New MT Mule Deer Rifle Season

[Schaaf]

It’s also worth noting @MT257 shot a bigger deer than anyone else in this thread in a general unit just a few years ago and has hunted Montana his entire life and is still advocating for change. No one commenting in support of season modification just “wants bigger bucks.” Those in support of a change want to see a healthy herd on the landscape. Populations of <10 bucks:100 does where the majority of the breeding is done by 1.5 year old males is not indicative of healthy herd demographics.

We don’t need to manage for an abundance of mature mule deer but for the same reason we have mature bull elk objectives, there should be mature mule deer objectives.

 

[S.Clancy]

We don’t have a mule deer management plan- or if we do it’s very hap hazardly formed. There was funding from the 2019 Legislative Session allocated for a mule deer specialist to work towards a statewide plan but that work has stalled under the current administration.

Long Term Averages are useless unless they take into account populations from 95-05 as well. A current 10 year LTA is an artificially low number.

It's my understanding that they do now, at least thats what is stated in the "Adaptive Harvest Management".

 

[Schaaf]

It's my understanding that they do now, at least thats what is stated in the "Adaptive Harvest Management".

Correct, there’s the AHM that was approved in 2021 which is a run it back and maintain status quo plan that was written in the 90’s. There was no working group or public meetings involved like you see with the Elk Plan.

 

[S.Clancy]

It’s also worth noting @MT257 shot a bigger deer than anyone else in this thread in a general unit just a few years ago and has hunted Montana his entire life and is still advocating for change. No one commenting in support of season modification just “wants bigger bucks.” Those in support of a change want to see a healthy herd on the landscape. Populations of <10 bucks:100 does where the majority of the breeding is done by 1.5 year old males is not indicative of healthy herd demographics.

We don’t need to manage for an abundance of mature mule deer but for the same reason we have mature bull elk objectives, there should be mature mule deer objectives.

How do we know that most of the breeding is done by 1.5 yr old males? Like an empirical method.

 

[Schaaf]

How do we know that most of the breeding is done by 1.5 yr old males? Like an empirical method.

I don’t know if a way to chart that besides age analysis on harvested deer. Even immature bucks/adult bucks is flawed for aging purposes.

 

[MT257]

How do we know that most of the breeding is done by 1.5 yr old males? Like an empirical method.

Is there a reason you have no issues with 1.5 year olds doing the breeding?

 

[S.Clancy]

Is there a reason you have no issues with 1.5 year olds doing the breeding?

I'm saying we have no way of quantifying what age bucks actually accomplish the breeding. Obviously there is a bunch of young bucks on the landscape, but how do we know how successful they are at siring fawns?

 

[deadwolf]

From the new mule deer management plan, the new LTA is an average of all years data. Previously they measured a 10 yr average I believe

In the chart provided earlier, the LTA is for ten years.

I would be curious if there is an LTA number for ALL years of recorded data. It does read in the AHM doc that they changed the LTA calculation to be based off of all years as you said above.

I skimmed through the AHM doc last night and even by it’s own admission the FWP says it has no credible way of modeling mule deer populations and trends.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[S.Clancy]

In the chart provided earlier, the LTA is for ten years.

I would be curious if there is an LTA number for ALL years of recorded data. It does read in the AHM doc that they changed the LTA calculation to be based off of all years as you said above.

I skimmed through the AHM doc last night and even by it’s own admission the FWP says it has no credible way of modeling mule deer populations and trends.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm guessing they will incorporate all yrs (after 1986 I think it says?) in 2022 charts, that document was updated in Oct 2021

 

[deadwolf]

What about pre 1995? What happened in 95-05 that’s significant? What number of years would make it non-useless for you and show a meaningful trend you’d be happy to accept?

The reason that the chart first shared here showed ten years was because that’s how FWP used to define the LTA. Since then and with the new AHM they have stated “LTA is defined as all data in all years for which data are available for the metric being considered”

 

[Schaaf]

What about pre 1995? What happened in 95-05 that’s significant? What number of years would make it non-useless for you and show a meaningful trend you’d be happy to accept?

The reason that the chart first shared here showed ten years was because that’s how FWP used to define the LTA. Since then and with the new AHM they have stated “LTA is defined as all data in all years for which data are available for the metric being considered”

Pre 95 you get to boom/bust cycles all the way from the 50’s-80’s. There was nothing in particular about 95-05, just that it seems to represent a period of average winters and summers as well as the period directly preceding the hunting technology boom in the form of accessible rangefinders and land ownership GPS’s.

 

[S.Clancy]

What about pre 1995? What happened in 95-05 that’s significant? What number of years would make it non-useless for you and show a meaningful trend you’d be happy to accept?

The reason that the chart first shared here showed ten years was because that’s how FWP used to define the LTA. Since then and with the new AHM they have stated “LTA is defined as all data in all years for which data are available for the metric being considered”

As stated earlier, I think they are going to use all data back to 1986. I think we need to be careful using an average for all 35 years, as we can miss trends.

An example for this is in the new snotel data sets, which use 30 yr average. We just switched to 1990-2020, from 1980-2010. In SW MT, there are some sites with a 20-30% decrease in average Snow Water Equivalent between the 2 reporting periods. So, now an "average" year is actually much less water than historically.

We could miss trends by just lumping all the data together without also looking at changes in decadal averages. The best way would be to just plot population vs time with no average from 1986-today and note the trend. Unfortunately we will miss all the population losses prior to that date, what people used to call "the good ol days".

I dont think there is a valid argument that mule deer populations are not in peril, not just in MT, but every state. Given that all states have different management strategies, as far as hunting season lengths, dates, limited opportunity, etc., to me its obvious that it is some other factor, combination of factors besides hunting strategy causing this decline.

Obviously, decreasing buck harvest will lead to
more mature bucks. But does it lead to increased populations??? Unlikely, and, there is really no way to actually test that hypothesis so we must use observational data, which also suggests no.

 

[brocksw]

As stated earlier, I think they are going to use all data back to 1986. I think we need to be careful using an average for all 35 years, as we can miss trends.

An example for this is in the new snotel data sets, which use 30 yr average. We just switched to 1990-2020, from 1980-2010. In SW MT, there are some sites with a 20-30% decrease in average Snow Water Equivalent between the 2 reporting periods. So, now an "average" year is actually much less water than historically.

We could miss trends by just lumping all the data together without also looking at changes in decadal averages. The best way would be to just plot population vs time with no average from 1986-today and note the trend. Unfortunately we will miss all the population losses prior to that date, what people used to call "the good ol days".

I dont think there is a valid argument that mule deer populations are not in peril, not just in MT, but every state. Given that all states have different management strategies, as far as hunting season lengths, dates, limited opportunity, etc., to me its obvious that it is some other factor, combination of factors besides hunting strategy causing this decline.

Obviously, decreasing buck harvest will lead to
more mature bucks. But does it lead to increased populations??? Unlikely, and, there is really no way to actually test that hypothesis so we must use observational data, which also suggests no.

My correspondence with Dr. Kevin Moneith. Not a dataset that addresses your concern, but my assumption is he came to this information through data, given his occupation, credentials, and body of work.

My email:
Thank you for the response, Kevin. I have another question regarding Mule deer that has been a hot topic. Many Montana residents are critical of the MT FWP's management of mule deer and their liberal season and tag structure. Concerns raised are anything from shooting too many does. Shooting too many small bucks, not letting bucks mature, not seeing enough big bucks, etc.

What is the biological preference? Based on things I've heard you say, my assumption is that there is a benefit to having mature mule deer does on the landscape. They pass on the knowledge to offspring; I would assume that holds true even in populations that don't migrate in the more popular sense that we hear about (Wyoming's Migrations). But is there also a benefit to having mature bucks in a population? What is that ratio? What is that benefit? Is there an optimal management style (tag and season structure) to succeed if that is one's goal?
Female harvest, as controversial as it may be in some places, can do good things for populations by reducing density and reducing competition for forage. Sure, as you note, having females be present to teach their offspring potentially how and where to migrate etc., can be important. So, how harvest occurs or is executed probably should play into that biology.




Dr. Monteith's Response:
Female harvest, as controversial as it may be in some places, can do good things for populations by reducing density and reducing competition for forage. Sure, as you note, having females be present to teach their offspring potentially how and where to migrate etc., can be important. So, how harvest occurs or is executed probably should play into that biology.

As to adult males, it really all depends. Reality is, it takes few males to maintain pregnancy rates in populations. So, from that biological aspect, it doesn’t matter too much. Having adult males present may reduce some of the rut-related costs in young males and females because adult males may harass less (note, jury still out on how much that matters), and adult males may serve some role in priming estrus of females. Often, desires to maintain mature age structure of males is driven by stakeholder desires, and yes, there can be some benefits to populations perhaps but generally at the same time, even few and mostly young males can serve their primary biological role. Point is, there really isn’t a magical number, if that makes sense?

Hope that helps just a little?

Best,

Kevin

 

[S.Clancy]

My correspondence with Dr. Kevin Moneith. Not a dataset that addresses your concern, but my assumption is he came to this information through data, given his occupation, credentials, and body of work.

My email:
Thank you for the response, Kevin. I have another question regarding Mule deer that has been a hot topic. Many Montana residents are critical of the MT FWP's management of mule deer and their liberal season and tag structure. Concerns raised are anything from shooting too many does. Shooting too many small bucks, not letting bucks mature, not seeing enough big bucks, etc.

What is the biological preference? Based on things I've heard you say, my assumption is that there is a benefit to having mature mule deer does on the landscape. They pass on the knowledge to offspring; I would assume that holds true even in populations that don't migrate in the more popular sense that we hear about (Wyoming's Migrations). But is there also a benefit to having mature bucks in a population? What is that ratio? What is that benefit? Is there an optimal management style (tag and season structure) to succeed if that is one's goal?
Female harvest, as controversial as it may be in some places, can do good things for populations by reducing density and reducing competition for forage. Sure, as you note, having females be present to teach their offspring potentially how and where to migrate etc., can be important. So, how harvest occurs or is executed probably should play into that biology.




Dr. Monteith's Response:
Female harvest, as controversial as it may be in some places, can do good things for populations by reducing density and reducing competition for forage. Sure, as you note, having females be present to teach their offspring potentially how and where to migrate etc., can be important. So, how harvest occurs or is executed probably should play into that biology.

As to adult males, it really all depends. Reality is, it takes few males to maintain pregnancy rates in populations. So, from that biological aspect, it doesn’t matter too much. Having adult males present may reduce some of the rut-related costs in young males and females because adult males may harass less (note, jury still out on how much that matters), and adult males may serve some role in priming estrus of females. Often, desires to maintain mature age structure of males is driven by stakeholder desires, and yes, there can be some benefits to populations perhaps but generally at the same time, even few and mostly young males can serve their primary biological role. Point is, there really isn’t a magical number, if that makes sense?

Hope that helps just a little?

Best,

Kevin

Everyone advocating for more strict buck harvest (whatever method you choose) should take note of the last paragraph. If that guy can't make a strong argument for more mature bucks on the landscape providing a measurable benefit to the population, there isn't one to be made. Dr. Monteith is a top shelf mule deer researcher.

 

[cgasner1]

So what is his perfect buck to doe ratio? And as our state continues to grow in population at the rate it is and more bucks continue to be killed what will be the solution when that ratio becomes to low?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[brocksw]

Dr. Monteith is a top shelf mule deer researcher.

I would strongly agree


"Often, desires to maintain mature age structure of males is driven by stakeholder desires.."
^^^
This is what MT needs to figure out. Do they just want a deer tag every year or do they want a more diverse age class with bigger bucks? Is there a way to get both?

 

[MT257]

For once I’d like to see Montana look like they are getting out in front of the issue, instead of 10 years from now be like I wish we would have done something different so we would have mule deer on the landscape. If that means we have to draw for resident tags so be it( whatever the season structure is). I wouldn’t be getting treated any different than anyone else that has contributed on this post. I just want to see a population of mule deer on huntable public ground in the future and for generations to come. Change is hard, but for crying out loud you cannot keep piss pounding them every year with more and more general deer tags and expect the numbers to continue to grow. At some point we will see mule deer accessibility be just like elk cause we continue to pound the public ground pushing them to private within the first handful of days of the season. I’d like to know how that would be a quality hunt to anyone?

 

[S.Clancy]

So what is his perfect buck to doe ratio? And as our state continues to grow in population at the rate it is and more bucks continue to be killed what will be the solution when that ratio becomes to low?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Start taking areas to draw only. Good evidence to show that increases buck to doe ratios, however NOT overall deer numbers. A mouth is a mouth.

I suppose you could also go to archery only to achieve the same goal, a la AZ. But, turns out with enough pressure, even that isn't enough.

 

[deadwolf]

For once I’d like to see Montana look like they are getting out in front of the issue, instead of 10 years from now be like I wish we would have done something different so we would have mule deer on the landscape. If that means we have to draw for resident tags so be it( whatever the season structure is). I wouldn’t be getting treated any different than anyone else that has contributed on this post. I just want to see a population of mule deer on huntable public ground in the future and for generations to come. Change is hard, but for crying out loud you cannot keep piss pounding them every year with more and more general deer tags and expect the numbers to continue to grow. At some point we will see mule deer accessibility be just like elk cause we continue to pound the public ground pushing them to private within the first handful of days of the season. I’d like to know how that would be a quality hunt to anyone?

I would tend to agree with you on a good bit of your sentiment here, and it is my belief that some (not all) hunters are the ones who have the 10,000 foot view of “herd health” based on being in the field every single year.

Going back the original post that started this thread, I don’t think closing the mule deer hunt on October 31 is going to make the measurable difference that some in this thread think it may. There are far too many factors at play to point to one possible issue (rifle rut hunt) and single it out as the cause of perceived mule deer decline. As I stated before, by FWP’s own admission they don’t have a reliable method of modeling or predicting deer numbers. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t action to be taken given a certain set of circumstances, and they could implement a course of action based on the data that is collected from a prior year, such as a harsh winter, high fawn mortality, drought and lack of feed, etc. It kind of sounds like that’s the route they may take in the future and adjust tag numbers accordingly, but that’s a question for the biologists, or it may be found deeper in the AHM doc.

Anyhow, I have enjoyed the discussion here, and it’s a topic that’s important to me as I enjoy the opportunity to hunt in Montana. As a nonresident my opinion might not hold much weight with some of you, but know that I welcome the opportunity to respectably hunt in your fine state every year, and harvest a mature deer if I’m lucky enough.


And I like doing it in November


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[S.Clancy]

For once I’d like to see Montana look like they are getting out in front of the issue, instead of 10 years from now be like I wish we would have done something different so we would have mule deer on the landscape. If that means we have to draw for resident tags so be it( whatever the season structure is). I wouldn’t be getting treated any different than anyone else that has contributed on this post. I just want to see a population of mule deer on huntable public ground in the future and for generations to come. Change is hard, but for crying out loud you cannot keep piss pounding them every year with more and more general deer tags and expect the numbers to continue to grow. At some point we will see mule deer accessibility be just like elk cause we continue to pound the public ground pushing them to private within the first handful of days of the season. I’d like to know how that would be a quality hunt to anyone?

I think we could accomplish a lot by drastically reducing vehicle pressure on public lands during hunting season. This would maintain opportunity, albeit walking, and give animals more security cover. Imagine the Custer, or any big BLM piece, with only 10-20% of the roads....

FWP has worked with land managenment agencies in the past on MVU's, why not take that step?