Idaho LAP Changes

[dguthrie2121]

The Idaho Fish and Game have recently proposed changes to the current Landowner Appreciation Program (LAP). I was able to attend the public meeting held in Pocatello on May 27th that discussed these proposed changes and took public comment. Under the current program anyone with 640 acres in any hunt area or unit qualifies to participate in the LAP. The current program can offer up to 25% of the tags offered to the general public to qualifying landowners. Typically this number stays around 10% unless there are depredation concerns. The landowners apply for these tags in the same way the general public does, however their pool is separate from the general public. Under the current system landowner tags are non-guaranteed, just as a tag is for the general public, they must be draw and awarded the tag. Also the tags may be transferred to immediate family or employees but cannot be openly marketed or sold. Under the new proposed system here are some of the changes:
? Landowners with 640 acres in any hunt unit or area qualify for one base tag
? Landowners with 5,000 acres in any hunt unit or area qualify for two base tags
? Landowners with 10,000 acres in any hunt unit or area qualify for three base tags
In addition to these tags landowners with 320 acres in any hunt area or unit may qualify for ?stewardship tags? by completing one or more of the following:
? Enter into a wildlife habitat management agreement (1 additional tag)
? Enter into an access agreement either to private land or through private land to access ?landlocked? public lands (1 additional tag)
? Enter into a one year depredation release agreement (1 additional tag), only available in areas with documented history of previous or current depredation problems.
In the new program landowners will be available to receive up to 6 tags in a given hunt area or unit. The LAP Tags will also become 100% guaranteed. Here is an example of what will happen under the new proposed system. In the Bannock Zone Elk hunt that runs from October 15 through 24 there are 200 tags given to the public. In this area there would be 121 base tags issued to landowners in addition to the 200 given to the public. That is also a 600% increase from the current landowner tags provided! This also does not include any stewardship tags, there could potentially be as many tags given to landowners as the general public! In a couple years when the elk herd can no longer sustain the hunting pressure the landowner tags will still be 100% guaranteed, that means when it is time to cut tags it WILL come from the public quota. We will be sacrificing our opportunity to hunt to allow the minority of citizens to control the majority of the tags. This is unacceptable, we will be turning over the management of our public resources to a few individuals that only hope to profit from these animals. This in no way benefits the average sportsman. This is the road to limited tags where only the wealthy have the opportunity to hunt every year. This will severely limit hunting opportunities for us as well as future generations. Please contact you elected representatives and visit the provided link to leave comments and voice your concern. If we as sportsmen do not actively protest this proposed change we will be forced to watch a select few hunt year after year as our opportunities as public hunters will dwindle. Please take action now before it's too late and share this information with your friends and family. There is also a meeting schedule listed below, if you can attend and voice your concern please do. Thanks.
Link to public comments section, Public input will be taken until June 6- http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/about/?getPage=33
Meeting Schedule:
May 29, 2014
6-9 pm Magic Valley Regional Fish and Game Office
324 South 417 East - Suite 1
Jerome, ID 83338

June 3, 2014
6-9 pm Clearwater Regional Fish and Game Office
3316 16th St.
Lewiston, ID 83501
June 4, 2014
6-9 pm Southeast Regional Fish and Game Office
3101 S. Powerline Rd.
Nampa, ID 83686

 

[UGAhunter]

Your analysis of this rule appears to be correct. This is an unbelievable proposal. LAP participants can apply for the early hunts too, I assume, and are guaranteed a tag???? Does that mean in the Bannock zone 120 LAP tags could be given in addition to the 25 in the draw? Same for any elk zone or good deer unit in the State. This seem completely outrageous!

 

[elkohalic]

I am of the understanding that landowners must have the minimum amount of acreage AND actually have elk/deer/antelope habitat on their property. Before anyone with 640 acres qualified for the drawing regardless of the habitat they had. The new system would be more based off of how many landowners that have animals actually use their private lands. So not everyone with 640 acres would qualify.
I hope they are not going to let out that many tags. A disaster waiting to happen...

"Property:
Only property that is used by, and provides significant
habitat values for deer, elk or pronghorn qualifies for the
Landowner Appreciation Program. Landowners may receive
a tag only for species that use the property.
Landowners will only be eligible to apply for LAP controlled
hunts occurring where their registered property is located
(see controlled hunt area descriptions for each species)"

 

[elkohalic]

I was browsing farther down the LAP regs and the number of tags allocated toward the pool of eligible landowners is 10% of what is in the general draw. No one with 640 acres and habitat that qualifies is guaranteed a tag unless there are less applicants than tags.

 

[customweld]

I think there is an upcoming trainwreck Between the landowners and sportsmen. The landowners cry about the wildlife impeding their bottom line.I think we as sportsmen are starting to get weary of asking to hunt ground and getting turned down and then seeing the same landowner with his hand out for depredation refunds.Which come from our license fees and tags.Where and who does this benefit? Are the LAP tags only good for the property or for the whole unit? If the landowner grazes cows on public land he should be exempt from any LAP tags, or his grazing fees should go straight into F and G's fund to offset depredation pay outs.If I come off as bitter I apolgize but as I see it the large landowners are privatizing the benefits while socializing the costs

 

[acafton]

Was anything discussed regarding landowners having to only hunt their land with the LAP tabs vs. hunting the whole unit?

 

[twsnow18]

LAST EDITED ON May-30-14 AT 01:47AM (MST)[p]I see it pretty simple. It is understandable that land owners want to be able to either enjoy a hunt on their own land or be able to keep animals off their land. If they are not hunters, but animals are compromising their property in some form or another, they should have the ability to GIVE the tag to someone else. NOT sell it. They should do away with the bs LAP draw and only give tags to landowners whose property supports decent populations. And none of this being able to hunt the whole unit crap.

 

[elkohalic]

>I think there is an upcoming
>trainwreck Between the landowners and
>sportsmen. The landowners cry about
>the wildlife impeding their bottom
>line.I think we as sportsmen
>are starting to get weary
>of asking to hunt ground
>and getting turned down and
>then seeing the same landowner
>with his hand out for
>depredation refunds.Which come from our
>license fees and tags.Where
>and who does this benefit?
>Are the LAP tags only
>good for the property or
>for the whole unit? If
>the landowner grazes cows on
>public land he should be
>exempt from any LAP tags,
>or his grazing fees should
>go straight into F and
>G's fund to offset depredation
>pay outs.If I come off
>as bitter I apolgize but
>as I see it the
>large landowners are privatizing the
>benefits while socializing the costs
>
Yep, totally agree with you on landowners crying about depredation then refusing to let anyone hunt the property. They shouldn't be getting depredation funds if they haven't tried letting "responsible" sportsmen on the property. Sometimes landowners get burned by the people they let hunt on their property by leaving gates open that should be closed, leaving trash, driving through crops, or in the worst case killing livestock.

I disagree about the grazing fees. I don't see where that has anything to do with this. Are you saying that cattle depredate the range so they should be paying the F&G? Depredation can be year around but it also can be very intense for a couple month period. For instance in the unit I archery hunt the elk hammer farmers from about July till harvest time. I have seen the mess they make. I have asked for permission and got turned down. That is that landowners right. Should he get depredation fees even though he doesn't allow hunters on his property. I don't think so.

The way the rules read now is an immediate family member can hunt the unit but if the landowner elects to sell the tag then that person has to hunt the private property associated with the tag. Personally I'm a little leary. How can the F&G have enough personnel to patrol and enforce this rule? It's just opening it up for people to be dishonest and not go by the rules.

To my point in the previous paragraph if the landowner or an immediate family member hunts the unit I have no problem with it. Depredation doesn't have to be year round but certainly can be intense for a 3-4 month period.

 

[idahoan]

I myself do not own the land but my parents who do own about 800 acres are not for the newly proposed Lap program. We can see that with 5 in our family who hunt, extended family and grand kids growing up that the tags we would be allotted wouldn't go far or allow us to enjoy our pastime each fall as it does with the general public draw that we put in for every year. With that being said the reason this was posted was not to see how much we can piss and moan about what we cant change but rather stop the current barrage from "a few landowners, not the majority" from ruining our big game herds. If you think this is every landowner you are sorely mistaken. The majority from whom with I have talked too have no clue about it. This is an attempt to profit from selling tags, a form of greed. Please spread the word and contact your local legislature to let them know how you stand on the matter.

 

[UGAhunter]

Elk,

The new proposal dous not have a 10% cap. If there are LAP tags, all who apply WILL get a tag! I called Brad, and he confirmed my interpretation. This current proposal must me killed.

 

[elkohalic]

Yeah I called and clarified this morning. My interpretation was of the rule as it is now, not how it will be. This needs to go back to the drawing board. Landowners would have to pick 1 species that they qualify for. But if all the landowners picked deer or elk in that particular unit, their tags outnumber the general controlled hunt.
Not good.

 

[dguthrie2121]

Thanks for the interest and input everyone. I was unaware of how big of a disaster this plan was until I attended the meeting on Tuesday night. A 100% guaranteed tag for a landowner makes no sense when the average sportsman is just left on the sidelines. Idahoan, you are an excellent example, your family will qualify for one landowner tag every year but that will not be enough to offset the reduction in public tags that will keep the rest of the family from hunting. This proposal is directly catering to the large corporate farmers and ranchers. This does nothing good for the average farmer or sportsman. We need to make sure this spreads like wildfire and we make sure all of our friend and family comment online.

 

[DeerMadness]

let's get on it

I'm willing to fight it. Let's organize.

 

[BPKHunter]

RE: let's get on it

While I have earned more and more respect for the crap that many landowners put up with from the general public, hunters and non-hunters, and I respect their need to earn a living, I agree that the bill as described by others here is not acceptable to me. Now, we have had much less generous bills recently not get passed so I doubt this will either. I don't see F&G sponsoring this level of LAP program, as historically they have been clearly against offering them the right to market the tags.

I am, however, in favor of clearly rewarding more strongly those that provide more habitat and greater access in a reasonable way. I think we as sportsmen might just need to dig a little deeper in our pocket to do so, but then it might be near impossible to do that without fighting abuse of the system.

One thing I know is we as sportsmen need to find a mutually beneficial relationship with the landowners in this state or we will simply find less and less access.

 

[carterj16]

RE: let's get on it

right now you can hunt the entire unit with a landowner tag. If you think that landowner tags are not being sold already then wake up to reality. There being sold and some are going for a lot of money

 

[live2hunt]

RE: let's get on it

1st time post for me! I enjoy reading from everyone but never have been big on posting myself. After attending the Upper Snake Region meeting and walking out absolutely sick to my stomach I feel I should get involved and see if I can help and get others to see this and get involved.
Hats off to you dguthrie2121 for posting this and getting it in front of everyone on here and trying to pass this along. Also to all of you posting and getting involved to get your opinion of where we are at.
I just wanted to highlight things I learned at the meeting and in my search of discovery for why we are at this proposal.
The current system the F&G commission decides where LAP tags go and what percent.
It appears some controlled hunts are getting designated 10% some are getting more than 20% and others are getting no LAP tags. There are somewhere around 800+ LAP tags issued yearly.
The controlled hunt that was covered the most at the meeting I was present for was 50-1 because it has the highest qualified land owners for that region. There are 44 qualified land owners. Currently there are 100 tags to the sportsman and 10 LAP tags. If this passed based on my opinion, I don't see any way they could just ramp up the tags and the herds sustain. You will likely see around 80+ tags go LAP and 20- tags go to sportsman on this controlled hunt. This is based on 44 qualified getting the first tag and most of them same 44 using one of the three ways to get the ?stewardship tag?. I don't see why they would not! This does not account for the additional tags for those having 5,000 or 10,000 acres and it also don't account for the new qualified land owners with 320 to 639 acres qualifying for the ?stewardship tag?. Hell sportsman may get lucky to get 10 tags in this controlled hunt.
One thing that concerns me is not only I but some of the sportsman I have communicated with truly have a lack of understanding the numbers and how land owners are qualified. It is truly very large and I believe if this passes I think it will grow before we know it and can do anything about it.
elkohalic one of the questions I had at the meeting was how this was validated and qualified because I personally know current landowner that are qualified and getting elk tags pretty much yearly and I have never seen any elk on their property. I can tell you my belief from the response if they have 640 acres have habitat and elk, deer or antelope in the vicinity they will get approved. Once they get approved it is highly unlikely they will get checked any time soon if ever again. Another note to one of your other posts if they was locked to private land in allot of these areas there is no way the F&G could patrol and control that animals was only harvested on private ground.
Idahoan I agree with you not every landowner is behind this but no doubt some are. From what I have learned this is not just the F&G writing a proposal to satisfy the land owners. The state legislature is pushing for changes and improvements for the LAP program. I don't doubt this proposal was written by a legislative representative.
This whole thing is absolutely scary! The entire proposal needs killed and taken back to the drawing board. I don't believe that an LAP program will go completely away. With the legislator involved the only way it would not go LAP way is sportsman getting involved giving input in numbers. Input at the meeting or giving input online by June 6th at the link dguthrie2121 gave us will give numbers on behalf of the sportsman for the F&G to use against the legislature.
customweld your point about grazing is very valid against this proposal. If they are grazing off public ground in an area that later wildlife cannot use and have to move to private land to make the winter you would think they would not qualify. Some of these very land owners are qualifying for LAP tags today for this exact scenario. Most of us with our boots on the ground today are seeing in some areas as heavy as grazing as there has ever been. This is good input to give feed back to the F&G today against this LAP program.
DeerMadness to your post I totally agree and have been thinking about this allot. We need to organize! I was at one meeting and no representation from any large sportsman?s or wildlife groups. I encouraged others to attend another meeting to see if they see this the same way I did and they did and again all single sportsman. I asked one of the sportsman?s group where they was at. I was told they would get their input in sometime later this summer. I am afraid that will be too late. We are in the negotiated rule process now. There is going to be a LAP program in this state and in some areas and circumstances maybe there should be, but I don't think we want this and without our involvement we will get what we get in my opinion.
Here is the link to the current proposal so you can read it for yourself and I encourage you to call or attend the remaining meetings to learn more. I also recommend giving inputat the meeeting or online.
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/negotiatedRules/LAPproposalVersion2.pdf

 

[DeerMadness]

RE: let's get on it

Thank you Live2hunt and dguthrie I am going to read this all and pass this on to every hunting buddy and coworkers. It doesn't work if all we do is complain. This LAP proposal is unsat to say the least.

 

[bigcreekmetal]

I think this proposal is a good idea TO A POINT. Landowners with significant habitat and a large enough acreage should be given a tag if they qualify and meet the criteria set forth which is having enough ground and having good habitat. My father in law has well in excess of 8000 acres and has never drawn a bull elk tag through the lap program. His whole ranch is as good of elk habitat as it gets and elk can be found there from one end of the place to the other. I believe it is only "right" that he be guaranteed a tag for the huge amount of good he inadvertantly does for the elk and deer. I do however think that if the landowner is guaranteed a tag that it should only be good for the landowners place and not the whole unit. The much higher number of tags that would be given out does concern me. I think that if the landowners were only allowed to hunt their own place with those tags that the difference in the elk / deer numbers would not be noticed due to the fact that alot of the public does not hunt on alot of private land anyway. Of course alot do but alot dont and would never see the game on those private lands anyway. And if the landowner didnt have good habitat and therefore no game on their place yet they could only hunt their place then they wouldnt be able to kill one anyway.

 

[bigcreekmetal]

Question... If the fish and game gives more tags to landowners will they decrease the number of tags given to the general public, or will the tags given to the general public remain the same? I dont see how they could remain the same over the long run but what is the fish and game saying right now that they will be doing?

 

[live2hunt]

>Question... If the fish and game
>gives more tags to landowners
>will they decrease the number
>of tags given to the
>general public, or will the
>tags given to the general
>public remain the same? I
>dont see how they could
>remain the same over the
>long run but what is
>the fish and game saying
>right now that they will
>be doing?

I agree with your first post. If they can only hunt their property it changes the whole discussion but that is not what they are asking for in this proposal. I also know approved land owners today that like allot of public sportsman struggle drawing a tag through the public lottery draw process struggle if ever draw a LAP tag through its current lottery draw process. I believe some of this is it is to easy to qualify if they just meet the acreage requirements.

With regards to this post I asked this very question at the meeting I attended and the F&G does not know where the tags will come from yet. With the unit 50-1 controlled hunt I covered there is currently 110 tags between the public and LAP designation. it is highly unlikely to just add more tags and increase those bull tags to 188+ without effecting bull to cow ratio and the elk population as a whole. Just looking at the biological side alone would say these added tags will have to come from the public tags.

 

[elks96]

I sure hope you can cut this off and not let it go through. It is sad to see what has happened here in Colorado. Unit wide private land tags are bad for management and bad for public hunters. Only good for landowners and wealthy.

At the very least, if they have no idea where the tags will come from, then the public hunters will get screwed hard. There should be no preference given to landowners. If they really have that much game on their property to need compensation, then they should be leasing that ground...

 

[HayZeus]

I personally have no problem with landowners getting tags to hunt their own land. If they are providing habitat and its beneficial to our big game herds and at the same time those animals are hurting their livelihood they should be compensated.

The new proposed changes to the LAP tags are unrealistic in the management of our big game herds. Iv'e heard talk of just making the areas where landowner conflict is a big issue all OTC tags and then they don't have to deal with this tag grab and start focusing trophy management to other areas where private lands aren't an issue. Would this be a good idea? Could we all sit and watch our top units go to OTC tags? Would it be better for us all to have a chance at these animals for the first few years that the hunting would be good rather than the few that had enough money to BUY a tag be the only ones hunting? As it is now with the LAP program its the same people year after year hunting our top units because they were able to BUY a tag. Everyone knows most of the tags are sold and its not family or employees that get the tags.

I see in the new proposal that it says: Landowners would be eligible within hunts or units prescribed by the commission. If the commission would change these units with conflict to all private lands being OTC tags and keep the controlled hunts to public land only it would solve all the problems associated with these LAP tags. Landowners could then manage their own lands and allow hunting and now legally guide on their own lands which is what I think most of this tag grab is about. If they provide the habitat like they claim then it should be no problem for them to sell hunts on their own land or a chance for family and employees to hunt every year. If they want to hunt public lands they can apply with the rest of us. If they don't want our animals on their land they can high fence it ALL.

 

[Rizzy]

Is this new LAP program going to effect primarily the nonmigratory resident animals that are basically farmed on the large private land holdings in the first place or will it effect the migratory animals that grow the expensive headgear in the summer range on public land and are then monetized by some of the landowners in the late fall?

If it's an issue of land owners getting to harvest more animals that are born, live, and die on their land then I don't feel I can be against it.

It's the principle behind giving landowners the ability to monetize a public resource that concerns me.

 

[bigcreekmetal]

Some good points HayZeus.

 

[UGAhunter]

Rizzy,

You can read the proposal yourself, its like one page.

Guaranteeing every LAP landowner tags that can be used unit-wide is not about utilizing animals on their private property. If that is what they were after, then they would be happy with private property only tags, which they are not. They want to be able to hunt the whole, unit, including public land too.

Sale of the LAP tags will allow hunting on ANY private land in the unit. I would be somewhat supportive if EVERY LAP tag was only valid on the LAP owners own land. However, that would be an enforcement nightmare!

As written, this LAP program is complete crap.

 

[dguthrie2121]

Thanks for all of the input everyone. It seems like we have been able to get some good info out there and have some good discussions. I never meant to offend anyone by posting this, the last thing that we need is to further divide landowners and sportsmen. We both have to work together to manage and maintain our herds. I live in rural Idaho and some of my good friends are farmers/ranchers. I appreciate all that they do to provide habitat and feed for the wildlife, however I feel that with this proposal there are a lot more losers than winners. I agree that if these tags were limited to the landowners own land it would make this proposal a little more acceptable. My only concern with this would be that you would see access go from what it is now to almost nothing in an effort to keep the wildlife on their land. Also the way it was explained in the meeting last week there are currently over 3,200 LO Tags offered but only about 1,000 are issued. The reason being that most landowner tags that are left behind are antlerless tags. Most of the landowners are not picking up the antlerless tags because that is not what they want. This proposal is all about $. It was also told to us that once the hunting pressure was to high for the number of public tags and LO tags that the tags that would be taken away WILL come out of the public pool! Thanks for all of your involvement and support. I hope you have taken the time to mention this to your friends and family and leave some comments on the IDFG website. Also remember that it is just not open to resident comments so please feel free to comment and share what you might have learned if your state has went to a similar system.

 

[elkohalic]

Last night's meeting was pretty well attended. Sportsman, Idaho Bowhunter?s Assoc. and landowners where all present. Some good questions were asked and one of the hot points is the number or LAP tags that could be issued in a unit as compared to what is offered in the controlled hunts. In trophy units such as Bennett, Owyhees, ect. this especially sensitive. The F&G are aware of this and would monitor how many tags of each species is being allocated to make sure one species isn't being overtaken. No mention was made about tags being taken out of the public drawing pool. This was one area they were unsure of how to handle.

Some suggestions and points that were thrown out by those that attended:
Why are we switching the LAP program already when this current system is only two years old?

There are roughly 800 unused LAP cow tags statewide that no one is using. The F&G should sell those as they do OTC tags to help with depredation.

?Currently there are 1236 LAP tags available under the current program. (Interesting that other numbers have been used) Under the new program roughly only 1350 LAP base tags would be created. This does not count the incentive tags a landowner could get by allowing access, improving habitat, or giving a depredation release. ? Craig White IDFG

Under the current system a landowner owning over 5000 acres could draw 3 tags (deer, elk, antelope) and a landowner with 10,000+ acres could draw 6 tags (2 deer, 2 elk, 2 antelope) Under the proposed rule the 5000 acre landowner would only qualify for 2 base tags and the 10000+ landowner would only get 3 base tags- a roughly 30% and 50% cut.

Under the proposed LAP program allocation will be based on HABITAT (seasonally important or year round habitat) acres, not total acres. Landowners with 5000 acres may only have 2000 acres that meets the Biologists definition of habitat. The current system is off the total landowner's acres.

Overall it was a good meeting and if you haven't already submit your comments and be as specific as you can in your suggestions.