Idaho considering limiting non resident opportunity

[woodmoose]

interesting,,,,didn't know that Colorado capped the NR OTC tags

back in topic - I haven't hunted Idaho since 2005 but sure miss it. I can't blame them for capping NR tags. World gets crowded'r every day and it's not going the other way any time soon,,,,,,

 

[orionthehunter1]

They don't he was referring to draw tags, specifically deer. Realunlucky look at the stats some units are even more than 35% to non residents.

 

[bigdesert10]

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

While I agree with you about the value of everyone working to protect land access, I think you missed the point that was made regarding hunters fighting in their home states. That call to action was, in my view, mostly directed at those you live in states that have plenty of public land, but have poorly managed game. Places like Utah, where there is ample land and ample animals, but a scarcity of tags for residents because everything is being managed for "quality". That's BS and is largely a result of the will of half-hearted hunters who care more about getting a low effort wall hanger every 5 years than just being able to hunt every year. It is the greatest tragedy of our time, in my opinion, that there are guys that can't hunt in their own back yards but once a decade if they're lucky. It's one thing if the herd can't sustain it but I think it's a joke to manage based on percentage of trophy class animals rather than just the health and sustainability of the herd.

 

[SlimWhitman]

While I agree with you about the value of everyone working to protect land access, I think you missed the point that was made regarding hunters fighting in their home states. That call to action was, in my view, mostly directed at those you live in states that have plenty of public land, but have poorly managed game. Places like Utah, where there is ample land and ample animals, but a scarcity of tags for residents because everything is being managed for "quality". That's BS and is largely a result of the will of half-hearted hunters who care more about getting a low effort wall hanger every 5 years than just being able to hunt every year. It is the greatest tragedy of our time, in my opinion, that there are guys that can't hunt in their own back yards but once a decade if they're lucky. It's one thing if the herd can't sustain it but I think it's a joke to manage based on percentage of trophy class animals rather than just the health and sustainability of the herd.

And I completely agree with that aspect. But that's exactly why addressing that by lumping all non-residents together is ineffective. And exactly why I hate the "res vs non-res" b.s. Not all non-res are coming in trashing land and busting heards out of drainages, just like not all res are being stewards of the land. All the issues are worth addressing, but drawing that line does nothing to actually fix the problems.

Just my 2-cents.

Is there any way to see the funding breakdown of res and non-res(doing exactly what I said is not worth it....) I'm just curious with the difference in tag prices and numbers of each, how much is contributed. I'd hope that has some influence on these decisions since it is what actually influences the management of the land.

At the end of the day I don't care what happens as long as that is what the priority is and the benefits are spread proportionally.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Desk Jockey]

As a relative nube, I se merits on both sides.

The conspiracy theorist in me would wonder if there might not be some kind of divide and conquer occurring here. As an easterner with western hunting aspirations, I am going to care lot more about land politics and what not in a state where I have more opportunitities to Hunt.

Intuitively, the fewer non-resident options that exist in a given state, the less likely you are to get support from hunters outside the state. Am I way off?

Also, do non residents spend more per hunter? Non resident tags are substantially more but I wonder if there are stats on per hunter spending that shows variance to resident and nonresident.

When I hunt close to home, I am pretty self sufficient Gas and maybe some food coming and going.

When I have hunted out of state, I rent cars, buy ammo and gear that I forgot, sleep in hotels, restaurants / bars, guides, shipping stuff home, etc.

In addition to the lower license fees it seems like there is an adverse impact to the hunting economy if you start to limit the access for non residents.

 

[bluetick78]

Slim Whitman, you can find the financial information of Idaho's F&G with a complicated process through Idaho's state government. But beware, that only shows a very small part of the whole. A large percentage of F&G's revenue is applied back to the state general fund, then reappropriated annually as the Legislature sees fit. This gives the Legislature leverage over F&G decisions and makes the proverbial waters muddy in regards to who contributes what percentage.
That matter aside, I called an old friend of mine that's recently retired from the USFS to discuss some points that were unclear. He cleared up the "public land" vs. "public animal" question for me. Federal agencies are tasked with managing federal land, BLM and Forest Service land most notably. The game animals and non-game animals are tasked to the state to manage. The federal land is everyone's to enjoy, but there are fees that apply to most services such as campgrounds and National Parks. They do not differentiate between residents and non-residents of a particular state for these services because we all contribute to the federal tax pool at the same rates.
The animals that habitat these federal lands are a different matter entirely. Unless the animal is currently under some type of federal protection, then the management and harvest is tasked to the state, along with the bill for those services.
So yes the land itself and resources such as timber and minerals and some forms of recreation are equal access to all those that inhabit this great country, the animals are not. They are under the complete control of the state as far as public land is concerned. States will almost always give the upper hand to their own tax paying residents rather than non-residents. It is in the best interests of each state to keep the people happy inside their own borders first, since they are contributing the Lions share in total tax revenue.
I am not trying to sound patronizing or pick a cyber-fight with you. I am trying to make certain that everyone realizes that every state has the right to limit or completely do away with non-resident hunting opportunity, and that it is a separate issue than public land access. Public land=Federal regulation, hunting opportunity=State regulation. Idaho is not trying to limit your access to federal lands as some other states have done, they are merely contemplating limiting your participation in pursuing and harvesting a state owned resource.

 

[woodmoose]

They don't he was referring to draw tags, specifically deer. Realunlucky look at the stats some units are even more than 35% to non residents.

aaahhh,,,,thanks, that I knew,,,read to much into it I guess,,,,,thanks

 

[Bar]

I wasn't just talking about deer. I'm first and foremost an elk hunter. That's where my main interest is. It can be a bit complicated on what percentage of tags NR get. Here's a break down.

License Allocations:
Nonresident allocations are determined
by the average number of preference
points a Colorado resident needed
to draw a specific license during a
3-year period that ended with the 2009
drawing. (Units with low numbers of
available licenses may not have any remaining
for nonresidents after resident
licenses are drawn.)
1. For hunt codes that required six or
more points for a Colorado resident
to draw an elk or deer license, up to
20 percent may go to nonresidents.
These hunts are shown in unit tables
by a “+ ” under the “SEX” column of
the hunt tables.
2. For hunt codes that required fewer
than six points for a Colorado resident
to draw an elk or deer license, up
to 35 percent may go to nonresidents.
3. Nonresident allocations may increase
if licenses remain after drawing all
fi rst-choice hunt codes for Colorado
residents.
4. License allocations do not apply to
private-land-only and Ranching For
Wildlife licenses.
5. In a group of applications made up of
both residents and nonresidents, all
nonresidents in the group will count
against the nonresident allocation.

 

[SlimWhitman]

Slim Whitman, you can find the financial information of Idaho's F&G with a complicated process through Idaho's state government. But beware, that only shows a very small part of the whole. A large percentage of F&G's revenue is applied back to the state general fund, then reappropriated annually as the Legislature sees fit. This gives the Legislature leverage over F&G decisions and makes the proverbial waters muddy in regards to who contributes what percentage.
That matter aside, I called an old friend of mine that's recently retired from the USFS to discuss some points that were unclear. He cleared up the "public land" vs. "public animal" question for me. Federal agencies are tasked with managing federal land, BLM and Forest Service land most notably. The game animals and non-game animals are tasked to the state to manage. The federal land is everyone's to enjoy, but there are fees that apply to most services such as campgrounds and National Parks. They do not differentiate between residents and non-residents of a particular state for these services because we all contribute to the federal tax pool at the same rates.
The animals that habitat these federal lands are a different matter entirely. Unless the animal is currently under some type of federal protection, then the management and harvest is tasked to the state, along with the bill for those services.
So yes the land itself and resources such as timber and minerals and some forms of recreation are equal access to all those that inhabit this great country, the animals are not. They are under the complete control of the state as far as public land is concerned. States will almost always give the upper hand to their own tax paying residents rather than non-residents. It is in the best interests of each state to keep the people happy inside their own borders first, since they are contributing the Lions share in total tax revenue.
I am not trying to sound patronizing or pick a cyber-fight with you. I am trying to make certain that everyone realizes that every state has the right to limit or completely do away with non-resident hunting opportunity, and that it is a separate issue than public land access. Public land=Federal regulation, hunting opportunity=State regulation. Idaho is not trying to limit your access to federal lands as some other states have done, they are merely contemplating limiting your participation in pursuing and harvesting a state owned resource.

That I understand, even though it gets complicated. And while that is the case, would the support for public land be the same without hunting? While they are separate, they are very connected. You can't talk about public lands without talking about hunting, and you can't talk about western big game hunting without talking about public lands. The management of those game animals is the same, and whether or not the specifics show the connection, non-res do have an impact on how those animals are managed.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bigdesert10]

As a relative nube, I se merits on both sides.

The conspiracy theorist in me would wonder if there might not be some kind of divide and conquer occurring here. As an easterner with western hunting aspirations, I am going to care lot more about land politics and what not in a state where I have more opportunitities to Hunt.

Intuitively, the fewer non-resident options that exist in a given state, the less likely you are to get support from hunters outside the state. Am I way off?

Also, do non residents spend more per hunter? Non resident tags are substantially more but I wonder if there are stats on per hunter spending that shows variance to resident and nonresident.

When I hunt close to home, I am pretty self sufficient Gas and maybe some food coming and going.

When I have hunted out of state, I rent cars, buy ammo and gear that I forgot, sleep in hotels, restaurants / bars, guides, shipping stuff home, etc.

In addition to the lower license fees it seems like there is an adverse impact to the hunting economy if you start to limit the access for non residents.

Believe me, it is in IDFG's best interest to keep public lands public. Whether it's federal, state, or private land, they still are responsible for the wildlife, and it's a lot easier (and less expensive) to manage game on public land. So you can rest easy that IDFG is not in cahoots with the Wilks brothers.

Also, when you consider the money that year-round residents pour into the local economy, plus the value of them being repeat F&G customers yearly over the course of decades and that they buy most of their outdoor gear locally (PR funds), not to mention paying state taxes, sales tax, gas tax, etc, you start to realize that NR funds are not as big a piece of the pie as you'd like to think. Not saying it's not significant or valuable, but to argue that NR hunters should somehow get preferential treatment is ludicrous. Not necessarily saying that's what you were arguing, but I've heard that argument from some.

Lastly, as stated multiple times through this thread, these quotas are not intended to be any kind of an attack on NR hunters, but are simply an inevitable step in managing growing participation numbers. The first people to feel the sting are going to be the NR hunters because it is the duty of IDFG to prioritize resident hunters, as it is (and should be) in every state.

 

[bluetick78]

Bigdesert10, I heartily agree with you. If the other Western states provided ample opportunity to their residents for outdoor pursuits, Idaho would not have to contemplate cutting non-resident opportunity. The reason I say "Western" states is that, to me and many others, there is a big difference between a hunter coming from back east to hunt once every five or ten years , and someone coming from Washington or Utah every year (sometimes several times per year). The unlucky folks who live back east simply do not have the opportunity to hunt mule deer, elk, sheep, or goats. Utah and Washington, among others, do have those resources available in their own state but politics have forced them out. Most Idaho sportsmen do not feel that it is our responsibility to provide an opportunity to every hunter from a neighboring state because of issues in said neighboring state. I might feel differently if I lived somewhere else, but I live in Idaho and my reasoning will not change or be swayed by people that feel like my work and my fellow sportsmans work should be their unlimited bounty for a nominal fee.

 

[Bar]

How many from Idaho come to Colorado?

 

[bluetick78]

No clue, why don't you find out and let me know. I certainly don't.

 

[Bar]

You're missing the point. What you accuse other western states hunters of doing. Idaho hunters are doing the same thing.

 

[bluetick78]

No, I'm not missing your point. Colorado has the same problem that Idaho does, and I've reiterated that twice now in this thread. I'm genuinely interested to know what percentage of the non-resident licenses in Colorado were sold to Idahoans in '16. I'll make some inquiries tomorrow and get back to you. That'll help this discussion to be somewhat constructive.

 

[idelkslayer]

It was stated before but bears repeating. Most of my concerns about NR has more to do with hunters from neighboring states, not the easterner that only comes out every few years.

In southern Idaho it's the Utahans who have pimped their wildlife to SFW and other special interests and then inundate Idaho and Wyoming because they can't draw tags at home. In North Idaho you can't hunt or fish anywhere without wondering whether or not you took wrong turn and ended up in Washington.

The pressure in both areas in highly localized near the borders. Regional or unit quotas might help spread them out.

Each state should put residents first regardless of how much revenue is generated by each group.

What is still not being understood by some in this discussion is that this proposal does NOT reduce the total number of NR tags in Idaho. It only caps the number of NR tags in fewer​ than 6 units that currently are unlimited. The total statewide NR quota will remain unchanged.


Sent from my 5046G using Tapatalk

 

[Idahohillboy]

Probably not many when general hunting is available in yoyr back yard with less private land. I know I never have upfront draw fees are high.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[KurtR]

I hunted the second week of elk season last year in a otc unit and saw 3 people. I was expecting to see alot more from the way it sounds on forums. I was expecting it like pheasant season here but was pleasantly surprised how few people there were. Either way I will go with what ever the state says as I am a visitor and will play by there rules with no complaint.

 

[paleraider]

How many from Idaho come to Colorado?

Of those that I know of none. They all try for spots in MT, WY, NM, and AZ.

 

[Antlers]

"Not all non-res are coming in trashing land and busting heards out of drainages, just like not all res are being stewards of the land."

Yes, Amen; that's right!