Montana Mule Deer Mismanagement

[YukonGold]

I didn’t say the public shouldn’t have input. Reread what I wrote

??? I did and it still seems like you're saying hunters shouldn't have to comment on proposed actions. Are you suggesting a different way of providing input? In that case I agree, I think the current F&W commission system is confusing and not very effective/balanced.

 

[rogerthat]

??? I did and it still seems like you're saying hunters shouldn't have to comment on proposed actions. Are you suggesting a different way of providing input? In that case I agree, I think the current F&W commission system is confusing and not very effective/balanced.

Hunters and sportsman shouldn’t have to tell the game managers there is a problem should they? They should already know as the managers. I think that’s where all this diverges. We are saying there is a problem. Fwp has always maintained there is not one. But there are many and until fwp is honest about that this goes nowhere. Meanwhile mule deer in Montana continue down the sewer.

 

[rogerthat]

And to be clear on previous analogy the customer tells you want they want(input), I lay out the range of solutions and pros and cons, budget, etc. the customer ultimately makes the decision on the final decision. Ie customer says I want rut “opportunity”, I as the professional say ok that may require primitive weapons during the rut to protect the resource. See how that works?

 

[SAJ-99]

And to be clear on previous analogy the customer tells you want they want(input), I lay out the range of solutions and pros and cons, budget, etc. the customer ultimately makes the decision on the final decision. Ie customer says I want rut “opportunity”, I as the professional say ok that may require primitive weapons during the rut to protect the resource. See how that works?

The only problem with that analogy is that there isn't just one customer. That would be easy. In this case there are 100,000 customers.

 

[Eric Albus]

Understood. But Big Fin was referring to "mandatory reporting" in the paragraph you quoted and then you commented on, with an opinion about "surveys".

Lol. Thanks for pointing that out. I must’ve been sleeping or just totally missed the point.

 

[rogerthat]

The only problem with that analogy is that there isn't just one customer. That would be easy. In this case there are 100,000 customers.

That’s what the mule deer survey was for right? Give them their opportunity. The public demands it….hunting with recurves at thanksgiving

 

[Cah89]

Ask for the data. You can’t argue data without the data. All you’re going to get here is various anecdotal observations. Even if they are similar observations, it isn’t great data. I don’t know the answer on age structure, but if someone in FWP says it’s good, I would ask for the data. I doubt a mule deer getting to 5.5yrs is maybe 3% odds. But just a guess.

Asking for the data needs to including asking for how the data was collected. Details. Vague data is useless. Poor data collection/extrapolation is abhorrent.

 

[SAJ-99]

Asking for the data needs to including asking for how the data was collected. Details. Vague data is useless. Poor data collection/extrapolation is abhorrent.

Data is just data. I agree that there can be problems with collection like selection bias, non-randomness. But it’s just data. The bigger problem, in this case and just about every case, is the biases inherent in the interpretation of the data. To argue about the collection of data we haven’t seen seems like whining.

 

[rogerthat]

Data is just data. I agree that there can be problems with collection like selection bias, non-randomness. But it’s just data. The bigger problem, in this case and just about every case, is the biases inherent in the interpretation of the data. To argue about the collection of data we haven’t seen seems like whining.

What data are we talking about? Montana doesn’t really have any useful data. They do surveys by phone and have some limited areas they do counts. That’s all I know about and it’s all a joke. Useless

 

[MTGomer]

I just hunted hard for 3 days in 2 general otc mule deer units and did not see a single mule deer.
This includes time sitting behind NL pures on a tripod and a 85mm STS spotter.

Over 25 miles total.

 

[pyrotechnic]

Over 25 miles total.

Those are rookie odometer readings.

 

[JT88]

Over 25 miles total.

How many miles of roads did you drive? You gotta get yourself one of them fancy buggies. They're great for pushing elk backwards on their migration routes and making mule deer hang in the timber til after dark
#mymontanahunt

 

[MTGomer]

Those are rookie odometer readings.

You can find zero mule deer with your eyes easier than you can find zero mule deer with your legs.

 

[pyrotechnic]

You can find zero mule deer with your eyes easier than you can find zero mule deer with your legs.

I was being a dickhead and referencing the lack of miles driven.

 

[MTTW]

I just hunted hard for 3 days in 2 general otc mule deer units and did not see a single mule deer.
This includes time sitting behind NL pures on a tripod and a 85mm STS spotter.

Over 25 miles total.

Hunt harder Gomer

Hank

 

[ShootsManyBullets]

I just hunted hard for 3 days in 2 general otc mule deer units and did not see a single mule deer.
This includes time sitting behind NL pures on a tripod and a 85mm STS spotter.

Over 25 miles total.

Better lace em up a little tighter. . .
Or take the lens cap off the Swaros.

 

[MTLabrador]

I drew a permit that I’ve had good luck with before. I saw very few deer and exactly one buck that I would have been slightly interested in shooting on public land this year. Never got a shot at him. The last three times I went out I didn’t see a single mule deer. I’m hunting mountain whitetails next fall.

#selective #oldwarriors #rut #wonderfultradition

 

[SAJ-99]

What data are we talking about? Montana doesn’t really have any useful data. They do surveys by phone and have some limited areas they do counts. That’s all I know about and it’s all a joke. Useless

All data is useful. I have posted enough information on this thread that you can piece together the method. You can see the transects they fly Pre and post season year after year. That is a pretty good way statistically to get a population count on wildlife. I’m not sure what you want them to do that would be better?

Phone surveys could be improved by mandatory reporting, no doubt. But it probably wouldn’t change the total numbers, just the confidence interval. It would probably change unit harvest numbers that are affected by small sample size. Accuracy would improve, and it shouldnt be that expensive to do.

What I struggle with is the use of AHM. AHM revolves around changing season structure based on population and conditions so that harvest is surplus, I.e compensatory not additive. It works well with ducks, but big game? We know deer/elk populations fluctuate based on a variety of factors. We know that landowners have a social tolerance for animals. Setting seasons to hit that sweet spot where harvest is just enough- compensatory when population is low, additive when it is high- seems almost impossible. But, and I said this earlier, they do it with antelope using a different season-setting structure and there is less complaining.

 

[DFS]

All data is useful. I have posted enough information on this thread that you can piece together the method. You can see the transects they fly Pre and post season year after year. That is a pretty good way statistically to get a population count on wildlife. I’m not sure what you want them to do that would be better?

Phone surveys could be improved by mandatory reporting, no doubt. But it probably wouldn’t change the total numbers, just the confidence interval. It would probably change unit harvest numbers that are affected by small sample size. Accuracy would improve, and it shouldnt be that expensive to do.

What I struggle with is the use of AHM. AHM revolves around changing season structure based on population and conditions so that harvest is surplus, I.e compensatory not additive. It works well with ducks, but big game? We know deer/elk populations fluctuate based on a variety of factors. We know that landowners have a social tolerance for animals. Setting seasons to hit that sweet spot where harvest is just enough- compensatory when population is low, additive when it is high- seems almost impossible. But, and I said this earlier, they do it with antelope using a different season-setting structure and there is less complaining.

FWP counts are very suspect to me. They have been for a long time. Their post season buck to doe ratio always hovers around 40:100 I’m also not seeing that haven’t for a long time. I told them after 2012 things aren’t good they disagreed and maintained everything is fine. finally two years later they quit issuing doe tags for a brief period. My comments can easily be dismissed as anecdotal which is fine. A lot of people have way more knowledge than me and are saying the same thing. You could even talk to landowners even the ones that don’t like deer in their fields and they have told me they have not seen anything like it. If I don’t trust the data but I don’t have my own data set do I just have to believe everything they are telling me and everything is fine even if it’s crystal clear to me that it isn’t?

 

[rogerthat]

All data is useful. I have posted enough information on this thread that you can piece together the method. You can see the transects they fly Pre and post season year after year. That is a pretty good way statistically to get a population count on wildlife. I’m not sure what you want them to do that would be better?

Phone surveys could be improved by mandatory reporting, no doubt. But it probably wouldn’t change the total numbers, just the confidence interval. It would probably change unit harvest numbers that are affected by small sample size. Accuracy would improve, and it shouldnt be that expensive to do.

What I struggle with is the use of AHM. AHM revolves around changing season structure based on population and conditions so that harvest is surplus, I.e compensatory not additive. It works well with ducks, but big game? We know deer/elk populations fluctuate based on a variety of factors. We know that landowners have a social tolerance for animals. Setting seasons to hit that sweet spot where harvest is just enough- compensatory when population is low, additive when it is high- seems almost impossible. But, and I said this earlier, they do it with antelope using a different season-setting structure and there is less complaining.

I’m very well aware of how the data is collected on their counts. How familiar are you with their flight areas? Why do they have an incorrect assessment of the state of mule deer? Those are the questions you should be asking yourself.

The phone surveys are trash. They have no good data on harvest where it’s occurring or how much hunter effort is being put forth for that harvest, where it occurs administratively, etc, etc. they don’t even know where their general season hunters are hunting.

As far as AHM, they literally haven’t changed anything in 40 years besides increase opportunity, youth seasons etc. so that is a nothing burger. It’s just gibberish written on paper just like their “data”.

Mule deer management in montana needs a complete reboot.