Idaho Mule Deer Plan

[allyn71]

Hello MM readers,

I am a long time lurker that has never posted on here before. I was looking through the different topics this morning and realized no one had mentioned that today was the last day for online comment on Idaho's "Draft" mule deer management plan. I don't know when the meetings are for all the regions, but they also are allowing public comment on January 16th at 7:00 pm at the headquarters office in the trophy room for the Southwest region. They aren't publizing this very widely (because I believe they already have there minds made up)so I thought I would give it a wider distribution here as I know there are a lot of resident and non-resident Idaho hunters on this forum.

Some of the stuff they are proposing could have a lot of impact so if you have an opinion here is your chance to voice it concerning mule deer management in Idaho for the next ten years.

If you read the full management plan, you will see that they are heading towards a points system for 2009. This is something that I personally don't want to see as I would rather see them restrict motorized access more and decrease season lengths some and leave the draw as an even playing field. Currently the most popular unit in the state (with some of the best trophy potential) has either a general hunt or controlled hunt open everyday from Aug. 15 to Dec. 21st!! I believe most of Idaho is rugged enough to allow enough escapablility for mature bucks if access and season length were reduced some. This is my two-cents worth, tell them yours.

 

[TFinalshot]

Allyn71, i agree with you. . .

Thanks for posting this very important information.

 

[thebuckstopshere]

Good to see the internet in action. Thanks for the post.

 

[buncoboy]

71, Thanks for posting, agree with you.

 

[kingfish]

Agree!!!

 

[gemstatejake]

I've been watching and gave my comments on the IDFG site. I too oppose the points system. However I feel that hunters have been restricted enough in terms of season length/access for the most part. not interested in seeing our opportunity dwindle away any further.........

 

[in2chukar]

"Idaho Mule Deer Plan"

1. Do away with 2 point only hunts.

2. Do away with controlled late season rut hunts.

3. No points system.

No expert here, but this state has so much potential it's sick.

 

[Salmonfg]

Getting "the word out" is always a challenge for agencies, but I would like to comment on a few parts of the post.

"They aren't publizing this very widely (because I believe they already have there minds made up)..."

Frankly, this statement is not true. I announced/posted the link about availability of the Idaho DRAFT plan on 6 Dec 2007 on both the mule deer forum and the Idaho forum. The post on on the mule deer forum did generate a few replies, but died out within 5 days (last post 10 Dec); the Idaho post generated 0 replies. (http://www.monstermuleys.info/dcforum/DCForumID6/15867.html
http://www.monstermuleys.info/dcforum/DCForumID37/127.html)
The information on the draft went out in statewide news releases and was posted on the agency web site shortly after the Commission released it for public comment.

At the close of the post I pleaded with people to provide input because the plan is most definitely a draft and open to improvement/change. Yes, some sideboards were decided based on responses to the previous survey of mule deer hunters (e.g., statewide controlled hunting is not a viable option). But, I was actively seeking input when I posted the information and I can guaranteee that the agency and the Commission consider comment very seriously and sincerely. If anyone has suggestions for more effective ways to advertise/improve methods for generating input, they will be very welcome.


"Some of the stuff they are proposing could have a lot of impact so if you have an opinion here is your chance to voice it concerning mule deer management in Idaho for the next ten years."

Exactly what I asked people to do. Thank you for reiterating.


"If you read the full management plan, you will see that they are heading towards a points system for 2009."

This statement is not true in and of itself. The releveant section of the plan states "Implement changes in regulations designed to inprove drawing odds in 2009." A point system is only 1 way to accomplish that objective. Others methods include restricting the number of species someone can apply for (like UT), increasing waiting periods, and altering tag price structure. All of these options were included in a survey of hunters in 2005. At that time 70% of respondents said unsuccessful applicants should receive "increased chances of drawing in future drawings." Among the different options, the only one that received majority support was a bonus point system (NV, squared points type system; 61% acceptable, 25% unacceptable). The second most popular method (50% acceptable, 34% unacceptable) was essentially including high demand controlled buck and bull hunts in with moose, sheep, goat as a person's only application for that year. Respondents opinions of the following: single controlled hunt application each year (41% acceptable, 45% unacceptable); increase wait period from 2 to 5 years (28% acceptable, 50% unacceptable); charging higher tag fees for high demand hunts (like UT, NM, WY; 25% acceptable, 65% unacceptable).

However, there was a lack of support for an increase in application fees to cover the cost of contracting a point system
(32% acceptable, 58% unacceptable), which was a stipulation identified by the Commission (any system would have to pay for itself rather than diverting exisitng dollars away from management programs). The upshot was that the Commission approved use of a bonus point system pending state legislative approval of an application fee increase. The legislature has not approved such an increase, so the Commission has essentially put a point system on hold.

Tom Keegan
IDFG Salmon Region Wildlife Manager

 

[huntin100]

Tom, Thanks for your heads up. I apply for quality hunts in several western states. A point system cost money. Wyoming, Nevada, Arizona is very expensive. It's nice to have a couple states, Idaho and New Mexico with out point systems. Many have said. After I draw my tag I'm through with WY,NV, and AZ. My opinon is don't have a point system in Idaho. It already cost Non residents around 400 dollars to hunt deer in Idaho with the $141.50 license. Don't make it more expensive.

We all know it's a trade off with quality and opportunity.
You can't have the majority of the state manage for 25-30 bucks per 100 does, with out cutting tag numbners.

I don't have the answers. I like the comments from previous post. Manage regions close to the same. Provide acouple units in each region with better trophy potiential. (Higher buck to doe ratios). People won't have to travel a long ways for better hunts than general season.

Still provide decent opportunity for youth and people who just want to take their kids hunting, and enjoy the outdoors. It's hard to recruit new hunters if they can only hunt every 2-3 years.

Restrict season lengths and times, weapons, access, etc can help with improving quality and provide opportunity.

I don't think drastic changes need to be done in Idaho. Nothing new. Good luck.

 

[allyn71]

Salmonfg,

If you look at my original post it was intended to notify people that the 31st was the last day for online comment for the Idaho mule deer management plan. Interspersed with that post I expressed some of my opionins. These opinions seemed to bring up ideas that you question. The first is my opinion that Fish and Game has a history of not fully listening to public comment and already having their minds made up by the time the subject reaches the public comment period.

I believe this is in part due to your self admitted "sideboard" conversations. In my opinion by the time a subject reaches full public comment, the fish and game has already decided what they are going to do and they just want to see how much the folks are going to scream. Once again, this is my opinion based upon past experiences with fish and game proposals. This opinion is further entrenched by the fact that the commision agenda for january 17th includes all of ten minutes for the review of public comment and the fact that when I called the regional headquarters to find out when the Southwest region was going to have their public comment meeting, it took two people ten minutes of digging through the website to find a way to access that information. This view is further supported by the timing of the comment periods Jan.- Feb. I find it hard to believe that any government agency is going to fully listen, debate, modify their planning, agree and accept changes, develop new regulations, and print and dessiminate those new regulations to the public on a topic as large as mule deer management in the three month period following the end of the comment season in order to reach the historical May 1st start of the controlled hunt application period for big game. Yeah, it sure sounds like public comment is high on the priority list.

The second opinion I expressed was that Fish and Game was heading towards some type of bonus point system. This opinion was formed by the statement you identified in the mule deer plan "Implement changes in regulations designed to improve drawing odds in 2009." You try and deflect from the idea that fish and game is planning on implementing a point system by mentioning the schematics of other possibilities that can improve drawing odds. Then you totally dismiss those possibilities by stating that the only idea that a majority found to be acceptlabe from the 2005 survey was a point system and that the commision had already approved a bonus point system and was only waiting for the legislature to implement a fee increase to implement that system. A fee increase that fish and game expects to pass in 2009 after an election year perhaps?

As you can see there may be a foundation for my opinion that Idaho fish and game does what they want first and ask for public opinion later. Irregardless, the original intent of the post was to inform people that the 31st was the last day for written comment. If you read the last line of my original post, you will see that I essentially said these were my opinions and that you should use this opportunity to tell them yours. Even if we both know it doesn't really matter what the little people think when it come to game management in the Gem state.

 

[Salmonfg]

I meant no disrespect. I only wanted to clarify 2 aspects contained in the original post. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I believed, and still do, that I have a responsibility to dispute statements, whether fact or opinion, that mischaracterize the truth.

You made a statement that IDFG was not publicizing the opportunity to comment on the draft plan and that your post on MM would accomplish that. I countered that I had already posted the information 3 1/2 weeks earlier, showing that I (as an IDFG representative) went beyond the normal channels to encourage input.

Second, you made a statement that the plan says Idaho will adopt a point system. I corrected that statement by saying that is one of several options the Commission will consider. If the state legislature maintains its current stance, it will very likely NOT be a point system, but rather one of the systems less supported by the survey on that subject.

Everyone's opinion is shaped in part by their past experiences and you have apparently had some poor experiences. I cannot change those past experiences, only try to conduct myself according to the legal and policy direction of the agency and Commission. The Commission has adopted specific policy on public input and takes input and the input process very seriously.

The public input on the mule deer plan began 2 years ago. The draft plan was heavily based on a statistically valid survey of Idaho mule deer hunters (public input). Those survey results also were used to reject from further consideration options that were clearly unnacceptable to the vast majority of Idaho deer hunters. Thus a comment that Idaho should go to complete limit entry for deer hunting could not be supported because it is clearly diametrically opposed to the very highly important desire of very many Idaho hunters to be able to hunt deer every year.

Perhaps this illustrates one of the bigger challenges in collecting and incorporating public input...not everyone's input can be incorporated. When 2 people ask for 2 opposite ends of managment continuum, both will probably be disappointed and feel like they were ignored when the final decision falls midway between the extremes. The input was not ignored, nor was the decision made beforehand. Rather overall input and consideration led to a different outcome.

Thank you again for reiterating the information about the plan - the more the word gets out, the greater the input and the better the final product.

Sincerely,
Tom Keegan
IDFG Salmon Region Wildlife Manager

 

[huntin100]

Thanks again for the info Tom! You stated that the survey said, the majority wants to be able to hunt every year. Also, that the majority wants more mature bucks to hunt. Has there been consideration of a A tag and B tag for deer, like they have for elk? An A tag could allow opportunity to hunt in early Oct for 2 wks, (fewer big bucks shot) and a B tag hunt the last 10 days of Oct. Some units with more trophy potential could be B tags.

Another idea, you can hunt every year, but you can only harvest 2 deer in a 3 year period. (Get info from a manditory harvest report). This could still provide good opportunity and improve quality. If a hunter killed two bucks in two years, he would have to wait for a year before he could get a tag. This would make him more selective. He would have a more quality hunt. This may be for B tag only. This would make hunters choose a little between quality and opportunity. Restrict yearling harvest in some areas to youth only. (16 years and younger). Just a few thoughts. Lots of possiblities. Thanks.

 

[orion23]

Tom-- i sent you a PM.

travis

 

[deeker]

Thanks to everyone for the great info but I can't just read all of this without a small comment of my own.

I would have to regretably agree that the IFG does not always put the publics opinion at the top of their priority list. I for one would accept some drastic changes to the current strategies that we have to day. I could go on for hours, but I wont. I will simply leave it at this, BIG MONEY, AGRICULTURE, and EGO's are what has made the decisions for game management in the past and I hope that things will change for the future. All I read into the mule deer Initiative were proposals that I thought the fish and game should have already been implementing.