Idaho Winter Stats

[sneaky]

I came up with 16% of mule deer hunters in 2018 were non-resident. I agree, that’s a reasonable allocation and percentage to me.

Where I hope this management plan is heading is allowing tag quotas on an individual unit/region basis versus 14k non-res tags state wide. We all know mule deer populations can vary drastically annually based on the winter mortality. Some areas experience high mortality were others might not.

For example, last year non-res tags sold out prior to the general Oct 10th deer hunt opener. This was the first time in a long time and put 1,000+ extra deer hunters out there in a time when numbers are struggling. I’m talking more specifically to eastern and SE Idaho.

The F&G cut some controlled hunts but minimal compared to the added non-residents. The F&G could not control it and that was just how it played out. In my opinion, tag quotas by unit would be a more effective way of managing the quality of deer.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are not taking into account that, yes, the NR tag allocation sold out, but a couple thousand of those were purchased by residents as second tags. That's why your stats were off from the 14% number, and, no, it didn't put an extra 1k hunters in the field. NRs don't buy all of their allotment. I'd say a better figure would be between 11-11.5k NR tags being purchased by NR, and even then, some probably bought an extra after Aug 1st as well.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[Idahohillboy]

Actually, Utah NR elk tags are cheaper than Idaho, unless you draw an LE tag. Hunting license is cheaper as well. Antler point restrictions don't work, been documented in several states and studies, and was already discussed above in the thread. NR tags are capped, residents aren't. It isn't the NR hunters that are killing all the deer, most NR have zero clue when they hit the ground for the hunt. A few get lucky, but the majority get taken to school.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Yes I know very little you are right. But I think if you look at certain units as example you will see that there has been a huge increase in both res and non res hunters causing the experience to go downhill. Lack of mature aninals is Idaho's problem. Used to see s lot more bigger bucks.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Idahohillboy]

My observations are admittedly somewhat skewed from what most non-resident hunters see. I've been floating around the edges of outfitter camps a in Idaho a decent chunk of my in a unit that's OTC for archery and rifle deer. What I see on a regular basis is guys coming from out of state paying big money for a drop camp or guided elk hunt and buying a deer tag as an after thought. I've not seen one of those tags go on a buck I'd consider worth paying out of state prices for. You'd be surprised how many forked horns, 3 x 3's and small 4 x 4's make their way back east of the Mississippi. I can't blame Idaho residents for shooting meat bucks, if I was an Idaho resident I'd do the same thing on OTC tags. My reasoning for the thought of upping the prices for non-residents isn't about us all paying for more for the resource. It's just that I feel if there's going to be steps taken to limit pressure on the resource that it should first land on the back of non-residents before residents are effected.

I'm sure most residents appreciate that their state is gets a good chunk of non-resident dollars. What does suck though, is when a resident shows up to a trail head and can't find a parking spot that's not filled with an out of state plate. Idaho is the marginally more budget friendly option for out of state western hunting, but that means it draws a ton of out of state pressure because of it's proximity to Washington and California where there's some seriously screwed up game management.

What he said above

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk