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

[JBivens]

I am a lifetime Idaho Tag holder, and a non resident, so I think I feel both sides. However, what all of these opinions skip by is that a large portion of these hunts occur on NATIONAL forest or Federal Dirt. I get limiting state lands to state residents, but it strikes me as hypocritical to also limit non residents on opportunities where the state doesn't "own" the land or the game therein.

 

[String&stick]

Am I reading this correctly that they aren't necessarily reducing the overall NR tag cap, they will just have the ability to cap the NR portion of tags in any given unit/zone at 10% of the 5 year average of tags sold in that zone?

So if "honey hole" zone had a 5 year average of 650 hunters then they "could" cap that zone at 65 non resident tags.

But the way it is worded in the article, it seems to me, if say a unit is above objective, they could leave it uncapped and still sell 12500 NR elk tags total.

This is a good thing, (I'm a NR that hunts Idaho) I read a few articles and it sounds like they can cap it at 10% or more. . . So basically when gohunt says unit 16 is amazing and the next year 500 more NR show up, idfg can say "ok next year there is a 10% or 15% cap on NR tags in that zone.

That's the way I read things, someone help me out if I'm wrong and it's going to 10% across the board

 

[Still Hunter]

Let me see ... wolves or nonresidents... let's get rid of nonresidents, boost their fees, limit their qty of licenses. But let's keep the wolves and keep the two elk tags for residents. Now that will certainly help the Elk herds tremendously. That is really some sharp intelligent Wildlife Game Management right there.

Idaho residents get two elk tags a year and still complain? REALLY? Sounds pretty selfish and hypocritical looking in from this perspective. Never hunted Idaho but been seriously thinking about it. Spent a week in Ketchum last year. Loved it. Even tried to talk to my wife about moving there but the state ambassadors here are not too welcoming

 

[Mike7]

I listen to people frequently complaining about decreased hunter recruitment being a problem, yet say that residents don't pay enough to hunt.

Well, having tried to get kids into hunting, fishing, and the outdoors, while having limited funds available and the kids having had limited time available because of their schooling, I found that resident license/tag costs and short hunting seasons were a couple of real barriers to effecting young hunter recruitment. These youngsters need to have resident mentors and hunting opportunity.

If you add on national forest trailhead or state land parking permit fees, boat launch fees, invasive stickers, etc. to the rest of the necessary hunt costs like gas and ammunition, it can become really hard for a family to participate.

I like what Idaho has done from this sense compared to other states like Washington.

 

[ChrisS]

Idaho residents get two elk tags a year and still complain? REALLY? Sounds pretty selfish and hypocritical looking in from this perspective. Never hunted Idaho but been seriously thinking about it. Spent a week in Ketchum last year. Loved it. Even tried to talk to my wife about moving there but the state ambassadors here are not too welcoming

The best is that they complain there are too many non-residents hunting, and then they complain about too many people moving there and becoming residents.

Some people just like to whine.

 

[nidaho]

If nonresident tags are capped and sell out residents won’t be able to buy a second leftover tag. I believe we have to wait till August first to buy the second one.

 

[KHNC]

Gotta love these types of threads. I remember a few years ago here in NM when the outfitters solidified outfitter welfare thru politics (and in turn hosed nr's in the process) everyone was going to boycott our state. NR's are still applying for the draw, buying welfare tags from outfitters, and paying big bucks for LO tags......

LO tags are the biggest ripoff for NR's out there. Landowners should be restricted to "ranch only" tags. That way they cant charge so much for the tags being sold. THis or stop LO tags completely!

 

[BeaverHunter]

The best is that they complain there are too many non-residents hunting, and then they complain about too many people moving there and becoming residents.

Some people just like to whine.

Not whining. But when you’re the fastest growing state in the country and a state that issues a lot of non resident tags, something has to change. If you don’t like the way Idaho fish and game manages things, move to idaho and vote to change it. Or don’t come to Idaho to hunt or fish at all which is voting with your wallet.

I think Idaho is extremely generous with their non resident elk hunting. One of the few states where you can hunt without having to draw a tag. I guess Idaho could go to a system like wyoming and make all non residents apply in a draw and hunt General season units once every 3 years. Would that be better for you non residents complaining about this change?

 

[kyleeisenhardt]

Interesting decision for Idaho

 

[GregB]

Let me see ... wolves or nonresidents... let's get rid of nonresidents, boost their fees, limit their qty of licenses. But let's keep the wolves and keep the two elk tags for residents. Now that will certainly help the Elk herds tremendously. That is really some sharp intelligent Wildlife Game Management right there.

Idaho residents get two elk tags a year and still complain? REALLY? Sounds pretty selfish and hypocritical looking in from this perspective. Never hunted Idaho but been seriously thinking about it. Spent a week in Ketchum last year. Loved it. Even tried to talk to my wife about moving there but the state ambassadors here are not too welcoming

Residents don't GET 2 tags a year. They have the opportunity to purchase, at non-resident price remaining tags from the non res-quota. And if there are none remaining they do not get a tag. Idaho is one of the cheapest states to hunt as a non-res, the increase just brings us in line with the rest of the states.

 

[DAOutfitters208]

From a financial perspective only, it would be cheaper for ME to move back to Washington and buy all the same tags I do as a resident (elk, deer, bear, cougar, wolf, fishing) at non resident prices approx. $1400. We pay 6% income tax here. Other states have income tax as well, but some don't. There is more cost associated with hunting Idaho as a resident than the price of our tag.
Side note, I won't be moving back...ever!

 

[idelkslayer]

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.

 

[deerkiller]

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

and WHY is that "funny" ???

 

[deerkiller]

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.

FACTS at last …….

 

[cgasner1]

Montana bow hunters is wanting to modify the archery elk tag here but the state legislatures make it impossible due to being made up of ranchers and the outfitters association with the end goal being money our state doesn’t give a damn about the residents and Idaho is probably the same way


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rob5589]

I don't see a huge issue with the proposal, even as a non res hunter. The cap will max at the same number but, could be lowered, which is unlikely unless animal numbers call for it. And with no fee increases in 10+ years you had to know it was coming. Had they been slowly increasing it instead of one big hit it would be less of a shocker.

The one big negative for myself is now that my daughter is hunting, I will have double the fees. Luckily she is only 13 so we have a few more years of junior non res fees.

 

[N2TRKYS]

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.

The animals are not owned by the State. They’re owned by the public. The public puts people in place at the State and Federal level to help manage said animals.

 

[idahohikker]

The animals are not owned by the State. They’re owned by the public. The public puts people in place at the State and Federal level to help manage said animals.

And you obviously have not read about the American method of wildlife management as shown by decades of case law and management. State ownership of the animals in their borders goes way back.

 

[idahohikker]

If you’re really sad as a nonresident that you have zero right to animals in other states, go read the cases where discriminating against nonresident hunters in license fees was affirmed.

Also, your home state must have crappy hunting if you don’t value your own residency somewhere.

 

[N2TRKYS]

And you obviously have not read about the American method of wildlife management as shown by decades of case law and management. State ownership of the animals in their borders goes way back.

Could you post a link that states that the States and not the people in those States own the game?