Gearing up for the "Heritage" season? I kill bulls on public myself. Not gonna say it's easy or boring. mtmuley
Montana General Season Structure Proposal
- Thread starter Gerald Martin
- Start date
Doublecluck
Well-known member
I live across from canyon ferry, tried to rattle in a wt for the 14y/o. It was fun, couple small ones came in. Even put a coon skin cap on her. I’d do it again. Didn’t see another human. On a sat/sun
I bet there was a buying frenzy on muzzloaders when that season was introduced. mtmuley
cgasner1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2016
- Messages
- 1,768
Try a recurve then. I’m not shooting round balls out of my side hammer and can guarantee you I would kill a bull at 150 yards with it. I have no doubt about it considering I’ve killed bulls at 200 with my in-line and open sights
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Generally agree, but maybe they will when Montana Rs decided they are willing to pay more. This has been brought up already.
I can see where this might end up
- Season dates are unchanged
- LE (or pick a unit) only for NRs (of course, carve outs for NR landowner, Native, College students, Youth, Boomers and all the other pet groups the legislators may have)
- Prohibit NRs from buying Deer B tags (or make them whitetail only)
- $10ish increase in R tag costs
I see this because Rs generally can't agree on giving up opportunity. What they can agree on is hating NRs. Benefit to MD? None.
Thanks for the insight. mtmuley
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,378
@Visiting Hunter, I’ll attempt to answer a few of your questions. I shortened your original post in my quote above to condense what I wanted to respond to.
The objective of our proposal is to goad/move/encourage FWP to adopt a season structure that allows their own unit specific mule deer management plans to succeed.
Unit population objectives especially are still going to be determined locally by the same process FWP uses today. Biologists will still be responsible for determining how many antlerless licenses need to be issued to keep populations within an acceptable objective range.
Is our proposal set in stone? It’s a long time before the 26/27 season setting process is completed and a lot of folks have the ability to influence what decisions that FWP commissioners adapt into rule.
As far as our group is concerned there’s a few parts that I think we all agree on that are “set in stone” principles at least and goals we have. There’s been and will probably continue to be some flexibility on the exact path towards how those goals can be accomplished.
Management policies/strategy needs to prioritize the health of the resource. We would like to see an improvement in buck/doe ratios and age structure of bucks in the herd. In areas where too much pressure has kept deer herds below population objectives we want to see more restrictions on antlerless harvest.
We had at length discussions about how to preserve as much opportunity to hunt as possible while bringing the health of the resource into a more sustainable state.
Our pick your region, pick your species and accompanying season is our attempt to spread out pressure without going to even more radical limitations on tag numbers or shortening seasons even further.
We’re operating on the basis of belief that asking each user group to sacrifice the same amount of time for their specific season has the best chance for buy in among all user groups. That equates into a one week reduction from current structure for archery and general seasons.
The season dates we’re proposing reflect an attempt to accommodate adequate seasons/lengths to satisfy “opportunity” while spreading pressure, as well as taking mule deer hunting out of the rut. Those season dates also reflect a strategy of trying to spread out elk/deer seasons a bit to encourage hunters to target one or the other rather than just shoot whatever they encounter because they have multiple tags in pocket.
Each piece by itself probably won’t produce the desired results but the cumulative effect of the parts as a whole will definitely produce a better outcome than current season structure/ management strategies have produced.
Last edited:
Doublecluck
Well-known member
I find myself on the fence often when it comes to elk and archery. I love calling in bulls, don’t like so much when they end up with arrows in them and don’t die. Still one of my favorite times of year.
I think my point is though that I see value in methods that increase opportunity/quality even if it means losing general tags/season length. That’s coming from someone who has no emotional attachment to those methods or any particular season or structure. Also the reason I rarely comment on these threads.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,378
Anyone thinking that a sidelock muzzleloader isn’t a step up in lethality/efficiency from compound bows doesn’t have much experience with shooting a good “primitive” muzzleloader.
It’s pretty easy to get with 100-125 yards of a rutting bull. That range is definitely within the wheelhouse of an “average” muzzleloader hunter.
Hem
Well-known member
I hunted the heritage season last year.
Really think it's a bad time to mess with the animals, clearly they are shifting to preserve energy/ consume calories.
Really think it's a bad time to mess with the animals, clearly they are shifting to preserve energy/ consume calories.
Flatbrimmer
Well-known member
If could shoot a bugling bull at 125 yards I’d have one every season lol
antlerradar
Well-known member
At least 10 years ago friend that has worked his enter career on the Custer and I listed all the 180 class or better bucks we could think of taken from the Custer and the nearby BLM and state land and the week of the season they were taken. There was more big deer taken in the first week than the last three weeks combined. Almost all of the first week bucks were taken by someone that knew about the buck and hunted hard for him starting opening day. Some of the last three weeks bucks were taken by someone that put in a lot of work. Most had more to do with luck.
Last edited:
BuzzH
Well-known member
For a few years, then you'd be just taking your primitive weapon for a hike.
antlerradar
Well-known member
Sadly he may be guessing the point spread pretty close.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,378
I understand and can personally agree with a value of methods that increase quality/opportunity. However, you not having an emotional attachment to any specific season or structure is an anomaly compared to a majority of hunters.
“Opportunity” and ensconced season structure expectations are deeply rooted within MT hunting culture. Any proposal that pushes against ingrained cultural values without attempting to stay within acceptable parameters of the hunting public is going to be the proverbial “snowball in hell”.
What I/we prefer and what we can get the public to support and FWP to adopt are not always the same thing.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,378
Do you really think that allowing 200,000 hunters an additional chance to harvest one of MT’s 25,000 living bull elk with a longer range weapon in the rut would have a negative effect?
Maybe. But all those issues have come up in the years we have been discussing this. Over and over. mtmuley
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,676
The FB reception/consensus on this will give folks a sense of the real obstacles associated with this getting done - it’s hard to read. I really think the first thing that needs to happen for MTFWP mgt of deer/elk is to uncouple the general seasons and manage them independently. This plan does that. We are pushing a ton of crap uphill until that happens. We’re the only state that does something this ridiculous. It makes as much sense to have a general season elk rifle hunt in September as it does to have a general rifle mule deer season in November.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,378
Shh.
I’m scared FWP or a legislator might take this logic for inspiration and give us some more “opportunity”.
Visiting Hunter
Well-known member
I can respect that answer. All I'm really asking is to help the funding issues and let those biologists run the extra studies. With the loss of doe tags for nr sale (for sure win) we will have to be creative ourselves as residents. Anywhere from 2 to 20 dollars on every tag or license depending.. but increases need to happen as well for true proactive research to begin. I'm sure if I spent some time on it I could figure the projected millions but small increases on everything for everyone will still create millions of additional funds. I think the structure can work, I have my concerns about the initial fomo but if with mandatory reporting it would essentially force fwp with pick your region to put regional caps if its too excessive. It's clear the east gets to much pressure from not hunting it in 15 years to going, to going last year, it's a zoo. And I hope this plan would cull that. I just have concerns if their is no caps initially on the east either it might push alot of people put there unintentional with separate seasons. I think a majority of the mule deer hunter like the east. Personally I go after wt most years around home. But I appreciate the work I just want to probably include more that's just not gonna happen.
