Montana Regional Caps and Limited Entry for Mule Deer.

[Forkyfinder]

10/4, sorry to sidetrack the discussion with an idea that may actually improve things

Im open to changing my mind - i just want a complete idea from you.

 

[Treeshark]

Im open to changing my mind - i just want a complete idea from you.

Montana should offer landowners transferable tags that they can sell in exchange for them opening their land for hunting. That’s the idea. It’s not complicated but it’s effective.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I understand the point you’re making, and don’t disagree. Again, I am not advancing LO opportunity as a replacement to BM.

I do wonder though if access the only goal here, or is there also an interest in improving game population?

There are already significant tools for improving habitat and improving game numbers and both proposals take on the antlerless issue.

Montana should offer landowners transferable tags that they can sell in exchange for them opening their land for hunting. That’s the idea. It’s not complicated but it’s effective.

It would effectively shut down the block management program in many areas.

 

[bigsky2]

I'm not sure you know what you're talking about Bigsky2...

No? There's currently 4500 total permits for the districts that used to make up the 900 bundle. When the 900-21 permit existed, the quota was 4000.

 

[Dukeball33]

No? There's currently 4500 total permits for the districts that used to make up the 900 bundle. When the 900-21 permit existed, the quota was 4000.

I was giving you a hard time... need the posts

 

[bigsky2]

I was giving you a hard time... need the posts

Watch your tongue or WYGFD is going to take away that sheep tag...

 

[Dukeball33]

Watch your tongue or WYGFD is going to take away that sheep tag...

blasphemy...

 

[Archer86]

Montana should offer landowners transferable tags that they can sell in exchange for them opening their land for hunting. That’s the idea. It’s not complicated but it’s effective.

Thats good way to take away opportunity for residents that's for sure. Opens up for nr no doubt

 

[Treeshark]

Thats good way to take away opportunity for residents that's for sure. Opens up for nr no doubt

Certainly could be a blind spot for me, but how would that take away opportunity for residents?

 

[MTGunner]

Certainly could be a blind spot for me, but how would that take away opportunity for residents?

Those that sign up for Block Management would opt out of this program to sell high priced tags to NR. It would be the end of Block Management. There are lots of private lands that are leased as is. More privatized land will not help. Only families, close friends and NR would have access to private lands. Besides, the game in MT does not belong to private land owners. Private property belongs to the owner. Game animals do NOT! MTG

 

[Pucky Freak]

Type 2 is fraught with abuse as we’ve all heard about here in HT.

N=1, but in my experience with multiple Type 2 LO’s is they are overwhelmingly honest and fair people. A simple call to FWP, and I got a run down of which Type 2 LO’s to contact for what I was hunting, best way to contact them and when, and how to land a reservation that met my plans and needs. It all panned out. The bad apples in the bunch take the spotlight, and the parameters of the program are loose. Make Type 2 parameters too tight and enforcement to stringent and you lose enrollment. The current balance may not be perfect, but it is far from terrible.

Insinuating that transferable tags are a viable alternative or supplement to that system is a bit ridiculous, regardless of my feelings about that mechanism.

MT MD overhunting/overcrowding is a glaring issue. Their BM program is a gem.

 

[antlerradar]

Montana should offer landowners transferable tags that they can sell in exchange for them opening their land for hunting. That’s the idea. It’s not complicated but it’s effective.

It all depends on the deal. I am sure sportsman would be happy with a deal that gave one transferable tag for unrestricted access to 25K acres. No landowner is going to take that deal. A math genus could draw out the curve of the deal that is acceptable to sportsman and a curve of the deal acceptable to landowners. There is good chance that those two curves do not intersect.

 

[Treeshark]

There is good chance that those two curves do not intersect.

Good post, @antlerradar, interesting point and I can’t say I disagree with your approach to analyzing it.

I would say that the curve changes as block management acres continues to diminish. Efforts to reduce nonresident participation will further create a funding headwind as well, which will likely change the equation further.

Reducing Type 2 block management and adding transferable LO option would likely be a net benefit to most people (except for “friends and family” of many of the enrolled landowners).

 

[SAJ-99]

N=1, but in my experience with multiple Type 2 LO’s is they are overwhelmingly honest and fair people. A simple call to FWP, and I got a run down of which Type 2 LO’s to contact for what I was hunting, best way to contact them and when, and how to land a reservation that met my plans and needs. It all panned out.

I wish that was the experience of more people. Unfortunately it seems an exception rather than the rule.

 

[Treeshark]

I wish that was the experience of more people. Unfortunately it seems an exception rather than the rule.

Sure seems like it. Here is one thread on the subject (there are others)

Type 2 Abuse

 

[Wind Gypsy]

Haven't read the 16 pages.

Seems like it'd be hard to set such a thing without more solid info on actual current hunter distribution/harvest in the current free for all set up.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

Any insight on this one? Why pay more when you can just jack NR prices even higher? (as you all recently did).

Apples to pistachios, I an aware, but a few years ago R IA deer tags went from $24 to $28.50. So your average R hunter buying a buck + extra doe tag shells out $57 + habitat fee + base license to hunt a long weekend. With few exceptions, each of our deer seasons requires a separate set of tags purchased. So hunt archery too, and the price of admission is $134.

Agency said fee has been flat while costs had gone up 50%. Response from the public? Then why didn’t you raise the price higher? I did not hear a peep from hunters about having to pay more. We know we are already getting world class deer hunting for peanuts. NR paying exorbitant fees are our friends and family members. We don’t want them paying any more than they already are.

Exceptions abound and I don’t mean to paint an overly rosy picture. Even so, it is hard to watch $16/$20 deer/elk being referred to as overpriced due to decreased hunt quality. Hunt quality is not going to improve until MT R hunters put up. It is almost as if we have to wait another 10 years for conditions to degrade so much more until enough R get fed up enough and demand a fee increase.

I pay over $100 for mediocre whitetail tags as a resident in MN most years. That's to shoot 1 buck but be able to hunt archery/firearm/muzzleloader seasons. What's $100 get MT residents? Fishing, upland birds, deer, elk, bear?

 

[Forkyfinder]

I pay over $100 for mediocre whitetail tags as a resident in MN most years. That's to shoot 1 buck but be able to hunt archery/firearm/muzzleloader seasons. What's $100 get MT residents? Fishing, upland birds, deer, elk, bear?

And a free chance at a supertag

 

[MTGunner]

I pay over $100 for mediocre whitetail tags as a resident in MN most years. That's to shoot 1 buck but be able to hunt archery/firearm/muzzleloader seasons. What's $100 get MT residents? Fishing, upland birds, deer, elk,

My recommendation would be to move to MT, or stop hunting in MT. Better options and less nonsense. The days of coming to MT to take a mediocre

antelope may be over. The days of coming to MT to shoot a mediocre mule deer may be over. The elk population is in trouble. The are other states, other countries with mule deer. Perhaps you should consider these options. MTG

 

[Wind Gypsy]

I've hunted with Outfitters twice in Montana. Both times I spent large quantities of cash in the local economies. License and tag money to the state, fees to the outfitter, money spent with the meat cutter, restaurants, gas stations...

Going after someone spending thousands of dollars in the local economy seems kinda dumb. Why cut out those extra dollars? I have done DIY hunts out west and spent much, much less.

If Montanan's want me to spend my money elsewhere, there are several other states lined up that will gladly take my money.

Cutting NR tags along with Resident tags is only part of the solution to help rebuild the mule deer herds. But complaining that outfitters and their clients are the problem is hardly a good argument. The outfit I went with cut their number of mule deer hunters by 30 per year from 2020 to 2023, on their own, without anyone saying they had to.

In my opinion, the 1st thing they should do is eliminate doe tags. Can't rebuild a herd when you keep killing off the ladies.

I hunted with an outfitter in MT once. They were based out of WY, so I paid them in WY, stayed in WY, ate in WY, filled my truck in WY, had meat processed in WY. But i did drive across the border and shoot a bull in MT.

On the flip side, i have spent many nights in hotels, AirbNbs, and local businesses on DIY hunts in MT.