Montana Cutting Deer Licenses

[3nails]

https://www.ktvq.com/news/montana-news/montana-reduces-non-resident-deer-hunting-licenses?fbclid=IwdGRzaAOfV1BjbGNrA59XAGV4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkDDM1MDY4NTUzMTcyOAABHin4M--7Yt0ZZbzjSDNicfXPQZyQdtrpZWOsgvJWiVZOx9PIjDx6IggAEhPT_aem_el_PwY7yALjivOpVacP7MA

[buglebuster]

Fantastic 😒

[pd]

"A big change came from an amendment that was proposed by Fish and Wildlife Commission Chair Lesley Robinson. The amendment, which passed 6-0, implements a sales cap for the non-resident general deer licenses. The cap would be half of the number of general deer licenses, separated from the elk combination licenses."

"In another amendment from Robinson, the commission reduced the number of general deer tags a resident hunter can hold from 8 to 3. The change includes both mule and white-tail deer tags combined. That amendment passed 6-0."

Soooo, the source of the problem is the number of non-resident hunters, right?  The solution is to limit the number of non-resident hunters?  Got it.

Look at this, from a report last month. 
https://www.ktvh.com/news/montana-news/looking-at-non-resident-hunter-numbers

"In 2014, 16,357 nonresidents came to hunt elk, logging 126,926 hunter-days. In 2024, 20,066 nonresidents hunted elk in the state, spending 153,834 hunter-days — a 21% increase in hunter-days.

Comparatively, the rise in resident hunters has remained nearly flat over the 10 years. In 2014, 91,307 residents hunted elk, and 10 years later, the number rose slightly to 91,903. Meanwhile, resident hunter-days increased from 818,301 to 946,480. That means resident hunters are spending more time in the field — 128,179 more hunter-days, or about a 16% increase."

Yes, you read that correctly.  Resident "hunter-days" of 947,480 in 2024 vs. non-resident "hunter-days" of 153,834, or a 6.15x difference.

I agree.  Non-resident hunters are the problem.  Let's reduce their tags by half.  That should solve the problem.

[kramman]

Hearing the economic loss just for the fish and game dept is 1.7 million, not counting the economic loss to rural areas, and the outfitters.

[huntnphool]

Hearing the economic loss just for the fish and game dept is 1.7 million, not counting the economic loss to rural areas, and the outfitters.

 It’s going to be much higher than that!

 The economic loss is going to huge!

[bustedoldman]

Most residents always blame nonresidents for the issues whether it be low animal numbers, trespassing, trash, off roading, poaching. I see residents saying they are willing to pay higher tag costs just to eliminate nonresidents. Why is it so hard for game departments to cut antlerless tags (both res and nonres) when the declines start to happen? Or a number of other issues that seem easily resolved with common sense tactics? It's hard to feel sorry for the economic loss when it turns into this.

[MADMAX]

One of the few places left with welcome hunters signs
too bad

[hughjorgan]

I’m sure they’ll just raise tag prices again to make up for lost license sales

[Threewolves]

Strange, they would cut non res tags. Their system is built off the backs of non res hunters, according to Randy Newburg.

If overcrowding is the issue, why don't they do like Washington does: make resident hunters choose between weapon type, gun, bow or muzzleloader, THEN come back and charge residents more money to hunt all three methods.

Instead of making residents choose to hunt either the west or east side of the state, they can make they also  make them choose north and south too. Sounds like an eerily familiar method to disperse hunters in an attempt to avoid overcrowding, yet it is also a money maker!

Sent from my SM-A426U using Tapatalk
Oh, non residents, too
.

[Pathfinder101]

I’m sure they’ll just raise tag prices again to make up for lost license sales

[mburrows]

This makes no sense to me. There are so many other things they could do to manage the deer herd. They dont even know how many animals are taken a year, no mandatory reporting.  I'd rather see them follow suite with a state like Colorado and limit the amount of deer tags per unit than cut tag numbers.

[vandeman17]

they will increase the price and still sell out. Residents are happy, they make up for lost revenue, win win.

[CarbonHunter]

They are looking at making a lot of changes for deer hunting in the state to deal with the drop in deer populations. They have already floated the idea of making nonresidents pick a weapon and reducing or eliminating the late mule deer general season around the state.

It’s just a drop in the bucket at this point that won’t make a difference so look for additional restrictions in the future when they realize this did nothing.

[Stein]

they will increase the price and still sell out. Residents are happy, they make up for lost revenue, win win.

 

The logical outcome when the voters are angry, sell fewer NR tags and charge more to make the same money.  Right or wrong, it's their resource to manage.

[huntnnw]

they will increase the price and still sell out. Residents are happy, they make up for lost revenue, win win.

Yes this is true, but the impact to small towns and the business hunters bring to these towns will be felt