You are searching for a solution to a problem that they don’t think exists. Game check data does not show a substantial doe harvest on public land. There are hundreds of ideas that could be done to make things better. It’s obvious to most people but there is not much you can do when they aren’t seeing it and the data isn’t showing it.
Montana Deer
- Thread starter Ought Six
- Start date
I agree. Do you have your own data set to prove them wrong?
brownbear932008
Well-known member
A major problem as well which is why we will eventually have a European model of management of our wildlife in this country. Don't go crying when only the rich can afford to hunt.
antlerradar
Well-known member
Maybe the data is showing that there is few does left on public land.
rogerthat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 2,587
My 30 days plus on public land corroborated this. It’s funny how the “data” gets used to support their narrative
Did you even get off the road? How tight were your boots laced up?
D
Deleted member 20812
Guest
I doubt 3500 doe tags sold at $15-50 apiece is funding much in the way of personnel.
It’s because fwp has no clue where these doe tags are being used besides region 7 maybe by district depending on what surveyor calls you. So at least that narrows down where they are being used. FWP is literally killing it at mule deer management
the nikster
Well-known member
I hunted Montana unit 700 multiple times in the 2000’s. Unbelievable deer numbers for a guy used to seeing a couple dozen deer a year.
It is sad to hear that so much has changed. But it does not seem, based on the comments, that the core management principles have changed. Similar strategies led to the boom, what led to the decline? Bad weather, we cannot fix that. Disease, we can effect it a little. Loss of habitat, little we can do. Over use of the asset, maybe we can do something there. Influence the management team, maybe the best bet.
So how do we go about changing the things we can? I don’t know. FWP is a constant, and they need money to remain in place and do their job. If no tags were sold in 2024 would they remain solvent? Again, I don’t know, just thinking out loud.
Ethical hunters could choose to close the season (off the record), but unethical hunters, younger hunters, hunters nearing the end of their days in the field, poachers, etc. would still pursue the game. To very little end.
I have added nothing of merit to this discussion, I wish I had.
It is sad to hear that so much has changed. But it does not seem, based on the comments, that the core management principles have changed. Similar strategies led to the boom, what led to the decline? Bad weather, we cannot fix that. Disease, we can effect it a little. Loss of habitat, little we can do. Over use of the asset, maybe we can do something there. Influence the management team, maybe the best bet.
So how do we go about changing the things we can? I don’t know. FWP is a constant, and they need money to remain in place and do their job. If no tags were sold in 2024 would they remain solvent? Again, I don’t know, just thinking out loud.
Ethical hunters could choose to close the season (off the record), but unethical hunters, younger hunters, hunters nearing the end of their days in the field, poachers, etc. would still pursue the game. To very little end.
I have added nothing of merit to this discussion, I wish I had.
Montanas rapid growing resident population along with the decline of mule deer in the western part of the state is a BIG part of the eastern Montana mule deer decline.
FWP can’t continue to sell a product that isn’t there just to save some jobs. Or maybe they can since that’s what they are doing
antlerradar
Well-known member
Actually, You asked a really good question.
@brockel hit of some of the top reasons and I will try to hit on some more when I get time.
Labman1127
Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2020
- Messages
- 33
Thank you for posting this article. That makes my decision pretty darn easy not to drive 2100 miles and pay $750 for a non res deer tag.
Hopefully things improve for the future because you guys certainly have an amazing state that I truly enjoy hunting.
Hopefully things improve for the future because you guys certainly have an amazing state that I truly enjoy hunting.
brownbear932008
Well-known member
Nope it definitely isn't it's only a tiny part of the problem. It is between 50k and 175k which would equate to several positions that could be eliminated if they aren't sold to John Q though.
All I'm saying is there are alternative motives for FWP to push the "everything is fine and peachy with deer populations" when everyone in the house knows it darn well isn't .
D
Deleted member 20812
Guest
There are motives. Highly unlikely it’s financially motivated.
antlerradar
Well-known member
I would argue that he decline started in 87, that was the best year I ever experienced, My father tells me that the 60's were even better and my 90+ year old neighbor may argue that the 50's were the best of all. The 2000's may have seamed great to you, but the decline was well underway by then.
I started hunting 704 in 1978 when I turned twelve, plenty has changed since then. Back then it was for the most part an A tag, fill that and you were hunting birds the rest of the season. Now we have added multiple mule deer doe tags, Whitetail doe tags, A and B elk tags, bear and lion licenses. We have also increased the amount of time hunters are in the field. Back in 78 almost no one hunted archery, now with elk, archery is nearly as crowded as is general rifle. In addition we have moved the opener to Saturday, added a two day youth season and a muzzleloader season. It all adds up to a lot more hunter days in the field and near constant pressure for three and a half months. Is it any wonder that the biggest chance in my life time has been the migration of mule deer from the public hills to the private river and creek bottoms.
I am not a big blame it on predators guy, but in 1978 lions and bears numbers were close to zero and coyotes were worth big money compared to today.
The first hunting leases started shortly after I started hunting. The winter of 78 may be the spark that got leasing started and once started leasing snowballed in a hurry. The winter of 78 started around Nov 10th when we got more than a foot of snow, that snow and a whole lot more was still with us in April. It could not have been worse for the deer and numbers plummeted. Before 78, outfitters did not pay for leases, there was just no need, deer and quality deer were plentiful. Seventy eight changed that, now that deer were few, in order to ensure quality deer for you clients you needed pay landowners for exclusive hunting.
For years FWP has relied on the Law of Diminishing Returns (when the hunting is poor in one place, hunters will self regulate to where the hunting is better) to manage hunter distribution. I have my doubts that the Law of Diminishing Returns ever worked well in the past and it is totally ineffective now,yet it is still relied on by FWP to manage hunter distribution. For the Law of Diminishing Returns to work you need to have good access to most of the animals. We no longer have the access needed and hunters are simply going from one over hunted parcel of public to another. The more game spices you have the less effective the Law of Diminishing Returns will be. You can see this with the addition of elk. In the past when deer numbers were down some hunters would go else were and the deer would get a little break. Now hunters just shift to hunting elk and they still have a deer tag in their pocket. The result is deer never get a break even when numbers are low.
Hunters are just a lot better at hunting, you could write a book on the reasons why. My father summed it up. " When I guided in the 60's and 70's we got a some big deer, we saw a lot more that got way that wouldn't of today." As hunters we are quick to adopt all the information and technology that makes us more effective. We can not expect game herds to maintain if we refuse to adjust else were.
Last edited:
the nikster
Well-known member
“FWP can’t continue to sell a product that isn’t there”. Full stop. You don’t even need to add the rest.Montanas rapid growing resident population along with the decline of mule deer in the western part of the state is a BIG part of the eastern Montana mule deer decline.
FWP can’t continue to sell a product that isn’t there just to save some jobs. Or maybe they can since that’s what they are doing
I agree.
FWP sells access to the game, not the game itself. You already own the deer as a resident. I, as a nonresident, should have to purchase the game at full face value.
Imagine a grocery store with managers of every aisle. 1 manager does not replace inventory as it is sold but rather, raises his prices on the remaining items to meet his margins. Soon shoppers will stop going down the expensive aisle. They might even choose a different store.
How is game management any different? The model does not work.
The aisle needs to be shut down and the shelves need to be restocked.
Similar threads
