smarandr
Well-known member
Interesting. Didn't know a legislators faith was readily determinable and that southern Idaho Republicans voted in a different block than those in the north.
ID F&G Survey
- Thread starter smarandr
- Start date
Generally they don't. For the most part they vote party line throughout the state. I'll have to admit having a "Farmer from Rexburg" as explained by the Statesmen, chairing the house resources and conservation committee doesn't give me much hope for next sessions game law legislation.
Pinecricker
New member
Steelhead,
Your question, "Aren't hunter numbers (especially NRs) waaaaaay down in Idaho over the past few years?" is a very interesting one. Over the long term, the number of hunters in Idaho has actually shown a steady increase. There have been a few up and down periods, but we have way more hunters than we did 10 or 20 years ago.
That being said, Starting in the 2008 / 2009 season there was a notable drop, but it is important to look at what happened during that period. First, the legislature introduced a price increase on non-resident licenses and tags. Every time license and tag prices have gone up, sales have always dipped. Its a competitive market with other Western States. At the same time that prices increased, Idaho Fish and Game significantly reduced the length of the elk season statewide. It was cut roughly in half!. People were forced to pay more for fewer days to hunt (compared to Montana's very long season, just next door), so participation declined as people went elsewhere. No surprise there.
Note that the zone with the highest elk tag sales in Idaho is the Panhandle region. Traditionally, the over the counter tag Panhandle zone tag included between 3 and 5 days of an either sex season. This was also eliminated in 2008. As might be expected, all three factors combined: higher prices, shorter season, and no OTC cow tags, drove a big decline in overall license and tag sales.
The factor behind the reduced season was that during the 2008/2009 there was extremely dismal news in terms of elk populations. Cow calf ratios were at all time lows, and overall elk numbers were down as much as 60% in areas like unit 6, and the Selway and Clearwater zones. There was a strong link to wolf predation behind these decreases, and wolves were also relisted in 2008. All of the above drove a very negative perception about opportunity in Idaho. Plus, the economy was seriously in the tank too. It was a hard blow to the state.
So back to your question, yes there was a drop in recent years, but it wasn't for lack of demand. It was due to a change in the overall "market conditions" so to speak. In the long term, the number of hunters in Idaho continues to increase, and in the last few years, sales are showing increasing trends again. The idea that hunting participation in Idaho is in decline, or that demand is low, is kind of just a myth.
That being said, our season is still way shorter than it traditionally was, and our general cow season is long gone, probably forever. While Idaho's extremely aggressive wolf management plan has helped elk numbers some, we are still way below historic levels, while at the same time, hunter numbers are as high as they've ever been. So yes, to me it is unethical to try to keep pumping more hunters into this system, when the resource has diminished.
Preference points are just like airline frequent flier miles. They hook the consumer in with the promise of a pay out to keep them coming back. As such, implementing them in Idaho would likely drive numbers up, at least in the zones with lots of controlled hunts (which are typically where the resource is already limited any way - that's why its a controlled hunt and not a general season).
I hope this helps answer your question, and help explains my views in a more nuanced way. I'm not trying to drive any one away, even NR's. I'm just trying to look at the situation realistically, with the long term in mind, and in the context of the health of the resources and the quality of the hunting experience. Granted, some of my views might seem extreme or unrealistic, but it really sucks standing by watching the steady decline of opportunity and quality we have experienced here.
Your question, "Aren't hunter numbers (especially NRs) waaaaaay down in Idaho over the past few years?" is a very interesting one. Over the long term, the number of hunters in Idaho has actually shown a steady increase. There have been a few up and down periods, but we have way more hunters than we did 10 or 20 years ago.
That being said, Starting in the 2008 / 2009 season there was a notable drop, but it is important to look at what happened during that period. First, the legislature introduced a price increase on non-resident licenses and tags. Every time license and tag prices have gone up, sales have always dipped. Its a competitive market with other Western States. At the same time that prices increased, Idaho Fish and Game significantly reduced the length of the elk season statewide. It was cut roughly in half!. People were forced to pay more for fewer days to hunt (compared to Montana's very long season, just next door), so participation declined as people went elsewhere. No surprise there.
Note that the zone with the highest elk tag sales in Idaho is the Panhandle region. Traditionally, the over the counter tag Panhandle zone tag included between 3 and 5 days of an either sex season. This was also eliminated in 2008. As might be expected, all three factors combined: higher prices, shorter season, and no OTC cow tags, drove a big decline in overall license and tag sales.
The factor behind the reduced season was that during the 2008/2009 there was extremely dismal news in terms of elk populations. Cow calf ratios were at all time lows, and overall elk numbers were down as much as 60% in areas like unit 6, and the Selway and Clearwater zones. There was a strong link to wolf predation behind these decreases, and wolves were also relisted in 2008. All of the above drove a very negative perception about opportunity in Idaho. Plus, the economy was seriously in the tank too. It was a hard blow to the state.
So back to your question, yes there was a drop in recent years, but it wasn't for lack of demand. It was due to a change in the overall "market conditions" so to speak. In the long term, the number of hunters in Idaho continues to increase, and in the last few years, sales are showing increasing trends again. The idea that hunting participation in Idaho is in decline, or that demand is low, is kind of just a myth.
That being said, our season is still way shorter than it traditionally was, and our general cow season is long gone, probably forever. While Idaho's extremely aggressive wolf management plan has helped elk numbers some, we are still way below historic levels, while at the same time, hunter numbers are as high as they've ever been. So yes, to me it is unethical to try to keep pumping more hunters into this system, when the resource has diminished.
Preference points are just like airline frequent flier miles. They hook the consumer in with the promise of a pay out to keep them coming back. As such, implementing them in Idaho would likely drive numbers up, at least in the zones with lots of controlled hunts (which are typically where the resource is already limited any way - that's why its a controlled hunt and not a general season).
I hope this helps answer your question, and help explains my views in a more nuanced way. I'm not trying to drive any one away, even NR's. I'm just trying to look at the situation realistically, with the long term in mind, and in the context of the health of the resources and the quality of the hunting experience. Granted, some of my views might seem extreme or unrealistic, but it really sucks standing by watching the steady decline of opportunity and quality we have experienced here.
Last edited:
Steelhead
Active member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2009
- Messages
- 701
I can imagine your despair. If you want to save the resources and the quality then wouldn't the answer be to not have OTC opportunities and go strictly draw like NV...did you just have a stroke?? Or maybe something really inconvenient like either apply for draws or hunt gneral, not both.
Stay with me here buddy. Yes it ain't gonna happen. And yes PPs are a sham, especially in a state where a little work can put you into some great hunting. I'd buy em but only because I felt that I had to. Wasn't it Eastman's that said 8% of max point holders applied for hunts in WY**? That's setting up for a massive point creep forever. I imagine it would be just as bad in Idaho...
**Allow a +/- 58% margin of error for all statistics put out by eastmans
Stay with me here buddy. Yes it ain't gonna happen. And yes PPs are a sham, especially in a state where a little work can put you into some great hunting. I'd buy em but only because I felt that I had to. Wasn't it Eastman's that said 8% of max point holders applied for hunts in WY**? That's setting up for a massive point creep forever. I imagine it would be just as bad in Idaho...
**Allow a +/- 58% margin of error for all statistics put out by eastmans
Pinecricker
New member
Re: "wouldn't the answer be to not have OTC opportunities and go strictly draw like NV"
There is more than one way to skin a cat. Some alternatives to controlled hunts:
1. Implement a 20% to 30% price increase for non-residents. This would help drive hunter numbers down in the zones that don't already have quotas.
2. In quota units, drop the NR quota from 10% down to 5% or 7%.
3. Implement a 2 year residency requirement for resident hunting and fishing licenses.
4. More aggressive regulation of illegal ATV use. There is a huge percentage of hunters that do nothing but drive their fat assess around on ATV's. Hit them a little harder and the lazy suckers would give up hunting all together.
5. Implement a more aggressive predator management program, including more professional trappers. A spring wolf trapping and hunting season would also make a huge difference. Eliminate wolf tags, and just have a general open season like for grouse or coyotes, except with no bag limit.
6. Have a split system, making OTC tags only available to residents. Make NR's draw for everything.
7. Require more aggressive hunter education for rifle hunters. For example, implement a qualification process like we have for archery hunting. Make people prove they can shoot a 1 inch group at 100 yds.
8. Go to game unit specific tags instead of zone specific tags.
9. Make NR's hire an outfitter in Wilderness units, like in WY.
As for the other factors like our expanding population of people, I'm not sure how to control that. Though, our average age is very high, so may be when all the baby boomers start to croak, numbers will do down and drawing odds will improve ;-) Unless they make preference points hereditary, how would that be for point creep ? LOL
There is more than one way to skin a cat. Some alternatives to controlled hunts:
1. Implement a 20% to 30% price increase for non-residents. This would help drive hunter numbers down in the zones that don't already have quotas.
2. In quota units, drop the NR quota from 10% down to 5% or 7%.
3. Implement a 2 year residency requirement for resident hunting and fishing licenses.
4. More aggressive regulation of illegal ATV use. There is a huge percentage of hunters that do nothing but drive their fat assess around on ATV's. Hit them a little harder and the lazy suckers would give up hunting all together.
5. Implement a more aggressive predator management program, including more professional trappers. A spring wolf trapping and hunting season would also make a huge difference. Eliminate wolf tags, and just have a general open season like for grouse or coyotes, except with no bag limit.
6. Have a split system, making OTC tags only available to residents. Make NR's draw for everything.
7. Require more aggressive hunter education for rifle hunters. For example, implement a qualification process like we have for archery hunting. Make people prove they can shoot a 1 inch group at 100 yds.
8. Go to game unit specific tags instead of zone specific tags.
9. Make NR's hire an outfitter in Wilderness units, like in WY.
As for the other factors like our expanding population of people, I'm not sure how to control that. Though, our average age is very high, so may be when all the baby boomers start to croak, numbers will do down and drawing odds will improve ;-) Unless they make preference points hereditary, how would that be for point creep ? LOL
smarandr
Well-known member
Steelhead,
I glad you hunt Idaho, and hope you keep coming back. From my experience I generally like non resident hunters--they seem to appreciate the resource more than a lot of residents who take it for granted.
I glad you hunt Idaho, and hope you keep coming back. From my experience I generally like non resident hunters--they seem to appreciate the resource more than a lot of residents who take it for granted.
Steelhead
Active member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2009
- Messages
- 701
No prob bob. FYI, me and because of me there's been roughly 3.2 thousand dollars in tags donated to Idaho this year and we didn't even remove any animals!!
smarandr
Well-known member
Sounds like a win-win for u us then. 
Steelhead
Active member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2009
- Messages
- 701
1. Implement a 20% to 30% price increase for non-residents. This would help drive hunter numbers down in the zones that don't already have quotas. Why you hatin NRs bro?
2. In quota units, drop the NR quota from 10% down to 5% or 7%. Why you hatin NRs bro?
3. Implement a 2 year residency requirement for resident hunting and fishing licenses. Not a fan of NRs are ya?
4. More aggressive regulation of illegal ATV use. There is a huge percentage of hunters that do nothing but drive their fat assess around on ATV's. Hit them a little harder and the lazy suckers would give up hunting all together. Whoa there!! I though an ATV was required to hunt Idaho...seems that way to me. I thought I'd get one next year and join the crowd.
5. Implement a more aggressive predator management program, including more professional trappers. A spring wolf trapping and hunting season would also make a huge difference. Eliminate wolf tags, and just have a general open season like for grouse or coyotes, except with no bag limit. Yessir!
6. Have a split system, making OTC tags only available to residents. Make NR's draw for everything. Why you hatin NRs bro?
7. Require more aggressive hunter education for rifle hunters. For example, implement a qualification process like we have for archery hunting. Make people prove they can shoot a 1 inch group at 100 yds. I believe you would only be able to sell licenses to 14% of the people that want to hunt!
8. Go to game unit specific tags instead of zone specific tags. Could work but if it's the same number of tags spread over the same 3 or 4 units does it really change anything?
9. Make NR's hire an outfitter in Wilderness units, like in WY. Save the airstrip mafia don't many do this anyway? Still seems like more NR hatin to me...
PS: I'm just having fun with you but I believe NR $$$ is a big part of many states license sales. Also isn't this a pretty big NR forum? It sounds like your personal agenda is to reduce NRs and tag numbers so that you can have it like it was years ago, correct?
2. In quota units, drop the NR quota from 10% down to 5% or 7%. Why you hatin NRs bro?
3. Implement a 2 year residency requirement for resident hunting and fishing licenses. Not a fan of NRs are ya?
4. More aggressive regulation of illegal ATV use. There is a huge percentage of hunters that do nothing but drive their fat assess around on ATV's. Hit them a little harder and the lazy suckers would give up hunting all together. Whoa there!! I though an ATV was required to hunt Idaho...seems that way to me. I thought I'd get one next year and join the crowd.
5. Implement a more aggressive predator management program, including more professional trappers. A spring wolf trapping and hunting season would also make a huge difference. Eliminate wolf tags, and just have a general open season like for grouse or coyotes, except with no bag limit. Yessir!
6. Have a split system, making OTC tags only available to residents. Make NR's draw for everything. Why you hatin NRs bro?
7. Require more aggressive hunter education for rifle hunters. For example, implement a qualification process like we have for archery hunting. Make people prove they can shoot a 1 inch group at 100 yds. I believe you would only be able to sell licenses to 14% of the people that want to hunt!
8. Go to game unit specific tags instead of zone specific tags. Could work but if it's the same number of tags spread over the same 3 or 4 units does it really change anything?
9. Make NR's hire an outfitter in Wilderness units, like in WY. Save the airstrip mafia don't many do this anyway? Still seems like more NR hatin to me...
PS: I'm just having fun with you but I believe NR $$$ is a big part of many states license sales. Also isn't this a pretty big NR forum? It sounds like your personal agenda is to reduce NRs and tag numbers so that you can have it like it was years ago, correct?
fowladdict
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2005
- Messages
- 2,562
This was all great for a good Friday laugh. I would change one thing. Instead of increasing NR hunters fees, can we increase the resident fees 20-30%? As a resident of ID, I would rather hunt with the same number of NR hunters, but with fewer residents.
This was all great for a good Friday laugh. I would change one thing. Instead of increasing NR hunters fees, can we increase the resident fees 20-30%? As a resident of ID, I would rather hunt with the same number of NR hunters, but with fewer residents.
This!
Steelhead
Active member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2009
- Messages
- 701
I don't want to playa hate on my R brothers but I'd be ok with that...
smarandr
Well-known member
ERSS
Well-known member
My opinion - I wish the number was higher, but I hope a near 60% majority will keep the current system in place.
"58 percent of hunters agreed with the statement "I am satisfied with the current controlled-hunt drawing system."
"58 percent of hunters agreed with the statement "I am satisfied with the current controlled-hunt drawing system."
Let's see 33% weren't happy with the current system and of those 77% favored a point system. That figures to about 25%. I'll give 3 to 1 odds the legislator has a bill drafted again this session that will implement a points system in opposition of the 75%.
ERSS
Well-known member
Based on current agendas and past history, I think those are generous odds. It's gonna happen, most likely sponsored and led by Siddoway. He has made it clear in the past how little he thinks of the opinions of the F&G commission.....which is odd, since he used to be on it.
Elkmagnet
Well-known member
The number's seem to line up with my personal beliefs. Well other than the auction tags. I would have liked to see a clear "no" but it is what it is.
I hope this gives f&g some solid ground to dig into this secession.
I hope this gives f&g some solid ground to dig into this secession.
But 43% of the satisfied people supported a point system, another 25%. That's about 50% support, yes? I think it's lame, but that's the way I read it.
quarterhorse
Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2011
- Messages
- 138
It's true that there are people that are not satisfied with the system. Since the number of tags does not increase there will still be lots of people not drawing tags and therefore unhappy - regardless of the system used to distribute the tags. Keep it simple and keep it random. Fair to all who apply that way.
Steelhead
Active member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2009
- Messages
- 701
About friggin time they posted the results of the survey!!
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
2024 College Football 🏈 Season starts tomorrow…. Yee Yee- Latest: Little Big Man MT Chris
-
-
