Finally..no mt. Doe hunting

[wapiti11]

There is an article in the Billings Gazette This morning (Sat. 12/7/13). Titled "No Does; State considering no antlerless "B" hunting.

A step in the right direction, for sure. But, years to late....maybe FWP is waking up....

 

[Poke 'Em]

There is an article in the Billings Gazette This morning (Sat. 12/7/13). Titled "No Does; State considering no antlerless "B" hunting.

A step in the right direction, for sure. But, years to late....maybe FWP is waking up....

You think doe hunting is a problem? In places where EHD has taken effect, sure, but many places still have LOTS of deer with doe:buck ratios that are out of whack.

Edit: I read the article and they're not dropping Deer B licenses in Region 7 (where I live). We still have plenty of whitetail does out here.

 

[shoots-straight]

There is an article in the Billings Gazette This morning (Sat. 12/7/13). Titled "No Does; State considering no antlerless "B" hunting.

A step in the right direction, for sure. But, years to late....maybe FWP is waking up....

Some are starting to realize that you can't sell opportunity for what you don't have.

 

[----]

One of my favorite spots went from OTC doe tags to zero doe tags about 3-4 years ago. One of the smartest decisions I've ever deer FWP make, and the results have been obvious.

 

[RobG]

a link to the article: http://billingsgazette.com/lifestyl...cle_23096beb-f1d7-5ccb-9477-31c1d9974315.html

 

[----]

Huh, it looks like they're talking even a lot of the riverbottom whitetail doe tags. A lot of those spots really need the heavy doe harvest, otherwise it seems like we're asking for overpopulation problems. I don't think eliminating doe tags region wide is a good idea...

 

[schmalts]

They need to do something. Hunters for the most part are not smart enough to know how to help themselves and usually the ones bitching about the lack of deer have a pocket full of doe tags.

 

[wapiti11]

Like Randy11 said, a few years of no doe harvest the results will be obvious. Very smart decision, for sure. CMR allows no antlerless harvest, which I like, and has been good to me....although numbers are down there also...coyote problem.......

 

[300stw]

realistically are the areas in question at carry capacity of the winter range,,,,

i have traveled all over region 6 the last 7 years,,,, i thought last year was bad for deer numbers, this year pitiful, but,,,

i spent time on the phones with biologists from glasgow, pletywood, also the warden,,,, they assured me there was a tremendous population of deer, weather is making it hard for hunters to find them,,

when questioned about deer counts the last few years and where they fly there transects, they couldnt come up with numbers,,,

i work outside everyday covering large amounts of realestate, so does the ups guys and the post office guys, when people are in the same areas year after year same seasons , time of day ect,

they should have some insight that, THERE ARE NO WHERE NEAR THE DEER AROUND THERE WERE 3 YEARS AGO ,,

but lets continue to sell couple doe tags to everyone let people shoot does on there a tags ,, i am sure that will fix the problem,,,

why is so many biological decisions made as a knee jerk reaction to a problem instead of a proactive decision ahead of time,,,,

does fish and game run on the program of we need to sell every tag we can so we have money for????

biologists will say we cant stock pile game animals, ect. so might as well harvest them,, at some point in time there is not the resource available for everyone to harvest deer, when the game animals are at low numbers and the state goes to a lot more districts of drawing for tags, we wont need near as many fish and game personnel to monitior the animals that dont exist,,,,,,,

 

[wapiti11]

Very well said, 300stw. I also spend a lot of time in reg. 6 and 7. Deer numbers are really bad. For a biologist to tell you there is a "tremendous population of deer" that makes me sick.......my family has also had two 652 tags in the last three years. An area that is a "special permit". Total mismanaged area for a "special permit", a special permit area can't even be managed let alone general areas.

 

[MTpubliclander]

I think its a great idea for the most part. The muley doe tags could be eliminated for 3 years and I think we would still be good, maybe don't cut all the wt tags though.

 

[BuzzH]

I think its a good move to eliminate most mule deer doe hunting in Montana.

The problem with the MTFWP is that its usually either an all or nothing approach, and its been that way for a long time.

The sins of the past are starting to catch up, region wide OTC doe permits for both mule deer and whitetail have always been a complete joke.

Instead of just allowing hunters to hunt 1/3 of the state on region wide tags, deer should be managed at least at a herd level, if not managed unit specific. The trouble with region wide tags is that you hit some deer herds (mostly accessible public land deer) really hard, while almost non-existant harvest takes place in areas with lots of leasing and/or private lands. Its a joke.

If a certain unit has a high population, issue unit specific tags and limit the numbers issued, not region wide tags. Also, another thing that MTFWP should look at is allowing either sex deer hunting on private land, antlered buck only on public. Same with B tags, if certain landowners have an over-population of deer, make private land only B-tags. If the landowners dont allow access, tough chit then, you deal with the deer over-population.

I think whats happened is just too many antlerless deer being killed on public land and probably not enough on some of the private.

I feel that managing by unit instead of region and adjusting doe permits in each unit would have been a wayyyy better approach than the region wide bullchit.

In true fashion, now the MTFWP will head into several years of the "nothing" approach since the "all" approach finally caught them.

Pro-active, unit/herd specific management is where its at.

 

[earlybird]

I was happy to see this article. In eastern MT no shooting does needs to be for WT and muley the deer numbers are very poor. I would also be in favor of some sort of point restriction on the bucks as well. Such as it has to be at least 3 or 4 on both sides to be legal to harvest. Maybe with the exception of a youth or handicap hunter.

 

[Shotgun1]

I also believe this is a significant step in the right direction. It looks like they are also reducing 291 special buck tags from 100 to 50. Having hunted this area 2X it is really not a quality area and could use some help in bouncing back. Saw several 2pt and 3pt but nothing much bigger.

 

[pointingdogsrule]

Some are starting to realize that you can't sell opportunity for what you don't have.

I would hope the Iowa DNR soon realizes this fact (for some areas).

good luck to all
the dog

 

[Stubaby]

+1 to what Buzz and Schmaltz said.

 

[naturebob]

Several areas need it , or should I say most. the place I hunted the last 2 years in Montana lacked #'s for sure. Here in N Dakota there's areas they need it too. In AZ. where I am from they cut out does decades ago. When #'s boom again ,if they ever do start doe hunts again. Just an old farts opinion........BOB!

 

[antlerradar]

I agree with Buzz. Far too many of the B tags are filled on to the public and not nearly enough in hay fields were doe numbers need to be thinned. I don't look for landowners to start allowing more doe hunters. There is very little in it for them. On land that is leased does attract a lot of rutting bucks out of the back country to the fields were they are easy to hunt. If you lease your property you benefit from having lots of does. For those that don't lease there is very little benefit to many crops from shooting lots of does.

Antlerradar