Montana Mule Deer Mismanagement

[Gerald Martin]

 

[WanderWoman]

I don't think changing season structure is going change harvest rates. People that want to harvest are going to harvest, unless they are totally incompetent.
Lowering harvest rates is not a high priority of mine for season structure change.I have two main reasons and some lesser reasons for changing season structure. What I want is more of a random harvest and less of a selective harvest. As many have stated, it is not as easy to fill your tag when the bucks are not rutting and concentrated on winter range or hay fields. Hunters will still have their opportunities, but will risk tag soup if they try to be too selective. More young four point live, more older two and three points die. The more random the harvest, the better. Better for the deer herd, better for hunters long term.
Changing season structure, may not change the harvest rate, but it will change where the harvest occurs. Shooting a buck at the base of the mountain on winter range, not going to happen nearly as often. Driving around the river and creek bottoms in Eastern Montana is not going to be nearly as effective in Oct as it is in Nov. Changing where the harvest is the biggest reason why we need to change season structure. Since the farther up the mountain and the farther from the river and creek bottoms, the more likely the land is public, season structure change will result in more harvest on public and less on private. Lowering harvest rates is way down the list and likely will not happen any way.

I don’t really know how you get less of a selective harvest than there already is with deer and elk. Selective harvest is what happens with sheep. There is no way across the state that deer harvest is significantly selective (biologically) when comparing the number/relative rarity of large mature bucks to actual harvest. Also, not sure how to get less selective when the most vocal hunting consensus shames people for shooting smaller bucks. I also don’t know how an earlier season would necessarily ensure to survival of younger 4-pts vs older 2- to 3-pts. Assuming older deer are smarter, they’re more likely to evade harvest regardless of headgear.

I also thought part of the criticism for MT’s mismanagement was too many deer taken on public land (hence changes in doe tags), but is that not the case now, or a misunderstanding?

If someone wants more age class and larger antlers in a deer population, more bucks need to survive, and the population needs the nutrition/habitat to reach their potential. And then it’s a balance of competition, CWD, and all of the other things affecting and acting on a deer population. Season structure is only one part of that.

 

[antlerradar]

Maybe.

I keep seeing this - but are you really sure that can have an impact genetically?

1. Theres no gaurantees that the bigger antlered buck that doesnt get shot automatically wins the right to breed. Ive seen otherwise.
2. The buck that has poor antlers might have great genetics - mothers nutrition while pregnant and his first year of life are bigger drivers (jim heffelfinger).
3. I doubt that taking the "top" probably less than 10% of bucks that could grow to 190 will affect the population genetics as a whole.
4. No one has any idea what kind of genetics the does have at all at producing antlers.

I would think thered bios/research out there that would confirm that if true. Do you know of any?

Nothing to do with changing genetics. All about giving the bucks that all ready have the potential to grow bigger antlers the same chance at growing old as the ones with poor potential.

 

[rogerthat]

I don’t really know how you get less of a selective harvest than there already is with deer and elk. Selective harvest is what happens with sheep. There is no way across the state that deer harvest is significantly selective (biologically) when comparing the number/relative rarity of large mature bucks to actual harvest. Also, not sure how to get less selective when the most vocal hunting consensus shames people for shooting smaller bucks. I also don’t know how an earlier season would necessarily ensure to survival of younger 4-pts vs older 2- to 3-pts. Assuming older deer are smarter, they’re more likely to evade harvest regardless of headgear.

I also thought part of the criticism for MT’s mismanagement was too many deer taken on public land (hence changes in doe tags), but is that not the case now, or a misunderstanding?

If someone wants more age class and larger antlers in a deer population, more bucks need to survive, and the population needs the nutrition/habitat to reach their potential. And then it’s a balance of competition, CWD, and all of the other things affecting and acting on a deer population. Season structure is only one part of that.

I think you simply make hunting harder to get a less selective harvest. For example if we were all packing trad gear we are way more likely to shoot whatever we can get to 20 yards or less from. By allowing rut hunting with a rifle for a long period of time we have made it as easy as possible which allows us to “window” shop for the “biggest” buck we can find. Which to @antlerradar point often may not be the oldest buck but could be a younger buck with those awesome genetics. By shifting the season dates you are making it harder. Lots of great discussion in this thread.

Now the truth be told your points are spot on, besides on hunttalk I don’t believe there’s much desire to make mule deer hunting harder in Montana and that’s why any change is hard and will likely need to be incremental. Changing season structure is not even remotely socially or politically palatable in my view. Not allowing doe harvest on public lands and getting rid of 2500 nr orphaned tags are two great changes instituted recently within our existing framework. Hunttalk folks in general need to change their mindset. Being right and affecting positive change are two wildly different things.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Not allowing doe harvest on public lands and getting rid of 2500 nr orphaned tags are two great changes instituted recently within our existing framework.

NR doe licenses have been cut as well under SB 231 in 2023. That has resulted in another roughly 3K licenses cut just between 2023 & 2024. Now NR's can only purchase 2 B tags if they hold a B10 or B11, and 1 if they do not.

 

[golfer]

I think you simply make hunting harder to get a less selective harvest.

Well if you can slow down the social media folks who put out how to do this and that, application service folks, technology advancement such as turrets, waypoint setting binos, etc, get rid of onX you may just be able to make it harder imo. But let’s be real it’s 2026 and no one wants to earn something the hard way. Just my two cents.

 

[WanderWoman]

Well if you can slow down the social media folks who put out how to do this and that, application service folks, technology advancement such as turrets, waypoint setting binos, etc, get rid of onX you may just be able to make it harder imo. But let’s be real it’s 2026 and no one wants to earn something the hard way. Just my two cents.

You can take my OnX from my cold, dead hands. But everything else is ok.

 

[antlerradar]

I don’t really know how you get less of a selective harvest than there already is with deer and elk. Selective harvest is what happens with sheep. There is no way across the state that deer harvest is significantly selective (biologically) when comparing the number/relative rarity of large mature bucks to actual harvest. Also, not sure how to get less selective when the most vocal hunting consensus shames people for shooting smaller bucks. I also don’t know how an earlier season would necessarily ensure to survival of younger 4-pts vs older 2- to 3-pts. Assuming older deer are smarter, they’re more likely to evade harvest regardless of headgear.

I have to disagree. Montana has the most selective harvest of any western state. There are three main reason why.
The rut. It is just easier to see more buck deer during the rut. As @rogerthat put it. When you are hunting the rut you can do a lot of window shopping with out the fear of eating your tag. I can remember days when I would see several 170 class bucks and dozens of small bucks a day back in the 80's on public land. When you are passing deer all day long you are being very selective. Much harder to do this when bucks are not rutting. On private land you can be even more selective. During the rut I could select and harvest the best bucks out of the hay fields as effectively as I can cull the poorest cattle in a corral. A nice three year old four point has little chance of making it to four and the only way he is making it five is if he breaks off both antlers. On the other had an old three point, is going to be pass by most. during the rut there is less incentive to shoot that old three, because bucks are easy to find and if you hold off, chances are you will find one with better antlers.
The long season. Simply put the more time hunter have the more they and afford to pass on deer early in the season without any fear of eating the tag. Longer the season the more selective you can be. If a nice buck shows up on private, he is hunted every day until he is dead or the season ends, with the long season, a nice buck as zero chance running out the season on hunters.
Lots of freezer filler tags. With lots of freezer filler tags you can afford to be slective with your A tag with out having to worry about eating it. I have told this story before, but it is worth repeating here. Ten, maybe closer to fifteen years ago I was at my wife's work Christmas party. First part of Dec and with hunting season just over some of the other guys wanted to talk about hunting. I am a bit unconftrable talking to strangers about my hunting sucess, so I just kept my mouth shut. One of the other guys, not bashful at all. He pass aroung his phone and shows us the picture of the past five or six years worth of bucks. All two and three year old four points, except one clearly older two point. He sees me looking at the two and explains. I usualy hold out for a four point, but that was year there were not any doe tags and I didn't want to risk not getting any deer meat so I shot that one. He didn't belive me when I told him I thought it was the coolest buck of the lot. Freezer filler tags alow meat hunter to be selctive trophy hunters.
I think I need to add another question to @R.K. list of surrvey questions. How many bucks do you pass on during the course of the season? If you answer none, we have a random harvest. The higher the number the more selective the harvest. I am getting the impression FWP would be shocked by the answer.

 

[antlerradar]

If someone wants more age class and larger antlers in a deer population, more bucks need to survive, and the population needs the nutrition/habitat to reach their potential. And then it’s a balance of competition, CWD, and all of the other things affecting and acting on a deer population. Season structure is only one part of that.

What I have found the most difficult to over come when advocoting for season structure change is that people defalt to it is all about more big bucks. Big bucks are not the most compellimg reason we need to change the season.
I think it is a good thing if we are killing for of the harvest on public land. It is all about who is getting to pull the trigger. Back in the 70's when I first started the current season structure was a good thing. When deer came down the mountain to winter range, it made them more accessible to the hunting public. Back then you could get premmison to hunt those ranch at the bottom of the mountain fairly easily. Now those same ranches are owned by billionairs and the general public has almost zero chance of hunting there. Now the seson is a good deal for the billionairs. Change the season and the billionairs has little chance of shooting a buck that is still up the mountain when the season ends.
I cann't say exaclty how many nice bucks I have located in the summer and fall well back on public, only to find out they were killed near the hay fields durring the rut. The number is easily in the dozens. Back when I first started hunting, this was not an issue. back then you could hunt all of those hay field by just asking. Not any more. Hunting on those field is going to cost you a pile of money. The current season is a real good deal for the rancher selling deer. Change the season and the rancher can not sell a deer that is not on thier propery during daylight hours.
For the last thirty years FWP has spent a pile of money and effort trying to regain access to those place. It is the number one issue of our time. For the most part for every step forward FWP has taken, there are two steps back. When it comes to access we are running north on a southbound train. To stop the train we need to try somthing different. We can still try to buy access, but we can also change the season to when more of the bucks are on the public land we already have access to. It is a good thing if we are killing more of the harvest on public land. It means we are solving the access issue.

 

[8andcounting]

What I have found the most difficult to over come when advocoting for season structure change is that people defalt to it is all about more big bucks. Big bucks are not the most compellimg reason we need to change the season.
I think it is a good thing if we are killing for of the harvest on public land. It is all about who is getting to pull the trigger. Back in the 70's when I first started the current season structure was a good thing. When deer came down the mountain to winter range, it made them more accessible to the hunting public. Back then you could get premmison to hunt those ranch at the bottom of the mountain fairly easily. Now those same ranches are owned by billionairs and the general public has almost zero chance of hunting there. Now the seson is a good deal for the billionairs. Change the season and the billionairs has little chance of shooting a buck that is still up the mountain when the season ends.
I cann't say exaclty how many nice bucks I have located in the summer and fall well back on public, only to find out they were killed near the hay fields durring the rut. The number is easily in the dozens. Back when I first started hunting, this was not an issue. back then you could hunt all of those hay field by just asking. Not any more. Hunting on those field is going to cost you a pile of money. The current season is a real good deal for the rancher selling deer. Change the season and the rancher can not sell a deer that is not on thier propery during daylight hours.
For the last thirty years FWP has spent a pile of money and effort trying to regain access to those place. It is the number one issue of our time. For the most part for every step forward FWP has taken, there are two steps back. When it comes to access we are running north on a southbound train. To stop the train we need to try somthing different. We can still try to buy access, but we can also change the season to when more of the bucks are on the public land we already have access to. It is a good thing if we are killing more of the harvest on public land. It means we are solving the access issue.

Great point

 

[Forkyfinder]

I think it is a good thing if we are killing for of the harvest on public land.

Its great that you live in area where that is true. It simply isnt everywhere else.

Change the season and the rancher can not sell a deer that is not on thier propery during daylight hours.

I can agree with this. Do you know whats a lot more expensive than deer though? Elk. And i think even a big doosher of an outfitter would acknowledge that more elk in more of the state will be in the private bottoms during a later season will be good for their bottom line. Theyd have rifles shooting at deer for a month on public and unaccessible when they retreat to thier private sanctuary. How does that same logic not apply with elk?

I think thered be a lot more acceptance of changes to the season structure for mule deer, if it strangely didnt change so much else. I think i can speak for a lot of people who wont risk getting lynch mob'd here when i say that its off putting that as much or more changes about hunting elk than deer. I know some folks that the updated elk season would help out a lot. None of them are DIY hunters though.

I think about every Montanan ive ever talked to was more excited about hunting elk than mule deer. In fact - id bet plenty of them would be fine just knocking 3 weeks off the existing season for mule deer only. Who do you think wouldnt be?

 

[WanderWoman]

I have to disagree. Montana has the most selective harvest of any western state. There are three main reason why.

Respectfully, I still disagree, but I think we are defining "selective" differently. Yes the rut makes bucks more visible, less alert, and more vulnerable. Yes, some hunters capitalize on that, and the long season plus abundant tag opportunity can encourage people to pass early and window shop more. Yes, in a group of 20 deer with 4 bucks, the largest of those 4 probably has a higher likelihood of being taken. But that still doesn't mean MT's deer harvest is highly selective. There are still 150-some odd pages here lamenting on how too many fork-horns, 3-points, young deer, etc. are taken and not enough are surviving to maturity or other certain measure of age/size. That is not what I think of as truly selective harvest in terms of driving age structure or determining what is left on the landscape after the season.

To me, selective is what you see with things like sheep seasons and tightly managed LE units: low opportunity, low harvest relative to the population, and a clear skew towards removing the oldest/largest males, while the younger animals generally walk. That is not what Montana deer harvest looks like on the larger scale, especially across general HDs. On an individual level, sure, many hunters take the best buck they see. But across thousands of tags and general season, that is still mostly opportunistic harvest (with preference).

I have told this story before, but it is worth repeating here. Ten, maybe closer to fifteen years ago I was at my wife's work Christmas party. First part of Dec and with hunting season just over some of the other guys wanted to talk about hunting. I am a bit unconftrable talking to strangers about my hunting sucess, so I just kept my mouth shut. One of the other guys, not bashful at all. He pass aroung his phone and shows us the picture of the past five or six years worth of bucks. All two and three year old four points, except one clearly older two point. He sees me looking at the two and explains. I usualy hold out for a four point, but that was year there were not any doe tags and I didn't want to risk not getting any deer meat so I shot that one. He didn't belive me when I told him I thought it was the coolest buck of the lot. Freezer filler tags alow meat hunter to be selctive trophy hunters.

I’m a little confused by this example. The takeaway I read is: “I usually hold out, but when I needed meat, I shot what I could." That is understandable, but I would not call that strong evidence of a selective harvest system. If anything, it sounds like someone who prefers a certain type of buck when circumstances allow, but will still fill the tag opportunistically when needed—which is how a lot of people hunt. Not what would happen if MT was among the most selective states for deer harvest.

I think I need to add another question to @R.K. list of surrvey questions. How many bucks do you pass on during the course of the season? If you answer none, we have a random harvest. The higher the number the more selective the harvest. I am getting the impression FWP would be shocked by the answer.

I think that question would be interesting, but it would also be highly confounded and difficult to interpret. Someone can pass on a buck because they are being selective, but they can also pass because a good shot opportunity wasn't presented, they didn't have time to get into range or position, it was too close to a boundary, etc. Someone can also pass on 10 bucks during a season but then shoot a forky on the last day because they didn't want to eat their tag. "Number of bucks passed" does not neatly translate into a degree of selectivity. It would make for interesting anecdotal information, but I doubt it would be clean or reliable enough to drive any sort of management, especially when this thread has also suggested how hard it is for some people to remember which HD they have hunted during these same surveys.

What I have found the most difficult to over come when advocoting for season structure change is that people defalt to it is all about more big bucks. Big bucks are not the most compellimg reason we need to change the season.

I keep talking in terms of bucks/old bucks/big bucks, because while you might not be using that measure alone, a large driver behind this thread appears to be that. I don't think it is all about big bucks, but it's what the vocal majority keeps coming back to, on and off HT, explicitly or implied. Changing the season to take the rut out, making deer less vulnerable, selectivity, etc., all speaks to buck harvest in general. Maybe I missed it, but outside of B-license quotas and the shift to B-licenses valid only on private land, I have not seen much else season-structure wise directed towards influencing the female segment.

I think it is a good thing if we are killing for of the harvest on public land. It is all about who is getting to pull the trigger. ... Now the seson is a good deal for the billionairs. Change the season and the billionairs has little chance of shooting a buck that is still up the mountain when the season ends.

For the last thirty years FWP has spent a pile of money and effort trying to regain access to those place. It is the number one issue of our time. For the most part for every step forward FWP has taken, there are two steps back. When it comes to access we are running north on a southbound train. To stop the train we need to try somthing different. We can still try to buy access, but we can also change the season to when more of the bucks are on the public land we already have access to. It is a good thing if we are killing more of the harvest on public land. It means we are solving the access issue.

Again I'm a little confused. Previous 150-some odd pages speak to how there's too much harvest happening on public lands and how private land is sometimes the only saving grace for MT's mule deer. If that is true, shifting more harvest onto public land may make sense from an access/equity standpoint, but it does not automatically make sense from a biological/FWP mismanagement standpoint. Those are two different things, and I think this thread keeps going in circles by treating them (and other issues) as if they are the same. I too think it would be great if we had more huntable game on public land longer.

I agree that public access to private land pales in comparison to what it used to be, and if hunting pressure or other factors push deer onto private land during the rut, that benefits some people and not others. I disagree that the current deer seasons are only a boon to billionaires. Nothing stops a private landowner from also hunting public land. Not all MT mule deer migrate from public to private. Some live largely or entirely on private; some on public. Some migrate, some do not. I think the picture is more complicated than, 'change the season and the right deer will now be harvested on the right ground by the right people in the right numbers.' Who are the right people, what is the right ground, what are the right numbers? That depends. Elk also throw a huge monkey wrench in all of this.

I feel like there are different types of hunters. Some have the privilege, resources, relationships, etc. to hunt private. There are also plenty that take pride in duking it out and hunting hard on public and that segment is significant and growing if my insta feed is any indication. IMO, we have more than enough pressure and harvest occurring on public land. To @golfer 's point, the tools and technology we have today make it so much different than it was back then. Regardless of season structure, it is much harder now for any given deer to survive and age than it was decades ago. IMO, one go-getter hunting bro is likely more effective with his 600y-capable rifle and glass today than 10 hunters would have been 20-30 years ago when a 300y shot was an awful long ways.

I hesitate to put so much weight on season structure or timing alone. If the goal is more age class and more mature bucks, then more bucks have to survive—period. If the goal is more deer in general, then habitat, nutrition, and weather matter. Along with CWD, other diseases, predation, competition, hunting pressure... Season structure is part of that, but it is not a cure-all for modern hunter efficiency or modern demands or expectations.

I struggle with some of the logic and circling in this thread. We say public land is already over-pressured and deer there do not get old, but also say being able to shift more harvest onto public is a solution. We say harvest is highly selective, but also say that young bucks are being removed before maturity. We say this is not about big bucks, but the discussion keeps circling back to antlers, rut vulnerability, and mature buck survival.

The three main consensuses I read from this thread is that MT should no longer hunt mule deer in the rut, NR opportunity/numbers should be reduced, and doe harvest needs to be reduced. The latter has occurred to some extent, but none those things, by themselves, put more deer on the landscape, although depending on a whole lot of different variables, may influence who is alive next spring and who isn't. Not an excuse to maintain status quo, especially in the face of all the challenges and factors acting upon mule deer, but also not the silver bullet.

 

[rogerthat]

@WanderWoman
I’m glad you expounded upon what selective means to you as I was wondering that after I replied. Here is a hypothetical for another way I’m thinking on this selectivity thing. So I give you two tags for your favorite deer area. You get 5 days to fill each one. Your goal is as big of a buck as you can find but you also desire to fill it. The first tag is good for October 14-18. The second tag is good for November 11-15. Hunting pressure is the same for either tag so not a variable. Which hunt are you most likely to expect to see the most bucks on? Which hunt is likely going to allow you to be more choosy for the big antlered buck and why? Which hunt would allow you to be more selective picking your buck?

 

[rogerthat]

There are still 150-some odd pages here lamenting on how too many fork-horns, 3-points, young deer, etc. are taken and not enough are surviving to maturity or other certain measure of age/size. That is not what I think of as truly selective harvest in terms of driving age structure or determining what is left on the landscape after the season.

To me, selective is what you see with things like sheep seasons and tightly managed LE units: low opportunity, low harvest relative to the population, and a clear skew towards removing the oldest/largest males, while the younger animals generally walk. That is not what Montana deer harvest looks like on the larger scale, especially across general HDs. On an individual level, sure, many hunters take the best buck they see. But across thousands of tags and general season, that is still mostly opportunistic harvest (with preference)

I’m curious why you don’t think our season structure ie rut hunting drives age structure and what is left on the landscape? Are you seeing large older age class bucks make it to winter range? For 15 years, I have collected and sent in hunter harvested deer to Masons lab for age analysis. It backs up what @antlerradar has been saying about harvesting the young up and comers while passing for later years the bucks that don’t express nice antlers ie the old bucks aren’t the ones with nice antlers. I think a lot of the frustration you see in this thread with the season structure can be explained by that fact right there for better or for worse or right or wrong since I know when we start talking antlers everyone gets all hackled up but I think it’s worth understanding frustration points even if they are misplaced biologically speaking