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

[MuleyFever]

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 they friends/family of who is running it.

They definitely have an issue of not offering enough good projects. One thing I learned though is that if you have a good project you can ask the director if you can do it. People I know have done clean ups and walked chained areas cutting down young trees by just asking.

 

[cbeard64]

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.

The OP clearly is attempting to make the case that LE tags are not that effective a tool for producing better bucks, and we should thus just open the “opportunity” gates.

Since Idaho is a helluva lot better state for mature bucks than Montana, it would seem that the argument doesn’t hold water.

I get that many might want more “opportunity” - but to think that doesn’t come at a cost defies both the facts and common sense.

 

[CorbLand]

The OP clearly is attempting to make the case that LE tags are not that effective a tool for producing better bucks, and we should thus just open the “opportunity” gates.

Since Idaho is a helluva lot better state for mature bucks than Montana, it would seem that the argument doesn’t hold water.

I get that many might want more “opportunity” - but to think that doesn’t come at a cost defies both the facts and common sense.

Where has anyone indicated that providing more opportunity does not come with a cost?

 

[cbeard64]

Where has anyone indicated that providing more opportunity does not come with a cost?

That’s basically OP’s entire argument. Or at least the corollary of it.

His stated conclusion is that management for trophy deer has limited effectiveness and may in fact be counterproductive, so opportunity management is the way to go.

 

[CorbLand]

That’s basically OP’s entire argument. Or at least the corollary of it.

His stated conclusion is that management for trophy deer has limited effectiveness and may in fact be counterproductive, so opportunity management is the way to go.

Yea but I dont think he or anyone that may agree with him is saying that it wont come at a cost.

Managing for higher quality deer also comes at cost...Utah has units that are specifically managed for big deer and even some of those are struggling to produce. Utah has chosen in those units to forgo opportunity to produce bigger deer and if its not working then the cost of not providing that opportunity needs to be weighed. That is more how I read OPs theory.

I am just not seeing where you see that anyone thinks it wouldnt come at a cost.

 

[cbeard64]

Yea but I dont think he or anyone that may agree with him is saying that it wont come at a cost.

Managing for higher quality deer also comes at cost...Utah has units that are specifically managed for big deer and even some of those are struggling to produce. Utah has chosen in those units to forgo opportunity to produce bigger deer and if its not working then the cost of not providing that opportunity needs to be weighed. That is more how I read OPs theory.

I’m not going to argue anymore but that is exactly what the point of the post is - that it’s all the same so there is no real cost.

When we all know there is. Which is my only point.

If the powers that be want to open it up and to turn Idaho into Montana, fine. That’s up to Idaho. But different management objectives do generally yield different results. Over 100 years of game management has shown that.

 

[CorbLand]

I’m not going to argue anymore but that is exactly what the point of the post is - that it’s all the same so there is no real cost.

When we all know there is. Which is my only point.

If the powers that be want to open it up and to turn Idaho into Montana, fine. That’s up to Idaho. But different management objectives do generally yield different results. Over 100 years of game management has shown that.

I wasn’t really arguing but ok.

 

[Grundy53]

The OP clearly is attempting to make the case that LE tags are not that effective a tool for producing better bucks, and we should thus just open the “opportunity” gates.

Since Idaho is a helluva lot better state for mature bucks than Montana, it would seem that the argument doesn’t hold water.

I get that many might want more “opportunity” - but to think that doesn’t come at a cost defies both the facts and common sense.

That might have something to do with Montana's 6 week long rifle season that includes the whole month of November. I don't see anyone suggesting going to that extreme.

Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

 

[littlebigtine]

I’m not going to argue anymore but that is exactly what the point of the post is - that it’s all the same so there is no real cost.

When we all know there is. Which is my only point.

If the powers that be want to open it up and to turn Idaho into Montana, fine. That’s up to Idaho. But different management objectives do generally yield different results. Over 100 years of game management has shown that.

I dont think anybody wants idaho to go to a montana design.

That might have something to do with Montana's 6 week long rifle season that includes the whole month of November. I don't see anyone suggesting going to that extreme.

Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

Ya nobody in Idaho is arguing for a general rut hunt.
What id like to see personally is just a simplification of a system that has become too specialized unit to unit.
Return the le units to general.
Historically, certain general units in Idaho actually produced more b+c bucks than 54, 45, 44 which have become a private land, outfitter game.
Id be willing to bet that theres some big business with outfitting and permissions for private in those units and that the main reason they continue to be managed for “trophy hunts” is because of the money.
I am not saying there are not bucks on public in those units but vast majority of big bucks harvested are on private with systems set up with outfitters.
Whats worse is the neighboring units that historically produced many more crankers(10, 20-1) in the 60s-80s and have more public land than most units in idaho take all the pressure while those le units are heavily managed.

Return all units to general
Make three different weapon seasons
Shorten them all a bit
Make the resident choose 2 units to hunt with only 2 weapons for each unit.
That way as long as a hunter is willing to hunt with multiple weapons, time afield could virtually be the same as now.
Big idea is to limit rifle success by shortening the season and incentivizing hunters to use archery and muzzleloaders with preferred season dates. Continue to limit technology. That should bring down harvest a small amount. Allow for a some more escapement. Everybody should be a bit more spread out across the state with all units being otc. Everybody still gets to hunt. Might grow more big bucks under the right conditions.
Have your cake and eat it too.
The Idaho resident needs to come to terms with the fact that the general deer season situation is too good to be true and that we will need to make concessions somewhere. Id rather those concessions lean towards otc opportunities with shorter dates and specific units, than LE.

 

[manitou1]

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.

Yes.
They would definitely have to be careful with the late season migratory units like Wyoming has.
You could wipe out a buck population and alter (or hinder) a migration in one fell swoop.