Hunt in more than one Elk Zone each year.

[clearwater150]

Diesel prices are killing my hunting! I hunt down in Central Idaho for archery elk every year not because the area is the best in the west but because it is central to my family, some of which come from Montana and Washington and from Southern Idaho. Being the grandfather of the bunch and retired, I do the traveling in Idaho to accommodate our family hunts. I provide most of the camp, and go early to set up camp, do a little scouting and so on. Time isn't the issue....but this year I had to curtail my trips because they were costing me about $200.00 per trip for diesel! Ouch! So I didn't get to enjoy the season and am in withdrawal due to lack of hunting! So...it occurred to me that it would be nice in these changed economic times to be able to hunt in more than one Elk Zone...like the one my home is located in here in Northern Idaho...after our family hunt in Central Idaho. In fact, my wife and I were awakened this AM by a bull bugling up above the house...a great alarm clock.
My idea...one which I would pose to the Idaho F&G if enough hunters thought it a good idea and would support it, would be to allow everyone to hunt in two zones per year for a fee. I would gladly pay $25.00 to hunt in my own zone here at home in addition to where we usually hunt. Given the trade-off with diesel prices, $25 bucks would be a steal! This would be similar to the two pole permit fee for fishing with two poles. Any thoughts? Does the idea have merit? Will it have legs with Idaho F&G? /s/Clearwater1950

 

[destroyer350]

You can already do it ,BUT, it will cost you $416.00.

 

[UGAhunter]

Dito what 350 said. Pay $416 and no additional rule or law needed. Could kill two bulls too. My question is why your family just doesn't come hunt in your back yard???

 

[carterj16]

yea or just have your family chip in on the 200. I will pay 200 any day of the week to hunt with my dad

 

[Pre64]

This was a question on a recent IDFG survey. They are considering it. I would sure pay.

 

[clearwater150]

We don't hunt up here in the North for a couple of reasons...tradition being one and it is closer to their homes for another. We have named places for bulls we unsuccessfully chased for years, like "The Growler". We chased Growler around every year for seven years. We only saw him once (at about year four) and he was a beautiful six point that looked to go in the 330 o 340 range. Who knows how big he eventually got to be. There is a saddle, named "growler saddle" in his honor. Every significant elk trail is named. Every spring and wallow on the mountain has a special name. If we bump a herd or get a response we likely know where it is going and how to head it off. The area isn't loaded with elk, but our knowledge of the area has helped us be pretty successful there over the years. Now two grandsons are hunting with us and the tradition goes on. So...changing hunting spots would be tough. Gas money wasn't much of a factor until a couple of years ago. I enjoyed running down to meet one or more of the kids and a grandchild or two for a Saturday hunt. In fact, I use to run down there about every weekend to meet one of them. Now, diesel is a financial factor for me on my fixed income and an even bigger factor for them. They have families and all the normal obligations that go with kids in soccer or football - financial and otherwise. The area we have hunted for many, many years is much closer to their homes. If they don't manage to kill something during our extended hunt, and they can escape from family obligations, they can slip away to hunt a day on a weekend without too much expense. All that aside, the restriction on limiting elk hunting to one zone seems outdated in today's economic times.

 

[destroyer350]

I don't like zone tags at all, especially for archery, I'd rather see archery go to an unlimited draw as it once was and they could do the rifle and muzz hunts as zone tags.

 

[clearwater150]

I personally don't mind being limited to a reasonable choice. I only have so much time and the season is only so long and gas costs too much to be running around the country poking my nose into three or four zones a year. Requiring us to choose between an A tag and a B tag is OK too, in my book. However, I do feel the combination of choosing between tags AND a single Elk Zone is unreasonably restrictive unless there is a really good purpose behind the restriction and the restriction is achieving the management objective it is instituted to achieve. It would be interesting to see the data related to limiting elk hunting to zones. I assume the reason was to monitor/control hunting pressure and give the Idaho G&F the ability to better manage herds. Whatever the reasons/strategies were behind limiting hunting to a zone, it has been going on long enough to generate enough information to illustrate/demonstrate whether or not limiting hunting to zones accomplished the reasons/strategies. I wonder if anyone from ID F&G is reading this and would care to comment or point us to a report that lays out the rationale for limiting us to a single zone and, better yet, a report that looks at the data to see if limiting us to a single zone had an effect on management and to what degree. In other words, is it accomplishing the intended management purpose or not?

 

[idelkslayer]

To the original poster I say that since your scouting trips are for the benefit of the group they shouldn't have any problem of sharing those costs with you. I would think that with as many years of experience that you have in that area, scouting would not be very critical.

I read the rationale for the switch to Zones and A versus B tags not too long ago but I can't seem to find the report I read it in. If my memory serves me right the rationale was to spread hunters out and better manage the herd and harvest rates. Think about it, if you could hunt elk anywhere in the state with one tag then a lot of hunters would travel around following the seasons until by the end of the year everyone would be hunting the same place during the last available season.

This mentality is what led to the Clearwater deer tag and became the Whitetail deer tag. There were issues with unsuccessfull mule deer hunters traveling to northern Idaho and hunting whitetails. This caused there to be a lot of trespassing, crowding and increased harvest. So they made it so that we have to choose what to hunt and where.

I have often longed for the ability to hunt multiple zones without paying for a non-resident tag, especially when living within 30 min of 3 different elk zones. I would be willing to pay extra to hunt an extra zone or to hunt both A and B tag seasons. But I like the current tag system as a way to spread hunters out over the state and spread out the pressure in each zone.

 

[cletus14]

i agree with a lot of clearwater150 points. i like the way it was before all the "zone" b.s. i live in boise. i could hunt shafer butte for an evening hunt after work and then go and hunt yellowpine one weekend and then bear valley ect. the current system is only good for archers, who get to hunt the rut and spook the elk to death before the rifle hunt begins and then rifle hunt as they know where the "spikes are. my opinion is choose your weapon on everything. i didn't hunt elk last year and likely won't this year .i blame the wolves, and f &g for pimping out the elk for four solid months with various seasons for my displeasure. been hunting elk 40 + years in idaho the areas i have always hunted the elk are few and far between and when rifle season comes are call shy and spooked to death by all the other hunts prior to mine. if i draw a good tag i will go i can justify the cost. but otherwise i will just go fishing when deer aren't in season.

 

[BPKHunter]

I can certainly appreciate the logic of the OP's question and even for my gas(vs Diesel) guzzling pick-up, at 10-12mpg, trips to scout and hunt can be painful financially.

I think you see more and more pressure to take even deer hunting closer to the elk zone model to help manage the pressure. I do not see going backwards, unless there is some disincentive to discourage the original problem the zone tags addressed.

I know that out of state NR tag is expensive, but may be somewhat cost effective, being about the value of 95 gallons of diesel, or what ~1500 miles of driving. Another thought, since you aren't likely to ask family to start giving you gas money, is to join your family in the southern hunts, but buy your tag and actually hunt more closer to your home. This is what we do when we know my kids won't have enough time to hunt muley's due to sports, they will join me, but wait an buy the WT tag for thanksgiving week.

Too bad, it seems like the opportunities are either reduced or get more and more expensive every year.

Good luck!

 

[MichaelJ]

I like to think that choosing A vs. B tags and choosing zones reduces pressure in all units... I know how the OP feels with fuel charges but thats the price you pay. Maybe give up a few scouting trips and try taking a more fuel efficient vehicle down south to meet your family then hop in the 4x4. Lots of little ways to save out there rather than to change the entire system... My .02

Mike

 

[clearwater150]

I know the F&G has a tough job pleasing hunters and politicians alike and appreciate the job they do. If the restriction is actually accomplishing what it is intended to do then so be it. Having said that, it does strike me that there very likely is reasonable middle ground regulation that would achieve the same goal or purpose. I counted up the number of Elk Zones. There are 29. Roughly speaking, we are limited to hunting elk in 1/29th of the State. If, as I wish were the case, we could choose two Zones, we would be hunting in roughly 1/15th of the State. I seriously doubt that either our elk herds or fellow hunters would notice a difference. Having said all this, I still would defer to the G&F if they would demonstrate that limiting hunting to one Zone per year is necessary to maintain herd quality and hunter opportunity/hunt quality.

I will make a call to G&F and see if I can scare up some data. /s/OP

 

[bowhunteridaho208]

I don't mind the idea of picking two zones as long as you have to still choose, archery, muzzy, or rifle. Have the seasons close to the same in each zone, so that a person can't just hunt from August to December for elk and it would work great. I doubt you would see a significant increase in pressure. Like this year my archery spot caught on fire, I had to find a new spot during season in the same zone (it wasn't hard, but I hate going in blind). My other spot in the next zone over would have been a great one to drop into, but I couldn't because I already bought my tag. Just opens up more space you can go and hunt.

 

[clearwater150]

I agree with your points....I believe in choosing the weapon and separating the types of hunter.....and I totally identify with the situation you faced during the season.

I wonder if we were hunting in the same zone? We got kicked out of our camping spot of 10 straight years and the area closed to all public use. We too had to find another spot. In our case, we would likely have stayed in the same zone though, for this hunt.

I have written to the F&G with my questions. No answer, but I am not offended. I would hope that their attention is focused on the job at hand during the active hunting season and their biologists are all out and about learning and doing the things they should be doing at this time of the year.