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

[LoggerDan]

Up here, most big bear units are an every four years unit, meanin, if you shoot a bear, then you have to wait those years out before bei able to hunt again.

Would a similar approach for NR, every four years, and for residents every other year, for mule deer help? I really don’t have much at stake in this subject, but I couldn’t help but think that something beneficial would result. A fellow could still hunt flagtails.

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

Im starting this thread to continue the conversation from the “Montana Rut” thread that got way off topic. If you wanna catch up feel free to go read that first. (Ill try to keep this relatively short)

This conversation (debate) came after several members (myself included) posted pics of Muley bucks they harvested this past season, from easten MT. None of the bucks were yearlings, and all were laughed at (by somebody now in time out) and were told we were part of the problem of low deer numbers for shooting “young dinks”. Feel free to agree or disagree if mine is a “young dink” as I will post the pic again. For myself, I am not a true trophy hunter, but I do try to shoot a respectable representaion of what I am hunting, where I am hunting. To be honest, is anybody going to public land in Eastern MT to be a “trophy hunter”? I have never shot a forky or yearling buck in any western state in my life. And I usually hunt 2-3 western states a year for big game. No, I dont “need the meat”. I love to hunt, and I love to shoot things. Thats being brutally honest. I play by the rules of the state, and legally harvest what I think is “acceptable”.

And this isnt really about MT, as I hear this from residents of every western state complianing about NR killing all of the little bucks and destroying the herd. So my question is, “What IS an acceptable buck to keep the herd healthy?” Is it now expected that all hunters become trophy hunters to please those that are? Is it wrong to want to hunt for the pleasure of hunting and filling a tag with what makes you happy? Why blame the hunters playing by the rules set the states wildlife management plan? Lets hear it!

This is the smallest buck I have ever killed in MT, and the “young dink” I was called out for being “part of the problem”.

View attachment 509718

Shoot what's legal and makes you happy.

 

[WCB]

Up here, most big bear units are an every four years unit, meanin, if you shoot a bear, then you have to wait those years out before bei able to hunt again.

Would a similar approach for NR, every four years, and for residents every other year, for mule deer help? I really don’t have much at stake in this subject, but I couldn’t help but think that something beneficial would result. A fellow could still hunt flagtails.

Don't honestly think it would matter. Most guys is basically every other year or every 3rd year anyways before they draw. They would just kill a small buck then hunt other states for a couple years and come back. Thats my opinion anyways.

Now if it was already teaming with big mature trophy deer....MAYBE that would have some validity.

 

[Shō[t]gun]

Great ATV's & sidexside's, real-time mapping software, incredible optics, insanely precise ammo, and readily available ballistic data allows any dummy with a couple days off to go out and poke a hole in something. It used to be the dedicated few in the backcountry with horses and canvas tents but now there's orange just about everywhere.
You can't turn every unit into a low-draw trophy area to fix the numbers, but there has to be an in-between. It sucks throttling back opportunity that has become the norm, but I'd be totally fine with most general units being archery-only every other year and then have the rifle season year come in and mop up excess numbers for conservation purposes. That would still give everyone the ability to get out there every year if they want to, the deer will be less pressured during the archery years, there would be an older age class of animals due to lower harvest rate, and they would be a little dumber for the rifle seasons with less practice evading the crowds. I'm no expert but that seems better than the current situation.

 

[S.Clancy]

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.

I think 2 things. First, land managers should hold grazing leases to intensive management practices. Get the cattle, graze intesively then rest for a year. There are a number of ranches, some big (1000+ cattle) doing that in central MT and seeing really good results, especially in drought resilience. Second, we need to introduce fire back onto the prairie landscape. Prescribed burns would be a huge tool in improving habitat. A litany of research backs that up. Finally, private land organizations (think NRCS) need to make the above things palatable to private landowners. We need private buy in to make this all work.

 

[wind gypsy]

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.

Very well stated^

I don't blame guys for shooting young deer unless they are the ones demanding endless opportunity to piss pound the deer with a rut long rifle season every year. The buck in the OP fits the description of "dink" fine and trying to convince me otherwise would only be further evidence of how the Eastern MT mule deer resource is doing. That's not meant to belittle the OP, I'm not above an occasional dink.

 

[Diced]

Shoot what is legal and makes you happy. You're still an American. You paid for your opportunity. The gripe should be with the state not the hunter.

That being said i can't help but feel bad for the residents. I wish Montana didn't structure the season that way. But the rut hunting is what entices large numbers of nonresidents. Especially those who are newer.

If it were up to me I'd say end the NR season in early November and let the residents have at them during the rut. Or make the rut hunting controlled with a much more limited quota.


The attached picture is my buck from Montana this past November. A respectable 4x4 that I killed at 1pm chasing a doe. I could've been wrapped in Christmas lights and I doubt he would've cared. For the good of the deer, the general rut hunting needs to stop at least for nonresidents.

 

[SwiftShot]

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

Oh I am sorry I did not break down the buck doe population comment by age. Yes you are correct a bunch of spikes and forkes as the main supply of male dna will not be the best. However you could argue that if all the bucks where young spikes the more aggressive and larger physically would still be dominant.

 

[sndmn11]

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.

I haven't read past this quoted post above, forgive me if someone covered this.

Do you think those B tag holders would not come to help the A tag holder?

What I see in Colorado is lots of people coming when a NR resident draws a tag "to help out". With no exaggeration, I typically see two trucks and three extra people per NR mule deer license where we hunt every year.

 

[S.Clancy]

I haven't read past this quoted post above, forgive me if someone covered this.

Do you think those B tag holders would not come to help the A tag holder?

What I see in Colorado is lots of people coming when a NR resident draws a tag "to help out". With no exaggeration, I typically see two trucks and three extra people per NR mule deer license where we hunt every year.

We typically don't get a ton of them folks from the planet Utah....But seriously, I don't think so. Everyone in big groups I have spoken to has tags. Sometimes they all have A tags, in a lot of cases a couple have A tags, the rest all B tags, sometimes like 5+ (you can get up to 7 a piece, however, they are introducing legislature to limit that to 1-2 in the future). I have honestly never talked to a group where only 1 person has a tag and everybody else has nothing. Although, to be fair, that's likely because it is so easy to get these B tags in MT as a NR, which is kind of my point I am driving at, lets start limiting it.

 

[Scottf270]

I have hunted as a non resident in Montana off and on for nearly 40 years. The amount of deer overall and the number and quality of bucks is pitiful compared to just 10 years ago.

The FWP is absolutely to blame for piss poor management. Like most government agencies, their goal is to serve themselves and those who can benefit them. Cutting tags, especially non resident tags, affects their bottom line. Ain't gonna happen.

I will admit to shooting a few deer I now consider dinks. I simply didn't know better. To a young, inexperienced whitetail hunter those mule deer looked huge. Back then I was proud of them but now I look at them and wonder why. I killed a couple that look like some that have been posted, but I now know those deer were not truly mature deer.

It took me a bit to realize what a true trophy looked like. I'll just say this, when you see a big one, you'll know it. If you have to pick it apart and glass it for 5 minutes, it probably isn't a "big one". I know not every buck will be B&C but truly mature deer have body size and mass. I use mass to judge most bucks now. Even tooth aging isn't reliable sometimes due to diet.

Back then there was a lot of pressure to kill something. Now I could honestly care less. I hunt for me and I have nothing to prove to anyone. Part of aging and experience. Wish I had gotten there sooner.

To the newer Montana hunters, I get it. I'm sure you love coming out west. A kill means a lot and validates the time and expense. Just be aware the opportunity affords so much more.

I will honestly tell you I come home empty handed nearly 50% of the time. I'm fine with that. I will never again kill a buck I feel like I have to apologize for. I hope someday most of you will be that way as well.

The bottom line is there is too much pressure on a shrinking resource. Tag numbers, weather issues, habitat degradation and loss, are all to blame. I don't have all the answers but I know whats happening isn't working.

I think the FWP needs to do what's right for the herd. Reduce tags, reduce B tags, improve grazing practices, try to manage for a proper age structure etc. That's their job.

I'll end with this, I don't think ending the rut hunting or point restrictions are the answer. A 19" spindly 4x4 3 year old is not really a trophy while a 25" heavy mass 3x3 buck would be. Plus guys who make a mistake would leave animals to waste.

And if a guys gonna shoot a small buck during the rut, he will do it October also. Montana could give out 100,000 tags and if no one shot an immature buck, the deer would still be alive. A guy who spends a minimum of $2,000 to come hunt and kills a small "last day buck" doesn't care what the calendar says.

And to the newer guys, if you post on the "net" you are saying look at me. You give others the right to comment both positively and negatively. If you can't take that, don't post it.

 

[WCB]

That being said i can't help but feel bad for the residents. I wish Montana didn't structure the season that way. But the rut hunting is what entices large numbers of nonresidents. Especially those who are newer.

? Feel bad for the residents? Do you think that some how resident status makes them any different of a hunter than a NR? Absolutely not. A resident on here just stated they can get deer, antelope, elk , bear, small game and fishing licenses all together for around $100. I have family and friends that are MT residents that laugha t how cheap it is. They have opportunity beyond almost any other resident of any other state (besides AK).

If you are a MT resident and can't shoot a mature (or well scoring mule deer lets say mid 160s+) every year and actually put time into it....sorry but you aint trying hard enough. Of course if you expect to drive gravel and shoot the same caliber buck you are definitely someone to feel sorry for...but not because NRs are killing deer.

 

[Diced]

? Feel bad for the residents? Do you think that some how resident status makes them any different of a hunter than a NR? Absolutely not. A resident on here just stated they can get deer, antelope, elk , bear, small game and fishing licenses all together for around $100. I have family and friends that are MT residents that laugha t how cheap it is. They have opportunity beyond almost any other resident of any other state (besides AK).

If you are a MT resident and can't shoot a mature (or well scoring mule deer lets say mid 160s+) every year and actually put time into it....sorry but you aint trying hard enough. Of course if you expect to drive gravel and shoot the same caliber buck you are definitely someone to feel sorry for...but not because NRs are killing deer.

You're not wrong. I guess from the people I've talked to it just seems like the rut hunting has had a dramatic affect especially in SE Mt where it's very open country. Now were they just giving me a sales pitch because I'm a non resident? Possibly.

The way I look at it is, I want to keep getting tags in these states. So if there's something that pisses the residents off the no end then I think the regulations should change. I'll do fine not hunting the rut. But the way it's going with the deer numbers, I feel a major tag cut is inevitable.

 

[Deucebump]

Great and interesting conversations guys. There is definitely 2 trains of thoughts, 1-shoot what ya want if its legal, and 2- nobody should ever shoot a buck under 5 yrs old. And I think all agree this is in FWPs court at this point.

A couple things Ill comment on, I agree with not shooting does, or at least limiting to 1 doe for Res only. I agree the rut hunt definitely impacts the number of bucks taken each season.

And to be clear, as the OP of this thread, I am definitely not “apologizing” for shooting the buck I did. I was happy with it. I was just saying it was smaller than I was hoping to find on that trip, based on the previous year there and several other hunts in the same area. Im also well aware of what nice rack is, I have a mid 170s muley on my wall. Although Im still a little surprised the buck I posted is genuinely considered a dink by some. I welcome the education.

 

[Howdy Partner]

I think any man that publicly judges another man's buck is a they/them.

 

[easleyreckless]

I have been debating starting a different thread to address this but it fits in here so I'll start here and see if it warrants a new thread.

We had a huge problem in Arizona with a lot of NR coming to hunt our very gracious OTC archery hunt. Before this year there was no limit on tags, and the majority of the state was open from august 19th-Sept 8th and then again during the rut from December 9th-Jan 31st.

A lot of complaints later, the game and fish instituted harvest limits; that closed the unit until the following august, and limited NR tags which sold out in about a day once it opened for the coming year. They also instituted "mandatory" online harvest reporting. (No changes to tag numbers for rifle muzzleloader, etc, btw)

The majority of the units closed well before Jan 31st. A couple of of them in the very short August season. I live on the cross section of 5 units and all were closed in the first 20 days of December. The majority of the deer killed, on our local forums and FB groups, were spikes or possibly, unlikely, 2 year old deer. (on a record rain year with better growth than I've ever seen since living in this state.)

A lot of us want to institute a minimum point rule in order to extend our season and keep the units open actually during our rut. Most these bucks were killed just off the road so the assumption is that adding a point restriction would keep the units open far longer, maybe even until the end of the season. I also think if they're not going to limit the rifle tags the point rule should be across the board, not just for the OTC archery.

As it stands, I have heard they've stated that every unit that closed before Jan 31st would be going to a draw next year, as my favorite unit i've been hunting OTC archery the last 5 years went to last year. Which I'm not going to waste my 7 points on an archery tag in a unit that only has a 170" trophy potential.

Are the majority of the serious archery hunters being unreasonable wanting to conserve the young bucks, and our season, or is wanting a rule change reasonable in order to preserve the opportunity for all the hunters that enjoy our OTC season here?

 

[Deucebump]

I have been debating starting a different thread to address this but it fits in here so I'll start here and see if it warrants a new thread.

We had a huge problem in Arizona with a lot of NR coming to hunt our very gracious OTC archery hunt. Before this year there was no limit on tags, and the majority of the state was open from august 19th-Sept 8th and then again during the rut from December 9th-Jan 31st.

A lot of complaints later, the game and fish instituted harvest limits; that closed the unit until the following august, and limited NR tags which sold out in about a day once it opened for the coming year. They also instituted "mandatory" online harvest reporting. (No changes to tag numbers for rifle muzzleloader, etc, btw)

The majority of the units closed well before Jan 31st. A couple of of them in the very short August season. I live on the cross section of 5 units and all were closed in the first 20 days of December. The majority of the deer killed, on our local forums and FB groups, were spikes or possibly, unlikely, 2 year old deer. (on a record rain year with better growth than I've ever seen since living in this state.)

A lot of us want to institute a minimum point rule in order to extend our season and keep the units open actually during our rut. Most these bucks were killed just off the road so the assumption is that adding a point restriction would keep the units open far longer, maybe even until the end of the season. I also think if they're not going to limit the rifle tags the point rule should be across the board, not just for the OTC archery.

As it stands, I have heard they've stated that every unit that closed before Jan 31st would be going to a draw next year, as my favorite unit i've been hunting OTC archery the last 5 years went to last year. Which I'm not going to waste my 7 points on an archery tag in a unit that only has a 170" trophy potential.

Are the majority of the serious archery hunters being unreasonable wanting to conserve the young bucks, and our season, or is wanting a rule change reasonable in order to preserve the opportunity for all the hunters that enjoy our OTC season here?

My question would be what % of all archery tags sold are to the “majority of serious archery hunters”? If most all the deer you are seeing posted are not from these types, I would guess the majority of all tags sold are to “non trophy” hunters. Who Im guessing would say are happy with their opportunity as is. And meaning the minority want to limit the opportunity of the majority to benefit their trophy potential. Just my observation.

 

[MTWop]

? Feel bad for the residents? Do you think that some how resident status makes them any different of a hunter than a NR? Absolutely not. A resident on here just stated they can get deer, antelope, elk , bear, small game and fishing licenses all together for around $100. I have family and friends that are MT residents that laugha t how cheap it is. They have opportunity beyond almost any other resident of any other state (besides AK).

If you are a MT resident and can't shoot a mature (or well scoring mule deer lets say mid 160s+) every year and actually put time into it....sorry but you aint trying hard enough. Of course if you expect to drive gravel and shoot the same caliber buck you are definitely someone to feel sorry for...but not because NRs are killing deer.

I was born in Montana and have been hunting here since I could walk. I’ve killed many bucks in the 160 range and better, but unless you have access to private land your comment about residents shooting 160 plus bucks every year is asinine. I often hunt in Alaska. I don’t have any issue if Alaskans can and do regulate game and fisheries strongly in favor of residents there. We are all competing for the same resource. It doesn’t matter how much more the non-residents pay if the overall number of hunters is resulting in a lesser experience for the residents that live here year round. I have little empathy towards the non-residents that come “out west” one week a year and act entitled because of what they pay.

 

[hobbes]

I was born in Montana and have been hunting here since I could walk. I’ve killed many bucks in the 160 range and better, but unless you have access to private land your comment about residents shooting 160 plus bucks every year is asinine. I often hunt in Alaska. I don’t have any issue if Alaskans can and do regulate game and fisheries strongly in favor of residents there. We are all competing for the same resource. It doesn’t matter how much more the non-residents pay if the overall number of hunters is resulting in a lesser experience for the residents that live here year round. I have little empathy towards the non-residents that come “out west” one week a year and act entitled because of what they pay.

I'm right there with you. Every time I feel even a little bit bad about what it costs a nonresident to hunt here, l make the mistake of reading and discussing MT mule deer or elk licenses online. It's not very long and a few entitled folks push me to being all in on more limitations on nonresident hunters.

I really don't care what buck anyone chooses to shoot. And I agree that residents are as likely to shoot a Forky as a nonresident. I've tried multiple times to side with not cutting nonresident opportunity and I recall what it was like to travel from the Midwest to the West every couple of years back 20ish years ago. I've also met some really good guys that were here hunting as nonresidents and think there are a lot of good folks on here that hunt MT that I'd be happy to hunt with. However, the smart alek entitled position that some folks insist on taking has me ready to recommend cutting nonresident opportunity year after year whether they listen or not.

I'm not discussing anymore. It's a wasted effort.

 

[S.Clancy]

I'm right there with you. Every time I feel even a little bit bad about what it costs a nonresident to hunt here, l make the mistake of reading and discussing MT mule deer or elk licenses online. It's not very long and a few entitled folks push me to being all in on more limitations on nonresident hunters.

I really don't care what buck anyone chooses to shoot. And I agree that residents are as likely to shoot a Forky as a nonresident. I've tried multiple times to side with not cutting nonresident opportunity and I recall what it was like to travel from the Midwest to the West every couple of years back 20ish years ago. I've also met some really good guys that were here hunting as nonresidents and think there are a lot of good folks on here that hunt MT that I'd be happy to hunt with. However, the smart alek entitled position that some folks insist on taking has me ready to recommend cutting nonresident opportunity year after year whether they listen or not.

I'm not discussing anymore. It's a wasted effort.

I agree.

If we are going to cut opportunity the first opportunity we should cut is NR opportunity, IMO. I think it makes sense to start at NR B tag (and B tag in general). We move forward from there to redistricting (more districts in R7), changing seasons (maybe a 4 week archery season, and 4 week rifle season, with 2 weeks in between, that would end the season ~Nov 12 this year) and then looking at special draw, limiting R tags, etc.

I hunt out of state so I feel the NR perspective, but honestly a lot of NR have a huge entitlement issue when it comes to other state residents game animals.