Montana mule deer

[Ben Lamb]

For me it has nothing to do with whether or not whitetail are smarter, it has to do with what happens when they're the only option for the vast majority of hunters.

And they're an easily accessible option.

Every action has an opposite and equal reaction, I think I heard that once.

MT needs a comprehensive deer management plan that includes whitetail and mule deer. You cannot focus on one without the other specifically because of what Randy is saying. The impact to whitetail if Muleys go to a stricter season will be pronounced.

 

[timmy]

Whitetails seem to find a way to survive.

 

[bigsky2]

I don't think the majority of Montana's hunters will ever be willing to go to a draw for mule deer. The best compromise I can see would be to move the season dates forward to minimize the rut hunting. Hell, even a lot of the bowhunters I know would be kicking and screaming if you tried to move rifle season ahead enough that it would cut into archery season, even if it was for the good of the resource. Move the start date of the season ahead a week, and shorten it by a week. The season would only be a week shorter, but you'd get rid of two weeks of rut hunting that way. Definitely wouldn't be my first choice, but you might be able to sell that.

 

[timmy]

Do you hunt whitetail west of the divide much?

Not enough to have an opinion but have a little, give whitetails some cover and they tend to get by. But you are correct I don’t have enough experience.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

Many units in Wyo allow for an unused Gen deer Tag to be used for whitetails only later in the season. One way to decrease last minute take on younger MD bucks in Gen areas. My sons and I do this every year. It has been a lot of years since I have taken a MD in Wyo but I have used that tag to take a whitetail each of those years. My kids have started doing this as well. They each got their first MD bucks during their first season. Since then they like to hold out for an older MD buck knowing that come November we can run to the other side of the state and virtually guarantee they will fill the tag on whitetail doe.

Just an idea that may work to the North of us as well.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Many units in Wyo allow for an unused Gen deer Tag to be used for whitetails only later in the season. One way to decrease last minute take on younger MD bucks in Gen areas. My sons and I do this every year. It has been a lot of years since I have taken a MD in Wyo but I have used that tag to take a whitetail each of those years. My kids have started doing this as well. They each got their first MD bucks during their first season. Since then they like to hold out for an older MD buck knowing that come November we can run to the other side of the state and virtually guarantee they will fill the tag on whitetail doe.

Just an idea that may work to the North of us as well.

Most of the OTC deer licenses are for either species in MT. Whitetail opportunity is generally much greater than MD already, as a lot of districts are either sex for whitetail and antlered only for mule deer. General OTC B tag opportunity is regionwide for whitetail, and unit specific for muleys.

The mule deer population of MT is estimated to be around 320K, while the whitetail population is estimated to be around 540K.

I'm old enough to remember when WY didn't have any whitetail outside of the Black Hills or Tongue River area. Man, that changed quickly. Different discussion for a different thread though.

 

[TOGIE]

it's just interesting to me how colorado already went down this road. i've heard anecdotally how hunters were gonna "quit mule deer hunting for good" in colorado once you could no longer just grab a buck license and go wherever you wanted.

i'm sure the resistance to limited licenses was just as strong in in 1963 in colorado as it is and would be in montana right now. it seems this is the bullet montana is going to have to bite at some point. especially with what the future population increases and development hold. maybe right now is colorado's 1963 for montana. or the lead up to it.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife

Colorado Parks and Wildlife is a nationally recognized leader in conservation, outdoor recreation and wildlife management. The agency manages 42 state parks, all of Colorado's wildlife, more than 300 state wildlife areas and a host of recreational programs. CPW issues hunting and fishing...

cpw.state.co.us

"In 1951 two deer of either sex were allowed per license. By 1953, in certain areas, hunters could buy unlimited licenses and take a deer on each license. The abundance of game and liberal hunting regulations produced large game harvests by the late 1950s, with 114,529 deer taken in 1957 and 10,820 elk harvested in 1958."

"The recovery of deer and elk in Colorado from the 1930's to the 1950's reflected a trend across the West. Population surveys showed that deer and elk numbers during this period were greater than at any previous time in the 20th century."

and yet...

"In 1963, the first limited license buck deer season was held. Deer harvests continued to set records, with more than 147,000 deer taken in Colorado. In an effort to develop more accurate population estimates, the renamed Colorado Department of Game, Fish and Parks pioneered aerial count techniques to better estimate herd numbers near Kremmling in the Middle Park Basin of north central Colorado in 1967. Total deer numbers were projected from averages of deer counted on random square miles called "quadrats," the first systematic sampling protocol adopted by the agency."

mule deer at record numbers, harvest at record numbers... why go limited then? they must have seen the writing on the wall, i dunno...

 

[TheJason]

Whitetails seem to find a way to survive.

You can over exploit mountain whitetails.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Population of Colorado in 1963 was closing in on 2 million souls. Montana is just over 1 million now. Wyoming still hovering around 500K.

 

[Ben Lamb]

You can over exploit mountain whitetails.

You can shoot the chit out of coulee whitetails too (See R4).

 

[brocksw]

Last I talked to MDF, they were interested in putting more resources into MT. Good folks who do good work!

I like to hear this but have my reservations. What resources specifically? Who will said resources benefit? MDF in my eyes has become a private lands only organization.

 

[brockel]

Maybe Montana should go to a mandatory harvest reporting to actually get some solid data. No reason in today’s world that this couldn’t be done rather pain free even for Montana.

 

[brocksw]

Maybe Montana should go to a mandatory harvest reporting to actually get some solid data. No reason in today’s world that this couldn’t be done rather pain free even for Montana.

Lots of push back from people in ND whenever that's brought up, assuming it would be the same for MT? Makes me wonder if the wildlife departments are better spent fighting that objection for other proposals?

 

[Ben Lamb]

I like to hear this but have my reservations. What resources specifically? Who will said resources benefit? MDF in my eyes has become a private lands only organization.

It's been over a year, but the focus was on public land, and improving range conditions for wildlife as well as working on a deer mgt plan.

Maybe Montana should go to a mandatory harvest reporting to actually get some solid data. No reason in today’s world that this couldn’t be done rather pain free even for Montana.

When we asked about this a couple of years ago, we were told that the current modeling method of calling worked well, and they had all of those years of data to fall back on. It seemed like the reluctance was mostly about changing how they did things, and they weren't eager to switch it up. You could run this as a bill and force the agency to do it, but I think they'd likely work to kill it.

 

[brockel]

Lots of push back from people in ND whenever that's brought up, assuming it would be the same for MT? Makes me wonder if the wildlife departments are better spent fighting that objection for other proposals?

What’s the pushback? Disclosing their places they hunt?

 

[Oak]

it's just interesting to me how colorado already went down this road. i've heard anecdotally how hunters were gonna "quit mule deer hunting for good" in colorado once you could no longer just grab a buck license and go wherever you wanted.

Colorado went totally limited in 1999. There were 150,000 deer hunters in 1998 and 81,000 in 1999. So there were a whole bunch of people who stopped deer hunting annually. Not saying that it was the wrong thing to do or that they quit altogether, just pointing out the situation. This year there were just under 102,000 deer licenses available in the state, counting doe, whitetail only, etc.

 

[brocksw]

What’s the pushback? Disclosing their places they hunt?

I think that's part of it. But I think some of it is just not wanting big brother to force them to do something....distrust. That's a much harder barrier to cross imo. Measures can be taken to protect "spots". Very hard to convince some people that more and better data is worth the "inconvenience".

It's been over a year, but the focus was on public land, and improving range conditions for wildlife as well as working on a deer mgt plan.


When we asked about this a couple of years ago, we were told that the current modeling method of calling worked well, and they had all of those years of data to fall back on. It seemed like the reluctance was mostly about changing how they did things, and they weren't eager to switch it up. You could run this as a bill and force the agency to do it, but I think they'd likely work to kill it.

That's promising.

From a data standpoint there's some truth to that. But there are ways to transition that historical data to new data collected from new surveys and maintain its usefulness. My suspicion is that a lot of states could benefit from new surveys considering how much hunting has changed in the last few decades.

I would be reluctant to use force with the legislature. I think I'd rather see a law that prohibits the legislature from forcing the agency to do anything. Politicians in suits have no business forcing management decisions down the chain.

 

[TOGIE]

Colorado went totally limited in 1999. There were 150,000 deer hunters in 1998 and 81,000 in 1999. So there were a whole bunch of people who stopped deer hunting annually. Not saying that it was the wrong thing to do or that they quit altogether, just pointing out the situation. This year there were just under 102,000 deer licenses available in the state, counting doe, whitetail only, etc.

was that because of the newly limited number of licenses? i'm sure it was a combo if disgruntled refusal to play the game and a now capped number of licenses.

i think a sentiment i hold for those that "will quit hunting if licenses go limited" is: please do. better to get those folks out of the way of management honestly.

the other interesting thing is that licenses have increased every year since 2015. which seems odd to me.

sorry to keep veering off track from montana mule deer to colorado mule deer

 

[JimQ]

I actually saw a slammer this weekend while antelope hunting...I stopped at a gas station and he was on the wall!

 

[JimQ]

On opening day of goat season I came across this guy standing alongside the road and totally oblivious to me. He was circling, staggering, breathing heavy and tongue hanging out. I called Choteau County sheriffs who came out put him down and took him to the FWP to be tested. Being from Missouri I am well aqcuainted with CWD and the symptoms. Praying that it doesn't spread through the herds anymore then it has otherwise there will be even fewer.