Post by: Cougeyes on February 06, 2020, 03:56:32 PM
https://www.gohunt.com/read/news/idaho-house-approves-decrease-in-nonresident-tags-but-increase-in-fees
Post by: huntnnw on February 06, 2020, 04:57:37 PM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on February 06, 2020, 05:00:14 PM
Post by: Cougeyes on February 06, 2020, 05:23:13 PM
Post by: meatwhack on February 06, 2020, 05:31:14 PM
Post by: buckfvr on February 06, 2020, 05:40:15 PM
Post by: kentrek on February 06, 2020, 07:57:50 PM
This is why your grandkids wont be hunting
Post by: millerwheeler on February 06, 2020, 08:09:10 PM
This will never end...if somthing doesn't come easy it must be someone else's fault.. Idaho has been capped...not sure how overcrowding is just now a problem...it will go the same route as most of the other states and if a guy wants to hunt consistent he will need to have enough money to apply in every state..
This is why your grandkids wont be hunting
I agree my son's are gonna have a tough go
Post by: kentrek on February 06, 2020, 08:19:08 PM
Post by: meatwhack on February 07, 2020, 03:07:21 AM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 07, 2020, 04:30:57 AM
This still just cracks me up. Thousands upon thousands of people move into idaho monthly and many of those are hunters but yeah it's the fault of the capped non resident hunter numbers🤦♂️
You got that right Karl. And to top it off it's been several years since all the capped deer tags have been sold out before Aug 1st when they when they are released to be sold as second tags for anyone who wants them, resident and non resident. In fact a lot of the "second tags" are sold to residents so there are even less non residents hunting now than in the past. If they reduce the number of non res deer tags, they will actually be reducing resident opportunity in the form of those second tags as there will be less extra tags unless Idaho completely loses their minds with the new tag prices.
If Idaho does lose non resident revenue, it will have to be made up by resident hunters.
Post by: idahohuntr on February 07, 2020, 07:01:24 AM
The higher NR fees are supposed to offset the reduced revenue from fewer tag sales. Demand will still be high unless the economy collapses like the last time they did a big NR fee hike :yike:This still just cracks me up. Thousands upon thousands of people move into idaho monthly and many of those are hunters but yeah it's the fault of the capped non resident hunter numbers🤦♂️
You got that right Karl. And to top it off it's been several years since all the capped deer tags have been sold out before Aug 1st when they when they are released to be sold as second tags for anyone who wants them, resident and non resident. In fact a lot of the "second tags" are sold to residents so there are even less non residents hunting now than in the past. If they reduce the number of non res deer tags, they will actually be reducing resident opportunity in the form of those second tags as there will be less extra tags unless Idaho completely loses their minds with the new tag prices.
If Idaho does lose non resident revenue, it will have to be made up by resident hunters.
Post by: Stein on February 07, 2020, 08:02:04 AM
Post by: Jonathan_S on February 07, 2020, 08:07:31 AM
The higher NR fees are supposed to offset the reduced revenue from fewer tag sales. Demand will still be high unless the economy collapses like the last time they did a big NR fee hike :yike:This still just cracks me up. Thousands upon thousands of people move into idaho monthly and many of those are hunters but yeah it's the fault of the capped non resident hunter numbers🤦♂️
You got that right Karl. And to top it off it's been several years since all the capped deer tags have been sold out before Aug 1st when they when they are released to be sold as second tags for anyone who wants them, resident and non resident. In fact a lot of the "second tags" are sold to residents so there are even less non residents hunting now than in the past. If they reduce the number of non res deer tags, they will actually be reducing resident opportunity in the form of those second tags as there will be less extra tags unless Idaho completely loses their minds with the new tag prices.
If Idaho does lose non resident revenue, it will have to be made up by resident hunters.
Yep and eventually the economy WILL recede and they'll be selling the leftover at reduced prices again.
Post by: Machias on February 07, 2020, 08:32:36 AM
Idaho is no different from other big hunting states. The residents vote and they tell their legislators they want fewer nonresident tags. They reduce the tags but increase the price since residents also say don't raise my prices. Until nonresidents vote, it will always be this way.
No matter what state I have lived in I have never been able to influence license fees. I certainly have not been asked about the license increase in the past 18 months while living in Idaho.
Post by: cbond3318 on February 07, 2020, 08:34:30 AM
As the population of R and NR hunters continues to grow, I am optimistic IDFG will continue to manage both wildlife and people accordingly.
Post by: buglebrush on February 07, 2020, 09:45:54 AM
This will never end...if somthing doesn't come easy it must be someone else's fault.. Idaho has been capped...not sure how overcrowding is just now a problem...it will go the same route as most of the other states and if a guy wants to hunt consistent he will need to have enough money to apply in every state..
This is why your grandkids wont be hunting
Actually the true culprit here is over-predation especially wolves. There's just not enough elk to go around anymore. As someone who shot his first elk in Idaho 24 years ago and hunted elk every year since, I'm deeply saddened at the desolation of Backcountry hunting. The wilderness areas are pretty barren of game, and OTC hunting is heading for the edge of a couple. But let's be honest, wolves are and were the main culprit.
Post by: kentrek on February 07, 2020, 09:54:53 AM
This will never end...if somthing doesn't come easy it must be someone else's fault.. Idaho has been capped...not sure how overcrowding is just now a problem...it will go the same route as most of the other states and if a guy wants to hunt consistent he will need to have enough money to apply in every state..
This is why your grandkids wont be hunting
Actually the true culprit here is over-predation especially wolves. There's just not enough elk to go around anymore. As someone who shot his first elk in Idaho 24 years ago and hunted elk every year since, I'm deeply saddened at the desolation of Backcountry hunting. The wilderness areas are pretty barren of game, and OTC hunting is heading for the edge of a couple. But let's be honest, wolves are and were the main culprit.
I dont know wolves could vote...fish and game still sets quotas...I'm sure they've considered the impact of wolves
There is plenty of elk...just not very many elk hunters...and that's a tough pill to swallow for some
Post by: buglebrush on February 07, 2020, 10:00:02 AM
This will never end...if somthing doesn't come easy it must be someone else's fault.. Idaho has been capped...not sure how overcrowding is just now a problem...it will go the same route as most of the other states and if a guy wants to hunt consistent he will need to have enough money to apply in every state..
This is why your grandkids wont be hunting
Actually the true culprit here is over-predation especially wolves. There's just not enough elk to go around anymore. As someone who shot his first elk in Idaho 24 years ago and hunted elk every year since, I'm deeply saddened at the desolation of Backcountry hunting. The wilderness areas are pretty barren of game, and OTC hunting is heading for the edge of a couple. But let's be honest, wolves are and were the main culprit.
I dont know wolves could vote...fish and game still sets quotas...I'm sure they've considered the impact of wolves
There is plenty of elk...just not very many elk hunters...and that's a tough pill to swallow for some
"There is still plenty of elk"
This is not true, especially in the Backcountry away from fields and private land.
Post by: kentrek on February 07, 2020, 10:29:16 AM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on February 07, 2020, 10:31:02 AM
Post by: kentrek on February 07, 2020, 10:38:29 AM
I'm not seeing the same thing. Just this last season (2019) I hunted 4 different idaho GMU's and lack of elk WAS NOT my take away :chuckle:
That's only cuz you were deer hunting... :rolleyes:
Post by: jstone on February 07, 2020, 10:38:51 AM
Post by: Stein on February 07, 2020, 10:40:19 AM
Herd size is another metric, but some of those are only slightly better than just guessing. I think it's hard to argue with harvest stats to paint a picture of long term trends.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on February 07, 2020, 10:41:18 AM
Why does 39 not have a September archery elk hunt?it does. It's a limited entry permit along with muzzleloader. Sawtooths are bursting at the seams with elk. They need to make it a general tag for all those units
Post by: jstone on February 07, 2020, 02:26:46 PM
Post by: doubletall on February 07, 2020, 02:37:45 PM
Idaho is no different from other big hunting states. The residents vote and they tell their legislators they want fewer nonresident tags. They reduce the tags but increase the price since residents also say don't raise my prices. Until nonresidents vote, it will always be this way.
Non residents can vote by hunting elsewhere.
’” However, because nonresident hunters make up “about 50% of the budget” for IDFG, Kauffman says that “the department is proposing to raise out-of-fees by about 10%, varying by type of fee, ‘just to stay even.
If they lost 50% of their revenue next year they might have to rethink their stategy
Post by: Machias on February 07, 2020, 02:53:11 PM
On Feb. 4, the Idaho House voted in favor of House Bill 330 — legislation proposed by Idaho Fish and Game that would increase most most license, tag and permit fees for nonresidents.
House Bill 330 still needs approval from the Senate Resources and Environment Committee, passage in the full Senate, and the governor’s signature to become law.
What is House Bill 330?
The bill will implement a general 10 percent increase in the prices for nonresident items, with larger increases for big game tags and related items such as archery and muzzleloader permits. The bill adjusts reduced rate licenses for mentored juniors to a general 50 percent discount below the related adult item. The bill does not increase the cost of nonresident wolf and Disabled American Veteran tags. If passed, the new fees become effective with the start of the 2021 license sales on Dec. 1, 2020.
Why has Fish and Game proposed this fee increase?
In separate but parallel process in August, the Idaho Fish and Game Commission adopted a rule that would allow them the discretion to manage nonresident distribution/participation in general deer and elk hunts. The rule is currently pending approval of the legislature. If approved, it would go into effect at the end of the current legislative session.
This rule is an outcome of concerns about hunter crowding and congestion in some popular hunting areas. While the overall number of deer and elk tags available to nonresidents is not proposed to change, this rule would allow the Fish and Game Commission to limit the number of nonresident deer or elk tags available in a specific general hunt unit or elk zone.
Although the pending rule does not reduce the overall number of tags available to nonresidents, Fish and Game anticipates that it may cause some nonresident hunters to redistribute across the state, and others to choose not to hunt. The increased fees proposed in House Bill 330 are necessary to offset this anticipated reduction in nonresident participation, allowing the Idaho Fish and Game Commission to maintain a balanced budget that can support existing services.
Post by: Stein on February 07, 2020, 03:20:19 PM
Idaho is no different from other big hunting states. The residents vote and they tell their legislators they want fewer nonresident tags. They reduce the tags but increase the price since residents also say don't raise my prices. Until nonresidents vote, it will always be this way.
Non residents can vote by hunting elsewhere.
’” However, because nonresident hunters make up “about 50% of the budget” for IDFG, Kauffman says that “the department is proposing to raise out-of-fees by about 10%, varying by type of fee, ‘just to stay even.
If they lost 50% of their revenue next year they might have to rethink their stategy
It hasn't happened yet. Every time a western state jacks fees, the most that happens is a very temporary dip and then they are selling out again in a year or two. They have all been to that rodeo many times. It's not like there is a cheap state for NR deer and elk tags, drive through ID to get to MT and you'll still pay up and have more miles to drive as well as CWD to deal with.
It's a simple choice of paying it or not hunting out of state. They can raise NR prices with virtually no effect so they do. I'm not thrilled, but I pay up because it's still a value. A 6 day lift ticket to Big Sky is $759, I get more enjoyment from hunting with the chance of bringing an animal home.
Post by: Jburke on February 07, 2020, 10:15:28 PM
https://legislature.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/sessioninfo/2020/legislation/H0330.pdf
Post by: buglebrush on February 07, 2020, 10:56:52 PM
If it's not true then nobody would be killing elk and tags wouldnt be selling out
Notice I especially referenced Backcountry. The numbers aren't as affected nearer to civilization. I'm killing elk every year too, but there's far less than 10 years ago. I currently have 11 game cameras out in Idaho year round, all of them a long hike from any road. Most of my cameras have been out for at least five years, and they're in multiple areas. The number of elk is decidedly less. I actually don't know anyone who's been hunting archery elk in Idaho for 20+ years that doesn't completely agree about the Backcountry decline.
Post by: meatwhack on February 08, 2020, 06:30:39 AM
Post by: kentrek on February 08, 2020, 07:19:20 AM
If it's not true then nobody would be killing elk and tags wouldnt be selling out
Notice I especially referenced Backcountry. The numbers aren't as affected nearer to civilization. I'm killing elk every year too, but there's far less than 10 years ago. I currently have 11 game cameras out in Idaho year round, all of them a long hike from any road. Most of my cameras have been out for at least five years, and they're in multiple areas. The number of elk is decidedly less. I actually don't know anyone who's been hunting archery elk in Idaho for 20+ years that doesn't completely agree about the Backcountry decline.
I dont completely disagree with you, I know wolves have hammered things....the game has changed for sure...but I spent a good 150 days in the field in 5 different states in 2019...theres very few younger people hunting....and to me that's a bigger issue then the wolves changing the dynamics of backcountry hunting idaho
Post by: outdooraddict on February 08, 2020, 08:44:07 AM
Post by: idaho guy on February 08, 2020, 12:50:02 PM
If it's not true then nobody would be killing elk and tags wouldnt be selling out
Notice I especially referenced Backcountry. The numbers aren't as affected nearer to civilization. I'm killing elk every year too, but there's far less than 10 years ago. I currently have 11 game cameras out in Idaho year round, all of them a long hike from any road. Most of my cameras have been out for at least five years, and they're in multiple areas. The number of elk is decidedly less. I actually don't know anyone who's been hunting archery elk in Idaho for 20+ years that doesn't completely agree about the Backcountry decline.
:yeah: that’s a fact. We get elk every year too but that’s the wrong point. Is there a lot less elk in traditional elk country? The answer is yes and probably not even half of what they were. My most recent Idaho elk was 5 minutes from town. Easiest elk I have taken in Idaho maybe I should be happy I don’t have to drive and then hike for hours. It actually makes me sick because it’s not where Idaho elk belong and when I go too my old honey holes in the backcountry there is almost no elk. Back to original topic it’s way past time Idaho increased fees for non residents. Idaho has been by far the cheapest western state with good hunting. It’s also the only state where you would actually want to hunt that you can buy non resident otc tags. They aren’t reducing the overall number of non resident tags but they should. Karl’s point of thousands pouring in ever year to be residents is true and exactly why they will need to reduce non red residents tags FIRST. The total number of hunters is just increasing too fast. Any non resident complaining just needs to stay home or go elsewhere. Idaho has provided WAY more opportunities at a lower cost to out of staters for decades. As our resident population explodes we need to charge a lot more and reduce hunter congestion it’s just reality. I don’t know of one resident hunter that wouldn’t pay quite a bit more for a resident tag with the promise of reducing out of staters. We have one of the best products out there and have been selling it a wal Mart prices. It’s gets really old when non resident hunters of any state proclaim how screwed the state would be without all there out of state dollars. That’s crap Idaho is not a state of peasants we can figure out how to fund our fish and game without a million non resident hunters. You will all mostly pay the increases anyways.
Post by: idaho guy on February 08, 2020, 12:57:07 PM
This still just cracks me up. Thousands upon thousands of people move into idaho monthly and many of those are hunters but yeah it's the fault of the capped non resident hunter numbers🤦♂️
You got that right Karl. And to top it off it's been several years since all the capped deer tags have been sold out before Aug 1st when they when they are released to be sold as second tags for anyone who wants them, resident and non resident. In fact a lot of the "second tags" are sold to residents so there are even less non residents hunting now than in the past. If they reduce the number of non res deer tags, they will actually be reducing resident opportunity in the form of those second tags as there will be less extra tags unless Idaho completely loses their minds with the new tag prices.
If Idaho does lose non resident revenue, it will have to be made up by resident hunters.
Resident hunters will gladly do it. This is first year I didn’t buy leftover second they went too fast! They are not reducing the total number of non resident tags anyways but they should. The goal is to cap certain areas that weren’t before since many have gotten overcrowded. The price increase is way overdue on non resident tags. Idaho was giving away tags compared to other western states
Post by: kentrek on February 08, 2020, 01:00:48 PM
I really dont care either way but that is pretty funny position to be fighting for
Post by: Magnum_Willys on February 08, 2020, 01:07:32 PM
Post by: idaho guy on February 08, 2020, 01:22:27 PM
Lol so in one hand your saying the hunting is sucking so the restrictions are justified then in the other your saying the product is way undervalued to justify the increase in price :dunno:
I really dont care either way but that is pretty funny position to be fighting for
Idaho hunting is still good to great depends on where you are. Some of the best habitat and hunting historically has been screwed I think by wolves. Is it still ten times better than some other states probably. Increase in resident and non resident hunters combined with smaller herds means Idaho needs to do something and they have been below other states for years why is that a hard position? Some places like frank church the elk herds have been destroyed other places the elk are growing but that leads to even more overcrowding
Post by: Karl Blanchard on February 08, 2020, 03:22:02 PM
I do think that the $70 or whatever it is for an archery or muzzy permit is silly. I also think the jump in youth prices are a bit silly but we've gone down that rabbit hole already.
Basically its California's fault
Post by: Karl Blanchard on February 08, 2020, 03:24:20 PM
Post by: idaho guy on February 08, 2020, 03:56:41 PM
I don't disagree with you Idaho Guy. The increases are well within line with other states and justifiable. It is frustrating as a NR because it is expensive and many guys are like me and really scrimp and save to be able to go hunt greener pastures. At the end of the day, I'm still gonna pay it. May have to sell another cord of wood or work a few days of OT to swing it but if it's important you'll find a way. As a WA resident who really depend on out of state hunts to have a fulfilling season, we seem to be getting pounded with increases from every direction. My original remark was simply that it's not the NR doing the over crowding. We've been capped for a long time. The big change has been in the influx of residents.
I do think that the $70 or whatever it is for an archery or muzzy permit is silly. I also think the jump in youth prices are a bit silly but we've gone down that rabbit hole already.
Basically its California's fault
:tup: definitely California s fault :chuckle: I absolutely love this state and it has been good to me but the population growth is out of hand and it’s going to change a lot about the hunting here over time. I agree the archery/muzzy permits are ridiculous too. I pay out of state fees in Montana and sometimes other states so I feel your pain!
Post by: fishngamereaper on February 08, 2020, 04:15:39 PM
Not sure about the required unit choice though. I sometimes hunt 2-3 unit's in one day because of how they are layed out. :dunno:
Post by: JimmyHoffa on February 08, 2020, 04:18:28 PM
Post by: Magnum_Willys on February 08, 2020, 04:31:24 PM
Interesting. From a couple posts up, I looked at the population growth and it shows Idaho has doubled since the early 80's.
Only takes 2.4% growth to double in 30 years.
Post by: Machias on February 08, 2020, 10:35:28 PM
Post by: Stein on February 09, 2020, 07:50:35 AM
It is one of the fastest growing states in the US.
I was surprised when I looked this up and found that it was the fastest growing state by percentage in 2019, 2.2%.
Post by: grade-creek-rd on February 10, 2020, 09:00:55 AM
Grade
Post by: 3dvapor on February 10, 2020, 09:12:05 AM
Post by: 2MANY on February 10, 2020, 09:14:05 AM
Post by: bearpaw on February 10, 2020, 09:33:15 AM
It is one of the fastest growing states in the US.
Currently Idaho is the fastest growing state!
My view is that capping a zone relieves the pressure to put a unit/zone on a draw basis but it puts more pressure on other uncapped zones. When capping a zone, at least in the zones I'm knowledgeable of the capping process, the caps were based on a percentage of historic use by non-residents and/or non-residents. Overall I agree with capping as long as both residents and non-residents are capped. I know sometimes non-residents are capped but residents are not capped, when that happens hunter crowding usually continues to grow due to the growth in resident hunter numbers.
The last time Idaho raised fees it only raised resident fees. They did not raise non-resident fees because they did not want to alienate non-resident hunters. I attended a meeting with F&G where this was fully discussed and only the resident fees were increased. I think Idaho has been more cautious of raising non-resident fees than most western states. However, everything is driven by supply and demand and the costs of doing business. These states do need to increase fees from time to time to keep up with inflation and I think Idaho has been very fair about not raising fees on non-residents for a long time.
Overall I applaud Idaho F&G for trying to fairly provide as much opportunity as possible for resident and non-resident hunters.
Post by: 2MANY on February 10, 2020, 09:42:16 AM
Non resident pressure has remained fairly constant but just moved from unit to unit.
Post by: buglebrush on February 10, 2020, 10:00:31 AM
It is one of the fastest growing states in the US.
Currently Idaho is the fastest growing state!
My view is that capping a zone relieves the pressure to put a unit/zone on a draw basis but it puts more pressure on other uncapped zones. When capping a zone, at least in the zones I'm knowledgeable of the capping process, the caps were based on a percentage of historic use by non-residents and/or non-residents. Overall I agree with capping as long as both residents and non-residents are capped. I know sometimes non-residents are capped but residents are not capped, when that happens hunter crowding usually continues to grow due to the growth in resident hunter numbers.
The last time Idaho raised fees it only raised resident fees. They did not raise non-resident fees because they did not want to alienate non-resident hunters. I attended a meeting with F&G where this was fully discussed and only the resident fees were increased. I think Idaho has been more cautious of raising non-resident fees than most western states. However, everything is driven by supply and demand and the costs of doing business. These states do need to increase fees from time to time to keep up with inflation and I think Idaho has been very fair about not raising fees on non-residents for a long time.
Overall I applaud Idaho F&G for trying to fairly provide as much opportunity as possible for resident and non-resident hunters.
:yeah:
Much as I hate paying more, I can't honestly be upset about it. The only thing I do have a problem with is getting rid of the super cheap Junior Mentored tags. I've taken a lot of kids over the years with that option, and it's definitely going to cut a lot of kids out.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on February 10, 2020, 11:18:26 AM
Post by: 2MANY on February 10, 2020, 11:22:45 AM
Post by: bearpaw on February 10, 2020, 11:41:16 AM
And $70 to bow hunt 🤦♂️ I thought the $20 was dumb just on principal but $70 to make hamstring myself? That's just insulting 😡
Before WA went to pick a weapon, there was also an archery and Muzzy permit in WA. At that time archery and muzzy were viewed by many people as additional hunting opportunities. I think you could say that Idaho is still in that type of position. You do have to choose an A or B elk tag, but both tag options usually offer multiple weapon seasons.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on February 10, 2020, 11:52:26 AM
right. You wanna archery hunt then pick up a muzzy and hunt late elk that'll be $140. You wanna run the Frank, with your rifle for deer in september, then move to general season and then round it off with some archery action down in 39 during nov...zero additional dollars.And $70 to bow hunt 🤦♂️ I thought the $20 was dumb just on principal but $70 to make hamstring myself? That's just insulting 😡
Before WA went to pick a weapon, there was also an archery and Muzzy permit in WA. At that time archery and muzzy were viewed by many people as additional hunting opportunities. I think you could say that Idaho is still in that type of position. You do have to choose an A or B elk tag, but both tag options usually offer multiple weapon seasons.
Post by: 2MANY on February 10, 2020, 11:57:08 AM
Post by: meatwhack on February 10, 2020, 07:01:56 PM
Post by: elkboy on February 10, 2020, 08:43:17 PM
Sounds like there will be an additional fee for WA and Cali residents as well.Really?!
Post by: 2MANY on February 11, 2020, 08:37:21 AM
Sorry.
Post by: elkboy on February 11, 2020, 08:56:41 AM
I was being sarcastic.
Sorry.
Had me worried there for a minute that the Idahoans were lumping us in with the Califurnyans… ;)
Post by: buglebrush on February 11, 2020, 09:22:21 AM
Trust me they do, and this state is almost as bad as commifornia.I was being sarcastic.
Sorry.
Had me worried there for a minute that the Idahoans were lumping us in with the Califurnyans… ;)
Post by: Apples on February 12, 2020, 10:28:14 AM
Post by: fishngamereaper on February 12, 2020, 11:12:52 AM
Post by: buglebrush on February 12, 2020, 02:16:13 PM
I take my plates off my truck in Idaho, especially places like Yellow Pine.. :chuckle:I actually have my old set of Idaho plates with magnets I put over top of my WA plates when I park in Idaho. Don't want to come back to slashed tires, especially because I lived in Idaho for so many years and know the annoyance of all the washington plates cluttering up the mountains.
Post by: Jonathan_S on February 12, 2020, 02:33:13 PM
Post by: buglebrush on February 12, 2020, 03:11:09 PM
aluminum magnets?
It sticks to the screws that hold my actual license plate in place. Would never stay on if I was actually driving, but looks fairly convincing at a glance.
Post by: Buckhunter24 on February 12, 2020, 03:16:55 PM
Post by: buglebrush on February 12, 2020, 04:49:08 PM
Ive hunted idaho a lot of years and had idaho plates while I was reident and washington plates when I wasnt. Never had an issue or heard a peep about it either way. Putting magnetic plates on really just sounds like a good way to get a ticket to me..I've never personally had a problem either, but know someone who came out to flat tires. Maybe it's also my disgust with myself for having moved to this retarded state. :)
Post by: Jburke on February 12, 2020, 06:51:35 PM
Probably the embarrassment :chuckle:Ive hunted idaho a lot of years and had idaho plates while I was reident and washington plates when I wasnt. Never had an issue or heard a peep about it either way. Putting magnetic plates on really just sounds like a good way to get a ticket to me..I've never personally had a problem either, but know someone who came out to flat tires. Maybe it's also my disgust with myself for having moved to this retarded state. :)
Post by: idaho guy on February 12, 2020, 06:59:59 PM
Probably the embarrassment :chuckle:Ive hunted idaho a lot of years and had idaho plates while I was reident and washington plates when I wasnt. Never had an issue or heard a peep about it either way. Putting magnetic plates on really just sounds like a good way to get a ticket to me..I've never personally had a problem either, but know someone who came out to flat tires. Maybe it's also my disgust with myself for having moved to this retarded state. :)
I would camouflage my plates too! :chuckle: Reminds me of when the rental car I had to drive around Idaho for a week had California plates ha ha
Post by: kentrek on February 12, 2020, 07:15:26 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on February 12, 2020, 07:20:52 PM
aluminum magnets?If it's got current.
Post by: buglebrush on February 12, 2020, 07:26:23 PM
I wonder if idaho guys worry about there plates when hunting in washington
I've never heard of someone from Idaho hunting Washington. Does that actually happen?
Post by: kentrek on February 12, 2020, 07:50:01 PM
I wonder if idaho guys worry about there plates when hunting in washington
I've never heard of someone from Idaho hunting Washington. Does that actually happen?
Yes...
Post by: fishngamereaper on February 12, 2020, 07:59:12 PM
And for the record I don't remove my plates..it's just if you've ever driven through those end of the road town's you know what I'm talking about.. everyone has their town rigs...no plates.
Anyway back on topic...
Post by: Limhangerslayer on February 12, 2020, 08:05:16 PM
increases yes, but elk tags going from $416 to $650, that's a bit of overkill don't you think? Mainly make the Idaho whiner residents happy and make us pay for it!It is one of the fastest growing states in the US.
Currently Idaho is the fastest growing state!
My view is that capping a zone relieves the pressure to put a unit/zone on a draw basis but it puts more pressure on other uncapped zones. When capping a zone, at least in the zones I'm knowledgeable of the capping process, the caps were based on a percentage of historic use by non-residents and/or non-residents. Overall I agree with capping as long as both residents and non-residents are capped. I know sometimes non-residents are capped but residents are not capped, when that happens hunter crowding usually continues to grow due to the growth in resident hunter numbers.
The last time Idaho raised fees it only raised resident fees. They did not raise non-resident fees because they did not want to alienate non-resident hunters. I attended a meeting with F&G where this was fully discussed and only the resident fees were increased. I think Idaho has been more cautious of raising non-resident fees than most western states. However, everything is driven by supply and demand and the costs of doing business. These states do need to increase fees from time to time to keep up with inflation and I think Idaho has been very fair about not raising fees on non-residents for a long time.
Overall I applaud Idaho F&G for trying to fairly provide as much opportunity as possible for resident and non-resident hunters.
Post by: Buckhunter24 on February 12, 2020, 08:09:32 PM
I wonder if idaho guys worry about there plates when hunting in washington
I've never heard of someone from Idaho hunting Washington. Does that actually happen?
Yes...
I bought out of state wa license/tags a couple years. Didnt want to go to camp with no tags...
Post by: colersu22 on February 12, 2020, 08:23:32 PM
https://idfg.idaho.gov/sites/default/files/commission/updated_final_agenda_item_3_gold_sheet._nonresident_fee_schedule.pdf
Post by: idaho guy on February 12, 2020, 08:54:33 PM
I wonder if idaho guys worry about there plates when hunting in washington
I've never heard of someone from Idaho hunting Washington. Does that actually happen?
Yes...
I bought my son out of state tags for 4 to 5 years starting when he was 8 and too young to hunt Idaho. We actually had a lot of fun but stayed pretty close to the Idaho line. I never camouflaged my plates lol but I do remember getting a dirty look in one particular spot. Goes both ways I guess but I would bet hunters with Idaho plates is a rarity unlike the sea of Washington plates in Idaho. I don’t care where someone is from I hate everyone in “my” spots equally :chuckle:
Post by: idaho guy on February 12, 2020, 09:00:37 PM
I get raising the tag price but I am more annoyed with the jump in the archery permit for $20 to $80
https://idfg.idaho.gov/sites/default/files/commission/updated_final_agenda_item_3_gold_sheet._nonresident_fee_schedule.pdf
I agree with you on that one. The permit cost is ridiculous but the tag price is actually overdue if you compare to any other western state
Post by: Mudman on February 12, 2020, 09:22:17 PM
Post by: ridgefire on February 12, 2020, 09:51:26 PM
Post by: huntnnw on February 12, 2020, 09:53:00 PM
Post by: elkboy on February 13, 2020, 07:49:57 AM
Had a work truck broken into near Plummer once, but that's been the extent of negative experiences in the Gem State.
Post by: Jonathan_S on February 13, 2020, 08:43:42 AM
While talking to residents in the woods I get the "so many darn Washington hunters now and more every year." When I reply, "yeah and I'm one of them unfortunately..." They always laugh it off and usually walk it back by joking about how much we pay in tag fees.
Post by: 2MANY on February 13, 2020, 08:45:44 AM
I hate me too.
See ya at the trail-head.
Post by: Jonathan_S on February 13, 2020, 08:47:03 AM
Post by: buckfvr on February 13, 2020, 09:38:39 AM
Post by: Cheif on February 13, 2020, 09:44:43 AM
Post by: buckfvr on February 13, 2020, 11:20:04 AM
The option of hunting whitetail late needs to stop as well.
And why would that be.......
Post by: Buckhunter24 on February 13, 2020, 11:23:49 AM
The option of hunting whitetail late needs to stop as well.
And why would that be.......
:yeah:
I look forward to the third week of november all year, whats the logic on that statemwnt cheif?
Post by: Cheif on February 13, 2020, 12:25:03 PM
My reasoning comes from hunting the Clearwater for over 20 years and seeing a good whitetail hit the dumps. The early closure in 10a is a start.
Post by: elkboy on February 13, 2020, 12:27:53 PM
The option of hunting whitetail late needs to stop as well.
And why would that be.......
:yeah:
I look forward to the third week of november all year, whats the logic on that statemwnt cheif?
In most units, whitetail buck escapement is very high (they clamped down in 10A because hunting pressure was pretty high). Forty percent of the whitetail buck population is 4+ years of age. Few other states can boast that age structure. I spend a lot of time in those forests, and I can attest that the whitetail herd is pretty robust.
Post by: Cheif on February 13, 2020, 01:44:03 PM
Post by: buckfvr on February 13, 2020, 01:45:52 PM
I do as well, again, it’s a shadow of its former glory.
THAT can be said about every northwest whitetail habitat.......
Post by: Cheif on February 13, 2020, 01:52:20 PM
Post by: Cheif on February 13, 2020, 01:57:12 PM
The option of hunting whitetail late needs to stop as well.
Can you post the study stating the buck age class is 4 years plus, and what units? Thanks
And why would that be.......
:yeah:
I look forward to the third week of november all year, whats the logic on that statemwnt cheif?
In most units, whitetail buck escapement is very high (they clamped down in 10A because hunting pressure was pretty high). Forty percent of the whitetail buck population is 4+ years of age. Few other states can boast that age structure. I spend a lot of time in those forests, and I can attest that the whitetail herd is pretty robust.
Post by: grundy53 on February 13, 2020, 02:00:53 PM
Maybe Im not clear. Stop the folks from hunting Muleys earl down south, then coming up north to kill a dink/doe just to fill a tag and get “meat”.I think it has more to do with everyone being able to kill a doe. And use 2 tags. They stopped the 2 tags part but they really need to stop the doe slaughter. I've hunted 10A for a long time it's definitely way down. But I blame everyone killing does more than the late dates.
My reasoning comes from hunting the Clearwater for over 20 years and seeing a good whitetail hit the dumps. The early closure in 10a is a start.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: Cheif on February 13, 2020, 02:06:09 PM
Post by: buckfvr on February 13, 2020, 02:11:25 PM
The option of hunting whitetail late needs to stop as well.
And why would that be.......
:yeah:
I look forward to the third week of november all year, whats the logic on that statemwnt cheif?
In most units, whitetail buck escapement is very high (they clamped down in 10A because hunting pressure was pretty high). Forty percent of the whitetail buck population is 4+ years of age. Few other states can boast that age structure. I spend a lot of time in those forests, and I can attest that the whitetail herd is pretty robust.
And where does that statistic originate and how is it determined ???
Post by: Cheif on February 13, 2020, 03:17:01 PM
Post by: meatwhack on February 13, 2020, 03:44:37 PM
The option of hunting whitetail late needs to stop as well.
And why would that be.......
That is total BS. The age structure of 4+ year old bucks would be way closer to 4% than 40%. Whoever Told you that doesn’t know what they’re talking about or they’ve never spent any time in the woods.
:yeah:
I look forward to the third week of november all year, whats the logic on that statemwnt cheif?
In most units, whitetail buck escapement is very high (they clamped down in 10A because hunting pressure was pretty high). Forty percent of the whitetail buck population is 4+ years of age. Few other states can boast that age structure. I spend a lot of time in those forests, and I can attest that the whitetail herd is pretty robust.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on February 13, 2020, 04:01:40 PM
not saying he is right with that stat but can you provide evidence to the contrary? You can't call "total BS", toss out a different stat and then not back it up. Let's call a spade a spade here :twocents:The option of hunting whitetail late needs to stop as well.
And why would that be.......
That is total BS. The age structure of 4+ year old bucks would be way closer to 4% than 40%. Whoever Told you that doesn’t know what they’re talking about or they’ve never spent any time in the woods.
:yeah:
I look forward to the third week of november all year, whats the logic on that statemwnt cheif?
In most units, whitetail buck escapement is very high (they clamped down in 10A because hunting pressure was pretty high). Forty percent of the whitetail buck population is 4+ years of age. Few other states can boast that age structure. I spend a lot of time in those forests, and I can attest that the whitetail herd is pretty robust.
Post by: buckfvr on February 13, 2020, 04:05:37 PM
Post by: Cheif on February 13, 2020, 04:24:01 PM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on February 13, 2020, 04:29:10 PM
There is no possible way in hell 40% are 4 plus years old. If that’s the case a guy would be seeing numerous 140”-150” a week. I haven’t seen one, or one killed in person in 3 years. 15-20 years ago I’d see 5-10 of those type bucks in a 5 day hunt, see those type bucks on quads in town or on the highway.I'm not saying that its factual. What I'm saying is don't tell a guy he's full of it, ask him to provide proof, throw out another random number and then not provide proof of ones own "stat".
Post by: kentrek on February 13, 2020, 04:33:34 PM
Post by: meatwhack on February 13, 2020, 04:36:12 PM
Post by: fishngamereaper on February 13, 2020, 04:39:56 PM
Post by: Buckhunter24 on February 13, 2020, 04:43:46 PM
Post by: meatwhack on February 13, 2020, 04:44:47 PM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on February 13, 2020, 04:47:07 PM
Post by: buckfvr on February 13, 2020, 04:47:42 PM
Post by: Cheif on February 13, 2020, 04:48:30 PM
with decent genes every 2.5 year old buck could be a 4 or 5 point. Number of points doesn’t really tell you anything about the age structure.
Exactly
Post by: Cheif on February 13, 2020, 04:50:52 PM
There is no possible way in hell 40% are 4 plus years old. If that’s the case a guy would be seeing numerous 140”-150” a week. I haven’t seen one, or one killed in person in 3 years. 15-20 years ago I’d see 5-10 of those type bucks in a 5 day hunt, see those type bucks on quads in town or on the highway.I'm not saying that its factual. What I'm saying is don't tell a guy he's full of it, ask him to provide proof, throw out another random number and then not provide proof of ones own "stat".
Have you hunted the Clearwater or panhandle ol mighty one? For how many years? Do you believe government agencies? I sure don’t
Post by: buckfvr on February 13, 2020, 04:51:55 PM
For the sake of not arguing here Karl, I think maybe it best to "dont tell a guy" to dont tell a guy...........unless you are the moderator cop guy.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on February 13, 2020, 04:55:16 PM
:chuckle: you're right. It's a government conspiracy to skew tooth age data :rolleyes:There is no possible way in hell 40% are 4 plus years old. If that’s the case a guy would be seeing numerous 140”-150” a week. I haven’t seen one, or one killed in person in 3 years. 15-20 years ago I’d see 5-10 of those type bucks in a 5 day hunt, see those type bucks on quads in town or on the highway.I'm not saying that its factual. What I'm saying is don't tell a guy he's full of it, ask him to provide proof, throw out another random number and then not provide proof of ones own "stat".
Have you hunted the Clearwater or panhandle ol mighty one? For how many years? Do you believe government agencies? I sure don’t
Post by: Cheif on February 13, 2020, 04:55:44 PM
(https://i.postimg.cc/L5748MMT/53-F7009-C-37-E4-4483-BDA7-16271-F98-F8-F4.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/rR12f3s0)
Post by: fishngamereaper on February 13, 2020, 04:55:52 PM
with decent genes every 2.5 year old buck could be a 4 or 5 point. Number of points doesn’t really tell you anything about the age structure.
And with poor genetics a 4.5 year old deer can be a two point...
So I guess 10a has awesome genetics.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on February 13, 2020, 05:00:06 PM
Post by: Cheif on February 13, 2020, 05:04:38 PM
Post by: meatwhack on February 13, 2020, 05:10:17 PM
Post by: kselkhunter on February 13, 2020, 05:34:32 PM
This isn’t even worth arguing. If someone believes there’s that high of a population of 4+ year old bucks good luck being disappointed.
Since neither side has any actual data to support their claim regarding age, there isn't an argument to be had anyway.
But the harvest stats look decent. Between 2001-2018 unit 10a has averaged 44% success rate with 60% harvested deer being 4pt or larger, and 22% being 5pt or better.
Post by: Cheif on February 13, 2020, 05:53:17 PM
This isn’t even worth arguing. If someone believes there’s that high of a population of 4+ year old bucks good luck being disappointed.
Yep
Post by: elkboy on February 13, 2020, 06:23:33 PM
I was apparently typing quickly and not thinking enough. My apologies. I value this forum and want to contribute to it reliably, and I don't think I did a good job in this case.
I would still encourage interested people to look at page 22 of the WT management plan:
https://idfg.idaho.gov/sites/default/files/plan-deer-white-tailed-2020-25.pdf
Lastly, my personal anecdotal experience with rubs, sheds, and direct observation in the 6, 8, 8A, 10, 10A area, which I know best, is that there is a substantial proportion of mature bucks. Escapement is high due to the dense cover and of course the wily nature of whitetails, even during the vulnerable time of the late rut season. Which I enjoy immensely, to get back to the original point. And which is why I toss the money at Idaho to hunt as a non-resident. I don't think there is enough late season pressure to depress either whitetail numbers or make Idaho more like the eastern states in terms of most bucks being harvested by age 3.5.
Post by: Buckhunter24 on February 13, 2020, 06:35:24 PM
Post by: Cheif on February 13, 2020, 06:42:29 PM
Post by: idaho guy on February 14, 2020, 02:33:15 PM
Thanks for the clarification elkboy.
:yeah: The age structure of whitetail bucks in the panhandle has plummeted. I shot a mule deer but my son got a decent whitetail and his was one of the only mature bucks I saw. I used to be able to rattle in multiple 4 and 5 points without too much effort.Last year I rattled in 0 bucks. My opinion is a few years after they moved the deer opening from 11-1 to October 10 quality started going down hill. 2 months is too much rifle season and a lot of people shoot a meat buck while elk hunting. I notice this most from out of state guys who maybe have 5-7 days to hunt and can’t pass the fork horn standing next to the road. The second tag is also a major factor and you have two types of hunters double dipping. First one buys 2 tags shoots first buck he sees to fill his tag and then will most likely be a little more picky with second or will again shoot anything to just fill both his tags. Second is a bad ass deer hunter and he or she will hunt hard and take 2 trophy or at least mature bucks out of the herd. I love the second deer tag but I think it needs to go if we want more mature bucks again. The first thing that needs to happen is changing deer season back to November 1. We had a bunch of mature bucks back then. Idaho’s never really had to manage panhandle whitetail because of the cover and most hunters used to focus 90 percent of their hunting on getting an elk. Whitetail were what they chased after killing their elk. That’s all changed and we need to shorten rifle season for deer. I like the either sex option and would actually rather see someone meat hunting take a doe vs taking a baby buck. I understand not shooting does in some areas but Idaho panhandle we still have lots of does for number of bucks
Post by: Cheif on February 14, 2020, 02:41:06 PM
Post by: idaho guy on February 14, 2020, 02:51:36 PM
Who’s deer they tooth aging??? No one I know..
:yeah: :yeah:
I have never had them take a tooth for aging on deer? That’s in almost 30 years and no one I know has either or at least never mentioned that they did. Seems a little fishy ha ha
Post by: Cheif on February 14, 2020, 03:11:27 PM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on February 14, 2020, 03:18:49 PM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on February 14, 2020, 03:21:56 PM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on February 14, 2020, 03:23:52 PM
Very well said. Probably won’t happen as folks want opportunities and 40lbs of meat rather than good bucks.So now you're shaming guys For not shooting big deer? Last time I checked the text didn't say trophy class buck only on them :dunno:
Post by: Cheif on February 14, 2020, 03:25:14 PM
Post by: Cheif on February 14, 2020, 03:28:51 PM
Very well said. Probably won’t happen as folks want opportunities and 40lbs of meat rather than good bucks.So now you're shaming guys For not shooting big deer? Last time I checked the text didn't say trophy class buck only on them :dunno:
Where’s the shaming btw? Let me guess, you hunt for meat?? :chuckle:
Post by: fishngamereaper on February 14, 2020, 03:34:31 PM
Post by: bigmacc on February 14, 2020, 03:36:38 PM
I’ve hunted B.C., Alberta, Washington, Idaho, New Mexico, Arizona,Oregon, Hawaii Montana, Wyoming all numerous times, only teeth aged were a lion and a couple bear. Someone is misinformed. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Ive actually been asked asked 4 times for teeth here in Washington, a 13 by 7, a 13 by 9, a 11 by 7 and a 7 by 6 all mule deer and 12 and a half y.o, 10 and a half, 10 and a half and 5 and a half (in order), none were mandatory, was just asked.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on February 14, 2020, 03:38:54 PM
Post by: Cheif on February 14, 2020, 03:39:28 PM
Post by: Cheif on February 14, 2020, 03:40:46 PM
Post by: buglebrush on February 14, 2020, 03:50:53 PM
Have a listen to the latest Stuck N The Rut podcast. I grew up with those guys, and no-one spent more time in the Panhandle woods in the last 25 years. Anyone who's been hunting it hard the last 25 years will tell you where to lay the blame.
If you are so tore up, go wolf hunting. The season is open :twocents:
Post by: Karl Blanchard on February 14, 2020, 03:51:39 PM
I guess my point is Karl Blanchard, the posted study was wrong, plain and simpleI said no fewer than three or four times that I didn't necessarily agree with it. My only point was it's a bit lame to tell a guy his "facts" are wrong without disproving it. Without some data his "facts" are no more valid than your "facts". Elkboy has been a great member of this forum and deserves a bit more respect than that. You are pretty new here but seem very comfortable telling people they are full of it, no good meat hunters getting their "40lb of meat from their dink bucks", and ATTEMPTING to take a shot at me about sitka gear but failing to realize that tag line in my profile is a fantastic joke that goes back to my Alaska mountain goat hunt.
This is an amazing community full of some of the best and most knowledgeable humans I have ever been privileged to converse with. I hope you can take a breath and a step back and become one of those members.
Hi, my name is Karl :hello:
Post by: Alan K on February 14, 2020, 03:56:23 PM
Our experience has progressively gone downhill since. This last year we hunted hard for 7 days and ended up seeing 16 deer total, and 4 bucks. We brought 3 home with us... Two were mature, and one probably a 2.5 year old.
It may well just be the area is down, but talking with college buddies still over there it sounds like a problem in a lot of units.
In our particular area I'd say 80% of the camps have WA plates in them, and a fair amount of locals day tripping. We arrived at camp this last year as some fellow Washingtonians were packing up. They said they didn't see any bucks this year, but filled their tags on does. We small talked them, and it had been 3 years since either of the two guys had killed a buck, but they've managed to have filled their tags every year with does.
Now I am guilty of taking 'meat bucks' home on a couple occasions, so I am no saint it this whole thing. I felt like I needed to take some meat home for the price of the out of state tags. I haven't taken does though. I do think that WA non-residents are having a big impact on the decline in numbers, particularly when taking out the fawn factories. Over here guys are jacked to find that barely legal deer and fill their tag. Unfortunately I think we're taking our low standards from Washington to Idaho and dragging that once great hunt down. Just my honest opinion.
Yes, taking yearling bucks and does is legal, but I personally enjoyed Idaho as a place for a great chance at harvesting a mature buck in the peak of the rut OTC. The opportunities still come here and there, but things sure aren't what they used to be. Getting to be more like WA's crappy hunting.
:(
Post by: BULLBLASTER on February 14, 2020, 04:02:02 PM
I guess my point is Karl Blanchard, the posted study was wrong, plain and simpleglad you had to try and insult him by being a so called meat hunter and Sitka wearer to get that point out there.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on February 14, 2020, 04:21:30 PM
When I first started hunting whitetail in the panhandle about 12 years or so ago while in school at UI we'd see 15-20 deer a day and generally 4-5 of them were bucks. Usually a couple were mature dandies. Was just a matter of getting a good shot off.I don't think it's a resident/non resident thing at all. I see just as many, if not more ID, CO, WY, MT, etc RESIDENTS shooting young bucks. They are less invested into a tag so why not. On the other hand, NR are invested a LOT of money into their tag and trip therefore many choose to bring home meat.
Our experience has progressively gone downhill since. This last year we hunted hard for 7 days and ended up seeing 16 deer total, and 4 bucks. We brought 3 home with us... Two were mature, and one probably a 2.5 year old.
It may well just be the area is down, but talking with college buddies still over there it sounds like a problem in a lot of units.
In our particular area I'd say 80% of the camps have WA plates in them, and a fair amount of locals day tripping. We arrived at camp this last year as some fellow Washingtonians were packing up. They said they didn't see any bucks this year, but filled their tags on does. We small talked them, and it had been 3 years since either of the two guys had killed a buck, but they've managed to have filled their tags every year with does.
Now I am guilty of taking 'meat bucks' home on a couple occasions, so I am no saint it this whole thing. I felt like I needed to take some meat home for the price of the out of state tags. I haven't taken does though. I do think that WA non-residents are having a big impact on the decline in numbers, particularly when taking out the fawn factories. Over here guys are jacked to find that barely legal deer and fill their tag. Unfortunately I think we're taking our low standards from Washington to Idaho and dragging that once great hunt down. Just my honest opinion.
Yes, taking yearling bucks and does is legal, but I personally enjoyed Idaho as a place for a great chance at harvesting a mature buck in the peak of the rut OTC. The opportunities still come here and there, but things sure aren't what they used to be. Getting to be more like WA's crappy hunting.
:(
As long as there are bucks, does will breed. The two schools of "science" come to play here. Shoot the small bucks and let the mature deer survive and get big or let the little guys walk but in turn you tend to knock the top off the age class pyramid. Half dozen in one hand 6 in the other. As was also stated, Idaho doesn't really "manage" Idaho whitetails. It's a volume game. As long as harvests stay up they just let it all ride.
My standards are always based off the status of my freezer. If I'm low, I'm gonna bring home a "meat buck" at the end. If I'm sitting good, I'll eat my tag if I don't find what I want. I've also been at this a long time so I've come to peace with the intentional eating of tag soup.
Like Idaho guy said earlier, I always buy my second tag but I seldom fill it. As much as I love them, I wish they would do away with them.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on February 14, 2020, 04:27:08 PM
Post by: Alan K on February 14, 2020, 04:37:14 PM
I do agree we only have our own experiences to reflect and form our opinion on. Anyone claiming to know the answer with certainty is full of it!
Post by: bigmacc on February 14, 2020, 04:41:47 PM
What really annoys me around here though is one guy saying "you're wrong! I've been hunting here for 20 years and this is how it is!". Well that has been that person's LITTLE view of their own world. That DOES NOT discredit another guy who has seen and experienced different in his own 20 years in that same area. We are all guilty of it, me included, but we gotta be better at gleaning info from others experiences and not being so foolish as to think we know it all :twocents:
Well said and on the money, man Pepsicola hires some smart, savvy people ;) :tup:
Post by: Cheif on February 14, 2020, 04:49:37 PM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on February 14, 2020, 05:02:08 PM
I dont think that last one was directed at me, but my previous post was just my anecdote and observation from the area we hunt. (8, 8A, and 10A)It was 100% NOT directed at you. It was just a general observation of human nature. I'm as guilty as anyone but I really try hard to listen, read between the lines, and be a student of them game.
I do agree we only have our own experiences to reflect and form our opinion on. Anyone claiming to know the answer with certainty is full of it!
it's that pepsi blue blood we have flowing through our veins :chuckle:What really annoys me around here though is one guy saying "you're wrong! I've been hunting here for 20 years and this is how it is!". Well that has been that person's LITTLE view of their own world. That DOES NOT discredit another guy who has seen and experienced different in his own 20 years in that same area. We are all guilty of it, me included, but we gotta be better at gleaning info from others experiences and not being so foolish as to think we know it all :twocents:
Well said and on the money, man Pepsicola hires some smart, savvy people ;) :tup:
Post by: Karl Blanchard on February 14, 2020, 05:06:09 PM
And I still think you should choose your species..I agree. Gone are the days of having your cake and eating it too. If you wanna chase muleys give it hell while you can and if unsuccessful then that's life. And if you want to chase those chocolate antlered timber ghosts then hang onto your bullets till nov.
Post by: idaho guy on February 14, 2020, 06:03:35 PM
The idea that the October 10 opener just anything to do with it is a farce. I've hunted the panhandle for well over 20 years, every year. You can directly link the deer decline to the Wolves.
Have a listen to the latest Stuck N The Rut podcast. I grew up with those guys, and no-one spent more time in the Panhandle woods in the last 25 years. Anyone who's been hunting it hard the last 25 years will tell you where to lay the blame.
If you are so tore up, go wolf hunting. The season is open :twocents:
The funny thing is I agree with you. Wolves are the number 1 factor hurting game in north Idaho. I feel like wolves prefer elk and would place majority of declines in elk on wolves. I know they have hurt the deer too but I don’t think it’s a severe as the elk. I know for a fact the earlier opening correlation with less mature whitetail bucks has happened and things would be way better if they moved it back. Stuck in rut guys are great but I have hunted panhandle about 30 years. They don’t have a corner on spending lots of time in the woods. I do my part and hunt predators every season
I just got home from checking my wolf traps today before I posted that. I have killed wolves and will continue too as long as I can. I trapped coyotes this year as well.I had my hounds today and kill lions every year although I don’t think they are the problem wolves are. We kill bears every year as well. I am doing my part and agree with what you are saying about wolves. that doesn’t mean other factors besides wolves haven’t had a negative impact as well. I know for a fact meaning I have seen it with my own eyes play out. They need to move the date to November 1 and get rid of second tag. 3-4 years we will have a lot more mature bucks regardless of wolves
Post by: bearpaw on February 14, 2020, 06:57:45 PM
Post by: idaho guy on February 14, 2020, 07:21:09 PM
The idea that the October 10 opener just anything to do with it is a farce. I've hunted the panhandle for well over 20 years, every year. You can directly link the deer decline to the Wolves.
Have a listen to the latest Stuck N The Rut podcast. I grew up with those guys, and no-one spent more time in the Panhandle woods in the last 25 years. Anyone who's been hunting it hard the last 25 years will tell you where to lay the blame.
If you are so tore up, go wolf hunting. The season is open :twocents:
Have you been wolf hunting this year?
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 14, 2020, 07:54:49 PM
They need to move the date to November 1 and get rid of second tag. 3-4 years we will have a lot more mature bucks regardless of wolves
You do realize that the second tags are only available because the allotment Idaho sets aside for Non Res tags hasn't been purchased. It's a way for Idaho to reach their funding goals. Get rid of those 2nd tags and they have to make the money up somewhere. And when they bump up the price, there will be even more that don't get sold by Aug 1. We're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars that they will have to replace somewhere else.
Post by: idaho guy on February 14, 2020, 08:55:46 PM
They need to move the date to November 1 and get rid of second tag. 3-4 years we will have a lot more mature bucks regardless of wolves
You do realize that the second tags are only available because the allotment Idaho sets aside for Non Res tags hasn't been purchased. It's a way for Idaho to reach their funding goals. Get rid of those 2nd tags and they have to make the money up somewhere. And when they bump up the price, there will be even more that don't get sold by Aug 1. We're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars that they will have to replace somewhere else.
I know exactly how it works and usually buy the second deer tag As a resident at the non resident price. Second elk tag I have probably purchased only 4-5 times. I love it but it probably needs to go. When it first came out I didn’t buy my second tag until I already shot my buck in late November. For years I didn’t buy any 2nd tags till I filled my first tag. Last year they sold out right away. I think this will continue although my experience is the whitetail hunting has gone down hill a lot. I see the problem in how a lot of people hunt different when they have 2 tags. First change I would like to see is moving opening of deer season back to nov 1 then we can worry about 2nd tags. 2 months of rifle is too long of a season. Really with early and late archery deer season in the panhandle is 4 months long. That’s a lot but it’s the rifle season that’s too long
Post by: Cheif on February 14, 2020, 08:57:28 PM
They need to move the date to November 1 and get rid of second tag. 3-4 years we will have a lot more mature bucks regardless of wolves
You do realize that the second tags are only available because the allotment Idaho sets aside for Non Res tags hasn't been purchased. It's a way for Idaho to reach their funding goals. Get rid of those 2nd tags and they have to make the money up somewhere. And when they bump up the price, there will be even more that don't get sold by Aug 1. We're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars that they will have to replace somewhere else.
And that’s fine Rick. You ever kill a mature whitetail in Idaho?
Post by: buglebrush on February 14, 2020, 09:19:43 PM
The idea that the October 10 opener just anything to do with it is a farce. I've hunted the panhandle for well over 20 years, every year. You can directly link the deer decline to the Wolves.
Have a listen to the latest Stuck N The Rut podcast. I grew up with those guys, and no-one spent more time in the Panhandle woods in the last 25 years. Anyone who's been hunting it hard the last 25 years will tell you where to lay the blame.
If you are so tore up, go wolf hunting. The season is open :twocents:
Have you been wolf hunting this year?
Yep. Going again tomorrow.
Post by: buglebrush on February 14, 2020, 09:22:57 PM
The idea that the October 10 opener just anything to do with it is a farce. I've hunted the panhandle for well over 20 years, every year. You can directly link the deer decline to the Wolves.
Have a listen to the latest Stuck N The Rut podcast. I grew up with those guys, and no-one spent more time in the Panhandle woods in the last 25 years. Anyone who's been hunting it hard the last 25 years will tell you where to lay the blame.
If you are so tore up, go wolf hunting. The season is open :twocents:
The funny thing is I agree with you. Wolves are the number 1 factor hurting game in north Idaho. I feel like wolves prefer elk and would place majority of declines in elk on wolves. I know they have hurt the deer too but I don’t think it’s a severe as the elk. I know for a fact the earlier opening correlation with less mature whitetail bucks has happened and things would be way better if they moved it back. Stuck in rut guys are great but I have hunted panhandle about 30 years. They don’t have a corner on spending lots of time in the woods. I do my part and hunt predators every season
I just got home from checking my wolf traps today before I posted that. I have killed wolves and will continue too as long as I can. I trapped coyotes this year as well.I had my hounds today and kill lions every year although I don’t think they are the problem wolves are. We kill bears every year as well. I am doing my part and agree with what you are saying about wolves. that doesn’t mean other factors besides wolves haven’t had a negative impact as well. I know for a fact meaning I have seen it with my own eyes play out. They need to move the date to November 1 and get rid of second tag. 3-4 years we will have a lot more mature bucks regardless of wolves
I am sorry if I took your post wrong. Thanks for doing your part by hunting predators.
What I would like to see is season dates left as is, and a 4-point restriction for everyone except youth and seniors. Have a couple weeks in November where it's any deer. :twocents:
Post by: idaho guy on February 14, 2020, 09:30:51 PM
The idea that the October 10 opener just anything to do with it is a farce. I've hunted the panhandle for well over 20 years, every year. You can directly link the deer decline to the Wolves.
Have a listen to the latest Stuck N The Rut podcast. I grew up with those guys, and no-one spent more time in the Panhandle woods in the last 25 years. Anyone who's been hunting it hard the last 25 years will tell you where to lay the blame.
If you are so tore up, go wolf hunting. The season is open :twocents:
Have you been wolf hunting this year?
Yep. Going again tomorrow.
:tup: awesome I thought you would be just making sure you take your own advice. :chuckle: Keep after them
Post by: Cheif on February 14, 2020, 10:12:56 PM
Post by: grade-creek-rd on February 17, 2020, 08:38:38 AM
but I must admit, I learned a lot about whitetail hunting Idaho! Which is something I will be doing for the first time this year with my son, which I was able to buy his discounted youth NR license and tag! (plus we got wolf tags...I always have a wolf tag in my pocket!). so I am planning on going on two Idaho hunts (not sure if I'll buy a second tag or not) the first is my usual Frank Church mule deer/wolf hunt (thinking I'll forego the elk tag this year...) and then return during Thanksgiving break with my son in Unit 1 since he is out of school for a long weekend. (Yes, I already checked, if I punch my general season deer tag on my mule deer hunt he is still legal to hunt with his youth discounted tag...regs include an adult/full price punched tag as an accompanying tag so I don't need an unpunched tag in my pocket while he hunts...before the internet police chime in...)
Anyway, thanks for the info guys! Oh, and those that are bantering about not enough "mature" bucks...your priorities are all wrong. Sure, it's nice and challenging to hunt mature animals but that attitude is in line with "I only shoot B&C bucks/bulls"....ANY animal we kill is a "trophy" and it's life should be valued at such. Thank goodness the Social Media crowd/Pepsi generation or whatever it's called has shows/mentors like MeatEater and a new wave of conservationist that look at hunting as an organic, holistic, food source and not inches or age of animals. If I had a 4.5 year old 150" buck or a 2.5 year old 90" buck standing side by side I'd shoot the one that I would rather eat and let the older one breed...but then again, I am sure there is some study saying I am wrong...
Grade
PS. Back to topic please...any idea or word on how IDFG is going to restructure the deer tags????
Post by: idaho guy on February 17, 2020, 12:42:32 PM
Post by: huntnnw on February 17, 2020, 10:36:11 PM
Post by: Machias on February 18, 2020, 07:28:00 AM
Post by: Bango skank on February 18, 2020, 07:34:33 AM
If I had a 4.5 year old 150" buck or a 2.5 year old 90" buck standing side by side I'd shoot the one that I would rather eat and let the older one breed...
A: i dont believe you for a second that you would shoot the 90" buck over the 150" buck.
B: that 4.5 year old bucks meat is just as good as the 2.5yr old bucks meat, plus youll get more meat from the older buck. Youre not getting better meat off that 2 year old, youre just getting less meat.
Post by: hunter399 on February 18, 2020, 08:19:36 AM
Post by: kentrek on February 18, 2020, 08:49:39 AM
The facts are that Idaho knows they can charge more.Washington hunting,game management sucks so bad that Idaho has no problem selling NR licences and tag.That's the facts .
Idaho has had problems selling out I'm the past..
Idaho is due for a price increase I'm sure but I just feel for the guys struggling... one option is instead of doing a blanket wide price on stuff have the different zones be priced according to the demand...that would generate alot more money and hopefully let the little guy still get a tag at least somewhere... I'd prefer this over going to a permit system and waiting x years to draw a tag..
I'm a big fan of the quota system idaho has...x animals need to go, then x tags get sold....and limiting areas to zones... for deer & elk...residents & nonresidents
Also there is room for all types of hunters...trophy hunters, meat hunters, and the guys in the middle...the only thing wrong with any of the above is when one category thinks they are better then another..we are all at different places and theres nothing wrong with that
Post by: grade-creek-rd on February 18, 2020, 08:59:44 AM
Bango...To each their own...but apparently some on here just want to bash others instead of have a discussion on what the topic was about...Idaho changes...and Bango, I am not looking for your approval and you only look like an idiot if you think I would shoot a 4.5 year old deer over a 2.5 year old deer just because of antler inches. I love being in the woods and will spend as many days afield as I can, and yes I have passed on 140-160 mule deer and even a few 170's and a near 190 (which my buddy is still talking about because I had a herd of elk on one side of the hill and that near 190 on the other side...I chose to go shoot a 3x4 raghorn instead...) just to keep hunting/afield and ended up taking a "small" buck. I admit, I have the "luxury" of hunting at least two states a year, plus my kids are killers and often fill at least one of their deer tags, sometimes an elk tag and a bear tag....so I don't need that extra 20-30 lbs of meat that you say you don't believe I would choose over the other...
With that said, I admit I ran off topic with my reply above...so, this thread to me has either run its (off) course or should go back to what it was intended...the upcoming IDFG changes to NR's.
Grade
Post by: kentrek on February 18, 2020, 09:10:42 AM
Kentrek...damn good ideas! I like your way of thinking. Only "downfall" is then the higher priced zones would set a standard to raise the fees to for other zones as they become popular due to blue collar hunters hunting there and we know the prices will never go down once raised.
Yeah I really have no idea how that would play out...some areas price would drop while others would skyrocket....
But at least guys could go hunting...I hate the direction hunters as a group are going because I think there is a hunting bubble coming once the 55+ year guys stop hunting...and nobody wants to admit that is a big problem
Post by: blackveltbowhunter on February 18, 2020, 09:33:06 AM
Sure, the demand is up now, but the economy is the variable, and age is the constant. Middle aged hunters who are passionate about the sport and generally more secure financially than their younger counterparts will continue to pay for subpar product just for the chance. But younger Hunter groups will drop out as cash is tighter and the importance lower. As that happens Western States will be faced with real tough decisions down the road. Hopefully they have enough forsight to see it coming.
Post by: Stein on February 18, 2020, 09:37:06 AM
Post by: 2MANY on February 18, 2020, 09:45:38 AM
Kenetrek is on the money. Hunting is one of the very, very few commodities that most are passionate enough about that they will actually continue paying more for less. Idaho is not exempt from Washington or the majority of other states in this area. Hunting in Idaho is not improving. Increased pressure, some costly hits to ag area elk, mule deer numbers down, late hunt restrictions, more pressure from big money closing down access to historically quality hunt area. Is IDFG better than Wdfw? I believe so, but the fact is they are asking more for less. No matter how you slice the pie if it wasn't preying on hunters being a very passionate lot, any sane person would say take that product and shove it where the sun don't shine.
Sure, the demand is up now, but the economy is the variable, and age is the constant. Middle aged hunters who are passionate about the sport and generally more secure financially than their younger counterparts will continue to pay for subpar product just for the chance. But younger Hunter groups will drop out as cash is tighter and the importance lower. As that happens Western States will be faced with real tough decisions down the road. Hopefully they have enough forsight to see it coming.
Well said and great thought.
Without our younger hunters we are screwed.
Post by: dvolmer on February 18, 2020, 09:48:51 AM
The thing to remember is that each state agency is tasked with managing wildlife and opportunities for RESIDENT hunters. NR hunters are simply a revenue source to fund their mission and keep resident prices low. Virtually every state looks to maximize NR revenue, not opportunity, quality or any other metric.
Stein, I couldn't have said it better myself! You hit the nail on the head! Simply a business model to them and their stock holders are the residents of the state. Not us non-residents. We are just something they choose to endure to get the revenue they need and desire.
Post by: idaho guy on February 18, 2020, 12:56:08 PM
The thing to remember is that each state agency is tasked with managing wildlife and opportunities for RESIDENT hunters. NR hunters are simply a revenue source to fund their mission and keep resident prices low. Virtually every state looks to maximize NR revenue, not opportunity, quality or any other metric.
:yeah: I hunt other state as a non resident so I take in the shorts too! but do so willingly :chuckle:
Post by: Cheif on February 20, 2020, 02:48:46 PM
Post by: johnsc6 on February 27, 2020, 10:28:10 AM
The facts are that Idaho knows they can charge more.Washington hunting,game management sucks so bad that Idaho has no problem selling NR licences and tag.That's the facts .
Idaho management isnt much better, They just want the revenue. The quality of hunting has steadily declined over the last twenty years ive been hunting it. The elk problems are well publicized, but the Deer hunting decline gets little attention. The deer harvest sucess rates are 60% of what they were ten years ago , but the real tell tale sign is % mature bucks being taken....I have personally witnessed the change in age class of whitetails in the southern panhandle units. Over hunting, and over harvest period.... Look at the stats, they need to do something about it. Hopefully this is a start, they should be reducing the season as well, as much as i would hate to see it. All western states charge a premium for there tags, get used to it.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 27, 2020, 01:14:07 PM
Idaho management isnt much better, They just want the revenue. The quality of hunting has steadily declined over the last twenty years ive been hunting it. The elk problems are well publicized, but the Deer hunting decline gets little attention. The deer harvest sucess rates are 60% of what they were ten years ago , but the real tell tale sign is % mature bucks being taken....I have personally witnessed the change in age class of whitetails in the southern panhandle units. Over hunting, and over harvest period.... Look at the stats, they need to do something about it. Hopefully this is a start, they should be reducing the season as well, as much as i would hate to see it. All western states charge a premium for there tags, get used to it.
So on one hand you are complaining that success rates aren't as good as they were in the past. And on the other hand you are arguing that in the past they overharvested? I guess what we can gather is that those success rates weren't sustainable?
Post by: idaho guy on February 27, 2020, 09:33:53 PM
Idaho management isnt much better, They just want the revenue. The quality of hunting has steadily declined over the last twenty years ive been hunting it. The elk problems are well publicized, but the Deer hunting decline gets little attention. The deer harvest sucess rates are 60% of what they were ten years ago , but the real tell tale sign is % mature bucks being taken....I have personally witnessed the change in age class of whitetails in the southern panhandle units. Over hunting, and over harvest period.... Look at the stats, they need to do something about it. Hopefully this is a start, they should be reducing the season as well, as much as i would hate to see it. All western states charge a premium for there tags, get used to it.
So on one hand you are complaining that success rates aren't as good as they were in the past. And on the other hand you are arguing that in the past they overharvested? I guess what we can gather is that those success rates weren't sustainable?
I think you misinterpreted that statement on harvest. Most important thing stated is number of mature bucks harvested is way down this is absolutely true. The current deer season is too long and needs to go back to November 1 from 10-10. A big part of the problem is the massive increase in resident hunters with everybody and their brother seeming to decide to move to Idaho. There’s obviously no limit on resident tags.Besides mature bucks going down they shouldn’t have success rates down 60 percent (I haven’t check that stat) you are right that in the past we over harvested our deer . I don’t think Idaho fish and game really had to manage our whitetail in the past with massive cover and most Idaho hunters obsessed with elk. In the past most Idaho hunters I knew hunted elk hard and didn’t care to much about deer. That’s all changed now and the fish and game needs to change too. The fee increase is a good start at least.
Post by: Wazntme on February 28, 2020, 12:14:08 AM
Post by: idaho guy on February 28, 2020, 07:31:14 AM
I live in Washington and the hunting sucks. Tell your Idaho wolves to stop eating our Washington elk and we won’t come over there and walk on your “sacred” grounds. Last I checked we are Americans and we can go where we want so deal with it. That’s like me telling you that you shouldn’t drink Starbucks or order from amazon because those are our property. I don’t care if they double the price of tags I’m going over there! And if I catch any of the jerk$@&! That leave stupid “go home” notes on my truck there’s gonna be a problem. Deal with it!
Wtf? I could care less where hunters are from but some do piss me off with their attitude. I am guessing you would be one of those. I moved here from Montana 30 years ago and watched them triple out of state tag prices in that time frame. and I willingly pay for out of state tags in Montana every year. It’s not a screw you washington hunter attitude it’s just too much pressure on deer herds and non resident tags that were too cheap based on any other western state. Idaho gives more opportunities to non resident hunters than any other good western state. Your response is exactly the attitude that makes Washington plates the most hated license plate in Idaho. You can keep your Starbucks and Amazon too I don’t buy overpriced coffee or use amazon much at al
Post by: 7mmfan on February 28, 2020, 08:13:35 AM
I live in Washington and the hunting sucks. Tell your Idaho wolves to stop eating our Washington elk and we won’t come over there and walk on your “sacred” grounds. Last I checked we are Americans and we can go where we want so deal with it. That’s like me telling you that you shouldn’t drink Starbucks or order from amazon because those are our property. I don’t care if they double the price of tags I’m going over there! And if I catch any of the jerk$@&! That leave stupid “go home” notes on my truck there’s gonna be a problem. Deal with it!
Wtf? I could care less where hunters are from but some do piss me off with their attitude. I am guessing you would be one of those. I moved here from Montana 30 years ago and watched them triple out of state tag prices in that time frame. and I willingly pay for out of state tags in Montana every year. It’s not a screw you washington hunter attitude it’s just too much pressure on deer herds and non resident tags that were too cheap based on any other western state. Idaho gives more opportunities to non resident hunters than any other good western state. Your response is exactly the attitude that makes Washington plates the most hated license plate in Idaho. You can keep your Starbucks and Amazon too I don’t buy overpriced coffee or use amazon much at al
:yeah: You need to relax dude. That mentality is exactly what gives out of state hunters a bad rap. Remember, Idaho doesn't have to give you any opportunity to hunt there if they don't want to. They're responsibility is managing wildlife for Idaho residents.
Post by: kentrek on February 28, 2020, 08:43:32 AM
Post by: huntnnw on February 28, 2020, 08:44:52 AM
Post by: jstone on February 28, 2020, 08:53:52 AM
Lots of camps at the road, but not many people 5 miles in. I met my brother there last year to go back to our old spot. The farther I got from pavement the camps slowed. By the time I got back to our meet spot. There was one camp back there and they had an elk cow tag. No people at all back there. It was crazy. Talked to those guys and they saw very few deer. And people
Post by: bornhunter on February 28, 2020, 09:20:07 AM
Post by: elkboy on February 28, 2020, 11:06:12 AM
Post by: huntnnw on February 28, 2020, 12:16:55 PM
Post by: Machias on February 28, 2020, 12:56:39 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on February 28, 2020, 01:57:41 PM
Just an FYII thought Idaho was free from petty BS like this! I feel more like a criminal every day, I refuse to buy discover passes, Forest passes or anything else they feel necessary to access our lands.
Post by: idaho guy on February 28, 2020, 03:44:44 PM
Until IDFG can recognize the real problem in overcrowding
They know just haven’t figured out how to deal with it. It sucks but being number 1 state in growth for a few years is changing Idaho hunting pretty fast. Will probably have to go more limited entry which just leads to more overcrowded otc units. Still good to great hunting in Idaho but it’s changing. You already mentioned that out of state tags have stayed the same but there’s no limit on all the new residents and it shows. First steps will be more limits and higher prices on non residents which is correct but they will have to deal with just a lot more residents eventually
Post by: buglebrush on February 28, 2020, 04:50:29 PM
Post by: idaho guy on February 28, 2020, 09:15:25 PM
Allow Air gunning for Wolves rather than further reduce Hunter opportunity.
Best idea yet :tup:
Post by: meatwhack on February 29, 2020, 07:37:47 AM
Post by: idaho guy on February 29, 2020, 09:59:31 AM
It’s a good idea but with the cost to operate a helicopter it’s probably not going to happen unless F&G funded it.
Me and many other hunters I’m sure would pay for helicopters to be allowed to kill wolves that way. They just need to make it legal for regular hunters so hunters will fund it. Quit wasting money on for hire so called sharp shooter or worse yet government employees
Post by: Bango skank on February 29, 2020, 10:06:36 AM
It’s a good idea but with the cost to operate a helicopter it’s probably not going to happen unless F&G funded it.
Me and many other hunters I’m sure would pay for helicopters to be allowed to kill wolves that way. They just need to make it legal for regular hunters so hunters will fund it. Quit wasting money on for hire so called sharp shooter or worse yet government employees
I think most guys out there cant shoot worth a damn off a bench. Last thing i want is idiots shooting out of a chopper when im in the woods.
Post by: meatwhack on February 29, 2020, 10:47:51 AM
Post by: Bango skank on February 29, 2020, 11:00:23 AM
Post by: fowl smacker on February 29, 2020, 12:09:07 PM
Post by: buglebrush on February 29, 2020, 03:10:23 PM
We hunted coyotes out of a helicopter for Pine Valley ranch some years ago. Used shotguns with #4 or 00 buck. Didn't put any people's lives in danger. We did kill somewhere around 70 coyotes over two days though. Our pilot was a former military copter pilot and was amazing.
Exactly. There's more people who take the doors off ultra-lights and go shooting than most people realize. Check out YouTube for the videos of people shooting hogs this way in Texas. I guarantee my pilot buddies and and I would bad some wolves with our ARs. :twocents:
Post by: meatwhack on February 29, 2020, 04:50:00 PM
Post by: idaho guy on February 29, 2020, 08:04:18 PM
Post by: meatwhack on February 29, 2020, 08:36:52 PM
Post by: idaho guy on February 29, 2020, 09:37:36 PM
I’d rather see poison be legalized.
Most effective but I disgree kills everything bears etc and hunting dogs. Guys are bootlegging the poison over here already I think that’s how one of my best hounds died. I know for a fact it killed my buddy s hound. It would devastate any predator as much as I hate wolves it’s not the answer. I appreciate where you’re coming from and that’s how they originally got rid of them
Post by: HillHound on March 01, 2020, 05:23:05 AM
Post by: meatwhack on March 01, 2020, 07:22:59 AM
Post by: buglebrush on March 01, 2020, 08:33:42 AM
That’s collateral damage. I know it ends up effecting a lot more than just the wolfs but that’s the price we’d have to pay to eliminate them. I know it’ll never happen though so it’s all just for discussion.But you said you'd prefer it to Air gunning :dunno:
You know Canada and Alaska have done fairly extensive helicopter gunning for Wolves with great success? Air gunning is a viable option that ought to be on the table. Would be super successful in some of the major wilderness areas in Central Idaho.
Post by: idaho guy on March 01, 2020, 09:07:44 AM
That’s collateral damage. I know it ends up effecting a lot more than just the wolfs but that’s the price we’d have to pay to eliminate them. I know it’ll never happen though so it’s all just for discussion.But you said you'd prefer it to Air gunning :dunno:
You know Canada and Alaska have done fairly extensive helicopter gunning for Wolves with great success? Air gunning is a viable option that ought to be on the table. Would be super successful in some of the major wilderness areas in Central Idaho.
I think they did do air gunning in central Idaho already? I thought that was one of the ways they killed wolves at least in the lolo zone :dunno:Ranchers in southern Idaho still sneak poison out for coyotes and it looks like a nuclear bomb went off dead birds and critters in every direction for a few hundred yards
Post by: meatwhack on March 01, 2020, 09:49:59 AM
Another thing to consider is think about all the crying you hear when F&G does aerial surveys in the spring. Can you imagine what that’d look like if it was guys flying around shooting at wolfs? They’d be disturbing the same deer and elk that people don’t want pushed around by the aerial surveys. I’m not sure what the right answer is but for now I’d say trapping is by far the most effective option available.
Post by: idaho guy on March 01, 2020, 04:11:38 PM
Why I said I’d prefer poison is because poison is the only way we’ll ever eradicate them. Air gunning would be another management tool that could be used but wouldn’t eliminate them. There’s too many areas in Idaho that are far too thick for air gunning to work in. I just don’t see them ever making it an option to the general public.
Another thing to consider is think about all the crying you hear when F&G does aerial surveys in the spring. Can you imagine what that’d look like if it was guys flying around shooting at wolfs? They’d be disturbing the same deer and elk that people don’t want pushed around by the aerial surveys. I’m not sure what the right answer is but for now I’d say trapping is by far the most effective option available.
I know why you said poison and I agree with you that’s only way to eradicate wolves. Just pointing out all the collateral damage. There’s a lot of hunters agree with you but I don’t think it’s worth it. Trapping is best option but is hard to do for most guys still working with families. I have a tiny line out now and even that is hard to keep up on.
Post by: huntnnw on March 01, 2020, 10:21:45 PM
Post by: grade-creek-rd on March 02, 2020, 08:35:42 AM
Last I heard there is between 900 and 1,100 wolves in Idaho.
Grade
Post by: meatwhack on March 02, 2020, 08:40:58 AM
Post by: Buckhunter24 on March 02, 2020, 08:44:39 AM
I think he’s saying 300 licensed trappers killed more wolfs than 40,000 hunters with wolf tags in their pockets.
:yeah:
Post by: grade-creek-rd on March 02, 2020, 10:39:16 AM
Grade
Post by: fishngamereaper on March 02, 2020, 10:44:51 AM
Post by: idaho guy on March 02, 2020, 09:04:15 PM
It's still shows how resilient they are. They kill alot of wolves every year and the population still seems to be growing. One breeding pair is two to many for me.
I think you have to kill 50 percent of population to even control the numbers. Even more to actually reduce the population. I don’t remember exactly the percentage but it’s depressing
Post by: buglebrush on March 02, 2020, 09:12:35 PM
It's still shows how resilient they are. They kill alot of wolves every year and the population still seems to be growing. One breeding pair is two to many for me.
I think you have to kill 50 percent of population to even control the numbers. Even more to actually reduce the population. I don’t remember exactly the percentage but it’s depressing
While this is sadly true, every dead predator helps prolong the inevitable demise of OTC Western hunting.
Post by: huntnnw on March 02, 2020, 09:36:45 PM
Post by: Bango skank on March 03, 2020, 02:45:57 AM
ID estimates on wolves this summer went to 1541 and that is a number that fluctuates with pup season and mortality. Said numbers can be as high as 1900 to a low of 1100. Funny fact I learned in the wolf trapping class is they had a bio/state trapper teaching the class. The guy had over 40 years trapping wolves from AK,russia,mongolia,ID,WY and MT . Has weighed several thousand wolves in this time frame and the largest wolf he has ever weighed was 136.2 lbs. The avg winter wolf weight in ID is 94 lbs.
Cracks me up when people say these wolves average 200lbs.
Post by: huntnnw on March 03, 2020, 03:58:43 AM
One interesting point he brought up was wolves had been here far prior to the re-introduction in 95. He said there had been wolves in the lolo for a fact in the 80's and probably earlier and up north in Bonners. I also know that wolves were up above northport in the late 80's as we saw 1 and heard them on a couple nights hunting. What has baffled them is to see how the wolves spread so successfully in 95, yet the wolves that were here in places never took off and held in check. The only logical answer he had was people were taking care of them SSS rule, poison
Post by: Bigshooter on March 03, 2020, 05:53:18 AM
Post by: huntnnw on March 03, 2020, 06:29:09 AM
Post by: idaho guy on March 03, 2020, 07:18:00 AM
hes not a employee, contracted by IDFG. this guy was not some pro wolf guy if you met him hes a die hard trapper.
That sounds exactly like the guy who taught the class when I took it when they first opened trapping up. Even then he cited same exact weight stats etc. it is no different than bears and lions everybody shoots and sees 300 lbd bears and 180 pound cats. I have been hound hunting for decades and I have treed a few cats in that range and most mature toms weigh about 125-140. I don’t even need to talk about 300 lb bears other than average spring beat in Idaho is probably 150 max.he is a cool guy but saying they didn’t transplant a much larger super wolf down here is total bull crap. The reason the original wolf didn’t take off like these freaks is they were smaller etc. they were monitoring wolves in Montana and parts of Idaho when they did release the super wolves. They said they were basically extinct because they didn’t feel they would be self sustaining through natural breeding. They threw the super freaks on top of them those original smaller and native wolves are all dead because the freaks from the north killed them. I know he is probably being fairly honest with the actual weight of wolves but the wolf they planted was not our native wolf. Funny he is citing exact statistics on wolves years later.
Post by: Machias on March 03, 2020, 08:18:43 AM
Post by: buglebrush on March 03, 2020, 01:32:13 PM
:chuckle: ground swell the largest wolf hes ever known with official weight was 152 lbs.That wolf is life-sized in Bonner's ferry I believe. Another myth he stated was these wolves DNA is no different than the wolves of hundreds of years ago that roamed the area. wolves in AK,NWT have home ranges of 500 mi and some lone wolves will travel further spreading their genetic make up all over the continent.
One interesting point he brought up was wolves had been here far prior to the re-introduction in 95. He said there had been wolves in the lolo for a fact in the 80's and probably earlier and up north in Bonners. I also know that wolves were up above northport in the late 80's as we saw 1 and heard them on a couple nights hunting. What has baffled them is to see how the wolves spread so successfully in 95, yet the wolves that were here in places never took off and held in check. The only logical answer he had was people were taking care of them SSS rule, poison
Ya he's full of it. We indeed had some timber Wolves in Bonners, but they were far smaller and more territorial. The native Timber Wolves are now extinct.
Post by: Machias on March 03, 2020, 02:00:20 PM
Post by: Bango skank on March 03, 2020, 02:08:52 PM
Post by: idaho guy on March 03, 2020, 05:36:20 PM
You guys are talking about Jack Whitman, the man has trapped tigers, bears and other dangerous game all over the world and is probably one of the most knowledgeable wolf trappers out there. Super nice guy! He goes by Gulo on Trapperman.com and has a thread with some of the animals he has trapped around the world. https://trapperman.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/6779380/1
I don’t know if that’s same guy, anyways the instructor I am talking about I think is a good guy and he has more trapping knowledge then I will learn in 2 lifetimes. The mystery of why our native wolf was kept in check and the introduced invasive wolf is uncontrollable is bull crap though. He knows it’s a different wolf
Post by: idaho guy on March 03, 2020, 05:40:22 PM
Maybe they are bigger than the wolves here before, but that doesnt mean their dna is different. Whitetail in florida and whitetail in alberta are significantly different in size, but theyre genetically the same species. Same with slaskan brown bears and interior grizzlies.
DNA could be same but just like whitetail they are different subspecies. They already had our wolves identified as a different subspecies of wolf from the planted wolves. You can look it up now the greenies are trying to ignore that
Post by: Machias on March 03, 2020, 09:38:36 PM
The mystery of why our native wolf was kept in check and the introduced invasive wolf is uncontrollable is bull crap though.
Agree!!
Post by: Bango skank on March 04, 2020, 12:08:43 AM
Post by: idaho guy on March 04, 2020, 06:24:19 AM
What i find interesting about the whole wolf subspecies argument is that the wolf lovers responsible for the introduction make no distinction between the supposedly smaller native subspecies and the larger canadian wolves they replaced them with, yet when it comes to the mexican gray wolf thing all the sudden its a different species needing separate protections and classification. Lumpers one minute, splitters the next. Whatever suits their agenda.
:yeah: Exactly the problem! Our native subspecies is the only one they want to deny. They try to come up with subspecies of almost everything as long as it fits their agenda even trying to create a subspecies of mountain lions in California so they can give it more “protection” . You already can’t hunt any lions there it’s insane! I read something from one of their “experts “ saying well maybe there wasn’t a different subspecies of native wolf just the other day bunch of liars.
Post by: huntnnw on March 04, 2020, 06:51:06 AM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on March 04, 2020, 08:24:12 AM
wolves dna is the same from the upper midwest to AK, body size of the wolves vary to region to what animals they target.
Body size within a species us usually smaller the closer to the equator you get. In the colder north larger body mass is an advantage during the winter as animals are trying to stay warm and in southern warmer areas staying cool is more important, that's why Canadian Whitetails are generally larger bodied than Northern US whitetails which are larger bodied than whitetails is the Southern US which are in turn larger bodied than desert whitetails (Coues). Same holds true with blacktails. California blacktails are much smaller bodied than Washington blacktails. There are exceptions to that as in the case of brown bears. The coastal brownies have easy food sources (salmon) which allows them to grow larger than interior grizzlies and in Alaska, the coastal grizzlies have a longer feeding season before they hibernate than the interior grizzlies which adds to the size difference.
It's possible that the introduced wolves will selectively breed themselves smaller if that turns out to be an advantage for them. Time will tell.
Post by: idaho guy on March 04, 2020, 09:39:30 AM
wolves dna is the same from the upper midwest to AK, body size of the wolves vary to region to what animals they target.
Body size within a species us usually smaller the closer to the equator you get. In the colder north larger body mass is an advantage during the winter as animals are trying to stay warm and in southern warmer areas staying cool is more important, that's why Canadian Whitetails are generally larger bodied than Northern US whitetails which are larger bodied than whitetails is the Southern US which are in turn larger bodied than desert whitetails (Coues). Same holds true with blacktails. California blacktails are much smaller bodied than Washington blacktails. There are exceptions to that as in the case of brown bears. The coastal brownies have easy food sources (salmon) which allows them to grow larger than interior grizzlies and in Alaska, the coastal grizzlies have a longer feeding season before they hibernate than the interior grizzlies which adds to the size difference.
It's possible that the introduced wolves will selectively breed themselves smaller if that turns out to be an advantage for them. Time will tell.
Getting smaller is an advantage for their PREY. No way they are going to breed themselves smaller. Everyone that's seen a florida or texas whitetail can see it is smaller than one in Canada or our shiras moose vs a Canadian moose and then even bigger are Alaskan moose. There are 29 different subspecies of whitetail they have identified, there dna all shows they are whitetails but there is a variations within that species biggest one being SIZE. To get nerdy with it they actually at one time recognized 24 sub species of wolves on the endangered species list 20 plus years ago and then went to 2 and now back to 4. Idaho montana etc had canis lupis irremotus and or canis lupus nubilus and they planted canis lupus occidentilis-the artic grey wolf. Main thing that differentiates those species is SIZE. size matters especially when it comes down to killing lots of elk. The original statement was their dna is the same so the instructor had NO idea why our original wolves were barely surviving but wow these huge super wolves from Canada are exploding! I just don't get it. That is a bull crap statement and these new wolves have likely killed all of our native wolfs-but who cares they are all the same dna right they are all just wolves? I just dont like being lied too. They were studying 3 packs of native wolves in central Idaho in the late 80s but felt they were not self sustaining so they determined they were extinct. I bet they are extinct now thanks to our super wolves from Canada. Size matters! just ask an Idaho elk.
Post by: Broomd on March 13, 2020, 07:28:44 PM
Idaho is no different from other big hunting states. The residents vote and they tell their legislators they want fewer nonresident tags. They reduce the tags but increase the price since residents also say don't raise my prices. Until nonresidents vote, it will always be this way.
Many of us residents welcome a tag increase.
We'll gladly pick up the slack.
Post by: Bango skank on March 14, 2020, 12:23:30 AM
Guess i better get my wolves this year, cause ill be damned if im paying that for a wolf tag!
Post by: meatwhack on March 14, 2020, 06:13:17 AM
Post by: bearpaw on March 14, 2020, 07:04:18 AM
They jacked up bear and cougar tags, and non res wolf went from $30 to $184!!! :bash:
Guess i better get my wolves this year, cause ill be damned if im paying that for a wolf tag!
It's confusing, in their email message they claim wolf tags do not increase, but when you view the bill it says they do? Probably have to call IDFG to get the right answer? It would be idiotic to increase wolf tags, they need every hunter packing a wolf tag and that won't happen if they increase NR wolf tags to $186.00.
Update About Nonresident Fee Changes
A new law that increases nonresident hunting and fishing fees was signed by Governor Brad Little on March 3. The new fees become effective with the start of 2021 license sales on Dec. 1, 2020. The law implements a general 10 percent increase in the prices for nonresident items, with larger increases for big game tags and related items such as archery and muzzleloader permits. The law adjusts existing reduced rate licenses for mentored juniors to a general 50 percent discount of the related adult item. The bill does not increase the cost of nonresident wolf tags and Disabled American Veteran licenses and tags.
The full text of House Bill 330, which reflects the fee changes, is available on the Idaho Legislature’s website. https://legislature.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/sessioninfo/2020/legislation/H0330.pdf
A separate bill signed into law by the Governor on March 9 that takes effect on July 1, 2020, will reduce the archery and muzzleloader permit fees specifically for Disabled American Veterans. The fees for both types of permits were set at $2 for resident and $4 for nonresident Disabled American Veterans, not including the issuance fee of $1.75.
Why did Fish and Game propose the fee increase in House Bill 330?
In August, the Idaho Fish and Game Commission adopted a rule that would allow them the discretion to manage nonresident distribution/participation in general deer and elk hunts. The rule is currently pending approval of the legislature. If approved, it would go into effect at the end of the current legislative session.
This rule is an outcome of concerns about hunter crowding and congestion in some popular hunting areas. It would allow the Fish and Game Commission to limit the number of nonresident deer or elk tags available in a specific general hunt unit or elk zone.
Fish and Game anticipates that this may cause some nonresident hunters to redistribute across the state, and others to choose not to hunt. The increased fees proposed in House Bill 330 are necessary to offset the anticipated reduction in nonresident participation and revenue, allowing the Idaho Fish and Game Commission to maintain a balanced budget to support existing services.
Post by: Buckhunter24 on March 14, 2020, 08:04:31 AM
Post by: Buckhunter24 on March 14, 2020, 08:05:09 AM
Wolfs need to be treated like coyotes. Only a hunting license required no tag and open 365. The wolf lovers would throw a fit but I don’t think it’d actually effect the population a whole lot.
:yeah:
Post by: luvmystang67 on March 14, 2020, 09:10:34 AM
Worst time ever to be increasing fees. They're going to be back to where they were 5-7 years ago trying to sell all of the non res tags for $199 at an intense discount mid-season trying to get them all sold.
I find it rather hilarious that they cap the number of tags sold, but that locals are complaining about the increasing number of non residents hunting. This basically doesn't make any sense... if they keep the caps the same but continue to expect to sell out then the number of non residents is the same. If they wanted fewer people... they could cap the number of permits lower. More interestingly is that this could work AGAINST them in multiple ways. You could have lower total revenue due to pushing people away OR I know that many residents were purchasing tags for 2nd elk permits and this higher price could make it more difficult for them to justify and further increase the % of non-residents.
I think Idaho should let markets decide, remove the caps, and use prices to control the tag numbers. I know, states, no matter how red, fail to understand how to use free markets to achieve their overall objectives.
Post by: Stein on March 14, 2020, 09:14:23 AM
They jacked up bear and cougar tags, and non res wolf went from $30 to $184!!! :bash:
Guess i better get my wolves this year, cause ill be damned if im paying that for a wolf tag!
Head one state over. MT dropped theirs a bunch a few years back, I think they are still $50 for nonresidents.
Post by: Mudman on March 14, 2020, 09:18:25 AM
Post by: Machias on March 14, 2020, 11:39:47 AM
Post by: meatwhack on March 14, 2020, 01:08:28 PM
LOL at Idaho.
Worst time ever to be increasing fees. They're going to be back to where they were 5-7 years ago trying to sell all of the non res tags for $199 at an intense discount mid-season trying to get them all sold.
I find it rather hilarious that they cap the number of tags sold, but that locals are complaining about the increasing number of non residents hunting. This basically doesn't make any sense... if they keep the caps the same but continue to expect to sell out then the number of non residents is the same. If they wanted fewer people... they could cap the number of permits lower. More interestingly is that this could work AGAINST them in multiple ways. You could have lower total revenue due to pushing people away OR I know that many residents were purchasing tags for 2nd elk permits and this higher price could make it more difficult for them to justify and further increase the % of non-residents.
I think Idaho should let markets decide, remove the caps, and use prices to control the tag numbers. I know, states, no matter how red, fail to understand how to use free markets to achieve their overall objectives.
#laughingATidaho
So if you support removing the caps for tags and letting the market truly dictate pricing you’d be in favor of making it a rich mans sport because that’s what would happen. There’s only so much game so even with caps removed they’d have to price it accordingly to maintain close to the same number of tag sales.
Post by: andrew_in_idaho on March 15, 2020, 08:09:27 AM
Nonresident wolf tag prices have been “reduced” from their actual rate for years, I wanna say the actual rate was $110 or something like that but they’ve sold them at the reduced rate in order to increase sales/incidental wolf kills. I’m guessing they are going to continue that practice because we seem to be in a full court press on wolves right nowThey jacked up bear and cougar tags, and non res wolf went from $30 to $184!!! :bash:
Guess i better get my wolves this year, cause ill be damned if im paying that for a wolf tag!
It's confusing, in their email message they claim wolf tags do not increase, but when you view the bill it says they do? Probably have to call IDFG to get the right answer? It would be idiotic to increase wolf tags, they need every hunter packing a wolf tag and that won't happen if they increase NR wolf tags to $186.00.
Update About Nonresident Fee Changes
A new law that increases nonresident hunting and fishing fees was signed by Governor Brad Little on March 3. The new fees become effective with the start of 2021 license sales on Dec. 1, 2020. The law implements a general 10 percent increase in the prices for nonresident items, with larger increases for big game tags and related items such as archery and muzzleloader permits. The law adjusts existing reduced rate licenses for mentored juniors to a general 50 percent discount of the related adult item. The bill does not increase the cost of nonresident wolf tags and Disabled American Veteran licenses and tags.
The full text of House Bill 330, which reflects the fee changes, is available on the Idaho Legislature’s website. https://legislature.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/sessioninfo/2020/legislation/H0330.pdf
A separate bill signed into law by the Governor on March 9 that takes effect on July 1, 2020, will reduce the archery and muzzleloader permit fees specifically for Disabled American Veterans. The fees for both types of permits were set at $2 for resident and $4 for nonresident Disabled American Veterans, not including the issuance fee of $1.75.
Why did Fish and Game propose the fee increase in House Bill 330?
In August, the Idaho Fish and Game Commission adopted a rule that would allow them the discretion to manage nonresident distribution/participation in general deer and elk hunts. The rule is currently pending approval of the legislature. If approved, it would go into effect at the end of the current legislative session.
This rule is an outcome of concerns about hunter crowding and congestion in some popular hunting areas. It would allow the Fish and Game Commission to limit the number of nonresident deer or elk tags available in a specific general hunt unit or elk zone.
Fish and Game anticipates that this may cause some nonresident hunters to redistribute across the state, and others to choose not to hunt. The increased fees proposed in House Bill 330 are necessary to offset the anticipated reduction in nonresident participation and revenue, allowing the Idaho Fish and Game Commission to maintain a balanced budget to support existing services.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: idahohuntr on March 15, 2020, 08:26:44 AM
Demand will still be high unless the economy collapses like the last time they did a big NR fee hike :yike:Wonder if the idfg folks are getting nervous about future budgets :chuckle:
Post by: grundy53 on March 15, 2020, 11:27:05 AM
I don't think they should have raised Non-resident wolf tag prices, but I will say up till now, only a handful of non-resident hunters have actually killed a wolf. In fact hardly any resident hunters have killed any wolves, most of the wolf harvest have been Resident trappers.True. But wouldn't you like everyone to have a tag in their pocket? Just in case?
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: huntnnw on March 15, 2020, 02:46:19 PM
Post by: idaho guy on March 15, 2020, 05:57:01 PM
LOL at Idaho.
Worst time ever to be increasing fees. They're going to be back to where they were 5-7 years ago trying to sell all of the non res tags for $199 at an intense discount mid-season trying to get them all sold.
I find it rather hilarious that they cap the number of tags sold, but that locals are complaining about the increasing number of non residents hunting. This basically doesn't make any sense... if they keep the caps the same but continue to expect to sell out then the number of non residents is the same. If they wanted fewer people... they could cap the number of permits lower. More interestingly is that this could work AGAINST them in multiple ways. You could have lower total revenue due to pushing people away OR I know that many residents were purchasing tags for 2nd elk permits and this higher price could make it more difficult for them to justify and further increase the % of non-residents.
I think Idaho should let markets decide, remove the caps, and use prices to control the tag numbers. I know, states, no matter how red, fail to understand how to use free markets to achieve their overall objectives.
That’s a ridiculous statement without caps either tags would have to be completely unaffordable or we would be overrun with hunters. It’s actually called game management ———— have you never heard of capping tags for everyone in certain units to manage pressure and harvest. Every other state worth hunting makes you draw tags. At least you could appreciate Idaho being otc for non resident. You have to manage hunter numbers at some level to manage game
******Edit to specify name calling isn’t allowed here on hunt wa. Please keep that in mind moving forward.******
Post by: Machias on March 16, 2020, 08:18:43 AM
I don't think they should have raised Non-resident wolf tag prices, but I will say up till now, only a handful of non-resident hunters have actually killed a wolf. In fact hardly any resident hunters have killed any wolves, most of the wolf harvest have been Resident trappers.True. But wouldn't you like everyone to have a tag in their pocket? Just in case?
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
:) You must have skipped over my first sentence....
Post by: grundy53 on March 16, 2020, 08:38:03 AM
Sorry. I wasn't saying you personally. I was talking about the decision makers.I don't think they should have raised Non-resident wolf tag prices, but I will say up till now, only a handful of non-resident hunters have actually killed a wolf. In fact hardly any resident hunters have killed any wolves, most of the wolf harvest have been Resident trappers.True. But wouldn't you like everyone to have a tag in their pocket? Just in case?
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
:) You must have skipped over my first sentence....
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: luvmystang67 on March 16, 2020, 08:39:36 AM
How does the current rate of >$600 to take your 10% chance at an elk in Idaho make it not a rich mans (or woman's) sport?
There is a price where demand and supply align for Idaho, and a few years ago that rate was lower than the capped NR tags, to the point where thy were selling them at $199 trying to get people to buy. If you need to cap in a certain area, it should be a draw only area. Otherwise, you should be adjusting price to throttle demand.
Virtually every state either treats NR as a "rich man's sport" to help keep prices low for the local poor man. I don't really see anything fundamentally wrong with this and it seems neither do most of the rest of you.
If you really want to keep it an everyman's sport then perhaps NR and R should be the same price with separate lotteries. Truth is, that isn't what residents want, they want to make it a rich mans sport for the NR crew to subsidize their own hunting.
Convince me I'm wrong here.
I also think Idaho has overplayed their hand, especially with the economy going where its going. I bet they don't sell out of general elk tags in 2021 and NR revenues actually fall. Maybe there aren't enough rich men.
Post by: Bango skank on March 16, 2020, 09:25:32 AM
Post by: Bango skank on March 16, 2020, 09:40:03 AM
People complain about tags but support Id utv/atv tag requirements?
Yes, im complaining about a tag increase of $150, but im not complaining about a atv fee of $12.
Aside from the obvious significant cost difference, the fact is you MUST have a tag to hunt. You dont need an atv to hunt.
And if im hunting wolves, i want 2 tags on me, so thats an additional $300. For something required to hunt. Thats a much bigger deal than $12 for something that is not mandatory.
You can hunt without an atv. You cant hunt without a tag.
Post by: Machias on March 16, 2020, 11:35:34 AM
Sorry. I wasn't saying you personally. I was talking about the decision makers.I don't think they should have raised Non-resident wolf tag prices, but I will say up till now, only a handful of non-resident hunters have actually killed a wolf. In fact hardly any resident hunters have killed any wolves, most of the wolf harvest have been Resident trappers.True. But wouldn't you like everyone to have a tag in their pocket? Just in case?
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
:) You must have skipped over my first sentence....
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
:tup: :tup:
Post by: idaho guy on March 16, 2020, 08:23:36 PM
Oh im sure theyll still sell out deer and elk. But i bet they make less money on NR wolf tags now thst theyre hiking the price up 600%. I doubt many nr wolf tags are bought by folks actively hunting wolves. Probably mostly guys making one trip over to hunt deer or elk that buy a nr wolf tag "just in case" since its only $30. How many of those guys will buy a just in case tag when its $185? I predict lower total income from nr wolf tags with the price increase. Pretty stupid move.
:yeah: I agree 100% with wolf tag prices. I think if you buy deer/elk nr tags 1st wolf tag should be free so everyone has a tag in their pocket. I doubt that increase survives as I am sure they will hear about it from residents and non residents. I am going to recommend free with deer and elk purchase to one of the commissioners I know really well.
Post by: idaho guy on March 16, 2020, 08:37:05 PM
Non resident hunts ARE a rich mans sport. How else do you justify spending 10x on a tag that most people could buy at home (talking about western states here). Usually when supply outpaces demand and you want to keep prices low you run a lottery to keep it fair, not cap tags.
How does the current rate of >$600 to take your 10% chance at an elk in Idaho make it not a rich mans (or woman's) sport?
There is a price where demand and supply align for Idaho, and a few years ago that rate was lower than the capped NR tags, to the point where thy were selling them at $199 trying to get people to buy. If you need to cap in a certain area, it should be a draw only area. Otherwise, you should be adjusting price to throttle demand.
Virtually every state either treats NR as a "rich man's sport" to help keep prices low for the local poor man. I don't really see anything fundamentally wrong with this and it seems neither do most of the rest of you.
If you really want to keep it an everyman's sport then perhaps NR and R should be the same price with separate lotteries. Truth is, that isn't what residents want, they want to make it a rich mans sport for the NR crew to subsidize their own hunting.
Convince me I'm wrong here.
I also think Idaho has overplayed their hand, especially with the economy going where its going. I bet they don't sell out of general elk tags in 2021 and NR revenues actually fall. Maybe there aren't enough rich men.
Idaho caps a number of units that don't need to be draw only and it works fine. Some capped units do need to move to draw only and I think they would actually be easier to get in this scenario. The point is Idaho needs to cap non resident hunters to actually do their job which is supposed to be manage game. Tags were selling discounted in 08-09 which was a true financial crisis not a recession or slow down of the economy. That was also the peak of wolf issues and things are getting better with elk and wolf numbers in many units.
600 dollars does not make it a rich man sport. If you want to see rich man prices look at landowner tags in good units. They are priced on market demand and unaffordable for average middle class guy to purchase each year. States issuing tags in not about free markets only but more importantly about managing game for the future. 600 dollars is affordable for anyone working if they want to prioritize hunting and they are buying the opportunity to chase elk for up to 4 months. Some guys spend that much for 2 rounds of golf. Look up some landowner tags that you might actually want that's market driven prices and ask yourself if you want to pay those prices to chase elk every year.
Post by: huntnnw on March 16, 2020, 10:08:56 PM
Post by: bearpaw on March 17, 2020, 03:51:34 AM
Oh im sure theyll still sell out deer and elk. But i bet they make less money on NR wolf tags now thst theyre hiking the price up 600%. I doubt many nr wolf tags are bought by folks actively hunting wolves. Probably mostly guys making one trip over to hunt deer or elk that buy a nr wolf tag "just in case" since its only $30. How many of those guys will buy a just in case tag when its $185? I predict lower total income from nr wolf tags with the price increase. Pretty stupid move.
:yeah: I agree 100% with wolf tag prices. I think if you buy deer/elk nr tags 1st wolf tag should be free so everyone has a tag in their pocket. I doubt that increase survives as I am sure they will hear about it from residents and non residents. I am going to recommend free with deer and elk purchase to one of the commissioners I know really well.
We try to convince every hunter to have at least one wolf tag in their pocket, but more than 50% don't buy them. I would support adding $15 to the deer/elk tag fees and including a wolf tag with every deer or elk tag, if you buy both deer and elk then you get two wolf tags.
(more or less the same scenario as when you buy the NR Hunting you get 3 days fishing)
Post by: Pathfinder101 on March 17, 2020, 07:59:22 AM
Post by: huntnnw on March 17, 2020, 09:54:14 PM
Post by: ribka on March 17, 2020, 11:38:39 PM
Non resident hunts ARE a rich mans sport. How else do you justify spending 10x on a tag that most people could buy at home (talking about western states here). Usually when supply outpaces demand and you want to keep prices low you run a lottery to keep it fair, not cap tags.
How does the current rate of >$600 to take your 10% chance at an elk in Idaho make it not a rich mans (or woman's) sport?
There is a price where demand and supply align for Idaho, and a few years ago that rate was lower than the capped NR tags, to the point where thy were selling them at $199 trying to get people to buy. If you need to cap in a certain area, it should be a draw only area. Otherwise, you should be adjusting price to throttle demand.
Virtually every state either treats NR as a "rich man's sport" to help keep prices low for the local poor man. I don't really see anything fundamentally wrong with this and it seems neither do most of the rest of you.
If you really want to keep it an everyman's sport then perhaps NR and R should be the same price with separate lotteries. Truth is, that isn't what residents want, they want to make it a rich mans sport for the NR crew to subsidize their own hunting.
Convince me I'm wrong here.
I also think Idaho has overplayed their hand, especially with the economy going where its going. I bet they don't sell out of general elk tags in 2021 and NR revenues actually fall. Maybe there aren't enough rich men.
Idaho caps a number of units that don't need to be draw only and it works fine. Some capped units do need to move to draw only and I think they would actually be easier to get in this scenario. The point is Idaho needs to cap non resident hunters to actually do their job which is supposed to be manage game. Tags were selling discounted in 08-09 which was a true financial crisis not a recession or slow down of the economy. That was also the peak of wolf issues and things are getting better with elk and wolf numbers in many units.
600 dollars does not make it a rich man sport. If you want to see rich man prices look at landowner tags in good units. They are priced on market demand and unaffordable for average middle class guy to purchase each year. States issuing tags in not about free markets only but more importantly about managing game for the future. 600 dollars is affordable for anyone working if they want to prioritize hunting and they are buying the opportunity to chase elk for up to 4 months. Some guys spend that much for 2 rounds of golf. Look up some landowner tags that you might actually want that's market driven prices and ask yourself if you want to pay those prices to chase elk every year.
Post by: huntnnw on March 17, 2020, 11:46:34 PM
Post by: Onewhohikes on March 18, 2020, 05:30:50 AM
Post by: bearpaw on March 18, 2020, 07:34:05 AM
Sorry to jump in here without reading all 18 pages (so maybe this has already been covered), but can you still slap your deer tag on a wolf or cougar? Did they change that?
It's definitely the same this year, when the changes take effect next year I'm nearly certain it stays the same way.
Note: Youth and DAV elk and deer tags cannot e used on other species, the tag must be a full price non-res adult deer or elk tag
Post by: konradcountry on March 18, 2020, 09:03:22 AM
We try to convince every hunter to have at least one wolf tag in their pocket, but more than 50% don't buy them.
Well the success rates are awful even for hunters that live in Idaho. It's the trappers that are getting them.
The out of state wolf tag purchases are going to drop with these changes. They need to just give them out with a deer or elk tag if they are serious.
Post by: bearpaw on March 18, 2020, 09:15:18 AM
We try to convince every hunter to have at least one wolf tag in their pocket, but more than 50% don't buy them.
Well the success rates are awful even for hunters that live in Idaho. It's the trappers that are getting them.
The out of state wolf tag purchases are going to drop with these changes. They need to just give them out with a deer or elk tag if they are serious.
I agree with including a wolf tag with every elk and deer tag. :tup:
They would come out ahead in the end due to the amount of elk only a few wolves being killed would save.
Post by: Bango skank on March 18, 2020, 10:29:52 AM
Post by: konradcountry on March 18, 2020, 10:55:43 AM
I would not describe the increases as "10% plus some larger ones for big game". That is misleading.
Non-resident jr tags took a massive increase.
I have no doubt that is aimed at Wa hunters.
But I'm honestly not upset nor surprised. I'm sure they looked at the numbers and decided that Wa families would still pay more.
Post by: idahohuntr on March 20, 2020, 04:21:32 PM
If you apply for a controlled elk hunt (with a few exceptions) you must wait 5 days before you can purchase any capped zone elk tag (e.g., sawtooths). Good news for NR's in 2020...you've been able to purchase your tags for a while now so this won't apply this year.
Post by: huntnnw on March 22, 2020, 09:34:57 PM
Post by: Pathfinder101 on March 23, 2020, 05:46:52 AM
how would this work moving forward for NR? NR can purchase tags on Dec 1 and cant apply until may for controlled huntsgood question. I already bought my elk tag. Can I still apply for controlled hunts?
Post by: huntnnw on March 23, 2020, 06:34:16 AM
how would this work moving forward for NR? NR can purchase tags on Dec 1 and cant apply until may for controlled huntsgood question. I already bought my elk tag. Can I still apply for controlled hunts?
this year you can as a NR, the email sent out was for residents. This doesnt work for NR who can buy Dec 1
Post by: idahohuntr on March 23, 2020, 08:27:06 AM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on March 23, 2020, 10:06:38 AM
Post by: trophyhunt on March 23, 2020, 10:53:13 AM
Post by: The scout on March 23, 2020, 10:59:08 AM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on March 23, 2020, 11:05:33 AM
Post by: Stein on March 23, 2020, 11:28:33 AM
If not big game, at least make small game free - I can't see any argument against that. The duck stamp is already waived, let them go after anything covered by a small game license without cost.
We have to think of others besides ourselves or we will be at least partially responsible for the loss of a lifestyle.
Post by: idahohuntr on March 23, 2020, 11:44:25 AM
Post by: Stein on March 23, 2020, 12:11:06 PM
Quote
The number of hunters in Idaho is growing — but the number of people in Idaho is growing even faster, and hunting figures can’t keep pace with the state’s booming population growth.
Even in 1982, when the number of hunters in the nation was at its peak, the number of hunters per capita in Idaho was falling. The earliest U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service records available online, from 1958, show 27 hunting license holders for every 100 people in Idaho. By 1982, that number was down slightly to 25 hunters for every 100 Idahoans. As hunting started to decline nationwide, Idaho slid to 20 hunters per 100 people in 2000. And last year, there were 16 hunters per 100 Idahoans — a number that’s been consistent in recent years since hitting an all-time low of 15 in 2013.
I believe it's important to both have numbers and percentages. If we lose percentage of voters, stuff starts happening that we cannot stop. This is where bans on trapping, bait, etc come from, there just aren't enough people doing those things to have a voice.
Long term, we need a good percentage of people hunting or it will start to go away and no state is immune.
Post by: dvolmer on March 23, 2020, 01:53:27 PM
Idaho raw numbers of hunters is increasing, but per capita it is falling, same story in the rest of the west.QuoteThe number of hunters in Idaho is growing — but the number of people in Idaho is growing even faster, and hunting figures can’t keep pace with the state’s booming population growth.
Even in 1982, when the number of hunters in the nation was at its peak, the number of hunters per capita in Idaho was falling. The earliest U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service records available online, from 1958, show 27 hunting license holders for every 100 people in Idaho. By 1982, that number was down slightly to 25 hunters for every 100 Idahoans. As hunting started to decline nationwide, Idaho slid to 20 hunters per 100 people in 2000. And last year, there were 16 hunters per 100 Idahoans — a number that’s been consistent in recent years since hitting an all-time low of 15 in 2013.
I believe it's important to both have numbers and percentages. If we lose percentage of voters, stuff starts happening that we cannot stop. This is where bans on trapping, bait, etc come from, there just aren't enough people doing those things to have a voice.
Long term, we need a good percentage of people hunting or it will start to go away and no state is immune.
Stein, I totally agree with you on the above. The problem is, that if the percentage kept steady with the population as it grows, we would have trouble supplying the tags and the land/hunting opportunities to satisfy all of the hunters that want to hunt. We are sort of stuck in a bad spot here and I don't foresee a real way to solve the problem. Hunting in the long-term is in trouble! For some of us that are a little bit older, I look back at the opportunities I had in the 80's and 90's compared to what is going on today. Just the common populations opinion of hunting and hunters is slowly changing for the voting majority. We are sort of "damned if we do and damned if we dont". A "Catch-22" sort of problem. In the short term, there are opportunities for those who want to work hard and do their homework. But the long term looks pretty bad if you ask me. It will become a rich-mans sport for the few that will be able to hunt and the public opinion for the general masses will look on hunting with distaste.
Post by: Stein on March 23, 2020, 02:04:12 PM
If a guy had to choose between deer or elk, it would allow more people to hunt better opportunities although there would still be some crowding issues as the habitats overlap.
It's the same in every state, WA is at the forefront due to the hunter/game ratio. I would absolutely support looking at the way we issue tags and ask the question whether it makes sense. We all know the special draws are broken, maybe it's time to start over from scratch on the entire system knowing what we do now. If nothing else, we could simplify it so people could at least understand the regulations.
Post by: Bango skank on March 23, 2020, 02:20:01 PM
Yeah, I agree. The only solution I see is reducing opportunity. It's time to ask whether we should be able to get OTC tags for everything except OIL and permits.
If a guy had to choose between deer or elk, it would allow more people to hunt better opportunities although there would still be some crowding issues as the habitats overlap.
It's the same in every state, WA is at the forefront due to the hunter/game ratio. I would absolutely support looking at the way we issue tags and ask the question whether it makes sense. We all know the special draws are broken, maybe it's time to start over from scratch on the entire system knowing what we do now. If nothing else, we could simplify it so people could at least understand the regulations.
Washingtons regs really arent difficult to understand. People just dont bother reading the regs pamphlet. As for reducing otc opportunity on deer and elk, id hate to see it, but at some point something has to happen. But before getting rid of otc, getting rid of the huge number of multi season permits, and choosing a species of deer tag would help imo.
Also, encouraging people to take advantage of our predator hunting opportunities, which give a guy a lot more time to hunt, not to mention benefitting our herds, should be a priority. Fall bear season is 106 days long, bag limit 2. Cougar season is 243 days long. Coyote is year round. Lots of opportunity there, and it needs to be promoted heavily. Look at how many units are still open for cats. Hasnt been a closure since early january. I really dont think anybody is hunting them. We need to figure out how to promote predator hunting, get more people taking an active interest in it. Starting april 1st ill be taking a first time hunter out for cougar. Ive told him its super low odds, but he gets that, and will be coming bear hunting in august which should give him a good chance at success for his first season hunting. Funny thing is, he hasnt even asked about deer hunting. With any luck he will turn into a predator hunting enthusiast and leave the deer alone. :chuckle:
Post by: Stein on March 23, 2020, 02:39:29 PM
I wouldn't mind spending a week chasing them around, I have no idea what I am doing so it would be a camping trip, maybe take my son and put him behind a pair of binos.
It wouldn't be hard to promote predator hunting, the hard part would be the political backlash. They could reward successful predator hunters with access to some hunts, bonus points or discounted licenses next year. If you need to do hide sealing anyway, giving something would increase compliance as well as encourage hunting.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on March 23, 2020, 03:07:59 PM
Yeah, I agree. The only solution I see is reducing opportunity. It's time to ask whether we should be able to get OTC tags for everything except OIL and permits.
If a guy had to choose between deer or elk, it would allow more people to hunt better opportunities although there would still be some crowding issues as the habitats overlap.
It's the same in every state, WA is at the forefront due to the hunter/game ratio. I would absolutely support looking at the way we issue tags and ask the question whether it makes sense. We all know the special draws are broken, maybe it's time to start over from scratch on the entire system knowing what we do now. If nothing else, we could simplify it so people could at least understand the regulations.
Personally, I'd prefer to keep OTC tags, at least for deer and elk. I'd rather hunt every year with less odds than hunt every other year with greater odds. And when you shut people out, they find other things to do. If you want less hunters, shut people out of hunting. But that doesn't do anything to help hunters politically. Just stacks the odd against us at the polls even more.
There are a lot of good things about hunting besides killing an animal every year. And not being able to hunt gives you zero odds. When I was growing up, there was a member of our elk hunting camp who never killed an animal in 25 years of hunting with us. But he was a favorite in our camp. He was always there when there was work to be done on the cabin. He was always there when an animal needed packed out. (And our packs usually weren't easy where we hunted near Quinault.) He always chipped in on camp chores and was pleasant to be around. And he always got a full share of whatever meat was gotten that year. He enjoyed getting away and being part of the group. The fact that he never shot an animal didn't matter although we would have all been excited if he had ever scored. He still enjoyed getting out.
Tougher odds isn't the end of the world. In the long run, working harder can make you a better hunter.
Post by: idaho guy on March 23, 2020, 05:29:24 PM
Yeah, I agree. The only solution I see is reducing opportunity. It's time to ask whether we should be able to get OTC tags for everything except OIL and permits.
If a guy had to choose between deer or elk, it would allow more people to hunt better opportunities although there would still be some crowding issues as the habitats overlap.
It's the same in every state, WA is at the forefront due to the hunter/game ratio. I would absolutely support looking at the way we issue tags and ask the question whether it makes sense. We all know the special draws are broken, maybe it's time to start over from scratch on the entire system knowing what we do now. If nothing else, we could simplify it so people could at least understand the regulations.
Washingtons regs really arent difficult to understand. People just dont bother reading the regs pamphlet. As for reducing otc opportunity on deer and elk, id hate to see it, but at some point something has to happen. But before getting rid of otc, getting rid of the huge number of multi season permits, and choosing a species of deer tag would help imo.
Also, encouraging people to take advantage of our predator hunting opportunities, which give a guy a lot more time to hunt, not to mention benefitting our herds, should be a priority. Fall bear season is 106 days long, bag limit 2. Cougar season is 243 days long. Coyote is year round. Lots of opportunity there, and it needs to be promoted heavily. Look at how many units are still open for cats. Hasnt been a closure since early january. I really dont think anybody is hunting them. We need to figure out how to promote predator hunting, get more people taking an active interest in it. Starting april 1st ill be taking a first time hunter out for cougar. Ive told him its super low odds, but he gets that, and will be coming bear hunting in august which should give him a good chance at success for his first season hunting. Funny thing is, he hasnt even asked about deer hunting. With any luck he will turn into a predator hunting enthusiast and leave the deer alone. :chuckle:
:yeah: We have been trying to change the mentality of Idaho hunters as well. Used to be only thing another hunter would ask is "did ya get your elk?" like there was no other hunting season. A lot more guys are hunting predators and its a good thing. I have always been a hard core predator hunter with lions, bears and coyotes my whole life and with frustration slowly getting better at wolves. If we all put 1/2 the hunting time into predators that we do deer and elk it would make a world of difference. I am working on a mount called the Idaho 4 and then the Idaho big five and I will post up pictures when done. Right now trying to get the 4 done in one calendar year I have coyote,lion and bear working on wolf. It will be a shoulder mount together on a big elk shed of all 4 :tup: the five adds a bobcat. I might hang it up at north 40 for a while and see if it catches on. The good news is you live in a top western state for predator hunting but that's also the bad news :chuckle: take advantage of it
Post by: Bango skank on March 23, 2020, 05:36:37 PM
Post by: idaho guy on March 23, 2020, 05:44:20 PM
Yup, elk and deer are seen as the main attraction. With recruiting new hunters, why not try to influence their perspective to see bears as the main event? Hell, its the best big game opportunity we have, and the meat is great. Cheaper tags too.
:tup: Funny thing is an old timer I know really well who grew up in the silver valley told me when he was a kid bear hunting was the main event. He has killed some huge elk and I think one was the state non typical record for a while but he has told me numerous times when he was a kid everybody was all about bear hunting :chuckle: Perfect way to start out new hunters and change the mindset a little.
Post by: luvmystang67 on March 24, 2020, 07:47:08 AM
Yeah, I agree. The only solution I see is reducing opportunity. It's time to ask whether we should be able to get OTC tags for everything except OIL and permits.
If a guy had to choose between deer or elk, it would allow more people to hunt better opportunities although there would still be some crowding issues as the habitats overlap.
It's the same in every state, WA is at the forefront due to the hunter/game ratio. I would absolutely support looking at the way we issue tags and ask the question whether it makes sense. We all know the special draws are broken, maybe it's time to start over from scratch on the entire system knowing what we do now. If nothing else, we could simplify it so people could at least understand the regulations.
Personally, I'd prefer to keep OTC tags, at least for deer and elk. I'd rather hunt every year with less odds than hunt every other year with greater odds. And when you shut people out, they find other things to do. If you want less hunters, shut people out of hunting. But that doesn't do anything to help hunters politically. Just stacks the odd against us at the polls even more.
There are a lot of good things about hunting besides killing an animal every year. And not being able to hunt gives you zero odds. When I was growing up, there was a member of our elk hunting camp who never killed an animal in 25 years of hunting with us. But he was a favorite in our camp. He was always there when there was work to be done on the cabin. He was always there when an animal needed packed out. (And our packs usually weren't easy where we hunted near Quinault.) He always chipped in on camp chores and was pleasant to be around. And he always got a full share of whatever meat was gotten that year. He enjoyed getting away and being part of the group. The fact that he never shot an animal didn't matter although we would have all been excited if he had ever scored. He still enjoyed getting out.
Tougher odds isn't the end of the world. In the long run, working harder can make you a better hunter.
I 100% agree with you. Opportunity is all relative, but I believe the main attraction for younger hunters is not necessarily success, but rather the routine of annual elk/deer camp. Its not like many people start elk hunting for the 10% opportunity. If it were 5% or 3% I still think people would go to elk camp, put the time in, and try to beat the already abysmal odds. Relative to what we're used to it may seem depressing, but I'd rather have more people (voters) in the sport than opportunity and the world against us.
It will/would be most difficult on the old guard. However, at a macro level I'd rather have 2 young hunters to 1 old hunter, heck I'd even take 1 young hunter vs 1 old hunter. I'm not suggesting I don't want old hunters, but the value of a young hunter cannot be understated. If odds drop to keep tradition alive and old hunters aren't willing to adapt with the rest, then I'll take the trade. To me the tradition is what I hope gets passed down, not the success rate.
:twocents:
Oh, and I love hunting bears, even in WA.
Post by: idaho guy on March 24, 2020, 01:48:22 PM
Yeah, I agree. The only solution I see is reducing opportunity. It's time to ask whether we should be able to get OTC tags for everything except OIL and permits.
If a guy had to choose between deer or elk, it would allow more people to hunt better opportunities although there would still be some crowding issues as the habitats overlap.
It's the same in every state, WA is at the forefront due to the hunter/game ratio. I would absolutely support looking at the way we issue tags and ask the question whether it makes sense. We all know the special draws are broken, maybe it's time to start over from scratch on the entire system knowing what we do now. If nothing else, we could simplify it so people could at least understand the regulations.
Personally, I'd prefer to keep OTC tags, at least for deer and elk. I'd rather hunt every year with less odds than hunt every other year with greater odds. And when you shut people out, they find other things to do. If you want less hunters, shut people out of hunting. But that doesn't do anything to help hunters politically. Just stacks the odd against us at the polls even more.
There are a lot of good things about hunting besides killing an animal every year. And not being able to hunt gives you zero odds. When I was growing up, there was a member of our elk hunting camp who never killed an animal in 25 years of hunting with us. But he was a favorite in our camp. He was always there when there was work to be done on the cabin. He was always there when an animal needed packed out. (And our packs usually weren't easy where we hunted near Quinault.) He always chipped in on camp chores and was pleasant to be around. And he always got a full share of whatever meat was gotten that year. He enjoyed getting away and being part of the group. The fact that he never shot an animal didn't matter although we would have all been excited if he had ever scored. He still enjoyed getting out.
Tougher odds isn't the end of the world. In the long run, working harder can make you a better hunter.
I 100% agree with you. Opportunity is all relative, but I believe the main attraction for younger hunters is not necessarily success, but rather the routine of annual elk/deer camp. Its not like many people start elk hunting for the 10% opportunity. If it were 5% or 3% I still think people would go to elk camp, put the time in, and try to beat the already abysmal odds. Relative to what we're used to it may seem depressing, but I'd rather have more people (voters) in the sport than opportunity and the world against us.
It will/would be most difficult on the old guard. However, at a macro level I'd rather have 2 young hunters to 1 old hunter, heck I'd even take 1 young hunter vs 1 old hunter. I'm not suggesting I don't want old hunters, but the value of a young hunter cannot be understated. If odds drop to keep tradition alive and old hunters aren't willing to adapt with the rest, then I'll take the trade. To me the tradition is what I hope gets passed down, not the success rate.
:twocents:
Oh, and I love hunting bears, even in WA.
I agree on passing down tradition most important. I don’t know why you would say you love bear hunting even in Washington I would guess with the new season you live in the best state in the lower 48 for spot and stalk bear hunting. I am paying non res to come hunt your state in August
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on March 24, 2020, 04:20:35 PM
I 100% agree with you. Opportunity is all relative, but I believe the main attraction for younger hunters is not necessarily success, but rather the routine of annual elk/deer camp. Its not like many people start elk hunting for the 10% opportunity. If it were 5% or 3% I still think people would go to elk camp, put the time in, and try to beat the already abysmal odds. Relative to what we're used to it may seem depressing, but I'd rather have more people (voters) in the sport than opportunity and the world against us.
It will/would be most difficult on the old guard. However, at a macro level I'd rather have 2 young hunters to 1 old hunter, heck I'd even take 1 young hunter vs 1 old hunter. I'm not suggesting I don't want old hunters, but the value of a young hunter cannot be understated. If odds drop to keep tradition alive and old hunters aren't willing to adapt with the rest, then I'll take the trade. To me the tradition is what I hope gets passed down, not the success rate.
:twocents:
Oh, and I love hunting bears, even in WA.
Agreed Stang.
Post by: 7mmfan on April 23, 2020, 01:32:53 PM
Post by: meatwhack on April 23, 2020, 04:39:16 PM
Post by: Stein on April 23, 2020, 05:47:18 PM
Post by: cb1989 on April 23, 2020, 05:53:20 PM
Not ironically, those same types of guys are the main barriers for entry for new hunters. Where im from in Michigan the hunter numbers are falling but access to hunt private land is getting far more difficult because one guy holds multiple permissions, and the market for leases has gotten huge so a lot of farmers wont give permission for free. When I came up you could go knock on anybody's door and get permission, made learning easy and fun. Hard to get new people started when its a full time job just finding decent access. Seems to be the case here in the west as well just for slightly different reasons. Point creep, loss of nonresident opportunity, loss of resident opportunity, people wonder how it can keep getting worse and worse every year when hunter numbers are about flat or even falling. It's because in age where it seems a lot of guys are motivated by the pursuit of internet fame, they've gotten a heck of a lot more serious about their hunting. This forum is full of guys that put in dozens of apps a year in diff states then turn around and complain about point creep :o
If you're wondering why your kid doesnt have the opportunity for a quality hunt, check out the dude posting about his 2nd bull elk this year or 3rd deer.
Post by: buglebrush on April 23, 2020, 06:09:42 PM
Some inter-state coordination on how many game animals one guy gets to shoot in one year seems like a good idea too. Lotta game hogs out there these days hunting 3-4 diff states a year just because they can. Never used to be the case until the internet era. Now that one guy is basically 3-4 guys from a demand standpoint. Of course the supply is going to have trouble keeping up with that. But states dont really have motivation to limit that behavior because it brings in a lot of license revenue. And hunters wont self regulate and not be selfish so that just is what it is.
Not ironically, those same types of guys are the main barriers for entry for new hunters. Where im from in Michigan the hunter numbers are falling but access to hunt private land is getting far more difficult because one guy holds multiple permissions, and the market for leases has gotten huge so a lot of farmers wont give permission for free. When I came up you could go knock on anybody's door and get permission, made learning easy and fun. Hard to get new people started when its a full time job just finding decent access. Seems to be the case here in the west as well just for slightly different reasons. Point creep, loss of nonresident opportunity, loss of resident opportunity, people wonder how it can keep getting worse and worse every year when hunter numbers are about flat or even falling. It's because in age where it seems a lot of guys are motivated by the pursuit of internet fame, they've gotten a heck of a lot more serious about their hunting. This forum is full of guys that put in dozens of apps a year in diff states then turn around and complain about point creep :o
If you're wondering why your kid doesnt have the opportunity for a quality hunt, check out the dude posting about his 2nd bull elk this year or 3rd deer.
I get what you're saying, but the window is awfully small where people can actually physically and financially diy Elk Hunt. Would be criminal to shorten the window even more. :twocents:
Post by: grundy53 on April 23, 2020, 06:13:24 PM
Some inter-state coordination on how many game animals one guy gets to shoot in one year seems like a good idea too. Lotta game hogs out there these days hunting 3-4 diff states a year just because they can. Never used to be the case until the internet era. Now that one guy is basically 3-4 guys from a demand standpoint. Of course the supply is going to have trouble keeping up with that. But states dont really have motivation to limit that behavior because it brings in a lot of license revenue. And hunters wont self regulate and not be selfish so that just is what it is.I doubt a guy hunting multiple states is making any discernable difference. I think traveling is is easier these days. There is huge amounts of information out there that is easy to find. Plus people are more inclined to use credit. All of these make hunting out of state more popular. But I think most people still probably only have one out of state hunt a year. There is just more people doing it.
Not ironically, those same types of guys are the main barriers for entry for new hunters. Where im from in Michigan the hunter numbers are falling but access to hunt private land is getting far more difficult because one guy holds multiple permissions, and the market for leases has gotten huge so a lot of farmers wont give permission for free. When I came up you could go knock on anybody's door and get permission, made learning easy and fun. Hard to get new people started when its a full time job just finding decent access. Seems to be the case here in the west as well just for slightly different reasons. Point creep, loss of nonresident opportunity, loss of resident opportunity, people wonder how it can keep getting worse and worse every year when hunter numbers are about flat or even falling. It's because in age where it seems a lot of guys are motivated by the pursuit of internet fame, they've gotten a heck of a lot more serious about their hunting. This forum is full of guys that put in dozens of apps a year in diff states then turn around and complain about point creep :o
If you're wondering why your kid doesnt have the opportunity for a quality hunt, check out the dude posting about his 2nd bull elk this year or 3rd deer.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: Karl Blanchard on April 23, 2020, 07:10:37 PM
you get what he's saying? I sure as heck don't. Hunting opportunities are plentiful. If someone isn't taking advantage of that its nobody's fault but their own. Every state (except WA) has quotas on game. Just because some folks are hunting multiple states does not mean that there is unchecked game take. Point creep only effects someone if they are trying to chase a particular unit or don't know what to apply for. For those who take the time to learn the various systems there are always tags to be had. But then again I'm one of those evil selfish hunters taking opportunities away from children :chuckle:Some inter-state coordination on how many game animals one guy gets to shoot in one year seems like a good idea too. Lotta game hogs out there these days hunting 3-4 diff states a year just because they can. Never used to be the case until the internet era. Now that one guy is basically 3-4 guys from a demand standpoint. Of course the supply is going to have trouble keeping up with that. But states dont really have motivation to limit that behavior because it brings in a lot of license revenue. And hunters wont self regulate and not be selfish so that just is what it is.
Not ironically, those same types of guys are the main barriers for entry for new hunters. Where im from in Michigan the hunter numbers are falling but access to hunt private land is getting far more difficult because one guy holds multiple permissions, and the market for leases has gotten huge so a lot of farmers wont give permission for free. When I came up you could go knock on anybody's door and get permission, made learning easy and fun. Hard to get new people started when its a full time job just finding decent access. Seems to be the case here in the west as well just for slightly different reasons. Point creep, loss of nonresident opportunity, loss of resident opportunity, people wonder how it can keep getting worse and worse every year when hunter numbers are about flat or even falling. It's because in age where it seems a lot of guys are motivated by the pursuit of internet fame, they've gotten a heck of a lot more serious about their hunting. This forum is full of guys that put in dozens of apps a year in diff states then turn around and complain about point creep :o
If you're wondering why your kid doesnt have the opportunity for a quality hunt, check out the dude posting about his 2nd bull elk this year or 3rd deer.
I get what you're saying, but the window is awfully small where people can actually physically and financially diy Elk Hunt. Would be criminal to shorten the window even more. :twocents:
Post by: buglebrush on April 23, 2020, 07:19:21 PM
you get what he's saying? I sure as heck don't. Hunting opportunities are plentiful. If someone isn't taking advantage of that its nobody's fault but their own. Every state (except WA) has quotas on game. Just because some folks are hunting multiple states does not mean that there is unchecked game take. Point creep only effects someone if they are trying to chase a particular unit or don't know what to apply for. For those who take the time to learn the various systems there are always tags to be had. But then again I'm one of those evil selfish hunters taking opportunities away from children :chuckle:Some inter-state coordination on how many game animals one guy gets to shoot in one year seems like a good idea too. Lotta game hogs out there these days hunting 3-4 diff states a year just because they can. Never used to be the case until the internet era. Now that one guy is basically 3-4 guys from a demand standpoint. Of course the supply is going to have trouble keeping up with that. But states dont really have motivation to limit that behavior because it brings in a lot of license revenue. And hunters wont self regulate and not be selfish so that just is what it is.
Not ironically, those same types of guys are the main barriers for entry for new hunters. Where im from in Michigan the hunter numbers are falling but access to hunt private land is getting far more difficult because one guy holds multiple permissions, and the market for leases has gotten huge so a lot of farmers wont give permission for free. When I came up you could go knock on anybody's door and get permission, made learning easy and fun. Hard to get new people started when its a full time job just finding decent access. Seems to be the case here in the west as well just for slightly different reasons. Point creep, loss of nonresident opportunity, loss of resident opportunity, people wonder how it can keep getting worse and worse every year when hunter numbers are about flat or even falling. It's because in age where it seems a lot of guys are motivated by the pursuit of internet fame, they've gotten a heck of a lot more serious about their hunting. This forum is full of guys that put in dozens of apps a year in diff states then turn around and complain about point creep :o
If you're wondering why your kid doesnt have the opportunity for a quality hunt, check out the dude posting about his 2nd bull elk this year or 3rd deer.
I get what you're saying, but the window is awfully small where people can actually physically and financially diy Elk Hunt. Would be criminal to shorten the window even more. :twocents:
I only meant that I understood his point. I thought saying it would be "Criminal" made it clear I disagreed. :dunno:
Post by: Karl Blanchard on April 23, 2020, 07:23:35 PM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on April 23, 2020, 07:24:36 PM
Post by: grundy53 on April 23, 2020, 07:29:28 PM
Let's not forget Idaho otc elk tags and unlimited otc CO elk tags just to drive my point home a bit more :chuckle:Don't forget, anyone in this country can hunt deer and elk every year in Washington if they want...... a 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😆😆😆😭😭😭😂😂😂😂😂
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: blackveltbowhunter on April 23, 2020, 07:38:17 PM
Life is short. Hunt maximum effort.
Game agencies in each state decide what is the best decision for their state. For those who have the time and funds or MAKE the time and funds its their decision. I work a second job to fund my addiction and bank vacation to save for hunting months.
I will add that the majority of posters and trends seen on this site is not representative of everywhere. Heck even here is only a snapshot of Washington hunters, and even less who are regularly active. WDFW has screwed things up so bad, that for many it seems like out of state is the only option. I know lots of residents in other western states and while they travel, selections tend to be more limited because they live in states that have good hunting already. Even residents of states in the east while many travel to western states because its become super trendy, a lot get the fix because they have the option to hunt whitetails for several months and kill multiple deer.
I guess what I am saying is that while it may seem ridiculous to some that I want to go on as many hunts per season as tags and time allow, its ridiculous to me someone would want to vacation on a boat in the Caribbean with nothing to shoot at, go every sunday to get drunk and watch a bunch of guys hit each other and play catch, or have a garage full of cars that don't get driven.
Post by: Stein on April 23, 2020, 07:39:29 PM
Post by: buglebrush on April 23, 2020, 07:55:09 PM
Gotcha. It's one of the more perplexing arguments I think I've ever heard on western big game hunting. A select few hogging all the game :chuckle: as we speak there are THOUSANDS of Idaho deer tags available for any man woman or child that wants to snag one up and go hunt. Wyoming deadline for deer and antelope is still a month away. Many units can be had for for 0-1 points. Get to hunting people. Blaming others for ones own lack of action is insulting :twocents:
Couldn't agree more. Worked my butt off, and lived dirtbag style to hunt two states and one province last year.
Post by: Born2late on April 23, 2020, 08:29:47 PM
Some inter-state coordination on how many game animals one guy gets to shoot in one year seems like a good idea too. Lotta game hogs out there these days hunting 3-4 diff states a year just because they can. Never used to be the case until the internet era. Now that one guy is basically 3-4 guys from a demand standpoint. Of course the supply is going to have trouble keeping up with that. But states dont really have motivation to limit that behavior because it brings in a lot of license revenue. And hunters wont self regulate and not be selfish so that just is what it is.My kids and i never put in for special hunts,points any of that stuff. 3 years ago my son and i hunted 3 states ,washington,alaska,idaho.All over the counter tags , all public land, as a teenager he killed deer in all 3 states.Any person on this forum could do the same thing if they had the money and wanted to.Every state we had multiple chances to kill bucks. There was more opportunity then a guy could image.
Not ironically, those same types of guys are the main barriers for entry for new hunters. Where im from in Michigan the hunter numbers are falling but access to hunt private land is getting far more difficult because one guy holds multiple permissions, and the market for leases has gotten huge so a lot of farmers wont give permission for free. When I came up you could go knock on anybody's door and get permission, made learning easy and fun. Hard to get new people started when its a full time job just finding decent access. Seems to be the case here in the west as well just for slightly different reasons. Point creep, loss of nonresident opportunity, loss of resident opportunity, people wonder how it can keep getting worse and worse every year when hunter numbers are about flat or even falling. It's because in age where it seems a lot of guys are motivated by the pursuit of internet fame, they've gotten a heck of a lot more serious about their hunting. This forum is full of guys that put in dozens of apps a year in diff states then turn around and complain about point creep :o
If you're wondering why your kid doesnt have the opportunity for a quality hunt, check out the dude posting about his 2nd bull elk this year or 3rd deer.
My daughter That year and the following year killed the two biggest whitetails in our camp in idaho her first two years of hunting beating 7 men. There are plenty of places to kill deer it just takes a little work to find those spots that are open to everyone.
What i find also interesting is where we hunt in idaho my two daughters out hike almost every other hunter out there to get there deer.It seems most people don't want to put forth the physical effort to get a animal. There most people just drive the roads or get dropped off and walk from one road down hill to the next road. They have learned that putting in the extra effort sometimes pays off in a deer or a great view of the mountain.
Post by: idaho guy on April 23, 2020, 09:14:04 PM
you get what he's saying? I sure as heck don't. Hunting opportunities are plentiful. If someone isn't taking advantage of that its nobody's fault but their own. Every state (except WA) has quotas on game. Just because some folks are hunting multiple states does not mean that there is unchecked game take. Point creep only effects someone if they are trying to chase a particular unit or don't know what to apply for. For those who take the time to learn the various systems there are always tags to be had. But then again I'm one of those evil selfish hunters taking opportunities away from children :chuckle:Some inter-state coordination on how many game animals one guy gets to shoot in one year seems like a good idea too. Lotta game hogs out there these days hunting 3-4 diff states a year just because they can. Never used to be the case until the internet era. Now that one guy is basically 3-4 guys from a demand standpoint. Of course the supply is going to have trouble keeping up with that. But states dont really have motivation to limit that behavior because it brings in a lot of license revenue. And hunters wont self regulate and not be selfish so that just is what it is.
Not ironically, those same types of guys are the main barriers for entry for new hunters. Where im from in Michigan the hunter numbers are falling but access to hunt private land is getting far more difficult because one guy holds multiple permissions, and the market for leases has gotten huge so a lot of farmers wont give permission for free. When I came up you could go knock on anybody's door and get permission, made learning easy and fun. Hard to get new people started when its a full time job just finding decent access. Seems to be the case here in the west as well just for slightly different reasons. Point creep, loss of nonresident opportunity, loss of resident opportunity, people wonder how it can keep getting worse and worse every year when hunter numbers are about flat or even falling. It's because in age where it seems a lot of guys are motivated by the pursuit of internet fame, they've gotten a heck of a lot more serious about their hunting. This forum is full of guys that put in dozens of apps a year in diff states then turn around and complain about point creep :o
If you're wondering why your kid doesnt have the opportunity for a quality hunt, check out the dude posting about his 2nd bull elk this year or 3rd deer.
I get what you're saying, but the window is awfully small where people can actually physically and financially diy Elk Hunt. Would be criminal to shorten the window even more. :twocents:
You greedy sob! :chuckle: I agree with everything you said especially that there is still a ton of opportunities for those willing to put forth some effort. I actually think I agree with original poster only on draw tags and odds becoming terrible because so many of us put in for multiple states today. It wasn’t like that before. I don’t call it selfish hunters but blame hunting fool eastmans etc and go hunt and google earth! It’s actually made it too easy to figure out out of state hunts. And yes I use them too but it’s ruining a lot of odds and otc areas.Used to be it required knowing the area or at least some people from there. And also a lot of time with boots on the ground.It seems like there is no “secret” spots left and I do blame the internet and technology but not the hunters taking advantage of it.
Post by: sagerat on April 23, 2020, 10:00:40 PM
Post by: bearpaw on April 23, 2020, 11:02:28 PM
I would say no they’ll continue with the previously scheduled fee increase.
:yeah: I agree
Post by: Machias on April 24, 2020, 02:42:31 PM
Some inter-state coordination on how many game animals one guy gets to shoot in one year seems like a good idea too. Lotta game hogs out there these days hunting 3-4 diff states a year just because they can. Never used to be the case until the internet era. Now that one guy is basically 3-4 guys from a demand standpoint. Of course the supply is going to have trouble keeping up with that. But states dont really have motivation to limit that behavior because it brings in a lot of license revenue. And hunters wont self regulate and not be selfish so that just is what it is.
Not ironically, those same types of guys are the main barriers for entry for new hunters. Where im from in Michigan the hunter numbers are falling but access to hunt private land is getting far more difficult because one guy holds multiple permissions, and the market for leases has gotten huge so a lot of farmers wont give permission for free. When I came up you could go knock on anybody's door and get permission, made learning easy and fun. Hard to get new people started when its a full time job just finding decent access. Seems to be the case here in the west as well just for slightly different reasons. Point creep, loss of nonresident opportunity, loss of resident opportunity, people wonder how it can keep getting worse and worse every year when hunter numbers are about flat or even falling. It's because in age where it seems a lot of guys are motivated by the pursuit of internet fame, they've gotten a heck of a lot more serious about their hunting. This forum is full of guys that put in dozens of apps a year in diff states then turn around and complain about point creep :o
If you're wondering why your kid doesnt have the opportunity for a quality hunt, check out the dude posting about his 2nd bull elk this year or 3rd deer.
This post kind of leaves me speechless, a little stunned. Wow!