Montana reducing nonresident deer tags

[Tmac]

I’ve hunted MT as a NR consistently since 1993. I was happy to see most MD doe tags finally almost eliminated in SE MT recently. I have zero issue with dropping NR buck tag numbers now due to low populations on the east side. I fear it is not enough based on what I have seen where we have been hunting.

We’ve had access to 20 sections in the far SE for about 10 years. Always a good population of WT, MD and Antelope. That started to change with bad droughts 20/21 ish. Hemorrhagic outbreaks took down over 1/2 the game in that time. The winter of 22 pretty much finished them off. This is all private land and lightly hunted. Just 4-6 deer a year are taken. Where we’d see 150-200 WT/MD in a couple sections of mixed grass alfalfa, there were 15. The next year 7.

The problem in this area was not hunters, it was weather. All the adjoining ranches are in a similar place. Virtually no recruitment for several years off a terribly small remaining population. All it takes is coyotes or a couple cats to keep that small group small, aka a predator pit. 3 cats got taken out 2 years ago so that should help.

We have not hunted the ranch since fall 2021. It is going to take several more mild winters and adequate moisture for this area to have any hope. 2,500 fewer NR tags won’t hurt, but I fear it is not enough to help.

I 100% agree with mandatory reporting and management of tag numbers by unit/area. Without this, the recovery is likely to be long and drawn out in the worst hit areas, like we hunt in the SE. I hope I’m wrong as I really enjoy my SE MT hunting trips.

 

[Chris in TN]

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

That’s good info. Years ago I got to be involved in depredation on a certain farm. Weird experience.

I can see how such numbers could skew the picture of how healthy an area was, if some portion of it saw deer as a pest and some other part was overhunted. That was our situation - the few thousand acres next to us was grossly overcrowded. The farmer begged us to shoot more does because his lease hunters wouldn’t, until he forced them to do it or lose the lease. But you could go 5-10 miles in several directions and deer numbers were very low. It would be impossible to make general statements about that areas deer population that encompassed all the nuances you’d see between two spots a few miles apart.

Also, while we enjoyed the high deer sightings and harvest, the summer depredation was a huge waste of venison. Most summer kills were left laying, but state law only allowed them to be shot while *in* the crops. Drop a doe in a beanfield and if you had to drive across the beans to get her, you did more damage than the deer. Sounds like it’s not as bad where you were.

 

[peteinthevalley]

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.

100% agree. Fellow resident here. I have been saying FWP needs to raise resident tag prices for many years.

 

[wind gypsy]

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.

Those prices would never fly but even doubling what they are now would be a good deal.

 

[mt terry d]

How exactly would higher tag prices necessarily help the herd ( under the current system) ?

If I'm not mistaken tag sales are the major source of funding employee salaries.
What percentage I cannot say. I do know that depending on where the funding comes from
there are certain areas that funding can and cannot be used for within the agency.

Now, if the increase was 100% earmarked for predator control ( bounties, etc), increasing access to public land currently inaccessible (to lessen the concentration of hunting pressure), acquiring public access to private, etc- something other than increased wages, increased staff, more or newer equipment, more "studies", etc, - then I'd say that might help.

But face it, there are positive steps that could be taken with the stroke of a pen, no added cost required.

As I said previously, it's GOVERNMENT. And what's GOVERNMENT'S excuse every time for failing to achieve what they claim is their purpose?
"We need more funding and manpower"
Every time.

 

[ThunderJack49]

How exactly would higher tag prices necessarily help the herd ( under the current system) ?

If I'm not mistaken tag sales are the major source of funding employee salaries.
What percentage I cannot say. I do know that depending on where the funding comes from
there are certain areas that funding can and cannot be used for within the agency.

Now, if the increase was 100% earmarked for predator control ( bounties, etc), increasing access to public land currently inaccessible (to lessen the concentration of hunting pressure), acquiring public access to private, etc- something other than increased wages, increased staff, more or newer equipment, more "studies", etc, - then I'd say that might help.

But face it, there are positive steps that could be taken with the stroke of a pen, no added cost required.

As I said previously, it's GOVERNMENT. And what's GOVERNMENT'S excuse every time for failing to achieve what they claim is their purpose?
"We need more funding and manpower"
Every time.

I am no fan of the government myself.
My belief behind raising resident tags is based around the fact that something close to 75% of tag revenue comes from non-residents.
In my opinion this is too large of an incentive for FWP to continue to serve non residents and outfitters first and foremost.
They can claim to be impartial or not swayed by it but it obviously has massive implications if the majority of what keeps the lights on comes from non-residents.
if we want to be heard, if we want a seat at the table- I think this is one of the best ways.

 

[BigMiss]

2500 NR tags at about $950 per tag... $2.375 million in lost revenue. I'd imagine it needs to be made up somewhere.

 

[Lawnboi]

How exactly would higher tag prices necessarily help the herd ( under the current system) ?

If I'm not mistaken tag sales are the major source of funding employee salaries.
What percentage I cannot say. I do know that depending on where the funding comes from
there are certain areas that funding can and cannot be used for within the agency.

Now, if the increase was 100% earmarked for predator control ( bounties, etc), increasing access to public land currently inaccessible (to lessen the concentration of hunting pressure), acquiring public access to private, etc- something other than increased wages, increased staff, more or newer equipment, more "studies", etc, - then I'd say that might help.

But face it, there are positive steps that could be taken with the stroke of a pen, no added cost required.

As I said previously, it's GOVERNMENT. And what's GOVERNMENT'S excuse every time for failing to achieve what they claim is their purpose?
"We need more funding and manpower"
Every time.

Exactly. These state entities are making a lot of money off just selling nothing right now (points and app fees). How’s raising fees for anyone going to help? They are already doing a terrible job and I don’t think throwing money at it will fix any of these problems.

People just want to see more cost because they want more to themselves. This is Rokslide, where everyone has a 800$ pack setup they replace yearly. We likely represent some pretty well off hunters in the grand scheme.

A point for a NR combo tag is 100$ alone now

 

[mt terry d]

This is Rokslide, where everyone has a 800$ pack setup they replace yearly. We likely represent some pretty well off hunters in the grand scheme.

What?WHAT??!!!!

I just splurged last year, dug deep and spent $100 on a new pack.
The old one still worked but after 40 years of use I figured I'd treat myself.
Of course I didn't throw it away; just in case.

kids nowadays.

 

[mt terry d]

In my opinion this is too large of an incentive for FWP to continue to serve non residents and outfitters first and foremost.

^^^This is my point exactly.
There's incentive built into the system.
A seat at the table of a failed system guarantees failure.
The definition of insanity applies here.

 

[Fatcamp]

Some people just do not want to admit that the nearly unlimited opportunity they enjoy is the problem.

Yup. Anything but personal responsibility must be to blame.

 

[Erict]

Mandatory harvest reporting would likely require FWP cuts elsewhere. This is from the 2025 MT FWP Budget Book.

 

[wind gypsy]

Wait a minute.. I thought the # of NR combo tags was in statute so changes had to come through legislature? Maybe that is only the Elk combo tags?

 

[wind gypsy]

Mandatory harvest reporting would likely require FWP cuts elsewhere. This is from the 2025 MT FWP Budget Book.

View attachment 983238

Huh? Are all of the people who do phone surveys volunteering for free? How is all the results the collect put into "data"? I'd think having actual mandatory reporting would make that work load smaller.

What does it cost to modify an app and website and change the regs? I have a hard time seeing how it'd be a significant cost hurdle.

 

[HunterGatherer]

Mandatory harvest reporting would likely require FWP cuts elsewhere. This is from the 2025 MT FWP Budget Book.

View attachment 983238

Yeah just cut about $28M worth of NR licenses and you could get rid of that whole green section that funds conservation. Cutting NR tags is the way to fix everything !

 

[Erict]

... I thought the # of NR combo tags was in statute so changes had to come through legislature? Maybe that is only the Elk combo tags?

They only set the max - read it HERE. Some relevant snippets:

"Not more than 17,000 Class B-10 licenses may be sold in any 1 license year." (BG combo)

"Not more than 4,600 unreserved Class B-11 licenses may be sold in any 1 license year." (Deer Combo)

"An applicant who applies for a Class B-10 license and an applicable special elk permit but who is not successful in a drawing for the special elk permit may choose to retain only the Class B-7 portion of the Class B-10 license. The department shall sell the Class B-7 portion as a Class B-11 license for the fee set in 87-2-510. The provisions of this subsection (6)(a) do not affect the limits established in 87-2-510(2). The remaining elk tag portion of the Class B-10 license must be sold by the department as an elk-only combination license for a fee of $831."

 

[mt terry d]

Huh? Are all of the people who do phone surveys volunteering for free?

I believe so.
Kinda like PBS fundraisers only you get some good programming during
the fundraising drive.

 

[wind gypsy]

They only set the max - read it HERE. Some relevant snippets:

"Not more than 17,000 Class B-10 licenses may be sold in any 1 license year." (BG combo)

"Not more than 4,600 unreserved Class B-11 licenses may be sold in any 1 license year." (Deer Combo)

"An applicant who applies for a Class B-10 license and an applicable special elk permit but who is not successful in a drawing for the special elk permit may choose to retain only the Class B-7 portion of the Class B-10 license. The department shall sell the Class B-7 portion as a Class B-11 license for the fee set in 87-2-510. The provisions of this subsection (6)(a) do not affect the limits established in 87-2-510(2). The remaining elk tag portion of the Class B-10 license must be sold by the department as an elk-only combination license for a fee of $831."

Good clarification, thanks!

 

[Erict]

What does it cost to modify an app and website and change the regs? I have a hard time seeing how it'd be a significant cost hurdle.

For many years, FWP has probably tried hard to do the best with what they had. I believe the "ALS" system was built and maintained by state workers. It may not be easy to simply add a "harvest reporting module" to that system. I'd bet it would cost more that it would save by eliminating callers.

Harvest reporting is one of those "is the juice worth the squeeze" things. Apples to oranges - NY is NOT self-funded by license sales. Long ago, they were able to "contract out" the entire licensing system which now works great. NY issues 2x more hunting and 9x more fishing licenses than MT. They spend about $3,000,000 a year just on the sporting license system that includes harvest reporting by phone, web or app. Mandatory harvest reporting since 2000. No automatic penalties for not reporting and the ECOs don't really issue a lot of tickets for non-reporting. It took several years for the reporting rate to level off and provide "more accurate" estimates.

NY "mandatory" harvest reporting 2000-2024:

 

[Erict]

I value science and fact based decisions and found this rather astounding how this amendment to reduce NR tags was born. (You can go back to 6:56:39 to see Amendment #15 proposed and follow the full discussion if you want).

"2 different people...Kids going hunting...Over 35 vehicles....non-residents...":