Idaho proposes giving outfitters bigger share of NR deer/elk tags

[bearpaw]

If you are a DIY Non-resident hunter, this proposal is detrimental to your ability to plan a hunt/secure a tag (deer tags in particular); especially if western big game hunting demand continues on its current trajectory. 

I see this as mostly a hedge by the Outfitting industry against the increasing popularity of NR DIY hunting across the West.  A lot of these tags ultimately go back on sale in August and are available to NR DIY hunters...but if current trends continue, that might not be so common in the future.

Your disdain for outfitters is noted.
FYI- There are also increasing numbers of non-resident hunters wanting outfitted hunts as well as DIY hunts!

Even though outfitted hunters actually get a much smaller portion of tags, it appears you are saying because there are increasing numbers of DIY non-resident hunters that it's Ok for long time outfitters to be put out of business so the increasing numbers of DIY non-resident hunters get the tags?

After suffering losses for several years due to wolf impacts and a slow economy that put many outfitters out of business, outfitting businesses finally pick back up then more losses last year due to covid restrictions, now outfitters should not be allowed their small historic number of hunters because you regard the increasing numbers of DIY non-resident hunters as more entitled to the tags!

Let me add something that's easy to miss, even though outfitters had quota numbers already in place, because tags never used to sell out many outfitters clients purchased their own tags over the counter, this cannot happen now that most units are selling out so quickly under the new system.

[idahohuntr]

If you are a DIY Non-resident hunter, this proposal is detrimental to your ability to plan a hunt/secure a tag (deer tags in particular); especially if western big game hunting demand continues on its current trajectory. 

I see this as mostly a hedge by the Outfitting industry against the increasing popularity of NR DIY hunting across the West.  A lot of these tags ultimately go back on sale in August and are available to NR DIY hunters...but if current trends continue, that might not be so common in the future.

Your disdain for outfitters is noted.
FYI- There are also increasing numbers of non-resident hunters wanting outfitted hunts as well as DIY hunts!

Even though outfitted hunters actually get a much smaller portion of tags, it appears you are saying because there are increasing numbers of DIY non-resident hunters that it's Ok for long time outfitters to be put out of business so the increasing numbers of DIY non-resident hunters get the tags?

After suffering losses for several years due to wolf impacts and a slow economy that put many outfitters out of business, outfitting businesses finally pick back up then more losses last year due to covid restrictions, now outfitters should not be allowed their small historic number of hunters because you regard the increasing numbers of DIY non-resident hunters as more entitled to the tags!

Let me add something that's easy to miss, even though outfitters had quota numbers already in place, because tags never used to sell out many outfitters clients purchased their own tags over the counter, this cannot happen now that most units are selling out so quickly under the new system.

I have no disdain for anyone.  Everything I said is 100% factual and unemotional, in contrast to the wild assumptions you make about my post.

Like many of the other DIY hunters on this thread I did submit a no comment on the proposal link.  It doesn't affect me personally because this only sets aside non-resident tags.  My rationale for not supporting this proposal is twofold.

First, I'm a strong supporter of the NAMWC and believe the wildlife is owned by the public and any measure that reserves hunting/tags for the more wealthy is not consistent with my views of the NAMWC.   

Second, I'm a strong supporter of free market, capitalist systems and generally oppose the government artificially controlling markets or giving handouts to private business.

[kentrek]

Everyone fighting over what tags are left...it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the demand for Idaho has sky rocketed due to market manipulation not marketing genius...outfitters know they will be the only ones left with tags in the future...

Its not the outfitters resource

No vote here....

[bearpaw]

If you are a DIY Non-resident hunter, this proposal is detrimental to your ability to plan a hunt/secure a tag (deer tags in particular); especially if western big game hunting demand continues on its current trajectory. 

I see this as mostly a hedge by the Outfitting industry against the increasing popularity of NR DIY hunting across the West.  A lot of these tags ultimately go back on sale in August and are available to NR DIY hunters...but if current trends continue, that might not be so common in the future.

Your disdain for outfitters is noted.
FYI- There are also increasing numbers of non-resident hunters wanting outfitted hunts as well as DIY hunts!

Even though outfitted hunters actually get a much smaller portion of tags, it appears you are saying because there are increasing numbers of DIY non-resident hunters that it's Ok for long time outfitters to be put out of business so the increasing numbers of DIY non-resident hunters get the tags?

After suffering losses for several years due to wolf impacts and a slow economy that put many outfitters out of business, outfitting businesses finally pick back up then more losses last year due to covid restrictions, now outfitters should not be allowed their small historic number of hunters because you regard the increasing numbers of DIY non-resident hunters as more entitled to the tags!

Let me add something that's easy to miss, even though outfitters had quota numbers already in place, because tags never used to sell out many outfitters clients purchased their own tags over the counter, this cannot happen now that most units are selling out so quickly under the new system.

I have no disdain for anyone.  Everything I said is 100% factual and unemotional, in contrast to the wild assumptions you make about my post.

Like many of the other DIY hunters on this thread I did submit a no comment on the proposal link.  It doesn't affect me personally because this only sets aside non-resident tags.  My rationale for not supporting this proposal is twofold.

First, I'm a strong supporter of the NAMWC and believe the wildlife is owned by the public and any measure that reserves hunting/tags for the more wealthy is not consistent with my views of the NAMWC.   

Second, I'm a strong supporter of free market, capitalist systems and generally oppose the government artificially controlling markets or giving handouts to private business.

I too am a huge supporter of the free market capitalist system, I strongly support all forms of hunting trapping, fishing, etc, which is why I maintain this forum for the benefit of all users including the many DIY hunters on this forum!

But you have strange "views" of people who use the services of an outfitter. Again, contrary to your comment, most of the hunters I get are average working class people who simply want help, don't know where to go or how to hunt, want to learn, need assistance, or simply want a better hunt than they could do on their own, it's their yearly vacation they have saved for. I get a lot of retirees who have hunted DIY all their life but can no longer pack out an elk, in some cases they want to hunt with someone because all their hunting buddies no longer hunt or have passed away and they don't want to be in the mountains alone. It's funny how you try to frame outfitting as only for rich people and taking away from the average person when in reality outfitters services are used mostly by average people! I've actually not even had many hunters in my 40+ years of outfitting that would qualify as being "rich people", I advertise on this forum, in the hunting regulations, and I used to go to all the northwest sport shows, most of my clients are average working class people. Your attempt to alienate outfitters as serving the "elite rich" is way off base!

[2MANY]

All about the commercialization and our public resources.

Sell it till it's gone boys.

[idahohuntr]

If you are a DIY Non-resident hunter, this proposal is detrimental to your ability to plan a hunt/secure a tag (deer tags in particular); especially if western big game hunting demand continues on its current trajectory. 

I see this as mostly a hedge by the Outfitting industry against the increasing popularity of NR DIY hunting across the West.  A lot of these tags ultimately go back on sale in August and are available to NR DIY hunters...but if current trends continue, that might not be so common in the future.

Your disdain for outfitters is noted.
FYI- There are also increasing numbers of non-resident hunters wanting outfitted hunts as well as DIY hunts!

Even though outfitted hunters actually get a much smaller portion of tags, it appears you are saying because there are increasing numbers of DIY non-resident hunters that it's Ok for long time outfitters to be put out of business so the increasing numbers of DIY non-resident hunters get the tags?

After suffering losses for several years due to wolf impacts and a slow economy that put many outfitters out of business, outfitting businesses finally pick back up then more losses last year due to covid restrictions, now outfitters should not be allowed their small historic number of hunters because you regard the increasing numbers of DIY non-resident hunters as more entitled to the tags!

Let me add something that's easy to miss, even though outfitters had quota numbers already in place, because tags never used to sell out many outfitters clients purchased their own tags over the counter, this cannot happen now that most units are selling out so quickly under the new system.

I have no disdain for anyone.  Everything I said is 100% factual and unemotional, in contrast to the wild assumptions you make about my post.

Like many of the other DIY hunters on this thread I did submit a no comment on the proposal link.  It doesn't affect me personally because this only sets aside non-resident tags.  My rationale for not supporting this proposal is twofold.

First, I'm a strong supporter of the NAMWC and believe the wildlife is owned by the public and any measure that reserves hunting/tags for the more wealthy is not consistent with my views of the NAMWC.   

Second, I'm a strong supporter of free market, capitalist systems and generally oppose the government artificially controlling markets or giving handouts to private business.

I too am a huge supporter of the free market capitalist system, I strongly support all forms of hunting trapping, fishing, etc, which is why I maintain this forum for the benefit of all users including the many DIY hunters on this forum!

But you have strange "views" of people who use the services of an outfitter. Again, contrary to your comment, most of the hunters I get are average working class people who simply want help, don't know where to go or how to hunt, want to learn, need assistance, or simply want a better hunt than they could do on their own, it's their yearly vacation they have saved for. I get a lot of retirees who have hunted DIY all their life but can no longer pack out an elk, in some cases they want to hunt with someone because all their hunting buddies no longer hunt or have passed away and they don't want to be in the mountains alone. It's funny how you try to frame outfitting as only for rich people and taking away from the average person when in reality outfitters services are used mostly by average people! I've actually not even had many hunters in my 40+ years of outfitting that would qualify as being "rich people", I advertise on this forum, in the hunting regulations, and I used to go to all the northwest sport shows, most of my clients are average working class people. Your attempt to alienate outfitters as serving the "elite rich" is way off base!

And yet again you make wild assumptions and try to distort what I actually said.  Please show me where I said anything about 'elite' 'rich' people.  I have zero issue with anyone using an outfitter, whether they are dirt poor or extremely rich.  What I dislike is when the government interferes with a free market and gives an advantage in securing a tag to someone who has more money.  If tags become less available to NR hunters who can't afford an outfitter in a given year, then guess who has an advantage in getting a tag? 

If you truly support free markets, whats wrong with a system where the state sells the NR quota of tags (~15k deer tags) on a first come, first serve basis...and then anyone who wants to hire an outfitter is free to do so?  Why does the government need to take 25% of the NR tags and reserve them for outfitter use?  I'm not saying gov't shouldn't play some role in regulating markets and activities, but whether its obamacare or deer tags, I just don't see why the gov't needs to force peoples hands.  You indicate outfitters business is booming, so why do you need these special tags?  If you run a good business and people are beating down the door...there should be plenty of business and a whole bunch of people that want to use your services.  The only reason for an outfitter to support this proposal is a fear that in a totally free market system they will lose market share.  In most businesses, that's when you adapt.

This isn't rocket science and you can try and distort what I say anyway you want. The bottom line remains, if you are Non-resident DIY hunter this proposal will reduce your ability to plan a hunt and secure a tag.   

[idahohuntr]

I recall leftover outfitter tags getting rolled over into the regular NR quota pool pretty much annually. Why do they need more to go unsold  click on that link and vote at the bottom. Takes 4 seconds.

This is exactly what i was thinking. Why would they want to wait to sell them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think the motivation is based in part on the other changes where NR's must pick a unit.  There will be a lot of leftovers in the less popular units, but by increasing the overall outfitter set aside to 25% it will make sure outfitters gobble up more of the tags for the very popular unit's.  For example, I'm betting getting a 10a deer tag is going to be a whole lot harder if this passes.

[bearpaw]

If you are a DIY Non-resident hunter, this proposal is detrimental to your ability to plan a hunt/secure a tag (deer tags in particular); especially if western big game hunting demand continues on its current trajectory. 

I see this as mostly a hedge by the Outfitting industry against the increasing popularity of NR DIY hunting across the West.  A lot of these tags ultimately go back on sale in August and are available to NR DIY hunters...but if current trends continue, that might not be so common in the future.

Your disdain for outfitters is noted.
FYI- There are also increasing numbers of non-resident hunters wanting outfitted hunts as well as DIY hunts!

Even though outfitted hunters actually get a much smaller portion of tags, it appears you are saying because there are increasing numbers of DIY non-resident hunters that it's Ok for long time outfitters to be put out of business so the increasing numbers of DIY non-resident hunters get the tags?

After suffering losses for several years due to wolf impacts and a slow economy that put many outfitters out of business, outfitting businesses finally pick back up then more losses last year due to covid restrictions, now outfitters should not be allowed their small historic number of hunters because you regard the increasing numbers of DIY non-resident hunters as more entitled to the tags!

Let me add something that's easy to miss, even though outfitters had quota numbers already in place, because tags never used to sell out many outfitters clients purchased their own tags over the counter, this cannot happen now that most units are selling out so quickly under the new system.

I have no disdain for anyone.  Everything I said is 100% factual and unemotional, in contrast to the wild assumptions you make about my post.

Like many of the other DIY hunters on this thread I did submit a no comment on the proposal link.  It doesn't affect me personally because this only sets aside non-resident tags.  My rationale for not supporting this proposal is twofold.

First, I'm a strong supporter of the NAMWC and believe the wildlife is owned by the public and any measure that reserves hunting/tags for the more wealthy is not consistent with my views of the NAMWC.   

Second, I'm a strong supporter of free market, capitalist systems and generally oppose the government artificially controlling markets or giving handouts to private business.

I too am a huge supporter of the free market capitalist system, I strongly support all forms of hunting trapping, fishing, etc, which is why I maintain this forum for the benefit of all users including the many DIY hunters on this forum!

But you have strange "views" of people who use the services of an outfitter. Again, contrary to your comment, most of the hunters I get are average working class people who simply want help, don't know where to go or how to hunt, want to learn, need assistance, or simply want a better hunt than they could do on their own, it's their yearly vacation they have saved for. I get a lot of retirees who have hunted DIY all their life but can no longer pack out an elk, in some cases they want to hunt with someone because all their hunting buddies no longer hunt or have passed away and they don't want to be in the mountains alone. It's funny how you try to frame outfitting as only for rich people and taking away from the average person when in reality outfitters services are used mostly by average people! I've actually not even had many hunters in my 40+ years of outfitting that would qualify as being "rich people", I advertise on this forum, in the hunting regulations, and I used to go to all the northwest sport shows, most of my clients are average working class people. Your attempt to alienate outfitters as serving the "elite rich" is way off base!

And yet again you make wild assumptions and try to distort what I actually said.  Please show me where I said anything about 'elite' 'rich' people.  I have zero issue with anyone using an outfitter, whether they are dirt poor or extremely rich.  What I dislike is when the government interferes with a free market and gives an advantage in securing a tag to someone who has more money.  If tags become less available to NR hunters who can't afford an outfitter in a given year, then guess who has an advantage in getting a tag? 

If you truly support free markets, whats wrong with a system where the state sells the NR quota of tags (~15k deer tags) on a first come, first serve basis...and then anyone who wants to hire an outfitter is free to do so?  Why does the government need to take 25% of the NR tags and reserve them for outfitter use?  I'm not saying gov't shouldn't play some role in regulating markets and activities, but whether its obamacare or deer tags, I just don't see why the gov't needs to force peoples hands.  You indicate outfitters business is booming, so why do you need these special tags?  If you run a good business and people are beating down the door...there should be plenty of business and a whole bunch of people that want to use your services.  The only reason for an outfitter to support this proposal is a fear that in a totally free market system they will lose market share.  In most businesses, that's when you adapt.

This isn't rocket science and you can try and distort what I say anyway you want. The bottom line remains, if you are Non-resident DIY hunter this proposal will reduce your ability to plan a hunt and secure a tag.   

You say I am the guy who makes wild assumptions? 

I see this as mostly a hedge by the Outfitting industry against the increasing popularity of NR DIY hunting across the West

that reserves hunting/tags for the more wealthy

"in securing a tag to someone who has more money"

You indicate outfitters business is booming

My friend you paint with a pretty wide brush and even though you claim otherwise you seem to have a serious bias against outfitters or any "wealthy" people who use an outfitter, (your word not mine) seemingly trying to frame hunters who use outfitters as wealthy elitists!

I actually detailed how many outfitters have been forced out of business and then stated: "There are also increasing numbers of non-resident hunters wanting outfitted hunts as well as DIY hunts!" I said nothing about "business is booming", that's just more of your distortions!

Outfitting is a very heavily regulated industry in Idaho and Montana (and in many states). In Montana I was told by the Outfitting Board director that outfitting is the most heavily regulated industry in Montana, even more so than doctors. In Idaho I have designated operating areas and that is the area I must operate within, I have to turn down hunters wanting hunts in other areas on a regular basis. When you change the licensing system and suddenly outfitters who have operated for years under the old system in only the area they are allowed to operate, are left with no clients because of that change, then that heavily regulated system needs to be modified or it will cause the elimination of businesses.

In Washington there is no regulation of hunting outfitters, there are no outfitter tags, there is pretty much no regulation on hunting outfitters, all my hunters secure their own tags, we operate just fine in Washington, in fact that is where I started my business and expanded from. So please don't try to paint me as unable to operate in an unregulated arena, you should be able to do better than that!

[dreamingbig]

I voted no.  Took about 34 seconds.

Our voice matters!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bearpaw]

These are the tags that are available today, elk tags are nearly all gone except for three zones with a few tags left, there are more deer tags available, but I wouldn't expect many left by summer. The point is that all outfitters are restricted to particular units, we cannot take hunters anywhere we want in Idaho. Many outfitters tried to get elk tags for their hunters but the tags sold out, in some cases within minutes. For example one area I am licensed to hunt I was only able to get one tag for one hunter. I know of outfitters who were not able to get any tags in there area, and they are not allowed to go take clients in another area that has remaining tags. In a heavily regulated industry like outfitting in Idaho, where an outfitter can't go to another unit, it's only reasonable to make changes to prevent forcing these outfitters out of business.

If Idaho wants to remove regulations on outfitters I would gladly agree with that and simply get tags for my hunters in other units that I know where to hunt, but it doesn't work that way and regulation of outfitting isn't going to go away. I'm fine either way, I'm glad to operate in a regulated state like Idaho or an unregulated state like Washington.

[dreamingbig]

I understand your business is suffering but outfitter subsidy isn’t the right solution in my opinion.

They will most likely go to a draw for these zones.  That makes the most sense.  Allow everyone an equal chance to get their name in the hat.

Then outfitters can sell hunts to those that draw.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bearpaw]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, I respect that, but I really don't think more draws is what Idahoans want nor what IDFG will do. I expect this new NR licensing system will work its way through for DIY non-residents and for non-residents wanting to use outfitters. In a few years I expect more quotas on residents due to the fast growing resident population. IDFG will eventually have to start restricting residents in some manner, that's the real gorilla, the growing resident hunting population.

[idahohuntr]

These are the tags that are available today, elk tags are nearly all gone except for three zones with a few tags left, there are more deer tags available, but I wouldn't expect many left by summer. The point is that all outfitters are restricted to particular units, we cannot take hunters anywhere we want in Idaho. Many outfitters tried to get elk tags for their hunters but the tags sold out, in some cases within minutes. For example one area I am licensed to hunt I was only able to get one tag for one hunter. I know of outfitters who were not able to get any tags in there area, and they are not allowed to go take clients in another area that has remaining tags. In a heavily regulated industry like outfitting in Idaho, where an outfitter can't go to another unit, it's only reasonable to make changes to prevent forcing these outfitters out of business.

If Idaho wants to remove regulations on outfitters I would gladly agree with that and simply get tags for my hunters in other units that I know where to hunt, but it doesn't work that way and regulation of outfitting isn't going to go away. I'm fine either way, I'm glad to operate in a regulated state like Idaho or an unregulated state like Washington.

There is no law or regulation preventing any of the people who purchased a tag for a unit you can outfit in from hiring you as an outfitter.  This includes residents and non-residents.  Why doesn't the free market system work for outfitter businesses?  If you offer a good service at a market price why are you afraid the people who have purchased tags for the units you operate in won't hire you?

Anyways, glad to see all the no votes from people submitting comments to IDFG.  It is pretty clear NR DIY guys see why this is a bad deal for them.   

[bearpaw]

These are the tags that are available today, elk tags are nearly all gone except for three zones with a few tags left, there are more deer tags available, but I wouldn't expect many left by summer. The point is that all outfitters are restricted to particular units, we cannot take hunters anywhere we want in Idaho. Many outfitters tried to get elk tags for their hunters but the tags sold out, in some cases within minutes. For example one area I am licensed to hunt I was only able to get one tag for one hunter. I know of outfitters who were not able to get any tags in there area, and they are not allowed to go take clients in another area that has remaining tags. In a heavily regulated industry like outfitting in Idaho, where an outfitter can't go to another unit, it's only reasonable to make changes to prevent forcing these outfitters out of business.

If Idaho wants to remove regulations on outfitters I would gladly agree with that and simply get tags for my hunters in other units that I know where to hunt, but it doesn't work that way and regulation of outfitting isn't going to go away. I'm fine either way, I'm glad to operate in a regulated state like Idaho or an unregulated state like Washington.

There is no law or regulation preventing any of the people who purchased a tag for a unit you can outfit in from hiring you as an outfitter.  This includes residents and non-residents.  Why doesn't the free market system work for outfitter businesses?  If you offer a good service at a market price why are you afraid the people who have purchased tags for the units you operate in won't hire you?

Anyways, glad to see all the no votes from people submitting comments to IDFG.  It is pretty clear NR DIY guys see why this is a bad deal for them.   

Please read my previous post? I'm glad to work in a regulated state or an unregulated state, we do fine in either. But in a regulated state like Idaho where you have restricted outfitters to specific areas, when you change the license system and it results in no business within that restricted area maybe you should make some changes or else remove all the restrictions, obviously something needs to happen. It is an industry wide problem, that is why the state is taking action. Hey, I'll gladly accept those hunters calling wanting to hunt other areas and leave the area I'm restricted to operate within, remove all the outfitting restrictions, I'm fine with that, but as I said that's probably not going to happen. 

[idahohuntr]

These are the tags that are available today, elk tags are nearly all gone except for three zones with a few tags left, there are more deer tags available, but I wouldn't expect many left by summer. The point is that all outfitters are restricted to particular units, we cannot take hunters anywhere we want in Idaho. Many outfitters tried to get elk tags for their hunters but the tags sold out, in some cases within minutes. For example one area I am licensed to hunt I was only able to get one tag for one hunter. I know of outfitters who were not able to get any tags in there area, and they are not allowed to go take clients in another area that has remaining tags. In a heavily regulated industry like outfitting in Idaho, where an outfitter can't go to another unit, it's only reasonable to make changes to prevent forcing these outfitters out of business.

If Idaho wants to remove regulations on outfitters I would gladly agree with that and simply get tags for my hunters in other units that I know where to hunt, but it doesn't work that way and regulation of outfitting isn't going to go away. I'm fine either way, I'm glad to operate in a regulated state like Idaho or an unregulated state like Washington.

There is no law or regulation preventing any of the people who purchased a tag for a unit you can outfit in from hiring you as an outfitter.  This includes residents and non-residents.  Why doesn't the free market system work for outfitter businesses?  If you offer a good service at a market price why are you afraid the people who have purchased tags for the units you operate in won't hire you?

Anyways, glad to see all the no votes from people submitting comments to IDFG.  It is pretty clear NR DIY guys see why this is a bad deal for them.   

Please read my previous post? I'm glad to work in a regulated state or an unregulated state, we do fine in either. But in a regulated state like Idaho where you have restricted outfitters to specific areas, when you change the license system and it results in no business within that restricted area maybe you should make some changes or else remove all the restrictions, obviously something needs to happen. It is an industry wide problem, that is why the state is taking action. Hey, I'll gladly accept those hunters calling wanting to hunt other areas and leave the area I'm restricted to operate within, remove all the outfitting restrictions, I'm fine with that, but as I said that's probably not going to happen. 

The state changed the system and eliminated all tags in some areas outfitters operate in?

You don't have to operate in a new area or take a client outside your permitted unit/zone...my question was, why don't you get business from the people who bought tags for the units you CAN operate in?  If you have a good service at market price, why are outfitters concerned the people who bought tags for the zones THEY CAN OPERATE IN won't hire them?

Let me use an example.  Lets say we get rid of all outfitter set aside tags and they are all sold first come first serve.  And lets say you are regulated to only outfit deer hunts in unit 10a.  Now lets pretend there are 775 NR deer tags for 10a. If you offer a good service at market price, why don't we just let the various people who bought one of 775 NR tags for unit 10a deer choose to hire you...or not...like a free market system?