It Sure Would Be Nice If......
Montana
It sure would be nice if bowhunters in Montana could take a buck during archery season as well as rifle season. Many other states with far fewer deer and far more hunters allow this. We pay for an archery stamp to be able to hunt during archery season, but rifle hunters do not have to purchase a "rifle stamp". I've never quite understood the logic there. Just thinking out loud here............
That may be the worst idea I have ever heard. Ya, let's let every now hunter shoot two deer and see what happens to the very few mature deer that we have. Good god, think about what you just suggested and if you still think it's a good idea go take some biology classes and reevaluate.
Also, to be fair you if you choose not to hunt outside the regular archery seasons you don't need to buy that special archery license. You buy the archery license to hunt in the archery season
Also, license fees in Montana are dirt cheap for residents and we have 10 weeks to hunt. If you want to shoot more than one deer go buy a doe tag. There is zero reason to shoot two bucks. ZERO. Or hunt an additional state and you can shoot another buck and it doesn't damage the already dismal deer hunting in Montana.
OK....so just wait around for EHD to hit again and we can sit in our stands and smell the deer rotting that we could be hunting. Or wait for another winter like 2012 and enjoy watching the coyotes eat real good. Or maybe if we want a second buck we can just pick one up off the side of the road.
Montana has dismal deer hunting? Ok...... I agree. It's horrible around here. Don't come...you'll be wasting your time. I only saw 40 deer with 12 of them being bucks the other night when I was in my stand.... It was absolutely dismal. :)
Taking a second buck in archery season would have very little impact on the population. I'm just guessing, but my guess is that the additional deer taken would be well under 1,000 statewide.
With all due respect, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
"OK....so just wait around for EHD to hit again..." That phrase sounds like an armchair wildlife manager / biologist proposing something on behalf of the wildlife resource.
Otherwise the rhetoric sounds like someone looking for more opportunity and self-centered. If truly concerned about the wildlife resource, then harvest more does. You already have the opportunity.
I'm not saying you can't see a lot of bucks. What I'm saying is there are few MATURE bucks around. Therefore, there is no reason to shoot more young deer.
Straight Arrow hit it on the head. It isn't like we have thousands of deer that are in their prime and EHD is going to wipe them out. Yes, that did happen several years ago, but the numbers are far from where they once were. If you really want to shoot a second deer why not shoot a doe?? I mean, they stink just as bad as a buck does when it dies from EHD.
But, I will agree to disagree on this one.
I kind of agree with both sides. I honestly think that hunting has very little affect on populations and hunting bucks even less so. Maybe a second buck would be ok provided it met a criteria? I don't know, I can't stand firmly on one side or the other. Certainly a good topic for debate and I would like to here more thoughts on this from everyone.
A little off topic but I was thinking we should open deer up with archery antelope as well. Another good discussion topic I think.
"I honestly think that hunting has very little affect on populations and hunting bucks even less so." Right off the bat, that statement reflects an opinion typically expressed by hunters looking for increased opportunity, but not knowledgeable regarding the factors which do effect wildlife populations. Just why do you think FWP sets quotas ... or even uses hunting as a wildlife management tool? Think about that initial statement, then do some reading.
'Don't know what criteria (plural of criterion) would be reasonable for a second buck, but that is an interesting thought. What would be your idea of a criterion.
There's a few areas where you can take another buck, these are usually private lands mostly, and usually whitetailed deer. Biologically there's nothing to support other areas opening up to more buck harvests.
How about you focus on the tag staying a general area tag and OTC? That would make a WHOLE LOT MORE SENSE.
"Otherwise the rhetoric sounds like someone looking for more opportunity and self-centered"
Isn't hunting always a self-centered pursuit? I don't hunt for anyone's enjoyment but my own, and opportunity is the name of the game. I certainly see both sides, but Montana has an abundance of game, and not everyone is looking to kill only whitetails or only mulies. There are many parts of the this state that could support an archery buck tag and a rifle buck tag. Or maybe you could just "go take some biology classes and reevaluate".
"There are many parts of the this state that could support an archery buck tag and a rifle buck tag." Another armchair wildlife manager FWP wannabee.
Or maybe you could just "go take some biology classes and reevaluate". I did that and that's why I value the solid wildlife information that is available.
Rhetorical question: Why kill all the bucks who grow over three points? The liberal buck harvests in most parts of the state are why the bucks don't mature.
Yeah, I'm not a biologist, and I'm not even sure that I would agree or disagree with the two buck idea but I do know that before 2012 we couldn't put a dent in the deer population with 8 tags each but 120 inches of snow and ehd brought the numbers to near zero in about 8 months.
If bowhunters could take one muley buck and one wt buck? Maybe? Draw only maybe? I don't know but honestly f&g manages more for revenue than it does biology.
And by the way I'm not looking for increased opportunity but if the numbers are there and can be sustained then why not?
SA,
How do you know what I have or haven't taken? Pretty presumptuous. Funny thing, not even biologists agree on numbers and tag setting, and often times they ask for (and value) the input from hunters and land owners. Why? Because we're the ones who spend the most time in the field studying and observing the various wildlife in question. I know the biologist for my area personally, and I can guarantee you he doesn't spend anywhere near the time in observation afield that I do. Regardless, your welcome to disagree with me all you want. That's one of the things that makes this country great. However, I stand by my previous statement: "There are many parts of the this state that could support an archery buck tag and a rifle buck tag."
'Not presuming anything about what deerslayer has or hasn't taken, my statements are more general.
Hunters who spend time in the field, as deerslayer evidently does, contribute good input to FWP that is valuable as "solid wildlife information", I agree.
It is those hunters across Montana who are reporting fewer mature bucks, and significantly fewer bucks generally considered trophy class.
It is generally only in those areas with limited buck tags, such as HD 312, that are seeing more mature bucks reaching trophy class status.
