MT Mule Deer - Sniveling Bitch Manifesto

[TOGIE]

“Montana is required to manage for the benefit of RESIDENT hunters.”

is this actually true? is this their stated sole and primary purpose as an agency?

is not propagating healthy herds of game and nongame animals also somewhere in their statutory charge?

 

[Rack Daniels]

Relatively little public land?

What are you smoking…..

 

[huntin24/7]

is this actually true? is this their sole primary "management charter" as an agency?

is not propagating healthy herds of game and nongame animals also somewhere in their statutory charge?

I’m glad you mentioned this. I hear all the time about management revolving around what resident hunters want, and it makes me wonder how much actual consideration there is for what’s best for the deer herds from a management perspective.

 

[Nameless Range]

is this actually true? is this their stated sole and primary purpose as an agency?

is not propagating healthy herds of game and nongame animals also somewhere in their statutory charge?

It is the policy of this state to protect and preserve game animals primarily for the citizens of this state while welcoming nonresidents licensed to hunt in Montana to enjoy the state's public wildlife resources and acknowledging nonresidents' financial contribution to Montana's wildlife management and tourism industry.

87-3-303. Policy toward nonresident big game hunters, MCA

archive.legmt.gov

 

[TOGIE]

It is the policy of this state to protect and preserve game animals primarily for the citizens of this state while welcoming nonresidents licensed to hunt in Montana to enjoy the state's public wildlife resources and acknowledging nonresidents' financial contribution to Montana's wildlife management and tourism industry.

87-3-303. Policy toward nonresident big game hunters, MCA

archive.legmt.gov

so, yes. i kinda want us to forget about about the words "citizens" or "residents" and rather focus on the fact that i do see the words "protect" and "preserve" right there.

it doesn't say, "protect and preserve, so the residents can shoot them"

maybe implied, but not stated.

 

[Gerald Martin]

It is the policy of this state to protect and preserve game animals primarily for the citizens of this state while welcoming nonresidents licensed to hunt in Montana to enjoy the state's public wildlife resources and acknowledging nonresidents' financial contribution to Montana's wildlife management and tourism industry.

87-3-303. Policy toward nonresident big game hunters, MCA

archive.legmt.gov

When Montana legislators pass multiple bills to allow additional tags to be sold at half price to former residents who want to “come back home” to hunt it complicates the mandate that same Legislature gave to FWP.

When MT residents fight against any fee increases to the cost of resident licenses that could offset losses to FWP budgets if NR were restricted to the historic 23,600 cap, it complicates that mandate.

FWP is mandated by the Legislature to operate within the mission parameters defined by the Legislature. It seems to me that if we want to take a serious look at how to address perceived NR crowding we should be starting with eliminating those 1/2 price licenses in excess of the historic cap and getting as many B licenses as possible changed from unlimited to limited to keep the distribution limited to 10% of total. That would have the potential to reduce NR hunter numbers by @ 3500 and NR hunter days by @ 24,000 at a budget reduction of less than $2,000,000.

Putting additional restrictions on dates and movement of the 20% of hunters who provide 73% of FWP’s operating budget doesn’t seem fair but more importantly it doesn’t actually change the reality of on the ground crowding. Any changes that don’t include residents in the restrictions aren’t going to be at the scale necessary to affect meaningful change.

 

[Gerald Martin]

so, yes. i kinda want us to forget about about the words "citizens" or "residents" and rather focus on the fact that i do see the words "protect" and "preserve" right there.

it doesn't say, "protect and preserve, so the residents can shoot them"

maybe implied, but not stated.

I agree. It is stated somewhere that hunters are the main tool used to ensure that wildlife populations are kept within a sustainable carrying capacity so it’s implied that hunting is important but hunting is not the main priority for wildlife management. Healthy wildlife populations are the main priority.

 

[Gerald Martin]

As far as setting regional caps for areas based on deer populations and dividing the number of hunters among them…

Regions 6&7 contain @32% of the total population of mule deer in MT but only @24% of MT hunters are hunting in those two regions.

Ya’ll sure that an 8% increase in hunter numbers for 6&7 is what you want?

By my logic, that an increase of 8% of total hunters in the state. Not just 8% more than regions 6&7 currently have.

Reminds me of a classic movie line.

 

[Carnage2011]

To be clear. Montana has a lot of mule deer and they are not going extinct based on our current management. So can someone clarify what they mean by “this is not sustainable?” I keep reading that but our seasons are sustainable as is, it’s the age of males that people have a gripe with.

If we are worried about populations then very little needs to change regarding season structure. Doe harvest would need to be limited and habitat improvements to ensure we don’t over populate an area and cause long time damage.

 

[Carnage2011]

The problem with everything I’ve seen so far regarding proposals is that people don’t want to give up anything but they want quality to improve. You can’t have both.

Let’s be honest about the reason for these proposals. There are basically two options that I can see. 1: Bigger bucks. 2: A change that doesn’t include LE (the reason for change is #1).
We can call it whatever we want but if it’s just about sustainability, we don’t need to change buck harvest at all. The does are getting bread and will continue to.

 

[antlerradar]

Relatively little public land?

What are you smoking…..

Compared to western MT, yes

 

[TOGIE]

To be clear. Montana has a lot of mule deer and they are not going extinct based on our current management. So can someone clarify what they mean by “this is not sustainable?” I keep reading that but our seasons are sustainable as is, it’s the age of males that people have a gripe with.

If we are worried about populations then very little needs to change regarding season structure. Doe harvest would need to be limited and habitat improvements to ensure we don’t over populate an area and cause long time damage.

is not extinct the goal? or are healthy herds the goal?

then the big Q is, who's defining healthy?

 

[Carnage2011]

is not extinct the goal? or are healthy herds the goal?

then the big Q is, who's defining healthy?

What’s not healthy about MT’s herd? Is it the overall population-then reduce doe harvest. Is it the age class of males-then we’re back to my point, older bucks.

 

[TOGIE]

What’s not healthy about MT’s herd? Is it the overall population-then reduce doe harvest. Is it the age class of males-then we’re back to my point, older bucks.

i didn't say anything about whether or not it's healthy.

 

[Carnage2011]

i didn't say anything about whether or not it's healthy.

you said “or are healthy herds the goal?”

 

[antlerradar]

To be clear. Montana has a lot of mule deer and they are not going extinct based on our current management. So can someone clarify what they mean by “this is not sustainable?” I keep reading that but our seasons are sustainable as is, it’s the age of males that people have a gripe with.

If we are worried about populations then very little needs to change regarding season structure. Doe harvest would need to be limited and habitat improvements to ensure we don’t over populate an area and cause long time damage.

From what I have seen on public land in the east the past 50 years, the current management is unsustainable. At first it was the quality of the bucks, but for the last thirty years it is also the numbers. Sure there are ups and downs but the long term trend is down. Sure deer are not going to go extinct, but that might only be because of private land herds.

 

[TOGIE]

you said “or are healthy herds the goal?”

i guess my point went right over your head, sorry.

i really dgaf anyway. i have no plans in the future to hunt montana mule deer.

 

[Carnage2011]

From what I have seen on public land in the east the past 50 years, the current management is unsustainable. At first it was the quality of the bucks, but for the last thirty years it is also the numbers. Sure there are ups and downs but the long term trend is down. Sure deer are not going to go extinct, but that might only be because of private land herds.

Ok. Does buck harvest play a role in the numbers? That would seem like a doe harvest or habitat issue. How do any of the proposals improve those two things?

I’m playing devils advocate a bit here.

 

[rogerthat]

Does anyone know if fawn haying mortality has been analyzed/studied? I’ve talked to a lifelong rancher and they guess they run over 50 (mostly mule) deer fawns every year during the first cutting. Seemed like a lot to me.

I have been curious of this as well. Especially now with the new rotary heads and people swathing at Mach 9. I have hayed pretty much every year for 30 years and I haven’t hit many but I always have run old slow equipment and sometimes purposely wait a week or two to try and give them a chance. If the fawns get a couple days they get pretty spry. Still not sure they could get away from my neighbor who swaths going 20 mph but he could care less and probably try’s to hit them. He hates trees too.

I have swather 35 acres so far this year and jumped out 10 fawns so far. Some held until the last minute

 

[antlerradar]

Ok. Does buck harvest play a role in the numbers? That would seem like a doe harvest or habitat issue. How do any of the proposals improve those two things?

I’m playing devils advocate a bit here.

Doe harvest 100%, the 11,000 hunt anywhere doe tag was a big part of the issue.
Habitat, not that much of an issue in eastern MT, I was just up in the winter range and there was winter fat up to my knees and so thick it looked like it could be a patch of sage. Clearly it is not a food issue.
As for buck harvest, I have my thoughts but there is not science to back them yet.