Montana Mule Deer Mismanagement

[8andcounting]

I’ve literally watched a group of North Dakotans wipe out a population of mule deer over a series of several years with their 7 doe tags every year, talked to them they were happy they could shoot something and wished North Dakota would let them do that. North Dakota doesn’t allow them to do that because the resource can’t handle it. I do not doubt what you are saying but that is where we are at. Montana broke the bank and they better do something to fix it. Resident and nonresident caps sounds great. Especially the nonresident.

Ugh …. I agree and Nd did same in the 2000’s it was unlimited for a resident you could shoot 20 deer and some did …. But I’m telling you in Montana the biggest problem is residents and their greed for opportunities. Not yours . I agree with most of what you’re saying . But lots of Montana residents are gonna disagree with you

 

[8andcounting]

Until resident tags are capped nothing will change

 

[mtmuley]

I have never killed a mule deer East of Ravalli county. mtmuley

 

[8andcounting]

I have never killed a mule deer East of Ravalli county. mtmuley

Good . I’m not picking on Montana residents . Both need to be capped . But the every resident buys a Mule deer tag otc thing needs to end if you want more mule deer . And b tags need to go away except for maybe some in private

 

[cgasner1]

I felt like it went well and they are at least addressing the issue. When I brought up making tags in every unit for last 2 weeks they are worried about cwd and the effect draw tags have on units. Didn’t seem like a fair comparison to me since you’re still allowing a month to hunt before it becomes limited. The fact that they are coming to the table and saying it’s a issue is a huge step forward for most people on this forum i feel

 

[8andcounting]

I felt like it went well and they are at least addressing the issue. When I brought up making tags in every unit for last 2 weeks they are worried about cwd and the effect draw tags have on units. Didn’t seem like a fair comparison to me since you’re still allowing a month to hunt before it becomes limited. The fact that they are coming to the table and saying it’s a issue is a huge step forward for most people on this forum i feel

I agree .

 

[bigsky2]

I attended one of the meetings last night. I like the pick your region idea, but I think it could be a disaster for R6 and R7 if quotas aren’t implemented. I will definitely be recommending region caps when I submit my comments. R4 is actually proposing limited permits in the Breaks. Hopefully R6 and R7 follow suit.

When going through the slide show, the question was asked why it said “N/A” for the buck and bull quota ranges. It was explained that the department is planning to go away from quota ranges. This means that biologists would have to go to the commission for approval to change permit numbers, and the data to support their justification would have to be submitted in January. This would be before the biologists even do their winter counts. That was very alarming to me. It seems it would handcuff the biologists and lead to a management style that is even more reactive than the current one.

 

[huntin24/7]

My concern with pick your region kind of echos what @bigsky2 mentioned that such a high amount will pick region 6 and 7 that I don’t see it really helping much. I like the fact that we’re working on positive change, but without quotas by region or unit, I’m not seeing where this really helps much at all.

 

[antlerradar]

My concern with pick your region kind of echos what @bigsky2 mentioned that such a high amount will pick region 6 and 7 that I don’t see it really helping much. I like the fact that we’re working on positive change, but without quotas by region or unit, I’m not seeing where this really helps much at all.

I am fully on board with quotas and would be more than willing to skip a year or two if I didn't draw. My big fear with quotas is that FWP will stet them so high that it will not make any difference and many hunters from places other than 6 and 7 will now hunt east all season instead of just a few weekends a year.
Hunt your region done right is going to receive push back from the I can't draw close to home crowd. Just throwing this out, but one option would be OTC for residents of the region and quotas for the residents of other regions. Some of the benefits would be lower pressure on public land as local hunters are more likely to have private land connections and it may also incentivize hunters in Western regions to fix the issues in the west instead of just going east every fall. It would also put a big damper on wealthy hunters in the western part of the state leasing hunting property out east if drawing a tag became an issue.
That being said I would much rather see straight quotas for each region with numbers set according to what the mule deer herd is capable of handling.

 

[Schaaf]

My concern with pick your region kind of echos what @bigsky2 mentioned that such a high amount will pick region 6 and 7 that I don’t see it really helping much. I like the fact that we’re working on positive change, but without quotas by region or unit, I’m not seeing where this really helps much at all.

I can't speak for what was presented in the Lewistown meeting. But in the Malta meeting, there was no gray area on whether or not this would include a quota cap. The head biologist specifically stated the problem with no cap and pick your region would be you could theoretically have more hunters picking a region than you already have hunting there.

Like, @antlerradar stated, my main concern would be on the quota number. I'd like to think that for the long term game plan, a quota would come first and be highly valuable. If needed, we could work to lower that quota after a couple years of data. Just imagine the benefit of knowing the exact amount of people that hunt in a region

 

[bigsky2]

I am fully on board with quotas and would be more than willing to skip a year or two if I didn't draw. My big fear with quotas is that FWP will stet them so high that it will not make any difference and many hunters from places other than 6 and 7 will now hunt east all season instead of just a few weekends a year.
Hunt your region done right is going to receive push back from the I can't draw close to home crowd. Just throwing this out, but one option would be OTC for residents of the region and quotas for the residents of other regions. Some of the benefits would be lower pressure on public land as local hunters are more likely to have private land connections and it may also incentivize hunters in Western regions to fix the issues in the west instead of just going east every fall. It would also put a big damper on wealthy hunters in the western part of the state leasing hunting property out east if drawing a tag became an issue.
That being said I would much rather see straight quotas for each region with numbers set according to what the mule deer herd is capable of handling.

That is my fear too. One only has to look at the high quotas that were implemented for the former 900 bundle archery elk districts to see that is a likely outcome.

I like your idea about OTC for residents of that region. Again, reasonable quotas for hunters from outside the region would have to be put in place for that idea to work well too.

 

[antlerradar]

That is my fear too. One only has to look at the high quotas that were implemented for the former 900 bundle archery elk districts to see that is a likely outcome.

My other fear with high quotas is that the bigger blocks of Public are still going to be over hunted. You can look at the 900 bundle and see how that will happen. We need to get away from the hunters will disperse themselves way of thinking. Pick your region is a good start but the regions are huge and we could still have many of the same issues on a smaller scale.

 

[tjones]

When going through the slide show, the question was asked why it said “N/A” for the buck and bull quota ranges. It was explained that the department is planning to go away from quota ranges. This means that biologists would have to go to the commission for approval to change permit numbers, and the data to support their justification would have to be submitted in January. This would be before the biologists even do their winter counts. That was very alarming to me. It seems it would handcuff the biologists and lead to a management style that is even more reactive than the current one.

I heard this was coming. Setting any type of seasons, quotas or permit numbers BEFORE flight surveys is about as backwards as they can get.

 

[rogerthat]

I heard this was coming. Setting any type of seasons, quotas or permit numbers BEFORE flight surveys is about as backwards as they can get.

Probably still an upgrade from the status quo imo

 

[DFS]

I heard this was coming. Setting any type of seasons, quotas or permit numbers BEFORE flight surveys is about as backwards as they can get.

In all fairness they rarely change anything off of their counts. At least in region 7.

 

[tjones]

In all fairness they rarely change anything off of their counts. At least in region 7.

I can only speak to the west side of the state, but that answer would be yes.

 

[Stone_Ice_1]

The biggest issue I see with this whole set up is that eventually the biologist and most FWP employees won't be involved when it actually comes to making the final decision. I see progress in the proposal. I just don't think that when it comes to the commission/FWP director/Governor and the politics it will come back to whatever those talking heads (with no biology background) think is best (whichever decision helps their pocketbook or political career best), regardless of what the rest of the FWP employees and biologists think.

I just have a hard time even putting in a comment. It will eventually be disregarded. The only time they listen to anybody outside themselves is when there is a huge uproar over something. So far there is no huge uproar over the lack of even decent mule deer hunting.

 

[cgasner1]

I haven’t put my comment in yet on the computer. Personally I think I’d rather see mike deer season stay as it is instead of a region cap. With that said I think the last 2 weeks of rifle should go to a draw by unit. It would help get rid of the bottle neck for other units and maybe save a few forked horns. If they decided to go this route I’d also be ok with letting anyone under 18 continue to hunt that 2 week time frame. I’m happy to see conversations being had and it seems like we are finally making progress.

 

[DFS]

I haven’t put my comment in yet on the computer. Personally I think I’d rather see mike deer season stay as it is instead of a region cap. With that said I think the last 2 weeks of rifle should go to a draw by unit. It would help get rid of the bottle neck for other units and maybe save a few forked horns. If they decided to go this route I’d also be ok with letting anyone under 18 continue to hunt that 2 week time frame. I’m happy to see conversations being had and it seems like we are finally making progress.

What we are doing isn’t working. They have to do something. We don’t need to be hunting them all of November and hammering does on public. If we want to keep hunting in November it has to go to quota, regional caps is a step towards that direction. If we want to maintain maximum opportunity for hunters the season has to be moved to October. I am coming to the realization public land mule deer are headed the way of the dodo bird.

 

[SAJ-99]

The head biologist specifically stated the problem with no cap and pick your region would be you could theoretically have more hunters picking a region than you already have hunting there.

Interesting theory, though it is pure speculation. If the goal is to distribute pressure without reducing opportunit the only way is to manage it across time and/or space. Hunters either get stuck in a region or they get stuck in a time frame. The rest of the discussion is just hot air. If FWP is going to look for some perfect solution to please everyone they will waste their time. Every decision comes with some type of risk. When they get that data they should adapt their plan.