Montana Mule Deer Mismanagement

[mtmuley]

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

I can show you a shitload of elk in R2. mtmuley

 

[DFS]

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.

Is region 7 down to 20/100 buck to doe ratio? I haven’t seen the counts this year, if that’s the case the wall is breaking here.

 

[huntin24/7]

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.

I’m convinced after listening and observing hunters in MT over recent years that there are a lot that don’t want there to be any big or mature bucks. Maybe it’s because they don’t care about shooting them personally and don’t want others to shoot big deer too(a competition thing?). I don’t really know why but I think it’s a real thing.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Is region 7 down to 20/100 buck to doe ratio? I haven’t seen the counts this year, if that’s the case the wall is breaking here.

I thought I had the flights surveys from this spring from 7 saved. Apparently, not. Going from memory there was a spread from 10% on the low end of the one trend survey area and up to 20% on another area. Someone else who has the count saved can probably provide the actual numbers.

@antlerradar, do you have those counts?

 

[DFS]

I thought I had the flights surveys from this spring from 7 saved. Apparently, not. Going from memory there was a spread from 10% on the low end of the one trend survey area and up to 20% on another area. Someone else who has the count saved can probably provide the actual numbers.

@antlerradar, do you have those counts?

Historically our counts never move. They are between 30-40/100 since I started paying attention at least

 

[Rie Bread]

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.

Because roughly half of the bucks are the median in a populatio, the other less and very few older

 

[Forkyfinder]

When this isnt worth NR fees we'll get somewhere.

 

[Forkyfinder]

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

No idea - but those should be. But a R4 bio made LE out of some gen units. I imagine there was data to do so.

Perhaps if the R6, and R7 bio did the same the proposal would have a little more public fanfare.

 

[Rie Bread]

I can show you a shitload of elk in R2. mtmuley

Oh, I know you can. A friend of mine shot a cow elk dang near at 10,000 feet last November in region two. I shot mine at 8500. That’s what makes me think some have changed.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Because roughly half of the bucks are the median in a populatio, the other less and very few older

LIterally half.

 

[Forkyfinder]

@ 60% mortality of bucks in that population on average. Statistically, the buck population will see a complete turnover approximately every 2 1/2 years.

Not sure i follow your math.

1 (0.5 year old bucks) x 0.6 = 0.6, 60%
0.6 (1.5 year old bucks) x 0.6 = .36, 36%
0.36 (2.5 year old bucks ) x 0.6 = 0.21, 21%
0.21 (3.5 year old bucks) x 0.6 = 0.1296, 13%
0.129

Or 1 x 0.6 ^(buck age in # of winters/hunting season) like i said several posts ago

 

[bigsky2]

No idea - but those should be. But a R4 bio made LE out of some gen units. I imagine there was data to do so.

Perhaps if the R6, and R7 bio did the same the proposal would have a little more public fanfare.

I don’t want to see more LE but R4 is doing what they think is best for their mule deer. They were willing to go against the grain which was a decision I highly respected. The point of the proposal is to turn things around before other regions feel the need to do the same thing. Just like 60% of the respondents from FWP’s survey, the people who put the proposal together want to maintain the opportunity to hunt every year. The tough part is finding how much opportunity is sustainable while still maintaining a quality hunting experience. I definitely don’t feel like continuing with the status quo is sustainable. It hasn’t been for a while.

 

[cgasner1]

View attachment 370838
When this isnt worth NR fees we'll get somewhere.

I’ll probably blast one like that this year with my muzzy.

 

[Nameless Range]

One further reason Montana will struggle to achieve a critical mass of hunters who would buy in to drastic changes is that in addition to the Montanans who are happy enough with the current state of affairs on publicly accessible ground, there’s some percentage - maybe 5 to 15% - who have access to private land via ownership or uncles or whatever, where they still have hope for older deer. I see friends on the Facebook and their bucks with these types of connections every year. I also saw a few of em freak out at the idea of losing rut hunting.

When I was 7, my little brother caught a 30 inch cutthroat out of a 3 foot wide creek with his bare hands. We actually caught a handful of 5-10 lb cutties out of that stream. Nowadays, you can catch a passel of 8-16 inchers in there, but the dinosaurs are gone. If today, a return of those dinosaurs were possible through more restrictions on that creek - which is inundated with fishermen perfectly stoked at catching a dozen pan sized Westslope from June to August - I’d wager most would be perfectly content with the fish currently on the end of their lines. No need to ruin the fun.

In the Ballad of Buster Scruggs the wise Buster states, “Can’t no one compel another man to engage in recreation…”
But a sort of inverse is true too. You can’t tell someone they’re not really enjoying hunting enough.

Shifting baselines and all that.

 

[Rie Bread]

Not sure i follow your math.

1 (0.5 year old bucks) x 0.6 = 0.6, 60%
0.6 (1.5 year old bucks) x 0.6 = .36, 36%
0.36 (2.5 year old bucks ) x 0.6 = 0.21, 21%
0.21 (3.5 year old bucks) x 0.6 = 0.1296, 13%
0.129

Or 1 x 0.6 ^(buck age in # of winters/hunting season) like i said several posts ago

Wouldn’t the .5 be the fawn mortality and not be in the buck mortality?

 

[BuzzH]

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.

Actually, I really don't give a shit, like I said enjoy your 12 weeks of doing the same thing for the last 70 years.

Don't care, live in denial.

 

[BuzzH]

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.

I totally agree, that math doesn't math.

It's sad to see potential squandered and all the pushback you got from the proposal you all put together.

It apparent that Montana hasn't hit rock bottom and likely won't as long as there's some forkies to slaughter each year.

What a joke.

 

[Elky Welky]

In the Ballad of Buster Scruggs the wise Buster states, “Can’t no one compel another man to engage in recreation…”
But a sort of inverse is true too. You can’t tell someone they’re not really enjoying hunting enough.

Shifting baselines and all that.

Well said @Nameless Range

I've somehow become the strawman for "someone who is content," so I will try to fix the record on that, because it's not what I've been saying. Mule deer management in Montana can improve, and it will. There's enough people working on new ideas and we've reached a tipping point. I might vehemently disagree with @Gerald Martin over how entitled the already entitled ought to be, but I think it is great that he, @cgasner1, @sclancy27, @antlerradar, @bigsky2, and others are putting ideas in the world that are moving the needle.

My entire argument here is that we don't have to just be negative and dream of something that will never exist again because we live in 2025 and not 1985--when instead we can meet people where they are at, focus on incrementally improving the situation, and look at the whole picture and implement the whole picture when we make changes.

If the people on this forum want to get anywhere with mule deer management in Montana they need to stop being jerks to locals, those that are content, new to the conversation, or those who see things differently than they do, and instead approach them with positivity and a message of hope for something even better than what they have now. "Burn it all down" and "FWP sucks" doesn't help at all, and is counter-intuitive. It's what leads people like Hinkle to introduce bills to preserve our mule deer season in statute.

Don't care, live in denial.

I still care and I live in reality. Maybe that's the biggest difference between us.

 

[rogerthat]

The effectiveness of harvest for limiting wildlife disease: Insights from 20 years of chronic wasting disease in Wyoming

Effective, practical options for managing disease in wildlife populations are limited, especially after diseases become established. Removal strategies (e.g., hunting or culling) are used to control wildlife diseases across a wide range of systems, despite conflicting evidence of their...

www.usgs.gov

Not sure of this got posted anywhere else and don’t mean to muddy the water but definitely pertinent to the conversation. 40% buck harvest to keep a 5% prevalence. First time I have seen buck harvest associated with a target prevalence

 

[Rie Bread]

The direct link to the study
https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eap.3089