Idaho TAG GRAB and auction info

[MtnWest]

75% of the people who commented recently were against auctioning the 5 additional tags so F&G postponed the vote.

However, Senate bill 1236 has been introduced and will MANDATE 12 tags be auctioned now, along with possible wolf tags. The auction tags will come out of non-resident allocation, along with this little nugget- "A maximum of 25% of non-resident tags shall be set aside and sold to those who use an outfitter"

So we get a little Utah with the auctions and some New Mexico with the outfitter tag allocation. Custom.

Idaho Fish and Game is against this bill but once again their hands are tied, please contact the legislature to kill this and especially...

Senator
Steve Bair

Representative
Mike Moyle

(208) 332-1346

Senate Bill 1236 - http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/legislation/2016/S1236Bookmark.htm

2016 Legislative Updates pertaining to F&G, along with their position - https://fishandgame.idaho.gov/content/legislative-updates

 

[Big Fin]

Enough is never enough for some groups. And they wonder why the average hunter never trusts a deal that is made. No matter where hunters agree to have the stakes planted, these groups have a tendency to pull the stakes and move them even further.

Good luck fighting the fight.

 

[TheTone]

That set aside is not new; its currently in IC36-408, the new section is the part mandating the 12 auction tags.

 

[MtnWest]

Resources & Environment Committee for ease of contacting

Steve Bair (R)
[email protected]
(208) 684-5209

Steve Vick (R)
[email protected]
(208) 819-4189

Jeff Siddoway (R)
[email protected]
(208) 663-4585

Lee Heider (R)
[email protected]
(208) 731-1631

Sheryl Nuxoll (R)
[email protected]
(208) 962-7718

Clifford Bayer (R)
[email protected]
(208) 362-5058

Marv Hagedorn (R)
[email protected]
(208) 867-5643

Michelle Stennett (D)
[email protected]
(208) 726-8106

Roy Lacey (D)
[email protected]
(208) 406-4216

Representative Mike Moyle (R) (co-author)
[email protected]

 

[smarandr]

I'll be sending emails today.

 

[idcuda]

Thanks for posting the contact info. I'm still not opposed to auctioning a few tags, but the leash would need to be really short. And, I don't want it to be forced down our throats via legislation.

 

[Josh Kuntz]

Emails sent and I also shared the list of legislator contact info on the Idaho Backcountry Hunters & Anglers facebook page. Thanks Big Fin for bringing this up.

 

[Pinecricker]

Who is behind the additional tags piece? Who is driving it?

 

[Big Fin]

Who is behind the additional tags piece? Who is driving it?

I'm not from Idaho, but if I was allowed to bet, my money would be placed on the fact that the origin is no more than two degrees of separation from the state on your southern border, and I'm not talking about Nevada.

 

[brymoore]

Who is behind the additional tags piece? Who is driving it?

The original bill was sponsored by Doug Sayer from Pocatello. I can only guess who is behind the current push to revise the bill.

 

[Pinecricker]

This is one of the most frustrating things about politics in Idaho. Everything happens off the record in "ad hoc committees". There is rarely any transparency into who actually supports or opposes a bill. So many spineless little weasels that don't have the balls to stand up in public.

As far as the origins of this bill, if it came from Southeast Idaho, then by default there is a high chance it has some connection to Utah. Culturally, the people of Southeast Idaho have a sort of collective inferiority complex with Utah (as if the Utards are some how more worthy, because they live in zion). The result is this sort of monkey see monkey do effect with every latest Utard trend that comes along. Unfortunately, they often vote as block in the legislature, which makes them hard to defeat, no matter how nutty their agenda.

 

[OwyheeHuntr]

Emails sent to everyone on the list. Let's hope they are forced to listen due to the amount of feedback they all receive. I worry that if this passes it will be 12 auction tags now...60 by 2025...

 

[OwyheeHuntr]

So far I have received two responses to my emails to the Resources & Environment Committee members in opposition to SB1236. The first was a confirmation that the responding senator opposed the bill and would be voting against it .

The other response was as follows,

" I will ask you to go to Idaho code, title 36, section 103. It says the legislature sets the policy and the commission implements the policy. The direction S1236 sets is to direct the commission to make 12 non resident tags available to auction. These tags do not come from the resident hunters pool nor do they in any way reduce the number of tags available to either group. The opportunity to fill any of these tags remains constant.The money will go to the organization that auctions the tag (5%), access yes (30%) and habitat development and restoration (65%). That's it. It will not affect your opportunity at all."

Guess we should all (including the Fish and Game Commission) just fall in line, not express opinions and let the legislature dictate not only Fish & Game policy but the exact implementation of said policy based on their own agendas... Sound science, common sense and the desires of the residents/sportsman of this state are of no concern...

 

[smarandr]

Let me guess that response was from Siddoway. I got a similar response from him last year regarding the points. My experience is that he doesn't give a rat about sound scientific management or the will of the people he is supposed to be serving.

 

[MtnWest]

Guess we should all (including the Fish and Game Commission) just fall in line, not express opinions and let the legislature dictate not only Fish & Game policy but the exact implementation of said policy based on their own agendas... Sound science, common sense and the desires of the residents/sportsman of this state are of no concern...

Yep. We need to be good little sheep. These people will take care of us.

I received zero response from the committee. I did get an email back from Derick Attebury (Upper Snake region Commissioner)

"I support your positions.
If it was really about the "generating revenue" argument, the fee increase would have already been passed.
Keep up the good fight! Your fellow hunter, angler and trapper - Derick"

 

[BuzzH]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Idaho an "up to 10%" of the tags are issued to NR?

If so, that means no set aside, pool, or allotment of NR permits.

Assuming that's the case, how does the Legislature or Commission "take" tags away from the NR "pool" for this drawing, when there isn't a pool of NR tags to take from?

Sounds to me like the Residents will actually be the ones losing tags.

 

[TheTone]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Idaho an "up to 10%" of the tags are issued to NR?

If so, that means no set aside, pool, or allotment of NR permits.

Assuming that's the case, how does the Legislature or Commission "take" tags away from the NR "pool" for this drawing, when there isn't a pool of NR tags to take from?

Sounds to me like the Residents will actually be the ones losing tags.

Correct on the NR tag system. I wouldn't say ID legislators are good at math, or much of anything really.

 

[brymoore]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Idaho an "up to 10%" of the tags are issued to NR?

If so, that means no set aside, pool, or allotment of NR permits.

Assuming that's the case, how does the Legislature or Commission "take" tags away from the NR "pool" for this drawing, when there isn't a pool of NR tags to take from?

Sounds to me like the Residents will actually be the ones losing tags.

Yes, the wording is up to 10% of tags go to NRs. The quota is met most of the time. It will not be hard to set the quota program to remove the tags from the NRs for the draws. For example, there are 88 bighorn sheep tags. IDF&G gives 8 tags to NRs. They will set the quota going forward that the NR allocation is 7 tags.

 

[Oak]

They will set the quota going forward that the NR allocation is 7 tags.

"Up to" 7 tags.

 

[Elkmagnet]

" I will ask you to go to Idaho code, title 36, section 103. It says the legislature sets the policy and the commission implements the policy. The direction S1236 sets is to direct the commission to make 12 non resident tags available to auction. These tags do not come from the resident hunters pool nor do they in any way reduce the number of tags available to either group. The opportunity to fill any of these tags remains constant.The money will go to the organization that auctions the tag (5%), access yes (30%) and habitat development and restoration (65%). That's it. It will not affect your opportunity at all."

Sounds like a power trip.
I haven't received this reply from anyone I hope you find time to reply to him.

Here's a few points you may want to bring up.
Tags are set by harvest capacity with all tags accounted for doing it any other way would just be silly.

You might bring up how the situation in Utah has not gone unnoticed by you and others. May include original #of tags and current # and how you feel it has affected the draw odds in Utah.
Lastly you might include a few quotes from the oath he took to represent the people and how you feel he is listing to your concerns.

He is obviously going to be aware of everything that you write and is just choosing to look the other way and these are also obviously just suggestions.
The challenge is going to be writing it in a non confrontational way but still making him aware that you are educated on the bigger picture. Somthing that i lack the ability to do.
If you are so lucky to get a second reply please share if nothing else it'll be worth another laugh