Montana muley management

[300stw]

Montana does have a great deal going for opportunity to harvest mule deer, but,, do we actually have the resources, habitat, deer numbers, to continue into the future,,,, there is a sayin I heard the other day, when is the best time to plant a tree, yesterday, when is the next best time to plant a tree, today,,

when the herds took the hit couple winters back f&g didn't make emergency cut back actions for that season , they waited a year, how many antlerless deer were killed that year that should not have been, how might that have helped this year had those deer not of been killed,,,,,

I really don't think we have the resources to keep chasing deer for 5 weeks with a rifle thru the heart of the rut, I think our kids are gonna regret it,,,,

 

[The Hedgehog]

Although I really enjoy the total freedom of hunting statewide for 10 weeks, the hunting sure would improve if we'd nuke 100% of the muley doe licenses, and put the whole state on choose your area, limited quota everywhere (with liberal quotas) and the 10% cap to non-residents.

Or at least all November hunting on permit only.

 

[fowl_minded]

Although I really enjoy the total freedom of hunting statewide for 10 weeks, the hunting sure would improve if we'd nuke 100% of the muley doe licenses, and put the whole state on choose your area, limited quota everywhere (with liberal quotas) and the 10% cap to non-residents.

Or at least all November hunting on permit only.

Ill second that Greenhorn, I do feel that the quality of Mulies in this state could be a lot better and I feel that this is about the only way it could. Which would upset quite a few hunters, I myself am not a real meat hunter even though its really all I eat. Usually I at least get a cow or something to fill the freezer. Not 5 doe tags

 

[Ben Lamb]

The way I see things, we got the best deal here. We get to hunt every November while we build points in other states.

Truth be told, I don't hunt other states. Although I might be changing that given how FWP totally hates me when it comes to pronghorn.

 

[Rat Fink]

With the restrictions being mentioned here for mule deer, you could kiss the quality whitetail hunting goodbye.

 

[belly-deep]

With the restrictions being mentioned here for mule deer, you could kiss the quality whitetail hunting goodbye.

Yep and quite frankly, I often wonder how much pressure Region 2 management policies add to "the next closest" mule deer units. Displaced hunters don't quit, the just travel further.

Thus the slippery slope of restrictive management. Once it starts, other units get more pressure and hunters start complaining, so those units start limiting hunters as well. Next thing you know, there's draw units all over the place. Of course, they may be liberal, but then a hard winter comes along and hunters complain more, so tags are cut and probably never brought back to their original numbers. It goes on and on. Pretty soon most everyone is crammed into an October week long general hunt and the young bucks are still the ones to die first regardless.

 

[AH_14]

I like this discussion
Couple observations from SW MT not too far from 333.

Unit 380 Elkhorns- unlimited draw, over 1000 people drew this tag last year and this is about the number year after year. This does nothing to help the mule deer population or big bucks mature. Way to many tags---In the early 2000s there were lots more 4-6 year old deer.

Unit 312 Bridgers- limited entry (been limited entry for quite some time) pretty tough tag to draw anymore and there aren't a ton of 170 inch bucks taken each year. Lots of really good hunters much better than myself end of killing the best buck they can find in/around subdivisions!

I guess my point or thought is I don't think anything is working perfectly great right now.
But its pretty good,
I like it how it is---I can hunt wherever I want, find some better bucks once in awhile, and I can go chase deer anytime I want in Central or Eastern Montana anytime.

*I have zero desire to structure every mule deer hunting season decision around only growing 180 inch deer.

 

[BuzzH]

The only thing I'll add is that if rifle deer seasons are shortened, then archery seasons on deer should be shortened an equal amount...during the early part of archery season since thats when deer are most vulnerable to archery hunters.

I'm tired of archery hunters thinking that:

1. They don't impact game numbers.
2. They want to restrict and shorten every season except theirs.
3. They are exempt from shorter seasons.They need to be active participants and give something up as well if "we're all this together" to help deer.

 

[Hunting Wife]

There are a wide variety of season structures and management techniques being employed across the west, and for the most part everyone is in the same boat - mule deer populations are declining range-wide. We already know that mule deer populations just don't adapt as well to disturbance and human encroachment as white-tails, so I would argue that addressing those things and managing for quality habitat would have a larger and longer lasting effect on mule deer numbers, and consequently the numbers surviving to "trophy" size.

The "quality deer management" stuff really annoys me. I consider any wild deer on the landscape to be quality. To some degree, I think if you are only interested in shooting trophy managed animals, there are plenty of establishments that cater to that sort of thing. That is not and should not be the main charge of wildlife agencies. I'm fine with the way Montana does things now - a few limited areas and otherwise preserve the opportunity for people to hunt what they want within the boundaries of population management. I'd rather they devote their resources to keeping mule deer on the landscape first and worry less about growing antlers.

I would prefer to have a tag in my pocket every year. Maybe I shoot something small, maybe something big, maybe nothing at all but either way I don't let a measuring tape tell me how my hunt went.

 

[1_pointer]

There are a wide variety of season structures and management techniques being employed across the west, and for the most part everyone is in the same boat - mule deer populations are declining range-wide. We already know that mule deer populations just don't adapt as well to disturbance and human encroachment as white-tails, so I would argue that addressing those things and managing for quality habitat would have a larger and longer lasting effect on mule deer numbers, and consequently the numbers surviving to "trophy" size.

The "quality deer management" stuff really annoys me. I consider any wild deer on the landscape to be quality. To some degree, I think if you are only interested in shooting trophy managed animals, there are plenty of establishments that cater to that sort of thing. That is not and should not be the main charge of wildlife agencies. I'm fine with the way Montana does things now - a few limited areas and otherwise preserve the opportunity for people to hunt what they want within the boundaries of population management. I'd rather they devote their resources to keeping mule deer on the landscape first and worry less about growing antlers.

I would prefer to have a tag in my pocket every year. Maybe I shoot something small, maybe something big, maybe nothing at all but either way I don't let a measuring tape tell me how my hunt went.

Regarding the part I bolded. A retired warden/biologist I met a few times was asked how to best help out the local mule deer herd. His response, "Limit them to open sighted 30-30s and two wheel drive trucks that we all used when we had lots of deer."

 

[Gr8bawana]

Another way to limit the harvest and allow more bucks to reach maturity would be to make hunters choose a single weapon and be able to hunt only that one weapon. No hunting with archery then muzzleloader then rifle until you get a deer. Maybe only a two week season for each weapon and limited quotas.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Gr8bawana
A

nother way to limit the harvest and allow more bucks to reach maturity would be to make hunters choose a single weapon and be able to hunt only that one weapon. No hunting with archery then muzzleloader then rifle until you get a deer. Maybe only a two week season for each weapon and limited quotas.

That "choose your weapon" season structure is employed presently in some states. Can you verify the results which you suggest would occur?

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Some of the responses here have me scratching my head. Several folks have already hit on the fact that there are likely some much greater and far-reaching issues that either aren't readily identifiable and/or immediately fixable.

I would suggest that you look at some of the areas across the west that used to be huge mule deer producers, and now grow elk like dandelions. What has changed? Is there a direct competition factor between elk and deer that is greater than previously thought?

Maybe given the current landscape, deer numbers are close to what is achievable. I don't know. However, many of the ideas here are based on growing bigger deer. Is there really a need to limit opportunity, or is it a perceived problem?

With the change in hunting styles, i.e long range rifles, better optics, more emphasis on trophy hunting, better vehicles, GPS technology, Google Earth, and the wealth of information available to hunters, I would suggest that if we want to return to the good old days of mule deer hunting it is going to come at a tremendous loss of opportunity and even then, we may never get there.

 

[joelweb]

maybe they should shorten it 2 weeks and have draws for rut hunts?Matt

This is the way I would do it. Shorten the general season and offer a lower number of tags for the rut. It reduces pressure when the animals are most vulnerable, but still offers lots of opportunity. It would make a difference on the trophy potential, yet everyone would still get to hunt.

I think you might see more beneficial results in HD441 if that split season applied to both the public and private lands.

 

[joelweb]

The fact that Montana FWP loves to whack does doesn't help either...

 

[mtmander]

This is sounding like 'what can we do to get bigger antlers'. A lot of us hunt for the meat and I rather shoot a 2 year old than a 6 year old.
Maybe the reason for fewer trophies is, more hunters, big ranches that do not permit the public to hunt , other animals ...............

In my opinion to get trophy deer you have to limit the tags in a area (points / draw) and put antler size above (points, spread ,...) requirement. This may help trophy hunters but there is a cost , draw a tag and reduce meat hunters.

 

[The Hedgehog]

I always scratch my head when guys say they'd shoot a "2 year old before a 6 year old", or "you can't eat the horns", or I'm a meat hunter, "not a trophy hunter".

These are the guys who for some reason believe young animals are more palatable than older ones. Also for some weird reason older, larger animals for some odd reason, have MORE meat.

Nothing wrong with enjoying shooting whatever moves, but one's gotta realize the fact that if the entire deer herd is being bred by crappy forked horns and 2-3 year old 2X3s... there's a problem.

 

[8andcounting]

The fact that Montana FWP loves to whack does doesn't help either...

to me this is # 1 . I believe truly that if they cut every muley doe tag in the state for a few (3-4) years things would dramatically improve .

 

[Gr8bawana]

Here is an interesting article that has four different hypothesis about the increase of mule deer populations that ocurred in the early 1900 and the changes that took place in the mid 30's - the 1960's that could still be causing a decrease in populations.http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_int/int_gtr206.pdf

 

[1_pointer]

I would suggest that you look at some of the areas across the west that used to be huge mule deer producers, and now grow elk like dandelions. What has changed? Is there a direct competition factor between elk and deer that is greater than previously thought?

Many times less domestic sheep and whole lot more of the rangeland being in "good" or better condition...

I'm not convinced that direct competition from elk is a significant issue.