Montana - Time to Shake it Up?

[BuzzH]

If anyone wants to discuss or have something specific to mule deer in region 2 brought up, please reach out to me in the next few weeks.

When you get time, give me a shout...

 

[brockel]

More and more chatter like this all the time. Would have never seen this kind of stuff 5 years ago

 

[DFS]

More and more chatter like this all the time. Would have never seen this kind of stuff 5 years ago
View attachment 309002

Good to see the chatter I think there are a lot of things that could be done before LE but if that is the only thing on the table I would support it. Nonresident regional caps and moving the season dates out of the rut makes the most sense to me.

 

[8andcounting]

Good to see the chatter I think there are a lot of things that could be done before LE but if that is the only thing on the table I would support it. Nonresident regional caps and moving the season dates out of the rut makes the most sense to me.

Regional caps for all . No more every resident gets to buy a tag at the local hardware store and hunt anywhere in the state.

 

[sclancy27]

Here's who I have as being interested:
DIY Public Hunting Side:
R1: @Gerald Martin
R2: @Randy11
R3: @Big Fin
R4: @bigsky2
R5: @cgasner1
R6: @Schaaf
R7: @antlerradar

Expressed interest: @stoep, @bigsky2, @sclancy27
@MtEngineer

Who did I miss, and especially folks from R1,3,4. Regions 3 & 4 are arguably some of the most important for this species given the historical range and hunting history. R1 has a host of issues, but those folks need to be at the table as well since they're the largest group of displaced MT resident hunters and considering what the MD resource used to be like in the region.

For outfitters:

@Eric Albus, @Big Shooter. I think having a few outfitters who work in the western part of the state are needed as well.

I am also suggesting that Rob Arnaud and I be the moderators. Rob is well known and trusted in the outfitter circles, and I'm moderately known in the hunting circles.

The idea is to not have organizations represented at the table. They have the capacity to do this on their own and they already make their suggestions known. This is about putting Montanans together in room to discuss what they'd like to see in terms of overall mule deer management, address some shared concerns about season structure and possibly walk out with a better collaborative framework for which we can bring hunters, outfitters and landowners together to find better outcomes for mule deer.

Once we have a line up set, we can start a new thread that has ground rules, and we can refine the agenda down to what we feel we can reasonably accomplish in 1 day.

As far as being open to the public, I think the group needs to decide. If it is, then there needs to be a way to ensure that the conversation doesn't go sideways as people want to participate and lead the discussion away from a structured process. I do think that having some folks attend isn't a bad idea, and if we provide time for public comment at the end, as well as give folks a place to send their suggestions to us, then a public facing effort makes sense.

I'm in R3, as an FYI.

 

[huntin24/7]

Good to see the chatter I think there are a lot of things that could be done before LE but if that is the only thing on the table I would support it. Nonresident regional caps and moving the season dates out of the rut makes the most sense to me.

Non resident regional caps are an absolute necessity. Region 6 and 7 non res pressure has gotten to an out of control level. I’d personally not have a problem with resident regional caps as well, but ya gotta start somewhere. It’s great to see more people starting to notice the problems and showing concern.

 

[8andcounting]

Non resident regional caps are an absolute necessity. Region 6 and 7 non res pressure has gotten to an out of control level. I’d personally not have a problem with resident regional caps as well, but ya gotta start somewhere. It’s great to see more people starting to notice the problems and showing concern.

I agree with the regional caps but it’s gotta be for everyone. Also the NR tags , as I’ve previously stated need to be more closely regulated , 17,500 needs to be the number . Not all these come home to hunt and native tags . 17,500 that’s it . Beyond that , any more limiting to NR without taking opportunities from R should result in R picking up some slack in the $ department . It’s embarrassing what a R pays for tags . Ridiculous

 

[huntin24/7]

I agree with the regional caps but it’s gotta be for everyone. Also the NR tags , as I’ve previously stated need to be more closely regulated , 17,500 needs to be the number . Not all these come home to hunt and native tags . 17,500 that’s it . Beyond that , any more limiting to NR without taking opportunities from R should result in R picking up some slack in the $ department . It’s embarrassing what a R pays for tags . Ridiculous

They could up res tags to only $30 and basically double their money on those tags while still being very affordable. Bring it on. They have to spread out the pressure though. BMA’s that used to be good for deer have gotten so bad from the pressure that I don’t even care if they’re renewed anymore. And it really pains me to say that.

 

[8andcounting]

They could up res tags to only $30 and basically double their money on those tags while still being very affordable. Bring it on. They have to spread out the pressure though. BMA’s that used to be good for deer have gotten so bad from the pressure that I don’t even care if they’re renewed anymore. And it really pains me to say that.

Yes . Regional caps . For all . A resident or NR might not draw the R7 area tag every year … tough sh’t …. It’s time

 

[rogerthat]

Yes . Regional caps . For all . A resident or NR might not draw the R7 area tag every year … tough sh’t …. It’s time

You’re not wrong but change happens slow. For the public land hunter in R7 a nr cap would really change the pressure in some spots. I see this as a likely first step. What I see in region 7 on public lands is almost all nr and western montana hunters with just a few locals such as myself too stubborn to give up or more likely locals driving around drinking beer. For whatever reason the geography of the hunters seem to really group up. What I mean by that is when I get into certain areas I will see all Minnesota or all Wisconsin or all 6 license plates. Not sure what drives that but I suspect maybe the social networking side of hunting that I take no part in.(I’m a closet stuffer). One elk spot I used to hunt, (killed a nice bull in 2018) I don’t even bother hunting anymore because it’s completely covered up in 6 plates all season long. I think maybe one of the brozeman podcasters started hitting it. Where I was hunting this year was covered up in Minnesota hunters.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Yes . Regional caps . For all . A resident or NR might not draw the R7 area tag every year … tough sh’t …. It’s time

This would essentially just be a limited entry permit for the region. If the idea is to limit all NR's in a district to 10%, then this is likely the fastest way to do so, but I'm not sure it solves the harvest issue of NR's taking more game than R's. That seems to be a hunter pressure issue more than anything else.

I agree with the regional caps but it’s gotta be for everyone. Also the NR tags , as I’ve previously stated need to be more closely regulated , 17,500 needs to be the number . Not all these come home to hunt and native tags . 17,500 that’s it . Beyond that , any more limiting to NR without taking opportunities from R should result in R picking up some slack in the $ department . It’s embarrassing what a R pays for tags . Ridiculous

If you do this, you end up losing the B11 funding for Habitat Montana and Block Management. The B10 is set statutorily at 17,000 and the B11 is 6600 w/ the landowner sponsored set asides included. The area of greatest growth in NR's have been through the resale of the orphaned deer tag under the B10 as a B11, and antlerless. Eliminating the oversell of the orphaned deer licenses would cut around 7,000 or so NR's chasing antlered deer. That's about a $5 million per year loss, IIRC, to the general license account; but these licenses aren't earmarked for special conservation or access funds.

The antlerless aspect is pretty well taken care of at the moment with the R6 & R7 antlerless commission decision, and with the passage of SB 281 limiting NR's to only 1-2 doe licenses.

 

[GearJunky]

They could up res tags to only $30 and basically double their money on those tags while still being very affordable. Bring it on. They have to spread out the pressure though. BMA’s that used to be good for deer have gotten so bad from the pressure that I don’t even care if they’re renewed anymore. And it really pains me to say that.

Agreed 100%

As a MT resident, I also want to see our tag prices go up for residents. We need resources to improve this, and resources cost money. I am more than happy to chip in.

 

[8andcounting]

This would essentially just be a limited entry permit for the region. If the idea is to limit all NR's in a district to 10%, then this is likely the fastest way to do so, but I'm not sure it solves the harvest issue of NR's taking more game than R's. That seems to be a hunter pressure issue more than anything else.



If you do this, you end up losing the B11 funding for Habitat Montana and Block Management. The B10 is set statutorily at 17,000 and the B11 is 6600 w/ the landowner sponsored set asides included. The area of greatest growth in NR's have been through the resale of the orphaned deer tag under the B10 as a B11, and antlerless. Eliminating the oversell of the orphaned deer licenses would cut around 7,000 or so NR's chasing antlered deer. That's about a $5 million per year loss, IIRC, to the general license account; but these licenses aren't earmarked for special conservation or access funds.

The antlerless aspect is pretty well taken care of at the moment with the R6 & R7 antlerless commission decision, and with the passage of SB 281 limiting NR's to only 1-2 doe licenses.

NR should be limited to 0 doe tags . Ever

 

[Ben Lamb]

NR should be limited to 0 doe tags . Ever

And I deserve a new double rifle, but neither of these things are realistic.

 

[cgasner1]

Yes . Regional caps . For all . A resident or NR might not draw the R7 area tag every year … tough sh’t …. It’s time

So draw it up let’s see it. Are you gonna put 2500 nr into each region? Break that 17.5 number up differently? Keep in mind that non resident also only get 10% of residents tags. Keep in mind fwp doesn’t have very good information for who has been hunting where or killing what. Once you get those numbers try and sell it

 

[8andcounting]

Doug’s the man with the plan . I mean it’s NR’s doing all the damage

 

[SwaggyD]

If NR were limited to 10% in R6 and R7, that would decrease pressure substantially.

edit to say: I'm not putting all the blame on NR, but they are killing more bucks that residents in R7. Imagine taking the 5k bucks they kill and turning it into 500.

 

[huntin24/7]

Doug’s the man with the plan . I mean it’s NR’s doing all the damage

I don’t think he’s saying that at all. He, and I, and many residents on here also want to spread out resident pressure more as well. But when a group hat has 10% of the tags is killing 50ish% of the bucks in large areas, that’s clearly an issue that needs addressing. And I know you’ve shown a willing to make sacrifices, so this isn’t a personal attack at all.

 

[YoungGun]

If NR were limited to 10% in R6 and R7, that would decrease pressure substantially.

edit to say: I'm not putting all the blame on NR, but they are killing more bucks that residents in R7. Imagine taking the 5k bucks they kill and turning it into 500.

I think it was @antlerradar that said it best in a different thread that R7 is the overflow for the entirety of the state for Mule Deer. This includes residents and non-residents. I'm one of them- I live in region 3 and my dad is in region 5, and, historically, we looked forward to our "eastern Montana" deer hunt each year. I can honestly say I've never gotten juiced up over deer hunting in my own region, and these days, don't get excited to hunt deer in Montana at all.

I think this is just one of the many ways decentralized management of wildlife that @Big Fin is getting at would be a benefit for all. We can have our general tags AND region specific management- just ask Wyoming.

 

[8andcounting]

I don’t think he’s saying that at all. He, and I, and many residents on here also want to spread out resident pressure more as well. But when a group hat has 10% of the tags is killing 50ish% of the bucks in large areas, that’s clearly an issue that needs addressing. And I know you’ve shown a willing to make sacrifices, so this isn’t a personal attack at all.

I know . Humor . He has lots of good thoughts I just think it needs to be less opportunities for all