Toadslayer
Member
Exactly my point as well. As long as the energy industry follows the environmental regulations, then I don't think they are the ones to blame in all this.
And I don't see hardly any wellfields like that in eastern montana.
MT Mule Deer Symposium
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
Exactly my point as well. As long as the energy industry follows the environmental regulations, then I don't think they are the ones to blame in all this.
And I don't see hardly any wellfields like that in eastern montana.
Lawnboy
Well-known member
Thanks this is just what we were looking for. Like you said take it for what it's worth but seems consistent with what most of us have found. Especially those of us who have been here 20+ years
That is pretty telling...
It's crazy to me that we kill almost as many mule deer in the state as we do whitetail.
Agreed. Which is why so many of us get upset when they talk a big game but work to eliminate those same regulations.
In my opinion, all of America shares the blame when it comes to declining mule deer herds. The O&G industry gets their share, just like everyone else.
belly-deep
Active member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 3,459
Yes...and that MD bucks are the highest harvested of the four subgroups of deer.
But even more telling, IMO, is the fact that whitetail harvest has also declined.
That tells me this is not just a mule deer issue, but a deer issue in general.
Makes me think predator numbers may have more to do with it than a few on here are willing to admit because whitetails can adjust to darn near any habitat (the riverbottoms sure as heck aren't disappearing???).
Don't forget the OTC region wide WT doe tags... Those years killed the whitetail populations in my spots. The WT buck harvest has been pretty steady according to those numbers.
Look at the big spike in WT does killed in 2005/2006 and subsequent drop off.
drahthaar
Active member
When was the MT youth hunt started? About then wasn't it?
Making does/cows legal for 12-15 year olds? Right around then, yeah.
There's no way the numbers from that compared to the OTC B tags though.
Bambistew
Well-known member
The WT buck harvest has remained pretty much constant on a state-wide basis... however that could be because more pressure is being put on them due to decreased MD numbers?
This last fall in the few areas i hunted on SW MT, the MD numbers seemed to be back to about what they were pre 2000ish but still low. It was much better than i can remember from the last ten years or so. The WT numbers were down but not bad. Eastern MT sucked, the worst I've ever seen it since i first hunted it in 1995.
This last fall in the few areas i hunted on SW MT, the MD numbers seemed to be back to about what they were pre 2000ish but still low. It was much better than i can remember from the last ten years or so. The WT numbers were down but not bad. Eastern MT sucked, the worst I've ever seen it since i first hunted it in 1995.
Last edited:
Travis_Mt
New member
First off I love this site… although I do not post much, I get on here almost everyday and really do enjoy it.I just wanted to post something about this because the decline of the mule deer is something I am very passionate about. There is no single solution for this problem, whether it is severe winters, urban sprawl, the logging of winter grounds, predators, over hunting, habitat decline and migration corridor fragmentation, it all adds up to form the perfect storm. Colorado and Utah have spent millions of dollars over the last 5 plus years on habitat, research etc. They even lowered the number of tags given out and the mule deer are still declining. This is not a simple or quick fix but we need to all work together now so we will have these deer for the future. Here are some of my thoughts regarding the reasoning behind the mule deer decline and NO I do not have scientific data or anything else to back some of this up, just some food for thought.
1)Loss of Habitat. There are lots of factors included in this: urban sprawl, quick wild fire suppression, logging of the winter ranges, noxious weeds, and over grazing , to name a few
2)Predators…and no not WOLVES…I bet coyotes kill more deer than wolves and lions combined. You add in bobcats and bears and you have a lot of predators grazing on these declining herds. If you are NOT out hunting predators like you hunt other big game animals, then you have NO room to talk in any conversation regarding Wolves or any other predator.
3) Mismanaging of resources...We cannot continue to hunt mule deer the way we have for the last 50 plus years and expect them to last.
4) Too many doe tags…they say a mule deer lives ten years in the wild and during this time they will have about seven fawns that make it. For the last 20 years plus the doe limits have been way out numbering the deer. Do the math over the last 10 years and see where that gets you today.
5) Stop hunting the deer in the rut (don’t get me wrong I LOVE this) but this in no way to manage a resource that has been declining for years…Everyone that is against this think what would happen if we were allowed to hunt elk starting Sept. 1st. Do you think there would be many elk left? Maybe do a special draw for the last three weeks or something
6) Stop shooting every antlered buck out there. I am not saying make all areas a trophy area but maybe to 4 point or better the final 3 weeks or all season. I know this is not a good way to manage trophy bucks, but before you can have trophy deer, you must first have a healthy and striving heard.
7) Raise the cost of deer tags in Montana by $5 and put that money towards deer habitat, studies etc
8) STOP being so GREEDY…we all need to come together and work on these issues and not worry about punching our tags every year. If we do not come together soon, there will not be many deer to hunt for the future. You cannot just change one thing and expect there to be more mule deer next year. This is not a quick fix or an easy fix. There are a lot of things that need to happen in order for us, to see mule deer numbers increasing...
“Here is your country. Cherish these natural wonders, cherish the natural resources, cherish the history and romance as a sacred heritage, for your children and your children's children. Do not let selfish men or greedy interests skin your country of its beauty, its riches or its romance.”
― Theodore Roosevelt
1)Loss of Habitat. There are lots of factors included in this: urban sprawl, quick wild fire suppression, logging of the winter ranges, noxious weeds, and over grazing , to name a few
2)Predators…and no not WOLVES…I bet coyotes kill more deer than wolves and lions combined. You add in bobcats and bears and you have a lot of predators grazing on these declining herds. If you are NOT out hunting predators like you hunt other big game animals, then you have NO room to talk in any conversation regarding Wolves or any other predator.
3) Mismanaging of resources...We cannot continue to hunt mule deer the way we have for the last 50 plus years and expect them to last.
4) Too many doe tags…they say a mule deer lives ten years in the wild and during this time they will have about seven fawns that make it. For the last 20 years plus the doe limits have been way out numbering the deer. Do the math over the last 10 years and see where that gets you today.
5) Stop hunting the deer in the rut (don’t get me wrong I LOVE this) but this in no way to manage a resource that has been declining for years…Everyone that is against this think what would happen if we were allowed to hunt elk starting Sept. 1st. Do you think there would be many elk left? Maybe do a special draw for the last three weeks or something
6) Stop shooting every antlered buck out there. I am not saying make all areas a trophy area but maybe to 4 point or better the final 3 weeks or all season. I know this is not a good way to manage trophy bucks, but before you can have trophy deer, you must first have a healthy and striving heard.
7) Raise the cost of deer tags in Montana by $5 and put that money towards deer habitat, studies etc
8) STOP being so GREEDY…we all need to come together and work on these issues and not worry about punching our tags every year. If we do not come together soon, there will not be many deer to hunt for the future. You cannot just change one thing and expect there to be more mule deer next year. This is not a quick fix or an easy fix. There are a lot of things that need to happen in order for us, to see mule deer numbers increasing...
“Here is your country. Cherish these natural wonders, cherish the natural resources, cherish the history and romance as a sacred heritage, for your children and your children's children. Do not let selfish men or greedy interests skin your country of its beauty, its riches or its romance.”
― Theodore Roosevelt
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 20812
Guest
Antler point restrictions end up being a feel good fix that really do nothing to improve the health of your deer herds. All they really do is save the younger age class of animals if you have a very high hunter harvest and your buck:doe ratios are too low.
If you went APR at 4 point minimum, all you would do was significantly shift the pressure to the older age class bucks over the last three weeks.
If you went APR at 4 point minimum, all you would do was significantly shift the pressure to the older age class bucks over the last three weeks.
Depending on what when and where, but yes you can improve habitat in a mountain situation. Generally the issue in these types of situations is too much of of something. Often removing/reducing that is the fix. Getting that done on federal lands with the methods that work the best is often the hardest part.
Sorry to drift in and out, but must address some comments.
Eric, even though Mac may have said individuals were putting their own views on the MOGA symposium, the fact remains that he set it all up. He chose who made what presentations. It is a disgusting display of MOGA's priorities. A serious symposium would have dealt with problems and solutions for mule deer, not lining your pockets.
In addition, the MOGA website refers to Montana sportsmen groups and MWF in particular, as a "fringe group".
http://www.montanaoutfitters.org/index.php?page=in-the-spotlight
The intent to alienate Montana's sportsmen is evident. I for one will refuse to work with Minard or MOGA until their website takes on a much more professional tone. The biggest obstacle to MOGA working with Montana's sportsmen is Minard. He has met our efforts to work with MOGA with calculated disrespect!
Eric, even though Mac may have said individuals were putting their own views on the MOGA symposium, the fact remains that he set it all up. He chose who made what presentations. It is a disgusting display of MOGA's priorities. A serious symposium would have dealt with problems and solutions for mule deer, not lining your pockets.
In addition, the MOGA website refers to Montana sportsmen groups and MWF in particular, as a "fringe group".
http://www.montanaoutfitters.org/index.php?page=in-the-spotlight
The intent to alienate Montana's sportsmen is evident. I for one will refuse to work with Minard or MOGA until their website takes on a much more professional tone. The biggest obstacle to MOGA working with Montana's sportsmen is Minard. He has met our efforts to work with MOGA with calculated disrespect!
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,614
Pierre,
Sorry that you see it that way. I agree, a serious symposium would have dealt w/ the problems and solutions, not how many bucks you charge for a buck. I think that all(including Mac) were a little surprised at the focus of the presentation. Think about it for a minute...were MOGA thinking of pushing an agenda like that, or had known what the focus was going to be...would we have opened the doors to the public on the "symposium"?....that would have been pretty stupid on behalf of MOGA.
Sorry that you see it that way. I agree, a serious symposium would have dealt w/ the problems and solutions, not how many bucks you charge for a buck. I think that all(including Mac) were a little surprised at the focus of the presentation. Think about it for a minute...were MOGA thinking of pushing an agenda like that, or had known what the focus was going to be...would we have opened the doors to the public on the "symposium"?....that would have been pretty stupid on behalf of MOGA.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Nobody I know has ever accused the MOGA of being smart...only of being self-serving.
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,614
self-serving? depends upon the bias of your perception i suspect...the problem w/ ones biased preception is that it is always believed to be truth, and usually touted as such... If one were to step outside and look at the biased perception of, Wounded Warriors, catch-a-dream, casting for recovery,trip of a lifetime(mainly for terminally ill children), folks who have been given trips w/ vairous outfitters...they would have a different adjective other than "self-serving" to cast upon MOGA...
billy banger
New member
- Joined
- May 23, 2012
- Messages
- 24
To suggest that the MWF is a fringe group is being kind! This group that states that they are “Montana's Oldest, Largest and most Effective Conservation Organization” is simply not true. They might be the oldest but for the largest, I beg to differ; the RMEF and SCI have more Montana members than the MWF. I would have to agree that they are the most Effective Conservation Organization in Montana. Most effective at costing Montana sportsmen hunting opportunities. Let’s examine what the MWF has supported; 1. Bison reintroduction; which has closed hundreds of thousands of acres of private property in protest. The MWF teamed up with everyone’s favorite group, the Defenders of Wildlife in support of the bison reintroduction. 2. Purchase of the Milk River Ranch- closing hundreds of thousands of acres of private property in protest. Not to mention that the FWP has depleted the Hunter Access Fund. 3. The MWF was the only sportsmen group in Montana to support I-161. The passage of I-161 has been the major contributing factor to the under sell of licenses and revenue shortfall to the FWP and Block Management Program. The effects of I-161 have also allowed all of the nonresident hunters to hunt public land, unlike before I-161 where outfitter’s clients were only allowed to hunt with that outfitter. With the passage, nonresidents are able to lease their own exclusive properties simply because of the certainly of obtaining a license. The only group that have benefited from I-161 is the outfitter, the group which the MWF has been attacking for years. To my knowledge the MWF has never once been willing to sit down with the outfitters to work on solutions to wildlife issues.
Now let’s talk about how the MWF has supported the reintroduction of the wolf to Montana. Through their parent organization (and funding source), the National Wildlife Federation lead the charge to reintroduce wolves to Montana and everyone knows how that has turned out. Recently, MWF members of the FWP Commission closed 2 hunting districts to wolf hunting. The FWP Commission sided with the Defenders of Wildlife, Footloose and the Greater Yellowstone Coalition in making their decision. So this is further proof that the MWF continues to support wolves in Montana, costing the resident hunter even more!
Now let’s talk about how the MWF has supported the reintroduction of the wolf to Montana. Through their parent organization (and funding source), the National Wildlife Federation lead the charge to reintroduce wolves to Montana and everyone knows how that has turned out. Recently, MWF members of the FWP Commission closed 2 hunting districts to wolf hunting. The FWP Commission sided with the Defenders of Wildlife, Footloose and the Greater Yellowstone Coalition in making their decision. So this is further proof that the MWF continues to support wolves in Montana, costing the resident hunter even more!
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,614
sillybilly...I think that there were many other sportsmen's group who supported 161.
The other thing you have stated that is a little mis-leading is that outfitters clients could only hunt private lands...this is simply not true, if the outfitter is/was licensed and pays fees they are allowed to hunt their clients on BLM, FS, CMR, ect....
The other thing you have stated that is a little mis-leading is that outfitters clients could only hunt private lands...this is simply not true, if the outfitter is/was licensed and pays fees they are allowed to hunt their clients on BLM, FS, CMR, ect....
Similar threads
