Idaho NR general tag going to draw?

[idelkslayer]

And this is why we can’t have nice things.

They should at a minimum just make the seasons congruent state wide so that units don’t get hammered harder than they should be by being open later. Choose your weapon etc.

Populations of residents are skyrocketing and there are not nearly enough draw options, it’s a recipe for a crash.

Actually we have a pretty great thing in Idaho. We risk losing it when hunters can't be objective.

The resident population might be skyrocketing but guess what isn't? Hunter numbers.

Between 2018-2022, OTC mule deer hunter numbers dropped 9.6%.
Between 2018-2022, OTC elk hunter numbers dropped 2.5%
Between 2018-2022, OTC Whitetail deer hunter numbers dropped 18.6%.

I think most of the decline can be attributed to lower deer populations. The low deer populations are a result of bad winter survival and have nothing to do with hunting pressure. But let's ignore that and blame hunting pressure or NR so we can reduce our own hunting opportunities.

 

[WRO]

Actually we have a pretty great thing in Idaho. We risk losing it when hunters can't be objective.

The resident population might be skyrocketing but guess what isn't? Hunter numbers.

Between 2018-2022, OTC mule deer hunter numbers dropped 9.6%.
Between 2018-2022, OTC elk hunter numbers dropped 2.5%
Between 2018-2022, OTC Whitetail deer hunter numbers dropped 18.6%.

I think most of the decline can be attributed to lower deer populations. The low deer populations are a result of bad winter survival and have nothing to do with hunting pressure. But let's ignore that and blame hunting pressure or NR so we can reduce our own hunting opportunities.

Huh deer populations aren’t doing well. We’re losing shit loads of winter range and carrying capacity associated with it, yet lets just blame everything and everyone else instead of taking steps to improve the situation before it gets worse.

 

[OSU]

The point systems in Nevada and Arizona are sustainable and will stick around. The ones like Utah and Oregon systems where the majority of tags go to people with max points are not going last. Most people who start collecting points at 18 do not want to wait until they are 60, 70 or beyond to hunt the best 25% of the draw units in a state. This discourages new hunters and thus revenue. Colorado and Wyoming are or will be changing their system and other states are always discussing solutions. I am sure that those with lots of points will howl but they have already decided to forego hunting in that state for 20 or 30 years.....

 

[realunlucky]

The point systems in Nevada and Arizona are sustainable and will stick around. The ones like Utah and Oregon systems where the majority of tags go to people with max points are not going last. Most people who start collecting points at 18 do not want to wait until they are 60, 70 or beyond to hunt the best 25% of the draw units in a state. This discourages new hunters and thus revenue. Colorado and Wyoming are or will be changing their system and other states are always discussing solutions. I am sure that those with lots of points will howl but they have already decided to forego hunting in that state for 20 or 30 years.....

Utah is a 50-50 split also Colorado new system in 2028 will be very similar to Utahs

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

 

[CorbLand]

The point systems in Nevada and Arizona are sustainable and will stick around. The ones like Utah and Oregon systems where the majority of tags go to people with max points are not going last. Most people who start collecting points at 18 do not want to wait until they are 60, 70 or beyond to hunt the best 25% of the draw units in a state. This discourages new hunters and thus revenue. Colorado and Wyoming are or will be changing their system and other states are always discussing solutions. I am sure that those with lots of points will howl but they have already decided to forego hunting in that state for 20 or 30 years.....

For all the "discouraged hunters", Utah only continues to see increased number of applications each year.

Points systems are not going anywhere. They may change how they are used but the system is here to stay in any state that has one currently.

If you wait until you are 18 to start getting points in Utah...you are way way behind.

As to the Idaho never getting one, I would bet someone 100 bucks that is false. The state may know that they dont work but many of the hunters there dont. The state will do what the residents ask and I couldnt count the number of Idaho residents I have had to show that points systems dont work and they still leave that conversation with something similar to "yea but at least you get something for applying (ie a participation trophy) or "but eventually you are guaranteed a tag (ie I havent studied them well enough to know that eventually comes when you are 80 years old" )

 

[bergie]

As to the Idaho never getting one, I would bet someone 100 bucks that is false. The state may know that they dont work but many of the hunters there dont. The state will do what the residents ask and I couldnt count the number of Idaho residents I have had to show that points systems dont work and they still leave that conversation with something similar to "yea but at least you get something for applying (ie a participation trophy) or "but eventually you are guaranteed a tag (ie I havent studied them well enough to know that eventually comes when you are 80 years old" )

The data says that more residents are anti point system rather than pro point system.

What I found most interesting is that NR anti point folks actually far outweigh the NR pro point folks. The majority of NR hunters surveyed live in states that have a point system so those responses are pretty telling.

 

[CorbLand]

View attachment 829903
The data says that more residents are anti point system rather than pro point system.

What I found most interesting is that NR anti point folks actually far outweigh the NR pro point folks. The majority of NR hunters surveyed live in states that have a point system so those responses are pretty telling.

Hard to exactly tell but that gap between pro and anti is pretty small.

To which, I will go back to my first post. Just wait. People think the draw will fix things. Once they realize that it didn’t, they will start to looking for the next “solution.” The idea of some type of point system will be at the forefront of that.

 

[IdahoBeav]

The point systems in Nevada and Arizona are sustainable and will stick around. The ones like Utah and Oregon systems where the majority of tags go to people with max points are not going last. Most people who start collecting points at 18 do not want to wait until they are 60, 70 or beyond to hunt the best 25% of the draw units in a state. This discourages new hunters and thus revenue. Colorado and Wyoming are or will be changing their system and other states are always discussing solutions. I am sure that those with lots of points will howl but they have already decided to forego hunting in that state for 20 or 30 years.....

The nonresident max % also plays a big role. I don't believe 10% is high enough and 5% as Oregon allows is certainly not enough.

 

[bergie]

Hard to exactly tell but that gap between pro and anti is pretty small.

To which, I will go back to my first post. Just wait. People think the draw will fix things. Once they realize that I didn’t, they will start to looking for the next “solution.” The idea of some type of point system will be at the forefront of that.

Well remember, this was asking in reference on how to fix the NR tag allocation (that seems like everyone and their dog complained about before changes were proposed to which now folks are saying it was just fine).
The fact that more residents are against a NR point system gives me hope that the bulk would be against a resident point system. If people don't even want a point system for their arch nemesis, the NR, then they certainly don't want it for themselves. That is obviously conjecture, and there is no way to know for sure.

 

[CorbLand]

Well remember, this was asking in reference on how to fix the NR tag allocation (that seems like everyone and their dog complained about before changes were proposed to which now folks are saying it was just fine).
The fact that more residents are against a NR point system gives me hope that the bulk would be against a resident point system. If people don't even want a point system for their arch nemesis, the NR, then they certainly don't want it for themselves. That is obviously conjecture, and there is no way to know for sure.

I say all of what I say regarding this topic in the hopes that I am wrong. Unfortunately, in time, I do not think I will be. I truly hope to be proven wrong.

 

[idelkslayer]

Huh deer populations aren’t doing well. We’re losing shit loads of winter range and carrying capacity associated with it, yet lets just blame everything and everyone else instead of taking steps to improve the situation before it gets worse.

I agree that deer populations aren't doing well and I cited that as the reason why hunter participation has declined in recent years. (This pattern has occurred many times in Idaho history). My point is that I have never heard so many complaints about hunter crowding as I have over the last few years even though the number of hunters has declined over that same period. Despite the demonstrable decline in hunter numbers we keep hearing the same argument that the mountains are too crowded and we need to do "something" to save the deer. That "something" often takes the form of reducing opportunity in some form or fashion. It could be season length, season timing, choose your weapon, antler-point-restrictions, NR allocation, etc.

Do you know what will do nothing to increase deer populations? Here's an incomplete list:
1. Reducing NR allocation.
2. Antler-point-restrictions.
3. Changing season length or timing.
4. Choose your weapon or other weapon restrictions.
5. Eliminating OTC.

None of those things increase deer populations. The only thing they could potentially do is increase buck escapement and consequently age class. But recent research casts doubt on some of these methods to accomplish that.

There are only two primary things that can have a positive impact on deer populations and those are winter conditions and habitat (winter range and summer range). I rarely heard crowding complaints from 2013 through 2016 even though there were far more hunters in the field then. It can only be because deer were abundant during that period. We aren't as bothered by the presence of others if we are all seeing and killing deer.

Since this thread is meant to discuss NR tag distribution I will end my thoughts there. The next few years will be interesting as NR drawing odds find an equilibrium. With no prior drawing statistics to base applications on, will NR apply heavily for only a few units and leave many tags undersubscribed? What will happen in the second year in response to the first? Will drawing a general tag in Idaho be something that can occur every year, every-other year, or will it be more difficult than that?

As of now there is a wait period if you draw an antlered tag, will that apply to the general season drawings as well? If so that automatically eliminates annual hunts and at best would mean individual NR will only be able to get tags every two years.

 

[idelkslayer]

View attachment 829903
The data says that more residents are anti point system rather than pro point system.

What I found most interesting is that NR anti point folks actually far outweigh the NR pro point folks. The majority of NR hunters surveyed live in states that have a point system so those responses are pretty telling.

That is a good observation. The NR who have to deal with point systems are far more opposed to them than the Idaho residents who haven't learned enough about them to be wary.

 

[WRO]

Do you know what will do nothing to increase deer populations? Here's an incomplete list:
1. Reducing NR allocation.
2. Antler-point-restrictions.
3. Changing season length or timing.
4. Choose your weapon or other weapon restrictions.
5. Eliminating OTC.

None of those things increase deer populations. The only thing they could potentially do is increase buck escapement and consequently age class. But recent research casts doubt on some of these methods to accomplish that.

There are only two primary things that can have a positive impact on deer populations and those are winter conditions and habitat (winter range and summer range). I rarely heard crowding complaints from 2013 through 2016 even though there were far more hunters in the field then. It can only be because deer were abundant during that period. We aren't as bothered by the presence of others if we are all seeing and killing deer.

So you’re saying that killing less deer won’t help the population?

Makes perfect sense.

Btw there’s several studies showing older bucks creates more fawns and better fawn mortality.

Observationally hunting both draw and otc units, there’s significantly more deer in the draw (all age classes) than in the otc units I’ve hunted.

 

[CorbLand]

So you’re saying that killing less deer won’t help the population?

Makes perfect sense.

Btw there’s several studies showing older bucks creates more fawns and better fawn mortality.

Observationally hunting both draw and otc units, there’s significantly more deer in the draw (all age classes) than in the otc units I’ve hunted.

I would be interested in the studies that show older bucks create more fawns and better mortality. Could you PM me where I can find those?

 

[idelkslayer]

So you’re saying that killing less deer won’t help the population?

Makes perfect sense.

Btw there’s several studies showing older bucks creates more fawns and better fawn mortality.

Observationally hunting both draw and otc units, there’s significantly more deer in the draw (all age classes) than in the otc units I’ve hunted.

Can you provide links for those studies? I'm willing to learn something new.

 

[WRO]

I would be interested in the studies that show older bucks create more fawns and better mortality. Could you PM me where I can find those?

I will, there’s a few out there.

It’s also simple logic, more bucks that survive offset doe predator mortality.

 

[realunlucky]

So you’re saying that killing less deer won’t help the population?

Makes perfect sense.

Btw there’s several studies showing older bucks creates more fawns and better fawn mortality.

Observationally hunting both draw and otc units, there’s significantly more deer in the draw (all age classes) than in the otc units I’ve hunted.

I'm pretty sure the BYU professor Randy Larsen said the exact opposite something along the lines of older bucks out compete other deer for the best resources on the winter range which has a direct correlation to the wieght of fawns.

Fawn wieght is the biggest predictor of survivability- bigger they are the better they do.



Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

 

[WRO]

I'm pretty sure the BYU professor Randy Larsen said the exact opposite something along the lines of older bucks out compete other deer for the best resources on the winter range which has a direct correlation to the wieght of fawns.

Fawn wieght is the biggest predictor of survivability- bigger they are the better they do.



Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

Fawns born at the same time is a huge factor in survival, more bucks ensures that they’re bred at the same time. Less bucks leads to a longer fawning season and late born fawns are less prepared for winter.

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

There’s a million studies out there with all the necessary biases to go with them.

Observationally having hunted all over, if you have a limited harvest area, typically there are way more deer in general than your otc shit show units and that includes winter range post season.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bergie]

I think everyone wants to see the data that supports this statement.

Btw there’s several studies showing older bucks creates more fawns and better fawn mortality.

But, did you read that study? It suggests literally the opposite of your argument, which unless I am mistaken is more bucks = more fawns.

Directly rom 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). '

 

[bergie]

BTW I have absolutely nothing against limited draw hunts, I too like an easier hunt from time to time (when I can draw). That being said, I am very against sacrificing all OTC hunts for more 'better' (highly subjective) limited draw hunts.