Montana Elk and Deer- By the Numbers

[Gerald Martin]

Recently, @Ben Lamb posted up some extremely valuable information regarding the number of licenses sold in Montana over the past ten years.

I think the information contained in his attachment and what it means for the sustainability of Montana’s deer and elk herds pertinent enough to deserve a dedicated thread with conversation about what the numbers mean and if we like the status quo and the trajectory of the trends reflected in this report.

I will be posting up numbers that I find meaningful and the conclusions I make as I read the numbers and include my personal experience hunting for the past twenty years in MT.

More input from how you guys interpret the numbers is welcome.

 

[DFS]

Jeezus @Gerald Martin you were an intricate part in burning it down. Cool YouTube video though.

Anybody that knows anything knows we can’t continue to do what we are doing. Except MTFWP, they believe it’s the glory days.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Jeezus @Gerald Martin you were an intricate part in burning it down. Cool YouTube video though.

Anybody that knows anything knows we can’t continue to do what we are doing. Except MTFWP, they believe it’s the glory days.

Thanks for your helpful contribution Doug. You never miss a chance for a personal dig do you?

Care to comment on the contents of the report and what we can do to move wildlife management in the direction we want it to go?

 

[Gerald Martin]

I think that a comparison of the elk objectives and population count over the same time frame is good information to consider as well.

 

[DFS]

Thanks for your helpful contribution Doug. You never miss a chance for a personal dig do you?

Care to comment on the contents of the report and what we can do to move wildlife management in the direction we want it to go?

I placed my vote. It would take a complete reboot to make things better.

 

[Gerald Martin]

How many people were hunting deer and elk in Montana ten years ago compared with 2021?

How many elk are there today compared with ten years ago?

According to the attached report, in 2011 there were a total of 201,553 total elk licenses sold in Montana.

There were a total of 215,335 total deer licenses sold in Montana.

Of the licenses sold, 181,373 elk licenses were either sex and 20,180 were cow/antlerless only.

148,941 either sex deer licenses were sold and 66,394 antlerless only licenses were sold.

For elk licenses non- resident residents accounted for 16,831 either sex licenses and 1,049 antlerless licenses for a total of 17,880 non-resident elk licenses sold.

For deer licenses, non-residents accounted for 23,274 either sex deer tags and 7,179 antlerless licenses for a total of 30,453 non resident deer licenses sold.

In 2011 there were an estimated 140, 613 elk in the state of Montana according to FWP’s estimates.

 

[DFS]

Step 1: MTFWP would acknowledge there is a problem and say we need to protect the resource.
Step 2: We unfortunately don’t get to go any further until step 1 happens.

When the wildlife managers and biologists are saying things look good, all you are going to see is add ons and more handouts even if that isn’t the reality.
It really is mind boggling.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Contrary to my expectations when I began reading this report there were actually less deer and elk licenses sold in 2021 than there were in 2011.
The composition of license sales with regards to resident/nonresident sales was significantly different than 2011.

In 2021 there were a total of 186, 329 elk licenses sold.

There were 136,780 resident either sex licenses and 26,633 antlerless licenses.

Nonresident license sales increased in 2021 to 19,351 either sex licenses and 3,565 antlerless licenses for a total of 22,916 nonresident elk licenses.

In 2021 there were a total of 262,598 deer licenses sold.

Out of the total deer licenses sold, residents bought 159,816 either sex deer tags and 61,796 antlerless only licenses.

Nonresidents bought 27,477 either sex licenses and 13,505 antlerless licenses for a total of 40,986 nonresident deer licenses sold.

In 2021 FWP estimated that there were approximately 151,785 elk in Montana.

 

[Mtnhunter1]

My two cents...

Montana now has two very different hunting scenarios, public accessable and not.

The first, public accessable, needs a total revamp in management...shorter seasons, less pressure, etc. If nothing changes, these lands will become devoid big game sooner than later.


The second, closed or limited public access, has an abundance of wildlife. In fact, I 'd guess that most of these limited access lands have never seen the amount of game animals....ever!

The amount of tag sales means very little to our FWPs other than income to pay their bills. If not, they would have changed things long ago to actually manage our wildlife.

FWPs are also content with our season structure as it modes well for the folks that have hunting access for where the wildlife is flourishing.

I could write a novel but typings on this phone sucks!

 

[Gerald Martin]

Given the fact that Montana consistently sells more elk licenses than there are total elk alive and considering average bull to cow ratios in the general units where at least 166,000 elk hunters hunted last year is it any surprise why so many Montana hunters are not optimistic about the direction they perceive hunting trending?

Bull objectives are 7% of total population in general units when surveyed in post season counts. I think this averages out to @ 10/100 bulls to cows.

In most general units where the majority of hunters pursue elk there are at a minimum of 4-5 elk hunters for every living bull.

In my opinion with ballpark numbers based from FWP estimates of bull/cow ratios across the state, I believe there are probably between 25,000-30,000 bull elk alive in the entire state at the beginning of hunting season.

In 2021 there were 20,000 elk permits sold which I am assuming the vast majority were either sex. Those 20,000 elk hunters were limited to their drawn unit during the period for which their permit was valid but could hunt in general units after it expired. That means at a minimum at least 166,000 hunters spent their time hunting in general units with an average ratio of 10 bulls per 100 cows or less.

I truly believe that most Montana residents don’t understand how FWP defines opportunity when it comes to elk hunting. It makes my blood pressure rise every time I think about these numbers.

 

[Mtnhunter1]

I truly believe that most Montana residents don’t understand how FWP defines opportunity when it comes to elk hunting.

FWPs will sell the tags that allow you the opportunity to carry a bow, rifle or muzzle loader through some piece of the Big Sky country. Actually getting a chance to tie that tag on to a downed elk is not guaranteed.

 

[BuzzH]

Why has it taken so long for Montana hunters to sharpen their gdamn pencils?

I've been telling people for 20 years their harvest stats, population estimates, etc. are total crap.

I've been crunching these numbers and shoving THEIR facts into their face.

Lonely and undesirable work...maybe a few more will start smelling the coffee.

 

[devon deer]

I didn't vote, I don't live in the US, but I have hunted Montana 4 times, the biggest surprise to me when I purchased my tag it wasn't compulsory to report your success, so how can harvested deer/elk be accurately calculated?
Just a guessing game isn't it?

Cheers

Richard

 

[Brad W]

I didn't vote, I don't live in the US, but I have hunted Montana 4 times, the biggest surprise to me when I purchased my tag it wasn't compulsory to report your success, so how can harvested deer/elk be accurately calculated?
Just a guessing game isn't it?

Cheers

Richard

The age old question. Many states have mandatory harvest reporting and it isn’t a big deal. You have to complete a harvest report for the previous year before buying a license in Nevada for example. It takes two minutes. In the eastern US in many states you actually have to check in your animals and there are often biologists on hand to weigh, age and collect samples for ongoing research into things like CWD. The check info includes weapon type, hunt unit, date, etc. That is a lot of data that MT doesn’t have (doesn’t want to know?)

 

[Rhinocesaurus]

Thanks for putting all this information together! I do find it very interesting and important for us to evaluate, but to be honest, I’m less interested in license sales and more interested in ACTUAL harvest data. Every chance I get I’ve commented to fwp to use better reporting and I would like to see mandatory reporting. All their management decisions are speculative at best until they get that data. Just my .02.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I am sure if someone took the time to sit down and compare elk population distribution charts, herd dynamics, unit harvest statistics and hunter effort in general units that data would portray stark differences between what FWP defines as opportunity and what I define as opportunity.

I am of the opinion that the probable cause in the drop of resident elk licenses sold in 2021 is because the diminished quality of hunting on publicly accessible land in general units has caused some resident hunters to quit elk hunting.

At the same time, NR license sales have increased for both bulls and cows because of various legislation that allows for additional NR licenses to be sold above the historic cap of 17,500 Combo licenses and 8,500 deer licenses.

NR hunters just want to experience elk hunting in MT and don’t really have a sense of how much the quality of opportunity for them to harvest and elk on publicly accessible general units has diminished over the past ten years.

The consistent talking points that FWP advances of “over objective” “opportunity” and “healthy herd structure “ apply only in special permit areas but they are worded to imply this is a statewide reality and most NR hunters incorrectly assume they are going to experience that in general units.

In my opinion, FWP engages in language and presentation of “possibility as probable” that is fraudulent at least in spirit even though it isn’t legally fraudulent.

FWP leadership knowingly engages in this “spin” to maintain acceptance of the status quo and to make it look as though they are doing a better job of protecting our resources than they actually are. Area biologists generally know the biological status of the herds in their area and the low level of quality in terms of age class and male/female ratios but they don’t get to influence policy to improve herd structures in their area.

 

[SAJ-99]

I will be posting up numbers that I find meaningful and the conclusions I make as I read the numbers and include my personal experience hunting for the past twenty years in MT.

More input from how you guys interpret the numbers is welcome.

I'm not sure what you mean by "interpret". My suggestion is figure out what message you want to convey, and use the numbers to support the argument. I have looked at these reports dozen of times over the years. My main problem with the numbers is that the objectives are based on social tolerance and there is nothing scientific about them, not even from a social perspective. If there are 100 elk eating the rancher's hay then it doesn't matter what the count vs. objective is. I compared it with game damaged hunts and marked the notable decline in those approved hunts. So either social tolerance has increased (maybe because of leasing land to hunters, ie. $$$) or populations have declined.

Funny how it took a dozen posts to get to "we need better harvest data". Harvest data, correct or not, is not going to affect the quality of a hunt. It should be collected because it's easy and cheap, but it doesn't change management. I think we should assume FWP uses the same peer-reviewed wildlife management techniques as every other organization. If you are going to pick on something, pick on the Elk management plan saying they shouldn't use non-accessible elk in the count, but they clearly do. FWP should be sued to ensure they follow the plan, but hunters aren't organized enough to do it. One landowner threatens it however and FWP lawyers piss their pants.

 

[brockel]

Area biologists generally know the biological status of the herds in their area and the low level of quality in terms of age class and male/female ratios but they don’t get to influence policy to improve herd structures in their area.

Must be different out west as ours don’t think that at all

 

[SAJ-99]

I am sure if someone took the time to sit down and compare elk population distribution charts, herd dynamics, unit harvest statistics and hunter effort in general units that data would portray stark differences between what FWP defines as opportunity and what I define as opportunity.

I am of the opinion that the probable cause in the drop of resident elk licenses sold in 2021 is because the diminished quality of hunting on publicly accessible land in general units has caused some resident hunters to quit elk hunting.

Seems a bit of oversimplification. Some thing, like Lion hunting, increased. Mountain goat dropped, Sheep increased. It is hard to "interpret" without making assumptions, but Rosy Retrospection is a thing. Without using the actual data, every view has bias.

At the same time, NR license sales have increased for both bulls and cows because of various legislation that allows for additional NR licenses to be sold above the historic cap of 17,500 Combo licenses and 8,500 deer licenses.
NR hunters just want to experience elk hunting in MT and don’t really have a sense of how much the quality of opportunity for them to harvest and elk on publicly accessible general units has diminished over the past ten years.

Makes sense. NRs continue to apply because the hunting in their state has gotten worse so they don't rationalize that MT hunting is also worse, only that it is better that the home state. NR Big-game combo dropped though. Did they move to Elk combo?

The consistent talking points that FWP advances of “over objective” “opportunity” and “healthy herd structure “ apply only in special permit areas but they are worded to imply this is a statewide reality and most NR hunters incorrectly assume they are going to experience that in general units.

In my opinion, FWP engages in language and presentation of “possibility as probable” that is fraudulent at least in spirit even though it isn’t legally fraudulent.

FWP leadership knowingly engages in this “spin” to maintain acceptance of the status quo and to make it look as though they are doing a better job of protecting our resources than they actually are. Area biologists generally know the biological status of the herds in their area and the low level of quality in terms of age class and male/female ratios but they don’t get to influence policy to improve herd structures in their area.

Anyone at FWP that talks of such things at basically told to SDSTFU. See the departures in 2021.

 

[Rhinocesaurus]

I'm not sure what you mean by "interpret". My suggestion is figure out what message you want to convey, and use the numbers to support the argument. I have looked at these reports dozen of times over the years. My main problem with the numbers is that the objectives are based on social tolerance and there is nothing scientific about them, not even from a social perspective. If there are 100 elk eating the rancher's hay then it doesn't matter what the count vs. objective is. I compared it with game damaged hunts and marked the notable decline in those approved hunts. So either social tolerance has increased (maybe because of leasing land to hunters, ie. $$$) or populations have declined.

Funny how it took a dozen posts to get to "we need better harvest data". Harvest data, correct or not, is not going to affect the quality of a hunt. It should be collected because it's easy and cheap, but it doesn't change management. I think we should assume FWP uses the same peer-reviewed wildlife management techniques as every other organization. If you are going to pick on something, pick on the Elk management plan saying they shouldn't use non-accessible elk in the count, but they clearly do. FWP should be sued to ensure they follow the plan, but hunters aren't organized enough to do it. One landowner threatens it however and FWP lawyers piss their pants.

Harvest data 100% affects management, which affects quality. They can see sales and make phone calls and use check stations, but the sample size is far too small to be meaningful to manage for the population of hunters that we now have. There are multiple places I hunt where I don’t have to drive by a check station and the last two years I’ve driven past a check station late at night when they’re closed with an elk in the back so they haven’t counted those animals and I’ve never gotten a phone call for the survey. Harvest data tells them where hunters are hunting (to manage for overcrowding), and where animals are being killed plus sex and age class (manage the number of tags for each sex per unit). Changing the management of any animal without this data is an educated guess in the best case scenario.