Idaho NR Tag Allocations

[dplantz]

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

I don't know if you or I have more years being raised in Idaho, wouldn't be surprised if I do, but I don't care. That's completely irrelevant, and just more pandering to emotion, rather than logical consideration of facts. As far as surveys, I was just mentioning to somebody how interesting I now find the design of the recent surveys. Questions were about raising prices on non-res, limiting numbers in units that receive outsized non res pressure; stuff that almost nobody would disagree with. Definitely wasn't any question about changing the whole state to single unit only and putting even lower quotas on units that aren't pressured. And yet I'm sure they'll use those surveys to say there's "overwhelming support" for the action, "even from non residents." IDFG used to be THE model for western big game management. Sad to see them now designing their studies with bias.

Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk

 

[Ryan Avery]

Being a DAV I get so ******* tired of people using the DAV card. It's getting as bad as welfare. The DAV that actually need the help gets drowned out by the ones that don't need the help.

I have been getting gouged by all the other states for years! I am glad my state is finally capping NR tags and raising prices.

 

[dplantz]

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.

I don't doubt that. But to get real, broad, public input, you gotta create at least a little bit of publicity of a proposal. there's certainly been publicity about the general concept of reducing non resident pressure. But not about this specific manner of doing so, that also happens to be a pretty dramatic departure in the whole system of allocating tags. They did publicize the specific manner of reducing pressure by way of tag fee increases. But not for this.

Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk

 

[87TT]

The fee increases Have to be approved by the legislature. Other regs and rules do not. They do listen to the residents more and they should.
i guessed you missed the FACT that the tag increase was to offset any revenues lost from NR participation NOT to relieve pressure.

 

[Mac7]

Understood your frustration but they've been talking about it for a while. https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2019/sep/08/idaho-fish-and-game-commission-requests-non-reside/

I don't doubt that. But to get real, broad, public input, you gotta create at least a little bit of publicity of a proposal. there's certainly been publicity about the general concept of reducing non resident pressure. But not about this specific manner of doing so, that also happens to be a pretty dramatic departure in the whole system of allocating tags. They did publicize the specific manner of reducing pressure by way of tag fee increases. But not for this.

Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk

 

[dplantz]

The fee increases Have to be approved by the legislature. Other regs and rules do not. They do listen to the residents more and they should.
i guessed you missed the FACT that the tag increase was to offset any revenues lost from NR participation NOT to relieve pressure.

I guess anybody can argue what the existential purpose of a fee increase is, but it's simple economics that as they increase the fee, less people will be willing to purchase. If they wanted to give the greatest benefit to the people of Idaho, they should have increased non resident fees WAY more. Social science and economics can easily tell you what level of fee, at resultant decrease in tag purchases, would maximize revenue. I'm guessing you'd probably have to push deer tags over 1000 and elk near or above 2000. And then if any particular units still remain overstressed, address just those units with controlled hunt, or a separate capped tag where general tag is no good in that unit. This would reduce out of state pressure and maximize revenue/management dollars to the benefit of Idaho residents. BUT, it would result in guides and outfitters losing money. If people pay more for a tag, they're not willing to pay as much for the guide. And that is THE reason why the commission didn't go with this alternative. Instead, they chose an alternative that risks losing revenue, and at the very least doesn't maximize it, but instead maximizes demand and profit for guides and outfitters. They had a choice between two alternative means of reducing non resident pressure. They chose the one that benefits the special interest, rather than the one that benefits the people.

Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk

 

[dplantz]

Understood your frustration but they've been talking about it for a while. https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2019/sep/08/idaho-fish-and-game-commission-requests-non-reside/

Switching from a statewide tag to a per unit tag is definitely not mentioned there. Yes, there has long been talk of general decrease in total cap (which I don't think is needed if you increase fees enough) and increases in fees. But a total and complete restructuring of tag allocation is very different.

Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk

 

[sneaky]

When Wyoming and Alaska and Montana doubled their NR tag prices it didn't reduce demand. Nevada elk tags are $1200 and you're in it for thousands in license costs before you ever sniff drawing one. Simply raising tag prices doesn't curb demand, limiting tags and making hunters choose where they want to hunt curbs demand and spreads pressure. Now, you want to reduce NR pressure long term? Wait til the economy tanks and you'll see a drop in NR pressure in pretty short order.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[dplantz]

When Wyoming and Alaska and Montana doubled their NR tag prices it didn't reduce demand. Nevada elk tags are $1200 and you're in it for thousands in license costs before you ever sniff drawing one. Simply raising tag prices doesn't curb demand, limiting tags and making hunters choose where they want to hunt curbs demand and spreads pressure. Now, you want to reduce NR pressure long term? Wait til the economy tanks and you'll see a drop in NR pressure in pretty short order.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

They clearly didn't raise prices enough, then. There is a point where the number of people willing to purchase every year would decrease. It might be a real high point, but there is a point. When the higher cost of non resident first started decades ago, they had it at that point. Used to be guys had to save up for a couple years to go on an out of state trip. They could raise it to that level again. Yeah, it'd be a real high level. But why not do it? It just means more revenue to benefit the resource for the people. And even if there is no point where demand would decrease. Even if a 10k elk tag would still sell out; why not do it? That would increase revenue more than 10x from what it is now. Why not do that for the residents' resource? They are looking out for the well-lobbied few (outfitter/guides), not the people as a whole.

Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk

 

[87TT]

Just show me where the IDFG ever said that the fee increase was to relieve pressure.

 

[Rob5589]

As a non res hunter, I see the changes as reasonable. Raising prices so much that people stop coming in order to reduce numbers is frankly, stupid. They have taken reasonable steps to spread people out, appease residents, all the while considering non residents and their contribution to IDFG and the state in general.

 

[idelkslayer]

IDFG has been open about these coming changes and we had discussion in this forum back in February that specifically discussed caps at least on a regional or zone basis. Somewhere along the path of deciding on solutions for spreading out NR pressure IDFG settled on capping each unit, which makes sense if you really want to manage hunter pressure and prevent overloading specific units.

The reason why IDFG can't address this issue in only the "units that have a problem" is because that would just push the pressure to a new units. They had to take a statewide approach to avoid unintended consequences.

The result of this is that units which have seen as much as 30% NR hunters will be reduced to 15%. Units that have had low NR participation in the 5-8% range will probably see an increase of NR pressure up to a cap of 10% as NR are displaced to those units. What the actual numbers work out to for each unit will soon become clear. The overall result could be a lower NR statewide quota, hence the increased prices to compensate. The price increases bring Idaho on par with other states prices so there is no reason to complain there. If additional revenue is required to make up a loss I am more than happy to pay higher resident fees.

NR being restricted to a single unit will certainly put high demand on the most desirable units and border units and may eventually result in NR controlled hunts being instituted in those areas. IDFG tends to try incremental changes rather than jump straight to a more drastic change like immediately putting all NR opportunity into controlled hunts. I see that as a positive; let it play out for couple years and make adjustments as necessary.

There are already controls in place that require IDFG to reserve a certain number of tags specifically for outfitters in every unit that is capped or controlled hunt only. If the outfitters are not able to book enough clients for those tags by a certain date they are released for purchase to non-outfitted hunters. As part of capping each unit IDFG will have to reserve a certain number of tags for outfitters in each unit. Maybe this will increase demand for outfitter services in certain units, we'll see. Personally I'm not fan of reserved tags for outfitters but it is a system that has been in place for many decades and the tags never sell out before being released to the general tag pool.

 

[87TT]

I was going to say, how do you cap NR tags by unit for deer if you can hunt statewide?

 

[sneaky]

I was going to say, how do you cap NR tags by unit for deer if you can hunt statewide?

Residents will be able to hunt statewide on their deer tag, NR have to pick their unit. It's going to help quite a few units that get hammered by NR hunters now. I think it's a step in the right direction.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[dplantz]

Just show me where the IDFG ever said that the fee increase was to relieve pressure.

I agree that they haven't raised it for that. I think they should though. Raise it enough and it'll reduce numbers and increase revenue

Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk

 

[Kasch]

Sorry if I missed it, but are they going to be raising the NR youth whitetail tags as well. I take my kids over to our family ranch for a quality hunting experience. That might have to change if the fees are increased too much. I really liked how Idaho seemed to encourage youth hunting by having their tags as inexpensive as they were.

 

[sneaky]

Sorry if I missed it, but are they going to be raising the NR youth whitetail tags as well. I take my kids over to our family ranch for a quality hunting experience. That might have to change if the fees are increased too much. I really liked how Idaho seemed to encourage youth hunting by having their tags as inexpensive as they were.

Yes, youth tags are going up as well. That's the one complaint I have with the new fee increases. Charging kids more isn't helping with getting kids engaged in the outdoors.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[Kasch]

Have they said what the increase will be?

Yes, youth tags are going up as well. That's the one complaint I have with the new fee increases. Charging kids more isn't helping with getting kids engaged in the outdoors.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[87TT]

Licenses, Tags and Permits – Nonresident

Licenses Tags Permits Controlled Hunts Access / Depredation Fee A license buyer is required to pay this annual fee when purchasing their first annual license of the year. It will not apply to any additional annual licenses purchased later in the year, nor is it required to purchase a daily...

idfg.idaho.gov

 

[Kasch]

Can you buy next years tags before the December 1st changes?