Proposed Deer plan for Central Idaho(not official)

[Customweld]

The elk zones work because they are pick your weapon. Unless you split the deer the same way, you aren’t going to decrease pressure unless you cut tags. Cutting tags in one zone just pushes hunters to other zones. Quit looking for a problem that isn’t there.
Also you can’t just buy a tag and hunt anywhere in Idaho. There are a half dozen or so units that are strictly draw hunts only.

 

[Spoonbill]

The elk zones work because they are pick your weapon. Unless you split the deer the same way, you aren’t going to decrease pressure unless you cut tags. Cutting tags in one zone just pushes hunters to other zones. Quit looking for a problem that isn’t there.
Also you can’t just buy a tag and hunt anywhere in Idaho. There are a half dozen or so units that are strictly draw hunts only.

Edited my original post, I meant any otc unit.

 

[Andrew12gauge]

The elk zones work because they are pick your weapon. Unless you split the deer the same way, you aren’t going to decrease pressure unless you cut tags. Cutting tags in one zone just pushes hunters to other zones. Quit looking for a problem that isn’t there.
Also you can’t just buy a tag and hunt anywhere in Idaho. There are a half dozen or so units that are strictly draw hunts only.

Sorry my bad, only 95% of the state has no management. I’ll try to enjoy only hunting every 3-5 years I guess because that is what is actually going to happen unless we can come up with a better option for IDFG before they get there themselves


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[87TT]

Take a couple years off and then see how you feel. I still say the vast majority of hunters don't want it to change and the ones that do only want "small" changes that benefit them.

 

[Gobbler36]

Take a couple years off and then see how you feel. I still say the vast majority of hunters don't want it to change and the ones that do only want "small" changes that benefit them.

how is getting zones and having people choose a weapon season only benefiting me?
I like that I can hunt deer from Aug to December but I can be honest with myself and ask if it’s the best thing for the resource, is it best for hunters?

 

[Spoonbill]

how is getting zones and having people choose a weapon season only benefiting me?
I like that I can hunt deer from Aug to December but I can be honest with myself and ask if it’s the best thing for the resource, is it best for hunters?

It won’t change the amount of deer harvested, it will just change the amount of people, which benefits you as there is less pressure.
I don’t understand how being able to hunt from August to December is a bad thing. You only get one tag so if you tag out in August you are done, unless you pick up a left over NR tag. Anyone dedicated enough to hunt deer for 5 months on 1 maybe 2 tags is likely looking for a mature buck and is not part of the problem. It’s not like it is back east where you can shoot multiple does a day for the entire 5 month season.

 

[87TT]

It benefits you because you don’t care if you have to skip a year and have years to skip. What about the folks who have jobs and can’t afford to get away to hunt. Or the family that can’t travel to hunt. That young hunter is going to have to wait a few years to hunt his local area? I could go on and on but the bottom line is, leave it the **** alone. The deer will adapt and so can you.

 

[Gobbler36]

they Will adapt, absolutely
it will be either a negative adaptation or positive one
at this point It’s all of our best guess I feel so we’ll just see how it shakes out.
i feel we‘re beating a dead horse here so I’m gonna step away.
glad the convo could stay cordial, I do see some other points and have benefited from this so Ill call that a win. I do realize that I’m gonna to be more active in writing f&g and attending public comment meetings etc
so glad I was called out for that!
Have a happy thanksgiving folks

 

[Andrew12gauge]

It benefits you because you don’t care if you have to skip a year and have years to skip. What about the folks who have jobs and can’t afford to get away to hunt. Or the family that can’t travel to hunt. That young hunter is going to have to wait a few years to hunt his local area? I could go on and on but the bottom line is, leave it the **** alone. The deer will adapt and so can you.

I don’t get it, all of your arguments are flawed, how does a zone system where tags are still sold OTC mean that someone has to skip a year of hunting or cannot hunt close to their home? These are all issues that will arise when they implement a controlled hunt only system, which based on the black bear survey they may be close to doing already for bears and there are far fewer issues with crowding and pressure in bear hunting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[littlebigtine]

I’ve never heard anyone say that really and realize fully that txt is impossible to detect sarcasm/humor. I said that in tongue in cheek and more so making a comparison.

There’s a bit of inconsideration in this thread for the rest of the state all because a few guys are upset about pressure in TWO units.

Luckily F&G is ignoring these request so far and I imagine they will for some time.

south hills did it first! hahaha

 

[idelkslayer]

I fully support mandatory reporting and having some incentive for those who report on time and some form of penalty for not reporting. Pick a date, 10 days after the last season closes. Anyone who hasn't submitted their report by then can't apply for controlled hunts. Pick another date 30 days after that and anyone who doesn't report by then can't buy a tag the next year. Or charge them a late reporting fee in order to buy a tag, I don't know maybe $100 would hurt enough.

As for current management strategies, leave it alone or we will make it worse with unintended consequences.

 

[BH2010]

I fully support mandatory reporting and having some incentive for those who report on time and some form of penalty for not reporting. Pick a date, 10 days after the last season closes. Anyone who hasn't submitted their report by then can't apply for controlled hunts. Pick another date 30 days after that and anyone who doesn't report by then can't buy a tag the next year. Or charge them a late reporting fee in order to buy a tag, I don't know maybe $100 would hurt enough.

As for current management strategies, leave it alone or we will make it worse with unintended consequences.

I've never understood why western states don't do this. My home state of Missouri has always had mandatory reporting, and it used to be that you had to present the deer in person to a check station by 10pm the day you shot it. Today you can dial a 1-800 number or use their app on your phone. Now I understand that you might need more time out West to get some cell signal, but not doing it at all? It's asinine to not collect that kill data, and more. We have to report how many points a deer has, if the antler base has a circumference of 2.5" or more, and for does if the distance from eye to nose is 4.5" or more. If you don't check a deer in MO you've essentially poached it, regardless of whether or not you've got a notched tag.

Why can't western states with critical management issues do the same and actually make some evidence-based decisions?

Sent from my SM-G986U1 using Tapatalk

 

[OlRoyWhitetails]

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.

Agreed. Point minimums don’t achieve the desired management outcomes in the longer term, and every state that has implemented them repeals the decision after a few years.

 

[KurtR]

Kinda off topic but who in their right mind thinks having a season where you kill just fork horns is a good idea. My brother is hunting a draw tag now and he was telling me thats what they do the month of october in that unit. Makes no sense to me to kill all the young deer.

 

[Spoonbill]

Kinda off topic but who in their right mind thinks having a season where you kill just fork horns is a good idea. My brother is hunting a draw tag now and he was telling me thats what they do the month of october in that unit. Makes no sense to me to kill all the young deer.

It was posted somewhere on here so take it with a grain of salt, something like 50% of yearling bucks die so maybe that’s why. That being said, some mature bucks can be forkies so who knows, maybe it is a unit covered in mature 2 points.

 

[WeiserBucks]

The 2 point hunts are another way to spread out hunters and sell tags. I don't agree with the concept but F&G doesn't care what I think.

 

[Customweld]

The 2 point hunts are another way to spread out hunters and sell tags. I don't agree with the concept but F&G doesn't care what I think.

Exactly. There are a couple of units close to Boise that soak up quite a few hunters that would other wise end up in other units.
For the record, I hate the practice, but @Spoonbill is correct. That was the info that came across in one of the Rokcasts with Toby from IFG.

 

[KurtR]

It was posted somewhere on here so take it with a grain of salt, something like 50% of yearling bucks die so maybe that’s why. That being said, some mature bucks can be forkies so who knows, maybe it is a unit covered in mature 2 points.

He has been up there alot since the 1st and he is seeing all kinds of does with a few young bucks but you would think with that amount of does around you would at least see a mature deer. He said the nice thing is he had seen no one else hunting so he has it all to him self pretty much.

 

[87TT]

They are there, just saying.

 

[littlebigtine]

Wow, this podcast episode has me completely rethinking this thread. The difference between what I think and you think is meaningless in regards to what actually faces conservation as a whole. Its like antler point restrictions is Mars and limited entry is Venus and then how the human race and its culture interprets hunting is the Milky Way. Id be very interested to hear some thoughts on what this Shane Mahoney guy is cooking up. I thinks that it’s possibly the most important thing to happen to hunting from a public relations standpoint ever. If his mission is successful, wild places and things might get the type of protection AND funding on par with commercial agriculture, which makes sense seeing as it is so instrumental in food security. This mode of thinking where protecting wild harvest is actually the most effective way to ensure biodiversity and reduce carbon footprint is obvious but I never really thought of it on the commercial scale he has imagined. No hunting means meat scarcity. Meat scarcity means more land used for cattle, pigs, chickens, most likely in an unsustainable fashion. Not only will that meat be less nutritious but also the Land needed to create this new food supply has a singular use which only leads to less biodiversity perpetually. Not a feedback loop I want to be apart of. I think I have changed my mind a bit on the “reduction” of opportunity in these central idaho units. If people harvest less and less deer every year going forward and our population keeps going up and up, will the added strain on the food supply require more land to be used for commercial ag? Will that land be essential winter range for deer or elk. Will disappearing habitat further the decline in available tags which creates more of a demand on domestic livestock? Scary to think that we are walking such a fine line but it certainly seems like it to me.