Podcast on Montana Mule Deer ideas

[cgasner1]

My biggest concern with OTC licenses for NR is for black bear. They can definitely be over harvested contrary to sentiment of some hunters that there are too many.
I’m not at all concerned about the number of wolf tags sold. Very, very few NR are specifically targeting wolves and the rarity of incidental harvest during the hunt for other species hasn’t outpaced recruitment of wolves. In the areas where I am familiar with wolf numbers have stabilized due to wolves saturating their habitat and numbers are limited by prey more than predation from hunters.

The otc nr black bear is an issue in 5. Not my thing I didn’t realize it till talking with a warden how bad it actually is

 

[Rie Bread]

I don’t listen to podcasts much but I didn’t fast forward once!

I selfishly hope at least the mule deer season changes so I can be in the high country with a rifle
Choose your species is something I hope gets through.

I think what would help the plan gain traction along with a general goal is also getting a solid understanding of “quality” and what that means for most Montanans.

Gonna be hard to get those dollars outta the ears of FWP with all the opportunities they have created

 

[hank4elk]

Well spent time.
I see not much has changed in MT, in 50 years. Except the quality.
Folks still just hunt half the year and no mandated harvest reports.
Glad someone is finally discussing options.

 

[Carnage2011]

Also, one last question. You guys stated that this only applies to general units. What about units that are LE for elk and general for deer? Are we going to be archery elk hunting while someone is running around rifle hunting deer?

 

[Carnage2011]

Alright one last thing, I think this is the last one. You guys brought up that FWP’s surveys are skewed to get the answers they want. Eric mentioned that specifically, and then stated that the most recent one was the best one yet. “Not great, but the best one yet” was how he said it I believe. That may be true…but that means the previous one was good as well, as it was the same survey given before.

 

[bigsky2]

Also, one last question. You guys stated that this only applies to general units. What about units that are LE for elk and general for deer? Are we going to be archery elk hunting while someone is running around rifle hunting deer?

Proposed archery dates apply to all HD’s. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[DFS]

Just finished the podcast. The main issue I have with the plan is letting region 6 and 7 continue to bear the burden of the nonresidents. There needs to be some limits to those 2 regions with nonresident deer tags.

 

[bigsky2]

Just finished the podcast. The main issue I have with the plan is letting region 6 and 7 continue to bear the burden of the nonresidents. There needs to be some limits to those 2 regions with nonresident deer tags.

No disagreement from me. Hopefully some of the NR pressure in R6 and 7 would be reduced if they couldn’t hunt mule deer and elk at the same time.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Just finished the podcast. The main issue I have with the plan is letting region 6 and 7 continue to bear the burden of the nonresidents. There needs to be some limits to those 2 regions with nonresident deer tags.

Get a coalition of like minded region 6 and 7 folks and write up your idea of what would be an appropriate cap for hunters in those areas to present to the commission. They will be the folks who make the decisions for all proposals, ours or anyone else’s.

 

[cgasner1]

Just finished the podcast. The main issue I have with the plan is letting region 6 and 7 continue to bear the burden of the nonresidents. There needs to be some limits to those 2 regions with nonresident deer tags.

I’m in the boat that any change will be a step in the right direction. This proposal as it sits we are trying to move a mountain. That’s without adding caps on 6/7 directed at nr hunters. This was put together as a group and a move such as that would not help the cause at all when the outfitters that are trying to help us push this walk away.

 

[Sioux33]

Overall, I think you guys have done a nice job with this proposal. I still find it a little comical that there isn't really a defined goal. The state of Mule Deer in Montana is definitely struggling, but it would be a lot easier to pitch this to someone if there was a measurable goal. Whether that be buck: doe ratios, population levels, hunter days.... there has to be something. At the end of the podcast Randy gave you guys the opportunity to answer that question, and everyone had a different answer. That basically says that there isn't a clear goal or objective. Eric made the comment that "it would be nice to see a couple 4.5-year-olds come through the check stations." That happens every year already so that technically doesn't require any change. Also, I keep hearing you guys say that the current management strategy is "unsustainable," what do you mean by that? The deer aren't going extinct so I'm not really sure what is unsustainable about it. It's not conducive for mature bucks, or many bucks, but it's not going to cause them to go extinct, partially due to private land, and also due to escape habitat in certain areas. Like I said, I think you guys did a nice job and present some good options, but some of the blanket statements thrown out there don't seem to be backed by much.

I too think there's some good things coming out of this proposal, but have similar thoughts to this about goals, and specifically goal #2: reduce hunter crowding, which to me is way bigger deal than not seeing the numbers of animals I expect to.

I think it'd be helpful to understand more about how this goal will be accomplished and how it'll be measured, especially when you could argue the plan has the potential to increase crowding since everyone will have the chance to zero in on deer on the east side, then elk on the west side, versus having to pick one and only be in one place.

Something like the number of hunter days per unit, per species would be something good to set as a target and compare a year or two down the road to make sure it's working as intended.

 

[bigsky2]

I too think there's some good things coming out of this proposal, but have similar thoughts to this about goals, and specifically goal #2: reduce hunter crowding, which to me is way bigger deal than not seeing the numbers of animals I expect to.

I think it'd be helpful to understand more about how this goal will be accomplished and how it'll be measured, especially when you could argue the plan has the potential to increase crowding since everyone will have the chance to zero in on deer on the east side, then elk on the west side, versus having to pick one and only be in one place.

Something like the number of hunter days per unit, per species would be something good to set as a target and compare a year or two down the road to make sure it's working as intended.

It will be accomplished by making you choose a deer species to hunt and having those seasons at different times. This will cut down on the numbers of deer hunters in the field at one time. The incentive to hunt whitetails would be that you could hunt them during the rut vs hunting mule deer at a tougher time, and you could hunt elk and whitetail at the same time. I know there's some die-hards that can dedicate a ton of time to hunting, but the majority of people only have so much time that they can spend.

 

[Sioux33]

It will be accomplished by making you choose a deer species to hunt and having those seasons at different times. This will cut down on the numbers of deer hunters in the field at one time. The incentive to hunt whitetails would be that you could hunt them during the rut vs hunting mule deer at a tougher time, and you could hunt elk and whitetail at the same time. I know there's some die-hards that can dedicate a ton of time to hunting, but the majority of people only have so much time that they can spend.

I get that's the strategy, but I'm talking about how it'll be measured to ensure it's working as intended and what that measure of success would be for the stated goal to be accomplished.

 

[mfregerio427]

I think this might be the report you’re referring to?

https://fwp.mt.gov/binaries/content/assets/fwp/buyandapply/license-reports/2024-hb-593-report.pdf

It’s found under the licensing tab on FWP’s website. Under license sales report

Thanks Gerald @Gerald Martin.

Looking at the report, I'm confused how in 2023 11,359 NR Deer Combination Licenses were issued, but the 2023 regulations state that 4,600 are issued. Anyone know what I'm missing?

From 2023 regulations:
• Most nonresidents cannot buy their general deer license over the counter. They must obtain a General Deer License through one of the following drawings:– Big Game (deer and elk) Combination license (17,000 issued), or a– Deer Combination License (4,600issued), or a– Landowner Sponsored License (2,000issued).Nonresidents can apply for only one of these combo licenses each year.

In addition to the 11,359 NR DCLs, FWP issued 513 Come Home to Hunt/Relative of Resident, 69 college student, 1,076 youth, and 904 land owner sponsored licenses. A total of 2,562 additional licenses that aren't counted against the total quota (22% additional to NR DCLs).

 

[Ben Lamb]

I get that's the strategy, but I'm talking about how it'll be measured to ensure it's working as intended and what that measure of success would be for the stated goal to be accomplished.

The measure of success is seeing the number of hunter days it takes to harvest a critter go down, while regular season harvest creeps up due to spreading the pressure out across the state. That will take a few years to see if it tracks with the assumptions being made about hunter distribution.

Gotta remember all pieces as well:

October elk is private land only - so you get pressure inside of a season to move critters while only targeting a different species altogether.

The pulse of pressure focused in various waves helps keep animals moving, rather than simply moving to safer pastures.

During the Oct/Nov seasons, you may be hunting both seasons, but your time in the field is going to be disrupted more, spreading the pressure curve out even more. Right now what is seen is a steady increase in pressure over the 11 weeks of general archery/rifle. By disrupting & spreading the pressure out, the reaction from wildlife would follow a more disruptive & spread out path along with human pressure.

There are several studies & articles relative to elk distribution and human presence that the groups have linked to in the proposal from Utah, Colorado & Montana, as well as some work from Idaho that speaks to calf body condition and overwinter survival that informed the discussion.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Thanks Gerald @Gerald Martin.

Looking at the report, I'm confused how in 2023 11,359 NR Deer Combination Licenses were issued, but the 2023 regulations state that 4,600 are issued. Anyone know what I'm missing?

From 2023 regulations:
• Most nonresidents cannot buy their general deer license over the counter. They must obtain a General Deer License through one of the following drawings:– Big Game (deer and elk) Combination license (17,000 issued), or a– Deer Combination License (4,600issued), or a– Landowner Sponsored License (2,000issued).Nonresidents can apply for only one of these combo licenses each year.

In addition to the 11,359 NR DCLs, FWP issued 513 Come Home to Hunt/Relative of Resident, 69 college student, 1,076 youth, and 904 land owner sponsored licenses. A total of 2,562 additional licenses that aren't counted against the total quota (22% additional to NR DCLs).

The deer combo number reflects the 4600 B11's, 2,000 landowner set-asides & the orphaned deer licenses from the B10 combination licence. When someone turns a deer portion of the B10 back in, FEP resells it as a B11 deer combo, on top of the statutory quota.

You are correct on the free & reduced price licenses.