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.
