T
tjones
Guest
It's also a fairly common sight in the news papers with the headlines " Poachers kill,,,,"
Last edited by a moderator:
MT Mule Deer Symposium
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,674
Dead deer on the road side are not a common site in Eastern Montana anymore.
Colorado's solution to the mule deer decline is to lower our population objective.
In 2006, the population objective for the units west of I-25 was 583,870 deer. The post-hunt population estimate for those units that year was 579,600.
In 2011, the population objective west of I-25 was 511,300. The post-hunt population estimate was 371,920.
In 2007 there was 31,089 antlerless, 5,324 either-sex and 62,883 buck rifle tags issued for those units (99,296 total).
In 2012 there was 8,863 antlerless, 2,733 either-sex and 37,738 buck rifle tags issued (49,334).
Given the rate tags were issued in 2007 when the population was very near the objective, we will likely see only about 87,000 tags issued in the future, should the population recover to current objective. That is a permanent loss of 12,000 tags in 5 years, blamed primarily on loss of habitat.
In 2006, the population objective for the units west of I-25 was 583,870 deer. The post-hunt population estimate for those units that year was 579,600.
In 2011, the population objective west of I-25 was 511,300. The post-hunt population estimate was 371,920.
In 2007 there was 31,089 antlerless, 5,324 either-sex and 62,883 buck rifle tags issued for those units (99,296 total).
In 2012 there was 8,863 antlerless, 2,733 either-sex and 37,738 buck rifle tags issued (49,334).
Given the rate tags were issued in 2007 when the population was very near the objective, we will likely see only about 87,000 tags issued in the future, should the population recover to current objective. That is a permanent loss of 12,000 tags in 5 years, blamed primarily on loss of habitat.
Well just look at how much landowners have lost in the last 5 years. It had to be made up somehow.
I'd say some of the decline has been because deer were put in people's freezers. Did tag numbers stay similar from 2007-2011? Seeing the population objective reduced is troubling. Does Colorado have data showing what sort of habitat loss has happened in those years? I know you guys had a couple bad winters over there, which years were they?
I will dig up and post some more stuff later tonight, but here are the rifle tag numbers issued the last 6 years. I can't find already-compiled data for archery and ML tag numbers.
2007 - 99,296
2008 - 68,129
2009 - 60,485
2010 - 57,514
2011 - 54,577
2012 - 49,334
Our bad winters were 2007-2008 and 2010-2011.
So those mirrored the bad winters we had in East Idaho when I was there. Having two bad ones that close together really makes it hard for the herd to gain much momentum in a positive direction. Thats probably 2 fawn crops that are mostly missing, not to mention any other deer lost as well. At least tag numbers went down in response to the winter kills.
Here is some information from some of the DAU plans that have been updated in that period. Same old problems: reduced habitat quality, development on winter range, herds above socially accepted levels (crop damage), habitat fragmentation from energy development and subdivision, etc. Also some new modeling that reduced previous estimates of herd size.
D-8, 2009
Objective reduced from 21,000 to 15,000
“…due to land development; fire suppression; range degradation due to inappropriate historic livestock grazing, over-populations of deer in the 1950-1960s; and competition with elk.”
http://wildlife.state.co.us/SiteCol...igGame/DAU/Deer/D8DAUPlan_StateBridge2009.pdf
D-12, 2010
Objective reduced from 29,500 to 19,000
“Recent improvements to population estimation techniques and refinements to computer modeling procedures have substantially decreased estimates of the D-12 deer population over previously-used models. The improved models have estimated the D-12 population size at roughly 20,000 animals after the 2008 hunting season.
“The population size objectives set in 2006 reflected general satisfaction with the size of the deer herd in D-12 at the time. Therefore, a revision of the population size objective will allow the CDOW to continue managing this herd at accepted levels.”
http://wildlife.state.co.us/SiteCollectionDocuments/DOW/Hunting/BigGame/DAU/Deer/D-12DAU.pdf
D-13, 2011
Objective reduced from 11,100 to 8,000
“Over the past 2 decades, there has been significant loss and degradation of mule deer habitat in D-13, including a boom in housing development in deer wintering habitat, combined with an increase in the human population and increased year-round recreational use of public lands. Several current and historic ecological processes, including long-term fire suppression, have altered plant composition and contributed to plant succession towards less nutritious forage for deer. The current population objective is no longer realistic…”
http://wildlife.state.co.us/SiteCollectionDocuments/DOW/Hunting/BigGame/DAU/Deer/D13-DAU.pdf
D-15, 2011
Objective reduced from 9,450 to 7,000
“…local biologists have begun noticing apparent over-use of available winter
range forage. Much of the available habitat has reached later-seral stages and appears
heavily browsed. Game damage complaints are currently at reasonable levels, but have
increased somewhat in recent years, particularly in and around the human population
centers of Salida and Buena Vista. Given these indicators, current populations may be
approaching the general social and biological carrying capacity for deer in this DAU as
current habitat conditions, human encroachment and development, and competition
with elk and livestock begin to potentially create a density-dependent situation.”
http://wildlife.state.co.us/SiteCol...DAU/Deer/Grigg_D15_CottonwoodCreekDAU2011.pdf
D-18, 2010
Objective reduced from 12,000 to 7,500
“Several significant issues were identified during the DAU planning process. The primary issues involved the low population size, competition with elk, residential development, particularly on winter range, and improving the quality of harvested bucks.
“The low population size and failure to increase without antlerless licenses was the most frequently identified issue, closely followed by the increase in residential development across the landscape. There is some concern, primarily within the CDOW, that fawn: doe ratios are not as high as would be expected. It is possible this is due to density-dependence related to winter range declines.”
http://wildlife.state.co.us/SiteCollectionDocuments/DOW/Hunting/BigGame/DAU/Deer/D-18DAU.pdf
D-26, 2008
Objective reduced from 8,500 to 4,500
“The main limiting factor on this herd is the amount of winter range available. Overpopulation of deer and/or elk on the winter range can damage the habitat and can also force animals into lower elevations where agricultural fields are located. This in return could lead to game damage issues which the Division of Wildlife could be held responsible for.”
http://wildlife.state.co.us/SiteCol.../BigGame/DAU/Deer/D26DAUPlan_SaguacheDeer.pdf
D-31, 2010
Objective reduced from 6,000 to 2,250
“The main limiting factor for this herd is the amount of winter range available. Overpopulation of deer and/or elk on the winter range can damage the habitat and can also force animals onto agricultural fields. This in turn could lead to game damage issues. Housing development on private lands continues to decrease winter range availability, further restricting this population.”
http://wildlife.state.co.us/SiteCol...igGame/DAU/Deer/D31_DAUplan_TrincheraDeer.pdf
D-36, 2010
Objective reduced from 4,000 to 2,250
“The main limiting factor for this herd is the amount of winter range available. Overpopulation of deer and/or elk on the winter range can damage the habitat and can also force animals onto agricultural fields. This in turn could lead to game damage issues. Housing development on private lands continues to decrease winter range availability, further restricting this population.”
http://wildlife.state.co.us/SiteCol...e/DAU/Deer/D36_DAUplan_UpperRioGrandeDeer.pdf
D-37, 2010
Objective reduced from 4,500 to 1,750
“The main limiting factor for this herd is the amount of winter range available. Overpopulation of deer and/or elk on the winter range can damage the habitat and can also force animals onto agricultural fields. This in turn could lead to game damage issues. Housing development on private lands continues to decrease winter range availability, further restricting this population.”
http://wildlife.state.co.us/SiteCol...gGame/DAU/Deer/D-37_DAUplan_SandDunesDeer.pdf
D-41, 2012
Objective reduced from 16,500 to 7,500
“The most significant issue is the long-term decline and stagnation of the herd. Despite virtually no antlerless harvest in over 15 years, the population has not rebounded from the decline of the 1990’s. Additionally, landscape-scale energy development is a significant concern. Habitat quality and quantity decline resulting from the loss of winter range and pinon-juniper encroachment also impact this deer herd.”
http://wildlife.state.co.us/SiteCol...ame/DAU/Deer/D41DAUPlan_LoganMountainDeer.pdf
D-43, 2011
Objective reduced from 8,100 to 5,500
“Unfavorable winter range conditions: The condition of habitat on deer winter range has deteriorated over the past several decades. Fire suppression and other current and historic ecological processes have led to over-mature and stunted browse plants. Piñon and juniper have encroached into sagebrush shrublands. Invasive weeds also reduce and replace native understory forage. With diminished habitat quality, the range is not able to support as many mule deer as it could in the past.
“Competition with elk: The elk population overlapping with D-43 is larger than in it was 50+ years ago and may be out-competing mule deer for forage and space.
“Land development in winter range: Winter range is considered the most limiting factor for deer in this DAU, as with deer throughout the state. A substantial portion (39%) of deer winter range in D-43 is private lands, with only 1% protected under conservation easement. Management of winter range habitat for the benefit of deer and other wildlife therefore depends on the interests and ability of private landowners. At present, development of private lands into residential housing has been minimal relative to surrounding DAUs. However, some developments along the Colorado River Road and near McCoy have recently occurred. Because of proximity to communities along Interstate-70 and Steamboat Springs, there is a high potential risk of future development of private lands that currently function as important mule deer winter habitat.”
http://wildlife.state.co.us/SiteCollectionDocuments/DOW/Hunting/BigGame/DAU/Deer/D43-DAU.pdf
D-52, 2010
Objective reduced from 11,500 to 5,000
“This deer herd has declined considerably in the last 25 years. Much of this decline is likely from loss of winter range and changes in agricultural practices.
“This declining mule deer herd is probably evidence that carrying capacity is, and has been, on a
downward trend. Extensive exurban development has occurred in the DAU. The direct and indirect impacts of energy development also have reduced winter range quantity and quality. Additionally, significantly fewer dryland crops also are being produced. Fire suppression has increased canopy cover and reduced winter range quality. Sagebrush and mountain shrub winter forage are extremely limited. The cumulative effects of all human activities lower the habitat capability and ultimately reduce the size of big game populations the habitat can sustain. Drought also can play a significant role in habitat capability by affecting winter and year-round forage condition.
“The old population objective of 11,500 appears to be unattainable with current conditions.”
http://wildlife.state.co.us/SiteCol...ing/BigGame/DAU/Deer/D-52DAUPlan2010Final.pdf
D-8, 2009
Objective reduced from 21,000 to 15,000
“…due to land development; fire suppression; range degradation due to inappropriate historic livestock grazing, over-populations of deer in the 1950-1960s; and competition with elk.”
http://wildlife.state.co.us/SiteCol...igGame/DAU/Deer/D8DAUPlan_StateBridge2009.pdf
D-12, 2010
Objective reduced from 29,500 to 19,000
“Recent improvements to population estimation techniques and refinements to computer modeling procedures have substantially decreased estimates of the D-12 deer population over previously-used models. The improved models have estimated the D-12 population size at roughly 20,000 animals after the 2008 hunting season.
“The population size objectives set in 2006 reflected general satisfaction with the size of the deer herd in D-12 at the time. Therefore, a revision of the population size objective will allow the CDOW to continue managing this herd at accepted levels.”
http://wildlife.state.co.us/SiteCollectionDocuments/DOW/Hunting/BigGame/DAU/Deer/D-12DAU.pdf
D-13, 2011
Objective reduced from 11,100 to 8,000
“Over the past 2 decades, there has been significant loss and degradation of mule deer habitat in D-13, including a boom in housing development in deer wintering habitat, combined with an increase in the human population and increased year-round recreational use of public lands. Several current and historic ecological processes, including long-term fire suppression, have altered plant composition and contributed to plant succession towards less nutritious forage for deer. The current population objective is no longer realistic…”
http://wildlife.state.co.us/SiteCollectionDocuments/DOW/Hunting/BigGame/DAU/Deer/D13-DAU.pdf
D-15, 2011
Objective reduced from 9,450 to 7,000
“…local biologists have begun noticing apparent over-use of available winter
range forage. Much of the available habitat has reached later-seral stages and appears
heavily browsed. Game damage complaints are currently at reasonable levels, but have
increased somewhat in recent years, particularly in and around the human population
centers of Salida and Buena Vista. Given these indicators, current populations may be
approaching the general social and biological carrying capacity for deer in this DAU as
current habitat conditions, human encroachment and development, and competition
with elk and livestock begin to potentially create a density-dependent situation.”
http://wildlife.state.co.us/SiteCol...DAU/Deer/Grigg_D15_CottonwoodCreekDAU2011.pdf
D-18, 2010
Objective reduced from 12,000 to 7,500
“Several significant issues were identified during the DAU planning process. The primary issues involved the low population size, competition with elk, residential development, particularly on winter range, and improving the quality of harvested bucks.
“The low population size and failure to increase without antlerless licenses was the most frequently identified issue, closely followed by the increase in residential development across the landscape. There is some concern, primarily within the CDOW, that fawn: doe ratios are not as high as would be expected. It is possible this is due to density-dependence related to winter range declines.”
http://wildlife.state.co.us/SiteCollectionDocuments/DOW/Hunting/BigGame/DAU/Deer/D-18DAU.pdf
D-26, 2008
Objective reduced from 8,500 to 4,500
“The main limiting factor on this herd is the amount of winter range available. Overpopulation of deer and/or elk on the winter range can damage the habitat and can also force animals into lower elevations where agricultural fields are located. This in return could lead to game damage issues which the Division of Wildlife could be held responsible for.”
http://wildlife.state.co.us/SiteCol.../BigGame/DAU/Deer/D26DAUPlan_SaguacheDeer.pdf
D-31, 2010
Objective reduced from 6,000 to 2,250
“The main limiting factor for this herd is the amount of winter range available. Overpopulation of deer and/or elk on the winter range can damage the habitat and can also force animals onto agricultural fields. This in turn could lead to game damage issues. Housing development on private lands continues to decrease winter range availability, further restricting this population.”
http://wildlife.state.co.us/SiteCol...igGame/DAU/Deer/D31_DAUplan_TrincheraDeer.pdf
D-36, 2010
Objective reduced from 4,000 to 2,250
“The main limiting factor for this herd is the amount of winter range available. Overpopulation of deer and/or elk on the winter range can damage the habitat and can also force animals onto agricultural fields. This in turn could lead to game damage issues. Housing development on private lands continues to decrease winter range availability, further restricting this population.”
http://wildlife.state.co.us/SiteCol...e/DAU/Deer/D36_DAUplan_UpperRioGrandeDeer.pdf
D-37, 2010
Objective reduced from 4,500 to 1,750
“The main limiting factor for this herd is the amount of winter range available. Overpopulation of deer and/or elk on the winter range can damage the habitat and can also force animals onto agricultural fields. This in turn could lead to game damage issues. Housing development on private lands continues to decrease winter range availability, further restricting this population.”
http://wildlife.state.co.us/SiteCol...gGame/DAU/Deer/D-37_DAUplan_SandDunesDeer.pdf
D-41, 2012
Objective reduced from 16,500 to 7,500
“The most significant issue is the long-term decline and stagnation of the herd. Despite virtually no antlerless harvest in over 15 years, the population has not rebounded from the decline of the 1990’s. Additionally, landscape-scale energy development is a significant concern. Habitat quality and quantity decline resulting from the loss of winter range and pinon-juniper encroachment also impact this deer herd.”
http://wildlife.state.co.us/SiteCol...ame/DAU/Deer/D41DAUPlan_LoganMountainDeer.pdf
D-43, 2011
Objective reduced from 8,100 to 5,500
“Unfavorable winter range conditions: The condition of habitat on deer winter range has deteriorated over the past several decades. Fire suppression and other current and historic ecological processes have led to over-mature and stunted browse plants. Piñon and juniper have encroached into sagebrush shrublands. Invasive weeds also reduce and replace native understory forage. With diminished habitat quality, the range is not able to support as many mule deer as it could in the past.
“Competition with elk: The elk population overlapping with D-43 is larger than in it was 50+ years ago and may be out-competing mule deer for forage and space.
“Land development in winter range: Winter range is considered the most limiting factor for deer in this DAU, as with deer throughout the state. A substantial portion (39%) of deer winter range in D-43 is private lands, with only 1% protected under conservation easement. Management of winter range habitat for the benefit of deer and other wildlife therefore depends on the interests and ability of private landowners. At present, development of private lands into residential housing has been minimal relative to surrounding DAUs. However, some developments along the Colorado River Road and near McCoy have recently occurred. Because of proximity to communities along Interstate-70 and Steamboat Springs, there is a high potential risk of future development of private lands that currently function as important mule deer winter habitat.”
http://wildlife.state.co.us/SiteCollectionDocuments/DOW/Hunting/BigGame/DAU/Deer/D43-DAU.pdf
D-52, 2010
Objective reduced from 11,500 to 5,000
“This deer herd has declined considerably in the last 25 years. Much of this decline is likely from loss of winter range and changes in agricultural practices.
“This declining mule deer herd is probably evidence that carrying capacity is, and has been, on a
downward trend. Extensive exurban development has occurred in the DAU. The direct and indirect impacts of energy development also have reduced winter range quantity and quality. Additionally, significantly fewer dryland crops also are being produced. Fire suppression has increased canopy cover and reduced winter range quality. Sagebrush and mountain shrub winter forage are extremely limited. The cumulative effects of all human activities lower the habitat capability and ultimately reduce the size of big game populations the habitat can sustain. Drought also can play a significant role in habitat capability by affecting winter and year-round forage condition.
“The old population objective of 11,500 appears to be unattainable with current conditions.”
http://wildlife.state.co.us/SiteCol...ing/BigGame/DAU/Deer/D-52DAUPlan2010Final.pdf
Overall success rates for rifle hunters during the years above are below. These are statewide numbers, though, not just west of I-70.
2007 - 50%
2008 - 46%
2009 - 48%
2010 - 50%
2011 - 49%
2012 - N/A
Dinkshooter
Well-known member
Those reduced objectives are depressing. Nothing like swinging for the fence, whoa wait, I mean the infield.
Thats why some of us have headed east for deer. The population is booming in the GMU's I'm hunting! 10 years ago just seeing a deer was a big deal, but not any more
My feeling (and maybe this is not correct) is that, if you leave the population objectives where they were at, you are then beholden to sportsmen to do something about it. If you lower the population objectives to match where the population is at, then you can sit back and wait for someone else to fix the problems causing the decline. Granted, there is not much the CPW can do about many of the problems, but I have a concern with them lowering the objectives. Many land management decisions do take into consideration the condition of deer and elk herds, and the potential impacts to those herds. Saying that a herd is at objective or only 5% below objective sounds much better than saying a herd is 50-60% below objective. Thus, you lose the measure of cumulative effects over time.
Sadly you may be right. Although the fact CO even has those herd breakdown's by unit is worth something.
Idaho is currently working on updating it's elk plan and one of the things I'm hearing is we could theoretically support quite a few more elk than we currently are, but social acceptance of more elk in certain areas could be one of the major issues.
sethkuhl
Well-known member
Looking back, my second year of college, my bow hunting spot I would see 100 plus deer a day (All mule deer) Same area this last fall I saw three does in three days. My third year of college after an awesome bow season went hunting back in that area, saw a datsun truck with 6 mule deer does that was almost dragging its bumper. It was 70 plus degrees outside and the guy was tickled about how "well he had done" I turned to my life long friend and hunting buddy and told him this was the end of "our" awesome deer hunting spot (Fish and game gave out 5 doe tags per person over the county that year, you could also kil a doe with your buck tag.) You want to talk about where the deer went the answer seems simple to me. MISMANAGEMENT/ increased predators, The only true two changes in the past 10 years
The BLM White River Field Office is working on an RMP amendment that may require CPW to reevaluate population objectives in that area again in the near future.
http://www.denverpost.com/willoughby/ci_22476575/scott-willoughby-balance-oil-and-gas-deers-best
.
http://www.denverpost.com/willoughby/ci_22476575/scott-willoughby-balance-oil-and-gas-deers-best
.
Elk Parker
New member
- Joined
- May 29, 2012
- Messages
- 4
I-161 saved MOGA from admitting its misinformation campaign.
This is my first post. I read the site occasionally and am impressed by the quality of the discussion here and the goals and ethics of the program. I was directed to this link by a friend who I attended the MOGA Mule Deer symposium with. Others posters have fairly captured how demeaning it was to our wildlife and resident hunters. It should have been titled "How to maximize profits by selling public wildlife"
I seldom post anywhere but felt compelled to correct some serious misconceptions which never seem to die. My comments address a previous poster who blames I-161 for problems it actually solved.
I pulled info in the tables below from 3 FWP documents and am using only the 5,500 big game combos for the table. I apologize for my difficulties with the formatting. There were also 2,300 deer combos which generally mimiced the big game combos. Any mistakes are my own, not FWPs. It shows how many OSLs were sold each year, the price, outfitters target for licenses sold each year and how many licenses they undersold their target by if any.
The last two rows show total revenue to hunter access and the fund balance which was used to absorb the impacts from the inherent wild swings in revenue from OSLs. OSL's provided by far the bulk of the money for the BM program until 2011. I would be happy to provide folks with copies of the documents.
I guess some folks still don't realize I-161 saved outfitters from a black eye and saved BM until an outfitter sponsored bill, HB-607, passed in 2011. All 17,500 big game combo licenses sold out in 2011. Then HB 607 gave non-residents a right that Montana resident hunters have never received, the ability to return their elk license and keep the deer portion if they don't draw a special elk permit for the Elk Horns or the Breaks etc. In addition all the proceeds normally earmaked for Block Management and Habitat Montana are then diverted away from those programs to the general license fund.
Notice that in spite of the loss of $190,000 redirected from BM because of HB 607, and the additional losses from elk licenses that were not resold, the first year without OSLs, BM revenue jumped $1.5 million, the vast majority of this increase from NR big game licenses. Every outfitter client who applied drew a license and at a much lower cost than OSLs in 2010.
I don't have the info for 2012 yet but it saw a far greater impact from returned licenses because in many cases private land deer outfitters encouraged clients to apply for the combo license and return the elk portion if they didn't draw a special elk permit. I don't have the total amount but well over 2,000 licenses were sold once then allowed to be returned. Montana residents cannot return their elk tag if we don't draw a special elk permit.
While the table demonstrates the dramatic decline in revenue from OSLs in a short period, it does not show how bad it would have been if I-161 had failed. If we use the average of 5,500 OSLs, each $100 price decrease would mean a revenue decrease of $550,000.
Outfitters we spoke with expected a $300 to $500 decrease in license prices for 2011 since they had missed the target by 987 licenses in 2010. The 987 unsold OSLs was nearly twice as much as the total they had missed in the entire 14 previous years of the OSL program. You can do the math. BM was busted and broke!!
The OSL program was a looming disaster for sportsmen but MOGA continued to pretend it was sound. Mac Minard even made the rediculous statement that OSLs provided "an extremely stable souce of revenue" on their website. Even if they hit their target which was very unlikely in the bad economy, revenue would have declined steeply due to large price decreases. Note: just the minimum price decrease they expected put the price for one of the 5,500 OSLs at about the same as all 17,500 NR licenses under I-161. Again, do the math.
I-161 saved MOGA from the embarrassment of explaining why they misled the public so badly during the election. Also the anti-sportsmen 2011 legislature would have determined the fate of funding for BM which may be just what some in MOGA wanted.
One other thing this table doesn't show is that 4 of the 5 years with the highest revenue in the 15 year history of the program occured in the last 5 years and it still couldn't fund BM adequately beyond 2010 as payments to landowners and other costs increased.
Remember Outfitters had no requirement to provide even a minimum level of funding. The only requirement was to sell an average of 5,500 licenses over each 5 year period. The law required them to increase or decrease prices to meet the 5,500 average in order to "provide stability for the outfitting industry". No mention of BM except we get the leftovers.
The last column under 2011 shows $6.2 million revenue which is a $1.5 million increase for the first year under I-161. I can't make the formatting work right but if you look closely, you can hopefull see what it should look like.
OSLs 2006 -- 2007 -- 2008 - 2009 - 2010 - - 2011
Price $995 - $1195 - $1500 $1500 $1250 -- $930
Target 5,500 5,000 - 5,000 - 4,750 - 5,390
# sold 6,483 5,876 - 5,219 - 4,532 - 4,403
UnderTarget ---- ---- --- ----------- -218 ---987
Million$ 2006------2007-----2008---- 2009----- 2010 -----2011 = I-161 impact
BM rev $6.613 - $7.709 - $7.872 - $5.408 - $4.731 - $6.288 = +$1.5 without OSLs
fund bal $3.771 - $5.755 - $7.316 - $6.242 - $3.618
Note the catastrophic decline in revenue and the 50% decrease in fund balance in the 3 years between 2008 and 2010 under OSLs and compare this with the $1.5 million revenue increase under the first year of 1-161.
MOGA has never acknowledged how wrong they were or thanked Kurt Kephart for helping them save face with sportsmen.
This is my first post. I read the site occasionally and am impressed by the quality of the discussion here and the goals and ethics of the program. I was directed to this link by a friend who I attended the MOGA Mule Deer symposium with. Others posters have fairly captured how demeaning it was to our wildlife and resident hunters. It should have been titled "How to maximize profits by selling public wildlife"
I seldom post anywhere but felt compelled to correct some serious misconceptions which never seem to die. My comments address a previous poster who blames I-161 for problems it actually solved.
I pulled info in the tables below from 3 FWP documents and am using only the 5,500 big game combos for the table. I apologize for my difficulties with the formatting. There were also 2,300 deer combos which generally mimiced the big game combos. Any mistakes are my own, not FWPs. It shows how many OSLs were sold each year, the price, outfitters target for licenses sold each year and how many licenses they undersold their target by if any.
The last two rows show total revenue to hunter access and the fund balance which was used to absorb the impacts from the inherent wild swings in revenue from OSLs. OSL's provided by far the bulk of the money for the BM program until 2011. I would be happy to provide folks with copies of the documents.
I guess some folks still don't realize I-161 saved outfitters from a black eye and saved BM until an outfitter sponsored bill, HB-607, passed in 2011. All 17,500 big game combo licenses sold out in 2011. Then HB 607 gave non-residents a right that Montana resident hunters have never received, the ability to return their elk license and keep the deer portion if they don't draw a special elk permit for the Elk Horns or the Breaks etc. In addition all the proceeds normally earmaked for Block Management and Habitat Montana are then diverted away from those programs to the general license fund.
Notice that in spite of the loss of $190,000 redirected from BM because of HB 607, and the additional losses from elk licenses that were not resold, the first year without OSLs, BM revenue jumped $1.5 million, the vast majority of this increase from NR big game licenses. Every outfitter client who applied drew a license and at a much lower cost than OSLs in 2010.
I don't have the info for 2012 yet but it saw a far greater impact from returned licenses because in many cases private land deer outfitters encouraged clients to apply for the combo license and return the elk portion if they didn't draw a special elk permit. I don't have the total amount but well over 2,000 licenses were sold once then allowed to be returned. Montana residents cannot return their elk tag if we don't draw a special elk permit.
While the table demonstrates the dramatic decline in revenue from OSLs in a short period, it does not show how bad it would have been if I-161 had failed. If we use the average of 5,500 OSLs, each $100 price decrease would mean a revenue decrease of $550,000.
Outfitters we spoke with expected a $300 to $500 decrease in license prices for 2011 since they had missed the target by 987 licenses in 2010. The 987 unsold OSLs was nearly twice as much as the total they had missed in the entire 14 previous years of the OSL program. You can do the math. BM was busted and broke!!
The OSL program was a looming disaster for sportsmen but MOGA continued to pretend it was sound. Mac Minard even made the rediculous statement that OSLs provided "an extremely stable souce of revenue" on their website. Even if they hit their target which was very unlikely in the bad economy, revenue would have declined steeply due to large price decreases. Note: just the minimum price decrease they expected put the price for one of the 5,500 OSLs at about the same as all 17,500 NR licenses under I-161. Again, do the math.
I-161 saved MOGA from the embarrassment of explaining why they misled the public so badly during the election. Also the anti-sportsmen 2011 legislature would have determined the fate of funding for BM which may be just what some in MOGA wanted.
One other thing this table doesn't show is that 4 of the 5 years with the highest revenue in the 15 year history of the program occured in the last 5 years and it still couldn't fund BM adequately beyond 2010 as payments to landowners and other costs increased.
Remember Outfitters had no requirement to provide even a minimum level of funding. The only requirement was to sell an average of 5,500 licenses over each 5 year period. The law required them to increase or decrease prices to meet the 5,500 average in order to "provide stability for the outfitting industry". No mention of BM except we get the leftovers.
The last column under 2011 shows $6.2 million revenue which is a $1.5 million increase for the first year under I-161. I can't make the formatting work right but if you look closely, you can hopefull see what it should look like.
OSLs 2006 -- 2007 -- 2008 - 2009 - 2010 - - 2011
Price $995 - $1195 - $1500 $1500 $1250 -- $930
Target 5,500 5,000 - 5,000 - 4,750 - 5,390
# sold 6,483 5,876 - 5,219 - 4,532 - 4,403
UnderTarget ---- ---- --- ----------- -218 ---987
Million$ 2006------2007-----2008---- 2009----- 2010 -----2011 = I-161 impact
BM rev $6.613 - $7.709 - $7.872 - $5.408 - $4.731 - $6.288 = +$1.5 without OSLs
fund bal $3.771 - $5.755 - $7.316 - $6.242 - $3.618
Note the catastrophic decline in revenue and the 50% decrease in fund balance in the 3 years between 2008 and 2010 under OSLs and compare this with the $1.5 million revenue increase under the first year of 1-161.
MOGA has never acknowledged how wrong they were or thanked Kurt Kephart for helping them save face with sportsmen.
Last edited:
Similar threads
