Montana Mule Deer Mismanagement

[Forkyfinder]

has anyone suggested making more NR tags available for outfitting first? if 25% of NR tags were reserved for outfitting - thatd be a lot of pressure off public?

 

[Elky Welky]

Thanks Elky- the wording in the actual draft is very confusing. The preference points for birds was misguided in my opinion and likely brought unneeded critics to the party, but that’s off topic.

To bring back to the threads intent, I think these four things would make for a huge improvement:

1. NR pick-a-region.
2. Stick to the NR cap. Eliminate the add-one (come home to hunt, etc).
3. 10/1-10/31 mule deer rifle season.
4. No antlerless mule deer statewide on public for a few years.

There is a fifth that would address a lot of landowner/outfitter concerns, but that’s perhaps better discussed down the line.

My personal opinion (emphasis: I'm not speaking for any group or org), agrees with what you propose here, and I think the mule deer proposal on the other thread is a more dramatic version of this. I'm not entirely sold on it because of how much it effects other species and seasons, but these ideas seem to be the direction things are going.

To point 4: I would probably be more inclined to ban doe hunting regardless of public/private ownership and require damage permits for private land as well.

 

[Elky Welky]

has anyone suggested making more NR tags available for outfitting first? if 25% of NR tags were reserved for outfitting - thatd be a lot of pressure off public?

There was legislation two sessions ago that proposed that very thing: SB 143. Talk about another rabbit hole...

 

[Treeshark]

has anyone suggested making more NR tags available for outfitting first? if 25% of NR tags were reserved for outfitting - thatd be a lot of pressure off public?

That’s pretty close to what my #5 was…

As a public-only hunter, I hate the idea. That being said, it’s probably not a bad way to grease the skids and help get something done.

 

[Elky Welky]

That’s pretty close to what my #5 was…

As a public-only hunter, I hate the idea. That being said, it’s probably not a bad way to grease the skids and help get something done.

SB 143 proposed in the 2021 session tried to allocate 60% of all the NR Combo tags to Outfitters.

It was staunchly opposed... https://missoulian.com/opinion/colu...cle_019a0864-1ef2-59ed-8153-94eafe2b8352.html

 

[Treeshark]

tried to allocate 60% of all the NR Combo tags to NRs.

I am not quite sure what this means and can’t open the article?

 

[Elky Welky]

I am not quite sure what this means and can’t open the article?

I misspoke, it's getting to be that time of the afternoon. 60% to outfitters. Here's the text of that article, cowritten by Thomas Baumeister and me:

Montana’s hunting opportunities are the envy of other Western states, in large part because we place a premium on equal opportunity, regardless of financial means. That’s why thousands of nonresident, do-it-yourself hunters flock to Montana each hunting season, supporting our fish and wildlife and rural economies with their license dollars and purchases. Yet, some state legislators are working to change our hunting opportunities to a system of haves and have-nots: something Montana’s citizens have categorically rejected in the past.

Senate Bill 143, sponsored by Sen. Jason Ellsworth, R-Hamilton, would create a class system of those who can afford to hunt and those who cannot by forcing nonresident hunters to pay thousands of dollars to hire an outfitter in order to boost their chances of obtaining a coveted non-resident big game license. As proposed, the bill reserves over 60 percent of the non-resident deer and elk licenses for outfitters. Currently, all nonresident big game licenses are offered at a consistent price and allocated through a random drawing with a spring deadline.

The thickness of your pocketbook should not determine whether you get to hunt in Montana. SB 143 is an affront to our long-held tradition that neither social nor financial status determines who can be a hunter. SB 143 violates the public trust principle of equal opportunity by favoring those with financial means.

To be clear, we support Montana’s outfitters. Montana offers opportunities for both guided and DIY hunting experiences. We believe that all hunters should be able to engage the services of a guide or outfitter and we appreciate what the outfitting industry offers those hunters who would not otherwise be able to enjoy Montana’s outdoors. However, we hold firm to the principle that the opportunity to get a license in Montana should not be contingent on being guided. There’s simply no need for it, and nonresident hunters are not asking for this change.

Plain and simple, SB 143 amounts to a subsidy to the outfitting industry: boosting business viability at the expense of the average hunter. What is even more troubling is that SB 143 threatens to take us back to the days of guaranteed outfitter set-aside licenses: a practice overwhelmingly rejected by the people through a ballot initiative in 2010 (I-161). Montana’s citizens already decided that our government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers, nor creating guarantees, particularly in the case of a publicly held resource. Let’s not reverse course now.

SB 143 countermands the will of Montanans and the interests of working hunters by effectively privatizing our big game species and our hunting heritage. We urge the legislature to find other, more equitable ways to support our outfitting industry.

SB 143 is a sad reminder of what we fought so hard to leave behind.

 

[Treeshark]

I misspoke, it's getting to be that time of the afternoon. 60% to outfitters.

60%?! That is just loco

 

[Rie Bread]

10/16-10/31 mule deer season. Let’s really make some change.

 

[Treeshark]

10/16-10/31 mule deer season. Let’s really make some change.

10/1-10/31 already has people’s heads exploding (mostly not people here on HT). Not saying you’re wrong, but do you really think that would ever have a chance of passing?

 

[Forkyfinder]

10/1-10/31 already has people’s heads exploding (mostly not people here on HT). Not saying you’re wrong, but do you really think that would ever have a chance of passing?

 

[Rie Bread]

10/1-10/31 already has people’s heads exploding (mostly not people here on HT). Not saying you’re wrong, but do you really think that would ever have a chance of passing?

not a chance but I’d rather support realistic changes that will make a difference. Limit the number of hunter days ( two weekend-4 hunter day for the working class) hopefully less harvest

People that wana lolly gag will choose to hunt white tails for 6 weeks

 

[Forkyfinder]

I misspoke, it's getting to be that time of the afternoon. 60% to outfitters. Here's the text of that article, cowritten by Thomas Baumeister and me:

Montana’s hunting opportunities are the envy of other Western states, in large part because we place a premium on equal opportunity, regardless of financial means. That’s why thousands of nonresident, do-it-yourself hunters flock to Montana each hunting season, supporting our fish and wildlife and rural economies with their license dollars and purchases. Yet, some state legislators are working to change our hunting opportunities to a system of haves and have-nots: something Montana’s citizens have categorically rejected in the past.

Senate Bill 143, sponsored by Sen. Jason Ellsworth, R-Hamilton, would create a class system of those who can afford to hunt and those who cannot by forcing nonresident hunters to pay thousands of dollars to hire an outfitter in order to boost their chances of obtaining a coveted non-resident big game license. As proposed, the bill reserves over 60 percent of the non-resident deer and elk licenses for outfitters. Currently, all nonresident big game licenses are offered at a consistent price and allocated through a random drawing with a spring deadline.

The thickness of your pocketbook should not determine whether you get to hunt in Montana. SB 143 is an affront to our long-held tradition that neither social nor financial status determines who can be a hunter. SB 143 violates the public trust principle of equal opportunity by favoring those with financial means.

To be clear, we support Montana’s outfitters. Montana offers opportunities for both guided and DIY hunting experiences. We believe that all hunters should be able to engage the services of a guide or outfitter and we appreciate what the outfitting industry offers those hunters who would not otherwise be able to enjoy Montana’s outdoors. However, we hold firm to the principle that the opportunity to get a license in Montana should not be contingent on being guided. There’s simply no need for it, and nonresident hunters are not asking for this change.

Plain and simple, SB 143 amounts to a subsidy to the outfitting industry: boosting business viability at the expense of the average hunter. What is even more troubling is that SB 143 threatens to take us back to the days of guaranteed outfitter set-aside licenses: a practice overwhelmingly rejected by the people through a ballot initiative in 2010 (I-161). Montana’s citizens already decided that our government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers, nor creating guarantees, particularly in the case of a publicly held resource. Let’s not reverse course now.

SB 143 countermands the will of Montanans and the interests of working hunters by effectively privatizing our big game species and our hunting heritage. We urge the legislature to find other, more equitable ways to support our outfitting industry.

SB 143 is a sad reminder of what we fought so hard to leave behind.

60% is a bit much - but NR pressure needs dealt with - and is something thats a lot more palletable to stomach for a "first step" based on the fb comments and some of the comments here

 

[Forkyfinder]

60%?! That is just loco

*checks notes* looks like BHA is a friend to you NR folks

 

[Treeshark]

*checks notes* looks like BHA is a friend to you NR folks

Better check em again there, big dirty- I don’t think so

I am going to go start the grill now. Which obviously means I will be opening a beer(s).

Both unfortunately and very fortunately, that means I must shelve my contribution to this one for the night.

 

[cgasner1]

Better check em again there, big dirty- I don’t think so

I am going to go start the grill now. Which obviously means I will be opening a beer(s).

Both unfortunately and very fortunately, that means I must shelve my contribution to this one for the night.

Have a few ipas and speak your truth I’m not scared

 

[Treeshark]

Have a few ipas and speak your truth I’m not scared

High Life… it’s a work night

 

[Elky Welky]

*checks notes* looks like BHA is a friend to you NR folks

Yup, advocated one session for keeping the opportunities for NRs fair, advocated the next session to try and reduce unsustainable pressure on the resource, which was perceived as anti-NR. Big part of why you likely won't see MT-BHA advocate for something like 525 or its ilk again; misinterpretation layered upon misinterpretation is a recipe for disaster. Perception is reality, and all that jazz.

Enjoy that beer @Treeshark. I need one too.

 

[cgasner1]

Yup, advocated one session for keeping the opportunities for NRs fair, advocated the next session to try and reduce unsustainable pressure on the resource, which was perceived as anti-NR. Big part of why you likely won't see MT-BHA advocate for something like 525 or its ilk again; misinterpretation layered upon misinterpretation is a recipe for disaster. Perception is reality, and all that jazz.

Enjoy that beer @Treeshark. I need one too.

I’d buy……There is just to much politics in this makes it all feel dirty

 

[Treeshark]

Enjoy that beer @Treeshark. I need one too.

I shall. I hope you do too.

One last one- plans to actually fix this issue and many others like it are not likely to succeed if the focus is on NRs only.