Montana season change proposal

[ELKdeerMT]

I passed on a ton of smaller muley bucks last year filling my deer tag on a 3.5yr old buck with a drop tine. He went entirely to sausage and stick. That was due to already having that elk in the freezer.

With this proposal I'm hunting deer the entire October just incase I don't get an elk. And I WILL fill that tag. So will others in my family. More bucks will be killed absolutely. Zero question.

Pick your region and species is dumb for residents. General tags need to be for all general units. Reporting can accomplish what they want there. If they need to restrict hunters on a species in an area we already have a method for that.

Thank you for your service…I bet it cost you a few tanks of gas wading through all those smalls bucks peak rut waiting for big 3.5 YO hank to slip up.

I think the “more deer will get shot” is a weak argument. Most MD are shot as consolation prizes while guys are late elk rifle hunting. If it’s a meat thing and you can’t figure that out then you should pick up another hobby. Plenty of late cow tags, b tags to get meat in the freezer.

I do agree that with these changes there would someday be more potential to fill a deer tag quicker in October once the bucks have a few seasons of being able to breed the month of November without getting blasted by some poor hunter that might of starved if it wasn’t for that rutted up 3.5 year old trophy Montana buck.

 

[WCB]

Blows my mind there is not mandatory reporting. It could be as easy as NV system, you have to log on, fill out report (harvest or not) before you are allowed to apply/buy for the next year. How you could manage a resource you have no idea how many are being killed a year or where they are being killed is crazy.

I agree 100%. Kill a damn Black Bear and they ask what color the rock was that your left knee was sitting against when you fired the shot. But deer and elk nothing. But that is also where individual region limits on tags would at least help. If they want to break it down further into zones ok.

Kill a deer you provide twsp, range, section, or coordinates to kill site.

 

[Scottf270]

Hunting has become for sport and recreation. There are very few who have to hunt for the "meat". By the time you pencil out the cost of tags (especially non residents) , fuel, wear and tear on vehicle, etc the old " hunt for the meat" costs don't make sense. Even if you process your own stuff, it's still a money losing proposition. Buying $4.00 a lb hamburger is way cheaper.

There are 2 camps, horn hunters and killers. I'm a horn hunter and admit it. If I can't kill the biggest and the best, I'm fine going home empty handed. Most people aren't. That's okay too. But just admit when you kill a small last day buck that you had to kill something. You wanted something to show for your time, effort, and expense. If it was really about the experience, you wouldn't kill something you really don't want.

I could hunt Montana every year and have minimal negative impact on the resource. They could let me hunt 365 days a year and I'm as likely as not to go home empty handed. If you are gonna kill smaller animals, you are gonna do it no matter what.

Sorry if this comes off as elitest, not my intention. I love Montana. I love the land, the people, the way of life. It's a privilege to be able to hunt there.

Just a couple points from a non resident after 40 years hunting in Montana. This mainly pertains to deer.

1. Everyone needs to respect and try to do what's right for the resource.
2. I think residents should get first priority and should take what they deem right.
3. FWP needs to be proactive and not reactive. Gather real data and be willing to do the right things no matter how tough or costly.
4. I don't think any non resident can make the numbers work out for hunting in Montana other than for enjoyment. I just wish they would think about the impact they are having and how their choice to press the trigger affects the very thing they claim to love.
5. If the herd is below objectives, no B tags. I don't care what the buck to doe ratio is, you can't grow a herd killing females. I especially think non residents have no business getting B tags unless they possess a buck tag and the herd is at or above objective.
6. Realize if we as hunters can't or won't think and limit some of the things we do, FWP will have to do it for us and it may be bitter medicine.

Best wishes to everyone no matter your thoughts. In the end, I hope we all continue hunting in Montana and leave it better than we found it.

 

[Mountneer]

Human population = the demise of big game species. Montana is just now seeing what Europe, original colonies, bison herds, and current eastern animal populations have suffered due to pressure.

We'll never again see our hunting the way it was a generation ago. Admit it & recognize how it will impact our selfish desires. Then ask ourselves how we can help with a remedy.

If we wish to keep huntable mule deer, or any big game species for the next 50 years, we better wake up & let the biologists do their job....unencumbered by deeply rooted political influences.

I applaud the subject efforts. Even if nothing comes of it, maybe it will start something like a grass roots referendum from resident hunters to make FWP head an elected position, or otherwise to remove FWP from effects of executive & legislative leverage.

The ballot box is apparently the only way we can salvage our common love of hunting tradition, if we really truly want to.

 

[Marshfly]

Thank you for your service…I bet it cost you a few tanks of gas wading through all those smalls bucks peak rut waiting for big 3.5 YO hank to slip up.

I think the “more deer will get shot” is a weak argument. Most MD are shot as consolation prizes while guys are late elk rifle hunting. If it’s a meat thing and you can’t figure that out then you should pick up another hobby. Plenty of late cow tags, b tags to get meat in the freezer.

I do agree that with these changes there would someday be more potential to fill a deer tag quicker in October once the bucks have a few seasons of being able to breed the month of November without getting blasted by some poor hunter that might of starved if it wasn’t for that rutted up 3.5 year old trophy Montana buck.

Who said I killed him peak rut?

Cheap shots are lame. Get a life.

 

[mtwarden]

I would argue if the habitat is actually good there would be deer there. I hunt places in R3 that are overrun with deer, other's nothing. Generally looking for elk in good elk habitat you won't see a ton of deer

I'd agree with that, but sometimes I'm covering 10-12 miles and definitely into some good deer habitat and not even a track. I know that elk will often out compete deer and push them put of areas (The Missouri Breaks many years ago was one of the very best mule deer areas in the state, then came the elk....), but when covering wide swathes of country (in suitable habitat) should be seeing at least a few deer.

 

[Fowl Play]

Guys.... I would deeply caution you all to not make major changes to the season structures when you have incomplete information.

Mandatory harvest reporting and reduction of B tags would go a long ways and would get you more information to make a more educated change. Those are easy to communicate to FWP and implement in short time. Detailed harvest reporting data will then allow you to make a possibly much better proposition in the future.

Don't mess it up when you don't hold all the cards and will never be able to undo it....

 

[ELKdeerMT]

Who said I killed him peak rut?

Cheap shots are lame. Get a life.

What time of year did you “pass on a ton of small bucks” in Montana?

 

[Axlrod]

Hunting has become for sport and recreation. There are very few who have to hunt for the "meat". By the time you pencil out the cost of tags (especially non residents) , fuel, wear and tear on vehicle, etc the old " hunt for the meat" costs don't make sense. Even if you process your own stuff, it's still a money losing proposition. Buying $4.00 a lb hamburger is way cheaper.

There are 2 camps, horn hunters and killers. I'm a horn hunter and admit it. If I can't kill the biggest and the best, I'm fine going home empty handed. Most people aren't. That's okay too. But just admit when you kill a small last day buck that you had to kill something. You wanted something to show for your time, effort, and expense. If it was really about the experience, you wouldn't kill something you really don't want.

I could hunt Montana every year and have minimal negative impact on the resource. They could let me hunt 365 days a year and I'm as likely as not to go home empty handed. If you are gonna kill smaller animals, you are gonna do it no matter what.

Sorry if this comes off as elitest, not my intention. I love Montana. I love the land, the people, the way of life. It's a privilege to be able to hunt there.

Just a couple points from a non resident after 40 years hunting in Montana. This mainly pertains to deer.

1. Everyone needs to respect and try to do what's right for the resource.
2. I think residents should get first priority and should take what they deem right.
3. FWP needs to be proactive and not reactive. Gather real data and be willing to do the right things no matter how tough or costly.
4. I don't think any non resident can make the numbers work out for hunting in Montana other than for enjoyment. I just wish they would think about the impact they are having and how their choice to press the trigger affects the very thing they claim to love.
5. If the herd is below objectives, no B tags. I don't care what the buck to doe ratio is, you can't grow a herd killing females. I especially think non residents have no business getting B tags unless they possess a buck tag and the herd is at or above objective.
6. Realize if we as hunters can't or won't think and limit some of the things we do, FWP will have to do it for us and it may be bitter medicine.

Best wishes to everyone no matter your thoughts. In the end, I hope we all continue hunting in Montana and leave it better than we found it.

I promise you, that a very large number of MD harvested are by meat hunters. I have personally witnessed thousands of them every year for decades. Cost and reason do not enter into the equation. Right, wrong, or indifferent, they want to bring something home. They want to make jerky and sausage. The hunters don't care about the cost, they love hunting with their buddies. But guess who does care about the cost? Their spouse does. And if they always come home with nothing, then the cost is a bigger issue. Spouse: " You spent all that money, and time at hunting camp, and don't even bring home some meat?"
A few years ago I talked to the biologist for the southwest part of the state, Farger I believe is/was his name. I asked him why there were not a few more limited draw areas for MD in the western part of the state. He said in surveys of hunters (I assume residents) they overwhelmingly did not want any more limited entry areas. He also showed me pictures from a hillside on MD winter range. The picture from 25 years ago had Mountain Mahogany so thick you couldn't see the ground. And now it is mostly gone, due to drought. This what the deer eat on the winter range.

No easy answers for MD in MT. It is a complex problem, and harvest is only one piece of the problem.

 

[S.Clancy]

I'd agree with that, but sometimes I'm covering 10-12 miles and definitely into some good deer habitat and not even a track. I know that elk will often out compete deer and push them put of areas (The Missouri Breaks many years ago was one of the very best mule deer areas in the state, then came the elk....), but when covering wide swathes of country (in suitable habitat) should be seeing at least a few deer.

You can have habitat that looks "good" but is too decadent, wrong species, etc. I've seen several areas in R3 that looked "good" before, get logged and then deer numbers absolutely explode afterwards, which is the best indication of habitat being good or great.

As far as the elk, I definitely think they compete with deer. But, I think more and more elk is evidence of the change in habitat. In the areas mentioned above, elk number decreased drastically when the trees got cut and brush came back. At least that is what I have seen.

 

[ELKdeerMT]

But guess who does care about the cost? Their spouse does. And if they always come home with nothing, then the cost is a bigger issue. Spouse: " You spent all that money, and time at hunting camp, and don't even bring home some meat?"

My spouses thoughts on time spent vs. meat acquired should have nothing to do with what's best for the resource. If she had it her way the season would be cut even shorter than the proposal. The resources should drive management decisions.

A few years ago I talked to the biologist for the southwest part of the state, Farger I believe is/was his name. I asked him why there were not a few more limited draw areas for MD in the western part of the state. He said in surveys of hunters (I assume residents) they overwhelmingly did not want any more limited entry areas. He also showed me pictures from a hillside on MD winter range. The picture from 25 years ago had Mountain Mahogany so thick you couldn't see the ground. And now it is mostly gone, due to drought. This what the deer eat on the winter range.

No easy answers for MD in MT. It is a complex problem, and harvest is only one piece of the problem.

No doubt things are changing and it's a complex issue but usually a biologist would take the conservative approach until all factors are better understood. Lead poising is an easy factor to throttle back until the issue is better understood.

 

[Pony Soldier]

The biologist have to have feet on the ground but my research has shown that not happening nor is their interaction with those that live in those areas that see things every day, year after year. I see more boat floaters than ground pounders.

 

[Axlrod]

My spouses thoughts on time spent vs. meat acquired should have nothing to do with what's best for the resource. If she had it her way the season would be cut even shorter than the proposal. The resources should drive management decisions.

No doubt things are changing and it's a complex issue but usually a biologist would take the conservative approach until all factors are better understood. Lead poising is an easy factor to throttle back until the issue is better understood.

I was responding to scottf270's post that said: There are very few who have to hunt for the "meat"
I wasn't commenting on anyone's specific circumstance , or what is best for the resource. Just the current reality of the majority consumer of that resource.

 

[finner]

The biologist have to have feet on the ground but my research has shown that not happening nor is their interaction with those that live in those areas that see things every day, year after year. I see more boat floaters than ground pounders.

I think that's the real problem, and it's part of why citizen-driven proposals like this are necessary. FWP's apprehension of what is going on with mule deer populations on the ground is pathetic at best. Lots of time and energy goes into spring elk counts, and even those are an incomplete representation of herd health, in part because of the Department's inability to react to changes on the ground and their willingness to be "flexible" with estimated counts. Very little in the way of Department resources go into deer management and study in comparison.

They won't do anything until they hear loud and continued protests from hunters. This is a step in the right direction.

 

[Pony Soldier]

I live in the summer range. Hunting season is for at least half is in the summer range. For elk counts which is usually only 1-2 days is on the winter range. I'm not aware of any deer studies. During the winter months I would bet the deer are either on on a ranch or in the trees where you can't count them from the air.

Half of the elk winter in the district to the west while the rest winter somewhere to the east over 30 miles. Trying to figure management needs from the winter count in neighboring districts is ridicules. We don't even have any check stations except from a wandering game warden. I call it wigiboard management. They don't even understand migration paths.

A couple of shoulder seasons in the neighboring districts and we can go from some to none with little to no effect in those neighboring districts.

The mulies go lower but not to the same place the elk go. Our major hope is that FWP doesn't help too much and that we can survive whatever they choose. A major hope is that the wolves eat beef so the can be controled otherwise the elk would be gone like in the 100 districts.

Given our circumstances we shoot deer and hunt elk or did up until 1994. No deer season for 10 years might be an option to see what we might get. We certainly have no comparison to eastern mt. Any whitetail options are in the bottoms on private land. I have never seen a shootable whitetail in the last 36 years. However in districts 200,124,121 I have seen the mulies mixed with the whitetails- ridgetop to creekbottom. Whether any are left I don't know. There weren't any when I last was there in early 2000. Locals were all hunting in Dillon.

Choices of one size fits all for Montana is redicules. I personally would like to see planning by district or at least by region on data.

An effort should be made to incorporate info from the ranchers as to health of herds and the local hunters as to what they are seeing in the field. At this stage I don't see where the NR have a need to be any part in this. All they bring to the table is money.

 

[t_carlson]

For those of you in opposition to this proposal; take a look at Wyoming. It literally is the same habitat separated by lines on a map. There is no doubt in my mind that our management practices , liberal season structures, and rut hunting are significantly impacting the quality of our public land deer, elk, and antelope heards. Look at Colorado. Look at any other state if your looking for a more quality experience.

@t_carlson - The Bridger deer analogy your arguing is a joke. Bozeman used to have 20k people back in the 80’s when those special deer were around. It’s 5 minutes from town to hunt the bridgers. We’re now approaching 60k people. The urban development, trail use, traffic, poaching, ect. Are all factors contributing to the decline of that heard. They have collar information of deer moving from the park and wintering in the Bridgers back when there were big deer. You think they still do that with housing development after development going up in the paradise valley? Increased traffic from Livingston to Bozeman? Common man! To act like it’s a case study to “debunk” the effectiveness of increased management is ridiculous.

I hope we get somewhere with these proposals. Maybe they’re not perfect but I’m glad these guys are putting in this effort. Something’s gotta change.

You unwittingly are making my point for me.

In other words, there are factors at play other than/in addition to hunting pressure that are causing declines.

Thank you.

 

[ELKdeerMT]

You unwittingly are making my point for me.

In other words, there are factors at play other than/in addition to hunting pressure that are causing declines.

Thank you.

Fair enough, I think we both agree there are many unknowns causing deer numbers to go down. Your post made it sound like you don't believe limiting quotas is a good idea because "look how bad the deer hunting is in the Bridgers and that's a limited quota."

It makes perfect sense to the locals why is sucks. They could limit it further and it would still be sub par if the surrounding area continue to grow at the rate it has. I used to see 160-170" MD right in town in the fields in south Bozeman not that long ago. Now it's covered in sub divisions. There are many trails that didn't exist in the Bridgers even 5-10 years ago. Things are changing around here and the changes are outpacing FWP's ability to respond with sound management practices. Doesn't mean I don't believe limited quotas are ineffective. That seems like the easiest lever to pull to give the animals a break and chance to rebound while we figure it out. We doubled in population and management has been the same for over a decade...elk/bear,etc. is still general in that unit.

 

[100percent]

Hunting has become for sport and recreation. There are very few who have to hunt for the "meat". By the time you pencil out the cost of tags (especially non residents) , fuel, wear and tear on vehicle, etc the old " hunt for the meat" costs don't make sense. Even if you process your own stuff, it's still a money losing proposition. Buying $4.00 a lb hamburger is way cheaper.

There are 2 camps, horn hunters and killers. I'm a horn hunter and admit it. If I can't kill the biggest and the best, I'm fine going home empty handed. Most people aren't. That's okay too. But just admit when you kill a small last day buck that you had to kill something. You wanted something to show for your time, effort, and expense. If it was really about the experience, you wouldn't kill something you really don't want.

I could hunt Montana every year and have minimal negative impact on the resource. They could let me hunt 365 days a year and I'm as likely as not to go home empty handed. If you are gonna kill smaller animals, you are gonna do it no matter what.

Sorry if this comes off as elitest, not my intention. I love Montana. I love the land, the people, the way of life. It's a privilege to be able to hunt there.

Just a couple points from a non resident after 40 years hunting in Montana. This mainly pertains to deer.

1. Everyone needs to respect and try to do what's right for the resource.
2. I think residents should get first priority and should take what they deem right.
3. FWP needs to be proactive and not reactive. Gather real data and be willing to do the right things no matter how tough or costly.
4. I don't think any non resident can make the numbers work out for hunting in Montana other than for enjoyment. I just wish they would think about the impact they are having and how their choice to press the trigger affects the very thing they claim to love.
5. If the herd is below objectives, no B tags. I don't care what the buck to doe ratio is, you can't grow a herd killing females. I especially think non residents have no business getting B tags unless they possess a buck tag and the herd is at or above objective.
6. Realize if we as hunters can't or won't think and limit some of the things we do, FWP will have to do it for us and it may be bitter medicine.

Best wishes to everyone no matter your thoughts. In the end, I hope we all continue hunting in Montana and leave it better than we found it.

Amen

 

[jmez]

The easiest lever to pull is stop shooting does, period. Greatly decreases pressure and will increase deer numbers. Seems no one cares about "horns," yet no one really supports this.

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

 

[dreamingbig]

Get rid of guys from Washington. Eliminate the NR hunters. Heck let’s cut out the compound bow guys too! lol

Stop


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk