Montana Mule Deer Mismanagement

[antlerradar]

From what I’ve heard about you the state really missed out when you left. I’d buy you a beer any day

I will second the people you have heard from.

 

[cgasner1]

I understand but that is a tough one to get done. mtmuley

You wouldn’t think it would be don’t change anything else just pick which deer you would like to shoot pretty simple

 

[mtmuley]

You wouldn’t think it would be don’t change anything else just pick which deer you would like to shoot pretty simple

Sounds good. But, higher resident costs and season structure change is a better route. mtmuley

 

[cgasner1]

Sounds good. But, higher resident costs and season structure change is a better route. mtmuley

I’ve passed on good to get to great a lot of times in my life. I personally wouldn’t pass on any change at all that was option.

 

[cgasner1]

I can already hear a couple legislators whining

 

[brockel]

The head of FWP told the Commission that it didn't know where the NR pressure was so the cuts were done blind. That can be fixed, but it won't be. People like to blame FWP but the people they send to Helena are the root cause.

If only there was a tool fwp could use to have a better idea where all the pressure is

 

[antlerradar]

They will still all sell, but that would cut the outfitted client base pretty much in half as well.

That is not how economics work. The demand curve for NR tags represents the value every NR is willing to pay for a tag. When you increase the price the people unwilling to pay the increased price are the ones that drop out of the draw. While some outfitter clients will drop out of the draw, most are still going to have a price point above any increase. Most of the hunters that are going to balk at a price increase are going to be DIY. This is what happened when I161 passed. Outfitters kept there clients and even expanded. NR price increases are the outfitters and out of state landowners friend.

 

[antlerradar]

This tired old point again?

Double the price. Cut the NR tags in half. Theyll still all sell.

This is what the backers of I161 told us. Didn't quite work out that way. Sure tags eventually sold out, but Montana had what was essentially OTC nonresident tags for years. It was a boom for outfitters and I would argue also a catalyst for the current trend of wealthy NR buying hunting ranches in Montana.
Now if you cut tag numbers in half, I would bet that the tags will still all go in the drawing. I would also bet that the economics of this would work just fine for outfitters and a real sweat deal for the wealthy NR landowners.

 

[Treeshark]

When you increase the price the people unwilling to pay the increased price are the ones that drop out of the draw.

I can see your point, and concede the outfitter/DIY mix would likely change slightly at first. However, I’m not sure tag price is the rate limiting factor for all that many DIY NRs these days (especially in a scenario in which scarcity also would double).

Do you think outfitters in general would oppose doubling NR $$ while reducing tags by 50%?