Montana 2025 Legislative Session

[antlerradar]

I'm still not convinced you can shoot your way out of cwd.

100%. The more game managers try to shoot our way out of CWD, the more restrictive private landowners will become.

 

[ismith]

Not going to “thoughts and prayers” our way out of CWD either.

 

[antlerradar]

Not going to “thoughts and prayers” our way out of CWD either.

This is true, CWD is a real life Kobayachi Maru. At some point we as hunters and game managers are going to have to come to grips with this. I am of the opinion that we are not at that point yet.

 

[Hunting Wife]

I'm still not convinced you can shoot your way out of cwd.

This is completely logical when you think about it. I suspect that once prevalence has reached some percentage, the prion load in the environment becomes the driver of infection rate, not animal to animal transmission. Once you’re there, killing animals is completely moot.

I have no data, but I feel like we’re way past that stage in many places.

In reality hunters do not select for age, they select for antler size. The bucks with top end antler potential are selected at age two or three and the bucks with poor potential are living to an older age because hunters are passing them up and taking a younger buck with better antlers. In the last twenty years I have only seen two top end bucks that lived to old age, both of them likely spent most of hunting season on land private land with zero hunters. On the other end of the scale I have seen many older bucks with poor antlers. Just this spring I found the deadhead of one of those bucks just off of heavily hunted public land. That buck was likely passed on by hunters many times. By allowing hunters to be selective we could be just reducing the age of the better bucks and increasing the age of the poorer bucks on public land.

Respectfully, I’m confused by this. You describe here perfectly what happens when people select animals based on antler size. Because hunters are not good at assessing age. This is exactly the outcome that has been repeatedly documented when antler point restrictions are implemented. Yet you go on to advocate for antler point restrictions if I’m not mistaken? I feel like something went over my head?

 

[cgasner1]

This is completely logical when you think about it. I suspect that once prevalence has reached some percentage, the prion load in the environment becomes the driver of infection rate, not animal to animal transmission. Once you’re there, killing animals is completely moot.

I have no data, but I feel like we’re way past that stage in many places.



Respectfully, I’m confused by this. You describe here perfectly what happens when people select animals based on antler size. Because hunters are not good at assessing age. This is exactly the outcome that has been repeatedly documented when antler point restrictions are implemented. Yet you go on to advocate for antler point restrictions if I’m not mistaken? I feel like something went over my head?

Think the point was to try and set the restrictions so your 1.5 year old bucks would live and people could kill anything else.

 

[WanderWoman]

I am not convinced that hunting the rut is the best way to deal with CWD. I understand that many are convinced that reducing the number of older bucks is the best way to slow the spread of CWD. Arguing agents that is above my pay grade. I am just not convinced that hunting the rut is the best way to reduce the number of older bucks. This is why.
The theory is that hunting the rut will allow hunters to be more selective and the hunters will select older bucks. In reality hunters do not select for age, they select for antler size. The bucks with top end antler potential are selected at age two or three and the bucks with poor potential are living to an older age because hunters are passing them up and taking a younger buck with better antlers. In the last twenty years I have only seen two top end bucks that lived to old age, both of them likely spent most of hunting season on land private land with zero hunters. On the other end of the scale I have seen many older bucks with poor antlers. Just this spring I found the deadhead of one of those bucks just off of heavily hunted public land. That buck was likely passed on by hunters many times. By allowing hunters to be selective we could be just reducing the age of the better bucks and increasing the age of the poorer bucks on public land. On most private land the better bucks will sill be shot at a younger age and the poor bucks will die of natural causes.
This brings me to the second reason why hunting the rut many not be the best time to deal with CWD. Access to the bucks. The number one issue when deciding on a CWD plan is access. The best CWD plan for taking out the older bucks is the one where the orange army has the best access possible. Access trumps everything else. Nearly fifty years ago when I first started hunting the current season was well timed. Back then when the bucks headed to the foothills and river bottoms to be with the does during November, access was usually a "how is it going" and a hand shake. Now that private land is owned by billionaires or leased for hunting. The orange army is not getting access to that private land back. Today the Orange army will have better access to bucks during October than in November.
Antler point restrictions that protect yearling bucks will have the most impact on reducing the number of older bucks. Three point or more combined with a any buck with a 15 inch spread would put 90% of yearling bucks off limits and nearly all two year old bucks on the hit list. The problem with the current approach is that we are relying on trophy hunters to reduce the number of older bucks. There is just not that many dead older bucks to be gained with trophy hunters. Trophy hunters are going to hold out for a buck with antlers the size that they want regardless of the season timing. If they are unable to find that buck, they don't fill the tag or maybe fill the tag on a small buck the last day if they still have freezer space. Antler point restrictions will on the other hand will force all the hunters that are willing to shoot a yearling forky to hold out for an older buck and these hunters will be happy to shoot older bucks that do not have big antlers. Antler point restrictions are the way to go if you want to reduce the number of older bucks.

Everything I’ve seen shows CWD prevalence higher in older mule deer bucks than younger mule deer bucks, wtd bucks, mule deer does, wtd does, elk, fawns, etc. I can’t remember the exact order but older mule deer bucks are at the top of the list. That tells me the best way to curtail CWD prevalence is to kill older mule deer bucks. A lot of folks here criticize biologists and FWP for not following the science: well, here’s one thing they are doing (granted, some purposeful some not) that kinda follows the science.

As to your other points I think you make a ton of excellent ones. The main point of my post was that right now, rut hunting, which is currently a widely accepted tool/opportunity (based on hunter preference surveys) is what biologists with CWD are maintaining to help manage that. If bucks in general are easier to kill when rutting, so are older bucks. But more to the point, the legislature shouldn’t codify a law to take that tool away, or leave that tool in for that matter. They should just keep their paws off it.

Back when CWD was first getting started, a FWP biologist told me, " we have to do something". I agree. The problem is now that CWD is here and spreading, if the solution is to continue with essentially the same regulations that have been in place since the 70's we are actualy doing nothing.

Up in Conrad that biologist (granted he wanted to make a permit area general five-weeks in response to CWD) now uses a hybrid season. It seems to be doing ok and also has some public support. There are other things FWP (and sportsmen/landowners/outfitters) can try, but that gets really hamstrung when seasons are legislated.

 

[WanderWoman]

This is completely logical when you think about it. I suspect that once prevalence has reached some percentage, the prion load in the environment becomes the driver of infection rate, not animal to animal transmission. Once you’re there, killing animals is completely moot.

I have no data, but I feel like we’re way past that stage in many places.

This is where I need to be educated. There would be a point where we’d be past this in areas with high prevalence, but all the more reason to try and maintain low prevalence rates (~5%) where it hasn’t yet skyrocketed.

 

[Mountain Man]

This thread:

1. Start an unrelated topic.
2. People only want to talk about mule deer in Montana.
3. Debate CWD.

Aren’t there numerous other threads covering points 2 and 3? Why are we delving into them yet again on this thread?

 

[WanderWoman]

This thread:

1. Start an unrelated topic.
2. People only want to talk about mule deer in Montana.
3. Debate CWD.

Aren’t there numerous other threads covering points 2 and 3? Why are we delving into them yet again on this thread?

There’s a bill to legislate mule deer hunting in the rut. I brought up CWD as an example of why the legislature should not be legislating hunting seasons.

 

[SAJ-99]

There’s a bill to legislate mule deer hunting in the rut. I brought up CWD as an example of why the legislature should not be legislating hunting seasons.

I would bet there are a significant number of legislators that think deer will "eventually build immunity". It's wishful thinking that seems pretty common. Having talked to a few legislators and as a group I can say explaining to them what a prion, and is not, is a tough ask for anyone. But I will also say I have never met a legislator that didn't think they had a better solution to any problem.

Good luck to all of those willing to use email to let politicians know how they feel. The season of disappointment starts next week.

 

[Eric Albus]

Okay. So if that’s the case, would MOGA be willing to write a letter of support to the commission and the land board on behalf of the Stafford ferry CE?

That is not what MOGA does. The organization is there to benefit members and advocate for the industry.

 

[Eric Albus]

100%. The more game managers try to shoot our way out of CWD, the more restrictive private landowners will become.

Agreed they will try to save the last deer whereas the state will try to kill the last one before CWD or winter has a chance

 

[Eric Albus]

I would bet there are a significant number of legislators that think deer will "eventually build immunity". It's wishful thinking that seems pretty common. Having talked to a few legislators and as a group I can say explaining to them what a prion, and is not, is a tough ask for anyone. But I will also say I have never met a legislator that didn't think they had a better solution to any problem.

Good luck to all of those willing to use email to let politicians know how they feel. The season of disappointment starts next week.

CWD is here the prion is going no place. The hope is we will see natural immunity occur. If it does not the fate of cervids is sealed. If there is a golden deer, either in the wild or captive, it may provide the key

One thing I can guarantee you 100% of the deer that are shot have no chance of building immunity
Captive herds, in some instances are beginning to show resistance

 

[SAJ-99]

CWD is here the prion is going no place. The hope is we will see natural immunity occur. If it does not the fate of cervids is sealed. If there is a golden deer, either in the wild or captive, it may provide the key

One thing I can guarantee you 100% of the deer that are shot have no chance of building immunity
Captive herds, in some instances are beginning to show resistance

I believe they call that a "concept of a plan". Good luck.

 

[sapperJ24]

The commission acts
On biologists request for permit numbers issued.

Case in point: area 652, biologist requested 400 buck tags for this tiny area, commission granted only 200. There are not 200 deer in 652, let alone 200 buck deer.

I asked commission “how can you do this”. Answer, “ Commission is forced to go with best science”, means trend area count, performed by the biologist. Some of you still want to use FWP “science/biology”?

Switching up to black bears, here's a summary of Commissioner Tabor's sentiment. Quoting from the linked article, "During the commission meeting this past February, Tabor criticized biologists for speaking up, saying they shouldn't argue against the proposals made by FWP leadership." To answer your question, yes I prefer we manage based on information from FWP biologists, and not from commissioners.

More concerning is the substance of the article.

"Using a no-notice amendment, the Fish, Wildlife & Parks commission voted to eliminate quotas that biologists wanted to keep black bear populations from declining. On Dec. 19, the FWP commission voted to do away with a season-ending quota for female black bears in Region 1 in northwest Montana. During the commission meeting, Region 2 commissioner Jeff Burrows proposed an amendment to rescind the quota that would stop the spring black bear hunt in any district if 37% of bears killed were female. Because the amendment was proposed during the meeting, the public was not informed in time to comment, unless they were already at the meeting."

The whole article is worth a read, regardless of your opinion of the Current.

FWP commission slashes rules meant to protect black bears

Using a no-notice amendment, the Fish, Wildlife & Parks commission voted to eliminate quotas that biologists wanted to keep black bear populations from declining.

missoulacurrent.com

 

[Eric Albus]

I.F.U.(I fail to understand)


Why does everyone criticize management until it fits their mantra to not??? Let bio’s “manage”. Then next post muther-f them cause they can’t/won’t/don’t…. Be consistent (not saying you aren’t)


I attempt to consistently criticize their lack of management in general season areas…and limited entry areas in R6(to many either sex elk permits and to many buck tags 652). Antelope doing great job….bighorn sheep used to do better than excellent, sheep are dying, oh well, Fwp no medicated feed….easy to kill something that has no effect/affect on your living so let them die and start over(I would medicate them, right or wrong)

 

[Shed God]

Best management anyone ever seen is private. But get everyone on board. Public private. How we do that

 

[Shed God]

I agree let the Bio manage. But how do they do that with politics. Whether that be rich, landowners, outfitters, non resident. Public voice for opportunity which I don't think is true.

Eric albus what tools does a bio have today blm or fwp have to manage.

I mean I talked to very serious hunters today. Residents they all said they pay 10x the amount. What would non residents pay.

Hunting is a sport. Trophy. Or family time.

I mean everyone knows it politics. Money can be made with management

 

[Rie Bread]

Sorry to say this but let’s be real. to say “ let bios manage” is kind of a cop out for actual solutions hunters are seeking.

Certainly a shot to shit deer population can sustain it self off 2x2’s in perpetuity but that’s not what hunter want and your going to find it very difficult for a bio to support otherwise. Especially if their job is on the line.

 

[rogerthat]

Best management anyone ever seen is private. But get everyone on board. Public private. How we do that

I think some of the problem is that “best” management is defined differently by all the various stakeholders, just like “bad” management often means not managed the way I think it should be managed. So good management to you and I would mean some big azz bucks kicking around but to those concerned about Cwd that might mean we aren’t doing the best we can to manage Cwd by keeping those old Cwd carrier bucks knocked back