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.

 

[mtwarden]

I had a friend that went to one of the meetings. They said our "deer" numbers are low; that's simply not accurate. What is accurate is that our mule deer numbers are generally low, but our whitetail numbers are generally high.

They need to quit discussing "deer" regulations as one species. Cutting x amount of "deer" tags (or adding x amount of "deer" tags) doesn't get at the problem.

Two completely different discussions.

 

[AHayes111]

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...

I sat on the Mule deer CAC, The number of times we pushed for mandatory reporting was ridiculous.

 

[AHayes111]

I would be very happy if NR were not allowed to split the Deer/elk Combo tag when they do not draw a hard to get tag. There are plenty of open districts that NR can hunt with a Deer/elk Combo tag. Problem solved, except that FWP makes money when they resell the orphaned licence. Increase resident fees to make up the shortfall. Problem solved again.

 

[The Guide]

As a resident who participates in all aspects of hunting in Montana, including the depredation hunts (aka damage hunts or targeted population density control) on both public and private lands, I feel the doe harvest numbers are skewed due to how those hunts are reported. When you sign up, there is a drawing and you get assigned a number. That is your number in line. If they decide to activate 20 hunters, they notify the first 20 people. Depending upon timing and where the person lives or their residency or other factors, they might not be able to go and hunt. Those of us that do hunt have to meet the land owner, set up a time to hunt and be told where to hunt. The limits are usually a certain field or place that is being damaged by the animals in question (there are lists for antelope, deer, elk, and buffalo). These hunts usually take place before the general season (August 15th to the start of archery the first Saturday in September) or after the general season (Sunday after Thanksgiving to February 15th). These hunts typically have multiple ways to harvest animals. You can used unfilled tags from the general season, unfilled draw tags for that zone or region, and some hunts have their own licenses that you can buy up to 5 of. These special hunt licenses do not count agains your deer tag count. These hunts have multiple requirements for reporting. I have to let the land owner know what was harvested, the biologist in charge know what harvested, and I have to let the survey caller know what I harvested. If I'm reporting to 3 different people, who is actually counting what was killed? If they are only counting it once and there is no overlap, how is it fair to show damage hunts in the hunting total? If those hunts aren't being counted in the total harvested, is that a true representation of what was taken from the area? I've shown up as the first hunter on several of these special hunts and been amazed at the number of deer (and/or elk) damaging private property. The same thing happens in areas that have special "town" hunts. I've been on a number of them where the land owners beg you to buy more tags and fill them all. So those of use who are doing damage hunts may be really skewing the numbers that people see. Sometimes land owners get kill permits and are allowed to shoot multiple animals per night (I think it is 5 deer and for elk it is 2 per night) to protect their crops. If you add those numbers into the equation, is it really "hunters" that are the problem or are there a ton of animals being removed for damage that are accumulated into the "hunting" totals? Things are a lot more complicated than many understand or realize.

Jay

 

[ianpadron]

I sat on the Mule deer CAC, The number of times we pushed for mandatory reporting was ridiculous.

If you ever want to lose all faith, just go read the comments on FWPs social media about E tags or sit in an FWP town hall and bring up mandatory reporting

I used to think I was a conspiracy theorist...

 

[AHayes111]

If you ever want to lose all faith, just go read the comments on FWPs social media about E tags or sit in an FWP town hall and bring up mandatory reporting

I used to think I was a conspiracy theorist...

There is a reason I don't do Facebook too. No one ever became more informed or smarter reading Facebook.

 

[AHayes111]

Where do I sign up for these night time kill permits. Other then maybe very limited elk shooting on the Yellowstone I have never heard of them. I can't believe that the total kill is all that significant.

 

[mt terry d]

$126MILLION a year for Montana's hired professional wildlife management services.

And when the results are, shall we say, less than stellar

They get us to bicker about
resident VS non-resident
Private land vs public
Mulies vs WT
this region vs that region
Self-regulating vs following their regs
(but never notice or admit the Emperor is buck naked)

Divide and Conquer- Mission Accomplished!

And the beat goes on.

 

[The Guide]

Where do I sign up for these night time kill permits. Other then maybe very limited elk shooting on the Yellowstone I have never heard of them. I can't believe that the total kill is all that significant.

I have several friends who have large ranches in the Big Hole. They've had the night kill permits when the elk were coming in ONLY at night. They were spending the day on NF and crossing the river at night to feed on their calving grounds. I know of 3 times in the last 40 years that it has been done. The last time it was done for elk (around 2015) they took 28 elk and donated them to the food bank. This was done after hazing, fences, and flash bangs failed to keep them out. As for deer, I've had multiple ranchers show me their kill permits when we show up for a damage hunt. They had gut piles all over from shooting them at night off the hay stacks. One rancher bragged about shooting them in the guts with a 22 so they'll run away and "feed the coyotes". When the population becomes a burden to the landowners, wildgame has no value and is treated like varmints. Harsh reality.

Jay

 

[ThunderJack49]

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.

View attachment 981233

As a montana resident, I'm always saying how residents need to pay more for tags. I would pay 100$ for a deer and 100$ for a general elk tag. Kids, disabled people, etc should stay where its at. This only applies to your general adult hunter.
200$ is a drop in the bucket for what most people spend on a hunting season. I'm always attacked for this view point.
Funding is a real issue and someone has to pay. Residents want the state to take care of the common man, and I think paying is the way to do that.