MT Licensing System - Burn it down? How to Improve it?

[WapitiBob]

I think you’ve got bonus points and preference points mixed up. Preference points create point creep, bonus points don’t.

Evidently you don't apply in UT or AZ.

 

[hearteater]

Lots of great ideas here. I would love to see these changes implemented. Montana is a great state to hunt but their draw process is by far the worst in the west.

 

[bigsky2]

Evidently you don't apply in UT or AZ.

Both actually. Preference systems give tags to the people with the most points. Luckily UT and AZ have hybrid systems where they give a certain percentage of tags out to the top point holders and the rest are given out in a random draw. In a state like Montana that uses a bonus point system, anyone can draw. Point creep is not a thing in a true bonus point system.

 

[bigsky2]

I could take advantage as well but I don’t. I hunt with my son who was born and raised in Idaho so I pay the higher cost to apply together. It’s a hunt we do together and I don’t want to go without him so I pay full boat and deal with the odds. I still agree with the reasons for having them mainly allowing families to keep hunting traditions alive. Come home to hunt is 500 tags that always have hundreds of leftovers. A few hundred tags for nr is the problem? Or is it the over commercialization of western hunting? Was any western state system set up to have hunters from across the nation applying in just one state? I don’t know somehow I don’t think a few hundred guaranteed nr tags is the problem. Take them out of the total cap if 200 extra tags are creating management problems. I see value in annual family hunting camps. I am eligible but don’t participate in come home to hunt for that exact reason.

Come Home to Hunt is just a small part of all the additional NR tags that are sold.

Guest view: Montana issued 59,395 deer/elk licenses to nonresidents

Montana issued 59,395 deer/elk licenses to nonresidents, Skyline Sportsmen's Association finds.

mtstandard.com

 

[huntandfly]

Both actually. Preference systems give tags to the people with the most points. Luckily UT and AZ have hybrid systems where they give a certain percentage of tags out to the top point holders and the rest are given out in a random draw. In a state like Montana that uses a bonus point system, anyone can draw. Point creep is not a thing in a true bonus point system.

Wrong. Point creep still occurs in bonus point systems it just isn’t as blatantly obvious. Point creep in a bonus point system looks like you having a 10% chance to draw a tag with 5 points this year when 10 years ago you had an 80% or better chance. Still occurs

 

[bigsky2]

Wrong. Point creep still occurs in bonus point systems it just isn’t as blatantly obvious. Point creep in a bonus point system looks like you having a 10% chance to draw a tag with 5 points this year when 10 years ago you had an 80% or better chance. Still occurs

I guess it depends how you want to define point creep. My definition is the same as how all the application services define it.

“Point creep occurs when the number of hunters applying for a tag increases faster than available tags. Therefore, the number of points needed to draw a particular tag “creeps” upward.” In Montana, there’s no certain number of points required to draw a tag, you can draw with zero. Obviously there’s point creep for NR combo tags because that’s a preference point system.

 

[OntarioHunter]

The Come Home bunch don't put a big dent in things. There's never enough applicants to draw the couple hundred alloted. I'm told not even close. I do NOT agree with Come Home to Hunt using those licenses to get into the special tag draws (i.e. sheep, etc.). Those should be reserved entirely to the general nonresident applicant pool.

I suspect the college kids are also not taking a big bite out of the resource. I think it is fair that students who leave the state to go to post-secondary schools should be allowed to retain their residency for hunting but not for more than four years per program (i.e. BA, MA PhD, etc.) and ONLY if consecutive to their residency. In other words, a Montana HS student who moves out of state for several years and then goes back to school should not qualify (perhaps they don't now anyway). I think a NR college student should be able to at least retain any points accumulated before he left the state until either returning to be a resident or applying in the general NR pool.

I am not familiar with the Native preference and don't understand why they should have any. Montana Indians have some really great and vast properties reserved exclusively to them for hunting. However, hunting on the reservations was traditionally, in my day anyway, very poor because management was terrible. Usually nonexistent. I don't understand why they should have preference off the reserve if they have exclusive rights to what really should be very good hunting resources.

 

[Trap]

Come Home to Hunt is just a small part of all the additional NR tags that are sold.

Guest view: Montana issued 59,395 deer/elk licenses to nonresidents

Montana issued 59,395 deer/elk licenses to nonresidents, Skyline Sportsmen's Association finds.

mtstandard.com

why go after come home to hunt as a fix. I looked into getting it and there was 500 available with 300 leftover? That’s 200-300 nr tags total. I couldn’t read the article you posted but the headline sounds absurd. I just agree with the goal of come home to hunt. Just my 2 cents and that particular class of tags hardly seem like the problem. Thanks for posting wish I could read though

 

[Trap]

I guess it depends how you want to define point creep. My definition is the same as how all the application services define it.

“Point creep occurs when the number of hunters applying for a tag increases faster than available tags. Therefore, the number of points needed to draw a particular tag “creeps” upward.” In Montana, there’s no certain number of points required to draw a tag, you can draw with zero. Obviously there’s point creep for NR combo tags because that’s a preference point system.

I agree with bold. Why get rid of the choice to opt out of preference points? That was the suggestion was to get rid of the zero preference points pool. I disagree with that and it would increase point creep because everyone would be forced Into the points game. Right now you can say I don’t want to play and have good odds of drawing. Also Montana has capped pp at 3 so your odds could go down but there is no way for required points to creep beyond that. I agree with a lot of big fins recommended changes. I strongly disagree with getting rid of zero point pool and going all bonus points. If Montana does this bonus points will just keep expanding or creeping to the point you would need an absurd number of points to have a reasonable chance to draw. It’s happened in every state. What about the new hunter trying to get in? Pp system is better allowing people to opt out and capped points at 3. It’s just better. Just my opinion on this but there’s been a lot of other things stated I agree with. You can’t have point creep with points capped at 3 your odds might decline. Why get rid of the choice to not participate? Everyone I know is sick of the points game. Zero pool needs to stay

 

[bigsky2]

The Come Home bunch don't put a big dent in things. There's never enough applicants to draw the couple hundred alloted. I'm told not even close. I do NOT agree with Come Home to Hunt using those licenses to get into the special tag draws (i.e. sheep, etc.). Those should be reserved entirely to the general nonresident applicant pool.

I suspect the college kids are also not taking a big bite out of the resource. I think it is fair that students who leave the state to go to post-secondary schools should be allowed to retain their residency for hunting but not for more than four years per program (i.e. BA, MA PhD, etc.) and ONLY if consecutive to their residency. In other words, a Montana HS student who moves out of state for several years and then goes back to school should not qualify (perhaps they don't now anyway). I think a NR college student should be able to at least retain any points accumulated before he left the state until either returning to be a resident or applying in the general NR pool.

I am not familiar with the Native preference and don't understand why they should have any. Montana Indians have some really great and vast properties reserved exclusively to them for hunting. However, hunting on the reservations was traditionally, in my day anyway, very poor because management was terrible. Usually nonexistent. I don't understand why they should have preference off the reserve if they have exclusive rights to what really should be very good hunting resources.

why go after come home to hunt as a fix. I looked into getting it and there was 500 available with 300 leftover? That’s 200-300 nr tags total. I couldn’t read the article you posted but the headline sounds absurd. I just agree with the goal of come home to hunt. Just my 2 cents and that particular class of tags hardly seem like the problem. Thanks for posting wish I could read though

Basically the article is saying that even though NR deer and elk tags are supposed to be capped at 17,000, there were actually 59,395 sold last year after figuring in the Come Home to Hunt, Nonresident Native, landowner sponsored, nonresident youth, 454 program, and nonresident college student.

 

[brockel]

Eliminate 3 choices in the draw. Make the draw a first choice only. Any leftover tags that would have been drawn as a 2nd or 3rd choice roll them into the surplus sale on a first come first serve.

I’d like to see managed by district but I’d settle for region. Make everyone resident and non resident apply by region with a quota for that region.

 

[8andcounting]

Basically the article is saying that even though NR deer and elk tags are supposed to be capped at 17,000, there were actually 59,395 sold last year after figuring in the Come Home to Hunt, Nonresident Native, landowner sponsored, nonresident youth, 454 program, and nonresident college student.

B tags were a big part of those numbers …..

 

[8andcounting]

Eliminate 3 choices in the draw. Make the draw a first choice only. Any leftover tags that would have been drawn as a 2nd or 3rd choice roll them into the surplus sale on a first come first serve.

I’d like to see managed by district but I’d settle for region. Make everyone resident and non resident apply by region with a quota for that region.

Yes . It doesn’t have to be complicated

 

[Cornell2012]

​

4. With regard to the Come Home To Hunt, the Montana Native, or the College Student programs that let NRs get tags without being in the General NR draw, I would eliminate all of those programs. If that was not palatable, then those tags need to come out of the 17,000/4,600 that is always pitched to us a hard cap on NR tags.​

They should 100% be part of the hard cap. The rest of it is just an attempt at price discrimination, where they make some programs less expensive. This pricing side is no different than MT deciding to charge NR $1100 for the deer/elk combo. They are trying to make it attractive for certain segments of people to come hunt in MT. I think the college student program in particular has promise for keeping students in hunting - I'd bet we lose a lot of hunters that take Hunter's Ed as a kid then have a 4 year break for college and just never pick it back up.

​

6. Require anyone buying a General Tag for deer or elk, whether resident or non-resident, to pick their unit. If that is too restrictive, then at least force them to pick their Region. Whatever area you pick, that is your hunt for the year, for all weapons/seasons.​

This would have a variety of effects - I think some general units would get increased pressure while others would get a break. One alternate is to restrict the length of season for general tags. Pick archery or 1st rife or 2nd rifle, etc. Is the problem that people are going cross-unit (or cross-region) and chasing elk in multiple spots, or that the hunting seasons are so long that people spend tons of days in the field? Do you implement hard caps on general regions? Does the whole state become draw-only?

​

7. Eliminate the Preference Point system for NR combo tags and make it a bonus point system. Convert PP to BPs and put no cap on how many BPs someone can accumulate, at the rate of one per year without any BS that outfitted clients can accumulate more than one BP per year.​

Bonus points instead of preference points - yes. Cap the BPs at some reasonable number (5-10?). One bonus point per person per year, maximum. Uncapped bonus points help entrench the established hunters and create a pretty disheartening barrier to entry for newcomers. There's a psychological difference between "I won't ever draw a premium tag" and "After 5 years I'll have a 2% chance at a premium tag, just like everyone else".

 

[Trap]

The Come Home bunch don't put a big dent in things. There's never enough applicants to draw the couple hundred alloted. I'm told not even close. I do NOT agree with Come Home to Hunt using those licenses to get into the special tag draws (i.e. sheep, etc.). Those should be reserved entirely to the general nonresident applicant pool.

I suspect the college kids are also not taking a big bite out of the resource. I think it is fair that students who leave the state to go to post-secondary schools should be allowed to retain their residency for hunting but not for more than four years per program (i.e. BA, MA PhD, etc.) and ONLY if consecutive to their residency. In other words, a Montana HS student who moves out of state for several years and then goes back to school should not qualify (perhaps they don't now anyway). I think a NR college student should be able to at least retain any points accumulated before he left the state until either returning to be a resident or applying in the general NR pool.

I am not familiar with the Native preference and don't understand why they should have any. Montana Indians have some really great and vast properties reserved exclusively to them for hunting. However, hunting on the reservations was traditionally, in my day anyway, very poor because management was terrible. Usually nonexistent. I don't understand why they should have preference off the reserve if they have exclusive rights to what really should be very good hunting

Basically the article is saying that even though NR deer and elk tags are supposed to be capped at 17,000, there were actually 59,395 sold last year after figuring in the Come Home to Hunt, Nonresident Native, landowner sponsored, nonresident youth, 454 program, and nonresident college student.

That’s insane. I picked up on that number from the headline but wasn’t sure. Thanks

 

[sacountry]

@Big Fin I like most of what you propose. Only one thing I'd change. I would accept shorter seasons without shoulder seasons over "choose your district/region". Reason being, fire. In bad fire years, I've appreciated the ability to move around to areas of the state that aren't burning up.

 

[DFS]

Eliminate 3 choices in the draw. Make the draw a first choice only. Any leftover tags that would have been drawn as a 2nd or 3rd choice roll them into the surplus sale on a first come first serve.

I’d like to see managed by district but I’d settle for region. Make everyone resident and non resident apply by region with a quota for that region.

Stop with the reasonable common sense ideas.

 

[brownbear932008]

I've sit around and thought for a day on some of these ideas and they do sound good. I love the idea of doing the draws in a sequential order similar to what I think it's NV or UT does. The idea of splitting the deer from the elk tag is a great idea also. I want one or the other. Having said that the deer tag is extremely over priced in MT. The deer/elk combo on the other hand is a good deal. Elk is about were it should be price wise. The preference point mess needs to go away and never return.

As for landowner sponsored tags going away that will be a tough fight. Those tags are only going toward deer hunting on that ranches property. I don't see a problem with those and think we also have to explore ways to satisfy landowners and outfitters ( I know this is very unpopular but let's be realistic here).

I've always thought all the specialty tags were a bad idea and are being sold stupid low because someone chose to move out of the state. You're either a R or a NR period and pay the price.

I absolutely hate the heavy price you pay in MT just to apply hoping to draw a permit and hurdles your forced to jump thru to get there as a NR. Total BS and a money grab.
I would like to see the State get rid of these crazy fees and money grabs and go to a system of requiring a general hunting license purchase by residents and non residents to make up for this similar to what other States do. Example NM less than $100 bucks for each NR and much cheaper for residents. Make that a requirement purchase before you can apply for anything.

Long story short there are tons of ways to make things better there. There are many States out West getting it right but none are the shining leader as well. My favorite States are non point States NM. & ID. even though I rarely apply for ID. since the price increase.
I honestly feel after over 20 years I'm slowly working my way out of hunting out West. It's become a rat race with the highest bidders and those willing to throw down the dollar leading the race. I have lines in the sand and will not spend stupid amounts of money on things even though I love it.

 

[SAJ-99]

Some of suggestions are really issues with the draw, but rather issues with tag numbers. I think #2 would go a long way to fixing some of the complexity issues. MT does it backwards. I like a lot of the other ideas too, like 3. I just applied as a NR for the first time after moving last year. Thank goodness I had some idea on how the process worked. Even a lifelong MT resident asked me “so how does that work”. Didn’t even know where to start in explaining it. It makes no sense that there is a deer combo, elk combo, and deer/elk combo.

At the very least, just do the damn draw in an excel spreadsheet so they can test it a few times before releasing results.

The elephant in the room that neither the legislature nor FWP wants to address is that there are too many tags given out.

 

[OntarioHunter]

That’s insane. I picked up on that number from the headline but wasn’t sure. Thanks

As was pointed out by another poster, throwing out a bulk number of get-around-the-cap NR licenses is misleading. If the bulk of the excess is indeed B tags, then I see nothing to get alarmed about. Those are year to year management culls. If there's an excess of animals, like last year in the district I hunt, then the state should have the flexibility to deal with it. Often those tags don't become available till later in the year when residents have their freezer full with A tag bucks or are not interested in taking the animals that need to be harvested (does or whitetails). I would like to know how many landowner get-around tags are floating. That who-you-know (or wanna-pay) BS needs to stop or it will only get worse. That's a fixed number that means something.

Again, I don't see a problem with college get-around under certain circumstances. Same with former residents in the military. Assume that their absence is only temporary and beneficial to the state (and, in the case of military, to the country). Keeping a link to them is justified. Montana wants them back. As to Come Home to Hunt, that group are hardly putting a dent in the resource at a couple hundred tags a year. If you look at the number of them who hunt publicly accessible land, I'm betting you'd find their competition for truly public animals is miniscule. Come Home program is about letting some folks, like me, who lived in Montana formerly and paid our dues (in my case thirty years of them) return to hunt ... with many strings attached. The Native get-around is pure politically correct feel-good unadulterated bullshit. That crap should never have been allowed in the door. Getting it back out again will be impossible and whoever opened that window should have had the brains to figure that out. Hopefully there's a puny cap on those but I have a feeling the opposite is true. Unlike the Come Home, college, and military get-arounds, I see absolutely no sensible justification for the Native get-around. No benefit to the state or the resource. Just a feel-good giveaway ... or rather throwaway.