LAP tag rules in the works

[ID_Elkmagnet]

Idaho is going to try and tighten up the land owner tag situation. Its a start...

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/media/viewNewsRelease.cfm?newsID=6382

Justin

 

[ID_Elkmagnet]

But the governor tag $h!t moves forward. I guess I need to start a "non profit" now to get in on this. Justin

 

[cletus14]

no doubt elkmagnet

 

[brymoore]

>But the governor tag $h!t moves
>forward. I guess I need
>to start a "non profit"
>now to get in on
>this. Justin


What are you getting in on?

 

[ID_Elkmagnet]

$ Justin

 

[HayZeus]

Finally a step in the right direction. LAP tags are abused way to much. Im still not decided on the Governors tags, but the LAP tag changes should make them more valuable. Now we just have to hope they keep those under control and stick with the 95% back to wildlife conservation. I also hope they will not be allowed to be sold out of state (Utah convention). We will have to see what the legislature decides.

 

[brymoore]

>$ Justin


Non-profits don't make much, if any, money from auctioning the tags. 5% isn't a whole lot of money as most tags will bring between $10k and $30k. The sheep tag might bring $80k. The NPs auction the tags as a service for F&G hoping to recoup its costs.

 

[BPKHunter]

I would like some overall limit on "fund raising" tags per species. I'm not totally against them, just don't want to pimp them too much like Utah.

LAP tags are tricky for me. I don't like the "gimme" attitude that so many landowners have, though I understand their frustrations with law breakers and slobs. I just think any LAP tags should benefit the public with access and better habitat. If you don't have something to add, you shouldn't get anything. I have spent 2 days trying to find out how to get into the heart of unit 42 for my son's antelope hunt and am VERY frustrated that the very few roads that get into the antelope country south of Mud Flat Rd seem to all be controlled and restricted by the 1% of private land in the area. I would love to hijack those fella's BLM grazing fee's in trade for their easements on those roads. This is one area we are bound to see political influence come to bear before it's settled.

 

[ID_Elkmagnet]

Brymoore ill take 5% of 80k any day you want to give it to me. Its not much so what do ya say?

They will ask for more as soon as it gets approved. This is just a way to get a foot in the door.

Justin

 

[brymoore]

LAST EDITED ON Aug-28-12 AT 07:42PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Aug-28-12 AT 07:40?PM (MST)

>Brymoore ill take 5% of 80k
>any day you want to
>give it to me. Its
>not much so what do
>ya say?
>
>They will ask for more as
>soon as it gets approved.
>This is just a way
>to get a foot in
>the door.
>
>Justin

How much are you going to spend to market the sheep tag? You won't get $80K without some marketing effort. In most cases 5% is break-even for the non-profits.

It's already approved by the legislature. It was championed by a private individual. No non-profits supported the bill in the legislature. I testified against it. You could have too.

 

[ID_Elkmagnet]

When was the last time they listened to your opinion but regardless I applaud the effort. Thanks

The marketing will bring in lots of people, who pay per plate or hundreds of $ just to walk into the room, ( what does it cost to get into the auction room in slc) they buy lots of raffle tickets and pay for all of those booths so they now get the advertising for there fundraising banquet paid for by my resources and I should be happy about it? Well I'm not.
Justin

 

[deepforks]

those "fund raising" tags do not belong in idaho, plain and simple.

 

[cletus14]

+1,000,000 deepforks and elk magnet. i am a native idahoan i DO NOT want us to go down the same road as utah ! if this model is so great why are there 250-300 posts yearly on the general and utah forums regarding this.

it is a money grab for f & g and the " non-profit" groups. nothing more.

for the LAP tags as bkphunter comments on the landowners allready "block" public land access due to there "grazing leases" why should they be rewarded for this ?? when i drew a 44 buck tag three years ago i was shocked how many SQUARE MILES of blm and forest service land is landlocked by ranchers. if the public land isn't posted, cultivated, or marked every three hundred feet i go in period. last year i was asked to leave an area that was 100 % blm. the ranch hand said he had three head of cattle on the lease . i told him to piss off. i have very litle free time and won't tolorate this. as well posting public property is against the law. i turned in a few over the last couple years. never heard any thing back but who knows.

in closing i just want everyone to have a fair shake. really don't have any desire to watch a billionare shoot a 200" buck in the owyhees when snow is three feet deep on a doyle moss video.

 

[brymoore]

>When was the last time they
>listened to your opinion but
>regardless I applaud the effort.
> Thanks
>
>The marketing will bring in lots
>of people, who pay per
>plate or hundreds of $
>just to walk into the
>room, ( what does it
>cost to get into the
>auction room in slc) they
>buy lots of raffle tickets
>and pay for all of
>those booths so they
>now get the advertising for
>there fundraising banquet paid for
>by my resources and I
>should be happy about it?
>Well I'm not.
>Justin


It's not a simple as you might think but I don't want to start a whole discussion on the economics of running a banquet or a raffle. I've seen the numbers and non-profits auction tags as a service when paid 5% for its expenses.

If you want to be upset about Governor tags, focus your energy on the thought this might be the tip of the iceberg. A legislator might be persuaded to introduce a bill in a few years doubling the amount of tags. How long before we're Utah? It might not happen but the door has been opened.

 

[brymoore]

>it is a money grab for
>f & g and the
>" non-profit" groups. nothing more.


Do you know the history of the bill? IDF&G did not support it nor did any non-profits. How can this be a money grab for either group?

 

[cletus14]

if no money changes hands what's the purpose? put in for super hunt tags like everyone else.....also the 5-8 % of the total tag value for "advertising " isn't chump change......8 % of 200,000 is a good lump sum of money which i am sure is sheltered from taxes, as it's "non-profit".

do i know every line item in the bill, no. but you don't have to look to far.uhhmm... utah ?? to see where this goes and it's not a good place in my opinion.

 

[brymoore]

LAST EDITED ON Aug-29-12 AT 10:07AM (MST)[p]>if no money changes hands what's
>the purpose? put in for
>super hunt tags like everyone
>else.....also the 5-8 % of
>the total tag value for
>"advertising " isn't chump change......8
>% of 200,000 is a
>good lump sum of money
>which i am sure is
>sheltered from taxes, as it's
>"non-profit".
>
>do i know every line item
>in the bill, no. but
>you don't have to look
>to far.uhhmm... utah ?? to
>see where this goes and
>it's not a good place
>in my opinion.

It might help if you read the legislation. The items underlined are the changes. http://legislature.idaho.gov/legislation/2012/S1256.pdf

Here's a quick symnopsis of the economics of the tags. IDF&G will receive 95% or more of the money raised for each tag. 30% of the money received by IDF&G goes to Access Yes and 70% to wildlife projects.

If we are going to sell these tags, we should raise as much money as possible. This best done through the non-profits who have membership lists of people who hunt for specific species and who buy tags. You might think 5% is excessive but its not. The contracts with IDF&G usually spell out what expenses can be covered by the 5%.

If you want this legislation changed, I suggest you contact your Senate and House representatives.

 

[ID_Elkmagnet]

I agree we are obviously on the same side on this one.

Justin

 

[ID_Elkmagnet]

>really don't have any desire
>to watch a billionare shoot
>a 200" buck in the
>owyhees when snow is three
>feet deep on a doyle
>moss video.
Is this out? Anybody have a link where I can see it for free? I just don't want to support them by buying 1 of the videos.

Justin

 

[cletus14]

thanks for the economic breakdown data. why doesn't a well to do sportsman just buy 80,000 $ worth of super tag entries ? why should they have 100 % chance for a tag ?

and the fish and game has a website to advertise on for free . no need to pay a
"non-profit" group anything. the whole thing seems shady at best. and it's true i will get in touch with my represenatives. hopefully there is still time.

 

[BPKHunter]

LAST EDITED ON Aug-29-12 AT 02:23PM (MST)[p]>those "fund raising" tags do not
>belong in idaho, plain and
>simple.


So you want to get rid of Super Hunt tags also? Those are fund raising tags.



I think the question is, at what point are we pimping out the wildlife and affecting the average guys ability to have fair access. I don't think anyone would have a problem selling one tag for each species if we could get $1Million a piece. But it wouldn't be the same if we sell 100 for each species at $10,000 each.

 

[ID_Elkmagnet]

Not at all I love the idea of Super tags because they're not just a rich man's auction and all the money goes towards a good program. You can't even compare the 2. I have spent a lot of money on Super tags and never won but I have hunted access yes ground and think it's a great program.

Justin

 

[elkohalic]

>>
>
> I have spent 2
>days trying to find out
>how to get into the
>heart of unit 42 for
>my son's antelope hunt and
>am VERY frustrated that the
>very few roads that get
>into the antelope country south
>of Mud Flat Rd seem
>to all be controlled and
>restricted by the 1% of
>private land in the area.
> I would love to
>hijack those fella's BLM grazing
>fee's in trade for their
>easements on those roads.
>This is one area we
>are bound to see political
>influence come to bear before
>it's settled.

Im not sure what area you are looking in BPKHunter but the area S. of Mud Flat that I know doesn't have an easement. Access stops at the private property line. Would you allow someone to cross through your yard to access a public park behind your house. Even when the travelers litter and leave the gate open letting the pooch get out in the street? In some of those areas the good access is controlled by private property but there are other not so good roads into the same areas of the unit.

Like Cletus14 said it is not cool when folks post public land. I know other folks besides ranchers do it when they want to keep people out. Total Bull$%it!

BLM grazing leases having nothing to do with control over the land so someone is feeding you a line of crap.. If you OWN the land obviously but not if you pay grazing fees to the BLM.

Like many have stated the super-tag drawing is quickly growing to be a money game. I know of several people that have dropped several grand on the draw buying odds for the different tags.

 

[brymoore]

LAST EDITED ON Aug-29-12 AT 04:17PM (MST)[p]I wish some of the people against the tags would have shown up to the legislature hearings. A good attendance might have stopped the bill.

 

[BPKHunter]

elkohalic,

I don't think I said there was an easement. I think I said there should be. Your analogy of not letting someone drive through my backyard does not hold water, unless I had a tiny back yard was the only entrance into a huge piece of public land. The frustration is the landowners own a SMALL piece, but control a large piece of public, that they most likely have a BLM grazing permit for. As part of their BLM lease to graze, they should be required to provide an easement. Comprende?

I already mentioned I understand landowner frustrations with tresspassers and slobs, but this isn't some rancher with 10,000 acres who has 500 acres of blm in the middle I am trying to access. Literally, I am talking about a 500 acre piece blocing access to 500,000+ acres. My guestimate.

I'll get in there, legally, I am just pointing out a frustration. Maybe this is something that can be addressed when crafting some LAP strategies?

 

[deepforks]

bpk, you know damn well what i meant by "fund raising" tags...AUCTION TAGS!! don't start twisting $hit around. got it?

 

[idgator]

BPK - I think your assessment of the LAP issue is pretty good and it sounds reasonable and I totally agree with the frustration when it comes to land owners locking out the public from public ground (there needs to be some kind of compromise with sportsmen and land owners)

Deepforks - auction tags don't belong in Idaho ... thanks for making that determination for the entire state. Here's the simple state of affairs ... IDFG needs money and they only have a few ways to raise it. Give them a few tags for (deer, elk, goats, sheep, etc) and let them sell it to the highest bidder. there is the potential for F&G to raise significant and much need funds by doing this and in the grand scheme of things a few tags isn't going to hurt anything (given it's just a few and it stays just a few).

The argument that it isn't fair ... so what. This isn't about fair this is about revenue and by the way feel free to have a garage sale or sell some plasma and you too could bid on the tags and don't forget you have the opportunity to put in for controlled hunts and buy super tags, those give you as good of odds as you could hope for (compared to the rich folks), so it's not like you're locked out of opportunities to draw conveted tags.

 

[deepforks]

"Deepforks - auction tags don't belong in Idaho ... thanks for making that determination for the entire state."

you are more than welcome. and i'm going to bet more often than not, most will agree with that.

who cares about it being fair? not the point. did you ever once see me state anything about that? didnt think so. look at other states that have gone this route and tell me its a good thing. put a post in the utah forum about this and get their reaction. betting its not going to be a "good for you, idaho". you think sfw is good? give me a break. like someone stated above, its a way for these groups to get their foot in the door. wait and see. and if it stays to a handful of tags, is that amount of revenue really going to make a dent (in the grand scheme of things)?

 

[idgator]

let's take a look at it ... say 3 tags for each (antelope, deer, elk, moose, goat, sheep) that is a total of what ... 18 tags. What would they go for (obviously the Sheep, elk and deer would probably be the bigger dollar tags) , but lets say on average $20,000.00 that would be $360,000.00 gross, back out, guessing here 10% for expenses, that nets you $324,000.00 and I think this would be really conservative. That money could go a long way ... new server to make drawing results available faster just for the folks on MM (that would be a hit). Then maybe some winter feeding funds or habitat improvement funds or how about predator control, but according to you why even try ... right.

Who says we have to do it the way Utah does it? We have a blank slate and could put any kinds of stipulations around these tags and the orgainziations that we wanted to to avoid some of what is happening elsewhere.

 

[Idabow]

If I'm not mistaken isn't part of our license fee specifically designated to winter feed for big game?

I'm pretty sure it is, if I'm wrong, can someone correct me?

That ain't a camel toe, that's a moose knuckle!

 

[elkohalic]

>elkohalic,
>
>I don't think I said there
>was an easement. I
>think I said there should
>be. Your analogy of
>not letting someone drive through
>my backyard does not hold
>water, unless I had a
>tiny back yard was the
>only entrance into a huge
>piece of public land.
>The frustration is the landowners
>own a SMALL piece, but
>control a large piece of
>public, that they most likely
>have a BLM grazing permit
>for. As part of
>their BLM lease to graze,
>they should be required to
>provide an easement. Comprende?
>
>
>I already mentioned I understand landowner
>frustrations with tresspassers and slobs,
>but this isn't some rancher
>with 10,000 acres who has
>500 acres of blm in
>the middle I am trying
>to access. Literally, I
>am talking about a 500
>acre piece blocing access to
>500,000+ acres. My guestimate.
>
>
>I'll get in there, legally, I
>am just pointing out a
>frustration. Maybe this is
>something that can be addressed
>when crafting some LAP strategies?
>

BPK- yes you said there should be an easement. If that is the case then why shouldn't someone who has river front property have an easement across their ground so I can access the river behind it. When I hunted in the Stanley area I got "landlocked" lots of times. Never once did I say "someone should force these guys whoever they are to give an easement and allow access". Access Yes is there for a reason. Landowners who want to allow access can sign up for it and those that want to keep their private land private don't. Sucks I know but that is private land ownership. No one should force you to do anything you don't want to do with your private property.

The LAP program and access across private property are two seperate issues. I think they should stay that way.

I'll bet you do find a road to access the country. Lots of folks do every year and enjoy some great hunting. Good luck I hope your son gets a dandy!

 

[cletus14]

i have looked over this access yes lands a few different times on line and have yet to find anywhere remotly desireable to hunt. now if we used it to permenently give easement rights to get on landlocked land i would be all in.

 

[BPKHunter]

Elkoholic,

Are you a landowner in this area? Somewhere else?

For the third time, my issue in this area in particular is the rediculous ratio of private to public, and how much control these few parcels of private have over the public. You don't see me on here compaining about private landowners. You seem to have a particular problem with my point, and keep using over simplified analogies to refute me. I'm not talking about walking through anyone's backyard, or even hunting on their ground, just drive down the main road that I am sure for many many years was open access.

YES I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH A LANDOWNER WHO USES HIS 1% TO KEEP THE GENERAL PUBLIC FROM ACCESSING THE 99%, ESPECIALLY WHEN HE IS PAYING PENNIES TO RUN HIS CATTLE ON THE 99%.

 

[elkohalic]

No I am not a landowner in the area. I happen to know some of the folks down there and have talked to them quite a bit. I know what your issue is. My issue is you think that private landowners should open their property to the general public when there is public ground behind them. There NEVER has been open access to these areas across the deeded ground. The landowners maintain the roads themselves without the help of the county or anyone else. The only contribution the general public has made to the roads is tearing them up in the spring, littering, and leaving gates open.

Im not sure what beef you have with ranchers but grazing permits have nothing to do with private property rights. Get over it. For all you know it could be someone in the Boise area who owns it and doesn't graze at all.

 

[deepforks]

yup. you got it. for 325k, no dice. for any amount, no dice. and you'd really be ok with 18 gov. tags? not sure our non resident friends would appreciate that, since they'd be coming out of their pool of tags. so we piss eveb more of them off, they stop coming, more lost revenue. well, we'd better up the amount of governor tags in an attempt to get a few hundred thousand more to try and offset the million we just lost. hell, thats obama math.

>let's take a look at it
>... say 3 tags for
>each (antelope, deer, elk, moose,
>goat, sheep) that is a
>total of what ... 18
>tags. What would they
>go for (obviously the Sheep,
>elk and deer would probably
>be the bigger dollar tags)
>, but lets say on
>average $20,000.00 that would be
>$360,000.00 gross, back out, guessing
>here 10% for expenses, that
>nets you $324,000.00 and I
>think this would be really
>conservative. That money could
>go a long way ...
>new server to make drawing
>results available faster just for
>the folks on MM (that
>would be a hit).
>Then maybe some winter feeding
>funds or habitat improvement funds
>or how about predator control,
>but according to you why
>even try ... right.
>
>Who says we have to do
>it the way Utah does
>it? We have a
>blank slate and could put
>any kinds of stipulations around
>these tags and the orgainziations
>that we wanted to to
>avoid some of what is
>happening elsewhere.

 

[brymoore]

>let's take a look at it
>... say 3 tags for
>each (antelope, deer, elk, moose,
>goat, sheep) that is a
>total of what ... 18
>tags. What would they
>go for (obviously the Sheep,
>elk and deer would probably
>be the bigger dollar tags)
>, but lets say on
>average $20,000.00 that would be
>$360,000.00 gross, back out, guessing
>here 10% for expenses, that
>nets you $324,000.00 and I
>think this would be really
>conservative.

The sponsor of the bill did a financial analysis as part of the proposal. They expect to bring in $200k from the tags with almost half of it coming from the sheep tag. This represents 0.25% of the $77 Million department budget. They could have raised the license fee $0.40 per license and accomplished the same return.