Hunting mature thick timber Muleys in Eastern WA, Northern ID, and NW Montana

... This aligns with the trends I have seen with my 30 plus years of hunting mule deer in region 7 and the 15 years and 100 plus lab age specimens I have sent in for family and friends over the years from region 7.
hey! trying to catch what you're saying here. Region 7 is older bucks than Region 4?

(the cwd sampling bias makes sense, guys that get a big one always want to know more)
 
hey! trying to catch what you're saying here. Region 7 is older bucks than Region 4?

(the cwd sampling bias makes sense, guys that get a big one always want to know more)
This was such a good podcast. We see the same type of data in Wyoming, too. I'm inclined to believe it's pretty random when everyone who drives by a Wyoming check station is required by law to stop. I would love to know how FWP gathered their samples.

That said, it seems like the "everyone kills young bucks" is a worthwhile thing to look into. Because the data coming out across the west says hunters essentially just sample from the population - like plucking the ones that are most common in the population. Which is, of course, a pyramid structure with bumps up in good productive years.

@Dioni A was touching on this in an old post when he commented he killed 3 or 4 dandies all born in 2016.
 
This was such a good podcast. We see the same type of data in Wyoming, too. I'm inclined to believe it's pretty random when everyone who drives by a Wyoming check station is required by law to stop. I would love to know how FWP gathered their samples.

That said, it seems like the "everyone kills young bucks" is a worthwhile thing to look into. Because the data coming out across the west says hunters essentially just sample from the population - like plucking the ones that are most common in the population. Which is, of course, a pyramid structure with bumps up in good productive years.

@Dioni A was touching on this in an old post when he commented he killed 3 or 4 dandies all born in 2016.
Running through the data for MT I'm very confident there is some bias either in harvest or sampling, or both.

It's also important to realize exactly what you are saying, looking at proportions of certain age animals is very dependent on the population structure. Big recruitment cohorts can bias the data down the road, especially when you combine that with rapidly decreasing population (and thus much smaller recruitment cohorts of younger animals).
 
Running through the data for MT I'm very confident there is some bias either in harvest or sampling, or both.

It's also important to realize exactly what you are saying, looking at proportions of certain age animals is very dependent on the population structure. Big recruitment cohorts can bias the data down the road, especially when you combine that with rapidly decreasing population (and thus much smaller recruitment cohorts of younger animals).
Yep! I agree with what you're saying there. Works in the inverse, too! Just because we have a massive crop of 2-3 year olds that guys are mostly taking doesn't mean that there aren't old bucks out there.

My take is more that we ought to be looking at longer trends (10+ years) in recruitment than just a handful of years to make management changes so we get multiple generations of deer to cycle. Maybe because I'm not quite 30 years old, but I'm all good with riding the roller coaster of populations and grinding out the lows, because the big fawn crops today in the trough are going to be the bucks I target in 5-7 years. So if we make a change in how we hunt now, the conditions will be different and in some places drastically better in just a few years.

This goes for all states, not just picking on Montana, because I've never hunted muleys there, though I do have a tag for 2025.
 
Back
Top