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

[idaho guy]

I can see why its important to reserve outfitter tags in Idaho. What if every guided hunter fails to draw the specific area you guide in? It would put outfitters out of business quickly. I have some close friends who guide and have guided and they are not doing it to get wealthy trust me.  I usually hate government intervention but in the case of outfitting the benefits far outweigh the negatives. Can you imagine the hoards of outfitters flocking to only the best units if it was a free for all. I dont know all the rules but it seems like where I hunt one outfitter owns a specific area and you can count on only that outfitter being there. I am sure it leads to better stewardship of the resource rather than 12 outfitters in a race all in the same unit to fill client tags. Outfitters will take more animals out of an area then a diy hunter ever will. I know many outfitters that manage their respective areas for the future knowing thats where they will likely guide the rest of their career.    It weeds out a lot of bad apples also (not all). I am not voting till I read in depth. I think Idahohunter needs to research a little more before going off on it as well. My knee jerk reaction was heck no but there is a lot in this that makes sense. Why do some people change their own oil and others dont? Not every hunter obtaining a tag wants to ever do a guided hunt some hunters may only go guided. If you restrict someone doing business to a specific area you have to allow some tags for hunters that actually WANT to and are WILLING to pay for his service. IN the big picture i think a regulated hunting industry is worth the price. I will actually research this actual proposal before voting in DEPTH.

[idaho guy]

I haven't looked closely at this proposal in detail, but it appears it would cut about 2k NR deer tags from the general NR pool and add them to the outfitter set aside.  The impact to elk tags would be a few hundred fewer for non outfitted non-residents. 

Link to some detail and comment box below:

https://idfg.idaho.gov/about/rules/potential-change-outfitter-set-aside-rule-general-hunt-elk-and-deer-tags

 

Have you looked at it closely in detail yet? I have no issue with your viewpoint. In fact I agreed with you before i Disagreed  but I think it comes down to regulated vs non regulated outfitting. You have to accept trade offs with either one. Idaho is highly regulated and Washington appears any joker can hang out outfitter sign and go to town. There is a lot more to this then  just supporting outfitters. There will be lots of changes to Idaho hunting our biggest problem is new RESIDENT hunters and you know that.   

[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. 

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? 

If there were no restrictions it would be easy to operate with no quotas, I've done it successfully in Washington every year for more than 40 years, maybe you missed that part. But, there are lots of small outfitters in rural Idaho who don't have the diversification that I do, those are the guys who can be put completely out of business if steps are not taken. In a small town where outfitting is a significant part of the small local economy that could be devastating and has been devastating in the past when outfitting businesses were put out of business. Thankfully decision makers on the state level have seen this happen and understand the local impact when small outfitters are put out of business.

I actually think Idaho has the best outfitting system where only one outfitter is in an area, in Utah there are 12 to 15 outfitters permitted to hunt some of the areas I hunt, they all have a long list of clients applying for tags, I do too, the DIY guy is competing to try and get a tag, then after 20 years when he finally draws a tag he really has to spend a lot of time in the area before season to have much chance of competing for any of the good animals, lots of times there are several outfitters watching the same animal. You might really think twice about upsetting such a well working system in Idaho where outfitters are regulated very closely and there isn't all the competition!

[idaho guy]

I have heard stories about guys finally drawing the coveted mule deer tag after 20 years only to find 10-12 guides PER outfitter watching specific bucks and they have been since spring/summer. The average diy hunter doesn't stand a chance. In some cases do it yourself guys that would never use a guide felt they had to hire one!  No thanks I will takes Idaho's system where you have 1 outfitter per area. Some have been great guys and some were real jackwagons  but at least I always knew who was there and who we were dealing with. Most have been good people and easy to work around.   

[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? 

If there were no restrictions it would be easy to operate with no quotas, I've done it successfully in Washington every year for more than 40 years, maybe you missed that part. But, there are lots of small outfitters in rural Idaho who don't have the diversification that I do, those are the guys who can be put completely out of business if steps are not taken. In a small town where outfitting is a significant part of the small local economy that could be devastating and has been devastating in the past when outfitting businesses were put out of business. Thankfully decision makers on the state level have seen this happen and understand the local impact when small outfitters are put out of business.

I actually think Idaho has the best outfitting system where only one outfitter is in an area, in Utah there are 12 to 15 outfitters permitted to hunt some of the areas I hunt, they all have a long list of clients applying for tags, I do too, the DIY guy is competing to try and get a tag, then after 20 years when he finally draws a tag he really has to spend a lot of time in the area before season to have much chance of competing for any of the good animals, lots of times there are several outfitters watching the same animal. You might really think twice about upsetting such a well working system in Idaho where outfitters are regulated very closely and there isn't all the competition!

For the 3rd time: If Outfitters offer a good service at a market price why are they afraid the people who have purchased tags for the units they operate in won't hire them? As you admit, Idaho already regulates outfitters so they already have limited competition for who a tag holder can even legally hire...why do they now need 25% of all NR tags set aside if the service they offer is good and at a market price?

You seem to imply because the outfitters are regulated (i.e., only one or a few can operate in a particular unit or zone), this means we have to give them guaranteed tags or they could not survive.  My contention as a free market capitalist...why?  Why won't they survive?  There are still thousands of deer tags sold...hundreds or thousands in most units...why will those people not support hire the outfitter if they offer a good service at a market price?

[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. 

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? 

If there were no restrictions it would be easy to operate with no quotas, I've done it successfully in Washington every year for more than 40 years, maybe you missed that part. But, there are lots of small outfitters in rural Idaho who don't have the diversification that I do, those are the guys who can be put completely out of business if steps are not taken. In a small town where outfitting is a significant part of the small local economy that could be devastating and has been devastating in the past when outfitting businesses were put out of business. Thankfully decision makers on the state level have seen this happen and understand the local impact when small outfitters are put out of business.

I actually think Idaho has the best outfitting system where only one outfitter is in an area, in Utah there are 12 to 15 outfitters permitted to hunt some of the areas I hunt, they all have a long list of clients applying for tags, I do too, the DIY guy is competing to try and get a tag, then after 20 years when he finally draws a tag he really has to spend a lot of time in the area before season to have much chance of competing for any of the good animals, lots of times there are several outfitters watching the same animal. You might really think twice about upsetting such a well working system in Idaho where outfitters are regulated very closely and there isn't all the competition!

For the 3rd time: If Outfitters offer a good service at a market price why are they afraid the people who have purchased tags for the units they operate in won't hire them? As you admit, Idaho already regulates outfitters so they already have limited competition for who a tag holder can even legally hire...why do they now need 25% of all NR tags set aside if the service they offer is good and at a market price?

You seem to imply because the outfitters are regulated (i.e., only one or a few can operate in a particular unit or zone), this means we have to give them guaranteed tags or they could not survive.  My contention as a free market capitalist...why?  Why won't they survive?  There are still thousands of deer tags sold...hundreds or thousands in most units...why will those people not support hire the outfitter if they offer a good service at a market price?

Depends who gets the tags in the unit they operate, if their clients don't get tags it will be a pretty tough year ahead, especially since Idaho outfitters can't go to other units, probably put some of them out of business, that can't be too hard to understand?

[idaho guy]

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? 

If there were no restrictions it would be easy to operate with no quotas, I've done it successfully in Washington every year for more than 40 years, maybe you missed that part. But, there are lots of small outfitters in rural Idaho who don't have the diversification that I do, those are the guys who can be put completely out of business if steps are not taken. In a small town where outfitting is a significant part of the small local economy that could be devastating and has been devastating in the past when outfitting businesses were put out of business. Thankfully decision makers on the state level have seen this happen and understand the local impact when small outfitters are put out of business.

I actually think Idaho has the best outfitting system where only one outfitter is in an area, in Utah there are 12 to 15 outfitters permitted to hunt some of the areas I hunt, they all have a long list of clients applying for tags, I do too, the DIY guy is competing to try and get a tag, then after 20 years when he finally draws a tag he really has to spend a lot of time in the area before season to have much chance of competing for any of the good animals, lots of times there are several outfitters watching the same animal. You might really think twice about upsetting such a well working system in Idaho where outfitters are regulated very closely and there isn't all the competition!

For the 3rd time: If Outfitters offer a good service at a market price why are they afraid the people who have purchased tags for the units they operate in won't hire them? As you admit, Idaho already regulates outfitters so they already have limited competition for who a tag holder can even legally hire...why do they now need 25% of all NR tags set aside if the service they offer is good and at a market price?

You seem to imply because the outfitters are regulated (i.e., only one or a few can operate in a particular unit or zone), this means we have to give them guaranteed tags or they could not survive.  My contention as a free market capitalist...why?  Why won't they survive?  There are still thousands of deer tags sold...hundreds or thousands in most units...why will those people not support hire the outfitter if they offer a good service at a market price?

   

 My thought on this is there are many hunters that will never hire an outfitter regardless of service or price. If the majority of hunters in a unit fit this bill it doesn't matter how great the the service is they just dont want to be guided. There are specific areas in Idaho where an outfitters potential client base would draw 0 tags. Many small outfitters could be put out of business with 1 year like this.I dont like to be told what to do so I prefer to hunt on my own!  but there are situations where I would use a guide. Many hunters will never hire a guide no matter how great they may be because of personal preference. If you restrict them to a specific area then you have to provide a certain amount of tags for people that actually will use that guide. Again there are many areas where potential clients would not draw or make the cut off to buy tags and then the outfit is screwed. For example would you hire a guide where you hunt deer in Idaho? Im guessing based on previous posts suggesting a long long  family tradition of hunting Idaho you would NEVER hire a guide to hunt your regular spots? I know I would not ever consider it no matter how great they were supposed to be.  I hunt non resident in montana most years with family. I am not a potential client for a guide ever in Montana. Hypothetically if everyone who draws montana this year is like me the guides are screwed no matter how fantastic their price and services are. Regulated or free for all outfitting industry is the question.     

[Dan-o]

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? 

If there were no restrictions it would be easy to operate with no quotas, I've done it successfully in Washington every year for more than 40 years, maybe you missed that part. But, there are lots of small outfitters in rural Idaho who don't have the diversification that I do, those are the guys who can be put completely out of business if steps are not taken. In a small town where outfitting is a significant part of the small local economy that could be devastating and has been devastating in the past when outfitting businesses were put out of business. Thankfully decision makers on the state level have seen this happen and understand the local impact when small outfitters are put out of business.

I actually think Idaho has the best outfitting system where only one outfitter is in an area, in Utah there are 12 to 15 outfitters permitted to hunt some of the areas I hunt, they all have a long list of clients applying for tags, I do too, the DIY guy is competing to try and get a tag, then after 20 years when he finally draws a tag he really has to spend a lot of time in the area before season to have much chance of competing for any of the good animals, lots of times there are several outfitters watching the same animal. You might really think twice about upsetting such a well working system in Idaho where outfitters are regulated very closely and there isn't all the competition!

For the 3rd time: If Outfitters offer a good service at a market price why are they afraid the people who have purchased tags for the units they operate in won't hire them? As you admit, Idaho already regulates outfitters so they already have limited competition for who a tag holder can even legally hire...why do they now need 25% of all NR tags set aside if the service they offer is good and at a market price?

You seem to imply because the outfitters are regulated (i.e., only one or a few can operate in a particular unit or zone), this means we have to give them guaranteed tags or they could not survive.  My contention as a free market capitalist...why?  Why won't they survive?  There are still thousands of deer tags sold...hundreds or thousands in most units...why will those people not support hire the outfitter if they offer a good service at a market price?

   

 My thought on this is there are many hunters that will never hire an outfitter regardless of service or price. If the majority of hunters in a unit fit this bill it doesn't matter how great the the service is they just dont want to be guided. There are specific areas in Idaho where an outfitters potential client base would draw 0 tags. Many small outfitters could be put out of business with 1 year like this.I dont like to be told what to do so I prefer to hunt on my own!  but there are situations where I would use a guide. Many hunters will never hire a guide no matter how great they may be because of personal preference. If you restrict them to a specific area then you have to provide a certain amount of tags for people that actually will use that guide. Again there are many areas where potential clients would not draw or make the cut off to buy tags and then the outfit is screwed. For example would you hire a guide where you hunt deer in Idaho? Im guessing based on previous posts suggesting a long long  family tradition of hunting Idaho you would NEVER hire a guide to hunt your regular spots? I know I would not ever consider it no matter how great they were supposed to be.  I hunt non resident in montana most years with family. I am not a potential client for a guide ever in Montana. Hypothetically if everyone who draws montana this year is like me the guides are screwed no matter how fantastic their price and services are. Regulated or free for all outfitting industry is the question.   

Well stated.

[idahohuntr]

Depends who gets the tags in the unit they operate, if their clients don't get tags it will be a pretty tough year ahead, especially since Idaho outfitters can't go to other units, probably put some of them out of business, that can't be too hard to understand?

Oh, I understand why the outfitters want 25% of all NR deer and elk tags in Idaho.  I'm just trying to figure out why outfitters believe their business model should be exempt from free market capitalism or that the government has a responsibility to provide them clients.  Its not the only business regulated in where they can operate...so that's not a great argument for demanding 25% of a limited public resource.

But that's not even whats up for debate here...there is no proposal, initiative, or legislation suggesting we eliminate outfitter set asides (not yet anyways)...we are discussing whether the outfitters should be given double their current set aside, or leave it where it is.  I vote no on giving outfitters 2,000 more NR deer tags...I think the 2,000 they get now is plenty generous. 

[bearpaw]

Depends who gets the tags in the unit they operate, if their clients don't get tags it will be a pretty tough year ahead, especially since Idaho outfitters can't go to other units, probably put some of them out of business, that can't be too hard to understand?

Oh, I understand why the outfitters want 25% of all NR deer and elk tags in Idaho.  I'm just trying to figure out why outfitters believe their business model should be exempt from free market capitalism or that the government has a responsibility to provide them clients.  Its not the only business regulated in where they can operate...so that's not a great argument for demanding 25% of a limited public resource.

But that's not even whats up for debate here...there is no proposal, initiative, or legislation suggesting we eliminate outfitter set asides (not yet anyways)...we are discussing whether the outfitters should be given double their current set aside, or leave it where it is.  I vote no on giving outfitters 2,000 more NR deer tags...I think the 2,000 they get now is plenty generous.

First let me correct you! It's not a free market system for outfitters, if it was a free market system for outfitters we would be able to buy tags and take hunters to any unit/zone in the state we wanted that has tags for sale just like all the hunters have the option of doing that!

But outfitters are heavily regulated and restricted to specific areas. The current outfitter allocation worked well before this year because only a small number of zones/units were capped, general tag sales lasted well into the year and many outfitters clients purchased tags from the general pool of tags. I got lots of tags for my clients often out of the general pool just like other outfitters have done.

Now that all units and zones in the state are capped and tags in many of those units and zones sold out very quickly (and probably will every year now under the new system), consequently many outfitters have few or no clients for the year. Because outfitters can't hunt other units that still have tags available they are out of luck and eventually out of business unless the state provides access to tags for outfitted clients. The number of capped zones has likely more than quadrupled this year, yet outfitters are only asking for a 3.2% more of elk tags and 12.2% more deer tags to be allocated to outfitters. These allocated tags will replace general pool tags outfitters used to purchase over the counter in the past. Outfitters probably won't actually get any more tags for clients than before, it's just that with the new sales system they need more allocation or they will get fewer tags than before. DIY hunters will probably still get just as many tags as before or maybe even more because as I said many outfitters were buying their tags out of the general pool. The new licensing system has created a rush on sales and that resulted in outfitters getting far fewer tags for their clients! It's really that simple!

If you want a truly free market system, remove the limitations on outfitters and let us buy what ever tags in whatever units/zones we want for our hunters! I think you will find that would make a lot of complications in many areas, but if that is what you want hey, that can work for me and probably a lot of other outfitters too!

[kentrek]

Why do you need to buy tags for your client ? Why can't the client buy there own tags ? Your using the demand for tags as leverage...let them buy the tags with the rest of us and then hire a guide.. its unfortunate that your repeat clients won't get tags every year but it's also pretty damn unfortunate I won't get tags every year either...so who is more important ??

I'm not anti outfitters either by any stretch but the line needs to be drawn somewhere with tag allocation...the boundary issue seems like smoke and mirrors and could be its own issue to be solved ....

Don't solve problems with more problems...

[MountainWalk]

I am against this proposal.

[harveymarv]

Why do you need to buy tags for your client ? Why can't the client buy there own tags ? Your using the demand for tags as leverage...let them buy the tags with the rest of us and then hire a guide.. its unfortunate that your repeat clients won't get tags every year but it's also pretty damn unfortunate I won't get tags every year either...so who is more important ??

I'm not anti outfitters either by any stretch but the line needs to be drawn somewhere with tag allocation...the boundary issue seems like smoke and mirrors and could be its own issue to be solved ....

Don't solve problems with more problems...

this is why i voted no. public resources (tags) should be equally available to every citizen. After tags are purchased, allow (free) market forces to send a portion of the population down the DIY route, and a portion of the population down the outfitter route. if outfitters don’t get enough clients, there is too much supply and not enough demand, and hence too many outfitters. that’s capitalism.

don’t allow the government to artificially inflate the demand for outfitters by taking tags from citizens (all of us) and giving them to outfitters, forcing some (DIY) hunters to hire an outfitter if they want to hunt (pay extra for access to a public resource).

[idahohuntr]

Why do you need to buy tags for your client ? Why can't the client buy there own tags ? Your using the demand for tags as leverage...let them buy the tags with the rest of us and then hire a guide.. its unfortunate that your repeat clients won't get tags every year but it's also pretty damn unfortunate I won't get tags every year either...so who is more important ??

I'm not anti outfitters either by any stretch but the line needs to be drawn somewhere with tag allocation...the boundary issue seems like smoke and mirrors and could be its own issue to be solved ....

Don't solve problems with more problems...

this is why i voted no. public resources (tags) should be equally available to every citizen. After tags are purchased, allow (free) market forces to send a portion of the population down the DIY route, and a portion of the population down the outfitter route. if outfitters don’t get enough clients, there is too much supply and not enough demand, and hence too many outfitters. that’s capitalism.

don’t allow the government to artificially inflate the demand for outfitters by taking tags from citizens (all of us) and giving them to outfitters, forcing some (DIY) hunters to hire an outfitter if they want to hunt (pay extra for access to a public resource).

Well stated.

Something else to keep in mind on the boundary issue...the Idaho Outfitters and Guides would have an absolute fit if you tried to open up outfitting to any zone/unit.  The existing outfitters benefit a great deal if it is extremely limited in who can outfit in what zone because it artificially limits your competition.  Now the outfitters want 25% of all NR deer and elk tags (2,000 more deer tags!!)...what a wonderful system to be able to create rules so only you and a few guys can even operate a business in certain areas...then pass some more rules so you get a big chunk of a high demand limited public resource...I mean I will hand it to the outfitters...its a great business model to have the government limit your competition and then force customers into your business. 

And I want to be clear...I want all businesses in America to be successful, including Outfitters.  But I will not turn a blind eye to things that are harmful to DIY hunters and the NAMWC...and make no mistake...this proposal will 100% reduce your ability to get a NR deer tag (and to a lesser degree an elk tag) if you are a DIY hunter. 

[Duckslayer89]

Why do you need to buy tags for your client ? Why can't the client buy there own tags ? Your using the demand for tags as leverage...let them buy the tags with the rest of us and then hire a guide.. its unfortunate that your repeat clients won't get tags every year but it's also pretty damn unfortunate I won't get tags every year either...so who is more important ??

I'm not anti outfitters either by any stretch but the line needs to be drawn somewhere with tag allocation...the boundary issue seems like smoke and mirrors and could be its own issue to be solved ....

Don't solve problems with more problems...

this is why i voted no. public resources (tags) should be equally available to every citizen. After tags are purchased, allow (free) market forces to send a portion of the population down the DIY route, and a portion of the population down the outfitter route. if outfitters don’t get enough clients, there is too much supply and not enough demand, and hence too many outfitters. that’s capitalism.

don’t allow the government to artificially inflate the demand for outfitters by taking tags from citizens (all of us) and giving them to outfitters, forcing some (DIY) hunters to hire an outfitter if they want to hunt (pay extra for access to a public resource).

Well stated.

Something else to keep in mind on the boundary issue...the Idaho Outfitters and Guides would have an absolute fit if you tried to open up outfitting to any zone/unit.  The existing outfitters benefit a great deal if it is extremely limited in who can outfit in what zone because it artificially limits your competition.  Now the outfitters want 25% of all NR deer and elk tags (2,000 more deer tags!!)...what a wonderful system to be able to create rules so only you and a few guys can even operate a business in certain areas...then pass some more rules so you get a big chunk of a high demand limited public resource...I mean I will hand it to the outfitters...its a great business model to have the government limit your competition and then force customers into your business. 

And I want to be clear...I want all businesses in America to be successful, including Outfitters.  But I will not turn a blind eye to things that are harmful to DIY hunters and the NAMWC...and make no mistake...this proposal will 100% reduce your ability to get a NR deer tag (and to a lesser degree an elk tag) if you are a DIY hunter.

Ya I never understood why outfitters could outfit and make money off public land but then I could never take someone for money myself