Leupold BX-4 Rangefinding Binoculars

Good news for eastern mt mule deer!

The problem is not the 4500 doe tags. If there was even distribution of harvest know one would even notice if all the tags were filled. The problem is that FWP throws 4500 tags at 40000 square miles with no restrictions to even try to balance out the harvest. Comes back to the "law of diminishing returns" management philosophy Region 7 is so stuck on.
 
Last edited:
Freshman-level statistics. It's not rocket surgery.

Trusting statistics and population models is for fools, in particular in the case of Montana.

Do you even know what model they use? Do you know how they estimated harvest?

I do, and its a crock of chit...call a biologist and ask them. I had an hour long talk with a new Region 2 biologist a few months ago, and he was essentially apologizing to me for how harvest is "estimated". I told him not to worry as I already knew the harvest estimates where close to meaningless...he didn't disagree.

Its maybe slightly better than a guess...maybe.

Anlterradar, I agree with you in regard to where the harvest happens and where its concentrated. The same thing happened with pronghorn. Remember the days of 17K pronghorn tags in region 7?

The FWP is not capable of correct management and they do nothing to control where the doe harvest takes place.

Its pretty sad when the CMR has done more pro-active management of big-game than the FWP...but that's just a fact.
 
The problem is not the 4500 doe tags. If there was even distribution of harvest know one would even notice if all the tags were filled. The problem is that FWP throws 4500 tags at 40000 square miles with no restrictions to even try to even out the harvest. Comes back to the "law of diminishing returns" management philosophy Region 7 is so stuck on.

This I agree with.
 
I remember region 7 was broken up in a lot of small areas. I used to hunt the Custer in 742 when I could get a tag. I would draw about every other year. At first I was excited when FWP went region wide with antelope tags as I would be able to get a tag every year. My excitement quickly turned to disappointment. The part of 742 I hunted now had twice as may hunters. Spot and stalk hunting turned into spot and sprint. Not much fun so I started to hunt near by private. With the easily available tags those ranches were leased up in a few years. I quit hunting antelope shortly after that. Haven't tried to draw a tag in better than 30 years.
 
I get a call every few years from someone asking how I did in Montana. Funny thing is they will ask if I killed an elk but never ask if I filled my deer tag. Once they asked me if I filled my deer tag but not my elk tag. WTF?

In Nevada you can't apply if you haven't returned your harvest report and they fine you $50 or something like that if you don't file on time. I failed to file on time recently and had to pay the fine. I think a couple other states have similar programs but NV is the one stuck in my mind since I got fined.

So Montana just takes a wild guess while I hear the governor talking about using science about 80 times on the Hunttalk podcast awhile back. I assumed he thinks we're all stupid and that they're actually applying some kind of science in Montana.
 
New Mexico requires a harvest report from previous year to buy a license in the current year. I always forget and pay minimal fine (5 or 10 dollars). One of the few things NMG&F does right!
 
I agree with that, but there is NO way that you'll ever get deer "back on the mountain" when you have OTC hunting from Sept. - Nov.

I think hunting pressure has also pushed ALL big-game onto private land. You can not have unlimited opportunity on public land and expect anything good to happen.

BTW, I read that study you cited...seems that fawn survival and the boom in deer in the 1940's was a direct function of habitat and favorable range conditions. During that time, there was essentially no coyote control (page 78-80).

That's exactly what Wyoming is experiencing right now...favorable range conditions and you see a huge increase in fawn survival. Lots of reasons for that.
Also look at the amount of acres the federal agencies were treating back then and what they were treating them for. Into the '60s, the BLM was treating 1M acres or so per year and a good bit of that was to favor sheep, which eat alot of the same stuff deer do. Current improved range conditions favor grass...
 
I get a call every few years from someone asking how I did in Montana. Funny thing is they will ask if I killed an elk but never ask if I filled my deer tag. Once they asked me if I filled my deer tag but not my elk tag. WTF?
.

Their survey methodology is very strange. I shot a wolf last year while sheep hunting.
When the survey taker called they asked me if I saw any wolves, and I told them (which they already knew because reporting is mandatory on wolves) that I shot one. They were only interested in wolves seen while deer or elk hunting and did not count my sighting because I was sheep hunting. Maybe the sighting shouldn't count anyway, since the wolf is dead?

Then my buddy who had the goat tag for my sheep unit, had the same experience with grizzlies. He saw a sow and two cubs, and took pictures of them, etc... when they surveyed him, they wanted to know if he was deer or elk hunting. When he told them he was goat hunting, they didn't record the sighting.

Technically, I guess we both could have been 'deer or elk hunting' since it was season and we had deer and elk tags, but the quarry was sheep or goat.
Very strange methodology. I pressed them on this several times via email and a facebook message, and always got some convoluted bullshit answer, as to why, which basically can be summed up with, 'Its just how we do it and have always done it, and if there's a reason- I'm too lazy to find the person who sets the criteria'
 
And there is the problem. The majority of those tags get filled on public land where mule deer numbers are struggling. If they were private land only doe tags if might make sense. I miss the days where mule deer covered the public landscape in Montana. We have destroyed western Montana mule deer hunting. Time to ruin eastern MT too? I dont get it.

Nebraska made it so muley doe tags were only valid on private lands in the MD zone. Don't have the numbers of MD that Montana has but it does curb the impact on public lands.
 
http://missoulian.com/news/state-an...cle_680fbf1c-c43e-5546-9be1-f3f5b3ac5981.html

Mule deer numbers rebound in southeastern Montana

BILLINGS - Mule deer numbers in southeastern Montana have rebounded after a bleak and steep decline that hit bottom in 2012, prompting Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks’ staff to recommend increasing the doe harvest this season.

“The populations are currently at 147 percent of the long-term average,” said John Vore, Game Management Bureau chief, said in a Fish and Wildlife Commission meeting in Dillon on Thursday.

“These actually are the good old days,” echoed Region 7 supervisor Brad Schmitz.

That population increase is based on surveys in 14 trend areas spread across the prairie and rugged breaks of FWP’s Region 7, a management area comprised of Garfield, Rosebud, Custer, Powder, Carter, Fallon, Dawson, Prairie, Wibaux and a portion of Treasure counties.

The decline
In 2012 mule deer numbers had fallen by as much as 55 percent in portions of Montana. By 2014 the Fish and Wildlife Commission had cut all mule deer doe B tags across the state, and prior to that had enacted about a 90 percent reduction in mule deer doe tags.

Biologists began seeing a rebound last year when they counted 91 fawns per 100 does, the long-term average was 73 fawns per 100 does.

“Deer numbers are now higher than they were during years when nearly 11,000 B licenses were sold,” read the commission’s agenda item on the matter. “Now is the time to apply additional antlerless harvest to avoid the unsustainable high numbers and wide population fluctuations of the past.”

Vore said that criticism from some members of the public that the trend areas aren’t representative of the region were disproved when the department examined the movement of 1,100 collared deer across the landscape.

“We know they move on and off those trend areas,” he said. “About two-thirds move up to 60 miles.”

He said the surveys also reflect mule deer populations on habitat open to hunting.

“So we are pretty confident this reflects what’s going on with deer populations there,” Vore added.

Flattening the curve
Mule deer populations are notorious for reaching a peak about every 15 years before declining. Vore and Schmitz said by increasing the doe harvest the department hopes to flatten out the peaks and valleys of those wide population swings.

To do that, the department has proposed increasing doe licenses from 4,500 to 7,500 this season. The agency is also proposing to allow the region to bump up the total harvest to 11,000 without coming back to the commission for approval if deer numbers remain high.

Allowing the region that flexibility provides game managers the ability to increase the harvest if game damage complaints increase, Schmitz said.

“This system is extremely helpful for us biologically and socially,” he said.

The proposal will go out for public comment until June 24 before being considered by the commission at its next meeting on July 14.

Balancing act
Schmitz explained the population decline and revival this way. Prior to 2011 there were a lot of older does on the landscape that aren’t as reproductively proficient but that still eat a lot of browse. When those older deer died off and were replaced by younger, more fertile does, the population began to rebound.

The trick now is to keep the population low enough to ensure there is adequate browse on the landscape, Schmitz explained, while also respecting the tolerance of landowners who have to deal with more deer on their alfalfa fields.
 
I Like the last paragraph! The Trick now is to keep the population low... Shouldn't have much problem with that goal. Maybe they should take these public concerns and start managing area by area, or more private land only tags. I Don't see no 147% of normal?? J/k I really think we better open a shoulder season and get these damn deer under control!
 
I Like the last paragraph! The Trick now is to keep the population low... Shouldn't have much problem with that goal. Maybe they should take these public concerns and start managing area by area, or more private land only tags. I Don't see no 147% of normal?? J/k I really think we better open a shoulder season and get these damn deer under control!

Shoulder season comment made me laugh but i never thought we would shoot pregnant cows in February either so maybe not so funny....

Glendive is the heart of eastern MT mule deer country. Not seeing 147%?? Im not surprised at all. I think they are coming back but it doesnt feel like they have "recovered"

"Ensure they have adequate browse on the land scape". Educate me - do the die offs occur when they get literally buried in crusty snow or do they die because of insufficent browse available? Some of the pictures where only the head of the animal is above snow level makes me wonder if they will die no matter how much browse is available when they must dig through three feet of snow to get to the browse. Seems they would use more energy digging then they could replace. Just too much energy expended.

Just wonder what people think? Bad winter cycles seem to kill them even in cultivated areas.
I dont know.
 
Allowing the region that flexibility provides game managers the ability to increase the harvest if game damage complaints increase, Schmitz said.

How about a list of land owners with game damage complaints. It is year 2016 and we cant connect these land owners with hunters looking to fill the freezer? Seriously?? Why is game damage complaints still an issue? Seems like a simple fix.
 
well im gonna go to region 7 in November in hopes of getting a few doe's for freezer fillers but would be nice to have a list of landowners that would let us hunt.... where would I get such a thing?
 
well im gonna go to region 7 in November in hopes of getting a few doe's for freezer fillers but would be nice to have a list of landowners that would let us hunt.... where would I get such a thing?

As far as I know there is no list.

This would be the first thing done if my job was to manage a resource and i had land owner complaints.

I dont get it.

In todays world of limited hunting opportunity/access I would bet my last dollar that any ranch with game damage concerns could be dealt with by allowing a few hunters access.

Unless you are the Galt ranch and want to sell Bulls for top dollar then complain that the cows are eating you out of business. Its the good ol boy system. Has nothing to do with available "browse"
 
Last edited:
well im gonna go to region 7 in November in hopes of getting a few doe's for freezer fillers but would be nice to have a list of landowners that would let us hunt.... where would I get such a thing?

Call or look on the FWP for a publication of block management properties. It would be one of the best places to fill your Freezer Filler tags while the public land can keep from getting pounded.
 
Call or look on the FWP for a publication of block management properties. It would be one of the best places to fill your Freezer Filler tags while the public land can keep from getting pounded.

This. And call the regional bio & warden and ask them for places that allow public hunting.
 
Use Promo Code Randy for 20% off OutdoorClass

Forum statistics

Threads
110,810
Messages
1,935,256
Members
34,887
Latest member
Uncle_Danno
Back
Top