MT Mule Deer Symposium

[Deleted member 20812]

Although therein lies the problem, I agree and I think many others agree on that.

One consideration worth analyzing is the difference in numbers of hunters and available gross hunting ground in Montana versus Washington ... before we jump on the Washington band wagon of limiting hunting opportunity and doling out that opportunity.

And I would certainly argue that WA has gone way overboard in the limiting of its permits. If a unit is routinely growing a number of bulls in the 380-400 class then I think that there are not enough permits being issued. The old law of diminishing returns, eh?

MT has much more public land available, and you are exactly correct in your assessment.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Can't show me cause you are reading between the lines....? I respect an honest man

I am pretty sure that we don't think that we are the "holy gods" of mule deer management and that we think of DIY hunters as peons and that you should have "scraps". I don't think that either of us are implying that at all. And....if there is no rut season......and no "spilling over"......then those bucks make it through the season, only to be bigger the next season and to pass those genes on to the next generation....and the cycle continues. No "spillage" either way, to public or to private.

How many acres? Could always use more. Why? Do you have a lead on some? If you do, shoot me a pm and let me know the details please Just kidding!

Those genes get passed on regardless of whether the deer is two or ten.

One of the underlying issues is not everyone can lease a place like the Booth Ranch. So, you have smaller ranches, and the big buck wanders off during the rut and gets smoked on the neighbors or one public land. It would seem to me that is the "spillage" that the outfitters want to eliminate.

If the majority of Montanans are happy, then why does anything need changed to pander to the trophy hunting crowd?

 

[BuzzH]

If the majority of Montanans are happy, then why does anything need changed to pander to the trophy hunting crowd?

There it is...couldnt agree more.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

I think it was already mentioned above, but if I'm an outfitter, and I want to make my own season so that the deer aren't hunted in the rut I already have that ability. All I need to do is lease up a large continguous block of land, and I can do whatever I want.

If you don't want to shoot bucks during the rut, don't. Stop hunting after the first two weeks. In the end though, it doesn't make any difference if you shoot that 190" buck the first week or the last. He's still dead, and his gene are still in the pool.

The biggest factor affecting the age structure of the bucks is how many you shoot, pure and simple. The wildcard with the rut is now the big bucks wander and aren't as secure on said outfitter's lease.

 

[belly-deep]

One of the underlying issues is not everyone can lease a place like the Booth Ranch. So, you have smaller ranches, and the big buck wanders off during the rut and gets smoked on the neighbors or one public land. It would seem to me that is the "spillage" that the outfitters want to eliminate.

In many instances, the opposite happens and the outfitters actually come out on top. They frequently lease the riverbottoms and irrigated farm land where herds of dozens of does stand out in the field 24/7 munching alfalfa. Where do you think the bucks head to once the rut rolls around? In many areas leased private land acts as a black hole, sucking up every mature buck off the surrounding public land when the rut kicks in.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Wildlife Services' deadly force brings environmental problems
Stay Connected


Register | Log in Logout | Member Center Tom Knudson | The Sacramento Bee
Tom Knudson The Sacramento Bee

But Wildlife Services continues to kill nonselectively in many places, including the Granite Mountains north of Reno where the goal is protecting a big-game species – mule deer – and is funded by a predator control fee assessed on hunters.
Stark, majestic and isolated, the Granites loom like an island over the desert terrain. But that beauty is deceiving because the range is a place of rough justice for predators, internal Wildlife Services records show.
After slicing open a mountain lion killed in a federal neck snare in 2008, one agency hunter filled out a handwritten report: "Stomach contained deer hair and bone fragments," he noted. Eleven days later, he cut open another lion with different results: "He had nothing in his stomach."
In some cases, animals had rotted away by the time the agency hunter found them. "Only the skull was saved due to decay. … Pelt not saved due to decay/slippage. … Decomposition did not allow for accurate weight estimate," he wrote in a series of reports about mountain lions.
In 2009, the hunter found two lions dead in snares close to each other, "most likely" a mother and daughter, he wrote. Coyotes were targeted routinely, including four pups killed in their den in May 2011.
Has the killing been worth it? That is what scientists have asked as they've flown over the Granites, comparing the size and growth of deer herds where predators were killed with places where they were not.
The scientists have packaged their data and findings into reports and presentations filled with biological jargon and complex statistical analysis. But in plain English, it hasn't worked.
"There was no discernible difference," said Tony Wasley, a mule-deer biologist with the Nevada Department of Wildlife. "There were several different (population) variables we tested, and none were significantly different than adjacent areas with no predator control."
Two other factors generally have bigger impacts: harsh weather and poor forage conditions. When there is not enough to eat, saving a deer from predation may only delay death by starvation later.
"The simplicity of predator control has broad appeal," Wasley said. "The complexity of the problem is far greater."
A recent study in "Wildlife Monographs," a scientific journal published by the Wildlife Society, reported that most years, coyotes don't prey on deer at all. They're busy eating mice and rabbits. And even when a coyote does kill a mule deer, it generally doesn't have an impact.
"There is a contingent of mule deer that are going to die every year anyway. Often those are the first ones coyotes prey on," said Mark Hurley, a mule-deer biologist with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game and author of the study.
"The silver bullet isn't to run out there and kill all the coyotes or all the lions and boom – you get all the deer back," said Ken Mayer, director of the Nevada Department of Wildlife. "It's way, way more complicated than that."
On occasion, Wasley has presented his findings to Wildlife Services managers in Reno. "I've been told my analysis is a morale breaker, that they don't like me because I'm doing objective analysis," he said.
"The director told me he's got a tough time keeping his guys' spirits up when they read what they're doing has yet to demonstrate any measurable benefit," Wasley said.
To read more, visit www.sacbee.com.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/05/01/147245/wildlife-services-deadly-force.html#storylink=cpy


Eric,

More arguments against your logic.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

In many instances, the opposite happens and the outfitters actually come out on top. They frequently lease the riverbottoms and irrigated farm land where herds of dozens of does stand out in the field 24/7 munching alfalfa. Where do you think the bucks head to once the rut rolls around? In many areas leased private land acts as a black hole, sucking up every mature buck off the surrounding public land when the rut kicks in.

Absolutely correct, but they still lose big deer every year to hunters who are taking the "slop" off of a neighboring piece of public land, or a BMA.

 

[belly-deep]

Absolutely correct, but they still lose big deer every year to hunters who are taking the "slop" off of a neighboring piece of public land, or a BMA.

Probably get a little slop too though...no net gain/loss, IMO.

Of course, it would depend on the individual situation.

 

[Ben Lamb]

An op-ed germane to the discussion:
http://mtstandard.com/news/opinion/...cle_8c66eec4-610f-11e2-98d1-0019bb2963f4.html

 

[The Hedgehog]

An op-ed germane to the discussion:
http://mtstandard.com/news/opinion/...cle_8c66eec4-610f-11e2-98d1-0019bb2963f4.html

I'm all ears for any creative ideas than don't involve doling out $, permits, licenses, or special seasons for landowners or outfitting. As long as everybody's on equal ground... Montana has great deer hunting as is.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I'm all ears for any creative ideas than don't involve doling out $, permits, licenses, or special seasons for landowners or outfitting. As long as everybody's on equal ground... Montana has great deer hunting as is.

That's it right there.

Let's not bring into the discussion the things we know we won't agree on, and focus on the things we can. The Utah/Colorado model and the Alberta model are both too contentious.

I still think we can address the issue through modifications of Block Management to provide a few more tools for FWP and Landowners to tailor the hunting on those properties while providing plenty of public access.

Wyoming has focused on quality over quantity in their Access Yes program. I've not used it, but it seems to get high marks.

 

[shoots-straight]

There's hundreds of thousands of acres in SW Montana where very little mule deer exist. Many of these areas were 2 buck areas back in the 60's.

The habitat isn't so different than back then, but that's a non professional talking too.

The biggest thing I saw was the no to low tolerance by the livestock industry in that region. Livestock is king there, and what they say goes. Several attempts to bring back the mule deer herds there have been met with resistance.

Dept bio's cave under the political pressures and give out too many tags to bring any good numbers back. There are a few places with mule deer but they are the best of the agricultural areas, (private) and the most remote in the region.

The hunters scream no deer, and the Ag scream too many. That's the crutch.

 

[What Map]

That's it right there.

Let's not bring into the discussion the things we know we won't agree on, and focus on the things we can. The Utah/Colorado model and the Alberta model are both too contentious.

I still think we can address the issue through modifications of Block Management to provide a few more tools for FWP and Landowners to tailor the hunting on those properties while providing plenty of public access.

Ben, I agree. We have the Block Mgmt program to reward landowners. It is a program that most resident hunters understand and support. I'm hopeful outfitters will see improving and expanding the program as "common ground." Another area is the Farm bill and CRP.

 

[Big Shooter]

Buzz.....I know this one, and it actually answers most of questions in your post titled "Name One Thing"....and that answer is Block Management. It actually was "common ground" in the form of tags for acces. You can't argue that one little buddy:hump: But apparently it wasn't good enough so they took the outfitting industries share of the "common ground" away, but kept the BM. Moving the season off of the rut would not limit opportunity for anyone as everyone would have the same, just like now only different dates.

Belly-deep....you are right that the does gather on the better quality private and munch alfalfa and when the rut kicks in the bucks come to find them and the "black hole" thing happens and they get sucked off of the public, I won't argue that as we all see that a lot. So.......if we didn't hunt the rut, and those bucks were still on the public during the entire season and not just the first part of it and they didn't get tipped over by some client on private......wouldn't that mean more opportunity for the DIY hunter on public?

 

[Dinkshooter]

I will tell you, even though this is Colorado and there is a 190 buck behind every tree it blows being out elk hunting in Colorado in a unit/season that you do not have a deer tag for and seeing a whopper buck.

It also is not much fun when your favorite/home unit goes severely limited………….

 

[Lawnboy]

There's hundreds of thousands of acres in SW Montana where very little mule deer exist. Many of these areas were 2 buck areas back in the 60's.

The habitat isn't so different than back then, but that's a non professional talking too.

The biggest thing I saw was the no to low tolerance by the livestock industry in that region. Livestock is king there, and what they say goes. Several attempts to bring back the mule deer herds there have been met with resistance.

Dept bio's cave under the political pressures and give out too many tags to bring any good numbers back. There are a few places with mule deer but they are the best of the agricultural areas, (private) and the most remote in the region.

The hunters scream no deer, and the Ag scream too many. That's the crutch.

I agree with your statement. Gravelley's come to mind with the above scenario. I'm not looking to have giant bucks all over the state. I would simply like to be able to see some mule deer. SW Montana should have way more deer than it currently does. It's almost a treat now if you see a group of 10-15 anywhere in SW Mt. Pretty sad

 

[1_pointer]

Ben, I agree. We have the Block Mgmt program to reward landowners. It is a program that most resident hunters understand and support. I'm hopeful outfitters will see improving and expanding the program as "common ground." Another area is the Farm bill and CRP.

Curious as to how you percieve the Farm Bill (which the next one will be much different than any before) and CRP helping with mule deer or hunting?

 

[belly-deep]

Belly-deep....you are right that the does gather on the better quality private and munch alfalfa and when the rut kicks in the bucks come to find them and the "black hole" thing happens and they get sucked off of the public, I won't argue that as we all see that a lot. So.......if we didn't hunt the rut, and those bucks were still on the public during the entire season and not just the first part of it and they didn't get tipped over by some client on private......wouldn't that mean more opportunity for the DIY hunter on public?

In many areas it would mean more opportunity for the DIY hunter in the form of a few more mature bucks running around, but it would reduce opportunity by moving the seasons to October.

Even for the few more deer it might save, I don't think its a good trade.

We're the last state with a general rut hunt, and as you know, hunting the rut is quite a bit of fun. I'll head down to Colorado one of these days and burn my points there in the land of trophy deer and chopped up seasons. I don't think having one western state with a little different style of hunt is a bad thing.

 

[BuzzH]

Big-Shooter,

You're full of crap...outfitters didnt do one thing for Block Management. Your clients paid the freight and you did nothing...as per usual.

 

[Big Shooter]

Dinkshooter......I bet that is agonizing to see that down there, not only the big deer when hunting elk, but the the tag limitations too. No argument here and I don't think anyone wants to see Montana go to that system either.

Belly-deep.....you are right, hunting the rut is a large time and not to mention a great marketing tool for the State of Montana and their license sales, and a great marketing tool for the outfitting industry as well, because as you stated it is different than any other Western state. I would surely like to think though that if the state of Montana as a whole could get back on the "trophy mule deer map" that it too would be a significant marketing tool for all involved and then maybe Montana could justify the high priced NR license fees as well. Just a thought.

Buzz......here is some more of "my crap", if you will. How can you say that outfitters didn't do anything for BM when it was agreed upon by both sides as a win-win deal? Yes our clients paid the bill....the clients that we as outfitters brought into the state. If the outfitting industry as a whole did not bring those clients to the table then how was the ever so famous Block Management going to get funded? I bet I know what your thinking.......I bet you are thinking that it should have went down something like this: Joe Outfitter drives into Bob Landowners place and says "Bob, I will pay you $10 for every DIY hunter that you let on your place to hunt....out of my pocket. Just keep track of it and I'll scratch ya a check at the end of the season for the amount. I'm not gonna bring any clients on here, just let everyone in.....Hell, I'll pay for it." I always felt that when our clients payed whorehouse prices for the OSL's that that should be enough. Apparently in your world it wasn't.