Montana reducing nonresident deer tags

[Rifleman86]

Six months ago…

“Western politicians are trying to sell your public land! All you NR’s need to contact your senators!! This is DIRE!! We need help to save your hunting opportunities!”

Fast forward to now…

“We’ve mismanaged our deer herd for DECADES at the state level… NR’s are an easy politically convenient scapegoat, so we’re gonna take their tiny slice of the total tags we sell and cut it in half to say we did something.”

I’ve seen this story on repeat now for years. At some point, it will be unsustainable. I’m not sure where it ends, but I doubt it will be good for any of us, resident and NR alike.

 

[peterk123]

People might be growing but in a large portion of the state, urban sprawl is not causing a MD decline. That is quite laughable actually

It may be impacting migration patterns. Not just homes, but roads, commercial and other infrastructure. I think it's been documented, certainly in wyoming, not sure about Montana.

 

[ianpadron]

As a NR to the state, Im all for better management of the rescource. Just found the next paragraph in the article funny. The comish voted to pass changing the number of deer tags a R can hold from 8 to 3. Whoof, cleary the NR were the sole reason for MD decline.

The vast majority of the B tags are whitetail only FYI

 

[Taco John]

People might be growing but in a large portion of the state, urban sprawl is not causing a MD decline. That is quite laughable actually

I find it hard to believe that folks cant comprehend rural sprawl.

 

[AHayes111]

People might be growing but in a large portion of the state, urban sprawl is not causing a MD decline. That is quite laughable actually

Some people just do not want to admit that the nearly unlimited opportunity they enjoy is the problem.

 

[Fire_9]

I find it hard to believe that folks cant comprehend rural sprawl.

Oh I understand it but that is not what is killing mule deer in central and eastern MT. There are so many places that are and always have been completely void of people that the mule deer are now struggling. If there’s no housing developments in the middle of the winter range, what would you suggest the problem is?

 

[406huntermt]

Some people just do not want to admit that the nearly unlimited opportunity they enjoy is the problem.

Is it really the problem though? Or is not having enough self control to not shoot a young deer or a shot it to fill the freezer the problem? I think the big problem is every one needs the instant gratification of the internet so they have to pull the trigger. I haven’t shot a deer in 6 years, have had more then the average guys chances to kill 150 to 170 bucks and choose not to, I also get a mule deer doe tag and throw in the the trash so it’s not being used. I think Looking for a true giant is more fun than just pulling the trigger to pull it. People saying it’s for the meat is a load of crap… the amount of fuel people burn to go to region 6 or 7 for a week and all the other amenities needed could equal the cost of a half a beef pretty dang easy and they’d be supporting a local rancher! The ample opportunity isn’t the problem it’s the gratification people need and get from strangers on a social media platform and not having any bit of self control and eating a tag for the betterment of conservation! Take it for what it’s worth but that my 2¢

 

[ianpadron]

Is it really the problem though? Or is not having enough self control to not shoot a young deer or a shot it to fill the freezer the problem? I think the big problem is every one needs the instant gratification of the internet so they have to pull the trigger. I haven’t shot a deer in 6 years, have had more then the average guys chances to kill 150 to 170 bucks and choose not to, I also get a mule deer doe tag and throw in the the trash so it’s not being used. I think Looking for a true giant is more fun than just pulling the trigger to pull it. People saying it’s for the meat is a load of crap… the amount of fuel people burn to go to region 6 or 7 for a week and all the other amenities needed could equal the cost of a half a beef pretty dang easy and they’d be supporting a local rancher! The ample opportunity isn’t the problem it’s the gratification people need and get from strangers on a social media platform and not having any bit of self control and eating a tag for the betterment of conservation! Take it for what it’s worth but that my 2¢

Id be happy if guys killed 150-170s instead of the first legal buck honestly, doesnt have to be holding out for a giant...just a mature 4.5+ year old deer

 

[NRA4LIFE]

What now, is a NR deer tag going to be $1500 to keep the revenue stream going? I've been done with MT for a number of years now. I can go to my place in MO and buy 3 tags for less than half what 1 costs in MT.

 

[Chris in TN]

I'm all for states prioritizing residents over NR

On state owned public lands I'd wholeheartedly agree.

On lands not owned by the state, the landowner should have the freedom to allocate tags as they saw fit.

Wait, that would include federal lands.....

*ducks, covers*

 

[ianpadron]

On state owned public lands I'd wholeheartedly agree.

On lands not owned by the state, the landowner should have the freedom to allocate tags as they saw fit.

Wait, that would include federal lands.....

*ducks, covers*

This comes up constantly, the feds have no say on what a state does with their game animals, regardless of where they live, unless the ESA is involved. Animals are held in trust and managed by the state for the residents of said state.

This is like the reverse version of WY where you can get a tag, but you can't hunt the Federal land the critters live on, which is bogus for sure.

Limiting NRs from hunting all together by reducing tags...there's a lot of support for that across western states.

 

[Chris in TN]

This comes up constantly, the feds have no say on what a state does with their game animals, regardless of where they live, unless the ESA is involved. Animals are held in trust and managed by the state for the residents of said state.

This is like the reverse version of WY where you can get a tag, but you can't hunt the Federal land the critters live on, which is bogus for sure.

Limiting NRs from hunting all together by reducing tags...there's a lot of support for that across western states.

Landowners should be able to control who hunts on their land.

It’s not a federal vs. state issue. It’s a landowner vs. state issue.

 

[realunlucky]

Move and shorten your rifle season dates or stop whining about no big deer.

Have mandatory reporting and collect factual data on what is and what isn't affecting the muledeer population.

Implementing proven strategies from other western states on addressing muledeer concerns could push Montana as a top big buck states. Continuing to focus on the lowest hanging fruit might give resident hunters a warm fuzzy feeling but the real issues will continue to degrade and the solution even further from reach.

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

 

[HunterGatherer]

This comes up constantly, the feds have no say on what a state does with their game animals, regardless of where they live, unless the ESA is involved. Animals are held in trust and managed by the state for the residents of said state.

I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you but where does it say “ for the residents of the state” ?

This is like the reverse version of WY where you can get a tag, but you can't hunt the Federal land the critters live on, which is bogus for sure.

Limiting NRs from hunting all together by reducing tags...there's a lot of support for that across western states.

Why should there be support for it though ? Why does one’s proximity to any given federal land entitle them to more privilege than someone who lives in another state ? Residents contribute less financially to the management of “their” wildlife so why are nonresidents the first to lose their hunting privileges ?

 

[ianpadron]

Move and shorten your rifle season dates or stop whining about no big deer.

Have mandatory reporting and collect factual data on what is and what isn't affecting the muledeer population.

Implementing proven strategies from other western states on addressing muledeer concerns could push Montana as a top big buck states. Continuing to focus on the lowest hanging fruit might give resident hunters a warm fuzzy feeling but the real issues will continue to degrade and the solution even further from reach.

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

MT has plenty of giant bucks for guys willing to hunt in the mountains and alongside predators.

The low hanging fruit is the east side of the state that gets absolutely piss pounded due to ease of access and proximity to the Midwest.

If we end up getting seasons cut in Regions 1-3 because of struggling herds elsewhere it'll be a damn shame. Should be split at the continental divide and managed as such

 

[HunterGatherer]

Move and shorten your rifle season dates or stop whining about no big deer.

Have mandatory reporting and collect factual data on what is and what isn't affecting the muledeer population.

Implementing proven strategies from other western states on addressing muledeer concerns could push Montana as a top big buck states. Continuing to focus on the lowest hanging fruit might give resident hunters a warm fuzzy feeling but the real issues will continue to degrade and the solution even further from reach.

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

Exactly. You can’t kill 3-8 deer per resident per year and then complain about no mature bucks. Idaho and Montana manage their herds more for opportunity than for quality- no secret there. So many hunters want to have their cake and eat it too. “ I want to fill my freezer up every year and also have giant bucks within easy reach”. Those are two different things.

 

[ianpadron]

I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you but where does it say “ for the residents of the state” ?

Why should there be support for it though ? Why does one’s proximity to any given federal land entitle them to more privilege than someone who lives in another state ? Residents contribute less financially to the management of “their” wildlife so why are nonresidents the first to lose their hunting privileges ?

Public Trust Doctrine is a state common law issue. "Where does it say that?"...uhhh the state charters, constitutions, agency management docs, and two hundred plus years of case law. At this point, it is literally the cornerstone of STATE fish and game agencies. The feds manage migratory birds, marine mammals (because they move between states), and endangered species. That's it.

Disagree with it all you want but every ruling on the issue has reiterated PTD as a state responsibility. If PTD deems the state as the trustee, then those who elect the trustees are the beneficiaries. Read that again if you're a NR.

There are no additional privileges regarding what you can/can't do aside from WY. Limiting tags has NOTHING to do with the feds, that is 100% up to the state, as it was intended.

Many residents of Western states, myself included, support fewer tags given out to NRs (along with a host of other changes).

Unfortunately, until we have mandatory reporting in MT, there will be nothing but anecdotal evidence that NRs are an issue.

 

[Rifleman86]

Landowners should be able to control who hunts on their land.

It’s not a federal vs. state issue. It’s a landowner vs. state issue.

This comes up all the time here and it turns into an exhaustive circular argument.

I think the “the feds have no right to manage state wildlife even on federal land” got repeated enough times by a prolific now banned poster here who thought he was God’s gift to wildlife management and conservation that people took it as face value truth.

But in reality there is that pesky little thing called the property clause in the constitution.

Per grok, “Yes, the federal government has the constitutional authority to manage wildlife on federal lands within a state, primarily under the Property Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2), which grants Congress plenary power to regulate and protect federal property, including wildlife integral to those lands. This authority has been upheld in key Supreme Court cases, such as Kleppe v. New Mexico (1976), where the Court affirmed that Congress can protect wildlife on public lands, overriding state laws to the contrary.”

The University of Montana agrees

BLUF The feds let states manage wildlife on federal lands not because they can’t, but because they haven’t felt the need to.

I’m not saying I want to see that happen. I’m in general agreement states should A) be responsible for management and B) should prioritize the opportunities of residents.

But keep mismanaging game and making the nonresidents the political scapegoats for said mismanagement, and I have a feeling this will turn into one of those “FAFO” things on a long enough timeline.

 

[ianpadron]

Exactly. You can’t kill 3-8 deer per resident per year and then complain about no mature bucks. Idaho and Montana manage their herds more for opportunity than for quality- no secret there. So many hunters want to have their cake and eat it too. “ I want to fill my freezer up every year and also have giant bucks within easy reach”. Those are two different things.

1) call FWP and ask how many hunters kill more than 1 deer

2) read the actual regulations...you can't kill multiple bucks anywhere aside from a couple small CWD zone for whiteys.

3) ask how many additional does killed are whitetails

 

[ianpadron]

Landowners should be able to control who hunts on their land.

It’s not a federal vs. state issue. It’s a landowner vs.

What point are you trying to make exactly?