Idaho considering limiting non resident opportunity

dplantz

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Jul 5, 2017
Messages
139
Location
Wenatchee, WA
IDFG is considering cow-towing to special interests with a rule that would limit unlimited controlled hunt tags for non residents, unless of course you bought an outfitter allocated tag. This special interest pandering is not only inherently bs, but in the long run also hurts opportunity for resident hunters. Although there might be less non resident competition, there will also be less non-resident fees, which, at about 10x the resident cost, provide substantial moneys for the management of Idaho game. For the opportunity, non residents like myself are more than happy to pay a disproportionate share, knowing full well the benefit is enjoyed disproportionately by residents. Don't let the IDFG commission be swayed by the few outfitters who apparently can't do a good enough job to keep themselves busy, and so want IDFG to subsidize them. Don't let this special interest drive away the significant hunter dollars that help make Idaho so great. Make your voice heard in opposition to this proposed special interest pandering, at: Fish and Game seeks comments on several proposed rule changes | Idaho Fish and Game

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

tttoadman

WKR
Joined
Oct 3, 2013
Messages
1,735
Location
OR Hunter back in Oregon
Subscribed to get more info before I form an opinion. I would like to hear some insight from residents and outfitters in ID as well as other non-res hunters. Thanks for posting. ID is the only out of state hunting I do.
 
OP
D

dplantz

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Jul 5, 2017
Messages
139
Location
Wenatchee, WA
There's a few that are unlimited. Primary is most antelope units are unlimited for archery only

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

5MilesBack

"DADDY"
Joined
Feb 27, 2012
Messages
15,528
Location
Colorado Springs
All I know is that I wanted to try and get one of the controlled archery elk tags for the Owyhees several years ago, but they only had two tags and none of those were for NR's.
 
Joined
Apr 1, 2016
Messages
733
Location
Eastern Washington
I'd like to here what the residents have to say as well. There's definitely a money aspect to it in regard to out of state revenue, but local hunters dealing with a bunch of out of state guys gets old for them.
 

martin_shooter

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Oct 11, 2014
Messages
150
Location
ID
The following link will allow you to comment on all of the proposed rule changes as well as give some info about each.
Surveys and Comment Opportunities | Idaho Fish and Game

This has little if anything to do with the unlimited archery antelope. Heck- that tag is most of eastern Idaho. This deals with any newly designated controlled hunts and the current unlimited controlled hunts in the wilderness units- specifically the November Middle Fork hunts. This is likely being driven by the 'cities' of wall tents on airstrips. There is only so much access to a huge swath of central Idaho and these hunts are generally disproportionately participated in by non-residents.

Looking back a few years at the drawing odds, there is generally over 2x the amount of non-res as residents getting tags in 26 and 27. It is also apparent when you pull up to many of the hangars serving backcountry flying companies, a majority of the vehicles parked are from Washington and Utah.

As a resident who hunts the Middle Fork every year and has been fortunate enough to take some spectacular mule deer, I am not completely sure of my opinion on the matter. The wall tent 'cities' don't matter to me much, and frankly a majority of the non-res who do try and get away from the airstrips really have no idea what they are in for. I see it first hand every year. My opinions on the outfitter allocation portion of this proposed rule are quite set, but I will choose to keep those private.
 
OP
D

dplantz

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Jul 5, 2017
Messages
139
Location
Wenatchee, WA
All I know is that I wanted to try and get one of the controlled archery elk tags for the Owyhees several years ago, but they only had two tags and none of those were for NR's.
Yeah, there's plenty of limited but quota draws with limited opportunity for non res. and for those special hunts where it's only 2 or 3 or 10 total tags, definitely that should go substantially if not totally to residents. But we're talking hunts where the commission has decided the only limit on hunter numbers should be that you actually have to make the little bit of effort to apply. So basically an over the counter tag with no quota (some over the counter do have quotas, and non res sub quotas). Logical next step would be non res quota even on over the counter no quota tags. Of course with an exception for outfitters, though. That exception makes it clear that this is not driven by the average citizen overwhelmed with out of staters. No, this is driven by outfitters being pissed off at, heaven forbid, somebody working hard to diy, and his out of state client with unrealistic expectations being all pissed that they bumped into another out of state hunter who didn't have to pay for the privilege. It's special interest bs at it's finest, and that's wherein lies the problem. No matter how a resident feels about out of staters, they should be against this type of politicking. And this is coming from a long time Idaho resident hunter, with a lifetime license, who fully intends to be a resident hunter again just as soon as possible.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

Gobbler36

WKR
Joined
Dec 6, 2015
Messages
2,352
Location
None your business
Idk I can see good and bad I am a resident, I also apply and hunt other states as a NR and don't like to see chances go away but I also see that at some point if more and more NR are coming to a state to hunt thenin order to keep a quality hunt for everyone resident and NR alike then you gotta start limiting NR tag, that may be a controversial statement but Thats just one mans opinion. I will selfishly say that the capped rifle elk hunt I went on last year was a zoo and if it meant I had to pay more to have less pressure than so be it.
 

tttoadman

WKR
Joined
Oct 3, 2013
Messages
1,735
Location
OR Hunter back in Oregon
I hunt 27. I wouldn't mind an outfitter that packs a bag and hunts with a client or 2 with the rest of us. I could do without the fat slob that gets pissed at an outfitter for "not getting it done", other than the bad review might keep the people down in that unit. The part I find odd is when the guys on the airstrip shoot dinkers to fill the tag. Guys that fork out that kind of non-resident $ don't seem like the guys that need to fill tags. I hate to say I fit into the problem just as much. I never hunted there until 2013, but I am totally hooked on the experience. I plan to go every other year likely. I can accept the idea of limited quota. I just hope they do it for the good of wildlife, not just to support outfitters.
 

Gobbler36

WKR
Joined
Dec 6, 2015
Messages
2,352
Location
None your business
I hunt 27. I wouldn't mind an outfitter that packs a bag and hunts with a client or 2 with the rest of us. I could do without the fat slob that gets pissed at an outfitter for "not getting it done", other than the bad review might keep the people down in that unit. The part I find odd is when the guys on the airstrip shoot dinkers to fill the tag. Guys that fork out that kind of non-resident $ don't seem like the guys that need to fill tags. I hate to say I fit into the problem just as much. I never hunted there until 2013, but I am totally hooked on the experience. I plan to go every other year likely. I can accept the idea of limited quota. I just hope they do it for the good of wildlife, not just to support outfitters.
I would agree, wildlife and quality experience
 

IdahoElk

WKR
Joined
Oct 30, 2014
Messages
2,500
Location
Hailey,ID
The zone that I've hunted the last 30yrs has been literally mobbed by out of state hunters,it's bad.If you're after a quality hunting experience I think some areas need a quota to alleviate the pressure.
 
OP
D

dplantz

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Jul 5, 2017
Messages
139
Location
Wenatchee, WA
Idk I can see good and bad I am a resident, I also apply and hunt other states as a NR and don't like to see chances go away but I also see that at some point if more and more NR are coming to a state to hunt thenin order to keep a quality hunt for everyone resident and NR alike then you gotta start limiting NR tag, that may be a controversial statement but Thats just one mans opinion. I will selfishly say that the capped rifle elk hunt I went on last year was a zoo and if it meant I had to pay more to have less pressure than so be it.
As I've said, I'm all for limiting non residents in general. But this proposal coming along with the exception for the outfitter allocations makes me suspicious of who's interests the proponent really has in mind. Maybe I'm overly cynical, but recent history has shown a few well heeled special interests tend to pull most of the government strings. I will say, though, that the IDFG commission model has largely kept special interest proposals from becoming law. Definitely one of, if not THE, best managed states in the west.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

Gobbler36

WKR
Joined
Dec 6, 2015
Messages
2,352
Location
None your business
As I've said, I'm all for limiting non residents in general. But this proposal coming along with the exception for the outfitter allocations makes me suspicious of who's interests the proponent really has in mind. Maybe I'm overly cynical, but recent history has shown a few well heeled special interests tend to pull most of the government strings. I will say, though, that the IDFG commission model has largely kept special interest proposals from becoming law. Definitely one of, if not THE, best managed states in the west.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Yeah can I agree with that, I was strictly talking about one side of it but I definitely do not think that if NR opportunity is going to go down that outfitters should benefit from it to me that's like robbing Peter to pay Paul, and doesn't accomplish anything positive that having an increased quota would do, if it's to happen it should only be for a better experience and for the betterment of wildlife
 

Murdy

WKR
Joined
Jun 6, 2014
Messages
623
Location
North-Central Illinois
I live in the number one state for gouging the crap out on non-residents for trophy whitetail, so I'm not pointing any fingers or throwing stones. But I think we're all Americans first, and while I understand people wanting to limit access to a local resource, I wish people would remember other Americans coming to use that resource really aren't doing anything wrong.
 

Bar

Banned
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
1,623
Location
Colorado
The zone that I've hunted the last 30yrs has been literally mobbed by out of state hunters,it's bad.If you're after a quality hunting experience I think some areas need a quota to alleviate the pressure.

Try living in Colorado.
 
Joined
Apr 1, 2016
Messages
733
Location
Eastern Washington
The zone that I've hunted the last 30yrs has been literally mobbed by out of state hunters,it's bad.If you're after a quality hunting experience I think some areas need a quota to alleviate the pressure.
It'll happen eventually. You're state has done well making it so everybody has a shot at decent animals every year but the ever growing amount of the "wilderness athlete" crowd is going to force Idaho to start making some limitations. Western hunting is a big market and advertisers are working hard to make money off of it, just like the various high dollar boutique hunting companies.
 

bigdesert10

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Sep 20, 2016
Messages
293
Location
Idaho
Here's my perspective on this as a lifelong resident. You have to draw the line somewhere. With the growing popularity of western hunting, numbers are only going to increase, and in my view, it is the priority of fish and game departments to maximize opportunity for their residents. It's hard to hunt if you can't even find a place to glass from. I'm not anti-NR hunter by any means though. I think the right approach for now would be to maintain these quotas at or near historic average participation and make additional tags available OTC if resident participation doesn't attain an established bench mark. Quotas can be adjusted every two years based on participation and wildlife objectives.

Whatever happens, I'm opposed to artificially propping up business for outfitters. I'm not opposed to outfitters operating by any means, but I think that giving special privilege to NR hunters with deep pockets is a step in the wrong direction. I'd rather share the mountain with five DIY NR hunters over one outfitted hunter, NR or resident. Again, that's nothing against outfitters. I just have more respect and appreciation for a guy that has put in the work and commitment and has earned his lumps.
 

Gobbler36

WKR
Joined
Dec 6, 2015
Messages
2,352
Location
None your business
Here's my perspective on this as a lifelong resident. You have to draw the line somewhere. With the growing popularity of western hunting, numbers are only going to increase, and in my view, it is the priority of fish and game departments to maximize opportunity for their residents. It's hard to hunt if you can't even find a place to glass from. I'm not anti-NR hunter by any means though. I think the right approach for now would be to maintain these quotas at or near historic average participation and make additional tags available OTC if resident participation doesn't attain an established bench mark. Quotas can be adjusted every two years based on participation and wildlife objectives.

Whatever happens, I'm opposed to artificially propping up business for outfitters. I'm not opposed to outfitters operating by any means, but I think that giving special privilege to NR hunters with deep pockets is a step in the wrong direction. I'd rather share the mountain with five DIY NR hunters over one outfitted hunter, NR or resident. Again, that's nothing against outfitters. I just have more respect and appreciation for a guy that has put in the work and commitment and has earned his lumps.

Well put
 
Top