Just curious was that 136k between all species or just deer?
There were 156k boots on the ground for MT deer according to fwp.
Montana General Season Structure Proposal
- Thread starter Gerald Martin
- Start date
There were 156k boots on the ground for MT deer according to fwp.
antlerradar
Well-known member
Not sure, I asked google what the number of deer hunters was and this is what she spit out. Google doesn't always get it right. I looked for better numbers but failed to find them.
Mt numbers were from 21. I flat failed to put that in. My bad.
No worries I was just curious.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
'Not sure if the question is really curiosity or just nitpicking.
Generally the relative hunter density described seems to point to similarity between Wyoming and Montana ... not significantly different boots-on-the-ground density.
One can parse the numbers however you wish, but the similarity seems to hold.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,637
The number of boots on the ground is always pretty squishy. I have the 2021 numbers and if I run the license totals figuring that the elk tags were all carried
by a hunter with a deer tag it comes out to 167,200 resident hunters.
There were also 49,000 NR deer and elk tags sold that year that equate to an additional 30K or more boots on the ground.
I’ve attached the chart that I used for my numbers if you want to check them out.
If your going to compare the two it's worth being curious about the numbers. But I guess I'll do my homework after work.
As far as my quick Google search 60,902 whitetail tags sold
47,456 mule deer tags. Sorry my curiosity seems nit picky. But if your going to compare the two it's seems worth knowing.
Would equal 108,358 deer hunter boots on the ground.
So taking Geralds comment into Montana total that's about 59k less deer hunters a season.
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
License sales for such low price (residents) vs people who actually went hunting at all vs the data obtained by the FWP phone surveys will not reveal an accurate picture of numbers out hunting deer. Just my opinion.
rogerthat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 2,918
Yeah I think we would need good hunter days data per region. It just doesn’t exist.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,637
I think the biggest takeaway I have is that FWP seems to project that they have all the data they need for their questions. They just don’t have the hard data (or it isn’t made available) to answer any questions other than the ones they’re asking.
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 2,484
This. Several in law family members buy a tag they likely wont hunt.
Lol if we're not going to rely on them you might as well not rely on the non resident tag sales either. In turn voiding the point were overrun by non residents how would we know how many are being sold? They track tag sales fine. The tag sales tell us numbers. It's the data we have to go off of. My dad buys a tag every year but hasn't been hunting in 7 8 years? And very sporadically in the years he did hunt. It's still a tag sale and it's counted... sure they may or may not be hunting but it's the data we have. Would it be nice to have better data.... pretty sure that's getting fairly rhetorical.
8andcounting
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2013
- Messages
- 3,401
You mean they were ready to defend themselves? Of course they were . Things are fine . They formed this Mike deer committee to be able to say see we care
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,637
@Carnage2011 raises a good point about defining what success/improvement looks like to track whether a new season structure is better than the current one.
Speaking personally, I think that it’s very difficult to define “optimal” in an opportunity state like MT where general units are not managed for a specific goal. FWP tracks the results of how hunters self manage, where they distribute and how the harvest of this season compared to harvests in past seasons. As long as hunters are killing a similar amount of deer a unit is deemed to be stable.
Personally, I think post season buck/doe ratios of 20/100 on the low end and up to 30/100 on the high end would be a good goal to shoot for. At this point, I would consider any improvement on regional and district buck/doe ratios as success. I think that with a higher buck/doe ratio there’s going to be more older bucks on the ground as well. Maybe not a higher age class average but certainly more bucks would trend towards more older bucks.
Speaking personally, I think that it’s very difficult to define “optimal” in an opportunity state like MT where general units are not managed for a specific goal. FWP tracks the results of how hunters self manage, where they distribute and how the harvest of this season compared to harvests in past seasons. As long as hunters are killing a similar amount of deer a unit is deemed to be stable.
Personally, I think post season buck/doe ratios of 20/100 on the low end and up to 30/100 on the high end would be a good goal to shoot for. At this point, I would consider any improvement on regional and district buck/doe ratios as success. I think that with a higher buck/doe ratio there’s going to be more older bucks on the ground as well. Maybe not a higher age class average but certainly more bucks would trend towards more older bucks.
I think you're on the right formula. I've always held that it's hunter days, not tags sold, that is the metric we should be looking at. It doesn't matter if I have 6 tags in my pocket or 2 if I fill them in 3 days. it does matter if it takes me 10 days though.
Curious where you found a breakout from whitetail versus mule deer since no designation exists currently (just a deer tag)? Is that harvest data from FWP? Also doesn't seem to include the B licenses.
T
tjones
Guest
Its will be really tough to hit a 30/100 buck doe ration in any general unit. HD270 bounces a touch below and above 30/100 each year based on post season winter flights.
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
I’m just not sure terrible data is more useful than no data. I remembered this wasn’t my first post here on this subject. The one thing that is certain - FWP data gathering is in need of a huge overhaul.
MT FWP tooth and age data
Anybody ever look at that? It's in your MYFWP account, below drawing/bonus point details. I remember that FWP used to pull bear teeth many years ago. I don't remember anybody pulling a tooth from a lion or my moose. Just curious, if 3 years old is the number used for "unknown" good data...
www.hunttalk.com
MT Mule Deer Age data accuracy and reality
Of all you Montana deer hunters: 1) How many deer have you taken? 2) How many has the FWP "aged" at a check station or anywhere? 3) By what method - cementum or tooth wear? 4) How about at the Augusta check station? Then, chew on this: Watch video from roughly 1hr 13 minutes to 1hr 25...
www.hunttalk.com
I know heath, great guy. His dad is the man.
I feel like I was called out. Like a big dick contest. Got to show u I got a big wiener. I have never killed a muley. Never seen one big enough. But I bet I passed up bigger bucks than 99.9 percent of montana hunters. My family has killed some studs. And we have found some stud sheds in LE units. Where it is managed. I know it's mule deer topic so see past the giant elk sheds.
I feel like I was called out. Like a big dick contest. Got to show u I got a big wiener. I have never killed a muley. Never seen one big enough. But I bet I passed up bigger bucks than 99.9 percent of montana hunters. My family has killed some studs. And we have found some stud sheds in LE units. Where it is managed. I know it's mule deer topic so see past the giant elk sheds.
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
Montana should take note of how other states do some things.
Wyoming data and days/harvest per unit are things I look at when evaluating where I might like to spend time in the fall. It's real, and useful data.
As much as somebody might hate how Utah does things, their data also seems quite good/useful. I look at the "hunter satisfaction" number, year by year.
Wyoming data and days/harvest per unit are things I look at when evaluating where I might like to spend time in the fall. It's real, and useful data.
As much as somebody might hate how Utah does things, their data also seems quite good/useful. I look at the "hunter satisfaction" number, year by year.
