MT Mule Deer Symposium

[spook12]

Not Scientific, just an observation. MOOOOOOO.

 

[TheTone]

Oh absolutely, during much of the logging, it was a slaughter. But in the 90s, the FS threw up the gates and access got tougher. Over time, you just see the numbers dwindle. After the winter of '97, they never really bounced back. The clearcuts have grown in, not replaced by other clearcuts and there you go.

Winter of '97 was a real killer for sure. It was IMO the single biggest factor for the rapid decline in the Clearwater elk herd over here. That thing wiped out a pile of elk and combined with the poor habitat conditions, crappy winter range, formerly high hunter numbers, an old elk herd and effective predators are a big reason we've seen no rebound in those elk.

Buzz is spot on with his access thoughts, all different types of access lead to different vulnerability. I know both of ours states have tried to look at hunter access and effort, but its tough stuff to study, quantify and get hunters to help participate in.

Mule deer numbers and populations trends being looked at is a good thing, finding answers and where to go is the tough one.

 

[----]

I did get invited this year to a guys camp in the Gravellys this year. He's hunted it for 28 years. I took my boy for the 2 days early to hunt deer. We saw 5 does in 2 days. I asked the guy what the deal was and he said there used to be great deer hunting in that country. Now some units are permit and still the numbers are sucking. The overgrazing was sickening over there though. I have no doubt a loss of habitat is to blame for much of it.

Again, I have no doubt there are some areas of the state that are at a low number. You'll notice these areas (Bridgers, Gravellys and Bitterroot) are already under restrictive permits.

It seems to me like Montana has done better than the other states in being able to sustain our long seasons with high harvest, there must be something to that. I worry that the system isn't broke, but that people are overreacting to the 2010 winterkill, and have false hopes of Montana being a giant buck producer. I have no problem with Montana being an opportunity state, being as there are still a few really nice bucks for those that get lucky enough to draw a permit or those who are willing to put in the work to get back in to unpressured areas.

Montana is a huge state with lots of different situations. Moving season structures around to cater to a few areas or interests seems like a very slippery slope to me, and I need very obvious evidence that something's broke before I'd consider anything.

 

[shoots-straight]

Again, I have no doubt there are some areas of the state that are at a low number. You'll notice these areas (Bridgers, Gravellys and Bitterroot) are already under restrictive permits.

It seems to me like Montana has done better than the other states in being able to sustain our long seasons with high harvest, there must be something to that. I worry that the system isn't broke, but that people are overreacting to the 2010 winterkill, and have false hopes of Montana being a giant buck producer. I have no problem with Montana being an opportunity state, being as there are still a few really nice bucks for those that get lucky enough to draw a permit or those who are willing to put in the work to get back in to unpressured areas.

Montana is a huge state with lots of different situations. Moving season structures around to cater to a few areas or interests seems like a very slippery slope to me, and I need very obvious evidence that something's broke before I'd consider anything.

Your on the right path there. The East, and North East areas of the state were effected by the winter of 2010 the most. In the SW part, where Lawnboy and I are talking, wasn't really effected by that winter. Neither was most of Western Montana.

As I said before, the livestock Industry wants no more muled deer in SW Montana. If you don't like the numbers of elk and deer in that region, that's tough chit. It will be where it is today unless there's a huge outcry from the public. Remember we are still 22,000 head of elk over objective. That's a whole other debate though.

 

[belly-deep]

Belly Deep I'd like to think we have many 180-190 deer in Montana but apparently none of us are finding them. In the years I've been on the site I've only seen maybe 3 that guys have shot recently that would go that big. Breaksrunner, wingman, and Kurt are maybe all that I can recall.

???

I had that tag you keep complaining about in 2006...put a 185" buck on the wall...

 

[belly-deep]

I did get invited this year to a guys camp in the Gravellys this year. He's hunted it for 28 years. I took my boy for the 2 days early to hunt deer. We saw 5 does in 2 days. I asked the guy what the deal was and he said there used to be great deer hunting in that country. Now some units are permit and still the numbers are sucking. The overgrazing was sickening over there though. I have no doubt a loss of habitat is to blame for much of it.

I will admit, its pretty damn puzzling. If you go over to the Snowcrests, there are more mule deer than I've seen in about any other part of SW MT. They must be doing something different there. Its on a draw for bucks, but that isn't the whole story. There are alot more does too.

 

[Pierre]

Am I on the wrong page. I keep looking for someone to come uncorked about the MOGA mule deer symposium. Reports from regular hunters say it was sickening.
Where are folks commenting on MOGA's attempt to further "ranching for wildlife"? Sales based on B&C scores?
MOGA is one sick outfit. They are certainly working against the Montana hunter. Their ties to SFW and LOBOWATCH and Big Game Forever are certainly alienating any chance at working with resident hunters. SFW=Big Game Forever=LOBOWATCH=MOGA
Do you notice that MOGA seems only to represent private land outfitters trying to turn E Mont into a Ranching For Wildlife mecca?
Ever hear Minard say anything about the N Am. model, fair chase, or the public trust doctrine? We hear nothing but inaccurrate information and self serving drivel.

 

[Eric Albus]

fin, the numbers are there. From 1995 or 1996 up to 2009 we lost around 85 outfitters...this is a number that can not be disputed.

shoots, the livestock industry wants no more mule deer in SW Mt? explain that to me.

 

[shoots-straight]

Am I on the wrong page. I keep looking for someone to come uncorked about the MOGA mule deer symposium. Reports from regular hunters say it was sickening.
Where are folks commenting on MOGA's attempt to further "ranching for wildlife"? Sales based on B&C scores?
MOGA is one sick outfit. They are certainly working against the Montana hunter. Their ties to SFW and LOBOWATCH and Big Game Forever are certainly alienating any chance at working with resident hunters. SFW=Big Game Forever=LOBOWATCH=MOGA
Do you notice that MOGA seems only to represent private land outfitters trying to turn E Mont into a Ranching For Wildlife mecca?
Ever hear Minard say anything about the N Am. model, fair chase, or the public trust doctrine? We hear nothing but inaccurrate information and self serving drivel.

Pierre is 100% right. We are all talking about the structures to repair mule deer herds, all the while these groups he speaks about are setting us up for the Utah model for wildlife management.

If you think our herds are in good shape, then you should be concerned.

If you think our herds are in trouble, then you should be concerned.

If you don't care, then take up bowling, and or golf!

I think we need to refocus this discussion a bit.

Eric, any attempts to move mule deer populations upwards in the SW region will be met with stiff resistance from the livestock industry there.

 

[Eric Albus]

pierre...i was there, and if you had been you would have heard MOGA's director say that this was a presentation put on by individuals....MOGA has not/did not endorse "ranching for wildlife".

I was disappointed in the presentation. I was hoping more for a biological perspective and deer managment, not a seminar on how many bucks a buck is worth.

What is working in UT is fine for them, and I do not think that you will ever see MOGA pushing a "ranching for wildlife" scenario. The one thing that those speakers were right on is that wildlife does have a value, and when providing an incentive to landowers the tolerance level for wildlife goes up(be it in the form of leasing/block managment, ect)..right, wrong or indifferent, this is the way the world works.

Mule deer are the one of the most delicate species there is to manage. I still think that if a handful of folks from both sides of the table could sit down w/ FWP we could come up w/ some workable solutions to manage the grey deer.

 

[shoots-straight]

fin, the numbers are there. From 1995 or 1996 up to 2009 we lost around 85 outfitters...this is a number that can not be disputed.

shoots, the livestock industry wants no more mule deer in SW Mt? explain that to me.

Eric, how many licenced guides joined the ranks. I think that number is more telling.

Now we have a bill in the legislature to allow non licenced guides to work for outfitters for a short period of time. That way their will be no indication of the numbers.

 

[Eric Albus]

shoots, who in the livestock industy is in opposition to seeing mule deer numbers rebound? Can you provide any names, who can I call and talk w/ to see why they would be opposed to mule deer? I find it odd, as mule deer do not really compete w/ livestock for grazing, as mule deer are primarily browsers. It puzzles me greatly as to why the industry would be against the deer.

 

[Eric Albus]

shoots...right you are about the guide license numbers...they did go up.

The bill in the hopper right now is for "outfitters assistant"...an emergency guide license...this way if an outfitter has a guide get sick, killed, or some emergency happen they can use the "outfitters assistant" provision as an emergency guide...I have not read it over to close, but I think that there is provision in the bill that the person used as emergency/assistant, whatever, has to get a guide license if the ordeal takes more than 2 weeks to get thru....

Personally were it up to me, I would do away w/ the guide license provision...I also suggested doing away w/ the outfitter license requirements...that one nearly got me tarred and feathered.

 

[shoots-straight]

shoots...right you are about the guide license numbers...they did go up.

The bill in the hopper right now is for "outfitters assistant"...an emergency guide license...this way if an outfitter has a guide get sick, killed, or some emergency happen they can use the "outfitters assistant" provision as an emergency guide...I have not read it over to close, but I think that there is provision in the bill that the person used as emergency/assistant, whatever, has to get a guide license if the ordeal takes more than 2 weeks to get thru....

Personally were it up to me, I would do away w/ the guide license provision...I also suggested doing away w/ the outfitter license requirements...that one nearly got me tarred and feathered.

Mule deer love alfalfa.

 

[Big Fin]

fin, the numbers are there. From 1995 or 1996 up to 2009 we lost around 85 outfitters...this is a number that can not be disputed.

Eric - I agree with your statement on the number of outfitters. I never said anything to dispute that. The issue is not if 400 outfitters are leasing 8 million acres, or 250 outfitters are leasing 8 million acres.

My point was a reply to your comment that "the number of leased acres went backwards," which it did not. There is no data to support your claim. That was the point of my post. If anything, the outfitting industry probably chuckles to think that they snaked out of the big promise made to resident hunters.

The reason it sticks in my mind is that I was one of the loudmouths worrying that the OSL would result in a huge leasing increase. One of the promises made to resident hunters as part of their agreement to accept the OSL program was that leasing would not go up and that leased acreage would be tracked from the beginning. That promise was a pretty big deal to many of us.

Leased acreage was not tracked, as promised to resident hunters. Then, five years later, after the big expansion from this new program, reporting starts, and from that the outfitting industry tries to use that as the new baseline for determining acreage increases/decreases, something we all know is a joke.

Point being, your comment that leased acreage went down when the OSL program was implemented, is not supported by any data, and all anecdotal information, a lot of which exists, would indicate that leasing increased dramatically. Not sure how so many resident hunters lost hunting spots to outfitters in those first five years, if the leased acreage went down.

Leasing sure increased for the landowners who are clients of our CPA firm, over that time. Eight very large ranches of our CPA firm all entered into outfitter leases during that period, with some still in those leases and some not.

So, let's get back to a discussion of what can be done to improve the plight of mule deer in Montana.

 

[Eric Albus]

randy, according to the stats we had roughly 9M acres pre-OSL(how good this accounting was I do not know)....I do know that when 161 passed we were listed at 6.3M acres(this account I believe to be factual).....now, let us digress to the topic at hand....

If we are going to improve the plight of the mule deer we must begin to manage biologically...not by popular opinion....wildlife managment should not be a popularity contest. This may mean that we must give up something to attain a greater good for the resource...something has to give if we are going to see a healthy structure of our mule deer herds in Montana....I look at it this way...I could not manage a ranch in SE, SW, NW, Montana the way I manage the ranch here in NE Mt....just does not work... wildlife is no different..this is a very diverse state, there should be very diverse management approaches w/ wildlife, as the deer here in NE Mt face different issues than the ones in SW Mt....yet our state is pretty much blanket managed(excepting a few LE areas)......to me it's a funny thing, prior to the winter of 2010 I would see more antlelope here in Reg. 6 than I did mule deer...and antelope are on a permit?? I am not advocating a permit system, but eventually we will be there, as a finite resource can not handle infinite pressure. I want to stave off the permits as long as we can...but in order to do that we must be PRO-ACTIVE in managment.

 

[BuzzH]

Eric,

I dont think your last comments are anything that anyone could disagree with...but light years from any kind of solution, at a minimum.

We cant even reach agreement on what the hell is causing the decline in mule deer...and we have NO data to support any ideas we may have as to why.

How do you manage biologically when we still arent even close to knowing what it is we need to manage biologically for?

The trouble as I see it...we've all thrown a handful of spaghetti on the wall to see what sticks when it comes to mule deer management. Trying stupid shit like spending $1,000,000 killing coyotes (utahs model for "growing" their deer population)...really? Thats biological management?

Nobody has bothered to start at the start...and thats identfying what the problem really is and then trying to figure out if theres even a reasonable way to fix it.

We're in need of baseline data...as close to 100% harvest reporting as possible, massive vegetation surveys, GOOD population counts, predator counts, etc. etc. etc. etc. specific to individual herds.

What we currently have is, at best, cobbled together and outdated studies, etc. and thats what we're using to guide management. Hardly a recipe for success, but rather a wing-and-a-prayer approach that we may get lucky and do something to help mule deer. You cant make chicken salad out of chicken shit.

Trouble with starting at the start...it costs money, and lots of it. When everyone bitches every time they have to shell out $16 for a deer tag, I dont expect much "pro-active" management to be taking place...or even biological management. I also dont hold much hope in my $16 deer tag providing the kind of money it takes to manage properly.

 

[Lawnboy]

I will only say that in the 80's we didn't have permits on the Bridgers and we had 3x as many deer and shot bigger ones than now with a permit system. Something is and has happened to the deer population. And from the sounds of it, it's not just SW Montana seeing lower numbers than 10-15 yrs ago.
Like Fin said what can be done? I will always struggle to understand why we are shooting does when numbers are low. Same with cow elk. I'm not trying to change season dates or create trophy areas I only want to see deer like we did back in the day. Maybe it can't happen and I'll die being one of those guys saying "I remember...."

It would be fun again to go hunting and actually have to pass up some bucks knowing there are better ones to hunt for. It would also be nice to have piles of does that need breeding.

 

[Ben Lamb]

If we are going to improve the plight of the mule deer we must begin to manage biologically...not by popular opinion....wildlife managment should not be a popularity contest. .

Great. Then it's agreed that we abandon the concept of predator management for coyotes since biologically and scientifically it's been proven to be ineffective.

See? Common ground.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Eric, in your area, you've got the most aggresive federal coyote killer on planet earth. I do know he smoked 207 in one day a couple years back from a chopper. Do you have a coyote problem in those parts? Who you gonna call??