Idaho draft plan on line

S

Salmonfg

Guest
A draft of Idaho's mule deer management plan is on line and public meetings have begun. See news release at http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/apps/releases/view.cfm?NewsID=4128 for a link to the draft plan, meeting details, and a link to on-line commenting. Comments on this draft are due Dec 31. There will be some additional opportunity for comment on the final draft through the Commission approval process in Jan '08.

This is a general plan that will guide mule deer management in Idaho for the next 10 years. Specific season structure, etc. will be guided by the plan through the normal season setting process (goal is to move to setting seasons once every 2 years).

The plan covers all aspects of mule deer management, but one of the most important pieces for hunters is the issue of variety in buck hunting opportunity. Plan direction is very heavily based on the deer hunter survey conducted earlier this year. The survey said most hunters want to hunt more big bucks every year. Unfortunately, this desire is virtually impossible to meet (though it could be done with extremely severe restrictions like all hunting limited to archery gear).

Therefore, the plan proposes increased amounts of hunting opportunity for mature bucks through 2 levels of management: "quality" and "trophy." There are several management tools that can be applied to produce these kinds of opportunities (point regulations, controlled hunts, weapon types, etc.). ALL tools require trade-offs in how often, where, and what individuals can use to hunt bucks. A very important question for hunters is what level of trade-off are you willing to accept? How much of a region (or state) should be managed for more mature bucks as opposed to somewhere people can go hunting each year with family and friends? Are you willing to essentially give up hunting in your traditional location? What will happen to hunting conditions in adjacent units when hunters are displaced from a mature buck unit? Then, if some level of mature buck management is desired, which management tool(s) are acceptable to reduce buck harvest?

Hunter input is critical for biologists and managers to develop specific hunting regulations.

Please
1. take the time to review the plan,
2. carefully consider the trade-offs of various scenarios, and
3. provide comments on the plan.

Thanks,

Tom Keegan
IDFG Salmon Region Wildlife Manager
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-06-07 AT 10:53AM (MST)[p]so I have looked over plan and some units what is criteria used to designate trophy unit?? We have some areas that are "Trophy" that lack genetic traits, to be designated as such and some of the old time gene pool areas that are general hunt zoo's. 0-10 bucks per does in my eyes is not a trophy area or even a quality hunt. What are exact ratios for these Units?? How much is hunter access going to influence a designation?? I have to be honest here, I attended meetings on whitetails to address population control in Upper Snake. We were told they wanted to reduce populations, so eliminating Ulimited either sex 60-a tag and making it doe only and capping it at 1,000 tags is supposed to be a reduction plan?? Also the creation of a Whitetail only tag instead of allowing residents two tags is supposed to help reduce the number of deer?? At lastly making my area 63-a whitetail tag only when that was an opportunity to hunt close to home and harvest a whitetail as they seem to make up over 80% of population. Is now restricted because it is whitetail only after aug 30th. I want to hunt close to home when snow is flying. I don't see how any of that reduces population, and I don't trust commissioners who come from a variety of backgrounds, with some who are in direct conflict with wildlife interest, can make a sound plan, and then recommend a plan to the state. You are in region next to mine and some of same issues exist. How are ya gonna do this and keep your word ?? Last time i listened to your agency you did opposite of what you said,
 
I'm not sure I understand or have the information for all of your questions, but I'll take a stab at some of them.

First off, the mule deer plan does not go to the level of detail of designating unit management - that will be part of the season setting process.

There are several criteria that can/should be considered when identifying an area for quality or trophy management. You mentioned 2 important ones: access (including both roads and amount of public land) and potential of an area to produce bucks (both habitat and genetic). Others include potential management conflicts (such as migratory herds under different management across state lines or management of other species like elk), current number of hunters (that would be displaced elsewhere), and groups like outfitters and landowners (number of tags allocated to those groups could limit tags available to the public).

The table on page 4 of the executive summary shows generalized characteristics for areas managed under different strategies. In quality areas, post-season buck retios would be something above 25/100 does, and in trophy areas, above 35/100.

You also hit on some of what I consider important trade-offs, in your case, being able to hunt near home in a traditional area. In some units, hunter numbers might need to be reduced to 10-20% of current levels to achieve trophy management (under a strictly controlled hunt scenario). That could result in 80-90% of hunters having to find another place to hunt.

I hope this helps clarify.

Tom Keegan
IDFG Salmon Region Wildlife Manager
 
I noticed that PMU #2 had a goal to maintain the current mule deer population. I also noticed that it had the lowest buck to doe ratio. In PMU #2, is the plan to raise the overall buck to doe ratio and trophy quality? What are the plans for this management area? Obviously these units are suffering, so is there any plans to increase trouphy quality, limit the number of hunter, change seasons...?
 
To date, all discussion about altering regulations toward quality or trophy management has been at the Game Management Unit (GMU) level, not the Population Unit. GMUs were grouped into Population Units based on similar habitat, and responses of populations (things like fawn survival rates, adult doe survival rates, and population mixing). Some have suggested that each region could support 1-3 GMUs managed at quality and/or trophy levels. Hunting seasons in other GMUs would likely be managed similarly to current frameworks to provide annual opportunity for family and friends type hunting. So there may well be a mix of hunting season strategies within a PMU.

What we really need input on is what is an appropriate number of units to manage for some level of higher buck ratios/more mature bucks in each region? And which tools would be acceptable to do that?

Once we know how many units are desired and the acceptable tools, biologists and managers can rank units based on the criteria mentioned above and propose hunting regulations that will will have a reasonable chance of meeting the goals.

So part of the answer is...you tell us, should some GMUs in McCall subregion (basically PMUs 2 & 3) be managed for more mature bucks? How many GMUs? Quality or trophy?
What kind of management would you like to see to get there? Controlled hunt (reduce hunter numbers by some level and have a reduced chance of drawing a tag), a 2-3 day season, a general 2-point season and some number of controlled hunt tags, maybe muzzleloader only during general season, 4-point only (but this really only increases number of young bucks, not mature bucks), something else?
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-06-07 AT 08:40PM (MST)[p]The survey concluded that "Hunters want to hunt big bucks every year". Maybe hunter's should have to choose between applying for draw tags or getting a general tag every year. The draw areas would have better odds for the "trophy hunters", and those that wanted to hunt every year could, with less pressure.
Something like this probabbly would not fly because of F&G revenue issues, and many hunter's think they don't have to sacrifice anything to get bigger bucks.
 
So I want units 67,69,66,66-a and 76 as trophy Units. Still areas like 52-a where I get a two week muzzleloader hunt has from what we can tell hunting last two years a buck to doe ratio of 10 per 100 does. It is being maintained, at that Aenemic ratio, Like I said before not really a healthy situation. Them lavas are great fun to traverse and only 1-3 mature bucks seen. But I think two areas in each gmu should be trophy especially areas like the above and the other trophy genetic units like 32,39 be designated. But why can Colorado be so succesful at micromanaging their units and have left over tags so general hunt crowds can hunt every year. They have more people and more developement at this point than we In Idaho have. It is okay to emulate other states success at this point. Hunting opportunity doesn't seem to be sacrificed.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-06-07 AT 10:51PM (MST)[p]tworivers,

At an Idaho F&G meeting about mule deer this summer a guy from the Colorado DNR gave some insight into Colorado deer management. Total mule deer tags in Colorado were cut significantly. Many hunters quit hunting deer and started hunting elk. Some hunters quit hunting all together.

Colorado has been very successful with their mule deer management in recent years for two reasons.

#1 Colorado has a very large elk herd. This allows hunters who do not get a deer tag an opportunity to hunt every year. This also allows the Colorado DNR to still generate the money by selling more elk tags. The Colorado DNR lost about 7 million (???exact amount??) every year when they cut the number of deer tags in half (or close to half???).

#2 Colorado has not had significant winterkill for several years. Significant winterkill will happen eventually. When a bad winter does happen the number of tags will be reduced and/or the quality of the bucks hunter see will be reduced.

Anyone that is just something I heard that made sense to me.


SalmonF&G,

Why is the F&G considering setting the season for two years at a time instead of one year at a time? I know most years the season doesn't need to be adjusted. Significant reducing antlerless tags should be considered every year after significant winterkill. When buck/doe ratios drop below object the F&G shouldn't wait a year to restrict the hunting season to correct the low buck/doe ratios.
 
it seems that we are in a time of great decisions with mule deer populations and hunter access vs. opportunity. with all factors that reduce mule deer populations every year is it feasible to let all hunters hunt archery seasons then to rifle then to the later hunts archery or muzzleloader. i think its time for a hunter to pick his weapon ,pick time of year to hunt,as well as a place ( atv vs. no atv) and be thank full you get to hunt that much until deer #'s prove they can sustain hunters hunting for 30-60 days at a time. there probably needs to be a scenario where hunters can apply for trophy hunts and if you do not draw you are given a prefrence point if you do not hunt on a general tag that same year. the next year you would have 2 chances at the controlled unit if you dont draw, sit out on the general hunt garnish another prefrence point.i really dont believe the mule deer resource can take the beating its taken know and my kids still be able to find mature bucks 10 years from know ...there are a multitude of elk and whitetail hunts that can provide every year opportunites for family vacation time hunting trips...with continued youth opportunites to keep kids interested maybe we all can have a small piece of the pie
 
Mr. Keegan,

I have a more specific question/comment regarding units: 31, 32, 32A, & 22...

Has there been any specific discussions regarding management within these units? Recently, residents have noticed increased pressure to all above units mentioned. As more access is limited to others adjacent units (in/around Owyhee's, Ada County, etc...) more pressure arrives here. Over the past few years, locals have seen an increase to the number of out-of-county and out-of-state hunters. Some of this is due to increasing populations around Boise/Nampa/Caldwell/Fruitland. However, there has also been an increasing number of hunters from Owyhee, Ada, and other counties where unit restrictions have been placed.

My fear is this; if a unit is labeled as "trophy" or if increased restrictions are placed, hunters unable to participate in that hunt will migrate to the next best available unit with lesser restrictions. I would like to see some type of plan in place that addresses this problem. Restrictions to all units in a region should be considered, especially where specific units are tabbed for restrictions.

I understand that there are many factors involved affecting deer and elk population and quality hunting opportunities. Winter kill, predators, increased atv access, decreased private land accesses, etc... factor in when searching for mature deer. That said, a good example of management is the healthy elk herd in unit 31. This unit is restrict to a general archery hunting season and a limited late season rifle draw (30 tags I believe). The flip side to this unit is the poor deer population. A mature mule deer must survive general season archery, rifle, and a late season rifle draw. Without many restrictions and increasing hunting pressure, unit 31 supports very few mature mule deer. This problem is not related to unit 31 alone. The same can be said for units 22, 32, and 32A. Has the IDFG ever considered increasing restriction on deer in 31, or elk/deer in all adjacent units (22, 32, 32A)?

I am very pleased that the IDFG is finally taking initiatives to help Idaho's decreasing mule deer population. My hope is that we can some day see a return to the deer populations of the 70's & 80's. I would like the opportunity to see B&C quality bucks locally again and not just in Nevada & Colorado.

Can you please comment and give some feedback on this? I am anxious to hear what the IDFG has planned for my region and all of Idaho's future hunting opportunities.

Thank you,
 
In regards to colorado offiical, They have world class deer hunting again.
Idaho prewolf introduction was usually the #2 state for elk numbers , swapping occasionally with Montana, Oregon now has that distinction. So variable number #1 we had similiar large herds,
Variable # 2 NO kidding you cut tags because your deer herd is suffering? sounds like cause and effect thinking. Hunters deciding to not buy tags was a choice on their part, they still do it as evidenced by all left over tags. I hear that all the time about quitting hunting all together because of price of tags, lack of animals, or trophy animals, or hunter congestion.
To present this as causal evidence, which is vastly different than correlated evidence is imo wrong. I am just saying that the programs used in colorado, and even the Jicarilla Reservation would and could work.
#3. The great excuse or I mean winterkill of 93 , I grew up in the 70;s and 80's where we had winters that made 93 look like the bahamas. We haven't had any like 93 in the years since, so how that applies is beyond me. So we are on par with colorado as far as that goes. I love to hunt mule deer more than anything else, I just want to see Idaho back where it belongs, trailing of all states Colorado for deer, and entries.
Colorado has more habitat loss, less predator control, more socialogical interferences(Enviromental laws) and people than our state does. Sorry to be so passionate, but address the issues not just controlling #'s of hunters, weapons choice, and season manipulation. Heck even Utah is doing better, but I am thankful it is being addressed at all.
 
>LAST EDITED ON Dec-06-07
>AT 08:40?PM (MST)

>
>The survey concluded that "Hunters want
>to hunt big bucks every
>year". Maybe hunter's should have
>to choose between applying for
>draw tags or getting a
>general tag every year. The
>draw areas would have better
>odds for the "trophy hunters",
>and those that wanted to
>hunt every year could, with
>less pressure.
>Something like this probabbly would not
>fly because of F&G revenue
>issues, and many hunter's think
>they don't have to sacrifice
>anything to get bigger bucks.
>

I think your last point really rings true. I took the survey that F&G had a few months ago, and looked at it from my point of view, understanding that if you want to shoot quality bucks, you cant have 2 months of hunting pressure in a unit. I doubt most people look at it objectively like that. They survey concluded that people want to hunt every year, see more bucks, and see bigger bucks. Good luck with that... I dont think that these three things represent 3 peoples different opinions, I think that in a lot of cases it represents 1 person who somehow thinks that F&G can manage a general unit exactly the way they do now, only somehow there will be big bucks behind every bush.
 
!

Several good questions and comments so far. Let's see if I can help with some of them.

Why is the F&G considering setting the season for two years at a time instead of one year at a time?

There will always be events that will require changes in the middle of a 2-year cycle and those will be accommodated by "emergency" rule changes. IDFG already does this with a number of species/situations. There are several reasons for going to a 2-year cycle. As you noted, general seasons rarely change. Another is the ability to use the money currently spent on printing and effort put into the regulatory process, etc. for on-the-ground management. Simplification and consistency is a benefit for long-term planning, etc. and has been a common request from outfitters.

"Choose your weapon" is a tool that can be used, but it probably won't have much influence on overall buck survival rates. The largest effect of choose your weapon is usually spreading out hunters. On the other hand, it actually has the potential to increase buck harvest if many hunters opt to go with a rifle rather than less effective weapons. As a side note, some hunter rights groups have sued agencies that proposed choose your weapon scenarios in recent years.

Bonus/preference points is outside the scope of a species plan. The Idaho F&G Commission approved a point system (2006, I think), but stipulated that the cost of running the system could not come out of existing programs, which essentially meant the Idaho Legislature needed to approve an increase in the application fee (around $3 I think) to pay for the system. The Legislature did not approve such a fee, so the proposal died.

"Maybe hunter's should have to choose between applying for draw tags or getting a general tag every year."

Similar concepts have actually been seriously discussed and may well be part of a future scoping package for public input. Again, this type of thing is not appropriate for a single species plan - it should probably be applied consistently across most applicable species.

"But why can Colorado be so succesful at micromanaging their units and have left over tags so general hunt crowds can hunt every year."

With all due respect to others who commented on this issue and not wanting to argue...Colorado (and Utah several years previously) reduced deer tag numbers very significantly, on the order of 50-80%. And so both states lost large numbers of deer hunters - the license sales data is there for anyone to examine. Utah had somewhere around 260,000 deer hunters before the reduction and now usually has less than 100,000. Both states may have some "leftover" tags, but it is a fact there are far fewer deer hunters in those states. Leftover tags for a few areas that are less desirable or accessible or whatever is not the same as providing general hunting opportunity where most/all interested people can go. Identifying what "happened" to those deer hunters is primarily speculation. The part about elk numbers is only relative in terms of the agency funding issue in CO. CO did not have a large budget deficit mostly because they have (had) a HUGE elk herd (like over 400,000 compared to 100-120,000 in next closest states) that was WAY OVER objective and were offering a lot of cow tags to reduce numbers. As elk populations are reduced to goal levels, that safety valve of lots of cow tags will decrease significantly.

"Has there been any specific discussions regarding management within these units? ..hunters unable to participate in that hunt will migrate to the next best available unit with lesser restrictions."

No, there have not been any specific discussions for any units. Again, that's the kind of thing we want to hear from you!!! And hunter displacement is one of the big trade-off issues if controlled hunting is the primary tool. You mention you'd like to see a plan to address this issue. What are your ideas? Of the tools listed in the plan, which ones are acceptable to you? 2-point general season, no ATV use, everyone has to hunt with a bow, a 2-3 day season? Currently, about 1/2 the units in Magic Valley Region are managed by controlled hunting and that region is exporting deer hunters to other regions. That "domino" effect will always take place in some way when hunters are forced out of some area.

"Colorado has more habitat loss, less predator control, more socialogical interferences(Enviromental laws) and people than our state does. Sorry to be so passionate, but address the issues not just controlling #'s of hunters, weapons choice, and season manipulation."

The full plan is very comprehensive (first draft was ~100 pages) and addresses virtually all issues that impact mule deer (within IDFG's level of authority). I focused the discussion for this forum on hunting regulations/management because that is usually the most important/frequent input from hunters and the issue most driven by personal preference (social science as opposed to the much easier biological science). From a biological standpoint, buck ratios only need to be mid single digits. It's the social desire for buck ratios up into the 35-50 range that create the need for complex regulations, intense management, etc.

I'm frequently told it's no use commenting because the agencies have "their" mind made up. I hope I'm making it clear that this is an opportunity to comment on an essentially blank slate.
 
RE: !

>"Has there been any specific discussions
>regarding management within these units?
>..hunters unable to participate in
>that hunt will migrate to
>the next best available unit
>with lesser restrictions."
>
>No, there have not been any
>specific discussions for any units.
> Again, that's the kind
>of thing we want to
>hear from you!!! And
>hunter displacement is one of
>the big trade-off issues if
>controlled hunting is the primary
>tool. You mention you'd
>like to see a plan
>to address this issue.
>What are your ideas?
>Of the tools listed in
>the plan, which ones are
>acceptable to you? 2-point
>general season, no ATV use,
>everyone has to hunt with
>a bow, a 2-3 day
>season? Currently, about 1/2
>the units in Magic Valley
>Region are managed by controlled
>hunting and that region is
>exporting deer hunters to other
>regions. That "domino" effect
>will always take place in
>some way when hunters are
>forced out of some area.
>

What are my ideas... I'd like to see a management plan combine everything that you've listed above for units 31, 22, 32, 32A.

For example:
1) Open a 2-3 day general rifle hunt for the region (to be rotated between 1 or 2 of the above listed units each year).
2) Place a 2-point restriction on the rotating general rifle season
3) Restrict ATV's. Only allow them on established Forest Service Roads (not trails or off trail), or disabled hunters use, and/or game recovery.
4) Allow a general bow season for the region (may consider shorting to 15 to 20 days when a general rifle season takes place in the same unit for that year)
5) Expand the controlled rifle hunts for each unit in the region (allow 50-150 tags depending on the unit, year, general season rotation, etc...)

These changes would still allow families a hunting opportunity (rotating general rifle season), trophy hunters the chance at seeing a mature buck (controlled late hunts), allow deer a chance to mature, and keep revenue from completely drying up with a general over-the-counter bow tag for all units.

Lastly, I'd like to see the changes be placed on regions and not just units. If regions are effected as a whole it may help curb your "domino effect" some.
There is no perfect plan and the IDFG will not be able to please everyone. That said, I welcome change and hope everyone will do the same.

I'd appreciate hearing your thought, again.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom