Would love to see it. My point is they do make a difference when they get filled on accessible lands. FWP doesn’t get to have it both ways.
Montana winter
- Thread starter mariano742
- Start date
SwaggyD
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2022
- Messages
- 1,418
I’ve talked to buddies that live near the breaks. It has not been a great. Especially with how few fawns there were going into winter.
To dumb it down for a Washington friend. Fwp says doe tags don’t make a difference, but when populations really hit the shitter they will cut doe tags several years after they should. At this point we’ve established a new low for what populations should be. We will manage off of these low numbers going forward and any increase will be a great recovery. Things will get better until the next population dump and then rinse and repeat as we keep swirling down the toilet bowl. It is the privatization of hunting through lack of management. Private land owners and outfitters will let land you can’t access recover. FWP won’t let overall population recover. Lace your boots up and hunt til there is nothing left.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
I think you just want to complain. Enjoy.
antlerradar
Well-known member
Doug is right on this one. Even though FWP is cutting doe tags down they still have the distribution problem. When deer numbers are high and FWP is issuing 11,000 doe tags landowners are telling all there hunters "Buy all the doe tags you can get. We have too many". Even with some landowners encouraging doe harvest we still have access issues and far too many of the doe tags are used on Public land. Now with deer numbers low, landowners are telling hunters,"don't by doe tags, we don't have very many. FWP in the mean time is telling hunters there is enough deer to sell X number of tags, get them while they are hot. Now even a bigger percentage of tags are going to be filled on public. I don't think the actual numbers are available, but for example if only ten percent of the doe hunters hunt the Custer when deer numbers are high, it is way too many. Even if FWP cuts doe tags to 1000 this year and only 15 to 20 percent of the hunters hunt the Custer it is still way too many does given the current state of the Custer.
Landowners are practicing micro management and FWP is still trying macro management. It will not work. The private land will recover, the public land will get pounded even if doe tags are cut to 1000.
Landowners are practicing micro management and FWP is still trying macro management. It will not work. The private land will recover, the public land will get pounded even if doe tags are cut to 1000.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Yeah, I know his argument. He has said it 1000 times. And I agree with him on the problem, but he still needs me as an antagonist so he can complain.
Serious ?, Can FWP create private-only B tags without legislative rule changes? We all fully expect cuts to those tags, and we all agree that a good number would be 0.
4ohSick
Well-known member
FIFY
StrongmanHuntsBigGame
Member
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2022
- Messages
- 54
All throughout the west, we have been seeing record snowpacks, and some of the longest lasting winter conditions. It's not been a good winter for game, but it's been a great winter for combating drought conditions that have reeked their fair share of havoc around the west for years now. Numbers will be down this year. I know in Idaho, there are rumors of F&G limiting "some" of the hunting opportunities, especially anterless opportunities, to promote a greater response from the severe winters we've had. But regs don't come out for a few more weeks. I can't image what states like Utah will find after all of this is over. They are already at 200% of their yearly snowpack level with another storm hitting them this week that should bring several more feet. I would assume Montana is a lot of the same conditions, only much colder!
WanderWoman
Well-known member
Yes, FWP can make B licenses valid district-wide, portions of districts, and/or on types of land. Think of the elk B licenses in some of the regions that are valid only on private, state, BLM. Also there are mule deer Bs in R4 “not valid on Forest Service.” So yes, it is possible. It would just go through season-setting/commission approval.Yeah, I know his argument. He has said it 1000 times. And I agree with him on the problem, but he still needs me as an antagonist so he can complain.
Serious ?, Can FWP create private-only B tags without legislative rule changes? We all fully expect cuts to those tags, and we all agree that a good number would be 0.
Also I think FWP should put in a check mark box for license applications for hunters to voluntarily consent giving their names/phone numbers out. Landowners could then get that information and solicit hunters if they want/need. This would also reduce B-license pressure on public land probably.
antlerradar
Well-known member
We have cow elk tags that exclude the Custer, can not see why that can not be done with Mule Deer does.
YukonGold
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2022
- Messages
- 199
Region 2 has mule deer B licenses valid only on private land. So it absolutely can be done. Commission has to approve it.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
I knew some types existed, I just didn't know if FWP could change them unilaterally through commission approval or if it needed to be codified. Thanks to all for the info. I'm sure there would be plenty of complaints from some Montana hunters about not having access to private land, or their kids not being able to shoot their first doe, or not being able to fill the freezer, etc.
The local office does not see any need to make that change. Their data shows low harvest success on doe tags overall and not a substantial harvest on public lands. I disagree. It seems like an extremely reasonable thing to do. Especially in times where numbers are struggling. If a landowner feels they have too many deer I want them to be able to address that. We do not have too many deer on public land.
2 more years to go
mariano742
Active member
So in northern maine we have winters that kill 95% of the deer in some areas like 07/08. Will this winter do that in eastern montana? 50%? Just trying to gauge how bad it will be
I can’t specifically answer this question, but two problems that eastern Montana has compared to Maine is droughts averaging 4 out 10-12 years, the only available escape cover is private ranches (no big woods areas/roadless), and very long rifle seasons in the rut. I would guess whitetail numbers are down 75% as compared to 5 years ago in the areas I seen. I bet mule deer are about the same.
It would only take 3-5 years of very limited hunting to have a deer population that would blow peoples mind. The range conditions are perfect, and Montana has better available winter habitat than most of western states due to agricultural. It’s not a desert like most of WY and parts of Colorado are. It could support a lot of big game if managed correctly.
If you are hunting this year it is what is. It’s not going to get better. The downhill slide has been going on longer than I’ve hunted.
