Creative solution for increasing numbers of nonresident applications

[TreeStandAthlete]

I say just make the tag $2500

Just go hunt a private ranch if you hate the poors.

OP you didn't draw a tag...suck it up. Full draw, total lottery, mini seasons, however you slice it the tags are what the tags are. It's not about your want to go Elk hunting, it's about maintaining a healthy Elk population. I guarantee you can find a tag in another state easily, and if not, God forbid you have to hunt deer for a season.

Whole lot of whining going on up in here.

 

[7Bartman]

OP you didn't draw a tag...suck it up. Full draw, total lottery, mini seasons, however you slice it the tags are what the tags are. It's not about your want to go Elk hunting, it's about maintaining a healthy Elk population. I guarantee you can find a tag in another state easily, and if not, God forbid you have to hunt deer for a season.

Whole lot of whining going on up in here.

Not whining, just trying to propose a solution to something that would somewhat alleviate the need, but have minimal impact on the elk population. Again, if you look at the archery numbers (and whatever subset of these are NR kills) I just don't see that big of an impact to the populations, while offering a whole lot of opportunity.

I actually prefer Idaho's random system to point systems, however do agree that many folks don't have 4 hours to wait online trying to get a tag.

I'm personally putting in for WY, MT and putting my kid in for some other states.

 

[bluetick78]

Not whining, just trying to propose a solution to something that would somewhat alleviate the need, but have minimal impact on the elk population. Again, if you look at the archery numbers (and whatever subset of these are NR kills) I just don't see that big and impact to the populations, while offering a whole lot of opportunity.

I actually prefer Idaho's random system to point systems, however do agree that many folks don't have 4 hours to wait online trying to get a tag.

I'm personally putting in for WY, MT and putting my kid in for some other states.

Just out of curiosity, how long have you been hunting Idaho?

 

[7Bartman]

Just out of curiosity, how long have you been hunting Idaho?

Only for 6 years. I'm a relative newcomer.

 

[Laramie]

Not whining, just trying to propose a solution to something that would somewhat alleviate the need, but have minimal impact on the elk population. Again, if you look at the archery numbers (and whatever subset of these are NR kills) I just don't see that big of an impact to the populations, while offering a whole lot of opportunity.

I actually prefer Idaho's random system to point systems, however do agree that many folks don't have 4 hours to wait online trying to get a tag.

I'm personally putting in for WY, MT and putting my kid in for some other states.

The effects of doubling archery hunters goes far beyond the number harvested during the archery season. Dramatically increasing pressure during historically low pressure seasons changes elk behavior, migrations, future season success percentages, etc... While you may only harvest another 500 elk, you might force large numbers to private land early creating more problems with overall herd management and landowner tolerance levels.

The answer to having an elk tag yearly is to move to a state that allows residents over the counter tags so you avoid the draws.

 

[7Bartman]

The effects of doubling archery hunters goes far beyond the number harvested during the archery season. Dramatically increasing pressure during historically low pressure seasons changes elk behavior, migrations, future season success percentages, etc... While you may only harvest another 500 elk, you might force large numbers to private land early creating more problems with overall herd management and landowner tolerance levels.

I disagree regarding the pressure based on my observations and those of others hunting nearby units. From the amount of dirtbikes, off-road vehicles and just weekend campers I see, I don't think pressure will be a factor in moving the elk. I have a buddy who camps in the unit all Summer and he says that folks are all over the place with dirtbikes during the Summer. I think the elk have learned to adapt to the pressure. Also, not many private places for them to hide in the area of ID I'm hunting. Other areas may be totally different.

 

[Laramie]

Other areas may be totally different.

This... Demand is increasing quickly as well so it is naive to think that pressure won't increase if more tags are available. Maybe it takes a year or two but people will buy available tags, especially ones with available public land.

Elk can and will change as well. I have hunted the same area/herd for well over 30 years. It is eye opening to look back at my notes from the 80s and compare them to today. Traditionally great areas back then are terrible now while other areas that didn't hold elk, at much different elevations, now do. Biologists, and game agencies in general, have a much more difficult job than hunters give them credit for. The bottom line, if Idaho thought they could manage the herd the same while selling twice the tags, they would absolutely do it for financial reasons. That obviously isn't the case.

 

[Customweld]

So you want to double the amount of NR archery tags. Are you also going to double the amount of any weapon tags? The success rate isn’t much different .
Idaho hunter tolerance towards NR’s is at an all time low. Trying to convince them to double the amount of NR’s should be a lot of fun!

 

[sneaky]

The elk aren't stupid either. They know the difference between summertime recreation, and when there's an increase in people walking through the woods miles off trail. 99% of summertime use is limited to trail systems and a few yards off of them. Huge difference in how the elk perceive that. If you want to hunt elk in Idaho you can still buy a tag, you can also put in for controlled hunts. Your own statement shows that the new system from last year worked. You yourself said you saw fewer people in your unit and surrounding units. Spreading the pressure worked, now you want to double down on it?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[wapitibob]

I thought increasing applications was a bad thing? About 1000 posts in the rinella thread on why you need to stay home so "the other guy" can hunt without seeing you or your rig in his spot.

 

[manitou1]

For instance lets say the OTC archery success rate is at 10%. I don't think that doubling the numbers of NR archery hunters would significantly impact the harvest statistics. Just looking at the harvest statistics it seems like way more elk are taken outside of archery season by an order of magnitude.

It is not all about harvest. Wild game are taking a beating, getting pushed around by the increased number of hunters, skiers, back packers, campers, snow shoers, etc,
Seems the only thing the states are managing are their bank accounts.

 

[slick]

Hunter days afield would also double. Everyone who takes a week off to hunt elk only has so much disposable time to be away from work/family/other obligations.

With two seasons and doubling the tags all of those people are still taking a week off.

If you really wanted to have two seasons you would only be able to increase the tags negligibly with support from the Department and Commission. IF that was the route IDGF wanted to go you would likely see something like a 125% increase in tags which would likely create a higher quality hunt, but I don't think the resource can sustain two hunt periods where the woods are likely to be MORE crowded because it focuses effort into a smaller window of time rather than having people have the option to spread themselves out over time and space.

 

[bluetick78]

Hunter days afield would also double. Everyone who takes a week off to hunt elk only has so much disposable time to be away from work/family/other obligations.

With two seasons and doubling the tags all of those people are still taking a week off.

If you really wanted to have two seasons you would only be able to increase the tags negligibly with support from the Department and Commission. IF that was the route IDGF wanted to go you would likely see something like a 125% increase in tags which would likely create a higher quality hunt, but I don't think the resource can sustain two hunt periods where the woods are likely to be MORE crowded because it focuses effort into a smaller window of time rather than having people have the option to spread themselves out over time and space.

I ran into several different groups of hunters from Oregon and Washington last fall that were sucking up the "Covid unemployment" from their respective states to the tune of about 1K per week. They stayed the entire season.

 

[slick]

Sure. Which is an anomaly comparative to most years.

Most out of state elk hunters, generally speaking, take M-F off and hunt across two weekends if they can get that much time off. To have 16,000 hunters cram themselves into the first season and again in the second season undoubtedly would increase pressure, increase harvest, increase stressors on elk, decrease the quality of the hunt, etc. etc.

You take away the time constraint and people are able to spread themselves out more evenly across the landscape vs. cramming all of those hunters into a shorter time period. Of course, everyone loves to look at the GoHunt, Eastmans, Outdoor Life articles and plan their hunts across moon phase or proximity to Sept 15. I understand the logic the OP has, but it's not as simple as just instantly doubling the money for an increased opportunity to NR. Some of the metrics most frequently used are hunter effort (average number of days afield). Even if you don't double your harvest, you may increase it by 30% 22% 17%...How would that affect bull ratios? How would that affect breeding sequence? How would that affect next years calves?

OP- in the units you hunt, how many times have you looked at calf:cow ratios from 4-5-6+ years ago? How many times have you looked at the difference in fall vs. spring survey's and over wintering survival in that same time period? In addition to harvest of bulls during that time period as well?

Count me in for "that's a bad idea"

 

[bluetick78]

Sure. Which is an anomaly comparative to most years.

Most out of state elk hunters, generally speaking, take M-F off and hunt across two weekends if they can get that much time off. To have 16,000 hunters cram themselves into the first season and again in the second season undoubtedly would increase pressure, increase harvest, increase stressors on elk, decrease the quality of the hunt, etc. etc.

You take away the time constraint and people are able to spread themselves out more evenly across the landscape vs. cramming all of those hunters into a shorter time period. Of course, everyone loves to look at the GoHunt, Eastmans, Outdoor Life articles and plan their hunts across moon phase or proximity to Sept 15. I understand the logic the OP has, but it's not as simple as just instantly doubling the money for an increased opportunity to NR. Some of the metrics most frequently used are hunter effort (average number of days afield). Even if you don't double your harvest, you may increase it by 30% 22% 17%...How would that affect bull ratios? How would that affect breeding sequence? How would that affect next years calves?

OP- in the units you hunt, how many times have you looked at calf:cow ratios from 4-5-6+ years ago? How many times have you looked at the difference in fall vs. spring survey's and over wintering survival in that same time period? In addition to harvest of bulls during that time period as well?

Count me in for "that's a bad idea"

I agree about the Covid anomaly, and I agree that creating 2 seasons and doubling NR hunters is a bad plan. I was pointing out that unforseen anomalies can affect wildlife, and unfortunately game departments can't plan ahead for that kind of stuff. To me, that means we need to become ever more conservative with our game management practices. Increasing hunter numbers does not fit into the game management model we need to move towards.

 

[tanker]

No way will a tag increase happen. The whole idea of limiting tag in each zone was to spread out hunting pressure. It evidently has worked from what I hear. I don’t like the fact that I have not been able to get a tag in the last 2 years but I don’t see a viable solution that will remedy this unless I move to Idaho and contribute to the problem of their population increase (don’t worry Idaho guys, not in my plans). I do hate the whole tag allocation process and wish they would consider a draw system….no bonus points, no preference points, etc…. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Rob5589]

No way will a tag increase happen. The whole idea of limiting tag in each zone was to spread out hunting pressure. It evidently has worked from what I hear. I don’t like the fact that I have not been able to get a tag in the last 2 years but I don’t see a viable solution that will remedy this unless I move to Idaho and contribute to the problem of their population increase (don’t worry Idaho guys, not in my plans). I do hate the whole tag allocation process and wish they would consider a draw system….no bonus points, no preference points, etc…. Just my 2 cents.

Idaho is a random draw of sorts. The bonus with ID is you know right then if you get a tag.

 

[tanker]

I agree it is a draw of sorts but the wasting of half of a day seems ridiculous even with the bonus of knowing immediately. Seems like Idaho could make some $$ if they charge a nominal application fee then do a draw with a quick turn around time. Would also be nice to have the option to draw with a party.

 

[S-3 ranch]

Open up a big can O Worms and take Federal & BLM land out of state control of Idaho, IMO it’s our land , and the idiots at state level should be held accountable,
I have no problem apply for PP in states, but if it’s federal land , a resident of Idaho should not have preference, make it a even playground

 

[Customweld]

Open up a big can O Worms and take Federal & BLM land out of state control of Idaho, IMO it’s our land , and the idiots at state level should be held accountable,
I have no problem apply for PP in states, but if it’s federal land , a resident of Idaho should not have preference, make it a even playground

You’re free to use that land now. The animals are held in trust by and for Idaho citizens.