Establish either archery or rifle only non resident tags in Montana?

[DWBMontana]

I am guessing more folks from Washington hunt Montana as a NR then any other state....that said, Montana is in the process of an elk hunting study with members of the public involved, from many different areas and backgrounds here in Montana. State is seeking comments regarding elk  and moving forward. One thought that comes to my mind is the manner in which NR are awarded tags. I would like to see a pool for archery only tags, and rifle only tags for a NR to apply for. I would increase by law the number of NR elk, deer, or elk/deer combo tags to 21,000,  splitting that number 60% rifle, 40% archery. I would do away with the early shoulder season for elk, in contrast I would open the general archery elk season the same day as archery antelope starts, August 15. I would allow any unsuccessful hunter, be it archery or rifle to also hunt the Dec, Jan or Feb shoulder season for cow elk. Deer archery would remain the same opening in early Sept. This is just a conversation I would like to put out there and see others thoughts. I have no more clout here in Montana then any other resident, just my two cents....please discuss with politeness, thanks.

[Threewolves]

One of the reasons I like hunting MT is because I can hunt with a bow and a Rifle. I can not do that here in WA without drawing a 180.00 permit. Would you be open to cutting the non resident prices in half if it was either bow or rifle? Just asking politely, seems fair.

Seems like if it is good for "non residents" it would be good for residents. Montana does make a huge amount of money off non residents. Oh, the evasive species charge (even though I am not fishing), the application fee, and the fee for processing...

[DWBMontana]

Myself, I would not apply this to us residents, Montanan's value the outdoors a great deal, and being a citizen does have it's benefits. I feel the market for elk fees set's itself. If we could sell out tags at current prices, why reduce the fee? Many folks can only take limited time off to hunt coming from out of state, I feel separating archery/rifle, we could allow more NR hunters in the fall, which would benefit more NR hunters obviously, yes, some would have to give up time in the field, but they would still have time here to enjoy.

[MADMAX]

I love it when they want to fix a good thing
Too bad 
It was the last best place

[Stein]

What percentage of nr hunt both seasons?  I would guess 5% based on zero data other than talking with a ton of them.

I think MT resident hunters would expect it to limit nr numbers in the field but it would be the opposite in my opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[huntnphool]

 Because dividing user groups has been such positive stroke of genius in this state!

[Dan-o]

What percentage of nr hunt both seasons?  I would guess 5% based on zero data other than talking with a ton of them.

I think MT resident hunters would expect it to limit nr numbers in the field but it would be the opposite in my opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This was my thought.
I'm guessing a very small percentage of nonresidents hunt multiple weapon seasons.

[idaho guy]

What percentage of nr hunt both seasons?  I would guess 5% based on zero data other than talking with a ton of them.

I think MT resident hunters would expect it to limit nr numbers in the field but it would be the opposite in my opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

  It would increase non resident pressure. Not only would you have more hunters you would be squeezing them into certain seasons. It would make the experience worse for all hunters. One of the biggest advantages of Montana is the long season and having both archery and rifle seasons spreads hunters out. For this reason I would be against it. I’m an avid archery hunter but usually only go over for rifle but it would make the hunting more crowded in my opinion

[huntnnw]

I've known a lot of people who have hunted MT and none have hunted both archery or rifle seasons

[huntnphool]

I've known a lot of people who have hunted MT and none have hunted both archery or rifle seasons

 

[Skyvalhunter]

I've known a lot of people who have hunted MT and none have hunted both archery or rifle seasons

Have hunted both many times

[Bows4huntn]

I always hunt both seasons. One of the reasons it’s worth 1100 bucks to me. Make a trip in September for archery elk, back in October for rifle elk then a third trip to the northwest corner for a thanksgiving whitetail hunt!

[DWBMontana]

With Montana's increasing population, some tough decisions are going to be needed in the near future. We have well over a million people now in our state, up from 800,000 not all that long ago. Asking non residents to choose one season or the other, seems quite do able to me. Folks can not get to greedy when they are guest after all. They still have their home states hunting for species that reside there.

[Stein]

I just don't see that change as accomplishing anything.  There is no way MT residents will allow for additional tags for NR at any cost.  Pitchforks would come out for sure.

Keeping the tags at the same number and either dividing them or forcing a choice when you check out won't do anything either as the number of people that hunt both (or all three) seasons is very low.  Even for those few, a number of them will have one buddy hunt archery and save their tag for rifle so they can still hunt both.  There will be no noticeable difference in hunting pressure.

As soon as MTFWP needs more money, the NR cost will go up again.  If residents get too vocal about pressure, the NR tags will get decreased which would require another increase anyway to be revenue neutral.

Any western state with significant NR presence will follow the same model, make up the declining general fund revenue with NR fee increases and lower NR tag numbers when the residents complain too much.

[dvolmer]

I just don't see that change as accomplishing anything.  There is no way MT residents will allow for additional tags for NR at any cost.  Pitchforks would come out for sure.

Keeping the tags at the same number and either dividing them or forcing a choice when you check out won't do anything either as the number of people that hunt both (or all three) seasons is very low.  Even for those few, a number of them will have one buddy hunt archery and save their tag for rifle so they can still hunt both.  There will be no noticeable difference in hunting pressure.

As soon as MTFWP needs more money, the NR cost will go up again.  If residents get too vocal about pressure, the NR tags will get decreased which would require another increase anyway to be revenue neutral.

Any western state with significant NR presence will follow the same model, make up the declining general fund revenue with NR fee increases and lower NR tag numbers when the residents complain too much.

  Totally agree to the above. They won’t do anything unless it increases the revenue.  When it comes to NR hunters, all they care about is the money. The hunters they care about and worry about upsetting are the resident hunters. Prices in all western states that cater to NR hunters will skyrocket in the next few years with each state watching the other states to see what and how much the NR Hunter will pay without bailing out. Their goal will be to have the tag numbers = the applicant numbers by NR hunters. That will give them the maximum bang for their buck!!!  If you step back and look at the whole picture, you can’t blame them a bit and the residents of these states should demand it. The recourse belongs to them and they should expect their elected officials to do their job on behalf of them. It’s pure and simple logic. Logic us NR hunters may not like, but it’s reality.