Public Lands Ranch: SE Montana with no photos!

The issue is further complicated when Federal lands are part of the equation. The NR is an American citizen, owning just as much of the federal land as the resident.

From a wildlife management stand point, Federal Land does not complicate the issue. This has been proven many times in court.

I think you are missing Mtnhunters point.
 
"I just wonder how long it will take for the generations of game animals to have a born instinct to migrate to the private, from the public, once the fall season closes in?"

This will be my 40th season hunting SE MT. In that time I have seen a lot of changes. One of the biggest is the movement of deer form public to private. When I first started hunting if was easier to find a mule deer back in the hills than on the river bottoms. My first, second and third bucks were small and shot on BLM. It wasn't because I didn't have access to private land. Back then I could hunt on just about any private land I wanted to. They were shot on public because that was where to find mule deer. My father guided hunters in the 60's and 70's. His hunters took dozens of great bucks. Virtually all of them were taken in the hills back off of the river. He only hunted the river bottoms if he was after whitetails.
My have things changed. Now the river bottom hay field are full of mule deer and the hills are nearly deer less. Last week I took a two or three mile walk through some public that I hunted as a teenager. Back them there was great hunting there. I always saw deer and often some good bucks. Last week I could count the piles of deer poop with my fingers. There are still some deer there, just not very many. Four miles away on the private you can see multiple groups of a dozen or more.
So to answer your question. The exodus is all ready happening. I have often posted that bucks will leave public to rut with the does on private.
They say a picture is worth a 1000 words so here is pictures of three buck that showed up to check out the does on the private in the last five days. A friend of mine saw the first buck on public while hunting elk in Oct a long three miles from where I took the pictures. The other two bucks just showed up, Where they came from, I don't know but there is a very good chance that they left the Public Lands Ranch for the Private Ranch. There is also a very good chance that they will not be coming back to the Public Ranch. Some one that is willing to pay to hunt the Private Ranch is likely to shoot them. Most likely right from the truck.

I have come to the conclusion that the natural progression of management for opportunity will ultimately take us to complete commercialization of the Private Ranch and tragedy of the commons on the Public Land Ranch.
 

Attachments

  • DSCN2213.jpg
    DSCN2213.jpg
    46.2 KB · Views: 1,005
  • DSCN2218.jpg
    DSCN2218.jpg
    44.3 KB · Views: 1,010
  • DSCN2223.jpg
    DSCN2223.jpg
    70.4 KB · Views: 1,024
46 years old and am a 3rd generation waterfowl hunter. Change is not lost on me, but it's a constant. The destruction of 90% plus of the prairie pot hole region happened, there's no reversing that clock. There's still habitat and birds to hunt but it's a fluid dynamic, it's not stagnant.

Critters have always favored less hunting pressure, be it on private or public. Don't disagree things are changing, but we are immensely blessed to have the amount of public land and the habitat we have left, coupled with good people fighting the good fight on the ground level through the divisions of wildlife and conservation organizations trying to protect habitat.

The regulations and access to tags, is an uphill battle, fighting repetitive 20/20 hind sight from critics. There's a heavy demand on the resource. Juggling opportunity, quantities and quality is like juggling 14 running chainsaws that are on fire, it's a difficult task not as easy as it is perceived to be.

After trying to manage 40 acres in northern Minnesota and dealing with the NRCS and our dnr with a sharptail grouse enhancement project through the whip program, their job is not an easy one and mother nature still controls all the wild cards. The on the ground techs and managers are great people! They didn't do a tremendous amount, but what they did was very helpful! The funds, time and machinery issues drive me up the wall, am constantly fixing or maintaining equipment. Gained a lot of respect for what they go through dealing with budget constraints, time issues, scheduling issues, and mother nature's fickle nature.

How seasons are setup and tags are allocated is a whole other pillow case full of old rusty nails to rest your head on. The compromise between tags for the masses or quality for the individual is a balancing act that is not easily solved and should not be anticipated to be so. It involves differing opinions, objectives and perceived realities, where obligations to each sides hoped for outcomes is impossible to achieve. I'm amazed Colorado or Montana, with the pressure on the mule deer herds hasn't implicated a point restriction on the deer like it does the elk in Colorado.

When my dad, who is 84, was born in southern Minnesota to 2 pure stubborn Swedes, shooting a Canada goose got you in the paper. Now they are so numerous and the season's so long and bag limits so high, it's hard to understand less than half a century ago shooting one was a huge deal. Whitetail numbers are so high and hunting opportunities so vast, it's hard to imagine. Wild turkeys are all over the north American continent, where they never had a historic range and hunting opportunities abound.
Not saying your thought process doesn't have merit, but the new age hunters, all be it peculiar to our traditions, are a good thing imo and if Randy and his crew have had a lasting impact on those numbers increasing giving us gray hairs a little stress because of the dynamic changing a bit, it is a good thing for wildlife and hunting moving forward. My dad and family have really liked to see the foodies and people who didn't come from long lines of hunters getting into the outdoors and harvesting their meat from start to finish. It gives them a new found respect for the food they consume and gives us a new allie, pier and well to quench our thirst from a vastly different perspective.

p.s sorry that was all over the map.
 
That's the story all over the state. I only buy a mule deer buck tag to apply for LE units. Very few good bucks are taken otc public land. It won't change in my hunting carrer but hopefully for my kids.
 
That's the story all over the state. I only buy a mule deer buck tag to apply for LE units. Very few good bucks are taken otc public land. It won't change in my hunting carrer but hopefully for my kids.
90% of the LE permits in MT suck. If you’re looking for good hunting for your kids in the future on public land for deer you might as well practice pissing up a rope.
 
"I'm amazed Colorado or Montana, with the pressure on the mule deer herds hasn't implicated a point restriction on the deer like it does the elk in Colorado."

Four point or better point restrictions are devastating to quality when it comes to mule deer. The reason it that four point or better shifts all of the hunting pressure to the bucks with the best potential in the herd. If you want to implement an antler point restriction with the goal of increasing quality you need to install a three point or less restriction. My bet is it would not be very popular.
 
Ya compared to other states they are poor for the most part. But are way better than an otc public land tag. I drew a LE buck tag last yr. In a middle of the pack unit. Passed 2 160 mulies and a couple 150ish bucks. Never done that on public otc
 
“I lost my cool and didn’t figure that you were legal with 23 mule deer laying on the ground whole and not skinned at your camp”


Oh, that didn’t strike you as normal?
 
Ya compared to other states they are poor for the most part. But are way better than an otc public land tag. I drew a LE buck tag last yr. In a middle of the pack unit. Passed 2 160 mulies and a couple 150ish bucks. Never done that on public otc

I can remember passing on more and better bucks in one day in the past.
 
"I'm amazed Colorado or Montana, with the pressure on the mule deer herds hasn't implicated a point restriction on the deer like it does the elk in Colorado."

Four point or better point restrictions are devastating to quality when it comes to mule deer. The reason it that four point or better shifts all of the hunting pressure to the bucks with the best potential in the herd. If you want to implement an antler point restriction with the goal of increasing quality you need to install a three point or less restriction. My bet is it would not be very popular.

Interesting.
 
I figured I would chime in on this one.

This will be my second year hunting Eastern Montana. Last year myself and my Montana resident buddy hunted it and loved the place. He moved there 10 years ago to play football at Carroll College and never left. Since his graduation we've slowly figured out small parts of the state together as his hunting was always limited with football. He now lives to hunt and eats wild game just about every night for dinner. He's damn near drunk with blood lust and playing catch up as far as learning how to hunt. So much so that he's blind to conservation at this point in his hunting career except when I bring him back down to earth.

I made the trip to his elk camp last weekend as I had the big game combo tag. I had already killed a 6 point bull in Wyoming which required a two day packout. So my willingness to hike into his hell holes with high winds and snow in the forecast was less than his. He went for it while I mentioned that since my hunt was short I'd shoot any legal elk if they wanted the meat since no elk tags were filled yet between him and his soon to be wife. After seeing elk but not being able to deal the deal We started to talk about our deer hunt and pre planning it. He mentioned how, "well even if we don't kill an elk we'll have 6 deer tags when we head east so we should be fine. He noticed my grimace and said "what". I mentioned "well let's try and somehow kill these does on private land." ...."why?"

"Well if the state of Montana has their way you guys will literally be wiping out herds of animals. Especially on public land. Just because Montana sells you the licenses, doesn't mean it's in your best interest to fill them all. I understand you wanting and needing meat. That's no problem. But from a management standpoint, it's tough to imagine 2 people killing 6 deer (3 of us killing 8) in our public land hunting spot in this day and age. Especially one we worked so hard to find and didn't see another hunter out of his vehicle last year."

Whether I'm right or if I'm wrong, that's how I feel about it. Montana needs to take a long look at their season structure in my unprofessional opinion. I think it's great that Montana hunters have the freedom to hunt these long seasons. But to have that freedom and be able to kill a staggering amount of animals each fall is enough to worry me about the longevity. Not to mention how cheap it truly is! Yes, I'm paying $700 to shoot a buck and a doe whitetail. But my buddy and his fiancé are paying less for all their deer tags combined, than I am for My doe whitetail tag! So while it is awesome, I worry about the longevity of this management plan.

To add just a bit more, the "opinion" that an antler restriction is Devastating to a herd is bogus. Wyoming went from an "any antlered deer" regulation to "three points or better" or "four points or better". There was initially some griping from the meat hunters but now that we're a few years into this in certain parts of the state, it's amazing at the quality of game, especially in flatter, desert terrain. EVERYBODY I've talked to loves the point restriction. Even the meat hunters riding around on 4 wheelers are having a better hunt. They're having to look over the two points that are easy targets. And they are still killing deer to feed their families, only now, they're bigger bodies more mature animals. It's amazing what great things will happen when the age structure of bucks increases.
 
I figured I would chime in on this one.

This will be my second year hunting Eastern Montana. Last year myself and my Montana resident buddy hunted it and loved the place. He moved there 10 years ago to play football at Carroll College and never left. Since his graduation we've slowly figured out small parts of the state together as his hunting was always limited with football. He now lives to hunt and eats wild game just about every night for dinner. He's damn near drunk with blood lust and playing catch up as far as learning how to hunt. So much so that he's blind to conservation at this point in his hunting career except when I bring him back down to earth.

I made the trip to his elk camp last weekend as I had the big game combo tag. I had already killed a 6 point bull in Wyoming which required a two day packout. So my willingness to hike into his hell holes with high winds and snow in the forecast was less than his. He went for it while I mentioned that since my hunt was short I'd shoot any legal elk if they wanted the meat since no elk tags were filled yet between him and his soon to be wife. After seeing elk but not being able to deal the deal We started to talk about our deer hunt and pre planning it. He mentioned how, "well even if we don't kill an elk we'll have 6 deer tags when we head east so we should be fine. He noticed my grimace and said "what". I mentioned "well let's try and somehow kill these does on private land." ...."why?"

"Well if the state of Montana has their way you guys will literally be wiping out herds of animals. Especially on public land. Just because Montana sells you the licenses, doesn't mean it's in your best interest to fill them all. I understand you wanting and needing meat. That's no problem. But from a management standpoint, it's tough to imagine 2 people killing 6 deer (3 of us killing 8) in our public land hunting spot in this day and age. Especially one we worked so hard to find and didn't see another hunter out of his vehicle last year."

Whether I'm right or if I'm wrong, that's how I feel about it. Montana needs to take a long look at their season structure in my unprofessional opinion. I think it's great that Montana hunters have the freedom to hunt these long seasons. But to have that freedom and be able to kill a staggering amount of animals each fall is enough to worry me about the longevity. Not to mention how cheap it truly is! Yes, I'm paying $700 to shoot a buck and a doe whitetail. But my buddy and his fiancé are paying less for all their deer tags combined, than I am for My doe whitetail tag! So while it is awesome, I worry about the longevity of this management plan.

To add just a bit more, the "opinion" that an antler restriction is Devastating to a herd is bogus. Wyoming went from an "any antlered deer" regulation to "three points or better" or "four points or better". There was initially some griping from the meat hunters but now that we're a few years into this in certain parts of the state, it's amazing at the quality of game, especially in flatter, desert terrain. EVERYBODY I've talked to loves the point restriction. Even the meat hunters riding around on 4 wheelers are having a better hunt. They're having to look over the two points that are easy targets. And they are still killing deer to feed their families, only now, they're bigger bodies more mature animals. It's amazing what great things will happen when the age structure of bucks increases.

Terrific post . I agree 100%
 
Several observations from our analysis of APR use in Wyoming and throughout the west are summarized below:
• APRs DO increase total buck:doe ratios; however results vary and are usually temporary.
• APRs are very popular with the hunting public. However public understanding of the
pros and cons appears to be limited, and is complicated by popular literature concerning
APRs.
• Most benefits occur in ≤ 3 years; use of APRs beyond this often appear to result in
negative impacts to both total buck ratios and mature buck ratios. Continued long term
use of APRs (≥3-4 years) may result in lower total male:female ratios.
• No APR strategy produced a long-term increase in adult (mature) male:female ratios, or
an increase in the number of adult bucks, except in a handful of cases where hunter participation declined significantly, coupled with good fawn production.
7
• Temporary APRs are most effective following a year of high fawn production and recruitment or when doe harvest is increased.
• Managers have found most effective way to recover from chronically low buck:doe ratios is through a dramatic reduction in harvest pressure on males ≥2 years of age (through a conservative limited quota season or very short season length). Available data also tends to support this.
• APRs have been shown to reduce the number and potentially the quality of mature bucks over time.
• Long-term use of APRs may target legal bucks that have not realized their full antler growth potential while protecting bucks with low antler growth potential (i.e., hunters select against legal bucks with smaller antlers). Although not validated by research, this is a concern among wildlife professionals and the public.
• APRs may dramatically reduce hunter participation, harvest success, and total harvest.
• APRs increase the number of deer shot and illegally left in the field; this can be
significant and has been documented in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and Montana.
• APRS do not increase fawn production or population size. Even in herds with single-
digit buck:doe ratios, pregnancy rates are well over 90%. Large increases in buck ratios result in relatively few additional fawns (White et al. 2001). The extent to which relative proportions of yearling and mature bucks influence timing of conception and fawn recruitment/survival needs further evaluation.
• Some APRs displace hunting pressure to the oldest age classes of bucks, gradually eroding that segment of the population. Others reduce recruitment to older age classes by displacing harvest pressure to yearling males.
• APRs may decrease interest of hunters whose primary motivation is to obtain meat.
• APRs may discourage beginning and young hunters by increasing the difficulty of
locating and identifying legal deer.
• Long-term use of APRs in areas with limited security/escape habitat potentially impedes maintenance of publically acceptable total and mature buck:doe ratios.
• Empirical studies of APR regulations have not been conducted. We recommend this become a priority research topic for the WAFWA.
• APRs should be viewed as a legitimate management tool in areas with chronically low male:female ratios provided they are applied on a time-limited basis. Managers and the public are cautioned that available data and experience suggest APRs result in no long term increase in either the proportion or number of mature bucks, or the total deer population.

https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/con...ive/MULEDEER_ANTLERPOINTREGS_REVIE0006790.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
To add just a bit more, the "opinion" that an antler restriction is Devastating to a herd is bogus. Wyoming went from an "any antlered deer" regulation to "three points or better" or "four points or better". There was initially some griping from the meat hunters but now that we're a few years into this in certain parts of the state, it's amazing at the quality of game, especially in flatter, desert terrain. EVERYBODY I've talked to loves the point restriction. Even the meat hunters riding around on 4 wheelers are having a better hunt. They're having to look over the two points that are easy targets. And they are still killing deer to feed their families, only now, they're bigger bodies more mature animals. It's amazing what great things will happen when the age structure of bucks increases.

So please tell me what Wyoming units are being improved by APRs? Also, it would be interesting to hear how killing only the biggest/oldest and bucks with most genetic potential helps a deer herd, much less long-term quality of a hunt.
 

While I respect their findings, I'm living in an area where "hopefully seeing a two point for the table" was the verbiage...to now people seeing, shooting, and missing mature bucks. Tales of 200" deer are being told and whether they're true or not it doesn't matter. Mature bucks are being seen whereas 7-10 years ago that wasn't the case.

I would argue that it would be very hard to cull the heard in the wrong direction with the "3 point or better regulation currently in place. I would also argue that maybe an antler point restriction isn't best for "trophy bucks" or "growing an overall population" but it is absolutely better for allowing deer to reach maturity, and an overall better hunt.

But if a camp of 23 deer being killed with all of them being does or immature bucks (just a guess) is what the resident Montana hunters want then that's for them to decide.
 
Look, you guys may very well be correct, and maybe I'm living in the "hot spot" of where this antler point restriction is working. I can't beat science. I'm just one guy with an opinion that may be wrong. The only boots on the ground FACT I have, is that the age structure and number of bucks increased since the introduction of the restriction. Long term, it may be garbage. But right now it's not and I can't help but think that if the two points were spared a year in eastern Montana, the groupings of "we couldn't find a buck over 2.5" would shrink.
 
Look, you guys may very well be correct, and maybe I'm living in the "hot spot" of where this antler point restriction is working. I can't beat science. I'm just one guy with an opinion that may be wrong. The only boots on the ground FACT I have, is that the age structure and number of bucks increased since the introduction of the restriction. Long term, it may be garbage. But right now it's not and I can't help but think that if the two points were spared a year in eastern Montana, the groupings of "we couldn't find a buck over 2.5" would shrink.

• APRs DO increase total buck:doe ratios; however results vary and are usually temporary.
APRs are very popular with the hunting public. However public understanding of the
pros and cons appears to be limited, and is complicated by popular literature concerning
APRs.
Most benefits occur in ≤ 3 years; use of APRs beyond this often appear to result in
negative impacts to both total buck ratios and mature buck ratios.
Continued long term
use of APRs (≥3-4 years) may result in lower total male:female ratios.
No APR strategy produced a long-term increase in adult (mature) male:female ratios, or
an increase in the number of adult bucks, except in a handful of cases where hunter participation declined significantly, coupled with good fawn production.

You mentioned your unit was several years into the APR regulation. I would expect you may very well see diminishing returns or a regression in the very near future.
 
Just Learning how to post a pic. Anway the buck above is somewhat of a legend between my brothers and I. My brother Ben Killed him on OTC Public Land. On BLM. I passed him up the year before (the sheds) prob 165. The buck no doubt had man lives. The public borderd private. which many know and understand only the kingmen can hunt. Which inturn allow some animals to mature. kinda like an LE tag. Limited hunters period. We all know, well some with common sense. MT FWP sucks at management. Its up to us to make a push for better quality hunts. could care less for myself for hunting in the future. Only care for my children's oppurtunity. wheather its LE or point restriction something must be done. Its up to us to ensure oppurtunity and quality. So guys with some pull step up. Iam no expert but will follow. Antlerradar cool you the man
 
PEAX Trekking Poles

Forum statistics

Threads
110,816
Messages
1,935,405
Members
34,888
Latest member
Jack the bear
Back
Top