Podcast on Montana Mule Deer ideas

[Big Fin]

This summer @Gerald Martin, @sclancy27, and @Eric Albus joined me for a Hunt Talk Radio podcast episode about their Montana mule deer proposal. We had hoped that @antlerradar could join us, but he was trying to save his property from wildfires at that time. Suffice to say, his fingerprints are also on that proposal.

It took a bit of time for me to get it in the docket, but with @DFS most recent thread about MT hunting pressure, it seems timely that this episode about their proposal would get published now.

If you are interested in hearing more about their proposal, listen to this podcast. It is an expansion of the Hunt Talk threads posted this year by the group who worked on that.

I know in today's world it is convenient to post frustrations on social media. Yet, that accomplished nothing. Credit to this group of people who are trying to find solutions and are will to take the arrows from critics, along with spending their own time and money to do this.

You can get this episode wherever you get your podcasts.

Or, if you want to listen directly here is the link - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podca...ntanas-mule-deer/id1012713381?i=1000673839709

 

[antlerradar]

Thank you for doing this. Sorry I couldn't make the podcast. It has been a long, hot and smokey summer.

 

[Ben Lamb]

That Gerald guy sure do talk purty.

Thanks for doing this, Randy & all. Great podcast.

 

[mtmiller]

Enjoyed the podcast while in the field today. I saw a few R6 dinks that will be headed to another state sometime next week.

 

[Gebada22]

Really appreciate the podcast explaining the proposed changes as well as the reasoning and some of the historical perspective..

 

[Bambistew]

What are the odds of these changes happening? Seems like it's just a discussion on another platform.

Sad to see how much things have changed

 

[cgasner1]

What are the odds of these changes happening? Seems like it's just a discussion on another platform.

Sad to see how much things have changed

All we can do is hope and keep raising hell about it.

 

[FREAK]

That Gerald guy sure do talk purty.

Thanks for doing this, Randy & all. Great podcast.

I get a Georgia/South Carolina accent. Am I close?

 

[Gerald Martin]

What are the odds of these changes happening? Seems like it's just a discussion on another platform.

Sad to see how much things have changed

Odds of them happening are going to be directly correlated to the feedback that hunters give to the Commission when they are considering changes for the 26/27 seasons. FWP is going to be continuing the messaging that everything is great and they’re doing a good job, it’s just a normal dip in numbers. If the general public is more concerned about maintaining “opportunity” and rut hunting and reaches out to the commission to oppose change, I wouldn’t expect any of this to happen. If folks are vocal with their dissatisfaction of the way FWP management has affected the quality of hunting in MT and demand change and voice support for the proposal then it has a much better chance of being implemented.

 

[Ben Lamb]

What are the odds of these changes happening? Seems like it's just a discussion on another platform.

Sad to see how much things have changed

From the Legislative portion:

FWP has requested funding for helping employees with costs of living. That's not the wage increase that folks wanted, but it's a part of the puzzle.

FWP's revenue projections indicate that movement on budget issues hat reduce funding will be met with fierce resistance so the group has decided that working with the agency over the next 2 years when they will likely need to have a revenue discussion with the legislature to find some balance and common ground is their best approach.

Post election, draft legislation will be put together and potential sponsors for a few of the other portions listed within, especially around changing the muzzy statute relative to statutory season dates and mandatory reporting will be sought.

Season setting happens in 2025. Post legislative session is when the push to enact changes becomes a larger effort. The current effort is centered around refining the proposal, seeking feedback, gathering data and working the changes.

The group is finalizing the next version and will have the website up and running and posted here soon. Just a few last edits to make.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I get a Georgia/South Carolina accent. Am I close?

I reckon if you’re born a Virginia hillbilly, you’re going to always sound like a Virginia hillbilly, no matter how long you live elsewhere.

 

[FREAK]

I reckon if you’re born a Virginia hillbilly, you’re going to always sound like a Virginia hillbilly, no matter how long you live elsewhere.

Enjoyed the podcast, makes a lot of sense. I think it was one of the better discussions on the topic. I'll be forwarding it on to a bunch of guys that want to see some change.

 

[Forkyfinder]

@Eric Albus @sclancy27 @Gerald Martin @cgasner1 @antlerradar

I appreciate the guts required to do this and dealing with getting lit up by fellow hunters/guides. Thanks @Big Fin for hosting the podcast - hopefully more people listen to it.

Ironically - as was mentioned by Eric, I think this proposal needs more "selling" as retention/preservation in opportunity. At least based on the frustrations from folks i saw come out on other platforms (namely that montana hunting fb group). If we keep going down the path we are on the recovery will only take longer and it will flatly come down to limited entry when it becomes supercritical.

Im not sure how many other states you can be hunting so many species in so many areas all at the same time with high odds/ gen permits. At some point - we have to embrace a little bit different kind of opportunity and not walk around looking for bears, elk, deer all at the same time.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I reckon if you’re born a Virginia hillbilly, you’re going to always sound like a Virginia hillbilly, no matter how long you live elsewhere.

At least you ain't no Holler back girl.

 

[mfregerio427]

Good podcast with some solid ideas to chew on. Mule deer management in MT needs a significant overhaul.

One thing I didn't hear come up, is that the FWP was petitioned to provide a report that shows all the non-resident license sales. This would include the standard Deer and Elk combos, Deer B, Elk B, extra youth hunter licenses, etc. This should also include the "Montana Return Home to Hunt Licenses" which don't get included in the legislatively mandated limit, at least, as I understand it. The FWP has yet to produce this report.

I don't hear a discussion very often on the Return Home To Hunt licenses. Can anyone tell me how many are being issued every year in MT? And, why is that they are significantly discounted? That's great that you lived in MT at one time, but why should you automatically get a license and at less than half the price that other non-residents pay. These hunters don't pay MT income taxes, high property taxes, or a sales tax while they are here. Additionally, I know of several people from other states, who buy the license and then do not even hunt with their families which the rules of the license dictate. This loop hole, if you want to call it that, needs to be closed. This would provide more funding for biologists, data gathering and analysis, etc., and help with the overcrowding.

I'm not anti-nonresident as I hunt other states as well. But I pay full price when I do and when I'm hunting there my license is counted against the non-resident quota. I'm curious what other's thoughts/perspectives are on the MT "Return Home to Hunt" opportunity.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Good podcast with some solid ideas to chew on. Mule deer management in MT needs a significant overhaul.

One thing I didn't hear come up, is that the FWP was petitioned to provide a report that shows all the non-resident license sales. This would include the standard Deer and Elk combos, Deer B, Elk B, extra youth hunter licenses, etc. This should also include the "Montana Return Home to Hunt Licenses" which don't get included in the legislatively mandated limit, at least, as I understand it. The FWP has yet to produce this report.

I don't hear a discussion very often on the Return Home To Hunt licenses. Can anyone tell me how many are being issued every year in MT? And, why is that they are significantly discounted? That's great that you lived in MT at one time, but why should you automatically get a license and at less than half the price that other non-residents pay. These hunters don't pay MT income taxes, high property taxes, or a sales tax while they are here. Additionally, I know of several people from other states, who buy the license and then do not even hunt with their families which the rules of the license dictate. This loop hole, if you want to call it that, needs to be closed. This would provide more funding for biologists, data gathering and analysis, etc., and help with the overcrowding.

I'm not anti-nonresident as I hunt other states as well. But I pay full price when I do and when I'm hunting there my license is counted against the non-resident quota. I'm curious what other's thoughts/perspectives are on the MT "Return Home to Hunt" opportunity.

I think this might be the report you’re referring to?

https://fwp.mt.gov/binaries/content/assets/fwp/buyandapply/license-reports/2024-hb-593-report.pdf

It’s found under the licensing tab on FWP’s website. Under license sales report

 

[bigsky2]

I think this might be the report you’re referring to?

https://fwp.mt.gov/binaries/content/assets/fwp/buyandapply/license-reports/2024-hb-593-report.pdf

It’s found under the licensing tab on FWP’s website. Under license sales report

Yikes, look at the increase in Black Bear, Migratory Bird, Turkey, and especially Upland Bird license sales.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Yikes, look at the increase in Black Bear, Migratory Bird, Turkey, and especially Upland Bird license sales.

Turkey populations can sustain that, especially when it's liklely that hunters are purchasing multiple licenses (cheap for NR's). Upland is a large increase in yearlies (90-ish percent increase), with a smaller increase in the 3 day season (70-ish percent increase.) The NR yearly upland has a 12,000 cap on it already, and has not been met to my knowledge.

All waterfowl (migratory) bird NR license sales feed the wetlands enhancement fund (access & habitat)
NR Upland sales fund the Upland program (access & habitat)

OTC tags exist for bear, wolf and turkey. If those are issues then perhaps a commission approach to reduce those numbers would be the best approach.

 

[Gerald Martin]

My biggest concern with OTC licenses for NR is for black bear. They can definitely be over harvested contrary to sentiment of some hunters that there are too many.
I’m not at all concerned about the number of wolf tags sold. Very, very few NR are specifically targeting wolves and the rarity of incidental harvest during the hunt for other species hasn’t outpaced recruitment of wolves. In the areas where I am familiar with wolf numbers have stabilized due to wolves saturating their habitat and numbers are limited by prey more than predation from hunters.

 

[Carnage2011]

Overall, I think you guys have done a nice job with this proposal. I still find it a little comical that there isn't really a defined goal. The state of Mule Deer in Montana is definitely struggling, but it would be a lot easier to pitch this to someone if there was a measurable goal. Whether that be buck: doe ratios, population levels, hunter days.... there has to be something. At the end of the podcast Randy gave you guys the opportunity to answer that question, and everyone had a different answer. That basically says that there isn't a clear goal or objective. Eric made the comment that "it would be nice to see a couple 4.5-year-olds come through the check stations." That happens every year already so that technically doesn't require any change. Also, I keep hearing you guys say that the current management strategy is "unsustainable," what do you mean by that? The deer aren't going extinct so I'm not really sure what is unsustainable about it. It's not conducive for mature bucks, or many bucks, but it's not going to cause them to go extinct, partially due to private land, and also due to escape habitat in certain areas. Like I said, I think you guys did a nice job and present some good options, but some of the blanket statements thrown out there don't seem to be backed by much.