Montana mule deer rant

Apr’s don’t work but if you don’t have does to produce your future bucks, your screwed anyway. The mature bucks on public(and I mean actual mature bucks) mostly went the way of the dodo bird years ago.

Now in a lot of areas of Montana, mule deer population is a fraction of what it was. That means our state produces a fraction of the bucks we used to. This is the worst I have ever seen things as far as population. Mt FWP is happily asleep at the wheel and I don’t see that changing. I hope every hunter fills their tag on whatever they can find. When you have a game management agency that leaves it up to sportsman and landowners to manage the resource, can you really expect anything else?
 
@Big Fin says Big Hank is watching sometimes.... Does he ever make mention or have anything to say on this topic Randy or topics discussedon here? I guess I'm not too sure of how your outside conversations go with him.

I just can't believe out of all the bitching and complaining and public comments they just don't give a shit.

I don't think In my 10 years hanging around this forum I've ever seen one positive Montana Mule Deer quality thread. I know they're not gonna base much off of our rants on here. You'd think someone would raise their hand and go..... Houston I think we have a problem.

If he is watching I'm still waiting for my mule deer survey packet BTW, I'll send a Christmas card with it to him too.
 
i cant wait for mule deer survey after hunting season data,, fly the transects, the ones on private ground that show some 4 point bucks in pics. , proclaim poor visibility couldnt finish the surveys, but all is great, look at the post hunt buck doe ratios. we gathered, from jason aldean the wildlife biologist,,,,,
 
EYJONAS! said:
@Big Fin says Big Hank is watching sometimes.... Does he ever make mention or have anything to say on this topic Randy or topics discussedon here? I guess I'm not too sure of how your outside conversations go with him.

I just can't believe out of all the bitching and complaining and public comments they just don't give a shit.

I don't think In my 10 years hanging around this forum I've ever seen one positive Montana Mule Deer quality thread. I know they're not gonna base much off of our rants on here. You'd think someone would raise their hand and go..... Houston I think we have a problem.

If he is watching I'm still waiting for my mule deer survey packet BTW, I'll send a Christmas card with it to him too.
Click to expand...
Yes. The last call there was specific reference made to "those Hunt Talk threads." I have a meeting with some of the senior folks this month that cover my elk comments and "those Hunt Talk threads." They do read and follow this forum.

When I went through a check station opening weekend, a Regional Big Game Manager was there. Great person. He said, "We all got your elk management plan comments. They are getting read by those in the agency." We talked about some of my EMP comments. I left with a smile and a thanks for their work, chiming "Thanks for reading the elk comments. Wait until you get my mule deer comments."

This month I've had long calls with mule deer managers in Colorado, Wyoming, and at AFWA, trying to get a better feel of what other states are doing, how they prioritize CWD against other mule deer concerns, learning how much data they collect, learning how they use that data for management, and how they manage by unit/region/herd. Maybe Montana has a lot going on with mule deer data that I'm not aware of, but from these discussions, it seems the data collected by other states is very extensive, in all respects; flights and surveys done annually, mandatory reporting, huge CWD sampling, hunter satisfaction surveys, etc.. Again, maybe MT has all of that and I'm just not aware of it.

In the next post I will give my thoughts of what is going to be needed for change in Montana deer management, purely based on 30 years of engaging in these issues.
 
As promised in my post above, here are some thoughts. Montana deer management is not going to change until hunters change how we interact with the Department and we get more organized. I’ll give some explanations.

Hunt Talk a small section of hunters in Montana. Yes, we probably spend more days per year in the woods than the average hunter, but each of us still only represent one opinion.

Also, Regions 5, 6, & 7 are the cradle of mule deer in Montana, with Region 4 have some core mule areas. Regions 1 &2 are core whitetail ground on public land. Region 3 lost most our mule deer in the last twenty years. The Department is going to listen to hunters in Regions 5, 6, & 7 when it comes to mule deer.

The Department will tell you that hunters in Regions 5, 6 & 7 are just fine with the status quo. When they host public meetings, the folks who show up claim to be satisfied. I don’t attend those meetings in Region 5, 6 & 7. Maybe that is what is being said. The current survey that is out there will hopefully confirm or contradict what is being stated as the opinion of hunters in Regions 5, 6, & 7.

My experience of engaging in Region 7 deer management is dated. After the hard 1997 winter, some of us from Region 3 who hunted Region 7 attended their season setting in Miles City. We asked that doe tags be cut for that year until deer recovered. We also requested a meeting with the Region 7 Big Game Manager to see what data supported keeping mule deer doe tags the same. When I got back, I got a call from the Region 3 Supervisor and the Director, telling me that the Region 7 staff didn’t appreciate Region 3 guys showing up, nor did the hunters from Region 7. They did cut doe tags from 10K+ down to 3K.

Learning point of that experience that is still valid today would be this - If we want change for deer in Regions 5, 6 & 7, it needs to come from hunters in those Regions. Montana is still somewhat provincial in our Region-based structure. All the comments on Hunt Talk are not going to result in big changes, though it can add support if that change is what is asked for by Region 5/6/7 hunters.

The reason I keep saying we need a “pick your Region or District” system, for deer and elk, is this. So long as we let hunters travel the state with ease, they have no incentive for improving things in their back yard. Example – on the Region 3 Zoom call on season settings, I was the only person who commented against the mule deer proposals that will hammer Region 3 mule deer even more. Maybe Region 3 hunters provided written comments I didn’t see. Either way, we are now operating from the FWP proposals on Region 3 mule deer, something I am sure will hit mule deer even harder. Since Region 3 hunters can just pack up and go to Regions 5, 6 or 7, Region 3 hunters have no real incentive to push for change in their back yard.

The same thing happens with elk, just a flip of the table to Region 3. We host most the elk hunting pressure. When I see resident trucks at the trail head, a lot of them are from other Regions, based on the license plate number or the dealership location for those with vanity plates. I get it. They can apply for some great limited entry tags in Regions 4, 5, 6 & 7. If they don’t draw, they can come to Region 3. Same for folks in Regions 1 & 2 in areas that were historically great elk country but are now almost void of public land elk. Region 3 is the "go to" for many Region 1 & 2 elk hunters. Result is that Region 3 gets the same treatment for elk that Regions 5, 6 & 7 get for mule deer.

If the response to proposals I put on social media are any indicator of what the resident hunter wants for changes in Region 3 elk or eastern MT mule deer, I don’t see much likelihood of change. All of my suggestions would have required change by resident hunters. Had I listed my address, I suspect my house would have been egged. Will groups in each Region step forward and demand changes for deer and elk? Not sure.

In my opinion, having talked to folks running all other agencies in the Rockies, MT FWP gets a free pass due to our archaic data collection. We are behind the curve from our western peers as to data we collect of live/dead animals, and data we collect from hunters about their experiences and what they want. Look at the satisfaction indices you can get from NV, NM, or other states. Mandatory reporting and qualitative data eliminate any ambiguity to the reply of “Well, that’s not we’re hearing at public meetings” or "It's the best in decades" comments we've heard. Better data from mandatory reporting and quality assessment either confirms or contradicts the generalized statements being made.

Until that changes, it is the Hunt Talk crowd seeing a completely different picture while spending our many days in the field, compared to what we might be told is the state of affairs out in the field.

For mule deer, any change, whatever it might be, starts with:
  • Mandatory reporting of harvest and hunter satisfaction
  • Mandatory annual surveys of live animals in every district/herd
  • Grassroots demand from hunters in Regions 5, 6 & 7.
  • Support for #3 from hunters in other parts of the state
 
Big Fin said:
As promised in my post above, here are some thoughts. Montana deer management is not going to change until hunters change how we interact with the Department and we get more organized. I’ll give some explanations.

Hunt Talk a small section of hunters in Montana. Yes, we probably spend more days per year in the woods than the average hunter, but each of us still only represent one opinion.

Also, Regions 5, 6, & 7 are the cradle of mule deer in Montana, with Region 4 have some core mule areas. Regions 1 &2 are core whitetail ground on public land. Region 3 lost most our mule deer in the last twenty years. The Department is going to listen to hunters in Regions 5, 6, & 7 when it comes to mule deer.

The Department will tell you that hunters in Regions 5, 6 & 7 are just fine with the status quo. When they host public meetings, the folks who show up claim to be satisfied. I don’t attend those meetings in Region 5, 6 & 7. Maybe that is what is being said. The current survey that is out there will hopefully confirm or contradict what is being stated as the opinion of hunters in Regions 5, 6, & 7.

My experience of engaging in Region 7 deer management is dated. After the hard 1997 winter, some of us from Region 3 who hunted Region 7 attended their season setting in Miles City. We asked that doe tags be cut for that year until deer recovered. We also requested a meeting with the Region 7 Big Game Manager to see what data supported keeping mule deer doe tags the same. When I got back, I got a call from the Region 3 Supervisor and the Director, telling me that the Region 7 staff didn’t appreciate Region 3 guys showing up, nor did the hunters from Region 7. They did cut doe tags from 10K+ down to 3K.

Learning point of that experience that is still valid today would be this - If we want change for deer in Regions 5, 6 & 7, it needs to come from hunters in those Regions. Montana is still somewhat provincial in our Region-based structure. All the comments on Hunt Talk are not going to result in big changes, though it can add support if that change is what is asked for by Region 5/6/7 hunters.

The reason I keep saying we need a “pick your Region or District” system, for deer and elk, is this. So long as we let hunters travel the state with ease, they have no incentive for improving things in their back yard. Example – on the Region 3 Zoom call on season settings, I was the only person who commented against the mule deer proposals that will hammer Region 3 mule deer even more. Maybe Region 3 hunters provided written comments I didn’t see. Either way, we are now operating from the FWP proposals on Region 3 mule deer, something I am sure will hit mule deer even harder. Since Region 3 hunters can just pack up and go to Regions 5, 6 or 7, Region 3 hunters have no real incentive to push for change in their back yard.

The same thing happens with elk, just a flip of the table to Region 3. We host most the elk hunting pressure. When I see resident trucks at the trail head, a lot of them are from other Regions, based on the license plate number or the dealership location for those with vanity plates. I get it. They can apply for some great limited entry tags in Regions 4, 5, 6 & 7. If they don’t draw, they can come to Region 3. Same for folks in Regions 1 & 2 in areas that were historically great elk country but are now almost void of public land elk. Region 3 is the "go to" for many Region 1 & 2 elk hunters. Result is that Region 3 gets the same treatment for elk that Regions 5, 6 & 7 get for mule deer.

If the response to proposals I put on social media are any indicator of what the resident hunter wants for changes in Region 3 elk or eastern MT mule deer, I don’t see much likelihood of change. All of my suggestions would have required change by resident hunters. Had I listed my address, I suspect my house would have been egged. Will groups in each Region step forward and demand changes for deer and elk? Not sure.

In my opinion, having talked to folks running all other agencies in the Rockies, MT FWP gets a free pass due to our archaic data collection. We are behind the curve from our western peers as to data we collect of live/dead animals, and data we collect from hunters about their experiences and what they want. Look at the satisfaction indices you can get from NV, NM, or other states. Mandatory reporting and qualitative data eliminate any ambiguity to the reply of “Well, that’s not we’re hearing at public meetings” or "It's the best in decades" comments we've heard. Better data from mandatory reporting and quality assessment either confirms or contradicts the generalized statements being made.

Until that changes, it is the Hunt Talk crowd seeing a completely different picture while spending our many days in the field, compared to what we might be told is the state of affairs out in the field.

For mule deer, any change, whatever it might be, starts with:
  • Mandatory reporting of harvest and hunter satisfaction
  • Mandatory annual surveys of live animals
  • Grassroots demand from hunters in Regions 5, 6 & 7.
  • Support for #3 from hunters in other parts of the state
Click to expand...
I can tell you the comments from hunters attending region 7 meetings in Miles City haven’t supported the status quo for probably 10 years. We just get told we are the minority and the mule deer survey supports current management. It’s like beating your head off a wall over and over and over. Any way this is going to fix itself because the population has crashed and they don’t realize it. They will but as per usual a year or two from now.
 
Remember back when FWP allowed any hunter with a general elk license go down to 270 for the last week or two of season and kill cows?
Then, not too much later 270 got put on a draw for bulls because there were few elk left? The same is coming for mule deer in the east, except they don’t bounce back near as fast
 
MTGomer said:
Remember back when FWP allowed any hunter with a general elk license go down to 270 for the last week or two of season and kill cows?
Then, not too much later 270 got put on a draw for bulls because there were few elk left? The same is coming for mule deer in the east, except they don’t bounce back near as fast
Click to expand...
Yup something is going to happen. I did a fair amount of out reach to fwp this fall on the topic. They all had the same talking points I have heard a hundred times from them. They assured me everything is fine. After a few conversations I had one of those moments where you realize the people your talking to know less than you. Unfortunately this is one of those @BuzzH moments where it needs to all burn to the ground so badly that the facts are evident, even to the fwp and their koolaid drunk a$$e$. The worst part is that this would be fairly easy to address if they cared to manage the resource. But in Montana we do what the majority of sportsman want from a survey not what’s best for the resource. Rant over
 
Big Fin said:
Yes. The last call there was specific reference made to "those Hunt Talk threads." I have a meeting with some of the senior folks this month that cover my elk comments and "those Hunt Talk threads." They do read and follow this forum.

When I went through a check station opening weekend, a Regional Big Game Manager was there. Great person. He said, "We all got your elk management plan comments. They are getting read by those in the agency." We talked about some of my EMP comments. I left with a smile and a thanks for their work, chiming "Thanks for reading the elk comments. Wait until you get my mule deer comments."

This month I've had long calls with mule deer managers in Colorado, Wyoming, and at AFWA, trying to get a better feel of what other states are doing, how they prioritize CWD against other mule deer concerns, learning how much data they collect, learning how they use that data for management, and how they manage by unit/region/herd. Maybe Montana has a lot going on with mule deer data that I'm not aware of, but from these discussions, it seems the data collected by other states is very extensive, in all respects; flights and surveys done annually, mandatory reporting, huge CWD sampling, hunter satisfaction surveys, etc.. Again, maybe MT has all of that and I'm just not aware of it.

In the next post I will give my thoughts of what is going to be needed for change in Montana deer management, purely based on 30 years of engaging in these issues.
Click to expand...
I appreciate your response.

I know my stuff doesn't hold much merit on here usually. I throw some 1 liners out and few jokes. Sometimes I can share maybe a decent bullet point or two. Its good to know though they're watching and like any human out there. I would hope their wheels have to be turning somewhat in their minds on how pathetically miss managed things really are.

I don't expect our quarterly 27.5 page mule deer bitch fest to change things itself. It does provide somewhat of an unfiltered approach though which I feel is actually good.

I'm a Region 5 res. I also travel from 3 to 7 as well. Sprinkled all over the place. It's not hard to see that FWP can support their "loaded numbers" with a few key flights. They may have more data than I think but, when you're face to face with them they don't have much good to say. Because they don't have their script.

I definitely have no probably submitting my thoughts and views to them. Nor do I have an issue of going to a meeting and voicing it. I've done it before and I'm sure I'll do it again.

We're all just playing against a loaded deck, it isn't rocket science to see that. Especially with what all shook out last year with MTFWP and their new "opportunities". The ball is in their court and we can't even come off the bench to defend anything it seems.

I do hope that one day we can get on a program that will have some restrictions for everyone to recover and turn it around.

It's sad as hell to say that right now, it's as good as it will be in the next 20 years if we keep on this road.

Thanks again.
 
Big Fin said:
As promised in my post above, here are some thoughts. Montana deer management is not going to change until hunters change how we interact with the Department and we get more organized. I’ll give some explanations.

Hunt Talk a small section of hunters in Montana. Yes, we probably spend more days per year in the woods than the average hunter, but each of us still only represent one opinion.

Also, Regions 5, 6, & 7 are the cradle of mule deer in Montana, with Region 4 have some core mule areas. Regions 1 &2 are core whitetail ground on public land. Region 3 lost most our mule deer in the last twenty years. The Department is going to listen to hunters in Regions 5, 6, & 7 when it comes to mule deer.

The Department will tell you that hunters in Regions 5, 6 & 7 are just fine with the status quo. When they host public meetings, the folks who show up claim to be satisfied. I don’t attend those meetings in Region 5, 6 & 7. Maybe that is what is being said. The current survey that is out there will hopefully confirm or contradict what is being stated as the opinion of hunters in Regions 5, 6, & 7.

My experience of engaging in Region 7 deer management is dated. After the hard 1997 winter, some of us from Region 3 who hunted Region 7 attended their season setting in Miles City. We asked that doe tags be cut for that year until deer recovered. We also requested a meeting with the Region 7 Big Game Manager to see what data supported keeping mule deer doe tags the same. When I got back, I got a call from the Region 3 Supervisor and the Director, telling me that the Region 7 staff didn’t appreciate Region 3 guys showing up, nor did the hunters from Region 7. They did cut doe tags from 10K+ down to 3K.

Learning point of that experience that is still valid today would be this - If we want change for deer in Regions 5, 6 & 7, it needs to come from hunters in those Regions. Montana is still somewhat provincial in our Region-based structure. All the comments on Hunt Talk are not going to result in big changes, though it can add support if that change is what is asked for by Region 5/6/7 hunters.

The reason I keep saying we need a “pick your Region or District” system, for deer and elk, is this. So long as we let hunters travel the state with ease, they have no incentive for improving things in their back yard. Example – on the Region 3 Zoom call on season settings, I was the only person who commented against the mule deer proposals that will hammer Region 3 mule deer even more. Maybe Region 3 hunters provided written comments I didn’t see. Either way, we are now operating from the FWP proposals on Region 3 mule deer, something I am sure will hit mule deer even harder. Since Region 3 hunters can just pack up and go to Regions 5, 6 or 7, Region 3 hunters have no real incentive to push for change in their back yard.

The same thing happens with elk, just a flip of the table to Region 3. We host most the elk hunting pressure. When I see resident trucks at the trail head, a lot of them are from other Regions, based on the license plate number or the dealership location for those with vanity plates. I get it. They can apply for some great limited entry tags in Regions 4, 5, 6 & 7. If they don’t draw, they can come to Region 3. Same for folks in Regions 1 & 2 in areas that were historically great elk country but are now almost void of public land elk. Region 3 is the "go to" for many Region 1 & 2 elk hunters. Result is that Region 3 gets the same treatment for elk that Regions 5, 6 & 7 get for mule deer.

If the response to proposals I put on social media are any indicator of what the resident hunter wants for changes in Region 3 elk or eastern MT mule deer, I don’t see much likelihood of change. All of my suggestions would have required change by resident hunters. Had I listed my address, I suspect my house would have been egged. Will groups in each Region step forward and demand changes for deer and elk? Not sure.

In my opinion, having talked to folks running all other agencies in the Rockies, MT FWP gets a free pass due to our archaic data collection. We are behind the curve from our western peers as to data we collect of live/dead animals, and data we collect from hunters about their experiences and what they want. Look at the satisfaction indices you can get from NV, NM, or other states. Mandatory reporting and qualitative data eliminate any ambiguity to the reply of “Well, that’s not we’re hearing at public meetings” or "It's the best in decades" comments we've heard. Better data from mandatory reporting and quality assessment either confirms or contradicts the generalized statements being made.

Until that changes, it is the Hunt Talk crowd seeing a completely different picture while spending our many days in the field, compared to what we might be told is the state of affairs out in the field.

For mule deer, any change, whatever it might be, starts with:
  • Mandatory reporting of harvest and hunter satisfaction
  • Mandatory annual surveys of live animals in every district/herd
  • Grassroots demand from hunters in Regions 5, 6 & 7.
  • Support for #3 from hunters in other parts of the state
Click to expand...
All those points make sense but is still relays on FWP to make a change based on our experience. Where I think it gets confusing to the average disgruntled hunter is what do we suggest the change be? It’s easy enough to pick the phone up and complain about how the quality sucks and we’re not seeing as many deer but what do we propose? Is it a by region thing or a statewide solution? Is it shorter season, limit the non resident tags, no doe tags,etc.,etc. If we had consensus on the “one hill to die on”, I think the average Joe could make a call and suggest a solution. I’m no biologist and i could easily call them up to tell them how my experience has chabged. That doesn’t solve anything though. On the other hand if I’m sitting in a chair at FWP and I get 30 calls saying we need to change “whatever it be” I may be much more willing to take it up with the boss. It’s complex and I think that’s where/why it stalls. I’m fired up to make a call this week though.
 
tjones said:
Those aren’t triplets. It’s an orphan fawn picked up by another doe because someone blazed momma.
Click to expand...
Doesn't seem to be anyone hunting up here. We saw one other hunter in three days. The access road into this public huntable property had NO traffic on it since the last rain ... which I understand was opening weekend. I don't think a lot of anything has been shot up here. I guess CWD could be taking those does but I'm not finding any bone piles either.
 
It’s sad, but it’s not complex. Montana hunters have a tradition of rifle hunting the rut. It’s a birthright. It’s a birthright to go wherever in the state, pretty much unrestricted.

Hunt Talk does not represent the majority of hunters. The majority of hunters will go out, hunt some in November when the rut is on, and then be pissed off the hunting isn’t great. They’ll blame it on non residents, wolves, cougars, coyotes, outfitters and so on.

Doing the right thing isn’t always easy, and someone (looking at you Hank) is going to have to grow some stones and change the path of mule deer hunting.

Again, to quote an old friend with FWP, “we have half the mule deer we had in 1960 but we still hunt them like it’s 1960”.

People in other states across the west hunt and kill deer pre rut. I’m sure Montanans can and would adapt, but I doubt it’ll come willingly.

If I were king for a day, I’d go spend about three days with @antlerradar and we’d hash out a mule deer plan.
 
Big Fin said:
As promised in my post above, here are some thoughts. Montana deer management is not going to change until hunters change how we interact with the Department and we get more organized. I’ll give some explanations.

Hunt Talk a small section of hunters in Montana. Yes, we probably spend more days per year in the woods than the average hunter, but each of us still only represent one opinion.

Also, Regions 5, 6, & 7 are the cradle of mule deer in Montana, with Region 4 have some core mule areas. Regions 1 &2 are core whitetail ground on public land. Region 3 lost most our mule deer in the last twenty years. The Department is going to listen to hunters in Regions 5, 6, & 7 when it comes to mule deer.

The Department will tell you that hunters in Regions 5, 6 & 7 are just fine with the status quo. When they host public meetings, the folks who show up claim to be satisfied. I don’t attend those meetings in Region 5, 6 & 7. Maybe that is what is being said. The current survey that is out there will hopefully confirm or contradict what is being stated as the opinion of hunters in Regions 5, 6, & 7.

My experience of engaging in Region 7 deer management is dated. After the hard 1997 winter, some of us from Region 3 who hunted Region 7 attended their season setting in Miles City. We asked that doe tags be cut for that year until deer recovered. We also requested a meeting with the Region 7 Big Game Manager to see what data supported keeping mule deer doe tags the same. When I got back, I got a call from the Region 3 Supervisor and the Director, telling me that the Region 7 staff didn’t appreciate Region 3 guys showing up, nor did the hunters from Region 7. They did cut doe tags from 10K+ down to 3K.

Learning point of that experience that is still valid today would be this - If we want change for deer in Regions 5, 6 & 7, it needs to come from hunters in those Regions. Montana is still somewhat provincial in our Region-based structure. All the comments on Hunt Talk are not going to result in big changes, though it can add support if that change is what is asked for by Region 5/6/7 hunters.

The reason I keep saying we need a “pick your Region or District” system, for deer and elk, is this. So long as we let hunters travel the state with ease, they have no incentive for improving things in their back yard. Example – on the Region 3 Zoom call on season settings, I was the only person who commented against the mule deer proposals that will hammer Region 3 mule deer even more. Maybe Region 3 hunters provided written comments I didn’t see. Either way, we are now operating from the FWP proposals on Region 3 mule deer, something I am sure will hit mule deer even harder. Since Region 3 hunters can just pack up and go to Regions 5, 6 or 7, Region 3 hunters have no real incentive to push for change in their back yard.

The same thing happens with elk, just a flip of the table to Region 3. We host most the elk hunting pressure. When I see resident trucks at the trail head, a lot of them are from other Regions, based on the license plate number or the dealership location for those with vanity plates. I get it. They can apply for some great limited entry tags in Regions 4, 5, 6 & 7. If they don’t draw, they can come to Region 3. Same for folks in Regions 1 & 2 in areas that were historically great elk country but are now almost void of public land elk. Region 3 is the "go to" for many Region 1 & 2 elk hunters. Result is that Region 3 gets the same treatment for elk that Regions 5, 6 & 7 get for mule deer.

If the response to proposals I put on social media are any indicator of what the resident hunter wants for changes in Region 3 elk or eastern MT mule deer, I don’t see much likelihood of change. All of my suggestions would have required change by resident hunters. Had I listed my address, I suspect my house would have been egged. Will groups in each Region step forward and demand changes for deer and elk? Not sure.

In my opinion, having talked to folks running all other agencies in the Rockies, MT FWP gets a free pass due to our archaic data collection. We are behind the curve from our western peers as to data we collect of live/dead animals, and data we collect from hunters about their experiences and what they want. Look at the satisfaction indices you can get from NV, NM, or other states. Mandatory reporting and qualitative data eliminate any ambiguity to the reply of “Well, that’s not we’re hearing at public meetings” or "It's the best in decades" comments we've heard. Better data from mandatory reporting and quality assessment either confirms or contradicts the generalized statements being made.

Until that changes, it is the Hunt Talk crowd seeing a completely different picture while spending our many days in the field, compared to what we might be told is the state of affairs out in the field.

For mule deer, any change, whatever it might be, starts with:
  • Mandatory reporting of harvest and hunter satisfaction
  • Mandatory annual surveys of live animals in every district/herd
  • Grassroots demand from hunters in Regions 5, 6 & 7.
  • Support for #3 from hunters in other parts of the state
Click to expand...
Didn’t sleep well last night! Thinking to much about this whole thread and what Big Fin posted. My initial read lead me to a “no hope” scenario which I absolutely hate because my natural mindset has always been from the “cup half full” camp.

As I was laying awake listening to the Gail force winds try to roll the house over, I started to think on the basics of information and how we form paths & processes. In one word, DATA! The MT FWP lives and dies by data. Whether it is the right data, that’s for a different reply!
It has always been crazy stupid how the FWP collects their data from me, the hunter! I will get a call after season from someone I don’t know and I don’t pick up because they are not in my contacts (Kind of the standard phone use these days given all the junk calls out there). They leave a message and try again at a later time. Sometimes 3 or 4 more times but from different phone numbers. They never get me to pick up, go figure!

We as hunters are the boots on the ground. We are the untapped link that the FWP needs to see & show value in more. We must be included, we have skin in the game.

The MT FWP needs an entire revamp in their data collection system. Starting with REQUIRED HUNTER PARTICIPATION gathering portals or whatever! And like Big Fin said, “Mandatory, live surveys of animals in every region.” I feel I can use my voice to help direct this kind of change. So whatever that looks like, let’s go!

As for the territorial, regional MT BS? I have very little patience and understanding for the lack of being open minded by those who practice this! While I cannot change their mind I can at least be apart of something that changes the culture direction if not now but for future generations!

I feel a wind shift coming! While it may be ever so light, IT’s COMING! Got to keep it in our faces and not at our backs💯
 

Attachments

  • EA6A22BA-3548-4845-B7CE-9418F1D62645.png
    EA6A22BA-3548-4845-B7CE-9418F1D62645.png
    215.4 KB · Views: 7
OntarioHunter said:
Doesn't seem to be anyone hunting up here. We saw one other hunter in three days. The access road into this public huntable property had NO traffic on it since the last rain ... which I understand was opening weekend. I don't think a lot of anything has been shot up here. I guess CWD could be taking those does but I'm not finding any bone piles either.
Click to expand...
So, in a nutshell you hunt a spot that is full of mule deer and has no hunters. Sounds like typical Montana.
 
Not mentioned too much on this thread is FWP Revenue. Everytime a biologist quotes the old "opportunity" word, substitute REVENUE and see if that doesn't fit. Every biologist salary and the overhead is dependent on REVENUE too, and they know it. Fixed costs of FWP currently is a very high percentage of their budget. They cant afford to reduce revenue. If non-residents are limited it every negatively affects revenue big time as their licenses and tags bring in so much money.. Simply, FWP wants every possible resident and non resident hunter to buy as many tags as they can afford. Managing for quality doesn't allow that. Limiting seasons or going to drawings or shorter seasons discourages some hunters from buying tags. It matters little to them if you find something to shoot as long as you are buying tags. Outfitters want long seasons because their revenue stream is enhanced by bringing in group after group for months on end. And now Outfitters are THE major player in Montana wildlife management, with the Commission stacked in their favor.
 
tjones said:
So, in a nutshell you hunt a spot that is full of mule deer and has no hunters. Sounds like typical Montana.
Click to expand...
Actually, the neiboring pay to play ranch has all the deer. Way too many. They wander out to feed in my BMA guy's wheat fields and range that isn't overgrazed. However, on the long drive out to the BMA property I often see lots of deer, usually on posted land of course. Did chase around a decent buck on another BMA property the morning I shot mine spotted as I drove out. Seven does and fawns with him. Blood all over the highway between Malta and Havre last night. Driving in a full moon after a day hunting birds in very cold wind I was surprised to only see one group of six muleys on that piece of highway. Going over the canal overpass east of Malta at night I just lean on the horn all the way. Deer are crossing there constantly. I have hit two in that spot. Fresh blood again yesterday.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

cgasner1
Montana season structure proposal 2.0
14 15 16
Replies
304
Views
9K
antlerradar
antlerradar
Little Big Man MT Chris
My biggest MT shed yet 😎
Replies
0
Views
197
Little Big Man MT Chris
Little Big Man MT Chris
S
First Western Mule Deer Hunt
Replies
15
Views
1K
vanish
vanish
M
Unit 319 Montana Mule Deer
2
Replies
23
Views
1K
Pagosa
P
Nameless Range
Gratitude For The Deer That Are There
2
Replies
21
Views
1K
kansasdad
kansasdad
SITKA Gear

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,675
Messages
2,029,352
Members
36,279
Latest member
TURKEY NUT

Share this page

Back
Top