MT Licensing System - Burn it down? How to Improve it?

[Big Fin]

I agree, 200-300 come home to hunt tags out of 59000(from the article) nr tags seems totally irrelevant.
Not sure why big fin chose to do away with come home to hunt tags as a major way to fix Montana draw systems.

All of this is good discussion. Helpful to see where resistance will come in simplifying any part of what currently contributes to Montana's messed up non-resident licensing system.

As to the comment above, in what I proposed, I did not just focus on the "Come Home To Hunt Tags." I focused on all the "work around" programs, which in their entirety end up being more than 200-330. And, none of the "work around" programs are a major fix by themselves, but in their entirety, these programs are a significant number of tags and are the springboard for continual legislative proposals to create new ways for NRs to get around the normal NR system (HB 505 in 2021 the most recent effort).

I presented my suggestions that if it is not palatable to get rid of those "work around" programs, that those tags get drawn first and count toward the 17,000/4,600 quota. I really don't care what method is used, the idea is to simplify (which doesn't happen by keeping all these programs in place) and get back to the number that is always used/promised, that being 17,000/4,600 NR tags are all that we issue in MT.

As for the "Come Home To Hunt" gig, that was passed by a few Legislators whose kids had moved away for big paying jobs. They wanted their kids to have an inside track to come back and hunt, at lower fees. The self-serving principle of how that was enacted is in itself frustrating. To date, nobody has been able to explain to me why the person who moves away, usually for more money, needs a shortcut to tags or needs to pay less than other NRs.

If enough folks don't want to get rid of the "work around" programs, then I'll ask for suggestions of how they propose that we get to the cap we are always told exists, 17,000/4,600? I don't really care how it is done. I'm just looking to get a handle on the "work arounds" that are now in place and other license add-ons that seem to get proposed in legislation.

There is obviously some dislike of the proposal to change/remove these "work arounds," something I think it a healthy discussion. With that, let's discuss the rationale for keeping the "work around" licenses in place. Saying "It's only 200-300" doesn't really give much rationale for why it should stay in place. So, rhetorically asking, .........

- Have these NRs done something for wildlife/habitat/hunting that they should deserve a detour around the long line of NRs?

- Have they done something that justifies why they should get a 50% discount from other non-residents?

Those two questions above were questions asked of the legislators sponsoring and supporting these "work arounds." They never answered them. It was mostly about how great it would be if their family members could get to the front of the line without having to stand in line with the rest of the NRs and how these chosen groups shouldn't have to pay full freight.

This is not an issue that I'm gonna live/die on when it comes to proposals for simplifying our process. I think it is worthwhile to have the discussion. I'm pretty sure I know how MOGA is going to vote if MOGA is presented with the options of 1) getting rid of these "work around" programs, or 2) have these tags come out of the 17,000/4,600 NR general pool.

By taking them out of the NR pool of 17,000/4,600, it makes it that much harder for the other NRs to draw. We complain about how pools of tags for outfitters are unfair and work against non-guided NRs, these programs are essentially the same - endowing a certain group of NRs that meet certain criteria with a privilege over other NRs.

I think the value of this discussion shows how hard it is to change something, NR tag work arounds in this case, once it is in place. Once passed, not only is it hard to change or eliminate, it tempts people and legislators to expand the "work arounds" to other programs and other groups. Tags, which are an allocation of wildlife resource, get handed out to anyone who can meet a certain profile.

 

[OntarioHunter]

17,500 NR tags is 17,500. Take all of the special considerations, preferences, etc. out of that total and don’t exceed the cap.

@OntarioHunter, you mentioned the unit you hunt had a surplus of deer. Is that according to FWP counts conducted by a biologist across the whole unit or because you saw a bunch of deer in the area you hunt and figured it’s that way everywhere?

I know the biologist’s counts were showing up to a 40% decrease of deer in some of those units.

Unlimited caps on some NR B licenses absolutely translates to more boots on the ground each hunting season and contributes to perceptions of overcrowding of hunters.

I hunt that unit top to bottom for at least a month. I see tons of deer and at least one a year makes it on my front bumper. The landowner where I shot my buck was the one who told me there were extra B tags and please go get one. "These deer are just going to die anyway. The drought wiped out the range." Havre office was sold out by the time I got there which was fine because I really didn't want to mess with another one anyway, but I prefer to keep the guy happy too (BMA). Tge deer were cleaning up his winter wheat. I shot my buck from a flock of fifteen with another better buck in it. Next day on the adjacent property I saw seven bucks together (I went back to hunt birds). Last year I hunted deer maybe four hours before punching out. If that place was "overcrowded" with hunters I couldn't see it.

 

[brockel]

I hunt that unit top to bottom for at least a month. I see tons of deer and at least one a year makes it on my front bumper. The landowner where I shot my buck was the one who told me there were extra B tags and please go get one. "These deer are just going to die anyway. The drought wiped out the range." Havre office was sold out by the time I got there which was fine because I really didn't want to mess with another one anyway, but I prefer to keep the guy happy too (BMA). Tge deer were cleaning up his winter wheat. I shot my buck from a flock of fifteen with another better buck in it. Next day on the adjacent property I saw seven bucks together (I went back to hunt birds). Last year I hunted deer maybe four hours before punching out. If that place was "overcrowded" with hunters I couldn't see it.

So you drive in Montana for one month out of the year and you hit at least one deer with your vehicle in that month every year? I’ve drove in Montana and basically drive for a living for the last 17 years and I’ve hit 3 in that 17 years. I’d hate to pay your insurance.

 

[Johnny Bravo]

What needs to happen is they need to quit trying to accommodate every group known to man, quit this NR land owner stuff, quit letting money be the quantifier and stop PP/BP 100% and go to a 100% random draw. Every person gets a number when they apply and use a random number grabber for the amount of tags available , it's really that simple. The money grab is what complicates all of these states hunting "strategies".

 

[Deleted member 20812]

A question: Are the landowner preference sponsored tickets tags good for ONLY hunting on the landowner's property?

Yes

 

[OntarioHunter]

All of this is good discussion. Helpful to see where resistance will come in simplifying any part of what currently contributes to Montana's messed up non-resident licensing system.

As to the comment above, in what I proposed, I did not just focus on the "Come Home To Hunt Tags." I focused on all the "work around" programs, which in their entirety end up being more than 200-330. And, none of the "work around" programs are a major fix by themselves, but in their entirety, these programs are a significant number of tags and are the springboard for continual legislative proposals to create new ways for NRs to get around the normal NR system (HB 505 in 2021 the most recent effort).

I presented my suggestions that if it is not palatable to get rid of those "work around" programs, that those tags get drawn first and count toward the 17,000/4,600 quota. I really don't care what method is used, the idea is to simplify (which doesn't happen by keeping all these programs in place) and get back to the number that is always used/promised, that being 17,000/4,600 NR tags are all that we issue in MT.

As for the "Come Home To Hunt" gig, that was passed by a few Legislators whose kids had moved away for big paying jobs. They wanted their kids to have an inside track to come back and hunt, at lower fees. The self-serving principle of how that was enacted is in itself frustrating. To date, nobody has been able to explain to me why the person who moves away, usually for more money, needs a shortcut to tags or needs to pay less than other NRs.

If enough folks don't want to get rid of the "work around" programs, then I'll ask for suggestions of how they propose that we get to the cap we are always told exists, 17,000/4,600? I don't really care how it is done. I'm just looking to get a handle on the "work arounds" that are now in place and other license add-ons that seem to get proposed in legislation.

There is obviously some dislike of the proposal to change/remove these "work arounds," something I think it a healthy discussion. With that, let's discuss the rationale for keeping the "work around" licenses in place. Saying "It's only 200-300" doesn't really give much rationale for why it should stay in place. So, rhetorically asking, .........

- Have these NRs done something for wildlife/habitat/hunting that they should deserve a detour around the long line of NRs?

- Have they done something that justifies why they should get a 50% discount from other non-residents?

Those two questions above were questions asked of the legislators sponsoring and supporting these "work arounds." They never answered them. It was mostly about how great it would be if their family members could get to the front of the line without having to stand in line with the rest of the NRs and how these chosen groups shouldn't have to pay full freight.

This is not an issue that I'm gonna live/die on when it comes to proposals for simplifying our process. I think it is worthwhile to have the discussion. I'm pretty sure I know how MOGA is going to vote if MOGA is presented with the options of 1) getting rid of these "work around" programs, or 2) have these tags come out of the 17,000/4,600 NR general pool.

By taking them out of the NR pool of 17,000/4,600, it makes it that much harder for the other NRs to draw. We complain about how pools of tags for outfitters are unfair and work against non-guided NRs, these programs are essentially the same - endowing a certain group of NRs that meet certain criteria with a privilege over other NRs.

I think the value of this discussion shows how hard it is to change something, NR tag work arounds in this case, once it is in place. Once passed, not only is it hard to change or eliminate, it tempts people and legislators to expand the "work arounds" to other programs and other groups. Tags, which are an allocation of wildlife resource, get handed out to anyone who can meet a certain profile.

The Come Home work-arounds must 1) have an "immediate" family member who is still a resident sponsor him (and I certainly would not be opposed to tightening up the state's definition of "immediate") and 2) the Come Home hunter MUST hunt big game with that sponsor. The sponsor is a resident taxpayer so that is some justification for both the preference and lower cost over the typical nonresident applicant. This is a way for a taxpayer to reconnect with a family member without impinging much on either the resource or the NR applicant pool.

For the last three years I have purchased the full monty elk-deer combo knowing full well the probability I will be able to harvest an elk with my failing brother is very slim. Still haven't seen one of either sex (except on the roadside zoos run by the pay to play so called ranchers). I almost always shoot a deer but as pointed out above, where I hunt they need to be shot. Though I know I'll almost certainly not fill the elk tag, I'll keep buying the full monty as long as I can because I know the state needs the money and I have it to spend. If I didn't have to hunt with my brother, I'd almost certainly be harvesting elk ... if I really wanted to. I shot thirteen in thirteen years before moving away from Montana. I know how and where to hunt them but it's not the kind of hunting he can handle now. Though I'm not particularly interested in harvesting another elk, I'm very interested in hunting with my brother for the year or two we have left together. I'm glad the program is there to help us and we are both happy to pay the price.

 

[OntarioHunter]

I would add that I would not be adverse to seeing the price of Come Home licenses go up to something more in line with other NR licenses. Doubling them to $1100 wouldn't bother me.

 

[huntin24/7]

If I knew there was a chance of it ever happening, I’d love to see each unit be managed as a draw for both res and non res. Limited entry doesn’t necessarily mean trophy unit. It can mean managing so that each unit has tags issued for what it can handle. Some units would be very difficult to draw while many other units would have leftover tags every year. I understand it doesn’t fit in the new “simplified” approach but I think it would better manage herds and the ever increasing number of hunters.

 

[8andcounting]

If I knew there was a chance of it ever happening, I’d love to see each unit be managed as a draw for both res and non res. Limited entry doesn’t necessarily mean trophy unit. It can mean managing so that each unit has tags issued for what it can handle. Some units would be very difficult to draw while many other units would have leftover tags every year. I understand it doesn’t fit in the new “simplified” approach but I think it would better manage herds and the ever increasing number of hunters.

Yes agreed. The system definitely needs to change for residents too. No way they should be able to buy a otc tag too shoot a mule deer anywhere in the entire state …. Should have to pick your area … some areas should be limited .

 

[Big Fin]

If I knew there was a chance of it ever happening, I’d love to see each unit be managed as a draw for both res and non res. Limited entry doesn’t necessarily mean trophy unit. It can mean managing so that each unit has tags issued for what it can handle. Some units would be very difficult to draw while many other units would have leftover tags every year. I understand it doesn’t fit in the new “simplified” approach but I think it would better manage herds and the ever increasing number of hunters.

I'm completely on board with that.

 

[brockel]

Yes agreed. The system definitely needs to change for residents too. No way they should be able to buy a otc tag too shoot a mule deer anywhere in the entire state …. Should have to pick your area … some areas should be limited .

I think we need to go to a couple years of mandatory harvest reporting. Get some actual hard data on where most of Montana’s deer tags are being filled and then adjust management accordingly. I think some hard data on this would be shocking.

 

[Hammsolo]

The Come Home bunch don't put a big dent in things. There's never enough applicants to draw the couple hundred alloted. I'm told not even close. I do NOT agree with Come Home to Hunt using those licenses to get into the special tag draws (i.e. sheep, etc.). Those should be reserved entirely to the general nonresident applicant pool.

I suspect the college kids are also not taking a big bite out of the resource. I think it is fair that students who leave the state to go to post-secondary schools should be allowed to retain their residency for hunting but not for more than four years per program (i.e. BA, MA PhD, etc.) and ONLY if consecutive to their residency. In other words, a Montana HS student who moves out of state for several years and then goes back to school should not qualify (perhaps they don't now anyway). I think a NR college student should be able to at least retain any points accumulated before he left the state until either returning to be a resident or applying in the general NR pool.

I am not familiar with the Native preference and don't understand why they should have any. Montana Indians have some really great and vast properties reserved exclusively to them for hunting. However, hunting on the reservations was traditionally, in my day anyway, very poor because management was terrible. Usually nonexistent. I don't understand why they should have preference off the reserve if they have exclusive rights to what really should be very good hunting resources.

I did not draw Come Home this year.

 

[Big Fin]

Yes agreed. The system definitely needs to change for residents too. No way they should be able to buy a otc tag too shoot a mule deer anywhere in the entire state …. Should have to pick your area … some areas should be limited .

I know many focus "Pick your district/region" as a solution for mule deer, but the same can be done for elk. And yes, I would want it to apply to both Rs and NRs. The feelings of inundation that deer hunters in Regions 6 and 7 feel during deer season is similar to how most Region 3 hunters feel about the inundation of elk hunters in Region 3.

"Pick a district/region" won't be the only answer, but it would be a start and allow people to hunt where they want to hunt if they pick that area. Idaho started an "Elk Region" system with elk and residents I talk to feel it was an improvement. Wyoming forces NRs to apply for a specific deer Region or apply for a LE tag. WY forces NRs to apply for the GEN tag or apply for a LE tag. Not saying any of those are the long-term solution in Montana, but Montana's resistance to change ignores the many examples other states have used in addressing similar problems.

 

[ccc23454]

I know many focus "Pick your district/region" as a solution for mule deer, but the same can be done for elk. And yes, I would want it to apply to both Rs and NRs. The feelings of inundation that deer hunters in Regions 6 and 7 feel during deer season is similar to how most Region 3 hunters feel about the inundation of elk hunters in Region 3.

"Pick a district/region" won't be the only answer, but it would be a start and allow people to hunt where they want to hunt if they pick that area. Idaho started an "Elk Region" system with elk and residents I talk to feel it was an improvement. Wyoming forces NRs to apply for a specific deer Region or apply for a LE tag. WY forces NRs to apply for the GEN tag or apply for a LE tag. Not saying any of those are the long-term solution in Montana, but Montana's resistance to change ignores the many examples other states have used in addressing similar problems.

WY is likely shifting elk to a regional NR general elk (like deer) tag to allow better control of herd and hunters. They have done all the trial and error just steal thier lessons learned.

 

[MTelkHuntress]

I think if we went the pick your district route, we would need to break up some of some of these mega units that were just created.
I hope some good change can at least start, it seems like more hunters are paying attention and hopefully they care enough to actually listen to different ideas instead of doubling down on extended bad opportunity.

 

[OntarioHunter]

I did not draw Come Home this year.

Guess I should check. That's a surprise.

 

[SwaggyD]

Even if it started at just pick your region, before also being pick your season (if needed), along with accurate reporting data could really go a long ways.

 

[6mm Remington]

Some of my thoughts are as follows.

Moose, Bighorn Rams, and Mountain Goat should be ONCE IN A LIFETIME TAGS in Montana! No it will not dramatically increase the odds of getting drawn, that is not the point. It does give more folks an opportunity to draw one of these very special tags. If folks balk at that make it once in a lifetime if the hunter harvests an animal. Maybe someone was injured or sick the fall they drew their tag, or say the populations tanked suddenly and they did not harvest the target species. I could see making a concession and allowing that person to wait 7 years just like they do now if they are drawn for Moose, Sheep, or Goats, and then that person would be eligible to draw again after that wait period. It would still technically be once in a lifetime harvest.

Grizzly Bear after they are delisted, they too should be put on the Once In A Lifetime tag system. Draw once and done. Bear or no bear.

These are just a few of many many similar instances where folks have beat the odds and maybe someone else deserved an opportunity to at least say that they drew one of the incredible permits and had the opportunity to hunt Moose, Sheep, Goat, and hopefully Grizzly bear. Had a friend draw a lower Rock Creek ram tag. Got a beautiful 41" plus ram. Waited 7 years and the first year he could draw, he drew a Petty Creek ram tag and shot another beautiful ram. Another friend has drawn 3 Bighorn ram tags and gotten 3 beautiful sheep on this 7 year waiting period. YES, 3 Rams! Plus he's also drawn a ewe tag. Hell, I cannot even seem to be able to draw a ewe tag. In 2021 an out-of-stater applied for a Bighorn ram tag in one of the districts up near Thompson Falls which actually was closed and he did not look the regulations over well enough and applied for this permit. Not sure how this worked, but he was drawn for that Thompson Falls district by FWP. He screwed up and they most certainly screwed up. This fellow called the biologist in the area to discuss where he might start looking of sheep since he was from out of state and had no idea about the area. He was informed that the district was closed. Somehow FWP figured damn, they had dropped the ball by giving him a permit but this area was closed, but this idiot also made a mistake that any of us might have made. This mistake would have been bad on us for not being more careful. FWP discussed it and called him back a couple of days later and came up with this brilliant idea to give the fellow a ram tag for a district that was also in Western Montana, Petty Creek. The 5 Bighorn ram tags for that area were issued out as was one other permit which was not slated to have been issued, that being the permit they gave this idiot and asked him if he would be satisfied with a permit for sheep in that district. Yes he said yes, and he went on to shoot a beautiful ram. I have pictures of the ram with the hunter and yes as wrong as this sounds, FWP gave him a permit for an unallocated ram. Idiots both!

Montana FWP needs to get some type of state allocated annual funding. The sell of hunting and fishing licenses is just not consistent enough, nor is it enough to fund everything that it should. I really don't know how or where this money should come from. Maybe they could include it from the tax on Legal Marijuana folks thought was such a great idea to bring into our state.

I also know that I have seen FWP continue to sell tags for animals in units when the numbers were abysmal and the should have drastically been cut, or not sold at all, but with the system in place those tags being sold were important for FWP to be able to survive. They should not have been sold non-the-less. Just one example of this. District 480 for antelope used to have great antelope hunting. (My father grew up there, and my grandparents homesteaded there.) The populations used to allow 1 buck/doe (either sex) tag and you could get one or two over the counter doe/fawn permits in addition to that. There would be 1000-1200 either sex tags and 1500 doe/fawn tags many years. Over hunting, tough winters, too many predators, and disease really brought the numbers down. I have not applied in that district for quite a few years as those poor antelope there need a break and should not be hunted at all. FWP still continues to sell tags though! They finally dropped the tag numbers over a few years to 250 either sex with some doe/fawn tags in addition to that. In 2021 there were 100 either sex tags and roughly 100 doe/fawn or B-tags as I understand it for the unit. The antelope are scattered and scarce and there just aren't many of them. Those poor buggers need a break for a few years with NO TAGS being issued. I'm sure many of you can also relate to deer, elk, or just about any other species in particular locations across Montana where they just keep hammering them. I believe that knowing that FWP has some hard funding guaranteed every year would help them make better management decisions when it comes to harvest quotas. I feel that this is one of the changes that needs to happen.

David

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

They should 100% be part of the hard cap. The rest of it is just an attempt at price discrimination, where they make some programs less expensive. This pricing side is no different than MT deciding to charge NR $1100 for the deer/elk combo. They are trying to make it attractive for certain segments of people to come hunt in MT. I think the college student program in particular has promise for keeping students in hunting - I'd bet we lose a lot of hunters that take Hunter's Ed as a kid then have a 4 year break for college and just never pick it back up.


This would have a variety of effects - I think some general units would get increased pressure while others would get a break. One alternate is to restrict the length of season for general tags. Pick archery or 1st rife or 2nd rifle, etc. Is the problem that people are going cross-unit (or cross-region) and chasing elk in multiple spots, or that the hunting seasons are so long that people spend tons of days in the field? Do you implement hard caps on general regions? Does the whole state become draw-only?


Bonus points instead of preference points - yes. Cap the BPs at some reasonable number (5-10?). One bonus point per person per year, maximum. Uncapped bonus points help entrench the established hunters and create a pretty disheartening barrier to entry for newcomers. There's a psychological difference between "I won't ever draw a premium tag" and "After 5 years I'll have a 2% chance at a premium tag, just like everyone else".

I like the idea of 3 pp then bonus points. (Like CO MSG points)

It would allow you to merge the two systems in Montana without as many folks feeling like they were getting screwed, and I think it does a decent job of giving everyone a chance.

@Big Fin 100% behind drawing for specific units, and either eliminating all the NR handouts or making those come out of the 17,000 first.

I think the overarching problem, and maybe why “burn it down” is the best strategy is that MT seems rifle with work arounds. Nothing ever seems to be “fixed” they just make the system a bit more complicated to please whatever interest group was complaining.

 

[runningmt]

I think we need to go to a couple years of mandatory harvest reporting. Get some actual hard data on where most of Montana’s deer tags are being filled and then adjust management accordingly. I think some hard data on this would be shocking.

Seems like mandatory reporting would be easier than trying to call people in the age of spam phone calls. I used look forward to the calls, but honestly I don’t answer if I don’t know the caller.

In just about every business, whether private, public, or govt…..data is king. Why Would we not want the data, for science and social reasons