Montana General Season Structure Proposal

[8andcounting]

I get the frustrations from the montana residents, and once again, us NR are lucky to hunt your State, and will take whatever seasons are set. But, I am still failing to understand what the goals of this proposal are???

If the goal is to increase the amount of animals on the landscape, it isn't going to work. Once again, you have to have momma's and babies, and those babies have to make it through the first year, to increase the amount of animals. The egregious doe tags in Montana contributed a lot to the problem, especially when combined with a failure from the Montana fish and game to respond to the drought and winter conditions. But, they have, for the most, part curtailed those.

If anything, I think as a group, the Montana residents should never let the game and fish dept ever again have that aggressive of doe tags be allowed again.

An October season, vs what is currently in place, isn't going to increase fawn recruitment or keep does alive. Certainly, it will make it harder to harvest a buck, and even harder to harvest a more mature buck. But, in State after State in the West, October only seasons haven't really had any luck in increasing buck to doe ratio's or even increasing age structure much. And certainly, October buck seasons have not done anything to increase herds. My State hasn't had a general season Nov mule deer hunt in 30 yrs; unfortunately, we aren't being overrun with Mule deer.

I think it is worthy goal to increase the age structure of the herd and have a better range of maturities in the buck population; and, if that is the goal, then great; I do think the October only seasons could help with that. But, if the goal is increase the actual size of the herd, October seasons aren't going to do anything.

I have spent a lot of time in Western Montana, and watched it from the early 80's to were it is now. I don't know exactly what the problem there is, but, I am certain, that limiting buck harvest to only October is not going to solve the bigger problems with the herds in that area. The problem is much bigger then just if the harvest is in Nov vs Oct.

Saw a few comments above that were basically: "what were doing now isn't working and we have to do something"; I get the frustration, but, an Oct only buck season just isn't going to achieve those goals. You have to define "what" your goal is first, then design the best action to get that goal. The goal can't be simply "we have to do something so let’s give this a try".

Agreed

 

[Tukudeka]

It is a difficult task working together toward uncommon goals. FWP is in a tough spot. Bill wants more deer, Dave wants fewer, fatter deer. Johnny wants to manage toward maximum sustained yield of bucks, Joey wants to manage toward male age objectives, and bobby is going to complain until a 4 point hops in his truck bed every opening day.

Once the impossible task of establishing OUR priorities is complete, the tools are well documented and utilizing them to aim at the objective is simple.

From a trigger management perspective there are two strings to pull that create sustainable change.
1. Tag quantity (sex/management area specific)
2. Technology (differential harvest success)
Unfortunately, these two are attached at the hip like a scary seesaw that many hunters are afraid to play on.

If we are asking if this proposal might bring apparent change to Montana deer hunting? Let us ask ourselves if this proposal will inhibit us from killing a deer next fall..... I think we have found our answer.

 

[BuzzH]

To be fair in 1975, you could still hunt grizzlies. Wolverines, and elk otc opportunities almost statewide. Some things just won't ever be the same. View attachment 325013View attachment 325014

Grizzly hunting happened into the early 90's.

 

[BuzzH]

I get the frustrations from the montana residents, and once again, us NR are lucky to hunt your State, and will take whatever seasons are set. But, I am still failing to understand what the goals of this proposal are???

If the goal is to increase the amount of animals on the landscape, it isn't going to work. Once again, you have to have momma's and babies, and those babies have to make it through the first year, to increase the amount of animals. The egregious doe tags in Montana contributed a lot to the problem, especially when combined with a failure from the Montana fish and game to respond to the drought and winter conditions. But, they have, for the most, part curtailed those.

If anything, I think as a group, the Montana residents should never let the game and fish dept ever again have that aggressive of doe tags be allowed again.

An October season, vs what is currently in place, isn't going to increase fawn recruitment or keep does alive. Certainly, it will make it harder to harvest a buck, and even harder to harvest a more mature buck. But, in State after State in the West, October only seasons haven't really had any luck in increasing buck to doe ratio's or even increasing age structure much. And certainly, October buck seasons have not done anything to increase herds. My State hasn't had a general season Nov mule deer hunt in 30 yrs; unfortunately, we aren't being overrun with Mule deer.

I think it is worthy goal to increase the age structure of the herd and have a better range of maturities in the buck population; and, if that is the goal, then great; I do think the October only seasons could help with that. But, if the goal is increase the actual size of the herd, October seasons aren't going to do anything.

I have spent a lot of time in Western Montana, and watched it from the early 80's to were it is now. I don't know exactly what the problem there is, but, I am certain, that limiting buck harvest to only October is not going to solve the bigger problems with the herds in that area. The problem is much bigger then just if the harvest is in Nov vs Oct.

Saw a few comments above that were basically: "what were doing now isn't working and we have to do something"; I get the frustration, but, an Oct only buck season just isn't going to achieve those goals. You have to define "what" your goal is first, then design the best action to get that goal. The goal can't be simply "we have to do something so lets give this a try".

I disagree that October seasons don't increase buck to doe ratios and age structure.

 

[BuzzH]

LE

Don't think thats a better way, or I would have suggested it.

That said, I believe there is room for a couple units sprinkled through the regions to have LE permits.

 

[MTGomer]

Don't think thats a better way, or I would have suggested it.

That said, I believe there is room for a couple units sprinkled through the regions to have LE permits.

They could rotate, like AZ does with early firearm seasons.

 

[antlerradar]

I get the frustrations from the montana residents, and once again, us NR are lucky to hunt your State, and will take whatever seasons are set. But, I am still failing to understand what the goals of this proposal are???

If the goal is to increase the amount of animals on the landscape, it isn't going to work. Once again, you have to have momma's and babies, and those babies have to make it through the first year, to increase the amount of animals. The egregious doe tags in Montana contributed a lot to the problem, especially when combined with a failure from the Montana fish and game to respond to the drought and winter conditions. But, they have, for the most, part curtailed those.

If anything, I think as a group, the Montana residents should never let the game and fish dept ever again have that aggressive of doe tags be allowed again.

An October season, vs what is currently in place, isn't going to increase fawn recruitment or keep does alive. Certainly, it will make it harder to harvest a buck, and even harder to harvest a more mature buck. But, in State after State in the West, October only seasons haven't really had any luck in increasing buck to doe ratio's or even increasing age structure much. And certainly, October buck seasons have not done anything to increase herds. My State hasn't had a general season Nov mule deer hunt in 30 yrs; unfortunately, we aren't being overrun with Mule deer.

I think it is worthy goal to increase the age structure of the herd and have a better range of maturities in the buck population; and, if that is the goal, then great; I do think the October only seasons could help with that. But, if the goal is increase the actual size of the herd, October seasons aren't going to do anything.

I have spent a lot of time in Western Montana, and watched it from the early 80's to were it is now. I don't know exactly what the problem there is, but, I am certain, that limiting buck harvest to only October is not going to solve the bigger problems with the herds in that area. The problem is much bigger then just if the harvest is in Nov vs Oct.

Saw a few comments above that were basically: "what were doing now isn't working and we have to do something"; I get the frustration, but, an Oct only buck season just isn't going to achieve those goals. You have to define "what" your goal is first, then design the best action to get that goal. The goal can't be simply "we have to do something so lets give this a try".

Did you miss the part about no public land doe hunting in region three.

 

[Fire_9]

Would anyone be in favor of an elk tag system that mimics ID's system with the A and B tags? I think it's an idea that would help with crowding issues and would give FWP a better idea of how much pressure is actually put on each season. It would be 'lost opportunity' but I think it would help alleviate the concerns from the archery community. Not saying to has to be exactly like ID's structure but something similar.

Thos of you not familiar with it, A tags get the whole archery season but only a portion of the rifle season. B tags get a portion of the archery season and the whole rifle season.

 

[muleydude]

Did you miss the part about no public land doe hunting in region three.

No, I did not miss that; see my quote below:

I think as a group, the Montana residents should never let the game and fish dept ever again have that aggressive of doe tags be allowed again.

The biggest change to help the number of animals on the landscape has already been made with the reduction in doe tags; your problem as Montana residents now is to never allow those kind of doe tags to be elevated again to anywhere near where they were.

I guess my question is a simple one: How is shooting bucks in Oct vs shooting bucks in Nov going to increase the herd??

And, will a General 31 day Oct season really do much to increase buck to doe ratio's?? Other States experiences says no; maybe Montana is different; could be

And, will a General 31 day Oct season increase the age structure in the buck population? I acknowledged it that it might in an earlier post; but, once again, other States experience with that is spotty as well with that.

 

[Eric Albus]

Until we can check the coyote population significantly mule deer will continue to struggle. I am seeing mangy coyotes here the last few week, so perhaps Mother Nature will provide some relief. We need to come up with a funding mechanism for a bounty on coyotes. We also need to remove quotas on lions/bobcats.

Limiting mule deer doe harvest to private land only was a huge step in the right direction to help populations. Having an earlier season when mulies are less visible/vulnerable will help also.


We all know the definition of insanity, do the same old same old, expecting a different result isn’t working. Let’s go unabashedly forward with a different strategy with expectations of success.

 

[8andcounting]

Limiting mule deer doe harvest to private land only was a huge step in the right direction to help populations. Having an earlier season when mulies are less visible/vulnerable will help also.

Huge first step . Great . But I don’t see any less deer getting killed in October . Just be younger and smaller deer shot if that’s possible . Every spike on public will get shot

 

[Eric Albus]

Perhaps a point restriction would help with Oct season.

 

[MNElkNut]

It seems to be generally accepted that it is easier to kill mule deer during the rut in Nov than in Oct. If we can agree on that, I do not understand how there will be the same amount shot by moving the season to Oct. It has to be less. Now there may be other factors that overshadow/dominate the herd population dynamics, but moving the season to Oct still saves animals. The herd may in fact decline the next year....but it would have declined further had the change not been implemented. Stated another way, just because there isn't an increase in animals after making such a change doesn't mean it wasn't a positive change.

 

[Straight Arrow]

No, I did not miss that; see my quote below:



The biggest change to help the number of animals on the landscape has already been made with the reduction in doe tags; your problem as Montana residents now is to never allow those kind of doe tags to be elevated again to anywhere near where they were.

I guess my question is a simple one: How is shooting bucks in Oct vs shooting bucks in Nov going to increase the herd??

And, will a General 31 day Oct season really do much to increase buck to doe ratio's?? Other States experiences says no; maybe Montana is different; could be

And, will a General 31 day Oct season increase the age structure in the buck population? I acknowledged it that it might in an earlier post; but, once again, other States experience with that is spotty as well with that.

Your questions are valid. However, it seems you have not identified the issues this group agreed to address and the several proposals developed to mitigate the issues in a more comprehensive number of season structure changes. 'Seems like you are missing the more comprehensive effects of the proposals.
'Seems it's pretty easy to nitpick one or two proposed changes and criticize. Most important in developing your opinion(s) is first to determine if you just want the status quo OR if you also recognize need to do something different for better hunting and better wildlife management.

 

[cgasner1]

It seems to be generally accepted that it is easier to kill mule deer during the rut in Nov than in Oct. If we can agree on that, I do not understand how there will be the same amount shot by moving the season to Oct. It has to be less. Now there may be other factors that overshadow/dominate the herd population dynamics, but moving the season to Oct still saves animals. The herd may in fact decline the next year....but it would have declined further had the change not been implemented. Stated another way, just because there isn't an increase in animals after making such a change doesn't mean it wasn't a positive change.

There won’t be as many deer shot in October. They are running on the shooters gonna shoot mentality. We as a group discussed that we could care less what someone fills their tag with. You will always have a last day of season and people will always fill their tag for that reason. But less deer will get killed because people won’t see them. Anyone on here telling you they see just as many bucks in October as during the last 2 weeks of November is a better hunter than 99% of us and we should all pull up a chair and try and learn from that person.

 

[Nick87]

There won’t be as many deer shot in October. They are running on the shooters gonna shoot mentality. We as a group discussed that we could care less what someone fills their tag with. You will always have a last day of season and people will always fill their tag for that reason. But less deer will get killed because people won’t see them. Anyone on here telling you they see just as many bucks in October as during the last 2 weeks of November is a better hunter than 99% of us and we should all pull up a chair and try and learn from that person.

Anyone who thinks any deer regardless of age class is just as easy to kill in October as Novemeber is well probably full of shit or doesn't know any better. I do anticipate a lot of the road hunters to give push back after the first year if they elect October mule deer. As they're not going to see near the number of deer from the road and will probably exclaim "didn't make any difference I'm not seeing anymore deer than they did before."

 

[MNElkNut]

One thing we should not forget is that as a hunting community, we are lucky to have individuals care enough to give up their time and personal money to try and find a solution. They might get it right, might get it half right, might have no effect or maybe it is worse that before (doubtful) but at least they have moved beyond words on the internet and are trying to do something positive for the resource.

I think I can speak for many when I say thanks for your efforts and willingness to put your plan out there for the masses to critique.

 

[cgasner1]

Anyone who thinks any deer regardless of age class is just as easy to kill in October as Novemeber is well probably full of shit or doesn't know any better. I do anticipate a lot of the road hunters to give push back after the first year if they elect October mule deer. As they're not going to see near the number of deer from the road and will probably exclaim "didn't make any difference I'm not seeing anymore deer than they did before."

Even besides the rut if you don’t have weather they don’t need to be up eating all day that makes them harder to find. Funny thing is my 4 best bucks all killed in October

 

[Nick87]

Even besides the rut if you don’t have weather they don’t need to be up eating all day that makes them harder to find. Funny thing is my 4 best bucks all killed in October

Must've gotten out of the truck?

 

[muleydude]

"There won’t be as many deer shot in October. They are running on the shooters gonna shoot mentality. We as a group discussed that we could care less what someone fills their tag with. You will always have a last day of season and people will always fill their tag for that reason. But less deer will get killed because people won’t see them. Anyone on here telling you they see just as many bucks in October as during the last 2 weeks of November is a better hunter than 99% of us and we should all pull up a chair and try and learn from that person."


I would suggest you do some research in your neighboring States; SE Idaho is a good example; back in the day, that was a fantastic area to hunt mule deer both in age structure and buck populations. Those areas are currently down to an Oct 10-24th season structure and it has done little to stop the slide in the herds or increase buck age or buck to doe ratios.

Then you can go down into Wyoming; same thing; all kinds of General units that have shortened Oct hunts; go ask them how their mule deer populations are doing.

The October season would help some in far Western Montana were they mule deer are more migratory. But, the majority of the mule deer in Montana are in Central to Eastern Montana; open, prairie habitat with easy access. A 31 day general season in Oct isn't going to result in any appreciable increase in bucks or age structure.

The States right around you with very limited, shortened October seasons are not achieving that, so explain to me how your 31 day season will??

Did your group consult with any States that neighbor you to see how their shortened October seasons are doing?? Did you consult with any biologists?? Or, is all of your proposals just based on internet chat room conjecture??