Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,619
The way they(the dept) is doing the surveys is flawed. The survey says 60k mule deer in R6. I don’t there is 60k mulies in 6.
Montana General Season Structure Proposal
- Thread starter Gerald Martin
- Start date
FREAK
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2022
- Messages
- 804
Did they tak at all about the “come home to hunt” tag sales? Maybe it’s not a needle mover but it seems like it’s awfully generous of FWP to sell those tags at such a discount.
The more I think about this plan or any potential changes, nonresident regional caps are going to be a necessity no matter what the season dates are. We can’t turn 27k nonresident deer hunters loose primarily hunting one side of the state. Nonresident harvest should not be exceeding resident harvest.
Keep it @ a max 10% NR per select district. NR selects tags based on points per district(s) per game choice(?).
There's a solid intent behind NR who've vested time and $ to hunt Western States. Compared to R who's out for the evening hunt after work or weekend, (sick leave) cough! Etc.
Yes, I'm aware ... A basic overhaul of season and tags. Not likely anytime in the future.
I completely agree that there too much concentrated NR pressure in certain regions but NR harvest isn’t exceeding R harvest. According to FWP, R7 had the highest NR harvest of 45%. 37% of NR hunt R7, thats 9,990 hunters. Reducing that by even half would be significant improvement.
I’m reluctant to quote their incomplete and flawed data but I don’t think NR are exceeding R harvest.
It’s not solely a NR problem as was pointed out in the meeting. I’m not suggesting that you are saying it’s all caused by the NR either. You’re just pointing out one aspect of the problem. The NR issue is an easy scapegoat and one that everyone can support. Dispersing the NR will definitely help but is not the end all solution.
I thought it was interesting that they said they couldn’t make picking a region only a NR thing and that it would have to be for everyone including the R. That doesn’t make sense. Why can’t they adjust it? Other states do it just fine.
Mule deer buck harvest nonresidents exceed residents in region 7 per fwp data the last couple years. Agree it’s tough to go off of their data. All I’m saying is any plan or changes, which I fully support, is going to need regional nonresident caps.
You could be right on the data. I’m just going off numbers they spit out in the meeting.
Either way. It’s a problem, and you are absolutely correct that NR dispersion has to happen.
I just hope they can make it happen (or are willing to)
Either way. It’s a problem, and you are absolutely correct that NR dispersion has to happen.
I just hope they can make it happen (or are willing to)
As a NR I agree. It does make me wonder if it would make sense to tweak the NR pref/bonus point mixed system in that scenario.
For the sake of simplicity, my hope is that they would make all units/regions one or the other (at least for NRs)- just pick one system and go with it for all unit and region tags like Wyoming does.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
This thread keeps going in circles. Everyone in the state would agree that NRs suck and should be treated like the vermin they are. Just try to get back to the cap of 17,000. Unfortunately the Rs are dependent on the $$$. The math is difficult, if not painful for some Rs. The comments in the CAC meeting about it not being about the budget are BS. They can say that in the CAC meeting but I have never seen that comment made in Helena.
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 1,228
When the harvest stats show the two hardest hit regions taking more than half of the animals - its a bit of a red flag of a source of the issue.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Sure, but that isn't because NR's are better shots. They pay a lot more and they plan and make a commitment to their hunt. At those prices that doe or forkie on BLM next to the road on the last day is a consolation prize. If the NR paid $20 for the tag, they may be more willing to eat it as well. And at the end of the day, it's the R's who vote people into office that make the rules and allow there to be 27,000 NR hunters.
I would guess every NR here has agreed the NR tags need to be cut. Certainly I have. But it isn't the whole problem and a large % of R's don't want to make any sacrifices. That is where the internal fight is. This board is heavily skewed to the Rs that do, but there are a lot that don't.
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 1,228
I agree.
Ive become a single issue voter - the legislature here does way more to affect hunting and serving landowner special interest. They do nearly nothing else of use - i doubt abortion/gun/trans other hot button issues stand a chance of changing independent of whoever has more ties of their color in the chamber.
I think the issue for the R - they dont want to lose opportunity because of increased NR tags. And right or wrong - they see everything through that lense.
I wish tag prices were 5x what they are for R and we stopped relying on nr tag fees to pay the bills
SAJ-99
Well-known member
I can see this point and agree with them. My only counter would be 1) The NRs didn't create the convoluted draw process by which combo tags get to be reissued at 120% of the value and 2) changes are so hard to get done. If you are willing to put up the fight, don't stop at the easy stuff.
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 1,228
I try to remind as many as possible. Having an outfitter/rancher/landowner lobby doing the legislation is what makes it happen.
rogerthat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 2,666
Who said eliminate the vermin? I think just getting back to the statutory minimum is more than ambitious right?
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,389
At some level the whole R vs NR conflict is a bit of a red herring.
At the most basic level the conflict is that the resource is experiencing more exploitation than it can sustain to produce a quality hunt and a healthy age structure, a reasonable buck/doe ratio and populations reflective of the biological carrying capacity of the habitat.
If the basics were in balance the conflict between user groups would be reduced.
Montana needs and wants NR’s to some degree. They also don’t need and don’t want NR’s to some degree. I think the statutory caps of 17,000 elk/deer combos and 6600 deer combos was the historic agreement of where that line intersects. The 90/10 rule for NR permit allocation was another nod to social acceptance of how much Montana resources could be granted to NR’s. Historically these served the resource and the social tolerance of Montana residents well.
Unfortunately, in my opinion the Montana Legislature caved to the desire of a very small minority for self serving preferences and allowed increases beyond that cap. This includes those licenses like come Come Home to Hunt and Montana Native. To be clear this was done at the desire of a minority of Montana residents. These legislators wanted Montana residents to get a prioritized experience for their NR family to share without having to wait in line and bear the same costs as NR’s who didn’t have qualified family to give them that priority.
FWP is also complicit in their strategies to increase revenue by the way they resale returned tags even though they technically are in harmony with regulations.
There is also some willingness to disregard the intent of public will or at least unacceptable ignorance on the ways that antlerless licenses and permits are allocated. Some areas are without quota to ensure all residents get a license or permit by choosing that area in the draw or by buying it OTC. In those areas NR’s are not restricted to the 90/10 allocations and can purchase at their discretion. This brings in additional revenue to FWP.
In my opinion if the health of the resource is taken care of first that will encourage the dispersal of NR’s across the state and ease crowding and NR selection of a couple of regions. Taking care of the health of the resource may include legal restrictions on areas and a return to socially acceptable number of NR tags issued but that’s not the end goal. The end goal must be to improve the quality and health of the resource. If that improves everyone’s experience and opportunity to harvest the surplus of the resource improves.
At the most basic level the conflict is that the resource is experiencing more exploitation than it can sustain to produce a quality hunt and a healthy age structure, a reasonable buck/doe ratio and populations reflective of the biological carrying capacity of the habitat.
If the basics were in balance the conflict between user groups would be reduced.
Montana needs and wants NR’s to some degree. They also don’t need and don’t want NR’s to some degree. I think the statutory caps of 17,000 elk/deer combos and 6600 deer combos was the historic agreement of where that line intersects. The 90/10 rule for NR permit allocation was another nod to social acceptance of how much Montana resources could be granted to NR’s. Historically these served the resource and the social tolerance of Montana residents well.
Unfortunately, in my opinion the Montana Legislature caved to the desire of a very small minority for self serving preferences and allowed increases beyond that cap. This includes those licenses like come Come Home to Hunt and Montana Native. To be clear this was done at the desire of a minority of Montana residents. These legislators wanted Montana residents to get a prioritized experience for their NR family to share without having to wait in line and bear the same costs as NR’s who didn’t have qualified family to give them that priority.
FWP is also complicit in their strategies to increase revenue by the way they resale returned tags even though they technically are in harmony with regulations.
There is also some willingness to disregard the intent of public will or at least unacceptable ignorance on the ways that antlerless licenses and permits are allocated. Some areas are without quota to ensure all residents get a license or permit by choosing that area in the draw or by buying it OTC. In those areas NR’s are not restricted to the 90/10 allocations and can purchase at their discretion. This brings in additional revenue to FWP.
In my opinion if the health of the resource is taken care of first that will encourage the dispersal of NR’s across the state and ease crowding and NR selection of a couple of regions. Taking care of the health of the resource may include legal restrictions on areas and a return to socially acceptable number of NR tags issued but that’s not the end goal. The end goal must be to improve the quality and health of the resource. If that improves everyone’s experience and opportunity to harvest the surplus of the resource improves.
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 1,228
Agreed. Randy hit the nail on the head talking about how we need to unite, R & NR, and quit bickering about draws and allocations as much and focus on putting more critters on the landscape.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s all intertwined and important issues.
I tend to get a little pissy when the finger seems like it’s pointing solely at the NR. I’ll get myself in check. Kinda passionate about this stuff.
It's a matter of many aspects that compound.
Hunter pressure is one factor and that involves NR and R.
To dismiss the ratio, IMO, is to dismiss one of many factors. Just because it raises the hairs of some is not reason to dismiss.
Hunter pressure is one factor and that involves NR and R.
To dismiss the ratio, IMO, is to dismiss one of many factors. Just because it raises the hairs of some is not reason to dismiss.
