Idaho Hunting Fees 2021 Non Resident (Big Elk Increase)

[KurtR]

So, what is an elk worth? What is the right charge? Is $25, $50, $100, or $200 the right cost for a resident? Is $500, $600, $800 or $1200 the right cost for a non resident? Would you be alright if the State deemed that the appropriate cost for a resident is $500? If an elk has a true worth or cost, then it should go up with the same percentage for both residents and non residents, as does inflation. ID clearly stated that prices were going up to purposefully try and reduce NR number, not because the resource is worth more.

Taking advantage of a person or situation because you can doesn't make it right. Great example of this happened this week. The two brothers who bought several thousand bottles of sanitizer were trying to use an available resource to make a profit. People were willing to pay inflated prices for the sanitizer and did. The public and the Government saw what was going on, identified it as gouging and stopped the practice. The brothers may now be in legal trouble.

So, a simple question. At what point are the non resident (not just Idaho) tag fees considered price gouging? Would you consider $2,500 for a non resident elk tag gouging? How about a $40 bottle of Purell?

Nope residents should not have to pay the same as nr. there is an advantage of living in a state. Comparing what people are doing during a pandemic to the price of tags to hunt is way off. There is never a point it is considered price gouging as having a tag is not a necessity to live .

 

[jmcd22]

People bitch about price increases yet still buy the tag. Simple supply and demand economics. If the price is too high, don't apply or come. Keep buying that tag and selling out, the more of a reason they have to raise prices. Enough people stop coming and they will have to reevaluate their prices. Government needs money. I don't understand what is so hard to understand about that.

FWIW, I hate that the price and popularity of hunting has exploded but the fact of the matter is that prices are going to continue to go up and tags will continue to decrease. Just have to decide if the opportunity cost of your money is worth it to apply in Idaho...or the multiple states that most apply in.

 

[Rob5589]

Idaho prices would not have gone up if they thought for a second people would stop coming in significant numbers. Prices will continue to climb, until hunters eventually stop being willing or able to afford to do so. Current pricing levels do not seem to be slowing down hunter numbers, yet.

 

[dirtytough]

I haven't followed the issue close enough but here is what I understand. Residents are complaining because its getting crowded. The game and fish upped the tag price and are going to spread tags out more. But not cut tags. Non res are complaining because its going to cost more.

It seems like only the G&F is winning. There will be just as many hunters. Actually there will probably be more with the increase in residents. At least thats how I add it up.

 

[nphunter]

If ID wants to get rid of overcrowding they need to put a quota on the deer units and get rid of the general statewide hunt. Obviously Boise residents are most likely to hunt in Unit 39, there a ton of resident hunters from Boise that hunt up there, there are also a ton of NR that hunt there because it is easy to access, close to an airport and interstate and it also happens to be a huge migration corridor for deer. There is a perfect storm for overcrowding and IMO that it will be overcrowded until they put a quota on it or turn it into a draw.

I'm happy paying high prices to hunt out of state, however, I am disappointed in the huge cost increase of NR youth mainly because I have been coming there hunting and it was a great opportunity for me to bring my kids with me and now it will become very expensive with IMO will detour a pile of people from bringing youth into the outdoors. Idaho will be losing my money for sure because now for the same price I can visit several other states with my kids for less or the same money, it probably won't matter at all to them since they want less NR hunter there. I really don't think it's going to matter on the overcrowding at all, it might make it worse because residents will stop buying a second tag and they will be available for non-residents.

Anyone following this thread should pay attention to the tag quota this year, there is always a pile of NR tags available right up to the day they start selling to residents, once they open them up for residents to buy a second tag they are gone within a week or two, its been like that for the last few years, I have a real hard time believing NR that have from Nov the year before to buy a tag all of a sudden swoop in and buy them right after they become available to all. I will be curious to see if that changes next year.

 

[idahohikker]

If ID wants to get rid of overcrowding they need to put a quota on the deer units and get rid of the general statewide hunt. Obviously Boise residents are most likely to hunt in Unit 39, there a ton of resident hunters from Boise that hunt up there, there are also a ton of NR that hunt there because it is easy to access, close to an airport and interstate and it also happens to be a huge migration corridor for deer. There is a perfect storm for overcrowding and IMO that it will be overcrowded until they put a quota on it or turn it into a draw.

I'm happy paying high prices to hunt out of state, however, I am disappointed in the huge cost increase of NR youth mainly because I have been coming there hunting and it was a great opportunity for me to bring my kids with me and now it will become very expensive with IMO will detour a pile of people from bringing youth into the outdoors. Idaho will be losing my money for sure because now for the same price I can visit several other states with my kids for less or the same money, it probably won't matter at all to them since they want less NR hunter there. I really don't think it's going to matter on the overcrowding at all, it might make it worse because residents will stop buying a second tag and they will be available for non-residents.

Anyone following this thread should pay attention to the tag quota this year, there is always a pile of NR tags available right up to the day they start selling to residents, once they open them up for residents to buy a second tag they are gone within a week or two, its been like that for the last few years, I have a real hard time believing NR that have from Nov the year before to buy a tag all of a sudden swoop in and buy them right after they become available to all. I will be curious to see if that changes next year.

39 would be one of the areas affected by the nonresident unit caps if F&G implements that. It's getting overcrowded there. Shifting hunters into other units would help with overcrowding--that's the idea at least.

I agree that it's a bummer that the nonresident youth are facing limited opportunity with the price increases. Hopefully you guys can come even if it's not every year for every child. I wish demand wasn't so crazy for nonresident hunting. There's some great places an hour or two from where I live that I will never get to hunt out of state because the demand is just too crazy.

 

[Bobbyboe]

Nope residents should not have to pay the same as nr. there is an advantage of living in a state. Comparing what people are doing during a pandemic to the price of tags to hunt is way off. There is never a point it is considered price gouging as having a tag is not a necessity to live .

Purell is not a necessary product needed to live. Neither is gas, tp, or alcohol...... Artificially jacking a price up on a product, no matter what it is, is price gouging.

PS, never said residents should pay the same amount as a non resident. I said I feel the tag price increases should increase equally for both parties.

If anything, its time the hikers, bikers and other recreational users of public land to pony up and contribute. You use the land, you pay.

 

[7Bartman]

Ridiculous rambling rant. Idaho already offers wolf hunts for NR that are cheap, same with mtn lions, turkeys, bears etc etc. Every state reserves the right to set tag numbers and license prices as they deem necessary to A) protect the resource B) cover their operating costs. Name one thing that hasn't increased in price over the last 20 years. You act like this isn't supply and demand. It absolutely is. Demand is increasing for a finite resource and the states have reacted accordingly.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I get the need to cover operating costs, but what's going to be the return-on-investment for an XX% increase in NR tag fees? Are IDFG employees getting a XX% raise? Were their operating costs not covered before (e.g. were they running up a debt to pay their employees)? I'm always surprised that hunters typically being a mostly conservative crew want more regulations/increased taxes on things.
Remember the tag numbers are not decreasing. Overcrowding in units can be addressed without a XX% increase in NR tag fees.
I'm not naive to cost-of-living increases for IDFG employees and the need to increase license revenue over time (e.g. 2-3% annually) to operate the department. That being said, this increase is being done because they can, not b/c they need to. At the end of the day, do the taxpayers own the resource or does the govt?
Ask yourself, what does this NR tag increase accomplish...Guys like myself will still be able to afford it, but many will be priced out. Do we further want to dissuade hunter recruitment, especially younger hunters?

 

[sneaky]

100% disagree with the raising of NR youth prices. That's an idiotic move on IDFG part. They aren't cutting NR tag numbers but they are also realistic that when this takes effect and guys don't get their normal unit tag because of unit caps that they aren't likely to switch units. It'll take a couple of years of the new regs taking effect before we see what the real numbers are. Right now it's just knee jerk complaining and prognosticating. I also agree that the statewide deer tag isn't helping with crowding issues, but good luck getting that changed. The push back on that would be enormous. I have zero issues with NR hunters, but with the inordinate amount of whining over the price increase I could see residents agreeing to a resident license increase if they slashed NR tags by a good amount.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[KurtR]

Purell is not a necessary product needed to live. Neither is gas, tp, or alcohol...... Artificially jacking a price up on a product, no matter what it is, is price gouging.

PS, never said residents should pay the same amount as a non resident. I said I feel the tag price increases should increase equally for both parties.

If anything, its time the hikers, bikers and other recreational users of public land to pony up and contribute. You use the land, you pay.

They were jacking the price up during a crisis not just adding cost to a tag. Its so different it is hard to comprehend the comparison.

PS they should not have any correlation as being a resident has to have advantages over being a nr.

Find a way to make them pay sounds like a good plan.

 

[mtnbiker208]

idaho did raise resident prices a couple of years ago.
The non resident rates are still cheaper than living here. trying to make a joke.
As a resident i will still buy my 2nd elk tag at non resident rates. elk hunting is just to important to me.
If you want to play, you got to pay.

 

[KurtR]

I get the need to cover operating costs, but what's going to be the return-on-investment for an XX% increase in NR tag fees? Are IDFG employees getting a XX% raise? Were their operating costs not covered before (e.g. were they running up a debt to pay their employees)? I'm always surprised that hunters typically being a mostly conservative crew want more regulations/increased taxes on things.
Remember the tag numbers are not decreasing. Overcrowding in units can be addressed without a XX% increase in NR tag fees.
I'm not naive to cost-of-living increases for IDFG employees and the need to increase license revenue over time (e.g. 2-3% annually) to operate the department. That being said, this increase is being done because they can, not b/c they need to. At the end of the day, do the taxpayers own the resource or does the govt?
Ask yourself, what does this NR tag increase accomplish...Guys like myself will still be able to afford it, but many will be priced out. Do we further want to dissuade hunter recruitment, especially younger hunters?

If hunter recruitment hinges on going out of state hunts we are shit out of luck as hunters. i was 38 when i did my first out of state hunt but hunted since i was old enough to walk with my dad in the state we live in. If i was told i cant hunt out of state any more i would not quit i would hunt where i live. If you live some where it sucks to hunt well then move or live with the fact you have no choice in how or what you pay to hunt in other peoples states.

 

[sneaky]

idaho did raise resident prices a couple of years ago.
The non resident rates are still cheaper than living here. trying to make a joke.
As a resident i will still buy my 2nd elk tag at non resident rates. elk hunting is just to important to me.
If you want to play, you got to pay.

Yeah but there was a lot of whining over raising license prices for like $3. So much so that they did the 3 year price lock. I don't think it's unrealistic to raise resident elk tags to $50, deer to $40 and reduce NR tags to about 7500 or so. Then everybody could complain lol.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[7Bartman]

So, the question remains, what is your govt going to do with the extra money generated from the NR fee increases? I'd like to see some tangible outcomes (e.g. maintain XX trailheads, hire XX biologists, etc...) tied to a deadline.
As a former fisheries biologist I know those folks don't make great money and can use a raise, but where is the money going? It's only fair that we ask that question of IDFG. I like IDFG and have had nothing, but favorable interactions with all the folks I've interacted with, but also keep in mind some of the recent decisions that they've made (e.g. Magic Valley kill). Ask yourself, who does the resource belong to, the people or the govt?

 

[Wrench]

I don't care how they choose to price their stuff.....but with so many people losing jobs right now, they may have cut their own throats.

 

[sneaky]

So, the question remains, what is your govt going to do with the extra money generated from the NR fee increases? I'd like to see some tangible outcomes (e.g. maintain XX trailheads, hire XX biologists, etc...) tied to a deadline.
As a former fisheries biologist I know those folks don't make great money and can use a raise, but where is the money going? It's only fair that we ask that question of IDFG. I like IDFG and have had nothing, but favorable interactions with all the folks I've interacted with, but also keep in mind some of the recent decisions that they've made (e.g. Magic Valley kill). Ask yourself, who does the resource belong to, the people or the govt?

Call them up and ask them. What does every state do with increased funding when tag prices go up? Every state has raised prices, but not with the amount of bitching that has gone on with Idaho raising theirs. Go to the source and ask them what they're going to do with any increased funds they receive. You probably won't get an answer til spring of 2022 because that will be the soonest we will find out what the numbers will be from the changes. You know as well as I do that the wildlife belong to the citizens of the state and the government is tasked with managing those animals.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[sneaky]

I don't care how they choose to price their stuff.....but with so many people losing jobs right now, they may have cut their own throats.

Highly doubtful that the current situation will last through 2021 hunting seasons. If it does, you won't have to worry about tags because the animals will already have been poached off for food. Look at the panic now when there's plenty of food in the supply chain, people still losing their minds over being told to stay home for two weeks.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[idahohikker]

So, the question remains, what is your govt going to do with the extra money generated from the NR fee increases? I'd like to see some tangible outcomes (e.g. maintain XX trailheads, hire XX biologists, etc...) tied to a deadline.
As a former fisheries biologist I know those folks don't make great money and can use a raise, but where is the money going? It's only fair that we ask that question of IDFG. I like IDFG and have had nothing, but favorable interactions with all the folks I've interacted with, but also keep in mind some of the recent decisions that they've made (e.g. Magic Valley kill). Ask yourself, who does the resource belong to, the people or the govt?

I’m trying to believe this is an honest question. Fish and game could use a significant budget increase for enforcement, habitat projects, land acquisition, research, etc. A billionaire could give a fish and game department $1,000,000 and the employees wouldn’t be rich and they’d have a lot of good uses for it to support critters.

 

[7Bartman]

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.

 

[sneaky]

I wish they would take the money and direct it towards saving the salmon and steelhead. People worry about the damn wolves but steelhead and salmon are gonna disappear from Idaho before the wolves ever do.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk