Straight Arrow
Well-known member
"Years ago the head of WY Wildlife Div told a friend of mine that most MD poaching is during the last 2 weeks of NOv....rut......and laughed that MT FOOLISHLY continues to pound them thru November."
Montana General Season Structure Proposal
- Thread starter Gerald Martin
- Start date
Its already been stated earlier in this forum that change is coming. This administration and legislative body is not the one I would choose to carry forward changes in revising hunting seasons and regulations. I'm not a big fan of FWP, but in their defense I say they take a lot of low blow shots on issues in which their hands were tied or they simply had to eat SH&T and smile due to politics. I wish a few of them would voluntarily throw themselves on the sword and publicly share how they arrived at some conclusions before that institutional knowledge is gone forever.
A Mule Deer Management proposal will extend the rifle portion of deer hunting season from 5-weeks to 8-weeks, a 37.5% increase in the time period. This 8-week season (4 whitetail and 4 mule) will be carried out with today's most advanced tools and proficiency. An argument can be made that in turn a similar change in Outfitter operations will take place with Outfitters looking to expand lease holdings approximately by 30 percent or more. In doing so, will remove that much more land/access from the public hunting landscape. How much more public land will you be locked out of with this increase in holdings. And, dont forget only the best of the best will be leased up. Its a no brainer for landowners as it provides a change in management by limiting and selective harvest with an increase in payments and less headaches. The downside is there will be additional pressure and crowding on the accessible public land. The decline in Mule deer is complex for sure, but from my experience a sizable portion of those good back in the big buck areas have either been discovered or more so no longer an option to hunt. They've been leased up. As more property is leased up, the remaining less product able is over hunted at a higher rate. In other words the quality of hunting erodes twice as fast. Landowners today are more selective on who gets to hunt and when for wide range of reasons, only one of which is that their place is now leased out. Are we really putting the mule deer situation first on a level playing field, or using it to advance an agenda.
There is also the flaw that I have beat to death is that it further promotes hunter migration between seasons. Argue all you want that it dont exist, but its everywhere you look. Whether it be antelope, bird or deer/elk season here in Montana or turn on the TV and see how much occurs from state to state. Its a reality and will be further promoted.
A Mule Deer Management proposal will extend the rifle portion of deer hunting season from 5-weeks to 8-weeks, a 37.5% increase in the time period. This 8-week season (4 whitetail and 4 mule) will be carried out with today's most advanced tools and proficiency. An argument can be made that in turn a similar change in Outfitter operations will take place with Outfitters looking to expand lease holdings approximately by 30 percent or more. In doing so, will remove that much more land/access from the public hunting landscape. How much more public land will you be locked out of with this increase in holdings. And, dont forget only the best of the best will be leased up. Its a no brainer for landowners as it provides a change in management by limiting and selective harvest with an increase in payments and less headaches. The downside is there will be additional pressure and crowding on the accessible public land. The decline in Mule deer is complex for sure, but from my experience a sizable portion of those good back in the big buck areas have either been discovered or more so no longer an option to hunt. They've been leased up. As more property is leased up, the remaining less product able is over hunted at a higher rate. In other words the quality of hunting erodes twice as fast. Landowners today are more selective on who gets to hunt and when for wide range of reasons, only one of which is that their place is now leased out. Are we really putting the mule deer situation first on a level playing field, or using it to advance an agenda.
There is also the flaw that I have beat to death is that it further promotes hunter migration between seasons. Argue all you want that it dont exist, but its everywhere you look. Whether it be antelope, bird or deer/elk season here in Montana or turn on the TV and see how much occurs from state to state. Its a reality and will be further promoted.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
sclancy27
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2022
- Messages
- 613
1. The vast majority of whitetail hunting (outside R1 and R2) will take place on private land anyway.
2. I would like your argument on why outfitter lease holdings would increase approximately commensurately with your supposed increase in time (which I don't think will be true in practice). The prime ground is already leased, for mule deer and whitetail deer, so I don't know where the increase would come from, because logically, it would already be leased if it was worth it.
3. As I said previously, I see an overall decrease in pressure with this proposal for a number of reasons, nor do I see an increase of animals to private as stated in a previous post (a few pages back).
FREAK
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2022
- Messages
- 1,040
I listened to video, and I've heard it elsewhere that lower buck:doe ratio's usually result in better recruitment (fawn:doe ratios) due to less competition that following spring. I think that all makes sense if the landscape has limited capacity, and the deer population is near it's carrying capacity. I think if the area can support more deer than it currently holds, I would imagine the theory is faulty. I also found it interesting how different each population was impacted by its specific circumstances (particularly predation). Some interesting research for sure.I just did a 5 min search, there is obviously more. I would run through citations for more papers. Here's a paper and a Wyofile article that goes over it, along with a second paper that discusses similar research in ID. I'll also attach a video GoHunt did with Dr. Brock Mcmillan, a mule deer researcher out of Utah where they talk about antler size averages, habitat and other cool mule deer stuff. Enjoy.
Study: Deer’s lifelong fate is affected by mother’s health at birth - WyoFile
Multi-generational research shows health of a mule deer mother at time of birth may influence lifelong size of offspring.wyofile.com
I'll also add that Robby Denning has some excellent podcasts on Rokslide with several heavy hitters in the mule deer research community. They are a very interesting listen as well and I am pretty sure one (maybe both) of you are also members there.
I'm no expert in any of this but I think the lower buck:doe ratio argument also makes more sense in units that aren't getting pounded through the rut as the deer experience less disruption during November which allows them to breed more successfully.
I think Montana is experiencing the "predator pit" he described where you're running consistently at the lower end of the minimal viable Buck:doe ratios coupled with heavy disruption during November. Throw in predation, drought, and lead poison when they're most vulnerable and I think it send them in the downward spiral we're experiencing.
I think the biggest thing I learned from that video is how little we really know. All good information, but I think we're way pre-mature to jump to the conclusion that "opportunity" to the level Montana allows is better for deer populations. I know that's not what you're saying but I think many people are using this info to argue that.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
There also seems to be an argument that if no changes should be made without knowing exactly what the result will be. Life is unpredictable. Any person that is afraid of change without knowing the exact outcome and avoiding all "unintended consequences" should probably never leave their house.
Sioux33
Well-known member
I think there's a huge misconception that anyone pointing out a single flaw with this proposal is some Elmer Fudd wannabe who's pissed they won't get to road hunt all November. That's the farthest thing from the truth. I haven't seen a single post about losing their right to hunt in November, but I've heard plenty about the unintended consequences that we're all just supposed to shut up and ignore. I would actually rather have an October deer season over November, but not sure if it's worth it if the issues below creep up with this.
Unintended consequence #1: hunter days increase per species - let's say, for simplicity sake, of the 200k hunters, 100k hunt elk in November and 100k hunt deer currently (remember you can't be in 2 places at once). That means the vast majority of hunters go east for deer and west for elk. Under this proposal, it would allow 200k hunters to hunt deer and 200k hunters to hunt elk, each for a month with a rifle. If you thought the trailheads were packed now, get ready for double the traffic because everyone will be after the same thing at the same time. Doubling the hunter days per specie is sure to drive the animals to private even faster than the current rate. Not sure how something like that gets dismissed so quickly.
Unintended consequence #2: BMA access - I know there's been arguments against this, but the fact is doubling the rifle season length will bring out way more hunters, which means way more of a burden to landowners. It also makes leasing to an outfitter way more attractive when you don't have to spend months dealing with an increased number of hunters.
Unintended consequence #1: hunter days increase per species - let's say, for simplicity sake, of the 200k hunters, 100k hunt elk in November and 100k hunt deer currently (remember you can't be in 2 places at once). That means the vast majority of hunters go east for deer and west for elk. Under this proposal, it would allow 200k hunters to hunt deer and 200k hunters to hunt elk, each for a month with a rifle. If you thought the trailheads were packed now, get ready for double the traffic because everyone will be after the same thing at the same time. Doubling the hunter days per specie is sure to drive the animals to private even faster than the current rate. Not sure how something like that gets dismissed so quickly.
Unintended consequence #2: BMA access - I know there's been arguments against this, but the fact is doubling the rifle season length will bring out way more hunters, which means way more of a burden to landowners. It also makes leasing to an outfitter way more attractive when you don't have to spend months dealing with an increased number of hunters.
SwaggyD
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2022
- Messages
- 1,680
What percentage of those are going to select whitetail over October mule deer? I'm going to choose whitetail every year.
Those my thoughts, neither plagiarized nor regurgitated from another source. I live in region 3 and shot my last mule deer 26 years ago in region 5 on my grandfathers place. I concede my logic against the October MD season is a stretch for sure. But, no more so than the arguments supporting it. As I see it the pro vs the cons weigh-out equally and we are left with change for the sake of change that does not account for the ripple effects brought about by the change, in the my view those changes in elk hunting both archery and rifle. How many sportsman who presently dont have a dog in this fight at this time are going to be affected after the fact. Do I really want to share my archery elk hunt with the Labor Day weekend crowd? NO! We all know going back to status quo is not an option. I'm in favor of multiple of the secondary portions of the proposal in their own right. HOwever, were they included on their own merit or added as a caveat to sell the October season. I dont know. I'm confident that if FWP had colored this far outside the lines on their own it would be DOA.
And, if opposing the unquantified October mule deer season defines me as a sniveling B*&%ch then so be it. It lets me know I'm contributing to this process.
Sioux33
Well-known member
Hard to say, but I’d guess a lot less. The main problem is crowding in the east and the vast majority of those folks are after muleys, not whitetails.
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
This is why we can’t have nice things.
FREAK
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2022
- Messages
- 1,040
Yeah, along those same lines, I've heard the argument "hunters are the smallest factor in deer population health. Weather, predation, and habitat have a much larger impact." Pro "opportunity hunters" use this argument to defend this idea that we shouldn't limit our opportunities when we're just a "drop in the bucket" of the overall equation.
I find it to be a ridiculous argument because outside of season dates, LE, and the issuance of tags (both MD and predators); there aren't many other levers FWP can use to help "manage" MD populations.
Since FWP has one of the largest roles in "managing" MD, and don't seem to have a great handle on the impact rut hunting is having on the health of MD, I'd think they would want to take the conservative approach and limit that input until they had a better understanding of its cause and effects.
Seems like we've taken the do nothing approached for long enough and explain the MD issues away with these "theories" supported by halfway done research projects. Good on Utah for their efforts in starting to at least try and understand what's going on. Each heard the guy talked about faced different challenges. I'd imagine Montana is no different. There are probably units where eliminating rut hunting won't change much and others where it will have a significant impact. I'm sure some units have more of a predation issue than others. Other units probably lose a significant fawn recruitment depending on habitat conditions that year. Would be nice to understand and increase/decrease tags/seasons as necessary.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
But you are living the unintended consequences of the current structure. Why is that ok? I think we all would agree that pressure (hunter days, which is accompanied by flying lead) is the ultimate problem, but this group didn't want to live in a dream world of regarding what they could get done. They made some material suggestions and there are certainly some unknowns and those should be debated, but debated against the current structure and its results, and knowing that those with the actual power to make changes have said full LE is DOA.
#1- I think a lot of hunters already pick one - elk or MD. There is absolutely no way it doubles the pressure, but agree that how it affects hunter days and distribution is unknown.
#2 -Landowners have to chime in. I doubt it is much different for Type 1s. Type 2s that actually answer the phone and operate as they should might see some increase.But they are paid for hunter days to make the payment fit. I see no way this pushes a landowner over the edge from being in BM to leasing to hunters or outfitter.
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
Couple mule deer poachers nabbed in Wyoming, caught by mule deer winter range task force. Deer were poached on November 12th. Montana's deer pounding is just getting started then... every year, for 50+ years. https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/WYWGFD/bulletins/929d4f
The "unintended consequences" are what we get every time we buy a MT deer license.
The "unintended consequences" are what we get every time we buy a MT deer license.
As folks debate this, consider as well that under this proposal, the use of shoulder seasons would not be as wide as currently employed, so the idea that you are adding 3 weeks of hunting pressure does not recognize that there are likely 3 months being cut off elsewhere.
Landowner fatigue is a very real issue, and most that we have spoken with have indicated that anything to reduce the 6 month time period would be welcome.
Much appreciation for those opposed to continue to debate and make your concerns known!
Landowner fatigue is a very real issue, and most that we have spoken with have indicated that anything to reduce the 6 month time period would be welcome.
Much appreciation for those opposed to continue to debate and make your concerns known!
Sioux33
Well-known member
That is my point. They currently pick one for the most part (yes they probably hunt both, but the main focus and 90% of their time is spent on one or the other). This proposal changes that to allow them to pick both, which leads to a lot more hunter days and a lot higher probability of animals on private. I thought we wanted to curb opportunity back to get animals on public, not increase it?
huntin24/7
Well-known member
we can argue about what the best route is to fix this problem: going all LE, pick your season, weapon, season date changes, a combination of these, etc. I would at least hope we can all recognize that with all the factors contributing to declining mule deer(and whitetail in many areas of the state), we absolutely can’t keep doing what we’re doing, especially with the ever increasing number of residents and better technology we all have available to us.
In some areas, I don't think it is, but that's up to locals to push it through.
Statewide Limited Entry would be viewed as far too drastic a step in terms of reducing hunter opportunity for mule deer. The MT Hunter Surveys show that people want to hunt mule deer every year, and they aren't too picky about antler size. They also show that people want to hunt deer in the rut.
Outfitter concerns around the 90/10 split, landowner nervousness around how LE Elk has played out, and the general sentiment from the MT hunting population that they want to hunt mule deer every year if they desire carry a lot of weight with the commission, which means moving to LE statewide is not going to happen.
