MT Mule Deer Symposium

[Big Fin]

Since this whole debacle started out as a debate ( a fairly friendly one at that), about moving the season a couple weeks to try to improve trophy quality in our mule deer.....

So, let's get back to that topic. How can we improve the quality in our mule deer? I suspect there are some ways to do start down that road, without impacts to the great opportunity Montana has to offer.

I suspect we all would agree on the habitat issues being a big priority. Some may place predators higher than habitat, me not being one of those. How do we do something about habitat?

Since Eastern Montana is predominantly private, that seems to be a landowner issue. Not much the public can do to improve habitat on private lands.

If predators are the big issue in Eastern Montana, it seems private landowners and the outfitters who are leasing from them, can make a difference in that, if they really want to. Going to be pretty hard to get rank and file hunters to pay for predator killing on private lands that those hunters don't have access to. FWP was funding a lot of Eastern Montana predator control in the late 1990's and the USFWS said it was a diversion of Pittman-Robertson funds, causing us to repay over $1 million back to the USFWS.

In the areas of the state where public lands are primarily the mix, it seems we should be funding the groups that do habitat improvements and be pressuring the Federal land agencies to do such. I look at my part of the state and how bad it has gotten for mule deer in the 22 years I have lived here.

Being primarily browsers, many mule deer are not getting the nutrition needed to have healthy fawns or to survive even moderate winters. Most of our mountain vegetation is way past the useful period for mule deer. Browse plant species are way way down, replaced by either dark timber or by grasses from big fires, neither of which is a good deal for the browse species that provide healthy forage for mule deer.

Valerius Geist has written extensively as to his prediction that the modern style of landscape management is going to be the end of mule deer. He wrote of that in the mid-1990's. Seems as though he might have been on to something.

Changing landscapes to make for better mule deer habitat is not easy and is going to require a lot of capital, financial and political. Seems that we like to focus on easier solutions, such as predators and hunter opportunity, all the while giving up on the bigger issue we know is the core of the problem. Habitat work is harder to do, but has longer term benefits and lower costs when measured over the entire period for which it is providing benefit to wildlife.

As to predator management, I would suggest reading the Idaho studies and some of the financial summary of costs related to that effort. I read them a while back and was stunned by the costs to add one buck to the adult population, as the result of predator control. If I recall correctly, it was calculated that it would cost them about $6,400 in predator control costs to get ONE buck to the 5 year age class. And that was quite a few years ago.

Utah has allocated $1,000,000 for coyote control. Assuming their bounty program is as effective as the Idaho trappers who were hired for that study, Utah should have about 155 additional 5 year-old bucks added to their population for each year that they spend that amount of money.

Assuming Montana could do it as good as the Idaho biologists and trappers did, we could have 100 more 5 year-old bucks added to our population for the handsome fee of $640,000. Hardly a good use of funds.

So, back to the discussion. What are we going to do to improve the plight of mule deer in Montana, short of going to heavily restricted season lengths and far fewer tags?

 

[shoots-straight]

No.....no, Shoots, you can't be any clearer. You and Buzz have clearly stated that the outfitting industry owes you both something. Not real sure why, but for some reason you do. You were correct in saying that our clients, the ones that outfitters brought in that normally either would not have come to Montana or would have hunted on their own, but decided to pay out their nose for the high priced tags.....funded BM. I guess I was not aware of the fact that that was not enough. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that it was more than you two kicked in to open private ground that was normally closed. Just a guess.

Since this whole debacle started out as a debate ( a fairly friendly one at that), about moving the season a couple weeks to try to improve trophy quality in our mule deer.....do you think that is our fault too that the quality is down? Wouldn't surprise me.

Now your sounding a lot like a woman.

Were in my post did I say the outfitting Industry owes me anything? Never not once. Poor poor picked on outfitters. Now I'm sounding like a child.

The outfitters do owe their livelihood to the resource, and the people who own that resource. The people of each state let them utilize that resource to make money. That's a privilege that's granted to them by the people. It's not a right of yours. You comphrehenda? Keep the people happy, and they will tolerate you. I feel that the outfitting industry should only get the surplus animals, and if there's no surplus then, see ya!

I would say that the resources the state provides has as much to with bringing in clients as do outfitters. Even if there were no outfitters the same amount of tags would be sold. People decide to hunt Montana using outfitters, if they are wealthy or not very good at hunting. They pay outfitters for a catered and pampered trip. It's not every NR's idea of a hunt though.

Would you say that there would be more lands or less,open to the public if there was no outfitting allowed?

I know that many landowners are using outfitters to make money off there lands utilizing the resource now. They charge the outfitters a fee, for accessing the wildlife on their lands. Some would let more resident hunters in if that weren't the case. I know of huge landowner in the Beaverhead that lets residents hunt, but if his outfitters running clients it's off limits. Money talks!


Are outfitters having an impact on the resource? Have they been willing to try and do something for that resource in any way without the "forced" fees paid through the OSL?


Talking like we owe you (outfitters) something is laughable. When in fact, you competing with us for the same resource.

I think that outfitters are in part responsible for some of the harvest of older age bucks. I don't think they are the main reason for lack of game though. Most outfitters that I know, are interested in opportunity, and that's it.

When we went to more restrictive season structures in the Root, outfitters were the ones that screamed the loudest, and fought us. When the resource comes back they will be the ones that benefit the most.

 

[Lawnboy]

I guess I don't see how you improve habitat in a mountain situation anyway. Can you plant forbes? Not being a wise butt just curious how you go about fixing habitat?

Like was mentioned earlier are we talking about improving buck size or increasing the muely population? I'd like to see more muleys first and then worry about quality. Seems silly to focus on growing a 190 buck if you don't have the numbers to help sustain the population.

I'm no biologist so I'm curious to hear the possible solutions to habitat and other ideas.

 

[shoots-straight]

Part of these studies that are going on in the Root, are vegetation studies. The info from that will be forth coming.

Clear back when John Firebaugh was our bio, he had done a lot of inventory on vegetation in many areas of the Root. He's now retired, but was re visiting those areas and redoing his work to see what has changed in 30 years.

I think we need the professionals to do their work. I think we put our trust, and resources in their hands to come up with the answers. We aren't experts on all those issues, and we pay them for that.

Once we get the data, then we all can make informed decisions on how, and where to manage.

We do all agree there's a problem and without action, mule deer hunting will get worse, long before it gets better.

 

[----]

We do all agree there's a problem and without action, mule deer hunting will get worse, long before it gets better.

Do we?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Do we?

I think if people look at the long term trends for mule deer populations throughout the west that you should be very concerned.

I think we need the professionals to do their work. I think we put our trust, and resources in their hands to come up with the answers. We aren't experts on all those issues, and we pay them for that.

Education and book learnin' is for liberals and communists.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Guess maybe I never saw the good old days of mule deer in Montana. Have been hunting them since the late 80s and have always seemed to find decent huntable numbers in many places across the state. Is it really a problem that we can't kick out 200" deer like other states?

 

[drahthaar]

Not that Region 1 is in any of these "symposium" conversations, but to Lawnboy's question, the heyday of the mulies up here coincided with heavy logging activity. Clearing heavy timber at all elevations, led to growing lots of good browse here. With 30 years of decreasing logging activity, plus far higher elk numbers(elk will ALWAYS out-compete the mulies for resources), by no coincidence, mule deer numbers have tanked. Throw in the predators and a few bad winters here and there, and you get what we have now.
I hope, after all the "talking" is done and decisions are made, I hope whatever is decided to be best for R6 or R7, does not get applied to Region 1. What mulies are left exist in a LE situation just due to the terrain. Our biggest issue is habitat. I get freaked out when I start hearing about split up seasons, pick your weapon, muzzleloader seasons when bulls are bugling, etc. We don't need that $#!@ up here. Hunter numbers are a non-factor too.

 

[shoots-straight]

Guess maybe I never saw the good old days of mule deer in Montana. Have been hunting them since the late 80s and have always seemed to find decent huntable numbers in many places across the state. Is it really a problem that we can't kick out 200" deer like other states?

It's great that your successful Kurt. There's not enough deer for everyone to be like that though. If everyone put out the effort you do, we'd have none left on public lands..

As I said in a earlier post, there's hundreds of thousands of acres of land in SW Montana, that use to hold deer populations where very few live today.

In all fairness a lot of the nervousness concerned with mule deer stems from the winter of 2010. That doesn't explain the steady decline we have experienced nation wide.

PS, Last mule deer buck I took was 1993.

 

[belly-deep]

Guess maybe I never saw the good old days of mule deer in Montana. Have been hunting them since the late 80s and have always seemed to find decent huntable numbers in many places across the state. Is it really a problem that we can't kick out 200" deer like other states?

Apparently it is. I'm happy with hunting the 180/190 class deer in the rut. I'll go to Colorado one of these years when I get bored of those.

 

[----]

I think if people look at the long term trends for mule deer populations throughout the west that you should be very concerned.

Do the numbers show that's happening in Montana? Has there been a study done you can link to? Not saying there isn't but I haven't seen anything.

Sorry if the numbers are already posted in the thread, it's hard to sift through.

 

[TheTone]

Not that Region 1 is in any of these "symposium" conversations, but to Lawnboy's question, the heyday of the mulies up here coincided with heavy logging activity. Clearing heavy timber at all elevations, led to growing lots of good browse here. With 30 years of decreasing logging activity, plus far higher elk numbers(elk will ALWAYS out-compete the mulies for resources), by no coincidence, mule deer numbers have tanked. Throw in the predators and a few bad winters here and there, and you get what we have now.
I hope, after all the "talking" is done and decisions are made, I hope whatever is decided to be best for R6 or R7, does not get applied to Region 1. What mulies are left exist in a LE situation just due to the terrain. Our biggest issue is habitat. I get freaked out when I start hearing about split up seasons, pick your weapon, muzzleloader seasons when bulls are bugling, etc. We don't need that $#!@ up here. Hunter numbers are a non-factor too.

Granted I've never walked a single step in that country, but is it possible that the heavy logging activity and thus the heyday of muley hunting was more of an access and vulnerabilty issue? Did mule deer numbers actually increase and quality get better with the logging or were the deer that were there just easier to find, see and kill? I think northern Idaho and that part of Montana function very similary in terms of mule deer, elk and habitats. I know on our side there has been some talk of doing some research on the mule deer in these habitats as most of Idaho's research has been conducted on deer in the southern half of the state that live and function in vastly different habitat conditions.

 

[JLS]

Guess maybe I never saw the good old days of mule deer in Montana. Have been hunting them since the late 80s and have always seemed to find decent huntable numbers in many places across the state. Is it really a problem that we can't kick out 200" deer like other states?

I think population trends in the West, if they don't concern you should at least make you scratch your head and wonder.

As Shoots said, the Gravellies are one of those head scratchers.

 

[Lawnboy]

Guess maybe I never saw the good old days of mule deer in Montana. Have been hunting them since the late 80s and have always seemed to find decent huntable numbers in many places across the state. Is it really a problem that we can't kick out 200" deer like other states?

Just ask Pat what it was like hunting locally around here in the 80's. You can't find even a quarter of the number that we saw back then now. I didn't hunt with him personally but our rigs were parked in the same spot many mornings. I saw what he saw and it was a fun time to hunt. Having your dad tell you to let a 24" muley go because he's not that big and we can find better is all but a memory now. A guy sees one like that and he's drooling and lucky anymore.
Like Shoots said you put more time and effort into your hunts than most of us and as a result you are still finding critters. Sure we can say put forth the same effort but for those who remember what it was and should be like know that we can do better for the resource.

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.

 

[Lawnboy]

Do the numbers show that's happening in Montana? Has there been a study done you can link to? Not saying there isn't but I haven't seen anything.

I wish I could get some accurate numbers from our local bio on her counts. I'd bet a days wage they have dropped by half since the counts of the 80's. I'm kind of getting tired of all the counts in regards to wolves and elk really. Not hardly a mention of the other species at the meetings anymore.

 

[drahthaar]

Granted I've never walked a single step in that country, but is it possible that the heavy logging activity and thus the heyday of muley hunting was more of an access and vulnerabilty issue? Did mule deer numbers actually increase and quality get better with the logging or were the deer that were there just easier to find, see and kill? I think northern Idaho and that part of Montana function very similary in terms of mule deer, elk and habitats. I know on our side there has been some talk of doing some research on the mule deer in these habitats as most of Idaho's research has been conducted on deer in the southern half of the state that live and function in vastly different habitat conditions.

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.

 

[BuzzH]

Drathhar,

The problem is, you cant clearcut a 20 year old stand to make another clearcut, no profit involved. Its going to be damn tough to ask timber companies to cut at a slower rate so you have staggered patch-work clearcuts happening over a long period of time for the sake of wildlife. They liquidate timber at the right rotation age and when profit margins are maximized (rightfully so). The publically owned lands are managed for ALL user groups given equal consideration, and wildlife habitat is only ONE of many. Not to mention all the BS that goes along with trying to implement management...a quagmire of red-tape that would choke a donkey.

Also, just because you throw a gate up, doesnt mean mule deer are any more secure than they were before.

Think about this...its really easy to cover 10 miles driving a logging road, a little tougher to hike a closed road for 10 miles, a little tougher to hike 10 miles on trail...a real bastard to cover 10 miles off trail.

I dont know that just gating a road is enough to provide security to deer/elk in particular when high-powered rifles are involved. Theres enough hunters with enough gumption to hike a gated road I believe.

I'm not trying to say there arent some solutions, but they arent going to be easy, and in many cases, might not be very popular with the agencies, landowners, or other user groups. I think its going to take a massive effort by a lot of agencies, user groups, polticians, etc. to really make a positive impact for mule deer.

Maybe I'm wrong, but if the solutions were easy, you'd think we'd already be doing better.

 

[drahthaar]

Buzz,

I agree, and what we have now is analysis paralysis. Primarily, grizzly bears are now running the management show. The FS is unable to cut anything anywhere of substance due to "fracturing" grizzly corridors.
The sad thing is, there are aldered in roads to 60-70 year old clearcuts that could be opened up again. They are places where mulies are still tryng to eek out a living. Roads are always an issue, again with the BMU's. So no new roads would even have to be built. But nothing is happening now.

It is just most people just on the predator bandwagon, then wolf rallys follow. The thing is, much of the areas I am thinking of, wolves were there since forever, so they are nothing new.

I don't have all the answers, just throwing some things out there. People still manage to whack some whales up here, but nothing like there used to be.

 

[----]

I wish I could get some accurate numbers from our local bio on her counts. I'd bet a days wage they have dropped by half since the counts of the 80's. I'm kind of getting tired of all the counts in regards to wolves and elk really. Not hardly a mention of the other species at the meetings anymore.

I have no doubt they've plunged in the Bridgers. I'd want to see an obvious statewide drop before I'd start thinking about messing with the season structure.

 

[Lawnboy]

I have no doubt they've plunged in the Bridgers. I'd want to see an obvious statewide drop before I'd start thinking about messing with the season structure.

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.