SE Montana winter kill

[EYJONAS!]

Eastern Montana isn't Western Montana, I don't believe for one second that limiting a area like 704 or 670, 700, 640 whatever the list goes on will not produce a better age class of deer. Sure there's always gonna be those guys guys that dump one right outta the gate but over a couple years of limiting tags your gonna see the age class come back. Having a 1000 tags per district or 500 is way better then having 5000 people out hunting the mule deer rut in a single district road pounding the absolute shit outta everything. Something like Saskatchewan would be incredible for this state and the deer.

 

[tjones]

Units where they tried shortening the season to before the rut, then went to LE because the shorter season didn't help?

HD’s like 250-no.

 

[Nameless Range]

Hunting and habitat pressures are only going to increase over time. We know what shorter seasons and LE units will look like. Plenty of other states to use as examples. Is that what we want?

I’ve said it before but I want none of it. In the coming years we will have the opportunity to think outside the box. To maintain or improve populations and increase the age class distribution of muleys we need to limit take. Typically this is done by reducing season length and/or hunter numbers via LE permits. I would rather keep our seasons and opportunity, but achieve the goal of reduced take by reducing hunter efficacy via severely limiting legal technologies. It’s been beat to death in other threads, but the idea that our only two options are going LE or shortening seasons just isn’t the case IMO. I think more creative solutions exist.

 

[rogerthat]

Hunting and habitat pressures are only going to increase over time. We know what shorter seasons and LE units will look like. Plenty of other states to use as examples. Is that what we want?

I’ve said it before but I want none of it. In the coming years we will have the opportunity to think outside the box. To maintain or improve populations and increase the age class distribution of muleys we need to limit take. Typically this is done by reducing season length and/or hunter numbers via LE permits. I would rather keep our seasons and opportunity, but achieve the goal of reduced take by reducing hunter efficacy via severely limiting legal technologies. It’s been beat to death in other threads, but the idea that our only two options are going LE or shortening seasons just isn’t the case IMO. I think more creative solutions exist.

+1. LE especially leads to displacement to other open/general units, causing crowding in those units and so on and so forth until the whole state is LE, or some hunters not willing to travel just quit. This is the current Utah model. Definitely needs to be a balance that being said I support any proposal that would reduce success including LE vs the status quo. Unfortunately the first step in solving a problem is admitting you have a problem and I don't see Fwp doing that any time soon so back to stuffing calves in the warmer and enjoying the cold crisp air of the longest Montana winter I have ever experienced.

 

[antlerradar]

Problem with this is you run out of bucks. Guys banging the first spike, forky, 3x they see it doesn't take long to deplete the recruitment. All this was looked at before we got HD270 and HD261 converted to LE. Short term it appears to work, long term not so much. I need to look back at some info I have on this for HD250. IIRC there was a 3 week buck season for years and slowly the buck/doe ratio dropped to mid single digets. I flew one winter post season survey in a helo with FWP. We saw plenty of does and fawns problem is on the flight we saw one buck- 2x2. One buck. Shortly after it went LE.

That being said, a 3 week season out of the rut is much better then doing nothing.

With the hunting pressure you are describing limited entry is likely the only thing that will help. Thankfully we are not there yet in Eastern Mt. I still see older two and three point bucks every year. I just do not see the deer with good potential making it much past three years old any more. Now any buck with good forks and a 22 inch spread is on the hit list for most hunters. Over the length of the five week season some one will get them.
What you are describing is the rock bottom Buzz talks about. It would be nice to try to turn things around before we hit rock bottom or state wide limited entry is in our future.

 

[antlerradar]

Hunting and habitat pressures are only going to increase over time. We know what shorter seasons and LE units will look like. Plenty of other states to use as examples. Is that what we want?

I’ve said it before but I want none of it. In the coming years we will have the opportunity to think outside the box. To maintain or improve populations and increase the age class distribution of muleys we need to limit take. Typically this is done by reducing season length and/or hunter numbers via LE permits. I would rather keep our seasons and opportunity, but achieve the goal of reduced take by reducing hunter efficacy via severely limiting legal technologies. It’s been beat to death in other threads, but the idea that our only two options are going LE or shortening seasons just isn’t the case IMO. I think more creative solutions exist.

A good friend of mine has often said that if we went back to open sighted rifles and two wheel drive pickups we would solve most of our problems. Problem is this would likely be more unpopular to many than a shorter season or limited entry. There is a lot of money to be made selling the latest short cut to success to hunters. I don't ever see us severely limiting technologies. We have a hard enough time keeping the technologies allowed at current levels. There is Crossbow legislation introduced nearly every session. Can you imagine the fight manufacturers would put up if you tried to eliminate the use of 4 wheelers and side by sides. Think of the fight hunters would put up if you tried to limit scopes to four power or ban rangefinders.

 

[antlerradar]

+1. LE especially leads to displacement to other open/general units, causing crowding in those units and so on and so forth until the whole state is LE, or some hunters not willing to travel just quit. This is the current Utah model. Definitely needs to be a balance that being said I support any proposal that would reduce success including LE vs the status quo. Unfortunately the first step in solving a problem is admitting you have a problem and I don't see Fwp doing that any time soon so back to stuffing calves in the warmer and enjoying the cold crisp air of the longest Montana winter I have ever experienced.

Roger. you are right on on limited entry and likely FWP.

 

[timmy]

I drove from billings east to #12 and then to baker . I gotta say there wasn't the snow I expected . Some places there's none ... Maybe it's worse in other areas

We have set records with snow fall and cold temperatures. You take one drive through and declare there was no winter. I would take anything you say with a grain of salt.

 

[AussieHunter]

So for a Aussie that is unfamiliar with the weather in Montana what is the issue, heavy snow cover so access to feed becomes difficult? Very cold temps, particularly at night, or a combination or both temp and snowfall?

 

[BrentD]

A good friend of mine has often said that if we went back to open sighted rifles and two wheel drive pickups we would solve most of our problems. Problem is this would likely be more unpopular to many than a shorter season or limited entry. There is a lot of money to be made selling the latest short cut to success to hunters. I don't ever see us severely limiting technologies. We have a hard enough time keeping the technologies allowed at current levels. There is Crossbow legislation introduced nearly every session. Can you imagine the fight manufacturers would put up if you tried to eliminate the use of 4 wheelers and side by sides. Think of the fight hunters would put up if you tried to limit scopes to four power or ban rangefinders.

I agree with that 100%. I'd love to see limits on technology. Lots of them, including rolling back existing technology, nevermind stopping the future "smart scopes" etc. Count me in on that battle.

 

[Nameless Range]

A good friend of mine has often said that if we went back to open sighted rifles and two wheel drive pickups we would solve most of our problems. Problem is this would likely be more unpopular to many than a shorter season or limited entry. There is a lot of money to be made selling the latest short cut to success to hunters. I don't ever see us severely limiting technologies. We have a hard enough time keeping the technologies allowed at current levels. There is Crossbow legislation introduced nearly every session. Can you imagine the fight manufacturers would put up if you tried to eliminate the use of 4 wheelers and side by sides. Think of the fight hunters would put up if you tried to limit scopes to four power or ban rangefinders.

I agree it would be unpopular, but I don’t think impossible. There are primitive hunting areas elsewhere in the country.


I think if you told Montanans in regards to a specific district:

We can shorten the season to two weeks, and go LE, so that you may get to hunt in here once every 4 or 5 years. Or, We are going to create a primitive hunting district in which you can hunt every year but we are gonna make it tough- traditional archery gear only during bow season and traditional muzzleloader only during rifle, no inlines and no scopes.

I think folks could be open to that. I’m not at all saying it’s a solution statewide, but I do think we should mix it up across the state in terms of management structures that reduce take. Because as was said earlier, we know what the future looks like otherwise (Utah).

The gear heads would be sad but there’d be plenty of areas elsewhere in the state that they could salivate over, waiting for there chance to hunt once a decade or so. I’m sure industry would speak up too, but we don’t manage wildlife for them.

I think this could be a particularly effective solution in Eastern MT, where it is more open. Someone mentioned the BHA Podcast with Roy Jacobs earlier. That’s really what got me fired up about this. We aren’t doomed to LE and 1 week hunting seasons. We just gotta think of other ways to reduce mortality on the resource. Personally I am less interested in success than I am about just getting out hunting, even with a very low chance of success. I don’t wanna seem holier than thou- I hunt with a compound and scoped rifle but would be interested in the types of challenges and possibilities a primitive only area could present.

 

[YoungGun]

I think there are valid points being tossed around on all ends. Personally, I like the opportunity that Montana provides. I wouldn't be satisfied with LE where I "Get" to hunt every few years, even if it meant bigger bucks. I like that I can go out year after year, cover country, and occasionally still see really good deer. In my mind, a limit on total NR Mule Deer tags in certain districts would be great. In 2016 (most recent harvest numbers) 705 had 2159 Mule deer killed by NR versus 1139 Mule deer killed by residents. Most of the 700 units look similar. I'm all for Non-resident tags; it means I get to hunt with my dad year after year. But at the end of the day, I know as badly as my dad wants to shoot a good buck, he also wants to go home with meat for the year. So in the one week we hunt, his standards decrease with each day, and I'm sure he's not out of line with the mindset of many Non-residents. Hell, that's how I am when I go to other states. I think a solution would lie in unlimited white-tail tags for everyone, but either a limit on MD buck tags for Non-residents, or a 3x or 4x minimum on bucks that can be shot. The minimum isn't perfect though either in that you'd see lots of up and comers getting whacked. Either way, I agree with NameLess, time to get creative and look beyond season dates or across the board tag reductions.

 

[bigsky2]

If we started the season a week earlier and took a week off the end of the season, I think it would help. It essentially would only shorten the season by a week, but it would eliminate two weeks of rut hunting. This would still be a longer season than any other state, and the tail end of the season would still provide a little bit of rut hunting. I don’t think shortening the season by a week is too much to ask. I know it’s not as short of a season as some people would like (myself included), but unfortunately the average Montana hunter would probably prefer to leave the season as is. This season structure would be a compromise between sides. It would at least be a step in the right direction.

I don’t want to see statewide LE either.

 

[EYJONAS!]

A weapons restriction, I gladly support it. I think a LE idea isn't a bad option either, I do see the arguments from the opposite side of that as well. I've mentioned it a couple times but obviously Saskatchewan has a weapons restriction everyone can archery hunt, I think that it's fairly achievable every year or every other year to draw certain muzzleloader tags. A high powered rifle though doesn't come very easy, it's like a 4 year deal. I would love to hunt big mule deer in the rut with a bow or muzzleloader it puts a lot of adventure back into it vs. the old Steve
West mentality "Just range em and eliminate em." I don't mind going out whacking a gong at 800 and 1000 yards, but throwing that tech into hunting is about as unfair as it gets.

 

[EYJONAS!]

I read an article somewhere that someone was proposing a season from October 15 to November 15. It have been a Montana Outdoors magazine.

 

[shoots-straight]

So for a Aussie that is unfamiliar with the weather in Montana what is the issue, heavy snow cover so access to feed becomes difficult? Very cold temps, particularly at night, or a combination or both temp and snowfall?

Aussie, we have wild free range game animals and don't artificially feed our wildlife if we can at all help it. Deep snow that crusts over followed by long spells of frozen Snow covered Earth is the problem. Animals die off is mass when this occurs.

 

[8andcounting]

This a thread about how bad the winter is - and it is no doubt bad - all I said is I drove through on the highway and it didn't look like ton of snow , I never said the winter hasn't been bad I know it has , the cold temps and high snowfall is gonna take its toll . I just think
We got off topic , seems some are more interested in trophys than numbers . I think they need to eliminate all deer b tags in r6 and R7 for a while . But I think the season structure is fine . They need to do a better job of managing numbers

 

[8andcounting]

Moving the season up to October 10-nov10 or something like that will do nothing for numbers deer will still get smoked , but it will save some bigger bucks

 

[Hunting Wife]

So for a Aussie that is unfamiliar with the weather in Montana what is the issue, heavy snow cover so access to feed becomes difficult? Very cold temps, particularly at night, or a combination or both temp and snowfall?

It’s a combination of a lot of things this year making for a “perfect storm” scenario. 300% normal snowfall locks up what little forage there was after the worst drought ever recorded last summer across much of the region. Add to that long stretches of -20 and colder temps when animals really need to expend a ton of energy just to thermoregulate but no forage available to offset those expenditures. And now to top it off, the accumulating snow and unseasonably cold temperatures are continuing later into the spring than usual.

 

[----]

HD’s like 250-no.

I missed your edit earlier with the info about 250. Good stuff, thanks Tony.

In my brain, if we move the season we should model Idaho more and keep it out of November completely. In my experience a mule deer buck is MUCH more vulnerable November 1 than October 20. I've seen lots of rutting activity around Halloween.