Montana Mule Deer Mismanagement

[300stw]

I've been out of college for a couple decades but was born in the right state...so....

i dont think its a plausible excuse to shoot bucks this late especially public land,

 

[BuzzH]

i dont think its a plausible excuse to shoot bucks this late especially public land,

Since I've been getting nr deer tags in Montana after moving in 2000...I've shot 2 mule deer. Both long before mid November. I won't say never but I'm not seeing a situation where I shoot another mule deer buck in Montana in my lifetime.

 

[SAJ-99]

The problem with most FWP surveys is that they’re multiple choice answers. The surveyor crafts the questions and answers to get desired results.

Conundrum- Survey hunters to get input and listen to them bitch about the results or don’t survey them and listen to them bitch about not being asked for input.

Eric, would trying to change a few units to draw (like was done with 270) be more effective than changing the entire system? I ask because you have been involved in the other discussions. We all need to try to come together with proposals solutions, particularly ones that don’t alienate 60% of R hunters.

 

[huntin24/7]

My buddy shot a 139” deer, was telling people it was a 165-175” deer for a couple days. I think a lot of people who are new to mule deer hunting think a 140” deer is a big mule deer.

The average size has gotten so much smaller in eastern MT that when I see a 150, I have to calm myself down because it looks like a 180 compared to all the dinks I’ve been seeing for weeks. Lol

 

[DFS]

Have any of you guys/gals seen this? I’m assuming so, but just in case. This is/was Montana’s mule deer management plan, initially written in 1995 (If I remember correctly). It was updated last October and went through the F&W Commission. There was a public comment period with only about 38 comments received statewide, with most of them being about a district in R1. There was an opportunity to weigh in on MT mule deer management fairly recently, regardless of how folks feel about whether or not the Department listens. Given all these threads on mule deer I’m surprised at the lack of formal participation here. Just an FYI for those that might not be aware.

https://fwp.mt.gov/binaries/content/assets/fwp/conservation/deer/mule-deer-ahm-plan-final_2021.pdf

Comments here:

https://fwp.mt.gov/binaries/content/assets/fwp/commission/2021/oct-28/wildlife/deer-ahm/4l--mule-deer-ahp-comments.pdf

What exactly were people going to comment? please stop doing the same thing you’ve been doing since 1970 even though looking at that plan that’s exactly what mtfwp was going to do. Many of the regions had no changes. Would a bunch of comments changed their “adaptive mule deer plan”? Not a chance. This mess falls squarely on wildlife managers and biologists and the people making decisions at fwp. They are the people that could actually help our mule deer herd and they are asleep at the wheel. I can tell you I make my public comments and not once did I feel it made one bit of difference. Certainly didn’t help with elk management.
Every mule deer that gets harvested in Montana is in spite of Montana FWP not because of them, just an FYI.

 

[300stw]

Since I've been getting nr deer tags in Montana after moving in 2000...I've shot 2 mule deer. Both long before mid November. I won't say never but I'm not seeing a situation where I shoot another mule deer buck in Montana in my lifetime.comments

Since I've been getting nr deer tags in Montana after moving in 2000...I've shot 2 mule deer. Both long before mid November. I won't say never but I'm not seeing a situation where I shoot another mule deer buck in Montana in my lifetime.

wasnt about you personally buzz, its the general comment i hear all the time from landowners

 

[YukonGold]

Conundrum- Survey hunters to get input and listen to them bitch about the results or don’t survey them and listen to them bitch about not being asked for input.

Eric, would trying to change a few units to draw (like was done with 270) be more effective than changing the entire system? I ask because you have been involved in the other discussions. We all need to try to come together with proposals solutions, particularly ones that don’t alienate 60% of R hunters.

The problem with changing a few units to draw is that it might help those units, but it just increases hunter pressure elsewhere and makes the remaining units that much worse. Honestly I think the only way to solve this is to make every unit a draw. And that won't be popular with many (dare I say most?) hunters.

Maybe there's a way to spread out the pressure more. Take general rifle hunting out of the rut. Shorten the season and/or have multiple seasons for hunters to apply for, with early (non-rut) seasons with more opportunity.

 

[WanderWoman]

What exactly were people going to comment? please stop doing the same thing you’ve been doing since 1970 even though looking at that plan that’s exactly what mtfwp was going to do. Many of the regions had no changes. Would a bunch of comments changed their “adaptive mule deer plan”? Not a chance. This mess falls squarely on wildlife managers and biologists and the people making decisions at fwp. They are the people that could actually help our mule deer herd and they are asleep at the wheel. I can tell you I make my public comments and not once did I feel it made one bit of difference. Certainly didn’t help with elk management.
Every mule deer that gets harvested in Montana is in spite of Montana FWP not because of them, just an FYI.

I know how frustrating it is when you feel like FWP doesn’t listen to comments. Everyone who’s ever commented feels that way at some point because nobody ever gets their way with everything. There have been plenty of times where I’m pissed about decisions and don’t feel listened to, and it’s clear a lot of folks here echo that and what you said too.

I feel like not commenting when you have something to say is kind of a cop-out (I don’t mean offense). It takes less time to submit a comment probably than most people spend ranting on this page, and then at least you’d be doing your part as a beneficiary in the public trust. I think Randy’s latest podcast touches on that but haven’t quite finished listening to it yet. Even if you don’t think it’ll do anything, comment! Then it’s on the record, which is better than it not being on the record.

Also, look what comments did last season-setting? It was a shit-show, but would have been a LOT worse if people didn’t speak up. Some of the early decisions were reversed based on public comment, which gave me a sliver of hope. They just have to show up for mule deer in the same way they do for elk.

 

[SAJ-99]

And that won't be popular with many (dare I say most?) hunters.

Any suggestions that aren't popular with most hunters are doomed to failure. If you don't start with that premise, you are just pissing into the wind.

 

[DFS]

I know how frustrating it is when you feel like FWP doesn’t listen to comments. Everyone who’s ever commented feels that way at some point because nobody ever gets their way with everything. There have been plenty of times where I’m pissed about decisions and don’t feel listened to, and it’s clear a lot of folks here echo that and what you said too.

I feel like not commenting when you have something to say is kind of a cop-out (I don’t mean offense). It takes less time to submit a comment probably than most people spend ranting on this page, and then at least you’d be doing your part as a beneficiary in the public trust. I think Randy’s latest podcast touches on that but haven’t quite finished listening to it yet. Even if you don’t think it’ll do anything, comment! Then it’s on the record, which is better than it not being on the record.

Also, look what comments did last season-setting? It was a shit-show, but would have been a LOT worse if people didn’t speak up. Some of the early decisions were reversed based on public comment, which gave me a sliver of hope. They just have to show up for mule deer in the same way they do for elk.

I’m on record plenty with public comments on my thoughts on Montana mule deer. The way all those comments are geared to region 1 I suspect most didn’t feel comments regarding other areas were valid.
I showed up after bad winters in 2011 and 2012 only to be laughed at by local fwp staff, my comments were dismissed as anecdotal and I didn’t know what I was talking about. 2 years later they cut doe tags and not long after that they declared a great mule deer comeback. I’ve watched areas I used to enjoy hunting decimated by doe harvest. I can’t go to those areas during November because I get irate mad. When it’s been brought up with local staff they tell me to go hunt somewhere else and to gain access to private if I don’t like what I’m seeing on public. There is a complete disconnect between people with boots on the ground and fwp staff. Lately I was told by local FWP staff they are knocking it out of the park with their “management” meanwhile I’ve seen the worst deer numbers in my lifetime. People suggested localizing doe harvest only to be dismissed by fwp staff saying we couldn’t be doing a better job than we are now. I will continue to make my public comments but this has gone way beyond that. When is the last hard decision FWP had made regarding mule deer management. It’s time for the people in charge to be held accountable and make the right decisions for MULE DEER not what is socially acceptable to hunters. I will continue to rant on forums with the hope even the dimmest of bulbs will see what we are doing to mule deer simply isn’t right.

 

[YukonGold]

Any suggestions that aren't popular with most hunters are doomed to failure. If you don't start with that premise, you are just pissing into the wind.

Exactly. Hence the other half of my post.

 

[Eric Albus]

Your quote is not referring to a survey, but to mandatory reporting of hunting success, which is completely different than answering survey questions.

I’m not referring to “mandatory reporting”.
I’m pointing at the last survey they sent out. It was certainly the best one I’ve seen from FWP, but was still slanted.

Mandatory reporting would and should be instituted, and then be used for biological management of the resource.

 

[Straight Arrow]

I’m not referring to “mandatory reporting”.

Understood. But Big Fin was referring to "mandatory reporting" in the paragraph you quoted and then you commented on, with an opinion about "surveys".

 

[SAJ-99]

Exactly. Hence the other half of my post.

I was responding to the other half of your post.

 

[rogerthat]

I know how frustrating it is when you feel like FWP doesn’t listen to comments. Everyone who’s ever commented feels that way at some point because nobody ever gets their way with everything. There have been plenty of times where I’m pissed about decisions and don’t feel listened to, and it’s clear a lot of folks here echo that and what you said too.

I feel like not commenting when you have something to say is kind of a cop-out (I don’t mean offense). It takes less time to submit a comment probably than most people spend ranting on this page, and then at least you’d be doing your part as a beneficiary in the public trust. I think Randy’s latest podcast touches on that but haven’t quite finished listening to it yet. Even if you don’t think it’ll do anything, comment! Then it’s on the record, which is better than it not being on the record.

Also, look what comments did last season-setting? It was a shit-show, but would have been a LOT worse if people didn’t speak up. Some of the early decisions were reversed based on public comment, which gave me a sliver of hope. They just have to show up for mule deer in the same way they do for elk.

I think your barking up the wrong tree. The folks on this forum are probably the ones making the 38 comments. It’s the rest of hunters that aren’t too concerned.

Why should the public and hunters have to make comments to get an agency to manage a population of wildlife? I have never understood that concept. I’m an engineer. The only input the client influences is the aesthetics and what budget they are targeting but the solution is based in my professional knowledge. Why is this different?

 

[YukonGold]

I think your barking up the wrong tree. The folks on this forum are probably the ones making the 38 comments. It’s the rest of hunters that aren’t too concerned.

Why should the public and hunters have to make comments to get an agency to manage a population of wildlife? I have never understood that concept. I’m an engineer. The only input the client influences is the aesthetics and what budget they are targeting but the solution is based in my professional knowledge. Why is this different?

Because it's a public resource. Based on the North American Model, and the Public Trust Doctrine, the public owns the wildlife (not FWP), so under that philosophy the public MUST have a say in how it is managed.

 

[YukonGold]

Also...this is what's so frustrating to me. You have this inherent conflict between FWP, organized hunter groups, and your average Joe hunter.

For example... organized hunter group with its own wildlife professionals comes together to support or reject an FWP proposal, but average Joe hunter foresees a resulting drop in opportunity, comments, gets drowned out by the organized hunter groups, and loses opportunity. Average Joe hunter accuses FWP of not listening and accuses the organized hunter group of being "green decoys" and anti-hunting. Average Joe hunter stops engaging with FWP process and instead votes for legislators and governors that promise to give him what he wants. And generally the average Joe hunters outnumber those involved with organized hunter groups.

Average Joe hunter deserves to have his voice heard, because it's his resource too, but granted, he's not a scientist and doesn't understand the implications of his desire for continued unrestricted hunting opportunity. But FWP knows that if they don't listen to him and at least TRY to cater to him somewhat, he and his ilk will vote for people who then have the power to remove FWP professionals from the process entirely.

I don't know what the solution is, other than continuing to engage those average Joe hunters, educate them, and involve them in the process so that they feel heard but can help steer FWP to make decisions that are actually good for the resource. I think HT is a big part of that, honestly. As are local rod and gun clubs, moreso than big organized hunter groups.

 

[longbow51]

I’m on record plenty with public comments on my thoughts on Montana mule deer. The way all those comments are geared to region 1 I suspect most didn’t feel comments regarding other areas were valid.
I showed up after bad winters in 2011 and 2012 only to be laughed at by local fwp staff, my comments were dismissed as anecdotal and I didn’t know what I was talking about. 2 years later they cut doe tags and not long after that they declared a great mule deer comeback. I’ve watched areas I used to enjoy hunting decimated by doe harvest. I can’t go to those areas during November because I get irate mad. When it’s been brought up with local staff they tell me to go hunt somewhere else and to gain access to private if I don’t like what I’m seeing on public. There is a complete disconnect between people with boots on the ground and fwp staff. Lately I was told by local FWP staff they are knocking it out of the park with their “management” meanwhile I’ve seen the worst deer numbers in my lifetime. People suggested localizing doe harvest only to be dismissed by fwp staff saying we couldn’t be doing a better job than we are now. I will continue to make my public comments but this has gone way beyond that. When is the last hard decision FWP had made regarding mule deer management. It’s time for the people in charge to be held accountable and make the right decisions for MULE DEER not what is socially acceptable to hunters. I will continue to rant on forums with the hope even the dimmest of bulbs will see what we are doing to mule deer simply isn’t right.

This reminds me a lot of the Madison before we knew whirling disease was a "thing". I know how to catch fish with flies, and something was off. Talked to a biologist, suggested different flies. Talked to guys in fly shops, "hire a guide". Then boom, 90% of the rainbows were gone and Ennis was a ghost town.

Not at all unusual for folks on the ground to know things first.

And, now athletes in their 20s "dying suddenly" and it's a mystery.

Inertia is a strong force, more so when $$$ involved.

 

[YukonGold]

This reminds me a lot of the Madison before we knew whirling disease was a "thing". I know how to catch fish with flies, and something was off. Talked to a biologist, suggested different flies. Talked to guys in fly shops, "hire a guide". Then boom, 90% of the rainbows were gone and Ennis was a ghost town.

Not at all unusual for folks on the ground to know things first.

And, now athletes in their 20s "dying suddenly" and it's a mystery.

Inertia is a strong force.

And I think this is exactly the argument for why the public need to have a say in resource management. Biologists do surveys and stuff, but their snapshot surveys are often less informative than the boots on the ground experiences of thousands of hunters/fishermen.

On the one hand, @rogerthat says FWP professionals should just make the right decisions for the resource based on their surveys, science, etc. and not have to consider public inputs.

On the other hand, @longbow51 says that resource users can have more and better information than FWP professionals in some instances. Granted, those resource users can have vastly differing experiences and inputs.

This thread has been such a good illustration of why this isn't easy.

 

[rogerthat]

And I think this is exactly the argument for why the public need to have a say in resource management. Biologists do surveys and stuff, but their snapshot surveys are often less informative than the boots on the ground experiences of thousands of hunters/fishermen.

On the one hand, @rogerthat says FWP professionals should just make the right decisions for the resource based on their surveys, science, etc. and not have to consider public inputs.

On the other hand, @longbow51 says that resource users can have more and better information than FWP professionals in some instances. Granted, those resource users can have vastly differing experiences and inputs.

This thread has been such a good illustration of why this isn't easy.

I didn’t say the public shouldn’t have input. Reread what I wrote