antlerradar
Well-known member
Not just any bucks, but more of those old two and three points that will die of old age if they spend the season on private land.
Montana General Season Structure Proposal
- Thread starter Gerald Martin
- Start date
Moral of this discussion. Let does live. Moving forward fwp needs to manage doe harvest wiser. Goes for us all we should be limited to 1 or 2 does max. The guys filling trucks full of does are doing more harm then road hunters killing baby bucks IMO.
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
How about zero? Who needs to do something that stupid these days?
Killing a mule deer doe has to be up there for one of the saddest things on this planet. I don’t understand guys that take pleasure in doing so or travel multiple states to hunt with nothing but mule deer doe tags in their pockets. Must be some weird, convoluted “western hunt” fantasy to drive out from Minnesota or Washington just to stack up a couple mule deer does off the side of a county road and feel like you accomplished something.
All for zero, I just don't see that ever happening with the "opportunity" we are. Unfortunately.
This was copied and pasted from 1910, essentially telling me it's always been a problem with us as humans. Just gotta notch a tag, by the 20s wardens were pushing for a 1 buck law- (side note, wouldn't mind starting a discussion on the history of MT game management/ all that falls under that umbrella earliest documents I found were 1900)
Large numbers of deer have fallen beneath the bullets of hunters during the seasons of 1909 and 1910. At present the limit per person annually is three. This is a larger number than is allowed in any other state and I believe the best interests of the game require that the number be reduced to two per person annually, and those two to be of the horned variety. In many states only horned animals may be killed. Here we have no such restrictions and frequently I have had the unpleasant experience of viewing the remains of a thirty pound fawn recently before slain by a hunter. I therefore favor an amendment to our present laws, reducing the limit of deer per person annually from three to two animals, with the above restrictions as to' age and sex.
Large numbers of deer have fallen beneath the bullets of hunters during the seasons of 1909 and 1910. At present the limit per person annually is three. This is a larger number than is allowed in any other state and I believe the best interests of the game require that the number be reduced to two per person annually, and those two to be of the horned variety. In many states only horned animals may be killed. Here we have no such restrictions and frequently I have had the unpleasant experience of viewing the remains of a thirty pound fawn recently before slain by a hunter. I therefore favor an amendment to our present laws, reducing the limit of deer per person annually from three to two animals, with the above restrictions as to' age and sex.
antlerradar
Well-known member
Find anything on the science backing hunting during the rut?
BuzzH
Well-known member
Have to put that 6.5 creedmoor to good use.
U.S. related:
All I can say is Theodore Roosevelt was the man with the vision to really popularize and ignite wildlife "conservation". From Montana's National Bison Range to his famous quote, “In a civilized and cultivated country, wild animals only continue to exist at all when preserved by sportsmen.”
Prior, the main emphasis was for the fishing industy, including the hatchery system (Spencer Bairdand / Louella Cable) and Ulysses Grant with the creation of Yellowstone National Park Protection Act.... and Clifton Merriam initiated the Division of Biological Study - with a focus on wildlife and agriculture - whole world of "interesting" within.
Hopping beyond Theodore Roosevelt, his +++cousin Franklin, ventured with his hunting partner, Jay "Ding" Darling and a healthy collection of fellow hunters for the conservation of waterfowl and the creation of the "Duck Stamp" Dust bowl played havoc on waterfowl population. The efforts of Ding Darling led to the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Aid Act... on and on though that basically a rough cover for the time frame discussed, 1910.
Regarding "The rut"? Meh, Their goal was to recover from the overall exploitation of harvesting every brown critter through the constant settler expansion - 1900's began the efforts to "conserve" wildlife - hense, Theodore Roosevelt was the man (IMO).
What does all this have to say? Much ado about nothing.
Though fun jaunt through history.
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 2,529
Who is doing that?
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
I think the "much ado" historical recap widely missed the intent of the "rut" question. I do not have the science nor the data addressing the number of bucks and does killed during the rut, nor the impact on deer herds ... however, it's not really a stretch to assert that the number of bucks of all age and tophy classes killed during the usual November rut significantly exceeds the numbers killed during October.Much ado about nothing.
Just that we didn't really have a "rut" hunt untill sometime in the 50s. Some years before that the season was October 15 to November 15th.
antlerradar
Well-known member
I would genuinely like to know what was the driving reasoning for the current season. Confident it was not so that hunters would have a better chance at big bucks. More likely had to do with access. Back when the season was started, getting back in to the mountains was an issue for many hunters and access to the foothill private land was a non issue. Those two have switched today.
Last edited:
antlerradar
Well-known member
I may be miss remembering but I think western MT switched to the current season first and eastern Mt followed years later.
Hunting Mule deer in the rut is very similar to Hunting bighorn sheep in the rut, they are the dumbest critter around. I believe Montana is one of the few states that allow both hunts to occur during the active breeding season. You move those Hunting seasons outside of the mating season it will get significantly tougher, and becomes Hunting and not a matter shooting. In theory less harvest, which is better for the animal. This is my simple version of rut Hunting
I can't track down the exact years it switched, but I got a decent idea. Political and social movements in the 50s moved the seasons.
The rut Q for 1900's was rhetorical... We got that.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
No, not rhetorical. I'm pretty sure antlerradar is interested in solid science, facts, and data regarding hunting during the rut, as well as the history and rationale of rut hunting decision.
