Montana season structure proposal 2.0

[Nameless Range]

Depending on the species, According to the most recent stats available, NRs account for about 1/5 the hunter days occurring on the landscape statewide. That said in some districts the portion is much larger. If stats around accessible lands existed(public and BMAs) the delta would be even smaller.

Improving hunting in Montana is gonna have to be a many-factored approach to be effective, but NR pressure has increased at a rate greater than that of R pressure, and when on the landscape it sticks out like a sore thumb, and it absolutely needs to be curtailed from my perspective but pointing out one issue doesn’t mean we disregard the others either.

No need for a pissing match though. So many great ideas in this thread.

 

[DFS]

Seems like all you guys are circling back to the talking points. to me like we are all on the same team with this despite what license plate your Prius has on it. @TheJason I 100% agree the issue is much larger than just nr and worry that by changing stuff with the nr it will just hit the pause button on what needs done.

You can’t release how ever many nonresident deer tags out there with no restraint to where they can go whatever the season structure is. That is common sense and that is not management.

 

[TheJason]

For you folks actively involved in trying to change season structures, here is a historical recap from another state you may or may not find useful as you try to find ways to move forward.

Washington implemented 3 point minimum restrictions for mule deer statewide in the 1990s. Some units were also 3 point minimum for whitetail (predominantly agricultural area units). The driving force behind this was the escapement for bucks after rifle season was abysmally low. I believe in some units the counts were revealing numbers as low as 5 bucks per 100 does or less for escapement.

I am not an advocate of APR management. However, the choice was APR or limited entry. Limited entry was chosen as the route forward. Deer hunters were mandated to choose their weapon, but then could hunt in any unit in the state during their respective seasons. In addition, limited entry hunts are offered (typically rut/migration hunts) across weapon types as well. Some of the northern units offer an OTC November hunt for whitetail bucks, that is a fairly decent hunt.

Now, 35 years later we are still operating under this protocol. Some biologists will tell you flat out the APR approach is not the right way to go about things, and limited entry would be better (from an age diversity standpoint). However, many of the units have large amounts of private land in them and there is distinct reluctance to go limited entry because of landowner resistance.

Bigger ranches can effectively grow some fairly good deer under the current system. They can also make some money via hunt clubs and leases, much the same as Montana. My daughter had the luxury of hunting private land as a beginning hunter, and the deer hunting was quite good. I've maintained my public land approach because I didn't want to impact youth opportunity on my friends ranch. The deer hunting I've experienced over the last 16 years wouldn't rate as fantastic, but I'd put it above average.

In addition, even though I like concurrent opportunities, a huge hurdle is simply de-coupling the deer and elk seasons. There are distinct unintended consequences with changes in elk management on deer management that are very hard to reconcile.

Where am I going with all of this rambling? First, Montana is not unique in the challenges of balancing private and public land management for deer. Second, post season escapement counts are a pretty crucial part of the picture. Regardless of your harvest reporting data, the number of bucks left is a cornerstone to your management. Maybe the best approach isn't the most optimal path moving forward. In this instance, decades of APR are probably better than never getting LE (or a similarly restrictive mechanism such as choose your GMU) implemented.

I hate shifting baselines, but I think it's important to give an honest answer to the question of "how far back in time can we take mule deer hunting?" The upper Ruby was limited entry for decades, and in all of my wanderings up there I was continually underwhelmed by what I saw in terms of deer.

Edited to add the completely random recollection of how Wyoming can make marked changes to deer seasons each year, in response to biological data. I remember the first WY deer tag I drew 30 years ago, thinking I had the entire month of October to hunt in my unit. After the final season-setting meeting, I had two weeks to hunt. I don't remember many season changes like that in Montana, and I could never figure out why.

 

[Straight Arrow]

You can feel free to put me on your ignore list if you are that offended.

Nope, like said there were good points. It's the delivery that's arrogant.
This is a good thread for you and all to contribute healthy perpsectives and viable solutions, resident or nonresident. It is timely in that the Montana Legislature is convening next Month and this thread could provide good input to effect legislation healthy for wildlife and good for hunting.

 

[DFS]

For you folks actively involved in trying to change season structures, here is a historical recap from another state you may or may not find useful as you try to find ways to move forward.

Washington implemented 3 point minimum restrictions for mule deer statewide in the 1990s. Some units were also 3 point minimum for whitetail (predominantly agricultural area units). The driving force behind this was the escapement for bucks after rifle season was abysmally low. I believe in some units the counts were revealing numbers as low as 5 bucks per 100 does or less for escapement.

I am not an advocate of APR management. However, the choice was APR or limited entry. Limited entry was chosen as the route forward. Deer hunters were mandated to choose their weapon, but then could hunt in any unit in the state during their respective seasons. In addition, limited entry hunts are offered (typically rut/migration hunts) across weapon types as well. Some of the northern units offer an OTC November hunt for whitetail bucks, that is a fairly decent hunt.

Now, 35 years later we are still operating under this protocol. Some biologists will tell you flat out the APR approach is not the right way to go about things, and limited entry would be better (from an age diversity standpoint). However, many of the units have large amounts of private land in them and there is distinct reluctance to go limited entry because of landowner resistance.

Bigger ranches can effectively grow some fairly good deer under the current system. They can also make some money via hunt clubs and leases, much the same as Montana. My daughter had the luxury of hunting private land as a beginning hunter, and the deer hunting was quite good. I've maintained my public land approach because I didn't want to impact youth opportunity on my friends ranch. The deer hunting I've experienced over the last 16 years wouldn't rate as fantastic, but I'd put it above average.

In addition, even though I like concurrent opportunities, a huge hurdle is simply de-coupling the deer and elk seasons. There are distinct unintended consequences with changes in elk management on deer management that are very hard to reconcile.

Where am I going with all of this rambling? First, Montana is not unique in the challenges of balancing private and public land management for deer. Second, post season escapement counts are a pretty crucial part of the picture. Regardless of your harvest reporting data, the number of bucks left is a cornerstone to your management. Maybe the best approach isn't the most optimal path moving forward. In this instance, decades of APR are probably better than never getting LE (or a similarly restrictive mechanism such as choose your GMU) implemented.

I hate shifting baselines, but I think it's important to give an honest answer to the question of "how far back in time can we take mule deer hunting?" The upper Ruby was limited entry for decades, and in all of my wanderings up there I was continually underwhelmed by what I saw in terms of deer.

TLDR you lost me at you haven’t hunted in Montana for 13 years.

 

[TheJason]

TLDR you lost me at you haven’t hunted in Montana for 13 years.

That's fine, it wasn't really directed to you.

 

[Gerald Martin]

You can’t release how ever many nonresident deer tags out there with no restraint to where they can go whatever the season structure is. That is common sense and that is not management.

How would you allocate the proper number of tags to the proper region?

How do you think FWP would allocate caps?

Based on their history of setting “appropriate” caps for those areas that have gone to LE permits in response to hunter overcrowding rather than “trophy” units I wouldn’t expect FWP to do anything other than set caps at the number of current users rather than at a level that is reflective of the amount of deer and how much pressure the resource can sustain without detriment to the resource.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Where am I going with all of this rambling?

Again, your info and opinions are really good, IMO.
My writing teacher would hand my paper back, saying, "It's too long; I don't have time for this. Look up succinct, rewrite and return."

 

[rogerthat]

How would you allocate the proper number of tags to the proper region?

How do you think FWP would allocate caps?

Based on their history of setting “appropriate” caps for those areas that have gone to LE permits in response to hunter overcrowding rather than “trophy” units I wouldn’t expect FWP to do anything other than set caps at the number of current users rather than at a level that is reflective of the amount of deer and how much pressure the resource can sustain without detriment to the resource.

Idaho did it. Why can’t Montana?

 

[DFS]

How would you allocate the proper number of tags to the proper region?

How do you think FWP would allocate caps?

Based on their history of setting “appropriate” caps for those areas that have gone to LE permits in response to hunter overcrowding rather than “trophy” units I wouldn’t expect FWP to do anything other than set caps at the number of current users rather than at a level that is reflective of the amount of deer and how much pressure the resource can sustain without detriment to the resource.

40% of the previous years resident deer harvest.

 

[TheJason]

Again, your info and opinions are really good, IMO.
My writing teacher would hand my paper back, saying, "It's too long; I don't have time for this. Look up succinct, rewrite and return."

Sorry, you get the first draft only.

 

[TheJason]

He also has 98% more snark. Calling long time members like @Straight Arrow who has also done a ton for the resource aint cool. I don’t gaf who he is

I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Nameless Range]

How would you allocate the proper number of tags to the proper region?

How do you think FWP would allocate caps?

Based on their history of setting “appropriate” caps for those areas that have gone to LE permits in response to hunter overcrowding rather than “trophy” units I wouldn’t expect FWP to do anything other than set caps at the number of current users rather than at a level that is reflective of the amount of deer and how much pressure the resource can sustain without detriment to the resource.

This happened in the Elkhorns for mule deer 2 years ago. Went LE at what was essentially previous pressure levels. The biologist was recommending an over 20% cut for 2025. Don’t know if it will take.

I’m highly opposed to more LE areas and much prefer season structure changes. Particularly for elk, between LO preference (15%) and the 454 Program (10% above the quota which of course over time there is no such thing as “above the quota” because dead elk can’t be hunted in subsequent years) we would be looking at 20+% of available tags off the table to the plebes right off the bat in many districts.

 

[rogerthat]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Yeah I’m kind of a big deal too…in my own mind much like you.

 

[Gerald Martin]

40% of the previous years resident deer harvest.

You would restrict NR tag numbers in each region to 40% of R harvest or restrict NR harvest to 40% of R harvest?

I’m assuming you are probably meaning the first portion of my question?

If so, how do you propose cutting back the number of statutory allowed licenses to set the amount of NR licenses sold? Can you get that bill through the legislature? How many total licenses are we talking about?
I’m assuming you are talking about distribution of the current number of NR licenses sold throughout the 7 Regions at a rate of 40% of R harvest of each region.
Do you have any numbers showing what that would look like and if it would accommodate the current amount of NR licenses sold?

 

[TheJason]

Yeah I’m kind of a big deal too…in my own mind much like you.

You can take it to a PM if you want, but I still have no idea what you are talking about. I have no illusions I'm a big deal. I'm JAG. Feel free to ignore me as well.

 

[TheJason]

You would restrict NR tag numbers in each region to 40% of R harvest or restrict NR harvest to 40% of R harvest?

I’m assuming you are probably meaning the former part of my question?

If so, how do you propose cutting back the number of statutory allowed licenses to set the amount of NR licenses sold? Can you get that bill through the legislature? How many total licenses are we talking about?
I’m assuming you are talking about distribution of the current number of NR licenses sold throughout the 7 Regions at a rate of 40% of R harvest of each region.
Do you have any numbers showing what that would look like and if it would accommodate the current amount of NR licenses sold?

All these mathematical gymnastics then point back to the difficulty of doing any real management with a statutory number of NR deer and deer/elk combos that go out in the mail every year, with no regard for what species or where they are good for.

Truly, the best route is burn the entire system down and start over.

 

[DFS]

All these mathematical gymnastics then point back to the difficulty of doing any real management with a statutory number of NR deer and deer/elk combos that go out in the mail every year, with no regard for what species or where they are good for.

Truly, the best route is burn the entire system down and start over.

It’s not mathematical gymnastics it’s wildlife management and it needs to happen. 40% of the previous years resident harvest is extremely generous. I don’t give one shit about the funding because I can see what we are currently getting.

 

[Gerald Martin]

All these mathematical gymnastics then point back to the difficulty of doing any real management with a statutory number of NR deer and deer/elk combos that go out in the mail every year, with no regard for what species or where they are good for.

Truly, the best route is burn the entire system down and start over.

I agree and is one reason we backed away from part of our original proposal to require picking a region as well as choosing which species you would hunt each year.
In our internal discussions most of us felt strongly that choosing either whitetail or mule deer and the season structure that our proposal would have for each would have a greater chance of improving hunter experience and alleviate some of the intensity of pressure on mule deer.

 

[Gerald Martin]

It’s not mathematical gymnastics it’s wildlife management and it needs to happen. 40% of the previous years resident harvest is extremely generous. I don’t give one shit about the funding because I can see what we are currently getting.

Not giving shits about the funding means you don’t give shits about your ideas becoming reality…

I don’t disagree that your ideas could be a biological improvement as well as improving hunt quality if they were adopted by the agency. I just don’t think that’s a legislative fight that would be won and I don’t see anyone stepping up to sponsor that bill.