Idaho Hunting Fees 2021 Non Resident (Big Elk Increase)

[87TT]

Idahohiker, fair enough. Govt can always use more money. As I stated before, I think IDFG is a good organization, that does a good job of managing the resources. However, I'd like to see the increase in fees tied to some performance metrics (e.g. increase in herd size, hiring of more officers, etc...). With this big of an increase in NR fees, it strikes me as nothing other than we did it b/c we could, not because we needed to (i.e. 2-3% increase to cover COLA). I'll continue to pay for the great opportunity, with the same amount of tags being sold, however noting that some folks will lose an opportunity b/c the govt decided it could charge more money.

OK for the sake of argument you say a 3% increase for COLA. Since the NR Elk tag is the big jump of $235 is a 56% increase. 3% times no increase for the last 10 years equals 30% and if they go another 10 years, that's another 30%. So it works out. Deer tags only went up like 20%

 

[jmcd22]

Idahohiker, fair enough. Govt can always use more money. As I stated before, I think IDFG is a good organization, that does a good job of managing the resources. However, I'd like to see the increase in fees tied to some performance metrics (e.g. increase in herd size, hiring of more officers, etc...). With this big of an increase in NR fees, it strikes me as nothing other than we did it b/c we could, not because we needed to (i.e. 2-3% increase to cover COLA). I'll continue to pay for the great opportunity, with the same amount of tags being sold, however noting that some folks will lose an opportunity b/c the govt decided it could charge more money.

I don't believe funding is a direct...trade over, if you will. Meaning tag fees do not go direct to game and game management. I believe funds from tags, licenses, fishing, etc are pooled together and used accordingly. I could be dead wrong there and if I am, someone please correct me. But based on that, the increase in tag fees go to much more than just game management.

IDFG built a new office building in the Treasure Valley and have made a lot of needed upgrades and maintenance at the shooting range in the Boise area. They've also built a building to house all of the hunter ed classes in the Treasure Valley at the range. I am sure they've done more but those are a few things that I am aware of. There have also been rumors/reports that IDFG are going to start monitoring and collecting data on our pronghorn populations in the coming years. I believe they also spent a lot of money along with BLM to get some prescribed burns in the southern part of the state that are desperately needed. I had a deer tag down there this last year and it was almost un-huntable it was so thick with junipers and downfall. The deer have really struggled because of it.

I moan and groan about IDFG sometimes because they are my scapegoat when I am pissed about certain things but overall, they do a damn good job with what they have and are up against. I would like to see more dollars go to deer and elk, but they have to keep a lot of people happy.

 

[Marble]

I look at it from a pragmatic business approach. Whatever needs to be done to increase revenue, keep demand acceptable and get more customers, in the long term, should be what happens. A loss for a few years in the short term could and most likely build that base as the price rises gradually to achieve the goal. Raising prices I dont think is a bad thing. The method was IMO very bad. People are more likely to find the ability to afford and continue buying a product when it gradually increases in value. If you dont understand that, then your emotions are just making decisions for you.

What ID did was purposeful and directed at reducing hunter numbers. The people who dont want NR there are just practicing NIMBYism and really make themselves look foolish and end up losing out on the economics brought in from hunting.

 

[87TT]

You just don't understand the way Idaho works. If DFG could just raise prices a little at a time every year like other states, they would have. We don't do it that way here. Any increase has to go through the legislature ( a nightmare). That is after all the proposals and comment periods. Add to that only setting and publishing the regs every two years. It's just how it works. Nobody is punishing the NR.

 

[flemdogg]

It is also important to note that IDFG likely did this change with input from other state agencies. I'm sure as a member of the Western Association of Wildlife Agencies; IDFG shared data and their way forward with other states. I'm also sure that they consulted with an economist or other subject matter expert somewhere in the Government and are aware that the market will shift in negative and positive ways. Ultimately, they do not know the outcome of this change. Consumers will have to decide if Idaho is a good return on investment. Some will say Idaho isn't worth it any longer and will take their money elsewhere. If you have strong opinions on the matter, you should become more activated and show up to the public hearings when they have them. If asked, go into it with concise and relevant data points and portray your argument in a nonabrasive manner. Who knows, you may receive new data you didn't have before and it just might change your opinion on why they did certain things. For me, I am not so activated or opinionated on this particular issue, just have to see how it plays out.

I will say that it isn't really a supply and demand thing but more of a price elasticity of demand thing. IDFG is banking on elk tags being inelastic. Meaning they can change the price and demand stays the same. We shall see.

 

[arthur1034]

This thread is a good example of how institutionalized the hunting community has become. Somehow, some of you are arguing that price increases, however they fall, and regardless of the absence of reasoning or justification for them, are OK because other states have done it, establishing persuasive authority to do so. Additionally, some of you made the comment that this was an example of market economics at play. Neither are or should be true. Tags are licenses issued by the state. The state owns the monopoly on issuing a license to you to hunt, which is a very different thing than when a state or private entity is a market participant. Additionally, states are independent actors, and are not subject to, nor required to acknowledge arbitrary state taxes imposed in different jurisdictions. There is no need to assert a tax or price increase on a license because a state can, or because another state has gotten away with it. Think about what you are saying here. This is blind support of the government imposing pricing increases on state generated licenses, at will. The whole idea of hunting and fishing is to allow the average citizen to enjoy the outdoors, which is also something that is included in your Fed and State taxes already (with all obvious limitations).

I'll say it again, we need the next generation to have the opportunity to get involved in the outdoors. When I was 19, there is no way I could have afforded a $4-$800 big game tag, in addition to licensing fees, etc. Resident fees have also gone up in several states, which also presents a barrier to entry for lower income folks or for younger folks. What we should be demanding is that our elected officials DO BETTER, and not constantly fall back on asking that WE give more. We, as a community, do more than almost any other genre of public interest (see all the folks on here who donate time and $$ to conservation efforts, etc.).

Sorry for the thread jacking rant here, but this idea that the game departments ALWAYS need more of our money, and should ALWAYS be able to arbitrarily raise prices is absurd, illogical, and exclusionary. Again, provide a SOLUTION. If that is limiting NR tag #'s so that the residents of a state, like Idaho, have better odds and opportunity, I Am OK with that, assuming the solution is reasonable. If $$ is the issue, DO BETTER with what you have, and then offer other opportunities to hunters, at a reasonable cost, that could offset the perceived losses in income due to limitations of tag #'s or non-resident fees. This could include Wolf hunts, Mountain Lion Hunts, Coyote Hunts, Turkey, Waterfowl, Uppland Game, etc. Those additional other opportunities would invite folks to spend money in the state, provide hunting opportunities, manage predators (in some cases), and offset the $$ lost by accomplishing your initial goal ... and would do so by INCREASING hunting opportunities at a reasonable cost.

I say all this very respectfully, as I am not interested in flaming fellow hunters, but we all need to wake up and stop supporting unreasonable license and tag fees. Rather, let's support each other, and stand up for ALL members of our community so that we can enjoy hunting for generations to come.

I fundamentally agree with what you say. I would add, though, that as Americans we are free to live wherever we want. I have lived in Idaho my whole life. I could have easily moved to Washington or Oregon or California after college because all of those states have higher wages, but I chose to stay in Idaho. I have only hunted Idaho. I have never purchased an NR hunting license anywhere. Those same choices are available to you. People complain about the cost of everything, and yes, states arbitrarily choose the pricing, but as another post mentions, the IDFG take recommendations every year, mostly based on resident input. Honestly, most native Idahoans hate the fact that NR come and crowd "their" state. I am not that extreme because I am a firm believer in public land, but I also think that most of what makes Idaho so great is the vast amount of public land where people can get away from other people. I don't see the new cost for NR as price gouging--I see it as state office holders supporting their constituents, which is seemingly rare anymore.

As far as hunter recruitment goes, I see just as many young people in Idaho hunting now as I did 30 years ago, and more that are into archery hunting. This is probably the same in many rural states with public land.

 

[jclaus.444]

Look at the numbers again. Raise NR prices while actually decreasing resident cost by a few dollars here and there across the board. Claim it's because of over crowding but if you get email updates from IDGF you'll get plenty about how revenue is down because of less hunters in the field. NR quota numbers have been the same for years but when the economy is good and the actually sell them it's a problem. No one was bitching when I was buying tags in the down years when thousands of tags weren't sold or residents could buy then as seconds. Let the economy sink again an Idaho and all these other states that have jacked up prices because times have been good will be begging NR to come back.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[sneaky]

Look at the numbers again. Raise NR prices while actually decreasing resident cost by a few dollars here and there across the board. Claim it's because of over crowding but if you get email updates from IDGF you'll get plenty about how revenue is down because of less hunters in the field. NR quota numbers have been the same for years but when the economy is good and the actually sell them it's a problem. No one was bitching when I was buying tags in the down years when thousands of tags weren't sold or residents could buy then as seconds. Let the economy sink again an Idaho and all these other states that have jacked up prices because times have been good will be begging NR to come back.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Actually, resident prices went up a couple years ago. Try again. I'll bet that resident prices go up again in the next couple of years again, and that'll be fine too. The tags will still sell out to people who want to be here and enjoy themselves. The whiners can all go to Colorado.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[jclaus.444]

And before one of you ID residents chime in about how you don't care if we come or you won't beg us to come back just know that you won't know until it's too late and the IDFG is cutting programs and looking for other ways to increase revenue.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[jclaus.444]

Look at the document regarding the increase and compare it to actual cost for this year and resident fees drop across the broad. Not drastically but they are less.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[sneaky]

Resident fees have not dropped. Not sure what you're looking at, but your "facts" are wrong.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[Mule3006Elk]

Maybe I'm old school. If I have a bad experience, cost isn't justified, or terrible service, I don't complain about it. I just don't go back. I take my business and money elsewhere.

 

[jclaus.444]

You're showing current. Go to the document linked in the beginning to this thread detailing the NR increase and compare what the resident costs will be for tags and licenses and they are less then the current resident prices.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[jclaus.444]

Resident fees have not dropped. Not sure what you're looking at, but your "facts" are wrong.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

You're showing current pricing. Go to the document linked in the beginning to this thread detailing the NR increase and compare what the resident costs , not the locked in cost, will be for tags and licenses and they are less then the current resident prices.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[jclaus.444]

Maybe I'm old school. If I have a bad experience, cost isn't justified, or terrible service, I don't complain about it. I just don't go back. I take my business and money elsewhere.

Maybe I'm old-school and I voice my opinion instead of making passive aggressive comments.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[sneaky]

$1 or so less than the non price locked for a handful of them. You're getting your undies in a twist over a $1? They all fall in between the price locked and non price locked licenses. You act like they cut resident prices in half. Vote with your dollar and hunt in MT which costs more, or Wyoming, which costs more, or join the hordes in Colorado. It's that simple.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[jclaus.444]

$1 or so less than the non price locked for a handful of them. You're getting your undies in a twist over a $1? They all fall in between the price locked and non price locked licenses. You act like they cut resident prices in half. Vote with your dollar and hunt in MT which costs more, or Wyoming, which costs more, or join the hordes in Colorado. It's that simple.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

We'll I was right. And I really enjoyed Colorado last year.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Mule3006Elk]

Maybe I'm old-school and I voice my opinion instead of making passive aggressive comments.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Well I guess you're just a little bit sensitive.

Wasn't directed at you. Did I reply to you with a quote or mention jclaus444? NO

 

[sneaky]

Half right. Enjoy the hell out of Colorado and quit whining about Idaho. Did you join the forum just to complain about Idaho?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[87TT]

6 posts!