Montana reducing nonresident deer tags

[peterk123]

It's worth listening to the meeting. My takeaway was that everything was a knee jerk reaction. Maybe I'm missing something but that commisioner Lelsley Robinson is far from impressive. She very well may be the problem. In her defense, this is the first time I really listened to her.

 

[S.Clancy]

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?

They were available and returned. There is nothing in statute that says they have to re-sell them.

 

[S.Clancy]

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.

We've talked to FWP leadership several times. Right now they are working on a tool for harvest reporting. The initial indication is they will pursue an incentive for reporting. I think there is a lot more to come on this. If FWP creates a harvest reporting tool that functions as well as the licensing App (which IME is the best functioning one in the West at least, can't speak outside of that) I think we are trending in the right direction.

 

[wind gypsy]

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:
View attachment 983278

What is the reporting rate? Is that saying half of hunters dont do the mandatory reporting?

Been mandatory to register harvested deer in my home state (MN) since before I was a twinkle in my dad's eye (i'm 40). There are people who dont follow the law and they are ticketed accordingly. 50% would be wild though?

 

[S.Clancy]

What is the reporting rate? Is that saying half of hunters dont do the mandatory reporting?

Been mandatory to register harvested deer in my home state (MN) since before I was a twinkle in my dad's eye (i'm 40). There are people who dont follow the law and they are ticketed accordingly. 50% would be wild though?

Only a couple of state have true "mandatory reporting". NV and Arizona, maybe another? They are usually around or above 90% compliance. Most other state have non-mandatory reporting (ID, MT, etc). Response rates are significantly lower, 50% or so.

 

[wind gypsy]

Only a couple of state have true "mandatory reporting". NV and Arizona, maybe another? They are usually around or above 90% compliance. Most other state have non-mandatory reporting (ID, MT, etc). Response rates are significantly lower, 50% or so.

Option #3 is mandatory harvest registration. In MN (and other states) you have to register a harvested animal within 48 hrs. If you dont shoot anything you dont have to report anything. I like requiring the NV and AZ setup personally.

 

[S.Clancy]

Option #3 is mandatory harvest registration. In MN (and other states) you have to register a harvested animal within 48 hrs. If you dont shoot anything you dont have to report anything. I like requiring the NV and AZ setup personally.

Me too. It literally takes 90 seconds having done it for both states multiple times

 

[Lawnboi]

WI has mandatory reporting.

30 seconds on the game registration portal you enter your harvest auth number and receive a confirmation number. It’s stupid easy.

It’s like a 5 question survey. Deer seen, hours spent, location and gender/age.

No incentive, no bullcrap. It’s required

 

[Erict]

What is the reporting rate? Is that saying half of hunters dont do the mandatory reporting?

Correct. About 50% reporting rate after 24 years of "mandatory" reporting only harvested deer, bear, turkey. Harvest estimates are probably most useful in establishing antlerless quotas for each WMU (HD). Antlered deer, bear and turkey tags are no total cap OTC (R and NR) and good statewide, but the harvest estimates can show regional or statewide trends when combined with other estimating tools like weather, deer processor visits, check stations, etc.

NY has paper or etags. Reporting options include 24/7 phone reporting, reporting through website or by using the app. Immediate validation of etag or 48 hour reporting for paper tags. Lots of people forget to report in a timely manner and are afraid to make a late report fearing getting a ticket, so they don't report at all. NYSDEC should send a message at end of hunting seasons reminding hunters to report and give them "amnesty" but they don't, so about 50% is gonna be as good as it gets. The NY system could easily handle true 100% reporting but it would require rejiggering the fudge factor on the numbers for several years after 24 years of fairly steady results.

NY issues very few tickets for failure to report - they prefer the carrot to the stick. They did make an improvement a few years ago that allows one to log in and see all of their prior harvest reports, which is nice. Additionally, reporting a bear or turkey harvest can lead to them sending a message and follow up envelope requesting bear teeth or turkey legs that the biologists use.

If MT were to implement a well designed harvest reporting tool it could be useful, but will remain just a piece of the big puzzle.

 

[AHayes111]

Is it really the problem though? Or is not having enough self control to not shoot a young deer or a shot it to fill the freezer the problem? I think the big problem is every one needs the instant gratification of the internet so they have to pull the trigger. I haven’t shot a deer in 6 years, have had more then the average guys chances to kill 150 to 170 bucks and choose not to, I also get a mule deer doe tag and throw in the the trash so it’s not being used. I think Looking for a true giant is more fun than just pulling the trigger to pull it. People saying it’s for the meat is a load of crap… the amount of fuel people burn to go to region 6 or 7 for a week and all the other amenities needed could equal the cost of a half a beef pretty dang easy and they’d be supporting a local rancher! The ample opportunity isn’t the problem it’s the gratification people need and get from strangers on a social media platform and not having any bit of self control and eating a tag for the betterment of conservation! Take it for what it’s worth but that my 2¢

You and I are probably much alike when it comes to hunting. The last time I pulled the trigger on a sub 170 buck. I was 14. I under stand where you are coming from.
Hunters however will never exhibit the self control that you and I will. For every hunters that is willing to hold off the trigger for a 170+, there are a 100 that will have a threshold of 150. For many people a 150 is a big deer and for many a 150 looks giant in the field as they have never encountered a truly big deer. There are just as many hunters where the threshold is any four point. In reality we are part of the problem. The last 170 buck I shot was many years ago, he was 31 wide and had nine point on each side, It was likely he was only three. In a few years he likely would have been a true giant. The buck in my avatar is only four, in two years he may have made the alltime book. When everyone is holding out for what they think is a quality buck, nearly all of the bucks with the potential to become truly big are taken out of the herd at age two or three. We can not all be trophy hunters.

 

[freezerfull]

. When everyone is holding out for what they think is a quality buck, nearly all of the bucks with the potential to become truly big are taken out of the herd at age two or three. We can not all be trophy hunters.

Very accurate when it comes to score quality throughout the west.

I know you guys back there don’t shoot many bucks these days with score quality being down but why are the resident big buck hunters of SE Montana not still going after old bucks with lesser antlers?

 

[AHayes111]

Very accurate when it comes to score quality throughout the west.

I know you guys back there don’t shoot many bucks these days with score quality being down but why are the resident big buck hunters of SE Montana not still going after old bucks with lesser antlers?

That is an interesting question. I think a lot of big buck hunters have switched from mule deer to whitetails. I sure find myself hunting whitetails more then I do mule deer now.
I see those older bucks with lesser antler fairly regularly, and I often think "that's an older buck, I should just tag him," but I never do. I guess I just don't care to shoot one like that, been a long time since eating a tag caused me any heartburn. Often I am thinking "that would be a great buck for a kid" and if at all possible I will try to get some kid on him.
A few years back my wife and I were leaving the forest and right at the boarder was one of her co workers with his grandkid looking a yearling buck on a neighbors private land. When we got to my place, just off the road was one of those lesser bucks, 3 by 4, maybe 120 inches and old. I dropped my wife off at home and went back and flagged down grampa and kid. It was a bit of a rodeo but eventually the kid got it done. Kid was all smiles and I was also much happier with the result than if I had just unceremoniously put him down.
I think is short, if you can't get excited about pulling the trigger, you probably shouldn't.

 

[freezerfull]

That is an interesting question. I think a lot of big buck hunters have switched from mule deer to whitetails. I sure find myself hunting whitetails more then I do mule deer now.
I see those older bucks with lesser antler fairly regularly, and I often think "that's an older buck, I should just tag him," but I never do. I guess I just don't care to shoot one like that, been a long time since eating a tag caused me any heartburn. Often I am thinking "that would be a great buck for a kid" and if at all possible I will try to get some kid on him.
A few years back my wife and I were leaving the forest and right at the boarder was one of her co workers with his grandkid looking a yearling buck on a neighbors private land. When we got to my place, just off the road was one of those lesser bucks, 3 by 4, maybe 120 inches and old. I dropped my wife off at home and went back and flagged down grampa and kid. It was a bit of a rodeo but eventually the kid got it done. Kid was all smiles and I was also much happier with the result than if I had just unceremoniously put him down.

Thanks for the answer, I always appreciate hearing the reasoning behind different hunting approaches. There are definitely some good whitetails in that country, if guys are looking for book bucks it would make a natural transition.

While back there in recent years I spent a combined 4 days or so in one particular geographic region. Found this area to have an insanely strong front fork 3pt gene. Never saw a buck with back forks and looked over many including quite a few 5+ yo bucks. Found it pretty interesting.

 

[Huntingnorseman]

I should have titled this Montana Reduces deer tags for Residents and non residents. I have no proof but I suspect the number of residents shooting more than three deer a year is small. Data on that would be interesting.

What I'm really concerned about is weather or not this will result in a positive result in herd health. Will there be a corresponding push for more aggressive predator management? will this just be the new norm? What we've all seen in other states is a death by a thousand cuts. Lost opportunity never comes back.

I was at the Commission meeting and it was a demonstration knee jerk decision making. In regard to the reduction to 3 tags, the chairwoman of the commission introduced the day before the meeting. There was no public comment and FWP didn't recommend this. She came up with this because someone commented to her it was a bad look for the Commission. The reduction was for optics and she thought three tags was the number. Straight out of her mouth. There was no management strategy or objective with this. Nobody from the licensing department could answer how many hunters had more than three tags or the distribution of those tags. The only way to get that many tags is to get several district specific antlerless tags in the surplus drawing or hunt in a district that has OTC WT doe tags, up to five per hunter, so they should know that data. I requested that info from the department. So in short, there was no objective to accomplish with this change, no data, to support it, guys like me who are willing to drive long distances to hunt a bunch for does won't be spending much money in rural places this coming season. There is no reduction in total tags. The biologist I have spoken with across the state said this will have no affect on the deer numbers.
Interestingly, the ban on public land antlerless mule deer hunting may have detrimental affects to the herd. The population will get older, does lose reproductive fitness but continue to compete for food, the age class of bucks generally goes down. The pitch for the ban an public land hunting was to reduce hunter numbers. Nobody shoots a MD doe on a general tag until the last week of the season at best. The biologist cite 10% or less of general tags are filled with a MD doe and the warden I talked to agree. Banning public land hunting doesn't accomplish any of the stated goals other than starting to privatize wildlife in Montana.

 

[peterk123]

I was at the Commission meeting and it was a demonstration knee jerk decision making. In regard to the reduction to 3 tags, the chairwoman of the commission introduced the day before the meeting. There was no public comment and FWP didn't recommend this. She came up with this because someone commented to her it was a bad look for the Commission. The reduction was for optics and she thought three tags was the number. Straight out of her mouth. There was no management strategy or objective with this. Nobody from the licensing department could answer how many hunters had more than three tags or the distribution of those tags. The only way to get that many tags is to get several district specific antlerless tags in the surplus drawing or hunt in a district that has OTC WT doe tags, up to five per hunter, so they should know that data. I requested that info from the department. So in short, there was no objective to accomplish with this change, no data, to support it, guys like me who are willing to drive long distances to hunt a bunch for does won't be spending much money in rural places this coming season. There is no reduction in total tags. The biologist I have spoken with across the state said this will have no affect on the deer numbers.
Interestingly, the ban on public land antlerless mule deer hunting may have detrimental affects to the herd. The population will get older, does lose reproductive fitness but continue to compete for food, the age class of bucks generally goes down. The pitch for the ban an public land hunting was to reduce hunter numbers. Nobody shoots a MD doe on a general tag until the last week of the season at best. The biologist cite 10% or less of general tags are filled with a MD doe and the warden I talked to agree. Banning public land hunting doesn't accomplish any of the stated goals other than starting to privatize wildlife in Montana.

This ^

I listened to quite a bit of the meeting and you are spot on. The chairwoman is not qualified to be in that position. All emotional decisions, facts don't matter.

My family are one of the ones that pick up a bunch of doe tags. We use maybe half, but it affords us the opportunity to go to another part of the state to camp and hunt as a family. Not anymore.

Next year I won't eat my buck tag like I did this year.