ID F&G Survey

[Steelhead]

I just took the survey. A couple questions into the deal I went back and changed some answers to basically vote a straight "No" ticket. For those opposed to a point system... after reading the survey questions I believe that any "middle ground" will just lead to micro-managing changes and that would likely be a zoo...thus leading to more micro-changes...thus leading to an eventual point system or back to no points at all...basically a big waste of time.

PS: O-23, if you're applying for hunts with 20-25% draw odds and applying for deer and elk it's only a matter of time before you hit a 5 year hot streak where you draw a tag every year and sometimes two in the same year.

 

[Sawtooth]

PS: O-23, if you're applying for hunts with 20-25% draw odds and applying for deer and elk it's only a matter of time before you hit a 5 year hot streak where you draw a tag every year and sometimes two in the same year.

This^^^
After 19 years of not getting drawn, my son and I went the last three years in a row (me, then him, then me again) on a 20% draw odd bull elk tag. I had to sit out this year and he didn't draw this year so it is back to the general hunt for us. But it was nice to know I had as good a chance as anyone to return after the one year wait period. I could live with a longer waiting period for the premium control hunts, but don't like the point system.

 

[orion23]

I hope so SH. But I keep thinking that. Been here 19 years and have drawn 1 deer and 1 antelope. Both 25%. This year applied for 50% elk, 50% deer, 33% 2nd choice deer, and 33% antelope. Nothing. U can see my concern. Wait. Correction. I did draw an X doe tag!

 

[Steelhead]

Been here 19 years and have drawn 1 deer and 1 antelope. Both 25%. This year applied for 50% elk, 50% deer, 33% 2nd choice deer, and 33% antelope. Nothing.

That statement is sickening and I feel sorry for you. I don't know what to tell you but I'll give you the cold hard truth George Jones style...ready?
It seems that your desire to change the entire system is based on the fact that you're super, super, super duper, unlucky...

 

[Steelhead]

And that's ok; just own it if it's true. I try and convince WDFW to make the changes that I want all the time, never happens.

Also you know what they say about persistence...
How many times have you been hunting and just climbed another hill, and another...or looked into one more draw, or looked stayed just another 20 minutes up on the hill?
Bangoville!! That's what happens. Just keep at it.

PS: If you're an Idaho resident and you're semi-dedicated to deer and elk hunting you are killing good deer and decent bulls fairly regularly with your general season and limited quota hunts aren't you?

 

[MontanaWild]

I personally like the no points system they currently have in place. Every year is a new year. I just took the survey and hope that something good comes of it. Everyone always has some opinion on these issues but you'll never make everyone happy. Fortunately there are enough great OTC hunts in the West that you should never be bored or feeling like you can't shoot the trophy of a lifetime.

 

[Paul in Idaho]

I don't see a direct link to the survey posted earlier in this thread, so here it is: https://idfg.idaho.gov/webform/open-survey-controlled-hunt-drawings-and-auction-tags

 

[RobG]

I don't think increasing the wait period will help much. If you have 5% odds having a wait period of 1 year would only increase the odds to 5.2%. Five year wait would only get you to 6.6%, and that is assuming no new applicants. Maybe my math was wrong...

What is the opinion on the auction tags? (The topic of the second half of the survey).

 

[smarandr]

Maybe my math was wrong...

One of the many things I've learned as a practicing accountant is that the engineer's math is never wrong

 

[Steelhead]

I'm usually pretty indifferent to auction tags...however that's only because I assume that the money is going directly to IDFG.

PS: Idaho meet team mossback

 

[TheTone]

PS: Idaho meet team mossback

Would it surprise you if most of the "want" for auction tags and points is coming from people that live close to Utah?

My survey is done, I hope my responses are similar to the majority of others.

 

[brymoore]

RE: Auction tags. The expected revenue is around $200k for the 12 tags. $100k of that is from the sheep tag, which will be the THIRD sheep tag auctioned or sold. (FYI wild sheep numbers have declined during the entire period of the first two sheep tags).

Personal feelings, its a little money for start down a potentially slippery slope.

 

[TheTone]

RE: Auction tags. The expected revenue is around $200k for the 12 tags. $100k of that is from the sheep tag, which will be the THIRD sheep tag auctioned or sold. (FYI wild sheep numbers have declined during the entire period of the first two sheep tags).

Personal feelings, its a little money for start down a potentially slippery slope.

Where did you find info on the expected revenue, did I miss that on the survey page?

 

[idnative1948]

Expected revenue is on Part 2 (Auction Tags) of the survey.

"Idaho law allows the Idaho Fish and Game Commission to authorize tags to be sold through auction. These tags are auctioned in a public setting to the highest bidder and the revenue can only be used by IDFG for the conservation of these species and for hunter access programs. No third party benefits from the auction proceeds.

The Commission has the authority to release an additional 12 tags to be sold through auction (3 deer, 3 elk, 3 pronghorn, 1 moose, 1 mountain goat and 1 bighorn sheep tags). These tags may provide an estimated $200,000-$300,000 annually to dedicated management programs for these species. While some consider auctioning tags an appropriate way to raise money for wildlife management, others are concerned that it makes these tags available only to those who can afford to bid on them."

Where did you find info on the expected revenue, did I miss that on the survey page?

 

[idelkhntr]

What a tool!

He is a tool. I had the opportunity to listen to him speak about a proposed law that impacted cities and counties. Instead of understanding the impact of his proposal on cities and counties he told us to learn how to deal with less and went into some story about selling a sheep ranch for less than he wanted to. My first reaction was what does a rich SOB making less money on the sale of property have to do with his lack of concern for the people of this state? He clearly doesn't care about the people, only himself.

 

[Steelhead]

If you're an Idaho resident and you're semi-dedicated to deer and elk hunting you are killing good deer and decent bulls fairly regularly with your general season and limited quota hunts aren't you?

And...I'm assuming that your answer to this is "no".

 

[Pinecricker]

My predictions on how this will work out:

Past surveys have repeatedly shown that Idahoan's hate controlled hunts period. They want the opportunity to hunt elk every year with out having to draw. As such, I think they will chime in overwhelmingly against any kind of preference points.

Unfortunately, our legislature are a bunch of a-holes. The speaker (who is usually both the party boss and a high ranking Mormon church official) controls the legislative agenda like an absolute dictator. The entire mess is very susceptible to the influences of minority special interests, which is why this issue ever came up in the legislature in the first place.

Some messed up form of PP will make it onto the legislative floor, despite strong public support against it. That's just Idaho politics. Governor Otter will sign it if it makes it to his desk. It will be up to the lobbying efforts of Sportsmen to stop it. Unfortunately, our sportsmen's lobby has been infiltrated by agriculture interests masquerading as sportsmen, so mustering a strong opposition will be a challenge.

As for IDFG, regardless of what sportsmen want, if they think they can make a buck off this then they will support it. They have a long history of ignoring public sentiment on these types of issues. They are also pretty crafty at spinning this type of thing to manufacture support for their own positions. Indications are so far that they don't see this as a money maker, but they don't have a ton of influence with the legislature.

My personal opinion on it, I HATE it. When I began hunting elk over 25 years ago, with an over the counter Panhandle Zone tag, I could hunt the entire month of September for archery, all of October for rifle, most of November for muzzleloader season, and a good bit of December for late archery. Half of archery and rifle were either sex. Harvesting a big bull was possible, but you had to work your ass off, and had to really know the country.

Now we have to choose a weapon, cows are all controlled hunts, and rifle is pared down to 2 weeks. Elk numbers are down from wolves (over 300 wolves have been killed in the Panhandle since 2012 so don't give me any BS that wolves don't make an impact on elk). The numbers of hunters are up considerably, including the disproportionate share of non-residents we get in the Panhandle compared to the rest of Idaho (there is no NR quota in the Panhandle like there is in other zones).

The overall hunting experience here is getting worse as the number of hunters increases, the amount of ATV traffic increases, and cow calf ratios remain in the red due to predation. Moving to preference points and to more controlled hunts would only exacerbate an already bad and worsening situation. It has never been easy, TV show style hunting here, but there has always been opportunity for those with the skill and determination. Preference points will be the end of opportunity.

Some argue that the sport needs more hunters, but IMO it is a dubious argument. More hunters might mean more dollars to fish and game departments, but those extra dollars don't translate directly into more hunting opportunities or into higher quality opportunities. The money also doesn't translate directly into better habitat, or to larger or more sustainable game populations. However, there is strong evidence that most new spending ends up as waste, spent on superfluous programs. With this, more hunters means a degraded hunting experience for everyone.

We don't need preference points. What we need is habitat free from suburban encroachment, fewer ATV's and lower hunter densities. It is simply unethical to try to keep pumping more hunters into the system, when its already maxed out. That's kind of what PP will accomplish. Let the NR's go to MT, CO and elsewhere to draw hunt. We truly don't need them here, and we don't want controlled hunts to begin with. Its just not a fit for Idaho.

 

[smarandr]

So bonus points are a Mormon conspiracy?

 

[Pinecricker]

No, but with the exception of the Democrats, nearly every legislator from South of the Salmon River is a Mormon, and they vote as a block. As such, the house speaker can ramrod any legislation through that he wants. If some one has his attention with this issue, there is a good chance it will go somewhere.

So bonus points are a Mormon conspiracy?

 

[Steelhead]

PR. I dig your passion brother.
Let me start off by saying...good luck getting this NR to go elsewhere.
Justify or educate me on "unethical to keep pumping more hunters into the system, when it's already maxed out."
Aren't hunter numbers (especially NRs) waaaaaay down in Idaho over the past few years? Like to the point where there's still over 2,000 NR deer licenses available and 3,000 NR elk licenses available?