Pics of My 2004 buck and Managment idea

[BrianID]

Here’s a picture of my 2004 buck. I bagged him on the afternoon of last day of general rifle that I was able to hunt. Unfortunately I didn’t find a buck that I was willing put my tag on earlier in the season but I still had a very enjoyable 2004 hunting season.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v469/sgcampbell/img018.jpg

Sorry about the poor photo quality and blood in the picture. I know that you don’t ever see pictures like this in magazines but just remember this is an internet forum . The poor photo quality also has the advantage of leaving the size of the horns to your imagination rather than showing you how small they really are. I still consider this buck a trophy and put the horns and the wall despite the small size. If you want to see a picture of them on my wall check post #2 of this thread.

 

[BrianID]

Now that I got you to look at this thread because there is a picture involved I have a long winded post about management. I don’t consider what I have written below to be “the solution”. I think it has potential and would like some feedback on some of my management thoughts.
Almost all of the general season units in Idaho (and some other states) have the problem of not having very many mature bucks. Very few bucks live long enough to grow their 4th set of antlers. To increase the number of mature bucks you can increase the total number of deer or decrease the number of bucks hunters kill. The Idaho F&G (and the F&G/DWR in other states) have been trying to increase the total number of deer but that hasn’t been working as well as we would like so if we want more mature bucks we are going to have to decrease the number of bucks hunters kill.

If you want to decrease the number of bucks hunters kill you need to limit the success of the hunters. The easiest way and often times the only way to limit the success of hunters is to decrease the number of hunters which means increased cost AND switching general season units to controlled hunt units. If there is only 1 buck for every 5 guys that want to hunt, I think the only way to go is with a controlled hunt system. I think that if every unit in Idaho became a controlled hunt unit it would be better than what we have now. However, if it were possible to increase the number of big bucks without going to a controlled hunt system I think it would be better. Personally I don’t want to wait until I’m lucky enough to draw to hunt. Controlled hunts CAN also discourage youth and families from hunting together.

A short season length can help reduce the number of deer killed but other factors like weather and dates of the season have a larger impact. The number of days a hunter spends out hunting doesn’t significantly increase the number of days hunters take off from work if the season is 3 weeks long or only 5 days long. You are just going to have everyone taking the same 5 days off work. Sure the 3 week season is going to see a few more bucks killed because of weekend warriors but lets be honest the weekend warriors aren’t killing as many deer as the guys that take a week of work every year. If the weather changes the 3 week season will also have an impact on the number of deer killed. A good example of this in Idaho (and other states) is that snow storm in late October. A lot of buck that wouldn’t have other wise been killed were killed in the Idaho general season units that stayed open until October 31st compared to the units that closed on October 19th.

Another way to decrease the number of bucks hunter kill is to have point restriction. Idaho had a couple of units restricting hunters to bucks with at least 4 points on one side not counting brow tines. In my opinion this did a very good job of increasing buck to doe ratios in these units but I don’t think this is the best long-term option.

You can also limit what equipment is legal for hunters. I really like how Idaho F&G has the ATV restrictions in some units because it not only helps a few more bucks make it through the season but also limits the number of other “hunters” that tick me off every year. Limiting the weapon that hunters use is also very effective but too many hunters wouldn’t be willing to trade their rifle for a muzzleloader or bow.

Personally I liked Founders (person from the other site) proposal better than anything else that I have seen so far. It would certainly decrease the number of bucks hunters kill but I think his idea could be improved.

Instead of only being able to kill one deer every two years I think it would be better if you killed a deer one year you don’t get to hunt next year. That way hunters aren't shooting “last day/meat bucks” every other year like what would happen the second year Founder’s plan. Founder’s plan of having one tag that is good for one deer during a two year period at twice the price of a regular tag does a good job of still raising money for the State and prevents hunters from trying to cheat the system into allowing them to kill a deer every year. I think the same thing could be accomplished by increasing the price of the tag slightly and requiring hunters to turn in their unused tag to the F&G (or DWR) or they wouldn’t be allowed to hunt the following year. Sure there would be a few idiots that would get mad at the F&G because they weren’t allowed to hunt one year because they didn’t turn in their unused tag but you could bet that the next time they had an unused tag they wouldn’t forget to turn it in.

I think my plan would work because a minority of the hunters kills most of the bucks. If you can limit the number of bucks this minority kills then you will have more mature bucks.

I don’t have any numbers to back it up but I would guess that 75%+ of the muleys killed on general hunts in Idaho (and other states) are killed by the same people every year. I’ll just call these hunters that kill a deer most years the committed hunters. Most of these committed hunters are “wanna be trophy hunters” and some of them are guys will shoot the first legal animal they see. The “wanna be trophy hunters” pass on shooting smaller bucks and normally ends up with a meat buck/last day buck most years. Having an opportunity to hunt the next year is more important to the “wanna be trophy hunters” than shooting a meat buck/last day buck Most of the people that post on this site (including myself) would fall into the “wanna be trophy hunters” category. Many of us killed deer this year that weren’t as big as we were initially holding out for. If I wasn't allowed to hunt the following year after shooting a deer I know that I wouldn't have shot my 03 and 04 bucks (both shot on the last day I was able to hunt) and may have not even shot my 02 buck.

Here’s a picture of the antlers of my 2004 buck on the wall on top of my 2003 buck.

There are still a few flaws in this idea but I still think it is better than the other options. This system obviously wouldn’t work if there were only 1 buck for every 5 guys that want to hunt. It also wouldn’t work for nonresidents that don’t hunt that state every year. For nonresidents I think the best solution would be to set up a controlled hunt system like Wyoming has. The state could also consider giving the nonresidents that are regulars a chance to hunt every year as long as they didn’t kill a buck the previous year. There would be some people that say they need to shoot a deer for meat every year. As most of us know that isn’t true and with a controlled hunt system they wouldn’t be able to shoot a deer every year anyway. Deer meat from a western states is more expensive than the best cuts of beef if you considering the cost of buying a tag, gas, hunting equipment and money that could have been earned by working instead of hunting. Even if you get paid minimum wage you would get more meat for the freezer by going to work instead of going hunting.

I really think that it could cut the number of bucks hunters tag in Idaho by at least a 1/3 if not 1/2. Even 1/3 more bucks surviving every year would make a big difference. I also think that this plan would make most hunters happy. Almost all true trophy hunters and the “wanna be trophy hunters” would be happy because there would be more mature bucks in the woods. The hunters that don’t kill a deer very often would be more happy because they would see more bucks. The only people that would be upset with this would be those that think it is their right to kill a muley buck every year. The fact is there just isn’t enough mule deer bucks for everyone to get one every year.

 

[BrianID]

I would like some feedback on my management idea. I'm not looking for an argument and I already know that it isn't as good of an idea as I think it is otherwise at least a couple of states would have a system like that in place already.

 

[GatoMan]

I use to hunt in OR when deer was still general like Idaho......everyone cried for the first couple of yrs when they went to all draw but once the dust settled I think the quality of the deer and hunting is much better and more people are enjoying it. I know my dad has enjoyed it, the last couple of yrs hes been able to take the biggest bucks in his life after hunting OR 48+ yrs. I would support Idaho going to controlled hunts, but the problem is F&G just needs to do it, get it over with so the public can start whining, cause thats what they will do. I was just talking with a F&G officer about the lack of deer in unit 31 and how piss poor the hunting is in there, he said they tried to make it a controlled area this yr but the public bombarded them with so much out cry they left it alone. I for one support going to draws, controlled hunts, limited entry etc etc statewide.

 

[The Hedgehog]

In the area you were hunting could you have taken a meat doe on the last day, rather than a meat buck?

 

[Delw]

If you want to decrease the number of bucks hunters kill you need to limit the success of the hunters.

Brian Not to piss all over your parade, but if you were so worried about mature bucks I really dont think shooting a small meat buck like you did is the answer.
Too many people have these great ideas but when it comes down to it they pop the first or last buck they see of any size.


Delw

 

[Ithaca 37]

Brian, If you want big bucks ya gotta let the little ones grow up. I used to take two or three guys to my hunting spots on real good private land every year and I had my own management plan. I asked them to hold out for a big buck or shoot a doe for meat, if that's what they were after. I explained the management plan for big bucks to them. Every year they would hold out a few days and then shoot a small buck because they "just didn't want to shoot a doe." First time they shot a small buck I repeated the original request and explained that we had to let the small ones go in order to let them grow bigger. Second time I didn't invite them anymore. A few days before the next season they'd call and say, "Hey, what's our plan for the deer hunt this year?" I'd say, "I asked you twice to not to shoot small bucks. I let the small ones go so they'll grow bigger and we'll have some good trophies around. I wasn't letting them go for you to shoot. Good luck finding another place to hunt."

Boy, were they shocked! It's real simple, Brian. If everybody with a plan for F&G to manage for big bucks would let the small ones live we wouldn't have to ask the F&G to enact a plan. How many guys do you know who claim they want big bucks and then they shoot a dink at the end of the season?

 

[Tom]

Good points!

I was just going to post an idea for what Ithaca has already has done and is similar to what Brian is saying.

Say you decide you should wait till they're 4.5 to shoot them. Every buck hunter gets their buck aged after harvest. If its 2.5, they wait 2.5 years without hunting a buck. If its 4.5+, they can hunt next year.

If its 1.5, they wait 3.5 years, before hunting bucks again.

There's no reason to shoot a buck, if its not an older one, really. Just enjoy the hunting, eat something else, and wait till you get an older one.

 

[BrianID]

I thought I might get criticized for posting my idea with a picture of me and my little buck. I'll try to explain my reasoning behind shooting a small buck and hope it makes sense to you.
I would have shot a doe instead but the total deer numbers in this area are below management objectives and this year there was no doe hunting allowed in this area. I'm a fairly young guy that hasn't killed very many big game animals. I want to gain more experience and I believe the best way to learn something is by doing it. I also think I'm doing the deer heard a favor by passing on the larger bucks and shooting a yearling. After I kill a few more big game animals I won't feel the need to shoot a last day/meat buck. I think it would make more sense to work a few extra hours and fill the freezer with beef.
The problem is you can't get people to stop shooting the little bucks unless you change the laws.

In post #2 I said.

I think that if every unit in Idaho became a controlled hunt unit it would be better than what we have now. However, if it were possible to increase the number of big bucks without going to a controlled hunt system I think it would be better.

Turning just one or two units into controlled hunt units in my opinion is a bad idea. I don't think most hunters (including myself) were against turning unit 31 and other units that the F&G mentioned this last spring into controlled hunts because they didn't like the idea of controlled hunt units. They just didn't want the extra pressure on the surrounding units that were already over crowded and over harvested.

If your happy with a 150 class muley then the way the F&G manage mule deer right now is fine. I spend a fair amount of time scouting and hunting several different units and I see numerous 150" muleys every season but I don't see very many bucks that are 4 1/2 years and older.

 

[BrianID]

Tom,

Personally I really like your idea but it would probably be hard to get other hunters to support it. The F&G might also not like it because it would cost them extra money to do something like that.
The trick is to get an idea that very few people disagree with.

Everyone,

Thanks for all of your responses.

Do you guys think that a large majority of Idaho hunters (and other states) would like something like what I wrote in post #2?

 

[elkfarmer]

when it comes to the public, you are asking alot. like you said ealier, a small % of hunters take the highest % of deer. And a small % of those hunters would be for a controlled harvest of deer. So now, F&G has to piss off a large portion of the hunters for something they might not care about.. Large horns. Now, I love to hunt. In the last few years I have passed up several small bucks, and when I tell others of these small ones I get called a few names and how they would have been shootin. They are a good repesenitive of the large % of hunters. Brown its down. if i don't shoot it someone else will, I have heard these saying way to much.

So I believe if you want to shoot bigger deer, quit shooting small ones. Alot of you might have seen my 8 pt I shot in my post, and say look at that little thing. But where I hunt he was an above average buck. My buddy has passed up 10 - 12 little ones and is running out of time but he knows that you have to let them grow up, he has filled his frezzer with 2 does instead.

I like point restrictions, some don't and I understand why.

 

[The Hedgehog]

I think there are more recent B&C mule deer entries from SE Idaho than the entire state of MT. Which county in Idaho are you hunting? Which unit? Is it really that bad there? Are there other places in your state where you could have a better hunt?

I hear similar discussions all the time in MT. "There's no more big bucks or bulls, it ain't like the old days, we need to change the season dates or have limited quotas so our hunting would be like that in Arizona, it's all the Fish and Game's fault, blah, blah, blah."

In my opinion, complaining about the quality of the available animals, then killing a forkie is pretty hypocritical. Even stranger to then request that the state restructure the hunting regulations to keep you from doing this.

What kind of "experience" are you expecting to gain by taking an immature buck?

 

[Moosie]

Unfortunately I didn’t find a buck that I was willing put my tag on earlier in the season but I still had a very enjoyable 2004 hunting season.

I think the Majority of the hunters feel like that. They want to have fun and Come home with something. Most guys say they are trophy hunters but only 1/2 of 1% are truely trophy hunters. If that. I hear the stories day in and day out. No deer, wolfes ate the deer, I settled on...... And such. then there are those that shoot the big ones that "LUCK" upon them. very few Guys wacking the big ones in General season "HUNT" for them. They get lucky.

F&G have tried several things and are still trying several things. Onething they are doing is the Rotating unit. LIkle the Bennet Mnt area and rotating the Hunting opertunity between the 3 surrounding areas. Since I don't put in for the Draw I'm not Super familiar with it but the idea sounds good.

I'm with Greeny on the hunting thing you can't post a Small deer then Tell people to shoot 4.5 year olds. Thats like Bringing in a Beer to an AA meeting. jsut isn't effective in my opinion.

You wrote that you like the controled hunt idea then said you don't want to do it.

I think IFG are doing a Ballenced hunting plaN, some trophy units. some general units and some traditional , etc. If you look at Unit 39. there are Bucks that never get shot at in there.... unless, the Snow comes early then they move from the Tooths to the wintering ground. Fortunately for some the Wintering ground is out of 39 but for the Others.. well.... they get Smoked.

I agree that Oct 5th - Oct 31st is a Long time. Probably too long. But I would venture that if you shorted the Seasonto one week, Everyone would take that week off and more Fights, and overcrouding of people in the hills would happen. With the longer seasons some people take mid weks off and leave the Weekend warrior stuff to others. If it was a Week long only then, well, thats what ya got.

Anyways, you are a Young guy but know more About deer then most guys older, Me included. Keep up the Work on Studying them and work on a Plan. Let's figure it out and Sell it to Brad Compton, He's a Good guy and Can change the way it is.

Also, The new Guy he hired for MD Management is on your side of the State (Pokey) If I remember right ?

 

[supersider34]

Here is what I posted over at MM on your post....
I am not trying to pi$$ in anybodies wheaties but I think that is why they have draw hunts.
First off they have trophy units for the dedicated hunters that want horns. For example 49 and 50 is units right by the major towns and easy access to hunt for road hunters or meat hunters. My kids started hunting last year and this year. They can shoot either sex. To limit to every other year for trophy size animals you would put the deer population way high in these areas then you will have locals mad at the deer eating there shrubs wintering on natural wintering grounds where these upper class people built there houses. So they opened it up to a open hunt to keep the deer pop down. Every house I have sided in this area say the deer and elk pop on the wintering grounds ruin there shrubs. They come down into the edge of the cities and eat everything they can eat. So why limit some of the people that hunt just for meat access to hunt. Not everyone out there is after horns. There are people that just want meat. This is one of the reasons trophy hunters get a bad name as most of them want it all for themsleves. Better bucks means losing or dividing the hunting population. I have found nice bucks in open hunts but I hunt them strictly with bow.
Again to divde the public because some want horns is wrong. Not everyone cares about the horns. Dont get me wrong if they had a chance at a big buck they might want one but I know some that are happy with my success but they still say they would shoot a young buck over some I have harvested because the meat is better on the young ones.
To shorten seasons to where people will not be able to take off work or to hunt weekends is wrong also. Not everyone has the chance to get off work because they do not make the money to be able to. Alot of people have good jobs that will let them. Why punish someone because they dont have them good jobs. I think it is great they take there families and responsiblities first then hunt when they can. Also alot of people take there kids hunting on the weekends to get them started in hunting. This would frustrate them to the point of not wanting to hunt or give them the taste of what hunting is all about.
Point system. I have talked this over with alot of people and some even get mad because they never draw them tags. I have only drawn a antelope tag but am not mad over how the draws work. I have always have back up plans on all game I hunt. Most of the guys I have talked to about this is the ones that try for the 10 tag hunts every year. It has worked for years the way it goes that if it is not broke why fix it. My brother said he wants the point system but he draws elk every 4th year. But has never drawn on the buck tag. He would lose drawing the elk tag every 4th year because of the point system. I just feel whatever happens on this is whatever happens. A thing to remember on this is youth hunters will only get a chance when they are over the age of 18 if they put in. Most point I have read from other states is at least 6-8 points to get drawn. Is a wacky system to me.
These are my thoughts on your post

 

[Ithaca 37]

To anyone with ideas about how the deer herds and hunters should be managed: Talk's real cheap. If you really want something done, get involved with the right sportsman's group and get to work on building support for your position with other hunters. Learn how to influence and comment to the F&G on management plans and learn how to lobby at the state legislature so politicians will see that sportsman are involved in the political process.

Here's where you can start building some credibility with the F&G Dept. in Idaho. There will be at least two fairly minor and seemingly non-controversial bills introduced in the state legislature this year that will benefit F&G and sportsmen. One will extend the statute of limitations on poaching violations from two to four years and the other will increase the fine for poaching sturgeon from $100 to at least $300. The Idaho Chapter of the National Wildlife Federation is the group that is organizing the lobbying effort. They'd welcome help from any sportsmen. If you get involved in those lobbying efforts you'll meet and get to know some of the most politically effective sportsmen in Idaho. They'll also teach you how to most effectively influence F&G management plans.

These are the guys who get things accomplished. They don't just talk to other hunters about what they think should be done-----they get involved and organized and make sure things get done. Remember: talk is real cheap. You want deer managed differently? Get involved and get it done.

 

[schmalts]

Should have hunted a doe if you wanted meat. If you really want a quality animal you need to be prepared to get your meat at the store sometimes.
I killed 3 doe this year and passed on probably 50+ opportunities on bucks. Well the firearm season is over and i have tag soup for a buck, and dont care because i know at least a few of the dinkers i passed on will make it until at least next year.

 

[BrianID]

Thanks for all of your responses. I’m still open to more criticism so if you have any thoughts please add them. I’ve been busy this last week and haven’t had time to respond to all of you questions. Before I start here’s a short statement that will hopefully prevent some of you from getting the wrong idea.

Even though my responses might sound like I’m mad :MAD at some of you or your ideas, I’m really not and appreciate the feedback. I’m not trying offend any of you with my responses to your post so don’t take it the wrong way .

For those of you that are still questioning why I shot a little buck this year,

If you haven’t already, read post #9 and the rest of this post before you call me a hypocrite. After you get done reading feel free to call me a hypocrite and I won't disagree with you. I posted the picture of my little buck because it was controversial and would provide a good example. Shooting a little buck on the closing hours of my hunt does very little to decrease my personal chance at killing a mature buck in the future. A large number of hunters shooting last day bucks significantly decreases the future number of mature bucks. Hunters aren’t going to stop shooting last day bucks unless they have an incentive.

Here’s a thought for those of you that still think I’m hypocritical for shooting a little buck and complain about the lack of mature bucks. It would be just as hypocritical if not more so for me to shot a mature buck. The only way for me to not be hypocritical is to not shoot any muley buck like some hunters in SE Idaho have decided to do.

 

[BrianID]

Ithaca 37,

I know that I’m not going to get the regulations changed with “cheap talk” on an internet forum. I’m posting this question on this forum because it is an effective way to bounce my idea off other hunters so that I can improve it or abandon it.
I think the fine for poaching sturgeon needs to increase more than $200. I hope the guys that have been poaching sturgeon get caught soon and have a judge that knows how to give them an appropriate punishment.

 

[BrianID]

Elkfarmer,

The real trick is getting an idea that works and minimizes the number of people that disagree with it. 30 years ago an idea like this would have never worked. The reason why people hunt is changing and I think management practices should change as well. In New York an idea like this might never work. One problem I have is that I don’t have any numbers to back up most of my claims but I think a majority of guys that hunt mule deer in Idaho aren’t happy with the current management. If you could make more hunters happy with the mule deer management and have more mature bucks then it would be an improvement on what we have now. I really think this idea has the potential to do this (meaning that it could not that it will).

 

[BrianID]

Greenhorn,

It really isn’t as bad as I may have made it sound for you but the mule deer hunting could certainly be improved with different management practices. Overall I think the F&G does a good job and don’t think I know how to manage the big game herds better than the F&G, but I think this idea does have the potential to improve the mule deer situation. In my opinion the drought is the main reason the deer hunting in SE Idaho isn’t as good as it could be. I don’t think deer hunting in SE Idaho will ever be like it was in the good old days but after 2000 and 2001 hunting seasons, some of the old timers were talking about how it was pretty close. Unfortunately a large winterkill in SE Idaho during the winter of 2001/2002 put an end to that. Over the last three years if a guy is willing to work hard for a good buck in SE Idaho he still has a chance but like I said before this could be improved by different management practices.
I would rather not tell everyone to many details about were I hunt if that is understandable. I will tell you that I have hunted big game in 13 of the 14 counties in Eastern Idaho over the past six years as well as almost every unit in Eastern Idaho. I have hunted other parts of the state but don’t see point of driving across the state if I can find what I’m looking for closer to home. This year during archery and rifle (aka any weapon) deer season I glassed for animals in 8 different units. I get board with hunting one spot so I like to explore new places and visit places that I have hunted in the past. There was one small area in one unit that I have spent most of my archery and rifle deer hunting days as well as scouting time over the last couple of years. I haven’t killed a deer in this area yet but if I had to guess where I would kill I big buck next year it would be the spot.

I’ll try my best to answer your other questions that I put in quotes below.

In my opinion, complaining about the quality of the available animals, then killing a forkie is pretty hypocritical. Even stranger to then request that the state restructure the hunting regulations to keep you from doing this

I hope that posts #9 and #17 answer these questions good enough but I’ll try to add to that if I can. It would be just as hypocritical if not more so for me to shot a mature buck. The only way for me to not be hypocritical is to not shoot any muley buck. I know that I’m a bite of a hypocrite but the truth is shooting one deer has little affect and I have never put someone else down for shooting a little buck. I just think people that shoot a muley in Idaho every year are killing more than there fair share.

What kind of "experience" are you expecting to gain by taking an immature buck?

I have only been on about a dozen different big game hunts were either the person I’m with or myself have actually killed something. Learning how to care for game once it is down takes experience. This last buck that I killed is the first big game animal that I have killed that I can honestly say that I felt like I knew exactly what I was doing. I also had my younger brother with me and think it was a good learning experience for him as well. The deer was only a half mile from the road with easy dragging conditions. I think I’m doing the herd more of a favor by shooting a little 2 by spike than shooting one of the older bucks that I saw earlier that day. If the deer had been in a “hole” I wouldn’t have shot him because I’m generally too lazy to shoot a meat buck in a place that will take me more that a few hours to get out even if it means I’m eating tag soup that year.