• Just a heads up: On November 13th, we'll be performing some updates on the website. You might experience some unresponsive pages, though we’re hoping for minimal disruption. Thanks for your understanding!

15 bucks per 100 doe's.. really?

D

dreaminbouthuntin

Guest
Just got off the id fun and games website. In the headlines section there is a statment from fish and game saying all idaho deer units are at least at 15 bucks per 100 doe's.. i call b.s. so, they count all units every year? No. Also stated all units are meeting or above objectives.. really? No. Sorry. Not buying it. Especially after the hard winter last year and predation issues. Elk are also meeting objectives in most units.. well skipatty do da. Most units, huh. Well smiles all round. In the mean time, the bull they spit out some will take their words, others like me who know its B.S. due to simple facts like cutting tags last year DUE TO LACK OF DEER AND ELK! Gee, did they think we'd forget? Glad those numbers rebounded so quickly. (Sarcasm)
Does anyone else buy their stupidity when they say deer/elk numbers are good and meeting objectives or do people remeber them cutting tags due to lack of game?
Just for reference on some of you that will spout there are plenty of deer and elk you just have to get off your ass and find them.. dont bother. Thats not the purpose of the thread. Purpose is to recognize fish and game are 2faced in there accuracy of numbers depending on how much money they need. 'Ya sure.. come one come all outta staters, we got tons of game.. btw, bring your money here! We need it'
I get sick of the basic lying by this organization. I have been lucky enough to fill all my tags each year, but lying about numbers of game just for money is unacceptable. Imo, i think thats why they are doing it. For money.
 
Same ole song and dance, it's not going to change anytime soon. Going to one of their meetings is a joke. There may be a 15 to 100 doe ratio but if you only have 115 deer you're still going no where!!!! It can't be they're doing it for the money though because they're running out of it very fast, thats the only place I'll disagree with you. Thought I'd give you a pat on the back as very few opportunists on here will!LMAO
 
Do you have any links to your numbers? I did a quick look on the F&G website and can't find any population parameters since 2008.
 
Either way whether or not they know how to count i feel that 15:100 is too low anyway. Idaho needs to set their goals a little higher if they think our herds are doing well.

I agree about going to the meetings, its a place to vent that goes no where.

Travis
www.RidgelineOutdoors.com
 
HAS ANYONE HEARD THE TRUTH ON HOW THEY ARRIVE AT THE RATIO ? WHAT FORMULA DO THEY USE ?

I HAVE SEEN INFORMATION FOR WYOMING, AND IT GOES LIKE THIS

LET'S SAY WE COUNT 100 DOES AND 50 FAWNS AND 10 DEER WITH HORNS. THEY WILL COUNT HALF THE FAWNS AS BUCKS WHICH WILL BE 25 ,,,, ADD THAT WITH THE 10 WITH HORNS GIVES YOU 35 BUCKS

35/100 THERE WAS A PRETTY GOOD READ IN THE MM WYOMING FORUM ON THIS

THE MULE DEER HERD IN IDAHO IS HALF OF WHAT IT SHOULD BE IN MOST UNITS..........
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-16-12 AT 07:21PM (MST)[p]IDF&G uses a model of some sort where they count whatever game animals they can find then times it by 10. That's how they get thier inflated Elk/ deer herd totals.

15 bucks per 100 does, yeah right.
It's funny how they use this model for ungulates. Wolves are a different story. They wont count a single wolf or any number of wolves unless they are in a group of wolves that contain an alpha male and female that has pups that live past February/ March?.
Only when they meet the above criteria are they a pack and only then are they counted. That seems right huh?

The ungulate numbers are much lower that reported and the Wolf numbers are severely deflated IMHO.

It's all about money.





>HAS ANYONE HEARD THE TRUTH ON
>HOW THEY ARRIVE AT THE
>RATIO ? WHAT FORMULA DO
>THEY USE ?
>
>I HAVE SEEN INFORMATION FOR WYOMING,
>AND IT GOES LIKE THIS
>
>
>LET'S SAY WE COUNT 100 DOES
>AND 50 FAWNS AND 10
>DEER WITH HORNS. THEY WILL
>COUNT HALF THE FAWNS AS
>BUCKS WHICH WILL BE 25
>,,,, ADD THAT WITH THE
>10 WITH HORNS GIVES YOU
>35 BUCKS
>
>35/100 THERE WAS A PRETTY
>GOOD READ IN THE MM
>WYOMING FORUM ON THIS
>
>THE MULE DEER HERD IN IDAHO
>IS HALF OF WHAT IT
>SHOULD BE IN MOST UNITS..........
>
 
It is so far beyond ridiculous that it isn't even funny anymore. The worst part is that at the scoping meetings, they make statements like:
- it was a bad winter, there isn't much else we can do (how about cut tag numbers!)
- non resident tags are down because the blogs and people like Eastmans is slamming the quality of big game in Idaho (sure, couldn't be that it actually sucks and way overpriced)
If there intent is to drive hunters away, they are doing a damn fine job. I never thought it would come to it, but I am so digusted with the deer hunting I don't think it is even worth going out anymore even as a resident. Never thought it would get that bad.
 
IT IS A SAD TRUTH !!! MEETING ALL PROJECTED LEVELS.

THIS HAS BECOME A STATEMENT THAT MAKES ME WANT TO VOMIT.

ALL BET THE BUCK TO DOE RATIO IN 45 RIGHT NOW IS BETTER. WHACK THE ANTLERLESS IF YOU WANT A BETTER RATIO. A LATE HUNT FOR 500 TAGS IN THAT UNIT SHOULD DO IT.

PRETTY SOON THERE WILL BE 6 DEER IN THE UNIT AND THE F&G WILL BE BRAGGING ABOUT HOW GOOD THE RATIO IS.....1 BUCK FOR EVERY 5 DOES
 
What the Hell you guys dont believe our Honest F&G folks How shocking !!! these guys couldnt acurately count their fingers & toes !!! I was in 45 horn hunting this past weekend I saw 2 deer carcasses in like 10 miles of walking.. we also saw around 300 head of deer & maybe 20 bucks total !!! even for a winter area that isnt even close to their #s !! 22-23-31-32-32A-39-40-41-42-or 43 are all so far below #s it is not funny anymore..the 15 bucks per 100 does # is supposed to be Mature bucks.. I have hunted my ass off last season with 3 other hard core hunters & not a single area we hunted had what anyone would call a decent buck population !! years ago the warden out of Weiser said when they did their herd counts they used a 3 to 1 figure they saw 1 buck & assumed there were 3 that they didnt see !! BS is what these Ra Tards are trying to get us to believe ...SO how do we get these Idiots to pull their heads out ??? the meetings are a waste of time ...lets figure out a way to get our herds inn check before its too late
 
Couldn't agree with you more! What a spin they try to pass off. They must think we as hunters have the memories of goldfish. Did we not just experience one of the worst hunting seasons on record? Ask most any hunter around, nonresident or resident and the story is the same- no deer to hunt!
Now that we are having a mild winter the fawn survival should be good this year; what a perfect time to make some aggressive changes in tag allocation or controlled hunts to capitalize on a potential boost to the deer population. Instead, all the Fish and Game will say this year of the next is that the herds have recovered thanks to one mild winter. Nonsense!
 
Glaf to know I am not the only one that thinks this is all about the money!! Typical Governmental bullshit. They think they can feed us ##### and we have to swallow it!! Someone has to be responsible in Boise, let us proceed to get his ass out of there!!!
 
I made an account just so i could comment on this thread...I know it was a rough season for some people, and maybe its just me in here, but i saw more bucks and bulls than i have seen in any of my last 8 years hunting. most of you say it was rough because it was a rough rifle season right? yes i would agree it was a rough rifle season in most of the places we rifle hunt (arrowrock, blacks creek...) HOWEVER, 3 weeks after seeing one doe in unit 39 the last week rifle hunting, i saw literally 20-25 bucks in one day archery hunting. easily above the 15 buck ratio. I am not arguing that we should have more deer than we do. I also am not arguing that fish and game are not as honest as they should be. But i am saying the 15:100 ratio is easily possible in all the places i hunt...
 
There might be 15 bucks per 100 does in places, but I think 15 does per 100 does is way too low of a target.
 
This is a link to the F&G's newspaper that was out last May. It talks about how the F&G counts the animals and talks a little about the models they use.

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/fgNews/2011may.pdf

Also this is a post by dreaminbouthuntin from last fall in regards to the number of animals... "Tell you what.. i just got back from a deer hunt and saw more big bucks than i have ever seen. All were 180"+ and saw around 20 head that hit that mark in 5 days of hunting. Im not being sarcastic or argumentative. Just the facts. Doe's were not in short supply either. Are some units worse off than others, yes. But, there are still areas in idaho with big bucks in big numbers."
 
Total number of deer is the problem, ratios are fine and dandy to talk about after you actually get a total head count up in some areas where you don't feel like you are hunting an endangered species.
 
Idabow thanks for the link that is helpful. I have been reading research papers the last few years and they have been helpful in understanding what these stats mean as well as the diff between how biologists and many of us seem to think.

Here are links to a few places:

https://research.idfg.idaho.gov/wildlife/Wildlife Technical Reports/Forms/Show All Reports.aspx Idaho research reports including deer as recent as 2010

http://wildlife.state.co.us/SiteCol...mmals/Deer/EffectOfLimitedAntleredHarvest.pdf Research report that says buck harvest only limits buck quality not quantity or herd health.

http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/v..."mark resight population estimates mule deer" Research paper by a USU student that explains the problems western game managers have doing population studies. Basically very expensive to do it right.

So before we assume how easy it is to fix things or what the causes are as armchair biologists/managers, maybe a little research might help your argument. Seriously, coming on here and saying how you couldn't find a buck at all to shoot is not really evidence that the population has collapsed. I'm not the best hunter and saw over a dozen bucks in a gen unit with my son in two days with only two being spikes/forkes(which made sense since no yearlings survived) and I saw a hundred bucks in a late season hunt.
 
THE IDAHO MULE DEER HERD IS HALF OF WHAT IT SHOULD BE IN MOST UNITS.

THE IDAHO MULE DEER HERD IS HALF OF WHAT IT WAS 30 YEARS AGO.

THE IDAHO MULE DEER HERD IS IN DECLINE, I THINK THE F & G WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE REDUCTION.

COMING OFF WORST WINTER IN 20 YEARS AND FOLLOW IT UP WITH A LATE DOE HUNT IN 45 IS A PRIME EXAMPLE OF THIS REDUCTION MOVEMENT, NOT TO MENTION THE ANTLERLESS TAGS THAT WHERE NOT CUT TO BEGIN WITH.

2 CENTS
 
BPK, THE LAST THING MOST FOLKS WANT TO HERE IS THE BIOLOGISTS/MANAGERS ARE THE SMART ONES AND EVERYONE ELSE IS STUPID AND CAN'T POSSABLY KNOW WHAT THE ANSWERS ARE TO THE WILDLIFE PROBLEMS. HELL MOST FOLKS ON HERE DON'T EVEN HAVE A DEGREE ,,, HOW CAN THEY EVEN HAVE AN OPINION ON THIS VERY DIFFICULT PROBLEM. " RIGHT " I THINK THAT IS WHAT YOU BELIEVE....

WHAT I SEE ON JUST THIS FORUM IS ALOT OF FOLKS WHO CARE ABOUT OUR BIG GAME HERDS AND THEY ARE VERY UP TO SPEED ON THE HERD HEALTH AND SIZE. THEY SPEND A LARGE AMOUNT OF TIME OUT IN THE FIELD AND ARE IN TUNE TO WHAT IS GOING ON AND HOW TODAYS HERD COMPARES WITH PAST YEARS. THEY ARE LIVING THE RESEARCH AND THEY KNOW HOW TO FIX THE PROBLEMS. THE MOST FLUSTRATING THING ABOUT THIS WHOLE THING IS THAT THE FIXES ARE VERY SIMPLE. THIS DOES NOT REQUIRE A 5 YEAR STUDY.

THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT MOST FOLKS WANT THE DEER HERD POPULATION BACK UP TO LEVELS IT WAS IN THE 70s AND 80s OR CLOSE TO THAT LEVEL WITH MORE MATURE BUCKS. THE F & G IS ON A DIFFERENT PAGE. THEY ARE SAYING THERE MEETING ALL PROJECTED LEVELS AND ARE HAPPY WITH THE HERD SIZE. WE DISAGREE, AND THE HUNTING COMMUNITY ACROSS THE UNITED STATES IS LOOKING AT IDAHO AND THEY ARE LAUGHING IN DISGUST AT HOW THE STATE IS BEING MANAGED. GO TAKE A LOOK IN THE B & C RECORD BOOKS AND LOOK AT WHAT CAME OUT OF IDAHO SINCE THE 50s AND WHAT HAS COME OUT IN THE LAST 15 YEARS,,, HUGE DIFFERENCE,,,I BELIEVE IT IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE HERD SIZE. MORE DEER , MORE BUCKS AND WHEN YOU HAVE MORE BUCKS YOU WILL HAVE OLDER BUCKS....

STOP THE ANTLERLESS HUNTS FOR FEW YEARS

STOP SHOOTING THE LITTLE FORKY'S FOR A FEW YEARS

START WHACKING THE DOGS AND CATS IN A MORE AGGRESSIVE MANNER

THE FIXES ARE VERY SIMPLE.

I LOVED THE POST ON THIS FORUM AWHILE BACK ABOUT THIS GUY SAYING THAT EVERYONE ON HERE WAS STUPID AND THE BIOLOGISTS HAVE A DEGREE AND THERE FOR WE SHOULD FOLLOW THEM BECAUSE THEY DO STUDIES AND THEY HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS. HE ALSO MADE THE COMMENT THAT THE DOE HUNT IN 45 WAS GOOD AND THAT HE SAW NO VALUE IN STOPPING DOE HUNTS TO INCREASE THE POPULATION. HE REFERED TO THE UNITS HE HUNTS AND STATED THAT THEY HAD STOPPED THE DOE HUNTS IN THOSE UNITS SEVERAL YEARS AGO AND THAT HE HAD NOT NOTICED ANY INCREASE IN POPULATION. THERE FOR IT DOES NOT WORK. " REALLY " WHAT HE DID NOT KNOW WAS THAT THE DEER HE HUNTED MIGRATE TO A DIFFERENT UNIT FOR THE WINTER AND THAT IS WHERE THEY GET HARVESTED. ON THE ANTLERLESS TAG. I GUESS HE THOUGHT THE DEER STAY UP IN THE HIGH COUNTRY ALL YEAR. THE BIOLOGIST AND HIM ARE BUDDIES AND I BELIEVE THEY THINK ALIKE.

MY 2 CENTS
 
"BPK, THE LAST THING MOST FOLKS WANT TO HERE IS THE BIOLOGISTS/MANAGERS ARE THE SMART ONES AND EVERYONE ELSE IS STUPID AND CAN'T POSSABLY KNOW WHAT THE ANSWERS ARE TO THE WILDLIFE PROBLEMS."

i'd like you to point out where this was stated or implied? not even close to what he was saying, and i'll bet you a sack lunch thats not what he meant. if you think a comment like "do a little research" means youre stupid.....well, then, i cant help you there.
 
>This is a link to the
>F&G's newspaper that was out
>last May. It talks about
>how the F&G counts the
>animals and talks a little
>about the models they use.
>
>
>http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/fgNews/2011may.pdf
>
>Also this is a post by
>dreaminbouthuntin from last fall in
>regards to the number of
>animals...
>"Tell you what.. i just
>got back from a deer
>hunt and saw more big
>bucks than i have ever
>seen. All were 180"+ and
>saw around 20 head that
>hit that mark in 5
>days of hunting. Im not
>being sarcastic or argumentative. Just
>the facts. Doe's were not
>in short supply either. Are
>some units worse off than
>others, yes. But, there are
>still areas in idaho with
>big bucks in big numbers."
>

Hey Idahoe.. in a controlled unit by the way.. not a general. Get your facts straight and quit spinning crap. If you had also bothered to quote more of what i stated i also said there are only about 2 units in Idaho i could say that for. 2. Spin that #####. Your like a liberal left wing media, spin ##### the way you wanna spin it. Good god.
 
Dreaminbouthuntin. There was a post about the condition of the animals in Idaho. You replied with that. You only went on to clarify your statements after several people, myself included, suggested that you might be full of it. You also did NOT go on to say that it was only a few units. You said it was a draw unit.

My facts are straight, this was a direct quote from you. I don't understand why you are getting so upset.
 
No, you nit picked what you wanted and tried to slander my stance. Thats how i took it. You didnt bother posting anything else i said, now you admit after i brought it up to you that ya, i did clarify it was a controlled unit and generals are not in as good of shape. Im not mad, but what i dont like is nit picking posts to make it the way you want it to look. Media does that plenty enough. Dont need to get on here and have the same crap happen. I have stated numerous times my stance on Idaho in general. No reason for sportsmen in common to smack eachother around. Shouldnt we be working with eachother to make it better? Us outdoorsmen have enough problems with the tree huggin, wolf lovin, enviros to be fighting amongst ourselves.
 
DEEPFORK, HERE IS WHAT SET ME OFF ON MY RANT.

So before we assume how easy it is to fix things or what the causes are as armchair biologists/managers, maybe a little research might help your argument.

WE HAVE ALREADY DONE THE 5 YEAR STUDY AND THE RESEARCH. THE BIOLOGISTS/MANAGERS KNOW WHAT THE ANSWERS ARE TO THE PROBLEMS JUST LIKE THE REST OF US

IT'S PLAIN TO SEE ....THE F & G ARE PARALYZED

THIS REALLY IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE.

CAN WE USE THE SAME THINKING TO GROW A DEER HERD AS WE USE TO RAISE A CATTLE HERD...DO YOU THINK THE RANCHER WHACKS HIS BREEDING FEMALES WHEN HE IS GROWING HIS HERD

DO YOU THINK HE PROTECTS HIS HERD FROM PREDATORS WHEN HE IS GROWING THE HERD.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-18-12 AT 07:23PM (MST)[p]It couldn't "possably" be simpler, we need to do something about the "hurds" and the "prediters"! I don't need no stinking "digree" to know that!
 
So i went up near lowman to wolf hunt today, and was very happily surprised to see the number of elk in the area. hundreds and hundreds for sure. Im always hesitant, to say a thousand, but it was close. I did see alot of mule deer too, some nice herds, but not what i would like. Also talked to the fine people at sourdough lodge, and they said this winter they have seen less wolves and more elk than they have in years. So at least something to look forward too...
 
MULEY204,

Please do not put words in my mouth about what I said or intended.

You have said a lot and I could spend a few hours writing a very long and detailed response so my words aren't twisted, but I will simplify it to this.

You say the solution is simple and Fish and Game are just paralyzed. My answer is that when dealing with an appointed commission on one side, politicians on the other side, a public that has said they care more about hunting every year than trophy potential, and trophy hunters on the other side who want more restrictions is anything but simple. The tools they have to use are not simple. Balancing all the demand with a budget that is depleting is not simple. The REAL WORLD unfortunately is not simple.

You and I want much of the same things, I would just like to get the argument on our side in a place were we might get some changes made. Based on a logical and supported position. We will get no where without Fish and Games cooperation by the way.

Now if you want to get into a personal heated argument and argue point by point I would be happy to. I will leave this with one last point. If it is so simple then why is every other state in the west also trying to get back to their glory days of the past just like Idaho?

"Just my two cents"
 
BKPhunter- I think you nailed it, the F&G has it tough trying to please everyone. At some point I hope they realize that you can't please everyone, and eventually decisions will have to be made based on whats best for the game herds.

And ultimately if the herds increase in numbers it should be that much easier to please everyone with more of the resource to go around.

MULEY204- I agree with a lot of your opinions: Stop killing the factories and more predator control...but could please take the caps lock off.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-19-12 AT 09:29AM (MST)[p]>
>
>And ultimately if the herds increase
>in numbers
>
>
>


I can agree with this statement. Do whatever it takes to bring numbers up and do whatever it takes to keep them there, no matter what opportunist or trophy hunters say!!!

F&G haven't done what it takes after a winter kill to help numbers recover and bow down to unlimited otc tags and doe hunts no matter what. There's no money in it as has been proven in the last 20yrs, so why not do what it takes to recover the numbers.
 
WE DO NOT NEED ANOTHER 5 YEAR STUDY OR MORE RESEARCH.

THAT STUFF WAS DONE ALONG TIME AGO.

STOP KILLING THE ANTLERLESS

START KILLING THE DOGS AND CATS

LEAVE THOSE LITTLE FORKY'S WITH MILK ON THERE LIPS,, ALONE !!!

THIS IS A STARTING POINT AND AN EASY FIX



1) PROVEN METHOD FOR GROWING YOUR HERD - STOP KILLING THE ONES MAKING THE BABIES.
 
"WE DO NOT NEED ANOTHER 5 YEAR STUDY OR MORE RESEARCH."
"THAT STUFF WAS DONE ALONG TIME AGO."

Wow!!! I can't believe you just put those two sentences together when trying to make an arguement.

Back to the buck:doe ratio arguement. Most of us don't count even close to the amount of deer necessary to determine the true buck:doe ratio of a herd. 20, 50, 100, 200...is not a large enough sample size.

I'll trust what the F&G reports on this stat
 
>
>
>WE DO NOT NEED ANOTHER 5
>YEAR STUDY OR MORE RESEARCH.
>
>
>THAT STUFF WAS DONE ALONG TIME
>AGO.
>
>STOP KILLING THE ANTLERLESS
>
>START KILLING THE DOGS AND CATS
>
>
>LEAVE THOSE LITTLE FORKY'S WITH MILK
>ON THERE LIPS,, ALONE !!!
>
>
>THIS IS A STARTING POINT AND
>AN EASY FIX
>
>
>
>1) PROVEN METHOD FOR GROWING YOUR
>HERD - STOP KILLING THE
>ONES MAKING THE BABIES.


You are just wrong in your approach. You didn't answer me, if it's such a simple fix then tell me why every other state in the west has half the herd they did.

In california they have not had anything close to a reasonable doe/fawn hunt in 40 years and no state has seen a bigger drop in its mule deer hunting. The entire state has a 2-pt minimum with no spikes allowed and yet they have a hunters success statewide of approx 10%.

Part of the problem is that things change and your so called easy fixes aren't as easy as you think, which is why my original post was about doing a little research on your own to figure out just how complex it can be.

BTW, when more than half your constituency says OPPORTUNITY is there number one priority then you need to listen. You start cutting back on this and the politicians will start hearing about it and ##### rolls downhill.

Yes if the population gets to a certain point they should cut back on antlerless tags, but we didn't see this drop over the past 5 years because of shooting does, it was the weather.

Look at the math. If a herd is say 10,000 animals(ex. Unit 39). 85% are does. They have a good year when there population is depressed, then as many as 90% of those does can produce a fawn, 7650. In a good year 80% of those survive is 6120. Half of those are bucks and half are does, so 3060 each. In a bad year like 2011, we ended up with less than 500 each. Frankly guys this is what will get us back. Bringing back the 500 does, would have only added 300.

It is that dynamic that I believe weighs in on F&G decision on how much to cut back on those antlerless and buck tags in bad times, but remember they don't have a lot of time to confirm the severity of the winter etc. Last year a lot of those deer didn't die until APRIL.

Plus, you are just crazy if you think we can support the herd of the hay days. Things are just different, and they were probably over carrying capacity which is why it crashed so hard when it did in 1992, not because we didn't truck in a billion bales of alfalfa.

I agree that the herds got low enough last year that even despite this easy winter this year we should cut back on anlerless tags, especially non-youth tags. Antler restrictions have never been shown to be a benefit and only leave you with weird new genetic traits like bucks that stay 3-points. We will need to have the majority voice want more restrictions on bucks to get the quality up and ALL be willing to have less access, likely in the form of 1) Pick your weapon 2) Pick your zone and stay there 3) No OTC, draws only to limit hunters. This will all cost more so we will need to carry more of the burden in the costs of our Deer and Elk tags. We are already the way cheaper than the other western states.

So again I agree on a lot of the same issues: Need to improve the population and would like to improve the age class of the bucks. I'm just saying it is not so SIMPLE.
 
>"WE DO NOT NEED ANOTHER 5
>YEAR STUDY OR MORE RESEARCH."
>
>"THAT STUFF WAS DONE ALONG TIME
>AGO."
>
>Wow!!! I can't believe you just
>put those two sentences together
>when trying to make an
>arguement.
>
>Back to the buck:doe ratio arguement.
>Most of us don't count
>even close to the amount
>of deer necessary to determine
>the true buck:doe ratio of
>a herd. 20, 50, 100,
>200...is not a large enough
>sample size.
>
>I'll trust what the F&G reports
>on this stat


I don't trust what F&G put out in their counts, not that I've watch IF&G do their counts, but I've sat in an watched biologists(with big long college degrees, fact is one of them is a big shot in Utah DWR now) figure up their counts on a well known private ranch in Utah, counts that were turned into the state. These guys do it twice a year, so none of this once every 5yrs. What was done with those counts were absolute BS, a bad guess at best, adding on numbers to areas they thought were low, and doing it on a regular basis. Then being in the field from day light until dark, with the best glass avaliable for weeks, and struggle to find the numbers of deer suggested, let alone find mature bucks. This being on a far smaller scale than IF&G has to work with, you would think their counts could be more precise. So if IF&G use any where near the same method of counting why should any of us trust their counts.

And for Jake and Brymoore I'll say this is for the areas that I've spend alot of time in, not areas I'm not familar with!!
 
THAT'S FUNNY...LOL THOSE TWO SENTENCES DON'T GO TOGETHER VERY WELL.... MULEYS24SEVEN THANKS FOR POINTING THAT OUT.

THE POINT IS, THE STUDY HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE AND NOW IT'S TIME TO FIX THE PROBLEM.

EVERY TIME I HERE WE NEED ANOTHER STUDY I JUST SEE MONEY BEING SPENT TO STUDY SOMETHING WE ALREADY HAVE THE ANSWERS TO.

BPKHUNTER, THE FIXES YOU MENTIONED WILL WORK, YOUR ON THE RIGHT TRACK AND THERE SIMPLE FIXES.

IF ALL WE WANT IS TO INCREASE THE MULE DEER POPULATION IN MOST UNITS AND PUT SOME AGE ON OUR BUCKS THEN WHAT YOU HAVE MENTIONED WOULD BE A GREAT START.

CALIFORNIA COULD HELP THERE HERD BY HUNTING THE MOUNTAIN LION. I THINK THAT CAT HAS BEEN PROTECTED SINCE 1970.

BIG DOE HUNT IN LATE 60S UNLIMITED TAGS I THINK, AND THEN THE LION ISSUE IN 1970 AND THEN IN THE CENTRAL PART OF THE STATE UNITS D5 THRU D8 THERE WAS A HUGE PROBLEM WITH THE NEW ASIAN COMMUNITY WHO WHERE POACHING AT A HIGH RATE THIS HAS BEEN IN THE LAST 20 YEARS . THERE PROBLEMS ARE EASY FIXES AS WELL.

THE PROBLEM IS THE F & G ...THEY DO NOT WANT TO DOUBLE THE MULE DEER POPULATION IN MOST UNITS ANYWHERE .

SOME FOLKS BELIEVE THAT THE MULE DEER IS ON IT'S WAY OUT, A STEADY DECLINE UNTIL HE IS GONE. THAT'S SAD

YOU GUYS ARE GREAT, I APPRECIATE ALL OF YOU.... THE CAPS ARE ON BECAUSE I AM A LAZY TYPIER AND I CAN SEE THE BIG LETTERS BETTER.
 
BPK, Californa is not a good state to compare to for doe hunts or any deer numbers or drop in numbers of deer. I have a good friend that has been the County trapper for the west side of Fresno Co. for 30yrs + (retired now but still helps out on a part time basis) and there's not to many poeple that don't know that Californa has a hugh lion and coyote problem over the entire state, not a good comparision.
 
Destroyer350,

I agree that California is not a good example for Idaho, but it isn't because of the Mtn Lion or anything to do with Coyotes. The herds were going downhill way before the lion laws were changed and coyotes are as legal to kill there as any western state. There problem is habitat and the fact there is no food for the deer in their historic range so most of the deer live down low on private ground we would consider wintering grounds, year round.

But my point is just making a simple decision not to kill does has not helped them out and they havn't allowed hunters to even kill .01% of their antlerless deer in 40 years.

I don't advocate killing does/fawns, and I never have but that is irrelevant to the problem at hand.

You can say it is simple all day long, but it isn't. There are a lot of factors, some biologic, some human nature, and the biggest is mother nature.
 
I'll agree, and have never said it is an easy or painless fix, just very damn frustrating. I'd take having F&G being more proacvtive about getting rid of late hunts all together in areas that need it. You mention winter and winter ranges being crucial to survival yet we chase the hell out of deer and elk for that matter when we need to be leaving them alone, and I'll say that this is for guys that want a drive by on a trophy buck, not management purposes, senseless!!!
 
BPK , I THINK WE NEED ANOTHER STUDY.




WHAT ZONES ARE YOU REFERING TO IN CALIFORNIA THAT THE DEER ARE NOT MIGRATING ?
 
I noticed the people on here that say the deer #'s are ok are the ones that hunted controlled hunts last year and private property.
I think BPK had a control hunt? I hunted washington two years ago and seen 5x the number of bucks I seen here this year. My son and I did get lucky and shot two decent bucks here this last fall but that was the only two bucks we seen in general units. We did some drives through 45 and seen tons of bucks including two around the 30" mark. Idaho is now a draw tag only area as far as I'm concerned. We had to work our butts off for our two deer,not that I mind as we had a great time, but to say there are good numbers of deer in general areas is just ridiculous. I could do the same amount of hiking in Washington and see five times the bucks. Idaho was a super state to Washington hunters 5 yrs ago. The proof is in the pudding; They're not coming here no more. One of my buddies moved here five years ago from Washington and started making hunting videos here. Now he doesn't even hunt here. Muley is right, on the money, the answers are simple but it costs revenue and that just wont happen so Idaho will now be what it is, a controlled hunt hunting state.
 
I was out last week in 45 taking a peak around and saw the F&G helicopter doing counts. How can they be sure what is a buck or doe when some of the bucks have lost there antlers. What also bugged me is that I watched them run a group of doe's for at least 3 miles. They finally ran by me...tongue's hanging out ears drooping. Assuming that these were VERY pregnant doe's...that has got to take a major toll on the overall health of the deer. The helicopter flew right over me and when I gave them the arms up in the air "what the hell are you doing" look they all smiled at me.....grrrrrrr.
 
but that is OK with F&G that maybe how they get their counts so high run them a mile & recount ... new area must be a different group of animals !!! I talked to a couple of guys down in 45 here a couple of weeks past they were locals & they said F&G is flying 45 at least once a week ???
 

Similar threads

nfh
Game and fish frustration
Replies
13
Views
2k
BPKHunter
BPKHunter
2
Game processing/cold storage Manti area
Replies
0
Views
177
2096
2
Wiszard
Manti/North Manti Elk hunters
Replies
2
Views
576
Wiszard
Wiszard

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

Big Bull Elk
2CE66B7A-A57B-42D0-B8C7-3B770D3C3B08.jpeg
20180517_082927.jpg
IMG_9630.jpeg
295E0EE4-5AD1-4A87-BBFF-E113666CE875.jpeg
IMG_2375.jpg
DSCF0064.mov
1D43F4A6-2511-440E-9EFA-4285B8ACB75C.jpeg
Screenshot_20230824_092013_Gallery.jpg
F2CD30E9-7628-4944-A158-4A21EB8E7630.jpeg
Nine Year Old Bull
Mr. Back Forks the Bully

Idaho Hunting Guides & Outfitters

Bearpaw Outfitters

Idaho Deer & Elk Allocation Tags, Plus Bear, Bison, Lion, Moose, Turkey and Montana Prairie Dogs.

Urge 2 Hunt

We focus on trophy elk, mule deer, whitetail, bear, lion and wolf hunts and spend hundreds of hours scouting.

Jokers Wild Outdoors

Trophy elk, whitetail, mule deer, antelope, bear and moose hunts. 35k acres of private land.

Back
Top Bottom