ID proposal would let ranchers sell hunting tags

[spectr17]

Here we go

http://www.headwatersnews.org/pr.hunt070605.html

 

[Speckmisser]

I don't mean this to take a position one way or another, but isn't this what CA already does with the PLM and MUM tags?

There's no incentive to provide public access, only to manage and maintain wildlife habitat. On the other hand, without the income from PLM tags, a lot of ranchers wouldn't be able to afford to maintain wildlife habitat. It's double-edged sword, for sure.

I'm curious about other folks' take on this. Do tell, guys.

 

[wmidbrook]

I'm all for it. Idaho is composed of 70% public lands. The 30% of the land that is private is largely in the lower lands which provides critical winter habitat for wildlife. Anything that can help to keep the critical wildlife habitat from turning into a paved paradise is a good thing imo.

From purely a hunting perspective, it's great because it opens up opportunities for me to hunt. I've paid as little as $150 and as much as $450 premium for a landowner tag. Obviously there are landowner tags that go into the 10s of thousands of dollars. But, I truly enjoyed the quality of those less expensive landowner tag hunts. Sure, I may not have had a chance at a 400" or even a 350" bull, but there were quality bulls over 300" in a "quality" atmosphere where I only saw a few other hunters....I didn't draw in NM in spite of trying the two years I purchase the transferable authorizations.

I don't see landowner tags in Idaho fleecing me of much opportunity--doubt I ever buy one....I could see where a unit 45 or 66 deer tag will be over a few thousand dollars....my draw odds on those units could go down by as much as 50%.....so, from 1 in 30 to a 1 in 60 chance to draw. Oh well...still good opportunity elsewhere there with OTC tags.

It'd cost me a minimum of a $4000 premium to buy a tag in the area I'll be elk hunting in this year in NM. I got lucky through the draw.

 

[DAWG]

Landowner tags may be a better deal than the draw. I have a buddy who is dying to draw a deer in NV (the state that has the highest application fees around, if you buy the license for points). Ten points and over $2500 later, he still has not drawn his tag. If he draws next year, he will be into it over $3000. I pointed out to him he could have bought a landowner tag for the same unit years ago for less money. Did not cheer him up much. Anyway, at least you know what you are buying.

 

[Coues]

What really gets me is that the ranchers will lobby for tags, saying that they are receiving crop damage, but then they post No Hunting signs all over their property.

I think to get a LO tag to sell you should have to let one public hunter on your ranch for every tag you get and the LO tag should not be "unit wide", only legal on your deeded property.

 

[Schoettgen]

I agree with wmidbrook, especially when you consider some of the possible alternatives. As to elk causing property damage, I look at it this way. The public owns the elk, if they are doing several thousands of dollars damage to private property, then the public in part should help compensate or have a way to at least partially mitigate private property damage. If letting a landowner sell a few tags helps compensate the landowner for the damage, and encourages him to maintain habitat that will benifit wildlife, and establishes good or better relations between the Game and Fish dept, then that is a good thing. I don't go for making a private landowner open his ground to the public as a stipulation of mitigating damage. There is good reason so many have closed their lands to the public. Liability, lawsuits, and the slobs that leave crap and garbage behind. I was in one of the D zones last year after deer season closed and it was embarassing what "hunters" left behind. After seeing that mess I can tell you for sure, if I owned several thousand acres, I would not grant wide open access to any of it to the general public or hunters. They would, at the very least, need to go through me for permission.