Extreme hunting pressure in region 7.

There has been discussion on other threads about studies showing that a lack of age range in bucks results in later successful breeding of does, which results in lower body weight for fawns going into winter and lower fawn survival. I know the Montana legislature has a bit of a love-hate relationship with science, but I don't think the book is closed on this either way and would love to see some interest in studying the impacts of a mule deer herd dominated by 1.5 year old bucks.

BLM biologists agree. The idea misses fwp though
 
There has been discussion on other threads about studies showing that a lack of age range in bucks results in later successful breeding of does, which results in lower body weight for fawns going into winter and lower fawn survival. I know the Montana legislature has a bit of a love-hate relationship with science, but I don't think the book is closed on this either way and would love to see some interest in studying the impacts of a mule deer herd dominated by 1.5 year old bucks.

The working group looked at this and the data is inconclusive regarding deer. It seems like it plays out that way more for whitetail than MD, but the issue is more documented among elk, per the studies I've seen. Happy to look at anything that points elsewhere.
 
The working group looked at this and the data is inconclusive regarding deer. It seems like it plays out that way more for whitetail than MD, but the issue is more documented among elk, per the studies I've seen. Happy to look at anything that points elsewhere.
Right. So acknowledge it’s inconclusive and more studies are needed. Good science always has an open mind and cognizant of and open to the unknown.
 
The working group looked at this and the data is inconclusive regarding deer. It seems like it plays out that way more for whitetail than MD, but the issue is more documented among elk, per the studies I've seen. Happy to look at anything that points elsewhere.
Obviously the web of factors influencing declining mule deer herds is large and complicated; it will be interesting to see if the more managed buck harvest in the Region 4 units winds up leading to improved recruitment/fawn survival. But even if we see those improvements, we all know that correlation does not equal causation and anybody wanting to make an argument for opportunity will still have plenty of ammo to say that the managed buck harvest wasn't the reason. AP not allowing any mule deer hunting on any of their properties in those units will probably have an impact as well. I'm just saying, I'd prefer the agency/commission would use "inconclusive" as a reason to seek more data, not a reason to ignore the possibility at all.
 
Right. So acknowledge it’s inconclusive and more studies are needed. Good science always has an open mind and cognizant of and open to the unknown.

No disagreement. As I mentioned, if anyone has studies on MD and this issue, I'm all ears.

Obviously the web of factors influencing declining mule deer herds is large and complicated; it will be interesting to see if the more managed buck harvest in the Region 4 units winds up leading to improved recruitment/fawn survival. But even if we see those improvements, we all know that correlation does not equal causation and anybody wanting to make an argument for opportunity will still have plenty of ammo to say that the managed buck harvest wasn't the reason. AP not allowing any mule deer hunting on any of their properties in those units will probably have an impact as well. I'm just saying, I'd prefer the agency/commission would use "inconclusive" as a reason to seek more data, not a reason to ignore the possibility at all.

I don't think you can look at just the limiting of buck harvest to see what that does. It's more akin to the reduction in hunting pressure since you're limiting the number of people on the landscape first and foremost. LE disctricts are specifically designed to limit harvest through the limiting of human pressure on the resource.

The biological reality for deer is that the species remains viable and with strong numbers regardless of the age of the male animal breeding. The idea of age-structure is not a biological decision for herd conservation purposes, but for the human vanity aspect of it.
 
The idea of age-structure is not a biological decision for herd conservation purposes, but for the human vanity aspect of it.

I think it might be deeper than that. What sort of behaviors/information would an alien species miss out on regarding human beings if essentially every male homo sapien died at the age of 17? That's kind of where we are at with mule deer.

That said, I agree with most of where you are coming from. Instead of focusing on the age structure of a population of deer, I think we can make real gains by focusing on the quality of hunter-experience of mule deer hunters, of which age-structure is only a small subset but correlates. This was one of the MD Working Group recommendations if I recall correctly.
 
I think it might be deeper than that. What sort of behaviors/information would an alien species miss out on regarding human beings if essentially every male homo sapien died at the age of 17? That's kind of where we are at with mule deer.

It would be a world full of Beavis & Buththead art. I'm ok with that.

If the supposition is that older age bucks impart knowledge to younger deer, then wouldn't the older does serve that aspect? Does teach migration, etc. Bucks may have some input on timing (certainly true for elk) in parturition if they breed early. Timing, more than anything, is what you gain for maintaining older age structures (hypothetically). But then it comes back to habitat as well. You can have as many deer as possible, but if there's nothing to eat then they die from starvation.
 
I think license trends might paint a picture of whats going on. Just dont see 23/24 though.

Deer and elk have had a growth in the gap in sales to both R and NR. If someone buys a deer tag and not an elk tag i feel theyre more likely to be hunting east of bozeman than west.
 

Attachments

  • 20241021_092658.jpg
    20241021_092658.jpg
    161.6 KB · Views: 41
It would be a world full of Beavis & Buththead art. I'm ok with that.

If the supposition is that older age bucks impart knowledge to younger deer, then wouldn't the older does serve that aspect? Does teach migration, etc. Bucks may have some input on timing (certainly true for elk) in parturition if they breed early. Timing, more than anything, is what you gain for maintaining older age structures (hypothetically). But then it comes back to habitat as well. You can have as many deer as possible, but if there's nothing to eat then they die from starvation.
You can have low buck to doe ratios and a few older age class. That’s what you get when you don’t hunt peak rut but you know all this
 
From initially talking about hunting pressure to the economics and herd density, it is interesting to see topics morph into something else.

I have lived my entire life of 70 years in Montana and never missed a hunting season since I was 12. I never saw an elk as a kid and deer were plentiful, but not unlimited. Hunting both public and private land, I spent the best days of the year in September, October and November hunting big game and birds.

My father guided hunting in the 1940's, I still have his license and regulations from 1947.

I have seen lots of change, not all for the better, but not all bad either.

The relationship to hunting pressure and access has everything to do with "Social Media." The awareness of what Montana has and had to offer is greatley influenced by technology and sites such as this and others that contribute to that paradigm. Podcasts, advertising, videos and other forms of modern technology are the reason we see the impact of more hunters, at least in Montana.

Montana still provides the best hunting opportunities a person could hope for and I'm not leaving. Adapting to the change is what will add to your success, more than bitching about what is happening...



thumbnail_IMG_6832.jpgthumbnail_IMG_6833.jpg
 
You can have low buck to doe ratios and a few older age class. That’s what you get when you don’t hunt peak rut but you know all this

regulation changes around season structure will have more impact on animal distribution, age structure and hunter success.

That's pretty much the entirety of the season setting proposal the group pulled together this year.
 
I’ll be pithy because I’m on the phone and don’t want to derail the thread, but I’d argue that the foundational collection of behaviors, values, and beliefs( the very definition of culture ) that people live here for - move here for, visit here for - is dominated by the rural. Even as Montana’s towns explode in population, those folks doing the exploding are dreaming largely of experiences found in the rural. They travel to the rural on weekends. They zip to the rural after work. They hope to retire to the rural. They want to raise their kids in a place with rural values… I’m of course oversimplifying a delineation between the urban and the rural, but I’ve lived here for 40 years and watched it change and I see it and I feel it and it exists and is similar to the delineation between the old and the new.



Of course there’s culture and a lot of good and a lot of community in the urban areas of Montana, but I think if you surveyed the ideals of those who visit here, live here, and have recently moved here, the experiences the majority of those folks did so and do so for - occur beyond the valley they bought their house in. The scaffolding that holds up the chief reasons they love this place exist in landscapes occupied by a small minority of human beings who disproportionately feel the impacts of the desires of those who don’t live there.

The effects of urban Montana on rural Montana are really a microcosm of the effects of the rest of America to Montana at large right now.
Change is inevitable and people fight it the whole way. Even culture changes. Opportunity and dirt-cheap tags are a cultural norm. A change in that would help.

I don't think poaching is the culture in Montana, but it happens. We need to stop directing anger at other groups and start pointing out the real problem - people who think the rules don't apply to them.

Non-Residents? No. Out-of-area residents? highly doubt it. Transplants? maybe. Asshole? Yes!


This was a local.
 
This can be an inconvenient reality for a lot of us to admit, but you’re absolutely right.

As we have seen throughout our history- when a population becomes accustomed to relying upon “the outside” for financial support, it is very difficult to wean them off of it. It would appear that Montana residents are no different, nor if it fair to expect them to be.
Ben makes a great point. I’ve never had a problem with individuals shooting immature deer and I’d guess the majority here don’t either.

That being said, I think there are ways(like the proposals from the mule deer group in regards to season structure and licensing) to allow ample opportunity for guys willing to put forth some effort who don’t care about shooting a trophy to kill a buck every year while making things more challenging so a few more bucks can get a bit older.
 
Obviously the web of factors influencing declining mule deer herds is large and complicated; it will be interesting to see if the more managed buck harvest in the Region 4 units winds up leading to improved recruitment/fawn survival. But even if we see those improvements, we all know that correlation does not equal causation and anybody wanting to make an argument for opportunity will still have plenty of ammo to say that the managed buck harvest wasn't the reason. AP not allowing any mule deer hunting on any of their properties in those units will probably have an impact as well. I'm just saying, I'd prefer the agency/commission would use "inconclusive" as a reason to seek more data, not a reason to ignore the possibility at all.
Lower buck harvest/increased buck survival will result in lower fawn recruitment ratios based on math alone. More adults observed will lower the fawn ratio assuming the same number of fawns survives the winter regardless.

What remains to be seen is if more bucks throughout the winter results in fewer fawns due to competition if resources are limited enough.

Unless the buck:doe ratios are below the threshold ratio of like 8 or 9 per hundred, which I don’t think is the case in any R4 HD, there won’t be a significant positive impact on fawn production and recruitment from a few more bucks surviving the hunting season alone. LE will likely result in more bucks though. We’ll have to wait and see what else comes out of those changes.
 
The working group looked at this and the data is inconclusive regarding deer. It seems like it plays out that way more for whitetail than MD, but the issue is more documented among elk, per the studies I've seen. Happy to look at anything that points elsewhere.
Right. So acknowledge it’s inconclusive and more studies are needed. Good science always has an open mind and cognizant of and open to the unknown.
I’ve only read one of the two white papers about this on elk and imo it seemed dodgy at best. I haven’t seen it on white-tailed deer though it’s been inferred/referenced, and nothing on mule deer.

I remember reading that article and also struggling to find the connection specifically to rut hunting resulting in too many young bucks breeding, compared to other season types. If you want more older bucks the best bet is LE and LE only I think. Meanwhile, other states have an array of more restrictive season types but from a population dynamics (100,000’ view) standpoint, they still lost huge percentages of their deer a couple winters ago. Buck harvest restrictions don’t hold a candle to overall population dynamics that Mother Nature does.

In a wild population of mule deer, given buck survival across the age classes I don’t even know how you’d begin to approach relating buck age to timing of breeding to eventual fawn recruitment to ultimately population dynamics. Thinking mainly about overall effort and then what effect you may possibly be able to glean from that one variable compared to the effects of everything else going on in nature. Interesting for sure.
 
The season you had last year was the best you're going to have. Been saying that about MT for the last 20 years. :D

Get 'em while their hot, because there won't be any left to get?

I'm strongly considering going down for a week, and picking up a native elk/deer license and a couple doe tags and filling the freezer. Might as well join the club.
 
Back
Top