Idaho Legislature playing games with our money.

I see House Resources Chairman, Mark Gibbs (R-Grace) is holding our needed hunting license fee increase hostage to his politics. He, of course, is declaring innocence.

The legislation IDF&G introduced was a simple, "clean" bill to authorize the Idaho Fish and Game to increase fees. Gibbs wants the bill to also include new methods for addressing elk, deer, antelope, moose, etc., depredation on private lands. (http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/bois...t-all-mean-those-folks-arent-doing-great-job/)

Make no mistake, this is simply Mr. Gibbs extending his political agenda (from last year) that exploded in his, his cronies, and Governor Otter's face when we sportsmen learned that Otter's and Gibbs little private landowner clique was trying to force the Game Commission to 1.) increase the number of private land tags; 2) authorize the private sale of those hunting tags and: 3) auction more trophy tags....without our permission (we Idaho sportsmen pay 100% of the cost of managing Idaho's wildlife).

Rep. Gibbs held a stint on the Commission....so he knows just how many "tools" are in the tool box for addressing livestock/crop - Big game conflicts...and depredation. Most private landowners that are hollering for these changes don't allow public hunting access which would easily solve the problem. The very fact that then want more landowner tags...and they want to sell them for profit is proof that they really are not interested in solving their depredation problem. They are just wanting to take monetary advantage of the big game animals on their property.

Increasing the number of private tags and allowing these landowners to sell them to the highest bidder would actually exacerbate the problem by encouraging less use of "tools" to move the offending big game animals off their property. I would encourage everyone to drop a line to Rep Gibbs and tell him to keep the legislation clean...and not clutter it up with stuff unrelated to the intent of the legislation and contrary to the wishes of us Idaho hunters who have agreed to the need for an increase...but not a need for increased private land tags, the sale of tags or more auction tags. You can Contact Gibbs by e-mail by going to his website (https://legislature.idaho.gov/legislators/membership/2016/id748/) and navigating to a mail box where you can contact him.

I would say they have at least an argument that they are trying, and this is a long term solution to help them.

https://idfg.idaho.gov/press/fg-helps-protect-haystacks-growing-elk-herds

Colorado has an excellent approach for solving big game/private land conflicts. It is a program called the Habitat Partnership Program (HPP). The State is broken up into logical geographic areas and Habitat Partnership Program Committees (HPPC) are set up for each one. The Committees are made up of three sportsmen representatives from the area, three landowners from the area, a Colorado Division of Wildlife local officer, and a representative from all the public land agencies (Both Federal and State) within the area.

The committees meet and local landowners who have conflicts with wildlife come and present their conflict and sit with the HPPC and together a solution acceptable to all parties is determined. The Committees act on a consensus basis...that is...100 percent of the committee members must agree to the solution. Committees have authority to spend money and issue tags. Tags issued by the Committee must be made available to the public on a first come first served basis. On the Committee I sat on, tags were regularly issued to move elk off private lands to public lands. We found that it took only two or three tags to move a couple of hundred elk permanently (for that winter at least) from private lands to public lands. The Committee's authority is very broad and can be very innovative and creative.

I sat on one of the Committees for 8 years. We had amazing success in protecting private land, solving game distribution issues (moving elk to public lands from private lands), financing compensation for damage to crops and fences, and making long-term solutions such as building fences to withstand elk crossing, building "hay corrals" where landowners could stack their hay and keep it safe from marauding deer and elk, and so on.

Each year we had a State-wide meeting where we met with every HPPC in the State and compared notes. It was very apparent that there was a wide array of success. Most Committees were very successful...but there was a handful that struggled. I will just cut to the chase here and give you what our wildly successful committee observed to be the problem with those Committees in Colorado which were struggling. The lack of success nearly always came down to large landowners who were "hosting" large numbers of elk, who either were managing their lands for pleasure (rich absentee landowners who would fly in with friends for an easy elk hunt on their property) or just plain hated their neighboring ranchers or the Colorado Division of Wildlife or Forest Service or BLM and simply did not wish to help neighboring ranchers/farmers solve the depredation problems. In these instances, as the Committees worked with cooperating ranchers/farmers to solve problems, actions to move elk to public lands would simply move the elk to the rich/hateful guy's land....where they would dribble back to the neighbors lands and get into haystacks, raid pastures and break fences. In other words, the Committee knew what needed done to gains success (and the Agencies, Colorado DOW were on board) but a singular, uncooperative and key landowner prevented success.

I will just say that long-term solutions to conflicts between forage, fences and other private land values would NOT be solved by what Representative Gibbs and Governor Otter and cronies have proposed. Our Committee discussed the usefulness of issuing tags directly to private land owners as a solution AND THE LANDOWNERS ON THE COMMITTEES said "DON'T ISSUE PRIVATE LAND TAGS!!!". They said if they had the wherewithal to have tags to sell they would have an incentive to keep the elk and deer on their property so they could "sell" the tag for big bucks. THE RANCHERS AND FARMERS HONESTY HELPED OUR COMMITTEE AVOID A HUGE MISTAKE. On it's face...issuing private land tags seemed like a good compromise...a good "carrot" so-to-speak....to gain landowner cooperation to help us solve the many fence/forage/livestock conflicts. But the landowners on the Committee clearly said it would be counterproductive.

So...what Gibbs and Otter are proposing would in all likelihood be counterproductive. Please write Gibbs and tell him you are not in favor of additional private land tags, letting them be sold.

On our Committee, we never discussed the idea of auctioning trophy tags to raise money so I don't have the benefit of the Committee's collective thoughts on this. However...I believe the end result would be the same as letting private landowners sell tags to the highest bidder. In Utah, there were over 3000 deer and elk tags given to private landowners in 2015. These tags can be sold the highest bidder. It hasn't helped the State improve public access....and, according to the Utah biologist I know and visit with, it has, in his opinion, actually caused some landowners to lock up their lands even tighter to public hunting. They are making bank by tightly controlling access, letting deer and elk get huge so they can sell more and more big elk and big deer permits for more and more money ($5000 - 25,000 a pop). He does say it has resulted in more deer and elk numbers in some units...but the jury is still out if the numbers on public lands has increased. In some cases, public deer/elk numbers have fallen. It is his personal observations that tightening up of private land hunting has forced even more folks to public land which in turn redistributes game to private land. In addition, they have observed that some elk herds summered on public lands and spent the fall and early winter on public lands are now taking up permanent residence on private lands. They simply don't migrate any more. So...auctioning tags would in all likelihood exacerbate...not solve...private land conflicts. That is my best input on this Gibbs deal. I hope you all drop him an e-mail.

I seen this on a FB page

Former IDFG commissioner Fred Trevey's letter to Idaho Representative Mac Gibbs:

Fred Trevey
6626 Cougar Ridge Road
Lewiston, Idaho 83501

February 2, 2017

Marc,
I am writing today to express my dismay at how you have approached handling the Idaho Fish and Game Commission?s legislative proposals concerning wildlife depredation and request for a fee Increase. I find it astonishing you stood before the Commission and informed them you were handing their proposals back to them without the benefit of your committee?s review, any public review or opportunity for the Commission to publicly respond to questions. Essentially you told them to guess again. I find this just another attempt to hold the fee increase proposal hostage for you to achieve objectives you find politically impractical to achieve directly.

To add insult to injury, after making the point in the Spokesman Review you were making no suggestions, you turned around and trotted out some of the same issues your group of legislators have been attempting to get the Commission to give you cover on for the past several sessions. Namely?give us auction tags, LAP freebies and access to sportsmen?s license fees in the name of depredation and until you do we will starve the Department into submission. For example, you told Eye on Boise, ?The issue is let's take care of farmers? and ranchers? losses, then let's come and talk to us about a fee increase.? If this is not holding any fee increase hostage I do not know what would be. I wonder if weakening the Department and obtaining a compliant Commission is perhaps the real objective? Recent behavior points in that direction.

Concerning depredation, I would like to encourage you to take the time and ?think outside the box?. If in fact, depredation is as serious and continuing issue as you suggest, then perhaps agriculture interest might explore obtaining crop insurance as you do for other ?natural? occurrences. I suggest agriculture interest, the Fish and Game Commission/Department and the insurance industry partner and study a long-term fix. Currently license dollars fall short of adequately covering cost in some years?primarily due to variances in weather. License money now expended in making partial payments could be used to leverage and reduce the cost of insurance policies based on values and level of risk. This of course means looking at the problem as a shared responsibility. This is reasonable as it should be no surprise to anyone that wildlife has naturally occurred on Idaho?s landscape for eons.

Of course, the devil is in the details, I do not proport to know the details. One detail is the relationship of Federal Crop Insurance, what it covers and the associated financial institution requirements. I understand most farm operations are required by their banks to carry Federal Crop Insurance. To retain their line of credit with their lenders, farmers need to show the banks evidence that Federal Crop coverage is intact. Federal all peril coverage will insure for depredation. If wildlife depredation is a factor on a particular operation and that operation has a relationship with a bank, one would assume it is covered by all peril insurance. This begs the question, are there duplications in covering depredation by wildlife if the Department also makes depredation payments? The insurance notion should be fully investigated, perhaps some elements of coverage are already in place. It is equally obvious the current depredation law is not satisfying those involved. Experience shows some are never happy, some even try to game the system. My view is a shared responsibility approach is key.

A few observations on your comments in the Spokesman Review:
You seem to suggest license fees should be tied to making farmers and ranchers completely "whole" financially from wildlife losses at license buyers expense. You also seem to assume all winters will be like this year. Under the approach you suggest, someone who might feel they are not made whole would predictably go right back to the Legislature and demand a fee increase on sportsmen to cover their idea of relief. Predictably, those that could not convert LAP tags, for any number of reasons, into cash that cover their perceived losses, would demand a parallel system. We all know the unpopular auction tag idea, at the current authorized level, would not generate sufficient funds to cover depredation costs. Again, predictably and even more unpopular, you and others would call for more auction tags.

Marc, I trust you will accept my comments in the spirit offered. For government to succeed, we all need to be engaged and plainly express our views. I encourage you and your colleagues accept the Commission?s fee increase proposal, move it forward for public review and pass it unencumbered by divisive issues. For those other issues you and your colleagues find important, I encourage you to consider them on their own merits---the fee increase proposal deserves undivided attention this session. I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Respectively,
Fred Trevey

Excellent letter for Mr. Trevey. He is a recent Idaho Game Commissioner...so he knows his stuff. Here is the letter I wrote Gibbs....enclosed in a CC to Governor Otter. My note to the Governor comes first...then my e-mail to Gibbs.

Also, I talked at length to Commissioner Blanco about this today. The Commission is willing to work on depredation issues...but he agreed that Chairman Gibbs direction was extremely vague. I agree with the hidden message in Fred Trevey's letter....Gibbs is still angling to force increased tags, authorization for landowners to sell those tags to the highest bidder...and increased Auction tags. If it were just a matter of money...i.e. that Gibbs believed the fee increase was too low to cover depredation costs....then he could have so stated to the Commission when he returned the draft bills.

My e-mail to Otter:

Dear Governor Otter;

Enclosed in the body of this email is a letter I wrote to Representative Gibbs, Chair of the Resources and Conservation Committee in which I expressed my bitter disappointment that he essentially killed the proposed legislation to increase License Fees for obliquely related private land/wildlife issues.

I trust you are involved in the discussions on needed Fee increases and I want you to know that I feel compelled to reach out to you and others on Mr. Gibbs' Committee and to some in the Senate on this matter.


We Idaho Sportsmen and Women pay the lion's share of the cost of managing Idaho's game and non-game wildlife resources and thus we should be the "Elephant" at the table when legislation affecting that resource is being discussed.

I am nearing 70 so, unfortunately, I know about politics, both the good and the bad. And I know that holding up needed legislation to force a political compromise...when needed...is "just politics", and that is OK. But "just politics" can cross the line at times and become political shenanigan as well. In this case, given Mr. Gibbs' on-the-record battle with the Commission, it is difficult for me to see anything but political shenanigan in his action to kill the proposed Fee increase bill.

His rationale for doing so.....stated as a need for the bill to address unidentified "depredation" issues rings hollow for me on many fronts. First, it has very little to do with the need for a fee increase and, second, his on-the-record squabble with Idaho's Game Commission to increase landowner tags, authorized the sale to the highest bidder of those tags and increased auction of trophy tags appears to me to be his political "shenanigan" to force something us "Elephants" do not need or want.

I hope you take the time to read my e-mail to Chairman Gibbs. And I hope that my stated concerns will add clarity to the discussion and spur an effort to support "clean" legislation. And it is my hope you will stand up for those of us who pay the bills and urge the Chair to move the bill to Committee.

Thank you. Sincerely,

Clearwater1950




I am a life-long hunter. I am 66. I am a multi-generational outdoorsman. My three children and grand children are avid hunters. My youngest grandchild, just successfully finished her hunter safety class at Fruitland Middle School and will become a huntress next fall.

I am very much in favor of the proposed fee increases. Hunting and fishing is excellent in Idaho and current fees are a bargain basement deal. I have purchased a Sportsman License for many years....not because I hunt all the animals it provides tags and validations for...but because I am more than happy to pay my fair share of providing the outstanding hunting opportunities Idaho provides!

That brings me to the point of this note. I am bitterly disappointed you are holding "clean" legislation hostage for what are important but clearly secondary issues related to private land/game conflicts. Those issues could and should be addressed through a comprehensive and collaborative process....not necessarily this fee increase legislation. So I will say it bluntly....you appear to be playing politics....instead of governing wisely and fairly.

I know you have said that your action (to not clear the bill for consideration at Committee) had nothing to do with your on-the-record effort to: 1) Force the issuance of more private Landowner tags; 2) Force authorization to allow private Landowners to be sold to the highest bidder; and 3) Force the auction of more "trophy" tags. However, I fell compelled to again be blunt and call your bluff on this. Your on-the-record actions simply make your political agenda painfully clear and obvious.

Utah has gone down the road of issuing and authorizing the sale of private landowner tags. Have you looked at the consequences of that....and how the sportsmen and women of Utah feel about where that road has taken the state? The following is a snapshot of what has resulted in Utah.

It has resulted in private lands being more tightly locked up than ever before as private landowners strive to grow more and bigger game animals. The sale to the highest bidder has created a huge incentive for landowners to exclude public hunting, encourage game to stay on private lands so that ever larger values can be commanded for the private landowner tags. Worse for the men and women footing the bill....opportunity for public hunters has actually decreased because the population increases are occurring on private lands. There is growing evidence that authorizing the sale to the highest bidder for private landowner tags has backfired for the public sportsman.

Representative Gibbs.....rather than hold Idaho's fee increase hostage to address unrelated issues, task the Commission/ID F&G with addressing the issues and bringing forward recommendations to the Sportsmen and Women of Idaho who foot practically the entire bill to manage Idaho's game and non-game species. Further...why not have someone from Utah come and give the Committee first hand information on how your issues have worked to solve the wildlife/private land conflicts you are worried about. Or...how about inviting someone from Colorado's Division of Wildlife (CDOW)? CDOW has a highly successful program called the Habitat Partnership Program Committee that is a collaborative method of addressing wildlife/private land conflicts.

I hope you understand from this message just how disappointed I am that you have chosen to clutter up the Fee increase legislation with politics. I urge you to reconsider and let a clean fee increase bill go forward to Committee. It is needed. It is the right thing to do. Your obliquely related (at best) issues can be addressed without cluttering up this legislation.