Montana Mule Deer Mismanagement

SAJ-99 said:
I get that, but keep the big picture in mind. Montana Legislature is fully on board with privatizing wildlife. Having "too many" of something on private will be how that is framed. See elk. Who wants to bet Montana will end up with landowner tags after the 2023 session?
Click to expand...

I follow now. I was confused by your statement there. This is another politics vs science conundrum. If we're too worried about the politicians mucking things up that we can't challenge FWP when folks perceive a problem then what though? And let's be honest here: We know the politicians are going to try to muck things up, so we should try to push for departmental improvements before they do.

And we wonder why informed folks are disillusioned with the state of things in Montana.
 
I know I'm not adding anything productive to this conversation, but an email for this $5000 opportunity was in my inbox this morning:

High Success Region 7 Mule Deer hunt on private ranches. Over 40,000 acres of private land. This is a draw hunt but with new draw rules, the outfitter was 100% successful in draw last year. Great hunt for solid Mule Deer 3 points and 4 points in the 20-26” range. ...
Click to expand...
 
SAJ-99 said:
I get that, but keep the big picture in mind. Montana Legislature is fully on board with privatizing wildlife. Having "too many" of something on private will be how that is framed. See elk. Who wants to bet Montana will end up with landowner tags after the 2023 session?
Click to expand...
I get your point, though we already have landowner tags. They get 15% of all limited entry deer, elk, and antelope permits. We get nothing in return for that. I've pointed out to our Trustees that you can't give away 15% of the Trust assets without getting something in return for the beneficiaries. In Nevada they give out a small fraction of their elk tags to landowners and in return they get 3-5x increases in elk objectives and they get access to any adjacent or landlocked public lands. Yeah, the NV permits are transferrable, but one has to ask, who is getting a better deal, the beneficiaries in MT or NV?

That landowner tag issue is another topic of another thread.

For this topic of mule mismanagement, it's pretty simple - without collection of data, we are just tossing darts. Until we know how many animals are harvested, whether on public or private, until we start doing annual post-hunt flights/surveys and adjusting accordingly, until we have hunter satisfaction surveys, we are kidding ourselves that even the most qualified and well-intended of our biologists can make changes to improve the status quo.

I posted mandatory reporting as a suggestion on some of my social media pages lasts winter. Why resident hunters resist and feel that is such an imposition still baffles me. I filled out mandatory harvest reports in Idaho, Wyoming, and Nevada this year. It took a couple minutes and I was happy to do it, knowing it was probably helping management and conservation.

I am talking to legislators about forcing mandatory harvest reporting on FWP for all big game hunting. If the Department opposes such, it will likely have no traction in the Legislative session. If the Department does not resist, I think it would be very possible. Some say legislation is not necessary, that the Commission has those powers to implement such. I intend to find out who has the powers and what it will take to implement such. Getting Montana to adopt mandatory reporting and require annual post-hunt surveys is paramount to getting all our big game management policies to the 21st Century.
 
Big Fin said:
I am talking to legislators about forcing mandatory harvest reporting on FWP for all big game hunting. If the Department opposes such, it will likely have no traction in the Legislative session. If the Department does not resist, I think it would be very possible. Some say legislation is not necessary, that the Commission has those powers to implement such. I intend to find out who has the powers and what it will take to implement such. Getting Montana to adopt mandatory reporting and require annual post-hunt surveys is paramount to getting all our big game management policies to the 21st Century.
Click to expand...

I cannot remember which biologist said this, but at one of the Helena season setting meetings, it was said by an FWP employee that they are exploring mandatory reporting. So, those discussions very well may be happening internally. Seems a good time to lean on the idea, and I would be interested in supporting such an idea, any way I could.
 
Big Fin said:
I get your point, though we already have landowner tags. They get 15% of all limited entry deer, elk, and antelope permits. We get nothing in return for that. I've pointed out to our Trustees that you can't give away 15% of the Trust assets without getting something in return for the beneficiaries. In Nevada they give out a small fraction of their elk tags to landowners and in return they get 3-5x increases in elk objectives and they get access to any adjacent or landlocked public lands. Yeah, the NV permits are transferrable, but one has to ask, who is getting a better deal, the beneficiaries in MT or NV?

That landowner tag issue is another topic of another thread.

For this topic of mule mismanagement, it's pretty simple - without collection of data, we are just tossing darts. Until we know how many animals are harvested, whether on public or private, until we start doing annual post-hunt flights/surveys and adjusting accordingly, until we have hunter satisfaction surveys, we are kidding ourselves that even the most qualified and well-intended of our biologists can make changes to improve the status quo.

I posted mandatory reporting as a suggestion on some of my social media pages lasts winter. Why resident hunters resist and feel that is such an imposition still baffles me. I filled out mandatory harvest reports in Idaho, Wyoming, and Nevada this year. It took a couple minutes and I was happy to do it, knowing it was probably helping management and conservation.

I am talking to legislators about forcing mandatory harvest reporting on FWP for all big game hunting. If the Department opposes such, it will likely have no traction in the Legislative session. If the Department does not resist, I think it would be very possible. Some say legislation is not necessary, that the Commission has those powers to implement such. I intend to find out who has the powers and what it will take to implement such. Getting Montana to adopt mandatory reporting and require annual post-hunt surveys is paramount to getting all our big game management policies to the 21st Century.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Who the hell is pushing back against mandatory reporting, and why? Especially FWP or the committee? I get hunters maybe not wanting to give out specifics (drainages, specific BM), but not wanting to report at all? That is simply stupid. Rally the masses here and tell them where to send the emails.
 
MsMuley said:
Have any of you guys/gals seen this? I’m assuming so, but just in case. This is/was Montana’s mule deer management plan, initially written in 1995 (If I remember correctly). It was updated last October and went through the F&W Commission. There was a public comment period with only about 38 comments received statewide, with most of them being about a district in R1. There was an opportunity to weigh in on MT mule deer management fairly recently, regardless of how folks feel about whether or not the Department listens. Given all these threads on mule deer I’m surprised at the lack of formal participation here. Just an FYI for those that might not be aware.


Comments here:
Click to expand...

I'm not seeing any comments from Billings. Strange, since I thought I submitted one.
 
SAJ-99 said:
Absolutely. Who the hell is pushing back against mandatory reporting, and why? Especially FWP or the committee? I get hunters maybe not wanting to give out specifics (drainages, specific BM), but not wanting to report at all? That is simply stupid. Rally the masses here and tell them where to send the emails.
Click to expand...
I’m a big proponent of mandatory harvest reporting. In my experience WGFD personnel get rather testy when you bring it up. You’ll then get the ol “we’re very confident in our harvest reporting, no need for a larger sample size…”

If Montana goes that route, as many other states do, you’ll have something on Wyoming in regards to mule deer management for a change.
 
SAJ-99 said:
Conundrum- Survey hunters to get input and listen to them bitch about the results or don’t survey them and listen to them bitch about not being asked for input.

Eric, would trying to change a few units to draw (like was done with 270) be more effective than changing the entire system? I ask because you have been involved in the other discussions. We all need to try to come together with proposals solutions, particularly ones that don’t alienate 60% of R hunters.
Click to expand...
I honestly can’t answer this. I don’t have the “one size fits all “ answer.
I can only offer suggestions of starting with “end the rifle rut hunt/pick your region/area/season/weapon” and let’s see what sticks to the wall.
 
SAJ-99 said:
I get that, but keep the big picture in mind. Montana Legislature is fully on board with privatizing wildlife. Having "too many" of something on private will be how that is framed. See elk. Who wants to bet Montana will end up with landowner tags after the 2023 session?
Click to expand...
I’m pretty sure they already do. Buddy of mine shot this on a their one LO tag
 

Attachments

  • 3E7B63B8-D3DB-4106-83F1-70C1351E19D3.jpeg
    3E7B63B8-D3DB-4106-83F1-70C1351E19D3.jpeg
    2.5 MB · Views: 32
SAJ-99 said:
Absolutely. Who the hell is pushing back against mandatory reporting, and why? Especially FWP or the committee? I get hunters maybe not wanting to give out specifics (drainages, specific BM), but not wanting to report at all? That is simply stupid. Rally the masses here and tell them where to send the emails.
Click to expand...
From asking a couple years ago, the main reason that FWP hasn’t gone to mandatory reporting is because mandatory reporting creates a number of problems for inference. First, it is likely to be biased because there is no statistical way to make inference from those who reported to those who did not. Second, there is no way to measure precision in a mandatory reporting framework because there is no sampling design. Finally, mandatory reporting provides delayed answers. If you have to wait for incentives or penalties to get response rate up, decisions will need to be made before data are available. So, unless you get complete reporting quickly, mandatory reporting is almost always a step backwards.

On FWP’s harvest surveys:
- They talk to a large fraction of hunters to make estimates, but get to decide which ones they talk to using the laws of probability.
- They sample ~60% (or up to 100% for limited licenses and permits)
- They can make estimates of harvest and be very clear about how certain or uncertain they are about those estimates (i.e., generate confidence intervals)
- For the species they conduct their random survey sampling (elk, deer, antelope, UGBs, turkey).. the first point is that these are much, much larger and common hunts. They are not as memorable as say, a bighorn sheep or mountain goat hunt (in which FWP does have mandatory reporting for). Hunters may have multiple opportunities for these species and/or the majority of licenses and permits sold for these species are not tied to a specific area (i.e., general licenses) so it is more difficult to tie where hunting effort/harvest occurred, especially when some hunters don’t remember what district or districts they hunted in.
- They worry about the cost of implementing mandatory reporting for large hunts in MT, especially because they have more licenses and permits issued than most other western states. Compare MT and ID (which has mandatory reporting and comes closest to the # of hunters): MT - 286,315 DEA hunters, 455,885 DEA licenses, $210K. ID - 232,381 DEA hunters, 254,785 licenses, $400K. (These numbers were from a couple years ago.. maybe 2020 or something) So… maybe $800K?
- Other states have referred to enforcement issues/compliance issues with mandatory reporting
- It takes time to process data once it's accumulated, and these estimates are needed by biologists for recommending quotas and season adjustments. Bios need to have these recommendations in with plenty of lead time prior to the draw.

Why imperfect compliance with mandatory reporting is an issue:
- If 80% respond (some states that implement mandatory reporting don't even get that), they cannot say what happened with the other 20% in a mandatory reporting system.
- Put in context of a quota change proposal to decrease the number of permits in an area: with FWP’s sampling system, a biologist can say that even with their uncertainty in harvest estimates they know that the harvest has increased in an area and is putting pressure on a population, vs. with a mandatory reporting system they can say that harvest has increased, but they are not certain how accurate the harvest tally is without assumptions based on compliance rates or a follow-up survey (and assuming they get harvest reports in time).
- In the first situation, they can enumerate the reliability of the estimate, in the second, we cannot.

Mandatory reporting works well in situations with
- small hunts that are relatively rare for hunters - they can remember and want to talk about it - i.e, sheep and goats (on a side note I think moose should be in here, too), bears, lions, wolves (some also on a quota)
- are limited to specific districts, so there is less information they need from hunters about their hunt
- law enforcement to make sure people report what we need them to report by the time biologists need the information
- small numbers of hunters so that the cost of implementing the program is not so great
- Some of the species they survey fit this, and they have mandatory reporting for those. Think about other states and the opportunities offered--most have more limited or specific opportunities so the hunts are probably easier to remember and obtain the information on.

Survey sampling of hunters works well in situations with
- large hunts that are not in focused geographic areas - so memory and timelines become issues when using this information
- compliance rates that will never be close to perfect - so they can quantify and control their uncertainty
- species with large numbers of hunters so that implementing the program would be costly. This is all akin to MT general deer/elk license holders. As stated above, MT does attempt to get all of the LE license holders.

Food for thought, I guess. I’ve also attached a peer-reviewed paper a biologist sent me a while back about harvest sampling strategies.
 

Attachments

I'm certainly not a statistician, or someone experienced in designing polls. I just have a basic undergraduate understanding of stats for engineering.

I fail to see how sampling a random portion of your population gets you better answers than sampling the entire population. You will have the same people who don't report (don't answer the prank calls, flat out lie) etc. I'm sure their statistical model would need to make some adjustments, but I'm betting that someone has already done it before and a phone call and email or two to another state wildlife program could alleviate that issue.

ETA, I have not yet read the above linked paper
 
MsMuley said:
From asking a couple years ago, the main reason that FWP hasn’t gone to mandatory reporting is because mandatory reporting creates a number of problems for inference. First, it is likely to be biased because there is no statistical way to make inference from those who reported to those who did not. Second, there is no way to measure precision in a mandatory reporting framework because there is no sampling design. Finally, mandatory reporting provides delayed answers. If you have to wait for incentives or penalties to get response rate up, decisions will need to be made before data are available. So, unless you get complete reporting quickly, mandatory reporting is almost always a step backwards.

On FWP’s harvest surveys:
- They talk to a large fraction of hunters to make estimates, but get to decide which ones they talk to using the laws of probability.
- They sample ~60% (or up to 100% for limited licenses and permits)
- They can make estimates of harvest and be very clear about how certain or uncertain they are about those estimates (i.e., generate confidence intervals)
- For the species they conduct their random survey sampling (elk, deer, antelope, UGBs, turkey).. the first point is that these are much, much larger and common hunts. They are not as memorable as say, a bighorn sheep or mountain goat hunt (in which FWP does have mandatory reporting for). Hunters may have multiple opportunities for these species and/or the majority of licenses and permits sold for these species are not tied to a specific area (i.e., general licenses) so it is more difficult to tie where hunting effort/harvest occurred, especially when some hunters don’t remember what district or districts they hunted in.
- They worry about the cost of implementing mandatory reporting for large hunts in MT, especially because they have more licenses and permits issued than most other western states. Compare MT and ID (which has mandatory reporting and comes closest to the # of hunters): MT - 286,315 DEA hunters, 455,885 DEA licenses, $210K. ID - 232,381 DEA hunters, 254,785 licenses, $400K. (These numbers were from a couple years ago.. maybe 2020 or something) So… maybe $800K?
- Other states have referred to enforcement issues/compliance issues with mandatory reporting
- It takes time to process data once it's accumulated, and these estimates are needed by biologists for recommending quotas and season adjustments. Bios need to have these recommendations in with plenty of lead time prior to the draw.

Why imperfect compliance with mandatory reporting is an issue:
- If 80% respond (some states that implement mandatory reporting don't even get that), they cannot say what happened with the other 20% in a mandatory reporting system.
- Put in context of a quota change proposal to decrease the number of permits in an area: with FWP’s sampling system, a biologist can say that even with their uncertainty in harvest estimates they know that the harvest has increased in an area and is putting pressure on a population, vs. with a mandatory reporting system they can say that harvest has increased, but they are not certain how accurate the harvest tally is without assumptions based on compliance rates or a follow-up survey (and assuming they get harvest reports in time).
- In the first situation, they can enumerate the reliability of the estimate, in the second, we cannot.

Mandatory reporting works well in situations with
- small hunts that are relatively rare for hunters - they can remember and want to talk about it - i.e, sheep and goats (on a side note I think moose should be in here, too), bears, lions, wolves (some also on a quota)
- are limited to specific districts, so there is less information they need from hunters about their hunt
- law enforcement to make sure people report what we need them to report by the time biologists need the information
- small numbers of hunters so that the cost of implementing the program is not so great
- Some of the species they survey fit this, and they have mandatory reporting for those. Think about other states and the opportunities offered--most have more limited or specific opportunities so the hunts are probably easier to remember and obtain the information on.

Survey sampling of hunters works well in situations with
- large hunts that are not in focused geographic areas - so memory and timelines become issues when using this information
- compliance rates that will never be close to perfect - so they can quantify and control their uncertainty
- species with large numbers of hunters so that implementing the program would be costly. This is all akin to MT general deer/elk license holders. As stated above, MT does attempt to get all of the LE license holders.

Food for thought, I guess. I’ve also attached a peer-reviewed paper a biologist sent me a while back about harvest sampling strategies.
Click to expand...
Usually just an email with a link. Helps the biologists understand what’s happening. Usually takes a couple minutes to fill out. Makes me feel good about the game agencies that care. Maybe if Montana had a shorter season you could remember what the hell happened when you were out hunting.
 
Also mandatory means everyone does it. So you can’t have some people not doing it. Seems like it should work.
 
MsMuley said:
From asking a couple years ago, the main reason that FWP hasn’t gone to mandatory reporting is because mandatory reporting creates a number of problems for inference. First, it is likely to be biased because there is no statistical way to make inference from those who reported to those who did not. Second, there is no way to measure precision in a mandatory reporting framework because there is no sampling design. Finally, mandatory reporting provides delayed answers. If you have to wait for incentives or penalties to get response rate up, decisions will need to be made before data are available. So, unless you get complete reporting quickly, mandatory reporting is almost always a step backwards.

On FWP’s harvest surveys:
- They talk to a large fraction of hunters to make estimates, but get to decide which ones they talk to using the laws of probability.
- They sample ~60% (or up to 100% for limited licenses and permits)
- They can make estimates of harvest and be very clear about how certain or uncertain they are about those estimates (i.e., generate confidence intervals)
- For the species they conduct their random survey sampling (elk, deer, antelope, UGBs, turkey).. the first point is that these are much, much larger and common hunts. They are not as memorable as say, a bighorn sheep or mountain goat hunt (in which FWP does have mandatory reporting for). Hunters may have multiple opportunities for these species and/or the majority of licenses and permits sold for these species are not tied to a specific area (i.e., general licenses) so it is more difficult to tie where hunting effort/harvest occurred, especially when some hunters don’t remember what district or districts they hunted in.
- They worry about the cost of implementing mandatory reporting for large hunts in MT, especially because they have more licenses and permits issued than most other western states. Compare MT and ID (which has mandatory reporting and comes closest to the # of hunters): MT - 286,315 DEA hunters, 455,885 DEA licenses, $210K. ID - 232,381 DEA hunters, 254,785 licenses, $400K. (These numbers were from a couple years ago.. maybe 2020 or something) So… maybe $800K?
- Other states have referred to enforcement issues/compliance issues with mandatory reporting
- It takes time to process data once it's accumulated, and these estimates are needed by biologists for recommending quotas and season adjustments. Bios need to have these recommendations in with plenty of lead time prior to the draw.

Why imperfect compliance with mandatory reporting is an issue:
- If 80% respond (some states that implement mandatory reporting don't even get that), they cannot say what happened with the other 20% in a mandatory reporting system.
- Put in context of a quota change proposal to decrease the number of permits in an area: with FWP’s sampling system, a biologist can say that even with their uncertainty in harvest estimates they know that the harvest has increased in an area and is putting pressure on a population, vs. with a mandatory reporting system they can say that harvest has increased, but they are not certain how accurate the harvest tally is without assumptions based on compliance rates or a follow-up survey (and assuming they get harvest reports in time).
- In the first situation, they can enumerate the reliability of the estimate, in the second, we cannot.

Mandatory reporting works well in situations with
- small hunts that are relatively rare for hunters - they can remember and want to talk about it - i.e, sheep and goats (on a side note I think moose should be in here, too), bears, lions, wolves (some also on a quota)
- are limited to specific districts, so there is less information they need from hunters about their hunt
- law enforcement to make sure people report what we need them to report by the time biologists need the information
- small numbers of hunters so that the cost of implementing the program is not so great
- Some of the species they survey fit this, and they have mandatory reporting for those. Think about other states and the opportunities offered--most have more limited or specific opportunities so the hunts are probably easier to remember and obtain the information on.

Survey sampling of hunters works well in situations with
- large hunts that are not in focused geographic areas - so memory and timelines become issues when using this information
- compliance rates that will never be close to perfect - so they can quantify and control their uncertainty
- species with large numbers of hunters so that implementing the program would be costly. This is all akin to MT general deer/elk license holders. As stated above, MT does attempt to get all of the LE license holders.

Food for thought, I guess. I’ve also attached a peer-reviewed paper a biologist sent me a while back about harvest sampling strategies.
Click to expand...
You have much to express regarding this issue. Have you provided input to FWP?
What is your background and source of seemingly extensive perspective?
Are you a Montana hunter?
Where are you from for reference (upper right hand corner of identification name and number posts?)

Not trying to hack your privacy; it's relevant to know those things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Rack Daniels
Fee increase public comment
Replies
1
Views
271
Straight Arrow
Straight Arrow
M
Back yard mulie…
Replies
8
Views
407
INMT
INMT
M
Has Anyone else hunted "Burro Deer" ? Any Stories about them?
Replies
12
Views
698
grizzly63
G
Gerald Martin
Montana General Season Structure Proposal 3.0
29 30 31
Replies
602
Views
39K
44hunter45
44hunter45
Bowhuntrben
SW New Mexico deer question
Replies
6
Views
791
Julian23345
Julian23345
Use Promo Code Randy for 20% off OutdoorClass

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
119,708
Messages
2,235,700
Members
38,988
Latest member
jack28

Share this page

Back
Top