Idaho considering limiting non resident opportunity

[Broomd]

"The zone that I've hunted the last 30yrs has been literally mobbed by out of state hunters,it's bad.If you're after a quality hunting experience I think some areas need a quota to alleviate the pressure."

^^^^This.
"Pandering to special interest" crap notwithstanding, thank God that ID F&G might have some brains.
I'm tired of seeing Washington, Utah, Cali hunters in my back acreage, and everywhere else.
Last years Central ID hunt was a disaster due to Washington hunters, thankfully we came home to my place and killed a couple of bucks that the lazy-assed Spokane-based hunters couldn't road kill.
Sorry, no love lost here. I'm a land owner and I'M sick of seeing these guys trespass and drive our roads and kill our game. I don't want their money, I'll pay more for a res tag.
Go home.

 

[Broomd]

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.

Good idea, hunt the Frank.

I've hunted it too, it's large.
Stay there with all the others.

 

[KurtR]

"The zone that I've hunted the last 30yrs has been literally mobbed by out of state hunters,it's bad.If you're after a quality hunting experience I think some areas need a quota to alleviate the pressure."

^^^^This.
"Pandering to special interest" crap notwithstanding, thank God that ID F&G might have some brains.
I'm tired of seeing Washington, Utah, Cali hunters in my back acreage, and everywhere else.
Last years Central ID hunt was a disaster due to Washington hunters, thankfully we came home to my place and killed a couple of bucks that the lazy-assed Spokane-based hunters couldn't road kill.
Sorry, no love lost here. I'm a land owner and I'M sick of seeing these guys trespass and drive our roads and kill our game. I don't want their money, I'll pay more for a res tag.
Go home.

Living in the pheasant capital of the world i understand trespassers and people driving all over. Last year we hunted in the west central part of Idaho and can say i only saw a few other hunters. Having to deal with out of staters we made sure we did not drive where we shouldnt and damn sure we did not trespass. Not all out of staters are bad its just the few that give the bad names. Its people from wisconsin and minnesota here that every one blames for all the trespassing

 

[BroodBuster]

"The zone that I've hunted the last 30yrs has been literally mobbed by out of state hunters,it's bad.If you're after a quality hunting experience I think some areas need a quota to alleviate the pressure."

^^^^This.
"Pandering to special interest" crap notwithstanding, thank God that ID F&G might have some brains.
I'm tired of seeing Washington, Utah, Cali hunters in my back acreage, and everywhere else.
Last years Central ID hunt was a disaster due to Washington hunters, thankfully we came home to my place and killed a couple of bucks that the lazy-assed Spokane-based hunters couldn't road kill.
Sorry, no love lost here. I'm a land owner and I'M sick of seeing these guys trespass and drive our roads and kill our game. I don't want their money, I'll pay more for a res tag.
Go home.

Oh WHAAAAAAA!

30 years ago there were 1.5 million folks in Wa and today there are 7.5.

Cal 39.1 million
Wa 7.6
Co 5.5
Ut 3.0
Id 1.5

Do you hate America or just Americans? Disregarding the trespassers of course as that's just BS and should be dealt with to the full extent of the law!

 

[elkyinzer]

When we rent our truck in Boise for elk hunting we always request it has Idaho plates! Tricked yinz. Ain't going to apologize for killing "your" elk and will fight for the privelege to do so.

I get both sides of this debate. I'm fine with more equitable solutions for the locals as long as outfitters are not subsidized a dime pushing DIY nonresidents out. Time and time again in these situations that is exactly what happens though, the politicians take over and outfitter welfare wins because "it creates jobs/brings local economies money" and that rhetoric wins elections.

That said, I think a lot of this is driven by locals that go to the same place year after year, and are seeing seasonal variations that can be caused by dozens of factors. Here's a tip, do some scouting and develop backup plans. Drive a little farther away from population centers. One honey hole does not make a successful hunter, you need about a half dozen and the more the better.

Backcountry hunting is the new cool thing, and I'm not sure it's a fad. I think it's here to stay because it is such a great experience. This is not the first such debate that will be next couple decades as these places are starting to meet their carrying capacity in hunters.

 

[Idahohillboy]

Last year in Central Idaho it was a complete disaster. Whether or not they claim the units are over objective. The units have issues because wealthy people build homes in the creatures habitats then make it private and then whine when the decorative bushes get eaten. No one is against out of state hunters what we are against is the overcrowding due to a large influx of non res in some zones and units. Frank Church and the fly in hunts are not what we are speaking of here either.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[Broomd]

Oh WHAAAAAAA!

30 years ago there were 1.5 million folks in Wa and today there are 7.5.

Cal 39.1 million
Wa 7.6
Co 5.5
Ut 3.0
Id 1.5

Do you hate America or just Americans? Disregarding the trespassers of course as that's just BS and should be dealt with to the full extent of the law!

Yeah "I hate Americans" lol.....riiiight. Actually just Washingtonians. Glad to see the state of Idaho taking action. We don't need 'Kalifornia North' (especially Bothelians) invading God's country. Stay out.

 

[SlimWhitman]

Wait, is this public land? Or Idaho state resident land? Maybe we need to get back to the basics here.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[idelkslayer]

This topic is beginning to derail and only a couple people came close to the reason why IDFG is proposing these changes. I will address first the need to place a quota on NR in the currently unlimited controlled hunts. Then I will address the question of NR in general and finally public land.

The controlled hunts has 2 parts:

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.

Second some history and more numbers. 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. IDFG recognizes that this is a unique hunting opportunity and was trying to continue to offer it to those who really want to do it instead of those who had it as a back-up plan.

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. Once a unit has been "capped" IDFG has to guarantee some tags to outfitters. I don't like it but at least any that the outfitters don't sell by a certain date go back to the publicly accessible pool.

As for NR in general. The trouble is that not all elk zones and deer units have NR quotas. Some do but most fall into the general statewide quota. So while the total number of NR can't exceed the quota and therefore NR numbers in the field aren't rising, it does nothing to prevent an overload of NR in specific areas. I think that IDFG needs to place NR quotas on every elk zone and possibly create deer zones that do the same thing to distribute NR hunting pressure more evenly. The closer a unit is to a state boundary the more likely it is to be inundated with NR. Limit the number allowed in each region and spread them out more.

As for NR whining that it is public land and they should have as much right as anyone to hunt there. They are confusing two issues. One is Federal ownership of the land and the other is state ownership of the wildlife. Yes NRs you have just as much right to access the federal land as anyone else but you do not have as much right to hunt the animals here as the residents do. That is a fact in every state.

To summarize:
IDFG is making a good move to place a quota on NR in the unlimited units, and I believe it is only a matter a time before there is a quota for residents as well. The problem is that these hunts have become very popular in recent years and although it is a huge area there are very few access points and so the total area actually being hunted is small.

NR, I don't hold anything against you for wanting to come and hunt in Idaho, but residents should have greater opportunity than NR to hunt in their own state and that goes for every state.

 

[tttoadman]

Since 27 is out on the table...
First of all I would like thank Idelkslayer for a quality post that gets this back on track. We all have a vested interest in how every state is managed. I understand supporting the home crowd, and the F&G people have a tough job to do balancing home team and NR dollars.

I have a few thoughts.
1. I would be OK if they made a NR cap as long as it also had a resident cap. Just like the current situation, one change can have some unintended results. I am not so certain that ID residence don't have more economical choices than spending the money to get into 27. NR have already made a reasonable investment in NR fees, so the added logistics may be a little easier to chew.

2. I would be more inclined to put in for a NR package that included the elk and deer tag. I don't put on a second choice. If I don't get it, I get refunded all of my license fees less a small administrative fee for IDFG.

3. Would it be crazy for them to make the deer tag an early and a late. 11/1 to 11/9, 11/10 to 11/18 ??

I realize this starts to get more complex. I understand the goal is to keep it simple and avoid becoming a science project like OR and other states.

 

[johnsd16]

This topic is beginning to derail and only a couple people came close to the reason why IDFG is proposing these changes. I will address first the need to place a quota on NR in the currently unlimited controlled hunts. Then I will address the question of NR in general and finally public land.

The controlled hunts has 2 parts:

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.

Second some history and more numbers. 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. IDFG recognizes that this is a unique hunting opportunity and was trying to continue to offer it to those who really want to do it instead of those who had it as a back-up plan.

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. Once a unit has been "capped" IDFG has to guarantee some tags to outfitters. I don't like it but at least any that the outfitters don't sell by a certain date go back to the publicly accessible pool.

As for NR in general. The trouble is that not all elk zones and deer units have NR quotas. Some do but most fall into the general statewide quota. So while the total number of NR can't exceed the quota and therefore NR numbers in the field aren't rising, it does nothing to prevent an overload of NR in specific areas. I think that IDFG needs to place NR quotas on every elk zone and possibly create deer zones that do the same thing to distribute NR hunting pressure more evenly. The closer a unit is to a state boundary the more likely it is to be inundated with NR. Limit the number allowed in each region and spread them out more.

As for NR whining that it is public land and they should have as much right as anyone to hunt there. They are confusing two issues. One is Federal ownership of the land and the other is state ownership of the wildlife. Yes NRs you have just as much right to access the federal land as anyone else but you do not have as much right to hunt the animals here as the residents do. That is a fact in every state.

To summarize:
IDFG is making a good move to place a quota on NR in the unlimited units, and I believe it is only a matter a time before there is a quota for residents as well. The problem is that these hunts have become very popular in recent years and although it is a huge area there are very few access points and so the total area actually being hunted is small.

NR, I don't hold anything against you for wanting to come and hunt in Idaho, but residents should have greater opportunity than NR to hunt in their own state and that goes for every state.

Great post! Those are some crazy numbers when you think about all the other states that put a 25% or 10% cap on NR tags for any given hunt. With all the point creep and increased demand it only stands to reason that these OTC opportunities (ID and CO mainly) are feeling the strain. It is almost silly to think that every area in every state won't end up with a NR quota (tags or harvest) or just go to a draw.

I am moving to ID and will be a NR for tags this year but will be a resident in 2018. I am excited for all that opportunity but a tiny part of me wishes the residents had a little sweeter deal (and they still have a way better gig especially for trophy species) like they do in other states where NR are lucky to get even a mid/low tier hunt every few years. However I am not envious of the residents of several other western states that still have steep odds for decent hunts.

What will be interesting is what the next 2 decades bring as we lose the baby boomers from the hunting ranks (who also own a lot of the land in the Midwest) and we see just how long this spike in hunting popularity with the millennial (20s, hunting/fitness) generation lasts. It's great to have an uptick in popularity but with the good comes some collateral.

 

[bluetick78]

I've found many of the replies on this thread insightful, some delirious with complications, and some downright ignorant. The bottom line is that every other state bordering Idaho has greatly reduced hunter opportunity. Idaho cannot be a haven for everyone that doesn't draw in their own state, yet it is quickly becoming just that. We welcome the non-resident crowd that spurs the local economies statewide and helps feed the families of our outfitters and their hard working employees. But it has become time to draw a line and turn some away just as your states (except Colorado) have done to us more and more so. Non-resident hunting is supposed to be a reciprocal relationship, but it is becoming anything but. I urge everyone that migrates to Idaho each spring and fall to partake of our natural resources to ask themselves why the same pleasure cannot be had in your state of residence. Is it the residents and governing bodies of Idaho that have been tasked with providing unlimited opportunity on resources that are extremely finite? No, it is not. Your own state governments and connected aristocrats have done you a disservice, and it is time to change that, but only the majority can come together and conquer the powerful establishments.
Quit lamenting Idaho's proposal that is far yet from law, and go to work in your own states proving that hunting is more than just a pastime, but something you will fight for as hard as you can. Only then will you truly enjoy the experience of harvesting an animal for the table after a hard fought battle to restore rights that were historically granted to those passed on. Be assertive, be aggressive and good luck.

 

[dreamingbig]

When you subtract revenue but want to keep the budget unchanged you have a few options...

1. Increase resident hunter recruitment which will require many more hunters afield than current mix for same revenue

2. Increase cost to non-residents and hope you don't dramatically impact (reduce) demand

3. Charge residents more

Pick your poison.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SlimWhitman]

People that live in western states may forget the amazing position they are in when it comes to public land. Take a look at the percentages of land available in the other states. Pointing the finger and saying fix your own state is easier said than done. While I'd love to be fighting for more land, we're fighting hard enough to keep the land that isn't even in our state. I live in Texas. Probably one of the more f'd up ones to live in in terms of whole principle of public land hunting. I'm still a member of all conservation groups and donate a good chunk of my money and time to protect land in YOUR states. I'm not the only one in that position either. Residents of one particular state need to remember we're all in this together and there are a good chunk of people fighting for someone else's home turf.

We spend our whole year planning for a week or two of enjoying it.

All that being said, I understand the gripe of overcrowding. I just don't think segregating resident/non-resident should be the conclusion. If it keeps going down that road, I'd get ready to have more residents or less support.

Maybe what we need to be focusing on is getting everyone participating actually involved in the public land fight. Ya know, maybe come together instead of find reasons to divide us any further? Hug it out? Ya I know....good luck with that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SlimWhitman]

And I'll also add I'm not suggesting it be equal down the board. I'm fine paying more for tags like we do. Maybe this is just in response to one particular view expressed in this thread....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lif]

I'm from California and still back the idaho boys on this. Couple guys seem a little spiteful at others for a hunter hanging out with other hunters on a forum. We should all be here for the same reason.

 

[Rizzy]

A lot of western states have quotas and severely cap the nonresident tags, it stands to reason most end up hunting idaho. I would like to see more tag quotas (regardless of residency) myself, but I also like being able to buy a left over nonresident tag as a second deer and elk tag.......

 

[Bar]

Great post! Those are some crazy numbers when you think about all the other states that put a 25% or 10% cap on NR tags for any given hunt. With all the point creep and increased demand it only stands to reason that these OTC opportunities (ID and CO mainly) are feeling the strain. It is almost silly to think that every area in every state won't end up with a NR quota (tags or harvest) or just go to a draw.

I am moving to ID and will be a NR for tags this year but will be a resident in 2018. I am excited for all that opportunity but a tiny part of me wishes the residents had a little sweeter deal (and they still have a way better gig especially for trophy species) like they do in other states where NR are lucky to get even a mid/low tier hunt every few years. However I am not envious of the residents of several other western states that still have steep odds for decent hunts.

What will be interesting is what the next 2 decades bring as we lose the baby boomers from the hunting ranks (who also own a lot of the land in the Midwest) and we see just how long this spike in hunting popularity with the millennial (20s, hunting/fitness) generation lasts. It's great to have an uptick in popularity but with the good comes some collateral.

Not true. Colorado gives a NR 35% of tags.

 

[realunlucky]

Not true. Colorado gives a NR 35% of tags.

This side tracks this thread but I would like you see where you are getting this number from

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[Bar]

DOW website. Plus, it's a well known fact. Call them up and ask them.