Yeah it’s like 5:1 the resident guys I know that, when they don’t draw a bull archery or rifle permit, would rather go hunt cows and spikes and deer in the elk draw units than go to western MT to hunt elk anymore
Extreme hunting pressure in region 7.
- Thread starter DFS
- Start date
8andcounting
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2013
- Messages
- 3,400
I think this would change if they couldn’t hunt deer east .
8andcounting
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2013
- Messages
- 3,400
The last couple years I’ve went to SW MT elk hunting and the # of rigs headed west when I leave and head east is astonishing tons of R rigs with trailers full of mule deer .
antlerradar
Well-known member
Back to DFS's original topic. Hunting pressure in seven.
I think that there might have been even more people hunting buck deer in the early nineties on the Custer. This is why pressure is much worse today.
Back in the 90's there was good numbers of deer on public land, not so much now. I have spent quite a bit of time this fall looking for dead cows on the forest this fall. Not just near the roads, but back in the canyons that few ever get into. The number of deer I have seen is pathetic, there is not that much deer sign. There were times in the ninety's that I would spot 50 deer from one glassing spot in those canyons. Back then hunters filled there tags quickly and went home. Now hunters have to work much harder to fill and hunt longer to fill tags. Adds up to more pressure.
Back in the 90's it was fill your A tag and you were hunting birds the rest of he fall. Now there are doe tags, Bull elk tags, cow elk tags, and bear and lion hunting. It all adds up to more pressure. (for at least this year and next year doe tags will not be valid on public land. I think this is going to be a step in the right direction, maybe a small step and there is going to be pressure to change back when the two years is up.)
Back in the 90's almost no one was archery hunting, now with archery elk, archery season is almost as busy as rifle season.
The landscape has changed. With the fires this fall nearly 100 percent of the Custer has burned since 2000. Back in the 90's there was timber everywhere and it hid both the deer and the hunters. Now you notice the hunters much more and the deer have no where to hide.
I think that there might have been even more people hunting buck deer in the early nineties on the Custer. This is why pressure is much worse today.
Back in the 90's there was good numbers of deer on public land, not so much now. I have spent quite a bit of time this fall looking for dead cows on the forest this fall. Not just near the roads, but back in the canyons that few ever get into. The number of deer I have seen is pathetic, there is not that much deer sign. There were times in the ninety's that I would spot 50 deer from one glassing spot in those canyons. Back then hunters filled there tags quickly and went home. Now hunters have to work much harder to fill and hunt longer to fill tags. Adds up to more pressure.
Back in the 90's it was fill your A tag and you were hunting birds the rest of he fall. Now there are doe tags, Bull elk tags, cow elk tags, and bear and lion hunting. It all adds up to more pressure. (for at least this year and next year doe tags will not be valid on public land. I think this is going to be a step in the right direction, maybe a small step and there is going to be pressure to change back when the two years is up.)
Back in the 90's almost no one was archery hunting, now with archery elk, archery season is almost as busy as rifle season.
The landscape has changed. With the fires this fall nearly 100 percent of the Custer has burned since 2000. Back in the 90's there was timber everywhere and it hid both the deer and the hunters. Now you notice the hunters much more and the deer have no where to hide.
Last edited:
Don't go to r7, got it. Sounds like all the stakeholders and their shifting wants, needs, and outlooks are too misaligned for any immediate change. Resident hunters, resident hunters based on locality, ranchers, farmers, NR, fwp, and the MD population itself. Did I miss any? I suppose the biggest shift could occur if there was a real meaningful study done on the population dynamics of the deer AND fwp made meaningful change based on the results of said study. Or am I totally missing the mark here? I'll give the recent podcasts a listen.
