Montana Mule Deer Mismanagement

[Forkyfinder]

Guess we can’t have nice things….

Cant be mad at the people declaring war if they are supposed to manage for a relatively low population .

 

[brockel]

Can someone explain the proposal for region 7 elk? Sounds like they plan to increase an 150 permits for 702 and another 150 for 704/705 and you get the option of buying a second cow/calf tag? And still have the original 280 799/20 permits.

Elk units 704 and 705 need to be managed separately. Completely different elk herds

 

[cgasner1]

Elk units 704 and 705 need to be managed separately. Completely different elk herds

I’ve also heard very compelling arguments that the line should travel east and west instead of north and south to divide the units

 

[Carnage2011]

Elk units 704 and 705 need to be managed separately. Completely different elk herds

Be careful what you wish for. Last time we asked them to breakup units they added a couple thousand extra tags.

 

[brockel]

I’ve also heard very compelling arguments that the line should travel east and west instead of north and south to divide the units

Guess I’d like to hear those arguments as there’s 60+ miles in between the actual areas that hold elk.

You might have a straggler or two that is going from one to the other but nothing significant.

 

[cgasner1]

Guess I’d like to hear those arguments as there’s 60+ miles in between the actual areas that hold elk.

You might have a straggler or two that is going from one to the other but nothing significant.

Im not gonna try and make the argument I’ve just listened to someone who knows the area very well and it made sense they way he put it.

 

[Pagosa]

Guess I’d like to hear those arguments as there’s 60+ miles in between the actual areas that hold elk.

You might have a straggler or two that is going from one to the other but nothing significant.

Ive personally seen elk since 2016 from north of Wibaux, Baker, Webster, Sandstone Creek. Camp Crook, Little Missouri and all the way south and west, to Sarpy Creek. Like miles from any trees.

Its not a tag availability problem but an access issue. I contacted numerous landowners asking for permission, volunteering time branding/vaccination/hauling, etc, to outright willing to pay for a modest trespass fee to hunt a spike/cow on a general tag for myself and kids. Most either have it leased to a few instate or out of state outfitters or have big families/friends that want to hunt. There is a lot of elk on private. I seen at least five bulls this morning and seen 11 bulls two weeks on a adjacent parcel where probably 10 years ago there wasn't any elk. I have one landowner that will allow me hunt near Broadus, but I haven't hunted it ever and another guy offered my son a hunt on his ranch, but we had already got an elk, pronghorn, and deer that year.

If they didn't have 13 weeks of general season, shoulder seasons, pronghorn, endless bird seasons you could probably get more landowners involved in Block Management or allow some type of access. The landowners Ive spoken too would rather just deal with outfitters. I got one landowner signed up for BMA in 2023 and he lasted one year, he said it was a pita.

Even with breaking up districts and changing tag quota more people will keep hammering the public parcels. I spoke to FWP biologist Ryan Devore about this several years ago about making a private, state/BLM bull tag similar to around Ft. Peck and separate out the 280 799-20 tags from that quota. He said we dont want to give incentives to landowners or privatize wildlife, WTF they did that a long time ago.

Sorry for the rant, but Ive contacted everyone imaginable on these issues and plan to go to Miles City on the 12th to hear it in person. But they dont seem to listen to the stakeholders like me and you. Im just ready for the Lord to return. Preston

 

[cgasner1]

Adding those tags will probably add even more pressure into region 7 since most people don’t like to elk hunt solo

 

[bigsky2]

Adding those tags will probably add even more pressure into region 7 since most people don’t like to elk hunt solo

If the proposal were to be approved, most of those 150 extra rifle permit holders in 704/705 will probably have 2 or 3 people helping them. So figure at least 300 more people on the landscape on the conservative side, and a lot of them would shoot deer also.

 

[brockel]

Ive personally seen elk since 2016 from north of Wibaux, Baker, Webster, Sandstone Creek. Camp Crook, Little Missouri and all the way south and west, to Sarpy Creek. Like miles from any trees.

Its not a tag availability problem but an access issue. I contacted numerous landowners asking for permission, volunteering time branding/vaccination/hauling, etc, to outright willing to pay for a modest trespass fee to hunt a spike/cow on a general tag for myself and kids. Most either have it leased to a few instate or out of state outfitters or have big families/friends that want to hunt. There is a lot of elk on private. I seen at least five bulls this morning and seen 11 bulls two weeks on a adjacent parcel where probably 10 years ago there wasn't any elk. I have one landowner that will allow me hunt near Broadus, but I haven't hunted it ever and another guy offered my son a hunt on his ranch, but we had already got an elk, pronghorn, and deer that year.

If they didn't have 13 weeks of general season, shoulder seasons, pronghorn, endless bird seasons you could probably get more landowners involved in Block Management or allow some type of access. The landowners Ive spoken too would rather just deal with outfitters. I got one landowner signed up for BMA in 2023 and he lasted one year, he said it was a pita.

Even with breaking up districts and changing tag quota more people will keep hammering the public parcels. I spoke to FWP biologist Ryan Devore about this several years ago about making a private, state/BLM bull tag similar to around Ft. Peck and separate out the 280 799-20 tags from that quota. He said we dont want to give incentives to landowners or privatize wildlife, WTF they did that a long time ago.

Sorry for the rant, but Ive contacted everyone imaginable on these issues and plan to go to Miles City on the 12th to hear it in person. But they dont seem to listen to the stakeholders like me and you. Im just ready for the Lord to return. Preston

Fwp wants no part in trying to manage 703 because there is so little public land that elk occupy. That’s what I was told anyways from biologists and game wardens

704 and 705 are a completely different story.

The problem with keeping 704 and 705 is together is fwp uses cow tags to manage elk numbers. But every one of those tags could be used in one district even though the other district might have the over populated issue. Fwp uses the same bullshit excuse with these tags just as they do for mule deer that hunters will disperse themselves and they don’t need to manage for single districts.

 

[Pagosa]

Fwp wants no part in trying to manage 703 because there is so little public land that elk occupy. That’s what I was told anyways from biologists and game wardens

704 and 705 are a completely different story.

The problem with keeping 704 and 705 is together is fwp uses cow tags to manage elk numbers. But every one of those tags could be used in one district even though the other district might have the over populated issue. Fwp uses the same bullshit excuse with these tags just as they do for mule deer that hunters will disperse themselves and they don’t need to manage for single districts.

Yep, I agree 100%

 

[DFS]

If you read the proposal it was edited by the chief in Helena. I was at the scoping they talked about adding tags to 702 and several grouchy landowners from 702 showed up complaining about not enough bull tags and they needed more cow tags for themselves, blah blah blah. I said who cares it’s all private give them more tags. There was zero talk about adding more tags to 704 or 705 from the biologists or the public, even the grouchy 702 landowners agreed we don’t need to increase tags in those units. I have to think this had to have got edited in Helena but who knows what actually happens in the workings of MTFWP.

The facts are we we are right in the middle of the bull to cow ratio objective and right in the middle of the population objective. The justification is equity to rifle hunter. That’s laughable,decrease bow tags if we want equity they were set too high. It’s shady imo

 

[cgasner1]

If you read the proposal it was edited by the chief in Helena. I was at the scoping they talked about adding tags to 702 and several grouchy landowners from 702 showed up complaining about not enough bull tags and they needed more cow tags for themselves, blah blah blah. I said who cares it’s all private give them more tags. There was zero talk about adding more tags to 704 or 705 from the biologists or the public, even the grouchy 702 landowners agreed we don’t need to increase tags in those units. I have to think this had to have got edited in Helena but who knows what actually happens in the workings of MTFWP.

The facts are we we are right in the middle of the bull to cow ratio objective and right in the middle of the population objective. The justification is equity to rifle hunter. That’s laughable,decrease bow tags if we want equity they were set too high. It’s shady imo

It seems the spots I hunt have had significantly less pressure since the 900 bundle was broke up. Maybe im just lucky so far. I know another unit that was apart of the break the tried removing 250 tags from it and that has already been axed from my understanding