Idaho Resident OTC Archery Sales question

[blfelts]

For those that want to see the article that was proposed in 20’ it may be coming back to the table from what I’ve been hearing.

https://idfg.idaho.gov/sites/default/files/plan-deer-mule-2020-25.pdf

It's not an initiative or an article. It is a species management plan, and is always "on the table". It's updated every few years, same with any other species IDFG oversees, including SWAP/T&E/non-game. These are always posted on their website, and there is always at least one opportunity inviting us to review and provide comments on the draft management plans of every species, prior to the Commission finalizing management plans. You're also able to address concerns or comment during Commission meetings. If you feel like you're out of the loop, sign up for the IDFG news releases. There are additional avenues to stay informed, but doing so is the responsibility of each person.

But yes, it is an extensive document providing the context of management direction (in this case for 5 years - 2020 to 2025). All this mule deer management plan says is that there's a long-standing perception of hunter overcrowding in mule deer country. As a response to this, they're going to be making a considerable effort to address this for us. When and if they come out with a proposed season change, it will be well-publicized and you will have several opportunities to comment. Also, you can always talk directly to your appointed commissioner. Their contacts are always published on the IDFG website. Or... you can participate in the public hearing portion of the commission meetings. You can address the entire commission directly on any topic you want but are limited to 3 minutes. The next one is NEXT WEEK - Wednesday, May 18 in McCall.

Again, this meeting and all other issues are circulated by IDFG in various avenues, but you should probably sign up for their weekly news releases to stay informed.

 

[sneaky]

Ok, answer this since you are so pro-IDFG you sound like a bot. Why does IDFG pay landowners depredation claims when they don't allow hunters on their property? Why do they then send their own shooters in to kill elk and deer off said properties without giving sportsmen and women a chance? They're the sporting arm of the ranching community, in bed thick as thieves with the ranching industry.

No amount of culling is going to prevent CWD spread. Those tactics are a feel- good approach to make the public think something is being done. It's inevitable that CWD is going to spread across the entire deer and elk ranges. Mother nature will have to provide natural immunity over time to those animals, there's nothing man is going to do by knocking down numbers artificially.

They'll eventually get around to discussing unit specific deer tags, and the backlash from the hunting public will be swift. I believe that transferable landowner tags will be on the docket long before unit specific tags, because they have to answer to the ranchers first before the general public gets a say.

Draws are coming for residents whether WE want them or not. The legislature looks at what point ponzi schemes rake in in application fees around the neighboring states and they want a piece of that action. The IDFG commission is just a bunch of political appointees now, the mission of wildlife management is secondary to answering to their behind the scenes string pullers. The way the legislature keeps passing regulation changes without commission input is going to neuter their authority in short order.

It is true that IDFG can't make everyone happy, but they have plenty of faults that they have no intentions of fixing.


Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[Team4LongGun]

I'm not trying to pick a fight, but I am jumping on the "squeaky wheel train" I just read another hunter on here standing up for hunters blaming IDFG. I am a hunter to my core; it's honestly the thing I am the absolute most proud of. I can promise you, my entire life is about hunting. I have horses and dogs... just to provide me unique opportunities to hunt.

But I get tired of hunters blaming IDFG. It's sad, and I think it's incredibly short-sighted. You JUST said "there's a huge increase in resident hunting pressure". I have read this comment a million times now - here as well as the public surveys. Everyone is perpetually complaining about hunting pressure and too many tags and not enough deer and not enough mature bucks and blah blah. So what is IDFG to do?

Last summer, we got hit hard with EHD where I live. We lost THOUSANDS of deer. I had several dead deer on my property alone. Now we have CWD. I guess since they reduced deer tags in response to EHD, it will still be IDFG's fault for limiting opportunity. They also increased deer and elk tags to reduce densities relative to CWD, but they will need to continue to intentionally manage CWD areas for low deer and elk densities to try to prevent the spread of this perpetual, always fatal, disease elsewhere. My bet is everyone will STILL blame IDFG for (1) too many tags sold/too much pressure; (2) not enough animals to shoot at, and (3) the well documented, long-term effect of CWD management will always be low animal numbers, younger age classes, and lower quality "trophy"/mature animals available to harvest.

Sorry, but the good ol days are over: too many people, as you stated, and now CWD. Neither is IDFG's fault. I'm in favor of picking a unit and a weapon for deer. We do with elk already. Statewide deer tags no longer makes sense anyway, considering the complaints of hunters. This has been going on long enough that it's certainly has to be a valid argument as well.

At least I still get the opportunity to go in the field with a deer tag in my pocket; albeit, one day that may be limited to a unit rather than anywhere I want to go with an open season. Hunter congestion is real and has been shouted from the rooftops for a while now. Something has to give, and us as hunters have some sort of responsibility in that happening. And if the day ever comes that I don't get have a deer tag in my pocket simply because I am a resident, well I will be sad but I certainly won't blame IDFG for "messing it up". Rather, I will give a hat tip to the vast complexities that everyone (including us as consumptive users of the resource as well as the state who is held in trust of our shared resources) has to deal with. I will still go afield and seek the same fulfillment that these wild places provide me every single time I step foot out there.

Wow. VERY well spoken. I appreciate your point of view and can agree on most of what you said.

In my opinion, where we would differ is the point Sneaky made about IDFG catering to land owners, as MT does as well.

Good to see a healthy, adult conversation.

 

[Tmcgarrigle]

Ok, answer this since you are so pro-IDFG you sound like a bot. Why does IDFG pay landowners depredation claims when they don't allow hunters on their property? Why do they then send their own shooters in to kill elk and deer off said properties without giving sportsmen and women a chance? They're the sporting arm of the ranching community, in bed thick as thieves with the ranching industry.

No amount of culling is going to prevent CWD spread. Those tactics are a feel- good approach to make the public think something is being done. It's inevitable that CWD is going to spread across the entire deer and elk ranges. Mother nature will have to provide natural immunity over time to those animals, there's nothing man is going to do by knocking down numbers artificially.

They'll eventually get around to discussing unit specific deer tags, and the backlash from the hunting public will be swift. I believe that transferable landowner tags will be on the docket long before unit specific tags, because they have to answer to the ranchers first before the general public gets a say.

Draws are coming for residents whether WE want them or not. The legislature looks at what point ponzi schemes rake in in application fees around the neighboring states and they want a piece of that action. The IDFG commission is just a bunch of political appointees now, the mission of wildlife management is secondary to answering to their behind the scenes string pullers. The way the legislature keeps passing regulation changes without commission input is going to neuter their authority in short order.

It is true that IDFG can't make everyone happy, but they have plenty of faults that they have no intentions of fixing.


Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Bad hunters are what’s lost us a lot of private land access. I had a good conversation with a long time rancher and Idaho native who is a big hunter himself and large landowner and he is open to admit that he use to let hunters in his property and has stopped because of the problems he has had. They included problems like, people shooting cattle and leaving them to waste, cows walking around with arrows in them, some people shooting cattle and field dressing them and taking the meat, leaving fences open and cattle getting out, dumping trash, damaging roads, and my personal favorite someone dumping their waste tank from their trailer right in front of the gate to the point that they have to walk through the waste to open their gate. Now yes, it’s a different problem when companies buy land and shut off the access or a yuppie comes in and closes it. So there’s a lot that’s led to us not getting to hunt private land and then hiring someone to come in and shoot them. I’ll agree, I’m still not a fan of it.

I completely agree on the CWD part as well. I think a lot of it has been on the landscape far longer than people care to acknowledge especially because it pretty much shows up in any place where it is being tested for. All we are doing is hurting deer numbers when we up the tags for that reason.

It’s also turning into a tit for tat between the legislature and the commission. The commission doesn’t want to pass something so then they get it through with legislation. Then the commission is pissed off and looks at other changes.

I’m not sure if this post was meant for me but thought you had some good points I wanted to comment on. At some point this craze has to cool off and who knows when that will be.

 

[IdahoHntr]

Ok, answer this since you are so pro-IDFG you sound like a bot. Why does IDFG pay landowners depredation claims when they don't allow hunters on their property? Why do they then send their own shooters in to kill elk and deer off said properties without giving sportsmen and women a chance? They're the sporting arm of the ranching community, in bed thick as thieves with the ranching industry.

No amount of culling is going to prevent CWD spread. Those tactics are a feel- good approach to make the public think something is being done. It's inevitable that CWD is going to spread across the entire deer and elk ranges. Mother nature will have to provide natural immunity over time to those animals, there's nothing man is going to do by knocking down numbers artificially.

They'll eventually get around to discussing unit specific deer tags, and the backlash from the hunting public will be swift. I believe that transferable landowner tags will be on the docket long before unit specific tags, because they have to answer to the ranchers first before the general public gets a say.

Draws are coming for residents whether WE want them or not. The legislature looks at what point ponzi schemes rake in in application fees around the neighboring states and they want a piece of that action. The IDFG commission is just a bunch of political appointees now, the mission of wildlife management is secondary to answering to their behind the scenes string pullers. The way the legislature keeps passing regulation changes without commission input is going to neuter their authority in short order.

It is true that IDFG can't make everyone happy, but they have plenty of faults that they have no intentions of fixing.


Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

IDFG has their hands tied with depredation and landowners. They are essentially mandated by the legislature to cater to them. IDFG really does get a bad rap for a bunch of things they don’t actually have control over. Almost everything you mention would require legislative change and the IDFG can do nothing about it. Your first paragraph is entirely the fault of the Idaho legislature and that legislature pandering to the farm bureau. Transferable landowner tags and high dollar auction tags in general have been fought against by the IDFG because the public is against them, but the legislators we elect repeatedly try to jam them down our throats any way.

Again, almost everything people blame the IDFG for and hate about them is actually the fault of the legislature and it’s about time we started putting the blame in the right place. Blame the legislature and vote better people in if you want real change. The IDFG listens to hunters better than most fish and game agencies IMO. Especially considering that basically every elected official in Idaho could care less about hunting.

 

[blfelts]

Ok, answer this since you are so pro-IDFG you sound like a bot. Why does IDFG pay landowners depredation claims when they don't allow hunters on their property? Why do they then send their own shooters in to kill elk and deer off said properties without giving sportsmen and women a chance? They're the sporting arm of the ranching community, in bed thick as thieves with the ranching industry.

No amount of culling is going to prevent CWD spread. Those tactics are a feel- good approach to make the public think something is being done. It's inevitable that CWD is going to spread across the entire deer and elk ranges. Mother nature will have to provide natural immunity over time to those animals, there's nothing man is going to do by knocking down numbers artificially.

They'll eventually get around to discussing unit specific deer tags, and the backlash from the hunting public will be swift. I believe that transferable landowner tags will be on the docket long before unit specific tags, because they have to answer to the ranchers first before the general public gets a say.

Draws are coming for residents whether WE want them or not. The legislature looks at what point ponzi schemes rake in in application fees around the neighboring states and they want a piece of that action. The IDFG commission is just a bunch of political appointees now, the mission of wildlife management is secondary to answering to their behind the scenes string pullers. The way the legislature keeps passing regulation changes without commission input is going to neuter their authority in short order.

It is true that IDFG can't make everyone happy, but they have plenty of faults that they have no intentions of fixing.


Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Yup, not the intent of this tread. Sorry OP.

I sound like a bot?! Why do you say that? Because my opinion differs from yours? I am not interested in engaging in your name calling or defensive commentary. However, if you're even remotely interested in getting factual answers to your emotional-based questions, you can pm me and we can continue this there.

Specifically, I would be happy to address your questions with facts or correcting your misinformed statements including the ineffectiveness of hunters to effectively "deal" with depredating big game, CWD spread, effective management strategies (NO! IT IS NOT A FEEL-GOOD ACTIVITY FOR THE PUBLIC! And if you think the state wildlife agency and HUNTERS are anything but the front line of this disease, you're sadly mistaken!), and the likelihood of animals to develop "a Mother Nature-induced natural immunity" to any TSE, as well as the history of the Commission.

Otherwise, I am not interested in engaging in an emotionally-charged argument on the computer. But I do maintain, even after your "questions", that IDFG is doing a fine job managing our wildlife. "Bot": out