Post by: idahohuntr on March 04, 2021, 10:31:16 PM
Link to some detail and comment box below:
https://idfg.idaho.gov/about/rules/potential-change-outfitter-set-aside-rule-general-hunt-elk-and-deer-tags
Post by: kentrek on March 05, 2021, 04:19:14 AM
Post by: KFhunter on March 05, 2021, 07:17:16 AM
Idaho just did a bunch of changes and lost quite a few nr hunters. Guess they wanna loose more?
DIY hunters spend more in local establishments than guided hunters who stay with the outfitter the whole time.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Post by: Magnum_Willys on March 05, 2021, 07:47:06 AM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on March 05, 2021, 08:03:20 AM
Post by: ThurstonCokid on March 05, 2021, 08:11:21 AM
I recall leftover outfitter tags getting rolled over into the regular NR quota pool pretty much annually. Why do they need more to go unsold :dunno: click on that link and vote at the bottom. Takes 4 seconds.This is exactly what i was thinking. Why would they want to wait to sell them.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: bracer40 on March 05, 2021, 08:11:44 AM
Of course the vote was NO!
Post by: High Climber on March 05, 2021, 08:23:21 AM
Post by: Stein on March 05, 2021, 08:24:55 AM
Post by: fishngamereaper on March 05, 2021, 08:25:38 AM
I recall leftover outfitter tags getting rolled over into the regular NR quota pool pretty much annually. Why do they need more to go unsold :dunno: click on that link and vote at the bottom. Takes 4 seconds.This is exactly what i was thinking. Why would they want to wait to sell them.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
:yeah:
I don't see a ton of people using outfitters as it is...unless they plan on restricting area's to outfitter only hunter's. Doesn't Wyoming require a resident or outfitter to hunt certain wilderness area's. Pure speculation on my part.
Post by: Stein on March 05, 2021, 08:31:54 AM
That's my guess anyway.
Post by: bearpaw on March 05, 2021, 09:54:09 AM
First I want to point out that contrary to many comments I have seen the same number of non-resident tags were available to non-residents in Idaho with the new system. The new system is meant to more evenly distribute non-residents across the entire state by putting limits on each unit. Some units will have fewer NR hunters and other units will have more NR hunters, the total statewide tag numbers are the same but NR hunters will be more evenly spread across the entire state.
Whether by accident or by design this move by IDFG has proved to be marketing genius, NR tags sold quicker than ever before, most non-resident elk and deer tags are already sold out. But if you really want to hunt Idaho there are still deer tags available for some units.
Some people will complain about tags selling out fast but the fact remains that Idaho is one of very few states still offering over the counter tags for deer and elk in most units of the state, even at a time when Idaho is the fastest growing state in the nation, that in itself is a testament to IDFG's mission to provide ample opportunity to hunters. I wished I could say the same for all states!
There are some details regarding outfitting that have not been provided or are not accurate. The fact is that Outfitter quotas for capped zones was limited to a specific total number of tags for the state, in many units and zones many outfitted hunters would acquire their own tags and then hunt with the outfitter, so in reality all outfitted use in the state was not coming from outfitter allocation tags, now that every unit and zone in Idaho has a capped quota it means that outfitters would only receive 60% of their historic use in tags due to the outdated statewide quota which was created when there were far fewer capped areas, now that all units and zones are capped the whole state falls under the same old statewide limitation on capped tags for outfitters. Most outfitters were faced with losing 40% of their business overnight with the new licensing change. This scenario was realized in advance and outfitters were advised to purchase tags for clients out of the general pool of tags to try and make up the loss of business that would happen. However, the new sales system was so successful at selling out many units and zones within hours or even minutes that many outfitters were not able to get many if any tags for their hunters, so many outfitters were still faced with losing 40% of their total business and potential for business failure. In fairness and to save many outfitting businesses from significant losses, the outfitter quota was temporarily increased to 100% of historic use for this year.
I have seen and heard comments that non-outfitted hunters spend more dollars in local economies. Studies have proven that's simply not true, the studies have proven that outfitted hunters spend more money and provide a greater benefit to local economies. While I am not suggesting non-outfitted hunters are not important to local economies, I am simply pointing out that this argument is incorrect.
I don't know anyone who is suggesting that all nonresident hunters should have to use an outfitter, however, there has been a growing trend of hunters both residents and non-residents desiring to use an outfitter to some extent whether for guided hunts or for unguided or pack in trips, in my opinion it's due to the strong economy in our country. My long term experience in the industry is that when the economy slows so will the number of hunters wanting to use the services of an outfitter, I've been through several of these economic cycles.
Idaho legislation strictly controls outfitting, the system has evolved over the years and is designed to allow contractions and increases in outfitted hunts based on industry demand. Every few years outfitter hunter numbers are reviewed and outfitter allocation numbers are adjusted based on use. So the result is that during periods when outfitted hunts are in demand outfitted allocation tag numbers will increase, when outfitted hunter numbers decrease so will outfitter tag allocation. Regardless of what some people may think, it's the public demand for outfitted trips that determines the number of outfitted tag allocation in Idaho and of course there is the statewide cap on outfitters that restricts the total outfitter use across the state.
It wasn't too many years ago that many outfitters had to shut down due to decreases in license sales, Idaho was not even selling all of the tags every year that are available to non-residents and resident hunter numbers were down as well. We were lucky, we've managed to survive the lean years. Now that the economy is strong so is demand for tags and for outfitted hunts, it's a cycle that I'm sure will repeat itself and possibly sooner than later.
Post by: idaho guy on March 05, 2021, 01:52:23 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on March 05, 2021, 03:45:21 PM
I see this as mostly a hedge by the Outfitting industry against the increasing popularity of NR DIY hunting across the West. A lot of these tags ultimately go back on sale in August and are available to NR DIY hunters...but if current trends continue, that might not be so common in the future.
Post by: harveymarv on March 05, 2021, 04:02:19 PM
Post by: bearpaw on March 05, 2021, 06:28:01 PM
If you are a DIY Non-resident hunter, this proposal is detrimental to your ability to plan a hunt/secure a tag (deer tags in particular); especially if western big game hunting demand continues on its current trajectory.
I see this as mostly a hedge by the Outfitting industry against the increasing popularity of NR DIY hunting across the West. A lot of these tags ultimately go back on sale in August and are available to NR DIY hunters...but if current trends continue, that might not be so common in the future.
Your disdain for outfitters is noted.
FYI- There are also increasing numbers of non-resident hunters wanting outfitted hunts as well as DIY hunts!
Even though outfitted hunters actually get a much smaller portion of tags, it appears you are saying because there are increasing numbers of DIY non-resident hunters that it's Ok for long time outfitters to be put out of business so the increasing numbers of DIY non-resident hunters get the tags?
After suffering losses for several years due to wolf impacts and a slow economy that put many outfitters out of business, outfitting businesses finally pick back up then more losses last year due to covid restrictions, now outfitters should not be allowed their small historic number of hunters because you regard the increasing numbers of DIY non-resident hunters as more entitled to the tags!
Let me add something that's easy to miss, even though outfitters had quota numbers already in place, because tags never used to sell out many outfitters clients purchased their own tags over the counter, this cannot happen now that most units are selling out so quickly under the new system.
Post by: idahohuntr on March 05, 2021, 08:53:01 PM
I have no disdain for anyone. Everything I said is 100% factual and unemotional, in contrast to the wild assumptions you make about my post.If you are a DIY Non-resident hunter, this proposal is detrimental to your ability to plan a hunt/secure a tag (deer tags in particular); especially if western big game hunting demand continues on its current trajectory.
I see this as mostly a hedge by the Outfitting industry against the increasing popularity of NR DIY hunting across the West. A lot of these tags ultimately go back on sale in August and are available to NR DIY hunters...but if current trends continue, that might not be so common in the future.
Your disdain for outfitters is noted.
FYI- There are also increasing numbers of non-resident hunters wanting outfitted hunts as well as DIY hunts!
Even though outfitted hunters actually get a much smaller portion of tags, it appears you are saying because there are increasing numbers of DIY non-resident hunters that it's Ok for long time outfitters to be put out of business so the increasing numbers of DIY non-resident hunters get the tags?
After suffering losses for several years due to wolf impacts and a slow economy that put many outfitters out of business, outfitting businesses finally pick back up then more losses last year due to covid restrictions, now outfitters should not be allowed their small historic number of hunters because you regard the increasing numbers of DIY non-resident hunters as more entitled to the tags!
Let me add something that's easy to miss, even though outfitters had quota numbers already in place, because tags never used to sell out many outfitters clients purchased their own tags over the counter, this cannot happen now that most units are selling out so quickly under the new system.
Like many of the other DIY hunters on this thread I did submit a no comment on the proposal link. It doesn't affect me personally because this only sets aside non-resident tags. My rationale for not supporting this proposal is twofold.
First, I'm a strong supporter of the NAMWC and believe the wildlife is owned by the public and any measure that reserves hunting/tags for the more wealthy is not consistent with my views of the NAMWC.
Second, I'm a strong supporter of free market, capitalist systems and generally oppose the government artificially controlling markets or giving handouts to private business.
Post by: kentrek on March 05, 2021, 10:23:29 PM
Its not the outfitters resource
No vote here....
Post by: bearpaw on March 06, 2021, 07:02:24 AM
I have no disdain for anyone. Everything I said is 100% factual and unemotional, in contrast to the wild assumptions you make about my post.If you are a DIY Non-resident hunter, this proposal is detrimental to your ability to plan a hunt/secure a tag (deer tags in particular); especially if western big game hunting demand continues on its current trajectory.
I see this as mostly a hedge by the Outfitting industry against the increasing popularity of NR DIY hunting across the West. A lot of these tags ultimately go back on sale in August and are available to NR DIY hunters...but if current trends continue, that might not be so common in the future.
Your disdain for outfitters is noted.
FYI- There are also increasing numbers of non-resident hunters wanting outfitted hunts as well as DIY hunts!
Even though outfitted hunters actually get a much smaller portion of tags, it appears you are saying because there are increasing numbers of DIY non-resident hunters that it's Ok for long time outfitters to be put out of business so the increasing numbers of DIY non-resident hunters get the tags?
After suffering losses for several years due to wolf impacts and a slow economy that put many outfitters out of business, outfitting businesses finally pick back up then more losses last year due to covid restrictions, now outfitters should not be allowed their small historic number of hunters because you regard the increasing numbers of DIY non-resident hunters as more entitled to the tags!
Let me add something that's easy to miss, even though outfitters had quota numbers already in place, because tags never used to sell out many outfitters clients purchased their own tags over the counter, this cannot happen now that most units are selling out so quickly under the new system.
Like many of the other DIY hunters on this thread I did submit a no comment on the proposal link. It doesn't affect me personally because this only sets aside non-resident tags. My rationale for not supporting this proposal is twofold.
First, I'm a strong supporter of the NAMWC and believe the wildlife is owned by the public and any measure that reserves hunting/tags for the more wealthy is not consistent with my views of the NAMWC.
Second, I'm a strong supporter of free market, capitalist systems and generally oppose the government artificially controlling markets or giving handouts to private business.
I too am a huge supporter of the free market capitalist system, I strongly support all forms of hunting trapping, fishing, etc, which is why I maintain this forum for the benefit of all users including the many DIY hunters on this forum!
But you have strange "views" of people who use the services of an outfitter. Again, contrary to your comment, most of the hunters I get are average working class people who simply want help, don't know where to go or how to hunt, want to learn, need assistance, or simply want a better hunt than they could do on their own, it's their yearly vacation they have saved for. I get a lot of retirees who have hunted DIY all their life but can no longer pack out an elk, in some cases they want to hunt with someone because all their hunting buddies no longer hunt or have passed away and they don't want to be in the mountains alone. It's funny how you try to frame outfitting as only for rich people and taking away from the average person when in reality outfitters services are used mostly by average people! I've actually not even had many hunters in my 40+ years of outfitting that would qualify as being "rich people", I advertise on this forum, in the hunting regulations, and I used to go to all the northwest sport shows, most of my clients are average working class people. Your attempt to alienate outfitters as serving the "elite rich" is way off base!
Post by: 2MANY on March 06, 2021, 07:46:34 AM
Sell it till it's gone boys.
Post by: idahohuntr on March 06, 2021, 07:55:21 AM
And yet again you make wild assumptions and try to distort what I actually said. Please show me where I said anything about 'elite' 'rich' people. I have zero issue with anyone using an outfitter, whether they are dirt poor or extremely rich. What I dislike is when the government interferes with a free market and gives an advantage in securing a tag to someone who has more money. If tags become less available to NR hunters who can't afford an outfitter in a given year, then guess who has an advantage in getting a tag?I have no disdain for anyone. Everything I said is 100% factual and unemotional, in contrast to the wild assumptions you make about my post.If you are a DIY Non-resident hunter, this proposal is detrimental to your ability to plan a hunt/secure a tag (deer tags in particular); especially if western big game hunting demand continues on its current trajectory.
I see this as mostly a hedge by the Outfitting industry against the increasing popularity of NR DIY hunting across the West. A lot of these tags ultimately go back on sale in August and are available to NR DIY hunters...but if current trends continue, that might not be so common in the future.
Your disdain for outfitters is noted.
FYI- There are also increasing numbers of non-resident hunters wanting outfitted hunts as well as DIY hunts!
Even though outfitted hunters actually get a much smaller portion of tags, it appears you are saying because there are increasing numbers of DIY non-resident hunters that it's Ok for long time outfitters to be put out of business so the increasing numbers of DIY non-resident hunters get the tags?
After suffering losses for several years due to wolf impacts and a slow economy that put many outfitters out of business, outfitting businesses finally pick back up then more losses last year due to covid restrictions, now outfitters should not be allowed their small historic number of hunters because you regard the increasing numbers of DIY non-resident hunters as more entitled to the tags!
Let me add something that's easy to miss, even though outfitters had quota numbers already in place, because tags never used to sell out many outfitters clients purchased their own tags over the counter, this cannot happen now that most units are selling out so quickly under the new system.
Like many of the other DIY hunters on this thread I did submit a no comment on the proposal link. It doesn't affect me personally because this only sets aside non-resident tags. My rationale for not supporting this proposal is twofold.
First, I'm a strong supporter of the NAMWC and believe the wildlife is owned by the public and any measure that reserves hunting/tags for the more wealthy is not consistent with my views of the NAMWC.
Second, I'm a strong supporter of free market, capitalist systems and generally oppose the government artificially controlling markets or giving handouts to private business.
I too am a huge supporter of the free market capitalist system, I strongly support all forms of hunting trapping, fishing, etc, which is why I maintain this forum for the benefit of all users including the many DIY hunters on this forum!
But you have strange "views" of people who use the services of an outfitter. Again, contrary to your comment, most of the hunters I get are average working class people who simply want help, don't know where to go or how to hunt, want to learn, need assistance, or simply want a better hunt than they could do on their own, it's their yearly vacation they have saved for. I get a lot of retirees who have hunted DIY all their life but can no longer pack out an elk, in some cases they want to hunt with someone because all their hunting buddies no longer hunt or have passed away and they don't want to be in the mountains alone. It's funny how you try to frame outfitting as only for rich people and taking away from the average person when in reality outfitters services are used mostly by average people! I've actually not even had many hunters in my 40+ years of outfitting that would qualify as being "rich people", I advertise on this forum, in the hunting regulations, and I used to go to all the northwest sport shows, most of my clients are average working class people. Your attempt to alienate outfitters as serving the "elite rich" is way off base!
If you truly support free markets, whats wrong with a system where the state sells the NR quota of tags (~15k deer tags) on a first come, first serve basis...and then anyone who wants to hire an outfitter is free to do so? Why does the government need to take 25% of the NR tags and reserve them for outfitter use? I'm not saying gov't shouldn't play some role in regulating markets and activities, but whether its obamacare or deer tags, I just don't see why the gov't needs to force peoples hands. You indicate outfitters business is booming, so why do you need these special tags? If you run a good business and people are beating down the door...there should be plenty of business and a whole bunch of people that want to use your services. The only reason for an outfitter to support this proposal is a fear that in a totally free market system they will lose market share. In most businesses, that's when you adapt.
This isn't rocket science and you can try and distort what I say anyway you want. The bottom line remains, if you are Non-resident DIY hunter this proposal will reduce your ability to plan a hunt and secure a tag.
Post by: idahohuntr on March 06, 2021, 08:02:45 AM
I think the motivation is based in part on the other changes where NR's must pick a unit. There will be a lot of leftovers in the less popular units, but by increasing the overall outfitter set aside to 25% it will make sure outfitters gobble up more of the tags for the very popular unit's. For example, I'm betting getting a 10a deer tag is going to be a whole lot harder if this passes.I recall leftover outfitter tags getting rolled over into the regular NR quota pool pretty much annually. Why do they need more to go unsold :dunno: click on that link and vote at the bottom. Takes 4 seconds.This is exactly what i was thinking. Why would they want to wait to sell them.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: bearpaw on March 06, 2021, 08:36:22 AM
And yet again you make wild assumptions and try to distort what I actually said. Please show me where I said anything about 'elite' 'rich' people. I have zero issue with anyone using an outfitter, whether they are dirt poor or extremely rich. What I dislike is when the government interferes with a free market and gives an advantage in securing a tag to someone who has more money. If tags become less available to NR hunters who can't afford an outfitter in a given year, then guess who has an advantage in getting a tag?I have no disdain for anyone. Everything I said is 100% factual and unemotional, in contrast to the wild assumptions you make about my post.If you are a DIY Non-resident hunter, this proposal is detrimental to your ability to plan a hunt/secure a tag (deer tags in particular); especially if western big game hunting demand continues on its current trajectory.
I see this as mostly a hedge by the Outfitting industry against the increasing popularity of NR DIY hunting across the West. A lot of these tags ultimately go back on sale in August and are available to NR DIY hunters...but if current trends continue, that might not be so common in the future.
Your disdain for outfitters is noted.
FYI- There are also increasing numbers of non-resident hunters wanting outfitted hunts as well as DIY hunts!
Even though outfitted hunters actually get a much smaller portion of tags, it appears you are saying because there are increasing numbers of DIY non-resident hunters that it's Ok for long time outfitters to be put out of business so the increasing numbers of DIY non-resident hunters get the tags?
After suffering losses for several years due to wolf impacts and a slow economy that put many outfitters out of business, outfitting businesses finally pick back up then more losses last year due to covid restrictions, now outfitters should not be allowed their small historic number of hunters because you regard the increasing numbers of DIY non-resident hunters as more entitled to the tags!
Let me add something that's easy to miss, even though outfitters had quota numbers already in place, because tags never used to sell out many outfitters clients purchased their own tags over the counter, this cannot happen now that most units are selling out so quickly under the new system.
Like many of the other DIY hunters on this thread I did submit a no comment on the proposal link. It doesn't affect me personally because this only sets aside non-resident tags. My rationale for not supporting this proposal is twofold.
First, I'm a strong supporter of the NAMWC and believe the wildlife is owned by the public and any measure that reserves hunting/tags for the more wealthy is not consistent with my views of the NAMWC.
Second, I'm a strong supporter of free market, capitalist systems and generally oppose the government artificially controlling markets or giving handouts to private business.
I too am a huge supporter of the free market capitalist system, I strongly support all forms of hunting trapping, fishing, etc, which is why I maintain this forum for the benefit of all users including the many DIY hunters on this forum!
But you have strange "views" of people who use the services of an outfitter. Again, contrary to your comment, most of the hunters I get are average working class people who simply want help, don't know where to go or how to hunt, want to learn, need assistance, or simply want a better hunt than they could do on their own, it's their yearly vacation they have saved for. I get a lot of retirees who have hunted DIY all their life but can no longer pack out an elk, in some cases they want to hunt with someone because all their hunting buddies no longer hunt or have passed away and they don't want to be in the mountains alone. It's funny how you try to frame outfitting as only for rich people and taking away from the average person when in reality outfitters services are used mostly by average people! I've actually not even had many hunters in my 40+ years of outfitting that would qualify as being "rich people", I advertise on this forum, in the hunting regulations, and I used to go to all the northwest sport shows, most of my clients are average working class people. Your attempt to alienate outfitters as serving the "elite rich" is way off base!
If you truly support free markets, whats wrong with a system where the state sells the NR quota of tags (~15k deer tags) on a first come, first serve basis...and then anyone who wants to hire an outfitter is free to do so? Why does the government need to take 25% of the NR tags and reserve them for outfitter use? I'm not saying gov't shouldn't play some role in regulating markets and activities, but whether its obamacare or deer tags, I just don't see why the gov't needs to force peoples hands. You indicate outfitters business is booming, so why do you need these special tags? If you run a good business and people are beating down the door...there should be plenty of business and a whole bunch of people that want to use your services. The only reason for an outfitter to support this proposal is a fear that in a totally free market system they will lose market share. In most businesses, that's when you adapt.
This isn't rocket science and you can try and distort what I say anyway you want. The bottom line remains, if you are Non-resident DIY hunter this proposal will reduce your ability to plan a hunt and secure a tag.
You say I am the guy who makes wild assumptions? :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Quote
I see this as mostly a hedge by the Outfitting industry against the increasing popularity of NR DIY hunting across the West
Quote
that reserves hunting/tags for the more wealthy
Quote
"in securing a tag to someone who has more money"
Quote
You indicate outfitters business is booming
My friend you paint with a pretty wide brush and even though you claim otherwise you seem to have a serious bias against outfitters or any "wealthy" people who use an outfitter, (your word not mine) seemingly trying to frame hunters who use outfitters as wealthy elitists!
I actually detailed how many outfitters have been forced out of business and then stated: "There are also increasing numbers of non-resident hunters wanting outfitted hunts as well as DIY hunts!" I said nothing about "business is booming", that's just more of your distortions!
Outfitting is a very heavily regulated industry in Idaho and Montana (and in many states). In Montana I was told by the Outfitting Board director that outfitting is the most heavily regulated industry in Montana, even more so than doctors. In Idaho I have designated operating areas and that is the area I must operate within, I have to turn down hunters wanting hunts in other areas on a regular basis. When you change the licensing system and suddenly outfitters who have operated for years under the old system in only the area they are allowed to operate, are left with no clients because of that change, then that heavily regulated system needs to be modified or it will cause the elimination of businesses.
In Washington there is no regulation of hunting outfitters, there are no outfitter tags, there is pretty much no regulation on hunting outfitters, all my hunters secure their own tags, we operate just fine in Washington, in fact that is where I started my business and expanded from. So please don't try to paint me as unable to operate in an unregulated arena, you should be able to do better than that!
Post by: dreamingbig on March 06, 2021, 09:17:18 AM
Our voice matters!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: bearpaw on March 06, 2021, 09:20:00 AM
If Idaho wants to remove regulations on outfitters I would gladly agree with that and simply get tags for my hunters in other units that I know where to hunt, but it doesn't work that way and regulation of outfitting isn't going to go away. I'm fine either way, I'm glad to operate in a regulated state like Idaho or an unregulated state like Washington.
Post by: dreamingbig on March 06, 2021, 09:47:00 AM
They will most likely go to a draw for these zones. That makes the most sense. Allow everyone an equal chance to get their name in the hat.
Then outfitters can sell hunts to those that draw.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: bearpaw on March 06, 2021, 09:54:49 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on March 06, 2021, 10:00:28 AM
These are the tags that are available today, elk tags are nearly all gone except for three zones with a few tags left, there are more deer tags available, but I wouldn't expect many left by summer. The point is that all outfitters are restricted to particular units, we cannot take hunters anywhere we want in Idaho. Many outfitters tried to get elk tags for their hunters but the tags sold out, in some cases within minutes. For example one area I am licensed to hunt I was only able to get one tag for one hunter. I know of outfitters who were not able to get any tags in there area, and they are not allowed to go take clients in another area that has remaining tags. In a heavily regulated industry like outfitting in Idaho, where an outfitter can't go to another unit, it's only reasonable to make changes to prevent forcing these outfitters out of business.There is no law or regulation preventing any of the people who purchased a tag for a unit you can outfit in from hiring you as an outfitter. This includes residents and non-residents. Why doesn't the free market system work for outfitter businesses? If you offer a good service at a market price why are you afraid the people who have purchased tags for the units you operate in won't hire you?
If Idaho wants to remove regulations on outfitters I would gladly agree with that and simply get tags for my hunters in other units that I know where to hunt, but it doesn't work that way and regulation of outfitting isn't going to go away. I'm fine either way, I'm glad to operate in a regulated state like Idaho or an unregulated state like Washington.
Anyways, glad to see all the no votes from people submitting comments to IDFG. It is pretty clear NR DIY guys see why this is a bad deal for them. :tup:
Post by: bearpaw on March 06, 2021, 10:10:23 AM
These are the tags that are available today, elk tags are nearly all gone except for three zones with a few tags left, there are more deer tags available, but I wouldn't expect many left by summer. The point is that all outfitters are restricted to particular units, we cannot take hunters anywhere we want in Idaho. Many outfitters tried to get elk tags for their hunters but the tags sold out, in some cases within minutes. For example one area I am licensed to hunt I was only able to get one tag for one hunter. I know of outfitters who were not able to get any tags in there area, and they are not allowed to go take clients in another area that has remaining tags. In a heavily regulated industry like outfitting in Idaho, where an outfitter can't go to another unit, it's only reasonable to make changes to prevent forcing these outfitters out of business.There is no law or regulation preventing any of the people who purchased a tag for a unit you can outfit in from hiring you as an outfitter. This includes residents and non-residents. Why doesn't the free market system work for outfitter businesses? If you offer a good service at a market price why are you afraid the people who have purchased tags for the units you operate in won't hire you?
If Idaho wants to remove regulations on outfitters I would gladly agree with that and simply get tags for my hunters in other units that I know where to hunt, but it doesn't work that way and regulation of outfitting isn't going to go away. I'm fine either way, I'm glad to operate in a regulated state like Idaho or an unregulated state like Washington.
Anyways, glad to see all the no votes from people submitting comments to IDFG. It is pretty clear NR DIY guys see why this is a bad deal for them. :tup:
Please read my previous post? I'm glad to work in a regulated state or an unregulated state, we do fine in either. But in a regulated state like Idaho where you have restricted outfitters to specific areas, when you change the license system and it results in no business within that restricted area maybe you should make some changes or else remove all the restrictions, obviously something needs to happen. It is an industry wide problem, that is why the state is taking action. Hey, I'll gladly accept those hunters calling wanting to hunt other areas and leave the area I'm restricted to operate within, remove all the outfitting restrictions, I'm fine with that, but as I said that's probably not going to happen. :twocents:
Post by: idahohuntr on March 06, 2021, 10:31:23 AM
The state changed the system and eliminated all tags in some areas outfitters operate in?These are the tags that are available today, elk tags are nearly all gone except for three zones with a few tags left, there are more deer tags available, but I wouldn't expect many left by summer. The point is that all outfitters are restricted to particular units, we cannot take hunters anywhere we want in Idaho. Many outfitters tried to get elk tags for their hunters but the tags sold out, in some cases within minutes. For example one area I am licensed to hunt I was only able to get one tag for one hunter. I know of outfitters who were not able to get any tags in there area, and they are not allowed to go take clients in another area that has remaining tags. In a heavily regulated industry like outfitting in Idaho, where an outfitter can't go to another unit, it's only reasonable to make changes to prevent forcing these outfitters out of business.There is no law or regulation preventing any of the people who purchased a tag for a unit you can outfit in from hiring you as an outfitter. This includes residents and non-residents. Why doesn't the free market system work for outfitter businesses? If you offer a good service at a market price why are you afraid the people who have purchased tags for the units you operate in won't hire you?
If Idaho wants to remove regulations on outfitters I would gladly agree with that and simply get tags for my hunters in other units that I know where to hunt, but it doesn't work that way and regulation of outfitting isn't going to go away. I'm fine either way, I'm glad to operate in a regulated state like Idaho or an unregulated state like Washington.
Anyways, glad to see all the no votes from people submitting comments to IDFG. It is pretty clear NR DIY guys see why this is a bad deal for them. :tup:
Please read my previous post? I'm glad to work in a regulated state or an unregulated state, we do fine in either. But in a regulated state like Idaho where you have restricted outfitters to specific areas, when you change the license system and it results in no business within that restricted area maybe you should make some changes or else remove all the restrictions, obviously something needs to happen. It is an industry wide problem, that is why the state is taking action. Hey, I'll gladly accept those hunters calling wanting to hunt other areas and leave the area I'm restricted to operate within, remove all the outfitting restrictions, I'm fine with that, but as I said that's probably not going to happen. :twocents:
You don't have to operate in a new area or take a client outside your permitted unit/zone...my question was, why don't you get business from the people who bought tags for the units you CAN operate in? If you have a good service at market price, why are outfitters concerned the people who bought tags for the zones THEY CAN OPERATE IN won't hire them?
Let me use an example. Lets say we get rid of all outfitter set aside tags and they are all sold first come first serve. And lets say you are regulated to only outfit deer hunts in unit 10a. Now lets pretend there are 775 NR deer tags for 10a. If you offer a good service at market price, why don't we just let the various people who bought one of 775 NR tags for unit 10a deer choose to hire you...or not...like a free market system?
Post by: idaho guy on March 06, 2021, 10:48:07 AM
Post by: idaho guy on March 06, 2021, 10:59:34 AM
I haven't looked closely at this proposal in detail, but it appears it would cut about 2k NR deer tags from the general NR pool and add them to the outfitter set aside. The impact to elk tags would be a few hundred fewer for non outfitted non-residents.
Link to some detail and comment box below:
https://idfg.idaho.gov/about/rules/potential-change-outfitter-set-aside-rule-general-hunt-elk-and-deer-tags
Have you looked at it closely in detail yet? I have no issue with your viewpoint. In fact I agreed with you before i Disagreed :chuckle: but I think it comes down to regulated vs non regulated outfitting. You have to accept trade offs with either one. Idaho is highly regulated and Washington appears any joker can hang out outfitter sign and go to town. There is a lot more to this then just supporting outfitters. There will be lots of changes to Idaho hunting our biggest problem is new RESIDENT hunters and you know that.
Post by: bearpaw on March 06, 2021, 11:11:07 AM
The state changed the system and eliminated all tags in some areas outfitters operate in?These are the tags that are available today, elk tags are nearly all gone except for three zones with a few tags left, there are more deer tags available, but I wouldn't expect many left by summer. The point is that all outfitters are restricted to particular units, we cannot take hunters anywhere we want in Idaho. Many outfitters tried to get elk tags for their hunters but the tags sold out, in some cases within minutes. For example one area I am licensed to hunt I was only able to get one tag for one hunter. I know of outfitters who were not able to get any tags in there area, and they are not allowed to go take clients in another area that has remaining tags. In a heavily regulated industry like outfitting in Idaho, where an outfitter can't go to another unit, it's only reasonable to make changes to prevent forcing these outfitters out of business.There is no law or regulation preventing any of the people who purchased a tag for a unit you can outfit in from hiring you as an outfitter. This includes residents and non-residents. Why doesn't the free market system work for outfitter businesses? If you offer a good service at a market price why are you afraid the people who have purchased tags for the units you operate in won't hire you?
If Idaho wants to remove regulations on outfitters I would gladly agree with that and simply get tags for my hunters in other units that I know where to hunt, but it doesn't work that way and regulation of outfitting isn't going to go away. I'm fine either way, I'm glad to operate in a regulated state like Idaho or an unregulated state like Washington.
Anyways, glad to see all the no votes from people submitting comments to IDFG. It is pretty clear NR DIY guys see why this is a bad deal for them. :tup:
Please read my previous post? I'm glad to work in a regulated state or an unregulated state, we do fine in either. But in a regulated state like Idaho where you have restricted outfitters to specific areas, when you change the license system and it results in no business within that restricted area maybe you should make some changes or else remove all the restrictions, obviously something needs to happen. It is an industry wide problem, that is why the state is taking action. Hey, I'll gladly accept those hunters calling wanting to hunt other areas and leave the area I'm restricted to operate within, remove all the outfitting restrictions, I'm fine with that, but as I said that's probably not going to happen. :twocents:
You don't have to operate in a new area or take a client outside your permitted unit/zone...my question was, why don't you get business from the people who bought tags for the units you CAN operate in? If you have a good service at market price, why are outfitters concerned the people who bought tags for the zones THEY CAN OPERATE IN won't hire them?
Let me use an example. Lets say we get rid of all outfitter set aside tags and they are all sold first come first serve. And lets say you are regulated to only outfit deer hunts in unit 10a. Now lets pretend there are 775 NR deer tags for 10a. If you offer a good service at market price, why don't we just let the various people who bought one of 775 NR tags for unit 10a deer choose to hire you...or not...like a free market system?
If there were no restrictions it would be easy to operate with no quotas, I've done it successfully in Washington every year for more than 40 years, maybe you missed that part. But, there are lots of small outfitters in rural Idaho who don't have the diversification that I do, those are the guys who can be put completely out of business if steps are not taken. In a small town where outfitting is a significant part of the small local economy that could be devastating and has been devastating in the past when outfitting businesses were put out of business. Thankfully decision makers on the state level have seen this happen and understand the local impact when small outfitters are put out of business.
I actually think Idaho has the best outfitting system where only one outfitter is in an area, in Utah there are 12 to 15 outfitters permitted to hunt some of the areas I hunt, they all have a long list of clients applying for tags, I do too, the DIY guy is competing to try and get a tag, then after 20 years when he finally draws a tag he really has to spend a lot of time in the area before season to have much chance of competing for any of the good animals, lots of times there are several outfitters watching the same animal. You might really think twice about upsetting such a well working system in Idaho where outfitters are regulated very closely and there isn't all the competition!
Post by: idaho guy on March 06, 2021, 11:29:41 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on March 06, 2021, 11:45:26 AM
For the 3rd time: If Outfitters offer a good service at a market price why are they afraid the people who have purchased tags for the units they operate in won't hire them? As you admit, Idaho already regulates outfitters so they already have limited competition for who a tag holder can even legally hire...why do they now need 25% of all NR tags set aside if the service they offer is good and at a market price?The state changed the system and eliminated all tags in some areas outfitters operate in?These are the tags that are available today, elk tags are nearly all gone except for three zones with a few tags left, there are more deer tags available, but I wouldn't expect many left by summer. The point is that all outfitters are restricted to particular units, we cannot take hunters anywhere we want in Idaho. Many outfitters tried to get elk tags for their hunters but the tags sold out, in some cases within minutes. For example one area I am licensed to hunt I was only able to get one tag for one hunter. I know of outfitters who were not able to get any tags in there area, and they are not allowed to go take clients in another area that has remaining tags. In a heavily regulated industry like outfitting in Idaho, where an outfitter can't go to another unit, it's only reasonable to make changes to prevent forcing these outfitters out of business.There is no law or regulation preventing any of the people who purchased a tag for a unit you can outfit in from hiring you as an outfitter. This includes residents and non-residents. Why doesn't the free market system work for outfitter businesses? If you offer a good service at a market price why are you afraid the people who have purchased tags for the units you operate in won't hire you?
If Idaho wants to remove regulations on outfitters I would gladly agree with that and simply get tags for my hunters in other units that I know where to hunt, but it doesn't work that way and regulation of outfitting isn't going to go away. I'm fine either way, I'm glad to operate in a regulated state like Idaho or an unregulated state like Washington.
Anyways, glad to see all the no votes from people submitting comments to IDFG. It is pretty clear NR DIY guys see why this is a bad deal for them. :tup:
Please read my previous post? I'm glad to work in a regulated state or an unregulated state, we do fine in either. But in a regulated state like Idaho where you have restricted outfitters to specific areas, when you change the license system and it results in no business within that restricted area maybe you should make some changes or else remove all the restrictions, obviously something needs to happen. It is an industry wide problem, that is why the state is taking action. Hey, I'll gladly accept those hunters calling wanting to hunt other areas and leave the area I'm restricted to operate within, remove all the outfitting restrictions, I'm fine with that, but as I said that's probably not going to happen. :twocents:
You don't have to operate in a new area or take a client outside your permitted unit/zone...my question was, why don't you get business from the people who bought tags for the units you CAN operate in? If you have a good service at market price, why are outfitters concerned the people who bought tags for the zones THEY CAN OPERATE IN won't hire them?
Let me use an example. Lets say we get rid of all outfitter set aside tags and they are all sold first come first serve. And lets say you are regulated to only outfit deer hunts in unit 10a. Now lets pretend there are 775 NR deer tags for 10a. If you offer a good service at market price, why don't we just let the various people who bought one of 775 NR tags for unit 10a deer choose to hire you...or not...like a free market system?
If there were no restrictions it would be easy to operate with no quotas, I've done it successfully in Washington every year for more than 40 years, maybe you missed that part. But, there are lots of small outfitters in rural Idaho who don't have the diversification that I do, those are the guys who can be put completely out of business if steps are not taken. In a small town where outfitting is a significant part of the small local economy that could be devastating and has been devastating in the past when outfitting businesses were put out of business. Thankfully decision makers on the state level have seen this happen and understand the local impact when small outfitters are put out of business.
I actually think Idaho has the best outfitting system where only one outfitter is in an area, in Utah there are 12 to 15 outfitters permitted to hunt some of the areas I hunt, they all have a long list of clients applying for tags, I do too, the DIY guy is competing to try and get a tag, then after 20 years when he finally draws a tag he really has to spend a lot of time in the area before season to have much chance of competing for any of the good animals, lots of times there are several outfitters watching the same animal. You might really think twice about upsetting such a well working system in Idaho where outfitters are regulated very closely and there isn't all the competition!
You seem to imply because the outfitters are regulated (i.e., only one or a few can operate in a particular unit or zone), this means we have to give them guaranteed tags or they could not survive. My contention as a free market capitalist...why? Why won't they survive? There are still thousands of deer tags sold...hundreds or thousands in most units...why will those people not support hire the outfitter if they offer a good service at a market price?
Post by: bearpaw on March 06, 2021, 12:31:45 PM
For the 3rd time: If Outfitters offer a good service at a market price why are they afraid the people who have purchased tags for the units they operate in won't hire them? As you admit, Idaho already regulates outfitters so they already have limited competition for who a tag holder can even legally hire...why do they now need 25% of all NR tags set aside if the service they offer is good and at a market price?The state changed the system and eliminated all tags in some areas outfitters operate in?These are the tags that are available today, elk tags are nearly all gone except for three zones with a few tags left, there are more deer tags available, but I wouldn't expect many left by summer. The point is that all outfitters are restricted to particular units, we cannot take hunters anywhere we want in Idaho. Many outfitters tried to get elk tags for their hunters but the tags sold out, in some cases within minutes. For example one area I am licensed to hunt I was only able to get one tag for one hunter. I know of outfitters who were not able to get any tags in there area, and they are not allowed to go take clients in another area that has remaining tags. In a heavily regulated industry like outfitting in Idaho, where an outfitter can't go to another unit, it's only reasonable to make changes to prevent forcing these outfitters out of business.There is no law or regulation preventing any of the people who purchased a tag for a unit you can outfit in from hiring you as an outfitter. This includes residents and non-residents. Why doesn't the free market system work for outfitter businesses? If you offer a good service at a market price why are you afraid the people who have purchased tags for the units you operate in won't hire you?
If Idaho wants to remove regulations on outfitters I would gladly agree with that and simply get tags for my hunters in other units that I know where to hunt, but it doesn't work that way and regulation of outfitting isn't going to go away. I'm fine either way, I'm glad to operate in a regulated state like Idaho or an unregulated state like Washington.
Anyways, glad to see all the no votes from people submitting comments to IDFG. It is pretty clear NR DIY guys see why this is a bad deal for them. :tup:
Please read my previous post? I'm glad to work in a regulated state or an unregulated state, we do fine in either. But in a regulated state like Idaho where you have restricted outfitters to specific areas, when you change the license system and it results in no business within that restricted area maybe you should make some changes or else remove all the restrictions, obviously something needs to happen. It is an industry wide problem, that is why the state is taking action. Hey, I'll gladly accept those hunters calling wanting to hunt other areas and leave the area I'm restricted to operate within, remove all the outfitting restrictions, I'm fine with that, but as I said that's probably not going to happen. :twocents:
You don't have to operate in a new area or take a client outside your permitted unit/zone...my question was, why don't you get business from the people who bought tags for the units you CAN operate in? If you have a good service at market price, why are outfitters concerned the people who bought tags for the zones THEY CAN OPERATE IN won't hire them?
Let me use an example. Lets say we get rid of all outfitter set aside tags and they are all sold first come first serve. And lets say you are regulated to only outfit deer hunts in unit 10a. Now lets pretend there are 775 NR deer tags for 10a. If you offer a good service at market price, why don't we just let the various people who bought one of 775 NR tags for unit 10a deer choose to hire you...or not...like a free market system?
If there were no restrictions it would be easy to operate with no quotas, I've done it successfully in Washington every year for more than 40 years, maybe you missed that part. But, there are lots of small outfitters in rural Idaho who don't have the diversification that I do, those are the guys who can be put completely out of business if steps are not taken. In a small town where outfitting is a significant part of the small local economy that could be devastating and has been devastating in the past when outfitting businesses were put out of business. Thankfully decision makers on the state level have seen this happen and understand the local impact when small outfitters are put out of business.
I actually think Idaho has the best outfitting system where only one outfitter is in an area, in Utah there are 12 to 15 outfitters permitted to hunt some of the areas I hunt, they all have a long list of clients applying for tags, I do too, the DIY guy is competing to try and get a tag, then after 20 years when he finally draws a tag he really has to spend a lot of time in the area before season to have much chance of competing for any of the good animals, lots of times there are several outfitters watching the same animal. You might really think twice about upsetting such a well working system in Idaho where outfitters are regulated very closely and there isn't all the competition!
You seem to imply because the outfitters are regulated (i.e., only one or a few can operate in a particular unit or zone), this means we have to give them guaranteed tags or they could not survive. My contention as a free market capitalist...why? Why won't they survive? There are still thousands of deer tags sold...hundreds or thousands in most units...why will those people not support hire the outfitter if they offer a good service at a market price?
Depends who gets the tags in the unit they operate, if their clients don't get tags it will be a pretty tough year ahead, especially since Idaho outfitters can't go to other units, probably put some of them out of business, that can't be too hard to understand?
Post by: idaho guy on March 06, 2021, 12:34:53 PM
For the 3rd time: If Outfitters offer a good service at a market price why are they afraid the people who have purchased tags for the units they operate in won't hire them? As you admit, Idaho already regulates outfitters so they already have limited competition for who a tag holder can even legally hire...why do they now need 25% of all NR tags set aside if the service they offer is good and at a market price?The state changed the system and eliminated all tags in some areas outfitters operate in?These are the tags that are available today, elk tags are nearly all gone except for three zones with a few tags left, there are more deer tags available, but I wouldn't expect many left by summer. The point is that all outfitters are restricted to particular units, we cannot take hunters anywhere we want in Idaho. Many outfitters tried to get elk tags for their hunters but the tags sold out, in some cases within minutes. For example one area I am licensed to hunt I was only able to get one tag for one hunter. I know of outfitters who were not able to get any tags in there area, and they are not allowed to go take clients in another area that has remaining tags. In a heavily regulated industry like outfitting in Idaho, where an outfitter can't go to another unit, it's only reasonable to make changes to prevent forcing these outfitters out of business.There is no law or regulation preventing any of the people who purchased a tag for a unit you can outfit in from hiring you as an outfitter. This includes residents and non-residents. Why doesn't the free market system work for outfitter businesses? If you offer a good service at a market price why are you afraid the people who have purchased tags for the units you operate in won't hire you?
If Idaho wants to remove regulations on outfitters I would gladly agree with that and simply get tags for my hunters in other units that I know where to hunt, but it doesn't work that way and regulation of outfitting isn't going to go away. I'm fine either way, I'm glad to operate in a regulated state like Idaho or an unregulated state like Washington.
Anyways, glad to see all the no votes from people submitting comments to IDFG. It is pretty clear NR DIY guys see why this is a bad deal for them. :tup:
Please read my previous post? I'm glad to work in a regulated state or an unregulated state, we do fine in either. But in a regulated state like Idaho where you have restricted outfitters to specific areas, when you change the license system and it results in no business within that restricted area maybe you should make some changes or else remove all the restrictions, obviously something needs to happen. It is an industry wide problem, that is why the state is taking action. Hey, I'll gladly accept those hunters calling wanting to hunt other areas and leave the area I'm restricted to operate within, remove all the outfitting restrictions, I'm fine with that, but as I said that's probably not going to happen. :twocents:
You don't have to operate in a new area or take a client outside your permitted unit/zone...my question was, why don't you get business from the people who bought tags for the units you CAN operate in? If you have a good service at market price, why are outfitters concerned the people who bought tags for the zones THEY CAN OPERATE IN won't hire them?
Let me use an example. Lets say we get rid of all outfitter set aside tags and they are all sold first come first serve. And lets say you are regulated to only outfit deer hunts in unit 10a. Now lets pretend there are 775 NR deer tags for 10a. If you offer a good service at market price, why don't we just let the various people who bought one of 775 NR tags for unit 10a deer choose to hire you...or not...like a free market system?
If there were no restrictions it would be easy to operate with no quotas, I've done it successfully in Washington every year for more than 40 years, maybe you missed that part. But, there are lots of small outfitters in rural Idaho who don't have the diversification that I do, those are the guys who can be put completely out of business if steps are not taken. In a small town where outfitting is a significant part of the small local economy that could be devastating and has been devastating in the past when outfitting businesses were put out of business. Thankfully decision makers on the state level have seen this happen and understand the local impact when small outfitters are put out of business.
I actually think Idaho has the best outfitting system where only one outfitter is in an area, in Utah there are 12 to 15 outfitters permitted to hunt some of the areas I hunt, they all have a long list of clients applying for tags, I do too, the DIY guy is competing to try and get a tag, then after 20 years when he finally draws a tag he really has to spend a lot of time in the area before season to have much chance of competing for any of the good animals, lots of times there are several outfitters watching the same animal. You might really think twice about upsetting such a well working system in Idaho where outfitters are regulated very closely and there isn't all the competition!
You seem to imply because the outfitters are regulated (i.e., only one or a few can operate in a particular unit or zone), this means we have to give them guaranteed tags or they could not survive. My contention as a free market capitalist...why? Why won't they survive? There are still thousands of deer tags sold...hundreds or thousands in most units...why will those people not support hire the outfitter if they offer a good service at a market price?
My thought on this is there are many hunters that will never hire an outfitter regardless of service or price. If the majority of hunters in a unit fit this bill it doesn't matter how great the the service is they just dont want to be guided. There are specific areas in Idaho where an outfitters potential client base would draw 0 tags. Many small outfitters could be put out of business with 1 year like this.I dont like to be told what to do so I prefer to hunt on my own! :chuckle: but there are situations where I would use a guide. Many hunters will never hire a guide no matter how great they may be because of personal preference. If you restrict them to a specific area then you have to provide a certain amount of tags for people that actually will use that guide. Again there are many areas where potential clients would not draw or make the cut off to buy tags and then the outfit is screwed. For example would you hire a guide where you hunt deer in Idaho? Im guessing based on previous posts suggesting a long long family tradition of hunting Idaho you would NEVER hire a guide to hunt your regular spots? I know I would not ever consider it no matter how great they were supposed to be. I hunt non resident in montana most years with family. I am not a potential client for a guide ever in Montana. Hypothetically if everyone who draws montana this year is like me the guides are screwed no matter how fantastic their price and services are. Regulated or free for all outfitting industry is the question.
Post by: Dan-o on March 06, 2021, 12:49:11 PM
For the 3rd time: If Outfitters offer a good service at a market price why are they afraid the people who have purchased tags for the units they operate in won't hire them? As you admit, Idaho already regulates outfitters so they already have limited competition for who a tag holder can even legally hire...why do they now need 25% of all NR tags set aside if the service they offer is good and at a market price?The state changed the system and eliminated all tags in some areas outfitters operate in?These are the tags that are available today, elk tags are nearly all gone except for three zones with a few tags left, there are more deer tags available, but I wouldn't expect many left by summer. The point is that all outfitters are restricted to particular units, we cannot take hunters anywhere we want in Idaho. Many outfitters tried to get elk tags for their hunters but the tags sold out, in some cases within minutes. For example one area I am licensed to hunt I was only able to get one tag for one hunter. I know of outfitters who were not able to get any tags in there area, and they are not allowed to go take clients in another area that has remaining tags. In a heavily regulated industry like outfitting in Idaho, where an outfitter can't go to another unit, it's only reasonable to make changes to prevent forcing these outfitters out of business.There is no law or regulation preventing any of the people who purchased a tag for a unit you can outfit in from hiring you as an outfitter. This includes residents and non-residents. Why doesn't the free market system work for outfitter businesses? If you offer a good service at a market price why are you afraid the people who have purchased tags for the units you operate in won't hire you?
If Idaho wants to remove regulations on outfitters I would gladly agree with that and simply get tags for my hunters in other units that I know where to hunt, but it doesn't work that way and regulation of outfitting isn't going to go away. I'm fine either way, I'm glad to operate in a regulated state like Idaho or an unregulated state like Washington.
Anyways, glad to see all the no votes from people submitting comments to IDFG. It is pretty clear NR DIY guys see why this is a bad deal for them. :tup:
Please read my previous post? I'm glad to work in a regulated state or an unregulated state, we do fine in either. But in a regulated state like Idaho where you have restricted outfitters to specific areas, when you change the license system and it results in no business within that restricted area maybe you should make some changes or else remove all the restrictions, obviously something needs to happen. It is an industry wide problem, that is why the state is taking action. Hey, I'll gladly accept those hunters calling wanting to hunt other areas and leave the area I'm restricted to operate within, remove all the outfitting restrictions, I'm fine with that, but as I said that's probably not going to happen. :twocents:
You don't have to operate in a new area or take a client outside your permitted unit/zone...my question was, why don't you get business from the people who bought tags for the units you CAN operate in? If you have a good service at market price, why are outfitters concerned the people who bought tags for the zones THEY CAN OPERATE IN won't hire them?
Let me use an example. Lets say we get rid of all outfitter set aside tags and they are all sold first come first serve. And lets say you are regulated to only outfit deer hunts in unit 10a. Now lets pretend there are 775 NR deer tags for 10a. If you offer a good service at market price, why don't we just let the various people who bought one of 775 NR tags for unit 10a deer choose to hire you...or not...like a free market system?
If there were no restrictions it would be easy to operate with no quotas, I've done it successfully in Washington every year for more than 40 years, maybe you missed that part. But, there are lots of small outfitters in rural Idaho who don't have the diversification that I do, those are the guys who can be put completely out of business if steps are not taken. In a small town where outfitting is a significant part of the small local economy that could be devastating and has been devastating in the past when outfitting businesses were put out of business. Thankfully decision makers on the state level have seen this happen and understand the local impact when small outfitters are put out of business.
I actually think Idaho has the best outfitting system where only one outfitter is in an area, in Utah there are 12 to 15 outfitters permitted to hunt some of the areas I hunt, they all have a long list of clients applying for tags, I do too, the DIY guy is competing to try and get a tag, then after 20 years when he finally draws a tag he really has to spend a lot of time in the area before season to have much chance of competing for any of the good animals, lots of times there are several outfitters watching the same animal. You might really think twice about upsetting such a well working system in Idaho where outfitters are regulated very closely and there isn't all the competition!
You seem to imply because the outfitters are regulated (i.e., only one or a few can operate in a particular unit or zone), this means we have to give them guaranteed tags or they could not survive. My contention as a free market capitalist...why? Why won't they survive? There are still thousands of deer tags sold...hundreds or thousands in most units...why will those people not support hire the outfitter if they offer a good service at a market price?
My thought on this is there are many hunters that will never hire an outfitter regardless of service or price. If the majority of hunters in a unit fit this bill it doesn't matter how great the the service is they just dont want to be guided. There are specific areas in Idaho where an outfitters potential client base would draw 0 tags. Many small outfitters could be put out of business with 1 year like this.I dont like to be told what to do so I prefer to hunt on my own! :chuckle: but there are situations where I would use a guide. Many hunters will never hire a guide no matter how great they may be because of personal preference. If you restrict them to a specific area then you have to provide a certain amount of tags for people that actually will use that guide. Again there are many areas where potential clients would not draw or make the cut off to buy tags and then the outfit is screwed. For example would you hire a guide where you hunt deer in Idaho? Im guessing based on previous posts suggesting a long long family tradition of hunting Idaho you would NEVER hire a guide to hunt your regular spots? I know I would not ever consider it no matter how great they were supposed to be. I hunt non resident in montana most years with family. I am not a potential client for a guide ever in Montana. Hypothetically if everyone who draws montana this year is like me the guides are screwed no matter how fantastic their price and services are. Regulated or free for all outfitting industry is the question.
Well stated.
Post by: idahohuntr on March 06, 2021, 02:46:33 PM
Depends who gets the tags in the unit they operate, if their clients don't get tags it will be a pretty tough year ahead, especially since Idaho outfitters can't go to other units, probably put some of them out of business, that can't be too hard to understand?
Oh, I understand why the outfitters want 25% of all NR deer and elk tags in Idaho. I'm just trying to figure out why outfitters believe their business model should be exempt from free market capitalism or that the government has a responsibility to provide them clients. Its not the only business regulated in where they can operate...so that's not a great argument for demanding 25% of a limited public resource.
But that's not even whats up for debate here...there is no proposal, initiative, or legislation suggesting we eliminate outfitter set asides (not yet anyways)...we are discussing whether the outfitters should be given double their current set aside, or leave it where it is. I vote no on giving outfitters 2,000 more NR deer tags...I think the 2,000 they get now is plenty generous.
Post by: bearpaw on March 06, 2021, 04:52:46 PM
Depends who gets the tags in the unit they operate, if their clients don't get tags it will be a pretty tough year ahead, especially since Idaho outfitters can't go to other units, probably put some of them out of business, that can't be too hard to understand?
Oh, I understand why the outfitters want 25% of all NR deer and elk tags in Idaho. I'm just trying to figure out why outfitters believe their business model should be exempt from free market capitalism or that the government has a responsibility to provide them clients. Its not the only business regulated in where they can operate...so that's not a great argument for demanding 25% of a limited public resource.
But that's not even whats up for debate here...there is no proposal, initiative, or legislation suggesting we eliminate outfitter set asides (not yet anyways)...we are discussing whether the outfitters should be given double their current set aside, or leave it where it is. I vote no on giving outfitters 2,000 more NR deer tags...I think the 2,000 they get now is plenty generous.
First let me correct you! It's not a free market system for outfitters, if it was a free market system for outfitters we would be able to buy tags and take hunters to any unit/zone in the state we wanted that has tags for sale just like all the hunters have the option of doing that!
But outfitters are heavily regulated and restricted to specific areas. The current outfitter allocation worked well before this year because only a small number of zones/units were capped, general tag sales lasted well into the year and many outfitters clients purchased tags from the general pool of tags. I got lots of tags for my clients often out of the general pool just like other outfitters have done.
Now that all units and zones in the state are capped and tags in many of those units and zones sold out very quickly (and probably will every year now under the new system), consequently many outfitters have few or no clients for the year. Because outfitters can't hunt other units that still have tags available they are out of luck and eventually out of business unless the state provides access to tags for outfitted clients. The number of capped zones has likely more than quadrupled this year, yet outfitters are only asking for a 3.2% more of elk tags and 12.2% more deer tags to be allocated to outfitters. These allocated tags will replace general pool tags outfitters used to purchase over the counter in the past. Outfitters probably won't actually get any more tags for clients than before, it's just that with the new sales system they need more allocation or they will get fewer tags than before. DIY hunters will probably still get just as many tags as before or maybe even more because as I said many outfitters were buying their tags out of the general pool. The new licensing system has created a rush on sales and that resulted in outfitters getting far fewer tags for their clients! It's really that simple!
If you want a truly free market system, remove the limitations on outfitters and let us buy what ever tags in whatever units/zones we want for our hunters! I think you will find that would make a lot of complications in many areas, but if that is what you want hey, that can work for me and probably a lot of other outfitters too!
Post by: kentrek on March 06, 2021, 06:03:55 PM
I'm not anti outfitters either by any stretch but the line needs to be drawn somewhere with tag allocation...the boundary issue seems like smoke and mirrors and could be its own issue to be solved ....
Don't solve problems with more problems...
Post by: MountainWalk on March 06, 2021, 06:05:17 PM
Post by: harveymarv on March 06, 2021, 07:14:25 PM
Why do you need to buy tags for your client ? Why can't the client buy there own tags ? Your using the demand for tags as leverage...let them buy the tags with the rest of us and then hire a guide.. its unfortunate that your repeat clients won't get tags every year but it's also pretty damn unfortunate I won't get tags every year either...so who is more important ??
I'm not anti outfitters either by any stretch but the line needs to be drawn somewhere with tag allocation...the boundary issue seems like smoke and mirrors and could be its own issue to be solved ....
Don't solve problems with more problems...
this is why i voted no. public resources (tags) should be equally available to every citizen. After tags are purchased, allow (free) market forces to send a portion of the population down the DIY route, and a portion of the population down the outfitter route. if outfitters don’t get enough clients, there is too much supply and not enough demand, and hence too many outfitters. that’s capitalism.
don’t allow the government to artificially inflate the demand for outfitters by taking tags from citizens (all of us) and giving them to outfitters, forcing some (DIY) hunters to hire an outfitter if they want to hunt (pay extra for access to a public resource).
Post by: idahohuntr on March 06, 2021, 08:58:22 PM
Well stated.Why do you need to buy tags for your client ? Why can't the client buy there own tags ? Your using the demand for tags as leverage...let them buy the tags with the rest of us and then hire a guide.. its unfortunate that your repeat clients won't get tags every year but it's also pretty damn unfortunate I won't get tags every year either...so who is more important ??
I'm not anti outfitters either by any stretch but the line needs to be drawn somewhere with tag allocation...the boundary issue seems like smoke and mirrors and could be its own issue to be solved ....
Don't solve problems with more problems...
this is why i voted no. public resources (tags) should be equally available to every citizen. After tags are purchased, allow (free) market forces to send a portion of the population down the DIY route, and a portion of the population down the outfitter route. if outfitters don’t get enough clients, there is too much supply and not enough demand, and hence too many outfitters. that’s capitalism.
don’t allow the government to artificially inflate the demand for outfitters by taking tags from citizens (all of us) and giving them to outfitters, forcing some (DIY) hunters to hire an outfitter if they want to hunt (pay extra for access to a public resource).
Something else to keep in mind on the boundary issue...the Idaho Outfitters and Guides would have an absolute fit if you tried to open up outfitting to any zone/unit. The existing outfitters benefit a great deal if it is extremely limited in who can outfit in what zone because it artificially limits your competition. Now the outfitters want 25% of all NR deer and elk tags (2,000 more deer tags!!)...what a wonderful system to be able to create rules so only you and a few guys can even operate a business in certain areas...then pass some more rules so you get a big chunk of a high demand limited public resource...I mean I will hand it to the outfitters...its a great business model to have the government limit your competition and then force customers into your business.
And I want to be clear...I want all businesses in America to be successful, including Outfitters. But I will not turn a blind eye to things that are harmful to DIY hunters and the NAMWC...and make no mistake...this proposal will 100% reduce your ability to get a NR deer tag (and to a lesser degree an elk tag) if you are a DIY hunter.
Post by: Duckslayer89 on March 06, 2021, 09:05:55 PM
Well stated.Why do you need to buy tags for your client ? Why can't the client buy there own tags ? Your using the demand for tags as leverage...let them buy the tags with the rest of us and then hire a guide.. its unfortunate that your repeat clients won't get tags every year but it's also pretty damn unfortunate I won't get tags every year either...so who is more important ??
I'm not anti outfitters either by any stretch but the line needs to be drawn somewhere with tag allocation...the boundary issue seems like smoke and mirrors and could be its own issue to be solved ....
Don't solve problems with more problems...
this is why i voted no. public resources (tags) should be equally available to every citizen. After tags are purchased, allow (free) market forces to send a portion of the population down the DIY route, and a portion of the population down the outfitter route. if outfitters don’t get enough clients, there is too much supply and not enough demand, and hence too many outfitters. that’s capitalism.
don’t allow the government to artificially inflate the demand for outfitters by taking tags from citizens (all of us) and giving them to outfitters, forcing some (DIY) hunters to hire an outfitter if they want to hunt (pay extra for access to a public resource).
Something else to keep in mind on the boundary issue...the Idaho Outfitters and Guides would have an absolute fit if you tried to open up outfitting to any zone/unit. The existing outfitters benefit a great deal if it is extremely limited in who can outfit in what zone because it artificially limits your competition. Now the outfitters want 25% of all NR deer and elk tags (2,000 more deer tags!!)...what a wonderful system to be able to create rules so only you and a few guys can even operate a business in certain areas...then pass some more rules so you get a big chunk of a high demand limited public resource...I mean I will hand it to the outfitters...its a great business model to have the government limit your competition and then force customers into your business.
And I want to be clear...I want all businesses in America to be successful, including Outfitters. But I will not turn a blind eye to things that are harmful to DIY hunters and the NAMWC...and make no mistake...this proposal will 100% reduce your ability to get a NR deer tag (and to a lesser degree an elk tag) if you are a DIY hunter.
Ya I never understood why outfitters could outfit and make money off public land but then I could never take someone for money myself
Post by: Jimmy33 on March 06, 2021, 09:38:43 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: westside Elkhunter on March 07, 2021, 10:57:24 AM
Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
Post by: KFhunter on March 07, 2021, 11:51:37 AM
This is very interesting. Has anyone seen why the outfitters want this?I think hard core DIY hunters will buy tags immediately first of the year and sell out the quotas pretty quick (and getting more so in the future)
Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
This would put tags in outfitter pockets they could sell trips later on.
I could think of a lot of reasons, older guys not well versed on each of the different states tag program, they live back east in some city and haven't hunted much in their lives (if at all) and want a hunt of a lifetime.
Million reasons why.
Post by: Mtnwalker on March 07, 2021, 11:51:54 AM
This is very interesting. Has anyone seen why the outfitters want this?
Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
Seems like Bearpaw gave a pretty thorough explanation from the Outfitter's perspective
Post by: idahohuntr on March 07, 2021, 12:43:42 PM
This is very interesting. Has anyone seen why the outfitters want this?They want more tags for their clients and more clients could have to go to them to get a tag.
Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
Post by: The scout on March 07, 2021, 02:24:55 PM
I voted no and i would have voted no one million times if they would have let me. This is getting to be ridiculous...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
:yeah: Time 10! Especially how they made the draw this year for NR this year. It’s not right.
Post by: Jimmy33 on March 07, 2021, 02:54:03 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: luvmystang67 on March 23, 2021, 03:30:43 PM
One of the coolest things America offers, unique compared to many other places around the world, is the ability to test your mettle on a DIY hunt. I will push against anything that works to infringe on that. :twocents:
Also, I don't think Idaho cares a bit about NR, so I'm not sure this is going to work out well for those in my camp.
Post by: meatwhack on March 23, 2021, 07:12:03 PM