Yeah, I never received the info I requested. That's what I get for being nice and doing it the informal way. I've re-upped my request, however, this thread has turned into the 437th "what MT really needs to do" thread, so I'll probably bow out for the 437th time.
Mule deer opportunity?
- Thread starter Forkyfinder
- Start date
Yeah, I never received the info I requested. That's what I get for being nice and doing it the informal way. I've re-upped my request, however, this thread has turned into the 437th "what MT really needs to do" thread, so I'll probably bow out for the 437th time.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 9,316
And some guys are looking at Idaho for a model of seasons? I don’t think there is a single general mule deer hunt here where you’re going to see that many bucks in a week
It’s Bucky
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 15, 2025
- Messages
- 109
Keep shouting it from the mountain tops Gerald!
cgasner1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2016
- Messages
- 4,881
Pretty muchBetter ways to waste your time?
rogerthat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 3,395
Just curious. Would you with later Montana later type seasons?
antlerradar
Well-known member
Likely the reason FWP indicated LE was non starter.
antlerradar
Well-known member
I think there is a lot of merit here. I would still want to move mule deer more into Oct for access reasons though.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 9,316
Only four those bucks were 3 1/2 years old. None were older. Two of those estimated 3 year olds were less than 120” deer. One might have grossed 135 and one was potentially 150+ but less than 160.
Give half of those 21/2 and 31/2 year olds bucks another year and you have a huntable population that is interesting.
I’m not what I would consider a trophy hunter but I can’t get excited about shooting one and two year olds bucks year after year.
What would that buck population look like with an early November closure? There were multiple instances where I watched bucks get up and move over ridge tops to put distance between them and an ATV that was coming up a nearby road. Many of the other bucks I saw were not within rifle shot or visible from a drivable road. That all changes when their neck swells and they’re putting on the miles looking for does. Folks who don’t want to hike and want to road hunt will have just as good a chance at killing those deer during the rut as the guys that put in serious effort. Most of those folks hunting the road are going to be willing shoot a young buck and won’t be willing to hike in search of any older deer.
Most of the guys willing to hike aren’t going to kill a 2 1/2 year old forked horn in any situation.
In an October season there’s only so many bucks that will get shot by road hunters before pressure moves them back a ridge or two. Lazy hunters aren’t going back there and hunters who will aren’t going to kill as many of those younger bucks.
If Idaho had a 5 week OTC rifle hunt that encompassed the rut what would those units look like that you say don’t compare with what I saw in MT? My guess is it would e far worse than it is now.
The comparison that should be being made in MT is between how it is now, how it was historically and how it could be in the future with changes.
Pointing out that other states in the west have moved away from allowing long general rut hunts for mule deer is just pointing out that those states have figured out that kind of season structure wasn’t compatible with what their mule deer could sustain and adjusted accordingly in order to still be able to provide some general hunting opportunities.
Last edited:
If we had a mule deer season in Idaho that went until thanksgiving on general tags I’m not sure a buck would be left over 1 1/2 except in areas with really heavy timber or wilderness areas. It would probably help our northern whitetails as less southern Idaho hunters would be coming up here in November
I’ve never had or helped with a good controlled hunt that went into mid-late November. I have helped with a couple that ended on November 3rd and both times the amount of rutting deer in the last couple days was impressive
I’ve never had or helped with a good controlled hunt that went into mid-late November. I have helped with a couple that ended on November 3rd and both times the amount of rutting deer in the last couple days was impressive
What you are not accounting for is the population in each State; Montana has 1.1 million people; Idaho has 2.2 million people; Utah has 3.5 million people; Colorado has 5.9 million people. The other factor you are not accounting for is that Montana's mule deer habitat, especially in Eastern Montana is much more productive then most other States, especially the Great Basin areas which was prime mule deer territory in the past. These other areas have suffered mightily with long term drought conditions, increasing human populations, and habitat degradation. LE and short, October seasons are needed in some of these areas just to keep a min buck to doe ratio because the general population is so much higher and the landscape is less productive. Most of Eastern Montana in 2018/2019/2020 mule deer populations were at 20 yr highs; The problem in Montana is that you had a historic drought from late 2020 to early 2022, coupled with tough winters that caused a one off hammer job on populations. Things have normalized since 2023 and just like clockwork, you are seeing slow, but steady population gains.
This fixation on score as well is off base, especially trying to use BC scores to understand the quantity of mature bucks. Montana has never been a State that produces high scoring bucks. The genetics just aren't there. A 4.5 yr/5.5 yr old buck in Montana is most likely going to be a 140's/150's buck. Sure, there are a few good scoring bucks in Montana, but, relative to other State's, the percentage of 4.5 yr/5.5 yr old bucks who score better then 160 is well lower in Montana then in most other Western States. Doesn't mean mature bucks don't exist, but trying to use BC numbers to gauge that is incorrect. Nobody goes to Montana to shoot high scoring bucks because people that are fixated on scores, go to other State's with better genetics and more restrictions.
The previous posters video from Idaho Fish and Game highlighted the problems with LE or reduced opportunity strategies. You get very little gains from it at extremely high cost. Couple of noteworthy results from their studies is that 50% of bucks are going to die regardless of hunting pressure by the time they reach 4.5, "stockpiling" them with restrictions does not mean those bucks actually make it to 4.5 yrs old. There's very good data from several studies that show increasing bucks on the landscape reduces fawn survival rate. You can see this all over the West in highly restrictive mule deer units; the deer populations are not increasing in heavily regulated units because shooting less bucks does nothing to increase the population. Even in LE units numbers are still falling. You see this in all of the Western Wyoming's heavily regulated LE units. We have been able to hunt one of these 8 times since the early 1990's, there is over 1 million acres of public land, and only 100 total tags are given out. Overall deer numbers have decreased and decreased and decreased. They could have reduced the tags to 25 and it wouldn't have made any difference. Because shooting fewer bucks doesn't increase the overall population of deer. The issue is fawn recruitment and that is tied to habitat and weather conditions.
Montana is a unicorn when it comes to mule deer; thats why people enjoy hunting there so much, R and NR; long 5.5 week season; few unit restrictions; freedom to go where you want, when you want. This all disburses hunter pressure over a longer period of time and larger geographical area. And, yes, hunting mule deer in the rut is enjoyable. HT is a very small sub-set of the hunter population in Montana, most people like it just the way it is, so you are going to have a tough time trying to change things. People, in the aggregate, are willing to trade the loss of some older age class bucks for the freedom of the season structure. Full disclosure, NR here, DIY public land hunter, but we don't go to Montana to shoot high scoring bucks, there are other States that are much better for that. But, it is hard to beat Montana for just an overall enjoyable hunting experience. This will be our 27th yr going to Montana; have crisscrossed the State and hunted in every nook and cranny. Lots of experience in other States as well, and what I can tell you is that shortened, October hunting seasons have not done anything to increase overall mule deer populations. And, they have done little to increase the age structure. The gains are minimal, all the data backs that up. Many of those bucks that make it through the shortened season die from other things before reaching 4.5 yrs old. What it does do is highly concentrates hunters into a very short window, greatly increasing hunter crowding. Then that inevitably leads to tag restrictions. One follows the other, and then its whack a mole trying to get drawn even for R. My perception of the average Montana hunter is they have no desire to get on that train like Wyoming and Idaho etc.
As it stands right now, with Montana's lower population and productive mule deer habitat, especially in the eastern portion of the State, the resource can handle the current season structure where as other State's might not be able. Proposals to tighten season structure in Western Montana all it does is push hunters East; your better off just leaving the structure the way it is. It isn't perfect, but the alternatives come with a whole other host of problems and you just end up eventually regulating every single unit on its own. Yup, there's going to be a few less mature bucks on the landscape, but, most people are willing to accept that as a tradeoff. Its disingenuous to wrap the season structure proposal around the "we have to do something to save the mule deer" and to use a 100 yr drought as the "never let a good crisis go to waste" justification for doing it. Shooting slightly fewer bucks in October isn't going to do anything for the herds. If you shorten the season and put it in October, without reducing the tags, you are going to increase hunter crowding and you are going to concentrate most of the hunting in the last 7 days of the season in late October. Then eventually you end up with some form of LE because of the crowding, or stupid rules like APR's or backing the season up even shorter into October.
What I can tell you from experience in many other State's is that hunters, WILL, and DO, in fact, climb that next mountain to get that October buck. Your not giving them enough credit........ The "gains" from it aren't as large as you all think they will be from the October season. ESPECIALLY in open ground areas like Eastern Montana.
Not my State, but, I would suggest on working on things that can make positive change across all the hunter groups that everybody can get behind. That will give you better consensus to make change with the FWP. You have had great success in limiting the doe tags on public ground and limiting the doe tags in general. More deer makes more bucks and you have to have fawns for that. I would make sure that doe tags are highly highly regulated from here on out, even when herds normalize. I think that is something many hunters can get behind.
Another suggestion would be a simple one........even under the current condition of the herds, NR STILL want to come to your State. So much so that it takes 2 yrs to draw now. Economically speaking, that means your demand is higher then your supply. Increase the price of NR tags to the point that the number of people applying roughly matches the amount of NR tags. I suspect you could charge easily another $1000. Montana doesn't owe us NR the right to buy artificially low priced tags.......... that could be upwards of $17 million more dollars...... take that increased money and dedicate it to the Block Management Program to pay more to landowners and grow it. I believe Block Management is currently funded at around $6 million?? Could you imagine how much additional private ground you could open up with a tripling of its budget??? It would allow the program to target private lands that hold key mule deer habitat instead of just the cast offs and allow for greater policing of it keeping landowners happier. I suspect increasing the NR fees will also result in fewer NR yahoo's too..........
Use us NR to fund more access for R..........we will pay for it.........these kinds of proposals then get R and NR on the same page instead of fighting each other. IF you open 50% more land in the BMA program, everybody wins, disperses hunters more, and unlocks these islands of private ground (and all the land locked public ground around them) that hold higher mule deer populations.
I'll go crawl back in my hole now as HT has become such a vacuum that any dissenting opinion and the firing squad comes out..........
This fixation on score as well is off base, especially trying to use BC scores to understand the quantity of mature bucks. Montana has never been a State that produces high scoring bucks. The genetics just aren't there. A 4.5 yr/5.5 yr old buck in Montana is most likely going to be a 140's/150's buck. Sure, there are a few good scoring bucks in Montana, but, relative to other State's, the percentage of 4.5 yr/5.5 yr old bucks who score better then 160 is well lower in Montana then in most other Western States. Doesn't mean mature bucks don't exist, but trying to use BC numbers to gauge that is incorrect. Nobody goes to Montana to shoot high scoring bucks because people that are fixated on scores, go to other State's with better genetics and more restrictions.
The previous posters video from Idaho Fish and Game highlighted the problems with LE or reduced opportunity strategies. You get very little gains from it at extremely high cost. Couple of noteworthy results from their studies is that 50% of bucks are going to die regardless of hunting pressure by the time they reach 4.5, "stockpiling" them with restrictions does not mean those bucks actually make it to 4.5 yrs old. There's very good data from several studies that show increasing bucks on the landscape reduces fawn survival rate. You can see this all over the West in highly restrictive mule deer units; the deer populations are not increasing in heavily regulated units because shooting less bucks does nothing to increase the population. Even in LE units numbers are still falling. You see this in all of the Western Wyoming's heavily regulated LE units. We have been able to hunt one of these 8 times since the early 1990's, there is over 1 million acres of public land, and only 100 total tags are given out. Overall deer numbers have decreased and decreased and decreased. They could have reduced the tags to 25 and it wouldn't have made any difference. Because shooting fewer bucks doesn't increase the overall population of deer. The issue is fawn recruitment and that is tied to habitat and weather conditions.
Montana is a unicorn when it comes to mule deer; thats why people enjoy hunting there so much, R and NR; long 5.5 week season; few unit restrictions; freedom to go where you want, when you want. This all disburses hunter pressure over a longer period of time and larger geographical area. And, yes, hunting mule deer in the rut is enjoyable. HT is a very small sub-set of the hunter population in Montana, most people like it just the way it is, so you are going to have a tough time trying to change things. People, in the aggregate, are willing to trade the loss of some older age class bucks for the freedom of the season structure. Full disclosure, NR here, DIY public land hunter, but we don't go to Montana to shoot high scoring bucks, there are other States that are much better for that. But, it is hard to beat Montana for just an overall enjoyable hunting experience. This will be our 27th yr going to Montana; have crisscrossed the State and hunted in every nook and cranny. Lots of experience in other States as well, and what I can tell you is that shortened, October hunting seasons have not done anything to increase overall mule deer populations. And, they have done little to increase the age structure. The gains are minimal, all the data backs that up. Many of those bucks that make it through the shortened season die from other things before reaching 4.5 yrs old. What it does do is highly concentrates hunters into a very short window, greatly increasing hunter crowding. Then that inevitably leads to tag restrictions. One follows the other, and then its whack a mole trying to get drawn even for R. My perception of the average Montana hunter is they have no desire to get on that train like Wyoming and Idaho etc.
As it stands right now, with Montana's lower population and productive mule deer habitat, especially in the eastern portion of the State, the resource can handle the current season structure where as other State's might not be able. Proposals to tighten season structure in Western Montana all it does is push hunters East; your better off just leaving the structure the way it is. It isn't perfect, but the alternatives come with a whole other host of problems and you just end up eventually regulating every single unit on its own. Yup, there's going to be a few less mature bucks on the landscape, but, most people are willing to accept that as a tradeoff. Its disingenuous to wrap the season structure proposal around the "we have to do something to save the mule deer" and to use a 100 yr drought as the "never let a good crisis go to waste" justification for doing it. Shooting slightly fewer bucks in October isn't going to do anything for the herds. If you shorten the season and put it in October, without reducing the tags, you are going to increase hunter crowding and you are going to concentrate most of the hunting in the last 7 days of the season in late October. Then eventually you end up with some form of LE because of the crowding, or stupid rules like APR's or backing the season up even shorter into October.
What I can tell you from experience in many other State's is that hunters, WILL, and DO, in fact, climb that next mountain to get that October buck. Your not giving them enough credit........ The "gains" from it aren't as large as you all think they will be from the October season. ESPECIALLY in open ground areas like Eastern Montana.
Not my State, but, I would suggest on working on things that can make positive change across all the hunter groups that everybody can get behind. That will give you better consensus to make change with the FWP. You have had great success in limiting the doe tags on public ground and limiting the doe tags in general. More deer makes more bucks and you have to have fawns for that. I would make sure that doe tags are highly highly regulated from here on out, even when herds normalize. I think that is something many hunters can get behind.
Another suggestion would be a simple one........even under the current condition of the herds, NR STILL want to come to your State. So much so that it takes 2 yrs to draw now. Economically speaking, that means your demand is higher then your supply. Increase the price of NR tags to the point that the number of people applying roughly matches the amount of NR tags. I suspect you could charge easily another $1000. Montana doesn't owe us NR the right to buy artificially low priced tags.......... that could be upwards of $17 million more dollars...... take that increased money and dedicate it to the Block Management Program to pay more to landowners and grow it. I believe Block Management is currently funded at around $6 million?? Could you imagine how much additional private ground you could open up with a tripling of its budget??? It would allow the program to target private lands that hold key mule deer habitat instead of just the cast offs and allow for greater policing of it keeping landowners happier. I suspect increasing the NR fees will also result in fewer NR yahoo's too..........
Use us NR to fund more access for R..........we will pay for it.........these kinds of proposals then get R and NR on the same page instead of fighting each other. IF you open 50% more land in the BMA program, everybody wins, disperses hunters more, and unlocks these islands of private ground (and all the land locked public ground around them) that hold higher mule deer populations.
I'll go crawl back in my hole now as HT has become such a vacuum that any dissenting opinion and the firing squad comes out..........
antlerradar
Well-known member
I have lived and hunted eastern Montana for getting close to five decades, Have spent countless hours in the field. Not one of those decades has been better than the previous one. I can remember the droughts of the 80's and the winters of 78 and 96. I I could go back in time I would rather go back and hunt the years following those tough years than what we call the good years of 18 and 19. The reason change is needed is because of the long term trend not because of the current dip.
cgasner1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2016
- Messages
- 4,881
You should hang around I appreciate the response. A lot of truth in it but also one of those deals where both things can be right. Such as our bad winters how much better shape would our deer be in had the landscape had more 3.5-5.5 year old deer to weather the storm? The 1.5-2.5 probably didn’t quite fare as well. You’re right that most bucks won’t break 160” and I could care less if they do but I sure would like to see a more balanced herd. I also disagree with killing deer because they are gonna die anyways but that is another conversation.
Last edited:
antlerradar
Well-known member
One of the problems we have in Eastern Montana is people come out and have a week like Gerald had and think things are great and from their perspective it is. I can remember having days in the 80's and 90's that were as good as Gerald's week.
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 5,075
If i could take a time machine back to before 1985 in Mt and hunt whats been lost and wont come back - Id be going OTC griz hunting.
The_Coloradoboy
Active member
I think it’s all perspective. 1000’s of people flock to Colorado every year and think the Mule Deer hunting is the greatest thing ever. Where as majority of us generational residents who’ve seen the better days gripe about how poor it’s become, which compared to pre 2007/2008 it is. Mule deer numbers and quality are down and steadily declining all across the west, doesn’t matter which state you go to. I think it’s just the reality we have to face now and I’m extremely pessimistic that it will ever return to what it was moving forward.
antlerradar
Well-known member
I agree, The problems for mule deer are many and wide spread across the west. In many places habitat is the issue, Thankfully I don't think habitat is the near the problem in SE MT as in the rest of the west, I would argue with the wide spread landscape type fires we have had in the past 25 years we are growing more deer food now than in any time in my lifetime, yet deer numbers are as poor as I have seen them. We need to figure out why and make some changes, because if mule deer continue to slip like they have in my lifetime, some enterprising antihunting group is going to petition to have them protected by the ESA.
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 5,075
Curious - art - how has the goal/objective for mule deer population changed with time?
If a lot of bucks will never grow to be 170, and some are 170 at 3.5, isnt the key to bigger deer just simply more of them?
The_Coloradoboy
Active member
I think to massive influx of population has definitely hurt states like Colorado. For instance places like the Eagle River and Roaring Fork River valleys where houses have been been built all over the winter range. Along with the endless miles of mountain bike trails the transplants have had to build all over the remaining open space that’s also winter range. In addition the amount of traffic on the roads now days throughout the state has vastly increased road kill..
Irrelevant
Well-known member
I believe this is categorically false. Unless you can point to some research I'm not aware of.
