Montana season change proposal

[GoatPackr]

View attachment 707900
Harvest stats from Montana for you guys to chew on. Thats a lot of bucks getting shot out of region 6 and 7. Does anyone know of another state that allows nonresident mule deer harvest to exceed resident. You guys are advocating to burn the resource down for the sake of your opportunity to hunt mule deer when they are most vulnerable. At minimum pick your region and nonresident caps are needed. Sign me up for the October season, I’m not scared to hunt them when they aren’t stupid.

This info is useless without mandatory reporting.
Non residents are more likely to report.

Kris

 

[Pony Soldier]

A big increase in prices can be darn tough when you have a bunch of kids and need the meat to feed them.

 

[RutandDie]

A big increase in prices can be darn tough when you have a bunch of kids and need the meat to feed them.

I grew up poor. Rutting mule deer bucks wasn’t a staple of my diet.

 

[Pony Soldier]

I grew up poor in a small town and the choices were wild meat or maccaroni and cheese. Nearly everyone I went to school with lived on wild meat. I hate maccaroni and cheese.

The rules in my world was beef was for sellin - elk was for eatin.

 

[ThunderJack49]

A big increase in prices can be darn tough when you have a bunch of kids and need the meat to feed them.

I absolutely understand this. I grew up like that. For those at the bottom of the income scale, on limited income because of age/disability, for youth tags- those are all great examples of people I believe could/should be able to access cheaper tags. But I don't think that is most hunters, and I don't think that is most people who claim that. To be clear, I am not implying that you are fabricating anything.
From my perspective, if any of the guys at work told me they desperately needed an elk to feed their children, I would write them a list of tasks they could complete over the weekend for extra hours and money. Local grass fed beef cow in my area goes for about 3K and gets you 400lbs of meat. Not as cheap as a few tags but it is guaranteed and likely to lead to a raise.
Personally, if my kids are in jeopardy of being hungry, I'm going to be at work, not hunting.
That being said I absolutely feel the pain in years where I haven't been able to hunt or even fill all my tags vs just some of them.
Hunting shouldn't be exclusive based on income but I think people are unreasonable with tag price expectations.

 

[ELKdeerMT]

I feel like this proposal would do much better, if it tried to do less. Change one or two things at a time rather than a full overhaul and you will piss off less people.

Cut the doe tags (most guys are going to be on board)

End buck hunting, say Nov 12 for mule deer. Make it clear this is to have bigger bucks, maybe more bucks on the landscape. Again I think most would get on board with this. Still some rut hunting and overlap with elk, but less sustained pressure through the peak rut. Going to have some pushback from the guys wanting to hunt thanksgiving week, but they can hunt whitetails still..

Leave everything else status quo and see how it goes after a few years.

I agree that the proposal has a lot of changes and it’s likely to not get traction unless it’s simplified. I think if we could cut out the last two weeks, eliminate doe tags and at least make people pick their region with regional caps. I don’t think there’s a good way to manage unit by unit or region by region when a guy can go from one end of the state to the other to hunt MD. The last survey FWP sent out 40% of residents said they’d forgo deer hunting every year for a better hunting experience. That’s pretty significant % of hunters wanting to see things get better.

 

[Pony Soldier]

I guess an issue comes up as wild meat as a preference versus a last choice. I live on wild meat. I don't hunt horns. I'm not a baby killer but given choices I kind of like 2-3 year old animals. The purpose of hunting season is my year's meat. My partners and kids live under the same purpose. There is no sport or recreation to this event. I approach this with the same purpose as filling the woodshed and getting my haycrop into the barn.

When these tasks are completed, I hunt geese for jerky, feathers for pillows, and entertainment. Maybe this all comes from growing up on the reservation.

 

[ELKdeerMT]

I’m sure there is a number, but it’s way lower than deer “managers” state. I have pretty long experience in areas with 5 or less per 100 buck to doe ratios going into season and yet nearly all, or all, females get bred. Deer managers don’t like it because the rut isn’t as intense, the bucks don’t cruise nearly as much, and they get tired of seeing so many does. The whole thing is just QDM to treat wild animals like cattle- make them bigger and more prized.

Just cause you can sustain a heard with 5 or 6 bucks to 100 does doesn’t mean we should. And just curious. How do you know “yet nearly all females get bread.” Sounds a bit wise tail and anecdotal to me.

I’d along with many Montana’s would like to see targets in the >15:100 buck to doe ratios and meet the minimum >35-45:100 fawn:doe recruitment targets. I’m still interested in hearing your evidence that rut hunting has nothing to do with buck:doe ratios and fawn recruitment? Seems like most the info I find confirm the consensus that limiting pressure leads to higher buck:doe ratios and better fawn recruitment.

 

[Axlrod]

I agree that the proposal has a lot of changes and it’s likely to not get traction unless it’s simplified. I think if we could cut out the last two weeks, eliminate doe tags and at least make people pick their region with regional caps. I don’t think there’s a good way to manage unit by unit or region by region when a guy can go from one end of the state to the other to hunt MD. The last survey FWP sent out 40% of residents said they’d forgo deer hunting every year for a better hunting experience. That’s pretty significant % of hunters wanting to see things get better.

Yes, but if the FWP is using the input from surveys to manage the regulations, 40% is still the minority. And I am with the 40%, have shot 1 MD buck in the last 20 years. It was in a LE area I drew 9 years ago. The other 19 years the bucks I have shot were whitetails on private land mostly during archery.
But I understand the 60% point of view.

 

[Pacific_Fork]

I love it when recreational hunters claim hunting for the meat doesn’t pencil out and go buy sh*t grain feed lot beef. Yea maybe for you that works coming from the east and you don’t mind eating that. But for a lot of locals in the west game meat pencils out a few bucks a lb plus it’s our only lifestyle (hobby) while others will waste thousands a year on golf and that doesn’t feed the family in return.

 

[ELKdeerMT]

Yes, but if the FWP is using the input from surveys to manage the regulations, 40% is still the minority. And I am with the 40%, have shot 1 MD buck in the last 20 years. It was in a LE area I drew 9 years ago. The other 19 years the bucks I have shot were whitetails on private land mostly during archery.
But I understand the 60% point of view.

I understand it as well. The electoral college system comes to mind. I’m glad elected officials aren’t elected purely on majority vote. I’m glad our system tries to equally weight votes based on regional concerns. I think 40% is a high number considering it’s been as low as 18% in past surveys. I think people’s experience in the field is showing up in those results. A portion of people will always be for opportunity at all costs. The people on the fence are starting to want change.

 

[velvet muley]

No- I thought there was this magic place less than a decade ago that had nearly one buck for two does?

As for 6/100, that’s probably closer to “natural” than 30/100.

Not even close, 30/100 is a much better ration

I can only speak to my immediate friend group, but I'm sure there would be some push back from the older "that's how its always been" crowd. I also think that more expensive tags would thin the herd of residents whose heart really isn't in it, which would also work to reduce pressure.
To be clear, I don't know what the exact dollar amount would be to replace/increase the revenue lost from selling more NR tags or more resident tags at their current prices. I do know, however, that many people are willing to pay 500$ for a backpack, 1500$ for a rifle and all of the other expenses associated with hunting but scoff at a 50$ elk tag.
I swing a hammer for a living, and while I know there are many people in my community struggling with the cost of living at the moment, I'm also not exactly laughing all the way to the bank every time I get paid. For those of us without infinite resources, we have to prioritize and I think that is ok.
Montana is a great access/time state and maybe this could be resolved with an application process for senior citizens and residents who make below a certain amount. But for the rest of us in the middle, prices could be adjusted to the times.

Raising the prices of tags to $50 to have less non-residents is not the answer, why would we want our resident tags to go up like that? If you want expensive tags and Trophy animals everywhere, move to Nevada.

 

[velvet muley]

I absolutely understand this. I grew up like that. For those at the bottom of the income scale, on limited income because of age/disability, for youth tags- those are all great examples of people I believe could/should be able to access cheaper tags. But I don't think that is most hunters, and I don't think that is most people who claim that. To be clear, I am not implying that you are fabricating anything.
From my perspective, if any of the guys at work told me they desperately needed an elk to feed their children, I would write them a list of tasks they could complete over the weekend for extra hours and money. Local grass fed beef cow in my area goes for about 3K and gets you 400lbs of meat. Not as cheap as a few tags but it is guaranteed and likely to lead to a raise.
Personally, if my kids are in jeopardy of being hungry, I'm going to be at work, not hunting.
That being said I absolutely feel the pain in years where I haven't been able to hunt or even fill all my tags vs just some of them.
Hunting shouldn't be exclusive based on income but I think people are unreasonable with tag price expectations.

There is a lot of people who either moved to Montana or stayed in Montana knowing the cost of living is high and wages are lower because we love the outdoors, hunting and fishing. People have sacrificed a certain amount of financial security so we can live in a State that has abundant outdoor opportunities quality of life, without the high costs to do so. Proposing to also financially inflate those resources is doing the complete opposite of what this State is all about.

Not trying to offend anyone but again, if you seek the Nevada/Arizona type of management and costs and it is a priority to you then maybe consider living in one of those places.

 

[brockel]

Yes, but if the FWP is using the input from surveys to manage the regulations, 40% is still the minority. And I am with the 40%, have shot 1 MD buck in the last 20 years. It was in a LE area I drew 9 years ago. The other 19 years the bucks I have shot were whitetails on private land mostly during archery.
But I understand the 60% point of view.

Fwp also puts the middle ground neither unsatisfied/satisfied group into that 60%. If you have seen the survey they are like any other survey the questions can be worded to get the results you want

 

[ddowning]

I love it when recreational hunters claim hunting for the meat doesn’t pencil out and go buy sh*t grain feed lot beef. Yea maybe for you that works coming from the east and you don’t mind eating that. But for a lot of locals in the west game meat pencils out a few bucks a lb plus it’s our only lifestyle (hobby) while others will waste thousands a year on golf and that doesn’t feed the family in return.

Part of the problem is how people think. This is not meant to be condescending. I have been very broke and destitute, and I have made what most would consider decent money (just shy of $300k). When I was broke, it was a choice/mindset thing. I was a teacher, and I loved it. I could hunt with a tag, a rifle, and a few cartridges. The rifle was purchased for $400 from a flea market with a weaver grand slam on top. My WHOLE reloading set-up was $150. We ate venison a lot. We bought nothing for meat except chicken and a tiny bit of pork.

My job was salary, so I couldn't just go work more. I didn't think about opportunity cost of not working to hunt. I didn't entertain the idea of getting a second job. The way I hunted saved money on meat, and I was going to hunt anyway.

Eventually, I had to start a business to make it financially. A teacher's salary didn't cut it in a single income family of 4. No I have a bunch of expensive gear, hunt less, and realize that every day I could be selling or working to make more money. There is no way the meat pencils out now. It is a hobby, and a damned expensive one at that. On top of the cost of really good gear, every day I hunt and every second I spend ready and typing on rokslide has an opportunity cost, a fairly large one. The difference is that I have the financial ability to choose, before, I did not.

There is nothing wrong with either situation if you enjoy your life. As a teacher, I was turning out some great students, and I had more time to spend with my wife and kids. During my first few years in business, there were brief time periods where I had to stop and think to remember I had kids. My point is, life is all about choices and perspectives. Sometimes it's hard to understand and consider those of different people.

 

[Fire_9]

Moving from the “hunt during rut discussion; declare your region for mule deer.

The more I think about this proposal, the more I don’t like it. I like to roam during hunting season and I don’t see this as a critical component of bringing back mule deer numbers.

It’s been mentioned several times, but liberalize the whitetail hunting, not by a little, but by a lot.

You think actually knowing where people hunt wouldn't be a good thing to know? That was always one of my gripes with the 900 elk bundle. There was no way to actually know where the masses were hunting and what the hunting pressure was

 

[Dave0317]

I wish they'd have that week in august for trad only. That'd be a huge boon for trad boys.

I don’t think anyone has really commented on this part of your comment. I’d like to see something like that too. For several reasons.

Unfortunately I don’t think it will ever happen in most places. Wildlife agencies don’t choose weapons/seasons based on tradition or sentiment or anything like that. They need stats that show how they can use that tool/season in the hands of the public to accomplish a particular management goal. Too few people hunt with trad gear to make it attractive from a revenue standpoint. Harvest rates are likely low enough that it wouldn’t make a case as a good management either. You could sell more tags, but crowding is already more of a problem than the actual harvest numbers in most places.

I don’t think it would hurt much to implement it, I just don’t see such a small niche element of hunting catching the attention of the wildlife agencies. I think a lot of bow and rifle guys would see it as silly or redundant. Though, I’m sure lot of us feel that way about the new bolt action long range capable muzzleloader rifles too. Lol.

Id love to hear some expanded thoughts on it though. I’m definitely not the smartest or best informed guy on this stuff in this thread.

 

[Pacific_Fork]

Part of the problem is how people think. This is not meant to be condescending. I have been very broke and destitute, and I have made what most would consider decent money (just shy of $300k). When I was broke, it was a choice/mindset thing. I was a teacher, and I loved it. I could hunt with a tag, a rifle, and a few cartridges. The rifle was purchased for $400 from a flea market with a weaver grand slam on top. My WHOLE reloading set-up was $150. We ate venison a lot. We bought nothing for meat except chicken and a tiny bit of pork.

My job was salary, so I couldn't just go work more. I didn't think about opportunity cost of not working to hunt. I didn't entertain the idea of getting a second job. The way I hunted saved money on meat, and I was going to hunt anyway.

Eventually, I had to start a business to make it financially. A teacher's salary didn't cut it in a single income family of 4. No I have a bunch of expensive gear, hunt less, and realize that every day I could be selling or working to make more money. There is no way the meat pencils out now. It is a hobby, and a damned expensive one at that. On top of the cost of really good gear, every day I hunt and every second I spend ready and typing on rokslide has an opportunity cost, a fairly large one. The difference is that I have the financial ability to choose, before, I did not.

There is nothing wrong with either situation if you enjoy your life. As a teacher, I was turning out some great students, and I had more time to spend with my wife and kids. During my first few years in business, there were brief time periods where I had to stop and think to remember I had kids. My point is, life is all about choices and perspectives. Sometimes it's hard to understand and consider those of different people.

Yea that’s the problem, everyone only views these things from their own perspective. I just see it all the time hobby hunters, trophy hunters, etc say hunting for meat doesnt financially make sense when you could go to the grocery store. As if you can compare the two quality sources of protein and assume everyone’s hunting budget/expenses are the same.

 

[mtwarden]

You think actually knowing where people hunt wouldn't be a good thing to know? That was always one of my gripes with the 900 elk bundle. There was no way to actually know where the masses were hunting and what the hunting pressure was

I think it's going to be pretty hard to know where people are hunting; one regions are big, two you declare a region you don't how many people also put in it for it- you can probably look at after the fact and then everyone changes their mind the next year based on numbers for the year before

Yeah—strong no for me.

 

[finner]

I think it's going to be pretty hard to know where people are hunting; one regions are big, two you declare a region you don't how many people also put in it for it- you can probably look at after the fact and then everyone changes their mind the next year based on numbers for the year before

Yeah—strong no for me.

Seems like mandatory reporting would also provide indicia of pressure and harvest success...