Hello all, not sure if the word is getting out but the G & F want to change the current general deer season from Oct. 10-24 to Oct 10-31. This will extend the end of the season by one week. I will say IMO this is a convenience strategy and does nothing for the deer populations. In the central part of the state bucks will be traveling from the higher country to their respective rutting grounds and are more open to harvest. While this might seem to be a good thing to some it seriously depletes the number of older age bucks. In our area the deer herds are stable to increasing in size and this does nothing for keeping it that way. There are plenty of draw Nov. hunts available so lets use that as a control measure. Please contact any of the G & F offices to voice your concern on this, it's up to us to make our voices heard. Thanks.
Id wanting to extend deer season
- Thread starter hornguy
- Start date
deerhuntr4885
Active Member
- Messages
- 379
It has always been open until the 31st in most units until about 2 years (?) ago. I don't think it makes that big of a difference. The positive is that it disperses hunters over a longer period of time and leaves more space for escapement. A shorter season always means higher hunter concentrations in areas and less escapement.
Mike Henne
Mike Henne
idelkslayer
Active Member
- Messages
- 201
I went to one of my regions public comment meetings recently and said I was in favor of extending the season. Several management regions already close on the Oct 31, and this will bring uniformity and prevent crowding in the areas that have that extra week. By extending the season I think hunter densities will be lower like deerhunter says. Statistics also show that the average person hunts 4.5 days per year regardless of season length.
The recent population surveys that the biologist showed us revealed that the population is higher than it was when the season length was reduced 14 years ago.
One very interesting thing the biologist said was that some very old does are being killed by the youth hunters. Many of these does are 12-13 years old. The problem is that older does are less productive than younger does. Their productivity really begins to drop off after 5 years. So we have a lot of older does that aren't having fawns taking up space and feed. If more does could be killed it could raise the productivity of the herd and increase populations.
Remember the glory days that everyone talks about 25 and more years ago? The season then was 4 weeks long, extending into November with either-sex tags. Why was the herd able to sustain such harvest then? I think that back then, more hunters were willing to shoot a doe than they are today, and every doe killed was a buck that survived another year to get bigger. The result was a younger age class of does who could produce more fawns than our current situation and more older age bucks.
Are there times when does should be protected? Absolutely, when a big winter kill occurs we need the does to help rebuild but after 4 years the benefit starts to diminish as they age and we should start killing them again.
The recent population surveys that the biologist showed us revealed that the population is higher than it was when the season length was reduced 14 years ago.
One very interesting thing the biologist said was that some very old does are being killed by the youth hunters. Many of these does are 12-13 years old. The problem is that older does are less productive than younger does. Their productivity really begins to drop off after 5 years. So we have a lot of older does that aren't having fawns taking up space and feed. If more does could be killed it could raise the productivity of the herd and increase populations.
Remember the glory days that everyone talks about 25 and more years ago? The season then was 4 weeks long, extending into November with either-sex tags. Why was the herd able to sustain such harvest then? I think that back then, more hunters were willing to shoot a doe than they are today, and every doe killed was a buck that survived another year to get bigger. The result was a younger age class of does who could produce more fawns than our current situation and more older age bucks.
Are there times when does should be protected? Absolutely, when a big winter kill occurs we need the does to help rebuild but after 4 years the benefit starts to diminish as they age and we should start killing them again.
OLDHORNHUNTER
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,023
another hunter buying into F&Gs Crap !! 1st off back in the hey days there were fewer hunters lots more available land for the animals their winter ranges didn't consist of having to navigate thru 100s of houses & fences !! here is a ?? for ya WHY does Idaho have the longest general seasons for deer & elk almost state wide ..Compared to Utah Oregon Nevada Colo WY MT & NM ??? yet another ? comes too mind ALL of those states have bigger bucks bigger bulls & more of them ?? Idaho could & would have a better yearly population of deer & elk IF they had shorter seasons it doesn't take a Rocket scientist too figure that out !! Idaho F&G has come too the conclusion that we have had 3 or 4 mild winters in a row & THAT FIXES EVERYTHING with the herds would Not surprise me if they offer 3 deer & elk tags per hunter !!
LAST EDITED ON Feb-25-15 AT 09:29AM (MST)[p]When a unit is at 60% of population objective, it baffles me why IDFG allows ANYONE to shoot doe!!! I spent 38 days hunting moose in Eastern ID last fall. I probably didn't see 25 deer the whole time, and they want to increase doe harvest and lengthen the buck season?!? It's hard to figure 'em out!
OLDHORNHUNTER
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,023
I would like to know where Idaho F&G gets these objectives ??? why is it that all the other western states have buck to doe & bull to cow ratios that are I just read on gohunt.com that Utahs buck to doe ratio is at 21 bucks per 100 does Idahos goal is 15 ?? & we all know there is NO way there are that many MATURE bucks per doe in probably 85% of all the units So why does Idaho have such a LOW objective ????
idelkslayer
Active Member
- Messages
- 201
Another hunter who prefers heresay and poor memory to looking at the facts.
"1st off back in the hey days there were fewer hunters "
Idaho deer hunters:
1988 148,600
1989 142,400
1990 154,500
1991 146,500
Fast Forward
2009 91,706
2010 90,539
2011 89,028
2012 86,054
Since 86,000 is almost half of 154,000 I think it is safe to say there were more deer hunters back in the glory days than there are now.
And don't say that back then "everybody was killing big bucks" because the success rate ranged from 27-40% much like it is now and percent 4 pt was only 3-4% higher than it is now. And they did all that with 4-5 week long general either-sex seasons. If shorter seasons were all it takes to grow the population then we should be rolloing in twice as many deer as the historic population high. The population is growing slowly but it is growing. If we take out some of the old does it will grow faster. If you have a highly productive herd, there will be an increase in older age class bucks.
Any rocket scientist that knows that 86,000 is less than 150,000 know that.
"1st off back in the hey days there were fewer hunters "
Idaho deer hunters:
1988 148,600
1989 142,400
1990 154,500
1991 146,500
Fast Forward
2009 91,706
2010 90,539
2011 89,028
2012 86,054
Since 86,000 is almost half of 154,000 I think it is safe to say there were more deer hunters back in the glory days than there are now.
And don't say that back then "everybody was killing big bucks" because the success rate ranged from 27-40% much like it is now and percent 4 pt was only 3-4% higher than it is now. And they did all that with 4-5 week long general either-sex seasons. If shorter seasons were all it takes to grow the population then we should be rolloing in twice as many deer as the historic population high. The population is growing slowly but it is growing. If we take out some of the old does it will grow faster. If you have a highly productive herd, there will be an increase in older age class bucks.
Any rocket scientist that knows that 86,000 is less than 150,000 know that.
idelkslayer
Active Member
- Messages
- 201
Is 21 bucks per 100 does Utah's objective or is that the actual count. Idaho I agree has a low objective of 15:100 but the actual count is much higher. The southeast region typically sees 30:100. And that is the post hunting season population. During hunting season that ratio is higher.
The recently completed surveys found 33:100 buck to doe ratio with a count of 7500 deer. That means that ~1900 of those deer are bucks. ~1500 bucks were killed during the season and 400 does were also killed. That makes the pre hunting season population for the Caribou PMU (units 66, 66A, 72, 76) 9400 deer of which 3400 were bucks for pre-season ratio of 56:100.
I agree Idaho's objective is too low but the actuals seem to be pretty good. How high do you think it should be?
The recently completed surveys found 33:100 buck to doe ratio with a count of 7500 deer. That means that ~1900 of those deer are bucks. ~1500 bucks were killed during the season and 400 does were also killed. That makes the pre hunting season population for the Caribou PMU (units 66, 66A, 72, 76) 9400 deer of which 3400 were bucks for pre-season ratio of 56:100.
I agree Idaho's objective is too low but the actuals seem to be pretty good. How high do you think it should be?
OLDHORNHUNTER
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,023
Utahs count was higher than expected but Not at what they wanted !! F&Gs 33 bucks to the 100 does includes ANYTHING with a horn !! there is NO way in Hell there are 33 mature bucks to 100 does in ANY unit in the state of Idaho !! its funny I have spoken with several F&G biologists involved in the fly over herd counts & NOT one has said they have seen any huge #s of deer they are seeing fewer elk also !!
OLDHORNHUNTER
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,023
I wasn't aware that the Hey days were 1988 !! I was under the assumption they were the 50s 60s & 70s !! Your so called facts are F&G published FACTS !! I prefer myself too believe in the actual animals I lay eyes on while I am scouting bow & rifle hunting as well as what I see while I am hunting yotes trapping & out chasing lions & horns !! But you go ahead & go with your FACTS as F&G would like u too believe !!! another fact is why is Idaho the bottom of the desired states to hunt when it comes to trophy or even quality #s of animals ???
idelkslayer
Active Member
- Messages
- 201
I realize that the buck to doe ratio is all bucks of any size. If you want to know how many are 4 pt you have to look at harvest data to find that it averages 33% 4 pt or bigger (again for the SE region). So of the 33 bucks sighted, 11 are 4pts (or for pre-hunt numbers 19 out of 56). The biologist told me that when they do the flight surveys they do separate 2pt, 3pt and 4pt deer, I wish they would publish that data.
The highest deer harvest on record occurred in 1988 and 1989 at 82,200 and 95,200 respectively.
The average harvest during the 50's: 52,422 (high 71K, low 30K)
The average harvest during the 60's: 60,660 (high 78K, low 56K)
The average harvest during the 70's: 46,344 (high 77K, Low 25K)
The average harvest during the 80's: 59,098 (high 95K, Low 42K)
The average harvest during the 90's: 52,500 (high 72K, Low 38K)
The average harvest during the 00's: 47,825 (high 54K, Low 43K)
The earliest info I can find for hunter numbers only goes back as far as 1982. The average through the 80's was 135,000 hunters. Average success rates were 33-40%. That is a similar success rate to recent years. Obviously the 60's were really good but the 50's and 70's fluctuated widely, same with the 90's.
If I had to rely only on the deer I lay eyes on while scouting, hunting, trapping and shed hunting then I would have to conclude that the total deer population for the Southeast Region is ~500 deer in 2014. Which means that about 1,000 people who claim to have shot a deer during the hunting season must have been lying.
Why is Idaho at the the bottom of desired states to hunt? I have a couple theories:
1. Perception that only draw hunts are worth the time or hold trophy bucks. And because Idaho has mostly OTC hunts and doesn't offer bonus points in drawings the NR don't think it is worth their time/money to apply for Idaho drawings.
2. Perception that wolves have killed all the game in Idaho. At least that was one of the highest ranked reasons that NR's gave when surveyed about why they weren't planning to hunt Idaho.
Idaho ranks in the top 5 for Boone and Crockett entries for the years 2000-2010. (I don't have more recent numbers) The rankings are:
Colorado 220
Wyoming 66
New Mexico 54
Utah 44
Idaho 41
Unfortunately I don't think that Mule deer will ever reach the population levels of days gone by, exactly because of the reasons that oldhornhunter stated. The migration corridors and winter grounds are being broken up by suburban sprawl. In my opinion, the State should declare all known wintering grounds as protected lands and ban any and all development.
The highest deer harvest on record occurred in 1988 and 1989 at 82,200 and 95,200 respectively.
The average harvest during the 50's: 52,422 (high 71K, low 30K)
The average harvest during the 60's: 60,660 (high 78K, low 56K)
The average harvest during the 70's: 46,344 (high 77K, Low 25K)
The average harvest during the 80's: 59,098 (high 95K, Low 42K)
The average harvest during the 90's: 52,500 (high 72K, Low 38K)
The average harvest during the 00's: 47,825 (high 54K, Low 43K)
The earliest info I can find for hunter numbers only goes back as far as 1982. The average through the 80's was 135,000 hunters. Average success rates were 33-40%. That is a similar success rate to recent years. Obviously the 60's were really good but the 50's and 70's fluctuated widely, same with the 90's.
If I had to rely only on the deer I lay eyes on while scouting, hunting, trapping and shed hunting then I would have to conclude that the total deer population for the Southeast Region is ~500 deer in 2014. Which means that about 1,000 people who claim to have shot a deer during the hunting season must have been lying.
Why is Idaho at the the bottom of desired states to hunt? I have a couple theories:
1. Perception that only draw hunts are worth the time or hold trophy bucks. And because Idaho has mostly OTC hunts and doesn't offer bonus points in drawings the NR don't think it is worth their time/money to apply for Idaho drawings.
2. Perception that wolves have killed all the game in Idaho. At least that was one of the highest ranked reasons that NR's gave when surveyed about why they weren't planning to hunt Idaho.
Idaho ranks in the top 5 for Boone and Crockett entries for the years 2000-2010. (I don't have more recent numbers) The rankings are:
Colorado 220
Wyoming 66
New Mexico 54
Utah 44
Idaho 41
Unfortunately I don't think that Mule deer will ever reach the population levels of days gone by, exactly because of the reasons that oldhornhunter stated. The migration corridors and winter grounds are being broken up by suburban sprawl. In my opinion, the State should declare all known wintering grounds as protected lands and ban any and all development.
IDbucks
Active Member
- Messages
- 123
What is the difference between the "Glory Days" and now?
Technology?
-Better guns, rifle scopes, binos, spotting scope, drones,
trail cameras........
Greed?
-Everybody needing to be on the cover of a magazine with their
buck.
-Harassing wildlife nonstop during the winter to get their
shed horns as they fall off.
-Money, recognition.
-Poaching for their horns.
Geography?
-Development on traditional winter ranges.
-Roads up every canyon and on every ridge so the "Hard Hunters"
can drive everywhere instead of putting in some physical effort.
-More private land than public or more public than private.
-Habitat.
Are there more trophy hunters now or then?
These are a few that I could think of, I'm sure there are more.
As far as the F&G go I wish them good luck. They sure as hell are not going to please everyone. Somebody will always ##### and moan about prices or seasons or some other reason. I know I have
My mind still goin but i'll stop with the above.
Technology?
-Better guns, rifle scopes, binos, spotting scope, drones,
trail cameras........
Greed?
-Everybody needing to be on the cover of a magazine with their
buck.
-Harassing wildlife nonstop during the winter to get their
shed horns as they fall off.
-Money, recognition.
-Poaching for their horns.
Geography?
-Development on traditional winter ranges.
-Roads up every canyon and on every ridge so the "Hard Hunters"
can drive everywhere instead of putting in some physical effort.
-More private land than public or more public than private.
-Habitat.
Are there more trophy hunters now or then?
These are a few that I could think of, I'm sure there are more.
As far as the F&G go I wish them good luck. They sure as hell are not going to please everyone. Somebody will always ##### and moan about prices or seasons or some other reason. I know I have
My mind still goin but i'll stop with the above.
OLDHORNHUNTER
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,023
well u seem to have a Lot of data !! I would love to see how anyone flying in an airplane at 1500 feet above the ground at around 120 mph can see the actual points on a bucks rack !! I know the people I have spoken with pilots included in the last few years have a hard time determining points even on ELK !! It is obvious to me that u put a lot of faith into F&G s data & such .. I on the other hand have NEVER in the 35 plus years I have hunted in the state of Idaho Ever seen a F&G person anywhere any time before during or after any seasons in anything other than their vehicle or at a check station !! But u believe all u want in there data . that is your choice !! well most all of the hunting magazines & data I have seen certainly points to Idaho being at the bottom for the simple reason of NOT having a lot of animals not when compared to the other western states. I am not saying we don't have some good animals But it sure seems Odd that we have the longest seasons of most of the 11 western states & what F&G data & other so called pros data says the lowest #s !! you are right we will probably never see the deer #s like they were back when but it would sure be nice if the people we have put in charge to manage those animals did just that !!
LAST EDITED ON Feb-25-15 AT 04:18PM (MST)[p]>well u seem to have a
>Lot of data !!
>I would love to see
>how anyone flying in an
>airplane at 1500 feet above
>the ground at around 120
>mph can see the actual
>points on a bucks rack
>!! I know the
>people I have spoken with
>pilots included in the last
>few years have a hard
>time determining points even on
>ELK !!
They use helicopters to do surveys, not planes. I watched a helicopter survey deer this year and they were low.
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/media/viewNewsRelease.cfm?newsID=7449
>Lot of data !!
>I would love to see
>how anyone flying in an
>airplane at 1500 feet above
>the ground at around 120
>mph can see the actual
>points on a bucks rack
>!! I know the
>people I have spoken with
>pilots included in the last
>few years have a hard
>time determining points even on
>ELK !!
They use helicopters to do surveys, not planes. I watched a helicopter survey deer this year and they were low.
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/media/viewNewsRelease.cfm?newsID=7449
BPKHunter
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,744
I agree that ending the general seasons on the same date, to avoid crowding, is a good idea. If populations are over objective, then maybe close all the 31st, if under then the 24th. We could benefit from more consistent population counts, but the idea that every single deer needs to be counted or every buck and the related age class needs to be verified is both factually incorrect and borderline ignorant.
We need to empowere F&G to have regular and effective population counts, including demanding the legislature provide enough funding, and then allow them to micro mange by season and local trends. This is done in Wy and I believe Colo and I think makes sense.
I don't agree at all that anything and everything from F&G is wrong or misinformation. They can improve though. So can the legislature and so can we.
We need to empowere F&G to have regular and effective population counts, including demanding the legislature provide enough funding, and then allow them to micro mange by season and local trends. This is done in Wy and I believe Colo and I think makes sense.
I don't agree at all that anything and everything from F&G is wrong or misinformation. They can improve though. So can the legislature and so can we.
I'm glad to see so many responses to this post. All have merits. I live in Challis, Region 7 which has a migration from the high country to the winter grounds/rutting grounds. Southern Idaho might not have this issue but it exits here and extending the season here to the 31st does have an impact. Some units exceeded the B-D ratios this year while others seem to lack. Crowding of hunters is usually a problem with units with a lot of roads. If a person has 14 days to hunt do all of them pick the last 4-5 days to get out and hunt? If more time is needed for the 4-5 day hunters maybe we should start the season on Oct.5 which would give all those people more time to get out and hunt. Not arguing any points but one good year is not a recovery. If southern ID wants the season to end the 31st that's great, but it does not work everywhere or here. Just trying to do what's best for ID deer, not necessarily making it easier for the hunters. My 2 cents on the matter, but at least all are informed and willing to speak out, that gets things done. Thanks.
destroyer350
Active Member
- Messages
- 485
Statistics, anything prior to mandatory harvest reporting is just a guess! Believe it if ya want, I'm with Oldhorn. I believe my eyes before I'll believe statistics from a computer, as no one ever asked me or anyone that I know prior to these reports if I harvested an animal or not. There is a obvious reason why hunter numbers went from 150,000 to 86,000 over that time.
customweld
Active Member
- Messages
- 606
I'm not doubting the figures, but I have a hard time convincing myself that there were almost half as many hunters as in 1988. The Treasure Valley alone has exploded in the last 15 years. Unfortunately, As much as I love mule deer, I think they are very poor at adapting. Between the encroachment of elk,whitetail, development in winter ranges,the aging non productive forest and rangeland wildfires I believe the numbers will never reach historical numbers. I'm not trying to knock Colorado or the other states, but how many of those B and C entries came from ranches with multi thousand acres and landowner tags? Back to the topic: I do not agree with extending the seasons.
backcountryID
Active Member
- Messages
- 213
>Unfortunately I don't think that Mule
>deer will ever reach the
>population levels of days gone
>by, exactly because of the
>reasons that oldhornhunter stated.
>The migration corridors and winter
>grounds are being broken up
>by suburban sprawl. In
>my opinion, the State should
>declare all known wintering grounds
>as protected lands and ban
>any and all development.
+1000!
It'll never happen but it doesn't hurt to dream and do everything we can.
>deer will ever reach the
>population levels of days gone
>by, exactly because of the
>reasons that oldhornhunter stated.
>The migration corridors and winter
>grounds are being broken up
>by suburban sprawl. In
>my opinion, the State should
>declare all known wintering grounds
>as protected lands and ban
>any and all development.
+1000!
It'll never happen but it doesn't hurt to dream and do everything we can.
OLDHORNHUNTER
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,023
not sure what state your in that they use helicopters but in Idaho at least the south western portion of the state they use airplanes called Maules capable of flying low & slow FAA regs state 1500 ' & these planes fly at around 100 to 120 mph !!
LAST EDITED ON Feb-26-15 AT 08:30AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Feb-26-15 AT 08:30?AM (MST)
>not sure what state your in
>that they use helicopters
>but in Idaho at least
>the south western portion of
>the state they use airplanes
> called Maules capable of
>flying low & slow
>FAA regs state 1500 '
> & these planes fly
>at around 100 to 120
>mph !!
Follow the link from IDF&G which says they use helicopters. I also watched them hover helicopters over fingers and count deer in SW Idaho.
>not sure what state your in
>that they use helicopters
>but in Idaho at least
>the south western portion of
>the state they use airplanes
> called Maules capable of
>flying low & slow
>FAA regs state 1500 '
> & these planes fly
>at around 100 to 120
>mph !!
Follow the link from IDF&G which says they use helicopters. I also watched them hover helicopters over fingers and count deer in SW Idaho.
i understand they want to align the season dates, but wish they would have cut off the later seasons and closed them on the 24th.
Error on the side of saving the deer. Its not like we dont have very liberal hunting seasons here already.
Those hunters that think they need that last week to kill a deer when they are most vulnerable, think about this. from cutting off the end of the season there are a lot more deer survive and quality bucks it will make it easier to hunt them in their summer range after a few years. It would be a win-win for trophy hunters and meat hunters.
Travis
Error on the side of saving the deer. Its not like we dont have very liberal hunting seasons here already.
Those hunters that think they need that last week to kill a deer when they are most vulnerable, think about this. from cutting off the end of the season there are a lot more deer survive and quality bucks it will make it easier to hunt them in their summer range after a few years. It would be a win-win for trophy hunters and meat hunters.
Travis
idelkslayer
Active Member
- Messages
- 201
I understand the scepticism of the numbers because I know that there is a lot that the numbers don't tell us. Statistics is a science and most stats are given as a 95% confidence interval. So there is still room for error in the numbers just as there is room for error in physical counting of animals. But statistics is far from a guess, whether you have ever been counted or not.
One thing that makes for difficult interpretation of the numbers I've posted is that historically, the IDFG didn't separate whitetail deer and hunters from mule deer and hunters. That is part of the reason for the huge drop in hunter numbers from the 50's and 60's to now. So although I may have said otherwise in another post I do believe that there are more mule hunters now than in the past, I don't think it is a very large difference. National hunting trends have remained stagnant for several decades so it stands to reason that the trend holds consitent here.
Also, the potential for individual areas to have significantly more hunters while the state average remains the same is also a possibility.
I think the biggest reason for the apparent increase in hunters is the increased mobility that exists today. Even as little as 25 years ago there were half as many roads in the backcountry as there are now and ATV ownership was less than 10% of present day. Now that a hunter can move from area to area more quickly and cover more ground it is likely that he will see more hunters than in years past. The existence of the roads is itself a reason why deer are harder to find since they are now pressured throughout their range and have fewer sanctuaries.
For all we know a severe winter could be only a year or two away and all of a sudden our deer herd will be back to really low levels and all these deer that we were afraid would be killed in the extra week of hunting will be dead anyway, and then some.
Is Idaho as good as it was in the glory days, No, but it is far from the worst place to hunt.
Montana for example has a 5 week general mule deer season that runs through Thanksgiving and all of their deer are not dead. The Idaho panhandle has 5 week and longer seasons and when I lived there a lot of people didn't bother hunting until the last 2 weeks anyways. People only have a limited amount of vacation time to hunt and the extra week won't change the amount of time spent hunting for most people.
I also agree with Customweld's assessment of Colorado, their system gives a lot of tags to landowners who then become their own defacto game agency, selling high dollar tags and restricting harvest in order to get B&C entries.
One thing that makes for difficult interpretation of the numbers I've posted is that historically, the IDFG didn't separate whitetail deer and hunters from mule deer and hunters. That is part of the reason for the huge drop in hunter numbers from the 50's and 60's to now. So although I may have said otherwise in another post I do believe that there are more mule hunters now than in the past, I don't think it is a very large difference. National hunting trends have remained stagnant for several decades so it stands to reason that the trend holds consitent here.
Also, the potential for individual areas to have significantly more hunters while the state average remains the same is also a possibility.
I think the biggest reason for the apparent increase in hunters is the increased mobility that exists today. Even as little as 25 years ago there were half as many roads in the backcountry as there are now and ATV ownership was less than 10% of present day. Now that a hunter can move from area to area more quickly and cover more ground it is likely that he will see more hunters than in years past. The existence of the roads is itself a reason why deer are harder to find since they are now pressured throughout their range and have fewer sanctuaries.
For all we know a severe winter could be only a year or two away and all of a sudden our deer herd will be back to really low levels and all these deer that we were afraid would be killed in the extra week of hunting will be dead anyway, and then some.
Is Idaho as good as it was in the glory days, No, but it is far from the worst place to hunt.
Montana for example has a 5 week general mule deer season that runs through Thanksgiving and all of their deer are not dead. The Idaho panhandle has 5 week and longer seasons and when I lived there a lot of people didn't bother hunting until the last 2 weeks anyways. People only have a limited amount of vacation time to hunt and the extra week won't change the amount of time spent hunting for most people.
I also agree with Customweld's assessment of Colorado, their system gives a lot of tags to landowners who then become their own defacto game agency, selling high dollar tags and restricting harvest in order to get B&C entries.
OLDHORNHUNTER
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,023
KINDA funny I spoke with John the owner/pilot of Owyhee Air & he was BOOKED solid Jan & Feb with Idaho F&G doing aerial herd counts !! on the Boise front sheep counts in units 40 41 & 42 & an Eagle count as well And he told me they use his Maule aircrafts ???
BPKHunter
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,744
Most on here are making good points. Most.
I think we have to be very careful on assuming the deer herds are in need of being increased all the time. Anyone who has hunted even the past 10 years should agree that the populations have gone up and down. I would argue some times I can't imagine needing more deer, but always wanting older bucks.
I think if we are to focus on a change to help the herd, we should consider there will be times we don't need to restrict harvest more. Obviously at times, we do need more restriction. So, one set closing date is not management, but a more flexible date based on "management decisions" should be considered. I think that most years, opening the 10th and closing "between 24th and 31st" makes the most sense to me.
I still feel we need to trust the professionals. I feel part of them being professionals is to talk to us hunters both before and during the season. Of course I think this is part of the purpose of checkpoints, which have been around for a long time I believe. Checkpoints, I do believe, are a long time and usefull way of judging not only take, but population trends, though I'm sure only as part of an overall methodology.
To others point here, in terms of long term trends and crowding, don't you all think that much more private land was open to hunters than it is today. Even in the last 10 years I've seen tracks of unposted land get posted.
I think we have to be very careful on assuming the deer herds are in need of being increased all the time. Anyone who has hunted even the past 10 years should agree that the populations have gone up and down. I would argue some times I can't imagine needing more deer, but always wanting older bucks.
I think if we are to focus on a change to help the herd, we should consider there will be times we don't need to restrict harvest more. Obviously at times, we do need more restriction. So, one set closing date is not management, but a more flexible date based on "management decisions" should be considered. I think that most years, opening the 10th and closing "between 24th and 31st" makes the most sense to me.
I still feel we need to trust the professionals. I feel part of them being professionals is to talk to us hunters both before and during the season. Of course I think this is part of the purpose of checkpoints, which have been around for a long time I believe. Checkpoints, I do believe, are a long time and usefull way of judging not only take, but population trends, though I'm sure only as part of an overall methodology.
To others point here, in terms of long term trends and crowding, don't you all think that much more private land was open to hunters than it is today. Even in the last 10 years I've seen tracks of unposted land get posted.
destroyer350
Active Member
- Messages
- 485
I watched and helped with deer counts on a large private ranch, using visual classifications and actual deer counts over a certain period of time, from the ground, using binos & scopes as visual aids. The biologists would add here and subtract there as the numbers needed to come up with what ever they wanted the numbers to be. they also used stats. Came away totally unimpressed with their methods. Their harvest data on the other hand was top notch.
We've already added 10 & 11 yr olds to the mix, so I'm not in the bag for longer seasons or more late hunts, in fact I'd prefer to see less to no late buck hunts for awhile. Like orion said lets hunt them during the general and let them breed in november, if a few die of old age, that would be great!!
We've already added 10 & 11 yr olds to the mix, so I'm not in the bag for longer seasons or more late hunts, in fact I'd prefer to see less to no late buck hunts for awhile. Like orion said lets hunt them during the general and let them breed in november, if a few die of old age, that would be great!!
OLDHORNHUNTER
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,023
you are correct with their formula to arrive at a estimated # of animals in a certain area !! one of the biologists I spoke with told me they flew the Boise front & did NOT see hardly any elk !! due to lack of snow & them being more in the trees !! which made coming up with an accurate herd count nearly IMPOSSIBLE !! so I ask if they cant see em from the air than they can only Assume a # but they are already talking about increasing the harvest #s & extending the seasons !!
idelkslayer
Active Member
- Messages
- 201
BPKHunter said:
"To others point here, in terms of long term trends and crowding, don't you all think that much more private land was open to hunters than it is today. Even in the last 10 years I've seen tracks of unposted land get posted."
I think this is spot on. Fewer private land owners are willing to allow access and this pushes more hunters into the limited available acreas of public lands.
"To others point here, in terms of long term trends and crowding, don't you all think that much more private land was open to hunters than it is today. Even in the last 10 years I've seen tracks of unposted land get posted."
I think this is spot on. Fewer private land owners are willing to allow access and this pushes more hunters into the limited available acreas of public lands.
destroyer350
Active Member
- Messages
- 485
>BPKHunter said:
>"To others point here, in terms
>of long term trends and
>crowding, don't you all think
>that much more private land
>was open to hunters than
>it is today. Even in
>the last 10 years I've
>seen tracks of unposted land
>get posted."
>
>I think this is spot on.
> Fewer private land owners
>are willing to allow access
>and this pushes more hunters
>into the limited available acreas
>of public lands.
I don't notice that in this area, and would not consider that to be a problem. I can't think of one place, other than close to buildings or livestock that shuts everyone out.
>"To others point here, in terms
>of long term trends and
>crowding, don't you all think
>that much more private land
>was open to hunters than
>it is today. Even in
>the last 10 years I've
>seen tracks of unposted land
>get posted."
>
>I think this is spot on.
> Fewer private land owners
>are willing to allow access
>and this pushes more hunters
>into the limited available acreas
>of public lands.
I don't notice that in this area, and would not consider that to be a problem. I can't think of one place, other than close to buildings or livestock that shuts everyone out.
>I don't notice that in this
>area, and would not consider
>that to be a problem.
>I can't think of one
>place, other than close to
>buildings or livestock that shuts
>everyone out.
I'm going to assume you haven't knocked on a door to try and shoot some pheasants or waterfowl lately.
Bird hunting around the Treasure Valley/Twin Falls/Snake River is a good example of this. The public ground gets HAMMERED, so most of the ducks and geese fly to the private gravel pits, where hunting isn't allowed.
The fact that there are some great bucks residing year round on private land in 44 and 45 at only 4000-5000 feet proves this theory to hold at least some water, IMO.
>area, and would not consider
>that to be a problem.
>I can't think of one
>place, other than close to
>buildings or livestock that shuts
>everyone out.
I'm going to assume you haven't knocked on a door to try and shoot some pheasants or waterfowl lately.
Bird hunting around the Treasure Valley/Twin Falls/Snake River is a good example of this. The public ground gets HAMMERED, so most of the ducks and geese fly to the private gravel pits, where hunting isn't allowed.
The fact that there are some great bucks residing year round on private land in 44 and 45 at only 4000-5000 feet proves this theory to hold at least some water, IMO.
>This thread is getting weird for
>MM. An actual discussion instead
>of an internet street fight.
>
Haha it's a little awkward huh??? EVrYone is JUST waiting for SOMeOnE TO sNap, my betzzz on ol'PORNhunter!!! ###
Just trying to keep it light, some good posts on here thus far.
>MM. An actual discussion instead
>of an internet street fight.
>
Haha it's a little awkward huh??? EVrYone is JUST waiting for SOMeOnE TO sNap, my betzzz on ol'PORNhunter!!! ###
Just trying to keep it light, some good posts on here thus far.
I didn't have time to read the whole thread, but here is an idea. If you are really just concerned with hunter opportunity, why not have all of the seasons open on October 5th and close the 24th. Then there wont be a risk of a migration slaughter like the one that occurs in 39 every time we get an early snow.
destroyer350
Active Member
- Messages
- 485
>>I don't notice that in this
>>area, and would not consider
>>that to be a problem.
>>I can't think of one
>>place, other than close to
>>buildings or livestock that shuts
>>everyone out.
>
>I'm going to assume you haven't
>knocked on a door to
>try and shoot some pheasants
>or waterfowl lately.
>
>Bird hunting around the Treasure Valley/Twin
>Falls/Snake River is a good
>example of this. The public
>ground gets HAMMERED, so most
>of the ducks and geese
>fly to the private gravel
>pits, where hunting isn't allowed.
>
>
>The fact that there are some
>great bucks residing year round
>on private land in 44
>and 45 at only 4000-5000
>feet proves this theory to
>hold at least some water,
>IMO.
Well big fella, I could give two ##### about birds other than blue grouse, and if your reading comprehension is up to snuff, I said the area I live and hunt in. But even when I do venture out of the norm, we've had no problem finding a place to hunt I'm all for private landowner rights, I have no problem hearing no. Go buy some so everyone can go hunting on your place!!!
And I'm glad to see you're able to admit that alot of units get over hunted or "HAMMERED" as you say, when you are constantly in the bag for more,more,more!!
>>area, and would not consider
>>that to be a problem.
>>I can't think of one
>>place, other than close to
>>buildings or livestock that shuts
>>everyone out.
>
>I'm going to assume you haven't
>knocked on a door to
>try and shoot some pheasants
>or waterfowl lately.
>
>Bird hunting around the Treasure Valley/Twin
>Falls/Snake River is a good
>example of this. The public
>ground gets HAMMERED, so most
>of the ducks and geese
>fly to the private gravel
>pits, where hunting isn't allowed.
>
>
>The fact that there are some
>great bucks residing year round
>on private land in 44
>and 45 at only 4000-5000
>feet proves this theory to
>hold at least some water,
>IMO.
Well big fella, I could give two ##### about birds other than blue grouse, and if your reading comprehension is up to snuff, I said the area I live and hunt in. But even when I do venture out of the norm, we've had no problem finding a place to hunt I'm all for private landowner rights, I have no problem hearing no. Go buy some so everyone can go hunting on your place!!!
And I'm glad to see you're able to admit that alot of units get over hunted or "HAMMERED" as you say, when you are constantly in the bag for more,more,more!!
M
MULEY204
Guest
BE CAREFUL NOT TO PAINT ALL UNITS WITH A BROAD BRUSH. SOUTHEAST UNITS ARE JUST STARTING TO SHOW RECOVERY. REALIZE THEY WHERE @ A 1/4 TANK AFTER THE 2010 WINTER. I WOULD BET MONEY THERE WAS NOT VERY MANY 13 YR OLD MULE DEER IN SOUTHEAST UNITS IN THE LAST 10 YEARS. SOME UNITS MIGHT BE OK WITH A LONGER SEASON AND SOME WILL BE HURT. THIS IS WHEN WE NEED THE F&G TO EARN THERE PAYCHECK AND MAKE THE RIGHT CALL....F&G HAS SHOWN SIGNS OF IMPROVEMENT. SHORTER SEASON AND LESS ANTLERLESS HUNTS. BUT IT NEEDS TO CONTINUE IN THE SOUTHEAST FOR SURE.
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.