mtlion
Well-known member
The 13 plates are everywhere I hunt, can't get away from 'em.
Mule Deer four-point rule in Montana
- Thread starter MTODhunting
- Start date
Bambistew
Well-known member
I really don't think the MT system is all that bad. Sure I'd love to go there and shoot a big deer every year, but that's not reality anywhere. I'm pretty happy with the opportunity I've had there and if nothing changes I'd be fine with that as well. Then again I don't live there so I don't see the same issues.
I'm not sure what the solution is, but limiting opportunity as in going to more LE isn't something I would get behind unless it was state wide like CO. Closing areas to LE only will just push pressure elsewhere. I think that would be a hard sell, except to the guys that are hung on shooting 1-2 big deer in their career and call it good. The desirable areas will become impossible to draw. The people that live in those areas or grew up hunting there will become jaded... see 4/13 plate owners
I liked the policy the F&G had in the 90's when you had to chose what unit you wanted to hunt when you bought your tag. I think they did it for 4 years. I saw a significant change in the amount of deer and bucks in that time. Then it was dropped, and the buck population seemed to go back to "normal".
Being able to hunt basically the entire state on one tag is difficult to manage I think. You have the guys that hunt eastern MT that live in the west. If they strike out in the east, they'll pop a buck in their backyard. The area I grew up hunting W MT, I could hunt 5 units in less than a 45 min drive. I knew where to look for the deer late in the year, and could always find one to shoot. I also hunted E MT with everyone else...
A few things that are a bit different here in AK than anywhere else I've hunted that may work?
AK has rules for moose and sheep that promote the take of "mature" animals. Most moose are usually in the 5-6+ years old before they make the minimum requirements of 50" or 3-4 browtines, and sheep are usually 8-9 before making full curl (and are legal to take at 8). This puts them toward the end of their life span. Taking these animals, for the most part, does not have much of an impact on the overall population. The harvest rate is sustainable, and most animals taken are generally nice "trophy" type animals. As a mater of fact the F&G says that the sheep are self managing in this respect. Even with the hunting pressure less than half the available legal rams are shot ever year.
The second difference is registration hunts with quota caps. We have hunts that are set up so anyone can pick up a permit and hunt a specific unit/area. The unit is open until the harvest quota is reached. Similar to MT bear and Lion and the Unlimited sheep. The guys that get after it, and have a bit of luck usually fill their tags. The ones that don't usually don't complain because they have no one to blame but themselves. I think it works pretty well... A few permits are really popular and they set a limit on total permits issued to keep the pressure/experience manageable.
We also have areas that limit the use of motorized vehicles for certain times of the season or specific units. This reduces pressure significantly yet keeps opportunity at 100%. Not sure that would really work in MT though. Could you imagine limiting the Custer Forest or the Breaks to county/state roads only? Imagine what the hunting experience would be like out there...
Lastly we have a few areas for bears that are either open every other year, or some areas if you take a bear you can't hunt there again for 2-4 years, but can hunt elsewhere without the requirements. Bears don't get a lot of pressure so its not really that big of a deal, except for a few trophy areas.
I'm wondering if there was something or a combination could do with the deer? Not sure about trophy size requirements because there is really nothing cut and dried that would work. But I think the quota system or a combination of quota and sit out for a year or two would work for some areas. The F&G could at least keep track of how many animals are actually killed every year, and people would still get to hunt.
Always an interesting topic.
I'm not sure what the solution is, but limiting opportunity as in going to more LE isn't something I would get behind unless it was state wide like CO. Closing areas to LE only will just push pressure elsewhere. I think that would be a hard sell, except to the guys that are hung on shooting 1-2 big deer in their career and call it good. The desirable areas will become impossible to draw. The people that live in those areas or grew up hunting there will become jaded... see 4/13 plate owners
I liked the policy the F&G had in the 90's when you had to chose what unit you wanted to hunt when you bought your tag. I think they did it for 4 years. I saw a significant change in the amount of deer and bucks in that time. Then it was dropped, and the buck population seemed to go back to "normal".
Being able to hunt basically the entire state on one tag is difficult to manage I think. You have the guys that hunt eastern MT that live in the west. If they strike out in the east, they'll pop a buck in their backyard. The area I grew up hunting W MT, I could hunt 5 units in less than a 45 min drive. I knew where to look for the deer late in the year, and could always find one to shoot. I also hunted E MT with everyone else...
A few things that are a bit different here in AK than anywhere else I've hunted that may work?
AK has rules for moose and sheep that promote the take of "mature" animals. Most moose are usually in the 5-6+ years old before they make the minimum requirements of 50" or 3-4 browtines, and sheep are usually 8-9 before making full curl (and are legal to take at 8). This puts them toward the end of their life span. Taking these animals, for the most part, does not have much of an impact on the overall population. The harvest rate is sustainable, and most animals taken are generally nice "trophy" type animals. As a mater of fact the F&G says that the sheep are self managing in this respect. Even with the hunting pressure less than half the available legal rams are shot ever year.
The second difference is registration hunts with quota caps. We have hunts that are set up so anyone can pick up a permit and hunt a specific unit/area. The unit is open until the harvest quota is reached. Similar to MT bear and Lion and the Unlimited sheep. The guys that get after it, and have a bit of luck usually fill their tags. The ones that don't usually don't complain because they have no one to blame but themselves. I think it works pretty well... A few permits are really popular and they set a limit on total permits issued to keep the pressure/experience manageable.
We also have areas that limit the use of motorized vehicles for certain times of the season or specific units. This reduces pressure significantly yet keeps opportunity at 100%. Not sure that would really work in MT though. Could you imagine limiting the Custer Forest or the Breaks to county/state roads only? Imagine what the hunting experience would be like out there...
Lastly we have a few areas for bears that are either open every other year, or some areas if you take a bear you can't hunt there again for 2-4 years, but can hunt elsewhere without the requirements. Bears don't get a lot of pressure so its not really that big of a deal, except for a few trophy areas.
I'm wondering if there was something or a combination could do with the deer? Not sure about trophy size requirements because there is really nothing cut and dried that would work. But I think the quota system or a combination of quota and sit out for a year or two would work for some areas. The F&G could at least keep track of how many animals are actually killed every year, and people would still get to hunt.
Always an interesting topic.
Nemont
Well-known member
Montana could do a couple of simple things to start with for Mule Deer.
1. End the hunt prior to the rut. I know that Montanan's think that hunting the rut is a god given right so that may be a tough one.
2. Choose your weapon, Again that makes people lose their minds but it would help the resource IMO.
I don't believe we have to completely throw out the current system just start with a few changes. Good luck getting anyone to ever support such things, instead people want to keep their perks and limit everyone else with draw only units.
Nemont
1. End the hunt prior to the rut. I know that Montanan's think that hunting the rut is a god given right so that may be a tough one.
2. Choose your weapon, Again that makes people lose their minds but it would help the resource IMO.
I don't believe we have to completely throw out the current system just start with a few changes. Good luck getting anyone to ever support such things, instead people want to keep their perks and limit everyone else with draw only units.
Nemont
joelweb
Well-known member
The 4 point rule has been tried all over the West. It sounds great, but hasn't worked in practice. You end up with a bunch of large three points in the herd, and all the deer get shot when the pop their fourth tine so there aren't any nice 4 points.
I think a three point rule might be worth trying, but it would need to be implemented across a large swath of the state to prevent everyone from hunting in the same place because it is now seen as a trophy unit.
They should probably just end the mule deer season on Nov. 15 to help the deer survive the rut, but I'm a little to selfish to give that up.
I think a three point rule might be worth trying, but it would need to be implemented across a large swath of the state to prevent everyone from hunting in the same place because it is now seen as a trophy unit.
They should probably just end the mule deer season on Nov. 15 to help the deer survive the rut, but I'm a little to selfish to give that up.
joelweb
Well-known member
joelweb
Well-known member
The could close half the roads on public land. People would be mad, but the quality of animals would probably increase.
belly-deep
Active member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 3,454
No doubt.
belly-deep
Active member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 3,454
Bambi, I like the AK ideas. Much better than going LE all over everyone's ass.
Redwood
New member
I completely disagree. Depending on how strictly limited, resources will become more of a limiting factor and animals will disperse. Buck/doe ratios will also get back into order. Larger bucks will force smaller bucks to travel, into say other areas. All three of those will happen to a degree. That is why so many people hunt the neighboring areas, and consequently hinder these affects. Obviously this is not the only way, but it is a way. Simple biology, people just mess it up.
mtlion
Well-known member
Last edited:
T
tjones
Guest
Not the way in surrounding units of two very limited HD's here in the Bitterroot.
Redwood
New member
Thanks for the grammar tip; I'll keep it in mind while typing on a keyboard the size of a postage stamp. I'm sorry the root hasn't seen these EFFECTS, I will default to my last comment. Getting back to the pt of the thread. Can't help but notice the nay sayers have yet to offer up suggestions as to how to turn it around. It is very easy to attack someone else's ideas, not so easy to formulate your own. Perhaps that is one obstacle our biologist face, lots of people flapping their lips with nothing to say. And if you don't feel our populations are in need of assistance, well than I don't know how to help you.
"In any moment of decision; the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing"
TR
T
tjones
Guest
Sorry buddy and without turning this into a battle you really have no idea what anyone here has done or not done for wildlife or season types and regulations.
Carry on.
The best way to improve quality without reducing opportunity (defined as the ability to purchase a tag and go hunt) is to reduce motorized access. Go propose that and see how well it goes over. Lazy hunter is lazy. Or he has a grandpa/dad/uncle who has a bad back/knee/hip and has a God-given right to drive everywhere he did in the 60's-80's. True story.
joelweb
Well-known member
Agreed!
And Montana has a lot more nonmotorized country than many other western states. Take a look at Southeast Idaho, home to what has the potential to be some of the best trophy mule deer hunting in America. Nearly all the old pack trails are now ATV trails and people wonder what happened to all the big bucks. At the very least, they need some seasonal closures.
There are certainly additional factors than this, such as invasive weeds, fire suppression, predation, etc - but mature animals are definitely limited by too many motorized routes.
El Jason
Well-known member
I find it ironic that the "greedy" accusation is always thrown out there when folks try to justify creating more trophy districts for mule deer. It's greedy for folks to want the opportunity to kill deer every year, albeit smaller ones, but it's not greedy for the trophy hunters to want big bucks everywhere at the expense of opportunity?
I get excited looking at big deer, but I'll gladly drop the hammer on a small one to fill the freezer.
APRs will do nothing for you. Shoots Straight is right, limited entry is the only way to create larger deer and diverse age classes, unless you severely limit access.
An interesting observation here. I've suggested to folks that like to pimp trophy mule deer units, that the rules should be if they apply for a trophy LE unit, the foresake their ability to hunt a general unit. Not many are too interested in that. If they don't want to sacrifice, why should anyone else?
I get excited looking at big deer, but I'll gladly drop the hammer on a small one to fill the freezer.
APRs will do nothing for you. Shoots Straight is right, limited entry is the only way to create larger deer and diverse age classes, unless you severely limit access.
An interesting observation here. I've suggested to folks that like to pimp trophy mule deer units, that the rules should be if they apply for a trophy LE unit, the foresake their ability to hunt a general unit. Not many are too interested in that. If they don't want to sacrifice, why should anyone else?
Frenchy
Well-known member
Love it.....["Idaho biologist Lon Kuck says “I’d rather puke in my hand than use point restrictions.”]
Redwood
New member
tjones; at no point in time have I attacked what members of this forum do for conservation. In fact, the reason I joined was to get a better pulse on conservation/management issues that do not media attention. To gain perspectives from all angles of an issue. Knowing some of the members personally; I can attest to the efforts and knowledge base. I suggest you reread my postings to this thread. I merely pointed out the amount of comments made towards other people's suggestions, comments that added nothing constructive. I guess I was out of line when turning it around and suggesting alternatives to management be offered. I must be missing the point of what we're doing here.
I completely agree with the access point; our society as a whole has just become more and more lazy. We are a society of entitlements. However, I don't see this happening. I feel it is inevitable that we will have to increase the amount of special permits. We put too much pressure on our resources. Our sessions are too long, access to great, and tags issued to many. Look at the growth of archery alone, the amount of archery permits is going thru the roof. Then they put down the bow and pick up a gun. What chance does a buck on public land stand? They make one wrong move and there is a hunter waiting to capitalize on it.
I don't want to see a point restriction, that is bad biology. I like the idea of limiting access but don't see this going through. Not to mention to many of these areas in existance are already abused by unethical hunters. So what then, we sit on our heels and do nothing. Thats not going to solve anything. Why not earn a buck tags for certain areas. You wack a doe, take it to game/fish and they issue you a general A tag. That puts meat in the fridge and the fork horn didn't get wacked. Some states do this, it obvisouly has flaws. Why do we get a buck tag every year? Why not every other year. If your just in it for meat, who cares. If your a horn hunter, that buck you've been watching actually might get to maturity. Some states do this as well, it to has flaws. There is no one right answer but I do know this; what we are doing right now is not working.
I completely agree with the access point; our society as a whole has just become more and more lazy. We are a society of entitlements. However, I don't see this happening. I feel it is inevitable that we will have to increase the amount of special permits. We put too much pressure on our resources. Our sessions are too long, access to great, and tags issued to many. Look at the growth of archery alone, the amount of archery permits is going thru the roof. Then they put down the bow and pick up a gun. What chance does a buck on public land stand? They make one wrong move and there is a hunter waiting to capitalize on it.
I don't want to see a point restriction, that is bad biology. I like the idea of limiting access but don't see this going through. Not to mention to many of these areas in existance are already abused by unethical hunters. So what then, we sit on our heels and do nothing. Thats not going to solve anything. Why not earn a buck tags for certain areas. You wack a doe, take it to game/fish and they issue you a general A tag. That puts meat in the fridge and the fork horn didn't get wacked. Some states do this, it obvisouly has flaws. Why do we get a buck tag every year? Why not every other year. If your just in it for meat, who cares. If your a horn hunter, that buck you've been watching actually might get to maturity. Some states do this as well, it to has flaws. There is no one right answer but I do know this; what we are doing right now is not working.
I've seen wildlife models in Utah and Nevada used where a hunter only gets a tag about 2-5 years and they shoot some small bucks if the hunting gets slow. I'd personally rather opportinuty over a chance of hunting once a decade. I've seen some large 140-160" muleys and nice whitetail in Montana with a chance of 5 year old deer, as compared to waiting to draw a unit 66 in Colorado and still being several years away.
