A different take on trophy mule deer management - Our solutions have been the problem

[idelkslayer]

Holy cow, this is the longest post I’ve ever created but there are a lot of parts and pieces to bring together for a complete idea to be communicated.

Mule deer management has always been a popular topic and the subject of many threads. Restricted weapons seasons (replacing modern scoped rifle seasons with muzzleloader or non-scoped rifle seasons) have emerged as the latest catalyst for discussion. It makes me think about what the desired outcome is for hunters and will restricted weapons seasons have that desired effect. In the midst of these discussion Idaho Fish and Game has released the latest in a series of videos about mule deer management and I found it to contain some very interesting points.

Idaho Fish and Game (IDFG) has put together an excellent series of videos over the last year that walk through how they approach mule deer management. One of the most recent videos linked below, deals with trophy management for mule deer. This video pulls together information from Montana, Idaho, Utah, and Colorado. It contained some information that was new and surprising to me and might impact how you view any future trophy management discussion.

I highly recommend that you watch the entire video. This post is already overly long and to save space I won’t copy the charts in this post, but I will cite several time stamps in the video so that you can go to the charts and listen to the biologists explanation.

First, IDFG defines trophy management as management for increased buck:doe (B : D) ratios, older age classes, and increased proportion of mature or trophy individuals in the harvest. Trophy management is typically achieved through one of two strategies. First, is reduction of hunter numbers. Second, is reduction in hunter success rates.

The current proposal for restricted weapons is an attempt at employing the second strategy but might also have an indirect impact on the first through hunters voluntarily choosing to leave restricted units and hunt elsewhere.

 

[idelkslayer]

Time Stamp 2:20

This chart shows a comparison of B : D ratios in Colorado and Montana between limited hunts and general hunts. It is no surprise that B : D ratios are higher in the limited hunts. That’s good right? Well, maybe.

Time Stamp 3:07

This chart shows B : D ratios in a handful of Idaho units and also compares limited units to general units. As expected, the limited hunts have higher B : D ratios, although in some cases it is not a dramatic difference. The biologist takes the time to mention that the average B : D ratio in the general units is 23:100. The average in the limited hunts is 29:100.

That seems like a small difference considering the amount of opportunity that is sacrificed. Of course, specific units are higher or lower than those averages and a case-by-case analysis would be necessary to determine if each individual limited entry hunt is worth keeping around.

Time Stamp 5:40 – 6:45

It is worth listening to this entire section. Here the IDFG biologist compares a general season structure to a limited season structure and how it affects hunter numbers, total buck harvest and trophy buck harvest. (The only measurable metric of trophy quality is %4 pt in the harvest. While not exact, and not all 4 pts are trophy size, it does provide a trend line).

It is no surprise that the limited scenario has higher success rates. However, look at how many 4-pt bucks are harvested in each scenario, it is nearly the same. The only thing that the limited scenario accomplished was to prevent 3,750 people from the opportunity to hunt and takes away the ability to harvest 625 bucks that will now die of non-hunting related causes. How can that be? Wouldn’t killing fewer bucks mean more big bucks in the future? The answer is yes but it is much less than you might think. The biologist explains this in subsequent slides.

Time stamp 7:19

This slide discusses mule deer buck survival rates and demonstrates why you can’t “bank” or save yearling bucks for the future. It is important to understand that the survival rates used in this slide are based on non-hunting related mortality. The biologist’s example uses a year class of 1.5 year old bucks numbering 5,500 individuals, only 2,750 will live to age 2.5. That is to say that half will die between age 1.5 and 2.5. Hunting harvest is compensatory to that mortality. Meaning that hunting does not increase that number. Those bucks are going to die anyway, so hunters might as well be the ones killing them.

In the example shown in the slide, a trophy management plan would prevent the harvest of 3,500 bucks from that age class that won’t live to reach trophy size anyway. It means that we force thousands of hunters to sit out for a minor improvement in numbers of older bucks.

Time Stamp 9:00

This slide shows the average B&C score of bucks from age 1.5 to age 10. The curve is basically flat after age 4.5. Managing for bucks older than 4.5 does not have any appreciable impact on trophy size. I would love for Idaho to start a program of aging as many harvested deer as possible.

Time Stamp 9:35 and 10:13

Now this one is interesting. It is based on a Colorado study linked below that also came up recently in another thread. This study found in multiple different units and trophy management scenarios that high B : D ratios had a negative impact on fawn:doe (F : D) ratios. Meaning that herd productivity goes down as B : D ratios go up. The reduction observed in Colorado was as high as a 7 fawns per 100 does. Environment is still the highest predictor of herd productivity but this indicates that managing for high B : D ratios will actually reduce fawn production. How much does 7 fawns per 100 does every year matter in the long run? Is it a lot? I’m not sure but it isn’t nothing.

https://nsojournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2981/wlb.00012

 

[idelkslayer]

Summary and my conclusions

We need more general seasons and fewer limited entry hunts.

Putting all this information together really calls into question the efficacy of trophy management. The data that is presented in the video demonstrates that limited seasons do not significantly increase the number of trophy size bucks on the landscape and might actually contribute to suppressed mule deer populations by reducing F : D ratios. Trophy management displaces hunters and causes crowding in surrounding units. The trade off is that you experience less hunting pressure in a limited hunt. However, we would all experience less hunting pressure if we could spread out into those limited units. Think about it, on average, trophy management strategies in Idaho result in an average of only 6 more bucks per 100 does over general seasons and at the cost of hunting opportunity and displacing thousands of hunters and almost no change to total numbers of older bucks.

Anecdotally I don’t hear many good things about most limited entry hunts any more. It’s always “It’s not what it used to be.” If even severely limited hunts can’t meet our expectations then what are we even talking about anymore?

I’m not entirely against having some limited entry hunts, but I do think that except in special cases they do more harm than good, and the trade offs are not worth it. (I think keeping late season and early season limited entry hunts is fine to provide unique opportunities, I am speaking generally about units that do not allow general season rifle hunting for any antlered buck). For example, Unit 66 has general any buck season but also has a late season rut tag as a limited entry hunt. I am not advocating for eliminating the late season hunt. In contrast, units 14, 44, 54 do not have any general season hunting opportunity. These are the type of situations that I question.



The best way to have more trophy bucks, is to have more bucks, the best way to have more bucks is to have more fawns, the best way to have more fawns is to have good habitat and mild winters. Trophy management strategies do not increase herd productivity. Bucks don’t give birth. It is the does that give birth and we are already not killing those, limited exceptions notwithstanding. Reducing buck harvest does not increase herd productivity or increase populations any faster following a hard winter.

Decades of reducing hunter numbers in response to chronically low mule deer populations has failed to produce the desired result. Like @CorbLand said in another recent thread and I paraphrase “we seem to always be one more tag reduction away from solving the problem.” Maybe that strategy is part of the problem. Managing for higher B : D ratios means lower F : D ratios and more limited entry hunts means more displaced hunters and crowding and more bucks killed in other areas. Maybe we would be better off with fewer limited entry hunts. Allow hunters to spread out more evenly across units.

Every limited hunt or reduction in limited tag numbers comes at the cost of concentrating hunters more heavily into the remaining general season areas. Increasing crowding and increasing harvest pressure on bucks in those areas. Overall the addition of limited entry seasons has a degrading effect on surrounding general seasons. And again, I don't think the tradeoffs are worth it.

I can hear heads exploding with rage saying that opening up limited entry units to general seasons would result in too many bucks being harvested. That is where I think restricted weapons should be applied. I propose that many if not most limited entry units should become general season hunts with restricted weapons as a first step. This would be a step towards having more general season opportunity while maintaining reduced hunter success. It could even take pressure off of the rest of the any-weapon general units. Eventually, they could transition to scoped rifle hunts or if the specific situation dictates, remain restricted weapon general seasons.

I would also concede that if hunter numbers do become a detriment in general seasons to the point that B : D ratios get too low (defined as very low success rates or not enough bucks to breed the does) then restricted weapons would be my preferred approach before going to a limited entry management plan.

What do you think? Has any of the info presented in the video changed your understanding of trophy management? If it hasn’t changed your mind, did it at least cause you to think about things that you hadn’t previously considered?

 

[squirrel]

What should really be done is helicopter gunships in the winter (paying for tags of course, no free loaders). then we'd be swimming in 180" bucks. Ask anyone who cashes the checks from the guys in the helicopter, they'll tell you the straight scoop.

 

[willfrye027]

My understanding is that some of the limited entry units have less escapement and it would be a bloodbath to unleash general rifle seasons there.

Why not change some of those over to general, limited weapons zones?

Fully on board with too many LE units wasting opportunity deer hunting for the sake of making it easier to find trophy deer.

 

[idelkslayer]

My understanding is that some of the limited entry units have less escapement and it would be a bloodbath to unleash general rifle seasons there.

Why not change some of those over to general, limited weapons zones?

I agree, it should be evaluated on a case by case basis due to specifics that affect different areas. I have the same conclusion at the end of my third post to use general restricted weapon seasons where escapement cannot support any weapon general seasons.

 

[PathFinder]

While not trying to bash anyone, remember that this information applies strictly to Idaho (though one unit in Colorado is included for B/F ratios). The one CO study is a rather limited sample that fails to account for habitat quality. Idaho's approach to LE units is NOT the same as other states. Some of the "LE" units are as mentioned above; near population centers and/or made into LE units because the deer weren't doing well. The only way to limit pressure in those units with Idaho's current system was to make them LE. In my estimation, most of Idaho's supposed LE units are poor representations of what the potential of an LE unit could be. And what they end up being in other states (Utah, Colorado, Arizona in particular).
The second consideration to account for is that Idaho's current system for residents is a free-for-all. Understandably, they don't want to let go of that. I get it; I hunted it as an NR for five years or so when it was the same for NR. Being able to adventure all over the state during different seasons is a blast. Unfortunately that is likely to prove unsustainable with their rapidly growing resident population and everyone's complete inability to keep their hunts off of YouTube. Units/populations are going to have to be managed individually at some point. Not necessarily as LE units, but they will have to be considered on a unit by unit basis by wildlife managers. Most of Idaho's LE units are exactly that; general quality units that had to be managed individually to keep them from being destroyed by the current free-for-all general hunt system.
My primary disagreement with the information presented is the assertion that LE units don't change the deer herd for the better. Anyone willing to say that must only be applying such a conclusion to Idaho. Spending a couple days on the better LE units in Utah would paint a very different picture. On several of them, seeing double digit numbers of 4+ year old deer in a single glassing period is not unusual.
The disparity in unit quality in Colorado seems to be less stark than in Utah. At the extremes we could consider the Northern Front Range units (9, 19, 191, 8, etc) to Gunnison basin units. They're both essentially made of general units with very different management strategies. Both have good numbers of deer, but very different age class structures of bucks. The Northern Front Range units are a slaughter. Very generous numbers of late season rifle tags are given, and even some December doe tags. Deer numbers are good, but the age class of deer is abysmal. The Basin units are managed very differently, and the age structure is excellent along with healthy numbers of deer. To say that issuing nearly unlimited rifle tags only helps numbers and has little effect on the quality of the hunt is absurd.
I disagree as a matter of statistics with the assertion that killing 1.5 year old bucks just removes deer that are going to die anyways. That number is always presented as a ratio. Leaving a higher number of them, with the same survival ratio, leaves more to survive. Perhaps at a deeper level it's because I don't view mule deer as a meat hunt species whatsoever. Either way, I think it would be very easy to manage yearling mule deer in the way that we do elk (not with APRs as has been done previously). Anyone who can't tell a 1.5 yr old buck from a 2.5 yr old buck deserves a ticket anyways.
Now, I'm not advocating for everything to be LE. I'm much more aligned with the OP's suggestion above that we do away with LE type units and convert them to hunts with limited weapon technology instead. Ultimately I'd advocate for three things: Science based management for each herd that prioritizes opportunity as much as is reasonable, use of technology restriction as a first solution, implement merit-based draw odds (incentivize conservation work in trade for points), and treat posting a YT video of a hunt as if the animal were poached

 

[Andrew12gauge]

Most of Idahos LE units aren’t actually limited entry, they still have general hunts for 2 points and probably kill more than the 50% of 2 points that would die anyway(I still don’t buy the logic)

Just because 50% of 1 1/2 yr old bucks will die before age 2 1/2 doesn’t mean hunters can kill 50% and have no effect on buck numbers. If 50% of them were going to die anyway it would stand to reason that 50% of the remainder will still die before age 2 1/2 and leave you with 25% of the bucks you would’ve had in the end if you hadn’t killed any 1 1/2 year olds


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk