Good Mule Deer Article

[Rizzy]

http://idahoforwildlife.com/Charles Kay/73-How to grow trophy mule deer.pdf

 

[robby denning]

Very good article Ron. thanks for sharing. I hate to agree that he's right. I'm surprised at how hard it is to grow big deer in much of the West and he nails why. Did you happen to see the follow up article mentioned at the end of this one?

Thanks for posting this.

 

[Rizzy]

I didn't, but I went to the parent website in the URL and he has a lot of great articles. I have never heard of that organization before, but they sound like a good one.

Now if I could just find some kind of soil composition map

 

[Lexington]

Where Have All The Flowers Gone?

http://idahoforwildlife.com/Charles...ay-Jun_09 where have all the flowers gone.pdf

 

[mtnrunner260]

Rizzy-

NRCS Web Soil Survey. Mostly Ag land but may get lucking and find some info there.

 

[Shrek]

After reading the articles I'm of the opinion that the mule deer is a narrow specialist and is poor at adapting to a changing world. Sheep , cattle , elk , and whitetail deer are going to eventually squeeze them out . Like the steel industry in America they will not survive but for a few niche places without high cost artificial environments maintained to protect them from the competition. Over 99 percent of all the species that have lived on earth are extinct and sadly the mule deer doesn't look to maintain its one percenter status.

 

[belly-deep]

Interesting. That explains a lot of what I have seen in some of my hunting spots.

 

[Lexington]

Here are some of my thoughts after reading the articles:

- Western Fish & Game Departments seem to be more 'addicted' to hunting fees now than ever before... preference points, resident & non-resident fees, number of tags offered, landowner/outfitter/governor/auction tags, etc. THEY ARE MORE FOCUSED ON BUDGETARY CONCERNS THAN ANTLER GROWTH.
I'm not trying to rant, but think about the opportunities certain decisions now could provide in the future...

- Demand for Elk tags is higher.... these Fish & Game Departments are more focused on bull-hunting opportunities that anything else. Just look at the amounts of money spent in raffles and auctions... and the budgets/annual contributions to RMEF vs MDF... a lot more eyes focused on a Trophy Elk than a BIG bucks.
We need more trophy-buck hunters to come into the fold...

- An interesting recent issue is year-round pressure on these animals... people are no longer in the woods just during hunting season, but shed hunters on the winter range, ATV + other user groups offloading, etc. These animals have no doubt needed to change their natural patterns.

Now I don't consider myself much of a buck-hunter, but I do hope to someday have a poke a a true monarch (or two)...
I'm glad people are writing articles like these to disseminate the information and it's great to increase awareness.

 

[Jason Snyder]

After reading the articles I'm of the opinion that the mule deer is a narrow specialist and is poor at adapting to a changing world. Sheep , cattle , elk , and whitetail deer are going to eventually squeeze them out . Like the steel industry in America they will not survive but for a few niche places without high cost artificial environments maintained to protect them from the competition. Over 99 percent of all the species that have lived on earth are extinct and sadly the mule deer doesn't look to maintain its one percenter status.

There might be too much Chicken Little in this statement.

Mule deer will not become extinct, nor do they automatically succumb to competition from other species. When the habitat and evironment favors mule deer over whitetails, the mule deer do fine. When it begins to favor whitetails, then the mule deer decrease.

I live in and hunt in areas that have a mix of both. I agree that whitetails are much more adaptable.

I think what many perceive as poor adaptability is actually more a reflection of subtle changes in range conditions. I did not yet read the 2nd article. A myriad of factors have combined to affect mule deer, most notably foothill/winter range development and fragmentation, change in range conditions, and fire suppression.

Add in the continued trend of better optics, longer range rifles, and more focus on "trophy deer" and it's not hard to see why large mule deer arer hard to find.

 

[Jason Snyder]

I'm going to go ahead and put the crosshairs on myself and make this statement. I could care less if F&G agencies focus on producing larger bucks. I don't really care for the increased emphasis put on trophy hunting nowadays.

Yes, I like seeing big animals as much as anyone. However, I'd much rather see opportunity. My firm belief is that if you manage for healthy buck to doe ratios and avoid feel good measures like minimum point restrictions, and if you provide security for the animals through measures such as season timing, roadless areas/seasonal closures, and work to increase quality of both summer and winter range, then the buck issue will take care of itself.

Bigger deer are grown by limiting harvest. This is only done by limiting access and/or limiting hunter opportunity. I have a hard time finding the justification in limiting hunter opportunity in order to kill bigger deer.

YMMV.

 

[William Hanson (live2hunt)]

I'm going to go ahead and put the crosshairs on myself and make this statement. I could care less if F&G agencies focus on producing larger bucks. I don't really care for the increased emphasis put on trophy hunting nowadays.

Yes, I like seeing big animals as much as anyone. However, I'd much rather see opportunity. My firm belief is that if you manage for healthy buck to doe ratios and avoid feel good measures like minimum point restrictions, and if you provide security for the animals through measures such as season timing, roadless areas/seasonal closures, and work to increase quality of both summer and winter range, then the buck issue will take care of itself.

Bigger deer are grown by limiting harvest. This is only done by limiting access and/or limiting hunter opportunity. I have a hard time finding the justification in limiting hunter opportunity in order to kill bigger deer.

YMMV.

^^^^ this

Managing for antlers does not necessarily mean the herds are best managed for health. Also I'd rather have the opportunity to hunt a smaller animal than have to wait to hunt a larger one because of less opportunity.

 

[velvetfvr]

How can I read the article? Links don't work for me

 

[robby denning]

Jason,
even as a big deer hunter myself, I don't really disagree with you. To grow big deer by only limiting permits means a whole bunch of people won't be able to hunt and there is a whole bunch of people who don't care about big antlers.

Idaho did this in unit 56 in the early 90's, displaced a bunch of hunter to other units, grew a bunch of big deer only a 150, then 100, then fewer people could hunt. F&G finally gave up and opened it back up to general. Not that that is better as now its back to being bad.

I agree with the author that 15 bucks/100 does is too low to have a healthy herd (if you care about fawn and buck survival) but to manage Western deer herds like Gunnison Basin, The Strip, or the Henry's leaves a pile of kids, grandpas, and meat hunters not able to hunt.

I certainly don't have the answers other than there has to be a balance between trophy management and kill 'em all management...

 

[Rizzy]

Thnx, I'll check it out.

Rizzy-

NRCS Web Soil Survey. Mostly Ag land but may get lucking and find some info there.

 

[Rizzy]

Ultimately, I like opportunity over quality as well and I think that's what the FG departments strive for. But I also like to see some units set aside and managed right for trophy potential, especially if we are playing the odds or banking points for them.

Both articles do explain a lot of what I have noticed in my areas too. We need to harvest more Elk in Idaho I guess Wolves do a great job of this but there is too much "collateral damage" to come out ahead in the end.

 

[Jason Snyder]

But I also like to see some units set aside and managed right for trophy potential, especially if we are playing the odds or banking points for them.

And this right here is the heart of what bothers me most about this. Please don't take this as any attack directed towards you, it's simply the philosophy that bothers me.

If a unit is taken out of general hunt status and converted to permit only, as a hunter that really isn't all that interested in trophy permits, I have lost opportunity. You have gained opportunity.

I sacrificed something for you to get something. If you don't draw the permit, you'll hunt a general area. What did you sacrifice in order to have better trophy opportunity?

I firmly believe that there should be some "risk" associated with trophy permits. If you don't draw, you don't necessarily get carte blanch access to the general units.

JMO.

 

[Rizzy]

Yeah good point, I didn't word that properly.

What I meant was the units that are already set aside for quality I'm fine with and some of them should probably be managed better to get maximum quality.

 

[Jason Snyder]

Yeah good point, I didn't word that properly.

What I meant was the units that are already set aside for quality I'm fine with and some of them should probably be managed better to get maximum quality.

Also, one needs to be careful not to get too hung up on "maximum quality", whatever that is. Here in Washington, we give out a small handful of tags for people to hunt branched antler elk in the Blue Mountains. A permit holder has a very legitimate chance at 400" bulls in many units.

How many permits are being sacrificed in order to grow 60" of antlers? How many permits could be issued and sustain appropriate bull/cow ratios and produce herd bulls in the 350" class? You know some of the bulls are dying of old age in order to attain 400" bulls on any regular basis.

I'd much rather see 15 folks get a crack at 300" herd bulls, with the occasional 330-350" bull, than see 4 hunters trying to shoot 400" bulls.

Again, sorry for the rant. This, as you can tell, is somewhat of a hot button issue with me.

 

[Rizzy]

Also, one needs to be careful not to get too hung up on "maximum quality"

Agreed, could be antler size or just seeing a lot of mule deer on your hunt.

 

[Shrek]

Also, one needs to be careful not to get too hung up on "maximum quality", whatever that is. Here in Washington, we give out a small handful of tags for people to hunt branched antler elk in the Blue Mountains. A permit holder has a very legitimate chance at 400" bulls in many units.

How many permits are being sacrificed in order to grow 60" of antlers? How many permits could be issued and sustain appropriate bull/cow ratios and produce herd bulls in the 350" class? You know some of the bulls are dying of old age in order to attain 400" bulls on any regular basis.

I'd much rather see 15 folks get a crack at 300" herd bulls, with the occasional 330-350" bull, than see 4 hunters trying to shoot 400" bulls.

Again, sorry for the rant. This, as you can tell, is somewhat of a hot button issue with me.

I'm in complete agreement with Jason. I certainly don't judge my hunt by antler size and I don't have a point in any state. I hunt of the experience of being out there and meat. If there happens to be exceptional antlers thats great but all I really want is a mature animal to eat and a great time had. I don't even take many pictures and it's rarer still for me to be in one. I'm all for more opportunity and less exclusivity. When I see pictures of giant animals like Evan's 400"+ elk from a general unit I think " wow ! What an animal and hunter " but when I see someone with a giant animal from a trophy management unit I just think "wow! What an animal". Guys buying governors tags and then shooting a stud is way less than impressive to me. I'd love to see trophy management go the way of Jim Crow segregation. Abolished and considered morally unacceptable.