Controlled hunt bonus / preference points

I

IDoutdoors

Active Member
Messages
207
LAST EDITED ON Aug-07-19 AT 09:44PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Aug-07-19 AT 09:42?PM (MST)

Is the IDFG going to propose a preference/ bonus point system on controlled hunts in 2020? I hope not. Look at the article on IDFG website titled F&G Commissioners to meet Aug. 12 via conference call. Click on see full Agenda. Then click on non- resident fee schedule ( it's listed as order #3 at 9:10 am) At the bottom on page 8 it says Controlled Hunt Bonus or Preference points $4.50 (for both resident and non- resident) Let me know what you think?
 
I hope they don't. Every state without them should easily be able to look at the states with them and see how bad they are and continue getting worse every year. People who are in favor of them are uneducated on the subject.
 
I would say exactly the same thing about those who don't want a point system. I agree that the popularity of hoarding points in every state has made things tough, but I have still had many great hunts because of points that might never have happened through random chance. Why can't a system be created that increases one's odds without allowing point hoarding? Could a random chance system (no points) work? Yes, but only if folks are removed from the system once they draw. The only thing a random draw system gives you is an increased chance of drawing a second time, no one's odds are increased the first time they draw a tag. I am in favor of weighing heavily towards residents in a draw system. Residents should get first crack at all hunts and I don't mean just a 90/10 split. How about 99/01%? Increase resident fees to make up for the revenue loss. What about a system where preference points have a life expectancy where they last ten years then expire (use them or lose them). This would keep the revenue up but keep the opportunity shifting among applicants.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-08-19 AT 06:40AM (MST)[p]Let's take this a step further. How about taking the top twenty controlled hunts and stating that only residents can apply for those? There is no law saying all hunts must be available to non-residents. In fact, many states don't allow non-residents to apply for hunts. What about keeping fees low for general hunts but increasing them substantially for draw hunts or even high demand hunts? The thought is that if you use a little creativity, a system can be created that increases one's chances and yet doesn't create the backlog that exists in some systems now. Lastly, not all draw systems have the backlog that say Colorado or Utah have. I still say that systems that allow for 25% of the hunts to be distributed regardless of the number of points are the best. Maybe that type of system but increase the "no point" field to 50% of the tags. The idea is to create a new program that addresses the flaws in other systems. It can be done.
 
The reality is more people participate in point systems than random draw and more participants will even create lower odds of drawing. It's well documented. Want a tag in Utah or Nevada, wait 20 years. Arizona is more like 10-20 depending on the unit.
 
I'm not even gonna engage with those that struggle with math.

Telling myself to back away from the keyboard!
 
Just making the mandatory wait out 2, 3, or 4 years after drawing an antlered buck or bull tag would do more for increased success than bonus points would!
 
Some of those non-resident price increases are pretty steep... Other than the listed bonus or preference point fees at the bottom of the list, I don't see any info on how they are proposing those points to work.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-08-19 AT 10:05AM (MST)[p]>Just making the mandatory wait out
>2, 3, or 4 years
>after drawing an antlered buck
>or bull tag would do
>more for increased success than
>bonus points would!

Exactly what we need. It's already 2 so needs to be 3 or 4.
 
JBloom, thanks for the link... interesting.

Not a fan of points in any shape, form or fashion. If you increase the opportunity for one guy you reduce the opportunity for someone else. I do favor waiting periods like is in place now... and would be in favor of extending the wait. Yes, that is reducing the opportunity of one at the benefit of others. But after that wait period is over that person is back in the game even Steven. With a point system, once drawn you go to the back of the line and likely will never catch up... easy to see this problem all over.
IMHO... points = Bad Idea

I'm torn on the price gouging of non-residents. I hate to see people get priced out of having a great experience. Tacking on nearly $1K to an already expensive trip for a chance at an elk is getting pretty close. I know other states are similar, but i wonder if Idaho actually has the quality of resources to continue to attract the out of staters. I have my dad and 3 other out of staters that come out each year to hunt and i know that will make them think twice, especially for a general unit tag. My dad will be 80 this fall, and an increase like that will probably push him out of the game, unless i help with some $, which i probably would.
 
I'm not even a fan of increasing the waiting period. The reality is that would have minimal effect on the draw odds. You?d only be removing a few thousand applicants from a much larger pool.
 
PNWbuck... I see you also made it to the bottom of that link...
One thing got my attention maybe you too... the very last line...

What the hell is a Nursing Home Fishing Permit for???
LOL :)
F&G making money anyplace they can i guess.
 
I think that Preference Point fee in the schedule has been a place holder for a while. If I remember correctly, they have the authority to enact it, there just hasn't been an appetite for it.
 
>PNWbuck... I see you also made
>it to the bottom of
>that link...
>One thing got my attention maybe
>you too... the very last
>line...
>
>What the hell is a Nursing
>Home Fishing Permit for???
>LOL :)
>F&G making money anyplace they can
>i guess.


Yeah, and why so much? I mean if you are taking a group of seniors fishing it should be free? They have it bad enough.
 
>LAST EDITED ON Aug-08-19
>AT 10:05?AM (MST)
>
>>Just making the mandatory wait out
>>2, 3, or 4 years
>>after drawing an antlered buck
>>or bull tag would do
>>more for increased success than
>>bonus points would!
>
>Exactly what we need. It's already
>2 so needs to be
>3 or 4.

It's 2 for trophy species if unsuccessful in filling the tag and only for the specific species. Deer and elk are still only 1 year waiting period
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-08-19 AT 09:21PM (MST)[p]I wish they would implement a 50/50 bonus point system. Still gives you born lucky SOB?s a chance to pull a tag the first time around, but also gives us unlucky but diligent folks who would like an opportunity to hunt one of the better area?s someday... I don't see how anyone can argue against a system along those lines. It gives the random fans an even slice of the pie, and the point fans a slice of the pie. Completely random just plain sucks. So much better when you are actually gaining ground on something you have invested years into, Rather than being at square one 30 years down the road, and still never pulled a harder to draw tag. Most people who put in every year for let's say 30 years will never pull a great tag in a random system, at the same time there will be some that draw multiple tags. With a points system if you choose to build points for that long you are likely to eventually pull a very good tag. 50/50 split, everyone gets their way.
 
The problem is you never gain ground with points unless it's preference points and you get in on the ground floor but then once you draw you're done for life. If you're putting in for some of the hardest units to draw in the state it could take a lifetime to draw either way just because of the odds. It's always funny to me when people complain about not drawing a tag ever but they only put in for the best units in the state.
 
The other problem with a 50/50 bonus and random draw is it will eventually go to 75/25 then 90/10 because it won't actually fix the problem that we have too many applicants for too few tags.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-09-19 AT 07:10AM (MST)[p]I don't disagree with you fellas, you all bring up good points. I for one don't ever hold out for the top tier units in any state. I like to hunt. But in states that do have a point system you can count on pulling a ?good? tag every 3-10 years. With no type of point system there is a chance you may never draw, any tag. I just like the thought of getting something out of my investment, eventually. I don't want to beat a dead horse, just gets frustrating. Been putting in for Idaho for 12 years straight (which isn't that long I know) but I have never drawn a tag, and I have nothing to show for it. That's going after the 10-20% draw odd units, not the 2-5% units. Meanwhile you hear of guys drawing multiple tags in hard to draw units. Kinda sucks.
As far as hunt being a dying sport. I don't believe the number of hunters is fading, I think it's the overall percentage of the population that do or don't hunt.
 
I'm not going to hate on a nonresident but I don't think a nonresident should have any say in whether a state goes to points or not or how any tags are allocated. Right now Idaho is far better than Wyoming for example where everything is draw for nonresidents and there are no OTC opportunities. Also for true draw odds for a nonresident it's almost impossible to calculate them since it's an up to 10% quota but not a guaranteed 10%.
 
>I'm not going to hate on
>a nonresident but I don't
>think a nonresident should have
>any say in whether a
>state goes to points or
>not or how any tags
>are allocated. Right now Idaho
>is far better than Wyoming
>for example where everything is
>draw for nonresidents and there
>are no OTC opportunities. Also
>for true draw odds for
>a nonresident it's almost impossible
>to calculate them since it's
>an up to 10% quota
>but not a guaranteed 10%.
>


I agree N Corey. And to the point of pulling a good tag in 3-10 years I say BS. I have been in most states points pools since the early 2000's. I have 18 points in Utah for deer, drew my elk tag last year and it was terrible. I have 10 points for elk in Wyoming, which isn't going to get me a good tag, I have 18 points in Nevada elk and haven't drawn. I could go on and on. 3-10 elk points in Colorado elk get you nothing I have 14 and may be able to finally pull a tag in the next couple years. My daughter would never get a good tag in most states if I started putting her in now. Only those like me that started 18-20 years ago have a chance. Point setups are for making money, not for fairness.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-09-19 AT 01:52PM (MST)[p]Agree 100% nonresident shouldn't have a say in how things are ran, I can't argue that.
As far as drawing tags with points in other states... I've been on multiple good hunts in Colorado on tags that take less than 3 points, Wyoming numerous hunts where I had the points and going this year on a tag I drew in the random. I have a stash of points in Arizona and I am very likely to pull a great elk tag in the next 1-3 years. With Nevada?s system my odds get better every year. Utah, drawn 1 elk tag in that timeframe and it was great, should pull a quality deer tag in the next 3-5. This has all been during the same timeframe I have been applying in Idaho and I am still without a tag and sitting in the same position as I was when I started. Just saying, point systems really aren't as bad as some lead on. There are plenty of good tags that can be guaranteed within 10 years of applying. That's a statement you can't make with a completely random system. Everyone has an opinion, and not everyone see?s it the same way. That's just my take, I don't get too balled up over it either way. I imagine the system most likely won't change, but it wouldn't hurt my feelings if it did.
 
And too often, guys are using the hardest to draw hunts as their examples. Let's face it, If there are 10-20 tags available in a hunt, nothing is going to help you draw. I can see that I am not alone in my thinking and more importantly, I can see that the tide is shifting and will continue.... Idaho will have a points system in the future.
 
>Let's face
>it, If there are 10-20
>tags available in a hunt,
>nothing is going to help
>you draw.

Exactly, if your going to get lucky and pull a tag in the random you are just flat azz going to get lucky. So you might as well go 50random/50points. The lucky will continue to get lucky, and the guys that pay their dues stand a chance of getting a tag someday...
 
If it ever goes to a point system I hope they follow the Wyoming standard. Only points for nonresidents, nothing is OTC for nonresidents, and no hunting wilderness as a nonresident. Maybe that would be a crappy enough system that people would see the flaws in making any changes.
 
That would be awesome! Wyoming?s system is as easy as they come, cut and dry, and once you actually apply the results come out fast. Plenty of time to coordinate schedules and make the most of your hunt. Lots of great opportunities in Wyoming for little to no points. By far my favorite state and it's not even close.
 
I still can't believe that some hunters want a point system. The math is really simple. The only way a point system isn't awful, is when there is enough tags to draw with less than 5 points. If you have been building points in multiple states for the last 20 years, you have seen how bad point creep is. A great example of point creep is region G in Wyoming. I hope Idaho and New Mexico never adopt a point system. Fortunately many hunters have seen how point systems are bad in the long run and there is a lot of resistance in Idaho.
 
$4.50 for a bonus point the first year. And then?
I'm sure they watched Wyoming enact their plan.

I hope Idaho does not go down the points road.
 
No non-residents would add less than 10% more tags for residents, I guess that is the fix??

There was an earlier post about large cost increases for non-residents.

In about 2012, Oregon doubled their hunting license price, revenue stayed the same as there were 50% less applicants. So they didn't get what they wanted, more revenue.

Long term they lost revenue as many with significant points stayed in until they drew, then left.

I don't care what Idaho does, as mentioned earlier, as a non-resident, I don't have a say.

My only option is do I want to send my money there anymore. Currently I send approximately $200.00 a year to Idaho for a long shot chance at a good tag. But as a consumer, I have to constantly evaluate if I am getting value for my money.
 
People aren't dropping out of Oregon after they've drawn because of the money it's because they'll never have another chance of drawing another tag in their lifetime with the crappy point setup they have. Idaho is really setup for people who plan on hunting the state anyways so you throw your name in the hat for a chance at something better than OTC and if you don't draw then you hunt the OTC tag that's in your pocket.
 
Double the non-resident tag prices, eliminate OTC for non-residents, make them all by application only. Cut the quota allowed to non-residents to no more than 10% of historic tags allocated per zone (for elk). Raise the resident prices by 25%. No loss of revenue, less crowding. Better quality of hunting for all. Idaho would then be in line with the states around them.
 
Points have worked great for my family and friends. Idaho needs a point system, maybe a 90/10 random split. Charge accordingly, nonresi paying substantialy more. Think of the instant revenue put towards the resources. Bh1
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-11-19 AT 10:59AM (MST)[p]The problem with nonresidents chiming in on this is that they don't really care that much if they draw a tag in Idaho. Their thought process is, I will bank a bunch of points, hunt in my home state, and when I'm good and ready, I'll cash them in on a hunt. Which is at odds with a resident hunter who is going to hunt every year regardless. The resident hunter just wants a good shot at a tag. The non-resident typically has never set foot in the unit, while the resident has hunted and/or scouted with friends and family. The resident typically is going to have one friend or family member draw and he/she will go with that family/friend every year or every other year.

The guys that think they are doing well in Wyoming is particularly laughable. Because the hunts they think they are banking for (the hunts that take 1-3 points) used to be OTC tags with better than 50% draw odds. They just give the state another $100 for points before they draw! The great hunts take full points (12 or 13 I think now), and even then they have 10% draw odds. So, they just paid $650 EXTRA (and waited 13 years) to draw a tag that they probably would have had similar draw odds on without a point system.

So, if a nonresident really would like a point system, so that they can theoretically know when they are going to draw, I say give it to the nonresidents only. These are the guys that want to know when they may draw. I do believe it would bite them though as only 50% of the units are draw tags in Idaho, and with only 10% of the tags going to non-residents the draw odds even with full points, would take a guy 10 years+ to draw any good tag. But, the fish and game would have another revenue stream. Thank you nonresident!
 
I think if they were to do that they'd need to follow a similar path as Wyoming and eliminate all OTC hunts for nonresidents and change it to a draw with a specific zone with 10% of the historical average going to a draw pool for nonresidents. I think the only nonresidents that are pushing a point system are the ones that never hunt Idaho unless they draw. That isn't how the Idaho system is designed unless you just want to give away a bunch of money for nothing. There are however plenty of states to choose from with different forms of crappy point systems so I say spend your money on them and leave Idaho alone.
 
Yeah, I was only merely saying it tongue in cheek. As in, if you really want to screw yourselves, let it happen to the nonres, NOT the res.
 
Non resident Idaho hunter since 1989. And I feel non residents do have say in any state they spend money in. Played points and non point states for a long time. Points have allowed family, friends and myself to go on some amazing hunts over the years. Drew my 1st Idaho controlled elk tag last year. Only took 29 years to do it. No worries, I'd do it again. I'd do it sooner with a point system in place. And points raise revenue that helps the resource. Oh, not that it matters much, but I'll be an Idaho resident on Sept 1st. And will still support a well run point system in Idaho. Bh1
 
If Idaho is dumb enough to adopt a points system I feel the state will lose more money then it will gain. Many residents will to not hunt in Idaho and maybe hunt elsewhere or just give up hunting all together. Maybe take up fishing



Chuck in Boise
 
I'll take a wild stab and say if it took you 29 years to draw an elk tag you have been putting in for some of the top 5 to 10 tags in the state. With odds of drawing one of those as a nonresident I'd say you did well. If they go to points 2 or 3 times as many nonresidents would be applying for those already limited tags so all it?d do is give you a feeling that you've got a better chance when in reality it's worse. I've drawn some good tags over the years in states with points and I've watched states go from no points to points and seen first hand what it really does to draw odds. I really hope the majority of Idaho hunters are smart enough to see the reality of it. It also has nothing to do with revenue because there's a lot of other ways to increase revenue and efficiently utilize the revenue they currently have.
 
First I'm a non so I guess stop reading now but in my opinion a point system is the worst thing a state can do. By far I spend more time hunting in N.M. and ID. Why no point systems, but also I don't put in for the ?best? tags most years. My biggest problem though is how it handicaps kids. As mentioned earlier in CO, AZ, UT, and WY if you don't have 20 point you don't have any. Yes there are some tags that can be drawn with just a few points but they seem to be the tags that were basically ofc or easy to draw before the point systems. My favorite Wyoming elk tag was a 25% chance to draw pre points last year it took 12.

I probably like N.M.?s system best. But there system makes the top end units virtually impossible to draw. In N.M. They draw names and look through you first 3 choices before moving on. In Idaho the very best are still virtually no chance. But if a person only applies for the hardest and then never draws it's on them. There are amazing hunts with decent odds right now. I'd hate to see a 25% draw odds hunt become something you cannot get for a decade or more.
 
Different way of looking at things.. I'd take that hunt with a 10 Yr wait. May never beat the 25 % odds in a random. Going on 3 AZ Archery elk hunts in 29 yrs, due to points. Versus 1 random draw Idaho archery elk hunt in the same amount of trying.. Not top tier, unit 18...Great bull by the way, congrats to your daughter...Bh1
 
By saying it has everything to do with revenue that is telling me you feel there's no other way for the state to increase revenue without adding a point system. I can think of at least a half dozen ways to increase revenue without adding points so in my opinion the revenue aspect doesn't hold a lot of water.
 
Not how I feel at all. Lots of ways to increase revenue..explore them all! With points I get to hunt(eventually)depending on my level of choices. Points are definitely a tool many game commissions use to help fund stressed budgets. Basically without damaging anybodys skin in the game. Bh1
 
Maybe I just plan on being lucky, I will fully admit to it. But I've had 4 quality elk tags in N.M. and 2 great elk tags in ID in the last 15 years personally. In the same time I have also drawn AZ 2 times. Never in CO or NV, in Wyoming 2 times but only in the first 4 years of the point system. Yes you can play the point systems and hunt but what I really have a hard time with is they work against young hunters. Each of my kids has had multiple greats hunts but mostly in ID and N.M. They aren't half a lifetime behind. I would trade any guarantees that I could hunt on a certain year for a better chance at hunting with my kids.
 
>If Idaho is dumb enough to
>adopt a points system I
>feel the state will lose
>more money then it will
>gain. Many residents will to
>not hunt in Idaho and
>maybe hunt elsewhere or just
>give up hunting all together.
>Maybe take up fishing
>
>
>
>Chuck in Boise


Yeah, right. That's laughable. Not saying I'm for points but to think it's not a cash cow for the states that have it and to think Residents would somehow forgo putting in for and hunting in their own state is ridiculous.
 
Buchhunter1,

Let me make sure I understand this correctly. You would rather have a guaranteed tag once every 10 years with a point system than 25% odds of drawing every year?
 
>Buchhunter1,
>
>Let me make sure I understand
>this correctly. You would rather
>have a guaranteed tag once
>every 10 years with a
>point system than 25% odds
>of drawing every year?


Yes, then he sites a state (AZ) without any OTC tags as his example. Then he states he is going to move here (because its awesome of course), and change everything, because he knows better.

Californication at its finest. Unbelievable.
 
Like ground hog day with this subject, but I understand why.

Whatever system other than purely random draw, is an easy sell, unless you've lived it. I think increased revenue to F&G is a given, short-term at least. For those unlucky souls who have not kept up with the odds on their LE hunt app's, it sounds like guaranteed fairness. Heck, anything that makes it sound like you will get something concrete for your $$ seems better than just random luck. But, as the say goes, anything to good to be true probably is, and anyone who has played the game has seen the impact.

The best argument against point systems of any type is how unfair it is to the kids, or anyone not capable of getting in early. They basically will be completely out of the statistical odds to ever draw a real quality hunt. If you care about fairness, that is simply UNFAIR. The fact is, if fairness is your true measure, nothing is more fair than everyone being in the same situation, with the same odds as everyone else, every year. That is what we have.

The unfortunate truth is that there is a dwindling resource and an increasing population and except for possible general changes in demand related to economic ups and downs, it will slowly get harder over time.

I am most amused by the folks that seem to love the states with the most gimmicks, like Nevada, that leave you some small % random, to go with your benefit from points in the draw, etc, which all just is smoke and mirrors. Think about it, is all just makes it more attractive for everyone to put in, which increases the applications, which just makes it harder to draw.

Here's an idea. What if everyone in the US could only apply in one state a year, for one LE hunt, period. A 50 state compact for draws. That would really help the odds on a lot of the hunts, I think. Who would go for that? How would that impact F&G revenue, nationally? PS I don't want this, just proposing an idea.
 
Why couldn't the state have two different systems one for resident and one for non residents. Then both parties could get what they want.

I personally apply for a number of states so I definitely don't want to see an increase in cost but, and I like the difference in drawing systems between each and all the states which allows me to play the game differently according to the state. I how so ever have never been old enough or able to apply for a state on the ground floor of a point system and be able to have max points and maybe a actually opportunity of drawing a sheep tag one year. So I can see both side of the argument as well as the Benefits of both but ultimately I think I would like to see it stay the way it is.....but if it doesn't I'm getting in while the getting is good!



https://www.sagemuleys.com
 
They could but I think most residents don't even want to open the door of any kind of point system because they suck.
 
Am glad you know all. But it seems that everyone is always talking how not many of the younger generation are getting into hunting and people are getting older. It does kinda sound like you wouldn't mind a points system....but what ever.

Chuck in Boise
 
Why try to fix what isnt broken? I can guarantee IDFG will fubar any transition to a preference points system, I say keep what we got and dont give IDFG the opportunity to make up some stupid high dollar preference point fee or cater to the super wealthy and let someone be able to buy enough points to draw a trophy or quality hunt quick if you got the $.
 
Folks keep mentioning how unfair this is to kids, C'mon do kids really care if they get to hunt for trophy animals? No, that all comes from Dad! I believe another part of the problem is Idaho's policy of transferring tags to juniors that are family members. I know of quite a few guys who put EVERY eligible member of the family (mom, dad, grandma, grandpa and all the little girls who don't care about hunting) into the draw with the hopes of transferring the tag to the son who does hunt. These juniors have 10X the opportunity to get these tags than everyone else. And of course, there are also all of the special seasons for the kids as well. Kida learn to hunt by plinking small game on weekends, not by chasing trophy animals in areas that they can barely travel.
 
The reason kids aren't hunting has nothing to do with the lack of opportunity. Everyone knows it has everything to do with the tech age. It's a lot easier to shoot something in a video game than it is in real life.
 
Points have worked well for my hunting portfolio, and my kiddos. Kids can get in line with the rest of us. AZ does a great job with it, earmarked kid only hunts. Idaho is crazy not having a well run bonus/preference point system,missing out on a lot of future revenue. Bh1
 
>Points have worked well for my
>hunting portfolio, and my kiddos.
>Kids can get in line
>with the rest of us.
>AZ does a great job
>with it, earmarked kid only
>hunts. Idaho is crazy not
>having a well run bonus/preference
>point system,missing out on a
>lot of future revenue. Bh1
>


AZ has NO OTC hunts, all tags, beyond some archery deer hunts are draw. You are referencing apples to oranges here. Idaho has more than 50% of its units OTC. YOU just think you deserve one of the LE tags and don't/won't put in the effort to hunt an OTC unit, while you wait for a fair system to give you a tag. You have gotten to hunt elk 3 times while I hunt elk EVERY YEAR. I just put in more effort.
 
Extra income will happen when each applicant ( make it optional) is charged for a point after not drawing a tag. Simple math. As I've said before, charge accordingly.. Kids r cheap, resi next in line, nonresi charged the most.Im not sure how much effort you put out Outdoorguy? But most elk hunters take the sport seriously, myself included. Whether a draw tag or OTC, both which I enjoy. Bh1
 
>Extra income will happen when each
>applicant ( make it optional)
>is charged for a point
>after not drawing a tag.
>Simple math. As I've said
>before, charge accordingly.. Kids r
>cheap, resi next in line,
>nonresi charged the most.Im not
>sure how much effort you
>put out Outdoorguy? But most
>elk hunters take the sport
>seriously, myself included. Whether a
>draw tag or OTC, both
>which I enjoy. Bh1


If you enjoy both, then this is pointless. To have a system that mimics AZ, ALL units would have to be in the draw. I put forth a lot of effort and have killed some nice bulls and bucks on OTC tags. A point system would be a gateway to placing more of our OTC units into the draw, and our politicians would immediately see the potential revenue. It would completely screw what makes this states hunting awesome. ie hunting every year.
 
In every other state with points the extra revenue has actually come from the additional 3 times as many people applying so they can build or bank points. This in turn worsens odds over time and makes it almost impossible to draw a good tag if you didn't get in at the beginning. If you want better nonresident odds they could change the system so you have to purchase your license and tag to apply. That?d make it so only guys planning on hunting the state anyways would be applying.
 
Buchhunter1,

You never answered my question.

"Let me make sure I understand this correctly. You would rather have a guaranteed tag once every 10 years with a point system than 25% odds of drawing every year?"

I still have a hard time believing there are educated hunters that still want a point system in Idaho. We have seen how point systems work in multiple states and the math really isn't that complicated. Point systems might seem like a nice idea on paper just like "socialism", "universal income" and "$15 minimum wage". However, in the long run all of these things will cause problems.

I agree the math is simple for the state agency. They can squeeze extra money out of hunters, especially after a hunter has built up a bunch of points in that state. Look at the ridiculous fees for sheep and moose points in Wyoming now. Hunters that are close to drawing feel they are committed and it isn't hard for the state to squeeze an extra $1000 or $2000 out of most hunters. Once you have years of points built up the state has you "by the nuts" and can double the tag fees, change the rules and hunters end up getting ripped off.
 
N_Corey,

Forcing nonresidents to spend $150 on a hunting license they won't use will reduce the number of applicants some but there would still be a big increase in applicants every year. Just look at AZ and NV. You have to spend around $150 for a license in both states just to apply. If Idaho does implement a bonus point system, the number of nonresident applicants will at least double. I would put money on that if anyone wants to make a bet. Resident applicant numbers will also increase but not as drastically. A point system would be worse for nonresidents than residents, so I'm surprised there are nonresidents that want one in Idaho. I guess they are from another state and are use to the point scam and think it is a good idea. People in communist and socialist countries also think those are good ideas but I think they just don't know anything different and are scared of "things not being fair".

There has been some talk about making OTC hunts in Idaho a draw for nonresidents, similar to what Wyoming does. I wouldn't be as upset with a point system for OTC tags for nonresidents but for the controlled hunts it would total mess up the odds. I would still prefer random draw for OTC nonresident hunts over the scam Wyoming runs for OTC deer and elk for nonresidents.
 
I wasn?t suggesting going to a point system as I'm totally against them. What I was suggesting is change it from the current requirements of purchasing a license to apply for hunts to making you buy a license and deer or elk tag. That would change the dynamics of the draw I think without doing anything drastic. That way you'd have to be planning on at least hunting OTC to make it worth applying.
 
IFG has had the authority to add PP/Bonus Points for a few years now (if you go back in previous years budgets, you'll see that $4.50 fee). We have beat that horse to death. Something that I'm surprised that NR's haven't picked up on yet is the possible reduction to 10 percent by unit or zone.
 
>I just hope we keep that
>horse dead and not let
>F&G fhjnk it's a good
>idea to implement it.

That is why it is so important to keep up on the committee minutes when the legislature is in session. The NR fee increase and zone reduction is something will need to be approved by the legislature. Don't think for a minute that there won't be some type of rider in that. (The last fee increase was pulled due to all of the bs riders that the legislature wanted.)
 
I am against point systems. They only work for units where the drawing odds are 20% or greater. Anything less then that and you get steady point creep either because there are too many applicants or too few tags to cycle through everyone.

Some guys say that point systems are great and that they draw a good/decent tag every 3-5 or even every 5-7 years. That's fine if you are applying in multiple states and this balances out to you drawing a tag in at least one state every year. However, as a resident, I don't want to draw a tag every 3-5 years, I want to hunt every year. Idaho's system is set up for this. I can apply for controlled hunts every year and not be upset if I don't draw because I have the OTC hunts to look forward to.

OTC is my primary plan, Controlled hunts are a backup plan. Too many people have that backwards.

I have also wondered how things might change if there was an interstate compact to control how many tags any one person could draw each year. It baffles me that a person could draw 3 or 4 elk tags in multiple states in the same year while there are residents sitting at home without a tag.

Idaho has a great system and it should not be changed. If you like playing the points game, do it in one or all of the many states that uses them.
 
Sorry guys I disagree. Points work and hopefully will someday be a fair and equatiable part of the controlled hunt process in Idaho. Yes! I do apply in multiple states and draw a good elk tag about every 5 yrs. Yes, I'd take a guaranteed great elk tag every 10 yrs in most states, versus random odds. Facts are our odds suck for the top tier hunts anywhere they are offered, points or not. Big game animals r finite, only so many tags to go around. Idaho is growing at a very fast rate. We will see odds on draw hunts and pressure on OTC hunts skyrocket, I believe we already have. Points provide hope of hunting that dream area, points provide revenues for game departments. And if you'll excuse me now, I'm going elk scouting, next 3 days. Points drew me a top tier archery bull hunt, 17 points to be exact. Well worth the wait! Bh1
 
That points system verbiage has been there for years now. Nobody wants it so it hasn't been implemented.

There's a good explanation at Facebook 208 hunters page on a thread started 8-8.
 
If this is true, then why do hunters draw tags as non-residents in states with point systems, yet never draw even the easier tags as residents in Idaho?
 
Nonresidents also draw a few of the hardest tags to draw in the state every year without a point system. For example unit 11 sheep is drawn by a nonresident about 2 out of every 3 years.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-15-19 AT 01:36PM (MST)[p]>If this is true, then why
>do hunters draw tags as
>non-residents in states with point
>systems, yet never draw even
>the easier tags as residents
>in Idaho?


A popular MM on here from Utah not only drew an awesome deer tag, but an awesome bull tag. He's a friend of mine. Another friend of mine, also a non-resident put his 3 kids in for the draw. All 3 of them drew cow tags, and one of his daughters drew ALL of her tags. A great buck tag, cow tag, antelope tag, and an extra deer tag in 39. Just because you haven't drawn doesn't make it so.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-15-19 AT 10:36AM (MST)[p]>Sorry guys I disagree. Points work
>and hopefully will someday be
>a fair and equatiable part
>of the controlled hunt process
>in Idaho. Yes! I do
>apply in multiple states and
>draw a good elk tag
>about every 5 yrs. Yes,
>I'd take a guaranteed great
>elk tag every 10 yrs
>in most states, versus random
>odds. Facts are our odds
>suck for the top tier
>hunts anywhere they are offered,
>points or not. Big game
>animals r finite, only so
>many tags to go around.
>Idaho is growing at a
>very fast rate. We will
>see odds on draw hunts
>and pressure on OTC hunts
>skyrocket, I believe we already
>have. Points provide hope of
>hunting that dream area, points
>provide revenues for game departments.
>And if you'll excuse me
>now, I'm going elk scouting,
>next 3 days. Points drew
>me a top tier archery
>bull hunt, 17 points to
>be exact. Well worth the
>wait! Bh1


And the truth comes out. 17 years, not the 10 years. LOL.
 
While a point system will bring in extra revenue, there is a cost to running the system. The last numbers I saw from several years ago had a IDFG losing money from a points system due to the costs involved. Although, ID could push up the cost to apply and weed out the poorer applicants.
 
Wouldn't that be great if Idaho were like Arizona and we could all get a guaranteed quality elk tag every 17 years? That would result in 3 tags over 51 years, assuming there were no point creep. We would also have to get ride of the OTC tags in Idaho to increase the age class of bulls but it would be worth it so we could all get 3 "guaranteed" quality elk hunts in our life. If you have the $$, you could play the point game in multiple states and get a tag even more often. I've been playing this game for years and have come to realize the scam that point systems are for hunters.

Guy Eastman covers the problems of a point system very well. Even though I have a bunch of points in multiple western states, I wish every state would remove their point system tomorrow and replace it with a random draw like NM or ID. I don't even want to know how much money I've spent in application fees in multiple states that goes to cover the cost of point systems which in the end actually decrease the number of tags I will draw. The only good thing about a point system is that you can predict when you will draw. Everything else about a point system is bad for hunters.
 
I just talked to a buddy of mine with IDFG and he said that NO Idaho is NOT going to a point system. You should be able to expect a news release clarifying that attachment from the commission conference call soon.
 
I understand and appreciate everyone's interest and excitement in reading the Fee Bill and seeing that there was a line in there for bonus points and a $4.50 fee. There is an explanation for why that is in the feed bill. That language has been in the idfg fee structure for over a decade. The legislature placed that line including a price in the fee language,when they passed a statute that says the commission "may" institute bonus points. It is a sort of placeholder in case the Commission wanted to adopt such a system. I can assure you that Commission has no plans at this time to institute a bonus point system, nor is the Department asking for any such thing. I apologize for any uncertainty this portion of the Fee Bill text caused anyone.

Toby Boudreau
IDFG Wildlife Chief
 
Thanks for taking the time to get on here and clarify that. Hopefully if plans ever change in the future there are discussions with the sportsman and women of Idaho before any major changes like that would happen.
 
>I understand and appreciate everyone's interest
>and excitement in reading the
>Fee Bill and seeing that
>there was a line in
>there for bonus points and
>a $4.50 fee. There is
>an explanation for why that
>is in the feed bill.
>That language has been in
>the idfg fee structure for
>over a decade. The legislature
>placed that line including a
>price in the fee language,when
>they passed a statute that
>says the commission "may" institute
>bonus points. It is a
>sort of placeholder in case
>the Commission wanted to adopt
>such a system. I can
>assure you that Commission has
>no plans at this time
>to institute a bonus point
>system, nor is the Department
>asking for any such thing.
>I apologize for any uncertainty
>this portion of the Fee
>Bill text caused anyone.
>
>Toby Boudreau
>IDFG Wildlife Chief


Thanks for the clarification and hard work!
 
Thanks Toby and IDFG...

You guys are doing a great job, can't say thank you enough!

We are fortunate to live and hunt in an Awesome State!!
 
Thank you for the clarification as well! I appreciate the opportunities we have in Idaho and the willingness for Idaho Fish and Game to listen to it's hunters.
 

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

IMG_9628.jpeg
20211119_181620.jpg
89277C4B-0AE9-4186-9663-B567DBCA7348.jpeg
corikirkpatrick91217-2.jpg
2187D6F5-3226-4887-8C03-7832E01E1319.jpeg
24532.png
Heavy, Palmated Buck
24540.jpeg
Screenshot_20220831_202808.jpg
IMG_1464.jpeg
IMG_9627.jpeg
3947.jpeg

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