Idaho considering limiting non resident opportunity

[sneaky]

Thinking more about it, Wyoming requires an outfitter for non-resident hunting in wilderness areas. Idaho could adopt that same regulation and that would most likely relieve the overcrowding in at least one of the units in question.

You mean, you would like for Idaho to subsidize its outfitters like Wyoming does? Oh man, now you've let the cat out of the bag. You can fish, hike, camp, go birding all safely in Wyoming, but if you're hunting....oh boy, you need a chaperone.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[bluetick78]

Are you trying to say that Utah doesn't subsidize it's outfitters!!!!! Holy crap man, research your own state and it's politics before you start down that road.....

 

[sneaky]

Utah will never be my own state. Not from here, looking to get out as soon as the house sells. Utah is going to ruin Idaho is what I'm afraid of... that and the Californians buying up everything around Boise and Sun Valley.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[sneaky]

I'm in Idaho more than I'm in Utah anyways, between there and Montana. It won't be long though before everything will be LE draw areas in Idaho, the legislature sees $$$.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[bluetick78]

Every single time Idaho attempt to change a rule everyone cries that they are serving the outfitters. This generally could not be further from the truth. I've been a DIY hunter in Idaho all my life, and guided for various outfitters in several states for a number of years. Idaho gives less props and amenities to its outfitters than any other state. Period.
There are several elk zones that encompass multiple units, in fact most of them do. In some of these zones there is two or three outfitters, and only 4 or 5 "allocated" tags for them to share. Usually the outfitter with the longest tenure gets the Lions share of the tags, leaving the others with 1 or possibly zero of these allocated tags to use. The Diamond Creek zone is one example of this. So before you go crying that the outfitters are being served by the F&G, you need to research what they are currently being given. This is not Utah where 4 well-heeled outfitters control most of the trophy class wildlife through their minions in the statehouse.

 

[sneaky]

Absolutely right on the select few in Utah with their thumb on everything. There's what, 47 outfitter allocated tags in Diamond Creek? I don't think they even sold them all last year, and when i looked the other day there's still a lot of outfitter tags left statewide. Way more DIY hunters in Idaho than outfitted hunters, but that could easily change if they enacted legislation like Wyoming.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[bluetick78]

Very true. Each state will go about it differently. Montana raised their prices, Wyoming requires outfitters in Wilderness, Utah went overboard with preference points, and the list goes on. Idaho will get to a point shortly where there will be less non-resident opportunity, how they go about it remains to be seen. A non -resident quota of otc tags is definitely pretty mild compared to what's been happening in other Western states.

 

[bigdesert10]

Very true. Each state will go about it differently. Montana raised their prices, Wyoming requires outfitters in Wilderness, Utah went overboard with preference points, and the list goes on. Idaho will get to a point shortly where there will be less non-resident opportunity, how they go about it remains to be seen. A non -resident quota of otc tags is definitely pretty mild compared to what's been happening in other Western states.

Good points. The frustrating part of all this is that the only reason any of it needs to happen is because other western states manage their game poorly and have little to no opportunity for residents. We'd all be better served if every state just went back to true North American game management principles and everyone had ample opportunity in their own state. They might as well be the king's game animals if only the well-heeled can afford access to them. Stop managing for "quality". Just manage for healthy, sustainable herds, and good opportunity for residents and most of these problems go away on their own.

 

[realunlucky]

Good points. The frustrating part of all this is that the only reason any of it needs to happen is because other western states manage their game poorly and have little to no opportunity for residents. We'd all be better served if every state just went back to true North American game management principles and everyone had ample opportunity in their own state. They might as well be the king's game animals if only the well-heeled can afford access to them. Stop managing for "quality". Just manage for healthy, sustainable herds, and good opportunity for residents and most of these problems go away on their own.

This is so true managing for quality ends opportunity. Less oppertunity drives up demands which increases a tags value which seems the end goal of most groups pushing that agenda.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[bluetick78]

Exactly. Then Idaho and Colorado become the targets of everyone that can't get a tag in their own state due to trophy management.

 

[Broomd]

Exactly. Then Idaho and Colorado become the targets of everyone that can't get a tag in their own state due to trophy management.

Yep.
Gold star...

 

[Gobbler36]

Exactly. Then Idaho and Colorado become the targets of everyone that can't get a tag in their own state due to trophy management.

This right here is the fundamental problem!! Can't be stated enough. You guys in UT, WA, OR need to be pushing for more opportunity in your own states, these states catering to all trophy hunts ruins other states from a pressure standpoint goes

 

[Nwelkhunter81]

I would love for WA to have better game management, I believe that most Washingtonians do... Problem is it seems like they are more interested in re-introducing new species rather then managing the ones that we have now

 

[bigdesert10]

I would love for WA to have better game management, I believe that most Washingtonians do... Problem is it seems like they are more interested in re-introducing new species rather then managing the ones that we have now

I don't think you're alone by any means. I think even many of those who initially liked the thought of more trophy animals in their states would change it back in a heartbeat once they see how hard it is to get a tag under "quality management". I wonder if there is an organization that lobbies for returning to classic North American game management, and managing for opportunity in these states. I would join in a heartbeat. I think it would behoove all of us, regardless of residence, to get behind that kind of a movement.

 

[Chad E]

I don't think you're alone by any means. I think even many of those who initially liked the thought of more trophy animals in their states would change it back in a heartbeat once they see how hard it is to get a tag under "quality management". I wonder if there is an organization that lobbies for returning to classic North American game management, and managing for opportunity in these states. I would join in a heartbeat. I think it would behoove all of us, regardless of residence, to get behind that kind of a movement.

Washington is not managing for trophy animals by any means. You can as a resident or non resident buy and OTC tag for almost every unit in the state for both deer or elk. That being said branched antler elk tags on the east side are managed as a draw. The fact that these are on a draw is geared at herd sustainability and bull to cow ratios rather than pure trophy hunts. We have way to many hunters in a limited area but the management is not at all like Utah's limited entry system.

I do completely agree with the idea of the model of game management that supports opportunity over trophy and that is a large part of why I highly disagree with the comments on this topic about staying in your own state and discouraging non resident hunting. To me personally I enjoy out of state hunting and view it as an adventure. I've crossed a few off the bucket list but I still want to hunt the Frank Church, Bob Marshall, Eagle Caps, the Ruby's etc at some point. Its way less about the size of the antlers than it is about the journey/adventure for me. No matter where I live or what my opportunities are in my own state there are still a lot of places I want to set foot on with a tag in my pocket.

I have zero problem with paying high non resident fees and being limited in the amount of tags available to me. Sure I wish it wasn't that way but the states are tasked with managing their game and they get to do it as they see fit. If Idaho wants to limit nonresidents in unit 27 and others to better manage their mule deer I can support that. What I can't support is subsidizing outfitters on public lands by restricting tags. This has nothing to do with herd management and quite frankly is a load of BS. Wyoming's Wilderness law is insane, and I would hate to see Idaho go that direction.

 

[bigdesert10]

Washington is not managing for trophy animals by any means. You can as a resident or non resident buy and OTC tag for almost every unit in the state for both deer or elk. That being said branched antler elk tags on the east side are managed as a draw. The fact that these are on a draw is geared at herd sustainability and bull to cow ratios rather than pure trophy hunts. We have way to many hunters in a limited area but the management is not at all like Utah's limited entry system.

I do completely agree with the idea of the model of game management that supports opportunity over trophy and that is a large part of why I highly disagree with the comments on this topic about staying in your own state and discouraging non resident hunting. To me personally I enjoy out of state hunting and view it as an adventure. I've crossed a few off the bucket list but I still want to hunt the Frank Church, Bob Marshall, Eagle Caps, the Ruby's etc at some point. Its way less about the size of the antlers than it is about the journey/adventure for me. No matter where I live or what my opportunities are in my own state there are still a lot of places I want to set foot on with a tag in my pocket.

I have zero problem with paying high non resident fees and being limited in the amount of tags available to me. Sure I wish it wasn't that way but the states are tasked with managing their game and they get to do it as they see fit. If Idaho wants to limit nonresidents in unit 27 and others to better manage their mule deer I can support that. What I can't support is subsidizing outfitters on public lands by restricting tags. This has nothing to do with herd management and quite frankly is a load of BS. Wyoming's Wilderness law is insane, and I would hate to see Idaho go that direction.

I'll admit I'm not very familiar with the state of things in Washington. My statement was more generally directed at any state that manages for trophy class animals, although it was in response to a comment on Washington.

I certainly don't want to give the impression that I'm anti NR. I understand that there will always be some who want to experience different states and different game animals for whatever reason, and there ought to always be ample opportunities for them to do so on public land.

I think, however, that there is a significant portion of NR hunters that only hunt in other states because they have little to no opportunity close to home, and I consider that a great tragedy. Trophy management is one culprit (UT for example), habitat degradation and herd health is another, and ideological opposition is a third. I believe that regardless of one's state residency, we all have skin in the game with regard to these issues and we ought to support organizations and efforts to combat them whenever possible.

What I'm still curious about is whether there is an organization that is working to combat the scourge of trophy management.

 

[sneaky]

They did cut the tags for NR in the wilderness areas this year. Curious to see what the response will be from the outfitters now that their customer base got drastically reduced. Shouldn't have to worry about bumping in to other hunters in the Church now during the Nov hunt

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[dirtytough]

They did cut the tags for NR in the wilderness areas this year. Curious to see what the response will be from the outfitters now that their customer base got drastically reduced. Shouldn't have to worry about bumping in to other hunters in the Church now during the Nov hunt

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I believe there are about 100 tags also allocated to outfitters. So I doubt they will have to worry about their customers. It is more the pilots that are going to be hurt by this new rule. Surprised the pilots don't get welfare like the outfitters are.

 

[sneaky]

I believe there are about 100 tags also allocated to outfitters. So I doubt they will have to worry about their customers. It is more the pilots that are going to be hurt by this new rule. Surprised the pilots don't get welfare like the outfitters are.

Good point. This will probably put a bigger dent in the air services than the outfitters. Do the outfitters get tags for the controlled hunt in Nov as well? Thought they only got the general season tags.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[dirtytough]

Good point. This will probably put a bigger dent in the air services than the outfitters. Do the outfitters get tags for the controlled hunt in Nov as well? Thought they only got the general season tags.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I believe there are 99 tags for the controlled hunt in November.