Montana season change proposal

[bigsky2]

Region 6 and 7 keep coming up as the key talking points.

Why hasn’t the committee come up with separate season structure for those 2 regions?

In regards to region 7 and elk hunting pressure resulting in more mule deer take, majority for r 7 is very limited draw for rifle hunts.

Does anyone really think there will be less young bucks killed in the earlier season? I think it will be opposite and people will be less picky and whack the same forkhorn in October that they would have in November. You could limit tags if you were trying to limit harvest but over all the same young dumb bucks are going to get whacked no matter the season.

Separating the seasons so elk hunters kill less mule deer. Seems like a completely ridiculous logic to me that will have the opposite effect.
If you can’t hunt elk everyone will be hunting deer and focusing solely on deer. If you’re looking for elk you’re likely not hunting the best area for deer as they rarely overlap, even with in the same unit. You can’t possibly think that ‘elk hunters’ won’t be out hunting just as hard for deer during the deer season, do you? I think this is going to result in higher take for deer. And quite honestly, it would benefit me. I’d get to focus solely on deer with out having a valid elk tag in my pocket and there fore I would put myself in places that traditionally hold deer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The vast majority of the average hunters have limited vacation time.

 

[bigsky2]

Ok I'm going to stop being a smart a$$ and ask a legitimate question that I've asked in various places before without a legitimate response.


In any population there is a bell shaped curve that represents an average of whatever trait you happen to be focused on. This is no different with mule deer age class or elk antler size or how many spots are on a newborn fawn.

A big mature buck is not average and by definition, that quality that you are looking for is uncommon. In a natural state, big mature bucks are going to be difficult to find. Much like they are currently in Montana. Mediocre "average" bucks that are 3 points and smaller 4 points are not hard to find, hence being average. You are going to have to look hard for one and look over a number of "average" bucks to find an "above average" buck.

From what I see, the whole point of this proposal is to manage the deer in Montana for older age class, and numbers. By doing so the proposal is to limit hunting pressure and change the season dates. This results in less opportunity which is a word the proponents of the proposal don't like but its the fact.

As it stands right now, believe it or not but it is indeed possible to find a mature mule deer buck on public land. I have, consistently, in high pressure areas, without looking that hard. Yes I put in some time and yes I leave the truck and hike from time to time, and no I'm not the best hunter in the world. If I can do it, so can anybody. By definition of the previously mentioned law of averages, every hunter shouldn't be able to expect to harvest an above average buck every year. It doesn't work that way.

I have been successfully hunting Montana as a resident for over 20 years. Yes I've seen an increase in pressure from residents and nonresidents alike. I have also seen fluctuations in deer populations from various causes. It happens. Deer numbers may currently be lower than a few previous years but all populations have fluctuations. They are not dying out. Last year I looked over well over a hundred does, and 30+ bucks before I found one I liked, this was over 2 days on public land in a general unit that is filled with drivable roads and other hunters. The numbers are fine.

You guys want to be able to drive roads, glass and pick over 180's to find a 200, even if that means you can only draw a permit to hunt them every 19 years.

Like @Formidilosus said, why does every state have to be managed for monsters so much so that nobody can ever have the chance to hunt them?

I agree that too much pressure is an issue but I would propose to address that with regional caps, limiting NR hunters, limiting access by closing a large percentage of BLM 2 track roads, and quit selling 6 doe tags per hunter.

@Greenhorn you seem to know how to hunt, we've all seen your photos, @Randy11 I haven't seen your credentials but I am confident you're experienced as well.



So my question is, why are you guys so adamant to vote yourselves out of the opportunity for success even if you do have to exert a bit more energy than you would in other states (that take years and years to draw)? There are big bulls and big bucks killed in Montana every year in general units with over the counter tags by people who know how to hunt and hunt hard.


P. S. If this is all an elaborate ploy to put on a face to NR hunters that mule deer hunting in Montana is terrible so don't come here to hunt, somebody wink at me and I'll shut up.

@brockel

This proposal still allows residents to rifle hunt mule deer every single year for four weeks, as well as archery for five weeks. How much more opportunity does one need?

 

[Geewhiz]

This proposal still allows residents to rifle hunt mule deer every single year for four weeks, as well as archery for five weeks. How much more opportunity does one need?

You didn't answer my question

 

[brockel]

This proposal still allows residents to rifle hunt mule deer every single year for four weeks, as well as archery for five weeks. How much more opportunity does one need?

It’s the crutch of the rut that people are the most worried about losing

 

[Marshfly]

If I were a Montana resident I would resist the requirement to pick a region more than any other part of the proposal. The ability to try new places and explore is a big part of hunting for me. As a NR I only have time for maybe one long trip anyway and I'll only have time to hunt one area so it wouldn't matter to me as a NR if I had to choose a region.

No to choose a species of deer. With an either species tag I can hunt Mule deer and I am willing to pass up a lot of small muley bucks because I know I can kill a whitetail later. And I am very willing to kill a small whitetail buck or even a doe. If I have to chose between species, I will most likely choose mule deer, and early in the hunt I might pass on a few small bucks but as my season winds down, I will shoot a small buck. Having the ability to switch to whitetails means that I won't shoot a small mule deer buck. I don't think I'm the only hunter who thinks that way so if you want more mule deer bucks to survive hunting season it makes sense to allow either species tags to continue.

Yes, on mandatory reporting. It seems like that is the only proposal that needs immediate implementation. The results of that data would reveal if the other proposals are needed.

I am a Montana resident and this is exactly how I plan my season. Elk first. If I get an elk then everything else is extra. I may go deer hunting with a friend but I will be way more selective because I have meat in the freezer. I will be less selective of a whitetail and may even fill a doe tag to use the entire thing for sticks and sausage.

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.

NR B tags needs to be gone. Zero issued. Antelope as well. Nonresidents have zero reason to drive to Montana to kill female antelope, deer, and elk solely to justify their trip.

 

[dirtytough]

NR B tags needs to be gone. Zero issued. Antelope as well. Nonresidents have zero reason to drive to Montana to kill female antelope, deer, and elk solely to justify their trip.

In thread A all the residents say non res just care about the antlers. There is plenty of opportunity if non res would just shoot a female.

Now in thread B non res are told they shouldn't be allowed to shoot a female.

I wish you residents would figure it out. I'm starting to get confused.

 

[t_carlson]

Live in Bozeman. Hunted in Bridgers in the 80s and 90s and have numerous friends that have drawn recently and including this year. Used to regularly drive walker and baseline and glass after the season and look at the deer after heavy snowstorms. Somewhat familiar with what was and is, there. It's chump change to hunt mule deer in, compared to south of town or NW MT, and easy to find deer hotspots compared to even the Custer of eastern MT. I guess if you're looking for "numbers" go get the highly organized and valuable data maintained by FWP (sarcasm). When you bump into two guys packing two small deer out that won't speak to you on Truman, I guess my speculation on how often deer are plucked are anecdotal. I'd rather hunt a general area (where I do) and not see a single buck in the entire season (it's happened) than have a Bridgers "trophy" deer permit. There's a ton of hunter pressure there and I would never hunt there or apply for a permit there. It is NOT rocket science what's happened there.

So if solving the deer problem in the Bridgers is "NOT rocket science" why are you confident the FWP will be able to successfully execute this proposal?

I too have hunted the Bridgers. Drew the tag in 2006. Also hunted it for elk quite a bit. To say that finding the deer hotspots is easier than in the Custer is laughable. And I never encountered poaching, but that is not to say it doesn't exist. Nothing like what I've witnessed in 270/261, however.

When did you start noticing the decline?

 

[Marshfly]

In thread A all the residents say non res just care about the antlers. There is plenty of opportunity if non res would just shoot a female.

Now in thread B non res are told they shouldn't be allowed to shoot a female.

I wish you residents would figure it out. I'm starting to get confused.

So hunt somewhere else that is less confusing.

 

[Greenhorn]

So if solving the deer problem in the Bridgers is "NOT rocket science" why are you confident the FWP will be able to successfully execute this proposal?

I too have hunted the Bridgers. Drew the tag in 2006. Also hunted it for elk quite a bit. To say that finding the deer hotspots is easier than in the Custer is laughable. And I never encountered poaching, but that is not to say it doesn't exist. Nothing like what I've witnessed in 270/261, however.

When did you start noticing the decline?

Never said "solving" the Bridger problem is not rocket science. There is Zero chance of solving that - it's 100% too much pressure. The hunting was in a vortex of that probably starting in the 90s.. Just my opinion and from talking with older locals. My best friend drew it this year, and he lives at the base. I'm betting there's no way he gets a legit 5 year old deer with 160" antlers and he'll be glassing it every day and hunting from the archery opener through the blackpowder season if needed. It's like 3.5 months of hunting with 5 weeks of prime rut time. Confusing mystery issue there..

 

[dirtytough]

So hunt somewhere else that is less confusing.

You just inspired me to get as many tags as I can for the family and see how many we can fill there.

 

[Marshfly]

You just inspired me to get as many tags as I can for the family and see how many we can fill there.

Good luck. There's no deer here don't you hear.

But realistically, cheap shots and non-sequiturs accomplish nothing in these conversations. Literally pointless.

 

[Formidilosus]

In thread A all the residents say non res just care about the antlers. There is plenty of opportunity if non res would just shoot a female.

Now in thread B non res are told they shouldn't be allowed to shoot a female.

I wish you residents would figure it out. I'm starting to get confused.

No- the people that want “more mature bucks” are the ones that tell others shoot females. That’s absolutely stupid if deer numbers are what someone wants.

 

[dirtytough]

Good luck. There's no deer here don't you hear.

But realistically, cheap shots and non-sequiturs accomplish nothing in these conversations. Literally pointless.

I was actually planning on adding antelope tags.

No- the people that want “more mature bucks” are the ones that tell others shoot females. That’s absolutely stupid if deer numbers are what someone wants.

Go read some older threads and try to catch up.

 

[OpenCountry]

@Geewhiz and @jmez

Y’all’s last two posts have it exactly.

I have not stated whether I am a “big buck hunter”, or a “forky smokie”- however being that I have killed one MD in 10 years despite hunting nearly a month for them, and I see 160” bucks most years. Maybe I’m a bad hunter.

What does losing the November dates and moving it into October not give you besides the rut? I’m curious why you’re so against losing the rut if you’re such a good hunter as explained here.

 

[OpenCountry]

No- the people that want “more mature bucks” are the ones that tell others shoot females. That’s absolutely stupid if deer numbers are what someone wants.

Where does this plan tell others to shoot does or cows?

 

[Formidilosus]

Go read some older threads and try to catch up.

I’m aware of what is and was said, it doesn’t make it logical. Nor, is the argument being made here logical.

The reason to remove rut hunting is to make seeing big bucks easier, or at least that is the assumption (it won’t). That’s it. Just be honest about it like Greenhorn has been.

It has nothing to do with “giving the deer a break”, or “herd heath”. A deer herd with 6/100 buck to doe ratio isn’t “unhealthy” because the ratio- that is manufactured nonsense by eastern and mid western whitetail hunters and “management” practices. It’s factually not true. One can say “I don’t like small bucks being shot”, that’s fine. But, it has nothing to do with “healthy deer herds”.
Nor, will it lower deer take- all those same stupid young bucks will still get destroyed in October. People that think they won’t are totally ignorant of how deer and hunters work.

That’s my problem with this whole thing- either people aren’t being honest and are BS’ing trying to convince people that their nonsense really isn’t nonsense and it isn’t just about wanting trophies. The others have a myopic, ignorant view on how humans and killing works.

 

[Formidilosus]

What does losing the November dates and moving it into October not give you besides the rut?

Please point out where I have said anything about me wanting to rut hunt?

I’m curious why you’re so against losing the rut if you’re such a good hunter as explained here.

Please point out where I have said anything about being good at hunting?

The only I have done is point out inconsistencies and out right lies from people claiming that they “want to help the deer”, and that’s why younger bucks shouldn’t be shot during the rut. That’s objectively not the reason.

 

[Formidilosus]

Where does this plan tell others to shoot does or cows?

Did you actually read the whole thread and the post I responded to?

 

[Greenhorn]

I’m aware of what is and was said, it doesn’t make it logical. Nor, is the argument being made here logical.

The reason to remove rut hunting is to make seeing big bucks easier, or at least that is the assumption (it won’t). That’s it. Just be honest about it like Greenhorn has been.

It has nothing to do with “giving the deer a break”, or “herd heath”. A deer herd with 6/100 buck to doe ratio isn’t “unhealthy” because the ratio- that is manufactured nonsense by eastern and mid western whitetail hunters and “management” practices. It’s factually not true. One can say “I don’t like small bucks being shot”, that’s fine. But, it has nothing to do with “healthy deer herds”.
Nor, will it lower deer take- all those same stupid young bucks will still get destroyed in October. People that think they won’t are totally ignorant of how deer and hunters work.

That’s my problem with this whole thing- either people aren’t being honest and are BS’ing trying to convince people that their nonsense really isn’t nonsense and it isn’t just about wanting trophies. The others have a myopic, ignorant view on how humans and killing works.

It's about "seeing big bucks easier"? Weird. I'm not sure what that means.

Do you mean it's about "making it a possibility that a big buck, or an older buck is alive, or exists"? Because that makes more sense.

There's never an "easier" time to see the biggest available bucks, than during the entire month of November.

It's odd to think that somebody could possibly think 6 bucks/100 does or a male average age of 1.5 years being something "healthy".

Montana will never get better when this is the mindset and standards for wildlife.

 

[OpenCountry]

Please point out where I have said anything about me wanting to rut hunt?

That’s what the proposal brings to the table. Ending the rut hunt for mule deer. I’m really not trying to read between the lines, but I’m guessing you’re against the thought of it based off your comments throughout this thread so it’s an honest question.