Mule deer opportunity?
- Thread starter Forkyfinder
- Start date
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 5,051
Sure. However.
People talk in circles about mule deer. But the data all around the topic is largely corny mushed together fecal matter.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 9,313
I’ve got a good lead on some forked horns for you if that’s helpful?
Probably get on on a hitlist buck we named Slingshot.
WanderWoman
Well-known member
Earlier this year I looked at B&C records for mule deer in MT. One thing that really struck me is that of all the entries from all time, there are 23 combined typical/non-typical book mule deer recorded from Ravalli County, of which HD 270 is a part. In comparison, there are 14 hailing from Rosebud County in Region 7. (The other thing that struck me is that there must also not be a lot of ‘book’ deer entered in the books.)
It’s commonly agreed that there’s somewhat a dichotomy when it comes to opportunity; have lots and the perceived buck quality is lower, or, have little and the perceived buck quality is higher. I would have thought given the season structure/very limited opportunity of 270, there would be more book deer coming out of Ravalli County since the dawn of B&C entering records.
To me, this speaks volumes to the importance of habitat and how it can override, or make mute sometimes the effects of season structure. As a thought exercise, is the extremely limited opportunity in an area like 270 worth it, if the goal was producing big/book bucks? If a state just so happened to be re-writing it’s mule deer management plan, and wanted to maximize the potential for a few districts to have limited opportunity in order to produce bigger bucks, would those places be the same as they are now?
Been ruminating on that for a while now and when this thread popped up I thought it a good place to throw it out there.
It’s commonly agreed that there’s somewhat a dichotomy when it comes to opportunity; have lots and the perceived buck quality is lower, or, have little and the perceived buck quality is higher. I would have thought given the season structure/very limited opportunity of 270, there would be more book deer coming out of Ravalli County since the dawn of B&C entering records.
To me, this speaks volumes to the importance of habitat and how it can override, or make mute sometimes the effects of season structure. As a thought exercise, is the extremely limited opportunity in an area like 270 worth it, if the goal was producing big/book bucks? If a state just so happened to be re-writing it’s mule deer management plan, and wanted to maximize the potential for a few districts to have limited opportunity in order to produce bigger bucks, would those places be the same as they are now?
Been ruminating on that for a while now and when this thread popped up I thought it a good place to throw it out there.
antlerradar
Well-known member
Doesn't surprise me one bit that 270 is not producing more B&C bucks. Bucks that have the potential to have 190 inch net typical antlers are a very small percentage of the population and they are very good deer at age four. Even with the very limited number of hunters in 270, I highly doubt that many of those bucks with B&C potential are making it to age five. Today's hunters are just too selective and the hunters that draw 270 are likely the most selective in the state.
Here is another buck from Rosebud county that is book quality. Entered in the 64 buck at 192 6/8. dropped out when the minimum was raised to 195 and never relisted when the minimum was lowered back to 190. Typical frame of just over 200 net. I found three years of sheds from him, none of those years would he make 190 net, but all three of those years would be considered a trophy today. Two of those years he was likely a shooter for all but the most picky 270 tag holder.
More than forty years later this buck shows up on the same hill. The antlers on these two bucks are so similar you would think they are identical twins. These are not the only two very big bucks that I a have seen from the same place with antlers so similar but years a part.
At age three this buck grosses in the 180's. At age four he is 194 gross and 186 net. He didn't make it to age five, but I am confident that if he had lived a few years longer he would have make the all time B &C book. The chance of that is slim to none today with all the advantages hunters have today. I doubt many 270 tag holders are passing on this buck at age four.
Last edited:
WanderWoman
Well-known member
Right. It’s hard enough to get to age 5 or 6 as a mule deer. Add in 5 or 6 as a 190” or better deer (right set of habitat, weather conditions, genetics, luck). That is part of what I’m asking/wondering. In the case of a unit like 270 that appears to not have the best habitat (maybe it did at some point?), has all the restriction on opportunity been worth it? Over 100 years of keeping B&C records and 23 from Ravalli Co, which contains more HDs than just 270. (Although, a 270 permit holder holding a giant buck at the end of the season will likely have a different answer than the hunter who’s put in for 20 years.)
Compare that to an area like what you’ve shown here (took me a minute to clean my drool off the phone). Is it better or worse or no real difference in the end to think of how a particular management strategy or level of opportunity may affect an area that may have more B&C potential?
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 5,051
I continually read that here. While also reading theyre all killing the lusting forkys nov 15 (which seems to be rather unselective). Both cant be true.
From the hunting ive done here, for the vast majority of folks its about "success" on a legal animal.
WanderWoman
Well-known member
Which makes for an even starker comparison.
And there are quite a few bucks that are never entered. Some of them from the "farm" district. mtmuley
WanderWoman
Well-known member
Definitely noted that when looking over the numbers, was how there must be a few missing from the books.
huntin24/7
Well-known member
In my opinion, looking at this strictly from a muley buck quality standard, forky shooters aren’t the problem. Where I live, it was a 3 week rifle season until around 2010. Lots of people used to shoot forks and really small bucks back then even though deer quality was much better then. But they didn’t have as much time or the peak rut. These same guys who would shoot those now have no reason to shoot a forky with the entire month of November to hunt and killing a 2 year old 130-140 buck is only marginally more difficult. I see significantly less bucks making it even to that 150ish class since season structure has changed here.
I’m not sure how realistic it would be to implement, but I’d love to see a season basically just like the muley group came up with but with one addition. Add a permit muley rut hunt for November to each unit with a small number of tags(say 20-50ish) depending on the unit size. Would probably spread out the permit apps a lot more. But I’d be plenty cool with a season structure just as they’ve drawn it up.
I’m not sure how realistic it would be to implement, but I’d love to see a season basically just like the muley group came up with but with one addition. Add a permit muley rut hunt for November to each unit with a small number of tags(say 20-50ish) depending on the unit size. Would probably spread out the permit apps a lot more. But I’d be plenty cool with a season structure just as they’ve drawn it up.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 9,313
Reading through this and @antlerradar’s response got me ruminating on some thoughts of my own experience with both of those areas.
To be clear, I have not spent extensive time in either area beyond hunting season so I consider my ideas to only be a snapshot of reality rather than local expertise.
I had the privilege of helping a friend who drew the 270 tag back in 2012. We saw probably over 100 bucks over 6 days of scouting and hunting. If I had to guess, at least 30-40% of those bucks were in the 110-150” range as 3 and 4 points. I’d say that many of those deer were at least 3 1/2 years old or older even though they would probably never score at B&C minimum at any point in their lifetime. My friend ended up shooting a 170” deer that was probably a 4 1/2 year old. The buck he killed was certainly not older than dozens of other bucks we saw, just genetically superior.
Contrasting that with multiple weeks of hunting eastern MT, I see a lot of bucks there as well, but the vast majority are 1 1/2 years or 2 1/2 years old in the 40-sub 100” range. There’s occasional 2 1/2 to 3 1/2” year old deer that hit the 110-150” range and the vast majority of those type bucks will get shot. A few hunters might pass the lower end of that range but the likelihood of every hunter that sees them during the hunting season letting them live another year is extremely low.
To me, B&C minimums will never represent what an area can produce for average mature bucks. B&C minimum quality bucks are a tiny percentage of the buck population in any area based on genetics and nutritional limitations regardless of whether a population is not hunted, hunted on a limited basis, or heavily hunted.
In my opinion, the Custer and Eastern MT have a historical record of being able to produce 130-160” deer at 3 1/2 to 4 1/2 years old with occasional outliers that get bigger. In my opinion, those 130-160” deer are rare enough now that with current season structure and hunting pressure it is a statistical anomaly based on luck that those deer survive to another hunting season because none of them are being passed by hunters.
In a unit like 270 most of those 130-140 type deer are being let live because permit holders are looking for a 150-160” as their minimum.
In my opinion, I think the quality of bucks in terms of age class would be improved by restructuring the general season to shift hunting pressure away from the two weeks of peak rut when bucks are most vulnerable due to increased wandering and daylight activity.
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 5,051
Well look at that @Gerald Martin - we agree.
Make the last 3 weeks of season LE with 10-50 permits per unit. Thanksgiving rut blast reserved for youth.
That doesnt holistically change all of the elk hunting dates though, so im sure its not good enough for a lot of people.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 9,313
Get that passed through the Commission and I would be a happy man. It would help biologically. Social acceptance however….? Don’t shoot the messenger.
huntin24/7
Well-known member
As cool as it would be when you draw a permit tag to see big bucks and have a great chance at a mature 180+ deer, it’s pretty cool just hunting public without people everywhere. I drew a muley permit 7 years ago in a unit not known for trophy’s. I never saw a 160 class deer, but it was still a lot of fun seeing some older deer and having lots of space to roam.
I think like I and others kinda mentioned, some hybrid type season where there is a lot of general season opportunity that exists with more LE opportunities during the rut. Maybe something like this would have a decent chance to pass? I don’t know.
I think like I and others kinda mentioned, some hybrid type season where there is a lot of general season opportunity that exists with more LE opportunities during the rut. Maybe something like this would have a decent chance to pass? I don’t know.
antlerradar
Well-known member
You won't see me bitching about people shooting forkys. The probability that he will both live long enough and have the potential to grow large antlers is low. Our issues with a low number of big deer are not because too many people are shooting small deer, it is because with our long seasons and timing, we are killing nearly all the nice deer.
Yes both can be true, there are 160 to 200 K hunters every year. Some of them are blasting the first buck they see, Others are holding out.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 9,313
I’d like to think it could as well. But based on our experience of trying to get buy in on a proposal less restrictive than mentioned above, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of appetite with the FWP dept or among the majority of MT hunters to restructure opportunity into anything less than OTC general hunting through the rut.
In my opinion the status quo isn’t going to change without some bold action from folks in position to make decisions to do something good for mule deer regardless of how popular it is to the majority of MT hunters. Expectations have calcified over generations of what MT hunter consider normal opportunity. If a majority of public opinion is required before change is made it probably won’t happen any time soon.
That is discouraging to me because some of the best policy decisions in MT wildlife management history have been because decision makers had the courage to make unpopular decisions that paid off for wildlife and eventually for additional opportunities for sportsmen.
