Montana - Time to Shake it Up?

[rogerthat]

So one of the problems with nr regional caps that would need solving is that if we cap regions under the current system we have a guaranteed x amount (not up on the exact amount someone fill in) of nr deer tags. When you cap regions than those regions(6 and 7 for sure) where nr would be reduced, they would need to go to other regions. I doubt any of the other regions are going to say we need more nr hunters(maybe I’m wrong). Really the regional caps in my mind are to address accessible lands crowding. That’s why I propose the caps don’t apply to hunters on non bma private lands. And just like that you’re back to splitting things up on private vs public. I know many don’t like that but I don’t see how you maintain any quality of experience on public otherwise. I think this might play well to MOGA as well however since the private land access most nr would have would be through an outfitter. And with this admin all and what the last commission meeting showed us, all paths to change lie in MOGAs court. That’s just the reality of the times

 

[DFS]

Doug’s the man with the plan . I mean it’s NR’s doing all the damage

Nonresident mule deer buck harvest for region 7 has exceeded 50% the last 2 years. That needs to be addressed among other things. You aren’t going to hurt my feelings if I don’t hunt mule deer every year, been quite some time since I have shot one. The harvest stats for region 6 and 7 since 2004 lead me to believe region 6 and 7 can handle about 20% of nonresident tags. I encourage you to find another western state or district within where nonresident harvest exceeds resident.

 

[rogerthat]

Nonresident mule deer buck harvest for region 7 has exceeded 50% the last 2 years. That needs to be addressed among other things. You aren’t going to hurt my feelings if I don’t hunt mule deer every year, been quite some time since I have shot one. The harvest stats for region 6 and 7 since 2004 lead me to believe region 6 and 7 can handle about 20% of nonresident tags. I encourage you to find another western state or district within where nonresident harvest exceeds resident.

Colorado otc elk certain units. Gotcha lol

Edit: but otherwise, spot on

 

[8andcounting]

Nonresident mule deer buck harvest for region 7 has exceeded 50% the last 2 years. That needs to be addressed among other things. You aren’t going to hurt my feelings if I don’t hunt mule deer every year, been quite some time since I have shot one. The harvest stats for region 6 and 7 since 2004 lead me to believe region 6 and 7 can handle about 20% of nonresident tags. I encourage you to find another western state or district within where nonresident harvest exceeds resident.

I totally agree with you I just think R are gonna have to give some too .

 

[DFS]

I totally agree with you I just think R are gonna have to give some too .

What’s the percentage of mule deer bucks that are killed by nonresidents in North Dakota? Does it even get close to 10%?

 

[bigsky2]

If anyone wants to discuss anything related to Region 4 in the next month, please send me a PM and we can chat.

 

[bigsky2]

I think it was @antlerradar that said it best in a different thread that R7 is the overflow for the entirety of the state for Mule Deer. This includes residents and non-residents. I'm one of them- I live in region 3 and my dad is in region 5, and, historically, we looked forward to our "eastern Montana" deer hunt each year. I can honestly say I've never gotten juiced up over deer hunting in my own region, and these days, don't get excited to hunt deer in Montana at all.

I think this is just one of the many ways decentralized management of wildlife that @Big Fin is getting at would be a benefit for all. We can have our general tags AND region specific management- just ask Wyoming.

I think decentralized management, in theory, is a great idea (see Region 4 changes this year). The problem is, for some reason the FWP staff in Region 7 seem to think everything is fine as it is.

 

[cgasner1]

I feel like any change would be good at this point. The change I’d like to see I hope lays a solid foundation for future changes and tweaks that need made for the wildlife. With the change I also hope that fwp implements a mandatory report and also starts letting the biologists run the show more for their region. I have drawn stuff up I feel it would be 10x better than the current management. I also realize what I have drawn up is so rough and far from a final copy it could be edited 5x6 times over. Any changes that are made will create an entire different problem that will also need fixed.

 

[brockel]

The problem is, for some reason the FWP staff in Region 7 seem to think everything is fine as it is.

This is one of the biggest issues. You can’t hardly have a conversation with them when you tell them what you are seeing in the field. “Need to hunt a different area then the deer are out there”. Ok why have they disappeared from big chunks of private as well.

 

[brockel]

and also starts letting the biologists run the show more for their region.

If that were the case in region 7 you wouldn’t have seen the changes that took place this year. We’d still be killing as many mule deer does as we can.

They are not happy about that change

 

[cgasner1]

If that were the case in region 7 you wouldn’t have seen the changes that took place this year. We’d still be killing as many mule deer does as we can.

They are not happy about that change

Not every region has the same issues as 7. That’s part of the issue with changing things state is just to big for blanket policy. Probably be easier to change bios that regulation’s at this point.

 

[Mtn-time]

Allocate the NR licenses by region, and let the outfitters take part in the management of those licenses. Restructure the BMA program as necessary. This program is now showing to be counter productive to mule deer and overcrowding during certain periods. I think it has also be rough on our county road dept. budgets as well. Non-guided NR don't get to participate during the rut. Separate (mule - whitetail) deer tags.

Let biologists do biologist things, and let the biology part of the record stand. Having them do their job while entertaining the public-political issues that often direct the final recommendation to a different orientation is not a good recipe. Mid to upper level management in FWP should accountable.

 

[BuzzH]

I think it was @antlerradar that said it best in a different thread that R7 is the overflow for the entirety of the state for Mule Deer. This includes residents and non-residents. I'm one of them- I live in region 3 and my dad is in region 5, and, historically, we looked forward to our "eastern Montana" deer hunt each year. I can honestly say I've never gotten juiced up over deer hunting in my own region, and these days, don't get excited to hunt deer in Montana at all.

I think this is just one of the many ways decentralized management of wildlife that @Big Fin is getting at would be a benefit for all. We can have our general tags AND region specific management- just ask Wyoming.

One major difference with Wyoming is season length, that definitely spreads pressure in the general areas. Its pretty tough to hunt 10 general season areas a year and most deer seasons DO NOT coincide with elk seasons.

IMO, the best management practice that Wyoming has is that their season structures force hunters to make a decision on how they prioritize the time/vacation they spend each fall. If a person only has a week of vacation, they have to decide to either spend that week hunting elk OR deer, they rarely can do both.

I think a lot of deer die in Montana as targets of opportunity while people are out elk hunting. Conversely, in my case, a lot of elk died as targets of opportunity while I was deer hunting.

There are so many things that could help the problem in Montana and I hope that hunters there measure twice and cut once. I also believe before going full Limited Entry/Quota other things should be tried. It would be crazy to see the pendulum swing drastically the other way.

One thing I felt started to work was validating your deer tag for mule deer either East or West. I started seeing more mule deer bucks and nicer bucks on the West side when that was tried. It made people make a decision on where they wanted to hunt deer and cut out a lot of opportunistic deer killing.

It's up to Montana hunters to decide.

 

[YoungGun]

I think a lot of deer die in Montana as targets of opportunity while people are out elk hunting. Conversely, in my case, a lot of elk died as targets of opportunity while I was deer hunting.

Certainly true in the western half of the state where the majority of units are general for both.

 

[BuzzH]

Certainly true in the western half of the state where the majority of units are general for both.

Where I see it a lot too is in the breaks. People draw a cow permit or even a bull permit, and then dump a mule deer buck "since they're already over there". I did it when I had a bull permit over there about a decade ago.

Its not just a Western Montana thing and more so now since the FWP issues so many elk tags in Eastern Montana.

 

[LopeHunter]

Nonresident mule deer buck harvest for region 7 has exceeded 50% the last 2 years. That needs to be addressed among other things. You aren’t going to hurt my feelings if I don’t hunt mule deer every year, been quite some time since I have shot one. The harvest stats for region 6 and 7 since 2004 lead me to believe region 6 and 7 can handle about 20% of nonresident tags. I encourage you to find another western state or district within where nonresident harvest exceeds resident.

I would suggest some WY pronghorn units see more bucks and likely does, too, harvested by NR vs R. Maybe in Pronghorn WY units 23 or 24?

Does MT do 100% harvest road checks? Mandatory reporting? I do not trust voluntary self-reporting as people lie which muddies up the sampling and reduces confidence in the findings that used the data. In CO, you have to check in all sheep and mountain goat and reveal where shot the critter. Some of the self-reported sheep/goat kill sites are not the actual kill sites which becomes obvious as look at a unit map for the resulting historical harvest locations in that unit.

 

[bigsky2]

Where I see it a lot too is in the breaks. People draw a cow permit or even a bull permit, and then dump a mule deer buck "since they're already over there". I did it when I had a bull permit over there about a decade ago.

It’s not just a Western Montana thing and more so now since the FWP issues so many elk tags in Eastern Montana.

The data was shown to prove that at the R4 season setting meetings. In 410, the increase in cow hunting pressure aligned with the increase in mule deer harvest.

 

[BuzzH]

I would suggest some WY pronghorn units see more bucks and likely does, too, harvested by NR vs R. Maybe in Pronghorn WY units 23 or 24?

Does MT do 100% harvest road checks? Mandatory reporting? I do not trust voluntary self-reporting as people lie which muddies up the sampling and reduces confidence in the findings that used the data. In CO, you have to check in all sheep and mountain goat and reveal where shot the critter. Some of the self-reported sheep/goat kill sites are not the actual kill sites which becomes obvious as look at a unit map for the resulting historical harvest locations in that unit.

NR's in Wyoming get more total pronghorn tags than residents, so yeah, its pretty likely that a lot of areas have more killed by residents than non residents.

 

[BuzzH]

The data was shown to prove that at the R4 season setting meetings. In 410, the increase in cow hunting pressure aligned with the increase in mule deer harvest.

Easy fix there, if you have an elk tag in 410, you can't hunt mule deer in the same unit.

 

[bigsky2]

Easy fix there, if you have an elk tag in 410, you can't hunt mule deer in the same unit.

410 going to LE for mule deer bucks and no doe hunting on public land should help a lot.