Post by: bobcat on May 02, 2012, 11:54:39 PM
I thought it would be interesting to see how many more 4 point+ bucks were taken.
Just for now, here's unit 117 :
Does Bucks Total 1 pt 2 pt 3 pt 4 pt+
2010- 124 912 1036 112 144 191 465
2011- 121 535 656 0 0 4 531
# of Hunters 2010 2011
Modern Firearm 3810 2964
Archery 523 569
So it looks like 66 more 4 point+ bucks were taken, even though there was close to 1000 less modern firearm hunters.
Interestingly, the number of archery hunters increased slightly.
Post by: huntnphool on May 03, 2012, 12:04:46 AM
Like the saying goes, you can't get a big one if you shoot a small one.
Even though more 4 points were taken the overall harvest was lower.
Post by: bobcat on May 03, 2012, 12:10:41 AM
What will be even more interesting is to compare the data from the adjacent units in which any whitetail buck could be taken. I would expect an increase in the number of hunters, and in the harvest.
Post by: huntnphool on May 03, 2012, 12:13:20 AM
Post by: bobcat on May 03, 2012, 12:17:27 AM
I looked real quick at the Mt Spokane GMU, and amazingly, the harvest numbers are virtually the same:
Totals of 2,125 deer in 2010 and 2,134 deer in 2011.
Post by: Seabass on May 03, 2012, 02:51:02 PM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on May 03, 2012, 02:57:41 PM
The real interesting data will be 5 years down the road when we see if there is a increase in 4 point bucks running around or loads of unhuntable 2 and 3 points.
I think this is more of a concern with Mule Deer than Whitetail. I have hunted nothing but whitetail my entire life and 15 of those years in here in WA. I can count on two hands the number of 2 1/2+ 3 pt or less whitetail I have seen across the nation and two fingers the number I have seen here in WA. I think we will undoubtedly see more four point bucks.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 03, 2012, 04:07:27 PM
I would argue it is likely that all antler classes will increase in a few years.yeah- I think those units are going to come on strong in a short time. More bucks, bigger bucks, more bred does...= better hunting.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on May 03, 2012, 04:29:55 PM
Post by: Miles on May 04, 2012, 02:16:47 AM
I would argue it is likely that all antler classes will increase in a few years.yeah- I think those units are going to come on strong in a short time. More bucks, bigger bucks, more bred does...= better hunting.
I had a dream last night too, the only problem is I often struggle when trying to recall the details so precisely.
;)
Post by: huntnnw on May 04, 2012, 07:27:19 AM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on May 06, 2012, 11:34:52 PM
As was pointed out, if you want to shoot a big buck, you have to pass on the small ones. Some don't care about antler size so they shoot what ever they see first. This allows the big guy who was following the little guy the chance to slip away and survive to breed. Now all hunters are forced to wait and that big guy following the little guy gets shot because he thought it was safe when the little guy wasn't shot at.
I do think this rule will work temporarily, probably just long enough to be put in permanently, then it will start to go downhill, just like what happened in Pennsylvania.
Post by: NWBREW on May 07, 2012, 12:20:11 AM
I cannot remember the last time I shot a buck smaller then a 4pt. and I tag out every year AND hunt a unit without pt. restrictions. YES....I pass on smaller bucks almost every year. :twocents:
Post by: huntnnw on May 07, 2012, 12:57:24 AM
so tired of hearing about crap across the country blah blah completely different in more ways u will ever count
Post by: Deep Forks on May 07, 2012, 03:53:10 AM
Not all four pts. are mature animals. Some could be and are 2 1/2 year olds. I do not believe it will have ANY effect on the older mature bucks. It will just give younger bucks another year or two to grow. There is not and has not been a law that you could not shoot a larger mature animal.Are you hunting private land? You're talking WTail correct? If so can an old Muley hunter follow you next year. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
I cannot remember the last time I shot a buck smaller then a 4pt. and I tag out every year AND hunt a unit without pt. restrictions. YES....I pass on smaller bucks almost every year. :twocents:
Post by: NWBREW on May 07, 2012, 04:05:50 AM
Not all four pts. are mature animals. Some could be and are 2 1/2 year olds. I do not believe it will have ANY effect on the older mature bucks. It will just give younger bucks another year or two to grow. There is not and has not been a law that you could not shoot a larger mature animal.Are you hunting private land? You're talking WTail correct? If so can an old Muley hunter follow you next year. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
I cannot remember the last time I shot a buck smaller then a 4pt. and I tag out every year AND hunt a unit without pt. restrictions. YES....I pass on smaller bucks almost every year. :twocents:
Both Public and Private. Yes, whitetails.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on May 07, 2012, 09:15:41 AM
Not to rain on your parade, but if those "bigger bucks" you claim are going to be the result of this experiment are shot before the rut, how does that equate to 'bigger and older bucks" at breeding time when they are needed?
This point is pointless. Why would the percentage of overall bucks being killed before the rut be any higher under the 4pt rule? It wouldn't. Why would hunters suddenly become so much more effective at killing older age class bucks? They won't. (certainly more older age class bucks will be killed but it's all relative to the number that are available to kill)
Realistically, there will probably be more older age class bucks around to do the breeding. this being said it doesn't matter a lot in regards to genetics passed on. A 1 1/2 year old buck can pass along monster genetics just as well as a booner. However, the herds are definitely healthier when you have the older age class animals breeding.
And if all the bucks that are genetically inclined to grow larger racks are taken out before the rut, who's gonna be left to breed, and what will be the result? Again...see comments above....."all" the genetically inclined to grow larger racks will not be taken out before the rut..there will be more available as a result of this rule.Smaller racked bucks will breed and the result will be bucks with genetics for smaller antlers, because having smaller antlers (less points) will become a trait that allows survival through the breeding season.Most 2 1/2 year old whitetail in WA have at least 4 points on one side and probably 99.9 percent have 4 points to a side by 3 1/2. As I said earlier I have only seen two whitetail 2 1/2+ with less than 4 points in my 15 years of hunting here. So again this is going to have little impact.
As was pointed out, if you want to shoot a big buck, you have to pass on the small ones. Some don't care about antler size so they shoot what ever they see first. This allows the big guy who was following the little guy the chance to slip away and survive to breed. Now all hunters are forced to wait and that big guy following the little guy gets shot because he thought it was safe when the little guy wasn't shot at. FYI....the largest majority of 4pt's are "little guys"...small 2 1/2 point bucks....also...if that guy were allowed to shoot the little guys that is now illegal to shoot then he would most likely be shooting a yearling buck...you can't really determine the antler genetics of a 1 1/2 year old buck in the wild so that buck could carry better genetics than the older bucks in that area...again...moot point.
I do think this rule will work temporarily, probably just long enough to be put in permanently, then it will start to go downhill, just like what happened in Pennsylvania.
The only thing that has gone downhill in PA is the feelings of some hunters regarding the 4pt rule. However, the overall results are promising.
The overall results have gotten better. Lets take a look. The rule went into place in 2002. Lets start with 2004 so we can see what happens early on...actually lets look at what happens 2004-2008:
2004-2008: Typical B&C Bucks- 7
2004-2008: NT B&C Bucks- 7
Now what happened later one: ? :dunno:
2008-2011: Typical B&C Bucks- 16
2008-2011: Non-Typical B&C Bucks- 6
Looks like it got better to me. :tup: I might also add that P&Y number went up significantly but I don't have those exact numbers on me right now. I might also add that all the 2011 bucks probably haven't been entered yet.
In fact prior to 2004 there were only 29 Typical B&C entered.....in over 100 years of recorded history :yike:. Since 2004 there has been 23 Typical B&C entered...Even if I consider that there used to be less interest in entering I would still say that is a major improvement.
For the same time period there were 15 Non-Typicals and since 2004 there have been 14 Non-Typicals entered....so again I would call that a major improvement. :dunno:
A Pennsylvania radio telemetry study found that about 50 percent of the state’s yearling bucks survive the hunting season; and of those, nearly 90 percent are available the following season. Seventy percent of those 2 1/2-year-old bucks are taken by hunters, but almost all of the remaining 30 percent survive yet another hunting season, offering hunters an honest chance at harvesting a 3 1/2-year-old buck. That was almost unheard of prior to the adoption of the point rules.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on May 07, 2012, 11:08:00 PM
The only thing that has gone downhill in PA is the feelings of some hunters regarding the 4pt rule. However, the overall results are promising.
The overall results have gotten better.
Really DB? Then explain this.
http://blog.pennlive.com/pa-sportsman/2010/01/angry_deer_hunters_on_pennsylvania_game_commissions_agenda.html
and this
http://www.nrahuntersrights.org/Article.aspx?id=4416
And here's where I got the idea that antler restriction focus effort on the older breeders.
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/species/speciesinfo/moose/pdfs/interior_moose_news_fall_2011.pdf
Here's the money quote......."Antler restrictions are not intended to create trophy animals, but actually place more pressure on larger animals."
Lastly, here are the harvest stats for Penn since they kept them. What happened after the antler restriction went in? The harvest has dropped dramatically. Look at 2001 and then what happened next. The first year drop-off is expected and explainable. There were less legal animals available because of the restrictions. But why did it keep dropping? After all you are now protecting those little bucks. If this system worked as advertised, the numbers should have started climbing the second year. But they kept dropping. No wonder Penn hunters are PO'd.
http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=625882&mode=2
As for those B & C bucks you mentioned, what was the cost? You didn't mention if any were taken before the restrictions so I'll say none to give you a best case scenario. You showed us 36 B & C bucks over 9 years, and that works out to 4 per year. But the overall harvest has been about 150,000 deer less per year. Do you think those 150,000 hunters who didn't get a deer each year really care that 4 Booners were taken each year? Do you think the state might be selling less licenses now? Do you think it's good for hunting as a whole to have 150,000 disappointed hunters each year and 4 happy ones? Look for similar results in Washington.
Post by: huntnnw on May 07, 2012, 11:28:05 PM
Post by: huntnnw on May 07, 2012, 11:29:47 PM
ONCE again its PA!! and we have 2!!!! units out of the WHOLE state with this rule!! there is a boat load of other area to hunt!!
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 08, 2012, 07:08:29 AM
The "money quote" is from AK regarding moose??? Really?? I would think the money quote would be the line right before that "The main purpose of antler restirctions is to maintain hunting opportunity and longer seasons."
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/species/speciesinfo/moose/pdfs/interior_moose_news_fall_2011.pdf
Here's the money quote......."Antler restrictions are not intended to create trophy animals, but actually place more pressure on larger animals."
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 08, 2012, 07:12:24 AM
yep- it's worth a shot in two units. I was at every meeting and in the stakeholders group that supported this change. I think it will be good for the herd, hopefully the folks here that are in opposition can live with a few years of change in two units...
ONCE again its PA!! and we have 2!!!! units out of the WHOLE state with this rule!! there is a boat load of other area to hunt!!
Post by: huntnphool on May 08, 2012, 09:39:28 AM
yep- it's worth a shot in two units. I was at every meeting and in the stakeholders group that supported this change. I think it will be good for the herd, hopefully the folks here that are in opposition can live with a few years of change in two units...
ONCE again its PA!! and we have 2!!!! units out of the WHOLE state with this rule!! there is a boat load of other area to hunt!!
Just out of curiosity, how much private vs. public land is there in those two units anyway? :dunno:
Is this going to benefit the majority of hunters if it works or is it going to benefit only those that has access to private land? :dunno:
Post by: Chesapeake on May 08, 2012, 02:33:47 PM
The main thing I take from all of it is that statewide and other widespread little reasearch, just toss a dart at the board and see where it hits, approaches to it typicaly fail in the eyes of the average hunter. Well thought out and researched smaller scale restrictions with active management typicaly succeed in the eyes of the hunters involved.
Its yet to be seen if what WDFW is trying with these few units will be a success or not.
This is a good read:
http://msucares.com/pubs/publications/p2427.pdf
Post by: bearpaw on May 08, 2012, 03:23:15 PM
The only thing that has gone downhill in PA is the feelings of some hunters regarding the 4pt rule. However, the overall results are promising.
The overall results have gotten better.
Really DB? Then explain this.
http://blog.pennlive.com/pa-sportsman/2010/01/angry_deer_hunters_on_pennsylvania_game_commissions_agenda.html
and this
http://www.nrahuntersrights.org/Article.aspx?id=4416
And here's where I got the idea that antler restriction focus effort on the older breeders.
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/species/speciesinfo/moose/pdfs/interior_moose_news_fall_2011.pdf
Here's the money quote......."Antler restrictions are not intended to create trophy animals, but actually place more pressure on larger animals."
Lastly, here are the harvest stats for Penn since they kept them. What happened after the antler restriction went in? The harvest has dropped dramatically. Look at 2001 and then what happened next. The first year drop-off is expected and explainable. There were less legal animals available because of the restrictions. But why did it keep dropping? After all you are now protecting those little bucks. If this system worked as advertised, the numbers should have started climbing the second year. But they kept dropping. No wonder Penn hunters are PO'd.
http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=625882&mode=2
As for those B & C bucks you mentioned, what was the cost? You didn't mention if any were taken before the restrictions so I'll say none to give you a best case scenario. You showed us 36 B & C bucks over 9 years, and that works out to 4 per year. But the overall harvest has been about 150,000 deer less per year. Do you think those 150,000 hunters who didn't get a deer each year really care that 4 Booners were taken each year? Do you think the state might be selling less licenses now? Do you think it's good for hunting as a whole to have 150,000 disappointed hunters each year and 4 happy ones? Look for similar results in Washington.
You are actually confusing a lot of facts. I talked to a PA Game Commissioner to get more info. I learned that the insurance companies lobbied hard to increase doe harvest to reduce vehicle collisions in numerous eastern states. The overall harvest is most likely down in recent years because many more does were taken out of the population in previous years and now there are fewer deer breeding.
But you have a smaller deer population producing larger deer due to the 4 pt rule.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on May 08, 2012, 03:46:18 PM
Post by: bearpaw on May 08, 2012, 03:49:03 PM
Like WACoyote, I was also on the whitetail group.
Due to heavy winter kill and heavy predator losses it appeared to me that our deer numbers were at about 40% of previous years before the 2 back to back hard winters. Rightfully the WDFW commission cut back on doe permits to let the herd grow.
But when you cut back on doe permits it places more hunters after bucks at a time when herd numbers are already low. The only sensible thing to do is also cut back on buck harvest to prevent further destruction of the buck/doe ratio. By cutting back harvest of both bucks and does, the herd will recover faster and with a better buck/doe ratio.
I am uncertain if it's a good long term rule, we will know more in 4 more years, but for reducing the buck harvest immediately it worked well and that was my intention in supporting the rule.
There is a lot of private land and there is a lot of public access in these units. Because the public land gets hunted harder, and there are no crops on public land, I would say there are definitely more deer on most of the private land. However, the Clayton transect which I think is in a mostly private land agricultural area, had about the worst buck/doe ratio. It's also more open country in many areas so that could also be why it has a lower buck/doe ratio.
Post by: Seabass on May 08, 2012, 04:47:36 PM
DB's is the only response I have heard that has any data to back up his argument. This rule has only been applied to 2 units and it has only been one year since implementation. I supported it and believe it will improve our herd quality. I have plenty of scientific evidence from around the country that proves it will help. I'm not saying it is the fix all for everyone to have an opportunity at a booner but it will help.
Deer are deer regardless of where they live. Obviously there will be some differing variables but the animals on a realtive basis are still the same. When I was volunteering for the QDMA (Quality Deer Management Association) I was exposed to tons of whitetail research. I had the opportunity to listen to many discussions and debates on topics ranging from genetics to nutrition from some of the leading whitetail experts in the country. When it was all said and done they always came back to one key when it comes to "herd health" and that was age structure. Applied to both bucks and does.
I keep hearing the complaint that antler point restirictions put too much "pressure on the older age class of bucks. That's not true because antler points and age are not synonymous but the older age class is exactly the age class that should be harvested. Any white tail expert will tell you that harvest should target bucks 4 1/2 and older if herd quality is your objective. Easier said than done becassue 10 different hunter's have 10 different objectives and you can't legislate education. In other words you can't make a rule that states an age class for harvest because 90% of the hunting public can't tell the difference between a 2 1/2 and 4 1/2 year old deer. The last harvest data I saw from 2 years ago in units 121 and 117(average age of buck harvest) was 1 1/2 years of age. So we were killing the wrong age class. It's not hard to see the outcome if we kill the young bucks and the old ones die off.
So this is where antler point restrictions come in and also why we fought so hard to make it 4 points rather than 3. It's the next best thing that can be enforced. The antler point restriction will allow for more bucks to survive hunting season. Some of those bucks will be older and some will be younger but after a few years go by there will be more bucks than before. PERIOD!
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on May 08, 2012, 06:49:11 PM
The only thing that has gone downhill in PA is the feelings of some hunters regarding the 4pt rule. However, the overall results are promising.
The overall results have gotten better.
Really DB? Then explain this.
http://blog.pennlive.com/pa-sportsman/2010/01/angry_deer_hunters_on_pennsylvania_game_commissions_agenda.html
The reason it was "the worst deer season" is because of an over-harvesting of does that was motivated by money rather than management. The four point rule had nothing to do with this.
and this
http://www.nrahuntersrights.org/Article.aspx?id=4416
:yeah:
Did you actually read the majority of the comments in the article above.. they actually prove my point not yours... Most of the people are calling for them to continue protecting the yearlings with 3 or 4 pt restrictions and to cut down the harvest of does. :dunno:
And here's where I got the idea that antler restriction focus effort on the older breeders.
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/species/speciesinfo/moose/pdfs/interior_moose_news_fall_2011.pdf
Here's the money quote......."Antler restrictions are not intended to create trophy animals, but actually place more pressure on larger animals."
Your cherry picking an article that actually talks about one of the benefits of antler restrictions you then draw some baseless conclusions from this in your original post. The fact is the 4pt minimum will simply shift the pressure from 1 1/2 year old bucks to 2 1/2 year old bucks (for the most part). This will ultimately result in raising the buck population.
Lastly, here are the harvest stats for Penn since they kept them. What happened after the antler restriction went in? The harvest has dropped dramatically. Look at 2001 and then what happened next. The first year drop-off is expected and explainable. There were less legal animals available because of the restrictions. But why did it keep dropping? After all you are now protecting those little bucks. If this system worked as advertised, the numbers should have started climbing the second year. But they kept dropping. No wonder Penn hunters are PO'd.
http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=625882&mode=2
It kept dropping because of an overharvest of does. I can understand how you might draw the conclusion that 4pt restrictions will have some kind of impact on genetics but I can't for the life of me understand how you have drawn the conclusion that the four point minimum is what's responsible for this increasingly large drop in harvest. Certainly you will have an initial drops in harvest but eventually that buck harvest should rise or remain steady if all other things are kept the same...in this case things didn't remain the same...they overharvested the does and that is what you see with the harvest numbers.
As for those B & C bucks you mentioned, what was the cost? The cost was simply passing on some of the younger bucks which increased the overall buck numbers and had the side benefit of creating more record class animals. You didn't mention if any were taken before the restrictions so I'll say none to give you a best case scenario. The deer that I mentioned were killed in the periods given. If I were to enter a deer today that was killed 50 years ago then that entry would be recorded as 1962 not 2012...so the numbers you see are correct. You showed us 36 B & C bucks over 9 years, and that works out to 4 per year. But the overall harvest has been about 150,000 deer less per year. Do you think those 150,000 hunters who didn't get a deer each year really care that 4 Booners were taken each year? Do you think the state might be selling less licenses now? Do you think it's good for hunting as a whole to have 150,000 disappointed hunters each year and 4 happy ones? Look for similar results in Washington. I "think" it is important to manage your does properly...which they didn't... It still boggles me how you come to the conclusion that antler restrictions lead to an overall drop in deer numbers like PA has experienced. For one, there is absolutely no studies that show this as the case and secondly it literally makes absolutely zero logical sense to assume such (because you are actually protecting animals with antler restrictions and thus raising the overall population available for future harvest....which is the overall goal of the current Whitetail APR's here in WA)
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on May 08, 2012, 06:54:09 PM
The only thing that has gone downhill in PA is the feelings of some hunters regarding the 4pt rule. However, the overall results are promising.
The overall results have gotten better.
Really DB? Then explain this.
http://blog.pennlive.com/pa-sportsman/2010/01/angry_deer_hunters_on_pennsylvania_game_commissions_agenda.html
and this
http://www.nrahuntersrights.org/Article.aspx?id=4416
And here's where I got the idea that antler restriction focus effort on the older breeders.
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/species/speciesinfo/moose/pdfs/interior_moose_news_fall_2011.pdf
Here's the money quote......."Antler restrictions are not intended to create trophy animals, but actually place more pressure on larger animals."
Lastly, here are the harvest stats for Penn since they kept them. What happened after the antler restriction went in? The harvest has dropped dramatically. Look at 2001 and then what happened next. The first year drop-off is expected and explainable. There were less legal animals available because of the restrictions. But why did it keep dropping? After all you are now protecting those little bucks. If this system worked as advertised, the numbers should have started climbing the second year. But they kept dropping. No wonder Penn hunters are PO'd.
http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=625882&mode=2
As for those B & C bucks you mentioned, what was the cost? You didn't mention if any were taken before the restrictions so I'll say none to give you a best case scenario. You showed us 36 B & C bucks over 9 years, and that works out to 4 per year. But the overall harvest has been about 150,000 deer less per year. Do you think those 150,000 hunters who didn't get a deer each year really care that 4 Booners were taken each year? Do you think the state might be selling less licenses now? Do you think it's good for hunting as a whole to have 150,000 disappointed hunters each year and 4 happy ones? Look for similar results in Washington.
You are actually confusing a lot of facts. I talked to a PA Game Commissioner to get more info. I learned that the insurance companies lobbied hard to increase doe harvest to reduce vehicle collisions in numerous eastern states. The overall harvest is most likely down in recent years because many more does were taken out of the population in previous years and now there are fewer deer breeding.
But you have a smaller deer population producing larger deer due to the 4 pt rule.
:yeah:
Sitka identified the symptom (poor deer harvest) but incorrectly diagnosed the problem (over harvest of does rather than 4 pt rule)
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on May 08, 2012, 06:58:18 PM
Here in 121 we have a different scenario. It's not that we have too many does, we really have too few bucks.
Like WACoyote, I was also on the whitetail group.
Due to heavy winter kill and heavy predator losses it appeared to me that our deer numbers were at about 40% of previous years before the 2 back to back hard winters. Rightfully the WDFW commission cut back on doe permits to let the herd grow.
But when you cut back on doe permits it places more hunters after bucks at a time when herd numbers are already low. The only sensible thing to do is also cut back on buck harvest to prevent further destruction of the buck/doe ratio. By cutting back harvest of both bucks and does, the herd will recover faster and with a better buck/doe ratio.
I am uncertain if it's a good long term rule, we will know more in 4 more years, but for reducing the buck harvest immediately it worked well and that was my intention in supporting the rule.
There is a lot of private land and there is a lot of public access in these units. Because the public land gets hunted harder, and there are no crops on public land, I would say there are definitely more deer on most of the private land. However, the Clayton transect which I think is in a mostly private land agricultural area, had about the worst buck/doe ratio. It's also more open country in many areas so that could also be why it has a lower buck/doe ratio.
:tup: I can already attest to the fact that the populations are looking better after only one year.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on May 08, 2012, 06:59:14 PM
Post by: huntnnw on May 08, 2012, 10:26:45 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on May 09, 2012, 02:52:52 AM
So 20% less hunters took 14% more mature bucks.
Now those bucks in2011 were produced with no antler restriction in place to get them to that size as the year before any buck was legal. That leaves only one of two scenarios possible. Either the any buck system was working and the herd was recovering with the old any buck system, or the new 4 point + system is putting excess pressure now on the larger bucks because hunters can't shoot smaller bucks, so they are holding out for big ones.
Another way to look at it, in 2010 the hunter success rate on 4 pt or larger bucks was 10.7%. in2011 the hunter success rate on 4 pt or better bucks was 15%. Again, those bucks got to that size under the any buck system, so was management working, or did the antler restriction cause greater pressure on the larger bucks? You can't have it both ways. That's a 40% increase in harvest rate of 4 pt or better bucks that got that big under an any buck regime.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 09, 2012, 06:46:28 AM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on May 09, 2012, 10:18:31 AM
Don't hunt there.
The problem is, now everybody and his brother is going to hunt there because they all think there is going to be a bonanza of big bucks there. So there will be even more pressure on the bigger bucks. Conventional wisdom being what it is.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on May 09, 2012, 11:10:24 AM
Don't hunt there. Good grief- is everyone going to argue about two units for the next three years? Wait and see what happens and I'll happily eat my words if it's a failure.Probably. Because many horn hunters will start to pressure WDFW for an expansion into other units and toward other deer species.
Post by: buckfvr on May 09, 2012, 11:38:28 AM
Post by: Dhoey07 on May 09, 2012, 11:47:15 AM
Don't hunt there. Good grief- is everyone going to argue about two units for the next three years? Wait and see what happens and I'll happily eat my words if it's a failure.
Don't hunt there?! That's 50% of the land east of the cascades that has a late hunt :yike:
Post by: NWBREW on May 09, 2012, 12:00:48 PM
For the umpteenth time......whitetails can be 4pts on a side at age 1 1/2....I checked 3 this year that were decent 4Xs at 2 1/2 yrs old. If that is your definition of mature bucks, I suggest you read up on it a bit........
That is what many of us on here are trying to say. I think it may be good but who knows. All it will do is add a year or two to the younger ones....maybe let them become a little smarter.
Post by: buckfvr on May 09, 2012, 12:11:19 PM
it sure is.. my brother lives out west of colville and the deer numbers are WAY up .. I saw last time out I drive the back way from colville to his place and see 50+ deer in a short drive.
I also live west of Colville, am retired, and spend a lot of time wandering......Yes, deer numbers are up compared to last few years, but still way down from over 5 years ago.....Once the deer scatter to their normal haunts, the appearance will be of few deer, with the exception of alfalfa fields. For every field seemingly full of deer, I can show you a ridge line seemingly void of deer. If you are really really into deer, live here and pay attention to what is really happening, I'm pretty sure most would agree there is no huge surplus of does, and the bucks are not getting relentless pressure.......
Yes NWBREW.......I also strongly support the 4pt rule, my criteria is mature deer, not just a 4pt.
Post by: muleyguy on May 09, 2012, 05:02:47 PM
they are predicated on a large antlerless harvest because whitetail herds back East are probably 5 times as productive as our herds here; when you couple an APR, with an "option" for the hunter to take an antlerless animal, they have found that in many cases hunters will simply shoot an antlerless deer instead of waiting around for a 4 pt animal; ALL the data (and I have posted it on here numerous times) shows that with these large antlerless quota's, combined with APR's there is a very, very, very tiny increase in the recruitment of animals into the 4.5 yr old class; what they have found is that the APR just "shifts" the harvest up one age class; if everybody used to be shooting 1.5 yr old deer, they are now shooting 2.5 yr old deer; AND, very few bucks are making it past their second year;
now, contrast this with what WA state has going on; we have un-productive herds, so we cannot offer any meaningful antlerless component; so ALL the harvest is focused on bucks and none on does;
Another HUGE difference is that in many Eastern states, the whitetail hunt occur AFTER the rut; so, at least you have some of the mature bucks still in the population at that point; AND the bucks are in a post rut situation where they are not running around looking for a piece of a$$ all day long;
our whitetail harvest is before, and in the middle of rut, in these units;
So, as huntnw likes to point out, comparing our whitetail herds to those in Eastern US is comparing apples to oranges...........what works back there (APR's) will not work here because of the different type of whitetail population we have, no antlerless opportunities to "pull" harvest away from bucks, and hunts that occur in the middle of the rut.
the numbers I ran are pretty simple:
I use "hunter days" because this is a much better reflection of what is going on;
Bottom line is that in 2011 there were 30% FEWER hunter days, but, the harvest of 4pt+ animals went UP 10%;
So, sitting here right now, you have decreased the number of mature bucks in the population by more then you would have with a normal season; and, you increased the number of immature bucks in the population because you protected them;
so, during the breeding season this year in these units, you most likely had a lower age class buck doing the breeding (on average) then you have in the past; statistically this has to be the outcome because you protected ALL of the 1.5 yr old bucks and increased the harvest of the mature bucks.
there is LOTS of data that shows that lowering the age class of the bucks that are doing the breeding results in lower fawn recruitment. and, this makes intuitive sense........how productive would the US be if 13 yr old boys were making all the babies???
I counted 92 extra 4pt+ bucks harvested in those units, so, right off the bat, after year #1, that herd has 92 fewer mature bucks in it;
next year, when all the hunters return, and "hunter days" return to normal (probably goes higher actually) then you are going to see a huge increase in the level of harvest of the 5pt+ category;
you obviously will see a big increase in the 4pt class; but, if you look at the "data" what it shows is that in other APR whitetail areas, where there is a huge antlerless component, and the hunt does not occur during the rut, and the herd is much more productive, they see very tiny improvements of recruitment into the 4.5 yr age class;
now, contrast that with what we have here; low productivity herds, no antlerless component, hunting allowed during the rut; it isn't hard to see how this is going to end...........
bottom line is we have year #1 down and there are fewer mature bucks in the population and more immature bucks; the rule has successfully, after year 1, reduced the average age of the buck in these units;
for all the proponents, you had better hope hunter days stays 30% lower permanently..........because that is the only thing that will prevent this rule from permenantly reducing the average age class in these units;
Post by: dreamunelk on May 09, 2012, 05:32:58 PM
This whole mess is just another form of Ballet box biology. In many ways the same narrow minded self important feelings that got hound hunting, bear baiting, and trapping outlawed.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on May 09, 2012, 05:52:31 PM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on May 09, 2012, 07:16:02 PM
OK, look at the facts in the OP. If those numbers are true, then 4333 hunters took 465 4 point + bucks in 2011 in unit 117. And in 2012 3533 hunters took 531 4 point + bucks.
So 20% less hunters took 14% more mature bucks.
Now those bucks in2011 were produced with no antler restriction in place to get them to that size as the year before any buck was legal. That leaves only one of two scenarios possible. Either the any buck system was working and the herd was recovering with the old any buck system, or the new 4 point + system is putting excess pressure now on the larger bucks because hunters can't shoot smaller bucks, so they are holding out for big ones.
Another way to look at it, in 2010 the hunter success rate on 4 pt or larger bucks was 10.7%. in2011 the hunter success rate on 4 pt or better bucks was 15%. Again, those bucks got to that size under the any buck system, so was management working, or did the antler restriction cause greater pressure on the larger bucks? You can't have it both ways. That's a 40% increase in harvest rate of 4 pt or better bucks that got that big under an any buck regime.
I saw the numbers.
Year GMU DOE BUCK TOTAL 4pt+
2011 117 121 535 656 531
2010 117 124 912 1,036 465
2011 121 184 613 797 597
2010 121 182 1,254 1,436 571
(the 5pt+ harvest remained relatively unchanged)
What I see is (theoretically) is 480 extra bucks that survived in 117 (99.9 percent that will be at least 4pt minimum this next season...of course there will be some winter/predator loss but those losses would happen regardless.
In 121 I see (theoretically) 639 extra bucks that survived (99.9 percent that will be at least 4pt minimum this next season..of course there will be some winter/predator loss but those losses would happen regardless.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on May 09, 2012, 07:20:09 PM
Don't hunt there.
The problem is, now everybody and his brother is going to hunt there because they all think there is going to be a bonanza of big bucks there. So there will be even more pressure on the bigger bucks. Conventional wisdom being what it is.
I agree that more hunters will come (though this past season a lot of people seemed to boycott those units ....which was perfectly fine by me). That being said I think an increase in hunters will grow with the increase in opportunities (as well it should because it is good for the local communities).
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on May 09, 2012, 07:46:54 PM
have to keep hammering this point home because nobody ever seems to want to talk about it..............QDMA and EVERY eastern US whitetail antler restriction rules are part of a two tier system;
they are predicated on a large antlerless harvest because whitetail herds back East are probably 5 times as productive as our herds here; when you couple an APR, with an "option" for the hunter to take an antlerless animal, they have found that in many cases hunters will simply shoot an antlerless deer instead of waiting around for a 4 pt animal; ALL the data (and I have posted it on here numerous times) shows that with these large antlerless quota's, combined with APR's there is a very, very, very tiny increase in the recruitment of animals into the 4.5 yr old class; what they have found is that the APR just "shifts" the harvest up one age class; if everybody used to be shooting 1.5 yr old deer, they are now shooting 2.5 yr old deer; AND, very few bucks are making it past their second year;
:tup: Very sound points above. However, the bottom line is that one age class of animals is being protected. The harvest will certainly shift too the 2 1/2 year old bucks but this isn't a bad thing. The bottom line is that the population will increase and along with it opportunity will increase. A couple hundred extra deer surviving a season/winter/predators in a particular GMU can make a big difference in just a few years
now, contrast this with what WA state has going on; we have un-productive herds, so we cannot offer any meaningful antlerless component; so ALL the harvest is focused on bucks and none on does;
This would be happening with or without an APR so it is a moot point unless you are suggesting the need for a restricted harvest by some other measure
Another HUGE difference is that in many Eastern states, the whitetail hunt occur AFTER the rut; so, at least you have some of the mature bucks still in the population at that point; AND the bucks are in a post rut situation where they are not running around looking for a piece of a$$ all day long;
This is key.. Honestly I think removing the Rifle Hunt from the Rut would be the best thing for the herd...even better than the 4pt minimum.....but try selling that too the Rifle guys....
our whitetail harvest is before, and in the middle of rut, in these units;
So, as huntnw likes to point out, comparing our whitetail herds to those in Eastern US is comparing apples to oranges...........what works back there (APR's) will not work here because of the different type of whitetail population we have, no antlerless opportunities to "pull" harvest away from bucks, and hunts that occur in the middle of the rut.
the numbers I ran are pretty simple:
I use "hunter days" because this is a much better reflection of what is going on;
Bottom line is that in 2011 there were 30% FEWER hunter days, but, the harvest of 4pt+ animals went UP 10%;
Of course there is going to be an increased 4pt harvest when there is a 4 pt minimum...this is to be expected :dunno:
So, sitting here right now, you have decreased the number of mature bucks Just because they have 4pts doesn't mean their mature....most 4pt bucks killed are 2 1/2 year old bucks.... If you look you will see that the 5pt (a better measure of maturity but still not valid measure) harvest remained relatively even from 2010 to 2011......and I would wager that the guys that killed the 5pt bucks in 2010 made up a large percentage of the guys that killed 5pt plus bucks in 2011 in the population by more then you would have with a normal season; and, you increased the number of immature bucks in the population because you protected them;This isn't exactly accurate but even if it was it would be a wash in a few years with a slight increase in the number of mature bucks.
so, during the breeding season this year in these units, you most likely had a lower age class buck doing the breeding (on average) then you have in the past; statistically this has to be the outcome because you protected ALL of the 1.5 yr old bucks and increased the harvest of the mature bucks.Which means that there were possibly many 1 1/2 year old with great genetics that got to pass on their genes...when they wouldn't have been able too otherwise
there is LOTS of data that shows that lowering the age class of the bucks that are doing the breeding results in lower fawn recruitment. and, this makes intuitive sense........how productive would the US be if 13 yr old boys were making all the babies???These statistics are from overpopulated or very unbalanced herds...(which are generally the herds where the yearlings to the largest majority of the breeding).. the lower recruitment isn't simply because a 1 1/2 year old bucks offspring is weaker. I might add that recent research has shown that contrary to popular belief 1 1/2 year old bucks actually do a lot of breeding in very healthy herds.
I counted 92 extra 4pt+ bucks harvested in those units, so, right off the bat, after year #1, that herd has 92 fewer mature bucks in it; Most of those bucks were almost certainly two year olds and that hardly meets the definition of mature... however, if you consider a 4pt mature then I might add that there was a significant number of additional bucks that survived the season (since the overall buck harvest was lower) and by using your definition there will be several hundred more "mature" (by your definition) bucks available this season.
next year, when all the hunters return, and "hunter days" return to normal (probably goes higher actually) then you are going to see a huge increase in the level of harvest of the 5pt+ category; Eventually you should see a significant increase in the 5pt harvest because there will be more opportunity.
you obviously will see a big increase in the 4pt class; but, if you look at the "data" what it shows is that in other APR whitetail areas, where there is a huge antlerless component, and the hunt does not occur during the rut, and the herd is much more productive, they see very tiny improvements of recruitment into the 4.5 yr age class; I agree...it is never easy for any buck to make it too 4.5 years
now, contrast that with what we have here; low productivity herds, no antlerless component, hunting allowed during the rut; it isn't hard to see how this is going to end...........Worst case scenario it will be a wash
bottom line is we have year #1 down and there are fewer mature bucks in the population and more immature bucks; the rule has successfully, after year 1, reduced the average age of the buck in these units; Or increased it because there will be a lot more 2 1/2 year old bucks this year and only a few less 3 1/2 year old bucks
for all the proponents, you had better hope hunter days stays 30% lower permanently..........because that is the only thing that will prevent this rule from permenantly reducing the average age class in these units; I don't disagree that other measures should be taken (particularly moving the rifle out of the rut... I don't even believe it needs to be shortened.....just adjusted.
Post by: muleyguy on May 09, 2012, 09:41:58 PM
couple of points; I don't consider a 4 pt whitetail "mature" but, it is certainly at least 1 yr and possibly 2 yr's older then the yearling bucks that this rule protected;
bottom line is this: the average age structure of that buck population is younger then it would have been without this rule after year 1. Like I said in the earlier post, all of the eastern US areas where APR's have been implemented show little, if any increased recruitment into the 4.5 yr old class, and this is with the large antlerless tags "pulling" hunting pressure from the buck population.
without that "pull" from the antlerless tags, there would be no bucks recruited in the older age classes and most likely a reduction; mother nature set it up so mature bucks would do the bulk of the breeding; there is a reason for this; you are correct that there are recent studies that say a lot of the breeding is being done by 1.5 yr old animals; but, that is because in our modern day of big game populations that is dominant age class!!
In 20 yrs I suspect( just a personal opinion......) that biologists will come to believe that 60 years of poor age structure bucks doing the breeding has contributed to the chronically low fawn recruitment levels in our big game herds.
the legacy of APR's in this state, a state that cannot support large antlerless tags, is a slow erosion of season length, with seasons backed up further into October; and massive hunter pressure packed into a 9 day season, and you NEVER get rid of it.........
The pattern is so clear: 1. initiate an APR 2. shorten the season 3. all the hunting pressure is focused into 9 day seasons 4. very poor hunter experience 5. no help to the herd because the increased hunting pressure in such a short window puts further strains on the herd. 6. Department of game under all kinds of pressure, cannot get rid of the APR, but cannot shorten seasons any more because of hunter disastifaction; 7. the management of our herds get stuck with an APR and shortened seasons;
anybody who thinks that this APR will EVER be gotten rid of does not understand how they work......make no mistake, this isn't some 5 yr experiment.....the reason you can't get rid of it is because the first year you get rid of it, the buck population gets absoulutely hammered because you open it back up to all the age classes; it is just the reverse of what you have the first year of an APR when you protect the 1.5 yr old age class; the only realistic way to unwind an APR would be to have restricted tag sales the first year you get rid of it; how likely is that???
the first causality of this APR will be the elimination of the modern rut hunt........this will happen in 2 to 3yrs when the it becomes clear that you cannot sustain this hunt when all the pressure is focused on the older age classes of bucks; and, we will be well on our way to the legacy of shorter seasons........
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on May 10, 2012, 01:07:14 AM
Another HUGE difference is that in many Eastern states, the whitetail hunt occur AFTER the rut; so, at least you have some of the mature bucks still in the population at that point; AND the bucks are in a post rut situation where they are not running around looking for a piece of a$$ all day long;
our whitetail harvest is before, and in the middle of rut, in these units;
Bottom line is that in 2011 there were 30% FEWER hunter days, but, the harvest of 4pt+ animals went UP 10%;
So, sitting here right now, you have decreased the number of mature bucks in the population by more then you would have with a normal season; and, you increased the number of immature bucks in the population because you protected them;
so, during the breeding season this year in these units, you most likely had a lower age class buck doing the breeding (on average) then you have in the past; statistically this has to be the outcome because you protected ALL of the 1.5 yr old bucks and increased the harvest of the mature bucks.
Amen brother. You hit the nail on the head. Instead of more mature bucks around at breeding time, you have less. This system was advertized to increase the population of older more mature bucks, but instead it puts more pressure on them before they can do any good.
I would be more confident in an APR system if the taking of bigger bucks was allowed only after the rut. Even better would be to divide up the hunters similar to making people choose weapons. Those who choose to hunt 3pt or smaller animals or does get to hunt pre rut. When you buy your license, you choose, early 3 pt or less buck season or post rut 4 pt or better buck season. Then the early hunters have the choice of putting in for any available doe tags. If drawn, you are strictly limited to an antlerless deer, no buck. If you don't draw, you get your preference point and go back into the early 3 pt or less buck hunt. Those with the post rut 4 pt or better tags have less opportunity, but a chance at a nice buck.
The beauty of a system like this would be that harvest and hunting effort would be spread somewhat equally through all age classes and both sexes and there's something there for all hunters whether you're a meat hunter or a trophy hunter and you're not whacking the big boys before they get a chance to breed which is better for the overall health of the herd.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on May 10, 2012, 08:05:31 AM
DB,
couple of points; I don't consider a 4 pt whitetail "mature" but, it is certainly at least 1 yr and possibly 2 yr's older then the yearling bucks that this rule protected; I understand. It would be accurate to call a 2 year old an adult though.
bottom line is this: the average age structure of that buck population is younger then it would have been without this rule after year 1. Like I said in the earlier post, all of the eastern US areas where APR's have been implemented show little, if any increased recruitment into the 4.5 yr old class, and this is with the large antlerless tags "pulling" hunting pressure from the buck population. Yes...there is generally only a small recruitement into the 4.5 year old class but this is not the primary goal of APRs and in reality it is only an added benefit.
without that "pull" from the antlerless tags, there would be no bucks recruited in the older age classes and most likely a reduction; mother nature set it up so mature bucks would do the bulk of the breeding; there is a reason for this; you are correct that there are recent studies that say a lot of the breeding is being done by 1.5 yr old animals; but, that is because in our modern day of big game populations that is dominant age class!! You failed to read my last post clearly...the newest research shows that a lot of breeding is done by 1.5 year old bucks in "healthy" herds....by healthy I also mean age structure "balanced".
And why do you think there would be a reduction. Hunters will not be more effective at killing 2.5 year old bucks than 1.5 year old bucks.
In 20 yrs I suspect( just a personal opinion......) that biologists will come to believe that 60 years of poor age structure bucks doing the breeding has contributed to the chronically low fawn recruitment levels in our big game herds. Here is the deal... a 2.5 year old buck is an "adult".... so.......this year and onward there will be more adult (2.5 and older) bucks to do the breeding than there were in years past....and thus increasing the fawn recruitment.
the legacy of APR's in this state, a state that cannot support large antlerless tags, is a slow erosion of season length, with seasons backed up further into October; and massive hunter pressure packed into a 9 day season, and you NEVER get rid of it.........The season (particularly rifle) being shortened and moved to before or after the rut has nothing to do with the APRs (at least when it comes to whitetails). It simply makes zero sense to have a long drawn out rifle season (particularly one that hits the rut). The best managed deer herds generally have short rifle seasons that aren't during the rut...... However, if they do this they need to open up all of the units and get rid of the choose your weapon.
The pattern is so clear: 1. initiate an APR 2. shorten the season 3. all the hunting pressure is focused into 9 day seasons 4. very poor hunter experience 5. no help to the herd because the increased hunting pressure in such a short window puts further strains on the herd. 6. Department of game under all kinds of pressure, cannot get rid of the APR, but cannot shorten seasons any more because of hunter disastifaction; 7. the management of our herds get stuck with an APR and shortened seasons; There are other options like shortening the rifle and moving it out of the rut... and then getting rid of the choose your weapon
anybody who thinks that this APR will EVER be gotten rid of does not understand how they work......make no mistake, this isn't some 5 yr experiment.....the reason you can't get rid of it is because the first year you get rid of it, the buck population gets absoulutely hammered because you open it back up to all the age classes; it is just the reverse of what you have the first year of an APR when you protect the 1.5 yr old age class; the only realistic way to unwind an APR would be to have restricted tag sales the first year you get rid of it; how likely is that???
the first causality of this APR will be the elimination of the modern rut hunt..Which again is the absolute worst thing for herd health and age structure and if that is truly your biggest complaint with the APRs then you would definitely support the elimination of the General season rut hunt (because it is far worse than an APR could ever be).......this will happen in 2 to 3yrs when the it becomes clear that you cannot sustain this hunt when all the pressure is focused on the older age classes of bucks; Unfortunately the majority of scientific studies are contrary to your conclusion and, we will be well on our way to the legacy of shorter seasons........If we lose the rifle rut hunt it won't be because of the APRs it will be because that is undeniably the best thing for the herd.
Post by: muleyguy on May 11, 2012, 04:25:28 PM
Quote
You failed to read my last post clearly...the newest research shows that a lot of breeding is done by 1.5 year old bucks in "healthy" herds....by healthy I also mean age structure "balanced".
I have read this research; the problem with this research though is it was conducted on Eastern/Southern US whitetail populations; these populations do not have the same predation and winter issues that our herd has; there is good research that shows that when you have mature bucks (4.5 yr old or older) do the breeding, the fawns survive predation and winter issues much better. You can have later born fawns in Missouri because the winters and predation are nowhere near as bad as here; the primary benefit derived from mature bucks doing the breeding is earlier mating which results in fawns being born earlier and being able to withstand predation and their fist winter better. Those studies you are referring to are from states that do not have our issues.
Once again, you guys are using flawed Eastern US whitetail and QDMA strategies to manage our herds;
here are a couple of links:
http://www.muleymadness.com/articles/fawns-bucks-start/
http://www.muleymadness.com/articles/it-all-starts-with-the-fawns/
Quote
Here is the deal... a 2.5 year old buck is an "adult".... so.......this year and onward there will be more adult (2.5 and older) bucks to do the breeding than there were in years past....and thus increasing the fawn recruitment.
a 2.5 yr old buck is not a "mature" buck and is not the age class that nature set up to do the breeding in ungulates;
you have to ask yourself what was the problem with these two units?? why were the populations hurting?? it was simply because there were two bad winters back to back; that was the problem;
putting an APR in place to protect 1.5 yr old bucks for one year until they get shot at 2.5 yrs old, is not going to "restore" the population; you need babies.......and you need mama's..........and after winter kills, that takes time, and elimination of doe tags; one of the problems here was that they didn't eliminate the antlerless tags 100%; they are still giving them out.
the season structure in these units was fine; there was good mature buck escapement, even with the rut hunt, because the rules were structured so you could shoot any buck, so, most people choose to shoot yearling bucks instead of mature bucks; that fact, coupled with good habitat escapement resulted in good numbers of quality mature bucks in these units. The buck age structure in 117 and 121 has always been excellent even with the rut hunt.
these units were arguably two of the better units in this state to actually find a 160 class or better whitetail hunt on with a general tag and with good amounts of public land; an average joe could put in his time, hunt hard, and find mature (4.5 yr old or older) bucks;
these units were actually one of the rare units were you could support a general season rut hunt, and still have good mature buck escapement;
instead of going to this drastic step of APR's, a simple elimination of all antlerless tags and maybe putting in a two year, automatic sunset clause, restriction the rut hunt, would have most likely did the job;
it just needed time in these units, thats all............I can guarantee you that if the APR's are left in place, the rut hunt will be eliminated because of the pressure it will put on mature bucks, which will be unfortunate because these units could actually support longer seasons, a limited general season rut hunt, and still have good numbers of mature bucks; this is a rarity in todays world;
these units are headed to ever shorter seasons, over crowding, permanent APR's, and less chance at finding that 160 class or better whitetail. But, you will have a stockpile of basket racked 2.5 yr old bucks to shoot every year......
Post by: bearpaw on May 11, 2012, 07:01:40 PM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on May 11, 2012, 10:35:26 PM
QuoteYou failed to read my last post clearly...the newest research shows that a lot of breeding is done by 1.5 year old bucks in "healthy" herds....by healthy I also mean age structure "balanced".
I have read this research; the problem with this research though is it was conducted on Eastern/Southern US whitetail populations; these populations do not have the same predation and winter issues that our herd has; there is good research that shows that when you have mature bucks (4.5 yr old or older) do the breeding, the fawns survive predation and winter issues much better. You can have later born fawns in Missouri because the winters and predation are nowhere near as bad as here; the primary benefit derived from mature bucks doing the breeding is earlier mating which results in fawns being born earlier and being able to withstand predation and their fist winter better. Those studies you are referring to are from states that do not have our issues.
Once again, you guys are using flawed Eastern US whitetail and QDMA strategies to manage our herds;
here are a couple of links:
http://www.muleymadness.com/articles/fawns-bucks-start/
http://www.muleymadness.com/articles/it-all-starts-with-the-fawns/QuoteHere is the deal... a 2.5 year old buck is an "adult".... so.......this year and onward there will be more adult (2.5 and older) bucks to do the breeding than there were in years past....and thus increasing the fawn recruitment.
a 2.5 yr old buck is not a "mature" buck and is not the age class that nature set up to do the breeding in ungulates;
you have to ask yourself what was the problem with these two units?? why were the populations hurting?? it was simply because there were two bad winters back to back; that was the problem;
putting an APR in place to protect 1.5 yr old bucks for one year until they get shot at 2.5 yrs old, is not going to "restore" the population; you need babies.......and you need mama's..........and after winter kills, that takes time, and elimination of doe tags; one of the problems here was that they didn't eliminate the antlerless tags 100%; they are still giving them out.
the season structure in these units was fine; there was good mature buck escapement, even with the rut hunt, because the rules were structured so you could shoot any buck, so, most people choose to shoot yearling bucks instead of mature bucks; that fact, coupled with good habitat escapement resulted in good numbers of quality mature bucks in these units. The buck age structure in 117 and 121 has always been excellent even with the rut hunt.
these units were arguably two of the better units in this state to actually find a 160 class or better whitetail hunt on with a general tag and with good amounts of public land; an average joe could put in his time, hunt hard, and find mature (4.5 yr old or older) bucks;
these units were actually one of the rare units were you could support a general season rut hunt, and still have good mature buck escapement;
instead of going to this drastic step of APR's, a simple elimination of all antlerless tags and maybe putting in a two year, automatic sunset clause, restriction the rut hunt, would have most likely did the job;
it just needed time in these units, thats all............I can guarantee you that if the APR's are left in place, the rut hunt will be eliminated because of the pressure it will put on mature bucks, which will be unfortunate because these units could actually support longer seasons, a limited general season rut hunt, and still have good numbers of mature bucks; this is a rarity in todays world;
these units are headed to ever shorter seasons, over crowding, permanent APR's, and less chance at finding that 160 class or better whitetail. But, you will have a stockpile of basket racked 2.5 yr old bucks to shoot every year......
I agree with you on some point and disagree with you on others. I do think there are better options than APRs but they would be harder to manage on a GMU wide level.
If the escapement is as good as you say it is in these units (which I don't
completely disagree) then we should still see plenty of older bucks even if everything else you predicted is accurate.. :twocents:
I agree these two units are great for 160+ bucks. I find several each year. I am interested to see what the next several years hold.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on May 12, 2012, 08:43:03 PM
there is good research that shows that when you have mature bucks (4.5 yr old or older) do the breeding, the fawns survive predation and winter issues much better. You can have later born fawns in Missouri because the winters and predation are nowhere near as bad as here; the primary benefit derived from mature bucks doing the breeding is earlier mating which results in fawns being born earlier and being able to withstand predation and their fist winter better. Those studies you are referring to are from states that do not have our issues.
Again, right on. Instead of having fawns born spread out over a long period, it's biologically important for them to all be born in a short time span and early enough that they get big enough to make it through their first winter. The reason it's important they are born in a short time span is it protects the bulk of them from predation at the time in their lives they are most vulnerable. Predators are only going to kill so many per day, so nature overwhelms them with numbers. The older the prey animals get, the less likely they will be killed by a predator. If they are all born close together, they get hit to a degree, but the bulk make it to a safer age. But if the rut drags on because a lot of does don't get bred the first time around, then the births are spread apart and predators can take advantage of the young for a longer period, thereby taking a larger amount out of that year's fawns.
The other reason any buck seasons are better than APR seasons, especially in areas with good cover is that any buck season put a lot more of the harvest pressure on younger animals instead of putting all the pressure on the older breeders. In nature, it's the young and the very old that die first in hard times. But as long as the breeders survive, recoveries are quicker. If all this year's fawns survived winter and something killed all the breeding aged animals, all you'd have this spring is a bunch of yearlings. There would be no recruitment this year. Then when breeding came around in the fall, it would be a bunch of 1 1/2 year olds making next spring's crop of fawns. The young bucks wouldn't be as efficient, prolonging the rut and the birthing season, and the young does might have less twins and more birthing problems than older does would so you start with less babies that were more prone to be taken out by predators, and more fawns being born later in the year so they'd be less likely to make it through the first winter. The young does would also have less experience keeping their babies safe from harm, say from predators, dogs, and cars for starters. But nature keeps those older breeders alive, with the younger deer dying first. The first advantage is you get a new crop of fawns this spring, so you are already ahead. Then with the mature deer doing the breeding next fall, you have a better chance at twins and a successful birthing season next year. You're probably already twice as far ahead as you would be if only the fawns survived this winter.
Management is more successful where it mimics nature and uses natural advantages built into nature for maintaining herd health. Unfortunately, a lot of modern management runs counter to nature. Especially when it comes to taking out the breeders before they get a chance to breed. In nature there will usually be a stable herd of older mature animals that crank out a lot of babies, of which many will die before the survivors eventually replace the the older generations as they get past their prime years. Much of modern management puts the emphasis on protecting the young, and taking out the prime aged animals and replacing them with the young animals before they are fully ready for the job. It's no wonder there are problems. The largest being perennially low fawn/doe or cow/calf numbers.
Post by: bearpaw on May 12, 2012, 09:08:58 PM
I am not sold on the eternal use of the 4pt rule and in fact I used to oppose it. But something needed done to reduce the harvest of bucks now, not in 5 years, this was by far the most popular option to reduce harvest and it worked, we already have herd numbers bouncing back nicely. If it appears that the rule doesn't work over the long term at allowing old bucks to survive or that we simply don't need the rule in 4 years then I would gladly support removing it. :twocents:
Something that many of you have overlooked is that many of the big old bucks perish during the hard winters, so you have been talking about the 4pt rule putting pressure on many bucks that died in the hard winters and don't exist. Now this should change, as we pull away from those hard winters we should see more older age bucks again and if we don't, then we may need to recinsider the 4pt rule in 4 years at the end of the trial period. But at this point who knows, we need to see what happens before we will know. :twocents:
I agree that we cannot guess at how the APR will work in 117/121 based on how it has worked in other areas, the dynamics of this area are different than elsewhere. The only way to know is to try the rule. As I stated before, it appears the herd has benefitted in the short term, the real question is how long will the rule benefit the herd. Some of you guys need to realize we are already 1 year into this program and it's time to look at the results instead of arguing the same argument that you argued before the rule started. :dunno:
Experimenting is how scientists who are not hung up on preconcieved ideas find better scientific methods of doing things. Like it or not, you have to conduct experiments to learn. What I can see from the first year data is that the 4pt rule and elimination of doe hunts will recover whitetail herds in NE WA faster when implemented immediately after a heavy winter loss. It is not proven, but I would think this would have worked even better if implemented immediately after a bad winter. :twocents:
Problem I see with too many biologists and I will openly fault some of them for it, too many simply want to follow the status quo. I think a biologist should be willing to learn what works best by conducting experiments and then put what is learned to work to improve the status quo. Some game managers in Washington have had the blinders on for too long. We need to look outside of the box and find ways to make our herds more productive instead of going back to the same playbook year after year in every GMU regardles of what condition the herds are in. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on May 12, 2012, 09:38:44 PM
There used to be hundreds of mule deer herded in the winter in Ferry County near the feeding areas. Winter ranges were covered in deer. Today most of the winter ranges that are still there are basically empty. You will have a hard time finding 50 deer in a whole day. This is obviously more management that is not good and not working. :twocents:
Post by: Moose22 on May 12, 2012, 09:43:28 PM
Another thing that I will mention is winter feeding. When we have hard winters that push deer from the mid elevation winter ranges, we need to feed them to help them because humans are occupying far too much of the low elevation winter range. When Washington had larger deer numbers we had a strong feeding effort going on. Now there is less winter range and our managers don't want to feed. No wonder we lose so many deer in a hard winter. :dunno: :bash:
There used to be hundreds of mule deer herded in the winter in Ferry County near the feeding areas. Winter ranges were covered in deer. Today most of the winter ranges that are still there are basically empty. You will have a hard time finding 50 deer in a whole day. This is obviously more management that is not good and not working. :twocents:
Well said, we have been evading their space with expanding occupation in the lower elevations.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on May 12, 2012, 10:37:56 PM
Another thing that I will mention is winter feeding. When we have hard winters that push deer from the mid elevation winter ranges, we need to feed them to help them because humans are occupying far too much of the low elevation winter range. When Washington had larger deer numbers we had a strong feeding effort going on. Now there is less winter range and our managers don't want to feed.
The managers don't want to rely on feeding programs because it concentrates too many animals in too small of areas. The result can be catastrophic if disease gets started. It can also cause problems with animal/auto collisions and concentrates animals for predators, both 4 & 2 legged. It also gets animals used to handouts instead of learning to forage on their own. Good habitat and spread out herds is good, feeding programs are a sign of problems in the surrounding habitat. They can actually exacerbate the problem at hand. A good example is the St Helens elk herd. Remember a few years back when whole herds of animals were tipping over and dying? They had a winter feeding program there, but the problem actually started in the summer range. The animals were getting to their winter range in near starving condition. So it really didn't make sense to feed them in the winter to keep more of them alive to further overcrowd and degrade the summer range even more. I'll see if I can find the link to that study again.
Post by: npaull on May 13, 2012, 10:37:53 AM
Post by: buckfvr on May 13, 2012, 11:46:43 AM
Helens mud flow ELK heard, and the whitetail of GMU 121 and 117??????????
:bash: :bash: :bash:
Post by: Branden on May 13, 2012, 02:00:52 PM
Although it's hardly scientific, I think as a general rule, if an outfitter (in this case bearpaw) supports a *more* restrictive rule for hunting in their own territory, it is almost certainly a good idea...
I think you have that completely backwards. (by no means am I saying bearpaw or any other outfitter wanted the 4pt minimum for monetary gains)
Now days bigger more mature animals means bigger price tags. How many guys are going to go on a guided hunt if the expected size is an immature animal? How many guys would go on a guided hunt if it was expected to get a mature animal?
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on May 13, 2012, 02:10:26 PM
How in the hell did we all over look the correlation between the St
Helens mud flow ELK heard, and the whitetail of GMU 121 and 117??????????
:bash: :bash: :bash:
Bear Paw was bemoaning the lack of winter feeding programs in 121 and 117. I was pointing out why management doesn't like to use them and how they can actually cause more problems than they solve using the St Helens mud flow herd as an example. if you can't see the correlation, I glad you aren't managing our herds.
Here's one study on the St Helens herd that actually sheds light on why managers all over the West are reluctant to start new feeding programs. Besides the down sides, they are hard to get rid of because of public opinion, no matter how misguided. It's just like in the spring when people find "orphaned" baby animals and want to take them and "save" them. People want to do something to "save the animals" which is a good thing, but they let emotions get in the way of cold hard facts and often miss the real problem. It's the Bunny Hugger syndrome and even hunters are susceptible to it.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00771/wdfw00771.pdf
Go to page 24 and read about winter feeding. then continue to habitat management on page 26. You can learn a lot about why decisions are made and the fact that there are way more consideration to be made than the simplistic ones the average Joe has. This quote jumped out at me as far as deer and elk health goes on the west side. I've personally seen a decline in hunting over here since burns were banned and chemicals were used to clear brush.
"The move from prescribed burning of clear-cut units prior to re-forestation to a more intensive
herbicide treatment may be substantially impacting both quality and quantity of forage for elk on
private and state owned timberlands. Intensive chemical site preparation will result in less
species diversity in clear cuts and a likely reduction in nutritive quality (B. Anderson personal
communication 2000)."
This may be one of the biggest issues facing wildlife management on the west side. It's mentioned many times in this report. What's the connection to 121 and 117 you might ask? Maybe nothing right now, but if someone wants to start using chemical defoliants as a common logging practice there, you might want to be ready to fight it. I'm convinced it's part of the blacktail herd decline.
Post by: bobcat on May 13, 2012, 02:37:51 PM
Quote
Maybe nothing right now, but if someone wants to start using chemical defoliants as a common logging practice there, you might want to be ready to fight it. I'm convinced it's part of the blacktail herd decline.
There's no doubt in my mind that that's one of the biggest reasons for the decrease in the number of blacktail deer.
Post by: bearpaw on May 14, 2012, 01:42:24 AM
Another thing that I will mention is winter feeding. When we have hard winters that push deer from the mid elevation winter ranges, we need to feed them to help them because humans are occupying far too much of the low elevation winter range. When Washington had larger deer numbers we had a strong feeding effort going on. Now there is less winter range and our managers don't want to feed.
The managers don't want to rely on feeding programs because it concentrates too many animals in too small of areas. The result can be catastrophic if disease gets started. It can also cause problems with animal/auto collisions and concentrates animals for predators, both 4 & 2 legged. It also gets animals used to handouts instead of learning to forage on their own. Good habitat and spread out herds is good, feeding programs are a sign of problems in the surrounding habitat. They can actually exacerbate the problem at hand. A good example is the St Helens elk herd. Remember a few years back when whole herds of animals were tipping over and dying? They had a winter feeding program there, but the problem actually started in the summer range. The animals were getting to their winter range in near starving condition. So it really didn't make sense to feed them in the winter to keep more of them alive to further overcrowd and degrade the summer range even more. I'll see if I can find the link to that study again.
:fishin:
That was nearly the exact textbook response that I expected and thanks for elaborating on the St Helens herd too, that was a bonus I didn't expect. :tup:
You cannot blame the lack of summer range at St Helens on the winter feeding program. You actually said it yourself, the animals were arriving in near starving condition from a lack of summer range. The WDFW may be doing the right thing by reducing herd size if the summer range is at it's limit and if the summer range cannot be improved. However, you are comparing apples (elk in St Helens) to oranges (deer). Please show us where mule deer numbers are too high for their summer range in Washington.
The real limiting factors for mule deer are too many predators and too little winter range. :bdid:
During the recent hard winters if there would have been feeding programs for whitetails in the NE, we likely would not have had as significant of a loss and subsequently would have likely avoided the need to recover the herd.
It has been proven by the past deer feeding programs in Washington that winter feeding benefits deer, we used to have much larger deer herds, then after winter feeding was stopped and predator management nearly eliminated, the mule deer population in particular has declined.
In addition, Idaho and Wyoming (two of the best mule deer states) still have winter feeding programs, are you suggesting they are wrong to feed their deer? Washington still feeds certain elk herds, are you suggesting that feeding is decreasing our elk herds? Your point regarding the spread of disease is possible, but not probable and that has been proven multiple times. Your point about disease is really little more than a poor excuse commonly used by F&W depts to avoid feeding.
By not feeding the herds that sportsman pay to hunt, the WDFW can use a greater percentage of sportsman's dollars for other uses like manager salaries and non-game programs. This is bad business, essentually what I am saying is that the WDFW needs to reassess their priorities and conduct themselves in a more businesslike fashion by investing in our deer and elk herds. In any business you must invest in your products in order to improve the business, when there is too little investment the business suffers. This is what is happening with game herds in WA. If WDFW would reinstate winter feeding of deer and reduce predators the herds would increase and license sales would increase. That's smart business.
Currently the WDFW is on the hind teat of the wolf, but don't be fooled your wolf dollars will run out and then WDFW will be in the same sorry mess as Idaho and Montana, no more wolf money and far fewer license sales due to greatly reduced herds. Anyone who cannot recognize this scenario is simply __________. (fill in the blank however you like)
Chemical Defoilants
In NE WA there is one company starting to use them and I agree that may be a potential problem. A bigger problem currently is the lack of logging on National Forest lands, that has caused huge expanses of low quality range. However, there is no national forest in GMU 121, it is a mozaic of private and state timberlands. GMU 121 was the highest prodiucing deer unit in WA until we lost deer to winter kill. I think Mt Spokane, another unit with high private ownership and little or no USFS is now the highest producing deer unit. But I do agree, chemicals cannot be good for the browse for game herds, the effect will likely be the same as an over mature forest.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on May 14, 2012, 09:55:57 AM
QuoteMaybe nothing right now, but if someone wants to start using chemical defoliants as a common logging practice there, you might want to be ready to fight it. I'm convinced it's part of the blacktail herd decline.
There's no doubt in my mind that that's one of the biggest reasons for the decrease in the number of blacktail deer.
I hear this consistently for any deer herds where chemical defoilants are used. Some guys I know back in Arkansas talk about this as a cause for a decline in the number some areas. I am not sure if there have been any studies done on it but I am sure there is something to it.
Post by: Chesapeake on May 14, 2012, 03:25:07 PM
I call the stuff Douglas desert.
The clear cuts dont grow anything but trees, some grasses, and canadian thistle. The deer herd in Klickitat has fallen greatly in the last 10 years. I believe in great part to the use of herbicides.
The WDFW added a 3 point restriction a few years back. They also cut out the late general season. I havent seen any benefit from the changes yet. Deer numbers seem to continue to drop. Lately logging in the area has really picked up. Hopefully that will help, but I dont hold much hope. They continue to spray and fertilize.
Cougars arent helping matters.
I hope you guys out east fare better than we are. 3 point restriction hasnt appeared to help us even hold ground, let alone improve.
I'm sure someone will say "but these arent whitetails". OK.
West Klickitat
2004: 391 harvested
2005: 412 harvested
2006: 324 harvested
2007: 343 harvested
2008: 318 harvested, 117 forkeys, 112 3x, 55 4x, 21 5x+
3 point rule start
2009: 194 harvested, 113 3x, 54 4x, 16 5x+
2010: 257 harvested, 147 3x, 78 4x, 50 5x+
2011: 163 harvested, 101 3x, 47 4x, 15 5x+