Montana General Season Structure Proposal

[Ben Lamb]

Aren’t the 17,000 NR combos shared between the Big Game Combo and Elk Combo? Theoretically, couldn’t the legislature help by turning all 17,000 NR licenses into Elk Combos only and price them at the current Big Game combo price (not much more than the elk combo anyway)? That strategy would result in a slight increase of funding (assuming they sell all 17,000, a virtual certainty) and then save all that pressure on the Nov mule deer killed as incidental take on a NR elk hunt.

I realize getting solutions out of the legislature is a steep hill to climb. This idea of the Big Game Combo is just an archaic concept, though. There’s no other correlation in other states. I’m a NR and this just feels like a piece of low-hanging fruit if there exists a few legislators who actually care about the mule deer resource.

Alright, @Ben Lamb slap my rose-colored glasses off my face and shoot holes in my optimism.

The B10 big game combination license has 17,000 licenses statutorily approved. The elk combo are within those 17K, which is also how fewer than 17K deer licenses had been sold under the old system.

 

[rmyoung1]

The B10 big game combination license has 17,000 licenses statutorily approved. The elk combo are within those 17K, which is also how fewer than 17K deer licenses had been sold under the old system.

I guess what I’m asking is: Would there ever be a legislative appetite for ditching the current B10 definition for a new idea that makes the B10 an Elk Combo license only? Retaining the current B10 Big Game Combo price would preserve the funding and save mule deer bucks from being hammered as a consolation prize.

I’m not sure of the final numbers on how those B10 licenses shake out. (Is it 50-50 Big Game Combo vs Elk Combo? 70-30?) But whatever it is, I would think that getting a legislative overhaul to the B10 concept would have to save a few thousand mule deer bucks annually (my guess).

 

[cgasner1]

I guess what I’m asking is: Would there ever be a legislative appetite for ditching the current B10 definition for a new idea that makes the B10 an Elk Combo license only? Retaining the current B10 Big Game Combo price would preserve the funding and save mule deer bucks from being hammered as a consolation prize.

I’m not sure of the final numbers on how those B10 licenses shake out. (Is it 50-50 Big Game Combo vs Elk Combo? 70-30?) But whatever it is, I would think that getting a legislative overhaul to the B10 concept would have to save a few thousand mule deer bucks annually (my guess).

That’s a band aid solution when we need stitches. It’s not just nr that are hurting the deer in November. Splitting the elk from mule deer seems like about the only solution to me at this point.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I guess what I’m asking is: Would there ever be a legislative appetite for ditching the current B10 definition for a new idea that makes the B10 an Elk Combo license only? Retaining the current B10 Big Game Combo price would preserve the funding and save mule deer bucks from being hammered as a consolation prize.

Appetite - yes.

Ability - not as much

Here is why:

87-2-505. Class B-10--nonresident big game combination license, MCA

archive.legmt.gov

MCA 87-2-505 establishes the B10 big game combination license. Out of that license, 28.5% goes into the Hunting Access Account, which pays for Block Management and Habitat MT, among other programs. The B11 also have a 28.5% allocation to the Hunter Access Account, as does the lion's share of the Base Hunting License from NRs (10 out of $15) and 20% of the resident base hunting license goes to the account.

The issue that comes up is that when the statute changes to eliminate the current structure, the grandfathering of these laws to ensure no diversion of conservation dollars away from management of wildlife (the USFWS determines what is a diversion, so this is an issue related to both federal funding - which is a massive portion of the FWP budget) as well as protecting dollars meant for wildlife so they stay with wildlife rather than get raided by legislatures looking for some fast cash. That protection is lost or severely weakened when you remove the ability to allocate where those funds go.

So - the trade off is you hand politicians a lot more control over your access and conservation programs, but you change the combo so that it's only deer or elk (which most folks would prefer, I would wager). Having that kind of dedicated funding was a long, hard won battle and so folks do not want to see it get thrown out because of a trend towards inhospitality to non-residents.

 

[rmyoung1]

That’s a band aid solution when we need stitches. It’s not just nr that are hurting the deer in November. Splitting the elk from mule deer seems like about the only solution to me at this point.

Agreed. To be clear, I’m a fan of the proposal. My thought was that a legislative tweak to the B10 concept might be able to save a few thousand mule deer bucks right off the top before anyone started rolling up the sleeves any further. As Ben stated above, though, it’s complicated (of course).

 

[Gerald Martin]

Trying to ever get the Legislature to make FWP sell less tags than currently allowed by the 23,600 B-10 and B-11 licenses is probably a bridge too far. It’s not a fight I think we’d ever win.

Getting a reduction of boots on the ground while allowing for the same number of tags to be sold to fewer people would be a huge win in my opinion. Even if it didn’t equate to less deer being killed it would equate to less pressure during hunting season and would be an improvement in perceived quality of hunters experience.

 

[SAJ-99]

Trying to ever get the Legislature to make FWP sell less tags than currently allowed by the 23,600 B-10 and B-11 licenses is probably a bridge too far. It’s not a fight I think we’d ever win.

Getting a reduction of boots on the ground while allowing for the same number of tags to be sold to fewer people would be a huge win in my opinion. Even if it didn’t equate to less deer being killed it would equate to less pressure during hunting season and would be an improvement in perceived quality of hunters experience.

Ever think of proposing the blatantly obvious and having FWP do the LE draws first and then assigning winners the appropriate critter tag? I assume that not getting an LE tag is what is driving all the returns.

@Ben Lamb explaining the MT tag system and how the money works. I think he is one of three people alive that understand it fully. He probably had a hand in creating it.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Ever think of proposing the blatantly obvious and having FWP do the LE draws first and then assigning winners the appropriate critter tag? I assume that not getting an LE tag is what is driving all the returns.

@Ben Lamb explaining the MT tag system and how the money works. I think he is one of three people alive that understand it fully. He probably had a hand in creating it.

View attachment 346719

Then MT would lose out on that 20% fee for returning it. Id rather increase fees, and not resell the returned tags.

 

[SAJ-99]

Then MT would lose out on that 20% fee for returning it. Id rather increase fees, and not resell the returned tags.

I think the group was clear they (at least most members) proceeded forward with the goal of working within the confines of reality, both social acceptable and budgetary.

 

[mukbowhunt]

You can turn your elk in as well for a refund, then that can get resold as an elk combo.

Copy.

 

[Elktrack]

It’s not just nr that are hurting the deer in November.

Kudos for saying it. It’s hard for most to admit that they (Residents) are part of the problem.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Kudos for saying it. It’s hard for most to admit that they (Residents) are part of the problem.

Do you prefer to hunt them not during the rut?

 

[Sytes]

We talked about splitting up the comb for this very reason when I was on the licensing and funding CAC for this very reason. When it was pointed out that doing so could potentially double the number of NR in the field, the idea died quickly.

Average Resident MT Joe hunter question and one who believes we need to upcharge our Resident tag fee:
10% on limited areas as a NR.
A combo tag for general is a free for all up to 17,000 total limited and general tags sold or? I've never applied as a NR for MT to know.

 

[Elktrack]

Honestly I’ve only had the opportunity to hunt mule deer during the rut once. I’d definitely prefer hunting them during the rut if I could though.
I’m all for splitting season up for the good of the resource though.

 

[antlerradar]

Ever think of proposing the blatantly obvious and having FWP do the LE draws first and then assigning winners the appropriate critter tag? I assume that not getting an LE tag is what is driving all the returns.

In MT that would be taking a large can of worms and dividing it into two smaller cans.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I think the group was clear they (at least most members) proceeded forward with the goal of working within the confines of reality, both social acceptable and budgetary.

I dont think its too far of a leap. Outfitters are noticing the quality decay. Landowners are sick of a flood of hunters. DIY hunters are sick of the excess pressure.

The largest thing thats changed from 10 years ago is the dramatic explosion in NR deer hunters. Despite all the conversations we have about R hunter numbers growing or transplants moving here - basically flat at 140k tags.

 

[Ben Lamb]

The largest thing thats changed from 10 years ago is the dramatic explosion in NR deer hunters (from the earlier graphic).

Over the course of the last 10 years, the increase in resident hunter pressure equals 18,000 more NR hunters.

NR antlerless deer license drove a lot of those numbers along with reselling the orphaned deer tags. The antlerless issue has been taken care of. Let's look at 2024-2026 data before deciding to kill the golden goose.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Over the course of the last 10 years, the increase in resident hunter pressure equals 18,000 more NR hunters.

NR antlerless deer license drove a lot of those numbers along with reselling the orphaned deer tags. The antlerless issue has been taken care of. Let's look at 2024-2026 data before deciding to kill the golden goose.

Oh - from those surveys? I'm plenty skeptical of the data there to say the least.

To add - im skeptical of even the honest answers ive tried to provide them - especially on the short notice of a phone call. I could go through my google timeline, pictures, or anything else to have figured out days in the field if i was filling an online survey out. Do you remember all the bear hunting you did 9 months ago? Does camping with your in laws, having a bear tag, and rifle count?

 

[antlerradar]

Average Resident MT Joe hunter question and one who believes we need to upcharge our Resident tag fee:
10% on limited areas as a NR.
A combo tag for general is a free for all up to 17,000 total limited and general tags sold or? I've never applied as a NR for MT to know.

Ben could likely explain this better than me. but here goes. MT sells 17,000 combo licenses, Off the top of my head I can't remember all that is included, but the biggys are Elk A tag, Deer A tag and upland bird. Mt also sells Deer combo licenses that do not include the elk A tag. It all worked fairly well back thirty years ago when there wasn't any limited entry and when an eastern deer hunt was not the only place people wanted to hunt deer. Now people that want to hunt just deer or just elk game the system by putting in for a difficult to draw tag of the spices that they are not targeting and then when they do not draw they return that portion and FWP sells the unwanted part as a Deer or Elk combo.

 

[SAJ-99]

In MT that would be taking a large can of worms and dividing it into two smaller cans.

Isn’t what is happening now creating the two smaller cans? I understand it is about the $$$, which is why they can’t stop the resell, but if you want to stop the return madness, just flip the drawing sequence.