The Future of Idaho

[TheTone]

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

LOL, but people gotta get out there and blast a forkie for the wonderful meat supply. Just cruise any Idaho hunting related Facebook page in the fall and enjoy the carnage

 

[IdahoBeav]

LOL, but people gotta get out there and blast a forkie for the wonderful meat supply. Just cruise any Idaho hunting related Facebook page in the fall and enjoy the carnage

There is no getting around that. Many people in Oregon will punch a 5 pp (6 year wait) tag on a fork opening day. Reducing tag numbers is the best answer for it.

Sent from my SM-G981V using Tapatalk

 

[87TT]

What is the matter with shooting a young buck? They are better eating. As for control hunts, that is just a bad idea for the most part. I for one want to be able to hunt where I live every year I have left. If I want to shoot a fork horn or even a spike then I will. In unit 22 that’s all you can shoot. Place is full of 3 pts and small 4x4s

 

[TVW]

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

Fair point.

I'm just trying to think of "reasonable" solutions. I too want to be able to continue to basically hunt statewide for 3 months for all my years as well....but the realist in me doesn't see how that continues to happen as long as our population continues to skyrocket every year.

Everyone wants to blame the out of staters when the number of tags hasn't increased in decades but they refuse to acknowledge how many more Resident hunters there are every year.

Good ol' Unit 39 is a prime example...

In 2001, 8,730 hunters hunted for 36,401 combined days.
In 2022, 11,280 hunters hunter for 53,603 combined days.

Spread that out over all the units and the deer are getting pressured IMMENSELY more than they were previously.

I don't see any way this trend continues and we still get to hunt as much as we do now. Sad, but true.

That's just one factor too....doesn't even begin to factor what Harris Ranch and Avimor and countless other subdivisions statewide have done to deer populations

 

[87TT]

What about the people with families? Going to be tough to get kids interested in supporting hunting if they have to wait two years after shooting their first deer. Or if they have to draw to hunt. Personally, I think habitat loss and predators are more to blame than too many tags or hunters. Probably not going to get the land back but we can work on the predators.

 

[willfrye027]

I’m just glad the biologists are making decisions, not the dudes in this thread.

Deer herds are NOT affected by buck harvest.

Mule deer are down everywhere, mostly due to weather events.

Trading opportunity for perceived quality has NOT panned out in any state, except maybe Nevada, where you are lucky to get a crappy archery tag every few years.

Give up your opportunity now and you will never get it back.

Hunt better/smarter/harder and make your own luck.

 

[Matt5266]

Hunting definitely is getting worse and worse in Idaho

 

[Jimss]

I thought I would share a link on this subject that I started a few months ago on a different website. It has a few photos of a cheatgrass management strategy we are using on our properties that is benefiting mule deer and other wildlfe. If you start on the top of the original post and work down it gives a feel for what we are doing.

I was out today checking game cameras and the fawns/does are super healthy. In fact, I saw several fat, healthy twin fawns that were about the size of yearling does.....pretty good sign that we are doing the right thing by improving mule deer habitat!

If you have dense cheatgrass, ventenada, or medusahead in your area, you may want to take a look! Let me know if you have any questions.

Cheatgrass vs Mule Deer | Mule Deer

There's been a number of posts recently with concern about the decline in mule deer across the Western US. I thought I would share some of the results we've generated the past couple years for long-term cheatgrass control. Some of the oldest long-term areas we sprayed 7+ years ago still have...

www.monstermuleys.info

 

[TheTone]

What is the matter with shooting a young buck? They are better eating. As for control hunts, that is just a bad idea for the most part. I for one want to be able to hunt where I live every year I have left. If I want to shoot a fork horn or even a spike then I will. In unit 22 that’s all you can shoot. Place is full of 3 pts and small 4x4s

I don’t have an issue with people shooting small bucks; where I see it as funny or confusing is when people shoot small bucks year after year and complain about no big bucks and point blame other directions. As for the better eating I’ve never really noticed it, it tends to be a heck of a lot less meat though

 

[idahodave]

I thought I would share a link on this subject that I started a few months ago on a different website. It has a few photos of a cheatgrass management strategy we are using on our properties that is benefiting mule deer and other wildlfe. If you start on the top of the original post and work down it gives a feel for what we are doing.

I was out today checking game cameras and the fawns/does are super healthy. In fact, I saw several fat, healthy twin fawns that were about the size of yearling does.....pretty good sign that we are doing the right thing by improving mule deer habitat!

If you have dense cheatgrass, ventenada, or medusahead in your area, you may want to take a look! Let me know if you have any questions.

Cheatgrass vs Mule Deer | Mule Deer

There's been a number of posts recently with concern about the decline in mule deer across the Western US. I thought I would share some of the results we've generated the past couple years for long-term cheatgrass control. Some of the oldest long-term areas we sprayed 7+ years ago still have...

www.monstermuleys.info

This guy gets it.

Dave

 

[repins05]

Sounds like a lot of you want idaho to go to a point system. That will potentially get you alternating years and much more. More government regulation?

 

[idahodave]

Sounds like a lot of you want idaho to go to a point system. That will potentially get you alternating years and much more. More government regulation?

That's not accurate. Mostly what you're seeing is a few, very vocal (and misguided imho) people advocating for that.

EVERY time IDFG ask the question to hunters across the state, the overwhelming majority want to prioritize OTC opportunity over anything else.

Dave

 

[repins05]

That's not accurate. Mostly what you're seeing is a few very vocal (and misguided) people advocating for that.

EVERY time IDFG ask the question to hunters across the state, the overwhelming majority want to prioritize OTC opportunity over anything else.

Dave

Good to know. That would be my priority if I was in Idaho. Thx for clarifying.

Approve more regulation and laws and give more power to a government entity and where does it stop.

 

[Knuckles_Malone]

Several things could cause lower success rates, which we assume correlate to dwindling Mule deer herds. Weather events (extreme temps, droughts, floods), poor mast crops, invasive vegetation (I see a lot on cheat grass), non-human predation, habitat loss, etc. are all factors—not just increased hunter numbers. Don’t get me wrong though, increased hunter numbers can exacerbate the issue.

Capping tags is a good idea, but ID already does that for NRs. Seems that it may need to happen for residents or a reduced bag limit and place a halt to leftover tags until Mule deer populations improve. Buck harvest does not have widespread effects on population; antlerless harvest does. Speaking of bucks though, (i.e. poor quality), ID could implement an X amount of points/bifurcation system. Would people still shoot animals that, with that regulation implemented, be illegal? Yep. However, it would add teeth to the GWs/COs to enforce and ticket those not following the regulations. They could also increase the antlerless harvest to ensure more forage is available, even in the “lean” years. States usually have to choose an opportunity model or a trophy model for their game management. And close all the access roads to motorized travel year-round, including e-bikes.

 

[idelkslayer]

Fair point.

I'm just trying to think of "reasonable" solutions. I too want to be able to continue to basically hunt statewide for 3 months for all my years as well....but the realist in me doesn't see how that continues to happen as long as our population continues to skyrocket every year.

Everyone wants to blame the out of staters when the number of tags hasn't increased in decades but they refuse to acknowledge how many more Resident hunters there are every year.

Good ol' Unit 39 is a prime example...

In 2001, 8,730 hunters hunted for 36,401 combined days.
In 2022, 11,280 hunters hunter for 53,603 combined days.

Spread that out over all the units and the deer are getting pressured IMMENSELY more than they were previously.

I don't see any way this trend continues and we still get to hunt as much as we do now. Sad, but true.

That's just one factor too....doesn't even begin to factor what Harris Ranch and Avimor and countless other subdivisions statewide have done to deer populations

You used the combined statistics for all weapons and OTC seasons so I will also. Back in the 80's and early 90's unit 39 had 11,000-12,000 hunters as well. Following the winter of 92-93' the deer population fell and the number of hunters dropped too, eventually getting just below 8,000.

And as you noted the number of hunters climbed from there. However, there have been ~11,000 hunters in that unit since 2002. It peaked in 2017 at 14,718. Since then it has actually dropped by 3,500 hunters. Similar to how hunter numbers dropped in the mid 90's following a rough winter, hunter numbers have dropped since the 16-17' winter.

As I look at the statistics for that unit between 2000 to 2022 I see a certain trend. Hunter numbers have been between 10,500 and 14,718 with a average of about 11,700. Deer harvest has fluctuated from from 1,550 up to 4,200. And you can read the harvest numbers like a record of the weather. It climbs from 2003 to 2007 and then has a big drop in 2008. Remember the winterkill of 07-08'? There is another drop in 2011 following the 10-11' winter. Then it climbs until 2016, and drops again in 2017 although not as much as in past winterkills.

What we have seen since then is a series of low survival winters that have kept the population from recovering fully. Through it all, hunter numbers haven't changed much.

In summary, it isn't the number of hunters, it's the winters, that have had an effect on deer populations.

When folks aren't seeing deer they tend to move more often, creating a greater sense of crowding. The hunter numbers are the same they've been for 20 years, deer numbers are down due to winters, you're seeing more hunters because as people move more you are more likely to encounter each other.

 

[Pistolpete28]

You used the combined statistics for all weapons and OTC seasons so I will also. Back in the 80's and early 90's unit 39 had 11,000-12,000 hunters as well. Following the winter of 92-93' the deer population fell and the number of hunters dropped too, eventually getting just below 8,000.

And as you noted the number of hunters climbed from there. However, there have been ~11,000 hunters in that unit since 2002. It peaked in 2017 at 14,718. Since then it has actually dropped by 3,500 hunters. Similar to how hunter numbers dropped in the mid 90's following a rough winter, hunter numbers have dropped since the 16-17' winter.

As I look at the statistics for that unit between 2000 to 2022 I see a certain trend. Hunter numbers have been between 10,500 and 14,718 with a average of about 11,700. Deer harvest has fluctuated from from 1,550 up to 4,200. And you can read the harvest numbers like a record of the weather. It climbs from 2003 to 2007 and then has a big drop in 2008. Remember the winterkill of 07-08'? There is another drop in 2011 following the 10-11' winter. Then it climbs until 2016, and drops again in 2017 although not as much as in past winterkills.

What we have seen since then is a series of low survival winters that have kept the population from recovering fully. Through it all, hunter numbers haven't changed much.

In summary, it isn't the number of hunters, it's the winters, that have had an effect on deer populations.

When folks aren't seeing deer they tend to move more often, creating a greater sense of crowding. The hunter numbers are the same they've been for 20 years, deer numbers are down due to winters, you're seeing more hunters because as people move more you are more likely to encounter each other

I completely agree with this! I’ve heard @robby denning talk about this on podcasts after the 16/17 winterkill. Mother Nature is the biggest factor when it comes to deer numbers in most cases.

 

[Gobbler36]

Being born and raised in Idaho, I cut my teeth hunting in these mountains and hills, right outside our back door actually. I rarely remember not harvesting in the first few days of season. My example today is mule deer, I pulled these statistics from a general unit I grew up hunting and still hunt today.

Mule deer general season any weapons-

-2008

• Total Harvest- 528
• # of Hunters- 1258
• Success- 42%
• Antlered- 444
• Antlerless-80

-2022

• Total Harvest-178
• Hunters-971
• Success-18%
• Antlered-168
• Antlerless-10

The reason for my rant today is to shed some light on an overly discussed, under researched by average joe people topic. These stats are pretty average across the board of most general units.
My opinion? Either cap the tags, or follow suit with Wyoming. Our hunting oppurtunities are diminishing before our eyes. Fish and Game seems to not care. The facts dont lie, our experiences out in the field are real, and there is no preservation for the generations ahead of us.
Please comment your thoughts, write IDFG your opinions, and do your research.

Thanks for posting
we have got to speak up in the coming years about our general hunts

 

[Gobbler36]

Native here. I like your approach because there isn’t any reason to bitch and moan about growth because all mountain west states have experienced that. I hope Idaho never goes to points. When it comes to deer It’s time to get realistic and creative.

Realistic:
- more cuts to NR general mule deer tags and turn NR to all controlled hunts.
- 5% reduction in controlled hunt tag quota all around for mule deer

Legislature gets aggressive and starts using surplus for our future (yes more government):
- put millions of taxpayer dollars into access yes
- put millions of dollars into buying access to landlocked state properties
- put millions of dollars into enforcement of illegal off road use including better infrastructure like fences and gates. Also, more game wardens instead of relying on check points (yes I believe people are breaking laws and even hunting wrong units)
- put millions of dollars into cheat grass fight

Here’s a few on the Creative side (if I was the dictator)
- any deer/elk/antelope controlled hunt with less than a 3% draw odds over last decade become once in a lifetime (for that unit/species) moving forward.
- nonresidents drawing a controlled antlered hunt may not apply for that species again for 5 years.
- (A biggie) pick 2 species max to apply for (yes that includes sheep, moose, goat).
- dedicated hunter programs to incentivize adult males from shooting young deer.
- shed hunting seasons

I would be on board for all this
I’m essentially going to copy and paste this on my emails as me and a buddy have said something similar

 

[Gobbler36]

Right? They sell around 13k non resident elk tags a year and according to google that number hasnt changed since 1972. People need someone to blame and nonresidents are an easy target. If people are serious about crowding they’d want resident tags to be capped too (I don’t) because that’s where the increase is at. Up the price as well to help fund access programs and habitat restoration. I’d get behind raising nonresident prices again as well to help fund these efforts. Elk huntings expensive and it costs a lot of money to keep them on the landscape so I’m willing to pay what they’re worth every year as a non resident. Sorry about the rant, but guys blaming nonresidents for crowding annd lack of opportunity is such a tired argument. Colorado I get it, Idaho, no.

Ill go farther I’ll pay 10x my elk tag price, cap certain areas for residents for deer and elk raise nr tag prices and cut nr general tags and reduce controlled hunt allowances also.

the raise in prices will balance the drop in tags

 

[downthepipe]

In summary, it isn't the number of hunters, it's the winters, that have had an effect on deer populations.

I completely agree with this! I’ve heard @robby denning talk about this on podcasts after the 16/17 winterkill. Mother Nature is the biggest factor when it comes to deer numbers in most cases.

Mother Nature yes.

But it’s also the habitat. That’s why we need to push the commission to force the legislature to:
Invest more in access yes, free up public land from private blockage (support corner crossing too), and invest like crazy in the cheat grass fight.

We complain about people that don’t share our values moving here. Well that can’t be stopped. What we can do is use their (and our) tax money to invest in our land.