The Future of “Big 3” Hunting in Montana.

[Nameless Range]

I don’t use any of the hunting applications strategy apps or resources, so forgive me if they’ve already done this. In fact, anyone who has already done this has likely done it better.

FWP has a resource for downloading the historic draw stats of yesteryear – found here. It goes back as far as 2006.

I didn’t do it exactly right in terms of an apples to apples, but for Moose, Sheep, and Goat, I consolidated the 1st choice Resident Applicants and the Permit Quota that was on offer that year – didn’t take into consideration NonResidents, and did the moose a bit differently, but I charted it out over time. For sheep, I omitted the unlimited districts because it would’ve taken a bit more work. Don't take these exact numbers as exact, because I kind of rushed through it, but I think the story stays the same.

The histogram values are applicants, and those totals are on the left axis. Permits on offer that year are the line value, and those are labeled on the right axis. Every chart starts at 2006 and ends with 2022.










Unsurprisingly, for all 3 species there are more applicants now than there were 16 years ago. Something that doesn’t make sense though, is the precipitous drop in permits available. Yes, sheep have their issues with disease and yes moose have parasites, but these aren’t problem-animals, they aren’t overpopulated, and I wonder if we are “managing” them properly.

On all three species the permits available is seemingly ever-decreasing – taking the decrease in one’s odds due to growth of the applicant pool and exacerbating it.

Some thoughts:

-I wouldn’t be surprised if a day came that certain someones tried to inject landowner preference into the Big 3.

-We are already at a point where tens of thousands are vying for a couple hundred permits. What happens if trajectories for both hold, and it is tens of thousands more vying for dozens of permits? At what point do we ask ourselves if we should even be hunting these species at all?

I ask this of myself right now, and yet apply every year.

 

[Big Fin]

Thanks for presenting this. It illustrates the folly of thinking point schemes will correct the trends in population/available tags. And it shows how the annual incremental decreases eventually results in huge changes.

 

[Treeshark]

At what point do we ask ourselves if we should even be hunting these species at all?

Really interesting post, Nameless.

I have wondered this same thing. I guess one general downside would be funding for the betterment of these animals (at least from private sources) would be significantly diminished.

 

[Stone_Ice_1]

Looking at these graphs it makes me wonder what happened in 2014? There was a big increase in applications that year for all 3 species. Was that the year they quit requiring the up front costs of the tag? If that is the case then my vote now solidly lands in requiring that up front costs to be paid. The increase since Covid is also substantial.

 

[Big Fin]

Looking at these graphs it makes me wonder what happened in 2014? There was a big increase in applications that year for all 3 species. Was that the year they quit requiring the up front costs of the tag? If that is the case then my vote now solidly lands in requiring that up front costs to be paid. The increase since Covid is also substantial.

Yes, that is the year it changed where you no longer had to front the costs.

 

[TOGIE]

any insight into the drops in tags for your moose?

here is a graph of our moose permits that cpw released. what's going on in montana to not be seeing something similar? it can't be wolves right? i don't buy the rhetoric that wolves are going to destroy our elk and moose populations. will they have an effect? i'm sure. but not decimate.

 

[Nameless Range]

I guess one downside to that would be funding for the betterment of these animals (at least from private sources) would be significantly diminished.

I'm not trying to contradictory, but is the funding that is going to the betterment of these animals, making a difference? There's less and less of these species every year it seems. I suppose there is a counterfactual of what we might be seeing if none of this funding was generated (Could be worse?). The premise that funding generated from these permits is helping those species is certainly possible, but not clear to me.

I mean, if there comes a time where 40,000 applicants are applying for 50 moose permits, it would generate a ton of revenue, but it would feel a bit....gross...to me.

 

[Treeshark]

I'm not trying to contradictory, but is the funding that is going to the betterment of these animals, making a difference?

I don’t think that’s being contradictory at all, very fair question and I unfortunately agree in most cases.

 

[Deleted member 48080]

any insight into the drops in tags for your moose?

here is a graph of our moose permits that cpw released. what's going on in montana to not be seeing something similar? it can't be wolves right? i don't buy the rhetoric that wolves are going to destroy our elk and moose populations. will they have an effect? i'm sure. but not decimate.

View attachment 275972

FWP has an ongoing study that's funded by the moose auction tags.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://fwp.mt.gov/binaries/content/assets/fwp/montana-outdoors/moose.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiRj-OQy_f-AhVyI30KHbPTBk4QFnoECBQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3JalTG2cEkq0fk34KCbWLa

The summary though is that its a combination of an arterial worm, predation, and ticks.

I've also spoken with a handful of biologists that think it's habitat related with the lack of logging. There's reason to believe the moose population was artificially high in the lower 48 during the 1900's due to climate factors and logging.

I might be misremembering it, but I think the only moose the Corps of Discovery encountered in MT was near the ND border.

 

[Dan O]

I think MTFWP needs to return to a higher application fee. An example would be the application fee go to $100.00. If your unsuccessful you get a refund of $25.00 and the $75.00 would go to funding habitat for the species, you applied for. I think this type of approach would help the serious hunter with odds and weed out the ones that try the shotgun effect to see if they get lucky.

This process has many options but I think it would help the quality of the draw while still helping the big three with habitat restoration. Plus dump the points system it's just a way of making money without a positive return to the sportsman.

 

[FI460]

I'm not trying to contradictory, but is the funding that is going to the betterment of these animals, making a difference? There's less and less of these species every year it seems. I suppose there is a counterfactual of what we might be seeing if none of this funding was generated (Could be worse?). The premise that funding generated from these permits is helping those species is certainly possible, but not clear to me.

I mean, if there comes a time where 40,000 applicants are applying for 50 moose permits, it would generate a ton of revenue, but it would feel a bit....gross...to me.

I just did a back of the napkin calculation for Oregon. In 2022 we had 80 available sheep tags and 33939 applicants.

No points system for sheep though, so we've got that going for us.

 

[Nameless Range]

I just did a back of the napkin calculation for Oregon. In 2022 we had 80 available sheep tags and 33939 applicants.

No points system for sheep though, so we've got that going for us.

Good grief.

I wonder, and I suppose it is a question for a biologist and would vary by species , but if we kept ourselves from hunting some of these species for a decade or so, would it make a difference? As the study @Randy11 shared shows, the moose in that study are not dying from hunting, they are dying from other things. Maybe, when taking into consideration the reasons for goat and sheep mortality as well, hunting isn't much of a drop in the bucket, and so we may as well generate revenue for a small pile of tags that aren't really contributing to the decline. If so, it's really more an issue of perception than of detriment to the populations of those animals.

Either way, I am a bit bummed about the prospect of my sons ever getting to experience a Big 3 hunt in Montana if they stick around.

 

[Oak]

Good grief.

I wonder, and I suppose it is a question for a biologist and would vary by species , but if we kept ourselves from hunting some of these species for a decade or so, would it make a difference? As the study @Randy11 shared shows, the moose in that study are not dying from hunting, they are dying from other things. Maybe, when taking into consideration the reasons for goat and sheep mortality as well, hunting isn't much of a drop in the bucket, and so we may as well generate revenue for a small pile of tags that aren't really contributing to the decline. If so, it's really more an issue of perception than of detriment to the populations of those animals.

Either way, I am a bit bummed about the prospect of my sons ever getting to experience a Big 3 hunt in Montana if they stick around.

In Colorado it would make a difference for goats and moose, but I doubt it would help sheep numbers. Colorado issued 80 goat tags this year in one unit, and 80 last year, and 60 the year before that, and 60 the year.....

If we kept ourselves from hunting them I doubt we would get the hunting back, at least in CO. Probably different in MT.

 

[rogerthat]

I did this same analysis this year too but I didn’t graph it out. However the trends were crystal clear. Kind of depressing. Thanks for graphing it out and posting.

 

[Falcon75]

I have been thinking about how the allowable harvest on some of these animals is become so small and that the number trying for a tag has increased as outlined. Would having a more open season with cap on total # participants or not over a big area so you would have say 10 rams that have to have 7 rings or be so much curl and report as soon as take animal and the season gets closed as soon as the limit is reached (10) via message through available backcountry communication technology. It would be sort of like sturgeon fishing thru the ice everyone (or more) get to go for a few hours or days till the quota is met. State could still get their money from points and other schemes and maybe even more if issuing hundreds of tags for an area instead of 10. It would be a different experience but at least there would be some hope of hunting these animals in a lifetime.

 

[TimberBuck]

I have been thinking about how the allowable harvest on some of these animals is become so small and that the number trying for a tag has increased as outlined. Would having a more open season with cap on total # participants or not over a big area so you would have say 10 rams that have to have 7 rings or be so much curl and report as soon as take animal and the season gets closed as soon as the limit is reached (10) via message through available backcountry communication technology. It would be sort of like sturgeon fishing thru the ice everyone (or more) get to go for a few hours or days till the quota is met. State could still get their money from points and other schemes and maybe even more if issuing hundreds of tags for an area instead of 10. It would be a different experience but at least there would be some hope of hunting these animals in a lifetime.

Definitely an interesting idea to ponder. Opening day and pre-opener pressure in most areas would be astronomical.

This general concept is already in place with the MT Unlimited Sheep units. I don't know there are any other sheep units where this approach would be successful, maybe a couple of the units that were unlimited in the past, but debatable (in fact I think has been debated on HT before).

The open season/quota concept would probably be a disaster for mountain goats. The average joe hunter can't distinguish billy from nanny, let alone judge length/age if the harvest criteria was say a 9" and/or 6yr billy.

Moose would also be tough to set a harvest criteria in my opinion. If you just say 'any bull' and the quota is met, then you'd really have to enforce an immediate shutdown of the unit, not any grace period. But it would be almost impossible to mandate folks to check in on the quota every half-hour and expect them to comply. Even then, you could have a dozen guys scouted and set up on a dozen different bulls at first light on opening morning, and have a slaughter at the same time and way over-exceed a designated quota.

 

[Bambistew]

Thanks for pulling this together. I've looked at sheep a few times in the past, but never looked at moose or goats, but suspected similar declines. I don't think you'd want to know what the moose and goat numbers were before 2006, I suspect they were double that in the 80s and early 90s. I know in number of moose tags in the Madisons and Gravelys is half what it was when I started applying in 1990.

It would be interesting to see the success rate plotted against the tag totals as well. I suspect the success rate have also declined. Not sure how accurate they would be.

None of those animals pay for their own management, they rely heavily on other tag/license sales to provide funding for management. This is the reason that governor tags are so easily bilked from the pool, sold to the highest bidder and back slapping commences for conservation. Fewer animals all the way around, but belt buckles and plaques adore those who are making a difference.

@TOGIE moose in CO are not native and were introduced into many areas of the state. They are thriving because they have all sorts of new habitat to exploit and an easier? climate. Moose in and goats in CO were both introduced species, and have thrived similarly. CO is an exception in this day and age, virtually every other state in the west has seen precipitous declines in the big 3.

We'll get tags for them as long as there is a surplus of one. Game agencies are in it for conservation until the last animal is conserved...

 

[Bluffgruff]

any insight into the drops in tags for your moose?

here is a graph of our moose permits that cpw released. what's going on in montana to not be seeing something similar? it can't be wolves right? i don't buy the rhetoric that wolves are going to destroy our elk and moose populations. will they have an effect? i'm sure. but not decimate.

View attachment 275972

Colorado moose have been expanding into unoccupied moose habitat for the most part. Expansion population dynamics with predation almost completely limited to calves by an occational bear or mtn lion, motor vehicles, and hunter harvest. Many places in Colorado haven't reached carrying capacity. Montana is mostly occupied, has wolves and grizzlies, and disease issues that I don't think Colorado has.

 

[Irishman]

There are lots of reasons why the number of people applying has increased. First, more people have moved to Montana, and it appears that a high percentage of them hunt. Hunting has been made more popular, due to the internet and TV hunting shows. There has been a push to get more people into hunting (I think that the story was, if we don't get kids hunting, we'll lose our right to hunt as hunters will be a tiny minority). Also people in general have been better off financially since the economy started picking up around 2012/13, more disposable income to use on things like hunting.
Did doing away with the upfront money make a difference? Probably. Will reintroducing it make a significant difference now, probably not.
On the animal side, it appears that moose have been struggling, partly due to more predators, and more being killed by humans, not necessarily with tags issued by the state.
Mountain goat tags have really been reduced in the Crazy Mountains, maybe they offered too many tags for several years. That unit had the most tags by far for several years, not anymore.
Disease got some of the Bighorn sheep herds and wiped them out.
It will never be like it was in the 80s, 90s for the big 3 again. My bet is that the downward trend will level out, but I can't see how it will improve again. Montana has changed. The world has changed.

 

[DFS]

It’s kind of interesting after bringing wildlife back from the brink we are going to take them right back to the brink. Humans are selfish and there are too many of them.