Less NR Deer tags soon to come in MT

[jkoehle1]

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

In pressure?

Your logic is the season gets shorter, no change to tag qtys, and theres less people hunting the same time?

Interesting.

 

[BRTreedogs]

Elaborate?

Its like 10 dollars more in lic fees.

You say it’s not about deer it’s about pressure.

Are you certain you speak for the entire population?

 

[jkoehle1]

You say it’s not about deer it’s about pressure.

Are you certain you speak for the entire population?

No. Just the commissioner who introduced it as an amendment - with the justification being hunter pressure.

 

[Ewludwig]

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.

Fair and interesting point. My experience has been similar.

 

[jjgaw]

In pressure?

Your logic is the season gets shorter, no change to tag qtys, and theres less people hunting the same time?

Interesting.

Part of what draws so many applicants is that you can hunt for such a long time. Just draw the tag and figure out the dates later. Work it around other hunts. So many people, including myself use MT as a filler hunt between other states. Second issue being the bucks (of all ages) get absolutely pounded by a season that lasts all November.

 

[Ewludwig]

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.

This would be my understanding of the math.

Additionally, I have hunted deer for 30+ years in my home state. Doe tags have been plentiful some years, draw only in others and non-existent in the remainder. Make struggling units buck only across the board.

If the issue is buck age class, different approach.

 

[Lawnboi]

This would be my understanding of the math.

Additionally, I have hunted deer for 30+ years in my home state. Doe tags have been plentiful some years, draw only in others and non-existent in the remainder. Make struggling units buck only across the board.

If the issue is buck age class, different approach.

The issue is more than just does. There’s just not many deer.

The smart thing to do would be to have no hunting on public for a few years. That’s probably the only way to fix it at this point. There are some solutions that I think would help, like season structure, doe harvest and sanctuary building (by closing roads during season).

Problem is we have a government entity involved, and people whos livelihood depends on keeping its constituents happy regardless of deer herd health.

 

[TshaxesA]

Montana is no doubt the easiest non-resident draw for deer and most people dont bat an eye at the $750 price tag, but some changes are needed for everyone. I'm interested in see what they do with costs of resident and non-resident license fees. They will be giving up a lot of revenue cutting thousands of non-residents tags in the coming years; which is needed, but they'll need to make that revenue up somehow, someway.

 

[BRTreedogs]

No. Just the commissioner who introduced it as an amendment - with the justification being hunter pressure.

Copy
So the original intent was sold as capping hunter pressure.

 

[jkoehle1]

Copy
So the original intent was sold as capping hunter pressure.

Correct. And if all 5000 of those tags would have been cut - the areas with the worst by NR pressure (6 and 7) would have signficantly less. These are "deer tag only" vs deer/elk combo tag holders and generally these deer tag only holders focus on those regions.

 

[Rich M]

The issue is more than just does. There’s just not many deer.

The smart thing to do would be to have no hunting on public for a few years. That’s probably the only way to fix it at this point. There are some solutions that I think would help, like season structure, doe harvest and sanctuary building (by closing roads during season).

Problem is we have a government entity involved, and people whos livelihood depends on keeping its constituents happy regardless of deer herd health.

Don't forget the "hunters" who want to help the deer but sure as anything need to be able to hunt them.

Areas with low numbers would benefit greatly from shutting the season down for 2-3 years but could you hear the public outcry if they shut down an area to hunting?

Fwiw, i'm thinking that the NR tag cuts are to satisfy the residents. Not to help the deer herd.

 

[BRTreedogs]

Correct. And if all 5000 of those tags would have been cut - the areas with the worst by NR pressure (6 and 7) would have signficantly less. These are "deer tag only" vs deer/elk combo tag holders and generally these deer tag only holders focus on those regions.

So you don’t care about the deer, you just want to be the only one with a tag, because NR hunters make it to hard for you?

 

[jkoehle1]

So you don’t care about the deer, you just want to be the only one with a tag, because NR hunters make it to hard for you?

I stated the intent of the amendment.

I would prefer mule deer specifically be regulated like antelope. Theyre easy to hunt with modern tech in a lot of the time of year, and vulnerable as a species. With opportunities for me a few years in 5 and you some in 10.

Does that make you feel better?

 

[TshaxesA]

And this was by far my toughest fall out there for mule deer. I have got a tage every 3 years for the last 1 years and seen a rapid decline in number of deer and number of solid bucks, especially since 2018ish.

 

[Jaden Bales]

See below for region 7 2024. Very estimated data. Seems does are favored by residents substantially more than NR. Though points on a buck have little to do with age and maturity, it seems both residents and non residents likely take the same percentage of dinks each year in this region.

Nice reference on the data. That's exactly what I would say has been my experience. Residents are significantly LESS picky than nonresidents. Usually, it's folks that hunt like my dad and grandpas used to who have a weekend to get out and just go get one, then gotta go back to work and travel to kids' football games. From what I've seen and consulted on, people who are traveling a ways usually they want a nicer critter to take home.

Seems like the crux of the issue on this thread is some people choose more deer, some people choose bigger deer and some people choose less hunting pressure as the issue to die on the sword for. And at the end of the day, we want all those things and for us to be able to draw often. The higher deer numbers generally is the best way to get somewhere, but those are complex issues and aren't as easy to address as hunter numbers/seasons/regions, etc.