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

[littlebigtine]

You’re hypothesis is suffering from an invalid hypothetical syllogism….

Anyone and I mean anyone who has lived and first hand saw the changes going to limited licenses in undeniably “the state that produced the most big bucks of anywhere” supports my position. Or if you were here and lived it ya know.

Sorry but your hypothesis is invalid from the real world where my chair sits..

In my hypothesis if Co cuts tags 15% total, changes season to 3 weeks earlier for all seasons, and goes to 90-10% (@Foldem) , so as not to put too much pressure on resident allocation well in 5 years we would be exceeding b/c bucks produced in the “golden age”……..

My hypothesis has been tested and is valid…..



View attachment 839379

ya your miscontruing my argument, im trying to strike a balance between quality and opportunity without getting too far in the weeds. Golden age is over dood, never going back to the 80s sorry to say. Also, what is a syllogism?

 

[ColoradoV]

Co had a great opportunity here and big bucks.… If ya can’t find a kill a 160” buck every year here = then or today it’s not CPW’s fault look in a mirror.. Heck plenty of units to blow the hell out of a ignorant forkey for 0 points…

 

[Hunthigh1]

Not everyone cares about B&C. Some people enjoy hunting more than they enjoy waiting to draw a tag.

Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

Correct, as seen in several IDFG hunter surveys! Idaho sportsmen clearly prioritize opportunity to hunt every year as the #1 priority. I don’t think IDFG is at all debating or denying that managing for bucks over the age of 5 1/2 years would result in more B/C bucks on the landscape, but rather are pointing out that the opportunity cost is huge (1,000’s fewer hunters getting in the field each year).

I like hunting big deer, but I don’t fool myself into thinking that everyone else in the state should take massive cuts to opportunity in order to give me a perceived or real increased chance at 190-210” deer.

 

[Hunthigh1]

@idelkslayer and @CorbLand Great posts. I can’t articulate much better than what you guys said. I will add this. Creating more draw tags and less general opportunity also creates a scarcity perception that results in more hunters applying, more hunters taking the hunt seriously and putting in massive effort in the field. This is difficult to quantify when speaking about the statistics behind limiting opportunity, but can be observed in every western state. I applaud the video series being released by IDFG.

 

[Grundy53]

Co had a great opportunity here and big bucks.… If ya can’t find a kill a 160” buck every year here = then or today it’s not CPW’s fault look in a mirror.. Heck plenty of units to blow the hell out of a ignorant forkey for 0 points…

Just because someone doesn't care about shooting a booner doesn't mean he's out blasting forkys.

Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

 

[Marshfly]

Not everyone cares about B&C. Some people enjoy hunting more than they enjoy waiting to draw a tag.

Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

Totally agree. I value lots of opportunities each year to hunt with my wife and kids 10,000% more than I do the off chance at some trophy. The times one of more of them are there when any of us kill is more meaningful than almost anything. The more opportunities I get to have that happen, the better.

 

[wyosam]

Just because someone doesn't care about shooting a booner doesn't mean he's out blasting forkys.

Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

There are a lot of great deer, and great experiences between a forky and a “book” buck. I’ve never killed anything really big, but I’ve killed a lot of good deer and elk. I’ve got a lifetime of great hunts and experiences, and I wouldn’t trade a single one of them for less days in the field for an increased chance at something bigger.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lyingflatlander]

I personally really like the general season with late controlled hunt model that Idaho does with some of their units.

The "glory" units that are essentially becoming once in a lifetime opportunites (if that) do very little for me. They get exploited by guides and outfitters and draw lots of attention, and generally still take intimate knowledge to be successful. I value learning a unit and being able to use that knowledge often. If it takes more than 5ish years to draw, I have very little interest.

After being blessed to go on my “once in a lifetime hunt” in the Gunnison valley this past year. My guide talked about the changes he’s seen in the last 30 years. If you belong to hunting fool, (I don’t) it’s easy to communicate glassing points, terrain seams where animals wander, common kill sites (large meadows, open ridges) etc… to your personal advantage if you draw a tag. Another new phenomenon he noticed is teams of spotters (12-20) coordinating for an individual who hunts in their group who drew a coveted tag, all looking for that once in a lifetime trophy for the hunter. All these pressures have resulted in a gradual decline in quality in the Gunnison range. Go ahead, blame the outfits -that’s fair -but don’t overlook these other factors as well.

 

[Jimss]

Not every unit in a state needs to be managed as just trophy units or just meat hunts. All of us likely would agree that it is nice to have the ability in a state to have the choice of applying for units where B&C bucks are possible or other units that offer more hunter opportunity.

Currently Colo has converted to managing every unit in the state for opportunity using CWD as an excuse for issued higher tag quotas in every unit with rut rifle season dates when mature bucks are more susceptible to harvest.

Yep, in this day and age it is tougher for high tier bucks to survive hunting seasons but there are season dates, quotas, etc that can be set in select units that promote opportunity without pressuring mature bucks.

A prime example would be to pull the plug on 4th season tags in select units and return all rifle seasons to dates prior to the rut. Possibly offer more tags but earlier season dates outside the rut would be a huge step in the right direction! Anyone that wants to shoot meat bucks are welcome to more tags. Mature bucks are less visible and will have better opportunity to make it through earlier rifle season dates.

You want more tags with less pressure on mature bucks and less pressure on critical winter range habitat due to lower buck:doe ratios there you go!

 

[CorbLand]

Not every unit in a state needs to be managed as just trophy units or just meat hunts. All of us likely would agree that it is nice to have the ability in a state to have the choice of applying for units where B&C bucks are possible or other units that offer more hunter opportunity.

Currently Colo has converted to managing every unit in the state for opportunity using CWD as an excuse for issued higher tag quotas in every unit with rut rifle season dates when mature bucks are more susceptible to harvest.

Yep, in this day and age it is tougher for high tier bucks to survive hunting seasons but there are season dates, quotas, etc that can be set in select units that promote opportunity without pressuring mature bucks.

A prime example would be to pull the plug on 4th season tags in select units and return all rifle seasons to dates prior to the rut. Possibly offer more tags but earlier season dates outside the rut would be a huge step in the right direction! Anyone that wants to shoot meat bucks are welcome to more tags. Mature bucks are less visible and will have better opportunity to make it through earlier rifle season dates.

You want more tags with less pressure on mature bucks and less pressure on critical winter range habitat due to lower buck:doe ratios there you go!

I dont think that many would disagree with this but I can say what I have seen happening in Utah. Our system is designed to have varying levels of options for deer.

We have limited entry tags. They are managed to produce lots of deer and give you a good chance at great deer. Then we have general season. These tags are designed to put tags in peoples pockets and let them hunt. Even our GS tags have a tiered management. Some units are lower buck to doe ratios and some of them are higher.

The LE tags have pushed to nearly unobtainable length of time to get. Even for the people that got in on the ground floor, they still dont have enough points to draw and many will most likely not live long enough to draw. GS tags arent producing what they once were. The quantity and quality are down.

What we are seeing now, is a push to reduce the GS tags, to increase quality of deer. Essentially trying to turn our GS tags into pseudo LE tags. There is a unit here that take 7-8 years to draw a GS ALW tag. There are many people that think that we should cut all GS deer tags in half. That would, easy mathing, turn that into a 14-16 year wait for a damn GS tag.

Like I said, I know I dont disagree with you but the reality is, there is a continued push to reduce opportunities all in the name of bigger bucks.

I think that we have a pretty decent system here, we just need people to remember what the system is designed to do and let it work.

 

[MuleyFever]

I like big deer as much as the next guy but I am starting to think that we have to start reading the writing in the dirt and accept that as a whole we need more opportunity. We are losing our deer herds due to many factors such as habitat loss and increasing unfavorable weather patterns. At the same time we are seeing an increase in demand due to inflows of new residents and more NR applicants. I think that in many areas its time to abandon LE units and let people hunt. Heck, even the LE units in many places are not even close to what they used to be and quite honestly not worth the years it takes to get the tags.

 

[Jimss]

There always is a compromise between quality of bucks/experience and tag quotas. It's nice to live in a state that allows a little of both. There are ways to put more deer on the mtn and more tags in hunter's hands. I think a lot of time and $ is wasted on things with little to no benefit.

 

[MuleyFever]

There are ways to put more deer on the mtn and more tags in hunter's hands. I think a lot of time and $ is wasted on things with little to no benefit.

Utahs dedicated hunter program is a prime example of time wasted. For every good project there are 2 absolute waste projects for people to get hours. Half of the projects have absolutely nothing to do with even hunting let along helping wildlife.

 

[CorbLand]

Utahs dedicated hunter program is a prime example of time wasted. For every good project there are 2 absolute waste projects for people to get hours. Half of the projects have absolutely nothing to do with even hunting let along helping wildlife.

I wish that they would not allow the hours for doing banquet stuff. How that can even come close to being considered "volunteering" or "helping wildlife" is the biggest sham.

 

[cbeard64]

I’m not close-minded about this topic, but I do wonder how one would explain the fact that Montana has basically been a general tag “opportunity” state for many years now and the result quite clearly has been that it is no longer a state (with very limited exceptions) that produces realistic opportunities for big, mature bucks.

 

[MuleyFever]

I wish that they would not allow the hours for doing banquet stuff. How that can even come close to being considered "volunteering" or "helping wildlife" is the biggest sham.

My wife did hours answering phones in the office. One year we did a day down a the trap club in Washington manning the trap boxes. Basically free labor for the club. Luckily they did a bitter brush planting when I had it again and I did all my hours planting.

 

[CorbLand]

I’m not close-minded about this topic, but I do wonder how one would explain the fact that Montana has basically been a general tag “opportunity” state for many years now and the result quite clearly has been that it is no longer a state (with very limited exceptions) that produces realistic opportunities for big, mature bucks.

I am not extremely familiar with Montana but I cant help but think that hunting deer in the rut at the rate they do is not largely to blame for their issues.

Not so much the general opportunity but more so the timing of the hunts.

 

[CorbLand]

My wife did hours answering phones in the office. One year we did a day down a the trap club in Washington manning the trap boxes. Basically free labor for the club. Luckily they did a bitter brush planting when I had it again and I did all my hours planting.

All of my hours have come from lop and scatters and emergency feeding.

The problem we have is that there arent very many projects up this way and its hard to get hours. There is usually 1-2 projects per year. As much as I hate the banquet stuff, I have tried to get in on a few just because I need hours but most get filled up with friends/family of who is running it.

 

[MuleyFever]

I’m not close-minded about this topic, but I do wonder how one would explain the fact that Montana has basically been a general tag “opportunity” state for many years now and the result quite clearly has been that it is no longer a state (with very limited exceptions) that produces realistic opportunities for big, mature bucks.

Not sure what you need explained. They chose opportunity over managing for big deer. That and as mentioned by Corb, they had/have rifle seasons right through the rut. Very few people value big bucks over opportunity to hunt. Montana listened to the people I guess.

 

[idelkslayer]

There are so many variables to think about in this discussion. Different states, habitats, season timing, hunter numbers, weapons, desired age class, and the list goes on. All those factors matter and more often than not a case by case approach is needed. I push back on that a little because a unit by unit approach can lose sight of how changes in one unit affect the others. Nothing happens in a vacuum.

My intent in bringing up this video by IDFG and giving my thoughts is to ask hunters to slow down and consider multiple factors when calling for changes to mule deer management. Tag cuts and limited entry has been the answer for the last few decades and I think we should try something different. A full general season structure would not work everywhere but I think we need to understand what we give up in exchange for limited entry hunts.

The video and the two Colorado studies highlight some interesting data about the inverse relationship between D : D ratios and F : D ratios (quoted below). It is worth talking about in the context of trophy management.

The diminishing returns in terms of B&C score after age 4.5 is another thing worth talking about.

The domino effect of reducing tag numbers and the impact of displaced hunters to the quality of general seasons is worth talking about.

Natural mortality of young bucks is worth talking about.

I think a lot of current discussion about herd health is a masked discussion about trophy quality. "We have to cut tags to save the herd" I call bull-crap. Cutting buck harvest won't make more fawns hit the ground.

"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."