I used to just do the combo tag to increase my draw odds. Then the prices went so high while the hunt quality declined so I went to deer only then completely out. It was pretty tough to fill both in a week. Could have done it maybe once or twice.
MT has a lot of problems with the structure of the seasons and I agree that simply splitting the combo tag doesn't fix much. The season length has been pointed out but I think a lot of it has to do with area. A general tag in MT is good for a much larger geographic area than "general-equivalent" tags in WY and ID. Also ,we can find specific units that address problems differently (showing lack of clear plan). The Elkhorns (380) is a perfect example. It is a premier Bull elk permit for MT and they issue another 500 Elk B tags, but they made the unit a specific draw with 100% odds for mule deer that prohibits holders from hunting antlered MD in any other unit. That sort of minimizes guys with Elk-B licenses from whacking a mule deer that made the mistake of walking by. The downside it makes the regs pretty confusing, so I'm sure the rule gets broken frequently.
I also wonder how often the opposite happens in our general deer areas that are special draw for bull elk. How many guys, probably NRs confused by the regs, are hunting the breaks or SE MT for mule deer and see a trophy bull and think their general tag is good and make it back to the home state before getting caught? Probably a few anyway, I’ve talked to guys in the field in the breaks and SE MT that thought their general elk license was good for bulls lol. Just a thought that came to mind as I hadn’t heard of or read into the regs in 380 and how they were handling Mule Deer, I know this is a mule deer thread so please disregard and continue.
Don’t worry - SE MT will be general for bulls soon
I would agree with you that wildlife decisions shouldn’t be legislated. On the other side, I see groups and interests that know what they want and aren’t afraid to try to legislate. Region 6 and 7 have the harvest data from residents vs nonresidents there should have been a full stop, especially on a season setting year. That is not what happened they said everything looks good nothing has changed well within the historical average. Mule deer can’t wait for fwp staff to do their job. Nonresident tags either need to be cut or regions need caps on them. I know this ultimately isn’t going to fix the problem but something is going to have to done until the rut and doe slaughter ends.
So in 2022 , there were more 4.5yr old deer checked than 2.5 ? BS .
Not surprised to hear that. The pressure on bma’s in region 6 during upland and deer season the last few years has been so bad, it’s getting harder to even care if there’s funding for them. I know it’s wrong and feel bad even saying that, but it’s a gong show on these lands for 3 months basically.
It’s a gang bang. I know of at least 3 maybe 4 bucks that I knew of that got shot that were posted to social media. 2 of those went to Bozeman and had no business getting shot.
It could be true but we have selectively harvested our way to get to that point.
I mean that does point to you guys just need to lace 'em up a little tighter or at least move around to new locations.
No one is paying money to get their fork horn aged. People are only curious about the age of the better bucks.
This is the part that made me laugh...Captured? Are there a bunch of deer in region 7 walking around with a missing tooth?
Maybe not in R7, but during captures oftentimes they’ll anesthetize the animal and pull a tooth for aging. This is done a lot with the brucellosis captures in R3, and they probably did it with the elk collaring in R7. Assuming it’s just standard language.
Their might be. I’ve assisted with pulling teeth from multiple live animals
That’s exactly what I asked to clarify on the Facebook post. If most of these are just random harvested incisors, that would really skew the validity of the data.
How would a random sample skew the data? Not trying to challenge you just don’t understand what you mean. I would assume that if they stuck to hunter submitted teeth, and because generally most hunters choose to age older deer, that that would skew the data.
My fault. I worded the random sample portion of my comment incorrectly. I was meaning a “random,” sample of donated incisors by hunters which would likely be hunters choosing to age older deer.
I’ll be damned. Learn something new every day. Thanks to all.
