Montana reducing nonresident deer tags

[S.Clancy]

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…

We've pushed for mandatory reporting with the Commission and FWP management.

 

[ianpadron]

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…
View attachment 981388

The unilateral blame is ridiculous, I'm the first to admit that.

However, couple things- citizen advisory boards throughout the state have been pushing for mandatory reporting for years now...that is the single biggest issue in Montana regarding FWP, no close second. As the boomers (no offense) continue to phase out of the hunting population, we'll eventually get it. Go to one regional bio meeting and listen to the feedback from young hunters vs. old...

You are also failing to realize that FWP only has X amount of levers to address population dynamics.

They can't control disease, weather, or habitat degradation. They can control predation and harvest. They have massively cut B tag allocation, upped predator quotas statewide, and are now cutting NR tags...objectively/quantifiably, this is an agency properly using the levers at their disposal.

Yes we need more unit/region/herd specific management in terms of season dates. Yes we need mandatory reporting.

No, we don't need a pile of whiny NRs who don't have the faintest clue about what is actually going on here to derail the positive actions taken by our agency to protect our state's resources.

 

[ianpadron]

Because this is the model Westies live in


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I hunt all over the West. I'm more than happy to pay ~$1,000 to maintain an incredible resource in my neighboring states. Nothing else on Earth is more fun, fulfilling, or worthwhile; that costs a guy so little. As NR license/tag sales indicate across the West, I'm far from in the minority with that take. The free market is a beautiful thing.

 

[ianpadron]

We've pushed for mandatory reporting with the Commission and FWP management.

This is where I come back to my original comment that NRs shouldn't even chime in, because they don't have the slightest clue.

It's frustrating, plain and simple.

 

[fatlander]

I hunt all over the West. I'm more than happy to pay ~$1,000 to maintain an incredible resource in my neighboring states. Nothing else on Earth is more fun, fulfilling, or worthwhile; that costs a guy so little. As NR license/tag sales indicate across the West, I'm far from in the minority with that take. The free market is a beautiful thing.

I agree to a point. I happily pay to hunt all over the west too. Nonresidents keep the lights on for the vast majority of western game and fish agencies, by a large margin. Cutting tags, without any real management strategy is beyond short sighted.

It’s also not lost on me that I paid more for a box of premium 6.5 CM ammo than I did for 3 buck, 3 doe, 3 turkey, and 1 bear tag in my home state. It should cost all of us more to hunt in our own state. Passing the buck to nonresidents while continuing to squeeze opportunity will become untenable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[HunterGatherer]

The unilateral blame is ridiculous, I'm the first to admit that.

However, couple things- citizen advisory boards throughout the state have been pushing for mandatory reporting for years now...that is the single biggest issue in Montana regarding FWP, no close second. As the boomers (no offense) continue to phase out of the hunting population, we'll eventually get it. Go to one regional bio meeting and listen to the feedback from young hunters vs. old...

You are also failing to realize that FWP only has X amount of levers to address population dynamics.

They can't control disease, weather, or habitat degradation. They can control predation and harvest. They have massively cut B tag allocation, upped predator quotas statewide, and are now cutting NR tags...objectively/quantifiably, this is an agency properly using the levers at their disposal.

Yes we need more unit/region/herd specific management in terms of season dates. Yes we need mandatory reporting.

No, we don't need a pile of whiny NRs who don't have the faintest clue about what is actually going on here to derail the positive actions taken by our agency to protect our state's resources.

I’m very familiar with what levers agencies have to manage herds. I’m also aware that manipulation of hunter harvest in small numbers (2500 tags for example) has very little leverage at all as compared to anything and everything else. My point throughout this thread has been that residents need to stop blaming nonresidents for all problems relating to the issue.

When states like MT stop taking the vast majority of their revenue from NR hunters and then cutting our tags to appease residents, we’ll stop whining. Pinky swear

 

[HunterGatherer]

This is where I come back to my original comment that NRs shouldn't even chime in, because they don't have the slightest clue.

It's frustrating, plain and simple.

We (NR hunters) are stakeholders, albeit less
familiar with the nuances of specific regions and seasons as residents. If you feel we’re clueless, these conversations are your chance to enlighten us and help us make better decisions and have more productive conversations about the shared interests of residents and nonresidents. So maybe stop condescending your fellow hunters that are just trying to understand the situation.

 

[freezerfull]

Why not both?

Because it is possible to improve things without NR general deer license tag cuts and potentially pricing all average middle class hunters who enjoy the opportunity to hunt other states out. Many of these potential options have been mentioned.

This is where I come back to my original comment that NRs shouldn't even chime in, because they don't have the slightest clue.

It's frustrating, plain and simple.

Despite them spending their money to fund Montana FWP? You’d think it’d be okay for them to share their opinion on a open forum.

 

[willfrye027]

This is where I come back to my original comment that NRs shouldn't even chime in, because they don't have the slightest clue.

It's frustrating, plain and simple.

How about, nonresidents can chime in, but it will be taken with a grain of salt.

Some nonresidents like yourself hunt all over the west and have a valid point of view and can compare and contrast what’s happening in Montana with how it looks in other states. For example, it’s no surprise that mature bucks are lacking in both Montana and now Colorado because we hunt the crap out of them during the rut. It’s also evident that major, underlying issues are plaguing mike deer at the population level across the west and Montana is no different in that regard. Tags have been cut almost everywhere, and the hunting/populations have not responded (shocker).

A nonresident should not have the same “voice” as a resident when it comes to policy changes, but their opinions and experience should still be considered.

 

[ianpadron]

I’m very familiar with what levers agencies have to manage herds. I’m also aware that manipulation of hunter harvest in small numbers (2500 tags for example) has very little leverage at all as compared to anything and everything else. My point throughout this thread has been that residents need to stop blaming nonresidents for all problems relating to the issue.

When states like MT stop taking the vast majority of their revenue from NR hunters and then cutting our tags to appease residents, we’ll stop whining. Pinky swear

See that's the problem. They're not "your tags". Just like an NR tag in Idaho is never mine.

The state is given the sole discretion to allocate tags however they see fit, in an effort to best uphold the PTD. They can charge what they want, control what units you can use them...the list goes on.

That's an important thing I don't think NRs realize. If you're not happy about it and want to boycott MT, you should, just know that there will be plenty of guys lined up to fill that void.

 

[ianpadron]

Because it is possible to improve things without NR general deer license tag cuts and potentially pricing all average middle class hunters who enjoy the opportunity to hunt other states out. Many of these potential options have been mentioned.


Despite them spending their money to fund Montana FWP? You’d think it’d be okay for them to share their opinion on a open forum.

Can you point out where I have had an issue with a single INFORMED NR in this thread?

There have been several NRs who have chimed in with outright false claims.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but not all opinions are valuable.

 

[freezerfull]

Can you point out where I have had an issue with a single INFORMED NR in this thread?

There have been several NRs who have chimed in with outright false claims.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but not all opinions are valuable.

Only in the post I quoted from you.

Fully agree on some ridiculous commentary from some on this thread. Dumpster fire. Still don’t mind them giving their opinions though

 

[ianpadron]

How about, nonresidents can chime in, but it will be taken with a grain of salt.

Some nonresidents like yourself hunt all over the west and have a valid point of view and can compare and contrast what’s happening in Montana with how it looks in other states. For example, it’s no surprise that mature bucks are lacking in both Montana and now Colorado because we hunt the crap out of them during the rut. It’s also evident that major, underlying issues are plaguing mike deer at the population level across the west and Montana is no different in that regard. Tags have been cut almost everywhere, and the hunting/populations have not responded (shocker).

A nonresident should not have the same “voice” as a resident when it comes to policy changes, but their opinions and experience should still be considered.

I'll listen to anybody, NR or R, that demonstrates more than a superficial understanding of the issues at hand. If you read through this thread in it's entirety, compare the suggestions/complaints/claims of NRs to those of residents. There is a very large discrepancy between the two when it comes to knowledge of the issue being discussed.

 

[fatlander]

I think this the fairest summation of NR gripe, and what residents chose not to see.

It’s really just politicians doing what politicians do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lawnboi]

I hunt all over the West. I'm more than happy to pay ~$1,000 to maintain an incredible resource in my neighboring states. Nothing else on Earth is more fun, fulfilling, or worthwhile; that costs a guy so little. As NR license/tag sales indicate across the West, I'm far from in the minority with that take. The free market is a beautiful thing.

It is, until your states agency mismanages and destroys your opportunity, which it has done region 7. It’s actually sad to see.

I’m not happy with my states DNR either but I’m also not screaming for tag cuts for anyone. Let’s demand some sound management.

 

[Britt-dog]

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?

I'm still a bit confused. Where are these tags sold? They aren't sold to those on the alternate list because those tags only amount to +/- 300 each year. I don't remember seeing 2500 NR deer tags being reissued after the NR draw.

 

[ianpadron]

It is, until your states agency mismanages and destroys your opportunity, which it has done region 7. It’s actually sad to see.

I’m not happy with my states DNR either but I’m also not screaming for tag cuts for anyone. Let’s demand some sound management.

Region 7 has been boom/bust forever.

I think FWP should have aggressively cut doe harvest earlier than they did, but if you look through the historical trends...the population will likely rebound after a few wet years and warm winters.

They are currently in need of some extra help, reduced pressure does just that. Can we get them back to 10 year average...time will tell.

https://www.rokslide.com/charting-a-future-for-montana-mule-deer/

Sharing this podcast from earlier this year for anyone truly interested in educating themselves on what's going on with deer in MT. Now make sure you call FWP and tell them how much mandatory reporting will help establish a sound baseline for future management (wonder how many NRs have done that...)

 

[wind gypsy]

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

I'm not sure I understand what the intended take away is from these? That it takes less hunter days to kill a deer in the east vs the west?

What is the ideal ratio? % of total mule deer population?

 

[Lawnboi]

Region 7 has been boom/bust forever.

I think FWP should have aggressively cut doe harvest earlier than they did, but if you look through the historical trends...the population will likely rebound after a few wet years and warm winters.

They are currently in need of some extra help, reduced pressure does just that. Can we get them back to 10 year average...time will tell.

https://www.rokslide.com/charting-a-future-for-montana-mule-deer/

Sharing this podcast from earlier this year for anyone truly interested in educating themselves on what's going on with deer in MT. Now make sure you call FWP and tell them how much mandatory reporting will help establish a sound baseline for future management (wonder how many NRs have done that...)

Iv listened to that podcast and do have an interest in getting deer back to where they were, because when I do get the opportunity to hunt them it sure is more fun when your seeing a healthy deer herd. Just like years ago. See the condescending tone in your last bit…. Yea more on that below.

I think it would help the conversation and gaining allies of actual meaningful management if we lost the chip off our shoulders, that goes for both NR hating residents, and NR who want to sell all your public land.

I hope your state can do something to fix this. I spend time in region 7 a decent amount, just not to deer hunt anymore, because that herd is in a sad state. I’m a non resident who wants to have a vested interest in your herd. But when I read countless abrasive comments toward all non residents (not just the ones being argumentative) it makes me not even want to participate.

 

[S.Clancy]

I'm not sure I understand what the intended take away is from these? That it takes less hunter days to kill a deer in the east vs the west?

What is the ideal ratio? % of total mule deer population?

It's a way of normalizing the harvest data in a way that each region can be compared to each other.

Basically, all the deer in MT is 100%. The red line for each Region represents the proportion of deer (%) that reside, on average, in that Region. A "perfect" scenario would have hunter numbers, Hunter days (pressure) and deer harvest proportions be equal to the proportion of deer in that region compared to the state totals. Lines above the red line mean those criteria are over represented in those regions while lines below the red are underrepresented.