PoleX
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2025
- Messages
- 422
About as predictable as the sun coming up. Based on the adult males description of this buck I wasn’t sure the ol regressed warrior would fit through a standard door frame.
Montana Mule Deer Mismanagement
- Thread starter rogerthat
- Start date
huntin24/7
Well-known member
The whole “opportunity” state thing is an interesting dynamic here. At face value, it’s great. But when you start reading MT Facebook forums, some discussions here, and just talking to many residents, it seems like so many want unreasonable opportunity. But if anyone ever questions the management style, they’re hit with the old “you just want more big bucks” and that’s the end of the discussion. It’s ironic that anyone who supports sacrificing any opportunity is considered just pure selfishness because back to “you just want big bucks”, but people unwilling to sacrifice anything are not.
I’m assuming one side is detachable to make it easier through doors?
Honestly yes I do want big bucks. Big bucks get my heart going. There’s far better table fare than a rutted up mule deer buck. Not sorry to admit it
huntin24/7
Well-known member
I’m with you. I’m referring more to the hypocrisy of wanting more big bucks is selfish but trying to kill everything on the landscape isn’t. Obviously that’s an exaggeration but you get my point.
I like big bucks too. I don’t know why that is viewed as a crime by many. Even the people that just want to fill their freezer get excited by big bucks. There’s a reason why every time a western game and fish agency puts a mule deer on the cover of their regulations book, it’s a picture of a big buck. They get people excited. I’d want big bucks on the landscape even if I couldn’t hunt them. I just like to see them. I don’t think everyone should be a big buck hunter, and I believe everyone should be able to shoot whatever buck makes them happy. I just wish our management allowed for some big bucks to exist on public land in all parts of the state. It seems like the only big public land bucks I see coming out of Montana anymore are mountain bucks. They just don’t stand a chance in the more open country in the eastern half of the state anymore.
ShootsManyBullets
Well-known member
I like big bucks and I cannot lie. You other hunters can deny, but when a buck walks in with a big old rack I get sprung.
Big bucks aside I’m not sure how region 7 just continues to take the bludgeoning they do with no response from MTFWP. I haven’t been through a game check where they are establishing how many hunters we have in 10-15 years. I have been through a couple game warden check stations in those 15 years which I really appreciated. I don’t see that we are managing anything. Unlimited tags privatizes wildlife and leads to less access. Not one other western state is going to let nonresidents put the hammer down on mule deer during the rut that we do. It is disgusting. Not a knock on nonresidents I don’t blame them for coming but it is a knock on MTFWP for not responding to the changes we have seen.
Where is the nearest game check station in Southeastern Montana? I’m sure one on the interstate by glendive. Is there one down by broadus? I know rest area by Hysham has one. Is there one around Miles? Quite a large area for so little data being collected. O well I guess the cold calling in March gathers plenty of good information
Ashland is the last one I went through. I was dead tired and drove through it. Turned back around when my brain started functioning again. They weren’t going to chase me down like I envisioned. Not an accurate way of counting hunters.
I suspect you have never been through one?
You aren’t going to push a thing with them. They know exactly what they are doing and won’t change.
I use to be all for mandatory reporting but honestly what good would it do? Fwp isn’t going to make any changes from the data. Only data point that will get them do anything is if non resident tags start going unsold. That’s not happening anytime soon
Wind Gypsy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2017
- Messages
- 3,260
Possibly. More data proving a point cant hurt though.
I agree. I just don’t think they want that point proven
Washington’s finest dink killers are back at it. Four more tags to go! Gotta fill them tags to keep the money and free product coming in
Hope they kept the capes from them pigs
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 9,773
On the topic of data points….
1. Wildlife management policies are largely determined by the managers’ perceptions of the public’s priorities.
2. Current MT FWP’s perception is that there are more hunters happy with the status quo of being able to shoot bucks of any size during a five week general OTC rifle season that spans the rut than there are hunters willing to kill less often for a chance at an older buck. Hunters wanting to prioritize older age class bucks in the post season population are losing the “this is what hunters want” battle.
3. As long as eastern MT is better than other parts of the state for producing what hunters want ( ability to see lots of animals and good potential to fill a tag) region 7 is still going to be the go to spot for a lot of guys. I know that when viewed in the historical context of how good it used to be it kills you guys to see what it’s become. I hadn’t hunted region 7 for nearly a decade but spent opening week there last year and this year hunting with friends. Compared to my normal experience hunting in region 3 it was a welcome change of pace. I’ll be back.
4. Any success in getting FWP to place some sort of regional caps on hunter numbers is probably not going to actually reduce hunters in regions 6 and 7. The reason why is that FWP is most likely going to use current numbers of hunters as the threshold or potentially base hunter numbers as a percentage of hunters to population of deer. When we looked at Hunters/Deer as a potential relationship to set regional caps across the state we found that eastern MT actually has a significantly lower Hunters/Deer ratio than the western half of the state.
5. Resident hunters from the western half of MT are a significant barrier to eastern residents desire for fewer hunters in their region. Some of the loudest opposition to our proposed season structure changes came from western guys who head east for their week long mule deer rut hunt. They weren’t trying to retain their ability to rut hunt mountain mule deer in regions 1,2,and 3. They didn’t want to lose the ability to hunt elk for the opening week on the west side and head east in mid-November to shoot a rutted up mule deer.
There’s some data points to consider. I don’t know how to fit them into a solution to produce older age class mule deer, general rut hunting on an OTC tag and less crowded public land but that some of what we’re working with.
1. Wildlife management policies are largely determined by the managers’ perceptions of the public’s priorities.
2. Current MT FWP’s perception is that there are more hunters happy with the status quo of being able to shoot bucks of any size during a five week general OTC rifle season that spans the rut than there are hunters willing to kill less often for a chance at an older buck. Hunters wanting to prioritize older age class bucks in the post season population are losing the “this is what hunters want” battle.
3. As long as eastern MT is better than other parts of the state for producing what hunters want ( ability to see lots of animals and good potential to fill a tag) region 7 is still going to be the go to spot for a lot of guys. I know that when viewed in the historical context of how good it used to be it kills you guys to see what it’s become. I hadn’t hunted region 7 for nearly a decade but spent opening week there last year and this year hunting with friends. Compared to my normal experience hunting in region 3 it was a welcome change of pace. I’ll be back.
4. Any success in getting FWP to place some sort of regional caps on hunter numbers is probably not going to actually reduce hunters in regions 6 and 7. The reason why is that FWP is most likely going to use current numbers of hunters as the threshold or potentially base hunter numbers as a percentage of hunters to population of deer. When we looked at Hunters/Deer as a potential relationship to set regional caps across the state we found that eastern MT actually has a significantly lower Hunters/Deer ratio than the western half of the state.
5. Resident hunters from the western half of MT are a significant barrier to eastern residents desire for fewer hunters in their region. Some of the loudest opposition to our proposed season structure changes came from western guys who head east for their week long mule deer rut hunt. They weren’t trying to retain their ability to rut hunt mountain mule deer in regions 1,2,and 3. They didn’t want to lose the ability to hunt elk for the opening week on the west side and head east in mid-November to shoot a rutted up mule deer.
There’s some data points to consider. I don’t know how to fit them into a solution to produce older age class mule deer, general rut hunting on an OTC tag and less crowded public land but that some of what we’re working with.
