Proposed Deer plan for Central Idaho(not official)

[IdahoElk]

I just received this and was wondering what your opinions are, Deer loss was high in central Idaho from last winter, that along with a high number of NR hunters has many locals looking for a way relieve stress on the resource.
I'm not agreeing/disagreeing with the letter but would like your opinions, thanks

 

[Jaden Bales]

I've not hunted in this part of the world, but isn't the NR total hunters essentially capped at 10% of the tags in every OTC unit?

I'd also like to see more sportsmen letters giving metrics of what success looks like if this is implemented. Like what's the goal? Higher buck ratio? Higher harvest success per hunter? More % of 4-pt deer taken each year on average?

It seems like the goal with this letter is to "increase deer numbers to objective" but unfortunately bucks don't have fawns, so that'll be a failed goal if any version of this is adopted.

 

[RFOUST89]

Possible idea would be to implement a 3 point minimum for mule deer instead of any buck. Keep youth/disabled/senior any buck.

 

[Jaden Bales]

Possible idea would be to implement a 3 point minimum for mule deer instead of any buck. Keep youth/disabled/senior any buck.

What we've seen in Wyoming is that an APR would reduce resident participation for a short period of time. Maybe that'd create a short bump in buck ratios. But also, leaving them on too long has some undesired effects. As you probably know being a Washingtonian, living in the "super 2" state.

 

[Andrew12gauge]

I’ve been calling from the rooftops that our resident regular general deer tag needs to go to a zone model similar to general elk tags, some zones could be capped, others unlimited, all residents still get to hunt each year and pressure would be more evenly dispersed across the landscape. Leave whitetail only tags as is to further incentivize people to shoot more of them and possibly stop the encroachment into prime mule deer habitat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jaden Bales]

I’ve been calling from the rooftops that our resident regular general deer tag needs to go to a zone model similar to general elk tags, some zones could be capped, others unlimited, all residents still get to hunt each year and pressure would be more evenly dispersed across the landscape. Leave whitetail only tags as is to further incentivize people to shoot more of them and possibly stop the encroachment into prime mule deer habitat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So what's your goal there? Just wanting to see less pressure? If so, how do you quantify that? Mule deer bucks per hunter? Hunters per square mile?

 

[Bigbuckbandit]

I would prefer to divvy up the deer units similar to the elk zones. I also wouldn’t mind a 3 point minimum for zones that were hit hard by winter kill, but I’m sure fish and game doesn’t have the resources to be monitoring and changing rules for all units in the state.

I really wish that Fish and Game would penalize folks that don’t provide harvest reports. Without actually knowing how many people are hunting a unit and harvesting animals it makes it damn near impossible to adjust the rules for a unit.

 

[willfrye027]

Some of those units have plenty of cover and backcountry for bucks to get big. Hunting pressure is high but you can still escape it. Careful what you wish for on limiting hunter numbers. I’d rather have the weekend warriors show up and then leave, rather than have people hunting hard for a week because it’s their only tag/unit to hunt.

 

[idelkslayer]

I think that Idaho hunters are our own worst enemy. We will whine ourselves into a far worse situation than we currently have.

To be blunt, I see no basis for the claims in this letter. I just took a dive into the statistics on these units going back to 2009 and then spot checked data from the 70's and 80's. I went that far so that I could see the trends through the winter of 2010-11, 2016-17, and 2018-19. Too many hunters seem to be looking at this year's deer numbers and think the sky is falling and drastic measures need to be taken; while forgetting that we just had a hellacious winter. Short memories don't even go far enough back to remember the recovery from the 2010-11 winter that lead to some of the best hunting years in Idaho history between 2014-16. The harvest numbers during that period were as high as the "glory days" of hunting in Idaho. It was short lived, but so were many of the glory years which came and went in 4-5 year periods scattered through the years between 1950 and 1990. It would also surprise many to know that hunter numbers in the 70's and 80's were just as high as they are today in many units.

From 2017 to 2022, hunter numbers declined 15-25% lower in all three units and harvest is up 13-64% in all 3 units. % 4 PT has been steady in 2 of the 3 units and declined 8-10% in the third unit. It might interest some to know that hunter numbers in 1983 in these units was just as high as now.

I would also refute the claim that these 3 units are disproportionally hunted (high pressure) as compared to other units. The total harvest in these units is ~14% of the state total (when selecting for units that predominantly harvest mule deer OTC) and the number of hunters is only 10% of the state total (also selecting for OTC predominantly mule deer units). It would be disproportional if the percentage of hunters was significantly higher than the percent of harvest, but in fact it is the other way around.

I cringe at suggestions to have zone specific tags for deer. When I review statistics around the state I see that hunters pretty much self regulate. When harvest is low, hunter numbers follow and pressure is naturally reduced. Some hunters shift to other units, some sit out a season or two. Instituting deer zones with some on a quota and others unlimited would have unintended consequences that would permanently shift pressure to select zones and create high demand for quota zones. That high demand would eventually lead to calls for more controlled hunts. Besides, I enjoy hunting new areas each year and still being able to hunt near home for the remainder of the season.

 

[idelkslayer]

Here are the statistics I referenced above. I listed only the number of bucks in the harvest for each year to show a more apples to apples comparison throughout this period (doe harvest was eliminated in units 48 and 49 in 2017). Unit 43 still allows youth harvest of does so by omitting the number of does in my table the success rates shown are slightly off, the same is true of units 48 and 49 prior to 2017.

unit 43

2022​

2021​

2020​

2019​

2018​

2017​

2016​

2015​

2014​

2013​

2012​

2011​

2010​

2009​

AVG

Bucks

901​

769​

770​

737​

958​

795​

1162​

1457​

1261​

641​

639​

631​

639​

538​

849.9​

Hunters

3284​

3304​

3788​

3568​

3622​

3943​

3783​

4081​

3550​

2550​

2144​

2375​

2282​

2059​

3166.6​

% success

34​

28​

25​

24.8​

31.2​

24​

34.6​

40​

41.6​

28.3​

34​

29.7​

30.3​

28.9​

31.0​

% 4pt

31​

29.4​

31.9​

35.8​

38.4​

44.4​

42.3​

47.7​

42.8​

41.3​

48.3​

37.7​

39.5​

36.2​

39.1​

unit 48

2022​

2021​

2020​

2019​

2018​

2017​

2016​

2015​

2014​

2013​

2012​

2011​

2010​

2009​

2015.5​

Bucks

603​

557​

572​

431​

471​

366​

633​

771​

525​

309​

357​

297​

277​

253​

458.7​

Hunters

1734​

1803​

1995​

1763​

1960​

2031​

1956​

2282​

1753​

1328​

1376​

1418​

1237​

1496​

1723.7​

% success

35​

31​

29​

24.5​

24​

18​

34.7​

36.6​

34.2​

24.7​

28.3​

23.5​

24.8​

18.5​

27.6​

% 4pt

41.6​

42.7​

36.7​

41.4​

39.8​

45​

46.9​

35.4​

32.4​

48​

34.8​

42.8​

40.4​

44.3​

40.9​

unit 49

2022​

2021​

2020​

2019​

2018​

2017​

2016​

2015​

2014​

2013​

2012​

2011​

2010​

2009​

2015.5​

Bucks

633​

661​

526​

360​

600​

476​

762​

741​

608​

536​

376​

329​

383​

341​

523.7​

Hunters

2049​

2113​

2144​

2068​

2402​

2723​

2614​

2740​

2542​

2213​

1744​

1753​

1721​

1938​

2197.4​

% success

31​

31​

25​

17.4​

25​

17.5​

34.1​

33.8​

28.9​

27.2​

24.3​

21.2​

26.6​

21.3​

26.0​

% 4pt

34.6​

28.2​

33.7​

32.3​

27​

30.9​

37.1​

35.6​

31.5​

33.6​

38.4​

38.8​

30.6​

33.3​

33.3​

 

[amassi]

“These units are a magnet to RESIDENT hunters that did not draw…. I applaud idfg for reducing non resident tags”
1- absolutely support idfg reducing on non resident tags, do what’s best for your herd and residents
2- probably not the best example

Edited to say non resident tags …

 

[brn2hnt]

I find it strange that this letter calls out those units, but not 39?

I am very interested to see 2023 stats, as my group and I have hypothesized that some pressure got taken from these units and shoved into 39 the last week of the season thanks to the new 39 bull dates.

 

[IdahoBeav]

There should not be an OTC tag in Idaho that can be used to take a mule deer with a rifle.

 

[Spoonbill]

I find it strange that this letter calls out those units, but not 39?

I am very interested to see 2023 stats, as my group and I have hypothesized that some pressure got taken from these units and shoved into 39 the last week of the season thanks to the new 39 bull dates.

That letter was written by a local resident who is concerned about the local population.

I think this is a short sighted solution that will either concentrate more hunters or work to benefit the local hunters. I wouldn’t be opposed to those units going to a draw unit for a few years and then reverting back to an OTC unit but that likely wouldnt happen.
The forest service and blm could shut down roads to eliminate road hunters but without the officers to enforce the rules, it won’t stop people from driving around and blasting at deer from trucks and utv’s. A lot of that unit is accessible from vehicles, making it harder to get into certain areas would give the deer a fighting chance, but only if it can be enforced.
Last thought on it, it is good to see people trying to come up with solutions, be interested to see where this goes.

 

[Customweld]

@idelkslayer gets it. We are going to piss and moan our way into hunting every 3 years.

 

[Jaden Bales]

Here are the statistics I referenced above. I listed only the number of bucks in the harvest for each year to show a more apples to apples comparison throughout this period (doe harvest was eliminated in units 48 and 49 in 2017). Unit 43 still allows youth harvest of does so by omitting the number of does in my table the success rates shown are slightly off, the same is true of units 48 and 49 prior to 2017.

unit 43

2022​

2021​

2020​

2019​

2018​

2017​

2016​

2015​

2014​

2013​

2012​

2011​

2010​

2009​

AVG

Bucks

901​

769​

770​

737​

958​

795​

1162​

1457​

1261​

641​

639​

631​

639​

538​

849.9​

Hunters

3284​

3304​

3788​

3568​

3622​

3943​

3783​

4081​

3550​

2550​

2144​

2375​

2282​

2059​

3166.6​

% success

34​

28​

25​

24.8​

31.2​

24​

34.6​

40​

41.6​

28.3​

34​

29.7​

30.3​

28.9​

31.0​

% 4pt

31​

29.4​

31.9​

35.8​

38.4​

44.4​

42.3​

47.7​

42.8​

41.3​

48.3​

37.7​

39.5​

36.2​

39.1​

unit 48

2022​

2021​

2020​

2019​

2018​

2017​

2016​

2015​

2014​

2013​

2012​

2011​

2010​

2009​

2015.5​

Bucks

603​

557​

572​

431​

471​

366​

633​

771​

525​

309​

357​

297​

277​

253​

458.7​

Hunters

1734​

1803​

1995​

1763​

1960​

2031​

1956​

2282​

1753​

1328​

1376​

1418​

1237​

1496​

1723.7​

% success

35​

31​

29​

24.5​

24​

18​

34.7​

36.6​

34.2​

24.7​

28.3​

23.5​

24.8​

18.5​

27.6​

% 4pt

41.6​

42.7​

36.7​

41.4​

39.8​

45​

46.9​

35.4​

32.4​

48​

34.8​

42.8​

40.4​

44.3​

40.9​

unit 49

2022​

2021​

2020​

2019​

2018​

2017​

2016​

2015​

2014​

2013​

2012​

2011​

2010​

2009​

2015.5​

Bucks

633​

661​

526​

360​

600​

476​

762​

741​

608​

536​

376​

329​

383​

341​

523.7​

Hunters

2049​

2113​

2144​

2068​

2402​

2723​

2614​

2740​

2542​

2213​

1744​

1753​

1721​

1938​

2197.4​

% success

31​

31​

25​

17.4​

25​

17.5​

34.1​

33.8​

28.9​

27.2​

24.3​

21.2​

26.6​

21.3​

26.0​

% 4pt

34.6​

28.2​

33.7​

32.3​

27​

30.9​

37.1​

35.6​

31.5​

33.6​

38.4​

38.8​

30.6​

33.3​

33.3​

This. This is where the rubber meets the road. Good work digging up stats here. Management by emotion should not prevail in the long run.

 

[CorbLand]

As a 208er for life, stuck in Utah. For the love of all that is holy, do not, do not, give up what you have in Idaho for some short term gains.

Restrict what you hunt with, not your opportunity to hunt.

 

[Andrew12gauge]

So what's your goal there? Just wanting to see less pressure? If so, how do you quantify that? Mule deer bucks per hunter? Hunters per square mile?

Find a halfway point between the free for all we currently have and controlled hunt only. The voices calling for controlled hunt only are only growing louder every year, but I would like to see a baby step in that direction that could appease those crowds. I do think that the current model is living on borrowed time. As it stands currently I could hunt mule deer every day from August 30 until December 31 if I’m willing to jump units and some will. Even our rifle seasons are staggered in a way that it jams everybody who travels to the less pressured areas away from the treasure valley but doesn’t harvest into 2 units for the final week of rifle season. How much could we alleviate pressure just on those 2 units alone by making people choose a zone. It’s not unprecedented since we also do it for elk. Better ability to open and close the faucet as it were for season dates and harvest restrictions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[87TT]

Don’t screw with it! The deer and people will adapt.

 

[Spoonbill]

Find a halfway point between the free for all we currently have and controlled hunt only. The voices calling for controlled hunt only are only growing louder every year, but I would like to see a baby step in that direction that could appease those crowds. I do think that the current model is living on borrowed time. As it stands currently I could hunt mule deer every day from August 30 until December 31 if I’m willing to jump units and some will. Even our rifle seasons are staggered in a way that it jams everybody who travels to the less pressured areas away from the treasure valley but doesn’t harvest into 2 units for the final week of rifle season. How much could we alleviate pressure just on those 2 units alone by making people choose a zone. It’s not unprecedented since we also do it for elk. Better ability to open and close the faucet as it were for season dates and harvest restrictions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why find a halfway point? Once we do that then there will be calls for point systems because those who wanted controlled hunts can’t go hunting because they can’t get a tag or the chosen unit ran out of tags, system crashed and tags couldnt be purchased etc etc.
The idea behind the nonresident caps and limiting nonresidents to specific units was to alleviate pressure, and people still complain about overcrowding.
@Andrew12gauge I get what you are saying about varying season dates that cram people into a small number of units and that can definitely create problems. What about scrapping the whitetail vs general deer tags and just allowing people to buy 1 tag that can be used in either season? Curious if you think that would help calm the controlled hunt only crowd.