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%?

 

[Rack Daniels]

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

Don’t care

 

[Treeshark]

Don’t care

I get it, but they seem to be a difficult hurdle for residents to clear at times.

 

[Rack Daniels]

I get it, but they seem to be a difficult hurdle for residents to clear at times.

Politicians like shooting big, private elk too…

 

[cgasner1]

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%?

I would be against it if I was outfitting. Why would I wanna cut the tags in half for the state to make more money? As is they pretty much get them every year why risk it?

 

[Treeshark]

Why would I wanna cut the tags in half for the state to make more money? As is they pretty much get them every year why risk it?

Agree, that would be my assumption as well.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Agree, that would be my assumption as well.

Thats what big shooter and the rest of the outfitter representation said about any LE season.

Guess i should have just bought all the doe tags i could have and tried to do my part to get to a desperate level. Only way that it could be managed like Wy and cut 10k NR tags in 10 years.

 

[Forkyfinder]

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%?

Yeah - i think he heard big shooter and albus shoot down any sort of LE season plenty of times. Perhaps thats why it strikes a nerve any time its brought up

Unfortunately for moga MT residents wont pay for access to shoot 140" deer.

 

[Alpine01]

Thats what big shooter and the rest of the outfitter representation said about any LE season.

Guess i should have just bought all the doe tags i could have and tried to do my part to get to a desperate level. Only way that it could be managed like Wy and cut 10k NR tags in 10 years.

Right .... And kill off 20000+ deer over the course of one winter to effect that change. Sounds like a sound strategy you have there.

 

[Forkyfinder]

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

I think thats the best idea yet.

Right .... And kill off 20000+ deer over the course of one winter to effect that change. Sounds like a sound strategy you have there.

Ive never killed a mule deer doe in my life. Save for some truck impacts. Plenty of people who whine about the current population sure have though.

 

[bigsky2]

Don’t care

If you want to see any change you better care, at least a little bit. Gianforte is pretty connected with MOGA. I think he is often at their annual convention. FWP takes their marching orders from Gianforte. Hell, even a lot of the commission's amendments are drafted by MOGA. Its unfortunate, but I don't see any change happening without support from outfitters.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Yeah - i think he heard big shooter and albus shoot down any sort of LE season plenty of times. Perhaps thats why it strikes a nerve any time its brought up

Unfortunately for moga MT residents wont pay for access to shoot 140" deer.

Folks pushing the LE strategy generally come at it in one of two ways.
1. Make tags so numerous that it has no practical effect on the amount of deer harvest but ensures that NR are limited to 10% of tags.

2. Make number of tags issued limited by population counts and set them low enough to ensure harvest doesn’t exceed an optimal percentage of bucks.

In scenario #1 the only practical effect would be that NR’s would be limited. Harvest wouldn’t change much at all. It would destabilize the outfitting industry and put a serious strain on FWP’s operational budget. Folks pushing this strategy do not have the representative influence to enact legislation to change multiple laws that establish the legal parameters for how residents and nonresidents obtain licenses. MOGA and FWP will definitely oppose this strategy legislatively and it wouldn’t change anything positive for mule deer biologically.

Scenario #2 would probably have some positive effects on age class of bucks and buck/doe population ratio. It would also come at the cost of a lot of hopeful resident and nonresidents not being able to hunt deer each fall. Resident hunter opposition to scenario #2 ,MOGA and department opposition at the legislature ensures that this won’t happen any time soon.

Social acceptance of major changes in mule deer management is one of the most important hurdles that has to be overcome by proponents of a different strategy. Framing MOGA and landowners as the bad guys and looking only at NR overcrowding isn’t going to change much of anything for the good at ground level.

The lowest hanging fruit to be plucked on limiting NR numbers from a financial cost and non opposition from MOGA would be the 1/2 price NR licenses in excess of the B-10 and B-11 cap that are sold OTC to former residents.

Those licenses represent about 3500 individual hunters and approximately 6000 additional either sex deer and elk license. A large portion of those hunters and licenses are in direct competition with resident hunters on public land.

I’d love to see the loudest voices against NR’s in the social space and legislature start with the low hanging fruit. In my opinion there’s a lot at complaining about NR’s and not much action on the easiest part to change about bringing NR numbers down to the historic caps.