Sacrificing weapon quality for buck/herd quality and opportunity

[ResearchinStuff]

the more i hunt during the rut with a bow, the more i realize the weapon is not actually a limitation for hunting success. the biggest limitation is simply the minutes of daylight activity that species has on the day you're hunting them.

 

[MeatInTheFreezer]

I just want to hunt as much as possible while maintaining healthy herds.

 

[Hnthrdr]

I just want to hunt as much as possible while maintaining healthy herds.

I think that’s what we all want

 

[dirtytough]

I voted for

It will help the herd/buck quality and I’m willing to hunt deer with a “primitive weapon”​

But I don’t understand how it will actually help herd quality. As in good D/F ratios and a growing herd.

I fully support limiting weapon lethality so tag numbers can stay level and maybe even rise.

 

[elkhunter505]

I missed this thread when it came out but I’d like to add in one thing that I think gets overlooked. In the heyday of MD hunting, the habitat was phenomenal in comparison to what it is today. Fire suppression and lack of disturbance has degraded the early successional habitat that deer thrive on. Even if predator control was applied, there is a possibility that animals that were dying due to predation would die due to something else. Whether or not that is the case for certain areas is variable, but I think if we want a long-term sustainable solution to see more, larger bucks, we need to look and invest into habitat restoration. Yes, we can use these weapons restrictions as a way to help in the short-term, but if the habitat quality is declining, it will not be a long-term solution. This means investing in habitat management extensively while also using restrictions as the way to deal with hunter satisfaction short-term.

I also support the weapons restrictions as I was/am primarily a bowhunter because of the difficulty in drawing rifle tags back at home. I do think it’s pretty crazy to be able to hunt deer during the rut with a rifle in MT. Is it fun? Absolutely. Is it sustainable if people want to see bigger bucks? No. But as Robby mentioned on the podcast with the CPW biologist recently, big bucks hunters are the minority of hunters. Since they are the minority, maybe the only option in certain areas is to increase carrying capacity and support normal hunters shooting does rather than bucks.

 

[robby denning]

I missed this thread when it came out but I’d like to add in one thing that I think gets overlooked. In the heyday of MD hunting, the habitat was phenomenal in comparison to what it is today. Fire suppression and lack of disturbance has degraded the early successional habitat that deer thrive on. Even if predator control was applied, there is a possibility that animals that were dying due to predation would die due to something else. Whether or not that is the case for certain areas is variable, but I think if we want a long-term sustainable solution to see more, larger bucks, we need to look and invest into habitat restoration. Yes, we can use these weapons restrictions as a way to help in the short-term, but if the habitat quality is declining, it will not be a long-term solution. This means investing in habitat management extensively while also using restrictions as the way to deal with hunter satisfaction short-term.

I also support the weapons restrictions as I was/am primarily a bowhunter because of the difficulty in drawing rifle tags back at home. I do think it’s pretty crazy to be able to hunt deer during the rut with a rifle in MT. Is it fun? Absolutely. Is it sustainable if people want to see bigger bucks? No. But as Robby mentioned on the podcast with the CPW biologist recently, big bucks hunters are the minority of hunters. Since they are the minority, maybe the only option in certain areas is to increase carrying capacity and support normal hunters shooting does rather than bucks.

Good stuff

And habitat is why I’m a lifetime member of the Mule Deer Foundation. It’s one of the things they heavily focus on. That audio ad that plays in the Rokcast is donated by us to them to help get their message out. We take no money for it.

 

[Felix40]

Primitive weapons would reduce success rates. If the same number of tags are issued then more animals will survive, ultimately increasing trophy class.


If the goal is to Increase tag numbers and ultimately the same number of animals harvested then no, would NOT have a benefit, and might even be more detrimental by having increased numbers of hunters and possible more wounding.


The surest way to increase trophy class is limited harvest and less pressure.


For population control killing cows/does etc is better with the most effective means possible to achieve the harvest goal.


Habitat improvements and good weather generally have a much larger effect on wildlife herd health than hunting management.


All that said I would love to have a traditional bow/spear/atl atl early season with a iron sight flintlock loose powder season to follow

This is exactly where I sit.

 

[Felix40]

I remember when NM tried a march hunt for Elk to help the population? That's a two for one right there.(cow) It did not work . The weapon has nothing to do with quality or quanity. It's the guy who gets out there and hunts hard. You know that guy, the one who brings home the venison everytime. Technology does not make you a better hunter JMHO. The equipment arguement has been around forever. Traditional vs compound, flintlock vs cap & ball. Where is the science in all this? How about water (drought) tough winters etc. predator control (trapping) the list goes on. At times, we are our own worst enemy.

We still have cow hunts all the way into February. It definitely kills extra elk.

 

[WRO]

All this will do long term is push Hunter effort into adjacent units and continue this pattern of more restrictions. In the name of opportunity and idahos hatred of draw hunts, we’ll all be hunting with spears and flintlocks before we know it.

 

[bigsky2]

I missed this thread when it came out but I’d like to add in one thing that I think gets overlooked. In the heyday of MD hunting, the habitat was phenomenal in comparison to what it is today. Fire suppression and lack of disturbance has degraded the early successional habitat that deer thrive on. Even if predator control was applied, there is a possibility that animals that were dying due to predation would die due to something else. Whether or not that is the case for certain areas is variable, but I think if we want a long-term sustainable solution to see more, larger bucks, we need to look and invest into habitat restoration. Yes, we can use these weapons restrictions as a way to help in the short-term, but if the habitat quality is declining, it will not be a long-term solution. This means investing in habitat management extensively while also using restrictions as the way to deal with hunter satisfaction short-term.

I also support the weapons restrictions as I was/am primarily a bowhunter because of the difficulty in drawing rifle tags back at home. I do think it’s pretty crazy to be able to hunt deer during the rut with a rifle in MT. Is it fun? Absolutely. Is it sustainable if people want to see bigger bucks? No. But as Robby mentioned on the podcast with the CPW biologist recently, big bucks hunters are the minority of hunters. Since they are the minority, maybe the only option in certain areas is to increase carrying capacity and support normal hunters shooting does rather than bucks.

I was born and raised in MT. It used to be a real possibility to find big mature bucks here if a hunter was willing to put in the time. Hunter effectiveness and pressure have changed to the point that it’s not really a realistic expectation to find a big buck on public land in the eastern half of the state anymore, unless you get lucky and catch one that wanders off of tightly managed private. Most of the “big” bucks being killed on public are three year old bucks with exceptional genetics. I get that most people aren't big buck hunters, but why not move the season out of the rut so some bucks at least stand a chance to survive the season? We could maintain OTC hunting and there would still be ample opportunity for people to fill their freezer every year without the need to shoot vulnerable rutting deer. At this point, hunting rutting mule deer for the entire month of November in open country with all the technology we have at our disposal, it’s not even sporting anymore.

 

[elkhunter505]

I was born and raised in MT. It used to be a real possibility to find big mature bucks here if a hunter was willing to put in the time. Hunter effectiveness and pressure have changed to the point that it’s not really a realistic expectation to find a big buck on public land in the eastern half of the state anymore, unless you get lucky and catch one that wanders off of tightly managed private. Most of the “big” bucks being killed on public are three year old bucks with exceptional genetics. I get that most people aren't big buck hunters, but why not move the season out of the rut so some bucks at least stand a chance to survive the season? We could maintain OTC hunting and there would still be ample opportunity for people to fill their freezer every year without the need to shoot vulnerable rutting deer. At this point, hunting rutting mule deer for the entire month of November in open country with all the technology we have at our disposal, it’s not even sporting anymore.

Hell if everyone is concerned about bucks, remove that time frame for them and allow doe harvest. Still get all the fun of watching bucks rut while allowing them to get bigger. Or if we are talking weapons restrictions, maybe restrict scopes or other stuff for the last 3 weeks of the season. There’s a lot of options and it takes a push from the bottom up to get these things done.

 

[Joelweb]

Good discussion. Anyone know what the IDFG commission decided on the SE muzzleloader proposals?

 

[LookinforDirt]

I missed this thread when it came out but I’d like to add in one thing that I think gets overlooked. In the heyday of MD hunting, the habitat was phenomenal in comparison to what it is today. Fire suppression and lack of disturbance has degraded the early successional habitat that deer thrive on. Even if predator control was applied, there is a possibility that animals that were dying due to predation would die due to something else. Whether or not that is the case for certain areas is variable, but I think if we want a long-term sustainable solution to see more, larger bucks, we need to look and invest into habitat restoration. Yes, we can use these weapons restrictions as a way to help in the short-term, but if the habitat quality is declining, it will not be a long-term solution. This means investing in habitat management extensively while also using restrictions as the way to deal with hunter satisfaction short-term.

I also support the weapons restrictions as I was/am primarily a bowhunter because of the difficulty in drawing rifle tags back at home. I do think it’s pretty crazy to be able to hunt deer during the rut with a rifle in MT. Is it fun? Absolutely. Is it sustainable if people want to see bigger bucks? No. But as Robby mentioned on the podcast with the CPW biologist recently, big bucks hunters are the minority of hunters. Since they are the minority, maybe the only option in certain areas is to increase carrying capacity and support normal hunters shooting does rather than bucks.

Good take on it. Reading through the thread I had the feeling we were fighting the problem with the wrong type of solution. The real problem for most people complaints about hunting issues is loss of habitat and habitat management. Agreed, that is where the focus should be. Some restrictions on weapons type and technology could help but I couldn’t say to what extent or for how long the restrictions should stay in place. I don’t like the idea of iron sights only vs allowing a dot or 1x or 2x scope. Too many old people, still perfectly fit and capable physically, with bad vision to go to iron sights.

 

[CoMulies]

This may be unpopular but i think atv use while hunting should be restricted on all public like it is in wilderness areas. Guys ripping up ridgelines, spotting deer from miles away, and then making it over to that deer in a short time has to have some measurable impact on quality bucks being harvested.

Would also be in favor of some kind of restriction on optics to limit range.

 

[Predator_SD]

Personally, i left Rifle hunting behind decades ago to pursue animals strictly with a bow for my own personal reasons. I absolutely believe that if more followed suit it would improve the quality of hunting. How could it not.

Now, what people don’t often consider is this trend the last 10 or so years of starting to allow Crossbows in general archery season. I am NOT against killing an animal with a crossbow. However, they are much more efficient and require so much less effort on the hunters part i am against allowing them in general archery. The average archery season is measured in months they weren’t designed to be for such efficient weapons.

They really should have their own season. If you look at the data on states that keep Bow VS Crossbow data separate like WI the crossbow kill quickly surpassed and is now almost double that of Bow kills in only 10 years of allowing them. The numbers also show crossbow hunters are disproportionately targeting Bucks. As a result the size/age structure of Bucks is generally declining on public lands where crossbow use is high. It is much harder to find a buck over 3 years old in SE WI than ever before in my 37 years of chasing them. Some public lands now i doubt even hold a buck over 2.

If you are fortunate to live in a state that still does not allow crossbows in general archery season fight it if it’s proposed. They should have like a 3-4 week season not 5 months hey currently have in WI. The success rate is way too high given a crossbow and that much time to get it done. The reality of buying tags is you should not be virtually guaranteed success the animals need to win sometimes if we hope to have quality hunting for our kids.

 

[elkhunter505]

Now, what people don’t often consider is this trend the last 10 or so years of starting to allow Crossbows in general archery season. I am NOT against killing an animal with a crossbow. However, they are much more efficient and require so much less effort on the hunters part i am against allowing them in general archery. The average archery season is measured in months they weren’t designed to be for such efficient weapons.

They should be lumped in with the muzzleloader season. NM allows mobility impaired hunters to use them in the archery season. For example, I had a friend tear his rotator cuff one year and hunted the hunt he had already drew with a crossbow. Seems like a reasonable solution to me. I think it’s hilarious to see people taking advantage of the archery regulations to hunt with a cross bow. I’ve seen people shoot animals at 100 yards on videos on YouTube. I’m a hypocrite when it comes to long shots in the past with my bow, but I can tell you for certain there is a much much greater chance of hitting an animal with a crossbow at those distances than with a bow.

I do think we have to take a look at technology on the short-term and habitat and voluntary restraint on the long-term. How many people do you see or know that brag about killing a deer at 600 yards with a rifle? It’s a lot. We should be bragging about putting an animal down as close as we possibly could. My attitude has really changed with archery hunting over the years because I learned that I wasn’t a good hunter, I was a good shot. As I have limited my shooting distance, my harvest rate has declined as has my number of misses. I had this conversation with a buddy yesterday. I have shot a lot of animals with a rifle in the desert and not one shot has ever been over 380 yards despite having ample opportunity. At the time I couldn’t shoot past that, but I could now and still find myself shooting animals at 200/250 on average. Those shots could be made with a 4 power scope all day long. A shot at 600 though? That would be a different story with a 4-power. Seems like it should come down to voluntary restraint. I’ve had animals shot out from under me by someone that was at a far greater distance than I was. It’s only happened a couple times and obviously they didn’t know I was there, but I think that there are likely people here that have had that happen in a competitive sense, particularly those that have drawn highly coveted sheep tags or other similar tags.

 

[Weldor]

Read about the north Kaibab herd. Used to great bowhunting. Then pressure and success was so high now it is a draw. So looks like that limited season did not work so well. They also over killed the does. I think there are a million reasons to do things, but handicapping equipment is only one option.

 

[bigsky2]

I agree with everyone that there are many factors impacting mule deer, with habitat being the biggest factor. We should try to address all of those factors, but I don’t think there’s any argument that hunter effectiveness would be the easiest thing to address.

 

[jpmulk]

Something i never see discussed is the optics. Limit optics to 1 or 3 power with muzzleloader and rifles. That will take away most people’s ability to shoot over a few hundred yards.

 

[CoMulies]

Something i never see discussed is the optics. Limit optics to 1 or 3 power with muzzleloader and rifles. That will take away most people’s ability to shoot over a few hundred yards.

Agree. 1-4x or so, duplex reticle, no dialing, no illumination. Only problem I see with this is, like others have mentioned, this will not stop the unethical from taking pot shots they have no business taking and wounding animals.

Playing devils advocate, is this really going to have that much impact? I’d wager the vast, vast majority of animals are still taken within 400 yards.