The Future of Idaho

[IdahoBeav]

I know the numbers in and out. the majority of units are highly regulated. If you are out of state and hunted in Oregon with 5 points you are hunting a unit with a high amount of resident tags in that unit. Are saying that there is a unit with 50 percent success rate? Or 50 percent of kills are forky? because if it is a 50 percent success rate and takes a resident 1 or 2 points I will move right on over there.

as far as terrain ….. I have always felt like Idaho was easier. A lot more area to glass and shoot.

anyway I still believe wolves are a large contributing factor to declining populations. Depending what study you look at … liberal study stating a single wolf will take 20 deer a year …. Conservative study stating 50 a year ….. multiplied by probably a low inaccurate count of wolf populations - we are looking at thousands of deer if not tens of thousands taken by wolves alone.

It took a resident 5 points to draw, 6 for nonres, but this unit has experienced point creep in the last 10± years. It had been a few years since I looked at the harvest rates, but looking at the 2022 numbers now, there are many units over 50% harvest success (as in punching a tag), and the southeast zone as a whole was 46%. The northeast was 33%.

The fact that the demand is high and the hunts are controlled, i.e. "highly regulated", does not mean that they are preserving or building herd numbers. They're not, and they are issuing too many tags for the animals they have.

Yes, the predator management is a joke, but it's not the biggest factor on mule deer. I grew up in Oregon. For decades you would hear people claim "Well, if they hadn't banned hound hunting. . .", and then these same people would kill dink bucks every opportunity they had. The ending of hound hunting for cats and bears was an easy scape goat. Now they can blame the wolves, too. Well, I have bad news, the wolf problem isn't going away. It cannot be corrected, even with an unlimited hunting season on wolves (see Idaho).

It all comes down to the tag numbers and hunter harvest. That is what can be adjusted.

 

[IdahoBeav]

as far as terrain ….. I have always felt like Idaho was easier to hunt. A lot more area to glass and shoot.

There are only two areas in Eastern Oregon that I consider remote- The Strawberries and the Eagle Caps. The majority of NFS land in Oregon has a lot of roads and available easy access. There are many units in Idaho that I would say 75%+ of the land is remote.

 

[JohnJohnson]

As someone who has killed a mule deer with a non-resident tag, it's my fault. Non-residents are so much more advanced compared to resident hunters that we can have this effect despite our numbers being capped. We ride around in convoys wreaking havoc on Idaho wildlife without a care in the world while blaring our east coast rap music.

 

[repins05]

It took a resident 5 points to draw, 6 for nonres, but this unit has experienced point creep in the last 10± years. It had been a few years since I looked at the harvest rates, but looking at the 2022 numbers now, there are many units over 50% harvest success (as in punching a tag), and the southeast zone as a whole was 46%. The northeast was 33%.

The fact that the demand is high and the hunts are controlled, i.e. "highly regulated", does not mean that they are preserving or building herd numbers. They're not, and they are issuing too many tags for the animals they have.

Yes, the predator management is a joke, but it's not the biggest factor on mule deer. I grew up in Oregon. For decades you would hear people claim "Well, if they hadn't banned hound hunting. . .", and then these same people would kill dink bucks every opportunity they had. The ending of hound hunting for cats and bears was an easy scape goat. Now they can blame the wolves, too. Well, I have bad news, the wolf problem isn't going away. It cannot be corrected, even with an unlimited hunting season on wolves (see Idaho).

It all comes down to the tag numbers and hunter harvest. That is what can be adjusted.

We will just continue to disagree. What unit are you hunting and I will look it up. Perhaps that will give me some insight to what your thoughts.

I do not think the solution to the problem is reducing tags because hunters are decimating the population of elk and deer here in OR. 10 years ago I would see a hundred doe's in a day of hunting. I might see 20 deer just driving into my hunting spot. Last year I saw 6 does in 3 days of scouting for my camp during season. Saw one wolf. Also saw a wolf during spring bear. Supposedly, there are 175 wolves in Oregon. I saw two of them. Supposedly there are 160,000+ mule deer in Oregon. I saw 6 during season.

 

[Jason Snyder]

Must be 53k wolves then?

 

[repins05]

As someone who has killed a mule deer with a non-resident tag, it's my fault. Non-residents are so much more advanced compared to resident hunters that we can have this effect despite our numbers being capped. We ride around in convoys wreaking havoc on Idaho wildlife without a care in the world while blaring our east coast rap music.

I think the deer like the bass.

 

[IdahoBeav]

We will just continue to disagree. What unit are you hunting and I will look it up. Perhaps that will give me some insight to what your thoughts.

I do not think the solution to the problem is reducing tags because hunters are decimating the population of elk and deer here in OR. 10 years ago I would see a hundred doe's in a day of hunting. I might see 20 deer just driving into my hunting spot. Last year I saw 6 does in 3 days of scouting for my camp during season. Saw one wolf. Also saw a wolf during spring bear. Supposedly, there are 175 wolves in Oregon. I saw two of them. Supposedly there are 160,000+ mule deer in Oregon. I saw 6 during season.

My Oregon buddies have me sworn to secrecy on the unit, but there are a good number of units that are about 50% success, and it's not just this unit or last season where I witnessed a bunch of small bucks being killed.

Big game hunting harvest statistics | Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife

See the latest and historic data about big game hunting statistics for different hunts.

myodfw.com

Strangely, on the hunt last season, I saw the most deer from the road while I was driving around after I had punched my tag, and almost all of the bucks I saw hanging were whole carcasses. On the mountain, I saw very few deer. I killed a decent one, but the only other buck I saw while hiking and glassing was a spike.

 

[repins05]

My Oregon buddies have me sworn to secrecy on the unit, but there are a good number of units that are about 50% success, and it's not just this unit or last season where I witnessed a bunch of small bucks being killed.

Big game hunting harvest statistics | Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife

See the latest and historic data about big game hunting statistics for different hunts.

myodfw.com

Strangely, on the hunt last season, I saw the most deer from the road while I was driving around after I had punched my tag, and almost all of the bucks I saw hanging were whole carcasses. On the mountain, I saw very few deer. I killed a decent one, but the only other buck I saw while hiking and glassing was a spike.

Lol. Ok....and all of these units with 50 percent success rate. Just looked at the numbers. You can go to ODFW and check for yourself.

 

[IdahoBeav]

As someone who has killed a mule deer with a non-resident tag, it's my fault. Non-residents are so much more advanced compared to resident hunters that we can have this effect despite our numbers being capped. We ride around in convoys wreaking havoc on Idaho wildlife without a care in the world while blaring our east coast rap music.

Not entirely untrue. Nonres success % are higher than that of residents, and it has been my observation that the majority of the disdain for nonres is due to jealousy.

 

[repins05]

Must be 53k wolves then?

Dumb.

 

[repins05]

Not entirely untrue. Nonres success % are higher than that of residents, and it has been my observation that the majority of the disdain for nonres is due to jealousy.

Non Resident could be higher. I know a lot of locals that buy a tag but don't hunt. A NR spending the dollars is going to most likely hunt hard (or at least a higher percentage are going to).

 

[IdahoBeav]

Lol. Ok....and all of these units with 50 percent success rate. Just looked at the numbers. You can go to ODFW and check for yourself.

Where do you think I got the numbers? It's the farthest right column on the sheet through the link I posted. For 2022 between the SE and NE zones, six units were over 50%, and the SE as a whole was 46% (1,458 for 3,188).

I suppose I should have wrote 45%± instead of 50%±, but even if it were 40% success dink slaughter, my point remains. ODFW issues too many tags for the animals they have.

 

[Jason Snyder]

Dumb.

Lighten up Francis. I merely extrapolated based on your observations.

 

[repins05]

Where do you think I got the numbers? It's the farthest right column on the sheet through the link I posted. For 2022 between the SE and NE zones, six units were over 50%, and the SE as a whole was 46% (1,458 for 3,188).

I suppose I should have wrote 45%± instead of 50%±, but even if it were 40% success dink slaughter, my point remains. ODFW issues too many tags for the animals they have.

Yes....if you change the season to three point or better or reduce tag numbers you are most likely going to get larger horns. I am talking overall numbers of deer in general. What doesn't make sense to me is introducing a predator at the cost of hunters and farmers. Manage units with hunting opportunities versus allowing wolves to run unregulated with no hunting season and lions and bears to have restrictive hunting policy.

 

[IdahoBeav]

Yes....if you change the season to three point or better or reduce tag numbers you are most likely going to get larger horns. I am talking overall numbers of deer in general. What doesn't make sense to me is introducing a predator at the cost of hunters and farmers. Manage units with hunting opportunities versus allowing wolves to run unregulated with no hunting season and lions and bears to have restrictive hunting policy.

And what is the result of there being more mature bucks to breed does?

The wolf situation cannot be undone, and if Idaho is any indicator, wolf hunting is not capable of reducing the wolf population to a healthy number (if such a thing exists).

 

[repins05]

And what is the result of there being more mature bucks to breed does?

The wolf situation cannot be undone, and if Idaho is any indicator, wolf hunting is not capable of reducing the wolf population to a healthy number (if such a thing exists).

Agree, the wolf situation cannot be undone. Unfortunate. I suppose States eliminate NR tags first then (not being sarcastic)?

 

[repins05]

Agree, the wolf situation cannot be undone. Unfortunate. I suppose States eliminate NR tags first then (not being sarcastic)?

Thats it for me. Feeling like the thread got hijacked. Sorry about that guys.

 

[TVW]

TLDR...

Has anyone suggested that if you shoot a Deer one year that you have to take the next year off?

Apply the same theory for Elk....

I think this would benefit in 2 ways.... less hunters on the ground year over year and also the hunters on the ground would be more selective and shoot more mature deer/elk, do you really want that Fork Horn bad enough to give up a tag next year?

Flame away but desperate times call for desperate measures. With the Resident population of Idaho exploding, the days of Unlimited over the counter tags for residents can only last so long.

 

[87TT]

In a word, NO. Nobody would report a kill unless stopped at a checkpoint or by a warden.

 

[IdahoBeav]

They could make all of the mule deer units controlled. Successful applicants would then not be eligible to apply the following year.

Sent from my SM-G981V using Tapatalk