Montana Mule Deer Mismanagement
- Thread starter rogerthat
- Start date
No, I’m not saying only one SINGLE district in the state is a mess in terms of data. I was using one as a comparative to others in a general sense.
Last edited by a moderator:
antlerradar
Well-known member
A few thoughts on the Otter Creek transect.
A few years back FWP added the drainages on the Tongue River side of the divide to the transect. effectively doubling its size. The map @DougStickney provided does not indicate this change. So maybe the change was reversed, maybe the map is not updated. I would want to know answers when when looking at this data. I would hope that any time FWP compares the numbers in Otter Creek to those in the past the numbers are adjusted to account for the increase in the size of the area. If they are not we have a problem. Would not be hard to get record numbers if you increase the size.
The expanded area is boarded on three sides by private land and almost all the deer on the private winter on the transect and yes @Hunting Wife I have brought this up in the past.
The entire transect burned in 2000. Went from some of the thickest Ponderosa Pine in SE Montana to burnt sticks over night. When I asked the Bio if they were taking the fire into account in the numbers, the answer was the fire would not effect flight survey numbers. I have never done a flight survey, so maybe I am wrong, But I find this hard to believe.
I did the eight mile drive / stop and glass down the drainage to the south just yesterday, near perfect conditions and I spotted only 9 deer total. Three on public and six on the private at the mouth of the creek. I have done this drive several times a year for close to thirty years. Yesterday is as bad as I have ever seen. Should have kept a journal but I can remember times when I would see two dozen bucks in the 90's. My close up vision may be failing, but I am still fairly good at glassing so I can not blame it on my old age.
A few years back FWP added the drainages on the Tongue River side of the divide to the transect. effectively doubling its size. The map @DougStickney provided does not indicate this change. So maybe the change was reversed, maybe the map is not updated. I would want to know answers when when looking at this data. I would hope that any time FWP compares the numbers in Otter Creek to those in the past the numbers are adjusted to account for the increase in the size of the area. If they are not we have a problem. Would not be hard to get record numbers if you increase the size.
The expanded area is boarded on three sides by private land and almost all the deer on the private winter on the transect and yes @Hunting Wife I have brought this up in the past.
The entire transect burned in 2000. Went from some of the thickest Ponderosa Pine in SE Montana to burnt sticks over night. When I asked the Bio if they were taking the fire into account in the numbers, the answer was the fire would not effect flight survey numbers. I have never done a flight survey, so maybe I am wrong, But I find this hard to believe.
I did the eight mile drive / stop and glass down the drainage to the south just yesterday, near perfect conditions and I spotted only 9 deer total. Three on public and six on the private at the mouth of the creek. I have done this drive several times a year for close to thirty years. Yesterday is as bad as I have ever seen. Should have kept a journal but I can remember times when I would see two dozen bucks in the 90's. My close up vision may be failing, but I am still fairly good at glassing so I can not blame it on my old age.
Last edited:
That’s funny because if you recall, probably that same bio refused to fly for elk counts because the timber was too thick in 704.
antlerradar
Well-known member
antlerradar
Well-known member
I may have to suggest a flight survey is done south of O'Dell and compare those numbers to Otter Creek pre2000.
It’s the wine.
Just curious if the most vocal complainers have any suggestions, or just more complaints? Railing just to rail gets old.
View attachment 254290
Guess I’m classified as a vocal complainer. My main complaint is managing the mule deer does by an entire region vs district. The excuse last year for the number of doe tags was “better to kill them now than let them die of starvation in the winter”. Now last year the drought was region wide. Is the excuse for the doe tags the same this year because much of 703 looked great for feed? 700 was in some nasty drought conditions this year because they didn’t get the snow and rains like we did. Are we still going to “kill them now so they don’t die of starvation” in every district or can we localize it to the districts that actually need it?
antlerradar
Well-known member
Not sure buy into the kill them now rather than die in the winter. Mother nature and a tough winter is not a pretty sight, it tugs on the emotions of us pampered humans, but it is also what keeps a species strong and evolving. The strong survive to pass on their genes thing. Mule deer evolved to what they are because of bad winters and droughts. We as humans don't want to see die offs. We we tend to want stable populations, but a few big die offs my be good for the long term health of the herd.
I could be getting way above my pay grade and education.
Last edited:
That was my exact argument to it.
If you are still planning to make the meeting Monday you will hear this excuse used for sure. Though the weather is starting to look like traveling to the meeting could get interesting.
Hunting Wife
Well-known member
The vocal complainers comment seems to have struck a nerve. I apologize. But it gets very old to see a thread circling and circling and circling with the same complaint or snarky comment posted over and over and over by the same individual. At that point it just sounds like bitching just to bitch. It’s exhausting and not productive. Plenty of folks are making suggestions and engaging in discussion, and that was not directed at you.
But point taken…that frustration is my own fault for clicking in the thread.
But point taken…that frustration is my own fault for clicking in the thread.
antlerradar
Well-known member
Still planing on it, but the weather is not looking good and could be a problem. At least I can drive gravel for most of the 100 miles.
brocksw
Well-known member
"Biologists tracking radio-
collared deer found that one-third stay in
survey areas during the fall, while the other
two-thirds move away from the wintering
areas only three miles on average. “Where
we see the deer in the winter is pretty much
where they will be next fall,” says Gude.
Another way FWP takes the pulse of
mule deer populations is by monitoring
hunter harvest at check stations and with
winter phone surveys. “That harvest infor-
mation almost always tracks with what we
saw in the aerial surveys,” says Gude. “If our
winter and early spring surveys show an up-
ward trend in deer numbers, we usually see
more hunters with deer in the back of their
pickups the following fall.”
Another way biologists assess deer num-
bers is by regularly talking with landowners
about wildlife populations they see on their
property and by monitoring and addressing
game damage complaints. What’s more,
over the past several years FWP has radio-
collared and tracked 1,134 mule deer to see
how well the animals survive and where
they go. “All that information, added to the
harvest data and aerial surveys, gives us con-
fidence that we know what’s going on with
the mule deer population,” says Vore."
brocksw
Well-known member
There certainly seems to be a disconnect somewhere.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
"Fly where the animals exist" is literally the worst statistical technique I can think of. Doing so would actually increase the estimated population, not decrease it. It flies in the face (pun intended) of what everyone is trying to do. I would also venture to guess they use the same techniques as every other state game agency. I do agree that the tag allocation techniques are quite different and should change. That is more on the legislature than FWP, but I will concede there is plenty of blame to go around.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
Wildfires change the deer-predator game - The Wildlife Society
Deer may take advantage of burned forests in the summer, but they avoid burned areas with deep snow in the winter to reduce risk from the cougars that prey on...
wildlife.org
May or may not be relevant.
I apologize for my snarky comments as well. Watching quality of deer herd, quality of hunt and deer numbers vanish right in front of you is frustrating. Knowing that there isn’t a dang thing you can do about it is equally frustrating. I will keep my bitchfest to myself.
D
Deleted member 18333
Guest
Not necessarily. It would depend on how the model works and the area. Take Western Wyo for instance. When they do counts they are done on the winter range, and in particular, specific areas of winter range that MD tend to congregate more on. There is a shit ton of winter range that is not flown because they know it tends to harbor less animals. Only so much time and money available it is best to focus on where the most animals will be, then create a model that reflects that distribution. WF&G has also modified where they fly over the years as the MD have modified their migration patterns due to increased disturbance on the WR.
I imagine you would be correct if they modified where they flew to cover ground more commonly used by MD but did not modify the model to reflect that change.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
I think @antlerradar made that point that conditions change, so yes, it is perfectly fine to change a transect. It just has to be done carefully, with same general size, habitat conditions, etc., as to not significantly affect the biases inherent in the process.
I took Buzz's post at face value, which was my fault, but it's the internet. He probably meant what you describe. You can't just fly around looking for deer. That would be like wanting to know how many Americans are over 7ft and choosing NBA arenas for your sample because that is there you know you will find them.
