IDFG is considering cow-towing to special interests with a rule that would limit unlimited controlled hunt tags for non residents, unless of course you bought an outfitter allocated tag. This special interest pandering is not only inherently bs, but in the long run also hurts opportunity for resident hunters. Although there might be less non resident competition, there will also be less non-resident fees, which, at about 10x the resident cost, provide substantial moneys for the management of Idaho game. For the opportunity, non residents like myself are more than happy to pay a disproportionate share, knowing full well the benefit is enjoyed disproportionately by residents. Don't let the IDFG commission be swayed by the few outfitters who apparently can't do a good enough job to keep themselves busy, and so want IDFG to subsidize them. Don't let this special interest drive away the significant hunter dollars that help make Idaho so great. Make your voice heard in opposition to this proposed special interest pandering, at: https://idfg.idaho.gov/press/fish-and-game-seeks-comments-several-proposed-rule-changes
Idaho considering limiting non resident opportunity
- Thread starter dplantz
- Start date
LopeHunter
Well-known member
God help us. Yet another "bright idea" that accelerates the end of big game hunting.
Big game hunting is reaching its zenith in the American West. You see a crash in non-resident applications with each pull back in the economy. The average age of sheep hunters is rising and most likely that is true for elk hunters as well. Hunter recruitment for big game can't keep up with the numbers of older hunters exiting the mountains when simply die or become infirm or no longer can afford big game hunting in retirement or realize the length of wait to draw the next coveted big game tag is a bridge too far for their failing health trajectory.
On the big game animal supply side the bighorn sheep can't stay healthy as domestic animals come in contact with all but the most isolated herds while the lack of genetic diversity is creating viability issues. Wolves have reduced moose and elk populations in several drainages. McMansions built on winter grounds screw up the habitat.
F&G see the writing on the wall so when has leadership that tries to be proactive then faces the puzzle of how to get more money when herds have fewer animals. You implement a point racket so get more revenues without selling anymore tags. Require a hunting license to apply and you get a new stream of money from applicants and from the Feds, too, that distribute Pittman-Robertson funds based significantly on license revenues. Require a conservation or habitat tag or whatever fee you want as long as keep around 5% of the cost to apply and no one really gets upset. Increase NR application fees and license fees and tag fees much faster than inflation. Get a bit more aggressive on the herd estimates so can squeeze a few more tags in units and move around dates and weapon types to lower harvest success so more tags are issued per animal killed. Create a few OTC opportunity units while at the same time declaring more premium units that carry an additional cost. Heck, create a separate application for higher priced tags like WY. Start a tag lottery for a super tag valid statewide. Point protection insurance policy offerings. Shucks, soon there may be a deadline forgiveness extension when you forget to apply and for just $X you can turn back the clock and get into the draw.
Won't matter. The F&G revenue train is losing steam even with all the tactics to squeeze more per applicant per animal harvested. Residents are upset they have waited years without that premium tag being drawn that was implied the shiny new point systems arose to make it fairer 10 or 20 or 30 years ago in places like CO and WY yet after the "luck" of Max Pool Guy the subsequent applicants found the line hardly moving.
Residents want to take tags from NR and probably will in several more states as did UT and NM. That converts a tag to a lower cost point but keeps down the angry calls to the Legislature. The Legislature is not stepping in to fill funding gaps and in CO did the opposite by merging F&G into a more general fund. Outfitters donate to political races at the Legislature and Joe Hunter does not so Outfitters are flexing their cooperative association's muscles as in WY where NR can venture into the wilderness to hike, fish, bird watch or commune with Nature but safety first if you have a hunting tag in your pocket. NM took care of the outfitters. Now ID wants in on the game. Another nail being hammered home.
How many more years before big game hunting goes the way of barn-raising or lawn bowling? Perhaps 40 years. Mention to a community leader you are thinking about getting your 10 year old offspring a gun for Christmas and if Child Protective Services is not called then you probably today live in a town under 50,000 population. The town is most likely shrinking in size each decade. Kids without guns are unlikely to hunt even if have access to public or private lands. Kids without a hunting parent are unlikely to hunt. Hunting as a method to put economical meat on the table is laughable with the associated costs for fuel, gear, tags, etc.
I think the horn porn movement underway in the 1980s which became accelerated as more hunters got email accounts and cable television hunting shows in the 1990s then hyper accelerated with the rise of picture sharing through social media was a factor in shifting the goal of incoming hunters from merely having an adventure while perhaps fill the tag to a manic need to shoot a mega-horn critter. Laws be damned as seen with the poached and illegally taken trophies shown at the SLC Expo and later revealed as illicitly harvested. Big bull elk and mule deer are now given names. Bounties offered. Big sheep that survived last season are photographed by F&G then shown to outfitters and hunters likely to participate in an auction for a sheep tag. Wealthy hunters buy auction tags and hire professional critter-location and isolation teams that not only will sit on the big bull for weeks until the shooter arrives but often these Dream Teams are pulling shenanigans to trick or intimidate other hunters from accessing the vicinity of the super bull or buck. Game cams are part of this frenzy to shot a monster rather than mature critter.
Post up a 110 inch whitetail or 130 class mule or 240' 4x4 bull elk on a hunting forum and get ready for the laughter. No matter the body size. No matter the effort required. Horn porn. Put the same picture up on social media and risk having your place of business e-attacked with dirty tricks.
God help us. When F&G and enforcement shrivel then the critters left on public lands will be as much at risk as animals in African countries that lack credible enforcement over the animals. Private compounds for the wealthy will have their own patrols.
I am contacting ID. Might slow the hammer.
Big game hunting is reaching its zenith in the American West. You see a crash in non-resident applications with each pull back in the economy. The average age of sheep hunters is rising and most likely that is true for elk hunters as well. Hunter recruitment for big game can't keep up with the numbers of older hunters exiting the mountains when simply die or become infirm or no longer can afford big game hunting in retirement or realize the length of wait to draw the next coveted big game tag is a bridge too far for their failing health trajectory.
On the big game animal supply side the bighorn sheep can't stay healthy as domestic animals come in contact with all but the most isolated herds while the lack of genetic diversity is creating viability issues. Wolves have reduced moose and elk populations in several drainages. McMansions built on winter grounds screw up the habitat.
F&G see the writing on the wall so when has leadership that tries to be proactive then faces the puzzle of how to get more money when herds have fewer animals. You implement a point racket so get more revenues without selling anymore tags. Require a hunting license to apply and you get a new stream of money from applicants and from the Feds, too, that distribute Pittman-Robertson funds based significantly on license revenues. Require a conservation or habitat tag or whatever fee you want as long as keep around 5% of the cost to apply and no one really gets upset. Increase NR application fees and license fees and tag fees much faster than inflation. Get a bit more aggressive on the herd estimates so can squeeze a few more tags in units and move around dates and weapon types to lower harvest success so more tags are issued per animal killed. Create a few OTC opportunity units while at the same time declaring more premium units that carry an additional cost. Heck, create a separate application for higher priced tags like WY. Start a tag lottery for a super tag valid statewide. Point protection insurance policy offerings. Shucks, soon there may be a deadline forgiveness extension when you forget to apply and for just $X you can turn back the clock and get into the draw.
Won't matter. The F&G revenue train is losing steam even with all the tactics to squeeze more per applicant per animal harvested. Residents are upset they have waited years without that premium tag being drawn that was implied the shiny new point systems arose to make it fairer 10 or 20 or 30 years ago in places like CO and WY yet after the "luck" of Max Pool Guy the subsequent applicants found the line hardly moving.
Residents want to take tags from NR and probably will in several more states as did UT and NM. That converts a tag to a lower cost point but keeps down the angry calls to the Legislature. The Legislature is not stepping in to fill funding gaps and in CO did the opposite by merging F&G into a more general fund. Outfitters donate to political races at the Legislature and Joe Hunter does not so Outfitters are flexing their cooperative association's muscles as in WY where NR can venture into the wilderness to hike, fish, bird watch or commune with Nature but safety first if you have a hunting tag in your pocket. NM took care of the outfitters. Now ID wants in on the game. Another nail being hammered home.
How many more years before big game hunting goes the way of barn-raising or lawn bowling? Perhaps 40 years. Mention to a community leader you are thinking about getting your 10 year old offspring a gun for Christmas and if Child Protective Services is not called then you probably today live in a town under 50,000 population. The town is most likely shrinking in size each decade. Kids without guns are unlikely to hunt even if have access to public or private lands. Kids without a hunting parent are unlikely to hunt. Hunting as a method to put economical meat on the table is laughable with the associated costs for fuel, gear, tags, etc.
I think the horn porn movement underway in the 1980s which became accelerated as more hunters got email accounts and cable television hunting shows in the 1990s then hyper accelerated with the rise of picture sharing through social media was a factor in shifting the goal of incoming hunters from merely having an adventure while perhaps fill the tag to a manic need to shoot a mega-horn critter. Laws be damned as seen with the poached and illegally taken trophies shown at the SLC Expo and later revealed as illicitly harvested. Big bull elk and mule deer are now given names. Bounties offered. Big sheep that survived last season are photographed by F&G then shown to outfitters and hunters likely to participate in an auction for a sheep tag. Wealthy hunters buy auction tags and hire professional critter-location and isolation teams that not only will sit on the big bull for weeks until the shooter arrives but often these Dream Teams are pulling shenanigans to trick or intimidate other hunters from accessing the vicinity of the super bull or buck. Game cams are part of this frenzy to shot a monster rather than mature critter.
Post up a 110 inch whitetail or 130 class mule or 240' 4x4 bull elk on a hunting forum and get ready for the laughter. No matter the body size. No matter the effort required. Horn porn. Put the same picture up on social media and risk having your place of business e-attacked with dirty tricks.
God help us. When F&G and enforcement shrivel then the critters left on public lands will be as much at risk as animals in African countries that lack credible enforcement over the animals. Private compounds for the wealthy will have their own patrols.
I am contacting ID. Might slow the hammer.
I think that deals with figuring out a way to cap NR tag allocation for Unlimited Controlled Hunts. The 10% deal wouldn't change. Currently any NR that applies for the unlimited tags it's exempt from the 10% so they are looking into possible changes.
huntid73
Well-known member
6speed, I agree, this proposed change seems to just cap the nonresident allocation on unlimited resident controlled hunts, and I noticed that they also allow for voting "no" on increasing outfitter allocations. To be honest, I don't see how this is a huge issue, since there are units with tag quotas where the NR tag quotas are severely limited. If you are concerned about the outfitter allocation, make sure to send in your comments with a vote of "No" on that section of the change. Not to open an older can of worms, but the whole s***show that was the auction tag survey was shut down in the comment period by the sportsmen of Idaho but a few interests tried to still push it through (another story for another day). Whatever your feelings are on it, your voice does need to be heard...so commenting on the proposals is a great way to help set the rules for 2018/2019
3855WIN
Well-known member
Western State hunters say keep it public. More and more Western states make it hard for the NR to hunt. What good is all the public land doing for the NR if they can't hunt it? If a NR wants to see wilderness and not hunt, they can just go to a NP.
Pubic land is a much deeper issue than just hunting.
I may be wrong but I think some of this comes from trying to better manage the deer herd in the Frank. I know guys that hunted it last year and heard from a game warder or biologist that this might be coming. To the best of my knowledge, that area gets very little resident pressure, but gets piss pounded by non residents who can fly in and shoot a buck on their general tag and one on their controlled hunt tag. My family stopped hunting that area because quality and number of deer were starting to get to the point where it wasn't worth the trip.
If the reason for this change is better wildlife management, I don't see a huge issue with it other than the outfitter allocation. That being said I'm not up to date on most of these issues.
If the reason for this change is better wildlife management, I don't see a huge issue with it other than the outfitter allocation. That being said I'm not up to date on most of these issues.
belshawelk
Well-known member
Oregon does the same thing. There are several trophy units that only have 1 or 2 non resident tags available IF the outfitter doesn't want. And they want them so good luck. Let alone in Oregon you have to buy an out of state license just to put in for a draw. Then you don't get drawn and your $350 is wasted, unless you buy a general season tag. Its not just about public vs. private land. There are millions of public land in Oregon, the issue is lack of funding because of bureaucrats.
smarandr
Well-known member
I agree 100% with this.
WapitiBob
Well-known member
Doesn't work that way.
Every Elk/Deer/Antelope unit makes 50% of the previous years NR tags available to Outfitters. In the case of a single tag, they alternate years between Outfitter and public NR.
Last edited:
Irrelevant
Well-known member
In my mind those two things are opposites. When I go into the wilderness it is to escape the sheepeople. I have yet to see a national park that isn't swarming with other toureistas.
idelkslayer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2013
- Messages
- 330
The first two posters must have misunderstood what the IDFG is trying to do here. As has been pointed out by subsequent posts this does not affect the total number of NR deer tags in Idaho. This will create a NR quota in a couple units that are getting too much pressure. This primarily deals with the Frank so I pulled numbers for unit 27 over the last 5 years. It is also important to remember some recent history as it pertains to these units.
First the numbers. Over the last 5 years in the unit 27 unlimited controlled hunt between 65-81% of tags have gone to NR hunters.
Now some history. In 2015 unit 27 went to 1st choice only, meaning that you could only draw this tag if it was your first choice. (Before this and as it remains in unit 20A and 26 a hunter could put it as a second choice in case they didn't draw their first choice.) This was done in an attempt to reduce the number of hunters in the unit without placing a cap on tag numbers.
It didn't work. I think what happened is that NR hunters weren't willing to risk not drawing a tag and rather than do an OTC as a backup they switched to this as a 1st choice. The number of hunters in unit 27 went up 46% the first year of the new requirement. It increased another 18% the following year. So back when 350-400 hunters per year were in the unit they tried to reduce overall numbers and instead there are now 670 hunters in that unit. So like I said, the 1st choice only requirement that was meant to decrease hunter numbers actually increased them instead. Another factor could have been social media and the rising awareness of this unique hunting opportunity.
It looks like this:
Year # Hunters % NR
2013 315 80
2014 385 81
New requirement "First Choice Only"
2015 564 73
2016 667 65
2017 670 69
Now in order to reduce the number of hunters to protect the herd from over harvest they will need to place a cap on the number of tags in these units. Since NR make up the vast majority of hunters in the unit and therefore have the highest impact on deer harvest IDFG is proposing to cap the number of NR tags in these units.
First the numbers. Over the last 5 years in the unit 27 unlimited controlled hunt between 65-81% of tags have gone to NR hunters.
Now some history. In 2015 unit 27 went to 1st choice only, meaning that you could only draw this tag if it was your first choice. (Before this and as it remains in unit 20A and 26 a hunter could put it as a second choice in case they didn't draw their first choice.) This was done in an attempt to reduce the number of hunters in the unit without placing a cap on tag numbers.
It didn't work. I think what happened is that NR hunters weren't willing to risk not drawing a tag and rather than do an OTC as a backup they switched to this as a 1st choice. The number of hunters in unit 27 went up 46% the first year of the new requirement. It increased another 18% the following year. So back when 350-400 hunters per year were in the unit they tried to reduce overall numbers and instead there are now 670 hunters in that unit. So like I said, the 1st choice only requirement that was meant to decrease hunter numbers actually increased them instead. Another factor could have been social media and the rising awareness of this unique hunting opportunity.
It looks like this:
Year # Hunters % NR
2013 315 80
2014 385 81
New requirement "First Choice Only"
2015 564 73
2016 667 65
2017 670 69
Now in order to reduce the number of hunters to protect the herd from over harvest they will need to place a cap on the number of tags in these units. Since NR make up the vast majority of hunters in the unit and therefore have the highest impact on deer harvest IDFG is proposing to cap the number of NR tags in these units.
Elkmagnet
Well-known member
Last edited:
Isn't the simple solution to go back allowing 27 to be a second choice? I understand what IDFG wants to accomplish and can agree with the intent to manage the deer population. However, if I read this correctly, NR tags will go from ~469 in 2016 to 10% of the five year tag average of 522 or ~52 tags? Wow. If this passes, I'm going to start hunting 27 again, essentially alone in one of the largest wilderness units in the country.
huntid73
Well-known member
So I added this to my submitted comment to Fish and Game, but why not just have the unit have a tag quota like the Diamond Creek & Sawtooth elk zones?
Blacktailbc
Well-known member
No more outfitter welfare
greatwhitebuffalo
Active member
I get jittery every time I hear mention of legislators with ideas to "help" hunting.
Elkmagnet
Well-known member
Because it is a clever way to remove some people from the harder to draw ch units. I'd be ok with all of the "quota" tags being controlled hunts and first choice only. If someone wants it bad enough to burn a draw on it let them have it. If not we'll first come first serve the leftovers as we do now.
Last edited:
Elkmagnet
Well-known member
I definitely see your point but just like yourself many residents might return if the non res pressure is cut. Currently it's anonresident loophole of sorts.
Similar threads
