This is why I said habitat is an issue in much of the west, this is a big part of the problem. Thankfully it is not much of an issue in SE MT. I can count the number of new non reservation houses built within 20 miles of my house on my fingers.
I don't blame people who come to Montana from a state where there's no mule deer and think things are great here. I try to look at it from that perspective and think about the first time I went to hunt coues deer in Arizona. I was willing to shoot anything that was a good representation of the species. I'm sure my perspective on coues deer hunting in Arizona is a lot different than someone that has lived there their whole life.
I've killed several 6-point elk that score less.
Not sure just what you are ask for but I will give you how my own thoughts have changed over time.
I guess all of those big buck genetics have been shot out
All bucks have a max antler potential, Like all things in nature you will get some kind of bell curve if you were to graph the potential of all bucks. Better habitat and you shift the curve outward. I don't think I am going out on a limb, when I say that a buck with 170 potential is on the big side of the curve in eastern Montana. I would also bet that the peak of the curve varies less then 15 inches across the west even in the best of habitat. However difference in the peek of say 10 inches is a lot more 200 inch bucks. The exact number the peek falls on is not that important when it comes to management. What is important is that the bucks at the top end of the curve at a young age will out score the bucks in the middle at any age. Hunters select for antler size not age and will select the younger buck with better potential over the older buck with average or poor potential every time. The more selective we are the more overall harvest is shifted out the big half of the bell curve. The key to more big deer and still provide opportunity is to get more people to shoot bucks in the lower half of the bell curve. The only way to do this is to restrict hunters ability to be selective and shift the harvest back towards the center of the curve. Shorter seasons, more difficult hunting conditions and weapon restrictions will all do this. APR's fail because they shift the harvest father out the bell curve. The problem with LE is that even though they will produce some big deer, nearly all of the harvest is focused on the very top end bucks in the curve. It is hard to maintain a good number of big deer when even relatively few hunters are targeting the best of the best. There is also a lot of lost opportunity in the bottom end and even better then average bucks in the bell curve. I think this is what @WanderWoman is touching on when she compares 270 to other parts of the state.
I was more referring to population objectives. I see your point - but like others - i believe that hunters wont see a lot for diminished effectiveness in october. If your argument is that more deer will be accessible during the hunting season - i find it incompatible that more survive.
You don’t know what you don’t know.
I probably wouldn’t totally adopt Colorados mule deer structure from 2020 on… the later season dates absolutely crushed the mature bucks in 2nd,3rd and 4th rifle.
That, and it takes a big place to try and grow mule deer when the season encompasses the entire rut. Even if a landowner tries to manage the deer hunting on their place, there's a good chance those bucks will get killed on the neighbors during the rut.
I’d say our buck big buck population works more like Heinrich’s safety pyramid. The more bucks on the landscape the more like you are to find a giant. Genetic thing in deer I feel like people I wonder why you never competed in the Olympics?
