The Future of Idaho

WRO said:
All you'll end up with is a bunch of cull bucks if you do that. Age is what matters most, not antler points.
Click to expand...
I get that. Do you think most people are properly able to identify a mature buck? I mean really think about it. Some are very obvious, but most people would think big rack, mature buck. Not the case.
How would age related regulations work?
Can you do that? Serious question. I have never heard of it being something outside of private owners mutually agreeing to only take mature bucks.
 
I agree with a point restriction to keep spikes that wont even get out of the road alive. It also, even forky horn restrictions makes people know what they are shooting at. We see alot of deer killed here that I would get more meat off my black lab. It isn’t everybody. But there is a large number of the general hunting population that will open fire on anything “legal”.
 
Dirtscoots said:
I agree with a point restriction to keep spikes that wont even get out of the road alive. It also, even forky horn restrictions makes people know what they are shooting at. We see alot of deer killed here that I would get more meat off my black lab. It isn’t everybody. But there is a large number of the general hunting population that will open fire on anything “legal”.
Click to expand...
What if 50% of the spikes that are killed by the road would have died anyway, and when someone shoots a spike from the side of the road, they are done hunting which reduces hunter pressure?

It's better for future buck recruitment for hunters to shoot 100 spikes (50 buck impact on the following year) than 60 bucks that are 2.5-5.5 years old.
 
Salmon River Solutions said:
I’ve had a lifetime fishing and hunting license here in Idaho since I was 2 years old.

This season on an archery hunt I was with my cousin. We took his truck which has Washington plates. I was riding my girlfriend’s dirtbike that has an Oregon plate on it. Everyone assumed we were both non residents. Out of 5 different groups we talked to, 4 of the groups were non resident, and one group were from Idaho. The 4 groups of non residents were awesome, polite, and helpful. The one group from Idaho were ass holes.

That being said, I think there’s a stigma that non residents are getting so many of our tags and don’t deserve them. They only account for 10% of our non res tags now. But they account for a hell of a lot of our IDFG tag sale dollars.

I think lower harvest rates are due to two main reasons… less overall animals in Idaho, (for various reasons) and the fact that people are being idealized by YouTube hunters and thinking it’s easy.

Ken
Click to expand...
Shouldn't that say "I was trying to ride my girlfriend's dirtbike?"

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk
 
ID prioritizes elk over mule deer from a management perspective. It would be nice to see, at least in some areas, a change where mule deer are given more consideration/funding.

If I were king of mule deer management in ID:
  • Stop general doe hunts (applies mostly to kids. My twins are 11. This would suck).
    • Use targeted doe hunts for specific areas to control population vs. range condition as necessary. Still a tool, just more tightly managed.
  • Designate certain units as "Mule Deer Priority", and make other species secondary considerations (even elk).
    • Create bona-fide trophy units, managed specifically for mature bucks as number 1 priority
    • Very high buck to doe ratio, 35 or 40 to 100 does. 50 to 100, whatever it takes to create a great opportunity to see/take 5.5 year old (or older) bucks.
    • Monitor age class of bucks taken as a barometer of "quality" of deer
    • Consider carrying capacity of overall range, including reduction of grazing permits (I know, way controversial and a pipe dream) if necessary
    • Effective predator control. All of 'em, whatever they may be.
      • I am all about effective preservation of predators. I know a great taxidermist, PM if you want their name.
  • Increase funding for range rehabilitation on state/federal lands
  • Expand program encouraging ranchers (via paying them) to set aside some critical range for deer, and not graze it.
  • Establish a point restriction for some/all general units.
    • Potentially allow youth to have an exception to this
    • Certainly not perfect, but would help with buck/doe ratios.
    • Another option, restrict spike/2 point take for the first 5 days. Allow them some education if you will.
  • Encourage more whitetail take
    • Not sure how to do this, out kicking my coverage here
Are there a lot of downsides to the above? Of course. Puts and takes for sure. Personally, I like seeing/hunting big mature bucks, so I am definitely biased.

How to fund more mule deer "stuff"?
  • Raise price on NR deer tags and earmark the increase. Yup, I said it.
    • NR tags sell out in a matter of minutes for the majority of units
    • Supply/demand equation of a proper free market would indicate prices can increase until that is better balanced.
      • At some point, folks will stop buying thinking "this isn't worth it".
      • If tags aren't selling out, price is too high as the value proposition isn't there.
    • Compare to other states and NR fees, Idaho is middle of pack. Make it premium.
      • Utah premium (eg Henry Mountains) NR tag for deer is $1,100.
      • Montana general NR is $570
    • Something like:
      • General Tag: $600
      • Controlled hunt: $800
      • Premium Controlled Hunt (the proposal that doesn't exist): $1,200
    • Roughly a $200 increase in general tag, 14k NR tags, call it another $2.8M for IDFG, earmarked for mule deer. That could help make a difference.
  • Why not increase ID resident fees?
    • I live here, and don't want to spend more. There is that :).
    • Our resident fees are in line with other states. Not high, not low, about in the middle.
    • Encouraging more resident hunters will increase awareness, and help all game, not just deer. Increasing tag fees does not help this goal.
    • Non-resident hunters already spend a lot to hunt here. For many, tag fees are not the largest expense. Lodging, transportation, etc. are. As a percentage, less impact for some.
 
Hblazier3 said:
an overly discussed, under researched by average joe people topic.
Click to expand...
If I were early to this conversation, I would have bet the majority of commenters you'll get here are very well researched on paper and in the field.
Hblazier3 said:
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.
Click to expand...

#1 issue is habitat. Go read every biologists outlook for any given unit for any report in the 90s and early 2000's. It will almost certainly say that threats to mule deer population are due to changes in habitat from grazing.

Carrying capacity is permanently altered due to previous grazing. Grazing encourages grasses with outcompete the native forbs mule deer need. This mule deer population is the new norm.

Grazing management comes at the discretion of the USFS or BLM. These management plans allowed for overgrazing to occur and they knew it.

Example: Revised Forest Plan for the Caribou National Forest February 2003:
"Tall forb: These types have all but disappeared from the Forest due to past grazing practices...
This is one of the most imperiled vegetation types in the region; on the Caribou there is a high departure from HRV(Historical Range Variation)."

Restoration of habitat is meaningless without correlative changes to winter range and migration corridors. None of which lie solely at the discretion of the IDFG. Restoration of habitat will come at the cost of land use by others. Until those parties agree on a path forward, mule deer will lose out.
 
eye_zick said:
If I were early to this conversation, I would have bet the majority of commenters you'll get here are very well researched on paper and in the field.


#1 issue is habitat. Go read every biologists outlook for any given unit for any report in the 90s and early 2000's. It will almost certainly say that threats to mule deer population are due to changes in habitat from grazing.

Carrying capacity is permanently altered due to previous grazing. Grazing encourages grasses with outcompete the native forbs mule deer need. This mule deer population is the new norm.

Grazing management comes at the discretion of the USFS or BLM. These management plans allowed for overgrazing to occur and they knew it.

Example: Revised Forest Plan for the Caribou National Forest February 2003:
"Tall forb: These types have all but disappeared from the Forest due to past grazing practices...
This is one of the most imperiled vegetation types in the region; on the Caribou there is a high departure from HRV(Historical Range Variation)."

Restoration of habitat is meaningless without correlative changes to winter range and migration corridors. None of which lie solely at the discretion of the IDFG. Restoration of habitat will come at the cost of land use by others. Until those parties agree on a path forward, mule deer will lose out.
Click to expand...
X1000. Spot on.
 
eye_zick said:
If I were early to this conversation, I would have bet the majority of commenters you'll get here are very well researched on paper and in the field.


#1 issue is habitat. Go read every biologists outlook for any given unit for any report in the 90s and early 2000's. It will almost certainly say that threats to mule deer population are due to changes in habitat from grazing.

Carrying capacity is permanently altered due to previous grazing. Grazing encourages grasses with outcompete the native forbs mule deer need. This mule deer population is the new norm.

Grazing management comes at the discretion of the USFS or BLM. These management plans allowed for overgrazing to occur and they knew it.

Example: Revised Forest Plan for the Caribou National Forest February 2003:
"Tall forb: These types have all but disappeared from the Forest due to past grazing practices...
This is one of the most imperiled vegetation types in the region; on the Caribou there is a high departure from HRV(Historical Range Variation)."

Restoration of habitat is meaningless without correlative changes to winter range and migration corridors. None of which lie solely at the discretion of the IDFG. Restoration of habitat will come at the cost of land use by others. Until those parties agree on a path forward, mule deer will lose out.
Click to expand...
Totally Agree! Loss of habitat is the biggest issue, especially the loss of wintering grounds, migration corridors and effects caused by human barriers. Bad winters and drought happen, but if we restore/connect habitat, it will make the ungulate populations more resilient to these climatic effects. A restoration project near me in SE Idaho is aiming to expand a migration footprint by restoring habitat within a historical migration corridor where habitat has been lost to agricultural development. BLM has been slowly acquiring land in the migration corridor and winter range. Unfortunately, it is a slow process since you need landowners willing to sell their land or enter into conservation agreements. We also need more hunters volunteering and advocating for these types of restoration project.
 
wapitiwilly said:
Totally Agree! Loss of habitat is the biggest issue, especially the loss of wintering grounds, migration corridors and effects caused by human barriers. Bad winters and drought happen, but if we restore/connect habitat, it will make the ungulate populations more resilient to these climatic effects. A restoration project near me in SE Idaho is aiming to expand a migration footprint by restoring habitat within a historical migration corridor where habitat has been lost to agricultural development. BLM has been slowly acquiring land in the migration corridor and winter range. Unfortunately, it is a slow process since you need landowners willing to sell their land or enter into conservation agreements. We also need more hunters volunteering and advocating for these types of restoration project.
Click to expand...
Which groups to you recommend getting involved with? My son is now at the age where I could have him tag along and he wouldn't be entirely in the way.
 
I don't care about NR. No different than if hunt out of state I don't want their residents to care about me. Goes both ways. If NR are ones perceived issue then you need to find another excuse b/c there are a myriad of other reasons why one is unsuccessful, harvest numbers have dropped, and declining mule deer populations.

Increased hunter numbers is certainly a factor and I understand why people gravitate towards that statistic. It's the one variable any state's Fish/Game department can potentially intervene and control. Simple logic, reduce the amount of hunters in a given space/GMU and one would expect herd numbers to rebound as well as trophy potential. It's detrimentally more complex than that.

Changing carrying capacity of the land, habitat loss from human encroachment, large expanses of urban development, energy development, roads, predators, etc. Mule deer are getting hit from every possible angle when you really look at it in detail. These are a few of the real issues but definitely not all of them. Humans, in particular urban and energy expansion, have a detrimental effect on game herds. I read somewhere, for every acre lost to human development (residential, roads, wells, etc), mule deer lose 5 acres of available forage. Why? They will avoid those developed areas even if there is good feed. I'll to try and find the source.

How much habit loss have these animals endured in the last 20-30 years? I don't know the numbers but it's probably significant. Introducing a new variable, wolves, is a head scratcher for sure. 20-40 deer per year per wolf. The numbers vary based on the source but that's a lot of deer. Not all of those deer are unhealthy lets be honest.

There is no one smoking gun. Some variables have a much greater impact than others. But these deer have A LOT of variables which contribute to their decline. Unfortunately!

I live in ID and this place has BLOWN up. I can only image how much habit these animals have lost in the past 15 years. Not to mention the human presence in the woods and back country.
 
Mule3006Elk said:
I live in ID and this place has BLOWN up. I can only image how much habit these animals have lost in the past 15 years. Not to mention the human presence in the woods and back country.
Click to expand...

Makes me wonder if anyone in here complaining about Mule Deer numbers lives in Avimor or Harris Ranch?

Those 2 developments alone have killed more Mule Deer than hunters will in a decade.
 
TVW said:
Makes me wonder if anyone in here complaining about Mule Deer numbers lives in Avimor or Harris Ranch?

Those 2 developments alone have killed more Mule Deer than hunters will in a decade.
Click to expand...
I know those areas well. Avimor definitely isn't finished anytime soon. More, more, expansion.
 
Mule3006Elk said:
Right as the boom started. Nice!
Click to expand...

Oh no, the boom was well into full swing. That's why we left. We lived West of "Boise proper" for the last 7 years we were there, in that time the drive time to Downtown Boise went from 25 minutes to 45 minutes due to building houses as quickly as possible and completely ignoring roads.

Tripled our money on our house and never looked back.
 
DeePow said:
Which groups to you recommend getting involved with? My son is now at the age where I could have him tag along and he wouldn't be entirely in the way.
Click to expand...
It's not a group but, Idaho Fish and Game has some volunteer opportunities coming up, starting next weekend. These are pretty low key and are kind of fun to get in on.

Southwest Idaho IFG Volunteer Opportunities.

Here is the Spring Volunteer schedule. It’s a great way to give something back to the animals. 3/9/24 Boise River WMA Fire Restoration Planting 3/16/24 Boise River WMA Fire Restoration Planting 3/23/24 Owyhee Fire Restoration Planting 3/30/24 Boise River WMA Fire Restoration Planting
rokslide.com rokslide.com
 
Customweld said:
Rather than setting shed seasons, I’d like to see a national sale ban on all bone. We do it with bear parts and game meat, we could do it on bone as well.
Click to expand...
You realize idaho is one of the few states that allows for the sale of bear parts, right? Lol

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Preferred dates for OTC Idaho
Replies
10
Views
870
flyfisher117
flyfisher117
H
How do you choose a unit for NR Idaho elk
Replies
6
Views
579
Dirtscoots
Dirtscoots
I
Success rate by weapon choice as a function of advancing technology
2
Replies
21
Views
2K
idelkslayer
I
crimson702
Idaho Muzzleloader Deer Recap
Replies
6
Views
738
crimson702
crimson702
robby denning
good on MDF
Replies
4
Views
697
Dioni A
Dioni A

Latest posts

Featured Video

Stats

Threads
353,153
Messages
3,725,197
Members
80,642
Latest member
rainey

Latest Articles

Back
Top