Pony Soldier
WKR
I think I remember that an argument against multiple opening days was the increased pressure that comes with each opening.
Most residents I speak with would gladly pay 50-100$ a tag if that meant less NR hunters. I'm all for it myself.From a management perspective, it doesn’t matter where the person resides who kills an antlerless ungulate. A dead doe or cow elk can’t have a fawn or calf in the spring, no matter who pulled the trigger.
Again, it’s not nonresidents fault that your FWP knows they make exponentially more money from a NR pulling the trigger than a resident.
Your FWP is going to make their nut one way or another. They’re not going to cut any expected revenue stream without having a plan to replace (and likely exceed it). Be careful what you wish for.
If you all really do in fact want less antlerless deer and elk killed, ask for that specifically. Blindly calling to cut the NR opportunity isn’t serving to address the actual problem, and it will ultimately hit someone else in their wallet that likely had little or nothing to do with it in the first place.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
and mandatory reporting! Just those two things would go a long way!It appears there is at least one thing that almost everyone agrees with; if mule deer population numbers are down (which I’ll go out on a limb and say that covers a lot of the state) we quit harvesting (or greatly reduce harvest of ) does.
It’s a starting point
Most residents I speak with would gladly pay 50-100$ a tag if that meant less NR hunters. I'm all for it myself.
I would be on board, IF you can tell me why having the MD season closed before the rut in HD 320 for 2 decades did NONE of what you say it will do.I feel like this proposal would do much better, if it tried to do less. Change one or two things at a time rather than a full overhaul and you will piss off less people.
Cut the doe tags (most guys are going to be on board)
End buck hunting, say Nov 12 for mule deer. Make it clear this is to have bigger bucks, maybe more bucks on the landscape. Again I think most would get on board with this. Still some rut hunting and overlap with elk, but less sustained pressure through the peak rut. Going to have some pushback from the guys wanting to hunt thanksgiving week, but they can hunt whitetails still..
Leave everything else status quo and see how it goes after a few years.
A few random thoughtsLet’s say there is a population of 10,000 deer. 7,000 does and 3,000 bucks. On a great year, those 7000 does will successfully introduce another 6,300 deer into the herd (assuming 90% fawn survival which would be a good year). Now your herd is 16000 minus some losses here and there. With more does on the landscape to do it all again next year. String a couple good years together…and all of the sudden you’ve got 20,000+ deer on the landscape.
This is happening regardless of what we do on the buck hunting side of things. Doe pregnancy rates are extremely high; single digit buck to doe ratios will still get them all bred. I am not aware of any herd health reason to have a huge variety in the buck age class. There has been correlation between very low buck:doe ratios and a highly productive (fawn survival) herd. Correlation not necessarily causation…
When you have a big population of deer you have plenty of yearlings, yearlings that make it through, big bucks slipping through the cracks..
Sure you can play around with super low tag numbers, season dates etc. it’s not moving the needle during times of poor production.
I would suggest that eastern montanas fairly recent decline in quality hunting has everything to do with dwindling herds and nothing to do with hunting pressure.
I think people who are hung up on the buck ratios and changing the season out of the rut make as much sense as killing more doe to change the buck ratio.
Kris
Do you eventually reach a buck-to-doe ratio where the limited number of bucks can’t mate all the does?Correct. The entire reason to bring buck to doe ratios closer is to increase the rut activity- shorten it and make it more intense. Less females means bucks rut harder and travel farther- it’s increasing stress on the bucks, not decreasing.
Do you eventually reach a buck-to-doe ratio where the limited number of bucks can’t mate all the does?
If so, is the solution then to simply stop the hunt altogether, or begin taking does?
Man I agree so much with this.My thoughts that no one asked for.
The buck to doe ratio numbers being referred to on here are from post hunting harvest, and post winter kill counts. Those talking 6:100 ratios aren’t wrong. But it’s nowhere close to 6:100 during the breeding season. There are some good scientific articles and peer reviewed journals at lots of the college universities that have Masters and PhD program in wildlife biology. Utah’s BYU university grants access and has some great data as do some other universities. BYU are probably leading the science on mule deer and while they live in a different area, they have by far the most research on collar data, heard ratio’s, predator effect, winter and summer range effect, carrying capacity, urbanization, etc…
My opinion is that 8-10 bucks per 100 does is the ideal range post winter count for an opportunity unit. That allows deer numbers to grow and offers the best chance of fawn recruitment depending on the summer/winter range carrying capacity. Science is confident 8-10 bucks can cover the required does and with the count post hunting and winter kill, 8-10 bucks offers a conservative buffer. There are some newer studies theorizing that summer range carrying capacity is actually more important than winter range as the fat percentage going into winter is deemed more critical to survival recently.
Regarding the proposals, some I like and some I don’t.
I don’t have a good answer for the public/private harvest and allocation of tags. It probably needs it's own focus group/committee. I understand the arguments and regularly see pressure pushing animals to private. I’m not a fan of large properties getting multiple A tags in a permit area. Personally, I think they should get a single A tag for the owner if a generous amount of B tags are allowed to be hunted on their property. But the outfitter lease game has drastically changed the way these landowners think about these animals now that they have the financial incentives to lease for outfitters exclusive access. I don’t think a landowner should receive an A tag if the land is being outfitted. But I am also a landowner (a miniscule amount) and don’t like people telling me what do to on my land. So, I get it. Bottom line, animals find sanctuary on private, and some landowners love it for the financial or tag aspect and some hate it for the financial hardship from crop and fence damage. Not sure a one size all approach will fix this problem set.
- We need mandatory reporting. It’s embarrassing it’s not required in 2024 with the technology and method we use to apply. Even data a year after the fact would be hugely beneficial as it’s plugged into modeling.
- We need to cut doe tags. I don’t understand why we have mule deer doe permits in units below objective. We also need the legislature to allow the FWP to reduce tag numbers for winter kill. They should have slashed doe tags this year.
- I don’t like the idea of picking species or picking a region. Part of what I love about MT is how diverse hunting is and can be. I love rattling in a white tail and glassing for mule deer in the same week.
- I think Montana can continue to be a state that lets people hunt in the rut for OTC if doe tags are cut and if it’s managed as an opportunity state. I also think they could increase age class if the majority of the population wants that to happen. You could have a long rifle OTC and a then a permit tag in all the same OTC units for the peak rut dates. If you draw the permit, you can't hunt the OTC dates to minimize OTC pressure. You'd have lots of 2-3 point rut date hunts with less pressure. But, I think harvest reporting and hunter satisfaction surveys need to drive that request. I used to be for big animals and now that I have a son, I have shifted to more of an opportunity mindset. I want him to be able to chase mule deer in November without having to wait 5-10 years for each opportunity. As some have mentioned, there are lots of quality opportunities for big deer in many states. I’m not opposed to MT providing the experience of chasing deer in the rut instead. I still remember how excited I was watching a three-point chase does in November when I was 12 and if heard health can support it, why can’t that be what MT is known for?
- West and East are so vastly different in private land acreage, timber company utilization, fires, species allotment, and hunter pressure I really don’t think they should be managed together. What a hunter in R7 is frustrated about likely isn’t the same thing as a hunter in R1. Lots of states have specific dates and requirements for regions and MT could easily adopt that if they truly need to reduce pressure in R6/R7.
- Montana needs to reduce the bear check in requirement. I would shoot bears of opportunity every year if I didn’t have to pack out the skull and hide and coordinate a check in. After a couple bear rugs, I’d love to shoot one and quarter it up for summer sausage, throw it in a cooler and carry on hunting but I’m not spending time to cape out a bear, pack out the head, and schedule time with a bio to check in my bear and pull a tooth when I’m hunting another species. I know quite a few with a similar mindset. If I could smoke a black bear and the wanton waste laws mirrored that of a deer I’d shoot a Spring and Fall bear every year while out in the woods and make sausage out of it. Especially those spring bears in the calving/fawning elevation bands.
If MT cut mule deer doe tags in regions below objective, had a rapid decision authority to reduce tags in at objective units after a bad fire to winter range or bad winter, and if we had mandatory reporting for 5 years, I think we would be in a much better spot. After 5 years of data collection then I think biologist and scholars will be armed with the data to make better decisions paired with hunter survey goals. Survey goals should look into three core areas and resident hunters rack and stack their OML. Opportunity, pressure, or age class. Address the one that has the most votes and get to scouting.
At the end of the day, I'm glad we're finally talking about it so my son will have positive hunting memories like I do in 20 years.
You haven't talked to the 95+% who don't want to pay a nickel more for their tags. You overestimate your fellow citizens desire to pay more. They talked about doing that in Idaho, something like $5 increase, and people raised immortal hell. Try $50-100 and see what happens. It'll be entertaining for sure.Most residents I speak with would gladly pay 50-100$ a tag if that meant less NR hunters. I'm all for it myself.
Great post. I think scrapping doe tags and legit predator management will do more than anything else if population/herd rebound is actually the objective. I like your idea of keeping it simple to start with. If we are doing this in the name of "science", we probably shouldn't be pulling multiple levers at one time.My thoughts that no one asked for.
The buck to doe ratio numbers being referred to on here are from post hunting harvest, and post winter kill counts. Those talking 6:100 ratios aren’t wrong. But it’s nowhere close to 6:100 during the breeding season. There are some good scientific articles and peer reviewed journals at lots of the college universities that have Masters and PhD program in wildlife biology. Utah’s BYU university grants access and has some great data as do some other universities. BYU are probably leading the science on mule deer and while they live in a different area, they have by far the most research on collar data, heard ratio’s, predator effect, winter and summer range effect, carrying capacity, urbanization, etc…
My opinion is that 8-10 bucks per 100 does is the ideal range post winter count for an opportunity unit. That allows deer numbers to grow and offers the best chance of fawn recruitment depending on the summer/winter range carrying capacity. Science is confident 8-10 bucks can cover the required does and with the count post hunting and winter kill, 8-10 bucks offers a conservative buffer. There are some newer studies theorizing that summer range carrying capacity is actually more important than winter range as the fat percentage going into winter is deemed more critical to survival recently.
Regarding the proposals, some I like and some I don’t.
I don’t have a good answer for the public/private harvest and allocation of tags. It probably needs it's own focus group/committee. I understand the arguments and regularly see pressure pushing animals to private. I’m not a fan of large properties getting multiple A tags in a permit area. Personally, I think they should get a single A tag for the owner if a generous amount of B tags are allowed to be hunted on their property. But the outfitter lease game has drastically changed the way these landowners think about these animals now that they have the financial incentives to lease for outfitters exclusive access. I don’t think a landowner should receive an A tag if the land is being outfitted. But I am also a landowner (a miniscule amount) and don’t like people telling me what do to on my land. So, I get it. Bottom line, animals find sanctuary on private, and some landowners love it for the financial or tag aspect and some hate it for the financial hardship from crop and fence damage. Not sure a one size all approach will fix this problem set.
- We need mandatory reporting. It’s embarrassing it’s not required in 2024 with the technology and method we use to apply. Even data a year after the fact would be hugely beneficial as it’s plugged into modeling.
- We need to cut doe tags. I don’t understand why we have mule deer doe permits in units below objective. We also need the legislature to allow the FWP to reduce tag numbers for winter kill. They should have slashed doe tags this year.
- I don’t like the idea of picking species or picking a region. Part of what I love about MT is how diverse hunting is and can be. I love rattling in a white tail and glassing for mule deer in the same week.
- I think Montana can continue to be a state that lets people hunt in the rut for OTC if doe tags are cut and if it’s managed as an opportunity state. I also think they could increase age class if the majority of the population wants that to happen. You could have a long rifle OTC and a then a permit tag in all the same OTC units for the peak rut dates. If you draw the permit, you can't hunt the OTC dates to minimize OTC pressure. You'd have lots of 2-3 point rut date hunts with less pressure. But, I think harvest reporting and hunter satisfaction surveys need to drive that request. I used to be for big animals and now that I have a son, I have shifted to more of an opportunity mindset. I want him to be able to chase mule deer in November without having to wait 5-10 years for each opportunity. As some have mentioned, there are lots of quality opportunities for big deer in many states. I’m not opposed to MT providing the experience of chasing deer in the rut instead. I still remember how excited I was watching a three-point chase does in November when I was 12 and if heard health can support it, why can’t that be what MT is known for?
- West and East are so vastly different in private land acreage, timber company utilization, fires, species allotment, and hunter pressure I really don’t think they should be managed together. What a hunter in R7 is frustrated about likely isn’t the same thing as a hunter in R1. Lots of states have specific dates and requirements for regions and MT could easily adopt that if they truly need to reduce pressure in R6/R7.
- Montana needs to reduce the bear check in requirement. I would shoot bears of opportunity every year if I didn’t have to pack out the skull and hide and coordinate a check in. After a couple bear rugs, I’d love to shoot one and quarter it up for summer sausage, throw it in a cooler and carry on hunting but I’m not spending time to cape out a bear, pack out the head, and schedule time with a bio to check in my bear and pull a tooth when I’m hunting another species. I know quite a few with a similar mindset. If I could smoke a black bear and the wanton waste laws mirrored that of a deer I’d shoot a Spring and Fall bear every year while out in the woods and make sausage out of it. Especially those spring bears in the calving/fawning elevation bands.
If MT cut mule deer doe tags in regions below objective, had a rapid decision authority to reduce tags in at objective units after a bad fire to winter range or bad winter, and if we had mandatory reporting for 5 years, I think we would be in a much better spot. After 5 years of data collection then I think biologist and scholars will be armed with the data to make better decisions paired with hunter survey goals. Survey goals should look into three core areas and resident hunters rack and stack their OML. Opportunity, pressure, or age class. Address the one that has the most votes and get to scouting.
At the end of the day, I'm glad we're finally talking about it so my son will have positive hunting memories like I do in 20 years.
I can only speak to my immediate friend group, but I'm sure there would be some push back from the older "that's how its always been" crowd. I also think that more expensive tags would thin the herd of residents whose heart really isn't in it, which would also work to reduce pressure.You haven't talked to the 95+% who don't want to pay a nickel more for their tags. You overestimate your fellow citizens desire to pay more. They talked about doing that in Idaho, something like $5 increase, and people raised immortal hell. Try $50-100 and see what happens. It'll be entertaining for sure.
Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk
I appreciate your input on black bears, I had never considered this. I am loudly of the opinion that black bears are the low hanging fruit for the enterprising Montana hunter looking to manage predators.My thoughts that no one asked for.
The buck to doe ratio numbers being referred to on here are from post hunting harvest, and post winter kill counts. Those talking 6:100 ratios aren’t wrong. But it’s nowhere close to 6:100 during the breeding season. There are some good scientific articles and peer reviewed journals at lots of the college universities that have Masters and PhD program in wildlife biology. Utah’s BYU university grants access and has some great data as do some other universities. BYU are probably leading the science on mule deer and while they live in a different area, they have by far the most research on collar data, heard ratio’s, predator effect, winter and summer range effect, carrying capacity, urbanization, etc…
My opinion is that 8-10 bucks per 100 does is the ideal range post winter count for an opportunity unit. That allows deer numbers to grow and offers the best chance of fawn recruitment depending on the summer/winter range carrying capacity. Science is confident 8-10 bucks can cover the required does and with the count post hunting and winter kill, 8-10 bucks offers a conservative buffer. There are some newer studies theorizing that summer range carrying capacity is actually more important than winter range as the fat percentage going into winter is deemed more critical to survival recently.
Regarding the proposals, some I like and some I don’t.
I don’t have a good answer for the public/private harvest and allocation of tags. It probably needs it's own focus group/committee. I understand the arguments and regularly see pressure pushing animals to private. I’m not a fan of large properties getting multiple A tags in a permit area. Personally, I think they should get a single A tag for the owner if a generous amount of B tags are allowed to be hunted on their property. But the outfitter lease game has drastically changed the way these landowners think about these animals now that they have the financial incentives to lease for outfitters exclusive access. I don’t think a landowner should receive an A tag if the land is being outfitted. But I am also a landowner (a miniscule amount) and don’t like people telling me what do to on my land. So, I get it. Bottom line, animals find sanctuary on private, and some landowners love it for the financial or tag aspect and some hate it for the financial hardship from crop and fence damage. Not sure a one size all approach will fix this problem set.
- We need mandatory reporting. It’s embarrassing it’s not required in 2024 with the technology and method we use to apply. Even data a year after the fact would be hugely beneficial as it’s plugged into modeling.
- We need to cut doe tags. I don’t understand why we have mule deer doe permits in units below objective. We also need the legislature to allow the FWP to reduce tag numbers for winter kill. They should have slashed doe tags this year.
- I don’t like the idea of picking species or picking a region. Part of what I love about MT is how diverse hunting is and can be. I love rattling in a white tail and glassing for mule deer in the same week.
- I think Montana can continue to be a state that lets people hunt in the rut for OTC if doe tags are cut and if it’s managed as an opportunity state. I also think they could increase age class if the majority of the population wants that to happen. You could have a long rifle OTC and a then a permit tag in all the same OTC units for the peak rut dates. If you draw the permit, you can't hunt the OTC dates to minimize OTC pressure. You'd have lots of 2-3 point rut date hunts with less pressure. But, I think harvest reporting and hunter satisfaction surveys need to drive that request. I used to be for big animals and now that I have a son, I have shifted to more of an opportunity mindset. I want him to be able to chase mule deer in November without having to wait 5-10 years for each opportunity. As some have mentioned, there are lots of quality opportunities for big deer in many states. I’m not opposed to MT providing the experience of chasing deer in the rut instead. I still remember how excited I was watching a three-point chase does in November when I was 12 and if heard health can support it, why can’t that be what MT is known for?
- West and East are so vastly different in private land acreage, timber company utilization, fires, species allotment, and hunter pressure I really don’t think they should be managed together. What a hunter in R7 is frustrated about likely isn’t the same thing as a hunter in R1. Lots of states have specific dates and requirements for regions and MT could easily adopt that if they truly need to reduce pressure in R6/R7.
- Montana needs to reduce the bear check in requirement. I would shoot bears of opportunity every year if I didn’t have to pack out the skull and hide and coordinate a check in. After a couple bear rugs, I’d love to shoot one and quarter it up for summer sausage, throw it in a cooler and carry on hunting but I’m not spending time to cape out a bear, pack out the head, and schedule time with a bio to check in my bear and pull a tooth when I’m hunting another species. I know quite a few with a similar mindset. If I could smoke a black bear and the wanton waste laws mirrored that of a deer I’d shoot a Spring and Fall bear every year while out in the woods and make sausage out of it. Especially those spring bears in the calving/fawning elevation bands.
If MT cut mule deer doe tags in regions below objective, had a rapid decision authority to reduce tags in at objective units after a bad fire to winter range or bad winter, and if we had mandatory reporting for 5 years, I think we would be in a much better spot. After 5 years of data collection then I think biologist and scholars will be armed with the data to make better decisions paired with hunter survey goals. Survey goals should look into three core areas and resident hunters rack and stack their OML. Opportunity, pressure, or age class. Address the one that has the most votes and get to scouting.
At the end of the day, I'm glad we're finally talking about it so my son will have positive hunting memories like I do in 20 years.
Probably not really effective in the East but in the West there are a lot of bears.I appreciate your input on black bears, I had never considered this. I am loudly of the opinion that black bears are the low hanging fruit for the enterprising Montana hunter looking to manage predators.