Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 57
  1. Default Montana fish wildlife and parks deer management

    Montana fish wildlife and parks should be ashamed of its self for how they manage the deer. The only reason I buy a tag is to apply for limited entry aka trophy unit. Even at that are trophy units are poor compared to other states outside of 1 or 2 units. I was born and have lived in region 3 all my life and it is just sad. Just venting, any ideas out there to change management plans or to create more limited entry units.

  2. #2

    Default

    Cue Buzz.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Fort Peck, MT
    Posts
    1,089

    Default

    Name:  giphy.gif
Views: 617
Size:  121.3 KB
    "I'll put some whiskey into my whiskey"

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    In the Sagebrush (Dillon, MT)
    Posts
    2,084

    Default

    Justin beat me to it...
    Last edited by Mthuntr; 03-19-2017 at 08:05 AM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Laramie, WY
    Posts
    9,457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Killergaurd View Post
    Montana fish wildlife and parks should be ashamed of its self for how they manage the deer. The only reason I buy a tag is to apply for limited entry aka trophy unit. Even at that are trophy units are poor compared to other states outside of 1 or 2 units. I was born and have lived in region 3 all my life and it is just sad. Just venting, any ideas out there to change management plans or to create more limited entry units.
    Oh no, its wonderful, I know great people, they manage like its 1950...we're set to have the best deer season ever...EVER! And I know my data is flawed, but trust me, its excellent, its going to be great, we'll make deer hunting in Montana great again.

    Signed,

    MTFWP
    "...the world outside, which my brother and I soon discovered, was full of bastards, the number increasing rapidly the farther one gets from Missoula, Montana." -Norman Maclean

    "They were still so young they hadn't learned to count the odds and to sense they might owe the universe a tragedy"
    -Norman Maclean

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BuzzH View Post
    Oh no, its wonderful, I know great people, they manage like its 1950...we're set to have the best deer season ever...EVER! And I know my data is flawed, but trust me, its excellent, its going to be great, we'll make deer hunting in Montana great again.

    Signed,

    MTFWP
    Not to throw this too far off topic but this sounds a lot like the bio's I know when it comes to Northern Idaho, ugh.

  7. #7

    Default

    The horse may be dead, but it's thorough beating is well deserved.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Wherever the bugles are
    Posts
    354

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheTone View Post
    Not to throw this too far off topic but this sounds a lot like the bio's I know when it comes to Northern Idaho, ugh.
    Don't worry it's southern Idaho as well

  9. #9

    Default

    http://fwp.mt.gov/fwpDoc.html?id=50732

    It would Probably require changing the fwp and non hunting public's mindset to thinking that the deer population needs to increase. Than it would be as easy as changing the management plan to one that intended to increase the population. I don't think they are incompetent, completely political, social, and economical.

    "By the 1940s and early 1950s, concurrent with these developing concepts, deer populations were expanding almost explosively. Restrictive hunting seasons severely limited deer harvests locally and statewide. Major predators (wolves, mountain lions, and coyotes) had been reduced or eliminated from their natural ranges in Montana. Favorable habitat conditions developed in association with the end of the 1930s drought."
    "Growing deer populations brought new, unprecedented problems and conflicts. The first three decades of the century witnessed low deer numbers and development of a protectionist mindset among hunters and landowners. By the early 1950s, “overabundance” and depredations on agricultural, range, and forest lands brought need for expanded harvests for population control."

    It must have been awesome to hunt in montana during the 50-60's.

    I think we should kill all the predators, go back to limited tags, shorter seasons and lease any public land that is farmable to farmers at half the rate but require them to leave 20% of the crop standing thru hunting season to keep game on the public land and off private. A population increase of 100% would be awesome.We can increase the hunting fee for everyone to Recover the lost revenue from less tags. Our car insurance rates will probably go up a bit due to the increase in people crashing in to deer but that's ok the economy is great. We can make a trophy tax for anything over 120" so that the fwp can defend itself from lawsuits from the sierra club and center for biological diversity when they say the the increased deer population and fwp management plan has caused loss of habitat to sage grouse, burrowing owl and maybe a rat or two..

    I would love to see fwp better manage mule deer, especially for age class. I simply will not shoot a mule deer that is not 4x4 or better.
    Last edited by Quackillr; 03-19-2017 at 11:00 AM.

  10. #10

    Default

    One thing they failed to mention in the 1950s.
    Name:  stats 001.jpg
Views: 533
Size:  44.4 KB
    Name:  go hunt 001.jpg
Views: 530
Size:  37.9 KB

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Laramie, WY
    Posts
    9,457

    Default

    That's funny stuff, blaming wolves in the Blackfoot valley for low elk numbers...really funny.

    Also odd that they don't mention the correlation of tanking elk populations in areas that have the most public lands...and the biggest increases where elk have sanctuary's on private land where they can avoid the 11 week, to 6 month, slaughter.

    Its Rocket Surgery....

    Funny too that we don't see the "trends" broken down by region for elk populations. I can guarantee that regions 1-3 are in a steep nose-dive. With shoulder seasons and more people hunting regions 4-7, I expect those areas to start the decline as well.

    Its a downhill race to 90K or less elk in Montana...what a wasted opportunity. Not a single area in the State is even close to carrying capacity....not even close.
    "...the world outside, which my brother and I soon discovered, was full of bastards, the number increasing rapidly the farther one gets from Missoula, Montana." -Norman Maclean

    "They were still so young they hadn't learned to count the odds and to sense they might owe the universe a tragedy"
    -Norman Maclean

  12. #12

    Default

    I guess I am confused. Were the 1950s and 1960s the good old days or not?
    Last edited by MTTW; 03-19-2017 at 12:41 PM. Reason: I forgot to smile

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Missoula, MT
    Posts
    157

    Default

    More limited entry units in Montana would likely result in more older age class deer, not more deer. I agree that high elk numbers are one of the biggest drivers effecting muley populations. There is only so much available food on the landscape. Especially during winter.

    The area of the state with the highest mule deer population (by far) also has the lowest elk populations (Region 7).
    Last edited by joelweb; 03-20-2017 at 05:28 AM.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Bozeman, MT
    Posts
    12,368

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by joelweb View Post
    More limited entry units in Montana would likely result in more older age class deer, not more deer. I agree that high elk numbers are one of the biggest drivers affecting muley populations. There is only so much available food on the landscape. Especially during winter.

    The area of the state with the highest mule deer population (by far) also has the lowest elk populations (Region 7).
    I've asked a lot of people who have studied the competition issues between mule deer and elk. Most are of the opinion that it is not a competition factor, given they have significantly different diets. Most think it is a habitat alteration/change issue where landscape practices are such that benefit what elk need and suppress what mule deer need, thus allowing for greater replacement by elk. They say it often appears as a competition issue, when it is really a response issue by each species reacting to what the changing landscape favors/disfavors.

    Interested if any of you read something more affirmative on elk v. mule deer competition that confirms it to be a competition issue rather than a response issue where elk are better suited to large landscape changes we are seeing?
    My name is Randy Newberg and I approved this post. What is written is my opinion, and my opinion only.

    "Hunt when you can. You're gonna run outta health before you run outta money."

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    glendive, MT
    Posts
    680

    Default

    It has been observed in many states/areas that when elk move in mule deer suffer. But as randy eludes too, mule deer are more browsers and elk grazers.

    There's an explanation but I don't think forage is it.

  16. #16

    Default

    Mule deer numbers here on the eastern side of the state have been on a steady decline for a few years now and I can promise you its not because of our small elk population we have over here. Some people blame the whitetail population growing and in the areas I hunt I have never seen a white tail yet the mule deer numbers continue to drop. We have had some bad winters and some drought years that haven't helped either. I personally think Montana needs to go to a draw system for mule deer for the 18 years and older group and from 12-17 years old be over the counter but that will never happen as the state wouldn't bring in as much money. I would also like to see the deer managed for each district vs. an entire region like is done now.

  17. #17

    Default

    My understanding is that elk have more plasticity in their diet selection. I would assume due to gut microbial communites in addition to morphology. Essentially they are better able to hit nutritional benchmarks in more different habitats.
    It's been a while since I've dug into literaure on this, but there are places where elk act more like a concentrate selector when that is the option. Another argument for an interaction is the social dominance of elk where winter range acreage is limited. Not saying I've got it figured, just adding some perspective's I'm familiar with.

  18. #18

    Default

    I think we have a couple of things going on in western Mt. I believe that elk compete with mule deer directly and indirectly. I believe that in lower numbers elk probably don't compete directly with mule deer as most studies find. I believe that in high numbers elk compete with every herbivore on the landscape. They eat or trample everything up to as high as they can reach on the junipers. If elk compete with beavers they certainly compete with mule deer. In some areas I am familiar with where elk are in high numbers they are absent from the public land during hunting season but are very present during spring and summer. Some hunters may not see this. I don't know of studies to back this up other than studies in Yellowstone that show that elk displace beavers.

    The second thing we have is unusually high numbers of predators ,mainly lions. In some areas that I have hunted for 4 decades lion numbers are many times higher than they were 20 years ago. Habitat is much better than average due to fires in the last 25 years. After the fires mule deer numbers grew significantly but in a couple of years female lions moved in and set up housekeeping. The deer population steadily drops until there is a small population of deer. At this point the lions start to travel further but the deer don't recover because now it only takes a few deer killed per year to keep the population down.
    Again many hunters don't see this because lion tracks will be absent from these areas during much of hunting season. You will see what is happening while trapping. Trappers catch many times more lions today than they did 20 years ago.
    Fwp is starting to wake up. They are studying mule deer to determine the problem. They are studying lions in and around Yellowstone Park. My guess is they will find what they found in the Bitterroot. They have several times as many lions as they thought they had.

    What they will do is next to nothing because the powers that be love their predators and they love selling deer tags and as long as we have eastern mt for deer we will keep buying tags.

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MTTW View Post
    I think we have a couple of things going on in western Mt. I believe that elk compete with mule deer directly and indirectly. I believe that in lower numbers elk probably don't compete directly with mule deer as most studies find. I believe that in high numbers elk compete with every herbivore on the landscape. They eat or trample everything up to as high as they can reach on the junipers. If elk compete with beavers they certainly compete with mule deer. In some areas I am familiar with where elk are in high numbers they are absent from the public land during hunting season but are very present during spring and summer. Some hunters may not see this. I don't know of studies to back this up other than studies in Yellowstone that show that elk displace beavers.

    The second thing we have is unusually high numbers of predators ,mainly lions. In some areas that I have hunted for 4 decades lion numbers are many times higher than they were 20 years ago. Habitat is much better than average due to fires in the last 25 years. After the fires mule deer numbers grew significantly but in a couple of years female lions moved in and set up housekeeping. The deer population steadily drops until there is a small population of deer. At this point the lions start to travel further but the deer don't recover because now it only takes a few deer killed per year to keep the population down.
    Again many hunters don't see this because lion tracks will be absent from these areas during much of hunting season. You will see what is happening while trapping. Trappers catch many times more lions today than they did 20 years ago.
    Fwp is starting to wake up. They are studying mule deer to determine the problem. They are studying lions in and around Yellowstone Park. My guess is they will find what they found in the Bitterroot. They have several times as many lions as they thought they had.

    What they will do is next to nothing because the powers that be love their predators and they love selling deer tags and as long as we have eastern mt for deer we will keep buying tags.
    I believe predators might be part of the problem out west but out here east there are very few lions in my area and the coyote population hasn't fluctuated that much. Yet deer numbers out here continue to drop. I work in western north Dakota 15-20 miles over the state line and you would be shocked at the number of deer compared to 15-20 miles east of there on the Montana side. The habitat hasn't changed in decades only thing different is North Dakota manages their deer population better.

  20. #20

    Default

    brockel, do you think hunter numbers are up in your area that far east?

  21. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MTTW View Post
    brockel, do you think hunter numbers are up in your area that far east?
    You know I honestly don't think the hunter number are up. You used to be able to drive down main street opening weekend and it would be full of out of state license plates at the bars around supper time. All the motels would be filled and they even used to have hanging poles at the motels. Now you do see some out of state plates but the streets aren't full and neither are the motels like they were even 10 years ago.

    Edited to add south of Baker down in the Custer National Forest around Ekalaka the hunter numbers are up way more than they used to be opening weekend. It is quite a sight to see all the vehicles in there over opening weekend. The deer take a pounding in that area
    Last edited by brockel; 03-19-2017 at 09:53 PM.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Fort Peck, MT
    Posts
    1,089

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brockel View Post
    I believe predators might be part of the problem out west but out here east there are very few lions in my area and the coyote population hasn't fluctuated that much. Yet deer numbers out here continue to drop. I work in western north Dakota 15-20 miles over the state line and you would be shocked at the number of deer compared to 15-20 miles east of there on the Montana side. The habitat hasn't changed in decades only thing different is North Dakota manages their deer population better.
    Definitely isn't the case for NE MT/NW ND.
    "I'll put some whiskey into my whiskey"

  23. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Schaaf View Post
    Definitely isn't the case for NE MT/NW ND.

    I agree and I believe that's why North Dakota does a good job by managing districts because deer numbers are so different from area to area rather than huge regions like Montana. How many square miles are in region 7 alone?

  24. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brockel View Post
    I personally think Montana needs to go to a draw system for mule deer for the 18 years and older group and from 12-17 years old be over the counter but that will never happen as the state wouldn't bring in as much money.
    I don't think money is really the biggest issue. The deer tag cost $16, and most of us would happily pay that much just in non-refundable drawing fees for an LE tag if it were to go to a draw (I'd be happy paying 3x that just for the current OTC tag). However, I don't think we are at that stage yet where we need to rescind the OTC tags and go to a draw.

    What we need to do first is take a serious look at all the B tags being sold! Drop this B tag BS and raise prices on the A tag to cover the loss. The increased cost of an A tag might keep a few from buying It, but I doubt it would matter that much, and the few that drop out likely aren't the committed hunters going deep after decent deer, but rather those shooting does and forkies from the road anyway.

  25. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by whiskeydog View Post
    I don't think money is really the biggest issue. The deer tag cost $16, and most of us would happily pay that much just in non-refundable drawing fees for an LE tag if it were to go to a draw (I'd be happy paying 3x that just for the current OTC tag). However, I don't think we are at that stage yet where we need to rescind the OTC tags and go to a draw.

    What we need to do first is take a serious look at all the B tags being sold! Drop this B tag BS and raise prices on the A tag to cover the loss. The increased cost of an A tag might keep a few from buying It, but I doubt it would matter that much, and the few that drop out likely aren't the committed hunters going deep after decent deer, but rather those shooting does and forkies from the road anyway.
    Totally agree the b tag need to be addressed. I wasn't talking money from resident tags because us residents don't pay our fair share and I think a raise in resident tag pricing should be done. I was talking about if Montana went to draw they would lose a lot of nonresident cash just from the reduction of tags.

    You say we are not to that stage yet but from the decline we have had in the last ten years im scared to see what the next ten years brings. Im not saying that the draw system is the only way to go but Montana seems to just keep pumping the tags out particularly b tags. Just going off memory but I believe there was 7500 b tags dished out in region 7. I wish they would put stipulations on them to where they can only be used on private ground or at least most of them that way.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •