Idaho House Bill 597

[Rent Outdoor Gear]

From Idaho State Bowhunters:

VERY URGENT!!! bill 597 is going to the Gov's desk and still needs stopped, this is the one that allows ranchers to guide on their property, without getting licensed. This will tie up more private land and does not provide any regulatory actions for them. Please ask Butch to VETO this bill!!

http://gov.idaho.gov/ourgov/contact.html


Unfortunately this is the first I've heard about this bill and it sounds like it's already on the Governor's desk for signature. Seems like somebody is trying to ramrod a bill thru to help a private landowner get his way before the hunting community has a chance to consider the implications. I couldn't seem to get my comment to submit on the above link so I posted on Governor Otter's Facebook Page here. Like it if you agree!

DC

 

[Shrek]

I don't know that I'm opposed to this. A rancher being able to guide on his own property versus having to get a guide license to do the same ? I know that in some western states a guide has to work for a licensed outfitter so the ones getting cut out of this is the outfitters if that's the case in Idaho. Property rights are generally supported by me. As far as I can go with property is that I would support condemnation for easements to large public properties. The easements would have to be thin road width tracts and trailhead parking would need to come from the existing public property. Unless your conduct has some deleterious effects on others I believe you should be free of encumbrances on your private property. Guide licensing seems more about protecting guides and outfitters than the hunting public.

 

[ohoopee]

I agree with shrek.

 

[Broz]

The wedge between private land owners and the hunting community needs to be pulled out. Not driven deeper. I for one see and experience both sides.

Jeff

 

[Rent Outdoor Gear]

I'm not 100% sure I oppose it either... BUT - I do find it strange there has been no public comment period where the implications of the rule could be duly considered.

The other aspect I see is that getting permission for free will most likely be a thing of the past. Lands enrolled in Idaho's access yes program may get pulled, the quality and safety of outfitted hunts in Idaho will probably go down with untrained, unlicensed and uninsured "guides" operating.

Private landowners can already outfit and guide on their land - they just need to get licensed and insured which, if nothing else levels the competitive playing field for public land outfitters and helps ensure that landowners still have to follow strict ethical and legal code of conduct or their licenses can be revoked by the outfitters and guides association.

 

[realunlucky]

I agree with you things pushed through without comment are never on the up and up. Wyoming might have a similar law for land owners hard to say with out more details on Idahos bill

 

[Broz]

Darrin and others. I saw a bill go through (161 I believe) where Montana took outfitter available tags away. This was in an effort to make land owners land less valuable to outfitter resulting in a forced hand to make Block Management more appealing to land owners. Also make the private land less valuable to outfitters. I see what has happened in a result of this bill. Trust me when I say I feel it backfired of FWP and hunters miserably. I know of many ranchers that need all the income they can get to make ranch payments. Especially young families starting out. Taking away their freedoms to do what they can to produce income is not a good route. Many in my immediate area that use to let late season hunters in free, to harvest cow elk, no longer do so from the bad taste in their mouths. Plus those revoked tags were put in the draw for non-res hunters and prices were raised. The FWP have not sold all the non-res tags since! Resulting in millions of lost revenue dollars that were suppose to go to Block management programs. Thus more suffering to the BM of Montana. This is the reason I feel it is very important we as hunters do whatever we can to rebuild the relationship between hunter and property owners. Voting against a property owner in any effort to restrict what they do with their own private land I feel is wrong. I am all about restoring as many freedoms as possible in our country not voting in more restriction that take away any freedom. Also remember that these property owners feed a lot of game year round. If you would like to see what a herd of elk can do to an alfalfa field in the spring I would be glad to show you. So if a property owner can recap some of that lost revenue I am all for it. I also wish to disclose I only own a few acres where I reside. I am not a property owner and I do indeed hunt public lands as well as some private. The best route to obtain access to private land is not to put yourself as a hunter on an opposing side to private property owners.

JMO
Jeff

 

[realunlucky]

Broz I don't believe Montana bill was an attack on private land owners rights. IMO they have over valued their tags. I spend plenty of time up there and know people that have feelings on both sides of the issue. Money has changed the hunting culture and its not going back. That's for a separate thread. Idaho should open this bill for comment period. Regulation and licensing may still be important components, but with reviewing of public commet some important views will not be considered.Of course here in Utah sportsman can trust no one everyone is trying to get others out of the cookie jar so there are more cookies for them