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
