Montana - Time to Shake it Up?
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
I still heard glitches this year
cgasner1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2016
- Messages
- 2,978
All mine worked fine
I am not even close to trusting the system. mtmuley
Right there with you. Fwp can’t even perform their yearly draws without glitches
If mandatory harvest is implemented, bet it goes through the Etag system. mtmuley
cgasner1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2016
- Messages
- 2,978
I’ve had conversations with the wardens in the area where I hunt about it he said if a guy had issues and just made a phone call it won’t be an issue. They catch you somewhere and you haven’t may be a different issue
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,643
My Etag didn’t work this year. Maybe because I didn’t kill anything.
antlerradar
Well-known member
Thanks for posting. I finally got time to listen to the "Big Buck" podcast last night. I think on a lot of the stuff the prof is spot on. However I would rank genetics much higher. It is not that I think that he is wrong on the antler component of genetics, but that he is lumping a lot of stuff into nutrition that is also influenced by genes. For example milk production is influenced by genes. Does that are poor milkers are likely to never have offspring that grow big antlers even on good years. The top end milk producers likely have fawns that grow above average antlers even on poor years.
WanderWoman
Well-known member
That’s a very good point and the genetic influence on milk production is not something I’ve thought about that much (at all, really). It’d be very interesting to look in to more from that perspective, as another thing along with weather and habitat quality that impacts nutrition, survival, growth, antler development. There are so many related and interconnected elements to biology and ecology that make thinking about this stuff a fun rabbit hole to go down.
antlerradar
Well-known member
I am going by what I see in the cow herd. I doubt deer are much different. Some of the best cows in the herd will wean a 650 lb calf even on tough years. Other cows never wean a 550 lb calf even on good years. Those cow get on the cull list. It has a lot to do with the genes of the cow. When you go to buy bulls there is often an EPD listed for milk production. If the doe does have an oversized influence on the future antler size of the bucks that they raise, I am going to speculate that 25 % of the does are the mothers of 75% of the top end bucks in a herd. Would make for an interesting study using DNA.
WanderWoman
Well-known member
Absolutely. Thanks again for your insight and perspective as both an operator and someone who’s been on the landscape and observing what’s happening for the long-term. I have no doubts that genetics play a role and as far as the myriad of ways that an individual buck’s and doe’s genetics can influence antler potential (milk production, antler characteristics, ability to grow, ability for an animal to more efficiently capitalize on what it eats to put on weight, etc.)—they are probably endless. If antler size is an indicator of an animal’s overall health, predetermined by genetics or otherwise, it makes sense that just about anything and everything could have at least a small influence.
The only study I really know of that takes a deep dive into genetics and antler growth was a TX study on whitetails.
https://tpwd.texas.gov/huntwild/wild/game_management/deer/genetics/
Interestingly enough, it does include a tidbit on heritability of weight gain in cattle.
I don’t think the prof in the podcast was discounting genetics, but in the overall picture of things, he was thinking the cumulative effects of nutrition, whether it’s habitat potential, weather (drought vs. not), or genetics (as you say, does with better milk production would better be able to set their fawns up for ‘success’ by providing better nutrition).
Genetics are definitely easier to look at and study in a captive situation. You think about having as many factors controlled; say a framework where you have sisters breeding to a same buck, fed the same diet, etc. with unrelated does breeding the same buck, fed the same diet, you could start to see the differences related specifically to genetics. Like in cattle, it’s more obvious (and important) because you can control so many other factors and even test/measure for them.
I think in a natural environment the situation changes, because of how weather and habitat vary year to year, potentially causing big upswings and downturns in nutrient intake. If the main factors influencing antler growth—genetics, nutrition, and age—were all created equal, which one has the greatest likelihood in the wild of determining whether a deer lives to breed and recruit fawns? There’s also habitat selection and dominance playing a factor, not just with ‘which buck gets to breed,’ but does are territorial during fawning and so maybe less dominant does, even if they have great genetic potential, don’t get to express that because an older, more dominant doe has the best patch of sagebrush on the slope. That’s reach, I know, but it can still be important—a fawn that dies as a neonate will never get to express its genetic potential.
Most of the conversation about deer genetics is centered around whitetails, although I bet if you look hard enough, there may be stuff with red deer too. I would guess that there also may be more potential for genetic influences to be expressed in these species since they are more ‘generalists’ and adaptable than mule deer? That’s a SEWAG (semi-educated-wild-a$$-guess), but interesting to think about too.
https://tpwd.texas.gov/huntwild/wild/game_management/deer/antlers_inherited/
An interesting piece from the above link was that “The best time to manage for genetic improvement is during periods of nutritional stress.” This (to me) suggests that deer need nutrition before their genetics can do their thing.
Then there’s the “what can we do about it” part. In a wild setting, we cannot really control who breeds who. Yes, hunters can potentially ID and ‘cull’ inferior-looking bucks but as we all know, the doe carries the other 50% and she doesn’t morphologically express her antler growth genetics.
This was also interesting: https://deerassociation.com/will-dominant-bucks-dominate-breeding/
“Yearlings and 2½-year-olds even get in on the action on the King Ranch in Texas, where more than 50 percent of the bucks are 3½ years of age or older. Randy’s research also showed bucks that successfully breed do not sire many fawns. The most prolific buck in their studies only sired six fawns in a single year, and on one study site successful bucks averaged less than three fawns per year over an 11-year period. Anna Bess Sorin found similar results in a Michigan deer herd where 17 bucks sired 67 fawns for an average of 3.9 fawns per buck. Individual bucks sired anywhere from one to nine fawns in her study.”
This would be another variation from a captive breeding scenario, whether deer or cattle. Mule deer are likely different since they harem up a little more but there could be some truth to this with mule deer, too. If so, it would definitely influence how much a genetically-superior buck can pass on this genetics and significantly influence the population.
This is kind of related, kind of not, but the idea of hunters controlling or influencing genetics through harvest has some contradictions for a couple reasons:
- Hunters generally target older, bigger bucks. If these bucks’ genetics are superior, we’re removing the animals we want breeding from the population.
- I think they’re touch on this in the podcast, but a 2yo buck that’s going to be a giant at 5 has the same genetics he will at 5. An argument for “let ‘em grow” for sure, but still not something that most hunters can determine in the field. Some dedicated hunters can look at a deer and assess its age class, etc. but the majority of hunters can’t or won’t.
- Rut hunting. I really want to hear folks’ perspectives on this, too. There’s an argument for shortening the season to cut out rut hunting. But in doing so, we are applying the bulk of hunting pressure prior to breeding. If hunters are still targeting the ‘larger’ bucks, they’re harvesting them before they get a chance to pass on their genetics. Granted there’s also the fact that these bucks would be less vulnerable and more might survive, but does that override the effect of removing a proportion of the ‘greatest’ before they breed?
Edited to add: @antlerradar you’ve mentioned having a collection of antlers that show the genetic characteristics of different bucks over time, so I don’t mean to downplay at all that those can’t be seen/realized even in wild populations. That alone indicates a significant influence. It would be really neat to see, not to mention that antlers in general are cool and fun to look at.
Last edited:
ismith
Well-known member
Not sure it’s economical to cull a cow just because she weans a 550lb calf. I also know for a fact that body size doesn’t equal antler size.
I believe that a season running through the rut with unlimited tags allows hunters to be too efficient at removing large antler characteristics from a herd. If we could make hunters less efficient the genetic portion of growing big bucks in a wild population would be less important. Most states do this.
It has been my observation that most truly big bucks in Mt come from areas that experience extremely limited hunting almost to the point of zero harvest long term. Even if they are relatively young.
We need to strive for less efficiency, long term.
All this is opinion only.
It has been my observation that most truly big bucks in Mt come from areas that experience extremely limited hunting almost to the point of zero harvest long term. Even if they are relatively young.
We need to strive for less efficiency, long term.
All this is opinion only.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
The chart I shared earlier really didn't display the data very well, and so I recreated it in a different format and labeled the HDs. It's not exactly perfect because certain districts and their permit models have changed, but I think it is worth noting that Region 3 isn't really known for its deer hunting, and honestly most of the serious deer hunters I know travel east and out of the region to hunt deer. I'd wager the delta between 2004-2021 is even more astounding across SE MTs HDs.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,643
Lots of interesting information here about genetics and antler growth. I’d love to see it be relevant for Montana mule deer.
Currently, I believe there are environmental quality issues that are the
major limiting factor in antler size for bucks. Specifically, acute, kinetic, lead poisoning is a major mortality inducer that limits the majority of male mule deer life spans to less than four years.
Currently, I believe there are environmental quality issues that are the
major limiting factor in antler size for bucks. Specifically, acute, kinetic, lead poisoning is a major mortality inducer that limits the majority of male mule deer life spans to less than four years.
antlerradar
Well-known member
I agree that environmental issues have an effect, but it is not all about the environment. If it was every deer that spent its life on the irrigated alfalfa river bottoms should be a potential record book buck at age four. That is just not the case.
antlerradar
Well-known member
The problem with the long season during the rut is it allows us to be more selective, add in the advancements in technology in recent years and quality hunters can come close to culling a deer herd as effectively as I can cull cows in the corral. My father guided during the 60's and 70's, they killed some big bucks, but he will quickly tell you that they had a lot more that got away that wouldn't have today.
I would change the "hunter generally target older, bigger bucks" to hunters target bigger bucks that tend to be older. There is a difference. Not all big bucks are old and plenty of old buck have never been big. The best buck I have ever seen potential wise was 140+ as a two year old and 180 as a three year old. I have also seen bucks that lived to double digits and never grew a set of antlers better than 120. As it sits today in MT the bigger buck has almost zero chance of living past four unless he is living on private land where he is protected. The smaller buck can live on public to an older age in easten MT. @OntarioHunter's buck this year is a good example.
Managment wise the less selective we are the better. It does no good when it comes to CWD if we reduse the avrage age of harvestof the bucks at the top side of the bell curve by a year and at the same time we add years of age to the bucks on the bottome of the bell curve. This is what is happening on private land that has limited pressure.
The key is buck are less vulnerable. I can not tell you how many bucks I have seen over the years that spent most of the fall in roadless hard to hunt juniper jungles only to see them crewsing around a hay field or standing next to a road during mid Nov. It is true that we would still kill many of the bucks and most would want to kill a big one, but it would be harder too be as selective during Oct.
antlerradar
Well-known member
I am sure that there are ways to reconcile the two, but this kind of flies in the face of all the studies that say a buck /doe ratio of one to ten is enough to get the job done.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
So I'll be honest here. I haven't joined in the discussion much because this feeling you all have on quantity, quality and all around health of our deer populations are nothing new.
Kinda a piss poor attitude on my part, but it's arrived from years of getting kicked in the arse on the subject. With lots of wasted time to show for the efforts. Although (Bitterroot speaking ) we did get the first limited entry deer districts in the state with most sought after tags in Montana for mule deer.
I attended a "MULE DEER SUMMIT" back in (around here) 1990. it was held in Missoula Montana at the Edge water motel. There were many disgruntled deer hunters there. We just came down off the outstanding deer hunting and populations of the 1980's only to a new low that appeared to all as a catastrophic decline in everything.
Literally there were stock trucks coming back from Eastern Montana with upwards of 40 deer hanging from the stock rails on the trucks. You could kill somewhere around 5 deer each.
So my turn to testify on the "mysterious decline", and I said that IMO, it was more prevalent on the public lands as the lead contamination was thicker there as opposed to the private. Areas of private hadn't declined like those of the public and that was somehow confusing to the department personal. They basically shrugged their shoulders and said that mule deer cycles in these wild swings and if you don't kill them they die any way.
I said that IMO again, lets try something new here, and it might sound radical, but if we know that the deer populations are going to crash (as they said) that we might issue less tags, not more, as we don't know which deer would die naturally and we might keep the lows from getting so low, just as we do with the deer populations were on the increase we killed more deer to keep the populations from climbing to high to fast, and we might call this new idea, "Deer management". Of course there were many frowns coming from the department personal.
Just my .02 cents worth, as you fellas are doing some good work here and I'll join in where I can.
