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’t 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?

 

[willfrye027]

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.

What are you even talking about? You lost me at waiting 20 years for a decent tag. You could have been hunting mule deer every year and have your choice of hunting federal land, state land, paying or knocking on doors for private land…clearly you have no idea what an amazing resource WE (citizens of the USA) already have in our public lands. Yes, NR pay more than residents for a tag, but everyone is a resident somewhere. Last I checked Tennessee has plenty of public land and pretty cheap/plentiful tags.

What are you even complaining about?

 

[3forks]

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.

I live in Colorado.

Of course a landowner has, and should have the right, to “set terms on the use of their land”. However, you disagree with the basic tenet of the public trust doctrine as it applies to what I think this discussion was at some point was initially about.

Personally, I want the federal government to limit the amount of cars that drive on federal highways because there is too much traffic. I also want the federal government to limit the amount of lift tickets that ski areas on NF can sell because lift lines are too long, and I’d also want the federal government to limit the amount of residents and non-residents camping/recreating in any form on federal lands because they are also very crowded.

The point I’d like for you to understand, is that people like me understand that what I’d like is never going to happen, and that my personal interests/agenda shouldn’t trump anyone else’s rights or access to public lands and resources. The animals that live on federal land within a state are owned and managed by the state. That’s settled law, but feel free to take a run at getting that changed. In the meantime, consider that people’s reaction to your posts isn’t as much based on their own interests living in a western state, but more a reaction to just your argumentative and condescending posts over an issue/point that will never change.

 

[Chris in TN]

What are you even complaining about?

I'm simply pointing out that the state is going to do what's in its best interests and take advantage of federally owned lands and the only way to stop it is for the federal landowners to assert their rights to set terms on land use, as many federal landowners already do.

It's that simple. Yet the same handful of people keep trying to twist it into something indecipherable. Again, the problem is you. You'd rather obfuscate it than grasp the point.

 

[BigMiss]

I am curious to hear some MT resident thoughts on the block management program. I do not know exactly how it is funded, but I've heard that NR tag sales fund the majority of it. I do not know the percentages or how accurate that statement is. Any concerns from residents on BMA funding? I am a NR hunter who has greatly enjoyed MD hunting in eastern MT. We've seen limited numbers of huge bucks (what I'd call 160+), but we hike our asses off, explore the country, see tons of does, and a handful of good bucks each year we go.

Side note, it is sad to see the amount of folks that drive across ground to connect two-tracks while road hunting. Nearly every day this year we walked 5+ miles into areas we thought were not accessible by vehicle only to glass rigs driving by. Multiple MT plates and NR plates alike.

 

[Chris in TN]

The point I’d like for you to understand, is that people like me understand that what I’d like is never going to happen, and that my personal interests/agenda shouldn’t trump anyone else’s rights

But as I've already demonstrated, I'm not taking this position out of personal interest. I could hunt mule deer anytime I want to but choose to spend my money elsewhere. It isn't about me hunting, it's about me as a (theoretical) federal landowner, or at least a theoretical stakeholder, asking for equitable treatment. And I'm not suggesting anything that trumps anyone else's rights, because there's no right to free access to hunting lands. That's purely legal fiction. You may have a right to hunt in general, but there's zero 'right' to do so on lands you don't personally own. Such access is part of the landowner's rights. And in this case the landowner is the fedgov.

And the thing I'm advocating for already happens every day on literally millions of acres of federal lands, as I have given examples of in the thread, with city/local governments, state governments, and federal lands, having access fees for various usages.

I want the federal government to be a good steward of its (my? your?) resources. I don't want them giving away free timber on USFS ground (firewood is fine). I don't want them giving away free deer hunting to anyone who happens to get a permit. I don't want them giving away free iron ore or coal to miners. Things that have a market value shouldn't just be given away for free. And mule deer hunts, have market value.

I've had this discussion as recently as this fall on USFS ground in CO with other hunters. The state sells enough tags to create a free-for-all and the fedgov allows it to happen, on federal lands. I don't blame the other hunters and in a sense I don't even blame the state because governments are greedy and I expect greedy things (like state governments) to do greedy things - like sell a ton of tags that allow a circus to happen every fall on federal lands. Elk populations can generally withstand this; deer cannot.

Mule deer have a fairly basic set of limiting factors - bad management decisions (predator reintroduction and overhunting) and weather and habitat loss. Pretty much everything falls under one of those headings. Increasing federal revenues through access fees would largely mitigate the arguments put forth by the Mike Lee types for selling federal lands - make those lands generate more revenue and the pro-selling-land types would see their positions gutted. If the government wanted to glean from those revenues and use it for 'affordable housing' or whatever contrived BS they claimed, ehhh, that becomes a separate argument. It would also greatly help the overhunting aspect - charge people maybe a $1000 federal consumptive use access fee and you'd quickly find out that people don't hunt public lands because they're alpha do-hard-things types, they hunt there because it's cheap. So now you're generating revenues, you're decreasing overharvest (how many posts do we see about the decline in age structure because of overharvest?), you're creating a bulwark against habitat loss (because it's much harder, politically, to sell land that generates revenue), you're becoming a better steward of your resources....win win for everyone. Except maybe the state resident who gets easier tag access to hunt on federal lands.

I'm simply advocating for better - objectively better - land usage - by creating a better return for stakeholders, a better experience for users, mitigating against overuse and the threat of loss by conversion to other uses through politically motivated sales, creating a hedge against habitat loss and allowing users to use those access fees, and their choices to pay them, as a signal that we can leverage in the fight against bad management decisions such as reintroducing wolves. I can assure you that if fedgov was getting paid by deer/elk hunters they'd see wolf reintroduction in a different light. As a bonus, if fedgov was suddenly seeing dollars come in from access to deer or elk, sheep/cattle grazing wouldn't look so attractive and maybe they'd rethink the degree of access given to sheep/cattle grazing allotments and we'd see some habitat improvements and carrying capacity increases due to less grazing.

(To be clear, I am not anti-grazing at all...I just recognize that deer and elk can't eat what sheep and cows have already eaten).

That only leaves weather. I can't control the weather.