ShootsManyBullets
Well-known member
AND that about sums it up.
Good news for eastern mt mule deer!
- Thread starter teamhoyt
- Start date
AND that about sums it up.
Highwood
Active member
Like I mentioned, the hope is to kill the deer off the haystacks. In other words off the crops and concentrations of deer on private property.
Maybe it will work some? Most will be killed for sure on public access lands.
$10 for a doe is funny, isn't it.
Maybe it will work some? Most will be killed for sure on public access lands.
$10 for a doe is funny, isn't it.
taxidermy man
New member
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2016
- Messages
- 9
Hunted eastern MT. for the first time as a 20 year old kid in 84' deer and antelope all over the place, actually had to stop a couple times in the vehicle to let streams of deer cross the road! Being from MN. it was like paradise! I figured it had always been like that, I think the very next year you could get up to six mule doe tags and soon after the deer were all gone, I didn't take part in the slaughter because even as an "outsider" it didn't seem right. My buddy and I still bow hunt eastern MT. because we just love that part of the country but when we think back to 1984...It's very depressing.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Here's something to consider...just what has changed habitat wise in the areas like the breaks?
Not much, its not like there's development out there. I haven't seen a single lion track in the breaks, or lion. I know there are some there, but not enough to reduce the deer population to the pittance of today.
Coyotes, yeah, they get a few fawns, fewer adults, but again, with the vastness and untrammeled habitat in the breaks they are NOT going to get a high enough percentage to blame them either.
That pretty much narrows it down to weather and over-hunting, which can impact mule deer numbers for sure. But, the problem is, that even when the chit hits the fan, the FWP doesn't react soon enough with limiting harvest. They usually continue to over-issue doe tags at $10 a piece. I used to blame the hunters that were buying a pocket full of them, but the average hunter will do what the FWP allows them to. Even if they know they shouldn't be killing does, for a ten dollar bill, who cares? What if those tags were $100 each, do you think guys would even buy them? I doubt it, but for $10 to "fill the freezer", when they're going there anyway, you bet they will...all day long and as many as they can get.
With the deer numbers on public land, HOW in the good Christ, is the FWP justifying doe tags that are valid on public lands? Lets be honest, how are they even justifying them on private lands?
How can the FWP justify doe hunting on an A tag in the breaks?
The FWP is 95% to blame for mismanagement, they have options to deal with private land deer. They make the choice to issue doe tags or not and where they are valid. They have the choice to raise lion quotas.
Its a cop-out to give them a pass, they're blowing it, and they're blowing it big on elk, deer, and pronghorn. Its all about "opportunity" and f#$@ the resource and whats best for wildlife. ITs all about issuing a chit load of b-tags, both deer and elk, to placate a whining landowner. Its all about maintaining hunter opportunity and "tradition" at the expense of the resource.
The other 5% of the blame goes to the hunters that make excuses for the FWP and allow this to continue.
The easiest thing to throttle back on when deer numbers are in the tank is hunter harvest, doe hunting, etc....and the FWP doesn't do it.
I'm so glad I'm no longer a MT resident when it comes to hunting, there simply isn't a good future in Montana for elk, deer, pronghorn, sheep, goats, or moose. All have been mismanaged horribly, and there is no indication of things improving (shoulder seasons for elk as 1 of many examples).
The license fees reflect the value that the FWP truly feel wildlife is worth...NOT MUCH, and that's a problem. Pretty tough to give a chit about a $10 doe.
Not much, its not like there's development out there. I haven't seen a single lion track in the breaks, or lion. I know there are some there, but not enough to reduce the deer population to the pittance of today.
Coyotes, yeah, they get a few fawns, fewer adults, but again, with the vastness and untrammeled habitat in the breaks they are NOT going to get a high enough percentage to blame them either.
That pretty much narrows it down to weather and over-hunting, which can impact mule deer numbers for sure. But, the problem is, that even when the chit hits the fan, the FWP doesn't react soon enough with limiting harvest. They usually continue to over-issue doe tags at $10 a piece. I used to blame the hunters that were buying a pocket full of them, but the average hunter will do what the FWP allows them to. Even if they know they shouldn't be killing does, for a ten dollar bill, who cares? What if those tags were $100 each, do you think guys would even buy them? I doubt it, but for $10 to "fill the freezer", when they're going there anyway, you bet they will...all day long and as many as they can get.
With the deer numbers on public land, HOW in the good Christ, is the FWP justifying doe tags that are valid on public lands? Lets be honest, how are they even justifying them on private lands?
How can the FWP justify doe hunting on an A tag in the breaks?
The FWP is 95% to blame for mismanagement, they have options to deal with private land deer. They make the choice to issue doe tags or not and where they are valid. They have the choice to raise lion quotas.
Its a cop-out to give them a pass, they're blowing it, and they're blowing it big on elk, deer, and pronghorn. Its all about "opportunity" and f#$@ the resource and whats best for wildlife. ITs all about issuing a chit load of b-tags, both deer and elk, to placate a whining landowner. Its all about maintaining hunter opportunity and "tradition" at the expense of the resource.
The other 5% of the blame goes to the hunters that make excuses for the FWP and allow this to continue.
The easiest thing to throttle back on when deer numbers are in the tank is hunter harvest, doe hunting, etc....and the FWP doesn't do it.
I'm so glad I'm no longer a MT resident when it comes to hunting, there simply isn't a good future in Montana for elk, deer, pronghorn, sheep, goats, or moose. All have been mismanaged horribly, and there is no indication of things improving (shoulder seasons for elk as 1 of many examples).
The license fees reflect the value that the FWP truly feel wildlife is worth...NOT MUCH, and that's a problem. Pretty tough to give a chit about a $10 doe.
Last edited:
Like Wyoming, the price of the license is set by the Legislature, not the agency or commission. MT, as you know, just raised resident rates and instituted a base hunting license. Was it enough? I don't think so. Even FWP admits that they'll need a revenue bump by 2019.
I agree with a lot of what you say, yet MT has always been an opportunity state, especially when the agency can sit behind survey after survey that shows residents would rather plug a forkie than hold out for more mature animals.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Ben,
Its fine to provide opportunity when the population of wildlife and hunters justifies it.
Different when the agency charged with Managing the States wildlife resources doesn't make one change to seasons (other than actually LENGTHEN it a day) since at least 1957. Do you think anything has changed in Montana with regard to available wildlife, hunter numbers, population, habitat since 1957?
Apparently not, according to the MTFWP as their "management" is no different (other than a day longer) than it was nearly 60 years ago. They guys actually blame predators? Really? HOLY CHIT!
The problem is, they don't have the forkies to plug, exactly why they're allowing mule deer does to be whacked on A-tags.
I'm to the point that I care about the wildlife in Montana just about as much as the residents, FWP, Legislature, and landowners...smoke them all and be done with it. Why care when nobody else does?
Montana is really knocking it out of the park with opportunity management.
I also don't see one reason why Montana should raise fees, if its based on anything to do with spending same on "management"? How the hell is the FWP justifying a director? A biologist? Why? Why spend money on surveys? Flights? Check stations?
I could manage wildlife as well as they do from my house in Laramie...pretty complicated, 11 weeks of "brown its down" management.
Good plan that should be just "great" for another 60 years.
Truly unbelievable.
Its fine to provide opportunity when the population of wildlife and hunters justifies it.
Different when the agency charged with Managing the States wildlife resources doesn't make one change to seasons (other than actually LENGTHEN it a day) since at least 1957. Do you think anything has changed in Montana with regard to available wildlife, hunter numbers, population, habitat since 1957?
Apparently not, according to the MTFWP as their "management" is no different (other than a day longer) than it was nearly 60 years ago. They guys actually blame predators? Really? HOLY CHIT!
The problem is, they don't have the forkies to plug, exactly why they're allowing mule deer does to be whacked on A-tags.
I'm to the point that I care about the wildlife in Montana just about as much as the residents, FWP, Legislature, and landowners...smoke them all and be done with it. Why care when nobody else does?
Montana is really knocking it out of the park with opportunity management.
I also don't see one reason why Montana should raise fees, if its based on anything to do with spending same on "management"? How the hell is the FWP justifying a director? A biologist? Why? Why spend money on surveys? Flights? Check stations?
I could manage wildlife as well as they do from my house in Laramie...pretty complicated, 11 weeks of "brown its down" management.
Good plan that should be just "great" for another 60 years.
Truly unbelievable.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Really? 4500 doe tags at $10 each, a whopping $45,000...they'd raise more revenue from a bake sale.
They MAY be over-hunted in the breaks? They ARE over-hunted in the breaks, just like the rest of Montana.
I don't find it odd at all...as the mule deer numbers and "opportunity" dried up in Western Montana, hunters shifted by the thousands to the breaks/east side where there was more "opportunity" to wipe the deer out with multiple tags there. The exact same management on both sides of the State had exactly the same out-come...that's a real shock.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
The basic similarity is in the calibers of hunting rifles both east and west and very effective in harvesting deer.
taxidermy man
New member
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2016
- Messages
- 9
You can still have a good hunt in E MT. on walk on, block management land (were thinking about a bow hunt this fall) but BuzzH speaks a lot of truth.
I'm not disagreeing with you Buzz, although I don't necessarily feel as you do on some of this.
The move to either sex on A tags wasn't just for opportunity - it was to reduce the herds. Which is a little shocking to me. If you ask FWP why they did it, you'll get a variety of answers that usually start out with "landowners requested..."
The move to either sex on A tags wasn't just for opportunity - it was to reduce the herds. Which is a little shocking to me. If you ask FWP why they did it, you'll get a variety of answers that usually start out with "landowners requested..."
BuzzH
Well-known member
Too bad the "landowners that requested" don't allow anyone to hunt...
Poke 'Em
Well-known member
If only everyone else knew as much as Buzz...
antlerradar
Well-known member
I am not sure I am buying the landowner tolerance excuse.
No doubt there are some landowners complaining (some would bitch if they see three deer in a field) I just am not hearing a lot of complaints about deer numbers right now with numbers just starting to recover. If any thing most of the talk is about low numbers and lack of quality. Several BM landowners I know have recently been complaining about low numbers.
If tolerance was the issue FWP could issue private land only tags.
If landowners were real concerned about too many deer I would think that a lot more of the tags would be getting filled on private land.
This has more to do with the region 7 management philosophy of "The Law of Diminishing Returns"
Buzz is right, makes me question the need for all the biologists we have in region 7 if there is little to no change from year. Many of those biologists could spend part of the year being game wardens. Wouldn't hurt my feelings one bit to see more wardens in the field.
No doubt there are some landowners complaining (some would bitch if they see three deer in a field) I just am not hearing a lot of complaints about deer numbers right now with numbers just starting to recover. If any thing most of the talk is about low numbers and lack of quality. Several BM landowners I know have recently been complaining about low numbers.
If tolerance was the issue FWP could issue private land only tags.
If landowners were real concerned about too many deer I would think that a lot more of the tags would be getting filled on private land.
This has more to do with the region 7 management philosophy of "The Law of Diminishing Returns"
Buzz is right, makes me question the need for all the biologists we have in region 7 if there is little to no change from year. Many of those biologists could spend part of the year being game wardens. Wouldn't hurt my feelings one bit to see more wardens in the field.
Highwood
Active member
For those spending time out on the range you know that the yotes take a LOT of fawns, both deer and antelope.
I have worked the breaks for 50 years, man! the coyotes are doing damage to the mule deer.
I have worked the breaks for 50 years, man! the coyotes are doing damage to the mule deer.
BuzzH
Well-known member
IF, and that's a big IF, coyotes are the problem, then why would the FWP issue 4500 doe tags and open it up to doe hunting with an A tag? Does it make ANY sense at all to kill doe mule deer if predators are hammering them?
taxidermy man
New member
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2016
- Messages
- 9
NO!
Schaaf
Well-known member
I'm not saying it doesn't happen but recent studies have found coyotes have no real influence on mule deer population.
And folks within FWP encourages it. I've gotten the most ridiculous looks and comments at the Ashland check station, when returning empty handed from a 4 day hunt. When they ask how many deer you saw and you say '100-ish' but I'm not here to shoot a 17 inch 3 year old 4 point, they just think its a joke. Like I'm supposed to get all giddy and excited and be thankful that I could have filled my tag.
If I had a dollar for every 3 year old deer in the back of a truck at a Broadus bar, I'd be loaded.
There are way more deer out east than in the west, but there should certainly not be A tag killing of does, or high numbers of public land doe tags.
BuzzH
Well-known member
MTTW,
How did they conduct the coyote study "from years ago"?
Is there anything in the literature or study to show that there could be other reasons why mule deer numbers increased after the aerial carpet bombing of poison?
What were the weather patterns, what about winter severity or lack there-of? How much hunting pressure was associated with the increase? How long ago was the study? How many people even hunted the breaks? What did similar population trends look like in areas of the State that DIDNT poison coyotes? What was the human population of Montana? Too many variables not accounted for to draw any meaningful conclusions, in particular when the "evidence" is hear-say with no control set or even a document of how the "study" was conducted.
Utah has drank the "kill every predator" on sight kool-ade, and their deer are doing no better than places that don't waste bucket fulls of money on predator control.
Like Schaaf said, the recent studies I've read came to the same conclusion, that coyotes have very little influence on mule deer populations.
If you can produce the documentation of the study in question, I would give it a fair look. But me thinks when compared to how deer populations were doing in other areas without predator control, during the same time frame, there would be a pretty direct correlation...but I've been wrong before.
How did they conduct the coyote study "from years ago"?
Is there anything in the literature or study to show that there could be other reasons why mule deer numbers increased after the aerial carpet bombing of poison?
What were the weather patterns, what about winter severity or lack there-of? How much hunting pressure was associated with the increase? How long ago was the study? How many people even hunted the breaks? What did similar population trends look like in areas of the State that DIDNT poison coyotes? What was the human population of Montana? Too many variables not accounted for to draw any meaningful conclusions, in particular when the "evidence" is hear-say with no control set or even a document of how the "study" was conducted.
Utah has drank the "kill every predator" on sight kool-ade, and their deer are doing no better than places that don't waste bucket fulls of money on predator control.
Like Schaaf said, the recent studies I've read came to the same conclusion, that coyotes have very little influence on mule deer populations.
If you can produce the documentation of the study in question, I would give it a fair look. But me thinks when compared to how deer populations were doing in other areas without predator control, during the same time frame, there would be a pretty direct correlation...but I've been wrong before.
