ID Season Dates and Controlled Hunts

Daxter

Daxter

Very Active Member
Messages
1,425
It sounds like ID might be shaking things up a bit for 2008. Does anybody know when we can expect to see big game rules and regs for this fall? I am curious as to what units will be changed to controlled, and what the season dates will be on the general season units. Should be incredibly crowded on some of the general season units if they make the changes I heard about.

Dax
 
We did the proof before going to print last week. There's usually a 2-3 week turn around from the printer, so should be the typical mid-April for paper copies. They will likely come up on the web site a little before that.

There were only relatively small changes for Salmon Region: converted general rifle season in Unit 30A to a controlled hunt and added a controlled hunt in 36A after the general season. General rifle season dates same at last 2 years: Oct 10-24.

I believe changes in other regions were very similar to the options that were on the website during the public input process.

Tom Keegan
IDFG Salmon Region Wildlife Manager
 
Salmonfg, Tom, what do you see for Idaho's future in management of the mule deer. For the last several years I've read in hunt magazines foecast about how the deer herd is being mismanaged and that Idaho should follow the example of Colorado and Nevada and try to rebuild its herd. I'm not trying to start a pi$$ing match on here I'm just curious about your opinion and wondering what the Fish and Games outlook and opinion is on the matter. Do they feel like there is nothing wrong with how things are being handled or do you see big chsnges in the future. The reason I ask is because I live in Nevada and have hunted Idaho once and loved the country and I would love to hunmt it in the future. fatrooster.
 
I'll be one of the first here to step up and support IDFG. I spend a lot of time talking with they're biologists and managers about these very things, and some of them are really close to my area. They do a pretty good job with the task they are handed. Manage the wildlife-provide viewing, prevent depradation, try to keep the public happy all the time, and keep seasons open and OTC, and let people have quality hunting experiences, while harvesting a lot of game.

Look at the feeding they are doing this year, in many of the areas. Above normal snow, poor habitat, losing some of the total deer, but trying to support and feed the adult does to minimize losses, and maximize recovery. You can't stockpile animals, and Mother Nature can thwart your best efforts sometimes.

Thumbs up, guys!
 
Thanks for the info. I was looking more at the Southern and SE parts of the state where they had proposed turning several popular general season units into controlled hunts. I am excited to see how it all shakes out so I can start agonizing over if I am going to send in $400 again this year. I love ID muleys.

Dax
 
Dax,
Being originally from AZ and having moved to ID I will say that I have become a little discouraged with wildlife management here. I live in SE Idaho and have found that the F&G has some very dissettling practices. First and foremost is that a vast majority of the dept. funding comes from tag and license sales, even more so than other states. They refuse funding from the state and or Feds to maintain their independance in decision making. Unfortunately this only helps a small amount, because as has been demonstrated with the wolf situation, when the feds decide to make decisions for the state, they will. So with so much funding coming from sales, there is a conflict of interest in the management of wildlife. If an animal doesn't make money, it doesnt get managed. The deer feedings this year were an example of the departments defiance of the animal populations, most of those feedings in this area were directed at animals that were getting onto roadways and causing accidents, not the animals most adversely effected by the snow. So this is a long way of saying that the state will continue to sell too many tags, do too little to manage their herds, and be the "well I didn't get drawn anywhere else I guess I will go there" choice in the west.
 
Great topic. I am in the same boat as a lot of folks on MM. Idaho is a back-burner state. I can't wait to find out my draw results for other western states. If I feel I didn't draw enough tags to fill my addiction, I look into Idaho as a last resort. Idaho, I believe, has some of the most beautiful country in the world. It just seems to be overran with people.

On another note, I know many folks don't want a point-program implemented in Idaho. I do know if they did implement some sort of preference system, I would buy a license every spring...what about you?
 
I am a non resident and have hunted SE idaho
since 1989, I havent hunted it now for 3 years.
I live only 30 minutes from some of the best
deer country there is, and am able to scout
alot.

The game and fish still blow smoke that the hunts
are getting better but seeing it first hand that
are far off.

The winter of 92 93 took its toll but hunting in
94 and 95 was about the same as it is now.
2000 to 2005 was not to bad, but come on it
is almost impossible to find a mature deer in
any of the SE units, yes there are a few killed
every year but nothing like it was.

They have ruined all of the controlled hunts, and
now I here they are going to increase tags.

Idaho to me is the most miss-managed state in the
west, with the most public property of all.

I fill out there survey every year, but I dont
believe they do any good. It is all about
tag sells!!!
Just my 2 cents
 
Dax,

I have to plead soem level of ignorance outside my region (I have plenty to keep me busy here), but looks like units 70 and 78 were converted from general season to controlled hunts.

Tom Keegan
IDFG Salmon Region Wildlife Manager
 
fatrooster,

Well...the diversity of opinion in just this topic gives some idea of the diversity of challenges in managing mule deer in Idaho and that's just the harvest management piece of the much larger picture. Providing a balance among the different opinions is challenging. I'll give 1 small example from the input process for deer seasons last month. I put out 4 basic options for changes that would alter deer hunting opportunities. One option included converting a unit from general rifle season to a controlled hunt. The overall responses tended to favor that option, but there was definitely a strong opposition. Comments literally ranged from "great idea" to "this is the stupidest idea I've heard yet, what idiot came up with this." Mixed in there were comments like "it's already the best trophy unit we have, there's no need for a controlled hunt" and "there's no potential for that unit to ever produce decent bucks, it's a waste of time." All for the SAME unit/option!

So, it can be difficult to understand a general statement that the deer herd is being mismanaged. Every person's opinion is valid and enters into the process, but the diversity of opinion means somebody is going to feel like their concerns are not being addressed...that they are not being listened to. The truth is I do listen, but that I can't implement every or even most people's input because it's going to be in direct opposition to someone else's.

Over the last 5-10 years, IDFG has focused what I consider a large amount of effort on improving mule deer management. Some changes include redesigning aerial surveys, the Mule Deer Initiative, rather intensive monitoring of overwinter fawn survival, and refining harvest survey.

I'm not sure how to answer your question: "Do they feel like there is nothing wrong with how things are being handled or do you see big chsnges in the future." Do you mean how hunting seasons are set? Or the trend in deer populations? Or something different? I'm not trying to be evasive...I just see a lot of aspects to "deer management" and I have different answers for different parts of it. Do I think there are issues with deer population levels? Yes, at a large scale, very little question about it. Can buck harvest management play an important role in "rebuilding" deer populations? Not really, 2 biological variables drive deer populations: adult doe survival and fawn production. Buck harvest has negligible impact on either of those driving variables. Can we manage for more older bucks? Absolutely, if hunting opportunity is reduced enough. The question then becomes how much opportunity is everyone willing to give up. Is IDFG mismanaging the deer herd? By some people's standards, definitely (from a broad perspective, some would say too many deer and not enough hunting opportunity and others who believe not enough deer [particularly bucks] and too much opportunity). Do I see big changes in the future? Big is a perspective issue - the recently revised mule deer plan is designed to guide deer management for the next 10 years. It certainly contains some significant changes in deer management, some that will be apparent to hunters, others (that I consider big, like how we conduct population monitoring) will not be on the radar of most. If big means something like full controlled hunting for mule deer bucks, then my answer would probably be no.

Sorry to be long-winded. It's a very complex topic and doesn't fit well with sound-bite answers. Hope it is helpful.

Tom Keegan
IDFG Salmon Region Wildlife Manager
 
I'm not sure I understand some of your comments. I'm not aware of any stated or implied policy or position of IDFG that refuses funding from the state or federal sources. In fact, the director recently formed a group to explore ways for obtaining funding through additional sources (non-license). State general fund distribution is determined by the legislature and the legislature also has to approve the agency's budget and use of license funds. And IDFG certainly does acquire federal funding, primarily through the Aid in Wildlife Restoration program (and the similar program for sport fish and boating). About 35% of my regional budget is federal funds (doesn't include most of my aerial survey budget, which I believe is largely federal). For the agency as a whole, 54% of the funding is derived from federal funds and contracts, 46% from license sales. However, I have heard the argument that maintaining funding isolation for hunted and angled species maintains tighter authority or control, but I've only heard that from sporting organizations.

The other statement I don't understand is "If an animal doesn't make money, it doesnt get managed." Several species, both game and unhunted, are managed, some quite intensively, at a "negative" revenue balance. Mountain goats and bighorn sheep are 2 of several that generate much less license funds than are expended for management.

Tom Keegan
IDFG Salmon Region Wildlife Manager
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-28-08 AT 08:13PM (MST)[p]I know it's not a SE unit but after spending many years growing 45 into trophy status, IDF&G is going to triple the tags and pretty much kill it off...I don't get it, what a shame.
 
Well, I for one think Idaho is doing a pretty good job managing their herds, and I really appreciate the input froma regional manager. I definitely understand that IDFG cannot be all things to all people.
Do I wish there were as many big bucks as there were prior to 92/93? Absolutely! Am I willing to give up the opportunity required to return herds to that level quickly? Not really. I do think their is room for improvement. (who doesn't!) The general population of hunters in Idaho is not as focused on horns as the people who post on this site. While I no longer live in Idaho, I appreciate that the hunting heritage in that state is not centered on high scoring mule deer. Heck, I lived in the panhandle, where whitetails were king, and people cared little about the mulies in southern Idaho. I'm not defending that view, but recognize it is out there.

This is really just a long winded way of saying that hunting in Idaho (and deer hunting in particular) is still pretty decent. This is largely due to the management (or mismanagement in some people's eyes) of IDFG.

Flame away...

Bill
(No, I don't work for IDFG and never have!)
 
Tom, I have to play devil's advocate here.

For most of the 1980's and 1990's Colorado's mule deer herd decreased like those in virtually every other western state.
In 1999, Colorado deer population was estimated to be 475,000, management objective was 630,000 and buck/doe ratios were between 10 and 20 per 100 does.

In 1999, Colorado instituted complete limited entry hunting, reducing tag numbers by more than half, with the biggest reductions in buck tags. After 8 years of greatly reduced harvest, Colorado's deer population had increased to 610,000, and buck ratios averaged 39/100 does state wide. As far as I can determine, there were no significant changes to predator control programs, habitat improvement, etc, yet Colorado became the first Western state to not only stop the decline in mule deer numbers, but actually saw a substantial increase in a relatively short period of time.

The most significant difference between Colorado and other western states at this time is that Colorado has much higher numbers of bucks, and particularly mature bucks, during the rut. It would seem logical to assume that this difference is a significant factor in their increasing deer numbers.

Research has shown that having mature bull elk do the breeding results in earlier conception dates, shorter birthing seasons, and larger calves going into the winter. The result is higher survival rates for calves, which is obviously the number one factor when trying to grow a herd. Given that, it would seem to me that the same dynamics would apply to mule deer. At some point, I believe we will come to understand that the critical component in building a deer herd is not pregnancy rates, but survival potential of the young born each year. In Oregon, research has consistently shown pregnancy rates that average 120 fawns/100 does, yet counts done in December typically run 40/60 fawns per 100 does. That is a lot of mortality prior to winter really kicking in.

I really appreciate your willingness to participate in this forum. Wish more of your compatriots in other states would do the same. I also hope your new mule deer plan does accomplish some of the aggressive goals you have established, although I have to admit to being pretty cynical about getting the funding from anyone but us hunters. Like some others, put a preference point system in place, and I will be very happy to start sending you some money.

Scoutdog
 
Tom,
I make the claims baout the department trying to maintain control over its funding from comments made at a regional meeting this winter by Steve Nadeau, and from my conversations with a conservation officer with whom I associate relatively closely. I am aware that there has been some research done into finding alternative methods of funding, I believe a rep from AZ even came and spoke to them. My concern is that from people in the fish and game I have been told that sometimes their focus is to try and paint a picture that helps them get more funding instead of what will best manage our resources. I do not want to get in a spitting match with anyone, and appreciate very much the difficulty of the work done by the dept. However, ID has shown that the emphasis of their management is to gain funding. For example, in SE Idaho no surveys or counts are performed on Pronghorns, why, because they do not make any $$. That is a fact and was stated by our regional biologist at last years meeting just prior to the regs coming out. The emphasis is not on the animals, its on the dollars.
 
I think IDFG is doing a good job. The problem here is that the IDFG listens to the public, but the public doesn't know what it wants. According to the recent survey the overriding theme is that the public doesn't want to lose opportunity and it wants bigger bucks. You can't have both.

In terms of trophies, Idaho is clearly behind Colorado when it comes to book bucks, but so is EVERY other state. I believe it is David Long's Mule Deer book where they breakdown the various states. I thought I'd find that Idaho would be far behind Wyo, Utah, Ariz, etc., especially in the more recent past. That is simply not true. Yes general season hunting can be hard to find even 160-170 class bucks, but I think a lot of it has to do with the terrain. Most hunters are lazy and finding big bucks in this state is harder than most, due to terrain. But the record books seem to support that Idaho is just as good at producing book bucks as the other non-Colorado states. It would improve if the public allowed IDFG to turn more portions of the state to draw hunts, but that isn't what the public wants. Like it or not, members of MM are not the "general hunting public", they are "trophy" hunters, so the general opinion here doesn't doesn't match the majority. This is the exact reason why I like my state of Idaho the best, the big bucks are here if I am willing to put in the effort to find them, I get to hunt every year in the same places so I can get to know them, and lastly I know most of the Non-residents who didn't draw that coveted tag from another state is not willing to go where the big bucks live.

As far as I'm concerned if you live here and your complaining that it isn't what it was, too bad, just work harder. My dollar doesn't go as far, complaining about it won't work. If you are a non-resident and this is your back-up state and you are complaining about the management, just remember you get to hunt here every year and you can't say that about Colorado or Arizona, so quit your bitching. You Can't Have It Both Ways!
 
So Brian

what do you have hanging on your wall. You get to hunt the same area year after year in Idaho, you should have a couple 200 inch deer? By the way, you can hunt Colorado and Arizona every year. I'd much rather hunt an area every year and see trophy deer then hunt and see people every year and no trophy deer. I can do that in Colorado. I have friends that hunt Colorado every year and they do have multiple 200 inchers on there walls.

Idaho does a great job if you are looking for opportunity, but if you are looking for the opportunity to harvest a true trophy you better look elsewhere.

People in Idaho want to see more trophy deer, so what does Idaho do? they lengthen the deer season. Go figure! Tell me how that helps Idaho's deer? Trust me I love to hunt Idaho and I do my fair share to help the herds. I would like to see the F&G do their part. Idaho's deer management is less then stellar. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Lets see those 200 inchers!

Steve
 
BPKHunter,
Excellent post. You are exactly right. As Idahoans we are lucky to have the opportunity to hunt. There is nothing wrong with having to work for a big buck. I agree, the F&Gs work hard to promote the our herds, they simply can't please every person.
 
There is always a lot of resistance in going from a general tag to a draw system. Would most Colorado and Nevada residents want to return to a general draw? I think that the majority of hunters don't want to wait 10 years for a chance at a 200 inch buck, but are willing to wait two years for a descent chance at a 160/170 inch buck and a slight chance at a 180+ buck vs. getting a forky every year. If people want opportunity every year with the population growth in the West, maybe they should take up bowhunting.
 
Cosa, I would like to know what
areas in southeast Idaho you think
people would have a decent chance at
a 160 to 170 deer, I spend alot of
of time on the winter ranges, this
year there was the most snow in 10 to 12
years, and in 4 days of looking I seen
118 bucks 42 4 points, one 180 plus,
and 4 or 5 in the 160 to 170 range,
in an area that 6 years ago you could
see 60 to 80 4 points. Now they are going
to have a late controlled hunt?
 
Scoutdog,

I certainly won't claim comprehensive knowledge of the situation in Colorado, but there have been analyses of the impacts of reduced buck harvest on fawn ratios and population productivity. There's a brief discussion of the CO situation on muledeernet.org (http://www.muledeernet.org/statuscolorado.htm) and a technical paper in the Wildlife Society Bulletin (Bishop, C. J., et al. 2005 Effect of limited antlered harvest on
mule deer sex and age ratios. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33:662-668). The basic conclusions thus far have been...

From the CO status report on muledeernet: "Although a full analysis is still pending, there does not appear to be a clear relationship between reduced buck harvest and posthunt fawn:doe ratios (i.e., fawns/100 does) in Colorado. In some units where major reductions in hunter numbers resulted in large increases in buck:doe ratios, fawn:doe ratios have remained low. Conversely, in some units with only minor reductions in hunter numbers and small increases in buck:doe ratios, fawn:doe ratios have increased considerably. In many units, observed fawn:doe ratios went from being consistently low in the late 1990?s to showing considerable year to year variation since 2000."

and

"The decline in Colorado?s deer populations in the 1990?s appeared to result primarily from reduced early fawn survival. During this period, posthunt fawn:doe ratios steadily declined in most of the state with the exception of the eastern plains. Radio-telemetry studies of early fawn mortality in western Colorado indicated that disease and malnutrition were at least as important as predation in reducing early fawn survival. Another study showed that improved nutrition and condition of does during the winter resulted in higher survival of fawns the following summer. Improved nutrition and condition of fawns during the winter resulted in highly significant increases in survival. The predation rate on fawns was inversely related to fawn nutritional status and condition."

From a paper at the 2007 Deer/Elk Workshop (Bergman et al.):
"Despite an overall trend of increasing posthunt fawn:doe ratios between 1999 and 2006, our post hoc analysis indicates that the statewide limited draw system has likely had a negative impact on fawn:doe ratios. However, between 1999-2006, the total mule deer population as well as buck:doe ratios have steadily risen as a result of limiting buck licenses statewide. Our analysis indicates that the majority of population growth is attributable to the mature buck population segment and there is little or no indication that herd productivity has been improved by harvest management actions."

From Bishop et al.: "Based on our analysis, factors other than buck harvest were regulating population productivity, and limiting buck harvest to enhance fawn recruitment is not justified in Colorado. Limited buck harvest should be considered an issue of quality hunting opportunity rather than deer productivity."

I agree that increasing bull ratios and therefore the number of mature bulls can create an earlier, shorter rut, and a subsequent earlier, shorter calving period. And yes the logical consequence is larger calves going into winter and greater calf survival. In fact, I have been a promoter (albeit a fairly cautious one) of spike-only hunts, in part because of this reasoning (there are other good reasons for spike-only as well). But research has also failed to demonstrate this effect in managed elk populations (e.g., Bender, L. C. et al. 2002. Effects of Open-Entry Spike-Bull, Limited-Entry Branched-Bull Harvesting on Elk Composition in Washington. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30:1078-1084). They actually documented a reduction in calf ratios under the higher bull ratios generated through spike-only/limited branch bull hunting and contend cow nutritional condition has much greater influence on calf production and survival than bull ratios.

Sometimes our most logical thoughts are rendered invalid by real-world complexity and interactions. That's why research of "common sense" and "logical assumptions" is an important part of the learning and management process.

Tom Keegan
IDFG Salmon Region Wildlife Manager
 
Great answer Tom,
arm-chair biologists often scream the loudest with the least amount of facts and is why I like the pros to run our wildlife managment.

The Christian
 
I viewed new regs online, alot of people are going to cry when they see no late hunt in unit 45. Its kind of strange that alot of people get emotional(lowlandmulies) when someone says its not as bad as you think. Having opportunity trumps having a 5 day hunt with 100s of elk hunters. Theres pros and cons to every state and to think that Idaho could be managed like Colorado with each having their own different habitat is just near sighted. Do you think colorado elk hunters like how their herds are managed. Theres more animals in the field than just mule deer.I'll apply again this year for Idaho and i know i'll see just as many 24 to 28" bucks (open unit) if i dont draw as i did three years ago, so get off that 4 wheeler and lace-up those boots boys.
 
Tom I have got to say that I really appreciate you taking the time to post on this site. It improves the conversations considerable!
 
All I can say is I'm glad it's not my job to manage all the challenges the IDFG has to face. Idaho has many challenges. For example, on the Eastern and South Eastern side alot of the historical winter ranges for deer are gone to farming, making them more vulnerable to winter kill. The elk numbers are up from the 1960's and 1970's count and it seems that could play a part in decreasing mule deer numbers, I don't mind having fewer mule deer to have more elk. It would be nice to have both, but I realize you can't always have your cake and eat it to. Well let clarify that elk numbers are up except where the wolves have taken hold. I wonder how many wolves Colorado have to manage? I see that as a no win management challenge.
 
Another vote for BPK hunters philosophy. That post is spot on.... Big deer exist in Idaho including general hunts. Lowland the movie star feels that 200" is where trophy class begins......well, thats a tough sell for me even though we all know that deer like you describe exist here. Most of us don't have access to areas where they live in huntable numbers. I'd rather kill a 170" DIY than a buck like that where I'll need to beg and pay for access/tags or have my hand held by a guide. I hope that attitude remains the most common among Idaho hunters for as long as I'm around to hunt in our great state...
 
Jake

Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, even you! I think its great your happy with a 170 class buck. I just like more of a challenge. An older wiser buck with better genetics. I will hunt them where they live, I don't care if it is a conrolled hunt in Idaho, Nevada, or a hunt in Canada or Mexico. Movie star or not, big mature bucks are where it is at for me. Just my opinion.

By the way Idahoans have spoken and they want more and bigger deer!

The Movie Star

Steve


Thats funny never thought of myself as a movie star, only you and my four year old son call me that. I always just thought I was the best mule deer hunter in the WORLD! LOL.

Steve
 
Idahoans did say they wanted more and bigger deer. They also said they wanted more hunting opportunity and to be able to hunt every year. Try to make a formula that will satisfy everyone...
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-14-08 AT 08:40PM (MST)[p]Matt

You can't and Idaho won't, look at there track record. It's about tag sales or in there case opportunity. Thats were the money is, or so most people think!

Sure you can find a big deer in Idaho, But I'd rather hunt were I know I have the chance of seeing a true monster and Idaho doesn't have those kind of bucks anymore. 10 to 20 years ago yes, but not in the last 5 years.

Steve
 
>Jake
>
>Everybody is entitled to their own
>opinion, even you! I
>think its great your happy
>with a 170 class buck.
> I just like more
>of a challenge. An
>older wiser buck with better
>genetics. I will hunt
>them where they live, I
>don't care if it is
>a conrolled hunt in Idaho,
>Nevada, or a hunt in
>Canada or Mexico. Movie
>star or not, big mature
>bucks are where it is
>at for me. Just
>my opinion.
>
>By the way Idahoans have spoken
>and they want more and
>bigger deer!
>
>The Movie Star
>
>Steve
>
>
>Thats funny never thought of myself
>as a movie star, only
>you and my four year
>old son call me that.
> I always just thought
>I was the best mule
>deer hunter in the WORLD!
> LOL.
>
>Steve


A 170-180" killed in a general unit in Idaho is more of a challange than any of the places you just mentioned. Don't think for one second bigger bucks don't exist in many places in Idaho you don't hunt. Think you're off the mark with the "Idahoans want bigger blah,blah blah". Idahoans want to hunt. For many people it's a family tradition that goes back way before the money hunters and cinematographers started in with their program.
BTW- you're vids are great and I love to see an Idaho guy gain a deserved reputation as a great hunter. I just hope you dont use whatever noteriety you have to try and alter things as YOU see fit. If Idaho is'nt working for you, you've still got all those places you just mentioned. Most guys don't have the resources to apply in every far flung trophy hotspot or hunt it effectivly when they do draw. They want to hunt the same spots they've been hunting since they were young. You wanna tell them they can't cause they did'nt draw???????
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-14-08 AT 09:42PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Apr-14-08 AT 09:42?PM (MST)

LAST EDITED ON Apr-14-08 AT 09:39?PM (MST)

Jake

I was just stating what the survey results were! Should I set back and watch deer hunting as I once knew it go by the way side. The days when you did hunt with your family and did see great herds of Idaho deer roaming the hills. And when the record books were filled with heads coming out of Idaho. The mule deer herds are less then 50% of what they were 20 years ago. Maybe your not old enough to remember the good old days? Should we kill them all off just because you want to hunt every year! All that I'm saying is what we are doing right now is not what we should as a state. I don't think you need to give up opportunity to hunt every year, maybe hunt with a different weapon. One that it's a little harder to harvest with. You can still hunt, but the harvest numbers would go down. Notoriety or not I'm going to do what I think is right for Idaho's deer. If that means I can't hunt every year so be it.

I love to hunt. therefore, I work my a$$ of so that I can go and hunt where I only dreamed of hunting ten years ago. What's wrong with that! Just curious when was the last time you planted bitter brush or donated a some of your hard earned money to an organization fighting for the mule deer. My guess is probably never! But then I don't know a thing about you, just like you don't know a thing about me! Except that we both love to hunt mule deer. By the way Jake I've hunted lots of general hunts and I've taken a number of 170 plus bucks on those hunts, It just wasn't what I was looking for in a hunting experience. I truly think that a 170 class buck is a fine buck to harvest, just not what I'm into. It doesn't make me any better then you, just different, and it takes all kinds to make the world go round.

The Cinematographer

Steve
 
One question. Why did game and fish increase non-res. tags after a tough winter and extend seasons when most states affected this winter decreased tags. My thought, not only do we lose are big bucks but with more people we lose the quality of the hunting experence fighting crowds. Any way just my thought after 20 years of hunting Idaho bucks.
 
Lowland the cinematographer,

amazing that two people can look at the same data and come to different conclusions! The survey results I read seemed to indicate most hunters in Idaho were not in favor of reducing opportunity.....

Nothing wrong with how you hunt.....not saying that at all. Idaho still has controlled hunts that are on par with many of the better places throughout the west, I apply every year...What makes us unique is that we still give folks the chance to hunt lottery tag in hand or not! And point blank, our herds will support it and still give those that want to work for it a chance at a good buck or bull! Not every downturn in herd numbers is brought on by hunting.....many factors involved and hunting is far down the list........Anyway, I'm through with the chatroom wars, they go nowhere believe me I know.... We disagree thats all. you say you'll do whatever you can for what you percieve as right for Idaho's herds, and so will I......
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-15-08 AT 09:17AM (MST)[p]Jake

I didn't say that Idahoans wanted a reduction in hunting opportunity. Your trying to put words in my mouth, I just said they want more and bigger deer. I also never said that the down turn in deer numbers was a result of harvest. I just stated that the herds can not handle the current harvest rate to grow or maintain herd health. The herds will probably never return to what they were back in the good old days. Due to the lack of habitat caused by drought, fire suppression and other factors including urbanization. There are a few general hunts that should not be general hunts. The herd will not and has not done well! By the way, I don't have a problem telling someone they can not hunt their general hunt anymore because it is controlled. If the herd can't handle the pressure we need to do whats right. If the herd can handle a general hunt thats great. Keep it a general hunt. You need the resource to be healthy and strong in order to have general hunts. Currently portions of Idaho can not handle general hunts however, a few portions can. As Idahoans and sportsman and woman we need to do whats right to help out the herds so we can hunt for years to come.

Steve
 
I have to agree with Steve, it isn't about
this year or next, it is about the future
for our kids, and grand kids.
At this rate it will never be as good as
it was 10 to 20 years ago, but I would like
to see it be half as good and it isn't going
to be with there current management.

Just My 2 Cents
 
I've been away from this post for a while so..

Lowland said, "By the way, you can hunt Colorado and Arizona every year. I'd much rather hunt an area every year and see trophy deer then hunt and see people every year and no trophy deer. I can do that in Colorado. I have friends that hunt Colorado every year and they do have multiple 200 inchers on there walls."

Well damn, let's see hands of who wouldn't want to hunt every year and see trophy deer and have multiple 200 inchers on their walls.

Colorado has always kicked every other states butt in terms of B&C entries. It was as true in the 60's as it is today. Now tell me what they are doing that IDFG can do to accomplish hunting every year in this state where we can see trophy bucks. And by your measure I guess that means 200 inchers. Remember we have to have opportunity also, so no once every 10 years solution. Now I will hazard to say that Colorado is probably blessed with better habitat to start with so taking that into consideration, what can IDFG do?

I see quite a few articles on really great Colo bucks, but they all start with, "I finally drew the once in a lifetime tag after accumulating 10 points.."

BTW, Idaho kicks Arizona's ass in B&C entries. Wyoming is catching up to us if I remember correctly but if we closed down our wilderness area's to out of state hunters without a guide, maybe us in state guys might let a few grow to age as I believe quite a few of their entries are a result of that practice. Otherwise Idaho is, despite all of the disrespect, right there at number 2 in B&C buck production.

I'm sorry but if you are trying to tell us that anything less than 200 gross inches(on public access) isn't exciting your full of #####. 200" deer on public land, and especially in area's you can hunt at least every other year requires having no job for 4-5 months of the year or the luck of someone who can win the lottery multiple times.

I, like many here in Idaho now about the "Alderman's". You apparently enjoy the spotlight and think you are special. Isn't it true that you somehow end up with landowner tags in Unit 45 routinely. If so, how much land do you own there? I know for a fact it is illegal for landowners to sell their tags, so let us lowly folk know how to go about getting those tags you end up with. I speak of rumors that I hear so if I'm wrong please let me know, but while I appreciate debate, I don't appreciate your condescending tone..

Flame on!
 
Brian

Good to have you back!

Idaho used to be the number two and are still ranked there but, look at the last 5 years where are all of Idaho entries. Your so smart and think you know everything. Tell me where they are hiding all those entries, because I don't see them in the book.

I also never said that shooting less then a 200 incher wasn't exciting, that is just your insecurity wanting to jump out and lash out at somebody. Tell me who wouldn't want to shoot a 200 incher? That is where I think a mule deer is a real trophy. I shot a number of bucks under the magical mark.

So you think you know about the "Alderman's" Sure I don't mind the spotlight, there is nothing wrong with that. However, I don't think I'm special by any means. Being in the spotlight brings out all the a$$e$ who don't know sh## and want to challenge me. I don't mind it!

As far as tags in unit 45 I've drawn it 4 times in the last ten years and I have also acquired a couple landowner permits in the last 5 years. Yes it is illegal to sell landowner tags in Idaho, but it is totally legal to transfer those landowner permits. Did you forget, I though you knew those "Alderman's". We grew up down there and we know everyone and it's not uncommon for a landowner to give us a tag. You should of known that! We've even had an elk tag or two! Doesn't make me special, just lucky.

Rumors. God I love rumors and trust me I have heard my far share and most of them revolve around me. Funny thing about rumors is that they tend to not be true. Part of the spotlight you were talking about.

Oh yeah, to get back to the point of the post. You can hunt those states every year, you just can't hunt them with a high powered rifle every year. It's called hunting not killing!

Smolder On!

Steve
 
do i sense jealousy or hostility? maybe you guys used to date and had a bad break up? Family feud? oh i know you guys were best friends and one of you got caught with the others wife? Keep us Posted!!!
 
Steve said: "As far as tags in unit 45 I've drawn it 4 times in the last ten years and I have also acquired a couple landowner permits in the last 5 years. Yes it is illegal to sell landowner tags in Idaho, but it is totally legal to transfer those landowner permits."

So how do you get so lucky to draw a tag with an ave draw odd of 3%, 40% of the time? And you must really be a nice guy for all those landowners to just hand over those tags to you. With at least 6/10 years hunting what most would say is the premier unit in Idaho, I'd can see why those 170 class bucks are so unexciting to you.

Getting back to my post I didn't hear you say what IDFG needed to do to get the herds back without going to a draw that severely limits hunter access, that they, not the politicians or landowners, can control.

I do agree with you, if the herds can't handle the amount of hunters that we have then we should limit it. But, I'm not ready to tell some guy he can't take his kids hunting just so certain people can ride around in a quad and pick amongst the many wall hangers when I have a fair chance at finding an old buck in the steep(not lowland) country of central Idaho.

I'm now officially off my soapbox, the last word is yours if you choose.
 
Good stuff here! Steve, you're not one of those "short range weapon nazis" are you? you know, the guys who look down their snouts at the rifle boys.......Grab you're bow and head up into the high country we talked about the other day....May as well take a cheese grater instead cuz it'll be just about as effective and cut the already long odds of killing a good buck down to just about nil(despite what you might see on TV)..... Modern "muzzleloaders" are just about as deadly as your average 30-06 so I'd still feel pretty confident with one of those.......But I think I'll tote my trusty ol' 7mag if it's all the same to you (or not).....Just feels right in my hands and is the proper weapon for such circumstances.....the country up there is a difficult enough obstacle to overcome and stacks the odds heavily in favor of the adult bucks who roam up there.

One mans opinion...but you know damn well I'm right! LOL!
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-30-08 AT 10:06AM (MST)[p]Brian

Good morning!

See you really don't know as much as you think! I hunt with a muzzle loader, therefore, my odds of draw the so called best hunt in the state are much, much better then you quoted. As a matter of fact at one time it was unlimited draw. Pretty good odds huh? You shouldn't pick fights if you don't really know what you are talking about! Hope this was a lesson learned. No hard feelings, one day I hope to meet you and we can shake hands and laugh about this.

By the way the F & G needs to have more weapon restrictions and more controlled hunts, Maybe not necessarily in most of the high country. But, down lower were its is easier to access. I do believe the high country needs to also be regulated some how. Maybe with unlimited controlled hunts. Just because you are hunting with a weapon less then a rifle it doesn't mean you are not hunting. Just less effective at killing animals. It's called hunting, not killing!

Steve

Jake

Good to see you back again.

Yes I like to hunt with short range weapons, However, I do not have anything against high powered rifles. I think I have 10 or so in the safe. I just feel its not hunting when you shoot and animal over 300 yards away. It goes from the sport of hunting to the sport of shooting. Just my opinion. I think it's great people can shoot their guns 1000 plus yards, it just not hunting to me!

Muzzies, were do I start, Most all muzzle loaders Traditional and modern drop some were between 15 to 40 inches at 200 yards (most moderns range between 15 and 24 inches). Tell me how that is like a 30-06 Most muzzle velocities out of a muzzy range between 1200 fps and 1800 fps whats that old 30-06 shooting? I really don't know! Shooting a modern muzzy is really not like shooting a 30-06. We load from the end of the barrel and only get one shot not multiple shots. Much slower and much more drop then your 30-06. As you can see I could go on and on.

As far as my archery equipment, I hunt with it every year. And yes I might not be a successful as you and your high powered rifle in the high country. But that trophy buck is much more gratifying when taken with my bow. Last year I harvested a 208 gross with my bow that nets 195+ typical. first monster with the Hoyt. Next year I will get the big one. LOL

I got an Idea for you. Keep hunting with your trusty rifle, just take off the scope and hunt with one shell. Keep the other shells in your pack. No! I didn't think so! I don't think you have any room to complain about muzzle loaders until you try it.

Best Regards

Steve
 
Steve,
Nice buck, did you get it on film? I spoke with you about 3 years ago about helping me edit some of my footage. Anyway, I think you are right about controlling modern centerfire rifles, I think in the lowlands it makes it too easy to "lob" (as I have heard many people phrase it) bullets at way too long ranges. Now, with rangefinders, and modern scope/reticles, newer loads, newer bullets, newer magnum calibers, it just needs to be reined in. By the way, I hunt with archery and rifle. JMO.
 
Dan

It's good to hear from you again. Hope all is well.

Yea, we got it on film. It wasn't easy and I think the camera guy was more nervous then I was. Needless to say we did get it on film. Talk about throwing another element into hunting, short range weapons with a camera guy. What a challenge! Luck was shining down on us that day! God , I love hunting these animals. Just talking about it, puts a great big grin on my face.

Best Regards

Steve
 
No Steve, I got an idea for you! Grab your bow and head up into the Sawtooths with me....... Show me dont tell me chief! bring all that camera gear too HA! Until you do that I really dont think you've got any room to tell anyone what to hunt with! Where did you kill that buck last season? My guess is somewhere alot friendlier than the Idaho high country! BTW- muzzleloaders are not unknown to me and am pretty well aware of thier capabilities without a whole lot of input from you! 100 yards less range(for my limited shooting skills anyway) give or take but every bit as accurate and plenty of velocity to knock you're average forky into the next life!......long winded ballistics drivvle bores me to tears and dead deer dont lie.

Just for your own growth, the furthest shot I've ever taken was prolly in the range of 400, would of been no trick to get within muzzleloader range. one shot is all it took! Am i still a hunter in your eyes????????? You'll break my heart if you say no, HA HA!

Since we're throwing around inflamatory opinions heres one for you.....I personally think little of being aided by guides or landowner tags or other less than level playing field means of killing critters.....Cheapens the trophy as far as I'm concerned... Not real hunting.....

And how the hell do you know how gratifying it is for me to take a good buck with a rifle??????

I'd chat more but I'm gonna go get my shooting stuff out for a session this weekend! I'll be a walking death machine for all those sub 200" bucks this fall! can't wait!
 
Jake

Not once did I say you were less of a hunter! Seems to me that you are a little sensitive.

I also didn't tell anyone what to hunt with, except you, with your wise crack muzzy input.

You also seem to summarize that having a guide or a landowner tag isn't hunting. What is the difference in a land owner tag and drawing a tag, as far as the hunting goes. It's just a piece of paper. If I'm not mistaken you put in for unit 45 every year!
Sure maybe having a guide show you the lay of the land and where the majority of animals are is a little unfair. Now try stalking into bow range with a camera guy and a guide. even makes hunting with a bow more difficult. Sure maybe having that guide point out a deer and someone and shooting it at over 400 yards, now thats really cutting them selves short as far as hunting goes. By the way in some areas you are required to have a guide assist you on your hunt. It's the law!

Do you know what the average size of buck harvested in unit 45 is? Less then 175 inches. I'd put my money that you couldn't find a buck over 190 and harvest it, let alone with a short range weapon. Same goes for me in the Satooths, I probable couldn't find and kill a 190 buck, but they are there. I sure would have fun trying and more then likely with my front stuffer!

You choose to hunt the Sawtooths and I choose to hunt were I hunt and it's not all in unit 45. When it's a rifle hunt I choose to hunt with a muzzy. Five years ago I might not have!

Once again I never said you were any less of a hunter because you hunt with a rifle. However, the facts are the facts, hunting with a muzzleloader or a bow in arrow you are less successful, which in-turn means it's harder to do. I put in for high country hunts all over the west and when I finally draw another one you can be dam sure that I will be using short range weapons. I don't need to follow you and prove anything to you. everything I do is on film and that is proof enough.

Paint on!

Steve
 
Painting sucks........

This is all good natured here so dont get your self in a twist.....you say 300 yard shot with a rifle is'nt real hunting....I countered with an observation of my own it's all good. But I'm right as usual....As for 190' bucks well, I have'nt killed one yet with a rifle or anything else for that matter.....maybe after I get one under my belt (which aint likely) I'll pick a less lethal weapon...My limited experience with muzzleloaders is they kill things quite dead and very effeciently.....My honest opinion is their just a hair less deadly than you're average "high powered rifle".

Also dont care where you hunt, not my point at all, just suggesting that string and stick that shoots pointy things more than likely wont get er done in some areas I frequent. Rifle's whatcha want up there.Muzzleloader if you must....Some guys do the high country bow thing I know......But be real for christ sake! What you think I got a huge S tattoo on my chest! (I do actually but unlike superman I CAN see through lead, And fling a hell of alot of it at milk whiskered button bucks! yee-fugging-haw!)


Not sure where you're coming up with the "Whos better bit" That not even close to any argument I've ever made! If it's coming off that way my bad......

As far as "proving" stuff. Did'nt you just ask me to pull my scope(which would be difficult cuz it's rusted on tight) and put all my shells but one in my pack, and hop around on one foot blindfolded while whisling dixie backwards before bringing death to the next forky I shoot??????? And you wont even climb a little hill with bow in tote and piles of fancy picture show gear? seems a tad unfair, but what the hell.....



BTW, you do know that unless you kill 200" bucks with anything but a slingshot, you're a big ol puzzy right????????


High country slingshot prostaff member, GEMSTATEJAKESTER......HA!
 
Climbing hills isn't for that fat guys, don't you know!

By the way I just got my new sling shot in the mail! I already have my 200 incher spotted for this year and my sling shot shoots just a hair less deadly then that of a high powered rifle. Should be good to go. By the way how did a rifle junky get on the sling shot pro-staff?

One day you will stumble across a 190 incher. My buddy jake has taken a 188 and a 198 in the last 4 years here in 39 with his bow. He skinny though! Doesn't make it fair, I just thought if he could do it, you sure a heck could. I mean with a rifle and everything. Scope, no scope. hopping on one leg blindfolded, Wait a minute, you can whistle dixie? that's it, try jumping on the other foot, that should do it for you.
let me know how it works! Try filming it, maybe I could use it for something in a future show.

Best Regards

Steve
 

Similar threads

Founder
Mule Deer, Elk, Antelope and Whitetail Hunts in Idaho
Replies
0
Views
440
Founder
Founder
M
JCR, statistics, counts, objectives and harvest reports
Replies
33
Views
2k
mightyhunter
M

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

Screenshot_20230912_191947_Chrome.jpg
Screenshot_20220704-181222_Gallery.jpg
4F4B8391-523F-4706-8BD5-7378A711E745.jpeg
Packout (3).JPG
1657116823232.jpeg
Sweet Score for this Youngster
20221114_165956.jpg
2B65036F-EA2A-4B94-A244-84123D787EC1.jpeg
20230927_102027.jpg
Screenshot_20231013_165218_Gallery.jpg
36A791E7-A8A5-4981-A1E7-67DD814C5A42.jpeg
fullsizeoutput_2243.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom