It’s time for a real discussion

[bchap05]

Dont login much but just spent 5 days hiking deep and glassing hard and saw 0 bucks and 50 doe. Was basically creating this thread in my own head on the way down the hill thinking about what I'd change as I was quite frustrated.

I don't mind the unlimited only idea on here.

I also like making the late archery hunts first choice only. And I'm one of those that uses 39 as a backup when I fail in oct. But if it gives me better quality by helping herds I'd be all for not being able to use it as backup. I might even first choice it as it's my favorite hunt since you actually see game rather than hiking with a gun for 5 days.


Also would be willing to pay more. I feel like I'm in the middle hunting class and we get screwed. Im not willing to pay crazy 7k+ or whatever a private hunt is, but am willing to pay quite a bit more than 30 dollars for better quality hunting. Same with pheasant wish they would raise wma's to like 70-100. Not as much as a private 400 dollar hunt but cuts the numbers some because some would refuse to pay it. You could say that limits opportunity which I don't love, but I prefer quality over opportunity. But also don't want it to be a rich man's sport. But seems hunting is always either cheap or super expensive. Need a middle

 

[Blindnonresident]

You were in the wrong spot.

 

[Sparks Shooter]

Just wanted to report that I did my part this year. I Bought a NR license and tag to mentor my 10 year old on his first hunt. He connected with a great buck on opening day and I brought my tag back home with me to keep as a souvenir. We also turned back the fish we caught and I put all my cans in the recycle bin while I was there.

In all seriousness, I am very grateful to Idaho for the opportunity to take my son hunting. Great memories were made that will surely last a lifetime for both of us. -----SS\

2023 Youth Success Photo Contest - Let's See 'Um! | General Hunting

Let's see those trophy photos of your kids'! 2023 Youth Success Photo Contest! Share your best photos (and/or video), along with some details too! We'll run the contest for a few weeks and winners will be picked based on what I think are the best field photos......I'll let "Likes" of photos...

www.monstermuleys.info

 

[JPickett]

I went coyote hunting today

 

[Blindnonresident]

An Idaho resident shot a 4 point off the road, on our private property.
Typical.

 

[bchap05]

You were in the wrong spot.

Probably correct. The unit is very spread out. There are endless areas to start with good looking habitat. But in that same spot my buddy has shot bucks the last two years, and paid a guide to take him there the first time. If a guide went there it couldn't be too bad. And it was an area F&G said was decimated by winter so probably a combo of wrong spot wrong time and lack of deer.

 

[JPickett]

i don't think id draw any real solid conclusions based on what your seeing this fall. nothing about this fall has been fantastic for a hunting season. hell, it was 78 degrees last night in the valley at 7 oclock.

its just an off year all around. September was off too. ive got a spot thats nearly automatic for archery elk and it was lame this year. all the elk where there, all on cam, all in the same spot they always are but just not playing. its what it is. why im just shooting coyotes until it feels like hunting season. i may not hunt deer at all in October. i like a good hike but i get plenty of that.

everyone take a breath. there is still deer in them hills, just not going to see a lot with the blue bird sky's and balmy winds. let this be a lesson on saving vacation time for when its worth taking it.

 

[OLDHORNHUNTER]

What's crazy about that is that Idaho fish and game often bills their management style as opportunity.

If herd numbers are low why allow people to shoot does?

I understand if numbers are up and there is a need to manage the herd tonmatch the carrying capacity of the habitat.

Because Idaho Fish & NO GAME does NOT give a SH_T about the animals in Idaho all they want is the $$ . There is NOT a single unit in the state of Idaho that you will ever hear hunters say ... DAMN there are way too many deer in this unit !!! Killing does & having general 2 point seasons in units that were historical big buck units is a kick in the Dick !! When they write in their reports units having 80% winter die off & still have those units open tells ya where their heads are at

 

[Blindnonresident]

IDFG also requires new trucks for their folks to cruise around in.

 

[HUNTNNW]

I agree with a lot of the original post but Andrew said a real discussion and some of the trolls get on here and start trying to stoke the Resident vs Non Res debate. Even one using Wyoming with it’s 580,000 resident population size as example for Idaho. Idaho has about 4 times WY population and ID has doubled in population since 1990. You could put the NR % down to 0% (never going to happen) and that wouldn’t eliminate the fact that Idaho’s resident hunting population is continuing to rapidly increase.

yup! you could elimintate today all non resident tags and in 8-10 years the new "residents" would surpass the non resident quota. ID simply cannot keep issuing resident tags at the rate of the population growth. The Non resident quota hasnt changed in 40 years

 

[muleydude]

The problem is much deeper then just juggling seasons around, zones, etc. Have hunted all over the West since the 1980's, all DIY public land hunts and have witnessed first hand some dramatic population declines in many areas; some areas that have held well; and many areas that are just barely getting by so to speak.

If you want to preserve OTC, non-draw hunts for your son's, you need to really think in terms of one thing: fawn production and fawn recruitment into the population base.

Killing mule deer bucks, in of itself, is not the problem. It is only a problem if not enough post-season bucks remain to breed all the does; and this is not happening, even in low male to female populations, pregnancy rates remain in the mid to high 90% range.

More fawns equals more males recruited into the population base which equals more hunting opportunities. Fewer fawns equates to less opportunity.

How do you get more fawns?? Well first thing is to stop shooting does unless the herd is above objective. After this, it gets tougher. Issues are more complex; habitat is the most important lever, but game departments have a hard time influencing that. Long term fire suppression; declines in logging; cheat grass; winter range degradation; etc etc these are all bigger problems then our game department can manage on their own. There's also a larger predator base on the landscape as well and little hope that it will be reduced significantly at this point.

If you just reduce buck harvest, you will get older bucks and you will get more bucks into the population for sure. That can increase opportunity for the short run, but not the long run. Only way to increase opportunity in the long run is recruitment of more fawns into the population.

So gimmicks like zone restrictions, antler point restrictions, etc don't do anything to solve the bigger problem. The vast majority of hunters prefer opportunity over quality. So the game departments are going to allow as much opportunity as they can, given the amount of males in the population. They are going to sprinkle in a few draw only units to increase the male population and increase the age structure for the hunters who want quality over quantity. But, all over the West, the deer numbers are still plummeting in the draw only units as well. The reason is simple......reducing the buck harvest doesn't do anything to increase the overall population.......only fawn production and recruitment do. And, the draw only units have the same habitat, predator etc problems as the non-draw units.

 

[MrShane]

The problem is much deeper then just juggling seasons around, zones, etc. Have hunted all over the West since the 1980's, all DIY public land hunts and have witnessed first hand some dramatic population declines in many areas; some areas that have held well; and many areas that are just barely getting by so to speak.

If you want to preserve OTC, non-draw hunts for your son's, you need to really think in terms of one thing: fawn production and fawn recruitment into the population base.

Killing mule deer bucks, in of itself, is not the problem. It is only a problem if not enough post-season bucks remain to breed all the does; and this is not happening, even in low male to female populations, pregnancy rates remain in the mid to high 90% range.

More fawns equals more males recruited into the population base which equals more hunting opportunities. Fewer fawns equates to less opportunity.

How do you get more fawns?? Well first thing is to stop shooting does unless the herd is above objective. After this, it gets tougher. Issues are more complex; habitat is the most important lever, but game departments have a hard time influencing that. Long term fire suppression; declines in logging; cheat grass; winter range degradation; etc etc these are all bigger problems then our game department can manage on their own. There's also a larger predator base on the landscape as well and little hope that it will be reduced significantly at this point.

If you just reduce buck harvest, you will get older bucks and you will get more bucks into the population for sure. That can increase opportunity for the short run, but not the long run. Only way to increase opportunity in the long run is recruitment of more fawns into the population.

So gimmicks like zone restrictions, antler point restrictions, etc don't do anything to solve the bigger problem. The vast majority of hunters prefer opportunity over quality. So the game departments are going to allow as much opportunity as they can, given the amount of males in the population. They are going to sprinkle in a few draw only units to increase the male population and increase the age structure for the hunters who want quality over quantity. But, all over the West, the deer numbers are still plummeting in the draw only units as well. The reason is simple......reducing the buck harvest doesn't do anything to increase the overall population.......only fawn production and recruitment do. And, the draw only units have the same habitat, predator etc problems as the non-draw units.

If only there were a way to grow fawns in captivity and then release,
Not unlike a fish stocking program for put and take lakes.

 

[andrew12gauge]

The problem is much deeper then just juggling seasons around, zones, etc. Have hunted all over the West since the 1980's, all DIY public land hunts and have witnessed first hand some dramatic population declines in many areas; some areas that have held well; and many areas that are just barely getting by so to speak.

If you want to preserve OTC, non-draw hunts for your son's, you need to really think in terms of one thing: fawn production and fawn recruitment into the population base.

Killing mule deer bucks, in of itself, is not the problem. It is only a problem if not enough post-season bucks remain to breed all the does; and this is not happening, even in low male to female populations, pregnancy rates remain in the mid to high 90% range.

More fawns equals more males recruited into the population base which equals more hunting opportunities. Fewer fawns equates to less opportunity.

How do you get more fawns?? Well first thing is to stop shooting does unless the herd is above objective. After this, it gets tougher. Issues are more complex; habitat is the most important lever, but game departments have a hard time influencing that. Long term fire suppression; declines in logging; cheat grass; winter range degradation; etc etc these are all bigger problems then our game department can manage on their own. There's also a larger predator base on the landscape as well and little hope that it will be reduced significantly at this point.

If you just reduce buck harvest, you will get older bucks and you will get more bucks into the population for sure. That can increase opportunity for the short run, but not the long run. Only way to increase opportunity in the long run is recruitment of more fawns into the population.

So gimmicks like zone restrictions, antler point restrictions, etc don't do anything to solve the bigger problem. The vast majority of hunters prefer opportunity over quality. So the game departments are going to allow as much opportunity as they can, given the amount of males in the population. They are going to sprinkle in a few draw only units to increase the male population and increase the age structure for the hunters who want quality over quantity. But, all over the West, the deer numbers are still plummeting in the draw only units as well. The reason is simple......reducing the buck harvest doesn't do anything to increase the overall population.......only fawn production and recruitment do. And, the draw only units have the same habitat, predator etc problems as the non-draw units.

I also think one drawback to the current system aside from how many bucks get shot is how many of our better deer producing areas are over hunted to the point that deer go into the winter in bad shape and are not able to survive. Unit 39 as an example, it’s everybody’s fallback unit because it’s close to Boise and open a week later than most other units in the state, then add a November late archery hunt and even a December late archery for permit holders, when do the deer get a break to eat and put on fat before the winter really hits? If you want more does you can’t have them chased all fall until they head into the most vulnerable time of year skin and bones

 

[huntindad4]

I'm sure there has been studies but is there any correlation between the age and health of the breeding buck and a higher ratio of twin fawns or health of the fawns that are born and their ability to survive and then thrive?

I mean, nature developed the system, the strongest, healthier bucks get to breed the does.

If there is less of those stronger/healthier bucks because of overharvest would that not too contribute?

Whether because there is not enough of those specimens to cover the does or they are no longer healthy enough to produce that result because they are flat worn down?

 

[BrianID]

There are 2 separate issues that need to be addressed separately for mule deer.
#1 Decrease in total deer numbers
#2 Decrease in % of population that has mature bucks.

#1 Total deer numbers being down is directly related to habitat. Across the western states the quantity and quality of the habitat for deer on the summer range and winter range in significantly decrease from what it was in the 1950’s and 1960’s.
Multiple things have decreased the deer habitat across the West (development, changes in timber harvest, cheat grass, competition with elk, etc). Predators (lions, coyotes, wolves, bears, vehicles, etc) can suppress deer numbers some in certain areas on some years but habitat is still our biggest problem. Hunters killing does is even less significant than the predator problem we have in certain areas. I think it was a very good idea to eliminate all doe hunts in areas hit hard by last winter. In 2015 & 2016 having doe hunting would have actually benefited the mule deer in many areas of Idaho.

#2 The decrease in % of mature bucks in the population is directly related to hunters. Many areas of Idaho’s general season units have less that 1% of the population representing mature bucks (5+ year old deer). We are much more effective at killing the older bucks than our fathers and grandfathers were. Our rifles, bows, muzzleloaders, optics, transportation, clothing, boots and other equipment are so much better than hunters had in the 1950’s. In the 1950’s most hunters were not holding out for bigger bucks. The percentage of hunters targeting older bucks has increased dramatically. The amount of vacation time many hunters have to target big bucks has also increased dramatically. Between scouting and hunting it isn’t uncommon for many of us to put in 20 or even 50 days per year in pursuit of a big buck. Very few hunters put that amount of time into deer hunting in the 1950’s. If we want to see a higher percentage of mature bucks, we will need to restrict hunters in one way or another.

 

[muleydude]

There are 2 separate issues that need to be addressed separately for mule deer.
#1 Decrease in total deer numbers
#2 Decrease in % of population that has mature bucks.

#1 Total deer numbers being down is directly related to habitat. Across the western states the quantity and quality of the habitat for deer on the summer range and winter range in significantly decrease from what it was in the 1950’s and 1960’s.
Multiple things have decreased the deer habitat across the West (development, changes in timber harvest, cheat grass, competition with elk, etc). Predators (lions, coyotes, wolves, bears, vehicles, etc) can suppress deer numbers some in certain areas on some years but habitat is still our biggest problem. Hunters killing does is even less significant than the predator problem we have in certain areas. I think it was a very good idea to eliminate all doe hunts in areas hit hard by last winter. In 2015 & 2016 having doe hunting would have actually benefited the mule deer in many areas of Idaho.

#2 The decrease in % of mature bucks in the population is directly related to hunters. Many areas of Idaho’s general season units have less that 1% of the population representing mature bucks (5+ year old deer). We are much more effective at killing the older bucks than our fathers and grandfathers were. Our rifles, bows, muzzleloaders, optics, transportation, clothing, boots and other equipment are so much better than hunters had in the 1950’s. In the 1950’s most hunters were not holding out for bigger bucks. The percentage of hunters targeting older bucks has increased dramatically. The amount of vacation time many hunters have to target big bucks has also increased dramatically. Between scouting and hunting it isn’t uncommon for many of us to put in 20 or even 50 days per year in pursuit of a big buck. Very few hunters put that amount of time into deer hunting in the 1950’s. If we want to see a higher percentage of mature bucks, we will need to restrict hunters in one way or another.

Agree with all of this; habitat is the number one issue; quality habitat equals higher fawn recruitment; only thing I would add is the game departments have very few levers to actually pull to help the overall size of the herd; one of the few levers to pull is doe harvests. So, I think its appropriate to hold them accountable to be diligent about that when carrying capacities are well below objective.

As far as point #2, this is also true; agree with all of this too; but, it is unclear, and the data is unclear, if age structure of bucks contributes to increased fawn recruitment. It makes intuitive sense that it would as nature set it up that way; but, like I said, the data is unclear. There is good data that says there is no difference in fawn recruitment populations with lower male to female ratios vs higher male to female ratio's.

If age structure and/or higher male to female ratio's increaesd fawn recruitment, you would see that data manifest itself in draw only units; and the draw only units are suffering just as much. So, increasing age structure will not do much to increase our deer herds; there is pretty clear data that says if you have higher male to female ratio's that the productivity of the herd is actually less because those excess males take nutritional value away from the females in the herd.

https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Research/Mammals/MuleDeerReport/Male-biased-harvest-mule-deer.pdf

As a matter of practicality though hunter satisfaction will be higher if at least some level of variability of age structure is maintained in the herd.

Personally I would like to see the dept manage opportunity with some baseline amount of age structure being maintained.

But once again, hunters in the aggregate overwhelmingly support opportunity over quality, so that is the primary driver of game department policy

 

[BrianID]

Agree with all of this; habitat is the number one issue; quality habitat equals higher fawn recruitment; only thing I would add is the game departments have very few levers to actually pull to help the overall size of the herd; one of the few levers to pull is doe harvests. So, I think its appropriate to hold them accountable to be diligent about that when carrying capacities are well below objective.

As far as point #2, this is also true; agree with all of this too; but, it is unclear, and the data is unclear, if age structure of bucks contributes to increased fawn recruitment. It makes intuitive sense that it would as nature set it up that way; but, like I said, the data is unclear. There is good data that says there is no difference in fawn recruitment populations with lower male to female ratios vs higher male to female ratio's.

If age structure and/or higher male to female ratio's increaesd fawn recruitment, you would see that data manifest itself in draw only units; and the draw only units are suffering just as much. So, increasing age structure will not do much to increase our deer herds; there is pretty clear data that says if you have higher male to female ratio's that the productivity of the herd is actually less because those excess males take nutritional value away from the females in the herd.

https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Research/Mammals/MuleDeerReport/Male-biased-harvest-mule-deer.pdf

As a matter of practicality though hunter satisfaction will be higher if at least some level of variability of age structure is maintained in the herd.

Personally I would like to see the dept manage opportunity with some baseline amount of age structure being maintained.

But once again, hunters in the aggregate overwhelmingly support opportunity over quality, so that is the primary driver of game department policy

At least in the Magic Valley, Upper Snake and SE regions the F&G significantly restricted mule deer doe harvest this fall. Youth and archery hunters shouldn’t be killing does for at least a couple years after a winter like we had.

I do not want to see Idaho go away from general season hunts like many western states have. We would certainly see a big increase in the number of mature bucks to hunt if they did but I personally don’t think it is worth giving up the opportunity Idaho provides.

 

[huntfishall1]

I'm sure there has been studies but is there any correlation between the age and health of the breeding buck and a higher ratio of twin fawns or health of the fawns that are born and their ability to survive and then thrive?

I mean, nature developed the system, the strongest, healthier bucks get to breed the does.

If there is less of those stronger/healthier bucks because of overharvest would that not too contribute?

Whether because there is not enough of those specimens to cover the does or they are no longer healthy enough to produce that result because they are flat worn down?

In whitetail deer I remember there was concern in some population in regards to the buck/doe ratio…basically once it dropped too low…yes the majority of does were bred…but a percentage were bred late or very late….like second or third rut…which led to fawns being born late the next year and those fawns went into their first winter much smaller than their counterparts that were born earlier…the smaller fawns had a lower survival rate when there were harsh winters. Could be extrapolated to mule deer too in some circumstances but all you hear and read is “buck harvest and hunting has nothing to do with long term population trends in mule deer”…perhaps there is more to it in certain herds and especially when herds drop below a certain threshold

 

[huntindad4]

In whitetail deer I remember there was concern in some population in regards to the buck/doe ratio…basically once it dropped too low…yes the majority of does were bred…but a percentage were bred late or very late….like second or third rut…which led to fawns being born late the next year and those fawns went into their first winter much smaller than their counterparts that were born earlier…the smaller fawns had a lower survival rate when there were harsh winters. Could be extrapolated to mule deer too in some circumstances but all you hear and read is “buck harvest and hunting has nothing to do with long term population trends in mule deer”…perhaps there is more to it in certain herds and especially when herds drop below a certain threshold

This makes perfect sense.

 

[muleydude]

This makes perfect sense.

Cannot compare Whitetail and Mule Deer; two completely different species and each have their own unique habitat areas, population dispersions, breeding habits, etc. Biggest difference is mule deer bucks create harems; whitetail bucks search and seek out individual does to breed. Lots of differences. Comparing whitetails in Pennsylvania to mule deer in Idaho is not apples to oranges.

The research on mule deer also does not support the above comments.

Conclusions from the Colorado study on this:

"There was no difference in rates of pregnancy or synchrony of parturition (timing of when does got bred) between populations with different male/female ratios.

Increasing male/female ratios above 14 males/100 females should not be used as a management strategy for increasing rates of pregnancy or for modifying the timing and/or synchrony of parturition."

I'm not advocating for low buck to doe ratio's and I am not saying that we shouldn't have some focus on maintaining at least some decent age structure in our herds. Higher buck to doe ratio's and some better age structure makes for a better hunting experience for most people.

But, better buck to doe ratio's is not the problem or the solution to increasing the size of our deer herds.

 

[customweld]

Cannot compare Whitetail and Mule Deer; two completely different species and each have their own unique habitat areas, population dispersions, breeding habits, etc. Biggest difference is mule deer bucks create harems; whitetail bucks search and seek out individual does to breed. Lots of differences. Comparing whitetails in Pennsylvania to mule deer in Idaho is not apples to oranges.

The research on mule deer also does not support the above comments.

Conclusions from the Colorado study on this:

"There was no difference in rates of pregnancy or synchrony of parturition (timing of when does got bred) between populations with different male/female ratios.

Increasing male/female ratios above 14 males/100 females should not be used as a management strategy for increasing rates of pregnancy or for modifying the timing and/or synchrony of parturition."

I'm not advocating for low buck to doe ratio's and I am not saying that we shouldn't have some focus on maintaining at least some decent age structure in our herds. Higher buck to doe ratio's and some better age structure makes for a better hunting experience for most people.

But, better buck to doe ratio's is not the problem or the solution to increasing the size of our deer herds.

Correct. Muleys can increase herd size in the mid 20's % a year in good conditions. Whitetails are closer to 65% increase.

 

[huntindad4]

Man...you'd think with all the things the "experts" know, this population increase thing would be easy...

 

[Blindnonresident]

Lot's more deer out now that the weather changed.
Just sayin.