Have heard that Idaho is pushing to increase the non-refundable application processing fee from $6 to $26 on controlled hunts. I have had no problem in giving my $ to the CO, WY, and ID game departments in the past since I believe they do a good service for all of us. However, I really have a hard time with this for the following;

We have a pure lottery in Idaho and you can apply all of your life and never get a tag. $26 a pop is a lot to pay every time you apply over a lifetime where you are not guaranteed a tag.
For this kind of $ I would think a preference point system is needed to guarantee that you will eventually get a tag. In other states this works well, and though you may wait 10yrs or so, one day you will get that tag (except for sheep/goats in which you may die of old age 1st).
Colorado charges less (I believe around $3) to process applications. Why does Idaho need $26?
This will not benefit the common hunter with average means. In fact, I am sure many will cease applying for controlled hunts, and really question who this will benefit (will guess those of more means....).

What do the rest of you think?

Deke.

Never hunted Idaho, but looks like their way of getting more $$ at the expense of the non-residents, who always spend/leave more money in the states they hunt, at least I know I do when I go to MT every year (cause I have friends there), what with gas/food/ lodgeing/dining out, buying hunting/shooting stuff, all in addition to paying the non-resident fees for deer "A" and "B" tags. MT only keeps 5 bucks if I fail to draw a tag. Raise the fees for more money from non-residents, and I guess eventually they (we/me) will stop going out of state.

I know Idaho looked a a preference point system a couple years ago. I hope they realize the benifits both for the hunters and their pockets.

ddj

Teo quick points: Idaho is going crazy with their fee increases. It is too bad and I will most likely not be able to hunt there anymore.

As for points:::: Points only work if there are enough permits availible to cycle the applicants through in a timely fashion. Of course point systems are great for those who are elidgable to apply when the points start.

Idaho, Montana and Wyoming are getting ready to pay for WOLF management....doesn't surprise me that they (at least Idaho at this point) are partially passing the bill along to non-residents.

I am neither for or against doing this to non-residents (I don't care enough about the issue to look into it) but if the only downside is that we have fewer non-resident hunters to deal with I doubt IDFG will really care-- they always have and (always will) collect the revenue from the allotment of non-resident tags.

IV

In reality, non-residents fund a larger share of the Game and Fish budget. If they don't get the funds from nonresidents then resident costs go up. Idaho should make it feasible for non-residents to apply.

ddj

just typical government - trying to squeeze more and more out of everybody anyway they can

I don't know that it is going to affect NR's that more than R's. The fee increase is for ALL controlled hunt applications. I think it will reduce R applications the most since we have less $ than the NR's that can already afford to travel. I think the end result will be far fewer R applications, a few less NR applications, a higher % of draw success, and the desired revenue increase for the state. It's impact will be unfair to R's since many of us will no longer be able to justify the cost of applying for a higher quality controlled hunt that you may NEVER get to go on. That really sucks when you live here and dump way more of your paycheck into the state than others who come here for only a week or two!

Frankly, if they need the $ (and I have no clue whether they do), I think you ought to increase the cost of the tag and not the applications.

Deke.

I'm not sure if this is still correct but 63% of the funding for the Idaho fish and game comes from non-residents. I know its easy to bash them but without them the residents will be paying lots more. We all need to remind our states no matter where you live that the game belongs to the people!!! not just a revenue sourse. If you look at europe, see how many working class people get to hunt. just my two cents. And yes I hunt Idaho

I fully support Game Agencies in charging non-residents more for tags. Residents subsidize Game Agencies through thier taxes and donations. Non-Residents should pay more. I agree with a previous post, charge the increase on the license, not on the application. Of course they make more, or make it more easily, charging the masses on the applications.

Idaho also allows unsold Non-Resident tags to be sold to residents or other non-residents who want to shoot an additional deer. So they will always sell out their tags.

if you can't afford $20 you can't afford to go on the hunt anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by Ivan:
if you can't afford $20 you can't afford to go on the hunt anyway.

This is ok if you only hunt one State for one or two species. What about guys who apply in several States for several different animals. If more States follow suit and raise their application fees that could be several hundred dollars lost in fees.

I know my hunting this next season will be toned down as I try to recover from this last screwed up year.

Here is the entire proposed fee structure. http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/c...ance/feeSchedule.pdf

Based on 2008 number increase is $6.9+ Million.

quote:

Originally posted by Ivan:
if you can't afford $20 you can't afford to go on the hunt anyway.

Lets make Hunting really expensive so nobody will go!!!!!

Just an interesting note-- in Idaho you can apply for a special hunt by paying the application fee.

In Washington, you must purchase the non-resident tag first, and then you can apply for the special hunt. If you don't get drawn, you have a "spike bull only" (or something similar) tag.

Just to apply for a special elk hunt in Washington cost 394.20 + 54.75 for the permit application.

I doubt non-residents are clamoring at the borders of WA to get in for the hunting, but.....

My question would be: How does Idaho non-resident compare to other states and take into consideration what you get in return for your money.


IV

I going back to Idaho this year, from Ohio. Frankly, with the quality and quantity of game seen my last trip in 2005--- I'm real happy to pay a reasonable fee, $20.00 is reasonable. I just hope the wolves have not decimated the game. I also would love to have a tag for a wolf.

If you have not been to Idaho since 2005, you are going to be bummed out when you find out the wolves have wiped out your area, and the mule deer are gone.
IDF&G wants more money but what are we getting? Mule deer numbers are falling in all units. Trophy quality in Idaho's #1 mule deer hunt has dropped to the 170's low 180's at the very best. Elk numers are dropping in every unit that has wolves and trophy quality for bulls is also falling. Upland game is all but a thing of the past. No we should not pay for an increase until the hunting improves. If the local resturant raises the price, reduces the portion size and your waitress does not care if you ever get a meal. How long would it take yo to find a new place to go?? The F&G have some info on how much impact the wolves are having on our game populations. Here it is click on the elk survival update for a watered down version of what is happening. Ron
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/c...e/manage_issues/ung/

For a long time now I have not applied for preference points. At my age(73 , still in pretty good shape, still hunting, though slowing down)I figure the likelihood of accruing enough preference points for premium hunts is nil. I either will not be able to hunt by the time I am drawn or will be 6' under. Its not fair but what are you going to do? I will just continue to do my research & hunt public accessible lands that I think offer the best chance of success. Another option for those of means is outfitted hunts. However, in the lower 48, I have been disappointed with most of my guided hunts; not likely I will be doing anymore. Too much overselling of the hunts and short on delivery. One that really sticks in my craw is Nev, where, if you want preference points you must buy the non-res. license; that's the price of the preference point, a pretty steep price.

Lots of clarification needed.

Roughly 1/2 of Idaho fish and game managed with fed $, the other 1/2 is split nearly even between R and NR tag and fishing license fees.

If you choose to hunt out of state, you choose to pay more, I hunt two other states and don't complain about the NR fees.

If you can't afford to pay $20 you can't afford to hunt. Frankly, BS! It costs me $20 gas round trip, normally $1 worth of handloads, and $50 for tag/license in Idaho, so $20 app fee is roughly 40% of that budget! Also note that $20 is for each species and each controlled hunt. If you apply for a min of Elk/Deer/Antelope like I do, that is $60, if I take my 3 boys that is $240 and I'm not even talkin tags yet, just tag application fees! I think the $20 is the weakest part of the IF&G plan, and will probably not make it through legislature, but we need to write our Idaho State Representatives!

Idaho NR fees are competitive with the rest, but no steal.

In some areas the wolves have decimated the game to a point where IF&G have gotten fed approval/assistance to take out the wolves. We have had two packs culled recently in southeast Idaho and the wolves are much worse in the north and northeast. Better check up on your area, if you choose poorly, it may just be a well armed camping trip.

Nice summation Idaho Ron.

If I got a preference point for the extra app fee then maybe I would be more acceptable. Idaho is a pure lottery, and I/You may never get the tag.

My solution: Don't increase the app fee. Increase the controlled hunt tag fees. If you have not purchased an Idaho tag in the last couple/few (whatever makes sense) years, you pay an additional $25 when you pick up your premium tag. It will help replenish the budget, keep people loyal and hunting Idaho every year (not just shopping the best deal, etc.). What do you all think?

Deke

Deke,
My hunting buddy's and i are also upset. We apply for the same controlled hunts you mentioned and a few times we also went after the second chance hunts so it is even more money. It doesn't sound good for this to pass the legislature due to the downturn in the economy, but you never know with politicians. Already called mine, for what it's worth.

Guys, I spent over two grand in Idaho this past Thanksgiving week. I drew late season controlled hunts: muzzleloader deer and rifle elk. In seven days I saw one cow elk, and a total of one mule deer I would consider a nice head, about 25". I hunted with locals who know where to look, and I saw really nothing worth taking.

Idaho F&G heard from me when I got back... I told them to stop the sale of archery elk tags at a pre-set number, raise the cost of the NR tags, and start taking care of the deer herd by cutting back tags for controlled hunts or not holding the hunt period if the deer population is down. I don't mind spending the money, had an awesome week in the woods, but if they don't do something pretty quick to turn the deer hunting around, they are going to lose a lot of NR business, as I see it. Folks will go to Colorado, where you buy an elk tag over the counter and have pretty good odds...

Thanks for the update guys. I will adjust expactations accordingly.

why should a NR pay more than a Res to hunt on Federal lands to begin with? Don't the Federal lands belong to all of us? Private lands or state owned lands are a different story than the Federal land an if the state wishes to jepordize themselves by hiking NR tag fees to hunt them that's their choice.
I quit allowing myself to be charged scalper rates to any state I'm not a resident of a few years ago when MT went to over $1000 for an outfitter sponsored deer tag.....that's just insane