Montana General Season Structure Proposal

[rogerthat]

Bet 97% of the 29% do it on private and pay for it… Wonder what that does for local access or lawmaking

Yes. I would like to know the percentage of nr mule deer buck harvest that is outfitted in region 6 and 7. I am not aware of fwp having these statistics. This additional data is needed to get the whole picture of what is actually happening out there

 

[Forkyfinder]

Bet 97% of the 29% do it on private and pay for it… Wonder what that does for local access or lawmaking

Na - i wish that was the case.

Id bet a majority are DIY.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Bet 97% of the 29% do it on private and pay for it… Wonder what that does for local access or lawmaking

I’d take that bet. The reason region 3 is so popular with NR hunters is the amount of available public land to hunt that holds relatively good numbers of elk.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I’d take that bet. The reason region 3 is so popular with NR hunters is the amount of available public land to hunt that holds relatively good numbers of elk.

Place was 1:1 NR to R plates all during achery. R tag sales are flat - but theres a lot more hunter days to harvest

NR pressure needs dealt with. Period. At the very least - caps on doe/cow licenses even in over objective units.

 

[SAJ-99]

Place was 1:1 NR to R plates all during achery. R tag sales are flat - but theres a lot more hunter days to harvest

NR pressure needs dealt with. Period. At the very least - caps on doe/cow licenses even in over objective units.

You got those restriction in 2023, but R harvest of MD does in R7 was 250% of the NR MD doe harvest, and 280% on the Statewide estimates. Sure, the move was a step in the right direction, but how much of a step? I tend to doubt that gives you the warm and fuzzies you were looking for. I think it would be a good idea to look at the long term harvest estimates. Residents seem to throughly enjoy whacking does way more than the average NR.

FWP :: Harvest Estimates

 

[antlerradar]

You got those restriction in 2023, but R harvest of MD does in R7 was 250% of the NR MD doe harvest, and 280% on the Statewide estimates. Sure, the move was a step in the right direction, but how much of a step? I tend to doubt that gives you the warm and fuzzies you were looking for. I think it would be a good idea to look at the long term harvest estimates. Residents seem to throughly enjoy whacking does way more than the average NR.

FWP :: Harvest Estimates

I am going to through out a slightly educated guess and say residents were far more likely to fill those tags on private land then non residents. I doubt there is data to support this guess, but there should be.

 

[Forkyfinder]

You got those restriction in 2023, but R harvest of MD does in R7 was 250% of the NR MD doe harvest, and 280% on the Statewide estimates. Sure, the move was a step in the right direction, but how much of a step? I tend to doubt that gives you the warm and fuzzies you were looking for. I think it would be a good idea to look at the long term harvest estimates. Residents seem to throughly enjoy whacking does way more than the average NR.

FWP :: Harvest Estimates

 

[SAJ-99]

I am going to through out a slightly educated guess and say residents were far more likely to fill those tags on private land then non residents. I doubt there is data to support this guess, but there should be.

Agreed and it would make complete sense. But I think it is a mistake to focus on public deer vs private deer. Deer don’t understand boundaries. It is directly related to pressure and to feed on a pivot.
The main point is to limit B licenses is a step in helping deer rebound and that is why FWP changes the number. But if that is so important to helping the resource, there should be equal the outrage in R killing so many does as NR killing more bucks.

 

[antlerradar]

Agreed and it would make complete sense. But I think it is a mistake to focus on public deer vs private deer. Deer don’t understand boundaries. It is directly related to pressure and to feed on a pivot.
The main point is to limit B licenses is a step in helping deer rebound and that is why FWP changes the number. But if that is so important to helping the resource, there should be equal the outrage in R killing so many does as NR killing more bucks.

It is certainly true that deer don't understand boundaries and management wise it doesn't make a difference when it comes to smaller isolated parcels of public land. On the bigger blocks of public like the Custer, Terry Badlands and other places where several large blocks of public separated by small amounts of private the distribution of hunters does make a difference.

 

[Flatbrimmer]

Anyone that thinks animals don’t know boundaries has never been to any of the petting zoos…. Yellowstone, slippery Anne are a couple big ones. Of course you could just drive around Gallatin gateway or the Madison River and look toward Turner’s Mountain…. Tell me they don’t know……..

 

[Flatbrimmer]

It absolutely does matter private or public. That’s why some of the season dates proposed are for antlerless hunting on PRIVATE land. Just having people on more private land creating pressure will help the public land hunter tremendously equaling less hunter days afield and higher satisfaction rate. The incentives for the private land holders is the risky business….

 

[SAJ-99]

It is certainly true that deer don't understand boundaries and management wise it doesn't make a difference when it comes to smaller isolated parcels of public land. On the bigger blocks of public like the Custer, Terry Badlands and other places where several large blocks of public separated by small amounts of private the distribution of hunters does make a difference.

I think we may be talking about two different things. You and @Flatbrimmer seem to be talking about hunting pressure. I thought this idea was about helping mule deer, not mule deer hunters. If populations drop by 40-50%, no B tags should be available anywhere and little time should be given to the landowner that complains about deer on his winter range. That rancher can apply for a game damage hunt. Montana has always tried to make everyone happy and the competing interest means the resource suffers.

I don't think it is advantageous in the long run for hunters to make a difference between public land deer and private land deer in these conversations. FWP doesn't know enough about migration patterns to make the distinction in rules and the deer don't know the difference. It will eventually evolve into confusing rules that I guaranteee the public land hunter will get the worse of.

If MT decides to cut NR tags, then cut NR tags, you just need to open your wallets. I think the change in season dates to October will do more to reduce MD harvest and pressure than anything. I also think there is a high chance WT will get pounded.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I think we may be talking about two different things. You and @Flatbrimmer If MT decides to cut NR tags, then cut NR tags, you just need to open your wallets.

I think WY figured out the populace that can/will open their wallets up a while ago.

 

[huntin24/7]

I’ve noticed more and more the last five years or so that deer are learning boundaries. Bma’s that used to hold good numbers of deer all season seem much more void of deer after a week or two of rifle and I see good numbers hanging out on private 1/2 mile or so from the boundary. This is in spots with good habitat on the bma’s as well.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Anyone that thinks animals don’t know boundaries has never been to any of the petting zoos…. Yellowstone, slippery Anne are a couple big ones. Of course you could just drive around Gallatin gateway or the Madison River and look toward Turner’s Mountain…. Tell me they don’t know……..

Wildlife knows no boundaries is a statement built on the recognition that wild animals do not simply live on private or public land, and that their intrinsic nature is to be across all types of land.

Having said that, I agree with your post. There's a mountain of science out there that indicates animals know where existing refugia is (not a function of landownership, but secure habitat) and they head there once predation pressure starts. It's been documented in the early 2000's in MT by Ken Hamlin & his crew where they tracked a collared cow elk from the west side of YNP to Wall Creek. She was only available to hunters during a few short hours of daylight between different hunting districts. That animal knew where she was safe and where she wasn't. Similarly, studies in Colorado show elk disturbance during parturition months due to recreational pressure, and some good work out of UT shows that archery pressure, among other hunting pressure, drives elk movement to safe spaces.

The constant application of hunting pressure, starting August 15 and ending February 15, is a straight line pressure graph that just exacerbates the distribution issue in some areas.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I think we may be talking about two different things. You and @Flatbrimmer seem to be talking about hunting pressure. I thought this idea was about helping mule deer, not mule deer hunters. If populations drop by 40-50%, no B tags should be available anywhere and little time should be given to the landowner that complains about deer on his winter range. That rancher can apply for a game damage hunt. Montana has always tried to make everyone happy and the competing interest means the resource suffers.

I don't think it is advantageous in the long run for hunters to make a difference between public land deer and private land deer in these conversations. FWP doesn't know enough about migration patterns to make the distinction in rules and the deer don't know the difference. It will eventually evolve into confusing rules that I guaranteee the public land hunter will get the worse of.

If MT decides to cut NR tags, then cut NR tags, you just need to open your wallets. I think the change in season dates to October will do more to reduce MD harvest and pressure than anything. I also think there is a high chance WT will get pounded.

The proposal is farther reaching than simply deer. All of the issues are tied together in terms of management. With a declining hunter success rate, increased hunter days, deer declines and a need to for better relationships between all stakeholders (which 100% is a management issue), the proposal seeks to increase hunter success, decrease hunter pressure and maintain ample opportunity for OTC hunting for residents and non-residents alike.

If it were just about MD, then the tags antleress tags would be cut (already happened) and we'd see more limited entry areas for bucks (already happened in R4). But - the group recognized that all things are tied together, and that with the current season structure - it's the two-legged pressure machines that are driving a lot of the lack of success.

 

[SAJ-99]

The proposal is farther reaching than simply deer. All of the issues are tied together in terms of management. With a declining hunter success rate, increased hunter days, deer declines and a need to for better relationships between all stakeholders (which 100% is a management issue), the proposal seeks to increase hunter success, decrease hunter pressure and maintain ample opportunity for OTC hunting for residents and non-residents alike.

If it were just about MD, then the tags antleress tags would be cut (already happened) and we'd see more limited entry areas for bucks (already happened in R4). But - the group recognized that all things are tied together, and that with the current season structure - it's the two-legged pressure machines that are driving a lot of the lack of success.

I get the complexity and interconnectedness of the problems, but I will add that it is this way a lot because Montanans' chooses to make them interconnected by the way they run the system. This isn't really about the group's work. It's about the intellectually lazy conclusions being drawn on this thread that the problem is NRs. I expected it, but it's disappointing. The good news is that that small part of the problem is easily fixable by FWP, just not cheap.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I get the complexity and interconnectedness of the problems, but I will add that it is this way a lot because Montanans' chooses to make them interconnected by the way they run the system. This isn't really about the group's work. It's about the intellectually lazy conclusions being drawn on this thread that the problem is NRs. I expected it, but it's disappointing. The good news is that that small part of the problem is easily fixable by FWP, just not cheap.

People tend to gravitate towards solutions that they believe will help solve the problem but without giving anything up themselves. It's easy to blame NR's because that's the biggest issue that people see in front of them. Over the last few years there's been a significant push from some groups to try and limit NR participation as well (myself included here) where applicable and sometimes where it isn't. Given that it's an election year and those politics are front and center in a couple of key races, I can understand why people gravitate towards that and how frustrating that can be for folks who see it differently.

The data is pretty clear though, and if we are honest with ourselves then we recognize that NR pressure has increased significantly, with a large shift in the number of NR's selecting regions 6 & 7 for deer, while resident hunters have contributed significantly in terms of increased pressure. While the politically popular answer may be to drastically limit non-residents, it is simply not pragmatic nor does it invest in the future.

 

[rogerthat]

People tend to gravitate towards solutions that they believe will help solve the problem but without giving anything up themselves. It's easy to blame NR's because that's the biggest issue that people see in front of them. Over the last few years there's been a significant push from some groups to try and limit NR participation as well (myself included here) where applicable and sometimes where it isn't. Given that it's an election year and those politics are front and center in a couple of key races, I can understand why people gravitate towards that and how frustrating that can be for folks who see it differently.

The data is pretty clear though, and if we are honest with ourselves then we recognize that NR pressure has increased significantly, with a large shift in the number of NR's selecting regions 6 & 7 for deer, while resident hunters have contributed significantly in terms of increased pressure. While the politically popular answer may be to drastically limit non-residents, it is simply not pragmatic nor does it invest in the future.

I see the issue as a distribution issue. Nr caps wouldn’t need to limit them, just redistribute them across the state and to lands with better wildlife populations. This may need to be to private lands unfortunately for the nr diy guys

 

[Forkyfinder]

I get the complexity and interconnectedness of the problems, but I will add that it is this way a lot because Montanans' chooses to make them interconnected by the way they run the system. This isn't really about the group's work. It's about the intellectually lazy conclusions being drawn on this thread that the problem is NRs. I expected it, but it's disappointing. The good news is that that small part of the problem is easily fixable by FWP, just not cheap.

Its not intellectually lazy - theres an uptick in the problem (excess pressure) related to resale of the NR tags.

It is, intellectually lazy, to say that this isnt the major contributing factor to the problem.

Resident hunters are getting blamed for more pressure too, in the form of "increased days".... but i dont think its crazy to say these days came from the increase in required effort because of the dramatic burst of NR tags in the form of reselling.

Something needs done both ways - but not reselling tags alone would get us entirely back to where it was 10 years ago...