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

[ColoradoV]

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.

So you had to be against moving all the season forward a few years ago just to help the elk hunters at least?

That change for sure 100% impacted archery deer guys negatively and made a crowding issue for archery deer guys as well as muzzy and rifle early deer. Also CPW will say it was a reason for moving all the seasons back as that is undeniable..

Also since I have killed 2 of my last 3 bucks on the last day or the day before the end of the season. 28th of sept on 2 and this year it was the 27th of sept or 2 days before closing... I guess the earlier is easier opinion is also not valid in all cases..

Good luck hashing it out boys I am heading skiing w my girls as that damn buck will not drop his head gear today it looks like. Also one last velvet pic of the buck I shot on Sept 27th of this year as well they all seem to look better to me in velvet rather than hard horned..

 

[dirtytough]

Also since I have killed 2 of my last 3 bucks on the last day or the day before the end of the season. 28th of sept on 2 and this year it was the 27th of sept or 2 days before closing... I guess the earlier is easier opinion is also not valid in all cases..

That data point convinced me it’s easier to kill mature mule deer in September than August.

So let’s move the early rifle hunts to the 3rd week of August, the muzzy to the 4th week of August, and leave archery the month of September. I’m sure the archery deer hunters would love that change. Less pressure when they are hunting and they keep the better season dates.

And since the success rates should lower for early rifle and muzzy hunters, tag numbers should be able to stay the same or even increase on those hunts.

Seems like a win win win.

 

[littlebigtine]

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..

I dont think Im as old as you but I know of handful of deer from a general unit in Idaho that will never be entered as well. That is my buddys decision. He doesnt have social media, doesnt hang on rokslide, and good for him.
That being said, I think it is naive to assume that the only reason somebody enters a deer into b+c is for notoriety. No doubt it is a tough question as to whether it will burn a spot and I personally have never had the issue so I cant speak on that much.
However, I think that what b+c does is more important than just recognize a hunter who shot a big buck. It is north americas single biggest data set on the ebb and flow of all big game specie’s health and vitality. If everybody bought in and participated, which is a big if, no other dataset in history can glean a comparable amount of factual data.
No matter how many bucks you shot or time youve spent in the hills, your experience is just one mans, in one place, at one time. B+c is astronomically more informative than your own opinion. Don't take that personally because that goes for everybody. I am really just trying to make a case for entering big bucks rather than hiding them in the shadows because ultimately I believe Boone and Crocket records will only help mule deer conservation on the whole rather than hurt. Its a selfish decision to keep that information from the rest of the population, but I am not saying that I wouldn’t be selfish if I shot a special deer in a general unit in the west.

Question for you:

Do you think that as the 21st century has dragged on that less and less people are actually willing to show others their trophies? Obviously not the case on social media and rokslide but what about the people that dont participate in the fanfare? Could that explain a dip in B+C entries? Maybe, there are just as many big bucks these days as there have ever been? How does anybody really know? Like I said to start, I have a buddy who, as far as I know, had the most unofficial inches of antler out of general units in Idaho from 2018-2022. Nobody saw these deer like the deer that get shared on rokslide or instagram these days. There has to be more guys out there that share his mindset and dont post their deer.
Is that a good thing for mule deer conservation from the 10,000 ft view? This is a very nuanced issue and I honestly see both sides of the coin equally.

 

[idelkslayer]

Question for you:

Do you think that as the 21st century has dragged on that less and less people are actually willing to show others their trophies? Obviously not the case on social media and rokslide but what about the people that dont participate in the fanfare? Could that explain a dip in B+C entries? Maybe, there are just as many big bucks these days as there have ever been? How does anybody really know? Like I said to start, I have a buddy who, as far as I know, had the most unofficial inches of antler out of general units in Idaho from 2018-2022. Nobody saw these deer like the deer that get shared on rokslide or instagram these days. There has to be more guys out there that share his mindset and dont post their deer.
Is that a good thing for mule deer conservation from the 10,000 ft view? This is a very nuanced issue and I honestly see both sides of the coin equally.

It is hard to answer your question. At first glance I would say that the sense of scarcity today would make hunters less likely to give away their unit by entering a buck in the books. However, I wasn't around in the 50's, 60's, and 70's to see how many big bucks were and were not being entered in the books for comparison. I agree with your point about the value of a large data set but I think modern technology has offered a better metric than antler size. We now have the ability to cementum tooth age deer.

As hunters we often use antler size as a substitute for maturity when talking about bucks but there is enough research on that to know it doesn't work very well. A lot of bucks will never be bigger than 160 no matter how old they get and some younger deer can grow large antlers. If we want to manage for age class, then we should manage for age class using the best tool for determining age and that is tooth aging. I've posted links to this study before but it bears repeating. It is for whitetail but based on what I have seen and heard from mule deer biologists, the same principles apply to mule deer.

Clearwater wildlife blog series: Installment #3- White-tailed deer teeth results

Now that year 1 of the north-Idaho deer aging study results are back from the lab, we were able to analyze some of the results and provide a short summary for you to enjoy! Take a peek at this write-up & video!

idfg.idaho.gov

It should be noted that females can be harvested in both of the cited units, but looking at the harvest data shows that they are killed at a much lower rate than bucks. Notice that the age curve for females very closely matches the age curve on bucks even though they get a lot less harvest pressure. This suggests that bucks would similarly drop off even with reduced harvest pressure. Next, compare the 9.5 yr old buck to the 3.5 year old buck. It demonstrates why management decisions shouldn't be based on B&C scoring. B&C score can be a component of the discussion but it shouldn't be the focus.

I would fully support a tag fee increase that would fund more tooth aging of deer. I think it is the only way to objectively monitor buck escapement from age 2.5 and beyond. The data could be used by both sides of the trophy management debate. If a general season unit is consistently producing some 5.5 and older deer then you will have a hard time convincing me that tag restrictions are needed. If tooth aging shows that a 4.5 year old buck is rare to non existent then you have a case for reducing hunting pressure.

 

[huntem]

Interesting perspectives and opinions in this post, I can't say I have the correct answer or solution. I do know I'm looking forward to possibly drawing in Utah this fall. The area I will be hunting is in a rifle restricted unit. I pulled my dad's M70 in -06 out of the safe and been enjoying the range time with the old girl.

 

[Customweld]

As hunters we often use antler size as a substitute for maturity when talking about bucks but there is enough research on that to know it doesn't work very well. A lot of bucks will never be bigger than 160 no matter how old they get and some younger deer can grow large antlers. If we want to manage for age class, then we should manage for age class using the best tool for determining age and that is tooth aging. I've posted links to this study before but it bears repeating. It is for whitetail but based on what I have seen and heard from mule deer biologists, the same principles apply to mule deer.

I think unit 18 and 14 are great examples of this line of thought. Both have been managed as controlled hunts, (leave the last few years out for 14) with no supplemental apr hunts. Neither boast a large amount of true, trophy muley bucks. Yes, there are few that turn up, but for units that have been controlled for 3+ decades, exceedingly few bucks are trophy class. Now there are (or used to be) a good number of mature bucks that are in 18. But you are correct that mature doesn't always mean 180" plus.

 

[littlebigtine]

It is hard to answer your question. At first glance I would say that the sense of scarcity today would make hunters less likely to give away their unit by entering a buck in the books. However, I wasn't around in the 50's, 60's, and 70's to see how many big bucks were and were not being entered in the books for comparison. I agree with your point about the value of a large data set but I think modern technology has offered a better metric than antler size. We now have the ability to cementum tooth age deer.

As hunters we often use antler size as a substitute for maturity when talking about bucks but there is enough research on that to know it doesn't work very well. A lot of bucks will never be bigger than 160 no matter how old they get and some younger deer can grow large antlers. If we want to manage for age class, then we should manage for age class using the best tool for determining age and that is tooth aging. I've posted links to this study before but it bears repeating. It is for whitetail but based on what I have seen and heard from mule deer biologists, the same principles apply to mule deer.

Clearwater wildlife blog series: Installment #3- White-tailed deer teeth results

Now that year 1 of the north-Idaho deer aging study results are back from the lab, we were able to analyze some of the results and provide a short summary for you to enjoy! Take a peek at this write-up & video!

idfg.idaho.gov

It should be noted that females can be harvested in both of the cited units, but looking at the harvest data shows that they are killed at a much lower rate than bucks. Notice that the age curve for females very closely matches the age curve on bucks even though they get a lot less harvest pressure. This suggests that bucks would similarly drop off even with reduced harvest pressure. Next, compare the 9.5 yr old buck to the 3.5 year old buck. It demonstrates why management decisions shouldn't be based on B&C scoring. B&C score can be a component of the discussion but it shouldn't be the focus.

I would fully support a tag fee increase that would fund more tooth aging of deer. I think it is the only way to objectively monitor buck escapement from age 2.5 and beyond. The data could be used by both sides of the trophy management debate. If a general season unit is consistently producing some 5.5 and older deer then you will have a hard time convincing me that tag restrictions are needed. If tooth aging shows that a 4.5 year old buck is rare to non existent then you have a case for reducing hunting pressure.

100% agree that age doesnt equal antler size, but if the condition of the mother does have a link to antler size than historical b+c data can be a clue into habitat quality. Obviously weather plays a large role in this as well. Either way I still view B+C as a net useful dataset to get a glimpse into the quality of the herd overtime. Maybe in the future when fish and game agencies have more funding and continue their great work , we will have a even greater dataset to use when looking at trends and patterns.

Thanks for this post btw, great topic and some great points continue to be brought up. Makes me optimistic about the future for Mule Deer.