Montana General Season Structure Proposal 3.0

[It’s Bucky]

I don’t know what is more discouraging, reading all the great ideas here that will never be implemented or even considered by FWP, or reading comments on social media from those who want no changes at all. Either way, thanks for fighting the good fight, no matter how fruitless it may seem.

 

[bigsky2]

I don’t know what is more discouraging, reading all the great ideas here that will never be implemented or even considered by FWP, or reading comments on social media from those who want no changes at all. Either way, thanks for fighting the good fight, no matter how fruitless it may seem.

I just remind myself that the people that bitch and moan on Facebook arent the people that show up. During the legislative session, there were people on those hunting and fishing FB groups complaining about the mandatory reporting bill and saying it was an infringement on their rights. Then when the bill was introduced at the legislature, not a single person testified against it.

 

[8andcounting]

I just remind myself that the people that bitch and moan on Facebook arent the people that show up. During the legislative session, there were people on those hunting and fishing FB groups complaining about the mandatory reporting bill and saying it was an infringement on their rights. Then when the bill was introduced at the legislature, not a single person testified against it.

You just wait , try to take away the birthright of the turkey day shoot and they will show up …. Mess with mule deer opportunities and people both r and nr will come out of the woodwork in opposition

 

[antlerradar]

You just wait , try to take away the birthright of the turkey day shoot and they will show up …. Mess with mule deer opportunities and people both r and nr will come out of the woodwork in opposition

They already have, they just refuse to put there name on any ideas.

 

[brockel]

They already have, they just refuse to put there name on any ideas.

Majority of Montanans are completely fine with how things are. Probably why there aren’t a lot of other ideas floating around. Or they figure fwp is never going to change from their rut hunting because of cwd. Hopefully that number shrinks so some meaningful changes might happen. Going to take things getting a lot worse for that to happen though I think.

 

[R.K.]

Thanks to @WanderWoman and @brockel for bringing this back to a numbers discussion rather than just mud flinging.

Feels like the discussion got off track here, straying firmly away from the defined problems and into conjecture and name-calling.

So let's re-state the problems.

1- mule deer hunting sucks.
a- no big bucks on public (which most R don't care about)
b- terrible herds on public lands (which we all care about)
c- concentration of deer on private. (which landowners care about)
d- no access to concentrations of deer on private (which the public cares about)
e- it's crowded as hell where you can get access


So in order to address the hunting, you either have to A- address access to the deer that exist, or B- improve herds on accessible areas.

For A, it's pretty straightforward- convince landowners to let you in to hunt the deer. End of the day, that's a matter of money and headache. But in my eyes, that's just fighting over the scraps left in the fridge, and you will throwing an increasing amount of money at the problem every year until it becomes unsustainable. And with the amount of idiot behavior I've seen firsthand on BMAs, I don't blame landowners for not letting random people come out to hunt.

For B, there's a couple things at play. You need to both attract/grow deer on the accessible lands, and then also keep them there.

Everybody seems hell bent on limiting opportunity as the lever to reduce pressure and keep deer on accessible lands- whether it's giving NR the middle finger, moving to LE, swapping season dates, etc. I'm not saying that isn't the solution, but I don't think that's the best (easiest, most effective) solution. Especially since crowding is a function of "hunters per day", or basically "hunter days per season", rather than simply "we sold licenses to X number of people this year". If you get more deer, people tag out and go home earlier, and you reduce the hunter days. If the average hunter hunts 4 days instead of 8, then you efffectively cut the hunting pressure in half. Hell, you could have 50% MORE hunters out there, but still see a 25% reduction in pressure under that scenario. But you need enough deer in the right places to accomplish that.

The biggest issue is that the herds are declining. Everywhere. And since we can sustainably harvest only a percentage of a population, if the population declines, we have less to harvest. While there is some conjecture on the "Why" it is happening, I think we can all agree that the wholesale slaughter of does on public land is not helping. It was really something to see 7 muley does piled up on a trailer headed for ND while I was on a late antelope hunt. Or the local that was proud to say she shot 5 does from a single herd along a river road in the mountains. Made me question if they are maybe too vulnerable.

I think FWP actually got the biggest win they could when they moved the mule deer B tags to private-land only in R6/7- it helps grow the herds using accessible lands, reduces some hunting pressure on accessible lands, doesn't mess with the NR cashflow, and doesn't upset the Resident Thanksgiving-forky-drive-by crowd. I wish it would have been a statewide rule change.

So- now we have protected does on public lands. Does this mean they will use those public lands, stay on public lands, and recruit more deer into the herd on public lands? Not necessarily.

If the habitat is good, then they have a reason to be there- to live, raise fawns, and stay. And a buck fawn that is raised there will probably stay- unless he's pushed off. And this is where the "limiting pressure" comes into play. I'll agree that too much pressure- too many hunters for too many weeks- will push the deer to inaccessible places. They will bounce around until they quit getting bumped, and then settle in wherever they aren't being bothered. The longer they are hunted (more encounters with hunters), the more likely they are to get bumped onto "refuges". But if you want to reduce that- then put more deer on the landscape, so people tag out sooner and go home. Changing season dates really only helps some bucks get older- it doesn't put more bucks on the landscape to reduce hunter days.

So for me, in order of importance, it's:

1- make better habitat
2- STOP KILLING DOES ON PUBLIC
3- Shorten seasons
4- deal with other mortality causes
5- Move season out of the rut
6- Screw the other guy (reduce opportunity)

But honestly, I'd be perfectly happy with just the first two- I think those are the most realistic possibilities, given public support.


And I feel this would dovetail nicely with the drive to manage CWD- spread the deer out, and give them a reason to not wander as much, instead of concentrate them all in small pockets of private due to pressure. A young buck in a herd of does is going to get pushed out by an older buck, and he's going to have to travel a long damn way to find another herd of does to hang around. Smaller herds, more evenly distributed across the landscape, has a traveling buck covering fewer miles and encountering fewer deer per season than big herds separated by long distances.


Now, back to your regularly-scheduled Excrement Flinging Monkeys (XFM) Finals, here on ESPN the OCHO.

 

[brockel]

I think FWP actually got the biggest win they could when they moved the mule deer B tags to private-land only in R6/7

This was actually a loss for FWP because they were against private land only mule deer doe tags. Just so the right people get the credit for this big accomplishment for public land mule deer

 

[bigsky2]

Thanks to @WanderWoman and @brockel for bringing this back to a numbers discussion rather than just mud flinging.

Feels like the discussion got off track here, straying firmly away from the defined problems and into conjecture and name-calling.

So let's re-state the problems.

1- mule deer hunting sucks.
a- no big bucks on public (which most R don't care about)
b- terrible herds on public lands (which we all care about)
c- concentration of deer on private. (which landowners care about)
d- no access to concentrations of deer on private (which the public cares about)
e- it's crowded as hell where you can get access


So in order to address the hunting, you either have to A- address access to the deer that exist, or B- improve herds on accessible areas.

For A, it's pretty straightforward- convince landowners to let you in to hunt the deer. End of the day, that's a matter of money and headache. But in my eyes, that's just fighting over the scraps left in the fridge, and you will throwing an increasing amount of money at the problem every year until it becomes unsustainable. And with the amount of idiot behavior I've seen firsthand on BMAs, I don't blame landowners for not letting random people come out to hunt.

For B, there's a couple things at play. You need to both attract/grow deer on the accessible lands, and then also keep them there.

Everybody seems hell bent on limiting opportunity as the lever to reduce pressure and keep deer on accessible lands- whether it's giving NR the middle finger, moving to LE, swapping season dates, etc. I'm not saying that isn't the solution, but I don't think that's the best (easiest, most effective) solution. Especially since crowding is a function of "hunters per day", or basically "hunter days per season", rather than simply "we sold licenses to X number of people this year". If you get more deer, people tag out and go home earlier, and you reduce the hunter days. If the average hunter hunts 4 days instead of 8, then you efffectively cut the hunting pressure in half. Hell, you could have 50% MORE hunters out there, but still see a 25% reduction in pressure under that scenario. But you need enough deer in the right places to accomplish that.

The biggest issue is that the herds are declining. Everywhere. And since we can sustainably harvest only a percentage of a population, if the population declines, we have less to harvest. While there is some conjecture on the "Why" it is happening, I think we can all agree that the wholesale slaughter of does on public land is not helping. It was really something to see 7 muley does piled up on a trailer headed for ND while I was on a late antelope hunt. Or the local that was proud to say she shot 5 does from a single herd along a river road in the mountains. Made me question if they are maybe too vulnerable.

I think FWP actually got the biggest win they could when they moved the mule deer B tags to private-land only in R6/7- it helps grow the herds using accessible lands, reduces some hunting pressure on accessible lands, doesn't mess with the NR cashflow, and doesn't upset the Resident Thanksgiving-forky-drive-by crowd. I wish it would have been a statewide rule change.

So- now we have protected does on public lands. Does this mean they will use those public lands, stay on public lands, and recruit more deer into the herd on public lands? Not necessarily.

If the habitat is good, then they have a reason to be there- to live, raise fawns, and stay. And a buck fawn that is raised there will probably stay- unless he's pushed off. And this is where the "limiting pressure" comes into play. I'll agree that too much pressure- too many hunters for too many weeks- will push the deer to inaccessible places. They will bounce around until they quit getting bumped, and then settle in wherever they aren't being bothered. The longer they are hunted (more encounters with hunters), the more likely they are to get bumped onto "refuges". But if you want to reduce that- then put more deer on the landscape, so people tag out sooner and go home. Changing season dates really only helps some bucks get older- it doesn't put more bucks on the landscape to reduce hunter days.

So for me, in order of importance, it's:

1- make better habitat
2- STOP KILLING DOES ON PUBLIC
3- Shorten seasons
4- deal with other mortality causes
5- Move season out of the rut
6- Screw the other guy (reduce opportunity)

But honestly, I'd be perfectly happy with just the first two- I think those are the most realistic possibilities, given public support.


And I feel this would dovetail nicely with the drive to manage CWD- spread the deer out, and give them a reason to not wander as much, instead of concentrate them all in small pockets of private due to pressure. A young buck in a herd of does is going to get pushed out by an older buck, and he's going to have to travel a long damn way to find another herd of does to hang around. Smaller herds, more evenly distributed across the landscape, has a traveling buck covering fewer miles and encountering fewer deer per season than big herds separated by long distances.


Now, back to your regularly-scheduled Excrement Flinging Monkeys (XFM) Finals, here on ESPN the OCHO.

I agree with all of that, although aside from when we are in a drought (no control over that anyways) I don't think habitat is much of a limiting factor in the eastern half of the state. Improved habitat is easy to get public support for, but a lot of that is also outside of the state's control (timber harvest on NF lands, weed control, etc).

 

[R.K.]

This was actually a loss for FWP because they were against private land only mule deer doe tags. Just so the right people get the credit for this big accomplishment for public land mule deer

Then let’s name names. That’s going to be the biggest thing to move the needle, and whoever got it accomplished deserves the credit.

I agree with all of that, although aside from when we are in a drought (no control over that anyways) I don't think habitat is much of a limiting factor in the eastern half of the state. Improved habitat is easy to get public support for, but a lot of that is also outside of the state's control (timber harvest on NF lands, weed control, etc).

I think the biggest issue there is lawsuits against logging in western MT. The only thing to change that will be reforming the EAJA to reduce the frivolous lawsuits and allow logging and habitat management to proceed. I’d prefer to see selective harvest and not clear cutting in order to create more Savannah-type areas that aren’t prone to crown fires, but that’s just a personal wish (takes ammo away from the serial litigators) and not a true “the deer need this” thing.


But in the end- protect does. Get more deer in more places. Spread the people out, send them home sooner. Everybody wins.

 

[brockel]

Then let’s name names. That’s going to be the biggest thing to move the needle, and whoever got it accomplished deserves the credit.

The commission got that done in 2023

 

[8andcounting]

what if we just leave the archery and gen seasons alone but get rid of shoulder season, NR native and NR come home to hunt , and no b tags sold to NR for deer and elk . 17,500 NR tags and that’s it period . Would that help ? Heck maybe even make the last week (Thanksgiving week) R only for deer and elk .

 

[antlerradar]

The commission got that done in 2023

We also need to give Credit to Eric and some of the other outfitters. They got that ball rolling.

 

[Forkyfinder]

what if we just leave the archery and gen seasons alone but get rid of shoulder season, NR native and NR come home to hunt , and no b tags sold to NR for deer and elk . 17,500 NR tags and that’s it period . Would that help ? Heck maybe even make the last week (Thanksgiving week) R only for deer and elk .

That would involve at least 26 senators, and 51 representatives, and a govenor. Because its law.

Changing season dates, however, is within the commissions authority. Its a lot easier to convince 7 than 77.

 

[SAJ-99]

Thanks to @WanderWoman and @brockel for bringing this back to a numbers discussion rather than just mud flinging.

Feels like the discussion got off track here, straying firmly away from the defined problems and into conjecture and name-calling.

So let's re-state the problems.

1- mule deer hunting sucks.
a- no big bucks on public (which most R don't care about)
b- terrible herds on public lands (which we all care about)
c- concentration of deer on private. (which landowners care about)
d- no access to concentrations of deer on private (which the public cares about)
e- it's crowded as hell where you can get access


So in order to address the hunting, you either have to A- address access to the deer that exist, or B- improve herds on accessible areas.

For A, it's pretty straightforward- convince landowners to let you in to hunt the deer. End of the day, that's a matter of money and headache. But in my eyes, that's just fighting over the scraps left in the fridge, and you will throwing an increasing amount of money at the problem every year until it becomes unsustainable. And with the amount of idiot behavior I've seen firsthand on BMAs, I don't blame landowners for not letting random people come out to hunt.

For B, there's a couple things at play. You need to both attract/grow deer on the accessible lands, and then also keep them there.

Everybody seems hell bent on limiting opportunity as the lever to reduce pressure and keep deer on accessible lands- whether it's giving NR the middle finger, moving to LE, swapping season dates, etc. I'm not saying that isn't the solution, but I don't think that's the best (easiest, most effective) solution. Especially since crowding is a function of "hunters per day", or basically "hunter days per season", rather than simply "we sold licenses to X number of people this year". If you get more deer, people tag out and go home earlier, and you reduce the hunter days. If the average hunter hunts 4 days instead of 8, then you efffectively cut the hunting pressure in half. Hell, you could have 50% MORE hunters out there, but still see a 25% reduction in pressure under that scenario. But you need enough deer in the right places to accomplish that.

The biggest issue is that the herds are declining. Everywhere. And since we can sustainably harvest only a percentage of a population, if the population declines, we have less to harvest. While there is some conjecture on the "Why" it is happening, I think we can all agree that the wholesale slaughter of does on public land is not helping. It was really something to see 7 muley does piled up on a trailer headed for ND while I was on a late antelope hunt. Or the local that was proud to say she shot 5 does from a single herd along a river road in the mountains. Made me question if they are maybe too vulnerable.

I think FWP actually got the biggest win they could when they moved the mule deer B tags to private-land only in R6/7- it helps grow the herds using accessible lands, reduces some hunting pressure on accessible lands, doesn't mess with the NR cashflow, and doesn't upset the Resident Thanksgiving-forky-drive-by crowd. I wish it would have been a statewide rule change.

So- now we have protected does on public lands. Does this mean they will use those public lands, stay on public lands, and recruit more deer into the herd on public lands? Not necessarily.

If the habitat is good, then they have a reason to be there- to live, raise fawns, and stay. And a buck fawn that is raised there will probably stay- unless he's pushed off. And this is where the "limiting pressure" comes into play. I'll agree that too much pressure- too many hunters for too many weeks- will push the deer to inaccessible places. They will bounce around until they quit getting bumped, and then settle in wherever they aren't being bothered. The longer they are hunted (more encounters with hunters), the more likely they are to get bumped onto "refuges". But if you want to reduce that- then put more deer on the landscape, so people tag out sooner and go home. Changing season dates really only helps some bucks get older- it doesn't put more bucks on the landscape to reduce hunter days.

So for me, in order of importance, it's:

1- make better habitat
2- STOP KILLING DOES ON PUBLIC
3- Shorten seasons
4- deal with other mortality causes
5- Move season out of the rut
6- Screw the other guy (reduce opportunity)

But honestly, I'd be perfectly happy with just the first two- I think those are the most realistic possibilities, given public support.


And I feel this would dovetail nicely with the drive to manage CWD- spread the deer out, and give them a reason to not wander as much, instead of concentrate them all in small pockets of private due to pressure. A young buck in a herd of does is going to get pushed out by an older buck, and he's going to have to travel a long damn way to find another herd of does to hang around. Smaller herds, more evenly distributed across the landscape, has a traveling buck covering fewer miles and encountering fewer deer per season than big herds separated by long distances.


Now, back to your regularly-scheduled Excrement Flinging Monkeys (XFM) Finals, here on ESPN the OCHO.

We have a contradiction or two. If herds on public are "terrible" and deer are "concentrated" on private, then making B-tags valid on private only doesn't really help much. A better change would be make deer tags MD buck-only or any whitetail and stop the habit of "dumping a doe as a consolation prize" (which I think is a bigger issue than incidental take by antelope or elk hunters- although I have no data to back any of that up).

The real answer has to be reducing opportunity. Someone is going to get screwed and, as you point out, people just want it to be the other guy. This is why the proposals are sharing the pain a little.

Time and space. Those are your main variables to limit opportunity.

The #4 and its ranking is its own thread.

 

[Forkyfinder]

The real answer has to be reducing opportunity. Someone is going to get screwed and, as you point out, people just want it to be the other guy.

Curious - but under a LE proposal - who is getting screwed?

 

[Elky Welky]

5- Move season out of the rut

Part of the issue with all 3 iterations of this proposal is that it forces this idea on the majority of Montanans, who aren't ready or willing to do this yet based upon FWP's surveys. We've heard countless times that if something was a nonstarter for outfitters or landowners, then it was immediately tossed in the development of this proposal. But when something was a nonstarter for the rest of Montana's citizenry, then "screw'm this is for their own good and the majority of Montanans simply don't know what's best for them." Maybe so, but that attitude will never change the hearts and minds of the majority, who don't spend their time on forums like this one. Heck, that's probably for the best. The anger and vitriol of the people hell bent on forcing season changes onto Montanans certainly doesn't bring anyone to that side of the cause.

Further, that mentality flies in the face of FWP's statutory mandate to manage wildlife for the citizenry of the State. Which is why the other ideas floating around make so much more sense, because they start with the statutory mandate, tackle doe hunting, consider disease and drought, and don't cater to the desires of the few at the expense of the many.

It's the fatal flaw of this from the start: a lack of public education about what the issues are, and a cry of "we have/see a problem that you don't and therefore we alone are going to fix it at your expense."

Which then goes back to the great work FWP is doing towards public education, going around the state and holding public meetings, and working to develop a comprehensive mule deer plan. And articles from Lee newspapers, like the one Forky posted earlier, are helpful as well.

 

[SAJ-99]

Curious - but under a LE proposal - who is getting screwed?

I haven't tried to keep up with the various proposals - all are better that the current mess. Under an LE proposal you limit space. A large numbers of Rs are adamantly against not being able to hunt across 4/5ths of the state at their whim. It's why FWP doesn't listen to the idea until the data is overwhelming in that direction. You could just do LE it to NR tags. Screwing NRs is a core Montana value. But honestly, it won't matter much in the results. Most NRs pick a specific time and place to hunt. They are not randomly driving around every weekend seeing if they can find a deer that wandered too close to the road.

 

[Elky Welky]

Screwing NRs is a core Montana value.

Just to play devil's advocate, is it really though? It's certainly a common complaint from Montanans, but one that the legislature and FWP have actually done very little to address. The money is too good. They are too dependent on NR dollars to want to shift those costs or reduce NRs in any meaningful way. Most other states are far more restrictive than Montana, we're just the last ones to try and catch up.

I also think it is fair to note that the squeeze most Montanans are feeling from NR pressure is actually because of habitat loss, BM losses, and large private land sanctuaries. Less huntable space means more perceived crowding.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Part of the issue with all 3 iterations of this proposal is that it forces this idea on the majority of Montanans, who aren't ready or willing to do this yet based upon FWP's surveys. We've heard countless times that if something was a nonstarter for outfitters or landowners, then it was immediately tossed in the development of this proposal. But when something was a nonstarter for the rest of Montana's citizenry, then "screw'm this is for their own good and the majority of Montanans simply don't know what's best for them." Maybe so, but that attitude will never change the hearts and minds of the majority, who don't spend their time on forums like this one. Heck, that's probably for the best.

Respectfully,

Those guys asked your organization and a host of others to provide feedback last year and you all said no. Perhaps an attempt to sit down and work with them would have been wiser than simply shutting the door. Those 9 individuals were told "screw you" more times than once. It's pretty disingenuous to paint their outreach in this manner.

 

[SAJ-99]

Just to play devil's advocate, is it really though?

Anytime there is a problem and something needs to be done, the first response is to do it to NRs. Mostly it revolves around $$$.

squeeze most Montanans are feeling from NR pressure is actually because of habitat loss, BM losses, and large private land sanctuaries.

Again, it's about $$$. I'm sure there are a ton of paying NRs hunting those private land sanctuaries. BM losses are because they can get the same payment with less hassle (and damage) from a few hunters (R and NR alike). Habitat loss is a a bit of a straw man. Can an animal that needs to put on fat for the winter be blamed for spending its time on a pivot?