Region 6&7 mulie doe tag reduction thread

[sclancy27]

Private land only and public land only tags within a unit. Actually manage hunter numbers based off available lands and wildlife numbers available on these lands. Honestly the hunter crowding problems in r7 go completely away if you set nr caps with public and private allocations based on acreage. Ie 70% of nr tags within the regional cap would be for private land only simply because 70% of lands are private

I appreciate your thoughts and can't disagree with your assumptions.

My hope would be that FWP would manage the mule deer resource and not hunter numbers, but not obviously that is not todays wildlife management.

At some point this becomes a discussion of "perfection is the enemy of progress". Yes, there are better ways FWP could manage, obviously. But we need to consider things that actually have a chance in hell of being adopted while minimizing unintended consequences.

 

[bigsky2]

Private land only and public land only tags within a unit. Actually manage hunter numbers based off available lands and wildlife numbers available on these lands. Honestly the hunter crowding problems in r7 go completely away if you set nr caps with public and private allocations based on acreage. Ie 70% of nr tags within the regional cap would be for private land only simply because 70% of lands are private

Another thing I hadn’t thought of before, is that private access would likely get even tougher to come by simply due to the fact that the private land only tags would have significantly better draw odds.

 

[DFS]

At some point this becomes a discussion of "perfection is the enemy of progress". Yes, there are better ways FWP could manage, obviously. But we need to consider things that actually have a chance in hell of being adopted while minimizing unintended consequences.

The proposal lengthens rifle season. Region 7 will get pounded all of October and November, especially without pick your region and nonresident caps. I don’t like those consequences.

 

[mtmiller]

At some point this becomes a discussion of "perfection is the enemy of progress". Yes, there are better ways FWP could manage, obviously. But we need to consider things that actually have a chance in hell of being adopted while minimizing unintended consequences.

I wasn't suggesting caps were perfection, but I understand your point. We have different opinions on what is possible.

 

[sclancy27]

The proposal lengthens rifle season. Region 7 will get pounded all of October and November, especially without pick your region and nonresident caps. I don’t like those consequences.

Explain how it gets pounded all of November? I understand October, theoretically

 

[sclancy27]

Also, in looking for data on what we can expect pressure wise, I looked to ID harvest stats for hunter days (our surrogate for pressure). ID is the most similar to our current proposal, although they allow MD and WT on one tag, no pick your species. I looked at WY and other states, but the seasons are too short to be a good comparison, IMO

ID in 2023 had 130K hunters on general areas (I removed Controlled areas to more closely approximate what we can expect to change). Total hunter days were ~730K, making average days/hunter 5.5

MT in 2023 had 145K hunters, with total hunter days of 1.16 million, making days/hunter 8.1

If we expect the proposed change in season structure to approximate ID (with similar season dates/lengths and adding pick your species) we would drop total hunter days in MT to ~800K, a 31% decrease.

So, I think it is very reasonable to expect the proposed season structure to decrease pressure overall.

 

[rogerthat]

Explain how it gets pounded all of November? I understand October, theoretically

Elk and whiteys with a rifle. It’s actually two months of rifle season. I actually have grown to hate the 5 week Gen rifle season and I’m a hunter. Now think about what landowners experience. Im not patently against your guys proposal for the benefits of getting the mule deer rut out of rifle season. The problem is rifle hunting. 5 weeks or even a month just might be too long of a season. Two months of dudes with rifles gives me pause.

 

[sclancy27]

Elk and whiteys with a rifle. It’s actually two months of rifle season. I actually have grown to hate the 5 week Gen rifle season and I’m a hunter. Now think about what landowners experience. Im not patently against your guys proposal for the benefits of getting the mule deer rut out of rifle season. The problem is rifle hunting. 5 weeks or even a month just might be too long of a season. Two months of dudes with rifles gives me pause.

Ok, I understand what you are saying.

I'm not sure we have any data to make a guess at what will happen from a landowner perspective. I know the landowners involved with the proposal expect it to make it better, but it's a guess. I think what I would say is the structure allows future iteration through the commission to improve all aspects, including the one you are pinpointing.

 

[rogerthat]

Ok, I understand what you are saying.

Just to be clear, I’m not attacking your proposed season changes. Getting muley rut out of rifle would be monumental. Just thinking out loud of other issues that might still need solved.

 

[Sioux33]

ID implemented NR caps by region/unit a few years ago and by all accounts it's helped tremendously. WY just did the same thing with their general elk tag.

Hunter distribution is one of our biggest issues and if these other states can make changes for the better, I don't see why we can't as well.

I think the unintended consequences of a 2 month rifle season, particularly for landowners, outweigh the unintended consequences of setting NR caps.

 

[sclancy27]

ID implemented NR caps by region/unit a few years ago and by all accounts it's helped tremendously. WY just did the same thing with their general elk tag.

Hunter distribution is one of our biggest issues and if these other states can make changes for the better, I don't see why we can't as well.

I think the unintended consequences of a 2 month rifle season, particularly for landowners, outweigh the unintended consequences of setting NR caps.

I would feel differently if R6 and R7 were broken up into an appropriate number of districts and we put caps on per district. This would more closely mimic what ID has done.

Also, consider that over 75% of our hunter days increase is from residents.....

 

[Eric Albus]

I promise, not being a smart ass, but what was FWPs involvement prohibiting mule deer doe harvest on public land in 6 and 7? Did FWP take this proposal to the commission?

No, but some concerned people did.

 

[Sioux33]

I would feel differently if R6 and R7 were broken up into an appropriate number of districts and we put caps on per district. This would more closely mimic what ID has done.

Also, consider that over 75% of our hunter days increase is from residents.....
View attachment 352017

I agree that a unit, rather than region approach, would be better. And yes, NR hunter days increase is less than R overall, but I'd be more interested in seeing the increases by region, especially when NR's are now harvesting more deer in region 7 than residents (I think there was a graph of that shared somewhere here previously).

Like what some others have mentioned in here, we don't want the pursuit of perfection to sideline progress. I think starting with NR caps and reassessing after a couple of years would be a good first step (along with taking rifles out of the rut, mandatory reporting, etc.), similar to what other states are doing.

 

[sclancy27]

I agree that a unit, rather than region approach, would be better. And yes, NR hunter days increase is less than R overall, but I'd be more interested in seeing the increases by region, especially when NR's are now harvesting more deer in region 7 than residents (I think there was a graph of that shared somewhere here previously).

Like what some others have mentioned in here, we don't want the pursuit of perfection to sideline progress. I think starting with NR caps and reassessing after a couple of years would be a good first step (along with taking rifles out of the rut, mandatory reporting, etc.), similar to what other states are doing.

NR have been harvesting more MD in R7 than residents off and on for the better part of 2 decades. NR have harvested more bucks than residents in R7 12 out of the last 14 years. In 2004, 8215 NR hunted R7 for deer, in 2023, 8045 NR hunted R7 for deer. The average over that same time period is 8046. Now, R6 is seeing a different thing entirely, R6 NR hunter days have outgained Resident hunter days.

Resident hunters in R7 was 13546 in 2004. In 2023 it was 11175. Average over that time period is 13413.

Now, when you consider that Residents spend on average of almost 2 days more in R7 (4.8 vs 6.6) you get an increase of 27% in pressure (hunter days).

The biggest issue with NR is they tend to harvest MD bucks at significantly higher ratios than resident hunters (280% ish).

Also, other states limited NR far after accomplishing the other, more important, things on your list. Keep that in mind

 

[antlerradar]

I don’t disagree with you. I’ve even said on here in the past that I’d support private land only tags (not landowner tags) for elk to try and spread out pressure. People do not like that idea and the proposal already has enough obstacles to overcome as it is.

Private land only tags would quickly be labeled Landowner welfare. They are a non starter for many in the state.

 

[Treeshark]

I’ve even said on here in the past that I’d support private land only tags (not landowner tags)

Why would you support one and not the other?

 

[bigsky2]

Why would you support one and not the other?

Not again…

 

[Treeshark]

Not again…

Fair enough

 

[sclancy27]

Why would you support one and not the other?

 

[Tmbrgost]

Not going to happen if we continue to sell more tags to hunters with better gear than we did in the 80's.

What specifically are you thinking? Give some examples. I get OnX has a HUGE play in this but what else?

Hunt Talk certainly owns a part as do all of us who use it.