Montana mule deer rant

[brocksw]

Are you thinking soil type differences in relation to the habitat quality that can/can't grow there? Or soil type differences in relation to the minerals each has/lacks?

I think both could be part of the equation to some degree. At the county vs county scale, I think habitat quality provided by some soil types and not others would be a far greater factor than the actual macro/micro nutrients that are transferred through plants or by directly ingesting soil.

Post in thread 'Montana mule deer rant' https://www.hunttalk.com/threads/montana-mule-deer-rant.316026/post-3498444

 

[mtlilguy]

Post in thread 'Montana mule deer rant' https://www.hunttalk.com/threads/montana-mule-deer-rant.316026/post-3498444

Yep, I read the study.

 

[Eric Albus]

The only way you are going to reduce harvest is to reduce tags. If you are relying on hunters to "eat" tag soup in the name of the resource, you are going to be disappointed.

In 8 days hunting MT last week, I talked to 12 resident hunters and 10 of them had already filled their tag. One hadn't gone out yet. A few also had bought MD Doe B tags. I also heard the comment "I still have two weeks" a few times. Also, when you force a NR to pay $700 for the tag, there is a psychological pressure to fill it. The closer to the end of the hunt, the more likely the hunter is to shoot anything. I presume that desire is different when for a resident that only pays $20.

I ate my tag and only had one fleeting opportunity at a respectable buck.

No question about it. License/opportunity must be reduced, the public by and large are unwilling to restrain themselves from over harvesting. The resource matters
Very little to most license packing weekend warrior hunters, R and NR.

 

[antlerradar]

What are your thoughts/observations on soil type influencing antler growth and size?

Obviously you've got genetics from each parent, a bunch of different environmental factors, but my anecdotal "take" (so based on N Fla and S Ga WTs) is that soil type seems to be a major factor in antler growth.

I could get more detailed, but in short I can point to differences within individual counties that seem to imply a strong correlation. At risk of derailing the thread, any thoughts on that?

That is above my pay grade, I would guess that soils high in minerals needed for antlers would be better, but it could be that the antlers may not be bigger, just more dense.

 

[MTTW]

In my admittedly limited experience, soil containing fewer human foot prints is more conducive to producing larger antlers. Living in Montana it is pretty hard to reach any conclusion beyond that.

 

[antlerradar]

Do you have a link to the study?

My understanding from the studies I've read is that genetics only play a secondary role in body mass and antler growth. Yes the genetics must be there, but even if they are, poor nutrition will overrule any genetics. Milk production is based almost soley on nutrition. Genetics cant overrule poor nutrition for milk production because the nutrients MUST be there for the milk to meet the nutritional requirements of a nursing doe and the fawn.

This would highlight why drought has such a negative impact on fawn recruitment.

If the groceries aren't there, all other factors are essentially moot. This was proven in Dr. Kevin Monteith's decade long studies on bighorn sheep and South Dakota deer via a common garden experiment.

Can not remember where I saw that, as for milk based soley on nutrition, I would be doubting that unless deer are different than cattle when it come milk. Virtually every bull listed for sale has an EPD for milk production listed in the sale catalog.

 

[antlerradar]

Do you have a link to the study?

Yes the genetics must be there, but even if they are, poor nutrition will overrule any genetics.

From what I has seen with the antlers I have found and the bucks I have kept track of a bad winter or drought might take a few inches off a buck and a good year might add a few inches. Even the toughest of years will not turn a 180 deer into a 150 buck and the best of years will not turn a 150 buck into a 180. Maybe you can do that in a pen, but in the wild deer are selective eaters and will find the best feed available.

 

[brocksw]

Can not remember where I saw that, as for milk based soley on nutrition, I would be doubting that unless deer are different than cattle when it come milk. Virtually every bull listed for sale has an EPD for milk production listed in the sale catalog.

You could be right. But, my understanding was that the EPD was sort of a product of domestic breeding. For many cows there is a negative relationship between high milk production and being able to get pregnant. Animals with high milk production, are less likely to produce offspring unless an special effort is made by the breeding farmer. High producing dairy cows often have health problems that indicate that their chance of producing offspring is reduced compared to their more average producing cows.

I guess I'm saying that in the wild, this seems like something that would disappear over time. That is, if they are indeed like cows.

 

[brocksw]

From what I has seen with the antlers I have found and the bucks I have kept track of a bad winter or drought might take a few inches of a buck and a good year might add a few inches. Even the toughest of years will not turn a 180 deer into a 150 buck and the best of years will not turn a 150 buck into a 180. Maybe you can do that in a pen, but in the wild deer are selective eaters and will find the best feed available.

No I agree with you there. I think Dr. Monteith's study also agrees. If I try to simplify Dr. Monteith's work, forgive me if I do a poor job.
But essentially, If you combine the genetics of a fat, healthy doe with the genetics of a well endowed (antlered) buck, there is a non-linear relationship between the two. Meaning that the health of the doe will be more of a determining factor in the "genetic potential". If the doe was in poor condition through pregnancy, the offspring would never have the potential to reach the same body mass or antler size of the father. Because the poor condition of his mother was not conducive for growing big, in any fashion. The fatter and healthier Mom is, the more dad's genetics are able to be realized.

If the groceries are not available one year, you will certainly see some changes or potential "shrinkage" in that animal. We see this in first year bucks. Years where nutrition or drought are a problem, those first year bucks are often spikes. Where years where nutrition/conditions are more favorable, they wind up being forks their first year. But overall, if that buck reaches 190" like his dad, is determined by the health of his mom. If the 190" dad breeds a very poor condition doe, the odds are that buck will never even have the potential to reach 190" in antler or equal his father's body mass. Again, this was all recorded in Monteith's study.

I believe he even states that once the deer is born, his future body mass and antler size potential are almost predetermined from day 1, because it was all dependent on mom. They even tried giving small bucks great nutrition year after year, and they were still limited by the health of mom during pregnancy. Sure there is some year to year variability, but ultimately, mom's prenatal health is the central figure in growth trajectory in both aspects.

 

[antlerradar]

You could be right. But, my understanding was that the EPD was sort of a product of domestic breeding. For many cows there is a negative relationship between high milk production and being able to get pregnant. Animals with the desired quality or high
milk production, are less likely to produce offspring unless an special effort is made by the breeding farmer. High producing dairy cows often have health problems that indicate that their chance of producing offspring is reduced compared to their more average producing cows.

Dairy Cows and beef cows are apples and oranges. You buy a bull with high milk EPD's because better milk in the heifers he sires leads to better weaning weights in calves they mother. Logical that it is the same with deer.

 

[brocksw]

Dairy Cows and beef cows are apples and oranges. You buy a bull with high milk EPD's because better milk in the heifers he sires leads to better weaning weights in calves they mother. Logical that it is the same with deer.

You could be right. It actually doesn't seem that logical to me considering cows lives are completely different in terms of stress variables. Predation, nutrition, breeding, etc, are all fairly controlled in cows. Sure they have some stress, but nothing compared to a wild deer.

 

[brocksw]

1:31:45 - 1:41:37

Ep. 162: Landscape of Fear | MeatEater Podcasts

Steven Rinella talks with Dr. Kevin Monteith, Dr. Matt Kaufmann, Jared Oakleaf, and Janis Putelis.Subjects discussed: genetics that rewrite our understanding of animals; big game guts; learning how to migrate; who pays for wildlife research?; brain scrambling, extreme sports, and wildlife capture...

www.themeateater.com

 

[Finalshot]

On a serious note, I have concluded the lack of deer in region 7 is mostly due to the severe droughts of 2020 and 2021 which in some areas was unprecedented drought conditions followed up by the severe spring storms we had this spring.

I’m miles deep in beautiful mule deer country on a ranch that received little to no hunting pressure last year. Total mid day deer tally = 4.

The frustrating part is the “pros” at FWP are either oblivious to how aweful things really are in region 7 this year or they really just don’t give a rip. Either way it’s a really really bad deal. Like dereliction of duty bad.

If this is true, and I hear it often said, where are the carcasses? People talk bout knowing a place like the back of their hand and yet they never find evidence of deer, dead or alive. I'm skeptical. In areas that I know "like the back of my hand." I can tell you mostly what's happening because I see it first hand. If a large deer died off due to anything buck alien abduction, I would see the evidence. Anyhow, I'm curious how people who know an area like the back of their hands don't produce evidence for die-offs? Dont get me wrong, I believe Montana fwp treats mule deer like vermin, so I'm not defending them; I'm just pointing out that when shit goes down in the areas I hunt, i see it or at least have evidence.

 

[Brittany Chukarman]

In my admittedly limited experience, soil containing fewer human foot prints is more conducive to producing larger antlers. Living in Montana it is pretty hard to reach any conclusion beyond that.

Yes, like before the world was invited to hunt and given the crash course.

 

[Flynarrow]

Most sportsmen IMO believe that if FWP didn't want deer killed they wouldn't sell tags. A sportsmen with a tag in their pocket believes they are justified and honorable in taking whatever the regulations allow. Of course, FWP tag sale decisions are based on REVENUE but FWP uses the "opportunity" to soft sell their motives. Look at all the ways supposed limits on non resident tag sales are currently circumvented. It REVENUE....tainted only occasionally with consideration to the resource. You currently have a Director (previously licensing) and Assistant Director (previously computers with no biological background running the show, but answering directly to the Governor. Voting matters.

 

[The Hedgehog]

If this is true, and I hear it often said, where are the carcasses? People talk bout knowing a place like the back of their hand and yet they never find evidence of deer, dead or alive. I'm skeptical. In areas that I know "like the back of my hand." I can tell you mostly what's happening because I see it first hand. If a large deer died off due to anything buck alien abduction, I would see the evidence. Anyhow, I'm curious how people who know an area like the back of their hands don't produce evidence for die-offs? Dont get me wrong, I believe Montana fwp treats mule deer like vermin, so I'm not defending them; I'm just pointing out that when shit goes down in the areas I hunt, i see it or at least have evidence.

Agreed. You should participate here more frequently..

 

[peterk1234]

Most sportsmen IMO believe that if FWP didn't want deer killed they wouldn't sell tags. A sportsmen with a tag in their pocket believes they are justified and honorable in taking whatever the regulations allow. Of course, FWP tag sale decisions are based on REVENUE but FWP uses the "opportunity" to soft sell their motives. Look at all the ways supposed limits on non resident tag sales are currently circumvented. It REVENUE....tainted only occasionally with consideration to the resource. You currently have a Director (previously licensing) and Assistant Director (previously computers with no biological background running the show, but answering directly to the Governor. Voting matters.

In defense of hunters, and please go easy on me regarding what I am about to post.

We are relying on the State and their biologists to determine the deer populations throughout the State. I think it is fair for the average hunter to assume that the biologists know what areas are over target and require management. I get tags and licenses and hunting in general is a major revenue generator for the state and private enterprise, so that comes into play. However, unless you hang around here, you would have no idea that hunter observation differs from what FWP is seeing. And, our observations are based on comparing the number and size of animals to ten or twenty years ago.

There may be other factors in play as well such as risk of disease, shrinking habitat, encroachment by humans in areas that were not touched by people ten years ago, and a whole host of other reasons that I have no clue about. I mentioned it in an earlier post, I was on a BM section and talked with the rancher. The amount of mule deer on the property was out of control. And these deer are wiping out their grass. They were booked solid, every day through rifle season, and those darn deer would still not leave. The amount of deer was staggering. And every bit of grass and twig where I walked, and I walked a lot, was chomped down to the ground. So, when a hunter encounters something like that, ya you bet they feel they are doing the right thing by harvesting an animal. So, I agree with @Flynarrow hunters feel justified and honorable. And they should.

It would be interesting to have one of the biologists pop on here to share some thoughts. But that could be career ending

 

[SAJ-99]

On a serious note, I have concluded the lack of deer in region 7 is mostly due to the severe droughts of 2020 and 2021 which in some areas was unprecedented drought conditions followed up by the severe spring storms we had this spring.

I’m miles deep in beautiful mule deer country on a ranch that received little to no hunting pressure last year. Total mid day deer tally = 4.

The frustrating part is the “pros” at FWP are either oblivious to how aweful things really are in region 7 this year or they really just don’t give a rip. Either way it’s a really really bad deal. Like dereliction of duty bad.

Agree with the conclusion. My guesstimate was the population was down 30% or so from 2yrs ago and a little more vs. 5yr ago. Nothing scientific, just a guess. Residents I talked to largely confirmed the view that the pop was down, but others said there seemed to be plenty. The deer were very localized. In some areas that typically hold them we saw nothing. In other areas there would be a dozen or more. That is typical this time of year, but it seemed to be more the case this year. A lot of the water reservoirs were still dry, or basically mud holes. This concentrated deer into creek drainages. Those areas are also largely private land, making for a tough hunt.

 

[brockel]

If this is true, and I hear it often said, where are the carcasses? People talk bout knowing a place like the back of their hand and yet they never find evidence of deer, dead or alive. I'm skeptical. In areas that I know "like the back of my hand." I can tell you mostly what's happening because I see it first hand. If a large deer died off due to anything buck alien abduction, I would see the evidence. Anyhow, I'm curious how people who know an area like the back of their hands don't produce evidence for die-offs? Dont get me wrong, I believe Montana fwp treats mule deer like vermin, so I'm not defending them; I'm just pointing out that when shit goes down in the areas I hunt, i see it or at least have evidence.

I can take you to places with bones in every draw. But it has always been that way in this area. Coyotes will clean up a dead deer in a night and have the bones scattered or completely chewed up within a couple days.

 

[Mtnhunter1]

My conversations with the local Wardens regarding these issues reveled a startling fact! The info spreading through the enforcement division is that there were 40,000+ Montana Resident hunting licenses purchased this year. That's 40,000+ Resident licenses over the ten year average.