cgasner1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2016
- Messages
- 1,776
Honestly I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of residents wouldn’t be against it. Knowing if they did that to non residents my rutting mule deer hunt could be in jeopardy next
Non resident Landowner incentive.
- Thread starter Hilljackoutlaw
- Start date
Elky Welky
Well-known member
FWP reported over 59,000 nonresident deer and elk hunters in Montana last year. That 17,000 cap only applies to the combo license, and doesn't touch all the B-tags, extra doe tags, etc. that are available. There was a bill heard in the same hearing as 533 that asked FWP to cap those unlimited tags as well to help stop the bleeding. It was tabled.
xcskier_hunter
Member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2020
- Messages
- 25
Would this apply to non resident landowners too? Seems odd to create legislation that would prevent someone from hunting land they own after they've reached some arbitrary day limit set by the Montana legislature when that landowner still possesses a valid tag. I can't imagine the uproar that would occur if this was proposed in a midwestern state. If anything this will increase wildlife harboring on private land.
As others have stated, it seems like it makes much more sense for season structures to be adjusted rather than creating this arbitrary 14 day limit which is the same for someone that has just a deer tag or the lucky person that might draw deer, elk, and antelope tags. At least separating antelope from deer and elk in the bill would help.
As others have stated, it seems like it makes much more sense for season structures to be adjusted rather than creating this arbitrary 14 day limit which is the same for someone that has just a deer tag or the lucky person that might draw deer, elk, and antelope tags. At least separating antelope from deer and elk in the bill would help.
BuzzH
Well-known member
What's the real problem?
17,000 NR's...or 197,610 Residents?
Take away from the 17,000 NR's who go guided which is a significant number VS hardly any of the 197,610 who go guided. Take out another bunch that may have leases, hunt strictly private of friends.
You're down to maybe what, 10-11 thousand, at most, NR's spread out over 12 weeks...
I think its a start and I'm not trying to discourage R's from taking that step, at all...go for it.
It's just not going to come close so solving the real issue, the issue is 197,000 (not counting deer b and elk b) tags and Montana's resident population growing significantly from the Resident side.
D
Deleted member 20812
Guest
I’m not convincing you guys of anything.
And like Buzz, if you want to pass it have at it. But, don’t be surprised when it’s a massive amount of energy for little to no gain.
Elky Welky
Well-known member
This is inaccurate. Nearly 1/3 hunters in Montana last year was a nonresident, and resident numbers are actually decreasing. These numbers come from FWP. Further, wildlife is a resource held in public trust for the citizens of the state, first and foremost. I suggest reading Don Thomas's article on the subject in Outside Bozeman. https://outsidebozeman.com/activities/hunting/resident-rights
Last edited:
I understand it does nothing and residents are the real problem. Look back on everything I’ve ever posted on this forum. I continue to say residents are the problem. But resident opportunity is going to be the last thing that goes
See above comment
BuzzH
Well-known member
Hang tight, I believe you posted the numbers...
rogerthat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 2,658
I think we are all in agreement that the season structure change is the end solution . I think we aren’t all in agreement that many be even just the slightest change in disposition and attitudes as indicated by some of these bills is anything to be optimistic about. I’m feeling a little more optimistic…not much but maybe a little.
Mountain Man
Well-known member
So I grew up in Colorado and it is very interesting to me watching so many MT residents have a hard time wrapping their brains around how to limit NRs to 14 days. It is quite easy…they are called separate seasons with specific dates that a certain quantity of tags are valid for. It’s not as hard as many people are making it out to be.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Minus Doug's reading comprehension problem, every NR on this thread has suggested doing things that are MORE restrictive to them, and Rs (minus one or two) have admitted the real problem. If it passes, fine. It doesn't affect me or the vast majority of NRs. Even with Deer/Elk and an Antelope tag, I wouldn't hunt more than 14 days. I just don't like the random choosing of days. That would make opening day a shitshow when elk, deer, and antelope all overlap. I would rather they follow what Ben suggested and split the seasons into one or two week blocks and the NR hunter has to chose the block. Of course, not the privileged Rs of course. They still get their 11wks to try to kill something.
What annoys me a little is that people go to the meetings (and later HT) and say the resource is getting hammered and something needs to be done and FWP isn't listening. Then there is this optimism around something that isn't going to do anything for the resource. All you have done is agree on who to kick in the balls in 2024, and you're happy it isn't you. Fine, but it sure doesn't help the resource. Just be honest about it.
It’s not hard to wrap your brain around. It is hard to get mtfwp to acknowledge anything needs to change, it gets even harder when any changes have to be legislated. The whole system is broke and I don’t see a way to fix it.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Exactly. Cut the tags!!! Take the Native licenses out of that total, take out the student licenses, take out the youth licenses, and don't allow NRs to buy B licenses. All good.
You and I know why they don't...$$$. FWP is forced to rely on the NRs because Rs are too cheap to pay a reasonable price for a tag.
rogerthat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 2,658
Ok….I’m sorry they are kicking you in the rocks instead of me.(maybe not completely…see? Honesty) I am hopeful this is the tide turning in favor of the resource. You have to acknowledge that even just proposed legislation in my lifetime has always been an increase in opportunity, screw the resource, so these bills that are not increased opportunity is a new much welcomed deal…however I acknowledge they are most likely figurative nad smashers for the nr with minimal impacts to the resource. Also this has zero chance of passing imo. Rightly so
The issue with just cutting/capping tags is you end up defunding core programs like Habitat MT, Block Management, UGHEP, Migratory Bird. Those are all earmarked with NR license dollars and changing those caps will hurt actual conservation and access programs. That was the problem with 3 of the 4 bills up when 533 was up.
Furthermore, we tried to simply cap the NR reduced licenses and remove the NR relative entirely this session and it made it through the hearing but then got summarily tabled because a committee member didn't want it to be harder for his son to come home to hunt.
While these decisions are easy to make on a forum, the real world application of these discussions runs into a Buzzsaw of fiscal reality that nobody seems to want to consider.
It's not a good trade to eliminate millions in access and conservation so that we can say we cut tags. We're working with the senate and house committees to get a study bill on this for the interim so we can all sit down and look at how to cut some NR tags, while also keeping an eye on the budget, and our core conservation and access programs.
In the meantime, there's going to be a solid effort from Ag, Outfitters and Hunters to find some common ground on the season setting proposals for the 24/25 seasons that look to restructure some opportunity, hopefully reduce the amount of time open for elk hunting, etc.
Last edited:
BuzzH
Well-known member
And the Non Residents as well.
Looks like base license's have increased and I think a big part of the pressure problem is Residents (and in some cases NR's) having a pocket full of deer b and elk b tags.
It would do more good from a pressure standpoint to cap NR's to 10% of the deer b and elk b tags sold, AND reduce the over-all number of elk b and deer b tags across the board. I mean 62,000+ deer b and 26,000 elk b. Pretty close to 90K use days if everyone only hunted a day...450,000 use days if Residents hunt those tags even on average 5 days each.
It takes a while to fill 10 deer b tags, an A tag, a General elk, and an elk-b tag. Lots of days in the woods to get that done.
rogerthat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 2,658
Yup, The season structure changes are the solution. I could devise a system that sells a chit load of tags reduces demand on the resource, allows everyone to still hunt a lot and restores quality hunting on public land in Montana really easily. But no one wants to give up the current season structure. Hence round and round we go with band aids. But of course I know you know all this Ben.
Similar threads
