Montana Mule Deer Mismanagement

[Gerald Martin]

the

i missed the where as about antler size there i guess. By the way - Im glad youve come around to understanding killing more cow elk (unlimited b tags) isnt good on public. Hope you think that way the next session unlike last one. Didnt someone say they "just wanted to regulate cow elk like deer does" and we had an abundance of elk? If i recall correctly - it came from a senator not from where you referenced @BuzzH hunting.

Does and cows are critical to population numbers. Hb 139 does say that

Bruh. What are you puffing this morning?

Where are you coming up with this cow elk stuff and positions I took this session?

 

[Forkyfinder]

the


Bruh. What are you puffing this morning?

Just referencing your confusing support for bad legislation (hb270) if you think elk in western montana are in population crisis.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Support? I didn’t support it. I didn’t think it was the end of elk hunting in MT like some folks thought but I didn’t support it either. I’m thinking you’re confusing me with someone else.

 

[MTTW]

Read to the bottom.

Tracking Elk in North Dakota’s Badlands

Boone and Crockett Fellow Daniel Morina explores elk behavior in North Dakota and explains why antle

www.boone-crockett.org

Elk Reproduction Improved With Mature Bulls

By David Hewitt - Boone and Crockett Club Professional Member Trophy animals represent many things.

www.boone-crockett.org

Antler size matters to does and cows...I am not sure why it doesn't matter to everyone.

As for antler size I have been surprised how many longtime
residents have said to me that we should close the mule deer season in region 3 because there aren't enough deer to hunt. I know of outfitters that no longer allow clients to kill mule deer, ranches that allow elk hunting but not mule deer hunting, and hunters that just won't kill one. This is because of the mule deer population, not because of their craving for large antlers.

Some people put the resource before themselves, some don't. I don't care, and the deer don't care, where you were accidentally born.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Perhaps mature bucks is referring to the size of the neck roasts.. it’s all about the meat.

 

[cgasner1]

Perhaps mature bucks is referring to the size of the neck roasts.. it’s all about the meat.View attachment 371015

Easy Gerald

 

[Forkyfinder]

Perhaps mature bucks is referring to the size of the neck roasts.. it’s all about the meat.View attachment 371015

Not trying to be a jerk- but did you actually talk to hinkle?

I did - and i wont put his words here out of respect, but ill say his concern was for his constituency and their desires. I dont draw all the same conclusions, but it is coming from a place of compassion and desire to do the right thing.

 

[Fire_9]

Montanans are proud

Are these the same proud Montanans that enjoy the 60 mph sneak or offer to let you come shoot antelope out of their alfalfa in July? I've heard on more than one occasion "Yeah you can shoot antelope but if you shoot one you have to shoot 5" or something to that effect.

I get where you coming from with the whole native Montanan thing and I think it's awesome that Montanans are so proud of their heritage. BUT I also think it's extremely arrogant that someone would think they have all the answers because of where they were lucky enough to be born. And like cgasner, I'm curious how long one has to live here before they're considered a 'local'?

 

[Gerald Martin]

Not trying to be a jerk- but did you actually talk to hinkle?

I did - and i wont put his words here out of respect, but ill say his concern was for his constituency and their desires. I dont draw all the same conclusions, but it is coming from a place of compassion and desire to do the right thing.

Umm, no. I didn’t talk to Hinkle. My first awareness of his actions from that concern were when he sponsored a bill and then completely misrepresented the proposal and the motivation of the people involved with the proposal during the House Fish and Game Committee hearing. All that was without any contact from Hinkle to discuss his concerns about the proposal with anyone involved with it.

On top of that, he sought to ensconce season dates of his preference into statute ignoring long standing precedent of keeping season dates, lengths and bag limits under commission rule. Those actions triggered several dozen conservation groups (of which MT BHA declined to join) to sign a formal letter of opposition to HB-139 even though none of those groups are endorsing our proposal.

What would have talking to Hinkle done?

 

[Elky Welky]

This is a bad look, You are starting to sound like Hinkle. To make this a transplant vs generational resident thing is diversion. I first realized that the current season was unsustainable during the mid 90's. If suggesting change is a hand grenade now it was a nuclear attack back then.

As I said to @cgasner1 earlier, it was for rhetorical effect, and it worked, perhaps too well (Gerald didn’t respond with a novel, that’s a first). If you want to gain any traction with your ideas you need to confront this kind of opposition and work within the system, not outside of it. Many in this group on hunt talk act like they have all the answers, and it is a reality that you won’t get very far with your plan if you keep treating the locals and our representatives like garbage. The Montana legislature sent you a clear message, and if your response is to double down and keep spinning your gears with the same people on this forum, you will all fail.

The absolutists view on this thread is ridiculous. Reality and enacting change isn’t either/or, all or nothing. I’m ultimately arguing for a more reasonable, methodical, and comprehensive approach, not just to management but to how you go about trying to implement change.

But the many whiners here take that as meaning I’m content with the status quo, throw up a strawman to punch at, and then go back to the same “whoah is me, mule deer hunting in MT sucks, FWP sucks, nobody will do anything” talking points they’ve been making for 130+ pages. It’s not what I’ve been saying, and I don’t need to repeat myself.

I support those that are working off of this forum to enact change. I don’t support that the group here excluded NGOs and biologists from their meeting and planning—I think that was a mistake that has already cost you. Fortunately, we have a commission process that will give everyone a voice. How the mule deer group approaches it will determine how much anyone listens.

And if you double down and don’t open the tent, or personally attack people who should be your allies, then they will do the exact same thing I had to do to Buzz yesterday (and Frequently Banned Troll almost a year ago): you’ll get put on ignore and you won’t be heard at all.

 

[BuzzH]

As I said to @cgasner1 earlier, it was for rhetorical effect, and it worked, perhaps too well (Gerald didn’t respond with a novel, that’s a first). If you want to gain any traction with your ideas you need to confront this kind of opposition and work within the system, not outside of it. Many in this group on hunt talk act like they have all the answers, and it is a reality that you won’t get very far with your plan if you keep treating the locals and our representatives like garbage. The Montana legislature sent you a clear message, and if your response is to double down and keep spinning your gears with the same people on this forum, you will all fail.

The absolutists view on this thread is ridiculous. Reality and enacting change isn’t either/or, all or nothing. I’m ultimately arguing for a more reasonable, methodical, and comprehensive approach, not just to management but to how you go about trying to implement change.

But the many whiners here take that as meaning I’m content with the status quo, throw up a strawman to punch at, and then go back to the same “whoah is me, mule deer hunting in MT sucks, FWP sucks, nobody will do anything” talking points they’ve been making for 130+ pages. It’s not what I’ve been saying, and I don’t need to repeat myself.

I support those that are working off of this forum to enact change. I don’t support that the group here excluded NGOs and biologists from their meeting and planning—I think that was a mistake that has already cost you. Fortunately, we have a commission process that will give everyone a voice. How the mule deer group approaches it will determine how much anyone listens.

And if you double down and don’t open the tent, or personally attack people who should be your allies, then they will do the exact same thing I had to do to Buzz yesterday (and Frequently Banned Troll almost a year ago): you’ll get put on ignore and you won’t be heard at all.

You over play your hand as did Hinkle.

Why include people that aren't willing to stand up for the resource? They've had 70+ years to do something, anything, and they've done nothing. Well other than increase pressure by 10 days.

I support the proposal that the hunt talk group put together and their efforts.

 

[cgasner1]

You over play your hand as did Hinkle.

Why include people that aren't willing to stand up for the resource? They've had 70+ years to do something, anything, and they've done nothing. Well other than increase pressure by 10 days.

I support the proposal that the hunt talk group put together and their efforts.

Indent say that they aren’t willing to as much as aren’t able to. It’s been a cultural thing for so long that even if Fwp did wanna make a change the push back would have been huge. I do believe all our biologist are great and so is 95% of Fwp. These changes have never been made because of us as residents. This thread has turned into a tiny train wreck compared to what would have happened if Fwp made changes a decade ago. I know 10 years ago I would have thought it wasn’t needed. I’ll probably be checking out for a bit this thread has gotten out of hand I tried bringing it back with some memes/jokes but I’m not interested in the personal junk. Next couple weeks we will be busy I don’t need this distraction

 

[Elky Welky]

I’ll probably be checking out for a bit this thread has gotten out of hand I tried bringing it back with some memes/jokes but I’m not interested in the personal junk. Next couple weeks we will be busy I don’t need this distraction

It's not personal to you or the mule deer group's efforts. I've tried to be clear about that, and if I haven't, I apologize.

I've made my case. Either people will take it to heart and stop alienating allies, or it will be a long uphill battle with no end in sight until all the mule deer are truly gone, and this thread will just spin on ad infinitum. But nobody needs to spend their free time getting insulted on a forum.

I'm also checking out for a while. Montana BHA kicked ass this legislative session and I would rather focus on the many successes of our volunteers, and then turn attention to bigger problems coming down the pike.

 

[Frequently Banned Troll]

QSB

 

[DFS]

It's not personal to you or the mule deer group's efforts. I've tried to be clear about that, and if I haven't, I apologize.

I've made my case. Either people will take it to heart and stop alienating allies, or it will be a long uphill battle with no end in sight until all the mule deer are truly gone, and this thread will just spin on ad infinitum. But nobody needs to spend their free time getting insulted on a forum.

I'm also checking out for a while. Montana BHA kicked ass this legislative session and I would rather focus on the many successes of our volunteers, and then turn attention to bigger problems coming down the pike.

In all fairness you started the exchange not sure what you expected. It’s hard for many of us to understand how someone could be completely happy with the current state of mule deer in this state.

 

[Elky Welky]

Well said @Nameless Range

I've somehow become the strawman for "someone who is content," so I will try to fix the record on that, because it's not what I've been saying. Mule deer management in Montana can improve, and it will. There's enough people working on new ideas and we've reached a tipping point. I might vehemently disagree with @Gerald Martin over how entitled the already entitled ought to be, but I think it is great that he, @cgasner1, @sclancy27, @antlerradar, @bigsky2, and others are putting ideas in the world that are moving the needle.

My entire argument here is that we don't have to just be negative and dream of something that will never exist again because we live in 2025 and not 1985--when instead we can meet people where they are at, focus on incrementally improving the situation, and look at the whole picture and implement the whole picture when we make changes.

If the people on this forum want to get anywhere with mule deer management in Montana they need to stop being jerks to locals, those that are content, new to the conversation, or those who see things differently than they do, and instead approach them with positivity and a message of hope for something even better than what they have now. "Burn it all down" and "FWP sucks" doesn't help at all, and is counter-intuitive. It's what leads people like Hinkle to introduce bills to preserve our mule deer season in statute.


I still care and I live in reality. Maybe that's the biggest difference between us.

@DFS

 

[antlerradar]

As I said to @cgasner1 earlier, it was for rhetorical effect, and it worked, perhaps too well (Gerald didn’t respond with a novel, that’s a first). If you want to gain any traction with your ideas you need to confront this kind of opposition and work within the system, not outside of it. Many in this group on hunt talk act like they have all the answers, and it is a reality that you won’t get very far with your plan if you keep treating the locals and our representatives like garbage. The Montana legislature sent you a clear message, and if your response is to double down and keep spinning your gears with the same people on this forum, you will all fail.

The absolutists view on this thread is ridiculous. Reality and enacting change isn’t either/or, all or nothing. I’m ultimately arguing for a more reasonable, methodical, and comprehensive approach, not just to management but to how you go about trying to implement change.

But the many whiners here take that as meaning I’m content with the status quo, throw up a strawman to punch at, and then go back to the same “whoah is me, mule deer hunting in MT sucks, FWP sucks, nobody will do anything” talking points they’ve been making for 130+ pages. It’s not what I’ve been saying, and I don’t need to repeat myself.

I support those that are working off of this forum to enact change. I don’t support that the group here excluded NGOs and biologists from their meeting and planning—I think that was a mistake that has already cost you. Fortunately, we have a commission process that will give everyone a voice. How the mule deer group approaches it will determine how much anyone listens.

And if you double down and don’t open the tent, or personally attack people who should be your allies, then they will do the exact same thing I had to do to Buzz yesterday (and Frequently Banned Troll almost a year ago): you’ll get put on ignore and you won’t be heard at all.

If you think we haven't talked to biologists, you would be mistaken.

 

[El Jason]

Word of the day…pontification.

 

[Lostinthewoods]

Deleted a few comments.
There's a difference between conversations with differing sides or opinions verse a straight up ass hat attack.

If you want 140 page threads to stay around with good convo, data, and input - keep it on track.



Consideration point for some of you as I have no dog in any fight, but I pay attention to a lot of things.

For the most part you are all passionate about your opinions, your state, your hunting, blah blah blah.

You also hang around eachother daily and start forming your opinions and feelings towards each other both positive or negative. As these feelings grow it’s easy to have that built up feeling, frustration, or annoyance make you go 0-100 real quick when the comment or post may not have warranted it.

Kurt is a troll.
Buzz is crotchety.
RJ pisses people off.
Lostinthewoods is an ass hat.

Regardless, these people are emotionally intelligent enough to navigate within the page guidelines and for the most part (minus Kurt sometimes )

That being said - don’t let the way they are posting or commenting dictate how you receive it. These are written statements where you don’t get to pick up on stuff like you would in person.

So I ask you to stay away from “filling in the gaps” or perceiving someone’s tone at times. We naturally do it, especially if you have previous frustrations or thoughts about someone. But when we do this, we can look like a fool ourselves because we decided to go 100 on a comment that was just a basic comment or not as egregious as you thought.

The other part of this is if they genuinely are being ass hats…. say your piece and move on. Or if you want to go toe to toe with them, keep it within the guidelines and prepare for any backlash or support that may follow.

I hope this helps.

 

[rogerthat]

Deleted a few comments.
There's a difference between conversations with differing sides or opinions verse a straight up ass hat attack.

If you want 140 page threads to stay around with good convo, data, and input - keep it on track.



Consideration point for some of you as I have no dog in any fight, but I pay attention to a lot of things.

For the most part you are all passionate about your opinions, your state, your hunting, blah blah blah.

You also hang around eachother daily and start forming your opinions and feelings towards each other both positive or negative. As these feelings grow it’s easy to have that built up feeling, frustration, or annoyance make you go 0-100 real quick when the comment or post may not have warranted it.

Kurt is a troll.
Buzz is crotchety.
RJ pisses people off.
Lostinthewoods is an ass hat.

Regardless, these people are emotionally intelligent enough to navigate within the page guidelines and for the most part (minus Kurt sometimes )

That being said - don’t let the way they are posting or commenting dictate how you receive it. These are written statements where you don’t get to pick up on stuff like you would in person.

So I ask you to stay away from “filling in the gaps” or perceiving someone’s tone at times. We naturally do it, especially if you have previous frustrations or thoughts about someone. But when we do this, we can look like a fool ourselves because we decided to go 100 on a comment that was just a basic comment or not as egregious as you thought.

The other part of this is if they genuinely are being ass hats…. say your piece and move on. Or if you want to go toe to toe with them, keep it within the guidelines and prepare for any backlash or support that may follow.

I hope this helps.

Thanks for not torching the thread.