Montana Mule Deer Mismanagement

[WyoCoalMiner]

My buddy in Wyoming went and packed into a place that suffered pretty bad from that die off this weekend. He saw 34 bucks they went in on a Friday and out on Saturday. Your deer seemed to have bounced back pretty decent I wonder why you hunt them in October in wyoming

Making some assumptions about the general area your buddy packed into but in fairness this time of year in the high country finding bucks is about the same as finding bucks during the rut or on winter range. You’re going to find a lot of bucks, damn near every one in a basin. But agree that hunting them during the rut in the numbers that MT does is crazy

 

[Wyoming270]

My buddy in Wyoming went and packed into a place that suffered pretty bad from that die off this weekend. He saw 34 bucks they went in on a Friday and out on Saturday. Your deer seemed to have bounced back pretty decent I wonder why you hunt them in October in wyoming

I couldnt agree more. For every person i hear whining about how theres no deer, i see 6 that sit in the 4 wheeler on the road glassing right over the large mule deer that are on the slope below them, or the fools that walk in and walk a loop around and walk right out by 9 am while they drive the deer right past me.

The october seasons can be rough here. Sometimes 80 degrees, ocassionally a blizzard, leaves on the aspens, general tags are often 2 week seasons. Id much rather have thanksgiving and december to hunt deer here.

 

[cgasner1]

Making some assumptions about the general area your buddy packed into but in fairness this time of year in the high country finding bucks is about the same as finding bucks during the rut or on winter range. You’re going to find a lot of bucks, damn near every one in a basin. But agree that hunting them during the rut in the numbers that MT does is crazy

I highly doubt I could see that number of bucks here in Montana. He said they had already shed coats and it was actually a pain in the ass spotting them all kegged up in brush.

 

[Forkyfinder]

If you look at the harvest stats you are wrong. I tend to agree that residents probably shouldn’t be able to buy a tag and hunt the whole state but when nonresident harvest exceeds residents there is clearly a problem.

Yup. The only people (lots of non residents on HT) who dont acknowledge want to hunt here.

I love "big shooter" liking the wyo 270 guys mostly incoherent rant - hes perfectly fine with lots of deer tags and a long season - just people who are paying potential clients who are interested in shooting a 140" buck.

 

[DFS]

How does the total harvest compare to the quota?

Montana doesn’t have quotas as far as I know. I think the big shift happened when Randy started his hit piece on region 7 opportunity. I also don’t have a lot of faith in Montanas data so I have a hunch it could be worse than what those numbers are showing. No other western state would allow it.

 

[Point Creep]

View attachment 415188View attachment 415189


Montana doesn’t have quotas as far as I know. I think the big shift happened when Randy started his hit piece on region 7 opportunity. I also don’t have a lot of faith in Montanas data so I have a hunch it could be worse than what those numbers are showing. No other western state would allow it.

That was money well spent for the dept of tourism folks, but from your graph the problem was already well established. Last year in R7, the non resident to resident license plate ratio was 10:1 NR to resident - there is a HUGE problem that needs to be looked at.

 

[Point Creep]

I couldnt agree more. For every person i hear whining about how theres no deer, i see 6 that sit in the 4 wheeler on the road glassing right over the large mule deer that are on the slope below them, or the fools that walk in and walk a loop around and walk right out by 9 am while they drive the deer right past me.

The october seasons can be rough here. Sometimes 80 degrees, ocassionally a blizzard, leaves on the aspens, general tags are often 2 week seasons. Id much rather have thanksgiving and december to hunt deer here.

As usual - you have ZERO clue.

 

[mtmuley]

As usual - you have ZERO clue.

About anything. mtmuley

 

[Alpine01]

View attachment 415188View attachment 415189


Montana doesn’t have quotas as far as I know. I think the big shift happened when Randy started his hit piece on region 7 opportunity. I also don’t have a lot of faith in Montanas data so I have a hunch it could be worse than what those numbers are showing. No other western state would allow it.

Absent harvest numbers vs total population, kinda hard to say whether these numbers are good, bad, or indifferent. I do recall seeing overall population numbers declining so perhaps it’s time to start imposing quota limits across the board. Then the argument over what percentage goes to NR’s can be taken up along with how many tags an individual can have be it R or NR.

 

[8andcounting]

Absent harvest numbers vs total population, kinda hard to say whether these numbers are good, bad, or indifferent. I do recall seeing overall population numbers declining so perhaps it’s time to start imposing quota limits across the board. Then the argument over what percentage goes to NR’s can be taken up along with how many tags an individual can have be it R or NR.

Right . This makes sense

 

[DFS]

Absent harvest numbers vs total population, kinda hard to say whether these numbers are good, bad, or indifferent. I do recall seeing overall population numbers declining so perhaps it’s time to start imposing quota limits across the board. Then the argument over what percentage goes to NR’s can be taken up along with how many tags an individual can have be it R or NR.

I agree.

FWP :: Harvest Estimates

I have a considerable amount of time looking into the issue and trying to figure out how MTFWP has been so inept.

 

[DFS]

Absent harvest numbers vs total population, kinda hard to say whether these numbers are good, bad, or indifferent. I do recall seeing overall population numbers declining so perhaps it’s time to start imposing quota limits across the board. Then the argument over what percentage goes to NR’s can be taken up along with how many tags an individual can have be it R or NR.

Getting anything from FWP besides things are looking great is also very hard. I would be way more generous than the standard 10% that nonresidents typically get if I were in charge. Over 50% of the harvest is ridiculous.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Quitcher whining. We get to hunt mule deer for 5 weeks with a rifle on an OTC tag. MT mule deer hunting is as good as it ever was and ever could be and I’m going to shoot a 20” forked horn in Region 7 this year to prove it.

 

[MTTW]

Years ago, when MT started making elk units branch antler bull I read in info from FWP that the branch antler restriction didn't work as intended because too many yearling bulls had a branch antler. Because of this after a few years they went to brow tine bull and this restriction worked as intended.

They also said that when they made a unit branch antler that it cut the hunter participation in half. At that time hunters had other units to hunt instead. I hunted some of these units and you couldn't tell the difference in the age class of bulls even though 1/2 the hunters were missing. If you can cut the numbers of hunters in half and not affect the age class of non-rutting bulls, how can we expect cutting nonresident hunter numbers to affect the age class of rutting bucks?

If you look at the very reduced number of hunters in many of Montana's mule deer permit areas and the fairly low quality of bucks in many of these units, I think it further supports that reducing hunter numbers pretty drastically has a limited effect on antler quality. I think that in the last few years with more people cementum ageing deer it is becoming evident that we have more older deer than many of us realized, they just have poor antlers.

In order to improve antler quality, we would need to reduce our efficiency in killing a very high percentage of the best young bucks every year. In my experience higher deer numbers have a larger effect on deer quality than reducing hunter numbers. Truly good bucks have always been a very small portion of the deer on the landscape, and I think that you could reduce hunter numbers by half or more and have a negligible effect on deer quality with our present season structure. At the end of the season there would still be almost no good bucks left. Reducing hunter numbers would surely have some other desirable effects, however.

I do not believe that we can fix what is wrong with Mule deer hunting in MT by taking something away from someone else.
I do not mean to imply that a higher nonresident harvest than the resident harvest is in any way ok, but you could fix it by convincing residents to just pull the damn trigger. I am not too sure that would fix anything, but it would change the harvest ratio.
Could it be that residents won't pull the trigger because our season never ends until it is time to get those presents under the tree?

 

[antlerradar]

Montana doesn’t have quotas as far as I know. I think the big shift happened when Randy started his hit piece on region 7 opportunity. I also don’t have a lot of faith in Montanas data so I have a hunch it could be worse than what those numbers are showing. No other western state would allow it.

Randy and friends certainly deserve some of the credit, but they are not the only reason for all the NR in region 7.

The increase in LE units in the western part of the state and poor Western deer numbers also are a big part. NR are all but shut out of LE districts. Washington and Oregon Hunters would not be driving an extra thousand miles to shoot a small three point if they could do so in western MT.
The elk herd is also a draw. I am running into NR every year that are happy to fill there elk A tag in eastern Montana on a cow or spike instead of going to general units in western Montana and dealing with Mountains and Grizzly Bears.

 

[antlerradar]

Years ago, when MT started making elk units branch antler bull I read in info from FWP that the branch antler restriction didn't work as intended because too many yearling bulls had a branch antler. Because of this after a few years they went to brow tine bull and this restriction worked as intended.

They also said that when they made a unit branch antler that it cut the hunter participation in half. At that time hunters had other units to hunt instead. I hunted some of these units and you couldn't tell the difference in the age class of bulls even though 1/2 the hunters were missing. If you can cut the numbers of hunters in half and not affect the age class of non-rutting bulls, how can we expect cutting nonresident hunter numbers to affect the age class of rutting bucks?

If you look at the very reduced number of hunters in many of Montana's mule deer permit areas and the fairly low quality of bucks in many of these units, I think it further supports that reducing hunter numbers pretty drastically has a limited effect on antler quality. I think that in the last few years with more people cementum ageing deer it is becoming evident that we have more older deer than many of us realized, they just have poor antlers.

In order to improve antler quality, we would need to reduce our efficiency in killing a very high percentage of the best young bucks every year. In my experience higher deer numbers have a larger effect on deer quality than reducing hunter numbers. Truly good bucks have always been a very small portion of the deer on the landscape, and I think that you could reduce hunter numbers by half or more and have a negligible effect on deer quality with our present season structure. At the end of the season there would still be almost no good bucks left. Reducing hunter numbers would surely have some other desirable effects, however.

I do not believe that we can fix what is wrong with Mule deer hunting in MT by taking something away from someone else.
I do not mean to imply that a higher nonresident harvest than the resident harvest is in any way ok, but you could fix it by convincing residents to just pull the damn trigger. I am not too sure that would fix anything, but it would change the harvest ratio.
Could it be that residents won't pull the trigger because our season never ends until it is time to get those presents under the tree?

I think your assessment of the issues with mule deer is next level.

 

[Dave N]

Let's assume a NR hunter tries hard to be successful on filling their tag because they have more money and limited time invested than Rs. They are probably not going to be picky when push comes to shove and time is running out for them. Rs have the entire season to go or not and maybe they are looking for a better deer than a dink and pass up shooting because they can't find one that meets their requirements. This would throw the harvest numbers more to the NR side not just because they killed more, but because the Rs chose NOT to kill one for one reason or another. Not because the opportunity wasn't there but by their own choice. So then, looking at harvest reports and saying NRs are killing all of the deer may be accurate but only because they chose not to kill any themselves. It just may surprise everyone if they started killing them to put meat in the freezer just like the other guys how the percentage would turn around. I'm just another NR hunter so take my opinion for the 2 cents it might be worth.

 

[8andcounting]

Years ago, when MT started making elk units branch antler bull I read in info from FWP that the branch antler restriction didn't work as intended because too many yearling bulls had a branch antler. Because of this after a few years they went to brow tine bull and this restriction worked as intended.

They also said that when they made a unit branch antler that it cut the hunter participation in half. At that time hunters had other units to hunt instead. I hunted some of these units and you couldn't tell the difference in the age class of bulls even though 1/2 the hunters were missing. If you can cut the numbers of hunters in half and not affect the age class of non-rutting bulls, how can we expect cutting nonresident hunter numbers to affect the age class of rutting bucks?

If you look at the very reduced number of hunters in many of Montana's mule deer permit areas and the fairly low quality of bucks in many of these units, I think it further supports that reducing hunter numbers pretty drastically has a limited effect on antler quality. I think that in the last few years with more people cementum ageing deer it is becoming evident that we have more older deer than many of us realized, they just have poor antlers.

In order to improve antler quality, we would need to reduce our efficiency in killing a very high percentage of the best young bucks every year. In my experience higher deer numbers have a larger effect on deer quality than reducing hunter numbers. Truly good bucks have always been a very small portion of the deer on the landscape, and I think that you could reduce hunter numbers by half or more and have a negligible effect on deer quality with our present season structure. At the end of the season there would still be almost no good bucks left. Reducing hunter numbers would surely have some other desirable effects, however.

I do not believe that we can fix what is wrong with Mule deer hunting in MT by taking something away from someone else.
I do not mean to imply that a higher nonresident harvest than the resident harvest is in any way ok, but you could fix it by convincing residents to just pull the damn trigger. I am not too sure that would fix anything, but it would change the harvest ratio.
Could it be that residents won't pull the trigger because our season never ends until it is time to get those presents under the tree?

This is a very good point .

 

[Point Creep]

Years ago, when MT started making elk units branch antler bull I read in info from FWP that the branch antler restriction didn't work as intended because too many yearling bulls had a branch antler. Because of this after a few years they went to brow tine bull and this restriction worked as intended.

They also said that when they made a unit branch antler that it cut the hunter participation in half. At that time hunters had other units to hunt instead. I hunted some of these units and you couldn't tell the difference in the age class of bulls even though 1/2 the hunters were missing. If you can cut the numbers of hunters in half and not affect the age class of non-rutting bulls, how can we expect cutting nonresident hunter numbers to affect the age class of rutting bucks?

If you look at the very reduced number of hunters in many of Montana's mule deer permit areas and the fairly low quality of bucks in many of these units, I think it further supports that reducing hunter numbers pretty drastically has a limited effect on antler quality. I think that in the last few years with more people cementum ageing deer it is becoming evident that we have more older deer than many of us realized, they just have poor antlers.

In order to improve antler quality, we would need to reduce our efficiency in killing a very high percentage of the best young bucks every year. In my experience higher deer numbers have a larger effect on deer quality than reducing hunter numbers. Truly good bucks have always been a very small portion of the deer on the landscape, and I think that you could reduce hunter numbers by half or more and have a negligible effect on deer quality with our present season structure. At the end of the season there would still be almost no good bucks left. Reducing hunter numbers would surely have some other desirable effects, however.

I do not believe that we can fix what is wrong with Mule deer hunting in MT by taking something away from someone else.
I do not mean to imply that a higher nonresident harvest than the resident harvest is in any way ok, but you could fix it by convincing residents to just pull the damn trigger. I am not too sure that would fix anything, but it would change the harvest ratio.
Could it be that residents won't pull the trigger because our season never ends until it is time to get those presents under the tree?

Aside from whatever produces or prevents big antlers - there’s something to be said about a quality hunting experience beyond the counting license plate states game. We have WAY TOO Many NR hunters hunting deer in MT.