Idaho NR Tag Allocations

[Chad E]

The commission brief says exactly that, every game management unit for deer will have caps, zones for elk, with the statewide total being the same it has for 30 years.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I agree that's certainly how it reads but that doesn't clear up all the potential questions. I just can't see how that plays out very well. How are they determining the five year average? The way Idaho collects hunter data it makes me believe that anyone who hunts more than one zone likely got counted as two hunters or they have some way of normalizing these reports. Either way it seems like there will likely be a discrepancy between the overall nonresident quota and the unit caps. It will be pretty straight forward for the major units like 39 and 43 but as it gets into lesser hunter units I have to imagine its going to get pretty arbitrary. Its obvious that 15% or 10% or the respective five year hunter numbers per unit doesn't work out across the state to equal the quota. Once they get past the "popular units" the cap per unit to reach the overall quota is actually going to increase past the previous five year hunter numbers.

There is a lot of lesser know units in Idaho that guys will end up getting pushed to but there are also some regulations that are going to be hard to sell to anyone. Non residents aren't going to buy 2x2 tags and residents aren't going to buy them at the nonresident price.

Just my thoughts on what is some pretty groundbreaking Idaho hunting changes less that two weeks before next seasons tags go on sale.

 

[marktole]

I am unfamiliar with hunting Idaho, I don’t live there and I’ve never been there to hunt. I’ll start by saying that, I am wondering a couple of things about this issue from reading here and on some other threads in the past. Looking for an explanation, opinion, clarification, whatever, from someone who is more aware of the whole thing.

1) Haven’t NR tags in Idaho been capped for a long time? Some other threads have been started about guys in Idaho being mad that they see so many more NR hunters every year, but how can that be if the tag numbers for NR are capped? Is this change designed to reduce the overall number of non resident hunters? Or just prevent too many of them from being in the same unit/zone/area/whatever at the same time?

2) I was in the military with a guy who moved to Idaho after we got out and he has a bunch of friends who have moved there too (from California, go figure). One of his friends hunted before moving there, from what he has told me now a bunch of them have started to hunt as well because it’s so cheap to do as a resident and you can hunt pretty much anywhere. With the population growth of Boise and Idaho as a whole, could it be possible the perceived over crowding of hunting in the last few years could be attributed to the fact that more and more residents can hunt the whole state for $20 a year?

3) What good does it do to limit the number or distribution of NR hunters if they’re only getting 10% or 15% of the total tags, but allow the other 85-90% of hunters still just pile in where ever they want to?

Again, like I said starting out, I don’t know much about it. Just some questions I have from the outside looking in.

 

[sneaky]

Well.. I'm glad I'll be a resident (again) by then... 20 days to go... and lemme tell you fellas... the last two times I had to give up my Idaho residency were painful moments...

Next time you leave buy your lifetime license first lol

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[sneaky]

I am unfamiliar with hunting Idaho, I don’t live there and I’ve never been there to hunt. I’ll start by saying that, I am wondering a couple of things about this issue from reading here and on some other threads in the past. Looking for an explanation, opinion, clarification, whatever, from someone who is more aware of the whole thing.

1) Haven’t NR tags in Idaho been capped for a long time? Some other threads have been started about guys in Idaho being mad that they see so many more NR hunters every year, but how can that be if the tag numbers for NR are capped? Is this change designed to reduce the overall number of non resident hunters? Or just prevent too many of them from being in the same unit/zone/area/whatever at the same time?

2) I was in the military with a guy who moved to Idaho after we got out and he has a bunch of friends who have moved there too (from California, go figure). One of his friends hunted before moving there, from what he has told me now a bunch of them have started to hunt as well because it’s so cheap to do as a resident and you can hunt pretty much anywhere. With the population growth of Boise and Idaho as a whole, could it be possible the perceived over crowding of hunting in the last few years could be attributed to the fact that more and more residents can hunt the whole state for $20 a year?

3) What good does it do to limit the number or distribution of NR hunters if they’re only getting 10% or 15% of the total tags, but allow the other 85-90% of hunters still just pile in where ever they want to?

Again, like I said starting out, I don’t know much about it. Just some questions I have from the outside looking in.

NR hunters flock to a handful of certain units, both on the deer side, and the elk side. This is to eliminate that.
Yes, the increase in resident hunter numbers is going to have to be addressed eventually.
This isn't a last minute change, they mentioned this earlier in the year and I'm sure in the interim they've been crunching numbers and formulating their plan.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[sneaky]

I agree that's certainly how it reads but that doesn't clear up all the potential questions. I just can't see how that plays out very well. How are they determining the five year average? The way Idaho collects hunter data it makes me believe that anyone who hunts more than one zone likely got counted as two hunters or they have some way of normalizing these reports. Either way it seems like there will likely be a discrepancy between the overall nonresident quota and the unit caps. It will be pretty straight forward for the major units like 39 and 43 but as it gets into lesser hunter units I have to imagine its going to get pretty arbitrary. Its obvious that 15% or 10% or the respective five year hunter numbers per unit doesn't work out across the state to equal the quota. Once they get past the "popular units" the cap per unit to reach the overall quota is actually going to increase past the previous five year hunter numbers.

There is a lot of lesser know units in Idaho that guys will end up getting pushed to but there are also some regulations that are going to be hard to sell to anyone. Non residents aren't going to buy 2x2 tags and residents aren't going to buy them at the nonresident price.

Just my thoughts on what is some pretty groundbreaking Idaho hunting changes less that two weeks before next seasons tags go on sale.

Are you figuring numbers off of the entire hunter numbers per unit, or just NR hunters per unit? You can easily reach the NR quota when you figure in the entire hunter numbers in each unit and work the percentages from that. There's going to be a lot of guys who don't pay attention to rule making in Idaho who are going to be surprised when they go to buy tags and their favorite unit is sold out. You also aren't taking in to account that outfitter allocated tags are figured in to the NR tag allocation numbers. That commission brief does a pretty good job of explaining it all. Once you subtract the outfitter allocation you can easily reach that number with the plan they are discussing.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[marktole]

NR hunters flock to a handful of certain units, both on the deer side, and the elk side. This is to eliminate that.
Yes, the increase in resident hunter numbers is going to have to be addressed eventually.
This isn't a last minute change, they mentioned this earlier in the year and I'm sure in the interim they've been crunching numbers and formulating their plan.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Okay, thank you for the response.

 

[bojangles808]

idaho residents gotta be stoked. funny i was just thinking "what about idaho.." as I acknowledged how bad the point creep is through the go hunt trial. wish our state capped non res

 

[WeiserBucks]

How many idiots never read the regulations year to year and will hunt wherever they want if they think their tag is valid? WAAAAAAAY more than you think.

How many will be issued a violation? Nearly zero due to almost nonexistent enforcement. The only ones likely to be issued a citation will be those caught trespassing after a land owner calls to report them or the ones that are poor liars and get snagged at a check station.

 

[Str8shtr]

Not to mention the tens of thousands of people moving to idaho every year.....

 

[sneaky]

Not to mention the tens of thousands of people moving to idaho every year.....

You mean all the soy boys moving to Boise and CDA?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[dplantz]

This is definitely not getting enough coverage. I think this is just another way to cater to guides and outfitters, and will work to the detriment of residents by dramatically decreasing revenues. There are only a few select units where there is a problem. Why not just address those? Again, there is more at play here, and this is not really for the benefit of Idaho residents. You can comment up until tomorrow at 7 pm, via email to [email protected]. Please poach my comment, pasted below, and flood them with the fact that we know the special interest they truly serve:



If you adopt the proposed rule for creating caps on non resident deer tags, you will not even need the caps. That is because so few people will be willing to buy a non resident tag when they are limited to hunting only a single unit. IDFG will end up losing significant revenue that is needed for conservation.

If there are particularly popular units, it would make sense to just have those units be controlled hunt only for non resident. Non residents that hunt the more popular units go to those units because of the reputations the units have. If they don't draw a tag for that popular unit, it is not likely that they will increase pressure on some other unit, because other units don't have the reputation to draw non resident hunters. Therefore, putting caps on every unit, and limiting non resident tags to a single unit, is not necessary to address the overcrowding that occurs in only a few select, popular units. It is highly overreactionary, and will result in a significant decrease in revenue for the department.

Even elk tags cover multiple units. I would guess that the majority of non resident deer tag purchasers do so as a compliment to their elk tag. I am certain they will be less likely to purchase that deer tag if they can't even use it as they move about their elk zone.

Again, this is a blatant overreaction that goes far beyond actually addressing the specific problem areas. It therefore seems apparent that it is designed to cater to a particular special interest. Perhaps that of guides and outfitters, who will end up with no reduction in out of state clientele under these rules, but will now be granted a dramatic increase in demand for their services; a service they can now claim is all the more of an exclusive hunt. You might as well fence off all of the outfitter license areas and just grant ownership of the game in each area over to the outfitter, rather than the people. And again, it is the people of Idaho, not just non residents, who are being defrauded here. Again, this will result in a significant loss of revenue, and therefore poorer management of game, to the detriment of Idaho residents.

Finally, although it is a small subset of non residents, at the very least lifetime license holders should be exempt from these quotas, and instead be able to still purchase statewide deer tags. Lifetime license holders have always been exempt from all previous nonresident tag quotas. This is yet another, critical incentive that encourages the purchase of lifetime licenses. Perhaps continuing this incentive under the new deer tag regimen would encourage even more people to be sure and purchase their lifetime license, thereby offsetting some of the revenue loss.

Thank you for your consideration.




Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk

 

[sneaky]

This is definitely not getting enough coverage. I think this is just another way to cater to guides and outfitters, and will work to the detriment of residents by dramatically decreasing revenues. There are only a few select units where there is a problem. Why not just address those? Again, there is more at play here, and this is not really for the benefit of Idaho residents. You can comment up until tomorrow at 7 pm, via email to [email protected]. Please poach my comment, pasted below, and flood them with the fact that we know the special interest they truly serve:



If you adopt the proposed rule for creating caps on non resident deer tags, you will not even need the caps. That is because so few people will be willing to buy a non resident tag when they are limited to hunting only a single unit. IDFG will end up losing significant revenue that is needed for conservation.

If there are particularly popular units, it would make sense to just have those units be controlled hunt only for non resident. Non residents that hunt the more popular units go to those units because of the reputations the units have. If they don't draw a tag for that popular unit, it is not likely that they will increase pressure on some other unit, because other units don't have the reputation to draw non resident hunters. Therefore, putting caps on every unit, and limiting non resident tags to a single unit, is not necessary to address the overcrowding that occurs in only a few select, popular units. It is highly overreactionary, and will result in a significant decrease in revenue for the department.

Even elk tags cover multiple units. I would guess that the majority of non resident deer tag purchasers do so as a compliment to their elk tag. I am certain they will be less likely to purchase that deer tag if they can't even use it as they move about their elk zone.

Again, this is a blatant overreaction that goes far beyond actually addressing the specific problem areas. It therefore seems apparent that it is designed to cater to a particular special interest. Perhaps that of guides and outfitters, who will end up with no reduction in out of state clientele under these rules, but will now be granted a dramatic increase in demand for their services; a service they can now claim is all the more of an exclusive hunt. You might as well fence off all of the outfitter license areas and just grant ownership of the game in each area over to the outfitter, rather than the people. And again, it is the people of Idaho, not just non residents, who are being defrauded here. Again, this will result in a significant loss of revenue, and therefore poorer management of game, to the detriment of Idaho residents.

Finally, although it is a small subset of non residents, at the very least lifetime license holders should be exempt from these quotas, and instead be able to still purchase statewide deer tags. Lifetime license holders have always been exempt from all previous nonresident tag quotas. This is yet another, critical incentive that encourages the purchase of lifetime licenses. Perhaps continuing this incentive under the new deer tag regimen would encourage even more people to be sure and purchase their lifetime license, thereby offsetting some of the revenue loss.

Thank you for your consideration.




Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk

Why would I copy your overreacting comment? I don't think it will be nearly as gloomy of an outcome as you are predicting. I think it's going to benefit the deer herd in Idaho especially. Around me I see very few Idaho plates during the season, great majority are out of state plates. They have to start somewhere, these first couple of years will set the baseline for what resident licenses will have to go up by to offset any potential revenue loss from NR participation losses. You are also forgetting that those leftover NR tags will still most likely be bought by residents as a second tag. I think it's going to be a wash financially, but decreasing pressure in the units that need it reduced.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[87TT]

Thanks for the reminder. Sent my email in support of the changes.

 

[Rob5589]

Why would I copy your overreacting comment? I don't think it will be nearly as gloomy of an outcome as you are predicting. I think it's going to benefit the deer herd in Idaho especially. Around me I see very few Idaho plates during the season, great majority are out of state plates. They have to start somewhere, these first couple of years will set the baseline for what resident licenses will have to go up by to offset any potential revenue loss from NR participation losses. You are also forgetting that those leftover NR tags will still most likely be bought by residents as a second tag. I think it's going to be a wash financially, but decreasing pressure in the units that need it reduced.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Really hoping it helps the deer. My small sample of DC is that the deer population and quality has declined noticeably over the past 5 years. Another great idea would be to eliminate second tags until the deer rebound in some significant manner.

 

[dplantz]

Everybody should have their opinion heard. But if this was intended for the people, it wouldn't be getting rushed through silently. The commissioners serve the governor that appoints them; and the only lobbying dollars regarding specifically fish and wildlife that get injected into the governors race comes from the outfitter and guide association. If there are issues in certain units, address those units. Make those units non resident limited controlled hunt only, for instance. But to do it statewide, even for whitetail, makes it abundantly clear that they are pandering to residents' short sighted, emotional reactions, in order to create greater demand for a finite resource, thus driving up price that outfitters/guides can charge. This effort will prove to be a helluva good investment for the outfitters and guides, but a loss of precious management dollars for the people.

Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk

 

[87TT]

Everybody should have their opinion heard. But if this was intended for the people, it wouldn't be getting rushed through silently. The commissioners serve the governor that appoints them; and the only lobbying dollars regarding specifically fish and wildlife that get injected into the governors race comes from the outfitter and guide association. If there are issues in certain units, address those units. Make those units non resident limited controlled hunt only, for instance. But to do it statewide, even for whitetail, makes it abundantly clear that they are pandering to residents' short sighted, emotional reactions, in order to create greater demand for a finite resource, thus driving up price that outfitters/guides can charge. This effort will prove to be a helluva good investment for the outfitters and guides, but a loss of precious management dollars for the people.

Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk

Rushed through silently??????????? Where you been, under a rock? They have been talking about this for a long time.

Idaho potential nonresident fee increase

From IF&G On Feb. 4, the Idaho House voted in favor of House Bill 330 — legislation proposed by Idaho Fish and Game that would increase most most license, tag and permit fees for nonresidents. House Bill 330 still needs approval from the Senate Resources and Environment Committee, passage in...

www.rokslide.com

Idaho Possibly Capping DAV Tag Numbers

https://idfg.idaho.gov/node/66790/done?sid=230878&token=67c1dff135dc40676e2831e0f8d64798 I utilize the Idaho DAV tags every year for my dear hunt but I'm concerned that the program is getting too popular. It seems the wildlife commission is thinking the same thing. My thought is to cap the...

www.rokslide.com

 

[dplantz]

Rushed through silently??????????? Where you been, under a rock? They have been talking about this for a long time.

Idaho potential nonresident fee increase

From IF&G On Feb. 4, the Idaho House voted in favor of House Bill 330 — legislation proposed by Idaho Fish and Game that would increase most most license, tag and permit fees for nonresidents. House Bill 330 still needs approval from the Senate Resources and Environment Committee, passage in...

www.rokslide.com

Idaho Possibly Capping DAV Tag Numbers

https://idfg.idaho.gov/node/66790/done?sid=230878&token=67c1dff135dc40676e2831e0f8d64798 I utilize the Idaho DAV tags every year for my dear hunt but I'm concerned that the program is getting too popular. It seems the wildlife commission is thinking the same thing. My thought is to cap the...

www.rokslide.com

Increasing fees and capping DAV tags is definitely not the same thing as going from statewide tags to single unit tags with cap on every single unit. And oh by the way, the lowest cap of 10% applies to the units that don't have a problem with excess non resident pressure. Think harder before you speak (or make up your mind on an issue).

Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk

 

[sneaky]

Increasing fees and capping DAV tags is definitely not the same thing as going from statewide tags to single unit tags with cap on every single unit. And oh by the way, the lowest cap of 10% applies to the units that don't have a problem with excess non resident pressure. Think harder before you speak (or make up your mind on an issue).

Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk

How about you do the same. Think before YOU speak. Idaho will be just fine without all you Washingtonians coming over here and mucking things up. This isn't something they just came up with, it's been on hunter surveys for years, has been beat to death ad nauseam on the forums everywhere already, and it's finally getting done. Just because you don't like it doesn't change the fact that the Idaho Game Commission is tasked with taking care of IDAHO'S wildlife first and foremost for RESIDENTS of IDAHO. It really is that simple.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[87TT]

Well I have heard them talk about this very thing for a long time. They have meetings all the time and take input. This didn't just come up and has been discussed for quite a while. Sorry you missed it. Also if it doesn't work for them, they can change it back.

 

[Travis Hobbs]

I’ve yet to see an example of any state do something that reduced demand or made hunters quit coming or applying. If anyone has any examples of a long term downward trend of applicants out west, please PM me