MT Mule Deer - Sniveling Bitch Manifesto

[Schaaf]

Ok. Does buck harvest play a role in the numbers?

I think it is worth pointing out that over the last couple years we have had several districts in Eastern Montana with low enough buck:doe ratios that not all does are being bred. Under current management the most restrictive FWP can go is allowing only buck harvest on a general tag and issue no B licenses for the district.

So I do agree that for 95% of the state does are being bred, but I wonder if these districts are a bit like a canary in the coal mine under current management.

 

[Carnage2011]

I think it is worth pointing out that over the last couple years we have had several districts in Eastern Montana with low enough buck:doe ratios that not all does are being bred. Under current management the most restrictive FWP can go is allowing only buck harvest on a general tag and issue no B licenses for the district.

So I do agree that for 95% of the state does are being bred, but I wonder if these districts are a bit like a canary in the coal mine under current management.

That’s good information. Perhaps that should be brought to the public or even better the commission. I didn’t know that and I feel like I try and stay fairly up to date. I’d bet money the majority of Montana hunters don’t know that either. If the does aren’t getting bred then it’s truly not sustainable.

 

[Gerald Martin]

That’s good information. Perhaps that should be brought to the public or even better the commission. I didn’t know that and I feel like I try and stay fairly up to date. I’d bet money the majority of Montana hunters don’t know that either. If the does aren’t getting bred then it’s truly not sustainable.

I would argue that “all does getting bred” is the lowest possible threshold for determining whether MT’s deer herds are being well managed. The fact that some buck/doe ratios are so low that in some regions that even that low threshold isn’t being achieved is significant.

 

[mtmuley]

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

Thanks for your input though. Regardless. mtmuley

 

[seeth07]

I would argue that “all does getting bred” is the lowest possible threshold for determining whether MT’s deer herds are being well managed. The fact that some buck/doe ratios are so low that in some regions that even that low threshold isn’t being achieved is significant.

It isn't healthy for a buck in an area to bred the majority of the does year after year even if he has the ability (lucky guy?) to.

 

[Frequently Banned Troll]

Where are the authors of the SBM?

It's pretty clear they don't want your input. They don't want any debate on the "proposal" - because half the "proposal" is background on why nothing should change - citing the famous FWP hunter satisfaction survey.

 

[Carnage2011]

I would argue that “all does getting bred” is the lowest possible threshold for determining whether MT’s deer herds are being well managed. The fact that some buck/doe ratios are so low that in some regions that even that low threshold isn’t being achieved is significant.

Correct. I’m not talking about whether they are being well managed. This is specifically about “sustainability.” If they are being bred then it’s sustainable from a population perspective. I’m not saying this to argue against any of the proposals. I’m saying that the argument of “not sustainable” is BS if the does are being bred. You specifically have said multiple times that our current management structure is not sustainable.

If they aren’t being bred then that needs to be pointed out to the commission and something needs to change. That is not sustainable! If I was bringing forward a proposal, I would emphasize the crowding issues and the fact that we have hit a point where our buck to doe ratios are so low that we could have population level impacts if something doesn’t change.

Your group has put a lot of time into the proposal and taken public feedback and altered it to try and fit the public’s desires. That’s a huge undertaking and I commend you guys for that. What I’ve been trying to say without being an asshole is: your messaging sucks. Branding and messaging are one of the most important points of a successful business. Great ideas fail when they struggle to message. I think you should treat this proposal the same way.

-Explain what issue you’re trying to solve.
-Explain how this proposal solves the problem.

 

[Gerald Martin]

@Carnage2011, all valid criticism. I think we’ve spent so much energy trying to craft a structure that is potentially acceptable to all user groups and should be an improvement in both quality of the hunting experience from a crowding standpoint and a potential improvement in age class/ buck/doe ratios that we haven’t focused as much on the messaging and branding as we could have.

Given who the group is, perhaps expecting a “professional” presentation is a bit much…..

 

[Treeshark]

Given who the group is, perhaps expecting a “professional” presentation is a bit much…..

You’re selling your group short. I may not agree with all of the proposal you guys came up with, but I think it’s quite commendable that you guys took action and are taking a swing at improving things.

Easy to solve the world’s problems on a hunting website, but actually getting something done is completely different ballgame. Your explanations for some of the decisions you’ve made have been helpful, a lot more factors to consider goes into it than I personally understood.

 

[antlerradar]

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.

I think that there is a strong argument the the current Nov season is managing for non residents. Buy having the long season during Nov when most other western states have Oct seasons, we are making Montana the state that is the most convenient to fit it a NR's busy schedule. Then there is the NR outfitter. Having the season when their state is not hunting if very convenient for a NR outfitter. Most of the land near me leased by outfitters is leased by outfitters based in WY. When the WY season is wrapping up, Montana is just getting started. It is just a good for business to operate in both states. Is it any wonder that there if very little BM close to the WY boarder.

 

[R.K.]

I’m just gonna come out here and say that I’m happy to see them pushing for mandatory harvest reporting in proposal section 2. Kudos on that, because they’re basically flying blind and managing based on feelings with the current phone call method.

I’m happy to see them calling for more conservative doe tag quotas. Since buck populations are a function of doe population, more does = more bucks (at the most basic level). But more importantly, glad to see them limiting doe harvest on public lands- because the disparity between public and private land deer herds is shocking and damn near criminal in most places I’ve hunted in Montana. It’s time to protect the public land does and rebuild those herds so that we have deer using all the available habitat across the landscape.

Not sure how I feel about the regional caps just for non-residents. Definitely not a fan of outfitter clients getting preference over the DIY hunter. That incentivizes a a pay to play model that I wholeheartedly disagree with.

As much as I would love to see more mature bucks on the landscape, I feel like a split rifle season might only be a Band-Aid whereas growing the herd via protecting public land doe herds would be the cure. Let’s grow the pie so we all get a bigger slice.

 

[antlerradar]

I would argue that “all does getting bred” is the lowest possible threshold for determining whether MT’s deer herds are being well managed. The fact that some buck/doe ratios are so low that in some regions that even that low threshold isn’t being achieved is significant.

Agree, we also need to keep track of does getting bred second cycle to. If that number is climbing, not good.

 

[rogerthat]

There’s a couple things to like in the manifesto. Maybe I will be wrong but I think you guys hoping for adoption of sweeping season changes are going to be disappointed. However I appreciate everyone’s efforts to come up with change proposals even this one.

 

[Tukudeka]

I think it is worth pointing out that over the last couple years we have had several districts in Eastern Montana with low enough buck:doe ratios that not all does are being bred. Under current management the most restrictive FWP can go is allowing only buck harvest on a general tag and issue no B licenses for the district.

So I do agree that for 95% of the state does are being bred, but I wonder if these districts are a bit like a canary in the coal mine under current management.

Interesting.

Based on minimum aerial count and classification compared to previous research? Or ultrasound sampling? We should point out that minimum aerial count data are not estimates of abundance or sex ratios. Rather, the data are used as trend indices that are hopefully analogous to what the population is experiencing over time. Thus, it is not appropriate to look at individual years data or numbers produced as abundance or sex ratios…. Unless probability of detection of each sex has been evaluated and incorporated into a sightability model used to adjust the minimum count. Furthermore, according to prominent pubs, may not be appropriate at all if the relationship between that specific population, vegetation type etc and the index have not been evaluated. We all should read this Methods for Monitoring Mule Deer Populations, WAFWA 2011, before citing numbers published by FWP minimum aerial counts, many local biologist do a great job explaining this in their write ups if you ask to be on their mailing lists.

 

[Schaaf]

Interesting.

Based on minimum aerial count and classification compared to previous research? Or ultrasound sampling? We should point out that minimum aerial count data are not estimates of abundance or sex ratios. Rather, the data are used as trend indices that are hopefully analogous to what the population is experiencing over time. Thus, it is not appropriate to look at individual years data or numbers produced as abundance or sex ratios…. Unless probability of detection of each sex has been evaluated and incorporated into a sightability model used to adjust the minimum count. Furthermore, according to prominent pubs, may not be appropriate at all if the relationship between that specific population, vegetation type etc and the index have not been evaluated. We all should read this Methods for Monitoring Mule Deer Populations, WAFWA 2011, before citing numbers published by FWP minimum aerial counts, many local biologist do a great job explaining this in their write ups if you ask to be on their mailing lists.

How many years do we have to wait to point to aerial count data as being a reliable metric to base decisions off of? I'd say a District that showed a plummeting trend over a period of 4 years should be enough, especially when the previous 8 years the district held fairly steady at roughly ~33 bucks: 100 does.

2021: 30 bucks:100 does
2022: 26 bucks: 100 does
2023: 6 bucks: 100 does
2024: 8 bucks: 100 does

 

[Tukudeka]

How many years do we have to wait to point to aerial count data as being a reliable metric to base decisions off of? I'd say a District that showed a plummeting trend over a period of 4 years should be enough, especially when the previous 8 years the district held fairly steady at roughly ~33 bucks: 100 does.

2021: 30 bucks:100 does
2022: 26 bucks: 100 does
2023: 6 bucks: 100 does
2024: 8 bucks: 100 does

Unfortunately the answer is we won’t know if 4 years or any amount of years is enough until we can estimate detection probabilities. WAFWA 2011 is a good read.

Additionally, based on the literature, I suspect nutrition has a lot more influence on pregnancy rates than buck to doe ratios. Pretty rare to see evidence of not enough peckers in a population to breed all the does (>90% pregnancy with single digit buck to doe ratios is the common claim). Contrarily, there is literature suggesting that so many peckers find does it is common for twins to have different sires.

 

[mtmuley]

How many years do we have to wait to point to aerial count data as being a reliable metric to base decisions off of? I'd say a District that showed a plummeting trend over a period of 4 years should be enough, especially when the previous 8 years the district held fairly steady at roughly ~33 bucks: 100 does.

2021: 30 bucks:100 does
2022: 26 bucks: 100 does
2023: 6 bucks: 100 does
2024: 8 bucks: 100 does

Aerial counts don't work in every region. mtmuley

 

[Schaaf]

Aerial counts don't work in every region. mtmuley

I never said they did. But in these districts that's the data FWP chooses to gather and it matches anecdotal observations. They deemed it valuable enough to take the most restrictive actions they are allowed to under the current Adaptive Harvest Management Plan.

 

[mtmuley]

I never said they did. But in these districts that's the data FWP chooses to gather and it matches anecdotal observations. They deemed it valuable enough to take the most restrictive actions they are allowed to under the current Adaptive Harvest Management Plan.

Maybe part of the problem. Data seems to be really sporadic across the state. mtmuley

 

[Hunting Wife]

Unfortunately the answer is we won’t know if 4 years or any amount of years is enough until we can estimate detection probabilities. WAFWA 2011 is a good read.

Additionally, based on the literature, I suspect nutrition has a lot more influence on pregnancy rates than buck to doe ratios. Pretty rare to see evidence of not enough peckers in a population to breed all the does (>90% pregnancy with single digit buck to doe ratios is the common claim). Contrarily, there is literature suggesting that so many peckers find does it is common for twins to have different sires.

I would be curious where they are seeing >90% pregnancy with single digit ratios. I suspect that is a population with much higher deer density than currently exists for mule deer in portions of eastern Montana.

FWP fully acknowledges that the current surveys are inadequate for population estimation due to lack of detection estimates, but no one here is claiming that. The current data are perfectly adequate for the trend analyses being discussed, and the trends have been trending for quite some time. They also jive with trends in harvest data, recruitment data, and anecdotal data.

I do agree that there are likely several issues contributing to poor recruitment, with poor body condition of does being a significant one over the past few years. But given these additional factors, a buck:doe ratio trending towards single digits over that same time period is certainly not evidence of a factor having a positive influence on the situation.