Montana - Time to Shake it Up?

[BuzzH]

I've seen several collared elk over the years in Montana, including one that was in a small herd my nephew killed his first elk out of a few years ago.

Never have seen a collared deer or pronghorn in Montana.

 

[theat]

I think it's fairly variable from what you want the collars to do or how long you need them to last... maybe a biologist or the helicopter capturer @theat has those costs what collars are. I googled some and most didn't have the costs posted..

Several different types and brands of collars available, but for the combo VHF/GPS multi-year battery life collars they tend to be pretty spendy. Its tough to get a solid number on cost as most companies base that on the quantity purchased and potential for further contracts. From what I remember it is usually around $2500. Although, that is only a fraction of the total cost for getting good info. It costs agencies money to pay a contractor to catch and apply the collars. There is also software needed to monitor the information from the collars. It also takes a considerable amount of time for a biologist to plan, prepare, stage, monitor, and produce a report on the results only for the upper management to completely ignore the results and their recommendations. VIT and ear tag VHF collars are quite a bit cheaper, but also require someone to be out monitoring them daily and a team to hike into the kill site or birth site to collect info.

I can tell you from working with many biologists from many western states that there is a lot of frustration in their ranks. I can't blame them. They do a ton of work to try to help wildlife only to have the agency and state legislatures ignore their recommendations or even do the opposite.

Some of you may remember one of the first FWP related directives that our current governor had Hank implement, was to decrease wildlife research and eliminate any long term wildlife studies. He wanted a two year cap on any research. Talk to any wildlife biologist and they will tell you that 2 years worth of data isn't worth squat when it comes to long term trends.

Montana's wildlife agency pulls back on science work

Montana’s Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks plans to shift its research program toward short-term, in-house efforts after a decade of ambitious work helped make it a world-renowned scientific contributor.

www.spokesman.com

https://missoulacurrent.com/science-fwp-gianforte/


I worked on a couple of mule deer collaring projects in MT. We caught primarily bucks along the border with Canada from the Sweetgrass Hills to north of Malta. I know that there were a few other areas where deer were caught as part of this CWD monitoring project. Not sure if the data collected gets used for anything other than CWD related stuff.


We also caught does and fawns in the southern Bitteroot as part of the predator/prey relationship project that completed a few years ago. There was a much higher focus on elk than deer on that one, but deer were part of it. I wasn't there, but another crew caught some mule deer does along the RMF. Montana FWP does quite a bit of collar related research, but at least while I was part of it, deer were way down the list behind elk (brucellosis), sheep, goats and wolves. Of all the states I worked in, Colorado was by far the most invested in mule deer research. We were putting out well over a thousand collars on mule deer in NW CO alone.

Other than while working, I have seen 3 doe mule deer, 1 buck, 4 cows, 1 moose, and 3 sheep with collars in MT. At least those that I recall seeing. This is a doe wearing a collar near Darby.

 

[Stifler]

Curious if you attended any of the mule deer management meetings fwp put on couple years ago

No I haven't I'm guilty of being to caught up with life. Untill Greg came and cleaned house I have honestly never paid much attention. But I see it being more and more important and I'm willing to make those trips.

 

[mtmiller]

I think the biggest problem with the type of collar they put on bucks is that they die after about 2.5 years. The collars still work though.

Sorry, bad joke and in no way should be taken serious to mule deer management in MT.

 

[Stifler]

Montana needs to start with human predation before we try to fix anything else, it would be the easiest to experiment with. Funny I met a couple less informed brothers this week, overweight stereotypical road hunters, who were absolutely appalled that MT was not allowing doe harvest on public lands. Their exact words “that ain’t even conservation, that goes completely against conservation”. I just bit my tongue, weren’t going to change their minds. They mentioned that the at the banquet regional director of MDF had told them that there was a group of hunters pushing for no doe tags but multiple buck tags and were selfishly trying to play the system to trophy hunt multiple bucks. They showed a few pictures and talked about how they were completely content with killing immature bucks every year

That is true, this I see as a possible middle ground to keeping some opportunity and gaining more deer to the landscape.

I definitely don't want multiple buck tags.. and I think doe should really only be alloted in a area if it happens to be over carrying capacity.

 

[Stifler]

Several different types and brands of collars available, but for the combo VHF/GPS multi-year battery life collars they tend to be pretty spendy. Its tough to get a solid number on cost as most companies base that on the quantity purchased and potential for further contracts. From what I remember it is usually around $2500. Although, that is only a fraction of the total cost for getting good info. It costs agencies money to pay a contractor to catch and apply the collars. There is also software needed to monitor the information from the collars. It also takes a considerable amount of time for a biologist to plan, prepare, stage, monitor, and produce a report on the results only for the upper management to completely ignore the results and their recommendations. VIT and ear tag VHF collars are quite a bit cheaper, but also require someone to be out monitoring them daily and a team to hike into the kill site or birth site to collect info.

I can tell you from working with many biologists from many western states that there is a lot of frustration in their ranks. I can't blame them. They do a ton of work to try to help wildlife only to have the agency and state legislatures ignore their recommendations or even do the opposite.

Some of you may remember one of the first FWP related directives that our current governor had Hank implement, was to decrease wildlife research and eliminate any long term wildlife studies. He wanted a two year cap on any research. Talk to any wildlife biologist and they will tell you that 2 years worth of data isn't worth squat when it comes to long term trends.

Montana's wildlife agency pulls back on science work

Montana’s Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks plans to shift its research program toward short-term, in-house efforts after a decade of ambitious work helped make it a world-renowned scientific contributor.

www.spokesman.com

https://missoulacurrent.com/science-fwp-gianforte/


I worked on a couple of mule deer collaring projects in MT. We caught primarily bucks along the border with Canada from the Sweetgrass Hills to north of Malta. I know that there were a few other areas where deer were caught as part of this CWD monitoring project. Not sure if the data collected gets used for anything other than CWD related stuff.
View attachment 319329

We also caught does and fawns in the southern Bitteroot as part of the predator/prey relationship project that completed a few years ago. There was a much higher focus on elk than deer on that one, but deer were part of it. I wasn't there, but another crew caught some mule deer does along the RMF. Montana FWP does quite a bit of collar related research, but at least while I was part of it, deer were way down the list behind elk (brucellosis), sheep, goats and wolves. Of all the states I worked in, Colorado was by far the most invested in mule deer research. We were putting out well over a thousand collars on mule deer in NW CO alone.

Other than while working, I have seen 3 doe mule deer, 1 buck, 4 cows, 1 moose, and 3 sheep with collars in MT. At least those that I recall seeing. This is a doe wearing a collar near Darby.
View attachment 319328

Thank you I appreciate the information

 

[DFS]

1% of resident rifle mule deer buck tags get allocated to NR rifle mule deer buck tags.

15% of previous years resident rifle mule deer buck tags get allocated to NR any deer archery tags. Just over 80% of which hunt mule deer in the badlands with that tag. This is a statewide tag just like the resident archery tag.

Depending on the unit, residents can draw a mule deer rifle buck tag in 3-4 years in some units, and in others it takes 7-9 years.

Resident archery tags are OTC and can be obtained every year. 2023 represents the first year in ND history where archery hunters (R and NR) took more mule deer than rifle hunters in a couple badlands units.

Thanks! The allocation wasn’t as bad as I actually thought it was. Nonresidents just don’t get to hunt with long range rifles. You don’t see many people complaining about North Dakota. Don’t let their foot in the door.

 

[Mtnhunter1]

I've seen several collared elk over the years in Montana, including one that was in a small herd my nephew killed his first elk out of a few years ago.

Never have seen a collared deer or pronghorn in Montana.

Photo taken 10/7/23, yes that was opening day, Montana public land. Ended up seeing a few with collars that trip. It was good to see that "someone" is doing something!



You would of thought that she'd look happier flaunting her $2,500 bling.

I also saw a few sheep sporting new collars last fall. Again, nice to see that "someone" is doing something!

 

[Stifler]

Just spitballing for more collar funding here, we could add 5 million to funding adding 18.12 to all R/NR conservation license. Simple math I know youth, disabled, and senior are different.. added to overall cost of a base conservation license. Total licenses sold was 276k last year for MT. I would think 5 million additional dollars each year for collar work, gps, and fawn rates/rate of survival, would atleast be a decent start for all our species... the more biologists know, the more I would think biologists are going to be able to help all species.

8 dollars for conservation is kinda a joke anyways IMO all tag costs are for us.. but that is what it is this is just one way to get there. 26.12 for residents, And 28.12 for non residents. non bias increase to the tag cost... but it would still be a decent chunk to address public concerns. If we want more wildlife we also have to be willing to pay for it. Life isn't going to be any cheaper in another 10 years, maybe time to get ahead in some research. something residents probably are going to need to realize as well.

Youth and disabled maybe only a 8 dollar increase or something... skew that estimate under 5 million, but it's still a chunk for biologists research and data. If you can afford to get in your truck and drive to go camp and hunt for a week, and drive your sxs to hell and back. I'm sure you have a extra 20 for a conservation license... but I don't see how the research couldn't help..

Or the not so simple math and sly way would be adding that 18.12 to all tags in a dollar or two increase across every speices and incorporate it that way. A buck or two at a time. I'm sure we all could afford that as well. So again I don't have a magic marker or think I have the cure. In my opinion more research is going to be the best option. If it comes back region 6 and 7 can only handle x amount of hunters that's fine too. But the collar work isn't going to hurt long term research goals.

One other caviot could be to put those 2 methods to the test if you want to hunt those 2 regions during experiment you must stay in those regions. No travel 6 to 7 that way. Or any other general tag be able to come in. Your general tag if you pick 6 or 7 is only good for 6 or 7. But I see that pushing more people to pick whatever region stays open longer.. so again I don't think I have a perfect answer I just think it could be a good way to see what way works better, if it's similar results, or one stands out... and has the better social acceptance of the two..

Edit: probably the only acceptable one by montana residents, would be adding that 5 million into non res costs though.

 

[antlerradar]

A few FWP meetings back it was announced that there was a mule deer study planed for SE MT. Haven't heard much about it lately, kind of wondering what the status is.

 

[brockel]

Just spitballing for more collar funding here, we could add 5 million to funding adding 18.12 to all R/NR conservation license. Simple math I know youth, disabled, and senior are different.. added to overall cost of a base conservation license. Total licenses sold was 276k last year for MT. I would think 5 million additional dollars each year for collar work, gps, and fawn rates/rate of survival, would atleast be a decent start for all our species... the more biologists know, the more I would think biologists are going to be able to help all species.

8 dollars for conservation is kinda a joke anyways IMO all tag costs are for us.. but that is what it is this is just one way to get there. 26.12 for residents, And 28.12 for non residents. non bias increase to the tag cost... but it would still be a decent chunk to address public concerns. If we want more wildlife we also have to be willing to pay for it. Life isn't going to be any cheaper in another 10 years, maybe time to get ahead in some research. something residents probably are going to need to realize as well.

Youth and disabled maybe only a 8 dollar increase or something... skew that estimate under 5 million, but it's still a chunk for biologists research and data. If you can afford to get in your truck and drive to go camp and hunt for a week, and drive your sxs to hell and back. I'm sure you have a extra 20 for a conservation license... but I don't see how the research couldn't help..

Or the not so simple math and sly way would be adding that 18.12 to all tags in a dollar or two increase across every speices and incorporate it that way. A buck or two at a time. I'm sure we all could afford that as well. So again I don't have a magic marker or think I have the cure. In my opinion more research is going to be the best option. If it comes back region 6 and 7 can only handle x amount of hunters that's fine too. But the collar work isn't going to hurt long term research goals.

One other caviot could be to put those 2 methods to the test if you want to hunt those 2 regions during experiment you must stay in those regions. No travel 6 to 7 that way. Or any other general tag be able to come in. Your general tag if you pick 6 or 7 is only good for 6 or 7. But I see that pushing more people to pick whatever region stays open longer.. so again I don't think I have a perfect answer I just think it could be a good way to see what way works better, if it's similar results, or one stands out... and has the better social acceptance of the two..

Edit: probably the only acceptable one by montana residents, would be adding that 5 million into non res costs though.

That’s would be great. Only problem is fwp has to want to do it and want the information it would gather.

 

[brocksw]

Thanks! The allocation wasn’t as bad as I actually thought it was. Nonresidents just don’t get to hunt with long range rifles. You don’t see many people complaining about North Dakota. Don’t let their foot in the door.

The only problem it creates is that the NR archery allocation is based off previous years tags.

Our Game and fish bases yearly resident allocation on a number of metrics like harvest data, population indexes, fawn recruitment, buck:doe. So our resident tag numbers can vary widely from year to year. For example, from the 2022 to 2023 season, resident rifle tag numbers were more or less cut in half due to the ‘23 winter and previous years of drought. But since NR any deer archery allocation was based on ‘22 tags, their 15% was still as if the ‘23 winter had never happened and there was double the number of NR archery tags as there should’ve been based on ‘23 resident allocation. In other words, NR are lagging behind and therefore slow to adjust when the population experiences a negative event.

I foresee this being changed in the ‘25 session. NR allocation will be changed from previous year to same years R allocation to address that small problem.

It is worth noting that our harvest success for rifle mule deer (16.5 day November rut hunt) is basically 70-80% over the long term average.

 

[BourbonSnowCone]

I’m convinced none of the conversations in this entire thread matter or will ever be implemented in Montana in its current iteration. The outfitters on here talk big but there is no way they will ever support anything that limits mule deer hunting for paying clients. And what they want is how the Commission and Legislature vote. GG has tied himself to the economic benefits of exploiting wildlife and there is no going back. Remember Hank’s CNF elk proposal for General on private and permits on public? That’s what the outfitters want for MD too. They get theirs while letting FWP be the bad guys and limit the public land hunter. A bunch of world class behind-the-scenes string pullers.

 

[BourbonSnowCone]

Such a satiated bunch with the status of MT hunting. It would seem someone has at least the left ear of the good Governor. And what else do I spy but perhaps the most blatantly biased and corrupt Commissioner in state history. Just makes me warm all over thinking about what the future holds.

 

[Mtn-time]

I think the biggest problem with the type of collar they put on bucks is that they die after about 2.5 years. The collars still work though.

Sorry, bad joke and in no way should be taken serious to mule deer management in MT.

I think you just answered the collar question, a collar on a mule deer buck irregardless of age would be a death sentence.

 

[cgasner1]

I think you just answered the collar question, a collar on a mule deer buck irregardless of age would be a death sentence.

After seeing @theat video the other day I’d think the collar is probably the cheaper part of that. But Montana would get a bargain we could probably use the same collar on 3-4 different bucks just gotta pay the guys to keep putting them back on#keepcollaring

 

[antlerradar]

View attachment 319413
Such a satiated bunch with the status of MT hunting. It would seem someone has at least the left ear of the good Governor. And what else do I spy but perhaps the most blatantly biased and corrupt Commissioner in state history. Just makes me warm all over thinking about what the future holds.

I see some people that got public land doe slaughter canceled in regions 6 and 7.

 

[BourbonSnowCone]

I see some people that got public land doe slaughter canceled in regions 6 and 7.

Heard the same excuses from Fish & Game when they started elk shoulder seasons. No one would ever charge anyone to shoot a cow. Lasted a week before outfitters were advertising shoulder season hunts for $500. Up to $3000 in places now. But I’m sure their support for the public land doe ban is entirely altruistic.

 

[antlerradar]

Heard the same excuses from Fish & Game when they started elk shoulder seasons. No one would ever charge anyone to shoot a cow. Lasted a week before outfitters were advertising shoulder season hunts for $500. Up to $3000 in places now. But I’m sure their support for the public land doe ban is entirely altruistic.

I am confident that the reason the outfitters pushed the ban on public land doe tags was not so they could sell more doe hunts.

 

[BourbonSnowCone]

I am confident that the reason the outfitters pushed the ban on public land doe tags was not so they could sell more doe hunts.

But it certainly demonstrates who is controlling regulation of wildlife in our state. And it makes me very uncomfortable that the group that does so is a commercial interest. The next altruistic outfitter I meet will be the first.