IDFG PROPOSAL RAISING NONRESIDENT FEES, REDUCING TAGS FOR OUT OF STATE HUNTERS

[KurtR]

I have no problem with them raising prices. I will always have a wolf and bear tag also. Capping area to know exactly how many people are where should help management also.

 

[jspradley]

I recon you do not take into consideration, state income. property taxes in your statement. Residency should have some benefits to those that call it home. support the local towns, schools, roads, ect…...

Of course I did, resident hunting is still far too cheap. Non resident hunting is too cheap with some exceptions.

I never said res and non res should be the same, nonres should absolutely pay more than res but the pittance that residents pay for hunting privileges is insane.

 

[Usi05]

I understand the increase.

Planning on moving to Boise for work anyway so it won’t be an issue for long.

Everyone out there has been nice to me since I’m not moving in from Cali. Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[johnsd16]

Lots of good points in this thread but the federal land one gets me. As others have said NR are welcome onto the federal land but you just can’t hunt. Worse though is WY, where I can get a tag and STILL be banned from hunting the NF wilderness which IS total garbage. How can anyone complain about ID when a neighboring state is doing that. Absurd.

 

[Teaman1]

Rising cost suck as I really love Idaho, still not that much money for my “vacation.”
At least it’s not like Wyoming

 

[kiddogy]

Actually you are not correct. The people (public) of the STATE where the animals reside own those animals. The national public does not own the animals of another state regardless of if those animals are on private, state or federal lands. You may not like the law, but state ownership ( public of THAT state) is the law of the land and therefore the state in question controls wildlife in that state. That is not open for debate. It is fact.

yup!!!!!! well to an extent, the feds tell the states what to do and they do it. civil war decided that the states have zero rights except those the feds deem fit to grant them. but I digress...….
if you don't like the way one state prices, go elsewhere

 

[N2TRKYS]

https://idfg.idaho.gov/about/commission

The link above settles the question at least as far as Idaho is concerned but it is the same principle that applies in all states.

Besides whether wildlife is owned by the state or the citizens of the state (seems like semantics) makes no difference in the context of the misconception about NR tag allocation and access to federal land as stated in my previous post.

I don't think that it is semantics. I think it's important to delineate the two, because you'd be surprised at the folks that forget or don't realize that the agencies work for us, the citizens.

When the folks in a State don't like the way that State agency is managing the game, they need to lean on that agency. Maybe that's what is happening in ID.

If that wasn't the case, then there wouldn't be any need for hunting/wildlife based organizations voicing their concerns to those agencies.

As long as the overall health of the species is the forefront of the management decisions(in any State), then I have no problem with it.

 

[NYyotekiller]

It won’t be long before there isn’t any NR OTC tags IMO. This really isn’t a surprise.

 

[Scott/IL]

It won’t be long before there isn’t any NR OTC tags IMO. This really isn’t a surprise.

I was just talking about this with a friend the other day as he was asking why I compile points in a few states out west.

We have came to Idaho the last 2 years on elk hunts. The first year I drew a controlled tag and after it was filled he got an OTC tag and last year it was vice versa, but I also hunted deer earlier in the month. We had applied for the controlled hunts because we already planned on going out there to hunt OTC, so we already had the licenses. I figure I was knocking on the door of about $1000 for tags and licenses last year in Idaho. That’s not including my flight (deer hunt) and then the gas money (elk hunt) that I already had invested before I ever got to the state.

Now the other side of the coin. Once you start losing participation, your cause will suffer. As OTC tags go away, so will hunters. A few (me included), will still come out and pay our way. What happens when the rest don’t? Do they still care about your lands staying public? If I’m not hunting elk or something out west every year, I’d probably lose interest in what is happening pretty quickly. Is it a “the sky is falling” mentality? Yeah probably, but I could see things headed that way as OTC opportunities are dwindled in years to come.

Best of luck to everyone this fall. I’m hoping to tag another elk for my 3rd year in a row in the weeks coming up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[txhunter581]

If Colorado start limiting our tags, it will be very liberal in the numbers. They are addicted to our money

 

[Rob5589]

It won’t be long before there isn’t any NR OTC tags IMO. This really isn’t a surprise.

The prices are going up to be more in line with neighboring states. Let's not make it out to be more than it is.

 

[87TT]

The prices are going up to be more in line with neighboring states. Let's not make it out to be more than it is.

Exactly. Just don't wait until the last minute to buy one. I've always said the ID prices were too low and that's why there were left over tags. I can't understand the whining.

 

[NYyotekiller]

The prices are going up to be more in line with neighboring states. Let's not make it out to be more than it is.

My comment wasn’t in any way related to the cost increase, only to the decline of NR tags. I have no problem or see any issue with a small increase in tag fees.

 

[Rob5589]

My comment wasn’t in any way related to the cost increase, only to the decline of NR tags. I have no problem or see any issue with a small increase in tag fees.

Potentially a decline if the need arises, is the way I read it. Anything is possible but, with non res funding 56% of F&G revenue, there is no way they will eliminate non res tags completely.
Residents wanted something done and this is (potentially) the way they chose to deal with their concerns.
Elk tag increase, for myself, is fairly significant; 416 to 650. Just means another OT shift

 

[Rob5589]

Gonna have

Exactly. Just don't wait until the last minute to buy one. I've always said the ID prices were too low and that's why there were left over tags. I can't understand the whining.

Gonna have to be quick on the computer. We hunt 76 and it already sells out in less than 36 hrs.

 

[NJFikkert]

I’m a non-resident of all elk states and I say raise the rates and limit the tags even more.

 

[Researcher]

10% isnt a lot. People will pay and they will still sell out. I like capping areas though in an effort to spread people out.

 

[Idahohillboy]

Been a nonresident hunting Idaho for a long time nonresident numbers have not changed it is resident numbers along with wolves....things always change and you have to change with the times never have wasted time on things I can’t control....will simply buy tag one earlier at any cost and the minute tag two available if so will buy it alsoOn to hunting this year and next as is it, looks like maybe I move to my family house on pend oreille and become resident

Where do you hunt because this is incorrect in the units I hunt in.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Idahohillboy]

Well there are a lot of misconceptions to address. Warning long-winded post.

1. Residents can only buy a second tag beginning on August 1. When a resident buys a second tag, it comes from the Non-resident quota and they pay the non-resident price. This means that residents can only buy a second tag IF there are leftovers on August 1. Non-residents can begin to purchase tags starting on Dec 1 of the prior year. Nonresidents have 8 months to buy tags before the residents can buy one as a second tag. It may also be of interest to some nonresidents to know that residents can't buy a resident elk tag until July 10. Also, beginning on August 1 Non-residents can also purchase a second tag from the remaining quota.

2. Residents who complain that overall Non-resident numbers are rising are wrong. The non-resident quota has been capped at 12,815 for over a decade and is actually lower than the previous quota. However, Non-resident numbers can rise in localized areas. This is because not all zones have zone-specific quotas. Out of the 12,815 tags approximately half are not zone specific. This means that once all the NR tags for zone-specific quotas are sold the remaining tags can be bought for use in any of the non-quota zones. Because of this it would be possible although unlikely that 5,000 nonresidents could all buy panhandle zone tags. However, NR pressure appears to be concentrated in areas close to neighboring states. Having lived all over the state I can tell you that Southeastern Idaho has a lot of Utah and Eastern hunters and Northern/Central Idaho has a lot of Washington hunters. On any given weekend 50% of the license plates I see in North Idaho are from Washington and 50% of license plates I see in Southeastern Idaho are from Utah. I can't blame them, if I lived in either one of those places I would hunt in Idaho too. This proposal will spread that pressure out and more evenly distribute NR hunters across the state. Currently all controlled hunts are limited to 10% for NR. Some quota zones are up to 30% NR and non-quota zones can be even higher.

This proposal will establish quotas for all elk zones at not less that 10% of the 5-year average number of all hunters in that zone. This means that from year to year the quota could go up or down as long as the ceiling of 12,815 is not exceeded. This proposal will balance and distribute NR pressure more evenly across the state. As Idaho continues to grow in population it will become necessary to prioritize residents more (and charge them more) as demand for the resource increases. Which brings me to another misconception that was brought up...

3. Whether the animals are on state land, private land or federal land they are owned by the state and the state has the right and the mandate to manage, protect and perpetuate wildlife for the benefit of it's citizens. A non-resident's right to access and recreate on Federal land has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they are hunting that land. Any state in the country has the right to restrict non-residents to 0% of tags if they choose. Land ownership has nothing to do with it. Non-residents have equal rights to be on federal land but they do not have equal rights to the wildlife thereon.

The other proposal that affects residents that I support is the idea to create a 5-day delay to purchase an OTC tag if you applied for a controlled hunt for that species in the same year. This will require people to really choose what they want. It could improve drawing odds because some will choose to sit out the draw to make sure they get the OTC tag they want and it could alleviate some of the initial pressure on the OTC tags sales in high demand zones like the Sawtooth zone. It is a great idea and I look forward to seeing if it has the desired result.

Anyone who made it through all of that deserves a gold star for today.

Incorrect on the non res hunting numbers though I think because there were years prior when not all non res elk n deer tags would sell out I used to buy second deer tags in October and November they were gone by September this year?

I am for them limmiting the number of non res hinters per zone n unit. I am non res but from Idaho own as house in Hailey wherd I was born n raised. My units are a zoo compared to 5 years ago. No one was out now all the sudden everyone archery hunts Idaho....

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[FLAK]

We are turning in to Europe. Hunting the Kings deer, where only the rich can hunt. Residents don't care cause it doesn't affect them, that's how the F&G get away with it.