Montana mule deer meeting region 6

[Erict]

... Lock people into regions, choose your weapon, make the last couple weeks of season a draw, (enter a million other ideas towards some type of management)….just do something instead of nothing.

Anyone with a license obtained by using an "outfitter" preference point is already "locked" in to location, season, etc. These tags are ONLY valid when hunting with the outfitter/guide.

My guess is that MOGA would not be supportive of NR restrictions based on location, especially restrictions that applied to private property.

 

[BugleMeTimber]

I personally like Idaho's nonresident caps on each unit but keep it a lottery and not a first come first serve online battle so party apps are possible. Would not hurt my feelings to see mule deer rut hunts go to a limited draw and general tags buck only so MD Doe's are B-Tag only on a fixed quota not Unlimited. This would spread out the pressure and folks could still hunt whitetail during the rut but Mule Deer would only have the limited entry winners chasing them. Seems like you'd still get plenty of time in the field and mule deer would catch a big break. No matter what happens someone will be upset.

 

[OpenCountry]

Anyone with a license obtained by using an "outfitter" preference point is already "locked" in to location, season, etc. These tags are ONLY valid when hunting with the outfitter/guide.

My guess is that MOGA would not be supportive of NR restrictions based on location, especially restrictions that applied to private property.

I’m not only talking about nonresidents.

 

[mtlivin]

My buddy brought up a very good idea to me when we discussed the many details of this problem. I know the NR hunters are concentrating heavily to the NE & SE portion of MT. Make the obligated NR tags distributed across MT based on units. Units 1, 2, 3, ect. would have less allocated NR tags because we have less mule deer in those units. Units 6 & 7 would have more designated NR tags, due to higher deer populations, but still a heck of a lot less NR hunters than currently flock to this area and "have to" shoot a 130" buck to justify their trip. This would not require a new designation of units in MT, so a small step for FWP that they might be able to swallow.

If I had the ability to write the regs it would not be this option, but we have to present an idea to FWP that is palatable for managers to swallow, this is the best one I've heard of yet. All of the MT hunters I know that traveled east last fall came back without shooting a buck, because many residents actually care about our resources and wanted to see these deer herds and buck size improve.

 

[HuntandFly]

I have hunted region 6 as a non res 3 straight seasons. I see a couple Washington plates running around but we have stopped into a number of camps and talked with folks staying the same place as us, and the vast majority have been western MT residents who come over every year

 

[Legend]

I have hunted region 6 as a non res 3 straight seasons. I see a couple Washington plates running around but we have stopped into a number of camps and talked with folks staying the same place as us, and the vast majority have been western MT residents who come over every year

Non residents and Kalispell plates are the same thing.

It is inevitable that some day we will have to decide if we want more regulations (choose a district, choose a region, choose a weapon, etc.) or choose to have over run mediocre experiences.

 

[hobbes]

I have hunted region 6 as a non res 3 straight seasons. I see a couple Washington plates running around but we have stopped into a number of camps and talked with folks staying the same place as us, and the vast majority have been western MT residents who come over every year

If you aren't seeing Washington plates in November in Eastern MT, you have your eyes closed, or at least aren't hunting where I have been