Biologist wants to increase doe harvest in region 3 units - Help!

[Stone_Ice_1]

Honestly, if you really believe that an 75 doe tags in 390 are going to tank the population then you might as well kill them all because a deer herd that can't handle that mortality is doomed with or without hunting.

Does the CA even shoot mule deer does?

75 more per year adds up over time. This is also how it starts and we end up with 10,000 or whatever there was at one time in Region 7.

 

[ismith]

Gotcha.

Regardless, it's an increase of 125 doe harvests. That's a really small number when the graph shows about 45k mule deer in region 3. 0.28% of the population to be exact.

The number of doe harvests is small, but percentage wise it's 25%-75% increases for these units, which makes it seem more substantial.

Can anyone comment who was hunting these units last year? Are there does around?

Pretty sure they are targeting pockets of deer that are essentially “yard deer”. Maybe politely asking the bio in an email rather than blowing up his email would be the better option?

 

[MTMOOSE]

Honestly, if you really believe that an 75 doe tags in 390 are going to tank the population then you might as well kill them all because a deer herd that can't handle that mortality is doomed with or without hunting.

Does the CA even shoot mule deer does?

OK, but why increase the doe permits by 75% when the population growth in the region is flat? I just don't understand the logic. Would it really be that bad to have one region in the state see the population increase a bit? It's not like it's currently anywhere close to record highs.

I suspect you are right in that the CA likely does not shoot any does, so we'll have another 75 permit holders whacking public land mule deer in the district instead.

 

[Jnasa]

I admit to not being an expert. I hesitate to comment.

However, there is more to the management then just the harvest numbers. These numbers are rather small.

As someone else posted sometimes a modest harvest can improve the herd health. Allows other does to be better conditioned and increase winter survival. This is especially true if habitat or feed conditions have been damaged.

I would encourage finding out the full reasoning from the biologist before getting the pitchforks out.

As outdoorsmen we advocate for science based management of wildlife. However, as soon as a biologist proposes something we don’t agree with we want to change it. I am not saying they are always correct. We should respect their expertise though. At minimum read the proposal and any justification. Then if clarity is needed reach out to find more specifics.

 

[Big Sky Guy]

I don't post on here very often, but I wanted to spread the word on a proposed change to mule deer doe tags in a few Region 3 units for the upcoming season in hopes that you all will send a message to Biologist Adam Grove. With the state of our mule deer population trends I am shocked that he is wanting to increase the doe harvest in these units by 50 to 75%. The attached document shows the populations estimates by region and as you can see the statewide populations are not trending well at all. I understand that Region 3 has stayed fairly level compared to other Regions, but how does that justify a 50 to 75% increase in the harvest? If this goes through, Region 3 will be the next population to tank. Please consider sending a message to Biologist Adam Grove at [email protected] . Leave the does alone and let them reproduce! There is enough opportunity in MT already, please think about the resource.

2. From Adam Grove:
I'm looking at making the following potential antlerless mule deer B-license quota changes for the 2025 season:

• 390-01 - Increase from the current 50 to 75
• 391-02 - Increase from the current 100 to 175
• 392-01 - Increase from the current 50 to 75

I am not sure it matters. I live and hunt in 390/391. These units are largely private. The population seemed to have peaked significantly in 2017 based on my in-field observations. There were easily 50+ mule deer in any field on any given day. I have not got an answer from anyone one what happened after that winter but from 2018-now it’s a fraction of that, maybe 20-30 deer in one field and none in many others for a while, usually 15ish.

I do know a block management area pulled out 2 years ago because of this and the biologists/FWP inability to change anything meaningful. I talked to that landowner this fall to see if I could cross his land to access public and he flat out said there are no deer and he wouldn't continue to allow hunting in good conscience when FWP won’t listen to my concerns.

Going back to around that time 2017ish when they changed the buck tag from unlimited but had to apply to just general tag a bio told the group up in Helena that an aerial count hadn’t been done on Mule Deer in that unit (390) in 5 years. So how are these population estimates being obtained?

My takeaway is these units are largely driven by landowner tolerance, not carrying capacity of habitat. This past season was the most deer I’ve seen since 2017, so I suspect that is the reason for the proposed change. That and finding even a 3-point buck is pretty difficult, much less a buck over 2 years old which is basically non existent. So you likely have folks complaining that they can't use their deer tag even though they are now seeing more/lots of deer. In the big scheme of things a marginal increase in doe harvest with a small or even no overall cost to the general population whole but the benefit of happy landowners and possibly happier meat hunters is what it is.

 

[JEL]

Honestly, if you really believe that an 75 doe tags in 390 are going to tank the population then you might as well kill them all because a deer herd that can't handle that mortality is doomed with or without hunting.

Does the CA even shoot mule deer does?

I'm pretty sure hunters in MT would be happy to oblige.

 

[DFS]

This makes me think there is going to be a push for more doe tags in other areas of the state.

 

[brockel]

This makes me think there is going to be a push for more doe tags in other areas of the state.

Well we’ve got to kill them before they die

 

[Forkyfinder]

This makes me think there is going to be a push for more doe tags in other areas of the state.

Well we’ve got to kill them before they die

Its incredible how small a does range can be, from what ive seen. Not really sure why we kill any on public land.

 

[idelkslayer]

If it’s stable why kill more? One of Montanas problems. We see a stable population or a slight up tick and we think we need to knock them back down

There could be several valid reasons.

Declining fawn weights. Indicates a herd that is at carrying capacity. That doesn't mean that the herd is at an all time high it just means that something has reduced the capacity of the land. Maybe fire, maybe development, maybe drought.
Declining Doe body fat. Same explanation as above. Maybe they learned from the last few bad winters that they don't want the population to grow above where it's at.
Landowner/Depredation complaints.

The body fat argument is an interesting one. A recent study found low body fat in 2015-16 when herd numbers were high. Subsequently there was a large winter kill since the does went into the 16-17 winter with low body fat reserves. The biologists continuing their study have found that the body fat on does coming out of this winter is higher than the body fat of the does going into the 16-17 winter. In other words, they are in better shape after this most recent winter than they were prior to the 16-17 winter when populations were high. By killing some does now they may be hoping to slow down population growth in exchange for healthier deer.

I sat in a meeting in Idaho in spring of 2016 where the fish and game biologists made a case for increasing doe harvest because the population had gotten high enough that they were beginning to see signs of a herd at or above carrying capacity. They were concerned that a bad winter would kill a lot of deer. Everyone in the room vehemently opposed the suggestion. they said "the deer are just now starting to get to a good population" or "you just want to kill all the deer to sell more tags". When in fact the herd was at a 20 year high. It was probably already too late to help the deer. By the time fall hunting season came around the does were already carrying as much fat as they were going to get. But I wonder how much better off the deer would have been if we had killed more does in 2015, giving the remaining deer an entire year to get fat before the 16-17 winter. It may have saved a lot of deer and the herd population may not have dropped so steeply. Or maybe not, there's a lot of factors at play. But one thing is certain, a lot of deer died in 16-17 and rotted on the mountain that otherwise could have been in hunter's freezers.

But I don't know, and so far in this thread I haven't seen anyone present the biologists reasons for the increase and nobody has presented data to contradict it.

 

[DFS]

There could be several valid reasons.

Declining fawn weights. Indicates a herd that is at carrying capacity. That doesn't mean that the herd is at an all time high it just means that something has reduced the capacity of the land. Maybe fire, maybe development, maybe drought.
Declining Doe body fat. Same explanation as above. Maybe they learned from the last few bad winters that they don't want the population to grow above where it's at.
Landowner/Depredation complaints.

The body fat argument is an interesting one. A recent study found low body fat in 2015-16 when herd numbers were high. Subsequently there was a large winter kill since the does went into the 16-17 winter with low body fat reserves. The biologists continuing their study have found that the body fat on does coming out of this winter is higher than the body fat of the does going into the 16-17 winter. In other words, they are in better shape after this most recent winter than they were prior to the 16-17 winter when populations were high. By killing some does now they may be hoping to slow down population growth in exchange for healthier deer.

I sat in a meeting in Idaho in spring of 2016 where the fish and game biologists made a case for increasing doe harvest because the population had gotten high enough that they were beginning to see signs of a herd at or above carrying capacity. They were concerned that a bad winter would kill a lot of deer. Everyone in the room vehemently opposed the suggestion. they said "the deer are just now starting to get to a good population" or "you just want to kill all the deer to sell more tags". When in fact the herd was at a 20 year high. It was probably already too late to help the deer. By the time fall hunting season came around the does were already carrying as much fat as they were going to get. But I wonder how much better off the deer would have been if we had killed more does in 2015, giving the remaining deer an entire year to get fat before the 16-17 winter. It may have saved a lot of deer and the herd population may not have dropped so steeply. Or maybe not, there's a lot of factors at play. But one thing is certain, a lot of deer died in 16-17 and rotted on the mountain that otherwise could have been in hunter's freezers.

But I don't know, and so far in this thread I haven't seen anyone present the biologists reasons for the increase and nobody has presented data to contradict it.

Yeah.. Montana doesn’t do those fancy studies where they are checking does and fawns fat and body weight. The most likely option is a landowner complained or somebody told the biologist they saw a lot of deer.

 

[brockel]

Yeah.. Montana doesn’t do those fancy studies where they are checking does and fawns fat and body weight. The most likely option is a landowner complained or somebody told the biologist they saw a lot of deer.

Would be great if they did though.

Seems maybe a damage hunt would be the better fix for this vs just issuing out tags to be used at random.

 

[antlerradar]

Not last year, but I have for each of the 15 years before that. I have talked to folks that hunted it before then. Typical Montana, there is not many deer on the public land, the private has some but the area should hold a lot more deer.

Here is the problem. The increase may make sense if the harvest is spread randomly across the units, But that is not going to happen unless FWP puts restrictions on where the harvest happens. The public and accessible private will get the bulk of the additional harvest. The private landowners will quickly say NO MORE and the public will just get pounded.

 

[SaskHunter]

They should transplant them into 7 so they can die a traditional death

Forkies to the front of the line!