Montana Mule Deer Mismanagement

[Treeshark]

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.

I agree with that whole post @Gerald Martin, but especially this part

I do think that is the part that residents would be wise to target first, but I also think that changing season dates is probably a close second place.

 

[Forkyfinder]

You know youve made a great point about DIY hunting when treecarp agrees.

 

[SAJ-99]

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.

I would say the low hanging fruit is even lower. Start with electronic, mandatory harvest reports. Data is the starting point and FWP would be hard pressed to be against it. If the issue is cost, increase license cost or change ANOTHER fee to get Montana into the 21st century.

 

[rogerthat]

I would say the low hanging fruit is even lower. Start with electronic, mandatory harvest reports. Data is the starting point and FWP would be hard pressed to be against it. If the issue is cost, increase license cost or change ANOTHER fee to get Montana into the 21st century.

Unfortunately, I believe they have been against this as well via legislation last session which they opposed and in other discussions about it.

 

[SAJ-99]

Unfortunately, I believe they have been against this as well via legislation last session which they opposed and in other discussions about it.

If I understand correctly, the excuse has been cost. If done right (not saying it would be) they would need to run both methods for a few years to find error adjustments. One small step at a time.

 

[rogerthat]

If I understand correctly, the excuse has been cost. If done right (not saying it would be) they would need to run both methods for a few years to find error adjustments. One small step at a time.

You might be right on cost but they have also represented that additional data is largely unnecessary as current methods are adequate. And honestly if you’re never going to change anything…like ever…they are probably correct. Be sweet to see that data though regardless

 

[SAJ-99]

You might be right on cost but they have also represented that additional data is largely unnecessary as current methods are adequate. And honestly if you’re never going to change anything…like ever…they are probably correct. Be sweet to see that data though regardless

I would argue current methods are adequate for harvest but not for determining hunter pressure.

I think E-tags are a step toward that. I'm sure a private discussion with FWP might give different views than what is said publicly. The truth is that the average Montana R hunter is anti-government, pro-conspiracy to the core. Arguing about data collection is a whole lot easier than arguing about tags/money. Baby steps.

 

[R.K.]

You might be right on cost but they have also represented that additional data is largely unnecessary as current methods are adequate. And honestly if you’re never going to change anything…like ever…they are probably correct. Be sweet to see that data though regardless

They might not want the data specifically because unpleasant data would force them to change things- which they don’t want to do.

I’m not saying all levels want this, but the leadership seems heavily invested in the “everything is fine, change nothing” ideology.

 

[8andcounting]

Meanwhile . I wonder how the game damage hunts are going in R7 . Crazy. 701 and 705 for deer.

FWP :: Hunt Roster Status

 

[easternmt]

It is the whole point. You know it. Maybe not to you or other HT'ers, but in Helena it is the WHOLE point. You want to look at the inequity in harvest and cry about "fair". When you charge NR that much you are going to decrease the willingness to eat the tag. Double the price of the tag and you reduce the amount of people that that spend money in places most people just drive through as fast as possible. There are impacts.

I think the cut ended up at 2500 on reissued licenses? Either way keep going. New legislature in 2027. Start your campaign now to raise fees and cut NR licenses.

To be fair……. to eat tag soup is a rare quality price excluded plenty of people, residents included “feel the need to go home with something no matter the cost

 

[antlerradar]

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 think that the outfitters would strongly oppose this. Would bring a lot of uncertainty into the market and no one likes uncertainty. Opposition doesn't mean that outfitters would ultimately be hurt baldly if this was to pass. Remember, the outfitters fought I 161 tooth and nail and when it passed they were laughing on there way to the bank. To really effect outfitters client numbers, you have to reduce the pool of potential clients, and doubling the price and cutting the tags in half will not reduce the pool of potential clients.
Wealthy NR landowners would likely set this one out but would be quietly hoping for it to pass.
For me, cutting NR numbers in half would be a big plus. The biggest downside I see is that this would do nothing to reduce FWP's reliance on the NR dollar. Likely make it even worse, because it would shift those dollars away from the average Joe DIY hunter and replace them with dollars from outfitters clients and wealthy NR that are leasing or bought land to hunt on. This shift in funding is not going to end well for those against commercialization of wildlife.