Schaaf
Well-known member
In our initial conversations with Helena FWP, we were told any proposal that asked for more LE districts and taking away someone’s ability to shoot a forky was an absolute non-starter.
Montana General Season Structure Proposal
- Thread starter Gerald Martin
- Start date
I meant to add with a common biologically based variance. A projection that supports over/under population/quality when shifting LE/General.
I share the "wow" / "surprised" symbol for your post though the visible radical shifts - it fits, unfortunately.
I'd also add to the KISS theory, mandatory reporting of any tag. You want a general/LE tag next year, you report the current tag year.
Helps for the valuation of variance to shift from LE to gen and vise versa along with enforcement investigation.
Nunyacreek
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2013
- Messages
- 274
When I described the current Muzzleloader season as a “red herring” many of you thoughtfully described the reasons that hunting in December might have negative effects beyond harvest. I’m sure you are largely correct. What I meant was that I don’t think these seasons (currently) meaningfully contribute to the problems this is meant to address. So while there may be problems with this current structure I am in favor of leaving it alone and getting it back into the Commission’s season setting purview.
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,699
You bought a muzzleloader and God Damn you wanna be able to use it?
I want to commend the OP and the others that helped with the proposal, so this is in no way a criticism. In full disclosure, I am not a Montana resident, but, have hunted it extensively since the early 1980's and have been to just about every corner of the State. I do think it is up to residents to decide on how they would like to have their State regulated and us non-residents need to respect the outcomes of those decisions.
Just a few observations from what I have seen over the years and some possible unintended consequences from the proposal. Several people here have alluded to technology as being a big change. I agree with that. I would add that the technology includes the ability to travel is much easier now then in the past. This has really accelerated in the last 5 yrs, but, has been ongoing for about the last 10. One big change we see is that the average Montana resident is much more mobile now. All of the NR have been going to all the hot button areas for quite some time, but, what we see now is the relative ease, and willingness of residents to be more mobile in the State.
The proposal as written makes for a 31 day season Oct 1st to Oct 31; pick your region; then an elk hunt Nov 1st to Nov 30th; In the example I am going to give, the hunter is a resident of Dillon, is mostly an elk hunter, but will take an opportunity mule deer buck if he sees one but never leaves Region 3 to hunt. He has two teenagers and a wife who likes to hunt. With seperating the seasons, this family could easily load up there brand new F-250, set the cruise on 95 mph, jump on I-90 and be sitting in the Sagebrush Inn and Suites in Broadus in a little over 4.5 hrs. His wife could drive, and he could spend that time on his OnX and any of the several online hunting forums and by the time they arrive know exactly where he is going to hunt the next morning. Hunts for 3 days, they all take bucks, and then he goes home. All good for him, because he then just does his normal elk hunt in region 3.
So, thats just an example, but I think these proposals really need to be thought out. It is difficult determining human behavior. When you split the elk and deer seasons like that, and put one in Oct and one in Nov, and for deer force a region to be selected; it appears to me that you might end up with heavy excess hunting in the Eastern region of the State.
You have also shortened the mule deer season some as well. So, it becomes a math issue at this point. For hunting pressure to be the same as it is now, your proposal will need to reduce the amount of hunter days for mule deer hunting. If your proposal does not reduce the hunter days, then you are spreading the same amount of hunter days over a shorter season. I think it is quite possible, you MIGHT see the amount of hunter days actually go up. It is also possible though, with the choose your species, you might see it decrease because a certain % of deer hunter will choose Whitetails. So, the point is, I think this has to be really thought out well ahead of time because once you make big changes like this, it will be almost impossible to undo them.
I also read a lot on here, and other forums, that "we need to do this to save our herds and get them back to were they were"; but, to increase herds, you need to increase females and fawn recruitment. The doe tags have been curtailed (finally); so that is in place. So, how is rolling the season back to October going to "increase the herd or save the herd"? You certainly might increase the buck to doe ratio (but I doubt that; other States with Oct hunting seasons do not see major increases in buck to doe ratio's from October seasons. I suspect you could raise the age of the buck population by getting it out of the rut. But, increase the herds? I don't think you are going to see any increases in the herds from this proposal. To increase the herds you need Mother Nature to help out with precipitation and easier winters for a period of time.
So, is the October season proposal to increase the herd? To increase buck to doe ratio's? To increase the male age structure in the herd? Will the split elk and deer season and pick your region spread hunting pressure out better then currently, or make it way worse in the Eastern part of the State?
Montana has millions of acres of private land that hunting is not allowed on or very strictly controlled. It also has a number of LE units were hunting is curtailed. If reduced hunting pressure in Nov increased herds, you would still see the massive amounts of animals on the private land that you used to. But, you don't. Numbers have fallen across public land, private land, LE units, etc.
So, I would just say to really think about these proposals, because once you succeed in getting them into place, it will be almost impossible to change them and the outcomes of these changes could be worse then before.
Just a few observations from what I have seen over the years and some possible unintended consequences from the proposal. Several people here have alluded to technology as being a big change. I agree with that. I would add that the technology includes the ability to travel is much easier now then in the past. This has really accelerated in the last 5 yrs, but, has been ongoing for about the last 10. One big change we see is that the average Montana resident is much more mobile now. All of the NR have been going to all the hot button areas for quite some time, but, what we see now is the relative ease, and willingness of residents to be more mobile in the State.
The proposal as written makes for a 31 day season Oct 1st to Oct 31; pick your region; then an elk hunt Nov 1st to Nov 30th; In the example I am going to give, the hunter is a resident of Dillon, is mostly an elk hunter, but will take an opportunity mule deer buck if he sees one but never leaves Region 3 to hunt. He has two teenagers and a wife who likes to hunt. With seperating the seasons, this family could easily load up there brand new F-250, set the cruise on 95 mph, jump on I-90 and be sitting in the Sagebrush Inn and Suites in Broadus in a little over 4.5 hrs. His wife could drive, and he could spend that time on his OnX and any of the several online hunting forums and by the time they arrive know exactly where he is going to hunt the next morning. Hunts for 3 days, they all take bucks, and then he goes home. All good for him, because he then just does his normal elk hunt in region 3.
So, thats just an example, but I think these proposals really need to be thought out. It is difficult determining human behavior. When you split the elk and deer seasons like that, and put one in Oct and one in Nov, and for deer force a region to be selected; it appears to me that you might end up with heavy excess hunting in the Eastern region of the State.
You have also shortened the mule deer season some as well. So, it becomes a math issue at this point. For hunting pressure to be the same as it is now, your proposal will need to reduce the amount of hunter days for mule deer hunting. If your proposal does not reduce the hunter days, then you are spreading the same amount of hunter days over a shorter season. I think it is quite possible, you MIGHT see the amount of hunter days actually go up. It is also possible though, with the choose your species, you might see it decrease because a certain % of deer hunter will choose Whitetails. So, the point is, I think this has to be really thought out well ahead of time because once you make big changes like this, it will be almost impossible to undo them.
I also read a lot on here, and other forums, that "we need to do this to save our herds and get them back to were they were"; but, to increase herds, you need to increase females and fawn recruitment. The doe tags have been curtailed (finally); so that is in place. So, how is rolling the season back to October going to "increase the herd or save the herd"? You certainly might increase the buck to doe ratio (but I doubt that; other States with Oct hunting seasons do not see major increases in buck to doe ratio's from October seasons. I suspect you could raise the age of the buck population by getting it out of the rut. But, increase the herds? I don't think you are going to see any increases in the herds from this proposal. To increase the herds you need Mother Nature to help out with precipitation and easier winters for a period of time.
So, is the October season proposal to increase the herd? To increase buck to doe ratio's? To increase the male age structure in the herd? Will the split elk and deer season and pick your region spread hunting pressure out better then currently, or make it way worse in the Eastern part of the State?
Montana has millions of acres of private land that hunting is not allowed on or very strictly controlled. It also has a number of LE units were hunting is curtailed. If reduced hunting pressure in Nov increased herds, you would still see the massive amounts of animals on the private land that you used to. But, you don't. Numbers have fallen across public land, private land, LE units, etc.
So, I would just say to really think about these proposals, because once you succeed in getting them into place, it will be almost impossible to change them and the outcomes of these changes could be worse then before.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Your thoughtful input is appreciated, but does follow some broad, likely invalid assumptions. First of all, the consensus is a need for change as status quo bodes terrible hunting and wildlife health in the future for Montana. The changes proposed require FWP hunting and wildlife management, as well as fiscal, analysis. It is proposed to allow the appropriate Commission to enact the changes and then remain flexible in continuing the analysis so that outcomes may result in appropriate further modification and even returning to present conditions if warranted.
Many elk hunters shoot a forky the last week of the elk (general deer and elk) season during the rut because the deer are available and perhaps the freezer is still empty. Many of these same elk hunters likely won't even hunt during the deer season, thus the concern about overcrowding is unwarranted. The point regarding herd health is well received and, yes, curtailing the harvest of so many does is a good step. However, curtailing the hunt during the rut is what is required to improve the age class structure of the herd.
Obviously, through this thread there are some questions, doubts, and even debate regarding the proposals ... including from me ... but all in all they are a great place for FWP and the Commission to begin analysis and implementation of changes for improvement of the problems. Most likely what emanates will be different, but will encompass some or all ideas.
Hopefully this would cause the deer hunting to get better in western MT and eventually that guy wouldn’t feel the need to drive 4.5 hours to shoot a forky. The proposal isn’t just about R7, it’s about the entire state.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
I see this as slightly different. Seems the consensus is that the quality of hunting in MT is declining, but some of these responses show that a large percentage don't have the will to change anything, unless it is changes for "the other guy". They want little or no change to their opportunity and anyone who doesn't agree is the enemy. I admire those that are willing to fight the good fight and hope that some changes come from this. But it will be a fight, because the loudest voices often dominate the conversation. I also recognize that what I read on a particular day changes my placement on the optimism-pessimism scale on the topic.
I believe that most people do in fact see it as an R7 problem (and R6) for the most part. That’s why I think it’s important to implement changes regionally rather than the entire state.
I say this in a constructive way as I believe it could be the difference between gaining support or getting opposition.
While I’m on my soapbox I’ll say that I think the changes to elk seasons need to be clearly articulated as necessary to improve the elk “situation “ rather than being necessary to save mule deer. I understand that the two issues are intertwined but the majority of people see this as a mule deer issue being addressed at the expense of their elk seasons.
Why is it a region 6 and 7 problem? Maybe we have neglected the rest of the state.
Not disagreeing with you about that. There’s definitely a need to address the other regions. R6 & 7 are the most dire and are the ones most often mentioned when the discussion is had.
I’m just sharing my opinion on how I think it could be presented and implemented in a way that is going to get more unified support.
I think the western side of the state is not going to be to keen on some of these changes. I personally don’t think it’s a one size fits all solution and that region by region is the best option.
We could do nothing and be limited entry like region 4 in a couple years.
huntin24/7
Well-known member
As the season is now, the guy from Dillon mentioned in the example could take his family out east for 3 days, shoot their 3 young bucks in eastern MT rutting within a mile of the road too. It can go either way. With a pick your region and species with the season structure mentioned, I think it would help a lot.
Really? Then why are so many guys headed east to shoot deer if the deer hunting is so good on the western side of the state? The guy’s literal example was about leaving Dillon, which used to be excellent mule deer hunting, to drive 4.5 hours to hunt deer. If it was good closer to home, he wouldn’t be inclined to make that trip. I think people have just gotten so used to how bad it is on the west side and forget that mule deer hunting used to be really good over there as well. It’s a state wide issue based around poor management and bad season structure.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,384
I would agree. One reason that this is perceived as a 6 and 7 problem is because those areas have been historically stable in numbers and quality. When the rest of the state had decent enough mule deer hunting to retain residents in regions 1,2,3,4, and 5, regions 6and 7 could handle general season pressure.
FWP’s strategy of hunter distribution through the law of diminishing returns has played out to folks congregating in the last places with a perceived congregation of opportunity.
Dude, that’s not what I’m saying.
What part of “it’ll be easier to make changes if it’s not a statewide proposal “
are you not understanding?
I’m all for making changes.
Don’t put words in my mouth just because I’m giving my opinion of a better way to present things in order to make it a reality.
Despite being a filthy,no good, NR, I actually care about the best interest for Montana mule deer too.
Because they can throw the kids in and go get them a deer with ease. And has “traditionally” not been an issue shooting rut crazed MD in those regions until too many people started to do it. And the areas around home are managed differently. R7 is and has long been a free for all.
No worries, go ahead and lump the entire state into this proposal and see how much support there is for it. I’m telling ya, it’s not viewed as a state wide issue big enough to get the needed support for it.
I can see how people would see it as an R6 and R7 problem.
I would even say that that’s the first thing that comes to my mind.
However, the reason for that is, is that for those of us that aren’t that old, (I’m 33) r6 and r7 are the only places in Montana we have ever seen decent deer hunting. Western Montana, most my life was already at the point that 6/7 are getting to now.
If you speak with older people or just take a look at the record books or photos, or just look west across the ID border you see that western Montana doesn’t have yo be this way and hasn’t always been.
I’m hopeful that this proposal isn’t something that needs an overwhelming amount of support. This stuff shouldn’t be a democracy. It just needs the right people to support it, not necessarily a bunch of people. Of course everybody wants to hunt as much as possible. Everybody wants a big horn sheep tag too.
Agreed.
