Good news for eastern mt mule deer!

[BuzzH]

That's kind of sad it's come to that. Btw, if he was shooting cows while bitching about low elk numbers I would ask why is he shooting cows.

Agree with the first part. Again, its not just about cow elk or doe deer, the FWP is obligated to properly manage ALL wildlife, bull elk included.

They're (FWP) failing on all counts...

BTW Schmalts, I don't pretend to be any better. I just whacked 2 turkeys in an area where you can have up to 3...first time I've ever hunted the unit. You know why I had the second tag? Because I trusted the GF that there are enough turkeys in the population to warrant it.

But, honestly, I really have no idea what the population is or whether that was justified or not...I trust the WYGF and their biologists to make the correct management decisions. If I would have had the 3rd tag, I would have shot another one and "self regulated" when I ran out of tags.

Difference between Wyoming and Montana is, I don't trust the MFWP, at all...they simply do not manage.

 

[RobG]

FWP is pretty open about these being for social tolerance, not biology, but you have to ask them directly. I can't blame anyone for assuming it is the right thing to take more deer, and given they are being forced to manage for social tolerance it doesn't matter if you use a tag or not. They will get their one way or another. The only answer seems to be to speak out and get the objectives changed in places like this. Thanks for doing just that in this thread - I wouldn't have known about the 4500 tags otherwise. That's insane.

 

[Nameless Range]

One other thing about "low-information" hunters' perspectives: Low deer and elk numbers being a result of over-allocation of tags is almost never on their radar. The blame always falls to predators - the toothy kind. The vast majority of the Montana hunters I talk to would instantly blame low ungulate numbers on coyotes, wolves, bears, and cats, before ever considering that they themselves contribute to the blame. And before they would ever consider supporting a reduction in tags for deer and elk, they would prefer predator extirpation.

Recently a wolf was sighted in my neighborhood. If you heard some of the comments coming from hunters in regard to that, you'd think ISIS was invading Montana, and that wolf was one of their scouts. So in a way I agree with schmalts - hunters are their own worst enemy.

I liked jryoung's comment. Very conflict-managerish.

 

[schmalts]

Agree with the first part. Again, its not just about cow elk or doe deer, the FWP is obligated to properly manage ALL wildlife, bull elk included.

They're (FWP) failing on all counts...

BTW Schmalts, I don't pretend to be any better. I just whacked 2 turkeys in an area where you can have up to 3...first time I've ever hunted the unit. You know why I had the second tag? Because I trusted the GF that there are enough turkeys in the population to warrant it.

But, honestly, I really have no idea what the population is or whether that was justified or not...I trust the WYGF and their biologists to make the correct management decisions. If I would have had the 3rd tag, I would have shot another one and "self regulated" when I ran out of tags.

I think we're going in a good direction here buddy. The turkey comments are perfect. Now if you hunt that same area in the future and realize that the bird populations suck enough to bitch about it, are you going to buy as many tags as you can or are you going to say one is enough because I would like to see the numbers rebound a bit? I hope I'm making a point now. Some guys will just keep blowing away every Tom that they can just because. Those are the guys I want to point out in my first post. And I completely agree the FWP drops the ball as well but we all need to work on things when we're aware of a situation.

 

[BuzzH]

I think we're going in a good direction here buddy. The turkey comments are perfect. Now if you hunt that same area in the future and realize that the bird populations suck enough to bitch about it, are you going to buy as many tags as you can or are you going to say one is enough because I would like to see the numbers rebound a bit? I hope I'm making a point now. Some guys will just keep blowing away every Tom that they can just because. Those are the guys I want to point out in my first post.

I wont have to be the one making that decision, the Wyoming Game and Fish is very pro-active in managing game, unlike Montana. That's what I expect from a State that cares about its wildlife, which Montana does not. That's what I expect when I pay my license fees, pro-active management.

The Wyoming Game and Fish does not even pretend that they expect hunters to self regulate because of their lack of management or not giving a chit about wildife. Season lengths, season types, doe harvest, permit numbers, cow harvest, number of tags per hunter, all that changes yearly in Wyoming.

Eleven weeks, plus, of "brown its down" management, is chiseled in Bitterroot granite in Montana...and wont change until even the dimmest bulb on the Christmas tree can see how bad things are, unfortunately.

In the meantime, I say get on with the killing, because nothing is going to change unless things get that bad.

The FWP has proven over and over again, that they are incapable of properly managing wildlife...and it shows.

 

[schmalts]

No argument here. Montana must use Wisconsinite DNR deer management. It's about $$$$$

 

[MTGomer]

It is beyond time for new commisioners.
Never met a warden or bio I didn't like.
The brass, on the other hand, needs to go. To jail preferably.

 

[Lawnboy]

The biologists don't always get what they want. .

This is so true. Our local biologist was in favor of the idea of issuing doe tags for private only land to help address the concern but she called me and said that her superior (who ever that is) said No. I'm not convinced that all the biologists are being listened too and they apparently don't have the last say in matters.

 

[HalfAce]

You know that an area has changed when you see less deer in your 13th season hunting it, than you did your first season not knowing anything about the place.

I would place SOME blame on the hunters that try and fill doe tags each season, as well as on coyotes. I don’t remember seeing as many yotes out there pre 2010, but since then I hear those things yipping all over the place. I figure the coyote boom is correlated with all the deer carcasses laying around after the hard winters. But I place more of the blame on the MTFWP. They were reeeally slow to implement tag reductions on Mule deer does after the winter. Last season they waged a war against elk. Now they want to shoot thousands of does for less than ONE man’s annual salary. Makes no fukkin sense.

I believe that Eastern Montana is one of the few places in the whole country where Mule Deer can bounce back very well not aided by any form of human help. But the rebound is definitely slowed when THOUSANDS of baby makers are eliminated from the population. Also doesn’t help one bit when you cant regulate how many does will be killed with A tags. How will they know how many does are eliminated? … They wont.

 

[RobG]

This is so true. Our local biologist was in favor of the idea of issuing doe tags for private only land to help address the concern but she called me and said that her superior (who ever that is) said No. I'm not convinced that all the biologists are being listened too and they apparently don't have the last say in matters.

Supervisor would be Sam Sheppard, who was promoted to supervisor after being a game warden captain. In terms of biology, I remember he was one of the least qualified names on the table for that job after Flowers left.

Julie’s note also mentioned that part of the reason was that “He [Sheppard] wants his biologists to move towards liberalization of MD doe opportunity across landownership as a region [region 3]."

Also noted was that does harvested on the forest could also be the dame deer causing damage later, but the idea pitched by Julie wasn't population control but rather ranchers having some options when deer on feeding on the haystacks. I see they issued 50 tags - I think they were pitching 100 at the meeting.

It's depressing... 30 years ago it used to be hazardous coming back from Norris because of mule deer. Now you see very little... Even with the low numbers it is too much for ranchers and they are doing game damage hunts on mule deer does in that area.

 

[BuzzH]

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.

 

[Badlandcat]

Not wanting to sound like an old fart, but you should of seen SE Montana in the early 80's. You could hunt public land(Long Pines, gumbo's) and easily see couple hundred deer a day. Then in the mid 80's came the doe slaughter, 6 tags, open during antelope season, etc. Over the years since then there has been some ups and downs, but the deer population has never been the same since then. The FWP needs to go back to managing the 700 areas unit buy unit again, not this free for all they have now for both deer and antelope.
Buzz is right on about getting rid of the opportunity thinking bios, the head bio in region 4 is stuck in the 40's and really needs to go, before he chases all the younger ones off the want to change the way thing are for the better.

 

[ShootsManyBullets]

Judging by the ridiculously low tag fees for those does it's pretty clear that they don't value them. Someday it may change but it won't be anytime soon.

 

[RobG]

I go this in an email and I guess it is relevant.

From the email:

This is the deer we went and looked for last week in Montana. It was located on the Ted Turner ranch and killed by a Mt. Lion.

This map and notes below are from Nov. 2015:
A mule deer doe fawn radio collared in GMU 59A. She was collared in January 2015 as a female fawn (6months old) on Reno Point winter range (1). She spent early spring on the Centennial Mountains west of I-15 (2) , crossed 1-15 the middle of May and stayed until early July (3), went on a walk-a-bout across Montana for two weeks (4), and finally turned around just south of I-90 near Bozeman, MT. She settled in along the Gallatin River (5) around the first of August and she is still there today-Nov 8. She will likely not return to the winter range she frequented last year. This is at least 120 miles this deer moved.


This deer wintered on this hill and finally died on April 12, 2016.

Thanks for your help.

Josh Rydalch
Regional Wildlife Biologist
Idaho Department of Fish and Game
Upper Snake Region
Idaho Falls, ID

 

[antlerradar]

I wish some of the bucks I picked antlers from would make the same trip as that doe.
My bet is that doe is an exception.

 

[BuzzH]

I don't know if its an exception or not, and neither does the FWP...which is another big problem.

They don't have a good grasp on migration, which absolutely has a big on impact on deer populations.

I've been involved with the Wyoming Migration Initiative and its been an eye opener for everyone.

 

[teamhoyt]

I Just did a little calculation, as I was curious how tag numbers compare to what nd issues. Region 7 contains approx 40000 square miles ( 25 million acres), so 4500 doe tags is one per every 555 acres. If there averages 8-9 deer/sq mile, it wouldn't seem to out of line. But a lot of land don't have those numbers, some land has more. Then you add in general tag harvest and it just seems too high of harvest rate. Really need more unit specific allocation and private land stipulations imo

 

[Poke 'Em]

I Just did a little calculation, as I was curious how tag numbers compare to what nd issues. Region 7 contains approx 40000 square miles ( 25 million acres), so 4500 doe tags is one per every 555 acres. If there averages 8-9 deer/sq mile, it wouldn't seem to out of line. But a lot of land don't have those numbers, some land has more. Then you add in general tag harvest and it just seems too high of harvest rate. Really need more unit specific allocation and private land stipulations imo

You're off by a factor of 10. It's one tag every 5700 acres.

Not to mention, every doe tag doesn't get filled.

In 2011, there were unlimited doe tags, not to mention the A tags were also either-sex. 3436 mule deer does were taken.

 

[BuzzH]

Not to mention, every doe tag doesn't get filled.

In 2011, there were unlimited doe tags, not to mention the A tags were also either-sex. 3436 mule deer does were taken.

I agree, all the tags don't get filled.

But, the FWP has no idea how many deer and elk are killed in Montana every year...in particular in the 700 series units.

The last time I hunted it, the party I was with shot 5 bucks and 3 does...and NOT ONE of them were ever recorded in the harvest. Like the rest of the things the FWP does, they are making a wild assed guess, best case. I could pull a number from a hat and be as accurate.

Of the 81 deer I've personally killed in Montana since 1980, I bet maybe 12 have been recorded at a check station, and I've been called and surveyed about deer maybe 4-5 times. So the FWP has known about less than 1 in 4 I've killed.

How do they even estimate harvest with crap like that???

Their harvest data is as corrupt and suspect as their "management"...a total joke.

Want to really get a good laugh, check out their elk harvest data...you cant script humor like that.

 

[Poke 'Em]

How do they even estimate harvest with crap like that???

Freshman-level statistics. It's not rocket surgery.