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

 

[Travis Hobbs]

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.

I think this is a key point.

If you can get more hunters out in the field, and not shoot out the resource that is a win, to me weapon restrictions just make sense and it surprises me it’s not a more popular option. I do think a lot of hunters just haven’t thought about it much.

If we can hunt at times during the rut or early seasons, awesome. I think people would be shocked at what lives in a unit they have only ever hunted in October.

I think different units/places could use different types of restrictions, maybe it’s muzzleloaders, maybe it’s archery……maybe it’s trad bows, maybe it’s open sited rifles. I guess it depends on unit, management goals, demand, etc.

I know for me, I’d rather see weapon restrictions than more and more tag cuts.

I think you have to limit success in either one or two ways-

1) we reduce the amount of participation
2) we limit hunter success with weapon restrictions

I guess the real question is, what option or combination of these two things is most palatable to hunters.

For me it’s restricting weapons.

Is it wild to anyone else iron site rifle hunts have never been a thought until now?

I’m not aware of any iron sight rifle seasons anywhere.

 

[Jake Larsen]

1) we reduce the amount of participation
2) we limit hunter success with weapon restrictions

I guess the real question is, what option or combination of these two things is most palatable to hunters.

For me it’s restricting weapons.

Is it wild to anyone else iron site rifle hunts have never been a thought until now?

I’m not aware of any iron sight rifle seasons anywhere.

Now that I’m thinking about it as an option, it’s super obvious and I can’t believe it’s more widely used/discussed. We think about restriction all the time in terms of archery and muzzy.

I’m right with you. If my options are:

1. Restrict Opportunity(including mine)
2. Restrict Weapons

I’m choosing option 2 every time. I already live this out in practice every archery season. Why do we pick up a bow? Not because it’s super lethal! It’s because it gives us opportunity. I could just wait for rifle season on the same tag, but I don’t. And honestly, there’s something about the challenge that makes it even more rewarding and enjoyable for me personally. I’d way rather have a bunch of “the one that got away” stories than season after season of struggling to find any mature animals.

No reason to believe I wouldn’t be apply the same thing to a smoke pole. As a bonus it’d force me (and everyone else who’s serious about getting it done) to hone our skills, be better woodsmen and hunters, which is an overall good thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[idelkslayer]

While I don't think Idaho is in need of it yet, I would be in the restrict weapons camp before restricting tags/opportunity.

I like the iron sight proposal. It is something that I have thought of as an option but again, I don't Idaho is at that point yet so I have never discussed it at any IDFG meetings. I could see it being used for more late season opportunity.

I got through the podcast yesterday and it will be interesting to see how this experiment goes in Utah.

I hope that hunters understand that none of the proposals do anything to increase deer populations. They only allow more people to enjoy the hunt each year because success rates are presumed to decrease. More hunters x lower success = same number of bucks killed.

These are band aids, maybe even necessary band aids, but in the long term we still need to figure out how to reverse the decline in mule deer populations across the west. These measures keep as many hunters in the field as long as possible while not increasing the number of deer harvested. Ultimately, I want to see more deer being harvested because the populations are growing. Same success rate x more deer = more bucks being killed. The more deer there are, the more older age class bucks.

We have largely eliminated doe harvest. Buck:doe ratios are high enough that all the does are being bred. The population will be determined by habitat and winter conditions.

 

[robby denning]

...

I hope that hunters understand that none of the proposals do anything to increase deer populations. They only allow more people to enjoy the hunt each year because success rates are presumed to decrease. More hunters x lower success = same number of bucks killed.

These are band aids, maybe even necessary band aids, but in the long term we still need to figure out how to reverse the decline in mule deer populations across the west. ...

We have largely eliminated doe harvest. Buck:doe ratios are high enough that all the does are being bred. The population will be determined by habitat and winter conditions.

yip ^

thanks for chiming in

 

[CorbLand]

I think this is a key point.

If you can get more hunters out in the field, and not shoot out the resource that is a win, to me weapon restrictions just make sense and it surprises me it’s not a more popular option. I do think a lot of hunters just haven’t thought about it much.

A few things regarding this and why I think that people dont think about it or support restricted weapons.

I think that there are a lot of people that dont really want to hunt. They want to kill a big deer, mount it and spend the rest of their life telling people how good of a hunter they are because they killed a big deer.

I was at work one day and some dude was complaining about deer management in Utah. I asked him... would you rather get two tags in your life and be guaranteed to kill a 200 inch deer on both of them or get a tag each year and you kill two 200 inch deer in your life? Outcome is the same, but one you get to hunt each year and have the potential to get more deer, the other you only get to hunt twice. He said, he would rather only get the two tags.

Second, the rise of nonresident hunting. Most people really only have one to two weeks to actually hunt but they have all been convinced that you need to be applying in five states. These people really only want one maybe two tags a year. So when they are saying that they would rather wait five years and to hunt bigger bucks, its because they are still hunting pretty much every year. It doesnt matter to them if they have to wait five years to draw their home state. They will just hunt Arizona one year, Idaho the next, Colorado after that, etc. It doesn't take in to consideration all the people that just hunt their home state and want to pull their camper up there and spend the week with family.

The sad thing is, like you have said many times, the back bone of hunting is the family hunt camp hunters. If you take tags away from them, you will lose the support.

I am not the most dedicated hunter. If I had to wait 10 years to get a tag to go though, I am out and would pay zero attention to hunting and the attacks on it. You would lose my voice to stand up for it. Add in that without hunting, I would have been another statistic in the opioid crisis.

There is no winning in taking the opportunity to hunt away from people but people dont see that. Put tags in peoples pocket, let them decided what is a quality animal is to them and what a hunt should be and mean.

I wont be at the board meeting because I will be at my wifes 20 week appointment and get to see the ultrasound of my daughter. I really hope that when she turns ten, I dont have to look her in the face and say congratulations, we can start applying you for hunts and when you graduate high school, we might be able to go deer hunting.

This is Utah, we all know it has a dominant religion. I would be interested to know how many dads that just support continual tag cuts understand that if we stay on the road we are on, their kids will be on missions before they draw their first deer tag.

 

[Jake Larsen]

While I don't think Idaho is in need of it yet, I would be in the restrict weapons camp before restricting tags/opportunity.

I like the iron sight proposal. It is something that I have thought of as an option but again, I don't Idaho is at that point yet so I have never discussed it at any IDFG meetings. I could see it being used for more late season opportunity.

I got through the podcast yesterday and it will be interesting to see how this experiment goes in Utah.

I hope that hunters understand that none of the proposals do anything to increase deer populations. They only allow more people to enjoy the hunt each year because success rates are presumed to decrease. More hunters x lower success = same number of bucks killed.

These are band aids, maybe even necessary band aids, but in the long term we still need to figure out how to reverse the decline in mule deer populations across the west. These measures keep as many hunters in the field as long as possible while not increasing the number of deer harvested. Ultimately, I want to see more deer being harvested because the populations are growing. Same success rate x more deer = more bucks being killed. The more deer there are, the more older age class bucks.

We have largely eliminated doe harvest. Buck:doe ratios are high enough that all the does are being bred. The population will be determined by habitat and winter conditions.

100% agree. Like I said at the beginning, there’s a certain point where this feels like rowing upstream agains some macro environmental changes. The data pretty clearly shows that meaningful long term change is going to come in the form of habitat rehabilitation and improvement. Fires vs. conifer encroachment, cheatgrass projects, and winter range protection programs will likely have a far greater impact on the outcome for mule deer than any policy related to hunting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[idelkslayer]

I think that there are a lot of people that dont really want to hunt. They want to kill a big deer, mount it and spend the rest of their life telling people how good of a hunter they are because they killed a big deer.

I was at work one day and some dude was complaining about deer management in Utah. I asked him... would you rather get two tags in your life and be guaranteed to kill a 200 inch deer on both of them or get a tag each year and you kill two 200 inch deer in your life? Outcome is the same, but one you get to hunt each year and have the potential to get more deer, the other you only get to hunt twice. He said, he would rather only get the two tags.

This is a good point and I have had similar conversations. I never understood it but you nailed it, they don't actually like to hunt. They like the idea of hunting but really all they want is bragging rights.

 

[CorbLand]

This is a good point and I have had similar conversations. I never understood it but you nailed it, they don't actually like to hunt. They like the idea of hunting but really all they want is bragging rights.

I think there are more than people realize and that many of the people themselves don’t realize that they don’t actually like it.

You even see it with once in a lifetime or hard to draw tags. I know guys that have spent 18-27 years applying for tags and their whole goal in the hunt is to get it over as soon as possible.

 

[HiMtnHntr]

We need to look more at limiting access to increase deer refuge and sanctuary (ie: roadless areas), weapon restriction, and season timeframe (ie: no rut hunting). With those in place in areas with good habitat, hunting opportunity can likely be increased while still having game enough to hunt on the hill.