Montana Mule Deer Mismanagement

[sclancy27]

Ah, thanks I'm following you now. The OpEd I shared was simply pointing out that FWP identified for the first time NRs killed more MD bucks than residents in Region 6. I do care. That's why I helped write SB 525 which would have required FW to put caps on NRs. Personally, I think NRs should be addressed before we start to limit residents. I agree that unlimited opportunity can be a bad things, however, picking a district, picking a weapon, shortening the archery and general seasons, etc, etc. disproportionally harms residents vs nonresidents / outfitted clients.

Just to be clear, it would be pick your region and species along with the season changes as you mentioned.

I agree that in a perfect world addressing NR only would be ideal. The problems would be

1. How are you going to decide the quota? Are you going to do it every year based on counts? As you can see, total number of NR (and R) harvest changes significantly over time due to herd numbers. There is no easy way to get a reasonable quota for NR without the effort required to just go LE for everyone, which I'm assuming you nor I want.

2. There is going to be significant pushback from outfitters which definitely lessens the odds of anything being passed for NR quotas.

3. Like I said, if we can moderate pressure across the whole of the season, instead of in 20% of it, we stand to see, IMO, significant improvements in the hunting experience for everyone.

 

[The Hedgehog]

I love where I live, but if it were for the hunting alone i'd much prefer to live in Wyoming. Ever heard of a Wyoming resident complain about their lack of opportunity of poor mule deer hunting?

https://wgfd.wyo.gov/media/29982/download?inline

Look how they do it. Could you imagine the screaming, ranting and raving sniveling bitches in MT if we dared make all the residents suffer at this level...

Montanans and just so used to getting to hunt everywhere, every year, for months on end, with rifle all of November, essentially statewide. It has consequences.

It's mind boggling to me that the MBA wouldn't be full in support of choose your weapon. Can you imagine how great Septembers in MT would be?

 

[sclancy27]

I love where I live, but if it were for the hunting alone i'd much prefer to live in Wyoming. Ever heard of a Wyoming resident complain about their lack of opportunity of poor mule deer hunting?

https://wgfd.wyo.gov/media/29982/download?inline

Look how they do it. Could you imagine the screaming, ranting and raving sniveling bitches in MT if we dared make all the residents suffer at this level...

Montanans and just so used to getting to hunt everywhere, every year, for months on end, with rifle all of November, essentially statewide. It has consequences.

It's mind boggling to me that the MBA wouldn't be full in support of choose your weapon. Can you imagine how great Septembers in MT would be?

It would prob be like our neighbor to the south....

 

[8andcounting]

My only question is how do they know?

I was never asked this year . So did they list me as being in 7? Who knows

 

[John B. Sullivan III]

Just to be clear, it would be pick your region and species along with the season changes as you mentioned.

I agree that in a perfect world addressing NR only would be ideal. The problems would be

1. How are you going to decide the quota? Are you going to do it every year based on counts? As you can see, total number of NR (and R) harvest changes significantly over time due to herd numbers. There is no easy way to get a reasonable quota for NR without the effort required to just go LE for everyone, which I'm assuming you not I want.

2. There is going to be significant pushback from outfitters which definitely lessens the odds of anything being passed for NR quotas.

3. Like I said, if we can moderate pressure across the whole of the season, instead of in 20% of it, we stand to see, IMO, significant improvements in the hunting experience for everyone.

I'm tracking that proposal... For emphasis I added other proposals that have made in an attempt to solve the same perceived problems.

Those are great questions. For a start we must work on collecting better data to use for better management. For example, FWP reported the highest MD count in 20 years from flight surveys this spring in the Madison valley. What are they doing differently? I don't know.

1. I dont think deciding the quota would be hard. We already do it in certain areas. FYI, SB 525 did not set quotas, it simply required the department to set limits/quotas on unlimited NR opportunities using the best tools and methods. They could be modified accordingly to address experience and herd health. I am opposed to across the board LE's. That is an extreme option which we will never reverse. We have other tools that should be deployed first.

2. Yes, SB 525 generated signifiant pushback from MOGA and UPOM.

3. Im not advocating for a free for all. I'm in favor of strategically moderating pressure. Off the top of my head we can start by eliminating the shoulder seasons, stop selling 3 cow tags over the counter to R's and NR's in LE districts, hold to the 17,000 cap of NR combo licenses, limit MD hunting during MD rut as necessary, improve habitat on public, improve access to public, etc. IMO a combo of all these would show signifiant improvements to hunting experience as well.

These are complex issues and blanket changes are not good for Montana because it's too diverse. For example, shortening and moving archery and general season would reduce opportunity for elk harvest. That would only further harm MD in areas where large elk populations are outcompeting for resources and pushing MD out.

 

[8andcounting]

I think we are all saying the same thing. Limited and unlimited draw is the only way to go. I said it several times in this thread. How else are they actually going to manage. Some else can take credit for it.

I have to agree . Rip the band aid off and get it done . Le statewide for all R And NR

 

[Gerald Martin]

I'm tracking that proposal... For emphasis I added other proposals that have made in an attempt to solve the same perceived problems.

Those are great questions. For a start we must work on collecting better data to use for better management. For example, FWP reported the highest MD count in 20 years from flight surveys this spring in the Madison valley. What are they doing differently? I don't know.

1. I dont think deciding the quota would be hard. We already do it in certain areas. FYI, SB 525 did not set quotas, it simply required the department to set limits/quotas on unlimited NR opportunities using the best tools and methods. They could be modified accordingly to address experience and herd health. I am opposed to across the board LE's. That is an extreme option which we will never reverse. We have other tools that should be deployed first.

2. Yes, SB 525 generated signifiant pushback from MOGA and UPOM.

3. Im not advocating for a free for all. I'm in favor of strategically moderating pressure. Off the top of my head we can start by eliminating the shoulder seasons, stop selling 3 cow tags over the counter to R's and NR's in LE districts, hold to the 17,000 cap of NR combo licenses, limit MD hunting during MD rut as necessary, improve habitat on public, improve access to public, etc. IMO a combo of all these would show signifiant improvements to hunting experience as well.

These are complex issues and blanket changes are not good for Montana because it's too diverse. For example, shortening and moving archery and general season would reduce opportunity for elk harvest. That would only further harm MD in areas where large elk populations are outcompeting for resources and pushing MD out.

If only there was a proposal that addresses pretty much all those issues. Some folks would even describe it as reasonable and moderate rather than extreme.

 

[DFS]

I think we are all saying the same thing. Limited and unlimited draw is the only way to go. I said it several times in this thread. How else are they actually going to manage. Some else can take credit for it.

Dualling proposals and I have have to say I support yours as well. Maybe I am just one of the guys that’s so desperate for a change I will take anything.

 

[John B. Sullivan III]

If only there was a proposal that addresses pretty much all those issues. Some folks would even describe it as reasonable and moderate rather than extreme.

I agree. Unfortunately, I have not seen one yet.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I agree. Unfortunately, I have not seen one yet.

John - would you agree that all rut hunting should be LE for MD?

Looking at the harvest trends, long range equipment, and hunting pressure we cant just blame NR and gotta give something up. It isnt about antler size - but buck/doe ratios and maintaining a healthy population.

It isnt a coincidence that Montana is the only state with season structures like this. I would much prefer to do something than to wait until a bad winter combines with excessive hunting harvest for years and we go LE cause its absolutely necessary.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I agree. Unfortunately, I have not seen one yet.

Do you have a better plan other than just expressing opposition to anything that requires sacrifice from all users groups that will affect positive change biologically, be acceptable socially, and not negatively impact Montana FWP’s budget?

Please share.

 

[John B. Sullivan III]

Do you have a better plan other than just expressing opposition to anything that requires sacrifice from all users groups that will affect positive change biologically, be acceptable socially, and not negatively impact Montana FWP’s budget?

Please share.

Gerald - I'm interested in solving the perceived problem and that takes good data. In my opinion your proposal did not have a strong stated goal, it lacked the hard data to support the need for change and lacked the data to forecast positive biological outcome based on the changes. I'm all for herd health but I couldn't tell if it was designed for herd health or to create trophy districts. Im unwilling to give up resident opportunities for the trophy desires of a few. I am willing to give up opportunities for herd health. Show me the data to back up the changes, and show me why less extremes changes will not work, and I might get behind it.

My plan was to address the NRs via SB 525. Some who singed on to your proposal opposed it. Where were you on it?

Your plan is not socially acceptable outside of Hunt Talk. There are a ton of residents who feel like I do, but could be swayed with good data.

How is your proposal forecasted to impact FWPs budget? In the version I saw "FWP has indicated this could result in a $9 million dollar drop in revenue." For what its worth, after needed amendments, SB 525 was budget neutral.

It is presumptuous of you to accuse me of "just expressing opposition to anything that requires sacrifice from all users groups" but I do have my priorities.

 

[John B. Sullivan III]

John - would you agree that all rut hunting should be LE for MD?

Looking at the harvest trends, long range equipment, and hunting pressure we cant just blame NR and gotta give something up. It isnt about antler size - but buck/doe ratios and maintaining a healthy population.

It isnt a coincidence that Montana is the only state with season structures like this. I would much prefer to do something than to wait until a bad winter combines with excessive hunting harvest for years and we go LE cause its absolutely necessary.

Mr. Forkyfinder -

I could get behind the LE for MD rut hurting, but I don't think it should be applied statewide. It should be used like a scalpel to address herd health, age class, etc. There are very few (if any) instances of reversing LE.

I think we should start with limiting NRs before residents. Let's see what happens in a few years and adjust as required.

I agree Montana's wildlife management problems are Montana made and can be fixed. I would much prefer to use good data, make informed and incremental changes, and adjust as required. I too would like to avoid the necessity of LE.

 

[8andcounting]

Do you have a better plan other than just expressing opposition to anything that requires sacrifice from all users groups that will affect positive change biologically, be acceptable socially, and not negatively impact Montana FWP’s budget?

Please share.

This is where I think you’re wrong . Any real change is going to drastically affect Montana FWP budget in a negative way . The proposal is not real change . It doesn’t take away much opportunity. About the same number of deer will get shot . Respectfully. You guys worked hard on the proposal and I appreciate that

 

[John B. Sullivan III]

Mr. Sullivan u are aware there is a management tool such as limited entry that is unlimited. That would gather alot of info maybe close to all info required to manage appropriately.

Mr. Shed God - Thank you. I understand limited entry that is unlimited, however I am not tracking on how that would gather a lot of info close to what is required to manage properly. Im all ears - please explain.

 

[bigsky2]

Gerald - I'm interested in solving the perceived problem and that takes good data. In my opinion your proposal did not have a strong stated goal, it lacked the hard data to support the need for change and lacked the data to forecast positive biological outcome based on the changes. I'm all for herd health but I couldn't tell if it was designed for herd health or to create trophy districts. Im unwilling to give up resident opportunities for the trophy desires of a few. I am willing to give up opportunities for herd health. Show me the data to back up the changes, and show me why less extremes changes will not work, and I might get behind it.

My plan was to address the NRs via SB 525. Some who singed on to your proposal opposed it. Where were you on it?

Your plan is not socially acceptable outside of Hunt Talk. There are a ton of residents who feel like I do, but could be swayed with good data.

How is your proposal forecasted to impact FWPs budget? In the version I saw "FWP has indicated this could result in a $9 million dollar drop in revenue." For what its worth, after needed amendments, SB 525 was budget neutral.

It is presumptuous of you to accuse me of "just expressing opposition to anything that requires sacrifice from all users groups" but I do have my priorities.

What part of the proposal makes you wonder if it was designed to create trophy districts?

 

[brockel]

There will be no budget change if u have to buy your license and tag to apply. Draw a tag congrats. U don't, u donated to fwp.

Do what arizona makes you do when you apply.

 

[John B. Sullivan III]

What part of the proposal makes you wonder if it was designed to create trophy districts?

Mr. bigsky2,

The whole thing. The gentlemen who wrote it are smart and know how to directly address herd health, but they don't. It's not well written, it's not supported by data, it's jumpy and unclear and identifies no herd health goal. The only goal and real goal I can identify is reduced pressure on wildlife at the cost to residents. Why?

 

[John B. Sullivan III]

Do what arizona makes you do when you apply.

Not a bad idea at all

 

[8andcounting]

There will be no budget change if u have to buy your license and tag to apply. Draw a tag congrats. U don't, u donated to fwp.

Never fly with Montana residents