Montana Regional Caps and Limited Entry for Mule Deer.

[Elktrack]

The biggest problem is everyone points the finger at the other guy. It’s the nr or it’s the region 1 guys. That’s who should be giving up the opportunity the other guy. Until people are willing to start giving up their own opportunities we are all #@)(*%* and nothing changes. I think a region split is a horrible idea in any way that it’s done. I say that after being heavily impacted from the 900 archery split. The easiest starting point to me on any of this would be a species split but everyone still wants to be able to murder any animal they see even if they can only hunt in region 6 it’s their right to kill any deer with a horn

I agree.
To your point though, I see this as a situation that requires a third option. Strictly LE or regional caps might not get the support needed without an option for guys to get a general tag. I think there needs to be general tag areas that are basically a free for all, for lack of better description.

The regional cap doesn’t ensure hunter dispersal. Let’s say region 7 was quota. What’s to prevent everyone heading to 704?? I think it would require every individual unit to be either LE or general non quota. Example, units 201 and 202. One LE MD, the other general. Same region, different quotas.

 

[Ben Lamb]

One of the issues that tend to frustrate a lot of folks is the public sentiment issue. We all tend to isolate ourselves in bubbles that will reaffirm our own biases and it's difficult to break out of that.

The 2023 Resident Mule Deer hunter survey from FWP is worth spending some time on: https://fwp.mt.gov/binaries/content...ule-deer-resident-deer-hunter-survey-2023.pdf

That survey helps set some sideboards on what is likely achievable and what isn't.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I agree.
To your point though, I see this as a situation that requires a third option. Strictly LE or regional caps might not get the support needed without an option for guys to get a general tag. I think there needs to be general tag areas that are basically a free for all, for lack of better description.

The regional cap doesn’t ensure hunter dispersal. Let’s say region 7 was quota. What’s to prevent everyone heading to 704?? I think it would require every individual unit to be either LE or general non quota. Example, units 201 and 202. One LE MD, the other general. Same region, different quotas.

So, would it be fair to say a simple explanation is more limited districts or regions and the overflow goes into fewer general units? If so, who gets to pick which areas are limited and which remain general?

I could only support a system like that if I was guaranteed that areas I like to hunt are limited and the overflow is directed into areas I don’t ever intend to hunt….

 

[cgasner1]

I agree.
To your point though, I see this as a situation that requires a third option. Strictly LE or regional caps might not get the support needed without an option for guys to get a general tag. I think there needs to be general tag areas that are basically a free for all, for lack of better description.

The regional cap doesn’t ensure hunter dispersal. Let’s say region 7 was quota. What’s to prevent everyone heading to 704?? I think it would require every individual unit to be either LE or general non quota. Example, units 201 and 202. One LE MD, the other general. Same region, different quotas.

And that is basically a scare the other guy mentally. I want were I hunt to be limited especially if I only come hunt it every few years I can plan around it and have a beater hunt and could give a shit less about the other guy. Regional caps are a bad idea. So far no one on here has really posted a pro

 

[Elktrack]

So, would it be fair to say a simple explanation is more limited districts or regions and the overflow goes into fewer general units? If so, who gets to pick which areas are limited and which remain general?

I could only support a system like that if I was guaranteed that areas I like to hunt are limited and the overflow is directed into areas I don’t ever intend to hunt….

Yes, that’s a fair generalization of what I think would work.

FWP would need to step up to the plate and make some management decisions. Obviously there’ll be lots of opinions. I think this could provide “opportunity “ and at the same time have some higher quality units.

Only if it doesn’t mess with your units huh? That’s the attitude that will prevent anything from ever happening.
Good luck

 

[Forkyfinder]

One of the issues that tend to frustrate a lot of folks is the public sentiment issue. We all tend to isolate ourselves in bubbles that will reaffirm our own biases and it's difficult to break out of that.

The 2023 Resident Mule Deer hunter survey from FWP is worth spending some time on: https://fwp.mt.gov/binaries/content...ule-deer-resident-deer-hunter-survey-2023.pdf

That survey helps set some sideboards on what is likely achievable and what isn't.

Ben - the same survey says Montanans want to continue rut hunting.

 

[brockel]

Fwp would have to have the numbers on how many mule deer are in each region. Then they would need to figure out how many are killed each year not from hunting. Then they would need to figure out how many more can be killed for that region with hunting and still either maintain or grow the herd. That number would be the amount of tags that could be issued. Then they can figure the resident/non resident tag percentages. Same as what they do for antelope every year.

General tag could still be open to whitetail hunting as the whitetail populations seem to be growing at least in areas I’ve hunted. If that starts to not be the case then the same program could be used on whitetail.

 

[bigsky2]

Yes, that’s a fair generalization of what I think would work.

FWP would need to step up to the plate and make some management decisions. Obviously there’ll be lots of opinions. I think this could provide “opportunity “ and at the same time have some higher quality units.

Only if it doesn’t mess with your units huh? That’s the attitude that will prevent anything from ever happening.
Good luck

I believe Gerald is just trying to prove a point about the selfish mentality. I would hate to have the areas I hunt become the sacrificial general areas under this scenario.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Fwp would have to have the numbers on how many mule deer are in each region. Then they would need to figure out how many are killed each year not from hunting. Then they would need to figure out how many more can be killed for that region with hunting and still either maintain or grow the herd. That number would be the amount of tags that could be issued. Then they can figure the resident/non resident tag percentages. Same as what they do for antelope every year.

General tag could still be open to whitetail hunting as the whitetail populations seem to be growing at least in areas I’ve hunted. If that starts to not be the case then the same program could be used on whitetail.

Would you suggest a full 90/10 split then on the regional choice? And what does this mean for increased pressure on Whitetail if you are only trying to shift NR pressure away from a handful of regions?

Ben - the same survey says Montanans want to continue rut hunting.

Yes it does.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Would you suggest a full 90/10 split then on the regional choice? And what does this mean for increased pressure on Whitetail if you are only trying to shift NR pressure away from a handful of regions?



Yes it does.

Provided there are enough LE tags - why is a 90/10 split so bad?

 

[brockel]

Would you suggest a full 90/10 split then on the regional choice? And what does this mean for increased pressure on Whitetail if you are only trying to shift NR pressure away from a handful of regions?

I think whitetail can handle the increased pressure compared to mule deer even during the rut. A whitetail doe isn’t going to stick around as someone gets out of their pickup to shoot them like a mule deer doe. When that whitetail doe takes off she’s taking that rutted up buck with her. On this side of the state majority of the whitetail are on private land anyways. On the western side of the state from what I’ve been told mountain whitetail hunting is quite the challenge.

As far as the 90/10 I guess it would have to depend on how many deer the biologist thinks can be killed. Units that have leftover that people didn’t apply for could be sold in the surplus first come first serve.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Provided there are enough LE tags - why is a 90/10 split so bad?

I've read how @brockel would make that split and it does seem like a significant change from how FWP figures permits based on herd counts, etc. Would this be a different type of LE then, one that doesn't look so much at the overall population of MD, but rather the carrying capacity for NR hunters?

 

[Sioux33]

The survey says people want to hunt mule deer every year, in the rut. Landowners rightfully don't want any longer seasons, and hunting pressure needs to subside if we want to reverse the November free-for-all that it's become.

I'd be in favor of the same season dates, but turn it from a general 5 week to a general 1.5-2 week, with a liberal limited entry season that would allow you to draw a tag every 2-3 years during the rut. Maybe some of the less appealing areas would be every year? So, you're hunting every year guaranteed and every couple of years you get a more enjoyable rut hunt with less pressure everywhere.

I'd also be in favor of following what Idaho did and making it pick your region for NR's. At least start there and see how it goes. It might not be perfect to start, but can be refined after a couple of years.

I wish I had the time to crunch these numbers, but as a general theory, this is what I'd prefer to see. Might not be perfect, but it's better than what we're currently doing and not a huge change, really only a couple of things, LE and regional caps.

I really like a lot of things the group put together, but I think extending the season dates any, at all, is playing with fire for block management, which is too valuable to risk imo.

 

[bigsky2]

Provided there are enough LE tags - why is a 90/10 split so bad?

Are you saying a 90/10 split in most of the state, with that 10% still meeting the 17,000 NR cap? That would equal a whole lot of “LE” permits.

 

[brockel]

So, would it be fair to say a simple explanation is more limited districts or regions and the overflow goes into fewer general units? If so, who gets to pick which areas are limited and which remain general?

I could only support a system like that if I was guaranteed that areas I like to hunt are limited and the overflow is directed into areas I don’t ever intend to hunt….

Ya you can’t have a few general units with majority being LE. Ask the 700 guys about how they feel about the overflow from 410.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I think whitetail can handle the increased pressure compared to mule deer even during the rut. A whitetail doe isn’t going to stick around as someone gets out of their pickup to shoot them like a mule deer doe. When that whitetail doe takes off she’s taking that rutted up buck with her. On this side of the state majority of the whitetail are on private land anyways. On the western side of the state from what I’ve been told mountain whitetail hunting is quite the challenge.

As far as the 90/10 I guess it would have to depend on how many deer the biologist thinks can be killed. Units that have leftover that people didn’t apply for could be sold in the surplus first come first serve.

Interesting. I've heard a lot of concerns from R1 & R2 folks about the impacts to whitetail from both proposals.

Appreciate the explanation!

 

[brockel]

Interesting. I've heard a lot of concerns from R1 & R2 folks about the impacts to whitetail from both proposals.

Appreciate the explanation!

I’ve never deer hunted those areas so I have zero input on how it would impact the whitetail in those areas. The mountain whitetail I’ve seen while elk hunting seem to be just as skittish as our eastern Montana whitetail.

 

[brockel]

Are you saying a 90/10 split in most of the state, with that 10% still meeting the 17,000 NR cap? That would equal a whole lot of “LE” permits.

Are we more worried about hitting the 17k in tags or bringing in the same amount of revenue that those 17k brings in?

 

[bigsky2]

Are we more worried about hitting the 17k in tags or bringing in the same amount of revenue that those 17k brings in?

I’d be more concerned about bringing in the same revenue. I’m not sure how the statute reads. Is the department required to issue 17k or is that just the max?

 

[brockel]

I’d be more concerned about bringing in the same revenue. I’m not sure how the statute reads. Is the department required to issue 17k or is that just the max?

We could do the same as what Arizona does and have a non refundable $150 that you must buy to apply for a tag. Anyone know how many non residents are putting in an application every year for all species?