Time to play politics. Help me move these rule changes through the process at IDFG.

44hunter45

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 14, 2019
Messages
5,780
Location
North Idaho
About a month ago I sent two rule changes proposals to the IDFG Commissioners:
1. Move the Idaho hunting and fishing license experimentation dates to June 30 each year. Idaho now has hunts running over the end of the calendar year, requiring you to renew your license mid-hunt. Or at least plan ahead and pay for your next year license in December. This would eliminate the need to do so. I will be honest and say that of my two proposals, this one is a want, more than a need.

2. This one is the big one I will continue to fight for. End the prohibition on the purchase of other species controlled hunt tag to applicants for "Big Three" (OIL) tags.
In my proposal letter, I outlined that this will not result in one more actual tag being issued, therefore does not interfere with tag quotas in any way. It does seriously improve IDFG revenues by allowing more controlled hunt applications to be sold. This could be as many as 9 more application per hunter. A safety net could be included to dis-allow the drawing of more than one, but I do not see this as necessary.

I would love to get other to "second" these proposals to the Commission. Right now you would need to email the commissioners do this, as I did. You can do that here. I pasted all their addresses into one email so they could see that they all received it.


Here is the text of the email proposal I sent to the commissioners.

Dear IDFG Commissioners,

There are two IDFG rules that I feel are a true problem for hunters and anglers in Idaho and reduce revenue stream to IDFG.

-------------------------
Here is the text of the letters I sent to the commissioners.
-------------------------

I would like to propose the following rule changes.

1. Annual licenses should run from July 1st of the year until June 30th of the next year.
- More and more seasons in Idaho span from December into January.
- It is an added inconvenience for hunters to have to renew their licenses mid hunt.
- It is true that hunters can now buy their next year license beginning December 1st, but our online system cannot handle the traffic and draws ridicule from all users.
- Mid-year license renewal could possibly relieve the December first tag rush because license sales would be offset from OTC tag sales.
-Applicants who have their license in advance could be shunted to a tag only purchase queue.
-This incentivizes buying licenses early (in mid-year) and relieves pressure on the system in December.
- Hunters buying licenses in mid-year and tags in December would make revenue available to the IDFG budget earlier in the year.
- In transition to the new license expiration dates, a six month or 18 month license option could be sold to move applicants to the new expiration date.

2. Allow applicants for big three controlled tag to apply for all other species controlled hunts in the state.

- Applying for a Moose, Sheep, or Mountain Goat once in a lifetime controlled hunt should not prevent applicants from applying for controlled hunts for other species.
- Hunters should not be punished for putting in for a big three tag.
- The odds of drawing a big three tag are depressingly low. Unsuccessful applicants are now left with only the raffle hunts as their hope for a better quality big game tag.
- IDFG loses controlled hunt application revenue for every tag they prevent a candidate from applying for. (Napkin math here, but good representative numbers)
- If every big three applicant could apply for other controlled hunts at the R and NR rates IDFG application revenue could be increased as follows:
-Residents potentially 9x $6.25 (five species control hunts and potentially 2 X tags, plus spring and fall Turkey and Bear) for regular controlled hunt species
-Residents potentially 2x $16.75 for two additional "big three" applications.
-Subtotaling an additional potential revenue per Resident hunter of $89.25 per year
-Non-Residents potentially 9x $18.00 (five species control hunts and potentially 2 X tags, plus spring and fall Turkey and Bear) for regular controlled hunt species
-Residents potentially 2x $45.75 for two additional "big three" applications.
- Subtotaling an additional potential revenue per Non-Resident hunter of $253.50 per year
-
IDFG could make hunters choose a species in the rare event someone drew more than one big three species, but such an event would not effect the number of tags issued.
- This rule would be arbitrary on the part of IDFG and not species management relevant.
- We currently allow Super Hunt winners to have tags for four big game species simultaneously.

It is my opinion that these two proposals could increase IDFG revenue greatly without any impact on the harvest quotas, since there would still be the same number of tags in the pool.
They could potentially relieve seasonal congestion on the online vending system.
 
As far as number 2 isn’t that why the odds are slightly better for the big three because you have to pick them over limited deer, elk and or antelope and by making it where anyone can apply for everything then the odds of choosing one or the other would be diminished.
 
As far as number 2 isn’t that why the odds are slightly better for the big three because you have to pick them over limited deer, elk and or antelope and by making it where anyone can apply for everything then the odds of choosing one or the other would be diminished.
I applied for moose for decades as a resident and never drew. I've stopped applying for Big Three tags. "Slightly better" is in the eye of the beholder. Applying for a tag I know I will never get and then being locked out of other draws is a non starter for me.
 
As far as number 2 isn’t that why the odds are slightly better for the big three because you have to pick them over limited deer, elk and or antelope and by making it where anyone can apply for everything then the odds of choosing one or the other would be diminished.
I applied for moose for decades as a resident and never drew. I've stopped applying for Big Three tags. "Slightly better" is in the eye of the beholder. Applying for a tag I know I will never get and then being locked out of other draws is a non starter for me.
I thought that choice was only for NR? R’s can apply for the whole pie right?
 
About a month ago I sent two rule changes proposals to the IDFG Commissioners:
1. Move the Idaho hunting and fishing license experimentation dates to June 30 each year. Idaho now has hunts running over the end of the calendar year, requiring you to renew your license mid-hunt. Or at least plan ahead and pay for your next year license in December. This would eliminate the need to do so. I will be honest and say that of my two proposals, this one is a want, more than a need.

2. This one is the big one I will continue to fight for. End the prohibition on the purchase of other species controlled hunt tag to applicants for "Big Three" (OIL) tags.
In my proposal letter, I outlined that this will not result in one more actual tag being issued, therefore does not interfere with tag quotas in any way. It does seriously improve IDFG revenues by allowing more controlled hunt applications to be sold. This could be as many as 9 more application per hunter. A safety net could be included to dis-allow the drawing of more than one, but I do not see this as necessary.

I would love to get other to "second" these proposals to the Commission. Right now you would need to email the commissioners do this, as I did. You can do that here. I pasted all their addresses into one email so they could see that they all received it.


Here is the text of the email proposal I sent to the commissioners.

Dear IDFG Commissioners,

There are two IDFG rules that I feel are a true problem for hunters and anglers in Idaho and reduce revenue stream to IDFG.

-------------------------
Here is the text of the letters I sent to the commissioners.
-------------------------

I would like to propose the following rule changes.

1. Annual licenses should run from July 1st of the year until June 30th of the next year.
- More and more seasons in Idaho span from December into January.
- It is an added inconvenience for hunters to have to renew their licenses mid hunt.
- It is true that hunters can now buy their next year license beginning December 1st, but our online system cannot handle the traffic and draws ridicule from all users.
- Mid-year license renewal could possibly relieve the December first tag rush because license sales would be offset from OTC tag sales.
-Applicants who have their license in advance could be shunted to a tag only purchase queue.
-This incentivizes buying licenses early (in mid-year) and relieves pressure on the system in December.
- Hunters buying licenses in mid-year and tags in December would make revenue available to the IDFG budget earlier in the year.
- In transition to the new license expiration dates, a six month or 18 month license option could be sold to move applicants to the new expiration date.

2. Allow applicants for big three controlled tag to apply for all other species controlled hunts in the state.

- Applying for a Moose, Sheep, or Mountain Goat once in a lifetime controlled hunt should not prevent applicants from applying for controlled hunts for other species.
- Hunters should not be punished for putting in for a big three tag.
- The odds of drawing a big three tag are depressingly low. Unsuccessful applicants are now left with only the raffle hunts as their hope for a better quality big game tag.
- IDFG loses controlled hunt application revenue for every tag they prevent a candidate from applying for. (Napkin math here, but good representative numbers)
- If every big three applicant could apply for other controlled hunts at the R and NR rates IDFG application revenue could be increased as follows:
-Residents potentially 9x $6.25 (five species control hunts and potentially 2 X tags, plus spring and fall Turkey and Bear) for regular controlled hunt species
-Residents potentially 2x $16.75 for two additional "big three" applications.
-Subtotaling an additional potential revenue per Resident hunter of $89.25 per year
-Non-Residents potentially 9x $18.00 (five species control hunts and potentially 2 X tags, plus spring and fall Turkey and Bear) for regular controlled hunt species
-Residents potentially 2x $45.75 for two additional "big three" applications.
- Subtotaling an additional potential revenue per Non-Resident hunter of $253.50 per year
-
IDFG could make hunters choose a species in the rare event someone drew more than one big three species, but such an event would not effect the number of tags issued.
- This rule would be arbitrary on the part of IDFG and not species management relevant.
- We currently allow Super Hunt winners to have tags for four big game species simultaneously.

It is my opinion that these two proposals could increase IDFG revenue greatly without any impact on the harvest quotas, since there would still be the same number of tags in the pool.
They could potentially relieve seasonal congestion on the online vending system.
just my two cents... but be careful wishing for greater revenue at the (potential) expense of quality. We got a #*^@#* ton of revenue here in CO... but they are thinking about adding seasons no one asked for.

Also agree with @perma that if #2 is bound to happen, keep the current status quo for NR and let Residents apply for everything. But I kind of like that Idaho makes you put your egg in a basket
 
just my two cents... but be careful wishing for greater revenue at the (potential) expense of quality. We got a #*^@#* ton of revenue here in CO... but they are thinking about adding seasons no one asked for.

Also agree with @perma that if #2 is bound to happen, keep the current status quo for NR and let Residents apply for everything. But I kind of like that Idaho makes you put your egg in a basket
My proposal is not intended to sell more actual tags, only allow applications. The management needs to remain science based, not revenue based. Tag quotas should only be set by the species managers.
 
Being able to apply for them all would be fantastic. I put in for moose for almost 2 decades before drawing and never got to apply for antelope because of this ridiculous rule. I’ve never understood the logic behind it.

It would definitely make draw odds worse though. @perma idea of allowing R this opportunity would soften the blow to the odds getting worse.

I wouldn’t support the IDFG making you choose a single species if you were lucky enough to draw multiple species.
It doesn’t matter if a guy drew one of each. If a hunter draws it, let them hunt.

Interesting proposal @44hunter45
 
I support number 1, against number two. You’ll really mess up draw odds for trophy species with this proposal. Idaho has the best trophy draw odds for residents in the country by making applicants make a choice. Trying to make the draw odds similar to Nevada or Utah is not the answer.
 
Here’s a question for you. Say that I recommend what you’re saying on #2 but ID adopts the WY and NM process where they charge 2.5% and force the upfront cost. So you can apply for the whole thing but you need to front the cost. Do you agree with that?
I don't know WY and NM process enough to answer. Show me numbers.
 
This wouldn’t really make any difference now that I think about it. NR are still limited to 10%.
Correct, my suggestion would be in favor of R’s, not me as a NR. I could make the argument that my odds might be better to keep status quo in the 10% just because someone will choose elk over sheep.
 
I don't know WY and NM process enough to answer. Show me numbers.
Well let’s say you buy your hunting license (whatever that is for R), plus you front the cost for elk moose goat and pronghorn (whatever that is) plus 2.5% transaction fee of whatever the tag cost is. The hunting license and the transaction fee is a sunk cost that you do not get back if you do or don’t draw. Idk what it is for ID but in WY the elk tag is around $50 for us, so $1.25 per each application at $50 for R.

My idea applies for NR as well, including fronting the cost like we have to for the big 3.

Edit: forgot to include whatever the app fee is for ID.
 
@perma I hear what you’re saying. It would definitely make odds worse. I personally would be in favor even though the odds would diminish. I would rather have poor odds for multiple species than be restricted to only a couple of chances.
 
Well let’s say you buy your hunting license (whatever that is for R), plus you front the cost for elk moose goat and pronghorn (whatever that is) plus 2.5% transaction fee of whatever the tag cost is. The hunting license and the transaction fee is a sunk cost that you do not get back if you do or don’t draw. Idk what it is for ID but in WY the elk tag is around $50 for us, so $1.25 per each application at $50 for R.

My idea applies for NR as well, including fronting the cost like we have to for the big 3.
bighorn sheep and moose are at like $3600 I think, Bison just north of $6k and not sure on goat, I want to say $1800, but could be very wrong.
 
bighorn sheep and moose are at like $3600 I think, Bison just north of $6k and not sure on goat, I want to say $1800, but could be very wrong.
So moose would be subject to whatever the app fee is + $90 transaction fee that is just gone. If it were to get opened up, that’s what I think it’ll take. Gotta keep the odds high somehow, but now we get to walk into the ‘rich man’s game’ swamp.
 
I don’t like the way the upfront cost thing limits the average person. There’s arguments for it but I don’t care for it.
 
Caribou Gear

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,460
Messages
1,959,785
Members
35,186
Latest member
sinhba
Back
Top