I understand and agree with your point. I’d say that they accurate herd numbers trump most other numbers but it’s important to have complete data if possible.
We’re on the same page.
Montana General Season Structure Proposal
- Thread starter Gerald Martin
- Start date
We’re on the same page.
Flynarrow
Well-known member
October cows only on private lands sounds good BUT any landowner who is making money from elk or leased to an outfitter is not going to harass/shoot an elk herd off their private land before bulls are legal. A long time ago I gathered information from Colo and UT that had "ranching for wildlife" and many ranch managers were sure to hunt the land so elk never left the property....always providing a refugia on the property and never the core areas. Some even harassed public land elk onto their private ranches before the seasons began. More and more large MT landowners are making money from elk, so the theory of pushing them onto public via cow-only hunting is dubious IMO in many situations. Therefore, IMO, hardly a reason, in itself, to adjust elk seasons.
xcskier_hunter
Member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2020
- Messages
- 25
All they need to do is look at how Missouri uses their hunting app. Your tags and licenses are on the app, you notch your tag upon harvest, and then have until that night to fill out a "telecheck" (legacy name from when calling in was the only option), which includes county of harvest, private or public, antler circumference for bucks, and eyeball to nose length for does (can also select button buck). The time between notching the tag and telechecking could be adjusted to account for backcountry hunts too. I'm sure it's only a matter of time until the vast majority of Montana hunters opt for the app over paper tags. You can essentially track Missouri deer and turkey harvest LIVE with their setup.
Regarding the management plan I think it would be an improvement over the current season structure if improved quality is the goal. I'm a NR that hunts with all weapons although mostly archery hunts out west. Still, the shortened archery season would not really affect me other than the potential for higher hunter densities in a slightly condensed season.
I do wonder if in the future it could make sense to offer hunters that want more "opportunity" the option to pick your weapon, and, for example, be able to bow hunt only for both mule deer and whitetails in October/November (and I do recognize that you can bow hunt during rifle seasons). However, I believe if you select this option you should forgo any opportunity to rifle hunt and in offering this opportunity the total number of tags should remain constant in areas where tags are limited. Minnesota does this with turkeys where if you opt to archery hunt your tag is valid for the whole season but shotgun tags are good for set time intervals within the overall season (and Montana already does this with antelope where you forgo rifle hunting if you choose to bowhunt, though the seasons do not overlap). I recognize part of the issue is hunter pressure in general though, particularly on public land, and thus giving animals breaks from all hunting also makes sense.
Regarding the management plan I think it would be an improvement over the current season structure if improved quality is the goal. I'm a NR that hunts with all weapons although mostly archery hunts out west. Still, the shortened archery season would not really affect me other than the potential for higher hunter densities in a slightly condensed season.
I do wonder if in the future it could make sense to offer hunters that want more "opportunity" the option to pick your weapon, and, for example, be able to bow hunt only for both mule deer and whitetails in October/November (and I do recognize that you can bow hunt during rifle seasons). However, I believe if you select this option you should forgo any opportunity to rifle hunt and in offering this opportunity the total number of tags should remain constant in areas where tags are limited. Minnesota does this with turkeys where if you opt to archery hunt your tag is valid for the whole season but shotgun tags are good for set time intervals within the overall season (and Montana already does this with antelope where you forgo rifle hunting if you choose to bowhunt, though the seasons do not overlap). I recognize part of the issue is hunter pressure in general though, particularly on public land, and thus giving animals breaks from all hunting also makes sense.
Last edited:
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Should also add that I can anecdotally think of times where harvest would matter. I remember reading/hearing somewhere about an early heavy snow pushing elk out of the Bob and it was a turkey shoot on public land WMA. ever since, they has had trouble getting elk to migrate back to that WMA. I think the bio mentioned something about shooting the "lead" cows that knew the route or something. Those that migrated to nearby private continued to do so and there was continuing game damage problems. Someone else more familiar with the situation can correct my mistakes on this story.
The main reason for adjusting elk seasons is to get rid of the overlap of elk and mule deer seasons. There are a lot of mule deer killed by opportunistic elk hunters that happen to have a deer tag in their pocket. It will also spread out hunter pressure.
Challenge for counts via aerial is garbage for R1. Buzz has also referred to FWP 's failure to conduct surveys via aerial.
When I view counts for R1, almost every year they comment aerial unavailable due to maintenance and (or) flat out helo was unavailable - thus they base (gu)estimated counts primarily on volunteered response to answered calls during phone surveys.
At the same time, if people actually attend/listened to the past or current meeting, they (FWP) do not have funding issues...
Tell that to the underpaid Wardens, etc...
This is why it may sound as though this is not an issue - that's based on your impression from your area.
When I view counts for R1, almost every year they comment aerial unavailable due to maintenance and (or) flat out helo was unavailable - thus they base (gu)estimated counts primarily on volunteered response to answered calls during phone surveys.
At the same time, if people actually attend/listened to the past or current meeting, they (FWP) do not have funding issues...
Tell that to the underpaid Wardens, etc...
This is why it may sound as though this is not an issue - that's based on your impression from your area.
This was one thing I noticed while listening….
They’d comment about hunter surveys being expensive and aerial flights being expensive but then they came right out later and said that the budget is not an issue and that it doesn’t prevent them from conducting any necessary biological work and they are not lacking funding.
Interesting
FWP does not set their budget. The Legislature does. If you want more wardens, biologists and better pay, you need to be talking to your legislators.
The other reason that elk are included is to improve hunter success rates on public land, which currently stand at 20% for all elk. That increase in hunter pressure (more days to kill) is detrimental to all three species in terms of pressuring them and having animals select refugia over public lands and available private.
The other reason that elk are included is to improve hunter success rates on public land, which currently stand at 20% for all elk. That increase in hunter pressure (more days to kill) is detrimental to all three species in terms of pressuring them and having animals select refugia over public lands and available private.
My point was that during the meeting they said they have plenty of money and budget isn’t a deterrent yet they are not keen on spending money on these other things. (Surveys, etc)
It gives the appearance that there is not much importance placed on gaining better data.
I didn't take that away from the discussion. Their point was "at some point we're over-egging the pudding with research." meaning they have the data, and more isn't going to necessarily provide better data.
They also have to budget long term based on projected revenue, so putting millions into ongoing efforts above and beyond what they've already mapped out is a pretty significant issue.
Interesting that we have different take aways from it. I understood them to say they didn’t have complete data and that was the reasoning behind the discrepancies between their models and the numbers that came from the limited hunter numbers for example.
There were multiple times where it was mentioned that they just didn’t have data and had to extrapolate and tease data based off harvest numbers.
Perhaps I missed it. Either way I’m of the opinion that the more data the better.
Keep up the good work
Not intended in facetious manner.
I was advised they use the hunter phone surveys for R1 because they don't have a helicopter that works or available for aerial surveys... This is backed by their population assessment of R1 that notates helicopter maintenance issue / unavailable. This if for biological studies to understand population - hense the reason used elsewhere - at the same time THEY said they are adaquately funded for this data information collection. You say it's legislature though legislature listening to a department say they are funded is to me an oxymoron.
Visiting Hunter
Well-known member
I can say my opinions on what I think need to happen research wise, are pretty much down to fawn recruiting efforts. I have been enjoying the conversations so far. Agree with them or disagree it's still engaging encouraging conversations.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Montana is years behind WY on migration data too. It wasn't until the first positive CWD test that they started putting more collars on deer. When I talked to the bio he literally said "Almost none of the deer migrated to where we thought they would."
Right on, there is a book called "Wild Migrations" based on ungulates in WY, and it was eye opening on the data collected and how conservation measures were implemented to protect the resources.
Fwp has to want to do it too. Few years ago when the mule deer foundation was still going down here they wanted to donate money for gps collars for mule deer. Biologist was all for it. Regional office said no thanks
I fear a lot of us forget to listen to what the FWP folks are offering, instead we are focused on making them hear us. If you're open to it, give the social and statistical presentations from yesterday an ear and some thought.
Last edited:
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,614
From different guys I’ve spoken to in Sonora Mx the deer there will moved by rain, 30-70 miles no problem. Greens up the deer go there, bet eastern Mt would find similar happenings.
