Post by: Dave Workman on October 19, 2011, 09:57:20 AM
Opening weekend of the general buck deer season provided more evidence for critics of game management in Washington State that the people in charge are not their friends.
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/more-reasons-for-wa-hunter-anger-toward-wdfw-commission (http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/more-reasons-for-wa-hunter-anger-toward-wdfw-commission)
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on October 19, 2011, 10:15:45 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 19, 2011, 10:20:36 AM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on October 19, 2011, 10:27:01 AM
Post by: bigtex on October 19, 2011, 10:28:06 AM
Good read, Dave. How do commissioners lose their seats? I think we should start putting pressure where it belongs to affect some change here.
They serve at will of the governor. She appoints them and she can "fire" them. I can't think of a time when a governor removed any agency comissioner/board member unless it was due to criminal activity. So basically you have to wait until their term expires and hope they don't want to get another term or the governor doesn't reappoint them.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 19, 2011, 10:35:15 AM
Post by: boneaddict on October 19, 2011, 10:39:17 AM
Interesting.....38% from what, last year
Post by: jackelope on October 19, 2011, 10:54:27 AM
Quote
The antler dilemma has interested this column because it should logically also apply to mule deer, which have been under a 3-point minimum restriction for more than a decade. In southeast Washington, this column saw a lot of 2-point bucks over the weekend, and darned few legal 3-point or better animals.
I was outside of Pomeroy opening weekend saturday, sunday and monday morning and would honestly say I saw more legal bucks than not legal bucks. The weather sucked and we were socked in with fog more than we were not so we didn't see a lot of deer either way, but the bucks we saw were more legal than not legal. Some more mature bucks would be nice, but there was definitely no shortage of legal bucks. If the weather was better, I suspect we could have easily all tagged out if we just wanted to shoot legal bucks.
We do not want to see Gary Douvia bumped off the commission. He's one of the better ones as far as wolf issues go.:yeah:
There's so many potential variables to a decrease in hunter numbers. The economy is in the crapper. With gas at almost $4 a gallon combined with so many people out of work, on a tight budget, etc, it's no surprise to me that hunter numbers were down. I drove from western wa to Pomeroy and spent almost $200 just in gas alone. Antler restrictions surely played a part in the 2 units that were changed, but there's lot of other things contributing as well. It seems only natural to me to blame the WDFW given the recent string of events.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 19, 2011, 11:04:42 AM
[/quote]
:yeah:
There's so many potential variables to a decrease in hunter numbers. The economy is in the crapper. With gas at almost $4 a gallon combined with so many people out of work, on a tight budget, etc, it's no surprise to me that hunter numbers were down. I drove from western wa to Pomeroy and spent almost $200 just in gas alone. Antler restrictions surely played a part in the 2 units that were changed, but there's lot of other things contributing as well. It seems only natural to me to blame the WDFW given the recent string of events.
[/quote]
This is exactly why we shouldn't be putting up any barriers to hunting. There are enough outside circumstances already.
Post by: buckfvr on October 19, 2011, 11:08:42 AM
Post by: bearpaw on October 19, 2011, 11:31:17 AM
I think it's nearly 100% economy. People can't afford to go hunting. I am seeing fewer hunters in every state, Idaho, Utah, and I am expecting it in Montana when it opens. In Idaho on the elk opener there is an area where I usually see 25 to 40 camps, this year I counted 8 camps, that was it. In Utah I saw the fewest hunters I have ever saw when out elk hunting.
I was on the whitetail working group that recommended the 4pt rule and I voted for it to reduce the harvest. So I am happy to hear that the harvest is down, even though I credit the majority of the reduction in harvest to the economy and a depressed deer herd. For example, hunters hunting in 3 other units with no antler restriction still have to pass the check station on their way back to Spokane, guess what, those hunters had no deer either. :dunno:
PLEASE EXPLAIN THAT!
The NE deer herd is way down and it needs a break, I think the check station report confirms that. That's the only good thing I see from this depression. :chuckle:
I am the last person in the world who wants to keep out other hunters, I think that is the wrong idea you have there. The county commissioners want more outsdide people too, but they recognize our herds are down and also voted for the restriction. My concern is to rebuild the herd by reducing harvest. In our meetings we were pretty much told by the WDFW that predator management wasn't much of an option, we discussed other options too, but the only readily available method to reduce pressure was to reduce human harvest.
I think the WDFW would like to get rid of Douvia because he questions their faulty wolf plan. So I think you are right about the WDFW wanting the wolves, but I think you are on the wrong track with your 4pt reasoning. One thing is for sure, Douvia is a hunter, I hope Washington's hunters don't want to lose an avid hunter from the commission. Especially a commissioner who seems willing to make the hard decisions to help a deer herd recover.
There is science both ways on the 4 pt restriction, only time will tell us if it works or don't work in NE WA. :twocents:
Post by: stickbuck on October 19, 2011, 11:43:49 AM
Post by: hunter360 on October 19, 2011, 11:44:15 AM
Post by: 500 long on October 19, 2011, 11:56:18 AM
Post by: CedarPants on October 19, 2011, 11:58:14 AM
... we were pretty much told by the WDFW that predator managementwasn't much of anwill never be considered as an option, we discussed other options too, but the onlyreadily available methodoption we'll ever put into practice to reduce pressure was to reduce human harvest.
Replace WDFW with Conservation Northwest in that sentence :chuckle:
Just had to poke fun, as I also agree with the 4-point minimum and agree the herd needs reduced pressure up there. I just don't like seeing the WDFW telling us so matter of factly that predator management isn't and never will be an option, especially with wolves moving in. More wolves = more reduced hunter harvest. They are going to be managing us, not the other way around
Post by: asl20bball on October 19, 2011, 12:01:03 PM
I just got back from Republic and just let me say that in the 16 years that I have been hunting over there, I have never seen the deer count so low :bash: Also, there were more predators this year than I have ever seen there too.
Ditto...6 years of hunting Republic/Curlew and fewer deer then ever this year. I think the weather had a huge part of not seeing as many muleys but even the white tail #'s are WAY down. Used to not be able to keep the WT deer out of the headlights when driving back to the cabin in the evenings now there's hardly any WT deer...they need to reduce the 65+ & youth doe permits even further and add antler restrictions to the WT deer.
Post by: bigtex on October 19, 2011, 12:02:06 PM
Sorry, but I have to disagree withn you on this one Dave. :sry:
I think it's nearly 100% economy. People can't afford to go hunting. I am seeing fewer hunters in every state, Idaho, Utah, and I am expecting it in Montana when it opens. In Idaho on the elk opener there is an area where I usually see 25 to 40 camps, this year I counted 8 camps, that was it. In Utah I saw the fewest hunters I have ever saw when out elk hunting.
I was on the whitetail working group that recommended the 4pt rule and I voted for it to reduce the harvest. So I am happy to hear that the harvest is down, even though I credit the majority of the reduction in harvest to the economy and a depressed deer herd. For example, hunters hunting in 3 other units with no antler restriction still have to pass the check station on their way back to Spokane, guess what, those hunters had no deer either. :dunno:
I agre bearpaw, 100% economy.
People are staying closer to home again this year. I talked to a friend that hunted the Snoqualmie Tree Farm in King County which requires a $225 annual permit. He said that this year Hancock increased their permits from 500 to 800. He said he saw more people on opening day then he's seen the past 6 years combined, and he hunts all deer season long. I guess every hunter he ran into said the same thing. In this case I think your King County residents would rather pay the $225 annual pass, pay the $40-50 in gas and have a good shot at a deer and go home every night, then spending the $200 roundtrip in just gas to go places like Colville or the Blues, plus have to spend all the money on food, etc for just a single trip.
Post by: Sumpnneedskillin on October 19, 2011, 12:02:54 PM
QuoteThe antler dilemma has interested this column because it should logically also apply to mule deer, which have been under a 3-point minimum restriction for more than a decade. In southeast Washington, this column saw a lot of 2-point bucks over the weekend, and darned few legal 3-point or better animals.
I was outside of Pomeroy opening weekend saturday, sunday and monday morning and would honestly say I saw more legal bucks than not legal bucks. The weather sucked and we were socked in with fog more than we were not so we didn't see a lot of deer either way, but the bucks we saw were more legal than not legal. Some more mature bucks would be nice, but there was definitely no shortage of legal bucks. If the weather was better, I suspect we could have easily all tagged out if we just wanted to shoot legal bucks.We do not want to see Gary Douvia bumped off the commission. He's one of the better ones as far as wolf issues go.:yeah:
There's so many potential variables to a decrease in hunter numbers. The economy is in the crapper. With gas at almost $4 a gallon combined with so many people out of work, on a tight budget, etc, it's no surprise to me that hunter numbers were down. I drove from western wa to Pomeroy and spent almost $200 just in gas alone. Antler restrictions surely played a part in the 2 units that were changed, but there's lot of other things contributing as well. It seems only natural to me to blame the WDFW given the recent string of events.
Jackelope, we when went out Sat afternoon and all we saw were Mulie does. It went from singles to a group of 6. We saw probably 20 or so during the time we were out. I do know that there were some decent bucks and just plain bucks taken around the area. Saw lots and lots of hunters, the constuction detour goes past my house. If I'd had a nickle for every camper, motorhome and travel trailer that went past the house this weekend I'd be able to hunt out of state for the next couple of years.
Post by: Glockster on October 19, 2011, 12:12:30 PM
Gas, plus time off, plus grief from the missus, plus tags/licenses/parking passes, etc subtracted from the greatly reduced likelyhood of bringing home a deer or elk under antler point restrictions simply didn't pencil for 49% of NE whitetail hunters and 38% of Okanogan hunters this year. ~And it surely didn't pencil for the 40 some odd percent of WA hunters who have dropped out of the ranks since the 80's.
More and more of us are simply seeing the costs outweigh the benefits of hunting here in WA. The end result is fewer hunters standing together when it finally comes time to say "enough is enough!!!". Fewer and fewer in line to buy groceries and gas in Colville, Naches, Colfax, and Twisp.
Problem with antler point restriction in WA is they never go away!
Post by: bearpaw on October 19, 2011, 12:14:28 PM
... we were pretty much told by the WDFW that predator managementwasn't much of anwill never be considered as an option, we discussed other options too, but the onlyreadily available methodoption we'll ever put into practice to reduce pressure was to reduce human harvest.
Replace WDFW with Conservation Northwest in that sentence :chuckle:
Just had to poke fun, as I also agree with the 4-point minimum and agree the herd needs reduced pressure up there. I just don't like seeing the WDFW telling us so matter of factly that predator management isn't and never will be an option, especially with wolves moving in. More wolves = more reduced hunter harvest. They are going to be managing us, not the other way around
You hit the nail on the head, my statements needed rewording.... :twocents:
Honestly folks I agree that its all messed up, maybe we will learn something from this, maybe we won't, but at least the commission was willing to listen to the whitetail group and try soemthing other than the failing WDFW strategy. Obviously the WDFW hasn't found the solution, the herd keeps dropping. Think about that for a minute, do you want to get rid of those commissioners. If I lived in the Okanogan or elsewhere I would be looking for some solutions to the dropping deer numbers, maybe you guys can work with the commission on some possible solutions for other areas too. One thing is for sure, our deer herds need help.
Another thing, if anyone will consider looking at predator management its the Commission, history has shown us WDFW will not help us like we need help with predator management. Just maybe the commission, the same commission that is questioning the faulty wolf science will tell the WDFW to manage predators. I know that's a long shot, but its the only shot we have. :twocents:
Post by: buckfvr on October 19, 2011, 12:24:51 PM
Closing roads, wolves, why this change and not that....I think we would all be appalled and fit to be tied if we were ever told the truth. I dont look for truth any time soon. Heck, we cant even demand ratification of current commissioners.......We should be able to vote for regional commissioners.......and fire them. Its our government, but we sure as hell have zero control, and barely any input........
Post by: Wenatcheejay on October 19, 2011, 12:28:44 PM
The restriction is a factor. It is also a kick in the butt because of poor management. No predator control means many will question if this is a desperate act. There is no scientific approach to this new Antler Restriction and no way to prove if it works or not. Those comments came from WDFW to me.
So, outside of opinion, there is no way to if this will work and no way to know what all is the reasons are. It is sad if the economies of these towns suffer from it. But when you add the economy to the pot and is it really so hard to see the idea that it is not worth the bother to the average hunter? I'll be going elsewhere for a few years.
Regardless, the "hope" was not for this season, it was for 2013 or 2014. That I can wrap my thick head around.
I really do hope that it improves things up there it is a blast to hunt.
edit
Dale, agreed with your rewording. I don't outright oppose the restriction for the time frame in place I just hope it is as it has been put in place and does not become a moving target. At the WDFW meeting I attended we discussed a 15 or 30 day spring bear season in 117 and 121 which was not met with any resistance.
Post by: hunter360 on October 19, 2011, 12:32:45 PM
I saw two deer the whole trip. I usually see massive herds. The two I saw were the 3x3 that my buddy shot, and the 4x5 I shot :IBCOOL:I just got back from Republic and just let me say that in the 16 years that I have been hunting over there, I have never seen the deer count so low :bash: Also, there were more predators this year than I have ever seen there too.
Ditto...6 years of hunting Republic/Curlew and fewer deer then ever this year. I think the weather had a huge part of not seeing as many muleys but even the white tail #'s are WAY down. Used to not be able to keep the WT deer out of the headlights when driving back to the cabin in the evenings now there's hardly any WT deer...they need to reduce the 65+ & youth doe permits even further and add antler restrictions to the WT deer.
Post by: huntnphool on October 19, 2011, 12:36:30 PM
Quote
Perhaps it is time for the public to start asking state and federal managers just why it is they seem intent to discourage the public from using public land for legitimate purposes, whether camping, sight-seeing, target shooting or hunting.
Hence the "Discover Pass" :chuckle:
Post by: 500 long on October 19, 2011, 12:45:13 PM
Post by: huntnphool on October 19, 2011, 12:48:19 PM
Quote
Gas, plus time off, plus grief from the missus, plus tags/licenses/parking passes, etc subtracted from the greatly reduced likelyhood of bringing home a deer or elk under antler point restrictions simply didn't pencil for 49% of NE whitetail hunters and 38% of Okanogan hunters this year.
If that is the case then they should have been tipped off by a 38% decrease in license sales earlier this year. Was there a 38% decrease in sales?
This also goes further in proving that WDFW is only interested in revenue. If there is a statewide decrease in hunters in the field, yet the decrease in license sales is not the same percentage, then one must conclude that the only reason a lot of guys purchased a license was because it is required in order to purchase a special hunt permit.
If they trully are not just in it for the revenue then why not let people apply for permits without purchasing a license, like for OIL permits? Truth is they are only interested in getting the money, they couldn't care less how the hunting is. :twocents:
Post by: huntnphool on October 19, 2011, 12:56:22 PM
My question to Dale is how is this any different, why is it acceptable now?
Post by: boneaddict on October 19, 2011, 01:08:17 PM
I'd probably mix it up a bit though. 2 point season for youth, or something like that for muledeer.
as for whitetails, I see so many younger deer that are 4 points I just shook my head on that one and moved on to other topics.
Post by: bigtex on October 19, 2011, 01:11:32 PM
QuoteGas, plus time off, plus grief from the missus, plus tags/licenses/parking passes, etc subtracted from the greatly reduced likelyhood of bringing home a deer or elk under antler point restrictions simply didn't pencil for 49% of NE whitetail hunters and 38% of Okanogan hunters this year.
If that is the case then they should have been tipped off by a 38% decrease in license sales earlier this year. Was there a 38% decrease in sales?
WDFW is on track to break or tie their all time record for license (hunting and fishing combined) revenue.
Post by: 500 long on October 19, 2011, 01:24:43 PM
Post by: CedarPants on October 19, 2011, 01:38:55 PM
I ask any one who could answer. What would it take to get someone to transplant them garden fed city deer. The technology is certainly available. I would love to do a little "catch and release" if I was allowed. We as a group have a voice, can we make it happen?
I would think we'd just be throwing $$ and resources away by releasing semi-tame deer into the wild only to be eaten by (fill in your preferance of predator) in less than a week. Those garden fed city deer wouldn't make it long in the wild, let alone long enough to rebuild the population. :twocents:
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 19, 2011, 01:54:45 PM
I ask any one who could answer. What would it take to get someone to transplant them garden fed city deer. The technology is certainly available. I would love to do a little "catch and release" if I was allowed. We as a group have a voice, can we make it happen?
I would think we'd just be throwing $$ and resources away by releasing semi-tame deer into the wild only to be eaten by (fill in your preferance of predator) in less than a week. Those garden fed city deer wouldn't make it long in the wild, let alone long enough to rebuild the population. :twocents:
They've tried relocation back east and it doesn't work. First, there's a very high mortality, as much as 40%. Secondly, the cost is way up there, so a translocation program for deer is unsustainable. For the places that are overpopulated with whitetails, bullets cost about $0.50 each. Bringing in deer would be cost prohibitive in an economic environment such as ours.
Post by: Glockster on October 19, 2011, 03:37:08 PM
Tex, is that statement really true in terms of 1970's dollars vs 2000's dollars?? Not calling you out, just wondering if inflation has taken into account.
Also, there were over 40% more deer tags sold back in the 70's-80's than the 90's-2000's, so while revenue is at all time high for WDFW, it comes at the expense of the far fewer numbers of hunters left paying the freight. And that's not necessarily what I'd consider a badge of honor for them.
Post by: winshooter88 on October 19, 2011, 04:07:07 PM
Post by: buckfvr on October 19, 2011, 04:08:53 PM
Post by: 500 long on October 19, 2011, 04:23:39 PM
Post by: Curly on October 19, 2011, 04:30:11 PM
Post by: longknife on October 19, 2011, 04:38:16 PM
No change in antler resrictions in the Methow, so that wouldn't account for that 38%.
Interesting.....38% from what, last year
Discover passes, bump in cost for licenses/tags, unemployment rate, i can see why.
Post by: 500 long on October 19, 2011, 04:41:06 PM
Post by: Dave Workman on October 19, 2011, 05:13:18 PM
Maybe they should make it albino only, that would reduce the harvest.
Oh, nice going. I now expect to see this as a recommendation before the commission sometime in January.
:chuckle:
Post by: whacker1 on October 19, 2011, 05:13:57 PM
The biologists admitted that whitetail population in the NE is down and wanted to do something about it, but opposed this particular mechanism. This was the most popular mechanism over permit only late whitetail, shortening the late whitetail, etc.
Something needed to be done, this will be a trial time frame and we will all see how it works out in a couple of years.
For the record I hunted 117 on Saturday and there were less hunters and lots more wood cutters (economy? maybe?) On Sunday, I hunted 113 (no antler restriction) and there were still far less hunters than normal. So it didn't just shift the usual hunters to the next unit over........How is that explained?
I say give it a couple of years and see what the reports look like. It was better than trying nothing.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on October 19, 2011, 05:24:15 PM
Older does not necessarily = best genetics :bash:
Post by: boneaddict on October 19, 2011, 05:28:24 PM
Post by: huntnphool on October 19, 2011, 05:30:05 PM
"However, one might ask, what’s the sense of killing off all those older mule deer bucks – which would ideally be supplying the best genetics to the herd"
Older does not necessarily = best genetics :bash:
+1
Post by: jackelope on October 19, 2011, 06:18:41 PM
Post by: jackelope on October 19, 2011, 06:21:44 PM
"However, one might ask, what’s the sense of killing off all those older mule deer bucks – which would ideally be supplying the best genetics to the herd"
Older does not necessarily = best genetics :bash:
+1
Right on. A yearling buck has the same genetics as it will when it is a 5+ year old. Genetics don't grow or get better as time goes by.
Post by: Ridgerunner on October 19, 2011, 06:23:46 PM
Post by: boneaddict on October 19, 2011, 06:25:57 PM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on October 19, 2011, 06:27:50 PM
How hard is it to find a 4 point whitetail in those units? Legit question, not trying to be a wise guy or anything. I've not deer hunted there before.
It's hard "not" to find a 4 point or better. I see far more legal bucks than non-legal bucks on camera and while hunting.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on October 19, 2011, 06:29:17 PM
Post by: longknife on October 19, 2011, 06:43:11 PM
where as a 3 point might get 2 does in a year vs. 15-20 for a big buck, that can fight off the 3 points.
Am i in left field on this??
Post by: bigtex on October 19, 2011, 08:00:37 PM
"WDFW is on track to break or tie their all time record for license (hunting and fishing combined) revenue."
Tex, is that statement really true in terms of 1970's dollars vs 2000's dollars?? Not calling you out, just wondering if inflation has taken into account.
Also, there were over 40% more deer tags sold back in the 70's-80's than the 90's-2000's, so while revenue is at all time high for WDFW, it comes at the expense of the far fewer numbers of hunters left paying the freight. And that's not necessarily what I'd consider a badge of honor for them.
I honestly don't know if inflation is taken into account. If I were a betting man I would say no.
Post by: boneaddict on October 19, 2011, 08:04:23 PM
Post by: Special T on October 19, 2011, 08:06:57 PM
Post by: longknife on October 19, 2011, 08:32:50 PM
Post by: boneaddict on October 19, 2011, 08:34:06 PM
Post by: bearpaw on October 19, 2011, 08:36:50 PM
But honestly, I think it's a good thing for hunters to be the primary supporters of the WDFW, part of the problem is that WDFW is getting lots of dollars from other sources so hunting has become less important in Washington. :twocents:
I remember a thread a couple years ago where we all were discussing antler restrictions and how it never worked in other states and was removed everywhere except here. It was also suggested that we have a 4 point restriction in some units, also suggested to WDFW in their survey. Their reply was 4 point restrictions wouldn't work because it would mean that only the most mature deer would be harvested/targetted.
My question to Dale is how is this any different, why is it acceptable now?
Contrary to what some say, APR has worked in some areas to accomplish desired goals. FYI - Pennsylvania is a perfect example, it was rare to kill a buck older than 1 1/2 or 2 1/2, now they are killing much better bucks.
APR can have a different effect depending on specie and cover. Mule deer in open country can be taken at will by expereinced hunters with good glassing abilities. I beleive it will be a much different story on whiteys in NE where we have heavy cover. Once those yearling bucks get past the stupid stage and old whitetail is pretty tough to get in heavy cover like we have there. The first year will be tough under APR, because harvest is bound to drop, but barring a hard winter nearly all 2 1/2 yr whities will become legal bucks and harvest should level off to be nearly as good as before except that the harvest will be made up of almost no yearling bucks. I honestly do not think that people can kill all the 2 1/2 year whiteys like some of you guys claim. There have been tests done where whitetails were released in 10 acre pens with heavy cover and hunters could not get them. :twocents:
Again I can't say for sure it will work, just as people cannot say for sure it will not work, but we will all know more in a few years. :twocents:
I stand by my statement about our commission being good, everyone should be glad our commission is willing to do something other than rubberstamp every WDFW proposal.
I listened to the bios at our working group meetings and while they didn't agree with APR, they admitted they didn't know how it would work out in NE WA due to the heavier cover than south of Spokane. I think some of these people making posts about what the WDFW says are changing the wording a little bit on what is actually being said, or else the WDFW is changing their remarks. Truth be known the WDFW has never done an extensive whitetail study in WA and there is a lot they do not know, including what effects an APR will have in NE WA. :twocents:
I'm sure I will be called a greedy outfitter or something of the sort by someone, but I say lets give this a chance and then let's look at it in 5 years as is planned. (many of us had suggested 3 years, but the WDFW said if we do APR we need to do APR for 5 years to compare data)
Another thing there seems to be this mentality that this is a permanent thing, from what was discussed in the meetings, the data will be compared to determine future management. I will question whether or not our goal has been met of increasing the herd size with buck and doe escapement for a few years. I wonder if once the herd grows, will APR be a good thing to continue, it may only be a good temporary measure to grow the herd and then go back to any buck once the herd recovers. :twocents:
Post by: sebek556 on October 19, 2011, 09:06:29 PM
Post by: huntnphool on October 19, 2011, 09:41:01 PM
Quote
Another thing there seems to be this mentality that this is a permanent thing
Can you really blame someone if they feel that way though Dale, how long has the east side 3 point rule been in effect, and I'm not talking about the few units that were 3 point before the entire east side went that way.
Post by: 500 long on October 19, 2011, 10:50:47 PM
Post by: bobcat on October 19, 2011, 11:11:19 PM
Post by: 500 long on October 19, 2011, 11:16:32 PM
Post by: Dave Workman on October 20, 2011, 04:57:47 AM
I wonder if once the herd grows, will APR be a good thing to continue, it may only be a good temporary measure to grow the herd and then go back to any buck once the herd recovers. :twocents:
That's the problem Dale. You know it and so do I. No need to wonder about it at all.
Once the state adopts an antler restriction, it's permanent. The point restriction on mule deer has been in place since 1997.
Time to lift it. Give it five years. See what happens. ;)
Post by: boneaddict on October 20, 2011, 05:33:54 AM
Quote
Release the houndsLiterally!
once again...predator control
trapping etc.
all ties into struggling populations from Quail birds to moose. Goats, deer, pheasants all falling somewhere in between.
Post by: CedarPants on October 20, 2011, 06:45:37 AM
I wonder if once the herd grows, will APR be a good thing to continue, it may only be a good temporary measure to grow the herd and then go back to any buck once the herd recovers. :twocents:
That's the problem Dale. You know it and so do I. No need to wonder about it at all.
Once the state adopts an antler restriction, it's permanent. The point restriction on mule deer has been in place since 1997.
Time to lift it. Give it five years. See what happens. ;)
When I started hunting on the property I now own, it was in 117. Since then the GMU's have moved boundaries a bit and now it's in 121. Either way, when I started hunting it was 3-point minimum (this was 14 years ago) and we saw legal bucks all the time. It was that way for several years, then it was changed to any buck. Just a couple years after that, we were still killing bucks but were seeing fewer and fewer of them .... by far.
From my perspective anyway, I agree with Dale in that we shouldn't be looking at the 4-point restriction as permanent. I've witnessed first hand that in the very units we are talking about, the Wildlife Commission can and will chang APR's according to the health of the deer herd.
Post by: bearpaw on October 20, 2011, 07:59:24 AM
I wonder if once the herd grows, will APR be a good thing to continue, it may only be a good temporary measure to grow the herd and then go back to any buck once the herd recovers. :twocents:
That's the problem Dale. You know it and so do I. No need to wonder about it at all.
Once the state adopts an antler restriction, it's permanent. The point restriction on mule deer has been in place since 1997.
Time to lift it. Give it five years. See what happens. ;)
Dave, I can't say you are not right, and I think there are some on the whitetail working group who want 4pt APR regardles of herd health, it's in their personnal beliefs. I can honestly say that I want to see the results before I can say whether I agree or disagree with continueing the APR in 5 years. A few have made the comment that the 3 pt APR on mule deer is still a good thing, I agree with this in that our mule deer still need help, except for some areas we seem to be protecting large 2 pts as breeder bucks and that is not good. That is the only reason I am opposed to the continuance of the 3pt APR on mule deer. 15 years ago you could hardly find more than a fork horn mule buck in NE WA, now there are a few big boys taken every year.
Maybe they should allow fork horn mule deer to be taken that have horns twice as long as the ear or something like that.... :dunno:
Otherwise we may need a draw system on mule deer in many areas. No doubt if the state would allow predator control, our herds would significantly rebound. :twocents:
Post by: Wenatcheejay on October 20, 2011, 08:00:21 AM
QuoteRelease the houndsLiterally!
once again...predator control
trapping etc.
all ties into struggling populations from Quail birds to moose. Goats, deer, pheasants all falling somewhere in between.
We need public input on it. Not just the hounds but more liberal predator hunting seasons. Some here work pretty hard for that. :tup:
As to the APR, it's here now, I hope it works! (On managed lands it should.)
Post by: buckfvr on October 20, 2011, 08:25:12 AM
Post by: bearpaw on October 20, 2011, 09:50:28 AM
I have heard in a few states, you dont even need a hunting license to kill coyotes. Darn things woke me up again this morning at 4.........I wish WDFW would come out with a pleading press release encouraging land owners to allow coyote hunting. Way too many of the buggers protected by trespass signs. My winter agenda includes serious effort to kill as many coyotes as I can, and get others to do the same.
In Utah you can shoot as many yotes as you want with no license of any kind needed.
Post by: boneaddict on October 20, 2011, 08:07:48 PM
Post by: bearpaw on October 21, 2011, 08:06:26 AM
Just so you are aware, wolves are probably 10 times smarter than coyotes. We currently have a 24/365 season on coyotes and haven't TOUCHED their population. :twocents: Guess where this is going.
Agreed, and to clarify your point further, Idaho wolf season has been going for nearly two months, many deer and elk seasons will be closing in a few days and only 65 wolves have been taken, that small take will not keep up with reproduction. They better hope late hunters and trappers do a lot better.... :twocents:
Post by: muleyguy on October 21, 2011, 09:41:30 AM
Quote
It was that way for several years, then it was changed to any buck. Just a couple years after that, we were still killing bucks but were seeing fewer and fewer of them .... by far.
the reason for this is simple; the first year you implement an APR, you instantly protect all the 1.5 yr old deer, so you quickly increase the buck population; problem is, they all just get shot when they are 2.5 yrs old; so, the APR does increase the buck population, it increases the 1.5 yr old group.
the reason you stopped seeing bucks after they got rid of it is because the exact OPPOSITE happens when you get rid of an APR; you see a dramatic reduction almost instantly in buck numbers because all the "protected" 1.5 yr olds get shot. So, when you get rid of an APR, you see a dramatic drop in buck populations.
Quote
I've witnessed first hand that in the very units we are talking about, the Wildlife Commission can and will chang APR's according to the health of the deer herd.
no, unfortunately, they won't change it back ever, just like the mule deer 3 pt rule; they can't......the hit to the buck population will be too large, and, in this State, the buck component of the the deer populations simply cannot sustain a big hit to it, they are already under too much stress as it is........it also won't get changed because after so many years of it being in place, the average hunters come to like it. They start to think they are shooting "mature" bucks, when, in fact, they are just shooting 2.5 yr old deer now instead of the 1.5 yr old deer they used to be shooting. Thats why people mistakenly believe that this is some kind of thing to make "trophy" animals; a trophy buck is going to be a 4.5 yr old buck or better; this APR will not do anything to that portion of the buck population, and, it is highly likely that it will actually hurt it.
The only way they will be able to change it back is if there is a string of good winters in a row and several years of great fawn recruitment; that is 10x more important for increasing the buck population then the APR will ever do; unfortunately, with growing predator populations and growing human populations, I doubt great fawn recruitment is going to be in our immediate future. That is not the trend in this state right now.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on October 21, 2011, 10:18:01 AM
"a trophy buck is going to be a 4.5 yr old buck or better; this APR will not do anything to that portion of the buck population, and, it is highly likely that it will actually hurt it."Rationale? :dunno:
Post by: muleyguy on October 21, 2011, 02:50:05 PM
Quote
Rationale?
because you are focusing the harvest on the older age class animals and protecting the younger age animals; we can make a side bet on here: next year, I predict that the number of 5pt+ bucks harvested in 117 and 121 is higher then it was in 2010.
If APR's are your management choice, and you want to make MORE mature animals in the population, then you need to do just the opposite of a 4 pt or better strategy; you need to do something like 2 pt or LESS; that focuses the harvest on the immature animals and lets the mature animals live. Once a buck gets past being a 2pt he is protected from his biggest and single largest predator: Human hunters
This is what the have done with the elk management in the Yakima area (spike only), and the mule deer management in the southern Idaho Owyhee units (2 pt or less) and it has produced pretty amazing results; the age structure of the male animals in the population is now skewed to the older age classes; these older age classes now do the bulk of the procreating and, there is good science to show that fawns and calf's that come from females bred with mature males are more fit. Anybody who has lived in the Yakima area and spent any time at the feeding station can attest to the fact that the male elk population is MUCH healthier now then it ever was before.
But, even these APR's can cause problems; the spike only in the Colucklum has not worked as well because the escapement of spikes has not been as good as Yakima because of the more open nature of the country. So, these APR's, if used, need to be understood and matched to the habitat and what your goals are.
4pt or more restrictions focus the harvest on older age class animals and just shift the harvest up one age class; 2 pt or less restrictions focus the harvest on the young animals, as long as you have decent escapement out the 2 pt class, then you end up with a great buck structure and more opportunities to harvest truly mature animals,
What is so sad about this 4 pt or better rule in these two units, is that it wasn't based on science, it was based on faulty emotion..........if you want to increase the number of bucks in 117 and 121 by using APR's, then they needed to go to a 2 pt or less...........the area is thick enough cover, and with it being whitetails, you would have good escapement of bucks out of the 2 pt class. Every buck that makes it past being a 2 pt is forever "safe". After just a year or two, they could then give out a whole bunch of "any whiteail buck" tags on a draw and still manage it very well.
If you were going to use APR's in these units, that would have been the better way to do it.
But, no private landowners or outfitters are going to go along with 2pt or less now are they?????????
so, instead of the right mangement tool being implemented, we get a faulty one that will be with us forever.....
Post by: stuckalot on October 21, 2011, 09:42:48 PM
The best way to fix the management of deer herds in Eastern Wa would be to create two states out of WA. Then the East side could have an entirely new "Game" department that could do what is necessary to manage the herds. :twocents:
That would go a long way to fixing ALOT of problems! ;-)
Post by: fishunt247 on October 21, 2011, 09:47:00 PM
I've been following this thread and not chiming in, mostly because I don't hunt whitetails but am interested in the antler point restriction debate.
As far as Idaho's 2pt or less units: do they then give out a significant amount of any buck tags, and how were hunter numbers in those units before and after the rule change?
While I think 2pt or less would be great in some units, it wouldn't be best in all (like you said) because of open country and because the average guy (me included...on most days) likes to shoot and eat deer, and is pretty darn happy with a decent 3 or 4pt. And if a guy like me wants to shoot and eat deer, and deer are my only source of meat (I don't buy beef, ever, and eat steak weekly), I don't want to shoot a spike mule deer whose 4 quarters weigh 30 pounds.
Now it would be awesome to have units that were 2pt or less with more any buck tags given out to have a really solid hunt, but that would also force more people into the units that are not 2pt or less, which would probably hurt the population in those units.
There are so many sides, so many options and opinions. We have too many hunters in this state to have no antler restictions, that's for sure. In five years, somebody killing a 4pt muley would be something to put in the newspaper.
Post by: muleyguy on October 22, 2011, 01:21:33 PM
Quote
As far as Idaho's 2pt or less units: do they then give out a significant amount of any buck tags, and how were hunter numbers in those units before and after the rule change?
yes, they do give out a good number; there are 3 units under the 2 pt rule; depending on unit they give out from 100 to 200 tags per unit. not sure of the hunter numbers before and after; but, it has been a success in these units
My point though in the previous post that I was making was that IF you are going to use an APR as a management choice, then the APR's like the southern Idaho unit were go xx pts or LESS while giving out a certain number of "any buck" tags is the much better choice then APR's that are xx pts or More.
The reason is several:
1. you focus the harvest on the younger animals instead of the older animals
2. the age structure of the buck population improves dramatically
3. you now have truly mature bucks doing the bulk of the breeding;
4. you do not have the genetics problem that so many are also worried about with the APR's because with APR's that are xx pts or less you are shooting the bucks with the inferior genes; for example, big 2pts are culled out because they are legal; bucks that have a small 4 pt rack there first year (yes, there are those bucks out there even in muleys; lots of them in whitetails) are instantly protected; so you get rid of the inferior bucks and keep the better ones
My point earlier is that if the people who supported this move to switch to an APR that is 4 pts or more were truly interested in increasing the buck numbers, and doing it in the best way, should have done it with an APR of something like 3 pt or less for whitetails;
but, if you are a private landowner or an outfitter, how appealing is this? not very..........
the best way to solve the problem is not with any kind of APR's.......it's with controlling the amount of tags given out.......but, nobody wants to go down that road, so we get these goofy APR's like 4 pt or more that are just going to do more damage to the herd and screw up the age makeup of the buck population
Post by: colockumelk on October 22, 2011, 01:26:42 PM
I agree well said Muleyguy. IMHO permit only is an inevitable thing in this state. Unfortunately I might add. But... I would rather have permit only hunt every 2-3 years and have awsome hunting and a healthy herd, than no restrictions a poor herd and hunt every year and so little to no legal deer.
Post by: bearpaw on October 22, 2011, 02:02:38 PM
I am getting tired of you and a few others trying to say outfitters and greedy landowners did this to make money. Exactly the opposite is true. I would have chosen your strategy of limited-entry to benefit my outfitting business and to make money.
Quote
What is so sad about this 4 pt or better rule in these two units, is that it wasn't based on science, it was based on faulty emotion..........if you want to increase the number of bucks in 117 and 121 by using APR's, then they needed to go to a 2 pt or less...........the area is thick enough cover, and with it being whitetails, you would have good escapement of bucks out of the 2 pt class. Every buck that makes it past being a 2 pt is forever "safe". After just a year or two, they could then give out a whole bunch of "any whiteail buck" tags on a draw and still manage it very well.
If you were going to use APR's in these units, that would have been the better way to do it.
But, no private landowners or outfitters are going to go along with 2pt or less now are they???
so, instead of the right mangement tool being implemented, we get a faulty one that will be with us forever.....
Honestly that sounds like a lot of personnal opinion with a dash of resentment and a lot of emotion on your part, perhaps your comments weren't directed at me, but I took them to be..... :dunno:
I'm pretty sure I was the only outfitter on the group. The intent wasn't to harm anyone or to specifically benefit my outfitter business or any landowner. Most everyone seemed concerned for the herd numbers, buck/doe ratios, and fawn recruitment in the area. Most people bitching about this have it all wrong, the issue was about rebuilding the herd numbers, it wasn't about making a trophy hunting area like you are actually suggesting we should have done.
If I was looking to push for what was best for my outfitting business I would have pushed for a limited-entry, (exactly what you want) but I put my head together with many others and together we discussed and then voted on what we thought was the best solution to decrease buck harvest and preserve hunter opportunity. (THAT IS A FACT)
Your blanket statements are simply not true. There is a lodge owner and guide on this forum who is opposed to the APR and there are many local landowners who are also opposed, who all live in those 2 units.
Quote
instead of the right mangement tool being implemented, we get a faulty one that will be with us forever.....
There is actually science both ways refuting and supporting APR's, if you did your homework you would know that. A lot of what determines the success or the science of any management strategy is based on what the goals may be. The reason I supported the APR was to reduce buck harvest for a period of time and then to re-assess the rule in 3 years, (even though WDFW was opposed to the APR idea, they said the APR needed to be in place for 5 years to assess results) so that is what the working group voted for and recommended. We have been told that the working group will be involved again when we look at the results. I will say it again, if the science shows negtive effects I will be opposed to the continuance of the rule and I would think most of the working group members will do the same.
My "opinion" is that the "science" will show buck harvest will be decreased in the short term. I don't know what the science will show over 5 years, but I am concerned about the potential of inferior racked mature bucks not being harvested. In 5 years hopefully the science will tell us more. At any rate, the goal of decreased buck harvest will likely be accomplished with the APR in the short term and then the long term strategy can be worked on.
No one knows for sure how the APR will affect the age class of bucks in those units over the next 5 years, they are much different in geography, cover, and hunter access, than the units south of Spokane, no APR has been tried on whitetails in the NW in similar GMU's.
Quote
the area is thick enough cover, and with it being whitetails, you would have good escapement of bucks out of the 2 pt class.
I would suggest that your own strategy holds even truer with the much wiser older whitetail bucks. I see this as a good argument for trying the 4pt APR. :dunno:
___________________________________________
Regarding splitting the state:
When can we start drawing the line.... :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on October 22, 2011, 02:16:08 PM
:yeah:
I agree well said Muleyguy. IMHO permit only is an inevitable thing in this state. Unfortunately I might add. But... I would rather have permit only hunt every 2-3 years and have awsome hunting and a healthy herd, than no restrictions a poor herd and hunt every year and so little to no legal deer.
Where you and muleyguy are both missing the point is that the northeast is much different than Yakima or Colockum. We have open season on "any elk" and the elk herds are slowly growing. :chuckle:
Our whitetail deer management was fine even with high predator density until we had back to back hard winters and WDFW continued liberal doe permits and buck harvest which further declined our herd. My personnal opinion is to help the herd numbers rebuild as quickly as possible then the whitetail herd can probably sustain similar mangement as we had before the back to back hard winters. :twocents:
I would also suggest that different management is appropriate for different areas of the state. One size does not fit all.... :twocents:
Post by: Wenatcheejay on October 22, 2011, 04:57:13 PM
Post by: dibbs on October 22, 2011, 05:44:44 PM
I cant speak for the rest of the state, but in several eastern washington counties the deer numbers are down substantially in the past several years. In stevens/ferry/ and pend oreille counties deer herds haven't rebounded from the winter 3 years ago. I 'm out in the woods all the time, very few animals, few tracks, very little sign! Part of it is predators, both the two and four legged variety, part of it is winter kill, and part of it is loss of habitat.
However I believe the biggest problem is that our seasons are too freeking long, and the WDFW issues way too many special permits! Our state population continues to grow, and deer are hunted from September thru December. While I love to hunt just as much as the next guy, I believe the wildlife commission needs to give each venue (rifle, archery, muzzleloader) a one week season, period. Do this for several years until populations come back a bit, and manage for healthy herds, not dollars from license sales.
The way the deer herds have dwindled, I may very soon not purchase a deer tag, and if WDFW thinks they are going to generate additional revenue with increasing license and tag fees, with crappy herd numbers, then they're sadly mistaken. Add wolves to the mix, and big game hunting will rapidly become a thing of the past!
I need to get a copy of WA states draft wolf management plan, because if what I heard today is correct, when they get to the numbers of breeding pairs of wolves that are being proposed,you'll be lucky to see a big game animal, period. Perhaps that's the ultimate goal??? :dunno:
Post by: bobcat on October 22, 2011, 07:56:48 PM
Post by: bearpaw on October 22, 2011, 08:15:19 PM
I wouldn't mind seeing the late muzzleloader, archery, and rifle seasons eliminated until deer numbers are back up. That's all they'd have to do. Keep the early/regular seasons the same as they are now. And also do away with all antlerless harvest as well. (in most units)
If the herds don't turn around soon in the areas still open for any buck or in the 4pt APR, I may have to agree with you bobcat, I think it depends on what happens after this winter, whether herds show improvement or not will determine if that should be the next step.
Dibbs welcome to the forum, I definitely agree with you on the wolves. There's quite a bit of wolf info here on the forum, here's the link to the state wolf plan: http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00001/wdfw00001.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00001/wdfw00001.pdf) (takes a while to load)
Post by: bearpaw on October 22, 2011, 08:20:56 PM
Quote
But, they won't cull predators so there are few options.
Wenatcheejay you are exactly right, pretty much everyone in the working group wanted predator control, but the WDFW will not even discuss it. The only thing they will really discuss is how to reduce human associated take. :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:
Post by: Wenatcheejay on October 23, 2011, 09:15:54 AM
I wouldn't mind seeing the late muzzleloader, archery, and rifle seasons eliminated until deer numbers are back up. That's all they'd have to do. Keep the early/regular seasons the same as they are now. And also do away with all antlerless harvest as well. (in most units)
(I do agree with you.)
But, to determine that WDFW would have to dedicate a biologist to set seasons. They seem unwilling to do that. They seem to say it is fine as is. We also know, once they take something away it never comes back, just something to think about.
Post by: colockumelk on October 23, 2011, 10:10:44 AM
The WDFW got rid of the late general season and made it permit only. They give out about 700 buck permits so it only takes 2 or 3 years to draw. Within a few years the turn around was remarkable. Now its not a matter of IF we will see a buck (legal or not) its how many legal bucks we will see. 3pt minimum without a very generous/liberal permit hunt in place of a general late season works GREAT!
If tje deer herd north of I-90 doesn't recover I think they should do what works south of I-90 and make the GMU's north of I-90 do away with the general late season hunt and make it permit only and give out a very liberal amount of tags. It can be any buck or 3 pt min or whatever.
Post by: buckfvr on October 23, 2011, 10:45:51 AM
Post by: bearpaw on October 23, 2011, 12:15:52 PM
Dale I support the APR. I have seen it work in the 3pt minimum gmu's south of Spokane. The GMU my family has hunted for years is just south of Spokane. There used to be a general rifle season late hunt for 3pt minimum. Finding a legal 3pt buck was difficult at best. The late general season muzzle loader season wasn't any better.
The WDFW got rid of the late general season and made it permit only. They give out about 700 buck permits so it only takes 2 or 3 years to draw. Within a few years the turn around was remarkable. Now its not a matter of IF we will see a buck (legal or not) its how many legal bucks we will see. 3pt minimum without a very generous/liberal permit hunt in place of a general late season works GREAT!
If tje deer herd north of I-90 doesn't recover I think they should do what works south of I-90 and make the GMU's north of I-90 do away with the general late season hunt and make it permit only and give out a very liberal amount of tags. It can be any buck or 3 pt min or whatever.
Sorry, guess I misunderstood your post.
I hope the herd improves so we don't have to go to tougher measures, but if it doesn't soon, I would definitely agree with cutting something back before the herd gets beyond the point of return.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on October 23, 2011, 04:50:50 PM
Quote
because you are focusing the harvest on the older age class animals and protecting the younger age animals; we can make a side bet on here: next year, I predict that the number of 5pt+ bucks harvested in 117 and 121 is higher then it was in 2010.
That would be a horrible bet and a pretty easy prediction to make. Of course the 5 point harvest will most likely be higher. There will be more bucks recruited into the older age class.
Quote
If APR's are your management choice, and you want to make MORE mature animals in the population, then you need to do just the opposite of a 4 pt or better strategy; you need to do something like 2 pt or LESS; that focuses the harvest on the immature animals and lets the mature animals live. Once a buck gets past being a 2pt he is protected from his biggest and single largest predator: Human hunters
The goal isn't focused on creating more mature animals however a small bonus is that there will probably be a slightly higher percentage of mature bucks in the population if we weren't able to blast any yearling buck we see. The goal is to raise the pouplation while limiting hunter opportunity as little as possible.
Quote
This is what the have done with the elk management in the Yakima area (spike only), and the mule deer management in the southern Idaho Owyhee units (2 pt or less) and it has produced pretty amazing results; the age structure of the male animals in the population is now skewed to the older age classes; these older age classes now do the bulk of the procreating and, there is good science to show that fawns and calf's that come from females bred with mature males are more fit. Anybody who has lived in the Yakima area and spent any time at the feeding station can attest to the fact that the male elk population is MUCH healthier now then it ever was before.
Anytime you protect animals you are going to have better recruitment to the older age classes. The 4 pt minimum is working on the same concept while limiting hunter opportunity as little as possible. Whitetail are not the same as Elk or Mule Deer for that matter. Whitetail are far more adaptable and robust when it comes to hunting pressure. Their populations usually don't require drastic measures to bounce back. That being said a 2pt and under rule is going to focus the pressure on the most vulnerable age group in the herd and lead to low buck recruitment for anything that has two points or less. The only thing that would counter that is the fact that there really aren't many 2pt or less whitetail running around. I have only seen a handful this year while I have seen dozens of 4pt or better.
Quote
But, even these APR's can cause problems; the spike only in the Colucklum has not worked as well because the escapement of spikes has not been as good as Yakima because of the more open nature of the country. So, these APR's, if used, need to be understood and matched to the habitat and what your goals are..
I agree.
Quote
4pt or more restrictions focus the harvest on older age class animals and just shift the harvest up one age class; 2 pt or less restrictions focus the harvest on the young animals, as long as you have decent escapement out the 2 pt class, then you end up with a great buck structure and more opportunities to harvest truly mature animals,...
Actually when it comes to whitetail some of the most successful programs are those that focus harvest on older age class animals. No need to kill the 2pt an unders. Let them live and lets just shoot mature does without fawns and bucks that are 6 1/2 years old or older....of course we can't manage that on a large scale which is why the APR's are in existence...much easier to utilize. A better one that has been used with success in certain counties in the south is a minimum spread size....but again..the goal of this APR isn't "more opportunity" to harvest truly mature animals. I can't believe there are so many hunters that are pushing to seriously limit opportunity more than the current APR when it is uncessary. I think it is a western mentality because of the other species we hunt due to the animals that can't sustain the hunter pressure a whitetail can. Whitetail are one of the only deer species that can survive a rut in sustainable numbers with massive amounts of hunting pressure (unlike we exeprience here). What we consider high hunting pressure here is low to moderate compared to other whitetail habitat in the nation. Lets not limit hunter opportunity for no good reason. I think the limited doe harvest along with the 4 pt APR we have (while not perfect) should do the job. If that doesn't work we should look at adjusting the late rifle so it doesn't fall in the rut. I wouldn't be a proponent of taking away days but adjusting them if necessary. We could make the Modern Rut hunt a special permit hunt so people would still have that opportunity from time to time.
Quote
What is so sad about this 4 pt or better rule in these two units, is that it wasn't based on science, it was based on faulty emotion..........if you want to increase the number of bucks in 117 and 121 by using APR's, then they needed to go to a 2 pt or less...........the area is thick enough cover, and with it being whitetails, you would have good escapement of bucks out of the 2 pt class. Every buck that makes it past being a 2 pt is forever "safe". After just a year or two, they could then give out a whole bunch of "any whiteail buck" tags on a draw and still manage it very well...
The comment about not being based on science is simply not true. With the 4pt minimum and thick cover you will also have escapement that you speak of while limiting hunter opportunity as little as possible and certainly much less than a 2pt and under.
Quote
If you were going to use APR's in these units, that would have been the better way to do it.
But, no private landowners or outfitters are going to go along with 2pt or less now are they?????????
Actually an outfitters business would thrive on a situation with two points or less with some special permit hunts for the mature animals. I am assuming that this is an opinion of yours rather than a fact from personal experience becuase it shows a lack of understanding on how an outfitters business works.....You are right...private landowners wouldn't support a 2pt or less...and I don't think many public land hunters (like myself) would either.
Quote
so, instead of the right mangement tool being implemented, we get a faulty one that will be with us forever.....So your opinion is that we should scrap the 4pt APR and institute a 2pt or less (which by your estimation would also stay in place forever) and seriously limit hunter opportunity forever and for no good reason???? If forever is a reality when they institute rules like this I would much rather have the relatively low impact 4pt minimum than have to draw a tag just to hunt a mature animal. That my friend would be the worst whitetail management program for hunter opportunity in this entire nation.
Post by: boneaddict on October 23, 2011, 05:01:39 PM
You seem to have a good grasp of the situation DBhawthorne, or at least I agree with you down the line.
Post by: huntnnw on October 23, 2011, 05:51:13 PM
Post by: colockumelk on October 23, 2011, 07:22:38 PM
I used the gmu's south of I-90 to prove that 3pt minimum works. So if it comes down to it and the herds don't bounce back they should manage the gmu's north of I-90 like they do tje ones southof tje free way. That is a general season in october 3 pt min . Then a late season that is permit only with a very liberal amount of tags. It worked south of I-90 it will work to the north.
All of the above is of course if the current system doesn't work.
Post by: Thenewguy on October 23, 2011, 07:41:52 PM
Sorry, but I have to disagree withn you on this one Dave. :sry:
I think it's nearly 100% economy. People can't afford to go hunting. I am seeing fewer hunters in every state, Idaho, Utah, and I am expecting it in Montana when it opens. In Idaho on the elk opener there is an area where I usually see 25 to 40 camps, this year I counted 8 camps, that was it. In Utah I saw the fewest hunters I have ever saw when out elk hunting.
I was on the whitetail working group that recommended the 4pt rule and I voted for it to reduce the harvest. So I am happy to hear that the harvest is down, even though I credit the majority of the reduction in harvest to the economy and a depressed deer herd. For example, hunters hunting in 3 other units with no antler restriction still have to pass the check station on their way back to Spokane, guess what, those hunters had no deer either. :dunno:
PLEASE EXPLAIN THAT!
The NE deer herd is way down and it needs a break, I think the check station report confirms that. That's the only good thing I see from this depression. :chuckle:
I am the last person in the world who wants to keep out other hunters, I think that is the wrong idea you have there. The county commissioners want more outsdide people too, but they recognize our herds are down and also voted for the restriction. My concern is to rebuild the herd by reducing harvest. In our meetings we were pretty much told by the WDFW that predator management wasn't much of an option, we discussed other options too, but the only readily available method to reduce pressure was to reduce human harvest.
I think the WDFW would like to get rid of Douvia because he questions their faulty wolf plan. So I think you are right about the WDFW wanting the wolves, but I think you are on the wrong track with your 4pt reasoning. One thing is for sure, Douvia is a hunter, I hope Washington's hunters don't want to lose an avid hunter from the commission. Especially a commissioner who seems willing to make the hard decisions to help a deer herd recover.
There is science both ways on the 4 pt restriction, only time will tell us if it works or don't work in NE WA. :twocents:
Why is predator management not an option?
Post by: bearpaw on October 24, 2011, 07:16:55 AM
Quote
Why is predator management not an option?
To put it in as few of words as possible:
The WDFW claims they are afraid of the iniative process. :bash:
Post by: colockumelk on October 24, 2011, 07:24:34 AM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on October 24, 2011, 07:57:12 AM
QuoteWhy is predator management not an option?
To put it in as few of words as possible:
The WDFW claims they are afraid of the iniative process. :bash:
Dale, I was told this year, "We are happy with all predator levels in Washington in all units right now."
That is word for word when discussing this issue.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 24, 2011, 07:57:36 AM
Yeah I really don't understand and why the WDFW and the state is so protective of predators. The WDFW is okay with a 3:100 bull to cow ratio or buck ratio in a GMU and does nothing to further protect or fix a particular herd but... on the flip side when it comes to predators they wont do anything to reduce a population even when they are above carrying capacity. :bash: I really don't understand. It makes no sense to me. More spring bear permits would equal more revenue so you think that the WDFW would jump on that in a heart beat. But nooooooooooo.
This is a big problem. Most units are not coming close to the 14% (+/- 2%) hunter harvest of cougars that's needed to sustain healthy populations. With few exceptions, bears are increasing everywhere in the state. Added in to the tolerance for a rapidly growing wolf population, their reluctance to aggressively manage predators will bite us hunters in the butt in a very short time.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 24, 2011, 08:02:31 AM
QuoteWhy is predator management not an option?
To put it in as few of words as possible:
The WDFW claims they are afraid of the iniative process. :bash:
Dale, I was told this year, "We are happy with all predator levels in Washington in all units right now."
That is word for word when discussing this issue.
That's not what I heard from the Cougar biologist in Chehalis in Aug. He recognizes the need for increased hunting in all but a few areas of the state. But, there's a professor from WSU or Eastern WA on retainer by the WDFW who's apparently an anti-hunter, certainly anti-cougar hunting, who has the ear of the commission and claims we're where we need to be with killing cougars. He's also apparently fast and loose with the figures he uses to make his case. He's been publicly called out on several of his claims as skewing the facts. I'm sorry, I don't know his name.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on October 24, 2011, 09:02:12 AM
QuoteWhy is predator management not an option?
To put it in as few of words as possible:
The WDFW claims they are afraid of the iniative process. :bash:
Dale, I was told this year, "We are happy with all predator levels in Washington in all units right now."
That is word for word when discussing this issue.
That's not what I heard from the Cougar biologist in Chehalis in Aug. He recognizes the need for increased hunting in all but a few areas of the state. But, there's a professor from WSU or Eastern WA on retainer by the WDFW who's apparently an anti-hunter, certainly anti-cougar hunting, who has the ear of the commission and claims we're where we need to be with killing cougars. He's also apparently fast and loose with the figures he uses to make his case. He's been publicly called out on several of his claims as skewing the facts. I'm sorry, I don't know his name.
For me it came from Dave Ware as I understood his words.
He was nice and we discussed quite a few issues I have no problems with him as far as saying how it is.
He said if we have a spring bear season it will come at the expense of the duration of the fall bear season. It may help recruit some fawns in the NE. (Maybe :dunno:)
The problem would be participation. Would you drive to the NE for a spring bear?
I did not talk to a cougar bio so I can't comment to what you say. I agree with your assessment though.
Post by: bearpaw on October 24, 2011, 09:37:15 AM
I think coyotes are one of our major problems, we watch them every year taking fawns, it doesn't matter how much we cut back hunting seasons, if coyotes continue to take more fawns we will not recruit more deer into the herds.
I see more coyote contests in our future......
Post by: boneaddict on October 24, 2011, 09:42:40 AM
Quote
"We are happy with all predator levels in Washington in all units right now."This is WHERE I part ways with the WDFW. I don't buy alot of other heat folks place on the department, but in this case. Crank up the HEAT
Post by: Wenatcheejay on October 24, 2011, 10:00:20 AM
Post by: PA BEN on October 24, 2011, 12:51:00 PM
I find it interesting that we are getting different answers depending on who you talk to. :twocents:Saw more does with fawns this year then in the past 4 years and not one coyote. Back in '08 I saw 12 yotes in one pack. Hay swathers take a lot of fawns too. Now as far as this 4 point rule. It sucks for the kids, we had a 10 year old out all week and there were plenty of small bucks to shoot. By the time doe season opened she was done. She was so bumbed out her Mom came up and took her home. There is going to be a lot of bucks not shot this year. Try and count points on a white tail when you jump him. BTW, more moose sign then deer sign.
I think coyotes are one of our major problems, we watch them every year taking fawns, it doesn't matter how much we cut back hunting seasons, if coyotes continue to take more fawns we will not recruit more deer into the herds.
I see more coyote contests in our future......
Post by: CedarPants on October 24, 2011, 02:22:29 PM
I find it interesting that we are getting different answers depending on who you talk to. :twocents:Saw more does with fawns this year then in the past 4 years and not one coyote. Back in '08 I saw 12 yotes in one pack. Hay swathers take a lot of fawns too. Now as far as this 4 point rule. It sucks for the kids, we had a 10 year old out all week and there were plenty of small bucks to shoot. By the time doe season opened she was done. She was so bumbed out her Mom came up and took her home. There is going to be a lot of bucks not shot this year. Try and count points on a white tail when you jump him. BTW, more moose sign then deer sign.
I think coyotes are one of our major problems, we watch them every year taking fawns, it doesn't matter how much we cut back hunting seasons, if coyotes continue to take more fawns we will not recruit more deer into the herds.
I see more coyote contests in our future......
That is unfortunate that she was so bummed, but we have to remember to teach them there is more to hunting than killing something. We need to teach them the value of a healthy herd as well. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for youth opportunity (I have 3 kids of my own), but we have to draw a line between offering opportunity while ensuring the overall herd numbers can support the opportunity.
Post by: buckcanyonlodge on October 24, 2011, 02:54:03 PM
"There is science both ways on the 4 pt restriction, only time will tell us if it works or don't work in NE WA. "
JUST LIKE " We have to vote on it so we can see what's in it".. ie the Obama Health Care Plan. You bet people changed areas because of the 4 point restriction. Talked to some first hand. Others tried it and stated they won't be back until it is changed.As far as Douvia is concerned he is great on Wolves but pushes his and large landowners agenda on deer hunting.
Post by: PA BEN on October 24, 2011, 03:35:39 PM
Post by: Dave Workman on October 28, 2011, 04:30:37 AM
That is unfortunate that she was so bummed, but we have to remember to teach them there is more to hunting than killing something. We need to teach them the value of a healthy herd as well. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for youth opportunity (I have 3 kids of my own), but we have to draw a line between offering opportunity while ensuring the overall herd numbers can support the opportunity.
This may seem brutal, but this is part of the problem, not the solution.
Let me translate: "but we have to remember to teach them there is more to hunting than killing something."
Yes, we have to remember to teach them that in Washington, there is camping with guns and you should be programmed to pay for and expect disappointment year after year after year.
The WDFW drew the line for you and instead of opportunity, they opted for watchable wildlife and walking wolf food and tribal gluttony, and too many people in our ranks who have the "we need to learn to get along with less" attitude helped them do it.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on October 28, 2011, 05:31:44 AM
Post by: Dhoey07 on October 28, 2011, 06:38:48 AM
:yeah:
I agree well said Muleyguy. IMHO permit only is an inevitable thing in this state. Unfortunately I might add. But... I would rather have permit only hunt every 2-3 years and have awsome hunting and a healthy herd, than no restrictions a poor herd and hunt every year and so little to no legal deer.
Then save your money up, don't hunt washington, and buy your tags for montana every 2-3 years.
Post by: buckcanyonlodge on October 28, 2011, 06:50:47 AM
That is unfortunate that she was so bummed, but we have to remember to teach them there is more to hunting than killing something. We need to teach them the value of a healthy herd as well. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for youth opportunity (I have 3 kids of my own), but we have to draw a line between offering opportunity while ensuring the overall herd numbers can support the opportunity.
This may seem brutal, but this is part of the problem, not the solution.
Let me translate: "but we have to remember to teach them there is more to hunting than killing something."
Yes, we have to remember to teach them that in Washington, there is camping with guns and you should be programmed to pay for and expect disappointment year after year after year.
The WDFW drew the line for you and instead of opportunity, they opted for watchable wildlife and walking wolf food and tribal gluttony, and too many people in our ranks who have the "we need to learn to get along with less" attitude helped them do it.
Right on Dave!!! Could not have said it better myself.
Post by: CedarPants on October 28, 2011, 07:18:26 AM
That is unfortunate that she was so bummed, but we have to remember to teach them there is more to hunting than killing something. We need to teach them the value of a healthy herd as well. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for youth opportunity (I have 3 kids of my own), but we have to draw a line between offering opportunity while ensuring the overall herd numbers can support the opportunity.
This may seem brutal, but this is part of the problem, not the solution.
Let me translate: "but we have to remember to teach them there is more to hunting than killing something."
Yes, we have to remember to teach them that in Washington, there is camping with guns and you should be programmed to pay for and expect disappointment year after year after year.
The WDFW drew the line for you and instead of opportunity, they opted for watchable wildlife and walking wolf food and tribal gluttony, and too many people in our ranks who have the "we need to learn to get along with less" attitude helped them do it.
I don't have a "we need to learn to get along with less" attitude Dave, that's an unfair accusation and my comments on this forum will attest to that. And frankly, if I didn't see your insinuation that I somehow helped the WDFW create watchable wildlife, walking wolf food, and tribal gluttony as nothing more than an extremely uninformed statement made by someone who is confused about who to be mad with, I'd tell you where to go :tup:
I have a lot of respect for you. I enjoy your readings and I thoroughly appreciate your voice for us as sportsmen. Your comment about me isn't brutal, but it is one of the most inaccurate thing you've ever written.
Allow me to explain what I meant by my statement. I have 3 sons. When they begin hunting, I'm not going to push them so hard to kill something that they get frustrated and want to quit and come home if they don't. I'm going to make it an enjoyable experience for them as best I can.
Post by: brackens on October 28, 2011, 11:25:16 AM
Post by: bearpaw on October 28, 2011, 11:51:08 AM
The NE needs help, not only these two units but others as well. At least we will be able to compare management strategies in a few years and be able to see what works best.
I do find it disappointing that certain individuals are determined to cast those who are the most concerned in a false bad light.
Post by: wence5 on October 28, 2011, 12:29:05 PM
[/quote]
If that is the end game, then government is serving one special interest group and not the good wildlife as a whole. Seems that the needs of the few out weight the needs of the many. Add cougar over population to the mix and you have the recipe for the extinction of deer and elk herds in just a few years.
I wonder how many hunters will take care of this problem through "shoot, shovel, and shut up" ?
Post by: bearpaw on October 28, 2011, 12:39:37 PM
Post by: Special T on October 28, 2011, 12:41:23 PM
If they were more aggressive with the predator issues in genera,l then we might feel like they are working with us even if we disagree with the details...
I think this is slightly ironic... I had this discussion with my father the other day. We were discussing how we need to prioritizes our spending on stuff for work... after arguing back and forth he looked at me and said... If we sold a little more we could just do it all! we both had a chuckle... If the WDFW focused on growing the pie across the board then the details wouldn't matter quite so much. :twocents:
Post by: gunparts on October 28, 2011, 03:27:12 PM
Post by: bearpaw on October 29, 2011, 12:04:24 PM
bearpaw I live around Clayton and there are more deer then ever, i have heard from alot of people that they are not hunting due to this 4 pt rule, seems to me that getting rid of some does would be a good thing cut down on alot of road kill on 395 as well.
That's interesting, I wonder if that high deer abundance is a local thing around your place, I'm not positive but it seems that I heard the deer counts were off the most in the Clayton area? :dunno:
I do remember for that the buck/doe ratio was the lowest in the Clayton area of all the transect counts last year. Do you think the deer numbers are at a high level compared to historic levels 5 to 20 years ago, or is there just more traffic to hit deer today verses prior years?
Post by: sebek556 on October 29, 2011, 12:37:58 PM