Get Better Mule Deer Hunting

[idelkslayer]

Data collection is a huge issue for MT that’s for sure. Not sure about Idaho. Sounds like most who have chimed in here think IDs seasons are close to ideal, so it makes sense as a resident you’re relatively happy with the structure.

How satisfied do you think the average ID resident is with the season structure? That’s one of my biggest questions. If a given state has a great season/tag structure based on the criteria of a good “age class pyramid” and great opportunity, but the average hunter isn’t satisfied, there’s still a giant problem. Those majority unsatisfied hunters are going to push for change (read limited entry units) and will probably eventually get it. That seems to be the story all across the west, as populations and perceived quality generally decline.

The concept of weapons restriction may be an interesting way to combat that specific issue. If average guys see more old animals, and therefore perceive higher quality hunting without skimming the “cream off the top” due to extremely lethal weapons.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is why I want even more data than we currently collect before making any changes. There are too many subjective metrics to measure success and hunter experience. "big bucks" what does that mean? Does it mean something different to different hunters? Pressure? Opportunity? Seeing game? All are subjective. We need a few years of hard data, then make a change, collect the same data and compare apples to apples. You have nothing to compare to if you only start data collection after a change is already made.

Age and number of deer harvested is hard data. If we have hard data showing that X percent of bucks harvested are 4.5 years of age or older then no one can argue that there aren't any mature deer left. Submit tooth samples from every deer and elk, label it as a public or private land harvest and all sorts of information can be understood about hunting pressure and age structure.

My biggest hunting-related fear over the last 8 years has been that discontented Idaho resident hunters are going to be the downfall of a good system. We are in danger of putting unnecessary restrictions on ourselves with little to no evidence that it will make a difference and no way to track if the changes actually have an effect.

 

[Customweld]

My biggest hunting-related fear over the last 8 years has been that discontented Idaho resident hunters are going to be the downfall of a good system. We are in danger of putting unnecessary restrictions on ourselves with little to no evidence that it will make a difference and no way to track if the changes actually have an effect.

I certainly agree with that. Spend some time on any of the FB hunting pages and that is all you hear about. So far, it seems most of those folks belly ache over the internet but don't take the time to show up to any of the open houses. Eventually, that squeaky wheel will get the grease though.

 

[Jake Larsen]

This is why I want even more data than we currently collect before making any changes. There are too many subjective metrics to measure success and hunter experience. "big bucks" what does that mean? Does it mean something different to different hunters? Pressure? Opportunity? Seeing game? All are subjective. We need a few years of hard data, then make a change, collect the same data and compare apples to apples. You have nothing to compare to if you only start data collection after a change is already made.

Age and number of deer harvested is hard data. If we have hard data showing that X percent of bucks harvested are 4.5 years of age or older then no one can argue that there aren't any mature deer left. Submit tooth samples from every deer and elk, label it as a public or private land harvest and all sorts of information can be understood about hunting pressure and age structure.

My biggest hunting-related fear over the last 8 years has been that discontented Idaho resident hunters are going to be the downfall of a good system. We are in danger of putting unnecessary restrictions on ourselves with little to no evidence that it will make a difference and no way to track if the changes actually have an effect.

More data for every state would be GREAT. There’s no question it would help drive good biology based policy decisions. However, I’m not sure it solves the perception problem. I’ve always been a data nerd, and therefore swayed by it. However It’s been pretty clear to me as I’ve gotten older that I’m in the minority. Most people believe only what they personally see or experience. Thus, the perception issue.

My fear is the same as yours, but here’s the thing. The data already shows that limited entry units, point restrictions, ect DONT work the way people think they do. And yet, the unsatisfied average hunters.m push for these measures again and again, all across the west. I see no evidence that more data or better data will solve that problem.

Maybe we need mass hunter education programs? Social media campaigns aimed at Showing hunters the data…talking about the success of season/tag structures in maintaining opportunity and still age class for given units/states? (In places where that’s true of course)

My gut instinct says that most hunters will still judge everything based off what they personally experience during their time in the field. Which means for an Oct season, they will perceive low buck numbers and difficulty finding old deer. Even if they are hunting in places that are as optimal as we can manage for, all things considered.

That’s why the concept of a highly weapons restricted season at a time when average guys can see some old animas intrigues me. Might be a way to tackle the perception issue without killing all the old deer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk