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

OP
I
Joined
Jan 17, 2013
Messages
537
Location
Idaho
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

WKR
Joined
Nov 6, 2013
Messages
3,646
Location
Idaho
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?


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

AHayes111

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Jun 7, 2024
Messages
131
Location
SE MT
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

WKR
Joined
Nov 6, 2013
Messages
3,646
Location
Idaho
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

WKR
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
8,469
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

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Jun 7, 2024
Messages
131
Location
SE MT
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.
 
OP
I
Joined
Jan 17, 2013
Messages
537
Location
Idaho
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?


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​
74503​

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

WKR
Joined
Sep 8, 2016
Messages
412
Location
Corsicana, Texas
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

WKR
Joined
Nov 6, 2013
Messages
3,646
Location
Idaho
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.
 
OP
I
Joined
Jan 17, 2013
Messages
537
Location
Idaho
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.
The unit specific information is from the harvest data on IDFG website. Since some hunters hunt multiple units they are counted multiple times in those stats. For total numbers and historical info I look through old management reports on the IDFG website. Those don't get updated often enough but IDFG has been publishing these articles for the last decade or so. I have been pulling my most recent data from them. It appears that I got the total mule deer hunter number wrong for 2023. I found a different IDFG article that gives the number as 74,503. I had calculated it based on the total mule deer harvest and overall success rate in a different article. The error is probably due to rounding in the published success rate. I will correct it in my previous post but I mention it here so everyone knows that I am aware that I can be wrong.

I think the total hunter days reflects increased effort by those who are still hunting. Bucks have been harder to find and the people that are still getting after it are a little more motivated. I think this partly contributes to the feeling of crowding that many have felt the last few years. More days in the field and moving around more to find game makes for more opportunities to run into other hunters.

Here are a couple of the annual harvest articles I referred to above:
For the 2023 season

For the 2020 season

Here is a table from a management report showing 2016 and 2017 mule deer hunter numbers:
1739917711528.png
 
Joined
Sep 13, 2016
Messages
2,539
Location
Idaho
The unit specific information is from the harvest data on IDFG website. Since some hunters hunt multiple units they are counted multiple times in those stats. For total numbers and historical info I look through old management reports on the IDFG website. Those don't get updated often enough but IDFG has been publishing these articles for the last decade or so. I have been pulling my most recent data from them. It appears that I got the total mule deer hunter number wrong for 2023. I found a different IDFG article that gives the number as 74,503. I had calculated it based on the total mule deer harvest and overall success rate in a different article. The error is probably due to rounding in the published success rate. I will correct it in my previous post but I mention it here so everyone knows that I am aware that I can be wrong.

I think the total hunter days reflects increased effort by those who are still hunting. Bucks have been harder to find and the people that are still getting after it are a little more motivated. I think this partly contributes to the feeling of crowding that many have felt the last few years. More days in the field and moving around more to find game makes for more opportunities to run into other hunters.

Here are a couple of the annual harvest articles I referred to above:
For the 2023 season

For the 2020 season

Here is a table from a management report showing 2016 and 2017 mule deer hunter numbers:
View attachment 841697
That bottom table really shows how hard that winter hit.
 
OP
I
Joined
Jan 17, 2013
Messages
537
Location
Idaho
Robby recently posted a podcast and thread for discussing it here:

It was a good discussion with one of the members of the Southeast Idaho mule deer advisory committee. They talk about the proposed changes for Idaho mule deer and Robby does a great job talking about the pros and cons. Robby also brought up the history of the unit XX controlled hunt and I was curious so I looked at the statistics of the unit before and after it was a controlled hunt.

From 2001 to 2007 as a general hunt it averaged 750 hunters, 199 bucks killed, 28.2% 4pt. Which calculates out to 56 4 pt bucks killed.

From 2008 to 2023 as a controlled hunt it averaged 191 hunters, 96 bucks killed, 62.9% 4pt. Which calculates to 68 4 pt bucks killed. Drawing odds last year were 24%. So on average you may get to hunt it every 4 years.

I would absolutely love to hunt a unit with the stats that unit XX has put up. I would point out though, that it has seen the same variations due to hard winters as the surrounding general units. Success rates went from 86% in 2016 to 30% in 2023. %4pt has varied from 37% to 79%. I also look at the trade off. On average, 500 hunters had to go elsewhere or quit so that an additional 12 4 pt bucks could be killed per year. I can acknowledge that the bucks being killed may be older and bigger than the 4 pt bucks that were killed under the general season structure but it is still a big trade off in opportunity for an extra year or two of age class and 12 bucks.

Having a limited entry unit here and there is not a big deal to me. It is nice to have some areas that see less pressure and offer a high quality hunt. Not to sound like a broken record or anything but I am just raising a voice of caution about pushing for more limited entry management. And to maybe consider reopening some controlled hunts to general seasons, maybe as muzzleloader or open sight rifle seasons.

The general season structure in Idaho works well. You can have a quality hunt in general seasons with a little (or a lot) of hard work. You can still find deer and get away from other hunters, and sometimes you share the mountain with others, it happens in controlled hunts too.

And Robby mentioned some great new updates that Fawn: Doe ratios are at some of the highest ever recorded and buck:doe ratios are also up after the mild 23-24 winter and good summer moisture. A couple more years of that and there will be so many bucks that we won't care about the other hunters.
 

stan_wa

WKR
Joined
Aug 6, 2020
Messages
365
Location
Washington
I like the idea of keeping some limited hunts but upping the tag number to the ideal ballance of deer production.
Having a handful of awesome hunts are fun to dream about but being able
To have a decent hunt every year is living the real dream.

All and all op I really like your approach and mostly agree !
 

stan_wa

WKR
Joined
Aug 6, 2020
Messages
365
Location
Washington
both studies provide circumstantial evidence that increasing the proportion of adult male deer in the population came at the expense of population productivity."
This aligns well several rok cast and GOHUNT podcast
And it make sense logically. If there are less bucks per / 100 does
There is by definition a higher % of does. A higher percentage of does can allow a % higher fawn crop .

But what I’m wondering is does the total number of deer in the herd go up or down?
 

ColoradoV

WKR
Joined
Nov 10, 2013
Messages
573
Just because someone doesn't care about shooting a booner doesn't mean he's out blasting forkys.

Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatak

I dont doubt you will not but from what I have seen w unlimited licenses comes unlimited harvest of younger bucks...

Never seen a buck get even a bit bigger when killed as a forkie.. In the best years in Colorado we had age class or young, med, and old bucks all hanging out together. With the late season changes that only happens in places like around my house or other private hang outs as the age class.

I get where you want opportunity to hunt every year but if you want age class something has to give and that is the every year hunt for everyone.

This guy is here today as I drink my coffee maybe he will ditch the head gear today and I will go w my girls to pick them up.. For me I get enough enjoyment out of other things outside that I dont have to have a rifle or bow to enjoy my time outdoors or heading skiing later. So when I hunt (again I am lucky enough to do every year) I would rather hunt bigger bucks ..


IMG_1474.jpeg
 

ColoradoV

WKR
Joined
Nov 10, 2013
Messages
573
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.


Dude I have seen well a few "big" bucks killed since the mid 80's and no one and I mean no one I know is silly or ego driven enough to put bucks (s) in that stupid book... In certain circles it just does not happen..




IMG_1773.jpeg

I agree with your post except this part is confusing.

If moving all seasons forward 3 weeks it’s going to make it way tougher to kill with a rifle which is the goal. But then it’ll make it way easier during archery.

Since you are an archery hunter it seems like you are promoting what’s best for you. I’m assuming that’s not what you are doing so what’s your reason for moving all seasons earlier? Why not just rifle season?

I hunt em all but yea you are correct as if you have been out there ya know = on August 7 the horns would not be fully formed here in Colorado that would be true for 80%+ of the bucks on August 15th... Since Colorado does not think bowhunters are a valid management tool I guess it is a moot point ya made. It would be more enjoyable as now they have stacked a bunch of seasons on top of each other when the "elk only" CBA choose to move the season back to supposedly help the elk hunters and the crowding out there is noticeable now with archers sometimes getting less that a week before the high power rifles show up. Also undeniably a reason all the seasons got moved back another week... Something to think about for all season structure.....

I read a few points since my last posts and nothing changed my mind as I can only think of one place that is unlimited licenses (only for residents) that still produces good to great bucks and I will not name the units but the terrain and limited population of the state makes this unrealistic other places..

Or ya can't beat totally limited licenses from where I sit and how I hunt as again I hunt great bucks every single year here in Colorado and if you dont its not the CPW's fault..
 
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
2,523
Dude I have seen well a few "big" bucks killed since the mid 80's and no one and I mean no one I know is silly or ego driven enough to put bucks (s) in that stupid book... In certain circles it just does not happen..
View attachment 844014



I hunt em all but yea you are correct as if you have been out there ya know = on August 7 the horns would not be fully formed here in Colorado that would be true for 80%+ of the bucks on August 15th... Since Colorado does not think bowhunters are a valid management tool I guess it is a moot point ya made. It would be more enjoyable as now they have stacked a bunch of seasons on top of each other when the "elk only" CBA choose to move the season back to supposedly help the elk hunters and the crowding out there is noticeable now with archers sometimes getting less that a week before the high power rifles show up. Also undeniably a reason all the seasons got moved back another week... Something to think about for all season structure.....

I read a few points since my last posts and nothing changed my mind as I can only thing of one place that is unlimited licenses (only for residents) that still produces good to great bucks and I will not name the units but the terrain and limited population of the state makes this unrealistic other places..

Or ya can't beat totally limited licenses from where I sit and how I hunt as again I hunt great bucks every single year here in Colorado and if you dont its not the CPW's fault..

Gotcha. So make it harder for rifle hunters and easier for archery hunters.
 

ColoradoV

WKR
Joined
Nov 10, 2013
Messages
573
Gotcha. So make it harder for rifle hunters and easier for archery hunters.

So you hate archery or something inform me how it would make it easier than it is now I am not following your logic? A week or so earlier start (back to what it was for what 20 years) would just spread things out and limit the over crowding that is happening many places now it would not make it any easier to find or kill em that stays the same.

So again how would it get easier? Inform me..

Easier is these very late rut tags.. Or for an example I went on the holy of holy units w my 76 year old father during the latest of late seasons a few years ago. Way easier than archery not even the same class of hunt passed a few 190" type bucks.. We decided on a 34" wide 220" buck boom or bust but my father would not shoot over 350 yards w his pre 64 30-06 so when we had the buck at 432 I just took pics.. Easy peasy hunt for a 76 year old.. Much easier for us 50 year old pups..

Easy is late not early man..


IMG_1643.jpeg
 
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
2,523
So you hate archery or something inform me how it would make it easier than it is now I am not following your logic? A week or so earlier start would just spread things out and limit the over crowding that is happening many places now it would not make it any easier to find or kill em that stays the same.

So again how would it get easier? Inform me..
I don’t hate archery at all. I archery, muzzy, and rifle hunt.

First you said move the season 3 weeks back for all weapons. Not 1 week.

If the goal is to change the season so the mature bucks aren’t getting hunted when they are the most vulnerable yep moving the season out of the rut helps. But moving any season into August doesn’t. That would just allow archers more time to kill them before they get harder to hunt.

You and I both know mule deer are easier to hunt in August versus September. Not sure why you are denying it.

I’m not a big fan of making it easier on one group while making it harder on another.
 
Top