Now that I got you to look at this thread because there is a picture involved I have a long winded post about management. I don't consider what I have written below to be ?the solution?. I think it has potential and would like some feedback on some of my management thoughts.
Almost all of the general season units in Idaho (and some other states) have the problem of not having very many mature bucks. Very few bucks live long enough to grow their 4th set of antlers. To increase the number of mature bucks you can increase the total number of deer or decrease the number of bucks hunters kill. The Idaho F&G (and the F&G/DWR in other states) have been trying to increase the total number of deer but that hasn't been working as well as we would like so if we want more mature bucks we are going to have to decrease the number of bucks hunters kill.
If you want to decrease the number of bucks hunters kill you need to limit the success of the hunters. The easiest way and often times the only way to limit the success of hunters is to decrease the number of hunters which means increased cost AND switching general season units to controlled hunt units. If there is only 1 buck for every 5 guys that want to hunt, I think the only way to go is with a controlled hunt system. I think that if every unit in Idaho became a controlled hunt unit it would be better than what we have now. However, if it were possible to increase the number of big bucks without going to a controlled hunt system I think it would be better. Personally I don't want to wait until I'm lucky enough to draw to hunt. Controlled hunts CAN also discourage youth and families from hunting together.
A short season length can help reduce the number of deer killed but other factors like weather and dates of the season have a larger impact. The number of days a hunter spends out hunting doesn't significantly increase the number of days hunters take off from work if the season is 3 weeks long or only 5 days long. You are just going to have everyone taking the same 5 days off work. Sure the 3 week season is going to see a few more bucks killed because of weekend warriors but lets be honest the weekend warriors aren't killing as many deer as the guys that take a week of work every year. If the weather changes the 3 week season will also have an impact on the number of deer killed. A good example of this in Idaho (and other states) is that snow storm in late October. A lot of buck that wouldn't have other wise been killed were killed in the Idaho general season units that stayed open until October 31st compared to the units that closed on October 19th.
Another way to decrease the number of bucks hunter kill is to have point restriction. Idaho had a couple of units restricting hunters to bucks with at least 4 points on one side not counting brow tines. In my opinion this did a very good job of increasing buck to doe ratios in these units but I don't think this is the best long-term option.
You can also limit what equipment is legal for hunters. I really like how Idaho F&G has the ATV restrictions in some units because it not only helps a few more bucks make it through the season but also limits the number of other ?hunters? that tick me off every year. Limiting the weapon that hunters use is also very effective but too many hunters wouldn't be willing to trade their rifle for a muzzleloader or bow.
Personally I liked Founders (aka Brian Latturner) proposal better than anything else that I have seen so far. It would certainly decrease the number of bucks hunters kill but I think his idea could be improved.
Instead of only being able to kill one deer every two years I think it would be better if you killed a deer one year you don't get to hunt next year. That way hunters aren't shooting ?last day/meat bucks? every other year like what would happen the second year Founder?s plan. Founder?s plan of having one tag that is good for one deer during a two year period at twice the price of a regular tag does a good job of still raising money for the State and prevents hunters from trying to cheat the system into allowing them to kill a deer every year. I think the same thing could be accomplished by increasing the price of the tag slightly and requiring hunters to turn in their unused tag to the F&G (or DWR) or they wouldn't be allowed to hunt the following year. Sure there would be a few idiots that would get mad at the F&G because they weren't allowed to hunt one year because they didn't turn in their unused tag but you could bet that the next time they had an unused tag they wouldn't forget to turn it in.
I think my plan would work because a minority of the hunters kills most of the bucks. If you can limit the number of bucks this minority kills then you will have more mature bucks.
I don't have any numbers to back it up but I would guess that 75%+ of the muleys killed on general hunts in Idaho (and other states) are killed by the same people every year. I'll just call these hunters that kill a deer most years the committed hunters. Most of these committed hunters are ?wanna be trophy hunters? and some of them are guys will shoot the first legal animal they see. The ?wanna be trophy hunters? pass on shooting smaller bucks and normally ends up with a meat buck/last day buck most years. Having an opportunity to hunt the next year is more important to the ?wanna be trophy hunters? than shooting a meat buck/last day buck Most of the people that post on this site (including myself) would fall into the ?wanna be trophy hunters? category. Many of us killed deer this year that weren't as big as we were initially holding out for. If I wasn't allowed to hunt the following year after shooting a deer I know that I wouldn't have shot my 03 and 04 bucks (both shot on the last day I was able to hunt) and may have not even shot my 02 buck.
Here?s a picture of the antlers of my 2004 buck on the wall on top of my 2003 buck.
There are still a few flaws in this idea but I still think it is better than the other options. This system obviously wouldn't work if there were only 1 buck for every 5 guys that want to hunt. It also wouldn't work for nonresidents that don't hunt that state every year. For nonresidents I think the best solution would be to set up a controlled hunt system like Wyoming has. The state could also consider giving the nonresidents that are regulars a chance to hunt every year as long as they didn't kill a buck the previous year. There would be some people that say they need to shoot a deer for meat every year. As most of us know that isn't true and with a controlled hunt system they wouldn't be able to shoot a deer every year anyway. Deer meat from a western states is more expensive than the best cuts of beef if you considering the cost of buying a tag, gas, hunting equipment and money that could have been earned by working instead of hunting. Even if you get paid minimum wage you would get more meat for the freezer by going to work instead of going hunting.
I really think that it could cut the number of bucks hunters tag in Idaho by at least a 1/3 if not 1/2. Even 1/3 more bucks surviving every year would make a big difference. I also think that this plan would make most hunters happy. Almost all true trophy hunters and the ?wanna be trophy hunters? would be happy because there would be more mature bucks in the woods. The hunters that don't kill a deer very often would be more happy because they would see more bucks. The only people that would be upset with this would be those that think it is their right to kill a muley buck every year. The fact is there just isn't enough mule deer bucks for everyone to get one every year.
