Your input is wanted by the F&G!!!

I

Idabow

Guest
Go to the Idaho F&G website and click on the "2012 Big Game Season Proposals" in the upper left hand corner (or click this link http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/hunt/?getPage=301 . You can view what they plan to do in all areas and you can submit a comment. Please let them know if they are doing a good job or not. They also posted some of the bills in the senate and house that are of interest to us sportsmen.
 
thanks for the heads up ! it looks like the doe tags are decreasing as well as some of those damned "youth" hunts. good riddance.
 
Didnt do enough imo. Still too many youth tags and deer tags. Baby steps i guess.
 
>thanks for the heads up !
>it looks like the doe
>tags are decreasing as well
>as some of those damned
>"youth" hunts. good riddance.


hey beavis and but head dam the youth that take your tag. LOL.......
 
When fish and game takes youth tags out of one unit and puts them into a neighboring unit due to lack of elk, then drops the number of draw tags to put in the youth tags in the neighboring unit it stupid, typical fish and game crap.
We dont have enough elk in unit 'a' so move them to the next unit 'b'. Doesnt make a dam bit of sense. If there arent enough elk, eliminate the tag!!!
 
>When fish and game takes youth
>tags out of one unit
>and puts them into a
>neighboring unit due to lack
>of elk, then drops the
>number of draw tags to
>put in the youth tags
>in the neighboring unit it
>stupid, typical fish and game
>crap.
>We dont have enough elk in
>unit 'a' so move them
>to the next unit 'b'.
>Doesnt make a dam bit
>of sense. If there arent
>enough elk, eliminate the tag!!!
>
could u explain your anser better. please thanks
 
Grab a regs book and take a look. If you keep your books from years past like i do you can see what they did on the elk tags over the last 3 years. If elk unit 'a' has numbers dropping and they need to lower tags, they take those youth tags and move them to neighboring unit 'b' where the elk numbers are hurting as well. Then take away tags from adult draw in unit 'b' to add the youth hunt from unit 'a' to unit 'b'. Its just stupid. They took away tags from us and moved the youth hunt in for 2 MONTHS where the adult draw tag is 2 weeks. bunch of bull.
 
My kids are grown & gone, & for some reason I still support the youth tags. Some people are to greedy to give a day of thier season to take a kid. Special seasons encourage people to show a kid the ropes. I would cut the big boy tags before taking away from the kids.
 
Unlimited either sex youth tags are fine where big game numbers can withstand the pressure of such a hunt. But when game numbers are low for various different reasons, I don't care who gets cut, but somebody needs to be cut until game numbers can recover!
 
>
>
> My kids are grown &
>gone, & for some reason
>I still support the youth
>tags. Some people are to
>greedy to give a day
>of thier season to take
>a kid. Special seasons encourage
>people to show a kid
>the ropes. I would cut
>the big boy tags before
>taking away from the kids.
>

+1 blind squirrel
last year me and my buddys kids had youth tags in 55 they both shot nice bucks with the help of my buddy and i. but it was funny to see some of the adults bucks that were shot. we saw 2 and three points shot on opening day. i thought that was funny.
 
Why is that funny? Who are you to judge what someone shoots? Did it occur to you thay may have wanted the meat and shot only what was legal to fill the freezer? Not everyone is an antler hunter. I fail to see where the humor is in it.
I hunt cow elk to fill the freezer instead of bull hunting. Is that funny? Me filling the freezer? Trophy hunt, meat hunt, makes no difference to me what people shoot as long as its legal.
 
>Why is that funny? Who are
>you to judge what someone
>shoots? Did it occur to
>you thay may have wanted
>the meat and shot only
>what was legal to fill
>the freezer? Not everyone is
>an antler hunter. I fail
>to see where the humor
>is in it.
>I hunt cow elk to fill
>the freezer instead of bull
>hunting. Is that funny? Me
>filling the freezer? Trophy hunt,
>meat hunt, makes no difference
>to me what people shoot
>as long as its legal.
>

u are a dumb ars if u want a meat hunt why wast the time to put in for a limited entry hunt. if u just want meet hunt then get a over the counter tag like every one else. why would u put in for a tag to shoot a small buck or bull or anything else lol.most people DO NOT put in for draw tags for meet and if they do is because they dont know how to hunt(IN MOST CASES NOT ALL SOME STATES DIFFER) when u can BUY all the meet tags u want over the counter.dreamin your just mad that my kids shoot bigger deer and elk than u and u want there tags. put your big pants on and hunt! by the way i have never drawn a tag in id but u wont hear me complain that my kids do!


if any one needs to put in for a meat hunt in idaho,UT,WY,MT,AZ,NM,OR,KS,NE,NV, LET ME KNOW BUT THE ODDS SUCK FOR MEAT LOL....
 
brdhntr, did you mean grammar? Maybe if you are going to give someone a hard time about spelling, the least you could do is spell it right. A little punctuation practice might be in order for you as well.

Actually, I'm sure you did it on purpose to be ironic.

This post was a joke, no need to get offended.
 
>+1 sage
>dreamin is a dumb as$

What a bunch of immature children. I will be the adult here i guess and let the whinning name calling children sound like the asses. Calling names because someone prefers to eat deer meat instead of antlers. Time for a nap kids. Call me a dumb ass to my face like a bully and your manley ego will get you in trouble. Thats if you havent been in trouble or had your butt kicked for running your mouth before. Im going to guess you have.

Now rant children on how you would to booster your ego on here. I conduct myself on here the way i would if we were in person. You may not be gentlemen, but i will treat you with respect because i am a respectful person. Not becaue you are respectful or even deserve it.
 
I know a guy who last year would not shoot anything smaller then a 35" spread muley and of course he did not harvest anything. Do people even consider preserving the gene pool of these majestic trophy's??? Its just like with fish, for the most part you can no longer keep native steelhead or salmon, take for instance the mighty Clearwater B steelhead, I have seen 30+ pounders. I too am a meat hunter and have yet to see the tags you speak of available over the counter. The unit I hunt has probably at least 50 does to every buck and it also probably has the highest number of hunters. Yes every now and then when a few select tags don't sell out then they are available over the counter but who wants to take a chance and pass up on the draws? Just my 2 cents.

Chuck in Boise
 
There is more to this state than Boise, if you'll look through the regs you'll see that in some parts of this state there are units with unlimited otc deer tags for youth either sex, and in some of these areas deer numbers are horrible!
 
the owyhees had the unlimited youth doe tags from oct 10th through nov 24th, but they cut it down to 100 tags this year.
 
Meat hunters, run some numbers. unless we hunt way different in our styles, Deer, elk and antelope is some of the most expensive meat I eat. I could buy a full cut and wrappped beef just from the gas money I spend hunting. Then add in the tags, ammo, gun, binos, gps, packs (I will stop there) There is no way you get ahead meat hunting
 
I am sorry but with gas prices they way they are no one is getting ahead lately. There also has to be something said for just being able to spend time up in the mountains. Remember all things lose value, just when you drive a new truck off the lot. So that custom gun you paid $3000 for is no longer worth what you paid for it and the same with your gear. Some of the worst deer meat I have ever eaten was from a big old buck that was in the rut. If I really wanted to save some money I would head to Glenns Ferry and buy a cow elk for $800 and not have to deal with half a dozen hunters in every draw.

Chuck in Boise
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-05-12 AT 08:33AM (MST)[p]wow people getting attacked for meat hunting? there is nothing wrong with drawing a "good" tag and shooting a "legal" buck. general season hunts for the most part suck. draw units are for a "quality" hunt, regardless of the outcome of the horns.

plus if you have unit "a" and there are 40 mature bucks and 150 forkeys and people kill 35 mature bucks THEY are hurting the herd more than people banging forkeys. big bucks pass on genetics. if all the high and mighties on this forum and "trophy" hunters want to make a difference lets get rid off 95% of the early november "trophy" hunts and have a few after the rut, get the does bred. it always amazes me how people with agendas are totally blind to only there way of thinking, take everyone elses but don't touch mine....... i can coexist with all even some hunts i don't care for but there are some that won't.

a buddy of mine hunted 44 with his 14 year old boy last year. his boy shot a 3x3 20" or so. a couple of "trophy" hunters came accross his boy with his downed buck and gave him hell for shooting a 3x3 in a "trophy" unit. his dad spent the better part of the day looking for there rig to teach them some manners, but alas never found them. unfortunate.

i think some people would rather see a 30" buck poached than ANYBODY shooting a forkey.
 
I guess you are assuming that everyone has to travel a good distance to their hunting spot. If you hunt close to home and butcher your own game, a winter's supply of meet is well under $100. Oh ya, it helps if you aren't trying to keep up with the latest Sitka or Eberleestock fashions.
 
No sitka for me. Well I was going to get into more details but whatever. i do have some nice hunting items but not close to what others have. i have no problem with people shooting spikes, forkeys there 1st 3x3 at age 14 whatever. My brother is 23 and we just got him his 1st buck, he never did it growing up. shoot what you want just dont tell me deer is cheaper then beef.
 
Well guys feel free to tell Fish and Game:

"Please cut off all youth hunting opportunities so I can more easily kill my meat buck 2pt on a LE hunt this year because I am too lazy to work for it".

How could they not listen to such unselfish logic.
 
That's exactly what I did, and do not feel the least bit selfish! I could harvest a mule deer every year if I chose to, but haven't since 92 because I kinda like to see'em hang'in around. If there were to many I wouldn't have a problem with these hunts at all! My daughter hunts for the first time this year, so a small buck may meet his maker so she can be successful and see if she wants to be a hunter. If she chooses not to shoot that will work too. I will guarantee you that it won't be a doe or fawn.
 
>That's exactly what I did, and
>do not feel the least
>bit selfish! I could harvest
>a mule deer every year
>if I chose to, but
>haven't since 92 because I
>kinda like to see'em hang'in
>around. If there were to
>many I wouldn't have a
>problem with these hunts at
>all! My daughter hunts for
>the first time this year,
>so a small buck may
>meet his maker so she
>can be successful and see
>if she wants to be
>a hunter. If she chooses
>not to shoot that will
>work too. I will guarantee
>you that it won't be
>a doe or fawn.


Destroyer knows whats best for all.

I think he wants a medal for not killing a buck since '92 judging by the number of times he's bragged about that fact in this chathole.
Congrats! yerz the winnerz!



the artist formerly known as "gemstatejake".
 
I don't have kids that are hunting age but I still wouldn't want to take opportunity away from them to make it easier for some armchair biologist to fill their tag closer to their truck. The mule deer have a lot bigger problems than some shakey 12 year old with a new tag in their pocket. Get them hooked so they can see and understand the issues. 10 years from now who would you rather have defending our sport to the masses an energetic young hunter who filled his first tag and has been a proponent for the sport ever since or a bitter washed up trophy hunter who has nothing better to say than "I used to see more / bigger deer but the damn kids, F&G, environmentalists, ranchers, farmers, wolves, bears, cougars, utah drivers, land speculators, law makers, atv owners, and lawyers ruined it for me so I havented shot anything in years." Honest answers only please.
 
I would rather have a huntable deer herd, so these kids you speak of have something to be a proponet of. Sage chickens for example, were few and far between around here, when they went to one chicken per season instead of 3-4 per day, the population in this area has done very well.

And I get sick of hearing a few on here spout off about others being lazy, kiss my donkey red ***. I would like see numbers so there is a huntable population, not the bare minimum. Are we not suppose to be hunting the exccess and maintaining a viable breeding herd. From what I've seen mule deer numbers have been going down hill not up. I could careless about just "bigger bucks" and late buck hunts are designed for washed up trophy hunters that want a drive bye shooting for a big deer! Honest enough for ya!!
 
Taking opportunity away from young/inexperienced hunters does not sit well with me. I wish more guys would look to another critter (elk,whitetail) to "fill the freezer".
As it pertains to mule deer, my opinion is veteran hunters should think twice before pulling the trigger on a young immature buck or doe. I mean at a certain point, what do you have to prove? I completely understand wanting some meat for the freezer but alternatives exist for that purpose.

As an extra dose of fuel to this flame, I'll say something along the lines of a four point antler restriction in certain general units would not hurt my feelings too bad.

Also, since F&G is in a perpetual financial shortfall (compounded by the supposed loss of non-res), I say double the license and tag fees for residents. I'll pay more. Many will gripe but when it comes down too it, they'll pay too.

Would all you armchair "conservationists" put your money where your mouth is?






the artist formerly known as "gemstatejake".
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-06-12 AT 04:13PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Mar-06-12 AT 04:11?PM (MST)

i would agree with the increase of tag and liscence fee. i also get tired of the "lazy" comments. every swinging dic* on here puts in for a late season hunt starting with the number 40 and ending in the late 50's. why??? because it is SO, SO,SO much more challenging?? hell no! it's in the rut the bucks are lovestruck and the weather pushes them down !!

as far as the kids they can hunt just like everyone else. i am in my fifties. i didn't have a "youth" hunt. however there were more deer. maybe because the mule deer numbers are so lousy kids will get bored after hunting for days without seeing a deer. as well what happens when little johnny or suzy turns 18 and they don't have their liscence too kill anything that moves?? they may get bored and quit. it's better to hunt hard and earn your first few animals. that will motivate you years down the road more than shooting does off the road.

a trophy is in the eye of the beholder. if an adult wants to shoot a forky it's his or her buisiness. they doesn't owe you or anyone an explination for it. some people hunt to kill, not everyone is a bleeding heart, sierra club, type that never shoots anything and feel they are homo superior and champions of wildlife and conservation for it.
 
If you don't get kids involved and give them a good opportunity hunting as we've know it will be gone in the not too distant future. The money hunters will love you for it cuz they'll take right over when there are no more "common" folk who give a $hit.

Whats your problem with shooting a cow elk or whitetail in place of a forked horn mule deer?

Dudes that routinely whack immature mulie bucks and does are part of the problem point blank. There is absolutely no good reason for it. If you fall into that catagory then don't bawl about the current state of mule deer herds as you helped put them there.







the artist formerly known as "gemstatejake".
 
You guys are right on, stop whacking the antlerless and yearling bucks for a few seasons and watch this herd come back.

Go kill some coyotes and other predators with your kids and get them hunting mature bucks only, and let this mule deer herd recover. This does not need to be forever, but we do need to adjust our thinking a little if we want to grow this herd.

Idaho offers a wide range of hunting , waterfowl, upland birds, coyotes, elk, whitetail.

Educate the kids on why we need to pass on the yearling bucks for a few seasons.

The goal is to double the mule deer population and increase the age of our bucks.

2 cents
 
FREAKING WAKE UP YOU IDAHO CLOWNS!!! Don't be distracted, the most important issue in IDAHO is SFW destroying your heritage. Don't do what us idiots in Utah did, argure about how big our piece of the pie is, WHILE SFW, ate the whole damn thing. IF YOU LET THIS CANCER IN, you will loose everything!!! YOUR SOLE FOCUS SHOULD BE KICKING SFW THE HELL OUT OF YOUR STATE, learn something from your idiot neighbors to the south!!


When they came for the road hunters I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for the oppurtunists I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for the public land hunters I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for me there was no one left to say anything!
 
Add turkey and bear to the list as well.

I don't buy into the thinking that if kids can't shoot the antlerless and yearling bucks that they will quit hunting all together.
I think if they pursued a mature buck and where able to get an oppurtunity to harvest,that would hook them more on deer hunting than whacking some yearling buck or doe This really does start with the parents.....

I blame the parents for the loss,for the kids loosing interest in hunting. Hell some of the parents are filling there kids tags , shooting right from the truck. That is not the way to raise the kids and introduce them to this way of life that we care about.



To the folks I have pissed off with these words, you are the problem and I would love to hear your response !!!
 
Ok sage. Priced Beef lately? Guess not. Besides why would i want to eat a steroid pumped beef when i can eat all natural zero fat deer and elk that i process myself. You trophy hunters need to get a clue.
 
I don't think this is about trophy hunting as much as it's about givin the mule deer a break for a bit. There is plenty of oppurtunity to harvest in Idaho without whacking a yearling Mule deer buck or a doe......It just requires a little forward thinking. This is really no diff than a 10 fish limit reduced to 1 fish so that we don't wipe out the fishery on a certain lake or river and so we can rebuild that fishery.

The diff is the F&G do not want to reduce the tags for Mule deer and give up any money , even though they know what there doing with the current direction is running the deer herd into the ground.

Thats why it's up to the sporstman to make the changes, The fix is very simple. The hard part is to change the thinking.

Stop whacking the yearling buck and the antlerless
 
As GSJ suggested, I do get a cow elk and whitetail tag every year. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I do appreciate my ability to hunt every year. Even that is under fire these days, just look at the reductions/restrictions in cow elk general hunts coming this year. It's not F&G's fault, wolves eat elk and they're tryin to kill as many of those suckers as they can.

As I said I appreciate our opportunity to hunt every year and would hate to see us go to a draw only state for muleys just so people can ogle over horns. But if guys are really passionate about older bucks in our muley herds, why don't we start pushin for a 3 point or better restriction on general hunts?
 
Good God, this isn't about HORNS. There are units in this state that deer numbers are horrible. And Jake, I'd gladly pay more as long as the money went to bettering the quality of hunting, not just bigger bucks or new trucks(habitat). If any of you could tell me how to let the mule deer population in these units recover without backing off on tag numbers for a while, I'd like to hear it. I'd rather see late hunts eliminated than otc tags or youth hunts to start with, just don't see the need for'em.
 
i would be in favor of a reduction of opertunity as a meat hunter i.e. point restriction, no antlerless ANYTHING to get the quality of the hunt back. i shoot whitetails now for the most part, however if i get my muley draw the first 22" 4x4 is going down. as i stated i am in favor of bringing the herds back and lowering harvest on one condition.............it goes for EVERYBODY ! no muley hunting after halloween period ! let them breed..... and no late season smokepole, or archery either. with the new tech. those guys are getting more lethal and or more brazen in their shot selection lobbing in their shots at long ranges and hoping ( not all !)
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-07-12 AT 08:19AM (MST)[p]Beavis14 AND destroyer have the right thinking. GREAT SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEMS . To bring back this herd it is going to require sacrifice. I like the idea of... NO MULEY HUNTING AFTER HALLOWEEN.......for a few seasons and let these bucks breed and get old. Colorado cut a bunch of late season buck hunts this year because the herd is down. in a few years they will pick them back up. 2 of the last 5 winters have been hard on the Mule deer all across the west. The Mule deer numbers in Idaho are not meeting projected levels. The Mule deer are not being counted acurately and there for the numbers are padded..This see 1 and 3 are in the bush method of counting is doing damage to our herd. SOME UNITS DO NOT GET COUNTED . Meaning they really don't know how many deer they have.....There are units in southeast Idaho that are holding less than half the deer they can hold and have in the past. Stop the harvest of the antlerless and the yearling bucks and no more Mule deer hunting after halloween. If we could do this I think we would see a dramatic turnaround in our deer herd and quality of bucks and still have OTC tags.....WE NEED TO GET AFTER THE DOGS AND CATS AS WELL

Some units will recover faster than others and those units we can start harvesting the doe a little more. You cannot increase the population by removing the ones making the babies. This does not have to go on forever. In some units I could see 3 to 5 seasons and then we can return to a reasonable harvest of antlerless. I don't care about the 3 point or better rule so much. I just think that if we stop harvesting the yearling bucks it will make a huge difference. 70% of the buck harvest in alot of our general units is yearling bucks. The fixes are simple......We need to get the F&G on board and get them to make the changes in the regs. They already agree with us on the solutions, they just won't pull the trigger. They know there current plan is running the Mule deer into the ground. There paralyzed. THE GOAL IS TO DOUBLE THE MULE DEER POPULATION AND INCREASE THE AGE OF OUR BUCKS IN IDAHO

The F&G have done a few things in some areas that will benifit the deer but it's not aggressive enough. The shorter seasons and road and trail closure in some areas is positive.
 
Then of course there is the other side of the coin. The pendulum swings both ways.

The "conservationist hunter" zealots are just as nuts as the habitual doe/forky killers. You can usually pick these guys out when they start howling to restrict access to public roads and trails. Generally you dig a bit deeper and discover they own horses/stock and would never stand for any regulations that would curtail their activities in the hills.

Cuz they are special.....








the artist formerly known as "gemstatejake".
 
I disagree GSJ ,,,,I don't think anyone is nuts. The doe and forky hunters can't help it !!! They just don't realize the damage they are doing to the herd and some simply will never understand it. They have been whacking the antlerless all there life and it's important to pass this along to there kids even if it means less deer in the future. There OK with that !!! These folks will continue as long as the F&G continue to allow it... As far as the road and trail closures, that is a delicate line we need to watch. Typically when they get one closed they will start working on 2 .... I am a motor head, I like to access the backcountry on my ATV during the summer and the fall, but I don't want to see open trails on every ridge and every creek bottom either. For hunting , one trail going in and then being able to go on foot to access the surrounding areas is a good thing. In southeast Idaho I have mostly noticed trail closures not roads. It's usually side trails that I see being closed, the main trail is usually left alone. I have been seeing more game in these areas since the closures. Also makes for quieter walking on these closed trails and easy access on foot to a more remote area. But like you said the pendulum does go both ways. Need to watch how much gets closed.

Cuz they are special.....Whats up with the slam on the horse folks Jake !!!!! YOU SOUND LIKE A DIVIDER NOT A UNITER ...The F&G like it when no one can agree and no one is united.
 
MULEY204, I think the horse thing is a poke at me from past discussions, jake(isn't that an inmature turkey) has his opinions I have mine.

Don't take it to serious jake, I don't disagree with you on everything. By the way when do I get my gold medal for not kill'in a mule deer since 92'?
 
Immature turkey is an apt description. I can live with it. (been called far worse many times).

As I've said before on here, it's easy to see there are plenty of guys who care in this chathole. Regardless of who agrees with who there is somthing to be said for that fact alone. Not many of us left I don't think.

I see where everyone is coming from and think a lot of it makes sense. I play devil's advocate sometimes just cuz I think it's important to look at the issue from a different perspective.

Also as a kid I could never pass up an opportunity to chuck a rock at a hornet's nest. Got my ass stung a few times too. you'd think I would grow up someday...





the artist formerly known as "gemstatejake".
 
ID has the potential to be one of the best muley hunting states in the west IMHO... it has slipped drastically from what I've heard over the last 10-15 years!

What would be the one rule to help yearly bucks survive? 3 point or better... Ask anybody that hunted E. WA before this rule was implemented, and 90% of them will tell you that the rule has really helped buck recruitment! Yes in some areas you end up with some MONSTER forkies, but I don't see why every 3 or 4 years throw a youth two point hunt into the mix to help keep the gene pool healthy.

I will be one of the few ones to give IDFG some credit... atleast in the pandhandle region. They have done away with antlerless elk tags in some units, and have aerial gunned down wolves as well. Their stance on wolf management took some cajones' and for that I applaud them.

I then look at what they've done to the elk hunting in units 11/18, and the lack of effort to help increase mule deer herds and that is what starts to piss a guy off.

I'm curious though as to why we couldn't go to a draw only system like CO does for their muley hunts? I doubt it'll ever happen as IDFG is too lazy to have that intensive of management, and most Idaho folk would kick n scream (as I'm sure some of you would). But could you imagine how awesome the hunting could be for both meat hunters and trophy hunters in a few years? Have some units where you have an either sex tag, some units you split up the buck and doe tag, implement first second and third rifle seasons, and limit the harvest in every unit to a specific amount of bucks and does. Within 3-5 years hunting could be phenomenal and their non-res money would come flowing back into the state. ID has some awesome genetics, and the habitat to grow some amazing deer herds... with some intensive management I see no reason why it couldn't be on the heals of a state like CO.

Mike
 
Not big on antler point restrictions, but the CO management would be interesting. Just manage mule deer so there is recovery time when die-offs happen, for any reason, instead of buisness as usual.
 
>I'm curious though as to why
>we couldn't go to a
>draw only system like CO
>does for their muley hunts?
> I doubt it'll ever
>happen as IDFG is too
>lazy to have that intensive
>of management, and most Idaho
>folk would kick n scream
>(as I'm sure some of
>you would). But could
>you imagine how awesome the
>hunting could be for both
>meat hunters and trophy hunters
>in a few years?
>Have some units where you
>have an either sex tag,
>some units you split up
>the buck and doe tag,
>implement first second and third
>rifle seasons, and limit the
>harvest in every unit to
>a specific amount of bucks
>and does. Within 3-5
>years hunting could be phenomenal
>and their non-res money would
>come flowing back into the
>state. ID has some
>awesome genetics, and the habitat
>to grow some amazing deer
>herds... with some intensive management
>I see no reason why
>it couldn't be on the
>heals of a state like
>CO.
>
>Mike

If you restict access by limiting tags, you have the potential to become Utah where you hope to draw a deer or elk tag every 20 years.

I would suggest something a little less draconian than your idea. Make hunters pick their deer unit similar to elk A and B tags. It would reduce some of the pressure. I know deer hunters who start by bowhunting in September, rifle hunt October and then bow hunt November. I have nothing against this strategy but it does add pressure to the herds.
 
+1 Brymoore,

I would support the A and B tags like elk, or pick your weapon. Anything to reduce the pressure on the deer. Also, if you align the season dates, you don't have people all ending up in the same unit because its open a week later than the rest. Also, stop all the antlerless deer hunts until the population can support it. I see they've reduced some of the antlerless tags in some areas, but its not enough.
 
The draw system in Colorado is very effective and as a NR or resident you can draw every year and hunt every year . you are not going to draw the trophey units without building points, but yoy can get very good buck hunting with just 2 or 3 points. There OK deer units are better than alot of our controlled units.

STOP ALL THE ANTLERLESS DEER HUNTS FOR A FEW SEASONS AND LET THIS HERD RECOVER.

STOP WHACKING THE YEARLING BUCKS, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WILL PROBABLY HAVE TO BE UP TO THE HUNTER. THE HUNTER WILL HAVE TO USE JUDGEMENT. OBVIOUSLY THE LITTLE FORKY WITH MILK ON HIS LIPS STILL RUNNING WITH HIS MOTHER WITH HORNS JUST ABOVE HIS EARS IS WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. YOU KNOW THE TYPE, 70% OF THE HARVEST IN THE GENERAL UNITS ARE THIS CLASS OF DEER.

I HAVE BEEN WATCHING THE PAPER FOR THE F&G TO POST THERE HUNT FORCAST. I BET IT WILL GO LIKE THIS. WE SHOULD HAVE A GOOD DEER HUNT THIS YEAR IN MOST UNITS ACROSS THE STATE BECAUSE OF THE MILD WINTER AND HIGH FAWN SURVIVAL THAT MEANS A BUNCH OF BUCKS SHOULD BE RUNNING AROUND.

YEARLING BUCKS !!!!
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-08-12 AT 04:32PM (MST)[p]One thing you need to realize, is that even though you may limit the time each hunter is in the field, harvest success rates aren't reflected in that.

My home state where all my friends hunt (WA) has started using a multi-season tag that allows hunters to put in for. If they draw they get to hunt all three weapon seasons. Stats have shown that people that draw these tags aren't any more successful than if they were to hunt just a single season. Don't ask me why, but thats the way it has been for the last 3 seasons or so since they've started the multi-season permit draws. More days in the field have yielded the same type of success ratios you see for the modern fire arm deer seasons.

So by choosing A vs. B tags for deer or select your weapon I don't think is going to work. If we assume that success ratios aren't going to change (and if they do, it'll be minimal), then we need to come up with a different system that restricts the harvest to 2 1/2+ YO bucks.

I think going to a 3-pt minimum would solve a lot of these issues. It worked for WA to get the age class up, why not here? Still let the yearling bucks survive, and you restrict the age class of the bucks being harvested. Do away with the antlerless tags and I think it'd be a great start.

There are plenty of small basket rack 3 points out there for the meat hunters as well. All those spikes and two points you see the first year are only going to get bigger the next few years. Yeah they are going to get smarter, but are you really that much of a conservationist if you demand the right to shoot the first yearling buck you see?

The ONLY negative thing I see from going to a point restriction is you encourage large two point genetics. Well why not every 3 or so years have a late youth season that would allow some of these kids to go smack a 25" mature two point??? Let them target the big two point migrators during the rut and help keep the right genetics in the field.

I think this would be a good start to help bring our herds back up to their potential. If we don't do something soon, then it's not going to get better, it'll probably get worse and then before you know it we are losing entire seasons or are forced to go permit only.... thats my .02

As far as the CO system turning us into Utah... I can see that concern and it is one of my own. Though the one thing where Idaho would benefit is our population base is MUCH smaller that Utah and I could see draw odds being much similar to Colorado than to Utah. Thats just my suspicion for this scenario.

Mike
 
I LIKE IT!!!!! WHEN WE GET TO THE POINT THAT WE HAVE GIANT FORKY'S RUNNING AROUND EVERYWHERE WE CAN DO A SPECIAL HUNT .
 
So, by your theory, we could have a 1 day hunting season, success rates would only change minimally and every three years we could have a youth 2 point hunt for giant forkys?

Seriously though, why not, in units managed for trophys, have a limited number of 4 point or better tags and then have a managment 3 point hunt in that unit. Doesn't utah do something similar to that?
 
No, only information I am going on is a general rifle season of 9 days yielded the same success rates as those who drew a multi season tag allowing them to hunt 30 days of archery, 10 days of muzzy, 9 days of rifle, and around 15 days of late archery for mule deer... the success ratios were I think within 5% of each other. In my experience, its those 10% of guys that do 90% of the killing year after year (figure of speech)... limiting everybody to a single season is just going to make those who harvest year after year not be so picky in the animals they kill.

I just think if u want to raise the age class of bucks, and increase the deer herd, stop antlerless harvest and limit bucks taken to three point or better. Idaho got by for years on God given potential and with predators and mis management thrown in, we've got a train wreck.... these are just my theories on steps to be taken that COULD WORK towards improving our situation. But the hard truth is that no matter how much we debate and solve this problem on here.... idfg isn't going to follow suit!

>So, by your theory, we could
>have a 1 day hunting
>season, success rates would only
>change minimally and every three
>years we could have a
>youth 2 point hunt for
>giant forkys?
>
>Seriously though, why not, in units
>managed for trophys, have a
>limited number of 4 point
>or better tags and then
>have a managment 3 point
>hunt in that unit. Doesn't
>utah do something similar to
>that?


"What I could do, I was doing, and that was simply putting my butt on the line for my country, the country that I loved, so that all the protestors and the academics and the liberal intelligentsia back home could enjoy the right to protest against people like me, the hated middleclass." --Gary R. Smith, US Special Forces
 
THE IDEAS WE HAVE WILL WORK. kEEP BEATING THE DRUM. THE F&G ARE LISTENING. NOW WE JUST NEED TO GET THEM TO ACT.
 
I'm sorry but the way I see it is if you are killing off the big trophy bucks your killing off the trophy genes, when those trophy genes are gone then all you have are forkies. All the breeding in the world is not going to do you any good if all the doe produces are more does and then you just went from 50 does to every buck to 75 does to every buck and hundreds if not thousands of people chasing that one buck. Yes IDFG needs to be more aggressive in the mule deer management plan, but they first need to show they really care and have not seen that yet. I will admit I am still learning the mule deer game having hunted coastal black tail deer all my life and there you were lucky to see 1 doe during hunting season.

Chuck in Boise
 
>I'm sorry but the way I
>see it is if you
>are killing off the big
>trophy bucks your killing off
>the trophy genes, when those
>trophy genes are gone then
>all you have are forkies.
> All the breeding in
>the world is not going
>to do you any good
>if all the doe produces
>are more does and then
>you just went from 50
>does to every buck to
>75 does to every buck
>and hundreds if not thousands
>of people chasing that one
>buck. Yes IDFG needs
>to be more aggressive in
>the mule deer management plan,
>but they first need to
>show they really care and
>have not seen that yet.
> I will admit I
>am still learning the mule
>deer game having hunted coastal
>black tail deer all my
>life and there you were
>lucky to see 1 doe
>during hunting season.
>
>Chuck in Boise


Look at it this way Chuck,
If you get your high school girlfriend pregnant at age 16, is your kid going to have different genetics than the kid you had at age 30? Those yearling forky and spikes have the same genetics to be a big buck themselves, just because he's a two point doesn't mean he's always going to be a two point!

And why do you think they say that a MATURE mule deer buck is one of the hardest North American big game animals to kill? You let those yearling bucks start to grow up and they are going to get smarter, and they are going to be harder to kill. And a 3 point minimum doesn't target only trophy bucks. It just encourages an older age class. Going to a 4 point only management strategy would be more along the lines of selecting only the trophy genetics.

Mike
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-09-12 AT 10:20AM (MST)[p]Mike,
Do you know if there is also any correlation between the length of season as you described and the average age of bucks harvested. I get what you are saying about being less picky about the buck if you have a shorter amount of time. I know if I had that long, I would hold out for a big one.

I also think we have a lot of people in Idaho who don't care or are completely oblivious to the state of our mule deer herd. In 2011, there were 3930 controlled antlerless deer tags available and not a single permit was left over. Thats not counting all of the either sex general tags and youth tags. Thats an awful lot of people that want to shoot the baby makers. I undersatnd about people doing what is legal, but you are the first line of defense against the poor management of the fish and game.

Chuck,
The only thing the fish and game has shown they care about is $$$.

The thing about genetics is, if a buck has 200" genetics (and will get there after he grows up) but is only a forky at 1 1/2 yrs old and he breeds, he's passing on his 200" genes. But, he probably won't breed until hes a little older. If you shoot a forky, he won't pass on anymore genes ever. I'm sure most of you have seen the guys hunting whitetails on tv and how they are always taking management or "cull" bucks. If you notice, they almost never shoot yearlings or 1 1/2 year old deer. They wait til they are 3 or 4 and show that they don't have the best genes. If you are killing the small bucks, you are stopping all the breeding. Thats why you can't have a 4 point only and no other ways to harvest bucks. Thats why Mike mentioned having a youth 2 point hunt along with the 4 point or better hunt. I also mentioned the management 3 point hunt. You have to take the management deer to grow the monster bucks.

Then you have the does. you have the same 200" buck that breeds 20 does, you now have 1 buck with those genetics and 20 does with those genetics. And for arguments sake, all 20 does had fawns and half were buck and half were does. Now you have 30 does with 200" genes and 11 bucks. So on and so forth. As you can see, the does are more important to passing on those genetics. But, unfortunately for us, there is no way for us to know what buck a doe has bred.

This is why I think that post rut hunts are also valuable. Maybe not now while the numbers are low, but in the future, when the herd can handle it.

Sorry Mike, I kind of said the same thing as you. You posted while I was typing this...
 
No worries Idabow...

The only thing where I think we may disagree is I don't agree with having a 4 point minimum trophy hunt... Kind of weird saying that when I do agree with having a 3 point minimum hunt.

In my mind and from what I've seen, of all mature mule deer I've seen and watched, I would say that 90%+ had atleast a 3 point mainframe. I would say that probably 65% have had a 4 point mainframe minimum. Remember this is talking mature-ish bucks of 3 1/2 years old or more (I think most bucks will express their main potential at this age. If he's still a 2 point at 3 1/2 years old, he's VERY unlikely to grow into a mature 4 pointer).

If you select on trophy hunts for 4 point minimum, you truly encourage large three point genetics. 65% of those mature bucks I've watched are now being targeted, instead of 90% of the mature buck population. By having a 4 point only, you are selecting for specific GENETICS and leaving a lot of those big mainframe 3 points. Its been my experience that mature 2 points represent a very small (<5%) percentage of buck populations (obviously this changes depending on where you're hunting).
By having a 3 point minimum, you open up that 90% of mature buck age class to be targeted. You are selecting an AGE CLASS of bucks at 3 1/2+ years old (theoritically) instead of selecting for GENETICS.

So that is why I don't agree with 4 point minimum. In BC it works because they have lots of other any buck seasons, and they simply don't have huge populations of hunters going after small populations of deer. Here in Idaho its not the same imho.

Mike
 
Not to be totally contrary, I've seen plenty of 2 and 3yr olds(3year olds are not mature) that are 4 point or better bucks, under your conditions the biggest and best are alwways under the gun long before they have a chance at maturity. I'd still prefer controlling time and length of season as populations fluctuate for various reasons along with pick your weapon and late hunts only when nessesary. Another words more hands on approach!
 
So you would rather have a pick your season with no antler point restriction? Still puts a lot of yearlings and young bucks "under the gun" as you say... which is better? to have the general hunting public targeting these yearling bucks or to have them targeting an older age class of deer? I never said a 3 year old buck is fully mature, just that he will be part of that older age class that includes legal bucks... But he's also had one or two more hunting seasons to get smarter, and is no longer by him moms side which is an important factor.

Part of the reason I'm for a 3 point minimum is because it's also VERY doable with little effort from the IDFG. With the budget shortfalls of the IDFG they are NOT going to do anything where it increases their work load, and doesn't increase revenue. An antler point restriction doesn't limit time in the field which I think is very important to a lot of people. I know that I would rather be able to hunt all three seasons with restrictions on what I can kill vs. picking one season and having the opportunity to kill that yearling buck. Just my opinion though...

Mike
 
Destroyer350 I fully understand what you are saying. I think a combination of all these things should be considered. Point restrictions, length of hunt, time of hunt, pick your weapon. Consideration of all of these things should go into the planning of every hunt.

Is that not why we have the F&G? To have people whose jobs are considering these things? If not, what are we spending our money on?
 
how about this....lets use 39 as a test dummy.........

eliminate early august draw---#1

september 5th-12th general archery--any deer----#2

october 5th-8th----general rifle any buck----#3

october 27th-october 31st general rifle 3x3 or better.----#4

eliminate all hunting after halloween for all weapons.----#5

as well eliminate all antlerless tags for two years minimum.--#6

my main thought is taking off all presure off the rut for a few years. still preserving the opertunity to hunt every year while giving the deer a chance to populate. however all bets of any type of management tool are off if we have a few real bad winters
 
Antler restriction does work if done correctly 3 to 5 years on yearling bucks and then evaluate. No one said 20 years or nothing.... The key here is to get these yearling bucks to the next level. The more bucks in the pool the next year the better. I would be very surprized if you saw much of an increase in mature buck harvest the first couple years. The hard part of this plan is that the overall harvest % is going to go down for a couple years.

You guys are kicking around some really good ideas.
 
I will support Brymoore, antler restiction don't work which is why almost every state in the west has tried them and dropped them, including Wyo, Colo, etc. Sorry I won't buy into Washingtons mangement plan yet as they are pretty low on the trophy or destination mule deer list.

Biologist have proven that you don't need many bucks in a herd, nor do they need to be old or certainly a trophy, to breed all the does and maximize herd growth.

Taking logic to the next step, the more deer you grow the more bucks you grow. Actually by letting too many bucks live you can actually hurt the population, because those bucks compete with the doe fawns for food and less doe fawns and yearlings are likely to survive winter. Plus there is only so much carrying capacity. This is the contradiction because...

If you want more big bucks you simply have to kill less bucks, or you have to leave more at the end of each season. The fact is if there is only so much room you would rather kill the young ones than the old, if you want more trophy racks next year. Clearly the best would be a way to mandate culling the poor 4x3 or "crab fork" or just plain poor genetics, but we know our general hunting public is not only not that picky they honestly aren't that smart. Come on some guys mistake coyotes for wolves and mules for elk and wouldn't know trophy genetics if it laid down 20 yards from them.

SO my OPINION, based on what I have read from Idaho, Wyoming, and Colorado research reports from biologists, is to reduce hunting pressure by letting less of you guys kill any kind of deer until the population grows some. Then make sure like some on here have said, react quickly and very locally to weather, disease, etc. Of course this means not everyone will get to hunt next year, but our momma's taught us you can have your cake and eat it to.

While I agree that some measures need to be taken, primarily some limits on antlerless hunting for now and limits on the gross amount of hunters in units like 32, 32a, 39 and pick a season and area, but I think this winter with a decent green spring and maybe even one more behind this will bring our herds back quite a bit, but frankly we will never see the good old days you guys want because frankly the habitat and human demand on the places these deer live in is too great and you, me, and Fish and Game can't go back in time and fix it.

In general way too many of you expect way too much. Colorado has amazing habitat, and as recently as 3 and 4 years ago, were doing great with their mule deer. A few bad winters and they are all crying about the conditions. BUT, as good as it had been recently it still wasn't anywhere near what they did in the 50's and 60's. So we can get better, but much of it is up to mother nature and then the rest is up to us not being greedy.
 
Funny to me how EVERY time a discussion of mule deer herd quality and quantity arises somebody makes a reference to how biologists have PROVEN that this works or that doesn't and thinks they just won the discussion, haha.

The REALITY is the bios don't know wtf they are talking about half the time and only report what will get their next grant approved.

The next time I hear how bucks eat all the food that a doe or fawn could have eaten I think I will PUKE. Reality is that MOST if not ALL areas in the west are under carrying capacity of the winter range of the AVERAGE winter so they will not be competing for food.

As for antler restrictions they do EXACTLY what they are designed to do and that is take pressure off of the young bucks and limit harvest. What they don't do is make meat hunters happy, and since the vast majority of deer hunters aren't capable of even filling a tag let alone filling a three point or better tag they start bichin and then get their way.

Look at it like this, make the majority happy and sell a lot of tags and make a lot of money or make the minority happy and make less money, especially as in this case the minority is the MOST serious about hunting and therefore wont leave either way but many of the less serious majority will leave if they cant go out and kill their scrub and FILL THEIR FREEZER. Funny how those freezer fillers yield about enough to fill milk crate not a freezer.

We had antler restrictions in CA (3 point or better in the x zones) and they were very successful. They were lowered to forked horn or better because of public outcry about all the forkies shot and left ( not even a fraction of what was slaughtered the next year under new law) but they didn't lower the tag quota so the next year they CLOBBERED the herd and then we rolled into the 92-93 winters and the rest is history.

We archery hunted a unit there when it was 3 point or better for years and would average on a weekend hunt 12-14 legal bucks and up to 40+ forkies! The NEXT year after the first forky or better year we hunted it and saw so few bucks we NEVER went back. I talked to numerous others who hunted the x zones in that era and most saw the same results.

Until the herd is up to carrying capacity of the average winter the way to grow the herd is to kill less deer, period. Will other things help such as habitat improvement and predator control? Absolutely, but the EASIEST thing to effect is harvest and antler restrictions and GOD FORBID controlled hunts and less opportunity are the BEST ways to do that.

Go ahead now and show me some horse chit study by some govt. bio trying to keep his job and I will read it so I can laugh........

Or puke!

Bill

Kill the buck that makes YOU happy!
 
I HAVE TO SIDE WITH HUNTINDAD ON THIS ONE. HE IS RIGHT ON !

I WILL INJECT ONE QUICK POINT , WHEN WE COMPARE COLORADO TO IDAHO WHAT YOU SEE IS A MORE PROACTIVE ATTITUDE IN CO. 2 OUT OF THE LAST 5 WINTERS HAVE BEEN HARD ON MULE DEER ALL ACROSS THE WEST. COLORADO HAS CUT THERE TAGS DRASTICALLY IN SOME AREAS TO BRING BACK THE DEER,,,, AND WHEN THEY DO THAT THEY WILL START HARVESTING MORE ANIMALS AGAIN....ANTLERLESS AND BUCKS.....IDAHO ON THE OTHER HAND HAS REALLY DONE VERY LITTLE . NOT AGGRESSIVE AT ALL. THEY CONTINUE TO SIT ON THERE HANDS , THEY ARE PARALYZED

ALSO I THINK EVERYONE REALIZES THAT WE ARE NEVER GOING BACK TO THE HEYDAYS OF 60s , BUT I THINK ALOT OF SPORTSMAN BELIEVE WE CAN DOUBLE THE POPULATION IN MOST UNITS AND INCREASE THE AGE OF OUR BUCKS. IT REALLY IS A SIMPLE FIX.
 
+1 Bill

There is no single method that will work alone. We need a combination of all these things to have the best herd that we can. When you mention anything that possibly implies less tags sold, the F&G only sees a loss of $$$, not a recovering deer herd.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-09-12 AT 10:03PM (MST)[p]I don't think that more bucks out compete does and fawns, what we didn't have back in the hay day was elk. And yes I love to hunt elk! I believe, most if not all hunters that give a rats ass (a fair percentage of guys "have" to kill no matter what to prove their manhood as a hunter, and don't really care about the meat or the experiance)know that we'll never get back to the hay day, and in my not so humble opinion will be because of elk. That doesn't mean we can't have a far better mule deer population than we have. I still don't like point restrictions, but agree with alot of what "dad" has to say. I watched for 16yrs, biologists manage a large piece of private ground in Utah, what i saw doesn't give me alot of faith in biologists as far as hunting is concerned!
 
I will admit the only unit I hunt has been 39 but only because of lack of money or time to seek out other areas. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out 39 is grossly over hunted. Yes 39 covers a huge area. Could it be that IDFG is forced to limit their work in too many directions?? would it help if they were to hire more biologists? I know in the spring I use to make several trips up the middle fork of the Boise river to Atlanta and would count the deer and elk I would see, one herd of elk at Alexander flats was at least 100 head. I kinda feel something drastic needs to happen to get IDFG to listen to the hunters as I really feel no matter what there survey's they send out for us to comment on is just lip service. I don't claim to know a whole lot about mule deer and sometimes wonder if I would be better learning some of the North country for whitetails. Also on a last note I have watched some of these hunting shows, take for instance best of the west or it might have been another, but they often go out and kill management bucks, what are those states doing different then Idaho?

Chuck in Boise
 
>I will support Brymoore, antler restiction
>don't work which is why
>almost every state in the
>west has tried them and
>dropped them, including Wyo, Colo,
>etc. Sorry I won't
>buy into Washingtons mangement plan
>yet as they are pretty
>low on the trophy or
>destination mule deer list.
>
>Biologist have proven that you don't
>need many bucks in a
>herd, nor do they need
>to be old or certainly
>a trophy, to breed all
>the does and maximize herd
>growth.
>
>Taking logic to the next step,
>the more deer you grow
>the more bucks you grow.
> Actually by letting too
>many bucks live you can
>actually hurt the population, because
>those bucks compete with the
>doe fawns for food and
>less doe fawns and yearlings
>are likely to survive winter.
> Plus there is only
>so much carrying capacity.
>This is the contradiction because...
>
>
>If you want more big bucks
>you simply have to kill
>less bucks, or you have
>to leave more at the
>end of each season.
>The fact is if there
>is only so much room
>you would rather kill the
>young ones than the old,
>if you want more trophy
>racks next year. Clearly
>the best would be a
>way to mandate culling the
>poor 4x3 or "crab fork"
>or just plain poor genetics,
>but we know our general
>hunting public is not only
>not that picky they honestly
>aren't that smart. Come
>on some guys mistake coyotes
>for wolves and mules for
>elk and wouldn't know trophy
>genetics if it laid down
>20 yards from them.
>
>SO my OPINION, based on what
>I have read from Idaho,
>Wyoming, and Colorado research reports
>from biologists, is to reduce
>hunting pressure by letting less
>of you guys kill any
>kind of deer until the
>population grows some. Then
>make sure like some on
>here have said, react quickly
>and very locally to weather,
>disease, etc. Of course
>this means not everyone will
>get to hunt next year,
>but our momma's taught us
>you can have your cake
>and eat it to.
>
>While I agree that some measures
>need to be taken, primarily
>some limits on antlerless hunting
>for now and limits on
>the gross amount of hunters
>in units like 32, 32a,
>39 and pick a season
>and area, but I think
>this winter with a decent
>green spring and maybe even
>one more behind this will
>bring our herds back quite
>a bit, but frankly we
>will never see the good
>old days you guys want
>because frankly the habitat and
>human demand on the places
>these deer live in is
>too great and you, me,
>and Fish and Game can't
>go back in time and
>fix it.
>
>In general way too many of
>you expect way too much.
> Colorado has amazing habitat,
>and as recently as 3
>and 4 years ago, were
>doing great with their mule
>deer. A few bad
>winters and they are all
>crying about the conditions.
>BUT, as good as it
>had been recently it still
>wasn't anywhere near what they
>did in the 50's and
>60's. So we can
>get better, but much of
>it is up to mother
>nature and then the rest
>is up to us not
>being greedy.

The ONLY reason that places like CO, WY, ID havent gone to a point restriction in the past is because the ratio of hunters to animals is very low... WA has maybe 1/4 of the mule deer habitat that CO, and in 2009, had 136K DEER HUNTERS! CO on the other hand had only 76,000 DEER HUNTERS for 2011. Can you even fathom the difference? Only half of WA even has mule deer, and at that they are only in a few select areas of E. Washington. While the entire state of Colorado has awesome mule deer populations...

The only reason that Washington even has a decent mule deer population is because of antler restrictions. When you have low hunter density, or areas where deer can escape the pressure, then you can get away with no point restrictions. Absolutely you do not need them. But when you have units like 39, or Chelan county WA where EVERYBODY hunts, how many yearling bucks are going to survive without a point restriction? Not very many. Idaho is at the point in some of the southern units that they have too many hunters, and not enough deer. The yearlings are getting whacked right and left and what is the QUICKEST way to help keep some bucks in the population? Throw a point restriction on it. I still say the easiest thing to do right now is 3 point minimums, and do away with the doe hunts and watch over the next few years how the hunting improves!

Destroyer,
You've stated many times that you don't like point restrictions, but unless I've missed it you haven't given a single reason as to why?

Mike
 
It doesn't work:

http://www.createstrat.com/muledeerinthewest/harvest.html

"Antler point restrictions

Creating mule deer harvest seasons with antler point restrictions is popular amongst hunters who think it will help increase the number of mature bucks and buck:doe ratios in mule deer populations. But research in many western states shows that antler point restrictions do not produce more deer or larger-antlered deer.

Colorado implemented antler point restrictions statewide for six years, and in a number of game units for seven years. The result was a shift of hunting from pressure on all age classes of bucks (primarily yearlings) to bucks two years and older, and an increase in illegal or accidental harvest of yearling bucks. The number of mature bucks did not increase over time.

Idaho and Montana implemented two points or less seasons to reduce hunting pressure on older bucks and improve buck:doe ratios at the end of hunting seasons. Over the long term, two point seasons did not improve buck:doe ratios at the end of the hunting seasons.

Wyoming?s experience with four point or better seasons resulted in fewer hunters and a reduction in total harvest, fewer mature bucks, and a significant number of deer harvested with fewer than four points.

Utah abandoned efforts to implement antler point restrictions after five years when officials documented illegal harvest, reductions in overall harvest and fewer mature bucks.

Attempts to increase the number of mature bucks and buck:doe ratios using four-point seasons in Montana reduced buck harvest by 28 percent, increased illegal harvest of bucks with 3x3 points or less by about 40 percent, and increased harvest of bucks having more than 3x4 points.

Washington tried antler point restrictions in a few of their hunting units and experienced a smaller harvest of mule deer bucks, a switch in harvest from mule deer to white-tailed deer, and no increase in the number of mature bucks. They did experience an increase in buck:doe ratios because of the lower buck harvest and improved recruitment of fawns.

Oregon abandoned antler point restrictions in a few popular hunting areas when the number of older bucks and buck:doe ratios decreased after 12 years.

Most western states have concluded that changes in buck:doe ratios and increases in the number of mature bucks can only be accomplished through reductions in harvest of bucks."
 
I would repeat what I typed above but then what's the point? It's written above and it wont sink in to those who believe propaganda produced by game dept.s whose only care is the dollar.

CO abandoned AR when they went to a strict draw therefore they didn't need both. Two or less restrictions make no sense so I will agree there.

Wyoming showed a reduction in harvest and hunters which is what AR are for and I would like to know how the determination was made about less mature bucks, I don't buy it. MM is a gathering of serious hunters and I would bet if you took a poll of mature deer harvested in the last couple of years it would be ten percent success at best. I don't think over harvest of mature deer is possible in most places because the hunters are by vast majority just not capable of finding and harvesting them to any degree of damage to the age class.

Accidental law breaking is still law breaking and the fact is it will always happen to some degree and I would argue most of the idiots who did so would have done it if it was a doe or an elk instead of a deer etc. point is don't mold the law to justify idiot criminals, catch and punish them the best you can and to say it increased over a time when AR were in place (under Wyoming inost above 3x3 illegal harvest increased) is misleading because of course it increased since before AR were in place it wasn't illegal to harvest 3x3 bucks.........

Besides the bucks shot and left although sad is still FAR LESS than the same bucks legally harvested without restriction.

Also your data leaves out (because studies against AR always do) weather and other important herd data.

I won't even bother to discuss OR since there is so much wrong there AR wouldn't touch the tip of the iceberg IMO.

I do agree with your last line reduce buck harvest and you will increase the herd and buck to doe ratios. But AR in my opinion is an effective way to do this.

Bill

Kill the buck that makes YOU happy!
 
Bill, +1

And I'll add this, no one seems to oppose the forky hunts. It seems you only get this reaction when you talk about a minimum point count... Does anyone else see this?
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-13-12 AT 04:09PM (MST)[p]Idabow, that is an interesting point and I hadn't noticed it... but now that you mention it, it does seem to be that way!

Brymoore,
huntindad echo's my thoughts exactly... Being that I have a degree in rangeland ecology, I've read a TON of scientific papers and articles and bare stats don't always represent what is happening. That study states; "Montana reduced buck harvest by 28 percent, increased illegal harvest of bucks with 3x3 points or less by about 40 percent,"...

How exactly can you have an increase of 40% of illegal harvest of bucks with 3x3 points or less if it wasn't illegal in the first place?! Also, that 40% increase could result from 10 illegal bucks being harvested to 14 illegal bucks. The key factor here being if things are significant and if they are directly related to antler point restriction.

As for the WA stats:
"Washington tried antler point restrictions in a few of their hunting units and experienced a smaller harvest of mule deer bucks, a switch in harvest from mule deer to white-tailed deer, and no increase in the number of mature bucks. They did experience an increase in buck:doe ratios because of the lower buck harvest and improved recruitment of fawns."

Ok, they experienced a smaller harvest of mule deer bucks (Good), a switch over to white tails; because there was a late november white tail rifle hunt up in the NE part of the state with NO antler point restrictions. Guys who didn't harvest a muley during the general went up to the NE for the last season and wacked one of them.

As far as the no increase in number of mature bucks, I would like to see the timeline on how that works and what factors they decide it by. Sure if they went and monitored the winter range following that hunting season then "Duh" they wouldn't have more mature bucks. It's pretty well known even in native vegetation management that you need 3-5 growing seasons to start evaluating management changes. In wildlife management it can be even longer. Especially if you have a few bad winters! But hey they DID raise buck/doe ratios and improved fawn recruitment.

Ok I'm done. I've put up some really great arguments and people can take them or leave them...

Mike
 
Bill and Idabow are spot on.

Let's just take half the general units and put them in the AR program. Give the yearling bucks a free pass for 5 years . We can take the other remaining general units and keep them with the current plan and at the end of 5 years switch them with the others.

This way the kids and the casual hunter can have the same oppurtunity as the current plan.

No more Mule deer buck hunts after halloween for 5 years.

No more antlerless hunts for 5 years.

Let's get after the dogs and cats and hope for a decade of mild winters

The only better plan would be to copy what Colorado is doing , they have the best Mule deer plan , Yes it still gets effected by severe winter but they aggressively make adjustments to recoup there losses. And when the herd is strong they open up more late buck hunts and increase antlerless harvest....

Most the general units used to have outstanding Mule deer quality and quanity..

THE FIX IS SIMPLE...THE HARD PART IS GETTING THE WORDING IN THE REGS CHANGED.

2 CENTS
 
...beavis this pretty much is your plan...I like it...... and will continue to beat the drum....
 

Similar threads

gr8fuldoug
Industry News and Updates
Replies
0
Views
261
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

051F4A73-375A-4653-A326-22F74107946F.jpeg
IMG_7637 copy.jpg
IMG_2375.jpeg
20231002_202019.jpg
Beautiful Big Bull Elk
037 copy copy.jpg
20230927_101852.jpg
20231201_005131.jpg
FB_IMG_1656602673557.jpg
New Mexico.JPG
Zombie.jpg
886D38B9-329E-46C2-BCFA-7435EEBC47AB.jpeg

Idaho Hunting Guides & Outfitters

Bearpaw Outfitters

Idaho Deer & Elk Allocation Tags, Plus Bear, Bison, Lion, Moose, Turkey and Montana Prairie Dogs.

Urge 2 Hunt

We focus on trophy elk, mule deer, whitetail, bear, lion and wolf hunts and spend hundreds of hours scouting.

Jokers Wild Outdoors

Trophy elk, whitetail, mule deer, antelope, bear and moose hunts. 35k acres of private land.

Back
Top Bottom