Was that mentioned some where? It was a screen shot of some pertinent information. Should I have redacted that portion?
Montana Mule Deer Mismanagement
- Thread starter rogerthat
- Start date
sclancy27
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2022
- Messages
- 495
I'm just pointing out that the majority of this whole thread is blaming populations on "mis-managment". There is no way to explain that fawn to doe ratio with mismanagement. Further, how is it possible to have a fawn to doe ration that low AND population almost half what the LTA is....there are some not good things happening on a landscape scale in 410.
very generally the change was motivated by the same concerns many montanans are currently having.
the changes seemed to clearly be successful. wildly successful by some measures.
BD ratios statewide went from 17 to 32. then you have my chart suggesting a rather eye popping jump in hunt quality from a score perspective.
what didn't change was overall declining trend in the herd numbers. the fact that that trend continues to exists across the entire west under at least a half dozen or more different management structures says to me there's more going on there than just over hunting (which i think we all already know).
Did you read the biologist's report?
sclancy27
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2022
- Messages
- 495
Is this what you are talking about? If so, yes
Elky Welky
Well-known member
We'll never know. My skillset does seem more suited for juries or a negotiation table, op-eds, lobbying the legislature, and being out in public than discussing issues online with a few members of the HT crowd, that's for sureProbably a good thing you are an attorney because as salesman or company spokesperson you would most certainly fail.
. But for every lightning rod I like to believe there are others on here paying attention that appreciate constructive dialogue. I do know there's at least one troll on here that emerges every 6 months or so to make a comment about my professional experience and then goes back to just reading the threads...Thanks! Therein lies the rub, and the crux of so many of our problems. Elk and Whitetails squeezing mule deer out, CWD, increased pressure, access issues, habitat, droughts, etc. It's a perfect storm. Layer that with Montana's longtime model that has favored one user group over another in MT, a department torn between a survey that doesn't reflect the kind of issues demonstrated in this thread, often ignoring the biologists in favor of social or monetary concerns..., shifting to a top-down model instead of region-by-region, and we are where we are today. There's some mismanagement, yes. But is it the entire department (or heaven forbid, a grassroots conservation organization's), fault?
Probably not. But the best "answer" is to try and get on the citizen advisory council and work within the system to help steer the ship. The agency is a tool for change.
Ya maybe.We'll never know. My skillset does seem more suited for juries or a negotiation table, op-eds, lobbying the legislature, and being out in public than discussing issues online with a few members of the HT crowd, that's for sure
It’s not showing it as the cause. It’s probably more showing that if it is that then we probably shouldn’t be shooting them as well.
700 soon to follow with all the displaced hunters from 410
sclancy27
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2022
- Messages
- 495
They already mention in the doc that there isn't anywhere further to go with cutting B tags. I agree, shooting them doesn't help.
What are 700 fawn:doe ratios?
huntin24/7
Well-known member
I think the fawn to doe ratios is a separate issue most likely caused by weather(drought, harsh winter, etc). We don’t really have any control over that. The only thing we can control is managing ourselves and only killing numbers that still allows the herds to hopefully maintain or flourish more.
I’ve already had two friends come to me practically losing their shit about not being able to kill a muley doe on public this year. I tried to explain the reasoning, but I don’t think they were in the mood to be reasonable. Lol
I’ve already had two friends come to me practically losing their shit about not being able to kill a muley doe on public this year. I tried to explain the reasoning, but I don’t think they were in the mood to be reasonable. Lol
WanderWoman
Well-known member
Separate but related. Low fawn:doe/fawn:adult ratios now means fewer of those age class bucks 2, 3, 4, 5 years from now.
sclancy27
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2022
- Messages
- 495
100%. The real question is why are fawn:doe ratios significantly lower than the WY Range post what many consider the worst winter in the last 50-100 yrs....?
100%. The real question is why are fawn:doe ratios significantly lower than the WY Range post what many consider the worst winter in the last 50-100 yrs....?
Have no idea if this has any legs to stand on but could it be lots of open does from literally anything with a set of antlers gets shot that there are just some does that aren’t getting bred when they cycle?
Edited to add my own observations of spending a lot of time in 410 and quite a bit of that time during the rut. You will see groups of does in the heat of the rut that don’t have a buck checking them out. Over the last 10 years I’ve started noticing it more and more here in eastern Montana. Groups of does that don’t have a buck hanging with them. There use to always be a smaller buck always hanging with does during the rut but that seems to have changed around here.
sclancy27
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2022
- Messages
- 495
No offense, but it seems like a stretch.
Most research suggests with ~10-15:100 bucks per doe ratio basically every doe is still getting bred. That would mean that the buck:doe ratio would have to be significantly below that, 5:100, maybe less?. I didn't see any numbers in that report that gave quantitative numbers for buck to doe, but I would really have to dig in the research to see an instance where the buck:doe ratios were low enough to affect pregnancy rates at all, let alone pregnancy rates to the amount that causes fawn:doe ratios that low.
The most likely answer is something affecting female body condition...
Could be a stretch. The coyote numbers in 410 are unreal in the areas I’ve hunted as well. Lots of bones in each draw
WanderWoman
Well-known member
I would think that for the most part, until buck:doe ratios start dipping below that 10:100 threshold, does are getting bred.
I think what’s been happening particularly over the last few years is that with drought and nutritional stress, does are either not carrying to full term, having singles instead of doubles, having smaller/weaker fawns that don’t make it past the neonate period, or aren’t lactating well enough to maintain healthy/living fawns to weaning. And, the ones that are successful in one year or two years are then in a nutritional deficit such that the following year they won’t be successful. That happens anyway to some extent but is exacerbated in drought years. The Hamlin and Mackie study about mule deer in the breaks speaks to this. Couple that with everything else (buck hunting pressure, a bad winter, predation, etc.) over several years and this is what we see, and will see, until we get a few good years under our belts.
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 1,074
Agreed - coyote numbers in that unit are crazy. Run into them in the middle of the day - even in archery.
I’ve debated more than a few times on spending a week in December up there calling
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 1,074
Thought i was the only one...
