Montana General Season Structure Proposal

[Montana_Wanderer]

The fact that FWP doesn’t want mandatory reporting is upsetting at the least. If anything leads to further distrust of their management it’s the lack of desire for accurate data. All else fails without this one component.

 

[SAJ-99]

In Utah if you don’t report you cannot apply next year. Pretty easy solution. FWP will have an excuse to not do anything, based on their ridiculously sh1t data.

Have that same thing here in WA. However, in the last Commissioner meeting here in WA the WFWD made a comment that response rates were still only in 60% range and they didn’t know if they could “penalize” people more into responding. I think they charge $10 if you fill it out after the deadline.

I’m not trying to defend MT FWP on this. It seems like a fixable problem to get better data, but no one should think that it will be all that enlightening without years of data. Enough problems remain that people will still find flaws to complain about. As someone said, maybe they do it to just build some credibility with the people they serve.

 

[Rack Daniels]

You may be right on NR opportunity but dont fault this group for trying or not being open to other opinions, because I think they are. But they also understand what they are facing. Eventually it is all LE, but trying that now gets the group nowhere.

The irony is that on other threads (other states) we have Rs complaining about not getting tags. Here we have Rs worried about not getting 10+wks to hunt across 30million acres.

Can you get a good view across 30 million acres in 10 weeks?

 

[Gerald Martin]

Have that same thing here in WA. However, in the last Commissioner meeting here in WA the WFWD made a comment that response rates were still only in 60% range and they didn’t know if they could “penalize” people more into responding. I think they charge $10 if you fill it out after the deadline.

I’m not trying to defend MT FWP on this. It seems like a fixable problem to get better data, but no one should think that it will be all that enlightening without years of data. Enough problems remain that people will still find flaws to complain about. As someone said, maybe they do it to just build some credibility with the people they serve.

Make the late penalty charge $30 and I bet you would see better than 60% compliance.

It won’t take years to compile data related to hunter success, where they are hunting, success, etc…

Mandatory reporting is about getting accurate data on human aspects of wildlife management. FWP will still need to handle wildlife surveys, sampling etc…

A comment from a retired FWP biologist I gave the proposal to was that he didn’t like the included mandatory reporting. “It’s expensive and biologists don’t need to know about every animal that is killed”, was his response.

I can’t imagine that automated mandatory reporting is going to be more expensive than paying for telephone
surveys. How much does that cost FWP each year to hire folks to call, note the answers to their five questions and compile them into reports?

Also, did anyone see any moose or wolves while you were hunting in unit xyz?

 

[Schaaf]

Set a deadline for mandatory reporting online and levy a fine if not done by the required date. Use the revenue from the fines to fund your follow up call process to reach out to anyone that didn’t comply.

Have your cake and eat it too.

 

[SAJ-99]

It won’t take years to compile data related to hunter success, where they are hunting, success, etc…

Again, they don't know if they are allowed to charge $30. Like most things in government, they get all the responsibility of collecting data but zero authority to make any changes.

My point is when you change the way you collect data, even if it is a better result, it might make things look wonky for a while. The model is based on the inputs so when the inputs get weird the model gets weird. I still think the change is worth it (which is why pretty much every other state does it). If you look at the charts in the video, you see some crazy blips in the harvest trends. FWP often likes to attribute it to good or bad "weather" but often it is hard to assign a reason on the chart and they blow right by it. Sometimes I wonder if the data collection method can cause the blip.

 

[Sytes]

October 1-31: Mule deer General rifle antlered buck only. Doe harvest by license/permit only with a focus on private land over public to ensure better hunting conditions and less pressure on public land while dealing with problematic concentrations of mule deer on private land.

Is there a link to show the success rate for this "pressure" on private land to reduce problematic concentrations? It applies to other ungulates as well. One month to deal with problematic concentrations of mule deer.

I'm curious because nation-wide, the favored means for taking deer is via crop blinds / stands. It's common knowledge and continuous practice in most every deer State, hunt over "x" crop every year, after year, after year produces successful harvest. Maybe Montana is different? I don't believe that's the case.

Not saying private land owners shouldn't have an ability to hunt / lease to outfitters, open to guests, select BMA access, etc though are there statistics that show Montana success (for one month) versus other States (including MT for that matter) valued annual hunt over crops?

 

[Sytes]

Side note:

Zoom link: https:...

Webinar ID: XXX XXXX XXXX

Passcode: XXXXXX


For issues joining meeting please call the Information Desk at 406-444-3262

I tried calling this number and was advised they do not support the FWP - only legislature - They are unable to assist for this meeting.

 

[cgasner1]

Again, they don't know if they are allowed to charge $30. Like most things in government, they get all the responsibility of collecting data but zero authority to make any changes.

My point is when you change the way you collect data, even if it is a better result, it might make things look wonky for a while. The model is based on the inputs so when the inputs get weird the model gets weird. I still think the change is worth it (which is why pretty much every other state does it). If you look at the charts in the video, you see some crazy blips in the harvest trends. FWP often likes to attribute it to good or bad "weather" but often it is hard to assign a reason on the chart and they blow right by it. Sometimes I wonder if the data collection method can cause the blip.

Haven’t had to do a Oregon one in 6-7 years but it was 25 bucks then if you didn’t do it to apply the following year

 

[perma]

Question for the smarter folks than me. I keep hearing in this committee meeting that we need more data and more research. Do we really need more information to make an informed decision? I'm not the SME on mule deer in MT but based on what this forum reads and what I read on other articles, it seems pretty cut and dry to me.

 

[SAJ-99]

A comment from a retired FWP biologist I gave the proposal to was that he didn’t like the included mandatory reporting. “It’s expensive and biologists don’t need to know about every animal that is killed”, was his response.

I would say he is clearly wrong about the cost given the amount of states that do them, but might be correct on the data. Hunters overemphasize harvest. I have even complained a little that FWP overemphasizes harvest in their model. Using past harvest to adjust for future harvest is backwards. Ie, if you know you are in a drought, cut B tags THAT year. Don't wait until you count fawn ratios next Summer and see that a lot of does are without fawns. See my comment below on AHM for waterfowl.

I don’t see why you couldn’t have a survey system in place like the HIP survey you must complete before buying a migratory bird license. When you click to purchase an elk or deer tag online, you automatically get directed to a survey you must complete before your purchase. If you buy your tag at a store, it could be completed there. Something basic like how many days you hunted, what regions you hunted, did you shoot a buck(region you killed it in and what species) etc.

HIP surveys are used to stratify the sampling method when FWS sends out actual harvest reports. You will notice they have wide brackets in harvest. There is no precision. They want to make sure they are sending harvest surveys to various people including those that hunt waterfowl occasionally as well as hard core waterfowlers. The entire HIP survey is to eliminate any sampling bias. The actual harvest surveys are used to estimate harvest. Here is the kicker - in waterfowl, the harvest has little if any impact on season setting (think of when you fill these out). It is all based on May pond counts and nesting counts. The know that water and cover on the nesting grounds = ducks. I am not even sure they do mid-summer brood counts anymore. Any future harvest is limited by adjustments in bag limits, but season lengths have generally been liberal since they went to AHM. Debating differences in Big game versus waterfowl are valid, but the general estimating process should fit. Also, they can do this because the model has 90 years of data to stick in the formula, flying and walking the same routes over 90 years and making sure any changes are both justified and accounted for in the model. It is expensive, but it works. Regardless, hunters still complain.

 

[huntin24/7]

I would say he is clearly wrong about the cost given the amount of states that do them, but might be correct on the data. Hunters overemphasize harvest. I have even complained a little that FWP overemphasizes harvest in their model. Using past harvest to adjust for future harvest is backwards. Ie, if you know you are in a drought, cut B tags THAT year. Don't wait until you count fawn ratios next Summer and see that a lot of does are without fawns. See my comment below on AHM for waterfowl.



HIP surveys are used to stratify the sampling method when FWS sends out actual harvest reports. You will notice they have wide brackets in harvest. There is no precision. They want to make sure they are sending harvest surveys to various people including those that hunt waterfowl occasionally as well as hard core waterfowlers. The entire HIP survey is to eliminate any sampling bias. The actual harvest surveys are used to estimate harvest. Here is the kicker - in waterfowl, the harvest has little if any impact on season setting (think of when you fill these out). It is all based on May pond counts and nesting counts. The know that water and cover on the nesting grounds = ducks. I am not even sure they do mid-summer brood counts anymore. Any future harvest is limited by adjustments in bag limits, but season lengths have generally been liberal since they went to AHM. Debating differences in Big game versus waterfowl are valid, but the general estimating process should fit. Also, they can do this because the model has 90 years of data to stick in the formula, flying and walking the same routes over 90 years and making sure any changes are both justified and accounted for in the model. It is expensive, but it works. Regardless, hunters still complain.

I’m not saying that you’d use similar questions or that similar of a survey. Just using it as an example in how it takes little time to complete and they could set it up as an easy requirement before tag purchase to gain more knowledge on where people are hunting in the state and better idea of success rates and mule deer vs whitetail harvest. Could include date of kill since many haven’t switched to e tags. Just some thoughts.

 

[Elktrack]

Question for the smarter folks than me. I keep hearing in this committee meeting that we need more data and more research. Do we really need more information to make an informed decision? I'm not the SME on mule deer in MT but based on what this forum reads and what I read on other articles, it seems pretty cut and dry to me.

Without good data (and current data) they don’t know what they are managing.
Think of it as a rancher that doesn’t know how many cattle he has, how many calves are born each year, how many get shipped to slaughter, etc.
Just because he’s always shipped 100 cows out every November must mean he’s got plenty of cows to do it every year??? Grandpa always shipped 100 cows so why should I do it any different?

 

[tjones]

I would say he is clearly wrong about the cost given the amount of states that do them, but might be correct on the data. Hunters overemphasize harvest. I have even complained a little that FWP overemphasizes harvest in their model.

This.

I would rather see FWP spend money on spring surveys. Really good trend counts. Buck/doe, doe/fawn, bull/cow and cow/calf ratios are where it's at. Doesn't really matter what hunters, wolves or winter kill. What matters is what is left on the ground come spring. Good flight data not hunter harvest and success ratios.

 

[Elktrack]

This.

I would rather see FWP spend money on spring surveys. Really good trend counts. Doesn't really matter what hunters, wolves or winter kill. What matters is what is left on the ground come spring. Good flight data not hunter harvest and success ratios.

I disagree. You need both.
How else do you manage the surplus if you don’t know how much of it is being removed? Also, hunter numbers, where, when, is all relevant information. There’s no situation where too much information is going to be a problem.

They have the budget to get all the data they need. They don’t seem to see the need to do it.

 

[R.K.]

Some (15-37% hunters are in favor of restrictions to manage for older age class bucks (confirmed).

A majority of hunters want the opportunity to hunt mule deer bucks every year somewhere in Montana, with a lower probability of harvesting a mature buck (confirmed)

There was a fairly lengthy thread a while back showing how the FWP intentionally included “neutral” responses as favoring the status quo, but not favoring change. Without those, the “we want change” drastically outweighed the “don’t change a thing”. They misrepresented the results of the Mule Deer Survey. Why? I can only guess. But it seems ethically inappropriate to have done so.

 

[Schaaf]

This.

I would rather see FWP spend money on spring surveys. Really good trend counts. Buck/doe, doe/fawn, bull/cow and cow/calf ratios are where it's at. Doesn't really matter what hunters, wolves or winter kill. What matters is what is left on the ground come spring. Good flight data not hunter harvest and success ratios.

I tend to agree.

This is why I really like the idea of a choose your region. It’s a round about way to implement a mandatory reporting by knowing exactly how many hunters are in each region. I believe the harvest rate is a much easier figure to get when you have a concrete number of hunters in the region.

If I had to choose, I’ll take rock solid data on number of hunters in an area and spring counts.

 

[tjones]

I disagree. You need both.
How else do you manage the surplus if you don’t know how much of it is being removed? Also, hunter numbers, where, when, is all relevant information. There’s no situation where too much information is going to be a problem.

They have the budget to get all the data they need. They don’t seem to see the need to do it.

Spring trend counts tell you year to year what is being removed not by just hunters but by all means. Here these flights go back decades. Our bio does a good job flying 5 HD's. We see the counts every year and have for close to 40 years. This drives the season setting, permit levels and quotes.

 

[mtmiller]

There was a fairly lengthy thread a while back showing how the FWP intentionally included “neutral” responses as favoring the status quo, but not favoring change. Without those, the “we want change” drastically outweighed the “don’t change a thing”. They misrepresented the results of the Mule Deer Survey. Why? I can only guess. But it seems ethically inappropriate to have done so.

I think this is close to the discussion yesterday.

 

[SAJ-99]

I disagree. You need both.
How else do you manage the surplus if you don’t know how much of it is being removed? Also, hunter numbers, where, when, is all relevant information. There’s no situation where too much information is going to be a problem.

They have the budget to get all the data they need. They don’t seem to see the need to do it.

This goes back to the main question of if harvest is additive or compensatory. For big game it may be different than for birds. Even for elk it may be different than deer which is different than antelope (see WY winter 22-23 mortality). The short answer to the first question is "you don't care as long as it is surplus." I get that it is hard for hunters to grasp this given success is defined by the taking and intuitively the those results should matter. But for the resource, the rain in the spring and summer, snow in the winter, EHD, CWD, all probably matter much more (up to a point, of course).