Idaho considering limiting non resident opportunity

[idahohikker]

Just about every Western state charges a bunch for non residents and not much (comparatively) for residents. There's a lot of factors in play but of course they want to pad their budget with non resident fees. Colorado is basically no limits on residents. Luckily, Idaho recognizes that the door shouldn't be wide open.

 

[HellsCanyon]

Where did I say they weren't? I've never said they should give more than 10% of tags to NR. The F&G budget depends on the NR money. I've said multiple times, the ONLY reason I've lived in Utah for the past 3 years is because of work. No other reason. Now I'm at the point where I can finally get out of Utah and the plans have already been made. You'll never catch me in a group grip and grin, and you'll certainly never catch me wearing a damn flat brim hat. I'll leave that up to the social media warriors who are #sickforit. Now, would you agree or disagree that NR tag fees help keep resident tag fees reasonable? I think they do.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Just to further the discussion and searching for clarification... it seems that your focal points for this idfg decision is it favors outfitters and residents over non residents, and it takes away money from idfg by limiting the nonresidents?


I think it’s a good indication that the idfg is willing to reduce their moneys to better a hunt experience. Idfg has been very good to nonresidents (myself included for many years) with opportunity and they do a good job of maintaining that. I think this particular issue was dealt with because it had quickly become one of the most popular nonresident hunts in Idaho with limited access points (due largely in part to websites and social media platforms like this one). The quality of the hunt experience has gone down significantly in these wilderness units due to what is consequently high nonresident hunter numbers. Easiest way for them to bring back a quality experience to a wilderness hunt is to limit the number of hunters, and they did that by limiting the nonresidents as they were the vast majority of hunters putting in for those units. I don’t read into it anymore than that.

Mike


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sneaky]

I guess I should clarify....I only posted the copy of that article because this topic was brought up last year about limiting the NR in those wilderness units. I've never done that hunt personally, and only know a couple of Idaho residents that have. Until it was mentioned after I posted that article I didn't even realize the outfitters had gotten as many tags as they did. I only see that as a slight against the DIY type hunter, not necessarily against NR in general.

Just to further the discussion and searching for clarification... it seems that your focal points for this idfg decision is it favors outfitters and residents over non residents, and it takes away money from idfg by limiting the nonresidents?


I think it’s a good indication that the idfg is willing to reduce their moneys to better a hunt experience. Idfg has been very good to nonresidents (myself included for many years) with opportunity and they do a good job of maintaining that. I think this particular issue was dealt with because it had quickly become one of the most popular nonresident hunts in Idaho with limited access points (due largely in part to websites and social media platforms like this one). The quality of the hunt experience has gone down significantly in these wilderness units due to what is consequently high nonresident hunter numbers. Easiest way for them to bring back a quality experience to a wilderness hunt is to limit the number of hunters, and they did that by limiting the nonresidents as they were the vast majority of hunters putting in for those units. I don’t read into it anymore than that.

Mike


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[Gobbler36]

You allude to there being an issue with Idaho F&G Sneaky. But last I checked, you and half the rest of Utah was headed here for the month of September and most of October. I don't really think Idaho has an "issue". No one is happy all the time with the way things are run, but I'd say Idaho is doing a lot more right than most other states. They actually listen to their constituency........that's why the tag fees are still low for residents. If you dissect all of these "issues", it seems to me that Idaho and Colorado have a lot less severe case than most other Western states that just can't seem to figure out how to give even half their residents a chance to shoot a deer. So in turn they have to jump on here and bawl to the world that Idaho only gives up to 10% of its tags to them and their non-resident brothers and sisters. And then bawl about all of Idaho's alleged issues; when we all know the real "issue" here is that your own states have screwed up their big game herds and bent you over so badly that Idaho is your only hope of being able to actually carry your own rifle and tag, instead of being one of 37 people in the pic with some flat-brimmed Kuiu Commando who drew his tag after 23 years of applying. Let's get real here, Idaho is pretty damn good to non-residents.

Exactly
But with the way this place is growing with people fleeing CA I think they will have to start looking at backing down from 10% and raising resident prices significantly, if they care about having quality experiences in the outdoors.

 

[idahohikker]

Very well said, Mike

 

[realunlucky]

Exactly
But with the way this place is growing with people fleeing CA I think they will have to start looking at backing down from 10% and raising resident prices significantly, if they care about having quality experiences in the outdoors.

It's not a 10% allocation it's up to 10% there is a big difference sometimes they don't draw a non resident tag at all in the unit I apply for

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk