Montana Mule Deer Mismanagement

[YukonGold]

Serious question, does anyone have a clear understanding of why the MT FWP will not implement a mandatory harvest survey?

Seems very doable with the new phone app and e-tags, NO??

Here are the reasons I've heard from FWP staff:
1. Doing so is expensive and would require a huge investment in resources (especially personnel to handle the reports of so many hunters). The current system of calling a random sample of hunters is cheap.

2. Mandatory harvest does not work in other states. Idaho is an example. It's very difficult for them to actually take away hunting privileges of someone who fails to report. So, it's mandatory, but not very enforceable, and doesn't have the necessary teeth to ensure compliance.
2a. Because it's hard to get 100% compliance, it would result in an underestimate of harvest whereas the statistical model based on phone surveys accounts for this. What about the non-resident who got skunked and pissed and vows never to hunt in Montana again? Or the non-resident who can't afford to hunt here every year? You won't get their data. The phone survey accounts for their angry hang-ups by just calling the next random person down the list.

3. The phone survey has been done for so many years now that they have good trend data, and changing systems would skew that trend.

I believe (and someone correct me if I'm wrong) FWP has the ability to collect voluntary data with the digital carcass tags. My guess is if they ever switched to mandatory reporting, they would still continue with the phone surveys for a while to help align the data from before and after the change.

Also, there's an inherent problem with any consumer reporting system, the same as with any survey - you're more likely to get positive reports than negative ones (i.e. someone who successfully harvested an animal is going to be much more excited about filling out his reporting card than someone who got skunked), and that skews your data as well. So mandatory reporting is not the be-all/end-all people think it is.

I'm just telling it like I see it, please don't hurt me.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

One thing folks forget who think mandatory reporting is a silver bullet is, garbage in = garbage out.

I’ve heard a number of hunters brag about reporting false or misleading information because they 1) are worried someone will steal their spot or 2) they don’t want the full harvest reported for fear of reducing opportunities.

 

[YukonGold]

One thing folks forget who think mandatory reporting is a silver bullet is, garbage in = garbage out.

I’ve heard a number of hunters brag about reporting false or misleading information because they 1) are worried someone will steal their spot or 2) they don’t want the full harvest reported for fear of reducing opportunities.

True, though that also could/probably does happen with the phone survey.

 

[rogerthat]

Here are the reasons I've heard from FWP staff:
1. Doing so is expensive and would require a huge investment in resources (especially personnel to handle the reports of so many hunters). The current system of calling a random sample of hunters is cheap.

2. Mandatory harvest does not work in other states. Idaho is an example. It's very difficult for them to actually take away hunting privileges of someone who fails to report. So, it's mandatory, but not very enforceable, and doesn't have the necessary teeth to ensure compliance.
2a. Because it's hard to get 100% compliance, it would result in an underestimate of harvest whereas the statistical model based on phone surveys accounts for this. What about the non-resident who got skunked and pissed and vows never to hunt in Montana again? Or the non-resident who can't afford to hunt here every year? You won't get their data. The phone survey accounts for their angry hang-ups by just calling the next random person down the list.

3. The phone survey has been done for so many years now that they have good trend data, and changing systems would skew that trend.

I believe (and someone correct me if I'm wrong) FWP has been rolling out voluntary reporting along with its digital carcass tags. My guess is if they ever switched to mandatory reporting, they would still continue with the phone surveys for a while to help align the data from before and after the change.

Also, there's an inherent problem with any consumer reporting system, the same as with any survey - you're more likely to get positive reports than negative ones (i.e. someone who successfully harvested an animal is going to be much more excited about filling out his reporting card than someone who got skunked), and that skews your data as well. So mandatory reporting is not the be-all/end-all people think it is.

I'm just telling it like I see it, please don't hurt me.

A good programmer could mitigate a lot of these issues fairly easily. Lots of excuses. Just like the current deer management

 

[Deleted member 20812]

True, though that also could/probably does happen with the phone survey.

Sure. It certainly isn’t going to address every woe.

 

[Scott85]

Start with nonresidents having to 1. Either have nonresidents pick a weapon or 2. Have nonresidents pick a unit and set up quotas for each unit based on winter surveys. It isn't much but it would be a start.

 

[Mtnhunter1]

Here are the reasons I've heard from FWP staff:
1. Doing so is expensive and would require a huge investment in resources (especially personnel to handle the reports of so many hunters). The current system of calling a random sample of hunters is cheap.

2. Mandatory harvest does not work in other states. Idaho is an example. It's very difficult for them to actually take away hunting privileges of someone who fails to report. So, it's mandatory, but not very enforceable, and doesn't have the necessary teeth to ensure compliance.
2a. Because it's hard to get 100% compliance, it would result in an underestimate of harvest whereas the statistical model based on phone surveys accounts for this. What about the non-resident who got skunked and pissed and vows never to hunt in Montana again? Or the non-resident who can't afford to hunt here every year? You won't get their data. The phone survey accounts for their angry hang-ups by just calling the next random person down the list.

3. The phone survey has been done for so many years now that they have good trend data, and changing systems would skew that trend.

I believe (and someone correct me if I'm wrong) FWP has been rolling out voluntary reporting along with its digital carcass tags. My guess is if they ever switched to mandatory reporting, they would still continue with the phone surveys for a while to help align the data from before and after the change.

Also, there's an inherent problem with any consumer reporting system, the same as with any survey - you're more likely to get positive reports than negative ones (i.e. someone who successfully harvested an animal is going to be much more excited about filling out his reporting card than someone who got skunked), and that skews your data as well. So mandatory reporting is not the be-all/end-all people think it is.

I'm just telling it like I see it, please don't hurt me.

YG,

Yeah, I've been told the same things over the years. The cost and added hours have always been the first reasons in response to my question.

But with today's tech, that response is just BS! So I can only assume that it is just plain laziness! That, or they really don't want to compile the info and then have to release it to the public??

The hard part is already completed. The cost would be minimal. The extra hours to compile ALL the information would also be almost nothing.

Every person that hunts in MT has an ALS#. Every person has a FWPs account attached to that ALS#. That account lists ALL licenses and permits held for that given year. So, the data base is already built! Now plug in a harvest survey link that would automatically populate with that account's licenses and permits, pick the one that requires a "HARVEST" update and answer a few questions....done! The info has now been submitted, recorded and can be used in future management decisions.

The folks that do not complete the harvest report are then dedicated to the please call me list.

Seems so simple....but yet???

 

[YukonGold]

YG,

Yeah, I've been told the same things over the years. The cost and added hours have always been the first reasons in response to my question.

But with today's tech, that response is just BS! So I can only assume that it is just plain laziness! That, or they really don't want to compile the info and then have to release it to the public??

The hard part is already completed. The cost would be minimal. The extra hours to compile ALL the information would also be almost nothing.

Every person that hunts in MT has an ALS#. Every person has a FWPs account attached to that ALS#. That account lists ALL licenses and permits held for that given year. So, the data base is already built! Now plug in a harvest survey link that would automatically populate with that account's licenses and permits, pick the one that requires a "HARVEST" update and answer a few questions....done! The info has now been submitted, recorded and can be used in future management decisions.

The folks that do not complete the harvest report are then dedicated to the please call me list.

Seems so simple....but yet???

I don't think it's that simple. Food for thought: https://biggameforever.org/mandatory-reporting-for-hunters-in-idaho-washington-and-oregon/

I'm not disagreeing with you, just playing devil's advocate. Mandatory reporting doesn't solve all the problems and can create bigger headaches than the current system. Impossible to get 100% compliance so regardless, you need to have some kind of system where that isn't a requirement, if you want to have any kind of meaningful data. Maybe that's where FWP's combination of a voluntary report + phone surveys can be a cost-effective and less legally complicated improvement, and basically what you're suggesting.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Forget bout MUlE dEER!!!

ShOOT a WhitTIaL in the FUGGinn FACe!!’

 

[SwaggyD]

With the price of gas this year, do you shoot a fat forkie before the rut, or wait until thanksgiving tradition and kill one with big neck roasts? Which one will have more/better meat?

We will continue down this path that we’ve been on for 30+ years. Sad to watch unfold.

 

[Raisin Bran]

Well this should make me unpopular, but here goes. I guess my personal experience over the last 15 years in parts of the state where I spend time is the exact opposite from most of you. I rarely see whitetails anymore. It’s notable when I do see one. Places I could go reliably find a whitetail 15 years ago are now nothing but mule deer. I look at some of the survey data, and it jives with what I’m seeing on the ground while I’m out and about throughout the year- more mule deer, in more places. Interestingly, it also jives with count data being collected in adjacent states. What does that mean? I don’t know, other than the idea that mule deer populations are in a downturn state-wide doesn't make sense to me. I feel like there’s more to it than that.

Do we lack the trophy quality of other places? Definitely. Do we have a state-wide population problem? I don’t think so. Do we have regional or unit-wide population problems? Probably. I honestly haven’t looked at data from all regions. Are some of the perceived population problems more a reflection of poor distribution during hunting season? Possibly, maybe likely.

However, I’m also not a big game biologist and I’m not privy to all the details, so I don’t feel qualified to either criticize or defend the work those folks are doing. I know just enough to know I don’t know enough. Just some observations.

People don’t seem to like the winter survey, but it’s a well established method that nearly every state uses. Flights in winter, with snow cover and the least tree/shrub foliage gives you the best conditions for visibility and counting. You could do counts at other times, but you are going to have much less confidence in your counts and more difficulty in classifying. Plus you piss off a lot fewer people than trying to do them in the fall.

And I don’t really buy the “FWP bios are all stupid” argument either. But I do think they are muzzled. If you didn’t notice the several well-respected career folks who spoke up and were summarily reassigned or forced into retirement the last couple of years, you haven’t been paying attention.

Well said!

 

[Eric Albus]

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.

On public land in NE Mt it’s more like .003%

 

[BWALKER77]

One thing folks forget who think mandatory reporting is a silver bullet is, garbage in = garbage out.

I’ve heard a number of hunters brag about reporting false or misleading information because they 1) are worried someone will steal their spot or 2) they don’t want the full harvest reported for fear of reducing opportunities.

This.
And it's not a mystery what and where the problem is. As such I can't see reporting accomplish anything of note.

 

[BWALKER77]

Start with nonresidents having to 1. Either have nonresidents pick a weapon or 2. Have nonresidents pick a unit and set up quotas for each unit based on winter surveys. It isn't much but it would be a start.

Most NR don't hunt with multiple weapons so I can't see that making much differance.
I woukd double the cost of NR license and cut the numbers in half. I would also give out zero NR tags for moose, goat, sheep.
Cut bow season for both NR and R back to two weeks in late September early October. Cut back gun season as well as stagger the dates like Colorado has.

 

[seeth07]

Went to Montana FWP website today and it took me all of 2 seconds to discover the problem. I blame their marketing photographer...What the hell would happen to this lovely couple if a Grizz was hungry around that bend? See who can run faster in those things?

 

[Hunter4Life78]

Went to Montana FWP website today and it took me all of 2 seconds to discover the problem. I blame their marketing photographer...What the hell would happen to this lovely couple if a Grizz was hungry around that bend? See who can run faster in those things?

View attachment 239645

Seeth it will be ok. If that happy couple encounters a grizz it will test the strength of the relationship. That is my first thought. My second thought is it's not gonna be a fair chase scenario. They will be on dry ground and the grizz is gonna be on wet.

 

[SwaggyD]

Went to Montana FWP website today and it took me all of 2 seconds to discover the problem. I blame their marketing photographer...What the hell would happen to this lovely couple if a Grizz was hungry around that bend? See who can run faster in those things?

View attachment 239645

Almost appears as though a bear has already shredded her pants for her? Maybe they are walking away from a bear attack with pictures on that camera!

 

[tjones]

Most NR don't hunt with multiple weapons so I can't see that making much differance.
I woukd double the cost of NR license and cut the numbers in half. I would also give out zero NR tags for moose, goat, sheep.
Cut bow season for both NR and R back to two weeks in late September early October. Cut back gun season as well as stagger the dates like Colorado has.

NR aren't the problem, the increase in resident hunters is.

 

[The Hedgehog]

NR aren't the problem, the increase in resident hunters is.

but it's more fun to just blame somebody else for our impacts..

 

[Irrelevant]

Went to Montana FWP website today and it took me all of 2 seconds to discover the problem. I blame their marketing photographer...What the hell would happen to this lovely couple if a Grizz was hungry around that bend? See who can run faster in those things?

View attachment 239645

if you move the circle on the right up about 3 feet you'll see the genius of the marketing photographer.