Montana reducing nonresident deer tags

[S.Clancy]

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.

I believe the are "re-sold" as part of the initial draw process.

 

[Chris in TN]

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

Strictly speaking, mandatory harvest reports aren't the huge issue people make them out to be.

People can and do still skip 'mandatory' reports. I live in a state that's had them forever. Before the internet, the 'check station' was a deeply ingrained part of our culture - every county had a few gas stations that would 'check in' your deer - and having known and lived around a ton of hunters, as a kid I could tell you who was going to 'check in' their deer and who would just take it home and butcher it and go on with life. Fast forward to the internet days and it's still an issue.

Of course, the harvest models the state builds every year accounts for this to some degree. And the harvest models that other states use, whether they have mandatory checks or not, also account for compliance with reporting or voluntary surveys or whatever. I've seen the innards of how state agencies run (college degree in WM here, which is part of the basis for why I enjoy discussing these things) well enough to grasp that a model can be built without mandatory harvest data (Mississippi is a great example; they used to have no harvest reporting, now it's voluntary).

Do I think mandatory reporting is a good thing from a modeling standpoint? Yes. Is it 100% necessary? No. Of course, such reporting is much easier now, to both implement and enforce (not perfectly, just easier than it used to be) and the bar is fairly low with a phone in every hunter's pocket.

But don't think the state is going to go from complete ignorance of harvest levels, to perfect knowledge, in one year, or even five or ten years. A culture that has never been forced to report harvests, won't adopt it overnight. Reality is, the state probably isn't as clueless as you think about harvests now, and probably wouldn't have a perfect grasp of it if they implemented mandatory reporting.

I'm just saying, temper your expectations. Don't be surprised when a lot of hunters resist it and don't be surprised if some of them resist it precisely because they fear it'll be used to reduce their own opportunities. I mean, some of you guys will be shocked when you learn that people do things to manipulate systems for their own self interests. Shocked, I say.

(wink).

 

[ianpadron]

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.

Care to tally up the number of NRs in this thread who showed up with the following approaches?

Approach A- Gee, I've always dreamt of hunting mule deer in Montana, can someone more familiar with the situation fill me in what the issues at hand are and how it got to this point?

Approach B- If those free-loading residents weren't killing 8 deer a year maybe their state wouldn't be in this situation! Plus, there ain't no way all the NR pressure they're talking about in R6 and R7 is real, we need DATA to prove it, they might all just be blind!

It'll never cease to amaze me how NRs continue to be dumbfounded that their suggestions are met with animosity when they can't display even an ounce of background knowledge on the topic.

If I don't understand something...I sure as heck don't chime in with my opinion on the matter.

 

[ianpadron]

Strictly speaking, mandatory harvest reports aren't the huge issue people make them out to be.

People can and do still skip 'mandatory' reports. I live in a state that's had them forever. Before the internet, the 'check station' was a deeply ingrained part of our culture - every county had a few gas stations that would 'check in' your deer - and having known and lived around a ton of hunters, as a kid I could tell you who was going to 'check in' their deer and who would just take it home and butcher it and go on with life. Fast forward to the internet days and it's still an issue.

Of course, the harvest models the state builds every year accounts for this to some degree. And the harvest models that other states use, whether they have mandatory checks or not, also account for compliance with reporting or voluntary surveys or whatever. I've seen the innards of how state agencies run (college degree in WM here, which is part of the basis for why I enjoy discussing these things) well enough to grasp that a model can be built without mandatory harvest data (Mississippi is a great example; they used to have no harvest reporting, now it's voluntary).

Do I think mandatory reporting is a good thing from a modeling standpoint? Yes. Is it 100% necessary? No. Of course, such reporting is much easier now, to both implement and enforce (not perfectly, just easier than it used to be) and the bar is fairly low with a phone in every hunter's pocket.

But don't think the state is going to go from complete ignorance of harvest levels, to perfect knowledge, in one year, or even five or ten years. A culture that has never been forced to report harvests, won't adopt it overnight. Reality is, the state probably isn't as clueless as you think about harvests now, and probably wouldn't have a perfect grasp of it if they implemented mandatory reporting.

I'm just saying, temper your expectations. Don't be surprised when a lot of hunters resist it and don't be surprised if some of them resist it precisely because they fear it'll be used to reduce their own opportunities. I mean, some of you guys will be shocked when you learn that people do things to manipulate systems for their own self interests. Shocked, I say.

(wink).

I have lived in a state with mandatory reporting that tacked a fine onto your tag cost for the following year if you didn't report by the deadline.

I hate government overreach more than anyone, yet that system worked like a well oiled machine and provided immeasurably better data than what we currently have in MT.

Took 10 seconds to choose the unit you hunted, how many days, if you were successful, and how many points the deer had. Boom done, so easy a non-resident could do it

 

[Lawnboi]

Care to tally up the number of NRs in this thread who showed up with the following approaches?

Approach A- Gee, I've always dreamt of hunting mule deer in Montana, can someone more familiar with the situation fill me in what the issues at hand are and how it got to this point?

Approach B- If those free-loading residents weren't killing 8 deer a year maybe their state wouldn't be in this situation! Plus, there ain't no way all the NR pressure they're talking about in R6 and R7 is real, we need DATA to prove it, they might all just be blind!

It'll never cease to amaze me how NRs continue to be dumbfounded that their suggestions are met with animosity when they can't display even an ounce of background knowledge on the topic.

If I don't understand something...I sure as heck don't chime in with my opinion on the matter.

I can’t control how others act.

As with most in life, how you choose to respond can drive the conversation. I’d bet with some understanding many of those hunters would be allies in what we all want, and that’s opportunity to hunt healthy deer herds.

 

[Chris in TN]

I have lived in a state with mandatory reporting that tacked a fine onto your tag cost for the following year if you didn't report by the deadline.

I hate government overreach more than anyone, yet that system worked like a well oiled machine and provided immeasurably better data than what we currently have in MT.

Took 10 seconds to choose the unit you hunted, how many days, if you were successful, and how many points the deer had. Boom done, so easy a non-resident could do it

I'm assuming you mean NM - it really doesn't matter - but even with that system, people can and do lie.

The point isn't the merits of any particular reporting system, and I'm not at all opposed to mandatory reporting - the point is just that most agencies aren't complete morons in how they model harvests without mandatory reporting, and if they move to mandatory reporting, the data won't be perfect.

Will it be very good, with them able to recognize its limitations, and is it overall a good thing? Yes, certainly. It's just not a magic bullet. I hope you get it implemented. Just understand that there's a human tendency to dodge such reporting, especially if someone thinks they've got a gravy-train angle that might go away if it showed up in harvest data.

 

[HunterGatherer]

Care to tally up the number of NRs in this thread who showed up with the following approaches?

Approach A- Gee, I've always dreamt of hunting mule deer in Montana, can someone more familiar with the situation fill me in what the issues at hand are and how it got to this point?

Approach B- If those free-loading residents weren't killing 8 deer a year maybe their state wouldn't be in this situation! Plus, there ain't no way all the NR pressure they're talking about in R6 and R7 is real, we need DATA to prove it, they might all just be blind!

It'll never cease to amaze me how NRs continue to be dumbfounded that their suggestions are met with animosity when they can't display even an ounce of background knowledge on the topic.

If I don't understand something...I sure as heck don't chime in with my opinion on the matter.

A few of us misinterpreted the information provided- that resident deer tags were being reduced from a maximum of 8 to 3, to mean that Montanans are killing too many deer to complain about declining herds. Given the limited data available it appears to be true in some areas (R7). So it’s easy to see how some of us are confused. You took the position that residents aren’t even a small part of the problem .

Some of us, myself included, altered their perspectives as more context was given. I thanked you multiple times for clarifying some of the issues at hand. You and a few others continued to bash any and all NR hunters as being totally uninformed and undeserving of an opinion on the matter. The irony is that there are plenty of uninformed and misinformed residents of MT chatting it up all over the internet, not just NRs.

Sunshine is the best disinfectant. Trying to shut people down and make them look stupid doesn’t help you or anyone else.

Check out some of the current threads on the Idaho NR changes and you’ll see mostly hunters helping hunters - the way it should be.

 

[wind gypsy]

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.

You dont think it's a bit misleading to compare region 1 to say region 7 in these metrics? I'd expect to spend less time killing a deer in a location where the population is twice is dense with limited cover vs almost entirely cover and less dense.

Deer in the eastern part of the state seem magnitudes more vulnerable to hunter harvest than deer in the western part of the state to me. Other than the whole access thing at least.

 

[freezerfull]

I'm assuming you mean NM - it really doesn't matter - but even with that system, people can and do lie.

The point isn't the merits of any particular reporting system, and I'm not at all opposed to mandatory reporting - the point is just that most agencies aren't complete morons in how they model harvests without mandatory reporting, and if they move to mandatory reporting, the data won't be perfect.

Will it be very good, with them able to recognize its limitations, and is it overall a good thing? Yes, certainly. It's just not a magic bullet. I hope you get it implemented. Just understand that there's a human tendency to dodge such reporting, especially if someone thinks they've got a gravy-train angle that might go away if it showed up in harvest data.

He’s referring to WA. And it provides very good data for the WDFW to keep just enough ungulates on the landscape for the wolves to eat.

 

[S.Clancy]

You dont think it's a bit misleading to compare region 1 to say region 7 in these metrics? I'd expect to spend less time killing a deer in a location where the population is twice is dense with limited cover vs almost entirely cover and less dense.

Deer in the eastern part of the state seem magnitudes more vulnerable to hunter harvest than deer in the western part of the state to me. Other than the whole access thing at least.

Harvest is harvest. The fact is, as a proportion of population, R7 is below what you would expect, especially if what you say is true.