Region 6&7 mulie doe tag reduction thread

[mtmiller]

This is why I prefer not to comment. I don’t want any FWPers creeping on this thread to think things are great and start allowing mule deer doe tags on public again.

I promise, not being a smart ass, but what was FWPs involvement prohibiting mule deer doe harvest on public land in 6 and 7? Did FWP take this proposal to the commission?

 

[SaskHunter]

Drove through R6 and R7 this year in October. I noticed less deer on the overall landscape as my usual trips South, but holy crap, I've never seen that many ditch deer in my life!!!
I get it, the pastures on either side of the road were over grazed to shyte, but man, I must've seen 100s of mulies munching on that sad looking ditch grass on that stretch of Hwy 59 South of Miles City.

I found R6/North end of the State to be much like Saskatchewan, I usually make that drive around the same time of day/year and have noticed less animals, deer and pronghorns, as in previous years.

 

[antlerradar]

Drove through R6 and R7 this year in October. I noticed less deer on the overall landscape as my usual trips South, but holy crap, I've never seen that many ditch deer in my life!!!
I get it, the pastures on either side of the road were over grazed to shyte, but man, I must've seen 100s of mulies munching on that sad looking ditch grass on that stretch of Hwy 59 South of Miles City.

I found R6/North end of the State to be much like Saskatchewan, I usually make that drive around the same time of day/year and have noticed less animals, deer and pronghorns, as in previous years.

Often the presence of ditch deer is to catch the green up just off the highways. During dry years like this past summer the extra water that the plants get from the run off of the highway can make all the difference.

 

[Raisin Bran]

I think this is accurate, last winter and this summer were good for deer in 7. It is nice to have a bit of optimism for the next few years. The Montana on the upswing thread however is a good example of how optimism can be crushed with just one tough winter or dry summer.
I don't get too worked up on the short term direction the population is going, What worries me is the trend long term. I would gladly go back in time and hunt the the worst years of the 80's and 90's over the best years of the last 20 and there were some tough years in the 80's and 90's and some real good years in the last twenty.

Saw better numbers of deer in general this year. Slightly more does & fawns but nothing any where near like the past.

I, like @antlerradar, would like to see the population QUALITY & quantity get back to the level of the 80’s-early 2000’s.

We need many ok, good & great recruitment years to get back, here’s to hope!

 

[Rie Bread]

Didn’t observe much of a change in deer numbers from last year. Hoping for an easy winter for them and lots of spring rains.

I’m assuming this was 3 mule deer does that didn’t survive the thanksgiving weekend.
View attachment 351546

Oh god looks like gettysburg out there!

 

[antlerradar]

Saw better numbers of deer in general this year. Slightly more does & fawns but nothing any where near like the past.

I, like @antlerradar, would like to see the population QUALITY & quantity get back to the level of the 80’s-early 2000’s.

We need many ok, good & great recruitment years to get back, here’s to hope!

Not going to happen if we continue to sell more tags to hunters with better gear than we did in the 80's.

 

[cahunter805]

Mule Deer B licenses were valid on BMAs, being as they’re still private land.

Did not observe more deer this year than in 2022-2023, though there were was a fair amount of fawns around as a percentage of what I saw. At least where I was hunting in E MT. Anecdotal observation, take it for whatever it’s worth.

Only the private enrolled in the BMA is valid. Any state or BLM within the BMA is not huntable with a B license.

 

[cahunter805]

As a NR I have enjoyed hunting MT and hope to see the deer rebound.

Just curious. Has it ever been discussed by FWP to change to Region tags instead of statewide?

 

[huntin24/7]

Hard to tell in the far NE part of the state. A lot of the deer are run off bma’s and state land by constant bird hunting pressureby for 7 weeks by the time rifle starts. I couldn’t believe we can still buy 3 whitetail doe tags here in region 6. Not sure even 1 is justified for the majority of the region right now.

 

[DFS]

As a NR I have enjoyed hunting MT and hope to see the deer rebound.

Just curious. Has it ever been discussed by FWP to change to Region tags instead of statewide?

Pick your region was brought up at the last season setting meetings. It died a quick death. FWP is not looking to fix anything. Heck they didn’t even support private land only doe tags.

 

[sclancy27]

As a NR I have enjoyed hunting MT and hope to see the deer rebound.

Just curious. Has it ever been discussed by FWP to change to Region tags instead of statewide?

Pick your region was brought up at the last season setting meetings. It died a quick death. FWP is not looking to fix anything. Heck they didn’t even support private land only doe tags.

Regional caps are likely to have unintended consequences for R6 and R7 based on the current numbers.

 

[mtmiller]

Regional caps are likely to have unintended consequences for R6 and R7 based on the current numbers.

Could this also be said about the “current system”?

Obviously you have been much more involved than me in these discussions, so I would be very interested in your thoughts of unintended consequences with caps (current numbers or managed numbers).

 

[sclancy27]

Could this also be said about the “current system”?

Obviously you have been much more involved than me in these discussions, so I would be very interested in your thoughts of unintended consequences with caps (current numbers or managed numbers).

Sure. Part of why I say there would be unintended consequences is how I think FWP would manage regional caps. My best guess, is they would manage off the current hunter numbers and base the caps off percentage of deer in regions. So, if Region 6 and 7 have 35-40% of the states deer, they would allow 35-40% of the hunters (based off current numbers) as a cap. That is the most straightforward way and the way I would imagine they would do it. They are unlikely to limit total numbers (knowingly decrease total hunters from what it is currently) IMO.

So, if they managed regional caps as above, it could be an even bigger problem for R6 and R7 as currently ~25% of the states hunters (NR + R) hunt deer in those regions. So you would likely be looking at even more deer hunting pressure with caps as folks will be forced to hunt R6/7 if the region they normally hunt is at the cap.

 

[rogerthat]

Regional caps are likely to have unintended consequences for R6 and R7 based on the current numbers.

This is only because the majority of the lands are privately held and we are implementing the doggy pile system on accessible lands. Put these hunters on the lands in r6 and r7 that are currently not getting hunted and with most of the deer and it’s not a problem ie private lands. Of course no one likes that idea but until that happens than we will continue with the doggy pile hunting on accessible lands out here.

 

[sclancy27]

This is only because the majority of the lands are privately held and we are implementing the doggy pile system on accessible lands. Put these hunters on the lands in r6 and r7 that are currently not getting hunted and with most of the deer and it’s not a problem ie private lands. Of course no one likes that idea but until that happens than we will continue with the doggy pile hunting on accessible lands out here.

If you can solve that you just solved elk hunting in MT too. Congrats

 

[rogerthat]

If you can solve that you just solved elk hunting in MT too. Congrats

It’s an easy one to solve. Tags issued based off administration and access of the land. Other states do it.

 

[sclancy27]

It’s an easy one to solve. Tags issued based off administration and access of the land. Other states do it.

Fully explain for us dullards

 

[rogerthat]

Fully explain for us dullards

Private land only and public land only tags within a unit. Actually manage hunter numbers based off available lands and wildlife numbers available on these lands. Honestly the hunter crowding problems in r7 go completely away if you set nr caps with public and private allocations based on acreage. Ie 70% of nr tags within the regional cap would be for private land only simply because 70% of lands are private

 

[mtmiller]

Sure. Part of why I say there would be unintended consequences is how I think FWP would manage regional caps. My best guess, is they would manage off the current hunter numbers and base the caps off percentage of deer in regions. So, if Region 6 and 7 have 35-40% of the states deer, they would allow 35-40% of the hunters (based off current numbers) as a cap. That is the most straightforward way and the way I would imagine they would do it. They are unlikely to limit total numbers (knowingly decrease total hunters from what it is currently) IMO.

I appreciate your thoughts and can't disagree with your assumptions.

My hope would be that FWP would manage the mule deer resource and not hunter numbers, but not obviously that is not todays wildlife management.

 

[bigsky2]

This is only because the majority of the lands are privately held and we are implementing the doggy pile system on accessible lands. Put these hunters on the lands in r6 and r7 that are currently not getting hunted and with most of the deer and it’s not a problem ie private lands. Of course no one likes that idea but until that happens than we will continue with the doggy pile hunting on accessible lands out here.

I don’t disagree with you. I’ve even said on here in the past that I’d support private land only tags (not landowner tags) for elk to try and spread out pressure. People do not like that idea and the proposal already has enough obstacles to overcome as it is.