Proposed Deer plan for Central Idaho(not official)

[Andrew12gauge]

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.

No I don’t think it would, I think it would make it worse. The reality is that people have more time and somehow more disposable income so they will continue chasing the seasons wherever they’re open. I think it would be an absolute cluster in the whitetail seasons in November. I also think that if we go to a zone model for deer with quotas in some areas and unlimited tags in others at least you will always have an option, at that point if anybody wants to complain and push for controlled hunts because they didn’t get their chosen zone you say “tough deal” and move on. There will still be options to hunt and I do think the incentive of a statewide whitetail tag might attract some people when they aren’t able to get their chosen zone. You don’t hear anybody calling for controlled hunt only elk hunting right now, there are those who cry when they can’t buy sawtooth but even that has been alleviated some since the new 5 day rule has been implemented.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[IdahoElk]

Thanks for the opinions, You guys are bringing up points I never considered.
The NR aspect doesn't concern me as much as the lack of Deer numbers we are currently experiencing.

 

[idelkslayer]

I don't know what guys expect when we have 2 extremely bad winters, 2022-23 and 2016-17, in five years with another not great winter, 2018-19, in between. Deer numbers are going to be low for a while. The rebound in population is dependent on good habitat and mild winters.

You can put every unit in the state into a controlled hunt and reduce pressure by half and it wouldn't matter if we continue to have killer winters every 3 years.

I caution against making grand sweeping changes based off what we've seen in the last couple years. Patience and perspective is what's needed right now.

 

[Customweld]

I don't know what guys expect when we have 2 extremely bad winters, 2022-23 and 2016-17, in five years with another not great winter, 2018-19, in between. Deer numbers are going to be low for a while. The rebound in population is dependent on good habitat and mild winters.

You can put every unit in the state into a controlled hunt and reduce pressure by half and it wouldn't matter if we continue to have killer winters every 3 years.

I caution against making grand sweeping changes based off what we've seen in the last couple years. Patience and perspective is what's needed right now.

Absolutely agree. 1 bad winter can erase 10 years of population gain.

 

[Pacific_Fork]

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​

The data doesn’t lie.

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.

This x100. Can’t stress enough that everyone would be better off hunting with iron sights than taking opportunity.

Touch my OTC muley tag and I’ll cut you

Kidding around of course…

 

[87TT]

“Tough deal”

 

[IdahoElk]

I don't know what guys expect when we have 2 extremely bad winters, 2022-23 and 2016-17, in five years with another not great winter, 2018-19, in between. Deer numbers are going to be low for a while. The rebound in population is dependent on good habitat and mild winters.

You can put every unit in the state into a controlled hunt and reduce pressure by half and it wouldn't matter if we continue to have killer winters every 3 years.

I caution against making grand sweeping changes based off what we've seen in the last couple years. Patience and perspective is what's needed right now.

I agree but also shooting anything with 3" antlers isn't helping either which is what I saw this year.

 

[Ross B]

I wrote this.
If hunters spent as much time writing letters to their f&g as they do talkin here. There would probably be some really good options on the table.

At least there is good dialog and a lot of interesting perspectives so I’ll call that a win

 

[Andrew12gauge]

I wrote this.
If hunters spent as much time writing letters to their f&g as they do talkin here. There would probably be some really good options on the table.

At least there is good dialog and a lot of interesting perspectives so I’ll call that a win

I wrote my commissioner asking for them to look at implementing a zone model similar to elk back in September, unfortunately I have received no response


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Spoonbill]

I agree but also shooting anything with 3" antlers isn't helping either which is what I saw this year.

Unfortunately, that’s been happening for a long time. It is the “I need this deer for food” crowd, which is definitely true for some, but a lot of those people are just lazy. I would be willing to bet that monster 3” buck was shot by a road hunter?

 

[Jaden Bales]

I wrote this.
If hunters spent as much time writing letters to their f&g as they do talkin here. There would probably be some really good options on the table.

At least there is good dialog and a lot of interesting perspectives so I’ll call that a win

Great attitude to have! And agreed, it’s important to talk with the actual powers that be more than randos on the internet if you want to get anything done

 

[Jaden Bales]

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

I think the piece you’re missing is any sort of metric to guide this process man. Like, at the end of the day the G&F manage hunters and season dates based on buck ratios. So you’re trying to talk to them about hunter pressure when that’s a subjective measuring tool from one person to another. It’s hard to act on because, for instance a Wisconsinite who expects 12 people doing deer drives every 40 acres comes out to the busiest Idaho unit and feels like they have room to breathe. I just was on a hunt with only 5 tags and everyone was congested in a 1 mile square area. That made that hunt feel busy to me.

The morale of the story is, I think your efforts would be better received and more likely to be acted on by the agency if you speak in a language that is used in the Mule Deer management plan that is published every 5 years. This one ends in 2025.

 

[Andrew12gauge]

I think the piece you’re missing is any sort of metric to guide this process man. Like, at the end of the day the G&F manage hunters and season dates based on buck ratios. So you’re trying to talk to them about hunter pressure when that’s a subjective measuring tool from one person to another. It’s hard to act on because, for instance a Wisconsinite who expects 12 people doing deer drives every 40 acres comes out to the busiest Idaho unit and feels like they have room to breathe. I just was on a hunt with only 5 tags and everyone was congested in a 1 mile square area. That made that hunt feel busy to me.

The morale of the story is, I think your efforts would be better received and more likely to be acted on by the agency if you speak in a language that is used in the Mule Deer management plan that is published every 5 years. This one ends in 2025.

Except that hunter crowding/pressure has been measured by IDFG and U of I and is something they have been working to address, they took a big 1st step with the NR tags going by unit, and I am afraid that at some point they may bow to the public pressure and go to a controlled hunt only model which opens a whole new can of worms into how we run our draws and possibilities of a point system. In the meantime you have a lot of us residents who have been here a long time who want to be able to continue to buy deer tags over the counter and hunt every year. I am just a guy who loves to hunt, trying to raise some kids who I also want to see be able to hunt in the future and I fear the direction I hear public sentiment heading towards controlled hunt only and think that maybe there is a happy medium where we can all hunt every year still, and ease crowding and pressure to a point that it is still enjoyable


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jaden Bales]

Except that hunter crowding/pressure has been measured by IDFG and U of I and is something they have been working to address, they took a big 1st step with the NR tags going by unit, and I am afraid that at some point they may bow to the public pressure and go to a controlled hunt only model which opens a whole new can of worms into how we run our draws and possibilities of a point system. In the meantime you have a lot of us residents who have been here a long time who want to be able to continue to buy deer tags over the counter and hunt every year. I am just a guy who loves to hunt, trying to raise some kids who I also want to see be able to hunt in the future and I fear the direction I hear public sentiment heading towards controlled hunt only and think that maybe there is a happy medium where we can all hunt every year still, and ease crowding and pressure to a point that it is still enjoyable


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Man, I dove into the F&G mule deer plan and you’re so right, I didn’t realize they had an entire section related to hunter congestion. Their surveys are kinda guiding the results there.

I’d like to know thoughts on the hybrid model in units - where have controlled hunts with dates top of a general season in a unit. They figured it could reduce crowding by 25%.

Do they do this in any of the units you guys hunt already?

 

[Andrew12gauge]

Man, I dove into the F&G mule deer plan and you’re so right, I didn’t realize they had an entire section related to hunter congestion. Their surveys are kinda guiding the results there.

I’d like to know thoughts on the hybrid model in units - where have controlled hunts with dates top of a general season in a unit. They figured it could reduce crowding by 25%.

Do they do this in any of the units you guys hunt already?

No, there are general units that have late controlled hunts in November but nothing like that except for some panhandle units that have a rifle tag from Aug 30-Dec 1 with general seasons that fall inside of that structure, Oct 10-Dec 1 or October 10-Nov 9 for whitetail with a 9 or 14 day season for mule deer starting November 1 in each unit as well


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Andrew12gauge]

The issue I see with the proposal that this thread is about, while an unlimited controlled hunt would limit hunter numbers, by virtue it is going to push some hunters off to other general season units, thereby making crowding worse in areas like unit 39, the sawtooth units 33-36, probably the 50’s units, and it will never come back from a controlled hunt model. In a zone tag system like we already have for elk you get more management ability without having to convert to controlled hunts. The reality is once the snowball starts rolling down hill with more controlled hunts it won’t stop and we won’t have any general hunts before you know it. Nobody is calling for controlled hunt only elk hunting in this state because the way the system works you can learn a zone(maybe 2 if you have a favorite quota zone) and hunt it every year. If we did the same with deer I bet crowding would be reduced greatly(10-20% maybe) in the most crowded areas, including the ones referred to in the original letter and our kids and grandkids would still be able to continue on the hunting heritage into the future as the population of our state balloons.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Spoonbill]

The issue I see with the proposal that this thread is about, while an unlimited controlled hunt would limit hunter numbers, by virtue it is going to push some hunters off to other general season units, thereby making crowding worse in areas like unit 39, the sawtooth units 33-36, probably the 50’s units, and it will never come back from a controlled hunt model. In a zone tag system like we already have for elk you get more management ability without having to convert to controlled hunts. The reality is once the snowball starts rolling down hill with more controlled hunts it won’t stop and we won’t have any general hunts before you know it. Nobody is calling for controlled hunt only elk hunting in this state because the way the system works you can learn a zone(maybe 2 if you have a favorite quota zone) and hunt it every year. If we did the same with deer I bet crowding would be reduced greatly(10-20% maybe) in the most crowded areas, including the ones referred to in the original letter and our kids and grandkids would still be able to continue on the hunting heritage into the future as the population of our state balloons.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The unlimited controlled hunt and picking a zone essentially works the same way. 2 of the units mentioned are in the same elk zone and one is not. The original proposal allows people to hunt in the same area but not be stuck to only one side of the road (as it is with elk hunting).

This is an idea I have been kicking around and am not sure if it will solve problems so I would like to get some opinions. For areas that have been hit hard with a bad winter, what if fish and game made it a limited entry tag for the next year. Similar to what is being proposed but it would be a temporary measure and the next year the unit would automatically revert back to an OTC unit. This gives the herds a chance at recovery while also allowing for hunting opportunities.

 

[Andrew12gauge]

The unlimited controlled hunt and picking a zone essentially works the same way. 2 of the units mentioned are in the same elk zone and one is not. The original proposal allows people to hunt in the same area but not be stuck to only one side of the road (as it is with elk hunting).

This is an idea I have been kicking around and am not sure if it will solve problems so I would like to get some opinions. For areas that have been hit hard with a bad winter, what if fish and game made it a limited entry tag for the next year. Similar to what is being proposed but it would be a temporary measure and the next year the unit would automatically revert back to an OTC unit. This gives the herds a chance at recovery while also allowing for hunting opportunities.

The problem is you’re only spreading the crowding into other areas with an unlimited controlled hunt, and eventually it just leads to more controlled hunts. The idea of making them controlled for 1 year and then reverting back to OTC is not realistic. Never has a unit gone controlled and then back to OTC. That is not the way it works, once it’s controlled it never comes back. However if a zone is hurting population wise, it would be an opportunity to put a quota in place for that zone for a period of time in order to manage hunter numbers until the population can recover. The way IDFG currently manages mule deer is not a sustainable model, if nothing else a zone model would at least allow them to roughly estimate how many are hunting in any given unit each year as I’ve been told by a IDFG bio that all of the harvest numbers are really just a guess based on the 10% of hunters who file their “mandatory” hunter reports


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[idelkslayer]

I agree but also shooting anything with 3" antlers isn't helping either which is what I saw this year.

I'm not sure I understand so I have to ask. Shooting yearling bucks isn't helping what exactly? Population recovery? As long as the post-season buck to doe ratio is above 15:100, IDFG (and other agencies) has documented that the does are being bred and population growth is not improved by having more bucks on the landscape.

Is it not helping trophy quality? Yearling (1.5 yr old) bucks have always made up ~50% of the buck harvest ever since IDFG began keeping records. That is why we often see a jump in %4pt in the harvest following a bad winter. It's not because there were more older bucks, there were just fewer young bucks because they died as fawns the previous winter. Antler point restrictions, APR, for mule deer have been shown to have a short term benefit in the first 1-3 years and then it tends to be detrimental to trophy quality in the long term. My worry is that any attempt to use APR in the short term after a bad winter would be very difficult to reverse after a couple years because public perception continues to misunderstand and support APRs as a long term solution. If we want more big bucks we need more deer, that means good habitat protection and mild winters. Several of Robby's recent interviews on the Rokcast have done a great job of describing APRs, winter survival and population growth.

Except that hunter crowding/pressure has been measured by IDFG and U of I and is something they have been working to address, they took a big 1st step with the NR tags going by unit, and I am afraid that at some point they may bow to the public pressure and go to a controlled hunt only model which opens a whole new can of worms into how we run our draws and possibilities of a point system. In the meantime you have a lot of us residents who have been here a long time who want to be able to continue to buy deer tags over the counter and hunt every year. I am just a guy who loves to hunt, trying to raise some kids who I also want to see be able to hunt in the future and I fear the direction I hear public sentiment heading towards controlled hunt only and think that maybe there is a happy medium where we can all hunt every year still, and ease crowding and pressure to a point that it is still enjoyable


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I appreciated the effort put into that hunter congestion survey. I think what IDFG did to spread out NR pressure was a good move. However, in general I think that the questions and responses to those surveys are too subjective, and I take the results with a grain of salt. Each question was based on how each individual "perceived" things like crowding, hunter numbers, non-residents, access, etc. I find it interesting that over 50% of respondents blamed non-residents as the factor that "most contributed" to the amount of congestion they experienced. That is simply not possible from a shear numbers standpoint. It is/was definitely a contributing factor but cannot account for all the pressure.

I'm one of those guys that doesn't like to see even 1 other hunter in the field, but is that a reasonable basis for perceived congestion? How many other hunters should I be willing to see on any given day before I am justified in feeling crowded out? I don't really know the answer. Like I said, I don't like seeing anybody, but the amount of people I see on regular basis hasn't negatively affected my success rate so I guess I'm not being objectively impacted by crowding, even though I feel subjectively impacted.

I also agree with your concern about those voices who are calling for all mule deer hunting to be via controlled hunt. There may come a time when a zone structure for mule deer becomes necessary, I just don't think we are there yet. I think there are other things that can be done to reduce actual pressure before we get there, many of which were discussed in the Mule Deer Management Plan and having to do with season structure.

 

[idelkslayer]

The issue I see with the proposal that this thread is about, while an unlimited controlled hunt would limit hunter numbers, by virtue it is going to push some hunters off to other general season units, thereby making crowding worse in areas like unit 39, the sawtooth units 33-36, probably the 50’s units, and it will never come back from a controlled hunt model. In a zone tag system like we already have for elk you get more management ability without having to convert to controlled hunts. The reality is once the snowball starts rolling down hill with more controlled hunts it won’t stop and we won’t have any general hunts before you know it. Nobody is calling for controlled hunt only elk hunting in this state because the way the system works you can learn a zone(maybe 2 if you have a favorite quota zone) and hunt it every year. If we did the same with deer I bet crowding would be reduced greatly(10-20% maybe) in the most crowded areas, including the ones referred to in the original letter and our kids and grandkids would still be able to continue on the hunting heritage into the future as the population of our state balloons.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I see your point that a zone model would at least lead to improved accuracy in the harvest statistics and hunter numbers in each zone but I don't see how it would reduce crowding especially if quotas are applied to any of the zones. Quotas would just push hunters into surrounding unlimited zones and increase crowding there.

I agree that a temporary controlled hunt is a bad idea because it would be difficult to return to OTC.

To refer back to the statistics I previously posted, hunters already self regulate to a degree. Hunter numbers do decline when deer numbers are low. As deer numbers increase and success rates rise, hunter numbers follow. Compare the number of hunters in each of these 3 units during the last peak in deer numbers of 2015-16 to now. There was a hard winter and it took hunters a year or two to observe the reduction in deer numbers and success rates and react. By 2018 hunter numbers were dropping and now in each of those units there are between 200 and 500 fewer hunters even as harvest had begun to increase before this most recent winter.