Montana season change proposal

[Pony Soldier]

I think I remember that an argument against multiple opening days was the increased pressure that comes with each opening.

 

[willfrye027]

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.

 

[ThunderJack49]

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

Most residents I speak with would gladly pay 50-100$ a tag if that meant less NR hunters. I'm all for it myself.

 

[6.5x284]

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

and mandatory reporting! Just those two things would go a long way!

 

[fatlander]

Most residents I speak with would gladly pay 50-100$ a tag if that meant less NR hunters. I'm all for it myself.

So you’re saying that you’re okay with the current harvest (and relative abundance that’s subsequent of the harvest), as long as you yourself and your fellow statesman did more of the trigger pulling?

I thought the issue at hand was over harvest of antlerless does and cows?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Axlrod]

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.

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.

 

[GoatPackr]

So very well said using actually data.

Let’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.

A few random thoughts
Want more big bucks make more deer by killing less of the the baby makers. The does have been proven to get bred even with very low buck ratios. Size of horns has nothing to do with pregnancy rates. I would even argue removing the smaller horned bucks could help reduce some of those genes from the pool. Allowing more of the genes for bigger bucks to spread around in the future.

I think predator control is something missing from this entire conversation from the start.
we can add more doe but reducing an out of control predator population will also greatly help those babies.

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

 

[Formidilosus]

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

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.

 

[atmat]

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?

 

[6.5x284]

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.

• 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.

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.

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.

 

[Pony Soldier]

In my past I think limiting the mechanized access did more for the game in that they could move beyond the masses and have a normal life with a few rather than thousands.

 

[Formidilosus]

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?

I’m sure there is a number, but it’s way lower than deer “managers” state. I have pretty long experience in areas with 5 or less per 100 buck to doe ratios going into season and yet nearly all, or all, females get bred. Deer managers don’t like it because the rut isn’t as intense, the bucks don’t cruise nearly as much, and they get tired of seeing so many does. The whole thing is just QDM to treat wild animals like cattle- make them bigger and more prized.

 

[GoatPackr]

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.

• 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.

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.

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.

Man I agree so much with this.

I like your points on bears. I have no idea why MT is so uptight with their black bears. I was happy to see their seasons change a little and now hound hunting. Coming from a state that has went the other way it's good to see small steps in MT.
I'd like to see them allow more tags like Idaho. I like the idea of spring and fall tag.

Kris

 

[sneaky]

Most residents I speak with would gladly pay 50-100$ a tag if that meant less NR hunters. I'm all for it myself.

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

 

[CC55]

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.

• 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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[ThunderJack49]

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 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.
To be clear, I don't know what the exact dollar amount would be to replace/increase the revenue lost from selling more NR tags or more resident tags at their current prices. I do know, however, that many people are willing to pay 500$ for a backpack, 1500$ for a rifle and all of the other expenses associated with hunting but scoff at a 50$ elk tag.
I swing a hammer for a living, and while I know there are many people in my community struggling with the cost of living at the moment, I'm also not exactly laughing all the way to the bank every time I get paid. For those of us without infinite resources, we have to prioritize and I think that is ok.
Montana is a great access/time state and maybe this could be resolved with an application process for senior citizens and residents who make below a certain amount. But for the rest of us in the middle, prices could be adjusted to the times.

 

[ThunderJack49]

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.

• 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.

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.

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 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.

 

[Axlrod]

There is a proposal from FWP for the upcoming season in 6 HD's in region 4. With a variety of changes with the goal of: Reducing buck harvest, maintain buck:doe ratio, maintain hunter opportunity etc.

The entire proposal is here:

https://fwp.mt.gov/binaries/content/assets/fwp/commission/2023/dec/deer-and-elk/region-4-deer-elk-season-setting-justifications.pdf

But here is an excerpt:

This proposal has been drafted while considering

• Fawn recruitment and adult female mortality are the primary drivers of mule deer populations, and both are heavily dependent on weather conditions. Controlling weather is beyond FWP’s abilities, but adult female mortality can be reduced, to a point, by reducing antlerless harvest. As mentioned above, there is little management direction remaining in these HDs to further reduce adult female mortality via antlerless harvest(i.e., quotas and opportunity are already near their lowest levels and have been for some time).

• Because mule deer populations in prairie-breaks environments fluctuate based on weather conditions (and with a lag effect after favorable conditions), without a consistent, longer-term change in weather (e.g.,ample growing season precipitation and mild winters for several years), mule deer populations will not rebound as quickly as desired, regardless of season structure.• Related to the above point, nothing in this proposal is aimed, or could result in, additional fawns producedor recruited. Fawn recruitment is the driving factor in mule deer population dynamics; fawn recruitment is largely dictated by weather, not season structure.

• Fawn:adult ratios may decrease—if these proposed changes reduce buck harvest and buck mortality, more adults will survive to spring. If fawn survival remained constant, then a higher number of adults will result in lower observed fawn:adult ratios in spring surveys. There is also some speculation that bucks may outcompete fawns when resources are limited, which also reduces fawn:adult ratios. If the latter were true,deer numbers may decline over time with lower fawn recruitment. Reduced fawn:adult ratios are expected as a result of this proposal, but it will be difficult to tease out whether this is due to more adult deer surviving vs. fewer fawns recruited.

• Adult buck mortality, even without harvest, is generally higher than adult doe mortality. While this proposal aims to reduce buck mortality (via reduced harvest), adult bucks are still more vulnerable to other mortality factors as opposed to adult does. Body condition going into winter is a major factor in overwinter survival,and bucks are generally in poorer body condition after the rut. Thus, bucks are more vulnerable to overwinter mortality than does, regardless of season structure.

• Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) merits consideration, as one effect of limiting buck harvest may be an increase in the number of older age-class bucks in the population—the very segment most susceptible to contracting and spreading CWD. Currently, there have been no detections of CWD in any of these HDs,however if a positive CWD detection occurs, the area biologist will revisit this proposal and LE permits vs. a general license structure. Given current deer numbers in these districts (compared to area elk populations)CWD could be detected first in elk than in mule deer (and given higher prevalence in deer, if detected in elk,CWD would likely also be present in deer). A complete examination of management alternatives for both species would be necessary.

• This proposal “bucks” Montana’s tradition of managing for opportunity—in the 2010 and 2022 mule deer hunter preference surveys, roughly 60% of resident and non-resident hunters favored the opportunity to hunt mule deer every year, while ~40% would forgo this annual opportunity for a higher probability of harvesting a more mature buck. Of Region 4’s 32 hunting districts, only one is strictly an LE permit HD for antlered mule deer bucks, five have combination permit/general license opportunities (similar to what is proposed for HD 426), and the remaining 26 represent general license opportunities. With HDs 410 and 417 being added as LE districts with HD 455, this still represents <10% of Region 4, in which opportunity is truly restricted every year, and including the five other combination season-type HDs (six if HD 426 isincluded) as a “restriction” still leaves 75% of Region 4 with five-week general license opportunities.

• This proposal is not intended to be permanent, but the likelihood of returning to a general license structure following an LE permit regulation is slim.

 

[RutandDie]

Harvest stats from Montana for you guys to chew on. Thats a lot of bucks getting shot out of region 6 and 7. Does anyone know of another state that allows nonresident mule deer harvest to exceed resident. You guys are advocating to burn the resource down for the sake of your opportunity to hunt mule deer when they are most vulnerable. At minimum pick your region and nonresident caps are needed. Sign me up for the October season, I’m not scared to hunt them when they aren’t stupid.

 

[6.5x284]

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.

Probably not really effective in the East but in the West there are a lot of bears.

There was one archery season I was seeing at least 4 black bears a day in September with the high being around 10 in one day. Some of those are across a drainage or in berry patches, etc... but no one will stalk one at last light if the elk aren't bugling because they don't want to have to deal with the check in requirements the next day and want to be headed back in after elk before the sun comes up. I like how Idaho lets you hang your tag on a lesser species in certain situations. You can use your deer tag to shoot a bear or a wolf for example and it punches your deer tag. I know a lot of people who would take advantage of that when a wolf or big bear shows itself as well when the deer or elk hunting is slow if another tag's not in their pocket.