The mule deer survey and the ground breaking age data is game over for positive change they won’t even have an open mind, their decision is made up. I think it would be hard to find many region 7 residents that are ok with nonresident harvest exceeding residents. Might be the only hope we have for a positive change. We might need to put something together.
Montana Mule Deer Mismanagement
- Thread starter rogerthat
- Start date
8andcounting
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2013
- Messages
- 3,479
i agree with you . Regional caps for NR would be a start
8andcounting
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2013
- Messages
- 3,479
But what if a group of some R and some NR came together and said to fwp - let’s get regional caps . Would that stand a chance ?
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 3,955
No I don’t think so. The only thing that will make FWP even consider anything is if non resident tags go unsold. And that’s not happening anytime soon
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,979
100% go for it. The more folks bringing presentations to FWP of ideas that could be positive for mule deer the better.
peeshaunn
New member
Right.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,979
I finally got a chance to listen to the podcast yesterday. A couple of thoughts from the listen…
1. Brian used average age/ median interchangeably and linked the 4.5 average/median age and 60% 4 point or better to the CWD testing program.
2. He said he was going from memory when quoting from statistics.
3. From the way he talked about the trade offs between a quality management approach compared to an opportunity management approach it seemed like the only examples of quality/ opportunity to be considered are a low percentage LE draw like AZ or MT unit 270 or a five week OTC rut hunt like MT general season.
4. Overall his part of the conversation came off to me as an explanation of why things are the way they are in MT, a pointing out of the reality that there are trade offs between management preferences and a downplaying of any consideration that MT might actually need to change management practices to improve the quality and quantity of mule deer and the hunting experience.
(My thoughts…)
5. Management changes and hunting practices will never be driven by MT FWP unless directed by social pressure. They are a reactive agency and will require public pressure to make them conclude that politically, significant, social pressure warrants changes to management practices to achieve what the public wants. FWP management doesn’t actually have a desired outcome that originates from the department as they implement management policy. That’s why it’s so important that we hunters stay involved to inform them of what we want .
6. Referencing point 1, after listening to the podcast, I am doubling down on my assertion that the 4.5 median/average and 60% 4 point or better is not an accurate representation of the average of mule deer harvest in eastern MT. I’m not calling him a liar, but I am saying that either the collection of the data or the interpretation of it is not resulting in a representation that reflects reality.
It’s entirely possible to use scientific methods of interpreting data to yield inaccurate conclusions if the data collected has a predicated bias and isn’t actually random. I certainly call into question the implied interpretation that “A five week OTC rifle hunt that encompasses the rut is giving us a stable sustainable harvest of 4.5 years or older bucks.” (my paraphrased summary)
This is an agency that has consistently expressed how good a job they are doing with current management practices. In my opinion, comparing FWP press releases or public communications around mule management with the raw data and how critics or the concerned interpret that data leads me to believe that the agency has at least some self interest in presenting a positive picture of the state of mule deer in MT. I’m not casting aspersions on the integrity of any in the field techs, biologists or even their data collection. I’m just saying that some of the “positive” interpretations seem to me to be spun towards a “we’re doing a great job giving MT hunters what they want”.
One final aside. I did find it interesting that he stated that 60% of MT hunters want to be able to hunt every year while 40% of MT hunters would be willing to accept hunting on a less than annual basis. That’s actually encouraging to me that MT hunters might actually support a structure that would allow them to hunt every year even if that opportunity doesn’t take place during the most vulnerable times for mule deer bucks.
1. Brian used average age/ median interchangeably and linked the 4.5 average/median age and 60% 4 point or better to the CWD testing program.
2. He said he was going from memory when quoting from statistics.
3. From the way he talked about the trade offs between a quality management approach compared to an opportunity management approach it seemed like the only examples of quality/ opportunity to be considered are a low percentage LE draw like AZ or MT unit 270 or a five week OTC rut hunt like MT general season.
4. Overall his part of the conversation came off to me as an explanation of why things are the way they are in MT, a pointing out of the reality that there are trade offs between management preferences and a downplaying of any consideration that MT might actually need to change management practices to improve the quality and quantity of mule deer and the hunting experience.
(My thoughts…)
5. Management changes and hunting practices will never be driven by MT FWP unless directed by social pressure. They are a reactive agency and will require public pressure to make them conclude that politically, significant, social pressure warrants changes to management practices to achieve what the public wants. FWP management doesn’t actually have a desired outcome that originates from the department as they implement management policy. That’s why it’s so important that we hunters stay involved to inform them of what we want .
6. Referencing point 1, after listening to the podcast, I am doubling down on my assertion that the 4.5 median/average and 60% 4 point or better is not an accurate representation of the average of mule deer harvest in eastern MT. I’m not calling him a liar, but I am saying that either the collection of the data or the interpretation of it is not resulting in a representation that reflects reality.
It’s entirely possible to use scientific methods of interpreting data to yield inaccurate conclusions if the data collected has a predicated bias and isn’t actually random. I certainly call into question the implied interpretation that “A five week OTC rifle hunt that encompasses the rut is giving us a stable sustainable harvest of 4.5 years or older bucks.” (my paraphrased summary)
This is an agency that has consistently expressed how good a job they are doing with current management practices. In my opinion, comparing FWP press releases or public communications around mule management with the raw data and how critics or the concerned interpret that data leads me to believe that the agency has at least some self interest in presenting a positive picture of the state of mule deer in MT. I’m not casting aspersions on the integrity of any in the field techs, biologists or even their data collection. I’m just saying that some of the “positive” interpretations seem to me to be spun towards a “we’re doing a great job giving MT hunters what they want”.
One final aside. I did find it interesting that he stated that 60% of MT hunters want to be able to hunt every year while 40% of MT hunters would be willing to accept hunting on a less than annual basis. That’s actually encouraging to me that MT hunters might actually support a structure that would allow them to hunt every year even if that opportunity doesn’t take place during the most vulnerable times for mule deer bucks.
BuzzH
Well-known member
What I know for age data, I do not trust the data collected at check stations at all. No offense to the biologists, they do the best they can but the conditions aren't ideal. They cut a locked jaw, use a draw spreader, look into a mouth full of blood, dirt, grass often with a flashlight and try to apply an age. I likely couldn't do any better, but the point is, its rough at best.
With that said, this elk here was aged by a past biologist, that IMO, didn't know shit from clay about how to age anything. The guy was a know-it-all type. I think he had an agenda and wanted to skew age data to justify cow tags because of herd age.
I mean anyone that's been around elk would know there is NO way that elk is 10+ years old. When he called it 10+ I showed him the ivories that were like egg shells, indictive of a 1.5 year old elk (spike bulls have the same type of ivories). I also said, "just look at the short face and look at the feet and body size". We had the elk loaded whole in the truck and my brother and I pulled it into the truck no problem.
He argued and I just said whatever. Another biologist that I know well was there and I asked him to come age this elk. He took one look and said 1.5 years. I showed him the ivories and he said well that removes any doubt.
That cow was logged as 10+ in the check station data.
Ever since then, I've been cautious about believing check station data.
As to the mean Eastern Montana deer being 4.5, I don't buy that for a second.
With that said, this elk here was aged by a past biologist, that IMO, didn't know shit from clay about how to age anything. The guy was a know-it-all type. I think he had an agenda and wanted to skew age data to justify cow tags because of herd age.
I mean anyone that's been around elk would know there is NO way that elk is 10+ years old. When he called it 10+ I showed him the ivories that were like egg shells, indictive of a 1.5 year old elk (spike bulls have the same type of ivories). I also said, "just look at the short face and look at the feet and body size". We had the elk loaded whole in the truck and my brother and I pulled it into the truck no problem.
He argued and I just said whatever. Another biologist that I know well was there and I asked him to come age this elk. He took one look and said 1.5 years. I showed him the ivories and he said well that removes any doubt.
That cow was logged as 10+ in the check station data.
Ever since then, I've been cautious about believing check station data.
As to the mean Eastern Montana deer being 4.5, I don't buy that for a second.
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 3,955
I dont either. Whether its mean or median (i thought he had corrected mean to median).
You know many people at fwp - why are they okay with such bad data to make scientific decisions?
Big Shooter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2008
- Messages
- 483
It’s really simple actually…..That way they can set the narrative. It’s all about control.
What scientific decisions is FWP making on mule deer? Seasons been the same for decades so there’s zero decision making there. Commission I believe sets the doe quota range and fwp picks a random number in that quota after their summer flights. My 10 year old could pull that off
WanderWoman
Well-known member
After listening to it, I had a somewhat different takeaway.
I never once heard BW say, “we’re knocking it out of the park..,” or even that “FWP is doing a great job managing mule deer.” (Maybe I missed it though)
I did hear, “No one has eliminated a deer herd by over hunting it (by killing bucks)” and he’s right. That doesn’t equate to good management (and he didn’t say that), but it’s a fact nonetheless. As he and Robbie discussed, there’s the minimum buck:doe ratio required (8-10:100) and then generally the upper echelon (40:100) and the in-between is largely driven by social factors. I think this part—where do we want Montana to fall into here—will be a major part of the process.
I thought he did a decent job of giving the 10,000-ft overview—mentioned CWD (like it or not, it will influence how the plan takes shape), acknowledged the challenges of credibility with MT’s harvest data. He brought up the hunter preference survey, and even if you don’t like that FWP lumped some of the responses related to satisfaction (same here), the question about tradeoffs from a random sample of MT hunters still indicated the majority would a) rather hunt every year and b) hunt during the rut. Yet even with that, I caught this part of the conversation:
Robbie: “If the public wants less rut hunting in MT, that could be part of this plan, but you would need to hear from enough constituents to decide on that, right?”
BW: “That is certainly an option that’s on the table… we don’t have to manage all of MT one way, or another way. If there are places we want to do that, we can restrict that opportunity.”
That part to me didn’t feel like a downplaying of anyone’s concerns. Basically what I heard was, if you want change, show up (formally) and say so. I thought the Elk Plan re-write had little public engagement relative to the number of people that hunt and talk elk in Montana. And miraculously it still turned out ok (whether the commission follows it is another deal all together). I hope the engagement on this mule deer plan blows that out of the water, but I guess we’ll see.
On a totally different note, the part that got me thinking most was when they talked about the question, “How do you turn action, interest, and dollars into more mule deer?”
I never once heard BW say, “we’re knocking it out of the park..,” or even that “FWP is doing a great job managing mule deer.” (Maybe I missed it though)
I did hear, “No one has eliminated a deer herd by over hunting it (by killing bucks)” and he’s right. That doesn’t equate to good management (and he didn’t say that), but it’s a fact nonetheless. As he and Robbie discussed, there’s the minimum buck:doe ratio required (8-10:100) and then generally the upper echelon (40:100) and the in-between is largely driven by social factors. I think this part—where do we want Montana to fall into here—will be a major part of the process.
I thought he did a decent job of giving the 10,000-ft overview—mentioned CWD (like it or not, it will influence how the plan takes shape), acknowledged the challenges of credibility with MT’s harvest data. He brought up the hunter preference survey, and even if you don’t like that FWP lumped some of the responses related to satisfaction (same here), the question about tradeoffs from a random sample of MT hunters still indicated the majority would a) rather hunt every year and b) hunt during the rut. Yet even with that, I caught this part of the conversation:
Robbie: “If the public wants less rut hunting in MT, that could be part of this plan, but you would need to hear from enough constituents to decide on that, right?”
BW: “That is certainly an option that’s on the table… we don’t have to manage all of MT one way, or another way. If there are places we want to do that, we can restrict that opportunity.”
That part to me didn’t feel like a downplaying of anyone’s concerns. Basically what I heard was, if you want change, show up (formally) and say so. I thought the Elk Plan re-write had little public engagement relative to the number of people that hunt and talk elk in Montana. And miraculously it still turned out ok (whether the commission follows it is another deal all together). I hope the engagement on this mule deer plan blows that out of the water, but I guess we’ll see.
On a totally different note, the part that got me thinking most was when they talked about the question, “How do you turn action, interest, and dollars into more mule deer?”
cgasner1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2016
- Messages
- 4,394
They are right about you can’t outshoot the herd. Also when you consider the other 60% thinks things are great you cant fault Fwp for staying the course. I’d only rather have 15-20% of people grumbling at me instead of 60%
BuzzH
Well-known member
I think one of the biggest stumbling blocks is that many of the "experts" and biologists don't remember what Montana used to be in regard to mule deer hunting.
The new norm with mule deer in Montana is complete crap and the influencers and instafamous crowd think its just great.
The biologists and instafamous folk have no baseline or enough experience to know what the potential is. For them, what they have now is the "best" they've ever seen. Sort of like someone from the midwest moving to Montana and spouting off about how great things are in Montana. Well, yeah, the mule deer hunting in Montana is certainly better than the mule deer hunting in Ohio. Doesn't change the fact its complete shit compared to when I started hunting in 1979.
The MTFWP has been hoping for the past couple decades that the old hunters die off so they don't have to consider what the potential is. They can just gaslight the public into believing these are the "good old days", which is a complete lie.
Wyoming in experiencing the same thing with the next generation of young biologists. IMO, if I were in a new biology position, I would be reaching out to the older hunters, past biologists and looking at as much old data as I could to inform myself. I don't think that's happening much.
The new norm with mule deer in Montana is complete crap and the influencers and instafamous crowd think its just great.
The biologists and instafamous folk have no baseline or enough experience to know what the potential is. For them, what they have now is the "best" they've ever seen. Sort of like someone from the midwest moving to Montana and spouting off about how great things are in Montana. Well, yeah, the mule deer hunting in Montana is certainly better than the mule deer hunting in Ohio. Doesn't change the fact its complete shit compared to when I started hunting in 1979.
The MTFWP has been hoping for the past couple decades that the old hunters die off so they don't have to consider what the potential is. They can just gaslight the public into believing these are the "good old days", which is a complete lie.
Wyoming in experiencing the same thing with the next generation of young biologists. IMO, if I were in a new biology position, I would be reaching out to the older hunters, past biologists and looking at as much old data as I could to inform myself. I don't think that's happening much.
antlerradar
Well-known member
This is a fact, but you can shoot enough to get the herd to seek refuge on private land so in reality you can outshoot a public land herd.
Elky Welky
Well-known member
However, it's just as much of a fallacy to think we can go back to the "good old days" and still give everyone what they want. Montana's population is much bigger. The nonresident dollars are too important to FWP. Block management enrollment is falling. CWD is a reality. Elk are outcompeting mule deer. Transplants are moving here, saying they know best, and selling out our wildlife to the landed gentry. You simply have to accept reality where it is, because those days are gone and will not come back.
You're right that it isn't the best, but lamenting about the good old days is a waste of time that doesn't get anyone anywhere either.
Doing nothing to account for all of those changes you mentioned doesn’t get us anywhere either.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
A life long dream comes true and story about hounds racoon and lions
- Latest: wisconsinteacher
-
Spencer's double rifle from the 1923 TV Series
- Latest: Thundering Death
-
