Montana mule deer

[Rack Daniels]

I said I wouldn’t be back due to arguing. Just thought I’d leave this here for people to argue about. Baby buck on public. They don’t get big here. 6x4 probably 30” tall. Pinnacles not much mass but not a unicorn. Hold out for a slammer and you’ll find one. Believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see on here. Good luck all…

 

[Trap]

Genetics certainly play a role in determining how big a buck will be at the age of his greatest potential.

Reality is that most bucks in MT would never make 180 or more inches if they lived to be ten years old.

However, the other reality is that even fewer bucks will be 180 or more when the vast majority of them are killed by age 4 1/2.

I am just guessing at percentages here but I bet less than 5% of Montana bucks live past age 5.

Imagine what kind of quality hunting we would have if 20% of Montana bucks would be 5 years or older.

I had the privilege of archery hunting in Alberta nearly ten years ago. We were only ten miles from the MT border but the quality of bucks was amazing. Numbers of deer weren’t that much higher but quality was.

The unit we were hunting was OTC for archery and only 45 rifle tags.

I agree with everything you said. My only point is I don’t think the mule deer have the genetics or something? to grow really big. I don’t think Montana lacks habitat at all. I mentioned minerals just as something limiting horn growth possibly, there is more habitat than actual deer at this point. I agree with adjustments for mule deer rifle seasons. I think they should leave the season for whitetail as is. I appreciate everyone’s input. I guess it’s something I wondered about since I was a kid. Seemed like we were shooting mature bucks but never consistently had opportunities at 180 or better type deer. Where in other states similar aged deer just seemed to be on average bigger and thicker in the horn department. Thanks for the feedback and I think Montana should adjust mule deer season at this time. Too many new resident hunters every year to continue the free for all on mule deer. Non resident hunters at this point can be and are limited but there needs to be limits on the residents as everyone keeps migrating there. I have been an out of stater for 28 years so my input might not be that valuable. We still go back and hunt most years with family in Montana. Idaho has the same problem too many new resident hunters every year to just keep things the same. It’s hard to give up opportunities but eventually we have too

 

[Gerald Martin]

These bucks probably aren’t any older than some in the prior video, but they are the select few who reached their genetic potential because a lot of deer in their area reached maturity.

 

[R.K.]

I'll admit that I grew up in the Midwest, and my first deer hunt in MT I killed the buck you see in my profile. I didn't think it was a giant, but thought it was a respectable buck. Now, after this thread, I'm not so sure.

I would love to find a good, mature mule deer this fall. But unfortunately, I think I'll have better luck trying to find a good whitetail instead. Anywhere I've been that's a reasonable trip that looks like it would hold a good buck is loaded with people (foot, horse, ATV), and I'm just not that experienced at finding them. Not sure I've seen a live or dead one that was over 3 years old, either.

So I'm torn- do I invest a bunch of my limited time & miles into trying to learn mule deer, and find out-of-the-way places (whether way back, or just overlooked) to get one? Or do I abandon the search for a Montana unicorn and go after a decent whitetail instead? Logic tells me to stay low and chase whitetail, but there's a nagging in the back of my head that makes me want to go into that nasty terrain to see if I can find what everybody else hasn't.

 

[antlerradar]

I agree with everything you said. My only point is I don’t think the mule deer have the genetics or something? to grow really big. I don’t think Montana lacks habitat at all. I mentioned minerals just as something limiting horn growth possibly, there is more habitat than actual deer at this point. I agree with adjustments for mule deer rifle seasons. I think they should leave the season for whitetail as is. I appreciate everyone’s input. I guess it’s something I wondered about since I was a kid. Seemed like we were shooting mature bucks but never consistently had opportunities at 180 or better type deer. Where in other states similar aged deer just seemed to be on average bigger and thicker in the horn department. Thanks for the feedback and I think Montana should adjust mule deer season at this time. Too many new resident hunters every year to continue the free for all on mule deer. Non resident hunters at this point can be and are limited but there needs to be limits on the residents as everyone keeps migrating there. I have been an out of stater for 28 years so my input might not be that valuable. We still go back and hunt most years with family in Montana. Idaho has the same problem too many new resident hunters every year to just keep things the same. It’s hard to give up opportunities but eventually we have too

I also agreed with Gerald and will try to expand on it.
All bucks have a potential that is likely fixed by the end of there first year of life. By potential, I mean the size of there antlers at age six. Once a deer reaches age 6 antler improvement/regression is minimal until the buck is on his way out and those bucks rarely live another year. If you were to graph the six year old antler potential of all two year old bucks you are going to get a nice bell curve. Were I live, I think that the peak of the curve is some were in the 160's B&C. Say 165 for the math. This means that for every young buck that at age 6 will score over 180 there is another buck that will not break 150. This does not mean that if you were to score all the 6 year old deer taken in MT in a year the average score would be 165. Bucks at the top of the bell curve are will often score better than 165 at age three, bucks at the bottom of the bell curve are just never very big.
Montana has a long season that runs the entire rut and then some. This allows hunters in Montana to be very selective and many of us of course select the buck with the best antlers we can find. A buck with the potential to grow 200 inch antler is passed by almost no one starting at age 3 and the counter part on the bell curve that will never grow antlers better than 130 is likely to be let go by many even when he is old. In Montana with the long rut season this means that very few bucks with top end potential ever get past 4 years old and most of the top end buck that do are most likely spending most of there time in places that are off limits.
Trap, I think you may be right that other places my have a bit better genetics, As in those places bell cure peaks at most 5 inches better than Montana's. I would caution you in that you can not compare older bucks taken of the same age from different places and make the definitive claim the place with the bigger deer has better genetics. Better genetics may be the reason, but it could also be that the hunters in the place with the smaller bucks are just better at selecting out the top end bucks at a younger age. In Montana's case I lean more towards we are good at selecting. Montana has good genetics, maybe not quite as good as Colorado, but far better potential than the type of deer we are currently taking. The buck below had the best potential of any buck I have ever seen. He is four years old in the picture and grosses 194. As a three year old he was likely better than 180 (antlers are broken up so I can not be sure) He did not make five, If he had lived to six I am confident he would have been well
over two hundred.

 

[antlerradar]

Question: What about draw units? I only have appreciable experience with 380 (living in Helena), and don't do much scouting in western or eastern MT, outside of driving around for work. Do the draw units in those places have more quality bucks than the OTC units around them?

Look at my post on the antler potential bell curve. If you take a unit, cut the tag numbers in half, but the tag holders are now almost exclusively targeting the bucks on the top end of the bell curve, you are not going to grow many truly big deer.

 

[El Jason]

Look at my post on the antler potential bell curve. If you take a unit, cut the tag numbers in half, but the tag holders are now almost exclusively targeting the bucks on the top end of the bell curve, you are not going to grow many truly big deer.

I think the Beartooth WMA is a good example of this.

 

[Trap]

I also agreed with Gerald and will try to expand on it.
All bucks have a potential that is likely fixed by the end of there first year of life. By potential, I mean the size of there antlers at age six. Once a deer reaches age 6 antler improvement/regression is minimal until the buck is on his way out and those bucks rarely live another year. If you were to graph the six year old antler potential of all two year old bucks you are going to get a nice bell curve. Were I live, I think that the peak of the curve is some were in the 160's B&C. Say 165 for the math. This means that for every young buck that at age 6 will score over 180 there is another buck that will not break 150. This does not mean that if you were to score all the 6 year old deer taken in MT in a year the average score would be 165. Bucks at the top of the bell curve are will often score better than 165 at age three, bucks at the bottom of the bell curve are just never very big.
Montana has a long season that runs the entire rut and then some. This allows hunters in Montana to be very selective and many of us of course select the buck with the best antlers we can find. A buck with the potential to grow 200 inch antler is passed by almost no one starting at age 3 and the counter part on the bell curve that will never grow antlers better than 130 is likely to be let go by many even when he is old. In Montana with the long rut season this means that very few bucks with top end potential ever get past 4 years old and most of the top end buck that do are most likely spending most of there time in places that are off limits.
Trap, I think you may be right that other places my have a bit better genetics, As in those places bell cure peaks at most 5 inches better than Montana's. I would caution you in that you can not compare older bucks taken of the same age from different places and make the definitive claim the place with the bigger deer has better genetics. Better genetics may be the reason, but it could also be that the hunters in the place with the smaller bucks are just better at selecting out the top end bucks at a younger age. In Montana's case I lean more towards we are good at selecting. Montana has good genetics, maybe not quite as good as Colorado, but far better potential than the type of deer we are currently taking. The buck below has the best potential of any buck I have ever seen. He is four years old in the picture and grosses 194. As a three year old he was likely better than 180 (antlers are broken up so I can not be sure) He did not make five, If he had lived to six I am confident he would have been well
over two hundred.

I agree with you too I have just been having that genetics argument in my head for 30 years. Ha ha. I’m on the same page with most posters just a question on genetics or some other factors possibly that I wanted to put out there. Really good feedback, I appreciate it. Makes sense that if superior genetics get shot as 3 max 4 year olds hunters could be selecting the best genetics OUT of the pool. I think that’s what you were saying. Thanks for the information that might be the answer to my question

 

[texwest44]

I get the point of hunters only selecting the top 50% of antler size, but how consistent is that strategy among us? I only ask because I don't do that by a long shot. I'm definitely a meat guy, and antlers rank somewhere after how hard is it to get in and out, and how far away he is. Something tells me the masses of truck hunters and Thanksgiving weekend hunters aren't exactly hunting down the b&c big boys, either. Whatever's big enough to get that 50 or more pounds of meat in the freezer is the lucky winner of the day. This is also probably a part of the problem, I imagine. :/

 

[timmy]

I get the point of hunters only selecting the top 50% of antler size, but how consistent is that strategy among us? I only ask because I don't do that by a long shot. I'm definitely a meat guy, and antlers rank somewhere after how hard is it to get in and out, and how far away he is. Something tells me the masses of truck hunters and Thanksgiving weekend hunters aren't exactly hunting down the b&c big boys, either. Whatever's big enough to get that 50 or more pounds of meat in the freezer is the lucky winner of the day. This is also probably a part of the problem, I imagine. :/

It’s not hard to shoot a deer in October and keep plenty of hunters in the field. A healthy deer herd has all spectrums of age class and unless you look to private you don’t get to see it in Montana.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I get the point of hunters only selecting the top 50% of antler size, but how consistent is that strategy among us? I only ask because I don't do that by a long shot. I'm definitely a meat guy, and antlers rank somewhere after how hard is it to get in and out, and how far away he is. Something tells me the masses of truck hunters and Thanksgiving weekend hunters aren't exactly hunting down the b&c big boys, either. Whatever's big enough to get that 50 or more pounds of meat in the freezer is the lucky winner of the day. This is also probably a part of the problem, I imagine. :/

Reasons for hunting aren’t really the most relevant factor when the end result is too many bucks are being shot.
Too many die too early for there to be a good percentage of mature bucks. It’s pretty simple.

Getting Montana FWP and hunters to exercise some restraint in harvest is the complex problem.

 

[huntin24/7]

Another thing I think that happens in my part of the state where there was a 3 week season that has since changed to 5 is that a lot of guys shoot those young nice looking up and comer bucks when they’re 2-3 years old instead of shooting the first buck they saw back when there was less time. There used to be a lot more of those forky and small-average 3 points shot. Now every 2 year old with nice forks is dead meat on public. It’s amazing in the time since the season changed about 8 years ago how many 3 point bucks there are and how rarely you see a buck over 2 years old with nice forks on block/public.

 

[antlerradar]

I get the point of hunters only selecting the top 50% of antler size, but how consistent is that strategy among us? I only ask because I don't do that by a long shot. I'm definitely a meat guy, and antlers rank somewhere after how hard is it to get in and out, and how far away he is. Something tells me the masses of truck hunters and Thanksgiving weekend hunters aren't exactly hunting down the b&c big boys, either. Whatever's big enough to get that 50 or more pounds of meat in the freezer is the lucky winner of the day. This is also probably a part of the problem, I imagine. :/

While there are plenty of hunters that are meat guy's, I would argue that very few are only meat guys.(people that shoot the first legal buck that offers an ethical shot). Hunters pass on deer for reasons other than antler size. Maybe they just want to spend more time in the field, maybe they don't want to pack a three point out of the canyon. On the other hand if that 170 three year old steps out most people are shooting first day, first light, any place.
Compare Montana's five week season to Colorado were hunters have seasons closer to a week long. A hunter in Colorado is feeling he same fill the tag pressure on day one that a hunter in Montana feels 3 1/2 to 4 weeks in to the season. In Montana we can afford to be trophy hunters the first four weeks and then become a meat hunter the last week and put one in the freezer. This shifts pressure onto the bucks in the bigger part of the bell curve.
Same happens with our generous doe tags. A hunter can put a few does in the freezer and then look for a trophy. Again this makes it more likely that if the hunter fills his A tag it will be a young buck with good genetics.

 

[timmy]

While there are plenty of hunters that are meat guy's, I would argue that very few are only meat guys.(people that shoot the first legal buck that offers an ethical shot). Hunters pass on deer for reasons other than antler size. Maybe they just want to spend more time in the field, maybe they don't want to pack a three point out of the canyon. On the other hand if that 170 three year old steps out most people are shooting first day, first light, any place.
Compare Montana's five week season to Colorado were hunters have seasons closer to a week long. A hunter in Colorado is feeling he same fill the tag pressure on day one that a hunter in Montana feels 3 1/2 to 4 weeks in to the season. In Montana we can afford to be trophy hunters the first four weeks and then become a meat hunter the last week and put one in the freezer. This shifts pressure onto the bucks in the bigger part of the bell curve.
Same happens with out generous doe tags. A hunter can put a few does in the freezer and then look for a trophy. Again this makes it more likely that if the hunter fills his A tag it will be a young buck with good genetics.

Very well said and true. The majority of Montana hunters can’t see this or don’t care.

 

[antlerradar]

I said I wouldn’t be back due to arguing. Just thought I’d leave this here for people to argue about. Baby buck on public. They don’t get big here. 6x4 probably 30” tall. Pinnacles not much mass but not a unicorn. Hold out for a slammer and you’ll find one. Believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see on here. Good luck all…

That is a nice buck. But 30 tall. I hear the 30 inch tall number all the time. The tallest buck I have ever seen has G2's that average just under 20 inches. From the bottom of the burr to the tip of the tallest tine is just over 24 inches. I have better than 25 antlers with G2's better than 18 inches long. I just measured them. From the bottom of the burr to the tallest tine, most are in the 21-23 inch range, only two are a bit over 25 inches. Maybe I am measuring wrong. Can some one please explain to me how to measure how tall a mule deer is?

 

[Wildabeest]

That is a nice buck. But 30 tall. I have hear the 30 inch tall number all the time. The tallest buck I have ever seen has G2's that average just under 20 inches. From the bottom of the burr to the tip of the tallest tine is just over 24 inches. I have better than 25 antlers with G2's better than 18 inches long. I just measured them. From the bottom of the burr to the tallest tine, most are in the 21-23 inch range, only two are a bit over 25 inches. Maybe I am measuring wrong. Can some one please explain to me how to measure how tall a mule deer is?

Start at the bottom of the front hoof.

 

[antlerradar]

I said I wouldn’t be back due to arguing. Just thought I’d leave this here for people to argue about. Baby buck on public. They don’t get big here. 6x4 probably 30” tall. Pinnacles not much mass but not a unicorn. Hold out for a slammer and you’ll find one. Believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see on here. Good luck all…

I don't want to be arguing, But is that a public land alfalfa field?

 

[520 Road Sow]

Everyone wondering how to measure the definition of a "slammer" there is it folks. 30 inches tall.

 

[texwest44]

I'm playing out the scenario in my head of one day FWP coming into work and saying, "that's it, this rifle season thing we do for 5 weeks is out of control. Let's bring it down to 10 days!" and then somehow they actually manage to implement this new rule. This would be a good week to also play the lottery.

How long would it take to start seeing "results", in this case being able to see/shoot big ol' muleys on public land with some consistency? I'm not going to assert myself an expert with MT hunters, but wasn't there a poll done by FWP where the majority of hunters just wanted a deer, and they didn't care about age class? Wouldn't that mindset in and of itself need to some evolving? What stops people from killing the same kind of deer in the same amounts, but stretching it over a week instead of a month?

I only ask because I can't get over the idea that "the reason and/or how people hunt" is a large deciding factor into how the herds are able to exist in this state. If FWP puts out a 10 day rifle season, why would this encourage people to pass on younger deer, rather than pressure them into taking them home because they know the odds of that big one in such a short time frame are so low? Maybe y'all are hanging out with some very ethical hunters, but I can tell you the ones I know are basically all weekend warriors who wouldn't switch up their deer selection strategy based on a shortening of the season - they'd just make sure to get some time off to go get their 3.5yo deer from the farm or the woods.

Would other restrictions need to be put in place rather than just time frame restrictions? Tag allotment changes, weapons restrictions, moving the date for opening/closing, etc? I feel like compounding the restrictions with other things like that would be the only way to really see a change in the deer herds in MT within, like, a 20 year window of time.

 

[antlerradar]

I'm playing out the scenario in my head of one day FWP coming into work and saying, "that's it, this rifle season thing we do for 5 weeks is out of control. Let's bring it down to 10 days!" and then somehow they actually manage to implement this new rule. This would be a good week to also play the lottery.

How long would it take to start seeing "results", in this case being able to see/shoot big ol' muleys on public land with some consistency? I'm not going to assert myself an expert with MT hunters, but wasn't there a poll done by FWP where the majority of hunters just wanted a deer, and they didn't care about age class? Wouldn't that mindset in and of itself need to some evolving? What stops people from killing the same kind of deer in the same amounts, but stretching it over a week instead of a month?

I only ask because I can't get over the idea that "the reason and/or how people hunt" is a large deciding factor into how the herds are able to exist in this state. If FWP puts out a 10 day rifle season, why would this encourage people to pass on younger deer, rather than pressure them into taking them home because they know the odds of that big one in such a short time frame are so low? Maybe y'all are hanging out with some very ethical hunters, but I can tell you the ones I know are basically all weekend warriors who wouldn't switch up their deer selection strategy based on a shortening of the season - they'd just make sure to get some time off to go get their 3.5yo deer from the farm or the woods.

Would other restrictions need to be put in place rather than just time frame restrictions? Tag allotment changes, weapons restrictions, moving the date for opening/closing, etc? I feel like compounding the restrictions with other things like that would be the only way to really see a change in the deer herds in MT within, like, a 20 year window of time.

I think there are plenty of hunters out there just like you, and there is nothing wrong with that.
Three things.

Polling opportunity is like polling six year olds about ice cream. Near 100% approval. Once you get a little older and you realize that the trade off for going to DQ is extra padding on the midsection the poll numbers are going to drop. I still love ice cream though and I want opportunity, but the cost of the opportunity we currently enjoy is steep in terms of quality and commercialization.

The key to growing bigger deer is not so much about passing young deer as it is getting people to shoot more of the bucks in the bottom of the bell curve.

I don't think any one is talking about a single 10 day season.