Idaho DFG Website

[mmcdonough]

The F & G website is a lot better than other states that I've gone through. WAAYYYYY better than what it is in Minnesota for example. It's simply a case of being overloaded and not having the server capability to handle so many people accessing the site at once. It happens with the big clothing brands like KUIU and FL when they have sales too.

As for the non-resident tag issues. I have a small beef with it but I don't blame them for raising the prices after next year. They were definitely behind all of the other western states. I really hope they don't switch to a point system though. As someone who was born and raised there the majority of my life I'd like to continue to have relatively easy access to hunt my home state. Especially for the abundant OTC tag opportunities. I don't need to draw some special unit, there's plenty of elk in the OTC spots I hunt.

It would be awesome if they eventually introduced a native resident tag program like Montana.

 

[Anywhere But Here!]

I agreed that I do t need to draw a special unit, I've had nothing to complain about in the units I hunt.
I will preface the rest of this by saying that Idaho can and should do whatever they want, their state. That said, the optics of this proposed change look bad and they only get magnified because of things like this board when people can't have cordial, intelligent conversation on the topic.
As a NR why are the optics bad? First the issue does not appear to be about management of elk or long-term health of the population it seems to be about residents complaining about over crowding.
Looking at the available information you can see that the NR quotas have been pretty much the same for years accross the different species, elk included, while resident hunters number have increased. Have they sold more NR tags in recent years because every person with a TV show, website or podcast has hyped up Idaho, definitely. But the state has never had an issue with sell that number of tags from a management or revenue standpoint. That's why their first attempt to appease residents and maximize revenue was to open the NR quota to second tags after a given date.
From an elk standpoint a NR already pays 11+x what a resident pays for tag alone not to mention higher license fees, ect., which is normal in any state. A resident hunters pays $36 for an elk tag and they should truely appreciate how low that cost is when they take an honest look at it. Now if you look at it accross all species it has been reported that NR hunter fees account for 57% of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game’s license revenue. So it's not like we're getting a free ride.
Add it all up and what it looks like is the residents passing the blame to NR when we aren't really the issue and wanting us to foot the bill. Wanting to do both cut out NR opportunity and increase cost. Reallocate qutoa numbers to address the issue of more resident hunters, great, makes sense and should be done. Increase costs to NR by hundreds of dollars to keep your coffers full at the same time, when a nominal increase residents, who already get undervalued tag prices, would accomplish the same thing is where it starts to get to into murky waters for some of us that have been spending our hard earned money and time off of work in Idaho for years.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[sneaky]

I agreed that I do t need to draw a special unit, I've had nothing to complain about in the units I hunt.
I will preface the rest of this by saying that Idaho can and should do whatever they want, their state. That said, the optics of this proposed change look bad and they only get magnified because of things like this board when people can't have cordial, intelligent conversation on the topic.
As a NR why are the optics bad? First the issue does not appear to be about management of elk or long-term health of the population it seems to be about residents complaining about over crowding.
Looking at the available information you can see that the NR quotas have been pretty much the same for years accross the different species, elk included, while resident hunters number have increased. Have they sold more NR tags in recent years because every person with a TV show, website or podcast has hyped up Idaho, definitely. But the state has never had an issue with sell that number of tags from a management or revenue standpoint. That's why their first attempt to appease residents and maximize revenue was to open the NR quota to second tags after a given date.
From an elk standpoint a NR already pays 11+x what a resident pays for tag alone not to mention higher license fees, ect., which is normal in any state. A resident hunters pays $36 for an elk tag and they should truely appreciate how low that cost is when they take an honest look at it. Now if you look at it accross all species it has been reported that NR hunter fees account for 57% of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game’s license revenue. So it's not like we're getting a free ride.
Add it all up and what it looks like is the residents passing the blame to NR when we aren't really the issue and wanting us to foot the bill. Wanting to do both cut out NR opportunity and increase cost. Reallocate qutoa numbers to address the issue of more resident hunters, great, makes sense and should be done. Increase costs to NR by hundreds of dollars to keep your coffers full at the same time, when a nominal increase residents, who already get undervalued tag prices, would accomplish the same thing is where it starts to get to into murky waters for some of us that have been spending our hard earned money and time off of work in Idaho for years.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

So, explain to us why residents should pay more because you think NR already pay enough? That argument will never hold water. Montana NR tags are 20x the resident rates and they have no problem selling out.

A lot of the 2nd tags used to be bought up by residents, but that's changed quite a bit the last few years as NR have bought most of the tags up before Aug 1st, so in reality, there are more NR hunters than before.

57% of revenue encompasses all NR fees. Guys need to stop acting like that's all coming from elk tags. A lot of that revenue is coming from fishing, upland bird hunters etc etc.

The population in Idaho has grown tremendously, but 90% of those who moved in would rather see hunting stopped than to take part in it. They need to change Ada county plates from 1A to BA because it's becoming the Bay Area north.



Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[GregB]

I agreed that I do t need to draw a special unit, I've had nothing to complain about in the units I hunt.
I will preface the rest of this by saying that Idaho can and should do whatever they want, their state. That said, the optics of this proposed change look bad and they only get magnified because of things like this board when people can't have cordial, intelligent conversation on the topic.
As a NR why are the optics bad? First the issue does not appear to be about management of elk or long-term health of the population it seems to be about residents complaining about over crowding.
Looking at the available information you can see that the NR quotas have been pretty much the same for years accross the different species, elk included, while resident hunters number have increased. Have they sold more NR tags in recent years because every person with a TV show, website or podcast has hyped up Idaho, definitely. But the state has never had an issue with sell that number of tags from a management or revenue standpoint. That's why their first attempt to appease residents and maximize revenue was to open the NR quota to second tags after a given date.
From an elk standpoint a NR already pays 11+x what a resident pays for tag alone not to mention higher license fees, ect., which is normal in any state. A resident hunters pays $36 for an elk tag and they should truely appreciate how low that cost is when they take an honest look at it. Now if you look at it accross all species it has been reported that NR hunter fees account for 57% of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game’s license revenue. So it's not like we're getting a free ride.
Add it all up and what it looks like is the residents passing the blame to NR when we aren't really the issue and wanting us to foot the bill. Wanting to do both cut out NR opportunity and increase cost. Reallocate qutoa numbers to address the issue of more resident hunters, great, makes sense and should be done. Increase costs to NR by hundreds of dollars to keep your coffers full at the same time, when a nominal increase residents, who already get undervalued tag prices, would accomplish the same thing is where it starts to get to into murky waters for some of us that have been spending our hard earned money and time off of work in Idaho for years.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Idaho has some of the cheapest NR tags, they are just bringing the prices in line with other states.

 

[Anywhere But Here!]

So, explain to us why residents should pay more because you think NR already pay enough? That argument will never hold water. Montana NR tags are 20x the resident rates and they have no problem selling out.

A lot of the 2nd tags used to be bought up by residents, but that's changed quite a bit the last few years as NR have bought most of the tags up before Aug 1st, so in reality, there are more NR hunters than before.

57% of revenue encompasses all NR fees. Guys need to stop acting like that's all coming from elk tags. A lot of that revenue is coming from fishing, upland bird hunters etc etc.

The population in Idaho has grown tremendously, but 90% of those who moved in would rather see hunting stopped than to take part in it. They need to change Ada county plates from 1A to BA because it's becoming the Bay Area north.



Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Clearly stated it was not just elk

"Now if you look at it accross all species it has been reported that NR hunter fees account for 57% of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game’s license revenue."

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[87TT]

The only thing I see is NR tags being limited PER zone not total tags. Locals and rightly so, should not be over run by NR. Limiting NR quotas per zone would just spread them out. How would you like to live in a great zone and not be able to get a tag?

 

[Broomd]

especially when most residents don't really care if NR go elsewhere

+1...many of us will gladly pay more....and the word is substantial changes are coming in 2021.

 

[GregB]

Clearly stated it was not just elk

"Now if you look at it accross all species it has been reported that NR hunter fees account for 57% of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game’s license revenue."

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Lets say that you are correct and 57% of license revenue comes form NR. License revenue accounts for less than half of the IDFGs total revenue, so NR do not make as big of an impact as you like to think.

 

[Broomd]

That was classic!...glad I had the wife buy an extra Diamond Creek Tag!. I'll start the bidding at $1000 (obviously then I'll let IDGF know you get to be the lucky one to buy it from them.)

F&G will love that thinking <sarc>...That kind of greed will guarantee changes for NR going forward.

 

[Anywhere But Here!]

So, explain to us why residents should pay more because you think NR already pay enough? That argument will never hold water. Montana NR tags are 20x the resident rates and they have no problem selling out.

A lot of the 2nd tags used to be bought up by residents, but that's changed quite a bit the last few years as NR have bought most of the tags up before Aug 1st, so in reality, there are more NR hunters than before.

57% of revenue encompasses all NR fees. Guys need to stop acting like that's all coming from elk tags. A lot of that revenue is coming from fishing, upland bird hunters etc etc.

The population in Idaho has grown tremendously, but 90% of those who moved in would rather see hunting stopped than to take part in it. They need to change Ada county plates from 1A to BA because it's becoming the Bay Area north.



Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

And as I clearly said Idaho can and should do whatever they want, their state. I was giving my two cents on the basis of the information out there why I think it frustrates NR hunters.

I never said that residents paying more would hold water. Didn't even say that's what should happen. I was simply pointing out that the residents want the change, states granting it to them so a cut in NR numbers requires a substantial increase in NR fees to keep the revenue at the same point it is now when resident literally paying dollars more does the same. You have to admit $36 is cheap for the opportunity to kill an elk.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[87TT]

You are missing the point. The NR tags are NOT being reduced, only spread out across the state. And what doesn't sell by Aug 1st, will be on sale for second tags.

 

[sneaky]

And as I clearly said Idaho can and should do whatever they want, their state. I was giving my two cents on the basis of the information out there why I think it frustrates NR hunters.

I never said that residents paying more would hold water. Didn't even say that's what should happen. I was simply pointing out that the residents want the change, states granting it to them so a cut in NR numbers requires a substantial increase in NR fees to keep the revenue at the same point it is now when resident literally paying dollars more does the same. You have to admit $36 is cheap for the opportunity to kill an elk.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

They have NEVER said they are cutting NR numbers. They are CAPPING each zone. The tag numbers are going to stay in the same. Still wondering why you haven't mentioned that part of it. There's zero reason why a zone should have 40%NR hunters in it. None, whatsoever. NR are just unhappy that they are going to have to A) learn a new zone B) pay a comparable rate to what other states are charging. It's really not that difficult once you drill down to it. Zone caps, tag price increase. That's it.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[Anywhere But Here!]

Lets say that you are correct and 57% of license revenue comes form NR. License revenue accounts for less than half of the IDFGs total revenue, so NR do not make as big of an impact as you like to think.

It's not me trying to be correct on the number. I'm qouting the Idaho Statesman article on the topic. My point is the provailing attitude seems to be that NR are getting some sort of free ride here. I'd say that revenue is infact more then you would realize. In fact they say their best estimate is that it could impact anywhere between 10% to maybe even as high as 20% of overall department revenue.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Anywhere But Here!]

You are missing the point. The NR tags are NOT being reduced, only spread out across the state. And what doesn't sell by Aug 1st, will be on sale for second tags.

They have NEVER said they are cutting NR numbers. They are CAPPING each zone. The tag numbers are going to stay in the same. Still wondering why you haven't mentioned that part of it. There's zero reason why a zone should have 40%NR hunters in it. None, whatsoever. NR are just unhappy that they are going to have to A) learn a new zone B) pay a comparable rate to what other states are charging. It's really not that difficult once you drill down to it. Zone caps, tag price increase. That's it.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

"In an effort to address complaints of overcrowding, the Idaho Fish and Game Commission hopes to cap the number of nonresident hunter tags sold while simultaneously increasing nonresident hunter fees."

“It is obviously a significant part of our portfolio,” said Michael Pearson, the IDFG chief of administration. “So in order to offset the impact of less nonresidents (they’re proposing) a fee increase. So less nonresidents, but each is paying more.”

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[GregB]

If you don't like it go to Montana or another state and pay their NR prices. Or CO I don't think they have a cap on NR.

 

[sneaky]

"In an effort to address complaints of overcrowding, the Idaho Fish and Game Commission hopes to cap the number of nonresident hunter tags sold while simultaneously increasing nonresident hunter fees."

“It is obviously a significant part of our portfolio,” said Michael Pearson, the IDFG chief of administration. “So in order to offset the impact of less nonresidents (they’re proposing) a fee increase. So less nonresidents, but each is paying more.”

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

NR tags have always been capped. Try again. Where do you live? With your sense of entitlement I could take a few guesses. I've never had a problem paying whatever state's price I'm hunting in. MT I paid $1100. Wyoming it was over $1100. You're whining about paying $600 and that finally going up after a decade. Give us a break.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[87TT]

"In an effort to address complaints of overcrowding, the Idaho Fish and Game Commission hopes to cap the number of nonresident hunter tags sold while simultaneously increasing nonresident hunter fees."

“It is obviously a significant part of our portfolio,” said Michael Pearson, the IDFG chief of administration. “So in order to offset the impact of less nonresidents (they’re proposing) a fee increase. So less nonresidents, but each is paying more.”

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

You need to go to the Idaho DFG website and quit relying on a newspaper for your facts and information.

 

[GregB]

NR tags have always been capped. Try again. Where do you live? With your sense of entitlement I could take a few guesses. I've never had a problem paying whatever state's price I'm hunting in. MT I paid $1100. Wyoming it was over $1100. You're whining about paying $600 and that finally going up after a decade. Give us a break.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Even after the price increase Idaho NR tags will still be cheaper.
The only reasonable solution is to boycott Idaho elk hunting.

 

[Anywhere But Here!]

NR tags have always been capped. Try again. Where do you live? With your sense of entitlement I could take a few guesses. I've never had a problem paying whatever state's price I'm hunting in. MT I paid $1100. Wyoming it was over $1100. You're whining about paying $600 and that finally going up after a decade. Give us a break.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Take a guess. I've paid whatever price where ever I've hunted. I have no sense of entitlement. I've said over and over that Idaho should do whatever they want. This is what I'm talking about. You don't agree with me having an opinion on the topic so you try to be insulting.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Anywhere But Here!]

You need to go to the Idaho DFG website and quit relying on a newspaper for your facts and information.

So an article littered with direct quotes form IDFG officials is completely incorrect?

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk