Love it or Hate it?

[IDBoneCollector]

Idaho is a great state with many hunting opportunities, I had a thought on how to maybe make it even better. What I am proposing is to auction off one tag per unit. Example unit 32 controlled buck hunt offers 40 permits on the controlled draw. Raise that to 41 but make that 1 extra tag be purchased by the highest bidder in state or out of state. This could be done through out the state?s controlled hunts on deer , elk, pronghorn, or even bear as long as the one extra permit would not jeopardize the health or sustainability of the herds . If something like this could even be implemented, I would like to see the extra funds generated from that auctioned tag be used to directly improve that particular big game management unit, not the money from unit 32a going to benefit unit 45 or vice versa. Either by purchasing and planting more sagebrush in the unit, further more extensive studies on the units animals, or even supplying ranchers with feed to help some of the game through the winter. This is just an idea that I had, and I have no idea if anyone else would support this. Thank You for your time

 

[Pooner]

Its a great idea,but I have my reservations. I think it would be great to use the money to improve the herd in that unit. I dont like the idea simply because I dont want to see big money starting to speak in Idaho hunting. You look at Utah and see all their auction tags, and big time hunting guides. It takes away from the hunting for me personally. I dont want Idahos wildlife to become money driven. I want just as much chance as the next guy (who probably has more money than me) to hunt Idaho. I want to stand next to them and feel like I am on a level playing field. But other than that I think its a great idea.

 

[IDBoneCollector]

I agree compleatly with you on that to. I aint real sure how utah's system works is it like idaho's super tag any open unit or are they restricted to that particullar unit. with what i am saying you would be on the same playing field as the guy next to u other than how u aquired ur tag like u buy unit 39 late archery u hunt 39 late archery just u payed for it.

 

[SwitchbackMuley]

I like the tought. However, I think that the problems associated with Idaho's mule deer herds, particularly in the unit you named (32), are far too complex multifaceted that we could never even begin to fix them with the $$ from a single permit. What would a permit for 32 go for anyway? A couple thousand at the most... That means units like 45 that already get the most biologist attention and good management will continue to get more money to help their herds. I think more progress and money could be made by getting rid of the rednecks in our state legislature that impose fee increases on nonres hunters and deter them from coming to our state to hunt but think it's fine for residents to shoot a deer for 20 bucks. These jokers running our state don't have a clue. Because of their decisions IDFG is stuck in the finincial hole they're in now. We could all afford to pay a few extra bucks for a deer tag, can't we? Also in regard to units 32 and 32A, there is absolutely to way you could raise enough money to implement a large-scale habitat improvement project that would continually benefit and perpetuate that herd. Maybe if fire hadn't already converted all the native rangeland to cheat grass, or maybe if local rancehrs were actually responsible and hadn't already destroyed the sagebrush component of those ecosystems we could actually do some restoration and make a difference. Those units are too close to Idaho's biggest cities and they are way to accessible to hunters. I grew up in Emmett and hunted the surrounding area my entire life and I am sick when I go back and see the horrible land management practices going on and the struggling deer herd. If we want change, we have to change people's mentality about the importance of habitat and good land use management and then we have to convince IDFG to put the KA-bosh on the general season meat melee. I feel sorry for those poor animals when the general season circus rolls around and every redneck and their dog is trying to run down a forky on their four wheeler.

 

[IDBoneCollector]

SwitchbackMuley i know what u are talking about. that is why i started thinking this is the best i can come up with i agree a unit 32 buck tag might bring 2000 and that is less than a drop in the bucket from what is needed as for raising the tag fees as i recall after the last tag fee increase i sure didnt notice any improvement in the hunting now if they would allocate a $2 increase per tag that would strictly go to improveing heard quaility and health then i would be more than to pay more for a tag but history repeats itself if you know what i am saying

 

[SwitchbackMuley]

You are right, the last fee increase didn't do much. What I am saying is that if we need money for imporvement we average hunters should just pay for it and not run the risk of turning Idaho into a rich man's playground. I'm glad that you mentioned unit 32 though, because it is in such bad shape and has so much potential to be great with some sound management. I personally feel that the excessive pressure and slaughter of immature bucks is creating a genetic dilema in that area....

 

[Moosey69]

>Its a great idea,but I have
>my reservations. I think it
>would be great to use
>the money to improve the
>herd in that unit.I dont
>want Idahos wildlife to become
>money driven.

Pooner I too have my reservations about the idea, but if all the $$ goes to improving the unit it may work.
But where you said "I dont want Idahos wildlife to become
money driven". I don't want that either, but I'm sorry it already is, and F&G has been having a hard time balancing their budget lately. That's why we have so many OTC units and tags in Idaho, and why you can buy a 2nd non-res general deer tag. You can't tell me that it's based on sound game management or what is good for the herds in those units.
And it may only get worse too. Because F&G relies on OTC non-res tag fees for alot of their revenue and at last count with the non-res tags there were 5200 general deer + 1500 Whitetail tags unsold, 3900 Elk A&B tags and only 2 of the 13 non res zone Elk tags sold out.
I'm nervous to see what they try next to increase revenue, because they already tried raising non-res tags and fees and it seemed to backfire quite a bit. And with the Wolves, habitat loss and in my opinion F&G mismanagement the herds have already been taking a beating!

 

[Idahoron]

I see more problems than it is worth. First of all not every unit has a tag to do that with. In unit 45 those deer come from other areas. The fact is who is going to buy a unit 46 deer tag? I would not pay 50 dollars for a late season unit 46-47 deer tag. An early 43 muzzleloader deer tag- 10 dollars. There are lots of others. How about a bull tag in 43? 15 dollars. In fact most of the hunts I have mentioned I feel are not even worth the price of a tag. Now if YOU want to spend more just send a donation to the F&G. If you want better deer hunting in Idaho this won't get it. Unit 45 is almost pimped out. The number of deer coming to winter range is 1/2 what it used to be. SO what would a doe tag in 43 be worth? 6 dollars? Ron

 

[BPKHunter]

I appreciate everyone that comes up with ideas to be debated. I appreciate the debate. I don't particularly appreciate those who are ALWAYS negative.

I myself believe people would pay more than you might think for many of these tags, but I'm not sure we wouldn't be better off charging a little more to the masses. Everything is a balance and has tipping points as the reduction in NR tag sales shows. Part of that is certainly the economy.

We all want to have our cake and eat it too. Bottom line is fish and game is trying very hard to balance Quality V. Opportunity which are clearly opposing forces. For those who think Fish and Game is in this for the $$, I don't see any F&G guys getting rich but they certainly need funding to do their jobs and the state ain't helping them out.

If we want bigger bucks we need to let them get older. So how do we do that and still give decent opportunity at a fair cost while still funding necessary costs to Fish and Game???

 

[SwitchbackMuley]

People have negative attitudes about this because they are frustrated with the direction of big game management and there is too much polarity amongst the hunting community in terms of their idea of what constitutes a "quality" hunting experience. Some favor the idea of hunting more seldom with the potential for a trophy animal while others prefer to hunt every year for an immature animal. Unofrtunately, in Idaho,there are far more folks that prefer the latter and they don't know a lick about the problems they're causing, nor do they care. Take for example those units within the Weiser River elk zone (22,32, 32A), there was a hearing a couple years back aimed at determining a new mule deer management plan for these units where IDFG wanted to adopt a plan similar to what they are doing in unit 54 or a two-point only regulation. IDFG couldn't get enough support, so the status quo continues and the only unit that got any attention was 22. Now look, unit 22 will soon be the "tag to have" and the others go on suffering because the rednecks want their way. Just like BPKHunter said, "they want their cake and eat it too." I like how everyone on this forum thinks they're a a friggin biologist and if it was up to them they'd just wave their magic wand and fix the problem. no one realizes that IDFG does the absolute best job they can with the limited resouces they have, after all most of them are hunters just like the rest of us. Realistically, the level of harvest we have now could be considered under-objective if we didn't already have a huge problem with habitat degredation (e.g. overgrazing, frequent wildfire, loss of native veg,winter range encroachment from developement). These are the real problems not harvest. Plus it doesn't matter how much money we shell out for tags and licesnses, that money will never make it into the hands of managers, help plant bitter brush, further scientific studies, ect. IDFG, like any other state wildlife agency, gets funding through a federally earmarked tax on hunting and fishing merchandise. So, go ahead and auction off tags or pay more for licenses, but it all goes toward taw enforcement (good thing) and ultimately expanding the state bureacracy (probably most would agree is a bad thing). The bottom line is- there is a huge misconception about how to even go about fixing our problems, both logistically and financially. And everyone thinks they could do a better job than the bio's at IDFG, which is probably right- they only went to school for 6-8 years, they must be a bunch of morons...

 

[OLDHORNHUNTER]

IDFG needs to pull their heads out & stop listening to the hunters PERIOD !!!! remember back a few years when they posted the questionare asking hunters across Idaho what they would like??? they asked about your choice of gun bow etc..longer seasons..more animals..bigger bucks & bulls..& over 5000 responses all came back saying the hunters DID NOT want to sacrafice anything they wanted it ALL...well boys we cant have it all..u cant have open seasons in areas where u have 1 to 5 mature bucks breeding 100 to 150 does..I spoke with the game warden in unit 31 this year after I made an aprox 15 mile hike during the 2nd weekend of deer season..I saw aprox 25 bucks in that 15 miles all killer deer country & I saw "1" good buck aprox 26" 4x4 saw maybe 3 other bucks that could possibly breed this year the rest were dinks..I saw aprox 200 does in the same walk..the warden told me he had talked to 18 rigs up to that timje of the day & not one of those rigs had seen a buck??? after telling me that he went on to say this unit 31 needs to be a draw only hunt to try & save the herd ??? & than said F&G wont do it because there are so many hunters coming from boise/nampa are due to 22 being a forkie only hunt now??? WTF ?? no one is going to pay a butt load of $$ to hunt units that dont have big bucks in them period !! F&G needs to stop worring about $$ & start wondering what they are gonna do when there are NO animals to hunt !!! it doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure it out look at NV UT WY CO MT AZ & NM they are putting big bucks & bulls on the ground every single year..yeah this is probably going to be a record year for horn growth for Idaho but something needs to be done & done now

 

[BOOMSTICK]

sounds like a good idea but if the auction tag in that unit is worth some real money then the unit may not need as much help as other struggling units in idaho. take for example unit 40 or 41. awesome units if you can draw them and if not then maybe you can go shoot a great 2 pointer. but none the less that unit is pretty well off in my opinion. but there are other struggling units such as 39. so maybe the money spent on the auction tag in unit 40 goes to unit 39 to purchase more wintering range or put up a deer fence (like they recently installed up at lucky peak). just my thoughts. or simply close more roads to allow for hiding places for deer

 

[IDBoneCollector]

Well Like i said it was just and idea, And that is why i asked it, I dont know how to make my magic wand work. But the reason i wouldn't like the idea of sending money from one unit to help another is i will guarntee it will get lost in the paper work and go to helping the "spotted lepord jumping frog" or some other stupid thing like that. I honestly think if u has twenty grand u could still easily dump it in to improvements to units 40 and 41 but hey its just my opinion i could be wrong.

 

[muleybucks]

OK. I agree the idea has merit.

Add a couple more thoughts to the mix.... This may get some additional argument, but so be it.

1. Take some teaching from UT on how they manage their units and charge for tags appropriately. General tags = one price. Better units (better bucks usually) = higher price for both residents/non-residents. Best units (40, 44, or 45) are expensive. You want to hunt deer and are opposed to paying more, hunt another unit. Save the units with better trophy potential for those who desire this type of hunting.

2. Come up with a "trophy" type tag (general) where, if you harvest, you must sit out (i.e. not hunt deer) the following year. For draws, not just that you can't put in. You can't hunt. The fish and game survey from a few years back basically says most people don't want to give up their opportunity to hunt each year. As a general rule, this is probably true. However, if you hunt with a "family group" (sons/daughters/dads/brothers), how many deer do you really need in a year? Trophy hunting is a valid pursuit when put into this perspective. Out of 6 of us, if we were able to scout, camp, hike, pack and spend time together, taking one or two 180+ bucks in any season would be a perfect year. As it stands today, in most years, we harvest 3-4 fair bucks with the same basic effort. We have tried to self-regulate and don't fill 6 tags just because we could. The difference is that we would be willing to harvest "half" the deer we currently do (in a general unit), as well as give up "half" of our hunting opportunity, to let some of these deer grow another year or two.

3. Come up with a "family" type tag where, as a family unit "father/son or father/daughter etc." collectively can harvest "one deer". The tag allows 2 hunters to be in the field, but they must be together (within 200 yards and have constant radio contact). Maybe even charge 2x the normal tag price. Maybe do this in certain units or have a special season, or make this a draw type tag to regulate it better(remember this is just an idea and and we all have some). The goal is to allow folks the chance to be in the field (which we all want) as well as some chance to harvest a trophy animal. Make this tag a "4 point or better" restriction to fall in line with the "trophy hunting mentality".

I think most of the hunters which frequent this forum fall into a "trophy hunter" category (even loosely) and would be somewhat willing to make this sacrifice. As a father of two young boys, having the chance to be in the field with these little guys is priceless. Having the chance to harvest a deer is even better.

I truly believe the direction this state is headed in is "trouble" for our youth hunters. With no action today by Fish and Game, their success will be horrible and they will find other activities to pass the time.

My .02.

[email protected]

 

[BOOMSTICK]

i dont like the idea of good hunting units costing more in general. it would be a great way to make money but im a college student with not a ton of money but would still like to be able to shoot a big buck from time to time.

 

[GSJ]

Love it.
Great hunting in Idaho. Very few complaints from me for F&G. We've got a bit of a predator problem. Hope we can get that nipped one of these days. As long as the winters are mild hunting should remain excellent (not starting off too good this year are we?).

We are damn lucky as hunters to live here. Some of us should keep that in mind.




the artist formerly known as "gemstatejake".

 

[Ott]

Idaho is a great state and it is what you make it. I am a longtime supporter of F&G....they are not perfect. I believe that it is the general hunting public to blame and mother nature. Idaho is a very complex state for topography and climate. I agree that there are pocket areas that could use a little more sound science. But people need to change their ways and figure out that a $150 pair of boots are expensive for durability and comfort, not to look good in the cab resting on the gas pedal. Technology is great, but it seems to handicap alot of people to thinking that hard work on a hunt is for the birds. We can't have it all! If we think we can than we will get the bad too!

 

[destroyer350]

Actually a $150 pair of boots are rather cheap and can be worn out in less than a hunting season very easily! Maybe we can't have it all but I'd like to see far better!!!!

Merry Christmas to all!!!!

By the way GSJ, whitetail hunting was alot of fun, ended up with a 140" 8 point!!

 

[DRHORNHUNTER]

Not sure I like the idea or not? One thing about the fish and game that i really don't agree with is..... buying up property. Not only is it unconstitutional but flat wrong. Then to fence it off and lock that gate ?
It's happened in my area and bet it is in yours. In a hard economical time and then say we need to raise tag prices to cover costs.

 

[southcountyboy]

not sure high value tag could ever be high value enough to make much difference. what would mate a difference is take all deer hunts to minimum antler size to harcest, i think four points a side minimum. i think for youth spike or four point or better, that way they have a little more options. no spikes by forks just spikes. also stop letting these a-- holes build houses in winter grounds. stop letting these a-- holes get away with scattering deep on wintering grounds, make it a crime to chase, scatter, disturb deer on winter grounds. then lets all stop bitching about mis management of game, lets put our time into volunteer work with the IDFG projects to improve habitat, plant forage grasses cut or burn cedar or sage that has incroached on winter range.

If I could have my way every hunter would have to put in time on habitat project to earn the right to hunt every year, like earning a buck tag in the east by killing one of the Does. we would have to improve habitat here were we have too few deer to be able to hunt.

 

[Triple_BB]

I had an area 40 late season deer tag this year and had a great hunt. However it was obvious the areas I was in were short on mature bucks. Lots of spikes, two's and small three points off by themselves with hot does. As far as I'm concerned you might as well be pizzing that $20k auction tag into the wind if the F & G is going to continue to pimp out the unit by giving out unlimited 2 pt tags. Money isn't a cure for unsound game management practices. Just saying...

 

[beavis14]

LAST EDITED ON Jan-07-11 AT 07:43AM (MST)[p]the fish and game is starting to resemble a bunch of nickle whores. they try and milk every penny out of us and we get worse and worse hunting. point restrictions do NOT NOT work......need proof go to the idaho muledeer book written by that hatfield fellow or any b & c book. check out the boone and crocket intries in the owyhees BEFORE the darned 2 point restriction and look after....it's not bringing bigger bucks. it's bringing smaller ones. i think they should make all the owyhee units a draw NO general seasons. with horn restrictions you are going to have even more deer shot and left to rot. the f &g is overhunting our units plain and simple. i used to be apposed to " chose your weapon " but since they shoved that basicly down our throats with the gay arse elk zones i think we should go chose your weapon hunts. and by this i don't mean have the archery guys watching every waterhole in the desert for goats , or getting to hunt the rut for elk every year. this will make a lot of you mad nut i feel the archery guys are taking a toll on our elk by " sticking " and losing 2 or three elk each year. i feel every five years rifle hunters should get a shot at the rut. i used to be able to as a teenager and there were TONS of bulls. sorry for the bowhunting rant but i feel the rifle hunters play second fiddle and am getting tired of hunting animals that are run to death by archers and muzzy hunters before i get my chance.....sorry for the rant.

 

[208JBB]

I like a lot of the ideas mention here. I have a lot of respect for F&G. Their hands are tied by the legislator, then the lobbyists and then the good ol boys that are not willing to change. Adding a few dollars to the tag price isn't going to stop people from buying tags, and if it does then that's a few less people in the hills.

I really think there needs to be more volunteer work. I doubt we could force anybody to do the work, but a reward system would definitely get more people to get involved.

I have also been hunting eastern Oregon for the last 15 years, and have seen the deer population reduced to the point of being concerned that the herd is past the point of recovery. South eastern Oregon has not had as many of the wild fires in the last 15 years, and almost no development encroachment. The ranchers haven't changed, and its been a draw only for as long as I can remember. What else can they do? Predators, weeds, and over hunting are the only things that I see that could still be causing the decline. It makes me wonder what Idaho can do about the situation.