Population Growth and Hunting in Rocky Mountain States

[The Hedgehog]

Um yeah that would be a bad idea, serving only completely selfish pricks, among other of the things you would like not to "say" that certainly matter.

I propose resident hunting only How's that? Just like you have to be a resident of MT to vote in MT, I propose you have to either reside in MT or have a business in MT to hunt here. Just like Indian Reservations. You would not believe how awesome the elk herd is on the Crow reservation in the Big Horns! What would be the arguments against that other than, "I live in Illinois and I want to shoot an Elk too!" (Dude ranch mentality) and money. I would like to hear arguments against implementing something like that, that doesn't revolve around money or "want to's". NR's can still hike and camp and be on the federal public lands, but to harvest wild game animals (public property held in trust by state governments) they need to have established residence in MT. Why would that be good idea or a bad idea without saying "funding" or "money" or "revenue" or claiming that you have a "right" to harvest the state of MT's (or any other state) resources?"
Disclaimer: I'm not a conservation expert or some natural resources attorney, but Let me have it...

This is a great idea, but it doesn't go far enough. You should only be able to hunt in MT if you were born here. Or, wait. You should only be able to hunt within the same county your great great grandpappy was born in. And if you hunt private land, your name has to be on the deed.

 

[BlazerBeam]

Um yeah that would be a bad idea, serving only completely selfish pricks, among other of the things you would like not to "say" that certainly matter.

This is a great idea, but it doesn't go far enough. You should only be able to hunt in MT if you were born here. Or, wait. You should only be able to hunt within the same county your great great grandpappy was born in. And if you hunt private land, your name has to be on the deed.

I mean there was people who posted before that said money was not all that was to be considered. So if money is left out of the conversation, why would it be a bad idea?

 

[Deleted member 16014]

@BlazerBeam Did you read the first 20-some pages? They answered virtually any questions that could arise on opinions about tag allocations from 0-100%.

 

[Straight Arrow]

@BlazerBeam Did you read the first 20-some pages? They answered virtually any questions that could arise on opinions about tag allocations from 0-100%.

That reflects the dynamics of a thread with over 400 posts ... at least a few circling redundancies.

 

[BlazerBeam]

@BlazerBeam Did you read the first 20-some pages? They answered virtually any questions that could arise on opinions about tag allocations from 0-100%.

oh my bad. What'd they say about 100% resident tags? There is a lot to sift through

 

[Shangobango]

@BlazerBeam

MT... welcome to 2021 in America?

Montana has been a bit above the national average home price since 08' but it's trended with the national average.

So yeah screw the outsiders... who are apparently moving to... everywhere?

@MTGomer how's the CA invasion down south... apparently it's even worse than MT. You don't complain enough, please contribute enough to the angst... free loafer.

View attachment 180484

Is that MS with the flat ass line at the bottom?

I bet Louisiana mirrors it. The only category we can win at is the " nobody wants to move here" category.

Whatevs, a win is a win....

 

[JustinsDad]

I mean there was people who posted before that said money was not all that was to be considered. So if money is left out of the conversation, why would it be a bad idea?

MT had immigration a long time ago and most MT residents are not Native Americans from MT. So only a few tribes can hunt Montana? Or is that only MT residents that have been (insert # of years you’ve been a MT resident) years in Montana can hunt? Everybody is twisting it to fit their own needs.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Is that MS with the flat ass line at the bottom?

I bet Louisiana mirrors it. The only category we can win at is the " nobody wants to move here" category.

Whatevs, a win is a win....

Yeah... it is could be worse, could be Utah.

 

[RobertD]

I mean there was people who posted before that said money was not all that was to be considered. So if money is left out of the conversation, why would it be a bad idea?

Because the tribes would use your argument against you and they would do so on a federal level.

Other than that, reasons are primarily related to money. But honestly, framing your question that way is like asking a doctor, "If bleeding to death is left out of the conversation, why would getting stabbed be a bad idea?"

 

[BlazerBeam]

Because the tribes would use your argument against you and they would do so on a federal level.

Other than that, reasons are primarily related to money. But honestly, framing your question that way is like asking a doctor, "If bleeding to death is left out of the conversation, why would getting stabbed be a bad idea?"

So many other ways to generate the money needed than NR tags. NR tags are just the easy way. I believe in the future it will not come from NR tags. Saying that we MUST HAVE nonresident’s money to manage the wildlife and keep herds thriving is BS. A line that many NR’s hang onto with a death grip.

read the first post of the whole thread from Randy. He said many of the same things I am saying. In a more tactful way, but nonetheless very similar points. Nonresident opportunities will decline going forward as more people get stuffed into these mtn states. I was simply asking why wait until pressure gets to a breaking point? just eliminate NR tags now and require residency of 2 years before being able to purchase a resident license?

 

[RobertD]

So many other ways to generate the money needed than NR tags. NR tags are just the easy way. I believe in the future it will not come from NR tags. Saying that we MUST HAVE nonresident’s money to manage the wildlife and keep herds thriving is BS. A line that many NR’s hang onto with a death grip.

read the first post of the whole thread from Randy. He said many of the same things I am saying. In a more tactful way, but nonetheless very similar points. Nonresident opportunities will decline going forward as more people get stuffed into these mtn states. I was simply asking why wait until pressure gets to a breaking point? just eliminate NR tags now and require residency of 2 years before being able to purchase a resident license?

List the ways. Seriously, if it's BS, then what are the viable alternatives?

One to start with is raising resident tag costs to offset the loss. That's not tenable, nor would it really be fair. But it'd likely be necessary.

Stop thinking of NR allocation of tags as "losing" something to outsiders. Try thinking of it as trading a small share of your resources with outsiders in exchange for the same group subsidizing the care and development of those resources. That, IMO, is a more accurate model.

And also, eliminating tags because of increasing "pressure" before we reach a breaking point doesn't make sense, since the pressure that's increasing isn't NR hunting, it's general population growth. NR hunting pressure is static because allocations are static. It's not logical to say "more idiots are moving here, let's take away nonresidents tags." That's not where increasing pressure on the animals is coming from.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

So many other ways to generate the money needed than NR tags. NR tags are just the easy way. I believe in the future it will not come from NR tags. Saying that we MUST HAVE nonresident’s money to manage the wildlife and keep herds thriving is BS. A line that many NR’s hang onto with a death grip.

read the first post of the whole thread from Randy. He said many of the same things I am saying. In a more tactful way, but nonetheless very similar points. Nonresident opportunities will decline going forward as more people get stuffed into these mtn states. I was simply asking why wait until pressure gets to a breaking point? just eliminate NR tags now and require residency of 2 years before being able to purchase a resident license?

Eliminate NR hunting, it’s just a bad idea. But if folks wanted to go that way Residents need to be ok with footing the bill.
Most western wildlife agency budgets get very little if any money from the state general fund. You have to make up the difference and it’s massive, residents essentially pay nothing.

Here is Colorado Elk as an example.

So get ride of NR hunting, but that means $1000 resident tags, that makes elk hunting for many families in these states untenable. A $1000 resident elk tag will never happen. States will then have to use general fund dollars meaning, residents are still paying for it via tax dollars.

In WY this will be from excise taxes off of OG/Coal which are shrinking, WY will have to cut other programs in order to deal with it.

Western states have never wanted NR, there has always been a huge coast differential, the grand bargain has always been less tags for free hunting.

In the 50s CO was charging 10 for residents and 100 for non-residents. The NR tag has risen with inflation the resident tag has not. In Montana this pattern is waaaaay worse as Montana has the cheapest resident elk tag in North America.

In 1959 in CO the revenue split from R and NR elk licenses was 60/40 now it's 86/14. Residents need to grow the f- up. If your yearly elk tag is so important and the tradition of hunting is vital to your being act like it.

Mine mine mine mine mine, and it's not fair... to quote the big man sniveling


Also if you look at the total amount of license sales adjusted for inflation we are way behind. $44MM today versus $70MM then, I wonder if they complained about bloated government or that CPW was driving around in fancy trucks in 59'. They paid to put more elk on the landscape. Hunting got better because they added elk instead of bitching about who got to shoot them.

I get where @BuzzH is coming from but I’m also an adult. Sure, I’d love to quit my job and become a fishing guide/ ski bum, but I have a family and responsibilities.

For 100 years countless individuals have worked hard to get our herds to the place they are from almost nothing, I do not think greed is a reason to destroy them.

As a former resident of Montana and Colorado I have never for one moment thought that there was a problem with allocation, there were always places to hunt.

If anything QDMA and point creep has driven some, insane.

If we are suggesting extreme ideas, I would say hose the trophy units. Bighorns, breaks, unit 10, make them all general units. Everything is equal, nothing to complain about. You get your tag ever year and try and find a rag horn. Seems like having nice things brings out the worst in everyone.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I have a nagging problem with the greed of residents or maybe its just short-sightedness.

We have always valued NR hunters. 75 years ago we have 10% the herd we do today and we still had NR quotas.
Here is CO.

Has this allocation ballooned, yes, is a discussion warranted, yes. But I will fight vociferously for NR to have opportunities in the west.

 

[BlazerBeam]

I have a nagging problem with the greed of residents or maybe its just short-sightedness.

We have always valued NR hunters. 75 years ago we have 10% the herd we do today and we still had NR quotas.
Here is CO.
View attachment 181093
Has this allocation ballooned, yes, is a discussion warranted, yes. But I will fight vociferously for NR to have opportunities in the west.

Are you still a resident of either MT or CO? If not I could call your fighting for your "right" to hunt as a NR "greed" as well. When were you a resident of MT? I truly believe that many of the people posting on here have no idea what the hunting used to be like in MT and ID (the only states I have experience hunting in) 30-35 years ago. I was kid then and remember being with my dad on his 40th birthday when he arrowed his 40th bull over 300 inches. That one went in the 360's and was the 10th bull we had called in that day. A day like that was not a once in a blue moon type of day. It was what we expected when we went into the mountains of western MT/eastern ID. Good luck having that today in a general unit. So I can't speak for CO, but I have years of experience in MT and to say that the game dept or NR tag money has somehow done something amazing for elk numbers or whatever is not entirely correct. Much of the money that goes to game depts is wasted in my opinion. We don't need 75 wolf biologists, etc. Quick example: when I worked for the forest service in NW Montana we assisted a group of "specialized" bear biologists who had the hair brained idea to take grizzlies from the Bob Marshall and plant them in the cabinet mountains in NW mt. They spent a year or two "prepping" (i.e. drinking coffee and bullshitting around the office) and recruited our help for the actual transfer of the collared bears when the time came. We released the bears in the cabinets and observed the GPS tracking over the next few weeks. I am not kidding you, within 3 weeks of the transplant, those bears were back in the Bob Marshall within 10 miles of where they were captured. The GPS tracking showed pretty much a straight line back to where they came from. So how many dollars were wasted on that project? So lets start with an accounting of where the money is directly used. There is so much waste in our government, and to say that the game depts are an exception to that is foolish.

 

[BlazerBeam]

List the ways. Seriously, if it's BS, then what are the viable alternatives?

One to start with is raising resident tag costs to offset the loss. That's not tenable, nor would it really be fair. But it'd likely be necessary.

Stop thinking of NR allocation of tags as "losing" something to outsiders. Try thinking of it as trading a small share of your resources with outsiders in exchange for the same group subsidizing the care and development of those resources. That, IMO, is a more accurate model.

And also, eliminating tags because of increasing "pressure" before we reach a breaking point doesn't make sense, since the pressure that's increasing isn't NR hunting, it's general population growth. NR hunting pressure is static because allocations are static. It's not logical to say "more idiots are moving here, let's take away nonresidents tags." That's not where increasing pressure on the animals is coming from.

NR hunting pressure may be static because of allocations. But this year there was an increase of 12 or 13% in RESIDENT deer/elk permit applicants in MT. It would be interesting to survey those new applicants to find out how many of them had 1. hunted MT as a NR in the past and 2. Had moved to MT and satisfied their 6 month residency requirement this past year. I would suspect a good chunk would fit those two categories. So it is logical to say that many new resident hunters in MT were at one time NR hunters who were recruited by the hunting social media culture and the propaganda that they sell. So cut NR tags and that dream goes away and the hunting celebs have nobody to sell themselves to, and hopefully the trajectory we are on slows down. My only fear is that the cat is too far out of the bag for that to happen.

 

[FI460]

So cut NR tags and that dream goes away and the hunting celebs have nobody to sell themselves to, and hopefully the trajectory we are on slows down.

And what do you do the next time the public land liquidation crew regains popularity? The opportunity to hunt across the west is what brought many of us to support the public lands movement. We need those kinds of advocates across the country as the general population is isolated from wildlands.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Are you still a resident of either MT or CO? If not I could call your fighting for your "right" to hunt as a NR "greed" as well. When were you a resident of MT? I truly believe that many of the people posting on here have no idea what the hunting used to be like in MT and ID (the only states I have experience hunting in) 30-35 years ago. I was kid then and remember being with my dad on his 40th birthday when he arrowed his 40th bull over 300 inches. That one went in the 360's and was the 10th bull we had called in that day. A day like that was not a once in a blue moon type of day. It was what we expected when we went into the mountains of western MT/eastern ID. Good luck having that today in a general unit. So I can't speak for CO, but I have years of experience in MT and to say that the game dept or NR tag money has somehow done something amazing for elk numbers or whatever is not entirely correct. Much of the money that goes to game depts is wasted in my opinion. We don't need 75 wolf biologists, etc. Quick example: when I worked for the forest service in NW Montana we assisted a group of "specialized" bear biologists who had the hair brained idea to take grizzlies from the Bob Marshall and plant them in the cabinet mountains in NW mt. They spent a year or two "prepping" (i.e. drinking coffee and bullshitting around the office) and recruited our help for the actual transfer of the collared bears when the time came. We released the bears in the cabinets and observed the GPS tracking over the next few weeks. I am not kidding you, within 3 weeks of the transplant, those bears were back in the Bob Marshall within 10 miles of where they were captured. The GPS tracking showed pretty much a straight line back to where they came from. So how many dollars were wasted on that project? So lets start with an accounting of where the money is directly used. There is so much waste in our government, and to say that the game depts are an exception to that is foolish.

Anecdotes are interesting but really helpful.

CO went from 17,000 elk in 1929 to 292,000 in 2019.
CO went from 45,000 deer to 418,310
Moose 0 to 2,910
Goat 0 to 1610

Kentucky/MI/WI/AK/MI/TN have elk now... not to mention turkey's and whitetail, and a phenomenal amount of waterfowl.

How much do you think it costs to have a team of biologist figure out quotas every year, then implement a system that hands out hundreds of thousands of tags, while not negatively impacting the herd. It's difficult as hell.

Sincerely, you think NR have been the driving factor of herd changes in MT? Seriously?

My father-n-law has 3 CO bulls well over 320 and 2 mule deer over 220 from back in the day. Where he killed them is a now a golf course, but yeah screw dudes from Texas.

NR hunting pressure may be static because of allocations. But this year there was an increase of 12 or 13% in RESIDENT deer/elk permit applicants in MT. It would be interesting to survey those new applicants to find out how many of them had 1. hunted MT as a NR in the past and 2. Had moved to MT and satisfied their 6 month residency requirement this past year. I would suspect a good chunk would fit those two categories. So it is logical to say that many new resident hunters in MT were at one time NR hunters who were recruited by the hunting social media culture and the propaganda that they sell. So cut NR tags and that dream goes away and the hunting celebs have nobody to sell themselves to, and hopefully the trajectory we are on slows down. My only fear is that the cat is too far out of the bag for that to happen.

So what's the plan 2021 it's 2 years to become a resident in 23 it becomes 5 then 10? Point creep to residency so that you can kill a 360 bull?

My 2 cents, you get a driver's license, pay taxes, lease or own a home, register to vote, plate your car your a resident. You do it in a week buy a tag at the resident price.

 

[Hunting Wife]

Are you still a resident of either MT or CO? If not I could call your fighting for your "right" to hunt as a NR "greed" as well. When were you a resident of MT? I truly believe that many of the people posting on here have no idea what the hunting used to be like in MT and ID (the only states I have experience hunting in) 30-35 years ago. I was kid then and remember being with my dad on his 40th birthday when he arrowed his 40th bull over 300 inches. That one went in the 360's and was the 10th bull we had called in that day. A day like that was not a once in a blue moon type of day. It was what we expected when we went into the mountains of western MT/eastern ID. Good luck having that today in a general unit. So I can't speak for CO, but I have years of experience in MT and to say that the game dept or NR tag money has somehow done something amazing for elk numbers or whatever is not entirely correct. Much of the money that goes to game depts is wasted in my opinion. We don't need 75 wolf biologists, etc. Quick example: when I worked for the forest service in NW Montana we assisted a group of "specialized" bear biologists who had the hair brained idea to take grizzlies from the Bob Marshall and plant them in the cabinet mountains in NW mt. They spent a year or two "prepping" (i.e. drinking coffee and bullshitting around the office) and recruited our help for the actual transfer of the collared bears when the time came. We released the bears in the cabinets and observed the GPS tracking over the next few weeks. I am not kidding you, within 3 weeks of the transplant, those bears were back in the Bob Marshall within 10 miles of where they were captured. The GPS tracking showed pretty much a straight line back to where they came from. So how many dollars were wasted on that project? So lets start with an accounting of where the money is directly used. There is so much waste in our government, and to say that the game depts are an exception to that is foolish.

Would love to see the list of names of the 75 wolf biologists working for FWP.

So cutting NR tags, thereby incentivizing NRs to move here and contribute directly to habitat loss, disruption of migration corridors, urban sprawl, and increased disturbance to wildlife on the landscape somehow seems like a good alternative? That’s the very definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

 

[BlazerBeam]

Would love to see the list of names of the 75 wolf biologists working for FWP.

So cutting NR tags, thereby incentivizing NRs to move here and contribute directly to habitat loss, disruption of migration corridors, urban sprawl, and increased disturbance to wildlife on the landscape somehow seems like a good alternative? That’s the very definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

What has attracted so much NR attention to western states? Please tell me what you think the answer to that is? Like I said, I'm afraid too much of the cat may be out of the bag thanks to "the industry". So my theory of cutting off NR tags leading to decreased people flocking to western states to become residents may be fruitless at this point because they have already been fed a steady diet of youtube and instagram and have made up their mind that "when I retire..." or "I have a three year plan to move out west....". But I think that it would have been a very effective idea to implement about 10 years ago, but I truly believe it would still have an effect to slow the trajectory now.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

When were you a resident of MT?

13-16'

Took 2 elk, 2 bears, 2 pronghorn, 2 whitetails, a muley, pile of ducks and grouse, turkey, and trapped some beaver. It was a blast.

Pretty magical time, I hope others get to experience it.