue tongue that took a few years to rebound.I counted over 11 winter kill deer in one draw. They recovered with no APR's. Here is what happened to the deer herd in this "Citizen Scientist's" view.(WAY to many Citizen Scientists-my opinion) First they outlaw hound hunting for cougar and bear.. Then outlaw baiting bear and the spring bear hunt is by permit. Along comes two devastating winters of '08 and '09. 6 Ft. of snow for months. Dead deer everywhere. Wildlife Dept keeps issuing hundreds of doe permits along with liberal doe limits for archery, muzzleloader;s, youth hunters, senior hunters, and issuing 2nd deer permits. Whitetail does were hunted from Sept. 1st to December 15th. You CANNOT re-build a deer herd with that kind of pressure on the dwindling numbers of breeding stock...... You can save all the bucks you want with the APR.s but if they do not have any does to breed, how does the help the herd recover? During the two bad winters of '08-'09 I fed over 50 whitetail with the majority does and fawns. Last year and this year I fed about 20 whitetail. Right now I have 15 deer with half of them bucks. One fawn among the does. Plenty of bucks here to breed the does but still no fawns... I could go on and on.I'm DONE
I totally agree with nearly all your points and in the whitetail working group we insisted that the WDFW get more proactive at monitoring the herd. As a result they have stepped up their monitoring. We also requested the WDFW do something about predators, but they will not touch predators. They flat out refused to do anything about predators. With this huge surplus of predators and low deer numbers we are likely close to being in a predator pit. I know you don't like the APR but it may be the slight edge that will help bring our herd back before wolves populate further and contribute to the predator pit. Please keep in mind that not all areas in 121 have the same buck/doe ratio that you have in your back yard. For example, the transect counts near Clayton show a very low buck count, so there are areas that needed the APR worse than others.
Post by: grundy53 on January 28, 2012, 07:28:05 AM
I should be careful here, there are actually people in wildlife management that I do have great respect for.
I just have a hard time watching this new breed of predator worshipper bios who want to destroy our herds because they can't stand to see predators managed and have been taught that predators only eat the sick and weak, the rest of the time they must only eat grasshoppers.
:yeah: The new biologist are a joke. They ultimately want to end hunting and let "nature" keep everything in balance. Like you said earlier thirty or forty years ago there were way more hunters and way more animals. So if they could do it then without all this fancy high tech science what are these leaf licker biologists excuse?
Post by: bearpaw on January 28, 2012, 08:08:10 AM
In my opinion there are areas that had quite a few deer as recent as 5 years ago but are nearly void of deer today, but there certainly is no shortage of whitetail habitat.
The biggest problem really seems to be a lack of fawn recruitment and continued loss of adult deer to a multitude of causes including cars and hunting. Unfortunately, the WDFW will not allow predator control and their answer to limiting car collisions was a special kill season along Hwy 395, so there's not much we can do to increase deer numbers except limit human hunting harvest and hope coyote hunting gets more popular. Mathmatically, if we limit harvest now, herd numbers should rebound quicker unless the predator pit is too extreme and predators simply eat any gains in numbers that humans provide by limiting harvest. If the predator pit is that extreme, there will be very low deer numbers for a very long time and that's not a good option. Only time will tell if the APR and the reduction in doe harvest is enough to make a difference, hopefully it is.
Post by: Maverick on January 28, 2012, 02:27:03 PM
QuoteYes that buck on the left is the same as the the bottom pic. That bottom buck is 22 wide.
those are 2.5 and 3.5 yr old bucks............none of those bucks are 4.5 yrs or older.....
those bucks are exactly what I am talking about...........the avg hunter shoots those bucks and thinks they are shooting "mature" bucks, when, in fact, they are only shooting 1 yr older bucks then they would have without the APR;
And that's one year for them to get bigger. So what's so wrong with that? To me the system works because id rather shoot bucks like that than one year younger. Don't you have to see the teeth to know their actual age?
Post by: buckfvr on January 28, 2012, 03:19:04 PM
The APR.....we now have it, we will see what comes of it.....My guess is if it does not produce favorable results, the very least that can happen is the late modern hunt will be by permit only, and rightly so. Although encouraged by some of the great bucks I saw this last year, the numbers are still way too low......does included, fawns imparticular.
Predators are the one thing we all need to dedicate some time to. Two days ago, and again today I saw coyotes chasing deer. We all need to do what we can about the coyote problem....If I cant get on a private piece, I always encourage the owner to help out.....Im done arguing /reading arguments about APR......We will all know more in a couple years......One Voice, One Goal
Post by: fishingnut71 on January 28, 2012, 03:25:10 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 28, 2012, 03:37:35 PM
Predators are the one thing we all need to dedicate some time to. Two days ago, and again today I saw coyotes chasing deer. We all need to do what we can about the coyote problem...
I know this is an unpopular view, but give the wolves a little time, and they will help with the coyote problem. Coyotes are by far the biggest killers of fawns. And they also take down full grown deer. Wolves are way more self limiting than coyotes and very territorial, even with other wolves. And they also take out other predators in their territories.
Post by: grundy53 on January 28, 2012, 03:47:01 PM
Predators are the one thing we all need to dedicate some time to. Two days ago, and again today I saw coyotes chasing deer. We all need to do what we can about the coyote problem...
I know this is an unpopular view, but give the wolves a little time, and they will help with the coyote problem. Coyotes are by far the biggest killers of fawns. And they also take down full grown deer. Wolves are way more self limiting than coyotes and very territorial, even with other wolves. And they also take out other predators in their territories.
Broken arm? Just give the terminal cancer some time. That broken arm won't be a problem once it kills you.
Post by: muleyguy on January 29, 2012, 09:52:49 PM
Quote
Don't you have to see the teeth to know their actual age?
no; once you have harvested enough deer and had the chance to observe good numbers of mature bucks in the field, it is not hard to judge a bucks age by his antler configuration, facial configuration and body makeup;
your mistake on the age of these bucks is a common one from hunters in WA state;
Quote
And that's one year for them to get bigger. So what's so wrong with that?
there is nothing wrong with it; the question though, is at what cost is there to the herd from this rule change??
the cost is that you end up stockpiling 1.5 yr old bucks in the population; they quickly become the biggest component of the buck population; and, you slowly erode the mature buck population (4.5 yr old and older) because the rule change focus' harvest on the older age classes.
so, you end up with immature bucks doing a lot of the breeding which causes lots of problems; and, you get long term problems in the genetic makeup of bucks because these hunting regulations reward the poorest antler producing bucks, and hammer the better antler producing bucks.
In the Eastern US areas where they have APR's, they give the hunters an antlerless hunting option because the productivity of the herds is so high; this pulls a tremendous amount of hunting pressure off of the buck population; in Penn last year, 60% of the harvest was antlerless; that is 60% of the hunters NOT shooting a buck;
Even under this scenario of pulling all this hunting pressure off of the buck population, they still have little or no recruitment into the 4.5 yr old class;
The problem here is our herds are not productive; so we can't shoot antlerless; so everybody is looking for bucks to shoot; under this scenario, virtually every buck will be shot the first or second yr it is legal, we will get almost no recruitment above 3.5 yr olds, and we will get a slow erosion of the older age classes (4.5 yr old or older).
So, the "cost" to the makeup of the buck popluation is high; you will have a big shift lower in the age structure of the buck population;
A simply way to think about it is this:
If we did this in humans, we would essentially have a world full of 13 yr old boys doing the breeding, and dominating social behaviour in the male component of the population; the 20 to 40 yr old age males would all get killed every year; and, we would have a long term declining population of men from 40 to 60.
So, what kind of impact do you suppose that might have???? probably not a good one in humans, and probably not a good one deer populations either......
Quote
To me the system works because id rather shoot bucks like that than one year younger
And, this statement is why we will NEVER get rid of APR's in those units........because the avg hunter will shoot a buck one yr older then they ever have been, and, will, just like you and your hunting group think you are now shooting "mature" bucks. The public support will be overwhelmingly high in support of this after a couple of years;
The problem is, the cost to the herd is not easily reconinzable, but, the cost is there..........the bio's understand this cost, that is why they were against it; I'm not defending every decision those guys make, but, in this case, they are right. The avg hunter does not understand the cost because the cost is a long term one in the form of poorer fawn recruitment, and poorer antler genetics.
this rule is exactly what is wrong with our society: it gives a quick and easy benefit, but, ignores the long term damage the rule will do;
Post by: Miles on January 29, 2012, 09:59:05 PM
QuoteDon't you have to see the teeth to know their actual age?
no; once you have harvested enough deer and had the chance to observe good numbers of mature bucks in the field, it is not hard to judge a bucks age by his antler configuration, facial configuration and body makeup;
your mistake on the age of these bucks is a common one from hunters in WA state;
How old is this buck? I know it's not a whitetail (which is what this topic is about), but I thought I'd ask your opinion here since I know you'll see it.
Post by: Maverick on January 29, 2012, 10:32:58 PM
Post by: Maverick on January 29, 2012, 10:40:06 PM
Post by: bobcat on January 29, 2012, 10:43:45 PM
Mile's buck- 5 1/2
Just guessing, I'd be curious to hear what muleyguy says or anyone else more competent at aging deer.
Post by: huntnnw on January 29, 2012, 10:48:25 PM
once a buck hits 4.5 and older it becomes almost impossible to age correctly
Post by: muleyguy on January 30, 2012, 08:11:18 AM
Quote
maverick 3.5
once a buck hits 4.5 and older it becomes almost impossible to age correctly
maverick 3.5
I would also agree that it becomes difficult to age after 4.5 yr old; but miles buck is in the 4.5 yr old or older class. pretty easy to get them dialed in at 4.5; much tougher after that
Post by: Miles on January 30, 2012, 08:53:08 AM
Post by: bearpaw on January 30, 2012, 11:18:30 AM
Dale,
PA implemented antler restriction in 2003. The goal was to get a more balanced age-class of bucks. Prior to AR Pa hunters killed 85% of all bucks before they reached 2 years old. Remember, PA has one-million hunters in the field on the first day of deer season.
In most of the state the AR rules required a minimum of 3-points on one side. In western PA where the habitat was so good a 1-1/2 year old deer might carry a 6-8 point rack (we count both sides), so the AR rules were raised to a minimum 4-points on one side.
We are now considering modifying the 4-point area to a 3-on top or 3-up rule, where the brow tine doesn't count. We found that since 8-point racks are the common configuration for mature bucks, hunters were seeing these bucks during hunting season, but couldn't pull the trigger because it was so difficult to see a brow tine.
Our records show that 88% of 8-points have brow tines. So this change will only result in an additional 12% of bucks being removed from the age class distribution. We do not feel this will adversely affect the age-class distribution.
Obviously not all hunters like antler restrictions, but after a few years it reached a 68% approval rate.
I hope this helps.
-Commissioner R. Martone
Post by: Bob33 on January 30, 2012, 11:26:02 AM
www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/document/715029/handout_-_biology_and_hunting_-_antler_restrictions_-_v13_20090806_pdf
Post by: buckfvr on January 30, 2012, 12:05:45 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 30, 2012, 08:14:12 PM
http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=625882&mode=2
APR's went into effect there in 2002. That year, buck harvest dropped from 203,000 to 165,000 as would be expected, but the doe harvest went from 282,000 to 352,000. That may or may not be a good thing if they were trying to reduce the herd to protect habitat. The overall harvest that year was the all time record of 517,000 deer. Since then, harvest has steadily declined to where in 2010. the buck harvest was about 123,000 and the antlerless harvest was 193,000 for an overall harvest of 316,000. So in a 9 year span, deer harvest dropped almost 40%. It's pretty easy to see why hunters there are dissatisfied with the way things are going there. Now I haven't looked at any of the management reports so I'm not going to guess whether or not that reduction was called for. It may be what was called for looking at their biological info. Their game dept may have wanted to reduce the deer population. Or it may just be that biological stresses reduced the herd as does are carrying less twins. Or it could have been because of a mistake in their management strategy. But the plan to let bucks live one more year surely didn't increase or even maintain harvest levels. They dropped same as the doe levels did.
Now lets look at their buck situation. First off, according to link that Bob posted, "The primary goal of APRs was to increase the number of adult bucks (2.5 years of age or older)" So as muleyguy pointed out, they are equating 2 1/2 year old bucks as mature adults, not 4 1/2 year old bucks. Now that may look good if you're comparing it to previously when they were harvesting 80% 1 1/2 year old bucks. As they say, "in the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king. But again as muleyguy points out, contrary to what some have been hypothesizing here, that since those bucks got a year older, they will also be a year smarter and therefore more of them will get even older, that is not the case. Here's a quote from the link Bob posted. "The increased harvest of adult bucks does not necessarily mean more “record book” bucks. Although age structure and number of adult bucks in the harvest has increased, about 75 percent of them are only 2.5 yearsof-age. In other words, most of Pennsylvania’s bucks are still being harvested prior to growing their largest antlers. They still aren't getting more bucks to REAL maturity.
Another interesting fact from looking at those harvest reports from Pennsylvania is; their buck harvest also dropped 40% so it looks like the whole herd may have shrunk by 40%. But, there could be something else going on. first, looking at those harvest reports, I noticed something that seemed peculiar. Since 1985, for the most part they have harvest an equal or greater number of does than bucks. Much of the time, substantially more does, some years 100% more does. Now if males and females are born at approximately a 50-50% ratio and does are harvested in substantially numbers, it would appear that Pennsylvania would be stockpiling bucks and the buck harvest numbers would be rising as those bucks got older and grew larger antlers. But that isn't happening. I can think of three reasons for that and there may be more I haven't thought of. But one would be fawn bucks that were taken with an antlerless tag may explain the difference. Another one would be that bucks are being poached at a higher rate than does. And the third would be that they really are stockpiling bucks, but smaller than legal bucks. In other words, taking out the bucks that are genetically inclined to grow antlers with more points, has over time, genetically altered the antler makeup of the herd. On a herd hunted as hard as the Pennsylvania herd is, it's possible that for a buck to survive it's genetically beneficial to have less antler points, even though the Penn Game Department denies it. As Bob's link points out.......... "Age structure of the antlered harvest before APRs was about 80 percent yearling bucks and 20 percent adultbucks. With the increase in survival of yearling bucks under APRs, the age structure of the antlered harvest changed to about 55 percent yearling bucks and 45 percent adult bucks."
Think about this.......even with an APR 55% of the bucks taken were still yearlings. And they were the yearlings more inclined to grow larger antlers. So the extra 25% of the harvest that switched from being harvested as yearlings into being harvested as 2 1/2 year old "mature" bucks was made up predominantly of the bucks that were more inclined toward small antlers as yearlings. That is why they survived to be 2 1/2 year olds. So these bucks inclined to smaller antlers are doing more of the breeding now, before they are harvested after the rut. Get the picture yet? Hit the bigger antlered bucks hard.........leave the smaller antlered bucks to breed next year. Do this for 10 years or longer and what do you think you get? I can't make it any clearer than this.
One last thought. You can manage for lots of animals to hunt, or you can manage for a nice sustained yield with a good mix of age classes, or you can manage for trophy animals, but you can't manage for all three because the methods needed for each conflict with each other. You can get a bit of an overlap with the first and the second, or the second and the third, but you never see a situation where you have many animals and trophy animals on a hard hunted herd. You might see it in a herd where hunting is void or strictly limited. But not in a hunt where there is lots of opportunity. Pennsylvania for deer, and Sweden for moose are classic examples of managing for lots of animals to hunt. You have a young very vibrant breeding herd and harvest about as many female animals as males. Most animals harvested are 2 1/2 or younger. Trophies are mostly unheard of. Personally, I prefer a good sustainable plan with a good mix of age classes.
Post by: muleyguy on January 30, 2012, 10:06:23 PM
Quote
I happened to stumble upon this message I recieved from a PA Game Commissioner that I had asked about APR when the whitetail working group was meeting. You can draw your own conclusions.
Quote
I read that link, Bob33, and am now wondering why all the negative posts regarding APR that reference Pa. Im glad we are trying it.....time will tell.
you guys still don't get it do you???
Can you understand the big difference??
The "big" difference is that PA has an ANTLERLESS option for the hunters;
In 2010, 60% of the overall harvest was antlerless deer.
I mean, how many times do I have to point it out???
You guys keep trying to compare our regulation to theirs; YOU CANNOT do that; it is not apples to apples comparison;
The antlerless option "pulls" hunter pressure away from the bucks;
can you guys understand that?????
Even with all this hunting pressure being pulled away from the buck population from the antlerless option, the below quote is from the PGC (penn game commission):
Quote
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.
So EVEN though 60% of the hunters in the field are shooting antlerless animals, the bucks are just living one year older then they would have; they are just shooting 2.5 yr old bucks;
What do you think would happen in PA if they didn't have an antlerless option, and all those hunters were focused on bucks?? (like here........)
Anyone ever stop to think that might be an important piece of the puzzle???
Please tell me in your "research" that you discussed this with the PGC people??? Did anyone even factor in that in EVERY Eastern US whitetail area that has APR's, over half of the harvested animals are antlerless, thereby pulling pressure off of the buck population??
Post by: huntnnw on January 30, 2012, 10:11:49 PM
Post by: sebek556 on January 30, 2012, 10:13:34 PM
Post by: Miles on January 30, 2012, 10:32:15 PM
So, you guys want some more "guess the age of this buck" pictures?
Post by: bobcat on January 30, 2012, 10:33:01 PM
I gave up on this pointless argument a long time ago...
So, you guys want some more "guess the age of this buck" pictures?
Yes, post 'em up...
Post by: Maverick on January 31, 2012, 02:59:00 AM
Post by: muleyguy on January 31, 2012, 08:24:14 AM
Quote
The last buck i posted was actually 4.5
possibly; but not likely; he doesn't have the facial figures of a 4.5 yr old buck nor the antler structure;
Quote
Wed been watching him for the last couple of years and my buddy has his sheds.
post pics of the 3 sets of sheds you have
Post by: muleyguy on January 31, 2012, 08:46:31 AM
Quote
U cant compare ANY of it to here so quit bringing this stupid study up...terrain, amount of hunters etc nothing is the same
your'e exactly right, thats why I wish all the pro APR guys would stop using these Eastern US examples of APR's as a basis for using APR's here;
Unfortunately, I have read time and again on here that when this "group" proposed this rule, they contacted and used these Eastern US APR's as a guide in proposing the APR's here;
Obviously, BP has had direct contact with them;
The APR's here will not work like they do in the Eastern US because our herds are not as productive and we do not have an antlerless option; APR's were designed by Dr Alt in PA to deal with overpopulated, poor age structured, low buck to doe ratio herds.
There was no scientific basis for this rule in NE it was just a stab in the dark........
Post by: bearpaw on January 31, 2012, 09:09:36 AM
Muleyguy, you really need to look past your personnal bias. I used to be opposed to APR too. But we are in a situation where our herd keeps dropping and something needs done, the current management of shooting any buck was not bringing back our deer (most likely due to too many predators). So we can continue to let the herd decline or we can try to do something about it by reducing human harvest.
Science is learned by conducting controlled experiments, if you don't experiment you will never learn anything new.
Post by: Maverick on January 31, 2012, 09:16:30 AM
Post by: turkey slayer on January 31, 2012, 09:33:20 AM
I think this is the best thing that could ever happen in this area. We have had property in the Fruitland are since 94 and have family that owns property from Fruitland to Cediona that farm a lot of the property. I tell ya what it is sure nice to finally see bucks while we are hiking and driving around. Ya they are spikes and 2 points but be for this 4 point min came into affect we never seen that. I have driving HWY 25 a lot this winter and now I can count 15 to 20 bucks from Spokane res. to Kettle Falls. Ya maybe 20% are 3 1/2 year old buck but at least we are seeing the difference finally and this was the first year.
A lot of people can't tell what a 3 1/2 year old buck looks like and we are really talking about WT so half the time to can't really judge them in less you have them on trail cam or sitting in tree stand or ground blind.You know just like I know a lot of people run and gun them and you aren't going to shot a mature buck in less you are real lucky. A lot of people will see a 4pt main frame or a 3pt with eye guards and shot it. That isn't going to change people from hunting and shotting a 2 1/2 old buck.
I really didn't want to get involved in this debate but I just had to put my :twocents: in.
Thanks Brandon
Post by: turkey slayer on January 31, 2012, 09:40:07 AM
We dont have his first tiny set. We have his 2.5. And 3.5 set. We watched this buck for a long time. He's 4.5 years old. Id even missed the buck in 2010. He didn't grow much in a year.
I agree Maverick that buck is atleast a 4 year old
Post by: muleyguy on January 31, 2012, 08:00:03 PM
Quote
Muleyguy so what would you really like to see happen. Shut the area down keep hunting it and kill everything since you don't think this will work.
what I would like to see is a draw only for the entire State; that way you can manage the herd, age structure, and buck to doe ratio how it needs to be handled for this State, given its high population base, small land base and large amounts of predators and periodic winter kills; in the long run, that is the only answer;
The last 20 yrs of management in this State has been focused on open general tags with no restrictions on hunter numbers; and, when the population gets into trouble we run to APR's; the populations still doesn't recover, and they continually shorten the season to get better buck escapement. Problem is, without corresponding cuts in tags, it just forces more hunters into the unit in those given days;
the result is high hunter pressure, no better buck escapement, and extremely poor quality of experience; If you restricted tag numbers enough to get a 1/3 reduction in buck harvest you could lengthen out the season dramatically, have much better age structure, increase buck to doe ratio's, and provide a high quality experience; all this, for basically giving up the right to hunt 1 out of 3 years;
Those are the kind of hard decisions that need to be made to recover our deer herds; this idea in this state that it is a god given right for everybody to hunt every year is driving the quality of the hunting and the quality of the experience into the toilet!
Our mule deer seasons are down to 9 days in the middle of October with APR's and there are literally 10,000 of thousands of hunters in the field at the same time; with a 20% success rate on 2.5 yr old 18" basket racked 2x3 being the avg harvest.
The end result of the APR's in 117 and 121 will be that they will be with us forever; and, not too far down the road, you will end up losing the late season in these units also; That is the legacy of APR's in this state. You will lose the late season because there will be too much pressure on the mature buck population.
Project forward 20 yrs when your grandkids are hunting.......there will be hundreds of thousands of more people in this state, more hunting pressure, more encroachment into the rural areas by people putting more pressure on habitat, more poaching, etc. Does anybody here honestly think we are going to be to continue this "management" of just letting everybody hunt and no restrictions on tag levels??
Were going to be down to 5 day seasons at this pace!!
How about this for an idea:
1. 1/3 less tags; resulting in getting to hunt 2 out of 3 yrs
2. 4 week deer season from mid october until the 1st week of november
3. No APR's;
something along these lines would boost the herd, spread out the hunting pressure, and would increase the experience exponentially from what it is now.
Imagine bringing your kids and family out hunting 2 out of 3 years, seeing lots of bucks, seeing good numbers of mature bucks, having much fewer people in the woods, and lots of weekends to choose from to take them hunting and spend time; and, your son or daughter, or your 75 yr old grandfather can actually have a better then 2% chance of harvesting a buck.
Contrast that with what we have now, where sure, we get to go hunting every year, but we have drastically shortened seasons in the Middle of october with unlimited amounts of people (idiots) running all over in the field, and, almost no chance of success for your son or daughter or 75 yr old grandfather; Bucks getting shot out from underneath you, people cutting you off, camping in your spot, etc, etc
The bottom line is in this State, we have choosen to try and use APR's and shortened seasons so everybody can continue to hunt unrestricted; this has been going on for some time, and the herds continue to struggle, and the quality of the experience continues to decline. These are failed policies; its time to go another direction: fewer tags, longer seasons, no APR's
your trying to put a band-aid on a heart attack...................
Post by: muleyguy on January 31, 2012, 08:05:20 PM
Quote
We have his 2.5. And 3.5 set
ok, lets see some pics of these sheds; that will "shed" some light on it
the 2.5 yr old sheds will tell the story..........
Post by: bobcat on January 31, 2012, 08:06:47 PM
Post by: huntnnw on January 31, 2012, 09:51:43 PM
Post by: huntnnw on January 31, 2012, 09:52:25 PM
QuoteWe have his 2.5. And 3.5 set
ok, lets see some pics of these sheds; that will "shed" some light on it
the 2.5 yr old sheds will tell the story..........
:yeah:
Post by: KopperBuck on February 01, 2012, 01:38:23 AM
Post by: muleyguy on February 01, 2012, 09:14:21 AM
Quote
Mule guy you seem to have missed an important piece of information..this state doing good management of our herds? hahaha its all about the mighty dollar here
I don't totally disagree with this; with good management of the herd, we might be able to keep the general tag system going longer.
The biggest problem I see with the management is that it isn't responsive enough, and quick enough to deal with the changing herd dynamics; they are using blunt tools for something that requires a more precise handling.
A big problem I see is that these antlerless tags have gotten institutionalized into the system; we need more babies........and for that we need more mommas; even this year in NE WA, there are still antlerless tags; even after two horrible winter losses in a row; antlerless tags need to be the exception and not the rule in this state; and, if they are given out, they need to be targeted; for example: in NE WA there are times that there are too many deer on the agricultural lands but not the national forsest ground; but, the state will just issue tags for the whole unit; since most of the hunters in this state are hunting public ground, those antlerless animals end up getting harvested from the ground that does not have an overpopulation problem (national forest ground).
So, if they do antlerless hunts, I would like to see targeted antlerless hunts that shoot for the problem areas and don't spill over into the areas that don't have a problem.
In 2010, they still harvested over 300 antlerless in 117 and 121; what people have to realize is that deer populations grow geometrically; it is not unreasonable to think that these 300 antlerless could have produced an additional 600 to 900 deer over a 3 or 4 year period if they hadn't of been harvested.
Now, some of those could have been or would have been killed by cars, predators, etc anyway; but, the point is still valid; there is a ton of pressure on our antlerless populations, we don't need to increase the harvest pressure from humans anymore then it already is from nature.
The problem is that antlerless hunts are popular with the public, and they are a revenue generator for the department;
My problem with the APR is that there is really no way it can biologically "recover" the herd; all it is doing is is protecting 1.5 yr old bucks for an extra 12 months;
If you want to recover he herd you need more babies.........so, you need to focus on making more babies, and making more healthy babies.......more, healthy babies will be able to handle predators much better then less, weaker babies.
If you stop shooting antlerless, that helps make more babies; if you have good populations of mature bucks doing the breeding, that helps make healthier, more robust babies.......
APR's do nothing for making more babies, and, the current way the APR is structured, you are going to be stockpiling 1.5 yr old bucks into the population, which will mean a lot of does will be getting bred by very immature bucks.
So, they key is making greater number of healthier babies........
Post by: bearpaw on February 01, 2012, 09:37:06 AM
QuoteMule guy you seem to have missed an important piece of information..this state doing good management of our herds? hahaha its all about the mighty dollar here
I don't totally disagree with this; with good management of the herd, we might be able to keep the general tag system going longer.
The biggest problem I see with the management is that it isn't responsive enough, and quick enough to deal with the changing herd dynamics; they are using blunt tools for something that requires a more precise handling.
A big problem I see is that these antlerless tags have gotten institutionalized into the system; we need more babies........and for that we need more mommas; even this year in NE WA, there are still antlerless tags; even after two horrible winter losses in a row; antlerless tags need to be the exception and not the rule in this state; and, if they are given out, they need to be targeted; for example: in NE WA there are times that there are too many deer on the agricultural lands but not the national forsest ground; but, the state will just issue tags for the whole unit; since most of the hunters in this state are hunting public ground, those antlerless animals end up getting harvested from the ground that does not have an overpopulation problem (national forest ground).
So, if they do antlerless hunts, I would like to see targeted antlerless hunts that shoot for the problem areas and don't spill over into the areas that don't have a problem.
In 2010, they still harvested over 300 antlerless in 117 and 121; what people have to realize is that deer populations grow geometrically; it is not unreasonable to think that these 300 antlerless could have produced an additional 600 to 900 deer over a 3 or 4 year period if they hadn't of been harvested.
Now, some of those could have been or would have been killed by cars, predators, etc anyway; but, the point is still valid; there is a ton of pressure on our antlerless populations, we don't need to increase the harvest pressure from humans anymore then it already is from nature.
The problem is that antlerless hunts are popular with the public, and they are a revenue generator for the department;
My problem with the APR is that there is really no way it can biologically "recover" the herd; all it is doing is is protecting 1.5 yr old bucks for an extra 12 months;
If you want to recover he herd you need more babies.........so, you need to focus on making more babies, and making more healthy babies.......more, healthy babies will be able to handle predators much better then less, weaker babies.
If you stop shooting antlerless, that helps make more babies; if you have good populations of mature bucks doing the breeding, that helps make healthier, more robust babies.......
APR's do nothing for making more babies, and, the current way the APR is structured, you are going to be stockpiling 1.5 yr old bucks into the population, which will mean a lot of does will be getting bred by very immature bucks.
So, they key is making greater number of healthier babies........
I emphatically agree with every part of your post except you are still missing the short term point of the APR. Exactly what I wanted to occur, did occur, the buck harvest was reduced this year. This means more deer on the ground and more bucks to breed does.
You failed to point out that doe permits were cut again in 2011, so the doe harvest was less in 2011 than in 2010. You also are not taking into account that when you remove doe permits you then force even more hunters to be buck hunters. So unless you do something to reduce the buck harvest, at the very time the herd needs a break, you are actually putting more pressure on bucks than when there were far more deer. Thus without doing something to save bucks, you will effectively reduce the buck/doe ratio. Please explain how this is not true!
There are some areas in these units that not only have far fewer deer, but the buck/doe ratio is already suffering. The APR will help prevent further deteriation of the buck/doe ratio. When and if the herds recover, this may need further review, but for the short term, the APR was effective at conserving bucks. No matter how you try to scew what you say, that fact cannot be ignored. Just sayin.....
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on February 01, 2012, 10:12:09 AM
Muleyguy so what would you really like to see happen. Shut the area down keep hunting it and kill everything since you don't think this will work.
I think this is the best thing that could ever happen in this area. We have had property in the Fruitland are since 94 and have family that owns property from Fruitland to Cediona that farm a lot of the property. I tell ya what it is sure nice to finally see bucks while we are hiking and driving around. Ya they are spikes and 2 points but be for this 4 point min came into affect we never seen that. I have driving HWY 25 a lot this winter and now I can count 15 to 20 bucks from Spokane res. to Kettle Falls. Ya maybe 20% are 3 1/2 year old buck but at least we are seeing the difference finally and this was the first year.
A lot of people can't tell what a 3 1/2 year old buck looks like and we are really talking about WT so half the time to can't really judge them in less you have them on trail cam or sitting in tree stand or ground blind.You know just like I know a lot of people run and gun them and you aren't going to shot a mature buck in less you are real lucky. A lot of people will see a 4pt main frame or a 3pt with eye guards and shot it. That isn't going to change people from hunting and shotting a 2 1/2 old buck.
I really didn't want to get involved in this debate but I just had to put my :twocents: in.
Thanks Brandon
But it really made the late hunt in the neighboring units a much lesser experience due to increased pressure early and late.
Post by: jdurham on February 01, 2012, 11:42:03 AM
Post by: muleyguy on February 01, 2012, 09:24:59 PM
Quote
This means more deer on the ground and more bucks to breed does.
you certainly put more 1.5 yr old bucks on the ground.......you most likely had less 2.5 yr old and older bucks on the ground because that was were the harvest was focused; so your rule increased the harvest of more mature bucks and decreased the harvest of 1.5 yr old bucks;
you indeed put more bucks on the ground, but they are the wrong kind of bucks; and unfortunately, every credible APR study in the country strongly suggests that all of the extra 1.5 yr old bucks you put on the ground this year will just get shot next year.
so, you increased the number of 1.5 yr old bucks breeding the does.......that is exactly what we DON"T want for the herds;
The buck to doe ratio's were certainly high enough to get all the does bred; nobody ever thought the buck to doe ratio was so low that there would be unbred does.
So, what you did was take out older age bucks, and replaced them with immature bucks, which every credible study suggests is not a positive for the deer herds when immature bucks breed the does.
Quote
You failed to point out that doe permits were cut again in 2011, so the doe harvest was less in 2011 than in 2010.
yup you cut them again, but, there were still plenty of does killed; most people have no concept of how populations can grow geometrically; even 100 extra does killed this year could result in 300 to 400 extra deer in a couple of years'
The dept squandered two years now with allowing doe harvests of any size; they should have cut it to zero last year and left it at zero this year; that is what I am talking about, you don't put a band aid on a heart attack;
Quote
You also are not taking into account that when you remove doe permits you then force even more hunters to be buck hunters.
EXACTLY!! now you are starting to understand......without doe permits, the harvest is focused on bucks! When you layer an APR onto units with no antlerless opportunities, you further "force" (your words) hunters onto mature bucks!!
Quote
Thus without doing something to save bucks, you will effectively reduce the buck/doe ratio. Please explain how this is not true!
EXACTLY true again! the difference between you and I is that I want to restrict buck harvest through a reduction in tag numbers, which will preserve the age structure of the population;
you want to restrict buck harvest through APR's, which only serve to stockpile immature bucks in the population and force them to do the breeding, which makes for unfit fawns.
My solution is the one that takes biology into account first, and hunter wants second......
Your solution is the one that takes biology into account second, and hunter wants first......
Your solution is why our herds continue to suffer, because nobody is willing to individually sacrifice........we all think we can have our cake and eat it too in this State;
You have stated over and over how this rule was put into place so "no hunter days would be lost". That is the exact problem;
Your solution (APR's) have a cost........and, when you cannot couple liberal antlerless seasons with an APR (which we can't) AND you do not cut hunter days, what do you think is going to happen?? You are going to have too much pressure on the mature bucks;
APR's only work when coupled with liberal antlerless harvests; if you cannot have an antlerless harvest, and you still want to have an APR; then you must cut hunter days!
That is the legacy of APR's in this state; since our state does not have productive herds, we cannot support antlerless harvests, so all the pressure is focused on bucks; when we have an APR with no antlerless, the only solution quickly becomes to cut hunter days because the pressure is all focused on mature bucks.
Your solution perputuates the problem of immature bucks doing the breeding, ever shorter hunting seasons, ever crowded seasons, and reduced hunter satisfaction. It is a failed policy;
My solution decreases numbers of hunters, but increases hunter days, and keeps the age structure of the population healthy which will make for healthier herds and more hunter satisfaction.
You are kidding yourself if you think you are ever going to get rid of APR's in 117 and 121..........Maverick very eloquently pointed this out........here is a guy who would normally be happy shooting 1.5 yr old deer; now that an APR is in place, he is shooting 2.5 yr and 3.5 yr old bucks and having the time of his life and telling everybody within shouting distance he is shooting "mature" bucks;
You think he is going to vote to go back???? nope........
We have had over 10 years in the Palouse region with APR's, and it is mostly private ground, one would think that if the APR's were going to produce many more "mature"bucks we would be seeing all kinds of 160 or better whitetail bucks showing up on this website........but, we don't........we get guys showing up with 130 class whitetails swearing up and down they are shooting mature bucks.
And, after 10 yrs of APR's in the Palouse, they still can't stretch the season out any longer then 9 days.........EVERY APR unit in this state ends up with very shortened seasons; that is the legacy
it is simply foolish thinking that you are ever going to get rid of them, and it is foolish thinking that you think you can maintain the same length of season in 117 and 121 with APR's;
You will never get rid of them, and, in the not too distant future, they will eliminate the general late buck hunt.
Bottom line is that it is an admirable goal to raise the buck to doe ratio; but, you need to raise it with mature bucks, not immature bucks; immature bucks doing the breeding just perpetuate the long term problem our deer herds are under
Post by: bearpaw on February 02, 2012, 05:20:57 AM
Quote
So, what you did was take out older age bucks, and replaced them with immature bucks, which every credible study suggests is not a positive for the deer herds when immature bucks breed the does.
I would like to see your proof that more mature bucks were killed this season than the previous season. My guides or I were hunting here nearly every day of the early and late season and there were so many fewer hunters that I am willing to bet you are making a false statement based solely on your personal beliefs.
Quote
even 100 extra does killed this year could result in 300 to 400 extra deer in a couple of years'
Quote
EXACTLY!! now you are starting to understand......without doe permits, the harvest is focused on bucks! When you layer an APR onto units with no antlerless opportunities, you further "force" (your words) hunters onto mature bucks!!
Quote
Your solution is the one that takes biology into account second, and hunter wants first......
Totally agree that if 100 does were killed that was too many. But we used to have thousands of doe tags in these units, this year there were only 25. So the rifle hunters who used to hunt those does would now have to hunt bucks or go elsewhere. With the 4 pt rule, many decided to go elsewhere. I will restate my position, this year the goal of putting more bucks on the ground was accomplished. I also think fewer mature bucks were killed than the previous year, because of less hunting pressure, but I have not verified that.
The APR actually took biologuy into account first because we want to improve the herd numbers. The APR secondly provides days in the field (opportunity) that your preferred methods would not offer.
I think you need to reconsider your personnal bias on this issue. The balance of NE WA is still any buck the way you seem like it. The east Okanogan has limited entry for late whitetail hunting and is any buck, the way you seem to prefer.
Southeast WA with APR seems to make many people happy who think there is a better age class of deer than before, except for you and maybe a couple others who are unilaterally opposed to APR whether it works or not. I still say I think you are afraid that APR will work in 117/121.
I am willing to look at APR in 5 years and I am big enough to admit if it failed or if it is only a good short term fix and I will be happy if it succeeds as both a short term and long term fix. But honestly, the science of it working or not working in these units is totally unknown until the 5 year trial is complete and data is compared. Anyone saying it will or will not work is simply speaking out of personnal bias because it has never been tried in Washington in the same type of environment. I will stand by what I said before, "Science is learned by conducting controlled experiments, if you don't experiment you will never learn anything new."
Post by: grundy53 on February 02, 2012, 05:26:53 AM
Just because people started hunting mature deer doesn't mean they were successful at it. It's not like it's a cake walk to kill a mature whitetail. You make it sound like people were were shooting 1.5 year old deer because that was better then shooting a 4.5 year old deer. No they were shooting those 1.5 year old deer because they COULDN'T shoot those 4.5 year old deer. Now that there are APR in that unit they all of the sudden became better hunters? I doubt it.QuoteThis means more deer on the ground and more bucks to breed does.
you certainly put more 1.5 yr old bucks on the ground.......you most likely had less 2.5 yr old and older bucks on the ground because that was were the harvest was focused; so your rule increased the harvest of more mature bucks and decreased the harvest of 1.5 yr old bucks;
you indeed put more bucks on the ground, but they are the wrong kind of bucks; and unfortunately, every credible APR study in the country strongly suggests that all of the extra 1.5 yr old bucks you put on the ground this year will just get shot next year.
so, you increased the number of 1.5 yr old bucks breeding the does.......that is exactly what we DON"T want for the herds;
The buck to doe ratio's were certainly high enough to get all the does bred; nobody ever thought the buck to doe ratio was so low that there would be unbred does.
So, what you did was take out older age bucks, and replaced them with immature bucks, which every credible study suggests is not a positive for the deer herds when immature bucks breed the does.QuoteYou failed to point out that doe permits were cut again in 2011, so the doe harvest was less in 2011 than in 2010.
yup you cut them again, but, there were still plenty of does killed; most people have no concept of how populations can grow geometrically; even 100 extra does killed this year could result in 300 to 400 extra deer in a couple of years'
The dept squandered two years now with allowing doe harvests of any size; they should have cut it to zero last year and left it at zero this year; that is what I am talking about, you don't put a band aid on a heart attack;QuoteYou also are not taking into account that when you remove doe permits you then force even more hunters to be buck hunters.
EXACTLY!! now you are starting to understand......without doe permits, the harvest is focused on bucks! When you layer an APR onto units with no antlerless opportunities, you further "force" (your words) hunters onto mature bucks!!QuoteThus without doing something to save bucks, you will effectively reduce the buck/doe ratio. Please explain how this is not true!
EXACTLY true again! the difference between you and I is that I want to restrict buck harvest through a reduction in tag numbers, which will preserve the age structure of the population;
you want to restrict buck harvest through APR's, which only serve to stockpile immature bucks in the population and force them to do the breeding, which makes for unfit fawns.
My solution is the one that takes biology into account first, and hunter wants second......
Your solution is the one that takes biology into account second, and hunter wants first......
Your solution is why our herds continue to suffer, because nobody is willing to individually sacrifice........we all think we can have our cake and eat it too in this State;
You have stated over and over how this rule was put into place so "no hunter days would be lost". That is the exact problem;
Your solution (APR's) have a cost........and, when you cannot couple liberal antlerless seasons with an APR (which we can't) AND you do not cut hunter days, what do you think is going to happen?? You are going to have too much pressure on the mature bucks;
APR's only work when coupled with liberal antlerless harvests; if you cannot have an antlerless harvest, and you still want to have an APR; then you must cut hunter days!
That is the legacy of APR's in this state; since our state does not have productive herds, we cannot support antlerless harvests, so all the pressure is focused on bucks; when we have an APR with no antlerless, the only solution quickly becomes to cut hunter days because the pressure is all focused on mature bucks.
Your solution perputuates the problem of immature bucks doing the breeding, ever shorter hunting seasons, ever crowded seasons, and reduced hunter satisfaction. It is a failed policy;
My solution decreases numbers of hunters, but increases hunter days, and keeps the age structure of the population healthy which will make for healthier herds and more hunter satisfaction.
You are kidding yourself if you think you are ever going to get rid of APR's in 117 and 121..........Maverick very eloquently pointed this out........here is a guy who would normally be happy shooting 1.5 yr old deer; now that an APR is in place, he is shooting 2.5 yr and 3.5 yr old bucks and having the time of his life and telling everybody within shouting distance he is shooting "mature" bucks;
You think he is going to vote to go back???? nope........
We have had over 10 years in the Palouse region with APR's, and it is mostly private ground, one would think that if the APR's were going to produce many more "mature"bucks we would be seeing all kinds of 160 or better whitetail bucks showing up on this website........but, we don't........we get guys showing up with 130 class whitetails swearing up and down they are shooting mature bucks.
And, after 10 yrs of APR's in the Palouse, they still can't stretch the season out any longer then 9 days.........EVERY APR unit in this state ends up with very shortened seasons; that is the legacy
it is simply foolish thinking that you are ever going to get rid of them, and it is foolish thinking that you think you can maintain the same length of season in 117 and 121 with APR's;
You will never get rid of them, and, in the not too distant future, they will eliminate the general late buck hunt.
Bottom line is that it is an admirable goal to raise the buck to doe ratio; but, you need to raise it with mature bucks, not immature bucks; immature bucks doing the breeding just perpetuate the long term problem our deer herds are under
Post by: huntnnw on February 02, 2012, 05:36:00 AM
Post by: bearpaw on February 02, 2012, 05:52:23 AM
if the state was serious about deer management for whities it would be for either sex for them. But a big hell no they would lose way too much in the almighty special permit apps
I'm not sure our herd could handle the pressure. I think everyone in the state with an unfilled tag would fill their tag on a whitetail doe. :dunno:
Post by: huntnnw on February 02, 2012, 06:14:51 AM
Post by: jdurham on February 02, 2012, 09:16:15 AM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 02, 2012, 12:05:40 PM
"Science is learned by conducting controlled experiments, if you don't experiment you will never learn anything new."
In that case, you should be happy with the wolf experiment.
Post by: Dhoey07 on February 02, 2012, 12:19:53 PM
Post by: blackveltbowhunter on February 02, 2012, 12:24:58 PM
"Science is learned by conducting controlled experiments, if you don't experiment you will never learn anything new."
In that case, you should be happy with the wolf experiment.
Except its no longer an experiment. We can draw some conclusions.
Post by: buckfvr on February 02, 2012, 12:49:03 PM
QuoteMuleyguy so what would you really like to see happen. Shut the area down keep hunting it and kill everything since you don't think this will work.
what I would like to see is a draw only for the entire State; that way you can manage the herd, age structure, and buck to doe ratio how it needs to be handled for this State, given its high population base, small land base and large amounts of predators and periodic winter kills; in the long run, that is the only answer;
The last 20 yrs of management in this State has been focused on open general tags with no restrictions on hunter numbers; and, when the population gets into trouble we run to APR's; the populations still doesn't recover, and they continually shorten the season to get better buck escapement. Problem is, without corresponding cuts in tags, it just forces more hunters into the unit in those given days;
the result is high hunter pressure, no better buck escapement, and extremely poor quality of experience; If you restricted tag numbers enough to get a 1/3 reduction in buck harvest you could lengthen out the season dramatically, have much better age structure, increase buck to doe ratio's, and provide a high quality experience; all this, for basically giving up the right to hunt 1 out of 3 years;
Those are the kind of hard decisions that need to be made to recover our deer herds; this idea in this state that it is a god given right for everybody to hunt every year is driving the quality of the hunting and the quality of the experience into the toilet!
Our mule deer seasons are down to 9 days in the middle of October with APR's and there are literally 10,000 of thousands of hunters in the field at the same time; with a 20% success rate on 2.5 yr old 18" basket racked 2x3 being the avg harvest.
The end result of the APR's in 117 and 121 will be that they will be with us forever; and, not too far down the road, you will end up losing the late season in these units also; That is the legacy of APR's in this state. You will lose the late season because there will be too much pressure on the mature buck population.
Project forward 20 yrs when your grandkids are hunting.......there will be hundreds of thousands of more people in this state, more hunting pressure, more encroachment into the rural areas by people putting more pressure on habitat, more poaching, etc. Does anybody here honestly think we are going to be to continue this "management" of just letting everybody hunt and no restrictions on tag levels??
Were going to be down to 5 day seasons at this pace!!
How about this for an idea:
1. 1/3 less tags; resulting in getting to hunt 2 out of 3 yrs
2. 4 week deer season from mid october until the 1st week of november
3. No APR's;
something along these lines would boost the herd, spread out the hunting pressure, and would increase the experience exponentially from what it is now.
Imagine bringing your kids and family out hunting 2 out of 3 years, seeing lots of bucks, seeing good numbers of mature bucks, having much fewer people in the woods, and lots of weekends to choose from to take them hunting and spend time; and, your son or daughter, or your 75 yr old grandfather can actually have a better then 2% chance of harvesting a buck.
Contrast that with what we have now, where sure, we get to go hunting every year, but we have drastically shortened seasons in the Middle of october with unlimited amounts of people (idiots) running all over in the field, and, almost no chance of success for your son or daughter or 75 yr old grandfather; Bucks getting shot out from underneath you, people cutting you off, camping in your spot, etc, etc
The bottom line is in this State, we have choosen to try and use APR's and shortened seasons so everybody can continue to hunt unrestricted; this has been going on for some time, and the herds continue to struggle, and the quality of the experience continues to decline. These are failed policies; its time to go another direction: fewer tags, longer seasons, no APR's
your trying to put a band-aid on a heart attack...................
SO....less hunters, longer season, higher success, which obviously to you equals better experience......with higher success, it might just be wed see the same number of deer killed each year by fewer hunters.....back to starting line...... this whole idea is unfounded and mere speculation....sounds good to some, not so good to others. Im glad you're not the boss.
Post by: bearpaw on February 03, 2012, 12:47:53 PM
"Science is learned by conducting controlled experiments, if you don't experiment you will never learn anything new."
In that case, you should be happy with the wolf experiment.
That was a clever try Sitka.... :tup: :chuckle:
Let me say this about the "wolf experiment": Wolves are no longer an experiment. It has been documented in Alaska and Canada that unregulated wolf populations destroy moose and caribou herds. It has been documented in the lower 48 that unregulated wolf populations destroy elk/deer/moose populations.
Wolves are no longer an experiment, the proof is in, wolf numbers must be heavily managed to prevent the destruction of the very herds "they" and "we" depend on.
Post by: Maverick on February 03, 2012, 03:48:02 PM
Post by: Fowlweather25 on February 03, 2012, 04:18:58 PM
Post by: buckfvr on February 03, 2012, 04:31:26 PM
Post by: bearpaw on February 03, 2012, 04:33:16 PM
If muleyguy gets his way, then you all can all go to Idaho to hunt when you can't get a tag in Washington. Even with all the great deer herds those other states like Nev & AZ have, residents get to hunt roughly once every 2 to 6 years. Nevada hunters are some of my best clients becuase they rarely get to hunt at home.
Just food for thought before you jump on the limited-entry bandwagon.... some limited-entry is good, but it can really suck too. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on February 03, 2012, 04:38:22 PM
I dont think that would happen..alot of guys hunt for bucks only... then some want to meat in the freezer and blast a young buck on the last weekend when many would shoot a doe instead if they had the choice. ID has been very liberal with their whitetail seasons and the herd does just fine in ID..hunting pressure less? maybe alot of public land to be hunted there as opposed to a ton of private land here in NE WA
Eastman's did a survey of hunter satisfaction with western big game management, Idaho came in a distant last place.
Post by: Fowlweather25 on February 03, 2012, 05:00:57 PM
Post by: KopperBuck on February 03, 2012, 06:57:23 PM
I dont think that would happen..alot of guys hunt for bucks only... then some want to meat in the freezer and blast a young buck on the last weekend when many would shoot a doe instead if they had the choice. ID has been very liberal with their whitetail seasons and the herd does just fine in ID..hunting pressure less? maybe alot of public land to be hunted there as opposed to a ton of private land here in NE WA
Eastman's did a survey of hunter satisfaction with western big game management, Idaho came in a distant last place.
Would this be to their recent price hike? Oregon and Washington are soon to follow. Washington is rarely on Eastman's radar anyways...
Post by: bearpaw on February 03, 2012, 07:04:38 PM
I guess I don't understand how having apr for and extended amount of time breeds quality bucks? The only buck you can kill are the ones that need to be alive and breeding! Thatsvwhy when you go on a MANAGEMENT hunt you're only allowed to kill up to a certain sized buck, because the right thing to do is keep the big mature bucks in the breeding cycle and manage the smaller odd balls and genetically lacking bucks as well as the old dried up bucks.
There are several topics on the forum that cover most of the issues for and against. Not sure what you mean, are you saying you want management hunts in WA?
Post by: Archeryoutfitters on February 03, 2012, 07:43:27 PM
I guess I don't understand how having apr for and extended amount of time breeds quality bucks? The only buck you can kill are the ones that need to be alive and breeding! Thatsvwhy when you go on a MANAGEMENT hunt you're only allowed to kill up to a certain sized buck, because the right thing to do is keep the big mature bucks in the breeding cycle and manage the smaller odd balls and genetically lacking bucks as well as the old dried up bucks.The idea is to let the baby's grow up and not shot them, letting them get wiser, so more live to that mature deer we all like to kill. and then their wisdom keeps them alive. This is a little different than hunting on a farm or ranch, were you get in trouble for shooting a 140+ you have no way of killing all the big bucks, there is far to much habitat in then 2 units to ever do that, just by letting them grow from that baby stage, far more will die of old age now, and the does will get bread on time. Every 2-1/2 3-1/2 4-1/2 5-1/2 and so will be legal to shoot? all it's doing is letting the baby's grow out of that stupid stage.
Post by: Maverick on February 03, 2012, 08:20:57 PM
Post by: Fowlweather25 on February 03, 2012, 08:33:06 PM
no, that was an example, what I'm saying is personally I would like to see some of those mature bucks being able to spread their genetic strong points a little more instead of being targeted even more than before the 4 pt min was implemented.I guess I don't understand how having apr for and extended amount of time breeds quality bucks? The only buck you can kill are the ones that need to be alive and breeding! Thatsvwhy when you go on a MANAGEMENT hunt you're only allowed to kill up to a certain sized buck, because the right thing to do is keep the big mature bucks in the breeding cycle and manage the smaller odd balls and genetically lacking bucks as well as the old dried up bucks.
There are several topics on the forum that cover most of the issues for and against. Not sure what you mean, are you saying you want management hunts in WA?
Post by: Archeryoutfitters on February 04, 2012, 08:44:18 AM
:yeah: that makes sense!no, that was an example, what I'm saying is personally I would like to see some of those mature bucks being able to spread their genetic strong points a little more instead of being targeted even more than before the 4 pt min was implemented.I guess I don't understand how having apr for and extended amount of time breeds quality bucks? The only buck you can kill are the ones that need to be alive and breeding! Thatsvwhy when you go on a MANAGEMENT hunt you're only allowed to kill up to a certain sized buck, because the right thing to do is keep the big mature bucks in the breeding cycle and manage the smaller odd balls and genetically lacking bucks as well as the old dried up bucks.There are several topics on the forum that cover most of the issues for and against. Not sure what you mean, are you saying you want management hunts in WA?
they will because there will be a lot more of them running around now than before, all the little ones will get a chance to grow up now, and far more will make it to adult hood now, Than ever before.
Post by: Fowlweather25 on February 04, 2012, 08:46:02 AM
Post by: Archeryoutfitters on February 04, 2012, 09:10:45 AM
:yeah: that makes sense!no, that was an example, what I'm saying is personally I would like to see some of those mature bucks being able to spread their genetic strong points a little more instead of being targeted even more than before the 4 pt min was implemented.I guess I don't understand how having apr for and extended amount of time breeds quality bucks? The only buck you can kill are the ones that need to be alive and breeding! Thatsvwhy when you go on a MANAGEMENT hunt you're only allowed to kill up to a certain sized buck, because the right thing to do is keep the big mature bucks in the breeding cycle and manage the smaller odd balls and genetically lacking bucks as well as the old dried up bucks.There are several topics on the forum that cover most of the issues for and against. Not sure what you mean, are you saying you want management hunts in WA?
they will because there will be a lot more of them running around now than before, all the little ones will get a chance to grow up now, and far more will make it to adult hood now, Than ever before.
I see what your saying, and its true, they will be more targeted.(but there will be a lot more of them now) or would you rather see the baby's targeted who don't have a chance, or the since to move into the brush after day light. or would you rather see the mature, deer grow a little before he is shot, we will see a large increase in the #s of mature bucks running around now, and they will be twice as hard to harvest so twice as many will live.
Post by: muleyguy on February 04, 2012, 12:02:34 PM
Quote
The idea is to let the baby's grow up and not shot them, letting them get wiser, so more live to that mature deer we all like to kill. and then their wisdom keeps them alive.
no data supports this thesis; In PA, after 10 yrs of APR's the data shows that most of the bucks just get shot 1 yr later, with a few making it to 3.5 yr olds; AND, that is with 60% of the hunter population shooting does, thereby taking the pressure off of the bucks; there has been no explosion of 4.5 yr old bucks and better in PA after 10 yrs, just like there hasn't been any explosion in 4.5 yr old bucks in the Palouse either with APR's.
Quote
Muley guy you act like because there is an Apr every mature buck will be ed and there will be nothing left but 1.5 year old bucks. Not true. According to you all the nice bucks we shot were 3.5 year olds. We saw some others the same size meaning theyll be 4.5 next year. Just cause there is an apr and hunters have to be concentrated on older bucks doesn't mean all the older bucks get shot. Not every one tags out and those bucks don't get older by being stupid. There's even plenty of 2.5 year olds that make it to be 3.5 years old this year. The Apr works. The herds wouldn't be able to handle any deer. And why would anybody wabt to hunt 2 out of three here's. A better percentage of hunters would probly tag out but I'm not out there to just tag out. Im out there to hunt.
where to start......at least you are coming to grips with the fact that the bucks you harvested are indeed 2.5 yr and 3.5 yr old bucks.......so that is progress. The reason APR's will be so problematic in 117 and 121 vs the Palouse units is as follows:
In the Palouse, you have much lower hunting pressure then 117 and 121, and almost ALL of the whitetails are located on private ground; plus you have NO general late season tag;
In addition, ALL of the APR's in Eastern US have huge antlerless options with them; we can't provide that option in this State;
All of the above I have stated is fact; not specualtion;
In PA and the other Eastern States where they have had APR's for many years, the data is pretty straightforward; 75% of the bucks get shot at 2.5 yrs old; and, the vast majority of the remaining 25% being shot when they are 3.5 yr olds; Some states back there are seeing a very, very small increase in recruitment into the 4.5 yr old class;
BUT, this recruitment is entirely due to the fact that a large percentage of the harvest pressure is focused on antlerless;
In the Palouse, you have had APR's for 10 yrs; there has not been some huge increase in harvest of 4.5 yr old bucks; I hunted the Palouse for many years before the APR, and have hunted many years since, and know what is being harvested out of there now; There are no increases in 4.5 yr old bucks coming out of the Palouse vs before the APR regardless of what you think you are seeing, and, in fact, my guess is that there are fewer of them then before the APR.
What is happening in the Palouse though because of the shortened season, and high amount of private ground, is that a few more bucks are making it out the 2.5 yr old class and into the 3.5 yr old class; this is due to the lower hunter pressure, high amount of private ground, and short general season hunt in October.
I would completely expect that there would be few more 3.5 yr old bucks; that makes sense given the season length, private ground, etc. But, even with all this, there still is not any big increase in 4.5 yr old bucks; so, the effects of the APR are muted somewhat; still negative, but muted a little; at least a few more bucks are getting to 3.5, but, still all of them getting shot.
Now lets contrast that with 117 and 121..................probably triple the hunting pressure, highly concentrated on public ground; and, to boot, a late general season during the rut, no antlerless option for general season tags........
the mature buck part of the population will be under HUGE amounts of pressure from this........especially on public ground........
I have two predictions and I am willing to publically state them:
1. You will never get rid of APR's in these units
2. You will in the not too distant future lose the late general hunt.
3. It will not improve the health or productivity of the herd
This is the legacy of EVERY APR in this State; there is no reason to expect it will be any different with this one
Post by: muleyguy on February 04, 2012, 01:04:50 PM
Quote
I would like to see your proof that more mature bucks were killed this season than the previous season.
we will find out when the hunter surveys are done..........my guess is that this year, due to the lower hunting pressure (which just pushed the hunters somewhere else putting more pressure on some other deer herd) that about the same number of 4pt and 5pt+ whitetails were killed as last year; when it comes out, we will know for sure;
But, it is totally expected that hunter numbers would be down this year because the rule outlawed the biggest component of the buck population; but, fear not, they will be back next year.........it really is pretty sad management in this state when one local user group gets a rule changed so they force a bunch of hunter pressure on other local user groups in neighboring units.........
But, we will find out where the harvest was soon enough; wait until 2012 hunting season when all these hunters come rushing back..............
In the meantime, here is some simple math that illustrates the problem:
Preseason:
100 total deer; 30 of them bucks; brokeout in age this way
15 1.5 yr olds
6 2.5 yr olds
4 3.5 yr olds
5 4.5 yr old and older
so, in this mix 50% of the bucks in the population are 1.5 yr old
Postseason:
lets say 10 bucks were shot because hunter pressure was temporarily 1 yr lower because of APR; for a postseason buck to doe ratio of 20 to 100, and because of the APR, those 10 bucks are 2.5 yr old and older;
you now have 15 out of the 20 postseason bucks being 1.5 yr old; or put into percentage terms, 75% of the bucks postseason are now 1.5 yrs old
So, now the makeup of the buck population going into breeding season is:
75% 1.5 yr olds; and 25% 2.5 yr old or older
15 bucks 1.5 yr old; 5 bucks 2.5 yr old or older
Now, lets look at no APR, same situation:
Preseason
15 1.5 yr olds
6 2.5 yr olds
4 3.5 yr olds
5 4.5 yr olds or older
lets say 15 bucks are harvested because of increased harvest pressure with no APR;
EVERY hunting study shows that yearling bucks make up about 85% of the harvest; so, lets just say 10 of the bucks were 1.5 yr old; with the rest (5) being in the 2.5 yr and older category;
Postseason:
33% bucks post harvest are 1.5 yr old; 66% bucks are 2.5 yr old and older;
5 bucks 1.5 yr old ; 10 bucks 2.5 yr old or older
So, is it that hard to understand how it works???
You stockpiled 1.5 yr old deer in the population with the APR, dramatically increasing the odds that these bucks will be successful in breeding does.
You did indeed end up with 5 "more" bucks in the population because of the APR this first year, BUT when hunting pressure normalizes next year they will just all get shot at 2.5 yr old;
The above scenario will be how it plays out year after year after year; every year, there will be a big percentage wise stockpile of 1.5 yr old bucks in the population thereby skewing the postseason age structure to lower age animals AND over the long run you will get no better recruitment into the upper age classes which ALL of the research tells us.
Another one of the "big" things you are missing is that in most Eastern US states , the bulk of the buck harvest occurs AFTER breeding season; so, at least in these situations the age structure of the population is not as bad going into the breeding season as it is here with the APR; another crucial component that somebody in their research failed to understand about adapting these APR's to our population.
Once again, you did increase the amount of bucks in the population this year, I have no doubt about that, but, you did it at the expense of causing major havoc to the postseason age of the buck makeup of he populaition; and, all the research says that these additional bucks will just get harvested the next year, with just a very few making it to 3.5 yr old;
This is WHY the biologist were against this whole scheme.......it permanantly skews the age class lower for breeding season
You could have fixed this whole thing in these units by a little patience and being a little quicker on some management; you got two horrible winter losses in a row; so, it is not a mystery why things are bad;
instead of doing a knee jerk reaction like APR's you could have instantly eliminated doe tags the first year and every year since; and, put a sunset 2 or 3 yr restriction on the late general season; you would have protected all the does and protected some bucks; and, the whole thing could have been better fairly quickly with just a little patience;
instead, you have done permanent damage to the herd with a rule that will never get changed;
you do not understand what you have uncorked................you will never get this rule changed............because when you want it changed, people like Maverick are going to throw a fit........
is this APR going to destroy the NE whitetail herd?? no, it will be fine, but, you will do damage to it through this regulation, and, will end up with a herd that spits out a bunch of 2.5 yr old bucks to harvest while at the same time causing breeding problems and, a long term damage to the 4.5 yr old population, with most likely, a loss of the late season and a 9 day hunt.
EVERY APR that has been put in this state was supposed to be "temporary".........I have yet to see one of them repealed.......maybe you and your landowner buddies do have the WDFW wrapped around your finger and can get rid of it in 5 yrs; I hope so.........
Post by: jdurham on February 04, 2012, 02:50:15 PM
As an Idaho and Washington outfitter, I hear all the time how great the hunting is, I get phone calls from hunters in states like Arizona or Nevada all the time, "We just want to go hunting, we can't draw a tag in our state." and they book a trip in Idaho or Washington.
If muleyguy gets his way, then you all can all go to Idaho to hunt when you can't get a tag in Washington. Even with all the great deer herds those other states like Nev & AZ have, residents get to hunt roughly once every 2 to 6 years. Nevada hunters are some of my best clients becuase they rarely get to hunt at home.
Just food for thought before you jump on the limited-entry bandwagon.... some limited-entry is good, but it can really suck too. :twocents:
:tup: Very good point you made! Not getting to hunt every year would be the pits! When I miss a season they will be shoveling dirt on my face!
Post by: Archeryoutfitters on February 04, 2012, 08:01:23 PM
QuoteThe idea is to let the baby's grow up and not shot them, letting them get wiser, so more live to that mature deer we all like to kill. and then their wisdom keeps them alive.
no data supports this thesis; In PA, after 10 yrs of APR's the data shows that most of the bucks just get shot 1 yr later, with a few making it to 3.5 yr olds; AND, that is with 60% of the hunter population shooting does, thereby taking the pressure off of the bucks; there has been no explosion of 4.5 yr old bucks and better in PA after 10 yrs, just like there hasn't been any explosion in 4.5 yr old bucks in the Palouse either with APR's.QuoteMuley guy you act like because there is an Apr every mature buck will be ed and there will be nothing left but 1.5 year old bucks. Not true. According to you all the nice bucks we shot were 3.5 year olds. We saw some others the same size meaning theyll be 4.5 next year. Just cause there is an apr and hunters have to be concentrated on older bucks doesn't mean all the older bucks get shot. Not every one tags out and those bucks don't get older by being stupid. There's even plenty of 2.5 year olds that make it to be 3.5 years old this year. The Apr works. The herds wouldn't be able to handle any deer. And why would anybody wabt to hunt 2 out of three here's. A better percentage of hunters would probly tag out but I'm not out there to just tag out. Im out there to hunt.
where to start......at least you are coming to grips with the fact that the bucks you harvested are indeed 2.5 yr and 3.5 yr old bucks.......so that is progress. The reason APR's will be so problematic in 117 and 121 vs the Palouse units is as follows:
In the Palouse, you have much lower hunting pressure then 117 and 121, and almost ALL of the whitetails are located on private ground; plus you have NO general late season tag;
In addition, ALL of the APR's in Eastern US have huge antlerless options with them; we can't provide that option in this State;
All of the above I have stated is fact; not specualtion;
In PA and the other Eastern States where they have had APR's for many years, the data is pretty straightforward; 75% of the bucks get shot at 2.5 yrs old; and, the vast majority of the remaining 25% being shot when they are 3.5 yr olds; Some states back there are seeing a very, very small increase in recruitment into the 4.5 yr old class;
BUT, this recruitment is entirely due to the fact that a large percentage of the harvest pressure is focused on antlerless;
In the Palouse, you have had APR's for 10 yrs; there has not been some huge increase in harvest of 4.5 yr old bucks; I hunted the Palouse for many years before the APR, and have hunted many years since, and know what is being harvested out of there now; There are no increases in 4.5 yr old bucks coming out of the Palouse vs before the APR regardless of what you think you are seeing, and, in fact, my guess is that there are fewer of them then before the APR.
What is happening in the Palouse though because of the shortened season, and high amount of private ground, is that a few more bucks are making it out the 2.5 yr old class and into the 3.5 yr old class; this is due to the lower hunter pressure, high amount of private ground, and short general season hunt in October.
I would completely expect that there would be few more 3.5 yr old bucks; that makes sense given the season length, private ground, etc. But, even with all this, there still is not any big increase in 4.5 yr old bucks; so, the effects of the APR are muted somewhat; still negative, but muted a little; at least a few more bucks are getting to 3.5, but, still all of them getting shot.
Now lets contrast that with 117 and 121..................probably triple the hunting pressure, highly concentrated on public ground; and, to boot, a late general season during the rut, no antlerless option for general season tags........
the mature buck part of the population will be under HUGE amounts of pressure from this........especially on public ground........
I have two predictions and I am willing to publically state them:
1. You will never get rid of APR's in these units
2. You will in the not too distant future lose the late general hunt.
3. It will not improve the health or productivity of the herd
This is the legacy of EVERY APR in this State; there is no reason to expect it will be any different with this one
no data supports this thesis;
I'm not sure if there is or isn't any date. but it is obvious that if a deer is a year older and out of that baby/stupid stage he will be a little wiser, I live in the woods its sad but i spend more time there than i do at my own home with my family, so to tell me there isn't no data? i would like to think us as hunter could use a little common sense and open our eyes and see what is really going on out there data is what a person puts on paper to benefit them or there interests, it is great to use as a tool but to live by it. every piece of the country is different and every GMU in this state is also different from one to the next trying to compare a GMU south of Spokane to one north of Spokane? open country w/ 1/4 the deer PSM as a fertile farm land valleys surrounded by thick timber and old clear-cuts?
A fact a 2-1/2 year old deer will be older and wiser and bigger and not as easily killed as a 1-1/2 year old that is still hanging out with mom and sister? this is a no brainier. and if we kill them at 2-1/2 well at least we got more meat out of it?
I have no problem with the deer herd we have hear now in these 2 units, but our predators are out of control and when you see spots still in late December there is some thing wrong, it hasn't been tried in NE Wa. so lets try and time will tell. :)
Post by: turkey slayer on February 04, 2012, 08:11:08 PM
Post by: bearpaw on February 05, 2012, 08:35:16 AM
Year 2003
121.....45/100
121.....19/100
117.....20/100
Average...28/100 in 2003
Year 2006
121-1...13/100
121-2...16/100
117......23/100
Average...17/100 in 2006
Year 2009
121-1...15/100
121-2...35/100
117.......7/100
Average...19/100 in 2009
Age structure of whitetail bucks brought through check stations in Colville District over 5 year period 2005-2009.
Year 2005.........100
Yearlings...........48...48%
Age 2.5.............24...24%
Age 3.5.............13...13%
Age 4.5..............5.....5%
Age 5.5+..........10...10%
Year 2006.........115 (last year with complete data)
Yearlings...........51...44%
Age 2.5.............33...29%
Age 3.5.............13...11%
Age 4.5.............10....9%
Age 5.5+............8.....7%
Year 2007.........64 (last year with complete data)
Yearlings...........22...35%
Age 2.5.............20...31%
Age 3.5.............13...20%
Age 4.5..............4.....6%
Age 5.5+............5.....8%
Year 2008.........41 (last year with complete data)
Yearlings...........18...44%
Age 2.5.............11...28%
Age 3.5..............6...15%
Age 4.5..............3.....8%
Age 5.5+............2.....6%
Year 2009.........35 (last year provided with partial data)
Yearlings............9...26%
Age 2.5.............
Age 3.5..............
Age 4.5..............
Age 5.5+............
I don't know if it's true, but I heard less than 20 bucks were checked this last season.
Post by: Archeryoutfitters on February 05, 2012, 11:32:57 AM
Those #s u posted make perfect sense to me % harvested has to do with the age and there intelligence or smarts of the deer.
I can tell you from all the trail cam's I run 50+ that there is far more mature bucks out there, than there is small ones, there just nocturnal for the most part. prob 3 or 4 to one mature over yearlings by mature i mean 3-1/2 +
Post by: bearpaw on February 05, 2012, 12:32:20 PM
I see in the new proposal they want to limit the fall bear hunt, restrict the number of cougar that can be taken by boot hunters, and make it harder to legally kill a coyote.
Post by: Archeryoutfitters on February 05, 2012, 01:17:25 PM
Right now there are so many predators that a fawn is very lucky to make it to adulthood.i like to try to find good or positiveness in what there doing. we have a real predator problem here and i think bears are probably at the top of the list rite now? i saw 27 different ones last season just driving around? 4 diffident ones in one day? it would be sad to see that happen :'(
I see in the new proposal they want to limit the fall bear hunt, restrict the number of cougar that can be taken by boot hunters, and make it harder to legally kill a coyote.
Post by: Fowlweather25 on February 05, 2012, 01:24:37 PM
Right now there are so many predators that a fawn is very lucky to make it to adulthood.I'm with you Dale! I'm gonna start huntin in other states with you! :chuckle: I'm so fed up with the liberal morons in wdfw! It getting to the point that it would be worth the out of state expense to not have to put up with this crap! No matter which way you slice the 4 pt minimum, for every smart thing they do there are ten things they are bending us over for!
I see in the new proposal they want to limit the fall bear hunt, restrict the number of cougar that can be taken by boot hunters, and make it harder to legally kill a coyote.
Post by: huntnnw on February 06, 2012, 12:29:49 AM
Right now there are so many predators that a fawn is very lucky to make it to adulthood.i like to try to find good or positiveness in what there doing. we have a real predator problem here and i think bears are probably at the top of the list rite now? i saw 27 different ones last season just driving around? 4 diffident ones in one day? it would be sad to see that happen :'(
I see in the new proposal they want to limit the fall bear hunt, restrict the number of cougar that can be taken by boot hunters, and make it harder to legally kill a coyote.
Where we bear hunt up in 105.... on avg in 5 days of hunting we will see 12-17 different bears and maybe a few deer...that is alot of glassing some "once" productive areas for both mulies and whiteys. Winters in this area are not bad and deer have a easy option to get down low
Post by: huntnnw on February 06, 2012, 12:46:01 AM
I dont think that would happen..alot of guys hunt for bucks only... then some want to meat in the freezer and blast a young buck on the last weekend when many would shoot a doe instead if they had the choice. ID has been very liberal with their whitetail seasons and the herd does just fine in ID..hunting pressure less? maybe alot of public land to be hunted there as opposed to a ton of private land here in NE WA
Eastman's did a survey of hunter satisfaction with western big game management, Idaho came in a distant last place.
Well what I am talking about is the northern whitetail herd.... that whole study of people was 99% pissed of about the mule deer herd and mostly southern ID
Post by: muleyguy on February 06, 2012, 09:23:13 PM
Quote
no data supports this thesis;
I'm not sure if there is or isn't any date. but it is obvious that if a deer is a year older and out of that baby/stupid stage he will be a little wiser,
Taken from the Pennsylvania Game Commission:
Quote
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.
you must be saying that whitetail deer in WA are "smarter" then Pennyslvania whitetail deer??? Do you have data to back up your claim that whitetails in WA are smarter then whitetails in PA??
Data taken from QDM and PA and Missouri Game Departments:
Quote
Pennsylvania instituted its antler restrictions largely as a result of an extremely low buck-to-doe ratio and a disproportionately low number of mature bucks. There was also some concern among hunters over the lack of quality bucks. By drastically increasing the doe harvest through increases in permits and by cutting down on the buck harvest, biologists have been able to bring the herd into better balance.
Quote
Over the past 15 years I have helped establish antlerless harvest goals for numerous properties throughout the country. In almost all cases, I have recommended goals well above those previously established. Often, shortly after my goals are announced, the room becomes quiet as the hunters quickly do the math and realize the enormity of the task at hand. Occasionally, I’ll even get the question, “I know we need to take a lot of does now, but when can we stop killing so many?” As most serious QDM practitioners realize, this day never comes.
Quote
QDM in Pennsylvania — 2002
The 2002 deer season was designed to decrease buck harvest and increase antlerless harvest. The PGC also allocated more than 1 million antlerless licenses, or approximately 150,000 more than the previous record in 1991.
Quote
Since 2004 we have been testing an Antler Point Restriction in 29 Missouri counties to see if it would reduce the percentage of does in the deer population. The APR requires a buck to have at least 4 points on one side to be legal. The restriction applied to the archery season and all portions of the firearms season except the youth portion. The expectation was that restricting the bucks that could be taken would promote a larger doe harvest. An additional benefit of this restriction would be that more bucks survive longer and grow antlers large enough to be considered trophies by hunters.
from Minnesota Game Department:
Quote
Cornicelli says antler-point restrictions work on the principle that most hunters harvest only one deer each season, no matter the bag limit. "If a hunter doesn't think they are going to get an opportunity at a mature buck, some of them will harvest a doe because they want the venison," he says.
so, as you can see, every serious APR has, at its core, a HUGE antlerless component; this is BECAUSE it PULLS pressure away from the buck harvest;
In WA we CANNOT do this..........can you understand the problem when you leave the season length and tag numbers the same, and offer no antlerless option??
In PA, where they give out 1 MILLION antlerless tags (yes, thats 1 million.......) and hunters can ONLY shoot 1 deer, many hunters choose to shoot an antlerless animal;
In 2010 60% of PA hunters choose to shoot an antlerless over a buck; Imagine what would happen in PA if you left the tag numbers the same, but took away the antlerless option???
More Data from Mississippi Game Department:
Quote
Has Mississippi’s antler restriction been effective at
increasing the age structure of the buck harvest? Yes! The
average age of harvested bucks before the 4-point antler
restriction was 1.8 years old. The average age of harvest-
ed bucks after the antler restriction was 2 1⁄ 2 years old
The bottom line is that protecting 1 1⁄ 2 -year old
bucks with a 4-point antler restriction on public hunting
areas did not substantially increase the harvest of older-
aged bucks in later years on these areas.
are WA whitetails "smarter" then Mississippi whitetails too???
So, lets put away this nonsense that there is "no data to support my thesis"; there is plenty of data to support it;
you guys are trying to take a management philosophy that has been used on Eastern whitetail herds and adapt it to our conditions, when, you simply cannot do that;
APR's were INTENDED to be used in conjunction with large increases in Antlerless harvests; in fact, the primary reason in most places for the APR is NOT to decrease buck harvest (this is a secondary benefit) but to PUSH hunters into havesting more antlerless.
Also, most Eastern States with APR's also conduct their hunting season AFTER the breeding season, so at LEAST during the breeding season the age structure is not all screwed up from the APR like it is in a state like WA where the hunting season is before the breeding season.
Do any of you find it a little odd that WA is the only state where large scale APR's are in effect for whitetails and we do not have a large antlerless component???
What about Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Idaho and their whitetail herds?? Not one APR's in those states for whitetails......
Are we to believe that a few private landowners and an outfitter in NE WA have "stumbled" upon the holy grail of management tools for low productivity whitetail herds, like we have in WA??
Once again, the legacy of APR's in this State, when you cannot massively increase antlerless harvest like Eastern states do, is that the pressure on the buck population, and particularily the mature buck population is too large, and, we certainly are not going to cut tag numbers, so what is the legacy of these decisions????
shortened seasons so at least a minimum amount of buck espcapement can happen................more hunters jammed into fewer days...
It is also fairly easy to judge from your comments that in fact, the real purpose of this rule was to drive hunter pressure out of the units with the regulation;
And, this is really a sad state of affairs for this State......when one organized group in two hunting units can bulldoze the WDFW into changing the rules in their unit so as to drive hunting pressure out of that unit onto neighboring units that can't take the pressure either.
Your "fix" of the problem just shoved the "problem" onto somebody else's hunting unit! If I hear one more time how this was a "local decsions, by the local stakeholders" and that the rest of us should stay out of it I am going to pull my hair out........that was pretty convenient to just use regulations to shove hunter pressure out of your units onto somebody else's.
Which causes the next problem.........APR's are like cancer in this State:
They never go away, and expand into the whole state.....they expand into the whole state because the neighboring units with no APR's can't take the increased pressure
Post by: turkey slayer on February 06, 2012, 09:50:53 PM
Sorry if I pi**ed anyone of but it's the same thing over and over again
Post by: huntnnw on February 06, 2012, 11:06:15 PM
WAY TIRED OF PA STUDYS! QUIT COMPARING
Post by: muleyguy on February 07, 2012, 12:05:26 AM
Quote
WAY TIRED OF PA STUDYS! QUIT COMPARING
then, please......explain to me what "data" was used to make this decision????
The biologist's were against it, so it certainly didn't come from them.
Please, somebody point me to a study, or some other credible scientific data, that shows APR's will work in the situation we have in NE WA???
who did these stakeholders who were pushing this get their biological data from to come up with this plan??
Let's stop kidding ourselves.......the people pushing this went right to QDM and Eastern US whitetail examples to justify this rule; it is as simple as that; earlier in this thread BP even showed us an email he sent to the PA game commission!
The bottom line is that there is NO data supporting what they are doing...........did they hire some private biologist to render them a professional opinion on this??? Or did they just come up with it on their own??
So, impress me, where did they get this idea to implement an APR???
The idea had to come from somewhere.......
Don't kid yourself..........they used APR's in Eastern States and QDM philosophies to justify this rule.............and, unfortunately, they didn't even do their homework properly because anybody with any professional training or experience would understand that our whitetail herds are vastly different;
We ALREADY know how APR's work in this State when you don't have an antlerless option, and, you don't cut tag numbers.............
The result is permantly shortened seasons with no better hunting, no better herds, poorer mature bucks, but, the avg buck harvested being 2.5 yr old instead of 1.5 yr old;
Thats the legacy so, you don't have to go far to understand how its going to work; you guys act like there is something magical in 117 and 121 with Unicorns running around crapping skittles or something, and that unit is special and the APR's are going to magically "save" the herds, when that hasn't been the case in any unit in the state with muleys or whitetails.
Sorry, there is nothing special about those units; and the APR's are going to work there they same they do in the rest of the state; you are going to have high hunter satisfication because harvest age goes up by one year; which means you will never get rid of it; and, over time you will end up with a shorter and shorter season; and, you will have no better buck to doe ratio, no better herd numbers (because how does a few extra 1.5 yr old bucks in the population help the herd) and most likely poorer numbers of 4.5 yr old or better animals.
You want to fix the herds in NE??? Save the mommas and help them make more babies.........adding a few extra 1.5 yr old bucks into the population, or coming up with goofy regulations to force hunting pressure into other units is not the long term answer.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on February 07, 2012, 03:17:31 AM
This is my way of thinking too!!! seriously I am about to cut back on how much I hunt in Washington and just take one or two weeks and go else where.....Some of the sheet I am reading lately is really pi$$ing me off.... The state of Washington needs serious game management lessons...and for the record P.a has studied Whitetails for many many years and it is hard to compare Washington Whitetail to P.a s whitetail because they have way more hunting pressure than we do BUT they still survive ...When I came out here and hunted whitetail I kinda laughed because most of the deer I seen here just stand and look at ya ...In P.a good luck with that :chuckle: :chuckle:Alot different shooting at a whitetail standing than doing mock 10 threw the hardwoods.....think you can run a rifle :chuckle: :dunno: Go give it a try !!!!! :tup: I may be a little rusty at it now but not much :chuckle:Right now there are so many predators that a fawn is very lucky to make it to adulthood.I'm with you Dale! I'm gonna start huntin in other states with you! :chuckle: I'm so fed up with the liberal morons in wdfw! It getting to the point that it would be worth the out of state expense to not have to put up with this crap! No matter which way you slice the 4 pt minimum, for every smart thing they do there are ten things they are bending us over for!
I see in the new proposal they want to limit the fall bear hunt, restrict the number of cougar that can be taken by boot hunters, and make it harder to legally kill a coyote.
Post by: Miles on February 07, 2012, 03:43:15 AM
It seems like every state specific forum you go to, it's all the same. Everyone complaining about how bad their state is managing game, and how great the other states are in comparison.
I will say this, some of you guys don't know how good you have it. A bad day of whitetail hunting in Washington beats the hell out of a good day of hunting in northern New Hampshire.
Post by: huntnnw on February 07, 2012, 06:16:10 AM
Post by: Fowlweather25 on February 07, 2012, 08:13:01 AM
no crap MILES.....some dont get it. They complain of overhunting....dont think most hunters in this state have seen real pressure :chuckle: I can go on ANY given day in the general elk or deer season and find a great place to hunt without every running into anyoneOr any elk or deer! Sounds like hoot!
Post by: bearpaw on February 07, 2012, 11:53:42 AM
QuoteWAY TIRED OF PA STUDYS! QUIT COMPARING
then, please......explain to me what "data" was used to make this decision????
The biologist's were against it, so it certainly didn't come from them.
Please, somebody point me to a study, or some other credible scientific data, that shows APR's will work in the situation we have in NE WA???
who did these stakeholders who were pushing this get their biological data from to come up with this plan??
Let's stop kidding ourselves.......the people pushing this went right to QDM and Eastern US whitetail examples to justify this rule; it is as simple as that; earlier in this thread BP even showed us an email he sent to the PA game commission!
The bottom line is that there is NO data supporting what they are doing...........did they hire some private biologist to render them a professional opinion on this??? Or did they just come up with it on their own??
So, impress me, where did they get this idea to implement an APR???
The idea had to come from somewhere.......
Don't kid yourself..........they used APR's in Eastern States and QDM philosophies to justify this rule.............and, unfortunately, they didn't even do their homework properly because anybody with any professional training or experience would understand that our whitetail herds are vastly different;
We ALREADY know how APR's work in this State when you don't have an antlerless option, and, you don't cut tag numbers.............
The result is permantly shortened seasons with no better hunting, no better herds, poorer mature bucks, but, the avg buck harvested being 2.5 yr old instead of 1.5 yr old;
Thats the legacy so, you don't have to go far to understand how its going to work; you guys act like there is something magical in 117 and 121 with Unicorns running around crapping skittles or something, and that unit is special and the APR's are going to magically "save" the herds, when that hasn't been the case in any unit in the state with muleys or whitetails.
Sorry, there is nothing special about those units; and the APR's are going to work there they same they do in the rest of the state; you are going to have high hunter satisfication because harvest age goes up by one year; which means you will never get rid of it; and, over time you will end up with a shorter and shorter season; and, you will have no better buck to doe ratio, no better herd numbers (because how does a few extra 1.5 yr old bucks in the population help the herd) and most likely poorer numbers of 4.5 yr old or better animals.
You want to fix the herds in NE??? Save the mommas and help them make more babies.........adding a few extra 1.5 yr old bucks into the population, or coming up with goofy regulations to force hunting pressure into other units is not the long term answer.
Muleyguy I think you are argueing for the sake of argueing. Antlerless hunting has gone from thousands of permits and numerous wide open seasons to very little antlerless hunting in the NE. Most of us are in agreement on reducing antlerless harvest. One reason for the point restriction is to save some of the bucks to breed those does efficiently.
There is very little data specific to NE WA, and you likely know that, WDFW doesn't even have good data to support the style of management they have been employing. The whitetail working group insisted on better data collection and to their credit I see WDFW has upgraded their data collection.
I have presented data showing a continual decline of the whitetail herd and the need for a new style of management. Nobody knows what will work best for the herd that is why we need to try strategies different than the status quo which was not working. Science is learned by conducting controlled experiments, if you don't experiment you will never learn anything new!
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/scientific%2Bmethod?q=Scientific+method
scientific method
a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses: criticism is the backbone of the scientific method
Post by: 6x6in6 on February 07, 2012, 12:23:11 PM
Montana has explored many population management tactics and adopted a few that work here, Thompson said. In the 1990s, FWP considered limiting mule deer hunters to racks with three points or more. The idea was to preserve more of the yearlings and fork-horns that would grow up and sprout bigger racks.
"The allure of the point restriction was it doesn't limit the number of hunters," Thompson said. "But the assumption it grows big bucks isn't what happens. If you force all the hunting pressure on the bucks that have three or four points or more, you're truncating the population at an age structure."
On the other hand, setting up trophy hunting districts with tiny permit quotas has proved effective here. As Thompson put it, "It's darn hard to draw a tag, but when you do, you've got something to hunt for."
From here and near the end of the article:
http://missoulian.com/news/local/montana-has-plenty-of-white-tailed-deer-but-not-with/article_3c6d1e1a-4fbe-11e1-83b7-001871e3ce6c.html
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on February 07, 2012, 12:37:05 PM
no crap MILES.....some dont get it. They complain of overhunting....dont think most hunters in this state have seen real pressure :chuckle: I can go on ANY given day in the general elk or deer season and find a great place to hunt without every running into anyoneI agree with ya their.... Not saying I can not find places to hunt without running into other hunters... thats how I run ... I see someone near me I beat feet to higher ground :chuckle: its the game we are lacking .... not people .....for the amount of land we have in Washington we should see alot more game ... not saying we do not have any but we should have alot more with alot opportunity to harvest game ... Just like over here on the wetside ...blacktail numbers are down BUT as soon as they open it wide open to logging then we will see the blacktail numbers start to rise .... when logging was going well in the 80s and early 90s we had blacktail everywhere... now they are very spotty , at least where I live !!! :twocents:
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 07, 2012, 05:09:23 PM
What ever anyone says Muleyguys has an anwser and he knows everything even if the proff is coming from back east.
Muley guy is correct. I already posted the proof in this thread. Since antler restrictions went in in PA, harvest numbers have steadily shrunk for both does and bucks.
Bill Miller, chairman of the board of trustees of Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania, described the 2010 season in Pennsylvania as “the worst deer hunting season in memory.”
In 2002 when APR's went in and doe hunts increased Pennsylvania hunters took 165,416 bucks and 352,113 does for a total of 517,529 deer,
In 2010 hunters in Pennsylvania took 122,932 bucks and 193,310 does for a total of 316,240 deer.
That's 25% less bucks, and 45% less does, and 39% less deer overall.
So this is the proof coming from back east that you are so hyped about? Tell me how APRs were a success in Pennsylvania again? Tell me how it has helped hunting?
I can see why Mr Miller is so upset.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 07, 2012, 05:18:56 PM
Eastman's did a survey of hunter satisfaction with western big game management, Idaho came in a distant last place.
I guess they didn't survey anybody on this site, cuz all I hear here is Washington management is the worst.
I can tell you this, Idaho might have come in last in the survey, but other than paying non res fees, I'd rather hunt Idaho than any other state with maybe the exception of Montana. And if Washington keeps raising fees and adding new costs for residents, I might just start hunting Idaho. It's getting to be a closer proposition all the time between what it costs to hunt here as a res and there as a non res.
Post by: C-Money on February 07, 2012, 05:26:29 PM
Post by: Archeryoutfitters on February 07, 2012, 05:30:05 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 07, 2012, 09:18:09 PM
Here's the bucks harvested numbers off this page starting in 2000
2000 - 203,221 bucks harvested
2001 - 203,247 bucks harvested
2002 - 165,416 bucks harvested (First year of antler restrictions. To be expected drop)
2003 - 142,270 bucks harvested (still dropping
2004 - 124,410 bucks harvested (still dropping)
2005 - 120,500 bucks harvested (still dropping)
2006 - 135,290 bucks harvested (a bump up)
2007 - 109,200 bucks harvested (26,000 bucks drop)
2008 - 122,410 bucks harvested (another bump up)
2009 - 108,330 bucks harvested (just over half the bucks harvested in 2001 before APR)
2010 - 122,930 bucks harvested (another bump)
So as you can see, the trend is downward. And this is the system that was touted to grow the buck population in 117 and 121. And my percentages in the last post were actually better than what really happened because I started them the first year of APR after the expected drop caused by APR. If I had compared 2010 to the last year of no APR (2001) instead of a 25% drop in buck harvest, it was actually a 40% drop. (203,247 bucks harvested to 122,930 in 2010) If I was cherry picking, I would have picked 2001 and compared it to 2009. That drop was 47%.
Post by: huntnnw on February 08, 2012, 01:51:37 AM
Post by: jdurham on February 08, 2012, 04:48:40 AM
I am planning on doing just what you are saying and not even bother with a Washington license. My east property line is the Idaho border so I just have to walk about 400 yards and I am hunting. Idaho has ample deer that comes with being able to hunt all weapons, the peak of the rut and also 30 days of either sex hunting. I have to say there has been some interesting points brought out in this discussion. States with successful deer management programs have generous doe harvests. I read one article by Dr. Deer that said a 1 to 3 ratio. That way, one rut and less stress on the breeding bucks.Eastman's did a survey of hunter satisfaction with western big game management, Idaho came in a distant last place.
I guess they didn't survey anybody on this site, cuz all I hear here is Washington management is the worst.
I can tell you this, Idaho might have come in last in the survey, but other than paying non res fees, I'd rather hunt Idaho than any other state with maybe the exception of Montana. And if Washington keeps raising fees and adding new costs for residents, I might just start hunting Idaho. It's getting to be a closer proposition all the time between what it costs to hunt here as a res and there as a non res.
Post by: Archeryoutfitters on February 08, 2012, 06:46:58 AM
I said it steadily dropped Archeryoutfitters. I didn't cherry pick. Here's the link so you can look at the harvest yourself. http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=625882&mode=2this is showing harvest not buck #'s the older deer will be a little wiser and a little harder to harverst so you would see a drop in the harvest numbers it only stands to reason,
Here's the bucks harvested numbers off this page starting in 2000
2000 - 203,221 bucks harvested
2001 - 203,247 bucks harvested
2002 - 165,416 bucks harvested (First year of antler restrictions. To be expected drop)
2003 - 142,270 bucks harvested (still dropping
2004 - 124,410 bucks harvested (still dropping)
2005 - 120,500 bucks harvested (still dropping)
2006 - 135,290 bucks harvested (a bump up)
2007 - 109,200 bucks harvested (26,000 bucks drop)
2008 - 122,410 bucks harvested (another bump up)
2009 - 108,330 bucks harvested (just over half the bucks harvested in 2001 before APR)
2010 - 122,930 bucks harvested (another bump)
So as you can see, the trend is downward. And this is the system that was touted to grow the buck population in 117 and 121. And my percentages in the last post were actually better than what really happened because I started them the first year of APR after the expected drop caused by APR. If I had compared 2010 to the last year of no APR (2001) instead of a 25% drop in buck harvest, it was actually a 40% drop. (203,247 bucks harvested to 122,930 in 2010) If I was cherry picking, I would have picked 2001 and compared it to 2009. That drop was 47%.
Post by: yelp on February 08, 2012, 07:09:04 AM
You also could make the argument that when properties start growing bigger bucks that accessibility to these deer became harder and deer leases probably increased. Meaning harvest became more managed? They started associating deer hunting quality with $?. Could this happen? Also I know deer hunting in PA is very traditional. Is there a strong influx of new hunters into PA via youth for example? It seems to be a downward trend in other states and this could also have an effect on harvest numbers over time. :twocents:
Post by: Archeryoutfitters on February 08, 2012, 08:35:29 AM
Post by: bearpaw on February 08, 2012, 08:47:10 AM
I am still not sold on the long term use of APR and think we all should keep an open mind and judge the use of APR based on the results we see in 117/121 over the next 4 years.
For this last season we reduced the buck harvest, that was the goal. But we may learn that APR has negative results in the long run, for this reason, we all need to keep and an open mind and wait to see the results before we condemn all use of APR or recommend continual use of APR. :twocents:
Post by: Miles on February 08, 2012, 09:08:42 AM
Unfortunately for the rest of you, I can't.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 08, 2012, 09:41:40 AM
We don't have the hunting pressure PA has. I don't think its accurate to compare to WA.
Ahhhh but compare they did. They used PA as an example when they pushed this change here. So if they used it as an example of how it's done, isn't it fair to really look at the results in PA and what people in PA really think of it?
And those results and how hunters feel about it are sure different than what we were fed to believe. That is the real comparison.
Post by: bearpaw on February 08, 2012, 09:46:54 AM
If I could blow this thread up into 1 million tiny little pieces floating throughout cyberspace...I would.
Unfortunately for the rest of you, I can't.
Miles, there must be 3 or 4 others just like it too....
Post by: bobcat on February 08, 2012, 09:48:38 AM
If I could blow this thread up into 1 million tiny little pieces floating throughout cyberspace...I would.
Unfortunately for the rest of you, I can't.
Ah what would be the fun in that? What's a message board without any messages? :dunno:
Post by: C-Money on February 08, 2012, 09:52:53 AM
Post by: Miles on February 08, 2012, 09:55:16 AM
If I could blow this thread up into 1 million tiny little pieces floating throughout cyberspace...I would.
Unfortunately for the rest of you, I can't.
Miles, there must be 3 or 4 others just like it too....
I know there are, and unfortunately I was involved with them. ;)
I have for the most part avoided this one.
I guess if I ever get tired of hearing new things I could always come back and read a page from this thread. Repetition, repetition, repetition....
Post by: Miles on February 08, 2012, 09:57:33 AM
If I could blow this thread up into 1 million tiny little pieces floating throughout cyberspace...I would.
Unfortunately for the rest of you, I can't.
Ah what would be the fun in that? What's a message board without any messages? :dunno:
A better question to ask would be: What's a message board with the same messages for 17 pages?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Answer: LAME
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 08, 2012, 10:02:47 AM
I used to be opposed to APR in our area, but due to our continual decline of deer numbers I was totally in favor of it at the current time to prevent further decline in the herd.
BearPaw, we both know there was no "continued decline" in deer numbers. As you have said yourself, it was two back to back bad winters. The deer have always come back from this. And they were coming back without this rule. When I hunted in your area this year, I met a lot of hunters and they all told me one thing. Hunting had been down for a couple years because of the aforementioned bad winters, but that last year it had come back a bit and this year it had come back even more. Harvest stats in the units around 117 and 121 will undoubtedly show that.
One other thought that hasn't been mentioned...... This year buck harvest will be down in 117 and 121 for a couple obvious reasons. #1 With the antler restrictions, there were less legal bucks to harvest. #2 Because of #1, many people chose to hunt in other units.
But...... Next year those units will probably attract more effort than in the past because of those young bucks you stockpiled. So there could be a lot more pressure on the older bucks than there was pre APR. Even if the success rate is lower, the actual harvest could be higher, again meaning fewer bucks getting older.
For example, say 2,000 hunters have a 22% success rate in a unit. That means 440 deer are taken. But say because there are supposed to be more "big" bucks in the unit it attracts 3000 hunters but they only have a 15% success rate. That equates to 450 deer taken. Maybe the first year it might be 18%. That would be 540 deer taken. It's easy to see that such a scenario could actually reduce the number of older mature bucks than increase it. Unless you are happy calling 2 1/2 year old bucks "mature"
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 08, 2012, 10:09:51 AM
My family in PA sees more 1.5 year old bucks through the seasons.. We/they see quite a few bucks every season now with APR. My family has only killed one buck since the APR. It was a dandy, but one buck in 10 years is not good. I really dont know how to feel about APR, hunting was a lot more fun to me before APR cause it was nice to see the family harvest a few bucks. We are also seeing giant 2pts and 3pts that are not legal where we hunt. What a mess.
And there you see the results. Just like some of us have predicted will happen here. Lots of young bucks and larger but nonlegal bucks (possibly caused by genetically selecting the trait for more antler points out of the gene pool) but fewer large and legal bucks. Stockpiling young and nonlegal deer at the expense of Mature bucks.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 08, 2012, 10:12:06 AM
A better question to ask would be: What's a message board with the same messages for 17 pages?
Answer: LAME
And yet you keep returning and adding to it. Go figure?? :tup:
Post by: bobcat on February 08, 2012, 10:12:41 AM
If I could blow this thread up into 1 million tiny little pieces floating throughout cyberspace...I would.
Unfortunately for the rest of you, I can't.
Ah what would be the fun in that? What's a message board without any messages? :dunno:
A better question to ask would be: What's a message board with the same messages for 17 pages?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Answer: LAME
Why do you click on it then? :chuckle:
Post by: Miles on February 08, 2012, 10:27:35 AM
If I could blow this thread up into 1 million tiny little pieces floating throughout cyberspace...I would.
Unfortunately for the rest of you, I can't.
Ah what would be the fun in that? What's a message board without any messages? :dunno:
A better question to ask would be: What's a message board with the same messages for 17 pages?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Answer: LAME
Why do you click on it then? :chuckle:
It's like a train wreck....you have to look. :chuckle:
Post by: Maverick on February 08, 2012, 10:35:26 AM
Post by: bearpaw on February 08, 2012, 10:51:05 AM
I used to be opposed to APR in our area, but due to our continual decline of deer numbers I was totally in favor of it at the current time to prevent further decline in the herd.
BearPaw, we both know there was no "continued decline" in deer numbers. As you have said yourself, it was two back to back bad winters. The deer have always come back from this. And they were coming back without this rule. When I hunted in your area this year, I met a lot of hunters and they all told me one thing. Hunting had been down for a couple years because of the aforementioned bad winters, but that last year it had come back a bit and this year it had come back even more. Harvest stats in the units around 117 and 121 will undoubtedly show that.
One other thought that hasn't been mentioned...... This year buck harvest will be down in 117 and 121 for a couple obvious reasons. #1 With the antler restrictions, there were less legal bucks to harvest. #2 Because of #1, many people chose to hunt in other units.
But...... Next year those units will probably attract more effort than in the past because of those young bucks you stockpiled. So there could be a lot more pressure on the older bucks than there was pre APR. Even if the success rate is lower, the actual harvest could be higher, again meaning fewer bucks getting older.
For example, say 2,000 hunters have a 22% success rate in a unit. That means 440 deer are taken. But say because there are supposed to be more "big" bucks in the unit it attracts 3000 hunters but they only have a 15% success rate. That equates to 450 deer taken. Maybe the first year it might be 18%. That would be 540 deer taken. It's easy to see that such a scenario could actually reduce the number of older mature bucks than increase it. Unless you are happy calling 2 1/2 year old bucks "mature"
Sorry Sitka, you are absolutely wrong. Please show me your data to prove numbers were up the last two years, that's right, you can't because it wasn't. :twocents:
Post by: Dhoey07 on February 08, 2012, 11:30:55 AM
I used to be opposed to APR in our area, but due to our continual decline of deer numbers I was totally in favor of it at the current time to prevent further decline in the herd.
BearPaw, we both know there was no "continued decline" in deer numbers. As you have said yourself, it was two back to back bad winters. The deer have always come back from this. And they were coming back without this rule. When I hunted in your area this year, I met a lot of hunters and they all told me one thing. Hunting had been down for a couple years because of the aforementioned bad winters, but that last year it had come back a bit and this year it had come back even more. Harvest stats in the units around 117 and 121 will undoubtedly show that.
One other thought that hasn't been mentioned...... This year buck harvest will be down in 117 and 121 for a couple obvious reasons. #1 With the antler restrictions, there were less legal bucks to harvest. #2 Because of #1, many people chose to hunt in other units.
But...... Next year those units will probably attract more effort than in the past because of those young bucks you stockpiled. So there could be a lot more pressure on the older bucks than there was pre APR. Even if the success rate is lower, the actual harvest could be higher, again meaning fewer bucks getting older.
For example, say 2,000 hunters have a 22% success rate in a unit. That means 440 deer are taken. But say because there are supposed to be more "big" bucks in the unit it attracts 3000 hunters but they only have a 15% success rate. That equates to 450 deer taken. Maybe the first year it might be 18%. That would be 540 deer taken. It's easy to see that such a scenario could actually reduce the number of older mature bucks than increase it. Unless you are happy calling 2 1/2 year old bucks "mature"
That would make sense, but buck to doe ratios are way down
Post by: Maverick on February 08, 2012, 01:35:47 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 08, 2012, 02:18:39 PM
Year........09.......................10BearPaw, we both know there was no "continued decline" in deer numbers. As you have said yourself, it was two back to back bad winters. The deer have always come back from this. And they were coming back without this rule. When I hunted in your area this year, I met a lot of hunters and they all told me one thing. Hunting had been down for a couple years because of the aforementioned bad winters, but that last year it had come back a bit and this year it had come back even more. Harvest stats in the units around 117 and 121 will undoubtedly show that.
Sorry Sitka, you are absolutely wrong. Please show me your data to prove numbers were up the last two years, that's right, you can't because it wasn't. :twocents:
Unit
105.......330.....................280 bucks harvested going down
108.......273.....................333 bucks harvested going up
111.......312.....................361 bucks harvested going up
113.......300....................364 bucks harvested going up
117.......857....................912 bucks harvested going up
121.....1242..................1254 bucks harvested going up
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...........3314..................3504 total bucks harvested in 09 and 10 respectively.
Here's the source http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/index.html
So in 5 of the 6 units in the NE corner, harvests improved slightly from 2009 to 2010. We'll have to wait to see about 2011 when the report comes out. But from the success guys were having where I was hunting, I don't doubt that it went up again.
Now that might not be close to the all time highs but, it sure compares favorably to 1997 when this was the harvest in that area. And the herd recovered from 1997 without any APRs.
...............1997..............
unit
105..........134 bucks harvested
109..........369 bucks harvested (108 and 111 combined)
111..........176 bucks harvested
117..........538 bucks harvested
121..........963 bucks harvested
----------------------------------------
..............2180 bucks harvested for the area in 1997
So 09 and 10 harvests were still 50% higher than in 1997 and the herd recovered quite nicely after 1997. What was the emergency that required a change from the system that brought the herd back then?
Post by: muleyguy on February 08, 2012, 09:45:23 PM
Quote
What was the emergency that required a change from the system that brought the herd back then?
because they learned one of the golden rules in politics (which applies here also) which is:
"Never let a good disaster go to waste"
George Bush used it well after 911 to go after Iraq and finish what his dad started and have a permenant presence in the middle east; Obama used it well after the 2008 financial crisis to expand the role of govt and spending to previously unheard of levels
can't get an APR in when things are going well.........look how contentious it was even when the herd is hurting.........
and, more importantly, the scientific bar gets lowered tremendously........
the scientific bar is now this: "well, we really have no idea if it is going to work, we have no data to back up what we are proposing, and how are you going to know if we never try it?"
Post by: huntnnw on February 08, 2012, 10:37:09 PM
Post by: muleyguy on February 09, 2012, 10:09:00 AM
Quote
And its only 2 damn units in the whole state!
the entire state is APR for muleys; significant numbers of whitetail units have been APR's for 10 yrs now; and, now you have taken 2 of the biggest and most important whitetail units in the state and making them APR's;
Right now, the MAJORITY of the state is under APR regulation;
Within 10 yrs, the entire State will be under APR's for whitetails also; the reason is that when you have APR's in one unit, but not in neighboring units, all the pressure get pushed to the non APR units; so its just a domino effect;
You act like this is some little experiment in a couple of insignificant units; nothing could be farther from the truth!
Quote
and for whiteys that most on here dont wanna hunt
These are the two most hunted units in the state!!; no other units receive even close to the amount of Hunter Days that these two units receive;
what do you mean whiteys that most on here don't wanna hunt???? these are the most popular hunting units the state!
Quote
who cares...see if it works
sorry, but, there has to be scientific data to back up these decisions; you just simply cannot play fast and loose, and have local stakeholder groups using their influence to change rules in certain units as they please with no data to back it up!
The problem you are not understanding is that these stakeholder groups did in fact use QDM and Eastern US whitetail APR's when coming up with this proposal, do not kid yourself; the problem is they lacked the sophistication to understand that our herds are completely different, and APR's, in the absence of significant antlerless opportunities, cause major problems.
When pressed for data and facts, the supporters of this continue to go back to the same line: "we have no data to support this, we are just going to experiment"
We do in fact have good data in this state concerning how APR's work with our herds, as we have had so many units under the APR rule for so long:
Here is the legacy of those regulations in every case in the State of WA, regardless of unit and deer type:
1. Permanently shortened seasons in mid october: 9 day seasons
2. No better long term herd health; continued stagnation at best
3. No better long term buck to doe ratio's and poorer age structures doing the breeding
4. No better numbers (and most likely worse) of 4.5 yr old animals
5. We NEVER have gotten rid of an APR; they were ALL supposed to be "temporary"
6. Ever expanding APR's into neighboring units
Unlike supporters of this regulation who all they say is: "well, we don't know if it is going to work, so we might as well experiment", I am putting forth exactly what will happen with these APR's in 117 and 121. The above 6 outcomes are exactly what will happen. All of these problems and issues so hunters like maverick can shoot 1 yr older bucks.
Bottom line is that local groups conducting their own personal experiments without logical data to back up those experiments, is a very disturbing trend that does not bode well for long term game management in this state;
Post by: Maverick on February 09, 2012, 10:39:02 AM
Post by: bearpaw on February 09, 2012, 03:49:59 PM
Essentually you are saying because of APR we will be forced to reduce season length because herds will not recover or improve. Your predictions were some of the options discussed if APR wasn't tried. I still say it appears to me you are afraid that APR will work. But regardless of what you may think or say in 4 years when we review the results of APR in 117/121 compared to the surrounding GMU's, the results will determine my position on APR in those units. I'm not going to be talked into or out of APR by your predictions. APR can stand on it's own merits or lack of merits in 4 years.
FYI - In the most recent year "2010" for which there is data available, GMU 124 shows more hunters than GMU 121.
GMU 124 had 6491 hunters: http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/2010/reports/deer_gmu.php?District=2
GMU 121 had 5539 hunters: http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/2010/reports/deer_gmu.php?District=1
Sitka_Blacktail
I find it interesting that you left GMU 101 and 124 off your comparison of District 1 and PMU 13 GMU's, there were fewer bucks harvested in 2010 in both of those GMU's.
Please let me remind you of what I have pointed out many times in these APR discussions. In 2009 there were more hunters hunting antlerless deer. In 2010 much of the antlerless hunting was eliminated to help rebuild the herd which caused a higher percentage of the hunters to hunt bucks in 2010 than in 2009. Therefore, it's very likely the reason the buck harvest went up slightly is because there was a higher percentage of buck hunters than in 2009, the regs show reduced antlerless seasons and data shows that fewer antlerless deer were taken which proves there was a higher percentage of the hunters hunting bucks which is likely why a few more bucks were killed. I doubt there are more deer, there was simply a higher percentage of the hunters who were hunting bucks.
The following data also supports my theory that the APR initiated in 2011 will likely help maintain the buck/doe ratio which would suffer with increased buck harvest and decreased doe harvest:
2009
PMU 13 is GMU's 105-124
Antlerless 1,483
Antlered 5,083
TOTAL Harvest 6,566
2010
PMU 13 is GMU's 105-124
Antlerless 826
Antlered 5,250
TOTAL Harvest 6,076
_____________________
2009
District 1 is GMU's 101-121
Antlerless 1,321
Antlered 4,158
TOTAL Harvest 5,479
2010
District 1 is GMU's 101-121
Antlerless 666
Antlered 4,281
TOTAL Harvest 4,947
_____________________
2009
GMU 117
Antlerless 260
Antlered 857
TOTAL Harvest 1,117
2010
GMU 117
Antlerless 124
Antlered 912
TOTAL Harvest 1,036
_____________________
2009
GMU 121
Antlerless 349
Antlered 1,242
TOTAL Harvest 1,591
2010
GMU 121
Antlerless 182
Antlered 1,254
TOTAL Harvest 1,436
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on February 09, 2012, 04:07:18 PM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on February 09, 2012, 04:24:23 PM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on February 09, 2012, 04:58:07 PM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on February 09, 2012, 05:01:12 PM
Post by: Maverick on February 09, 2012, 05:57:43 PM
Post by: summit creek on February 09, 2012, 06:01:17 PM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on February 09, 2012, 07:08:34 PM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on February 09, 2012, 07:27:17 PM
muleyguyBearpaw...you worded that nicely !!! :tup: :tup:
Essentually you are saying because of APR we will be forced to reduce season length because herds will not recover or improve. Your predictions were some of the options discussed if APR wasn't tried. I still say it appears to me you are afraid that APR will work. But regardless of what you may think or say in 4 years when we review the results of APR in 117/121 compared to the surrounding GMU's, the results will determine my position on APR in those units. I'm not going to be talked into or out of APR by your predictions. APR can stand on it's own merits or lack of merits in 4 years.
FYI - In the most recent year "2010" for which there is data available, GMU 124 shows more hunters than GMU 121.
GMU 124 had 6491 hunters: http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/2010/reports/deer_gmu.php?District=2
GMU 121 had 5539 hunters: http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/2010/reports/deer_gmu.php?District=1
Sitka_Blacktail
I find it interesting that you left GMU 101 and 124 off your comparison of District 1 and PMU 13 GMU's, there were fewer bucks harvested in 2010 in both of those GMU's.
Please let me remind you of what I have pointed out many times in these APR discussions. In 2009 there were more hunters hunting antlerless deer. In 2010 much of the antlerless hunting was eliminated to help rebuild the herd which caused a higher percentage of the hunters to hunt bucks in 2010 than in 2009. Therefore, it's very likely the reason the buck harvest went up slightly is because there was a higher percentage of buck hunters than in 2009, the regs show reduced antlerless seasons and data shows that fewer antlerless deer were taken which proves there was a higher percentage of the hunters hunting bucks which is likely why a few more bucks were killed. I doubt there are more deer, there was simply a higher percentage of the hunters who were hunting bucks.
The following data also supports my theory that the APR initiated in 2011 will likely help maintain the buck/doe ratio which would suffer with increased buck harvest and decreased doe harvest:
2009
PMU 13 is GMU's 105-124
Antlerless 1,483
Antlered 5,083
TOTAL Harvest 6,566
2010
PMU 13 is GMU's 105-124
Antlerless 826
Antlered 5,250
TOTAL Harvest 6,076
_____________________
2009
District 1 is GMU's 101-121
Antlerless 1,321
Antlered 4,158
TOTAL Harvest 5,479
2010
District 1 is GMU's 101-121
Antlerless 666
Antlered 4,281
TOTAL Harvest 4,947
_____________________
2009
GMU 117
Antlerless 260
Antlered 857
TOTAL Harvest 1,117
2010
GMU 117
Antlerless 124
Antlered 912
TOTAL Harvest 1,036
_____________________
2009
GMU 121
Antlerless 349
Antlered 1,242
TOTAL Harvest 1,591
2010
GMU 121
Antlerless 182
Antlered 1,254
TOTAL Harvest 1,436
Post by: huntnnw on February 10, 2012, 05:35:36 AM
Post by: Archeryoutfitters on February 10, 2012, 07:28:06 AM
muleyguyThe difference is that you live here Dale, you see it, feel it, and care about what is happening to the herd, not only is it a big part of your life and who you are, you want to see what is best for them as we all should as hunters and outdoors-men, (It is good to see the whole picture)
Essentually you are saying because of APR we will be forced to reduce season length because herds will not recover or improve. Your predictions were some of the options discussed if APR wasn't tried. I still say it appears to me you are afraid that APR will work. But regardless of what you may think or say in 4 years when we review the results of APR in 117/121 compared to the surrounding GMU's, the results will determine my position on APR in those units. I'm not going to be talked into or out of APR by your predictions. APR can stand on it's own merits or lack of merits in 4 years.
FYI - In the most recent year "2010" for which there is data available, GMU 124 shows more hunters than GMU 121.
GMU 124 had 6491 hunters: http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/2010/reports/deer_gmu.php?District=2
GMU 121 had 5539 hunters: http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/2010/reports/deer_gmu.php?District=1
Sitka_Blacktail
I find it interesting that you left GMU 101 and 124 off your comparison of District 1 and PMU 13 GMU's, there were fewer bucks harvested in 2010 in both of those GMU's.
Please let me remind you of what I have pointed out many times in these APR discussions. In 2009 there were more hunters hunting antlerless deer. In 2010 much of the antlerless hunting was eliminated to help rebuild the herd which caused a higher percentage of the hunters to hunt bucks in 2010 than in 2009. Therefore, it's very likely the reason the buck harvest went up slightly is because there was a higher percentage of buck hunters than in 2009, the regs show reduced antlerless seasons and data shows that fewer antlerless deer were taken which proves there was a higher percentage of the hunters hunting bucks which is likely why a few more bucks were killed. I doubt there are more deer, there was simply a higher percentage of the hunters who were hunting bucks.
The following data also supports my theory that the APR initiated in 2011 will likely help maintain the buck/doe ratio which would suffer with increased buck harvest and decreased doe harvest:
2009
PMU 13 is GMU's 105-124
Antlerless 1,483
Antlered 5,083
TOTAL Harvest 6,566
2010
PMU 13 is GMU's 105-124
Antlerless 826
Antlered 5,250
TOTAL Harvest 6,076
_____________________
2009
District 1 is GMU's 101-121
Antlerless 1,321
Antlered 4,158
TOTAL Harvest 5,479
2010
District 1 is GMU's 101-121
Antlerless 666
Antlered 4,281
TOTAL Harvest 4,947
_____________________
2009
GMU 117
Antlerless 260
Antlered 857
TOTAL Harvest 1,117
2010
GMU 117
Antlerless 124
Antlered 912
TOTAL Harvest 1,036
_____________________
2009
GMU 121
Antlerless 349
Antlered 1,242
TOTAL Harvest 1,591
2010
GMU 121
Antlerless 182
Antlered 1,254
TOTAL Harvest 1,436
Trying to keep the same great hunting so we can pass down to our kids and grand-kids,that we have been blessed to have.
Post by: C-Money on February 10, 2012, 09:37:19 AM
I think once everyone sees alot more bigger bucks they will change their minds.... We already have some dang nice whitetail So it will be interresting in what pops up in the next couple years .... :tup:
Yes it will! Should be some monsters! Maybe this will get NE WA over the hump and finally kick out the next World record whitetail!
Post by: huntnnw on February 10, 2012, 03:30:55 PM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on February 10, 2012, 04:12:55 PM
Post by: buckfvr on February 10, 2012, 04:34:44 PM
Post by: huntnnw on February 12, 2012, 10:03:33 PM
Post by: dscubame on October 03, 2012, 10:38:05 AM
Post by: 92xj on October 03, 2012, 10:51:55 AM
Post by: deadwoodbuck on October 03, 2012, 11:07:48 AM
Post by: Austrian Hunter on October 03, 2012, 11:13:04 AM
Post by: Kowsrule30 on October 03, 2012, 11:14:48 AM
wish they would do that up here with blacktail...and open up the urban areas to bow hunt.
A lot of BT never make it past a 2 or 3 pointer.... Wouldn't work imo for BT..... A bunch of WT can be a small 3 pointer their first year with antlers....