Montana Mule Deer Mismanagement

[Deleted member 56631]

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.

Thank you! Very nice read with morning coffee

Looks like 3.5 is the median age

 

[SAJ-99]

It would be nice to see potential solutions rather than bitching about data. The data is suspect, but even if perfect data became available tomorrow (and it never will) it won't drive change. The only problem with the groups proposal was it was probably too big for most Montanans.

Here is 2025 draw odds for 270-50, probably the most sought-after MD permit in the state. 9661 residents (not including landowners) put into the LE draw for 36 270-50 tags. So about 4.5% of all resident deer tags sold, and yeah, 268 years to clear the residents. Add in all the other LE entries and easy argument can be made that Montanans are not at all against LE. They just want the chance at LE and their general tag too. Fair enough.

Maybe make more LE districts in different zones? Maybe choose units that have over 75% (or some %) public land. Or maybe make the generals unlimited LEs for MD, which is essentially choose your unit but without tag restrictions.

I would encourage more discussion on potential ideas but it has to be based on the reality that FWP is never going to have great data and the majority (60%ish, but hopefully declining) of Montana hunters are fine with the current system.

 

[sclancy27]

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.

First, using the mean to describe age is, IMO, not the appropriate metric. Mean is much more subject to skew from outliers (ie, one year having high harvest on one particular age group), they should be using median.

Second, looking at the data, there is evidence for, IMO, bias. In the photos below, each colored line represents a fawn cohort. If sampled under random circumstances, you would expect the samples to reflect the relative abundance on the landscape (given enough samples) of each particular age class. Thus, there should not be a case where more 2.5 yr olds are harvested from a cohort than 1.5 yr olds the previous year (or 3.5 yr olds more than 2.5 yr olds the previous year, etc.) under random sampling. This is evident in both public and private land data sets, which suggest either harvest bias (harvesting older deer) or sample bias (they take older deer in to sample at higher rates).

Private Land Buck Harvest


Public Land Buck Harvest

 

[rogerthat]

First, using the mean to describe age is, IMO, not the appropriate metric. Mean is much more subject to skew from outliers (ie, one year having high harvest on one particular age group), they should be using median.

Second, looking at the data, there is evidence for, IMO, bias. In the photos below, each colored line represents a fawn cohort. If sampled under random circumstances, you would expect the samples to reflect the relative abundance on the landscape (given enough samples) of each particular age class. Thus, there should not be a case where more 2.5 yr olds are harvested from a cohort than 1.5 yr olds the previous year (or 3.5 yr olds more than 2.5 yr olds the previous year, etc.) under random sampling. This is evident in both public and private land data sets, which suggest either harvest bias (harvesting older deer) or sample bias (they take older deer in to sample at higher rates).

Private Land Buck Harvest
View attachment 370903

Public Land Buck Harvest
View attachment 370906

Could rut hunting explain this bias? Because it’s easier to sort through the bucks during the rut?

 

[Forkyfinder]

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.

That little love note about 652 .

So heres the thing - from what i can tell - 400 ish is indeed statistically large enough to sample for 16000 without a huge margin of error. And that makes sense. For example - if we rolled a dice 400 times and then 16000 times - we'd expect that the numerical distrubution looks similar across both scenarios.

The problem is they arent randomly sampled if they were from cwd. @Gerald Martin 's point earlier was spot on. If you got an older buck - youd want fwp to age it either to find out how old a larger deer was or because you were more worried about eating cwd meat.

A random sample would be asking every R7 hunter to save the teeth on the deer theyve shot and then randomly asking 400 of them to submit it.

 

[sclancy27]

Could rut hunting explain this bias? Because it’s easier to sort through the bucks during the rut.

Alot of things could explain it. My guess would be it's probably more of a sample bias

 

[rogerthat]

Alot of things could explain it. My guess would be it's probably more of a sample bias

I agree. That makes sense to me and my experience in 7

 

[Deleted member 56631]

Could rut hunting explain this bias? Because it’s easier to sort through the bucks during the rut?

I would think so and to some degree hunter preference toward better antlers

 

[Gerald Martin]

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.

Without trying to spot burn Buzz’s reference hunting area, it has actually burned multiple times in a large area.

It takes a long time to habitat your way out of a situation where the overall predation overwhelms recruitment. Even longer if the overwhelm of predation doesn’t diminish while habitat is improved.

The best habitat in the world won’t add more deer or elk to the landscape if there’s 30% of the population killed each year and only 20% recruited the following year.

It’s a whole different reality on the ground in western MT than it was from 1960-1990. Recovery of wolves, full carrying capacity of mountain lions, same amount of black bears, increasing number of grizzlies, loss of winter range to development or human intrusion, higher human populations.

Add in increased harvest efficiency with increased technology and mobility and expansion of seasons as Buzz noted above.

Insert definition of insanity at this point….(…..)

Hmm, it seems that numbers are down. Ironically, numbers are down in areas that have relatively good habitat as well. There’s a lot of NW MT that still has extensive logging and has burned in the past ten years.

What a lot of folks don’t seem to realize is that we’re not on a trajectory to maintain the current level of quality with this amount of “opportunity”.

Look at Region 6 and 7 for example. It took a drastic reduction in opportunity to harvest does to slow the drop in population and move it up slightly from the lowest point in the past ten years. What would 2024’s numbers look like of the prior year’s antlerless harvest had been maintained at the level of when the population was at LTA? It took hunters forcing FWP via legislative action to change their management policies. I’m thankful those folks stepped up and demanded the change.

Sean has some numbers for buck harvest in region 6. If memory serves me correctly that region is down 41% from LTA population even while buck harvest is 250% of LT harvest.

Anyone want to predict the trajectory of what region 6!is going to look like in five years?

 

[Deleted member 56631]

That little love note about 652 .

So heres the thing - from what i can tell - 400 ish is indeed statistically large enough to sample for 16000 without a huge margin of error. And that makes sense. For example - if we rolled a dice 400 times and then 16000 times - we'd expect that the numerical distrubution looks similar across both scenarios.

The problem is they arent randomly sampled if they were from cwd. @Gerald Martin 's point earlier was spot on. If you got an older buck - youd want fwp to age it either to find out how old a larger deer was or because you were more worried about eating cwd meat.

A random sample would be asking every R7 hunter to save the teeth on the deer theyve shot and then randomly asking 400 of them to submit it.

Hunttalk mule deer age study 2025
Make mule deer data great again.

 

[sclancy27]

Any chance you can plot these numbers on a curve? I don’t have a computer to do so.
Tank you for the analysis
If not I’ll chicken scratch a curve a little later

 

[sclancy27]

View attachment 370914

We need more year, but here is an idea. You would expect something like 2017 (obviously 1.5 yr old harvest is missing here). This is public land harvest.

Edit: I back calculated the birth year wrong, corrected.

 

[BuzzH]

Without trying to spot burn Buzz’s reference hunting area, it has actually burned multiple times in a large area.

It takes a long time to habitat your way out of a situation where the overall predation overwhelms recruitment. Even longer if the overwhelm of predation doesn’t diminish while habitat is improved.

The best habitat in the world won’t add more deer or elk to the landscape if there’s 30% of the population killed each year and only 20% recruited the following year.

It’s a whole different reality on the ground in western MT than it was from 1960-1990. Recovery of wolves, full carrying capacity of mountain lions, same amount of black bears, increasing number of grizzlies, loss of winter range to development or human intrusion, higher human populations.

Add in increased harvest efficiency with increased technology and mobility and expansion of seasons as Buzz noted above.

Insert definition of insanity at this point….(…..)

Hmm, it seems that numbers are down. Ironically, numbers are down in areas that have relatively good habitat as well. There’s a lot of NW MT that still has extensive logging and has burned in the past ten years.

What a lot of folks don’t seem to realize is that we’re not on a trajectory to maintain the current level of quality with this amount of “opportunity”.

Look at Region 6 and 7 for example. It took a drastic reduction in opportunity to harvest does to slow the drop in population and move it up slightly from the lowest point in the past ten years. What would 2024’s numbers look like of the prior year’s antlerless harvest had been maintained at the level of when the population was at LTA? It took hunters forcing FWP via legislative action to change their management policies. I’m thankful those folks stepped up and demanded the change.

Sean has some numbers for buck harvest in region 6. If memory serves me correctly that region is down 41% from LTA population even while buck harvest is 250% of LT harvest.

Anyone want to predict the trajectory of what region 6!is going to look like in five years?

Absolutely. Even though some don't want to accept reality, the FWP is a huge part of why we find ourselves in this mess.

The whole time predators were making gains, via severely reduced lion quotas (FWP management), the increases in grizzlies and wolves, there was also no or severely delayed response on cow/doe harvest. Also as you noted, increases in weapon efficiency, GPS use, etc.

By the time the FWP reacted to what should have been intuitively obvious, it was too late.

Once herds are reduced to the levels we have now, the only way to see them rebound is drastic management changes.

I always thought it was impossible to severely impact whitetail populations where I hunt. But, after 3 seasons of hunters being able to kill 1-3 does each, 2 of those OTC, and a buck...I was wrong. It's been over 10 years and the deer still aren't back to what they were.

Elk are the same way after the brain trust at FWP implemented "cow week", the elk have not recovered from that, likely never will.

Mule deer no different, years and years of being able to kill does on B tags and any deer for 3-7 days.

I argued for decades with a past biologist that what they were doing was unsustainable, may as well have been talking to a wall.

Chickens have come home to roost...and I'm not happy to say, "I told them so".

But, nothing will change, so we have that going for us.

 

[Deleted member 56631]

We need more year, but here is an idea. You would expect something like 2017 (obviously 1.5 yr old harvest is missing here). This is public land harvest.

Edit: I back calculated the birth year wrong, corrected.

View attachment 370920View attachment 370921View attachment 370922View attachment 370923

How did you get the buck fawn cohort?

 

[sclancy27]

How did you get the buck fawn cohort?

Year of harvest minus age is the year of recruitment, aka the "buck fawn cohort" year.

 

[Deleted member 56631]

Public land from rogerthats data posted

Dots on side are black circled is fawn/100 adults and non circle is buck/doe

 

[Deleted member 56631]

Year of harvest minus age is the year of recruitment, aka the "buck fawn cohort" year.

Would that be an estimate of number of fawn bucks in a given year
Thanks for the number by the way!

 

[brockel]

652 is such a bullshit argument. That unit is what 5 miles wide? A cruising mule deer buck is across that in a night and shot on one of the general units that surround it.

 

[sclancy27]

Would that be an estimate of number of fawn bucks in a given year
Thanks for the number by the way!

No, it was just my way of detecting sample or harvest bias. Obviously, total recruitment year to year plays a role as well. But, given true random sampling, the graphs I posted above shouldn't happen.

 

[cgasner1]

652 is such a bullshit argument. That unit is what 5 miles wide? A cruising mule deer buck is across that in a night and shot on one of the general units that surround it.
View attachment 370925

Let’s not talk about the guys from Washington that poached what was it like 50+ bucks out of that unit