Montana Mule Deer Mismanagement

[Forkyfinder]

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.

@antlerradar - if the quality was to improve, wouldnt the good hunting (with no LE) be quickly discovered and hunted hard again?

Thats why i wish for generous LE.

 

[cgasner1]

@antlerradar - if the quality was to improve, wouldnt the good hunting (with no LE) be quickly discovered and hunted hard again?

Thats why i wish for generous LE.

It’s already being hunted hard. Best we can hope for is to reshuffle the deck to get the bucks a better chance. Or it stays the same till it all goes le and people have to stay home

 

[Gerald Martin]

@antlerradar - if the quality was to improve, wouldnt the good hunting (with no LE) be quickly discovered and hunted hard again?

Thats why i wish for generous LE.

What constitutes generous LE?

 

[cgasner1]

What constitutes generous LE?

I get mine mainly

 

[Forkyfinder]

What constitutes generous LE?

Matching the existing R hunter numbers and adding 10% the last 3 weeks of the season.

Itd slow down a lot of buck blasting from the midwest.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I get mine mainly

Not really. For my personal benefit - no change is good.

LE would be giving stuff up for me too.

Thatd take out a huge chunk of harvest in r6 and r7 - where a majority of the concern exists.

I know it doesnt serve everyones business interest though. And thats all got to be part of it, politically, i guess.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Matching the existing R hunter numbers and adding 10% the last 3 weeks of the season.

Itd slow down a lot of buck blasting from the midwest.

OTC for R and 10% for NR or total numbers of R from a year plus 10% to be allocated by lottery draw between R and NR?

Where do all the rest of the NR go if it’s limited to plus 10% of R? Is this statewide or only in the special parts?

 

[bigsky2]

Matching the existing R hunter numbers and adding 10% the last 3 weeks of the season.

Itd slow down a lot of buck blasting from the midwest.

What do you mean by adding 10% the last 3 weeks of the season?

 

[Forkyfinder]

What do you mean by adding 10% the last 3 weeks of the season?

Basically if unit 704 R hunters were 1000 this year - make the cap 1100 for the LE.

 

[Forkyfinder]

OTC for R and 10% for NR or total numbers of R from a year plus 10% to be allocated by lottery draw between R and NR?

Where do all the rest of the NR go if it’s limited to plus 10% of R? Is this statewide or only in the special parts?

Statewide for mule deer.

LE for R and NR the last 3 weeks.

 

[cgasner1]

Not really. For my personal benefit - no change is good.

LE would be giving stuff up for me too.

Thatd take out a huge chunk of harvest in r6 and r7 - where a majority of the concern exists.

I know it doesnt serve everyones business interest though. And thats all got to be part of it, politically, i guess.

I was being a smart ass

 

[Rie Bread]

There’s no breakdown for age in the FWP harvest reports, only less than 4 points, 4 or more points.

There’s absolutely nothing scientific with my attribution of most 4 1/2 year old bucks having at least one beam with four or more antlers.

It is my opinion that in an average population of 100 4 1/2 year old bucks and an average population of 100 4 point or more bucks that there will be a higher percentage of 4 1/2 year old bucks that are four point in that first group than there are 4 point bucks that are 4 1/2 in the second group.

In other words, I think it likely that a significant portion of the 4 point or more bucks are likely to be 3 1/2 years old or less.

I would also guess a surprising number of 4.5 old bucks are less than 4 points as well.

 

[Rie Bread]

What do you all think of a hunt talk mule deer age data survey for this season?

All of you in this discussion have really got my brain going and thinking of a way to help move in the right direction for mule deer management and support some sort of change. I appreciate the perspectives. I think those perspectives, back up with some grass roots data would be very compelling. Not only that but pretty fun.

We will need some of you heavy hitter to come out of retirement. Let’s blast some deer

 

[Elky Welky]

If we don't look at the past we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past

I don’t disagree with this at all. It’s one thing to look at the mistakes from the past and learn from them though, and another to moan and groan about how great it used to be.

One is constructive analysis, and ultimately still forward looking. The other is useless nostalgia.

 

[BuzzH]

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.

If they dont change a single thing about the mule deer season, and keep it as is, they'll be following the dynamics of what they are supposed to be doing. Balancing the social desires and the science to come up with a management plan. I'll be disappointed - but at the end of the day - i dont make the decision and my wishes arent inline with it. Id imagine theyd feel that the science (their data and studies) and the social factors (i.e. that survey) are on their side and their making a decision for the majority of Montanans and our states resources. I have no means of proving either their data or that survey wrong.

The best means to win the argument is to show somehow that the resource is stretched to thin or that Montanans legitimately want change. Those are the only inputs for their decision that really matter.

Oh yeah? Have you attended an FWP meeting lately? You believe their harvest data? You believe their age class harvest data?

I'll give you an example.

The area I've hunted every year for just shy of 4 decades. I looked at the published elk population and bull to cow ratio for that area. Then looked at the bull harvest.

Can you explain how you kill more bulls than are available? It's what their data shows, not my data.

Already showed you how good their age data is.

Yes, I have total faith in their numbers.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Oh yeah? Have you attended an FWP meeting lately? You believe their harvest data? You believe their age class harvest data?

I'll give you an example.

The area I've hunted every year for just shy of 4 decades. I looked at the published elk population and bull to cow ratio for that area. Then looked at the bull harvest.

Can you explain how you kill more bulls than are available? It's what their data shows, not my data.

Already showed you how good their age data is.

Yes, I have total faith in their numbers.

You could easily kill more bulls than available population counts might have shown. Could be that the pop count was off - or during other times of year the elk population pattern is different (ie they were in one unit during pop survey and in another during hunting season). How do you count bulls in thick as shit timber on the cloudy day they got to fly and count?

I think their datas got issues. I doubt its reflective of the landscape - especially on public land. Ive said as much. Thats not a biologists fault though (i assume they dont get to wave a wand and get mandatory reporting) - and villifying them does no good.

 

[BuzzH]

You could easily kill more bulls than available population counts might have shown. Could be that the pop count was off - or during other times of year the elk population pattern is different (ie they were in one unit during pop survey and in another during hunting season). How do you count bulls in thick as shit timber on the cloudy day they got to fly and count?

I think their datas got issues. I doubt its reflective of the landscape - especially on public land. Ive said as much. Thats not a biologists fault though (i assume they dont get to wave a wand and get mandatory reporting) - and villifying them does no good.

How do you fly a hunting unit, observe 8 elk and justify 12 weeks of general OTC hunting? More to the point how do you justify even having a season at all? Mind you that unit was a spectacular place to hunt not that long ago.

Sounds like good management to me.

How do you defend general 12 week seasons with single digit bull to cow ratios in many units?

Sounds like good management to me.

Keep giving flawed numbers and management a pass, things will get better on their own. No reason to change anything, maybe if the seasons were just longer we could increase the kill and improve hunter success.

 

[Forkyfinder]

How do you fly a hunting unit, observe 8 elk and justify 12 weeks of general OTC hunting? More to the point how do you justify even having a season at all? Mind you that unit was a spectacular place to hunt not that long ago.

Sounds like good management to me.

How do you defend general 12 week seasons with single digit bull to cow ratios in many units?

Sounds like good management to me.

Keep giving flawed numbers and management a pass, things will get better on their own. No reason to change anything, maybe if the seasons were just longer we could increase the kill and improve hunter success.

So if they didnt hunt there for as long - the elk would come back?

Im not as experienced, knowledgable, or qualified as you - so dont go and throw my argument away just because of that.

That areas got a lot of habitat issues (ie much of the forest hasnt seen a saw or flame for a LONG time) and im not quite sure how you conclude the hunting season is the major reason for the big decline there.

 

[rogerthat]

Region 7 Cwd dataset to 2023. Should be a more current data with 2024 data included that someone should reach out and get. Ignore my chicken scratchings. Interested to hear people’s thoughts.

 

[BuzzH]

So if they didnt hunt there for as long - the elk would come back?

Im not as experienced, knowledgable, or qualified as you - so dont go and throw my argument away just because of that.

That areas got a lot of habitat issues (ie much of the forest hasnt seen a saw or flame for a LONG time) and im not quite sure how you conclude the hunting season is the major reason for the big decline there.

What elk remain can only dodge hunters for so long. Typically in the area I'm talking about a disproportionately high number of bull elk are killed in the later part of the seasons (snow).

General elk areas in Wyoming have post season bull to cow ratios, in some places over 50:100. If bull to cow ratios drop below 17:100 they shorten the season or exclude spikes from the season.

Of course, we don't pound on bulls for 12 weeks and change seasons to improve management. Not being stuck in the same old seasons for 70 years has its obvious advantages.

Oh, and almost forgot our hunter success in general elk areas buries Montana.

It's almost as if management matters.