The reality you're living in is crap mule deer hunting and Montana hunters and the FWP aren't going to change a thing.
Do you work for fwp?
One thing that worries me about the numbers is if they are wrong people who aren’t paying much attention see them and think we are all way out of line.
Do you work for fwp?
My only critique of the napkin mule deer math is the assumption that 4.5 years old mean most are 4 points.I am being pretty generous with my numbers aren’t I?
My numbers would be a best case scenario in favor of what it would take for that4 1/2 year old median to be true.
Kind of like 80% of Montana hunters approving of how FWP manages mule deer….
I don't think you're qualified to work for FWP, you haven't completed advanced courses in gaslighting and making up data as you go.I am being pretty generous with my numbers aren’t I?
My numbers would be a best case scenario in favor of what it would take for that4 1/2 year old median to be true.
Kind of like 80% of Montana hunters approving of how FWP manages mule deer….
Post-season surveys are not the same as spring surveys. Post-season fawns still have to get through winter and then be recruited into the population. 61:100 is possible in the spring for sure but that is pretty phenomenal overwinter fawn survival and far from the norm. I would halve that to capture what’s more typical and start from there. And then of course needing to factor in natural mortality of bucks outside of harvest. And all the other factors influencing subsequent generations and numbers of bucks on the ground. Pretty much makes the numbers reaching 4.5 likely lower.
If the report doesn’t specify it would most likely provide the ratio as fawns:100 adults if it was a spring count (due to antler drop) and fawns:100 does as a post-season count.I actually agree that your numbers are more likely to be realistic . I got the 61/100 fawns per doe number from the 2024 FWP report. I just assumed it was the spring survey?
If it was a post season winter survey it would make the potential for a 4.5 median age even more likely since each years buck recruitment would be much less than my hypothesized numbers.
People talk about the 80's as the good old days and compared to today they were. However the 80's were not that deer friendly. The winter of 78/79 was the deer killer like we have not seen since. That winter started with nearly 2 feet of snow in early Nov and that same 2 feet was on the bottom of a lot more in April. There was another spring storm in 84 that dumped feet of snow in April that killed lots of livestock, likely got plenty of deer too. There was also plenty of dry years during the 80s'. The little creek I grew up on was dry most of the 80's. The old timers said the last time it quit running was during the 30's. Eighty eight was the worst. With the combination very little moisture and record heat, there was close to zero growth that year. Several years we struggled to fill Tongue River Reservoir. In 91 experts told us it was going to be the new normal. Been able to fill every year since. In the four plus decades I have been hunting SE MT, I think that there is a strong argument the the 80's were the most unfriendly to deer.
I wasn’t alive for much of the 80s, but this is good to know.
I can understand that many hunters are willing to accept even lower quality hunting. I wounder how many of them will also be willing to accept the ever increasing commercialization that is sure to come with it. Quality or more accurately lack of quality hunting has always been a driving force behind commercialization of game animals. My father outfitted in the 60's and 70's, never had one hunting lease. That started to change after the winter of 78. Doug Gardiner told me he singed the first lease in Powder River Co. in the early 80's. I doubt he wanted to add the expense, but after the winter of 78 there just wasn't enough deer to go around and to provide the quality hunting his clients demanded and he had to find a way to restrict access. Leasing by outfitters increased exponentially after that. The current trend of individuals bypassing outfitters is largely driven by the low quality public hunting. People may think that it will not effect them because they don't hunt those places, but they are wrong. Every landowner has a price and the money is getting stupid big. Hunting access programs have no chance of competing if we are unwilling to trade in some opportunity for better quality. If we don't look at the past we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past and thinking that we could enjoy maximum opportunity and the only trade off would be lower quality was one of those mistakes.
Kind of a ridiculous statement, right? I refuse to believe that fwp employees intentionally engage in gaslighting the public, @BuzzH. Theyre tasked with keeping R content and the resource intact/sustained with wildlife management. Obviously its not easy. You know that.
