Mule deer rut hunt

[Dakota79]

So I have a question why aren't there more mule deer rut tags? Nevada has a couple of rut hunts but I think that every unit should have at least a few tags in November. Just wondering if anyone has insite on this topic.

South Dakota rifle season starts two Saturdays before Thanksgiving. So this year it goes from November 15 – 30. Pretty much right in the middle of the rut.

The county I live in is just over 1.75 million acres.

This year on the West half of the county there are 150 resident and 12 nonresident any deer licenses and 150 resident and 12 nonresident any Whitetail licenses.

On the east half of the county, there are 50 resident and 4 nonresident any deer licenses and 250 resident and 20 nonresident any Whitetail licenses.

There is a chunk of Custer National Forest that has 100 resident and 8 nonresident any deer licenses.

There are 500 Any Buck licenses available on the whole West side of the state to be used on private land only for residents and 500 Any Buck licenses on the whole West side of the state for nonresidents on private land only.

Unlimited archery licenses that are guaranteed and the season runs from the last Saturday of September to December 31.

Lots of opportunity and public land available for the taking right in the rut. If you do your homework. Plus if you find a private ranch to hunt it is really good.

Granted not a lot of huge bucks are taken but 150 up to 180 can be very realistic.

The state had a huge die off from a bad blizzard and disease last year in a lot of areas but this County missed most of it.

Kind of a sleeper state if you can get a license and find the right area in my opinion.

 

[belly-deep]

Stubaby- You've never heard anyone say they're happy with the deer hunting in the state? Really? My office is full of guys that are pouring over maps right now, and I know some mature buck pictures will be passed around on Monday.

I've only been out hunting three days this rifle season, and I watched a giant mature buck hit the ground and jumped another awesome non-typical on the complete other side of the state. Both of these were pre-rut.

I'm headed out in a couple hours for three days of elk hunting, and I can guarantee you I'll cross paths with at least one mature buck in that time period.

No, there aren't giant deer everywhere, but as long as there's giant pieces of roadless areas across the state, there will be mature bucks to be had for those willing to work. It's not hard at all to be a happy deer hunter in this state.

Cutting doe tags is what leads to better deer numbers, and I'm glad that's the direction FWP is headed. Mature breaks are going to be taken out of the herd by selective hunters regardless of when the season is.

Well said, Randy.

Plenty of good ones to chase in the mountains, it just takes work.

 

[ida homer]

twsnow18,

I'm curious as to whether you were around to hunt Idaho seasons before they changed? Ryan Hatfield's book does a good job of outlining the changes Idaho made back in the 90's (?).

I know a very good mule deer hunter from Idaho that has studied the effects pretty closely. I won't name him here, but lets just say he moderates a different hunting forum, has hunted all over the West, and has killed several 190"+ bucks.

His take on things is that Idaho hunters don't kill any more big bucks now than they did before the season switch.

I was not, I'm young.

But your a little bit off topic, scroll back up and re-read the first handful of posts. We are more talking about mule deer herds/abundance than the harvest of 190" bucks.

Although I would agree with you there, it is very difficult to swing the harvest of those 190" bucks up or down. They are few and far between, very hard to see, much less kill, and they are very isolated. That much I know. And none of those 3 factors seem to fluctuate very much at all from year to year, so your correct in that aspect.

I don't think that ANYONE is unhappy with being able to hunt the rut in Montana.

But it seems like there are lots that are unhappy with the amount of deer they are seeing, and I feel that hunting them with a rifle in the rut has something to do with it. But I could be wrong, as I don't have any first hand experience there, just here.

 

[mdunc8]

Twsnow18, I've never hunted Idaho, but from what I've seen/heard about the mule deer population, I'm fairly confident you can replace "Montana" with "Idaho" in post #18. Reducing, or even preventing, the harvest of bucks during the rut will not, I repeat, will not increase abundances of mule deer in general in most circumstances. It might increase the quality of bucks, but it will not increase overall abundances.

 

[belly-deep]

I was not, I'm young.

But your a little bit off topic, scroll back up and re-read the first handful of posts. We are more talking about mule deer herds/abundance than the harvest of 190" bucks.

Although I would agree with you there, it is very difficult to swing the harvest of those 190" bucks up or down. They are few and far between, very hard to see, much less kill, and they are very isolated. That much I know. And none of those 3 factors seem to fluctuate very much at all from year to year, so your correct in that aspect.

I don't think that ANYONE is unhappy with being able to hunt the rut in Montana.

But it seems like there are lots that are unhappy with the amount of deer they are seeing, and I feel that hunting them with a rifle in the rut has something to do with it. But I could be wrong, as I don't have any first hand experience there, just here.

I think the topic of this thread is to what degree states should allow rut hunts and how that effects the herd. I don't see how that post is off-topic.

But if you're position is that rut hunts reduce overall herd numbers from the stress it causes, I'd like to see some science backing that up because it is a claim I've never heard made.

 

[Ron Wright]

So I have a question why aren't there more mule deer rut tags? Nevada has a couple of rut hunts but I think that every unit should have at least a few tags in November. Just wondering if anyone has insight on this topic.

Bucks, particularly older age class bucks are more vulnerable during the rut hunts. You get the advantage of the rut and the advantage of them being more concentrated and accessible on the wintering grounds. With the increased success rate, buck numbers go down and it throws the buck to doe ratio off.

There will only ever be as many deer as the habitat can support, and as the habitat gets older it supports less. The way to increase buck numbers is to take Does out of the habitat so they can be replaced with bucks. This increases the Buck to Doe ratio, and yes this can be done with a declining deer herd. You can have a declining deer herd with a healthy buck to Doe ratio. With more bucks in the population, more can survive to old age.

 

[ida homer]

I think the topic of this thread is to what degree states should allow rut hunts and how that effects the herd. I don't see how that post is off-topic.

But if you're position is that rut hunts reduce overall herd numbers from the stress it causes, I'd like to see some science backing that up because it is a claim I've never heard made.

As I stated a couple times, these are just hear say and my perceptions, not facts. As I'm interested in hearing you Montana guys expand on the correct topic, since we don't have experience rifle hunting the rut here.

It is off topic because if you scroll back up to your post, #19, you are talking about the harvest of 190" bucks. Your emphasis in that post was clearly about how seasoned and credible Robby is (which he is), and about the numbers of 190" deer taken. Again, we are talking about population, not the largest trophy bucks.

Go back and re-read the OP's opening statement.

Mdunc8, the word Montana is not mentioned in post #18, but thanks for staying on topic and I appreciate your insight in post #24.

I agree, I don't think harvesting those bucks is the issue at hand, it is more so chasing these deer around at a time when energy conservation and putting on weight is the main priority. Another reason I am not a shed hunter.

 

[Stubaby]

Randy , Belly.......

Your points are valid. I'm not arguing with that. I hope they keep the doe tags under wrap for enough time for more fawns to hit the ground. I have no trouble finding deer. What bothers me is the lack of overall numbers when compared to how many there could be.

If there were any archery only areas or other things put into effect that proved to both increase numbers AND the amount of mature bucks I would welcome that.


Don't get me started with the "buck to doe ratio" thing. All it is is a race to the bottom. Only after the deer population is at total carrying capacity do I care what the ratio is. If the ratio is out of wack, then increase doe numbers.......not buck tags. Who cares if the ratio is "healthy" if the overall numbers are in the toilet?????

 

[belly-deep]

As I stated a couple times, these are just hear say and my perceptions, not facts. As I'm interested in hearing you Montana guys expand on the correct topic, since we don't have experience rifle hunting the rut here.

It is off topic because if you scroll back up to your post, #19, you are talking about the harvest of 190" bucks. Your emphasis in that post was clearly about how seasoned and credible Robby is (which he is), and about the numbers of 190" deer taken. Again, we are talking about population, not the largest trophy bucks.

Go back and re-read the OP's opening statement.

Mdunc8, the word Montana is not mentioned in post #18, but thanks for staying on topic and I appreciate your insight in post #24.

I agree, I don't think harvesting those bucks is the issue at hand, it is more so chasing these deer around at a time when energy conservation and putting on weight is the main priority. Another reason I am not a shed hunter.

I'm not going to have an internet argument over semantics.

Stubaby, I, and a couple others started talking about big deer. If you don't want to join the discussion, you don't have to.

As far as rut hunting goes, my thoughts are this:

For the deer herd in general, the rut does not run them down enough to make a difference. Most winter killed deer die off in the late winter/spring. 1,000 intervening forces occur between the rut and a winter-killed deer's death, including weather, predators, and human disturbance. To try and increase deer herds by controlling rut hunts is about like shielding the muzzle of your rifle behind a rock to reduce the wind drift on a 600 yard shot.

For big bucks, if deer have enough security, a rut hunt is mostly harmless to their population. In the Western side of MT, they have vast tracts of forested, steep land where ATV use is banned. On the Eastern side, they have private land. Both act as buffers for the big bucks.

 

[belly-deep]

Randy , Belly.......

Your points are valid. I'm not arguing with that. I hope they keep the doe tags under wrap for enough time for more fawns to hit the ground. I have no trouble finding deer. What bothers me is the lack of overall numbers when compared to how many there could be.

If there were any archery only areas or other things put into effect that proved to both increase numbers AND the amount of mature bucks I would welcome that.


Don't get me started with the "buck to doe ratio" thing. All it is is a race to the bottom. Only after the deer population is at total carrying capacity do I care what the ratio is. If the ratio is out of wack, then increase doe numbers.......not buck tags. Who cares if the ratio is "healthy" if the overall numbers are in the toilet?????

Just like with elk in this state, the problem is the "objective" numbers influenced by landowners.

In one of the units near my house, they issued mule deer doe tags up until this fall. I spoke to the bio one year and he said the population was down 10%. Obviously science was not the sole consideration for their issuance.

 

[mdunc8]

Mdunc8, the word Montana is not mentioned in post #18, but thanks for staying on topic and I appreciate your insight in post #24. .

My fault. Meant #13.

 

[The Hedgehog]

So I have a question why aren't there more mule deer rut tags? Nevada has a couple of rut hunts but I think that every unit should have at least a few tags in November. Just wondering if anyone has insite on this topic.

More permits in the rut, results in a greater loss of bucks, in particular the old breeders. Montana is a perfect example of what you get with unlimited rut hunting.

 

[TheJason]

I'll throw a few thoughts out here:

Moving a hunting season out of the rut will increase escapement for bucks, thereby reducing the harvest and increasing overall population of bucks. As a result, this will improve age class of bucks and result in more "trophy" deer.

Montana offers "enough" various types of security to offer a rut hunt, but I don't think it's realistic to suggest that moving the hunt out of the rut would have no affect on buck escapement.

Hunting during the rut does not cause additional stress that is detrimental to the animals. Rather, that is why rut hunting can be detrimental to age classes is because mature and otherwise very wary animals now become completely stupid.

Antlerless doe harvest is secondary to winterkill in being able to control deer numbers.

Landowner tolerance is one primary why you don't see more deer across the landscape. However, deer numbers are declining across the West for various unknown reasons. I predict you will never again see mule deer numbers like the 60's and 70's. Subtle habitat changes have occurred that greatly favor elk over mule deer.

 

[1_pointer]

I'll throw a few thoughts out here:

Moving a hunting season out of the rut will increase escapement for bucks, thereby reducing the harvest and increasing overall population of bucks. As a result, this will improve age class of bucks and result in more "trophy" deer.

Montana offers "enough" various types of security to offer a rut hunt, but I don't think it's realistic to suggest that moving the hunt out of the rut would have no affect on buck escapement.

Hunting during the rut does not cause additional stress that is detrimental to the animals. Rather, that is why rut hunting can be detrimental to age classes is because mature and otherwise very wary animals now become completely stupid.

Antlerless doe harvest is secondary to winterkill in being able to control deer numbers.

Landowner tolerance is one primary why you don't see more deer across the landscape. However, deer numbers are declining across the West for various unknown reasons. I predict you will never again see mule deer numbers like the 60's and 70's. Subtle habitat changes have occurred that greatly favor elk over mule deer.

Yep to the part I emphasized. Improved "rangeland health" has been very good for elk and not as good for mule deer and IMO sage grouse.