Get Better Mule Deer Hunting

[S.Clancy]

@robby denning If I’m hijacking this thread, feel free to delete this post.

@cgasner1 @S.Clancy
After listening to the HT podcast and doing some thinking about Rokcast episodes on this general topic, here’s some thoughts/concerns.

1. What management strategy IS working? My main concern is that there's NO management strategy that seems to be working and still providing good opportunity. Other states have been WAY more proactive than MT, and still seem to have a problem. Maybe not to the same degree as we do, but it seems headed in that direction. I noticed that every proposal for MT was taken from other states management. So in theory, they would yield the same results. I'm not seeing any model states for management. As in, which state or unit is doing things in such a way that most hunters can point to it and say "that's what I want my buck hunting to look like" What’s the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results…If all the MT proposals are copying other states, none of which have had good results, what are we doing here?

2. Utah MIGHT be onto something. At least they’re trying something different. I think about the heyday of the 60s. Rut hunting with very limited gear/effective range. People saw the big deer in those days BUT there was way more to it than just the limited weapons. See next paragraph

3. Don’t want to be doomsday, BUT, can’t help but notice a macro trend here. If a wide range of management strategies across the west are broadly failing to produce satisfactory results, what are we looking at? As Robby has pointed out over and over, the people/organizations that get serious about mule deer seem to all eventually come to the same conclusions. Want more/bigger deer? Create more/better habitat. Winter range carrying capacity on a bad winter year is what manages deer numbers across the west. The studies in the western WY deer herd support this as well. Good habitat yields healthy does, which yields healthy bucks and more twins, which then have maximized potential for antler growth. That being said, is that the macro trend we’re seeing all across the west? If it’s a habitat issue due to macro environmental changes, combined with urban expansion, we might be trying to stop something inevitable. Think about journals of Lewis and Clark. They saw very few mule deer. Bighorn sheep everywhere. Disease, climate and habitat change, ect definitely drives macro trends that we just can’t see in any one lifetime of hunting.

4. Robby or @Travis Hobbs or anybody else: is there anywhere currently in the west that you personally see as having an optimal mix of opportunity and buck quality? Something to use as a management case study? Can we even significantly move the needle in a long term fashion with management? Give me some hope!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

1. I think it's hard to judge management strategies strictly on bucks/big bucks, they are really dependent on habitat. I think the ultimate management strategy gives reasonable, and different, opportunities. That means a mix of LE, OTC, and species (WT and MD), if applicable.

2. The "good ol days" of UT were 8-10 bucks:doe. There is a bunch of confounding variables and biases with any states "good old days", not to mention there is very little data from those tine periods. Remember, in the "good ol days" vehicles were much less reliable than now, so there were big swaths of sanctuary areas. Not to mention ATVs, UTVs, motorcycles, shitty weapons, shitty gear (wool pants anyone?), no rangefinders, etc etc etc. these factors are all contributing.

3. I don't think any reasonable person is gonna argue that habitat is king. Unfortunately, it takes fed, state, non-profits, energy extraction, housing, etc to all get together to make noticeable changes. Unless we just stop fighting wildfires in the West, that would do it.

4. From my perspective, I think AZ does a really good job of managing deer hunting. As a NR, I could hunt deer (couse or MD) in Arizona every year, in a variety of seasons. They are also more proactive in adjusting things do to perceived pressure (OTC harvest quotas now), increasing tags quickly when herds boom, etc.

 

[Travis Hobbs]

@robby denning If I’m hijacking this thread, feel free to delete this post.

@cgasner1 @S.Clancy
After listening to the HT podcast and doing some thinking about Rokcast episodes on this general topic, here’s some thoughts/concerns.

1. What management strategy IS working? My main concern is that there's NO management strategy that seems to be working and still providing good opportunity. Other states have been WAY more proactive that MT, and still seem to have a problem. Maybe not to the same degree as we do, but it seems headed in that direction. I noticed that every proposal for MT was taken from other states management. So in theory, they would yield the same results. I'm not seeing any model states for management. As in, which state or unit is doing things in such a way that most hunters can point to it and say "that's what I want my buck hunting to look like" What’s the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results…If all the MT proposals are copying other states, none of which have had good results, what are we doing here?

2. Utah MIGHT be onto something. At least they’re trying something different. I think about the heyday of the 60s. Rut hunting with very limited gear/effective range. People saw the big deer in those days BUT there was way more to it than just the limited weapons. See next paragraph

3. Don’t want to be doomsday, BUT, can’t help but notice a macro trend here. If a wide range of management strategies across the west are broadly failing to produce satisfactory results, what are we looking at? As Robby has pointed out over and over, the people/organizations that get serious about mule deer seem to all eventually come to the same conclusions. Want more/bigger deer? Create more/better habitat. Winter range carrying capacity on a bad winter year is what manages deer numbers across the west. The studies in the western WY deer herd support this as well. Good habitat yields healthy does, which yields healthy bucks and more twins, which then have maximized potential for antler growth. That being said, is that the macro trend we’re seeing all across the west? If it’s a habitat issue due to macro environmental changes, combined with urban expansion, we might be trying to stop something inevitable. Think about journals of Lewis and Clark. They saw very few mule deer. Bighorn sheep everywhere. Disease, climate and habitat change, ect definitely drives macro trends that we just can’t see in any one lifetime of hunting.

4. Robby or @Travis Hobbs or anybody else: is there anywhere currently in the west that you personally see as having an optimal mix of opportunity and buck quality? Something to use as a management case study? Can we even significantly move the needle in a long term fashion with management? Give me some hope!

Great questions!

I got a few DM’s as well so I’ll try and put my thoughts out on it. This will be long, sorry… but I feel like it’s really good discussions to have.

I think one thing we can all agree on, Mule Deer populations are struggling pretty much across the board. I personally believe it’s death by a thousand cuts. Some “cuts” seem to be bigger in different places, or causing more effect. I think that is the key issue to tackle, and changing hunt strategies is going to have little effect on how many deer we have available on the landscape. That’s a habitat thing.

I think it is important to keep that in mind as a lot of hunters assume making adjustments to how we hunt bucks will improve populations, I think it’s two separate issues.

As far as management, and how we hunt the BUCK deer we have is where things get interesting.

If you look at almost any survey that has been conducted of mule deer hunters from various game agencies, there are two common things that are always at the top of mind for hunters-

1) Opportunity to hunt
2) Not enough Mature Bucks (this one seems to be coming up more and more)

These two issues is where things always get in the weeds, how best does a game management agency provide both is the million dollar question.

Trying to sort that all out is how you get all of the various draw systems, seasons, the timing of those seasons, amount of tags etc.

What is the best management system? Well, if you ask 100 guys you’ll get 100 different answers I guess that’s where this gets wild as it seems no one has figured it out….to me, it seems many hunters are not happy, just look at the social media page of any game agency with mule deer.

How did we get here? Most of you know, but in the 90’s and early 2000’s, tag cuts seemed to be the solution to a “shrinking resource” This naturally led to draw systems being implemented, bonus point and preference point systems (many were started in this time period) This is also the time period where you started seeing liberal hunting seasons being trimmed and cut. You also had “out of state” hunting becoming a thing. Prior to 1990 I think it was very rare, (California maybe being the exemption, those damn guys) most guys had liberal seasons in their home state, some could even get multiple tags in their “home state” why leave?

As the opportunity balloon got squeezed, lots of guys had fantastic hunting for a few years/seasons (ie colorado early 2000’s). It turns out that limiting tags grew bucks, as the quality turned up, so did the amount of hunters wanting tags. That in turn, has made draw odds longer and longer every year since their implementation. 20+ points needed with no end in sight.

It’s so crazy that now we see many units that are basically unreachable. Once in a lifetime IF you’re lucky or you got in early… a kid starting out hunting now will statistically probably NEVER draw a Strip Tag, or a Paunsuguant tag, etc, etc. even looking at “General Season” type tags they are going to be lucky to hunt 1:5 years if the trend continues.

Most of these “hard to draw” places are managed to quality extreme, and have success rates near 100%, to me, that’s not hunting, it’s a selection process. I personally have no desire for any more of it. Im tired of it, and the road we are going down with controlled hunts.

I then look at the opportunities I have lost in 20 years on just general season type tags and I wonder what will 20 more look like.

So-
If I had to pick a favorite management system I would probably pick Idaho. I like the randomness of the draw and the ability to get tags regularly.

Saying that, Idaho’s system wouldn’t work in a state like Utah or Nevada just based off population of people. So there is that wrench to throw in.

Personally, I think the opportunity to hunt often is critically important, and I am a die hard “trophy” hunter to the extreme, but I don’t need game managers to get me a big buck by cutting opportunities away from my fellow hunters.

If guys can’t go on a regular basis, they lose the desire to even care. Giant, World Class deer are available in some of the “worst” managed units still to this day, is it harder, yes!

Saying that, it is a fine line though, I don’t want OTC tags, with 4 week seasons with rifles during the rut, there has to be balance. Could there be 4 week seasons offered to bow hunters during the rut? Sure. The Wasatch Front is living breathing proof you can provide nearly unlimited opportunity and still have world class deer on the landscape. However, a lot of guys HATE that hunt, and want nothing to do with it (me included) but I think it’s a great thing for all the hunters that love it. It’s all about balance.

I think we have to remember as hunters, we are more effective than ever. The list is long, just look at the endless information at our finger tips- I have a ballistic calculator, GPS, Weather Forecast in my pocket….then I think of the weapon systems we have with unbelievable capabilities that just 20 years ago no one would have believed. QUALITY Optics, what a huge change, not to mention the advent of the rangefinder, (hardly any hunter had one 20 years ago) that alone completely changed the game. That’s not to mention things like image stabilization binoculars, thermal optics, trail cams, even our high tech clothing, boots, camping gear and packs…..These are all pretty cutting edge things hunters forget that we didn’t have 20 years ago.

To say all of that hasn’t had an effect on our success rates, ability to kill, endure in the field is just crazy talk, something has to give and I believe the give in the quality of bucks available on the landscape.

I personally love the out of the box thinking from Utah and has been on my mind a long time.

Having hunters use more primitive weapons is to me, a great thing to try and implement. To my knowledge no one has tried an “iron site” rifle season. It won’t fix deer herds, but it might just be a fantastic way to provide opportunity and quality. If it works, I hope we see states across the west implementing it in the various management systems.

If I can chase giant bucks on a regular basis, and have a chance at taking one, I’m all in! Don’t care what I have to use.

 

[realunlucky]

Idaho is currently at a balancing point-

Human population numbers haven't fully engulfed all the winter habitat.

Deer population as a whole has remained fairly stable.

Idaho has a wide array of steep and thick habitat to still grow big bucks.

Idaho has a season structure where the average resident can get a tag every year while still harboring an equal chance to hunt a limited quota tag. Keeping hunter satisfaction at middle of the spectrum.

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

 

[Jake Larsen]

Great questions!

I got a few DM’s as well so I’ll try and put my thoughts out on it. This will be long, sorry… but I feel like it’s really good discussions to have.

I think one thing we can all agree on, Mule Deer populations are struggling pretty much across the board. I personally believe it’s death by a thousand cuts. Some cuts seem to be bigger in different places, or causing more effect. I think that is the key issue to fix, and changing hunt strategies is going to have little effect on how many deer we have in growing the overall population. That’s a habitat thing. I think it is important to keep that in mind as I think a lot of hunters think making adjustments to how we hunt bucks will affect populations, I think that’s two separate issues.

As far as management, and how we hunt the buck deer that we have is where things get interesting.

If you look at almost any survey that has been conducted among mule deer hunters from various game agencies, there are two common things that are always at top of mule deer hunters wish list is-

1) Opportunity to hunt
2) Not enough Mature Bucks (this one seems to be coming up more and more)

These two issues is where things always get in the weeds, how best does a game management agency provide both is the million dollar question.

Trying to sort that all out is how you get various seasons, the timing of those seasons, amount of tags etc.

What is the best management system? Well, if you ask 100 guys you’ll probably get 100 different answers I guess that’s where this all gets wild as it seems no one has figured it out as it seems many hunters are not happy, just look at the social media page of any game agency with mule deer.

How this all started-

In the 90’s and early 2000’s, tag cuts seemed to be the solution to a “shrinking resource” This naturally led to draw systems being implemented, bonus point and preference point systems, it seemed many were started in this time period. This is also the time period where you started seeing liberal hunting seasons being trimmed. You also had “out of state” hunting becoming a thing. Prior to 1990 I think it was pretty rare, (California maybe being the exemption, those damn guys) most guys had liberal seasons in their home state, some could even get multiple tags in their “home state”.

As the opportunity balloon got squeezed, lots of guys had fantastic hunting. It turns out that limiting tags grew bucks, as the quality turned up, so did the amount of hunters wanting tags. That in turn, has made draw odds longer and longer every year since their implementation.

It’s so crazy that now we see many units that are basically unreachable. Once in a lifetime IF you’re lucky or you got in early… a kid starting out hunting now will statistically probably NEVER draw a Strip Tag, or a Paunsuguant tag, etc, etc. even looking at “General Season” type tags they are going to be lucky to hunt 1:5 years if the trend continues.

Most of these “hard to draw” places are managed to quality extreme, and have success rates near 100%, to me, that’s not hunting, it’s a selection process. I personally have no desire for any more of it. Im tired of it, and the trend we are going down.

I look at the opportunities I have lost in 20 years and I wonder what will 20 more look like.

So-
If I had to pick a favorite management system I would probably pick Idaho. I like the randomness of the draw and the ability to get tags regularly.

Saying that, Idaho’s system wouldn’t work in a state like Utah or Nevada just based off population of people. So there is that wrench to throw in.

Personally, I think the opportunity to hunt often is critically important, and I am a die hard “trophy” hunter to the extreme, but I don’t need game managers to get me a big buck by cutting opportunities away from my fellow hunters.

If guys can’t go on a regular basis, they lose the desire to even care. Giant, World Class deer are available in some of the “worst” managed units still to this day, is it harder, yes!

Saying that, it is a fine line though, I don’t want OTC tags, with 4 week seasons with rifles during the rut, there has to be balance. Could there be 4 week seasons offered to bow hunters during the rut? Sure. The Wasatch Front is living breathing proof you can provide nearly unlimited opportunity and still have world class deer on the landscape. However, a lot of guys HATE that hunt, and want nothing to do with it (me included) but I think it’s a great thing for all the hunters that love it. It’s all about balance.

I think we have to remember as hunters, we are more effective than ever. The list is long, just look at the endless information at our finger tips- I have a ballistic calculator, GPS, Weather Forecast in my pocket….then I think of the weapon systems we have with unbelievable capabilities that just 20 years ago no one would have believed. QUALITY Optics, what a huge change, not to mention the advent of the rangefinder, (hardly any hunter had one 20 years ago) that alone completely changed the game. That’s not to mention things like image stabilization binoculars, thermal optics, trail cams, even our high tech clothing, boots, camping gear and packs…..These are all pretty cutting edge things hunters forget that we didn’t have 20 years ago.

To say all of that hasn’t had an effect on our success rates, ability to kill, endure in the field is just crazy talk, something has to give and I believe the give in the quality of bucks available on the landscape.

I personally love the out of the box thinking from Utah and has been on my mind a long time.

Having hunters use more primitive weapons is to me, a great thing to try and implement. To my knowledge no one has tried an “iron site” rifle season. It won’t fix deer herds, but it might just be a fantastic way to provide opportunity and quality. If it works, I hope we see states across the west implementing it in the various management systems.

If I can chase giant bucks on a regular basis, and have a chance at taking one, I’m all in! Don’t care what I have to use.

Man you’re speaking my language

The piece of the puzzle that fell into place for me based on the Utah proposals was this:

Quality vs Opportunity is the balance we’re all after. The biggest hurdle I see to that balance is the Oct season dates. Good buck hunters are fine with it. We understand why it needs to be that way, and figure out how to hunt it. Average buck hunters just plain aren’t going to see the big bucks in that timeframe. The result seems to be that average buck hunters think the buck hunting is terrible even when it’s fairly optimized (from a management perspective). Therefore the vast majority of guys are going to push for change, and likely get it eventually, mostly in the form of limiting opportunity.

If we could put together opportunity hunts that allowed average guys to see and hunt big bucks, WITHOUT crushing them, I think it might solve this problem. You brought up the Wasatch. Maybe it needs to be as restrictive as late archery. Maybe there’s a happy medium with open sights or primitive muzzle loaders.

I grew up in WY. When I think back about what the old timers talked about as the heyday of big deer, that was essentially the parameters they were dealing with. Very range limited weapons, no technical gear or clothing, but lots of opportunity to see the biggest bucks during the rut. They were darn happy with the state of mule deer hunting, even though they weren’t very lethal. I wonder if we could replicate that a bit and change the perception of the quality of buck hunting from the average hunters perspective.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jake Larsen]

@Travis Hobbs
Robby just mentioned that you found a 30” buck in an OTC unit where most hunters are screaming for change, due to the Oct season date conundrum

I wonder how much it would change if some or all of those guys had opportunity in the same unit, but during the rut and heavily weapons restricted. If a couple guys, or even ONE guy saw that deer, how much would it change the perception and therefore the satisfaction? News of a buck like that travels fast…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[realunlucky]

Man you’re speaking my language

The piece of the puzzle that fell into place for me based on the Utah proposals was this:

Quality vs Opportunity is the balance we’re all after. The biggest hurdle I see to that balance is the Oct season dates. Good buck hunters are fine with it. We understand why it needs to be that way, and figure out how to hunt it. Average buck hunters just plain aren’t going to see the big bucks in that timeframe. The result seems to be that average buck hunters think the buck hunting is terrible even when it’s fairly optimized (from a management perspective). Therefore the vast majority of guys are going to push for change, and likely get it eventually, mostly in the form of limiting opportunity.

If we could put together opportunity hunts that allowed average guys to see and hunt big bucks, WITHOUT crushing them, I think it might solve this problem. You brought up the Wasatch. Maybe it needs to be as restrictive as late archery. Maybe there’s a happy medium with open sights or primitive muzzle loaders.

I grew up in WY. When I think back about what the old timers talked about as the heyday of big deer, that was essentially the parameters they were dealing with. Very range limited weapons, no technical gear or clothing, but lots of opportunity to see the biggest bucks during the rut. They were darn happy with the state of mule deer hunting, even though they weren’t very lethal. I wonder if we could replicate that a bit and change the perception of the quality of buck hunting from the average hunters perspective.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When you take the wasatch for example it takes a multitude of factors to maintain stability

Late season archery plays a vital role but access is even a bigger driver. Limited access to public along steep snow covered ground limits the distance one can reasonably cover allowing for plenty of surrounding escapement.

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

 

[S.Clancy]

Man you’re speaking my language

The piece of the puzzle that fell into place for me based on the Utah proposals was this:

Quality vs Opportunity is the balance we’re all after. The biggest hurdle I see to that balance is the Oct season dates. Good buck hunters are fine with it. We understand why it needs to be that way, and figure out how to hunt it. Average buck hunters just plain aren’t going to see the big bucks in that timeframe. The result seems to be that average buck hunters think the buck hunting is terrible even when it’s fairly optimized (from a management perspective). Therefore the vast majority of guys are going to push for change, and likely get it eventually, mostly in the form of limiting opportunity.

If we could put together opportunity hunts that allowed average guys to see and hunt big bucks, WITHOUT crushing them, I think it might solve this problem. You brought up the Wasatch. Maybe it needs to be as restrictive as late archery. Maybe there’s a happy medium with open sights or primitive muzzle loaders.

I grew up in WY. When I think back about what the old timers talked about as the heyday of big deer, that was essentially the parameters they were dealing with. Very range limited weapons, no technical gear or clothing, but lots of opportunity to see the biggest bucks during the rut. They were darn happy with the state of mule deer hunting, even though they weren’t very lethal. I wonder if we could replicate that a bit and change the perception of the quality of buck hunting from the average hunters perspective.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're never going to replicate the habitat quality of the 60's, 70's and early 80's tho. The amount of early/mid succession habitat in those decades will never again be replicated. I think people forget how many acres were logged and burned to create that habitat.

 

[Jake Larsen]

You're never going to replicate the habitat quality of the 60's, 70's and early 80's tho. The amount of early/mid succession habitat in those decades will never again be replicated. I think people forget how many acres were logged and burned to create that habitat.

Totally agree. Habitat is never going to be like that again. Thus my original thinking about macro environmental/ecological change and if we’re rowing upstream in a real big river. But I think we’ve got to try…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[S.Clancy]

Totally agree. Habitat is never going to be like that again. Thus my original thinking about macro environmental/ecological change and if we’re rowing upstream in a real big river. But I think we’ve got to try…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think there is opportunity. Agencies are finally starting to recognize that conifer encroachment is a huge problem. Eventually all those trees are either 1. Going to be cut or 2. Going to burn. That creates habitat

 

[Jake Larsen]

I think there is opportunity. Agencies are finally starting to recognize that conifer encroachment is a huge problem. Eventually all those trees are either 1. Going to be cut or 2. Going to burn. That creates habitat

Burns are where it’s at. I think our overall burn management across the west bears some responsibility in decline of mule deer. Old photos from the early 1900s of ranges like the Big Horns in WY show the eastern side nearly timber free.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[S.Clancy]

Burns are where it’s at. I think our overall burn management across the west bears some responsibility in decline of mule deer. Old photos from the early 1900s of ranges like the Big Horns in WY show the eastern side nearly timber free.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I used to work for NRCS. We had books in the office of historical photos. The conifer encroachment is STAGGERING.

There are also old aerial photos from the 1930's that are cool, and sad, to look at.

 

[realunlucky]

Burns are where it’s at. I think our overall burn management across the west bears some responsibility in decline of mule deer. Old photos from the early 1900s of ranges like the Big Horns in WY show the eastern side nearly timber free.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cheat grass has ruined more habitat than anything other than human encroachment.

Nothing brings cheat grass faster than fire, until we decide to spend money retarding cheat grass we are fighting a losing battle

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

 

[Jake Larsen]

Cheat grass has ruined more habitat than anything other than human encroachment.

Nothing brings cheat grass faster than fire, until we decide to spend money retarding cheat grass we are fighting a losing battle

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

Definitely a catch 22. The only good deer numbers/habitat I’ve found in SW Montana is burns. The conifer encroachment that’s been mentioned is literally thousands of acres in some ranges.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Travis Hobbs]

Cheat grass has ruined more habitat than anything other than human encroachment.

Nothing brings cheat grass faster than fire, until we decide to spend money retarding cheat grass we are fighting a losing battle

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

In some places, usually lower elevation, or dry deserts- sage brush, juniper type habitats, cheat grass is a giant concern after fires.

In other places, high elevation, conninfer stands, cheat grass is of minimal concern and fire is the best prescription for deer/elk habitat.

It is why we are seeing many land management agencies managing fire instead of full suppression tactics. It’s also some of the reason they are doing more and more prescribed fire.

Some of the reason cheat grass control hasn’t been implemented is it was virtually impossible to do at scale. Up until just recently, cheat grass control herbicides were in their infancy, that is rapidly changing. Incredible results are being documented with products like Rejuvra.

This could be a game changer to combat cheat grass.

 

[Jake Larsen]

Having hunters use more primitive weapons is to me, a great thing to try and implement. To my knowledge no one has tried an “iron site” rifle season. It won’t fix deer herds, but it might just be a fantastic way to provide opportunity and quality. If it works, I hope we see states across the west implementing it in the various management systems.

If I can chase giant bucks on a regular basis, and have a chance at taking one, I’m all in! Don’t care what I have to use.

How restrictive/primitive do you think a given state/unit would have to go in order to achieve this? Shouldn’t we be able to look at various muzzle loader hunts across the west to gauge what we might be able to expect in terms of drop/change in success rates?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Travis Hobbs]

How restrictive/primitive do you think a given state/unit would have to go in order to achieve this? Shouldn’t we be able to look at various muzzle loader hunts across the west to gauge what we might be able to expect in terms of drop/change in success rates?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think you can definitely get a feel for success rates using muzzle loader iron site seasons. But I think it’s more complicated than success rate data would show.

I think more effective weapon systems lead to many of the better bucks being taken, skimming the cream off the top so to speak.

For example saying success rates will be reduced by XX% so there should be XX% more bucks that survive won’t really say what the age structure will be in a herd after 5+ years of these restrictions.

I know LOTS of hunters for instance that lowered their “standards” on bucks in Utah when they lost the ability to use scopes. I think that’s pretty common practice. It’s just that much harder to be successful. Similar to a guy that is happy shooting a 150” buck with his bow, but probably wouldn’t shoot it with a rifle. My wife for instance has and will kill the first mature 4 point buck she sees with a bow in hand, but with a rifle she’s not shooting one until it’s around 170” or got some age. It’s just natural human behavior.

I know for some people, me included, what weapon they use wouldn’t change their standard on what they would kill, but it’s going to change success rates.

I think to get within 150 yards of a 5+ year old buck is very difficult. I can think of multiple mature bucks that i have taken over the years by rifle that I’m confident I would not have killed with iron sites. I think my personal success rate would be greatly reduced. I think by 50%+

It has also been argued in Utah, why take the scope of the muzzleloader so a rifle guy can kill the buck you saved 2 weeks later when rifle season starts…. This is a great point. With Utahs current proposal your going to have weapons truly limited across the board, not just one weapon type while the other cleans up what limiting one weapon left behind.

Will this lead to more older age class animals in the herd? Maybe? Greater hunter satisfaction when they see older bucks even if they don’t kill one? I personally think so, but maybe not…

To truly see what happens I think it would just have to be implemented, and studied. What does it do to hunters, will they avoid these units? Will they be lining up to hunt them in 5 years? Lots of questions.

I think without doing it, discussing outcomes is pure speculation.

I do think if success rates are reduced, we should see more available bucks with same amount of tags. Thats a good thing!