Advertisement

Montana - Time to Shake it Up?

Not rocket science needed to explain it.

1. In the recent past, NRs could shoot a trailer load of mule deer.

2. Lots of public land.

3. Anyone with a tag from Wisconsin, Minnesota, Dakotas, eastern Wyoming, etc it's much closer and requires wayyyy less travel.

The same dynamic occurs with non resident bird hunters. They flock to Region 6 around Plentywood. Just change the pubic land for bma land.

Most non residents are coming from states to the east of Montana. If they can hunt with one less travel day each way, that is what will happen.
 
I think another way to reduce the impact on mule deer from non residents(something you could definitely do for residents as well) would be to eliminate the either species part of the tag, so make let’s just say 50% mule deer buck tags and 50% of the total be only whitetail buck tags. Obviously you’d have do more research to figure out what % to go with those tags. One of the problems with the non resident impact on mule deer, and it’s not their fault as it’s perfectly legal, is that almost every non resident is killing a mule deer buck even though it’s also good for whitetail, and almost all of those bucks are killed in 1/3 of the state. Again, I don’t fault them for doing this. It’s not their fault that we have a free for all mgt style. Every sacrifice I’m asking non residents to make hunting in MT, I’m completely on board making as a resident too.
 
is that almost every non resident is killing a mule deer buck even though it’s also good for whitetail
Maybe my definition is different than yours for "almost every" but take a look at the numbers and let me know if you still come to that conclusion. There is for sure a difference in NR and R when it comes to the ratio of the two however.

1704559630909.png
 
Maybe my definition is different than yours for "almost every" but take a look at the numbers and let me know if you still come to that conclusion. There is for sure a difference in NR and R when it comes to the ratio of the two however.

View attachment 309205
I should have specified more, but I’m referring more specifically to public land easy to access(BMA’s) in my experience in region 6, and from hearing about other’s experience in region 7. In eastern region 6, it’s very rare to see a non resident with a dead whitetail anymore. I think a large part of that is due to whitetails often being found moreso on private land agriculture environments. Kinda anecdotal I know. I’m sure this varies to different degrees in other regions and by outfitted clients hunting private land river bottoms, etc.
 
Maybe my definition is different than yours for "almost every" but take a look at the numbers and let me know if you still come to that conclusion. There is for sure a difference in NR and R when it comes to the ratio of the two however.

View attachment 309205
I also should’ve mentioned that splitting the tags between the two species doesn’t necessarily have to happen in every unit/region but really needs to be looked into in areas with the highest variations in take between the two species.
 
Also, NRs typically have much higher success rates in general due to using outfitters, paying trespass fees, and taking their tag more seriously.

I'd say this is what is likely the biggest issue left.

And that's a resident pressure & habitat issue on public land as much as anything else.

Removing the doe licenses from public land in 6&7, along with the cut in resident & nonresident doe licenses in some areas is going to have significant impact on pressure on '24 in central and eastern MT.
 
I should have specified more, but I’m referring more specifically to public land easy to access(BMA’s) in my experience in region 6, and from hearing about other’s experience in region 7. In eastern region 6, it’s very rare to see a non resident with a dead whitetail anymore. I think a large part of that is due to whitetails often being found moreso on private land agriculture environments. Kinda anecdotal I know. I’m sure this varies to different degrees in other regions and by outfitted clients hunting private land river bottoms, etc.
Probably likely that a lot of people coming from states that don’t have mule deer would prefer to shoot a mule deer too.
 
Probably likely that a lot of people coming from states that don’t have mule deer would prefer to shoot a mule deer too.
Pretty valid point I don’t see a guy from Wisconsin getting excited about a basket buck of a whitetail
 
And you are believing those numbers. Call me skeptical if you want, but I don't. mtmuley
I agree that these numbers are likely not very accurate. I'd be surprised if non-residents didn't take the harvest survey call more serious than our own residents, which likely skews the numbers to look like residents aren't having as large of an impact as the non-residents. As residents, we all know there's no negative individual consequences for providing bad info on those calls.

It's not right, but it's the information we have, and likely the information that FWP bases a lot of their decisions off of. Mandatory reporting and hunter surveys could easily be implemented into the e-tag app, or through a web link. Fail to report or complete the survey, and you're frozen out of applying the following year. Other states do this- it's not a new concept. The amount of on the ground data that FWP could mine from all of us as hunters year in and out my entering the 21st century would be a serious step in the right direction to managing all of our huntable species more precisely for any given hunt district.
 
Wouldn’t those tag cuts need to be done via legislative route? And even a resident price increase would be done there as well?
That's a great question- my understanding is "yes". But again, I am not as well versed as many that are contributing to this thread. We all know that 99% of "us" would support selective tag cuts, different season end dates, or price increases, because we see the benefit each could provide and discuss them across dozens of "Montana Mule Deer" threads. The difficulty is that we likely make up a less-than-majority of Montana hunters, and many of those hunters haven't given it much thought aside from buying their tag at their local haunt, and then expecting to be able to use it for 11 weeks that season. Education will be key in the sense of the "what will this do for me?" crowd who resist change and add friction when positive change (from our viewpoint) is presented by the legislature or commission.
 
Would be great to see a few HTer's on there, and ones that can work with landowners/is a landowner, work with outfitters/is an outfitter, as meaningful change will come when the Stockgrowers and Outfitters Association see the same positives as the Public Land hunters. Politics aside, everyone wants to see better Mule Deer hunting in Montana. Just need to sort the wheat from the chaff and keep the bill riders to an absolute minimum.
 
More to it than just travel. There sure has been a lot of Washington and Oregon plates in SE MT recently.
Lots of public/accessible land and lots of deer(for many people coming to Montana there’s still “lots” of deer compared to where they hunt at home) and lots of opportunities.
 
Maybe my definition is different than yours for "almost every" but take a look at the numbers and let me know if you still come to that conclusion. There is for sure a difference in NR and R when it comes to the ratio of the two however.

View attachment 309205

I don't trust the FWP harvest estimates; in a special draw unit I had a few years back, they had estimates that showed harvest of 3x the number of tags for the given unit. If only there were a way to get accurate harvest statistics....
 

Forum statistics

Threads
114,076
Messages
2,043,554
Members
36,446
Latest member
Antique0lc
Back
Top