Montana Mule Deer Mismanagement

[huntin24/7]

You have the good old days and you have where we’re at now. Unfortunately we can’t get back to the good old days. But I bet we could get somewhere in between, and that would be a lot better than where we’re at with some common sense management changes.

 

[Elky Welky]

Doing nothing to account for all of those changes you mentioned doesn’t get us anywhere either.

You're right, but that's not my point.

 

[rogerthat]

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.

The gaslighting by the agency doesn’t get us anywhere either. You can’t continue to tell us rut hunting has little to no effect when we hunters can see those effects with our own eyes from experience other states with different management structures. The age data implies region 7 including public lands is the best hunting in the west. If I was a region 7 bio or game manager I would be digging into why the data and the experience don’t align not touting it as the face of why change isn’t necessary.

 

[Forkyfinder]

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.

@BuzzH - whats your definition of potential being achieved?

If its population being back up - feedback in the podcast from fwp was that CWD risk made that too high. Im not sure i agree - but im not a biologist or scientist either.

 

[Forkyfinder]

The gaslighting by the agency doesn’t get us anywhere either. You can’t continue to tell us rut hunting has little to no effect when we hunters can see those effects with our own eyes from experience other states with different management structures. The age data implies region 7 including public lands is the best hunting in the west. If I was a region 7 bio or game manager I would be digging into why the data and the experience don’t align not touting it as the face of why change isn’t necessary.

Thats where i remain lost - data is the foundation of science.

 

[rogerthat]

Thats where i remain lost - data is the foundation of science.

I agree. I been wracking my brain over this one since I saw the data. I should be able to post up an image of the day later today so you guys can look at it closer. The only other thing I can come up with is that all those young looking two and threes I see are 4.5 years old? I don’t shoot them and age them.

I have lab aged a bunch of mule deer from 7 for me and my buddies over the years and I can corroborate two things that most genetically superior bucks ie high scoring bucks are harvested by 3.5 or more rarely 4.5 and there is a class of old warrior troll 2, 3 and crabby 4s that are older bucks typically 4.5 plus but these are still pretty rare anymore. I have been pretty accurate with using body to evaluate the difference in 3.5 and 4.5 plus bucks so that’s why I’m skeptical of the scenario that us hunters are assuming we are seeing 2.5 and 3.5 year old bucks that are in fact 4.5 plus. I’m sure it happens some however.

 

[Deleted member 16864]

In 10 years we all may fondly look back on this year being “the good ol’ days”.

 

[Deleted member 56631]

I agree. I been wracking my brain over this one since I saw the data. I should be able to post up an image of the day later today so you guys can look at it closer. The only other thing I can come up with is that all those young looking two and threes I see are 4.5 years old? I don’t shoot them and age them.

I have lab aged a bunch of mule deer from 7 for me and my buddies over the years and I can corroborate two things that most genetically superior bucks ie high scoring bucks are harvested by 3.5 or more rarely 4.5 and there is a class of old warrior troll 2, 3 and crabby 4s that are older bucks typically 4.5 plus but these are still pretty rare anymore. I have been pretty accurate with using body to evaluate the difference in 3.5 and 4.5 plus bucks so that’s why I’m skeptical of the scenario that us hunters are assuming we are seeing 2.5 and 3.5 year old bucks that are in fact 4.5 plus. I’m sure it happens some however.

I would like to point out that often the median age of a population is half the average life expectancy of that population of that species. So nearly 50% being harvested 3.5-4.5 years old and the other nearly 50% being less than 3.5 years old makes sense. This is coming from the biology work Iv done on a few different species with longer life expectancy

Vs

Places like California which have more than 50 % of the harvest being under 3.5

 

[rogerthat]

I would like to point out that often the median age of a population is half the average life expectancy of that population of that species. So nearly 50% being harvested 3.5-4.5 years old and the other nearly 50% being less than 3.5 years old makes sense. This is coming from the biology work Iv done on a few different species with longer life expectancy

Vs

Places like California which have more than 50 % of the harvest being under 3.5

This is harvest data meaning bucks harvested by hunters. It doesn’t make any sense to me when compared against other data sets from other units across the west. I was trying to find the average age of bucks taken in region g recently. I haven’t found it for the latest seasons but I fairly certain it was less than 4 prior to 2022-23 winter that wiped out 70% of the deer. The newer data might be skewed due to the winters. 40% of bucks over 4.5 is on par with some of the better limited entry units. Im not buying what they are selling. I have scouted G a bunch and I can compare what I see in G vs scouting region 7. And I am dialed in 7. I see way more bucks than the average dude so a pretty big sample size each year. I only see a handful of bucks that I know are 4.5 or over in a year on public land. Private land is a different deal and as to why I would have expected a much bigger difference public vs private harvests. As you will see that isn’t the case.

 

[Deleted member 56631]

This is harvest data meaning bucks harvested by hunters. It doesn’t make any sense to me when compared against other data sets from other units across the west. I was trying to find the average age of bucks taken in region g recently. I haven’t found it for the latest seasons but I fairly certain it was less than 4 prior to 2022-23 winter that wiped out 70% of the deer. The newer data might be skewed due to the winters. 40% of bucks over 4.5 is on par with some of the better limited entry units. Im not buying what they are selling. I have scouted G a bunch and I can compare what I see in G vs scouting region 7. And I am dialed in 7. I see way more bucks than the average dude so a pretty big sample size each year. I only see a handful of bucks that I know are 4.5 or over in a year on public land. Private land is a different deal and as to why I would have expected a much bigger difference public vs private harvests. As you will see that isn’t the case.

A majority of the populations of bucks harvested is on track with the median age of the population, which makes sense biologically.

 

[BuzzH]

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.

So, be happy with your 2 point neck roasts shot off the truck mirror in November and call it management.

Not my state anymore and I hunt whitetails every year.

There's all kinds of potential but you and a lot of other people seem satisfied the way it is. Fine by me.

Just don't make up data, skew ages, and pretend cwd and elk are your problem.

That's all horseshit, the elk population where I hunt in western Montana is the lowest I've seen it ever. The elk population west of Missoula to the Idaho border, both north and south of the interstate is horrific, no justification for even allowing hunting. Well, unless you believe the theory that with so few elk, killing a few more won't matter(stated at a meeting by FWP).

I just think they've ran out of excuses. Again with mule deer numbers so low, I suppose pounding on what's left for 12 weeks isn't going to make it much worse.

Good luck with that.

 

[Deleted member 56631]

So, be happy with your 2 point neck roasts shot off the truck mirror in November and call it management.

Not my state anymore and I hunt whitetails every year.

There's all kinds of potential but you and a lot of other people seem satisfied the way it is. Fine by me.

Just don't make up data, skew ages, and pretend cwd and elk are your problem.

That's all horseshit, the elk population where I hunt in western Montana is the lowest I've seen it ever. The elk population west of Missoula to the Idaho border, both north and south of the interstate is horrific, no justification for even allowing hunting. Well, unless you believe the theory that with so few elk, killing a few more won't matter(stated at a meeting by FWP).

I just think they've ran out of excuses. Again with mule deer numbers so low, I suppose pounding on what's left for 12 weeks isn't going to make it much worse.

Good luck with that.

Elk habits have changed. Wolves are here, even the two legged ones.

We will never see again the benefits for predator mitigation of the early 1900’s

 

[BuzzH]

Elk habits have changed. Wolves are here, even the two legged ones.

We will never see again the benefits for predator mitigation of the early 1900’s

Yeah, West of Missoula the elk habits changed, they changed into Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, they don't exist.

Pretty tough for non existent elk to out-compete mule deer.

But, whatever...

 

[Elky Welky]

So, be happy with your 2 point neck roasts shot off the truck mirror in November and call it management.

Not my state anymore and I hunt whitetails every year.

There's all kinds of potential but you and a lot of other people seem satisfied the way it is. Fine by me.

Just don't make up data, skew ages, and pretend cwd and elk are your problem.

That's all horseshit, the elk population where I hunt in western Montana is the lowest I've seen it ever. The elk population west of Missoula to the Idaho border, both north and south of the interstate is horrific, no justification for even allowing hunting. Well, unless you believe the theory that with so few elk, killing a few more won't matter(stated at a meeting by FWP).

I just think they've ran out of excuses. Again with mule deer numbers so low, I suppose pounding on what's left for 12 weeks isn't going to make it much worse.

Good luck with that.

I seem to have hit a nerve. But I just don’t have much patience anymore for all the circular whining and unproductive nostalgia about the past, and this thread is chock full of it.

You don’t seem to understand the nuance of my post though. I didn’t say things are hunky dory, so stop putting words in my mouth and perhaps pay attention. Take a chill pill Buzz.

We have to focus on the future and live in the current reality, not keep comparing things to a past that won’t and can’t exist anymore.

Should I start another thread about FWP’s failure to manage Wooly Mammoths and mastodons? The hunting for them used to be pretty great around here too.

I laud the folks who are trying to make a difference and meet the moment by taking proactive measures and not just lamenting a past that will never happen again.

 

[Carnage2011]

I called a biologist for FWP to discuss a couple moose sightings I had this past week. We ended up on the subject of how poor the mule deer hunting is in MT right now. His thoughts were specific to his area but here is a brief summary: The high populations from the 1970’s had a devastating impact on habitat. He feels like the low deer numbers including low buck:doe ratios over the last decade have allowed habitat to improve significantly. The last two years have had the highest fawn recruitment since they started collecting that data. He firmly believes that mule deer in MT are being managed exactly how the majority of residents want them to be…long seasons, lots of country hunt, and the ability to have a tag every year. I think his last point is accurate, even though I don’t like it.

 

[BuzzH]

I seem to have hit a nerve. But I just don’t have much patience anymore for all the circular whining and unproductive nostalgia about the past, and this thread is chock full of it.

You don’t seem to understand the nuance of my post though. I didn’t say things are hunky dory, so stop putting words in my mouth and perhaps pay attention. Take a chill pill Buzz.

We have to focus on the future and live in the current reality, not keep comparing things to a past that won’t and can’t exist anymore.

Should I start another thread about FWP’s failure to manage Wooly Mammoths and mastodons? The hunting for them used to be pretty great around here too.

I laud the folks who are trying to make a difference and meet the moment by taking proactive measures and not just lamenting a past that will never happen again.

If you don't know what the potential is, what are you trying to achieve?

What future? Nothing has changed management wise precisely because a majority are just fine with the absolute shit mule deer deer hunting in Montana.

FFS, you're blaming everything but 12 weeks of pounding and then telling me to quit living in the past?

The only thing living in the past is the same fuggin' season structure of the past 70 years.

Actually, we've added a youth season, a Saturday opening day and another week of muzzleloader season.

Seems like a smart idea, but yeah, it's elk and cwd that are the problem.

Got it, enjoy your forkie neck meat.

BTW, you're the exact Johnnie come lately that doesn't know any better. I don't fault you for that, but don't pretend that Montana isn't squandering the potential of what could be. Some of us know better.

 

[Elky Welky]

If you don't know what the potential is, what are you trying to achieve?

What future? Nothing has changed management wise precisely because a majority are just fine with the absolute shit mule deer deer hunting in Montana.

FFS, you're blaming everything but 12 weeks of pounding and then telling me to quit living in the past?

The only thing living in the past is the same fuggin' season structure of the past 70 years.

Actually, we've added a youth season, a Saturday opening day and another week of muzzleloader season.

Seems like a smart idea, but yeah, it's elk and cwd that are the problem.

Got it, enjoy your forkie neck meat.

BTW, you're the exact Johnnie come lately that doesn't know any better. I don't fault you for that, but don't pretend that Montana isn't squandering the potential of what could be. Some of us know better.

I’m a 4th generation Montanan whose family homesteaded in Eastern Montana. I’ve been involved in conservation one way or another my whole life.

I don’t have much patience personal attacks either. I really thought better of you Buzz.

But yes, perhaps it is time for people who want to make things better now, who will take into account the bigger picture—and not just one factor—to take the reins. But it’s a fool’s errand to think we can just go back to the way things were. That’s not living in reality.

I can see this is all lost on you and you’re in full rage stubborn old man mode, and want to keep arguing against points I’m not making here. Happy to talk again when you’ve calmed down and stopped seeing red.

 

[Point Creep]

It’s a no-win situation when the vast majority of MT residents are just happy as a pig in shit for the chance to kill a 2X3 buck, every year over Thanksgiving, with all their friends and family, so long as they can go every year and never miss out on the fun. It's those folks who are to blame for the dogshit mule deer hunting across all of Montana and they should just man up and own it.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I’m no scientist but thinking about the median age of bucks in 7 being 4.5 and comparing them to spring counts of 10/100 bucks in some survey areas and @ 20/100 in the highest area doesn’t add up to me.

If 50% of fawns are bucks and 30% of the antlerless count is fawns then there should be @ 15 bucks/100 added to the population each season. In an area that has a 10/100 buck population post season that means there’s @ 60% mortality of bucks in that population on average. Statistically, the buck population will see a complete turnover approximately every 2 1/2 years.

I don’t understand how half of a population of bucks killed can average 4.5 years old in a population that is statistically turning over so quickly. Something doesn’t add up. It might be my math but it doesn’t make sense to me.

 

[Deleted member 56631]

Even the terrible data FWP collects says elk numbers are down in region 2. Probably in idaho and funny the idaho elk surveys suggest that