SB 388 Revising upland bird regs for Non Residents

[DFS]

The pressure may have increased but as far as I can see, and I have seen quite a bit for quite a few years, the exponential increase has been non-local Montana hunters. If anything, over the last couple of years I have seen a decline in out of state upland hunters. In fact almost none have been hunting the extremely popular federal land I now focus on. I'm sure the radically increased cost of fuel and now meals and lodging will only further decrease the nonresident load.

The problem with declining pheasant numbers has been chiefly less habitat due to disappearing CRP and overgrazing cover due to a combination of prolonged drought and poor cattle prices (ranchers holding onto cattle). And of course, the exponential increase in resident Montana hunters. Hosing a few out of state hunters is like pissing on a wildfire. Doing something but accomplishes nothing.

Interesting how some on here scream for micromanagement of mule deer and elk but can't wrap their head around it for pheasants. Just flock shoot the nonresidents. That'll fix it. No it won't. They're not the problem and I think we all know it.

We are currently watching the increase of demand break systems a crossed the west. Some states are getting it some are not, wildlife get the brunt of it. A lot of blame should go around for increased demand. Nonresidents are the first to go and hopefully elk and deer will be addressed next. I didn’t get to see the glory days but I am going to get to watch the crash. And I’m here for it. This is a good bill and I hope more will follow to address the increased demand so we can keep wildlife on the landscape. That’s what this is all about right? More plates at the table for wildlife and conservation? The results have been less than amazing with increased demand so far.

 

[jvanderlinde]

I wish MN would do the same with their fishing licenses, be a lot less crowding on the lakes!!

Man all those Nd Boys would sure cry when they cant fish at their cabins in the Detroit lakes area.

 

[NR_Hunter]

This won’t affect me, because I only do one trip to MT to bird hunt and it’s never more than a week anyways.

Seems crazy to me people stay for more than 14 days to bird hunt anywhere but apparently the people of MT think it’s a problem. I can’t eat birds fast enough to keep my possession limit down. (Might not be able to kill them fast enough to ever reach it either, if I’m being honest with myself)

I’ve only hunted MT for phez in 2020 and 2022. I saw three groups in 2022, two of which were local, and one was from UT. I didn't see anyone in 2020, maybe it because of covid.

The weirdo pointing dog people can have the whole month of September for all I care tho.

 

[NR_Hunter]

Man all those Nd Boys would sure cry when they cant fish at their cabins in the Detroit lakes area.

Let’s limit their jet ski usage while we’re at it.

 

[bigsky2]

I live in Central Montana and the bird hunting pressure is ridiculous here too. It's to the point that I don't even take my dog out upland hunting unless my buddy invites me to go hunt private with him. It's pretty discouraging when you stop at a BMA sign in box and there's already been 4 different parties that have signed in by noon. I'm amazed at how many NR dog trailers I see every September. It seems most of them are from Texas.

I like the intent of the bill, but it only focuses on a very small number of people and I don't think it will help much.

 

[OntarioHunter]

I'm with you, Bigsky. I don't see that this will solve much, if anything. The abundance of pressure I am seeing is from non-local residents (who, I am discovering, are mostly recently arrived Montana residents). This is simply a feel-good exercise meant to garner public support for an agency desperately in need of some.

If anything, I have seen a dramatic decline in upland hunting in general. On the Hi Line am not seeing any nonresidents except myself staying any length of time. Most I am seeing are in the motel or campground a night or two and then gone. Keep in mind I don't show up until after big game season opens (usually the week after it opens) so I'm not there for the usual open day/week barrage. I'm smart enough to avoid opening week no matter what the species. It is stupid to attempt judging overall season hunting pressure, resident (local or non-local) or nonresident, based on the first two weeks of the season. Or attempting to make any discriminatory harvesting or pressure assessment without any real data to back it up. So just how much damage am I doing when I come home to hunt every fall? Prior to last fall I shot only one daily limit during the three previous seasons (Opal's last day of hunting 2019). Until last season, my last rooster double was at least five years ago, maybe longer. My skeet average is +22/25 so I'm not missing many birds. Though last season I did manage to shoot a few daily limits (very surprising considering the weather), I still harvested far fewer roosters than any of the previous almost twenty years I've hunted them. Most days I never encountered another hunter. What I am encountering is a dramatic loss of habitat. Drought conditions and consequent overgrazing have had a much greater impact on bird numbers. Don't expect to find a sustainable pheasant population if the land can't sustain them. Any of the very few places that did have some cover left were hit hard by hunters. The only places with any birds to speak of were more or less inaccessible. I will wear out my boots getting them but I'm not pushing anyone else out of the way, resident or nonresident.

What is the answer? Well, this isn't the answer, that much I know. Habitat is the key but FWP can't change global warming. To get any kind of realistic results we will need to find ways to compensate landowners for conserving more public land in a useful state ... useful for the birds. Moving herds of cattle inflated in numbers due to low prices off summer range early onto low country has had a huge impact where I hunt. Cover that's either eaten up or stomped down leaves the birds easy prey for predators, especially raptors. Increased number of hunters, particularly resident hunters, with decreasing habitat is where the problem lies. This bill is simply a cosmetic band-aid publicity stunt. Find a scapegoat rather than look for real solutions.

In the end this bill won't affect me. I still own a house in Montana and could easily relocate there. But I won't. I'm not going to be another one of the phony Montanans. Also, I hunt under another entitlement so this bill probably won't affect me. Not initially anyway. And finally, my dogs are getting old ... and I'm already old. Montana is not the great place it was when I grew up there. It has become very ungreat. And more so every year I return. I can see my upland hunting days there drawing to a close soon. Oh well. Been a helluva run. Too bad others won't have the same opportunity. That is my only regret.

 

[lenny4077]

Let’s limit their jet ski usage while we’re at it.

I've found that if you're casting musky baits, they tend to stay away...

 

[OntarioHunter]

I've found that if you're casting musky baits, [the jet skis] tend to stay away...

Bombs away!

 

[406dn]

I'm with you, Bigsky. I don't see that this will solve much, if anything. The abundance of pressure I am seeing is from non-local residents (who, I am discovering, are mostly recently arrived Montana residents). This is simply a feel-good exercise meant to garner public support for an agency desperately in need of some.

If anything, I have seen a dramatic decline in upland hunting in general. On the Hi Line am not seeing any nonresidents except myself staying any length of time. Most I am seeing are in the motel or campground a night or two and then gone. Keep in mind I don't show up until after big game season opens (usually the week after it opens) so I'm not there for the usual open day/week barrage. I'm smart enough to avoid opening week no matter what the species. It is stupid to attempt judging overall season hunting pressure, resident (local or non-local) or nonresident, based on the first two weeks of the season. Or attempting to make any discriminatory harvesting or pressure assessment without any real data to back it up. So just how much damage am I doing when I come home to hunt every fall? Prior to last fall I shot only one daily limit during the three previous seasons (Opal's last day of hunting 2019). Until last season, my last rooster double was at least five years ago, maybe longer. My skeet average is +22/25 so I'm not missing many birds. Though last season I did manage to shoot a few daily limits (very surprising considering the weather), I still harvested far fewer roosters than any of the previous almost twenty years I've hunted them. Most days I never encountered another hunter. What I am encountering is a dramatic loss of habitat. Drought conditions and consequent overgrazing have had a much greater impact on bird numbers. Don't expect to find a sustainable pheasant population if the land can't sustain them. Any of the very few places that did have some cover left were hit hard by hunters. The only places with any birds to speak of were more or less inaccessible. I will wear out my boots getting them but I'm not pushing anyone else out of the way, resident or nonresident.

What is the answer? Well, this isn't the answer, that much I know. Habitat is the key but FWP can't change global warming. To get any kind of realistic results we will need to find ways to compensate landowners for conserving more public land in a useful state ... useful for the birds. Moving herds of cattle inflated in numbers due to low prices off summer range early onto low country has had a huge impact where I hunt. Cover that's either eaten up or stomped down leaves the birds easy prey for predators, especially raptors. Increased number of hunters, particularly resident hunters, with decreasing habitat is where the problem lies. This bill is simply a cosmetic band-aid publicity stunt. Find a scapegoat rather than look for real solutions.

In the end this bill won't affect me. I still own a house in Montana and could easily relocate there. But I won't. I'm not going to be another one of the phony Montanans. Also, I hunt under another entitlement so this bill probably won't affect me. Not initially anyway. And finally, my dogs are getting old ... and I'm already old. Montana is not the great place it was when I grew up there. It has become very ungreat. And more so every year I return. I can see my upland hunting days there drawing to a close soon. Oh well. Been a helluva run. Too bad others won't have the same opportunity. That is my only regret.

When you owned a horse, you surely rode it into the ground. We got it several posts ago.

It was not the non resident pressure around Malta that spurred the bill. It was east, of there, think Plentywood, Scobey, Froid, yada, yada.

Maybe, just maybe the reason you see more residents and fewer non residents is due to geography. It is a closer drive for most Montanans not to go to far NE corner of the state. It is a closer drive for non residents to stop soon after getting into Montana. A non resident would drive a couple hundred extra miles each way for poorer hunting. I guess they are smarter than that.

This bill may or may not change the situation. If not, guess what, they can change the law once more.

 

[NR_Hunter]

I've found that if you're casting musky baits, they tend to stay away...

At their own risk, they sometimes do not! I’m a very casual musky fisherman but the one or two times a year a pleasure boat or jet ski fly by within casting distance.

 

[OntarioHunter]

When you owned a horse, you surely rode it into the ground. We got it several posts ago.

It was not the non resident pressure around Malta that spurred the bill. It was east, of there, think Plentywood, Scobey, Froid, yada, yada.

Maybe, just maybe the reason you see more residents and fewer non residents is due to geography. It is a closer drive for most Montanans not to go to far NE corner of the state. It is a closer drive for non residents to stop soon after getting into Montana. A non resident would drive a couple hundred extra miles each way for poorer hunting. I guess they are smarter than that.

This bill may or may not change the situation. If not, guess what, they can change the law once more.

Yeah, that makes so much sense. Nonresident upland hunters from the most populous state in US (California) will drive the full length of Montana to hunt pheasants in its legendary hotspot NE corner but the folks in Billings or Great Falls won't go the extra couple hundred miles past Malta? I suppose the mass of workers in the oil patch also aren't driving up there from Sidney and Glasgow?

If nonresident crowding in the NE corner "spurred this bill" then why not do something about the number of hunters in that zone? Why f*ck with the rest of the state because a tiny portion up near the border is supposedly overrun (because commercial interests have exploited it to death)? The pheasant hunting generally has gone to shit statewide, not just the NE corner, because of problems almost wholly unrelated to hunting pressure. One word - HABITAT. Clipping the out of state hunters and dumping short-lived farm birds on WMAs won't change a thing. Flowers and company are buying you off with cheap parlor tricks instead of addressing the real problems.

So ... you think FWP would just rescind this silliness if they figure out it doesn't make more pheasants? How will they ever know it won't work if they never had some data to support there actually was a problem or the extent of the problem? What base line will they have to assess whether it works or not? Oh I know! Just go ask all the resident hunters if they think it's working. The only answer FWP will ever get from them is the one that keeps competition out of the field.

 

[golfer]

Yeah, that makes so much sense. Nonresident upland hunters from the most populous state in US (California) will drive the full length of Montana to hunt pheasants in its legendary hotspot NE corner but the folks in Billings or Great Falls won't go the extra couple hundred miles past Malta? I suppose the mass of workers in the oil patch also aren't driving up there from Sidney and Glasgow?

If nonresident crowding in the NE corner "spurred this bill" then why not do something about the number of hunters in that zone? Why f*ck with the rest of the state because a tiny portion up near the border is supposedly overrun (because commercial interests have exploited it to death)? The pheasant hunting generally has gone to shit statewide, not just the NE corner, because of problems almost wholly unrelated to hunting pressure. One word - HABITAT. Clipping the out of state hunters and dumping short-lived farm birds on WMAs won't change a thing. Flowers and company are buying you off with cheap parlor tricks instead of addressing the real problems.

So ... you think FWP would just rescind this silliness if they figure out it doesn't make more pheasants? How will they ever know it won't work if they never had some data to support there actually was a problem or the extent of the problem? What base line will they have to assess whether it works or not? Oh I know! Just go ask all the resident hunters if they think it's working. The only answer FWP will ever get from them is the one that keeps competition out of the field.

If limiting NR is such a big issue, I am sure bordering states that also have pheasant seasons (shorter than the one you are complaining about) would love some extra income as well. I’m guessing it might be tough for some on here to find sympathy for NR that stick around for more than a month and post on social media about their daily excursions in pursuit of the resources the State of Montana allows you to come and pursue. As Montana grows in population I would hope they go after the NR first and cut their opportunity as the state should look after its residents first.

 

[406dn]

Yeah, that makes so much sense. Nonresident upland hunters from the most populous state in US (California) will drive the full length of Montana to hunt pheasants in its legendary hotspot NE corner but the folks in Billings or Great Falls won't go the extra couple hundred miles past Malta? I suppose the mass of workers in the oil patch also aren't driving up there from Sidney and Glasgow?

If nonresident crowding in the NE corner "spurred this bill" then why not do something about the number of hunters in that zone? Why f*ck with the rest of the state because a tiny portion up near the border is supposedly overrun (because commercial interests have exploited it to death)? The pheasant hunting generally has gone to shit statewide, not just the NE corner, because of problems almost wholly unrelated to hunting pressure. One word - HABITAT. Clipping the out of state hunters and dumping short-lived farm birds on WMAs won't change a thing. Flowers and company are buying you off with cheap parlor tricks instead of addressing the real problems.

So ... you think FWP would just rescind this silliness if they figure out it doesn't make more pheasants? How will they ever know it won't work if they never had some data to support there actually was a problem or the extent of the problem? What base line will they have to assess whether it works or not? Oh I know! Just go ask all the resident hunters if they think it's working. The only answer FWP will ever get from them is the one that keeps competition out of the field.

I think I mentioned in an earlier post that most of the non resident plates I see are from east of Montana. But I have seen California plates.

The Montana FWP can't appreciably alter the habitat situation. The CRP program created the bird hunting boom we have enjoyed for the last forty years or so. It is only a return of more land in CRP that will reverse to population trend in upland birds.

They are f**cking with the entire state so that when you slog around the Bowdoin refuge the displaced nonresident that used to hunt around Plentywood isn't instead hunting there.

Quit bringing non sequiturs into the discussion. The stocked birds are a separate issue. I don't think you will find many that think that is worthwhile.

 

[Walkathon]

I've hunted birds in MT from time to time as a NR. I'm fine with limiting the pressure from NR's. The proposal seems reasonable in my opinion.

 

[huntin24/7]

When you owned a horse, you surely rode it into the ground. We got it several posts ago.

It was not the non resident pressure around Malta that spurred the bill. It was east, of there, think Plentywood, Scobey, Froid, yada, yada.

Maybe, just maybe the reason you see more residents and fewer non residents is due to geography. It is a closer drive for most Montanans not to go to far NE corner of the state. It is a closer drive for non residents to stop soon after getting into Montana. A non resident would drive a couple hundred extra miles each way for poorer hunting. I guess they are smarter than that.

This bill may or may not change the situation. If not, guess what, they can change the law once more.

This is the case. I see it every year, but this year, the non res pressure in September and October, especially October, was unreal. Seeing 5+ different groups a day walking the same bma is closer to normal than an exception the first 2 weeks of pheasant season. I’m 100% an advocate as a resident for doing things to reduce or spread out pressure that will affect me too. I have no issue with non residents coming out and sharing the resource, but something needs to be tried to at least slow things down somewhat.

 

[Derek44]

I don’t hunt birds, and I’m not sure about the quality of MT upland hunting, but while I don’t disagree with the bill, or the sentiment behind it, I do believe that at some point Montana is going to have to take into consideration it’s exponential RESIDENT increase in population if it truly wants to do what’s best for ALL wildlife. It’s a losing game for the resource and I agree that the first trimmings should be in the NR pool, but other than pandering for votes, that angle isn’t going to fix any of the problems.

 

[El Jason]

I don’t hunt birds, and I’m not sure about the quality of MT upland hunting, but while I don’t disagree with the bill, or the sentiment behind it, I do believe that at some point Montana is going to have to take into consideration it’s exponential RESIDENT increase in population if it truly wants to do what’s best for ALL wildlife. It’s a losing game for the resource and I agree that the first trimmings should be in the NR pool, but other than pandering for votes, that angle isn’t going to fix any of the problems.

Certainly. However, as a guy who hunts birds in various states as a NR, I don’t think a 28 day limit is really all that unreasonable.

I think saying it won’t fix anything is presumptuous.

 

[Derek44]

Certainly. As a guy who hunts birds in various states as a NR, I’m don’t think a 28 day limit is really all that unreasonable.

Absolutely not. I hunt grouse in my home state on weekends sometimes but that’s the extent of it. Or I guess I’ll shoot one while out deer hunting. Haha. Never hunted pheasants. But I don’t disagree. Actually, 28 days is probably reasonable for anyone, hunting any species, anywhere.

 

[Lota lota]

If I get a deer tag I can hunt for 11 weeks(which I never do) but now I’ll only be able to bird hunt for 14 days(which I rarely do) the entire season( a four month period)

If you only hunt birds "rarely" for 14 days every season, what's the big deal? Anybody who comes to Montana to hunt birds for two weeks straight is a lunatic (in my mind).

 

[Mountain Man]

The abundance of pressure I am seeing is from non-local residents (who, I am discovering, are mostly recently arrived Montana residents).

The painful thing about reading all your whining posts is that you don’t understand that all MT residents have more of a right to the resource than you do, regardless of when they established residency. You abandoned the state. Decisions have consequences. Stop crying about your previously entitled access being curtailed and trying to convince everyone this bill isn’t good for residents.