Creative solution for increasing numbers of nonresidents

7Bartman

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 7, 2018
Messages
157
Location
Maryland
I was thinking today since I didn't get an Idaho NR tag this year (randomization had me at almost 16k in the queue). I figured since I'd rather have some type of opportunity, what about the following:

OTC Archery season would be broken down into two mini-seasons Sept 1-15th and 15-30th, each with their own separate distinct tags. You can only hold one tag. While most nonresidents would probably opt for the 15th-30th, those of us who aren't selected would be happy with the 1st-15th.
By altering the season this way would double the amount of opportunity and tags sold. Besides, many nonresidents only hunt 7-10 days anyways. I know I'd rather hunt the 1-15th then not hunt at all.
Pros: Double the amount of opportunity for nonresidents and double the amount of elk tags sold by the dept.
Cons: Likely some increased harvest of elk, albeit minimal considering limited success rates of OTC archery. Some intangible increase in pressure.

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:

Firedude

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 2, 2015
Messages
256
I like thinking outside the box. This could be a good idea except it violates the tag quota for nonresident hunters. You can only sell 25%(if I remember correctly) to nonresident in a general hunt and 10% in a controlled hunt. Unlimited over the counters are quoted to the average resident purchase.

I keep leaning toward making nonresident draw for tags and sit out longer for successful draws and harvest. Kind of give more opportunity to everyone who can't be on a computer clicking at 10:00 on a Tuesday morning.

Another option would be eliminating the outfitter set aside. Right now if you have money you can pretty much be quarantined a tag if you hire an outfitter. 2 thoughts on this, 1- $ shouldn't give you an advantage in public property situations. 2- if outfitters are worth the money people will still hire them.
 
Last edited:

7Bartman

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 7, 2018
Messages
157
Location
Maryland
I like thinking outside the box. This could be a good idea except it violates the tag quota for nonresident hunters. You can only sell 25%(if I remember correctly) to nonresident in a general hunt and 10% in a controlled hunt. Unlimited over the counters are quoted to the average resident purchase.

I keep leaning toward making nonresident draw for tags and sit out longer for successful draws and harvest. Kind of give more opportunity to everyone who can't be on a computer clicking at 10:00 on a Tuesday morning.
I should note, that this is only for OTC Archery in Idaho. I know other states have different (often more complicated systems).
 

Firedude

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 2, 2015
Messages
256
I should note, that this is only for OTC Archery in Idaho. I know other states have different (often more complicated systems).
I get that. In OTC archery hunts that are not limited to residents they quota the nonresident tags based off average sales. It's still limited by law.
 

gouch

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2019
Messages
713
Location
SW Oregon
I don't know anyone in Idaho personally. but I doubt very many of them want to limit their opportunity to kill an elk in order to give more Non residence an opportunity to kill an elk.
 

7Bartman

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 7, 2018
Messages
157
Location
Maryland
I don't know anyone in Idaho personally. but I doubt very many of them want to limit their opportunity to kill an elk in order to give more Non residence an opportunity to kill an elk.
I don't see how this limits resident opportunity to kill an elk, aside from more pressure. The Dept can use the extra money generated to improve habitat/manage predators.
 

IdahoNick

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
731
I have never complained about the NR quota for elk and deer. It has been the same for a long time, but people are mad now because demand has made it something other than everyone's "just in case I don't draw elsewhere" state. Now it takes planning ahead.

NR, as it stands, aren't the primary issue for crowding in Idaho. Being the state with the highest population growth for the past several years is.

But suggesting that the solution is to simply double the amount of nonresident tags is ridiculous.
 

ccc23454

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 22, 2010
Messages
2,323
Location
Wyoming
Not many but still elk tags avaliable so must not want to hunt to badly...system is system
 

gouch

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2019
Messages
713
Location
SW Oregon
My assumption is that the OTC season is 30 days long and you suggest changing that to two 15-day seasons, which a person could only hunt one. That would cut a tag holders opportunity in half if my math is correct. But I haven't been paying any attention to Idaho's seasons so if I am wrong, please forgive me.
 

IdahoNick

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
731
I don't see how this limits resident opportunity to kill an elk, aside from more pressure. The Dept can use the extra money generated to improve habitat/manage predators.

There is no end to trying to get "extra money" to improve habitat/manage predators.

First off, we don't want to become Utah. Period. Whenever it is brought up that Idaho should give just one more governor's sheep tag people wig out. Rightfully so. The argument for more money can always be done....just auction to the highest bidder....or have a giant convention every year and offer $5 chances on hundreds upon hundreds of tags. It's been done. Residents don't like it. What Idahoans want, based on the IDFG resident survey done every seven years, is to maintain present opportunity at the cost of trophy quality. Again, I would never advocate for reducing NR quotas. But doubling....really?

Second, IDFG has declared war on lions by the elimination of ALL lion quotas statewide as of this season. We don't need any more help managing them. We're good on that.
 

IdahoNick

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
731
My assumption is that the OTC season is 30 days long and you suggest changing that to two 15-day seasons, which a person could only hunt one. That would cut a tag holders opportunity in half if my math is correct. But I haven't been paying any attention to Idaho's seasons so if I am wrong, please forgive me.
Read the OP. He wants to double tag allocation for NR. Most NR don't hunt more than two weeks.
 

dgc1963

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 17, 2019
Messages
831
Ive hunted the same unit in Idaho for a long time been locked out last 2 yrs now with tag cap I think the chance is slim for me to get that tag again but you have to be flexible and look at other options
 

ElkFever2

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 4, 2019
Messages
3,845
Location
Iowa
I’d start with swapping NR OTC for a random draw. Doesn’t increase revenue or put more NR’s in the field, but at least you don’t waste everyone’s day trying to navigate a broken IT system.
 

MTGomer

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2015
Messages
4,557
Location
MT —> AZ
In places like Montana, I think splitting the archery season into two hunts is a good idea, while keeping total tag numbers the same. Hunt either of them, you can’t hunt rifle.

That’s a major decrease in pressure without lowering total number of hunters.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
100,305
Messages
1,583,916
Members
31,480
Latest member
HamBone1127
Top