When I was a kid, understanding the annual hunting regulations was simple business. You bought your license and received a little pamphlet that wasn’t more than a few pages long. The first half was mostly a verbatim reprint of the previous year’s version, along the lines of, “It is illegal to shoot game at night with the aid of an artificial light.” Duh. Then came a page or two explaining seasons and limits, which was all we needed to know. One set of rules covered everything you could hunt.

Those days are long gone. It’s September in Montana as I write, and the 2024 hunting regulations are scattered across my desk in six different booklets: Deer, Elk, and Antelope; Black Bear; Mountain Lion; Moose, Sheep, and Mountain Goats; Upland Game; and Waterfowl. The first is 147 pages long. The state is divided into seven different hunting regions and over 130 districts, many with different seasons and regulations. It is the hunter’s responsibility to know the differences.

Then there are different regulations for residents and non-residents. If you think this is confusing look at Alaska and its third category—resident rural subsistence users. The division of resident hunters into two categories for regulatory purposes has sparked confusion and animosity ever since the Alaska National Interest Land Claims Act mandated it in 1980. Three different sets of regulations for 26 Game Management Units covering a dozen different big game species… Do the math and prepare for a headache.

Living in Alaska and now Montana, I have frequently received calls from residents of other states asking for advice about seasons and other game regulations. My honest answer was that I couldn’t keep track of my own regulations much less those for out-of-state hunters. Granted, Montana and Alaska are large states with a variety of game to manage, but I’ve hunted in over a dozen other states and the trend seems universal. More rules and regulations equals more confusion and uncertainty about what is legal and what is not.

Why is this happening? We have more wildlife to manage and are at least attempting to manage it more scientifically, all of which is ultimately good for hunting. It necessarily comes at the cost of more regulation. Montana biologists recently confirmed a drastic decrease in mule deer numbers in the popular Missouri River Breaks districts and urgently restricted their harvest. Without having divided the state into multiple hunting districts it would have been difficult to come up with a local solution to a localized problem. Black bear and cougar hunting is managed by quota in different hunting districts. Confusing, but necessary for optimal management.

Every publicly employed wildlife biologist I know has told me the hard part of their job isn’t managing the wildlife. It’s managing the people. In addition to hunters, in Montana the list of stakeholders includes ranchers, wealthy out-of-state interests, rural and urban residents, environmental groups, and non-hunting outdoors enthusiasts, all of whom have different concerns about wildlife management. Differences of opinion among hunters themselves are often even more complicated—archery vs. muzzleloaders vs. modern firearms, for example. Variations of this theme play out all across the country. Somehow, biologists and the departments they work for have to negotiate these differences. No wonder we have more regulations every year.

How should we respond? I’ve heard reports of longtime hunters quitting because of the confusion, which impresses me as over-reaction. There seems to be two principle concerns: the hassle of digesting all those regs and concern about receiving a citation because of an inadvertent error.

As for the first, it’s not just hunting regulations that are getting more complicated at an ever increasing rate. Everything is getting more complicated. Struggling with game laws is an inconvenience that we should be able to manage. I suspect that for those sufficiently upset to stop hunting, animosity toward complex regs is a part of a more general resentment of government interference in our lives. Point taken, but how does a decision to stop hunting address the issue? And isn’t inconvenience a small price to pay for healthy wildlife numbers, without which none of us would be hunting?

Inadvertently breaking the law is a legitimate concern. I’ve never met a game warden who didn’t believe that ignorance is no excuse. Taking the time to study the law carefully should eliminate this worry. One caveat, especially for non-resident hunters: don’t rely on what locals tell you, even if the source is a guide or an outfitter. They can be wrong, and the warden won’t care. Read the regs.

Yes, hunting regulations are complex and growing more so every year. Just think of them as an inconvenience necessary for optimal wildlife management.