I don’t get to post anymore but shed god has some good thoughts. I respect some of the guys that came up with the proposal some of the others I don’t. I don’t see a good path forward without nonresident caps, maybe even resident caps no matter what date the season falls on.
Montana General Season Structure Proposal
- Thread starter Gerald Martin
- Start date
antlerradar
Well-known member
I agree, two track road going from Private to Public, Two lane highway going from Public to Private. The number of nice bucks the outfitter has shot out of our neighbors hay fields is staggering. Some of those bucks I located during the summer as much as five miles away deep into public during the summer.
On the other hand an outfitter that wants to manage will benefit. The biggest threat to him is not the low deer density public land, but the neighbor with a bunch of does and a business model of shooting every nice four point that shows up.
The biggest mule deer I have seen in recent years, perhaps ever. likely survived by living on property with zero hunting during the season.
Last edited:
huntin24/7
Well-known member
Regardless of whether the bucks spend more time on private or public during the rut, if rifle season is closed during the rut, those bucks are less vulnerable. A pre rut rifle hunt still gives ample opportunity for guys willing to put in some effort, but it doesn’t make it so easy for everyone driving around in the last few weeks of November to blast every dumb muley buck with his nose up a does ass 200 yards off the road. Nothings perfect but I like the compromise these guys came up with.
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 2,529
huntin24/7
Well-known member
I’d be curious to know at what point the mule deer population trajectory gets as much consideration as the deer hunter surveys that show hunters wanting opportunity at all cost.
8andcounting
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2013
- Messages
- 3,401
The main thing fwp doesn’t seem to understand is that ok , maybe the harvest and numbers of deer are about the same , but the harvest amount in certain areas , public , is much higher
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,643
How many deer get killed is a terrible way to gauge herd health. It doesn’t factor in the reality that it now takes more days with much better technology and mobility to kill the same amount of deer as back in the ‘80’s when blue jeans, 200 yard rifles, paper maps and easy hunting access were the norm.
Put 250,000 hunters in the field for five weeks and the folks who want to kill a deer are going to kill one, whether the population of deer is 300,000 or 3 million.
Put 250,000 hunters in the field for five weeks and the folks who want to kill a deer are going to kill one, whether the population of deer is 300,000 or 3 million.
8andcounting
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2013
- Messages
- 3,401
Right , where is more of a concern
antlerradar
Well-known member
Those of us that hunted the 80's were not that primitive. My rifle was more than capable of shooting well beyond two hundred yards if I guessed the range correctly. Everything else is spot on.
From a guy that has yet to update his set up since the late 80's.
8andcounting
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2013
- Messages
- 3,401
Best thing that could happen is the worst winter ever and kill all the deer and start over
...or....
Muleyassassin406
New member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2024
- Messages
- 12
Do what Saskatchewan does and not allow any non res to hunt mule deer!!!!! That’s the best idea yet...or....
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,643
How does Saskatchewan fund its Fish and Game department?
Muleyassassin406
New member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2024
- Messages
- 12
I’d be willing to bet Google will give you that answer! My first guess is that they are probably not completely money hungry… non res will still buy elk bear and whitetail tags by the thousands I’d doubt it would generate that much of a revenue loss and if it does raise resident mule deer licenses to 50 bucks a person and it would probably cover the loss
Carnage2011
Well-known member
That’s some interesting back of the napkin math right there!
Muleyassassin406
New member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2024
- Messages
- 12
I know right! had some ketchup on it too
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,643
As you probably guessed, I’m less concerned about how Saskatchewan funds their game department than I am with how MT would fund ours if NR’s were cut out of hunting deer and elk. NR license dollars make up over 70% of MT FWP’s budget.
Unless you’re willing to have general fund (taxes) money become part of FWP’s funding model or see resident license fees quadruple don’t expect to see MT FWP entertain the idea of excluding NR’s.
Good luck with getting the MT legislature to pass either of those funding models.
Unless you’re willing to have general fund (taxes) money become part of FWP’s funding model or see resident license fees quadruple don’t expect to see MT FWP entertain the idea of excluding NR’s.
Good luck with getting the MT legislature to pass either of those funding models.
Last edited:
Carnage2011
Well-known member
This has been a pretty good thread, so let's keep it that way. There is no chance we get rid of NR deer licenses, so we don't need to waste time talking about it.
