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

[cwitt]

I carved up the quote of your post to focus on specific things. see the bolded text to correlate my responses.

"We are painfully slow to change or adapt in this state"
I agree that Idaho's ability to institute change is a slow process. Sometimes I am frustrated by it and other times I am grateful for it so I'm not sure I would change the process. I could be convinced either way I think.

"Capped tags in areas that need it,"
I would push back against zone deer management or capping units. Capping effectively creates the same problem as limited entry. Second, how do you define "need". Antler size? Buck : Doe ratios? Fawn : Doe ratios. Which metrics should be used to establish a need for change?

"The drop off in deer numbers, trophy quality, etc. over the last 15-20 years is heart breaking. And there has been next to nothing done by F&G to slow it"
What would you suggest? I would suggest an age study before and after any change to see if it made any difference in age class. I'm not aware of any limited entry unit regardless of management type that is producing the quality that it was 20 years ago. I doubt that cutting tags will fix anything in the long term.

"All of that considered, does that sound like a situation that would benefit from being opened to general hunting, even if it is with a restricted weapon?"
I think there will be units that a general season structure might not work if escapement is too low due to roads, terrain, etc. That may be one of those places. But we need to define what level of escapement is too low. I think we need to do more age studies to firmly establish what is actually happening in terms of buck survival. We can't rely on trophy quality as a metric, it is too unreliable.

Choose your weapon.
Although it would be my preferred change in place of limited entry, I am also hesitant of a piecemeal approach to choose your weapon general seasons. If unit X is placed in an archery only general season it won't make every hunter pick up a bow. It will displace rifle hunters to surrounding units and exacerbate crowding and hunting pressure there. Same with muzzleloader and even open sight rifle. Those willing to use less effective weapons might love it but the scoped rifle guys will get more and more pinched. Eventually they will want more changes. I would still pick this route over limited entry for everything but I don't think we are at that point yet.

Not that I believe that solution is the perfect one or the end all be all, but why would you push back against zone management for deer? Is it not working for elk? It feels like it is considering our elk populations.. What would you be giving up by going to a zone system? I can’t personally think of much. As far as what would constitute capped tags, I would imagine similar criteria to what we are using for elk already.

As far as what I would suggest, I’ll share the cliff notes of what I’ve said at F&G meetings, in letters, and in conversations with biologists. The issue in this particular area is the compounding effect of large harvest of young bucks in an unlimited fashion clearing out the bottom end of the age class, a long season of too many tags hunting the top end of the age class at the time they’re most vulnerable, technology, and what’s known as a predator pit. To fix it you have to address as many of those components as possible. Limit 2 point harvest to either a youth only season, an unlimited 2nd choice quota in the draw system, or best of all eliminate the hunt option entirely as it was never intended to be a permanent solution. If the tag number and weapon is to the stay the same, change the season dates on the limited tag to match those of other premium limited entry tags in the state, which is to say not have an open season the entirety of the rut. Or shorten the season. Weapons restrictions and tag cuts could also be used. Any combination of these would very likely have a positive affect.

To be clear, what I am referring to is one very specific area with its own unique challenges. The reason I bring them up is that it illustrates that while holistically mule deer are struggling, the problems facing them are too unique and nuanced to be solved with blanket approaches.

 

[idelkslayer]

Not that I believe that solution is the perfect one or the end all be all, but why would you push back against zone management for deer? Is it not working for elk? It feels like it is considering our elk populations.. What would you be giving up by going to a zone system? I can’t personally think of much. As far as what would constitute capped tags, I would imagine similar criteria to what we are using for elk already.

My issue is that I think zone management would eventually result in many zones having quotas which then creates the same issue as controlled hunts. Hunter displacement and crowding of the remaining uncapped zones. Not to mention the buying frenzy on the day tags go on sale.

I don't see a way to implement a zone structure without also including quotas to prevent the zones with more desirable seasons from being overrun. Maybe a harvest quota but that would incentivize many hunters to just shoot the first thing they see so they can tag out before the quota is filled and the season closes.

My main personal complaint would be the lost opportunity to hunt multiple regions in the same year. I enjoying exploring a new region or unit for at least part of the season and then if I'm not successful I can finish out the season in areas that I am more familiar with.

For now, I don't think that Idaho is at the point where zone season structure is necessary for deer. Maybe someday, but I don't think we are there now.

 

[littlebigtine]

Not that I believe that solution is the perfect one or the end all be all, but why would you push back against zone management for deer? Is it not working for elk? It feels like it is considering our elk populations.. What would you be giving up by going to a zone system? I can’t personally think of much. As far as what would constitute capped tags, I would imagine similar criteria to what we are using for elk already.

As far as what I would suggest, I’ll share the cliff notes of what I’ve said at F&G meetings, in letters, and in conversations with biologists. The issue in this particular area is the compounding effect of large harvest of young bucks in an unlimited fashion clearing out the bottom end of the age class, a long season of too many tags hunting the top end of the age class at the time they’re most vulnerable, technology, and what’s known as a predator pit. To fix it you have to address as many of those components as possible. Limit 2 point harvest to either a youth only season, an unlimited 2nd choice quota in the draw system, or best of all eliminate the hunt option entirely as it was never intended to be a permanent solution. If the tag number and weapon is to the stay the same, change the season dates on the limited tag to match those of other premium limited entry tags in the state, which is to say not have an open season the entirety of the rut. Or shorten the season. Weapons restrictions and tag cuts could also be used. Any combination of these would very likely have a positive affect.

To be clear, what I am referring to is one very specific area with its own unique challenges. The reason I bring them up is that it illustrates that while holistically mule deer are struggling, the problems facing them are too unique and nuanced to be solved with blanket approaches.

My issue is that I think zone management would eventually result in many zones having quotas which then creates the same issue as controlled hunts. Hunter displacement and crowding of the remaining uncapped zones. Not to mention the buying frenzy on the day tags go on sale.

I don't see a way to implement a zone structure without also including quotas to prevent the zones with more desirable seasons from being overrun. Maybe a harvest quota but that would incentivize many hunters to just shoot the first thing they see so they can tag out before the quota is filled and the season closes.

My main personal complaint would be the lost opportunity to hunt multiple regions in the same year. I enjoying exploring a new region or unit for at least part of the season and then if I'm not successful I can finish out the season in areas that I am more familiar with.

For now, I don't think that Idaho is at the point where zone season structure is necessary for deer. Maybe someday, but I don't think we are there now.

I agree with your points about quotas. There are immeasurable psychological consequences that manifest as real harvest patterns when quotas or limited entry hunts are provided and the outcome is not always what hunters expect.
General season is not a coveted tag in Idaho for residents so many do not approach it seriously. On the other hand, throw a quota on it and the neighbor next door who usually sits out deer season or just hunts a day or two, is out there pounding the hillsides expecting a state record to pop out around every corner.
Typically, what you get is increased pressure and harvest. Not a desired outcome of slapping a quota on a unit.
I really believe that the current general season system encourages resident hunters to self-manage or regulate pressure by allowing movement between units. What I dislike are the differences in season dates that offsets pressure into units towards the end of certain seasons as well as the fact that some units lack general seasons all-together.
Making season dates standard and ubiquitous while allowing for some flexibility on weapon restrictions in units where escapement is difficult is what I would like to see, but all in all Idaho is pretty darn sweet.
Keep the opportunity, expand the opportunity, limit the weapons if anything.

 

[ColoradoV]

After looking through this man I sure am lucky to live where I do with the friends I have or I would pry not hunt deer.. Guess I am spoiled or just like the discomfort the high country produces ..

To clarify when we were talking over bucks over lunch the other day as mentioned in my last post = it was a very "elite" group of mule deer guys. One is "the" gov tag guy who has had his hand in killing more big deer in Co lately than well anyone... Or we all fully comprehend how hard it is to see bucks of that caliber on public land as this was not a usual group of mulie guys...

As far as 1%ers here in Co I have about 20 years of notes on how many I found in each basin by year. Well they used to be just that 1-100 but now it is more like 1-400 to see a "wow" buck when looking over many of the best basins in Co.. This past year I looked/cataloged just under 400 bucks in 6 units = just in the early scouting season. 2 were great bucks.. My good friend looked at just over 400 and found 1 just amazing buck in another unit. So found 3 in 3 units after looking over close to 1000 this year.. Or they are still out there but the average Joe w 3 days to scout and a week to hunt is very unlikely to find one..

What I gather from this thread = is that most guys want to hunt as much as they can for as big as bucks as they can. Here in Co it can be figured out how to do just that. Not easy, takes a ton of time, and takes some cheese but worth it as ya only have so many days ya can hunt.. From my chair nothing in this thread changed my mind and totally limiting licenses is the only way to get there.

Also dont want to post the best pics as to "over accentuate" the buck or make it bigger than it is - for the net so here are some very very unflattering degraded pics. As ya won't ever be disappointed judging unflattering video.... I wish ya could post video here as well there is some great video but below are screenshots from 1 buck from this year. Remember there were 2 bigger = what do you say is he big enough for the stupid book? Spoiler is I already know as the buck is dead or I sure as hell would not put a live deer of this caliber on the net...

Good luck w your Id seasons pry a state I will never hunt as I can't get there to scout enough to do the tag justice. Hope it works out for you boys..

 

[idelkslayer]

As far as 1%ers here in Co I have about 20 years of notes on how many I found in each basin by year. Well they used to be just that 1-100 but now it is more like 1-400 to see a "wow" buck when looking over many of the best basins in Co.. This past year I looked/cataloged just under 400 bucks in 6 units = just in the early scouting season. 2 were great bucks.. My good friend looked at just over 400 and found 1 just amazing buck in another unit. So found 3 in 3 units after looking over close to 1000 this year.. Or they are still out there but the average Joe w 3 days to scout and a week to hunt is very unlikely to find one..

What I gather from this thread = is that most guys want to hunt as much as they can for as big as bucks as they can. Here in Co it can be figured out how to do just that. Not easy, takes a ton of time, and takes some cheese but worth it as ya only have so many days ya can hunt.. From my chair nothing in this thread changed my mind and totally limiting licenses is the only way to get there.

I'm not sure I'm following your point. 20 years ago your notes show you were accustomed to seeing 1 Wow buck out of every 100. Now you are seeing 1 Wow buck out of every 200-400. I'm not seeing how completely limiting tags has improved the situation. Then you state that killing big bucks requires a lot of time and money. I agree with you on the time element.

 

[ColoradoV]

Now it’s 1 per 400-500…

Have notes going back 20 years. I also said it was not that long ago or exactly the same time all the seasons were moved back age class tanked. This is a fact.

Yeah ya can’t have 900 yd rifles banging away on rutting bucks on Thanksgiving day and keep age class.. It’s that simple.

If the seasons all get pushed back to 2010-2019 dates in 5 years we are back to 1-150 or so…

 

[CorbLand]

Now it’s 1 per 400-500…

Have notes going back 20 years. I also said it was not that long ago or exactly the same time all the seasons were moved back age class tanked. This is a fact.

Yeah ya can’t have 900 yd rifles banging away on rutting bucks on Thanksgiving day and keep age class.. It’s that simple.

If the seasons all get pushed back to 2010-2019 dates in 5 years we are back to 1-150 or so…

Ok now I am confused. In post 145 you say "...totally limiting licenses is the only way to get there." Now you are saying that pushing season dates back would achieve 1 WOW buck per 100-150...

 

[littlebigtine]

Now it’s 1 per 400-500…

Have notes going back 20 years. I also said it was not that long ago or exactly the same time all the seasons were moved back age class tanked. This is a fact.

Yeah ya can’t have 900 yd rifles banging away on rutting bucks on Thanksgiving day and keep age class.. It’s that simple.

If the seasons all get pushed back to 2010-2019 dates in 5 years we are back to 1-150 or so…

The fact that you are finding a book deer in every 450 is mind-boggling to me. The fact that you are seeing 450 bucks a summer is crazy to. You dont know how good you got it until you spend a summer scouting in my neck of the woods. You should give it a try. Prolly make you more grateful.

 

[Customweld]

The fact that you are finding a book deer in every 450 is mind-boggling to me. The fact that you are seeing 450 bucks a summer is crazy to. You dont know how good you got it until you spend a summer scouting in my neck of the woods.

Man, no kidding! If I seen 20 percent of that scouting in the summer, I'd be ecstatic!

 

[ColoradoV]

Damn it = now I am confused !!!

Let me wrap my head around this.. Well the title of this is "TROPHY mule deer management our solutions have been the problem". Due to the title of the thread I figured this was about how to get Idaho to produce more trophies while still keeping some level of opportunity.. The way Colorado skinned that cat is going totally limited and I strongly feel if ya want trophies totally limited is the only way. Again I can hunt every year (opportunity) as well as chase some darn good animals here with in 45 min of my house... This thesis is supported by the fact Co produces the biggest bucks of any state.. Hope I still got everyone!

Next it is very clear I dont care about the book as there is a reason I put up the 200"-220" number and not book bucks. I look at the wow factor as I believe every hunter should. If a 140" buck gives ya the wow feeling hunt it! Many times wow bucks are not all book bucks and sometimes they are = but again I dont care about that book. I mentioned 3 this past year the year before it was 0, and in 23' it was 0.. Or not a constant the best year was pry 2016 when in my group of 5 all killed and the smallest was a 194" typical...

The changes in dates I am referring to pertains to Colorado book entries and why they have fallen off . That's simple rut hunting bucks over thanksgiving w 900 yd rifles sure did the trick! It blew up the age class that we enjoyed here in Colorado for years. Used to be only bad winters killed the age class now the super late season hunts take care of that pesky age class.

So I was attempting to draw a parallel between Co management (that has produced more big bucks than anywhere) to see why you guys might not want unlimited season in Id.. Again I dont care what Id does and I hope it works for ya.

As far as numbers yeah it seems like a lot I spend 30+ nights above 11k ft in the field scouting and I have a method that works for me to cover a lot of ground. I have a set or "inner circle" of friends that share information and one puts in more days that I do each year. Or 30 nights gives ya 2 counting sessions each or about 60 session a yr divided by 400 is only 6.6 bucks a session... If ya think that is high you should see my notes pre 2008 I dont look at those numbers much as that is not realistic in todays climate..

Also I dont count forkies or real small bucks mostly bucks I count are 3+ years as so many fokies dont make the return trip so not worth counting for me. Drinking my coffee right now I can count 8 good bucks from my house so got my 6+ today! Again seeing 6-7 bucks a scouting session is pretty normal.. Where I go has been distilled from 3 generations of family and friends information. My grandfather worked near Marble his whole life... No doubt 100% there are pockets that hold bigger than normal bucks and I focus year in and year out on the best producing spots. I live in arguably the easiest spot in the state to get to a lot of big buck producing units or I dont travel over a hour to a hour and a half from my house most days.

Lucky yea I am but set my life up not to chase the big car, high paying job, or fancy house so I got something more valuable than the gold or silver that is at my mining claim and that's time.. In the fall I choose to use it to chase deer.

Will Idaho be Colorado? Nope not realistic so good luck w what you choose but again I would look at totally limited real hard if you want more trophy class bucks.

 

[elkhunter505]

"Two evaluations of Colorado's harvest management decisions have occurred (Bishop et al. 2005, Bergman et al. 2011). Each of these was an evaluation of restrictions to deer hunting, and primarily within this, restrictions on the hunting of adult male deer. In each case, as harvest was restricted, an increase in adult male:adult female ratios was observed. In particular, ratios increased by as many as 4.52 adult males per 100 adult females in one study (Bishop et al. 2005) and by as many as 21.86 adult males per 100 adult females in the other study (Bergman et al. 2011). However, simultaneous declines in fawn:adult female ratios were observed as part of each study. Declines were as high as 6.96 fawns per 100 adult females (Bergman et al. 2011) and 7.51 fawns per 100 adult females (Bishop et al. 2005). While neither study was a direct experimental evaluation of intraspecific competition or density dependence, both studies provide circumstantial evidence that increasing the proportion of adult male deer in the population came at the expense of population productivity."

I need to read into these studies and see what I think about it, but given that I personally know one of the authors of the first paper, I have no doubt this science is correct. I think there are things that we can do when it comes to seasons or quotas, but I think the vast majority of our "issues" is we are treating the symptom (low mature buck numbers) not the cause of the symptom, habitat degradation. Mule deer and whitetail deer thrive on early successional habitat which back in the 60s we had a ton of given the extent of logging that was occurring across the nation. As our forests and habitat move closer to full succession while we suppress fire and don't manage habitat in another way, the carrying capacity for animals like deer goes down which leads to both lower populations and lower quality of the individuals within the population. Yes, there are still exceptional individuals, but they are fewer and farther between which leads to many of them likely dying of old age, predation, or starvation in their haunts before a hunter finds them. Additionally, when you remove the harvest of these individuals in these lower quality habitats, sometimes it leads to mortality of those same individuals or others in different ways.

Back in the 60s, we were dealing with a level of logging that likely is not sustainable or acceptable at this point in time. As hunters, we need to stop thinking about harvest and quotas as the primary way that we can improve populations. We continually treat the symptom of the issue, not the issue itself. While I don't support a lot of what has been happening surrounding land management in the last couple of months, logging does have a place in our forest ecosystems, if and only if, we are not willing to let them burn. In my opinion, we need to get past the fire suppression phase we have spent the last 100 years in and focus on structure protection only. If we can create these patchy early successional habitats, we can have healthier and more robust deer populations. It is hard with the risk of megafires what it is currently, but in my own opinion, the way for us to get back to as close as what the heyday of what mule deer hunting was is through habitat management not changing quotas around.