Montana - Time to Shake it Up?

[Ben Lamb]

If there is an issue of lack of abundance such as R1 & R2, changing season structure seems like it's putting the cart before the horse, no?

What habitat and environmental factors should we be looking at as well?

 

[Deleted member 48080]

If there is an issue of lack of abundance such as R1 & R2, changing season structure seems like it's putting the cart before the horse, no?

What habitat and environmental factors should we be looking at as well?

Restore the human and predator population to 1960 levels, re-start the logging industry, reverse climate change and remove all invasive plants.

All small things we should probably get wrapped up before we meet in February.

 

[cgasner1]

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.

I don’t think that there is a single plan that could be put into effect with a single meeting. The positive/negative effects I think will cause whatever the pan becomes to have multiple drafts to get it proper.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Restore the human and predator population to 1960 levels, re-start the logging industry, reverse climate change and remove all invasive plants.

All small things we should probably get wrapped up before we meet in February.

A problem is only insurmountable if you let it be so.

1 & 2 can be accomplished through the use of Thanos & poison. Both have their detractors, including the United States Government. I'll let you deal with that.

3.) Between the various projects, funding sources & such, you could pull together a project to reduce conifers and encourage better habitat.

4.) The WHIP Act applies to public land. This is funding that is statutorily obligated to improve habitat specifically for wildlife.

See, with a little creativity and thought, you can start to make an action plan!

 

[Elky Welky]

@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.

Appreciate this @Eric Albus. I'd certainly like to be a fly on the wall. I think this could be an enlightening discussion, and I understand why NGOs are being kept out. But they would be better able to serve their members if they could watch and learn more. I'm thinking specifically MDF, BHA, Highline Sportsmen, and local Rod & Gun clubs.

 

[WanderWoman]

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.

Yes, they do. And now 3600 some odd deer hunters from 410/417 combined (yes—an unknown but likely lower proportion of those are wtd hunters) are going to choose between applying for the 100 permits in each district, or continue to apply in a unit like 270 or elsewhere. 200/3600 is 5% not considering BP/PP etc.

There will likely be an inflection point, depending on the number of hunters that move to a general area instead of applying to hunt their regular haunt that changed to LE where crowding(?) maybe(?) in those HDs would cause them to stop mule deer hunting or start applying. If a vast number of MT’s HDs went LE, there could be vast implications. As is, the only districts likely truly affected draw-odds wise by this year’s changes are 410, 417, and 426. But that can change if a large number of HDs went LE. 8881 people applied for 270 in 2023, so I doubt any switch from 270 to 410/417 would be significant enough to benefit odds for 270.

And of course LE is not the only option for everywhere, as mentioned many times on different threads. Timing restrictions, unlimited permits, etc. are considerations. Somebody can do some homework and see how buck ratios changed in 530 after it went from general to unlimited permits umpteen years back.. I think that was kind of effective, at least at the time.

 

[4ohSick]

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.

I just don't really get why this matters. For all the same reasons we've talked about hunters who want change getting fed up with being ignored by the commission, what's the risk of enacting big scale change? Red voters are still going to vote red, blue voters are still going to vote blue, and commissioners/biologists/FWP licensing folks can continue listening to people complain and sending those complaints to the round file.

 

[WanderWoman]

If there is an issue of lack of abundance such as R1 & R2, changing season structure seems like it's putting the cart before the horse, no?

What habitat and environmental factors should we be looking at as well?

This will have greater long term effects on mule deer populations than any short term season change.

Outside of antlerless harvest or taking a buck:doe ratio to below 8-10 bucks:100 does, most changes/ideas on season structures affect the buck numbers and age structures on the landscape vs. overall population and fawn recruitment. Not saying that isn’t important but also something to keep in mind.

 

[Deleted member 48080]

Yes, they do. And now 3600 some odd deer hunters from 410/417 combined (yes—an unknown but likely lower proportion of those are wtd hunters) are going to choose between applying for the 100 permits in each district, or continue to apply in a unit like 270 or elsewhere. 200/3600 is 5% not considering BP/PP etc.

There will likely be an inflection point, depending on the number of hunters that move to a general area instead of applying to hunt their regular haunt that changed to LE where crowding(?) maybe(?) in those HDs would cause them to stop mule deer hunting or start applying. If a vast number of MT’s HDs went LE, there could be vast implications. As is, the only districts likely truly affected draw-odds wise by this year’s changes are 410, 417, and 426. But that can change if a large number of HDs went LE. 8881 people applied for 270 in 2023, so I doubt any switch from 270 to 410/417 would be significant enough to benefit odds for 270.

And of course LE is not the only option for everywhere, as mentioned many times on different threads. Timing restrictions, unlimited permits, etc. are considerations. Somebody can do some homework and see how buck ratios changed in 530 after it went from general to unlimited permits umpteen years back.. I think that was kind of effective, at least at the time.

I went back and re-read your first post on the matter. I misread it, and thought you were referring to draw odds of the existing LE entry units getting worse as more units went LE.

Sorry for the confusion.

 

[rogerthat]

One of the things that you can observe from other states and is a fact is that as units go LE those hunters displace to the other general units making the hunting experience in the other general units more crowded. That’s why piece meal application of LE becomes the death knell of general season and otc hunts. Structurally changing a general season to reduce success is a much better option whether it be season timing, season length adjustments, or weapon restrictions. Once you start down the LE path piecemeal it is a snowball rolling down a mountain. Plus you never get that opportunity back which has been my experience. IMO the right approach has to be to keep hunter participation as high as possible while reducing success rates. LE doesn’t do this unless the loss of opportunity is offset somehow. I’m not sure why unless it’s just pure laziness but there is a ton of resistance to ending the uncontrolled high powered rifle rut hunt but eventually it will need to end if we are going to preserve the resource, maintain any quality of hunt, yet keep hunter participation high. That’s the last I have to say on this thread.

 

[WanderWoman]

I just don't really get why this matters. For all the same reasons we've talked about hunters who want change getting fed up with being ignored by the commission, what's the risk of enacting big scale change? Red voters are still going to vote red, blue voters are still going to vote blue, and commissioners/biologists/FWP licensing folks can continue listening to people complain and sending those complaints to the round file.

I see where you are with this, but it does matter. First, we assume that a large scale change that doesn’t consider all of the stakeholders wouldn’t result in some sort of mutiny if the change was big enough (I.e., thousands or even tens of thousands of deer hunters, depending on the proposal, being told they can no longer hunt deer every year).

As much as I get sick of hearing about R3, it’s still important to continue to fund wildlife management as well as have advocates for hunting, as hunting faces more and more threats as time goes on. If the general public hunter (hunts opportunistically every year, is not necessarily an ‘avid’ hunter) or young hunter loses enough opportunity (by way of not being able to hunt mule deer, maybe after a few years of everyone switching to wtd there’s fewer of them and/or that opportunity gets limited), maybe the stop hunting. That’s great for the TH but not so great if that number is large and significant enough.

Lots of unknowns. Lots of soul-searching, lots of room for ideas. But we have to think about others; if we didn’t, then again any otherwise good idea may be DOA.

 

[Nameless Range]

One of the things that you can observe from other states and is a fact is that as units go LE those hunters displace to the other general units making the hunting experience in the other general units more crowded. That’s why piece meal application of LE becomes the death knell of general season and otc hunts. Structurally changing a general season to reduce success is a much better option whether it be season timing, season length adjustments, or weapon restrictions. Once you start down the LE path piecemeal it is a snowball rolling down a mountain. Plus you never get that opportunity back which has been my experience. IMO the right approach has to be to keep hunter participation as high as possible while reducing success rates. LE doesn’t do this unless the loss of opportunity is offset somehow. I’m not sure why unless it’s just pure laziness but there is a ton of resistance to ending the uncontrolled high powered rifle rut hunt but eventually it will need to end if we are going to preserve the resource, maintain any quality of hunt, yet keep hunter participation high. That’s the last I have to say on this thread.

Well said.

One other thing to watch for that I have seen recently is that when the decision is made to make a place LE, there will be a tendency to put in place a permit quota that matches the previous one, two, or three years worth of hunters - to "soften" the change. In most places, the amount of current hunters is already well beyond the pale and so even if we stop the increases, it isn't enough.

 

[sclancy27]

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.

Whitetail numbers are lower to much lower than normal in many areas in Central and Eastern MT due to big EHD outbreaks. I think this has something to do with more pressure on mule deer in the last couple years.

 

[sclancy27]

We need to figure out some ground level things to target and start with. Based on available data I think 2 choices make sense for the first to tackle.

First, mandatory reporting for deer. This will give good data and a sense of how things really are moving forward when it comes to whitetail vs mule deer harvest, region of harvest, timing of harvest, etc. Second, is getting a handle on NR harvest in Eastern MT. To me, it is pretty ridiculous that NR are harvesting >50% of bucks.

I know that kind of opens up other questions (where do those NR go is the biggest one). I'm guessing we are going to get pushback just on those 2 items, going beyond them is an exercise in futility.

 

[MTelkHuntress]

Well said.

One other thing to watch for that I have seen recently is that when the decision is made to make a place LE, there will be a tendency to put in place a permit quota that matches the previous one, two, or three years worth of hunters - to "soften" the change. In most places, the amount of current hunters is already well beyond the pale and so even if we stop the increases, it isn't enough.

This is a good point and has me thinking a lot about what unlimited permits accomplish.
With mule deer permits being you can only hunt that unit, folks will usually put more time in to that unit because of the nature of having the permit.

Lots to think about and it definitely gets complicated quickly but I'm glad to see there's lots of folks thinking critically about this topic.

 

[bigsky2]

One other thing to watch for that I have seen recently is that when the decision is made to make a place LE, there will be a tendency to put in place a permit quota that matches the previous one, two, or three years worth of hunters - to "soften" the change. In most places, the amount of current hunters is already well beyond the pale and so even if we stop the increases, it isn't enough.

This. It's been happening with the LE archery elk permits in the Breaks for years, and the latest example is the 900 archery antelope permits. Residents get used to drawing a LE permit every year, and when demand starts to exceeds the supply, the immediate reaction is to increase the quota to keep everyone happy.

 

[Nameless Range]

This is a good point and has me thinking a lot about what unlimited permits accomplish.
With mule deer permits being you can only hunt that unit, folks will usually put more time in to that unit because of the nature of having the permit.

Lots to think about and it definitely gets complicated quickly but I'm glad to see there's lots of folks thinking critically about this topic.

A few years back, my home district went from unlimited to general. There's a case to be made that when it was unlimited it had greater pressure due to the focus you mention, though after a few years it's a wash because Montana hunters are booming locally.

When the Elkhorns went from unlimited to LE, they basically took the previous amount of unlimited applicants, added a hundred to the quota range, and made that the LE quota - essentially doing nothing to deal with the problem on the landscape.

I know those are issues down the line, but I am an advocate for season configuration changes before LE changes, for all the reasons @rogerthat mentioned.

 

[SAJ-99]

Appreciate this @Eric Albus. I'd certainly like to be a fly on the wall. I think this could be an enlightening discussion, and I understand why NGOs are being kept out. But they would be better able to serve their members if they could watch and learn more. I'm thinking specifically MDF, BHA, Highline Sportsmen, and local Rod & Gun clubs.

Because a meeting of 8 highly opinionated people is hard enough. Make it 80 highly opinionated people and it could easily become a mess. If people are motivated enough to go to one of these meetings, it will be hard for a lot of them to simply be a fly on the wall.

I half joke that we all know that everyone will agree on screwing NRs (even a lot of us NRs agree). That is a tradition in MT. Unfortunately, I don't think that changing anything with NR alone solves the problems MD face. Every participant needs to go into the meeting with the answer to one simple question "What am I willing to give up?". Solutions to the problems will be hard regardless. Walking in with the goal of protecting one's self-interest is always an impediment to progress.

Thanks to all those that participate and good luck.

 

[Eric Albus]

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.

I concur. You’ve convinced me

 

[Elky Welky]

Because a meeting of 8 highly opinionated people is hard enough. Make it 80 highly opinionated people and it could easily become a mess. If people are motivated enough to go to one of these meetings, it will be hard for a lot of them to simply be a fly on the wall.

I half joke that we all know that everyone will agree on screwing NRs (even a lot of us NRs agree). That is a tradition in MT. Unfortunately, I don't think that changing anything with NR alone solves the problems MD face. Every participant needs to go into the meeting with the answer to one simple question "What am I willing to give up?". Solutions to the problems will be hard regardless. Walking in with the goal of protecting one's self-interest is always an impediment to progress.

Thanks to all those that participate and good luck.

There's ways to keep public comment quiet, but in no way should 8 highly opinionated people be the ones grouping up and dictating policy that affects everyone. At least record the conversation.

This is one conversation that I would be far more happy to sit quietly and take in. I've learned the hard way, particularly on this forum, that if you have any thoughts or questions about mule deer, people are going to quickly form a lynch mob if they disagree with you or think you aren't well-enough informed. It's a dangerous conversation to try to even ask questions about, because people have such strong and uncompromising positions.

I don't really think "screw the NR" is a tradition in MT, however, given that the issue everyone is pointing to is the number of loopholes that exists to give NRs unlimited opportunity here. Quite the opposite. As is frequently pointed out by some, the bottom line is what is most important, and since NR's disproportionately affect the bottom line, then we should sacrifice our state's limited resources, be it land, access or wildlife, to keep NRs, and in turn, the coffers, happy.