Montana Regional Caps and Limited Entry for Mule Deer.

[Forkyfinder]

View attachment 376791
And.here. we. go.
Didn’t take long to get back to “the problem is the NR hunters.” Until this mindset changes to one of it being a management issue by FWP, y’all are just rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship. Go ahead and charge more money, reduce NR tags, AZ model,etc.

Who’s going to be left to blame when there’s nothing left but Montanans fighting over the last few MD?

As has been said here before, just look next door. Wyoming has a model that could be adopted that would provide LE, general, and $ from NR.
The big difference is Wyoming actively manages their MD.

The problem isn’t how to do it. @cgasner1 is right. No one is willing to give anything up.

I’m out. Good luck to you guys.

Is this due to @DFS comment?

 

[brockel]

View attachment 376791
And.here. we. go.
Didn’t take long to get back to “the problem is the NR hunters.” Until this mindset changes to one of it being a management issue by FWP, y’all are just rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship. Go ahead and charge more money, reduce NR tags, AZ model,etc.

Who’s going to be left to blame when there’s nothing left but Montanans fighting over the last few MD?

As has been said here before, just look next door. Wyoming has a model that could be adopted that would provide LE, general, and $ from NR.
The big difference is Wyoming actively manages their MD.

The problem isn’t how to do it. @cgasner1 is right. No one is willing to give anything up.

I’m out. Good luck to you guys.

Residents would also be LE so it’s not just the NR taking the hit.

 

[Carnage2011]

These mule deer season threads are great entertainment. Lots of ideas and lots of “reasons” against them.

The only way to improve mule deer quality in MT is to limit harvest. Whether that be through tag numbers, weapon restrictions, or some other method, someone will always be pissed about their “loss of opportunity.”

I keep reading that the current proposals aren’t due to wanting more mature deer. I’m not buying it…if the average hunter in MT could find a 4-6 year old buck on any given day, we wouldn’t be having these conversations.

Let’s call a spade a spade here. Montana is likely headed to full LE at some point in the next 20-40 years. It’s not our responsibility to come up with how that looks…that’s FWP’s job. We can come up with “cute” ideas for how to adjust our current 6 month war on wildlife, but by trying to appease everyone, nothing meaningful will improve.

 

[Alpine01]

I agree.
To your point though, I see this as a situation that requires a third option. Strictly LE or regional caps might not get the support needed without an option for guys to get a general tag. I think there needs to be general tag areas that are basically a free for all, for lack of better description.

Per the bolded text - why?

I see this as the crux of the issue. CO is LE for all deer, all seasons and unit specific for R's and NR's. Certainly easier to manage herd populations by restricting opportunities if the goal is to take pressure off a declining herd. I am not saying this is the cure all, CO has declining deer populations as well but a lot of that is due to habitat loss, disease, and in the case of the 2022-2023 winter, heavy snowfalls. Harvest rates are down (in terms of % success) in part due to too many hunters in the field (deer plus 2nd and 3rd OTC elk hunters) so pressure is having an impact on success rates. But CO deer populations have been mostly stable after the 2005-2010 decline. Good, but not great. I would prefer to see the habitat issue worked to increase the total herd size while keeping the opportunity side controlled until the population is closer to the objective level.

 

[Gerald Martin]

These mule deer season threads are great entertainment. Lots of ideas and lots of “reasons” against them.

The only way to improve mule deer quality in MT is to limit harvest. Whether that be through tag numbers, weapon restrictions, or some other method, someone will always be pissed about their “loss of opportunity.”

I keep reading that the current proposals aren’t due to wanting more mature deer. I’m not buying it…if the average hunter in MT could find a 4-6 year old buck on any given day, we wouldn’t be having these conversations.

Let’s call a spade a spade here. Montana is likely headed to full LE at some point in the next 20-40 years. It’s not our responsibility to come up with how that looks…that’s FWP’s job. We can come up with “cute” ideas for how to adjust our current 6 month war on wildlife, but by trying to appease everyone, nothing meaningful will improve.

I really don’t disagree with much of what you said. Even though that’s FWP’s job, until hunters get them to understand we want change they have their surveys and an entrenched mentality that while not great, things are still working.

I do see a shift in openness over the past couple of years to recognize that change needs to happen and perhaps hunters coming forward with specific changes they want to see is what it takes to get the ball rolling.

Just as importantly to getting meaningful biological change implemented is changing the paradigm of hunters in MT to accept that the status quo isn’t working and that we can have better hunting or at least maintain as much opportunity as we can by reducing pressure on the resource.

I don’t see big changes happening without little changes happening first.

 

[Elktrack]

Per the bolded text - why?

Because without the ability for R to have a general tag option it will never get the support it needs to make the changes. As has been pointed out, too many people don’t give a damn about what’s best as long as they get their “opportunity “ .

 

[Forkyfinder]

Because without the ability for R to have a general tag option it will never get the support it needs to make the changes. As has been pointed out, too many people don’t give a damn about what’s best as long as they get their “opportunity “ .

I dont find that to be true.

I think residents want proper resource prioritization - and if theres a necessary reduction in opportunity think that NR should have less opportunity more dramatically or first than NR. Thats not out of line within the framework of how things are already set up.

Limited entry on the rut hunting season does just that.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I dont find that to be true.

I think residents want proper resource prioritization - and if theres a necessary reduction in opportunity think that NR should have less opportunity more dramatically or first than NR. Thats not out of line within the framework of how things are already set up.

Limited entry on the rut hunting season does just that.

Welcome to the Internet.

Wear nomex.

 

[cgasner1]

I dont find that to be true.

I think residents want proper resource prioritization - and if theres a necessary reduction in opportunity think that NR should have less opportunity more dramatically or first than NR. Thats not out of line within the framework of how things are already set up.

Limited entry on the rut hunting season does just that.

To bad no one has the testicular fortitude to bring one forward to the public. Kinda makes you look like a crazy man rambling on about le this and le that

 

[Forkyfinder]

Welcome to the Internet.

Wear nomex.

youve been gone too long if you think this is the first potential forky roast

 

[Gerald Martin]

youve been gone too long if you think this is the first potential forky roast

If we’re roasting Forky, how big is the neck?

 

[Alpine01]

Because without the ability for R to have a general tag option it will never get the support it needs to make the changes. As has been pointed out, too many people don’t give a damn about what’s best as long as they get their “opportunity “ .

Doing the right thing isn't usually the easy thing.

 

[Forkyfinder]

If we’re roasting Forky, how big is the neck?

I'll report back - should be able to tell you after my visit to seven blackfoot.

 

[El Jason]

Ben - the same survey says Montanans want to continue rut hunting.

You should read this every time you have the thought of folks willingly sacrificing for the betterment of the resource.

 

[Forkyfinder]

You should read this every time you have the thought of folks willingly sacrificing for the betterment of the resource.

You have a point i am missing?

 

[El Jason]

You have a point i am missing?

I don’t know. You tell me if you’re missing it.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I don’t know. You tell me if you’re missing it.

If your point is that LE isnt compatible with what montana hunters what - I am missing it.

That points true about every proposal ive heard of.

 

[Deleted member 16864]

FWP will eventually have to move to an LE draw for mule deer and limit the seasons. We can’t be the “opportunity” state of the west and expect things to get better.

 

[Big Sky Guy]

View attachment 376791
And.here. we. go.
Didn’t take long to get back to “the problem is the NR hunters.” Until this mindset changes to one of it being a management issue by FWP, y’all are just rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship. Go ahead and charge more money, reduce NR tags, AZ model,etc.

Who’s going to be left to blame when there’s nothing left but Montanans fighting over the last few MD?

As has been said here before, just look next door. Wyoming has a model that could be adopted that would provide LE, general, and $ from NR.
The big difference is Wyoming actively manages their MD.

The problem isn’t how to do it. @cgasner1 is right. No one is willing to give anything up.

I’m out. Good luck to you guys.

This has been my thought now for several years. Wyoming, Idaho and Colorado all have what most would consider better quality mule deer hunting. It's not like the wheel needs to be re-invented or there aren't already structures in place that work in similar landscapes. I get there are differences in all of these states, but there are also similarities, especially if you leave out CO as it's the outlier as far as resident population. Also always seemed odd to me Wyoming has half or more less people than Montana but the hunting is more restrictive.

I am literally willing to try about anything for a period of 4-5 years. Shorten the season, limit the tags, pick a unit/region, pick a species, whatever. Would just like FWP wildlife biologists to have strong leadership, a commission that will work with them and state, "we are doing X because of Y to accomplish Z." If after 4-5 years the goals aren't being met, re-evaluate and change and go for another 4-5 years.

Thank you to all involved for your continued efforts. At this point if just one meaningful change happens to the regulations I will consider your efforts a success (and there will be many more, perhaps majority, of Montana hunters who will think you ruined their HeriTaGe!).

 

[Gerald Martin]

His point is that no one wants to give up anything that they think of as their opportunity even it it means they get something better in the end. Everyone wants someone else to make the sacrifice.

That was the gist of my comment earlier about not wanting an expansion of LE in other parts of the state and the folks who don’t draw a tag pouring into the fewer general areas as a result.

MT already has a lot of LE districts. The general units can’t sustain the law of diminishing returns with the pressure we already have. Adding more LE units and still letting folks who don’t draw go hunt general units would ensure those general units would get decimated even more than they are.

Folks in 6 and 7 are passionate about the increase in pressure over there. What’s to say folks in the rest of the state aren’t just as passionate about preventing more pressure in their region?