Montana General Season Structure Proposal

[Elktrack]

The idea of giving half the NR tags to outfitters or making a whole bunch private land only tags is a slippery slope. This would inevitably be negative for the R too. Just watch how fast every acre of private gets locked up and is no longer available to residents. BMA’s become a thing of the past unless it’s piss poor ground and no one will pay for the access or worth outfitter locking it up.
I think the only way to limit without negative consequences is regional quotas.
If the NR are shooting too many MD does, limit the number of NR doe tags. FWP has the ability to tweak the numbers of tags but in order to do it they need to know who is killing what.
So again, this is where the data becomes so critical. Mandatory harvest reports are needed in a bad way.

 

[gunnersreview]

Good afternoon folks. We all know that the current status of mule deer in Montana is a topic of great interest and debate. Many folks who have hunted mule deer for decades have expressed frustration and alarm over the downward trend in both quantity of mule deer and quality of hunting experience under the status quo of mule deer management.

Back in February, a group of us met to discuss the future of mule deer after spending years complaining about it online. The group was comprised of volunteers from each region of Montana and included landowners, outfitters, public land hunters and folks with a lot of experience interacting with FWP and the Montana Legislature on wildlife management issues.

During that day long meeting, the group of 9 members of Hunt Talk discussed a variety of concerns ranging from season structure to predation to habitat issues.

There was unanimous consensus among the group that the health of mule deer and other wildlife resources must be priority in making management decisions. It was also unanimously agreed upon that our current management policies are no longer sustainable without causing degradation to mule deer.

Out of that conversation it was agreed upon that the lowest hanging fruit, and perhaps one of the most important to address was the way that Montana has structured it's general hunting seasons over the last 40 years.


Montana is an opportunity state, which is both a blessing and a curse. The North American Model calls for the democratization and egalitarian allocation of the wildlife resource and that is something that this group wanted to maintain. When we looked at overall herd numbers (we're at the bottom end of the 10 year cycle), loss of habitat and the large influx of both resident and non-resident hunters, it became clear that sustaining a liberal harvest strategy on mule deer was going to be problematic.

Also, the group recognized that while the growth of doe licenses has been severely curbed both through legislation (SB 281) and the Commission decisions that eliminated doe hunting in Regions 6 & 7, mule deer were still going to be at higher risk during the standard season structure. In order to bring back our mule deer herds, improve hunting strategies for elk to increase hunter efficacy and reduce overall the number of days it takes to harvest an animal, the group developed the following proposal.

Last week we released drafts of this proposal to various conservation organizations and to FWP for their consideration to begin gathering support for the proposed changes or for input on how to improve our proposals.

If you want more detail, read the attached PDF as these are just the bare-bones highlights.

The Big Change to Deer Hunting:

1.) Deer: Choose your region, choose your species: The idea is to spread around pressure and move the mule deer hunt out of the rut. Hunters must select a region and a species to hunt. This does not limit the hunter on OTC regional B licenses or unit specific B licenses. If you wish to hunt antlered mule deer in eastern Montana, who have to declare the region and the species. This limits your antlered hunting to that area, but you still may utilize a B license in the unit it is valid.

What doesn't change:

1.) Limited entry districts do not revert to the new general season structure, as they have limited pressure already, and can sustain longer general seasons.
2.) The backcountry hunts in the Scapegoat and Bob Marshall, Absaroka Wilderness, etc. stay the same.
3.) Two day youth hunt remains the same. Youth hunters during this two day season will not be limited to single region only and may hunt whitetail or mule deer in accordance with the regulations of the unit they are hunting.


Basic Season Structure:
August 25 - September 30th: Archery for whitetail, mule deer and elk

October 1 - October 31: Antlered Mule Deer. Doe harvest by permit only

October Cow Elk Season: Private land only, two weeks in length applied in the middle of mule deer season.

November 1-30: General Whitetail and Elk season. Liberal cow seasons on private land, permitted/licensed on public with very tight limitations to reduce hunter pressure.

December 7-16: Muzzleloader season

December 10-25: Additional Cow only season.

The cow seasons are meant to provide a meaningful alternative to shoulder seasons, which after a decade of use have both good and bad results. The idea on cow seasons is to focus pressure on areas that need it over a shorter period of time in order to “shock” elk back on to public land where tolerance is far higher and to assist biologists in bringing elk populations closer to objective in over objective units.


Montanans value the opportunity to hunt deer and elk at the same time. They value opportunity above antler size. We believe that this proposal will do several things to guarantee and improve opportunity for future generations by giving up just a tiny fraction of our opportunity today.

This proposal does not call for more limited entry areas, nor does it call for regional caps to limit hunter mobility. We have worked with outfitters, landowners and DIY public land hunters to pull this together to a place where we feel like it's ready for people to review and hopefully support.

I’d like to acknowledge the folks involved in bringing these proposals into what we are presenting here @bigsky2 (Jess Wagner), @cgasner1 (Chris Gasner), @Schaaf ( Justin Schaaf), @Gerald Martin,(Gerald Martin) @MTTW (Tim Willson) @Randy11 ( RandyHodges) @antlerradar (Art Hayes III), @Eric Albus , ( Eric Albus)and @Big Shooter (Rod Paschke) I also like to thank @Ben Lamb for helping facilitate the meeting and organizing our ideas into a coherent proposal.

The proposal seems like a good balance between hunting access and wildlife management.
Thanks for sharing.

 

[antlerradar]

The idea of giving half the NR tags to outfitters or making a whole bunch private land only tags is a slippery slope. This would inevitably be negative for the R too. Just watch how fast every acre of public gets locked up and is no longer available to residents. BMA’s become a thing of the past unless it’s piss poor ground and no one will pay for the access or worth outfitter locking it up.
I think the only way to limit without negative consequences is regional quotas.

I think you meant to say private instead public, for the most part we are already at what you are describing in Eastern Mt.

 

[Ben Lamb]

The idea of giving half the NR tags to outfitters or making a whole bunch private land only tags is a slippery slope. This would inevitably be negative for the R too. Just watch how fast every acre of public gets locked up and is no longer available to residents. BMA’s become a thing of the past unless it’s piss poor ground and no one will pay for the access or worth outfitter locking it up.
I think the only way to limit without negative consequences is regional quotas.
If the NR are shooting too many MD does, limit the number of NR doe tags. FWP has the ability to tweak the numbers of tags but in order to do it they need to know who is killing what.
So again, this is where the data becomes so critical. Mandatory harvest reports are needed in a bad way.

In 2023, legislation was passed to raise the top end Block payment to $50,000. That makes public access competitive with leasing. MOGA was a major supporter of that bill, fyi. Also, in 2023, legislation was passed to limit the number of NR antlerless deer liscences to 2 if you hold a deer/elk, elk or deer combo and 1 if you just want some meat while in MT. That's a significant reduction in NR opportunity to meet the demands of the resource. MOGA was a big supporter there as well.

The leasing market is driven not only by outfitters, but by folks looking for their own slice of hunting heaven as well. Hunt Clubs, individual leases, etc are on the rise on MT more than outfitting leases, as I understand the issue.

 

[Forkyfinder]

The idea of giving half the NR tags to outfitters or making a whole bunch private land only tags is a slippery slope. This would inevitably be negative for the R too. Just watch how fast every acre of public gets locked up and is no longer available to residents. BMA’s become a thing of the past unless it’s piss poor ground and no one will pay for the access or worth outfitter locking it up.
I think the only way to limit without negative consequences is regional quotas.
If the NR are shooting too many MD does, limit the number of NR doe tags. FWP has the ability to tweak the numbers of tags but in order to do it they need to know who is killing what.
So again, this is where the data becomes so critical. Mandatory harvest reports are needed in a bad way.

I think a number of things are true. R/NR harvest has climbed with technology, population, and interest. 10 years ago there were left over NR tags and 120,000 less Montana residents.

 

[Elktrack]

I think you meant to say private instead public, for the most part we are already at what you are describing in Eastern Mt.

Yes, goofed that up.

 

[Elktrack]

In 2023, legislation was passed to raise the top end Block payment to $50,000. That makes public access competitive with leasing. MOGA was a major supporter of that bill, fyi. Also, in 2023, legislation was passed to limit the number of NR antlerless deer liscences to 2 if you hold a deer/elk, elk or deer combo and 1 if you just want some meat while in MT. That's a significant reduction in NR opportunity to meet the demands of the resource. MOGA was a big supporter there as well.

The leasing market is driven not only by outfitters, but by folks looking for their own slice of hunting heaven as well. Hunt Clubs, individual leases, etc are on the rise on MT more than outfitting leases, as I understand the issue.

I understand that and I’m not trying to twist this into an outfitter vs public thing. I’m not anti outfitter, unless they start getting more set aside tags that are being removed from the “public” quota. I am merely saying that by setting more tags aside for private land and outfitting is the fastest way to encourage more land to be leased/locked up.

 

[Rie Bread]

What do we see as more beneficial to Montana, block management or private hunting leases? I appreciate the block management and those land owners that participate but for some reason I would rather see the state out of it and have more/cheaper private leases in block management style. Though I have idea if that’s a good idea or not or beneficial for the public

 

[Straight Arrow]

more/cheaper private leases in block management style.

What does that even mean? Please describe how that works. How would it be beneficial to the DIY non-wealthy hunter? How does it benefit wildlife management?

 

[Forkyfinder]

What do we see as more beneficial to Montana, block management or private hunting leases? I appreciate the block management and those land owners that participate but for some reason I would rather see the state out of it and have more/cheaper private leases in block management style. Though I have idea if that’s a good idea or not or beneficial for the public

LandTrust: Discover, Book, and Experience the Outdoors on Private Land.

Get outdoors without the crowds. Find private land for your next great outdoor adventure, or host respectful guests on your land and earn extra money every month.

landtrust.com

Seems like this does exactly that.

My comment about NR getting PL only tags is about redistributing pressure, providing incentive for wildlife, and providing rewards for landowners.

 

[Shed God]

Is there even that much Block management that is really accessible to the general public that is worth a shit. I would be willing to bet most of it is a waste of money.

 

[Straight Arrow]

LandTrust: Discover, Book, and Experience the Outdoors on Private Land.

Get outdoors without the crowds. Find private land for your next great outdoor adventure, or host respectful guests on your land and earn extra money every month.

landtrust.com

Seems like this does exactly that.

My comment about NR getting PL only tags is about redistributing pressure, providing incentive for wildlife, and providing rewards for landowners.

It's not "block management style" if the hunter has to pay hundreds of $$ a day.

 

[Shed God]

The proposal sucks for mt otc public land archery hunters. The weather blew August 25th through Sept 10th thus yr, and it will 9 out of 10 times. No way in hell I would give up my season structure that I already have for archery elk hunting for this proposal. And everybody I have talked to says the same thing.

Great idea choose whitey or muley.

Great idea mule deer doe harvest on private land only. There probably isn't anywhere in the state with a reasonable herd on public to hunt anyway.

It's pretty simple for the mule deer everyone is going to have to give up hunting them every year.

Base it off limited entry. Off of actual herd numbers. Limited entry. 80 percent to the public. 20 percent to non resident. Of that non resident 10 percent to outfitters. With that anyone of those guys that draws can choose to go with an outfitter.

To apply u buy tags up front. Lose money in the draw. Regardless if u draw or not. Raise the price of tags, for resident and nonresident to make up for the loss of doe licenses sold. Probably be a 10 percent increase in tags across the board.

Keep the season structure we got.

Besides move muzzle loader season to rifle season. The muzzle loaders they have these days are pretty good at killing. Forgot the traditional bs season.

 

[Forkyfinder]

It's not "block management style" if the hunter has to pay hundreds of $$ a day.

Im aware.

I was responding to this comment "I appreciate the block management and those land owners that participate but for some reason I would rather see the state out of it and have more/cheaper private leases in block management style. Though I have idea if that’s a good idea or not or beneficial for the public"

Im no fan of landtrust either.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I understand that and I’m not trying to twist this into an outfitter vs public thing. I’m not anti outfitter, unless they start getting more set aside tags that are being removed from the “public” quota. I am merely saying that by setting more tags aside for private land and outfitting is the fastest way to encourage more land to be leased/locked up.

No disagreement on more private tags equaling less access for the public. Certain exceptions apply of course relative to non-transferable landowner licenses and permits (my opinion, others disagree).

What do we see as more beneficial to Montana, block management or private hunting leases? I appreciate the block management and those land owners that participate but for some reason I would rather see the state out of it and have more/cheaper private leases in block management style. Though I have idea if that’s a good idea or not or beneficial for the public

The benefit of the state being the primary purveyor of Block is that you end up with a fair and equitable system that has to comport with wildlife management overlays. It's access plus fewer noxious weeds on the land, better landowner-agency relations, etc. The benefits are multi-faceted and it provides a metric shit-tonne of access that may not otherwise be there and it brings our wildlife managers closer to landowners - when it works right. The biggest issue of block mgt is that top end payments are tied to Type 1 systems that encourage over-use of a property in terms of the quality of hunt. However, I have had tremendous opportunities for deer, pronghorn and upland on a lot type 1 BMA's personally.

For private to provide the same level of free access (to the general public) you are looking at a non-profit that is heavily financed to get this kind of thing done. And there - unless a public service component (some kind of gov't interaction w/the ngo) you can easily find yourself in a situation that is ostensibly a hunt club on a grand scale - which will cost even more traditional access. It's not an insurmountable task - but it is Herculean.

 

[brockel]

After a couple weeks of bow season it has never been more evident to me, observing pressure from nonresident bird hunters and archery hunters that nonresident regional caps are a very key factor that is missing. The proposal is dead in the water to me without them.

The amount of bird hunters the last couple years is unreal. Wife just sent me pictures today of the convoy of bird hunters going by our place. There’s been a group of 8 hunting the same section 3 days in a row for sharpies and Huns.

 

[Shed God]

A simple way to benefit Block management. $ and better access to good hunting. Is allow a true Block management on your private or pay alot more to run cattle on public land. Pay the private prices not blm or forest circus. Pretty fair trade off. Plus with the true block management, sign in and go. No limit on hunters you get your 50k. 50k and cheap cattle grazing on public.

Compare public to private cattle grazing.

 

[Treeshark]

Certain exceptions apply of course relative to non-transferable landowner licenses and permits (my opinion, others disagree).

I heard that.

 

[Elktrack]

Certain exceptions apply of course relative to non-transferable landowner licenses and permits (my opinion, others disagree).

IMO, your point of non-transferable landowner licenses doesn’t actually work. It never seems to be an honest endeavor. Like I say, I believe it’s just a misused term to make people think that it’s more of a fair system when in fact it turns into a scam. Just my personal opinion.

 

[Ben Lamb]

IMO, your point of non-transferable landowner licenses doesn’t actually work. It never seems to be an honest endeavor. Like I say, I believe it’s just a misused term to make people think that it’s more of a fair system when in fact it turns into a scam. Just my personal opinion.

I can certainly see that perspective from an Idahoan, especially after those dillholes got caught a few weeks ago. There will always be people who abuse a system, regardless of what it is. People will drive drunk despite laws against it and people will still rip tags off of mattresses they don't own, even though it's clearly against the law.

MT the game is to buy the smallest acreage possible to get landowner licenses, etc. That doesn't mean that an idea is bad to me, just that it needs some tweaking and refining. The landowner preference license in MT is an example of something that's been working well in terms of offering opportunity for landowners as a recognition of their stewardship.