Montana extends season (whitetail) for CWD

[Deleted member 20812]

The herd won’t be eliminated. Not by a long shot. 95% of the deer reside on private land, where they cannot be hunted unless you’re in like Flynn or willing to pay. The 5% on public are going to take a serious beating. And there is no requirement to submit a test sample. This kind of insanity is why public land hunting is so shitty nowadays. Unanimous decision by the commission.. we are #@)(*%*, as if that hasn’t been obvious for quite some time.

Everyone should read this about 20 times. Then, go drink a six pack and read it 20 more.

"Managing" CWD from the periphery, with no mandatory testing is absolutely insane.

 

[brockel]

They're coming for you guys in January.

We do a good enough job of getting the young bucks killed off that are supposedly the spreaders. We should be good out here

 

[EYJONAS!]

We do a good enough job of getting the young bucks killed off that are supposedly the spreaders. We should be good out here

There's always a few stragglers......

 

[EYJONAS!]

Whenever the choppas are dispatched for aerial assassination I got no reserves...... Im volunteering for that shit.








kidding.

 

[LuketheDog]

I won't have mine tested because once the meat becomes inedible what's the point? I can't justify hunting just for the killing. So I'm gonna put my head in the sand and carry on.

I don't hunt for the kill either, I hunt for the meat, the unit I was in has a CWD occurrence of <5% in mule deer and I just got unlucky and killed a very old buck who'd had a lot of years to catch it. Frankly, I'm sure pretty much anybody here who has eaten more than a few deer from a CWD area and/or has used a commercial processor in one of those areas has been exposed to CWD, including me. This is the first CWD-positive deer I've killed when a test was required by CPW, the difference between knowing it's infected and not knowing is HUGE and I won't knowingly feed the meat to my kids, that's all.

 

[406LIFE]

I deleted my response last night because I wanted to doublecheck my source, but after talking to FWP today you are 100% wrong on this one. They have not had a single positive test in any of 329, 331 or 340.

You know, Randy, as I said in my OP, you are free to do with the info as you'd like.

When I spoke with FWP and asked the question, I got an affirmative that there had been positive tests in each HD. I've reached back out to that employee, but haven't gotten a response back yet. If there is something to change, I'll update it. My intent is to provide quality information and if something was inaccurate, I'll issue the mea culpa and move on.

 

[406LIFE]

From the press release “Hunters who participate in the management hunt are encouraged to submit samples for CWD testing.”

“Encouraged”

what in the absolute #*^@#*?

I had a similar question that I asked a couple of the commissioners. It came down to the known prevalence rate was so high that further testing wouldn't add much to the known data. The other, larger reason for not having mandatory testing was simply dollars. There wasn't enough funding to staff people and test samples to have a mandatory.

 

[406LIFE]

I'm really looking forward to the first positive test to pop up in the Missoula area, so I can go get my daily bag limit of bucks in 270 in February. We are so #@)(*%* it isn't even funny.

That is interesting as well. I'm hoping to see some results from the new antler restriction tag in that unit. The hope is that there can still be a trophy unit in the midst of CWD. This measure may be one way to allow the bigger bucks to survive while thinning out populations.

 

[The Hedgehog]

I had a similar question that I asked a couple of the commissioners. It came down to the known prevalence rate was so high that further testing wouldn't add much to the known data. The other, larger reason for not having mandatory testing was simply dollars. There wasn't enough funding to staff people and test samples to have a mandatory.

Ha! So nuke them on public land. Brilliant.

 

[RobG]

FWP Wildlife Biologist Dean Waltee proposed the hunt a few weeks ago after sampling revealed a ~40% CWD infection rate around Sheridan/Twin Bridges. They don't want it to spread outside of that region which is why they are hitting the peripheries. Spreading to elk and mule deer is a big concern.

Regarding the slaughter... I've hunted WT around Sheridan. During the regular season you can already shoot up to 7 deer so public land whitetails are elsewhere by now. I don't know about the other areas. I'm more inclined to think WT numbers won't be reduced enough to make a difference.

Waltee sent out a justification a few days ago which I will paste here. It addresses some of the statements that have been said here, although I'm sure people will disagree, especially with his last line.

Part 1 of 3

MONTANA FISH, WILDLIFE & PARKS

HUNTING SEASON / QUOTA CHANGE SUPPORTING INFORMATION​

Species: White-tailed Deer

Region: 3

Hunting District: 320, 322, 324, 325, 326, 329, 330, 331, and 340

Year: 2020​

1. Describe the proposed season / quotas changes and provide a summary of prior history (i.e., prior history of permits, season types, etc.). REMEMBER THIS STEP IS TO BE ACCOMPLISHED BY THE INITIAL ENTRY INTO THE DATABASE—SO FOLKS CAN START THIS NARRATIVE WITH #2 BELOW.

The recommendation is to implement a white-tailed deer Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) management hunt through February 15, 2021 across the following deer/elk hunting districts and hunting district portions (Figure 1):

Hunting District 320—Those portions within the Jefferson River Watershed. Those portions within the Madison River watershed would be excluded;

Hunting District 322—All;

Hunting District 324—All;

Hunting District 325—Those portions within the Blacktail Deer Creek Watershed and north of Clark Canyon Creek. Those portions within the Beaverhead River Watershed south of Clark Canyon Creek would be excluded;

Hunting District 326—All;

Hunting District 329—All;

Hunting District 330—Those portions within the Ruby River Watershed. Those portions within the Madison River Watershed would be excluded;

Hunting District 331—All; and

Hunting District 340—All.



The proposal is for existing unused 2020 general deer licenses to remain valid for either-sex white-tailed harvest and existing unused 2020 003-00, 331-01, and 399-00 B-licenses to remain valid for antlerless white-tailed deer harvest. General deer licenses and 399-00 B-licenses won’t be sold beyond the end of the general hunting season. The 003-00 B-license will remain on sale through January 15, 2020. Based on recent years’ sales of 003-00 and 399-00 licenses and subsequent harvest, it’s estimated that 10,000-12,000 white-tailed B-licenses will be held by hunters and remain valid during the CWD management hunt.

The hunting season in these hunting districts has been general license either-sex for more that ten years. The 003-00 antlerless B-license is valid across each of these districts. Since 2017, the 399-00 antlerless white-tailed deer B-License has been valid across all but two of these hunting districts (331 and 329). During 2017—2019, the per-hunter annual quota for 399-00 B-licenses was three. In 2020, the per-hunter quota was increased to five.

 

[RobG]

Part 2 of 3 (The numbers won't be sequential since I have to do this in parts)

1. What is the objective of this proposed change? This could be a specific harvest amount or resulting population level or number of game damage complaints, etc.

The objectives of the proposed CWD management hunt are:

1. Continue harvesting white-tailed deer and testing them for Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) as part of ongoing priority CWD surveillance;
2. Continue harvesting white-tailed deer where CWD was detected and surrounding areas to reduce the absolute number of CWD positive animals, reduce CWD prevalence, reduce the likelihood of future increased prevalence, and slow the spread of CWD among white-tailed deer populations;
3. Achieve a harvest level that will measurably reduce existing white-tailed deer populations where CWD currently occurs and where CWD is likely to occur in the future;
4. Reduce white-tailed deer populations and CWD prevalence to levels that can be more effectively managed through general hunting season harvest; and
5. Reduce the probability of CWD spreading to mule deer, elk, and moose populations in proximity to white-tailed deer populations known to be infected with CWD.

1. How will the success of this proposal be measured? This could be annual game or harvest surveys, game damage complaints, etc.

Results of the proposed change would be measured through aerial population trend surveys, ground surveys of population vital rates, hunter-harvest data collected during Fish, Wildlife & Parks phone surveys, social and biological data collected at hunter check-stations, and monitoring of CWD distribution and prevalence.

1. What is the current population’s status in relation to the management objectives? (i.e., state management objectives from management plan if applicable; provide current and prior years of population survey, harvest, or other pertinent information).

There are no formal population objectives for white-tailed deer across these hunting districts. Management has aimed to balance sportsmen desire for more deer and access to harvest them with private landowner tolerance of deer consuming agricultural crops and their willingness to allow hunters access to harvest deer.

Structured population trend surveys were established in the Jefferson and Ruby Valleys in 2014. Survey efforts include aerial population trend counts during late-green up of agricultural fields and ground classification of deer following the general rifle season. These data indicate that area white-tailed deer densities vary but populations have trended up since 2015. Surveys show white-tailed deer densities ranging from as low as 10 per-square-mile in the lower portion of the Jefferson Valley to as high as 80 per-square-mile in the lower portion of the Ruby Valley at spring green-up. Late-summer and early-fall densities are believed to be higher due to early-summer fawn pulse. Localized concentrations of white-tailed deer periodically reach several hundred per-square-mile.

From 2004 through 2019, hunters reported harvesting an average of 4,242 (range = 3,628–5,577) white-tailed deer across the 399-00 B-license hunting districts, annually. This level of harvest has proven insufficient to measurably reduce populations.

 

[RobG]

Part 3 of 3

1. Provide information related to any weather/habitat factors, public or private land use or resident and nonresident hunting opportunity that have relevance to this change (i.e., habitat security, hunter access, vegetation surveys, weather index, snow conditions, and temperature / precipitation information).

Most white-tail deer within the proposed CWD management hunt area occupy private lands within valleys. A small proportion distribute across adjacent public lands during snow-free periods of the year. These deer typically migrate into the valleys following initial snowfall. It’s anticipated that a high majority of white-tailed deer within the proposed CWD management hunt area would be distributed across private lands during the proposed hunt extension period. Access to hunt deer on private lands is attainable to hunters that properly pursue permission. Most private landowners issue permission to a limited number of hunters at any time for safety reasons and because this approach is believed to facilitate greater deer harvest per day. Thus, it is hypothesized that a level of deer harvest that would result is effective population reduction will require greater that 37 days of rifle hunting.

CWD was detected among white-tailed deer in the Ruby Valley in 2019. These deer are contiguous with white-tailed deer and moose throughout the Ruby, Jefferson, Beaverhead, and Big Hole valleys. They are seasonally connected to migratory populations of elk, moose, and mule deer that occupy adjacent upland habitats.

As of November 20, 2020, surveillance of hunter-harvested white-tailed deer suggests CWD prevalence of: 8.3% (N = 30) in Hunting District 320; 21.8% (N = 226) in Hunting District 322, 0% in Hunting Districts 324 (N = 2), 325 (N = 19), 329 (N = 2), 331 (N = 2), and 340 (N = 33); and 40% (N = 5) in Hunting District 326. Surveillance suggest CWD prevalence may be as high as 42% in a localized portion of Hunting District 322 where approximately 2,000 white-tailed deer are routinely counted at spring green-up. Because of high densities and contiguous distribution of white-tailed deer within these areas, CWD is expected to occur in areas it currently doesn’t soon. Without substantial reductions of white-tailed deer population and CWD prevalence, CWD is expected to result in white-tailed deer population reduction and transmit to adjacent populations of mule deer, elk, and moose soon.

Given current white-tailed deer density and the presence of CWD, substantial reduction of white-tailed deer density within these areas should be pursued. Future population management will need to be adaptive relative to CWD prevalence.

1. Briefly describe the contacts you have made with individual sportsmen or landowners, public groups or organizations regarding this proposal and indicate their comments (both pro and con).

Because of the evolving nature of CWD detection and the need to act in a timely manner, the proposal has been discussed with a relatively small number of area landowners, sportsmen, and game wardens. Dillon biologist Jesse Newby and Butte biologist Vanna Boccadori, who manage hunting districts in this proposal, support this proposal. All sportsmen and landowners consulted were supportive of the proposal. Two landowners that control most of the lower Ruby Valley, where CWD occurs at relatively high prevalence and white-tailed deer densities are the highest, are supportive of continued hunting. The proposal may cause concern by some hunters and landowners where white-tailed deer populations remain relatively low. Within the proposed hunt area, individual landowners will maintain the ability to deny hunter access where they feel harvest is not necessary. Some hunters that desire more white-tailed deer may be opposed. There may be some opposition to including buck deer. However, buck deer harvest is critical to managing CWD prevalence and spread. Given high populations, chronic game damage, hunter interest in white-tailed deer harvest, and recent CWD surveillance results, the proposal is expected to be supported or accepted by most hunters and landowners.

 

[Carl 9.3x62]

I suspect more deer will die from the hands of hunters in the name of CWD management than will die of the disease itself.

 

[d-edward]

I had a similar question that I asked a couple of the commissioners. It came down to the known prevalence rate was so high that further testing wouldn't add much to the known data. The other, larger reason for not having mandatory testing was simply dollars. There wasn't enough funding to staff people and test samples to have a mandatory.

Why implement a management plan you don't have the resources to support or interest in validating the success metrics of?

 

[Elkmagnet]

Yeah if you guys will just go ahead and kill every deer in Montana you can provide a buffer zone to protect Idaho from the Dakota's.
Wyoming, your cooperation would also be appreciated!

 

[Irrelevant]

I'm having a real hard time wrapping my head around this logic. What exactly is the end goal with this management plan? Simply to "slow" the spread of CWD? And if so, what actual good does slowing it do, for either the animals or the public?

 

[Heyjbales]

I suspect more deer will die from the hands of hunters in the name of CWD management than will die of the disease itself.

That's pretty much the goal. You kill more deer than CWD so prevalence doesn't spike then population crashes. So let's say you keep deer at 60% total population potential with these hunts. That keeps prevalence at 10-15% (like they've found in Colorado with this published study) and you have lower deer numbers in perpetuity (I think this might answer your question @neffa3).

The inverse would be reducing hunter numbers (or keeping the same), allow deer population to be 100% of capacity, allow CWD to wipe out the herd, and then in 10 years be at 10-20% of total capacity with little to no hunting opportunity at all.

This is a long game for the health of herds deep into the future.

 

[RobG]

That's pretty much the goal. You kill more deer than CWD so prevalence doesn't spike then population crashes. So let's say you keep deer at 60% total population potential with these hunts. That keeps prevalence at 10-15% (like they've found in Colorado with this published study) and you have lower deer numbers in perpetuity (I think this might answer your question @neffa3).

The inverse would be reducing hunter numbers (or keeping the same), allow deer population to be 100% of capacity, allow CWD to wipe out the herd, and then in 10 years be at 10-20% of total capacity with little to no hunting opportunity at all.

This is a long game for the health of herds deep into the future.

I don't have time to study the paper, but do the results support the idea that reducing population is an effective was to control CWD?

 

[Heyjbales]

I don't have time to study the paper, but do the results support the idea that reducing population is an effective was to control CWD?

Yep! Reducing population and reducing buck numbers.

The golden-boy units in Colorado for this are like 7, 8, 9, 191 where prevalence has decreased since the early 2000's.

 

[RobG]

Yep! Reducing population and reducing buck numbers.

The golden-boy units in Colorado for this are like 7, 8, 9, 191 where prevalence has decreased since the early 2000's.

Ae there other studies in other areas? Is there a general consensus among researchers?

edited to be less of an a$$hole