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.
^^^^ thisI'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.
Rizzy-
NRCS Web Soil Survey. Mostly Ag land but may get lucking and find some info there.
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.
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"
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.