Idaho hates NRs.

[geetar]

Not just Indiana but the entire US. The southern states have a far higher obesity rate than the Midwest, but there’s certainly no shortage anywhere in the US.

Well aware buddy! I’ve lived in the south for almost 30 years. We got some “thick honeys “ here for sure.

Side note. I realized my picking with Zim may be one of the worst off topic thread derails ever. My apologies.

 

[Zim]

I'm not sure that's what he meant with that question...

Well I really don’t pay attention to Indiana girls one way or the other because I’m married and my wife is Chinese. BTW she’s 56 y/o and still only weighs 95#.

 

[idelkslayer]

Reading through the thread, if non-resident hunter numbers haven't increased but the resident hunters have increased by 10, 20 or 30 thousand over the last decade or whatever the number is isn't that the issue with crowding? Why don't you restrict the number of animals a resident can take or increase the price of that in addition to increasing NR prices? More money and less pressure all round.

New residents are definitely contributing to crowding. Like I said in post #238 this change redistributes NR hunters without decreasing the total number of tags. Some areas in Idaho had over 30% NR hunters. Combine that with an increasing resident population and you get more pressure. This change takes the NR portion of the pressure and sends it to different areas in the state. Resident crowding is an issue that will certainly become more an more of an issue and eventually will need to be addressed. In the end, residents should have priority.

In the unit where I live NR have been 30%+ of total hunter numbers. This change will reduce the number of NR by 50%. Overall that is ~600 fewer hunters in this unit. Those tags aren't eliminated, they are just designated to a different unit now. (A math breakdown: 30% NR means that the unit will be reduced to 15% NR with these quotas. 15% of the total number of hunters in the unit is ~600 tags)

Other units that historically have had only 5% NR participation will actually see an increase in NR hunting pressure up to 10%.

I do not think that any state should reduce Resident tag numbers in favor of NR. I would support a price increase for residents.

Like Brymoore has said this change came about due to Resident hunters opinions that there was too much NR pressure. I agree with him that most of the pressure is experienced by hunters that refuse to get off their lazy butts and actually hunt. However, it is also true that certain areas had more than their fair share of NR hunters.

It's frustrating but true that a lot of residents don't know the first thing about the hunting structure in Idaho. Many don't know that there are NR quotas at all and think that NR hunting is growing by the thousands every year. They prefer to ignorantly blame everything and their own failure to succeed on IDFG, wolves and NRs. Eventually, and hopefully not too soon, resident pressure will be the next thing to be addressed.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

They prefer to ignorantly blame everything and their own failure to succeed on IDFG, wolves and NRs.

You mean there are other factors involved?

 

[matechakeric]

every state puts their residents first. the residents are ultimately who the laws are built to benefit. additionally, if you pay resident taxes, then you get to enjoy resident benefits

 

[Sagebrushhunt]

New residents are definitely contributing to crowding. Like I said in post #238 this change redistributes NR hunters without decreasing the total number of tags. Some areas in Idaho had over 30% NR hunters. Combine that with an increasing resident population and you get more pressure. This change takes the NR portion of the pressure and sends it to different areas in the state. Resident crowding is an issue that will certainly become more an more of an issue and eventually will need to be addressed. In the end, residents should have priority.

In the unit where I live NR have been 30%+ of total hunter numbers. This change will reduce the number of NR by 50%. Overall that is ~600 fewer hunters in this unit. Those tags aren't eliminated, they are just designated to a different unit now. (A math breakdown: 30% NR means that the unit will be reduced to 15% NR with these quotas. 15% of the total number of hunters in the unit is ~600 tags)

Other units that historically have had only 5% NR participation will actually see an increase in NR hunting pressure up to 10%.

I do not think that any state should reduce Resident tag numbers in favor of NR. I would support a price increase for residents.

Like Brymoore has said this change came about due to Resident hunters opinions that there was too much NR pressure. I agree with him that most of the pressure is experienced by hunters that refuse to get off their lazy butts and actually hunt. However, it is also true that certain areas had more than their fair share of NR hunters.

It's frustrating but true that a lot of residents don't know the first thing about the hunting structure in Idaho. Many don't know that there are NR quotas at all and think that NR hunting is growing by the thousands every year. They prefer to ignorantly blame everything and their own failure to succeed on IDFG, wolves and NRs. Eventually, and hopefully not too soon, resident pressure will be the next thing to be addressed.

As a resident of Idaho, I personally have never had a problem with NR hunters in the unit I hunt. I agree with what fish and game has done by spreading the tags out across all units. There are areas close to where I live that it seems like NR hunters seem to congregate. The biggest problem I see where I hunt is resident hunters who have no respect for other hunters. I believe resident tag prices should double in price. It would still be a bargain.

 

[Buffs35]

every state puts their residents first. the residents are ultimately who the laws are built to benefit. additionally, if you pay resident taxes, then you get to enjoy resident benefits

*cough* Colorado loves nonresident fees more than protecting the sanctity of resident opportunities. The same can be said about state universities in Colorado, just keep the out of state tuition train rolling.

 

[Seabashh]

The Idaho changes sure suck compared to prior, but capping the areas for non residents seems very fair as tag numbers stayed the same.

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

*cough* Colorado loves nonresident fees more than protecting the sanctity of resident opportunities. The same can be said about state universities in Colorado, just keep the out of state tuition train rolling.

CO residents chose not to pay for there stuff... reap what you sow.

 

[maverick9465]

The most recent Elk Talk podcast with Randy and Corey Jacobsen tackled this a bit. NR tag numbers stayed the same, but price went up and there are now NR caps by unit. For those talking about increased pressure, Randy made some points about that pressure actually coming from population increases of residents.

 

[6speed]

Randy made some points about that pressure actually coming from population increases of residents.

Kind of captain obvious points as Idaho is constantly one of the fastest growing states.

I wish I could get my local reps to put forward legislation that classified NR as out of county though. Even an in state half price NR tag for crossing into and using the county road system and county infrastructure would help a little. It would be even better if they capped the in state NR tags. Of course folks in Ada County would have a problem with that but they are mostly from out of state anyway.

 

[TheTone]

The most recent Elk Talk podcast with Randy and Corey Jacobsen tackled this a bit. NR tag numbers stayed the same, but price went up and there are now NR caps by unit. For those talking about increased pressure, Randy made some points about that pressure actually coming from population increases of residents.

Yes and no. I’ve looked at a few units where resident numbers have stayed pretty flat over the years but non resident pressure has been increasing. I’m happy seeing a couple of them get capped and reduced. One in particular I’ve hunted in the past was getting hammered the last couple years by wannnabe instafamous hunters. I was a bit “disappointed” when one of them blocked me last year after I told him he was sharing way too much specific location stuff and I asked him if he had a commercial film permit