Round 1: Sawtooth Elk Zone vs. Teton Elk Zone

This is the seventh installment on a series of posts comparing Idaho's any-weapon, antlered, general season elk hunts. For an intro to this series, go here.

For the first post in this series, read Dworshak Elk Zone vs. Bear River Elk Zone.

For the second post in this series, read Snake River Elk Zone vs. Palisades Elk Zone.

For the third post in this series, read Palouse Elk Zone vs. McCall Elk Zone.

For the fourth post in this series, read Selway Elk Zone vs. Salmon Elk Zone.

For the fifth post in this series, read Panhandle Elk Zone vs.Tex Creek Elk Zone.

For the sixth post in this series, read Middle Fork Elk Zone vs. Dworshak Elk Zone.

Here we go comparing the Sawtooth Elk Zone to the Teton Elk Zone. First up, the Sawtooth.

The Hunt

The A-Tag for the Sawtooth Elk Zone is an archery only season that ran in 2011 from August 30 through September 30.  The B-Tag is what we're primarily  looking at here, as it is the only any-weapon, antlered-only tag.  In 2011, the B-Tag general season ran from October 15 through November 8.  So it is a good long season, just over 3 weeks long.  But there is a quota on the number of B-Tags sold.  The cap is 1,526 tags, and they went on sale to non-residents on 12/1/2010, and to residents on 7/10/2011.

Location

Located in the center of the state, the Sawtooth Elk Zone is a popular getaway for Boise and Twin Falls folks.  The Sawtooth Mountains are a state emblem right next to the potato.  The town of Stanley is the outpost in the middle of the Zone, and Garden Valley is the other one, located on the west end of the Zone.  Just a few hours drive from Boise or Twin Falls has made this a popular place to hunt.

Besides the Sawtooth Mountains, the Stanley Basin is known for its beauty, the Salmon River that runs through it, as do the Middle and South Forks of the Payette River.

The Zone consists of Game Management Units 33, 34, 35, and 36, covering 1,626,045 acres or 2,540 square miles.

Salmon River Area East of Stanley

Garden Valley Area

Unit 33 contains the small town of Garden Valley, with the Middle Fork of the Payette River running vertically through it.  Unit 34 holds Deadwood River and Reservoir on its western side, and the north east corner contains the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness roadless area.  Unit 35 has the South Fork of the Payette River running through it, as well as HWY 21, the main road from Boise to Stanley.  The Sawtooth Wilderness area is on the east side of the unit.  Unit 36 hosts the town of Stanley in its middle, with the Salmon River and HWY 75 extending to the eastern border of the Zone towards Challis.  Southbound HWY 75 goes through the basin to Galena Pass, and over the top towards Ketchum/Sun Valley.  The Sawtooth Wilderness sits on the southwest side of the unit, and the Frank Church Wilderness extends down into the northwest corner of the unit.

Terrain/Land Ownership

As for the terrain, you might generally call it mountainous.  The Sawtooth Mountains peak out at elevations above 10,000 ft.  Fingers extending west from the Sawtooths maintain 8,000 ft. on the ridge tops, and then dive down steepley to 6,000 ft. into the drainages.  East of the Sawtooths, across the basin, the terrain is a little more tame, but the further north you go, the mountains get more rugged, where elevations stick in the 7,000 - 8,000 ft. range.  The Garden Valley area sits a little less high in the 4,000 - 6,000 ft. range, but those elevations rise the further east you travel.

92% of the ground is considered forested, and 5% is considered rangeland.  Livestock grazing is minimal in the Zone.  Most of the Zone is mountainous, and well forested.  But there is a good continual mix of open and wooded areas that generally make this Zone pleasant to hunt.  Thus its popularity.  It is steep in areas, but more tame than the Middle Fork Elk Zone, and some of the wilder wilderness areas.

The wilderness areas are obviously more remote with their roadless areas, yet the area around Garden Valley has plenty of roads to get you around on.  The Zone really has a little bit for every kind of hunter.  If you are a do-it-yourself kind of person who likes to hike in several miles where there is guaranteed to be no other traffic, you can have it in the Sawtooth Zone.

If you like to road hunt, well, there's that too.  

94% of the land in the Zone is public, 3% is private, and the remainder is State of Idaho and BLM.  No issues finding a place to hunt and camp here.

Herd Health/Stats

Lots to talk about here.  In the mid to late 1800's trappers, hunters, and miners decimated the elk and deer population in this area.  In 1909, the Idaho Legislature decided to help the game population recover, and they established the South Fork Game Preserve in Unit 35.  No hunting occurred in the Zone until 1945, and the Preserve lasted until 1977.  The deer herd rebounded quickly, and by the late '70's, the elk herd had rebounded as well.  The elk numbers peaked in the early '90's at over 7,000 elk.  Less than half that exists now.

The desire is to manage this elk herd at relatively high numbers.  IF&G would love to have 750 bulls harvested from it every year.  That is a lofty goal.  Right now the sustainable bull harvest has to be equal or less than 250 bulls.  But IF&G wants to see the herd rebound again, balanced only by its concerns about winter feeding grounds.

The wintering areas are in a mess around the Garden Valley area, where rush skeleton weed has infested the south and west facing slopes, making those thousands of acres useless as winter feeding areas.  IF&G implements winter feeding programs approximately two years out of every five.

Bulls have been over-harvested in the past, and in 2010, the IF&G stated that more bulls are being harvested than are being recruited.  Calf recruitment has generally been in the dumps.  More on that in a minute.  Tag quotas are now a 46% reduction from the 2008 season.

As for predation issues, the Big 3 (bears, mt. lions, and wolves) are all well established in the Zone.  Bear and mountain lions most certainly are elk predators, but the extent of their predation is not known.  Wolves, however, are to blame for the declining elk herd in the Sawtooth Zone.  In many cases, such as with the Selway Elk Zone, the IF&G will acknowledge that wolves are present, that they are a threat to the elk population, but the extent of the damage done by wolves is not fully known.  But with the Sawtooth Zone, the IF&G makes no bones about it.  Wolves are a huge issue here.

In 2009 there were more than 12 packs that were well established.  And here's the bit on calf recruitment, and it appears to be tied with wolves.  In 2008 and 2009, calf recruitment rates were drastically low.  In 2010, the year following the first legal wolf hunt in Idaho, calf recruitment rates spiked up.  It will be interesting to compare calf recruitment rates after this wolf hunting season to see if 2010 was an anomaly, or if the wolf hunts may be helping in some way.  As of 2/9/2011, 20 wolves have been harvested in the Sawtooth Zone this season.

In 2008, a winter survey was taken.  2,696 cows were counted (objective is to have 3,050 - 4,550), and 251 bulls were counted (objective is to have 600 - 975).  Of those 251 bulls, 82 mature bulls were counted (objective is to have 355 - 575 mature bulls).  Objectives are not being met, and hunter numbers have consequently declined as well, from around 6,000 in 2006 to less than 3,000 in 2010.

Here's how the stats line up.  The only wrinkle in these stats is that Unit 34 has no data, as it was not surveyed.  Elk population survey used for this was 2008.  I think these numbers are fairly close to reality, however.

Elk/Square Mile: 1.2

Hunters/Square Mile: 0.9

Bulls/Square Mile: 0.10

Average Hunter Days: 5.24

Bull Harvest Percentage:  12%

Percent Spikes Harvested: 42%

Percent 6+ points Harvested: 20%

Teton Elk Zone

The Hunt

The any-weapon, antlered-only hunt for the Teton Zone ran from October 15, 2011 to October 21, 2011 on the B-Tag.  Archery seasons lasted from 8/30 - 9/30, and the A-Tag also had an any-weapon, anterless-only season from 10/22 - 11/15.  We will only be focusing on the B-Tag here.

Location

The Teton Zone is squeezed in between the Island Park Elk Zone on the north, and the Palisades Elk Zone on the south.  Starting in Sugar City, the border follows HWY 20 up to Ashton, then northeast up through Warm River and to Yellowstone National Park's boundary.  The border then goes south on the Wyoming - Idaho border down to HWY 31, and then jogs up to the town of Victor.  From Victor the border follows HWY 31 west out of town until it decides to cut off a chunk of the Big Hole Mountains from the Palisades Zone.  After taking that watershed for itself, it meets up with HWY 33, and heads west back to Sugar City.

The Teton Zone is located northeast of Idaho Falls, a roughly 45 minute drive from Idaho Falls to Ashton on HWY 20.  Home to rolling malt barley and seed potato fields (Ashton is the seed potato capital of the world), the rolling hills give way to the foothills of the Tetons on the east.  Waking up to sunrise over the Tetons is just one bonus to hunting here.

Terrain/Land Ownership

First, let's talk about where you can hunt in this Zone.  75% of the land here is private, and 24% is BLM and USFS.  In a Zone that consists of just 457,617 acres (715 square miles), only about 112,000 acres are on public ground.

There are two primary places to hunt in the Teton Zone.
The first one is in the USFS land along the Wyoming border.  Basically, unlike the east side of the Tetons where the mountains rise straight up 15 million feet from the valley floor, the west side has foothills that gently rise up to where the rocky crags of the Tetons take over.  Those foothills spill across the Idaho border for several miles.  But it isn't far.  Several miles might be generous.  This strip of USFS land that is huntable stretches from Warm River on the north down nearly to Driggs.

Believe me, it doesn't take long to find yourself in Wyoming, so do take caution.  Those foothills spilling into Idaho are essentially canyons running east-west with creeks in the bottom.  And they are well timbered.  It is pretty thick in there.  That's not to say that there isn't any breathing room at all; there are meadows here and there.  But be prepared for hunting dark timber.

The second area to hunt in this Zone is in the mountains west of Victor and Driggs, as well as in the tiny corner south of HWY 31, east of Victor.  This area of USFS land adds an element of variety.  On the whole, it is probably steeper than the area along the Wyoming border, but it is a good mix of open sagebrush, dark timber, and aspen stands.  The terrain is very similar to the Palisades Elk Zone, which borders the Teton Zone just to the south.

Herd Health/Stats

Herd health.  Herd health?  What herd?  Yeah, there's sort of a

herd here.  There has always been an elk presence in the Zone.  There has to be.  It just looks like an elky kind of place.  But the elk presence is really dependent upon weather.  Elk summer in the high elevations of the Big Hole Mountains, and work there way down as fall and winter approach.  On the north and eastern parts of the Zone, the elk have to be pushed into the area by lots of snow where they summer in Wyoming and in Yellowstone National Park.

Weather and winter range are the two factors that determine elk presence.  There is very little winter range for the elk.  The elevation in the Teton Valley is about 6,000 ft., and huntable areas on USFS land generally rise to about 7,000 ft.  So this is a high elevation Zone that gets a lot of snowfall, and often extreme temperatures.

Winter feeding stations are no longer in use, but have consistently been used in the past.  This has created dependent elk, too many elk for the real habitat during the winter.  Agricultural expansion in the past century, and recent residential development near Victor and Driggs have also taken up rare wintering areas.  What wintering areas are left are usually ran over by recreational snowmobiles in the winter.  Elk like the woods to be a quiet place.  Snowmobiles aren't quiet.

The most recent winter survey in 2006 counted 173 cows, 125 bulls (of which, 95 were mature bulls).  Objectives are to maintain 150-250 cows, 35-55 bulls (of which, 15-35 should be mature).  Just not a lot of action here.  Approximately 50-60 elk winter SE of Victor, and they usually show up late-winter.  Approximately 130 elk retreat from the Big Hole Mts. west of Victor and Driggs, and winter along the Teton River in the basin.  Then there's usually a couple of other small groups that descend from Yellowstone.  All of this movement is generally after the Oct. 15 - Oct. 21 general season hunt.

Predation probably is insignificant compared to the weather issues.  IF&G says there is a moderate and stable black bear population.  I have a hard time believing that it is anything but a high population, especially in the timbered areas.  Mt. Lions are rare.  Grizzlies are increasing in population, and spreading.  Several attacks happened near Driggs/Victor/Jackson in the past year.  There are 3 established wolf packs that call the Teton Zone part of their territory, and undoubtedly do have some affect on the elk, but how much exactly is unknown.

So, the stats; brace yourself:

Elk/Square Mile: 0.42

Hunters/Square Mile: 0.15

Bulls/Square Mile: 0.17

Average Hunter Days: 5.2

Bull Harvest Percentage:  5%

Percent Spikes Harvested: 0%

Percent 6+ points Harvested: 50%

Analysis & The Winner 

The winner is the Sawtooth Zone.  But this was an exercise in comparing two of Idaho's dud Elk Zones.  Wolves have made the Sawtooth Zone pretty tough to hunt, especially if you head very far east of Garden Valley.  There just isn't the herd that there once was.  Hopefully a successful wolf season will help calf recruitment there.

The Teton Zone could be doable.  It's the kind of place that is weather-depending.  If the high elevations get heavy snow in early October, the elk will start heading down.  Some big bulls have been harvested here, and the cow to bull ratio from surveys shows that a lot of big bulls come down.  So there is a chance.  But it's too chancy.  If I had to plan a hunt, and had to choose between these two, I would take the Sawtooth Zone, get away from where the elk are heavily pressured, and roll the dice.  At least there I wouldn't have to worry about turning the corner and finding some mama grizzly glaring at me.

~ J. Bunch

Read More

Round 1: Middle Fork Elk Zone vs. Dworshak Elk Zone

This is the sixth installment on a series of posts comparing Idaho's any-weapon, antlered, general season elk hunts. For an intro to this series, go here.

For the first post in this series, read Dworshak Elk Zone vs. Bear River Elk Zone.

For the second post in this series, read Snake River Elk Zone vs. Palisades Elk Zone.

For the third post in this series, read Palouse Elk Zone vs. McCall Elk Zone.

For the fourth post in this series, read Selway Elk Zone vs. Salmon Elk Zone.

For the fifth post in this series, read Panhandle Elk Zone vs.Tex Creek Elk Zone.

Here we go comparing the Middle Fork Elk Zone to the Dworshak Elk Zone. First up, the The Middle Fork.

The Hunt

The season dates for the general season elk hunts in the Middle Fork Zone (Units 20A, 26, and 27) are pretty exciting.  Like the Selway Zone, there is an early season when the bulls are dead in the middle of their rut.  In 2011, you had to choose between the  A-tag or the B-tag.  

The A-tag ran from Oct. 1 - Oct. 31, and was any antlered elk in Units 20A & 26.  In Unit 27, only brow-tined bulls may have been harvested.  There were only 647 tags available for this hunt, and they went on sale as a first-come-first-served basis, first for non-residents on 12/1/10 and for residents on 7/10/11.

The B-tag ran from Sep. 15 - Sep. 30, and the rules were the same as described above for the A-tag: any antlered bull in Units 20A & 26, and brow-tined only in Unit 27.  The B-tag also had a second season, Nov. 1 - Nov. 18, with the same rules as above.  1,636 B-tags was the quota, and they were first-come-first-served as described above.

Location

The Middle Fork Zone sits sandwiched between the Selway Wilderness on the north, the Salmon Elk Zone on the east, the Sawtooth Elk Zone to the south, and the McCall Elk Zone on the west.  This is primitive Idaho at its finest.  Wanting to get away from it all?  This is big and wild country, and it rivals

the Selway Elk Zone in that regard.  36% of the Zone lies within the Frank Church - River of No Return Wilderness.

Access to the Zone is limited.  While it is not all designated wilderness area, roads are not plenteous going in or out.  You can access the area by going through Yellowpine or Challis, and a few other places on Forest Service roads.  But a big part of planning to go hunt the Middle Fork Zone is determining where you want to go, and how to get in and out.  Most folks will suggest horses, at least.  Flying in is also an option, along with choosing the right guide and/or outfitter.  Backpacking in is also an option, but, as we shall see shortly, this is rugged territory.

Terrain/Land Ownership

The terrain is mountainous.  River bottoms will be found at 4,000 - 4,500 ft. in elevation, and mountain tops will easily peak out above 9,000 ft.  I would say that the average draw to ridgetop elevations will be between 6,000 ft. to
8,000 ft., and it is mostly ridge after ridge after ridge of the same beautiful, remote country, over and over again.  Bring a compass.  You will feel small.

As I said earlier, a big chunk (36%) of the Zone is wilderness.  The remainder is USFS.  There is virtually no private ground here, and very little of it is used for livestock grazing.  Once you get in, the only thing limiting where or how you hunt will be your own legs (or your horse's).  But don't let me scare you off entirely.  This hunt is doable, and exciting.  It offers hunts during the peak of the rut, but you must be able to track down that bull that you heard bugle over the next ridge.  It's tough, but for the guys who are in good shape, the terrain can be more of a

motivating challenge.  Even if you pack in on horses, you'll have to leave the horses to stalk elk, and when you do, there will be some serious uphill-downhill hiking.

The Zone consists of 1,846,323 acres, or 2,885 square miles.

Heard Health/Stats

Earlier in the 20th Century, elk were not very numerous here.  It wasn't until the 1970's that the elk population really took off and established itself.  The population continued to grow until about 10-15 years ago.  Many will point out immediately that wolf introduction happened at about the same time.  This is true, and the wolves definitely have had an impact on the heard health.  But habitat is just as much, and probably much more, of a factor.

Fire suppression management is the big one.  The Forest Service manages virtually 100% of this Zone, so they are the ones to blame one way or another.  As we all know, forest fires produce excellent elk habitat.  Efforts to minimize the fires hurt the elk habitat.  Specifically in this Zone, elk populations have risen and fallen in direct parallel to fire activity.  

Units 20A & 26 have seen their elk herds decrease dramatically in the last 10-15 years, but Unit 27 hasn't been as drastic.  Herds there increased up until 8-10 years ago, and since then there has been a steady decrease.  In Unit 27, bull to cow ratios are very low, and this has been a result of poor calf production.  Yes, the habitat is a big issue, but the observed herd health in Unit 27 shows that predators are taking a toll as well.

Black bear numbers are low and steady.  Mountain lion populations are high.  Wolves are well established.  IF&G managers see the wolves as being potentially very helpful to the herd's health by keeping elk populations below habitat capacity.  But that's not a point you'd want to try to prove at the bar in Challis while talking with other hunters.  It's debatable.  On the issue of wolves, I believe the truth is somewhere in the middle.  The wolves are hurting the elk, no doubt.  But there is a perfect storm right now of decreasing habitat and increasing wolves.  The ideal, for the hunter, is increasing habitat and decreasing wolves - obviously.

Objectives are to maintain between 3,850 - 5,750 cows, 950 - 1,550 bulls (of which 600 - 900 should be mature bulls).  The 2006 survey counted 5,137 cows, and 834 bulls (of which 450 were mature bulls).  2010 was the last year that anterless elk hunts were conducted in the Zone.  But antleress harvests were minimal, and it had no significant impact on the herd health.  The main

objective is to increase cows in Units 20A and 26, and to increase bull numbers in all of the Zone.

Here's the stats.  2006 survey data was used, and I have little doubt that the population levels have decreased since then.  2010 data was used for the harvest records.  So the stats below are probably a little optimistic, but well within reason.

Elk/Square Mile: 2.0

Hunters/Square Mile: 0.4

Bulls/Square Mile: 0.29

Average Hunter Days: 5.9

Bull Harvest Percentage:  13%

Percent Spikes Harvested: 5%

Percent 6+ points Harvested: 57%

Dworshak Elk Zone

I've described the Dworshak Elk Zone here.  So go there and read about it, and then come back here to see which Zone I think gives you the better chance at harvesting a bull.

Analysis & The Winner

Elk per square mile is basically the same for both the Dworshak and the Middle Fork.  Hunters per square mile is much different, however.  There is considerably less pressure in the Middle Fork's remote wilderness, with 0.4 hunters per square mile there compared to 1.4 in the Dworshak Zone.  Bulls per square mile is similar between the two Zones, with Dworhak only being slightly higher.  

The kinds of bulls harvested finds the two Zones on opposite ends, and much of that has to do with the brow-tined only restrictions in Unit 27.  In the Middle Fork, 5% of the harvest is spikes, while 57% are 6-pointers or better.  In the Dworshak Zone, 42% are spikes, while only 15% have six points or better.  In the end, however, the bottom line stat is this.  In the Middle Fork, you have a 13% chance of filling your tag, while in the Dworshak Zone, that decreases to 7%.

Bull numbers are down in both Zones.  But the odds of you finding a really decent one reside in the Middle Fork.  The Middle Fork's terrain is certainly more difficult to hunt in, but on the other hand, it offers a lot more glassing/spot and stalk opportunities.  

In the end, as difficult as it may be to get into the Middle Fork's wilderness, the odds of harvesting a bull are greater there.  The vistas are rewarding too.  And if you make an elk trip there, I'm certain it will be an adventure to remember.  Middle Fork Elk Zone is the winner!

~ J. Bunch

Read More

Round 1: Panhandle Elk Zone vs. Tex Creek Elk Zone

This is the fifth installment on a series of posts comparing Idaho's any-weapon, antlered, general season elk hunts. For an intro to this series, go here.

For the first post in this series, read Dworshak Elk Zone vs. Bear River Elk Zone.

For the second post in this series, read Snake River Elk Zone vs. Palisades Elk Zone.

For the third post in this series, read Palouse Elk Zone vs. McCall Elk Zone.

For the fourth post in this series, read Selway Elk Zone v. Salmon Elk Zone.

Here we go comparing the Panhandle Elk Zone to the Tex Creek Elk Zone. First up, the Panhandle.

The Hunt

Idaho has two types of over-the-counter elk tags that can be chosen.  An A-tag and the B-tag are usually offered for each elk zone.  The difference between the two will differ from elk zone to elk zone, but the differences usually lie in season dates, weapon options, or sex of animal to hunt.

The Panhandle Zone offers OTC, any-weapon, antlered hunts on both the A-tag and the B-tag.  Here's the breakdown.  On the 2011 A-tag you could hunt Unit 1, 2, 3, 4, 4A & 5 from Oct. 25 - Oct. 31.  You could also hunt Unit 6, 7 & 9 from Oct. 25 - Oct. 29.  So, mark that - that is the A-tag.

The B-tag begins a little earlier, and adds some variety.  You could hunt Unit 1, 2, 3, 4, 4A & 5 from Oct. 10 - Oct. 31.  And in those you Units you had the option of harvesting any elk on Oct. 15 - Oct. 19.  Also on the B-tag: you could hunt Unit 6, 7 & 9 from Oct. 10 - Oct. 24, and you could harvest any elk in Unit 6 on Oct. 15 - Oct. 16.

Got it?

As I look at the options for any-weapon hunters, I don't know why you would purchase anything beside the B-tag.  The B-tag has longer seasons, they begin earlier, and there is a brief window where you can fill your freezer with a cow if you haven't chased down the monster bull.  Archers will probably find the A-tag more interesting, as it allows for a late season archery hunt in December.  Muzzleloaders will also probably find the A-tag more attractive as well.

As far as when hunters will first be in the woods in the Zone, early archery dates began August 30 and lasted until September 30.  Then there's a break until the any-weapon seasons begin on Oct. 10.

Location

This Zone basically encompasses the entirety of the northern Idaho panhandle.  The north boundary is the Canadian border.  The west boundary is the State of Washington.  On the east, Montana.  The southern part of the Zone is the only somewhat tricky part.  From east to west, the boundary follows the divide between the St. Joe River and the N. Fork of the Clearwater River.  From there... well, I could bore you with all of the other watershed divides as the boundary makes its way from Montana to Washington, but I'd rather spend my time giving you a link to the maps so that you can see for yourself.

This is a big area; probably only second in size to the large Owyhee - South Hills Elk Zone in Southern Idaho.  To be precise, the Panhandle Zone is 4,978,871 acres, or 7,780 square miles.

Terrain/Land Ownership

Most of the Zone contains the Coeur d'Alene Mountains, the Selkirk Mountains, and the Cabinet Mountain range.  This is the "Northern Woods" of Idaho, and if you're traveling to them from the south, you'll see the habitat change in short order from Lewiston on up to Sandpoint.  It's one of the reasons that Idaho is a great state - there's a lot of variety here, and that should become clear when comparing the Panhandle Zone to Southeast Idaho's Tex Creek Zone.

It is wooded here.  And it is thick.  In an earlier post in this series, I mentioned that the Dworshak Zone is like hunting in a rainforest.  It is even more so in the great north of the Panhandle.  This is thick and brushy terrain, and only for those who know what they're getting themselves into, because what you're getting yourself into is something difficult to get yourself out of.  The brush is always thicker when climbing out.

It is hilly and mountainous, and very wooded.  I can't emphasize enough that this is a different world than the semi-open nature of some of the other Zones we've looked at so far, such as the Salmon or Snake River Zones.  I am tempted to say that the Panhandle Zone is more archery friendly, but maybe that's just my terrain bias coming out.  It just seems that the archers might have quite an edge by getting a good setup, and then calling a rutting bull in.  Rifle hunters are on the tail end of the rut, at best, and aren't getting any animals coming their way.  That is, of course, generally speaking, and I'm sure there's plenty of rifle hunters who could show me wrong.

Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 4A & 5 are 43% private, 44% Forest Service, and 9% State of Idaho.  It is 72% forested, 19% of it is designated as dryland agriculture.  Units 6, 7 & 9 are 32% private, 60% Forest Service, and 6% State of Idaho.  It is 89% forested, and 9% is designated as rangeland.  Some of that private ground is corporate timber ground, and open for hunting.  Lack of finding ground to hunt is not an issue in this Zone.  If you don't want to rough it, Bonners Ferry, Sandpoint, and Coeur d'Alene are all big enough to have chain hotels.  If you really don't want to rough it, then stay at the Coeur d'Alene Resort & Casino and play golf.

But as with most or all places in Idaho, getting deep into the woods is the name of the game.  And this is the kind of area where scouting can really pay off.  If you're looking at coming to Idaho to hunt, this Zone might be a good choice if you're accustomed to hunting in this kind of terrain, or you can adjust easily.  Otherwise, you can easily be swallowed up in the forested mountains of the Panhandle.

Herd Health & Stats

The goal for the Panhandle Zone is to maintain 2,900-3,900 cows and 600-800 bulls (of which 350-475 are mature bulls).  2009 surveys showed that the elk population is exceeding those objectives in every category, but there is reason to be concerned for decline.  The 2009 survey showed there were 4,339 cows and 1,256 bulls (of which 538 were mature bulls).  However, no data was collected for Units 1, 2, 3, 4A & 5.  Units 1, 3 & 5 are some of the more successful areas to hunt in the Panhandle Zone, so the stats given below are heavily skewed, as they depend on this data.  The elk/square mile and bulls/square mile should probably be doubled, at the very least.

In the early 1900's there were very low numbers of elk in this area.  After 1910 some massive forest fires created excellent elk habitat, and the population began to grow.  In the 1940's some elk were translocated to Units 1, 4 & 6 from Yellowstone, and the population continued to grow steadily.  Elk habitat in the wake of the fires was excellent through the 1950's & 1960's, and then started to decline again as thick underbrush took over.  Extensive logging helped the herd's cause in the 1980's & 1990's, but now the habitat decline is steady, and will not be significantly helped until or unless another big fire comes along.

Another major factor for the herd's current health is the impact that the winters of 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 had.  These were record setting snowfall years, and the snow piled up, even at the lowest elevations.  That first winter was so wild that nobody could have predicted that '08-'09 could be worse.  This led to big worries over calf recruitment rates, which were appearing to be low following those winters.  However, the next winter was milder, and recruitment rates began to improve.

And while logging activities helped elk habitat in the short term, in the long term they left logging roads that are still accessible to vehicles.  That, of course, reduces the amount of land that the elk would otherwise tromp around in more freely.

And I haven't even gotten to wolves yet.  There's over 20 established packs in the Panhandle region.  As of January 11, 2012, 29 wolves were harvested with a firearm, and 9 more have been trapped.  There are a lot of wolves in this area, and the bears and mountain lions are other effective predators.

So right now the herd is in a precarious position.  It has seen growth and decline, and the balance is figured by a lot of complex factors - predators, weather, and habitat.  I see the herd as being fair, number-wise, right now.  But I do not see it improving in the short term, unless we have some big fires and serious reduction of wolves.

Here's the stats, but let me qualify these. In previous posts I've felt that my stats were within reason, even if there was some creative, yet informed, guesswork involved.  I'm a little hesitant to even put numbers to the Panhandle Zone because I'm not confident with the info I have.  So having said that, I'll slap these numbers down as the best I could do without sitting down with a biologist for a couple of hours.  I would appreciate any feedback if others have better guesses.

Elk/Square Mile: 0.72 (See above comments.)

Hunters/Square Mile: 1.0

Bulls/Square Mile: 0.16 (See above comments.)

Average Hunter Days: 6.6

Bull Harvest Percentage: 13%

Percent Spikes Harvested: 28%

Percent 6+ points Harvested: 25%

Tex Creek Elk Zone

The Hunt

In 2011, archery seasons preceded the any-weapon seasons from August 30 - September 30.  The A-tag any-weapon season is a cow only hunt that lasts from Oct. 22 - Nov. 30.  The B-tag is the one we'll be focusing on here because it's the one that offers the any-weapon antlered tag.  That season lasted from Oct. 15 - Oct. 21.

Location

The southwest corner of the Tex Creek Zone starts at Fort Hall.  The border then follows I-15 north to the junction with HWY 91.  From there, the border follows HWY 91 north to Shelley, where it basically becomes HWY 26.  HWY 26 continues north through Idaho Falls, right past a Forest Service station in case you need some last minute maps, and then curls east towards the metropolis of Ririe.  After Ririe, the north border of the Zone changes from HWY 26 to the South Fork of the Snake River.  The South Fork is a fly-fishing destination, so plan a few extra days with your fly rod.  You'll regret it if you don't, especially once you see it for the first time.  The north border follows the South Fork through Palisades Reservoir to the Wyoming border.

The south borders get a little tricky with numerous Forest Service roads and watershed divides.  The Tex Creek Zone is made up of Unit 66 and 69.  To the south are the Diamond Creek Zone and the Bannock Zone.  The Snake River Zone is on the east, and the Palisades Zone is to the north.  There are 1,149,591 acres, or 1,796 square miles.

Terrain/Land Ownership

As you can see on this land ownership map, the Caribou National Forest Service ground (shaded green) is located in the northeast corner of the Tex Creek Zone.  State of Idaho owned ground is checkered in the middle (shaded blue) among the private ground (shaded white).  The Fort Hall Indian Reservation (shaded pink) is located in the southwest corner of the Zone.

49% of the ground in the Zone is private, 19% is Forest Service, 15% is Indian Reservation, and 12% is State of Idaho.  Do not hunt on the Reservation unless or until you get permission.  I'm unsure of the hunting rules that the Tribe has, but I would not want to be caught dead trespassing with a gun in hand.  I know that the tribe issues spendy waterfowl hunting permits, but I don't know about big game.  Call ahead. 

The Forest Service land just south of the South Fork is where the exciting terrain is.  The closer you get to Palisades Reservoir, the more mountainous it becomes.  Peaks approach 9,000 ft. in elevation, but most of the canyons in the area will range from 6,400 ft. up to 7,000 or 8,000 ft.  The rest of the Zone has an average elevation somewhere between 6,000 and 6,500 ft., but the steepest areas to hunt are in the Forest Service ground.

The terrain is semi-open, as can be seen in the aerial photo above.  In the mountains, the north slopes will be timbered, and the south facing slopes will be open.  As you go in and out of drainages, you go in and out of the woods.  It is plenty open to spend time glassing before chasing.  Outside of the Forest Service ground, the Zone really opens up.  It is hilly, and the creeks and canyons in those hills will hold aspens and shrubs.  If you hunt here, you'll find it's excellent moose habitat just about all over.

Access to happy hunting grounds is not difficult.  There are plenty of Forest Service roads to take you where you want to go.  This, of course, makes it a popular unit.  There's plenty of hunters with their ATV's here.

Heard Health/Stats

I really can't report any bad news about the Tex Creek Zone herd health.  The habitat here holds elk well, and there's plenty of wintering ground.  People will report mixed reports on how many elk they see, but all indications are that the herd is strong.  A factor that determines elk visibility is the weather.  Many Tex Creek elk spend the summer to the south in Unit 66A, which is in the Diamond Creek Zone, and then winter back in the Tex Creek Zone.  So to a certain extent, this is a weather depending hunt.  If there aren't early snows, many of the elk may hang up in the Diamond Creek Zone.  Note that the Diamond Creek Zone does not have a general season, any-weapon hunt.

The objectives are to winter 2,000-3,000 cows and 425-625 bulls (of which 250-350 mature bulls are desired).  The 2010 survey counted 2,277 cows and 577 bulls (of which 325 were mature).  That all sounds good, but the numbers won't be as good during the Oct. 15-21 time period, as some of those may still be in the Diamond Creek Zone.  The IF&G has hinted that it makes more sense to manage this herd by including Unit 66A (Diamond Creek Zone) with the Tex Creek Zone.  However, I suspect that there are other reasons ($) that will prevent that from happening, as the Diamond Creek Zone draws a lot of non-resident archery hunters.

The bear density is low and steady, and mountain lions are present.  Wolves are not a huge factor here.  Yes, they are seen occasionally in the Tex Creek Zone, but the only established pack in the Zone was annihilated in 2009 due to depradation complaints.  No wolves have been harvested in the 2011-2012 wolf hunting season in either the Tex Creek Zone or the Diamond Creek Zone.

Overall, the herd is healthy.  Typically, bulls have been over-harvested and cows have been under-harvested here.  Thus, we have a lengthy cow tag on the A-tag, and only a week-long antlered tag on the B-tag.

Here's the stats:

Elk/Square Mile: 1.6

Hunters/Square Mile: 1.6

Bulls/Square Mile: 0.32

Average Hunter Days: 4.2

Bull Harvest Percentage: 7%

Percent Spikes Harvested: 24%

Percent 6+ points Harvested: 25%

Analysis & The Winner

This is not purely about comparing the stats, as my Panhandle Elk Zone stats are not scientific enough (I should be pretty close with the Tex Creek stats).  Both Zones are popular hunting grounds.  If you're the kind of person that just wants to get away from other hunters, then the Panhandle Zone should be your choice.  In the Panhandle it won't take long for you to hike a few miles up a gated logging road, and it will be just you and the wild.  Not so with the Tex Creek Zone.  There you will find a ton of road hunters, and just when you think you've left it all behind, somebody will be zipping atop the opposite canyon on their four-wheeler.  It would not be fair to categorize the entire Tex Creek Zone that way, but when you hunt there, you will see other hunters.

The biggest difference between the two Zones is terrain.  These Zones are on complete opposite sides of the state, and it takes two opposite styles of hunting.  In Tex Creek you can glass - spot and stalk.  No such thing in the Panhandle.  In the Panhandle you have to be ready to beat the brush, literally.  Tex Creek is easier hunting, no doubt about it.

In the end, I'm going to declare the Tex Creek Elk Zone as the winner here.  I think it is easier to kill a bull there.  Unless you have trail cams set up over wallows in the Panhandle's timber, or you have time to hit the trails on multiple scouting trips, or you are a logger who knows where the elk are, then you can have a tough time of it.  That's not to say you can't be successful by hitting the Panhandle cold, it's just a lot harder, and expectations of success should be kept in check.  On the other hand, anybody can hunt Tex Creek, and it's a matter of hunters pushing the elk around.  And it's a matter of weather.

~ J. Bunch

Read More

Interview With Idaho Waterfowl Association - Part 4

One of the hot topics facing the Idaho outdoorsman is the issue of guided bird hunts.  Currently, Idaho does not license and allow guided waterfowl hunts (actually, there are 4 licensed guides grandfathered in after the moratorium), but it is considering changing that.  Believe it or not, change from that current structure will have all sorts of impacts on the way we hunt waterfowl.  The Idaho Waterfowl Association agreed to answer some questions I had regarding the issue, so many thanks go to them for giving us the lowdown of their stance.  This is the fourth and final part of the interview. You can read the first part here, the second installment here, and the third one here. Enjoy...  ~ J. Bunch

 

Idahoman: How is the IWA fighting against outfitting/guiding of waterfowl in Idaho? Why is it important to join IWA, and how can one join?

Answer IWA: The IWA has taken the fight to the general waterfowl hunter in Idaho by placing a variety of topics and discussion threads on various waterfowl hunting sites. Our main place for the discussion on this topic being the forums on the IWA website: http://www.idahowaterfowl.org/ . And of course interest from such outdoors enthusiast as you giving the IWA a forum to be able to open this topic up to all the public in Idaho certainly helps.

By completing your request to do this series, we hope the information is less sporadic and misunderstood with many that were not sure that this issue was even being considered or evaluated by the OGLB.

For that the IWA thanks you, and I am sure the Idaho Public thanks you for opening the door to something that could take away one of Idaho’s sportsmen/women’s precious natural resources if they don’t become and stay active in this venture.

We have been, and still are one of the principle participants and a voting member of a group of individuals brought together by the IDFG and the OGLB to discuss and evaluate waterfowl and turkey outfitting and guiding in Idaho. 

IWA has also used online polling to get a pulse of how water-fowlers in Idaho really feel on this subject. The IWA found that there is a pretty significant base out there that is against the implementation of outfitting/guiding for waterfowl. We have also found that there is also a significant number of individuals, as with any movement, that are against something, but fear stepping up and voicing their opinion for fear of retaliation from those on the opposite side of an issue. 

IWA is also a member of the Idaho Sportsmen’s Caucus Advisory Council (ISCAC) which has also expressed concern about additional outfitting and guiding programs in Idaho. ISCAC represents over 22,000 enthusiastic sportsmen/women through their various Sportsmen’s groups (www.idahoscac.org » About ISCAC) ISCAC took a formal position against any further guiding or outfitting for waterfowl in Idaho. http://idahowaterfowl.org/library/PDF/2012/guiding/ISCAC%20position%20statement.pdf 

IWA has continually pushed on the Idaho press/media members to generate articles on this subject also, and this will continue.

The IWA stays in continual contact with the IDFG on this issue as well as monitoring the OGLB for any changes that take place. This is especially important since there seems to be information pertaining to this topic placed on their website or discussed in their meetings that is not passed on to the Waterfowl/turkey Advisory Group as has been demonstrated in prior postings of this series.

The importance of joining the IWA is very important to water-fowlers. We all know that with any organization, not everyone agrees in total on all issues, but, those differences help to formulate a stronger and much stronger stance on issues that affect what that group stands for, and that is no different with the IWA. But, in most cases, a strong organization in many cases can influence and have a much stronger relationship and partnership with other agencies and individuals than an individual can.

The IWA also encourages it’s members as individuals to also speak up and talk to their legislators, Agency representatives, and other elected individuals throughout Idaho to show them that they are engaged in activities such as this and that they do have an opinion and voice in what and how Idaho’s natural resources are going to be managed and used.

If your readers don’t think that the Idaho Outfitters and Guides Association (different than the Outfitters and Guides Licensing Board) don’t lobby your state legislators, one is fooled. So it becomes very critical that the IWA and individuals throughout Idaho have a similar voice. And that is why it is very critical to have a group such as the IWA to be able to work with and talk to these different Idaho Agencies.

Readers can join the IWA in several ways. By going to the IWA website (Idaho Waterfowl Association) and there is a link that allows one to join by direct payments to the IWA or by use of credit card and/or Pay Pal. The IWA is a 501c organization so your dues are tax deductible. But, being a 501c organization, we are also limited in what lobbying and such that we can do.

The IWA mission statement is:

“Idaho Waterfowl Association is an organization dedicated to enhancement and preservation of waterfowl and waterfowl hunting in Idaho.”

With the goals of the IWA being:

• Interaction with policy makers

One of IWA's primary goals is to work in conjunction with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game to promote waterfowl hunting regulations based on the best available biological data. Part of this goal will be achieved by becoming a resource of scientifically sound information pertinent to our state, gathered from USFWS and national waterfowl organizations. IWA will present a unified voice to the IDFG Commission for the state's waterfowl hunters.

• Conservation and habitat

While major habitat restoration efforts are best managed by larger organizations and agencies, IWA will do what we can to assist other waterfowl organizations and government agencies, as well as organizing smaller projects among our membership. We understand that it is the responsibility of each waterfowl hunter to do what he or she is able to do to preserve the conditions required for waterfowl populations to thrive. IWA will promote the wise use of our natural resources in the best interest of waterfowl.

• Education and recruitment

We recognize the importance of involving the next generation of hunters in waterfowl hunting. To that end, IWA plans to be involved at reasonable levels in youth hunt organization and educational presentations on the subject of safety, ethics and waterfowl identification.
We also recognize that many adult hunters would benefit from similar educational events, and will strive to provide opportunities where hunters and future hunters of all ages can enjoy learning about waterfowl and waterfowl hunting.

• Community awareness

One of the problems facing waterfowl hunting in Idaho is the encroachment of development on our state's rivers and wetlands. Many of the state's new residents are not familiar or comfortable with the hunting heritage that Idaho has been defined by for so long. We recognize that it is our responsibility as hunters to be good neighbors and work so that safety of all is maintained.

We hope that more of your readers will from time to time stop by the IWA website and learn more about issues and projects that the IWA is working on to meet our goals and mission statement, keeping all water-fowlers in mind, member or not.

Even if you are not a member of the IWA, we encourage all sportsmen and women of Idaho to become involved on this topic if you want to preserve your waterfowl hunting experience.

The IWA would like to thank you for you taking the time to put this topic out there helping to educate Idaho’s Sportsmen and women on a topic that the majority of Idahoan’s had no idea was going on or how complex and contentious it is.

If there are more questions that you or your readers have, please feel free to contact the IWA and we will try to answer them for you. We can be contacted by the following e-mail account:
iwabod@gmail.com

Read More

Interview With Idaho Waterfowl Association - Part 3

One of the hot topics facing the Idaho outdoorsman is the issue of guided bird hunts.  Currently, Idaho does not license and allow guided waterfowl hunts (actually, there are 4 licensed guides grandfathered in after the moratorium), but it is considering changing that.  Believe it or not, change from that current structure will have all sorts of impacts on the way we hunt waterfowl.  The Idaho Waterfowl Association agreed to answer some questions I had regarding the issue, so many thanks go to them for giving us the lowdown of their stance.  This is the third part of the interview, with one more to follow in coming days.  You can read the first part here, and the second installment here.     Enjoy...  ~ J. Bunch

IDAHOMAN: What reasons would the IOGLB and the IF&G have for licensing waterfowl outfitters and guides, other than having another regulatory task for the OGLB's administration?

Answer IWA: The Idaho Fish and Game (IDFG) does not license outfitting and guiding activities. The Idaho Outfitters and Guides Licensing Board (OGLB) has sole responsibility for this as declared in Idaho Statute, (http://oglb.idaho.gov/pdf/statutes_and_rules/2010_Idaho_Statutes.pdf)

Four OGLB board members are appointed by the Governor and one by IDFG. An excerpt from Idaho code 36-2105 as shown below sets up the board:

“36-2105.CREATION OF IDAHO OUTFITTERS AND GUIDES LICENSING BOARD. There is hereby created in the department of self-governing agencies the Idaho outfitters and guides licensing board, herein referred to as "the board," consisting of four (4) members appointed by the governor, and one (1) member appointed by the Idaho fish and game commission, as provided in section 36-2106, Idaho Code.”

This means the IDFG has the authority to have one member on the OGLB board, but otherwise they only act as an advisory body for potential effects of any proposed activity. With the remaining members appointed by the Governor they really only have to answer to the Governor’s office and primarily complaints from the outfitters/guides they oversee. They don’t get or ask for a lot of general public input.

The reason that the OGLB has proposed this activity, as the IWA and the Advisory Group has been informed, but not proven, is that apparently there has been a request by some individuals that have made applications or request to expand this activity in different parts of the State. Who these individuals are, is unknown, and neither the IWA nor the public have any idea as to where these applications to outfit/guide are located. This is one of the reasons it is so hard to evaluate, because we do not know where the activity is wanted and what those specific impacts would or could be. The only known interest seen was from Mike Lawson with Henry’s Fork Anglers wanting to expand his operation to some new private land. Mr. Lawson was on the Advisory Group representing the outfitters.

IDFG commissions have consistently come out against any expansion for waterfowl outfitting and guiding. The IWA does not foresee any benefit or reason to cause IDFG to change their mind.

As for the OGLB implementing another program beyond what exists, the IWA and other groups and individuals are struggling to understand why the OGLB wants to expand this program. This is especially true in light of their own financial status and statements. The OGLB has stated in several of their semi-annual newsletters (http://oglb.idaho.gov/pdf/newsletters/2010_Fall_newsletter_with_attachments.pdf, http://oglb.idaho.gov/pdf/newsletters/2011_Fee_Increase_Compromise_Newsletter.pdf), that they are strapped for cash and cannot currently meet their financial obligations. So the question was asked, how can they adequately administer and implant basically a new program. The IWA and other Sportsmen’s groups do not believe they can with the limited resources and track record that they have. The IWA believes this for several reasons.

Currently, and ever since guiding for waterfowl was permitted for the four grandfathered outfitters, the OGLB has not followed their own regulations or MOU with the IDFG requiring data and information from the existing waterfowl outfitters to be provide annually to the Idaho Fish and Game showing harvest, user, and other requested information. (http://oglb.idaho.gov/pdf/mou/mou_idfg.pdf and http://oglb.idaho.gov/pdf/statutes_and_rules/2010_Idaho_Statutes.pdf.)

In section 25.01.01 - RULES OF THE IDAHO OUTFITTERS AND GUIDES LICENSING BOARD rule 049 is very specific as to the reporting of harvest and use by outfitters and guides. It says,

”049. REPORTS. The licensee shall submit to the Board on an annual basis or as otherwise required by the Board, an activity, use, and harvest report and other information about outfitting or guiding activities as may be required by the Board.”

The IWA and all of the other Sportsmen’s groups on the Waterfowl Advisory group asked for this information, not only from the OGLB, but also from the IDFG to see if the OGLB had complied with this requirement. As of this posting, there had never been a report filed that has been provided to the Advisory Group as requested.

As for the IDFG wanting or supporting any further outfitting and/or guiding for waterfowl, they have come out multiple times in favor of the moratorium. (http://idahowaterfowl.org/library/PDF/2012/guiding/ISCAC%20position%20statement.pdf). (http://www.idahowaterfowl.org/library/PDF/2012/guiding/fg_commission_11_18_2009_minutes.pdf)

Specifically, in the minutes of the F&G Commissioners, which read: “Deputy Director Moore explained that an informal moratorium was established in 1992 with IOGLB limiting outfitted Waterfowl, Upland Game Bird and later Turkey Hunting and that more recently, the Commission had expressed their opposition to licensing these activities.”

So, what changed and why the push to go further with this proposal is still not totally understood as to where it really came from other than a push from the Idaho Outfitters and Guides Licensing Board (OGLB).

IDAHOMAN: Let’s say that legislation is passed (I'm assuming it will take legislation) that requires waterfowl outfitters and guides to be licensed, and the state goes down that track. What would the waterfowl hunting scene in Idaho look like after 10 years?

Answer IWA: In Idaho, it does not require legislation to implement outfitting/guiding for waterfowl or any other wildlife species. The Idaho OGLB has legal authority to implement and license all outfitting and guiding activities within the State of Idaho.

Under the Memorandum of Understanding between IDFG and OGLB, all it generally takes is for the Idaho OGLB to ask for consultation or input by IDFG. The OGLB only has to consider that input and then they have the legal/administrative authority to implement the program. If it involves public lands, i.e.; US Forest Service and or BLM, further processes are required to approve and implement commercial outfitting and guiding on Public Lands or waters administered by these agencies.

The OGLB’s legal authorities can be found at the following website: http://oglb.idaho.gov/rules/

To predict what Idaho waterfowl hunting would look in 10 years if guiding was allowed one should look to other states that already have guiding. In other states throughout the country, you would see a good majority of the huntable waterfowl land and water tied up by the commercial waterfowl hunting industry. In a survey that the IDFG did with other State’s wildlife management agencies, the majority showed and indicated that the general public had nothing but problems and issues with commercial outfitting/guiding for waterfowl. http://idahowaterfowl.org/library/PDF/2012/guiding/FG_state_agency_questionnaire.pdf

There has been a myriad of discussions on many different websites and forums discussing waterfowl guiding in Idaho. If guiding/outfitting is allowed for waterfowl in Idaho you will see it very quickly added to the list of complaints for lost access by the general hunter. The list already includes clubs, monetary leases, development/growth, and other reasons. Why take the risk of further access being lost?

Idaho has a limited resource of huntable waterfowl areas and habitat with the majority being along the Snake River corridor in southern Idaho and a few isolated locations in the Idaho Panhandle. As some of the reports and discussions have shown during the Waterfowl/Turkey Advisory Groups meetings, Idaho is losing acres upon acres of agricultural lands yearly. Those agricultural lands are not considered waterfowl habitat, but, they definitely support a large population of migrating waterfowl every year. Imagine losing more of this land to the commercialization of waterfowl hunting. Do you have the money and/or financial support to pay the big bucks that many of Idaho’s surrounding states see that do allow guiding for waterfowl? The IWA is guessing that the general public of Idaho does not.

Read More

Interview With Idaho Waterfowl Association - Part 2

One of the hot topics facing the Idaho outdoorsman is the issue of guided bird hunts.  Currently, Idaho does not license and allow guided waterfowl hunts (actually, there are 4 licensed guides - more on that later), but it is considering changing that.  Believe it or not, change from that current structure will have all sorts of impacts on the way we hunt waterfowl.  The Idaho Waterfowl Association agreed to answer some questions I had regarding the issue (and concerned I am!), so many thanks go to them for giving us the lowdown of their stance.  This is the second part of the interview, with a couple more to follow in coming days.  You can read the first part here.  Enjoy...  ~ J. Bunch

IDAHOMAN: It seems like the big issue here would be that if waterfowl outfitting were legal, it would tie up a lot of private ground access by the outfitters, making hunting access difficult for the average Joe who doesn't have the money to hire an outfitter. Do I have that right - is that the primary problem that IWA has with this motion?

Answer IWA: As the IWA stated in the first part of this series, the issue of outfitting/guiding for waterfowl is not strictly being considered on private lands in Idaho, which makes this more than a private land issue. Outfitting/guiding for waterfowl has and still is being considered to be allowed on public lands. The OGLB has discussed this issue before and is still discussing the issue. See motion made by IOGLB board member Chris Korell in IOGLB minutes from May, 2011, page 6. (http://oglb.idaho.gov/pdf/minutes/MAY%20FINAL%20MINUTES_20111205114239.PDF)

Public and private land for waterfowl hunting in Idaho is limited. The best measure the Advisory Group could come up with to measure public land suitable for waterfowl hunting was to take all bodies of water larger than ½ acre and rivers. This gives 374,716 acres in Idaho, or 0.7% of the state. Keep in mind that numerous large bodies counted here are closed for hunting or only huntable for a portion of the season.

To determine private land for waterfowl hunting IDFG compiled a land survey. The results of this survey, 2010 Ag Stats by County, are here, (Web Discussion on Waterfowl Guiding in Idaho). This survey shows that the majority of the private land suitable for waterfowl hunting is near the public waterways and concentrated. This would put outfitters and non-outfitted hunters in the same areas and competing for access. It also included a map, (Web Discussion on Waterfowl Guiding in Idaho), that showed where this land is located. (Water Fowl_1LandUse map.pdf)

The “average Joe” you speak of may not be able to afford an outfitter/guide, but they also may not want to have to pay one or hunt in the manner the guide chooses. Due to no outfitting and guiding for waterfowl in Idaho most of the resident hunters are freelance and prefer to do it themselves. During the IWA waterfowl guiding petition we had numerous non-resident hunters from Utah contact us on how to help this fight strictly because in their home state if they wanted to get good access for waterfowl they had to pay a guide and hunt how the guide chooses.

The hunters who do not want to pay a guide are not going away. There will always be those that get together and lease private ground for access. The combination of outfitters and private clubs will lead to less ground available to the “average Joe” who makes a solid relationship with a landowner and hunts private ground.

You do have a right to lease private ground or access. This lies in fundamental private property rights and trespass. You do not have a right to hire an outfitter or guide. The IDFG and OGLB MOU specifically states, “the IDFG and IOGLB recognize that the fish and wildlife resources of Idaho are owned and sustained by the people of Idaho and that commercial outfitting enterprise is a regulated privilege; where outfitters who provide hunting and fishing opportunities using Idaho fish and wildlife resources are licensed by IOGLB for benefit of the public at large;”

Hiring an outfitter or being an outfitter is a regulated privilege. In the case of waterfowl, and due to the high non-outfitted demand and limited access, the IWA believes there is not a benefit for the public at large or common Joe as you describe it.

The Idaho Outfitters and Guides Licensing Board’s statute (IC 36-2101) clearly states: “…nor is it the intent of this legislation to interfere in any way with the right of the general public to enjoy the recreational value of Idaho’s deserts, mountains, rivers, streams, lakes, reservoirs, and other natural resources when the services of commercial outfitters and guides are not utilized…”

IWA believes again, that in the case of waterfowl, due to the high non-outfitted demand and limited access, it is impossible for outfitted waterfowl hunting to not interfere with non-outfitted hunting.

During the Advisory Group meetings the outfitter representatives also insisted that if outfitting was only allowed on private land that this would include the public waterway either surrounded or bordered by the private land. This would impact public waterway hunters significantly and is unacceptable to the IWA.

As one can see, the impacts to the general public, or Average Joe goes on and on and the IWA, other agencies, and sportsmen’s groups feel that the negatives outweigh any benefit of allowing guiding for waterfowl.

One item that needs to be cleared up and apparently is causing some confusion is that there currently are four (4) grandfathered licensed outfitters for waterfowl in the State. All four of those outfitters are in East Idaho. Only one of those outfitters is permitted to guide for waterfowl on Public Lands/water. The others are only permitted to guide for waterfowl on private land/water. The permitted outfitters for waterfowl are:

Black Dog Outfitter, INC.

Henry’s Fork Anglers LLC

Teton Valley Lodge, INC

Three Rivers Ranch

IDAHOMAN: I can see some landowners push back on your stance, as they might argue that they want all the options available to them to do what they want with their land, including profiting from waterfowl outfitting. What would be your response? And do you hear this argument from landowners?

Answer IWA: This is one of the biggest responses to the issue of guiding for waterfowl on private lands. Some individuals that are pro-guiding say that denying outfitting/guiding for waterfowl on private lands takes away a person’s private property rights. One has to remember that waterfowl are migratory birds and are governed under the Migratory Bird Treaty and the Idaho Fish and Game has responsibility to manage these species. Also, one has to remember, that under the OGLB’s own rules and regulations, Outfitting and Guiding are a privilege. This is discussed in the response to the question above. The OGLB and IDFG both agree that this is a privilege and not a right, as described in their joint MOU in the question above.

Due to the nature of waterfowl being migratory and having particular patterns there are issues that arise when guides and outfitters have access to private land. The incentive to make money causes outfitters to change traditional farming practices which changes bird feeding and flight patterns. This also causes waterfowl to congregate in large numbers where they normally would not and be more susceptible to disease. In an area like Idaho where the waterfowl habitat is concentrated and limited, this causes concern. Changed flight and feeding patterns have already been seen and caused by hunting clubs in Southern Idaho.

Once again, the IWA takes the stance that there is a myriad of options available for the private land owner to make money off of their private land. But, by tying up land that is/was once accessible to the general public by allowing an individual to use it only for outfitting and/or guiding takes it out of the availability base for the general public to use.

IWA also reminds the readers of this. The IWA continues to state that there has been ‘No Demonstrated” need by the public or existing outfitters for further expansion of the existing

outfitting/guiding activities in Idaho. In fact, the OGLB’s own policies for determining if a license to outfit or guide for a particular activity is warranted is based on a demonstrated need.

To quote the OGLB’s policies, “It is Board policy that 'public need' will be determined through quantitative and qualitative analysis of objective information. Ordinarily this information will be obtained from other agencies, industry representatives, the outfitted public and the public at large often through collaborative efforts.” (Web Discussion on Waterfowl Guiding in Idaho)

The IWA and other sportsmen’s groups continually ask for, and to date have not received, any information to show a public need as required by the OGLB’s own policies, let alone a quantitative or qualitative analysis of any such information provided by the OGLB.

As of the posting of this part of the series on guiding for waterfowl, we have not heard anything from any private land owners on this other than comments made during the Advisory Groups meetings from Wally Butler (Range Conservationist for the Idaho Farm Bureau) and Mike Reggear – (Clearwater Management Council), both of whom served on the Advisory Board. But, during these meetings, it was made clear by Wally Butler that none of the discussions about guiding for waterfowl had been discussed with any land owners, as he did not feel that there was enough information to provide to them. The same statement was made by the Outfitters Representative, Mike Lawson.

Now that the Idaho Farm Bureau, OGLB, and the F&G have sent out and received comments and results back from the private land owner’s survey, the IWA, and we are sure other groups and individuals are anxious to see what those results will be. The one problem with the survey, if it was sent out as recommended by the OGLB, and as documented in their August 25-26 Board Meeting, they only targeted private land owners who can target guiding for waterfowl and turkey in prime hunting areas ( http://oglb.idaho.gov/pdf/minutes/2011-08%20MINUTES%20FINAL_12-5-2011%201205083554.pdf), instead of the 20,000+ private land owner base that the Idaho Farm Bureau has. The OGLB hoped to get a return of at least 350 responses. How many they received is unknown as of this posting.

The IWA’s initial feeling on this is that the survey is biased towards land owners who already lease out their property for waterfowl hunting and it skews the reliability of the survey, but the final results will have to be seen first before the IWA has a formal position on this survey.

A copy of the private land owner survey can be found at: (http://www.surveymonkey.com/IdahoLandownerSurvey)

Read More