Idaho Elk Plan 2-Zone Proposal

U

UGAhunter

Moderator
Messages
958
Some of the Proposed Elk Plan is now on the web for comment.

For 2-Zone Hunt option, see:

https://fishandgame.idaho.gov/content/webform/expanding-elk-hunter-opportunity-multiple-zones

I really don't like this idea! Generally speaking, a zone elk tag gives a hunter a lot of opportunity to hunt, often multiple weapons and liberal season dates. Do we really need to give hunters a month with a bow, then 10 days or so with a rifle to hunt antlered elk. It seems over-crowding and over harvest would harm our elk herds.

What do you all think?
 
I don't agree with it.

But as an archery hunter, most people would give up during archery season if they knew they had a rifle tag to fall back on, so I guess it would probably benefit me.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-09-13 AT 10:30PM (MST)[p]Personally, I like it. I think it's a happy medium between the zones now and the way the general deer tag is. It'd be nice to hunt a second zone so you are able to hunt with another party/family/friends.

Femoral I can definitely see both sides of the argument though. But I think that it will still force you to choose your weapon for the most part, of course there are exceptions. There always be those people that bounce around between bow and muzzleloader etc.
 
Yes, my mistake, I was referring to the other plan.

With the 2 zone deal, you will still pick your weapon. I went and read the surveys and they are talking about a A/B combo tag. Thats what I was referring to.
 
I would take the 2-Zone over the C-Tag option if it were up to me.

Grizzly

PS. Tristate, please be an adult and respect my wishes that you do not respond to any of my posts. I, in turn, will do you the courtesy of not responding to any of yours. I simply do not wish to converse with you.
 
As much as I would like to hunt in 2 zones each year, I think this would lead to increased hunting pressure as hunters choose second zones as back-up and large numbners of hunters will go to those later season areas after being unsuccessful in their first area.
 
That is exactly what I wrote on the survey.

Just like any general deer season that is open a week later gets a ton of pressure from all the people that didn't fill their tag.
 
>As much as I would like
>to hunt in 2 zones
>each year, I think this
>would lead to increased hunting
>pressure as hunters choose second
>zones as back-up and large
>numbners of hunters will go
>to those later season areas
>after being unsuccessful in their
>first area.

Good point. They should probably leave it as it is. It is just a money-grab anyway.

Grizzly

PS. Tristate, please be an adult and respect my wishes that you do not respond to any of my posts. I, in turn, will do you the courtesy of not responding to any of yours. I simply do not wish to converse with you.
 
I would love this, but I don't agree with it.

Pressure in general zones is bad enough. Right now I can hunt two zones for elk anyway, but the second tag is pretty spendy.

Why do we need to make it easier. If they need more money, raise the tag prices for residents by a slightly lower amount, say $20.

Problem here is the legislature likes to tell F&G how to run their business, even though they don't fund them, but they would likely not approve an increase.

I don't want guys hunting unit 33 first then coming into my hole when 39 opens..... That's an inside joke for a fellow MM'er.

Anyway, I understand why others will support this, but not me. Already told F&G.
 
I spent an hour or so on F&G elk plan chat tonight it was informative and time well spent
46cfa7275632b29c.jpg
 
I totally agree BPK. My unit is over-run with Non-residents and Residents alike. I wouldn't be able to handle any more people in my unit, and we only hunt during the Archery season. I can only imagine what it would be like if this passed.

I submitted my worthless 2 cents to the F&G department as well. All comments seem to fall on deaf ears either way.
 
I don't understand the difference between the "C" Tag and the "2 Zone" option. Although I just glanced over it and haven't done my homework yet.

I did notice that you can make your choice on your 2 zones up until the day the earlier of which opens (Assuming your zone isn't sold out by then). So it appears that you will still have to choose beforehand what 2 zones/tags you will hunt. There will be no running to the store for a rifle tag the day after archery closes because you didn't stick one with your bow. That's better than the statewide deer tag for sure.

BUT, I do suspect that this will hurt most, if not all of the rifle hunts throughout the state. Why wouldn't you purchase $30 rifle insurance for your preferred zone, even if you prefer archery. I think it might help the bow hunters slightly because people will give up, but it will definitely hurt most of the state's later rifle hunts. As much as I'd love to hunt 2 zones, that'd be selfish as we are already lucky to have the amount of opportunity that we do here. And this plan definitely won't "Enhance mature bull hunting opportunity," as stated in the F&G's Elk Management Direction Plan.

If God wanted us to be vegetarians, he
would have made broccoli more fun to
shoot...
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-11-13 AT 07:09PM (MST)[p]If you read this before the edit, disregard...

From the chat: Under the proposed 2 zone plan you will select either an A or B tag in one zone, and A or B tag in another zone. One consideration has also been to allow an A and B tag in the same zone. These are considerations and will be fine-tuned as we determine what people prefer more, the "C-tag" or 2-Zone tag


Who knows how much this will concentrate people in a given area, or if this will really change the overall harvest of elk, but I still voted against it. Just my opinion.
 
>I don't want guys hunting unit
>33 first then coming into
>my hole when 39 opens.....
> That's an inside joke
>for a fellow MM'er.

I read this this and I thought, "wow someone wants to hunt the same zones as me". Than I saw the last part and knew it was talking about me or matt ha ha. Unfortunately though, sawtooth doesn't qualify for the 2 zone option regardless of the outcome of the proposition.


An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life. -Robert Heinlein
 
Let's not forget where we came from. An elk tag was an elk tag. Before the "choose your zone/weapon" system we have now, hunters had much more freedom to follow the seasons. Granted there were more elk then.

I like the two zone system. I don't foresee a great increase in non-resident pressure. I don't foresee a great increase in archery hunters. I anticipate an increase in the later rife hunts, but we aren't selling out non-resident tags anyway.

I say you get a free second elk tag if you bag a wolf.
 
This isn't really about NRs.

This plan is effectively selling twice the access, and since both plans are centered around a "A and B tag combo", that means that people will be buying both to participate and most A tags are archery based, I do see an increase in archery hunters.

Just my opinion.
 
>Perhaps. I think many archery
>hunters will opt for multiple
>A tags.


You're right. I read it wrong for the 3rd time already.

I thought you had to pick an A and a B tag hunt. But apparently you can pick 2 A or 2 B tag hunts.

I think you are right, Pre64, most archery hunters will probably pick 2 archery hunts and rifle hunters will probably pick 2 rifle hunts. But even so, I think people will head to the hot unit, or what they think is the hot unit.
 
I give the IDFG KUDOs for the range of options they are considering. Good for them!

I am in favor of the 2-Zone tag. I don't think it will have the negative effects some worry it will, i.e.too many people flooding into their favorite spot. If anything, it may spread people out somewhat....or for the many procrastinators among us....some hunters may end up only hunting one Zone anyway. At any rate, I am in favor of giving it a go. In fact, I can't wait to look into scouting some new areas near home!

I am not, however, in favor of the C-Tag proposal. I think that goes too far to fast back toward a situation that didn't work and resulted in the current Choose-Your-Weapon/Choose your single Zone. I would much prefer the IDFG idle into this change by easing through a transition by implementing the 2-Zone proposal and monitoring it for hunter satisfaction/herd health before expanding to allow even greater flexibility. Further, the C-Tag looked like an administrative nightmare.

I would also prefer that the 2-Zone proposal still limit to a single choice of tags....either the A or B tag...and not let folks slip between a modern firearm and primitive weapon tag between the first and second Zone.

I got on the web site and commented on the proposals. I urge everyone to do so. Again...KUDOs to the IDFG for making the effort to get our input early on. Now...we all need to take advantage of that opportunity.
 
I think this proposal is, for the most part, a way to give residents more opportunity. Good for them. and good for us.
 
I am against it, but if it happened I admit I would take advantage of it. In general I feel the IDFG is going in the wrong direction on this. I would rather see them increase their control over harvest, rather than decrease it. It seems like with a 2 zone system more Elk than normal will be harvested in certain areas.

To increase opportunity, I think they should offer the leftover nonresident tags at a reduced rate to residents.
 
Regardless of what happens, I believe the fish and game need to decide what can be harvested in each unit each year. Then it won't matter the system or the dates for the most part. For example: Tex Creek late cow hunt, if it snows you have a huge influx of hunters and a few times in the last 10 years they have been slaughtered. But if the fish and gam new they needed to harvest say 600 cows to manage the heard and that meant with success rates they would give out 1100 tags based off passed hunts then once the tags were sold you could not have an influx of hunters just because the weather conditions would be favorable to them. I don't know all areas in the state by any means but this would help in these types of situations. Deer hunts should be the same way! Once the tags are gone, you need to find a new hunt.
 
Yeah, I agree on that. Also if there is a bad winter and only 5% of the calves survive something can be done to adjust the harvest the next year. As it is now in some zones with the unlimited tag opportunity they can't control the harvest at all.
 
There are 29 elk Zones in the State....which, roughly speaking, means we hunt 1/29th of the State under the current situation. With a 2-Zone privilege, we would be able to hunt 1/15th of the State. Assuming that the IDFG has determined that the 1-Zone Tag restriction is allowing the herds to do well, then the 2-Zone privilege would really be an incremental step, not too big and not to small, to see if our herds will do as well with an expanded opportunity.

I know in the McCall Zone where I usually hunt that elk numbers under the 1-Zone system did increase between 2000 and 2006/7. The IDFG was issuing as many as 800 antlerless permits and a big gob of those were for late, winter range time. However, I will say that my observations and the pop. survey IDFG reports from 2008 and 2012 do NOT jive with my observation. They show a continued increase while I believe there has been a gradual, but steady decrease from 2006/7 or so to present. But, again, assuming they are right then the elk herds did really great in the McCall Zone under the 1-Zone structure.
 
With the current system, by buying a leftover nonresident tag you can achieve everything the 2 zone proposal offers and more. The only benefit I can see with the new 2 zone structure is cost. If they lowered the fee for residents to buy the leftover nonresident tags then more of them would be sold thereby generating more revenue for management. To take it a step further, they should just offer a second Elk tag and/or Deer for that matter at a reasonable rate.
This opens the door for a big increase in harvest, but if all the zones have a harvest quota, it wouldn't matter. When the quota is reached, the zone closes, preventing over-harvest. I think this would produce more opportunity, more revenue, and more control on harvest.
 
>With the current system, by buying
>a leftover nonresident tag you
>can achieve everything the 2
>zone proposal offers and more.
>The only benefit I can
>see with the new 2
>zone structure is cost. If
>they lowered the fee for
>residents to buy the leftover
>nonresident tags then more of
>them would be sold thereby
>generating more revenue for management.
>To take it a step
>further, they should just offer
>a second Elk tag and/or
>Deer for that matter at
>a reasonable rate.
>This opens the door for a
>big increase in harvest, but
>if all the zones have
>a harvest quota, it wouldn't
>matter. When the quota is
>reached, the zone closes, preventing
>over-harvest. I think this would
>produce more opportunity, more revenue,
>and more control on harvest.
>

That's a bad idea, the F&G would offset any extra income generated by hiring enough people to run check stations in every unit/zone during the entire season for each and every hunt to get accurate harvest numbers. Even then, people will cheat the system.

I could already get by all the check stations that they setup for every zone I hunt. I don't need to get past them, but I always think to myself, "Why did they setup there? A poacher could easily take XXXX road, and bypass this whole deal."

It also provides a better chance for people who have the time and money to take off work and hunt the beginning of the season. What if you can't hunt the opening week or weekend? If the season closes, then you are screwed. Or how can people plan to make trips, especially if you have to travel along ways to get to where you hunt.
 
>With the current system, by buying
>a leftover nonresident tag you
>can achieve everything the 2
>zone proposal offers and more.
>The only benefit I can
>see with the new 2
>zone structure is cost. If
>they lowered the fee for
>residents to buy the leftover
>nonresident tags then more of
>them would be sold thereby
>generating more revenue for management.
>To take it a step
>further, they should just offer
>a second Elk tag and/or
>Deer for that matter at
>a reasonable rate.
>This opens the door for a
>big increase in harvest, but
>if all the zones have
>a harvest quota, it wouldn't
>matter. When the quota is
>reached, the zone closes, preventing
>over-harvest. I think this would
>produce more opportunity, more revenue,
>and more control on harvest.
>

no offense, but this would be a disaster and an absolute logistical nightmare to try and manage.
 
>no offense, but this would be
>a disaster and an absolute
>logistical nightmare to try and
>manage.


Yes, this is what I was trying to say.
 
Again, if you want to hunt two units now you can, so I don't see why we need to offer more opportunity, unless the elk populations are expanding proportionally, but I hear the opposite. Seems greedy to me.
 
>Again, if you want to hunt
>two units now you can,
>so I don't see why
>we need to offer more
>opportunity, unless the elk populations
>are expanding proportionally, but I
>hear the opposite. Seems
>greedy to me.


If by "greedy" you mean that they are just doing this for more money, then yes, you are right. When asked in the live chat the other day why they are doing this, the reply was "because people said they would pay more for more opportunity."
 
This is quickly becoming a hypocritical argument for me because I'm not in favor of the 2 zone proposal in the the first place.

But if we are going to go that route, then we need to have more control over the harvest. In other words; don't spend more than you make. Quota system = Budget, kind of out of fashion these days but maybe at least worth a try :)

The mandatory hunt report system is already in place, and the wolf, mountain lion, and river otter harvest already successfully work on a quota system that ends the season when the harvest objective is met.

BPK, I agree on the selfish motive for expanded opportunity, that's a good point.
 
I'm new to the forum and I can appreciate all your sentements on the 2 Zone tag or C-tag. I agree with the bulk of your statements and those points are all ones that we are considering. Today we sent to the printers the survey that we already have on our website to 3200 random elk hunters divided equally among the 29 zones, in order the gather more input on the 2- zone system and C-tag options.

Our goal for the new elk plan was to maintain elk hunting opportunity and make it better where we can. The options to increase hunter opportunity was one idea we got from the public input prior to our first statewide survey of 2011 elk hunters last year.

This is a new idea to expand opportunity outside of a second nonresident tag and there are unknowns with how one or the options would shake out in the end. That is why we are asking elk hunters again about the options and straight up " do you want this or not?"

I can say truthfully that this is not a ploy by biologists to raise funds. That is not our job, our job is to manage your elk resource and to preserve, protect and perpetuate for current and future generations of Idahoans. I'm not saying that money doesn't run this agency, but money runs all agencies. This is about trying to provide more opportunity.

I also want to say that neither option is a done deal and we are not asking you to be polite. We geniunely need your input and appreciate all the time and effort those of you that have looked and commented at our website http://fishand game.idaho.gov/elkplanning.

I'll try to engage on this forum and others as information or clarification needs require. If you have any specific comments or questions, please send me a PM.

Thanks,

Toby Boudreau
Idaho Fish and Game
Statewide Deer Elk Coordinator
 
To clarify, I think its us hunters that are being greedy for wanting even more opportunity not IDFG for trying to provide it.
 
Glad to see more F&G personnel on here. Let's try to keep our posts professional and constructive (unlike the Utah board lately), so that our state officials continue to participate and communicate with us. I think this forum is a good representation of the serious hunter. I'm as guilty as anyone in the past for ripping the F&G.

If God wanted us to be vegetarians, he
would have made broccoli more fun to
shoot...
 
twsnow18, Thanks. Ripping as you call it is part of the territory and I will admit that every agency has their criticism due to them at times. So I'll be here to help answer and inform and listen to anyone on this site or any. In the final analysis, it's your resource that I have the charge to help manage. You and everyone here has all the right to question anything and everything we do and I would expect nothing less. I can't say that I'll know everything or can answer it all, but I'll try.

Toby
 
just my 2 cents BUT whats wrong with the zone setup that has been in place now for what 12 years ??? Now we need to change it again ?? this to me is a waste of time & $$.. way back when F&G said we are going to make elk hunters choose their weapon & most hunters said Bull ##### u are not & so F&G came up with the zone plan & what happened THEY made us hunters choose our weapon according to the unit we wanted to hunt !!! Than they decided they needed more $$ from non resident hunters & they jacked the fees up & out of reach of most people & what happened again they lost millions of $$..than looming in the back ground was the we GOTTA have these WOLVES people & our wildlife herds dropped off big time.. than someone decided we had SOOOOOO many extra elk in Idaho we would allow ANYONE to buy an extra non resident elk tag at the non resident price instead of offering the RESIDENT hunters a tag at say double or triple the price..so not only did F&G NOT get the $$ from the non-resident hunters they didnt get much $$ from the residents either...Now again its NOT about $$ iots about our elk herds BUT for an EXTRA $30 bucks u can hunt 2 zones ??? where is the logic ??? { here is a prime example of how F&G manages OUR GAME } I hunt a unit that according to the resident warden SHOULD have been SHUT DOWN years ago due to the lack of bucks !! "BUT" because its "so close" to Boise-Nampa & Caldwell. & the largest group of hunters & unit 22 40 41 & 42 are Fokie units only they decided instead of closing or limiting it too a draw only unit for the sake of the animals it would be better to leave it as a general season & continue Hammering it ...
 
For the sake of my marriage, and society in general, I don't think we should expand elk hunting opportunity in Idaho. :D

Personally speaking, after several weekends of turkey hunting in April, two weeks bear hunting in May, a month of scouting in August, 4 weeks of elk archery hunting in September, 10 days of deer hunting in October, 6 weeks of pheasant hunting in November, few weekends pursing a wolves in December, and a January spent looking for a mountain lion....I don't need additional opportunity to hunt an additional month for elk in a second zone, but that's just me!
 
>For the sake of my marriage,
>and society in general, I
>don't think we should expand
>elk hunting opportunity in Idaho.
> :D
>
>Personally speaking, after several weekends of
>turkey hunting in April, two
>weeks bear hunting in May,
>a month of scouting in
>August, 4 weeks of elk
>archery hunting in September, 10
>days of deer hunting in
>October, 6 weeks of pheasant
>hunting in November, few
>weekends pursing a wolves in
>December, and a January spent
>looking for a mountain lion....I
>don't need additional opportunity to
>hunt an additional month for
>elk in a second zone,
>but that's just me!

+1, I'm with this guy. If that much opportunity isn't enough for you, move to Utah. Or Colorado, or Nevada, or Arizona, or Oregon or Washington....
 
Anyone know what the IDFG are going to propose on this issue after going through comments and listening tours? I wasn't able to make a meeting to hear what others had to say about it.
 
I am absolutely against a 2 zone.
Between 2 zones I know of, my hunting party will have a near 100% success rate. I am not the only one that is going to figure out how to do this.
I predict 5 or 10 years of a 2 zone and we will have quotas on most elk units in the state.

Selling more things is a short term financial solution for fishing game. Making a couple hundred dollars for a second nonresident tag when non-residents think we have a herd problem is like the bank paying you a few hundred dollars to refinance your house at a higher interest rate.
If you build the herds the money will come back!

In short I would much rather hunt for 10 days and see 10 bulls than have 20 days to hunt and see 10 bulls because there are less animals. You can't really increase opportunity to harvest without increased harvest.

Justin
 
If the elk beards are being managed correctly then I totally agree. If they were to say this unit can have x number of hunters which will harvest this many elk. Then it should limit over harvesting usually right?

If they are just letting it be a free for all then no it is more than likely a bad idea and I disagree. For example the Tex Creek unit. No tag limit and so if we get some good early snows every #####, Bob and Jane buys a tag for his uncle, sister and brother and so on and then you have some massacres and they then say that is okay. Which is crap, they should post a harvest quota of each zone every year and once it's reached. Then the hunt is over.

My two cents, am I unrealistic or would his be a semi realistic approach with a few Tweeks and some input?
 
some are for it and some are not. if it does go this route and youre for it, great. take advantage of it. if youre not, no one will force you to buy the extra opportunity that is available.
 

Similar threads

Simpleton
Mule Deer Proposal
2 3
Replies
218
Views
5k
Vanilla
Vanilla
Founder
Mule Deer, Elk, Antelope and Whitetail Hunts in Idaho
Replies
0
Views
501
Founder
Founder
C
Wasatch thoughts
2
Replies
193
Views
5k
elkassassin
elkassassin

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

desertbuck 001.jpg
15268C5F-5885-4BF6-9EBD-6EAE6B4E8365.jpeg
5AC6E4FD-235E-4B5E-ACAF-C802161873CA.jpeg
We6OUJBoSxmKJoAhYMIDnA.jpg
IMG_5154.jpeg
2A73FA5B-2935-4964-BE25-6932A661EE5B.jpeg
IMG-20201007-WA0000.jpg
trim.A8514D8E-9DDD-411C-801E-D351C534B23C.MOV
Caliente 3pts.1.jpg
IMG_4618.jpeg
Beautiful Archery Score for BIGOLMULEY
Screenshot_20211126-231927_Gallery.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