Idaho Mule Deer Management Plan 2020-2025

[IdahoHntr]

I haven't been around as long as some, but I do tend to think hunters are a very reactionary bunch. 1 or 2 years of crappy hunting and the sky is falling. Has anybody actually looked at numbers? Before the 16/17 winter deer hunting was the best it had been in Idaho in almost 30 years! Big bucks were getting killed on general units throughout the state and harvest and population numbers were high. Yes, I know, even at that time there were still some areas that weren't as good as they used to be, but there were many areas that were better than they've ever been. As a state Idaho's deer hunting was on the up and up and the management practices were working.

Fast forward a few years with one terrible winter and another that sure didn't give the animals a break and here we are acting like the animals will never come back. We've had bad winters before! Deer populations have been in the dumps before! They will come back. Robby has often said it in his writing, winters manage the deer populations in the west, and I don't think there can be a more true statement applied here.

The funny thing is that most, if not all, of the ideas proposed here aren't even focused on increasing the population of deer. If you want more deer you gotta protect the does and the fawns. Taking measures to decrease deer-vehicle collisions, increase fawn-recruitment, and getting rid of antlerless deer harvest except for in extreme depredation situations will do more to help the deer population than any other restrictions on antlered hunting.

Until we start managing predators like we did back in the heyday of mule deer, why should we expect deer hunting to be like it was back then? Until we give all the winter range we've taken and highways we've boxed them in with, why should be expect hunting to be like it was?

If you want more deer, kill more predators. Try to get every regulation changed that would make it easier to kill more predators. Minimize deer-vehicle collisions. Protect all current winter range from development. If actual steps were made in just those 3 departments, deer herds would bounce back faster than anything we could do to further regulate antlered deer hunting.

 

[idahohikker]

I haven't been around as long as some, but I do tend to think hunters are a very reactionary bunch. 1 or 2 years of crappy hunting and the sky is falling. Has anybody actually looked at numbers? Before the 16/17 winter deer hunting was the best it had been in Idaho in almost 30 years! Big bucks were getting killed on general units throughout the state and harvest and population numbers were high. Yes, I know, even at that time there were still some areas that weren't as good as they used to be, but there were many areas that were better than they've ever been. As a state Idaho's deer hunting was on the up and up and the management practices were working.

Fast forward a few years with one terrible winter and another that sure didn't give the animals a break and here we are acting like the animals will never come back. We've had bad winters before! Deer populations have been in the dumps before! They will come back. Robby has often said it in his writing, winters manage the deer populations in the west, and I don't think there can be a more true statement applied here.

The funny thing is that most, if not all, of the ideas proposed here aren't even focused on increasing the population of deer. If you want more deer you gotta protect the does and the fawns. Taking measures to decrease deer-vehicle collisions, increase fawn-recruitment, and getting rid of antlerless deer harvest except for in extreme depredation situations will do more to help the deer population than any other restrictions on antlered hunting.

Until we start managing predators like we did back in the heyday of mule deer, why should we expect deer hunting to be like it was back then? Until we give all the winter range we've taken and highways we've boxed them in with, why should be expect hunting to be like it was?

If you want more deer, kill more predators. Try to get every regulation changed that would make it easier to kill more predators. Minimize deer-vehicle collisions. Protect all current winter range from development. If actual steps were made in just those 3 departments, deer herds would bounce back faster than anything we could do to further regulate antlered deer hunting.

Some good points but you're ignoring the fact that limiting units, weapons, etc. would decrease pressure on bucks and that would likely result in more bucks. Managing does alone isn't going to help with buck age class, at least for herds that are not severely below carrying capacity.

It's pretty likely that limiting the open, shoot a deer anywhere in the state for months with any weapon choice, one way or another, would be helpful if we want to manage for age class a little more.

 

[87TT]

Some good points but you're ignoring the fact that limiting units, weapons, etc. would decrease pressure on bucks and that would likely result in more bucks. Managing does alone isn't going to help with buck age class, at least for herds that are not severely below carrying capacity.

It's pretty likely that limiting the open, shoot a deer anywhere in the state for months with any weapon choice, one way or another, would be helpful if we want to manage for age class a little more.

That's the conundrum huh? I read a study years ago and can't find it now that said when deer are stressed and populations are low, that does give birth to does at a rate higher than "normal" until the population increases. If that is the case, it makes sense that they will be taking a while to recover and the other measures floated may help a little but time is going to be needed Speaking for myself and myself only, I don't want opportunities limited. (not enough years left as it is). I hear a lot about recruiting more hunter but if we limit opportunity then we risk losing some, especially younger people with less patients. I think that the deer will be fine in time. Idaho is doing every bit as good of a job at this than any other state that I can see. Seems like you just can't please everyone no matter what you do. Just glad I live here. Soap box relinquished.

 

[idahohikker]

That's the conundrum huh? I read a study years ago and can't find it now that said when deer are stressed and populations are low, that does give birth to does at a rate higher than "normal" until the population increases. If that is the case, it makes sense that they will be taking a while to recover and the other measures floated may help a little but time is going to be needed Speaking for myself and myself only, I don't want opportunities limited. (not enough years left as it is). I hear a lot about recruiting more hunter but if we limit opportunity then we risk losing some, especially younger people with less patients. I think that the deer will be fine in time. Idaho is doing every bit as good of a job at this than any other state that I can see. Seems like you just can't please everyone no matter what you do. Just glad I live here. Soap box relinquished.

Why are elk managed for pick a unit, pick a weapon but not deer. I’m not seeing anyone hear pushing for all controlled hunts or anything that’s severely limiting like that. Youth hunters hunt elk in great numbers in my experience.

 

[87TT]

Just one more step down the road. I like the idea that if I want to go north and hunt whitetail and still hunt mulies down here, I can. I don't like limiting opportunities. Like I said just my take.

 

[robby denning]

Why are elk managed for pick a unit, pick a weapon but not deer. I’m not seeing anyone hear pushing for all controlled hunts or anything that’s severely limiting like that. Youth hunters hunt elk in great numbers in my experience.

That goes back to 1991 when our bull:cow ratios were extremely low in more than a few units so Fish and Game implemented the zone system, which was basically choose your area/choose your weapon. It worked, or coincidentally coincided with the rise of elk populations across the West shortly thereafter.

 

[87TT]

I just think that if you limit folks to certain zone and weapon, there will be so much more pressure in some zones that the demand for "control" hunts or caps will be super high. Then people will bitch that they can't hunt where they live or have for years but maybe only every few years. Then the cry for a point system starts getting floated. Pretty soon you have to try to plan your hunt for the Fall in May or earlier. It just never ends.

 

[jimmy33]

I know that no one wants to go there but we as hunters are also to blame. We are shooting guns that are more accurate and efficient, have binos with better glass, and have technologies that are allows us to be more efficient and better hunters. FYI im not saying all of its bad. Im just adding that there are a lot if reasons why hunting is and will always be a chess match of competing values and interests. No easy fix


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[87TT]

That's an idea. Outlaw scopes and make it open sight only for rifle and combine rifle, ML and archery into one season until deer numbers increase. I know it won't happen but I would rather that over picking a zone or a point system. Give them a chance and maybe?????????????????

 

[IdahoHntr]

Some good points but you're ignoring the fact that limiting units, weapons, etc. would decrease pressure on bucks and that would likely result in more bucks. Managing does alone isn't going to help with buck age class, at least for herds that are not severely below carrying capacity.

It's pretty likely that limiting the open, shoot a deer anywhere in the state for months with any weapon choice, one way or another, would be helpful if we want to manage for age class a little more.

I understand that limiting buck harvest can help bucks get older, but it does very little to help deer populations as a whole (unless there are dismal buck to doe ratios), especially in the long term. The long term play for increasing deer populations, including older age class bucks, is to limit does dying in any way possible and help fawns survive by any means possible. A single doe could be worth 5-15 bucks in her lifetime. Managing does alone can and will help the buck age class long term. More deer = more bucks. More bucks = more old bucks.

I think you ignored the first part of what I said. Deer hunting for the two years before the 16/17 winter were as good as it has been in 30 years for the state of Idaho. What more can you want? Idaho has had bad winters before and, without limiting opportunity, the state returned as a whole to some very good deer hunting. Why mess with something that has worked?

In the end we have to decide what goals are we managing to. Are we trying to get back to the 60s? We better start poisoning some predators and give back some land. Are we trying to get back to those pre 16-17 years? Then the current management got us there once, why won't it do it again?

 

[Macegl]

I understand that limiting buck harvest can help bucks get older, but it does very little to help deer populations as a whole (unless there are dismal buck to doe ratios), especially in the long term. The long term play for increasing deer populations, including older age class bucks, is to limit does dying in any way possible and help fawns survive by any means possible. A single doe could be worth 5-15 bucks in her lifetime. Managing does alone can and will help the buck age class long term. More deer = more bucks. More bucks = more old bucks.

I think you ignored the first part of what I said. Deer hunting for the two years before the 16/17 winter were as good as it has been in 30 years for the state of Idaho. What more can you want? Idaho has had bad winters before and, without limiting opportunity, the state returned as a whole to some very good deer hunting. Why mess with something that has worked?

In the end we have to decide what goals are we managing to. Are we trying to get back to the 60s? We better start poisoning some predators and give back some land. Are we trying to get back to those pre 16-17 years? Then the current management got us there once, why won't it do it again?

^
This.

Studies have actually shown that after a certain point, higher buck:doe ratios have a negative correlation with fawn:doe ratios. In the long run, limiting buck harvest too much might have the exact opposite effect of what we want, which is an overall increase of the deer herd.

 

[Pacific_Fork]

The two posts above make the most sense in this thread. I would just add that every state in the west also needs to focus on winter range habitat and wildlife crossings.

 

[TButtars]

Idaho has to change something..... go into units that the old boys talk about being the best mule deer hunting in the world and can’t even find a deer let alone a mature deer

 

[npm352]

We can get it back to similar to what the "old boys" talk about...except you will not be able to hunt those units except every 15 or 20 years when you can maybe draw a tag....just like Utah.

Comparing then and now is apples and oranges. We build houses on deer winter range every day. There are a zillion more cars hitting deer. There are a zillion more hunters, etc.

It is not a question of whether Idaho can make units excellent trophy buck hunting. It is a question of whether it is worth losing the ability to hunt every year rather than once every decade or more. To most Idahoans, it is not. That is why Idaho continues to mix mostly OTC with some controlled hunts.

 

[TButtars]

We can get it back to similar to what the "old boys" talk about...except you will not be able to hunt those units except every 15 or 20 years when you can maybe draw a tag....just like Utah.

Comparing then and now is apples and oranges. We build houses on deer winter range every day. There are a zillion more cars hitting deer. There are a zillion more hunters, etc.

It is not a question of whether Idaho can make units excellent trophy buck hunting. It is a question of whether it is worth losing the ability to hunt every year rather than once every decade or more. To most Idahoans, it is not. That is why Idaho continues to mix mostly OTC with some controlled hunts.

I actually think a system like Utah’s general season deer would be good (not the limited entry’s complete joke) make everyone pick a unit and then it’s a 1- 3 year draw

 

[idahohikker]

I actually think a system like Utah’s general season deer would be good (not the limited entry’s complete joke) make everyone pick a unit and then it’s a 1- 3 year draw

1-3 year draw sounds good. The reality of 5-10+ year draw once the system gets messed up isn’t.

 

[87TT]

!-3 years is too much. I have a hard enough time waiting all year as it is, and I don't have that many left.

 

[Macegl]

I actually think a system like Utah’s general season deer would be good (not the limited entry’s complete joke) make everyone pick a unit and then it’s a 1- 3 year draw

1-3 years doesn't sound bad, until point creep and tag reductions drive it to 4-6 years, then 6-10. If they follow through with the tag reductions the deer management plan calls for this coming year, we hunters are going to be in for a surprise down here when the draw results come out!

 

[npm352]

I agree that 1-3 years will not be 1-3 years...it will keep getting worse. Modeling after anything in Utah would be dumb. They have proven it does not work. You can find the proof in southern Idaho come October 10 when Utards flood Idaho so that they can go hunting.

Thankfully Idaho has been trying to listen to the vast majority of hunters they survey that want opportunity. The good thing about Idaho is that the genetics are great almost everywhere and units have enough cover to hold giants. Good bucks and often giant bucks are taken in every unit every year.

I spend a lot of time hiking through deer wintering grounds while lion hunting. The bucks are there. Opportunity is what makes Idaho great.

 

[IdahoHntr]

I actually think a system like Utah’s general season deer would be good (not the limited entry’s complete joke) make everyone pick a unit and then it’s a 1- 3 year draw

I've never understood this line of thinking. Right now in Idaho if you hunted 3 years you would find just as good of bucks (if not better) over that 3 year period as if you drew a general tag in Utah that would take 3 years to draw. Only difference is you get to go hunting every year in one and only once every 3 years in another. Who wouldn't take the hunt every year option?

And that's if it is only 1-3 years. There aren't many tags for residents in Utah that fit in that category anymore that aren't archery tags. If you like to hunt with your rifle, try more 2-6 years, and it gets worse every year.

I could see where it would be more beneficial to nonresidents who aren't going to hunt the state every year to have a tag they could draw every 3 and have it a bit better hunting during that year while they hunt other states in the wait time, but Idaho residents like to hunt and they overwhelmingly have chosen to hunt every year. There isn't anything wrong with that.

I just don't like when people want to tailor the system to the guys who bounce around and hunt 5 states. Not everybody wants to do that. Most hunters are completely contented to get their tag every year and just hunt their home state. It doesn't mean they aren't serious about it, and some of the best big buck killers I know only hunt 1 state. Waits might work for those guys hunting multiple states, but for those guys who just want to hunt Idaho it makes no sense, especially when the quality of hunt gain is minimal..