Fish and Game Makes Decision(s).

S

springbear

Guest
CHECK OUT THE PART ABOUT NO POINTS SYSTEM!!!! GOOD JOB F&G.!


Idaho may allow trapping of wolvesJuly 10th, 2010(1) commentBy Eric Barker of the Tribune State Fish and Game Commission considers plan as part of effort to reduce numbers of large predators

Idaho is poised to allow trapping of wolves during hunting seasons following an Idaho Fish and Game Commission meeting.

The commission also changed the start of the 2011 chukar and gray partridge hunting seasons, lowered the partridge bag limit and made shooting any upland game birds from boats illegal.

The commission, at its meeting in Kellogg this week, approved the use of traps and snares as a legal method of take for wolves. But that doesn't mean hunters will automatically be allowed to do so.

"How they are used in a season framework is yet to be determined," said Jeff Gould, chief of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game's wildlife bureau at Boise.

Gould said the commission can now allow trapping when it sets wolf hunting seasons in August. But he said the commission can pick and choose where and when trapping is allowed, if at all. For example, it could allow trapping in some hunting units at some times of the year but not allow it in other units. He also said hunters who choose to trap wolves in approved areas would first have to complete a mandatory trapping training session.

The commission will also allow hunters to use electronic calls when hunting wolves, black bears and mountain lions.

The move to allow some wolf trapping and electronic calls was blasted by the Defenders of Wildlife, which is seeking to end wolf hunting and state management of wolves through a pending lawsuit. Roger Schlickeisen, president of the group, said the commission's action demonstrates why wolves should be returned to federal protection under the Endangered Species Act.

"We can only hope that the court will soon issue a ruling that puts a stop to such extreme measures," Schlickeisen said. "It will take all of us, working together, to develop a long-term, scientifically solid recovery and management plan for wolves."

The Defenders is leading a coalition of animal rights and environmental groups that sued the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service last fall over the status of gray wolves in Idaho and Montana. They claim wolves have not reached high enough population levels to warrant delisting, and the states remain hostile to wolves and will quickly reduce their numbers. Federal judge Donald Molloy of Missoula is expected to issue a ruling in the lawsuit soon.

Officials from Idaho and Montana have said they intend to reduce wolf numbers. Montana recently set a quota of 186 wolves for the fall hunting season. The state approved a quota of 75 last year. Idaho has not yet set its quota for the 2010 fall wolf hunting season, but commissioners are expected to increase it beyond last year's quota of 220. Idaho hunters killed 188 wolves last year. Idaho officials have said they want to reduce the state's wolf population from more than 800 to around 500.

The commission moved the start of the chukar and gray partridge, quail and sage grouse seasons from mid September to Oct. 1. But that will not take effect until 2011. The commission also will no longer allow upland game bird hunters to shoot from boats starting in 2011. Chukar hunters in Hells Canyon and the Salmon River canyon sometimes hunt from rafts, drift boats and jet boats. Other forms of upland bird hunting from boats is rare.

In other action the commission:

Killed a proposal to implement a bonus point system designed to help hunters draw controlled hunting tags. The system would have weighted future drawing odds in favor of hunters who enter the drawings but fail to win the coveted tags.

Voted against a proposal to allow muzzleloader hunters to use sabots - a sleeve that partially envelopes a bullet and can produce higher velocities and flatter trajectories.
 
i also applaud the Fish& Games decisions all the way around,especially the NO POINT SYSTEM!!!! In my oppinion, it's the only way to keep the drawing fair and cost effective for the average hunter!
 
WOOHOO - NO POINTS SYSTEM!

Thanks to everybody that made their concerns known to IDFG.

Grizzly
 
Wow No point system !!!! Good I was worried they would put it in place. I guess enough hunters that didn't want the point system took the surey and the fish and game listened for once!!!!!
 
I guess I need to apologize to the Idaho F&G. In my response to their questions I told them that, in my opinion it was all about the money and had nothing to do with what was best for the animals or the hunters. I also mentioned that it appeared that no matter what the respondents said in the survey they had probably already made their minds up and they were just going through the motions of asking for input.
I appreciate the fact that it appears they did listen and weight things out.
--JadgBob
 
JadgBob, I was with you in thinking they had their minds made up already and were just going through the motions to implement a point system. Thank you to IDFG for listening to the residents of their state. A point system has its benefits, and people like the thought of better odds with this point system, but odds (non-resident odds especially) would have dropped like crazy once everybody started applying just because they knew they were going to get a point if unsuccessful. Knowing that I have as much of a chance at drawing whatever tag I apply for as everybody else that applied for it is as fair as it could be and "as fair as it could be" is perfectly fine with me.
 
I had aobut the same thoughts as you guys did. I pretty much figured it was a done deal. (I also said that in my survey)

I would not go giving the F&G too much credit for listining just yet. I have not read the notes from the meeting that lists the "why" or "why not" for the points system. Remember the last time it was up for discussion, the only reason it was shot down was because the computer system needed was going to cost money, and increase the price of the applications or some such thing. It did not have anything to do with "our" whishes...

For now, I will hope that it was just a matter of the F&G listining.
So far the other decision that they made apear to be very soundly based on science and public input. So, in that aspect I say well done F&G.
 
I think a points system would be a better way to generate revenue rather than the General Hunts.

People would be willing to send in money to the state to buy points rather than crowding into the OTC units and killing all the forkies.

A Game Management Department should "Control" all units, not just a select few. Hunter opportunity could be mitigated with a multiple season structure, as is done in Colorado.
 
I agree the game needs to be brought back to where it was when I was a little feller. In their online surveys they said that it would cost $5.25 just to run the system and possibly this would generate revenue for other programs. POSSIBLY. if they need more money charge me 2 or 3 more dollars or whatever on my controlled hunt app. There are other ways to generate revenue. Only if the senate approves it though. My 2 cents.
 
>I could care less about points
>or no points. Just get
>the freaking game back to
>where it was 15 years
>ago.

I couldn't agree more. The herds cannot handle open hunts, all hunts need to be controlled.

People argue that the General Hunts give more people the opportunity to hunt while generating more revenue for the department. That sounds great but has lead to extremely low buck to doe ratios in once great units. The few bucks that remain are mostly forkies.
 
>>I could care less about points
>>or no points. Just get
>>the freaking game back to
>>where it was 15 years
>>ago.
>
>I couldn't agree more. The
>herds cannot handle open hunts,
>all hunts need to be
>controlled.
>
>People argue that the General Hunts
>give more people the opportunity
>to hunt while generating more
>revenue for the department.
>That sounds great but has
>lead to extremely low buck
>to doe ratios in once
>great units. The few
>bucks that remain are mostly
>forkies.


Why don't you just quit hunting? Quit stepping on everyone else's opportunity and practice what YOU preach. hunt evey third or fourth year and only take quality animals when you hunt. Manage yourself as you see fit and dont push your bull$hit on me.

This statement right here is why I am glad the points got shut down. This is the next step in the agenda......Guys like crow here dont want you to hunt.

Crow wants to Colovadaforniacate Idaho.............pervert.




the artist formerly known as "gemstatejake".
 
>
>
>Why don't you just quit hunting?
>Quit stepping on everyone else's
>opportunity and practice what YOU
>preach. hunt evey third or
>fourth year and only take
>quality animals when you hunt.
>Manage yourself as you see
>fit and dont push your
>bull$hit on me.
>
>This statement right here is why
>I am glad the points
>got shut down. This is
>the next step in the
>agenda......Guys like crow here dont
>want you to hunt.
>
>Crow wants to Colovadaforniacate Idaho.............pervert.
>
>
>
>
>the artist formerly known as "gemstatejake".
>





Best endorsement for a point system I've heard yet.
 
I know there are several F&G people that watch this board. Thanks to all that helped. I agree overall this meeting was a great meeting. The changes to chukar are long over due. And not allowing sabots is a good thing. Ron
 
Did anyone hear what the commission decided on the landowner permit system? Will it continue with the trespass fee being allowed?

The Christian
 
Gem State Jakea$$-

You're right, I really don't want you hunting.

But seriously, I have no hidden agenda and I'm not trying to take your guns away so don't run away into your bunker.

As far as hunters managing themselves, really? Do you really think if a hunter is issued a tag by the Game Department to kill a buck that they are going to pass on that opportunity? That is why we have a Fish & Game Department, to manage game. Game management is done by assessing the population of a given unit, evaluating the number animals that can be harvested without affecting the population of said unit, and then issuing the appropriate number of permits to achieve the harvest objective.

I believe that the department can be financially solvent by selling preference points rather than forkies, provide hunter opportunity by spreading hunters out over multiple seasons of shorter durations and improve the trophy quality of the herds. This model has been proven in other nearby states. Jake you should pull your head out of the sand and get out of Idaho once in a while.

If the deer hunting in Colorado is perverted then Idaho needs to get molested. But not the way that led to Jake's pretty new ankle bracelet.

Since we're making presumptions GSJ, good luck this year on your four wheeler. I hope you find a nice fat forkie to hail bullets at 600+ yards on the run.
 
>Gem State Jakea$$-
>
>You're right, I really don't want
>you hunting.
>
>But seriously, I have no hidden
>agenda and I'm not trying
>to take your guns away
>so don't run away into
>your bunker.
>
>As far as hunters managing themselves,
>really? Do you really
>think if a hunter is
>issued a tag by the
>Game Department to kill a
>buck that they are going
>to pass on that opportunity?
> That is why we
>have a Fish & Game
>Department, to manage game.
>Game management is done by
>assessing the population of a
>given unit, evaluating the number
>animals that can be harvested
>without affecting the population of
>said unit, and then issuing
>the appropriate number of permits
>to achieve the harvest objective.
>
>
>I believe that the department can
>be financially solvent by selling
>preference points rather than forkies,
>provide hunter opportunity by spreading
>hunters out over multiple seasons
>of shorter durations and improve
>the trophy quality of the
>herds. This model has
>been proven in other nearby
>states. Jake you should
>pull your head out of
>the sand and get out
>of Idaho once in a
>while.
>
>If the deer hunting in Colorado
>is perverted then Idaho needs
>to get molested. But
>not the way that led
>to Jake's pretty new ankle
>bracelet.
>
>Since we're making presumptions GSJ, good
>luck this year on your
>four wheeler. I hope
>you find a nice fat
>forkie to hail bullets at
>600+ yards on the run.
>
>
>

Believe me bud, I'd never run from you or any of your type who wants to take a hunter's time in the field away. I'll fight till the end to make sure you never get what you want.

The rest of your bull$hit I wont bother to dignify with a response other than, you lose sucker.........go play in another state. And cram your silly bow up your a$$ while your at it.


the artist formerly known as "gemstatejake".
 
Actually Gem State Douchebag I win, I will be coming to Idaho to play in one of your coveted controlled hunts this year. I hunt there every year and care a lot about the game. I look forward to my time spent there and know the potential that exists if managed properly.

Again, not trying to take hunters out of the field. Hunting pressure can be spread out across multiple seasons and weapon types to achieve a healthy harvest quota. Think Archery, Muzzleloader and a couple week-long rifle seasons. All offering hunters the opportunity to hunt, an opportunity that is more enjoyable than your average General Hunt camping trip/forkie fox hunt.

If a preference system were implemented it would not mean only being able to hunt once every decade. You have the choice to apply for hunts that can be drawn every year, or you can bide your time for that "once in a lifetime" tag.

I don't care what you do with your rifle barrel, but I'll keep my bow clear of the back door.
 
Thanks for your suggestions, We got guys on the case who are a fair bit brighter than you and they say no thanks.........So I'm pretty sure you know where your comments will be filed.

You don't think that tag is a "real" controlled hunt do you?????LMAO!
Implement your points system and kiss your tag good-by next year.

Colorado's system sucks ass by the way.




the artist formerly known as "gemstatejake".
 
I've never heard the PP argument framed in a "long term management" context. I'm not sure its even applicable, or to what extent. From my Colorado days I recall the PP system used as a way to allocate controlled hunt tags and it has no bearing on the number of tags allocated.

Kinda shows the pickle F&G is in. They can expect criticism no matter what they decide. If Idaho F&G does check these threads, I hope they realize that there are many residents who value our herds and want them to be strong long into the future. I would gladly give up tags to ensure that I can take my kids hunting 10 or 15 years from now, AND STILL BE ABLE TO FIND QUALITY DEER AND ELK HUNTING.

Of course, wolves don't need tags.
 
So it looks the same as it has the last 15 years. Most want opportunity over quality and the game continue to go downhill. Idaho will never learn.
 
Point system or Not has nothing to do with OPPORTUNITY versus QUALITY! It only has to do with random draw or less-random-preference point system. IDFG can manage for quality without a point system, if they choose to. Everyone has an equal shot at any hunting tag every year. It cannot get any more fair than that.
 
I believe the context here is that the PP system is a precursor to more controlled hunts in Idaho. The thread digressed from there.
 
WOW NO BONUS POINTS IDFG reads our negitive comments on their proposals. Sometimes it is actually worh writing to those guys....

Now my Grandson's will be able to compete in 10 years farily and equally with everyone for a tag... Glad Idaho did not become Arizona where people have so many bonus points our Grandchildern will never have an oportunity to hunt in that state because they were to small or not born yet to apply when many bonus point systems first started.

The bonus point system is a joke. Money held by the State to give a person more chances to gain a tag at the expense of our small childern's future hunts.
 
UGA nailed it, far as I am concered this is all that ever needs to be said about a Point System. IN ANY STATE! Well said.

>Point system or Not has nothing
>to do with OPPORTUNITY versus
>QUALITY! It only has to
>do with random draw or
>less-random-preference point system. IDFG can
>manage for quality without a
>point system, if they choose
>to. Everyone has an equal
>shot at any hunting tag
>every year. It cannot get
>any more fair than that.
>
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-16-10 AT 05:32PM (MST)[p]Point system has nothing to do with quality?

Try making very quality hunts with only general hunts and no draw. It is a very difficult thing to do. A point system is only a way to limit hunters to increase quality and quantity of the game. Its eventually going to come to the point that a point system is needed. Eventually more people will want to hunt than the land can provide for.

Most Idaho mule deer hunts are a joke and everyone knows it.

BTW I wasn't aware that endless numbers of hunters didn't have an effect on quality of the hunt.
 
Tag numbers, season dates, hunt methods, and hunt areas they apply to are factors that the game department can use to manage herd quality...And of course, they are in the position of making some sort of comprimise to maximize both quality and hunter opportunity, conflicting requirements. They are not going to be able to please everybody.

How the tags are distributed amongst hunters does not affect herd quality. Be it random draw, points system, first come, whatever..the animals don't care:)
 
NR here. Thank you Idaho game and fish. Thanks for not selling us hunters out. You did the right thing! Bonus points only adds more hunters into the draw that normally dont hunt an area.Anyone that follows multiple state drawings and systems can see Idaho's present system will keep your odds of drawing over the long run better than systems with bonus points. Habitat managment and season management is what effect herd quality.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-24-10 AT 01:58PM (MST)[p]Kudos to Trophy Hunter, Elmer Fudd and MagnumMatt and IDFG. You have to understand what causal factors have initiated the drastic decrease in game populations, and they understand, but better yet, common sense broke out with the F&G commission. Preference point systems have zero casual relationship to the numbers of game animals; poor management decisions involving how/when/how many are killed and environmental conditions, including winter habitat, predation, forage and other issues are what has taken Idaho from a once grand hunting ground to the pitiful state it is now in.
Selfishness based on the premise of preference points, which is really "me,I, and screw you" will kill our hunting heritage since the generations behind us and just being born will have zero chance at a trophy unit. Look to Arizona and rapidly rising stupid star (yeah I said it and meant it-STUPID STAR) Utah for examples of preference points gone wrong.
I think Idaho will be a leader in the trend away from preference points. If Idaho could just get their crap together politically, financially and biologically (removing politics from the equation to the extent possible), as it pertains to wildlife management, Idaho will once again rise to the creme of the crop for hunting and wildlife.
Now we just have to get the Feds out of our lives and have sound management of wolves and we will get back to some sense of sound management.
WyMo
 
>Preference point systems have zero
>casual relationship to the numbers
>of game animals; poor management
>decisions involving how/when/how many are
>killed and environmental conditions, including
>winter habitat, predation, forage and
>other issues are what has
>taken Idaho from a once
>grand hunting ground to the
>pitiful state it is now
>in.
>If Idaho could just get their
>crap together politically, financially and
>biologically (removing politics from the
>equation to the extent possible),
>as it pertains to wildlife
>management, Idaho will once again
>rise to the creme of
>the crop for hunting and
>wildlife.

I agree %100 with you about the poor management decisions, and other factors that have caused Idaho to decline to the state that we are in now.
And you point out in the last paragraph that Idaho needs to get their crap together finacially. I also agree, but how would you suggest that they do that when the revenues keep going down due in large part to the rising amount of OTC tags going unsold?
A point system would generate additional $$ without having to sell any additional tags, and the hope was that would be a start to get the financial house in order to allow for the better game management that we obviously agree needs to be done.
If you disagree with that being the right way to go about then thats fine, but dont say "Preference point systems have zero casual relationship to the numbers of game animals" when you yourself say Idaho needs to get their crap together financially to rise to the creme of the crop for hunting.
So once again I ask you what would your solution be to IDFG?
 
I won't comment on the various draw systems as that horse has been beat to death, but I can say that it is a darn shame that Idaho has lost most of her famed mulie bucks. If you want to compare then you should look at Colorado. Idaho deer and Idaho deer hunters deserve better and it is possible to return the herds to their former glory. When you have recovered the deer then you can argue over what system to dole out the tags.
 
It looks like a good and heated thread has gone quiet, so I will add my 2 cents.

It amazes me how wrong some of you are. There is NO WAY that a BP system is a necessary management tool for F&G. If your arguement is finances, then all we need to do is increase the current tag and CH entry fee's. I suggest F&G do both. My arguement against BP system is that basically it's strengths don't outweigh it's weaknesses. But I am more interested in how to better manage our herds, as most posts here seem to agree with.

Of course I don't believe that more money will allow us to maintain the same amount of hunting pressure and improve trophy quality. It seems that trophy quality and buck/doe ratio's seem to be highly dependant on simply allowing the bucks to grow older via less hunter interactions. Possibly less predator interactions too.

I did not get to hunt this state in the good old days before 1991. What I understand it seems like hunting went from "what it was" to "what it is" after the big winter kill in 91 or 92. I don't think fish and game caused that winter kill. I think that the reason the herds aren't back is that they never got a chance to get back to the age class they used to be. Pressure is ever increasing.

I don't even think it's a herd problem as it seems the herds in general are fairly sizable and healthy, with the biggest swings being determined by wether we have a decent winter that's not too harsh but provides enough moisture from winter to spring to provide good feed. The last few years I have seen more and more deer. This last year this state even produced a fair number of the Monster sized bucks it was once famous for. It's hard to reverse the development from the last 30 years, but at least that is on hold and key wintering grounds here on the Boise Front have been stayed from development for now.

I think the solution is clear and that is to severely restrict hunting opportunity for EVERYONE for say 2 years to increase the general age class of the herds, then increase opportunity but keep it at a reasonable level. The problem is that we have to agree to this trade off of Quality vs Opportunity. I'm not even sure that you can make a true biological arguement that an older age class is necessary unless you have fairly clear evidence that the does are NOT being bred as things stand now. As long as the does are bred and the new generation is big enough we will be producing enough bucks, but they just need to grow up.

I admit that I care more about Quality, but right now I know I have an opportunity to hunt every year and look for big bucks, which are there, but damn hard to find. I wouldn't vote to trade this for having the equivalent of getting a good(not great) CH Tag, but only getting to hunt at all every 4-5 years. I would go crazy the years I couldn't hunt at all.

So the bottom line to me is, it's a trade-off that I don't envy F&G for having to manage. Personally I suggest the following:

To limit take:

1. Increase general tag fee noticeably.
This may not generate a lot of revenue as the less engaged "opportunity" hunter may quit deer hunting, rewarding the more dedicated ones.

and/or

2. Make General tags unit specific, or region specific like elk are now, with limits of diff type's of tags(buck, doe, and see 3 below). Generally these limits would be fairly generous, but scientifically based. If you are too slow to get the unit you prefer you may have opportunity, but in another area/unit.

and/or

3. Add a trophy buck tag component to the general hunt that limits the tag holder to say 3pt or better. As an inducement to choose this tag maybe the season is significantly shortened for those who have the non-trophy general tag. Again, limit the number of hunters in the field allowing the deer to age some.

The goal of these would be to increase age class of bucks but still allow generous "opportunity"

Ideas for improving draw odd's for CH Units:

1. Increse Waiting Period. I like from 1 to 3 years.

2. Significantly increase CH tag fee's for successful. The casual guy may back out if he has to pay $400 for the tag. I'm not sure this will raise revenue, but it will reward the dedicated.

3. Increase CH entry fee to $20/species.

4. Keep a tight limit on NR % of draw. I'm not sure the current NR pool is too high, but if resident applications drop, then I wouldn't want NR to take their place. Sorry non-residents.

These are all just suggestions. I think you will find fault with many of them, as we all have different points of view, but as you consider how to solve this problem think of everyone's needs and not just yours, be realistic, and realize and how hard it would be to please everyone, on a limited budget.
 
I respect your views, but you lost me on your third sentence, "If your arguement is finances, then all we need to do is increase the current tag and CH entry fee's."

IDFG increased NR tag fees last year and it was received so poorly that they reversed course this year.

Now look at this year. -- As of July 30, only 600 NR deer tags have been sold. Just 3-4 years ago, those tags were sold out by the end of July. IDFG is in huge trouble, it is 100% due to poor game management, which has ruined the hunting experience.

I am a NR that has quit buying a deer tag every year, along with my family and hunting buddies. IDFG has lost over $1,500/yr from our hunting group alone.

Grizzly
 
>It amazes me how wrong some
>of you are. There
>is NO WAY that a
>BP system is a necessary
>management tool for F&G.
>If your arguement is finances,
>then all we need to
>do is increase the current
>tag and CH entry fee's.

Sorry BPK but you are the wrong one here. As stated above IDFG just tried increasing fee's and they have actually lost money because so many NR's dropped out. And...

>4. Keep a tight limit on NR % of draw. I'm not sure the current NR pool is too high, but if resident applications drop, then I wouldn't want NR to take their place. Sorry non-residents.

Also wrong there. I guess you don't know exactly how the draw works in Idaho. NR's are already restricted to no more than %10 of the CH tags, no matter how many residents drop out.

But I do like a couple of your thoughts, I have thought both would be a good thing for a while now.

>Make General tags unit
>specific, or region specific like
>elk are now, with limits
>of diff type's of tags(buck,
>doe, and see 3 below).
Eventhough I take advantage of the rules now by going on 2 sometimes 3 hunts with the same general tag, unless I harvest then I buy a second NR tag(God knows there have been alot of them leftover lately). But I would like to see the rule changed for the good of managing the herds.

>1. Increse Waiting Period.
>I like from 1 to
>3 years.
I could go for that.

Everyone against a point system keeps trying to down play F&G's finacial problems. And previous posters also keep saying a point system is not a management tool. But all I am saying is that the F&G's finacial situation is the biggest hurdle to clear to get more sound game management policies. And trying to raise fees will only backfire again!
 
The economy isn't helping either.

Something to keep in mind when it comes to management; The final say is up to the Commission. Recomendations made by F&G are quite often ignored if they are not popular. The managers provide options. The politicians make choices. You want to hunt every year or do you want big deer????
 
bpk, i fully agree with your #3 idea...if fact, i have been saying that for along time too.

BUT, i keep thinking your reference to "the dedicated" seems to go hand in hand with "the wealthy". everytime you mentioned it, it was preferenced with big $$$. i 100% dont agree with that.
 

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