Idaho "Preference Points" revisited

I just took IDFG on-line survey addressing limited quota applications and the sale/auction of trophy tags to raise general revenue.

As for offering more trophy tags for auction to raise money...I would vote "NO" but it isn't a "die-on-my-sword"-type of principle for me. I would rather see a five dollar increase in resident tags/licenses than continue a trend to use put outrageous values on our wildlife. We already have too much commercialization of wildlife in my opinion.

I was, however, very disappointed in the options presented to address making drawing odds better for ordinary Idaho hunters. Really, the only two options presented were 1) preference point system or 2) having successful applicants sit out "2 or 3" years from applying (as opposed to one year at present).

I am absolutely and unalterably opposed to a preference point system of any kind. I lived in Colorado for 10 years, Wyoming for 10 years and now Idaho for 15 years. I hunt out-of-state in Montana. Colorado and Montana have preference point systems, although they are different...and they simply don't work for the average hunter who is working hard, has to make time to hunt and has children they wish to introduce to hunting. Take my word for it. I have plenty of friends in that category. They complain about the preference point system not working...and in the case of Montana...costing them additional money (in Montana, you have to purchase your preference points). A preference point system works for avid trophy hunters. They usually apply to four or five Western States a year and only expect to hunt in one of those states a year (or their home state if they don't draw). Waiting 6 or 7 years for a tag (as their preference points build up) is not big deal for that group. These folks really comprise a very small minority of hunters....and we shouldn't be setting policy to address their needs. Policy should be set to address the needs of the majority of hunters.

With wait times measured by decades for some tags, sitting out "2 or 3 years" isn't really commensurate or fair to everyone. I think successful applicants should set out a minimum of 5 years. Example: John draws a trophy deer tag in 2015. John can not apply for a trophy deer tag in any trophy deer unit in Idaho until 2016.

Perhaps the wait should be even longer. Without asking, IDFG really doesn't know what Idaho's hunters would prefer to do to be fair to everyone and increase drawing odds in a fair and equitable way for everyone, from the youngest hunter to the oldest.

This would, of course, require IDFG to label those hunt units that are being managed for "trophy"/quality hunting.

I wrote IDFG after I took the survey to let them know that I felt they did not present enough reasonable options for addressing the long waits for our trophy units. I don't think the survey came close to gauging how we feel. It would have been appropriate to take a few months to ask us for options/solutions so that the best of the options suggested by hunters could have been in the survey. Anyone else feel the survey was pretty useless?

>It would have been appropriate to
>take a few months to
>ask us for options/solutions so
>that the best of the
>options suggested by hunters could
>have been in the survey.

I agree with that statement, but I do not think the survey was useless. Doing nothing is useless, but they are making an effort to improve draw odds, since many are complaining. I think the complaining would slow if people would look at odds in other states, especially for the trophy species. They would then realize that we have OTC hunts here that would take 2-3 points to draw in other states.

Here are my $0.02

For your 5 year waiting period to make sense, you would have to categorize the different tags like Utah with their general, limited and premium hunts.

I usually put in for a 5:1 type bull hunt. I drew that tag this year, so that means I could not apply again until 2020. At that point, with 5:1 odds, it could take another 5 years to draw that tag after that. You really want to draw a tag, with 20% odds, possibly only once every 10 years? If that's what we want, just set up the point system now and give us all false hope, along with (hopefully) a tag every 10-20 years.

If they did categorize the tags according to quality, it's gonna drive the price up. You will be paying $1100 for your premium tag as a NR, just like Utah. Because then people would be complaining that the tags should not cost the same, if the waiting periods aren't the same.

I like the ideas they presented. I'd be in favor of a 2 year waiting period, but probably not any longer. Choosing your species might dramatically increase odds for antelope, but not deer or elk. Those 2 are the money makers here and more people will focus there.

I kind of like putting my name in the hat for all 4 species, never know what your gonna draw. Idaho is just simply not a trophy state, put your name in the hat, have a blast every year with the OTC hunts and play the points game in the neighboring states. If your willing to put forth the money and effort there's something for everyone in the west.

All of these discussions and proposals honestly just seem to point right back to leaving the system the way it is.

>I agree with that statement, but
>I do not think the
>survey was useless. Doing nothing
>is useless, but they are
>making an effort to improve
>draw odds, since many are
>complaining. I think the complaining
>would slow if people would
>look at odds in other
>states
>
Or they could do nothing. If it ain't broke don't fix it
>
>Choosing your species might dramatically
>increase odds for antelope, but
>not deer or elk. Those
>2 are the money makers
>here and more people will
>focus there.
>

I see the opposite effect. If they went to choose your species across the board I could see odds getting worse for trophy species and antelope, and more people deciding to take advantage of OTC opportunities. I could be wrong just my opinion

>I see the opposite effect. If
>they went to choose your
>species across the board I
>could see odds getting worse
>for trophy species and antelope,
>and more people deciding to
>take advantage of OTC opportunities.
>I could be wrong just
>my opinion

Could be. I think it would fluctuate a lot from year to year, as odds would be high for one species one year, then everyone would jump on that the next year, and the odds would decline immensely.

I'm in favor of not screwing with anything.

LAST EDITED ON Nov-14-15 AT 01:33PM (MST)[p]Clearwater I totally agree that the waiting periods should be at least 3 years, but the Id fish and game is greed towards NRs. They want that 150$ hunting licence as often as they can get it. If a hunters sitting on the sidelines, no $ for them. PS I'm against any point system.

I vote for points and a longer waiting period.

One idea that has bounced around my head for awhile. Since the biggest complaint you hear is from the "I've been putting in for 10/15/20(pick a number) years without drawing Idaho needs a point system" why not start a point system, but with a twist. No pay for points or anything like that. Every app gets a point, all points are capped at 10, points 1-9 get you nothing, when you hit the cap they have a pool of up to 25% of tags set aside for 10 point holders(up to because many tags will have few to no 10 point holders). The other 75% of tags would be totally random draw with all of the 10 point holders included. I am assuming there would not be a lot of 10 point holders on most tags so odds would not change much at all and a large enough portion of the tags would still be available to the general populace to not set back the new hunters who come behind us. It would obviously be a 10 yr implementation process where absolutely nothing would be different. Keep everything else the same, 1 trophy species app or deer, elk and antelope only, 10% cap on non residents, 1 year wait, and all that other business.

I vote for NO point system. The odds really wont improve much. Youth hunters get way behind the game.

What they need to do is stop allowing youth and archery hunters to shoot does except in depredation areas. It is a joke to have people shooting does when the population objectives in many areas are below capacity.

Discontinue two tags for bucks at reduced prices.

Discontinue doe harvest except in problem areas.

Increase price for Residents 5-10 dollars if they need an increase of revenue.

There are plenty of quality units to shoot a trophy buck if the herds are managed better IMO.

Agreed, no point system, and raise resident fees a few bucks. I also don't know if guys shooting 2 bucks a piece is great for the herd.

But...

Keep shooting does, a lot of winter range has burned around the reservoirs in 39 and 43. Winter range is declining while numbers are increasing. Not enough carrying capacity if the herd keeps growing, sooner than later I think we're going to have a big die off. Especially with as many deer as I saw this year and if we keep getting these mild winters.

Populations are doing just fine in SW Idaho, although it would be nice to have slightly higher B2D ratios in some units. 1 in 10 or 1 in 15 is a pretty weak goal I think.

I apply for tags in multiple states every year and I prefer no point system. Point systems will temporally increase odds for those that get in on the ground floor. In the long run, your odds will be decreased. I think point systems are a great idea when the odds are better than 20% for drawing a tag. Point systems don't work on the highly sought after tags that have odds around 1%.

I say keep things the way they are with one exception. The F&G should do away with the ability to purchase a second tag at nonresident price. Giving a second tag to the guys who put the most pressure on the mature bucks in the OTC units is one of the worst management practices I've seen.

The second deer tag is a joke, just desperate for more $. If the want to sell more gen tags maybe extend the hunt a week??

Populations might be OK in some areas. They are still low in SE region. Great winter range as well. No point system.

Same story and arguments over and over. Good though, reinforces to F&G of what the public wants. Not to insinuate that MM represents what the public wants.

This survey likely has a lot to do with the legislature's actions last year and yes if anything is pushing the F&G to seek higher revenue through increased number of tag sales it is because the legislature won't increase their budget without the "pork" in form of BP, Landowner Tags, and Auction Tags which all sniffs much like the influence of SFW that infected Utah, etc. This is a warning to learn from other's mistakes.

Right now we have more than enough deer, relative to holding capacity to sell both Doe tags and Second buck tags. This comes down to understanding biology and the fact that you don't need a bunch of bucks or a bunch of 180 class bucks to impregnate the does. This has NO impact on genetic trophy quality, just age class, which is different. As TWSNOW said, the carrying capacity is compromised. Let's see where we standing in SW Idaho in 15 years when the bitter brush is back.

BP's are a joke. Anyone who understands math will understand this comment. Yet some still want the advantage over all others. This isn't about being the unlucky one. Hell, if that is the philosophy to live by then bring on Socialism. I know that's a bit of a strong analogy, but the fact is it's not really fair that I'm not a world class athlete when hunting season opens and the young guns go by me no problem to get to the big bucks at the top of the mtn. Some time your number comes up and some times not. No one should ##### because they can't draw that 45 tag, as statistically it's the lottery. The greatest thing is having a fair chance, including for my kids and now at my age grandkids.

So, send in your opinion even if it is the wrong one(wink) and make sure that your legislature knows that the way they vote counts and you might just have to vote in a liberal if they vote to cutoff F&G's funding, or implement a BP system.

Dang! I wish this topic would just die already! How many times do we have to keep,hearing guys complain about a points system. NO Already! ?

Mike Henne

BPKHunter you hit it right on the head. This is all a result of legislature issues trying to push points and auction tags.

LAST EDITED ON Nov-18-15 AT 03:11PM (MST)[p]deerlove the general seasons in Idaho are too long Now that is in My opinion one of the reasons the herds are where they are at now !!

twosnow I agree with u on no points & fee increases But shooting does will have an effect on the herds & when F&G has open hunts on wintering & breeding grounds even more of an effect !! I was in 45 on Saturday this past week & saw 2 bucks breed 2 does BOTH of those does were shot by people with doe tags so NOT only did they kill the 2 does but also & additional 2 to 4 deer that would have been born in the spring !! there are 250 Nov 1st to Nov 14th doe tags & then another 300 does tags for Nov 15th to Nov 30th & also another 250 250 Youth doe tags for Nov 15th to Nov 30th all in 45 how many of these does are actually resident deer in 45 & not wintering from 39 43 or 44 !!

Living in CO I will tel you this, points suck! I absolutely loath points and everything they do. Every damn year it is a stressful game.

Random draw is by far the best. Either you get lucky or you do not.

I for one am sick and tired of the whiny babies who think they are owed crap just because they are old. You play the odds and nothing more. By the time my kids start hunting, the unit I grew up hunting will be out of reach. My kids will have no chance to hunt the same country we are now hunting every 3 years. In another 5 years it will take 4 years to draw the deer tag maybe more. That means my kids will be in College or close to it by the time they have the chance to go hunt where great grandpa, grandpa, mom, dad, uncle have all hunted. I would mush rather play odds at least they will have a chance!

A tier style wait period would work, draw a level 1 tag wait 1 year, level 2 tag 3 years, ;eve; 5 tag 5 years before being able to apply for that species anywhere...

I hate the PP systems in both CO and WY and I have enough points to hunt, but it just sucks!

>twosnow I agree with u
>on no points & fee
>increases But shooting does
>will have an effect on
>the herds & when F&G
>has open hunts on wintering
>& breeding grounds even more
>of an effect !!
>I was in 45 on
>Saturday this past week &
>saw 2 bucks breed 2
>does BOTH of those
>does were shot by people
>with doe tags
>so NOT only did they
>kill the 2 does
>but also & additional 2
>to 4 deer that would
>have been born in the
>spring !! there are
>250 Nov 1st to Nov
>14th doe tags & then
>another 300 does tags for
>Nov 15th to Nov 30th
> & also another 250
>250 Youth doe tags for
>Nov 15th to Nov 30th
> all in 45
> how many of these
>does are actually resident deer
>in 45 & not
>wintering from 39 43 or
>44 !!

Are you aware of how much wintering ground has been lost in Unit 45 alone to fires, not to mention 39. We've had a number of very mild winters. Even a moderate winter would have a good chance of a significant winter kill, so I think what makes sense and what TWSnow is saying is now is an okay time to kill some DOES and I agree.

Additionally in units 39/43/45, we have a lot of habitat that holds summering deer that was impacted by fires, so even the carrying capacity there is likely compromised.

Please save your good old days argument, it's gone like $.99/gal gas and bipartisan politics. There are PLENTY of deer, and if you can't find one, hunt harder.

BPK yes I know how much land was burned in 43 & 45 Hunt 43 every year { one hunt this year was almost a 7 Mile hike in & out one day} But I am sure that YOU hunt harder give me a damn break I logged 78 miles on my boots & GPS bow hunting elk this year how about you ?? But yeah maybe I need to hunt harder !! I don't have any issues killing does they should have these hunts for kids & meat hunters ..BUT are YOU seriously going to say there in NOTHING wrong with killing does that have been bred or may be bred before the end of the rut !!!! IF so we sure as hell wont have to worry about any herd abundance !!

Anyone attend the commission meeting?

I Like points. Atleast it gives you an idea of when you might draw a tag. Points only suck if you are trying to draw the most sought after tags. A system like Nevada has would be nice. The lucky sob's would still get lucky and the unlucky could build up to something. Best of both worlds and the F & G still gets there money.

All this talk about preference points is hard to swallow when something as easy as making hunters choose their weapon for each deer tag would make hunting better for everybody in all seasons. Hard to draw tags will only affect people once in a while. If we focused a little more on making the general areas a better hunting experience, then it wouldn't be so crucial to draw a tag.

Choose a weapon would keep the rifle hunters out of the archery hunters' way, as would it keep the archery hunters out of the rifle hunters' way. Less crowded for all!

Just use the same system as Nevada. Everyone has a chance with 0 points.

> Everyone has a chance
>with 0 points.


Everyone in Idaho already have a chance with No points.

>I Like points. Atleast it gives
>you an idea of when
>you might draw a tag.
>Points only suck if you
>are trying to draw the
>most sought after tags. A
>system like Nevada has would
>be nice. The lucky sob's
>would still get lucky and
>the unlucky could build up
>to something. Best of both
>worlds and the F &
>G still gets there money.
>
The only reason nv's point system works is they go to extreme measures to limit the # of applicants.
(10 year waiting period for successful elk hunters 5 for all successful applicants) Also most of their elk units are draw only further spreading out applicants.
If we did extend our waiting period our system would work much better than NV's and be very "fair" in my eyes.

Justin