Montana General Season Structure Proposal 3.0

[Ben Lamb]

Anytime there is a problem and something needs to be done, the first response is to do it to NRs. Mostly it revolves around $$$.

Again, it's about $$$. I'm sure there are a ton of paying NRs hunting those private land sanctuaries. BM losses are because they can get the same payment with less hassle (and damage) from a few hunters (R and NR alike). Habitat loss is a a bit of a straw man. Can an animal that needs to put on fat for the winter be blamed for spending its time on a pivot?

In the last few years, this is what's been done on the access issue:

2019: Public Access to Lands Act created. Since then, it's accounted, along with Block Mgt for opening around 1 million acres of landlocked public lands. According to PLPW members, this program is also working to bring landowners in to Block Mgt as they become more comfortable with access for the public.

2021: The outfitter preference point funding is redirected to PAL to increase funding sources for public access programs.

2022: FWP launches the Habitat Leasing Program which has added between 50,000 -100,000 acres of long term access (30-40 years). This portion of Habitat MT continues to grow, with another 50,000 acres of leases being up for discussion on the August 21st commission meeting.

2023: Increase in BMA payments to a max of $50K in order to create a ceiling that's more compatible with the realities of the 2020's. FWP also increased the hunter day payment. HB2 saw an $7 million appropriation for block management, etc.

2025: SB 83 & SB 441 created more options for landowners to ensure ranch rules will be followed by treating ranch rules as commission rule, which gives wardens enhanced enforcement abilities, and SSB 441 created the landowner enforcement access network - a new tool that allows landowners enrolled in aggregates the ability to share information relative to bad actors and exclude those bad actors from the BMA's in the network. HB 763 brought back the access corridor program (nick work, @Elky Welky & crew) which allows for Block Mgt cooperators to simply add an access corridor instead of enrolling in a type 1 or type 2. HB 145 increased the NR base license to provide an extra $4-5 million per year for Block Mgt.

On NR Licensing, this is what's been done:

2023: SB281 cut the number of NR deer B tags by roughly 6-7K licenses. This bill reduced the number of B tags a NR could hold from a maximum of 6 to a max of 2 if they held a combo license, and 1 if they did not.

2025: SB 541 provided for the 10 day resident first upland opportunities for prairie grouse and roosters, while HB 450 will provide FWP with increased tools to deal with the issue of NR bird dog trainers that Region 6 is experiencing. HB 568 sets up the interim process through FWP to look holistically at allocation and our access programs in a "measure twice, cut once" approach ahead of the 2027 legislative session.

This isn't an exhaustive list - just the ones I can think of off the top of my head that passed. I also think we're about to head into a period where NR licenses are not going to be as easily sold as they have been due to economic uncertainty and rising prices (massive rise in health insurance premiums, inflation, tariff worries, etc).


Jake is 100% correct when he says the issues around crowding are due to loss of BMA's and habitat. Those BMA's that are lost occurred for a variety of reasons with generational change in ownership and splitting the family place rather than adopting a corporate shareholder approach so each kid could have their own operation, as well as consolidation of small ranches into larger ones. Add in the explosion of hunt clubs and private leasing over the last decade and the issue continues to compound.

 

[Elky Welky]

hose 9 individuals were told "screw you" more times than once. It's pretty disingenuous to paint their outreach in this manner.

With equal respect:

This is actually an even more disingenuous way to paint their outreach and our involvement, Ben. As you know, groups like BHA and other NGOs were excluded from the initial planning and development stages, while outfitters and landowners were ensured a seat at the table, and then the outreach began.

And I don't what you are talking about regarding a lack of feedback, I personally joined many of the 9 to listen to what they had to say, and we even invited Jess to our board retreat to talk about their plan. It doesn't change the refrain we heard with every criticism though, which was that "well we thought about that, but outfitters and landowners won't consider it."

I know many in the 9 are great people with good intentions, this critique isn't personal to them (the anger and vitriol on HT I was referring to is actually less about them and more about the cries from the peanut gallery here, though let the record reflect forky has been personally attacked a number of times in this very thread).

It is, however, a big issue. Deflecting and refusing to acknowledge that will never help move it forward.

 

[antlerradar]

We've heard countless times that if something was a nonstarter for outfitters or landowners, then it was immediately tossed in the development of this proposal.

Where have you been hearing that? The only reason LE got tossed is we heard it was a nonstarter from FWP. Had nothing to do with landowners and outfitters. What other ideas have you heard got because of landowers and outfitters?

 

[Ben Lamb]

With equal respect:

This is actually an even more disingenuous way to paint their outreach and our involvement, Ben. As you know, groups like BHA and other NGOs were excluded from the initial planning and development stages, while outfitters and landowners were ensured a seat at the table, and then the outreach began.

And I don't what you are talking about regarding a lack of feedback, I personally joined many of the 9 to listen to what they had to say, and we even invited Jess to our board retreat to talk about their plan. It doesn't change the refrain we heard with every criticism though, which was that "well we thought about that, but outfitters and landowners won't consider it."

I know many in the 9 are great people with good intentions, this critique isn't personal to them (the anger and vitriol on HT I was referring to is actually less about them and more about the cries from the peanut gallery here, though let the record reflect forky has been personally attacked a number of times in this very thread).

It is, however, a big issue. Deflecting and refusing to acknowledge that will never help move it forward.

Appreciate the dialog Jake. When version 1.0 came out, nobody would meet with them. That did change later on. Appreciate the correction there.

No NGO was at the table within the famrework of that group. The two outfitters were there as individuals. The landowner was not affilated with an NGO either. Those folks were all hunt talkers. From here. They stood up and did this. MCS did facilitate the meetings, and helped provide context and information, including a recounting of previous attempts at changes, etc and how those changes did or didn't work as intended. MCS remains neutral on all season setting proposals.

When we worked on the Rocky Mtn Front Heritage Act, the Friends of the RMF were a loosely knit group of individuals who came together to build something. They invited groups in later. Cecil Garland didn't start out his campaign for the Scapegoat by simply calling NGO's and begging them for help, he led first, and others followed. State Lands Access was a group of dedicated, grassroots individuals who came together to get that done. MT has a long and storied history of citizens engaging in the public processes and dragging organizations along with them.

If the groups in MT won't listen to ideas that they haven't generated, then I think that's a dangerous bubble.

 

[Forkyfinder]

@antlerradar - i heard that about modifications that would have made for a small LE rut mule season compatible with the proposal.

20 measly LE permits per unit would total almost 2800 LE permits - almost close to what currently exists in all other LE areas. Itd sure have generated a lot of point sales dollars and help solve another problem - point creep.

 

[cgasner1]

With equal respect:

This is actually an even more disingenuous way to paint their outreach and our involvement, Ben. As you know, groups like BHA and other NGOs were excluded from the initial planning and development stages, while outfitters and landowners were ensured a seat at the table, and then the outreach began.

And I don't what you are talking about regarding a lack of feedback, I personally joined many of the 9 to listen to what they had to say, and we even invited Jess to our board retreat to talk about their plan. It doesn't change the refrain we heard with every criticism though, which was that "well we thought about that, but outfitters and landowners won't consider it."

I know many in the 9 are great people with good intentions, this critique isn't personal to them (the anger and vitriol on HT I was referring to is actually less about them and more about the cries from the peanut gallery here, though let the record reflect forky has been personally attacked a number of times in this very thread).

It is, however, a big issue. Deflecting and refusing to acknowledge that will never help move it forward.

I mean 2 of us at the time of this being put together were on boards but represented our self. That seems to have such a hypocritical line in the sand take that for what it’s worth. A 3rd member use to sit on the board of your group I do believe then we had landowners and a couple guys that sit on the moga group. Really a lot of the groups may have not been present but people in that room obviously were thinking about them. Also after 3.0 you guys not having any input is kinda your own fault you have almost everyone phone number in this group and have sat across from me drinking a beer. Plenty of time to ask for a sit down. What pisses everyone off is when we cut the pie we didn’t wanna try and hand another group what was left EVERYONE made a sacrifice with our first attempt.

 

[Elky Welky]

MCS did facilitate the meetings, and helped provide context and information, including a recounting of previous attempts at changes, etc and how those changes did or didn't work as intended. MCS remains neutral on all season setting proposals.

I accept that and do think that is an important point to make. And if my intent was misconstrued, I also apologize. Y'all know I can be blunt here.

My bigger point really comes down to the AA philosophy, which is that the first step is admitting you have a problem. Everyone of the 9 already agreed there was a problem and set about tackling it, while the rest of the State can't even admit it yet. The most basic rhetorical concept of problem/solution is first clearly identifying the problem before going about solving it. In many ways, I think, "solving" it is the easy part here.

@cgasner1 I'm not complaining about not having any input. I've also refrained from comment because, as we've also talked about over beers, I don't only represent myself I represent a board that doesn't always agree, which means sometimes we have to position ourselves as neutral. Add the fact that this dropped in mid May, around the time Mike Lee was attempting to steal public land out from under all Americans, and we had to shift our focus and resources entirely. At the end of the day, like you, we're all just volunteers.

If the groups in MT won't listen to ideas that they haven't generated, then I think that's a dangerous bubble.

Don't disagree at all with this.

 

[cgasner1]

I accept that and do think that is an important point to make. And if my intent was misconstrued, I also apologize. Y'all know I can be blunt here.

My bigger point really comes down to the AA philosophy, which is that the first step is admitting you have a problem. Everyone of the 9 already agreed there was a problem and set about tackling it, while the rest of the State can't even admit it yet. The most basic rhetorical concept of problem/solution is first clearly identifying the problem before going about solving it. In many ways, I think, "solving" it is the easy part here.

@cgasner1 I'm not complaining about not having any input. I've also refrained from comment because, as we've also talked about over beers, I don't only represent myself I represent a board that doesn't always agree, which means sometimes we have to position ourselves as neutral. Add the fact that this dropped in mid May, around the time Mike Lee was attempting to steal public land out from under all Americans, and we had to shift our focus and resources entirely. At the end of the day, like you, we're all just volunteers.

Don't disagree at all with this.

So since the ngo are such a big deal care to tell us which ones are in support of any of this? Or is that just a talking point

 

[antlerradar]

@antlerradar - i heard that about modifications that would have made for a small LE rut mule season compatible with the proposal.

20 measly LE permits per unit would total almost 2800 LE permits - almost close to what currently exists in all other LE areas. Itd sure have generated a lot of point sales dollars and help solve another problem - point creep.

Funny, As I remember it was Eric liked this and it was the rest of us that rejected it, but agreed that it was a good idea for when deer had recovered.

 

[Elky Welky]

So since the ngo are such a big deal care to tell us which ones are in support of any of this? Or is that just a talking point

I'm not understanding what you are asking. Ben and I were just back-and-forthing on the original impetus of the plan/outreach, which I think helped clarify where things stand now. I can't speak for other NGOs.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I accept that and do think that is an important point to make. And if my intent was misconstrued, I also apologize. Y'all know I can be blunt here.

My bigger point really comes down to the AA philosophy, which is that the first step is admitting you have a problem. Everyone of the 9 already agreed there was a problem and set about tackling it, while the rest of the State can't even admit it yet. The most basic rhetorical concept of problem/solution is first clearly identifying the problem before going about solving it. In many ways, I think, "solving" it is the easy part here.

@cgasner1 I'm not complaining about not having any input. I've also refrained from comment because, as we've also talked about over beers, I don't only represent myself I represent a board that doesn't always agree, which means sometimes we have to position ourselves as neutral. Add the fact that this dropped in mid May, around the time Mike Lee was attempting to steal public land out from under all Americans, and we had to shift our focus and resources entirely. At the end of the day, like you, we're all just volunteers.

Don't disagree at all with this.

I appreciate you Jake, and the leadership you've brought the MTBHA. Give me a call sometime soon. We need to catch up.

 

[cgasner1]

I'm not understanding what you are asking. Ben and I were just back-and-forthing on the original impetus of the plan/outreach, which I think helped clarify where things stand now. I can't speak for other NGOs.

You guys have been on here plugging how this other proposal that has been put out is better for Montana. All the while preaching at us that we should have included these groups. So what groups either helped or support the this other proposal? At least we put a name to it so people know who to reach out to. That’s why we ended up on a 3rd draft.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Funny, As I remember it was Eric liked this and it was the rest of us that rejected it, but agreed that it was a good idea for when deer had recovered.

Thats interesting.

Disappointing Eric couldnt win you over.

 

[R.K.]

We have a contradiction or two. If herds on public are "terrible" and deer are "concentrated" on private, then making B-tags valid on private only doesn't really help much. A better change would be make deer tags MD buck-only or any whitetail and stop the habit of "dumping a doe as a consolation prize" (which I think is a bigger issue than incidental take by antelope or elk hunters- although I have no data to back any of that up).

The real answer has to be reducing opportunity. Someone is going to get screwed and, as you point out, people just want it to be the other guy. This is why the proposals are sharing the pain a little.

Time and space. Those are your main variables to limit opportunity.

The #4 and its ranking is its own thread.

I might not have explained it very well.

Eliminating public-land mule deer doe tags IS limiting opportunity, just not what most people think of because they all have dreams of a 200" buck on the wall and the associated bragging rights. A lot of places the general tag is antlered mule deer only already, so that effectively eliminates the public land doe slaughter. I'd like to see the numbers on how many "consolation prize" does are taken on a general tag each year- not sure they split harvest by tag type in the statistics. (I also haven't checked if Regions 6/7 allowed for either sex during rifle season on the general tag.) I guess I need to read up more. But at the end of the day, whatever language/rule change it takes- STOP KILLING DOES ON PUBLIC.

Doing so allows the herd to grow. Reduced mortality on does means they live longer, raise more fawns, and can grow the population. And when that population grows, there are more does having more fawns, and half of those fawns are bucks. So a larger doe herd on public gives you a larger buck herd on public. Growing a herd means more recruitment than mortality, and protecting does accomplishes both.

Habitat loss is a a bit of a straw man. Can an animal that needs to put on fat for the winter be blamed for spending its time on a pivot?

No, but the situation in the past wasn't a "Every animal in the countryside is on a pivot come rifle season". So that leads me to believe that the deer 1- used to spend time away from the pivots, 2- can spend time away from them in the future, 3- it's not the attractiveness of the food that's driving them there, but rather pressure. The "habitat" I mentioned is more of a "check the box, improve if not adequate" rather than a "every dollar needs to be spent getting our habitat from 95% to 99% quality". It's not the main thing that needs to happen, but it is most certainly a prerequisite for any chance of success in the future.


And the replies have me thinking I need to revise the priorities/ranking to better communicate what I was thinking.

1- make better habitat (Do it last decade)
2- STOP KILLING DOES ON PUBLIC (Do it yesterday)
...
6- deal with other mortality causes (Not touching this one in this thread)
......
28- Shorten seasons (If we have to)
..................
341- Move season out of the rut (MasterBlaster would be big sad with no road hunt)
...........................................................................................
976- Screw the other guy / reduce tag opportunity



Played around with excel- just a purely hypothetical exercise.

Say mortality on does is 20%- that's 1/5 lost every year. With that, it would take a fawn recruitment rate of 0.5 fawns/doe just to make replacement. If doe mortality goes up just 5% to a total of 25% (that's 1 doe in a herd of 20), maintenance level recruitment goes up to 0.67 from 0.5 does/fawn. That's a 17% jump in recruitment required just to cover an extra 5% in doe mortality. If recruitment stays at 0.5, then you're looking at half the total deer population in 10 years. Half the deer, half the bucks, same hunters = twice the pressure (but actually more, because the same hunters spend more days afield).

So, from my simplistic engineering brain, protecting does gives the biggest benefit for minimal effort. It's the least offensive quick & easy win we can start now, while beginning to focus on the other issues.

1&2 are things we can accomplish with very little headache, blowback, or sacrifice, and can be done overnight in most places. Everything after #2 just devolves into a whinefest of why we can't do it/won't ever happen, and I'm not in the mood to read another 20 page thread filled with the same old complaints. That horse is long dead, and I'm tired of the smell. So let's move on and spend our time on things we can actually accomplish that will move the needle in a meaningful fashion. I'm gonna go shoot my bow.

 

[SAJ-99]

In the last few years, this is what's been done on the access issue:

2019: Public Access to Lands Act created. Since then, it's accounted, along with Block Mgt for opening around 1 million acres of landlocked public lands. According to PLPW members, this program is also working to bring landowners in to Block Mgt as they become more comfortable with access for the public.

2021: The outfitter preference point funding is redirected to PAL to increase funding sources for public access programs.

2022: FWP launches the Habitat Leasing Program which has added between 50,000 -100,000 acres of long term access (30-40 years). This portion of Habitat MT continues to grow, with another 50,000 acres of leases being up for discussion on the August 21st commission meeting.

2023: Increase in BMA payments to a max of $50K in order to create a ceiling that's more compatible with the realities of the 2020's. FWP also increased the hunter day payment. HB2 saw an $7 million appropriation for block management, etc.

2025: SB 83 & SB 441 created more options for landowners to ensure ranch rules will be followed by treating ranch rules as commission rule, which gives wardens enhanced enforcement abilities, and SSB 441 created the landowner enforcement access network - a new tool that allows landowners enrolled in aggregates the ability to share information relative to bad actors and exclude those bad actors from the BMA's in the network. HB 763 brought back the access corridor program (nick work, @Elky Welky & crew) which allows for Block Mgt cooperators to simply add an access corridor instead of enrolling in a type 1 or type 2. HB 145 increased the NR base license to provide an extra $4-5 million per year for Block Mgt.

On NR Licensing, this is what's been done:

2023: SB281 cut the number of NR deer B tags by roughly 6-7K licenses. This bill reduced the number of B tags a NR could hold from a maximum of 6 to a max of 2 if they held a combo license, and 1 if they did not.

2025: SB 541 provided for the 10 day resident first upland opportunities for prairie grouse and roosters, while HB 450 will provide FWP with increased tools to deal with the issue of NR bird dog trainers that Region 6 is experiencing. HB 568 sets up the interim process through FWP to look holistically at allocation and our access programs in a "measure twice, cut once" approach ahead of the 2027 legislative session.

This isn't an exhaustive list - just the ones I can think of off the top of my head that passed. I also think we're about to head into a period where NR licenses are not going to be as easily sold as they have been due to economic uncertainty and rising prices (massive rise in health insurance premiums, inflation, tariff worries, etc).


Jake is 100% correct when he says the issues around crowding are due to loss of BMA's and habitat. Those BMA's that are lost occurred for a variety of reasons with generational change in ownership and splitting the family place rather than adopting a corporate shareholder approach so each kid could have their own operation, as well as consolidation of small ranches into larger ones. Add in the explosion of hunt clubs and private leasing over the last decade and the issue continues to compound.

I'm not sure why I was quoted. I appreciate the efforts and applaud the results. I just think that a lot of the causes, particularly on access, are bigger than any of these ideas can address. "Traditional" Montana Ranchers are getting older and cashing out and the new buyers of these ranches have zero interest in BM. Many of those that remain in the business would rather lease to a small group of people than watch their field become a parking lot on opening day. It is a slow drip of loss.

Agree with all that the reduction in B-tags is a positive.

So a larger doe herd on public gives you a larger buck herd on public.

I have said before, people have to stop speaking like public deer are a different species from private deer. More often than not, they are the same deer. The radio collaring of deer shows a lot of insight into how much they move during the year.
At the end of the day, weather does more to affect the population (and often location during the season) than anything, and no one can change the weather. Lead poisoning can only be changed through reduced opportunity. The initial proposal was to move the dates - ie keep the opportunity but reduce the ease of success. I supported that, but I really don't think it will make a huge different for mule deer numbers. Some more major changes are needed and the majority of Montana hunters don't like the idea of change...and hence why you make it #28 on your list.

Regarding habitat, I think everyone would like for it to be better. I just don't know exactly how to do that. Cutting trees is the generic answer, and it may help in some areas in Western MT, but I wonder if it really helps. These days fire clears more trees annually than logging and the deer are still struggling. We need better moisture.

 

[bigsky2]

I accept that and do think that is an important point to make. And if my intent was misconstrued, I also apologize. Y'all know I can be blunt here.

My bigger point really comes down to the AA philosophy, which is that the first step is admitting you have a problem. Everyone of the 9 already agreed there was a problem and set about tackling it, while the rest of the State can't even admit it yet. The most basic rhetorical concept of problem/solution is first clearly identifying the problem before going about solving it. In many ways, I think, "solving" it is the easy part here.

@cgasner1 I'm not complaining about not having any input. I've also refrained from comment because, as we've also talked about over beers, I don't only represent myself I represent a board that doesn't always agree, which means sometimes we have to position ourselves as neutral. Add the fact that this dropped in mid May, around the time Mike Lee was attempting to steal public land out from under all Americans, and we had to shift our focus and resources entirely. At the end of the day, like you, we're all just volunteers.

Don't disagree at all with this.

I couldn't disagree more with this. The only people I talk to that don't acknowledge that there's a problem are the people that only hunt elk and whitetails. Come to think of it, most of those people hunt on private at least half the time too. Never in my life can I remember so many people being disappointed with the mule deer situation and hunter crowding.

 

[cgasner1]

I couldn't disagree more with this. The only people I talk to that don't acknowledge that there's a problem are the people that only hunt elk and whitetails. Come to think of it, most of those people hunt on private at least half the time too. Never in my life can I remember so many people being disappointed with the mule deer situation and hunter crowding.

I’m sure Fwp had all those meeting awhile back because everyone is so happy.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I’m sure Fwp had all those meeting awhile back because everyone is so happy.

I couldn't disagree more with this. The only people I talk to that don't acknowledge that there's a problem are the people that only hunt elk and whitetails. Come to think of it, most of those people hunt on private at least half the time too. Never in my life can I remember so many people being disappointed with the mule deer situation and hunter crowding.

Why, then, would LE be off the table?

I have talked to lots of folks that do think theres a problem - but id again point to that survey. It reflects that Montanans, as a whole, feel differently about hunting during the rut and a whole host of other things that theres wide agreement on HT arent ideal for mule deer.

 

[bigsky2]

Why, then, would LE be off the table?

I have talked to lots of folks that do think theres a problem - but id again point to that survey. It reflects that Montanans, as a whole, feel differently about hunting during the rut and a whole host of other things that theres wide agreement on HT arent ideal for mule deer.

The survey that you keep pointing to also says that hunters want the opportunity to hunt bucks every year, which doesn't support LE.

 

[cgasner1]

It’s not the route we went you guys have fun with it. We have gone round and round about it. Everyone on here acts they they are part of the commission and have the final say. All we have is an idea maybe they add le to hell idk. I just know this up on the soap box stuff is getting old. Because as far as I can tell there isn’t a ngo in this state that has attempted to address the issue