Idaho potential nonresident fee increase

[Chad E]

They aren't planning on reducing NR quotas, just capping each zone at 10% of 5 year historical numbers. That will keep certain zones from being overran with NR percentage wise. NR are just going to have to buy tags early for certain zones, and be ready to pivot and learn new zones if their primary tag sells out.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I know that they are claiming that there wont be a reduction in the NR quota but I don't think you can reduce NR participation in too many zones by 90% and not create that as a reality. I really don't see how it wont be the domino effect as capped zones push folks to uncapped ones thus causing crowding, then capping more zones etc. its not a sustainable model unless people think all NR will be happy ending up hunting whitetail in north Idaho. They are also on record as saying the increase in tag fees is to offset the lost participation. I really don't see how Fish and Game can say both of those things at the same time.

I see a lot of talk about how many residents are purchasing second tags and actually funding the Fish and Game at a higher level than is immediately apparent because they are paying NR prices. Does anyone have the actual numbers on how many second tags are purchased by residents?

 

[87TT]

Nonresidents can buy second tags too. (after AUG 1 ) The quota is enough. as for the caps in certain units, it needs to happen. If the plan doesn't work, we can go to a different plan.

 

[sneaky]

I know that they are claiming that there wont be a reduction in the NR quota but I don't think you can reduce NR participation in too many zones by 90% and not create that as a reality. I really don't see how it wont be the domino effect as capped zones push folks to uncapped ones thus causing crowding, then capping more zones etc. its not a sustainable model unless people think all NR will be happy ending up hunting whitetail in north Idaho. They are also on record as saying the increase in tag fees is to offset the lost participation. I really don't see how Fish and Game can say both of those things at the same time.

I see a lot of talk about how many residents are purchasing second tags and actually funding the Fish and Game at a higher level than is immediately apparent because they are paying NR prices. Does anyone have the actual numbers on how many second tags are purchased by residents?

It won't create crowding in other units if they put a cap on NR in all the units. That would eliminate that. They just know a lot of guys will probably pass on coming if they don't get their first pick of a unit. They can crunch the numbers and figure out the best way to distribute the 12,815 tags, what doesn't sell to NR will probably get bought up by residents as a 2nd tag. Hell wasn't but just about 4-5 years ago the second tags were discounted to 199 for deer and 299 for elk to residents and nonresidents. Demand has caught back up with an improving economy. I think a NR tag increase once every 11 years shouldn't be complained about too much.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[ThinkLeicaBuck]

I know that they are claiming that there wont be a reduction in the NR quota but I don't think you can reduce NR participation in too many zones by 90% and not create that as a reality. I really don't see how it wont be the domino effect as capped zones push folks to uncapped ones thus causing crowding, then capping more zones etc. its not a sustainable model unless people think all NR will be happy ending up hunting whitetail in north Idaho. They are also on record as saying the increase in tag fees is to offset the lost participation. I really don't see how Fish and Game can say both of those things at the same time.

I see a lot of talk about how many residents are purchasing second tags and actually funding the Fish and Game at a higher level than is immediately apparent because they are paying NR prices. Does anyone have the actual numbers on how many second tags are purchased by residents?

Pointless argument. None of you are with the state and your votes don’t mean anything so get over it.

 

[Chad E]

It won't create crowding in other units if they put a cap on NR in all the units. That would eliminate that. They just know a lot of guys will probably pass on coming if they don't get their first pick of a unit. They can crunch the numbers and figure out the best way to distribute the 12,815 tags, what doesn't sell to NR will probably get bought up by residents as a 2nd tag. Hell wasn't but just about 4-5 years ago the second tags were discounted to 199 for deer and 299 for elk to residents and nonresidents. Demand has caught back up with an improving economy. I think a NR tag increase once every 11 years shouldn't be complained about too much.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Agree with you 100% that raising prices once every 11 years is not earth shattering, although a few of the increases seem a bit out there(archery license).

I still struggle to see the reasoning with the idea that the nonresidents with a capped tag system are the only ones causing crowding. It would seem that capping units regardless of residency(while still remaining the resident non resident spilt) would be the answers. I've been lucky enough to hunt Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho over the last few years as well as my home state. I rarely if ever think man that dude on the ridge over there must be a nonresident nor do I care. Pressure and hunter numbers that have an impact on the species are not specific to nonresidents. Just always strikes me as strange that the rally cry is down with the nonresident but what do I know maybe the dude sitting on the ridge I wanted to get on is a nonresident and I should be equally bummed.

 

[sneaky]

100% agree that the archery tag bump to $80 is BS. I think everyone should be careful what they wish for, because certain groups will use this as a way to implement draws and points and landowner tags. It'll be a lost cause then.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[Chad E]

Pointless argument. None of you are with the state and your votes don’t mean anything so get over it.

Really? Your response is exactly what rubs people the wrong way about resident vs nonresident. Instead of intelligent discussion on how things go the attitude from residents is always screw you if you don't like it don't come. You are right and you do hold the trump card and I will keep forking over my money because I want to come that badly.

It wasn't long ago that this site had a post urging everyone to comment on Idaho's wolf hunting proposals. I'm sure I wasn't the only nonresident who commented in favor. I've never stepped foot inside most of the units that are affected by those proposals but that didn't affect my willingness to try to effect positive change. I seem to remember landowner tags, points etc all coming up. I and many others were happy to advocate against these ideas.

Someday the screw you attitude by folks like yourself will bite you.

 

[Rob5589]

Pointless argument. None of you are with the state and your votes don’t mean anything so get over it.

I don't recall this being an issue to be voted on. And it isn't exactly correct to presume that non residents should not have any say or opinion since they are contributing a great deal of money year after year. Not only to IDFG but, to restaurants, grocery stores, gas stations, and many other points of spending.

 

[Gobbler36]

It's coming in 2021

We can only hope for NR

 

[87TT]

I don't recall this being an issue to be voted on. And it isn't exactly correct to presume that non residents should not have any say or opinion since they are contributing a great deal of money year after year. Not only to IDFG but, to restaurants, grocery stores, gas stations, and many other points of spending.

There was a comment period before the proposal was made. I suppose you could contact some state legislators and voice your opinion. It's hard enough for people who actually vote for them to sway them but by all means give it a shot.

 

[idelkslayer]

OK, where to start. This has been a long thread full of wild misinterpretation. Most of it is a recycling of debates held regularly on internet forums. I sat on the sidelines as long as I could. If you are not interested in a thoughtful and knowledgeable response please feel free to skip my long-winded post.

If you're whining about "It's my public land I should be able to hunt it" You should do some research on the difference between Federal land management and State wildlife management. This is dead horse that has been beaten for so long that you're just pounding dirt at this point.

If you are whining about "My state gives multiple whitetail deer tags for $###" How many guys from western states do you think want to travel east to hunt whitetails? I'm guessing it is very few and that most of your NR tags are going to hunters from neighboring midwestern/eastern states. Your deer densities are higher (flooded market) and if this were a commodity that would mean that your product is less valuable. An elk is four times the size of a deer and easily 10 times as rare, we should charge 40x the price of a whitetail tag to be fair.

Now for some facts about deer tags in Idaho.
Idaho has a quota for NR deer tags (not including tags by NR in the controlled hunts). 14,000 that can be purchased as Regular deer tags or Whitetail Deer tags and an additional 1,500 that can only be sold as whitetail deer tags after the first 14,000 are sold. These can be used in any general season unit in the state. Because of this IDFG currently has no mechanism to distribute NR hunting pressure. As a result, the areas adjacent to other states with limited hunting opportunity, I'm looking at you Utah and Washington, have a higher percentage of NR hunters than units that are further from the border. The panhandle gets hammered by Washington hunters, Southeast Idaho gets hammered by Utah hunters. Overall, NR are 14% of deer hunters in Idaho. But in certain areas they are much more. In a particular Southeastern Idaho area, NR made up 30% of hunters. NR hunters are also 30% of the total in the panhandle area. While in other units only 5-8% of hunters are NR.

The purpose of these changes is to more evenly distribute NR hunting pressure. In doing so IDFG has acknowledged that fewer tags might be sold. The fee increase is meant to offset the potential reduction in NR sales. It is unclear if this change will reduce the total NR tag allocation but it might. The proposal did not call for a straight up reduction to 10% of tags, it said "no less than 10%".

Now for the elk tags.
Idaho offers 12,815 General season NR elk tags. This does not include the elk tags drawn in controlled hunts. 3,861 of those tags are in general zones that have a capped quota. That means the remaining 8,954 tags can be purchased for use in any of the non quota zones. In theory, all 8,954 could be sold for use in the panhandle zone and would result in a very lopsided R:NR distribution. In reality the same thing happens with these elk tags as with the general season deer tags. The non quota zones close to Utah and Washington get a lot of NR pressure while other zones receive less NR pressure.

Again, the purpose will be to more evenly distribute the NR pressure throughout all elk zones so that a few zones don't get over crowded. IDFG has not yet revealed what this distribution will look like, they are probably still trying to figure that out themselves, so no one really knows if this will reduce the NR tag allocation or not. However, it is clear that IDFG does expect to sell fewer NR tags and will increase the cost to offset that reduction. Whether the reduction will be due to NR choosing not to hunt in Idaho or by actually reducing the NR allocation remains to be seen.

Even though the NR quotas have not changed in decades (except the 1,500 Whitetail only tags which were added a few years ago) NR numbers can increase in certain areas as NR shift their focus and hunt in those areas. IF fewer NR hunt in southern Idaho and start hunting in eastern Idaho then eastern Idaho residents would be right in saying that NR pressure is increasing in their area. Overall nothing has changed but localized effects can occur as hunting pressure shifts.

The elephant in the room is the increasing number of resident hunters. There were roughly 20,000 more resident elk hunters in Idaho last year than in 2008. That is a 20% increase. The herds can only sustain a certain amount of pressure and eventually IDFG will have to reduce opportunity. The right thing to do is to reduce NR opportunity and preserve opportunity for residents. I don't think any state should issue a single NR tag if they don't first have enough tags for every Resident who wants one.

I cannot speak for how they determined the increased price amounts but it looks like it brings Idaho more closely in line with other states prices so I don't see much to complain about there. I also think that Idaho should charge residents more so I don't hold much sympathy for the NR hunting costs. You can't tell me that hunting is becoming a rich mans sport because a luxury item is expensive, and hunting outside of your home state is a luxury expense.

Now, do I actually post this or delete it? Ah, what the hell.

 

[87TT]

^^^^ THIS!!!

 

[sneaky]

OK, where to start. This has been a long thread full of wild misinterpretation. Most of it is a recycling of debates held regularly on internet forums. I sat on the sidelines as long as I could. If you are not interested in a thoughtful and knowledgeable response please feel free to skip my long-winded post.

If you're whining about "It's my public land I should be able to hunt it" You should do some research on the difference between Federal land management and State wildlife management. This is dead horse that has been beaten for so long that you're just pounding dirt at this point.

If you are whining about "My state gives multiple whitetail deer tags for $###" How many guys from western states do you think want to travel east to hunt whitetails? I'm guessing it is very few and that most of your NR tags are going to hunters from neighboring midwestern/eastern states. Your deer densities are higher (flooded market) and if this were a commodity that would mean that your product is less valuable. An elk is four times the size of a deer and easily 10 times as rare, we should charge 40x the price of a whitetail tag to be fair.

Now for some facts about deer tags in Idaho.
Idaho has a quota for NR deer tags (not including tags by NR in the controlled hunts). 14,000 that can be purchased as Regular deer tags or Whitetail Deer tags and an additional 1,500 that can only be sold as whitetail deer tags after the first 14,000 are sold. These can be used in any general season unit in the state. Because of this IDFG currently has no mechanism to distribute NR hunting pressure. As a result, the areas adjacent to other states with limited hunting opportunity, I'm looking at you Utah and Washington, have a higher percentage of NR hunters than units that are further from the border. The panhandle gets hammered by Washington hunters, Southeast Idaho gets hammered by Utah hunters. Overall, NR are 14% of deer hunters in Idaho. But in certain areas they are much more. In a particular Southeastern Idaho area, NR made up 30% of hunters. NR hunters are also 30% of the total in the panhandle area. While in other units only 5-8% of hunters are NR.

The purpose of these changes is to more evenly distribute NR hunting pressure. In doing so IDFG has acknowledged that fewer tags might be sold. The fee increase is meant to offset the potential reduction in NR sales. It is unclear if this change will reduce the total NR tag allocation but it might. The proposal did not call for a straight up reduction to 10% of tags, it said "no less than 10%".

Now for the elk tags.
Idaho offers 12,815 General season NR elk tags. This does not include the elk tags drawn in controlled hunts. 3,861 of those tags are in general zones that have a capped quota. That means the remaining 8,954 tags can be purchased for use in any of the non quota zones. In theory, all 8,954 could be sold for use in the panhandle zone and would result in a very lopsided R:NR distribution. In reality the same thing happens with these elk tags as with the general season deer tags. The non quota zones close to Utah and Washington get a lot of NR pressure while other zones receive less NR pressure.

Again, the purpose will be to more evenly distribute the NR pressure throughout all elk zones so that a few zones don't get over crowded. IDFG has not yet revealed what this distribution will look like, they are probably still trying to figure that out themselves, so no one really knows if this will reduce the NR tag allocation or not. However, it is clear that IDFG does expect to sell fewer NR tags and will increase the cost to offset that reduction. Whether the reduction will be due to NR choosing not to hunt in Idaho or by actually reducing the NR allocation remains to be seen.

Even though the NR quotas have not changed in decades (except the 1,500 Whitetail only tags which were added a few years ago) NR numbers can increase in certain areas as NR shift their focus and hunt in those areas. IF fewer NR hunt in southern Idaho and start hunting in eastern Idaho then eastern Idaho residents would be right in saying that NR pressure is increasing in their area. Overall nothing has changed but localized effects can occur as hunting pressure shifts.

The elephant in the room is the increasing number of resident hunters. There were roughly 20,000 more resident elk hunters in Idaho last year than in 2008. That is a 20% increase. The herds can only sustain a certain amount of pressure and eventually IDFG will have to reduce opportunity. The right thing to do is to reduce NR opportunity and preserve opportunity for residents. I don't think any state should issue a single NR tag if they don't first have enough tags for every Resident who wants one.

I cannot speak for how they determined the increased price amounts but it looks like it brings Idaho more closely in line with other states prices so I don't see much to complain about there. I also think that Idaho should charge residents more so I don't hold much sympathy for the NR hunting costs. You can't tell me that hunting is becoming a rich mans sport because a luxury item is expensive, and hunting outside of your home state is a luxury expense.

Now, do I actually post this or delete it? Ah, what the hell.

Man, you can't be bringing logic to an emotions based argument. Hasn't the wolf issue showed you that? Lol

You are spot on with the "no less than 10%" of tags in a zone for NR. I was going to edit one of my earlier posts but gave up on it, seemed pointless. Most guys have knee-jerked this topic to death and made up their minds already.


Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[Broomd]

Hunting is truly going to be only for the elite or rich class.

There will be no effect on the hunting pressure now that the interweb points people to the great hot spots and that area is overwhelmed.

EG, respectfully, that is bullshit.

If you want to hunt, go hunt. Grab your deer rifle or duck shotgun and head into the Vermont hills or riverbottoms.

You want to hunt another state? You pay. Most here wouldn't think twice about paying $4.50 a gallon to drive across the country, or to drop $1200 on a plane ticket to get to Colorado or Idaho, but the second a state decides to really properly value a resource it's a 'elitist'....it's laughable.
Guys spend $1100 on farkng rain gear!

Anyone who decides to hunt the West for elk, sheep, etc has already decided to pursue something out of the ordinary. There are closer and cheaper options whereby one can enjoy the pastime of hunting. Guys want to take our Idaho elk and deer but don't want to pay what they are worth to us as residents.
And for the record I"m all for resident increases if they are deemed necessary.

 

[Broomd]

WA OTC is a joke... I’d rather go fishing.

That's because ya'll have destroyed your system, that's why you come here to start destroying ours. Sorry, not sorry.


OP, do your own homework, there are reams of info here to research.

Every day at this forum brings another non-res "non-honey hole" seeking Idaho wannabe trying to ply info from suckers.

...
I see a lot of talk about how many residents are purchasing second tags and actually funding the Fish and Game at a higher level than is immediately apparent because they are paying NR prices. Does anyone have the actual numbers on how many second tags are purchased by residents?

We've never purchased second tags in our state, not once. I've always been against it.

This year my wife and I will both be buying non-res tags to stop non-res encroachment.
Time for us to put up or shut up.

 

[menhaden_man]

That's because ya'll have destroyed your system, that's why you come here to start destroying ours. Sorry, not sorry.

OP, do your own homework, there are reams of info here to research.

Every day at this forum brings another non-res "non-honey hole" seeking Idaho wannabe trying to ply info from suckers.

We've never purchased second tags in our state, not once. I've always been against it.

This year my wife and I will both be buying non-res tags to stop non-res encroachment.
Time for us to put up or shut up.

Well, I'm not from Washington (moved here for work) but get your point. Also wasn't asking for any info, just sharing something that your state sent to me as a tag purchaser in 2019.

And I agree - if you don't want non-residents to come spend money in Idaho, make sure those tags aren't for sale.

 

[Broomd]

Well, I'm not from Washington (moved here for work) but get your point. Also wasn't asking for any info, just sharing something that your state sent to me as a tag purchaser in 2019.

And I agree - if you don't want non-residents to come spend money in Idaho, make sure those tags aren't for sale.

My comments weren't meant to be directed specifically at you, MM; just the NR in general.

Regarding your second point, locals wish the NRs really spent money in ID. More and more they do not. They drag their campers and atvs full of gear, guns, ammo and food from home and venture into the Idaho woods. Gasoline (if necessary) and tags are about the only necessities.
They buy what they need before arriving here and spend only the bare minimum.
This is a fact and it has been rehashed here at the RS time and time again.

 

[menhaden_man]

My comments weren't meant to be directed specifically at you, MM; just the NR in general.

Regarding your second point, locals wish the NRs really spent money in ID. More and more they do not. They drag their campers and atvs full of gear, guns, ammo and food from home and venture into the Idaho woods. Gasoline (if necessary) and tags are about the only necessities.
They buy what they need before arriving here and spend only the bare minimum.
This is a fact and it has been rehashed here at the RS time and time again.

Thanks - don't know you so figured that was the case.

Also not sure if NR's not spending much money is a fact (if so, I'd be interested in seeing it). Near as I can tell, NR hunting is worth well over $100 million to Idaho. Would be curious if the hotels, restaurant, and bar owners in places like Challis hold the opinion that NR dollars don't amount to much.

Either way, it's definitely out of my hands...

https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/fhw11-id.pdf

 

[sneaky]

Thanks - don't know you so figured that was the case.

Also not sure if NR's not spending much money is a fact (if so, I'd be interested in seeing it). Near as I can tell, NR hunting is worth well over $100 million to Idaho. Would be curious if the hotels, restaurant, and bar owners in places like Challis hold the opinion that NR dollars don't amount to much.

Either way, it's definitely out of my hands...

https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/fhw11-id.pdf

Considering there's really only two hotels and a couple of bars that's a pretty small sample size in Challis. I live near Challis. I bet fishing brings as much revenue to Challis as hunting does and the Braun Bros music fest brings a lot of money to the area. Most guys I see hunting in the Pioneer zone and Salmon zone are camping out, a ton in RVs , and just going to town for fuel and reloading on snacks. They aren't staying in town at the motels, unless they've given up. I would bet the air services flying out of Challis make as much off of NR as the motels do.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[BFR]

Guess I’m an oddity. I don’t know about other NR hunters but for myself, I come in my motorhome dragging my Jeep. I buy groceries when I get close to my destination, plus gas and propane. Usually stay til whenever, I’m retired so no deadline. During my trip we’ll take a day or 2 to check out points of interest, maybe a movie or shop at some local businesses, or eat out on occasion. Sometimes I boondock, sometimes stay at a campground or RV park. On average we spend about $800 to a grand locally including gas and everything excluding tags and licenses. Not a fortune by any means but hopefully the locals appreciate it, and I’ve made some friends too.