Montana General Season Structure Proposal

[cgasner1]

Shucks - nowhere to leave a comment....

They are among us go ahead

 

[brockel]

Funny how the girls story mentioned not being able to find anything on the public so they had to go on a friends private. Hmmm


Montana region 7 mule deer meetings are a rinse and repeat.

 

[huntin24/7]

It’s interesting how the doe tags are significantly reduced in several regions due to the decline in populations but no changes whatsoever for antlered deer. I guess they aren’t affected by drought, other weather, predators, etc.

 

[brockel]

It’s interesting how the doe tags are significantly reduced in several regions due to the decline in populations but no changes whatsoever for antlered deer. I guess they aren’t affected by drought, other weather, predators, etc.

It’s for the children

 

[Elky Welky]

It’s interesting how the doe tags are significantly reduced in several regions due to the decline in populations but no changes whatsoever for antlered deer. I guess they aren’t affected by drought, other weather, predators, etc.

Most antlered deer can't get pregnant.

 

[Carnage2011]

It’s interesting how the doe tags are significantly reduced in several regions due to the decline in populations but no changes whatsoever for antlered deer. I guess they aren’t affected by drought, other weather, predators, etc.

As long as there are enough bucks to cover the does then there would be no restrictions necessary for bucks if populations are the concern.

Every legislative session UPOM kicks out a bullshit bill about needing general tags in their units because populations are over objective. Obviously you don’t manage populations with male harvest. This is the same situation.

 

[huntin24/7]

Most antlered deer can't get pregnant.

Obviously yes. I’m just assuming antlered deer numbers also declined as well.

 

[Forkyfinder]

They are among us go ahead

There is no reasonable defense to at least temporarily reducing rut hunting opportunity for several of these districts. The numbers, experience, and herd health speak loudly enough to me.... I wish theyd come here and post or engage? I suppose seeing it on HT wouldnt be much different - but it seems they are disregarding changes in the name of "opportunity" without weighing the resource risks that are apparent to lots of hunters in the state.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Obviously yes. I’m just assuming antlered deer numbers also declined as well.

theres also the fact that buck doe ratios were on the verge - and that was before it being forky "not my best but" only season.

 

[idelkslayer]

Obviously yes. I’m just assuming antlered deer numbers also declined as well.

Yes, but not killing them doesn't do anything to add more bucks on the landscape. The bucks that are already alive won't increase in number if you don't kill them.

 

[huntin24/7]

I understand that. Just saying that if we kill less of them this year, there might be more of them next year, and some of them might be a little older along with a slightly better buck-doe ratio. I’m aware that does get pregnant and have the fawns and that not that many bucks are absolutely necessary to breed all the does. Just thinking that a higher ratio of bucks to does than what we currently have and a few 3+ year olds could be a positive thing. But I’m wrong often, so maybe I’m totally off on this.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Yes, but not killing them doesn't do anything to add more bucks on the landscape. The bucks that are already alive won't increase in number if you don't kill them.

I dont see the logic here. There will be more bucks if every one older than 2 isnt blasted...

 

[Rie Bread]

That survey Gerald posted put the paint on the wall for me. Most Montana’s want to hunt the rut near the holiday and have the chance to hunt 6 weekends and are totally cool shooting 1.5-2.5.

HT members probably make up 1% of Montana hunting population? So as long as the survey says rut hunt the FWP probably will

 

[Carnage2011]

I understand that. Just saying that if we kill less of them this year, there might be more of them next year, and some of them might be a little older along with a slightly better buck-doe ratio. I’m aware that does get pregnant and have the fawns and that not that many bucks are absolutely necessary to breed all the does. Just thinking that a higher ratio of bucks to does than what we currently have and a few 3+ year olds could be a positive thing. But I’m wrong often, so maybe I’m totally off on this.

You aren’t wrong about it allowing some older bucks. That isn’t what FWP is after though and they specifically stated that their changes were due to population levels.

 

[huntin24/7]

You aren’t wrong about it allowing some older bucks. That isn’t what FWP is after though and they specifically stated that their changes were due to population levels.

Yeah, I understand their goals. Guess I should’ve assumed things would stay the same and kept my thoughts to myself. Lol. Live and learn I guess.

 

[idelkslayer]

I dont see the logic here. There will be more bucks if every one older than 2 isnt blasted...

Let's say there are 500 bucks already alive on the landscape. If you don't kill any of them, there will still only be 500 bucks. They cannot increase in number on their own. An increase in bucks is dependent on does and fawn survival. If you want more bucks you have to stop killing does.

Reducing harvest on the buck portion of the population does not add any bucks. It might keep more of what is already there but it cannot add to that number.

The only hunting pressure that has anything to do with overall deer populations is doe harvest.

 

[huntin24/7]

Let's say there are 500 bucks already alive on the landscape. If you don't kill any of them, there will still only be 500 bucks. They cannot increase in number on their own. An increase in bucks is dependent on does and fawn survival. If you want more bucks you have to stop killing does.

Reducing harvest on the buck portion of the population does not add any bucks. It might keep more of what is already there but it cannot add to that number.

The only hunting pressure that has anything to do with overall deer populations is doe harvest.

I think that’s what he and I are both referring to. Lost in translation a little I guess. To add to what you said, you start with 500 bucks and don’t kill any, the only added bucks to the population next year are the new fawns. But if you kill 300 of those bucks, now you have 200 bucks plus the new buck fawns. You are correct that bucks can’t make more bucks all by themselves and protecting the does is most important for the herd numbers. I’m just stating that killing less bucks could in a way also be beneficial.

 

[Shed God]

It needs to be LE unlimited outside the existing Limited districts. With alot of gaurenteed non resident tags going to outfitters. And landowner tags gaurenteed.

Just feed back from the ones I know. Why would they give up everything they already have. They manage there herds. Well according to fwp we are responsible for them.

Think about it.

 

[idelkslayer]

I think that’s what he and I are both referring to. Lost in translation a little I guess. To add to what you said, you start with 500 bucks and don’t kill any, the only added bucks to the population next year are the new fawns. But if you kill 300 of those bucks, now you have 200 bucks plus the new buck fawns. You are correct that bucks can’t make more bucks all by themselves and protecting the does is most important for the herd numbers. I’m just stating that killing less bucks could in a way also be beneficial.

Can you expand on what the benefit would be?

 

[Rie Bread]

Let’s be real there aren’t gonna be 500 there’s gonna be 498 cause me and the wife are going for a eastern Montana road hunt for sure this year and gonna top it off with the North Pole choo choo in lewistown for the kids. Yeehaaww