Montana FWP and Mule deer

[hunterjmj]

Just got an email from fwp talking about the decline of mule deer and there plans to dig into the issue.

Here's a link to survey they did. It eludes to possible upcoming changes.

https://fwp.mt.gov/binaries/content/assets/fwp/news/news-releases/2022/hq/final-research-summary-no-53-mule-deer.pdf

Some changes need to be made but I like hunting deer every year and I like the season structure. Cutting antlerless permits would be a great start.

 

[S.Clancy]

I'd like to see what would happen with 10 yrs of very limited antlerless permits. Would the population really expand beyond what the 130k top line seems to be in Eastern MT (R7). If it stays within the previous population numbers with very restricted doe harvest, habitat quality or quantity is the issue.

 

[406huntermt]

I'd like to see what would happen with 10 yrs of very limited antlerless permits. Would the population really expand beyond what the 130k top line seems to be in Eastern MT (R7). If it stays within the previous population numbers with very restricted doe harvest, habitat quality or quantity is the issue.

I agree with the limited antlerless permits but there is just far Too many people killing the deer! everyone and their mother ruined region 7 over the years, and now they have moved to north eastern and north central and are killing everything that moves! It’s time to spread people out by starting with non residents and making them apply to hunt a hunting district and if they draw that district it’s the only place they can hunt! Pretty soon it will need to turn into everyone applying for for hds and only hunting where they applied. The over crowding in region 6 is atrocious anymore! Just my 2 cents. Good luck this season

 

[mtwarden]

I remember the survey in 2011. It was done in, at least in part, due to several landowners in R7 (a couple who were on the R7 Citizen Advisory)) who thought we should cut the season short, eliminating the last couple of weeks in November (concerns of hunting the rut) or as a compromise, start the season a couple of weeks early and keep the 5 week season.

The survey was overwhelmingly in support of keeping the same season structure (5 weeks and keep Thanksgiving in the mix). The landowners were pretty gracious about the results and conceded that the majority spoke.

It appears the "tide" might be slowly shifting slightly to something more restrictive. I'd really hate to lose the 5 week season, I could live with the season starting (and ending) earlier if need be.

Hopefully cutting back on doe tags and other lesser measures (and maybe a few milder winters sprinkled in!) starts the population on an upward swing.

 

[Legend]

I agree with the limited antlerless permits but there is just far Too many people killing the deer! everyone and their mother ruined region 7 over the years, and now they have moved to north eastern and north central and are killing everything that moves! It’s time to spread people out by starting with non residents and making them apply to hunt a hunting district and if they draw that district it’s the only place they can hunt! Pretty soon it will need to turn into everyone applying for for hds and only hunting where they applied. The over crowding in region 6 is atrocious anymore! Just my 2 cents. Good luck this season

I agree with the limited antlerless permits but there is just far Too many people killing the deer! everyone and their mother ruined region 7 over the years, and now they have moved to north eastern and north central and are killing everything that moves! It’s time to spread people out by starting with non residents and making them apply to hunt a hunting district and if they draw that district it’s the only place they can hunt! Pretty soon it will need to turn into everyone applying for for hds and only hunting where they applied. The over crowding in region 6 is atrocious anymore! Just my 2 cents. Good luck this season

Spot on

 

[t_carlson]

High schoolers could manage Montana wildlife better than the FWP has in the last decade or two. Its not rocket science.

I attended a few FWP public comment meetings about 10 years ago. I questioned why they continued to issue doe tags in a particular unit after they said the population was down 10% from its long-term average. I also questioned why they were getting rid of a draw B tag for elk (which was good on public land) and moving to a region-wide OTC B tag that was only good for private land. Their answer was that elk were causing problems on private land and they needed to reduce the population. Our brilliant FWP further responded that those were different elk, even though the "problem" area and the public land were only a few air miles apart. Of course, that was news to me after having tracked the fatherless children all over the place on many, many occasions and seeing them jump back and forth from public to private on a nearly daily basis.

I was treated so rudely for asking my questions by the biologists that a warden who was present came up and apologized on behalf of the FWP after the meeting.

That was the last FWP meeting I ever went to. Not because its not important. But it was glaringly obvious that the managers are going to do whatever they want regardless of facts, logic, or public sentiment. Those "comment" meetings are merely to satisfy legal requirements and not to truly gauge approval of their proposed actions. Most of the public is too stupid, timid, or apathetic to do anything about it, so they aren't used to much push back.

My time is better spent emailing politicians than fighting the bureaucracy. At least politicians are mildly paranoid they may lose their jobs if the public gets too upset.

 

[S.Clancy]

I remember the survey in 2011. It was done in, at least in part, due to several landowners in R7 (a couple who were on the R7 Citizen Advisory)) who thought we should cut the season short, eliminating the last couple of weeks in November (concerns of hunting the rut) or as a compromise, start the season a couple of weeks early and keep the 5 week season.

The survey was overwhelmingly in support of keeping the same season structure (5 weeks and keep Thanksgiving in the mix). The landowners were pretty gracious about the results and conceded that the majority spoke.

It appears the "tide" might be slowly shifting slightly to something more restrictive. I'd really hate to lose the 5 week season, I could live with the season starting (and ending) earlier if need be.

Hopefully cutting back on doe tags and other lesser measures (and maybe a few milder winters sprinkled in!) starts the population on an upward swing.

Interesting the last survey was done after a population drop of 50%.....

 

[bigsky2]

It used to be that Montanans complained that we didn't have mature bucks. Now we are complaining that there are vast tracts of public land that are just void of deer period. There are lots of people moving here that think things are great because its still better than where they came from. If you've hunted here your whole life like me, its pretty sad to see how much the baseline has shifted for what is considered quality deer hunting. Unfortunately, any time change is discussed, they act like there are only two options- maintain the status quo or go to limited entry where you will only be able to hunt for a buck every few years. There are a lot of things that could be done in the middle that could improve things. Shifting season dates or shortening the season would be a good start.

 

[BugleMeTimber]

Had a mule deer doe B tag last year in Region 4. That tag provided heat for my family in the fireplace. Strongly feel doe tags need to be cut and general tags moved to Mule Deer Buck only. Just my opinion, not a biologist. Hunters can help by not shooting doe's and doing more predator hunting.

 

[TylerTheTerrible]

Don't you guys think shorter seasons will actually put more pressure on the deer? And make any crowding issues significantly worse? Another thought, are we grazing more on public lands than before? I don't know how it was in the good old days but my perception is the best hunters are still consistently pulling big deer off of public land in Montana. That's not me, at least not yet but I wasn't blaming FWP for not seeing a ton of big bucks out east.

 

[Hippie Steve]

It used to be that Montanans complained that we didn't have mature bucks. Now we are complaining that there are vast tracts of public land that are just void of deer period. There are lots of people moving here that think things are great because its still better than where they came from. If you've hunted here your whole life like me, its pretty sad to see how much the baseline has shifted for what is considered quality deer hunting. Unfortunately, any time change is discussed, they act like there are only two options- maintain the status quo or go to limited entry where you will only be able to hunt for a buck every few years. There are a lot of things that could be done in the middle that could improve things. Shifting season dates or shortening the season would be a good start.

SPOT ON 100%! Nothing needs to be taken away, only moved around. I worked for two different state game agencies and FWP does a fair job. Remember this state is managed for opportunity, not quality, although our quality is always going to be there so long as our habitat does. Wildlife management is mostly habitat management and MT has an adaptive management system for mule deer. Thanks for supporting our mule deer!

 

[Pony Soldier]

In region 3 we went from drowning in deer to nothing in 92. With nearly every day in the remote areas during season, I have not seen a buck of any kind in 6 years. However I have seen a mtn lion weekly. In 322, the last time I hunted there, all I saw were bloody wolf tracks. We used to see 300-400 deer a hunt. Many of the areas in the region need a ten year moratorium on mule deer hunting with sincere predator control to get things back into the correct proportions.

I do have a degree in wildlife management and the present management defies anything they taught in school or common sense.

 

[ianpadron]

Antlerless mule deer tags should be done away with entirely, and antlerless whitetail tags should be given out like candy, statewide.

I attended a really interesting meeting up in Region 1 held by FWP on the mule deer population:

- Though down from their 1980s peak, mule deer numbers in Region 1 have been stable for the past decade+

- Muley does 1.5 years old and older are basically 100% pregnant during every survey they've conducted in recent years in Region 1, meaning there are plenty of bucks around despite what local road hunters think.

- Point restrictions don't work, and should be off the table entirely. Plenty of data to support that.

- Limiting season dates can shift age classes/quality of bucks, but has ZERO effect on the overall population total.

- What they ARE seeing is cougar predation and competition from whiteys on the winter range limiting survival of fawns and does. Cougar quotas have been raised, and that has resulted in 12.5% fewer cats on the landscape in the past couple years.

Another interesting point the bios made is that the "good ol days" of the 70s and 80s when mule deer populations were first monitored, and the baseline that many older hunters have in their minds, likely had artificially high carrying capacities due to the widespread logging/clear-cut operations that opened up habitat to mule deer that traditionally didn't exist in NW Montana.

Logging is not something FWP has control over, so they recommended concerned hunters talk to their state reps, USFS managers, etc. to align their vision with FWPs, of more mule deer...as more habitat basically guarantees more deer.

I would strongly caution anyone about supporting more restrictive seasons in the mountainous regions of MT.

There are plenty of places in this state a long way from the road that have lots of big bucks, and losing our unique 5 week season would be an absolute shame, and more importantly, is not something that you can get back.

The Fisher River unit in 103 and Unit 101 near Eureka are prime examples of what can happen if a vocal group pushes hard for restrictions in areas where deer are doing just fine if you're willing to work for them.

There were always big deer in both units, but there were certainly fewer of them along the roads where most hunters target them. That led to the avg. size of checked deer to decline...and hunters to then give up their own opportunities in the pursuit of having "more big bucks to shoot". All that does is penalize the guys going deep and working hard from hunting some of their favorite units, to appease the guys who think that a 180" mountain muley should be behind every tree.

Important to focus on the factors that ultimately get us more deer...and that's protecting antlerless populations and their habitat.

 

[t_carlson]

Don't you guys think shorter seasons will actually put more pressure on the deer? And make any crowding issues significantly worse?

Yes. Shortening will not do anything. They have cut the season back to November 15th in some units.

I still think the Nov. single digits are better than the last two weeks for seeing deer, particularly the popular 24" 4x4 "shooters" that most are happy to tag.

SPOT ON 100%! Nothing needs to be taken away, only moved around. I worked for two different state game agencies and FWP does a fair job. Remember this state is managed for opportunity, not quality, although our quality is always going to be there so long as our habitat does. Wildlife management is mostly habitat management and MT has an adaptive management system for mule deer. Thanks for supporting our mule deer!

What is your baseline for MT? How would you quantify a "fair job?"

I consistently see fewer and fewer mule deer each year. The only people who seem to think things are "good" are those without a reference going back more than 10 years or so. Its looking more and more like the 2000's were the most recent iteration of "the good old days."

In region 3 we went from drowning in deer to nothing in 92. With nearly every day in the remote areas during season, I have not seen a buck of any kind in 6 years. However I have seen a mtn lion weekly. In 322, the last time I hunted there, all I saw were bloody wolf tracks. We used to see 300-400 deer a hunt. Many of the areas in the region need a ten year moratorium on mule deer hunting with sincere predator control to get things back into the correct proportions.

I do have a degree in wildlife management and the present management defies anything they taught in school or common sense.

No, we can't talk about the lion problem. Those are legitimate "big game animals" as decreed by those in charge, so we're not allowed to bring up all of the "trophy lion units" and quotas across the western part of the State.

I've never figured out how a small number of hound hunters are able to hold the rest of our hunting hostage in the name of "management" or whatever FWP calls it.

 

[t_carlson]

Antlerless mule deer tags should be done away with entirely, and antlerless whitetail tags should be given out like candy, statewide.

I attended a really interesting meeting up in Region 1 held by FWP on the mule deer population:

- Though down from their 1980s peak, mule deer numbers in Region 1 have been stable for the past decade+

- Muley does 1.5 years old and older are basically 100% pregnant during every survey they've conducted in recent years in Region 1, meaning there are plenty of bucks around despite what local road hunters think.

- Point restrictions don't work, and should be off the table entirely. Plenty of data to support that.

- Limiting season dates can shift age classes/quality of bucks, but has ZERO effect on the overall population total.

- What they ARE seeing is cougar predation and competition from whiteys on the winter range limiting survival of fawns and does. Cougar quotas have been raised, and that has resulted in 12.5% fewer cats on the landscape in the past couple years.

Another interesting point the bios made is that the "good ol days" of the 70s and 80s when mule deer populations were first monitored, and the baseline that many older hunters have in their minds, likely had artificially high carrying capacities due to the widespread logging/clear-cut operations that opened up habitat to mule deer that traditionally didn't exist in NW Montana.

Logging is not something FWP has control over, so they recommended concerned hunters talk to their state reps, USFS managers, etc. to align their vision with FWPs, of more mule deer...as more habitat basically guarantees more deer.

I would strongly caution anyone about supporting more restrictive seasons in the mountainous regions of MT.

There are plenty of places in this state a long way from the road that have lots of big bucks, and losing our unique 5 week season would be an absolute shame, and more importantly, is not something that you can get back.

The Fisher River unit in 103 and Unit 101 near Eureka are prime examples of what can happen if a vocal group pushes hard for restrictions in areas where deer are doing just fine if you're willing to work for them.

There were always big deer in both units, but there were certainly fewer of them along the roads where most hunters target them. That led to the avg. size of checked deer to decline...and hunters to then give up their own opportunities in the pursuit of having "more big bucks to shoot". All that does is penalize the guys going deep and working hard from hunting some of their favorite units, to appease the guys who think that a 180" mountain muley should be behind every tree.

Important to focus on the factors that ultimately get us more deer...and that's protecting antlerless populations and their habitat.

I agree with an awful lot of that. Most of the LE tag push is from lazy guys who want an easy deer, plain and simple. They'd rather winter kill and predators get big bucks than hard working hunters.

But as far as the 70's and 80's having "artificial" deer numbers, I'd like the FWP to tell me what constitutes "artificial."

Fires were intentionally lit by the plains tribes way back before recorded history. We got rid of most of the predators around the turn of the 20th century. My point, is has been "artificial" in some form or another since the first human set foot on this continent. Minimizing the 70's and 80's by calling them "artificial" is a cop-out and a way to excuse the FWP from ever having to meet that metric again.

 

[Pony Soldier]

The sad part I have seen with lion hunters is after they have a cat hide or two in the house, all they want to do is chase them. That's not management, that's exercise. I urged a couple of them to come and diminish my horse eating cat population. The comment was that we had wolves and they would kill their dogs so they weren't coming. I brought the issue up with the bio and she told me that they didn't have anyone in the office to manage predators.

After the wolves ate 39 of the neighbors calves, the big pack was quietly diminished - until next year or the year after. They do breed unlike the enviros tell you.

 

[ianpadron]

I agree with an awful lot of that. Most of the LE tag push is from lazy guys who want an easy deer, plain and simple. They'd rather winter kill and predators get big bucks than hard working hunters.

But as far as the 70's and 80's having "artificial" deer numbers, I'd like the FWP to tell me what constitutes "artificial."

Fires were intentionally lit by the plains tribes way back before recorded history. We got rid of most of the predators around the turn of the 20th century. My point, is has been "artificial" in some form or another since the first human set foot on this continent. Minimizing the 70's and 80's by calling them "artificial" is a cop-out and a way to excuse the FWP from ever having to meet that metric again.

I get your point on defining "artificial" and agree wholeheartedly.

My take from the meeting was that the bios at FWP weren't making an excuse at all, but rather making it clear that they don't have much sway when it comes to forestry practices aside from making recommendations to other governmental agencies. They fully acknowledged that more logging = more deer, but all they can control is buck and doe harvest, and season length...only levers they have at their disposal.

 

[Hippie Steve]

I get your point on defining "artificial" and agree wholeheartedly.

My take from the meeting was that the bios at FWP weren't making an excuse at all, but rather making it clear that they don't have much sway when it comes to forestry practices aside from making recommendations to other governmental agencies. They fully acknowledged that more logging = more deer, but all they can control is buck and doe harvest, and season length...only levers they have at their disposal.

Thanks for keeping an open mind. There are many stakeholders involved with wildlife and habitat management. The agency does the best job it can with what goes on inside the agency.

 

[WCB]

So basically this survey shows that the majority of Resident Mule Deer hunters of MT have no idea that the herds are hurting and generally trophy quality is down. They just want to Mule Deer.

 

[TylerTheTerrible]

So basically this survey shows that the majority of Resident Mule Deer hunters of MT have no idea that the herds are hurting and generally trophy quality is down. They just want to Mule Deer.

Trophy quality is not a priority for most. Hard to blame people who enjoy hunting for wanting to hunt.