Eastern MT??? Thoughts?

[ToolMann]

I hunted Unit 4 in 2020. Had high expectations from a buddy who grew up there but had moved away. We had a blast, but the hunting sucked. My buddy was shocked at the change over the years he'd been gone. It will be a while before I go back, but I'll still be back.

 

[Zach75]

Has anyone else hunted in 2023 and have a report?

 

[jmez]

I get called nearly every year. I don't understand why they don't have an electronic check in process.

I and 2 buddies hunted MT 5 years in a row, had a deer/elk combo tags. I got called one year about deer, my buddies none. I had shot an elk that year. Told the lady I didn't shoot a deer but I had gotten an elk. She said oh this call is about deer not elk. I said can't you mark it down or let the elk people know? Nope this call is strictly about deer. Not interested.

3 guys, 2 tags each per year for 5 years. 1 phone survey and they had zero interest in an animal killed. Go ahead and decide how accurate and or helpful their "survey" numbers are. It's a joke. As with any data set, garbage in = garbage out.

Sent from my moto g power 5G - 2023 using Tapatalk

 

[GoatPackr]

I hunted 18, 19, 20 and 23.
I noticed a sizeable drop in numbers for the 20 season. This year I feel was better. Maybe not what 18 and 19 was but better. I came home home empty. Didn't even fill the WT doe tag. Had it just incase I had an opportunity but didn't really look for one. We were into animals every day all day except for Maybe a couple hrs in the middle of the day a few of the days when it was really warm. The first thing that comes to mind with guys that complain about not seeing animals is how far away from the rd did you venture?

We didn't see much for bigger bucks. Mostly forkys. A few 3 points and a few 4 points. One of the biggest got away from us 3 days in a row. He was highly pressured and each time went about 2 miles after being bumped.
A few days we kept track and it was about 1 buck per 8 does.

One other thought. I think predators are killing way more game animals in the west than Hunters. You can keep cutting tags all you want but if you don't get the predators under control you are just feeding them your game. Hunters put a small dent in the numbers compared to predators.
Stop fighting over the last piece of pie and start working on making the pie bigger. Kill a predator.

Kris

 

[deerlick]

You all can say it's terrible, not like it used to be etc. But it is still by far the best place to hunt mule deer that I have been to. Obviously not trophy bucks behing every bush but plenty of deer. Been going most years since 2017, our group tagged 12 bucks this year. Everyone of the kids and first time hunters in our group were tickled to death with thier smaller than instagram trophy bucks and can't wait to go back. Those in the group who put in the effort shot mature bucks. Flame away

 

[OpenCountry]

You all can say it's terrible, not like it used to be etc. But it is still by far the best place to hunt mule deer that I have been to. Obviously not trophy bucks behing every bush but plenty of deer. Been going most years since 2017, our group tagged 12 bucks this year. Everyone of the kids and first time hunters in our group were tickled to death with thier smaller than instagram trophy bucks and can't wait to go back. Those in the group who put in the effort shot mature bucks. Flame away

Few questions.

What state(s) are we putting eastern MT deer hunting on a pedestal against?

Resident or nonresident? If nonresident, which state?

Mature is pretty subjective from one to another. Can you post up the mature ones?

 

[S.Clancy]

I'd be curious what they changed in 2015 on estimating populations.

I left in 2013 and while the MD population was down somewhat, it sounds like it's really tanked and yet they show even lower numbers in 2012 than last year (2022). Mule deer pops were NOT dire in 2012. Whatever they changed in making their calculations, they must have really changed.

Actually R7 is closer to 1/4th vs 1/7th of the state, the largest region in the state

In SE R7 they weren't dire in 2012, in the northern portion, just south of the lake they were bad, real bad. Based on numbers of deer we saw in the late 2000's compared to post winter 2011 it was 80%+ mortality in the north. It finally recovered pretty good by 2019-2020 then the 2 yrs of bad drought hit, knocking them back again.

The biggest problem with FWPs strategy in R7 is they treat an enormous area as one. It makes much more sense to manage that region as 10 (+-) hunt units, for both deer and antelope.

Populations can vary widely between say Jordan and Broadus, where one area sucks but the other still decent to good. All the while the overall population stays the same.

 

[S.Clancy]

Has anyone else hunted in 2023 and have a report?

I hunted 7 days, averaged 40-50 deer a day (not counting the deer I saw on roads driving). Saw 3 mature bucks, killed one. Lots of 1.5 yr old bucks and 3.5 yr old bucks. We are missing an age class of 2.5 yr old deer from the drought of 21'.

As far as mule deer go, the whole West populations are decreasing. This points to weather and habitat being the drivers. We can't do anything about weather. Habitat has changed either from natural succession or building subdivisions on winter range, primarily. I would bet enormous sums of money that if BLM and USFS started large scale logging and conifer removal deer numbers would respond.

 

[Dirtbag]

I hunted MT all across the eastern half of the state. Populations are definitely different unit to unit. I can tell you there is a lot less deer in the RG 7 than I have experienced in years past. The drought and tough winters do that, as well as an increase in pressure due to the influencer crowd. In other units I saw plenty of deer.

I love Montana deer hunting. When I get up there I always get asked "why did you come from Colorado to hunt up here". Its pretty simple. I can actually still get a tag every other year in MT, and I get to hunt so many different areas on one tag.

People complain there isnt any big bucks and so on, and I agree that there are fewer than CO(they are still around though).

You know where it's really hard to kill big bucks? sitting on the couch because you didn't draw a tag. Although I think they could do some management differently, (decreasing doe tags) We have to start being careful. We have to quit eliminating our opportunity at every turn. We do it constantly, and the hunting isn't getting better.

 

[mt terry d]

It does make me wonder what it was like 20 years ago, and it makes me wonder what it could be like if the numbers were limited.

About 30 years ago you could see 6-8 4 points every day; 18-22" . In a week of serious hunting you'd likely see a 30" wallhanger, maybe two. Killing one was another thing.

Then there were 4 wheelers everywhere. I saw a snowmobile trailer from ND with does stacked like cordwood. And I believe a famous taxidermist/outfitter from Butte got in there. Not long after that I could hunt 4 or five days and see a total of 5 or 6 does and very few tracks.

The "official" word was coyotes. I never saw one.

 

[manitou1]

I hear you. In lots of cases, things are managed well. But often our experts dont know or more likely cant change fast enough to fix what needs fixing. In Minnesota sunfish limits have been pushed down from 100-50 per person, to 25, to 15, now 5 per person per day is the norm on many lakes. due to lots of changing environments & pressures, but I still think greed plays into it. one person having one good day and keeping 100 fish is realistically unimportant if one guy keeps 5 each day for 365 days. these systems and rule bodies simply fail, time after time. Its hard for dead mule deer to raise a voice. panfish just being a matrix that is easy to comprehend. big game is far more touchy and harder to navigate.

Managing game to support the pocket books of ranchers, outfitters and the state's purse is NOT managing well!

 

[voltage]

It really is wild that one tag lets you hunt ALL of this land with a rifle for 6 weeks. I am sure that made sense at one point, but it is a head scratcher nowadays.

 

[mrolen]

Hunted two weekends in region 7 lots of people not a lot of deer. Seen 8 bucks on public in two weekends of hunting 6 of them were spikes and 2 points. Best buck was a young 3x4. I left with my tag unpunched. I would love to see a point restriction and eliminate doe tags except for youth I think the opportunity should remain open for kids.

 

[MTSasquatch]

Hunted two weekends in region 7 lots of people not a lot of deer. Seen 8 bucks on public in two weekends of hunting 6 of them were spikes and 2 points. Best buck was a young 3x4. I left with my tag unpunched. I would love to see a point restriction and eliminate doe tags except for youth I think the opportunity should remain open for kids.

Point restrictions do not generate more bucks or an improved age class. It’ll just make it be that every 2.5-3.5 y/o 4 point gets shot. That hunting regulation experiment has already been conducted with enough evidence to show it has no effect.

It’s as simple as this- general license either-sex, or general license antlered buck MD tags result in loads of deer being killed. More deer being killed = less bucks and a suppressed age class that skews away from bucks ever seeing their 5th birthday. The only solution proven to correct that is restricted licenses/opportunity.

Surveys over the decades consistently reveal that MT residents prefer opportunity over age class, so I doubt we’ll see that change any time soon.

Figuring out how deer numbers fluctuate annually requires research efforts that I feel most hunters underestimate how complex and difficult that is to undertake. And it takes many years to do. The average hunter is too mercurial and impatient to reap what may benefit from such efforts- particularly when the resulting data suggests tags be cut.

 

[Dos Perros]

Figuring out how deer numbers fluctuate annually requires research efforts that I feel most hunters underestimate how complex and difficult that is to undertake. And it takes many years to do. The average hunter is too mercurial and impatient to reap what may benefit from such efforts- particularly when the resulting data suggests tags be cut.

Is it that hard to do one winter survey and be like "holy shit there are 50% less deer than last year" and make tag restrictions the following year?

Edited to add: I spit out the above comment without giving it enough thought. It could be the biologists know what's going on, but lack the tools to restrict harvest in certain areas with the way the general tag is structured. Also possible that the biggest swings in population are quite localized, in fact I'd bet that's the case.

 

[MTSasquatch]

Is it that hard to do one winter survey and be like "holy shit there are 50% less deer than last year" and make tag restrictions the following year?

Edited to add: I spit out the above comment without giving it enough thought. It could be the biologists know what's going on, but lack the tools to restrict harvest in certain areas with the way the general tag is structured. Also possible that the biggest swings in population are quite localized, in fact I'd bet that's the case.

One winter of data would not reveal the underlying factors primarily responsible for population demographics of any animal population. Causal factors responsible for recruitment and mortality take years to ascertain.

We may have hypotheses to explain changes in populations, but a research effort is needed to test those inferences to ensure management actions are done in the presence of informed results, not haphazard assumptions.

Even the results of such efforts may not lead to management changes as those changes are constrained by sideboards in the state deer management plan.

 

[Dos Perros]

One winter of data would not reveal the underlying factors primarily responsible for population demographics of any animal population. Causal factors responsible for recruitment and mortality take years to ascertain.

We may have hypotheses to explain changes in populations, but a research effort is needed to test those inferences to ensure management actions are done in the presence of informed results, not haphazard assumptions.

Even the results of such efforts may not lead to management changes as those changes are constrained by sideboards in the state deer management plan.

I'll play.

Let's assume a rapid decline in population is observed. Must the cause be identified to some certainty before changes to management can occur?

 

[MTSasquatch]

I'll play.

Let's assume a rapid decline in population is observed. Must the cause be identified to some certainty before changes to management can occur?

Excellent,

It would depend on what exactly is declining. Fawns:100 adults, total deer counted compared to long term average, or buck harvest over the LTA? If thresholds for any decline are not met, no change in hunting regulations are warranted. If declines exceed thresholds, then hunting regulations become more restrictive.

Hunter A might anecdotally observe localized declines, but survey area wide there are no observed declines. This has been referenced before in this thread.

Even if regulations are adjusted, you may not see a correction towards objectives because hunting may not be responsible for the observed change, which is often the case. Hence the need for research.

 

[Dos Perros]

Excellent,

It would depend on what exactly is declining. Fawns:100 adults, total deer counted compared to long term average, or buck harvest over the LTA? If thresholds for any decline are not met, no change in hunting regulations are warranted. If declines exceed thresholds, then hunting regulations become more restrictive.

Hunter A might anecdotally observe localized declines, but survey area wide there are no observed declines. This has been referenced before in this thread.

Even if regulations are adjusted, you may not see a correction towards objectives because hunting may not be responsible for the observed change, which is often the case. Hence the need for research.

I'm thinking total deer thresholds should have probably been tripped. I can't imagine how they couldn't have been. I'm thinking the cause was likely a disease outbreak, EHD or blue tongue or something like that. Those one off events aren't part of a larger trend, but I do think warrant management action if they kill off a bunch of deer.

 

[Waphunter]

More data is always better, but it definitely seems like other states' game agencies are much quicker to react when known disease outbreaks, harsh winters, or an over allowance of tags are given out that attribute to population declines. When FWP has shown how they interpret their hunter satisfaction survey results such as they did in this article. FWP Elk Survey Results . Yes biologists can only do so much. I have sat in on, and participated in countless public meetings with the FWP as they tell us their hands are tied due to legislation, or due to game management plans. At some point it would be nice if we would just do what's best for the resource. The balance between quantity and quality has been skewed for a long time in Montana. The popularity growth of western hunting, and hunting in Montana specifically, has brought on the need for some changes, in my opinion.