SB 388 Revising upland bird regs for Non Residents

[huntin24/7]

We can argue about how we go about reducing pressure, but I think we can all agree that for a lot of game species in many areas in the west, the pressure put on them isn’t sustainable. I’m not going to throw nearly all the blame on non residents. It’s absolutely coming from increased resident hunters as well. I really don’t feel bad at all though for someone as a non resident being limited to 2 one week periods or a 2 week period or whatever. I moved from ND to MT 15 years ago and had to plan my bird hunting with family back there over a couple weekends throughout the season. As soon as I moved states, I felt 0 entitlement to be able to hunt there as much as I want. I made the choice to move.

 

[JLS]

This is a completely separate issue from exceeding daily bag and/or possession limits.

This is a completely separate issue from the morality of hammering the same coveys over and over.

This is a completely separate issue about the ethics of feeding birds to your dogs.

This still allows a NR to hunt up to 28 days per year, broken into 7 day increments. You can still hunt Sage grouse with the B1 license. You can still hunt opening day of pheasant season with a B1 license.

Absent the inconvenience, I don’t see how this markedly affects the average NR bird hunter. It maybe adds some cost, to the tune of $100.

I’ve heard from some pretty reliable sources the NR pressure issue is a real trend, and for increasing duration of time. Honestly, if I were writing the bill I would probably limit the total days even more, maxing at about 20.

 

[300stw]

if its not about hammering birds,, then lets just chg daily limits to 1 bird per species, and possession limits of 5 days worth,,

you still get to shoot 3 birds per day

i know i wouldnt buy a license or 5.00 fuel to go out of state,,,

problem solved,,,,,

 

[JLS]

if its not about hammering birds,, then lets just chg daily limits to 1 bird per species, and possession limits of 5 days worth,,

you still get to shoot 3 birds per day

i know i wouldnt buy a license or 5.00 fuel to go out of state,,,

problem solved,,,,,

This is stupid. What are you solving other than creating unnecessary obstacles? What is the scientific basis for this?

 

[300stw]

its about moving people around, creating less pressure on the resource, letting residents and non residents self regulate ,
bunch of people dont like the other idea , and i keep hearing and reading its not about killing numbers of birds, so shoot 1 of each everyday, get plenty of time hunting , months and months if you want, we were just told on this thread dog trainers shoot very few birds

so i am throwing out alternatives, only thing stupid is your attitude over change,,
i didnt say it was great, only alternative,,,

 

[JLS]

so i am throwing out alternatives, only thing stupid is your attitude over change,,
i didnt say it was great, only alternative,,,

I’m fine with change. In fact, if you can read you’ll see I advocated for this bill.

If you’re hunting an area with limited availability to other species, then the one bird per species per day is simply dumb.

Allowing people to hunt months and months on end, even shooting one of each species per day doesn’t alleviate pressure.

Carry on.

 

[OntarioHunter]

And a better eater as well. I don't know what MT's possession limit is, but one catches up to pretty quick I imagine, especially shooting daily limits everytime (I didn't realize MT bird hunting was that stupendous).

It's not stupendous. Pheasant hunting hasn't really been "good" for maybe a dozen years.

I'm one of those nonresidents who hunts birds in Montana for at least a month every year. I usually come back late when big game season has started. Have to say I DO NOT see a lot of nonresident bird hunters up on the Hi Line. Very few actually. In some years past I have seen a LOT of upland hunting pressure but typically resident hunters from Bozeman, Flathead, and Missoula, not out of state. I don't see many nonresidents hunting birds after big game closes Thanksgiving weekend. Almost none in fact. By then the weather is typically miserable. Many hunting dogs can't take it when temps drop below zero (not to mention their pampered handlers). I don't think this will make much if any impact. Upland nonresident hunters are an easy target. They don't generate a lot of income for either the state or the local economies. This is nothing more than feel good legislation intended to make it look like FWP is doing something rather than addressing the problems with other species that are in worse shape but economically higher profile.

I could care less if they shut off sage hens altogether for everyone. They should be a tag species like turkeys or swans. That is LONG overdue.

 

[OntarioHunter]

Seems like the last thing any western state wants to do is admit that in 2023 they have in some cases double the resident population they did in 2006.

Those residents who get 70+% of the tags for whatever critter are the issue.

You can’t solve the over crowding by just hosing non-residents, these issues require everyone to give up some ground.

Personally seems like a fair law, I don’t need to hunt the opener and 14 days is more time then I would ever have to roam around.

Exactly!!!

 

[bayoublaster7527]

Seems like the last thing any western state wants to do is admit that in 2023 they have in some cases double the resident population they did in 2006.

Those residents who get 70+% of the tags for whatever critter are the issue.

You can’t solve the over crowding by just hosing non-residents, these issues require everyone to give up some ground.

Personally seems like a fair law, I don’t need to hunt the opener and 14 days is more time then I would ever have to roam around.

Couldn’t agree more and yet every single western state (except CO) is targeting non-resident hunters with most every bill.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Couldn’t agree more and yet every single western state (except CO) is targeting non-resident hunters with most every bill.

Low hanging fruit…

 

[Knight.54]

and then the next thread needs to be about waterfowlers and limiting there days also
ne montana , this last year was an all time cluster f***

There’s a bill that will triple the cost of a non-resident migratory privilege. Nothing about limiting days

 

[Hunting Wife]

There’s a bill that will triple the cost of a non-resident migratory privilege. Nothing about limiting daysView attachment 267192

But it appears they already struck out a resident increase to $10? They should triple that one too. Still dirt cheap.

 

[AlaskaHunter]

What is the problem? If only roosters are shot, increased hunting pressure would not substantially
impact the pheasant population.
If there is increased pressure, huns start flushing at 100 yards and sharptails learn to flush at 200 yards.
With increased pressure, hunting success on public land declines, as birds relocate to areas that are private,
or require sweat-equity.
Seems like the bill addresses a perceived human crowding problem, not a bird population problem.

According to the statistics, only 1 percent of non-residents hunt more than 28 days,
if there is a substantial crowding problem, why not address it instead of effecting only 1%?

 

[OntarioHunter]

What is the problem? If only roosters are shot, increased hunting pressure would not substantially
impact the pheasant population.
If there is increased pressure, huns start flushing at 100 yards and sharptails learn to flush at 200 yards.
With increased pressure, hunting success on public land declines, as birds relocate to areas that are private,
or require sweat-equity.
Seems like the bill addresses a perceived human crowding problem, not a bird population problem.

According to the statistics, only 1 percent of non-residents hunt more than 28 days,
if there is a substantial crowding problem, why not address it instead of effecting only 1%?

Exactly. Like others have said, it's window dressing by picking the low hanging fruit. Given that a nonresident season license presently costs ~$130, I don't think this plan will raise much if any revenue. Probably lose a lot of it.

And you're so correct about the perception of nonresident pressure on pheasants being such a big deal ... even if it was a reality ... and it's not. Harvesting roosters has little impact on the seasonal recovery. One rooster can service a hundred hens. I really don't know anyone who drives to Montana for the express purpose of hunting Huns for a month. It's not worth it. Sharptails? Meh! Marginal eating and spooky as hell after the first week of season. With the price of gas being what it is, I can't imagine anyone driving to Montana for the express purpose of shooting sharpies. As I said before, if the state put sage hens on a tag basis, no one would shed a tear and it would generate some money that could be used for their recovery. I absolutely do not understand what's the holdup on making that mega-sensible change. Mountain grouse? Ruff grouse can be found in just about all the Lower 48. Who would drive to Montana expressly to hunt ruffs when they could stay home and shoot them? Spruce grouse? Yuck! No sport in shooting them and they taste like turpentine. No one is driving to Montana to shoot fool hens! Blue grouse are certainly desirable but difficult to harvest due to their preferred habitat. I doubt there's any kind of excessive pressure on them from residents or nonresidents. Only thing left on the upland list is chukars and to the best of my knowledge the state is hardly a Mecca for hunting them. I don't think any management decision re nonresident hunters will make much difference in chukar numbers.

The fact that this bullshit swept through the senate without ANY opposition speaks volumes about the lack of information this legislature is running on. Sadly, unlike the elk hunting crowd, Montana's nonresident upland hunters don't have anyone with clout that will make the misinformed (totally uninformed?) listen. Don't expect Pheasants Are Forever to stand up for us. Those guys are pretty much a rich boys' fraternity club devoted to land issues.

 

[Nameless Range]

Couldn’t agree more and yet every single western state (except CO) is targeting non-resident hunters with most every bill.

I think this is inevitable.

When looked at through the lens of The Public Trust (Wildlife), Beneficiaries(Residents), and what Trustees(FWP,Commission,Leg) should do, outside of the generation of revenue, what value do nonresidents provide to the beneficiaries (residents) of each state's Trust (That state's wildlife)?

I can imagine many moral arguments, aesthetic ones, and even ones in the name of the long game of conservation as to why we should value the NR hunter. That said, from the perspective of a trustee, it makes perfect sense and in fact I can imagine an argument of obligation that we should sacrifice (all?) NR opportunity before we ever cut into the opportunity of the beneficiaries.

I know that isn't the way this works, and an argument could be made that money is king.

 

[OntarioHunter]

Don't get me wrong, I am not adverse to regulating non-resident hunters. But I am opposed to nonsense regulations dreamed up simply for appearances. Similarly, I strongly opposed abolishing the Canadian long gun registry because it helped curb the trafficking of illegal guns. If someone stole my guns it was much more difficult to sell them or even use them for hunting. "License and registration." I didn't care about the cost of the registry. It worked for my benefit and made some bleeding hearts happy. I'm sure it had some benefit to law enforcement too. Win, win. But I am adamantly opposed to the recent round of gun legislation up here because it is purely cosmetic and will have almost no impact on the real problem: illegal traffic in restricted weapons coming from US. But it looks good in the news. Doing something useless is supposed to be better than doing nothing. Bullshit!

This regulation will have little impact on the chief management problem (loss of habitat) or much if any benefit for anyone, including uplands or resident hunters. It just does something ... anything. Shoot from the hip and call it a day.

 

[406dn]

Exactly. Like others have said, it's window dressing by picking the low hanging fruit. Given that a nonresident season license presently costs ~$130, I don't think this plan will raise much if any revenue. Probably lose a lot of it.

And you're so correct about the perception of nonresident pressure on pheasants being such a big deal ... even if it was a reality ... and it's not. Harvesting roosters has little impact on the seasonal recovery. One rooster can service a hundred hens.

The rest I'll let go.

You hunt west of where I've hunted for the last thirty plus years for pheasant. On opening weekend the far NE corner is crawling with non resident hunters. Combined with the loss of CRP acres, it has become a sad zoo. I still go, but it is not a great experience presently.

I'd like to see some data on one rooster covering a hundred hens. That sounds pretty sketchy to me.

The bill would have been better if the one 14 day period is where it was capped.

But, it is a start.

 

[OntarioHunter]

Comparing Montana's upland hunting to North Dakota or South Dakota is almost apples and oranges. The habitat and type of agriculture generally is quite different. Certainly no comparison to South Dakota.

 

[OntarioHunter]

The rest I'll let go.

You hunt west of where I've hunted for the last thirty plus years for pheasant. On opening weekend the far NE corner is crawling with non resident hunters. Combined with the loss of CRP acres, it has become a sad zoo. I still go, but it is not a great experience presently.

I'd like to see some data on one rooster covering a hundred hens. That sounds pretty sketchy to me.

The bill would have been better if the one 14 day period is where it was capped.

But, it is a start.

It may be a zoo up there but where are the hunters from? Where do you live? The NE corner received way too much publicity. I have been hunting the state for the better part of twenty years and I could see what was coming for that neck of the woods ... and the Rocky Mountain front which I understand is now also hunted to death (anyplace where hunting is still accessible). I formerly hunted down around Ft Benton and have seen what you're seeing. But the increased pressure is NOT from out of staters (I will classify the wing nuts from Malstrom as residents). This bill isn't going to change a damn thing down there or in NE Montana. The reputation for those places is changing and the pressure will too. Several years ago I went way out of my way and drove up to Medicine Lake area to check it out. Total waste of time. The refuge habitat was terribly mismanaged (absolutely disgusting!) and other accessible land in the area was barren. But still the sparkling reports kept appearing in the tourist promotion literature ... right up to present. Drought and loss of CRP have changed the game. Throw in Montana's exploding population and you have a whole new ballgame. If people like yourself start spreading the word about how the environmental situation has changed the hunting environment in NE Montana, I think that will have a more beneficial effect on improved hunting environment (i.e. less hunters but not necessarily more birds). I suspect a few motel owners and gas stations might not be too happy about it.

 

[406dn]

It may be a zoo up there but where are the hunters from? Where do you live? The NE corner received way too much publicity. I have been hunting the state for the better part of twenty years and I could see what was coming for that neck of the woods ... and the Rocky Mountain front which I understand is now also hunted to death (anyplace where hunting is still accessible). I formerly hunted down around Ft Benton and have seen what you're seeing. But the increased pressure is NOT from out of staters (I will classify the wing nuts from Malstrom as residents). This bill isn't going to change a damn thing down there or in NE Montana. The reputation for those places is changing and the pressure will too. Several years ago I went way out of my way and drove up to Medicine Lake area to check it out. Total waste of time. The refuge habitat was terribly mismanaged (absolutely disgusting!) and other accessible land in the area was barren. But still the sparkling reports kept appearing in the tourist promotion literature ... right up to present. Drought and loss of CRP have changed the game. Throw in Montana's exploding population and you have a whole new ballgame. If people like yourself start spreading the word about how the environmental situation has changed the hunting environment in NE Montana, I think that will have a more beneficial effect on improved hunting environment (i.e. less hunters but not necessarily more birds). I suspect a few motel owners and gas stations might not be too happy about it.

There are many hunters from Minnesota, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Michigan and others. I've see plates from nearly every state at one time or another. The hunting has declined dramatically, but it is still better than where they are coming from.

Twenty years ago, there was much more CRP than presently. So, with fewer places to hunt, the crowding has become much more evident.

If I did not have memories going back so far, I'd skip it. It is a touchstone for each year. I have many wonderful memories. The quality of the hunting does not warrant the pressure it is getting, but I think it will take a decade or more for non residents to process that.