Idaho considering limiting non resident opportunity

I agree that would be a massive cut. I personally don't think it needs to reduced that much. It depends on how many hunters they want in there during the late hunt. If they want 300 or less then they could still allow 150 to 200 NR hunters with 100 to 150 residents.
 
elkmagnet said:
Because it is a clever way to remove some people from the harder to draw ch units. I'd be ok with all of the "quota" tags being controlled hunts and first choice only. If someone wants it bad enough to burn a draw on it let them have it. If not we'll first come first serve the leftovers as we do now.
Click to expand...
100 percent agree make it a first choice and let them burn a draw on it.
 
That is the real crux of the matter; it needs to just be figured out how much harvest is tolerable and how many hunters people want to see. I've not hunted it, but friends that have say its pretty much a city around the air strips, which I sure has lead to complaints about crowding from some that don't hunt far from the strips. The reality is 600 or so hunters isn't very many for an area of that size.
 
TheTone said:
Pubic land is a much deeper issue than just hunting.
Click to expand...

Agree, but hunters from other states are valuable voices on the issue. When that group gets pushed out, their interest in the issue declines. Federal land belongs just as much to the Rhode Island resident as it does the Idaho resident.
 
neffa3 said:
In my mind those two things are opposites. When I go into the wilderness it is to escape the sheepeople. I have yet to see a national park that isn't swarming with other toureistas.
Click to expand...

The National Park Service controls 85 million acres. To be fair, half of that is in Alaska. Somewhere in all of that, you can easily get away from people. I've had no trouble getting away from people in some of the busiest NPs.
There is a major balancing act with Public Land and hunting. People want a quality experience, but also want the experience. Not easy to make it all happen. Idaho has been very good about providing opportunity to non residents. Hopefully, they find a way to balance things out.
 
I don't quite understand how this affects the outfitter allocation but in general I agree with the idea of limiting tags if the resource needs it. If you are really concerned with the Idaho non-resident allocation you can become a resident and exempt yourself from the process. I have hunted 27 twice and I don't know whether it needs tag reductions or not. I do not wish anyone cut out of the process, but there are trade-offs. Residents of Idaho make concessions in some aspects and in return they get to hunt. A restriction on public land access for non-residents would be untenable. On hunting I don't think it is.
As far as I am concerned out of state hunting is a privilege, and while I understand the balance between revenue and access, I'm not sure non-residents have that much of an argument.
 
idelkslayer said:
The first two posters must have misunderstood what the IDFG is trying to do here. As has been pointed out by subsequent posts this does not affect the total number of NR deer tags in Idaho. This will create a NR quota in a couple units that are getting too much pressure. This primarily deals with the Frank so I pulled numbers for unit 27 over the last 5 years. It is also important to remember some recent history as it pertains to these units.

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.

Now some history. 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.

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 therefore have the highest impact on deer harvest IDFG is proposing to cap the number of NR tags in these units.
Click to expand...

I agree with idelkslayer, who wants to hunt a wilderness area, fly in to a remote airstrip, and have hunters all around them? The Idaho F&G wants to manage a quality, wilderness hunt. I would be upset paying the NR fees, air costs to be dropped in, only to have hunters camped near the airstrips. Looks like this did backfire when the rules were changed to 1st choice only. Great research idelkslayer!

I am also in favor of the other changes proposed, trail cams that transmit real time, allow baiting for wolves (yay).
 
Ok, I guess I forgot to look at it that way...I was looking at the pure reduction of numbers standpoint. I guess there's pros and cons to each method, but I'm liking the controlled hunt more for the reason of opening more opportunity on limited hunts.

elkmagnet said:
Because it is a clever way to remove some people from the harder to draw ch units. I'd be ok with all of the "quota" tags being controlled hunts and first choice only. If someone wants it bad enough to burn a draw on it let them have it. If not we'll first come first serve the leftovers as we do now.
Click to expand...
 
Nunyacreek said:
I don't quite understand how this affects the outfitter allocation .
Click to expand...

My guess is with the unlimited hunts their may not be set in stone outfitter allocation number and it seems safe to say that most using an outfitter in middle fork are NR and so a change to the NR tag availability would most likely effect the outfitters business.

I'm no fan of the outfitter allocation in any way and feel they should have to make it on their own without the hand out tags to keep themselves in business but can understand having to figure something out if they have already booked future clients and then the system changes on them.
 
TheTone said:
My guess is with the unlimited hunts their may not be set in stone outfitter allocation number and it seems safe to say that most using an outfitter in middle fork are NR and so a change to the NR tag availability would most likely effect the outfitters business.

I'm no fan of the outfitter allocation in any way and feel they should have to make it on their own without the hand out tags to keep themselves in business but can understand having to figure something out if they have already booked future clients and then the system changes on them.
Click to expand...

In units that have quotas whether for NR or resident there is a certain percentage of the tags available that are put into the outfitter allocation. By placing a quota on the hunts in question a situation is created where this unit will now have some tags allocated to outfitters. However, after a certain date, any outfitter tags that have not been purchased are returned to the public pool.
 
I noticed a post on the Wyoming game and fish website where there has been a steady increase in big game applicants in Wyoming and if you just look at the NR applicants the increase is larger than for residents. I wonder how big of a role the requirement of buying a license to apply for a tag or points play into peoples decisions and is there any relation to reducing NR tags in prime units. Could drive more NR applicants towards Wyoming.
 
Anyone else notice that IDFG has the ability to make average units with underperforming animal numbers into high demand units? Reverse marketing at its finest!
 
I've thought about this a little more. Obvious solution is just set a particular number of tags, don't have it unlimited at all, and with those quota controlled hunts, they already have the ability to sub quota non residents. But, that might actually be worse, because under that system they also already have the ability to get around there nr limit with outfitter allocation. So perhaps allow the ability to limit in the unlimited scenario, but don't allow outfitter allocation exception. I guarantee no matter how many ask for this, it will not happen.
 
brymoore said:
Anyone else notice that IDFG has the ability to make average units with underperforming animal numbers into high demand units? Reverse marketing at its finest!
Click to expand...

If they were to make 27 a draw for deer there would be four times as many first choice apps.
Remember what happened when we switched archery pronghorn to a controlled hunt?
 
"I think the horn porn movement underway in the 1980s which became accelerated as more hunters got email accounts and cable television hunting shows in the 1990s then hyper accelerated with the rise of picture sharing through social media was a factor in shifting the goal of incoming hunters from merely having an adventure while perhaps fill the tag to a manic need to shoot a mega-horn critter. Laws be damned as seen with the poached and illegally taken trophies shown at the SLC Expo and later revealed as illicitly harvested. Big bull elk and mule deer are now given names. Bounties offered. Big sheep that survived last season are photographed by F&G then shown to outfitters and hunters likely to participate in an auction for a sheep tag. Wealthy hunters buy auction tags and hire professional critter-location and isolation teams that not only will sit on the big bull for weeks until the shooter arrives but often these Dream Teams are pulling shenanigans to trick or intimidate other hunters from accessing the vicinity of the super bull or buck. Game cams are part of this frenzy to shot a monster rather than mature critter.

Post up a 110 inch whitetail or 130 class mule or 240' 4x4 bull elk on a hunting forum and get ready for the laughter. No matter the body size. No matter the effort required. Horn porn. Put the same picture up on social media and risk having your place of business e-attacked with dirty tricks."

I liked your "horn porn" paragraph. My most memorable hunts were not the biggest horns or antlers,
but typically "first" or "last" or "toughest" hunts...I helped my oldest hunting partner bag
a Dall Ram at 70 years old...likely his last ram of many.
He was so tired I was carrying his rifle back to camp for him when we spotted the ram, we will both remember that hunt.

This past season I had a memorable moose hunt...not my biggest bull but memorable because I
shot him at 15 yards and solo butchered him in waders in knee deep water.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

44hunter45
Time to play politics. Help me move these rule changes through the process at IDFG.
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
2K
Trap
T
G
Non-Resident Hunting: A Canadian Perspective
Replies
13
Views
2K
Desk Pop
Desk Pop
I
How many deer can you kill in your home state?
2 3 4
Replies
74
Views
3K
ismith
ismith
A
Privatization kills both Resident and Nonresident DIY hunting opportunity
6 7 8
Replies
156
Views
8K
ImBillT
ImBillT
Big Fin
I-193 to exempt MT Landowners from elk/deer/bear regs
2 3
Replies
59
Views
6K
idahohuntr
idahohuntr

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,037
Messages
1,944,570
Members
34,978
Latest member
jerrod12

Share this page

Back
Top