Montana General Season Structure Proposal

[Shed God]

The problem is no one has the $*)Q!#@$ balls to do what is right. Make it all LE. After a few yrs with science, qoutas, apps. Have structure. No one gives a shit if landowners sell there tags. Uses them with a kid grandkids. Its there right. Don't tell them what to do. Outfitters the only thing we should take from wy is there wilderness hunts. Have to have a guide to hunt. % give free fall to non residents.

Residents LE provides hunt a trophy muley. Wait your turn draw. With same season structure. No chance to kill a 170 with October hunt. Bullshit

Private public need to work together. October Cow hunt good. Fill the freezer.

Great things in proposal but Miley October hunt.

Common ground with management. Landowners greatest wildlife managers in the world until $$$ involded

 

[Jon Boy]

Look at boone and crockett data, what measly data is around for age class, and then re-check out those areas with a pair of binoculars that arent like looking through a poorly polished potatoe and youll probably arrive at a different conclusion.

You cant tell me with a straight face that hunting the rut isnt way different and doesnt result in young buck blasting - especially from disappointed elk hunters.

I’m not at all, but please tell me how that affects herd health? And how age class affects herd health? And how moving the season one month while allowing the same amount of tags is going to increase herd health?

The point is you have no date to support this. Period. When you get that data and can present it in a reasonable fashion please post it and tag me. Until then we are all just guessing and breezing over the two things we actually know will help. Eliminating all mule deer doe harvest and requiring mandatory harvesting so that we can at least start getting a baseline.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I’m not at all, but please tell me how that affects herd health? And how age class affects herd health? And how moving the season one month while allowing the same amount of tags is going to increase herd health?

The point is you have no date to support this. Period. When you get that data and can present it in a reasonable fashion please post it and tag me. Until then we are all just guessing and breezing over the two things we actually know will help. Eliminating all mule deer doe harvest and requiring mandatory harvesting so that we can at least start getting a baseline.

Imagine if archery season on elk was over sept 5th before the rut picks up. Do you think the same amount of elk get harvested? I dont. And i dont need data to know that. There is information about what youre asking about (herd health) 30-60 pages ago. There are problems associated with immature bucks doing the breeding and poor buck/doe ratios. Wyoming tracks it - for a reason.

I am with you on mandatory harvest reporting.

 

[Stifler]

People will fight to the death to prevent changing something so clearly terribly managed. This thread could be used as a weird psychology study.

This thread? It’s not just a psychology study, it could be a full-blown reality show. “The Real Hunters of Montana” – watch as they navigate the treacherous terrain of… online forums. Will they ever find the elusive deer? Tune in next season to find out!

 

[antlerradar]

I’m not at all, but please tell me how that affects herd health? And how age class affects herd health? And how moving the season one month while allowing the same amount of tags is going to increase herd health?

Ranchers look at the way we hunt mule deer and just shake our head. We would never treat our cow herds the way Montana treats the mule deer herd. If I was go and cull out the bulls that are the most dominate during the breeding season it would not be long and I would be seeing lower weening weights in my calves. In a few years when it came time to pick replacement heifers in a few years there would be fewer quality heifers to keep. In cattle this would result in less money. In deer this could result in poorer survival. As bad as this culling strategy would be for my cattle herd, it is sure to be far worse with a deer herd. In cattle the herd is composed of the best of the best to start with, the poorest cattle in the herd were sold long before they reached breeding age. Not so with the deer. The easier we make it for hunters to remove the best of the best, the more likely it will be that the poorer traits will be passed from generation to generation.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I’m not at all, but please tell me how that affects herd health? And how age class affects herd health? And how moving the season one month while allowing the same amount of tags is going to increase herd health?

The point is you have no date to support this. Period. When you get that data and can present it in a reasonable fashion please post it and tag me. Until then we are all just guessing and breezing over the two things we actually know will help. Eliminating all mule deer doe harvest and requiring mandatory harvesting so that we can at least start getting a baseline.

the proposal clearly calls for both of these in some form or fashion. Did you read it, or are you simply arguing against it based on the October MD hunt portion?

 

[sclancy27]

Ranchers look at the way we hunt mule deer and just shake our head. We would never treat our cow herds the way Montana treats the mule deer herd. If I was go and cull out the bulls that are the most dominate during the breeding season it would not be long and I would be seeing lower weening weights in my calves. In a few years when it came time to pick replacement heifers in a few years there would be fewer quality heifers to keep. In cattle this would result in less money. In deer this could result in poorer survival. As bad as this culling strategy would be for my cattle herd, it is sure to be far worse with a deer herd. In cattle the herd is composed of the best of the best to start with, the poorest cattle in the herd were sold long before they reached breeding age. Not so with the deer. The easier we make it for hunters to remove the best of the best, the more likely it will be that the poorer traits will be passed from generation to generation.

No offense, but if traits continue to be passed on, they are the preferred traits given whatever the ecosystem, predation, etc is selecting against. IE, they give the best chance of survival.

As a side note, I also don't think we should be managing any wild animal the way we intensively manage cattle. I'm not really for that level of animal husbandry of a supposedly wild animal that I want to hunt.

 

[SwaggyD]

supposedly wild animal

Pretty good description of a forky mule deer during the rut!

 

[brockel]

Idk anyone against hunting mule deer every year. Besides the landowners, outfitters, and non residents. Alot of conversations, talks with them.

One of the outfitters I know loves the suppressors. They don't allow people to bring or use there own gun. Have to use 1 of there's. Spook the elk with your boom stick. Wonder who was behind the push for suppressors?

 

[Shed God]

My fault, idk anyone for hunting mule deer every yr.

 

[sclancy27]

My fault, idk anyone for hunting mule deer every yr.

Interesting.....

 

[brockel]

My fault, idk anyone for hunting mule deer every yr.

I know lots for both sides of the argument.

 

[antlerradar]

No offense, but if traits continue to be passed on, they are the preferred traits given whatever the ecosystem, predation, etc is selecting against. IE, they give the best chance of survival.

As a side note, I also don't think we should be managing any wild animal the way we intensively manage cattle. I'm not really for that level of animal husbandry of a supposedly wild animal that I want to hunt.

What I am getting at is I think it is likely that many of the traits that give the best chance of survival also correlates with larger antlers. In cattle some cows are just better at raising calves. They produce more milk, metabolize feed more efficiency and likely plenty of other reasons. These supper good cows always wean a calf that is 50 to 100 lbs better then average. Even in tough years these cows will raise a calf that weighs more than the average cow will on a good year. I would bet it is likely that there are supper good does also. Does that just do a better job of raising a fawn and if there is any truth to theory that a good start is a strong indicator to the size of a buck fawns future antler size we may be reducing the number of does with the traits to give a fawn a good start when we as hunters select for antler size.

You are wright in that we should not try to manage wild animals the way we manage cattle. We as ranchers manage cattle one individual at a time. Game managers manage the whole herd at the same time. Managing wild game by the individual is impractical in the wild. The problem for game managers is that when you are managing the whole herd you need to cull the herd with a random cut for the best results. We as hunters are no longer culling the herd with a random cut like many did fifty years ago. We want to be selective and in doing so we may not just be selecting against big antlers but also against traits that effect survival . The only real choice game managers have is to implement regulations that force us hunters to be less selective.

 

[Forkyfinder]

What I am getting at is I think it is likely that many of the traits that give the best chance of survival also correlates with larger antlers. In cattle some cows are just better at raising calves. They produce more milk, metabolize feed more efficiency and likely plenty of other reasons. These supper good cows always wean a calf that is 50 to 100 lbs better then average. Even in tough years these cows will raise a calf that weighs more than the average cow will on a good year. I would bet it is likely that there are supper good does also. Does that just do a better job of raising a fawn and if there is any truth to theory that a good start is a strong indicator to the size of a buck fawns future antler size we may be reducing the number of does with the traits to give a fawn a good start when we as hunters select for antler size.

You are wright in that we should not try to manage wild animals the way we manage cattle. We as ranchers manage cattle one individual at a time. Game managers manage the whole herd at the same time. Managing wild game by the individual is impractical in the wild. The problem for game managers is that when you are managing the whole herd you need to cull the herd with a random cut for the best results. We as hunters are no longer culling the herd with a random cut like many did fifty years ago. We want to be selective and in doing so we may not just be selecting against big antlers but also against traits that effect survival . The only real choice game managers have is to implement regulations that force us hunters to be less selective.

Only thing to add is that theres a point when the selection is running dry. And there are areas where a mature buck is like a spring 2020 roll of toilet paier.

 

[sclancy27]

What I am getting at is I think it is likely that many of the traits that give the best chance of survival also correlates with larger antlers. In cattle some cows are just better at raising calves. They produce more milk, metabolize feed more efficiency and likely plenty of other reasons. These supper good cows always wean a calf that is 50 to 100 lbs better then average. Even in tough years these cows will raise a calf that weighs more than the average cow will on a good year. I would bet it is likely that there are supper good does also. Does that just do a better job of raising a fawn and if there is any truth to theory that a good start is a strong indicator to the size of a buck fawns future antler size we may be reducing the number of does with the traits to give a fawn a good start when we as hunters select for antler size.

You are wright in that we should not try to manage wild animals the way we manage cattle. We as ranchers manage cattle one individual at a time. Game managers manage the whole herd at the same time. Managing wild game by the individual is impractical in the wild. The problem for game managers is that when you are managing the whole herd you need to cull the herd with a random cut for the best results. We as hunters are no longer culling the herd with a random cut like many did fifty years ago. We want to be selective and in doing so we may not just be selecting against big antlers but also against traits that effect survival. The only real choice game managers have is to implement regulations that force us hunters to be less selective.

I think that is a stretch, both from a data backed perspective and a logical perspective. The data that I know of suggests that the mother has an outsized effect on genetic phenotype (expressed traits not just genotype) of its offspring. That is, depending on the in-utero condition of the mother, that fawn expresses traits differently. For males, it appears that the "decision" to push excess nutrition into body condition vs antler growth is made in-utero. Logically, it would make sense that a male that uses extra nutrition to increase body size has a higher chance of surviving weather events, droughts, potentially even predation. It is also not necessarily antler size that dictates success against other males during breeding, body size often wins there too, so lifelong fecundity I don't thing you can declare a clear winner between bigger antlers vs bigger body. All the data I know of suggests that fawn survival and future production depends on that fawns mother and her body condition during pregnancy.

I'm not saying that as an argument against the proposal, as you know I am behind it 100%. There are a number of benefits of this proposal from a hunting and hunt experience perspective and I think it is the better option when compared to the status quo of today and other options that remove significant opportunity (LE, etc).

 

[sclancy27]

Pretty good description of a forky mule deer during the rut!

Those forkies are tamer during the rut than most cattle I see on the landscape

 

[xcskier_hunter]

I think that is a stretch, both from a data backed perspective and a logical perspective. The data that I know of suggests that the mother has an outsized effect on genetic phenotype (expressed traits not just genotype) of its offspring. That is, depending on the in-utero condition of the mother, that fawn expresses traits differently. For males, it appears that the "decision" to push excess nutrition into body condition vs antler growth is made in-utero. Logically, it would make sense that a male that uses extra nutrition to increase body size has a higher chance of surviving weather events, droughts, potentially even predation. It is also not necessarily antler size that dictates success against other males during breeding, body size often wins there too, so lifelong fecundity I don't thing you can declare a clear winner between bigger antlers vs bigger body. All the data I know of suggests that fawn survival and future production depends on that fawns mother and her body condition during pregnancy.

I'm not saying that as an argument against the proposal, as you know I am behind it 100%. There are a number of benefits of this proposal from a hunting and hunt experience perspective and I think it is the better option when compared to the status quo of today and other options that remove significant opportunity (LE, etc).

There have been studies that show, all else equal, does tend to choose bucks with larger antlers to breed with when given the choice. Considering this, I don't think it's unreasonable to infer that this choice offers benefits to offspring. If choosing bucks with larger antlers did not offer survivability benefits to offspring, it's less likely this preference would be perpetuated.

Your point about antler growth reflecting in-utero health is also true. However, to infer that the only tangible benefit for the offspring that reach maturity is larger antler growth is a bit of a reach. In humans it's pretty clear that the health of a mother can have permanent effects on their kid's health, so I'd have to believe that mule deer born to healthier mothers have better lifelong survivability (in the absence of human hunters that prefer large antlers) compared to a mule deer born to a less healthy mother. In addition to genetics, the healthy mother likely passed on learned behavior about how to best survive on the landscape.

https://www.ckwri.tamuk.edu/news-events/study-shows-female-deer-prefer-bigger-antlered-bucks-mates#:~:text=This is where things got,with the bigger-antlered buck.

https://www.bowhunter.com/editorial/does-antler-size-really-matter-to-does/383330#replay

 

[sclancy27]

There have been studies that show, all else equal, does tend to choose bucks with larger antlers to breed with when given the choice. Considering this, I don't think it's unreasonable to infer that this choice offers benefits to offspring. If choosing bucks with larger antlers did not offer survivability benefits to offspring, it's less likely this preference would be perpetuated.

Your point about antler growth reflecting in-utero health is also true. However, to infer that the only tangible benefit for the offspring that reach maturity is larger antler growth is a bit of a reach. In humans it's pretty clear that the health of a mother can have permanent effects on their kid's health, so I'd have to believe that mule deer born to healthier mothers have better lifelong survivability (in the absence of human hunters that prefer large antlers) compared to a mule deer born to a less healthy mother. In addition to genetics, the healthy mother likely passed on learned behavior about how to best survive on the landscape.

https://www.ckwri.tamuk.edu/news-events/study-shows-female-deer-prefer-bigger-antlered-bucks-mates#:~:text=This is where things got,with the bigger-antlered buck.

https://www.bowhunter.com/editorial/does-antler-size-really-matter-to-does/383330#replay

That is an interesting study, tho I think some holes can be poked in the experiment and the practical application of the results. I would be hesitant to use a study on captive deer (it doesn't outright say they were captive, but that is heavily implied given the experimental procedures) and apply it to wild populations also. But still, interesting results.

 

[Jon Boy]

the proposal clearly calls for both of these in some form or fashion. Did you read it, or are you simply arguing against it based on the October MD hunt portion?

No, I’m saying let’s start there and get a base line and make some small changes to get buy in from the general public before you try pushing major season changes. There are many unintended consequences to what is being proposed and I don’t think it’s going to do what is intended. Again my example of all the units that border Montana in Wyoming and Idaho have all very similar shitty mule deer hunting yet have very different season structures.

I’m all for better mule deer hunting. If you want to actually make it better make everything limited entry and eliminate doe hunting and you’ll have that.

 

[Forkyfinder]

No, I’m saying let’s start there and get a base line and make some small changes to get buy in from the general public before you try pushing major season changes. There are many unintended consequences to what is being proposed and I don’t think it’s going to do what is intended. Again my example of all the units that border Montana in Wyoming and Idaho have all very similar shitty mule deer hunting yet have very different season structures.

I’m all for better mule deer hunting. If you want to actually make it better make everything limited entry and eliminate doe hunting and you’ll have that.

LE is a non starter - and not a small change.

The proposed change is much smaller.