Charting a Future for Montana Mule Deer

[ianpadron]

MT should have far more specific seasons for units/regions imo. Managing the Region 5/6/7 units with virtually the same regs as Region 1 doesn't make sense to me.

Zero antlerless harvest, getting in front of the kitty problem, and whacking a few thousand whiteys off the winter range would be a good start just about everywhere.

We've got the first 2 going for us in Region 1 and the deer herd is doing well (stable at least) after the decline following the drop-off in logging in the 80s. Troubling to see more whiteys above 4k feet every season though, while it requires 3 or 4 points to draw a stinking B tag for a doe whitey...

 

[mustelid_master]

MT should have far more specific seasons for units/regions imo. Managing the Region 5/6/7 units with virtually the same regs as Region 1 doesn't make sense to me.

Zero antlerless harvest, getting in front of the kitty problem, and whacking a few thousand whiteys off the winter range would be a good start just about everywhere.

We've got the first 2 going for us in Region 1 and the deer herd is doing well (stable at least) after the decline following the drop-off in logging in the 80s. Troubling to see more whiteys above 4k feet every season though, while it requires 3 or 4 points to draw a stinking B tag for a doe whitey...

We do good, but there is room for improvement in regards to the amount of cats killed in R1 (more is always better) if you look at it from a purely "mule deer management" persepective

 

[ianpadron]

We do good, but there is room for improvement in regards to the amount of cats killed in R1 (more is always better) if you look at it from a purely "mule deer management" persepective

For sure. I just applaud FWP for actually increasing the quota, reducing the population nearly 15%, all just to help the mule deer. Lotta states would never do that, let alone be fully transparent about it.

 

[AHayes111]

Finished the podcast up just a few minutes ago. I was pretty shocked and encouraged at the harvest data for 4pt or better. I was also encouraged that there is a continued large emphasis on opportunity rather than just "big bucks" as some would like. His statement that there is science does not show that hunting during the rut is detrimental to the herd was surprising with all of the rhetoric thrown around.

The conversation and statements from both Brian and Robby regarding the "good old years" being temporary unsustainable highs in the population was enlightening.

Everyone that hunts Montana mule deer would do well to listen to the podcast.

I can understand why you feel this way. I felt the same way forty years ago. FWP has been telling us for all of my lifetime that we can have a four coarse meal with a double helping of desert and there are not going to be consequences. There is no such thing as a free meal. Even if nothing is changed in regards to the season change is coming whether we want it or not. I first started hunting in SE MT in 1978. At that time just about any private land you asked to hunt, you could and there was not one LE hunt district in the state. A quick look at today's regs and I see at least 25 districts with some form of LE mostly in the western part of the state. While I am not familiar with any of the LE districts, I assume they went to LE for a reason. I hope that going LE helped fix the reasons that those units had. The problem is that when a district goes to LE the excess pressure is pushed off on the remaining OTC districts. One or two LE districts, not a problem, 25 districts and you are starting to notice it in the remaining OTC districts. One of the problems in the east is with all of the LE districts in the west we are seeing more pressure in the east from western MT residents and West Cost NR. In the 80's and 90's you almost never ran into a hunter from west of Billings, Now I regularly see hunters from all across the west. Limited entry is working its way from west to east and at some point the remaining OTC districts will not be able to handle the additional pressure and all districts in the state will be limited entry and that time is coming sooner than most people think.
Opportunity and poor quality are the driving force behind the commercialization of hunting private land in the east. My father outfitted hunters in the 60's and 70's. He never leased on acre of private land. There was no reason to, there was plenty of quality hunting to be found on both public and private land. Dave Gardiner signed the first private lease in Powder River Co in the early 80's. He told me it wasn't because he wanted to pay the money, the reason was that after the very bad winter of 78/79 there just wasn't enough deer and the only way he could provide the quality his clients demanded was to lease land and restrict access. After that leasing by Outfitters snowballed until limits on NR hunters started to effect the number of clients outfitters could find. Now outfitters are being replaced by both resident and NRs bypassing outfitters and leasing land for hunting. It is likely that these hunting clubs lease more land than outfitters and there is no end in sight as there are no limits on resident hunters. This new demand is largely driven by lack of quality hunting on pubic land. Hunters from Bozeman would not be leasing a ranch in eastern MT if they could find quality hunting in the Gallatin or Bridger Mountains . Montana can get away with long rut seasons in Region one where nearly all of the land is public, but in the east that same season will result in commercialization of nearly all private land and tragedy of the commons on public land. We are not far from that now in many places. Managing for Opportunity comes at a cost and it is not just the quality of the bucks.

 

[NealS02]

This was a great episode and I found it to be very informative! There are certainly different opinions on what direction Montana should go, and I think an open conversation is a step in the right direction. I value the “opportunity” hunt the state provides even if there is a lower chance of a monster, but I hunt other states where I can target more mature deer. At the same time, I appreciate the opinions of people who want the state to manage for trophy potential. The stats about the eastern regions 4 point or better were certainly encouraging.

Ultimately, I think it is fascinating and productive for states to try different management approaches to learn how best to manage the mule deer herds we all value.

 

[mt terry d]

The stats about the eastern regions 4 point or better were certainly encouraging.

Considering the method used to arrive at those stats, why do you find them encouraging?

 

[NealS02]

Considering the method used to arrive at those stats, why do you find them encouraging?

By encouraging I meant that with limited data the ages harvested (averaged 4 years or older on tooth surveys) and greater than 50 percent of 4 points or better are both higher than I was expecting given the state of mule deer across the west. Does the data used allow for a complete and comprehensive picture of herd composition and health? Are the methods indicative of a rigorous scientific data collection process that allows experimentation leading to statistically significant results? Absolutely not.

A population understanding of mule deer anywhere given logistic and technological limitations will in my opinion be limited until data collection methods improve. Even the best methods such as aerial surveys, collared fawns, direct biologist observations, etc. are only a partial picture. It would be great to have a rolling spreadsheet with each deer listed and associated age, size, genetics, and additional data points. You could use this data to establish a control and experimental group, run population management experiments, and use supporting data that would be viewed by scientific standards as statistically significant to improve populations. We are clearly not there and likely never will be.

 

[bigsky2]

Hopefully hunters show up and voice their opinion during the public scoping for this new deer plan. I’ve been hunting eastern MT my entire life and I can say the mike deer hunting is far worse than it was in the early 2000’s. I think the people that are satisfied haven’t been hunting here long and don’t know any better. As was mentioned above, it used to be rare to see hunters from western MT in eastern MT. Now you see more WA and western MT plates than you do locals. I think that says a lot about how tough the hunting is in western MT. I will say, it does seem like the big bucks coming out of MT are all mountain bucks. There’s still some bucks in western MT that can reach their prime because of the country they live in. Bucks just don’t stand a chance on public in eastern MT anymore. I do get tired of the narrative from FWP that you can have opportunity, or you can wait several years to draw a tag to have a chance at a better buck. Opportunity doesn’t have to be rifle hunting during the entire length of the rut. To me, opportunity is the ability to hunt bucks every year. We could restructure the season to give bucks a chance while still maintaining the ability for residents to hunt every year.

 

[TaperPin]

There is some notion that state biologists are just sitting around on piles of money and nothing else to due like the Maytag Repair Man, when they are stretched really thin with very tight budgets. Developing the data to remake seasons sounds good, but holy cow can you imagine how many Karen’s are never happy no matter what is done, and there are other department priorities other than pie in the sky reinventing how to make the state like it was 30 years ago. I don’t have a horse in this race, but it’s fun to watch every year in every state how half the population knows the right way it should be done. *chuckle*

Personally, it’s more important that young hunters have opportunities every year, than the size of the average deer for serious hunters. We’ve pulled great deer out of horrible areas, so it might be a different type of hunting, and harder, but everything today is. Just getting into the DMV makes me wonder what happened to the old days, but it is what it is.

 

[mt terry d]

By encouraging I meant that with limited data the ages harvested (averaged 4 years or older on tooth surveys) and greater than 50 percent of 4 points or better are both higher than I was expecting given the state of mule deer across the west. Does the data used allow for a complete and comprehensive picture of herd composition and health? Are the methods indicative of a rigorous scientific data collection process that allows experimentation leading to statistically significant results? Absolutely not.

A population understanding of mule deer anywhere given logistic and technological limitations will in my opinion be limited until data collection methods improve. Even the best methods such as aerial surveys, collared fawns, direct biologist observations, etc. are only a partial picture. It would be great to have a rolling spreadsheet with each deer listed and associated age, size, genetics, and additional data points. You could use this data to establish a control and experimental group, run population management experiments, and use supporting data that would be viewed by scientific standards as statistically significant to improve populations. We are clearly not there and likely never will be.

What you call limited data I'd call insufficient and misleading data from people whose
jobs and advancements depend on certain official conclusions. To deny it's that is denying the
obvious conflict of interest.

I'd trust people with a ton of so-called "anecdotal memories" over that any day.

 

[NealS02]

What you call limited data I'd call insufficient

I agree 100%. What I call “limited” is in fact insufficient as you suggest and I spent two paragraphs agreeing with this above. I spelled out that limiting population analysis to hunter surveys and tooth collection data is woefully insufficient (if you bothered to actually read my response and understand what I was saying). Not sure why you are singling me out, but okay let’s keep moving.

and misleading data from people whose
jobs and advancements depend on certain official conclusions. To deny it's that is denying the
obvious conflict of interest.

Who exactly is denying this "conflict of interest" or that certain people get “advancements" based on this data? It most certainly is not me. Please stop implying that I did if honesty is important to you.

You are for some unclear reason using me as a straw man and creating an entirely new issue that I did not address nor desire to address: implying that Game and Fish are cooking the books because they have an agenda.

I have no knowledge of whether they are doing this or not. You might be correct. I don’t know. Leave me out of this portion of the discussion and stop implying that I have offered an opinion on this topic when I have not.

I'd trust people with a ton of so-called "anecdotal memories" over that any day.

Who exactly are you even replying to with this, Terry? Your response appears directed towards me and makes it sound like I discount “anecdotal” anything. I never mentioned the word “anecdotal”, alluded to this being reliable or not, and never intended to.

Others may have commented on this angle, but I did not. I would appreciate that moving forward my opinion not be casually and frankly lazily lumped in with the opinions of others.

 

[Marshfly]

Considering the method used to arrive at those stats, why do you find them encouraging?

It's the only actual real data there is that is collected similarly across the entire state. To discount it entirely is foolish.

You come across (maybe unintentionally) as if you believe that the entire MT FWP is out to intentionally lie and deceive the public. Is this truly what you think is happening?

 

[Axlrod]

It's the only actual real data there is that is collected similarly across the entire state. To discount it entirely is foolish.

You come across (maybe unintentionally) as if you believe that the entire MT FWP is out to intentionally lie and deceive the public. Is this truly what you think is happening?

My anecdotal observations on MT FWP collection of hunting "data".
I buy every otc tag available and put in for every LE tag for me and my son. 1 time in the last 5 years the FWP has called asking about deer harvest for us. This year (2 weeks ago) I received the only call for the 2024 season from the FWP- it was about our wolf hunting last year.

I surveyed 9 friends that had deer tags last year, and 2 of them received/gave info to the FWP for a deer hunting survey.

The FWP sets up a biologist staffed check station one day per year in an area I hunt. They set up 1/4 mile past a fork in the road- missing a lot of hunters leaving the area. I asked why they don't set up at the fork to survey everyone? They said " we don't know, we have always set up here"

The FWP hires contractors to do the phone surveys. Each call is for 1 species only- they do ask if you observed any wolves while hunting. They use their personal cell phones to call. Some people do not answer unknown #'s, and if you miss the call for whatever reason, they do not call back.

 

[AHayes111]

Personally, it’s more important that young hunters have opportunities every year, than the size of the average deer for serious hunters.

We in Montana are not going to be able to have opportunity every year and five weeks of Nov season forever.

 

[Marshfly]

My anecdotal observations on MT FWP collection of hunting "data".
I buy every otc tag available and put in for every LE tag for me and my son. 1 time in the last 5 years the FWP has called asking about deer harvest for us. This year (2 weeks ago) I received the only call for the 2024 season from the FWP- it was about our wolf hunting last year.

I surveyed 9 friends that had deer tags last year, and 2 of them received/gave info to the FWP for a deer hunting survey.

The FWP sets up a biologist staffed check station one day per year in an area I hunt. They set up 1/4 mile past a fork in the road- missing a lot of hunters leaving the area. I asked why they don't set up at the fork to survey everyone? They said " we don't know, we have always set up here"

The FWP hires contractors to do the phone surveys. Each call is for 1 species only- they do ask if you observed any wolves while hunting. They use their personal cell phones to call. Some people do not answer unknown #'s, and if you miss the call for whatever reason, they do not call back.

Data does not need to be a 100% sample size to have value. I think we have beat the 100% collection rate idea to death here. You will never get 100% data collection and what you collect will never be 100% accurate. That's ok. That's normal in data collection. Getting age and success data from only the people that turn right and not those that turn left still has a ton of value.

A lot of people are claiming the data is useless because it has holes. That's simply untrue. All data has holes.

I do think we should be forced to report to be eligible to get tags the following year however. There is zero reason not to have reporting as part of the purchase process online.

 

[mt terry d]

I agree 100%. What I call “limited” is in fact insufficient as you suggest and I spent two paragraphs agreeing with this above. I spelled out that limiting population analysis to hunter surveys and tooth collection data is woefully insufficient (if you bothered to actually read my response and understand what I was saying). Not sure why you are singling me out, but okay let’s keep moving.


Who exactly is denying this "conflict of interest" or that certain people get “advancements" based on this data? It most certainly is not me. Please stop implying that I did if honesty is important to you.

You are for some unclear reason using me as a straw man and creating an entirely new issue that I did not address nor desire to address: implying that Game and Fish are cooking the books because they have an agenda.

I have no knowledge of whether they are doing this or not. You might be correct. I don’t know. Leave me out of this portion of the discussion and stop implying that I have offered an opinion on this topic when I have not.


Who exactly are you even replying to with this, Terry? Your response appears directed towards me and makes it sound like I discount “anecdotal” anything. I never mentioned the word “anecdotal”, alluded to this being reliable or not, and never intended to.

Others may have commented on this angle, but I did not. I would appreciate that moving forward my opinion not be casually and frankly lazily lumped in with the opinions of others.

None of my comments were directed at you.
Get a grip.

 

[mt terry d]

It's the only actual real data there is that is collected similarly across the entire state. To discount it entirely is foolish.

I never said it should be discounted entirely but it's no more "real" than personal observations; especially by persons who have years of experience.

You come across (maybe unintentionally) as if you believe that the entire MT FWP is out to intentionally lie and deceive the public. Is this truly what you think is happening?

Entire?
No.

 

[NealS02]

None of my comments were directed at you.
Get a grip.

If I incorrectly misconstrued you quoting me multiple times and asking me a direct question as you directing your comments toward me then I apologize.

 

[mt terry d]

Apology unnecessary.
It's the internet; the second worst method of communication'
after smoke signals
I'm sure we'd have a better understanding of each other's
views drinking beer around a campfire.
First round is on me.

 

[idelkslayer]

I'm no expert on Montana but a couple things stood out to me.

It seemed counterintuitive that the average age of bucks in R1 is lower than in the eastern regions. We tend to think that thick timber increases escapement but I think Brian was right. Doe hunting options are limited in R1, so anyone who just wants to get a deer is forced to hold out for a buck. More hunting pressure on bucks equals less bucks and lower age class overall. Allowing more does to be shot can help increase buck age class as long as hunters have only one tag. Each doe shot is one less hunter still targeting bucks. Obviously there is a balance to this and we wouldn't want to kill so many does that it impacts recruitment. But whenever possible we should encourage doe harvest. The result will be better body condition for the remaining does and more older age bucks.

Given the info Brian provided I am very interested in the results of the age data Idaho is collecting just across the border from R1. Idaho allows whitetail does to be shot all season long. It will be interesting to see if there is a difference in buck age class between Idaho and Montana in the same type of habitat and similar season length for bucks.