Idaho LAP program, part 2

[UGAhunter]

IDFG are looking for ideas to improve the LAP program. I put a few thoughts together and sent it to them. Please feel free to point out weaknesses in my proposal. More importantly, send your good ideas to IDFG so we can stop their poor proposal, and help create a better one.



Alternative Proposal to Improve Idaho LAP Program

No Idaho big game tags should be sold for profit. Selling of big game permits will turn us in a dangerous direction and will ultimately destroy the hunting heritage we so enjoy in Idaho.

LAP tags should only be valid on the private land belonging to the LAP tag recipient. Liberal season dates for LAP tag holders (Aug 15 through Jan 31) could be allowed to ensure harvest at a time of year that the animals use the LAP land. Tags could be transferred to any designated hunter, and trespass fees for the private land could be assessed as desired by the land owner. If LAP landowners, or their designated hunter, want to hunt big game on public land or other private land in the unit, they can apply for public tags in the regular drawing with the rest of Idaho?s sportsmen.

The number of LAP tags should be proportional to the percentage of LAP land in the unit, as utilized by specific species. For example, if there are 100 square miles of LAP land that supports elk in a unit that has 1000 total square miles of elk habitat, then 10% of the total elk tags should be distributed to LAP participants.

LAP permits should be distributed to LAP participants in a random drawing, weighted to represent the total acreage they have enrolled. To address concerns between large and small acreage land owners, the number of chances in the drawing could be proportional to the number of acres. For example, landowners could get one chance per 640 acres in the program: a landowner with 6400 acres would get 10 chances, and one with 1280 acres would get 2 chances (of course any increment of acres could be used).

 

[OLDHORNHUNTER]

Good stuff I sent in my 2 cents as well with the same replies on the land owners seasons !! I do not think the land owner should be allowed to charge ANY fees period !! these land owners do not own the game & should not make $$ off of them !! I also agree that the LAP tag should Only be good for that persons property !! the Land owner tags for cows {they call depredation hunts} for unit 31 they issue 400 tags & the holders of a good share of these permits land is leased !! they do give them out to various people but they are not being used on the land they were issued for !! ought to be a simple tag F&G makes all these issue so MAJOR & Mind Numbing !!

 

[huntin50]

LAST EDITED ON Jun-04-14 AT 02:28PM (MST)[p]Good comments for the most part UGA.

My extended family owns about 5,000 acres in unit 76. We fix fences often, elk are hard on fences. Sometimes 200 elk will be in the hay fields eating grass at nights. As soon as it snows most of the elk leave the area. There are not many elk the end of Oct through the winter.

We like to hunt. Over the years the ranch has lost/donated money, because of deer and elk, mostly elk.
Even though taxes are paid on the property, machinery, etc. and no claims have been handed in for deperdation losses, we still need to pay non resident fees since we live in Utah, to hunt even on our own land. We often draw a land owner tag. This doesn't sound too fair.

It is a joke to give every land owner that has 640 acreas a tag. I agree, keep it in a draw and have those with more acres a better chance.
If a land owner sells a tag to help compensate for losses, I don't think that is a bad idea. In most cases it would be better to keep the ranching industry alive, they provide for wildlife as well. even though they are state owned animals.

If ranchers sell off and subdivide making 10-50 acres lots, it is bad for wildlife and sportsmen access as well.

Their needs to be a balance, Keep ranchers going, take care of wildlife and habitat.

The current LAP proposal is bad IMO.