Strange Observation in Idaho

[JLH208]

I feel like the reduced tag count solution is kind of a cop out, though. Certainly at a certain point, i.e. after some sort of catastrophic event, that might be in order, but I think these other solutions merit some consideration. I would prefer to see them restrict aids and equipment long before they trim down tag sales. I know it was controversial, but I liked at least having the conversation about trail cams and where the limits ought to be on that type of equipment.

I think we also have to figure out what we actually want. Do we just want good opportunity and sustainable herds? Or do we want IDFG to act like curators on a private ranch and artificially "farm" trophy class animals for the lucky few who draw a tag, like certain other states? I'm for opportunity, personally - even if that means I never shoot another "booner". I'm probably in the minority though.

I don't think you are


- Jesse

 

[kicker338]

I feel like the reduced tag count solution is kind of a cop out, though. Certainly at a certain point, i.e. after some sort of catastrophic event, that might be in order, but I think these other solutions merit some consideration. I would prefer to see them restrict aids and equipment long before they trim down tag sales. I know it was controversial, but I liked at least having the conversation about trail cams and where the limits ought to be on that type of equipment.

I think we also have to figure out what we actually want. Do we just want good opportunity and sustainable herds? Or do we want IDFG to act like curators on a private ranch and artificially "farm" trophy class animals for the lucky few who draw a tag, like certain other states? I'm for opportunity, personally - even if that means I never shoot another "booner". I'm probably in the minority though.

Your not in the minority at all, your very much in the majority with a ton of guys who are not on this forum or any other's for that matter. They and me included only want to hunt and have the chance to harvest an elk or deer. This trophy hunting stuff really gets to me, watch some of the hunting shows on tv, they spot an animal with there spotting scope then get out the tape measure to see what they think it will score. That's why I'm a bit of a fan boy with Ted Neugiant, he rairly ever talks about the size of the animal. I have nothing against trophy hunting butI do have a problem when state fish and game departments try to tip the scales in favo of trophy hunting. Some of this can backfire on them too. Lake ponderay here in Idaho, fish and game incouraged people to trophy fish, catch and release, get more people fishing, sell more licenses. Worked pretty well until the trophy fish started eating themselves out of house and home. Then fish and game started telling everyone to keep the big ones to try and save the kokanee population which almost disappeared thankfully the population has started coming back. Way too much of this trophy hunting with all state fish and game departments is as much or more about money as it is about trophy's.

 

[Elkangle]

Have they increased the non res tag quotas in idaho ??

Theres always been alot of out of state hunters....its only been the last few years they actually started selling out again like they used to prior to the wolf wave

 

[fittohunt]

I would bet it has to do with the hunting in Wa. Most the east side of Wa in draw only for bull tags that range from 5-20 years and the majority of western Wa is 3pt min with a lot of private land. So for most it is easier to buy an OTC tag for another state if you want to chase bulls.

Also consider WA has the worst ELK/Hunter ratio in the west. I don't see myself hunting my home state anytime soon unless I draw something.

 

[Tgrayky]

What about tags all costing the same? I mean since in essence you are paying for a resource(meat). State land and private land residents could hunt with no extra fee(permission from landowner of course). Nonresidents would be required to pay for a permit to hunt within in the state, however if a resident chooses to chase game on national land then they would be subject to same permit fees as a nonresident to hunt national land.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bluetick78]

That line of reasoning would only apply if federal resources were being used to manage big game. There's lots of misconceptions out there about "public land" and "public animals". The land is property of legal residents of the United States. The animals and their management are tasked, mostly, to the states. In essence, the animals in a particular state are the property of the legal residents of that state. I've had many conversations with USFS employees on this exact subject. This is the primary reason why states are allowed to charge higher fees to non-residents for the privilege of harvesting an animal.
It's frustrating for sportsmen to see the doors of opportunity slowly closing on them one Western state at a time. There is no good answer to this, but in each Western state so far it has resulted in less non-resident opportunity and higher fees to participate. It will eventually happen in Idaho as well, how long it will take is anyone's guess. I'm friends with many ID F&G employees, and they say the winds of change are blowing.....

 

[Tgrayky]

I did a little reading up and some recent numbers showed that Idaho license sales 6% was comprised of nonresidents, but that 6% provided 36% of the revenue. Raising rates that end up reducing a number that’s already as low as 6% could be counter productive to the overall revenue. We all know that’s a states main objective is making money from a resource. These are scary times for any hunter resident or nonresident in my opinion


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bluetick78]

Out of curiosity Tgrayky, what was your resource for the non-resident revenue numbers?

 

[Tgrayky]

Hi blue tick I tried to send a message to ya. I have no idea if it went thru. I’m new to rokslide and Tapatalk.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bluetick78]

Thanks Tgrayky, that was a good read. Even though those stats are from 2015, I wouldn't imagine there's been a lot of change. There's no doubt that non-residents contribute a big chunk of $$ to most Western states game budgets.

 

[Tgrayky]

Thanks Tgrayky, that was a good read. Even though those stats are from 2015, I wouldn't imagine there's been a lot of change. There's no doubt that non-residents contribute a big chunk of $$ to most Western states game budgets.

You’re welcome. I’ve just been doing lots of reading lately. I’m planning to run to Colorado this coming September on my first archery elk hunt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bluetick78]

Good luck to you, I hope it turns out well. I've always wanted to hunt Colorado, but I haven't finished my Idaho bucket list yet!

 

[Tgrayky]

Haha appreciate it. I’ve been applying for ky elk for years now and still haven’t drawn. Was looking at Idaho, but the extra drive was going to eat up precious vacation time. Good luck to you on that Idaho bucket list


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Piscatory_4]

It's not so much the states' policies that cause the exodus, it's the private timber companies charging somewhat hefty fees to access their land, which has been open access for most of our lives. So we can pay $500 to hunt here or $650 to hunt elsewhere and feel we may have a better experience and chance at a nicer harvest.

Taking things another way, Idaho or whatever other state could just charge license fees based on irs reported income, folks with lower incomes could pay resident fees and higher incomes would jump to non resident fees and increase for every $50k of income above that, in brackets of course.

Lots of stuff i haven't read in this thread, but it's interesting, and I've probably missed some other points that have been made so forgive me please for jumping in early with a response. And no I'm not planning nor have i ever hunted out of state(Wa), plenty of game animals where i live and hunt and fortunately it's undesirable to out of state hunters.

 

[RAHC]

It's not so much the states' policies that cause the exodus, it's the private timber companies charging somewhat hefty fees to access their land, which has been open access for most of our lives. So we can pay $500 to hunt here or $650 to hunt elsewhere and feel we may have a better experience and chance at a nicer harvest.

Taking things another way, Idaho or whatever other state could just charge license fees based on irs reported income, folks with lower incomes could pay resident fees and higher incomes would jump to non resident fees and increase for every $50k of income above that, in brackets of course.

Lots of stuff i haven't read in this thread, but it's interesting, and I've probably missed some other points that have been made so forgive me please for jumping in early with a response. And no I'm not planning nor have i ever hunted out of state(Wa), plenty of game animals where i live and hunt and fortunately it's undesirable to out of state hunters.

A wage based license system....that is literally the dumbest thing I've ever read on this website. Maybe you could take public transportation to your hunting unit too. Socialists will not fix hunting for you

 

[Piscatory_4]

A wage based license system....that is literally the dumbest thing I've ever read on this website. Maybe you could take public transportation to your hunting unit too. Socialists will not fix hunting for you

No more preposterous than paleraider's suggestion. Tongue in cheek man.

I looked up some statistics for fun: Population density, WA 104.9/sq mi, ID 19.5/sq mi
Total public hunting land, WA 13.5 million acres, ID 34.8 million acres
Acres per person to hunt, WA 2.0, ID 22.2
Considering that only a small percentage of the population hunt there seems to be plenty of public land to go around in Idaho.
Elk populations differ too; WA ~56,000, ID ~107,000, from information gathered on the interweb.

 

[Joe Schmo]

On nice!! Whilst we're ripping my home state. I noticed for the last 4 years I've barely been hunting WA at all and I've been dumping money into ID and hunting it every chance I get. So I thought I'd do a quick back of the envelope calculation...
2017 license/tag/app fees
WA- 550
ID- 1400

# of meat
WA- 40
ID- 260

$ per # of meat
WA- $13.75
ID- $5.38

 

[maninthemaze]

My proposal was simply an increased tax for residents of states that already have Elk/Mule deer hunting. I originally proposed something in the $500 to $1000 range. Yet I think, as you mentioned, a matrix could be devised based on the feasibility of drawing in a given state. I would say for a state like AZ where getting a tag is neigh impossible then it should be at the higher end. States like MT or CO which does have good out of state it would be way less say $200. As NM is a full on draw with no points I could see them not paying anything extra as my odds are as good as any one elses. For states like CA/WA/OR/UT who do a horrible job they should pay $500+.

And what about Kentucky residents who want to hunt Montana, Colorado, Idaho or Wyoming? We have an elk herd, although drawing a tag is similar to winning the powerball. Under your plans, we should stop sending elk to other states, and double or even triple the costs to NR elk hunters.

Just my 2 cents and worth the price charged.

 

[bluetick78]

Let's all try to get back to reality quickly. Idaho is not going to set NR tag prices based on tax bracket, opportunity allowed in said hunters home state, etc, etc. These ideas are all wishing at best, downright discrimination at worst. I believe the OP made an observation most likely based on several years of general observation and wanted to see if others felt likewise. It sounds like several other resident hunters did, in fact, observe similar activity. Others just wanted to whine because someone else found their alleged honey hole and happened to have out of state residency.
No one is excited to see more people in the deer and elk mountains each season, but for now that's the reality of it. I have 2 pieces of advice-
1. If you like to hunt Idaho and come from out of state, get as much in as you can. Things are bound to begin changing soon.
2. If you are from Idaho and wish to see less NR sportsmen/sportswomen afield, don't point all your fingers at IDF&G. The state legislature has jammed the F&G up at every turn. They (our elected legislators) have demanded thousands more "for sale" landowner tags, more big game crop depredation money, and on and on. The leadership in our legislature is dominated by ranchers and big landowners who want the F&G to, in effect, create state-funded private land outfitting businesses for each of them and their business associates.
As Idaho residents, let's not lose sight of the real issue at hand. If you are a NR that hunts Idaho or are thinking of giving us a try, please realize our frustrations. We could use help from NR hunters too and I welcome any help we can get. Don't think I want NR help in limiting NR opportunity, I want help in getting the latitude that F&G deserves to properly manage our big game herds so that everyone involved has more opportunity and a little better chance of taking home some organic protein each season.

 

[sneaky]

You mean how good we "HAD" it,I've never seen so many out of state hunters as I have the last three years.I just pack in deeper but friends that can't are beside themselves.
Where do you hunt deer in NY? Can I bring a bunch of friends and hunt the Whitetail rut with you? we don't have Whitetails hear,you don't know how good you have it. Ha!

You have plenty of whitetails in Idaho, easier to kill than the ones back east too. Ha!

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk