Idaho Fee Increase Proposal

[JoseCuervo]

Jose, drinking Keystone and reading really don't mix. It has obviously had an adverse effect on your reading and comprehension skills, particularly my recommendations for generating revenue and operating a more fiscally responsible government agency. But the futility of offering such suggestions reminds me of what John Steinbeck once said about advice, " You know how advice is. You only want it if it agrees with what you wanted to do anyway."

I tend to like my beer with quite a bit more hop flavour than Keystone Light has, and, unlike you, I don't try and drink an 18-pack before doing economic analysis on a barstool. Been drinking a lot of Local Pale Ales, as I appreciate keeping my money local as much as possible.

But, enough about me. Although I know I am a fascinating topic, let's talk about you and your ideas on how you want to underfund the IdFG and get more "something" from them.

What do you think you should have to pay for your Resident Hunting license?

 

[TheTone]

My friend your memory and records which you cite for nonresident and resident increases are clearly short term and convenient for support of your position. Study the long term record of increases which precede 2006 for both resident and especially non residents. And what have you received for these additional fee increases? The same rhetoric and requests for more money to feed the "starving programs" of the IDF&G and it's undernourished employees. .

So if there was a fee increase what do you want them to do with more money? A six point bull behind every bush? Your choice of multiple big muley bucks every day on opening day? 15 pound trout willing to eat anything thrown towards them? That's not exactly how management of wildlife and fisheries works.

 

[Whiptail]

As far as NR's go, they absolutely should pay a lot more. They don't live in the State, don't pay taxes there, likely aren't involved with local sporting groups, aren't volunteering to teach hunters safety, etc. So, they should have to shell out for the privilege of hunting ID's wildlife. Even at that, its still a bargain, IMO.

Nonresidents absolutely pay taxes to support federal land that supports the majority of Idaho's wildlife and so much so that your main argument against the transfer of Federal lands to the state is they can't afford to keep them. Excluding nonresidents only fuels the fire to get rid of Federal land.

 

[BuzzH]

Nonresidents absolutely pay taxes to support federal land that supports the majority of Idaho's wildlife and so much so that your main argument against the transfer of Federal lands to the state is they can't afford to keep them. Excluding nonresidents only fuels the fire to get rid of Federal land.

If NR's having to pay higher fees is going to be your argument to get rid of Federal lands., then you weren't a public lands advocate to start with.

Plus, you're talking 2 separate issues, public land management and wildlife management. Two separate governing bodies, 2 separate mandates, etc.

 

[bobbydean]

Jose Cuervo,

Agree with your posts. You are provocative poster. Agree completely on some posts and disagree completely on others. You are your own man.

Buzz. You are an asset for the hunting community. Your strong beliefs on what is right and fighting for it is encouraging and gives hope in the process.


Thanks to both you guys. I think you are in the battle field states. Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, and the Dakotas are at the center of public lands fight. I hope you win!

 

[Whiptail]

If NR's having to pay higher fees is going to be your argument to get rid of Federal lands., then you weren't a public lands advocate to start with.

Plus, you're talking 2 separate issues, public land management and wildlife management. Two separate governing bodies, 2 separate mandates, etc.

I'm for nonresidents paying higher fees within reason(29X is not reasonable), but the other bigger issue is nonresidents being completely excluded. Try doing a NR DIY Alaskan sheep hunt or a NR DIY Wyoming Wilderness elk hunt or NR DIY New Mexico cow elk hunt. These types of policies do nothing to help public land stay public.

Land management and wildlife management may be two separate governing bodies but they are definitely intertwined. Only a bureaucrat or a spoiled western hunter would think otherwise.

 

[idnative1948]

Wow! Very well put without flying off the handle.

elkmagnet,

You're fighting a losing battle with guys like Hannibal. They would whine if tags were free.

What guys like this don't understand is that Management costs money. Salaries, vehicles, fuel, etc. etc. etc. all cost more than it did in 2006. There are people that think the IDGF should be driving a horse and buggie, wardens should make $3.50 an hour, and their deer tag should only cost 50 cents.

Hunting is a privilege and not a right...we pay for the privilege of hunting. Residents are not being forced out of hunting due to license fees in any state. We're talking literally a couple months of pocket change to hunt as a Resident in nearly all states, including Idaho. I probably have enough change in the ash tray of my truck to pay for a Resident hunting license and deer tag.

As far as NR's go, they absolutely should pay a lot more. They don't live in the State, don't pay taxes there, likely aren't involved with local sporting groups, aren't volunteering to teach hunters safety, etc. So, they should have to shell out for the privilege of hunting ID's wildlife. Even at that, its still a bargain, IMO.

Hunters spend more on the latest mickey-mouse gadget, elk piss, camo, optics, lunch, fuel, etc. etc. than all of their license fees combined. Cheapest part of the whole operation is the license fees...even NR license fees. I pay them, and greedily.

Don't worry about it, just get the legislation passed and ignore the "their pricing us out" whiners.

 

[JLS]

Nonresidents absolutely pay taxes to support federal land that supports the majority of Idaho's wildlife and so much so that your main argument against the transfer of Federal lands to the state is they can't afford to keep them. Excluding nonresidents only fuels the fire to get rid of Federal land.

Only if you don't understand that your federal taxes don't go to the stat fish and game agencies. Federal land managers have their job to do and state wildlife managers have theirs. They are certainly not intertwined as you state.

 

[JLS]

The blank check mentality of most legislators is irrational, obsolete and clearly on it's way out.

You are correct. It has been replaced by a mentality of do your job but we won't fund you.

I'm failing to see any of the logic in what you've written thus far. If IDFG is already underfunded, what programs would you suggest be eliminated? Be specific, don't just give me the frugal and conservative bullshit. Explain to me the financial viability of significantly reducing license fees, yet coming up with innovative revenue generating methods? Again, give some specifics. Back up your talk.

Money doesn't just fall out of trees, and underfunding a fish and game agency that is tasked with managing species such as ESA salmon and steelhead, wolves, dealing with disease issues in bighorn sheep, etc., is one sure way to end up spending a bunch of needless money on lawsuits.

I believe in fairness when calculating NR license fees, but to significantly reduce the prices would not only be financially irresponsible, it would be borderline stupidity. Why should Idaho NOT use a resource to generate revenue for the benefit of its residents? There is a boundary between price gouging and maximizing revenues. Idaho found out the hard way what that was and has adjusted its pricing to reflect that.

 

[Elkmagnet]

The cost to run the draw went from $3,000 to $100,000? Or $2m?

yet another attempt by a gang of legislators making demands of the commission that aren’t supported by sportsmen. They’re intent on forcing the commission to double ($750,000 to $1.5 million) the current annual set aside available to landowners for crop damage by wildlife. Funded by hunting license sales, the fund goes unclaimed most years since landowner claims rarely total $750,000. Gibbs wants the fund doubled for undisclosed reasons. Last year Sen. Bert Brackett authored and passed bill S1344, mandating IDFG hire a contractor to manage controlled hunt drawings. S1344’s estimated annual cost of $100,000 starkly contrasts the current annual in-house cost of $3,000. The actual cost of S1344 is $2 million annually. During 10 years without a fee increase, IDFG’s purchasing power has reduced from inflation by 20 percent. 2017’s price-lock fee increase proposal would generate approximately $2 million annually. S1344 and the depredation increase will cost almost $3 million annually, nullifying the added benefit of the proposed fee increase. Perhaps it’s time the Legislature passes the sportsman supported fee increase for IDFG and quit saddling us with unjustified increased costs.

Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/article134634049.html#storylink=cpy

 

[TheTone]

The cost to run the draw went from $3,000 to $100,000? Or $2m?

Ouch!!! All because a bunch of people complained to their legislators that somehow the draw system wasn't fair, that somehow some people were getting preferential treatment, and they didn't understand that hunts with low odds are tough to draw. This one definitely needs more press coverage.

 

[fowladdict]

http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/bois...e-increase-passes-senate-34-0-heads-governor/

 

[Idahoarcheryhunter]

So raise fees to create 500,000 more to landowners for "crop damage" didn't know it was my responsibility to foot the bill for the landowners unwilling to let people hunt.

 

[ShootsManyBullets]

Thank God the landowners got some extra money in the bill to incentivize not allowing access for hunting.

Walmart has a price match guarantee. Idaho should do a price match instead of a price lock. "We'll match the price of the highest resident fees in the west each year - guaranteed. "

Like most states the cost of resident licenses is ridiculously low and needs to be raised or we end up with the Utah auction model of wildlife theft. I'm not an Idaho resident, but am a resident in another state and have no problem thinking my licenses and tags should be worth more than a tank of gas and half rack of Keystone.

It's sad to realize that I could go to First Lite or Sitka and buy a pair of underwear to shart in that costs more than a big game tag.

 

[Elkmagnet]

My only concern with "pricelock" is I wonder if it will decreases the controlled hunt draw odds. I guess we will see.

 

[fowladdict]

My only concern with "pricelock" is I wonder if it will decreases the controlled hunt draw odds. I guess we will see.

This was a big thing for me. Why does a resident fee increase need a selling point to get it through? This isn't what the majority of the residents are asking for. My concern with doing something like this is similar to bonus/preference points, once you implement such a thing you cannot undo it. Seriously...instead of buying Calvin Klein undies just buy some old fashioned BVDs and you saved more money than the resident tag increase would be.

 

[Elkmagnet]

Hopefully it will be in significant. But I do agree.
It's really sad that by the time we can get a fee increase passed we are further behind then we were before due to other expensive and unnecessary legislation.
Now we will have to wait years to get another one.

 

[1_pointer]

Hopefully it will be in significant. But I do agree.
It's really sad that by the time we can get a fee increase passed we are further behind then we were before due to other expensive and unnecessary legislation.
Now we will have to wait years to get another one.

I wonder if it's possible to set up a donation account for F&G? That way, sportsmen could add to the account for F&G management until they can get a fee increase passed. Think GOFundMe for F&G.

 

[noharleyyet]

These threads are many....all crescendo...no cowbell.

NR's....STFU