MT Mule Deer Symposium

[Eric Albus]

that is a pretty good take on the symposium by ingomar... quick question for you though...do you buy into FWP's survey results? or, as I feel, do they load the questions to recieve the answers they want? I do agree w/ Quentin's assesment of "habitat has more impact than any other factor on deer populations"....until we examine the fact that NE and SE Montana has had little to no change in the habitat, yet numbers are declining, specifically in SE Mt, and predator numbers are up...coincidence?

 

[Lawnboy]

Rimrock the Bridgers are my favorite range to hunt as well. Not many around can remember the deer numbers in the 80's. It's sickening to think of how this used to be such a great deer area and what it is now. I'm with you though on the habitat thing. Nothing has changed in the Bridgers in regards to habitat. Sure there are more elk but even in the last 5 years the majority are residing on the flats year round which means little to no competition on the mountain with muleys. Do I think predators are playing a role? Sure do. But the one thing that can be controlled is us the hunters. With your observation of little to hardly any deer on the mountain anytime of the year can you even fathom why we are shooting does?

Makes no sense. If we are having habitat loss or predation or whatever and the Fwp admits it's a struggling area then why do they continue to kill does This issue is so frustrating to me. I personally believe that mule deer and other animals for that matter are being put on the back burner with the whole wolf and elk thing getting all the attention. Growing up with a biologist dad I know what they can do. They have to have a spine though and really raise hell at the office. I like Julie (our bio) but I can't wrap my head around the tag situation she is continuing to allow in the Bridgers.

Screw opportunity for the public we are in a crisis here and until we slow down on the kill numbers (the one thing we can control) we are the ones to blame for the mule deer demise.

 

[What Map]

Most of the discussion centered on how best to privatize and commercialize wildlife and manage it like livestock. Curiously I seldom (once, maybe twice) heard the term Ranching for Wildlife. They may have chosen “Integrated Management” or possibly “Integrated Ranching” to distance themselves from the bad reputation RFW has earned.

I had one of MOGA's officers mention during our conversation during one of the breaks that "we" should drop the term "Ranching for Wildlife" to help facilitate future policy discussion in Helena.

The first 3 presentations were informative. Miles Moretti, President/CEO of the Mule Deer Foundation gave a “Status Report on Mule Deer in the American West” heavy on Utah as that is where he is from. Miles did a good job of defining the causes of mule deer declines over the past 30 years. He also offered his thoughts on what needed to be done to bring mule deer populations back to higher levels. His primary focus was in habitat restoration to replace some of the less desirable habitat with more traditional mule deer habitat. While he said that loss of habitat was the biggest factor causing mule deer declines, it seemed that the audience firmly believe predation is the primary cause.

A take away for me was that improved sage grouse habitat almsot always improved mule deer habitat

Link to News release on resident portion of study. You may have to cut and paste.
http://fwp.mt.gov/news/newsReleases/headlines/nr_3987.html

thanks for finding this URL, I could not find it.

He then introduced the Director of Marketing for Boone & Crockett who explained a version of the North American Model (NAM) that seems to justify selling wildlife by the inch, not by the pound. He explained the NAM resulted from resentment of the European model where wildlife belonged to as he put it, “nobility and the wealthy”. He referred to Robin Hood and the kings deer and how there was no incentive for the public to protect the “king’s deer”. Most in the room missed or ignored the irony of reserving the public’s wildlife for the wealthy through schemes like Ranching for Wildlife.

I caught the irony, but no one followed up during Q&A

Conspicuous by its absence was any attempt to address the Mule Deer satisfaction survey and the wishes of a large majority of both resident and non-resident hunters to manage mule deer for opportunity and how this related to the Ranching for Wildlife model so heavily promoted.
Yes, clearly conspicuous by its absence!

I did learn a whole new appreciation for the Ranching for Wildlife advocates. They are slick.

Yep, smooth if not slick.

 

[ingomar]

Eric
My personal opinion is that if you polled every Montana big game hunter the majority would support our current 5 week season. Yes we kill some big bucks those last two weeks during the rut, but the number of families that use the Thanksgiving break to go hunting seems more important than the additional kill. That is a valued Montana tradition. It goes back to something many of us believe "the quality of the hunt is not determined by the quality of the animal". I would agree that giving out doe tags at a time of declining populations makes very little sense. Headwaters Sportsmen Association fought the FWP Commission back in the late 1990's over the number of doe tags they were giving out in NE & eastern Montana. One year we actually got them to reduce the number from 6000 tags to 3000 tags for the region. Still was probably too many tags.

 

[Eric Albus]

Then in your opinion wildlife should be managed by a popularity contest and not biologically? Again you refer to "survey sez" metality of managment....I can draw up a survey and have the questions answered the way I want them to be also....does not really take much imagination....

Question number one: Would you be willing to give up hunting during the rut if it was detrimental to the resource and against sound biological mangment practices?(most folks would answer yes)

Or as FWP would ask the question: Would you be willing to give up the traditional Thankgiving hunt for a chance to possibly harvest a larger buck? (most folks are going to answer no)

We have a choice...either accept things the way they are an stop complaining about "access, equity, and quality", or we can work together w/ FWP and find a solution that puts science(biological managment) and the resource as a priority.

 

[ingomar]

Don't recall saying anything about "access, equity or quality". Everyone verbalizes that they want science based wildlife management without every defining what that is. My definitions of science based management maybe totally contrary to your definition and yet both could be considered science based. Managing for quanity or quality or vice versa-is that science based? What evidence is there that our current 5 week season has been biologically harmful to the overall condition of our mule deer herds? Habitat loss thru subdivisions, change in agricultural practices etc. have had a dramatic effect on our wildlife populations across the west.

I once had a long discussion with the biologist Dave Pac regarding his 27+ year study of the Bridger Mountains mule deer herd. What I remember the most about that conversation was that no matter what they had tried, long seasons, short seasons, 4 pt or better restrictions, etc., the primary impact on the deer populations came from mother nature not human manipulations. The winter of 2010 had a tremendous impact on our deer/antelope populations and lots animals were going to die whether we had a 1 wk season or 5 week season.

 

[Straight Arrow]

The winter of 2010 had a tremendous impact on our deer/antelope populations and lots animals were going to die whether we had a 1 wk season or 5 week season.

That is why in the symposium presentation of the hierarchy of impacts on mule deer populations habitat (or the loss thereof) and weather were at the top, with predators lesser, and with hunters at the bottom.

 

[Eric Albus]

well, let's take a look at things from outside the FWP macro-scope. Maybe the rest of the western states are derelict in their managment of mule deer...oh, wait a second Montana's Gov Tag for mule deer is the cheapest(only by a 150k or so) of the western states...coincidence? me thinks not.....so perhaps we are doing something wrong here.

I readily admit that there is a happy medium from what Ken Clegg purports and the reality of managing a wildlife population so that all can benefit. We just need to identify what and where that is. The current wholesale slaughter of every legal buck/bull/doe/fawn that crosses Block, BLM, CMR, FS, whatever, is not a good thing, anymore that managing for a 240 inch buck can be a reality.

I agree that habitat plays a large role in wildlife numbers, in some areas it is the limiting factor....that said, let's look at Reg. 6 & 7....during the course of my lifetime the habitat has basically not changed(if anything it's improved). Weather and predators(2 legged & 4) have had the biggest impact on numbers. Right now in Reg.7 the main impact we are seeing is from coyotes, same as I saw here in Reg. 6 14-15 yrs ago...very, very, very, low fawn recruitment. Yet FWP still sells antlerless tags and allows does on the "A" tag in 7. Whitetail numbers are off on the Milk 85-99.9% and the Dept. sold 1200 doe/fawn tags here in Reg. 6...when I think about that all I can say is "wow"

Back when I was on the Valley County Sportsman's Club board(around 95-96, thats 1995-6, not 1885-6) the antelope here in Region 6 were plummetting from record high numbers to abismal lows...and the Dept. kept on passing out "doe/fawn" antelope license's...the answer we got from then head of Reg. 6 was, and I quote, "well, hunters will only shoot barren does, everthing will be fine".(again, wow)....let's be honest....it was/is about license revenue, not biology.

 

[Dinkshooter]

Right now in Reg.7 the main impact we are seeing is from coyotes, same as I saw here in Reg. 6 14-15 yrs ago...very, very, very, low fawn recruitment.

How do you know the low fawn recruitment is due to coyotes?

 

[Lawnboy]

I once had a long discussion with the biologist Dave Pac regarding his 27+ year study of the Bridger Mountains mule deer herd. What I remember the most about that conversation was that no matter what they had tried, long seasons, short seasons, 4 pt or better restrictions, etc., the primary impact on the deer populations came from mother nature not human manipulations. The winter of 2010 had a tremendous impact on our deer/antelope populations and lots animals were going to die whether we had a 1 wk season or 5 week season.

I also visited with Dave while checking in my deer from the Bridgers in 2003. I had waited a while to draw that tag and was really disappointed at what i saw that season. Mentioning it to him he says "well you know those big ol bucks will leave the Bridger ridge and travel at night all the way to the valley floor to breed a doe then walk all the way back up. That's why you aren't seeing much". Oh really that's interesting because they weren't that way in the 80's. Anyway that answer really made me question his knowledge of the dynamics of the Bridgers towards the end of his career.
Then to cap it off I was continuing my rant and bringing up the idea that we should cut the tag numbers and see if we can help them recover. His comment was "we have to provide opportunity for the local population of hunters" I lost all respect after that comment. Again knowing the herd is in decline whether by habitat loss,predators,hunting or whatever he was using that as an excuse to continue and pound the deer population,

I do agree that the weather does and has played a big role in the decline. We had some bad winters that started all this in the early 90's. I wouldn't blame 2010 for the whole decline over here in the Bozeman area. I know it killed the guys out east. It's been sucking for 12 or so years now and not a dang thing is being done about it.

So Ingomar if you do believe what Dave is saying that the weather is too blame. Then what is the department doing to help. Wouldn't reduction in opportunity help a herd that is struggling? We can't control weather. I guess it's just frustrating to sit in those year end meetings and have them say "Yea our deer numbers are the lowest they've ever been" and then nothing is done to slow harvest.

 

[TheTone]

What has Montana's population done since the glory days of mule deer? What about highway traffic? I've spent way more time than I cared to on I-15 the last few years and always saw plenty of road kills, not matter what time of the year I was on the road. Does Montana have data showing which parts of the season are having the highest level of success or hunters in the field? What percentage of the tags are still unfilled by Thanksgiving and by that point what are hunters looking to harvest? Mule deer present a ton of questions and finding solutions is the tough part.

 

[Eric Albus]

dinkshooter...during the mid-90's here at home(Reg. 6) we would see more coyotes in a day than we did mule deer...during the spring the coyotes would follow antelope does and mule deer does around all day....fawn recruitement was around 2 fawns per 10 does(sometimes 1:10)....so when I am traveling around in Reg. 7, and see more coyotes in a day than I do fawn mule deer(somedays, not all), I am taking an educated guess that those coyotes are doing the same as the ones I see here at home(eatin' most of the fawn crop).......an ol' timer I knew in the Missouri Breaks told me that during the 30's the Gov't flew the Missouri Breaks and dropped 1080'd meat balls...within 3 years the mule deer were thick....

lawnboy, that which you were told is Department Rhetoric Standard Issue(drsi). Whilst I know nothing about the deer in the Bridgers, we get the same 'ol b.s. dispensed here. I will lend any support I can to see the deer there managed biologically.
I will give you another quote from the same Reg. 6 head I quoted in the previous post.... "there are just as many big bucks out there today as there was 50 years ago, there are just more hunters out there competing for them"....more DRSI.

 

[Dinkshooter]

dinkshooter...during the mid-90's here at home(Reg. 6) we would see more coyotes in a day than we did mule deer...during the spring the coyotes would follow antelope does and mule deer does around all day....fawn recruitement was around 2 fawns per 10 does(sometimes 1:10)....so when I am traveling around in Reg. 7, and see more coyotes in a day than I do fawn mule deer(somedays, not all), I am taking an educated guess that those coyotes are doing the same as the ones I see here at home(eatin' most of the fawn crop).......an ol' timer I knew in the Missouri Breaks told me that during the 30's the Gov't flew the Missouri Breaks and dropped 1080'd meat balls...within 3 years the mule deer were thick....

So nothing based on science, just your observations.

How many predator/mule deer studies have found that coyotes are actually the absolute cause of low fawn recruitment?

 

[cowboy]

So nothing based on science, just your observations.

How many predator/mule deer studies have found that coyotes are actually the absolute cause of low fawn recruitment?

Dink:
You ain't listening. The above posters are telling you all the science(biology) don't mean squat when you are to follow the DRSI response method.

If one of the States FWP's biologist would come out and boldly want ANY predator reduction he might as well start applying for a job as a Walmart greeter - maybe you could show him the ropes.

 

[belly-deep]

What has Montana's population done since the glory days of mule deer?

As yes, I'm glad you brought that up Tone.

Let's talk about the "glory days" a bit, shall we?

If you look back at the record books, Montana has always been behing Wyoming, Idaho, Colorado, and Utah in terms of big bucks.

That tells me that even if the residents were 100% in support of turning MT into a big buck factory at the cost of general tag public rut hunting, we would still fail at creating a Henry's unit or a statewide management system that produces big bucks like Colorado.

Certainly the hunting was better in the "glory days," as it was in every western state with the possible exception of Nevada.

But constantly comparing MT deer to Utah and Colorado will always end up with MT coming in at last place, not matter what we do.

Sure some things could be improved upon, and there are probably things like doe tags that the FWP doesn't need to be issuing.

Using the Bridgers as an example, posters have talked about how nothing seems to have changed except for the deer quality. That is not true. People have changed, and by people I mean subdivisions and trophy homes. If you don't think that has an effect, read Walt Prothero's books in deer hunting the Wasatch front in Utah. Even Utah management hasn't been able to restore the hunting Walt experienced on the Wastach front. Some things cannot be undone, no matter how hard we wish them to.

 

[El Jason]

Go look at some of the big ranches in MT that allow very limited mule deer hunting, and look at the size of bucks that come off of there. For example, the Padlock Ranch in SE Montanta is outfitted and has been for at least 20 years. The outfitter shoots a handful of bucks off of this place each year in MT and WY, and the biggest deer will go in the 180's or 190's. Compare that to what CO produces each year. MT is limited in the size of deer it can grow.

That's not to say that management can't be improved, but keep things in perspective too.

 

[Lawnboy]

I could care less about trophy bucks it's the shear number that has me scared. The numbers a so low its not funny. I had the tag 2 years ago and saw 14 does and 6 bucks the whole season. I'm not saying I'm joe hunter but not even being able to glass more than that from the valley is a little ridiculous. I did see more this year but not near what it should be.

The front range of the Bridgers cannot even be compared to the Wasatch. Not even the same league in regards to housing development. The majority of the range is bordered by ranches. These ranches have been here 50+ years. There have been very few that have sold and subdivided. We aren't losing habitat because of development on the Bridgers.

 

[Point Creep]

I think JLS and belly-deep have some excellent points.

 

[Big Shooter]

Just a thought here......maybe I have just been oblivious to it, but I haven't seen too many subdivisions springing up in Broadus, Jordan, Forsyth, Ekalaka, or oddly enough, even Hammond, but yet the numbers are not heading through the roof and the quality is hovering at "Not bad....but could be better".

Here is a brain teaser for all of us: Why is it that Wyoming, directly to our south, can consistently produce better deer and more of them than Montana can year in and year out? I chit you not....you cross the border going south and in 10 miles or less the quality of bucks go up considerably. Same habitat, same gene pool (for the most part), same agricultural practices, basically same everything...........except for what....? THE RUT!! They are smarter than us and don't hunt THE RUT! In this ever so famous survey where 65 or 75%, or whatever the hell it was, residents wanted the long season to over-lap Thanksgiving so they could hunt with family......don't we all agree that they would still buy their $14 tag and continue to hunt? Even if 10% didn't, I bet they would in a year or two after they see better deer getting harvested.

Should we really be basing our game management on people that are wanting to go out and slam dunk a 2 1/2 year old 4 point out of the window of their Isuzu and then get home to watch the football game and gobble down a turkey breast? Probably not, but I am also not saying that we need to manage for 200 inch deer as the norm either. That opportunity would be available to the landowner if he or she so desired if the age class was a bit higher. Just like it is now though, those better deer would spill over from private to public and from public to private giving everyone a chance at better quality hunting......strictly MY opinion.

 

[Lawnboy]

Just a thought here......maybe I have just been oblivious to it, but I haven't seen too many subdivisions springing up in Broadus, Jordan, Forsyth, Ekalaka, or oddly enough, even Hammond, but yet the numbers are not heading through the roof and the quality is hovering at "Not bad....but could be better".

Here is a brain teaser for all of us: Why is it that Wyoming, directly to our south, can consistently produce better deer and more of them than Montana can year in and year out? I chit you not....you cross the border going south and in 10 miles or less the quality of bucks go up considerably. Same habitat, same gene pool (for the most part), same agricultural practices, basically same everything...........except for what....? THE RUT!! They are smarter than us and don't hunt THE RUT! In this ever so famous survey where 65 or 75%, or whatever the hell it was, residents wanted the long season to over-lap Thanksgiving so they could hunt with family......don't we all agree that they would still buy their $14 tag and continue to hunt? Even if 10% didn't, I bet they would in a year or two after they see better deer getting harvested.

Should we really be basing our game management on people that are wanting to go out and slam dunk a 2 1/2 year old 4 point out of the window of their Isuzu and then get home to watch the football game and gobble down a turkey breast? Probably not, but I am also not saying that we need to manage for 200 inch deer as the norm either. That opportunity would be available to the landowner if he or she so desired if the age class was a bit higher. Just like it is now though, those better deer would spill over from private to public and from public to private giving everyone a chance at better quality hunting......strictly MY opinion.

Good point as well Shooter. The same thing Dink said earlier.