Montana season structure proposal 2.0

[Forkyfinder]

I really wish the last 2 weeks of several areas would be LE only for mule deer.

I know this isnt the goal but i wish there was a place for people to apply.

 

[antlerradar]

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.

Actually, the ideal wintering ground in eastern MT is most likely to be public land. Mule deer flock to the pivots in fall to put on fat in preparation for winter, by Mid Dec they will nearly all be gone.

I think you are reading something into my post that I did not intend. I am not saying ranchers should have doe tags filled on there pivots because they do not like deer. I am saying the doe tags should not be filled on public when numbers are in the tank. Giving the deer numbers in region 7 there should be zero doe tags issued, but since there are, those tags should be filled on private. Hunters are going to fill the doe tags where it is the expected costs and benefits are the most advantageous. One of those incentivizing human behavior issues.

 

[SAJ-99]

I really wish the last 2 weeks of several areas would be LE only for mule deer.

I know this isnt the goal but i wish there was a place for people to apply.

There are already several areas that are LE for mule deer. Look at how many residents apply. People want was is and want what could be.

Agree @antlerradar

 

[antlerradar]

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

FWP does not care if a NR or a R kills the deer, only the number of deer killed. If Regions 6 and 7 have 40% of the states mule deer,(I don't know the actual number off the top of my head) FWP will set the NR quota for regions 6 and 7 at 40% of the total NRs and FWP will not take into account the distribution of deer on public or private. Then you add in the politics of Outfitters and landowner wanting more NR and region caps on NR may not end well for public land in 6 and 7.

 

[antlerradar]

There are already several areas that are LE for mule deer. Look at how many residents apply. People want was is and want what could be.

Agree @antlerradar

Although this is not part of this proposal, I think that there is some merit to very limited LE rut hunts for mule deer. Could be a good way to address the very real problem of point creep in some of the more sought after units.
Demand is high for quality mule deer hunting. It is the reason why MT residents pay thousands of dollars to lease private land in eastern MT.

 

[Flatbrimmer]

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

I hate to nitpick at what you’re saying here CGas but ain’t NO outfitter or guide an ALLY of the DIY hunter. They literally get paid BIG money for OUR wildlife and making DAMN SURE their client kills that animal before YOU DO. They pay BIG MONEY to lease up land that us locals USED TO be able to access.

If you think we shouldn’t be monetizing wildlife, we should really start scrutinizing those that do just that.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I hate to nitpick at what you’re saying here CGas but ain’t NO outfitter or guide an ALLY of the DIY hunter. They literally get paid BIG money for OUR wildlife and making DAMN SURE their client kills that animal before YOU DO. They pay BIG MONEY to lease up land that us locals USED TO be able to access.

If you think we shouldn’t be monetizing wildlife, we should really start scrutinizing those that do just that.

Respectfully, horseshit.

I know plenty of outfitters who are fantastic conservationists & stewards of the land as well as making money off of taking people hunting. I know outfitters who only think of their chances to kill things as well.

There are bad apples everywhere, diy hunting included. You cannot lump an entire group of people into a category then complain when they won't work with you. The legislature has made it clear that they are tired of groups fighting and they will reward people who set aside some differences and focus on the things they can agree on.

If the notion is that hunters can just roll outfitters and ignore their concerns, then people have not been paying attention to what's been working & what hasn't in terms of making changes like does on public land, bills like sb 281 & sb 56. I see outfitters lobbying for the public now (increased block mgt payments, selective doe harvest), and I see diy hunters actively engaging with outfitters & landowners to find common ground. Being able to have adult conversations on difficult issues is a good thing.

Taking the discussion down to the users rather than letting FWP, the governor or the legislature set the terms & then letting interest groups duke it out means we walk in the door for discussions on bills & season setting in a much stronger position than a confrontational approach. If I am a commissioner or legislator, having @Eric Albus @cgasner1 & @antlerradar walk in and tell me the same thing means there is legitimate & serious support for a concept. It takes away the potential for more shenanigans and it creates a solid coalition of the most influential interests in the wildlife space.

If you want to build power for conservation, you have to do it with a coalition of those groups.

 

[Rie Bread]

Spin the proposal like this. Montana currently has a 6 week rifle season, add 3-4 more to hunt mule deer and you hunt with a rifle for 11 WEEKS. ( is my grade school math correct?) Add in the select shoulder season areas and you trigger finger is satisfied for damn near half the year.