Montana Mule Deer Mismanagement

[huntin24/7]

I’m not sure what solution you have in mind in relation to the problem you outline above but if the conclusion is regional caps we considered that in our discussions as we formulated our general season proposal. We identified at least three areas of concern that we couldn’t find satisfactory answers to in our discussions and ultimately decided to move away from regional caps that we had called for in version one of our proposal. As I recall (others from our group can correct if necessary) those three concerns were as follows:

1. Regional caps that distribute the amount of tags available per region based on deer populations per region could actually increase pressure in R6 and R7. Even though 6 and 7 do experience more NR mule deer buck harvest than R mule deer buck harvest, mule deer populations across other regions in the state are so depressed that a division of hunters in the state with regional caps set at a ratio of the percentage of the states mule deer populations that reside in that unit could funnel even more hunters into 6 and 7.

Regions 1-5 have an even higher percentage of hunters per mule deer than 6 and 7 even though the NR to R ratio of harvest ofmule deer is at a lower percentage in R 1-5.

2. We didn’t trust FWP to set regional caps at a level that would actually limit harvest of mule deer. (Admittedly unscientific but not unreasonable based on historic setting of tag quotas for areas of high demand)

3. The potential for hunters limited to a single region to fill a tag in that region because it’s their only option and they have limited days in the area. (Again, not necessarily scientific but not unreasonable for a scenario of where a significant number of traveling hunters would choose to fill a tag on their one trip to a different region since that’s the only place they could kill a buck. Tie this potential scenario with concern #1 listed above and it seemed to us like regional caps might not be the best solution.)

I’m not saying that our concerns and conclusions are the best way or only way to look at regional caps. That’s just some of what we discussed and the direction we decided to move away from out of those discussions.

I think changing tags to being whitetail or mule deer specific could potentially make regional caps more useful. Wouldn’t necessarily have to be everywhere but I would imagine the vast majority of NR are targeting mule deer.

 

[cgasner1]

I think changing tags to being whitetail or mule deer specific could potentially make regional caps more useful. Wouldn’t necessarily have to be everywhere but I would imagine the vast majority of NR are targeting mule deer.

I’d think you’re right about targeting mule deer but the harvest report has it split. To me that says that splitting the tags would probably be more effective than most people realize

 

[Gerald Martin]

I think changing tags to being whitetail or mule deer specific could potentially make regional caps more useful. Wouldn’t necessarily have to be everywhere but I would imagine the vast majority of NR are targeting mule deer.

It’s definitely a strategy that could be considered and implemented. We didn’t try to implement that, not because it couldn’t be effective but because we chose to focus on other strategies that we thought would help.

On thing we realized as we started taking about problems and solutions is there are multiple potential paths towards improving mule deer management and a quality hunting experience. We chose to focus on what made sense to us. It’s why we’ve always encouraged other folks to advance strategies that they think will bring improvements.
That encouragement to others to develop strategies doesn’t mean that I or others from our group won’t critique those plans especially if it’s an idea we thought through and abandoned or if doesn’t address a specific area of concern.

 

[D_Walt]

So four years into this thread, would I be accurate to summarize by saying the Residents of Montana can neither manage their Mule Deer nor their invited Non - Resident guests? I have no interest in hunting Montana at present (probably from dropping in on this thread over the years) but it seems a hard NR cap on public and transferable landowner tags on private would solve a lot of the problems of “NR’s killing all the deer”. Have your cake and eat it too…unless, well, perhaps residents with a forever long season in the rut is also a problem?

 

[elkduds]

Every NR that an outfitter takes on private is one less NR hunter competing with R hunters on available/accessible public/BM lands.

Spoken like the outfitter that you are. Alternatively, every NR that doesn't use an outfitter costs you and your posse. That's why MOGA invests heavily in legislators to benefit their state government-subsidized industry. Cronyism.

 

[cgasner1]

Spoken like the outfitter that you are. Alternatively, every NR that doesn't use an outfitter costs you and your posse. That's why MOGA invests heavily in legislators to benefit their state government-subsidized industry. Cronyism.

Not defending albus in any way but if you start getting engaged in this state the same names keep coming up across a lot of groups. That’s because those people give a shit enough to show up. It’s not just albus it’s constantly the same like 50ish people because that seems to be the ones that care enough to do something.

 

[mtmuley]

Not defending albus in any way but if you start getting engaged in this state the same names keep coming up across a lot of groups. That’s because those people give a shit enough to show up. It’s not just albus it’s constantly the same like 50ish people because that seems to be the ones that care enough to do something.

And it's the same outta staters that continuously post all their great solutions on Montana mule deer threads. mtmuley

 

[elkduds]

Not defending albus in any way but if you start getting engaged in this state the same names keep coming up across a lot of groups. That’s because those people give a shit enough to show up. It’s not just albus it’s constantly the same like 50ish people because that seems to be the ones that care enough to do something.

My point was very few of those that how up have made the financial investment to influence legislators that MOGA, Albus and others have. They better show up, they have to protect their government-subsidized livelihood. They get to have and their opinions, they have a stronger bias than just sportsmen and women. That bias should be considered in reacting to his posts. I'm glad Albus is an advocate for the sport, and much of what he posts here is well considered. Everything he posts is from an outfitter's perspective.

 

[Gerald Martin]

My point was very few of those that how up have made the financial investment to influence legislators that MOGA, Albus and others have. They better show up, they have to protect their government-subsidized livelihood. They get to have and their opinions, they have a stronger bias than just sportsmen and women. That bias should be considered in reacting to his posts. I'm glad Albus is an advocate for the sport, and much of what he posts here is well considered. Everything he posts is from an outfitter's perspective.

That’s who he is. That’s going to be his perspective. What’s wrong with that? I’ve never met anyone who has a different perspective than who they are and what their experience is. That’s why many different perspectives are heard and considered in the public decision making process of managing our public trust resources.

Folks who are upset at the organization of those who show up to represent their interests at the time decisions are made should be putting their efforts to being effective representatives of their interests at those meetings rather than complaining that others are organized.

 

[SAJ-99]

I’m not sure what solution you have in mind in relation to the problem you outline above but if the conclusion is regional caps we considered that in our discussions as we formulated our general season proposal. We identified at least three areas of concern that we couldn’t find satisfactory answers to in our discussions and ultimately decided to move away from regional caps that we had called for in version one of our proposal. As I recall (others from our group can correct if necessary) those three concerns were as follows:

1. Regional caps that distribute the amount of tags available per region based on deer populations per region could actually increase pressure in R6 and R7. Even though 6 and 7 do experience more NR mule deer buck harvest than R mule deer buck harvest, mule deer populations across other regions in the state are so depressed that a division of hunters in the state with regional caps set at a ratio of the percentage of the states mule deer populations that reside in that unit could funnel even more hunters into 6 and 7.

Regions 1-5 have an even higher percentage of hunters per mule deer than 6 and 7 even though the NR to R ratio of harvest ofmule deer is at a lower percentage in R 1-5.

2. We didn’t trust FWP to set regional caps at a level that would actually limit harvest of mule deer. (Admittedly unscientific but not unreasonable based on historic setting of tag quotas for areas of high demand)

3. The potential for hunters limited to a single region to fill a tag in that region because it’s their only option and they have limited days in the area. (Again, not necessarily scientific but not unreasonable for a scenario of where a significant number of traveling hunters would choose to fill a tag on their one trip to a different region since that’s the only place they could kill a buck. Tie this potential scenario with concern #1 listed above and it seemed to us like regional caps might not be the best solution.)

I’m not saying that our concerns and conclusions are the best way or only way to look at regional caps. That’s just some of what we discussed and the direction we decided to move away from out of those discussions.

These seem like excuses.
Some quick stats from AI
Region 7 has an estimated 30% of Montana's MD population
17% of its land mass
5% of its population

R Harvest is 12% of state total
NR harvest is 35% of state NR total.

Seem like easy numbers to set regional caps with. What it also tells me is Rs tend to hunt near home, even in Montana, although maybe less so. This is probably typical of every state.

 

[Gerald Martin]

These seem like excuses.
Some quick stats from AI
Region 7 has an estimated 30% of Montana's MD population
17% of its land mass
5% of its population

R Harvest is 12% of state total
NR harvest is 35% of state NR total.

Seem like easy numbers to set regional caps with. What it also tells me is Rs tend to hunt near home, even in Montana, although maybe less so. This is probably typical of every state.

Going from memory here but I think R-7 has @ 24% of total hunters with 30% MD ( not to mention whitetail) populations. Regional caps based on deer populations could see an increase to hunters in R 7 not a decrease.