Montana reducing nonresident deer tags

[Ewludwig]

Because the primary thing they are trying to do is cut down on pressure in Eastern MT. People dont have multiple buck tags and there is hardly any doe tags legal on public in eastern MT. So pointing to 3-8 tags is either not logical, misleading, or disingenuous in relation to the issue.

If residents had 3-8 tags in the areas of concern non-residents wouldn't be taking over half of the deer killed.

Fair…not my intention. It implies pressure to me. Could be ignorance. Which is why I’m open to dialogue…which is a reasonable expectation given we all care deeply about the resource. Unfortunately, these forums end up like all other social media.

Again, are the non-resident cuts actually surgical enough to affect the problem? I’m happy to loose opportunity if all stakeholders are sharing the burden to do what’s best for the population.

 

[S.Clancy]

Here's the R6 and R7 hunter numbers. These regions hold ~35-36% of the deer in MT in any given year. The hunter pressure per deer is much lower than, for example, R3.



Also, we should be looking at total harvest as % of population by Region. The only reason NR harvest more than Residents is because Residents are enormously underrepresented in those Regions (6 & 7). Not to mention, NR harvest % n R7 has oscillated around 50% for 20 yrs.

 

[Ewludwig]

How do you not see how cutting 2500 tags, predominantly used the in the most affected region...helps the population?

As Wyoming and Idaho have already demonstrated, there are plenty of people willing to pay insane NR prices and continue to fund the agency, so threatening residents like our game agency is going to crumble if a few tags are slashed is nothing but a bluff at this point.

Who threatened anyone or anything? I get it. Non-residents are the low hanging fruit and most politically safe people to impact.

I don’t know the answer which is why I’m asking….how do you know most NR general tags are being used in the most affected area when there is no mandatory harvest reporting? When I buy a general tag in my home state, I have to state which zone I’m hunting. I’m not limited to hunting there, but it gives the DNR basic info they use to track pressure and is combined with mandatory harvest reporting.

 

[HunterGatherer]

From the other MT reducing NR tags thread …looks like residents are shooting plenty of MD does to me…

 

[Greenhorn]

View attachment 981333

From the other MT reducing NR tags thread …looks like residents are shooting plenty of MD does to me…

Holy cow that’s a lot of does! I didn’t realize there would be that many doe killing clowns out there.

 

[S.Clancy]

Holy cow that’s a lot of does! I didn’t realize there would be that many doe killing clowns out there.

Here's the last 20 yrs for R7....

 

[Fire_9]

View attachment 981333

From the other MT reducing NR tags thread …looks like residents are shooting plenty of MD does to me…

There used to actually be some BMA's that require you to harvest a md doe before you can harvest a buck. There are also some 'in town' deer seasons that target does as well. Not sure if they still operate that way but I wouldn't be surprised

 

[MuleDeerMike]

I'm confused what specifically they're reducing. Are they reducing the number of non res general deer combo licenses by 2500? Or is it the doe B tags? Or the deer tags in the elk combo? Or a combination of all? This is clear as mud to me from the 3 different articles I read if someone could help steer me in the right direction.

 

[BigMiss]

View attachment 981333

From the other MT reducing NR tags thread …looks like residents are shooting plenty of MD does to me…

Hasn't MD doe harvest been restricted to private land only in R7 the past couple years? That would have to sway the number of NR applying for those tags.

 

[S.Clancy]

I'm confused what specifically they're reducing. Are they reducing the number of non res general deer combo licenses by 2500? Or is it the doe B tags? Or the deer tags in the elk combo? Or a combination of all? This is clear as mud to me from the 3 different articles I read if someone could help steer me in the right direction.

MT sells NR elk/deer combo tags. Because of how MT conducts its draw, people that draw the elk/deer combo end up returning the deer portion (if they don't draw one of the "special" deer tags presumably). FWP then re-sells this deer portion. This commission decision limits how many they can resell, is my understanding. @AHayes111 how did I do on the explanation?

 

[MuleDeerMike]

MT sells NR elk/deer combo tags. Because of how MT conducts its draw, people that draw the elk/deer combo end up returning the deer portion (if they don't draw one of the "special" deer tags presumably). FWP then re-sells this deer portion. This commission decision limits how many they can resell, is my understanding. @AHayes111 how did I do on the explanation?

So there's the general deer combo and the general big game combo that is essentially the non res elk tag but also allows a deer tag as well. This new rule only affects the re sale of the deer portion of the big game combo by reducing those re sold tags by 2500? And doesnt reduce the number of the general deer only combo tags?

 

[ianpadron]

View attachment 981333

From the other MT reducing NR tags thread …looks like residents are shooting plenty of MD does to me…

Define "plenty".

Are you aware of the private land only tags? In town B tags?

Region 7 was about 10 years too late in reigning in antlerless harvest region wide, no doubt about it, yet it's a single corner of a massive state, that is now strictly regulated due to citizen advisory board/resident pressure to cut back on B tags.

And as another member pointed out with the data set he shared, Region 7 deer population/harvest has always been cyclical. Guess what accompanied the dip in 2014? (the answer is fewer tags issued of course)

 

[S.Clancy]

So there's the general deer combo and the general big game combo that is essentially the non res elk tag but also allows a deer tag as well. This new rule only affects the re sale of the deer portion of the big game combo by reducing those re sold tags by 2500? And doesnt reduce the number of the general deer only combo tags?

I believe they are limiting the resale to 2500. Historically the resale was ~5000, hence the "2500 reduction".

 

[ianpadron]

I believe they are limiting the resale to 2500. Historically the resale was ~5000, hence the "2500 reduction".

This is my understanding as well.

 

[ianpadron]

Not really and it's because eastern MT has been historically underutilized by the primary consumer, resident hunters.

I'll attach some figures that show hunters, days, and harvest vs population regionally.

View attachment 981294
View attachment 981295
View attachment 981296
View attachment 981297
View attachment 981298
View attachment 981299

View attachment 981301

This, along with your other data-set posts, should be mandatory reading for anyone to participate in this thread.

 

[ianpadron]

Who threatened anyone or anything? I get it. Non-residents are the low hanging fruit and most politically safe people to impact.

I don’t know the answer which is why I’m asking….how do you know most NR general tags are being used in the most affected area when there is no mandatory harvest reporting? When I buy a general tag in my home state, I have to state which zone I’m hunting. I’m not limited to hunting there, but it gives the DNR basic info they use to track pressure and is combined with mandatory harvest reporting.

That is the system many of us in Montana are pushing for.

Until then, we're stuck with the hodge-podge data FWP collects, mixed with anecdotal evidence.

Anyone who has hunted Montana or lived here knows with 100% certainty that R6 and 7 are seeing the majority of NR pressure. Easy terrain, tons of road access, no grizz/wolves to deal with, closer to where they are coming from, historically highest amounts of mule deer...the list goes on.

Without ever setting foot over there during the season it'd still be obvious. Then, when you do have the misfortune of being over there during rifle season, it becomes about as obvious as possible that is where NRs hunt.

No different with Region 3 and NR elk pressure. Sure, we could have a system and studies to support the sky is blue, or we could use observational boots on the ground data that that everyone is saying it's true.

 

[fatlander]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ianpadron]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why not both?

 

[HunterGatherer]

Define "plenty".

Are you aware of the private land only tags? In town B tags?

Region 7 was about 10 years too late in reigning in antlerless harvest region wide, no doubt about it, yet it's a single corner of a massive state, that is now strictly regulated due to citizen advisory board/resident pressure to cut back on B tags.

And as another member pointed out with the data set he shared, Region 7 deer population/harvest has always been cyclical. Guess what accompanied the dip in 2014? (the answer is fewer tags issued of course)

Where’s the data showing how many of those tags are private land only ? Wish those citizen advisory boards would’ve pushed for mandatory hunter reporting so that some of these data sets had value. As it is, it’s just a bunch of wild ass guessing about what’s driving mule deer herd decline and what solutions might be employed to fix it. Despite the lack of data and evidence that NR tag reduction will improve the herds, many MT residents are all about blaming the NRs…

Fact is, the peak MD populations of the past were due to unsustainable population spikes and there’s not as much of a long term decline as people would like to believe. Either way , here’s a cute meme I made…

 

[fatlander]

Why not both?

Because this is the model Westies live in


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk