It’s time for a real discussion

[andrew12gauge]

As an Idaho resident I enjoy the freedom of our general tags, being able to hunt nearly anywhere or anytime I want all fall throughout the state is a huge benefit, however I think we can all agree that the booming population, increased hunting pressure and environmental factors are working against mule deer.

As a father of 3 young boys I hope they get to see the opportunity to hunt on OTC deer tags each year, but I continue to hear rumblings from both residents and nonresidents(I don’t particularly care about the nonresident opinion but it’s out there) that Idaho must go to a draw only system for mule deer tags. I think we need a groundswell to ask IDFG to take less drastic changes now to avoid that drastic change of a draw only system in the future.

How would the rest of you feel about a zone system like we currently have for elk, it would allow IDFG to do a better job of managing hunter pressure, harvest, and the ability to adjust for tough winters in the future. Some zones would obviously need quotas but some could be unlimited. I would also like to see whitetail only tags remain statewide and unlimited in number.

I know a lot of you probably wouldn’t like something like this and if you don’t, please share ideas here. I just think it’s time we as hunters speak up to IDFG to try and preserve our opportunities now before it’s too late.

 

[Iddogguy]

I've lived in Idaho my whole life. Here're what I'd like to see happen.

All Non-resident tags are on a draw 10% in each hunt. (It works good for Wyoming, they're able to keep some general hunts for residents.)

Non-residents are issued 10% of the unlimited draw, that number goes off how many Residents were issued tags the previous year.

Non-residents are issued 10% of all Elk Zones, that number goes off how many Residents were issued tags the previous year in each zone.

Outfitter tags come out of the Non-resident pool.

Get rid of reissuing tags turned back in.

All second draw tags that were not picked up stay as Resident or Non-resident, in second draw.

No Non-resident tags sold to residents or Non-residents as second tags.

Idaho should get in line with other Western States with issuing 10% to Non-residents. There're several states that don't even issue 10% to non-residents.

I think a quota for Non-resident bear tags should be looked at also.

Fish & Game have abused the 10% with their gimmicks for years.

I'm not against Non-residents but with more Resident hunters & decreasing game numbers it's time to take better care of residents. The days of Non-residents hunting Elk & Deer every year should be long gone. Most guys can't do that in their own state.

 

[andrew12gauge]

The days of Non-residents hunting Elk & Deer every year should be long gone.

they already are for the most part. What I’m worried about is residents opportunity to hunt deer and elk every year, hence the reason I’m hoping we can get ahead of it and do something different before it’s too late

 

[El Gringo]

I love how these debates never mention the fact that the departments are funded almost exclusively on Non- Res $$. Residents are never willing to step up funding, but want all of the opportunity.
Not to mention Idaho is a complete pain in the Ass as a Non Resident as it is. It’s very low on my personal list out of all of the states, unless I happen to be one of the lucky ones that gets a tag on December 1st.

A big part of this is economics. Fix that, and you can probably have whatever you want.

 

[Rie bread]

Shoot those suckers into that buck to die ratio and be done with it.

 

[Iddogguy]

I love how these debates never mention the fact that the departments are funded almost exclusively on Non- Res $$. Residents are never willing to step up funding, but want all of the opportunity.
Not to mention Idaho is a complete pain in the Ass as a Non Resident as it is. It’s very low on my personal list out of all of the states, unless I happen to be one of the lucky ones that gets a tag on December 1st.

A big part of this is economics. Fix that, and you can probably have whatever you want.

I agree Resident should be paying more for such a limited resource.

It’s a complete **** show the way Idaho issues their Non-resident tags. If I was a nonresident draws would be a lot better in my opinion.

Arizona has gone with the wild ass Dec1 for Non-resident archery deer.

 

[JPickett]

I love how these debates never mention the fact that the departments are funded almost exclusively on Non- Res $$. Residents are never willing to step up funding, but want all of the opportunity.
Not to mention Idaho is a complete pain in the Ass as a Non Resident as it is. It’s very low on my personal list out of all of the states, unless I happen to be one of the lucky ones that gets a tag on December 1st.

A big part of this is economics. Fix that, and you can probably have whatever you want.

I’m very willing to pay more as a resident and I’m not the only one

 

[JPickett]

I've lived in Idaho my whole life. Here're what I'd like to see happen.

All Non-resident tags are on a draw 10% in each hunt. (It works good for Wyoming, they're able to keep some general hunts for residents.)

Non-residents are issued 10% of the unlimited draw, that number goes off how many Residents were issued tags the previous year.

Non-residents are issued 10% of all Elk Zones, that number goes off how many Residents were issued tags the previous year in each zone.

Outfitter tags come out of the Non-resident pool.

Get rid of reissuing tags turned back in.

All second draw tags that were not picked up stay as Resident or Non-resident, in second draw.

No Non-resident tags sold to residents or Non-residents as second tags.

Idaho should get in line with other Western States with issuing 10% to Non-residents. There're several states that don't even issue 10% to non-residents.

I think a quota for Non-resident bear tags should be looked at also.

Fish & Game have abused the 10% with their gimmicks for years.

I'm not against Non-residents but with more Resident hunters & decreasing game numbers it's time to take better care of residents. The days of Non-residents hunting Elk & Deer every year should be long gone. Most guys can't do that in their own state.

This all sounds really good

 

[woodruffhunter]

As a Utah resident, I hope Idaho takes the advice of residents, not non-residents! I feel privileged to hunt in Idaho, when I can, and am glad to play by their rules.

 

[OldBallCoach]

I agree with a lot of the original post but Andrew said a real discussion and some of the trolls get on here and start trying to stoke the Resident vs Non Res debate. Even one using Wyoming with it’s 580,000 resident population size as example for Idaho. Idaho has about 4 times WY population and ID has doubled in population since 1990. You could put the NR % down to 0% (never going to happen) and that wouldn’t eliminate the fact that Idaho’s resident hunting population is continuing to rapidly increase.

 

[HntHrdr]

Amen as a Co res I fully support more opportunities for you. Idaho isn’t on my shot list to hunt but if I get the chance I’d love to come up some day, and you actually take care of veterans even non residents which is awesome. it is selfish and wrong to expect to hunt someone else’s back yard every year Hope you can keep your deer tags otc for res!

 

[andrew12gauge]

I agree with a lot of the original post but Andrew said a real discussion and some of the trolls get on here and start trying to stoke the Resident vs Non Res debate. Even one using Wyoming with it’s 580,000 resident population size as example for Idaho. Idaho has about 4 times WY population and ID has doubled in population since 1990. You could put the NR % down to 0% (never going to happen) and that wouldn’t eliminate the fact that Idaho’s resident hunting population is continuing to rapidly increase.

Yea this was never meant to be a resident vs nonresident debate, that has been hashed out time and again and I think what IDFG has done to limit NR opportunity is a good starting point. Fact is I think we as residents need to step up and ask IDFG to put some limitations in place for our OTC deer opportunities before they feel the need to take them away.

A big concern I have with potentially going to a draw only system for mule deer is the inevitability that comes with it of a point system. The changes that would have to be made to what I consider to be almost the most perfect draw system out there would be astronomical and unwanted by most of us.

 

[JPickett]

Yea this was never meant to be a resident vs nonresident debate, that has been hashed out time and again

But it’s part of a “real discussion “ isn’t it? If things need to be slashed they need to be slashed in the appropriate sequence. You don’t start with the resident population and let non residents stay at the status quo’s.

If our population as gotten to big then the fall influx in hunter population needs to be choked down as far as possible. That starts with the ones spilling in over our borders first. From there, yes I really support mule deer zones like we have elk zones as well as an increase in licensing costs

 

[D_Hoyt]

Idaho is rock bottom on my list as a non-resident. The process to get a tag is not worth the money or time commitment. Then, the hunting is sub-par. Good luck fixing the system. ?

 

[DaveD]

I've lived in Idaho my whole life. Here're what I'd like to see happen.

All Non-resident tags are on a draw 10% in each hunt. (It works good for Wyoming, they're able to keep some general hunts for residents.)

Non-residents are issued 10% of the unlimited draw, that number goes off how many Residents were issued tags the previous year.

Non-residents are issued 10% of all Elk Zones, that number goes off how many Residents were issued tags the previous year in each zone.

Outfitter tags come out of the Non-resident pool.

Get rid of reissuing tags turned back in.

All second draw tags that were not picked up stay as Resident or Non-resident, in second draw.

No Non-resident tags sold to residents or Non-residents as second tags.

Idaho should get in line with other Western States with issuing 10% to Non-residents. There're several states that don't even issue 10% to non-residents.

I think a quota for Non-resident bear tags should be looked at also.

Fish & Game have abused the 10% with their gimmicks for years.

I'm not against Non-residents but with more Resident hunters & decreasing game numbers it's time to take better care of residents. The days of Non-residents hunting Elk & Deer every year should be long gone. Most guys can't do that in their own state.

Wyoming is not 90/10 for deer... or elk and antelope. They went to 90/10 on the extremely limited tags like moose and sheep.

I haven't ever considered hunting Idaho as a non-resident and really don't know anyone that is interested in it so can't comment on any of your other thoughts.

I did look into your draw system years ago and found it fairly discouraging to non-residents, which, from my view should be a good thing to those that are willing to put in the time and the money to hunt there.

 

[baerman]

I’m very willing to pay more as a resident and I’m not the only one

I second this! And if non-res is such a high demand then I think those tags need to jump in price too.

Part of the concern is that hunting shouldn't become a rich mans sport. One way to partially avoid this by keeping res prices more fairly priced however, the non-res tag prices could jump and ultimately be considered the rich mans sport or opportunity. All states are facing issues and one way to curb it is to make it so non-res hunting all over the place is less achievable either by dropping the non-res tag allocation pool or by jacking prices up. It might also be nice if game and fish departments used extra funds from price increases to purchase public lands to keep them public.

 

[PacificFork]

I’ll take weapons and technology restrictions everyday of the week over not being able to hunt deer every fall.

We can’t hunt “anytime” this isn’t MT.

 

[roadrunner]

Idaho is rock bottom on my list as a non-resident. The process to get a tag is not worth the money or time commitment. Then, the hunting is sub-par. Good luck fixing the system. ?

Same here. I have more of a vested interest in UT, now that years later it will begin to pay off...

 

[andrew12gauge]

I’ll take weapons and technology restrictions everyday of the week over not being able to hunt deer every fall.

We can’t hunt “anytime” this isn’t MT.

With a general deer tag I can hunt every day from August 30th-December 31st if I’m willing to travel a little and jump from one unit to the next, hence a reason that making people pick deer zones would alleviate not only the pressure in the field that we humans perceive but also probably reduce harvest pressure to some extent on the populations.

And I am not proposing that anyone wouldn’t be able to deer hunt every fall, that is the very thing my idea is meant to prevent. As it stands now I have heard from multiple people who say we have to go to a draw only system for mule deer and I just don’t think we need to take that drastic step when we can actually start to manage the deer herds by unit/zone while still allowing opportunity to all residents each fall

 

[andrew12gauge]

But it’s part of a “real discussion “ isn’t it? If things need to be slashed they need to be slashed in the appropriate sequence. You don’t start with the resident population and let non residents stay at the status quo’s.

If our population as gotten to big then the fall influx in hunter population needs to be choked down as far as possible. That starts with the ones spilling in over our borders first. From there, yes I really support mule deer zones like we have elk zones as well as an increase in licensing costs

Nonresidents have already been throttled back greatly in the last few years. They are a part of the discussion but maybe it’s time we as residents look in the mirror and ask if we should be able to hunt 4 months of the year on a general tag jumping from one area to the next as we see fit. Trust me I will fully admit I’ve been one to take advantage of multiple seasons across the state in the past, but I am willing to sacrifice some of my opportunity in order to ensure that my children and yours continue to have an opportunity to hunt deer each fall

 

[JPickett]

I don’t see any reason we can’t have deer zones with A and B tags just like elk. It’d actually make for better archery hunting

 

[El Gringo]

Idaho is rock bottom on my list as a non-resident. The process to get a tag is not worth the money or time commitment. Then, the hunting is sub-par. Good luck fixing the system. ?

Likewise.

 

[Iddogguy]

I don’t see any reason we can’t have deer zones with A and B tags just like elk. It’d actually make for better archery hunting

I'm all for deer A & B zones if!! All non-resident tags are on a draw with 10% issued in all Deer A & B zones, that number goes off how many Residents were issued tags the previous year in each zone. Elk zones should have the same 10% limit. Here's why!!!

In the diamond Creek A zone
459 Non-resident tags Issued
47 Outfitter Tags Issued
1300 Resident tags Issued

1836 Total Tags Issued--- The Non-resident quota should be 183 not 459 plus 47 Outfitter tags!!!! That's almost 30% of the tags. That's one of the gimmicks the F&G use to beat the 10% their supposed to adhere to!

 

[El Gringo]

Nonresidents have already been throttled back greatly in the last few years. They are a part of the discussion but maybe it’s time we as residents look in the mirror and ask if we should be able to hunt 4 months of the year on a general tag jumping from one area to the next as we see fit. Trust me I will fully admit I’ve been one to take advantage of multiple seasons across the state in the past, but I am willing to sacrifice some of my opportunity in order to ensure th

You guys get this all buttoned up, and I’ll move on up there, and enjoy lots and lots of time in the hills.

 

[Iddogguy]

Wyoming is not 90/10 for deer... or elk and antelope. They went to 90/10 on the extremely limited tags like moose and sheep.

I haven't ever considered hunting Idaho as a non-resident and really don't know anyone that is interested in it so can't comment on any of your other thoughts.

I did look into your draw system years ago and found it fairly discouraging to non-residents, which, from my view should be a good thing to those that are willing to put in the time and the money to hunt there.

Wyoming is draw for all Non-resident tags & they're on the way to 10% for deer, elk, & antelope. It may be less than 10% when Outfitters get their cut.

If you think hunting opportunities for Non-residents in any Western States are going to improve, you're delusional.

 

[roadrunner]

Nonresidents have already been throttled back greatly in the last few years. They are a part of the discussion...

But didn't you say in your opening post you didn't care about NR's opinions?

 

[BGnight]

Idaho is rock bottom on my list as a non-resident. The process to get a tag is not worth the money or time commitment. Then, the hunting is sub-par. Good luck fixing the system. ?

Yeah, logging in and buying a tag on Dec 1st is so tough (it's a waiting line draw, deal with it) . Not to mention their controlled hunt apps are as easy as it gets. Idaho is my only NR state I hunt.

 

[lif]

I definitely favor residents over non residents in every state. But this trend of getting rid of non resident tags is not going to fix much. The reality is that the vast majority of hunters every year in every state are residents. Whether it’s 75% resident hunters or 90% resident hunters. The majority are RESIDENTS. If there are issues with herd numbers or quality of animals, the solution will always be with the residents.

 

[Blindnonresident]

Get rid of nonresident hunters and ALL the Federal funding for Idaho.

Seems simple to me.

 

[DaveD]

Wyoming is draw for all Non-resident tags & they're on the way to 10% for deer, elk, & antelope. It may be less than 10% when Outfitters get their cut.

If you think hunting opportunities for Non-residents in any Western States are going to improve, you're delusional.

I never said any of that nor did I suggest what I thought about hunting opportunities across the west. I was simply correcting the statement you made. I don't fault any western state for doing anything to benefit their residents.

As to what Wyoming is going to do, many of us have opinions but it is far from decided.

 

[roadrunner]

Yeah, logging in and buying a tag on Dec 1st is so tough (it's a waiting line draw, deal with it) . Not to mention their controlled hunt apps are as easy as it gets. Idaho is my only NR state I hunt.

Said it wasn't worth it. Never said it was tough...

 

[Iddogguy]

I never said any of that nor did I suggest what I thought about hunting opportunities across the west. I was simply correcting the statement you made. I don't fault any western state for doing anything to benefit their residents.

As to what Wyoming is going to do, many of us have opinions but it is far from decided.

All Non-resident tags are on a draw 10% in each hunt. (It works good for Wyoming having all Non-Resident tags drawn, they're able to keep some general hunts for residents.)

The above is how I should have specified as what I'd like to see Idaho go to. I wasn't referring to Wyoming having a 10% on Deer, Elk & Antelope.

My statement, if you think hunting opportunities for Non-residents in any Western States are going to improve, you're delusional. Was not pointed at you. Things are changing fast; people are having a hard time grasping that.

 

[roadrunner]

All Non-resident tags are on a draw 10% in each hunt. (It works good for Wyoming having all Non-Resident tags drawn, they're able to keep some general hunts for residents.)

The above is how I should have specified as what I'd like to see Idaho go to. I wasn't referring to Wyoming having a 10% on Deer, Elk & Antelope.

My statement, if you think hunting opportunities for Non-residents in any Western States are going to improve, you're delusional. Was not pointed at you. Things are changing fast; people are having a hard time grasping that.

I wish NM would do away with the oufitter pool and give NR's 10% across the board.

NM probably has some of the best opportunities for NR's at the expense of residents if they're willing to pay for private land tags...

 

[andrew12gauge]

But didn't you say in your opening post you didn't care about NR's opinions?

Yes, I don’t care one bit about nonresident opinions about how our resident deer hunting is managed. Nonresident tags are obviously a part of the discussion since my post about how we should manage resident hunting pressure has turned into yet another gripe fest about nonresident hunters. It’s really sad that nonresident hunters have become the number 1 scapegoat for a lack of management in this state only to be followed closely by wolves as number 2 when the reality of it is that most of the crowding and poor behavior is our fellow residents

 

[roadrunner]

Yes, I don’t care one bit about nonresident opinions about how our resident deer hunting is managed. Nonresident tags are obviously a part of the discussion since my post about how we should manage resident hunting pressure has turned into yet another gripe fest about nonresident hunters. It’s really sad that nonresident hunters have become the number 1 scapegoat for a lack of management in this state only to be followed closely by wolves as number 2 when the reality of it is that most of the crowding and poor behavior is our fellow residents

Then NR opinions matter since they (we) are part of the discussion...

 

[andrew12gauge]

Then NR opinions matter since they (we) are part of the discussion...

To me, in the discussion that I think needs to be had, which is how we handle resident tags only, I don’t think a NR’s opinion matters one bit. I think what IDFG has done with NR tags is a good step and the next limitations that need to be put in place are on the residents of this state. Go back and reread my 1st post and find where I talked about any cuts to NR opportunity

 

[roadrunner]

To me, in the discussion that I think needs to be had, which is how we handle resident tags only, I don’t think a NR’s opinion matters one bit. I think what IDFG has done with NR tags is a good step and the next limitations that need to be put in place are on the residents of this state. Go back and reread my 1st post and find where I talked about any cuts to NR opportunity

Not talking about NR cuts. Never even mentioned it. Not sure why that even came up.

If you didn't care about a NR's opinion, why did you even mention it other then to throw a gauntlet down? ?

 

[andrew12gauge]

Not talking about NR cuts. Never even mentioned it. Not sure why that even came up.

If you didn't care about a NR's opinion, why did you even mention it other then to throw a gauntlet down? ?

For context, both R and NR seem to be talking about what needs to happen with deer management in Idaho, since I think IDFG took a good step in managing NR pressure I think it’s time we look at how we manage resident pressure. I don’t really think NR opinions matter on that subject but I did want to give context that opinions are out there.

 

[Outdoordan]

I agree Andrew. I think the pressure has become unbearable on the quality and quantity of deer. With the change in the quota for non-residents already in place, the Residents must make some concessions. I personally would like to see all units that are now OTC deer units go into an unlimited draw with a cap for units that are struggling, but not as a points draw. I am not for zones like elk, as the areas are too expansive would be too expansive to accurately manage. Just look at the size of the Sawtooth elk zone! I usually hunt a few deer units, and this would change my hunting plans but I would gladly do so if the quality/quantity goes up. This would also allow us to better plan our hunts according to the metrics of the harvest/hunter/quality/experience data.

I would also like to see technology limitations as well. I'd love to see a traditional only bowhunt for part of the archery season.

Lastly, 3 weeks of general any weapon hunting (most units) should be broken up in this "draw". That is too long of a season for the deer herd. It could be broken into 2 7 day hunts with a rest in between, or a technology change, or?

 

[backcountryID]

I agree Andrew. I think the pressure has become unbearable on the quality and quantity of deer. With the change in the quota for non-residents already in place, the Residents must make some concessions. I personally would like to see all units that are now OTC deer units go into an unlimited draw with a cap for units that are struggling, but not as a points draw. I am not for zones like elk, as the areas are too expansive would be too expansive to accurately manage. Just look at the size of the Sawtooth elk zone! I usually hunt a few deer units, and this would change my hunting plans but I would gladly do so if the quality/quantity goes up. This would also allow us to better plan our hunts according to the metrics of the harvest/hunter/quality/experience data.

I would also like to see technology limitations as well. I'd love to see a traditional only bowhunt for part of the archery season.

Lastly, 3 weeks of general any weapon hunting (most units) should be broken up in this "draw". That is too long of a season for the deer herd. It could be broken into 2 7 day hunts with a rest in between, or a technology change, or?

I hear what you are saying about turning more hunts into unlimited draws. It's still a tough pill to swallow, and moves us more in the direction that we all don't want to go. I think we could target certain hunts with that approach right now. Take the 39 archery hunt for example. Make it an unlimited draw, first choice only. That way you're taking hunters away from other draw applications, away from other hunts, and turning the 39 archery hunt into a really exceptional experience, instead of everyone who didn't kill a deer out there every weekend in November.

That's just one example. There are a pile of others.

 

[Outdoordan]

I hear what you are saying about turning more hunts into unlimited draws. It's still a tough pill to swallow, and moves us more in the direction that we all don't want to go. I think we could target certain hunts with that approach right now. Take the 39 archery hunt for example. Make it an unlimited draw, first choice only. That way you're taking hunters away from other draw applications, away from other hunts, and turning the 39 archery hunt into a really exceptional experience, instead of everyone who didn't kill a deer out there every weekend in November.

That's just one example. There are a pile of others.

That's a good start. I just think 3 weeks of guys taking long range rifles out for a deer hunt is really hurting the deer herds.

 

[blacktailBC]

I've lived in Idaho my whole life. Here're what I'd like to see happen.

All Non-resident tags are on a draw 10% in each hunt. (It works good for Wyoming, they're able to keep some general hunts for residents.)

Non-residents are issued 10% of the unlimited draw, that number goes off how many Residents were issued tags the previous year.

Non-residents are issued 10% of all Elk Zones, that number goes off how many Residents were issued tags the previous year in each zone.

Outfitter tags come out of the Non-resident pool.

Get rid of reissuing tags turned back in.

All second draw tags that were not picked up stay as Resident or Non-resident, in second draw.

No Non-resident tags sold to residents or Non-residents as second tags.

Idaho should get in line with other Western States with issuing 10% to Non-residents. There're several states that don't even issue 10% to non-residents.

I think a quota for Non-resident bear tags should be looked at also.

Fish & Game have abused the 10% with their gimmicks for years.

I'm not against Non-residents but with more Resident hunters & decreasing game numbers it's time to take better care of residents. The days of Non-residents hunting Elk & Deer every year should be long gone. Most guys can't do that in their own state.

Much of this is already in place.

 

[Iddogguy]

Much of this is already in place.

Ha Ha, none of it is place! Nice try!

 

[blacktailBC]

Straight from the regs:
Controlled Hunts:

Nonresident Tag LimitationsIn controlled hunts with 10 or fewer tags, no more than onenonresident tag may be issued. In controlled hunts with morethan 10 tags, except unlimited controlled hunts, no more than10 percent of the tags may be issued to nonresidents.

General Hunts:

Nonresident General Season Deer Tags andUncapped Elk Zone TagsNonresident hunters in general season deer and uncapped elk zonehunts are limited to 10 or 15 percent of the total hunters in eachgame management unit or elk zone. Some backcountry deer unitshave been limited to the five-year average number of nonresidentswhere overall hunter numbers have been relatively low. Whenpurchasing a nonresident tag, the buyer must choose the Deer Unitor Elk Zone from those available.The statewide nonresident general season quota for elk is 12

 

[Iddogguy]

Straight from the regs:
Controlled Hunts:

Nonresident Tag LimitationsIn controlled hunts with 10 or fewer tags, no more than onenonresident tag may be issued. In controlled hunts with morethan 10 tags, except unlimited controlled hunts, no more than10 percent of the tags may be issued to nonresidents.

General Hunts:

Nonresident General Season Deer Tags andUncapped Elk Zone TagsNonresident hunters in general season deer and uncapped elk zonehunts are limited to 10 or 15 percent of the total hunters in eachgame management unit or elk zone. Some backcountry deer unitshave been limited to the five-year average number of nonresidentswhere overall hunter numbers have been relatively low. Whenpurchasing a nonresident tag, the buyer must choose the Deer Unitor Elk Zone from those available.The statewide nonresident general season quota for elk is 12

Thanks for proving they’re not in place!

First not all non-resident tags are drawn!

Second straight from you post.
(In controlled hunts with more than 10 tags, ((((except unlimited controlled hunts)))) no more than10 percent of the tags may be issued to nonresidents.)
Unlimited tags aren’t limited to 10% for non-residents!

Some of the Elk Zones are over 25% to nonresidents! Notice they say 10 to 15% (((( in uncapped zones )))) in capped zones they do what ever they want!

In the diamond Creek A zone
459 Non-resident tags Issued
47 Outfitter Tags Issued
1330 Resident tags Issued

1836 Total Tags Issued--- The Non-resident quota should be 183 not 459 plus 47 Outfitter tags!!!! That's almost 30% of the tags. That's one of the gimmicks the F&G use to beat the 10% their supposed to adhere to!!

Anything else?

 

[sjhgraysage]

Turning a declining deer herd into an expanding deer herd would go a long way toward fixing most all the concerns posted so far. And not just in Idaho.

 

[blacktailBC]

Thanks for proving they’re not in place!

First not all non-resident tags are drawn!

Second straight from you post.
(In controlled hunts with more than 10 tags, ((((except unlimited controlled hunts)))) no more than10 percent of the tags may be issued to nonresidents.)
Unlimited tags aren’t limited to 10% for non-residents!

Some of the Elk Zones are over 25% to nonresidents!

In the diamond Creek A zone
459 Non-resident tags Issued
47 Outfitter Tags Issued
1300 Resident tags Issued

1836 Total Tags Issued--- The Non-resident quota should be 183 not 459 plus 47 Outfitter tags!!!! That's almost 30% of the tags. That's one of the gimmicks the F&G use to beat the 10% their supposed to adhere to!!

Anything else?

Show me where I said "all non-resident tags are drawn"
I'll wait.

If "10-15 percent of the tags" in a general hunt zone isn't 10-15% of the hunters, I don't know what to tell you.

Controlled hunts have been limited to 10% non-residents for a long time.
I don't know how they calculate the allotted tags for "unlimited" controlled hunt tags, non-residents are limited.....but not sure about the heartache, since they are, well, unlimited.

 

[El Gringo]

Turning a declining deer herd into an expanding deer herd would go a long way toward fixing most all the concerns posted so far. And not just in Idaho.

Bingo….

And this has nothing to do with Resident/Non Resident, or even buck hunting.

 

[andrew12gauge]

Show me where I said "all non-resident tags are drawn"
I'll wait.

If "10-15 percent of the tags" in a general hunt zone isn't 10-15% of the hunters, I don't know what to tell you.

Controlled hunts have been limited to 10% non-residents for a long time.
I don't know how they calculate the allotted tags for "unlimited" controlled hunt tags, non-residents are limited.....but not sure about the heartache, since they are, well, unlimited.

Actually some of the unlimited controlled hunts have a 10% cap based on prior years resident trends.

Speaking of limiting nonresidents though, imagine how much lower the tag numbers would be in some units if the total tags available to nonresidents weren’t based off of double counting residents who hunt multiple units.

 

[andrew12gauge]

Turning a declining deer herd into an expanding deer herd would go a long way toward fixing most all the concerns posted so far. And not just in Idaho.

Part of turning that declining deer herd around is managing by units, which is not something IDFG has done. Also imagine what they could do with actual mandatory harvest reporting, you don’t report your hunting activity one season, you don’t get a tag the next. I’ve spoken with biologists who told me that all of the harvest statistics are really just an estimate based on the low percentage of hunters who do report.

 

[hossblur]

Here's some friendly advice, from south of your border.

You DO NOT want what your calling for. It WILL ine inevitably leas to a points draw. Once that happens, you will NEVER get it back, points=$$ to gf departments and they won't ever take a haircut.

Second. Once it goes away from OTC, you WILL lose hunters. While some may desire that, the reality is hunters vote, and hunter numbers speak. Like Utah, Idaho is getting a ton of non natives who don't support hunting, or who vote for non hunting bills, and tax revenues.

The smaller your hunting population is, the less hunting matters at the Capital. In Utah hunting is an afterthought, and it hurts the DWR and sportsmen alike.

Last, look south. We purged 130,000 hunters to "save the mule deer". Our deer population did exactly what yours are, but into the hole left from all those tags jumped $fw with their "conservation"the tags scheme, CWMU with their land lock scheme, and piles of outfitters with a new scheme each year(landowner voucher "raffles" being the latest.

Don't be stupid. Don't follow a proven broken system. It doesn't go how you think it will

 

[customweld]

Here's some friendly advice, from south of your border.

You DO NOT want what your calling for. It WILL ine inevitably leas to a points draw. Once that happens, you will NEVER get it back, points=$$ to gf departments and they won't ever take a haircut.

Second. Once it goes away from OTC, you WILL lose hunters. While some may desire that, the reality is hunters vote, and hunter numbers speak. Like Utah, Idaho is getting a ton of non natives who don't support hunting, or who vote for non hunting bills, and tax revenues.

The smaller your hunting population is, the less hunting matters at the Capital. In Utah hunting is an afterthought, and it hurts the DWR and sportsmen alike.

Last, look south. We purged 130,000 hunters to "save the mule deer". Our deer population did exactly what yours are, but into the hole left from all those tags jumped $fw with their "conservation"the tags scheme, CWMU with their land lock scheme, and piles of outfitters with a new scheme each year(landowner voucher "raffles" being the latest.

Don't be stupid. Don't follow a proven broken system. It doesn't go how you think it will

Sage advice, and you are probably spot on.

 

[Outdoordan]

Here's some friendly advice, from south of your border.

You DO NOT want what your calling for. It WILL ine inevitably leas to a points draw. Once that happens, you will NEVER get it back, points=$$ to gf departments and they won't ever take a haircut.

Second. Once it goes away from OTC, you WILL lose hunters. While some may desire that, the reality is hunters vote, and hunter numbers speak. Like Utah, Idaho is getting a ton of non natives who don't support hunting, or who vote for non hunting bills, and tax revenues.

The smaller your hunting population is, the less hunting matters at the Capital. In Utah hunting is an afterthought, and it hurts the DWR and sportsmen alike.

Last, look south. We purged 130,000 hunters to "save the mule deer". Our deer population did exactly what yours are, but into the hole left from all those tags jumped $fw with their "conservation"the tags scheme, CWMU with their land lock scheme, and piles of outfitters with a new scheme each year(landowner voucher "raffles" being the latest.

Don't be stupid. Don't follow a proven broken system. It doesn't go how you think it will

So the idea is, keep it OTC as this population expands? Sorry, that's not an idea. That's status quo which does nothing to curb the problem.

 

[GSJ]

Been on this site for years this debate has been had a hundred times. Give residents back the opportunity they’ve had and they’ll pay more. Keep whittling away opportunity and they’ll play golf.
The older ones know what I mean.
The younger ones will fight over table scraps because they don’t know better.
The end.

 

[andrew12gauge]

Here's some friendly advice, from south of your border.

You DO NOT want what your calling for. It WILL ine inevitably leas to a points draw. Once that happens, you will NEVER get it back, points=$$ to gf departments and they won't ever take a haircut.

Second. Once it goes away from OTC, you WILL lose hunters. While some may desire that, the reality is hunters vote, and hunter numbers speak. Like Utah, Idaho is getting a ton of non natives who don't support hunting, or who vote for non hunting bills, and tax revenues.

The smaller your hunting population is, the less hunting matters at the Capital. In Utah hunting is an afterthought, and it hurts the DWR and sportsmen alike.

Last, look south. We purged 130,000 hunters to "save the mule deer". Our deer population did exactly what yours are, but into the hole left from all those tags jumped $fw with their "conservation"the tags scheme, CWMU with their land lock scheme, and piles of outfitters with a new scheme each year(landowner voucher "raffles" being the latest.

Don't be stupid. Don't follow a proven broken system. It doesn't go how you think it will

I swear some of you need to work on reading comprehension, go back, reread my first post. I’m not calling for a draw system and implementation of points as many out there are. I would like to see us give the tinyest bit of current opportunity in order to continue to have OTC opportunity every year as far into the future as we possibly can. I want every resident, including myself and my children, who so chooses to be able to purchase a tag over the counter to hunt mule deer every fall, but with some parameters in place that would limit each hunter to a geographical region of their choosing be it a zone made up of a small cluster of units or 1 single unit rather than the current free for all where I can travel the state hunting with multiple weapons from August 30-December 31. I would like to see whitetail tags remain as they are now as that may incentivize some to choose whitetail hunting over mule deer which may help to curb the encroachment of whitetails further into mule deer habitat

I agree that a point system is the last thing we want in Idaho, we have about the best draw system in the country as it stands now. Do you want semi reasonable odds on OIL species with the caveat that you can only hunt general tags? Great we have that, do you want to apply for that dream elk or mule deer hunt knowing that the odds are you’ll never draw but when you do the potential is nearly limitless? Perfect there are some of those hunts too, then there are the reasonable deer and elk tags where you’ll draw every 5-10 years, have a fun hunt for animals that are far less pressured and there are a lot of those hunts here too. A points system would completely screw that up and that is why I think we need to speak up and ask for a reasonably small concession now before we have to make the big concession of draw only deer hunting and a point system in the future.

 

[fullthrottle]

Second deer tag option should have gone away years ago, its an absolute joke with current deer numbers that, that is still even an option.

 

[GSJ]

Second deer tag option should have gone away years ago, it’s an absolute joke with current deer numbers that, that is still even an option.

I’ve felt it’s not a bad deal if the second tag is used for whitetail. Agree killing two mule deer is very questionable.

 

[JPickett]

i would buy a second deer tag but i cant remember the last one i filled. it was always just to hunt he late archery seasons and i wasn't shooing anything small. im guessing there is more then just me that would approach it like that so i don't know that we can count number of second deer tags as a mortality metric.

but yeah, im all for that going away

 

[hossblur]

I swear some of you need to work on reading comprehension, go back, reread my first post. I’m not calling for a draw system and implementation of points as many out there are. I would like to see us give the tinyest bit of current opportunity in order to continue to have OTC opportunity every year as far into the future as we possibly can. I want every resident, including myself and my children, who so chooses to be able to purchase a tag over the counter to hunt mule deer every fall, but with some parameters in place that would limit each hunter to a geographical region of their choosing be it a zone made up of a small cluster of units or 1 single unit rather than the current free for all where I can travel the state hunting with multiple weapons from August 30-December 31. I would like to see whitetail tags remain as they are now as that may incentivize some to choose whitetail hunting over mule deer which may help to curb the encroachment of whitetails further into mule deer habitat

I agree that a point system is the last thing we want in Idaho, we have about the best draw system in the country as it stands now. Do you want semi reasonable odds on OIL species with the caveat that you can only hunt general tags? Great we have that, do you want to apply for that dream elk or mule deer hunt knowing that the odds are you’ll never draw but when you do the potential is nearly limitless? Perfect there are some of those hunts too, then there are the reasonable deer and elk tags where you’ll draw every 5-10 years, have a fun hunt for animals that are far less pressured and there are a lot of those hunts here too. A points system would completely screw that up and that is why I think we need to speak up and ask for a reasonably small concession now before we have to make the big concession of draw only deer hunting and a point system in the future.

Been there, done that. Only chance it works is if it's capped at one choice only, and no left over sales.

Otherwise the top units are everyone's 1st choice. Then the whining starts, and a year or so later it's 3 choices, then 5, then bonus points.

It will bite your kids.

Here, in the unit I hunt, kids are about 45% draw odds with a rifle.

But don't think for a second the outfitters are going to support a system in which clients only get a single choice, they want repeat buisness.

 

[andrew12gauge]

Been there, done that. Only chance it works is if it's capped at one choice only, and no left over sales.

Otherwise the top units are everyone's 1st choice. Then the whining starts, and a year or so later it's 3 choices, then 5, then bonus points.

It will bite your kids.

Here, in the unit I hunt, kids are about 45% draw odds with a rifle.

But don't think for a second the outfitters are going to support a system in which clients only get a single choice, they want repeat buisness.

You obviously still can’t read, where did I mention a draw with multiple choices. We have the model in our current elk tag distribution. The state is broken into zones, a resident can buy a tag for any zone they choose, with a few limitations. No draw, no points, everybody that wants gets a tag.

 

[PacificFork]

OP you shouldn’t lump MD and WT together for the threads purpose. Vast majority of hunters don’t hunt from Aug 1 to Dec 1.

I know it’s just my anecdotal experience but I don’t see many deer hunters where I hunt. Again, your southern ID boys can take away opportunity to help out the deer because you have worse winter kills and more pressure.

 

[Iddogguy]

As an Idaho resident I enjoy the freedom of our general tags, being able to hunt nearly anywhere or anytime I want all fall throughout the state is a huge benefit, however I think we can all agree that the booming population, increased hunting pressure and environmental factors are working against mule deer.

As a father of 3 young boys I hope they get to see the opportunity to hunt on OTC deer tags each year, but I continue to hear rumblings from both residents and nonresidents(I don’t particularly care about the nonresident opinion but it’s out there) that Idaho must go to a draw only system for mule deer tags. I think we need a groundswell to ask IDFG to take less drastic changes now to avoid that drastic change of a draw only system in the future.

How would the rest of you feel about a zone system like we currently have for elk, it would allow IDFG to do a better job of managing hunter pressure, harvest, and the ability to adjust for tough winters in the future. Some zones would obviously need quotas but some could be unlimited. I would also like to see whitetail only tags remain statewide and unlimited in number.

I know a lot of you probably wouldn’t like something like this and if you don’t, please share ideas here. I just think it’s time we as hunters speak up to IDFG to try and preserve our opportunities now before it’s too late.

I reread your first post. I know you don’t want to hear this but, there’s nothing you can do to stop the things you don’t want to happen from happening! For one thing you’re only one of tens of thousands of resident hunters in Idaho. Everyone has a different opinion on what should happen. This all relates to their personal situation.

I’m sure there are thousands of guys in Utah, Arizona & New Mexico that wanted their kids to have the hunting that they experienced growing up, isn’t going to happen. We’re not far behind what happened to their states. The demand has out stripped the supply!

My advice to you would be do everything you can with them while you can cause it’s not going to get any better!

The only thing that will influence the Fish & Game is $$$$$$!!!!

 

[andrew12gauge]

OP you shouldn’t lump MD and WT together for the threads purpose. Vast majority of hunters don’t hunt from Aug 1 to Dec 1.

I know it’s just my anecdotal experience but I don’t see many deer hunters where I hunt. Again, your southern ID boys can take away opportunity to help out the deer because you have worse winter kills and more pressure.

Even mule deer could be hunted on a regular tag from Aug 30-Dec 31 by hunting just 4-5 different units. Literally any day in that window. Like I said zone out regular tags, leave the whitetail tag as is. I hardly see anybody where I hunt but that’s because I hunt crappy spots ? it’s more fun that way and every once in a while I find a big buck

 

[AIROHUNTER]

How many other states allow youth to harvest "any deer" on an OTC tag all season long? And do they still allow "any deer" during
late archery seasons? Change these rules along with some antler restrictions and you would see a difference. If you want youth to have opportunity a) do something to increase your herd populations and b) do a draw for the youth with a cap.

 

[PacificFork]

Second deer tag option should have gone away years ago, its an absolute joke with current deer numbers that, that is still even an option.

Disagree with this, here is why...

"In 2015, second deer tags accounted for about 3.5 percent of the statewide deer harvest"

"Because second tags are tags are already allocated for nonresident hunters, harvest is already accounted for, and there is not expected to be any negative impacts from harvest by second tag holders"

Second Tags

Second tags are available as a second opportunity for deer or elk in Idaho. Residents or nonresidents can purchase a second elk or deer tag for the full nonresident price while supplies last.

idfg.idaho.gov

No F&G department is perfect, everyone b*tches in every state. Some people here need to go work for IDFG since they can manage the deer better while navigating the politics, hunter opinions, and conservation. We need better habitat in the west and cut off development if you want to save the mule deer, but good luck with that.

 

[PacificFork]

Even mule deer could be hunted on a regular tag from Aug 30-Dec 31 by hunting just 4-5 different units. Literally any day in that window. Like I said zone out regular tags, leave the whitetail tag as is. I hardly see anybody where I hunt but that’s because I hunt crappy spots ? it’s more fun that way and every once in a while I find a big buck

I am not familiar with units that hunt MD into December. Any harvest data out that that suggest this is bad for the herd?

 

[Outdoordan]

You can hunt archery MD in November in unit 39, and then again December in units 55, and then go over to 28 till the end of the year.

 

[hossblur]

You obviously still can’t read, where did I mention a draw with multiple choices. We have the model in our current elk tag distribution. The state is broken into zones, a resident can buy a tag for any zone they choose, with a few limitations. No draw, no points, everybody that wants gets a tag.

Your extremely short sighted. You somehow believe the most popular zones don't get hammered. So what then? Caps on tags? Then what? Draws. Then points. I don't know how to tell you to look at Utah any more clearly to see how it goes.

 

[andrew12gauge]

Your extremely short sighted. You somehow believe the most popular zones don't get hammered. So what then? Caps on tags? Then what? Draws. Then points. I don't know how to tell you to look at Utah any more clearly to see how it goes.

Yes caps on tags, we already have that on some elk zones. Have for years and haven’t gone to a draw yet.

 

[Weiserbucks]

I would get on board with unit specific tags, weapon specific tags might also reduce crowds a little. While we're at it let's quit shooting does all together and quit shooting all the two points in the big buck draw units.

 

[andrew12gauge]

I would get on board with unit specific tags, weapon specific tags might also reduce crowds a little. While we're at it let's quit shooting does all together and quit shooting all the two points in the big buck draw units

I’ve never understood the logic of the 2 point hunts. Think about how good those units could be even if they just offered 200 tags for the October season for any buck then the November hunts. Instead they allow about 1500 1 1/2 year old bucks to be killed each year and only about 300 mature bucks. Makes perfect sense

 

[Weiserbucks]

I'm no biologist, but I'd think that stopping the two point hunts would allow some additional tags for the big buck draw units if there were more bucks available?

 

[hossblur]

Yes caps on tags, we already have that on some elk zones. Have for years and haven’t gone to a draw yet.

Elk and deer have different participation rates.
.but "yet" is exactly what I'm telling you. We didn't either, until we did

 

[boise]

Well I hike the Boise foothills a lot and range conditions are a factor. cheat grass and Skelton weed dominate a lot of areas that used to be sagebrush. This created the burn and burn again cycle that seems to have no end in sight. State and federal agencies don’t have the resources and $$ to resolve this. We have healthy elk herds that are going to continue to out compete and displace deer. Robbie Denning has put out a couple podcasts recently with stats on antler restrictions and I don’t think that will solve anything. Like a lot of things today the system is probably not capable of doing what you’re asking. Predator management is going to get harder and harder given society perception. The future is not bright sorry for being a Debbie downer, it just doesn’t seem worth getting into this back and forth pee pee match. I know it wasn’t your intention but thats the route these forums go. I support the f&g and try to give them my best suggestions the nonresident otc restrictions came from hunter feedback so comment there it has more weight than arguments here.

 

[customweld]

Well I hike the Boise foothills a lot and range conditions are a factor. cheat grass and Skelton weed dominate a lot of areas that used to be sagebrush. This created the burn and burn again cycle that seems to have no end in sight. State and federal agencies don’t have the resources and $$ to resolve this. We have healthy elk herds that are going to continue to out compete and displace deer. Robbie Denning has put out a couple podcasts recently with stats on antler restrictions and I don’t think that will solve anything. Like a lot of things today the system is probably not capable of doing what you’re asking. Predator management is going to get harder and harder given society perception. The future is not bright sorry for being a Debbie downer, it just doesn’t seem worth getting into this back and forth pee pee match. I know it wasn’t your intention but thats the route these forums go. I support the f&g and try to give them my best suggestions the nonresident otc restrictions came from hunter feedback so comment there it has more weight than arguments here.

That Rokcast is definitely worth a listen. Habitat is the number one condition on mule deer numbers.

 

[andrew12gauge]

Well I hike the Boise foothills a lot and range conditions are a factor. cheat grass and Skelton weed dominate a lot of areas that used to be sagebrush. This created the burn and burn again cycle that seems to have no end in sight. State and federal agencies don’t have the resources and $$ to resolve this. We have healthy elk herds that are going to continue to out compete and displace deer. Robbie Denning has put out a couple podcasts recently with stats on antler restrictions and I don’t think that will solve anything. Like a lot of things today the system is probably not capable of doing what you’re asking. Predator management is going to get harder and harder given society perception. The future is not bright sorry for being a Debbie downer, it just doesn’t seem worth getting into this back and forth pee pee match. I know it wasn’t your intention but thats the route these forums go. I support the f&g and try to give them my best suggestions the nonresident otc restrictions came from hunter feedback so comment there it has more weight than arguments here.

I can’t argue with any of this, however I do have hope that with some of the new treatments for cheatgrass we can start to turn habitat around. I also didn’t intend for this to turn into a back and forth pissing match, I was hoping to see what kind of support could be had for an idea like this. Trust me when I say I have put a bug in the ear of people at IDFG in the past and will continue to do so about how to better manage the species while preserving the opportunity of every resident of the state to hunt. I’m just afraid at some point we will reach a tipping point where it is too late and the only step IDFG will have left at that point is a draw only system.

 

[BrianID]

Here are the facts. Mule deer hunting was not the same in
1983 as it was in 1963
2003 as it was in 1983
2023 as it was in 2003
In 2043, it will not be the same as it was in 2023. The opportunity to hunt mule deer has been decreasing for decade and will only get worse.

Switching over to a "pick your zone" like we do elk tags would have an impact in hunting pressure for some areas. Other areas it would have minimal impact (Upper Snake and SE regions)

Restricting nonresidents to unit specific tags certainly makes a difference in some units, in other units it actually significantly increases the number on nonresident hunters.

Residents and nonresidents being allowed to buy a 2nd deer tag is something that should be done away with.

Personally I think the best solution is restricting hunters that kill deer. For example, if you kill a deer in 2023, you don't get a deer tag in 2024. Many of the bucks killed on OTC are by hunters that kill a deer almost every single year. If you restrict those hunters, you can decrease how many bucks are killed significantly. There are many hunters that have gone 5 or 10 years without pulling the trigger but still hunt every year. Giving those hunters a tag every year has minimal impact on the deer. You could still maintain opportunity without having to go to a draw system to decrease harvest.

 

[Blindnonresident]

Lock ALL the side roads and make fat people hike.

Problem solved.

 

[roadrunner]

Lock ALL the side roads and make fat people hike.

Problem solved.

Rich texans don't go to ID to hunt public ground...

 

[AIROHUNTER]

You wanna get fish and games attention you need to start by associating with large sportsmen's group they listen too, in Oregon it was OHA. Then get that group to form a collective idea and get another group on board and your plan might just get off the ground. They give two shits less about what we say on here....

It took a lot of effort and several years just to get lighted knocks in Oregon......and it only really happened after the majority of "user groups" were in support.

 

[customweld]

You wanna get fish and games attention you need to start by associating with large sportsmen's group they listen too, in Oregon it was OHA. Then get that group to form a collective idea and get another group on board and your plan might just get off the ground. They give two shits less about what we say on here....

It took a lot of effort and several years just to get lighted knocks in Oregon......and it only really happened after the majority of "user groups" were in support.

In Idaho you just piss and moan to your local legislator, then they will short cut IFG and pass legislative rules.

 

[Blackbear1]

Best answer in my opinion is for residents to pay more for licenses and tags. Non residents are obviously willing to pay. The low resident prices are awesome as a life long resident but I am willing to pay more. The IDFG has a financial decision to make and they could cut non- resident tags if they could recoup the money. You have all heard this one before…. But if you can’t pay more for licenses and tags then how do you drive there and camp….that cossts much more

 

[roadrunner]

But if you can’t pay more for licenses and tags then how do you drive there and camp….that cossts much more

You'd be surprised what the threshold is for some and the straw that brake's the camel's back isn't the same for everyone...

 

[andrew12gauge]

Best answer in my opinion is for residents to pay more for licenses and tags. Non residents are obviously willing to pay. The low resident prices are awesome as a life long resident but I am willing to pay more. The IDFG has a financial decision to make and they could cut non- resident tags if they could recoup the money. You have all heard this one before…. But if you can’t pay more for licenses and tags then how do you drive there and camp….that cossts much more

I just don’t think the number of nonresident tags is the issue, I think at some point as a resident I have to be willing to give 1/2 of my pie(all general units to hunt) in order to keep the other 1/2(a general deer tag to hunt every year). The population of our state is growing at a rapid pace. Anyway I emailed the commissioner from my region asking if they would consider a change like this in the future, maybe if any of you guys agree with my stance you can do the same and we can get enough support for an idea like this to take hold.

 

[PacificFork]

I just don’t think the number of nonresident tags is the issue, I think at some point as a resident I have to be willing to give 1/2 of my pie(all general units to hunt) in order to keep the other 1/2(a general deer tag to hunt every year). The population of our state is growing at a rapid pace. Anyway I emailed the commissioner from my region asking if they would consider a change like this in the future, maybe if any of you guys agree with my stance you can do the same and we can get enough support for an idea like this to take hold.

How about first you educate yourself on how much of an effect, if any, the current state wide res tag has on local deer populations. Talking to a biologist could help you out as they should have the data. Whats important is getting the facts correct, I inlcuded data/links about about the 2nd deer tag argument but people just ignore it because it doesnt confirm their barstool banter.

 

[andrew12gauge]

How about first you educate yourself on how much of an effect, if any, the current state wide res tag has on local deer populations. Talking to a biologist could help you out as they should have the data. Whats important is getting the facts correct, I inlcuded data/links about about the 2nd deer tag argument but people just ignore it because it doesnt confirm their barstool banter.

I honestly don’t think the 2nd tags have that much effect, I’ve had one for the last 6 or 8 years and I think I filled 2 in that time. I do think that if too many people continue to complain about pressure and wanting a draw we will get that and that is absolutely not anything I want to see. I’ve asked biologists with IDFG why they continue to allow certain hunts(2 pts in the owyhees, 13k+ hunters in 39) and they say that it is only about making sure everyone has an opportunity, so we all know they aren’t trying to manage the deer population they are trying to manage the opportunity and I think as resident pressure continues to grow they will have to do something to limit that pressure and I would rather see them make a minor change ahead of the need than a drastic change after the fact.

 

[BrianID]

I do think 2 deer in 6 or 8 years is significant if you are talking about mature deer.

I've had multiple 2nd tags and have two this year. I've never punched both tags in one year. So I can see your point that many of these tags go unused. The problem is the 2nd tags are going to the most effective hunters. How many deer are killed with the 1st tag that would have been passed on if the hunter only had one tag?

The real challenge in future years will be to manage the increasing resident population. Hunters today have more effective tools than our grandfathers did. The mule deer population is lower than it was 60 years ago as well. There just are not enough bucks out there that everyone can shoot one every year. It will take something radical if we want to see more mature bucks.

We are going to have to restrict opportunity for hunters in one way or another if we want less bucks killed. It could be "controlled hunts", pick your zone", "reduced seasons", "reduced motorized access", "eliminate 2nd tag", "make a waiting period after tagging a deer before you get another tag" and/or "weapon/technology restrictions".

Personally I think we should restrict the hunters that kill a deer by making them wait the next year out.

We all have our opinion on what we think the best solution is. Ryan Hatfield also has a nice write up about this in his 2nd edition of Idaho's Greatest mule deer.

 

[huntindad4]

I know unfilled second tags seems like a sign that there is little effect on the herd of having them.

However, as Brian said, many hunters will shoot a buck on the first tag that they would pass if they didn't have a second tag in their back pocket.

CA allows two tags for its blacktail zones and many folks I know fill their "meat tag" and hunt for a better buck with the second tag. Then if the opportunity arises near the end of the season they will even talk themselves into another small buck.

IMO a one tag only system for deer would save many more deer than what is reflected by the numbers.

 

[BradA]

I know unfilled second tags seems like a sign that there is little effect on the herd of having them.

However, as Brian said, many hunters will shoot a buck on the first tag that they would pass if they didn't have a second tag in their back pocket.

CA allows two tags for its blacktail zones and many folks I know fill their "meat tag" and hunt for a better buck with the second tag. Then if the opportunity arises near the end of the season they will even talk themselves into another small buck.

IMO a one tag only system for deer would save many more deer than what is reflected by the numbers.

I agree 100 percent and I believe California should go to one deer tag per individual as well.

 

[MrShane]

As an Idaho resident I enjoy the freedom of our general tags, being able to hunt nearly anywhere or anytime I want all fall throughout the state is a huge benefit, however I think we can all agree that the booming population, increased hunting pressure and environmental factors are working against mule deer.

As a father of 3 young boys I hope they get to see the opportunity to hunt on OTC deer tags each year, but I continue to hear rumblings from both residents and nonresidents(I don’t particularly care about the nonresident opinion but it’s out there) that Idaho must go to a draw only system for mule deer tags. I think we need a groundswell to ask IDFG to take less drastic changes now to avoid that drastic change of a draw only system in the future.

How would the rest of you feel about a zone system like we currently have for elk, it would allow IDFG to do a better job of managing hunter pressure, harvest, and the ability to adjust for tough winters in the future. Some zones would obviously need quotas but some could be unlimited. I would also like to see whitetail only tags remain statewide and unlimited in number.

I know a lot of you probably wouldn’t like something like this and if you don’t, please share ideas here. I just think it’s time we as hunters speak up to IDFG to try and preserve our opportunities now before it’s too late.

I don’t know about all that, but I LOVE your muzzy restrictions!

 

[Weiserbucks]

I know plenty of people that get two tags and shoot a doe during archery and then a buck later on.

 

[huntindad4]

I know plenty of people that get two tags and shoot a doe during archery and then a buck later on.

What's crazy about that is that Idaho fish and game often bills their management style as opportunity.

If herd numbers are low why allow people to shoot does?

I understand if numbers are up and there is a need to manage the herd tonmatch the carrying capacity of the habitat.

 

[Weiserbucks]

What's crazy about that is that Idaho fish and game often bills their management style as opportunity.

Often? Almost every deer and elk hunt is managed for opportunity because that is what the majority of hunters want.

 

[huntindad4]

Often? Almost every deer and elk hunt is managed for opportunity because that is what the majority of hunters want.

I was treading lightly.. so to speak. Haha

 

[JPickett]

i'll do my part again this year. with what im seeing out there im just hunting the last weekend of October with a rifle and it will have to be something special to pull the trigger. passed 30 plus bucks last year and didn't feel like I was missing anything.

im sure most others will be blasting 2 points by end of October 'cuz they gotta get thur deer!!"

 

[Blindnonresident]

Yup.
Many out there will be killing a 2nd year buck just to see it die.
Pretty gross.

 

[huntindad4]

Yep I can hear the echoes from the NRs from my house on the coast..."I paid too much for this tag not to bring back some meat...."

 

[Blindnonresident]

How can you hear that over the sound of their Razr??

 

[JPickett]

How can you hear that over the sound of their Razr??

he got one of them new EV ones

 

[Weiserbucks]

I've got a draw elk tag this year in an area with a solid whitetail population, I'll probably get a tag and take one if it's really convenient. No muley tag for ID this year in my pocket.