Less NR Deer tags soon to come in MT

[freezerfull]

Most of my evidence is purely anecdotal, but I have noticed most of the hunters I know that have gone to those states for mule deer are what I would call "serious hunters". Guys (and gals I guess) who are way more interested in killing a mature buck than punching a tag with any ol animal.

There are plenty of serious hunters coming to Montana from WA and other states as well. My point is that painting all NR’s from WA as clowns is inaccurate. I’d say the percentages of clowns per res and NR through the west are likely very similar. I have advocated on multiple threads with non residents asking about different western states, that they not be the guy stacking does and shooting young bucks, especially all the 2yo MT 4pts that are so sought after.

 

[AHayes111]

Not during my lifetime that I’m aware of, except for discounted tags (come home to hunt, etc.) that were supported by residents who had family out of state.

Actually the tags being cut are a fairly new addition that has come about from FWP allowing NR to split the elk/deer combo. For example a NR puts in for the Elk/deer combo and deer district 270. When they draw the elk/deer combo and fail to draw 270.(nearly impossible odds for a NR) the NR is allowed to split off the deer tag and keep the elk tag. FWP then sells the deer tag to another NR, What the commission passed would limit the number of deer tags FWP could resell.

 

[freezerfull]

Actually the tags being cut are a fairly new addition that has come about from FWP allowing NR to split the elk/deer combo. For example a NR puts in for the Elk/deer combo and deer district 270. When they draw the elk/deer combo and fail to draw 270.(nearly impossible odds for a NR) the NR is allowed to split off the deer tag and keep the elk tag.

Maybe my math is off. Does that not result in the exact same number of NR deer licenses in the hands of NR? Only difference would be LE vs general if they were to draw.

I am all for people not being able to return the deer tag off the big game combo if they don’t draw their LE choices. You apply and draw a general tag, you should be stuck with it.

FWP then sells the deer tag to another NR, What the commission passed would limit the number of deer tags FWP could resell.

Thanks for this information. I wasn’t able to locate where the tag reductions were coming from.

 

[Lawnboi]

I agree. I guess my definition of "harder" is more akin to drawing a moose, sheep, or goat, tag in my home state. I completely realize that is never going to happen (especially with the guides and outfitters lobby). I think the opportunity to hunt MT if you are from out of state every 4-5 years seems reasonable. I know if I had the desire to hunt other states I would be okay with that if they had the same policies in place.

Unless you didn’t know, it currently takes 2-3 years to get a tag, unless you get lucky in the random with zero points. During those years you have to apply to continue, and have to spend money on points. People are already waiting, I see 3 years being what it takes going forward. While they are waiting they are also keeping the lights on at Montana fwp. See why people are a little emotional when their small slice of the pie is taken. This is for a general tag.

Btw not all non residents are bad people.

 

[skeptic]

Btw not all non residents are bad people.

Never said that or tried to imply that. As I stated earlier, I have actually hosted a couple of friends from out of state on hunts here, although it has been a while.

I have always been, and always will be, in the tribe that "less is more." Even as a resident, I would take less opportunity for tags as a trade off to maybe having a little better experience (especially on public land) for hunting animals. That being said, I am probably in the minority in that regard. My "good" hunting experience is probably defined differently than the majority of people.

 

[Ewludwig]

Non residents are an easy target but rarely have that much impact on a resource. We could look at the data but montana currently only half ass collects it and then FWP fakes the rest with out dated modeling. Push for mandatory reporting so you can make it intelligent arguments based on factual harvest numbers.

You want bigger and better deer hunting in montana don't hunt them for weeks on end when they are the most vulnerable.



Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

A friend of mine is working this very issue. Hope he is successful. It’s a no brainer. Be curious to see how FWP makes up the lost revenue. Something tells me they will just charge the NR more to make up for it.

 

[Lawnboi]

Never said that or tried to imply that. As I stated earlier, I have actually hosted a couple of friends from out of state on hunts here, although it has been a while.

I have always been, and always will be, in the tribe that "less is more." Even as a resident, I would take less opportunity for tags as a trade off to maybe having a little better experience (especially on public land) for hunting animals. That being said, I am probably in the minority in that regard. My "good" hunting experience is probably defined differently than the majority of people.

I’m just pointing out the demeanor of quite a few resident hunters. We are all residents somewhere and I guess I don’t see the animosity that seems to exist.

I can appreciate that view point. As a non resident to Montana I would really like to see the deer herd come back. The fwp needs to do something drastic at this point, and what they have done won’t make a difference I’m afraid.

Also fwiw I stopped going to Montana when the deer herd took a major drop and don’t plan to go back until it rebounds. I also enjoy going to Montana to do other stuff than big game hunt, not uncommon to take a trip to shoot predators and prairie dogs. The opportunity means a lot to me, and I hope you guys can get your deer herd back to what it could be. Unfortunately in order to do so I think it’s going to take more than a hand full of NR deer tags.

 

[ajf243]

The reduction in NR buck tags is good theatre but isn’t going to change the mule deer population, the access issue, or the hunting pressure complaints.

If the tags were assigned to hunt units and to specific harvests (Mule deer vs. WT buck) then you could at least scratch at the problem but as long as buck tags are sold in a way that aren’t tied to units or aren’t species specific they aren’t going have any impact.

This change makes the lawmaker’s constituents feel good.

 

[Cahunter805]

A friend of mine is working this very issue. Hope he is successful. It’s a no brainer. Be curious to see how FWP makes up the lost revenue. Something tells me they will just charge the NR more to make up for it.

Montana is one of the highest priced General deer tags in the US. I’m sure they can raise the price but it might begin to price some people out as well.

As a NR I’m not opposed to the tag cuts but would also like to see maybe specific Region tags or even a general season that lasts until November 1 and then some limited entry regional tags for the rest of November possibly. Take some of the pressure off the bucks when they are most vulnerable.

 

[AHayes111]

Maybe my math is off. Does that not result in the exact same number of NR deer licenses in the hands of NR? Only difference would be LE vs general if they were to draw.

I am all for people not being able to return the deer tag off the big game combo if they don’t draw their LE choices. You apply and draw a general tag, you should be stuck with it.


Thanks for this information. I wasn’t able to locate where the tag reductions were coming from.

Since Think the number of Deer/elk combo licenses that are being split is around 5000, the reduction would be 2500 fewer deer tags.
This splitting of the Deer/Elk combo tag has been a point of contention for many residents since it started. The legislature set the number NR at a fixed number, By splitting the license into a deer and an elk license, FWP is effectively increasing the number of NR without the approval of the legislature.
When I was on the licensing and funding CAC, we were tasked with coming up with some recommendations that would help the legislature pass legislation that would fund FWP into the future. Splitting the Deer/elk combo license was part of that discussion, but it quickly lost support when we realized that doing so could possibly double the number of NR hunting the state. I am not a big blame the NR guy and think that the price of the resident licenses is an embarrassment, But FWP splitting the deer/elk combo on there own has never set well with me and plenty of others.

 

[freezerfull]

Since Think the number of Deer/elk combo licenses that are being split is around 5000, the reduction would be 2500 fewer deer tags.
This splitting of the Deer/Elk combo tag has been a point of contention for many residents since it started. The legislature set the number NR at a fixed number, By splitting the license into a deer and an elk license, FWP is effectively increasing the number of NR without the approval of the legislature.
When I was on the licensing and funding CAC, we were tasked with coming up with some recommendations that would help the legislature pass legislation that would fund FWP into the future. Splitting the Deer/elk combo license was part of that discussion, but it quickly lost support when we realized that doing so could possibly double the number of NR hunting the state. I am not a big blame the NR guy and think that the price of the resident licenses is an embarrassment, But FWP splitting the deer/elk combo on there own has never set well with me and plenty of others.

Thanks for the detailed explanation. I think we are both saying the same thing regarding the splitting of big game combos. When this happens more NR individuals have tags, however the number of actual tags does not increase. Instead of one NR holding both a general elk tag and general deer tag; now you have two NR’s, one with a general deer tag and one with a general elk tag.

 

[wind gypsy]

Thanks for the detailed explanation. I think we are both saying the same thing regarding the splitting of big game combos. When this happens more NR individuals have tags, however the number of actual tags does not increase. Instead of one NR holding both a general elk tag and general deer tag; now you have two NR’s, one with a general deer tag and one with a general elk tag.

Yes, and the odds of a guy with only a deer tag killing a mule deer is higher than a guy with a deer and an elk tag. I've had deer/elk combos a bunch of times and I think i've only killed both a deer and elk once because i always focused on Elk. I've spent less than 2 days in MT targeting mule deer out of probably 50+ days hunting there when in possession of a general deer tag.

 

[BRTreedogs]

Was the original intent to limit hunters tho?
Or was it a tag cap to limit harvest. And you just want it to limit hunters?

 

[wind gypsy]

Pretty sure it’s not non residents that demand mule deer Doe hunting must NOT be reduced.
“Because you would be taking food rite off the table of my children “

When I talked with a MT Warden he said residents flip out if mule deer doe opportunity reductions are even mentioned.

They've cut back on doe harvest quite a bit the last couple years.

 

[BRTreedogs]

They've cut back on doe harvest quite a bit the last couple years.

They need to stop Mule deer doe harvest immediately.
There are plenty of invasive whitetails to murder.

I’m not sure how any Montana resident could be taken seriously unless they are advocating for the immediate elimination of mule deer doe harvest.

And imo until that’s done any argument to reducing NR shouldn’t be taken seriously. Because at that point they are not arguing to improve mule deer. Just making it easier to fudd it up.

At least they should be honest, don’t try to vail intentions with bs excuses, saying they want heard health improvement.

Just say I don’t want any competition in driving around with a road soda, smoking Marley’s and shooting does from the truck.

Btw none of this is aimed at you specifically.

 

[AHayes111]

Thanks for the detailed explanation. I think we are both saying the same thing regarding the splitting of big game combos. When this happens more NR individuals have tags, however the number of actual tags does not increase. Instead of one NR holding both a general elk tag and general deer tag; now you have two NR’s, one with a general deer tag and one with a general elk tag.

Yes, and the odds of a guy with only a deer tag killing a mule deer is higher than a guy with a deer and an elk tag. I've had deer/elk combos a bunch of times and I think i've only killed both a deer and elk once because i always focused on Elk. I've spent less than 2 days in MT targeting mule deer out of probably 50+ days hunting there when in possession of a general deer tag.

It also shifted a lot of the NR Deer pressure east. NR with the Deer/elk combo tend to hunt in the west, and NR with deer Combo hunt in the east.

 

[jkoehle1]

And imo until that’s done any argument to reducing NR shouldn’t be taken seriously. Because at that point they are not arguing to improve mule deer. Just making it easier to fudd it up.

B tags arent being sold in the quantity or areas they once were. Mostly due to residents.

its also not about deer, its about pressure.

As far as "caring about the mule deer" id love to see the whole state go to 75k md permits. Im not alone at all in that either. To me - thats the only way to limit harvest to improve things.

What would nr opportunity look like ?

 

[BRTreedogs]

B tags arent being sold in the quantity or areas they once were. Mostly due to residents.

its also not about deer, its about pressure.

As far as "caring about the mule deer" id love to see the whole state go to 75k md permits. Im not alone at all in that either. To me - thats the only way to limit harvest to improve things.

What would nr opportunity look like ?

It’s about pressure to YOU

Most blabber on and on about improving heard health improvement.

 

[jkoehle1]

It’s about pressure to YOU

Elaborate?

Its like 10 dollars more in lic fees.

 

[jjgaw]

Seems like shortening the general season would have made a larger impact.