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.

 

[Jimss]

I remember this same exact scenario coming up in Utah not too many years ago when 400 class bulls were a reality in scattered units across Utah. Utah had the same exact scenario as Colo mule deer but with a World Class B&C elk factory.

The same exact things were brought up in Utah. That old age class bulls were horrible for the health and welfare of the elk herd. There were also a lot of Utah residents complaining about not drawing highly limited elk tags. Well, it's been around a century since Utah opened the floodgates on higher tag quotas.

I guess I would ask those in Utah if they are happy with the strategy of increasing tags? Today's 340 class bulls in Utah were about like 400 back in the day. Even units like the San Juan have taken a nose-dive in quality of bulls. With the right tag and lots of scouting, there was the chance of at least seeing 380 to 400 class bulls back in the day. From what I've seen and heard, that is a thing of the past glory years.

I am so thankful I was able to draw a prime elk tag in the glory elk years in Utah and I'm sure there are a lot of hunters across the US with that same opinion about the glory years of mule deer here in Colorado. There were actually more tags available back in the glory days in Colorado than there are today. So much for the idea that higher tag quotas benefit mule deer!

This is a totally bogus idea when you toss in winterkill, predators, poor winter range/habitat, CWD, and other factors into the mix! I remember a couple winters ago when Wyo was discussing closing down the mule deer season in the G&H units because winterkill was so severe. I can't believe anyone would be encouraging switching to general and/or higher tag quotas in this day and age of mule deer numbers at all-time lows across the entire country! Buncha bull=honky!

 

[littlebigtine]

I remember this same exact scenario coming up in Utah not too many years ago when 400 class bulls were a reality in scattered units across Utah. Utah had the same exact scenario as Colo mule deer but with a World Class B&C elk factory.

The same exact things were brought up in Utah. That old age class bulls were horrible for the health and welfare of the elk herd. There were also a lot of Utah residents complaining about not drawing highly limited elk tags. Well, it's been around a century since Utah opened the floodgates on higher tag quotas.

I guess I would ask those in Utah if they are happy with the strategy of increasing tags? Today's 340 class bulls in Utah were about like 400 back in the day. Even units like the San Juan have taken a nose-dive in quality of bulls. With the right tag and lots of scouting, there was the chance of at least seeing 380 to 400 class bulls back in the day. From what I've seen and heard, that is a thing of the past glory years.

I am so thankful I was able to draw a prime elk tag in the glory elk years in Utah and I'm sure there are a lot of hunters across the US with that same opinion about the glory years of mule deer here in Colorado. There were actually more tags available back in the glory days in Colorado than there are today. So much for the idea that higher tag quotas benefit mule deer!

This is a totally bogus idea when you toss in winterkill, predators, poor winter range/habitat, CWD, and other factors into the mix! I remember a couple winters ago when Wyo was discussing closing down the mule deer season in the G&H units because winterkill was so severe. I can't believe anyone would be encouraging switching to general and/or higher tag quotas in this day and age of mule deer numbers at all-time lows across the entire country! Buncha bull=honky!

Your missing the point.

I dont think anybody is advocating for increased harvest.
I would like to keep tags otc but decrease harvest by shortening the bow and rifle season, adding a muzzy season and making the Idaho resident pick his/her units and weapon.
It doesnt sound like you are very familiar with hunting Idaho mule deer as you keep referring to Colorado and Utah but the current system is essentially wide open except for maybe 5 units which are entirely “draw” or “LE” hunts.
The reality is those units have no better chance of producing slammer bucks then the most pressured units in central and southeast Idaho.
In fact, I will repeat myself, historically speaking, those units never really produced b+c bucks until they became heavily managed.
I am advocating to get rid of these LE units as all they do is make some outfitters and landowners money and increase pressure in surrounding units
I am advocating for keeping the current otc structure so that we can hunt every year but limiting the pressure by making the resident pick a unit and weapon. 2 units with 2 weapons each to be exact. These wouldnt be monumental changes but currently I dont believe the herd is struggling because of hunter pressure as much as poor management of people.
Let people hunt but make it a little harder.
Spread them out more and allow for more escapement.
These small changes coupled with habitat preservation and preferable weather, and we might be able to juice some more out of the Idaho deer herd before Boise becomes Salt Lake City and everything must change.

The reality is that big old bucks are shot every year in the most pressured units. All across the west. Not just Idaho, Utah, Colorado…
How can you sit there and tell me that they are not there when I see them with my own eyes in general units. Sure, they are the minority in the buck population but also not every buck over 5 yrs old is 200”.

Ive shot 2 160” deer that aged 5+. In one of the most heavily pressured units in Idaho. We are not Colorado or Utah. Its a bit different up here.

 

[Jimss]

You are correct, I know nothing about Idaho deer and season dates. One thing I would be cautious about is select a weapon seasons may not be the cat's meow you are hoping for. Especially with pick your season. My guess is that if all weapons of choice are OTC that more hunters if given the choice will choose the rifle over muzzy or archery seasons even if somehow the archery seasons are more attractive. I would think this would concentrate even more hunting pressure in the shorter season dates you are proposing.

Shorter seasons with OTC would be a royal cluster during the rifle season even if hunters are required to pick a unit! With OTC, the more desirable units would have even more hunting pressure. I can't imagine those desirable units being a very enjoyable place to hunt with all the OTC hunting pressure. Maybe the hunting pressure in OTC Idaho units isn't as bad as I envision it? If not, you may be ok. I remember the days of OTC in Colo and it was almost dangerous!

Take another close look at what happened in Colo once all seasons were switched from OTC to limited in the table in post #17. It's pretty easy to imagine that If Idaho converted to all limited tags that Idaho would be similar to Colorado and there would suddenly be a lot more mature bucks in every unit in Idaho once the Idaho Game and Fish could actually manage mule deer populations and hunting pressure.

If all units in Idaho were a draw it would distribute resident applicants over every unit in the state. Idaho has a small population of resident hunters compared to Colorado and Idaho draw odds would likely be extremely good....especially when dispersed over archery, muzzy, and rifle seasons. Colo res deer hunters actually have very good draw odds, especially for archery and muzzy seasons. If you aren't hunting Colo mule deer as a resident every year, it's your fault that you are just applying for the highest demand units in the state.

Just because every unit is limited doesn't necessarily mean that tag quotas are reduced lower than the present number of OTC res hunters in any given unit. Colo is currently going through this same thing with OTC elk. My guess is that it won't be long and all elk units in Colo will be limited.

It is evident that it is impossible to manage hunting pressure and mule deer populations under OTC systems. You may think shortening season dates and picking a weapon will help, but looking at it from the outside in you are shooting yourself in the foot.

My guess is that once mule deer populations and hunting pressure is managed that the deer population will steady improve and there will be more tags available for all.

 

[WRO]

Your missing the point.

I dont think anybody is advocating for increased harvest.
I would like to keep tags otc but decrease harvest by shortening the bow and rifle season, adding a muzzy season and making the Idaho resident pick his/her units and weapon.
It doesnt sound like you are very familiar with hunting Idaho mule deer as you keep referring to Colorado and Utah but the current system is essentially wide open except for maybe 5 units which are entirely “draw” or “LE” hunts.
The reality is those units have no better chance of producing slammer bucks then the most pressured units in central and southeast Idaho.
In fact, I will repeat myself, historically speaking, those units never really produced b+c bucks until they became heavily managed.
I am advocating to get rid of these LE units as all they do is make some outfitters and landowners money and increase pressure in surrounding units
I am advocating for keeping the current otc structure so that we can hunt every year but limiting the pressure by making the resident pick a unit and weapon. 2 units with 2 weapons each to be exact. These wouldnt be monumental changes but currently I dont believe the herd is struggling because of hunter pressure as much as poor management of people.
Let people hunt but make it a little harder.
Spread them out more and allow for more escapement.
These small changes coupled with habitat preservation and preferable weather, and we might be able to juice some more out of the Idaho deer herd before Boise becomes Salt Lake City and everything must change.

The reality is that big old bucks are shot every year in the most pressured units. All across the west. Not just Idaho, Utah, Colorado…
How can you sit there and tell me that they are not there when I see them with my own eyes in general units. Sure, they are the minority in the buck population but also not every buck over 5 yrs old is 200”.

Ive shot 2 160” deer that aged 5+. In one of the most heavily pressured units in Idaho. We are not Colorado or Utah. It’s a bit different up here.

It is different here, it’s a fukin goat rope on the west side of the state every weekend during deer season.

I’ve spent a fair bit of time in a couple draw units, that have a fair amount of tags (200) one with the 2 point slaughter and one without. Both of those units I’ve seen legit 200+” deer in and multiple deer over 175. Plus just the sheer volume of deer compared to the otc rat race.

There’s so few opportunities for limited tags and quality deer hunt here it’s sad. Yes big deer do get killed otc, I won’t deny that at all, but not very many.

I’d rather go hunt a 2-4 point hunt in Oregon than deal with the pressure I’ve seen here.

Yes we still kill bucks, (not me because I’m too picky) but we help others to be successful.

The whole management strategy of the state makes no sense, unlimited youth doe tags in many units, late season otc archery that anyone can hunt, seasons that run later in some units driving in more pressure, etc combine that with the fact that winter range is disappearing at an alarming rate means the proverbial shit is going to hit the fan sooner than later.

The locals will continue to blame everyone else and kill the last two point walking to keep opportunity happening.

 

[Jimss]

It sounds to me that Idaho has a lot of potential if given the chance. It also sounds like going to all limited may solve a bunch of problems. My guess is that there would still be great opportunity for residents every year even with all limited tags.

It sounds like a lot of room for improvement with set quotas and habitat improvement projects.

 

[Plainsman79]

View attachment 839344

Take a look at this video and start listening at the 52:00 mark. It will open your eyes to reality!

There’s no question the facts are there. Limiting the number of licenses along with season dates that promote survival rates is a recipe for growing better age class of buck deer. The number of book bucks killed from 2003-2007 compared to the last ten years isn’t even a comparison. Who wouldn’t want that? Even the meat hunter crowd would probably support it.

A couple items to think about though, estimated population of Colorado in 2004 was around 4.5 million. Estimated population in 2024 was almost 6 million. Say 10% of the new population are deer hunters. That’s an additional 150,000 tags annually that are now in demand. Toss is the whole internet world that was very minimal in 2004 and now a huge increase in demand for non-resident tags as well. It currently takes anywhere from 1-4 points for most deer hunts in Colorado. If CPW would “go back” to the same tag allocations they had in the early 2000’s who knows how long hunters would have to wait to draw. Me personally, I don’t want to have to wait 5+ years to hunt a tag I can now draw enough years and still kill some good 180” bucks or 5+ years old (Both are trophies in my book). It’s never going to be the same as it was in the early 2000’s, to much has changed in the last 20 years.

There has to be a middle ground, and I truly think limiting weapon capabilities is worth a shot. I also think there needs to be a middle ground with “stock piling” big bucks and having a healthy balance in a deer herd.

 

[AHayes111]

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

Yes it does, because the notion that antler size is at near peak at age 4 1/2 is misleading at best and likely closer to out right false. The problem with these studies is that they all rely on the B&C scoring system and while the B&C scoring system may be the best out there for many reason, its one flaw is that it puts more weight on length of points than on mass. This inflates the relative size of younger bucks that often have nearly the same length but not near the mass of their older selves. Attached is a picture of two antlers from the same buck. The buck was at least 4 and likely 5 when he shed the smaller antler and at least two years older when he shed the larger antler. Score wise there is not that much difference between the two. Weight wise the larger antler is 30% larger and if you are holding the two, there is little doubt there is a big change in size. Anyone that spends thirty minutes in my antler collection will no longer be pushing the 4 1/2 is near peak. I have dozens of examples like the one posted.

 

[littlebigtine]

There’s no question the facts are there. Limiting the number of licenses along with season dates that promote survival rates is a recipe for growing better age class of buck deer. The number of book bucks killed from 2003-2007 compared to the last ten years isn’t even a comparison. Who wouldn’t want that?

I have to bite on this. Just went through the Colorado b+c record typical list and non-typical list.

Top 50 typicals and top 100 non-typicals shot or picked up after 2014: 7

Top 50 typicals and top 100 non-typicals shot or picked up 2003-2007: 8

Biggest non-typicals in the Colorado top 100 shot after 2000:

#2(2007) 306”
#10(2014) 293”
#32(2022) 267”
#40(2007) 260”
#64(2023) 263”
#72(2015) 252”
#95(2003) 248”


3 bucks in the top 100 non-typicals were shot in the 1990’s.

Bucks shot 2003-2007:3
Bucks shot 2014-2024:4

Now for top 50 Typicals after 2000:

#7(2022) 212”
#11(2015) 210”
#17(2006) 208”
#18(2006) 208”
#22(2012) 207”
#27(2006) 206”
#31(2002) 206”
#38(2003) 205”
#47(2022) 204”

2 bucks in the top 50 typicals were shot in the 1990’s.

Bucks between:2003-2007: 5
Bucks between 2014-2024: 3


“The number of book bucks killed from 2003-2007 compared to the last ten years isn’t even a comparison“ ????

Hard saying that when some of the biggest deer EVER have been shot in the last 10 years.

 

[willfrye027]

Yes it does, because the notion that antler size is at near peak at age 4 1/2 is misleading at best and likely closer to out right false. The problem with these studies is that they all rely on the B&C scoring system and while the B&C scoring system may be the best out there for many reason, its one flaw is that it puts more weight on length of points than on mass. This inflates the relative size of younger bucks that often have nearly the same length but not near the mass of their older selves. Attached is a picture of two antlers from the same buck. The buck was at least 4 and likely 5 when he shed the smaller antler and at least two years older when he shed the larger antler. Score wise there is not that much difference between the two. Weight wise the larger antler is 30% larger and if you are holding the two, there is little doubt there is a big change in size. Anyone that spends thirty minutes in my antler collection will no longer be pushing the 4 1/2 is near peak. I have dozens of examples like the one posted.View attachment 840344

I would agree the buck on the right is a bigger deer. How many guys are passing the one on the left, but not the one on the right? How many guys will accurately field judge the difference between the two? How long are you willing to wait for a chance at the buck on the right instead of a chance for the one on the left?

No doubt some bucks will get bigger year over year beyond 4.5. Some may even “blow up”. However some will also regress or throw out a smaller set depending on feed conditions. The argument is that it’s not worth it to give up the opportunity, and your picture is IMO a pretty good example of why.

 

[Plainsman79]

I have to bite on this. Just went through the Colorado b+c record typical list and non-typical list.

Top 50 typicals and top 100 non-typicals shot or picked up after 2014: 7

Top 50 typicals and top 100 non-typicals shot or picked up 2003-2007: 8

Biggest non-typicals in the Colorado top 100 shot after 2000:

#2(2007) 306”
#10(2014) 293”
#32(2022) 267”
#40(2007) 260”
#64(2023) 263”
#72(2015) 252”
#95(2003) 248”


3 bucks in the top 100 non-typicals were shot in the 1990’s.

Bucks shot 2003-2007:3
Bucks shot 2014-2024:4

Now for top 50 Typicals after 2000:

#7(2022) 212”
#11(2015) 210”
#17(2006) 208”
#18(2006) 208”
#22(2012) 207”
#27(2006) 206”
#31(2002) 206”
#38(2003) 205”
#47(2022) 204”

2 bucks in the top 50 typicals were shot in the 1990’s.

Bucks between:2003-2007: 5
Bucks between 2014-2024: 3


“The number of book bucks killed from 2003-2007 compared to the last ten years isn’t even a comparison“ ????

Hard saying that when some of the biggest deer EVER have been shot in the last 10 years.

Those are some pretty good statistics and I can’t argue them. But I’m talking about sheer numbers of BC bucks entered, not the biggest bucks entered. In Mikes video at about the 55:30 mark- he talks about the number of bucks entered. In 2005 (28) BC bucks were entered, 2006 (25) bucks and 2007 (50) bucks were entered. That’s 103 book bucks entered in 3 years.

In 2023 (6) bucks were entered.

According to my OnX records, over the last 10 years in just Eagle county (arguably the best mule deer habitat on the planet) has only had 19 heads submitted.

So yeah, I guess it’s not even a comparison.