Montana Mule Deer Mismanagement

[bigsky2]

Montana Hunters First Act (House Bill 568) | Montana FWP

The Montana Hunters First Act (House Bill 568) passed during the 2025 Montana legislative session. Governor Greg Gianforte signed it into law May 8, 2025. This “study bill” does not immediately change hunting seasons, license quotas, or resident/nonresident allocations. Instead, it directs...

fwp.mt.gov

Here’s everyone chance to give their input on the impact of NR hunters in Montana.

 

[8andcounting]

Montana Hunters First Act (House Bill 568) | Montana FWP

The Montana Hunters First Act (House Bill 568) passed during the 2025 Montana legislative session. Governor Greg Gianforte signed it into law May 8, 2025. This “study bill” does not immediately change hunting seasons, license quotas, or resident/nonresident allocations. Instead, it directs...

fwp.mt.gov

Here’s everyone chance to give their input on the impact of NR hunters in Montana.

This should be interesting

 

[cgasner1]

Montana Hunters First Act (House Bill 568) | Montana FWP

The Montana Hunters First Act (House Bill 568) passed during the 2025 Montana legislative session. Governor Greg Gianforte signed it into law May 8, 2025. This “study bill” does not immediately change hunting seasons, license quotas, or resident/nonresident allocations. Instead, it directs...

fwp.mt.gov

Here’s everyone chance to give their input on the impact of NR hunters in Montana.

That was a intense survey

 

[Gerald Martin]

That was a intense survey

Show me on the doll where that NR hunter hurt you….

 

[cgasner1]

Show me on the doll where that NR hunter hurt you….

I didn’t go into much detail on it because I was expecting more than 3 questions

 

[Forkyfinder]

Montana Hunters First Act (House Bill 568) | Montana FWP

The Montana Hunters First Act (House Bill 568) passed during the 2025 Montana legislative session. Governor Greg Gianforte signed it into law May 8, 2025. This “study bill” does not immediately change hunting seasons, license quotas, or resident/nonresident allocations. Instead, it directs...

fwp.mt.gov

Here’s everyone chance to give their input on the impact of NR hunters in Montana.

Thanks i have provided my feedback. I wish there were more than 3 questions.

It's great that the legislature passed House Bill 568. Its clear that hunters are feeling the impacts enough for the legislature to pass this, and i hope the survey results lead to action. Perhaps the easiest end would be 5000 "orphanned" deer tags, come home to hunt, college kid otc, etc. before even touching the oversold in statute combo tags.

There are more than a few loud groups here, elsewhere, but at worst in Helena that forget that this is a resource managed for the residents of the state. Not the outfitting industry. Not landowners. Not cafes in glendive. For all residents of the state.

It brings a big smile to my face that this is coming around - long before the doom and gloom (or hope, in treecarps unique case) of transferable tags.

 

[INMT]

I did like the narrative over multiple choice.

 

[brockel]

Imagine if they had something like that you had to fill out on your previous years deer tag before you could purchase this years tag. Of course a few more questions

 

[DFS]

It really didn’t target nonresidents it just asks the changes you’ve seen since 2016. In another 10 years we will wash the past again and be told yeah but just think about how bad it could be.

 

[sclancy27]

In complete honesty, that is the least biased survey I have, or likely will, ever see from FWP. Now, I have no idea how the hell they are going to analyze responses. It's going to read like the comments to commission proposals, 99% moronic drivel, 1% rational thought.

 

[Eric Albus]

I didn’t go into much detail on it because I was expecting more than 3 questions

Me also… my answers were as follows:
Abysmal, didn’t hunt elk, and decent(my last and final answer)

 

[WanderWoman]

In complete honesty, that is the least biased survey I have, or likely will, ever see from FWP. Now, I have no idea how the hell they are going to analyze responses. It's going to read like the comments to commission proposals, 99% moronic drivel, 1% rational thought.

Perhaps the questions, but I think the sampling design could be biased. Since it’s just openly available to whoever it’s likely that many people who feel strongly about it either way are more likely to respond than the general public. But perhaps that’s what they want, or they will be distributing it other ways, I don’t know.

While I think open-ended responses are super valuable, I also pity the poor person that’s going to have to compile, translate, and group them.

Also the more detailed someone can be in explaining their views, the better.

 

[sclancy27]

Perhaps the questions, but I think the sampling design could be biased. Since it’s just openly available to whoever it’s likely that many people who feel strongly about it either way are more likely to respond than the general public. But perhaps that’s what they want, or they will be distributing it other ways, I don’t know.

While I think open-ended responses are super valuable, I also pity the poor person that’s going to have to compile, translate, and group them.

Also the more detailed someone can be in explaining their views, the better.

I was specifically talking about the questions. They will prob have AI group them.....

 

[cgasner1]

The questions could have almost been better off with a 1-10 instead of being a blank space

 

[SAJ-99]

Now, I have no idea how the hell they are going to analyze responses.

Exactly. Open ended surveys are a terrible way to survey for that reason.

I don’t see how any of those questions have anything to do with NR impact on R hunting. Mostly seems like a way to let people vent. It only needed one question. “Are you willing to pay more for a deer tag to reduce NR numbers in the field?”

 

[Treeshark]

It is interesting that you can respond to the survey as many times as you want. I’m surprised they didn’t limit that.

 

[brockel]

It is interesting that you can respond to the survey as many times as you want. I’m surprised they didn’t limit that.

It’s because they will do nothing with it. It’s just a “see we do care”

 

[Treeshark]

It’s because they will do nothing with it. It’s just a “see we do care”

That could be. Not restricting it to residents-only was also a bit surprising.