Montana General Season Structure Proposal 3.0

[Eric Albus]

I’m all for mandatory reporting, we need to convince some representatives of that. The ignorance, or stupidity, and resistance to mandatory reporting was staggering.

 

[Hammsolo]

Make NR tags either a general elk tag or a general deer tag . Not both . One . That would be a start . And no more come home to hunt or native licenses

Can you explain more in detail on the tags? Are you saying NR’s should have to pick an either sex single species? I give that a no. Mainly because we need to save does.

Also, why? Why eliminate the come home and native licenses? I do think they should be simplified and made as one. I applied once for both and got both, just out of curiosity. I did return one and pointed out the problem to them. They didn’t change a thing of course. Is it a funding issue? I’m more than willing to pay my way with full-price. My primary reason for hunting MT is to connect with family and friends.

 

[Hammsolo]

Thank you for all your work! These type of efforts are all about compromise and negotiations.

We have e-tags, and I am a proponent of submitting pictures and location (that is not made public) upon harvest for collecting data. The pictures would not be a grip and grin, but for science. What about teeth? Sex? Antlers? Relative body size? What would biologists want and actually use for making data driven decisions.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Can you explain more in detail on the tags? Are you saying NR’s should have to pick an either sex single species? I give that a no. Mainly because we need to save does.

Also, why? Why eliminate the come home and native licenses? I do think they should be simplified and made as one. I applied once for both and got both, just out of curiosity. I did return one and pointed out the problem to them. They didn’t change a thing of course. Is it a funding issue? I’m more than willing to pay my way with full-price. My primary reason for hunting MT is to connect with family and friends.

Im fine with keeping it. Just make it count against the cap and make it full price.

 

[BuzzH]

I’m all for mandatory reporting, we need to convince some representatives of that. The ignorance, or stupidity, and resistance to mandatory reporting was staggering.

There's usually a reason for that kind of resistance.

I've hunted in several states that have mandatory reporting and its really no big deal. It literally takes about 5-10 minutes to just gather the data, which has been: 1. date of kill, Unit or county it was killed in, species, male or female, if antlered number of points.

Just the basics and I never viewed it as an inconvenience at all.

 

[R.K.]

Can you explain more in detail on the tags? Are you saying NR’s should have to pick an either sex single species? I give that a no. Mainly because we need to save does.

Also, why? Why eliminate the come home and native licenses? I do think they should be simplified and made as one. I applied once for both and got both, just out of curiosity. I did return one and pointed out the problem to them. They didn’t change a thing of course. Is it a funding issue? I’m more than willing to pay my way with full-price. My primary reason for hunting MT is to connect with family and friends.

General deer tags are good for general districts, but they all don’t have the same regulations on allowable take. Some are either sex units, some are antlered buck only, etc. I don’t see that changing.

 

[BuzzH]

Im fine with keeping it. Just make it count against the cap and make it full price.

I don't disagree but the whole reason behind the legislation for come home to hunt and native tags was to make it affordable for the Legislators NR kids.

It started at 4x the resident fees then moved to half price. I think moving to full price would be met with some challenges.

If it can be done, go for it.

 

[R.K.]

There's usually a reason for that kind of resistance.

I've hunted in several states that have mandatory reporting and its really no big deal. It literally takes about 5-10 minutes to just gather the data, which has been: 1. date of kill, Unit or county it was killed in, species, male or female, if antlered number of points.

Just the basics and I never viewed it as an inconvenience at all.

I would add the public/private question as well.

Some states have you take some measurements, but that was with paper tags. Circumference of antlers, or distance between eye and nostril are fairly common.

 

[BuzzH]

I would add the public/private question as well.

Some states have you take some measurements, but that was with paper tags. Circumference of antlers, or distance between eye and nostril are fairly common.

Absolutely, the game being taken on public VS private would be important to know for management reasons.

 

[shoots-straight]

#3 is sounding an awful lot like statewide Limited Entry.

But I’m 100% for mandatory reporting. Enough is enough- let’s get some good data and figure out exactly what’s going on.

So lets compare 3.0 to say the HD 270 LE area.

HD 270 has a quota of 45 tags, Season runs all 6 weeks archery, and 5 weeks rifle. 9666 1st choice residents applied in 2025, 750 NR applications for 2025 for a total of 10,415 applicants. For a 4/10's of a % chance at a tag.

The rest hunt elsewhere on the 5 week season structure that looks to be unsustainable anymore. Population models continue to slide ever downward trend. More bitching and complaining but no real fix as nobody is willing to give up a chance at killing a forky.

New 3.0 season, you chose one of either hunting
Archery sept. 25- Oct 5 you get 41 days to hunt deer both species
either species Oct 8th - Nov. 5th you get 28 days to rifle both species
either species Oct 25-Nov 30 mule deer ends Nov 5 you get 12 days either species, and 36 days to hunt whitetails.

Muzzy stays the same with 9 day either species season where general seasons apply.

Might be sustainable in theory, but could be twinked by commission after results from mandatory report and survey's afield.

Not sure where you see the similarities in Limited entry.

BTW 3.0 would not change LE units as they sit now.

 

[Deleted member 16864]

I’m all for mandatory reporting, we need to convince some representatives of that. The ignorance, or stupidity, and resistance to mandatory reporting was staggering.

Ignorance and stupidity? No way!

 

[Deleted member 16864]

How will you make up the hit to FWP’s budget?

Increase the price of licenses.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Increase the price of licenses.

I’m fine with separating the deer tag from the elk combo as long as we’re not selling those 11,000 deer tags separately and adding an additional 11,000 NR hunters in the field. Additionally, there would need to be an increase somewhere that makes up the cost difference. In reality, those 11,000 deer licenses that are included in the deer/elk combo are only priced @$100 more than an elk only license.

In my opinion, the lowest hanging fruit to adjust NR ES licenses to a sustainable level is to start with the reduced price NR ES tags that are sold in excess of the NR cap. Currently, MT is selling about 7000 reduced price ES licenses to an additional 3500 hunters in excess of the NR cap each year.

I think we should start with that and see if that helps bring NR pressure to an acceptable level. In my opinion every ES NR license sold should count against the 17,600 cap and should not exceed that number. B- licenses that are sold at the 90/10 R/NR cap are separate and can exceed the 17,600 cap because antlerless licenses are set by hunt districts or regions and fluctuate from year to year.

By my math @18% of all ES NR licenses sold are in excess of the 17,600 cap. Reducing NR licenses by 18% and bringing it back to 17,600 individual NR hunters for ES tags seems like a pretty good start to me.

 

[DFS]

I’m fine with separating the deer tag from the elk combo as long as we’re not selling those 11,000 deer tags separately and adding an additional 11,000 NR hunters in the field. Additionally, there would need to be an increase somewhere that makes up the cost difference. In reality, those 11,000 deer licenses that are included in the deer/elk combo are only priced @$100 more than an elk only license.

In my opinion, the lowest hanging fruit to adjust NR ES licenses to a sustainable level is to start with the reduced price NR ES tags that are sold in excess of the NR cap. Currently, MT is selling about 7000 reduced price ES licenses to an additional 3500 hunters in excess of the NR cap each year.

I think we should start with that and see if that helps bring NR pressure to an acceptable level. In my opinion every ES NR license sold should count against the 17,600 cap and should not exceed that number. B- licenses that are sold at the 90/10 R/NR cap are separate and can exceed the 17,600 cap because antlerless licenses are set by hunt districts or regions and fluctuate from year to year.

I think all that takes legislation. One thing is for sure region 7 can’t continue to take all the nonresidents. They need to be capped at reasonable levels.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Anyone know when the 10% cap on NR b tags was removed?

1 guy drawing and the other 4 dudes he goes wirh getting otc B tags is a contributor to the issue

 

[Gerald Martin]

I think all that takes legislation. One thing is for sure region 7 can’t continue to take all the nonresidents. They need to be capped at reasonable levels.

You are correct that it will take legislation. That’s why there’s no mention of it in our proposal since the commission is not able to make those changes.


Your idea of R-7 needing to cap licenses is not a bad idea. The commission needs to hear it. Implementation of regional caps brings with it several legal and social challenges. As a group we discussed several of those challenges among ourselves without arriving at what we felt was a satisfactory answer. Our inability to answer those questions is not opposition to them being answered by the commission or someone else.

1. Setting regional caps will require some type of permit or limitation on overall numbers. Under current legislation that will automatically trigger the 90/10 rule and by law limit NR’s to 10% of available permits. This will most likely result in intense opposition to regional caps from MOGA and landowners or result in the caps being set so high that they don’t result in any practical benefit to the resource.
2. NR and R who don’t get to hunt because they can’t get a regional permit will be displaced to other regions or areas. Where will they go and what will be the effects of their displacement?

I’m asking those questions not to invalidate your concern or belief that regional caps are necessary. I’m just pointing out those are questions that will have to be answered for meaningful regional caps to be implemented and we don’t know how to address that issue given the social climate and current regulatory framework.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Anyone know when the 10% cap on NR b tags was removed?

1 guy drawing and the other 4 dudes he goes wirh getting otc B tags is a contributor to the issue

Region wide antlerless are sold OTC without being under the 90/10 rule because the numbers aren’t capped. Any license or permit that isnt limited is exempt from the 90/10 rule.

To the best of my knowledge single district antlerless licenses that are capped have always been limited by the 90/10 rule. Surplus licenses still available after the June 1 drawing are on a first come first serve basis and no longer subject to the 90/10 rule.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I think @Shed God was onto something. Unlimited LE.

No legislation required and regional caps are in.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I think @Shed God was onto something. Unlimited LE.

No legislation required and regional caps are in.

There’s lots of ideas that have the potential to benefit the resource and bring their own unique drawbacks as a consequence of implementation. At the end of the day folks with a different strategy and desired approach need to organize themselves and make their own appeal to the commission. Just because an idea didn’t make the cut in our proposal doesn’t mean it doesn’t deserve consideration.

However, if anyone is frustrated at us because we didn’t include their idea, they should be aware that not all ideas and strategies are compatible with each other and the volume of ideas presented by passionate folks was rather amazing. The path to having any and all of those ideas considered by the commission is open to anyone willing to organize their ideas and advocate for them in the places and manner that FWP has communicated how ideas will be heard and considered.

 

[antlerradar]

Not sure where you see the similarities in Limited entry.

BTW 3.0 would not change LE units as they sit now.

I think R.K. was referring Jon Boy's third bullet point and not 3.0