Montana General Season Structure Proposal

Forkyfinder said:
What do you think is the primary driver of hunt quality in wy/az in lieu of mt/wa/co?
Click to expand...
just a simple generalization, but I would guess tag numbers. That said, the scores from the MT survey on hunters views weren't as bad as is reflected here. Not sure how to read those.

rogerthat said:
Stereotype much?
Click to expand...
You know I don't mean all R, but the majority. I applaud the group, but there was a lot of inconsistency from that podcast. I would say that if you have legitimate ideas, like this one, that keep running into a wall due to the structure created by the legislature, and arguing about how it affects funding, bigger changes need to looked at.
 
Ben Lamb said:
If you compare the cost of a deer & elk license that comes with your base hunting license, fishing, upland, conservation license and sometimes a bear or wolf license, along with the kind of season length that MT offers, MT remains a top tier draw for NRs because of the ease of hunting, even if success is low. When you compare other states with all of that, then MT starts to shine even more from the NR perspective.

NR antlered licenses have not increased substantially outside of the free & reduced programs within the last 10 years. The 17K & 6600K caps have existed since the 1970's, while populations have grown overall.

The idea that we can sacrifice funding for fewer tags is not borne out in reality because you end up cutting off your nose to spite your face. As I asked everyone else who advocates for less funding for the agency, show me where you'd cut their budget to match your ideal outcome.
Click to expand...
Wonder why they didn’t throw in a free 6-mo T-Mobile subscription while they were at it. I think NR that apply for deer or elk do so to hunt deer or elk. All the other stuff just complicates any relative value comparison. In some states I can pay to hunt elk and actually see elk (on public, too). In MT I can hunt elk for 3 months and when I can’t find them I can fish.
 
SAJ-99 said:
Wonder why they didn’t throw in a free 6-mo T-Mobile subscription while they were at it. I think NR that apply for deer or elk do so to hunt deer or elk. All the other stuff just complicates any relative value comparison. In some states I can pay to hunt elk and actually see elk (on public, too). In MT I can hunt elk for 3 months and when I can’t find them I can fish.
Click to expand...

Allowing the state to select one service provider rather than go through the procurement process would cause the state administration division to to enact monopolistic tendencies and as of 2024, Montana statute still only allows for 1 monopoly to exist (Northwestern Energy).
 
SAJ-99 said:
Doin' it for the resource. Yeah. Sure.

Nothing will change in MT. The only thing residents have ever agreed on is screwing NRs. The debate now is on the complexity of the grift.
Click to expand...

For the sake of argument it’s impossible for NR’s to be screwed. NR’s hunt as a privilege at the discretion of the residents of the state they wish to hunt. Cost of tags and amount of tags that resident mangers decide NR’s may purchase is residents’ prerogative.

Residents are weighing cost/benefit in how much opportunity they allow NR’s.

NR’s have equal ability to weigh cost/benefit/value of the price and availability of tags allocated to them at the time of application/purchase.

I hold the opinion that Montana doesn’t offer enough value to justify the cost of a NR combo license. The fact that more NR’s apply every year than licenses are available tells me that lots of folks don’t share my opinion.

I’ve done that same cost/benefit analysis to determine which states I want to apply for tags as a NR. The amount of money I spend every year on NR applications would seem to indicate that I am essentially a tightwad at heart and don’t apply for very many NR tags. Once again, the competition for NR tags across the west shows me many folks don’t share my conclusions about the value of NR tags.
 
@Ben Lamb, I should probably know this but does the deer tag from a B-10 elk/deer combo get cut out and sold as a B-11 when folks apply for the B-10 as an elk only combo? Or, do the deer portion remain unsold? If memory serves me correctly, there are a couple thousand B-10’s that can be designated elk only during the first NR general license draw.
 
Gerald Martin said:
For the sake of argument it’s impossible for NR’s to be screwed. NR’s hunt as a privilege at the discretion of the residents of the state they wish to hunt. Cost of tags and amount of tags that resident mangers decide NR’s may purchase is residents’ prerogative.

Residents are weighing cost/benefit in how much opportunity they allow NR’s.

NR’s have equal ability to weigh cost/benefit/value of the price and availability of tags allocated to them at the time of application/purchase.

I hold the opinion that Montana doesn’t offer enough value to justify the cost of a NR combo license. The fact that more NR’s apply every year than licenses are available tells me that lots of folks don’t share my opinion.

I’ve done that same cost/benefit analysis to determine which states I want to apply for tags as a NR. The amount of money I spend every year on NR applications would seem to indicate that I am essentially a tightwad at heart and don’t apply for very many NR tags. Once again, the competition for NR tags across the west shows me many folks don’t share my conclusions about the value of NR tags.
Click to expand...

Ok, so NRs are asking to be screwed. Doesn't mean they aren't being screwed, but I guess residents are being screwed as well given the trend in the quality of deer hunting.

I get the argument. Like I said, my argument isn't about tag numbers or even about the prices. It is about how the complexity of the system being such that it is hard to make changes for the benefit of the resource and the lack of willingness to make hard choices. Mostly the problem is the latter (again, not all Rs, but a large % of them). If MT wants to take NRs permit numbers to zero, I will applaud that. Then they won't have any other excuses why their deer hunting continues on the same trend (other than coyotes and wolves, I guess).
 
SAJ-99 said:
Ok, so NRs are asking to be screwed. Doesn't mean they aren't being screwed, but I guess residents are being screwed as well given the trend in the quality of deer hunting.

I get the argument. Like I said, my argument isn't about tag numbers or even about the prices. It is about how the complexity of the system being such that it is hard to make changes for the benefit of the resource and the lack of willingness to make hard choices. Mostly the problem is the latter (again, not all Rs, but a large % of them). If MT wants to take NRs permit numbers to zero, I will applaud that. Then they won't have any other excuses why their deer hunting continues on the same trend (other than coyotes and wolves, I guess).
Click to expand...
Youd have a point if i hadnt looked at harvest numbers, esp in r6 and r7
 
Forkyfinder said:
Youd have a point if i hadnt looked at harvest numbers, esp in r6 and r7
Click to expand...
The largest and least densely populated area of the state? You act like that NR harvest stat is new. Look, MT can do whatever it wants. If it helps mule deer I am for it, even if I won't benefit from it. But you will have to make sacrifices. This is why the group's proposal is not a huge change. A step in the right direction, but nothing revolutionary. And I'm not holding my breath it gets implemented. It's sad really. Look at WY and how they reacted to a harsh winter kill.
 
SAJ-99 said:
The largest and least densely populated area of the state? You act like that NR harvest stat is new. Look, MT can do whatever it wants. If it helps mule deer I am for it, even if I won't benefit from it. But you will have to make sacrifices. This is why the group's proposal is not a huge change. A step in the right direction, but nothing revolutionary. And I'm not holding my breath it gets implemented. It's sad really. Look at WY and how they reacted to a harsh winter kill.
Click to expand...
What’s sad is that it got to the point this group was formed
 
SAJ-99 said:
Where is the Mule Deer Citizen Advisory Council? Any ideas from them? Eric is on both.
Click to expand...

They spent at least four sessions discussing what potential issues mule deer face might be. FWP didn’t want them to offer solutions. FWP wanted to be the solution generator. *

*The aforementioned synopsis is my official opinion only and doesn’t represent our groups’ position.
 
Gerald Martin said:
They spent at least four sessions discussing what potential issues mule deer face might be. FWP didn’t want them to offer solutions. FWP wanted to be the solution generator. *

*The aforementioned synopsis is my official opinion only and doesn’t represent our groups’ position.
Click to expand...
Your official opinion is accurate. This is the main reason change seems unlikely.
 
Elktrack said:
Your official opinion is accurate. This is the main reason change seems unlikely.
Click to expand...

At least we have the assurance that they care and are exercising exploration of the potential that issues do exist that might be causing a decline in mule deer in Montana and there might be factors why Montana hunters are questioning their official position that current mule deer management policy is affirmed by 73% of Montana hunters and is great wildlife management.

#wecare #👊 #sendingwarmthoughtstoyoubro
 
Gerald Martin said:
At least we have the assurance that they care and are exercising exploration of the potential that issues do exist that might be causing a decline in mule deer in Montana and there might be factors why Montana hunters are questioning their official position that current mule deer management policy is affirmed by 73% of Montana hunters and is great wildlife management.

#wecare #👊 #sendingwarmthoughtstoyoubro
Click to expand...
I’m more cynical about how much they care. They seem reluctant to act and after listening to hours and hours of the citizen advisory committee meetings it’s apparent that they aren’t interested in doing much different, have no accurate data, don’t value the public input, and are not genuinely interested in producing a mule deer population that has a better age class potential. -

Never mind. I’m just going back down the same path. Beat this dead horse way too many times already.
Hopefully the assurance that they care leads to change….
 
  • Like
Reactions: DFS
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

cgasner1
Montana season structure proposal 2.0
15 16 17
Replies
321
Views
10K
Straight Arrow
Straight Arrow
S
Mule deer in montana
2
Replies
29
Views
3K
Shed God
S
Big Fin
Podcast on Montana Mule Deer ideas
2 3
Replies
52
Views
2K
smokecreekarcher
S
Elky Welky
Montana Mule Deer Raffle
12 13 14
Replies
275
Views
18K
SwaggyD
SwaggyD
OntarioHunter
Where did this doe come from?
2 3
Replies
41
Views
3K
antlerradar
antlerradar
Caribou Gear

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,683
Messages
2,029,611
Members
36,284
Latest member
Mtelkhunter119

Share this page

Back
Top