Montana Deer Management- If I were King for a day.

As a Montana deer hunter-

  • I would rather keep our current season structure over this proposal.

  • I would support replacing our current season structure with this proposal.


Results are only viewable after voting.

Randy11

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 4, 2021
Messages
424
This last season I've been able to hunt with and discuss Montana's deer management with a bunch of different hunters, many from this site. probably 90% of the hunters I’ve spoken to have agreed something needs changed with our deer season structure, and the course we’re on with our current seasons isn’t sustainable. Using everyone’s input, I've been juggling this season structure in my head for a while, and needed to get it put out there somewhere.

First off, every unit in the state will be given a limited or general designation for both whitetail and mule deer. I think a lot of work went in to these unit designations with the last season setting process, so to start with they will hold general or limited entry designation from 2022 regulations.

Examples-

HD 455 is limited entry for both whitetail and mule deer. It would receive limited entry designation for both species.

HD 270 is limited entry for mule deer, general for whitetail. It would receive limited entry designation for mule deer, and general designation for whitetail.

HD 704 is general for whitetail and mule deer. It would receive general designation for both species.



Under my proposal, there will be five antlered deer seasons. The catch is, that each hunter must choose ONE season per year. If they choose to apply for a limited entry hunt, they will forego being able to participate in an antlered general season for that year. Same applies if they buy a general season tag, they will not be allowed to apply for a limited entry tag in the same year. Bonus point system will stay in place, and you will not lose points by participating in a general season.

Limited entry deadline will remain March 15. If you apply for a limited entry hunt before that deadline, you lose your rights to a general tag. If you miss that deadline, you will be able to buy one of the three general season tags at any point of that year.




GENERAL SEASON OPTIONS-

General deer archery- September 1-20

Statewide. Tag is good in any unit with “General” designation for either species buck.



General Mule deer rifle- October 15-31

Region Specific, Hunter must designate which region they hunt at time of tag purchase. Hunter can hunt any general unit within that region for mule deer bucks during season dates.



General whitetail- November 1-30

Region Specific, Hunter must designate which region they hunt at time of purchase. Hunter can hunt any general unit within that region for whitetail bucks during season dates.



LIMITED ENTRY OPTIONS-

Unit-Specific Limited Entry


Archery- September 1-20

Rifle- November 1-30

The idea of this hunt would be to protect our current limited entry units like 270, 300, etc. Other than season dates shifting slightly, management within these units will remain largely the same as in the past.


Limited Entry Mule Deer- Regional

November 1-30

Every General deer unit will fall into the category of one of these region wide tags. This will be a limited entry tag, where if you draw you can hunt any general unit within the applied region for the month of November with a rifle for mule deer. Tag numbers will be very low and based off historical mule deer harvest within that region. ~2.5% of traditional harvest.

Examples-

Region 7 has a recent average of roughly 10,000 mule deer bucks harvested. 2.5% of that would equal 250 of these permits in Region 7.

Region 1 has a recent average of roughly 900 mule deer bucks harvested. 2.5% of that would equal 22 of these permits in Region 1.



ANTLERLESS

September 20-30

All antlerless deer harvest will take place in this short September season. All antlerless permits will be independent of antlered permits, and will be for a specific HD only, no region wide antlerless permits. Permit numbers will be decided by regional bios, with an encouragement to designate these permits for private land only. There needs to be an understanding on these tags that we’re currently taking too many mule deer does off the public land, and this course needs changed.



Conclusion:

I've put a lot of thought in to this structure, trying to come up with a compromise of providing opportunity while still making a meaningful enough change to give our deer hunting a chance to be great again. This proposal will mostly take general mule deer hunting out of the rut, although I have many times watched mule deer bucks chasing does the last few days of October.

If you're a meat hunter you can still buy a buck tag every year for either species.

If you value hunting over Thanksgiving break higher than anything else, you can still buy a general whitetail tag.

If you value quality in experience over hunting every year, you can still apply for a limited entry tag. Drawing odds on those tags should also increase dramatically by making hunters choose between general and limited entry each year.

So that's my proposal. I know FWP would never even consider a structure like this, but it's worth the discussion I think. Shoot holes in the plan, tell me why it won't work, etc.
 
So if they apply for an LE mule deer opportunity and don't get it, then they're also out of luck to hunt white-tails at all? That won't go over well.
 
Correct.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. As hunters we need to be willing to sacrifice SOMETHING if we expect anything to change.
It's an interesting proposal and I don't totally disagree. Just trying to imagine consequences to things like draw odds and pressure...anytime you limit pressure somewhere it's almost guaranteed to increase somewhere else. And I think of folks who would be happy shooting a WT instead of a MD, being forced to shoot a MD in a general unit because it's their only option. I don't know many places where WT populations are hurting, other than region 1.

Like I said, it's interesting and something to ponder. Nice job.
 
Correct.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. As hunters we need to be willing to sacrifice SOMETHING if we expect anything to change.
Yea but this is not having your cake and not eating it. In your example you are asking too much sacrifice. Changing the season dates alone would be HUGE. Just my opinion.

There needs to be something “new” or different that will appeal to the large majority that like the current structure. My suggestion would be to separate WT and Md management so you would be providing more “opportunity” and be able to harvest both deer species, the Md season needs shortened or go to draw in most areas.
 
I really like the thought you have put into this, and the way it is written out. These are my initial reactions, and I will be thinking a more about it, but I would bet others upon hearing it for the first time would maybe think similarly in some instances, so I write this under the premise of really wanting it to happen.

-There's an aspect of doing right by the resource, and there's a real need to compromise just for palatability. I wonder if there would be some way to merge the archery and general mule deer season options. The former is statewide under this proposal, and the latter is regional. What is to be gained by declaring one's region? Maybe that's a stupid question, but I wonder if in this proposal the juice would be worth the squeeze, and both could be statewide and be under the same season option. Part of me writing that is based on the way I saw a lot of folks respond to the Elk Advisory Group even toying with the idea of choose your weapon, which this would be spun as from the opposition.

-Are you concerned that in the general districts, this would shift a pretty large amount of focus to whitetails?

-Could the general districts handle a fairly larger percentage than 2.5%. 2.5 seems low for a whole region, and I again wonder if this could be a statewide opportunity. Even if it was 10% and statewide, we would be doing many X better by the resource than we currently are.

Appreciate you putting the thought into this.
 
Yea but this is not having your cake and not eating it. In your example you are asking too much sacrifice. Changing the season dates alone would be HUGE. Just my opinion.

There needs to be something “new” or different that will appeal to the large majority that like the current structure. My suggestion would be to separate WT and Md management so you would be providing more “opportunity” and be able to harvest both deer species, the Md season needs shortened or go to draw in most areas.
Totally disagree.

If a hunter doesn't draw their LE permit, then go fill the freezer with some doe's. That's the choices you have, and still have "opportunity" to hunt deer every single year.

Its impossible to have opportunity AND quality if something doesn't change.

Separate WT and MD tags is a dumb idea, that will only increase pressure on both. Wyoming just went through this and it was stomped into the dirt, where it belongs.
 
It's an interesting proposal and I don't totally disagree. Just trying to imagine consequences to things like draw odds and pressure...anytime you limit pressure somewhere it's almost guaranteed to increase somewhere else. And I think of folks who would be happy shooting a WT instead of a MD, being forced to shoot a MD in a general unit because it's their only option. I don't know many places where WT populations are hurting, other than region 1.

Like I said, it's interesting and something to ponder. Nice job.

In your example though, every one of those hunters had the option to choose to hunt whitetail if they wanted it.

To your second point, I've hunted whitetail in many of the units of the state west of the divide on public land. These deer do struggle when over hunted, and the populations are a fraction of what they were 10-20 years ago. If we keep allowing everyone to shoot a last weekend whitetail after they couldn't find a mule deer worth tagging, the quality of hunting on these deer will continue to decrease.

Just my opinion.
 
Is this structure same for residents and non-residents alike? I like it. Food for thought, how many mulies will get shot during the November whitetail season anyway? I know it it would still be tremendously better but I'm just pointing out the obvious I guess. I know I'm a nonresident but I'd sure like to see something like this happen. Montana would be such an extraordinary place to chase healthy muleys instead of the wasteland I experienced last time I was there.
 
Separate WT and MD tags is a dumb idea, that will only increase pressure on both. Wyoming just went through this and it was stomped into the dirt, where it belongs.

but not if you have to choose one right?

say all you're allowed to ever hold in a hunting year is one buck tag. choose your buck tag. white tail or mulie. that's all you get until the next year.

not saying it's the best way to approach it. but i don't see how such an approach would increase pressure. if managed with proper tag numbers based of resource availability it should really be tomayto tomahto.

what if an area is dominated by white tails and only has a handful of mulies? you don't want people to be able to go in there and wipe out the mulies, right? that area should have white tail only tags and maybe a handful of, or zero, mulie only tags. or vice versa given a flipped population scenario..
 
In your example though, every one of those hunters had the option to choose to hunt whitetail if they wanted it.

To your second point, I've hunted whitetail in many of the units of the state west of the divide on public land. These deer do struggle when over hunted, and the populations are a fraction of what they were 10-20 years ago. If we keep allowing everyone to shoot a last weekend whitetail after they couldn't find a mule deer worth tagging, the quality of hunting on these deer will continue to decrease.

Just my opinion.
I'd still like mule deer hunters to be able to shoot a WT (instead of a MD) if given the choice. Given the differences between WT and MD behavior, density on public v. private lands (at least west of the divide), and biological ability to recover after a heavy harvest or disease event or hard winter, offering more WT opportunity is generally more sustainable. So I would like if hunters who want and choose to have an opportunity for MD are able to harvest a WT in place of that MD.

I also see a drop in NR participation with this proposal, which is perhaps a desired outcome, but then increasing the cost of resident licenses is going to need to happen as well.

Again...I don't totally disagree. I think a lot of stuff people on this site come up with is right on, and we probably don't have to sell the ideas to FWP as much as we have to sell them to other hunters who will always prefer opportunity over quality.
 
-There's an aspect of doing right by the resource, and there's a real need to compromise just for palatability. I wonder if there would be some way to merge the archery and general mule deer season options. The former is statewide under this proposal, and the latter is regional. What is to be gained by declaring one's region? Maybe that's a stupid question, but I wonder if in this proposal the juice would be worth the squeeze, and both could be statewide and be under the same season option. Part of me writing that is based on the way I saw a lot of folks respond to the Elk Advisory Group even toying with the idea of choose your weapon, which this would be spun as from the opposition. My main idea for the region wide declaration would be from a data standpoint. Being able to track how much pressure each region gets seems valuable. It also seems like it would be a good idea to eventually set caps on general region tags for NR, and having the region specific tags would make that an easier transition.

-Are you concerned that in the general districts, this would shift a pretty large amount of focus to whitetails? I don't think I am too worried about it, especially considering how much pressure the current regulations put on whitetail. I think the appeal of the either applying for a limited entry permit or hunting one of the general mule deer seasons will limit the amount of hunters that would want to only target whitetail.

-Could the general districts handle a fairly larger percentage than 2.5%. 2.5 seems low for a whole region, and I again wonder if this could be a statewide opportunity. Even if it was 10% and statewide, we would be doing many X better by the resource than we currently are. I struggled with that number. And honestly, those region wide limited entry tags are what I feel the least confident in. Someone who knows Eastern Montana better than me would have to answer whether 1,000 of these permits in region 7 would make sense. That feels like a big number to me.
 
but not if you have to choose one right?

say all you're allowed to ever hold in a hunting year is one buck tag. choose your buck tag. white tail or mulie. that's all you get until the next year.

not saying it's the best way to approach it. but i don't see how such an approach would increase pressure. if managed with proper tag numbers based of resource availability it should really be tomayto tomahto.

what if an area is dominated by white tails and only has a handful of mulies? you don't want people to be able to go in there and wipe out the mulies, right? that area should have white tail only tags and maybe a handful of, or zero, mulie only tags. or vice versa given a flipped population scenario..
I think it would increase pressure in that many places they are sharing the same landscape.
 
say all you're allowed to ever hold in a hunting year is one buck tag. choose your buck tag. white tail or mulie. that's all you get until the next year.
That's the way it is in Montana presently. I don't know of any hunting district where you may take two antlered deer. Correct me if I'm mistaken.
 
I think it would increase pressure in that many places they are sharing the same landscape.

but not if you're still only allowed to have one buck tag, ever.

let's say there is a unit. that unit has 1000 bucks in it: 700 mule deer and 300 white tails. that unit give out 500 buck tags allowing for the take of either a white tail or mulie.

so you decide to then make people choose white tails or mulies. so they proportionally split the tags: now you have 350 buck mule deer tags and 150 buck white tail tags.

i'm sure in most cases there is no reason to do that, but if you did i don't see a pressure increase if done that way 🤷‍♂️
 
Is this structure same for residents and non-residents alike? I like it. Food for thought, how many mulies will get shot during the November whitetail season anyway? I know it it would still be tremendously better but I'm just pointing out the obvious I guess. I know I'm a nonresident but I'd sure like to see something like this happen. Montana would be such an extraordinary place to chase healthy muleys instead of the wasteland I experienced last time I was there.

Yeah, I admittedly did not put a lot of thought in to this from a NR perspective.

I think you could make this work with the current NR combo licenses, you'd just have to add one more step to the application process where the hunter designate his option above when applying. Obviously you would want to limit NR to roughly the same amount of buck tags as is being issued now, statewide.
 
but not if you're still only allowed to have one buck tag, ever.

let's say there is a unit. that unit has 1000 bucks in it: 700 mule deer and 300 white tails. that unit give out 500 buck tags allowing for the take of either a white tail or mulie.

so you decide to then make people choose white tails or mulies. so they proportionally split the tags: now you have 350 buck mule deer tags and 150 buck white tail tags.

i'm sure in most cases there is no reason to do that, but if you did i don't see a pressure increase if done that way 🤷‍♂️

The pressure increase will happen in the nearest general unit.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
110,700
Messages
1,930,968
Members
34,838
Latest member
Crookhunt
Back
Top