Mule Deer Initiative???

fairchase · Apr 20, 2005

If the Idaho Department of Fish & Game is so committed to their Mule Deer Initiative (MDI) and how they are going to "Improve Mule Deer populations and hunter satisfactions across Southern Idaho"
Why do they continue to increase the number of Mule Deer doe tags each year? Last year, for Southern Idaho there were 4,900 antlerless tags, this year antlerless tags are up to 5,250.
Can anyone explain how killing more does each year, helps the Mule Deer populations?

Greg

shortmag · Apr 20, 2005

Each management unit has objectives. When the fellows perform their herd composition surveys they make inferences as to the population. I would make the assumption that numbers of mature does are such that some additional harvest would make habitat available for younger and more productive does. In a few seasons, there's more bucks and does. It sounds counter intuitive but doe harvest can actually improve the quality and productiveness of the herd. 350 permits results in less than 175 does. This is likely to be of little consequence to the population. Possibly, their studies could have determined that deer are moving into the unit from another state, causing depredation problems, or whatever and harvest is warranted. Call up the wildlife manager for that area and ask this great question. Be assured that they are using best available science to base the increased harvest.

LionTamer · Apr 20, 2005

Excellent answer!!!

fairchase · Apr 21, 2005

I think it has more to do with the drought conditions, habitat quality and how that relates with keeping the ranchers and landowners happy. Thanks for the replys.

Canyonroad · Apr 21, 2005

I know it sound elementary but if you kill more does your buck-to-doe ratio, in theory, improves. If they are meeting those objectives it appears things are working and hunters are happy.

Even in pointing this out I hope, and really believe it has more to do with the points already made.

idhunters · Apr 21, 2005

I'm not all that happy with the IDFG either, but in their defense the numbers of doe tags aren't quite as high as indicated.

The difference is where you consider "southern Idaho" to be. Looking at the controlled hunts (not counting youth hunts that are either sex) I count 8,100 anterless permits. 2,400 of those are whitetail only, leaving 5,700 potential mule deer doe tags.

I don't consider units 11A, 22, 31, 32, 32A, 39-2 and 43 to be in "southern Idaho" as these units are generally north of Boise.

If you back out the tags allocated to these units the number of doe tags drops to 2,500.

Is that higher than last year using the same units? I have no idea. Is it too many does? Seems like it to me, but these 2,500 tags are spread out over units 44-1, 45, 48, 49-2, 52 and 60-1...all of which are units I am not familiar with. None of these are in SE Idaho and 60-1 would almost be NE Idaho (Island Park).

Again, not defending anyone, just breaking the numbers out a little further.

fairchase · Apr 21, 2005

Of all the doe hunt numbers that I listed only unit 50 and 60 are not in either the Magic Valley Region or the Southwest Region so we can throw those tags out. I did not count unit 11A. While I'll agree that some of the units you listed 22,23,31,32, and a couple of others are north of Boise they are still in either the Southwest or Magic Valley Regions, where this plan started. Really though, it doesn't matter much because the departments goal for MDI is to include the entire state. According to them, in order to better study the outcome and any benefits from MDI they needed to isolate part of the state and they choose the southern half because there are fewer Whitetails there.
I guess my point is, in the last six months since MDI was proposed nobody has introduced the idea (at least to the best of my knowledge) that maybe we should kill a few less female Mule Deer and I don't know, maybe with good reason. I am not trying to paint a bad picture with this topic, I just wanted to see what other hunters were thinking. That's all.

wmidbrook · Apr 21, 2005

LAST EDITED ON Apr-21-05 AT 10:12PM (MST)[p]The one thing I don't envy about state wildlife officials job is that they can't keep everyone happy. Heck of a thankless job.

That said, I don't understand how they can shift the percentage of young does in a population without stating in the regs that hunters should be shooting the older, dry does along with a diagram illustrating how to tell an old, dry doe. I figure most doe hunters take either the first doe they have an opportunity at or the most convenient opportunity they get. That means the percentage of older to younger does stays the same--just fewer of 'em and an increased buck:doe ratio.

Maybe if the deer herds are over-taxing food supply by exceeding the land's carrying capacity and aren't fat enough to bear twins....I can buy into that reason.

Bura Nut · Apr 22, 2005

I used to assume that the Game department knew what it was doing and had great game management models that they continually improve on over the years. All of that changed when I became involved in Arizona Deer Association. As I type this, I am aware of and have in my possession a study that was just completed for the Kaibab region. If you can believe it, the AZGFD has not done until a few weeks ago, an actual survey count of the deer they have been "managing" for years. What has happened is AZGFD has been using population numbers from the 1960's and forming current day management practices without really knowing true field numbers. They have always allocated 1500 doe permits for Junior hunters and justify it by saying "we know we shouldnt kill that many does but this hunt is popular with people"......The Kaibab has been managed by textbook practices and not field verification. We have found the food sources they have studied for years to be incorrect. Basically what I am saying is dont sit back and assume your game departments are always doing the right things.....ADA had to fork out lots of money to do the field surveys and hopefully we all work together with AZGFD to formulate a great management plan that uses both text book and field analysis......thanks.....Allen Taylor...

shortmag · Apr 22, 2005

Please don't paint IDFG with the same brush. They perform aerial surveys on the management units on prescribed intervals. They have been at the cutting edge of game management modelling based on sightability data.

BrianID · Apr 22, 2005

Overall I think the Idaho F&G does a good job. The F&G allow anterless deer to be killed in units that can handle the pressure. These units have had doe hunting for several years and the numbers show that the herd can support antlerless harvest. It benifits all of us when the F&G allows hunters that want to put meat in the freezer shoot a doe instead of buck. The mule deer initiative has some good ideas like the bitterbrush planting that the F&G has been doing.

BrianID · Apr 22, 2005

wmidbrook,
I would also like to see the F&G attempt to educate hunters and encourage them to harvest mature does. Unfortunatly there are a lot of deer hunters in Idaho that can't even tell the difference between a whitetail and a mule deer.