Strange Observation in Idaho

[Ryan2782]

Interesting thread, In calling it 'tax' why not just increase the non-resident fees by $100 or more to everyone across the board. In the grand scheme of things they would still come. By looking at it extra money on the tag it looks expensive, but some people spend $1000, and some over $2000 depending on situation and where they are coming from. Out of state hunters, if it cost you $1100 or $2100 next year, would you cancel it? Obviously cost is gas, food, flight, everything over all. My opinion for you guys is it wouldn't effect you, already paying a high amount another $100 isn't much for total cost.

Do I think out of state hunters need to pay more, no. Do they need to pay more off of where they live, no.

It is a disappointment driving to your spot to park and seeing 5 out of state trucks park there, but it is also disappointing seeing 5 resident trucks there already too, regardless of where they are from. I see only a two different ways to solve the problem, reduce the amount of OTC out of state tags, and increase resident tags at the same time. I would have no problem paying $50 or even $100 for an elk tag for residents. Some people will scream, but look at the ridiculous cost of everything in the world. If you really wanted to hunt, is that hard to save an extra $100 to go hunt over less than $10 a month to save?

If I remember correctly too, IDFG does not get set license pricing, it's actually reviewed and submitted to ID legislative session and voted on. Now you have some non hunters, non-active people, and people that do not use the public land, no degree in any science field or wildlife knowledge voting on what they think is best - Someone clarify this for me if they can, if this is correct on setting pricing in Idaho.

The other one is start to limit more area's in size restrictions, yes I like opportunity on whatever I see, and everybody does I get that, but if you set a standard of (just examples) no spikes on deer or elk, or elk must have 4 points minimum or deer 3 points or larger. Yes there are some units 'browntine only' and 'two points only' but more restriction wouldn't be that bad of thing in more areas. It would take a few years to adjust and yes a lower success rate would happen in several areas, but in a few years, larger game would be more accessible and start being taken with a higher success rate as more availability grows.

Yes, I am an Idaho resident, haven't hunted out of state, but my archery crew are 3 people from Wisconsin every year. They don't want to see pricing going up either, but if it did they would still come out here. They have also noticed an influx of out of state vehicles, more so from Wisconsin actually. We tend to see more out of state vehicles more as competition rather than where they are from, same as local trucks. It sucks seeing them, but it hasn't effected our success rate. We have had multiple opportunities on elk every year per hunter, passing on some do to the size of the animal. We have the philosophy, if you shot the small ones you never get the big ones. Also, personally, I believe those animals should be for youth and senior opportunity that might limited mobility or cover less ground. As much as they want to hunt further and harder than same person they parked too, it's not always possible physically for them. Double edge sword no matter what happens or is decided in the future.

 

[David Gough]

I never in my quote said anything about it being "our land". Nor did I state we should keep people from it. I simply point out that there is an abnormal number of out of state hunters, specifically CA/OR/WA, who have policies in their home states which make it incredibly difficult for them to hunt there. They are collectively coming to ID to fill their tags. So why should ID be in essence supporting their states mismanagement of their herds and hunting access by providing them a low cost always on alternative? Nothing will improve in their state and the herd in my home state will suffer.

Also note my proposal was directed at residents of states that have Elk/Mule deer so not really impactful to most hunters from back east. Also the mantra of "don't complain because you have it better than we do, but we ruined ours and are now going elsewhere, but don't complain" sounds very silly.

I live in Nevada and come to Idaho because it takes years to draw a bull tag, and then you have a seven year wait period to start applying again for tags whether you harvest or not. I have two points for cow (!), and I mostly put in for archery hunts. I would probably still go to Idaho because I love to hunt the area I'm in, but Idaho would probably have to raise resident tag prices to compensate for less non-resident hunters paying $600 to hunt elk with a bow.

If you want less hunters in the woods and better herd management, lower the tag quotas and raise prices (for everyone). Put point or sex restrictions on what elk can be harvested (I hunt an any elk tag).

To be fair, the biggest bull I've ever seen on the hoof was last month in Idaho.

 

[excaliber]

I'm sure I'll get flamed for this but I'm an Idaho resident and I see all the pressure here on our over the counter hunts. This year was really crowded and it does seem like the entire state of Washington moves here for hunting season. I don't blame them at all since WA. is a joke.

I put the blame on IDF&G This state is managed for opportunity not quality of game or numbers. They could really care less about the numbers in the herds as long as they get their money from license and tag sales. This last winter was a tough one here in Idaho and some neighboring states. Other states reduced tags, Idaho kept tag numbers the same in the largest unit in the state.

What I'd like to see is our Resident tags fees for Deer and Elk increased three fold then the tag numbers cut in half. There needs to be caps on NR tags in OTC units IMHO.

 

[David Gough]

I'm sure I'll get flamed for this but I'm an Idaho resident and I see all the pressure here on our over the counter hunts. This year was really crowded and it does seem like the entire state of Washington moves here for hunting season. I don't blame them at all since WA. is a joke.

I put the blame on IDF&G This state is managed for opportunity not quality of game or numbers. They could really care less about the numbers in the herds as long as they get their money from license and tag sales. This last winter was a tough one here in Idaho and some neighboring states. Other states reduced tags, Idaho kept tag numbers the same in the largest unit in the state.

What I'd like to see is our Resident tags fees for Deer and Elk increased three fold then the tag numbers cut in half. There needs to be caps on NR tags in OTC units IMHO.

There's already caps for some units, and there's a cap for how many NR OTC tags can be sold. I definitely wouldn't have an issue if IDFG went that route. Elk tags in NV are $120 for residents.

 

[David Gough]

palerider,
per your post on the first page (didn't read any others), please accept my apology as a non-resident. I have shot a bull 3 out of the last 4 years. Each year i spent a meager $600 for each tag...even for the one i didn't punch. I feel guilty for patronizing your state for the wildlife, gas & food. I even had the nerve to get a buddy into hunting up there to tag his first ever elk. This year i was an even bigger ass and brought my kid on her first ever big game hunt. As allowed...i bought her non-resident tag for the resident price. The guilt is crushing me. Next year if someone slashes the tires on my truck, i will understand.

hahaha, this is awesome

 

[excaliber]

There may be caps for some units but there needs to be less NR tags sold in many OTC units. I used to live in Reno from 1992-2000 so I'm aware of Nevada's system. Nevada has smaller herds and less opportunity but it's better managed and the quality is top notch. I'm not going to mind paying 1200.00 when I draw there.

Our OTC units are a zoo and it's getting harder every year to get away from people. IDF&G needs to do something.

Increasing tag fees and limiting tag sales would be a great start. I'll gladly pay three to 4 times as much as a Resident if F&G would cut tags.

There's already caps for some units, and there's a cap for how many NR OTC tags can be sold. I definitely wouldn't have an issue if IDFG went that route. Elk tags in NV are $120 for residents.

 

[David Gough]

There may be caps for some units but there needs to be less NR tags sold in many OTC units. I used to live in Reno from 1992-2000 so I'm aware of Nevada's system. Nevada has smaller herds and less opportunity but it's better managed and the quality is top notch. I'm not going to mind paying 1200.00 when I draw there.

Our OTC units are a zoo and it's getting harder every year to get away from people. IDF&G needs to do something.

Increasing tag fees and limiting tag sales would be a great start. I'll gladly pay three to 4 times as much as a Resident if F&G would cut tags.

Agreed, everyone whines about not getting a tag in Nevada until they get one. Quality is phenomenal.

I also agree on the zoo part. Where I hunt in ID there's dirtbike trails in all of the major draws and drainages. Seeing 8-10+ trucks at one trailhead (residents and non-residents) with dirt bike trailers got old every Friday - Sunday morning definitely got old. I was five and a half to six miles away from my truck, midweek mind you, when I shot my bull in September.

Cut the NR tag quotas in half, but it will still be a zoo on weekends IMO. I would always make sure to buy my tag early. I have several friends up there who now understand how lucky they are to be able to hunt the same areas year after year on OTC tags. Maybe I'll just become an Idaho resident sooner than later...

 

[SWOHTR]

What would you think about putting a buying window on NR tags? Ie you must buy between 01 Feb - 01 Apr of the year. After that the NR OTC tag buy window closes.

 

[David Gough]

What would you think about putting a buying window on NR tags? Ie you must buy between 01 Feb - 01 Apr of the year. After that the NR OTC tag buy window closes.

What would that accomplish? Genuinely curious.

I see plenty of Idaho residents coming over from other areas of the state to hunt where I go in ID. Residents, but definitely not "locals".

 

[SWOHTR]

What would that accomplish? Genuinely curious.

I see plenty of Idaho residents coming over from other areas of the state to hunt where I go in ID. Residents, but definitely not "locals".

It seems there's whining about people falling back on ID as their OTC state if they don't draw. By putting a NR OTC permit buying deadline early in the year, it may eliminate this.

I should also note that I genuinely do not care to change the current system. Just want to see what people think. I also don't get all hung up on a points game; one tag is good enough for me...because I haven't filled one yet. Hah.

 

[David Gough]

It seems there's whining about people falling back on ID as their OTC state if they don't draw. By putting a NR OTC permit buying deadline early in the year, it may eliminate this.

I should also note that I genuinely do not care to change the current system. Just want to see what people think.

I could see that. It may deter some people. I wouldn't really care, I'd buy the tag anyways every year.

What would be interesting to see is the revenue breakup between residents and non-residents by species. Less hunters in the field may bring a significantly higher cost to RES/NR.

 

[BullElk]

I'm not too sure I understand the philosophy of some on here...increase NR tag prices and then what? hunting shouldn't be a rich mans game like it is out east. the revenue that is generated from a NR in any western state has a significantly higher impact on the wildlife agencies than the res revenue.

Idaho will not cut NR tags anytime soon. if they do the only option for them is to sky rocket the Res prices to compensate. its a slippery slope be careful what you wish for. they need to get their money somehow and if not they cant run the state wildlife program. land transfer and sell offs would occur and it turns into: high prices and a pay to play on private that was once public.

as of aug 30th there was still about 5500+ NR tags left out of 10,600 available.

id be for the states not owning the wildlife in that state and it being controlled by the feds just like land. even prices across the board for all!!

 

[bluetick78]

Lots of good ideas/plans/proposals contained in this thread. I've enjoyed reading it. I like the April 1 deadline to purchase NR tags, I like the idea of capping some more units, and I really like the idea of raising resident and non-resident fees alike. These are all good ideas, and we can all be sure that some form of each of these ideas will happen soon.
There's a few guarantees that can be derived from the debate contained in the last 100 or so posts.
1. Idaho residents are feeling crowded by non-resident hunters.
2. Most of the non-residents that have commented are digging in their proverbial heels because OTC opportunities have all but evaporated and Idaho is one of the last come all/serve all playgrounds left.
3. Things are going to change sooner rather than later for non-resident hunting in Idaho.
The word among the masses in Idaho is that deer hunting is tough this year and the "out of staters" are climbing every hill and crowding everybody's spot. The crying to the Fish and Game has reached a fever pitch, and they will most likely do what it takes to quiet down their constituency. How that will play out remains to be seen, but I imagine it will end with lots of reduction in OTC opportunity. Maybe some elk zones or deer units will go on a draw for non-residents and remain general OTC for residents. Wyoming has done that all along its border with Idaho and it seems to have boosted the opinion of the forum crowd as far as the quality is concerned.
I'm not making any predictions other than loud constituencies generally cause change, and change is coming.

 

[Aculous]

I'm not too sure I understand the philosophy of some on here...increase NR tag prices and then what? hunting shouldn't be a rich mans game like it is out east. the revenue that is generated from a NR in any western state has a significantly higher impact on the wildlife agencies than the res revenue.

Idaho will not cut NR tags anytime soon. if they do the only option for them is to sky rocket the Res prices to compensate. its a slippery slope be careful what you wish for. they need to get their money somehow and if not they cant run the state wildlife program. land transfer and sell offs would occur and it turns into: high prices and a pay to play on private that was once public.

as of aug 30th there was still about 5500+ NR tags left out of 10,600 available.

id be for the states not owning the wildlife in that state and it being controlled by the feds just like land. even prices across the board for all!!

Where out east is it a rich mans game? Its a little more of a pain to call farmers and find places to hunt on private property but its definitely doable and cheap as a resident. Out of state I think I paid like $160 for a tag. And the bag limits are high because whitetails are like rats out there. The issue I found was the amount of gear you needed which coming out to CO, its just as much gear just a different type of gear.

 

[BullElk]

Where out east is it a rich mans game? Its a little more of a pain to call farmers and find places to hunt on private property but its definitely doable and cheap as a resident. Out of state I think I paid like $160 for a tag. And the bag limits are high because whitetails are like rats out there. The issue I found was the amount of gear you needed which coming out to CO, its just as much gear just a different type of gear.

I can see how you took my post as referencing the hunting license costs there but it was directed at the land.
do most not charge a trespass fee? did you pay one? did you fill your tag?

 

[BullElk]

Lots of good ideas/plans/proposals contained in this thread. I've enjoyed reading it. I like the April 1 deadline to purchase NR tags, I like the idea of capping some more units, and I really like the idea of raising resident and non-resident fees alike. These are all good ideas, and we can all be sure that some form of each of these ideas will happen soon.
There's a few guarantees that can be derived from the debate contained in the last 100 or so posts.
1. Idaho residents are feeling crowded by non-resident hunters.
2. Most of the non-residents that have commented are digging in their proverbial heels because OTC opportunities have all but evaporated and Idaho is one of the last come all/serve all playgrounds left.
3. Things are going to change sooner rather than later for non-resident hunting in Idaho.
The word among the masses in Idaho is that deer hunting is tough this year and the "out of staters" are climbing every hill and crowding everybody's spot. The crying to the Fish and Game has reached a fever pitch, and they will most likely do what it takes to quiet down their constituency. How that will play out remains to be seen, but I imagine it will end with lots of reduction in OTC opportunity. Maybe some elk zones or deer units will go on a draw for non-residents and remain general OTC for residents. Wyoming has done that all along its border with Idaho and it seems to have boosted the opinion of the forum crowd as far as the quality is concerned.
I'm not making any predictions other than loud constituencies generally cause change, and change is coming.

a good option would be to make about 7-10 more of the OTC zones into a controlled hunt/better management with lower quotas like the current controlled zones are.
and charge a higher price for those tags R/NR alike(similar to how NM does it but not their draw system).

 

[bluetick78]

I've been of the opinion lately that Idaho should mirror the management practices of their neighboring states where the borders touch, as long as those management practices seem to be working well for the herds in said neighboring state. A good example is extreme Eastern Idaho along the Wyoming border. Wyomings practices have produced one of the premier mule deer destinations in the country, and the elk herds aren't to shabby either. The habitats and ecosystems are one and the same, but there's a line where one states laws end and the others begin. Most of these animals share the same winter ranges and their genetics are the same. However, there is a huge difference in management. Hunting the Wyoming turf is a far more rewarding endeavor than hunting the Idaho side. It could be the same along the Utah and Nevada borders. And yes, the tag fees for these areas should be considerably higher, perhaps also mirroring the neighboring state.

 

[Ryan2782]

I do like the idea of NR having to purchasing an early tag before an expiration date. I also don't think they should not be allowed to come at all either. For the ones where Idaho is not their first choice, why not increase the cost of the tag after that expiration date. You can call it a penalty, tax, or just that's the gamble you take as a NR trying to draw other states. If Idaho is that bad to hunt it's not your first choice to go and Idaho is you're last option because all the better states are taken and the better places told you no, pay more.

 

[Joe Schmo]

I live in Oregon and the elk hunting pretty much sucks unless you have private land. I will be coming to Idaho in the near future.

Yeah baby!!

 

[Joe Schmo]

I skipped the last 4 pages because I probably couldn't stomach it.
I paid $1600 to your state this year and I took home an elk, how much more do you want me to pay, please give me a number.

Also "How good we HAD it..."
We were in the salmon zone, not too far from main roads and seeing bulls every day...we didn't buy elk tags because we figured that we'd leave your elk to you...why did you not come and get them?