N. Idaho Whitetails Forever - Disservice to Hunters

[Potlatch]

The late whitetail general season in unit 10A has been shortened by 10 days due to lobbying done by a group called Northern Idaho Whitetails Forever. In addition they will now only allow non-residents to purchase one tag.
This was supposedly done to help better manage the deer population and increase the number of trophy quality bucks in the unit. Although the person who heads the group often hunts out of state he has a problem with nonresident hunters who choose to hunt in Idaho. In his mind they are adversely affecting the quality of whitetail hunting in his home area.
What this move did was take away something that we don't have much of here in Oregon.....OPPORTUNITY. That is why I have been making the drive to Northern Idaho around Thanksgiving every year for 10 years now to hunt whitetails. Does he think Idaho hunting is mismanaged??? Try living in Oregon.
The truth is that the whitetails are like rabbits in 10A and there are plenty of large bucks available. I have taken a mature buck almost every year that I have hunted there including 2017 where I tagged out on a 13 point the second morning after having a close call on a 10 point on the first day. Over the years I have had Idaho residents ask me how I find these bucks and I just tell them that I get out and walk rather than ride a quad around or drive my truck all day like I see them doing. I killed that buck in the pouring down rain while everyone else was inside their dry pickup cabs. I grew up hunting blacktail deer in Oregon and I use those tactics to hunt whitetails in Northern Idaho and have had a great deal of success. I like to head over there around Thanksgiving because I only have to take 3 vacation days in order to get 9 hunting days. In late November the rut is usually still in full swing and the hunting is still as good as it has ever been. I even brought my family with me last year to experience this hunt with me but now I guess I won't have that opportunity again.
What these new season dates (that he advocated for) accomplish is they create overcrowding during early November in an already overcrowded area. It also increases the hunting pressure in neighboring unit 8A in the latter part of the month. This will do nothing to help the hunting quality as intended. I think his intentions were good and I don't question that however I think his data on the population and number of quality bucks is inaccurate and his solution is extremely flawed.
His grassroots group Northern Idaho Whitetails Forever is the opposite of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation due to the fact that his group REMOVED access and opportunity for hunters while RMEF creates and increases access and opportunity for hunters.
I have no problem with him personally and I'm sure he's a great guy and obviously a skilled hunter, however I think he was very misguided in this endeavor and believe he did a real disservice to hunters by successfully lobbying the Fish & Game to shorten the season in that unit.

 

[DTP]

Kind of unusual.


Are there some articles out there on this or at least the data points that they used to push this initiative forward?


If they reduced the season to increase numbers and limited NR to one tag for the same reason, then those two have the same common goal. But I don't know too many initiatives out there to increase trophy quality.


Are residents allowed to buy two tags in that unit?

 

[Potlatch]

DTP,
I was sent a screen shot of a post on FB (I don't participate in social media) announcing that NIWF was successful in their effort. I then Googled it and found a few write ups on it.
They did cut off a second tag in the unit for both residents and nonresidents. I agree with you that these changes will not have an effect on trophy quality. From my experience the best way to increase populations is to eliminate doe hunting. The unit remains a "one deer" tag like the rest of Northern Idaho.
I think the Fish & Game caved because they wanted it to be known that they listen to sportsman and they probably assumed that these were the opinions of the masses. There was no scientific basis for these changes. It was done as a response to whiny resident hunters who had trouble filling their tags for a few seasons and get sick of seeing nonresident license plates on trucks in "their area".
Pathetic.

 

[cohunter14]

Here is a link to the article posted by IDFG: https://idfg.idaho.gov/press/new-changes-2018-big-game-rules-sheep-goat-unit-10a-deer-hunt-weiser-river-elk-zone-and-units


In particular, here is what's stated regarding the changes:
Removed the use of second deer tags in Unit 10A and shortened the white-tailed deer season in Unit 10A by moving the closing date from Dec. 1 to Nov. 20. Hunters are concerned about the number of mature white-tailed bucks in the unit.

• 
  

  There was no scientific basis for these changes. It was done as a response to whiny resident hunters who had trouble filling their tags for a few seasons and get sick of seeing nonresident license plates on trucks in "their area".

  
  No offense Potlatch, but I don't see anywhere how this has to do with sticking it to non residents. These rules apply to everyone.
  
  

  They did cut off a second tag in the unit for both residents and nonresidents. I agree with you that these changes will not have an effect on trophy quality. From my experience the best way to increase populations is to eliminate doe hunting.

  
  
  They are only allowing one deer to be taken per person instead of two. How does this not help increase the population and trophy quality?
  
  
  

  His grassroots group Northern Idaho Whitetails Forever is the opposite of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation due to the fact that his group REMOVED access and opportunity for hunters while RMEF creates and increases access and opportunity for hunters.

  
  
  RMEF is all about conservation. They do what they can to help elk populations thrive. Seems to me that is exactly what is happening here as well. They aren't removing access, they are working on managing the population.
  
  
  I have no dog in this fight, but I think you are overreacting a bit. Sure this doesn't benefit you in the near term and it doesn't fit with your schedule, but stuff like this happens all the time in the management of game. These decisions aren't just made to appease people.
  
  
  I've had a similar thing happen to an area I elk hunt. When I first started hunting it, you could get Either Sex tags for the rifle season. Then they split them apart to bull and cow tags. And now, even the cow tags are a List A tag, which means I can't even hunt the area anymore if I want to archery hunt as well. Does it suck? Sure, it does. But I understand the reasoning for it after speaking with the wildlife manager for the area and I know that in the end, it will be better for the area.
  
  
  Again, these type of things happen all the time in managing game. It can feel like someone is out to get you sometimes, but very rarely is that the case.

 

[Potlatch]

cohunter14,
I appreciate your response and you make some valid points. That is one of the reasons why I posted this because I wanted feedback.
I have no problems whatsoever with Fish & Game changing and making new rules, season dates, etc. It happens all the time here in Oregon.
What I don't like is that this was enacted due to efforts by fellow sportsmen who are not biologists, do not gather data, and should be in favor of generous hunting seasons.
You are right that getting rid of a second tag can help populations however it is not nearly as great of an effect as it would be if they were to eliminate harvesting antlerless deer. When you shoot a doe you are eliminating a single deer this year, 2 deer next year, then 4 deer, then 8 deer and so forth. When you harvest a buck the net effect is still just a single animal. Does will get bred by a different buck.
Of course it would be hypocritical for me to say this change should be made when I'm not a Fish & Game employee and I don't have data to back up my proposal, but I am not out lobbying for this.
Idaho is managed extremely well for big game hunting. It has the best odds for drawing sheep, goat, & moose of any state due to the fact they don't have a pref point system. Idaho offers general season hunts that are better than most controlled hunts in other states that take decades to draw. I just hope people like the guy that heads NIWF don't start advocating for a pref point system in Idaho or any other flawed ideas that will eliminate more opportunity for hunters.

 

[cohunter14]

Potlatch, you make valid points as well. Again, I have no dog in this fight, but let me play devil's advocate for a second.


Let's say they took your idea instead and kept the seasons the same length, allowed two tags per person, and eliminated shooting doe's. In no time, you would have a population of deer that had a terrible buck to doe ratio and many of those doe's would be bread by younger bucks that don't have the best genes. Not only would the quality of bucks go way down, but the overall health of the population would deteriorate as well.

What I don't like is that this was enacted due to efforts by fellow sportsmen who are not biologists, do not gather data, and should be in favor of generous hunting seasons.

Again, to play the other side of things for a second, I would argue that other hunters doing this is not a bad thing at all. In fact, we NEED folks who think like this. You said it yourself that the leader of this group is a local. Although they aren't biologists, they probably know more about the population than most folks who hunt there. For them to be forward thinking and wanting to protect the herd, that's a good thing. This is the opposite of being selfish. I'm not calling you or anyone else selfish, but for them to go out and lobby for this takes some guts because you are going to make some folks mad. But in the end, if it's what's best for the herd, someone's got to stand up and do it.


In an opposite sense, I would say that we need more of these type of hunters. By lobbying for things like this, they help groups like the IDFG understand that it's okay to make drastic changes like this. Sure, it's going to ruffle some feathers, but imagine if the IDFG wanted to implement something like this and had zero support from hunters. That would sure make things more difficult.


In my opinion, I would love to have a group like this that was looking out for the overall betterment of areas I hunt. It makes me feel like I should do more to help.

 

[cnelk]

In case anyone is interested:


Here is the application -
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfL_xxd-fp7KB1hSAG8e1_rZUwB2jBV6C4GT0vaf_Svoy4_yA/viewform



This press release is for director appointments, each region will also have elections this summer if you wish to serve.[/size]Colorado Parks and Wildlife is accepting applications for the Colorado Sportsmen?s RoundtableDENVER - Colorado Parks and Wildlife is accepting applications for a two-year volunteer term for members of the statewide Colorado Sportsmen?s Roundtable. In order to maintain regional representation on the Roundtable, CPW is seeking two members from the northwest region, one from the northeast, and three from the southwest. For details on regional boundaries, please see a map of the regions on CPW website.Sportspersons engaged in hunting, fishing, and/or trapping and are interested in collaborating with Parks and Wildlife in addressing management issues in Colorado are encouraged to apply. The interested public should submit an electronic application by 5:00 p.m. May 18, 2018."Our Roundtable members are a very important part of our decision-making process," said CPW Director Bob Broscheid. "Through the delegates, we get an accurate feel for what sportsmen and women are thinking early in the process, helping guide discussions and decisions about a variety of wildlife management issues."Sportsmen?s Roundtable members serve as delegates for regional hunters, trappers and anglers, bringing feedback and comments directly to CPW leadership by a variety of means, including two in-person meetings each year.Responsibilities of members include:Participating in a half-day meeting twice a year at different locations around the state.Participating in conference calls every two to three months.Sharing information and ideas with other sportsmen and CPW staff including the Director and Leadership Team members on pressing issues.The two-year term runs from August 2018 through July 2020."Hunters and anglers are vitally important to Colorado Parks and Wildlife and to the successful management of the state's wildlife," said Broscheid. "Sportsmen provide much of the funding for wildlife conservation in the state and are directly affected by the agency?s fish management decisions. It's vital sportsmen and women become involved in the process."The Sportsmen?s Roundtable is comprised of members appointed by CPW, including at least two elected delegates from each of the four Sportsmen?s Regional Caucuses. Members meet in person twice a year, sharing information, discussing important topics and identifying emerging issues or concerns.Twice each year, Sportsmen?s Caucuses hold open meetings, giving local hunters and anglers an opportunity to discuss regional issues with their delegates, including small and big game hunting, sport fishing, outfitting and other sportsmen-dependent businesses and all related topics.For more information about the Sportsmen's Roundtable, please visit the CPW website, or contact Jody Kennedy at 303-866-3203, Ext. 4671 or jody.kennedy@state.co.us

 

[Potlatch]

cohunter14,

You just brought some things to my attention that make a lot of sense and I agree with most of what you said.
I agree that there has to be a balance between harvest of bucks vs. does in order to keep the ratios at a good level and have plenty of mature bucks available for breeding stock. I also agree that groups of sportsmen who speak out and advocate for causes is generally a good thing and is a very American thing by having a system that is representative of the people. VERY good points.
However sometimes that has a negative result. For example....in Oregon around 1994 the ODFW had heard from many hunters over the years complaining "How come I never draw any good tags but my cousin draws good ones every year?!"
My answer would be "it's called a lottery stupid...everybody has the same chance."
ODFW's answer was to implement a preference point system. Consequently it takes 10 to 20 years to draw a decent tag now. Their argument would be that only 75% of the tags go to the highest point holders so you still have a chance. That chance is often 0.01% or something like that. In states with no pref points you can have 3%, 5%, or even 10% chance of drawing killer tags every year. So people who are just starting to hunt actually have good odds.

What I would like you to respond to is my main concern on the original post where I stated that the effect would be more hunting pressure in 10A in early November and more pressure in 8A in late November. How in the heck does this address their objectives? How does this help the quality of the hunting?

 

[cohunter14]

What I would like you to respond to is my main concern on the original post where I stated that the effect would be more hunting pressure in 10A in early November and more pressure in 8A in late November. How in the heck does this address their objectives? How does this help the quality of the hunting?

I am totally unfamiliar with Idaho in general, so I'm not sure what the situation is with these units. Can you explain more why you think that will happen? Does a tag for 10A also work for 8A?

 

[Potlatch]

A general season OTC whitetail tag allows you to hunt all units in Northern Idaho which includes the two adjacent units 10A and 8A which currently get the most hunting pressure.
My point was that it is obvious that shortening a season puts more hunters in the woods at a given time. This hurts the quality of the hunting and I don't see it as a solution to anything.
My main concern is that this hurts the quality of hunting for everybody. The fact that this doesn't fit with my schedule is a minor concern and my frustration with this is not all about me.
I like quality hunts.
I like being able to do this every year.
The population, genetics, and buck/doe ratios are just fine in that area.
If I am wrong about that I want to see some data that shows this.
If it ain't broke.....don't fix it.
Extended seasons make for quality hunts.
We don't have opportunities like this in Oregon unless you draw a raffle or premium tag.
I understand that things change...I just don't like how this change came about.

 

[87TT]

They have an open comment period prior to the commission meeting to make rule changes. You can submit comments online or in writing. They advertise it on their website. They listen to all sides and suggestions. I think it is a good system and hope they don't change it. Sorry it doesn't fit your plans. They make the rules up two years at a time but can make changes in the middle if it is not working. And how many states let you hunt any open general season with a general tag out here.

 

[cohunter14]

My point was that it is obvious that shortening a season puts more hunters in the woods at a given time. This hurts the quality of the hunting and I don't see it as a solution to anything.
My main concern is that this hurts the quality of hunting for everybody.

I guess it depends on how you define quality. This is certainly going to produce better quality deer, which many people would say makes for a better quality hunt. If you are worried about overcrowding, I'm not so sure I would freak out yet. Sure, the season is shorter so the people that do hunt the area are going to be confined to less days. But how many people will go elsewhere, either because they want to have two tags or because the season dates don't match up with their plans? I would assume quite a few will make changes to where they hunt. Again, I have no clue about this area or the number of hunters, but I can't imagine you will see a huge difference. Just like you mentioned before, if you put in the work that other hunters don't, you'll find the deer.

The population, genetics, and buck/doe ratios are just fine in that area.
If I am wrong about that I want to see some data that shows this.
If it ain't broke.....don't fix it.

I would ask for that data. Obviously they aren't just making changes for the heck of it. And no offense intended, but I would probably trust the thoughts about the herd from the IDFG and locals who live in the area over yourself, who visits the area once a year to hunt.


I think you can look at this whole situations as a glass half full or a glass half empty situation. Sure, the season is shorter and you can only get one tag now. But the quality of bucks you are going to see should definitely increase over the years! I'd personally be excited about that situation if it were me.

 

[Potlatch]

cohunter14,

Very well put. You have succeeded in showing me the positive aspects of these changes that I had not considered. I guess there is a bright side to everything.
I spoke to a representative of a conservation group who was involved in this issue. He said the IDFG still uses data from 2003 in determining present day changes to the rules. The "data" used for the changes that I am concerned with are from locals who say the deer on average have smaller bodies and necks than in past years. They are upset that IDFG only uses number of antler points to determine the size and health of deer herds.
You are right that the locals should have a better idea of deer demographics than I do. I will keep that in mind.
You make a valid point that these changes may lead to more hunters choosing not to hunt this area which could keep it from being overcrowded which was my main concern.

 

[87TT]

I was looking at the harvest data on the Idaho DFG website and it seem that more deer and more bucks have been taken every year for the last 10 years that I looked at for that area. But the percentage of larger bucks (antler point wise) has gone down by roughly 40% or more.
I wouldn't feel too bad. The unit I live in,22, has a two point limit. That means I can't take anything over two point deer. I have sat and watched some dandy bucks and had to let them walk.

 

[cohunter14]

I was looking at the harvest data on the Idaho DFG website and it seem that more deer and more bucks have been taken every year for the last 10 years that I looked at for that area. But the percentage of larger bucks (antler point wise) has gone down by roughly 40% or more.
I wouldn't feel too bad. The unit I live in,22, has a two point limit. That means I can't take anything over two point deer. I have sat and watched some dandy bucks and had to let them walk.

Very interesting 87TT. Is that a temporary deal to try to get the genetics back in order or something?

 

[87TT]

I think so. It has been in effect for several years. The deer population seems low around here anyway for the habitat. The winter of 16/17 was real hard on the population. According to the Biologist, The fawn study they did that year, they lost 29 out of 29 in the study.