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

[idelkslayer]

This is an interesting turn in the discussion. Does anyone know how the B&C minimum scores were decided? Were they trying to include only the top 1%, 0.1%, or some other threshold? Or was it more arbitrary than that? What factors have influenced what we consider to be a trophy buck? I started this post to discuss the trade-offs and implications of trophy management. What constitutes a trophy is definitely a part of the conversation.

According to those who voted in the thread below, most roksliders think a 160 inch buck would be in the top 7% or less of deer harvested. Is there any other activity where you would be disappointed to be in the top 5-7%?

Thread 'In what percentile is a HARVESTED 160 inch buck on a general unit?'

Jun 15, 2024

We got talking on another thread on here about how common a mature buck is. On a general unit how rare is a harvested 160 inch buck? For sure different areas or different states will have a little higher percentage, not but without getting to specific and anal I'm just talking overall.

• Schoolhousegrizz
• Replies: 55
• Forum: Mule Deer

Maybe hunters in general need a recalibration of what constitutes a trophy. It seems that a 165" buck is trophy especially if he is over 5 years old. Would anyone say that the 9 yr old buck in the quoted post below is not a worthy animal to put a tag on since it only scored 169"? What about the 6 yr old that scored 163" vs the 5 yr old that scored 176"?

How much does trophy management move the needle in terms of percentage of bucks over ### inches of antler?

I have lab aged all my bucks shot since 2021 along with a couple buddies from central idaho units known for good genetics in Idaho.

2020- 186”- 5-7yrs old
2021- 169”- 9 yrs old
2022- 176”- 8 yrs old
2022- 176”- 5 yrs old
2023- 163”- 6 yrs old
2023- 136”- 4 yrs old
2024- 167”- 7 yrs old

Thanks for sharing. That is pretty incredible, 3 hunters (assumed 3 based on you and a "couple buddies") over 4 seasons killed 6 bucks over 5 years old. The range of ages and scores is informative. And this in a general unit and during a series of poor survival years.

 

[idelkslayer]

I'm going to call back to one of the data points in the OP. What is everyone's thoughts on the Colorado study that found an inverse relationship between buck : doe ratios and fawn : doe ratios?

To quote from the study:

"Two evaluations of Colorado's harvest management decisions have occurred (Bishop et al. 2005, Bergman et al. 2011). Each of these was an evaluation of restrictions to deer hunting, and primarily within this, restrictions on the hunting of adult male deer. In each case, as harvest was restricted, an increase in adult male:adult female ratios was observed. In particular, ratios increased by as many as 4.52 adult males per 100 adult females in one study (Bishop et al. 2005) and by as many as 21.86 adult males per 100 adult females in the other study (Bergman et al. 2011). However, simultaneous declines in fawn:adult female ratios were observed as part of each study. Declines were as high as 6.96 fawns per 100 adult females (Bergman et al. 2011) and 7.51 fawns per 100 adult females (Bishop et al. 2005). While neither study was a direct experimental evaluation of intraspecific competition or density dependence, both studies provide circumstantial evidence that increasing the proportion of adult male deer in the population came at the expense of population productivity. Interaction between the male, female, and young components of populations, similar to that presented by Bishop et al. (2005) and Bergman et al. (2011), can result in second order feedback effects that are non-trivial (Mysterud et al. 2002). If lowered fawn:adult female ratios can be interpreted as an indicator of suppressed population growth, the studies of Bishop et al. (2005) and Bergman et al. (2011) may provide evidence that harvest decisions that change the sex and age structure of deer herds to favor mature animals may have a regulating effect — thereby slowing the rate of population growth (dN/dt) by reducing the per capita rate of change (R) in our conceptual model. Moreover, at a given population size (N), a herd with a higher proportion of males has a lower reproductive potential because it has a lower proportion of females. In the event of stochastic reductions in K due to harsh winters, die-offs in herds with a higher proportion of males may experience delayed rebounding (i.e. sex ratio may have a regulating effect on population growth). Colorado's current statewide ratio of total males to adult females, when weighted by herd size, is 33.4 adult males per 100 adult females (Colorado Parks and Wildlife unpubl.). However, it is unknown if sex ratios at this level have a regulating effect."

https://nsojournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2981/wlb.00012

It seems like there is a lot that isn't understood but future research could be targeted at understanding why fawn ratios go down, the long term effect of lower fawn ratios, and where is the tipping point between high buck : doe ratios that precipitates a decline in fawn : doe ratios.

 

[Steve O]

I don’t know, but with my own eyes I can say that I’ve looked at “thousands” of Idaho bucks and only have seen less than 5 net typicals and zero net nontypicals.

This I believe. I am constantly amazed at what people “think” B&C minimum animals look like. They are incredibly rare. Incredibly.

 

[littlebigtine]

I'm going to call back to one of the data points in the OP. What is everyone's thoughts on the Colorado study that found an inverse relationship between buck : doe ratios and fawn : doe ratios?

To quote from the study:

"Two evaluations of Colorado's harvest management decisions have occurred (Bishop et al. 2005, Bergman et al. 2011). Each of these was an evaluation of restrictions to deer hunting, and primarily within this, restrictions on the hunting of adult male deer. In each case, as harvest was restricted, an increase in adult male:adult female ratios was observed. In particular, ratios increased by as many as 4.52 adult males per 100 adult females in one study (Bishop et al. 2005) and by as many as 21.86 adult males per 100 adult females in the other study (Bergman et al. 2011). However, simultaneous declines in fawn:adult female ratios were observed as part of each study. Declines were as high as 6.96 fawns per 100 adult females (Bergman et al. 2011) and 7.51 fawns per 100 adult females (Bishop et al. 2005). While neither study was a direct experimental evaluation of intraspecific competition or density dependence, both studies provide circumstantial evidence that increasing the proportion of adult male deer in the population came at the expense of population productivity. Interaction between the male, female, and young components of populations, similar to that presented by Bishop et al. (2005) and Bergman et al. (2011), can result in second order feedback effects that are non-trivial (Mysterud et al. 2002). If lowered fawn:adult female ratios can be interpreted as an indicator of suppressed population growth, the studies of Bishop et al. (2005) and Bergman et al. (2011) may provide evidence that harvest decisions that change the sex and age structure of deer herds to favor mature animals may have a regulating effect — thereby slowing the rate of population growth (dN/dt) by reducing the per capita rate of change (R) in our conceptual model. Moreover, at a given population size (N), a herd with a higher proportion of males has a lower reproductive potential because it has a lower proportion of females. In the event of stochastic reductions in K due to harsh winters, die-offs in herds with a higher proportion of males may experience delayed rebounding (i.e. sex ratio may have a regulating effect on population growth). Colorado's current statewide ratio of total males to adult females, when weighted by herd size, is 33.4 adult males per 100 adult females (Colorado Parks and Wildlife unpubl.). However, it is unknown if sex ratios at this level have a regulating effect."

https://nsojournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2981/wlb.00012

It seems like there is a lot that isn't understood but future research could be targeted at understanding why fawn ratios go down, the long term effect of lower fawn ratios, and where is the tipping point between high buck : doe ratios that precipitates a decline in fawn :

This is an interesting turn in the discussion. Does anyone know how the B&C minimum scores were decided? Were they trying to include only the top 1%, 0.1%, or some other threshold? Or was it more arbitrary than that? What factors have influenced what we consider to be a trophy buck? I started this post to discuss the trade-offs and implications of trophy management. What constitutes a trophy is definitely a part of the conversation.

According to those who voted in the thread below, most roksliders think a 160 inch buck would be in the top 7% or less of deer harvested. Is there any other activity where you would be disappointed to be in the top 5-7%?

Thread 'In what percentile is a HARVESTED 160 inch buck on a general unit?'

Jun 15, 2024

We got talking on another thread on here about how common a mature buck is. On a general unit how rare is a harvested 160 inch buck? For sure different areas or different states will have a little higher percentage, not but without getting to specific and anal I'm just talking overall.

• Schoolhousegrizz
• Replies: 55
• Forum: Mule Deer

Maybe hunters in general need a recalibration of what constitutes a trophy. It seems that a 165" buck is trophy especially if he is over 5 years old. Would anyone say that the 9 yr old buck in the quoted post below is not a worthy animal to put a tag on since it only scored 169"? What about the 6 yr old that scored 163" vs the 5 yr old that scored 176"?

How much does trophy management move the needle in terms of percentage of bucks over ### inches of antler?



Thanks for sharing. That is pretty incredible, 3 hunters (assumed 3 based on you and a "couple buddies") over 4 seasons killed 6 bucks over 5 years old. The range of ages and scores is informative. And this in a general unit and during a series of poor survival years.

I am curious if social media has “normalized” rare, exceptional animals. When I first started deer hunting I never paid attention and lately it seems like people expect every 5 year old buck to be 190”

 

[Customweld]

I am curious if social media has “normalized” rare, exceptional animals. When I first started deer hunting I never paid attention and lately it seems like people expect every 5 year old buck to be 190”

Absolutely it has. It's much like my 20 year old daughter thinks that every day should look like a IG reel. Lots of hunters desensitized by watching hours of guys killing monsters think that every fork horn is going to turn into a 200" class buck if they let it walk.

 

[robertpaulsen]

I don’t know, but with my own eyes I can say that I’ve looked at “thousands” of Idaho bucks and only have seen less than 5 net typicals and zero net nontypicals.

Is this just during hunting season or does that count scouting and winter range viewing?

 

[S.Clancy]

Haven't read it all and maybe it's been covered - but what % of say ID mule deer bucks do you folks think would have potential to make B&C if not harvested? Obviously depends on year classes, winter, feed, etc during their lifetime but as a general guess?

0.5% or less

 

[robby denning]

Is this just during hunting season or does that count scouting and winter range viewing?

All of it. During hunting season would take it down to just a couple. And I never killed any of them.

 

[robby denning]

I'm going to call back to one of the data points in the OP. What is everyone's thoughts on the Colorado study that found an inverse relationship between buck : doe ratios and fawn : doe ratios?

To quote from the study:

"Two evaluations of Colorado's harvest management decisions have occurred (Bishop et al. 2005, Bergman et al. 2011). Each of these was an evaluation of restrictions to deer hunting, and primarily within this, restrictions on the hunting of adult male deer. In each case, as harvest was restricted, an increase in adult male:adult female ratios was observed. In particular, ratios increased by as many as 4.52 adult males per 100 adult females in one study (Bishop et al. 2005) and by as many as 21.86 adult males per 100 adult females in the other study (Bergman et al. 2011). However, simultaneous declines in fawn:adult female ratios were observed as part of each study. Declines were as high as 6.96 fawns per 100 adult females (Bergman et al. 2011) and 7.51 fawns per 100 adult females (Bishop et al. 2005). While neither study was a direct experimental evaluation of intraspecific competition or density dependence, both studies provide circumstantial evidence that increasing the proportion of adult male deer in the population came at the expense of population productivity. Interaction between the male, female, and young components of populations, similar to that presented by Bishop et al. (2005) and Bergman et al. (2011), can result in second order feedback effects that are non-trivial (Mysterud et al. 2002). If lowered fawn:adult female ratios can be interpreted as an indicator of suppressed population growth, the studies of Bishop et al. (2005) and Bergman et al. (2011) may provide evidence that harvest decisions that change the sex and age structure of deer herds to favor mature animals may have a regulating effect — thereby slowing the rate of population growth (dN/dt) by reducing the per capita rate of change (R) in our conceptual model. Moreover, at a given population size (N), a herd with a higher proportion of males has a lower reproductive potential because it has a lower proportion of females. In the event of stochastic reductions in K due to harsh winters, die-offs in herds with a higher proportion of males may experience delayed rebounding (i.e. sex ratio may have a regulating effect on population growth). Colorado's current statewide ratio of total males to adult females, when weighted by herd size, is 33.4 adult males per 100 adult females (Colorado Parks and Wildlife unpubl.). However, it is unknown if sex ratios at this level have a regulating effect."

https://nsojournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2981/wlb.00012

It seems like there is a lot that isn't understood but future research could be targeted at understanding why fawn ratios go down, the long term effect of lower fawn ratios, and where is the tipping point between high buck : doe ratios that precipitates a decline in fawn : doe ratios.

Thanks for posting this up. I had heard this was out there, but that’s the first time I’ve got to read it.

I don’t know what to think, it sounds like they leave themselves a little bit of wiggle room too in drawing a conclusion,…but this is one of the reasons I say that wildlife management is sometimes counterintuitive.

I’d love to hear more on this from everybody.

 

[AHayes111]

Haven't read it all and maybe it's been covered - but what % of say ID mule deer bucks do you folks think would have potential to make B&C if not harvested? Obviously depends on year classes, winter, feed, etc during their lifetime but as a general guess?

Very interesting question. First of all, B&C considers awards book deer, but since it appears most are going with the alltime minimum of 190 and 230 In all of the thousands of sets of sheds I have found, only two would net over 190 if not broken. In the thousands of bucks I have seen, only one would likely beaten 190. And another buck likely would have come close to 230, but I didn't see him that year. The number of bucks that make the minimum is very low. much less than 1%. However you did not ask about how many will make the minimum, but how many have the potential to make the minimum. The vast majority of the bucks that have the potential to make B&C are shot when they are younger. This buck is a good example. As a four year old he grosses 194 and nets 186. Nearly all hunters would have shot him when he was a 180 inch three year old and most likely would have shot him as a 140 inch two year old. It is highly likely he would have netted better than 190 had he lived longer.

Bucks that have the potential to make B&C all time minimums. Likely not very high, my bet is 5% or less, but maybe a series of good years might increase that closer to 10%. I think back to the late 50's and early 60's. Four bucks were shot with in five miles of my house that would likely qualify. Here are pictures of three and I measured the forth. A square 32 inch buck with 18 and 20 inch G2's and not one fork under 14. Mass of less than 15 per side and a 7 inch inline kept his net right at 190. Here are pictures of the other three.