2020 Montana deer recap

[Dinkshooter]

Anyone over the age of 18, that feels the need to shoot a muley doe is pretty much a wanker.

 

[8andcounting]

Anyone over the age of 18, that feels the need to shoot a muley doe is pretty much a wanker.

There’s areas on private where it is a good idea to shoot a few does

 

[Dinkshooter]

There’s areas on private where it is a good idea to shoot a few does

Good for what? Biologist getting back to a good buck/doe ratio the easy way? That always looks good on their year end employment reviews at least.

 

[antlerradar]

Good for what? Biologist getting back to a good buck/doe ratio the easy way? That always looks good on their year end employment reviews at least.

The good reason is if the Landowner is complaining about too many deer and don't allow hunters to shoot does they can go pound sand.

 

[Eric Albus]

Montana FWP does not really care about buck:doe bull:cow ratios, we are an opportunity state PERIOD. So the idea behind doe/cow tags is to curb numbers, make landowners feel like they're trying, and generate revenue for FWP.

 

[timmy]

I would agree that they don’t care but that is the first stat they will spew to tell you how good things are. A few years back their cherry creek count had the highest buck:doe ratio they have ever had in that area. Their numbers are garbage and don’t match the real world but you can’t argue with the counts is what I’ve been told.

 

[Labman1127]

I would agree that they don’t care but that is the first stat they will spew to tell you how good things are. A few years back their cherry creek count had the highest buck:doe ratio they have ever had in that area. Their numbers are garbage and don’t match the real world but you can’t argue with the counts is what I’ve been told.

From what I saw this year during the first 2 Weeks in November hunting East central through SE Montana, I would say the buck / doe ratio has to be 50 to 1 or higher. I was absolutely astonished by how lop sided the ratio was (and No I did not shoot a doe just bc I could). I talked with several locals during my time out there and they claim it’s bc the majority of hunters are popping the first racked buck they see with no regard for herd age structure. I am sure this could be an exaggeration, but I believe it holds some truth.
I live in Ohio and our DNR has provided ample antlerless tags at a discounted price to promote antlerless harvest for the last decade (some counties you could kill 10 doe) and now for the last 3 years everyone is complaining how the deer numbers are way down and hunter satisfaction is at an all time low bc of reduced deer sightings per sit. Funny how that correlation works....
Limited your kill, don’t kill your limit.

 

[ShootsManyBullets]

I would agree that they don’t care but that is the first stat they will spew to tell you how good things are. A few years back their cherry creek count had the highest buck:doe ratio they have ever had in that area. Their numbers are garbage and don’t match the real world but you can’t argue with the counts is what I’ve been told.

Garbage in = Garbage out
There was nothing healthy about the deer herd this year. Skinny deer from lack of quality feed and water all summer is setting up for another bad winter kill if they have any kind of winter at all in SE MT.

 

[BuzzH]

The reason for having archery hunters afield during the rut is to have a presence to discourage poaching.

...wrong, it's so outfitters can continue to book the same number of hunts, or even more. Who you trying to BS?

 

[timmy]

...wrong, it's so outfitters can continue to book the same number of hunts, or even more. Who you trying to BS?

No doubt but maybe it would be a sacrifice the general public could make. Montana caters to landowners and that isn’t going to change, be a lot more of a hunt to try to archery kill a deer versus sit back and plug one at 300 yards with a high powered rifle. Move the doe tags to private and things would improve for a public hunter. Nothing is perfect but at least there may be some common ground.

 

[BuzzH]

No doubt but maybe it would be a sacrifice the general public could make. Montana caters to landowners and that isn’t going to change, be a lot more of a hunt to try to archery kill a deer versus sit back and plug one at 300 yards with a high powered rifle. Move the doe tags to private and things would improve for a public hunter. Nothing is perfect but at least there may be some common ground.

Sure, as per usual the general public gives up something so it doesn't get in the way of leasing, outfitting, etc. When is it someone else's turn to "compromise" and find "common ground"? Because I think as a guy that's hunted Montana every year, for over 4 decades, the only common ground that ever gets approved is when the public hunters, and/or the public's wildlife gets it broke off in their ass.

 

[timmy]

Well the current system is a train wreck and the outfitters are still killing their deer a lot of them good older age class bucks. And the public hunter picks for crumbs. I’m all for tipping the tables to the public hunter, but at this point any change would be welcomed.

 

[antlerradar]

The reason for having archery hunters afield during the rut is to have a presence to discourage poaching.

I’ll have to disagree there.

This is the difference in perspective of a landowner and a sportsman.

Most sportsman never deal with unethical hunters nor do they associate with the slobs so they have no idea how bad the problem is.

Landowners on the other hand often only get to deal with the unethical hunters even though hundreds of other hunters pass through there property with out incident. Landowners can quickly develop a very jaded view of hunters if the only ones you talk to are the poachers and trespassers. One of the reasons I am on this site is that I get to interacted with the ethical and this helps balance out the times during the season that I get to deal with the unethical.

 

[MTLabrador]

This is the difference in perspective of a landowner and a sportsman.

Most sportsman never deal with unethical hunters nor do they associate with the slobs so they have no idea how bad the problem is.

Landowners on the other hand often only get to deal with the unethical hunters even though hundreds of other hunters pass through there property with out incident. Landowners can quickly develop a very jaded view of hunters if the only ones you talk to are the poachers and trespassers. One of the reasons I am on this site is that I get to interacted with the ethical and this helps balance out the times during the season that I get to deal with the unethical.

Very true, but I disagree that having archery hunters in the field will do anything to discourage poaching. I’ve dealt with a whole lot of unethical hunters, and my family and I are landowners.

 

[antlerradar]

...wrong, it's so outfitters can continue to book the same number of hunts, or even more. Who you trying to BS?

I would agree that outfitters will book as many archery hunts as possible, but the number will not be nearly what they could book as a rifle rut hunt or will the archery hunts have the same profit margin.

 

[BuzzH]

Killing deer with bows that shoot 100 yards during the rut to"save" them from being poached? Makes no sense....

Honestly though it isn't worth even discussing. Can't beat em so I'll just take with both hands in Montana like the outfitters, landowners, legislature, etc.

This last election cycle was the final step...it's about over.

 

[antlerradar]

Very true, but I disagree that having archery hunters in the field will do anything to discourage poaching. I’ve dealt with a whole lot of unethical hunters, and my family and I are landowners.

You are right on that. Most poaching is done during season.

 

[timmy]

Killing deer with bows that shoot 100 yards during the rut to"save" them from being poached? Makes no sense...

People will be unethical with a bow or a rifle. I saw more deer getting shot at 600 plus yards with a rifle than I care to even think about. There isn’t a great compromise but if it’s opportunity we are after I’d rather have people with bows than rifle during the mule deer rut. The deer are truly dumb that time of year.

 

[MTLabrador]

Killing deer with bows that shoot 100 yards during the rut to"save" them from being poached? Makes no sense...

Especially when there are already ranchers, bird hunters, elk hunters, whitetail hunters, photographers, the friendly neighborhood Hutterites, and actual game wardens cruising around.

 

[MTLabrador]

People will be unethical with a bow or a rifle. I saw more deer getting shot at 600 plus yards with a rifle than I care to even think about. There isn’t a great compromise but if it’s opportunity we are after I’d rather have people with bows than rifle during the mule deer rut. The deer are truly dumb that time of year.

That’s why I’d rather not see them hunted at all in November. A September archery season and October 1-20 rifle season would still give 7 weeks of opportunity and eliminate any rut hunting. What’s wrong with that?