Montana - Time to Shake it Up?

[MTTW]

People, resident and nonresident hunt the east because they like to see deer when they are deer hunting. It is pretty simple really. I hunt about 5 units here in the sw, if they come here to hunt deer it will likely only be once.

I could leave right now and go to an eastern unit and see more publicly accessible mule deer by dark tonight than I have seen in 30 days of hunting this fall.

 

[sclancy27]

What’s crazy to me is that 2 biologists with the exact same degree from the exact same university, but on different sides of an imaginary state boundary line, would have such different views on what is best for mule deer. You step one foot to the south, can only shoot them Oct 1-Oct 15, step one foot to the north, unlimited opportunity to hammer them through the rut with high powered rifles for 5 weeks and then a muzzleloader after that. Shows how little of it is actually based on what’s best for the resource. If I was the biologist to the north, I think I would feel pretty useless, or feel like a sellout for having to try to justify current management when a short drive south shows things working a lot better for the species.

And yet, those deer populations to the south are just as shitty.

 

[Mtn-time]

Because we'd be the first state to ever have simultaneous seasons..

If what you're pointing out is people shooting animals illegally and leaving them to lie- frankly there isn't a season structure that is going to fix bad ethics, poaching, or failure to be aware of the regs.

If you're worried about people losing meat on their 200lb mule deer they shot with their rifle, I'd be curious how you feel about August 15 shoulder season cow elk hunts... with a rifle.

I think they are at tool to haze elk out of hayfields with the target being "Antlerless". Not too many folks participate in them.

 

[Eric Albus]

@Ben Lamb I’d like to see the public be able to attend. We don’t particularly need crowd participation as that would most like end up in a fisticuff situation. The public should be allowed to comment briefly at the end. You never know who might have an idea worth hearing.

 

[Eric Albus]

Figure out how many non residents each region can handle. Take that number divided by 5 for each of the 5 weeks of general season. Make them apply for one of the 5 weeks of season. If drawn give the opportunity to purchase an archery permit that allows their general tag to be used during the archery season. Would spread out the pressure over the whole season vs the last 2 weeks or season being packed

Not the worst idea I’ve ever heard

 

[Eric Albus]

More to it than just travel. There sure has been a lot of Washington and Oregon plates in SE MT recently.

Try coming north…R6 Wa plates outnumber R by a LOT. Most of the local hunters I know have quit on account of to many NR and out of county (western Mt hunters) showing up.

 

[Sytes]

out of county (western Mt hunters) showing up.

I resemble that remark! Hah! R1 Flathead 7 plate thankfully cloaked behind an RMEF plate one year hunting out that direction.

We lost our little corner public land location (P-burg area R2) due to a mass showing of WA plates, stock, ATVs,etc. it was as though a caravan arrived.

Next year we arrived early (2 typical camp spot), met our "usual" neighbor hunt group that we've enjoyed over a decade meeting - low key location. Always good to merge one or the other camp fire rambling.

In, arrives the caravan and they made a massive presence. One of the neighbor hunters almost turned into a fight though de-escalated.

Sad to say, I've not returned. Not worth hassling the time typically desired to enjoy.

We tried another area in the general vicinity though our of state and county plates at BMAs/public land points have reshaped the years learning the area.

Is what it is though county and NRs are the norm to account in many areas.

****

1.) R and NR Likely a tough sell though for sake of regulating/manage harvest/pressure, I would be sold on the idea of "general tag" set for three district choices - group option for district allocation, etc.

2.) As for Regions and more specific districts within...
R1 needs to turn Limited tags for elk for most, if not all R1. Including the Bob, Ten Lakes (WSA), and Cabinets.
All good, IMO, to ensure tag allocation is able to fulfill outfitter and individual hunting though no spike/limited cow / bulls, and limited buck WT and muleys. No muley does.

R1 needs a lot of dialed back / reduced pressure.

Scale back the "general"/open to all hunt anywhere.

WT: Restrict forkies (such as must be over four points - possible?) though keep does WT does open general tag (three district options as suggested).

Muleys: Restrict to Limited all together.

Ramblings from myself and wife's multi generational hunting / residing in R1. R1 needs help.

Dig the operation being placed - great ideas shared. I'm far from a guru. Rather a Joe hunter rambling as done on stumps around a campfire.
Some may say R1 has some hardheaded hunt all any time though that stereotype is not accurate, least with those I've discussed thoughts.

Raise R tags $ for christ sake! I shared this with the director and commissioner Tabor at an R1 meeting. Apparently that is only done once every "x" years. This needs to be done to pump money into recruiting/ retaining Wardens and Biologists.

Ramble over.

 

[8andcounting]

Raise R tags $ for christ sake! I shared this with the director and commissioner Tabor at an R1 meeting. Apparently that is only done once every "x" years. This needs to be done to pump money into recruiting/ retaining Wardens and Biologists.

Ramble over.

Nope - instead they’ll just keep raising NR prices and we will keep paying it and people will keep b”tchin cuz there’s NR’s at every trail head. Lol

 

[Deleted member 48080]

WT: Restrict forkies (such as must be over four points - possible?) though keep does WT does open general tag (three district options as suggested).

I'd fight this one tooth and nail.

 

[Ben Lamb]

@Ben Lamb I’d like to see the public be able to attend. We don’t particularly need crowd participation as that would most like end up in a fisticuff situation. The public should be allowed to comment briefly at the end. You never know who might have an idea worth hearing.

I've conferred with a few other folks and this is my thinking right now:

Let's make sure this group can agree on some basic things first and then, when we have something a bit more solid, we can go out for other people, etc.

I know that some folks have been getting calls, etc about this, as others are eager to join. This effort isn't just a one and done meeting - it should be viewed as the start to something broader that will hopefully grow once we get some ground rules and basic understandings set.

 

[bigsky2]

I'd fight this one tooth and nail.

It seems a lot of people are willing to limit mule deer hunting but want to keep whitetail general. I don't hunt western MT, are the whitetail just doing great on public land in R1, R2, and R3? I'd hate to benefit one species at the expense of another. Based on what I see in the eastern half of the state, I'd say there are places where whitetail numbers are ok on public, but if mule deer hunting was restricted and hunters turned their attention to whitetails, I could see that changing in a hurry.

 

[Carnage2011]

I don't trust the FWP harvest estimates; in a special draw unit I had a few years back, they had estimates that showed harvest of 3x the number of tags for the given unit. If only there were a way to get accurate harvest statistics....

That’s because they classify all deer as one species. Even if it’s a special draw for mule deer there could be several hundred whitetails killed.

 

[Deleted member 48080]

It seems a lot of people are willing to limit mule deer hunting but want to keep whitetail general. I don't hunt western MT, are the whitetail just doing great on public land in R1, R2, and R3? I'd hate to benefit one species at the expense of another. Based on what I see in the eastern half of the state, I'd say there are places where whitetail numbers are ok on public, but if mule deer hunting was restricted and hunters turned their attention to whitetails, I could see that changing in a hurry.

I can only speak to west of the divide. No, they are not doing great at all.

In Western MT whitetail are native and dispersed across public land. The heavily timbered habitat is just way more conducive to whitetail then elk or mule deer. Whitetail are not a riparian/river bottom animal over here like they are East of the divide.

Look at the check station numbers in NW MT. Whitetail are basically the only game in town. If you want anyone hunting NW MT at all, you have to protect those whitetail.

In the early 2000s we went to OTC doe tags in region 2. After 15 years the numbers are slowly rebounding, but still a shadow of what they were before the doe slaughter.

 

[Deleted member 48080]

That’s because they classify all deer as one species. Even if it’s a special draw for mule deer there could be several hundred whitetails killed.

Not the case in the unit mentioned. The biologist agreed that the numbers were completely bogus.

 

[Sytes]

I'd fight this one tooth and nail.

You are much more dialed in than I am when it comes to the conservation efforts.
Suppose I speak from the position I hit more darn deer on 93 than my insurance company would like... Haha!

 

[WanderWoman]

1.) R and NR Likely a tough sell though for sake of regulating/manage harvest/pressure, I would be sold on the idea of "general tag" set for three district choices - group option for district allocation, etc.


Muleys: Restrict to Limited all together.

It would be interesting to see some ideas about how a ‘pick three’ of sorts would play out logistically. HDs displayed on a general deer license for sake of people remembering what they picked and enforceability?

I was really curious about the Dept’s scoping proposal for ‘pick your region’ and the implications/comparison between the two vs. status quo given where the majority of R and NR hunt (R3/R4 for res and R6/R7 for NR). Will/how would any of these affect elk hunting pressure?

Re: LE everywhere, I get the sentiment but likely not realistic in MT. For one, it’s a huge jump from the status quo, and we have to remember there is a silent majority of residents (and this is true for every western state) that wants some opportunity to hunt mule deer somewhere every year. That DOES NOT mean changes/adaptions aren’t needed or shouldn’t be looked into. But any blanket proposal that severely limits md hunting statewide will likely be DOA.

It will be one thing to come up with proposals/ideas that the group can agree on, it will be quite another for the rest of the state (or at least a large enough contingent of the public) to either a) support it or b) not fight it.

I wish I had the numbers-savviness to look at what the effects of moving a high number of general districts to LE would be, on hunter opportunity and draw odds. We have our current draw odds for the handful of LE districts we have now, and there is a multi-year wait as-is to draw one of those permits. We talk about the effects of hunter displacement to general areas when an HD goes LE, but there are likely effects on LE draw odds and the likelihood of a permit going from once every 5-10 years to once every 10-15 or 10-20 years, depending on how many people apply to hunt these former, general districts.

Just some things to ruminate on on a Monday morning.

 

[Deleted member 48080]

We talk about the effects of hunter displacement to general areas when an HD goes LE, but there are likely effects on LE draw odds and the likelihood of a permit going from once every 5-10 years to once every 10-15 or 10-20 years, depending on how many people apply to hunt these former, general districts.

Just some things to ruminate on on a Monday morning.

Logically, it would go the opposite direction.

 

[WanderWoman]

Logically, it would go the opposite direction.

Not necessarily if you’re “displacing” several thousand or more hunters who want to hunt those same HDs.

If all those hunters quit hunting mule deer, or switched to wtd, then maybe so. And yeah, maybe better odds in a unit like 270, but I’m thinking about the formerly-general units that would theoretically go to LE.

And whatever the quotas would be would make a difference of course, too.

 

[Deleted member 48080]

Not necessarily if you’re “displacing” several thousand or more hunters who want to hunt those same HDs.

If all those hunters quit hunting mule deer, or switched to wtd, then maybe so. And yeah, maybe better odds in a unit like 270, but I’m thinking about the formerly-general units that would theoretically go to LE.

And whatever the quotas would be would make a difference of course, too.

A lot of the people hunting those general units are already applying for permits as well.

For the hunters that were already applying elsewhere, it seems likely many of them would give up on chasing the Bitterroot tags and start applying for the unit they already know.

For the hunters that weren't applying, they'd mostly likely either start applying for the new tag or just not apply and hunt general elsewhere.

I think those above situations would far outpace the hunters that would give up on hunting in 410/417 and start applying for the Bitterroot instead.

I just can't believe that increasing the denominator would hurt the odds. Tons of reasons to not go LE, but I don't think this is one of them.

 

[MTelkHuntress]

No, they are not doing great at all.

This is interesting. In the places I hunt, whitetail numbers are abundant. I figured they were just so resilient but it's good to know it's different elsewhere. Mule deer on the other hand have disappeared from the landscape and its amazing when I actually get one on the trail camera now. I think some units in region 2 need to go back to permit for mule deer. I understand habitat has gotten worse but I just don't like opening up opportunity in hopes of dispersing pressure when that doesn't seem to be happening. I don't really know how the mule deer numbers are checked on when they aren't counted in some of these units. I understand harvest numbers are used but I wonder how accurate those numbers are.