Montana reducing nonresident deer tags

[MallardSX2]

 

[HunterGatherer]

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.

I’m not suggesting that the feds should override the state management agencies or that the feds should manage the game at all. I was genuinely curious about the legal basis for giving states authority over federal/public resources like game animals and how the favoritism for state residents is justified. Thank you for the clarification. You obviously have a deeper understanding of the legal precedent for these laws than I do. I guess I have a different philosophical idea of what freedoms/privileges we should be entitled to as Americans.

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.

NRs get blamed by residents time and time again, for any and all problems relating to hunting despite the lack of data to support it. I get that humans are a tribal species and prone to looking unfavorably upon “intruders “ but it creates a rift in the hunting community. Just about any time I run into another person in the woods whether I’m hunting, foraging, or just out for a stroll, the first thing they want to know is “ Where you from ?” I always say
“ America. Just like you.”

 

[Chris in TN]

What point are you trying to make exactly?

There are several to choose from. First would be that the residents of any given state shouldn't get a priority to use federal lands, which is in essence what happens in western states with tag allocations that favor residents.

The bigger point is that landowners, not governments, should be free to make management decisions on land. Of course that gets complex when the government is the landowner. I didn't set that system up and can offer many criticisms of it but ultimately don't think it should be changed. "The devil you know", and all that. Righting historical wrongs, so to speak, usually just creates more wrongs. So I wouldn't touch the federal land ownership issue, but I also wouldn't allow states to make a system where residents got preferential treatment on the usage of federal lands.

 

[KurtR]

There are several to choose from. First would be that the residents of any given state shouldn't get a priority to use federal lands, which is in essence what happens in western states with tag allocations that favor residents.

The bigger point is that landowners, not governments, should be free to make management decisions on land. Of course that gets complex when the government is the landowner. I didn't set that system up and can offer many criticisms of it but ultimately don't think it should be changed. "The devil you know", and all that. Righting historical wrongs, so to speak, usually just creates more wrongs. So I wouldn't touch the federal land ownership issue, but I also wouldn't allow states to make a system where residents got preferential treatment on the usage of federal lands.

But can’t you go on federal land any time you want?

 

[mt terry d]

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

.......

3) ask how many additional does killed are whitetails

Yes. And then ask exactly how they arrive at those numbers and what actual degree of accuracy those numbers have.

 

[Chris in TN]

But can’t you go on federal land any time you want?

Not to hunt the animals that live there.

 

[ianpadron]

Yes. And then ask exactly how they arrive at those numbers and what actual degree of accuracy those numbers have.

Mandatory harvest reporting would be a much better option for tracking mule deer buck harvest, no argument from me there.

HOWEVER...

The whiteys that make up the majority of the B tag harvest (because they make up the majority of B tags) don't factor into this NR/Rez debate over MD numbers in the first place, and un-ironically whitetail competition has been shown to be one of the main issues with struggling mule deer herds in MT. For discerning NRs, they should be pushing for us residents to use all of our B tags on whiteys and ask for more.

As more and more hunters opt into the E-tag option here, bios are actually collecting fairly accurate data, especially on B tags since they are tied to a specific region or unit vs general.

When fellas who don't live here, like the guy I was originally replying to, pretend to have all the solutions and claim residents are killing multiple mule deer bucks, I'm going to step in and call out that every single time.

 

[HunterGatherer]

When fellas who don't live here, like the guy I was originally replying to, pretend to have all the solutions and claim residents are killing multiple mule deer bucks, I'm going to step in and call out that every single time.

I’m not pretending to have all the solutions and thanks for clarifying some things here. For the record, I didn’t say “ multiple MD bucks”. I said 3-8 deer. It’s a bit confusing when fellas who live in MT say you can’t get more than one mule deer tag and then I see things like this posted in the forums…

Sounds like this guy is talking about killing 4 mule deer in one season unless I’m mistaken…

 

[ianpadron]

I’m not pretending to have all the solutions and thanks for clarifying some things here. For the record, I didn’t say “ multiple MD bucks”. I said 3-8 deer. It’s a bit confusing when fellas who live in MT say you can’t get more than one mule deer tag and then I see things like this posted in the forums…
View attachment 980597
Sounds like this guy is talking about killing 4 mule deer in one season unless I’m mistaken…

This is exactly why I said you should read the regs, and why it's obnoxious when NRs chime in at all on the issue of deer management in MT in the first place.

Montana is almost 600 miles wide...B tags are not statewide general tags, they are for very specific units/regions, many of which are bigger than entire US states, and some of which, very recently had MD populations "over objective".

No one has killed a doe MD west of the divide with a tag in their pocket in decades (as it should be). Over East, the management plan is different, as evidenced by the close to 9k mule deer surplus doe tags that used to be issued in Region 7.

I'd be willing to bet that guy had the old Region 7 surplus doe tags. These have been largely eliminated due to extreme pressure from residents, even though they were seen as depredation and pop control tags.

Whitetail still make up the vast, vast majority of B tag availability and sales here, statewide. This is easy to confirm by READING THE REGS.

Of course...it also deserves to be mentioned that those surplus tags are what first put non-residents in the cross hairs for locals. NRs saw the massive opportunity for additional tags "close" to home, and would come kill a dink buck and several does, fill up a pickup truck as a meat hunt around Thanksgiving every year and be gone. Region 7, is of course where mule deer numbers have crashed the hardest. Go figure.

No one in region 1-3 cares about NR deer hunters, there simply aren't enough of them to worry about. I've seen 1 out of stater in 6 years, and he was from Idaho lol. Go to Miles City or Broadus in November and you will see more Minnesota and Wisconsin plates than Montana plates.

It's nearly impossible to have a constructive conversation on the topic with NRs who have never read through the regulations, or seen the b tag allocation shift in recent years, and think that MT is a monolith of herd dynamics and population trends rather than understand the nuance of managing a state that is as big as several other Western states combined with herds that live in everything from high alpine wilderness to lowland alfalfa fields.

 

[HunterGatherer]

It's nearly impossible to have a constructive conversation on the topic with NRs who have never read through the regulations, or seen the b tag allocation shift in recent years, and think that MT is a monolith of herd dynamics and population trends rather than understand the nuance of managing a state that is as big as several other Western states combined with herds that live in everything from high alpine wilderness to lowland alfalfa fields.

I disagree. I think this conversation has been very constructive in that you have helped clarify the issues at hand and set the record straight on some common misconceptions. Honestly, “READING THE REGULATIONS” doesn’t provide all of the insight or answers necessary to understand the issues at hand. Thank you for your perspective as it has clarified multiple points, for me at least.

Instead of making the case that NRs should have no input on herds in other states, maybe try the approach that, with an educated and nuanced perspective, NRs can make better choices about game management issues and where to invest their hunting dollars. All the bickering and blaming between anti-NR residents and NRs doesn’t help the situation. Educating and making allies of NR hunters would benefit you more than calling them obnoxious and essentially telling them they don’t deserve an opinion.

 

[ianpadron]

I disagree. I think this conversation has been very constructive in that you have helped clarify the issues at hand and set the record straight on some common misconceptions. Honestly, “READING THE REGULATIONS” doesn’t provide all of the insight or answers necessary to understand the issues at hand. Thank you for your perspective as it has clarified multiple points, for me at least.

Instead of making the case that NRs should have no input on herds in other states, maybe try the approach that, with an educated and nuanced perspective, NRs can make better choices about game management issues and where to invest their hunting dollars. All the bickering and blaming between anti-NR residents and NRs doesn’t help the situation. Educating and making allies of NR hunters would benefit you more than calling them obnoxious and essentially telling them they don’t deserve an opinion.

Undeserving of an opinion, no.

Undeserving of regurgitating baseless or misleading claims about the situation without correction (like your first comment insinuating residents are killing 3-8 deer a year and are actually the issue), 100% not going to fly.

NRs are typically the most vocal opposition to change while being the least informed. I'll let you know ow the next time I see one at our local commission or citizen advisory meetings

 

[Fire_9]

There are several to choose from. First would be that the residents of any given state shouldn't get a priority to use federal lands, which is in essence what happens in western states with tag allocations that favor residents.

The bigger point is that landowners, not governments, should be free to make management decisions on land. Of course that gets complex when the government is the landowner. I didn't set that system up and can offer many criticisms of it but ultimately don't think it should be changed. "The devil you know", and all that. Righting historical wrongs, so to speak, usually just creates more wrongs. So I wouldn't touch the federal land ownership issue, but I also wouldn't allow states to make a system where residents got preferential treatment on the usage of federal lands.

Sounds like a ‘kings deer’ argument to me. Guys like you are why the North American model exists.

 

[jkoehle1]

Heres the total statewide MD buck harvest since 2012.



I know its not popular with the commercial side of wildlife - but the priorities should be the resource, the ability for R hunting, and then NR hunting.

Seems like a good step 1.

It really is too bad NR hunting is drying up. I wish there was federal legislation that limited people from applying from so many states. If youre looking for why its drying up, consider how many people you know hunt 5+ western states.

 

[Rifleman86]

Not to hunt the animals that live there.

Get ready for the circular argument… And a mind numbing amount of psychological projection labeling you “entitled” for actually wanting to have the opportunity to hunt land you fund and own.

Meanwhile the people calling you that buy OTC tags to hunt said land that cost the price of a fast food meal. (Your tag costs the price of a new rifle and you might draw it every 2-3 years, if you are lucky. That might now double, but you should be happy because the amount of trucks at the trailhead went from 20 to 19, meanwhile you blew up the office of your elected representative a few months ago for weeks straight to keep said trail head from turning into a housing development.)

I’d love to explain this whole western hunting social dynamic to a foreigner or an alien.

 

[NRA4LIFE]

Get ready for the circular argument… And a mind numbing amount of psychological projection labeling you “entitled” for actually wanting to have the opportunity to hunt land you fund and own.

Meanwhile the people calling you that buy OTC tags to hunt said land that cost the price of a fast food meal. (Your tag costs the price of a new rifle and you might draw it every 2-3 years, if you are lucky. That might now double, but you should be happy because the amount of trucks at the trailhead went from 20 to 19, meanwhile you blew up the office of your elected representative a few months ago for weeks straight to keep said trail head from turning into a housing development.)

I’d love to explain this whole western hunting social dynamic to a foreigner or an alien.

Huh?

 

[KurtR]

Not to hunt the animals that live there.

State manages animals and the hunting. So being federal land doesn’t factor into it one bit.

 

[Chris in TN]

State manages animals and the hunting. So being federal land doesn’t factor into it one bit.

You’re intentionally missing the point.

The feds are still……the landowner. It’s absurd to say landowners have no say in management or hunter access. Doesn’t matter who the landowner is.

 

[TXCO]

I dont understand what theyre trying to solve for- overcrowding, deer herd, harvest numbers?

It seems like if its the deer herd, targetting the lengthy seasons and late buck hunts would help.

The stats said in the last 10 years resident hunt days increased more than 100,000 days than the NR hunt days increased. That seems like the biggest issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[KurtR]

You’re intentionally missing the point.

The feds are still……the landowner. It’s absurd to say landowners have no say in management or hunter access. Doesn’t matter who the landowner is.

No you’re not understanding the precedent that has been set for years. The state holds the animals in trust. It doesn’t matter who owns the land private or public.

 

[peterk123]

Mandatory harvest reporting would be a much better option for tracking mule deer buck harvest, no argument from me there.

HOWEVER...

The whiteys that make up the majority of the B tag harvest (because they make up the majority of B tags) don't factor into this NR/Rez debate over MD numbers in the first place, and un-ironically whitetail competition has been shown to be one of the main issues with struggling mule deer herds in MT. For discerning NRs, they should be pushing for us residents to use all of our B tags on whiteys and ask for more.

As more and more hunters opt into the E-tag option here, bios are actually collecting fairly accurate data, especially on B tags since they are tied to a specific region or unit vs general.

When fellas who don't live here, like the guy I was originally replying to, pretend to have all the solutions and claim residents are killing multiple mule deer bucks, I'm going to step in and call out that every single time.

Agreed. Unfortunately, the commission, in a feel good move (heaven forbid they listen to the biologists) reduced the number of wt does that can be harvested.

There is a particular area I hunt. Mountainous terrain. Used to see mule deer every time. Past two years nothing. Now I'm tripping over wt does. They are everywhere. It's incredible really.

You know, they do those stupid phone calls every year. Ask the most random and unimportant question or two. If you are going to bother to make the call, why not ask one very simple question; what did you see out there when hunting and hiking? Heck, I bet I'm out there 200 days a year, hiking, scouting, fishing and hunting. I see a lot. Never mind the things I pick up on my trail cameras during the off season.