Would you?

[125nontypicalforky]

LAST EDITED ON Oct-26-19 AT 04:16PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Oct-26-19 AT 04:15?PM (MST)

Would you be willing to give up mule deer hunting for 5 years? We all seem to feel like the population is dwindling terribly. Even so I can't stop myself from hunting mule deer every year. If I'm honest the only way I'd give it a break is if the F&G forced me! I honestly wish they would in Oregon and Idaho where I've been hunting. If I knew the deer were getting five years to recover I'd be excited but when everyone else is out there killing them then I just join in. Hunting elk and whitetail would get me through! I realize this probably won't happen, but at what point should they consider a shutdown in certain areas? Anybody else feel this way? And would it help the deer substantially?

 

[deerkiller]

LAST EDITED ON Oct-26-19 AT 07:33PM (MST)[p]No I wouldn't. But I would support a mandatory harvest data report done by EVERY hunter that has a tag. I would also support a strict 4 point or better rule, with a check in requirement by the F&G. I would make the penalty the loss of hunting rights a 3 year minimum and a $10,000 fine for anyone caught violating the law. This would do a couple things. 1) you aren't gonna have the smaller bucks killed, just because someone is trigger happy. 2) It?ll make everyone get closer and be damn sure the deer is legal before they start launching lead and 3) it?ll allow the small bucks to get bigger. 4) the fish cops will get an accurate account for how many deer are really being killed and they can adjust tag numbers for each unit (hopefully) accordingly.

The guys that are consistently killing 4 points now will be the guys killing 4 points after the implementation of this rule. The road hunters are either gonna have to lace up their boots or they aren't gonna kill much, which should recruit more bucks for the next season, assuming winter doesn't wipe them out like it has the last few years.


@screaminseagull

 

[125nontypicalforky]

I like all that

 

[yoteduster]

I agree with most of that

 

[Stillwater165]

I can honestly say I'd wait 5 years , I've waited longer than that between tags in some places. I also agree with what deerkiller wrote , quite a few great ideas mentioned.

 

[Onelegwonder]

This is a very interesting question. I've asked myself the same thing the last couple of years. I'm not so sure we need to jump right to a five year shut down. But I do believe a drastic change needs to happen. 1. No doe tags! If kids need an opportunity then let under 17 shoot 2 points otherwise 4 point only. 2. Maybe no OTC tags (maybe try that for 5 years)
And limit number of tags. 3. Increase lion tags (meaning allow guys to shoot 2-3) and/or bounty on all predators. Just a few thoughts. I like many of you think something big needs to change. Or there will be no mule deer hunting in the future

 

[Homer]

compound 1080....

 

[Founder]

If the herd numbers are below objective, then the question is ?why?. Might be bad winter, over harvest, poor carry capacity estimation by G & F departments, etc.
If it's a result of over harvest, then tag numbers do need to be cut. That's currently taking place all over the West and it hasn't helped much. Closing a unit totally would definitely help some, but probably not for too long if you let loose a bunch of hunters 5 years later.
There are so many people everywhere camping, living, roads, atving, hiking, etc. I think all that people activity plays a role. Many areas simply cannot support the same number of deer as in the past.
I think we have to get used to seeing less deer and more people in the hills.

Quality is something separate.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
@mm_founder on Instagram
LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
on Facebook!

 

[callsalot]

Nothing against you 125nontypicalforky but I'm almost getting tired of this question since many like it have been asked many times. It's almost gotten funny that when people ask about a particular unit almost no matter where or what state the answer is always that unit is going downhill and not what it used to be. I have debated this over and over again. I've hunted a lot of the west and was born and raised in central oregon and have lived in Oregon my whole life for 52 years. Like much of the west Oregon mule deer herds in the early 80;s were over half a million by ODFW counts and today it's less than half of that. I'm for opportunity not limited tags. I think it's an easy fix but we have a lot of liberal opposition in many states for part of what will need to be done as well as some hunter restriction but here it is.

1. Allow cougar hunts with dogs in states that don't currently allow it and up cougar harvest limits/tags for those that do.
2. Bounty on coyotes.
3. Four point minimum restrictions for 5 years.
4. No doe tags "that is pretty much done in E. Oregon already"
5. Restrict technology. Primarily game camera's and optics. This is the biggest restriction on us as hunters but would help. If you want to make it equal restrict archery to traditional only.

That will bring them back IMO.

 

[Bluehair]

Cars kill 5,000 deer a year here in Colorado. I suppose if we knew what CWD was doing we could make a sensable plan. Regardless, I bet my insurance doesn't go down.

So to answer your question, no.

Bluehair
Splitting my time time between the winter and summer range......
May you live long enough to cash in those preference points. Amen

 

[hunt30]

LAST EDITED ON Oct-26-19 AT 09:16PM (MST)[p]Interesting read. But $10,000 for someone shooting a 3x4 sounds reasonable ?

https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/con...ive/MULEDEER_ANTLERPOINTREGS_REVIE0006790.pdf

 

[125nontypicalforky]

Haha no worries callsalot! I actually get tired of all the no deer threads too. Not sure why I started this one! It just gets frustrating when you know there is a problem but a solution is so hard to find.

 

[NECALI]

That's a question with allot of unknowns. Are the doe?s getting bred? If so there's enough bucks for the herd. Without the does then it wouldn't matter if we didn't hunt the bucks other than getting bigger bucks. There just aren't enough does anymore in many areas. I'm all for bigger bucks, but not all hunters are. Some are just meat hunters, so why would someone that wants to kill a trophy buck have any more right than those who want meat. Why are those that like to hike and try to get away from the road hunters be entitled to anything more than a road hunter? What about those who are physically unable to walk very far, should we condemn them for not getting out and putting the boot leather on the ground? The biggest problem with our deer herds is flat out to many predators. To many lions, to many bears in allot of areas, to many bobcats, to many coyotes, to many wolves in some areas. Just to many, and in many states they are way way out of control. We condemn the sheep herds for eating all the feed, but I'll tell you what, 30, 40, 50 years ago we had allot more sheep ranchers here in California and they killed coyotes. Poisoned them, shot them on the ground and from the air. We had lion hunts, not anymore, we could use bait and hounds to bear hunt, neither anymore. Now we have out of control populations of lions and bears and coyotes. And we're seeing them in areas we never used to. I just got back from hunting deer for two weeks in the Bighorns of Wyoming. We hiked over ten miles some days. Had sun, snow, cold and a very poor hunt. Fresh coyote tracks outnumbered the fresh deer tracks we saw ten to one. The majority of the does either had one or no fawns. We saw some smaller bucks, but I chose to not shoot one of them. That's my personal choice, but I don't care if others shot those bucks. That would be their choice. Until our states start an all out campaign to get rid of most of these predators, like our generations several years before us, then it will never improve. Nevada Fish and Wildlife had an article a few years ago about taking on this very problem in area 4. They paid trappers to trap coyotes, they made an effort to control lions, they even went so far as killing Ravens as they attributed some fawn mortality to Ravens pecking the eyes out of some fawns. Well, they were seeing a drastic improvement to the deer numbers. Where else do you hear of a drastic improvement in deer herds? OK, I'll get off of my rant now, as you can see I hate predators.

 

[callsalot]

I'm right there with you. As a teenager in the early and mid 80's I could drive in the cascades and Ochoco's archery hunting and see ten bucks a day and many times more. In the deserts around Central Oregon I would see hundreds of deer in the alfalfa fields. I know many around the west that will say the same about mule deer. It just breaks my heart now to see so few in these area's compared to back then. I think there's a way to bring them back without shutting down seasons but I'm not sure it will ever happen.

 

[callsalot]

NECali, I have to agree that predators are a good portion of the problem. I was lucky enough to archery hunt some private ground in Oregon about 15 years ago and the elk hunt was good and saw a few bucks. Then I had an opportunity to hunt the same land about 7 or 8 years ago and the elk were fine but the deer numbers and size of bucks I saw was dramatically improved. I ask the rancher what the difference was. He said they finely got the fish and game to send out a state trapper and got rid of a bunch of cougars off the ranch and he said it made that big of a difference. It's an uphill battle in liberals states were they have outlawed dogs and baiting!

 

[brkenarrow]

1080 yes yes and yes

 

[brkenarrow]

>compound 1080....
>
>
>
>

yes

 

[notdonhunting]

LAST EDITED ON Oct-27-19 AT 02:12PM (MST)[p]There is a common theme Muley deer are on a serious decline across most all western states so what is the problem. You read post after post it is all about the greed of the Big Game Managment or it is technology or unethical hunters (baiters). I am just going to throw out some things I have noticed with hunting Muley deer mostly in Utah for 40+ years. I am only speaking on my observations of the mid 1970 to present. I might be wrong it is all just mostly opinions no real scientific evedence.

Number of hunters? There was more permits released throughout most of the west back in the 1970 and 1980 than there is today.

Big game managment? The only real difference I can see from managment from today and back in the 1970 and 1980 is number of permits and size of units you can hunt.


Rangeland/Habitat? Population of humans has grown and spread out more. So that spells lost of rangeland/habitat that we are not getting back. From what I have noticed is the poor shape our Winter range is in I know the winter range around where I grew up is in poor shape. The bitter brush and sage has either died or growing thick stumpy branches that is hard for deer to process into energy if they can nibble much off. Some of the bitter brush is 6 feet tall with not much new growth from year to year that is under 5 feet. Pretty hard for the young deer to feed on feed that they can not reach. I am no range expert but I have been raised talking care of cattle and if you do not provide the proper nutrients cattle productivity both in fertility and keeping there fetuses too birth is drastically reduced.

Weather drought/winter? For most of the west the late 1970 and early 1980 was wetter than normal and from the early 1980 to mid 1990 was around normal for precipitation. Winters in these time frames was sometimes hard but the deer was pretty healthy coming into the winters. Sense the mid 1990 most years the west has been in a drought with years mixed in the middle of this drought had some brutal winters.

Technology? Up until the early 1990 most hunters equipment was pretty basic. Scopes basic 3x9x40, binoculars 10x42, not too many hunters used spotting scopes, range finders used mostly archery, rifles mostly Winchester and Remington with most calibers either thirty odd six, two seventy or three o eight a 400 yard shot was considered long range, compound bows pretty basic fifty fifty used sights, ATV started popping up around the late 1980.
Now days you need a custom rifle fitted with a scope that can be zeroed out to infinity, binoculars that can pick up deer feeding at a 1000 yards by as little of light as a good full moon gives, a spotting scope that can spot the flag on the moon that Neal Armstrong left, a side x side that can hall four full grown men over mountains that only Billy goats could climb over. Muzleloaders that are equal to rifles of yesterday and Archery equipment that truly shoot straighter than an arrow out to 120 yards.

Guids/Outfitters back in the 1970 and 1980 worked hard as mostly a single man operation or maybe two helpers usually wife and a boy and/or a brother. The guides back then normally was opportunist they would hunt generally in a particular unit that they new well they provided a real hunting opportunity generally camping in tents or camp trailers. Guids/Outfitters of today will guide anywhere they can obtain legal rights and use any legal means to harvest there clients animal. This includes a possy of helpers, trail cameras, aircraft/drones, bounties and long distance weapons. I understand states have different rules and regulations for guides but I am describing in general terms.

Elk population numbers really exploded in the 1970 an 1980, at least hear in Utah. I was a little young too know much about other states but I do believe Montana, Wyoming and probably Colorado had pretty good population numbers. The one thing I do believe is in common with most states is the introduction of elk into units that where once Muley deer strong holds that was void of elk. Like the desert units lacking of water. At present times you can hunt elk in most any unit in all western states except for the driest of units in Utah, New Mexico, Arizona and Nevada and probably some of the eastern plains units of Colorado. The west coast I have little knowledge about the elk units and population numbers.

Baiting and other strategies of hunting I believe has not changed sense the bigging of time. It is a matter of what a person prefers and fell they will be most successful.

So to sum it up in my opinion the lost of Habitat and the lack of effort to restore are Winter range has affected Muley Deer the most and has been drastically enhanced because of the Drought that most of the western United States has been in for more than twenty years also the interdiction and population explosion of elk has affected deer numbers in some units.

Like I stated at the beginning of this post this is just some of my opinions and observations.
I am talking about mostly Utah and a little knowledge about other states.

 

[GLEDEASY]

I would not.

Although it's already getting to the point where you have to wait almost 5 years anyway for a general tag in UT.

On one of my trail cameras during the summer it was crazy how many different, and decent quality for general tag, bucks were coming across my camera. To top that there were a bunch of others that my camera never got. Now, once the archery hunt started those deer became pretty scarce.

My point is that deer were there. If I hadn't spent the time I did I could easily see why someone might have felt otherwise.

I'm not saying the deer are thriving but I don't feel like those issues result from hunting them.

 

[125nontypicalforky]

I always like a positive report but I base most of my feelings off of what the old timers are saying. I know a guy who has killed so many great bucks the last 10 years it's unbelievable....but even he says the same things(the deer numbers are struggling) If you put in tons of time and effort you will turn up bucks. But all the older guys say the same thing. So as younger hunters (under 40) I think we should listen because we never saw the prime they talk about. Sometimes my pride wants to reply ?oh I always see plenty of bucks, you just have to know what your doing?. Imagine how many bucks these older guys would have found with our technology!

 

[ReinerDude]

I like DeerKiller's idea or some variation of it!