Idaho considering limiting non resident opportunity

[IdahoElk]

I live in the number one state for gouging the crap out on non-residents for trophy whitetail, so I'm not pointing any fingers or throwing stones. But I think we're all Americans first, and while I understand people wanting to limit access to a local resource, I wish people would remember other Americans coming to use that resource really aren't doing anything wrong.

I agree BUT there is a segment of residents that feel Fish & Game is more interested in $$$ and not game management or providing a quality outdoor experience for hunters.It's not the hunters fault for wanting to hunt in another state but game management must not offer unlimited tags at the expense of the resource in the name of profit.

 

[HookUp]

Does this have to do with the limited tag areas that quickly sell out? Idaho is 70.4% public land, a good chunk of this is federal lands.

I firmly believe residents should have preference to hunting their state game animal but there needs to be adequate opportunity for non-residents as well.

Idaho was discounting 2nd elk tags last year, guess I'm not seeing what the problem is.

 

[Ewaragnar]

Does this have to do with the limited tag areas that quickly sell out? Idaho is 70.4% public land, a good chunk of this is federal lands.

I firmly believe residents should have preference to hunting their state game animal but there needs to be adequate opportunity for non-residents as well.

Idaho was discounting 2nd elk tags last year, guess I'm not seeing what the problem is.

You make an excellent point.

I'm an out of stater who hunts Federal land in Idaho. I'm happy for the opportunity to do so as it's given me experiences I would have otherwise never had. In the area we hunt, the vast majority of the hunters aren't Idaho residents. It's expensive to get into, and it's a rough area to backpack hunt in. There are some big deer, but the pressure seems to be so high that it feels like too many deer are taken at a less than mature point.

I would like to see IDFG limit the number of tags in general for this area... not just for out of state residents. If this means I'd have to skip a year or two in between hunts be have a more high quality hunt with fewer folks then I'd be OK with it.

That being said, I am concerned that there is more to the story. Having pulled nice deer on foot from areas that outfitters are packing clients into for big money, I do wonder if this has something to do with financial pressure

 

[bluetick78]

I have lived and hunted in Idaho my entire life. I also spent most of my 20's guiding hunts in Idaho and other states. I have watched the number of non-residents grow steadily from a few dozen to a few hundred to a few thousand in some units. The number of resident hunters has also increased, but not as dramatically as the non-residents. As every surrounding state becomes more difficult to hunt in, draw a decent tag, etc., Idaho has steadily increased opportunity. I can hunt for 2 or more months in the spring and nearly four in the fall depending on what tags I choose to purchase. Archery or rifle, doesn't matter. The issue for everyone is that it is becoming extremely crowded. Some OTC units probably have more non-residents participating in hunts than residents. Is it a problem? Depends on who you are. The outfitters are working harder every year to give their clients a good chance to harvest a good animal. Lifetime residents are finding their traditional spots mobbed and "ruined" so to speak. I think the problem lies not with Idaho, but with problems that most of our surrounding states have created.
Utah has gone the way of the $$$. Wyoming has struggled with keeping big game herds healthy due to overwhelming energy development. Montana has some pretty steep prices, and their coveted tags get exponentially harder to get each year. Washington is amok in politics along with Oregon and California. Nevada is notoriously difficult to draw, and trophy quality has slipped a little recently.
That leaves Idaho holding the proverbial basket when it comes to OTC opportunity and wide open public land. Is it suprising that the growing pains have begun to unleash a movement by average hunters and outfitters alike? If it was your own state would you feel differently? I propose that the problem is not merely Idaho's, but it is a culmination of poor management and low hunter engagement in the states that the non-residents come from. If you are not from Idaho but have to hunt here more often than not, we appreciate you. You bring money to our economy. However, wouldn't it be nice to have similar opportunity in your state of residence? Possibly Idaho decreasing opportunity and starting to fade as the last OTC stronghold can spark some movements in other Western states to move the big game management back in line with the wishes of the people buying the licenses.
Just my deep thoughts on this matter. Not intended to offend a single individual.

 

[bigdesert10]

I have lived and hunted in Idaho my entire life. I also spent most of my 20's guiding hunts in Idaho and other states. I have watched the number of non-residents grow steadily from a few dozen to a few hundred to a few thousand in some units. The number of resident hunters has also increased, but not as dramatically as the non-residents. As every surrounding state becomes more difficult to hunt in, draw a decent tag, etc., Idaho has steadily increased opportunity. I can hunt for 2 or more months in the spring and nearly four in the fall depending on what tags I choose to purchase. Archery or rifle, doesn't matter. The issue for everyone is that it is becoming extremely crowded. Some OTC units probably have more non-residents participating in hunts than residents. Is it a problem? Depends on who you are. The outfitters are working harder every year to give their clients a good chance to harvest a good animal. Lifetime residents are finding their traditional spots mobbed and "ruined" so to speak. I think the problem lies not with Idaho, but with problems that most of our surrounding states have created.
Utah has gone the way of the $$$. Wyoming has struggled with keeping big game herds healthy due to overwhelming energy development. Montana has some pretty steep prices, and their coveted tags get exponentially harder to get each year. Washington is amok in politics along with Oregon and California. Nevada is notoriously difficult to draw, and trophy quality has slipped a little recently.
That leaves Idaho holding the proverbial basket when it comes to OTC opportunity and wide open public land. Is it suprising that the growing pains have begun to unleash a movement by average hunters and outfitters alike? If it was your own state would you feel differently? I propose that the problem is not merely Idaho's, but it is a culmination of poor management and low hunter engagement in the states that the non-residents come from. If you are not from Idaho but have to hunt here more often than not, we appreciate you. You bring money to our economy. However, wouldn't it be nice to have similar opportunity in your state of residence? Possibly Idaho decreasing opportunity and starting to fade as the last OTC stronghold can spark some movements in other Western states to move the big game management back in line with the wishes of the people buying the licenses.
Just my deep thoughts on this matter. Not intended to offend a single individual.

You so perfectly articulated thoughts I have been having today. It's so unfortunate that so many are unable to enjoy quality hunting opportunities in their own states. I think this highlights the importance of keeping engaged in hunting access and opportunity issues in all states, whether you hunt there or not. In the long run, it affects all of us. I would love to see a resurgence of the classic American model of game management in all states.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[mtnwrunner]

Well, I'd hate to have them limit non residents. Cause if they did that more of you all might just move here and we sure in the hell don't want that. Just sayin.......

Randy

 

[realunlucky]

Randy I was just trying to talk my wife into moving to Idaho

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[Idahohillboy]

I have lived and hunted in Idaho my entire life. I also spent most of my 20's guiding hunts in Idaho and other states. I have watched the number of non-residents grow steadily from a few dozen to a few hundred to a few thousand in some units. The number of resident hunters has also increased, but not as dramatically as the non-residents. As every surrounding state becomes more difficult to hunt in, draw a decent tag, etc., Idaho has steadily increased opportunity. I can hunt for 2 or more months in the spring and nearly four in the fall depending on what tags I choose to purchase. Archery or rifle, doesn't matter. The issue for everyone is that it is becoming extremely crowded. Some OTC units probably have more non-residents participating in hunts than residents. Is it a problem? Depends on who you are. The outfitters are working harder every year to give their clients a good chance to harvest a good animal. Lifetime residents are finding their traditional spots mobbed and "ruined" so to speak. I think the problem lies not with Idaho, but with problems that most of our surrounding states have created.
Utah has gone the way of the $$$. Wyoming has struggled with keeping big game herds healthy due to overwhelming energy development. Montana has some pretty steep prices, and their coveted tags get exponentially harder to get each year. Washington is amok in politics along with Oregon and California. Nevada is notoriously difficult to draw, and trophy quality has slipped a little recently.
That leaves Idaho holding the proverbial basket when it comes to OTC opportunity and wide open public land. Is it suprising that the growing pains have begun to unleash a movement by average hunters and outfitters alike? If it was your own state would you feel differently? I propose that the problem is not merely Idaho's, but it is a culmination of poor management and low hunter engagement in the states that the non-residents come from. If you are not from Idaho but have to hunt here more often than not, we appreciate you. You bring money to our economy. However, wouldn't it be nice to have similar opportunity in your state of residence? Possibly Idaho decreasing opportunity and starting to fade as the last OTC stronghold can spark some movements in other Western states to move the big game management back in line with the wishes of the people buying the licenses.
Just my deep thoughts on this matter. Not intended to offend a single individual.

This sums it up I am Idaho native born and raised. I am not a resident now and I have still asked IDFG when are you going to cap the non res archery elk tags in my zone. Last year was a zoo with out of staters out numbering the locals. If it comes down to getting a tag I will move back home but if your spots you hunt your whole life get taken over it makes for a bitter experience. I am on both sides of the fence but for the quality of the hunts sake action needs to be taken for the local hunters. Idaho has become over ran with oportunity hunters. 5 years ago is nothing like last years archery hunt.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[lif]

I completely agree with the idaho boys. I am from the crap state of California and I think that protecting the rights of the locals in all states has been completely crapped on for 15+ years now. If my going to idaho from California , to buy over the counter great opportunities, is hurting hurd numbers and also hurting overall hunting experience for residents then I believe numbers should be limited to restore a manageable and enjoyable hunting atmosphere. Now I am a diy hunter not interested in guides. That being said favoritism to guides is a little bothersome to me But I also can acknowledge that guides serve a great purpose for a certain % of hunters. All that being said I would hope that the powers that be would try to strike a balance with all,with in my opinion, a heavy consideration to locals first. Hope all you guys up there get treated correctly in the end. Over the counter tags are gold for a northern california guy like me, but do seem a little too loose in the wide spread distributions. My vote is LOCALS FIRST!

 

[dplantz]

I've thought about this a little more. Obvious solution is just set a particular number of tags, don't have it unlimited at all, and with those quota controlled hunts, they already have the ability to sub quota non residents. But, that might actually be worse, because under that system they also already have the ability to get around there nr limit with outfitter allocation. So perhaps allow the ability to limit in the unlimited scenario, but don't allow outfitter allocation exception. I guarantee no matter how many ask for this, it will not happen. All of us will comment in support of limiting non resident, but not allowing exception for outfitter allocation, and yet they will pass the rule, with outfitter allocation exception, and say they had overwhelming support.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[KJH]

I think a couple of things after browsing through this thread... Admittedly, I didn't read every single post.

A. I can't blame Idaho for looking out for residents since overcrowding may be the real root issue.
B. If the state still needs the NR money, having separate seasons for non-residents seems fair to me. Let the NRs (I'm one) fight the crowds. Give the residents the peak times.
C. Limiting the number of NR tags seems logical.
D. Hunting in any way is an expensive sport, its only going worse. That's the world we live in. Yuk.
E. It is going to get more crowded and harder to get hunting places... As the public land in other areas disappears and everything is a "pay to play game", residents in places like Idaho will get squeezed. If the state doesn't protect it's resident's opportunities they will lose out as well.

 

[Rob T]

As we look to the future, I think it is important that we all try to limit breaking the hunting community into smaller subgroups, such as residents, non-residents or clients and DIY hunters. My reasoning is that we need each other to make for a more powerful voice to ensure hunting continues for generations to come.
Outfitters serve a niche, and I like to think that they help expose people to the outdoors, and maybe one of those people is the next great conservationist.
This is a great thread. Thank you.

 

[Bar]

Whatever number of non residents are cut from Idaho. I hope Colorado cuts that many Idaho residents from coming to Colorado. That's the Trump style. Hit me and I hit back 10 times as hard.

 

[mtnwrunner]

Randy I was just trying to talk my wife into moving to Idaho

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Well, at least you're not from California

Randy

 

[realunlucky]

Well, at least you're not from California

Randy

If I was it would be an easier sell as half her family would have probably already moved there.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[Bar]

If I was it would be an easier sell as half her family would have probably already moved there.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

And living near or in Denver.

 

[sneaky]

I think a couple of things after browsing through this thread... Admittedly, I didn't read every single post.

A. I can't blame Idaho for looking out for residents since overcrowding may be the real root issue.
B. If the state still needs the NR money, having separate seasons for non-residents seems fair to me. Let the NRs (I'm one) fight the crowds. Give the residents the peak times.
C. Limiting the number of NR tags seems logical.
D. Hunting in any way is an expensive sport, its only going worse. That's the world we live in. Yuk.
E. It is going to get more crowded and harder to get hunting places... As the public land in other areas disappears and everything is a "pay to play game", residents in places like Idaho will get squeezed. If the state doesn't protect it's resident's opportunities they will lose out as well.

B. Really? Separate seasons? That's the dumbest idea I've ever heard. Why would any NR pay a premium to hunt off-peak times? There wouldn't be any crowds, or money coming in to IDF&G. They already limit NR in the most popular zones. Like Diamond Creek in SE Idaho. Locals complain that the NR are overrunning it, but they sell twice as many Res tags as NR tags. I'm wondering what units are truly seeing more NR hunters than Res hunters. They are going to cater to outfitters, that's a foregone conclusion, because they keep looking at the train wreck in Utah to see how much money is coming in.

 

[HookUp]

This sums it up I am Idaho native born and raised. I am not a resident now and I have still asked IDFG when are you going to cap the non res archery elk tags in my zone. Last year was a zoo with out of staters out numbering the locals. If it comes down to getting a tag I will move back home but if your spots you hunt your whole life get taken over it makes for a bitter experience. I am on both sides of the fence but for the quality of the hunts sake action needs to be taken for the local hunters. Idaho has become over ran with oportunity hunters. 5 years ago is nothing like last years archery hunt.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

Prior to hunting the zone your talking about I asked the bio why unlimited tags. He simply stated we are over objective on elk, they are in people's backyards and some hunting is needed to reduce the herd size. When the smoke cleared after the 2016 season the unit had a whopping 16% success rate. While I understand extra hunters are a bother there are some management issues at play here and the extras hunters didn't exactly get it done. If you are asking IDFG to reduce hunters simply so you see less people but are over objective on elk I dont think thats the best argument. In my home state of Washington we have lots of unlimited deer and elk tags and while Washington is not a destination state and has more hunters per square mile than probably any western state they do not limit out of staters from coming to hunt.

 

[cal_halladay]

Having hunted in the frank the last couple years I come at this with an open mind. We've got to remember we are talking about the largest wilderness expanse in the lower 48 here, the church is giant. Of course the airstrips are busy, that's just like the areas with road systems outside the wilderness. The two deer I've killed in there were 7 1/2 ans 9 1/2 years old both lab aged, there's old mature bucks to be had if people would just work harder and stop their whining. The outfitters are booked up, business is good; allowing them to control the only available tags to non residents would be a shame because they would just start to charge an absolute premium for them as demand increased.

 

[KJH]

B. Really? Separate seasons? That's the dumbest idea I've ever heard. Why would any NR pay a premium to hunt off-peak times? There wouldn't be any crowds, or money coming in to IDF&G. They already limit NR in the most popular zones. Like Diamond Creek in SE Idaho. Locals complain that the NR are overrunning it, but they sell twice as many Res tags as NR tags. I'm wondering what units are truly seeing more NR hunters than Res hunters. They are going to cater to outfitters, that's a foregone conclusion, because they keep looking at the train wreck in Utah to see how much money is coming in.

Sneaky- My dumbest thought is that NR would pay a premium to hunt somewhere if there were not any other easy or OTC options. If you can't easily get a permit in where and when you want to hunt, then anything is better than nothing. I know a lot of guys who hunt crappy places in years where they couldn't draw a permit somewhere else just to hunt that year. They opt for the leftover tags in non-desirable areas. They know full well that their chances are slim, but if they get a tag somewhere, then they can still hunt. They enjoy the hunt and make the best of the couple weeks they take off of work to do it.