IDFG PROPOSAL RAISING NONRESIDENT FEES, REDUCING TAGS FOR OUT OF STATE HUNTERS

[BeaverHunter]

Could you post a link that states that the States and not the people in those States own the game?

Lol. Arguing semantics at this point. Didn’t know a series of lines on a map could own anything but you obviously want to keep arguing with him.

 

[N2TRKYS]

Lol. Arguing semantics at this point. Didn’t know a series of lines on a map could own anything but you obviously want to keep arguing with him.

I’m not arguing anything. I was wanting to learn if what I had been taught was wrong. If you have links saying, as such, it would be appreciated.

Thanks

 

[DAOutfitters208]

Could you post a link that states that the States and not the people in those States own the game?

Could you post a link that states that the States and not the people in those States own the game?

 

[idahohikker]

I’m not arguing anything. I was wanting to learn if what I had been taught was wrong. If you have links saying, as such, it would be appreciated.

Thanks

Just research for a second. You’ll find it. I think you have an open mind which is admirable.

You’ll see the concept over and over because it’s so well established.

 

[idelkslayer]

https://idfg.idaho.gov/about/commission

The link above settles the question at least as far as Idaho is concerned but it is the same principle that applies in all states.

Besides whether wildlife is owned by the state or the citizens of the state (seems like semantics) makes no difference in the context of the misconception about NR tag allocation and access to federal land as stated in my previous post.

 

[DAOutfitters208]

are you SERIOUS ?? Aside from Bend getting all the "new wave" Californians (a large portion of the "old" have gone to CDA/Hayden) …. I go to the same lengths to avoid Bend that I do to stay away from PDX ! (and don't even start on Sun River !)

You must not ski. I make a trip every year for Mt Bachelor. Lots of really good breweries and restaurants.

 

[deerkiller]

I don't see a huge issue with the proposal, even as a non res hunter. The cap will max at the same number but, could be lowered, which is unlikely unless animal numbers call for it. And with no fee increases in 10+ years you had to know it was coming. Had they been slowly increasing it instead of one big hit it would be less of a shocker.

The one big negative for myself is now that my daughter is hunting, I will have double the fees. Luckily she is only 13 so we have a few more years of junior non res fees.

increased fees due to children coming of age is more a benefit than an "expense" as I see it

 

[deerkiller]

You must not ski. I make a trip every year for Mt Bachelor. Lots of really good breweries and restaurants.

You will likely notice this winter and those to follow but it's happening everywhere - After I retired from the fire service (and went through a NASTY divorce) I moved to Joseph so it's my emotional 2nd home even if I don't live there any longer - Yesterday I was there, stopped in to say Hi to the widow of a dear departed friend to find a Californian in the front yard who's just moving in - Seemed like a nice enough guy, actually a recently retired arson investigator from CA, he paid $565,000 for 38 acres with a 1970's "triple wide" and several out buildings …. OOPS !! sorry to wander off topic !!

 

[mfsights257]

I understand the fee increases, but I do question a 10% NR limit if it is on FEDERAL Land, on state land, no problem. Because, I thought everyone owned federal land, not just the residents. I sure this will spurn a healthy debate!

 

[deerkiller]

I understand the fee increases, but I do question a 10% NR limit if it is on FEDERAL Land, on state land, no problem. Because, I thought everyone owned federal land, not just the residents. I sure this will spurn a healthy debate!

all this debate about federal vs. state lands for tags and our senators and congress are trying to sell it off where ever they can ! why no "debate" on that ? I now avidly support Back Country Hunters & Anglers

 

[Fatcamp]

Gotta love these types of threads. I remember a few years ago here in NM when the outfitters solidified outfitter welfare thru politics (and in turn hosed nr's in the process) everyone was going to boycott our state. NR's are still applying for the draw, buying welfare tags from outfitters, and paying big bucks for LO tags......

NM is the one state I won't even consider going to over that fiasco.

 

[IdahoHntr]

It has to pass the legislature so I'm not worried it's even going to happen.
Idaho really should increase fees they are comparably cheap as a western state and have no draw so they are still going to sell out. They should also double second tag fees but that hits residents in to hard in the pocket book to even consider

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

Residents will have to pay the increased nonresident price for a second tag as well..

 

[idelkslayer]

I understand the fee increases, but I do question a 10% NR limit if it is on FEDERAL Land, on state land, no problem. Because, I thought everyone owned federal land, not just the residents. I sure this will spurn a healthy debate!

You're late to the party. Read the thread from the top.

 

[wind gypsy]

I understand the fee increases, but I do question a 10% NR limit if it is on FEDERAL Land, on state land, no problem. Because, I thought everyone owned federal land, not just the residents. I sure this will spurn a healthy debate!

Not sure it'll spurn a healthy debate at all. People use this logic all the time to complain about not getting tags but that doesn't make it a good point.

If you want to go hang out on your (as a US citizen) federal land during hunting season, you are free to do so. The animals are held in trust by states for the benefits of it's citizens. Google the public trust doctrine.

 

[Hawkeye5964]

I for one am thankful to be able to hunt in the west and will do so as long as I can afford it. When my personal price point is met, I’ll stop going.

 

[Newtosavage]

I'm all for states increasing the price of tags and reducing the numbers for NR's so long as the residents are willing to step up and make up the difference.

 

[87TT]

That's what we do here when the NR don't buy the tags by Aug 1st.

 

[Rob5589]

I understand the fee increases, but I do question a 10% NR limit if it is on FEDERAL Land, on state land, no problem. Because, I thought everyone owned federal land, not just the residents. I sure this will spurn a healthy debate!

Not a road you want to go down. Imagine the shitshow if the state was divided up that way. No thanks.

 

[Rob5589]

I'm all for states increasing the price of tags and reducing the numbers for NR's so long as the residents are willing to step up and make up the difference.

When non res make up 56% of the F&G revenue, I would not expect much of a decrease. Res fees are going up as well for second tags if I read it correctly. So they are taking a hit as well, in that context.

 

[txhunter581]

The animals are not owned by the State. They’re owned by the public. The public puts people in place at the State and Federal level to help manage said animals.

Actually you are not correct. The people (public) of the STATE where the animals reside own those animals. The national public does not own the animals of another state regardless of if those animals are on private, state or federal lands. You may not like the law, but state ownership ( public of THAT state) is the law of the land and therefore the state in question controls wildlife in that state. That is not open for debate. It is fact.