Montana General Season Structure Proposal 3.0

[cgasner1]

No honey holes

None needed just general unit information was plenty. I had a plan and just got a little tweak is all. Hopefully I get back from Alaska in time to get a week in before the deer hunters show up

 

[antlerradar]

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.

I have to disagree on some of this. I don't think you are giving biology enough credit for why deer leave public for private in the fall. In the mountains deer are going to migrate down to the winter range regardless of the hunting pressure. Even if there was zero hunters on the mountain the deer would still move. Thousands of generations have proven that migrating down give the deer the best chance of survival. The farther down the mountain you get the more likely the land will be in private hand. Still there is good winter range on public, but this is where the pressure become a factor. Today with the Nov season we are concentrating nearly all the pressure on the relatively small amount of accessible winter range. There is little chance that the deer are going to stick around with that kind of focused pressure. Move the season to Oct and we spread the hunters out over a bigger portion of the mountain.
Where I live in eastern Montana deer have been flocking to the hay fields for as long a I can remember. Our own ranch was a bit of an exception to this, but that had to do with our special geography. On other places in the past and ours now the does will start to show up as early as late August and the numbers will continue to grow well into October. This is well before hunters show up. It is driven by their stomach. The need to put on fat for the next winter and improve body condition to ensure that they cycle during the rut is a powerful instinct. One year when deer numbers were sky high we took as many doe hunters as we could get. We shot more than 50 from less than a square mile of hay field in the first two week of the season and never got the does to leave. It takes a lot of pressure to move deer when they are on good feed and public range land will never have the quality of an irrigated or even regrowth dryland alfalfa even with the most successful habitat program.
When I first started hunting in 78, I would argue that biology was working in favor of hunters. Back then you could get access to nearly all of the private land at the bottom of the mountain and farmers and ranchers were more then happy to have hunters on the hayfields. Now much of that private land is owned by out of state wealthy, some of witch are down right hostel to hunting and the generational ranches that are left are not nearly as open to access for everyone. Now biology is working if favor of the landowners. Move the mule deer season into October and biology will once again be working for hunters. This is why I favor moving the season.
, .

 

[BuzzH]

Appreciate the dialog Jake. When version 1.0 came out, nobody would meet with them. That did change later on. Appreciate the correction there.

No NGO was at the table within the famrework of that group. The two outfitters were there as individuals. The landowner was not affilated with an NGO either. Those folks were all hunt talkers. From here. They stood up and did this. MCS did facilitate the meetings, and helped provide context and information, including a recounting of previous attempts at changes, etc and how those changes did or didn't work as intended. MCS remains neutral on all season setting proposals.

When we worked on the Rocky Mtn Front Heritage Act, the Friends of the RMF were a loosely knit group of individuals who came together to build something. They invited groups in later. Cecil Garland didn't start out his campaign for the Scapegoat by simply calling NGO's and begging them for help, he led first, and others followed. State Lands Access was a group of dedicated, grassroots individuals who came together to get that done. MT has a long and storied history of citizens engaging in the public processes and dragging organizations along with them.

If the groups in MT won't listen to ideas that they haven't generated, then I think that's a dangerous bubble.

Well said Ben.

One of my best friends and I always said it more bluntly, to the point, and perhaps a bit less eloquently.

Lead, follow, or get the #uck out of my way.

 

[Gerald Martin]

@Elky Welky, I guess if our tent is was too small to get buy in, folks can take that lesson and do it the right way, by spreading the word and getting all the orgs, NGO’s and agency folks on the same page and get something better for MT wildlife and hunters across the finish line.

We’ll see what recommendations and actions come out of the official process that FWP is undergoing. I’m betting lots of studies and no significant changes from that process.

Let’s see what happens with the other proposals being advanced. Having one of those adopted will be better than current season structures so I will be glad if one of those are adopted. There’s less detail about specifics in and not much ability for folks to engage or influence changes in those proposals than ours but I’m glad folks are presenting ideas to the commission.

In my opinion a big tent process of drafting a proposal that everyone will support before it goes to the commission will never get off the ground. Every organization tends to approach issues with intent to defend the interests that group is organized around and that doesn’t allow for flexibility to consider the interests of the other groups equally. That leads to distrust and intransigence which gridlocks action and so the same old, same old remains status quo.

I get it that some folks feel like their preferred opportunity might not get the priority they think it deserves. I get it that some folks feel like their valid critiques or concerns are not being given sufficient consideration or are being ignored.

Given the fact that a group of guys who love to hunt and love the resource just raised their hands and volunteered to give it a go, got group consensus and have advanced the conversation this far into action, I’m pretty damn proud and amazed by how far this thing has come.

In fact, I’m actually optimistic that we have a good chance of getting this thing across the finish line.

 

[antlerradar]

What money? We're volunteers, and we're one of the few groups that shows up and isn't afraid to piss people off. Our prerogative isn't membership dollars.

We are talking past each other though, because my point was that before even presenting proposals, there needs to be statewide consensus that there is a problem. But yes, without knowing where members stand, groups like mine's hands are tied to FWP's surveys, as it is the best source for how all Montanans feel on issues--and they do tend to reflect how our membership feels.

We are working on a much-needed membership survey right now though. And I would expect, based on member feedback, you will see a few more definitive positions on issues.

I am going to suggest two questions.
How long have you been hunting Montana and is the mule deer hunting better now than it was when you started hunting.

 

[BuzzH]

The other thing that always frustrates me is that all the people, groups, etc. that only crawl out from under the bridge once someone else starts making shit happen.

Where were they all at for the past 20-30 years while mule deer were tanking? Where was their proposal? When did they take the first step? Why didn't they introduce a proposal 5, 10, 20 years ago?

Its sad too that the first people to step up, they always get bloodied the worst.

Goes with the territory of being the first to make a run at improving things.

I have a lot of respect for the handful of guys that stepped up and for taking your beatings like Men.

Well done.

 

[Elky Welky]

In my opinion a big tent process of drafting a proposal that everyone will support before it goes to the commission will never get off the ground.

Pretty close to where I was getting Gerald, but not going back far enough. The big tent is needed to get everyone on board with putting together proposals in the first place. I'm backing this up even further.

Let me try a metaphor:

Random person 1: "Hey Gerald, you live in a terrible place, but I and a handful of others got together to come up with a fix to your problem, we are going to make you and everyone in your neighborhood move. Just thank me now."

You: "absolutely not! I love my home, my family is here, I have all I need, there are mounts on the wall, I'm close to everything I love to do, and I've made a great life here. F off."

Your neighbors: "we are all quite happy too. There's a cranky guy down the street, and some older folks who keep saying things were better 30 years ago, and one guy who moved away years ago but keeps coming back to complain, but overall we like our lives here and don't want to move either"

Another random person 2: "you idiots, your homes have been terrible for a long time, they're crumbling from underneath. Just because you haven't noticed it doesn't mean it isn't happening."

Random person #3: "It's all the county's fault. They're the ones responsible for maintaining homes"

P1: "But don't worry, we fixed it for you. Where you are moving will be better, you just have to trust us".

You: "but I told you, I don't have a problem. I'm happy, why are you trying to take that from me?"

P2: "like we said. You do have a problem, and if you can't see it that's your fault. We're petitioning the county to have all of you evicted next year. It's for your own good."

Another person comes in, p4: "I live in the next neighborhood over, and we all hate it. We still live in there, but our homes are crumbling faster than yours. You need to move"

And on and on we go.

Now try scenario #2

P1: "Hey Gerald, we're your neighbors, and we've noticed there are some issues with your house's foundation, and have been having some of the same issues with ours. We're holding a meeting this weekend to get the word out and are letting everyone know and inviting everyone around, can you spread the word? The more the better. Once we get to the bottom of this problem and all agree that our homes need fixing or we might need to move, we're gonna put together a team to try and work with the county to tackle this"

 

[Gerald Martin]

Scenario #2 What are doing looking at my foundation? I’ve got a crawl space….

 

[Elky Welky]

Scenario #2 What are doing looking at my foundation? I’ve got a crawl space….

Haha perfect! I think you're seeing what I'm saying now, case in point.

And yes, there probably always will be "get off my lawn" types and holdouts, but if enough of the neighborhood shows up, then the proposal and the group(s) behind them sell better.

 

[Forkyfinder]

When you take into consideration one of the guys that “helped” with that proposal is on here spouting off about stuff that’s gonna happen when he has never hunted a day on public it kinda pisses me off.

Thats unfair - and you clearly dont know me as well as you think you do. Ive got a couple small bucks off of public - that i frankly dont regret shooting. Sure wouldnt after what i did see on public lately.

You guys are in an echo chamber. I'll leave you all to talk in circles about making seasons longer and concentrating more elk on private during october/november. Thats a bigger issue to most people that i know than the crisis of mule deer.

 

[cgasner1]

Thats unfair - and you clearly dont know me as well as you think you do. Ive got a couple small bucks off of public - that i frankly dont regret shooting. Sure wouldnt after what i did see on public lately.

You guys are in an echo chamber. I'll leave you all to talk in circles about making seasons longer and concentrating more elk on private during october/november. Thats a bigger issue to most people that i know than the crisis of mule deer.

This was never about size. The other day when you decided to start arguing with 2 guys in here that based their livelihood off of understanding that landscape and how animals use it showed me just how ignorant you are to this entire situation. Im happy you got a couple bucks while they were there to get.

 

[cgasner1]

The other thing that always frustrates me is that all the people, groups, etc. that only crawl out from under the bridge once someone else starts making shit happen.

Where were they all at for the past 20-30 years while mule deer were tanking? Where was their proposal? When did they take the first step? Why didn't they introduce a proposal 5, 10, 20 years ago?

Its sad too that the first people to step up, they always get bloodied the worst.

Goes with the territory of being the first to make a run at improving things.

I have a lot of respect for the handful of guys that stepped up and for taking your beatings like Men.

Well done.

It’s not to late for someone to try and circle the ngo wagon and take a run at it that way. Just sure seems like they still aren’t interested in doing it.

 

[Rack Daniels]

I disagree that it's OK to kill elk in many areas of Montana these days. When the FWP flies the units West of Missoula and see 8 elk, you're going to have a hard time convincing me that its OK to shoot what little is left, let alone justify 12 weeks of general OTC hunting. The general unit I hunt is questionable, at best, and if not for the reservation, there would be even less bulls and elk.

That's exactly why I don't live in Montana, hunting is a high priority for me and Montana isn't close to what it was prior to 2000, fact.

There's 49 other states I could have moved to that all allow hunting, not by chance that Wyoming is where I ended up.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you need an unlimited LQ permit to kill elk in your "general" area?

So are we addressing elk or mule deer here?

Sounds like the elk are the proverbial icing on the cake when it comes to changing mule deer regs…
The war on elk… I mean mule deer… wait…. Who’s the war against?

 

[El Jason]

To reiterate what had already been stated, ANYONE is free to sharpen up their pencil and draft their own proposal.

Given all the time spent flipping poo at this one, I’d think it wouldn’t be too hard to make it happen.

 

[Forkyfinder]

how ignorant you are to this entire situation.

Frankly, i think everyones ignorant of what your proposed season changes will bring including all 12 (13?) of you. Im far from the only one thats got issues with your proposal - and plenty with more experience than youve got are saying similar things that i am.

Im outta here. Good luck in your efforts.

Im sending my own proposal. Not sharing it here, deemed it not worth my time.

 

[Eric Albus]

Sounds like the war is against all.

This proposal does nothing to create “older bigger deer”. That is a LIE brought forth by a couple outfitters and relayed to a legislator, who helped perpetrate this.
Those outfitters are diametrically opposed to any change, on account they “don’t have any bucks on THEIR ranch early”. So in an attempt to muddy the waters and thwart change for the better of the resource, we look simply at self interest.

 

[antlerradar]

Sounds like the war is against all.

This proposal does nothing to create “older bigger deer”. That is a LIE brought forth by a couple outfitters and relayed to a legislator, who helped perpetrate this.
Those outfitters are diametrically opposed to any change, on account they “don’t have any bucks on THEIR ranch early”. So in an attempt to muddy the waters and thwart change for the better of the resource, we look simply at self interest.

I have never been able understand how our proposal was good for Outfitters. If this proposal went through it would cost me thousand of dollars a year in income if I ever chose to lease. Some people just want to keep the gravy train running.

 

[El Jason]

Im sending my own proposal. Not sharing it here, deemed it not worth my time.

Ironic how you feel compelled to attack someone else’s efforts, but refuse to share yours.

 

[antlerradar]

Sounds like the war is against all.

This proposal does nothing to create “older bigger deer”. That is a LIE brought forth by a couple outfitters and relayed to a legislator, who helped perpetrate this.
Those outfitters are diametrically opposed to any change, on account they “don’t have any bucks on THEIR ranch early”. So in an attempt to muddy the waters and thwart change for the better of the resource, we look simply at self interest.

I know Eric is not going to name names, so I will give a few examples.
Outfitter friend of mine, now deceased. Owned a large ranch, but a lot of wheat fields and pronghorn country. One time he pointed out a small timbered butte on the edge of his property and said. That hill is one of the best money makers I have. The does feeding on the neighbors hay fields bed down in the timber on that hill. As long as I don't run the does off, I can take one or two nice buck from that hill a week during November. I don't know where they come from, they just show up.
Different outfitter close to me. I almost never see him the first week of the season. The ranch sucks for deer the first week unless you get out of the truck, because any nice buck that is using the sub irrigated hay fields is well back in the hills at day light and they do not return until after dark. That changes when the rut starts. The does on the hayfield draw in bucks from the neighbors and the close by public. The pickup hunt in the fields in now very effective and efficient. With the neighbors it creates an if you can't beat them, you might as well join them scenario. I personally have located several nice bucks on the forest during the summer that his clients harvested on the hayfields during November. One of those bucks was close to five miles away from the field the first part of October. The pickup hunt is just not going to be very effective with an October season.
Wyoming outfitter, leases less than a section of undeveloped land strategically located between two alfalfa fields. I doubt he hunts there in October, he is hunting in Wyoming. One of the neighboring landowners told me he takes up to fifteen bucks a year from the property. This is only possible because bucks are traveling between hayfields looking for does during the rut. If he was required to hunt in October he would struggle to take two deer. Probably wouldn't lease it at all. Just not enough value and would interfere with hunting in Wyoming. There are hundreds of other examples like these in eastern Montana. The November season effectively transfers millions in value from the public to landowners and outfitters. I just can not get my head warped around why people will fight landowner tags tooth and nail. (I am opposed too) and at the same time fight tooth and nail for a season that is putting even more money in the pockets of landowners and outfitters.

 

[Elky Welky]

I’ve gotta say, from following all these mule deer threads, it’s great to see the passion folks on here have for this, but boy this shit’s getting ugly. Everyone’s commented that it’s great to see proposal’s out looking for change and appreciative of the effort put into it. But with that said, it should be ok for some to question it and not fall in love with it. It’s like if anyone has a gripe with it or disagrees with anything, they get torched on here. Not a great way to get buy-in. There are serious issues people are afraid of, like landowner fatigue, impacts on BM, and impacts on elk distribution. At some point, instead of worrying about who helped who craft a proposal, maybe our efforts would be better spent trying to solve issues that could prevent any change from happening.

There's actually very few people that outright oppose this proposal, and these threads are mostly people piling on to anyone who disagrees with anything or points out anything they don't like. I frequently liken it to a young tom turkey that's hot and bothered. Doesn't matter what sound you make, he's gonna come in hot, angry, and making a lot of noise, whether it is warranted or not.

For example, my objections have been almost entirely with procedure, not substance, and I've actually been trying to help these guys by pointing out that they are fighting an uphill battle outside of HT.

Forky is pretty much the only one diving into substance here. In some of the earlier iterations, there were more voices of dissent, but they got blasted so hard by the peanut gallery that most of them peaced out.

And both Forky and me already agree that there is room for improvement regarding our mule deer. But that's not enough, and maybe we are just gluttons for punishment.

Because if you're not here to complain about how bad things are, lament about the glory days, and celebrate and fawn over these brave and "bloodied" souls that did the truly heroic and monumental thing of getting together and talking, and gallantly defending their efforts against those very few that mostly already agree with them...

Well then how dare you speak up.