Montana season change proposal

S.Clancy

WKR
Joined
Jan 28, 2015
Messages
2,356
Location
Montana
B tags are capped this year.
1 if didn't draw general.
2 if drew General
I mean, not really a "cap". A cap would be that B-tag allocation was limited for NR to 15% of B tags. I don't think the personal cap is going to do anything pressure wise.
 
Joined
Dec 5, 2019
Messages
318
As a native Montana resident I have a few thoughts about this. Change is inevitable and needs to happen. The single region designation isn’t a new trick. It was done for mule deer in the late nineties. I’m not sure how well it worked because I was in high school at the time. Maybe @mtwarden can chime in. I do think that getting rid of the non resident combo for mule deer and elk would help mule deer populations. I do think limiting opportunities to hunt mule deer in the rut would help greatly and I think that we need to consider a Nov 1 or Nov 5 as a start date for the rut. I also think that we either need to get rid of the 16k non resident tag cap or treat it fairly and consider the non resident B tag opportunities, come home to hunt programs, college student programs, and other loopholes and put a cap on those. As a native I’ve decided to make less money and stay in Montana for the hunting opportunities and have seen childhood friends move out of state and make more money and now have less of a disadvantage as far as being able to get tags, etc. I very much like the language about cow elk opportunities on private be public. Take the unit with the state prison for example. The cow elk b tag has some of the better drawing statistics in the state and the elk are above objective. I suspect that the biologists use this elk herd in their count as well as elk on a large private ranch that doesn’t care about having elk eating their alfalfa because they have a large dude ranch style business plan and guests like to see the elk on their property. I believe that there are elk that spend their life on those two properties alone and there are very little cow elk that live on the public lands. I’m not sure if this is the solution or if I would like it, but it is better than some things I can think of and I think it is good that they are considering and realizing that there is a problem
 

fatlander

WKR
Joined
Feb 11, 2016
Messages
1,978
deer license sales have been stagnant for awhile, 5-10 yrs.

Only Deer A and Elk A are statutorily capped, but FWP has got around that with Come-Home to Hunt and others.

B-tags have no cap and represent an enormous increase in NR pressure.

From a management perspective, it doesn’t matter where the person resides who kills an antlerless ungulate. A dead doe or cow elk can’t have a fawn or calf in the spring, no matter who pulled the trigger.

Again, it’s not nonresidents fault that your FWP knows they make exponentially more money from a NR pulling the trigger than a resident.

Your FWP is going to make their nut one way or another. They’re not going to cut any expected revenue stream without having a plan to replace (and likely exceed it). Be careful what you wish for.

If you all really do in fact want less antlerless deer and elk killed, ask for that specifically. Blindly calling to cut the NR opportunity isn’t serving to address the actual problem, and it will ultimately hit someone else in their wallet that likely had little or nothing to do with it in the first place.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

cgasner1

WKR
Joined
Mar 12, 2015
Messages
907
Going into this I was totally against all these other carve outs. I get it they suck. But the actual numbers on the come home to hunt was somewhere in the mid 100s. We weren’t willing to have this entire thing get derailed over 100 some tags across the state. Especially if we can get mule deer season moved out of November when most of those tags are probably being used over the holidays anyway
 

S.Clancy

WKR
Joined
Jan 28, 2015
Messages
2,356
Location
Montana
From a management perspective, it doesn’t matter where the person resides who kills an antlerless ungulate. A dead doe or cow elk can’t have a fawn or calf in the spring, no matter who pulled the trigger.

Again, it’s not nonresidents fault that your FWP knows they make exponentially more money from a NR pulling the trigger than a resident.

Your FWP is going to make their nut one way or another. They’re not going to cut any expected revenue stream without having a plan to replace (and likely exceed it). Be careful what you wish for.

If you all really do in fact want less antlerless deer and elk killed, ask for that specifically. Blindly calling to cut the NR opportunity isn’t serving to address the actual problem, and it will ultimately hit someone else in their wallet that likely had little or nothing to do with it in the first place.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I was just clarifying that resident pressure hasn't been increasing, while there has been a steady increase of NR.

I am not saying NR are killing too many does or cows. The increase in pressure that is causing primarily elk, and to a lesser extent deer, to seek refuge on private land seems to be from the increase in NR pressure, specifically from B-tags, instead of Resident pressure if you look at the numbers.
 
Joined
Dec 5, 2019
Messages
318
From a management perspective, it doesn’t matter where the person resides who kills an antlerless ungulate. A dead doe or cow elk can’t have a fawn or calf in the spring, no matter who pulled the trigger.

Again, it’s not nonresidents fault that your FWP knows they make exponentially more money from a NR pulling the trigger than a resident.

Your FWP is going to make their nut one way or another. They’re not going to cut any expected revenue stream without having a plan to replace (and likely exceed it). Be careful what you wish for.

If you all really do in fact want less antlerless deer and elk killed, ask for that specifically. Blindly calling to cut the NR opportunity isn’t serving to address the actual problem, and it will ultimately hit someone else in their wallet that likely had little or nothing to do with it in the first place.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Except when we are talking unlimited tags which a lot of over the counter B tags are.
 
Joined
Dec 5, 2019
Messages
318
I’d also like to see incentivized recording similar to maybe New Mexico then we would have better harvest numbers
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2021
Messages
1,710
Location
Montana
My concern is the boys over at Hunt talk really like the Colorado seasons. They have been talking about shorter seasons for a number of years. I really don't trust anything they would come up with.

The muleys have been in trouble since the early 90s and mt fwp doesn't seem to recognise any of the problems let alone come up with solutions. Rut hunting for elk has severely limited what is available for rifle. Especially with unlimited access before Oct 15 and modern equipment.

I favor pick your season and even pick your region for species. At some point they need to diminish pressure and predators and get things back into balance for each region.
 

Randy11

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Jun 13, 2014
Messages
217
My concern is the boys over at Hunt talk really like the Colorado seasons. They have been talking about shorter seasons for a number of years. I really don't trust anything they would come up with.

To be clear, every season in this proposal is at least 4 weeks long, aside from the muzzleloader season which is legislatively mandated to be shorter.
 
Last edited:

CMF

WKR
Joined
May 8, 2019
Messages
741
Location
Mississippi
I think for every 10k a rancher gets for damage.

They should have to let a hunter on said property until they are successful for the season closes.

Don't wanna let any hunters on.
No money.
I think any state where farmer/ranchers are getting any money for damages should have to allow hunter access to receive funds.
 
Joined
Jan 8, 2022
Messages
1,203
Location
Western Montana
I went to one of the meetings prior to the selection of the Mule Deer citizens advisory council. They were soliciting alternatives and potential changes that mule deer hunters had to offer.

One thing I brought up at that meeting was the fact that MTFWP refuses to acknowledge the gigantic difference between the Western 1/3 of the state and the Central and Eastern parts of the state. In Western MT, there are still bucks that die of old age. There are several 100,000ac of prime habitat that has come from fires in the last +/-15yrs. In my region, predation (and specifically Mtn lion predation) needs addressed. Hunting pressure in W MT does not even remotely compare to the rest of the state. They can’t have a one size fits all solution. Saco and T Falls can’t be any more different.

If hunters had to pick their species… that alone would reduce mule deer pressure in W MT by 90%. They should simply do that, raise the Mtn lion quota, and then survey after 3-5yrs. There are only handful of serious mule deer hunters in W MT. Most mule deer in W MT are shot opportunistically from the road by a guy who had his buddy hold his Busch Light. Everyone else hunts WT.

During the same meeting I attended, we debated with MTFWP for quite a while about mandatory reporting criteria. I found that portion of the proposal amusing. MT currently has 3 separate ways of collecting incomplete data and all 3 ways cost money… Check stations open only on weekends, random telemarketer calls as late as April of the next year, and now, the e-tag. MTFWP will only go to it kicking and screaming. They f-cking love that algorithm of theirs.
 
Last edited:

CMF

WKR
Joined
May 8, 2019
Messages
741
Location
Mississippi
I do like that point of decoupling seasons. It is easy to get caught up in that mindset in the field admittedly. But my family is mostly meat hunting as we eat 100% wild game all year.
Why would you like separate seasons if you're mostly meat hunting?

I'd think most hunters (R & NR) that aren't primarily trophy hunting would favor concurrent seasons to increase opportunity.

Colorado's archery seasons are concurrent and it's nice to have both tags in your pocket. I planned to look for mule deer the day I killed my elk this year and shot my mule deer while trying to get my wife an elk.

Decoupling them would definitely reduce harvest.
 
Joined
Jan 8, 2022
Messages
1,203
Location
Western Montana
As a native Montana resident I have a few thoughts about this. Change is inevitable and needs to happen. The single region designation isn’t a new trick. It was done for mule deer in the late nineties. I’m not sure how well it worked because I was in high school at the time. Maybe @mtwarden can chime in. I do think that getting rid of the non resident combo for mule deer and elk would help mule deer populations. I do think limiting opportunities to hunt mule deer in the rut would help greatly and I think that we need to consider a Nov 1 or Nov 5 as a start date for the rut. I also think that we either need to get rid of the 16k non resident tag cap or treat it fairly and consider the non resident B tag opportunities, come home to hunt programs, college student programs, and other loopholes and put a cap on those. As a native I’ve decided to make less money and stay in Montana for the hunting opportunities and have seen childhood friends move out of state and make more money and now have less of a disadvantage as far as being able to get tags, etc. I very much like the language about cow elk opportunities on private be public. Take the unit with the state prison for example. The cow elk b tag has some of the better drawing statistics in the state and the elk are above objective. I suspect that the biologists use this elk herd in their count as well as elk on a large private ranch that doesn’t care about having elk eating their alfalfa because they have a large dude ranch style business plan and guests like to see the elk on their property. I believe that there are elk that spend their life on those two properties alone and there are very little cow elk that live on the public lands. I’m not sure if this is the solution or if I would like it, but it is better than some things I can think of and I think it is good that they are considering and realizing that there is a problem
You are 100% correct about going to regions and unlimited permits in the 90s. I went to a couple of those meetings too. Funny thing is, they kept that management strategy for over 20yrs and it never worked. They got hooked on the $5 app fee of the unlimited permits. It wasn’t THAT long ago that we couldn’t sell out the nonresident license quota!!
 

Jon Boy

WKR
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
1,738
Location
Paradise Valley, MT
I’m conflicted on this for many reasons. One being I’ve spent the last decade tailoring my hunting style to fit the current seasons. Another being that I see very little of the overcrowding issues that many seem to take issues with. But also seeing other states that have more strict mule deer hunting regulations that pump out bigger bucks on average. I don’t really think anything needs to change with the elk regulations. The private land elk issues won’t change until landowners are denied any sort of depredation reimbursement with out allowing liberal public hunting on their places. Beyond that, those elk factories have made good public land opportunities for those willing to play the fence line game. The elk herds not dependent on private land are doing well and age class is as good as ever while opportunity is high for those that want to work.

I feel the MTN regions of the AB, front, NW, and central mt units ( LB, castles, BB, crazies etc) have great age class as many of those bucks that choose to live any where but right off the road rarely get killed in the rugged or thick terrain they choose to live . Trying to kill those bucks outside of the rut I feel would be impossible and not really change the age dynamic. But maybe I’m wrong and we would be bumping big bucks all of October? Im open for discussion on that.

Region 7 mule deer hunting is poor currently but, previous to FWP allocating 7000 doe tags that were valid on public land, the hunting was exceptional IMO. Even as late as 2020 I had fantastic hunts in the SE in November and killed or had opportunities to kill 160 bucks every year from 2015- 2020. It seems to have really taken a nose dive in a numbers stand point sense. I’ve always entertained the idea of making one or two units in the SE a very limited draw just for a trophy unit to see what it could produce.

Losing the last 10 days of October for elk hunting would eliminate any possibility of hunting the high country for elk as they’d nearly guaranteed to be on their way out by then.

It really is hard to say what the long lasting effects of regulations like this were to be put in place. Maybe we would be seeing lots of mature bucks on the landscape? Or maybe we wouldn’t? The elk hunting is such a moot point to me, there are such fantastic opportunities in this state and the age class is unreal. Big bulls are just plain hard to kill no matter the season and there are plenty in every general unit in the state. There’s no need to adjust the season. We could make it easier by opening the season earlier, but we would see a much lower age class.

I’m open for discussion and debate on any of these points as , like I said earlier, conflicted on this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Marshfly

WKR
Joined
Sep 18, 2022
Messages
826
Location
Missoula, Montana
Why would you like separate seasons if you're mostly meat hunting?

I'd think most hunters (R & NR) that aren't primarily trophy hunting would favor concurrent seasons to increase opportunity.

Colorado's archery seasons are concurrent and it's nice to have both tags in your pocket. I planned to look for mule deer the day I killed my elk this year and shot my mule deer while trying to get my wife an elk.

Decoupling them would definitely reduce harvest.
Because I understand I'm not the only person that hunts in Montana. And a healthier mule deer herd ultimately means better opportunities for everyone.
 
Top