UPDATE - Hunt in two Elk Zones

clearwater150 · Nov 21, 2012

Back on Oct 27th I posted on the subject of hunting in more than one Elk Zone. As follow-up to the conversation I wrote the Idaho Fish and Game and promised a follow-up on this forum...and here it is.

I had written IDF&G asking what their specific management goals and objectives were for restricting hunting to one Zone and if those goals and objectives had been met and so on. I also wrote that I wished to be able to hunt in two elk zones per year and gave my reasons why (see the Oct 27th post).

On Nov 21, IDF&G Biologist Craig White called me at home to reply to my questions. The following is a summary of that conversation.

The IDF&G is strongly considering proposing that hunters be allowed, for a fee, to hunt in at least two Elk Zones.

THE DETAILS. The IDF&G heard from the public during their recent public meetings that hunters would like to hunt in more than one elk zone and that they would be willing to pay a fee to do so. (The fee that Mike said was proposed during public meetings was $30.) From my conversation with mike I understood that the opportunity to hunt in at least two zones would be a part of the preliminary Elk Management Plan that would be made available to the public for review and comment during the process of completing the new Idaho Elk Management Plan. The following schedule is how the writing of the new Elk Mgt Plan will play out (as I understood it):

Jan-March 2013 - A preliminary Elk Mgt Plan will made available for public review and presented to G&F Commission during Season Setting mtgs.

April - Aug 2013 - More public involvement and surveys of randomly chosen Idaho Hunters to determine hunter acceptance/preference.

Aug - Dec 2013 - Approval of new Idaho Elk Management Plan

Implementation in 2014.

ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS
In answer to my question about why hunters were originally limited to only one Elk Zone (i.e. what were the specific management goals and objectives for the restriction), Biologist, White referenced the 1997 Elk Mgt Plan but did not state or read specific goal or objective statements. He did mention the restriction was primarily to achieve "hunter distribution" and, in general, to better manage individual elk herds. He described how prior to 1997, hunters would follow the various seasons as they opened and closed at different times creating overcrowding and hunter dissatisfaction. He also mentioned that the restriction was favored by hunters. I expressed my support for the A and B tag structure but feel restricting hunters to a single zone probably was overkill and that hunting in two Elk Zones would likely accomplish the same end result. I admit that I was more than a little surprised that there was no specific quantifiable management objectives set out so that the Agency could track the success or failure of their policy strategies.

Biologist White will be sending me some information to tell me how to track the progress of the Elk Management Plan. I will post that info when I get it. /s Clearwater150

ldjbuff · Nov 21, 2012

Pretty sweet if this works out

WAPITI39 · Nov 21, 2012

Very Interesting. Thanks for sharing

twsnow18 · Nov 23, 2012

awesome, thanks for the update. keep them coming, i would LOVE for this to eventually pass

clearwater150 · Nov 26, 2012

You can go to the following Idaho Fish and Game website page to get updates and/or participate in planning process for the the new Idaho Elk Plan. (Staff Biologist Craig White provided this information).

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/elkplanning

/s/Clearwater150

twsnow18 · Nov 26, 2012

awesome thanks!

lv4huntn · Nov 26, 2012

LAST EDITED ON Nov-26-12 AT 10:03PM (MST)[p]Not sure that I agree with this proposal. I think the way it is now limits pressure to certain zones and forces a hunter to make a decision and stick with it. If they are allowed to hunt two zones, the local units will be bombarded after work and on mid day trips. Weekends will be spent in a different unit with perhaps better chance at a big bull. This will place more people in more zones and more chance of hunter dissaproval. Imho. I have been hoping that they would actually do something different with the gen deer hunt. Ie.. Go to a unit specific hunt with maybe a choice of season with different weapons with an "A or B" tag. I think it would eliminate alot of "last day bucks" being harvested on a drive because they couldnt find one in the area they were hunting. It would force a hunter to stick to one unit and not state and area hop like so many already do. I know tons of people that go to the open unit because they werent able to find a buck where they wanted. Also, people start to talk when an area seems to have a lot of deer in it and take everybody they know to the area and shoot a buck. If they already had an area selected, they wouldnt be able to do this. I think that would really help the deer numbers to increase due to the fact that there wasnt as much opportunity. I am not saying that the hunter hoping to shoot a forkie wouldnt have a chance, he would have more because not as many people would settle for a forkie if they knew there were more bucks around. If I was an average hunter, I would rather have the chance to shoot a four point every year than a forkie. Not sure if this made sense to anyone else, but it does in my little brain.
Dan

twsnow18 · Nov 27, 2012

I see what you're getting at and you do have a few points. I don't agree necessarily with the free for all general deer tag as people will hop units all season to find that last day buck like you said.

I read through the links that the OP provided above and I think that the F&G did accomplish their goal of hunter distribution with the elk zones. BUT, I think that picking TWO zones is a happy medium, with an extra fee of course. The F&G could use the income. People still wouldn't be able to just drive to a unit up north that is still open in November and shoot the first whitetail with nubs that jumps out, since they couldn't find anything in their unit in October.

If you choose 2 zones, you have a little bit more freedom but still your confined to those two and it's a good middle ground. Something needs to be done with the deer free for all that lasts what seems like 6 months.

clearwater150 · Nov 29, 2012

The questions and concerns mirror mine in many ways. I like how hunting pressure is spread out across the state and I like the Idaho G&F implementing mgt strategies that help them manage our big game herds with a scalpel as opposed to a mace. My concern is that we don't know how well these strategies are working to accomplish herd management or hunter satisfaction objectives because no specific objectives were written, no monitoring/measuring methodologies set forth and no quantifiable/qualifiable monitoring has been done to measure if or how well the strategies are accomplishing objectives. In talking to the G&F they are simply flying by the seat of their pants on how well the restrictions are working. I mentioned this concern to the Bio the other day and I will send a comment in writing to the affect that any management strategy should/must be accompanied by specific goals (so we can clearly understand what is to be accomplished) and that each goal is accompanied by a measuring methodology (so we can understand what specific parameters are to be met and how they will be measured). For example, after turning in my hunt report for years, I suddenly realized that I didn't know why they were asking for "hunting days". I had always assumed they wanted to be able to see how much hunting contributed to our economy. I called and asked if they wanted total days, including scouting, camping and so on. The answer was that I was only to report actual days spend hunting until harvest. Last year I harvested my elk the first day I bow hunted...but had spent about 6 days scouting, about 14 days camped w/the others while they hunted (I went out to do the calling every day). So, instead of reporting about 20 days, I was only to report 1 day. That is OK, but what did it tell the G&F about how their management strategies were accomplishing objectives? who knows. Any rate...I greatly appreciate the hunting opportunity we have in Idaho and I want to join an argument or in any way persuade the Dept to adopt rules just to accommodate hunter wants. I will trade my selfish wants for continued quality and opportunity. /s/OP - Clearwater150

WAPITI39 · Nov 29, 2012

Well said, Agree.

clearwater150 · Nov 29, 2012

Correction....I just read my last post over....and I left an important word out of the second to last sentence. It is supposed to read as follows: "Any rate....I greatly appreciate the hunting opportunity we have in Idaho and I DON'T want to join an argument or in way persuade the Dept to adopt rules just to accommodate hunter wants."

twsnow18 · Nov 29, 2012

I don't think that wanting to hunt in 2 zones is selfish. Wanting a statewide elk tag like it used to be, is selfish. I really don't think limiting people to 2 zones will have that detrimental of an effect. Honestly, I don't even think we'd notice.

Sometimes when people are presented with too many options, they don't key on one area and hunt HARD. They just drive around all season, often unit to unit, doing quick once overs on areas until they eventually find a smaller buck close to the road. I'm not saying you hunt that way, but a majority of Idaho does. Not every hunter sets up a spotting scope and glasses, rain or shine, for a couple days like most of us on the forum do.

People still have to make a decision on what zones they want to hunt pre-season and stick with those choices. It's basically 5 or 6 units we would have available to hunt, not 70, like deer.