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

[idelkslayer]

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.

I do think that management for trophy deer is can be effective at producing larger bucks and older age classes. I just think that the gains are either marginal or not worth the lost opportunity. Limited entry hunts will probably always have a place either as special opportunities in the rut or early season, or in places where escapement is too low to support general seasons. Those would be site specific and case by case.

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

One of the reasons why I think Idaho has been successful with our OTC general season is that we moved the hunt into one of if not the most difficult time of year to find bucks; mid-October. Holding the general season in mid-October decreased hunter success rates and increased buck escapement without reducing hunter opportunity.

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.

I don't think we are at the point of needing to choose our weapon or unit in Idaho. I would also caution against shortening the season too much because that would concentrate hunters in the field at the same time, increasing perceived and real crowding. Yes deer numbers are down in Idaho and that creates a perception that too many deer are being killed but hunting isn't the cause. Hunter numbers in Idaho have gone down for the last 5 years in response to the reduced deer herd. That's the beauty of OTC seasons, a lot of hunters just sit out when the hunting gets tough but they will be back when numbers go back up.

I would prefer your solution to a limited entry model if I felt it was time for such a change.

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!

It's not so much that I am advocating for higher quotas and more general seasons as I am advocating against having more limited entry seasons. I am reacting to the constant calls for more tag limits when I think those solutions don't address our current situation.

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

You already responded to a comment that would have matched mine but I will just say that my point is that the cost of managing for bucks older than 4.5 is not worth it in my eyes. It requires making hundreds of hunters sit out so that a few dozen hunters can shoot a deer that is marginally bigger. I didn't intend to give the idea that I think bucks peak at 4.5 years old. Some do and some don't. Some bucks never break 150 inches no matter how long they live. Some can be 180 inches at 3.5 years old.

I’ve spent some time with guys who manage for big wild deer, they won’t kill a muley under 7 and have harvested several gov tag bucks up to 240.. he said you have to get 10 to 5 to kill 2 at 8 just because they get so hard to kill and many die post rut.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is an example of the cost of trophy management that I think goes too far. They have to get 10 deer to age 5 in order to get 2 deer to live to age 8. There are a lot of good bucks dying along the way of natural causes and a lot of lost opportunity for people to get out and hunt so that 2 people can kill a giant.

It’s also not sustainable, I’m guessing you’ll act like the rest of the locals and blame non residents next, while refusing to allow for any change.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have to ask what you mean by sustainable. Current low deer numbers are not the result of unsustainable hunting pressure. High deer numbers are unsustainable when heavy winters come along and kill them in large numbers. As long as we have winterkill we will need to understand that deer populations will continue to rise and fall. Treating every dip in population as an emergency that requires drastic management changes is not helpful. In Idaho hunter numbers seem to rise and fall naturally with the deer herd. There are nearly 20,000 fewer deer hunters pressuring our herd now than there were 5 years ago and we didn't have to create any limited entry hunts or choose your unit/weapon to do it. (We did eliminate most antlerless opportunity)

I don't blame NR hunters. I will push back against change when I think that no change is needed.

 

[WRO]

You already responded to a comment that would have matched mine but I will just say that my point is that the cost of managing for bucks older than 4.5 is not worth it in my eyes. It requires making hundreds of hunters sit out so that a few dozen hunters can shoot a deer that is marginally bigger. I didn't intend to give the idea that I think bucks peak at 4.5 years old. Some do and some don't. Some bucks never break 150 inches no matter how long they live. Some can be 180 inches at 3.5 years old.


This is an example of the cost of trophy management that I think goes too far. They have to get 10 deer to age 5 in order to get 2 deer to live to age 8. There are a lot of good bucks dying along the way of natural causes and a lot of lost opportunity for people to get out and hunt so that 2 people can kill a giant.


I have to ask what you mean by sustainable. Current low deer numbers are not the result of unsustainable hunting pressure. High deer numbers are unsustainable when heavy winters come along and kill them in large numbers. As long as we have winterkill we will need to understand that deer populations will continue to rise and fall. Treating every dip in population as an emergency that requires drastic management changes is not helpful. In Idaho hunter numbers seem to rise and fall naturally with the deer herd. There are nearly 20,000 fewer deer hunters pressuring our herd now than there were 5 years ago and we didn't have to create any limited entry hunts or choose your unit/weapon to do it. (We did eliminate most antlerless opportunity)

The whole state is basically managed for opportunity, there are very few opportunities for a good limited opportunity, or better than otc opportunity.

Your winter kill analogy is broken, if you 50% of 1000 die you have 500 if 50% of 2000 die your left with 1000. Winter will disproportionately kill the young and old.

If you look at the popular OTC units on the western side of the state, the numbers have increased every year almost. Where are you finding 20K less deer hunters?

As hunter numbers plummet across the U.S., Idaho sets records — for now

For years, hunting advocates have been sounding the alarm as

www.spokesman.com

It seems like we’re getting more residents, selling more tags, and our sport is increasing.

 

[AHayes111]

I’ve spent some time with guys who manage for big wild deer, they won’t kill a muley under 7 and have harvested several gov tag bucks up to 240.. he said you have to get 10 to 5 to kill 2 at 8 just because they get so hard to kill and many die post rut.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would agree with that if your only goal is to harvest the biggest bucks possible, As much as I like big deer, I don't think that that should be the goal of game departments.

 

[WRO]

I would agree with that if your only goal is to harvest the biggest bucks possible, As much as I like big deer, I don't think that that should be the goal of game departments.

I’d agree that it shouldn’t be the main goal, but there should atleast be a few opportunities for those that want to.. Idaho only has a couple units that are managed for quality and numbers.

 

[CorbLand]

I’d agree that it shouldn’t be the main goal, but there should atleast be a few opportunities for those that want to.. Idaho only has a couple units that are managed for quality and numbers.

What is your definition of "a few?"

 

[AHayes111]

I’d agree that it shouldn’t be the main goal, but there should atleast be a few opportunities for those that want to.. Idaho only has a couple units that are managed for quality and numbers.

Agree, There could be very good reasons to have an age structure that contains at least some older bucks in all units. I could be wrong but, my gut tells me that it is best for the heard if the bucks doing the buck of the breeding have proved their worth by surviving a hard winter or two, drought and predators for four or five years. Managing for big deer, no. Managing for a healthy age structure, yes.

 

[idelkslayer]

The whole state is basically managed for opportunity, there are very few opportunities for a good limited opportunity, or better than otc opportunity.

Your winter kill analogy is broken, if you 50% of 1000 die you have 500 if 50% of 2000 die your left with 1000. Winter will disproportionately kill the young and old.

If you look at the popular OTC units on the western side of the state, the numbers have increased every year almost. Where are you finding 20K less deer hunters?

As hunter numbers plummet across the U.S., Idaho sets records — for now

For years, hunting advocates have been sounding the alarm as

www.spokesman.com

It seems like we’re getting more residents, selling more tags, and our sport is increasing.

Yes the majority of the state is managed for opportunity and I want it to stay that way.

The article you cited is over 4 years old. Whatever bump in hunter numbers we saw in 2020 is gone now.
I took a handful of western Idaho units and looked at hunter numbers now and 5 years ago. Statewide numbers are in the bottom row.

Unit	2016​	2020​	2023​
22​	1576​	1232​	1093​
31​	1227​	1222​	1102​
32​	3608​	2589​	2447​
39​	10960​	11208​	10032​
Statewide mule deer hunters	96728​	88603​	73316​

Hunter numbers have been decreasing statewide and are decreasing or stable in my random sample of western Idaho units. Is there a unit I should look at as an example of increasing hunting pressure?

 

[cbeard64]

I think history has shown that every type of management has an effect. You can manage for more hunters (more tags), less hunters (fewer tags), or something in between using other techniques (weapons restrictions, changing season dates, etc., etc…)

But when it comes to ungulate management, there is no solution that allows hunters to have their cake and eat it too i.e. more opportunities and better bucks. It just doesn’t work that way.

 

[WRO]

Yes the majority of the state is managed for opportunity and I want it to stay that way.

The article you cited is over 4 years old. Whatever bump in hunter numbers we saw in 2020 is gone now.
I took a handful of western Idaho units and looked at hunter numbers now and 5 years ago. Statewide numbers are in the bottom row.

Unit	2016​	2020​	2023​
22​	1576​	1232​	1093​
31​	1227​	1222​	1102​
32​	3608​	2589​	2447​
39​	10960​	11208​	10032​
Statewide mule deer hunters	96728​	88603​	73316​

Hunter numbers have been decreasing statewide and are decreasing or stable in my random sample of western Idaho units. Is there a unit I should look at as an example of increasing hunting pressure?

Where did you find the total tag numbers at?

Interesting data set and I learned something, thank you. Interestingly enough total hunter days looking through the stats didn’t change much.