huntin24/7
Well-known member
Do you mean statewide for the general regions? Didn’t know about most not species specific. Thanks.
Montana Regional Caps and Limited Entry for Mule Deer.
- Thread starter Gerald Martin
- Start date
You guys have said this a couple of times now. How do you envision point sales making up any lost revenue, and would you show the math that you used to get there?
Also, While it may be fun in some circles to say that what the 9 guys have put together is an MCS proposal, it isn't. The MT Conservation Society doesn't have a position on any proposal for season setting at this time.
Our goal is to try and bring diverse interests together to have difficult conversations and try to find a common path forward. The season setting issue was one ion which we had critical mass between landowners, outfitters and hunters who were willing to sit down and try to do something.
The proposal from Gerald, Art, Chris, Jess, Sean, Justin, Robert, Eric and Rod is all theirs. We are just there to help facilitate the conversation and help provide information and institutional knowledge.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
I kind of like this idea.
One thing you will hear biologists say all the time when you propose a change, is that the pressure you remove in one HD will transfer to another. I've spoken to a few now whose decision rationale treat this as an unquestionable maxim, and I think it is true.
I'm not a fan of the idea of caps, nor LE as the only option to hunt mule deer. I would rather seasons be limited in their length, or time of year, before going to LE. Any change - be it going to LE or shortening a season, will need to be more than region wide less we kick the can down the road to the next region, and every goddamn district will fall like dominos. Another real danger of LE permits, is that they are easier to chip away at in terms of public opportunity. Just look at elk. LO preference takes a percentage, raw deals like the 454 program take another, and before you know it, of the total number of LE permits available over a span of years, the public may only have access to 80-ish% of them - less in some districts. Who knows what other access programs the legislature could come up with in the future to chip away at those further. LE defines the pool of opportunity in such a way that extracting those opportunities from Joe Public through different means becomes more concrete and accessible to policy makers.
I believe we can have opportunity and limit harvest - and the best method would be to shorten seasons or move them around a bit. I love the idea of more widespread weapon restriction areas - the ones I hunt can absorb a ton of pressure and still provide reasonably good opportunity - but I know that probably has less buy-in than the former.
tystash
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2012
- Messages
- 66
Don’t know if it’s been mentioned in all the numerous posts, but how about limiting the season to 3 weeks for Region 6 & 7 every other year. This would apply to R and NR. The seasons would have to match up in both or there would be a stampede to the other during rut hunting.
The same number of MD may get shot over the shorter season, but I would like to think more will make it through and might move the needle a little to help in recovery.
The same number of MD may get shot over the shorter season, but I would like to think more will make it through and might move the needle a little to help in recovery.
EHA's are additional (up to 10%) to the permits allocated for the public, so I don't believe they come out of the same pool as the LOP ones do.
huntin24/7
Well-known member
Part of region 6 was 3 weeks for several years. It actually worked very well. Much less landowner fatigue. 3 week of either sex with the same start date. There were two weeks of antlerless only season right after as well.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
Yes. I was careful to write the words "available over a span of years", because if LE permits are based on the resource and they are, there is no such thing as additional. Dead bull elk - be they killed on a typical LE permit or through EHAs in addition to the pool - are not counted next year in a survey and the amount of permits available is based on that or at least highly correlated to it.
Take 380 as an example. It's easy because for the last 3 years there's been 100 LE either-sex elk permits available each year.
300 permits available over that span - 45 (15%) of which go to LO preference (there may have been a year where the quota wasn't filled if I recall). I'm not at a computer to look at the stats, but hypothetically there are 10 additional permits per year available through the EHA program (I think last I looked there were 5-8 folks applying) For the sake of argument, let's say there were 5 a year. That's an additional 15 permits over that 3 year span. So 60 bull elk were hunted and most taken through LO or EHAs - or 19% of the bulls(315) hunted. That percentage could be higher if the EHAs were fully saturated. A lot of these scenarios would be dependent on land ownership in a given HD.
Now in the Elkhorns, the biologist is looking to reduce the amount of 380-20 permits to 75 this year - due to bull numbers. It's just not a mystery that over time, such programs can very much reduce the opportunity available to non-LOs. There's just no such thing as "in addition to" over the course of seasons, and I could imagine something similar occurring for mule deer.
Last edited:
I am not so sure that will solve the problem. It may only help to reduce the numbers taken if the season is shortened to below the current average hunter days. If the average hunter days per animal taken is 10 days with a season that is 60 days long, all you are doing is taking the same numbers of hunters and squeezing them into a shorter time-span. Doesn't change the number of hunters so likely won't alter the number of MD taken. Just increases the pressure for a somewhat shorter period of time. Rather than just hunting a couple of days mid-week or just the weekend, hunters will go out for 3-4 day stints (or longer).
Different problem to solve if MT residents really want to solve it. It is an argument about "who" gets to kill the last MD, not how to increase the number of MD in the field.
If the goal is to better manage the MD herd and increase population, you have three levers. Reduce opportunity (limit number of tags made available by hunting unit and sex), reduce exposure time (limit season duration drastically absent reducing tag numbers), or reduce success rates (limit weapons type, shooting distances, technology, etc.). Limiting weapons and/or technology may be the least effective as given sufficient time and pressure, folks will still a tag. MD can only hide for so long before the vast hordes find them. It may take the guy that shoots at 400 yds a few days extra to shoot at 150 or 200 yds, but he will still likely kill a deer unless he isn't there in the first place, or runs out of time while he is there. Just an outsiders view ....
What I appreciate most about you is that you bring data and facts to a discussion.
That, and your love of CFS.
Good stuff Bret. Thank you.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
Angina's forever!
JM77
Well-known member
Not sure what you mean. Residents do not have regions in Wyoming. We can hunt general areas statewide.
huntin24/7
Well-known member
Ok. I thought regions like g, h, etc pertained to residents too. My bad.
Frequently Banned Troll
Well-known member
Has anybody had the pleasure of reading the Sniveling Bitch Manifesto??
Thread 'MT Mule Deer - Sniveling Bitch Manifesto'
https://www.hunttalk.com/threads/mt-mule-deer-sniveling-bitch-manifesto.329618/
Thread 'MT Mule Deer - Sniveling Bitch Manifesto'
https://www.hunttalk.com/threads/mt-mule-deer-sniveling-bitch-manifesto.329618/
Frequently Banned Troll
Well-known member
Unlike Wyoming - Montana doesn’t have a clue.
The "mule deer problem" Montana hunters have is elusive and stochastic. Is the hunting bad? I don't really know. If it is then we should take note that FWP has checked public temperature on the subject and demonstrated that from 2011 to present "we" want bad hunting.
However, the squeaky wheels are getting loud enough after a few dry years that we are now on the precipice of a tweak. Why make the case for Limited Entry? I say because its not that scary and it sets up a sustainable, adaptive framework for us to flesh out what exactly we might all think is "good" enough deer hunting opportunity. The concern I hear about limited-entry makes an assumption that the quotas have to be conservative. Heck start with a tag quota of a billion tags, that will sustain some opportunity.
Moreover, If we sat down with a clean slate we might be focused on avoiding the tragedy of the commons. We would have a resource first focus. We may explore what we think would be ideal for the resource and then determine if that is palatable opportunity for us. Limited entry empowers our agencies to do the job we hired them to do by proposing our desired outcomes and setting up a licensing framework that allows for district, sex, and species-specific permits allowing for targeted and adaptive management toward measurable, biological goals. I find this approach logical, sustainable (socially & biologically), and it moves the focus of the public to argue and compromise over the difficult task of deciding on the measurable outcomes the agencies should be managing towards. What exactly do we want to manage mule deer for? Argue about average age of harvest, body fat percentage, habitat condition, buck to doe ratios etc.
Those are the leadership questions that FWP needs answered from the public to establish management direction. Instead, nearly all collaborative think-tanking attempts arrive at intricate little tweaks to management techniques that make me and you feel zero concern over our ability to put a mule deer buck in the freezer every fall.... a good litmus test if we are wondering about a proposal's capacity for change.
However, the squeaky wheels are getting loud enough after a few dry years that we are now on the precipice of a tweak. Why make the case for Limited Entry? I say because its not that scary and it sets up a sustainable, adaptive framework for us to flesh out what exactly we might all think is "good" enough deer hunting opportunity. The concern I hear about limited-entry makes an assumption that the quotas have to be conservative. Heck start with a tag quota of a billion tags, that will sustain some opportunity.
Moreover, If we sat down with a clean slate we might be focused on avoiding the tragedy of the commons. We would have a resource first focus. We may explore what we think would be ideal for the resource and then determine if that is palatable opportunity for us. Limited entry empowers our agencies to do the job we hired them to do by proposing our desired outcomes and setting up a licensing framework that allows for district, sex, and species-specific permits allowing for targeted and adaptive management toward measurable, biological goals. I find this approach logical, sustainable (socially & biologically), and it moves the focus of the public to argue and compromise over the difficult task of deciding on the measurable outcomes the agencies should be managing towards. What exactly do we want to manage mule deer for? Argue about average age of harvest, body fat percentage, habitat condition, buck to doe ratios etc.
Those are the leadership questions that FWP needs answered from the public to establish management direction. Instead, nearly all collaborative think-tanking attempts arrive at intricate little tweaks to management techniques that make me and you feel zero concern over our ability to put a mule deer buck in the freezer every fall.... a good litmus test if we are wondering about a proposal's capacity for change.
Last edited:
You guys have a rare opportunity to make a lasting change, and you can try something no state has done before.
Since the majority want to hunt every year and the ability to hunt late, give them both, but with restrictions. They get their pick of only one of 3 tag options.
Tag 1: get a Mule deer buck tag every year, but this tag option season ends on October 31st every year.
Tag 2: get 2 total Mule deer buck tags in a 3 year period of time. Those two buck tags can be used to shoot 2 bucks in 3 years. This tag holder gets to hunt until November 7th every year or until their 2nd tag is filled. If they fill 2 tags in the first 2 years, then they need to sit the 3rd year out.
Tag 3: get 2 total Mule deer buck tags in a 5 year period of time. But these tag holders get to hunt until November 28th or whatever the end has traditionally been.
Mainly, the incentive here is to reduce take of bucks while leaving choice of opportunity and season dates on the table.
Additional incentive for the Tag 2 tier guys, if they don’t have any buck tags filled in the first 2 years, then they can extend their season until the November 28th on the 3rd and final year, and take one buck.
Since the majority want to hunt every year and the ability to hunt late, give them both, but with restrictions. They get their pick of only one of 3 tag options.
Tag 1: get a Mule deer buck tag every year, but this tag option season ends on October 31st every year.
Tag 2: get 2 total Mule deer buck tags in a 3 year period of time. Those two buck tags can be used to shoot 2 bucks in 3 years. This tag holder gets to hunt until November 7th every year or until their 2nd tag is filled. If they fill 2 tags in the first 2 years, then they need to sit the 3rd year out.
Tag 3: get 2 total Mule deer buck tags in a 5 year period of time. But these tag holders get to hunt until November 28th or whatever the end has traditionally been.
Mainly, the incentive here is to reduce take of bucks while leaving choice of opportunity and season dates on the table.
Additional incentive for the Tag 2 tier guys, if they don’t have any buck tags filled in the first 2 years, then they can extend their season until the November 28th on the 3rd and final year, and take one buck.
antlerradar
Well-known member
Interesting idea. I kind of like it, but I worry that too many people would just not cut their tag. Not that it doesn't happen now though.
I would add one thing to make up for the loss of revenue. Tag 1, same price. Tag 2, double the price. Tag 3, triple the price.
Would also need to figure out how we would treat whitetail, has the potential to shift too much pressure to whitetail
Pucky Freak
Well-known member
Different idea:
-Region 6&7, and low elevation units in other regions are resident OTC with Oct 31 season close. General NR draw, with separate pool for private property outfitted clients. True PP system.
-Western region/high elevation is LQ, draw only, Oct 31 season close. Lower elevation adjacent wintering areas are included as part of these units. Resident and NR bonus point only; NR do not need to draw general deer. Resident can exchange general deer tag if they draw a LQ tag.
-Heritage season is LQ statewide.
Rationale:
-Any resident can take a forkie in E MT if they so choose.
-Low density mountain hunts provide a quality hunt opportunity.
-Eastern MT outfitters have a steady client flow, but not such a share as to shut down BM contracts.
-LQ tags remove congestion by removing those hunters from also hunting general tag.
-Region 6&7, and low elevation units in other regions are resident OTC with Oct 31 season close. General NR draw, with separate pool for private property outfitted clients. True PP system.
-Western region/high elevation is LQ, draw only, Oct 31 season close. Lower elevation adjacent wintering areas are included as part of these units. Resident and NR bonus point only; NR do not need to draw general deer. Resident can exchange general deer tag if they draw a LQ tag.
-Heritage season is LQ statewide.
Rationale:
-Any resident can take a forkie in E MT if they so choose.
-Low density mountain hunts provide a quality hunt opportunity.
-Eastern MT outfitters have a steady client flow, but not such a share as to shut down BM contracts.
-LQ tags remove congestion by removing those hunters from also hunting general tag.
Similar threads
