Missouri Non Res Changes

[Joe Holden]

Figured with a couple other states being talked about, I'd throw this in here.

For 2026, Non Resident hunters will be allowed 1 buck during all seasons. Historically, you used to be allowed 2 for all seasons. Tag increase to $360 (Doe tag increased to $34-ish)

For 2027, while not yet official, high likelihood that anyone wanting to deer hunt public will need to buy a $165 stamp. Believe this will be voted on in September.

EDIT : Looks like the stamp received initial approval. Which means that's going to happen.

Moving past that, there is potential for Missouri to become a draw state.

MDC modifies regulations for nonresident deer hunting for this fall and seeks public comments for future changes

Some nonresident deer hunters will be limited to one antlered buck instead of two.

mdc.mo.gov

 

[OneGunTex]

Woah. They give a management reason, or is it just a cash grab? Missouri has more deer than you can shake a stick at.
But MDC doesn't need the money either. Best funded DNR in the country. Weird.

 

[Wheels]

Also considering charging a fee to camp on conservation areas and limiting the time allowed to have a campsite/RV on site.

MDC invites public comments on proposed camping permits

Camping permit will benefit campers through better and safer experiences on MDC areas.

mdc.mo.gov

 

[Joe Holden]

I don't think it's a management focus. If that were the case, they would move firearms season out of the rut. They were due for a tag increase which they have been year over year. But now it's more for 1 less any deer tag.

Also saying this as someone originally from Missouri that moved to Kansas specifically to deer hunt.

 

[30338]

I think they raised turkeys to over $300 for nonresidents. Thought that was too much. Now they did the same with deer. Makes it easier to hunt locally for sure.

 

[NRA4LIFE]

Glad I hunt private only.

 

[Marine4life]

One of the reasons for the changes was the result of residents stating there was too much NR pressure on public land. They shared tag numbers and harvest data which showed significant use of the public lands in the northern part of the state by NR. For those that don’t know, MO requires mandatory harvest reporting and a couple of the required questions are the county of harvest and if public or private lands

At the same time, they didn’t upset the outfitters or folks that have enough money to lease, with the exception they can only kill one deer. Not sure how much difference this will make because previously you had to buy two different tags for archery and firearms/muzzy.

A good thing IMO, is Missouri does a bunch of town halls and a comment period for any proposed changes. Now how they use that information is beyond the scope of this discussion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[realunlucky]

I hunt Missouri every year, it was the best value big buck state in the Midwest and you didn't have to draw. Show up and buy a tag, hunt some well managed state lands.

Archery was two any deer tags but only one buck before rifle season and one after. I rarely shot two bucks in a single year even hunting both archery and rifle seasons but I enjoyed the opportunity of going to deer camp in rifle season and waiting on a giant. Guess nothing lasts forever.



Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

 

[NRA4LIFE]

One of the reasons for the changes was the result of residents stating there was too much NR pressure on public land. They shared tag numbers and harvest data which showed significant use of the public lands in the northern part of the state by NR. For those that don’t know, MO requires mandatory harvest reporting and a couple of the required questions are the county of harvest and if public or private lands

At the same time, they didn’t upset the outfitters or folks that have enough money to lease, with the exception they can only kill one deer. Not sure how much difference this will make because previously you had to buy two different tags for archery and firearms/muzzy.

A good thing IMO, is Missouri does a bunch of town halls and a comment period for any proposed changes. Now how they use that information is beyond the scope of this discussion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Except they only listen to the outfitters. The few meetings I was able to attend back in the early 2000's, near everyone attending was opposed to the 4 point rule. A lot of farmers too. A couple outfitters were for it and guess what? 4 point rule initiated. Now guess what? Too many deer and CWD and no more 4-point rule. There is not a lack of deer in the northern part of the state where my land is. If I wanted, I could kill so many but I'd have to pay to have them hauled back to WA. I limit myself to 2, maybe 3 sometimes if I can find someone to take it, which is generally not too difficult.

 

[wpeach1912]

I don’t really understand the reduction in harvest limit since missouri is basically overrun with deer. With the CWD regulation counties it seems they are begging people to shoot them. The price increase is kinda frustrating too since it was $225 just a couple years ago. Maybe they just have seen what Wyoming and Utah have been able to do to non res. I also don’t understand why they would go to a draw when they have so many deer. They’re basically printing money with the tag cost already and the public land stamp.

 

[sasquatch]

It has nothing to do with deer population, and everything to do with residents not wanting to see non residents hunting “their deer”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Wheels]

It has nothing to do with deer population, and everything to do with residents not wanting to see non residents hunting “their deer”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Kind of like every other state’s residents.

 

[sasquatch]

Kind of like every other state’s residents.

Not 100% but yes, and this back and forth battle will eventually end in everyone only being able to hunt what their own state has to offer.

Yay, what a win for us all as outdoorsman


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bnsafe]

i just paid 500 plus 5 years of a 110 putting in for a mule deer tag in colorado. not gonna feel sorry for someone coming from another state to pay 360 or 160 to hunt public lands.

 

[Marine4life]

I live in Missouri, have hunted Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska. Never Illinois for deer. I also play the NR tag application game for many of the western states.

The perception from a lot of MO residents is the state needs to limit the number of NR hunters and have a better experience for resident hunters on public lands. With the four neighboring states above all having higher priced tags and a draw for NRs it has to be better right? My guess is we will have a draw but that wasn’t passed this year because there wasn’t enough time to get it in place.

IMO, opportunities for all hunters are dwindling and one of the main reasons is access. States now even limit access for NR for pheasant, waterfowl and turkeys. Resident access to private land is being limited by outfitters, leases, NR land owners, development, and lack of properties willing to allow hunting. Without access to private land more residents are dependent on public land.

Add in the effects of SM and influencers, technology and regulation changes like crossbows, and you have a complex set of inputs that make it difficult to balance.

As stated earlier, it is going to continue to more difficult, and costly, to hunt outside your own state of residency.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Rich M]

Limiting NR to 1 buck is a good move.
Charging more is also a good move.
A draw for NR is a good idea too.

 

[Kurts86]

The perceived overcrowding issue in Missouri stems from the fact that the good deer hunting is in the northern half of the state where there is relatively little, but fairly high quality public land concentrating use days.

There is lots of public land in southern Missouri but the deer are smaller and harder to hunt in Mark Twain national forest. It isn’t particularly desirable to hunt there for a traveling nonresident.

I hate to see the public land stamp cost, they should just make every NR pay it regardless of where they hunt.

 

[OneGunTex]

There is lots of public land in southern Missouri but the deer are smaller and harder to hunt in Mark Twain national forest. It isn’t particularly desirable to hunt there for a traveling nonresident.

I hate to see the public land stamp cost, they should just make every NR pay it regardless of where they hunt.

Killed probably my biggest deer ever in the MTNF
Bur hey, I'm from Texas, where our deer are tiny, a $350 NR license let's you shoot 5 WTs, 2 MD, 4 turkeys, and all the pigs you desire - and our infinitesimally unlikely draw tags are open to NRs with no limits.

 

[jsig]

Resident access to private land is being limited by outfitters, leases, NR land owners, development, and lack of properties willing to allow hunting. Without access to private land more residents are dependent on public land.

Add in the effects of SM and influencers, technology and regulation changes like crossbows, and you have a complex set of inputs that make it difficult to balance.

As stated earlier, it is going to continue to more difficult, and costly, to hunt outside your own state of residency.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

This.