antlerradar
Well-known member
The proposals that results in big reductions in revenue are the ones that FWP are not going to listen to. Dialing back technology is a bad choice for many hunters, maybe not for FWP if license sales don't slip much.
Montana General Season Structure Proposal
- Thread starter Gerald Martin
- Start date
I don't think the whitetail are stable enough to allow unlimited hunting through Nov. I'm seeing about 10% of the population as compared to hunting as a nonresident 20 years ago, and maybe 20% as compared to the last ten years as a resident hunter. I'm not referring to Region 1 or 2, but 5,6, and 7. I can spend a day in SE MT and maybe see a dozen whitetail. Just in 2018 I could see 50 in a day. I know the drought and disease really hurt their numbers.
I believe Montana would reduce pressure on mule deer among others by removing the muzzleloader end season finale - as shared by people on this public committee.
Pull that off the seasons, remove a week from archery first or last OR if that hurts compound bow 100 yard enthusiasts butts too much - remove a week or two from general rifle and bring back the roots of Montana - traditional week or 10 days... recurve/ muzzleloader - heck spear chucking for all I care though the extreme tech boom has reach out and touch brown archery through rifle season.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
It seems to be a misconception that with the special season in December the muzzleloader hunting is otherwise limited. It is not, as a muzzleloader may be used from Aug 15 through Feb 15 for elk shoulder seasons hunting, throughout the duration of Weapons Restricted Area hunting, during the general rifle hunting seasons, and during the special December muzzi hunting season. Yes, it is very generous!
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 2,711
First time my wife shot a scoped rifle, 700 yards. 3 straight impacts in a 2 moa (14 ish inches) circle on the steel. Shooting far, in good conditions, is a function of tools to do the job and its getting cheaper all the time.
The frustration I have - shooting that far is extremely risky in true field conditions without lots of practice/experience. There's a second of flight time at that distance already, and reading wind can be hard/impossible with differing wind directions and speeds in the same area. There are weather and temperature effects. Smashing a steel target on a windless day on the bench at the range is a world different than shooting prone in the snow during a windy blizzard trying to hit a moving elk.
The only way that changes is if people stop bragging about how far they shot it from and start bragging how close they got. . .
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
I think that is a good point. What I like about what's being proposed is a structure of wildlife management practical use implemented to allow FWP to monitor herds' health and make appropriate recommendations to the Commission so that going forward the potential poor herd health for mule deer, whitetails, elk, or antelope can be addressed by scientific wildlife management analysis and commensurate Commission adjustments of hunting seasons, tags issued, and districts' hunting opportunities.
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
You’re right about all but the last part. Regardless of bragging - it’s still going to be an issue. Not just long range rifles/bows.
I had a drone buzzing by me 2 miles into a hike for bears this week.
I thought using drones to locate game was illegal? Same as airplanes?
Nunyacreek
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2013
- Messages
- 279
I tend to the think the muzzleloader season focus is a red herring. In my experience I’ve met exactly one person who hunted it and zero who killed anything. This is anecdotal obviously, so it could have a localized effect but I doubt its population- level. Is there any evidence to the contrary?
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
That's why I load drone-shot ... I mean birdshot ... in my pistol!
BuzzH
Well-known member
Illegal here in WY, but enforcement is another whole issue. Plus, the person flying the drone may not have been using it to locate game.
They’ll bounce back. They bounce back much quicker than MD.
Think of how many got killed by people that never would have been in SE MT if it wasn’t for the mule deer rut.
Also, it seems like most people view whitetail expansion into MD habitat as a bad thing. Even if they don’t bounce back to where they were, is that bad if it’s good for MD?
They also have the advantage of preferring creek and river bottom habitats which are private at a higher rate than the upland habitat MD prefer.
I won't get into a debate over this and sidetrack the OP, but here is an interesting read if you can find it.
Not all critters need to run into a lead ball for them to be impacted.
I mean states are shutting down shed hunting to protect animals on winter range, but guys walking around blasting a smoke pole is having no effect?
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 2,711
Perfectly legal to use for locating sheds.
New Study Shows 40% of Colorado’s Most Important Elk Habitat Is Affected by Recreational Trail Use | Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership
Geospatial analysis shows extent of overlap and highlights opportunities for responsible recreation management.
www.trcp.org
Craig's point is a huge one.
And it's the basis of the proposal: Pressure on wildlife driving changes in location leading to more dramatic steps needed to deal with wildlife concentrations, etc.
The proposal isn't just about mule deer, although mule deer do benefit from it, especially when you look at helping ensure a good age class of bucks exist to help with herd genetics and creating a more robust population through the limiting of doe licenses on public land.
In western MT, mule deer become more vulnerable during migration and that vulnerability peaks during the rut. Rifle hunters will be hitting deer during the migration, which means they will be more available than early season anyways.
But for the changes in muzzleloader, it's really about commission flexibility to set that season where it makes sense, rather than having a hard and fast date that has to be applied, regardless of resource issues. What we've seen in R3 though is that when the FS roads open back up, elk on winter range get hammered, leading to larger than expected take on a vulnerable species. Region 3 is also where approximately 40% of Montana's elk live. Having that kind of vulnerability on bulls in December, post rut, in winter, is going to deplete already low reserves for winter survival, making those animals more likely to succumb to predation than if they went into winter less molested.
For elk, their inclusion is about creating a better experience for elk on public land (and for hunters). Archery may not be a limiting factor in take, but the pressure that comes with archery seasons which have grown in popularity sends elk to private sanctuaries early in September, despite the shoulder seasons starting in August in some areas. The concept that is applied in the proposal comes out more as pulse pressure to help keep animals moving, and never letting them get too comfortable in one spot or another while maintaining the maximum amount of general license opportunity as possible. Montana's success rates on public land are in the lower end of the western states (13% for bulls, a bit above 30% for antlerless iirc). Wyoming, which has a somewhat similar season structure as the proposal, is still an opportunity state, but because they have spread that pressure out and created the pulse as well, sees much higher success rates with around 28-30% for bulls, and over 50% for public land. Furthermore, now that Montana is within the population range, a different approach to antlerless harvest is worth exploring to maintain herds.
From a harvest perspective relative to management of herd size, that kind of approach seems to create a better experience for all involved, 4 legged or 2. it would help achieve management goals in a more efficient manner and I would wager that you'd see more participation in elk hunting because of that.
Currently, Montana's elk herd sits at 142,000 and some change. That's down only about 28,000 from the start of shoulder seasons in 2015. In that time frame, the population has trended up and down, but overall it would not seem that it was having the effect that was hoped for in terms of bringing populations down under temporary seasons. At some point, pressure applied over time will have a negative return on investment. Trying a new approach is a great way to look for better returns. Meanwhile, hunters, outfitters and landowners are seeing the same thing, and coming to the same conclusions relative to animal distribution because of hunting season pressure. One ranch took 130 some elk during shoulder seasons, open to the public. They managed it intensely to ensure harvest was the main goal, rather than recreation but it took at least 2 staff to be on the ground during the entire time to help put hunters in the right spot.
The pressure that elk receive is still pressure that deer receive. The pressure doesn't discriminate between species, so the goal was to maintain long seasons while spreading that pressure out on public land while increasing pressure on private during critical times of the seasons.
In case you missed it, it's pressure.
Pressure pushin' down on me
Pressin' down on you, no man ask for
Under pressure that brings a building down
Splits a family in two, puts people on streets
Mm-ba-ba-beh, mm-ba-ba-beh
Dee-day-da, ee-day-da
That's okay
Bingo!
Sioux33
Well-known member
Couldn't the argument be made that this plan actually increases pressure on deer and elk?
There's no dead period to allow things to settle down on public land. Rifle seasons for antlered elk and deer increase pressure dramatically. It's unfair to compare that to shoulder seasons and October archery seasons when 95% of bow hunters have hung it up.
If we already have private land elk distribution problems now and pressure that deer receive is the same as pressure that elk receive, my fear is that by a 11/1 elk opener, they're all gonna be sitting on private and all the hunters are gonna be hugging fencelines.
Maybe I'm wrong and this plan would be awesome, but I'm really conflicted on these points.
That's a valid concern.
Because the pressure on public gets limited through the use of B licenses under permit (or quota) on mule deer and cow elk, and you have choose your region for deer, the elk pressure will get spread out more than if it's all three species for all of this time, minus 1 week of reset. You still get the reduced pressure under the proposal, it just looks a bit different on the pressure curve.
The idea is that pulse of private land hunters hitting animals during archery season and in October helps redistribute, as does the significantly lower number of hunters in the field only chasing mule deer. The October mule deer season also falls within the early part of migration, meaning those animals will be moving from the high country down lower, and not hanging in just one area, helping distribute hunters as well.
Overall, it's less pressure over a longer period of time, which should help ensure animals are not as congregated as they are today under a constant pressure spike with 1 week to rest.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
You may have reason to be conflicted, as the effects on wildlife from changes are always uncertain and wildlife do not necessarily react as anticipated.
However, the general and quite strong consensus is that there needs to be changes. For many, these proposals make alot of good sense.
If you have a better plan ... let's hear it!
