Hunting Washington Forum

 Wow, good news for once....now get a hitch lock.

It's all good, i just felt my original comment wasn't read correctly. I actually was advocating for out of state hunting on the Oregon coast, and as for the post above mine a ton of those weyco areas do sell out fast.

Quote from: bigmacc on Today at 12:28:58 PM

Quote from: jstone on Today at 12:00:29 PM

I think people shooting the two points is cause they don’t take the tie to look and study the deer. They see something with points and want to shoot them look. Tell me why it is so hard to let a deer walk if your not sure if it’s legal or not?? I do it every year. You don’t have to shoot something.

I think what they are saying is that studies are showing that point restrictions don't seem to be doing any good. Now, IMHO, a negative sidebar to point restrictions(3 point or better) is that a lot of 2 points are shot and killed each year then left for coyotes and magpies and no one knows for sure how many, could be hundreds, could be thousands and then that hunter continues to hunt and may or may not kill another buck. IMO, if you put a 4point restriction on your going to find dead 3 points. IMO, finding one rotting 2 point carcas in a 3 point area is too many. Between 9 of us in the Methow, we have found over 30 since the rule went into effect. You are right jstone, it shouldn't happen, if we are taught to "make sure of our target" then it should be just as automatic to "make sure it has 3", if your confused on either, you don't squeeze the trigger. That being said, I would be in favor of spike restrictions, they are much easier to distinguish for some than trying to put a 3rd point onto a massive 2 point running from you. I also love what Bango suggested, I can't tell you how many Bios and Department guys I have brought it up to myself, DO AWAY WITH COUNTING EYEGUARDS ON MULE DEER, they should not be included as a "legal point" in point restricted areas. Will that alone stop the rotting 2 point carcass problem? No, but I bet it would definatly reduce it.......

Im under no illusions that it would stop it completely, there are just to many slob idiots out there completely lacking in ethics.  But i think it would help to a large extent.  Really though, its all just supposition on my part.  My main concern is whitetail.  And there are things written showing aprs arent helpful, but there are numerous things written contradicting that.  And my own personal experience, state harvest statistics, and my train of logic says that for whitetail at least, aprs are beneficial. 
  As far as the browtine thing, the vast majority of whitetails that have a g2 and a g3 are going to have 1" brows.  When our apr was in effect in 121 and 117, for 4 years, i found a total of 2 non legal bucks killed.  Both were boned out on the spot, heads left behind.  And i found these 2 during those 4 years while hiking and hunting lions post season in an area with very heavy deer hunting pressure.  Seems that deer that tend to have browtines even at a young age (whitetail) dont end up with as many bucks shot and left.  Like the "mistakes" werent happening.  The bucks that i did find could not in any way be mistaken for potential 4pts.  They were simply bucks that were shot by people who dont care about the regs.  Flat out poachers.  These types will do what they do regardless of rules.  I really dont think that making it legal for everybody to shoot anything, so the poachers are no longer poaching, is a good solution.  But i think the fact that there werent a lot of "misidentified" bucks found by myself or anybody i know  indicates that the browtine difference between mule and wt is a big part of the problem.  If i had the power to change the muley regs to not count browtines for a few years, id bet you a couple paychecks that the sub legal bucks found dead would decrease significantly.

I  agree with your statement, especially with your last sentence, I would make that bet also concerning Mule deer. Like I said in my previous post, I think stumbling onto rotting 2 point mule deer carcasses would be drastically reduced in some areas and putting a "spike restriction" in effect would let the "baby deer" have a better chance to live another year compared to the chances a 2 point has with the 3 point restriction in place. Take away the eye guard being counted as a point(no matter how long it is) concerning mule deer and we may have something a little better than we have now. Keep the eye guard rule permanent and use the point restriction as needed, no spikes for a few years which would actually help thin out some of the big 2 points running around then go back to the 3 point rule for a few years if needed. The other options involve takeaways from us as hunters which we have already sacrificed enough in a lot of peoples opinions. The issues affecting our herds are plain as day and are many, IMHO, most could be  tackled and fixed to put forth a quality product for hunters in this state in a matter of 6-8 years, but, like others that I trust and respect have said, these herds being managed for us as hunters are a thing of the past. Things and issues will be talked about, meetings held etc. etc. to opeese us and in the end our quality of hunting will have its ups and downs with the ups being a little worse than the last cycle of ups and the downs a little worse than the last down cycle. We will continue to slowly be chipped away at during the declines as far as time in the field, how many of us will be allowed to be out there and so on, we as hunters will be the most effected in the name of thriving and growing predator populations, which IMHO is the number 1 issue affecting our deer herds, especially in certain select areas of our state, not the ONLY issue but THE big one.  Heck, just getting lion numbers down to levels they had pre hound ban would make a HUGE difference in places like the Methow in a matter of 5 or so years, throw in more aggressive seasons, etc to reduce bear numbers and your looking at even a better outlook for the herd which would mean better opportunity for us as hunters. Being realistic, we know that nothing is going to be done about the wolf issue in the near future, hopefully not to far off but tackling exploding cat and bear populations in places like the Methow, where the herd has been decimated could be addressed right now if they were serious about growing that herd without negatively affecting us as hunters or the precious wolves. Aggressively putting a big dent in cougar and bear populations in some areas would show positive trends in some herds within a couple years, period. Are they managing herds for us as hunters? Like some have said, NO, they manage them just enough to keep us hanging on, there are other irons in the fire that are far more important. IMHO, the department could earn respect, heal some wounds and repair some bridges with hunters and sportsmen of this state by maybe implementing some of the many ideas, that yes, selfishly(for us as hunters) would actually benefit growing our herds. No one is asking to eliminate cougars and bears in this state, just reduce them enough where they arnt killing thousands of deer, attacking livestock, killing pets and ending up on city streets and dragging there kills under bridges inside city limits. I have said before, its a matter of time before real bad things happen in certain areas with more and more predators on the landscape, throw in declining prey numbers and its just an old fashioned powder keg that the fuse is becoming shorter and shorter. Sorry for the rant, it comes from growing up in a time where our herds were actually a priority and seeing a bear or cougar was pretty neat because it was so rare, in the Methow at least.... , Once again, sorry for the rant. 

My boat has been located and is headed to impound luckily the tweakers hadn't had a chance to pull motors yet Thank you very much for keeping your eyes open

Outstanding!

My boat has been located and is headed to impound luckily the tweakers hadn't had a chance to pull motors yet Thank you very much for keeping your eyes open