Idaho Hunting Fees 2021 Non Resident (Big Elk Increase)

[Huntnnw]

until ID manages its residents over crowding will always be a issue. The same amount of NR elk tag quotas have been there for decades around 12,000 and are always sold or damn near every year. The biggest change to ID in the last 20 years is its "NEW" residents as in 500,000 people have moved to ID in the last 20 years. Do the math and percentages that are buying hunting licenses its around 35,000 more licences thats 3 times the amount of NR elk tags in the woods in the last 20 years.

 

[87TT]

They "are" managing the resource for the ones they should, residents. Prices on things go up, deal with it.

 

[CamoPirate]

They "are" managing the resource for the ones they should, residents. Prices on things go up, deal with it.

I think that's the point everybody is trying to make.

Issue: People feel there are too many non-residents overcrowding areas

Seemingly Obvious Solution: Increasing tag fees

Actual real issue: Increasing amounts of people moving there, which increases pressure as resident hunter numbers increase, especially when there's no cap on how many resident tags are sold for OTC units


Real point I think trying to be made in this post and people's expressed opinions:
Increasing tag fees for non-residents does not address the issue of overcrowding, which is purportedly the whole reason the fees were increased?

 

[Rob5589]

Bunch of folks seemed mad over the lighted nock issue. Maybe they'll stay away...

 

[Dustin the wind]

I’ll only speak to what I know here. I lived in Oregon most of my life and ODFW does not listen to hunters points of view, sometimes they pretend to. Idaho does and imo does a good job of making decisions based on what it’s hunting base tells them. The contrast I now see in my 4th year of Idaho residency is very apparent.

I also don’t think many states outside of ID understand the mindset here, a lot of people here want to forget the outside world, NR hunting may fall pray to that mentally to a certain extent and I won’t disagree.

Oregon has some of the best elk hunting in the country. If I was still over there looking at ID, I’d be going balls deep in looking for that monster bull like I used to because they are all over that state and I still haven’t seen enough of it.

We live here, work here, pay taxes here, contribute to the economy and way of life here, there are certain benefits to that. Just like any of the other 49 states.

 

[idahohikker]

A lot of years within the last 20 the nonresident cap didn’t sell out. Now with the influx of new residents and more nonresidents buying tags to the point the cap is selling out residents are feeling like there’s too many guys on the hill. Fish and Game rightfully prioritizes residents so it’s nonresidents that get pinched. Believe me I wish the new residents could be stopped but that’s not really feasible or likely to happen with any government in Idaho.

Nonresidents should get ready to feel pinched throughout the West. Draw only tags in most states and CO and ID are moving that direction. Enjoy it while you have it and ask the instastars to stop blabbing about every hunting opportunity out there, especially OTC, to make a buck.

 

[87TT]

I also wish we didn't get so many new people moving here but it is what it is. It amazes me that people can read into something or not be able to understand what is being done and was originally proposed. They DID NOT raise fees to limit NR pressure. They are going to place caps on NR per zone as needed. The fee increase was to make up for a possible drop in NR participation (which I don't believe will happen). Also because of Jdaho's mechanism of raising fees, it hasn't gone up in a long time and was absolutely due. I for one am tired of being every ones backup plan.

 

[String&stick]

I think everyone needs to look at this as two separate issues.

#1 price increase- (like every other prime western state) Idaho elected to raise non resident tag prices. This was done for a few reasons.
1. They hadn't done it in ages and had become one of the cheapest western states for NR to hunt.
2. To help keep their resident tag prices low, they offset by charging non residents more.
3. They wanted some buffer cash in case their other changes resulted in less NR hunters.

This is item #1 and the reasoning. As a non resident hunter I commend Idaho for their actions as it appears well thought out and makes sense to me. They also didn't go crazy with prices they just lined back up with the west.

#2. NR zone caps
This was done in response to residents (and non residents) complaining about pressure in the back country. This is a reality, and while there are many contributing factors, Idaho did what makes the most sense, cap NR #s by zone.
This also in my opinion was done in a well thought out way and a way that all residents may not agree with. Idaho didn't blanket cap at 10%. They capped at "not less than" (I believe the amount is 10% but I'm not going back to look) so this allows for flexibility. If a zone is over objective they don't have to cap, of they could cap at 20%. So they allowed for lots of management decisions to be made based on data! Again this was done for a few reasons.

1. To please residents. Yes absolutely and they should keep their residents happy.

2. To spread out NR as under the current system you could have all NR hunting in one zone (minus the allocated capped zone tags that already exist). This is way a unit could seem to locals like it was overrun by NR!

3. To be become a priority state. Idaho won't be a fall back next year. Many units will sell out their caps early and people won't be able to wait around and have a good Idaho unit as a last resort.

4. To prepare for the future. If you don't think the Idaho FnG is keeping an eye on increasing resident hunters you're crazy. They know they will eventually need changes on that side of the board. But when they get there, they need to be able to show that they took as many steps as they could prior to making changes to the residents current system.

Overall I think Idaho made good decisions and I will keep supporting them and hunting there.

 

[sneaky]

Where's the threads raising hell over Utah raising their prices for crappy OTC elk hunting? Everyone likes to jump on Idaho but they wanna give Utah a pass, and when Montana and Wyoming raised theirs people complained but still bought the tags. Seems like a lot of people just like to bitch about Idaho specifically. There's an increasing number of resident hunters, but it's hard to judge numbers linearly off of new residents because a huge number of those new residents don't hunt at all.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[mwebs]

Boycott Idaho

 

[npm352]

Idaho prides itself in being an opportunity state. You can come here and hunt mule deer bucks and bull elk OTC in most units. And...they are good hunts. Idaho has enough cover and/or backcountry to hold large, mature animals in all OTC units, you will just ha e to hunt harder than all-day states. There are not many places you can buy an OTC any elk and OTC any deer and hunt in the same unit and same time without huge amounts of luck in the draws.

If you dont like it, go try to DRAW "general" units in Utah for bucks...or draw buck tags in Colorado, or try a true over the counter elk hunt in Utah where you can kill any bull (very few) or just spikes or cows. Those are some other options before complaining about your back-up state raising fees.

Hopefully, to reduce pressure IDFG will do a number of things before they go to an all draw state. Here are things that either have been done or could be done.
-raise NR fees (to help maintain revenue for a prediction that more caps will lower NR revenue.)
-make all NR hunts draw (like WY...so residents can hunt with a walmart tag where a NR needs 7 points to hunt...like region G in WY)
-make resident and NR OTC deer tags for a specific unit or area....just like the elk tags, and not the entire state.
-and this year if you put in for a controlled elk tag, you have to wait 5 days after the capped units go on sale before you can try to buy one.

Again, it is about spreading things out to provide the most opportunity for the most people.

I have spoke to a ton of F&G people. They always say the same thing. They survey Idahoans every 7 years and ask things like: "would you rather kill a huge buck every 10 years, or kill a decent buck every 4 years, or kill a forky every year"....the VAST majority of hunters in Idaho want the latter, so that is what they cater decisions around. They are looking out for average Joe hunters, and God bless them for that. UT chose to look after well-off Boone and Crockett or pass guys and look where they are...auctioning off a huge portion of tags that would otherwise go to normal guys in the draws.

But I think the best thing nonresidents can do is boycott Idaho, as stated above. That'll show 'em.

 

[North Idaho Stickbow]

I propose a test: come over and kill a wolf first (for free), and we’ll let you buy an elk tag after that.

 

[BRTreedogs]

I propose a test: come over and kill a wolf first (for free), and we’ll let you buy an elk tag after that.

Curious how many you have killed?

 

[North Idaho Stickbow]

Curious how many you have killed?

* It’s a joke *

 

[Rob5589]

A lot of noise over nothing really. Prices go up on everything. The main objective is to spread out the number of people in the field in certain areas. Over crowding is always a complaint of hunters.

As far as mandatory wolf kill @North Idaho Stickbow; I'd be in for a non resident mandatory wolf tag if buying an elk tag (I do it anyway). Rather pay that than the 80 archery endorsement.

 

[Huntnnw]

Where's the threads raising hell over Utah raising their prices for crappy OTC elk hunting? Everyone likes to jump on Idaho but they wanna give Utah a pass, and when Montana and Wyoming raised theirs people complained but still bought the tags. Seems like a lot of people just like to bitch about Idaho specifically. There's an increasing number of resident hunters, but it's hard to judge numbers linearly off of new residents because a huge number of those new residents don't hunt at all.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

to assume that a majority of the new residents dont hunt is ignorant! do some research the numbers dont lie. The 500,000 new residents and license purchase correlate with the same percentages of people hunting statewide.

 

[sneaky]

to assume that a majority of the new residents dont hunt is ignorant! do some research the numbers dont lie. The 500,000 new residents and license purchase correlate with the same percentages of people hunting statewide.

A majority would be over 250k... there's not that many new hunters in Idaho. I stand by the assertion that a larger percentage of new residents don't hunt than do hunt. I deal with these new residents every week for work, and a majority of them aren't hunters or anglers. Do a percentage of these new residents hunt? Sure. On about the same percentage as any other state. But to imply that a majority of them do just tells me you don't understand how a majority works.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[Huntnnw]

the statewide avg is 7% or so. whats 7% of the 500,000? I know exactly what I am talking about. Get on IDFG and look up resident license sales in year 2000 and 2020 it directly correlates with the increase of people moving there.

 

[Buglebrush]

I really don't want to pay more, but totally understand. The only issue I have is the enormous increase for the junior mentored tags. It's going to drastically reduce the next generation of hunters, and that's a really bad thing for everyone from every state.

 

[Buglebrush]

If hunter recruitment hinges on going out of state hunts we are shit out of luck as hunters. i was 38 when i did my first out of state hunt but hunted since i was old enough to walk with my dad in the state we live in. If i was told i cant hunt out of state any more i would not quit i would hunt where i live. If you live some where it sucks to hunt well then move or live with the fact you have no choice in how or what you pay to hunt in other peoples states.

The true battle for Western Hunting is a federal battle. Your attitude that only residents of your particular state matter to the future of Western Hunting is naive at best. We need nationwide support in the federal fight over wolves, access, etc...