When is a buck acceptable to shoot to preserve the deer herd? Should everybody be a trophy hunter? (Montana Rut thread carryover)

[S.Clancy]

I have my issues with FWP, but the last couple yrs have been completely drought related. In 2 yrs our mule deer herd in SE MT has decreased 50% from ~114,000 to ~58,000. That means that any marginal habitat is going to be void of deer. The drought of 2021 was Extreme, those conditions hadn't been seen for generations. It was as drier than 1988, the year that most of Yellowstone burned.

As far as the argument over bucks....I think people are underestimating the age class on the landscape. We kill bucks every yr 4.5+, we killed them over 8.5 yr. @j_volt 's deer is a perfect example. Most would age that deer @2.5 or 3.5 without looking at teeth or getting the deer cementum aged. There is a big difference between size and age. That difference is habitat. The quality of habitat is decreasing everywhere due to lack of disturbance (fire, logging), human encroachment and grazing practices from the early 1900's. Research out of WY is clearly showing that habitat = good genetics over time. It is well known that good genetics = bigger deer. Let's focus on what actually matters.

As far as tags, the first thing I want to see is limiting of NR opportunity of B tags, deer, elk and antelope. Then, start taking all these other sneaky NR pools out of the original legislated cap. MT has had a NR opportunity creep for decades, it's time to go back to the original intent. Once these are done I think we start talking about changing season structure. It would also help if BLM and FS got on board and started closing down some of the roads seasonally.

As far as what people shoot, I don't really care. If you want to kill a forkie, kill a forkie. Just don't go on Insta and call it something it's not or apologize for it. It was a living, breathing creature, be happy about the meat it provides and treat it with some goddamn respect.

 

[WCB]

As far as tags, the first thing I want to see is limiting of NR opportunity of B tags, deer, elk and antelope. Then, start taking all these other sneaky NR pools out of the original legislated cap. MT has had a NR opportunity creep for decades, it's time to go back to the original intent. Once these are done I think we start talking about changing season structure. It would also help if BLM and FS got on board and started closing down some of the roads seasonally.

I never apply for B tags as a NR but why not just cut the number of B tags in general? If FWP wants 5,000 does shot what is the difference who gets the tag. And again like I have stated it isn't a NR or resident thing. I know plenty of MT residents that fill every B tag they can (deer and elk) along with killing young bucks. IMO, in general, there is zero reason to kill Mule Deer does, Antelope does, and Bighorn ewes. As far as Whitetails I think Montana needs to get very aggressive and give out as many B tags for them as possible.

 

[S.Clancy]

I never apply for B tags as a NR but why not just cut the number of B tags in general? If FWP wants 5,000 does shot what is the difference who gets the tag. And again like I have stated it isn't a NR or resident thing. I know plenty of MT residents that fill every B tag they can (deer and elk) along with killing young bucks. IMO, in general, there is zero reason to kill Mule Deer does, Antelope does, and Bighorn ewes. As far as Whitetails I think Montana needs to get very aggressive and give out as many B tags for them as possible.

I will explain my stance on the NR B tag statement. A very high percentage (I would lump and say 100%) of resident hunters that have a B tag, lets say deer, is going to be out there anyway with their A tag. Now, some % NR will do the same, however the majority of NR B tags are purchased as the only tag. That is absolutely increasing pressure beyond what mostly resident B tags would do. We need to limit this NR opportunity.

I think B tags allocations are fine, but in my opinion, they should be more targeted. R7 needs to be more broken up (for deer and especially antelope) so those allocations have smaller land masses. We prob need something like 12-15 units in region 7, not 5, and the way mule deer/antelope B tags are treated, 1.

 

[voltage]

I will explain my stance on the NR B tag statement. A very high percentage (I would lump and say 100%) of resident hunters that have a B tag, lets say deer, is going to be out there anyway with their A tag. Now, some % NR will do the same, however the majority of NR B tags are purchased as the only tag. That is absolutely increasing pressure beyond what mostly resident B tags would do. We need to limit this NR opportunity.

I think B tags allocations are fine, but in my opinion, they should be more targeted. R7 needs to be more broken up (for deer and especially antelope) so those allocations have smaller land masses. We prob need something like 12-15 units in region 7, not 5, and the way mule deer/antelope B tags are treated, 1.

People drive all the way to Montana to only shoot a doe?

 

[Dos Perros]

If there is a disparity between resident B tag harvest rate and NR B tag harvest rate the FWP could account for it. To me it makes sense to sell the B tag to the NR even at a higher harvest rate just for the revenue.

 

[Dos Perros]

People drive all the way to Montana to only shoot a doe?

That's the trend I'm seeing even within my own friend group. We're like seriously talking and planning cow elk hunts just to be in good units hunting elk as they are supposed to be hunted.

 

[S.Clancy]

People drive all the way to Montana to only shoot a doe?

Yes. Generally from what I have seen, someone draws an A tag and several people tag along to pick up B tags. I've seen it as much as 2 guys with A tags and 5 or 6 with B tags only.

 

[voltage]

That's the trend I'm seeing even within my own friend group. We're like seriously talking and planning cow elk hunts just to be in good units hunting elk as they are supposed to be hunted.

I do like that idea (especially with elk), but it seems odd to me to drive to eastern Montana to shoot a MD doe in a heavily roaded area.

I understand it if a group is going with buck tags, and another guys wants to join in but did not draw.

 

[voltage]

Yes. Generally from what I have seen, someone draws an A tag and several people tag along to pick up B tags. I've seen it as much as 2 guys with A tags and 5 or 6 with B tags only.

Interesting... I haven't seen that to that extent, but if that is the case, I agree it can be a problem.

 

[S.Clancy]

If there is a disparity between resident B tag harvest rate and NR B tag harvest rate the FWP could account for it. To me it makes sense to sell the B tag to the NR even at a higher harvest rate just for the revenue.

To me the harvest rate is not the A priority. To me lessening the pressure through common sense is the first priority. All we would need to do is raise our Combo license costs again or slightly increase resident prices to make it a non-issue.

The fact that we can get an elk, deer, bear, fishing, upland bird and 2 turkey tags for under 100$ is a joke.

 

[Dos Perros]

I personally don't like the idea of using cost to control participation.

 

[S.Clancy]

I personally don't like the idea of using cost to control participation.

Me either. I am saying that we could make up the revenue difference in a scenario of limiting NR B tag opportunity by one, or both, of the methods mentioned above.

 

[bigsky2]

I didn't see the prior thread so I don't know what that guy's gripe was about. I guess myself and a lot of other residents who have lived here our whole lives are just a little salty from having to watch the quality of our public land deer hunting continue to decline every year. I'm 35 so I've been hunting here for 23 years. When I first started hunting, if a guy hunted hard for a week you had a legitimate chance of killing a 170 buck on public land. That is not the case anymore. It seems like it has gotten exponentially worse in the past ten years. There are a lot of factors at play. The western half of the state, aside from a few draw units, has been pretty bad mule deer hunting for a long time. Eastern MT has been carrying the load for years, and the lack of responsible management and technological advances have finally caught up to us. Look at the harvest photos. It seems like everyone has a custom rifle, a range finder, high quality optics, fancy clothing, etc. We've got info on everything you need to know about how and where to hunt on an electronic device that fits in the palm of your hand. Now people are able to work remotely and spend more days in the field. We've been managing the same way for years without taking any of this into account.

I would consider myself a trophy hunter, but I don't blame anyone for shooting young deer. What is frustrating is that we don't have a management philosophy that manages for a diversity of age classes in our deer population. I got my phone call from FWP this year and they didn't even ask where I hunted deer. Statewide harvest numbers aren't very useful if you don't even know where the harvest is taking place. Mature bucks have been absent from public land for a while, but at least there were does there. The past few years the numbers aren't even there anymore. FWP still allows people to kill 7 does on public land in some places. There is absolutely no justification for that.

Residents want to blame NR for everything and are unwilling to give up any opportunity whatsoever. Many think that shooting rutting mule deer bucks from the road is their god given right. Residents want less less NR hunters, but NR fund over 70% of FWP's budget. Residents would riot if we proposed increasing resident license fees.

Come out and shoot what you want. I get it, its expensive to come out here, and it makes it hard to go home empty handed. I hunt out of state also, and I will admit it stings a little when I eat tags out of state. I've gotten used to eating my deer tag in Montana because the reality is, the type of deer I am normally looking for is about like finding a unicorn anymore. If you're happy shooting a small buck then do it without shame. Don't do it just to fill a tag if its not something you're truly happy with.

I think its just hard for some people to see pictures of the dinks being shot, because its a constant reminder that no matter how bad things get, there's always going to be someone willing to buy the tag and come shoot whatever they can find. It makes it feel like things will never get better. They won't unless changes happen.

On a side note, the last thing Montana needs is an antler point restriction. That would be the quickest way to eliminate the best genetics we have left.

 

[hobbes]

The herd takes care of itself as long as there is a decent buck doe ratio. If there is a good ratio the poor sub par bucks dont get to breed.

Only if that buck population has a good mix of age classes.

 

[S.Clancy]

Only if that buck population has a good mix of age classes.

What does that mean, how would you define it?

 

[WCB]

The fact that we can get an elk, deer, bear, fishing, upland bird and 2 turkey tags for under 100$ is a joke.

My sister by Great Falls laughs every time she buys her licenses. When they ask her what tags she basically says "everything". The neighboring ranch owners couldn't believe I spent almost $400 to come shoot a bear this past spring.

 

[hobbes]

The highest percent of the buck population will always be younger bucks, followed by the next age class then the next. The distribution likely looks like a pyramid. There's only a small percentage that make it to older age class in any herd (at least a hunted herd). If we reach a point that we are killing the majority of 2 and 3 year olds or a point that we nearly stop replenishing the older class of bucks, we are going to see an inflated percentage of smaller/younger deer.

I think the lower herd numbers I've seen over the last few years is a result of the drought as you mentioned but we are still pounding away at the bucks that are there. My concern hasn't so much been not finding a shooter because that can definitely happen. My concern is the lack of those midrange bucks that I used to find. I would see several a day that were just big enough to require another look before deciding to pass. I've not been finding those bucks. The bucks that I have been finding with the fewer deer are younger.

I don't have all the answers but I don't think doing nothing is the answer. I also don't think only cutting NR B tags is going to be enough. Maybe other areas in Eastern MT are doing better than my small sampling.

 

[thedutchtouch]

Seems to me that by starting this thread you're giving the other guy exactly what he wants, more space in your head worrying about his opinion. Only you can pull your trigger, or not, so just apply the same concept to the internet as you do your gun, and do your thing.

Just one newbies perspective, this seems like an arguing/validation thread more than an educating/discussing nuance one to me, no offense meant by that assessment. By my judgement of the photos you shoot some nice deer anyway, so shouldn't care what internet strangers think, myself included. I just happen to think that our opinions don't matter if you shoot a doe, spike, or big buck. It's your tag, if it's legal, do you.

 

[S.Clancy]

The highest percent of the buck population will always be younger bucks, followed by the next age class then the next. The distribution likely looks like a pyramid. There's only a small percentage that make it to older age class in any herd (at least a hunted herd). If we reach a point that we are killing the majority of 2 and 3 year olds or a point that we nearly stop replenishing the older class of bucks, we are going to see an inflated percentage of smaller/younger deer.

I think the lower herd numbers I've seen over the last few years is a result of the drought as you mentioned but we are still pounding away at the bucks that are there. My concern hasn't so much been not finding a shooter because that can definitely happen. My concern is the lack of those midrange bucks that I used to find. I would see several a day that were just big enough to require another look before deciding to pass. I've not been finding those bucks. The bucks that I have been finding with the fewer deer are younger.

I don't have all the answers but I don't think doing nothing is the answer. I also don't think only cutting NR B tags is going to be enough. Maybe other areas in Eastern MT are doing better than my small sampling.

I think the NR B tag is a place to start. The first thing I want to see is limiting NR opportunity while we gather some really good data to figure out what we need to do. We can start there and work our way through limiting other opportunities over time.

Estimates of all cause adult male mortality in MT range from 40-60%. I think 40% is the high end of acceptable, 60% is not. What we really need to do is get at what % hunting mortality is of that number. I would love to see a large scale mortality study with GPS collars done.

In any conversation of wildlife management, if habitat is the #1 priority what are we really doing? It affects genetics (see WY work), affects a population's resilience to predation (hunters, other predators, winters, droughts) and benefits non-hunted wildlife. We need an approach in MT that is well thought out and has a huge focus on habitat as well as limiting opportunities in the future.

 

[hobbes]

I think the NR B tag is a place to start. The first thing I want to see is limiting NR opportunity while we gather some really good data to figure out what we need to do. We can start there and work our way through limiting other opportunities over time.

Estimates of all cause adult male mortality in MT range from 40-60%. I think 40% is the high end of acceptable, 60% is not. What we really need to do is get at what % hunting mortality is of that number. I would love to see a large scale mortality study with GPS collars done.

In any conversation of wildlife management, if habitat is the #1 priority what are we really doing? It affects genetics (see WY work), affects a population's resilience to predation (hunters, other predators, winters, droughts) and benefits non-hunted wildlife. We need an approach in MT that is well thought out and has a huge focus on habitat as well as limiting opportunities in the future.

I like your idea of starting somewhere. It definitely wouldn't hurt.

What habitat improvements are we able to do in country that is a mixture of badland and sage with no agriculture to speak of? (I'm legitimately asking). I suppose there is grazing in the country I hunt, over a mixture of private (BMA)and public land. That would be a difficult subject to change. Other than cattle it's relatively untouched country. I suppose there are some areas that used to be big flats of sage that are now void of sage. I assumed that hurt sage grouse more than deer but I may well be mistaken.

There are definitely some variations in available habitat in the state. That just happens to be what I've been hunting and is a very small sample size.