Idaho Bonus Points Slipped into Bill

B

Bullelk1

Guest
Looks like Representative Jeff Siddoway, who owns a high fence shooting operation west of Ashton, slipped one by on us. If you ever want to draw the good Idaho hunts again without spending a fortune, contact your legislatures now and push against the point system that is buried in this change. Its in the second amendment to the bill, and I understand it has already passed the senate and is headed to the house. Don't wait on this.

http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/legislation/2009/S1141.htm
 
Thanks for pointing this out!!



Get your hunt on!!
tixs,lodging,for you
cruises,trips for her!
songdogtravel.com
 
So besides contacting our local legislature, what other sugestions do you have. I do not want the point system, however there are some that see it as a benefit for them in the long run. What do you think about that. I personnally do not like the fact that i might only get drawn once or twice to hunt a specific region
 
Read the bill; it is not just a preference point system. Those with deep pockets will be able to buy as many points as they can afford. That just ain't right.
 
Hey Bull, all I am seeing is a page that shows the revised prices of the licences and tags. I cant find anything about preference points or being able to buy points. Can you explain how to find this info through your link? Thanks
 
Read the first part of engrossmant one and then page 2 5.-d I knew that it said that people can buy points but missed that it said as many as they want. That is not right and will ruin the purpose of a points system. Why was the pulic only allowed to know of the price increases?
 
Thanks, just found it. I will absolutely be calling my reps and getting more info about this. FOLKS READ THIS BILL!!! Click the link above, click engrossment 1, and read section D.
 
Am I missing something here? I don't read where it says you can buy as many points as you want.

This is what I found.

The Commission may by rule establish procedures relating to the application for the purchase of controlled hunt bonus or preference points by sportsmen and the fee for such application shall be specified in section 36-416, Idaho Code.

Is there more to this?
 
>I personnally do not like
>the fact that i might
>only get drawn once or
>twice to hunt a specific
>region

I Personnally like the fact that I may finally get drawn at least once or twice to hunt a specific region. With my luck,and Idaho's luck of the draw system I have not drawn the area I put in for the last 8 years that has about a %20 chance of drawing. I need more info on the plan, but I will be looking to call and show my support for the bill.
 
I could be wrong but right now I cn buy points in utah or Arizona on hunts I don't even have to see until I'm drawn. SO if we go to the points system then any body can buy a point and so there will be more people competing for the trophy units down the road, I can see how the points system would be great on trophy units and units for moose and sheep. But if you can just buy points it wil ruin and water down the system. I think the only way that it will work is if you are allowed to put in for one species a year and cannot buy any at all ever. Buy sucks, he with the most money wins. Just a thought, I do not know the plan yet just going off what they have said. We do need to look into the whole picture. Call the fish and game ask what their plan is. Get more info.
 
Who knows what this means thats all they give us. We need to call local fish and game and our state reps and find out more
 
I just got off the phone with Mr. Fiddoway out of district 35. he is the one that put the amendment in for the bonus system. He said it has already passed the senate and is going to the house. He said if you dont like it then get hold of you house representatives and take it up with them.

I asked him about his high fences big game farm and he did not think it would help or hurt his outfit.

If you do want to call his office to get more info its 208-663-4585 he answered the phone when I called.

Fish and game said that it is out of there hands so We better call our local and state representatives to get this shot down.

LETS DO OUR PART AND CALL WHOEVER WE HAVE TO AND BE HEARED.

NO BONUS POINTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
I talked to Mike Moyle, dont know if he is a senater or what but he told me that this amendment give the fish and game the option of implementing a bonus system. The fish and game would have hearings on the subject and the sportsmen would have the say in it and then it would have to go back to the Legislature for another vote to make it into law.

He said would take at least 2 year before we would have a points system.

I would like to share what else he told me. Take it for what its worth.
The year he became a legislature member he had not drawn for a hunt in 10 years or something like that. He did not draw that year to so he got the names of fish and game employees and found out that over 90% of them had draw there tag. Mike Moyle said he got a call from the Fish & Game commissioner who was Santos at 11pm and was asked not to go public with his information witch he did not. That next year he drew his tag. He said the company that dos the draw system is from Idaho.

Either he told me this story to scare me into wanting a points system or we have a big problem.
 
I better never find out about any corruption in the controlled hunt system. If it turns out to be true, I'm hunting where and when I want for the next couple seasons...........


BTW, I'm making all the phone calls first thing in the AM.
 
i emailed this info. on as well. we will see what, if any responses i get. jake, let us know how your phone calls go.
 
Guys, I'm a non-resident so it's really none of my business how/what Idaho does except if the rules change, I wanna know about it.

But why is every one opposed to the idea?? You don't really compete with NRs now. I would think a resident would want to hunt a good area every 2-3-4 years or a primo area every 8-10. You still have all of your general hunts. And there are so many different PP systems out there.

Idaho limits NR tags to a max of 10%. Wyoming has a PP system that only affects NRs. I'm just curious why the opposition??

And again, it's none of my business. Currently I only apply in Idaho when I don't have some other tag through the PP DRAWS in another state so Idaho only gets my approx $150.00 license fee every 3-4 years. With PPs, they'd get mine times 40,000?? My math isn't that good but 6 million seems like a lotta money to me.

Just curious
 
We have the fairest draw system right now so why change. We dont want the fish and game to start relying on the non resident to much.

Our deer and elk herds can not take anymore hunting pressure right now. Being able to hunt wolves this fall will start to help the elk herd a little bit. Even if we dont kill alot of wolves at least we will put the fear into them and they wont be so bold chasing the elk around out in the open.

I think there will be more non resident hunters in the general areas if there was a points system.

Idaho would have to make every unit a draw and control the hunters that way like Colorado to really make it work.
 
Zboys, that is what I have been saying for years,
Make every unit a controlled hunt, sure some of
the better units you won't be able to hunt every
year or two, but when you do wouldn't it be great
to see how the quality of the units in a whole
have went up?

Colorado has units that a guy can hunt 2nd choice
and still build points towards one of the greater
units, and these units in CO are far better than
90% of Idahos units right now, because of to much
pressure.

#1 controlled hunts on all units.
#2 waiting periods.
 
One unit it looks like they are trying this in is unit 73 in southern Idaho by downey and malad summit. I think this will take pressure off of the surrounding units for those that are honest. I am curious to see how many people are going to buy that tag to hunt for seven day's. I think this could potentially be a great idea. I hope it works. It is like bow hunting in Idaho, you have to choose the unit you will hunt.
 
Well I called and voiced my disaproval to the points amendment. No luck contacting Mr. Moyle yet. I'll try again a little later, Also wondering if I could track down Mr. Santos...........



We've already gone through this....Idaho hunters dont want points. Nor do we want statewide controlled hunts. go hunt Colorado if you like it that way.......
 
Gem, I will continue to hunt CO every
few years, It is hard not to when you
can hunt almost any unit and see good
deer numbers and quality.

I hunted Idaho for about 14 yo 18 years,
but it is not worth the time and money.

And for someone to say nothing needs to
be done to increase the deer numbers
someone must be blind.

Ask yourself one question, Are the deer
numbers better, worse, or about the same now than they were 10 to 15
years ago, and how many mature deer are you
seeing now compared to then ?
 
Where I hunt, I've noticed a decrease in numbers and quality over about the last four years or so. Prior to that, I noticed an increase............Last year was bad everywhere including Colorado. Although I guess I cant complain because I saw plenty of deer. No good bucks though......

IDFG just last year launched a Mule Deer Initiative, so something is being done.

I don't know man, I've hunted here my whole life largely in general units/public land. I've seen MANY localized upswings and downturns in MANY different areas of the state. Through it all, I've always managed to see plenty of game and Take my share of animals and some pretty good ones too. Almost always pretty much unpressured on public land. Typically when I hunt mule deer, I see absolutely no one else.........

I see all the gloom and doom posted every day on this site and I just can''t believe I'm the only on that still has good experiences here in Idaho. if you want to play the Game in Colorado and the other western states thats great. Nevada gets my money every year so I play too. But I think too many guys overlook some great opportunity here even with the wolves and other problems. for me It'll be a sad day when they take those general hunts away and make us all play the "I hope I draw this year game".....................

My opinions are pretty unpopular on this board though.
 
Gem, no ones opinions are unpopular,
because they are just that opinions.

As far as taking away the general units,
that is not what I am saying, I just think
it should be ran more like CO, A hunter
has to choose a unit to hunt, and the
number of tags the game and fish allows,
should be determed on the amount of deer
there are on each unit.

I usually hunt the southeast units, but
over the last 10 to 15 years the hunting
pressure has increased, and the deer numbers
have dropped.


The game and fish have tried alot of diferent
things, but to me all they have done is
attract more attention to these units.

I have checked the harvest stats on unit
73, they closed the unit down from 95 to 98,
in 94 there were around 1700 people that
hunted atleast 1 day in that unit, when they
opened it back up in 1998, there were around
2000 hunters, and a ton of bucks of all age
classes, but since then the average of hunters
is anywhere from 3500 to 4500 hunters on a 5
day season. It to me is way to much pressure.

To me , hunting pressure is the rude of all evil.
Yes harsh winters, predation, habitat infringment,
all have there place, but In 3 years of closure,
73 went from might I say NO mature deer to several
hundred.

I am not saying close every unit for three years, but
by decreasing the number of hunters in all units
will help drasticly.

I am no biologist but I have seen what can happen
by cutting tag numbers.

Again, back to CO, in the early 90s they made some
drastic changes, they went from what most ID general
units are now to Plenty of deer in almost all of
there units, Yes there are some that still take
alot of years to draw but the wait is well worth
it.

"just my 2 cents"

From : A former ID Nonresident hunter and outdoorsman.
 
I contacted my two reps - a yes and a no.

This is an Idaho issue. Non-residents should concern themselves with their own states.
 
brymoore, that is a terrible idea. Idaho, and all states, should consider all info when making a decision. State reps should only take into account their constituents desires, but all ideas should be heard.

Like I pointed out earlier, Non-Residents account for 12% of hunters, but 70% of revenue. It is in your best interest to have non-residents wanting to hunt in Idaho. Without non-resident money, your herds will suffer, or resident fees will go through the roof.

Grizzly
 
I have put in for a deer unit that at times has been a 50% draw for 9 years....bring on the bonus points. I found nowhere in the attachment that said anything about being able to buy multiple points.
 
As a hunter its hard to give up the right to hunt every year, but the PP system would definately help out the deer herds. Colorado turned it around and look at the potential in all of their units. I not saying PP is the answer but we have to compromise some where. Why not make both non-res and residents pick and unit and split the seasons. Run first half of season 10th through the 20th and the second half 21st- 31st?? Take the pressure off the deer!! I see that fish and game has cut the season back in southeast, which they needed it.. but what happens from the 25th through the 31st?? Some of those hunters are going to flood into different areas in southwest to try and fill there deer tag. Is this really the answer??

Fish and game has to get on the same page and make us choose where we want to hunt. Bouncing around from unit to unit does not take the pressure off the herds.I think it would make a big difference in our deer numbers. Just my 2 cents.
 
I'll take a shot at this thread.

I did read the above proposed bill and didn't find anything in there that spoke of anything other than that of just a point system. It doesn't state anything unusual. I have no idea of what the system hopes to accomplish. I can only hope that it will be inline with other states in it's fairness to award tags to those that haven't drawn in previous years.

So on that thought:

First, I am for a points/preference system. Been trying to draw a 'good' deer tag for 23 years now with no 'luck'. I deserve better odds than those that have drawn. Been paying for the opportunity. It makes for a very fair system. You can even plan for the hunt, what a novel idea.

Second, It will spread out the hunters. If you make a hunter pick a unit or a couple of units. This limits the pressure on other units. Make us pick a weapon, no more early archery, then rifle hunt then back to late archery. I really can't complain about it, it has makes for a great long hunting season, but the animals have suffered from all the pressure. I also like the idea of splitting the seasons. Much like Colorado has done. this guarantees moderate hunting pressure and reasonable success rates.

Third, It brings Idaho in the fold of current hunting regulations in other states. Idaho is way behind the times here, as is New Mexico. No doubt, Idaho still has some good hunting but I feel it's in the rearview mirror for the most part. By implementing a points system, it will probably increase revenue, especially by non-residents who have avoided this state like the plague, because of no return on there investment. Idaho Fish and game could definately use the money, hell they need it to kill wolves really, lol. Money that could easily be used to support habitat restoration, winter feeding programs, predator control and education, just to name a few.

Bry, I am sorry you feel that this is an Idaho resident only thread. Just remember that we are all non-residents in other states!!!!

Happy hunting
 
Seriously I would hunt ever other year for a few years to see numbers come back. I am 24 and have hunted with my dad since I was three in southern Idaho. We are not the greatest hunters, but the numbers are going farther and farther down, with the exception the last two years they are coming back, but I dont see the same deer in those herds, the fluctuate so much and no mature deer until late in the year. Unit 74 has had a ton of pressure increase from hunters since the IDFG decided to toy with the units to the west. Those nits are getting better while mine is going down down down. I agree with having to choose where to hunt. IDFG needs to commit all the way.

Ps: The Mule deer Initiative has been around for a whole lot longer than one year. 2004 is when it was started!
 
It comes back to the same old argument. Quality vs Opportunity. Trophy vs Meat. It's the same opposing forces that responded almost equally to the Fish and Game's questions when they where developing their Mule Deer initiative recently. The fact is most guys that troll sites like "Monster Muley" are going to side on the Trophy Managment side, but we must understand there is an equal number out there in the general public that wants the opportunity to hunt every year and doesn't care enough about Boone and Crockett points.

I have not had a problem at all finding a young buck to kill, let alone a doe so most opportunity hunters won't see the value in shutting down the season or severely limiting access for a number of years. BTW, that is exactly what is needed for deer. If the seasons where simply shut down for 3 years except for depredation, then the age class of the herd would be just that, much older, and therefore more mature. I think that is exactly what you find in Colo and parts of Utah, Wyo, and Ariz....older ave age class deer. Sure Colo has better habitat to start with, but many units have older ave age bucks.

So is it fair for some guy who doesn't care about trophy's to suffer why we grow bigger, less tasty deer?

BTW, contrary to what many may think I would be happy to not kill a deer for a few years in order to let them "age", though I despise the idea of not hunting. Big difference.
 
You guys sure are putting alot of stock in the almighty "bonus point". I'll speak on Nevada since it's really the only one I'm intimately familiar with. Point blank it guarantees nothing. Particularly in the higher profile hunts. Without a massive stroke of luck you'll put in for years and years and more years before you ever draw. As a non-res, well basically just forget it. unless you're really young. Idaho needs to adopt it's own system and not use anyone as a model.

You Colorado guys answer me this.How long are the seasons you participate in? my understanding is short as hell, like 5-7 days. then comes the next group for second season, and the next for third.If thats true, Screw that......I'd rather have the status quo than be limited that much.


BPK brings up an excellent point. Since we're all obviously concerned...how bout just don't shoot a deer till you see a big one? I personally have not harvested a mule deer in Idaho since '05 I believe. Why enforce a bunch of regulations when we all have the power to manage ourselves?

I'll agree with you guys on southeastern Idaho. A shame to know it was once maybe the best Mule Deer trophy hotspot for years to what it's been reduced to now. Something needs to happen down there. But I doubt curbing hunting drastically will bring it back to what it was.It'll probably help but there are too many other factors involved.
 
How can this not be an Idaho only issue? The future of hunting goes a whole helluva lot deeper than harvesting a mature buck.How many youngsters are gonna be turned off by not being able to hunt their first year because they didn't draw a tag? If you start letting people out of Cali,Colo,and all of the other states dictate how we manage our herds why not just do away with state boundaries all together.
 
I want everyone to know Colorado has twice as many deer then Idaho.Even before the points system they always had 500,000 to 600,000 deer. The point system aloud them to micro manage every herd in the state intern gave them an older class of bucks in the units they wanted that in. So Colorado has more opportunity because they have more deer.

I do not trust the F&G of Idaho to lower the deer tag to give us the older class deer we need and want. They will still sell the same amount of tags and limit our time out in the field hunting. I will do my part and only take a deer if it fits my criteria. I have to young sons that can take a meat buck or doe and we will have a ball doing it.

Why give up opportunity enjoying the hunt when you know that its all about the Mighty Dollar at the end of the day for the fish and game department.
 
It has to be about money because the only funding fish and game gets is from sportsmen.What is the ratio of private ground in Colo compared to public? It is a whole lot easier to manage herds on private ground than it is public
 
Like i stated above, we need to manage our herds!! By giving the non residents a chance to buy a PP points would bring in so much more revenue to use to manage our herds!! Idaho has the means to be a phenomenal mule deer state it once was. Genetics, habitat! Just think if we managed our herds for older age class bucks and still gave hunter opportunity. I know it can be done!! In a few years the hunting would be unreal, thus bringing in more revenue to our department.
We dont have to take away hunter opportunity to manage for older age class bucks. The only reason we have the herds today is because of the terrain these animals live in. Most guys dont want to hike Idaho mountains to harvest a older age class buck. To many guys want the easy road, but i guarantee you that those guys would be thrilled to see more older age class bucks versus the yearlings!! In a few years the meat hunters would be shooting 3 1/2 to 4 1/2 year old deer versus the yearlings.
 
ive said it before and ill say it again i am against any preference/bonus point system in idaho, i grew up and hunted in washington for too long and the bonus points never helped me one bit,i drew the desert unit in washington which for anyone that knows is the most sought after deer tag in the state, worse draw odds than unit 11 sheep here in idaho and i drew it with 3 points while there were 1000s of others applying with 10+ points, points systems are worthless as it is now i know i have the same odds as anyone else
 
Bonus/Preference Points do nothing in regards to animal management that can't be accomplished with a point system. If you want tags reduced, reduce the tags. I believe F&G may be pushing this again as a money making opportunity to help them meet their budgets. Finally, I believe the majority of people pushing for a point system don't understand statistics. They believe "they" are being screwed each year or that there is some big conspiracy. Neither are the case, put the cool-aid down, learn about bell curves.

As for the Res/NR debate, this is an Idaho issue. I don't get involved in what CO, UT, etc. in how they want to run their F&G. I don't live there and if I don't like their system, I won't hunt there. I LIVE IN IDAHO and will be directly impacted by any changes. This is a resident's issue. I imagine most of the NRs just want another state to add to their list of apps with points each year.
 
Bry, What is it going to take for
you to realize how much money
non-residents bring into your
state, not just in license fees
but to the economy in general.

Let the residents keep the draws
the way they are then, but let
the non-residents have a point
system, this could bring even
more money to your game and fish,
and give some of us a better chance
at drawing a tag.

Like I have said before, I have applied
controlled hunts for over 20 years,
and have not drawn 1 tag.
With a point system I may have drawn
a couple times.

I know of 1 non resident hunter who
has drawn 4 great tags in 10 years,
Lucky? I do not think so, something
is wrong with the system.

In closing, I would ask you to loose
your disliking of non residents.
Realize how much we help you, and
want to help.
 
I don't dislike non-residents, come if you like. However, don't tell us how to run our state. If you don't like how the state is run, keep your money. Idaho residents want the opportunity to hunt every year, not every 10 years how it has progressed in Utah (unless you can buy a tag from Peay).

I suggest you read a statistics book to under stand Idaho's draw system. It's the fairest system out there. You're being sold a bill of goods if you think that point systems are anything but put in place to make money and to stop whiners.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-09-09 AT 08:59PM (MST)[p]Nonresidents make up 70% of f&g's revenue. Until residents pay the majority of the bill I think nonresidents should, will, and do have a voice in this matter. Weather you residents like it or not. Sorry if that upsets some of you residents.
 
>LAST EDITED ON Apr-09-09
>AT 08:59?PM (MST)
>
>Nonresidents make up 70% of f&g's
>revenue. Until residents pay
>the majority of the bill
>I think nonresidents should, will,
>and do have a voice
>in this matter. Weather
>you residents like it or
>not. Sorry if that
>upsets some of you residents.
>


Um, nope. You vote in Idaho? Not sure where you came up with that one. Come here and hunt by all means, but your opinion carries little weight in terms of actual policy.

I suspect your revenue statement is out of whack too, But I'm not certain about that. I'll find out though.
 
Go to the front page on Idaho's f&g's website. You will see a link about comments sought on a pelican plan. Can I not send them my comments? The last couple of years I know for sure that I have sent comments to the f&g about there deer, elk, and fee proposals.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-09-09 AT 10:45PM (MST)[p]Well then of course! you have absoluteley proven you make the decisions here!


I flat guarantee WAY MORE residents participate in those surveyes than non-res, you guys do have some say and rightfully so. But I'm pretty damn sure not near as much as you seem to think.

The revenue ratio interests me though. Did you pull that out of thin air or do you actually have something concrete to back that up? My thinking is, If you take into account gross revenue- hunting and fishing licenses and all the related tgs and such, residents would make up a hell of a lot more than thirty percent. Again i don't know that for certain.
 
No where in any of my post did I say nonresidents had more of a voice than residents, I said that nonresidents do have a voice weather some people like it or not.

I came up with the 70% from a post above. I should of looked into that.

But I did just find that a little over 50% of the f&g's budget comes for the sales of licsnes and tags and so on. And the other 50% of there budget comes from mostly grants. Of the 50% that comes from sportsmen, a little over half of that is from nonresidents. And a little under half comes from residents. So grants make up roughly 50% nonresidents make up 27% and residents make up 23% of there budget.

This came off of f&g's website.
 
Well, I guess we both stand corrected. Thats good info thanks for digging that up.

BTW-- If I listed every survey I've participated in....well it would be a long list is all. Not to mention I generally chew the ear off any Fish and Game officer/agent/employee I encounter. And I spend a considerable amount of coin on licenses, tags, drawings, etc. and there are a $hit load of residents just like me. If every voice counts regardless of how much they paid for licenses, residents got you beat. But who the hell knows?
 
Bottom line Non-residents will hunt here, if they want apoints system give it to them I am glad they come to hunt here and so forth. I agree with those that say the points system is for money the IDFG for the most part does not give a sh!t about deer herds or they would kill more mountain lions, and not let residents buy an extra tag for 200 some odd dollars. Its about the money. But money talks.
One area that I think most hunters who are not satisfied with the herds can help out is to kill more predators. Go coyote hunting once a month, shoot one moutain lion a year, help out that way and we were all doing that we would see a huge increase in a few years.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-10-09 AT 09:03AM (MST)[p]70% number is bogus. NR fees added up to $17MM on a budget of $76MM, do the math if you can.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-10-09 AT 10:16AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Apr-10-09 AT 10:12?AM (MST)

LAST EDITED ON Apr-10-09 AT 10:07?AM (MST)

Here are the accurate numbers and the references...

According to http://www.ti.org/FWtext.html

IN IDAHO, NON-RESIDENTS ACCOUNT FOR 12% OF HUNTERS...

According to IDFG:

"OVERALL, IDAHO SPORTSMAN PROVIDE APPROXIMATELY ONE-QUARTER OF THE DEPARTMENT'S FUNDING."

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/about/history_funding/RevEnhance/ppfunding.pdf

THAT MEANS 75% IS FROM NON-RESIDENTS!!!

tagsoup is right that around half of funding comes from federal grants and private donations, but federal money is from mainly non-residents too. Idaho Residents only pay 25% of IDFG budget!

I can't make it any clearer that that.

Grizzly
 
No wonder you support bonus points.

$17MM divided by $76MM equals 22% of the budget amount. Where do you think the other $59MM comes from? Idaho resident taxes and fees.
 
I disagree with the 75% comes from non-residents. All states get matching funds from the federal government. Idaho is essentially getting back what the federal government takes. It really is closer to a 50 50.

I think the arguement is pointless though, the IDFG is going to manage in it's best interest no matter what residents or non-residents think. Personally, I think a point system, if done fairly, is the best what to go. The way statistics work, the way the current system is, it's going to be fair to about half the people and the one fourth will be happy and the other one fourth will be getting the shaft.
 
this has nothing to do with your budget quibble but somewhere a few posts back somebody said let the residents keep the draw the way it is and let the non res have a point system and that would not work in idaho as all are in the same draws the only difference between resident and non resident when it comes to drawing tags is that if you non resident's number gets pulled after the 10% total cap on special tags has been pulled you dont get a tag if my number as a resident gets pulled i do get the tag. and the 10% cap is total statewide so you guys could all draw one tag even if you all got lucky, they dont have a set aside number of tags for non residents you guys can just draw up to 10%
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-11-09 AT 09:34AM (MST)[p]>You guys sure are putting alot
>of stock in the almighty
>"bonus point". I'll speak on
>Nevada since it's really the
>only one I'm intimately familiar
>with. Point blank it guarantees
>nothing. Particularly in the higher
>profile hunts. Without a massive
>stroke of luck you'll put
>in for years and years
>and more years before you
>ever draw. As a non-res,
>well basically just forget it.
>unless you're really young. Idaho
>needs to adopt it's own
>system and not use anyone
>as a model.
>
>You Colorado guys answer me this.How
>long are the seasons you
>participate in? my understanding is
>short as hell, like 5-7
>days. then comes the next
>group for second season, and
>the next for third.If thats
>true, Screw that......I'd rather have
>the status quo than be
>limited that much.
>
>
>BPK brings up an excellent point.
>Since we're all obviously concerned...how
>bout just don't shoot a
>deer till you see a
>big one? I personally have
>not harvested a mule deer
>in Idaho since '05 I
>believe. Why enforce a bunch
>of regulations when we all
>have the power to manage
>ourselves?
>
>I'll agree with you guys on
>southeastern Idaho. A shame to
>know it was once maybe
>the best Mule Deer trophy
>hotspot for years to what
>it's been reduced to now.
>Something needs to happen down
>there. But I doubt curbing
>hunting drastically will bring it
>back to what it was.It'll
>probably help but there are
>too many other factors involved.
>
Your thinking agoes along with Most of Idaho's residents thinking on hunting. Give up nothing and hope for the best in return. Sorry but the days of healthy deer herds and Elk herds are gone.

It's time for decisions to be made and it's too bad if everyone who's got to hunt every year for their whole lives doesn't like it.

The Deer herds here are a joke. I don't know anyone who's seen much for quality or numbers tha last few years and it's getting worse fast.
They have beem mismanaged for too long. Now throw in the Wolf that's been eating it's way across the state for over 14 years and we have real problems.

Tags need to be cut. No more chasing deer and elk with a bow, later with a rifle then a bow again. That's jut too much pressure. The herds can't take it.

We have to have some animals left for the wolves to eat.:)

We need to go to controlled hunts for everything with reduced tags, Pick your weapons and shorter seasons.

Bonus points would be nice. Idaho is so old school with the way the F&G is run. They are way behind the times. I would be happy if they would adopt a BP system like Nevada's. It's the Best one out there IMHO
Maybe they should actually count the herds instead of modeling and X by 10 the amount of animals they see.
Who believes there are still 115,000 elk in the state?

My 2cents
 
I shot a 190" gross buck 2 years ago, Hunted a 32" to 33" buck for 7 days last season but never got him. My 15 year old son shot a 28" 165" last season and missed a 27" 175" buck the year before. Before all that my best buck was a 25" 175" buck 10 years ago.

Idaho in the dark ages seems to be working for me. The fairest draw system is Idahos draw system. If you draw a buck or bull tag one year you can not put in for a buck or bull tag the next year.

Idahoans will take care of the wolf problem and if the non resident wants to waste his money in Idaho then go ahead.

Why dont you guys teach us a lesson and send your money to another state this year and we will beg you to come back when we start missing you.

I am getting tired of SOME OF YOU GUYS telling us how Idaho suck.
IF YOU DONT LIKE IT DONT COME BACK.
 
>LAST EDITED ON Apr-11-09
>AT 09:34?AM (MST)
>
>>You guys sure are putting alot
>>of stock in the almighty
>>"bonus point". I'll speak on
>>Nevada since it's really the
>>only one I'm intimately familiar
>>with. Point blank it guarantees
>>nothing. Particularly in the higher
>>profile hunts. Without a massive
>>stroke of luck you'll put
>>in for years and years
>>and more years before you
>>ever draw. As a non-res,
>>well basically just forget it.
>>unless you're really young. Idaho
>>needs to adopt it's own
>>system and not use anyone
>>as a model.
>>
>>You Colorado guys answer me this.How
>>long are the seasons you
>>participate in? my understanding is
>>short as hell, like 5-7
>>days. then comes the next
>>group for second season, and
>>the next for third.If thats
>>true, Screw that......I'd rather have
>>the status quo than be
>>limited that much.
>>
>>
>>BPK brings up an excellent point.
>>Since we're all obviously concerned...how
>>bout just don't shoot a
>>deer till you see a
>>big one? I personally have
>>not harvested a mule deer
>>in Idaho since '05 I
>>believe. Why enforce a bunch
>>of regulations when we all
>>have the power to manage
>>ourselves?
>>
>>I'll agree with you guys on
>>southeastern Idaho. A shame to
>>know it was once maybe
>>the best Mule Deer trophy
>>hotspot for years to what
>>it's been reduced to now.
>>Something needs to happen down
>>there. But I doubt curbing
>>hunting drastically will bring it
>>back to what it was.It'll
>>probably help but there are
>>too many other factors involved.
>>
>Your thinking agoes along with Most
>of Idaho's residents thinking on
>hunting. Give up nothing and
>hope for the best in
>return. Sorry but the days
>of healthy deer herds and
>Elk herds are gone.
>
>It's time for decisions to be
>made and it's too bad
>if everyone who's got to
>hunt every year for their
>whole lives doesn't like it.
>
>
>The Deer herds here are a
>joke. I don't know
>anyone who's seen much for
>quality or numbers tha last
>few years and it's getting
>worse fast.
>They have beem mismanaged for too
>long. Now throw in the
>Wolf that's been eating it's
>way across the state for
>over 14 years and we
>have real problems.
>
>Tags need to be cut. No
>more chasing deer and elk
>with a bow, later with
>a rifle then a bow
>again. That's jut too
>much pressure. The herds can't
>take it.
>
>We have to have some animals
>left for the wolves to
>eat.:)
>
>We need to go to controlled
>hunts for everything with reduced
>tags, Pick your weapons and
>shorter seasons.
>
>Bonus points would be nice. Idaho
>is so old school with
>the way the F&G is
>run. They are way behind
>the times. I would
>be happy if they would
>adopt a BP system like
>Nevada's. It's the Best
>one out there IMHO
>Maybe they should actually count the
>herds instead of modeling and
>X by 10 the amount
>of animals they see.
>Who believes there are still 115,000
>elk in the state?
>
>My 2cents


Alarmist horse #####. No offense to you personally but whatever. I do pretty well in Idaho and know others who do as well. go hunt somwhere else if it's so bad here.

Idaho hunters have already spoken on this issue.....Thanks but no thanks. So too bad for you.

Your pholosophy will conserve us right out of hunting someday.
 
Click on the link in my post 54. Idaho Residents pay 25% of IDFG budget.

No state taxes go to IDFG. GOOGLE IT. You will see I'm right.

Federal money is from federal income taxes, of which, very little comes from Idaho. The majority of federal income taxes are paid by residents of states other than Idaho.

Grizzly
 
"Alarmist horse #####. No offense to you personally but whatever. I do pretty well in Idaho and know others who do as well. go hunt somwhere else if it's so bad here.

Idaho hunters have already spoken on this issue.....Thanks but no thanks. So too bad for you.

Your pholosophy will conserve us right out of hunting someday."

Alarmist or realist? Maybe you don't know the difference. What I spelled out for you in black and white is much more likely to happen sooner than you think.
Your do nothing because I get to hunt every year plan was great when there weren't as many people hunting here and before the Wolves.
The days of you getting to shoot a young 4 point every year if you can find one are numbered.

Your philosophy or lackoff so to speak will be the reason there will be no hunting in Idaho. If F$G would actually count the herds, tell the truth about herd numbers and Calf recruitment not many out of staters would waste their money here.
Many residents already know the truth.

It's a shame too because this state has great genetics and the ability to have great numbers too.

Oh well, Hunt here while you can.
 
Alarmist......I already told you.
Don't assume to know how I hunt or what I shoot. Last buck I killed in Idaho was '06. 173" gross. Few years prior to that 182" gross. both in general units. What, you think killing bucks like those should be an every year occurance? And you call yourself a realist......thats too funny.
There are still good bucks in this state I flat guarantee that. We may be in a bit of a down cycle and some of those areas might need some special attention I'll agree with that. But absolute blanket statements about herd health etc are ridiculous and should be ignored.


I saw plenty of deer this year. and exactly ZERO other hunters where I was at. Fish and Game has claimed hunter numbers have actually declined. So which is it? Does'nt really matter to me because I hunt mule deer, whitetail, and elk every year in general units and generally with no competition to speak of. And I either kill or have opportunity to kill every year..........My own experience will trump the gloom and doom seen dailey from guys like you on this board.

And like I told you....Idaho hunters have ALREADY SPOKEN on this issue.
 
The same old arguement gets played out time and time again. Residents unable to grasp the economic impact of their views eventually get "screwed" by fish and game whose mission is mandated by state law and must be funded as a requirement of that law to do their job.
This forum and others like it reveal the "Horay for me and f*** you" attitude that hunters have for each other when discussing resident vs nonresident issues. This is a shameful and embarrasing point of view when seen on these boards.
Thankfully, since the game and fish operators must fund their activities through hunters license and tag fees they are forced to consider the opinions of nonresidents. Without these nonresidents your entire wildlife department would collapse.
Many think that would be good thing which is yet another example of utter greed and ignorance by hunters intent on protecting "their" hunting opportunities.
Idaho is a beautiful, game rich state that is now in a slump from predation, drought, overhunting, habitat, and mismanagement. These are problems faced by all western states so it is important to examine what is/has worked there and might work here. To do otherwise is foolish and misguided.
Anyone that opposes looking at other states solutions for their possible answers to Idaho's problems is a fool, what other word so completely describes the lunacy of fighting against any changes to a broken system? Why waste countless hunters dollars and time on solutions that won't work?
A point system for nonresidents would not hurt residents one tiny bit. The 10% nonresident tags would be set aside for this draw and it could be conducted after the resident controlled draw. How have you been harmed? The nonresidents would pay the cost and you may ultimately receive more money for the same number of harvested animals.
Or, keep using your personal success rate as THE REASON that no changes are needed, pretty pathetic I think.
CB08
 
Well thought out response. No misspelled words.

These type of responses are too few and too far between.

Grizzly
 
> The same old arguement gets
>played out time and time
>again. Residents unable to grasp
>the economic impact of their
>views eventually get "screwed" by
>fish and game whose mission
>is mandated by state law
>and must be funded as
>a requirement of that law
>to do their job.
> This forum and others like
>it reveal the "Horay for
>me and f*** you" attitude
>that hunters have for each
>other when discussing resident vs
>nonresident issues. This is a
>shameful and embarrasing point of
>view when seen on these
>boards.
> Thankfully, since the game and
>fish operators must fund their
>activities through hunters license and
>tag fees they are forced
>to consider the opinions of
>nonresidents. Without these nonresidents your
>entire wildlife department would collapse.
>
>Many think that would be good
>thing which is yet another
>example of utter greed and
>ignorance by hunters intent on
>protecting "their" hunting opportunities.
> Idaho is a beautiful, game
>rich state that is now
>in a slump from predation,
>drought, overhunting, habitat, and mismanagement.
>These are problems faced by
>all western states so it
>is important to examine what
>is/has worked there and might
>work here. To do otherwise
>is foolish and misguided.
> Anyone that opposes looking at
>other states solutions for their
>possible answers to Idaho's problems
>is a fool, what other
>word so completely describes the
>lunacy of fighting against any
>changes to a broken system?
>Why waste countless hunters dollars
>and time on solutions that
>won't work?
> A point system for nonresidents
>would not hurt residents one
>tiny bit. The 10% nonresident
>tags would be set aside
>for this draw and it
>could be conducted after the
>resident controlled draw. How have
>you been harmed? The nonresidents
>would pay the cost and
>you may ultimately receive more
>money for the same number
>of harvested animals.
> Or, keep using your personal
>success rate as THE REASON
>that no changes are needed,
>pretty pathetic I think.
>CB08


The chicken little crowd gains more support! Hoo-ray!

I have no problem whatsoever with non-res and I'm glad to see anyone have a successful hunt here. Perhaps your "solution" should be to adapt to the current conditions (which have natural upswings and downturns and no form of management will ever overcome that) and conduct your hunt accordingly..........
Might make more sense than bawling about the way the laws currently are because it's just not working for you. Meanwhile you stomp all over someone else's opportunity.

Tell me, which state would you like to see Idaho pattern itself after?
 
What I don't understand if our state is so pathetic why is everyone clamoring to get points to hunt it? There are several of us who pay nonresidents rates to increase our hunting oppurtunities as residents. In my case it allows me to hunt around my house later in the year with archery gear. And also be able to pursue Mule deer. I did not kill an extra deer last year but had the tag. I get so sick of we support you blah blah, without us ect.. How did we ever manage before? I play the points game in several other states. They draw you in raise fees and app's cost and create a yearly money stream for them wherein you have to keep playing to get your minimal "chance" to draw. If you don't like that well you can quite applying and never draw.

Have you looked at increases? This is a way to charge you more and in trade off for not getting mad giving you points.
I don't care that you come and hunt here, you are welcome, but the point is Idaho resident's twice now stated their opinions on what they wanted and it was not a point system. Your opinion's are just that, I cannot see how an increase in fee's or having points in place will create more animals.

We have had increases every other year in one place or another from our fish and game. It hasn't produced much and if you factor in the argument that more fees will create more habitat, ect... It just isn't worth hunting it anymore, but somehow having a point system will make it a place to hunt, even though previously it was sorry. All will be well and we will be rescued in one fell swoop!!

Well every body has to find a place to hunt after they didn't draw elsewhere and that has been Idaho's role for years with over the counter tags. Imo I don't think that argument has much validity. Come with me to southeast Idaho,During the hunts and we will count how many people are punishing us,err hunting you will be suprised.

Get your hunt on!!
tixs,lodging,for you
cruises,trips for her!
songdogtravel.com
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-14-09 AT 08:50AM (MST)[p] I wish people would actually read and comprehend before responding.

I did not say the state of Idaho was pathetic, rather I stated the the mindset of people that stubbornly refuse to accept the fact that things change was. Big differance.

My point was that the 10% set aside tags tags are not the property of the good folks of Idaho. Idaho residents should have no sway over how they are awarded since they are not eligable to receive them. This is a simple point that is often overlooked. Nonresidents have no power over how resident tags are awarded but they should be allowed in the discussion of how the 10% nonresident tags get allocated.

Chicken Little?

It is easy to see who is afraid here and it is not nonresidents. The nonresidents have supported Idaho game and fish for decades, paying an increasingly higher percentage of the bills and then getting trashed when the possibility of changing how nonresident tags get allocated is mentioned. Not only are you afraid, you are bitter and angry as well and it shows with every post you make on the subject. Since there has never been a time when Idaho survived without nonresident income you cannot claim that you have ever lived without it so the "Good old days" were days supported by nonresidents and residents alike.

Residents have the right to shape resident hunting in their state in any way that they desire, that is how it is supposed to work. But you don't have the right to try and bully nonresidents when they feel that the current system could use some changes.
The "Everythings fine, no changes needed" crowd did real well for themselves in Arizona until USO gave them a wakeup call and a larger share of resident tags went to nonresidents until that mess was straightened out. Was it worth it?

"One?s ability to adapt to, and change along with, the constant flux of life is in direct relation to the degree of harmony in which he or she lives their life."
Robert Walker

CB08
 
Coyotebuster08

When you are a guest in someones house you dont tell them how you would rise their kids and what kind of T.V. to buy.

Change is not the best thing just because everyone else is doing it.Didnt your mom and dad teach you that.

Because you came to my house and was rude and tolled me the 10% non-resident tags I gave you, That I have absolutely no say in what happens with them because of that I am going to raise the fees on you to teach you a lesson and if your not careful I might lower 10% to 5% so you better watch your P and Q.


To the rest of the respectful non residents we want your best ideas we want more deer we want more elk. Right now we dont believe that a bonus system is right for Idaho. The bonus system for non residents can be looked at but we know when the bonus system gets its foot in the door its going to be hard to shut it.

Mark my words Idahos Game is going to go through a big upswing in the next 5 years and beyond. We can see what other states are doing and we will not make the same mistakes. If you want to see more game in Idaho do your part and kill 10-20 coyotes and a cougar each year.

CHANGE JUST FOR THE SAKE OF CHANGE IS NEVER A GOOD IDEA.
 
Zboys,
With all due respect, the changes are already on their way. The bonus point issue is not going to go away because similar systems are getting favorable results in other places. Idaho is starting to lag behind other states in recruiting nonresidents to spend their money here. Increasing tag fees and licenses to nonresidents is simply an out-of-sate tax on hunting. After the game agencies spend this new money they will eventually tax the residents to maintain this new level of spending. This has all happened before and will happen again.

Weather residents like it or not, IDGF is in the business of competing with other states to attract nonresident hunting dollars. You may think that less nonresidents will make Idaho a better place but at least consider the fact that someone else (You) will need to pay the differance. The last resident increase had people howling at the high price of resident hunting and ultimately could result in less residents in the field if it is repeated as it must be to fund the agency.

Providing a better system for nonresidents to obtain tags through would not increase success or harvest rates but may encourage more nonresidents to apply thereby helping IDFG's budget. Why do you oppose that?

Now, do you really expect nonresidents to give you there best ideas when they will only be attacked for them by the "NO CHANGE" crowd? And how do you justify asking for those suggestions and ending your post with a statement about no change?

And I don't believe for one minute that you, or anyone you know, has the power to drop the resident quota. In fact, several laws now exist that limit the states abilities to do just that. Please, not so much drama before lunch.
CB08
 
>LAST EDITED ON Apr-14-09
>AT 08:50?AM (MST)
>
> I wish people would actually
>read and comprehend before responding.
>
>
>I did not say the state
>of Idaho was pathetic, rather
>I stated the the mindset
>of people that stubbornly refuse
>to accept the fact that
>things change was. Big differance.
>
>
>My point was that the 10%
>set aside tags tags are
>not the property of the
>good folks of Idaho. Idaho
>residents should have no sway
>over how they are awarded
>since they are not eligable
>to receive them. This is
>a simple point that is
>often overlooked. Nonresidents have no
>power over how resident tags
>are awarded but they should
>be allowed in the discussion
>of how the 10% nonresident
>tags get allocated.
>
>Chicken Little?
>
> It is easy to see
>who is afraid here and
>it is not nonresidents. The
>nonresidents have supported Idaho game
>and fish for decades, paying
>an increasingly higher percentage of
>the bills and then getting
>trashed when the possibility of
>changing how nonresident tags get
>allocated is mentioned. Not only
>are you afraid, you are
>bitter and angry as well
>and it shows with every
>post you make on the
>subject. Since there has never
>been a time when Idaho
>survived without nonresident income you
>cannot claim that you have
>ever lived without it so
>the "Good old days" were
>days supported by nonresidents and
>residents alike.
>
>Residents have the right to shape
>resident hunting in their state
>in any way that they
>desire, that is how it
>is supposed to work. But
>you don't have the right
>to try and bully nonresidents
>when they feel that the
>current system could use some
>changes.
>The "Everythings fine, no changes needed"
>crowd did real well for
>themselves in Arizona until USO
>gave them a wakeup call
>and a larger share of
>resident tags went to nonresidents
>until that mess was straightened
>out. Was it worth it?
>
>
>"One?s ability to adapt to, and
>change along with, the constant
>flux of life is in
>direct relation to the degree
>of harmony in which he
>or she lives their life."
>
>Robert Walker
>
>CB08


Tell you what Chief, I've adapted to and overcome more "change" in this state than you'll ever realize. Through it all I've had success and great experiences. If the "change" you're pushing now are regs that keep us out of the field, the hell with you. I'll fight it till the end.

If what your whining for is a points system or more controlled hunts for non-res Then by all mean have at it.
Not sure what it'll accomplish other than limit your opportunity to hunt here but what the hell do I care? And good luck convincing F&G to make a "special" system just for non residents. But we both know what your really up to as evidenced by your refering to Arizona. I guess you got 10%, do what you want.

The only thing I'm afraid of is more loss of opportunity. Thats all. You're right about that. If you think I give the tiniest $hit about guys from other states hunting here your wrong. Thats all. If your gonna come here and cry because of a percieved lack of game or you just don't like the way things work here, then yeah, I'd just as soon not see you around. Come here and have a good hunt. If you do your homework and hunt smart then chances are you'll have a good experience.

I've hunted here my whole life. Seen boom and bust cycles, herds migrate from one area to another permanently, seen the elk herd dwindle in the north and explode in the south, watched winters and disease hammer deer numbers, Seen development destroy habitat and migration corridors/close areas previously open for hunting,and on,and on ,and on. Things change. Herd health/numbers are cyclical. Right now some areas are hurting and special help is probably needed in those areas. I'm for that. Whats not needed are sweeping and radical changes statewide. All of which is to illustrate I've got a better grasp on whats happening here than you ever will.

BTW-We're all really impressed with your ability to quote obscure literature. Prolly a big hit with your limp wrister buddies............Does'nt apply here though as I've pointed out.
 
I for one, did not, and will not whine about paying more money...............Money compared to time in the field hunting is no contest. Start taking the latter away then I'll bich like mad.........
 
The monetary value of the hunt is determined by the hunter. People that value hunting as a priority in their life will pay the extra to hunt.
I have no issues with resident hunters, their rules, or opportunities. Frankly, they are not my concern.
My issue (all along) has been with nonresident draw practices that could be made better and no one has addressed that. I assume that it is because no real arguement exists against it, only emotional drivel.
The personal attack is not worth spending time on except to note that while you know nothing about me, you revealed a good deal about yourself.
CB08
 
Oh gee, I feel just terrible now....HA!


Think about next time you wanna label those that disagree with you "fools".
 
I don't see anybody changing anybody's mind on this so I want to point out a MAJOR PROBLEM that I think went overlooked.

State Rep. Mike Moyle (see post 12), said he drew a tag after finding some favoritism towards IDFG employees. He says he was told not to go public and then drew his tag the next year.

Did he just not want to bring this up until after his hunting season had ended?

Grizzly
 
Grizzly

I had that conversation with Mr. Moyle and I would like to know if anyone else contacted him?

If anyone dos talk to him I think it would be a good idea to record the conversation and if he repeats his statement then we would have proof and get something done about it.

What do you guys thing about this?
 
coyotebuster while it would be nice if we set aside 10% of the tags and gave non residents a bonus system that would also hurt the residents as at this point non residents are only allowed to draw up to 10% of the tags that means not guaranteed 10% so that would take away more resident opportunity why would any of us residents want that to happen
 
"Tell me, which state would you like to see Idaho pattern itself after?"


MONTANA!
 
I'd like Idaho to think outside the box. What they currently have certainly isn't working.

Grizzly
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-15-09 AT 11:27AM (MST)[p]Andrew,
That is why I proposed that the draw would be held for the available tags after the resident draw. That way no resident tags would be affected.

Grizzly,
I feel the same way. For over a decade myself and 3 others have entered the controlled drawings and never drawn. With most states systems we would have increased our odds of drawing given the 10 years of applying. I don't mind paying, and I don't mind waiting, but at some point the knowledge that a better system exists that could provide increased revenue for the state without raising tag and license fees, it is hard to be against it.

I am not a Idaho resident but I am an Idaho landowner. I purchased property near Soda Springs years ago for my future retirement that I hope to use someday. Until then I will continue to pay taxes to the state and hunt general hunts. I can live with that, but if given a choice I would like to see a change.

I have harvested predators, bears and bucks in Idaho with both bow and rifle and had to work for all of them, they were all great hunts in amazing country. But I have yet to hunt the other big game animals available in Idaho and may not get a chance to with the current system.
CB08
 
>I'd like Idaho to think outside
>the box. What they
>currently have certainly isn't working.
>
>
>Grizzly


Wrong, it works fine - equal opportunity.
 
Bryan, I have 4 questions for you.

#1 How many controlled hunts have you
drawn in the last 15 years.

#2 Are the controlled hunts now anywhere
near what they used to be.

#3 If the system just works fine, wouldn't
you like to see it get better.

#4 Has the mule deer herds gotten any
better than they were before the
Mule deer plan was started.
 
Point systems allocate tags - they have nothing to do with wildlife management. I'm assuming from your post that you want to limit tags, why do you need a point system to do this? The state can reduce the season time, cut the tag allowance, introduce brow-tine or point restrictions today. Don't confuse wildlife management with a point system.
 
Brymoore, I agree with an equal opportunity approach. But if I contribute $1500 for license fees over a ten year period, without drawing a tag, I believe I have earned a better chance at drawing my next tag than somebody who has only applied once for $150.

It would require no increase in tags, would increase revenue for Idaho's wildlife, and would reward those who are doing the most to help Idaho's wildlife. Seems fair to me.

But you're right, if Idaho residents don't want a point system for their tags, that doesn't affect non-residents at all and they shouldn't get a say. Idaho can have different systems for different tag pools.

Grizzly
 
Bry, I would like you to answer the first
question, I asked it because it has to do
with my questioning why you are so against
a point system.

Sorry I have brought management into this
topic, but I would like you to answer all
the questions I asked, just so I know
a little more where you stand on all
issues, or would you like me to open
another topic, and get hammered by the
non resident haters.
 
Hot topic.
I am a resident of Idaho and I am all for a Points system. What I am not for is a Points system where a person can just buy points to up their chances of a successfull draw. The way the system is now is not working for folks like me that have little to no luck and have a hard time drawing while year after year the same lucky SOB draws tags for good units. I would like to have the opprotunity to be able to draw right along with the lucky folks. A point system evens out the playing field. So if one guy draws a unit and I don't, the next year I have better odds than he does to draw the unit. For me it seems more logical and spreads out the tags better. I'm all for turing every general unit into an unlimited controlled so it makes people committ to a unit to hunt. On top of that, I think it would help determine the success rates better for each unit on deer and elk. Lets face it, people lie on harvest reports. No one wants to give up the information on where they were hunting. So they put down a different unit or drainage. But if you are committed to a particular unit, Fish and Game knows it and I think it will make managment easier and better. The unlimited controlled unit you will hunt will be on your licence information. It would make it a more honest system. My .02 cents.
 
Good post BBB, I do not think there are any
states with a point system that a person
can buy or apply for more than one point
per species, if that is what you are
getting at.

Bryan must be one of those lucky people
that draw out tags quite often, as for
me a non resident, in over 20 years, not
once have I drawn a tag.
 
From what I read, the bill has passed the Senate and House and is now waiting for the Governor's signature if he is so inclined. Judging from the voting there is quite a bit of support for it. The numbers seemed to run 3 to 1 in favor of it. Of course, it was piggy backed on a nonresident fee increase so that may explain it. From what I read, some of the legislators did not realize the full measure of the bill until it could no longer be altered. By then it was only a yes or no choice for them.

It is one thing for hunters to debate the merits of how tags are awarded, but this back door approach to legislation is becoming more and more popular with legislators that are dealing with sensitive or emotional issues. Now they can claim that they got fooled and were not aware of everthing in the bill. Kind of like the TARP bill that nobody had time to read.

CB08
 
>Bry, I would like you to
>answer the first
>question, I asked it because it
>has to do
>with my questioning why you are
>so against
>a point system.
>
>Sorry I have brought management into
>this
>topic, but I would like you
>to answer all
>the questions I asked, just so
>I know
>a little more where you stand
>on all
>issues, or would you like me
>to open
>another topic, and get hammered by
>the
>non resident haters.

My answers to your questions have no relevance to this discussion. Every unit has different draw odds. I could answer that I draw every year if I'm applying for an undersubscribed unit or I that I have never drawn if I'm apply for RM Sheep unit 11. I will say that I am smart enough to do a little math versus my desire to hunt a species before I apply.

Why am I against point systems? A pure lottery type system is the fairest method of tag allocation. It's simple. The majority of the applicants will draw a tag if they faithfully apply for the same unit within the proscribed time frame for the odds in the unit. Example, I believe Unit 40 Antelope is around 1 in 10 chance (I'm not taking the time to look it up). You'll eventually draw if you apply for ten years (assuming the odds don't change significantly). A certain percentage will draw in year one of applying and about the same amount in year 10. Yes, there may be a few outliers in the bell curve who will take more years but they're a minuscule statically anomaly. I know going in that it may take up to 10 years to draw the tag.

How does a point system help me draw more tags? I already know my statistical odds for a unit. How does a point system increase my odds - by limiting opportunity for others! People new to the sport (new hunters or youth) are usually the victims. However, I will argue that the odds actually get worse. With a point system, MORE people will apply, knowing that if they don't build points they will be behind (having their opportunity limited). I also believe a lot of wives end up building points at the suggestion of their husbands ? further diluting my odds.

I believe point systems only benefit those who start building points in the base year and the states who draw more money from the systems (WY).

By the way, I'm not anti-non resident. Hunt in Idaho if you want ? we may provide the only OTC Elk tags available to NRs. I also hunt in other states by their rules. I don't feel that I can dictate how they run their state just because I give them a few bucks.
 
All this bill dos is give the F&G the option of implementing the points system and before that happens there will be state wide meetings to discuss the points system and see if the RESIDENTS of Idaho want it.

If I lived in a different state I would not hunt Idaho. I would and will be going to Colorado and hunt. More animals and you can buy points.

3 to 1 ratio would only be counting out of staters.
10 to 1 against points system for Residents.
 
I AM AN IDAHO RESIDENT AND I'D VOTE YES ON A POINT SYSTEM. AS LONG AS YOU CAN'T JUST BUY POINTS. BIG NO, NO.
 
The 3-1 ratio was the vote by Idaho legislators for(3) and against(1) the new bill.
I don't believe there has ever been a public vote for or against a point system in Idaho.
CBO8
 
brymoore,
You bring up some good points.
One of the issues though is that Idaho needs the money and has no additional tags or opportunity to offer in exchange for increased revenue. Point systems increase revenue.
Your review of the negatives of a point system are fair except I would add something on the positive side.
The folks that draw that antelope tag this year would have fewer points than the folks that didn't in the next years draw. Ideally the hunter that does not draw each year would have better odds to draw the tag the next year than previous years hunters.
And,
Added revenue to IDFG may provide added opportunity to the resource if they could be trusted to re-invest the money in habitat restoration, predator control, and the other projects that adequate funding might make possible.
Well maybe.....
CB08
 
Start puting in this year in Nevada as a non res for some top tier hunts. Hope your young cuz you got a LOOOONG and expensive wait ahead of you. But at least you can say you've garnered a few of the coveted "points". Your actually prolly better off buying one of the "guide allocated" tags cuz you'll actually get to hunt and it may not cost you much more than waiting. The way the system works, good hunts are freakin hard to draw and the "points" guarantee nothing. You can actually hope to draw a marginal tag with some regularity, but you could duplicate those hunts in Idaho with an OTC tag. Yet everyone seems to hold that system as the gold standard.

Equal opportunity is the fairest as brymoore has stated. Your luck will change and you'll get your tag. or not.

Raise the fees if more revenue is needed. Most will gripe but they'll pay the cost in the end.
 
Bry, you say unit 40 has 1 in 10 odds,
so if you apply for ten years you should
eventually draw.

Wrong! that is not true, 1 guy could draw
that hunt 3 times out of 10 years, and
another person could go 40 years and not
draw that tag.

Point systems help people that have no or
little luck, If a person does not draw a
tag he gets awarded a bonus point, that
in itself gives him 2 chances to draw the
following year, and so on and so forth.

Yes if you draw a tag, you are behind the
following year in the draw, because you
drew the year before, And that is how it
should be, It seems greedy to me that a
person believes he should have the same
chance of drawing a tag year after year
and not letting someone else have a turn.

"Greed is the rude of all evils"
 

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

IMG_0310.jpeg
7.jpg
IMG_1339.jpg
7B17C62C-FC6D-432D-A454-30B55C66DD1C.jpeg
IMG_20230104_131345~2.jpg
IMG_7424.jpeg
20140913_094949.jpg
1.jpg
4714BAAC-BD79-49A6-B480-95467413F9D8.jpeg
CB5F1B6C-A736-4327-9ECB-DBF1A7AC210C.jpeg
More High Country Bucks
Leaving the field.jpg

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