Beaverhead/ Deerlodge area for mule deer

[Ronin75]

anyone have any experience hunting Montana unit 331 for mule deer, I'm looking at an area near Apex / Dillon. I'm a nonresident trying to get some general info about the area, any help would be greatly appreciated. I'm trying to avoid going to my regular spot in Eastern Montana and stay close to relatives in the Dillon area.

 

[sneakypete]

May want to call the region office and speak with the area biologist.

 

[SteveE]

May want to call the region office and speak with the area biologist.

And when you do ask them what the heck they are thinking allowing either sex mule deer on a general tag in an area whose population is way, way below historical averages.

Either out of touch with what it once was or caving to a wealthy land owner or local politician who has a dozen does raiding the hay stack.

I would love to hear how a educated biologist could come up with that recommendation.

Its as good as any general tag, western MT unit right now. Grew up hunting the area. PM me any specific questions you have.

 

[antlerradar]

And when you do ask them what the heck they are thinking allowing either sex mule deer on a general tag in an area whose population is way, way below historical averages.

Either out of touch with what it once was or caving to a wealthy land owner or local politician who has a dozen does raiding the hay stack.

I would love to hear how a educated biologist could come up with that recommendation.

Its as good as any general tag, western MT unit right now. Grew up hunting the area. PM me any specific questions you have.

Or it could be that the biologist transferred in form SE Montana where the philosophy is opportunity first, hunters will self regulate if the population is in free fall.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Or it could be that the biologist transferred in form SE Montana where the philosophy is opportunity first, hunters will self regulate if the population is in free fall.

My understanding was that the bio made the recommendation based on habitat conditions.

 

[Mthuntinfool]

There arent nearly as many mule deer in that district as there used to be. The last few winters were pretty hard on them, unless you have friends or family living in the area I would try somewhere more productive as a NR. Just my 2 cents

 

[Deleted member 20812]

And when you do ask them what the heck they are thinking allowing either sex mule deer on a general tag in an area whose population is way, way below historical averages.

Either out of touch with what it once was or caving to a wealthy land owner or local politician who has a dozen does raiding the hay stack.

I would love to hear how a educated biologist could come up with that recommendation.

Its as good as any general tag, western MT unit right now. Grew up hunting the area. PM me any specific questions you have.

Actually, the biologist for that area is a native Montana from Harlowtown, and is both an avid hunter and advocate for the average Joe. I think it's safe to say he certainly knows what the area once was, as he and I have personally conversed about it.

 

[sneakypete]

Geez, I opened a can of worms.

 

[Big Fin]

And when you do ask them what the heck they are thinking allowing either sex mule deer on a general tag in an area whose population is way, way below historical averages.

Either out of touch with what it once was or caving to a wealthy land owner or local politician who has a dozen does raiding the hay stack.

I would love to hear how a educated biologist could come up with that recommendation.

Its as good as any general tag, western MT unit right now. Grew up hunting the area. PM me any specific questions you have.

A 15-page justification accompanied this recommended change. The justification seems to explain that this change has to do with eroding habitat quality. A few excerpts from that document are provided below.

We recognize there is some degree of skepticism regarding this harvest strategy and are committed to maintaining a detailed monitoring program to evaluate the responses relative to five hypothesis related to the aforementioned management goals:

1) The level of general license antlerless harvest will not become the primary population
driver. Annual forage and weather conditions, competition for resources with other ungulates, and
predation will remain the primary short-term population drivers, while habitat trend will remain
the primary long-term population driver;

2) Post-season total, yearling, and adult buck: doe ratios will increase, as will the percent of
older age-class bucks in the harvest;

3) Sustained antlerless harvest will improve fawn recruitment by reducing winter resource
competition and the percentage of female deer entering an older and less productive age class;

4) Autumn snow accumulation will influence mule deer concentration and accessibility by hunters and
antlerless harvest will be better paired with the onset of severe winters, when harvest is expected
to be most compensatory (i.e. increased harvest prior to elevated natural mortality events);

5) Antlerless harvest opportunity will facilitate increased harvest on private lands, which will
reduce public land harvest pressure and more effectively address game damage through
the general hunting season.

Habitat
We maintain that mule deer habitat across southwest Montana has been altered by conifer expansion facilitated by a century of fire suppression and decades of excessive ungulate browsing (If you are interested in photos showing this succession, please contact us.) These impacts are most noticeable across winter habitats. Conifer expansion has replaced important browse species such as curl-leaf mountain mahogany, sagebrush, rabbit brush, mountain maple, aspen, deciduous shrubs, and forbs. As browse reduction has occurred, we have attempted to continue grow mule deer and moose populations and successfully increased elk population. This combination has intensified use of browse plants and facilitated retrogression of much of the available curl-leaf mountain mahogany (photos available), aspen, mountain maple, chokecherry, and current within winter habitats. We suspect these long-term habitat trends have influenced long-term mule deer declines across the EMA. A telling trend is that of fawn recruitment. As the population has trended down, fawn recruitment has declined. From the early 1970s through the mid 1980s, the average annual recruitment ratio across the EMA was 54 fawns: 100 adults. Over the past 10 years, the average annual recruitment ratio was 40: 100 – a 26% reduction.
Another telling trend is the diminishing peak populations during favorable periods (Figure 4), and the lack of population increase facilitated by very restrictive antlerless harvest from 2010 through 2015. Antlerless mule deer harvest was reduced measurably each biennium until all antlerless harvest was removed in 2014 (Figure 2). This 6-year window did not facilitate any growth in mule deer populations (Figure 4). From 2010 through 2013, the population showed a 26% reduction. From 2013 through 2016, the population showed annual growth of 3%, 6%, and 6%. However, the population remained 14% lower than 2010, when restrictive antlerless harvest began. Following implementation of the either-sex harvest opportunity in 2016, the population grew by 20% relative to the previous year. This trend suggests that regulated antlerless harvest is not the lone influencer of mule deer population trend.

 

[SteveE]

That is interesting - the thought process. It feels backward but my education is in engineering.

If the BIOLOGIST feels this may help then I am all for giving it a chance.

Wyoming has antlered mule deer on public, any mule deer on private. Wish MT would consider this if we want to thin the does.

 

[HighWildFree]

Similar problem we have in fisheries. Density dependent decline. A trophy trout lake I worked on had a decreasing average size, angler harvest was something like 2-5%, natural mortality was creeping up to 40%. Basically it was too crowded and the fish were competing for food and space. No way could you convince the public to increase the the creel limit though. Catch and release has been great, but it can sometimes be a double edged sword. Harvesting more animals to increase numbers and size seems counterproductive but population dynamics can be pretty weird thing.

 

[antlerradar]

I understand how increasing the limit on fish in a public lake where there is access could work.
Deer are a different animal. What tends to happen is that deer or elk on the accessible public ground gets over harvested or the animals move to the other side of the fence. It is possible to see a decrease in public land numbers and an overall increase in deer numbers if the herd on private land increases. Nice to see an increase in numbers but if the increase is due to a big jump in the number of deer on private it doesn't give me cause for celebration.

 

[mdunc8]

How can harvesting a species (e.g., rainbow trout in your lake) increase abundance AND condition of the same species (e.g., rainbow trout in your lake)?

 

[SteveE]

It is possible to see a decrease in public land numbers and an overall increase in deer numbers if the herd on private land increases. Nice to see an increase in numbers but if the increase is due to a big jump in the number of deer on private it doesn't give me cause for celebration.

+1 this is the problem I see.

What are the negatives of antlered mule deer on public, any mule deer on private?
Whitetail does allowed on public and private.

 

[HighWildFree]

I understand how increasing the limit on fish in a public lake where there is access could work.
Deer are a different animal. What tends to happen is that deer or elk on the accessible public ground gets over harvested or the animals move to the other side of the fence. It is possible to see a decrease in public land numbers and an overall increase in deer numbers if the herd on private land increases. Nice to see an increase in numbers but if the increase is due to a big jump in the number of deer on private it doesn't give me cause for celebration.

I agree. It's an imperfect analogy. There is no sex-biased harvesting of trout nor do trout respond to pressure the same way ungulates do. The argument being made for increased antler-less harvest is that the loss of winter habitat is the restrictive factor on population. Because ungulates in the west have large habitat requirements and utilize different patches seasonally, it's possible that deer are protected on private land, and then move on to winter range after the season and increase competition for a small space, leading to reduced fitness and lower fawn recruitment. I don't know the area to say whether that management plan is sound or not. But I think I understand the science that is being used to justify it.

How can harvesting a species (e.g., rainbow trout in your lake) increase abundance AND condition of the same species (e.g., rainbow trout in your lake)?

Fish populations are limited largely by food and space. If you have too many fish they start competing with one another for food and space because there isn't enough to go around. So fish that can't get enough food either die, or what usually happens is that they get just enough food to survive at the expense of all the other fish. Now if you remove that fish, through harvest the portion of space and food that that fish consumed is now available to the other fish and there's a slight in condition (obviously you repeat this on a larger scale and you see a notable change). As for abundance, healthier, fitter fish produced more, bigger, and better offspring. Now if those offspring are born into an overpopulated lake they could be cannibalized by the adults (food limited) or out-competed by adults and their cohorts (space/food limited). If your young aren't surviving at least replacement rate, population crashes.

Hopefully that made some sense and isn't as convoluted and disjointed as I think it sounds.

 

[Big Fin]

Here's the contact list for Region 3.

http://fwp.mt.gov/regions/r3/directory.html?lastName=&fwpRegion=3&fwpDivision=ANY

 

[mdunc8]

Without changing one of the limiting factors (e.g., predation by other species, spawning habitat, food, etc.), simply killing fish isn't going to magically create more, bigger fish of the same species.