Montana - Time to Shake it Up?

[Schaaf]

Montana is a big state, 3-4 times larger than most other states.

 

[bigsky2]

Why not start from scratch and fix the NR draw while we’re at it. Model the draw after Wyoming. If you want to draw a LE permit, you shouldn’t have to first draw a general tag. You either put in for general or a LE permit. It’s by far the most messed up NR draw system in my opinion. I bet half the residents in our state don’t even know how it works for NR.

 

[brockel]

Why not start from scratch and fix the NR draw while we’re at it. Model the draw after Wyoming. If you want to draw a LE permit, you shouldn’t have to first draw a general tag. You either put in for general or a LE permit. It’s by far the most messed up NR draw system in my opinion. I bet half the residents in our state don’t even know how it works for NR.

Yep you should either put in for LE permit or general

 

[cgasner1]

Why not start from scratch and fix the NR draw while we’re at it. Model the draw after Wyoming. If you want to draw a LE permit, you shouldn’t have to first draw a general tag. You either put in for general or a LE permit. It’s by far the most messed up NR draw system in my opinion. I bet half the residents in our state don’t even know how it works for NR.

Look at this guy bringing logic to the fight. Idk how you make any sort of changes without this issue being addressed

 

[antlerradar]

There are some folks that suggest shooting more does (in an already healthy population) can lead to more, larger bucks.

Their reasoning is that because doe mortality is largely additive, you are reducing the population. Because buck mortality is at least partially compensatory, the loss of that doe means a buck that wouldn’t otherwise survive would. In places/times of resource limitation removing certain individuals is beneficial to others. Obviously that’s a very simplistic way to look at it but I think that’s the gist.

Compensatory/additive mortality and their concepts can describe overarching, 10,000-ft views of ecology and population dynamics but in reality things are very nuanced and much more variable.

I think this is one of those plays that looks good on paper and when you try it in a game on the field your QB gets sacked for a 10 yard loss most of the time. Sure hasn't worked out in my little part of the state.

 

[antlerradar]

Montana is a big state, 3-4 times larger than most other states. How about revising the definition of resident within the boundaries of the state, and issue permits accordingly. Sorry couldnt resist throwing that one out on the table.

I suggested this once, there are legal issues.

The problem Montana has now is that most of he mule deer pressure is concentrated in two regions. This is especially true with NR pressure.

 

[antlerradar]

Way to go Randy, just great at burning spots, burn baby burn.

I don't disagree that influencers like Randy can burn a place by concentrating hunters in one spot. This should also result in other places receiving less pressure. It is up to hunter to identify these places and hunt there. The reality on the ground is that there is not any Public spot that is not getting cooked right now. This is a management issue not an influencer issue. We need to be careful not get side tracked on infuencers and lose sight of the big picture.

 

[WanderWoman]

I think this is one of those plays that looks good on paper and when you try it in a game on the field your QB gets sacked for a 10 yard loss most of the time. Sure hasn't worked out in my little part of the state.

I would tend to agree. Although there is some merit to the concept theoretically, it would be very difficult to illustrate in a natural setting since there are so, so many other variables that influence mule deer survival and antler growth.

Compensatory and additive mortality are useful concepts in looking at or explaining things broadly but I also think they’re a little outdated, given our understanding of ungulate population dynamics, density-dependence, etc.

Putting it another way, there’s “this is nice and clean when you think about it,” but “welcome to the real world” when it comes to its actual application.

 

[Nameless Range]

The reality on the ground is that there is not any Public spot that is not getting cooked right now. This is a management issue not an influencer issue.

This is the crux, and is why other threads about He Who Shall Not Be Named are energy wasted. The cat that is "Hunting in Montana" is out of the bag, and though it is irrelevant, folks are still uselessly debating on what let the cat out.

For me, it starts and stops with season configuration and tag/permit allocation. The rest is just wind.

 

[peterk1234]

There are some folks that suggest shooting more does (in an already healthy population) can lead to more, larger bucks.

Their reasoning is that because doe mortality is largely additive, you are reducing the population. Because buck mortality is at least partially compensatory, the loss of that doe means a buck that wouldn’t otherwise survive would. In places/times of resource limitation removing certain individuals is beneficial to others. Obviously that’s a very simplistic way to look at it but I think that’s the gist.

Compensatory/additive mortality and their concepts can describe overarching, 10,000-ft views of ecology and population dynamics but in reality things are very nuanced and much more variable.

The amount of does I see in the fields near where I live is certainly impressive, although I saw a bit less this year. Good available crop everywhere may have played a role.

The bucks either are very good at staying out of sight, or the buck to doe ratios are out of whack. But I don't see reducing the doe numbers as the solution. You kill a doe, you have killed three deer. Kill a buck it's one deer. But kill too many bucks and well the problem is pretty obvious.

Would some sort of slot limit work? With that said, at first I believe you need to increase the number of bucks roaming the lands. I never understood the taking large antlered animals. I would think those are the last animals you would want to cull. Keep the strong genetics in the herd.

 

[TOGIE]

There are some folks that suggest shooting more does (in an already healthy population) can lead to more, larger bucks.

Their reasoning is that because doe mortality is largely additive, you are reducing the population. Because buck mortality is at least partially compensatory, the loss of that doe means a buck that wouldn’t otherwise survive would. In places/times of resource limitation removing certain individuals is beneficial to others. Obviously that’s a very simplistic way to look at it but I think that’s the gist.

Compensatory/additive mortality and their concepts can describe overarching, 10,000-ft views of ecology and population dynamics but in reality things are very nuanced and much more variable.

it reminds me of the physics jokes where you need to assume the chicken is a sphere in a vacuum. it just seems in my mind creating more bucks by shooting does requires too many things to happen that all have odds and chance associated with them to reliably and consistently work. could just as easily be saving does by shooting does, right?

but really i think you parenthesized the key point IMO - a healthy population. i just find it interesting that in the tales of the woes of mule deer we keep hearing about in these threads there could be any logical solution of encouraging people to shoot more does.

but i guess there are often those with two general lines of thought: those that worry primarily about big bucks and those that worry about healthy sustainable populations. kinda need the latter before the former.

 

[The Hedgehog]

This thread should be renamed..

wish in one hand, shit in the other.

 

[MTTW]

The amount of does I see in the fields near where I live is certainly impressive, although I saw a bit less this year. Good available crop everywhere may have played a role.

The bucks either are very good at staying out of sight, or the buck to doe ratios are out of whack. But I don't see reducing the doe numbers as the solution. You kill a doe, you have killed three deer. Kill a buck it's one deer. But kill too many bucks and well the problem is pretty obvious.

Would some sort of slot limit work? With that said, at first I believe you need to increase the number of bucks roaming the lands. I never understood the theory of only taking large antlered animals. I would think those are the last animals you would want to cull. Keep the strong genetics in the herd.

What you are seeing in the fields is a missing age class or 2. When there are no 2 points the first or second week of season it is because they died as fawns. There have never been more than very few older age class bucks left after season in the area around where you live.
Same goes for elk, when spikes are missing it is poor calf recruitment, it is hard to notice missing yearling females but very easy to spot missing yearling males.

 

[peterk1234]

What you are seeing in the fields is a missing age class or 2. When there are no 2 points the first or second week of season it is because they died as fawns. There have never been more than very few older age class bucks left after season in the area around where you live.
Same goes for elk, when spikes are missing it is poor calf recruitment, it is hard to notice missing yearling females but very easy to spot missing yearling males.

That's a great point! Thank you.

 

[woods89]

This is the crux, and is why other threads about He Who Shall Not Be Named are energy wasted. The cat that is "Hunting in Montana" is out of the bag, and though it is irrelevant, folks are still uselessly debating on what let the cat out.

For me, it starts and stops with season configuration and tag/permit allocation. The rest is just wind.

Montana centric thread, I know, but...

You may be 100% correct in Montana, but that discussion is highly relevant for those of us who live in other places that haven't been "discovered" in the same way yet. It's not wasted at all if we can avoid some of the pitfalls Montana has encountered. I'm not necessarily endorsing any single viewpoint, but it's certainly worth thinking about.

 

[Pagosa]

I don't disagree that influencers like Randy can burn a place by concentrating hunters in one spot. This should also result in other places receiving less pressure. It is up to hunter to identify these places and hunt there. The reality on the ground is that there is not any Public spot that is not getting cooked right now. This is a management issue not an influencer issue. We need to be careful not get side tracked on infuencers and lose sight of the big picture.

Maybe I’m hunting different spots, but I’ve hunted in spots where I didn’t see anyone for several days of hiking and glassing or any boot tracks. I have also seen the results of showing videos of indicating where they we’re hunting on maps or boat launches in this example above, and I don’t agree with it. Seems like everyone wants to follow the easy bandwagon to the spot they seen on the video. I would be pissed if I hunted the Missouri River, I know guys have been hunting this way for 20 years, but there is no reason to exploit it in the name of making a video (money) off a public resource. It’s not just in Montana either this is occurring. Nothing is sacred anymore.

I do agree that we need to really limit tags for both residents and nonresidents and shorten seasons. Willing to support anyone or group that could get it implemented.

 

[Ben Lamb]

So,

Bringing this back around to major shake ups instead of just adjusting seasons for more mature bucks -

The idea of empowering the CAC's and creating more focus locally on what people want to see in terms of age structure and overall herd size is perfect. I think HT has a tendency to focus on the antler size for a variety of reasons, but I think that's a bit of a bubble. Most folks seem content with a forkie for the pot. I don't think that needs to go away, as it tends to bring in new hunters, helps breed the success that keeps people coming back and quite frankly, if that's their choice, then bowing to the elitism of 160" bucks can be a detriment to getting and keeping people involved in blood sports.

Losing that egalitarianism in the chase for mature bucks would be a misstep, IMO. @Randy11 also has a massively important point when it comes to moving to LE permits for mule deer in that it places that much more pressure on whitetail in areas of high public land (R1, R2, etc). What happens in R7 resonates in R1.

Mule deer are in trouble west-wide. That's not a FWP problem, it's a habitat issue. Conversion from natural habitat to developed land, massive increases in weeds like cheatgrass, etc, liberal harvest strategies and in some instances, other species outcompeting mule deer for forage.

Mucking around with seasons only addresses part of the problem. It's where folks tend to focus because they want to highlight their experiences and data points, but until we're looking at what's growing in the dirt, and how it's influencing every other part of the machine, I think we're looking at simply cutting that pie smaller.

The loss of MD Doe hunting on approximately 1/3 of the state was a huge wakeup call to a lot of people. As one FWP person in Helena said "That was a big slap across the face to the wildlife division."

Change can happen, but if we just fall back into the tired arguments of allocation and antler size, nothing will happen. Think broader & structural.

I'm working on finding a time to hold the HT/Outfitter meeting. We have a space offered up in Billings. I'm thinking either February or possibly March. @Eric Albus & @Big Shooter for outfitters and so far I've seen @antlerradar raise his hand. Anyone else want to be here? @cgasner1?

 

[sclancy27]

So,

Bringing this back around to major shake ups instead of just adjusting seasons for more mature bucks -

The idea of empowering the CAC's and creating more focus locally on what people want to see in terms of age structure and overall herd size is perfect. I think HT has a tendency to focus on the antler size for a variety of reasons, but I think that's a bit of a bubble. Most folks seem content with a forkie for the pot. I don't think that needs to go away, as it tends to bring in new hunters, helps breed the success that keeps people coming back and quite frankly, if that's their choice, then bowing to the elitism of 160" bucks can be a detriment to getting and keeping people involved in blood sports.

Losing that egalitarianism in the chase for mature bucks would be a misstep, IMO. @Randy11 also has a massively important point when it comes to moving to LE permits for mule deer in that it places that much more pressure on whitetail in areas of high public land (R1, R2, etc). What happens in R7 resonates in R1.

Mule deer are in trouble west-wide. That's not a FWP problem, it's a habitat issue. Conversion from natural habitat to developed land, massive increases in weeds like cheatgrass, etc, liberal harvest strategies and in some instances, other species outcompeting mule deer for forage.

Mucking around with seasons only addresses part of the problem. It's where folks tend to focus because they want to highlight their experiences and data points, but until we're looking at what's growing in the dirt, and how it's influencing every other part of the machine, I think we're looking at simply cutting that pie smaller.

The loss of MD Doe hunting on approximately 1/3 of the state was a huge wakeup call to a lot of people. As one FWP person in Helena said "That was a big slap across the face to the wildlife division."

Change can happen, but if we just fall back into the tired arguments of allocation and antler size, nothing will happen. Think broader & structural.

I'm working on finding a time to hold the HT/Outfitter meeting. We have a space offered up in Billings. I'm thinking either February or possibly March. @Eric Albus & @Big Shooter for outfitters and so far I've seen @antlerradar raise his hand. Anyone else want to be here? @cgasner1?

I'd be interested.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I'd be interested.

Me too. As long as im welcome without a "hunt quietly" shirt.

 

[Eric Albus]

Let us know the time and place. We need very well thought out ideas and serious discussions about unintended consequences.