Montana season change proposal

[mtwarden]

Seems like mandatory reporting would also provide indicia of pressure and harvest success...

I'm assuming that's something that would be shared, hopefully not in minute detail

 

[finner]

I'm assuming that's something that would be shared, hopefully not in minute detail

Given how many poachers there are in Helena, I'm sure that if we ever did get mandatory reporting through the legislature it would come with some pretty heavy restrictions on data collection and sharing...

 

[mtwarden]

Would be interesting to hear what the specifics of the data they are wanting and what (if any) would be shared and how.

No poachers in and around Helena

 

[Fire_9]

I think it's going to be pretty hard to know where people are hunting; one regions are big, two you declare a region you don't how many people also put in it for it- you can probably look at after the fact and then everyone changes their mind the next year based on numbers for the year before

Yeah—strong no for me.

It's not about me knowing where other people are hunting, it's about the department knowing where the pressure is and where animals are being killed. They capture some of that data in their surveys but I don't think they have a good picture of what's actually happening.

 

[finner]

The data we need is:

Hunter days per species, per hunting district and bisected into public and private land hunting effort.
Harvest data per species, per hunting district and per month.
Resident vs. nonresident breakdowns for the above.

It's disgraceful that the Department is so resistant to implementing mandatory reporting. For a wildlife management agency, they're incredibly averse to data-driven decisions. Hence the need for citizen groups to participate actively in the season setting process.

 

[mtwarden]

It's not about me knowing where other people are hunting, it's about the department knowing where the pressure is and where animals are being killed. They capture some of that data in their surveys but I don't think they have a good picture of what's actually happening.

That information is gathered by mandatory reporting, NOT by being restricted to a singe region. No qualms on harvest reporting, BIG qualms on being told which region I'm only able to hunt.

 

[Fire_9]

That information is gathered by mandatory reporting, NOT by being restricted to a singe region. No qualms on harvest reporting, BIG qualms on being told which region I'm only able to hunt.

Gotcha

 

[Rifleman86]

I agree separating mule deer seasons and elk seasons is probably warranted. I hunt a district that went from draw to general for mule deer and the difference in pressure was palpable.

That said I disagree with changing the elk season so much and trying to separate cow elk hunting from bull elk hunting. Part of the reason I hunt Montana is the fact my tag is either sex. I’ll usually hunt bulls for the first 3-4 days then I’m open to taking a cow the last 2-3 days of the hunt. Elk are doing fine in Montana, and for the vast majority of units out there, I just don’t think it’s a necessary change.

Also, it’s amazing how much the pressure dies off after the first week, even in super popular units. Still plenty of elk on public too… I’ve had no problem killing elk or at least getting shot opportunities every season.

Bottom line even though it’s not perfect, it’s not broken, and I’m cautious about throwing the baby out with the bath water to appease the people who want to make it perfect (for them.)

ETA 100% in on mandatory reporting. Just make e tags mandatory, you can get all your data from that. How this still isn’t a thing in 2024 is mind boggling.

 

[Legend]

Just to clarify for all of the readers. This "proposal" is from a private group and is not associated with MTFWP. The official work group is just starting to meet. No doubt some of the concepts in this independent proposal will be raised.

 

[brockel]

How many bears are killed down there now?

Took 22 day to fill the 4 bear quota in 700. Just got the email today that it is closing

 

[t_carlson]

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.

View attachment 706832

I think we both agree on more than that. I think we both agree on the fact that we'd like bigger bucks.

Looking at the big picture, I see mule deer populations across the west trending down since the 1960's. Once general season rut hunts are gone, they are gone. I am not aware of any western state that has went back to a general season rut hunt after it has been eliminated.

To me, this proposal feels a little like when Biden emptied the strategic petroleum reserve to try and reduce gas prices in the summer of 2022. It didn't really move the needle in a significant way, and now we have an empty reserve.

I don't see this proposal having any significant effect in the face of everything else that is going on with mule deer herds state-wide. There may be some places like the Breaks that will see improvement, but I'm not willing to give up November for it.

 

[rogerthat]

That information is gathered by mandatory reporting, NOT by being restricted to a singe region. No qualms on harvest reporting, BIG qualms on being told which region I'm only able to hunt.

Interesting choice of words. Being told seems a bit dramatic. You would be choosing your region. It would be up to you to decide the pros and cons and plan your season. Really this is pretty normal across the west as populations increase and resources diminish. Montana is at or headed for an inflection point whether we like it or not. You have enjoyed an expansion of opportunity my whole life. That will end. If it’s not now, per one’s specific opinion , it will be later. That I can guarantee. Part of that will be reduction in opportunities. How best to protect the resource while keeping opportunity maximized is up for debate but that’s what these good folks are trying to do. Of course I’m not telling you anything you don’t already know.

 

[ELKdeerMT]

I think we both agree on more than that. I think we both agree on the fact that we'd like bigger bucks.

Looking at the big picture, I see mule deer populations across the west trending down since the 1960's. Once general season rut hunts are gone, they are gone. I am not aware of any western state that has went back to a general season rut hunt after it has been eliminated.

To me, this proposal feels a little like when Biden emptied the strategic petroleum reserve to try and reduce gas prices in the summer of 2022. It didn't really move the needle in a significant way, and now we have an empty reserve.

I don't see this proposal having any significant effect in the face of everything else that is going on with mule deer herds state-wide. There may be some places like the Breaks that will see improvement, but I'm not willing to give up November for it.

That all makes sense but my question is, when do you think it’s time to join all the other states that decided unlimited rut hunting was unsustainable? I get Montana FWP takes pride is us being an opportunity state but at some point you have to ask the question; at what cost? I guess if you dont think limiting rut hunting improves fawn recruitment and age class structures then I’d tend to agree that we might as well not give it up. From what I’ve gathered in my “bubba research” it does seem to matter.

 

[mtwarden]

Interesting choice of words. Being told seems a bit dramatic. You would be choosing your region. It would be up to you to decide the pros and cons and plan your season. Really this is pretty normal across the west as populations increase and resources diminish. Montana is at or headed for an inflection point whether we like it or not. You have enjoyed an expansion of opportunity my whole life. That will end. If it’s not now, per one’s specific opinion , it will be later. That I can guarantee. Part of that will be reduction in opportunities. How best to protect the resource while keeping opportunity maximized is up for debate but that’s what these good folks are trying to do. Of course I’m not telling you anything you don’t already know.

Exactly how would the population improve by letting people choose a region, any region? Would some regions improve and others suffer?

What if everyone (or the majority) chose the same region? How do you best distribute the hunters if they’re left up to choose themselves? Or should every region, or probably more effective, every district- be a limited entry based on population estimates? You might not get to hunt your home region, but maybe you could draw something on the other side of the state.

Yeah, I’m willing to consider some of the options floated, but certainly not all of them.
The surest way to kill anything from changing is to change everything.

 

[rogerthat]

Exactly how would the population improve by letting people choose a region, any region? Would some regions improve and others suffer?

It won’t help population at all. Social issue - hunter crowding would be what that addresses. It bet it would probably be uneven just like you imply.

What if everyone (or the majority) chose the same region? How do you best distribute the hunters if they’re left up to choose themselves? Or should every region, or probably more effective, every district- be a limited entry based on population estimates? You might not get to hunt your home region, but maybe you could draw something on the other side of the state.

I think to begin with it would provide you with the data of where everyone is actually hunting. No doubt we are piling up on each other in places right now. I can feel that(anecdotal). I agree with you, that we shouldn’t need to change anything to get this data. I think you make a good point. Maybe first step is get good data. Fwp doesn’t seem to like good data for some reason. You would have more insight into that than me.

Yeah, I’m willing to consider some of the options floated, but certainly not all of them.
The surest way to kill anything from changing is to change everything.

I agree.

 

[cgasner1]

The region thing has positive and negative with it. While the first few years it would be a social thing. It would give fwp hard numbers for who is hunting in what region. This all needs coupled with mandatory reporting to help give proper information.

Positives
Accurate account of where pressure is

It may save some deer mule deer when guys pick whitetail

May save some deer when people don’t drive across the state

If caps are needed down the road fwp will have a lot more information.

Negative

For a couple years it could cause bottlenecks in pressure since people can’t jump all over the state

A shooters gonna shoot a lot of people that put in a lot of windshield time will kill a buck no matter what just to do it. This wasn’t designed to save every deer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TylerTheTerrible]

It won’t help population at all. Social issue - hunter crowding would be what that addresses. It bet it would probably be uneven just like you imply.

How do we even know it would address crowding without putting further limits? What if one year everyone decides this is the year for a last week of the season R7 mule deer hunt?

I'm all for mandatory reporting online, enter if harvested, sex, and public or private. Easy stuff and now we know a lot more than we do right now. This seems like a necessary step BEFORE we give up the rut hunt.

 

[t_carlson]

That all makes sense but my question is, when do you think it’s time to join all the other states that decided unlimited rut hunting was unsustainable? I get Montana FWP takes pride is us being an opportunity state but at some point you have to ask the question; at what cost? I guess if you dont think limiting rut hunting improves fawn recruitment and age class structures then I’d tend to agree that we might as well not give it up. From what I’ve gathered in my “bubba research” it does seem to matter.

I'm not necessarily opposed to season structure changes, but this proposal is way too aggressive.

 

[Rifleman86]

https://www.mindtools.com/a3mi00v/5-whys

Not sure if anyone else in the thread is familiar with the “five why’s” method. It’s a way of looking at a problem and drilling it down to the root cause, while avoiding biases. We use it a lot in mishap investigations.

More or less when presented with an anomaly, like “The average mule deer size harvested in Montana gone from 5 points to 3 points in the last 20 years.” We ask ourselves, “Why?” numerous times, usually at least five times, until we get to the root cause.

“Because the average age class of bucks harvested has decreased.”

“Why?”

“Because of habitat loss and increased competition from elk and WT.”

“Why?”

“Because of changes in climate and disruptions to migration corridors”

Etc until you truly get to the root cause.

I think in issues like this we rely way too much on anecdotal evidence. As a result we just sorta throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks, much of which doesn’t actually work and some of which I’m sure makes the problem worse.

My point being is that without good data we can’t appropriately answer the “Why?” questions associated with the anomalies we are trying to address.

We don’t really know why age class is suffering, or anecdotally why pressure is increasing, without really good data on where people are hunting, for how long, their success rate, the age class and sex of the animals they are harvesting, etc and most importantly having that data for several years in a row to see long term trends.

Trying to solve these “problems” without that data is likely not going to solve anything, and further has the potential to cause unforeseen issues. It’s gonna make us feel like we’re doing something, but I have concern that it might not solve anything and many of us will lose opportunities in the process.

 

[ELKdeerMT]

https://www.mindtools.com/a3mi00v/5-whys

Not sure if anyone else in the thread is familiar with the “five why’s” method. It’s a way of looking at a problem and drilling it down to the root cause, while avoiding biases. We use it a lot in mishap investigations.

More or less when presented with an anomaly, like “The average mule deer size harvested in Montana gone from 5 points to 3 points in the last 20 years.” We ask ourselves, “Why?” numerous times, usually at least five times, until we get to the root cause.

“Because the average age class of bucks harvested has decreased.”

“Why?”

“Because of habitat loss and increased competition from elk and WT.”

“Why?”

“Because of changes in climate and disruptions to migration corridors”

Etc until you truly get to the root cause.

I think in issues like this we rely way too much on anecdotal evidence. As a result we just sorta throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks, much of which doesn’t actually work and some of which I’m sure makes the problem worse.

My point being is that without good data we can’t appropriately answer the “Why?” questions associated with the anomalies we are trying to address.

We don’t really know why age class is suffering, or anecdotally why pressure is increasing, without really good data on where people are hunting, for how long, their success rate, the age class and sex of the animals they are harvesting, etc and most importantly having that data for several years in a row to see long term trends.

Trying to solve these “problems” without that data is likely not going to solve anything, and further has the potential to cause unforeseen issues. It’s gonna make us feel like we’re doing something, but I have concern that it might not solve anything and many of us will lose opportunities in the process.

I’m very familiar with the five whys. When I use it I usually go to the production floor and ask the individuals most intimately familiar with the issue and involved in the day to day work be part of the exercise. Often times engineers or subject matter experts try and direct the conversation but the real issue isn’t discovered till the operators and those most involved have a seat at the table. Usually results in the most accurate root cause being exposed. I agree though. A solid problem statement is the first step in fixing the issue.