rogerthat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 2,918
Interesting to include the bma lands. That might be a poison pill. Landowners enrolling in block should get the decision just like any other land owner
Montana Mule Deer Mismanagement
- Thread starter rogerthat
- Start date
Art Vandeley
Well-known member
Based on FWP‘s “harvest report,” 4,482 mule deer does were killed from 2021-2022. To me that seems like a shit load of deer for one region and reducing that to zero would absolutely have a positive effect on the population, but I’m not a biologist
Fwp will tell you even 11,000 mule deer doe tags has no effect on the population. The only reason for cutting numbers last two years was a feel good for the public according to them
Their harvest report isn’t showing what is really happening on accessible land.
Art Vandeley
Well-known member
Alternatively there were 10,192 mule deer does killed between 2018-2019 in region 7. IF the tags were reduced by 90% in 2020, shouldn’t we be seeing closer to 1,000 deer between 21-22? 10% of 10,000? I understand it doesn’t quite work like that but something seems a little off…
It’s posted on the website now. I like it, but it does seem strange that the commissioner in northwest MT is making proposals for southeast MT.
I see this one was also posted today. Changing the district boundaries to benefit one outfitter who doesn’t want his business affected by the proposed limited mule deer permits…total BS.
Hem
Well-known member
BMA's make land owners money.
Good chance it helps pay costs. Therefore I would question how excited a percentage of these ranches would be to see fewer tags ie fewer hunters.
Good chance it helps pay costs. Therefore I would question how excited a percentage of these ranches would be to see fewer tags ie fewer hunters.
cgasner1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2016
- Messages
- 2,972
I’m happy to see that got posted. I know that the point restricts can cause other issues but I do wonder if any of these other states have done a point restriction with age. So basically if you’re over the age of 18 you can’t shoot a forky. That way these super forkys better hide because some kid is probably gonna blow them over
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,677
They will. If they want does killed on their private then it’s up to the landowner.
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,677
Ya, 11,000 doe tags cut….no difference. How stupid am I. I’m down on cow numbers due to drought….I’ve looked at the FWP model and see where I’m wrong. Today I load up and head out to shoot 50-60 of my bees cows….as it won’t make any difference…and may lead to more cattle moving into my pasture. How could I not see this years ago. I coulda saved millions
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,677
Back to the drought. In the late 80’s R6 was literally covered in mule deer. I could count 200-400 deer per day in 670, 630, 620 districts. Maybe the deer in those days were less dependent on water? Tougher, like my ancestors who homesteaded here…. Has to be the answer. Must’ve had nothing to do with zero lions in the country, or the fact we’d see a coyote rarely.
antlerradar
Well-known member
dam pay wallsI was recently told that the reason SE MT is in decline is drought. While Broadus did set it's all time lowest precip in 2020, it, in combination with 2021, isn't as bad as 87/88. I thought this was an interesting article on the area from back when there were deer.
But what do I know, just another ahole NR...
8andcounting
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2013
- Messages
- 3,401
Honestly this boundary change 2 years ago was unnecessary . The change back makes sense . It’s not because of one outfitter. Many many landowners have complained. In this area as stated it’s all private or landlocked blm
It's mainly because of one outfitter, you can even read his comments in the public comments that FWP released. The same outfitter told me he was "very concerned about the mule deer situation". Guess he's only concerned up until the point that it begins to affect his business. That's not true about it it mainly being private or landlocked BLM, a lot of the area is accessible through BMA's. I would disagree that deer are struggling in all of 417 except for the area in question. They are struggling just as badly there.
8andcounting
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2013
- Messages
- 3,401
In the part in question , the boundary change area , there’s very little accessible land ….. the bmas are mostly in the old 417 the part that boundary wasn’t changed . The outfitter complained yes but so did a lot of landowners that have a say . I was just there and talked with many landowners about this very subject
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Hey guys, we have Turkeys!!!
Irrelevant
Well-known member
damn, I can't get back in either. I should have known better.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
money shot-
But there are important differences as well between the two dry periods. American farmers, because they are so much more productive than their fathers and grandfathers in the 1930's, have vividly displayed the capacity to recover more quickly from one-year droughts. American farmers raise five times as much corn and three times as much wheat per acre today.
More than 55 million acres of land is now irrigated, nearly triple the amount in the 1930's, and much of it in the southern Great Plains, the Northwest and California. In 1984, a year after a drought and a new Government program cut the corn harvest by almost half to 4.17 billion bushels, farmers raised 7.6 billion bushels, almost 600 million bushels more than last year.
