Montana reducing nonresident deer tags

[ianpadron]

Why after 249 years would they start making rules up. You’re just salty you live in a crappy place and don’t get to hunt. This will really blow your mind nr can’t hunt wilderness in Wyoming with out a resident or a guide.

Can ya imagine how popular a fella like ol Chris in TN would be if he proposed that public land access be limited for hunting purposes here in Montucky, or anywhere in the West rather?

 

[Rifleman86]

The circular arguments have commenced.



I’ll just say this, the issue at the moment is the fact that federal land is supposed to be “multi use” in nature, to include hunting. Within that, it should be managed to benefit all stake holders. Nonresidents and residents alike.

The problem being that the current stake holders that are flipping most of the bill when it comes to management have almost zero political sway, given the very nature of the fact they are not residents to said states conducting the management. That is a problem that will eventually come to a head, one way or another. Maybe not now, or even in the next decade, but I think it will.

Due to the funding issue, nonresidents aren’t ever going away, but you are going to see more and more price increases and more and more outfitter welfare, ultimately screwing over BOTH residents and DIY nonresidents.

What I hope happens is that this incentivizes either current wildlife conservation groups or yet to exists groups to recognize there is a need to codify the principles of North American wildlife conservation model on federal ground. Not direct control, but rather “guardrails” for state management much the same way that the feds give “guardrails” to individual states with regards to migratory bird hunting. They can set the rules, but there are parameters they need to fall within.

I don’t think that outfitter welfare, restrictions on wilderness hunting, extorting nonresidents with insane tag prices that are 30-50x that of resident prices, or reducing NR tag allocations to less than 10% of the opportunity on Federal land falls within any of the principles of the North American model, particularly Democracy of hunting opportunity, wildlife as a public trust, and elimination of markets for wildlife.

None of that is saying prioritizing residents is bad, I think in general practice that’s what should happen. But like anything taken to extremes the current trend is doing more harm to our collective opportunity than good.

 

[peterk123]

The circular arguments have commenced.

My head hurts from the last couple pages of this thread.

 

[Chris in TN]

Multiple people in this thread have directly asked you what point you're even trying to make with regards to our deer herds...

My point is crystal clear to anyone who wants to u destined it.

Some don’t want to.

The circular arguments have commenced.



I’ll just say this, the issue at the moment is the fact that federal land is supposed to be “multi use” in nature, to include hunting. Within that, it should be managed to benefit all stake holders. Nonresidents and residents alike.

The problem being that the current stake holders that are flipping most of the bill when it comes to management have almost zero political sway, given the very nature of the fact they are not residents to said states conducting the management. That is a problem that will eventually come to a head, one way or another. Maybe not now, or even in the next decade, but I think it will.

Due to the funding issue, nonresidents aren’t ever going away, but you are going to see more and more price increases and more and more outfitter welfare, ultimately screwing over BOTH residents and DIY nonresidents.

What I hope happens is that this incentivizes either current wildlife conservation groups or yet to exists groups to recognize there is a need to codify the principles of North American wildlife conservation model on federal ground. Not direct control, but rather “guardrails” for state management much the same way that the feds give “guardrails” to individual states with regards to migratory bird hunting. They can set the rules, but there are parameters they need to fall within.

I don’t think that outfitter welfare, restrictions on wilderness hunting, extorting nonresidents with insane tag prices that are 30-50x that of resident prices, or reducing NR tag allocations to less than 10% of the opportunity on Federal land falls within any of the principles of the North American model, particularly Democracy of hunting opportunity, wildlife as a public trust, and elimination of markets for wildlife.

None of that is saying prioritizing residents is bad, I think in general practice that’s what should happen. But like anything taken to extremes the current trend is doing more harm to our collective opportunity than good.

Agreed all the way down.

I have no issues with locals getting preference but living in the east where I either buy my own land or pay for access, it's really annoying to see other people who get a quality mule deer tag every year or two and take for granted that it's just normal for states to use federal lands to subsidize state resident hunters. I don't think most hunters do this, either - like in this thread, you have hundreds of resident mule deer hunters on this forum, but only a handful defending the 'us poor residents' mindset.

Also, it's humorous to make a point in two sentences then have people stumble over understanding it. I don't think they're dumb, they just don't want to grasp the point because grasping the point would force them to recognize the problem.

Thankfully if I want to hunt mule deer there are still plenty of places I can pay-to-play. Call that 'the king's deer' if you wish, it's how most easterners hunt, and I'm pretty OK with it.

 

[3forks]

My point is crystal clear to anyone who wants to u destined it.

Some don’t want to.

Agreed all the way down.

I have no issues with locals getting preference but living in the east where I either buy my own land or pay for access, it's really annoying to see other people who get a quality mule deer tag every year or two and take for granted that it's just normal for states to use federal lands to subsidize state resident hunters. I don't think most hunters do this, either - like in this thread, you have hundreds of resident mule deer hunters on this forum, but only a handful defending the 'us poor residents' mindset.

Also, it's humorous to make a point in two sentences then have people stumble over understanding it. I don't think they're dumb, they just don't want to grasp the point because grasping the point would force them to recognize the problem.

Thankfully if I want to hunt mule deer there are still plenty of places I can pay-to-play. Call that 'the king's deer' if you wish, it's how most easterners hunt, and I'm pretty OK with it.

Jesus dude… just stop.

Your points are so contrived and biased toward your own interests that it’s not that no one can understand them, it’s that they’re asinine.

 

[Chris in TN]

Jesus dude… just stop.

Your points are so contrived and biased toward your own interests that it’s not that no one can understand them, it’s that they’re asinine.

Oh look. Another MT resident that thinks 'landowners have the right to set terms on the use of their land' is some sort of contrived and biased argument.

(hint: it's literally a cornerstone of western civilization)

Or that it's 'all about my interests' when I haven't had a mule deer tag in 30 years.

lol.

 

[jkoehle1]

Oh look. Another MT resident that thinks 'landowners have the right to set terms on the use of their land' is some sort of contrived and biased argument.

In Montana landowner tags are capped at 15% and get a say in population objectives. NR LOs that get a tag every year are capped at 2500.

If you ask me - youre getting a way better deal and opportunity owning two tenths of an acre than the average land owner in montana is with 3000.

The residents in montana would dance in the street if nr tag sales were capped at 15% of R

 

[Chris in TN]

In Montana landowner tags are capped at 15% and get a say in population objectives. NR LOs that get a tag every year are capped at 2500.

If you ask me - youre getting a way better deal and opportunity owning two tenths of an acre than the average land owner in montana is with 3000.

The residents in montana would dance in the street if nr tag sales were capped at 15% of R

How many landowner tags does the USFS and BLM get?