MT Mule Deer - Sniveling Bitch Manifesto

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.
Trouble is few agencies check pregnancy rates often, kinda expensive. But data are out there and a few provide buck:doe estimates. Most report >95% pregnancy rates (Monteith 2013; Monteith 2014; Ziegler 1978). Reported buck:doe here (Freeman et al. 2014). Recent Montana investigations here (DeCesare et al. 2021).

Also, you brought up recruitment not being positively influenced by lowering buck to doe ratios. Contrarily, that is exactly the case to an extent…. fewer deer/bucks = higher recruitment (Bishop et al. 2005; Bergman et al. 2011). Also check out all of the Utah general season buck:doe ratios debates going on right now and Dr. Larsen and company’s recent reports.
 
Last edited:
The long term lead poisoning, courtesy of decades of piss poor management should be obvious - even in the total absence of useful data. It’s comforting to know that so many people will fight to the death to oppose any changes that involve a sacrifice that could result in improvement.
Yes! Lead is the problem. If we all are allowed to deal lead annually the poisoning will continue.
 
Last edited:
from colorado? I seem to remember montana denying colorado wolves, you know the same ones you got anyways that are $*)Q!#@$ shit up. Ahhh shoot your right idgaf about CO, I hope they eat all your elk and deer so you have nothing to hunt... your a moron dude. Why even comment on a thread as many times as you did and then not care after? Like oh man 911 happened in new York? Dont care to go there so oh well, thats what you sound like. Never matters till its in your backyard then you want others to care?
Hey hey, I see the point you’re making my man I totally get the figurative suggestion but I think initially he was pointing to a definition and caught some backlash. The question was what is defined as healthy? Especially from an outsider to somebody(the residents of MT) that doesn’t want reduced opportunity but wants to help the resource. I can see the tongue in cheek ‘have your cake and eat it too’ redundancy. Dudes not a moron actually quite intelligent from my reading lol in my opinion reduced opportunity should be at the expense of NON residents first. MOGA ain’t down with that. They are the lobbyists behind all this. Get mad at that, not the Coloradans 🤣😅
 
from colorado? I seem to remember montana denying colorado wolves, you know the same ones you got anyways that are $*)Q!#@$ shit up. Ahhh shoot your right idgaf about CO, I hope they eat all your elk and deer so you have nothing to hunt... your a moron dude. Why even comment on a thread as many times as you did and then not care after? Like oh man 911 happened in new York? Dont care to go there so oh well, thats what you sound like. Never matters till its in your backyard then you want others to care?
Do you need a hug?
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
117,774
Messages
2,168,269
Members
38,347
Latest member
Ctscott10
Back
Top