Montana season structure proposal 2.0

[sclancy27]

Sorry, misread the date. 18 months. You clearly have not read this thread or the one before it or the one before that and let it all sink in. This group is just trying something, hell, anything, and that is a positive because Montana hunters don't like change. That is commendable. Bios vary from region to region. Those that say everything is fine are probably looking for a promotion. Those that try to make restrictions are gluttons for punishment. Doing what is right for the resource is hard.

I agree, low likelihood this happens if full. I think your concern over the last week in October, while on a solid basis, is probably overblown. Hunting MD out of prime rut is a different ball game. What do you want to see?

Also, the question of "How do you measure success?" was also brought up and it a completely legit question to the group. How would you measure success?

If I was to fault this group, it would be in trying to continue to pleasure the "opportunity" mentality. But it is still a step in the right direction.

We would gauge success as a stagnation (ideally decrease) of hunter days by residents (see graph)...
And a decrease in the blue line below to approximate species ratio...

 

[cgasner1]

1.Eliminate all mule deer doe harvest public and private across the state doe's grow the herds not bucks.

2.Set region caps for nr

3.shorten the November mule deer hunt to end before Thanksgiving but still give some rut hunting let whitetail run through the end of the month don't make them pick a species.

Leave everything else alone and see what happens.

1 some private can use doe harvest due to them not leaving the property and it becoming over ran. Fwp is worried about cwd and things of that nature this help combat that part of it.

2a moga never signs off on caps. Way to much politics in wildlife without them this is all dead in the water

2b it would be a nightmare to introduce properly with the data available how do you decide what region gets x amount of tags? We don’t wanna apply a pile of pressure into other units and make things worse else where.

3 pickings your species will have a huge effect on the mule deer since the harvest numbers show it’s almost split on what’s being taken. By having the split it could save on the resource on both species.

 

[Archer86]

1 some private can use doe harvest due to them not leaving the property and it becoming over ran. Fwp is worried about cwd and things of that nature this help combat that part of it.

2a moga never signs off on caps. Way to much politics in wildlife without them this is all dead in the water

2b it would be a nightmare to introduce properly with the data available how do you decide what region gets x amount of tags? We don’t wanna apply a pile of pressure into other units and make things worse else where.

3 pickings your species will have a huge effect on the mule deer since the harvest numbers show it’s almost split on what’s being taken. By having the split it could save on the resource on both species.

1. Then make doe tags a draw and issue them where those issues exist

2a. That attitude needs to change outfitters are not the end all be all of enough residents don't like the current direction This shouldnt be a hard battle to win

2b many other states have made regions / unit specific areas work efficiently just have to figure out how to do the same in Montana not impossible but difficult.

3. If I was forced to pick species I would choose mule deer everytime I can hunt whitetail in many different states for cheap. Currently I hunt mule deer and if I don't see a good buck I go shoot a whitetail meat buck. If you force me to choose I am going to pick mule deer and I may not be as picky .I am guessing I am not the only one that approaches this in that way.

 

[SAJ-99]

We would gauge success as a stagnation (ideally decrease) of hunter days by residents (see graph)...View attachment 350389
And a decrease in the blue line below to approximate species ratio...View attachment 350390

So electronic hunter harvest/survey is important, and probably the most like "give" in the "ask". Does the hunter with general tags double count days when he/she is walking around willing to shoot an elk or a deer? This is where Montana gets difficult. A hunter walking around with multiple tags valid in multiple areas trying to explain what they were hunting and how long over a looooong season. But I am for trying, because it is something new. There will just be a lot to criticize after.

 

[cgasner1]

1. Then make doe tags a draw and issue them where those issues exist

They currently are a draw

2a. That attitude needs to change outfitters are not the end all be all of enough residents don't like the current direction This shouldnt be a hard battle to win

A unified front will get us much farther to any change than picking a fight with a allie.

2b many other states have made regions / unit specific areas work efficiently just have to figure out how to do the same in Montana not impossible but difficult.

Many other states also have decades of mandatory reporting to help with these decisions

3. If I was forced to pick species I would choose mule deer everytime I can hunt whitetail in many different states for cheap. Currently I hunt mule deer and if I don't see a good buck I go shoot a whitetail meat buck. If you force me to choose I am going to pick mule deer and I may not be as picky .I am guessing I am not the only one that approaches this in that way.

You’re gonna shoot a buck neat. I could care less if you decided to shoot a buck that grossed under 20” every year for the next decade it’s your tag to use as you see fit and enjoy. A shooters gonna shoot and we aren’t trying to save every deer

 

[SAJ-99]

Still off on your math....April 2022 to current try again.... hint we are getting close to 2025

I skipped through it and looked at the proposals

its hard to see so many dismiss wildlife biologist as doing what's good for them I like to belive most have a passion for wildlife and want them to thrive maybe I am wrong.

hunting mule deer in the first week of October can be as good as the rut if you know what your doing but most will hunt the last week of October hoping to catch some rutting action nothing wrong with that but it will be heavily pressured and I think that's being underestimated and when hunters can't find the mature bucks the little bucks will get shot as a opportunity buck by some.

Success would be growing the deer herd overall numbers not just big bucks

I am not faulting this group hope they succeed in a positive outcome for the mule deer herd but you won't get anything done trying to do to much at once and then if it doesn't work whats next......more restrictions because the last ones didn't work

Sorry, the math was a joke.

Biologist vary like MT hunters. I hate to admit that. I have met a few (personally and electronically) and some are perfect examples of your vision. One or two, not so much. The things I hear support this.

The "if you know what you are doing..." part is particularly important in your statement. Little bucks get shot anyway. (Please, A brief moment of silence for those forkies shot today...now back to the convo) It's about the larger numbers and age class. Moving MD bucks to October will result in fewer bucks being shot. 100% sure? maybe not, but it is a good bet.

Herd size is controlled by B tags, so that we agree on completely. But the impact of herd size/growth is not equally dispersed across the landscape. That brings in politics. The kicker is, this group has a better chance of pushing through these changes because Mother Nature has helped in lowering numbers. Once numbers start going up, changes will be harder.

Change is hard. Giving up something in exchange for something that might be positive but not a sure bet is harder. There are no sure bets.

I think we are largely on the same page on this subject. Framing is important.

 

[antlerradar]

Success would be growing the deer herd overall numbers not just big bucks

I am not faulting this group hope they succeed in a positive outcome for the mule deer herd but you won't get anything done trying to do to much at once and then if it doesn't work whats next......more restrictions because the last ones didn't work

This proposal is not about big bucks, if it was we would be pushing restrictive LE right now.

This proposal is about better access, Instead of trying to gain access to bucks on private land, we change the season to when more of the bucks are on public land.

This proposal is about spreading hunting pressure out, by separating Mule deer from whitetails and elk and out of the rut we should reduce the crush of hunters mid to late Nov.

This proposal is about maintaining opportunity to hunt every year. LE is spreading across the State, If noting is changed LE state wide will bee here soon.

This proposal is about making the Law of Diminishing returns work better. The Law of Diminishing Returns is how FWP currently manages hunter distribution and right now it is failing. The Law of Diminishing returns fails when hunters lose access and when hunters have OTC tags for two species of game. One species that is thriving and one that is struggling. The struggling species never gets a chance to recover because hunters continue to hunt the area for the thriving species and also fill there tags with the struggling species. We address both of these issues with this proposal.

 

[Archer86]

They currently are a draw

A unified front will get us much farther to any change than picking a fight with a allie.

Many other states also have decades of mandatory reporting to help with these decisions

You’re gonna shoot a buck neat. I could care less if you decided to shoot a buck that grossed under 20” every year for the next decade it’s your tag to use as you see fit and enjoy. A shooters gonna shoot and we aren’t trying to save every deer

So what are you trying to accomplish then if you don't care what people shoot? You just want to reduce the amount of bucks killed even though that has zero effect on the size of the herd and try and reduce pressure?

 

[SAJ-99]

2a. That attitude needs to change outfitters are not the end all be all of enough residents don't like the current direction This shouldnt be a hard battle to win

The outfitters hire economist (or someone) to explain how much they contribute to the Montana economy. (ok, I have argued the study is BS, but no one cares). Montana hunters certainly haven't done that. That is what makes it a hard battle to win. Paying taxes, taxes, taxes only goes so far. They know you live here for a reason.

2b many other states have made regions / unit specific areas work efficiently just have to figure out how to do the same in Montana not impossible but difficult.

This is the part maybe discussion should expand on. There are ways to do this. Maybe make a unit(s) in a zone a draw while the rest remain the same? probably brings in more politics from outfitters who are located in a particular unit? Not sure. Or maybe make different tags, like a more selective 4pt or more on one side and give out more forkie tags? Call it LE-light? Again, this is complicated but doable. Acceptance may be the issue - which is more politics. But also, this group shouldn't have to get to detailed on this.

 

[antlerradar]

1. Then make doe tags a draw and issue them where those issues exist

That is nearly impossible with out going to extremely small units, The public/ private split is probably the best way to get does shot where it is needed.
For example deer numbers on the SW part of the Custer right now could be measured in square miles per deer right now in many places, A few miles away on the private river bottoms numbers are much higher.

 

[antlerradar]

The outfitters hire economist (or someone) to explain how much they contribute to the Montana economy. (ok, I have argued the study is BS, but no one cares). Montana hunters certainly haven't done that. That is what makes it a hard battle to win. Paying taxes, taxes, taxes only goes so far. They know you live here for a reason.


This is the part maybe discussion should expand on. There are ways to do this. Maybe make a unit(s) in a zone a draw while the rest remain the same? probably brings in more politics from outfitters who are located in a particular unit? Not sure. Or maybe make different tags, like a more selective 4pt or more on one side and give out more forkie tags? Call it LE-light? Again, this is complicated but doable. Acceptance may be the issue - which is more politics. But also, this group shouldn't have to get to detailed on this.

The problem is when you start restricting one unit, you shift pressure to other units.

 

[Archer86]

The problem is when you start restricting one unit, you shift pressure to other units.

I would say this only would apply to nr hunters it wouldn't shift any pressure you set the quota of nr hunters you want in a region or unit however it would be decided and run with it and adjust as needed resident of montana wouldnt change. like Wyoming or idaho.

It's not impossible it might be challenging and make it more difficult for nr to draw but it would be better for the resource and reduce pressure in most areas

Good outfitters would still fill there hunts wyoming is the perfect example the outfitters cry its hard to fill hunts but most of them are booked out years in advance if they are worth a shit

 

[DFS]

I would say this only would apply to nr hunters it wouldn't shift any pressure you set the quota of nr hunters you want in a region or unit however it would be decided and run with it and adjust as needed resident of montana wouldnt change. like Wyoming or idaho.

It's not impossible it might be challenging and make it more difficult for nr to draw but it would be better for the resource and reduce pressure in most areas

Good outfitters would still fill there hunts wyoming is the perfect example the outfitters cry its hard to fill hunts but most of them are booked out years in advance if they are worth a shit

That’s common sense but that is not what we are dealing with.

 

[antlerradar]

We've gone thru a significant amount of harvest data that shows several issues. Our goal is to use a changed season structure to incentivize human behavior to address those issues.

This is important. Biologists are experts on biology of wildlife, when they fail it is often dew to human behavior. Back when I was at MSU I took econ of natural resources. The class was full of wildlife majors. For me it was an easy 300 level A, for the wildlife majors it was a struggle and the reason they struggled was they were always looking for a biological fix to a human problem. Many of the issues mule deer are facing are not going to be solved with biology but by incentivizing human behavior.

 

[antlerradar]

I would say this only would apply to nr hunters it wouldn't shift any pressure you set the quota of nr hunters you want in a region or unit however it would be decided and run with it and adjust as needed resident of montana wouldnt change. like Wyoming or idaho.

It's not impossible it might be challenging and make it more difficult for nr to draw but it would be better for the resource and reduce pressure in most areas

Good outfitters would still fill there hunts wyoming is the perfect example the outfitters cry its hard to fill hunts but most of them are booked out years in advance if they are worth a shit

That just depend on how you set the quotas, There is a very real possibility that NR quotas for regions 6 and 7 could be higher then the numbers of NR hunting there now.

 

[SAJ-99]

That is nearly impossible with out going to extremely small units, The public/ private split is probably the best way to get does shot where it is needed.
For example deer numbers on the SW part of the Custer right now could be measured in square miles per deer right now in many places, A few miles away on the private river bottoms numbers are much higher.

But this is expected, no? I have said I have little sympathy for a rancher that puts in a pivot and complains of too many deer or elk. You own their IDEAL WINTERING GROUND!!!. Asking them to eat someplace else isn't exactly an option for them.

The problem is when you start restricting one unit, you shift pressure to other units.

Yes. It is complicated. But the group was trying to avoid restrictions on "opportunity". The typical response is "limit NR numbers but not my R opportunity". Again, I keep stating this, that comes back to money. MT can do whatever it wants and NR have to make decisions on the results. They have options the R's don't.

Mandatory harvest reporting is great but it doesn't give specifics unless the tags are specific. At some point hunters have to make trade offs. If NR have to take the bullet (and they probably should) then so be it. But you and I know that won't solve the true problem.

Many of the issues mule deer are facing are not going to be solved with biology but by incentivizing human behavior.

Exactly.

 

[DFS]

That just depend on how you set the quotas, There is a very real possibility that NR quotas for regions 6 and 7 could be higher then the numbers of NR hunting there now.

Harvest stats as accurate as they may or may not be wouldn’t allow that to happen. I would hope.

 

[DFS]

It’s pretty straightforward nonresidents need to be limited. That isn’t going to fix the western Montana problem but it’s a good start.

 

[huntin24/7]

Are there any other states in the west that allow non residents to hunt like 95% of the state on their tag? Residents for that matter too?

 

[DFS]

Are there any other states in the west that allow non residents to hunt like 95% of the state on their tag? Residents for that matter too?

And allow it during the rut.