Has any one heard of this?

C

customweld

Active Member
Messages
615
ATTENTION: Idaho Sportsmen/women we need to stand up and let our voices be heard RIGHT NOW. Idaho Legislation is attempting to blackball our Fish & Game Department and force them to add items that we the people do not want. Legislation has told the Fish and Game Commissioners that they will approve the Proposed Fee increase but F&G HAS to add Automatic Land Owner Tags, Governor Tags and a Point System for draw hunts. The Automatic Land Owner Tags will grant automatic tags to land owners locking up several of the trophy units within Idaho. You NEED to contact the Governor any way that you can and let him know that you do not want these items added and if he sees a bill come to his desk on this that he needs to Veto it right away. I am asking all of my fellow Sportsmen/Women to share this post and get the word out to everyone so the voice of the masses can be heard. There is no time to complain or bicker about this since there is a very small window to act. People keep saying they want their voice to be heard on matters and here is your chance. Here is a direct link to contact Governor Otter
http://gov.idaho.gov/ourgov/contact.html
 
It came off a facebook page called hunt hard. I cant verify the authenticity of the info. Was just wondering if anyone else on here has cone across it.
 
F&g home page
About us box
Under fish and game commission heading
Click on legislative updates
Didn't see anything out right but in the fee schedule on h0032 their was a "preferrance point fee listed at 4.50" no idea if that means anything it is on very bottom of list ???? Process move little slow if something's up it won't be long before it's in print somewhere.
 
It looks like it is House Bill 32. There isn't much info on the legislature's web page ,but it has been moved to the Resource and Conservation Committee.
 
ISCAC has been emailing its member organizations about possible add-ons to HB 32 since last week.

The email:

1. Bonus points
2. Govs auction tag implementation
3. Maybe, LAP
 
1. There will always be 2 sides to the bonus point argument. I for one am against it but that is just my opinion.

The other two suggestions don't sound detrimental to Idaho's wildlife if structured properly. In fact, I think they would help.

2. 1 or 2 tags per species? 5% of the price goes to the group who auctioned it and 95% goes to IDFG to be used for SPECIES SPECIFIC benefit. So if a mule deer tag goes for $100k then $95k is spent by IDFG for mule deer enhancement projects.

3. Land Owner Tags that are totally transferable to whomever the landowner wishes and are good unit wide. They can be either given away or sold. A reasonable amount given to those folks who's land provides critical habitat for wildllife. Of course, if they apply to be in this program and they receive these tags then their land has to be open to public hunters. Seems like a fair reimbursement for the habitat they provide and it opens up ground that probably was behind a "No Hunting" sign before for the public hunter.
 
I don't disagree about the landowners tags, however they should not be unit wide.If they are having depredation issues on their ground, this can help. In absolutely no terms should they be able to sell LAP tags for the whole unit in which they hold ground.
 
I agree 100 % But most of the land owners have been pushing for these tags for years !! just another under handed way to try & get it past buy some congress people !! I am ALL for the land owner tags as well IF they are used EXCLUSIVELY on their land & only on their land & ONLY used by the land owner or their immediate family !! But they don't want that they want too be able to sell them !!
 
I did a survey last fall for a company contracted through IF and G. They sent the results back, and there was an impressive number of folks against the new ideas for LAP tags. I thought the stinkin point system was resoundingly rejected as well.Residents don't want or need a point system.
 
I totally agree that Idaho does not need a point system! I have not heard anything positive about a point system from any state that has one,the only FAIR system is the one we have right now!!!!!
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-28-15 AT 07:13AM (MST)[p]Thanks for the heads up on the potential legislations. Seems like we have a few legislators that are very consistent at trying to pull from the public for the benefit of landowners. As sportsmen I believe we need to be vocal.

I agree that anything added to landowners in terms of additional tag opportunities needs to be clearly and equitably offset by additional access to the PUBLIC. I would like to see more done to improve the relationship between Sportsmen and Landowners, but would never support gifting them more opportunites to monetize our public resource(Game).

We will hear it from NR's before I even finish my post probably about BP's, and maybe a few residents who seem to be unlucky at drawing tags, but this get's debated at least annually here and the majority of us seem to prefer the status quo, and would prefer considering other changes such as longer waiting periods, more muzz or archery tags, etc. to increase LE tag opportunities. I agree, no BP for residents. I'm okay with NR's if they want to give up our OTC opportunities in trade for paying a bigger portion of our F&G's budget.

We already have some auction tags and plenty of Superhunt tags. I think the demand for the Auction Tag for Sheep get enough return to be wothwhie, but don't think the same will be true for Deer, Elk, Antelope, etc. With the numberr of SH tags, there is already enough extra pressure competing with those holding the LE tags. I would caution against becoming Utah as a model. I would particulary caution against letting any partiular special interest group handle these. So I say no to additional Auction tags. If we need more $$, then increase our fee's, particularly to residents. Let NR's fund via a pay to plan BP system like almost every other state.

I think we need to be vocal to F&G commission as well.

Who is going to start a Idaho Specific Sportsman's Group we can all get behind and lobby for US.
 
Totally agree. I couldn't find anything in the bill about bonus points, or landowner tags, just minor increases for tags and liscences. I doubt there will be any bonus points,as this has been voted down every year,and like has been stated, most residents are against it.
 
Why would you be against a points system, especially for the limited entry units? I never understood why people think luck of the draw is more fair than a points system. With points everybody that puts in there time can eventually get a tag. With a straight up draw some lucky people might draw a couple times, and the unlucky might not ever draw a good tag. At least with points your are building towards something, instead of just putting in for the same old disappointment every year.
 
When I make that six dollar donation to fish and game, I do so knowing that the odds are stacked against me. If I draw, then needless to say I am ecstatic. If I don't draw, I know that I can STILL hunt as hard as I want,pretty much where I want.I do not want to take away anyone else's chance for an equal draw with points.As much as I would love to draw a tough odds hunt, when it comes down to it the state don't owe me a GD thing.I pay to play the odds. That's it.
 
If you research the past disussions on this you will see the arguments. But,

1. Points only benefit you if you are in the first year, other than that you are always playing catch up. This might work for you, but only until you draw. Anyone starting late is screwed, especially youth.

2. The modified systems, with Random pools and squaring, etc., is just a modified version of what we have and no more than false hope.

3. Once we implement a point system then people who don't covet that tag you really want now, will pile in because now at least they get a point, like you said, so realy the day you implement it the odd's go down immediately.

4. Point creep. These systems by their nature make all high demand hunts even more sought after and the odd's go exponentialy down, again except for max point holders.

All of these are true for NR's and why I don't recommend it for them, but since so many like to play the tag lottery game and we need the revenue I would support it. Not for Residents.
 
I'm interested to hear why you think any increases in landowner tags should be offset by increases in public access. Actually, don't bother. I'm sure it will be the usual entitlement issue. Like, somehow, you're entitled to game that resides on a landowners private property--property that he purchased and either farms or manages for recreation. Shouldn't that landowner have the opportunity to hunt on the land that he owns, provided that he meets a minimum acreage requirement?
Your "research" on points is absurd as well. I'm open to discussing the pros/cons of these proposals but your ridiculous arguments haven't swayed me one bit. Point systems do work for everyone but guys like you who are afraid of seeing your favorite unit overrun with guys who would like to draw it but never could until they accumulated enough points.
 
>If you research the past disussions
>on this you will see
>the arguments. But,
>
>1. Points only benefit you
>if you are in the
>first year, other than that
>you are always playing catch
>up. This might work
>for you, but only until
>you draw. Anyone starting
>late is screwed, especially youth.
>
>
>2. The modified systems, with
>Random pools and squaring, etc.,
>is just a modified version
>of what we have and
>no more than false hope.
>
>
>3. Once we implement a
>point system then people who
>don't covet that tag you
>really want now, will pile
>in because now at least
>they get a point, like
>you said, so realy the
>day you implement it the
>odd's go down immediately.
>
>4. Point creep. These
>systems by their nature make
>all high demand hunts even
>more sought after and the
>odd's go exponentialy down, again
>except for max point holders.
>
>
>All of these are true for
>NR's and why I don't
>recommend it for them, but
>since so many like to
>play the tag lottery game
>and we need the revenue
>I would support it.
>Not for Residents.

BPKHunter, I agree with all your points. Which is why as a NR, I do not support a point system. Informed NR do not want them as they understand it is just a smoke-and-mirrors game. Idaho Legislatures want a point system to force more NR to buy licenses every year. It is a money-generating proposition.

The reason Residents should oppose it, even for NR, is that many of the NR that will start to buy a license every year will decide to hunt General Seasons to make the use of their investment.

Just think of all the Oregon, Wyoming, Utah, and California residents that will end up hunting Idaho every year since they already have a $150 investment in the license. And not just for deer/elk, but ducks, pheasants, bear, grouse, etc...

Idaho residents dislike NR hunters enough already, do you really want more? Are you sure IDFG will put the increased revenue to beneficial use? Or will they spend it poorly like other government entities? Is a point system worth it or should we leave it like it is?

Grizzly
 
>I'm interested to hear why you
>think any increases in landowner
>tags should be offset by
>increases in public access.
>Actually, don't bother. I'm
>sure it will be the
>usual entitlement issue. Like,
>somehow, you're entitled to game
>that resides on a landowners
>private property--property that he purchased
>and either farms or manages
>for recreation. Shouldn't that
>landowner have the opportunity to
>hunt on the land that
>he owns, provided that he
>meets a minimum acreage requirement?
>
>Your "research" on points is absurd
>as well. I'm open
>to discussing the pros/cons of
>these proposals but your ridiculous
>arguments haven't swayed me one
>bit. Point systems do
>work for everyone but guys
>like you who are afraid
>of seeing your favorite unit
>overrun with guys who would
>like to draw it but
>never could until they accumulated
>enough points.

Mallards, if BPK is so absurd,lets hear your'e idea on why a bonus point system would work,instead of a lame idea about not wanting to give up a favorite spot!! Cracks me up, the only people that want bonus points for Idaho,are the so called hunters that feel "entitled". Just put in for the draw like everyone else, and take your'e chances. If you don't draw, hunt some of the general hunts, and quit with the sad story..
 
>I'm interested to hear why you
>think any increases in landowner
>tags should be offset by
>increases in public access.
>Actually, don't bother. I'm
>sure it will be the
>usual entitlement issue. Like,
>somehow, you're entitled to game
>that resides on a landowners
>private property--property that he purchased
>and either farms or manages
>for recreation. Shouldn't that
>landowner have the opportunity to
>hunt on the land that
>he owns, provided that he
>meets a minimum acreage requirement?

So its entitlement when the public wants access to the public's animals that live on private ground but it is not entitlement to buy land and expect exclusive rights to the public's property that resides on that private land?

Some landowners have a false sense of entitlement when it comes to wildlife.
Justin
 
And here's the reason that PP systems do work.

It allows hunters to apply for and eventually gain increased probability of drawing in a unit that they may be familiar with or wish to become more familiar with for future hunts. In a purely random system, a NR hunter has a snowball's chance in hell at drawing a good unit once, much less twice, in Idaho. Residents of ID already have an extreme imbalance in the probability of drawing units in their home state for game that BELONGS TO THE PUBLIC! What guys like you are afraid of is that publishers like Eastman's and HF will start to reveal drawing odds and PP's needed for your favorite unit making it more difficult for you to draw.
 
>>I'm interested to hear why you
>>think any increases in landowner
>>tags should be offset by
>>increases in public access.
>>Actually, don't bother. I'm
>>sure it will be the
>>usual entitlement issue. Like,
>>somehow, you're entitled to game
>>that resides on a landowners
>>private property--property that he purchased
>>and either farms or manages
>>for recreation. Shouldn't that
>>landowner have the opportunity to
>>hunt on the land that
>>he owns, provided that he
>>meets a minimum acreage requirement?
>
>So its entitlement when the public
>wants access to the public's
>animals that live on private
>ground but it is not
>entitlement to buy land and
>expect exclusive rights to the
>public's property that resides on
>that private land?
>
>Some landowners have a false sense
>of entitlement when it comes
>to wildlife.
>Justin

Short answer--YES!
 
>And here's the reason that PP
>systems do work.
>
> It allows hunters to
>apply for and eventually gain
>increased probability of drawing in
>a unit that they may
>be familiar with or wish
>to become more familiar with
>for future hunts. In
>a purely random system, a
>NR hunter has a snowball's
>chance in hell at drawing
>a good unit once, much
>less twice, in Idaho.
>Residents of ID already have
>an extreme imbalance in the
>probability of drawing units in
>their home state for game
>that BELONGS TO THE PUBLIC!
> What guys like you
>are afraid of is that
>publishers like Eastman's and HF
>will start to reveal drawing
>odds and PP's needed for
>your favorite unit making it
>more difficult for you to
>draw.

When was the last time Eastman's or H.F. had anything good to say about Idaho. According to them ,the trophy quality is sub par, and the Wolves have decimated all of the herds. WHAT ELSE YOU GOT!!
 
I have never been opposed to a landowner having the ability to recieve tags and hunt the game on their land. Key phrase"ON THEIR LAND" if they want to have exclusive rights to public animals then it should be on their land only, not unit wide. If they want to have unit wide landowner tags then they should be willing to grant acccess to their land. The exchange of public animals for private land access would make unit wide landowner tags more tolerable to me.

Bonus points gets hashed out every year. A majority of Idaho residents have made it very clear that we do not want bonus points in this state. The only bonus point system I would support would be to place 10% of tags into the bonus point system and leave the other 90% in the status quo. Let people chose the system in which the want to apply. Most other states only offer 10% of tags to NR drawings, Idaho could do the same and allow residents to apply in the non-resident pool if they want points so bad.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-02-15 AT 09:37AM (MST)[p]The reason bpkhunter told you to research this is because you obviously either don't know s*** about any of this or are self-serving and greedy. I think he was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Since you choose to ignore all of the reasons that point systems aren't working in all the states around us I won't.
I'm guessing you think there's a way that more landowner tags might benefit YOU?
I'm also guessing that you think there's a way that a point system might benefit YOU?
and you could give a s*** less if either of those things are good for the average resident in Idaho?

Justin
 
I think a points system would be great in Powerball and Mega Millions but I didn't want one for Idaho hunting tags. Guaranteed LAP tags is a bad idea that just promotes giving preference to the wealthy. I.E. if you can afford 10,000 or more acres why do you need guaranteed free tags. The governor's tags idea is the slippery slope Utah fell down and looks like it's being pushed by SFW Idaho, go figure.
 
I have a question to the folks who are not in favor of LAP tags. Do you dislike them in any form or does it depend on the structure of the agreement? To me, say a landowner has a 3000 acre ranch in unit 45. Under a new LAP agreement let's say he would get 2 buck tags that he could sell to anyone that was good unit wide. Let's say he could get $5k each for these. To get them he would have to open his land to public hunters. To me, that would be the IDFG getting a public hunter hunting lease for $10k a year for some great opportunities. And not just for buck hunters, bull and cow elk, coyotes, upland bird hunters etc would be able to access ground that otherwise would most assuredly be locked up and posted "No Hunting".
As far as hunting leases go, that's a good deal in my opinion.
(Just giving away tags to landowners that can be sold without any access agreements doesn't make any sense to me.)

How about auction tags?
I think the opportunity for this is easy. Instead of having a second drawing for a few Super Tags just make those 2 deer, 2 elk, 2 antelope, 1 moose and 1 Combo auction tags instead. Make the proceeds be species specific and have the monetary usage transparent. Every cent must be acccounted for. It would drive big dollars back in to wildlife projects but not get out of control like its neighbor. If this could be handled correctly it could do a lot of good for Idaho's wildlife and would not increase the number of "special opportunity" tags already in existance.

Or, is the thought of someone being able to purchase an opportunity that other's can not simply unagreeable to some? I certainly can't afford something like this but I would like to see as much money as possible funneled back in to the benefit of wildlife.
 
>I have never been opposed to
>a landowner having the ability
>to recieve tags and hunt
>the game on their land.
> Key phrase"ON THEIR LAND"
> if they want to
>have exclusive rights to public
>animals then it should be
>on their land only, not
>unit wide. If they
>want to have unit wide
>landowner tags then they should
>be willing to grant acccess
>to their land. The
>exchange of public animals for
>private land access would make
>unit wide landowner tags more
>tolerable to me.
>
>Bonus points gets hashed out every
>year. A majority of
>Idaho residents have made it
>very clear that we do
>not want bonus points in
>this state. The only
>bonus point system I would
>support would be to place
>10% of tags into the
>bonus point system and leave
>the other 90% in the
>status quo. Let people
>chose the system in which
>the want to apply.
>Most other states only offer
>10% of tags to NR
>drawings, Idaho could do the
>same and allow residents to
>apply in the non-resident pool
>if they want points so
>bad.

Interesting points except you're wrong about ID residents making it clear they don't want BP's. Surveys have shown they favor BP's by more than 50%.
I'm not opposed to restricting LO's to hunting on their own property. Never understood how having a LO tag justified hunting any other lands than the remaining public has. The only other option that I see fair would be one like NM. Either the LO has a Ranch-only tag and is restricted to hunting his own property or a unit-wide tag where he is free to hunt the entire unit in areas open to the public but, in turn, he has to allow public hunting on his own ranch.
Any argument about decreasing the number of potential tags avail. here is somewhat moot as these LO tags are proposed to come from the already abysmal NR pool. Residents wouldn't be affected.
 
>From a recent discussion.
>
>
>Here http://www.monstermuleys.info/dcforum/DCForumID37/2229.html#.VPSPbZsQFSA


Great post. Perhaps you should watch the series in its entirety sometime as it pretty much refutes your argument about BP's. Let's face it, the real reason residents of ID don't want BP's is you don't want additional people applying for tags and coming to hunt in ID. You're afraid that with a BP system, more NR's will buy a license, apply for a Limited entry hunt and take an easy tag as a second choice and then come and hunt when they otherwise wouldn't.
You guys have it pretty good right now. I bet the majority of the NR public has no idea just how many tags an ID resident can get in any given season. Maybe you'd like me to spill the beans here.
 
>Great post. Perhaps you should
>watch the series in its
>entirety sometime as it pretty
>much refutes your argument about
>BP's.

It does nothing of the sort!



Let's face it,
>the real reason residents of
>ID don't want BP's is
>you don't want additional people
>applying for tags and coming
>to hunt in ID.
>You're afraid that with a
>BP system, more NR's will
>buy a license, apply for
>a Limited entry hunt and
>take an easy tag as
>a second choice and then
>come and hunt when they
>otherwise wouldn't.


No! I'm afraid that by the time my children and nieces and nephews are eligible for the draws they will have virtually No chance of drawing anything. I don't have the money to take them out of state so if you f*** up the system in Idaho they are Sol.

Mark my words implementing a bonus points system now will reduce new Hunter recruitment 20 or 30 years down the road.
But what do you care as long as you get yours in the meantime.
Justin
 
Mbogo- in your example of unit 45 you are forgetting one important factor the tag numbers are set by the amount of hunting pressure that the unit can take so by adding landowner tags and guaranteeing them to all of these landowners you have to take away tags from the general public to keep from over harvesting if we guarantee every landowner a tag in 45 at the ratio suggested how many tags would be left over for the general public?

Justin
 
She says that during the video series that I posted. The question is what portion of that 50% that favor a bp system think that one will improve their odds somehow? Half? because you can throw the uninformed and miss informed people right out of that 50%.I would be willing to guess that 25% of the population that understands a bonus point System are for one.

Even mallards doesn't understand that the day a bonus point system is implemented his nonresident odds go way down.


Justin
 
I have never been on this sight but came over Because it was posted from my page on FB. I am the owner of huntin hard, and the president of Idaho State Bowhunters. i work with commissioners daily and an waiting for the re-write to come out tomorrow. So let me explain a few things that happen with these changes.

1. Landowner tags; in some units, most of the trophy units, there are not enough tags to guarantee each landowner a tag, so they will get drawn from the resident pool. Units 54, 45, 46,41, and others do not have as many tags as they have landowners. So those hunts will now be for the landowners only, kicking the rest of us out of them. They are also pushing for the ability to sell these tags. Of course we would all like an extra $15,000-$45,000 each year for nothing. Landowners in Idaho have ben pushing for more harvest on deer and elk for several years now, most of those using depredation claims as blackmail.

2. Preference points; while increasing odds for non residents, they only make it harder for residents, PP only work in units that don't need them. Look at 54 elk 1200+ people put in for that tag, 15 tags and even after 50 years you would still not be guaranteed a tag. Our proposal for this is to extend the wait period after you draw to three years. this increases odds without making it a point creep issue. Every state that has PP has to redo then every 5-6 years. OUr children will be the ones that suffer.

3. Governors tags, i honestly don't have much of an issue with these if they are done right. But as we see in other states we have other groups trying to have legislation manage wildlife. We have a game dept and a commission for tha.

4. you may not have seen this yet but there is also a proposal to be attached that depredation funds for wolf kills come from this fee increase, yep sportsmen get to pay for the livestock the wolves kill.

If you have any further questions feel free to email me at [email protected]

Thank you

Tad Sherman
 
House bill 32 as it is currently written is one that I support. It is time for a license/tag fee increase. For the opportunities that exist to hunt and fish in this state at such a low rate is an absolute bargain. The residents have not had a fee increase since 2006. I also support the Price Lock option as well.
The issue is the potential riders that might be attached to this bill coming out of the Resources and Conservation committee. Bonus points, LAP increases and Auction tags are tactics at pimping out Idaho's wildlife. We do not need this now or ever. There are several surrounding states that are doing a masterful job, pretty sure they have it covered just ask them.
The Resources and Conservation committee should never allow an unclean bill to pass through to a floor vote. Dell Raybould chairs this committee. Attaching these riders will show that they are being swayed by dollars, private interests and people of influence. Idaho residents don't need their wildlife to be sold to the highest bidder or have private landowners determining their fate.
I urge everyone to contact these committee members and encourage them to do the right thing and not allow a dirty bill to be pushed through.
The IDFG commission does not support this nonsense. The legislature potentially through attaching riders will snub the Idaho public which voted years back for a commission to make decisions based upon the publics desires. My commissioner is adamantly against this potential action.
We need an increase! We don't need added garbage or bloat. Idaho is different. We don't need to be like everyone else.
 
>She says that during the video
>series that I posted. The
>question is what portion of
>that 50% that favor a
>bp system think that one
>will improve their odds somehow?
>Half? because you can throw
>the uninformed and miss informed
>people right out of that
>50%.I would be willing to
>guess that 25% of the
>population that understands a bonus
>point System are for one.
>
>
>Even mallards doesn't understand that the
>day a bonus point system
>is implemented his nonresident odds
>go way down.
>
>
>Justin
Not true and, if you understood statistics, you would understand that as well. That is also explained in the video series. I suspect that many voting for the BP system do think that it would improve their odds. But I know that they don't think it's going to improve their odds EVERY YEAR. Anyone who even has an inkling about how point systems work understands that. However, I'd lay good odds that, if you explained to those same people that a point system increases the FAIRNESS of the draw over the years making it less likely that some lucky people will draw an excessive number of tags in the unit, exceeding the odds, while some never draw, those same people would still be in favor of it. In fact, I bet if more people understood this fact, there would likely be even more people in favor of the point system.
What remains to be seen and what those of you who are adamantly opposed to the point system fear is how many more NR's will start applying in ID. Let's face it, you don't want to lose the ability to gobble up all those unsold NR tags that are left over because many NR's simply don't apply in ID due to the perception that it's a bad deal buying a license without a point to show for it.
 
I went to the Fish and game meeting last night, they claim to just offset inflation since 2005. One example was there fish food for hatchery's has gone up 170% since 2005. So they have not done as many fish implants as in years past because of the lack of funds. They claimed to literally be able to keep the lights on in some areas.
I'm sure there are more examples those are just the ones I heard.
 
Hey mallard the systems been proposed and shut down several times now. We understand it BUT JUST DONT WANT IT. Feel free to bawl about it all you like but it aint happening. Go collect your points elsewhere.

If you don't care for the way Idaho manages tags and licensing just stay out. We'd really rather not have you here trust me.

I sure hope you got a chance to take in all my prior posts before they were removed. Stay in Chico it's really better for everyone.






the artist formerly known as "gemstatejake".
 
Oh and one more thing, The point has been made correctly that we as Idaho residents do have it pretty damn good. Much better than most...I've said for years now I'd be willing to pay quite a bit more for what we're blessed with.
Let's do our part and not gripe about increases in fees when they're needed. Otherwise the NR points hounds will have more pull and bring all their associated pollution with them.

Let's keep our game dept and commissioner tuned in to what IDAHO HUNTERS want. Non-res who see the potential here and want to participate are much more than welcome. The rest can kindly get lost...









the artist formerly known as "gemstatejake".
 
Mallard Duck,

I am a non res that hunts ID when I feel I have the time to do so. I apply in several states with point systems & I think they suck for lack of a better word. Your claim that points make it more fair?? How more fair of a system can you get than a complete random draw like ID has??? Everyone is EQUAL. If you have bad luck in a random draw, you think your luck changes because you bought some points?? Vegas likes you to think that. I have 12 yr old nephews that love to hunt......guess what, they are over 10 points behind in states that have point systems.....will probably never draw a desirable tag. From the hunters I talk to, I'm not so sure as many NR agree with you as you think. Remember, at the end of the day, ID offers UP TO 10% of their controlled hunts to NR.....using your logic, your odds went down the $hitter if you get your point system.

Good luck & carry on.
 
>>>
>>Even mallards doesn't understand that the
>>day a bonus point system
>>is implemented his nonresident odds
>>go way down.
>>
>>
>>Justin
>Not true and, if you understood
>statistics, you would understand that
>as well. That is
>also explained in the video
>series. I suspect that
>many voting for the BP
>system do think that it
>would improve their odds.
>But I know that they
>don't think it's going to
>improve their odds EVERY YEAR.
> Anyone who even has
>an inkling about how point
>systems work understands that.
>However, I'd lay good odds
>that, if you explained to
>those same people that a
>point system increases the FAIRNESS
>of the draw over the
>years making it less likely
>that some lucky people will
>draw an excessive number of
>tags in the unit, exceeding
>the odds, while some never
>draw, those same people would
>still be in favor of
>it. In fact, I
>bet if more people understood
>this fact, there would likely
>be even more people in
>favor of the point system.
>
>What remains to be seen and
>what those of you who
>are adamantly opposed to the
>point system fear is how
>many more NR's will start
>applying in ID. Let's
>face it, you don't want
>to lose the ability to
>gobble up all those unsold
>NR tags that are left
>over because many NR's simply
>don't apply in ID due
>to the perception that it's
>a bad deal buying a
>license without a point to
>show for it.

I understand statistics do you understand the big picture? Physics? Cause and effect? Action and reaction?

Is Chino currently in a vacuum? Because Idaho isn't!

Its funny that you tell me what I say isn't true and then can't hold your tongue and further prove my point. So you're saying a bunch of non residents will jump in and start applying because they will be more likely to join the system if they receive bonus points. But somehow nonresident odds are not going to go down?

You really don't think there will be a huge influx of non residents on an already tight non-resident system?
you don't think that your buddies at fool of hunting and Easter mans are not going to be screaming,"apply for Idaho this year or you'll never have a chance"?

We both know it would be just like every other states. The first year they implement a point system there will be a huge influx of hunters that never would have entered the system otherwise.

If nonresidents ever do get there bonus points system I'm just going to sit back and laugh about all of that. You can have your s***** odds - your bonus points system, and eat it too.

At the end of the day the only thing that matters to me is that any point system screws over youth hunters and lowers odds(see above if you already forgot) so I will fight it for residents till the very end.

If anybody cares about improving odds we could always try some of the other methods discussed in those videos Id be all for a few of them.
Justin
 
Fortunately, ID F&G IS tuning in to what IDAHO HUNTERS want. Perhaps, you need to watch the YouTube link and have one of your children explain its content. It's only jerkwads like you who are kicking and screaming to the commission and dept because you're afraid more NR's will come and access the game you somehow think you're ENTITLED to by virtue of your ID address.

I used to be on the fence on this issue in ID. But, now that I see the attitudes of those that are against it and now that I've researched the facts and the misrepresentations by those that have ulterior motives, I think I've made up my decision.
 
>Mallard Duck,
>
>I am a non res that
>hunts ID when I feel
>I have the time to
>do so. I apply in
>several states with point systems
>& I think they suck
>for lack of a better
>word. Your claim that points
>make it more fair?? How
>more fair of a system
>can you get than a
>complete random draw like ID
>has??? Everyone is EQUAL. If
>you have bad luck in
>a random draw, you think
>your luck changes because you
>bought some points?? Vegas likes
>you to think that. I
>have 12 yr old nephews
>that love to hunt......guess what,
>they are over 10 points
>behind in states that have
>point systems.....will probably never draw
>a desirable tag. From the
>hunters I talk to, I'm
>not so sure as many
>NR agree with you as
>you think. Remember, at the
>end of the day, ID
>offers UP TO 10% of
>their controlled hunts to NR.....using
>your logic, your odds went
>down the $hitter if you
>get your point system.
>
>Good luck & carry on.

Watch the YouTube link that was posted by Elkmagnet, particularly Part 7. There is a misperception of how points work and, granted, many states have different methods of how points are applied and tags allocated. But, the reality is that the BP system doesn't really change the odds, it only makes it FAIRER.
 
Yep we're entitled to it. you're entitled to the mess you've created in CA. Have at it no one here will try to tell you how to manage it LOL! Don't try to push your bull$hit here it's not wanted as is evident.

Stay in Chico Dave.







the artist formerly known as "gemstatejake".
 
>Fortunately, ID F&G IS tuning in
>to what IDAHO HUNTERS want.
>Perhaps, you need to watch
>the YouTube link and have
>one of your children explain
>its content. It's only jerkwads
>like you who are kicking
>and screaming to the commission
>and dept because you're afraid
>more NR's will come and
>access the game you somehow
>think you're ENTITLED to by
>virtue of your ID address.
>
>
> I used to be on
>the fence on this issue
>in ID. But, now
>that I see the attitudes
>of those that are against
>it and now that I've
>researched the facts and the
>misrepresentations by those that have
>ulterior motives, I think I've
>made up my decision.
I believe every effort was made to remain neutral in those videos. In fact it almost seems like that entire series was made because there are so many miss informed hunters thinking that a bonus points system will improve their odds
Somehow I get the feeling you've made a life around hearing what you want to hear.

FYI I've had a brief conversation with her about this subject in the past f&g is listening to hunters. The legislature is listening to the all mighty $
Justin
 
>Damn Jake, you're harsh! LOL

Someone has to take the kid gloves off and deal with these clowns. I'm usually up for the dirty work.
Good to see you're still around destroyer...



the artist formerly known as "gemstatejake".
 
Duk,

I would hope that language was not directed to me. With regard to the youtube link, I have been applying in states for over 20 years with BP systems. In doing so, I have a lot of points. Guess what, that's all I have. I am well educated on BP systems & all they are is another word for a Ponzi scheme. A preference system is the only one that dictates a tag & I hate those even worse. In the big picture of hunter recruitment, none of the systems other than a true random draw are fair. There is no debate to that. One thing we have learned over time is anyone can make a video, or give a speech to make their agenda seem obviously perfect. But, when one digs into the facts, there is always a little deception.

I have been courteous in my comments here, keep yours the same. No matter how this plays out, your calling people Jerks makes all non residents look like a$$holes.
 
>Watch the YouTube link that was
>posted by Elkmagnet, particularly Part
>7. There is a
>misperception of how points work
>and, granted, many states have
>different methods of how points
>are applied and tags allocated.
> But, the reality is
>that the BP system doesn't
>really change the odds, it
>only makes it FAIRER.

Mallard, FAIRER to whom? Certainly not youth and hunters of tomorrow. They get screwed by not being of age the arbitrary year points are enacted, and they can never catch up. I'm a NR and I say keep it like it is. Idaho and New Mexico are the only decent states left.

Grizzly
 
>http://legislature.idaho.gov/house/membership.cfm
>
>
>
>I'll say one thing for mallard,
>He's lit a fire under
>my ass! Lets flood
>these politicians with our comments.
>
>
>Anyone else with any pertinent contact
>info please post it up.
>Lets let em know how
>we feel...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>the artist formerly known as "gemstatejake".
>
We had better you know his self serving @$$ is if he still thinks it beneficial to him.

Justin
 
I completely agree with GSJ. The system has been proposed and rejected 3 times in the last 10 years. We understand it and we don't want it. I agree with the previous post that stated that points only work in the units where they are not needed. No need to discuss statistics Mallard, I've run my own simulations and I don't like what I see.

Mallards main argument has been that Idaho residents don't want a BP system because we don't want additional NR coming to hunt in our state. This is so horribly wrong it almost doesn't merit a response. Currently NR get up to 10% of the tags. If a BP system exists it would probably have to guarantee 10% of the tags. So there is already a cap on NR and the cap wouldn't get any higher so how is it that Mallard seems to think BPs will increase the number of hunters? It would probably increase the number of NR applications but but it won't increase how many get tags. And that there is the kicker, more NR residents would apply for the same number of NR allocated tags, that would reduce NR odds, so why do non-residents want it so bad?

Every state doesn't have to be the same, Idaho offers a drawing system that is different. If you want points, there are 9 other western states that you can apply in.
 
FYI

Idaho Legislature Committee that has this bill:

Resources and Conservation
Water quality/rights, fish and game, river restoration
Odd Days, pm, Room EW40
Secretary: Jennifer Smith
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 332-1136

Members of this Committee.
Chair: Gary E. Collins
Vice Chair: Janet Trujillo
Mike Moyle
Dell Raybould
Neil A. Anderson
Robert Anderst
Thomas Dayley
Stephen Hartgen
Clark Kauffman
Greg Chaney
Ronald Nate
Heather Scott
Jeff Thompson
 
> But, the reality is
>that the BP system doesn't
>really change the odds, it
>only makes it FAIRER.

This is self serving dribble. It would be one thing if it was correct but its not even correct.

Every state that has a bonus points system has seen a drop in odds across the board the year it was enacted.


Justin
 
I think you all can't see the forest for the trees.

You're fighting about the details of the add-ons. As Idaho sportsmen, you should be concerned that the Legislature is forcing wildlife policy on the Idaho Fish and Game Commission.

Who do we want making wildlife decisions? The legislature or the Idaho Fish and Game Commission?
 
No doubt the bigger issue.
You can bet they're hearing from me in a much more tactful and tasteful way then I am dealing with the quacks on here.




Justin
 
I think you posted the Revenue and Taxation committee Republican members. That list is not the House Resources and Conservation Committee.
 
Resources and Conservation
Water quality/rights, fish and game, river restoration
Odd Days, pm, Room EW40
Secretary: Jennifer Smith
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 332-1136

Chair Dell Raybould
Vice Chair Terry Gestrin
Mike Moyle
Ken Andrus
Paul E. Shepherd
Fred Wood
Judy Boyle
John Vander Woude
Marc Gibbs
Steven Miller
Linden B. Bateman
Van Burtenshaw
Ron Mendive
Julie VanOrden
Rick D. Youngblood
Donna Pence
Mat Erpelding
Ilana Rubel
 
>>Damn Jake, you're harsh! LOL
>
>Someone has to take the kid
>gloves off and deal with
>these clowns. I'm usually up
>for the dirty work.
>Good to see you're still around
>destroyer...
>
>
>
>the artist formerly known as "gemstatejake".
>

Yeah keep up the good work! Finally after applying for other states for awhile to accept Idahos difference!!!
 
Wow, so what i got from everyone is this GSJ has tackfully hit the nail on the head, Elk magnet, hopes to hunt every three to five years. LOL

And a couple of you get exactly what this is about. It is more about legislation going over the commissions head. I have meetings tonight, tomorrow(2) and Thursday morning about this and other things. I will try and keep you all up to date.

And just so you do know the commission is totally against this as well as IDF&G.

This push is coming from a group that wants legislative control of the dept, kinda like what has happened in Utah.
 
Mallard, PP systems only work in units that don't need them. I put in for sheep in Utah, 14 years now and i still have a snow balls chance of drawing one. The same goes for the trophy hunts.

If they work please explain to me why every state that has them has to re vamp the whole system every 4-6 years? i have some statistics for you later and but have a F&G meeting to go to instead of being a MM biologist.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-03-15 AT 04:09PM (MST)[p]Guys myself and some of the other 'old timers" have had this same argument umpteen times on this board. I play the game in other states and know many of you do too.
Bottom line: You can do your homework and find second or third tier areas that the points systems will help you draw.
You can do the exact same thing in Idaho in units with reasonable odds of draw or in many cases just buy a general tag and duplicate the lesser draw hunts the other states offer.

The points systems do not help one bit in top tier areas. You can juggle the numbers all you want but in the end the demand FAR exceeds the supply end of story.

The LAP, and auction tag stuff they are trying to attach here I find completely appalling.

Also 100% agree allowing politicians to meddle in wildlife management is a recipe for disaster. I would think that would be obvious to anyone who's been paying any kind of attention.

Let 'em know we dont want any of it.







the artist formerly known as "gemstatejake".
 
>I think you all can't see
>the forest for the trees.
>
>
>You're fighting about the details of
>the add-ons. As Idaho
>sportsmen, you should be concerned
>that the Legislature is forcing
>wildlife policy on the Idaho
>Fish and Game Commission.
>
>Who do we want making wildlife
>decisions? The legislature or
>the Idaho Fish and Game
>Commission?

Bryan is dead on and we need to speak loudly on this to both Legislature and F&G.
 
>How about IF you do draw
>a LE or LQ
>tag you don't get to
>apply for 5 years?
>Forget bonus pts.


Even if it was just a 39 buck or an antlerless? Honestly I see 3 years, but 5 is too many. I would support an increase.
 
6speed is right I did post the wrong comittee members in a previous post but he put up the correct names.

6 years ago the IDFG sent out a survey that asked the question of whether hunters thought that someone who put into a draw for numerous years should have a better chance of drawing in the future. Over 50% said yes. I remember filling out that survey and reading the results of it when it was published. The key phrase was would it be fair for them to have an increased chance of drawing. Fact is that no bonus point system ever actually increases your odds of drawing a tag. What it can and does do is reduce the odds of everyone who gets into the points game after you. Your odds don't ever get better by anything more than a negligible margin.

When I attended the Fish and Game hearing in 2010 when they held public comment periods about bonus points. Not a single person stood up in favor of the proposal. After the meeting while talking to an IDFG representative he said that in the statisitcal models they had run they had proven that points would not increase anyones odds or make it more fair. The only thing it would do is make some people feel better and give them a false sense of accomplishment because even though they didn't have a tag, they had a point. They had something, however intangible, that they could say they had gotten from the system.

If I only cared about my future and my hunting goals, I would be completely in favor of the points system because I would get in on the ground floor and I would get mine and get out. But I care about more than myself, I care about my sons ability to hunt without all the red tape, without waiting years for their turn that might not come.

I am deeply concerned about this move by the legislature and special interests to interfer with the IDFG ability to manage wildlife. I have already sent a letter to the commitee, and every single member of that commitee will receive a letter from me in the next couple days.
 
The whole idea of appointing a commission is to remove the politics from sound game management. If the LAP does get through, that is going to create even more animosity between landowners and sportsmen. It would be interesting to see the players involved in this. I read earlier this week that Utah and MDF auctioned off a mule deer tag for 300k plus.We all know why the "animal conservation organizations" want in. Who are the landowners pushing this and who is lobbying for them?
 
>http://www.cdapress.com/news/local_news/article_bf09feaf-08c5-5315-8236-8b2cc6956b19.html
>
>Good article about it. It
>does feel like our IDFG
>commission is being held hostage
>by our politicians. If
>your passionate speak out about
>it to your commissioners and
>vote for some new legislators
>that have a greater interest
>in our wildlife management.

Good article.

Article quotes two F&G commissioners, including Chairman Fred Trevey, as being opposed to all 3 potential riders related to LAP, BP, and Auction Tags. Clarifies where the bil is, as noted in earlierr post.

"State Rep. Dell Raybould, chairman of the Resources and Conservation Committee, confirmed Friday the fee-increase bill is being held in his committee at the request of the commission." This clarifies who to contact.

Contrary to what was stated earlier about Idaho Fish and Game's stance on BP system, here is the Chairman's quote: "We did a statistical analysis of this and what the numbers showed was the general hunter is much better off in the lottery than he is in the bonus-points scheme," Trevey said.
 
I have in the past argued in support of a point system in ID and probably with you Jake!

But this last post by you has opened my eyes, you are exactly right in your explanation.

Thank you, very good post.

Bill

People who work for a living are quickly being
overwhelmed by people who vote for a living.
 
Guys,

"Since it's your state, do as you see fit."

I've mentioned in the past that a bonus point system for NRs would increase revenue, and I would play. Let us spend our money on licenses and buying PPs so we can draw someday. You benefit!!!!

But if you keep it the same, Idaho is the best opportunity for either my wife or me to draw a moose tag, or sheep tag, or mountain goat tag.

I remember applying for unit 40, late deer, 11 out of 12 years in the late 80s thru the 90s. No tag. I probably would have drawn if Idaho had PPs.

But since they don't, we now apply for moose and will draw someday.

As i've said before, "Just let me know what the rules are, and don't change them!"
 
I couldn't figure how to link this here to MM, but take a look at the post on Idaho Deer Alliance Facebook page. It gives some detail and insight to the current status of HB 32.
Slippery slope of politicians ramrodding the comission. Contact these committee members. I only received one reply from Ken Andrus.
 
Cali let me ask you: Why wont you play regardless? What is it you think you're missing out on?


Frankly I'd like to see fees for residents raised to the point where we dont have to rely so much on non-res dollars...I'm willing to pay because I know what we've got here. That does not mean I want to exclude non-res because I dont...Come hunt here. hunt smart and hard and you'll be rewarded and you don't necessarily need to wait for a controlled tag to do so.






the artist formerly known as "gemstatejake".
 
5K, what was Ken Andrus' reply?

deerlove, extending the waiting period for successful controlled hunt applicants has been discussed before and seems to be the preferred method tho reduce drawing odds.
 
idelkslayer,

Looks like I'm late to the game but I would like to help out by sending a letter to some of the state reps. Where did you get the info on who to send your letters to?
 
The bonus point issue has been talked about for years in Idaho. Fortunately there are enough informed people who have opposed it. Only the uninformed or those who are happy with getting just one tag eventually want a bonus point system.
It is really simple math. Bonus point systems increase the number of people who apply every year. More applicants for the same number of tags results in decreased draw odds.
The nonresidents are hurt by this most of all. A bonus point system will dramatically increase the number of nonresidents applying in Idaho which will dramatically decrease nonresident draw odds. If you don't understand this simple math you are a fool.
The only benefit to a bonus point system is it will help you predict when you will draw a tag.
Politicians are only interested in changes to F&G regulations because of $$.
 
Do a google search for "Idaho State Legislature" or type in www.legislature.idaho.gov.

Hover over the tab on the left that says "House" and click on "committee" to see the list of committees. The bill is currently in the Resources and Conservation Committee, chaired by Dell Raybould. You can see a list of the committee members split by poluitical party. Then you can hover over the "House" tab again and select "Members" this will bring up a list of all th elegislators in the House. Their contact information is listed beside their picture and name.

Be sure to send something to your representative also, even if they are not on the committee becasue they will eventually see this also.
 
there is an easy place & way to find the letter with what these Idiots want & who is behind it google Idaho bucks bulls pops up Face book page scroll down & click on Idaho Deer Alliance they have the letter listed the Reps behind it are Bracket Bedkey Sidaway Bear & Moyle one of these guys made the comment I don't care what the sportsmen think !!! I WANT THIS
 
I feel the reason they DON'T make the waiting periods longer is that they want my $150 for my NR hunting license again. There afraid they wont get that if I'm sitting on the sidelines for the next 3 to five years.
 
I sat in on the commission meeting this morning and got an earful of what is happening, F&G and the commission do not like this at all. Here are the major players in this bill Please make sure you contact them and let them know that the sportsmen of Idaho are not going to let them bypass us!

House side

Scott Bedke; 208-332-1111 [email protected]
Dell Raybould; 208-332-1173 [email protected]
Terry Gestrin; 208-332-1124 [email protected]
Mike Moyle; 3208-332-1120 [email protected]
Marc Gibbs; 208-332-1042 [email protected]

Senate Side

Steve Bair; 208-332-1385 [email protected]
Bert Brackett; 208-332-1336 [email protected]
Jeff Siddoway; 208-332-1342 [email protected]

The Governor?s office should be included on all of this as well.
http://gov.idaho.gov/ourgov/contact.html
 
The very same politicians in favor of landowner tags are also in favor of taking control of our public lands. It kills me how these politicians want to follow the Utah model so closely.
 
These very same politicians in support of the landowner tag are also in support of taking control of public lands. If they like the UT model so well they ought to move to UT.
 
And many on that list (and in the legislature in general especially southern and eastern ID) are ranchers and farmers with big nland holdings who would potentially benefit greatly from the LAP tags. Not that conflict of interest ever applies to that group!

Powder "Middle" Finger
 
ISCAC's message on this issue:

Friends,

Last night at the Idaho Sportsmen?s Caucus Advisory Council (ISCAC) we learned about some very bad legislation that could be introduced at the Idaho Legislature. As you may already know, HB32, the Department's original legislation asking for a 15-20% increase on license fees with an associated ?Price Lock? proposal (that would be adopted separately by the Commission) is currently being held in the House Resource and Conservation Committee. Idaho Wildlife Federation supports this legislation.

We now have word from the Department that a new fee bill is being crafted and could be introduced sometime next week. This bill would have the fee increase but codify the price lock in the bill language as well as be an omnibus package of all the bad ideas that special interests have been trying to get implemented for years.

It would:

- Direct the Commission to implement a ?Bonus Point? system for controlled hunts
- Direct the Commission to implement a ?Governor?s Tag? auction tag for controlled hunt areas
- Institute a new Landowner Appreciation Program tag system in the following manner:
Landowners would receive tags depending on the acreage they own. They could market and sell these tags without IDFG seeing any of the proceeds and the tag could be used on the entire controlled hunt area.
- 640-5,000acres - 1 tag per species
-5,000-10,000acres - 2 tags per species
-Over 10,000acres - 3 tags per species

Additionally landowners with 320 acres and above would receive 1 tag per species for EACH of the following (Up to 3 tags per species)
- Providing some level of public access
- Habitat restoration
- Release of depredation claim

And finally, it will propose a major tweak to the way depredation kills are handled. Currently, landowners must get a tag from IDFG to retain a carcass from a depredation kill. This bill would make it so that once depredation is recognized by the Department, landowners can retain animals from depredation kill with no paperwork.

Upon hearing this, ISCAC members voted to ratify the following official statement:


"On March 4, 2015 a quorum of the Idaho Sportsman's Caucus Advisory Council voted unanimously to support the following statement.

The Idaho Sportsman's Caucus Advisory Council understands the House Resources and Conservation Committee is attempting to amend the IDF&G fee increase proposal to support private interests. ISCAC supports the Idaho Department of Fish and Game in its efforts to increase revenue for Idaho's wildlife in the form of House Bill 0032.

We oppose legislative attempts to circumvent the Idaho Fish and Game Commission's authority to manage Idaho's wildlife using science and public input as opposed to legislative whim. We are opposed to efforts to give private landowners the ability to sell hunting tags for public wildlife. We oppose the legislature mandating a "Governor's Auction Tag" and a "Bonus Point" system for controlled hunts. We oppose unregulated depredation kill by landowners.?

Even though IDFG is in desperate need of a fee increase, we as sportsmen and women cannot let the Legislature hold IDFG?s request hostage and implement bad policy. Things will happen fast over the next week to 10 days and we need to be ready to write emails to legislators and show up at committee hearings. We need to approach this with the same enthusiasm as we showed in our defense of public lands. WE NEED TO BE READY TO DEFEND OUR HUNTING AND OUTDOOR HERITAGE!!!!

In the meantime, write the Governor?s office and tell them you do not support the legislature bypassing the Commission that he has appointed. You can do so here http://gov.idaho.gov/ourgov/contact.html

There may only be 24 hours notice for committee hearings, so pay attention to emails and social media and prepare to act.

Please, forward this to all your friends that hunt, fish and enjoy Idaho?s wildlife.
 
I think it's funny how guys on hear wine about not being able to hunt and only drawing a tag once in forever if idaho went to a points system, there isn't a state out west that uses a points system that you couldn't draw a deer tag every year in some unit. If you are in it just to go hunt deer there will be units you can draw and hunt every year with a points system, points will just help the guys that actually want to work towards a chance to hunt some of the better units, instead of the ridiculous odds you have now. Bottom line is points are fair, everyone has a chance to accumulate them, and eventually it gives everyone a progressive chance to draw. I'm surprised so many are against them.
 
The only way to increase draw odds is to increase tags or decrease applicants. Points systems do neither.

At the current number of applications and tags, the early Owyhee bull tag could still take as many as 135 years to draw. Depending on the type of system implemented, you will absolutely never have a chance to draw if you aren't in on the ground floor for this specific tag. And if you are, you still may not draw before you die and even if you do, you may be too old to enjoy your hunt.

Bonus points work best for units that don't really need them. I was really impressed when I watched the F&G videos about how honest they were that these systems most likely won't work like people think they will.

In my personal experience in talking to people who want points, it's usually people who are looking to draw a specific tag like the one I mentioned above.
 
>I think it's funny how guys
>on hear wine about not
>being able to hunt and
>only drawing a tag once
>in forever if idaho went
>to a points system, there
>isn't a state out west
>that uses a points system
>that you couldn't draw a
>deer tag every year in
>some unit. If you are
>in it just to go
>hunt deer there will be
>units you can draw and
>hunt every year with a
>points system, points will just
>help the guys that actually
>want to work towards a
>chance to hunt some of
>the better units, instead of
>the ridiculous odds you have
>now. Bottom line is points
>are fair, everyone has a
>chance to accumulate them, and
>eventually it gives everyone a
>progressive chance to draw. I'm
>surprised so many are against
>them.

You're obviously part of the >50% that voted for BP's when ID took the poll 2 yrs ago and what you have indicated is indeed true. What the very vocal minority of crybabies on here would want you to believe though is that your observations are untrue, despite the fact that the video series that they keep using as "evidence" points out the fact that they are indeed mistaken.
Could it be that these selfish individuals have another motive???? Uhhh, YEAH! Obviously, a point system drawing would likely implement choices which would mean that hunters would pick up tags as 2nd and 3rd choices that those in vocal minority are purchasing as leftover NR tags. They also don't want NR's coming to hunt on their sacred ground. Any argument that BP's will make it harder to draw a tag is absurd. Just about every state has a system in place that allows for a random draw in addition to the BP draw. BP's, as is pointed out factually in Part 7 of the video series, does not diminish chances of drawing a tag. It only makes it fairer for ALL applying and eliminating the "lucky" and "unlucky" individuals who draw more frequently of never draw despite the actual odds.
For example, in a unit with 20% draw odds, one would expect to draw a tag every 5 yrs based on odds alone. In a pure random draw though, one could go forever without drawing a tag while another individual could draw it 5 out of 5 yrs. With a BP system, you would be virtually guaranteed that you would draw the tag in 5 years if you kept applying and were unlucky in the first 4 yrs. Who is that unfair to? Of course they'll try to pull the "what about my kids?" card which is just another ploy that is not based in any facts, either. If you want your kid to hunt, start putting in points for him or, better yet, take him to easy to draw units and introduce him to the sport of hunting rather than having him sit on the sideline waiting to draw the golden tag in a random draw.
 
Taken from Idaho Deer Alliance's FB page.
For all of the NR's that support the riders in the bill take a look at who they are taking tags from

2. Modifies the LAP program to establish, private land tags, family tags and stewardship tags. Private land tags may be sold but are only usable on private land in the given hunt area. Family tags can not be sold and can be used in the entire hunt area. Stewardship tags are for habitat enhancement, access and/or depredation agreements and are in addition to the private or family tags. Tags are allocated by acreage, 1 tag for 640 to 4999 acres; 2 tags for 5000 to 9999 acres and 3 tags for over 10,000 acres. These tags will come from the "statewide nonresident tags quota". It appears to do away with the CH draw for LAP tags simply adding tags sufficient to meet the LAP demand.
3. The Commission shall issue "Governor's wildlife partnership tags". Tags will be taken from "nonresident controlled hunt programs" - up to 3 deer, 3 elk, 3 pronghorn antelope, 1 mountain goat and 1 moose. Everything else appears similar to how the bighorn sheep tags are handled now.
 
Unlike some, I am not opposed to Governor's tags. I don't have a jealousy and hatred for those who have worked hard to be successful and wealthy. I hope someday that I can be one of those people, unlike the "haters" who are influenced by the current administration of this country to think that they deserve the same and should benefit from others hard work and success. Giving up a few tags isn't a problem for me in exchange for the silly amount of dollars that the Gov. tag programs bring state wildlife agencies. Ultimately, that defrays costs for the rest of us.
I'm also a believer that if someone owns a substantial amount of land with game that resides or spends a lot of time on it should have the opportunity to hunt it, protect it, and benefit from it. In reality, I think those tags should come from either the Resident or NR pool, depending on whether the landowner is a resident of NR. This is how other states do it.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-07-15 AT 08:20AM (MST)[p]It sounds like Utah is the state for you then. In Idaho most sportsmen don't agree with you and we are happy with the way it is.
 
There's nothing fair about the system right now. That's the same BS I hear all the time. A points system like Nevada has would be much better than the good ol' boys system they have in place right now.>I totally agree that Idaho does
>not need a point system!
>I have not heard
>anything positive about a point
>system from any state that
>has one,the only FAIR system
>is the one we have
>right now!!!!!
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

Back view .PNG
08271E18-BE85-44E1-A292-91D34D4C6024.jpeg
114859F5-4CA4-4F3E-8EAE-C581C92F58E6.jpeg
IMG_2821.jpg
IMG950874.jpg
BE12314A-793C-4362-AE40-27E0DBBB74C0.jpeg
IMG_4479.jpg
472CEDD1-840E-453F-80B7-48AC346D5570.jpeg
IMG_7729.jpeg
AF92AC1F-1C59-4DE1-BE45-E87577BB3D28.jpeg
1873E4DF-B4A7-436E-A6CF-888DEB090ECF.jpeg
Elk.jpg

Idaho Hunting Guides & Outfitters

Bearpaw Outfitters

Idaho Deer & Elk Allocation Tags, Plus Bear, Bison, Lion, Moose, Turkey and Montana Prairie Dogs.

Urge 2 Hunt

We focus on trophy elk, mule deer, whitetail, bear, lion and wolf hunts and spend hundreds of hours scouting.

Jokers Wild Outdoors

Trophy elk, whitetail, mule deer, antelope, bear and moose hunts. 35k acres of private land.

Back
Top Bottom