Post by: colockumelk on November 22, 2011, 08:13:18 AM
To sum it up. Culling "managment bucks" only has an effect on small herds that are enclosed (Texas high fence) in larger areas they have 0 effect. So cull away if it makes you feel better but it doesn't do anything. APR's are meant to do 3 things. 1 They are not meant to make "Trohpy" units they are meant to make "Quality" units. By increasing the age class of the bucks. 2. Increase doe harvest and 3. Overall increase the pre-hunting season buck:doe ratio as close to 1:1 as possible. APR's reduce the amount of buck harvest and increase the amount of doe harvest.
So go ahead and flame on and please before you flame about how they are stupid and don't work. Or how you can't compare WA to PA, or ND or to Eastern ID. Please take the time and read the articles. You'll at least learn some stuff. Look at the attachements as well. Because there is a really good article about Antler Point Restrictions.
CULLING "Managment Bucks"
http://www.americanhunter.org/blogs/culling-bucks/ (http://www.americanhunter.org/blogs/culling-bucks/)
Antler Point Restrictions: Purpose
http://www.qdma.com/what-we-do/articles/deer-biologymanagement/protecting-yearling/ (http://www.qdma.com/what-we-do/articles/deer-biologymanagement/protecting-yearling/)
http://www.whitetailinstitute.com/info/news/aug03/6.html (http://www.whitetailinstitute.com/info/news/aug03/6.html)
Adult Sex Ratio
http://www.qdma.com/what-we-do/articles/deer-biologymanagement/adult-sex-ratios/ (http://www.qdma.com/what-we-do/articles/deer-biologymanagement/adult-sex-ratios/)
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on November 22, 2011, 08:40:11 AM
Post by: Buckmark on November 22, 2011, 09:40:56 AM
Here is what the WAFWA (Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies) has to say about antler point restrictions when talking Mule deer.
*
Antler point restrictions
Creating mule deer harvest seasons with antler point restrictions is popular amongst hunters who think it will help increase the number of mature bucks and buck:doe ratios in mule deer populations. But research in many western states shows that antler point restrictions do not produce more deer or larger-antlered deer.
Colorado implemented antler point restrictions statewide for six years, and in a number of game units for seven years. The result was a shift of hunting from pressure on all age classes of bucks (primarily yearlings) to bucks two years and older, and an increase in illegal or accidental harvest of yearling bucks. The number of mature bucks did not increase over time.
Idaho and Montana implemented two points or less seasons to reduce hunting pressure on older bucks and improve buck:doe ratios at the end of hunting seasons. Over the long term, two point seasons did not improve buck:doe ratios at the end of the hunting seasons.
Wyoming’s experience with four point or better seasons resulted in fewer hunters and a reduction in total harvest, fewer mature bucks, and a significant number of deer harvested with fewer than four points.
Utah abandoned efforts to implement antler point restrictions after five years when officials documented illegal harvest, reductions in overall harvest and fewer mature bucks.
Attempts to increase the number of mature bucks and buck:doe ratios using four-point seasons in Montana reduced buck harvest by 28 percent, increased illegal harvest of bucks with 3x3 points or less by about 40 percent, and increased harvest of bucks having more than 3x4 points.
Washington tried antler point restrictions in a few of their hunting units and experienced a smaller harvest of mule deer bucks, a switch in harvest from mule deer to white-tailed deer, and no increase in the number of mature bucks. They did experience an increase in buck:doe ratios because of the lower buck harvest and improved recruitment of fawns.
Oregon abandoned antler point restrictions in a few popular hunting areas when the number of older bucks and buck:doe ratios decreased after 12 years.
Most western states have concluded that changes in buck:doe ratios and increases in the number of mature bucks can only be accomplished through reductions in harvest of bucks.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on November 22, 2011, 10:09:09 AM
http://www.gameandfishmag.com/2010/09/29/hunting_mule-deer-blacktail-deer-hunting_wo_aa075504a/
Post by: JimmyHoffa on November 22, 2011, 10:15:52 AM
Post by: mdbuck5x5 on November 22, 2011, 10:20:57 AM
Post by: buckfvr on November 22, 2011, 10:49:28 AM
As unpopular as it is here in N.E. Wa., I blame first, the liberal modern late season....I think it should be by permit, and no longer than 10 days........and second...all the state rags like Fishing and Hunting Lies that encourage many folks to seek out ther hunting fantasies here. Over the many years Ive hunted, I have witnessed it happen to many one time excellent hunts. All areas I hunted at one time or another and saw the decline first hand. Methow, Colockum, Blues, Lt. Murray, YFC, we had some great deer hunting in the past for sure, and it was accessable to all.......not private lands like some of our best hunts today.
I also blame the Internet for the current spike in hunter numbers in areas that not long ago held few hunters.....if you want company, just post pics and be forthcoming with info anywhere on the net, and low and behold, company.
All said and done....I support APR's here, and am in a position to see for myself if it works. Time will tell.........
Post by: colockumelk on November 22, 2011, 12:02:15 PM
The other method is using antler width. Sure a yearling buck may have 3 points on one side but he's not going to be more than 16" wide. Many outfits use this. But again in a public land scenario this is unreasonable. I know I can't tell the difference at 50yds between 14 or 16". Again unreasonable.
The method most often used is APR. Because everyone that hunts should be expected to be able to count to 3 or 4. Its a pretty easy standard to use and thus is used most often.
Post by: colockumelk on November 22, 2011, 12:02:27 PM
The other Anti-APR argument is they say that since the harvest is focused more on mature bucks that the number of mature bucks decreases and that the 1.5 year old bucks do all the breeding. This is also not true from what I have read. The number of mature bucks increases over time due to the fact that most of the 1.5 year old bucks survive to become mature bucks and more of the harvest also is focused on does. Typically APR units see a reduction of 20-30% in buck harvests over its previous "Any Buck" harvests.
The other Anti-APR argument says with a 3pt or 4pt minimum this kills off all your stud 1.5 year old bucks and leaves all the geneticaly inferior 1.5 year olds to live and later on breed and pass on their inferior genes. ALL the studies that biologists have done shows that this is 100% false. In free ranging wild deer herds, hunting can not control the genetic strength or inferiority of a herd. This includes culling inferior bucks etc. There are just too many variables that will determine if a buck will be a stud. Length of life and nutrition are the two biggest factors. Culling an unfavorable buck doesnt' mean you took that gene out of the herd. Since 50% of a bucks genetic makeup comes from his mother. And how do you tell if a doe is gonna pass on big buck genes. :dunno: You can't. The ONLY place that culling inferior bucks from a gene pool are on properties that have high fences in controlled environements. Wild bucks range from 5 to 30 miles and like many things in mother nature we just can't control herd genetics.
The reason I believe in APR's is because there is literally a TON of research and science that supports APR's. I have seen little if any that says otherwise. I have also seen APR's work first hand in WA. Both in Central WA Mule Deer and in Whitetail deer south of I90 in WA. Especially with Whitetails in Eastern WA. Wow it worked well.
Post by: Special T on November 22, 2011, 12:12:10 PM
Post by: colockumelk on November 22, 2011, 12:21:34 PM
Interesting read:
http://www.gameandfishmag.com/2010/09/29/hunting_mule-deer-blacktail-deer-hunting_wo_aa075504a/
That was a really good and informative article. Thanks for posting
Special T. Yeah I tried finding research that would apply to BT and Mule Deer and I didn't really find anything other than some blog type stuff. But nothing really research related. Now of course I didn't much passed page 2 or 3 on google so who knows maybe on page 18 there's some Mule Deer or BT stuff. :chuckle:
You said "I think it does reduce harvest of younger bucks giving them more time to grow to their full potential, but that is it as far as any benefit for BT or Mulies". I agree this is the purpose of APR and QDM. So many people (myself included until recently) think that QDM or APR is all about creating "Trophy" animals and "Trophy" hunts. This is not true. Its simply to create more "Mature" type bucks, (2.5years old or older) and create a higher buck:doe ratio. It does this by allowing the 1.5year olds to grow up a bit and get a little bit smarter and creates escapement because you can't just go "I see antlers BOOM" you have to take time to look at the rack. I think that APR's and QDM is successfull at its two main goals.
As far as Mule Deer goes in Central WA I was starting to see an improvement until the hair loss disease hit. I have no clue about BT. I have never hunted them so I will not speculate or make an opinion.
Post by: bearpaw on November 22, 2011, 12:43:55 PM
Its simply to create more "Mature" type bucks, (2.5years old or older) and create a higher buck:doe ratio. It does this by allowing the 1.5year olds to grow up a bit and get a little bit smarter and creates escapement because you can't just go "I see antlers BOOM" you have to take time to look at the rack. I think that APR's and QDM is successfull at its two main goals.
Very well put and why I supported APR in NE WA on whitetails. Right now we need buck escapement, from what I saw this season I think we had fewer bucks taken in those units than would have been taken without APR... :tup:
Post by: Special T on November 22, 2011, 12:45:36 PM
Always cool to read the research tho.
I had a buddy who's wife worked at a research facility near Olympia. They studied and compared BT to pigmy goats. Looking for spays that would deter deer from eating the fresh buds off of trees. Think about what goats eat... BT eat that and more! Cedar boughs, Brachen fern, Sword fern ect... Breacken fern causes Tricinosus (sp) in goats but not BT. :o
Because WT hunting is such big business there has been alot of $$$ tossed at studying them...
Post by: coachcw on November 22, 2011, 12:52:39 PM
Post by: Special T on November 22, 2011, 01:01:33 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on November 22, 2011, 01:17:28 PM
Post by: Dave Workman on November 22, 2011, 02:27:15 PM
Are you only talking whitetails?
Here is what the WAFWA (Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies) has to say about antler point restrictions when talking Mule deer.
*
Antler point restrictions
Buckmark:
Please provide a link to this.
Post by: Glockster on November 22, 2011, 04:17:18 PM
management. Hunters are essential to the North American Model of Wildlife Management.
Hunter numbers are declining nationwide. Vocal minorities tend to prefer more elite hunting
opportunities, whereas silent majorities seem to want the opportunity to go while unwilling to
speak out. Educating hunters and managing hunting opportunity in the next decades may be
the most critical and delicate elements to the continuation of the North American Model of
Wildlife Management. Recognizing that hunting customers comprise at least 2 distinct public
segments is critical to providing suitable products.
WESTERN STATES AND PROVINCES DEER AND ELK WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 7:11-21.
Post by: Glockster on November 22, 2011, 04:20:31 PM
Essentially, surveys reflect that wildlife management agencies have a minimum of 2
publics when providing hunting opportunity: hunters that simply want the opportunity to hunt and
hunters that desire a high quality hunt and are willing to wait to receive it. Those that simply
want the opportunity to hunt are important customers because they are the ranks from which
recruitment and retention is most important; they vote and interact socially with others that may
not hunt. The vocal minority that seeks quality hunting opportunities is the segment that
routinely attends Commission meetings, legislative hearings, and most often vocally supports
initiatives that benefit wildlife conservation. Wildlife agencies are challenged to provide suitable
products for both customer segments.
Literature Cited
Post by: Glockster on November 22, 2011, 04:30:08 PM
Ballard, J. 2008. Making a point. Wyoming Wildlife LXXI(3):34-39. [“…the Mule Deer Working Group of the Western Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies has little positive data to report from its analysis of antler point restrictions.” “Antler point restrictions do not produce more deer or larger-antlered deer.”]
Barsness, J. 1997. Twilight for the gray deer? Field & Stream Dec:53-58. [Trophy management has several costs: (1) lost hunter opportunity, (2) wasted dead deer, and (3) cheapened live deer. Idaho biologist Lon Kuck says “I’d rather puke in my hand than use point restrictions.”]
Bitler, Craig. 2006. Antler restrictions: the science behind the idea. Deer & Deer Hunting 29(9):44-46,50,52. Aug. [Mortality became focused on mature bucks and illegal kills increased. “It is evident that APRs have a long, but not particularly distinguished history in the western United States.”]
Carpenter, L.H. and R.B. Gill. 1987. Antler point regulations: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Proc. Western Assoc. Fish & Wildl. Agencies 67:94-107. [“An interesting irony of APRs is that hunting pressure is greatest on the segment of the herd that the regulation was designed to ‘produce’… The ugly of APRs for deer is that they are likely to be quite costly in wasted animals and discouraged hunters.”]
Post by: Special T on November 22, 2011, 04:55:33 PM
Post by: Glockster on November 22, 2011, 04:55:53 PM
Collier, B.A. 2004. Evaluating impact of selective harvest management on age structure and sex ratio of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in Arkansas. PhD Dissert. University of Arkansas. 189pp. [The use of antler restrictions (3-points on a side) were expected to shift male survivorship into older age classes. "My results indicated that those shifts were canceled out by increased selectivity of sub-adults under current regulations (and possibly high quality yearlings), allowing no more males to reach mature (>3.5 year old) age classes than under historical regulations."
Crawford, Andy. 2005. 6-point experiment set to expire, less than booming success. Louisiana Sportsman 25(2):12-14 (Feb). [The 3-year experiment did not result in significantly larger deer or antlers, but did result in fewer bucks being harvested. Biologist Dave Moreland said, "he believes the results of the 6-point experiment highlighted problems with antler restrictions…his preference would be to implement other management practices" (habitat management, herd control).]
DeYoung, C.A. 1989. Mortality of adult male white-tailed deer in south Texas. J. Wildl. Manage. 53(3):513-523. [“These data show that managing for mature males can be inefficient because 25-29% of males/year will die before reaching mature age.” That is, only 36-42% of yearlings will survive to age 4 if not harvested sooner.]
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on November 22, 2011, 05:01:06 PM
And for those who have bought into the as 'seen on TV' whitetail deer farming QDM koolaid:
Collier, B.A. 2004. Evaluating impact of selective harvest management on age structure and sex ratio of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in Arkansas. PhD Dissert. University of Arkansas. 189pp. [The use of antler restrictions (3-points on a side) were expected to shift male survivorship into older age classes. "My results indicated that those shifts were canceled out by increased selectivity of sub-adults under current regulations (and possibly high quality yearlings), allowing no more males to reach mature (>3.5 year old) age classes than under historical regulations."
Crawford, Andy. 2005. 6-point experiment set to expire, less than booming success. Louisiana Sportsman 25(2):12-14 (Feb). [The 3-year experiment did not result in significantly larger deer or antlers, but did result in fewer bucks being harvested. Biologist Dave Moreland said, "he believes the results of the 6-point experiment highlighted problems with antler restrictions…his preference would be to implement other management practices" (habitat management, herd control).]
DeYoung, C.A. 1989. Mortality of adult male white-tailed deer in south Texas. J. Wildl. Manage. 53(3):513-523. [“These data show that managing for mature males can be inefficient because 25-29% of males/year will die before reaching mature age.” That is, only 36-42% of yearlings will survive to age 4 if not harvested sooner.]
As a guy who grew up hunting both with and without Antler Restrictions in Arkansas I can call BS too the first guys comments. Without a doubt there are a higher percentage of older age class bucks than there were before the AR's. That is a from a guy who probably spent as much or more time in the field than Mr. Collier.
Post by: Dave Workman on November 22, 2011, 05:11:24 PM
As a guy who grew up hunting both with and without Antler Restrictions in Arkansas I can call BS too the first guys comments. Without a doubt there are a higher percentage of older age class bucks than there were before the AR's. That is a from a guy who probably spent as much or more time in the field than Mr. Collier.
You ain't from around here, then.
I grew up HERE hunting without Antler Restrictions and it worked fine. There are lots more people who are looking to notch a tag and put some meat in the freezer than stroke their own egos with a big wallhanger rack. I've shot big and small deer. They all pretty much tasted the same, and the feeling of accomplishment was no more or less.
And as I have said before...to a KID...even a spike is a trophy. If you want to kill a big mature deer, fine...just don't shoot a smaller one. But don't stand in the way of someone else shooting a smaller one just to fulfill your agenda.
Post by: high country on November 22, 2011, 05:31:22 PM
Post by: mdbuck5x5 on November 22, 2011, 05:39:53 PM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on November 22, 2011, 05:40:53 PM
As a guy who grew up hunting both with and without Antler Restrictions in Arkansas I can call BS too the first guys comments. Without a doubt there are a higher percentage of older age class bucks than there were before the AR's. That is a from a guy who probably spent as much or more time in the field than Mr. Collier.
You ain't from around here, then.
I grew up HERE hunting without Antler Restrictions and it worked fine. There are lots more people who are looking to notch a tag and put some meat in the freezer than stroke their own egos with a big wallhanger rack. I've shot big and small deer. They all pretty much tasted the same, and the feeling of accomplishment was no more or less.
And as I have said before...to a KID...even a spike is a trophy. If you want to kill a big mature deer, fine...just don't shoot a smaller one. But don't stand in the way of someone else shooting a smaller one just to fulfill your agenda.
Not "orginally" from around here but I have lived here for a total of 10 years and hunted here for 15 years straight so I would consider that a fair amount of Washington hunting experience (all of it strictly for whitetail and all of it without APRs). Certainly not as much as you or many of the natives here but definitely a reasonable amount to make a reasonable assessment of my own.
Despite your massive amounts of Washington hunting experience it appears you don't remember what Washington whitetail herds were like 10-15 years ago vs today.
"There are lots more people who are looking to notch a tag and put some meat in the freezer than stroke their own egos with a big wallhanger rack." :bash: I have no idea where you all keep getting that this is about a big wallhanger rack. It almost contradicts what most of the anti-APR guys say because one hand you talk about how it wont' create bigger bucks and then you say that this all about creating bigger bucks.... makes zero sense...and is completely contradictory.
If the majority of people would prefer to just notch their tag and put a deer in the freezer then it would seem that higher deer populations (which the restricted buck and doe harvest will create) will work to their benefit in a few years.
Your last paragraph hits to the heart and I do agree with you. I am certainly not for placing unnecessary restrictions of any kind. However, at this point I do believe restrictions of some kind are in order to help the herd. Are there other ways to do achieve the desired result of healthier herds? Sure. Is there better ways to achieve the desired result of healthier herds? Sure. Is there better ways to do achieve desired results when managing at a state level??? I'm not so sure.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on November 22, 2011, 05:41:45 PM
I know this, there were far fewer hunters in 117 than typical in my past expierience, but 124 was flat POUNDED. combine higher fuel prices and APR's and you just put the whammy on neighboring units. APR's are fine for mule deer as their typical habits lead them to be easier to kill at younger ages....whitetails in the wild, not you private farm with zero pressure (excluding when you go load your feeder) are very smart begining at a very young age. I understand the management plan, but if it was to truly bring the buck to doe ratio around, why not offer increased doe hunts? the carrying capacity of the land can only support so many deer, why not make that number include more bucks in general.
Odd... I saw more hunters in 117 than I did any year previous...perhaps it was just the area I was hunting.
Post by: Dave Workman on November 22, 2011, 06:12:30 PM
Not "orginally" from around here but I have lived here for a total of 10 years and hunted here for 15 years straight so I would consider that a fair amount of Washington hunting experience (all of it strictly for whitetail and all of it without APRs). Certainly not as much as you or many of the natives here but definitely a reasonable amount to make a reasonable assessment of my own.
This isn't about whitetails per se, it's about the positively stupid perpetuation of APR regulations on mule deer. I don't think BA restrictions work for whitetail, either, and while some folks say "give it time," there is ample experience in other regions with whitetails that pretty much refutes the predictions.
Quote
Despite your massive amounts of Washington hunting experience it appears you don't remember what Washington whitetail herds were like 10-15 years ago vs today.
Yes, I do remember whitetail herds 10-15 years ago. In the seasons when I hunted Northeast counties, I saw plenty of whitetails at times, and at other times I didn't. That's why they call it hunting and not shooting...except in the fairytale television shows where a hunt wraps up in 30 minutes and the people sit in blinds, dressed in camo as if deer could see them.
Quote
"There are lots more people who are looking to notch a tag and put some meat in the freezer than stroke their own egos with a big wallhanger rack." :bash: I have no idea where you all keep getting that this is about a big wallhanger rack. It almost contradicts what most of the anti-APR guys say because one hand you talk about how it wont' create bigger bucks and then you say that this all about creating bigger bucks.... makes zero sense...and is completely contradictory.
You're not getting it at all. The anti-APR guys are right, it will not create more big bucks. However, that doesn't stop the APR advocates from believing it will create more big bucks. THAT's where the delusional thinking comes into play. Lecture them, not me. The available evidence appears to suggest that the APR guys are wrong in believing they'll wake up one day and find B&C bucks around every television set. And, yes, I blame television for a lot of this bull$#!t.
Quote
If the majority of people would prefer to just notch their tag and put a deer in the freezer then it would seem that higher deer populations (which the restricted buck and doe harvest will create) will work to their benefit in a few years.
The problem with this is what we in these parts known is a pattern that is probably going to get worse if this climate change thing has any veracity. Place restrictions on deer and the populations will increase for a few years, and then just when it might make sense to drop the restrictions, WHAM! we get hit with a hard winter, there are too many deer, too many bucks competing with pregnant does for available feed, and we have a big winter kill that allows the desk jockeys in Oly and their butt smoochers to wring their hands and recommend continued antler restrictions "to bring back the herd numbers."
They might also believe they hav to remain conservative in the harvest to provide more munchies for the wolves and cougars, the populations of which are both very likely grossly underestimated.
Quote
Your last paragraph hits to the heart and I do agree with you. I am certainly not for placing unnecessary restrictions of any kind. However, at this point I do believe restrictions of some kind are in order to help the herd. Are there other ways to do achieve the desired result of healthier herds? Sure. Is there better ways to achieve the desired result of healthier herds? Sure. Is there better ways to do achieve desired results when managing at a state level??? I'm not so sure.
Managing the deer herd requires more than just sitting behind a desk crunching numbers from the regions.
if I were suddenly GAME director, I'd hold a fire sale on office furniture and give a lot of people an option: Get out there, come back with five ideas apiece on how to improve the available habitat to support 50,000 more deer and 10,000 more elk within five years, or find a job somewhere else. We have all of this public land out there that should be good habitat and COULD be good habitat, but it's not. It is just kind of "doing its own thing." What the hell did we buy it for?
As for coyotes, I'd remove the requirement to have a hunting license to kill them, and I would then encourage everybody with a gun to kill every one coyote they see.
I'd go to the Legislature, have them repeal the hound hunting restrictions, put aggressive hound hunting seasons on mountain lions and black bears, and take down the populations fast.
I'd find the money somewhere — probably instead of spending it on wolf studies and management — and put that into habitat improvement; planting good browse brush, clover plots, wild wheat, alfalfa, whatever the game animals eat and has the best nutrients, and plant that stuff wherever it will best benefit the herds.
And I'd lobby our congressional delegation to spend every waking hour to delist wolves in all of Washington state, and call on the Legislature to remove state protections, and then deal with that issue.
But I'll never be GAME director. :chuckle:
Post by: Special T on November 22, 2011, 06:25:26 PM
will likely have a more meaningful effect. What we lack is LEADERSHIP not studies.
Post by: colockumelk on November 22, 2011, 06:25:56 PM
The Antis try to claim Amy buck allows equal harvest distribution of the age class. This is a lie. I have yet to see a study that doesn't say that 3/4 of buck harvest comes from the 1.5 year old age class. That doesnt sound even to me.
Also focusing your harvest on yearling bucks (which is what any buck hunts do) and not shooting any does is horrid game management. So of course this is what the WDFW has done. APRs do despite tje antis claim evenly distribute the buck harvest across the age spectrum from 2.5 years on up. Plus it encourages doe harvest.
There is some anti studies out but most don't have sources to cite. There is 10x more research that support the fact that APRs work. Plus I've seen it work for myself. In two different states.
Post by: colockumelk on November 22, 2011, 06:30:31 PM
There is 10x more literature that supports APR and QDM than the Anti material. How have you not read anything that supports APRs? Also how can you believe that something that provides escapement (you call it loss of opportunity) will not increase the amount of bucks?
Post by: mdbuck5x5 on November 22, 2011, 06:30:55 PM
Post by: slim9300 on November 22, 2011, 06:40:24 PM
I'm sure this wouldn't happen though because all the rifle hunters wouldn't allow it. It's a shame too because this state could easily be better managed.
Edit: I meant 5 point or 6 point on one side. Not both. That wouldn't make sense. My bad.
Post by: colockumelk on November 22, 2011, 06:55:43 PM
So I guess you're an expert now! If it works so well, I'm curious how come 117 went from 3 pt to a 4 pt restriction?
Never said I was an expert. I was just asking questions in response to statements he had made. I'm just saying from research I have read and through personal experience APRs work.
I agree slim. Spike only is a failure for elk.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on November 22, 2011, 07:18:33 PM
I'm sure this wouldn't happen though because all the rifle hunters wouldn't allow it. It's a shame too because this state could easily be better managed.I don't see why this is about rifle hunters vs others. Last time I checked rifle hunters generally have fewer doe and any buck areas/seasons. Quite a few of the bowhunters (traditional guys not compound) and muzzy (not inline) that I know seem to be fine shooting spikes and forkies, saying it is the hunt that mattered.
Post by: Dave Workman on November 22, 2011, 07:30:33 PM
I have seen APRs work for myself. Both here in Eastern WA and in Alabama. My family has hunted around Pullman for over 15 years. Since 3pt min has been implemented the amount of bucks has skyrocketed. Is it a trophy class unit no. Not at all. But that's not what APRs or QDM is about. Only the Antis who try to demonize APRs say it is an elitist policy and all about trophies. And they lie and are wrong. If they read the mission statememt QDM is about herd health. Its about increasing escapement, increasing the overall numbers of bucks and the buck:doe ratio. They say nothing about trophy animals.
I've hunted around Pullman and the number of bucks is good. I see a lot of 2-point bucks. Lots and lots of 2-point bucks compared to anywhere else I've hunted the past few years. Very few bucks with more points, however.
I'm not a liar, and I won't be called one simply because you happen to disagree with what I and others know for a fact. I don't give a rat's ass what APRs and QDMs say on paper. You are living in denial if you think for a heartbeat that advocates (not all of 'em) of "Quality Deer management" and "Antler Point Restrictions" aren't pushing this philosophy to produc a bunch of bigger racks.
All of us who don't agree with APRs and QDMs (gee, ain't it neat to talk with alphabet soup acronyms?) are also interested in herd health, and some of us have been around here long enough to understand generations of weather and herd cycles and how you can manage for all kinds of things but if you ignore the fact that weather can clobber a herd because there are too many post-season bucks around, then you're dumber than rocks.
I remember the big winter kills and what they did to the mule deer and whitetail herds. Back when I wrote for F&H News, I interviewed a bio up in the Methow Valley who told me about all the dead deer he had in his yard, and deer killed along the highways.
This state hasn't done a very good job of habitat enhancement, and that's a big part of the problem. Very disappointing.
Quote
The Antis try to claim Amy buck allows equal harvest distribution of the age class. This is a lie. I have yet to see a study that doesn't say that 3/4 of buck harvest comes from the 1.5 year old age class. That doesnt sound even to me.
We've had the b/a requirement on mule deer for more than ten years. You're telling me that 3/4 of the mule deer bucks taken are 1.5 years old?
Quote
Also focusing your harvest on yearling bucks (which is what any buck hunts do) and not shooting any does is horrid game management. So of course this is what the WDFW has done. APRs do despite tje antis claim evenly distribute the buck harvest across the age spectrum from 2.5 years on up. Plus it encourages doe harvest.
Where do you get it that any buck regulations focus the harvest on yearling / spike bucks? Besides, what is wrong with taking the pressure off of mature bucks that really don't hit their prime until they're 3-4 years old?
Quote
There is some anti studies out but most don't have sources to cite. There is 10x more research that support the fact that APRs work. Plus I've seen it work for myself. In two different states.
I've seen it work here to reduce the number of hunters in the field by the tens of thousands. If that's what you're after, you're only helping destroy hunting altogether.
But of course, all of this discussion really identifies what is happening with management in WA. The divisions between B/A advocates and any buck advocates is another symptom of the same disease being spread by Resource Allocation: Divide the user groups against one another, keep them fighting and we're never going to unify to hold the AGENCY accountable for all the things it is not doing.
Post by: Dave Workman on November 22, 2011, 07:33:04 PM
I agree. This state should go to 5x5 or 6x6 or better in non-special permit units for elk too. It's either that or make all elk hunting a 50% chance of drawing a general tag. There are too many young bull elk being killed to sustain a healthy herd in my opinion. And this is coming from a guy that kills his elk every year.
I'm sure this wouldn't happen though because all the rifle hunters wouldn't allow it. It's a shame too because this state could easily be better managed.
Edit: I meant 5 point or 6 point on one side. Not both. That wouldn't make sense. My bad.
Back in the day when there were no antler restrictions on elk, there were more hunters and less angry hunters. We had a longer general rifle season and it was a week later and lasted a week longer.
Kill an elk every year, eh? You hunt at Woodland Park zoo?
:chuckle:
Post by: Dave Workman on November 22, 2011, 07:39:45 PM
Dave i think you prove that a 1 prong approach will only has a small short gain. That said, attacking this issue on many levels predators, more boots on the ground etc.
will likely have a more meaningful effect. What we lack is LEADERSHIP not studies.
Could you sort of translate this a little more?
:dunno:
Post by: slim9300 on November 22, 2011, 07:42:46 PM
I'm sure this wouldn't happen though because all the rifle hunters wouldn't allow it. It's a shame too because this state could easily be better managed.I don't see why this is about rifle hunters vs others. Last time I checked rifle hunters generally have fewer doe and any buck areas/seasons. Quite a few of the bowhunters (traditional guys not compound) and muzzy (not inline) that I know seem to be fine shooting spikes and forkies, saying it is the hunt that mattered.
I get that aspect of hunting but the problem is a declining elk population. Antler restrictions or reduced numbers of hunters would reduce the harvest and allow elk to slowly rebound in this state IMHO. That would mean that hunters would be required to think about what is right for the future and not themselves on a short term basis.
Rifle hunters wouldn't allow it because they would point out bowhunters and some muzzy hunters would still be able to kill cows while their hunting would suck until a few years passed. Did you see the outpouring from rifle hunters (and all hunters for the most part) a few years back when they talked about making some of these changes in a public forum? It's always, "keep things how they are!" I would even go as far to say that during the 2-3 year transition from 3 point or better to 6 point or better that I would be perfectly okay with all cow hunting being shut down. The problem is that most hunters are much too focused on the present to allow that and our game department is too greedy to manage the animals property because revenue would plummet for a few years. As soon as the antler restrictions or elk draw were in place for a few years the hunting would be better and actually sustainable.
Post by: Cougeyes on November 22, 2011, 07:47:13 PM
However, since the objective has been met, I wish it would revert back to any buck. There would be less wasted animals by people not realizing their target (e.g., appropriate amount of antler points). We hear about game wastage because of this too often. I agree with Fitkin about having the pressure be on the older age classes rather than spread out. There are those that wish to harvest a decent buck and those that are looking to put meat in the freezer, possibly more meat hunters. So this probably would sway the pendulum to one side, with that side being the younger age class deer, but I think the % of harvest wouldn't be significant that it would hurt the overall population and buck:doe ratios.
Talking with my grandpa and dad about their hunts, prior to the antler point restriction and even from my own experience hunting prior to the restriction, I didn't think there was a problem with deer numbers. I've read a few WDFW game management reports prior to the change in regulations and there didn't appear to be a decline in deer numbers. With that, I would have to think that there wasn't a need then to switch to 3 point restriction until the harsh winter. My dad and his hunting partner never had problems filling their tags. They would pass up many spikes and small two points and harvest a decent 3 or 4 point. This all was happening when there was a 3 week season too.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on November 22, 2011, 07:48:11 PM
quote]
This isn't about whitetails per se, it's about the positively stupid perpetuation of APR regulations on mule deer. I don't think BA restrictions work for whitetail, either, and while some folks say "give it time," there is ample experience in other regions with whitetails that pretty much refutes the predictions.
I can't speak for APRs on Mule Deer but when it comes to whitetail I can say that APRs can, have and do work. While they aren't the best option they are probably the most reasonable to implement on a large scale. The "ample experience in other regions" actually is false. There is one study that was funded by the state of TX and is known as the Kerr Study. This study has been proven seriously flawed by one of the most prestigious Whitetail biologist in the nation (Dr. James Kroll) I can tell you that practically every other study completed that comes up with the failure of APRs draws on an already flawed foundation by using the Kerr Study model. If you can find a study that doesn't base their research on the flawed model of the Kerr Study (and proves APR's for whitetail ineffective) then please let me know.
Yes, I do remember whitetail herds 10-15 years ago. In the seasons when I hunted Northeast counties, I saw plenty of whitetails at times, and at other times I didn't. That's why they call it hunting and not shooting...except in the fairytale television shows where a hunt wraps up in 30 minutes and the people sit in blinds, dressed in camo as if deer could see them.
I remember hundreds of whitetail in some alfalfa fields....now days I see a fraction of that and often none.
You're not getting it at all. The anti-APR guys are right, it will not create more big bucks. However, that doesn't stop the APR advocates from believing it will create more big bucks. THAT's where the delusional thinking comes into play. Lecture them, not me. The available evidence appears to suggest that the APR guys are wrong in believing they'll wake up one day and find B&C bucks around every television set. And, yes, I blame television for a lot of this bull$#!t.
Well we can agree that a B&C buck won't be around any tree. However, I would beg to differ in the fact that there will be a better recruitment into older age classes which will increase the health of the herd I don't expect anything exorbient but studies have shown there is a 3%-10% increase into older age classes when you have APRs.
The problem with this is what we in these parts known is a pattern that is probably going to get worse if this climate change thing has any veracity. Place restrictions on deer and the populations will increase for a few years, and then just when it might make sense to drop the restrictions, WHAM! we get hit with a hard winter, there are too many deer, too many bucks competing with pregnant does for available feed, and we have a big winter kill that allows the desk jockeys in Oly and their butt smoochers to wring their hands and recommend continued antler restrictions "to bring back the herd numbers."
They might also believe they hav to remain conservative in the harvest to provide more munchies for the wolves and cougars, the populations of which are both very likely grossly underestimated.
I can certainly agree with you that winter kill (and likely) predadation is/will be what biologist call a "limiting factor". Since we know the "limiting factors" there are things we can do to help them survive winters/predation. Some good studies have been conducted in Michigan on these exact issues.
Managing the deer herd requires more than just sitting behind a desk crunching numbers from the regions.
if I were suddenly GAME director, I'd hold a fire sale on office furniture and give a lot of people an option: Get out there, come back with five ideas apiece on how to improve the available habitat to support 50,000 more deer and 10,000 more elk within five years, or find a job somewhere else. We have all of this public land out there that should be good habitat and COULD be good habitat, but it's not. It is just kind of "doing its own thing." What the hell did we buy it for?
As for coyotes, I'd remove the requirement to have a hunting license to kill them, and I would then encourage everybody with a gun to kill every one coyote they see.
I'd go to the Legislature, have them repeal the hound hunting restrictions, put aggressive hound hunting seasons on mountain lions and black bears, and take down the populations fast.
I'd find the money somewhere — probably instead of spending it on wolf studies and management — and put that into habitat improvement; planting good browse brush, clover plots, wild wheat, alfalfa, whatever the game animals eat and has the best nutrients, and plant that stuff wherever it will best benefit the herds.
And I'd lobby our congressional delegation to spend every waking hour to delist wolves in all of Washington state, and call on the Legislature to remove state protections, and then deal with that issue.
I can certainly agree with you on all of the appoints immediately above.....and the one below... :chuckle:
But I'll never be GAME director. :chuckle:
Post by: slim9300 on November 22, 2011, 07:54:47 PM
I agree. This state should go to 5x5 or 6x6 or better in non-special permit units for elk too. It's either that or make all elk hunting a 50% chance of drawing a general tag. There are too many young bull elk being killed to sustain a healthy herd in my opinion. And this is coming from a guy that kills his elk every year.
I'm sure this wouldn't happen though because all the rifle hunters wouldn't allow it. It's a shame too because this state could easily be better managed.
Edit: I meant 5 point or 6 point on one side. Not both. That wouldn't make sense. My bad.
Back in the day when there were no antler restrictions on elk, there were more hunters and less angry hunters. We had a longer general rifle season and it was a week later and lasted a week longer.
Kill an elk every year, eh? You hunt at Woodland Park zoo?
:chuckle:
I heard that same line from my dad who spends every working day of his life in the woods up until the last year or so when he realized that I may have a point. My dad has killed over 40 elk in his life (mostly cows and small bulls with his bow). The problem is that this state exaggerates the number of elk horribly on the west side. I would say that there is half of the elk today that there were in 1980 in Western WA.
I bow hunt, I'm not lazy, I scout two weeks or more every year, I practice shooting daily, I learned to hunt from someone that knows what he is doing, and I shoot mostly cows in WA. It's really not that hard if you are willing to hunt miles from the truck.
Post by: Cougeyes on November 22, 2011, 07:54:58 PM
I get that aspect of hunting but the problem is a declining elk population. Antler restrictions or reduced numbers of hunters would reduce the harvest and allow elk to slowly rebound in this state IMHO.
What elk populations are you talking about? The Yakima herd and Colockum herd are at or above objective with numbers, but the Colockum herd bull:cow ratios are hurting severely. Not sure what elk populations in the state are declining?
Post by: slim9300 on November 22, 2011, 08:04:48 PM
I get that aspect of hunting but the problem is a declining elk population. Antler restrictions or reduced numbers of hunters would reduce the harvest and allow elk to slowly rebound in this state IMHO.
What elk populations are you talking about? The Yakima herd and Colockum herd are at or above objective with numbers, but the Colockum herd bull:cow ratios are hurting severely. Not sure what elk populations in the state are declining?
I only have experience on the west side of the Cascades. (and mostly on the coast) I should have made that clear. Antler restrictions would fix your bull to cow ratio in the Colockum over time. This state has a horrible bull to cow ratio in pretty much every general unit on the west side too.
Post by: slim9300 on November 22, 2011, 08:11:26 PM
I get that aspect of hunting but the problem is a declining elk population. Antler restrictions or reduced numbers of hunters would reduce the harvest and allow elk to slowly rebound in this state IMHO.
What elk populations are you talking about? The Yakima herd and Colockum herd are at or above objective with numbers, but the Colockum herd bull:cow ratios are hurting severely. Not sure what elk populations in the state are declining?
Nevermind. See above.
Post by: Cougeyes on November 22, 2011, 08:13:42 PM
I only have experience on the west side of the Cascades. (and mostly on the coast) I should have made that clear. Antler restrictions would fix your bull to cow ratio in the Colockum over time. This state has a horrible bull to cow ratio in pretty much every general unit on the west side.
It's hard for the state though on the westside to give an accurate account of elk numbers because they dont rely heavily on wintering areas like the eastside does. The eastside can have better estimates of herd size and ratios because they mainly winter in open areas and many go to feed lots or close to them where they can be counted. The westside conditions for counting elk are just like trying to get an accurate count of white tails up north. It's very hard because of the dense timber and thick understory rendering helicopter surveys practically insufficient.
Antler restrictions have been in place in the Colockum for years and they bull:cow ratio isn't getting better. This is another topic all in itself that has been brought up several times. Colockum elk (the guy that started this thread) has provided lots of info into this problem.
Post by: high country on November 22, 2011, 08:14:29 PM
Post by: slim9300 on November 22, 2011, 08:15:22 PM
I only have experience on the west side of the Cascades. (and mostly on the coast) I should have made that clear. Antler restrictions would fix your bull to cow ratio in the Colockum over time. This state has a horrible bull to cow ratio in pretty much every general unit on the west side.
It's hard for the state though on the westside to give an accurate account of elk numbers because they dont rely heavily on wintering areas like the eastside does. The eastside can have better estimates of herd size and ratios because they mainly winter in open areas and many go to feed lots or close to them where they can be counted. The westside conditions for counting elk are just like trying to get an accurate count of white tails up north. It's very hard because of the dense timber and thick understory rendering helicopter surveys practically insufficient.
Antler restrictions have been in place in the Colockum for years and they bull:cow ratio isn't getting better. This is another topic all in itself that has been brought up several times. Colockum elk (the guy that started this thread) has provided lots of info into this problem.
What are the antler restrictions in Colockum?
Post by: Cougeyes on November 22, 2011, 08:20:14 PM
Post by: slim9300 on November 22, 2011, 08:29:28 PM
I only have experience on the west side of the Cascades. (and mostly on the coast) I should have made that clear. Antler restrictions would fix your bull to cow ratio in the Colockum over time. This state has a horrible bull to cow ratio in pretty much every general unit on the west side.
It's hard for the state though on the westside to give an accurate account of elk numbers because they dont rely heavily on wintering areas like the eastside does. The eastside can have better estimates of herd size and ratios because they mainly winter in open areas and many go to feed lots or close to them where they can be counted. The westside conditions for counting elk are just like trying to get an accurate count of white tails up north. It's very hard because of the dense timber and thick understory rendering helicopter surveys practically insufficient.
Antler restrictions have been in place in the Colockum for years and they bull:cow ratio isn't getting better. This is another topic all in itself that has been brought up several times. Colockum elk (the guy that started this thread) has provided lots of info into this problem.
I get the problem with counting elk on the Westside. It's basically done by extrapolation, which is a joke.
But the state has the blinders on regarding the elk numbers on the Westside. They are shaped like this... $ $
Post by: colockumelk on November 22, 2011, 08:29:54 PM
I have seen APRs work for myself. Both here in Eastern WA and in Alabama. My family has hunted around Pullman for over 15 years. Since 3pt min has been implemented the amount of bucks has skyrocketed. Is it a trophy class unit no. Not at all. But that's not what APRs or QDM is about. Only the Antis who try to demonize APRs say it is an elitist policy and all about trophies. And they lie and are wrong. If they read the mission statememt QDM is about herd health. Its about increasing escapement, increasing the overall numbers of bucks and the buck:doe ratio. They say nothing about trophy animals.
I've hunted around Pullman and the number of bucks is good. I see a lot of 2-point bucks. Lots and lots of 2-point bucks compared to anywhere else I've hunted the past few years. Very few bucks with more points, however. Well in that case my opinion or experience must not count. All of those legal 4 pts I see must be a figment of my imagination. Maybe that's because you hunt during rifle season when all the bucks who have lived through a hunting season are smart enough to avoid roads and stay in the thick stuff. The only ones dumbe enough to venture out are the yearlings, aka all the 2pts you see.
I'm not a liar, and I won't be called one simply because you happen to disagree with what I and others know for a fact. I never called you a liar. You are putting words in my mouth. Oh you know for a fact huh. Do you have any research or data to prove this "fact" I don't give a rat's ass what APRs and QDMs say on paper. You are living in denial if you think for a heartbeat that advocates (not all of 'em) of "Quality Deer management" and "Antler Point Restrictions" aren't pushing this philosophy to produc a bunch of bigger racks. So since myself and others may disagree with you we must be stupid right? Or we are just naive and live every day in denial.
All of us who don't agree with APRs and QDMs (gee, ain't it neat to talk with alphabet soup acronyms?) are also interested in herd health, and some of us have been around here long enough to understand generations of weather and herd cycles and how you can manage for all kinds of things but if you ignore the fact that weather can clobber a herd because there are too many post-season bucks around, then you're dumber than rocks. So because I disagree with you I'm dumber than rocks. Wow the insults just keep coming. So let me ask you where and when has this ever been a problem in WA state. Too many bucks. I would love to see a source that cites too many bucks as a reason for a high level of winter kill.
I remember the big winter kills and what they did to the mule deer and whitetail herds. Back when I wrote for F&H News, I interviewed a bio up in the Methow Valley who told me about all the dead deer he had in his yard, and deer killed along the highways.
This state hasn't done a very good job of habitat enhancement, and that's a big part of the problem. Very disappointing.QuoteThe Antis try to claim Amy buck allows equal harvest distribution of the age class. This is a lie. I have yet to see a study that doesn't say that 3/4 of buck harvest comes from the 1.5 year old age class. That doesnt sound even to me.
We've had the b/a requirement on mule deer for more than ten years. You're telling me that 3/4 of the mule deer bucks taken are 1.5 years old? Nice attempt attempt at a spin. No I said in previous posts and this one that in "Any Buck" key word "Any Buck" units 3/4 of the harvest is on yearling bucks. Since Central Washington Mule deer has been 3pt min for some time that would not fit into the "Any Buck" categoryQuoteAlso focusing your harvest on yearling bucks (which is what any buck hunts do) and not shooting any does is horrid game management. So of course this is what the WDFW has done. APRs do despite tje antis claim evenly distribute the buck harvest across the age spectrum from 2.5 years on up. Plus it encourages doe harvest.
Where do you get it that any buck regulations focus the harvest on yearling / spike bucks? Besides, what is wrong with taking the pressure off of mature bucks that really don't hit their prime until they're 3-4 years old? Again most research shows that in "Any Buck" units 3/4 of buck harvest is from yearling bucks. Since the vast majority of harvest is on yearling bucks I would consider that focusing on the yearling bucks.QuoteThere is some anti studies out but most don't have sources to cite. There is 10x more research that support the fact that APRs work. Plus I've seen it work for myself. In two different states.
I've seen it work here to reduce the number of hunters in the field by the tens of thousands. If that's what you're after, you're only helping destroy hunting altogether.
Yep its just one big conspiracy me and the other elitist APR guys have. We are trying to end and cut tens of thousands of hunters. In fact I bet if you check the whitetail institute and the QDM website that is in their mission statement. Oh and if a unit goes to 3pt min that isn't aimed at cutting hunter numbers. If a hunter chooses to quite because it goes to an APR that is their personal choice. No one made them quite. They quite on their own.
But of course, all of this discussion really identifies what is happening with management in WA. The divisions between B/A advocates and any buck advocates is another symptom of the same disease being spread by Resource Allocation: Divide the user groups against one another, keep them fighting and we're never going to unify to hold the AGENCY accountable for all the things it is not doing.
You know Dave your attitude stinks. The difference between you and me is I posted some research that I said I agreed with and believed to be true. I never said it was 100% fact. And if people disagree with me fine. I will debate my point while they debate theirs in a respectfull manner and have fun doing it. And until you came here it was cordial and respectfull. You however come here and say everything you believe is FACT and everyone else that disagrees with you is "dumber than a box of rocks" or "living in denial" I don't care what you think you "know to be fact" because I havn't seen you post anything that proves your point other than "Ive been hunting longer than you have" And your only argument against my data and sources cited is that its some sort of "conspiracy" of QDM. Really. That's all you have?
I would love to debate you. You seem smart and well informed. But if your gonna be pompous, arrogant and disrespectfull then I will not respond to you. You don't have to be a jerk to debate people.
To everyone else I have enjoyed debating you. Glockster thanks for posting the stuff that goes against APR's. You must be better at google than me. I enjoyed reading them. And while I don't agree with them it is another point of view and I learned some stuff. I look forward to continueing this debate. Good night everyone.
Post by: slim9300 on November 22, 2011, 08:47:19 PM
True spike for general season, meaning it has to be a straight slick 1x1. And there are a few permits allowed, but not many.
Well that's the problem. It makes no sense to have a special permit area that is also a general spike only area. I would think that this would encourage seriously over harveting bull elk. If it was a general area that was either 5-point or 6-point or better it would be back to "normal" in 5-10 years. Or you could make it strictly a special permit unit that controlled the number of bulls and cows killed which would make very easy to meet objectives. But you can't have both IMHO.
Post by: 6x6in6 on November 22, 2011, 09:08:20 PM
There are very few any bull tags and cow tags issued for the 3-4 GMU's that comprise the Colockum. It really has a minimal affect on the bull/cow ratio which is around the 10:100 range. Pathetic!!True spike for general season, meaning it has to be a straight slick 1x1. And there are a few permits allowed, but not many.
Well that's the problem. It makes no sense to have a special permit area that is also a general spike only area. I would think that this would encourage seriously over harveting bull elk. If it was a general area that was either 5-point or 6-point or better it would be back to "normal" in 5-10 years. Or you could make it strictly a special permit unit that controlled the number of bulls and cows killed. But you can't have both.
You nailed the Colockum on the need for an entirely limited entry hunt and can the general spike only gig.
Can't have that though, the State would lose revenue which is what it's really all about.
I propose the State lose the GMU title and move to RMU's........Revenue Management Units. :chuckle:
Post by: JimmyHoffa on November 22, 2011, 09:14:07 PM
It is estimated that poachers kill an amount equal to legal take, so I would imagine that solving that would help the herd more than APR. Most poachers I've heard of kill bucks, mostly the bigger ones.
Post by: Humptulips on November 22, 2011, 09:44:50 PM
Scratching my head over this "healthy herds" things. I don't see it. I'ved lived with this 3 point minimum on elk in W WA and there are less elk then ever. Back when it was "any bull" the cows all seemed to get bred. I can't believe it is any different for deer regardless of species.
I don't see in the studies much evidence of more deer because of APRs just this healthy herds stuff what ever that means.
One other point, The public seems to be real down on trophy hunting and this just seems to reinforce that stereotype.
Post by: Dave Workman on November 23, 2011, 04:03:26 AM
The problem is that this state exaggerates the number of elk horribly on the west side. I would say that there is half of the elk today that there were in 1980 in Western WA.
I bow hunt, I'm not lazy, I scout two weeks or more every year, I practice shooting daily, I learned to hunt from someone that knows what he is doing, and I shoot mostly cows in WA. It's really not that hard if you are willing to hunt miles from the truck.
Therein lies a disparity in what I thought we were talking about. Killing lots of cow elk isn't the point. If we could kill cow elk during a general rifle season without a special permit, a lot of people here could kill an elk almost every weekend of the season. I saw a fair number of cows this season and could have hit some of them with a handgun, they were that close.
We're talking about whether B/A restrictions help produce more bucks or bigger bucks or just healthier herds. Not exactly certain how elk wandered into this, but depending upon where you work and where you hunt, you might have a point about the elk population estimates. Since I don't know where that is, I'll have to take your word for it.
I know some devoted bowhunters and none of them are lazy. I have "seen" a few lazy bowhunters including some guys who road hunt with bows (honest to all the gods in the heavens!) and never could quite figure that one out. :rolleyes: I get away from the roads, too, and have passed up shots at B/A bulls because of the spike-only rule where I hunt. In October, I saw a bunch of bucks down in the Snake breaks and of them, I know of only three that were legal and they all got shot, one of them with ammo I personally handloaded for the guy who fired the shot.
Last year, I drove through Twisp and Winthrop the afternoon/evening before the deer opener. I stopped counting deer at about 100, and they were all hanging around the towns, and I cannot recall seeing anything over 3-point and most of the bucks were in the 2-point category, IIRC. Here were were, ten years into the B/A management scheme, where we should be seeing (theoretically, anyway) more mature bucks, and that doesn't appear to be the case at all.
We're debating this on two or three different levels: healthy herd v. B/A restrictions and the number of legal bucks v. any buck regulations and the ability of average people and KIDS to notch a tag and put meat in the cooler.
Humptulips certainly gets it.
And everyone has opinions about what's best.
What's REALLY best is to stop fighting amongst ourselves and transfer that energy to holding the department accountable.
Post by: Dave Workman on November 23, 2011, 04:05:43 AM
There are very few any bull tags and cow tags issued for the 3-4 GMU's that comprise the Colockum. It really has a minimal affect on the bull/cow ratio which is around the 10:100 range. Pathetic!!
You nailed the Colockum on the need for an entirely limited entry hunt and can the general spike only gig.
Can't have that though, the State would lose revenue which is what it's really all about.
I propose the State lose the GMU title and move to RMU's........Revenue Management Units. :chuckle:
6-by... part of the problem in the Colockum appears to be tribal hunting, but that's another story for a different day.
I like the "RMU" designation.
Post by: high country on November 23, 2011, 05:31:40 AM
A lot of the shaped herds have lots of control over them. In a different state I used to get to shoot does and small bucks to help the ranchers out. Those guys had lots of land (no high fence), but were able to keep tabs on animals year to year. They basically said where and what deer needed to be shot. Very little poaching and predators were nearly non-existent. They controlled which deer lived and which ones died. But that is how they made their money. It wasn't purely based off of antler points. You can't get that kind of control on public land like WA.Those deer that live on large private lands have other advantages, they rarely see humans and when they do, the humans are of no threat to them. In public land, there is continual multipurpose use of the lands. Tribal hunting and poaching keep deer on their toes 100% of the time. All of this leads to more burned calories in a lower calorie availability setting.
It is estimated that poachers kill an amount equal to legal take, so I would imagine that solving that would help the herd more than APR. Most poachers I've heard of kill bucks, mostly the bigger ones.
Post by: mdbuck5x5 on November 23, 2011, 06:22:54 AM
Post by: high country on November 23, 2011, 06:25:21 AM
I can't speak for everywhere but it the NE in my opinion hunting pressure is only but a small fraction of the strain put on the herds. Predation whether it it be bears, cougars, wolves or coyotes and hard winters have a much more profound affect on them.
As well as fishermen, shooters, hikers, motorized use, logging.....there is a lot more stress on ne deer than wheat country deer.
Post by: huntnnw on November 23, 2011, 06:30:09 AM
I can't speak for everywhere but it the NE in my opinion hunting pressure is only but a small fraction of the strain put on the herds. Predation whether it it be bears, cougars, wolves or coyotes and hard winters have a much more profound affect on them.
As well as fishermen, shooters, hikers, motorized use, logging.....there is a lot more stress on ne deer than wheat country deer.
STRESS yes, but the ability to harvest deer in wheat country is far easier.. the escapability is very low in open terrain like the palouse as compared to rugged, dense forest of NE WA
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on November 23, 2011, 06:35:10 AM
True spike for general season, meaning it has to be a straight slick 1x1. And there are a few permits allowed, but not many.
Yeah! like about 6..all weapon types!
Post by: high country on November 23, 2011, 06:53:07 AM
I can't speak for everywhere but it the NE in my opinion hunting pressure is only but a small fraction of the strain put on the herds. Predation whether it it be bears, cougars, wolves or coyotes and hard winters have a much more profound affect on them.
As well as fishermen, shooters, hikers, motorized use, logging.....there is a lot more stress on ne deer than wheat country deer.
STRESS yes, but the ability to harvest deer in wheat country is far easier.. the escapability is very low in open terrain like the palouse as compared to rugged, dense forest of NE WA
Agreed 100% ne bucks are smarter and have much more opportunity to hide and will be much more wary of humans.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on November 23, 2011, 07:10:59 AM
I have seen APRs work for myself. Both here in Eastern WA and in Alabama. My family has hunted around Pullman for over 15 years. Since 3pt min has been implemented the amount of bucks has skyrocketed. Is it a trophy class unit no. Not at all. But that's not what APRs or QDM is about. Only the Antis who try to demonize APRs say it is an elitist policy and all about trophies. And they lie and are wrong. If they read the mission statememt QDM is about herd health. Its about increasing escapement, increasing the overall numbers of bucks and the buck:doe ratio. They say nothing about trophy animals.
I've hunted around Pullman and the number of bucks is good. I see a lot of 2-point bucks. Lots and lots of 2-point bucks compared to anywhere else I've hunted the past few years. Very few bucks with more points, however. Well in that case my opinion or experience must not count. All of those legal 4 pts I see must be a figment of my imagination. Maybe that's because you hunt during rifle season when all the bucks who have lived through a hunting season are smart enough to avoid roads and stay in the thick stuff. The only ones dumbe enough to venture out are the yearlings, aka all the 2pts you see.
I'm not a liar, and I won't be called one simply because you happen to disagree with what I and others know for a fact. I never called you a liar. You are putting words in my mouth. Oh you know for a fact huh. Do you have any research or data to prove this "fact" I don't give a rat's ass what APRs and QDMs say on paper. You are living in denial if you think for a heartbeat that advocates (not all of 'em) of "Quality Deer management" and "Antler Point Restrictions" aren't pushing this philosophy to produc a bunch of bigger racks. So since myself and others may disagree with you we must be stupid right? Or we are just naive and live every day in denial.
All of us who don't agree with APRs and QDMs (gee, ain't it neat to talk with alphabet soup acronyms?) are also interested in herd health, and some of us have been around here long enough to understand generations of weather and herd cycles and how you can manage for all kinds of things but if you ignore the fact that weather can clobber a herd because there are too many post-season bucks around, then you're dumber than rocks. So because I disagree with you I'm dumber than rocks. Wow the insults just keep coming. So let me ask you where and when has this ever been a problem in WA state. Too many bucks. I would love to see a source that cites too many bucks as a reason for a high level of winter kill.
I remember the big winter kills and what they did to the mule deer and whitetail herds. Back when I wrote for F&H News, I interviewed a bio up in the Methow Valley who told me about all the dead deer he had in his yard, and deer killed along the highways.
This state hasn't done a very good job of habitat enhancement, and that's a big part of the problem. Very disappointing.QuoteThe Antis try to claim Amy buck allows equal harvest distribution of the age class. This is a lie. I have yet to see a study that doesn't say that 3/4 of buck harvest comes from the 1.5 year old age class. That doesnt sound even to me.
We've had the b/a requirement on mule deer for more than ten years. You're telling me that 3/4 of the mule deer bucks taken are 1.5 years old? Nice attempt attempt at a spin. No I said in previous posts and this one that in "Any Buck" key word "Any Buck" units 3/4 of the harvest is on yearling bucks. Since Central Washington Mule deer has been 3pt min for some time that would not fit into the "Any Buck" categoryQuoteAlso focusing your harvest on yearling bucks (which is what any buck hunts do) and not shooting any does is horrid game management. So of course this is what the WDFW has done. APRs do despite tje antis claim evenly distribute the buck harvest across the age spectrum from 2.5 years on up. Plus it encourages doe harvest.
Where do you get it that any buck regulations focus the harvest on yearling / spike bucks? Besides, what is wrong with taking the pressure off of mature bucks that really don't hit their prime until they're 3-4 years old? Again most research shows that in "Any Buck" units 3/4 of buck harvest is from yearling bucks. Since the vast majority of harvest is on yearling bucks I would consider that focusing on the yearling bucks.QuoteThere is some anti studies out but most don't have sources to cite. There is 10x more research that support the fact that APRs work. Plus I've seen it work for myself. In two different states.
I've seen it work here to reduce the number of hunters in the field by the tens of thousands. If that's what you're after, you're only helping destroy hunting altogether.
Yep its just one big conspiracy me and the other elitist APR guys have. We are trying to end and cut tens of thousands of hunters. In fact I bet if you check the whitetail institute and the QDM website that is in their mission statement. Oh and if a unit goes to 3pt min that isn't aimed at cutting hunter numbers. If a hunter chooses to quite because it goes to an APR that is their personal choice. No one made them quite. They quite on their own.
But of course, all of this discussion really identifies what is happening with management in WA. The divisions between B/A advocates and any buck advocates is another symptom of the same disease being spread by Resource Allocation: Divide the user groups against one another, keep them fighting and we're never going to unify to hold the AGENCY accountable for all the things it is not doing.
You know Dave your attitude stinks. The difference between you and me is I posted some research that I said I agreed with and believed to be true. I never said it was 100% fact. And if people disagree with me fine. I will debate my point while they debate theirs in a respectfull manner and have fun doing it. And until you came here it was cordial and respectfull. You however come here and say everything you believe is FACT and everyone else that disagrees with you is "dumber than a box of rocks" or "living in denial" I don't care what you think you "know to be fact" because I havn't seen you post anything that proves your point other than "Ive been hunting longer than you have" And your only argument against my data and sources cited is that its some sort of "conspiracy" of QDM. Really. That's all you have?
I would love to debate you. You seem smart and well informed. But if your gonna be pompous, arrogant and disrespectfull then I will not respond to you. You don't have to be a jerk to debate people.
To everyone else I have enjoyed debating you. Glockster thanks for posting the stuff that goes against APR's. You must be better at google than me. I enjoyed reading them. And while I don't agree with them it is another point of view and I learned some stuff. I look forward to continueing this debate. Good night everyone.
Yes Colockumelk Dave (as I) has been hunting longer than I'd guess over 90% of the members here, and as I has not been programed to for "lack of" opportunity as so many of the pre 40's (- +) age has been since they no NO OTHER.
I have hunted the Colockum GMUs since the 60's when in my estimate there were at least 30% more hunters in the field than now, ( the Gamies drove chained up Dodge darts and Plymouth Dusters) and A Ch!t load more cover than the DNR has left up there now. Full 2 week season starting first week of November
Every year I go up there and what they continue to do pisses me off MORE. DFW blames us for lack of escapement, while DNR does their best to remove any chance those animals have of escaping. Arbitrarily closing roads to established camps while destroying the area. (like folks camping in that area they destroyed would make ANY significant difference!) Then lets talk tribal and DNR made it easier for them too.
When spike only started up there in about 1994 there were about 60 any/quality whatever bull tags drawn in the 3 GMUs and now there are about 6. Now THAT's progress!
Guys, if you never have experienced something, you don't miss it. Well WE (and others) have and we have not let them program us to their way of thinking because we see it for what it is......A big forking mess they have created and want to continue being all about the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ for S/P draw chances while they create more catagories to take more $$$ from us. :twocents:
One other thing.....the NE 4 pt restriction seemed to work very well in the units it wasn't implemented in, since I saw MUCH fewer animals in the 105 than ever before. more hunters also.
Post by: colockumelk on November 23, 2011, 08:48:44 AM
Last year, I drove through Twisp and Winthrop the afternoon/evening before the deer opener. I stopped counting deer at about 100, and they were all hanging around the towns, and I cannot recall seeing anything over 3-point and most of the bucks were in the 2-point category, IIRC. Here were were, ten years into the B/A management scheme, where we should be seeing (theoretically, anyway) more mature bucks, and that doesn't appear to be the case at all.
Here is a perfect case. Because he drove around and all he saw were two points then the APR must not work right. And since he saw it then its "fact". But if I go in the same area but hike in some where and see 15 legal bucks it must have been an isolated incident, I'm lying or I'm "in denial." How can driving a road prove anything. Since we all know that any legal buck near the roads either gets poached, hit by a car or shot by road hunters. Of course there's not gonna be anything bigger than a 2 pt. But if he would provide some research like Glockster did it would hold more weight. Instead of just calling us idiots.
Post by: 6x6in6 on November 23, 2011, 08:51:12 AM
There are very few any bull tags and cow tags issued for the 3-4 GMU's that comprise the Colockum. It really has a minimal affect on the bull/cow ratio which is around the 10:100 range. Pathetic!!
You nailed the Colockum on the need for an entirely limited entry hunt and can the general spike only gig.
Can't have that though, the State would lose revenue which is what it's really all about.
I propose the State lose the GMU title and move to RMU's........Revenue Management Units. :chuckle:
6-by... part of the problem in the Colockum appears to be tribal hunting, but that's another story for a different day.
I like the "RMU" designation.
I wasn't going to go there with the obvious. :chuckle:
Post by: Cougeyes on November 23, 2011, 08:56:59 AM
Post by: Glockster on November 23, 2011, 09:01:01 AM
Please post some study citations from ANY western PROFESSIONAL GAME BIOLOGISTS who support APR. I can't seem to find any past one who states it *may* work as a TEMPORARY measure in the short term after killer winters to increase buck recruitment.
We've been living with 3PT APR on muledeer since the '97 season...that's 14 years. See how hard it is to get a restriction lifted once it's in place in WA??!!!
As all other western states have abandoned APR, WA sticks with it. (WA didn't even participate in the Muledeer working group studies i cited) Ask yourself why? Answer: They are not in the game management business...they are in the people and revenue management business. They would like to see even fewer hunters; or as they refer to us in the PC speak; "non consumptive user groups"..Yet they would like to have a record revenue year like this year with all the hunters hungrily paying $6 per unlimited permit application!
Other folks who would like to see fewer hunters in the WA woods inlcude wolf advocates and the treaty tribes. They would like to see "healthier herds" for their own agendas...not ours.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on November 23, 2011, 09:01:49 AM
Art Coffin would be outraged to see what this state has done to his legacy at mountain home.
Happy Thanksgiving to all!
GO DaWGs!
Post by: high country on November 23, 2011, 09:10:48 AM
Post by: muleyguy on November 23, 2011, 09:13:09 AM
the problem with these herds is that they were well over the biological carrying capacity of the forests, the buck to doe ratio was so low and the age structure of the buck population so poor that the rut was over an extended period and was weak. So, they designed a management scheme to solve this problem. ALL APR programs in the East are designed around having huge INCREASES in antlerless harvest; the goal is is to reduce buck harvest (use of APR's) and increase antlerless harvest (increased antlerless opportunities) here is a series of quotes straight from the QDM website:
Quote
In today’s era of overabundant whitetail populations, one of the most common challenges facing those practicing Quality Deer Management (QDM) is harvesting enough antlerless deer on their property annually. In fact, in some areas it seems that no matter how many antlerless deer you harvest, little, if any, population impact is achieved.
Quote
QDM in Pennsylvania — 2002
The 2002 deer season was designed to decrease buck harvest and increase antlerless harvest.
Quote
The PGC also allocated more than 1 million antlerless licenses, or approximately 150,000 more than the previous record in 1991.
Think about that..........1 MILLION antlerless tags in 1 year...........in a state the size of WA.........
By increasing the antlerless opportunities they achieve two things, first was obvious was people shot more does......but, the second primary reason was that there is a tendency for people to only shoot one deer; hunters had a buck tag and an antlerless tag; after a few days of not finding a 4 pt or better buck, many would simply shoot a doe and call it a day. Some estimates put this at up to 30% of hunters. They also structure their hunting seasons to occur after the rut in many areas so as not to put pressure on the larger bucks.
This fact further takes pressure off of the buck population.
now lets contrast that with what we have going on in NE WA; we have a herd that is well below the biological carrying capacity of the habitat, especially in the public land areas. We have a herd that has decent buck to doe ratio's (as compared to Eastern whitetail herds) and we have much better buck age structure (as compared to Eastern Whitetail herds).
now, lets compare the avg hunter in NE WA; the only opportunity for him to harvest an animal is a 4 pt buck or better; he has no antlerless tag to take the pressure of of the buck population.
So, the entire focus of that hunter is now on the older age classes of the buck population; AND we are giving hunters the chance to hunt in the pre-rut/rut when the largest bucks are the most vulnerable!!!
it is true that in some of these eastern whitetail herds they have seen some very small increases in 4.5 yr old or older buck population after APR's; BUT this is primarily because a lot of the pressure is taken off of these bucks because of the availabilty of antlerless tags.
We don't have that option here because the problem with our whitetail herds is vastly different; our problem is not one of age structure or even buck to doe ratio, it is simply a problem of the herd being under so much pressure from winter kill and predators.
If you dig into the research on these APR's several facts become apparant; one, is they simply move the avg harvest date up from a 1.5 yr old animal to a 2.5 yr old animal:
Quote
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.
APR's cannot "fix" our whitetail herds in NE WA because the age structure or buck to doe ratio is NOT the problem! I don't know how many times I have heard the statement on here "well were just going to try it to fix our herds, we have to do something".
If you want to fix our herds then you have to increase the amount of deer; APR's cannot do that; and, in fact, they could actually do damage because they are going to DAMAGE to the current age structure of the population.
You want to help the herds?? Get rid of ALL antlerless tags until the herd is at or above carrying capacity; put lots of political pressure on the wildlife department to expand and make easier predator control; and, when the population gets hit from a severe winter kill, restrict the buck harvest through reduced opportunities (NOT APR's) to ensure that not too much pressure is put on the buck population. A simple way to help this would have been to just put a two year hiatus on the Nov late hunt or reduce its season length down.
So, this idea of using "QDM" or eastern US whitetail strategies in NE WA is foolish and naive because there are two completely different goals going on; the reason they work in those areas is because of the crucial component of antlerless tags; this helps to take pressure off of the mature bucks because it gives the avg hunter a harvest option that we cannot give our hunters in this state.
IF you want to use APR's then the much better way is not a 4 pt or more; it would be a 3 pt or less in whitetail or 2 pt or less in mule deer; this focus' the harvest on the immature males and not the mature males; BUT even these do not work all the time; it has worked well in the Yakima area for elk, but, has not worked well in the colocklum because of the more open nature of the habitat.
So, the choice in the NE whitetail herd was obviously not based on science; the better choice, if you were going to use an APR in NE WA would have been a 3 pt or less; with the escapment cover, you would have quickly expanded the right part of the buck population (older males) instead of the wrong part (yearling males).
The much bigger picture in this state though is that both antlerless and buck harvests are going to have to be strictly controlled in the future at some point; our herds face too many challenges from winter conditions, predators, etc. We have too many people wanting to use the resource. Our whitetail herds are simply not as productive as Eastern herds and face challenges that they do not.
Using these APR gimmicks just kicks the can down the road awhile longer until we have to have the real conversation.........and, unfortunately, probably will do damage to our herds; the legacy of the 3 pt or better mule deer APR thats been in effect for 13 years now is ever shortening seasons so now we are all crammed into a 9 day season; and, the unfortunate fact that we will never get rid of it because of the hit to the buck population the first year you get rid of it.
The legacy of the 4 pt or more restriction in NE WA will be that you will never get rid of it, and eventually you will see the late season shortened or scrapped entirely because of the pressure it will put on the mature buck population.
Post by: bobcat on November 23, 2011, 09:22:34 AM
Quote
We've been living with 3PT APR on muledeer since the '97 season...that's 14 years. See how hard it is to get a restriction lifted once it's in place in WA??!!!
The WDFW wanted to do away with the 3 point restriction but hunters voted to keep it. The biologists have said it's no longer necessary but for some reason they go with public opinion instead of what their biologists recommend.
Post by: Dave Workman on November 23, 2011, 09:24:33 AM
Elkahawlic don't get me wrong. I completely respect the experience that you and Dave and other "old timers" have. I respect your opinions. My only beef wasn't that he disagreed with me. Its the fact that his opinions are "FACTS" and the attitude that people who have differing opinions are "dumber than rocks" or we live in "denial" and that any studies that disprove or go against his "facts/opinions" are some sort of conspiracy. If he wants to be polite like Glockster and provide data and research that supports the Anti-APR theory than that is awesome. That's how we learn on here. But he hasn't done that. Instead he came here and was rude, insulted me and others simply because we have differing points of view. ....
Here is a perfect case. Because he drove around and all he saw were two points then the APR must not work right. ....
My research and data are pretty much the same that Glockster has provided, so why be redundant? He is obviously faster on Google than I am, but I'm older.
I don't need to get out and walk through Twisp and Winthrop to see the same deer I saw by driving through. I was enroute to deer camp, where it can be verified, I walked a hell of a lot over a couple of days, up ridges, across an old forest fire burn, and other places where we found tracks, but no deer.
Down in the Snake River, as can be verified, I hiked those breaks and down along the canyons for three days straight. Don't let anybody kid you, deer have plenty of cover and they can get out of rifle range pretty darned fast in that country.
People I hunt with know I get away from the roads, and I do not need to recite chapter and verse from some whitetail study to discuss what antler restrictions for more than ten years have NOT done for the mule deer herds and the buck-to-doe ratio.
Besides,,what good is a high buck-doe ratio if those bucks can't be tagged?
You say you saw legal bucks around Pullman. Good for you. I hope you shot one.
What I see with my own eyes are facts.
Post by: Dave Workman on November 23, 2011, 09:27:21 AM
QuoteWe've been living with 3PT APR on muledeer since the '97 season...that's 14 years. See how hard it is to get a restriction lifted once it's in place in WA??!!!
The WDFW wanted to do away with the 3 point restriction but hunters voted to keep it. The biologists have said it's no longer necessary but for some reason they go with public opinion instead of what their biologists recommend.
You mean the Commission, don't you? Not the WDFW.
I don't recall ever being asked to vote for or against continuing the 3-pt B/A restriction? This was when?
Post by: bobcat on November 23, 2011, 09:30:28 AM
QuoteWe've been living with 3PT APR on muledeer since the '97 season...that's 14 years. See how hard it is to get a restriction lifted once it's in place in WA??!!!
The WDFW wanted to do away with the 3 point restriction but hunters voted to keep it. The biologists have said it's no longer necessary but for some reason they go with public opinion instead of what their biologists recommend.
You mean the Commission, don't you? Not the WDFW.
I don't recall ever being asked to vote for or against continuing the 3-pt B/A restriction? This was when?
It was in one of the online surveys a few years ago.
And no, I don't mean the Commission. The biologists work for the WDFW and they are the ones who said the 3 point restriction was no longer necessary.
Post by: Special T on November 23, 2011, 09:33:08 AM
I guess what i mean is If you use APR as a means of creating escapement you are only using one tool in the bag to do the job. APR's do help but they are not a magic bullet. You cannot fix the overall picture by changing one thing.Dave i think you prove that a 1 prong approach will only has a small short gain. That said, attacking this issue on many levels predators, more boots on the ground etc.
will likely have a more meaningful effect. What we lack is LEADERSHIP not studies.
Could you sort of translate this a little more?
:dunno:
Ever tried to loose weight? For it to be effective you cannot just cut out dessert and expect to get the body of a body builder.. Often times it requires you to change Most of what you are currently doing. Excerize, eat better, drink more water etc. you can get a little healthier by doing just a little but it won't get you where you want to go.
I think APR's And QDM ARE good, HOWEVER it is to get that next 10% once you already have a pretty healthy herd... High fenced operations are like a science test where they can control most of the variables and see the change as a result. The wild deer can benifit from the same management (I believe) But is much less effective...
http://www.qdma.com/what-we-do/articles/certification-program-readings/qdm-and-coyotes/
This article talks about the studied effects of coyotes on WT It goes the gambit on providing differing food sources to trapping and hunting. Since it come from the QDM web site it is obviously an objective.
This state has hamstrung itself by outlawing hound hunting, trapping, running curs on coyotes, reduce the about of timber harvest on Forest service land (Not state controlled i know). and more.. I would guess your frustration is much like mine. The state uses studies and research like APR's QDM practices etc to dig them selves out of this hole when its not possible. I often hear excuses from the WDFW not leadership. If the WDFW really had hunters intrests at heart why would they not direct us to help repeal BS laws or find ways to work within them to accomplish the same things?
Hopefully i explained myself better this time. :tup:
Post by: Dave Workman on November 23, 2011, 09:38:32 AM
the push to use data from Eastern US whitetail herds experience with APR's to justify their use on NE WA whitetail herds is simply flawed;
(snip)
We don't have that option here because the problem with our whitetail herds is vastly different; our problem is not one of age structure or even buck to doe ratio, it is simply a problem of the herd being under so much pressure from winter kill and predators.
If you dig into the research on these APR's several facts become apparant; one, is they simply move the avg harvest date up from a 1.5 yr old animal to a 2.5 yr old animal:
(snip)
You want to help the herds?? Get rid of ALL antlerless tags until the herd is at or above carrying capacity; put lots of political pressure on the wildlife department to expand and make easier predator control; and, when the population gets hit from a severe winter kill, restrict the buck harvest through reduced opportunities (NOT APR's) to ensure that not too much pressure is put on the buck population. A simple way to help this would have been to just put a two year hiatus on the Nov late hunt or reduce its season length down.
(snip)
Using these APR gimmicks just kicks the can down the road awhile longer until we have to have the real conversation.........and, unfortunately, probably will do damage to our herds; the legacy of the 3 pt or better mule deer APR thats been in effect for 13 years now is ever shortening seasons so now we are all crammed into a 9 day season; and, the unfortunate fact that we will never get rid of it because of the hit to the buck population the first year you get rid of it.
The legacy of the 4 pt or more restriction in NE WA will be that you will never get rid of it, and eventually you will see the late season shortened or scrapped entirely because of the pressure it will put on the mature buck population.
Muleguy:
The only fault I see with your logic is that once you put a "hiatus" on the late NE whitetail hunt, with this agency it'll be gone forever. Period. End of story.
They were going to do the 3-pt B/A restriction on muleys for 10 years IIRC, and it is now 14 yrs later. I don't recall any recommendation from the bios that it be scrapped, either, as reported earlier, but I may have missed that one.
Otherwise, I find very salient points in your dissertation.
Post by: Glockster on November 23, 2011, 09:39:52 AM
Ah the legacy of game management by popular opinion......
I will vouch that Dave Workman didn't road hunt the Palouse this year LOL. He went down in the nasty, steep, "thick" stuff. ~And he did it last year too.
And good hunters getting in p#@# matches over personal hunting qualifications really must give the the forces of darkness a side ache from laughing so hard
Post by: walt on November 23, 2011, 09:41:51 AM
Quote
You want to help the herds?? Get rid of ALL antlerless tags until the herd is at or above carrying capacity; put lots of political pressure on the wildlife department to expand and make easier predator control; and, when the population gets hit from a severe winter kill, restrict the buck harvest through reduced opportunities (NOT APR's) to ensure that not too much pressure is put on the buck population. A simple way to help this would have been to just put a two year hiatus on the Nov late hunt or reduce its season length down.
As far as the NE deer issue goes, I think muleyguy pretty much nailed it.
Post by: bobcat on November 23, 2011, 09:44:19 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on November 23, 2011, 10:02:46 AM
I think the problem may be, that to do away with the 3 point minimum, they would have to go to permit only hunting the first year or couple years to limit hunting pressure. I'm sure that wouldn't be very popular, and the WDFW seems to base their management on popular opinion, so it looks like we're stuck with the 3 point minimum forever, or until the whole state goes to draw only.
There it is again WDFWspeak...
" Guys, if you never have experienced something, you don't miss it. Well WE (and others) have and we have not let them program us to their way of thinking because we see it for what it is......A big forking mess they have created and want to continue being all about the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ for S/P draw chances while they create more catagories to take more $$$ from us. :twocents:"
Post by: bobcat on November 23, 2011, 10:11:30 AM
Post by: Houndhunter on November 23, 2011, 10:13:12 AM
Post by: CedarPants on November 23, 2011, 10:14:59 AM
Proper predator management would do way more for our deer than any apr's, I wish our wdfw would wake up
I think they are wide awake - and totally against predator hunting as an agency :twocents:
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on November 23, 2011, 10:19:28 AM
Elkaholic, you totally lost me with that post. So what is your opinion? You want to do away with the 3 point minimum and allow uncontrolled hunting for any buck, so the 1 1/2 year old bucks get wiped out that first year? Is that what you're saying?
What I am saying is that why do we want to give them another category to take more money. And do you really think that deer are that stupid that the 1 1/2 year olds would be wiped out? I don't think so.
Post by: Glockster on November 23, 2011, 10:44:29 AM
Biologists I cited back on page 2 state that you loose over 50% buck mortality in the 2-3 yr (muledeer fork and small 3pt) category to nature regardless of whether that's man taking them or the coyote down the draw. You simply cannot stockpile wildlife....that's been proven time and time again by PROFESSIONAL biologists.
Part of the rise of the predator in WA has a lot to do with all the food we're leaving for them in the form of unfilled tags. Of course, this plays really nicely into the pro predator agenda of WDFW and other 'let nature take it's course' advocates.
Post by: Special T on November 23, 2011, 10:47:21 AM
Post by: Dave Workman on November 23, 2011, 10:52:37 AM
Elkaholic, you totally lost me with that post. So what is your opinion? You want to do away with the 3 point minimum and allow uncontrolled hunting for any buck, so the 1 1/2 year old bucks get wiped out that first year? Is that what you're saying?
Bobcat: This sounds like alarmist WDFW excuse rhetoric. Nobody is going to wipe out the young bucks in a single season, unless we go to tribal regs.
We can do it the way it used to be done: set aside a couple of Okanogan units for B/A hunting, and open up others for general buck hunting. It'll be a boon, especially for kids looking to conk their first buck. And for the guys who want a bigger buck, all they need to do is hold fire if they see a spike or fork-horn. Pretty simple really.
At the same time, put a hold on doe hunting for everyone (Yep, that means bowhunters too) with an absolute time certain end...say 2 years and make that carved in stone. (and fire any biologist who recommends keeping it beyond that period).
In conjunction, the hunting of cougars and bears with hounds must be resumed, in earnest. And as I said earlier, remove the license requirement for killing coyotes. You should not need a license to shoot a coyote.
Post by: bobcat on November 23, 2011, 11:00:14 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on November 23, 2011, 11:10:23 AM
Post by: Houndhunter on November 23, 2011, 11:54:50 AM
Post by: Curly on November 23, 2011, 12:01:56 PM
Post by: Dave Workman on November 23, 2011, 12:11:58 PM
http://muledeerworkinggroup.com/index_files/Page771.htm
Quote
In the 1990s, APRs were implemented in a few units in Washington. Less mule deer bucks were being harvested because of a shortened season, restricted access, and hunters switching effort from mule deer to white-tailed deer. Buck:doe ratios increased due to this lower buck harvest and simultaneous improvement in fawn recruitment, but the proportion of mature bucks in the population did not increase noticeably.
After 12 years of trial in Oregon, the 4-point antler restriction on South Steens Mountain was rescinded in 1987. Biologists reported buck:doe ratios, particularly older bucks, had actually decreased.
APRs have been tried in most western states, but have failed to produce the desired results despite their popularity with the public. APRs have increased post-hunt buck:doe ratios in some areas due to a reduction in hunters in those areas, but have almost universally failed to increase the number or proportion of mature bucks (which is why most hunters support APRs). A significant illegal harvest of bucks not meeting the antler criteria was reported in all APR trials, which defeats the purpose of the restrictions. Antler point restrictions do not produce more deer or larger-antlered deer, only reducing legal harvest through changes in hunt structure will accomplish that goal.
And there you have it.
Post by: muleyguy on November 23, 2011, 12:25:00 PM
Quote
Besides,,what good is a high buck-doe ratio if those bucks can't be tagged?
it makes for a healthier herd that throws fitter fawns; with hunting we artificially lower the buck to doe ratio and can cause age structure problems;
herds with better buck to doe ratio's and good quantities of mature animals doing the bulk of the breeding are healthier.
I have read yours and Glocksters opinions and you seem to be of the opinion that a buck left standing after the season is a "wasted" opportunity. This just harkens back to old line thinking that these deer populations are like factories; they aren't factories and are dynamic and changing;
a couple of quick analogies come to mind: would you run your bank account down to $0 every month and not have a rainy day fund?? A good buck to doe ratio and good age structure going into the breeding season and the winter ensures that we have good healthy adult males doing the breeding and gives us a buffer going into the winter. Sure, if over the years we have excess amounts of bucks over a healthy ratio certainly provide hunting opportunities for those;
BUT, we are nowhere near that right now.
Our deer herds, both muley and whitetail, are not as productive as other states; we need to have a buffer in place; we can't rebound like pennsylvania.
The reason our predator problems have risen is not because we are leaving excess deer in the forest; its because we have changed the laws on how they can be managed AND we have completely introduced a new one into the equation (wolves)
With increased predators we simply cannot continue to harvest bucks and does to the extent we used to.
while it is true that tag sales have decreased over the years, the fact is hunter days have increased which more then offsets the decrease in tag sales; so this idea that we are putting less pressure on the resource today is not correct; the modern deer hunter is highly mobile, has better equipment, and puts more days in the field and works harder;
your solution seems to be that we need MORE opportunities not less on bucks; there need to be restrictions in this State; the problem is that we are choosing to use APR's as the restriction of choice when it is the poorest option.
Some very small sacrifices would go a long ways to making the herd healthier and exponentially increasing the hunter experience in the field; if we reduced the amount of hunters in the field by 1/3 each year and lengthened out the season substaintially, we could grow the herd and keep the hunter experience first class; all this for just giving up 1 year out of 3
Post by: Glockster on November 23, 2011, 12:50:19 PM
Still APR guys cannot cite a single western biologist study pointing to APR as a beneficial management tool. Dave and I have cited studies by the professional game managers from MT, UT, ID, CO, & WY and their experiences with APR. It's been tried guys and it doesn't work. Well it only works if your goals are fewer hunters and lots of illegal kills.
You guys who believe in the let's loose so we can gain math really need to think that math through carefully. What you're advocating is a severe reduction in stakeholders (to use the PC-ish term for HUNTERS)...guys who will simply go to other states. I know i am. I'm not going to waste my breath at WDFW meetings or fill out their silly surveys because I'm not a stakeholder anymore.
I say we leave management of game to the professionals and not the court of public opinion. If you like management by survey and armchair biology....WA is your state :tup:
Post by: muleyguy on November 23, 2011, 01:07:42 PM
Quote
Still APR guys cannot cite a single western biologist study pointing to APR as a beneficial management tool
I'm with you 100% on this!
Quote
Predators are not daisy's. They don't just happen. More food + protection = more predators. Especially when a dept manages with a pro predator agenda.
Once again I agree completely! But, the way you solve the problem is NOT by decreasing the food supply (shoot more bucks); you solve the problem by more aggressive predator management; I agree that WDFW has completely dropped the ball on this;
Quote
What you're advocating is a severe reduction in stakeholders (to use the PC-ish term for HUNTERS)...guys who will simply go to other states.
Are you saying that they are going to go to other states for easier and more opportunities??? What State is that?? ALL Oregon mule deer are draw only; the WHOLE state of Nevada is draw only; Wyoming you have to select a region or unit and then DRAW it. Idaho is pretty open, but, they have seen the quality of their mule deer drop drastically. Colorado has one of the most sophisticated draw mechanisms in the country; Arizona and NM are draw based.
The only state that is really open for the most part is Montana, BUT Montana is a special case because it has wonderful deer habitat and has very productive herds, so its deer herds can withstand a much higher threshold of harvest and pressure then a state like WA.
There is a pattern here outside of Montana; ALL the states I mentioned have better hunting and healthier herds then WA; there are few to none APR's in these states, AND they more strictly control the hunter numbers and opportunities then WA.
Post by: Glockster on November 23, 2011, 01:17:04 PM
You guys who think you have good ideas on deer management should read Dr. Valerius Geist's works....specifically Deer of the World: Their Evolution.
And all those states you mention Muleyguy have tried APR and found it to be a miserable failure to accomplish their herd health goals. Why does WA think it's special? Three are plenty of non res OTC left over tag opps for antlerless, etc in most of those states. I may or may not draw, but if i do i'll be hunting where I have an infinitely better chance of notching a tag.
I'll be hunting in a place where they appreciate hunters and their dollars. As I was getting into the airport in Albuquerque last week...even the curb guy congratulated me on getting my deer. So did the counter gal who helped me check my meat and gun in. I'm gonna go where I'm appreciated and that ain't Washington anymore.
Post by: muleyguy on November 23, 2011, 01:22:56 PM
2009 Washington state deer tag sales: 167,000
2009 Wyoming Deer tag Sales: 90,000
Wyoming is a bigger state with more productive deer habitat then WA will ever have; and here we are in WA trying to jam 167,000 hunters into a smaller land base, all on a general season 9 day hunt???
its insane!
you HAVE to have restrictions in this State; States with much smaller tag sales, and larger deer habitat, are regulating their deer hunters MORE then we are!
That is why the experience is so much better. Those states certainly aren't perfect and have their issues also, but, we have a very serious problem in this state in that we are issuing WAY too many tags relative to what our deer herd can sustain
Post by: muleyguy on November 23, 2011, 01:25:30 PM
Quote
And all those states you mention Muleyguy have tried APR and found it to be a miserable failure to accomplish their herd health goals. Why does WA think it's special?
I AGREE; READ MY POSTS!! I AM THE MOST ANTI-APR GUY ON THIS SITE!!!!
but your and dave's solution of just opening it up is not going to solve it!! You need regulation; APR's though are the poorest form of it!!
The reason our state chooses to use them is because all of us hunters do not want to give up our god given right to hunt every year for as long as we want!!
Post by: FLIZZ on November 23, 2011, 01:31:36 PM
Post by: bobcat on November 23, 2011, 01:45:06 PM
five minutes of data lookup confirms the problem:
2009 Washington state deer tag sales: 167,000
2009 Wyoming Deer tag Sales: 90,000
Wyoming is a bigger state with more productive deer habitat then WA will ever have; and here we are in WA trying to jam 167,000 hunters into a smaller land base, all on a general season 9 day hunt???
its insane!
you HAVE to have restrictions in this State; States with much smaller tag sales, and larger deer habitat, are regulating their deer hunters MORE then we are!
That is why the experience is so much better. Those states certainly aren't perfect and have their issues also, but, we have a very serious problem in this state in that we are issuing WAY too many tags relative to what our deer herd can sustain
Yep and that's why we need to do away with general seasons and go to permit only deer hunting (and elk). Like most other states have done.
Post by: Glockster on November 23, 2011, 01:58:57 PM
I do not agree that the answer is more regulation. I do not agree that there is a 'problem" with our deer herds in WA (with the very notable exceptions of the western Yakima county units and a few North Sound, Randall area & Penninsula units where clearcutting has stopped in the name of owls.).
I see no scarcity of the annual wonderful big bucks on winter range pics on this site and lots of the "look at me I shot my permit only buck" on winter range pics. ~I don't see this statewide scarcity of deer problem. I don't see the problems you do..but neither of us are going off of science based deer population surveys are we?. We're citing our own experiences/perceptions; mine of which runs my lifetime in WA. I'm sure you hunt alot too. I'm just saying I remember the "uncontrolled" days and there wasn't a problem...had 40% more deer and elk hunters and we had longer seasons, all units open, could hunt any weapon type if we bought the tags and hunted much better times of year. Heck ya more guys went home with venison. That was the point. More guys took kids out of school for the elk season. I don't see much of that these days. I saw lots of grumpy looking elk guys, no kids and one single cow hanging in one camp on a 50mi drive thru Bethel, Nile, Wenas and Umptanum. I can remember seeing elk hanging in every other camp on that route during the 80's.
So maybe we do ad another 30 pages to the WA reg book. 3pt on sundays for permit holders with ss#'s ending in odd numbers and all hunters can apply for an 'every year permit' for $45 ea entry. But you can apply as many times as you want.
Post by: Dave Workman on November 23, 2011, 02:04:22 PM
Yep and that's why we need to do away with general seasons and go to permit only deer hunting (and elk). Like most other states have done.
You have just solved your own dilemma. Go hunt in one of those other states. Stop hunting here, period. Put in for those permits in Wyoming or Idaho, Montana or Utah...or Colorado. Don't forget New Mexico.
Eliminating general seasons is not going to help perpetuate hunting and grow a new generation of hunters. Nor does it solve the problem we have here, which is not too many hunters but poor management of the resource.
Who is going to be able to convince a kid to become a hunter by telling that kid..."hey, junior, it'll take you 5-8 years to draw a permit, and then you'll have to wait another few years before you can hunt again..."
Not exactly the way to sell an idea.
Post by: bearpaw on November 23, 2011, 02:07:12 PM
five minutes of data lookup confirms the problem:
2009 Washington state deer tag sales: 167,000
2009 Wyoming Deer tag Sales: 90,000
Wyoming is a bigger state with more productive deer habitat then WA will ever have; and here we are in WA trying to jam 167,000 hunters into a smaller land base, all on a general season 9 day hunt???
its insane!
you HAVE to have restrictions in this State; States with much smaller tag sales, and larger deer habitat, are regulating their deer hunters MORE then we are!
That is why the experience is so much better. Those states certainly aren't perfect and have their issues also, but, we have a very serious problem in this state in that we are issuing WAY too many tags relative to what our deer herd can sustain
:yike: :yike: :yike:
No doubt we have a dillema, I guess it just depends if people want limited opportunity during an open season or if people want limited opportunity to hunt, period.
I maintain that if we go to a draw that you will cause hunters to leave the sport in this state and fewer young hunters will be recruited, that is already a problem. Even though it would mean bigger deer, I would hate to see limited entry only and fewer hunters in the sport. :twocents:
Post by: Cougeyes on November 23, 2011, 02:21:29 PM
Post by: slim9300 on November 23, 2011, 02:26:58 PM
The problem is that this state exaggerates the number of elk horribly on the west side. I would say that there is half of the elk today that there were in 1980 in Western WA.
I bow hunt, I'm not lazy, I scout two weeks or more every year, I practice shooting daily, I learned to hunt from someone that knows what he is doing, and I shoot mostly cows in WA. It's really not that hard if you are willing to hunt miles from the truck.
Last year, I drove through Twisp and Winthrop the afternoon/evening before the deer opener. I stopped counting deer at about 100, and they were all hanging around the towns, and I cannot recall seeing anything over 3-point and most of the bucks were in the 2-point category, IIRC. Here were were, ten years into the B/A management scheme, where we should be seeing (theoretically, anyway) more mature bucks, and that doesn't appear to be the case at all.
For the record I was in Twisp and Winthrop last weekend. My little sis drew a Gardner Rut Whitetail tag and I brought her over there to kill a buck.
We hunted a total of 8 hours and were in town for another 8 or so. We saw 8 mule deer bucks, 4 whitetail bucks and over a hundred does. All but two of the mule deer bucks were 3 points or better and all but one of the Whitetails were 4 points or better (counting eye guards which I normally don't do). I couldn't tell if the forked horn whitetail had eye guards but he may have. (we were already done hunting) I just wanted to point out how different two people's accounts can be. (granted I was there during the rut)
Oh and my sis is 10 and drew the tag with two points. Here is her buck...
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-ppFsj7DSGSQ/TsnXQP-fArI/AAAAAAAAADw/9eczscd1X5M/s640/1.jpg)
Post by: bobcat on November 23, 2011, 02:56:11 PM
Yep and that's why we need to do away with general seasons and go to permit only deer hunting (and elk). Like most other states have done.
You have just solved your own dilemma. Go hunt in one of those other states. Stop hunting here, period. Put in for those permits in Wyoming or Idaho, Montana or Utah...or Colorado. Don't forget New Mexico.
Eliminating general seasons is not going to help perpetuate hunting and grow a new generation of hunters. Nor does it solve the problem we have here, which is not too many hunters but poor management of the resource.
Who is going to be able to convince a kid to become a hunter by telling that kid..."hey, junior, it'll take you 5-8 years to draw a permit, and then you'll have to wait another few years before you can hunt again..."
Not exactly the way to sell an idea.
Funny how it works in other western states, but it can't here? It wouldn't necessarily need to be every unit in the state. Maybe just half the state. Maybe just for mule deer. Maybe only for modern firearm. Oregon has modern firearm mule deer hunting by permit only and they don't seem to have a problem with their system. Most people can hunt every year if they want to apply for a unit that has lots of tags. Or if you want a more quality hunt you apply for one that requires a couple of points.
Post by: slim9300 on November 23, 2011, 03:06:21 PM
Yep and that's why we need to do away with general seasons and go to permit only deer hunting (and elk). Like most other states have done.
You have just solved your own dilemma. Go hunt in one of those other states. Stop hunting here, period. Put in for those permits in Wyoming or Idaho, Montana or Utah...or Colorado. Don't forget New Mexico.
Eliminating general seasons is not going to help perpetuate hunting and grow a new generation of hunters. Nor does it solve the problem we have here, which is not too many hunters but poor management of the resource.
Who is going to be able to convince a kid to become a hunter by telling that kid..."hey, junior, it'll take you 5-8 years to draw a permit, and then you'll have to wait another few years before you can hunt again..."
Not exactly the way to sell an idea.
Funny how it works in other western states, but it can't here? It wouldn't necessarily need to be every unit in the state. Maybe just half the state. Maybe just for mule deer. Maybe only for modern firearm. Oregon has modern firearm mule deer hunting by permit only and they don't seem to have a problem with their system. Most people can hunt every year if they want to apply for a unit that has lots of tags. Or if you want a more quality hunt you apply for one that requires a couple of points.
Exactly. Draw only does not mean waiting many years to hunt. It means deciding if you are a trophy hunter or a meat hunter and committing to a single unit / area (even though the big ones can still be found in the units you can draw every year).
Post by: CedarPants on November 23, 2011, 03:14:07 PM
Yep and that's why we need to do away with general seasons and go to permit only deer hunting (and elk). Like most other states have done.
You have just solved your own dilemma. Go hunt in one of those other states. Stop hunting here, period. Put in for those permits in Wyoming or Idaho, Montana or Utah...or Colorado. Don't forget New Mexico.
Eliminating general seasons is not going to help perpetuate hunting and grow a new generation of hunters....
I don't think hunters telling fellow hunters to get out of this state is going to perpetuate hunting either :dunno:
We may all disagree on how to best manage our animals from time to time, but at the end of the day should our solution to differing ideas be to suggest our fellow sportsmen pack up and leave? I don't necessarily agree with permit only seasons, but I certainly value bobcat as a fellow sportsman and know that we all value the same ideals when looking at the bigger picture.
Perpetuation of hunting is not only dependant on recruiting our youth, but also in us seasoned hunters having the ability to see past our differing opinions as individuals in order to work together as a group :twocents:
Post by: high country on November 23, 2011, 03:15:34 PM
Post by: Glockster on November 23, 2011, 03:43:24 PM
It would be *easy* to loose another 30-40% of licensed WA hunters in the next decade when you pile on more restrictions, complication, less opportunity and increased cost for decreased value.
There are plenty of states that have draws and lots of trophy potential. WA has plenty of big trophy class mulies too...just look at the Boneaddict winter range pics...Where do you think those deer are during the 9 days we get to hunt them? They didn't just appear out of thin air. Why not go to those places if you like the trophy hunt experience?
Have at it guys. Enjoy WA's new quality hunting experiences. I'll pass.
Post by: high country on November 23, 2011, 03:55:17 PM
Post by: muleyguy on November 23, 2011, 04:27:16 PM
if you buy the mult-season tag, which is an easy draw, you can do all this over multiple weapon choices;
so, this idea that hunters are leaving this state because of the onerous regulations is simply not true; I easily spend 30 to 40 hrs a year researching the out of state draws, etc I apply for; other Western states, besides Montana, are MUCH more regulated;
the reason people are leaving this state is because the hunting experience is so poor; too few animals, too few bucks, too few mature bucks and WAY, WAY too many hunters; too short of a season
Other states offer a much better experience; just look at the Wyoming and WA state tag differences; you have DOUBLE the amount of tags in WA vs WY;
In Wyoming I have to pick a unit or Regions (more regulation then WA) and, many of the units have short general seasons; but, you know what???? The experience is 10x what it is here; I don't have to contend with pumpkins on every square inch of were I want to hunt; I see good numbers of animals; and, I have a legititmate shot a great buck.
what is going to drive people away from hunting is a poor experience; not limits on hunting opportunities;
According to yours guys' opinion WY is foolish!! Wyoming should be allocating 80,000 more deer tags!! That would get it even with WA state.
But, they don't.........which increases their "product" which is providing a quality hunting experience. I can guarantee you that there is no shortage of interest in hunters applying for other Western states, all of which have more onerous regulations then WA; in fact, there tags are in HIGH demand because they are providing a high quality product.
restriction of tag numbers is not going to kill hunting; and for getting kids involved??? You want to get your kid into hunting??? Take them out of state.......because their hunting experience will be 10x what it is here; you bring a 14 yr old kid to eastern MT and that kid will be hooked for life, I can guarantee it. You bring him up to your family hunting area in WA state and he will deal with all the BS that goes on here; too many hunters, too few deer, too few legal bucks, etc.
you know, my kid loves to go to disneyland; just because he can't go every year does not diminish his desire to go!! the reason he wants to go is because disneyland provides a quality product;
the bottom line in this state is that when you put 2x the tag pressure on a smaller resource base, your quality of product is going to go down......
basing your view of our herd health on going to the wintering grounds during the rut and seeing bucks is really pretty short sighted; the winter grounds and rut concentrate deer from hundreds of square miles into a few square miles; boneaddict does get some great photos and see some great bucks even outside this period, but he also spends 3 to 4 weeks (???) in the field each and every year (according to what he has stated on here);
the problem in this state is that the management scheme that has been adopted is to not restrict tag sales, leave it wideopen, have very few draw units, and mostly general units, but, rather to restrict season length and use APR's to enhance escapement;
This is completely backwards to what EVERY other Western State is doing; we have lots of WA hunters going out of state every year because the product is better then our product.
Anyone ever think that maybe we have it wrong in WA??
Maybe we need to do what every other Western state is doing............restricting tag sales, going to draw or region only hunts, no APR's; having longer hunting seasons that spread out the hunter pressure over a wider amount of days.
Post by: high country on November 23, 2011, 04:40:50 PM
Post by: Dave Workman on November 23, 2011, 06:44:05 PM
Yep and that's why we need to do away with general seasons and go to permit only deer hunting (and elk). Like most other states have done.
You have just solved your own dilemma. Go hunt in one of those other states. Stop hunting here, period. Put in for those permits in Wyoming or Idaho, Montana or Utah...or Colorado. Don't forget New Mexico.
Eliminating general seasons is not going to help perpetuate hunting and grow a new generation of hunters....
I don't think hunters telling fellow hunters to get out of this state is going to perpetuate hunting either :dunno:
I didn't tell him to get out of state. I told him to hunt out of state. The permit system obviously appeals to him, and there are lots of places for him to apply for those permits.
There is obviously a contingent of permit advocates on this board. Be cognizant of the fact that simply because you guys advocate something does not mean this state needs to adopt that. If you all feel, that strongly, then you should all apply for permits in the other states and not hunt here at all, if it detracts from your experience to see so many other hunters around.
I'm not telling you to pull up stakes, quit your job and move.
Some folks don't like my attitude. I grew up here, 4th generation. I've seen management go from good to piss poor. It began with a change in the name of the agency from Game Department to Department of Fish and Wildlife and it has steadily eroded with increased emphasis on "watchable" wildlife and predator protection.
Unlike agencies in Oregon and Idaho , when this state was faced with the initiative to ban hound hunting for cougars and black bears, this state's agency hardly lifted an energetic finger, while similar attempts in other states brought down a spirited resistance.
I'll bet Wacenturion and Bearpaw remember that better than me.
As for hunting pressure, let me use the comparison that I have been using for more than 25 years that really pisses them off in Olympia.
Washington v. Ohio.
Ohio has approximately 20,000 square miles LESS land mass than Washington.
Ohio has 282.3 persons per square mile
Washington has 101.2 persons per square mile
In 2010 Washington sold just over 131,000 deer tags
In 2010 Ohio sold just over 609,400 deer permits
Ohio has one deer species: Whitetail
Washington has three species: Blacktail, whitetail and mule deer
Washington hunters killed 30,707 deer during that season
Ohio hunters killed 105,781 deer during the general gun season and more than 261,000 deer during the entire combined seasons and that was DOWN from past years.
http://www.ohiodnr.com/Portals/9/pdf/pub304.pdf
Now, I have no intention of moving to Ohio. I'm from around here. But it seems to me that with all the millions of acres of public land we have that Ohio doesn't, and half the people, we could do a little bit better. Just a smidge. Oh, and they get some pretty big bucks in Ohio.
Now, muleguy says people leave this state because of the poor hunting experience, and that is partly correct.
Glockster says it also has to do with the regulations, and that's correct, too.
In Ohio, and in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming...the agencies treat hunters as valuable. Here they seem to treat us like a necessary evil.
We all seem to agree that management here sucks. We seem to disagree on the answer.
so we fight amongst ourselves when ... as I have explained before ... we ought to be holding the agency accountable.
Post by: colockumelk on November 23, 2011, 06:52:47 PM
people are not going out of state because of the difficulty or the regulations this state has; this state, relative to other Western states has one of the most liberal tag policies of any state; we have very few draw only units; think about it, you can buy a deer tag, hunt three different species on the general tag over really 3 months; you can start with the high country hunt, hit the general season mule deer hunt, head north of spokane for a rut hunt general whitetail hunt in November and then head over the mountains for a blacktail hunt;
if you buy the mult-season tag, which is an easy draw, you can do all this over multiple weapon choices;
so, this idea that hunters are leaving this state because of the onerous regulations is simply not true; I easily spend 30 to 40 hrs a year researching the out of state draws, etc I apply for; other Western states, besides Montana, are MUCH more regulated;
the reason people are leaving this state is because the hunting experience is so poor; too few animals, too few bucks, too few mature bucks and WAY, WAY too many hunters; too short of a season
Other states offer a much better experience; just look at the Wyoming and WA state tag differences; you have DOUBLE the amount of tags in WA vs WY;
In Wyoming I have to pick a unit or Regions (more regulation then WA) and, many of the units have short general seasons; but, you know what???? The experience is 10x what it is here; I don't have to contend with pumpkins on every square inch of were I want to hunt; I see good numbers of animals; and, I have a legititmate shot a great buck.
what is going to drive people away from hunting is a poor experience; not limits on hunting opportunities;
According to yours guys' opinion WY is foolish!! Wyoming should be allocating 80,000 more deer tags!! That would get it even with WA state.
But, they don't.........which increases their "product" which is providing a quality hunting experience. I can guarantee you that there is no shortage of interest in hunters applying for other Western states, all of which have more onerous regulations then WA; in fact, there tags are in HIGH demand because they are providing a high quality product.
restriction of tag numbers is not going to kill hunting; and for getting kids involved??? You want to get your kid into hunting??? Take them out of state.......because their hunting experience will be 10x what it is here; you bring a 14 yr old kid to eastern MT and that kid will be hooked for life, I can guarantee it. You bring him up to your family hunting area in WA state and he will deal with all the BS that goes on here; too many hunters, too few deer, too few legal bucks, etc.
you know, my kid loves to go to disneyland; just because he can't go every year does not diminish his desire to go!! the reason he wants to go is because disneyland provides a quality product;
the bottom line in this state is that when you put 2x the tag pressure on a smaller resource base, your quality of product is going to go down......
basing your view of our herd health on going to the wintering grounds during the rut and seeing bucks is really pretty short sighted; the winter grounds and rut concentrate deer from hundreds of square miles into a few square miles; boneaddict does get some great photos and see some great bucks even outside this period, but he also spends 3 to 4 weeks (???) in the field each and every year (according to what he has stated on here);
the problem in this state is that the management scheme that has been adopted is to not restrict tag sales, leave it wideopen, have very few draw units, and mostly general units, but, rather to restrict season length and use APR's to enhance escapement;
This is completely backwards to what EVERY other Western State is doing; we have lots of WA hunters going out of state every year because the product is better then our product.
Anyone ever think that maybe we have it wrong in WA??
Maybe we need to do what every other Western state is doing............restricting tag sales, going to draw or region only hunts, no APR's; having longer hunting seasons that spread out the hunter pressure over a wider amount of days.
You know muleyguy I spent read over this post and some of your others trying to add something other than "yeah that" or "I agree 100%" but I couldn't. You said it perfect and are 100% correct. As fat as APRs and Mule Deer and BT goes you changed my mind. I still think we need them in WA only because of the hunter:deer ratio but I see why you are against APRs. You are right because of this high ratio if we opened the season up it would devistate our herd.
To some others stop comparing hunting today to 1970. It's apples to oranges. You cant do it. Technology, predators, politics and the tribes has changed the dynamics completely. Again Muleyguy you are awesome. Well said.
Post by: rasbo on November 23, 2011, 06:54:12 PM
Post by: bobcat on November 23, 2011, 07:15:43 PM
Oh, and Dave, I'd love to hunt out of state every year but I cannot afford it. I think I'll be stuck here in Washington and only Washington for the next 10 years or so.
Post by: CedarPants on November 23, 2011, 07:27:51 PM
so we fight amongst ourselves when ... as I have explained before ... we ought to be holding the agency accountable.
I agree with you 100%. This is precisely what I meant when I said:
Perpetuation of hunting is not only dependant on recruiting our youth, but also in us seasoned hunters having the ability to see past our differing opinions as individuals in order to work together as a group :twocents:
I didn't specifically point out that I was meaning hold the agency accountable, but that's what I was alluding to when I said working together. I think all and all, you and I are both saying the same thing Dave.
Some folks don't like my attitude.
Personally, I love your attitude. You don't beat around the bush, you get straight to the point and tell it like it is. I admire that
Post by: Special T on November 23, 2011, 10:05:08 PM
We need hound hunting to help control bears and cougars. If we as hunters focused on what we do AGREE on then we would be way ahead of the game. I was talking to a fellow
BH club member that volunteers for the WDFW. I asked him why he thought the WDFW didn't perform for hunters. His response was that WE ARE NOT ORGANIZED! We fight amongst ourselves
about chit like APR's and Season setting. The reality is we should be working at predator management. I also talked to a retired WDFW LEO about why we as hunters are getting screwed.
His response was that the fishing side of the WDFW is more organized and cohesive than the hunting side. we need to press issues that bring hunters together instead of getting divided up like this
APR issue. Some say yea, some say nay so why push it? Push the issues we all agree with! :tup:
Post by: Dave Workman on November 23, 2011, 10:21:59 PM
Oh, and Dave, I'd love to hunt out of state every year but I cannot afford it. I think I'll be stuck here in Washington and only Washington for the next 10 years or so.
Hmmm, well, then, follow the advice of the ages: When in Rome, do what the Romans do.
I take it you moved here from elsewhere. Or, at the very least, you have not had the experience that others have had over a much longer hunting career.
You want fewer people in the woods and lower harvest. Begging your pardon, but that seems rather selfish.
I know the woods don't belong to me. Others enjoy their time here, too.
And I am interested in seeing better and more productive hunting and more game animals...and that is possible here because we have the land to do it.
The "Less is More" approach is not simply wrong, it is wrong-headed. It plays into the hands of wildlife managers who seem more interested in spending their time with studies and data-gathering instead of getting their hands dirty improving habitat and expanding game herds.
Too many people have grown up listening to, and believing, the bull$#!t about "We've got to learn to get along with less." Tell that to the NWTF, which has enhanced and grown wild turkey populations all over and even helped out in Washington until the WDFW crapped on the turkey program.
Ask those Ohio deer hunters I wrote about earlier. When I first started writing about the disparity between Washington and Ohio, the annual harvest there hovered around 98,000 to 100,000 deer. That's more than doubled in the past 25 years despite a growing population in Ohio that is about twice our population.
I've hunted in other states and seen with they can do with habitat not much different than ours and winter weather that is downright fearsome compared to what you find over most of this state. In Utah, I counted about 400 deer in three days of hunting and deliberately killed a cull buck 2x3 when I could have waited and whacked a big 4x4.
In Wyoming, I hunted the same buck for three days after missing an initial shot due to incredibly high winds. Anchored him on the final day with a 200-yard shot. Good solid 4-pt buck. In Montana, I nailed an even bigger 4-point on the final day of a week hunt southeast of Terry, after looking over several other deer in country that also had a gazillion pheasants. And it was bleak, barren country with scrub pines and little finger canyons interspersed with ranch and farmland.
But, of course, in Utah, Wyoming and Montana, the game departments know and APPRECIATE who pays their salaries and they know what makes money...and it sure isn't watching animals at a winter feed station or sitting on one's @$$ listening for the howl of a Frigging wolf. Ditto in Idaho, where I am likely to land next November.
The only way to make these people respond is to hammer them hard and make them accountable. Tell them to produce or pack and make room for someone who can.
Post by: bobcat on November 23, 2011, 10:47:25 PM
Quote
I take it you moved here from elsewhere. Or, at the very least, you have not had the experience that others have had over a much longer hunting career.
Not sure why you say that. I've lived here my entire life (almost 44 years) and have been hunting since about 1981, and haven't missed a season since then.
You think I don't have experience hunting in the state just because I favor the WDFW actually managing our wildlife, rather than the unlimited tags and the no-management" style of management we have now? :dunno:
Again, I don't get why you think we're so different than states like Oregon, which went to draw only for mule deer many years ago. Why is it right for them but not for us?
Post by: colockumelk on November 24, 2011, 05:55:51 AM
And for everyone else. I have compared PA APR rules as an example of how it works with whitetails and was told over and over again how you camt compare WA and PA. I've even compared South of I90 with APRs and North of I90 without APRs and was told you can't compare the two. (Really people) but when Dave compares OH with WA (which I think was a good example BTW) no one says anything. On another thread I said how NY does a better job than WA showing the same type of stats Dave put up and got ripped by people. Again you can't compare the two. I guess for some people its easier to dismiss someone's research or sources as "irrelevant" or "apples to oranges" than provide a good counterargument.
Post by: bearpaw on November 24, 2011, 06:06:40 AM
As someone else said, we all agree that predators are one of our biggest problems. My advice is that we all work toward better predator management and not get side tracked squabling over the things we can't agree on like this APR. :twocents:
_____________________
Dave, you are right, I remember everything about the hound and bait issue, it changed my whole way of life, and the WDFW did nothing to help, they sat on their a$$e$ just as you say and just like they wanted it to pass. :bash:
_____________________
I hope some of you who do want to see change will join "Washington For Wildlife", the links are all over this forum and it's free. We have already started making our organization known and we are developing good relationships with other organizations so that we can all work together on important issues that we agree on.
Post by: huntnnw on November 24, 2011, 06:25:08 AM
Post by: colockumelk on November 24, 2011, 06:39:43 AM
Post by: bearpaw on November 24, 2011, 07:26:39 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on November 24, 2011, 07:47:10 AM
I love the debate about APR's it is very interesting... And i would mostly agree with Dave... Hell I think most hunters agree with a few points. We need trapping to control predators IE coyotes
We need hound hunting to help control bears and cougars. If we as hunters focused on what we do AGREE on then we would be way ahead of the game. I was talking to a fellow
BH club member that volunteers for the WDFW. I asked him why he thought the WDFW didn't perform for hunters. His response was that WE ARE NOT ORGANIZED! We fight amongst ourselves
about chit like APR's and Season setting. The reality is we should be working at predator management. I also talked to a retired WDFW LEO about why we as hunters are getting screwed.
His response was that the fishing side of the WDFW is more organized and cohesive than the hunting side. we need to press issues that bring hunters together instead of getting divided up like this
APR issue. Some say yea, some say nay so why push it? Push the issues we all agree with! :tup:
Every time on here it is so obvious that hunters are the easiest group to splinter for any anti this, or anti that, group to use us to further their agenda!
Post by: mdbuck5x5 on November 24, 2011, 07:48:08 AM
I will say that cars may kill more deer in a year than predatorsWow, how did you come up with that assumption? :dunno:
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on November 24, 2011, 08:13:36 AM
Every time on here it is so obvious that hunters are the easiest group to splinter for any anti this, or anti that, group to use us to further their agenda!
Of which the original seed for this was planted in the late 70's by the Washington department of Fish and Game pushing for "Resource allocation"
Colockumelk I realize there are MANY MANY more people living in the rural areas of this state than in 1970 ((And that farmers were more inclined to let you hunt their land (W/O an outfitting fee))...but Experiencing BOTH my money says there were more hunters in the woods then, when whole construction jobs would shut down during the openers of the seasons for a few days.
Even the frog likes the water warmed up to a point, but then he doesn't realize when it's too late to get out.
One other thing ...IF we had the QUALITY of a Wyoming hunt.......YES WE WOULD need MORE draw hunts because the whole nation (or more)would be drooling over our tags and then OTC would cause a real problem.
THAT is not the case
Post by: JimmyHoffa on November 24, 2011, 09:53:22 AM
And for everyone else. I have compared PA APR rules as an example of how it works with whitetails and was told over and over again how you camt compare WA and PA. I've even compared South of I90 with APRs and North of I90 without APRs and was told you can't compare the two. (Really people) but when Dave compares OH with WA (which I think was a good example BTW) no one says anything. On another thread I said how NY does a better job than WA showing the same type of stats Dave put up and got ripped by people. Again you can't compare the two. I guess for some people its easier to dismiss someone's research or sources as "irrelevant" or "apples to oranges" than provide a good counterargument.The way I read it, you are focusing more on the methods other states are using---ex: APRs for WT and if that translates to WA muleys. And it seems like Dave is pointing out the change over time to opportunity because of different game depts--ex: WA has had a decline in hunters, herd, harvest; but OH is increasing all 3. What you are discussing is more debateable because it is one of the available tools and there is science for and against as well as personal observations. What Dave seems to throw around (with the OH comparison) is harder to counter because it isn't the method, it's the numbers.
Post by: Dave Workman on November 24, 2011, 09:56:54 AM
Of which the original seed for this was planted in the late 70's by the Washington department of Fish and Game pushing for "Resource allocation"
One other thing ...IF we had the QUALITY of a Wyoming hunt.......YES WE WOULD need MORE draw hunts because the whole nation (or more)would be drooling over our tags and then OTC would cause a real problem.
THAT is not the case
B-I-N-G-O!
Resource Allocation helped create this mess, and people who weren't here or cannot remember back when this state had 100K more hunters yet produced longer, later elk and deer seasons don't understand — or don't want to understand, or give it lip service or whatever — what hunting was, and most importantly, what it could be like again.
If other states with far less resources than we have can produce hunting kill rates like Ohio, why the hell can't WA?
That's the far better question to ask than "If other states can go to permit hunts, why can't WA?"
Like it or not, permit hunts are eventually going to kill this tradition because most people will not wait around year after year for a chance to go camping with a gun. It is foolish to believe so, and you who are permit advocates can go ahead and flame if you want.
I have a suggestion. Self-impose a limitation on yourself. If you hunted deer and elk this year, skip the next three. Be part of the solution to that "fewer people in the woods" dilemma. (Oh, watch the flames on this one! :yike:)
Bearpaw is dead right about the predator problem. That's why I am an advocate of removing the license requirement to kill coyotes. I also advocate restoration of hound hunting for bears and cougars, and if somebody at the WDFW doesn't like that, they should find some other endeavor.
Post by: Dave Workman on November 24, 2011, 10:10:47 AM
What Dave seems to throw around (with the OH comparison) is harder to counter because it isn't the method, it's the numbers.
Well, what that guy Dave is doing is not "throwing around" numbers. That guy Dave is talking about SUCCESS. The conscious decision by a GAME agency to manage for more animals and more opportunity for more hunters. The understanding that their success is measured by the number of notched tags and satisfied hunters, not whether they can have a bunch of hungry animals at feed lots all winter long for the P#U/c$ing tourists to watch and the coyotes, cougars and wolves to eat.
In this state, I constantly point to the wild turkey program of the 90s, which became an Honest-to-God tidal wave success primarily because one guy used his head and knowledge to produce something that actually benefitted and provided additional opportunity for hunters.
He put his skills to work to do something besides write reports at a desk, that same kind of "do it" approach could work to improve our big game herds. All we need to make that happen is a bunch of retirements and the right layoffs, and a change in name and mission of the Department of No Fish and Watchable Wildlife to the Department of GAME
Post by: bobcat on November 24, 2011, 10:12:38 AM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on November 24, 2011, 10:13:18 AM
And for everyone else. I have compared PA APR rules as an example of how it works with whitetails and was told over and over again how you camt compare WA and PA. I've even compared South of I90 with APRs and North of I90 without APRs and was told you can't compare the two. (Really people) but when Dave compares OH with WA (which I think was a good example BTW) no one says anything. On another thread I said how NY does a better job than WA showing the same type of stats Dave put up and got ripped by people. Again you can't compare the two. I guess for some people its easier to dismiss someone's research or sources as "irrelevant" or "apples to oranges" than provide a good counterargument.The way I read it, you are focusing more on the methods other states are using---ex: APRs for WT and if that translates to WA muleys. And it seems like Dave is pointing out the change over time to opportunity because of different game depts--ex: WA has had a decline in hunters, herd, harvest; but OH is increasing all 3. What you are discussing is more debateable because it is one of the available tools and there is science for and against as well as personal observations. What Dave seems to throw around (with the OH comparison) is harder to counter because it isn't the method, it's the numbers.
OH only has a 7 day general season and it's not during the rut. Does Dave support that?
Post by: walt on November 24, 2011, 10:24:35 AM
Quote
I've even compared South of I90 with APRs and North of I90 without APRs and was told you can't compare the two. (Really people)Yep. There is no late rifle season south, fewer large predators, more private land, better food sources, milder winters,...and I'd be willing to bet my trigger finger that there are more bucks in all age classes north of 90.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on November 24, 2011, 10:42:55 AM
DB, We'll have to let that Dave guy answer your question.
I personally don't see APRs being viable for BT where I hunt. Just not enough deer to really start playing scientific theory games on them. Every year I see fewer and fewer deer(wilderness and adjacent NF lands), but am seeing more and more cats/cat sign. This summer my neighbor had a bobcat attack and kill a small buck in his yard (this is in Port Angeles), and cougars that used to be a yearly sighting are now every couple of weeks. People have quit calling them in they are so common now. I think the overall herd needs to be brought back up before trying to manage it such that a handful of people can shoot P&Y/B&C deer. My guess is that if overall herd size was brought back up, there would be plenty of animals to 'pass up' and therefore more mature animals.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on November 24, 2011, 11:05:58 AM
Dave, maybe you need to apply for a job at the WDFW then. It sounds like you have all the answers.
I don't think the Empress would allow him to be DIRECTOR of WDFW, that would ruin decades of regress. I think the guy works a lot harder than most of us (ME included) regarding our rights, heritages etc.... :twocents:
Post by: Miles on November 24, 2011, 11:31:56 AM
Oh, and Dave, I'd love to hunt out of state every year but I cannot afford it. I think I'll be stuck here in Washington and only Washington for the next 10 years or so.
:dunno: I thought Dale (Bearpaw) was giving all his moderators a free out of state hunt every year?
Post by: bobcat on November 24, 2011, 12:44:56 PM
Oh, and Dave, I'd love to hunt out of state every year but I cannot afford it. I think I'll be stuck here in Washington and only Washington for the next 10 years or so.
:dunno: I thought Dale (Bearpaw) was giving all his moderators a free out of state hunt every year?
:yike: That would be news to me!
Is he going to also pay for my licenses/tags and fuel to get there? I have no money for that, which is why I've been hunting no more than 10 miles from my house this year.
Post by: mdbuck5x5 on November 24, 2011, 01:00:05 PM
Post by: Curly on November 25, 2011, 11:08:58 AM
I take it you moved here from elsewhere. Or, at the very least, you have not had the experience that others have had over a much longer hunting career.
Lots of hunters believe that the use of unlimited OTC tags is not managing deer numbers and hunters responsibly. Pointing to the way most other states in the west manage mule deer (special permits) as a possible alternative the the crappy management should not make one assume the person is from elsewhere or not hunted here for long. I happen to agree with Bobcat and I also have lived in this state my whole life and hunted in this state for over 30 years. Since I happen to agree with Bobcat, I'll go thru and give my 2 cents on several of your points directed toward Bobcat.
You want fewer people in the woods and lower harvest. Begging your pardon, but that seems rather selfish.
I know the woods don't belong to me. Others enjoy their time here, too.
It is not selfish to want a better hunting experience and a healthier herd. The state decided to go with 3 point minimum as a temporary management strategy to help out low mule deer herd numbers after bad winter kills (in lieu of the less popular idea of special permits; hunters keep telling WDFW that they like APR's and don't want to go to a special permit system, so we get stuck short hunting seasons and overcrowding along with bad hunting experiences.
And I am interested in seeing better and more productive hunting and more game animals...and that is possible here because we have the land to do it.
Everybody is interested in seeing better and more productive hunting and more deer; where some of us apparently disagree is how to get to that goal. I don't believe that we can have no APR's, unlimited OTC mule deer tags, no designation for weapon choice, and long seasons (essentially rules like we had in the 70's and 80's) and accomplish that goal.........actually this seems rather selfish.
Just because there is a lot of land doesn't mean that the land is productive, quality habitat, that is good for growing deer herds. A lot of land has been lost since the 70's. A lot more people live here now.
The "Less is More" approach is not simply wrong, it is wrong-headed. It plays into the hands of wildlife managers who seem more interested in spending their time with studies and data-gathering instead of getting their hands dirty improving habitat and expanding game herds.
Well, I disagree. The "more is more" approach will get us less. You can't have it all anymore.............times have changed. You act like we need to fight the wildlife biologists. We should be helping them and they should be helping us. I don't know how a biologist could even be happy working for WDFW; they get bashed by hunters and when they make suggestions for the health of the herd based on science they get shot down by their agency due to politics or get overruled by the game commission.
My impression of the biologists at WDFW is that the deer/elk bios are pretty good, but the bear and cougar bios are complete morons and some are even real pricks........ ;)
Too many people have grown up listening to, and believing, the bull$#!t about "We've got to learn to get along with less." Tell that to the NWTF, which has enhanced and grown wild turkey populations all over and even helped out in Washington until the WDFW crapped on the turkey program.
Sure it is bull$#!t to some extent, but to go back to rules like we had in the 70's would not accomplish what you wish. Too bad about the Turkey program.
Ask those Ohio deer hunters I wrote about earlier. When I first started writing about the disparity between Washington and Ohio, the annual harvest there hovered around 98,000 to 100,000 deer. That's more than doubled in the past 25 years despite a growing population in Ohio that is about twice our population.
Ohio is all whitetails, WA is much different and not really a fair comparison.
I've hunted in other states and seen with they can do with habitat not much different than ours and winter weather that is downright fearsome compared to what you find over most of this state. In Utah, I counted about 400 deer in three days of hunting and deliberately killed a cull buck 2x3 when I could have waited and whacked a big 4x4.
That Utah hunt was a special permit draw, wasn't it. The Utah mule deer herds couldn't sustain unlimited OTC tags with all weapon choices and long seasons either.
But, of course, in Utah, Wyoming and Montana, the game departments know and APPRECIATE who pays their salaries and they know what makes money...and it sure isn't watching animals at a winter feed station or sitting on one's @$$ listening for the howl of a Frigging wolf. Ditto in Idaho, where I am likely to land next November.
The only way to make these people respond is to hammer them hard and make them accountable. Tell them to produce or pack and make room for someone who can.
This part I can agree with. I just don't know how we can get there though. Maybe a new governor will make some changes that will help?
The WDFW's apparent love for predators is really troubling and that is my main complaint with WDFW...........not the APR thing. APR's are not here because the WDFW wants them, they are here because that is what hunters tell them we want...........I just can't figure out why they listen to hunters regarding APR's and resource allocation, but not when it comes to managing predators. :bash:
Post by: muleyguy on November 25, 2011, 11:50:55 AM
Bottom line is this: you can sell a lot of tags and have short seasons, APR's ,etc; or, you can sell fewer tags, get rid of APR's, stretch the season out longer;
we all have our own personal preferences; many on here do not want to give up their right to hunt every year in this state; thats fine, but you are going to have to accept consequences for that in the form of APR's and continuously shortened seasons and thousands upon thousands of hunters in the field at the same time;
personally, my preference is for some minor restrictions on tag sales to have a much better experience in the field. I have no problem giving up 1 year out of 3; I'll just go out of state that year, or hunt elk, etc.
unfortunately, the one scheme we cannot have in this state is unlimited tag sales, long seasons, do whatever you want to do, open hunting conditions; that WILL destroy the resource; I don't think anybody outside of a very few on here agree with that.
The reason Wyoming only sells 90,000 deer tags is because their population base is so LOW compared to ours; so, they do not have to make as difficult a decision as we do here in WA;
We simply have too many people wanting access to the resource (deer tags); it is unfortunate, but, that is just the way it is.
here is a snippet of the article:
Quote
Name the common denominator among the following scenarios:
It is mid-September. You have spent a long day in the saddle, following a steadily climbing trail into the north Cascade Mountains’ Pasayten Wilderness Area. The sky is flawlessly blue, the temperature is in the 60s, and your old Model 70 Winchester .270 is secured to the scabbard on the flanks of an Appaloosa. There are only a couple more miles to your base camp, from which you will hunt mule deer for the next five days.
It is early October. Before daylight you had launched your boat, the one you use in the summer to fish for Hanford Reach salmon, at a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers boat ramp on the upper Snake River. You are nearing the dry creek mouth where you will beach your boat to hunt the brushy canyon above the river for white-tailed deer with a muzzleloader.
It is mid-December. Rain has fallen for the past three days, and you can no longer see Hood Canal far below your stand on a ridge above Thorndyke Bay. You have hiked up to your stand every morning for a week. There was plenty of sign around the intersection of trails in front of your blind during the rut, but none of the blacktail bucks you saw earlier in the season have come within bow range.
The common theme? These events all took place in Washington. Indeed, Evergreen State deer hunters have a wider range of hunting opportunity than hunters enjoy in virtually any other region in the country. This is true in terms of species – with blacktails, whitetails and mule deer inhabiting the state – and the settings and habitats where they live.
The mule deer scenario above, for example, occurred during the September high buck hunt, which opens a number of wilderness areas to modern firearms hunters. At the other end of the calendar, a handful of extended archery seasons allow hunting through December. It’s true that any Washington resident who cannot find a deer hunting situation to their liking simply isn’t looking.
In addition to wide-ranging hunting options, Washington rifle, archery and blackpowder deer hunters also enjoy some of the simplest hunting regulations in the West. It is still possible to purchase a general-season deer license over the counter, and except for a handful of units, a hunter can choose to hunt any region of the state in any given year.
Post by: bobcat on November 25, 2011, 11:56:25 AM
Post by: colockumelk on November 25, 2011, 12:21:29 PM
My only question is to people who agree with Dave. Why do you think that if we dropped APRs and had longer seasons or could hunt with all three weapons, this would make our deer hunting better? Why do you believe that this would make for more bucks, more deer, older bucks and a better buck:doe ratio? My opinion is that this would segregate our resource (Deer) So how would your plan make deer hunting better in WA. How would it make for a healthier herd?
Post by: high country on November 25, 2011, 10:55:06 PM
Post by: colockumelk on November 26, 2011, 05:24:59 AM
Post by: high country on November 26, 2011, 07:08:18 AM
Post by: colockumelk on November 26, 2011, 09:36:24 AM
If so I disagree because looking at harvest reports general season guys (all three methods average) is 24%. Whereas multiseason guys have a 47% success rate.
PS I hate autospell on my phone :)
Post by: CedarPants on November 26, 2011, 09:43:18 AM
Post by: colockumelk on November 26, 2011, 11:46:13 AM
Note* I did eat my deer tag this year in WA. Because I already had an elk to bring back to NY so I horn hunted. Passed on numerous does and a small buck. Missed a 150 class Muley though.
Post by: True Sportsman on November 26, 2011, 11:56:40 AM
I'm on the fence with the multi-season success rate aspect of this. The stats seem to point towards more deer being harvested if we all had the option of hunting multiple seasons .... but then again, like you said Colock ...... the guys purchasing the multi-season tags would do so because they think it would give them more opportunity. I honestly think there is a huge percentag of people out there that, if given the chance, would still be unsuccessful no matter what weapon they use because they aren't willilng to put in the time and effort required. They fail to attribute their lack of success to the fact that they keep doing the same thing in the same place every year despite the fact that they haven't tagged out in 5 years. Those of us that tag out every year know that no matter what time of year, what weapon, etc .... we are going to tag out. A large proportion of people attribute their lack of success to "too few days allowed", or "if only I could hunt archery AND modern", or "I get shorted 3 days before the prime rut". When it comes down to it, if you want to fill a deer tag - you can ... its just a matter of how much effort you want to put in. My :twocents:
I couldn't agree more. 90% of the deer are killed by 10% of the people. People just cant figure it out.
Post by: Biggerhammer on November 26, 2011, 12:36:13 PM
There has been alot of debate on here lately about whether or not the APR's (Antler Point Restrictions) work. I personally believe that they work. But I'm not the type of guy to spout off about something without at least researching it and looking into it myself. I think that this particular debate is EXTREMELY important for our deer herd. Because whether it works or not is going to have a huge impact on the future of our deer hunting. So I am not going to preach my opinions on why APR works because since I didn't do any of my own research it would be just that. An opinion not fact. Instead I used google and googled a bunch of APR studies, cull studies, doe harvest studies and adult sex ratio's.
To sum it up. Culling "managment bucks" only has an effect on small herds that are enclosed (Texas high fence) in larger areas they have 0 effect. So cull away if it makes you feel better but it doesn't do anything. APR's are meant to do 3 things. 1 They are not meant to make "Trohpy" units they are meant to make "Quality" units. By increasing the age class of the bucks. 2. Increase doe harvest and 3. Overall increase the pre-hunting season buck:doe ratio as close to 1:1 as possible. APR's reduce the amount of buck harvest and increase the amount of doe harvest.
So go ahead and flame on and please before you flame about how they are stupid and don't work. Or how you can't compare WA to PA, or ND or to Eastern ID. Please take the time and read the articles. You'll at least learn some stuff. Look at the attachements as well. Because there is a really good article about Antler Point Restrictions.
CULLING "Managment Bucks"
http://www.americanhunter.org/blogs/culling-bucks/ (http://www.americanhunter.org/blogs/culling-bucks/)
Antler Point Restrictions: Purpose
http://www.qdma.com/what-we-do/articles/deer-biologymanagement/protecting-yearling/ (http://www.qdma.com/what-we-do/articles/deer-biologymanagement/protecting-yearling/)
http://www.whitetailinstitute.com/info/news/aug03/6.html (http://www.whitetailinstitute.com/info/news/aug03/6.html)
Adult Sex Ratio
http://www.qdma.com/what-we-do/articles/deer-biologymanagement/adult-sex-ratios/ (http://www.qdma.com/what-we-do/articles/deer-biologymanagement/adult-sex-ratios/)
A buck to doe ratio as close to 1/1 LMAO!!! How many years? They are so far away from that, that it is comical to read!! :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: muleyguy on November 27, 2011, 11:46:45 AM
name the two units in WA state that, combined, have 56,000 hunter days in them????
117 and 121..........
NO other 2 units in the State are even REMOTELY close to the amount of hunting pressure that these two units receive;
two problems here; first is the obvious, without a doe option of hunting, the pressure put on the mature buck population will increase dramatically;
the reason APR's might seem to work South of I-90 to some is because the hunter pressure is far LOWER;
You focus 56,000 hunter days on the mature segment of the deer population what do you think is going to happen???
some will argue that hunter days are down in those two units this year; probably true, but, without a corresponding tag decrease, many of those hunter days simply "leak out" to other units, which puts more pressure on those units'
its like a balloon; you push on one side, a bulge just appears on the other side; my guess is that you will not see any appreciable statewide decrease in hunter day numbers for 2011;
so, the reality is going to be that you just transferred these hunter days out of 117 and 121 into other units (how convenient for local landowners in these units.....)
the reason that hunter pressure might be down (we can look at the reports next year) in those units this year is because the hunter population is not dumb, as some of you think we are; people choose to hunt other units this year because they knew that the available buck population will be much greater next year (just 2.5 yr olds though......)
I can guarantee you that if there was any decrease in hunter days in those units this year, it will rebound right back to where it was next year when this years 1.5 yr olds are 2.5 yr olds;
Look for increases in 5 pt + buck harvest in those two units in both 2011 and 2012; these increases will come about in spite of there being NO "new" bucks in this class from the regulations beause it is too early in the management scheme.
this continued focus on hunters instead of hunter days is part of the problem; hunter days have been going up over the years, while hunter numbers have been going down; this is why in spite of all the "rhetoric" you here about the sport dying you continue to see MORE people year in and year out; its because we are basically chasing each other all over the state.......
the problem with deer management in this state is that when you give all of us a general tag so we can hunt any species anyplace in the State, when you change the regulations in one unit it just pushes hunter out into other units; it just transfers the problem.
Post by: buckfvr on November 27, 2011, 01:09:03 PM
I spend a great deal of time observing things here in 121......there is something to do virtually every day, year'round. Im retired and still reasonably young, and its what I do. I did see more legal bucks this year, by far, than spikes and small forked horns. SInce there is state ground just up the road from me that gets many modern season camps ( usually ), I can ( normally ) swing through and see whats up with the hunters. Not this year......only a couple of camps, not seeing anything, no deer, yada....yada.....yada. Same results, WAY less hunters who traveled here. Locals still hunted their favorite haunts, but travelers were down hugely from what I saw. That being said, late modern probably produced for locals as well as it normally does.
Yes, the ballon analogy is correct.......I think some of the neighboring units saw more hunters, but if there was a noticeable lack of success, some of it could be chalked up to learing curve for a new area. Maybe the only alternative to being intimately familiar with the area you hunt is incredible luck. I'll add another yes regarding success......it is and always has been relative to effort.
We will now have to see if the APR works here ( 121, 117 ) or not..... If not, we scream like hell to get it changed......but at what cost??? I think the late modern season will ultimately take a hit, as in making it permit only......
Post by: steen on November 27, 2011, 02:12:50 PM