Upcoming Season Proposals

Probably something to do with the A tag , they've been trying to lower the cow numbers. Maybe it's working and maybe it's not . I have my opinions, as I'm sure many others do .
 
>Probably something to do with the
>A tag , they've been
>trying to lower the cow
>numbers. Maybe it's working and
>maybe it's not . I
>have my opinions, as I'm
>sure many others do .
>

They might as well open it up year?round. Cow hunts already run from August to the end of February.
 
We'll see what they have to say . It seems like the cow slaughter was brought on after the winter of 16/17 .

Obviously the issues with the ranchers were extreme, but old man winter hasn't been as harsh recently.
 
>Air guns for big game?
Sounds like they are entertaining it. It looks like they may have the big game proposals out after the 28th.
 
Would love to see them get rid of the two deer tag deal. That would be a step in the right direction to help mule deer herds.


Chuck in Boise
 
>Would love to see them get
>rid of the two deer
>tag deal. That would
>be a step in the
>right direction to help mule
>deer herds.
>
>
>Chuck in Boise


I'm fine with that also as long as they reduce the non resident tags in the process.
 
The two deer tag issue is overblown. There are X amount of tags to be sold whether they are sold to only one guy or a guy buys two tags. They aren't creating extra tags. All the tags will sell out in our current economy. The harvest stats won't change significantly either way.
 
>The two deer tag issue is
>overblown. There are X
>amount of tags to be
>sold whether they are sold
>to only one guy or
>a guy buys two tags.
> They aren't creating extra
>tags. All the tags
>will sell out in our
>current economy. The harvest
>stats won't change significantly either
>way.


Agreed. As much as I dislike it, the 2nd tags are allocated towards NR's. What isn't sold, is offered to residents until that allocation is met. I know how much animosity we all have towards NR's but the sad reality is, those tags and license sales fund a good portion of the budget.
 
Cut the number of NR in half, double the price. It's that simple! True supply and demand, something all of us in the private industry deal with everyday. Done deal... everyones happy, and quality of the hunt/animal is higher.
 
>The two deer tag issue is
>overblown. There are X
>amount of tags to be
>sold whether they are sold
>to only one guy or
>a guy buys two tags.
> They aren't creating extra
>tags. All the tags
>will sell out in our
>current economy. The harvest
>stats won't change significantly either
>way.


Exactly. The tags are going to sell out anyway. There aren't even a ton of people who buy a second tag and most the people I know who buy them don't end up filling the 2nd tag, so I'm not too sure the 2nd tag deal doesn't save more deer than if you could only buy 1..
 
>Cut the number of NR in
>half, double the price. It's
>that simple! True supply and
>demand, something all of us
>in the private industry deal
>with everyday. Done deal... everyones
>happy, and quality of the
>hunt/animal is higher.


Would nonresidents still come with a tag price over $600? That puts it at close to $800 just for tags and licenses to hunt an average OTC tag. Not sure the demand is great enough there. Maybe I'm wrong..
 
100%. Because now the demand is higher....and this would also highly discourage folks from banging dink bucks. You arent dropping 800 to shoot an opening morning forkie. Same token, residents that bang the first buck they see and fall back on a second tag would have to think long and hard. But to answer your question, they'd sell out, and fast. When supply is crunched in an already exploding market like we have with NR in this state, tags would be gone fast.
 
>>The two deer tag issue is
>>overblown. There are X
>>amount of tags to be
>>sold whether they are sold
>>to only one guy or
>>a guy buys two tags.
>> They aren't creating extra
>>tags. All the tags
>>will sell out in our
>>current economy. The harvest
>>stats won't change significantly either
>>way.
>
>
>Exactly. The tags are going to
>sell out anyway. There aren't
>even a ton of people
>who buy a second tag
>and most the people I
>know who buy them don't
>end up filling the 2nd
>tag, so I'm not too
>sure the 2nd tag deal
>doesn't save more deer than
>if you could only buy
>1..

I've bought the 2nd tag 3 years in a row, haven't filled it once, I always end up getting busy and never getting enough time to hunt much on the 2nd tag.

I personally think they should limit each individual to 1 general tag and 1 whitetail only tag while staying within the nonresident quota. Happy medium that still allows people a little extra opportunity without putting too much pressure on either species of deer.
 
2nd deer tag option needs to go. Yes they are going to sale the same amount of tags regardless, but 10% of guys kill 90% of the better bucks. Then you give those killers another tag, double whammy. Or guys know they can get a second tag so they hammer a lesser ?insurance? buck early, then try and get serious to hold out for a big one. Same goes for elk IMO.
 
>2nd deer tag option needs to
>go. Yes they are going
>to sale the same amount
>of tags regardless, but 10%
>of guys kill 90% of
>the better bucks. Then you
>give those killers another tag,
>double whammy. Or guys know
>they can get a second
>tag so they hammer a
>lesser ?insurance? buck early, then
>try and get serious to
>hold out for a big
>one. Same goes for elk
>IMO.

Lots of speculation. The majority of the guys I know who buy a second tag use it for whitetail. A few buy it for mule deer trying to hunt a monster and don't fill the tag. I know one guy who shoots routinely two good mule deer bucks.

There?s a big myth out there that all the second tag buyers are snipers shooting 180+? bucks. The reality of the situation is very different.
 
It would be kind of cool if they tracked that 2nd tag data, to see what the percentages are. I know guys that are hell on elk with that 2nd tag. I don't know many deer hunters that pick one up.
 
It's likely very very few people are killing two "nice" muleys with this.

I too buy a second tag about every other year, but strictly for WT's up north. Even with two tags I usually only fill about 20%, as I try and be picky, and am not a meat hunter. I assume plenty are meat hunters and fill the freezer with one, and then get picky with the second.
 
>and this would also highly
>discourage folks from banging dink
>bucks. You arent dropping 800
>to shoot an opening morning
>forkie.

Or kill more dink bucks. You aren't paying 800 to go home and eat tag soup. haha.

Either way I still don't know if the demand is that high for an OTC Idaho deer tag quite yet. I could very well be wrong, but I also have a feeling that its a hopeless debate as I don't see very many people going along with that plan anytime soon.
 
>It would be kind of cool
>if they tracked that 2nd
>tag data, to see what
>the percentages are. I know
>guys that are hell on
>elk with that 2nd tag.
>I don't know many deer
>hunters that pick one up.
>

I too would at least like to see how many 2nd tags are bought. I feel like tracking that would be the 1st step before taking that option away. It can't even be that hard to keep track of. I still feel people getting a 2nd tag isn't hurting our deer as long as they are taken from a pool of tags that is selling out, but there wouldn't be an argument here if there were actual numbers to go off of.
 
>>Cut the number of NR in
>>half, double the price. It's
>>that simple! True supply and
>>demand, something all of us
>>in the private industry deal
>>with everyday. Done deal... everyones
>>happy, and quality of the
>>hunt/animal is higher.
>
>
>Would nonresidents still come with a
>tag price over $600? That
>puts it at close to
>$800 just for tags and
>licenses to hunt an average
>OTC tag. Not sure the
>demand is great enough there.
>Maybe I'm wrong..

Sell half the tags for twice the money. Same profit and a possible reduction in harvest, allowing a higher age class deer.
 
The only problem I can see with tracking the 2nd tag is honesty. If your never checked at a game check station then who's to say how many are honest on their harvest report. I hear a lot of people saying that Idaho is one of the cheapest states to hunt, if that's the case then raise the price of nonresident license and tags. I know this last season I seen way more out of state hunters then ever before. Not sure if that's due to more OTC opportunities or the price to hunt here.


Chuck in Boise
 
I think it's a combination of both, opportunities and affordability. The problem with raising tag prices is getting them through the legislature without a bunch of riders.
 
AMEN !!! that is their best source of revenue I saw a posting on here & it sure looked to me like the majority of those NR tags were sold to residents !!
 
The Muzzleloader hunters get it up the Hind end on the proposals. They just don't want muzzleloader hunting in Idaho I guess.
 
>The Muzzleloader hunters get it up
>the Hind end on the
>proposals. They just don't want
>muzzleloader hunting in Idaho I
>guess.


Which region are you referring to Idahoron?
 
They actually helped out the ML hunt that I do. Maybe we need to get an active ML group going. Idaho State Bowhunters seem to keep an active role with IFG.
 
Looks like a whole lot of general season cow harvest in S. Idaho...wonder what kind of madhouse that will be?

Also a number of new Landowner permission hunts...not familiar with those but not sure I like it...literally taking some higher demand controlled hunt cow tags and giving them exclusively to landowners.
 
>Looks like a whole lot of
>general season cow harvest in
>S. Idaho...wonder what kind of
>madhouse that will be?
>
>Also a number of new Landowner
>permission hunts...not familiar with those
>but not sure I like
>it...literally taking some higher demand
>controlled hunt cow tags and
>giving them exclusively to landowners.
>

I went to the meeting last night in Nampa. I asked how much of a herd reduction had they achieved in the Weiser Zone in the last 2 years. The reply was that they were still conducting fly over counts and waiting on harvest reports. The commission is driven by legislators. Legislators in Idaho are predominantly landowners. Most land owners are members of Idaho Farm Bureau. I attached IFB?s 2019 playbook in another thread.
 
There is also legislation being drafted to compensate land owners for damage to irrigation equipment through the new ?depredation ? fund.
 
The depredation issue is BS in my opinion. If farmers want depredation money their land should be open to all hunting otherwise no money.
 
The farm bureau pushing this makes sense...that would explain the sort of statewide effort to push these landowner tags - even in regions where they've not been used previously.

I'm sure its a good tool in certain situations, but I'm concerned this is just going too far in handing out tags to landowners...to the point the state is attempting to eliminate public hunting opportunity to ensure landowners get a handout. What a shame.
 
>Looks like a whole lot of
>general season cow harvest in
>S. Idaho...wonder what kind of
>madhouse that will be?
>
>Also a number of new Landowner
>permission hunts...not familiar with those
>but not sure I like
>it...literally taking some higher demand
>controlled hunt cow tags and
>giving them exclusively to landowners.
>

As I understood, a lot of those landowner permission extra cow hunts just had the ?extra? portion added to them now. The reason most of those hunts exist is to reduce landowner conflict so it makes sense that they require landowner permission. I don't agree with the way some landowners distribute them but there will always be a few bad apples unfortunately
 
Buck to doe ratios are off in unit 39 and 43, and IDFG doesn't want to actively manage those herds so they will work to eliminate them instead
 
Bio at the Nampa open house when I questioned the either sex controlled tag in 39/43 & adding that last week back in for youth doe in 39: "deer are over objective in 39 & 43".
 
>Bio at the Nampa open house
>when I questioned the either
>sex controlled tag in 39/43
>& adding that last week
>back in for youth doe
>in 39: "deer are
>over objective in 39 &
>43".

I don't see how that can be possible, I'm usually pretty happy with IDFG and their management for the most part but the way they are managing those deer herds makes me sick. A guy should not be able to spend a day hunting archery in November seeing 100+ deer without a single buck spotted. Yes the population is decently high but there are no bucks left and where I see 100 deer a day the last couple of years would?ve been 2 or 3 hundred deer just 5 years ago.
 
>Bio at the Nampa open house
>when I questioned the either
>sex controlled tag in 39/43
>& adding that last week
>back in for youth doe
>in 39: "deer are
>over objective in 39 &
>43".


And I don't know if IDFG is wrong either.

An average day for me in late 39 archery is 300 deer spotted.

40 will be bucks. 20 of those will be 4x4's.

5-7 of those 4x4's will be 150 class bucks. 3 to 4 more will be 165+. I tend to see a 170-180 buck every other day.

That is an AVERAGE day. I could not imagine needing to see more deer. I'm guessing some of you guys just bumble and don't glass. I believe IDFG.
 
I commented on the bear proposals, those I'm not overly in favor of.

I can already see it now, landowners in 22, 31 and 32 selling "access" for guys to shoot bears over their apple trees.

Just like what's continuing to happen with buck tags in 44 and 45.
 
>I commented on the bear proposals,
>those I'm not overly in
>favor of.
>
>I can already see it now,
>landowners in 22, 31 and
>32 selling "access" for guys
>to shoot bears over their
>apple trees.
>
>Just like what's continuing to happen
>with buck tags in 44
>and 45.

The more proposals I look at the more I wonder what the hell is up with all these landowner tags. Clearly the farm bureau got to somebody. Give the tags to the public and have the regional landowner/sportsmen coordinator connect hunters with landowners experiencing issues. The transfer of public wildlife to private hands is just as bad as transferring public lands IMO.
 
Lololool putting any control of tags in landowner hand is corrupt and 100% a travesty....I'm gonna call and rip some fish and game ass AGAIN! You all should too.










the artist formerly known as "gemstatejake".
 
My understanding of landowner permission tags is that they aren't given to a landowner. They are given out in the normal draw, but if you put in for those tags you can only hunt private land and will need landowner permission to get the tag. Is that wrong? Everybody here seems to be talking like they are tags given to landowners to sell, but that wasn't my understanding..
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-08-19 AT 06:24PM (MST)[p]
>My understanding of landowner permission tags
>is that they aren't given
>to a landowner. They are
>given out in the normal
>draw, but if you put
>in for those tags you
>can only hunt private land
>and will need landowner permission
>to get the tag. Is
>that wrong? Everybody here seems
>to be talking like they
>are tags given to landowners
>to sell, but that wasn't
>my understanding.

I know from personal experience I was given a landowner voucher/form from the landowner. Which I took to the IDFG office and was issued a tag. Had his signature, IDFG and a spot for my signature/info. I dont think they can legally sell the tag. Maybe they can sell access and just give away the tag?

Also my tag was good for private land only. Any private landowner with permission not just the issuing landowner.
 
>LAST EDITED ON Feb-08-19
>AT 06:24?PM (MST)

>
>
>>My understanding of landowner permission tags
>>is that they aren't given
>>to a landowner. They are
>>given out in the normal
>>draw, but if you put
>>in for those tags you
>>can only hunt private land
>>and will need landowner permission
>>to get the tag. Is
>>that wrong? Everybody here seems
>>to be talking like they
>>are tags given to landowners
>>to sell, but that wasn't
>>my understanding.
>
>I know from personal experience I
>was given a landowner voucher/form
>from the landowner. Which I
>took to the IDFG office
>and was issued a tag.
> Had his signature, IDFG
>and a spot for my
>signature/info. I dont think
>they can legally sell the
>tag. Maybe they can
>sell access and just give
>away the tag?
>
>Also my tag was good for
>private land only. Any
>private landowner with permission not
>just the issuing landowner.

They legally cannot be sold, and they are not distributed via a drawing. Landowners get them and distribute to who they want. I find it particularly troubling they pull this crap on hunts where demand for the tags is high...meaning there are lots of hunters willing to help out.
 
>>LAST EDITED ON Feb-08-19
>>AT 06:24?PM (MST)

>>
>>
>>>My understanding of landowner permission tags
>>>is that they aren't given
>>>to a landowner. They are
>>>given out in the normal
>>>draw, but if you put
>>>in for those tags you
>>>can only hunt private land
>>>and will need landowner permission
>>>to get the tag. Is
>>>that wrong? Everybody here seems
>>>to be talking like they
>>>are tags given to landowners
>>>to sell, but that wasn't
>>>my understanding.
>>
>>I know from personal experience I
>>was given a landowner voucher/form
>>from the landowner. Which I
>>took to the IDFG office
>>and was issued a tag.
>> Had his signature, IDFG
>>and a spot for my
>>signature/info. I dont think
>>they can legally sell the
>>tag. Maybe they can
>>sell access and just give
>>away the tag?
>>
>>Also my tag was good for
>>private land only. Any
>>private landowner with permission not
>>just the issuing landowner.
>
>They legally cannot be sold, and
>they are not distributed via
>a drawing. Landowners get
>them and distribute to who
>they want. I find
>it particularly troubling they pull
>this crap on hunts where
>demand for the tags is
>high...meaning there are lots of
>hunters willing to help out.
>

Landowners don't get the tags, landowners sign a voucher that you then take to f&g to get the tag. The unfortunate part of the whole process is I suspect a lot of the landowners charge a hefty trespass fee. When I went asking around about landowner permission tags a few years back essentially all the landowners I talked to told me what horrible ethics and sportsmanship the guys they gave tags to displayed, when I suggested that I would respect their land and animals they shrugged it off and said ?no, we like the guys who hunt here now?
 
>>>LAST EDITED ON Feb-08-19
>>>AT 06:24?PM (MST)

>>>
>>>
>>>>My understanding of landowner permission tags
>>>>is that they aren't given
>>>>to a landowner. They are
>>>>given out in the normal
>>>>draw, but if you put
>>>>in for those tags you
>>>>can only hunt private land
>>>>and will need landowner permission
>>>>to get the tag. Is
>>>>that wrong? Everybody here seems
>>>>to be talking like they
>>>>are tags given to landowners
>>>>to sell, but that wasn't
>>>>my understanding.
>>>
>>>I know from personal experience I
>>>was given a landowner voucher/form
>>>from the landowner. Which I
>>>took to the IDFG office
>>>and was issued a tag.
>>> Had his signature, IDFG
>>>and a spot for my
>>>signature/info. I dont think
>>>they can legally sell the
>>>tag. Maybe they can
>>>sell access and just give
>>>away the tag?
>>>
>>>Also my tag was good for
>>>private land only. Any
>>>private landowner with permission not
>>>just the issuing landowner.
>>
>>They legally cannot be sold, and
>>they are not distributed via
>>a drawing. Landowners get
>>them and distribute to who
>>they want. I find
>>it particularly troubling they pull
>>this crap on hunts where
>>demand for the tags is
>>high...meaning there are lots of
>>hunters willing to help out.
>>
>
>Landowners don't get the tags, landowners
>sign a voucher that you
>then take to f&g to
>get the tag. The unfortunate
>part of the whole process
>is I suspect a lot
>of the landowners charge a
>hefty trespass fee. When I
>went asking around about landowner
>permission tags a few years
>back essentially all the landowners
>I talked to told me
>what horrible ethics and sportsmanship
>the guys they gave tags
>to displayed, when I suggested
>that I would respect their
>land and animals they shrugged
>it off and said ?no,
>we like the guys who
>hunt here now?

Semantics...land owners 100% control who gets the tags, and they can keep them to themselves as well.
 
>Most if not all of these
>landowner permission tags are anterless
>only.

I think it is all, I can't think of one that isn't, but the elk tags are pretty high demand usually
 
These open cow hunts will make drawing for a bull impossible. Now everyone will put in for bulls knowing they will get an over the counter cow tag.
 
>These open cow hunts will make
>drawing for a bull impossible.
>Now everyone will put in
>for bulls knowing they will
>get an over the counter
>cow tag.


I agree 100%. They tried this 2 years ago also so hopefully it fails to be adopted again.
 
Why the huge increase in bull tags as well?
Unit 46 going from 85 to 150?
100 tags in December alone? I hunted that in 2012 when there was 10 tags I believe and it was incredible, but a lot of people were still out and about as spotters/locators. I can't imagine what a cluster it would be with 10x that many people with tags.

Unit 54 doubling the bull tags on every weapon season?

You are right IdahoInfidel, I remember that survey and I thought it came back an overwhelming majority to keep the quality of bulls that existed in the south hills? Killing twice as many sure won't do that. Why are they going directly against the public?

It almost seems like they are determinded only to have something "good", nothing can be "great".

They also upped the unit 54 bull moose tags from 1 to 3. There are already 4-5 bulls being killed out of that unit a year. Can it really maintain the quality it has with that level of harvest increase?

What amazes me the most is that they raised both these species bull tags dramatically and readily admit they have no idea how many of either species is actually alive in the unit.
"While no numerical population objectives have been established for the South Hills Zone . . . "
 
Be SURE to comment on the proposals. I think the comment period is only open for 2 more weeks.

I don't think quadrupling the number of Sawtooth A tags is warranted. Maybe double it, but certainly NOT quadruple it.

I commented with a novel.
 
Open cow tags have been used in the Little lost many years ago. It tanked the hunt for a few years. I am sure if they do implement this open hunt the only winner will be the ranchers being allowed to graze more cattle because the lack of animals.
 
twosnow.....
Did my reply pm get to you.?
For some reason I seem to have trouble getting through on a pm.
 
Yep, PM returned.

If you hunt the sawtooths, guys PLEASE comment that quadrupling Sawtooth "A" tags is absolutely ludacris.

From 500 tags to 2000 tags? In a zone that is still below objective? That's asinine.

Just because residents in Garden Valley, Stanley, Lowman and Crouch can't get a tag, it doesn't mean that gobs of elk have simply appeared out of thin air.

Science based management PLEASE. That would ruin the zone. The days of only seeing 1 other hunter in a day would simply be gone, there would be a guy on every other ridge like all the other zones.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-15-19 AT 08:25AM (MST)[p]Boosting A tag numbers for Sawtooth shouldn't be a huge deal where archery success rates are so low normally I think. Most other zones have uncapped A tags. The whole Sawtooth approach seems pretty agressive though, I agree.

Im concerned about making about 4 different zones general for cow elk. I think it's harder to control hunters and kills with a general framework and it may decease controlled hunt draw odds, perhaps significantly. Guys should pick whether you want to hunt bulls or cows and diluting the controlled hunt opportunity is unfortunate.
 
The archery success rates are indeed low.

I'm not worried about the archery hunters making the herd go extinct.

The allure to the Sawtooth Zone is doing a 5 day backpack hunt without laying eyes on another hunter. To me, that is what the zone brings to the table.

Quadrupling "A" tags will certainly destroy that.
 
>The archery success rates are indeed
>low.
>
>I'm not worried about the archery
>hunters making the herd go
>extinct.
>
>The allure to the Sawtooth Zone
>is doing a 5 day
>backpack hunt without laying eyes
>on another hunter. To me,
>that is what the zone
>brings to the table.
>
>Quadrupling "A" tags will certainly destroy
>that.


Agreed, it will also alter the responsiveness of the bulls as well. Maybe not first year but by third year. I Think there should be 1,200 tags max, which equates to 400 per unit (I realize many people will flock to one unit). I think 400 archers per unit is my threshold.
 
Great points. Tw, I'm sure you'll still get away from folks. It sucks this will make it harder. You might get your tag consistently though ?
 
The whole discussion or reply from most about 2 tags regardless of species is disheartening. Fish & Game is there to manage animals, fish birds etc.... Thats it period, they are not running it like a business that it could be in order for them to do that from my standpoint. I don't have all of the answers or know every unit. But counting animals on winter ranges that travel long distances to winter doesn't work. They are just kidding themselves by doing general flyovers every so often. Harvest reports speak for themselves, they need to ask the right questions on those and start managing animals on a more micro level. We are getting worse in areas and the answer is just hunt longer, more opportunity for the most part?
 
The problem is, the ranchers/farmers have their respective hands out to the fish and game for damage. The fish and game have already run through all the money available for this, but yet still are supposed to be paying more. So, their answer is to increase tags, which in my opinion will only send more animals on to private lands (because the property owners don't allow access). Which only exacerbates the problem. Unfortunately, we need a system that allows for some kind of compensation to the landowner for access. I say unfortunately because most of us don't think they should be compensated but I don't see any other way out of this mess. LAP tags are the only way out of this mess. Or possibly legislation? It's a problem that will not be going away anytime soon.
 
>The whole discussion or reply from
>most about 2 tags regardless
>of species is disheartening. Fish
>& Game is there to
>manage animals, fish birds etc....
>Thats it period, they are
>not running it like a
>business that it could be
>in order for them to
>do that from my standpoint.
>I don't have all of
>the answers or know every
>unit. But counting animals on
>winter ranges that travel long
>distances to winter doesn't work.
>They are just kidding themselves
>by doing general flyovers every
>so often. Harvest reports speak
>for themselves, they need to
>ask the right questions on
>those and start managing animals
>on a more micro level.
>We are getting worse in
>areas and the answer is
>just hunt longer, more opportunity
>for the most part?

Micro managing units and animals (especially elk) is pretty tough when landowners and the legislature have your hands tied.
 
Customweld,
how hard do you think it would be to couple any wildlife damage payment to mandatory public hunting access?
 
>Customweld,
>how hard do you think it
>would be to couple any
>wildlife damage payment to mandatory
>public hunting access?

Mbogo,
That requirement is in place now.They have to allow some sort of access, but it doesn't stipulate to whom. It is a slippery slope when you start dictating who or how many people you must let on to private property. On the other hand, as long as the ranchers have as much influence on the legislators as they do, things will not change. They drained the new depredation account the first year and now they want to dip their hands into it for irrigation equipment and seed bed damage. Until there are significant changes, Idaho sportsmen will continue to be a slush fund for landowners.
 
For farmers to receive money for crop damage their land should be required to be in access yes and open to hunt.
 
However hard it might be to manage. A more consistent and focused management needs to be made on how many animals come out of each unit, it can start by using the elk zones and go from there. Other states do it? How do we get there, I am not saying we have to copy anybody, but when you simply sell tags and let them go wherever for months on end and multiple seasons, it is going to devastate some areas just because there are no restrictions. Even a little would help.

Landowner this & landowner that. I have grown up on a farm and so has my dad, and his dad, and so on. If you want a list of the unfortunate bullshit caused by mother nature, other humans & of course bad decisions on our part which has led to hardships, lost land and so on. Let me know and I'll give you a history lesson for my family. As a landowner( I work a 4-10 job every week by the way) I dont agree with all the benefits that are given either, but do believe that they need to be considered. What are you doing to help right the ship or make our collective voice heard. The question in my mind is this, has the depredation always been like this or is it something new? If its new then why and how can we fix it? If its not new then they bought the ground knowing that it was part of the environment and if not, well thats their fault. There inst really a only get crop compensation if you let x amount of hunters on your property fix all solution is there? There are a lot of holes in that logic as well.

Most people love hunting around ag fields because thats where the highest quality food is and so that is where the game comes & goes from. It really boils down to a lack of game overall I believe in most areas. Another thing to consider is are the animals there because of water, food or safety? Can any of those be improved on public lands? Is that where we should be looking first?
 
>However hard it might be to
>manage. A more consistent and
>focused management needs to be
>made on how many animals
>come out of each unit,
>it can start by using
>the elk zones and go
>from there. Other states do
>it? How do we get
>there, I am not saying
>we have to copy anybody,
>but when you simply sell
>tags and let them go
>wherever for months on end
>and multiple seasons, it is
>going to devastate some areas
>just because there are no
>restrictions. Even a little would
>help.
>
>Landowner this & landowner that. I
>have grown up on a
>farm and so has my
>dad, and his dad, and
>so on. If you want
>a list of the unfortunate
>bullshit caused by mother nature,
>other humans & of course
>bad decisions on our part
>which has led to hardships,
>lost land and so on.
>Let me know and I'll
>give you a history lesson
>for my family. As a
>landowner( I work a 4-10
>job every week by the
>way) I dont agree with
>all the benefits that are
>given either, but do believe
>that they need to be
>considered. What are you doing
>to help right the ship
>or make our collective voice
>heard. The question in my
>mind is this, has the
>depredation always been like this
>or is it something new?
>If its new then why
>and how can we fix
>it? If its not new
>then they bought the ground
>knowing that it was part
>of the environment and if
>not, well thats their fault.
>There inst really a only
>get crop compensation if you
>let x amount of hunters
>on your property fix all
>solution is there? There are
>a lot of holes in
>that logic as well.
>
>Most people love hunting around ag
>fields because thats where the
>highest quality food is and
>so that is where the
>game comes & goes from.
>It really boils down to
>a lack of game overall
>I believe in most areas.
>Another thing to consider is
>are the animals there because
>of water, food or safety?
>Can any of those be
>improved on public lands? Is
>that where we should be
>looking first?
>
>
>
>

I agree that more consistent and focused management needs to be implemented. Let's take the McCall elk zone for instance. You know that a good portion of that herd winters in the Crane Creek area. That area only has so much federal/state ground. A good majority of it is private. Put those animals together with the herds out of 22,32,and 32A and you have animals that number in the thousands. They wear their welcome out quickly on private ground,so depredation and LAP tags are issued. The higher elevation units can only support what their winter ground will support. When the majority of wintering ground is private, that will only support what the landowners will tolerate.

I am doing everything that I can to right the ship. I volunteer with IFG, attend as many meetings as I can. I have voted in every election since I was 18. As to whether this is depredation is a new phenomena, I think it has always been an issue. Maybe just not that big. A few things to consider: How many new acres are under ag production because of new deep water wells? How many new acres are under corn production to fuel the massive dairy industry in the Magic Valley? How many formerly friendly ranchers have been bought out by larger corporations that have no connection to the sportsmen?

I think we can assume that the animals like ag ground for those very reasons. Better forage, water and cover. I don't know what we can do to improve the public lands for wildlife.We have ample water, ample feed.
 
For the landowner/depredation issue - I think the IDFG proposals are poor in the way they basically give away Idaho's wildlife as if it is something owed to landowners.

I believe there are many landowners who are fair, reasonable folks who want to use tools to minimize damage and depredation issues. However, there are some bad apples that are taking advantage of systems to get tags and hunt opportunity for friends and family...at the expense of the rest of the hunting public.

To me, a more balanced solution would be that any tag or hunt must be open to the public (via a draw if necessary). If a landowner is experiencing damage - then IDFG contacts hunters who applied for that area and directs them to the landowner. If the landowner denies reasonable access for these public hunters to address damage...then too bad for the landowner. If there simply is too low demand from hunters to address the damage, then and only then, do landowners get issued tags to hand out or use as they see fit.

Bottom line - making all these "extra" cow tags available only to landowners is BS when there appears to be ample demand in antlerless drawings. Not to mention - the demand would likely be exponentially higher if they were offered as extras in the regular public drawing. Hunters could apply for their bull tags or buy general season antlered tags and then still have a chance at an extra cow tag.
 
>For the landowner/depredation issue - I
>think the IDFG proposals are
>poor in the way they
>basically give away Idaho's wildlife
>as if it is something
>owed to landowners.
>
>I believe there are many landowners
>who are fair, reasonable folks
>who want to use tools
>to minimize damage and depredation
>issues. However, there are
>some bad apples that are
>taking advantage of systems to
>get tags and hunt opportunity
>for friends and family...at the
>expense of the rest of
>the hunting public.
>
>To me, a more balanced solution
>would be that any tag
>or hunt must be open
>to the public (via a
>draw if necessary). If
>a landowner is experiencing damage
>- then IDFG contacts hunters
>who applied for that area
>and directs them to the
>landowner. If the landowner denies
>reasonable access for these public
>hunters to address damage...then too
>bad for the landowner. If
>there simply is too low
>demand from hunters to address
>the damage, then and only
>then, do landowners get issued
>tags to hand out or
>use as they see fit.
>
>
>Bottom line - making all these
>"extra" cow tags available only
>to landowners is BS when
>there appears to be ample
>demand in antlerless drawings.
>Not to mention - the
>demand would likely be exponentially
>higher if they were offered
>as extras in the regular
>public drawing. Hunters could
>apply for their bull tags
>or buy general season antlered
>tags and then still have
>a chance at an extra
>cow tag.

I understand frustration but"to bad for landowner" is not an option. Landowner in new Mexico didn't want elk or hunters on his land so he just shot the elk and called fish and game to come pick them up. I hate to say it but I think an approach like the nature conservancy or rocky mountain elk foundation. Would be more realistic if want to control how things are done buy the land or get an conservation easement
 
I think the way they conducted the meeting was wrong. I went through the wolf wars here, when the game and fish was being attached by every radical group and the Idaho Sportsman?s groups for not taking a stance. It was Idaho Sportsman that got it done not the Idaho game and fish. I honestly thought the sportsman and the game and fish were working well together over the last couple of years. What the heck happened, you show up in our towns with your militia style meeting, 15 game and fish cops with Mike McDonald (biologist) piping off for half an hour on corn and corn production. Then to go on another half an hour on landowners protection is the only law they need to follow. I don't understand why they even invited sportsman, it should have been all landowners. Then they would not let people speak, they wanted that meeting broken up so everyone could go find a game and fish officer and speak to them. I will tell you what they are doing , they are going back to the old Randy Smith way of managing game, his way or the Highway. What is going to happen they are going to kill as many Elk as they can on public land while the big herds that continuing get harrased out on the desert move on to private land, making the situation worse then it already is . The game and fish doesn't even mention the whole problem started when thy captured 170 Elk and dumped them out in farm country, they came from the warm springs herd. Maybe it's time to form another group( Sportsman for Idaho Big Game. I hope you ( IGF) read this , you forgot about the Sportsman at your meetings, remember you can't do any of this without the Sportsman. Really it's all about the land owner. These meetings are supposed to be insight from Sportsman, common people voicing their concerns and the game and fish. Mike McDonald already had his agenda made up and he wasn?t going to here anyone else. What a big disappointment. It looks like we going to have to go through all this crap again to get our game and fish back
 
What town meeting did you attend Hawk? If you want to get more control back into IFG, you are going to need to vote in some new legislators. As long as we have large landowner senators and representatives who belong to IFB, we aren't going to have much of a voice. I refer once again to IFB's 2019 handbook.
 
>>>LAST EDITED ON Feb-08-19
>>>AT 06:24?PM (MST)

>>>
>>>
>>>>My understanding of landowner permission tags
>>>>is that they aren't given
>>>>to a landowner. They are
>>>>given out in the normal
>>>>draw, but if you put
>>>>in for those tags you
>>>>can only hunt private land
>>>>and will need landowner permission
>>>>to get the tag. Is
>>>>that wrong? Everybody here seems
>>>>to be talking like they
>>>>are tags given to landowners
>>>>to sell, but that wasn't
>>>>my understanding.
>>>
>>>I know from personal experience I
>>>was given a landowner voucher/form
>>>from the landowner. Which I
>>>took to the IDFG office
>>>and was issued a tag.
>>> Had his signature, IDFG
>>>and a spot for my
>>>signature/info. I dont think
>>>they can legally sell the
>>>tag. Maybe they can
>>>sell access and just give
>>>away the tag?
>>>
>>>Also my tag was good for
>>>private land only. Any
>>>private landowner with permission not
>>>just the issuing landowner.
>>
>>They legally cannot be sold, and
>>they are not distributed via
>>a drawing. Landowners get
>>them and distribute to who
>>they want. I find
>>it particularly troubling they pull
>>this crap on hunts where
>>demand for the tags is
>>high...meaning there are lots of
>>hunters willing to help out.
>>
>
>Landowners don't get the tags, landowners
>sign a voucher that you
>then take to f&g to
>get the tag. The unfortunate
>part of the whole process
>is I suspect a lot
>of the landowners charge a
>hefty trespass fee. When I
>went asking around about landowner
>permission tags a few years
>back essentially all the landowners
>I talked to told me
>what horrible ethics and sportsmanship
>the guys they gave tags
>to displayed, when I suggested
>that I would respect their
>land and animals they shrugged
>it off and said ?no,
>we like the guys who
>hunt here now?

Semantics...land owners 100% control who gets the tags, and they can keep them to themselves as well.
Yup we can keep them for ourselves, to use or we can gift them to anyone we choose whether it be , resident or non resident we, have done it for the last 3 yrs since we moved to Idaho and bought our ranch and YES, we, do get the actual TAG
 
2nd deer tag option needs to go. Yes they are going to sale the same amount of tags regardless, but 10% of guys kill 90% of the better bucks. Then you give those killers another tag, double whammy. Or guys know they can get a second tag so they hammer a lesser ?insurance? buck early, then try and get serious to hold out for a big one. Same goes for elk IMO.
I have to agree with this they will still sell out for sure but I think a few lesser buck will get a pass if its a guys only tag.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Idaho Hunting Guides & Outfitters

Bearpaw Outfitters

Idaho Deer & Elk Allocation Tags, Plus Bear, Bison, Lion, Moose, Turkey and Montana Prairie Dogs.

Urge 2 Hunt

We focus on trophy elk, mule deer, whitetail, bear, lion and wolf hunts and spend hundreds of hours scouting.

Jokers Wild Outdoors

Trophy elk, whitetail, mule deer, antelope, bear and moose hunts. 35k acres of private land.

Back
Top Bottom