Montana Mule Deer Mismanagement

[JLS]

Five years is not enough time, sure you can lase up your boots a little tighter and find deer, might even find a big one if you are very lucky. I started hunting around the Custer in 78, The mule deer hunting for the most part been in constant decline, the 80's were better than the 90's were better than the 2000's were better than the 2010's and the 2020's are showing no sign of breaking the trend. This is the problem, sure some years there is some improvement, but the long term trend is going in the wrong direction and is unsustainable. At fist it was just a decline in the number of big buck, but for the past 15 or so year it is not just the older age buck but all deer numbers. This is most pronounced on the bigger blocks of public land. Some of the places I had great success in the 80's are now almost deer less.

In the 80's and 90's most of the concern was about the lack of big bucks. Now many are still concerned about the lack of big bucks, but the poor deer numbers lack of recovery form the 2012 winter is just as concerning. This is most apparent on the bigger blocks of public land.
When doe hunting on the Custer was first proposed in I think the 90's, I was all for it. My thinking was that if a few does were shot off the roads, the does would move to the roadless places I liked to hunt fewer bucks would be taken by the orange army of roadhunters. Boy was I wrong, The does herds in the easy to access and best habitat were shot out of existence, Read the rose-pedal effect. Other does may have changed where they live, but they didn't move to the rough roadless ground. Does tend to prefer the most productive habitat according to the does are from Venus, bucks are from Mars article in Montana Outdoors. The does found the productive land on private much more to their liking. The problem with the doe tags is that there are zero restrictions on where the tags are filled. Far too many are filled on the bigger blocks of Public. The public never recovers as fast private and as soon as numbers start to recover region wide, FWP is increasing the number of doe tags. Deer numbers never make much of a recovery on public land.
Every one wants opportunity, but it has its tradeoffs. Most are aware of the tradeoff between more opportunity and less quality. The problem is when quality slips badly some hunters willing to pay for better hunting. The demand for new hunting leases near me is not coming from outfitters, it is coming from well off resident hunters that are looking for better quality hunting. This new demand is directly tied to the decline in quality hunting on public land do to opportunity management. To a landowner opportunity is money, easy to get tags, long seasons, the rut and any other opportunity all increase the price someone will be willing to pay. There is also a tradeoff with access. Simply put more opportunity less access.


The rut hunt was great in the 70's when hunters could get access to just about everywhere. Wait until bad weather and the rut brought the bucks out of the mountains and rough breaks to rut with the does in the fields was a hell of a deal. You can still hunt those fields, but you will have to pay. the When my ancestors first moved of SE Montana the rule was, control the water you controlled grazing on the surrounding government land. Today we have a different rule. Control the doe herds on the hay field and you can control the bucks on the near by public. Having the season run the length of the rut moves lots of bucks from public to private. Sure there are some that move from private to public. Kind of like there are some people driving into New Orleans when a hurricane is coming. Having hunters blasting every doe that moves on public is not helping. I don't know if ending the rut hunting will result in more big bucks, I think it will but I could be wrong. I am certain that a lot fewer bucks will be shot in hay field form the cab of a pickup.

This is truth.

 

[R.K.]

I will be applying. I have never applied for a committee and not been chosen, we shall see those past commitments pays off. This is the committee I want the most.

Godspeed. I think you have the support of everybody here.

 

[Trial153]

Season is way too short. Need to extend its couple more weeks.

 

[R.K.]

Season is way too short. Need to extend its couple more weeks.

Just get a muzzleloader

 

[antlerradar]

Godspeed. I think you have the support of everybody here.

Thank you, I can only hope that if selected it stays that way. Realistically though the big changes that I and may others feel are needed are going to be a tough sell with much of the Montana Public. Doesn't mean that as a member I will not push for big changes and try to educate others as to why they are needed. Just need to be realistic about what can be accomplished.
In hunting I am a go big or go home kind of guy, that may not be the best strategy for this committee.

 

[SAJ-99]

started hunting around the Custer in 78

You literally hit the top. FWP argues those populations were unsustainable.

Good luck. I will be routing for you to get on.

 

[antlerradar]

You literally hit the top. FWP argues those populations were unsustainable.

Good luck. I will be routing for you to get on.

Actually I just spent yesterday afternoon on the Custer with my 93 year old neighbor. Naturally the conversation turned to hunting bucks. The late 70's and 80's were not even close to the top. I get what you are saying and the good old days of the 50's and 60's likely were unsustainable. If we could get back to what there was in the 90's, That would be like a grand slam.

 

[rogerthat]

Actually I just spent yesterday afternoon on the Custer with my 93 year old neighbor. Naturally the conversation turned to hunting bucks. The late 70's and 80's were not even close to the top. I get what you are saying and the good old days of the 50's and 60's likely were unsustainable. If we could get back to what there was in the 90's, That would be like a grand slam.

I would take a stop or slowing of the decline at this point. Although the Custer is getting close. You can’t go below zero

 

[SAJ-99]

Actually I just spent yesterday afternoon on the Custer with my 93 year old neighbor. Naturally the conversation turned to hunting bucks. The late 70's and 80's were not even close to the top. I get what you are saying and the good old days of the 50's and 60's likely were unsustainable. If we could get back to what there was in the 90's, That would be like a grand slam.

Sure, maybe. I would suggest the group avoid trying to go "back" to some better era. Our memories are skewed (Rosy Retrospection), the actual numbers are probably unreliable, and what the landscape looks like today is not what it looked like then. We should figure out what is sustainable going forward and adjust the management practices prospectively. Now trying to do that in a way that is acceptable to the average Montanan is the part I think is impossible, but it has to start somewhere.

 

[rogerthat]

Sure, maybe. I would suggest the group avoid trying to go "back" to some better era. Our memories are skewed (Rosy Retrospection), the actual numbers are probably unreliable, and what the landscape looks like today is not what it looked like then. We should figure out what is sustainable going forward and adjust the management practices prospectively. Now trying to do that in a way that is acceptable to the average Montanan is the part I think is impossible, but it has to start somewhere.

Dude, read the survey results. Status quo is acceptable to the average Montanan. We are screwed

 

[SAJ-99]

Dude, read the survey results. Status quo is acceptable to the average Montanan. We are screwed

That is usually MY answer!LOL. Maybe the committee should be working on changing the mindset of Montana hunters? Good luck with that. A lot of landowners I have heard from recognize there is a decline, but the hunters don’t want to give up anything. Same storyline as on pretty much every topic in America these days.

 

[R.K.]

I think that compromising to a 3-week pre-rut season, no doe tags on public, would go a long way towards fixing things without going to limited entry.

My opinion? Lead with “it’s an outhouse with a full pit”- 2 week season, 0 doe tags anywhere, limited units in half the state.

Shoot for the moon- even if you miss, you’ll land among the stars. Start by asking for everything, compromise to an acceptable level. I can’t say I’ve seen anyone lead with what they actually want in the past 20 years.

The biggest problem I have with FWP on this is their refusal to show long term trends (or even hiding it in some cases). The standard line is “Those populations were unsustainable” when showing a downward trend. HOWEVER- they say that while showing a nice chart of declines since the 90’s, very rarely the 70’s, and never of the 50/60’s- which is the actual time period that the biologists will agree (when pressed) was the period of unsustainable population. It feels like we’re being defrauded and gaslighted that this is what we’re asking for. I’m sick of it- stop cherry-picking the data and do your job as trustee of the publicly owned resource that is wildlife.

 

[Elky Welky]

Five years is not enough time, sure you can lase up your boots a little tighter and find deer, might even find a big one if you are very lucky. I started hunting around the Custer in 78, The mule deer hunting for the most part been in constant decline, the 80's were better than the 90's were better than the 2000's were better than the 2010's and the 2020's are showing no sign of breaking the trend. This is the problem, sure some years there is some improvement, but the long term trend is going in the wrong direction and is unsustainable. At fist it was just a decline in the number of big buck, but for the past 15 or so years it is not just the older age buck but all deer numbers. This is most pronounced on the bigger blocks of public land. Some of the places I had great success in the 80's are now almost deer less now.

In the 80's and 90's most of the concern was about the lack of big bucks. Now many are still concerned about the lack of big bucks, but the poor deer numbers lack of recovery form the 2012 winter is just as concerning. This is most apparent on the bigger blocks of public land.
When doe hunting on the Custer was first proposed in I think the 90's, I was all for it. My thinking was that if a few does were shot off the roads, the does would move to the roadless places I liked to hunt and fewer bucks would be taken by the orange army of roadhunters. Boy was I wrong, The does herds in the easy to access and best habitat were shot out of existence, Read the rose-pedal effect. Other does may have changed where they live, but they didn't move to the rough roadless ground. Does tend to prefer the most productive habitat according to the does are from Venus, bucks are from Mars article in Montana Outdoors. The does found the productive land on private much more to their liking. The problem with the doe tags is that there are zero restrictions on where the tags are filled. Far too many are filled on the bigger blocks of Public. The public never recovers as fast private and as soon as numbers start to recover region wide, FWP is increasing the number of doe tags. Deer numbers never make much of a recovery on public land.
Every one wants opportunity, but it has its tradeoffs. Most are aware of the tradeoff between more opportunity and less quality. The problem is when quality slips badly some hunters are willing to pay for better hunting. The demand for new hunting leases near me is not coming from outfitters, it is coming from well off resident hunters that are looking for better quality hunting. This new demand is directly tied to the decline in quality hunting on public land and opportunity management. To a landowner opportunity is money, easy to get tags, long seasons, the rut and any other opportunity all increase the price someone will be willing to pay so there is also a tradeoff with access. Simply put more opportunity less access.


The rut hunt was great in the 70's when hunters could get access to just about everywhere. Wait until bad weather and the rut brought the bucks out of the mountains and rough breaks to rut with the does in the fields was a hell of a deal. You can still hunt those fields, but you will have to pay. the When my ancestors first moved of SE Montana the rule was, control the water you controlled grazing on the surrounding government land. Today we have a different rule. Control the doe herds on the hay field and you can control the bucks on the near by public. Having the season run the length of the rut moves lots of bucks from public to private. Sure there are some that move from private to public. Kind of like there are some people driving into New Orleans when a hurricane is coming. Having hunters blasting every doe that moves on public is not helping. I don't know if ending the rut hunting will result in more big bucks, I think it will but I could be wrong. I am certain that a lot fewer bucks will be shot in hay field form the cab of a pickup.

Greatly appreciate this thoughtful response. Thank you @antlerradar !

 

[brocksw]

Edit for correction: 3,500 doe tags for unit 703 is for all of region 7. It is interesting that MT unit 650 has more MD doe tags than all of the ND Mule deer management units combined, but is just over 1/3 the size.

 

[DFS]

This kinda makes me scratch my head. This is just doe tags. I know MT habitat is superior in many areas....but I didn't know it was that much better.
View attachment 276358

To be fair you would have to spread the 3500 doe tags throughout all of region 7. Still a good graphic though. And potentially all those doe tags could be filled in one area. Not that long ago it was 11k doe tags.

 

[brocksw]

To be fair you would have to spread the 3500 doe tags throughout all of region 7. Still a good graphic though. And potentially all those doe tags could be filled in one area. Not that long ago it was 11k doe tags.

That's a good point. I failed to take that into consideration. Though I still find it strange that unit 650 has more doe tags available then all the mule deer management units in ND combined.

 

[brocksw]

To be fair you would have to spread the 3500 doe tags throughout all of region 7. Still a good graphic though. And potentially all those doe tags could be filled in one area. Not that long ago it was 11k doe tags.

Just region 7. 3x as much surface area, but 5x as many tags just for region 7. This does not account for R or NR general tags.

 

[cgasner1]

I think that compromising to a 3-week pre-rut season, no doe tags on public, would go a long way towards fixing things without going to limited entry.

My opinion? Lead with “it’s an outhouse with a full pit”- 2 week season, 0 doe tags anywhere, limited units in half the state.

Shoot for the moon- even if you miss, you’ll land among the stars. Start by asking for everything, compromise to an acceptable level. I can’t say I’ve seen anyone lead with what they actually want in the past 20 years.

The biggest problem I have with FWP on this is their refusal to show long term trends (or even hiding it in some cases). The standard line is “Those populations were unsustainable” when showing a downward trend. HOWEVER- they say that while showing a nice chart of declines since the 90’s, very rarely the 70’s, and never of the 50/60’s- which is the actual time period that the biologists will agree (when pressed) was the period of unsustainable population. It feels like we’re being defrauded and gaslighted that this is what we’re asking for. I’m sick of it- stop cherry-picking the data and do your job as trustee of the publicly owned resource that is wildlife.

I’d see it as a win if we could even just have a month long season and make the last 2 weeks a draw create more units to get rid of the bottle neck we have for other units. You could also move the youth hunt to that time line

 

[DFS]

Just region 7. 3x as much surface area, but 5x as many tags just for region 7.
View attachment 276370

That’s an excellent graphic. The FWP says the harvest success is very low with these doe tags I believe around 10% or so. Another thing to add is the general tag is either sex. The strictest harvest they could go to would be buck only and 1000 doe tags. This could be changed at the June commission meeting but could cause some problems as the regulations are already out. I don’t foresee them trying to make that change but I sure hope they do.

 

[antlerradar]

Sure, maybe. I would suggest the group avoid trying to go "back" to some better era. Our memories are skewed (Rosy Retrospection), the actual numbers are probably unreliable, and what the landscape looks like today is not what it looked like then. We should figure out what is sustainable going forward and adjust the management practices prospectively. Now trying to do that in a way that is acceptable to the average Montanan is the part I think is impossible, but it has to start somewhere.

I would argue that the Custer should be able to handle more deer now than in the 90's. After all 2/3 of the forest has burned since 2000. Production of deer food is way up.