Yeti GOBOX Collection

Montana Mule Deer Mismanagement

What I gathered from the paper, is that mandatory reporting systems can get you a small increase in accuracy/precision but is it worth the extra cost when you’re talking about a couple of percentage points for likely several hundred K? Would you rather see that money go towards research or habitat/access?
I think what people are saying is that hunter experience in the ground is not matching up with the data FWP are reporting to an increasing degree and we would like to see that increased precision. In this case yes, it may be worth the cost.

And this is for general licenses with which FWP does attempt to gather harvest at the HD-scale.
FWP is using these, admittedly imprecise “HD level” harvest data to make decisions about altering HDs. I’m not sure that is appropriate given their methods. If they want to make HD-level management decisions, they should be gathering HD level data with as much precision as possible. They aren’t doing that. In my own experience, and others here, they have been pretty loose in how they assign hunters to specific HDs when people aren’t sure where they were. To then argue that their method is superior statistically is kind of disingenuous. Seems to ignore a bias in the way they are collecting harvest data.


I guess we’ll see what actually occurred when the results come out next spring. Also, are we talking predicting population trajectories, which would take into account production, recruitment, winter, drought, harvest, etc., or just harvest? I think population models are helpful but I also think there are so, so many things you can’t predict when it comes to environmental factors/stochasticity and hunting is just a piece of that. And it is apparently a struggle to just get the hunting/harvest part right.
Again, not buying it. They SHOULD be taking all of those things into account when establishing tag numbers, and there are well-established methods in place for doing so. Other states manage to use these methods quite effectively. Neighboring states are routinely able to be much more adaptable and responsive in tailoring tag numbers to reflect population changes due to weather, harvest, disease events etc., even going so far as closing seasons if it’s the best thing for the resource. Yet somehow, Montana has historically been very slow to respond to population slumps, and when they do it’s incremental at best. Why is Montana unwilling or unable to implement the methods other states are using quite effectively?
Replying to Doug, one would think that mandatory reporting and its implications mean there is 100% response (I agree it sure as heck should), but this rarely happens (some states don’t even get 80%) and the added effort to re-survey non-responding hunters is costly.
No method is 100%, that’s why we have statistics. Using less than 100% accuracy as an excuse for not using a method is a cop out.

Plus again, the technology for gathering self-reported data has advanced light-years since that paper was written. In that time we’ve switched to 100% online applications, hunt planning tools, purchasing, etc. Put reporting in the app (app technology can do amazing things of properly developed). Put it on the website. Send links in email. Add it to the license purchasing site. Using phone calls or mailings as the primary mode of data collection are obsolete and inefficient IMO. It makes no sense to me how the argument can be made that the current phone surveys are more cost effective than an automated self-reporting method using one of the technologies FWP already has in place. Switching the current phone survey efforts towards calling non-responders of mandatory reporting does not seem that onerous to me.
For Hunting Wife, when you bring up localized scale, are you talking about within HD, or just at an HD scale? Harvest surveys as done provide the data at an HD scale, so I’m not tracking you, sorry. As far as numerous other states finding cost-effective ways to do this, looking back at the volume of MT hunters vs. some other states, is it, though? (Serious question—I’m not familiar with what other states spend outside of what I was given above and what’s in the paper, and what are those state agency professionals saying?).
I’m saying the agency makes the argument that they either have sufficient HD level data, or doesn’t, depending on the questions being asked or the solutions being proposed by the public. Based on the myriad experiences of some very knowledgeable members posted here, as well as things I’ve heard in some of the agency testimony it seems to be a source of circular arguments from the agency, and raises significant questions about the quality and utility of the data they are collecting with their current methods.

States with hunting licenses ranging from a fraction of Montana’s numbers to several times Montana’s numbers have implemented mandatory reporting, with many of these being implemented within the last 5-8 years. I don’t have specifics for their budgets, but I can’t imagine they would be adopting this if the cost:benefit was really that bad.
We as hunters ask for science-based management. This paper, whether you like it or not, was peer-reviewed by specialists in the wildlife field (at a broader level than in MT) and deemed worthy of publication.
But science-based management should be evolving. That’s why it’s called adaptive management. There seems to be a dearth of similar research, and nothing less than a decade old. Peer reviewed doesn’t mean it’s relevant forever. Technology has changed, management needs have changed, the wishes of the public are changing, priorities change. I would like to see a modern analysis in light of some of the challenges managers are facing currently, and new technologies available. Old methods that don’t answer new questions are not very useful.
 
I think what people are saying is that hunter experience in the ground is not matching up with the data FWP are reporting to an increasing degree and we would like to see that increased precision. In this case yes, it may be worth the cost.


FWP is using these, admittedly imprecise “HD level” harvest data to make decisions about altering HDs. I’m not sure that is appropriate given their methods. If they want to make HD-level management decisions, they should be gathering HD level data with as much precision as possible. They aren’t doing that. In my own experience, and others here, they have been pretty loose in how they assign hunters to specific HDs when people aren’t sure where they were. To then argue that their method is superior statistically is kind of disingenuous. Seems to ignore a bias in the way they are collecting harvest data.



Again, not buying it. They SHOULD be taking all of those things into account when establishing tag numbers, and there are well-established methods in place for doing so. Other states manage to use these methods quite effectively. Neighboring states are routinely able to be much more adaptable and responsive in tailoring tag numbers to reflect population changes due to weather, harvest, disease events etc., even going so far as closing seasons if it’s the best thing for the resource. Yet somehow, Montana has historically been very slow to respond to population slumps, and when they do it’s incremental at best. Why is Montana unwilling or unable to implement the methods other states are using quite effectively?

No method is 100%, that’s why we have statistics. Using less than 100% accuracy as an excuse for not using a method is a cop out.

Plus again, the technology for gathering self-reported data has advanced light-years since that paper was written. In that time we’ve switched to 100% online applications, hunt planning tools, purchasing, etc. Put reporting in the app (app technology can do amazing things of properly developed). Put it on the website. Send links in email. Add it to the license purchasing site. Using phone calls or mailings as the primary mode of data collection are obsolete and inefficient IMO. It makes no sense to me how the argument can be made that the current phone surveys are more cost effective than an automated self-reporting method using one of the technologies FWP already has in place. Switching the current phone survey efforts towards calling non-responders of mandatory reporting does not seem that onerous to me.

I’m saying the agency makes the argument that they either have sufficient HD level data, or doesn’t, depending on the questions being asked or the solutions being proposed by the public. Based on the myriad experiences of some very knowledgeable members posted here, as well as things I’ve heard in some of the agency testimony it seems to be a source of circular arguments from the agency, and raises significant questions about the quality and utility of the data they are collecting with their current methods.

States with hunting licenses ranging from a fraction of Montana’s numbers to several times Montana’s numbers have implemented mandatory reporting, with many of these being implemented within the last 5-8 years. I don’t have specifics for their budgets, but I can’t imagine they would be adopting this if the cost:benefit was really that bad.

But science-based management should be evolving. That’s why it’s called adaptive management. There seems to be a dearth of similar research, and nothing less than a decade old. Peer reviewed doesn’t mean it’s relevant forever. Technology has changed, management needs have changed, the wishes of the public are changing, priorities change. I would like to see a modern analysis in light of some of the challenges managers are facing currently, and new technologies available. Old methods that don’t answer new questions are not very useful.
Extremely well put....thank you!
 
Fruit punch. The info we needed I’m whipping up a batch that doesn’t take public land mule deer to the brink of extinction. No doe tags in this punch on public maybe some landowner doe tags for the Wilkes.
 
Not sure why mandatory harvest reporting for big game would be any more difficult online than the mandatory HIP reporting before you can hunt waterfowl each year. Did you fill your tag? Mule deer or whitetail? 4 point or more/less? What unit? Etc. Comment section. Then you can buy/apply. Seems pretty easy to me.
You still wouldn't get 100% due to attrition on NR, etc. What this means from a statistical perspective, IDK.
 
You still wouldn't get 100% due to attrition on NR, etc. What this means from a statistical perspective, IDK.
Most things don’t get us 100%. Not looking for that. Just wanting better, and this would give you better. I can fill out and submit my HIP info in one minute. You could set up something similar and require it to be completed for any tag holder by a certain date post season, and if they didn’t do it, they’re ineligible to apply for a permit, buy a bonus point, etc., the following season for that species. Just an example.
 
Most things don’t get us 100%. Not looking for that. Just wanting better, and this would give you better. I can fill out and submit my HIP info in one minute. You could set up something similar and require it to be completed for any tag holder by a certain date post season, and if they didn’t do it, they’re ineligible to apply for a permit, buy a bonus point, etc., the following season for that species. Just an example.
I totally agree. I don't know what that means statistically tho and it needs to be adjusted for in the analysis stage. That's what makes it scientifically based management
 
I totally agree. I don't know what that means statistically tho and it needs to be adjusted for in the analysis stage. That's what makes it scientifically based management
For now, I think we just need to get a better idea of hunter pressure and demand throughout the state, and I think we’d learn some other trends as well. I know people in MT generally don’t like to hear about permits, but I think at some point, if we don’t start more strictly managing by unit and species, I think things are going to continue to get worse(primarily speaking on public/accessible land). And this is going to be true whether you’re trophy hunting or just out for meat or the experience.
 
Maybe we should do like some other states and implement a must report policy with a fine if you don’t do so they make more money that might interest them then
 
We as hunters ask for science-based management. This paper, whether you like it or not, was peer-reviewed by specialists in the wildlife field (at a broader level than in MT) and deemed worthy of publication.
Science, it no better than the scientists that lead it. You can find Science to support almost anything, peer-reviewed or not. One of the best ways to assess anything, be it "science" or buying a new fridge is "does it pass the straight face test?" If it can't, which this doesn't, then one must have the wherewithal and humility to admit they're wrong. Mandatory reporting does not have to be costly in the social sense. WDFW tacks on $15 to next years license fee and makes it fill out all the various harvest reports prior to purchasing the next one.
So I don’t trust it per say because I’m full of Kool-Aid vs. the fact that it passed muster according to long-standing scientific method and standards set forth by other wildlife professionals.
Do you, and FWP, find it at all interesting that other professions disagree? https://www.ironmountaindailynews.c...e-harvest-reporting-should-yield-better-data/

1670345246314.png

As a simplton with a job not in wildlife statistics, I am not going to spend the rest of the day scouring peer-reviewed journals to point out all the flaws and misrepresentations in the paper you provided, I am not payed to do so, unlike those that drafted the paper, but let me point out once again, that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quakes like a duck...
 
The data I want to see is mortality rates of male mule deer in hunted vs un-hunted populations in the same geographic areas. This is the only way to really get a handle on what escapement would be if we became more conservative with hunting. There is data to show that adult male annual mortality rate is ~2x what adult female annual mortality is. The question is what % of this is due to hunting and which is due to just the increase costs of being male. If male mortality would be approximate female mortality then more conservative hunting would make an immediate and very noticeable difference. If male mortality stays relatively high, the difference may not be as much, or perhaps nothing. One would also reasonably expect male mortality to increase as (potentially) adult male density increased on the landscape.
 
@MsMuley

Both Missouri and Illinois figured out same-day mandatory reporting over a decade ago. I find it hard to believe that Montana can’t figure out same-year reporting. Postcard reminders, automated phone calls, emails, app notifications- whatever. Then add a $20 fee to each of next years tags for not reporting- antelope, deer, and elk.

Montana “not needing to” just doesn’t pass the smell test. The biggest problem is that we’re hunting longer, farther, and harder, and seeing lower returns- especially on public land. Something is very wrong, and this is the best way to get the right data to get to the bottom of things.

I know your sources stated that this isn’t the method to get better data, but they fail to explore how we might get to that end result. I don’t care if they shoot down one idea- just get it done!
 
I am a statistician. Master's degree. I have even done some work for FWP and have my name on a few things, if you look through my previous post's I think I have even mentioned it a couple times.

There are so many inaccuracies in this discussion I don't even know where to get started. I will sum up a bit here though.

Mandatory reporting should be done if we want good data. It's not that hard. It doesn't have to be that expensive. It would be much more accurate than what we have now which is a big guess. There are a multitude of reasons that FWP doesn't want to go to mandatory reporting though and I'm not going to get into them.
 
The data I want to see is mortality rates of male mule deer in hunted vs un-hunted populations in the same geographic areas. This is the only way to really get a handle on what escapement would be if we became more conservative with hunting. There is data to show that adult male annual mortality rate is ~2x what adult female annual mortality is. The question is what % of this is due to hunting and which is due to just the increase costs of being male. If male mortality would be approximate female mortality then more conservative hunting would make an immediate and very noticeable difference. If male mortality stays relatively high, the difference may not be as much, or perhaps nothing. One would also reasonably expect male mortality to increase as (potentially) adult male density increased on the landscape.
I think you make a good point and I also think that you will never know the answer.
 
I am a statistician. Master's degree. I have even done some work for FWP and have my name on a few things, if you look through my previous post's I think I have even mentioned it a couple times.

There are so many inaccuracies in this discussion I don't even know where to get started. I will sum up a bit here though.

Mandatory reporting should be done if we want good data. It's not that hard. It doesn't have to be that expensive. It would be much more accurate than what we have now which is a big guess. There are a multitude of reasons that FWP doesn't want to go to mandatory reporting though and I'm not going to get into them.
Why would you not want to get into them? Hurt someone’s feelings? Time to pull the blanket off the emperor…I don’t think anyone will be surprised with what they see
 
It seems the agency isn’t working in good faith managing the resource of mule deer. Maybe a lawsuit needs to be in the works. Completely mind blowing an agency wouldn’t want good data to manage a resource. Can only lead me to believe they don’t care or are just taking orders. At the end of the day if nothing ever changes no matter what conditions on the ground are a lot of people are employed at FWP that don’t need to be. Wildlife will just manage themselves to extinction.
 
Why would you not want to get into them? Hurt someone’s feelings? Time to pull the blanket off the emperor…I don’t think anyone will be surprised with what they see
Don’t bite the hand that feeds you?
 
Well I will say one thing fwp is #1 at is getting 100% loyalty and commitment from their staff. Better than the military as far as I can tell. Absolutely baffling to me.
Especially when they are on an island of states and provinces that wouldn’t even consider managing the way they do. Increasing population of humans increasing resident tags and come home to hunt BS. Nonresidents and residents stacking up on one side of the state. Obvious declines in population even on highly managed private. And yet they maintain the best management in the west. Adaptive management at work. Let’s do it again next year, and see just how far we can take this.
 
Especially when they are on an island of states and provinces that wouldn’t even consider managing the way they do. Increasing population of humans increasing resident tags and come home to hunt BS. Nonresidents and residents stacking up on one side of the state. Obvious declines in population even on highly managed private. And yet they maintain the best management in the west. Adaptive management at work. Let’s do it again next year, and see just how far we can take this.
Pretty sure that saying “My hunting sucked, so you are terrible at your job” is not going to get us very far. I fully support mandatory reporting, because it is easy and cheap and improves the data, but it is generally putting lipstick on a pig. I want it because I want unit-level management. This should include pick your weapon, pick your unit on tags.
 
Last edited:
Pretty sure that saying “My hunting sucked, so you are terrible at you job” is not going to get us very far. I fully support mandatory reporting, because it is easy and cheap and improves the data, but it is generally putting lipstick on a pig. I want it because I want unit-level management. This should include pick your weapon, pick your unit on tags.
Pretty sure saying my state sucks so I came to Montana isn’t going to get you very far. You have a lot of work to do. Better get to it. I want to see your state get better so I don’t see you here. Good luck.
 
Back
Top