New Idaho Regulations/ drawing proposal

[Trial153]

Has anyone read the new proposal that is being sent to the legislature? Unless I'm reading it wrong it looks like it creates an Outfitter pool for drawing non-resident tags? It also takes away upfront tag fee for sheep and moose and re places it with a fee? that will drive applications though the roof...
am I reading this all wrong?
any input from anyone that knows more about it?

 

[livingandlearning]

How about a link to this new proposal?

 

[Trial153]

Comments being taken for proposed hunting rules changes | Idaho Fish and Game

 

[TheTone]

The outfitter thing referenced is with reference to current unlimited controlled hunts. Outfitters already have a set aside as it it. I can't say I'm in favor of the proposed change or current system. I'm very much of the opinion that an outfitters business should live or die on its own accord, not on being given its own tags that keep it going.

I'm also not a fan of losing the upfront tag fee for moose, sheep or goat. I'm not sure it will effect resident apps much (amazing how many residents don't apply for anything) but I'm sure will effect non resident ones

 

[idelkslayer]

The outfitter tag allocation is in reference to unlimited hunts only. IDFG wants to put a cap on NR hunters in those units (it will still be unlimited for residents but limited for NR). Current law requires IDFG to set aside tag allocations for outfitters in controlled hunt and limited quota units, it is not up to them it is mandated by state law. By putting a limit on the number of NR tags in the unlimited zones IDFG will be required to set aside a certain number of tags for outfitters and their clients. This is what happens in every controlled hunt in the state, it is not a new concept. I'm in favor of placing a limit on the number of NR tags in those units, currently NR account for over 70% of hunters in those units, it should be redueced to balance the pressure better.

I strongly disagree with the proposal to remove the requirement to pay for OIL tags up front. That rule should remain. It keeps out anyone who isn't actually serious about hunting those species. I like the current system and how it requires each hunter to truly evaluate what it is he wants apply for in any given year and make the commitment up front by putting their money where their mouth is.

 

[tttoadman]

I would be fine with a limited quota for everyone. It should be on a first come first serve basis whether res or non. Nothing is stopping resident hunters from going to the hunts that are packed with non-res. I am certain there are units that are the opposite. Are the resident hunters going to have a quota applied to them in those areas?

I asked for 2 things on the questionnaire:
1. I asked them to make a combination package for deer and elk in said unit which then goes along with my request #2.
2. If the non-res is unsuccessful, state sends back all money spent on non-res licenses and only keeps the application fees to cover admin costs.

I would be looking a little harder at my investment if I was stuck with only one tag and almost the same out of pocket costs to go hunt. I would hate to see ID miss out on taking my hard earned money.

 

[brandon.andersen]

I won't comment on the outfitters quota as that has been covered well. However, I'll input my two cents on the OIL tag change. I am indifferent with paying the tag fee upfront. What I would love to see change is the rule that you can not put in for any other limited controlled hunts after putting in for the OIL tags. Even if I do not draw the moose tag, I cannot put in for any pronghorn hunts less the unlimited archery tags. As more and more hunts on our side of the state turn from open hunts to unlimited draw units, to limited draw units, I have fewer hunts that I can enjoy because I am chasing that elusive OIL moose tag.

 

[ndbuck09]

The problem with removing the restriction of only applying for one controlled hunt if you apply for moose, sheep or goats is that your moose hunt you want to go on will only get that much more difficult to draw as all the folks who don't care about the trophy species as much and apply for deer elk antelope every year will suddenly put in for the trophy species too, decreasing the odds for everyone. Some moose hunts run in the 20%-30% chance zone for drawing a tag as a resident. As a resident of Idaho, my wife really wants an antelope but she literally has a 7% chance of drawing a rifle tag for goats. And that's the best odds. Sheep tags have 7% odds too which is incredible comparing the two animals.

If you could only pick 1 controlled hunt between Deer Elk and Antelope, I can guarantee the odds would jump for all hunts! The effect of this is that you can focus on 1 for a number of years and then move focus when you draw, which is theoretically quicker.

I've heard it advocated for that you can basically pick two controlled hunts to put in for and that's it. I actually like this idea best probably as it lets you have multiple cards in draws but also makes people pick their focus.

 

[Trial153]

Thanks for the input. And I appreciate the civil discussion. I am understanding the Outfitters situation better and it's seems to a be a non issue as it doesn't really intact any changes.


My concern with a fee based OIL tag that doesn't garner any points is that if the fee isn't sufficiently ..for lack of better term prohibitive it will increases demand or participation exponentially. Basically it turns it into a raffle. I don't see how that good for everyone, non residents and residents a like.

 

[brandon.andersen]

The problem with removing the restriction of only applying for one controlled hunt if you apply for moose, sheep or goats is that your moose hunt you want to go on will only get that much more difficult to draw as all the folks who don't care about the trophy species as much and apply for deer elk antelope every year will suddenly put in for the trophy species too, decreasing the odds for everyone. Some moose hunts run in the 20%-30% chance zone for drawing a tag as a resident. As a resident of Idaho, my wife really wants an antelope but she literally has a 7% chance of drawing a rifle tag for goats. And that's the best odds. Sheep tags have 7% odds too which is incredible comparing the two animals.

If you could only pick 1 controlled hunt between Deer Elk and Antelope, I can guarantee the odds would jump for all hunts! The effect of this is that you can focus on 1 for a number of years and then move focus when you draw, which is theoretically quicker.

I've heard it advocated for that you can basically pick two controlled hunts to put in for and that's it. I actually like this idea best probably as it lets you have multiple cards in draws but also makes people pick their focus.

I completely understand the reasoning. That is how it was explained to me by IDFG as well. I would be all for a choose your species or a choose your weapon type changes. One thing is certain, I would not want to have Virgil Moore's job. No matter what changes are offered or instituted, somebody is going to be yelling.

 

[idelkslayer]

tttoadman,

The reasons for limiting the NR tags in this unit was previously discussed here in this poorly titled thread:

http://www.rokslide.com/forums/gene...ident-opportunity.html?highlight=idaho+limits

in that discussion I posted the following:
"The controlled hunts has 2 parts:

First the numbers. Over the last 5 years in the unit 27 unlimited controlled hunt between 65-81% of tags have gone to NR hunters.

Second some history and more numbers. In 2015 unit 27 went to 1st choice only, meaning that you could only draw this tag if it was your first choice. (Before this and as it remains in unit 20A and 26 a hunter could put it as a second choice in case they didn't draw their first choice.) This was done in an attempt to reduce the number of hunters in the unit without placing a cap on tag numbers. IDFG recognizes that this is a unique hunting opportunity and was trying to continue to offer it to those who really want to do it instead of those who had it as a back-up plan.

It didn't work. I think what happened is that NR hunters weren't willing to risk not drawing a tag and rather than do an OTC as a backup they switched to this as a 1st choice. The number of hunters in unit 27 went up 46% the first year of the new requirement. It increased another 18% the following year. So back when 350-400 hunters per year were in the unit they tried to reduce overall numbers and instead there are now 670 hunters in that unit. So like I said, the 1st choice only requirement that was meant to decrease hunter numbers actually increased them instead. Another factor could have been social media and the rising awareness of this unique hunting opportunity.

It looks like this:

Year # Hunters % NR
2013 315 80
2014 385 81
New requirement "First Choice Only"
2015 564 73
2016 667 65
2017 670 69

Now in order to reduce the number of hunters to protect the herd from over harvest they will need to place a cap on the number of tags in these units. Since NR make up the vast majority of hunters in the unit (and exceed the standard 10% cap that other units have)and therefore have the highest impact on deer harvest IDFG is proposing to cap the number of NR tags in these units."

Most controlled hunts limit NR to 10% of the total number of tags. This proposal will bring these hunts into conformity with the rest of the units but will still allow IDFG to set the quota at "not less than 10%". They could conceivably set the NR quota at 10% or 50% or anywhere in between.

IDFG could just go ahead and make it it a draw hunt for residents and NR but then NR would get even fewer tags, because then they would be restricted to a "no more than 10%" share of the tags.

 

[jm1607]

Jeez.. I can't image the non-refundable part costing any more, it's already tough to swallow. For NRs I think it's about $170 if you pay cash and well over $200 with a cc after fees (could be a little off).. I know everyone is worried that NR apps will sky rocket but if they bump it up much more than that I can't imagine too many more people putting in..

I mean, I think people that were paying $200+ plus floating the tag cost will still put in. But, I can't see many people who couldn't afford it before (or just didn't want to pay that much like me) paying $250 now (or whatever it will be).. That's alot for basically buying a raffle ticket in a non-point game..

 

[robby denning]

Idaho has some of the best OIL odds (“best” is relative to other western states) because...
1) tag fees must be submitted up front
2) if applying OIL, can’t apply deer elk or antelope
3) nonrefundable license fee.

If you wish to change any one or all of those, you’re wishing for lower draw odds.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[IdyllwildArcher]

I dropped out of the Washington sheep draw because the odds are just too bad to justify the high non-refundable cost (around $150 if I remember right). I'll drop out of ID if the odds go down or the non-refundable cost goes up too much more. It's already expensive having to buy the hunting license if you don't have any hunting plans in ID that year.

 

[Trial153]

I guess it's a wait and see what the "fee " is for the OIL tag.
as it is now your already looking at the non refundable licence cost ...add an additional fee on top of it. if your not planning on using the license for the year for looking at a pretty expensive draw with low odds for the cost. the fact that odds are relatively better then other states maybe negated by the higher cost. The expense become greater when you consider it only encompasses a single draw as apoosed states that allow multi species draws with a single the license purchase.

 

[bluetick78]

As a lifetime Idaho resident, I have been applying for OIL tags every other year since 1990. That's 13 or 14 times I've applied for either sheep, moose, or mtn goat. I have never drawn. Not that I'm suprised, but the OIL species are really the animals that keep me hunting. Mule deer are the animal I hunt most, followed closely by elk, antelope take a very distant 3rd.
But the promise of a 37" ram, a 9" billy, or a 48" moose is what keeps me hunting, scouting, and living an outdoor lifestyle. Might sound strange to some, but it's true. If my odds of ever drawing an OIL species were severely degraded by the money hungry cockroaches that already invite every Kuiu commando from neighboring states to derail our mule deer populations with untold thousands of OTC tags, I hate to say it but I believe my big game hunting would slow down or stop completely.
The F&G knows that this potential new policy change will make them more money than the current OIL species process will, and apparently that is their only concern.

 

[Mtnboy]

I'll gladly pay a higher fee. Hopefully it keeps some people out of the pool and makes the odds a little better....all the non-res guys complaining ID is expensive, start comparing tag prices to other states, you can get 3 Idaho Elk tags for the cost of 1 in WY....

F&G is starving for money, it isn't just some big slush fund that they are having a grand ol' time with like some like to believe. Hell, most fees related to hunting and fishing haven't changed in YEARS. Think about that, EVERYTHING in this world is getting more and more expensive, yet for some reason the hunting crowd seems to think that we should be able to pay the same fees our entire lives and if anything goes up it's "Damn money hungry Fish and Game coming after our money again" Get over it, wanna play? Gotta pay.

 

[bluetick78]

I would gladly pay 3x as much for an OIL species tag up front, as long as the current drawing system stays the same. If my odds are going to drastically diminish, I will not apply at all. Maybe that makes more sense. Most of the non-resident hunters I speak to list 2 reasons why they hunt Idaho's big game.
1. Cheapest
2. Tons of OTC tags
Makes perfect sense. But if F&G is starving for $$, then why not pull their heads out of the dirt and look at any of our neighboring states. Raise the tag fees. It's that damn simple. My last truck cost $30,000, my new one cost $50,000. People understand inflation, they may not like it, but they understand it.

 

[TheTone]

I would gladly pay 3x as much for an OIL species tag up front, as long as the current drawing system stays the same. If my odds are going to drastically diminish, I will not apply at all. Maybe that makes more sense. Most of the non-resident hunters I speak to list 2 reasons why they hunt Idaho's big game.
1. Cheapest
2. Tons of OTC tags
Makes perfect sense. But if F&G is starving for $$, then why not pull their heads out of the dirt and look at any of our neighboring states. Raise the tag fees. It's that damn simple. My last truck cost $30,000, my new one cost $50,000. People understand inflation, they may not like it, but they understand it.

Have you ever looked at what the legislature does with fish and game proposals, especially fee ones?

 

[bluetick78]

I'm not sure what direction you're trying to go with that TheTone. They usually try to force the commission into some corrupt little scheme that benefits their corrupt campaign donors, is that what you mean?