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

[idelkslayer]

I'm going to call back to one of the data points in the OP. What is everyone's thoughts on the Colorado study that found an inverse relationship between buck : doe ratios and fawn : doe ratios?

To quote from the study:

"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. Interaction between the male, female, and young components of populations, similar to that presented by Bishop et al. (2005) and Bergman et al. (2011), can result in second order feedback effects that are non-trivial (Mysterud et al. 2002). If lowered fawn:adult female ratios can be interpreted as an indicator of suppressed population growth, the studies of Bishop et al. (2005) and Bergman et al. (2011) may provide evidence that harvest decisions that change the sex and age structure of deer herds to favor mature animals may have a regulating effect — thereby slowing the rate of population growth (dN/dt) by reducing the per capita rate of change (R) in our conceptual model. Moreover, at a given population size (N), a herd with a higher proportion of males has a lower reproductive potential because it has a lower proportion of females. In the event of stochastic reductions in K due to harsh winters, die-offs in herds with a higher proportion of males may experience delayed rebounding (i.e. sex ratio may have a regulating effect on population growth). Colorado's current statewide ratio of total males to adult females, when weighted by herd size, is 33.4 adult males per 100 adult females (Colorado Parks and Wildlife unpubl.). However, it is unknown if sex ratios at this level have a regulating effect."

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

It seems like there is a lot that isn't understood but future research could be targeted at understanding why fawn ratios go down, the long term effect of lower fawn ratios, and where is the tipping point between high buck : doe ratios that precipitates a decline in fawn : doe ratios.

 

[Steve O]

I don’t know, but with my own eyes I can say that I’ve looked at “thousands” of Idaho bucks and only have seen less than 5 net typicals and zero net nontypicals.

This I believe. I am constantly amazed at what people “think” B&C minimum animals look like. They are incredibly rare. Incredibly.

 

[littlebigtine]

I'm going to call back to one of the data points in the OP. What is everyone's thoughts on the Colorado study that found an inverse relationship between buck : doe ratios and fawn : doe ratios?

To quote from the study:

"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. Interaction between the male, female, and young components of populations, similar to that presented by Bishop et al. (2005) and Bergman et al. (2011), can result in second order feedback effects that are non-trivial (Mysterud et al. 2002). If lowered fawn:adult female ratios can be interpreted as an indicator of suppressed population growth, the studies of Bishop et al. (2005) and Bergman et al. (2011) may provide evidence that harvest decisions that change the sex and age structure of deer herds to favor mature animals may have a regulating effect — thereby slowing the rate of population growth (dN/dt) by reducing the per capita rate of change (R) in our conceptual model. Moreover, at a given population size (N), a herd with a higher proportion of males has a lower reproductive potential because it has a lower proportion of females. In the event of stochastic reductions in K due to harsh winters, die-offs in herds with a higher proportion of males may experience delayed rebounding (i.e. sex ratio may have a regulating effect on population growth). Colorado's current statewide ratio of total males to adult females, when weighted by herd size, is 33.4 adult males per 100 adult females (Colorado Parks and Wildlife unpubl.). However, it is unknown if sex ratios at this level have a regulating effect."

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

It seems like there is a lot that isn't understood but future research could be targeted at understanding why fawn ratios go down, the long term effect of lower fawn ratios, and where is the tipping point between high buck : doe ratios that precipitates a decline in fawn :

This is an interesting turn in the discussion. Does anyone know how the B&C minimum scores were decided? Were they trying to include only the top 1%, 0.1%, or some other threshold? Or was it more arbitrary than that? What factors have influenced what we consider to be a trophy buck? I started this post to discuss the trade-offs and implications of trophy management. What constitutes a trophy is definitely a part of the conversation.

According to those who voted in the thread below, most roksliders think a 160 inch buck would be in the top 7% or less of deer harvested. Is there any other activity where you would be disappointed to be in the top 5-7%?

Thread 'In what percentile is a HARVESTED 160 inch buck on a general unit?'

Jun 15, 2024

We got talking on another thread on here about how common a mature buck is. On a general unit how rare is a harvested 160 inch buck? For sure different areas or different states will have a little higher percentage, not but without getting to specific and anal I'm just talking overall.

• Schoolhousegrizz
• Replies: 48
• Forum: Mule Deer

Maybe hunters in general need a recalibration of what constitutes a trophy. It seems that a 165" buck is trophy especially if he is over 5 years old. Would anyone say that the 9 yr old buck in the quoted post below is not a worthy animal to put a tag on since it only scored 169"? What about the 6 yr old that scored 163" vs the 5 yr old that scored 176"?

How much does trophy management move the needle in terms of percentage of bucks over ### inches of antler?



Thanks for sharing. That is pretty incredible, 3 hunters (assumed 3 based on you and a "couple buddies") over 4 seasons killed 6 bucks over 5 years old. The range of ages and scores is informative. And this in a general unit and during a series of poor survival years.

I am curious if social media has “normalized” rare, exceptional animals. When I first started deer hunting I never paid attention and lately it seems like people expect every 5 year old buck to be 190”

 

[Customweld]

I am curious if social media has “normalized” rare, exceptional animals. When I first started deer hunting I never paid attention and lately it seems like people expect every 5 year old buck to be 190”

Absolutely it has. It's much like my 20 year old daughter thinks that every day should look like a IG reel. Lots of hunters desensitized by watching hours of guys killing monsters think that every fork horn is going to turn into a 200" class buck if they let it walk.

 

[robertpaulsen]

I don’t know, but with my own eyes I can say that I’ve looked at “thousands” of Idaho bucks and only have seen less than 5 net typicals and zero net nontypicals.

Is this just during hunting season or does that count scouting and winter range viewing?

 

[S.Clancy]

Haven't read it all and maybe it's been covered - but what % of say ID mule deer bucks do you folks think would have potential to make B&C if not harvested? Obviously depends on year classes, winter, feed, etc during their lifetime but as a general guess?

0.5% or less

 

[robby denning]

Is this just during hunting season or does that count scouting and winter range viewing?

All of it. During hunting season would take it down to just a couple. And I never killed any of them.

 

[robby denning]

I'm going to call back to one of the data points in the OP. What is everyone's thoughts on the Colorado study that found an inverse relationship between buck : doe ratios and fawn : doe ratios?

To quote from the study:

"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. Interaction between the male, female, and young components of populations, similar to that presented by Bishop et al. (2005) and Bergman et al. (2011), can result in second order feedback effects that are non-trivial (Mysterud et al. 2002). If lowered fawn:adult female ratios can be interpreted as an indicator of suppressed population growth, the studies of Bishop et al. (2005) and Bergman et al. (2011) may provide evidence that harvest decisions that change the sex and age structure of deer herds to favor mature animals may have a regulating effect — thereby slowing the rate of population growth (dN/dt) by reducing the per capita rate of change (R) in our conceptual model. Moreover, at a given population size (N), a herd with a higher proportion of males has a lower reproductive potential because it has a lower proportion of females. In the event of stochastic reductions in K due to harsh winters, die-offs in herds with a higher proportion of males may experience delayed rebounding (i.e. sex ratio may have a regulating effect on population growth). Colorado's current statewide ratio of total males to adult females, when weighted by herd size, is 33.4 adult males per 100 adult females (Colorado Parks and Wildlife unpubl.). However, it is unknown if sex ratios at this level have a regulating effect."

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

It seems like there is a lot that isn't understood but future research could be targeted at understanding why fawn ratios go down, the long term effect of lower fawn ratios, and where is the tipping point between high buck : doe ratios that precipitates a decline in fawn : doe ratios.

Thanks for posting this up. I had heard this was out there, but that’s the first time I’ve got to read it.

I don’t know what to think, it sounds like they leave themselves a little bit of wiggle room too in drawing a conclusion,…but this is one of the reasons I say that wildlife management is sometimes counterintuitive.

I’d love to hear more on this from everybody.

 

[AHayes111]

Haven't read it all and maybe it's been covered - but what % of say ID mule deer bucks do you folks think would have potential to make B&C if not harvested? Obviously depends on year classes, winter, feed, etc during their lifetime but as a general guess?

Very interesting question. First of all, B&C considers awards book deer, but since it appears most are going with the alltime minimum of 190 and 230 In all of the thousands of sets of sheds I have found, only two would net over 190 if not broken. In the thousands of bucks I have seen, only one would likely beaten 190. And another buck likely would have come close to 230, but I didn't see him that year. The number of bucks that make the minimum is very low. much less than 1%. However you did not ask about how many will make the minimum, but how many have the potential to make the minimum. The vast majority of the bucks that have the potential to make B&C are shot when they are younger. This buck is a good example. As a four year old he grosses 194 and nets 186. Nearly all hunters would have shot him when he was a 180 inch three year old and most likely would have shot him as a 140 inch two year old. It is highly likely he would have netted better than 190 had he lived longer.

Bucks that have the potential to make B&C all time minimums. Likely not very high, my bet is 5% or less, but maybe a series of good years might increase that closer to 10%. I think back to the late 50's and early 60's. Four bucks were shot with in five miles of my house that would likely qualify. Here are pictures of three and I measured the forth. A square 32 inch buck with 18 and 20 inch G2's and not one fork under 14. Mass of less than 15 per side and a 7 inch inline kept his net right at 190. Here are pictures of the other three.

 

[robertpaulsen]

All of it. During hunting season would take it down to just a couple. And I never killed any of them.

Damn. Goes to show genetics play a big part on where the big ones are. Some areas rarely if ever produce a book animal.

An all time book typical mule deer is one of the greatest trophies out there, and especially on public land.

Good luck this fall!

 

[robby denning]

Damn. Goes to show genetics play a big part on where the big ones are. Some areas rarely if ever produce a book animal.

An all time book typical mule deer is one of the greatest trophies out there, and especially on public land.

Good luck this fall!

sure but much of those years were spent in B&C producing counties.

 

[idelkslayer]

Very interesting question. First of all, B&C considers awards book deer, but since it appears most are going with the alltime minimum of 190 and 230 In all of the thousands of sets of sheds I have found, only two would net over 190 if not broken. In the thousands of bucks I have seen, only one would likely beaten 190. And another buck likely would have come close to 230, but I didn't see him that year. The number of bucks that make the minimum is very low. much less than 1%. However you did not ask about how many will make the minimum, but how many have the potential to make the minimum. The vast majority of the bucks that have the potential to make B&C are shot when they are younger. This buck is a good example. As a four year old he grosses 194 and nets 186. Nearly all hunters would have shot him when he was a 180 inch three year old and most likely would have shot him as a 140 inch two year old. It is highly likely he would have netted better than 190 had he lived longer.View attachment 848573

Bucks that have the potential to make B&C all time minimums. Likely not very high, my bet is 5% or less, but maybe a series of good years might increase that closer to 10%. I think back to the late 50's and early 60's. Four bucks were shot with in five miles of my house that would likely qualify. Here are pictures of three and I measured the forth. A square 32 inch buck with 18 and 20 inch G2's and not one fork under 14. Mass of less than 15 per side and a 7 inch inline kept his net right at 190. Here are pictures of the other three.View attachment 848579View attachment 848577View attachment 848575

I don't think you're far off. The more I research into those days the more I come to the conclusion that there was a perfect alignment of conditions that created that time period. It must have been a combination of habitat, moisture, recruitment, survival and more that just hit the sweet spot for mule deer. Because today we still have bucks making it to old age but arguably fewer that grow to the sizes seen in the past.

In @littlebigtine post number 120 he listed some age and score data.

2020- 186”- 5-7yrs old
2021- 169”- 9 yrs old
2022- 176”- 8 yrs old
2022- 176”- 5 yrs old
2023- 163”- 6 yrs old
2023- 136”- 4 yrs old
2024- 167”- 7 yrs old

Even if you just take the bucks over 6 years old, that's 5 bucks that achieved full maturity but did not break the B&C all time minimum.

@robby denning has killed a good number of bucks that would make any of us happy and he has lab aged many of them. I know from past posts and his books that he has killed many bucks that were over 5 yrs old and one that was 9 yrs old. Even so, he tells us that he has never killed a net typical B&C mule deer, and has only ever seen 5 of them.

So what percentage of bucks would achieve B&C min. if there was no hunting at all?

It is hard to say but the age data here and in Robby's past blog post indicates that trying to manage for B&C minimum scores is likely to result in frustration and failure. Most bucks will just never reach those sizes even without hunting pressure. Age is the more consistent measure of how well different management strategies perform.

 

[cwitt]

While I appreciate their effort to put out content and information like this, its only purpose is to validate a management strategy that serves their agency far more than it serves the wildlife in our state. It is no secret that Idaho F&G’s manages Idaho as an opportunity state. And for many reasons I am grateful for that. But it is incredibly frustrating that they will readily give up age class and trophy quality even in our “trophy” units in order to ensure that a 1.5-2.5 year old buck ends up in the bed of a truck before it has the chance to die of other causes. We are painfully slow to change or adapt in this state. Season dates, tag numbers, weapon types, etc. are adjusted based on herd health at a fraction of the rate they are by our neighboring states.

There are so many other ways we can manipulate our management in Idaho before moving limited entry tags to a general season limited weapon. One option that would be very easy and offer a pain free transition is to move deer to the same system already in place for elk. Residents are already familiar with this system. It would still allow general hunting as many of us know it, but would help regulate when and where the public is hunting. Capped tags in areas that need it, concrete data on what units and weapons hunters are using, forcing more emphasis on choosing a weapon for certain areas, and forgoing entering the draw to get those capped tags would all positively impact our deer herds. It provides a lot of interesting possibilities and helps to break up management on a more unit/zone specific basis rather than the free for all we have now.

As far as moving limited entry units to general, I will echo what many have said - this would be detrimental in certain areas that are already struggling. One example I will give, as they are very near and dear to my heart, is our limited entry units here in SW Idaho. Many view these as premier areas and historically they have been. But to put it bluntly, the people that still think this don’t know better. 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. These units offer a general 2-point season, which was an addition by F&G that was supposed to only last 5 years. That was 25 years ago. For those not familiar, these units are easily glassable, covered in roads, and close to a major population center. In the general season 500-700 forked horns are regularly harvested. This season is followed by a month long limited entry season spanning the entire rut with high tag numbers as well. An additional 200-250 bucks are taken during these seasons. When you compound this type of harvest year after year for decades, with the additions of technological advancements like onX, side by sides, long range rifles, what you have is a decimated age structure and quality. Add in predation and it’s only worsened. Lions don’t care about the difference between bucks and does. When there are fewer bucks on the landscape they naturally kill more does.

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? The answer is absolutely not. I am in full agreement that steps need to be taken for our deer herds here in Idaho and I am interested to see how these potential changes affect hunting in those eastern units. But that strategy cannot be a blanket change. Steps need to be taken on a unit by unit basis.

 

[littlebigtine]

While I appreciate their effort to put out content and information like this, its only purpose is to validate a management strategy that serves their agency far more than it serves the wildlife in our state. It is no secret that Idaho F&G’s manages Idaho as an opportunity state. And for many reasons I am grateful for that. But it is incredibly frustrating that they will readily give up age class and trophy quality even in our “trophy” units in order to ensure that a 1.5-2.5 year old buck ends up in the bed of a truck before it has the chance to die of other causes. We are painfully slow to change or adapt in this state. Season dates, tag numbers, weapon types, etc. are adjusted based on herd health at a fraction of the rate they are by our neighboring states.

There are so many other ways we can manipulate our management in Idaho before moving limited entry tags to a general season limited weapon. One option that would be very easy and offer a pain free transition is to move deer to the same system already in place for elk. Residents are already familiar with this system. It would still allow general hunting as many of us know it, but would help regulate when and where the public is hunting. Capped tags in areas that need it, concrete data on what units and weapons hunters are using, forcing more emphasis on choosing a weapon for certain areas, and forgoing entering the draw to get those capped tags would all positively impact our deer herds. It provides a lot of interesting possibilities and helps to break up management on a more unit/zone specific basis rather than the free for all we have now.

As far as moving limited entry units to general, I will echo what many have said - this would be detrimental in certain areas that are already struggling. One example I will give, as they are very near and dear to my heart, is our limited entry units here in SW Idaho. Many view these as premier areas and historically they have been. But to put it bluntly, the people that still think this don’t know better. 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. These units offer a general 2-point season, which was an addition by F&G that was supposed to only last 5 years. That was 25 years ago. For those not familiar, these units are easily glassable, covered in roads, and close to a major population center. In the general season 500-700 forked horns are regularly harvested. This season is followed by a month long limited entry season spanning the entire rut with high tag numbers as well. An additional 200-250 bucks are taken during these seasons. When you compound this type of harvest year after year for decades, with the additions of technological advancements like onX, side by sides, long range rifles, what you have is a decimated age structure and quality. Add in predation and it’s only worsened. Lions don’t care about the difference between bucks and does. When there are fewer bucks on the landscape they naturally kill more does.

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? The answer is absolutely not. I am in full agreement that steps need to be taken for our deer herds here in Idaho and I am interested to see how these potential changes affect hunting in those eastern units. But that strategy cannot be a blanket change. Steps need to be taken on a unit by unit basis.

I think you have valid points and to be honest when I think of limited entry units in Idaho I focus more on the central “trophy” units I have a bit more experience with. I have zero experience with the SW.
That being said I would challenge you on a couple assertions.
1) what do you expect out of tag quotas and regional management of deer? Do you have science to support these expectations? You are looking to neighbooring states with differenent systems in place but are these systems actually meeting your expectations?
2) I agree that there is a tipping point for pressure, lack of escapement and predation to negatively affect a herd’s vitality, but do you think limiting opportunity is the best answer or limiting harvest? Id draw from the wasatch front for inspiration. Maybe a general bow season would be a better fit in the SW?
3) Deer have been trending steadily downward for the last 10 years regardless of management. What is the common denominator affecting our herds across the west and what are the factors that play most deeply to the robustness of a herd? Id point to the science. Habitat and weather. As hunters we no doubt see the direct effect we have on the big game species we hunt every year but the reality is that our hand plays second fiddle to nature and habitat encroachment.

 

[cbeard64]

Absolutely it has. It's much like my 20 year old daughter thinks that every day should look like a IG reel. Lots of hunters desensitized by watching hours of guys killing monsters think that every fork horn is going to turn into a 200" class buck if they let it walk.

100%. Exactly the same with whitetails. This generation has very unrealistic expectations fueled by the hunting media.

 

[cwitt]

I think you have valid points and to be honest when I think of limited entry units in Idaho I focus more on the central “trophy” units I have a bit more experience with. I have zero experience with the SW.
That being said I would challenge you on a couple assertions.
1) what do you expect out of tag quotas and regional management of deer? Do you have science to support these expectations? You are looking to neighbooring states with differenent systems in place but are these systems meeting actually meeting your expectations?
2) I agree that there is a tipping point for pressure, lack of escapement and predation to negatively affect a herd’s vitality, but do you think limiting opportunity is the best answer or limiting harvest? Id look to the wasatch front for inspiration…
3) Deer have been trending steadily downward for the last 10 years regardless of management. What is the common denominator affecting our herds across the west and what are the factors that play most deeply to the robustness of a herd? Id point to the science. Habitat and weather. As hunters we no doubt see the direct effect we have on the big game species we hunt every year but the reality is that our hand plays second fiddle to nature and development.

1) What I expect is the F&G agency to set these quotas because that’s their job. But I expect them do it proactively. That’s not how it’s currently done. One of the units I’m referring to was adjusted 2 years ago, for the first time in over a decade. It actually had tags added. In a regional meeting, I asked what evidence they had to support this addition. Their response was that it was a round number that looked better in the regs. It wasn’t based on aerial surveys as those hadn’t been done in multiple years. No science to be heard of. What we have currently is a set it and forget it system that doesn’t change until it can’t be ignored. As far as other states, I don’t hunt in most of them enough to know if they’re meeting my expectations the way a resident would. The other states that I do hunt and guide in also have their problems but their systems are so fundamentally different than ours that it’s an apples to oranges comparison. I do know that other states have groups like Utah’s RAC and the Gunnison Wildlife Association in Colorado that play a part in more regional management and Idaho lacks a lot of this.

2) No, I don’t think that limiting opportunities is the answer generally. When you limit opportunity, youre robbing Peter here to pay Paul there. But there are areas that based on their animal density, carrying capacity, type of habitat, migration vs resident herds, genetics, etc that lend themselves different management strategies. Season dates and lengths and weapon types can all be variables that can be manipulated to keep opportunity high while still controlling overall harvest and maintaining it at a sustainable level. And those are strategies used in other states that frankly aren’t in Idaho.

3) I completely agree with the fact we play second fiddle. That’s why a more proactive and regional approach needs to be taken. We as hunters also need to be okay with giving up opportunity when things are bad in order to have more when it’s good. But that’s a much larger conversation. We also have to be able trust F&G agencies to give us that opportunity back and they have made that hard to do.

 

[idelkslayer]

We are painfully slow to change or adapt in this state. Season dates, tag numbers, weapon types, etc. are adjusted based on herd health at a fraction of the rate they are by our neighboring states.

There are so many other ways we can manipulate our management in Idaho before moving limited entry tags to a general season limited weapon. One option that would be very easy and offer a pain free transition is to move deer to the same system already in place for elk. Residents are already familiar with this system. It would still allow general hunting as many of us know it, but would help regulate when and where the public is hunting. Capped tags in areas that need it, concrete data on what units and weapons hunters are using, forcing more emphasis on choosing a weapon for certain areas, and forgoing entering the draw to get those capped tags would all positively impact our deer herds. It provides a lot of interesting possibilities and helps to break up management on a more unit/zone specific basis rather than the free for all we have now.

As far as moving limited entry units to general, I will echo what many have said - this would be detrimental in certain areas that are already struggling. One example I will give, as they are very near and dear to my heart, is our limited entry units here in SW Idaho. Many view these as premier areas and historically they have been. But to put it bluntly, the people that still think this don’t know better. 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. These units offer a general 2-point season, which was an addition by F&G that was supposed to only last 5 years. That was 25 years ago. For those not familiar, these units are easily glassable, covered in roads, and close to a major population center. In the general season 500-700 forked horns are regularly harvested. This season is followed by a month long limited entry season spanning the entire rut with high tag numbers as well. An additional 200-250 bucks are taken during these seasons. When you compound this type of harvest year after year for decades, with the additions of technological advancements like onX, side by sides, long range rifles, what you have is a decimated age structure and quality. Add in predation and it’s only worsened. Lions don’t care about the difference between bucks and does. When there are fewer bucks on the landscape they naturally kill more does.

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? The answer is absolutely not. I am in full agreement that steps need to be taken for our deer herds here in Idaho and I am interested to see how these potential changes affect hunting in those eastern units. But that strategy cannot be a blanket change. Steps need to be taken on a unit by unit basis.

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.

 

[idelkslayer]

1) What I expect is the F&G agency to set these quotas because that’s their job. But I expect them do it proactively. That’s not how it’s currently done. One of the units I’m referring to was adjusted 2 years ago, for the first time in over a decade. It actually had tags added. In a regional meeting, I asked what evidence they had to support this addition. Their response was that it was a round number that looked better in the regs. It wasn’t based on aerial surveys as those hadn’t been done in multiple years. No science to be heard of. What we have currently is a set it and forget it system that doesn’t change until it can’t be ignored. As far as other states, I don’t hunt in most of them enough to know if they’re meeting my expectations the way a resident would. The other states that I do hunt and guide in also have their problems but their systems are so fundamentally different than ours that it’s an apples to oranges comparison. I do know that other states have groups like Utah’s RAC and the Gunnison Wildlife Association in Colorado that play a part in more regional management and Idaho lacks a lot of this.

2) No, I don’t think that limiting opportunities is the answer generally. When you limit opportunity, youre robbing Peter here to pay Paul there. But there are areas that based on their animal density, carrying capacity, type of habitat, migration vs resident herds, genetics, etc that lend themselves different management strategies. Season dates and lengths and weapon types can all be variables that can be manipulated to keep opportunity high while still controlling overall harvest and maintaining it at a sustainable level. And those are strategies used in other states that frankly aren’t in Idaho.

3) I completely agree with the fact we play second fiddle. That’s why a more proactive and regional approach needs to be taken. We as hunters also need to be okay with giving up opportunity when things are bad in order to have more when it’s good. But that’s a much larger conversation. We also have to be able trust F&G agencies to give us that opportunity back and they have made that hard to do.

Reasonable points all around.
1) I agree that IDFG should make decision based on data. I would like hunters to be willing to pay more for tags and licenses to fund more survey flights, more age studies, more habitat restoration. I think IDFG generally does well with the funding they have. I would like them to be able to do more and be in a better position to be proactive.

2) I mostly agree. Idaho does use some of those methods. Idaho long ago decided to schedule the general deer season in mid October because it is the time period that favors buck escapement from hunter pressure. They have manipulated season length in the past. Allowing or closing doe harvest is another tool that gets used.

3) I agree that once opportunity is lost it is hard to get back again but it isn't always because IDFG doesn't want to give it back. I was in a season setting public comment meeting back in 2016. IDFG was proposing to give us back some hunting opportunity in the form of extending the deer season to the end of October. An extra week. The deer population was at a 20 year high. Every model they had suggested that the herd could sustain additional harvest without negative impacts. It was the hunters that refused to accept the additional opportunity. The hunter sentiment was that hunting was just getting good again and now IDFG wants to kill all the deer to sell more tags. IDFG only warned that with deer herds so high the next bad winter would kill a lot of deer. Well the winter of 16-17 did it.

 

[robby denning]

..... It was the hunters that refused to accept the additional opportunity. The hunter sentiment was that hunting was just getting good again and now IDFG wants to kill all the deer to sell more tags. IDFG only warned that with deer herds so high the next bad winter would kill a lot of deer. Well the winter of 16-17 did it.

Just one solid example of many that I've seen.

We hire bios and then don't listen to what they tell us because we know better

 

[CorbLand]

Absolutely it has. It's much like my 20 year old daughter thinks that every day should look like a IG reel. Lots of hunters desensitized by watching hours of guys killing monsters think that every fork horn is going to turn into a 200" class buck if they let it walk.

How many of those “monsters” are really not “monsters” without the help of a good camera lens and proper angling? See this a fair amount when you go to some of the shows.

Reasonable points all around.
1) I agree that IDFG should make decision based on data. I would like hunters to be willing to pay more for tags and licenses to fund more survey flights, more age studies, more habitat restoration. I think IDFG generally does well with the funding they have. I would like them to be able to do more and be in a better position to be proactive.

2) I mostly agree. Idaho does use some of those methods. Idaho long ago decided to schedule the general deer season in mid October because it is the time period that favors buck escapement from hunter pressure. They have manipulated season length in the past. Allowing or closing doe harvest is another tool that gets used.

3) I agree that once opportunity is lost it is hard to get back again but it isn't always because IDFG doesn't want to give it back. I was in a season setting public comment meeting back in 2016. IDFG was proposing to give us back some hunting opportunity in the form of extending the deer season to the end of October. An extra week. The deer population was at a 20 year high. Every model they had suggested that the herd could sustain additional harvest without negative impacts. It was the hunters that refused to accept the additional opportunity. The hunter sentiment was that hunting was just getting good again and now IDFG wants to kill all the deer to sell more tags. IDFG only warned that with deer herds so high the next bad winter would kill a lot of deer. Well the winter of 16-17 did it.

Your number 3 is probably one of the biggest detriments to wildlife management. It really pits the “trophy” hunters versus the opportunity guys against each other.

Animals are not a savings account that can just continue to grow. When it’s time to kill them, it’s time to kill them.