Montana Regional Caps and Limited Entry for Mule Deer.

[Forkyfinder]

The wrench in that however is the statutory required number of nr tags so all you can do is move them between regions. When you make cuts to one region you would need to add those to a different region. I think that’s where Montanas system is hosed up compared to other states that do sonething similar like that such as Idaho.

I dont think theres anything in statute saying its got to be a mule deer - right?

 

[bigsky2]

I could also see FWP setting the caps high, so that the caps for all 7 regions added up to more than the current number set in statute.

That’s what happened when they broke up the archery elk bundle. We ended up with more overall permits.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Off the top of my head is it 15% ? I don't remember. Age structure doesn't give a shit about your license plate what matters is total tag numbers and pressure. It does however matter if you get shot at for 8 weeks straight, including the heart of the rut. This really isn't as complicated as some make it out to be. You can't please everyone, the sooner you care about the resource and less about the morons the better it'll get. They're gonna buy the tag regardless.

They also dont give a shit what week it is.

Finding an immature mule deer in october isnt hard.

 

[Archer86]

The wrench in that however is the statutory required number of nr tags so all you can do is move them between regions. When you make cuts to one region you would need to add those to a different region. I think that’s where Montanas system is hosed up compared to other states that do sonething similar like that such as Idaho.

Idaho had a set number of tags to sell also before they went to a unit systems montanas can be changed if it needs to be its not a big deal to make some small changes and like was pointed out below there are plenty of elk to full fill the quota if that's a possibility.

 

[rogerthat]

Idaho had a set number of tags to sell also before they went to a unit systems montanas can be changed if it needs to be its not a big deal to make some small changes and like was pointed out below there are plenty of elk to full fill the quota if that's a possibility.

I’m not sure how easy it would be to get anything changed legislatively. Maybe easy but probably not if it was to change anything season wise. The legislature has done a good job of creating a lot more nr tags through its little carve outs like come home to hunt. Not so sure cutting them back would be easy

 

[antlerradar]

If theres a regional cap - you cant sell your sizzlin forky hunt to every NR. Only the ones in your unit. A lot like LE of ANY kind.

Oh right. Impossible.

The only regional cap proposal I have seen has preference for outfitter clients. The sizzling forky hunt is still on.
I understand some would like to use the 10% rule to cut outfitters out of clients. With outfitters taking less then half of the NR hunters and if you give outfitter clients preference in the draw. My question is how much would you have to cut resident hunters so that outfitter clients did not draw?

 

[Forkyfinder]

The only regional cap proposal I have seen has preference for outfitter clients. The sizzling forky hunt is still on.
I understand some would like to use the 10% rule to cut outfitters out of clients. With outfitters taking less then half of the NR hunters and if you give outfitter clients preference in the draw. My question is how much would you have to cut resident hunters so that outfitter clients did not draw?

I think you misunderstand. The intents not to cut out outfitters. The point is that they will never be in favor of LE or regional caps - because it hurts their market. Regardless if it would be best for mule deer.

 

[antlerradar]

I think you misunderstand. The intents not to cut out outfitters. The point is that they will never be in favor of LE or regional caps - because it hurts their market. Regardless if it would be best for mule deer.

I have a feeling that outfitters would be all in on LE or regional caps if their clients got preference in the draw.

 

[Elktrack]

I have a feeling that outfitters would be all in on LE or regional caps if their clients got preference in the draw.

How much more preference do outfitters need?? Want to just start subsidizing them for any perceived loss of opportunity? Outfitters might actually have to work with less tags too. Why should they be excepted from the possible reduction in tags?
Laughable, cut NR tags!! Wait, don’t cut tags for the outfitted NR.

 

[Schaaf]

How much more preference do outfitters need?? Want to just start subsidizing them for any perceived loss of opportunity? Outfitters might actually have to work with less tags too. Why should they be excepted from the possible reduction in tags?
Laughable, cut NR tags!! Wait, don’t cut tags for the outfitted NR.

He’s saying outfitted NR’s already have preference in the draw due to the 2023 session.

 

[Forkyfinder]

He’s saying outfitted NR’s already have preference in the draw due to the 2023 session.

Not the case entirely.

An outfitted NR will get PP faster - but not BP.

 

[Schaaf]

Not the case entirely.

An outfitted NR will get PP faster - but not BP.

Just wait, the legislature will fix that.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Just wait, the legislature will fix that.

I suppose. The seals been broken to giving NR LO massive preference.

Strange how politicians seem to represent their non-constituents.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Why the hate for outfitters? Even if they were cut completely out there isn’t enough scale with the amount of clients they take to alleviate the pressure from an 11 week OTC general season. Outfitters account for @ 7000 hunters annually. There’s nearly 200,000 deer hunters each year.

It makes no sense to me that if easing pressure on the resource is the focus and LE or regional caps is the mechanism to do so that reduction of R licenses aren’t front and center in the conversation.

This intense focus on NR and outfitted NR as the way to solve a problem by cutting a percentage of 25% of the total number of hunters doesn’t make sense to me if reducing pressure on the resource is the real focus.

I get it that NR and outfitted hunters are a convenient target for venting frustration. But venting frustration doesn’t solve a problem.

Not only that, in my opinion we’re at some semblance of equilibrium on the political front with the historic tension between MOGA , resident hunters, and landowners. Asking everyone to sacrifice an equal portion of opportunity is one thing. Asking one set of stakeholders to bear the brunt of the reduction is sure to trigger a renewed political fight that has a high likelihood of seeing even more preferential access towards NR licenses for outfitters. I can almost guarantee that if MOGA feels like it has to go to legislature to protect the status quo they are going to make sure they get more than just the status quo as an outcome.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Why the hate for outfitters? Even if they were cut completely out there isn’t enough scale with the amount of clients they take to alleviate the pressure from an 11 week OTC general season. Outfitters account for @ 7000 hunters annually. There’s nearly 200,000 deer hunters each year.

It makes no sense to me that if easing pressure on the resource is the focus and LE or regional caps is the mechanism to do so that reduction of R licenses aren’t front and center in the conversation.

This intense focus on NR and outfitted NR as the way to solve a problem by cutting a percentage of 25% of the total number of hunters doesn’t make sense to me if reducing pressure on the resource is the real focus.

I get it that NR and outfitted hunters are a convenient target for venting frustration. But venting frustration doesn’t solve a problem.

Not only that, in my opinion we’re at some semblance of equilibrium on the political front with the historic tension between MOGA , resident hunters, and landowners. Asking everyone to sacrifice an equal portion of opportunity is one thing. Asking one set of stakeholders to bear the brunt of the reduction is sure to trigger a renewed political fight that has a high likelihood of seeing even more preferential access towards NR licenses for outfitters. I can almost guarantee that if MOGA feels like it has to go to legislature to protect the status quo they are going to make sure they get more than just the status quo as an outcome.

Stakeholders - or shareholders?

How is the entire state going LE for mule deer putting anyone first exactly?

 

[Gerald Martin]

Stakeholders - or shareholders?

How is the entire state going LE for mule deer putting anyone first exactly?

Potato, potatoe. I’m not interested in semantics. MOGA has demonstrated their ability to protect and advance their interests in a sympathetic legislature. If solving the issue is the focus, working as partners with folks who share the overall conclusion that
something needs to change to alleviate pressure to the resource, makes a whole lot more sense than forcing a solution that guarantees that relationship will be adversarial rather than a partnership.

If LE quotas are set low enough to ensure that a significant portion of R hunters don’t get to hunt mule deer each year, residents will be in opposition to that and will be putting significant pressure on FWP to not implement LE. That’s one reason why FWP made it clear to us from the outset not to pursue LE.

If LE quotas are high enough to ensure that all residents get to hunt mule deer, it will ensure that only 10% of those permits are allocated to NR. In effect, that method of card shuffling ensures that only NR and outfitters are affected and R hunters continue to hunt without any reduction in opportunity.

Going about this in a way that requires the legislature to change policy or introduce new legislation is a can of worms I’m not excited about opening.

 

[antlerradar]

How much more preference do outfitters need?? Want to just start subsidizing them for any perceived loss of opportunity? Outfitters might actually have to work with less tags too. Why should they be excepted from the possible reduction in tags?
Laughable, cut NR tags!! Wait, don’t cut tags for the outfitted NR.

Don't ask me, I am not the one proposing it. My personal thoughts are that preference would be zero.

 

[antlerradar]

He’s saying outfitted NR’s already have preference in the draw due to the 2023 session.

And the "sniveling bitches" proposal includes it also.

 

[antlerradar]

Just wait, the legislature will fix that.

Not the case entirely.

An outfitted NR will get PP faster - but not BP.

Likely will not need BP unless we cut tags.

 

[Archer86]

Why the hate for outfitters? Even if they were cut completely out there isn’t enough scale with the amount of clients they take to alleviate the pressure from an 11 week OTC general season. Outfitters account for @ 7000 hunters annually. There’s nearly 200,000 deer hunters each year.

It makes no sense to me that if easing pressure on the resource is the focus and LE or regional caps is the mechanism to do so that reduction of R licenses aren’t front and center in the conversation.

This intense focus on NR and outfitted NR as the way to solve a problem by cutting a percentage of 25% of the total number of hunters doesn’t make sense to me if reducing pressure on the resource is the real focus.

I get it that NR and outfitted hunters are a convenient target for venting frustration. But venting frustration doesn’t solve a problem.

Not only that, in my opinion we’re at some semblance of equilibrium on the political front with the historic tension between MOGA , resident hunters, and landowners. Asking everyone to sacrifice an equal portion of opportunity is one thing. Asking one set of stakeholders to bear the brunt of the reduction is sure to trigger a renewed political fight that has a high likelihood of seeing even more preferential access towards NR licenses for outfitters. I can almost guarantee that if MOGA feels like it has to go to legislature to protect the status quo they are going to make sure they get more than just the status quo as an outcome.

I think the part you miss with the 200,00 deer hunters is a resident buys a license they are a hunter even if they only go out one day or only hunt private might have very little impact on the overall pressure on the resource

A nr buys a license you better believe they are going to be there for a week at a minimum and most are going to do more then that to fill a tag. Just curious are you a nr to montana now?