Proposed Deer plan for Central Idaho(not official)

[eye_zick]

What makes you think that you offended me? Life is far to short to get offended over someone disagreeing with me on the management of mule deer.

I dont hunt Idaho so I have zero dog in the fight. I just want people to know that Utahs model is not the answer and that if you give up your opportunity you will never get it back and it does not solve anything.

There are how many different states managing mule deer in how many different ways? None of them are increasing their herd. Deer are flat struggling right now and over hunting is not the reason. Habitat...we need more habitat.

If cutting tags and hunting them less often worked...we wouldnt have had to do it every year for 40 years. Even Utahs LE units arent overflowing with deer.

Say it again, louder for those in the back.

I guess I am the guy in the back...

Utah has approximately 50,000 more mule deer than Idaho, and 10,000 fewer hunters yet harvested 6,000 more bucks.

SOURCE: WAFWA Mule Deer working group.
In no way am I advocating ID should adopt UT's management, I'm only pointing to facts and data that support UT has a higher deer population, (has fewer public land acres too) harvests more bucks and has fewer hunters...

 

[Gobbler36]

Go to your city and county zoning meetings. Get a group of people together and get zoning changed. It not always about more habitat...sometimes we just need better habitat. Winter range is important but so is summer range. No matter how many deer hunters kill, highways and interstates are far better at it. Put pressure on F&G to manage predators. Donate to non profits. Donate your time to habitat projects.

At least your saying the quiet part out loud. Cutting tags is easier. Restricting how often you can hunt is easier. It has always been the easy button and its been getting pushed for 4 decades. Easy is not always the answer and its been proven to not work. We have to change.

I am not opposed to cutting tags but I am getting very tired of it being the only option.

One person has never had an impact by themselves but one person has changed the mind of many and those many have made changes. We have a lot to be thankful for that was given to us by people that didnt keep hitting the easy button.

Hobbs said it best on the last Rokcast...change your attitude and see how much better it gets. I am not the most dedicated hunter, Hobbs, Scotty, Robby, those guys are my hero's but I hunted one of the worst winter kill areas this year and did my absolute best to stay positive. I had the best hunting season I have had since 2016 and I never saw a deer bigger than a small three point.

I will concede that yes it’s a multi faceted issue with habitat being the number one.
but like @PathFinder said there has to be diminishing returns on opportunity when you have a place like Idaho that has seen staggering population growth affecting every issue that has been mentioned in this thread.

I agree I could go out and try to do more, but with 3 boys into everything under the sun and both my wife and myself working, where does an average person have the time to go do all those things, I feel I can barley keep track of when basketball registrations end, much less elusive wildlife meeting etc. guess I gotta get more organized!!

Conceptually, I agree with the idea of widespread opportunity. However, like Colorado OTC elk I think there is a limit to it somewhere mathematically.
Idaho's human population has grown over 20% in 10 years. Is there a point where it is unsustainable to allow the current level of opportunity as the resident population continues to grow? Especially as that growing human population devours winter range?

This is where I am trying to come from also

 

[Gobbler36]

I guess I am the guy in the back...

Utah has approximately 50,000 more mule deer than Idaho, and 10,000 fewer hunters yet harvested 6,000 more bucks.

SOURCE: WAFWA Mule Deer working group.
In no way am I advocating ID should adopt UT's management, I'm only pointing to facts and data that support UT has a higher deer population, (has fewer public land acres too) harvests more bucks and has fewer hunters...

Yeah and easily not As good of habitat in a lot of areas.

thanks for posting this!

 

[Customweld]

You never know, CWD may discourage enough hunters to give it up. @PathFinder and @IdahoSwede, it's no secret that our population is exploding. With that comes the extra use in the hills, that in the past didn't see that much activity. Camp spots are now full from the time that the snow melts, to when they are snowed back in. That in itself has an impact on animal behavior. Stressed animals equal lower birth rates, lower birth weights and poor weight gain. We can't simply rely on hunters alone to carry the entire burden, when the outdoorsy population as a whole has some responsibility.

 

[CorbLand]

I will concede that yes it’s a multi faceted issue with habitat being the number one.
but like @PathFinder said there has to be diminishing returns on opportunity when you have a place like Idaho that has seen staggering population growth affecting every issue that has been mentioned in this thread.

I agree I could go out and try to do more, but with 3 boys into everything under the sun and both my wife and myself working, where does an average person have the time to go do all those things, I feel I can barley keep track of when basketball registrations end, much less elusive wildlife meeting etc. guess I gotta get more organized!!

Increase population will continue to have an effect but just because population grows doesnt mean its more hunters. The extra demand on the habitat is going to need to be mitigated and that is where our focus needs to be.

Yes there are diminishing returns. Maybe as hunters we need to accept that there are going to be more people on the mountain and that success rates are going to go down.

To tackle your second part. I am going to call a spade a spade here. Sounds like a bunch of excuses. We all have busy lifes, we all have priorities and yet there are people that find ways to make it happen. If you dont have the time, join a non profit, that is what they are for. Its so one person can show up talk with the force of all their members behind them. Dont have the time to go to the meeting....write an email. Submit a comment. It has literally never been easier to be involved.


Edit to add. None of my comments are to be rude or condescending. This is nothing more than my attempt for a few to change the minds of many, so the many can change the future.

 

[Customweld]

I guess I am the guy in the back...

Utah has approximately 50,000 more mule deer than Idaho, and 10,000 fewer hunters yet harvested 6,000 more bucks.

SOURCE: WAFWA Mule Deer working group.
In no way am I advocating ID should adopt UT's management, I'm only pointing to facts and data that support UT has a higher deer population, (has fewer public land acres too) harvests more bucks and has fewer hunters...

I would have to say that Utah has by far better habitat than we do. The first 17 units in Idaho are primarily whitetail units. Sure there are muleys that come out of them but most of them are 90 percent plus whitetail harvested. Then you have the Selway and FC wasteland. A good portion of Central Idaho has a hard time growing grass, let alone animals . That really doesn't leave much for productive muley habitat. Factor in destructive range fires, and different timber management from the past and you have a big storm brewing.
@eye_zick , I appreciate your perspective. You have a way of getting your point across without being degrading or belittling.

 

[CorbLand]

I would have to say that Utah has by far better habitat than we do. The first 17 units in Idaho are primarily whitetail units. Sure there are muleys that come out of them but most of them are 90 percent plus whitetail harvested. Then you have the Selway and FC wasteland. A good portion of Central Idaho has a hard time growing grass, let alone animals . That really doesn't leave much for productive muley habitat. Factor in destructive range fires, and different timber management from the past and you have a big storm brewing.
@eye_zick , I appreciate your perspective. You have a way of getting your point across without being degrading or belittling.

About 1/3 of Utah sees little to no winter. A bad winter storm to them is 6 inches that isnt melted by the next week.

Utahs landscape is very diverse. The northern part lost 50% of its deer herd this winter and the southern part is going to have some of the best hunting they have seen in years.

 

[CorbLand]

I guess I am the guy in the back...

Utah has approximately 50,000 more mule deer than Idaho, and 10,000 fewer hunters yet harvested 6,000 more bucks.

SOURCE: WAFWA Mule Deer working group.
In no way am I advocating ID should adopt UT's management, I'm only pointing to facts and data that support UT has a higher deer population, (has fewer public land acres too) harvests more bucks and has fewer hunters...

Do you have a link to the source?

 

[Customweld]

About 1/3 of Utah sees little to no winter. A bad winter storm to them is 6 inches that isnt melted by the next week.

Utahs landscape is very diverse. The northern part lost 50% of its deer herd this winter and the southern part is going to have some of the best hunting they have seen in years.

You know Idaho. A lot of habitat is under snow for 4-6 months a year. That is what makes the winter ground so important. Unfortunately, much of that ground is close to urban areas and is ripe for development. Until that gets under control, playing with zones, limiting harvest or flat eliminating it, we are just putting a band aid on a mortal wound.

 

[CorbLand]

You know Idaho. A lot of habitat is under snow for 4-6 months a year. That is what makes the winter ground so important. Unfortunately, much of that ground is close to urban areas and is ripe for development. Until that gets under control, playing with zones, limiting harvest or flat eliminating it, we are just putting a band aid on a mortal wound.

Oh, I am well aware of Idaho and its issues with habitat. Not as much as you guys that are still blessed to live there but I can almost be hunting in Idaho faster than I can be in Utah. Still have family and friends that live there so I try to stay in tune with what is going on even though I no longer hunt that state.

I agree though, cutting tags and reducing opportunity is nothing more than putting your finger in the dam.

 

[IdahoHntr]

I guess I am the guy in the back...

Utah has approximately 50,000 more mule deer than Idaho, and 10,000 fewer hunters yet harvested 6,000 more bucks.

SOURCE: WAFWA Mule Deer working group.
In no way am I advocating ID should adopt UT's management, I'm only pointing to facts and data that support UT has a higher deer population, (has fewer public land acres too) harvests more bucks and has fewer hunters...

Have you compared the numbers from before the 16/17 winter? Idaho literally killed the most bucks they’ve killed in 40 YEARS during the 2015 and 2016 seasons. That was literally 7 years ago, the best hunting we’ve seen in 50 years and somehow the opportunity model doesn’t work.. winters manage your deer herd (less so in your southern states, like Utah). The opportunity model does work, but it does require some patience and a play to the long game. Two things hunters are notoriously bad at when it comes to deer management..

Idaho also kills thousands of whitetails but they don’t separate whitetail hunters from mule deer hunters very well in harvest statistics. Something to keep in mind. I don’t think whitetails are included in your harvest numbers, but the hunter number might include them. Hard to tell without the actual numbers.

Another side note, Utahs population estimate and harvest data means almost nothing because they have little to no harvest reporting in general units. Idahos isn’t much better.. Which begs the question..

When everybody agrees in every state that mandatory harvest reporting should be required, why does it happen almost nowhere? What’s the deal with that? How hard is it to require a person to fill out a simple harvest survey before they can buy a tag the next year?

 

[Customweld]

Have you compared the numbers from before the 16/17 winter? Idaho literally killed the most bucks they’ve killed in 40 YEARS during the 2015 and 2016 seasons. That was literally 7 years ago, the best hunting we’ve seen in 50 years and somehow the opportunity model doesn’t work.. winters manage your deer herd (less so in your southern states, like Utah). The opportunity model does work, but it does require some patience and a play to the long game. Two things hunters are notoriously bad at when it comes to deer management..

Idaho also kills thousands of whitetails but they don’t separate whitetail hunters from mule deer hunters very well in harvest statistics. Something to keep in mind. I don’t think whitetails are included in your harvest numbers, but the hunter number might include them. Hard to tell without the actual numbers.

Another side note, Utahs population estimate and harvest data means almost nothing because they have little to no harvest reporting in general units. Idahos isn’t much better.. Which begs the question..

When everybody agrees in every state that mandatory harvest reporting should be required, why does it happen almost nowhere? What’s the deal with that? How hard is it to require a person to fill out a simple harvest survey before they can buy a tag the next year?

I totally agree on the harvest reports. I'm not sure how to make it work to where the data was actually in the books before seasons were set. The reports need to be in prior to the spring planning.

 

[Spoonbill]

I totally agree on the harvest reports. I'm not sure how to make it work to where the data was actually in the books before seasons were set. The reports need to be in prior to the spring planning.

What would work is not allowing people to buy a big game tag the next season if their harvest report was not filled out by say January 31st of that year. It is a little draconian but it would be effective.

 

[Customweld]

What would work is not allowing people to buy a big game tag the next season if their harvest report was not filled out by say January 31st of that year. It is a little draconian but it would be effective.

It would have to be something to that effect.

 

[IdahoElk]

Can someone explain why having a draw deer hunt is a bad idea when practically every zone is a draw hunt for Elk?
My biggest concern with the deer population in our area is winter habitat loss, no matter how much we tell the city council about habitat loss the developers always seem to win.

 

[eye_zick]

Do you have a link to the source?

2023 Range-wide Status of the Black-tailed and Mule Deer – WAFWA

wafwa.org

This data is reported by the fish and game agencies in each state and the Mule Deer Working Group compiles the information.

Another side note, Utahs population estimate and harvest data means almost nothing because they have little to no harvest reporting in general units. Idahos isn’t much better.. Which begs the question..

When everybody agrees in every state that mandatory harvest reporting should be required, why does it happen almost nowhere? What’s the deal with that? How hard is it to require a person to fill out a simple harvest survey before they can buy a tag the next year?

All harvest report data should be disregarded.

Hunters also have the incentive to lie when filling out their reports when harvesting...

The answer is for the Fish and Game to do their job when doing post season population estimates and be transparent with that data.

 

[Spoonbill]

Can someone explain why having a draw deer hunt is a bad idea when practically every zone is a draw hunt for Elk?
My biggest concern with the deer population in our area is winter habitat loss, no matter how much we tell the city council about habitat loss the developers always seem to win.

Idaho didn’t used to be set up like that with elk. There were draw units and a general season elk tag that was good for any open unit in the state. Now its hard to get a rifle tag for an elk and the otc options are fairly limited to a few areas.
Applying that same methodology to deer, we will eventually be lucky to rifle hunt deer except in a few units. If the population explodes they won’t convert it back to OTC tags, instead it will be archery otc and maybe muzzleloader.
Best example I can think of is when not enough elk were being killed in 48, all they changed was making the A tag OTC and getting rid of the spike hunt. The other side to that was telling anyone who called fish and game and asked where to go, was referred to units like 48. I talked to a few out of state hunters who said IDFG told them where to go the year after it changed.

 

[idelkslayer]

All harvest report data should be disregarded.

Hunters also have the incentive to lie when filling out their reports when harvesting...

The answer is for the Fish and Game to do their job when doing post season population estimates and be transparent with that data.

I disagree that harvest data should be ignored. It is not exact, but it does document long term trends. And I trust the data lot more than the observations of the average joe blow hunter that I encounter.

In what way are game agencies currently not being transparent with population surveys?

Can someone explain why having a draw deer hunt is a bad idea when practically every zone is a draw hunt for Elk?
My biggest concern with the deer population in our area is winter habitat loss, no matter how much we tell the city council about habitat loss the developers always seem to win.

Instituting draw units will just push pressure to surrounding OTC units. Ultimately the quality of hunting in the draw unit will probably stay the same while the surrounding units get worse. We gain nothing overall.

 

[IdahoHntr]

I totally agree on the harvest reports. I'm not sure how to make it work to where the data was actually in the books before seasons were set. The reports need to be in prior to the spring planning.

While I agree they are needed before spring planning, I think having them for historical reference would still be more helpful than just not getting them and it’s such a low effort thing to do.

2023 Range-wide Status of the Black-tailed and Mule Deer – WAFWA

wafwa.org

This data is reported by the fish and game agencies in each state and the Mule Deer Working Group compiles the information.

All harvest report data should be disregarded.

Hunters also have the incentive to lie when filling out their reports when harvesting...

The answer is for the Fish and Game to do their job when doing post season population estimates and be transparent with that data.

Another factor is comparing these two states historical high deer populations and how close we are to those now. Idaho is far closer to historical highs in deer population than Utah is. Utah has always had higher deer densities than Idaho. The habitat is just significantly better. Idaho has large amounts of public land that just doesn’t provide great mule deer habitat. The overall fact is that you can’t compare idahos current deer population to utahs current deer population apples to apples and say their management works better. Utah started with far more deer than Idaho.

 

[idelkslayer]

Buckle up it's another long one from me. I admire everyone who is gifted with the ability to convey ideas with brevity. I sadly do not have that gift.

The number of mule deer hunters by year in Idaho was not separated from the total number of deer hunters (whitetail + mule deer) until 2005. Here are some TOTAL deer hunter numbers through the last 50 years. The average is 135,000 and the highest number I have found was in 2007. Here's a random sample:

1977 - 146,300
1983 - 139,000
1991 - 146,500
2003 - 143,300
2007 - 148,900
2014 - 143834
2022 - 126,802

Starting in 2005 IDFG has provided separated numbers for MULE deer hunters only.

2005 - 94,800
2010 - 89,590
2015 - 114,926
2020 - 88,603
2022 - 79,516

Mule deer only harvest is easy to find as far back as 1988. For reference and to calibrate your brain 1986-1989 saw an explosion in deer harvest never seen before or since. Statewide deer harvest averages ~53,000 if you look from 1953 to the present and take out the outliers 1986-1989. I chose 1953 because that was the first year deer harvest exceeded 45,000 (including previous years would skew the average lower). In 1989 the harvest was 95,200 deer (whitetail and mule deer). That same year, mule deer harvest was 72,320 of which 28,670 were does. So 43,650 bucks. The recent high in 2016, buck harvest was 29,331. Aside from the period between 1986-1990 there has never been another time when mule buck harvest was over 26,000.

Here are some Mule deer buck harvest stats:
Buck harvest average 1990-2022 = ~21,000
2022 - 19,596
2020 - 19,425
2015 - 29,235
2010 - 18,534
2005 - 24,128
2000 - 20,100
1995 - 16,478
1990 - 33,197

When I look at these numbers, I simply don’t see a case for eliminating OTC hunting or changing the season structure to zones. The average days hunted is very similar between now and any point in the last 50 years also. Hunters aren’t spending more time in the field. So that doesn’t explain the feeling of increased pressure.

So I sincerely ask the question; If mule deer hunter numbers are down, and harvest numbers are in line with long term averages (despite recent hard winters), why do hunters feel crowded?

Is it changes in season structures that overlap elk and deer seasons? Or was this always the case?

Does the high cost of NR tags cause them to only purchase a deer tag or an elk and not both. So instead of 1 NR hunter holding a deer and an elk tag we have 1 NR hunter holding a deer tag and another NR hunter holding an elk tag effectively doubling the number of NR hunters? (I realize this is only possible to an extent and I don't have any statistics that would show if this is true or not.)

Have hunters concentrated in specific units? Is this due to habitat/population declines in other areas? Loss of access? I wonder if private land was easier to access in decades past than it is now.

Are we more mobile as hunters than in times past? Do we see more hunters because we use ATVs more and hence cover more ground increasing opportunity to see others?