MTNTOUGH - Use promo code RANDY for 30 days free

Population Growth and Hunting in Rocky Mountain States

Flathead / Lincoln County... hunting is a tricky maneuver as it's been, add in the 1000's moving from out of State and soon to be residents, along w/ falsified, "Resident" status while living elsewhere returning to their new home build or recent purchase...
R1 has been flipped as it is.

And our FWP Criminal Investigator(s) and Wardens were overwhelmed with Albertan's playing the "resident" game while entering the U.S. as, "tourists" B2's... wait til they are flooding Lincoln/Flathead once open to non essential again...
 
BlazerBeam said:
Sytes here you go. This was 2019, mind you. People that came to flathead county....View attachment 190456
Click to expand...
Map just like it at the Stevensville DMV when I was there a month ago. Thought about taking a pic, but didn't. Most of the pins were from California, then Washington, Oregon, and maybe Texas #4. Not so many coming here from Denver or Phoenix like the flathead map.
 
Last edited:
Big Fin said:
Reading the threads about the season structure debate in Colorado, the inflation of non-resident tags, and the general comments over the years about crowding and reduced opportunity, it got me doing some research about population growth in the Rocky Mountain States. I think most living here knew it, but it turns out the Rockies are some of the fastest growing areas in the US, by a big margin. The Rocky Mountain area is defined by most as CO, ID, MT, UT, WY.

Here are a few links of how much faster these states have been growing than the rest of the country.

Trends from 1959-2018 - https://united-states.reaproject.org/analysis/comparative-trends-analysis/population/tools/970000/0/

News about MT rapid growth - https://www.mtpr.org/post/census-numbers-show-big-growth-western-montana

79,000 new MT residents in the last eight years - https://www.opendatanetwork.com/entity/0400000US30/Montana/demographics.population.change?year=2017

165,000 new ID residents in the last eight years - https://www.opendatanetwork.com/ent....population.change?year=2017&ref=related-peer

60,000 new WY residents in the last eight years - https://www.opendatanetwork.com/ent...opulation.change?year=2017&ref=compare-entity

593,000 new CO residents in the last eight years - https://www.opendatanetwork.com/ent....population.count?ref=search-entity&year=2017

340,000 new UT residents in the last eight years - https://www.opendatanetwork.com/ent...population.count?year=2017&ref=compare-entity

From 2017-2018 over 20,000 Californians moved to ID - https://www.ktvb.com/article/news/l...from/277-f65f25f1-6752-427a-b107-a27e5ca09417


It doesn't take long to see what this migration pattern is doing to the Rocky Mountain states that have historically had high resident hunter participation rates and hosted the largest portion of non-resident western hunters. And if you look at the projected numbers, the rate of increase is accelerating, not flattening or decreasing.

It is a western tradition to blame non-residents for all that is wrong with hunting in our states. Sorry, but it is part of the local indoctrination, with Californians and Texans being targeted to the highest degree. That might make for good humor, but the numbers probably show otherwise when one considers the limits that keep non-resident tag availability static or declining compared to the lack of limits on resident tag availability that are elastic in many instances. Resident population growth is far exceeding what little growth is happening in non-resident hunting opportunity due to most (not all) non-resident big game hunting being on some sort of quota or statutory limit, Colorado OTC elk being a possible exception.

What does that spell for hunting in these states, both resident and non-resident hunting? Not sure anyone knows, but I think some reasonable assumptions can be made. Though we know that not every new person is a hunter, I don't think it is unreasonable to expect that a good portion of those new residents are moving there for the outdoor benefits these states provide.

WY and CO have been the most generous to non-residents, in terms of license allocations. Can that generosity continue when resident population growth is putting a lot of demand on agencies to focus first on resident opportunity? I suspect changes will come in the next decade.

Can states with great resident opportunity and resident OTC/General tags continue with long/liberal seasons and OTC/General tags, as have ID, MT, and WY, when resident population growth is going to put more and more pressure on that resource? I hate to think about it, but it seems that changes will have to be made as these population growth trends continue.

How to handle the crowding of public lands, not just from hunters, as these new residents take to the hills to enjoy the outdoor amenities these states provide? Will that mean greater demand for exclusive private access, displacing hunters currently hunting those private lands and thus compounding the crowding issues on public? Seems to me that every possible solution for hunting access is going to be necessary, whether it improves access to public lands or private lands.

I fully expect that non-resident opportunity will be reduced in many western states over the coming decades as agencies are required to reallocate the hunting opportunity more toward residents. Just no way around it when resident growth in all these states is so high.

Wish it was a different picture. So long as people are fleeing the coasts and big cities, the Rocky Mountain states are going to be the landing spot for many people with the mobility to pack up and move. The fecundity of the American population seems to be in full force and that pushes the numbers even higher.

I don't have any answers to solve population growth in the Rocky Mountain states. Hell, I moved out west in 1984, so I am one of "those guys." I know that this rapid growth is bad for wildlife and wild places. Our animal populations are already relegated to their most marginal historic habitats. With population growth comes the development, which pushes wildlife even further to the margins. Amazingly, we have been able to increase or at least maintain numbers of some species in the face of this rapid growth. Yet, for some like mule deer and antelope and wild sheep, the consequences have been harsh.

Maybe I had too much nostalgia in my coffee this morning as I drove past multiple new subdivisions here in Bozeman and think about the geese we used to hammer in those fields. Like many Rocky Mountain state residents, I can't help but think that my future resident hunting opportunities are going to change as this population trend continues. I normally don't express those thoughts knowing full well that when I first came here in 1989 (and visited every few months before moving here two years later,) my move here probably imposed some of the same feelings on long-time residents at that time, even if the newspaper at that time was littered with real estate offers of "take over payments" as compared to the crazy prices of today.

Sorry to ramble without providing anything in the way of solutions.
Click to expand...
It is the same I think everywhere, I moved to Arkansas 33 years ago because of good grass and water for animals. Little Rock had a freeway on the westside that was barely used, now West is 25 miles out.
The people that influence what happens to the outdoors are younger and voice thier wants more. Trails that used to be for anyone now have restrictions for joggers and bicycles, no more horses or 4xs, environmental concerns are stated.
Deer have become a problem for new neighborhoods, people complain about "wild animals" in there areas.
The "perceived Attitudes" are "we are here now" nothing else matters.
I like the quote "City Folk"

Explains much.😂😂
 
Old man bob said:
It has killed us here in AZ. Phoenix alone adds 1 million every 10 years .When I moved here in 1977 Metro Phx. was 1 million. Now it is 5 million. And thats just phoenix. The whole State has probably added another mill. Our odds have really gone to helll..................BOB!
Click to expand...
Lived there in '60-'64 went to High School at what was West "Go Thunderbirds" 🤣 ( a votech now) there was very few days of overcast and Black canyon was where we chased rabbits and other critters. Was on vacation in 2002 and I couldn't believe how it changed, smoggy and dirty. Sadly they call that Progress. Happens every where.
I have been fortunate (22 years) to be a part of a Hunting club with 1200 acres boarderd by a major river here in Arkansas in the middle of 25 sq. Miles of Mountains albeit small compared to Cascade's or Rocky's. But we are seeing change, the timber company's have begun to sell of some of the land around us to "Loggers" for the Promises of buying back the timber on the land. This year 2 Remote cabins have been built at the edge of our lease on the river. Don't begrudge them, but it's a sign of the times. Understand no utilities, never going to be available, but water from the river and now generators where it's always been silent.
Time moves on and " change is on the rise.😥
 
BlazerBeam said:
If all you have to show in terms of "growth" is a bigger population, that is not a good thing, and I am not sure why this guy would be all giddy about that.
Click to expand...
It's interesting when you pit the Rockies v. the rust belt.

If you look at the Rockies from the lens of conservation it's a disaster, if you look at it via capitalism and wealth generation California/Seattle/Denver are possibly the greatest current success stories in the US.

Complain about politics all you want but I think California won capitalism, Detroit lost.

1628101427169.png
www.theguardian.com

Detroit in ruins: the photographs of Yves Marchand and Romain Meffre | feature

In downtown Detroit, the streets are lined with abandoned hotels and swimming pools, ruined movie houses and schools, all evidence of the motor city's painful decline. The photographs of Yves Marchand and Romain Meffre document what remains of a once-great city – and hint at the wider story of...
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
Big Fin said:
Reading the threads about the season structure debate in Colorado, the inflation of non-resident tags, and the general comments over the years about crowding and reduced opportunity, it got me doing some research about population growth in the Rocky Mountain States. I think most living here knew it, but it turns out the Rockies are some of the fastest growing areas in the US, by a big margin. The Rocky Mountain area is defined by most as CO, ID, MT, UT, WY.

Here are a few links of how much faster these states have been growing than the rest of the country.

Trends from 1959-2018 - https://united-states.reaproject.org/analysis/comparative-trends-analysis/population/tools/970000/0/

News about MT rapid growth - https://www.mtpr.org/post/census-numbers-show-big-growth-western-montana

79,000 new MT residents in the last eight years - https://www.opendatanetwork.com/entity/0400000US30/Montana/demographics.population.change?year=2017

165,000 new ID residents in the last eight years - https://www.opendatanetwork.com/ent....population.change?year=2017&ref=related-peer

60,000 new WY residents in the last eight years - https://www.opendatanetwork.com/ent...opulation.change?year=2017&ref=compare-entity

593,000 new CO residents in the last eight years - https://www.opendatanetwork.com/ent....population.count?ref=search-entity&year=2017

340,000 new UT residents in the last eight years - https://www.opendatanetwork.com/ent...population.count?year=2017&ref=compare-entity

From 2017-2018 over 20,000 Californians moved to ID - https://www.ktvb.com/article/news/l...from/277-f65f25f1-6752-427a-b107-a27e5ca09417


It doesn't take long to see what this migration pattern is doing to the Rocky Mountain states that have historically had high resident hunter participation rates and hosted the largest portion of non-resident western hunters. And if you look at the projected numbers, the rate of increase is accelerating, not flattening or decreasing.

It is a western tradition to blame non-residents for all that is wrong with hunting in our states. Sorry, but it is part of the local indoctrination, with Californians and Texans being targeted to the highest degree. That might make for good humor, but the numbers probably show otherwise when one considers the limits that keep non-resident tag availability static or declining compared to the lack of limits on resident tag availability that are elastic in many instances. Resident population growth is far exceeding what little growth is happening in non-resident hunting opportunity due to most (not all) non-resident big game hunting being on some sort of quota or statutory limit, Colorado OTC elk being a possible exception.

What does that spell for hunting in these states, both resident and non-resident hunting? Not sure anyone knows, but I think some reasonable assumptions can be made. Though we know that not every new person is a hunter, I don't think it is unreasonable to expect that a good portion of those new residents are moving there for the outdoor benefits these states provide.

WY and CO have been the most generous to non-residents, in terms of license allocations. Can that generosity continue when resident population growth is putting a lot of demand on agencies to focus first on resident opportunity? I suspect changes will come in the next decade.

Can states with great resident opportunity and resident OTC/General tags continue with long/liberal seasons and OTC/General tags, as have ID, MT, and WY, when resident population growth is going to put more and more pressure on that resource? I hate to think about it, but it seems that changes will have to be made as these population growth trends continue.

How to handle the crowding of public lands, not just from hunters, as these new residents take to the hills to enjoy the outdoor amenities these states provide? Will that mean greater demand for exclusive private access, displacing hunters currently hunting those private lands and thus compounding the crowding issues on public? Seems to me that every possible solution for hunting access is going to be necessary, whether it improves access to public lands or private lands.

I fully expect that non-resident opportunity will be reduced in many western states over the coming decades as agencies are required to reallocate the hunting opportunity more toward residents. Just no way around it when resident growth in all these states is so high.

Wish it was a different picture. So long as people are fleeing the coasts and big cities, the Rocky Mountain states are going to be the landing spot for many people with the mobility to pack up and move. The fecundity of the American population seems to be in full force and that pushes the numbers even higher.

I don't have any answers to solve population growth in the Rocky Mountain states. Hell, I moved out west in 1984, so I am one of "those guys." I know that this rapid growth is bad for wildlife and wild places. Our animal populations are already relegated to their most marginal historic habitats. With population growth comes the development, which pushes wildlife even further to the margins. Amazingly, we have been able to increase or at least maintain numbers of some species in the face of this rapid growth. Yet, for some like mule deer and antelope and wild sheep, the consequences have been harsh.

Maybe I had too much nostalgia in my coffee this morning as I drove past multiple new subdivisions here in Bozeman and think about the geese we used to hammer in those fields. Like many Rocky Mountain state residents, I can't help but think that my future resident hunting opportunities are going to change as this population trend continues. I normally don't express those thoughts knowing full well that when I first came here in 1989 (and visited every few months before moving here two years later,) my move here probably imposed some of the same feelings on long-time residents at that time, even if the newspaper at that time was littered with real estate offers of "take over payments" as compared to the crazy prices of today.

Sorry to ramble without providing anything in the way of solutions.
Click to expand...

Folks ignore the wacky deep blue states like Cali, Oregon, Washington, just laughing thinking well my state is better and will never be like that.

Guess what, those wacky states export their problems. Failure to deal with the wackyness will lead to us all suffering at the hands of it. Just a matter of time.
 
HONEYBADGER said:
Folks ignore the wacky deep blue states like Cali, Oregon, Washington, just laughing thinking well my state is better and will never be like that.

Guess what, those wacky states export their problems. Failure to deal with the wackyness will lead to us all suffering at the hands of it. Just a matter of time.
Click to expand...
I bunch of “wacky” people from those states moving to Idaho are incredibly conservative from what I’ve seen. Often more so than those already here. I saw one that came here from Oregon a couple years ago and is already leaving for more conservative waters because in his opinion locals just aren’t smart enough to heed his warnings
 
neffa3 said:
My neighbor just moved to MT. I'm not sure conservative describes him, more BS crazy, and certainly doesn't have the real world hometown values I've experienced in rural montana. But hey he'll vote red till he dies, and probably will love GG. So enjoy.
Click to expand...
I’ve seen that a lot lately in Montana. But they are all quick to tell me not to worry, they vote red and they’re not here to change how we do things. Except how we manage elk.
 
It sure is a strange phenomenon. Politics and partisan tribalism has so infiltrated the American psyche that the chief consideration of where folks will move is R or D, and in Montana's case R, and even further, can be centered on a single personality.

I sat in a hotel hot tub this weekend and chatted with a young couple who were leaving Idaho for Florida because they loved Ron Desantis. When my drunk compatriot, who up until that point had been giving them fatherly advice, beautifully and hilariously berated them intensely for how shitty a place Florida would be compared to Idaho - there is not hunting, mountains, public lands, lack of people - it was as if it couldn't compute. Florida was Red and a lot of the people there were too and their governor was cool - that was all that mattered. The lens through which they put a value on place was partisan and little else, and frankly, that's weird. At least we had the hot tub to ourselves after that.

Yes, Montana is being flooded with well-to-do conservatives, and the obsession with politics of so many people my age who are coming here is gross to me. But, I have made friends with some of these immigrants, and they still want the things that make this place great to persist. It just takes education, and friendliness, and an openness that is the opposite of an obsession with politics. If ya just give up on em it's over, but more and more lately I've met and had conversations with Republicans new to Montana who like hunting the breaks more than they like Greg Gianforte and plutocrats in general.

Doesn't mean the odds aren't in our favor, but it's something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J_Woulfe
Comparison of Resident Opportunities in Different States
Replies
7
Views
675
SFC B
SFC B
cheeser
Press Release February 7, 2024 Legal action launched to protect wolves in northern Rocky Mountains
Replies
1
Views
751
bayoublaster7527
B
Mtrimble
Fixing Western Hunting
12 13 14
Replies
268
Views
13K
Mtn Dawg
M
HOWL for Wildlife
CO Mountain Lion Ballot Initiative: Continuous Updates
16 17 18
Replies
353
Views
17K
elkduds
elkduds
HOWL for Wildlife
ACTION: Protect Oregon’s Spring Bear Hunt!
Replies
1
Views
181
dan.kirkpatrick
dan.kirkpatrick
Advertisement

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,580
Messages
2,025,769
Members
36,237
Latest member
SCOOTER848

Share this page

Back
Top