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

[Customweld]

Western hunter numbers are quite robust. Add in the extra eastern hunting pressure and we have some crowded woods. That’s why the hunter recruitment idea is not very compelling to us westerners.

Maybe a stupid question, but overall hunter numbers are declining in a steep trend.

Is this just a western hunting issue?

The amount of NR tags for Idaho hasn't increased for quite a while. IFG is responding to complaints, both to the agency and the Idaho Legislature of NR concentration in certain units. The fee increase and unit/zone cap will both need to go through the legislative process, which is a mine field when it comes to getting a clean increase without a pile of riders.

 

[idelkslayer]

I'll gladly pay a fee increase.

I find it odd though that some people are for reducing opportunities, when its proven that access and opportunity are what is hurting hunting the most.

Not one mention of making the method of take more difficult...... not to stir the pot too much but we can't all have our cake and eat it too.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

The total number of elk hunters in Idaho has risen from 77,662 in the year 2001 to 109,475 in 2017. Harvest has risen in that same time from ~17,500 to ~22,000. at some point the pressure will be too much.

Yes, much can be done to limit success with weapon restrictions or shorter seasons to decrease success rates. However, low success rates will have a negative effect on recruitment too.

we only have to sacrifice opportunities if we want to continue to use the current methods of take.

basically make hunting harder (regress) and retain opportunity. I know it's an uncomfortable option for most... but would you rather sit out?

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Spears for Everyone!

Idaho is retaining opportunity for it's residents. Putting priority on residents is the right thing to do for any state.
Weapons restrictions and shorter seasons won't do anything to alleviate crowding unless the restrictions cause a lot of hunters to quit, so recruitment and retention go down.

 

[338maker]

kind of funny that the proposal does not recommend an increase for non-resident wolf tags

they should be free!!!

 

[N2TRKYS]

I don't know what the hold up is. If the game management officials in the State of Idaho thinks that the number of NRs hunting in the State is bad for the overall health of the resource, then lower the number of NR tags. Since the State of Idaho, not the citizens, owns the animals of Idaho, it should be an easy process. No reason to take any public meetings or input.

 

[Ccm11]

I have really enjoyed this conversation. Bottom line is, something had to be done to alleviate human pressure. As one member stated before, it was an absolute zoo out there last year. If I’m being completely honest, the over abundance of people in the area I used to hunt caused me to swear off the general zones for the 2019 hunting season.
People always try to tell me that hunter recruitment numbers are down. I think I’ll start telling them that they’ve been consuming too much Randy Newberg content!

 

[ndbuck09]

Now lets get it passed in the Legislature..

 

[wind gypsy]

The total number of elk hunters in Idaho has risen from 77,662 in the year 2001 to 109,475 in 2017. Harvest has risen in that same time from ~17,500 to ~22,000. at some point the pressure will be too much.

I have leaned towards being supportive of ID doing what it thinks will help support the quality of experience for it's hunts. By the numbers i'm not sure this change will have the desired effect.

If total elk hunter #'s have gone up by 31,813 over this time period, and total NR tag #'s have stayed the same, the #'s don't suggest NR hunters are the problem. I recognize there is more to it than that I.E. increased effort, more information available on areas, 2nd tag allocation between R/NR, etc but it doesn't seem this change will have a huge impact.

 

[sneaky]

I don't think this is going to reduce overall NR numbers by much, but the zone caps will be the best move in spreading out pressure. I have to laugh at everyone complaining that NR hunters are ruining everything, when the numbers are there in black and white. NR numbers have been the same for a long time, resident numbers have jumped through the roof. The feeling of NR crowding comes from a handful of zones that are NR magnets. Cap all the zones and that pressure will be spread over the entire state. You want to really level the field, make the deer tags a choose your zone and weapon with caps. People will get mad but that'll do more than cutting tag numbers.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[idahohikker]

The nonresident cap hasn’t risen since 2001? I thought maybe it had.

The reason the nonresident pressure feels higher is the nonresident cap wasn’t selling out from about 2008-2016. The wolf issue was well known and nonresidents weren’t coming as much. Within the last few years there’s been an additional pressure of with the caps selling out.

A lot of the residents buying second tags don’t hunt them too hard or fill them. It’s a “if I see a trophy” idea. Nonresidents with one tag are trying to fill that tag.

@sneaky I definitely think deer should be limited by zone and a and b tags like elk. No need to have the whole state open to bounce around. Pick your area and hunt it. The state is somewhat resistant to the idea so far though it’s been on recent surveys.

 

[Rob5589]

Disregard

 

[Elktaco]

Has anyone hunted unit 76 lately, if so how has the bugling been?

 

[Idaho Sandman]

Non res won’t put their bugles down, it’s been non stop.

 

[Ross]

this is a fun thread to read having been a resident and now a non resident for a long time.....a couple of additions the cap did not sell out in 2003 and that was the first year you could buy two tags....not all non residents simply want to fill a tag many hunters I see today are not too dedicated or to educated on how to actually hunt elk they have the gear but not the drive to push themselves or actually get at it...my bugling starts in earnest Friday party on

 

[Customweld]

You have until September 25th to comment.
https://idfg.idaho.gov/press/comment-period-open-proposed-rules-will-go-2020-legislature

 

[Rob5589]

The total number of elk hunters in Idaho has risen from 77,662 in the year 2001 to 109,475 in 2017. Harvest has risen in that same time from ~17,500 to ~22,000. at some point the pressure will be too much.

Yes, much can be done to limit success with weapon restrictions or shorter seasons to decrease success rates. However, low success rates will have a negative effect on recruitment too.




Spears for Everyone!

Idaho is retaining opportunity for it's residents. Putting priority on residents is the right thing to do for any state.
Weapons restrictions and shorter seasons won't do anything to alleviate crowding unless the restrictions cause a lot of hunters to quit, so recruitment and retention go down.

Would be interesting to know the non res and res numbers separately. My guess is the res numbers are the largest increase, which would be expected. At some point it will come down to managing overall hunter numbers, not just non residents

 

[Customweld]

Would be interesting to know the non res and res numbers separately. My guess is the res numbers are the largest increase, which would be expected. At some point it will come down to managing overall hunter numbers, not just non residents

The NR elk tag quota has been set under 13k for a number of years. Obviously there are residents that buy some of those 13k tags. There is no doubt that the increase is from Idaho's exploding growth.

 

[Broomd]

Doesn't go far enough....but it's a start.
I'd like to see NR elk tags at $700. Mule deer at $600.

We're already weary of WA road hunters, to and fro with the pickups and loaded atvs.... and it's only mid September.

 

[Drew@selway]

after thinking about this for a while, why not do Unit caps.. micro manage it. I'm sure not every place is overrun (i know where we go isnt) Would love to see everything kept on a first come first serve basis as well.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[idelkslayer]

Would be interesting to know the non res and res numbers separately. My guess is the res numbers are the largest increase, which would be expected. At some point it will come down to managing overall hunter numbers, not just non residents

The NR numbers haven't changed significantly because the NR quota has stayed at 12,815 for nearly that entire time span. The herds can only handle so much pressure, once that threshold is reached something has to give. Right now IDFG is deciding to prioritize residents. This proposal does not automatically reduce NR tag quotas but it does spread them out over the entire state, although lower NR numbers will likely result. Right now a lot NR pressure is concentrated in a handful of zones, establishing quotas for all zones will just spread people out. Zones with better elk densities will sell out first and late comers will get the less desirable areas.

As a side note for those who say that NR dollars are the saviors of western state game agency budgets:
12,815 NR paying $571.50 (the current fee+ license) equals $7,323,772.50.
100,000 residents paying $52.50 (current fee + license) equals, $5,250,000.
A difference of $2,073,772.50
If every resident paid an additional $20.74 per elk tag we could replace NR dollars.


And with the increase:
12,815 NR paying $833.25 (the proposed new fee+ license) equals $10,678,098.75. Although the reason for the fee increase is because fewer tags are expected to sell.
100,000 residents paying $52.50 (current fee + license) equals, $5,250,000.
A difference of $5,428,098.75
If every resident paid an additional $54.28 per elk tag we could replace NR dollars.

In either example I would be willing to pay the increase to resident tag prices.

 

[Rob5589]

The NR numbers haven't changed significantly because the NR quota has stayed at 12,815 for nearly that entire time span. The herds can only handle so much pressure, once that threshold is reached something has to give. Right now IDFG is deciding to prioritize residents. This proposal does not automatically reduce NR tag quotas but it does spread them out over the entire state, although lower NR numbers will likely result. Right now a lot NR pressure is concentrated in a handful of zones, establishing quotas for all zones will just spread people out. Zones with better elk densities will sell out first and late comers will get the less desirable areas.

As a side note for those who say that NR dollars are the saviors of western state game agency budgets:
12,815 NR paying $571.50 (the current fee+ license) equals $7,323,772.50.
100,000 residents paying $52.50 (current fee + license) equals, $5,250,000.
A difference of $2,073,772.50
If every resident paid an additional $20.74 per elk tag we could replace NR dollars.


And with the increase:
12,815 NR paying $833.25 (the proposed new fee+ license) equals $10,678,098.75. Although the reason for the fee increase is because fewer tags are expected to sell.
100,000 residents paying $52.50 (current fee + license) equals, $5,250,000.
A difference of $5,428,098.75
If every resident paid an additional $54.28 per elk tag we could replace NR dollars.

In either example I would be willing to pay the increase to resident tag prices.

Interesting but, there has to be more to it than that. Otherwise, why not just pressure the state to increase the resident fees to make up the difference and ban non resident hunting altogether?