Post by: 3nails on December 04, 2025, 10:36:35 PM
Post by: buglebuster on December 04, 2025, 10:42:12 PM
Post by: pd on December 04, 2025, 11:03:35 PM
"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.
Post by: kramman on December 04, 2025, 11:13:10 PM
Post by: huntnphool on December 04, 2025, 11:49:14 PM
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!
Post by: bustedoldman on December 05, 2025, 05:41:12 AM
Post by: MADMAX on December 05, 2025, 06:09:41 AM
too bad
Post by: hughjorgan on December 05, 2025, 06:13:46 AM
Post by: Threewolves on December 05, 2025, 07:10:10 AM
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
.
Post by: Pathfinder101 on December 05, 2025, 07:32:09 AM
I’m sure they’ll just raise tag prices again to make up for lost license sales:yeah:
Post by: mburrows on December 05, 2025, 07:38:04 AM
Post by: vandeman17 on December 05, 2025, 09:17:15 AM
Post by: CarbonHunter on December 05, 2025, 09:24:25 AM
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.
Post by: Stein on December 05, 2025, 09:32:49 AM
they will increase the price and still sell out. Residents are happy, they make up for lost revenue, win win.
:yeah:
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.