"The Simplot Saga"

One more quick hit for today. If you live in Idaho, or you just want to understand the basis for how this state was built, Forbes magazine has a lengthy and in-depth piece called "The Simplot Saga."

What J.R. did, and what his legacy is doing today, intimately affects most parts of Idaho politics in one way or another.  And that includes issues regarding Idaho's land and wildlife.

Grab a McD's large fry, sit down, and learn.

~ J. Bunch

Read More

OK, I Will Say Something About Sage Grouse

But not much.  I know that I should be more attuned to the sage grouse situation.  I just can't get too excited about it, and since this site is about what interests me, I'm going to let it go by offering up a couple of recent news articles on the situation.  In case you're interested.

Here is an AP article which reports than an Idaho federal judge ruled against environmental groups who were appealing for instant and greater protection of the sage grouse. 

And here is Rocky Barker's take on the sticky situation in the Idaho Statesman.

Happy reading.

~ J. Bunch

Read More

Public Meeting On Proposed Caribou Critical Habitat Gets Feisty

Back in the news again are our 3 caribou, and the feds' plan to section off 600 square miles of N. Idaho and Washington as critical habitat for the trio.  Of note, again, is that 3 caribou is the average count over the past several years.  Last year, no caribou were counted in Idaho or Washington.

That has locals wondering why we need critical habitat for a species that is virtually not there.  Ah hah, says the environmental groups, accusing the locals of missing the point.  And that shouldn't need much explaining.

By policy, the feds are required to assign critical habitat for species that are managed under the Endangered Species Act.  Environmental groups finally sued the feds enough, that the feds were finally forced to make their way back into the dark, wet, tea-partied backwoods of Idaho's north country.  I wouldn't want to be in their shoes either.

But they showed up, and took it in the teeth from around 200 locals.  The locals will do anything to stop this federal "land grab" (their words) that would harm an economy dependent upon access to the Selkirk woods, where the critical habitat is proposed, a place where logging and sport snowmobiling has already taken hits by federal regulations.

I believe the locals' attempts will ultimately be futile.  But it's important to fight.  This situation should be eyed as a prime example of how federal government bureaucracy really gums things up in areas where it should just get lost.

You can read more on the public meeting here.

~ J. Bunch

Read More

2012 Hunting Legislation

Unfortunately, the legislators are convening in Boise, and doing what they do best. There's a few bills brewing in Boise that concern hunting, and the stench is thick, palpable.

First is Senate Bill 1282, and it may be the lesser of evils. This would allow landowners in the Landowner Appreciation Program to sell their tags to the highest bidder. In exchange for that right, the landowner would have to make his land available to the public for hunting. This is in line with the IF&G's objective to make as much land as possible open for the public. It is in the same spirit as the Access Yes properties, where landowners are either paid, or get some kind of tax break, for allowing the public to hunt on their land. Okay. And many feel that this is a way to curb hefty trespass fees charged by landowners. Okay.

Second is Senate Bill 1283, sponsored by Sen. Siddoway who owns Juniper Mountain, a high fenced, private elk hunting "opportunity," for those with wallets fat enough to afford that sort of monkeying around. This bill allows landowners to sell Landowner Appreciation tags to the highest bidder, but it does not require the landowner to then make his property available to the public. Hmmm. And that is where the stink is coming from. Sen. Siddoway has not replied to my generous email that inquired for further information. IF&G is not supportive of this bill.

Third is Senate Bill 1256. This would establish more Governor's Tags that could be auctioned off to the highest bidder. It's a small amount of tags that could really bring in a hefty load of funding to the IF&G. IF&G does not take a stand one way or the other on this one; they're content to see how it plays out. Hunters are divided. Some see it as a beneficial trade off that could provide the funding for more habitat development, etc., even as IF&G's coffers are pretty empty. Others are disturbed that the rich get to buy their way into the premium hunts, while the average Joe spends his life applying and applying and applying. I am basically in that camp, wanting everyone to play by the same rules. Besides that, it seems like a desperate move to keep an unsustainable government "business" in business. Making something permanent by law in this way isn't wise. Finally, all we can hope for if this does pass, is that the accountability for the program has integrity.

No changes would be best.

There's more. Such as the Idaho Constitutional amendment that would secure hunting and fishing as an indelible right for citizens. Maybe I'll have something to say on that later, but right now I'm burnt out on politics. And it's not even November yet.

The Idaho Statesman reports on the bills here.

~ J. Bunch

Read More

2 Headed Trout in SE Idaho - Simplot Selenium Pollution

Trout deformities have been popping up in SE Idaho creeks that sit underneath Simplot's Smoky Canyon Phosphate Mine.  There would appear to be a connection to selenium pollution.

Simplot's goal of maintaining no more that 22 parts per million of selenium in creek water is often exceeded, according to an independent environmental report, and the two-headed trout is the most eye-popping of the deformities.

Naturally, Simplot officials aren't taking any responsibility, but they are stating that they will be working closely with the State of Idaho and the feds in regard to pollution.  In other words, they give stock, corporate, politically-correct answers when pushed on the issue.

Selenium pollution in waters near phosphate mines in SE Idaho has been blamed for hundreds of livestock deaths.

The concern over the trout is not only the current deformities being found, but by in-migrating trout that will take over habitat that was once occupied by non-reproductive, selenium poisoned trout.  If selenium is to blame, but its pollution isn't strictly regulated, a sink hole for trout could be created.

The Jackson Hole News & Guide has the fuller story here.

~ J. Bunch

Read More

Idaho Elk: A Perfect Storm Of Polemics

In pitting the polemics of two different views against each other, sometimes the truth seems to be lost, sifted carelessly down to the ground between the two poles.

Talk to ranchers and sportsmen, and you'll quickly find that they want every wolf in the world dead. Incidentally, I'm pretty much on board with that. I've never been a canine fan anyway. I see wolves as just overgrown coyotes, i.e. - nuisances.

Now, of course, I don't want every wolf in the world dead. I just want the ones that were introduced into Idaho by the federal government to be dead, gone, poof. Why? Well, we had wolves in the past, but we annihilated them effectively with a bounty program. We did that because we did not want them around, plain and simple. They were nuisances to ranchers, sportsmen, and the general public. We didn't want wolves any more than we wanted cockroaches. That's true for today too.

But the polemics of sportsmen often include the argument that the wolves are entirely to blame for the state's declining elk herds, at least, and they may say it includes moose and deer as well. And the facts are there if you look at the numbers. At the same time wolves were introduced and becoming established in Idaho, Idaho's elk herd populations plummeted, especially in the areas where the wolves were given their new homes. Clearly, then, wolves are the cause of the evil.

For instance, in 1989 the Lolo Zone in North-Central Idaho held somewhere nears 17,000 head of elk. Today, that number is less than 2,500. Wolf packs there are what the IF&G would call "well established."

On the other pole, environmentalists and wolf-lovers argue that the wolves do such an insignificant predation on the elk there, that it hardly deserves mentioning, and their polemics throw accusations at those who say otherwise. Ranchers and sportsmen are just ignorant when it comes to environmental and ecological issues. In fact, most of them probably wonder if ranchers and sportsman even know what "ecological" means; it is a big word, after all.

The truth is that a lot of the sportsmen I talk to, while they may know some principles of ecology, don't know how bad the habitat just so happens to be in the same areas where the elk populations have declined dramatically. The Lolo, the Selway, and much of North Idaho, places where wolves are "well established," also have some of the worst elk habitat in the state.

It hasn't always been that way, though. Massive forest fires earlier in the 20th Century created excellent habitat in those places. And current fire suppression management activities by the Forest Service have helped to prevent that from happening again. So can we just blame everything on the federal government? Sure, I'm fine with that, but I digress.

The bottom line is that there is a perfect storm of factors that has led to declining elk populations in Idaho. It's not just one factor - wolves, or another - habitat loss. It's both. And both sides in the debate would do well to drop their strict polemics and realize that.

~ J. Bunch

Read More

Friday Roundup & Some Things To Come

Here's a few things to get you through your weekend, and a look forward to some things coming down the pipeline for next week.

First, I'm giving away a free subscription to Extreme Elk Magazine via a Facebook contest.  Let me make it easy for you, all you have to do is go here, befriend me, and post a hunting, fishing, or outdoors photo on my wall.  The person with the most likes before the deadline on Jan. 31, 2012, will win the magazine subscription.  The only rule is that the photo must be taken in Idaho, unless you're an out of state Idaho enthusiast who can't come up with that sort of thing.  In that case, take a picture of yourself holding a map of the State of Idaho in a pub or something.

Second, wolves.  Alex Sakariassen of the Missoula Independent wrote an interesting piece on how the Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Department is doing on their study of the elk herd reduction in Montana's Clark Fork region.  While wolves are generally to blame, they are finding just as many, or more, elk kills from mountain lions.  Guides, outfitters, ranchers are skeptical, and no matter the results of the study, they wish the wolves were gone.

On the other hand, federal agencies in Colorado have not ruled out the possibility of introducing wolves to control an elk population that is allegedly out of control.  You can imagine who is taking sides down there, and you can read all about the foolishness here.

Meanwhile, Idahoans are doing what they can to reduce the wolf population.  As of today, 202 (16 more than on Jan. 11) wolves have been killed with a firearm, and 59 (17 more than on Jan. 11) have been trapped.  Trapping in the Selway Wilderness appears to be more effective than hunting wolves with a firearm.

If you need help finding a wolf to kill, there are a couple of gents out there who are mapping wolf sightings.  One is here, and the other is here.  If you see a wolf, wolf tracks, wolf droppings, wolf kills, or wolf eyes glowing back at you on the edge of the woods, I'm sure those guys would love your report.

Coming up next week - 

A look at hunting OTC, general season elk in the Middle Fork Zone.  You won't want to miss that.

Also, I'm hoping to interview somebody knowledgeable and experienced when it comes to grizzlies in Idaho's wild.  It seems that there was a record this last year of grizzly attacks both in Idaho and in Montana.  I'm wanting some grizzly stories that will have you going to sleep with a can of bear spray next to your bed.

Have a good weekend.  Thanks for reading my posts, and all of the kind comments.

~ J. Bunch

Read More

The Sheep That Stopped The Grizzly

Sarah Gilman of High Country News provided us with an informative piece on the little sheep station that could - talking, of course, about the feds' ARS Sheep Experiment Station.  The station, headquartered near Dubois, ID, has been minding its own business for years, providing research information to the sheep industry.  But then came the grizzly bear, the Endangered Species Act, and other federal agencies whose conservationist mandates have come into direct conflict with the station's sheep experimentation.

The place is the Centennial Mountains, an east to west range on the Idaho-Montana border.  If you're having a hard time pinning the place in your mind, think of the range on the border that stretches from Island Park west toward Spencer.  The station grazes sheep there as part of their research, as they always have.  The problem is that the grizzly bears are moving into the area, and conservationists who want the grizzly population to do what it will, know that the sheep are their biggest obstacle.

But how do the sheep keep the grizzlies from moving on, further up and further in to the rest of Idaho's and Montana's unadulterated grizzly habitat?  It's simple.  If a grizzly eats a sheep, he's a dead grizzly.  The fear is that the grizzlies may become such a predation problem that the only solution is to put them down.  But the sheep station doesn't see it the same way. 

The station says it won't be a problem.  The conservationists say it will.  Who's right?  I don't know, but it would seem that the conservationists probably are.  If the grizzly gets a taste of one lamb, the station might not scream.  But if he comes back for more, and then more, and then more... well, the scream will come sooner or later from a research station running out of sheep to research.  And I do imagine that the grizzly will come back for more chops.

But this sort of internal bickering, while amusing, doesn't even get to the crux of the related issue that nobody seems to be talking about.  That is - why exactly do we want the grizzly bears to spread anyway?

I understand that conservationists, and the federal agencies that carry out the agenda, want the wild to transform back to the way that Lewis and Clark found it.  And the Centennial Mountains are the link to getting grizzlies back up into Montana, and up all the way into the Selway Wilderness.  That is their goal, and it's not one that I share.

So for now, I hope the little sheep hold in there as the trap that can keep the grizzlies back.

~ J. Bunch

Read More

Squeaking & Why The Caribou Issue Is Important

As I reported here and here, the United States Fish & Wildlife Service has proposed that nearly 600 square miles of North Idaho and Eastern Washington be designated as critical habitat for the woodland caribou that frequent the area.  And just to give you some specific numbers, in case you are just getting up to speed on the issue, we are talking about 3 caribou that are sometimes seen in Idaho.  No caribou have been counted in Washington.  Most of the woodland caribou reside permanently in British Columbia.

But this 600 square miles in the Selkirk Mountains is within the borders of Boundary County in Idaho, and residents there have concerns about the designation - most notably are questions on how it will affect the economy and access to the area.  

"There has been tremendous concern raised in Boundary County, where most of this critical habitat is proposed, about what this proposal will do to the people here as regards its impact on the local economy, recreation, limitations on how that land may be used and accessed, how our emergency service providers can go about responding to situations on these lands when fire breaks out or when someone's life is on the line," commission chair Ron Smith said. "We're looking for a lot of answers, and we look forward being able to present the questions."

County Commissioners acted quickly and formed coalitions with other counties and various interested parties.  After Boundary County formally invoked the U.S. Constitution in order to establish a working relationship with the USF&WS, the feds responded by agreeing to hold meetings and hearings before the final decision will be made on the designation.

But the USF&WS was stunned that the local residents who might be impacted by the designation wanted answers to questions, wanted to raise concerns, and wanted their voice to be heard.

Thanks to the efforts of Boundary County Commissioners, working with the KVRI, the USFWS, whose representatives appeared stunned by the vociferous outcry expressed January 9, as they expected only an informational meeting with a dedicated group of people they have worked with for years largely outside the public eye, may now have a better understanding of the concerns of the community, and they will be better able to prepare their information and data so as to provide the detailed information the citizens of Boundary County are demanding and need.

Stunned?  Wow.  

Most of you won't be impacted by any caribou any time soon.  But there is a likely chance that you will be impacted by the USF&WS, especially when they might find themselves twiddling their thumbs, and looking for something to do.

So learn the lesson from Boundary County.  Squeak when things don't seem quite right.  Instead of being plowed over with a critical habitat designation handed down from on high, a designation that they have no idea what the consequences might be, they squeaked.  And in return they received an agreement to hold two public meetings, where information can be obtained, and two public hearings, where the informed public can raise their concerns.

What will happen in the end?  There will be no vote.  In the end the USF&WS will do what they want.

As an example for those of you on the far side of the state from the caribou issue, keep an eye on the Bear River Watershed Conservation Area that is being proposed by the USF&WS (here is that story).  They want to work to purchase conservation easements from willing sellers in the Bear River Watershed in Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah.  If this proposed program provokes any questions on how it will affect you, sqeak.

Here is the full story from www.ruralnorthwest.com.

~ 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

IF&G May Be Softening On Summit Dates

As reported earlier, the IF&G planned their Summit, a three day public input opportunity on all things Fish & Game related, on the opening weekend of archery season.  That was a good way to start the Summit - with a move that shows that the IF&G is out of touch with the ones it serves.  Turns out, the complaining has been heard, and the dates may be softening.

From Local News 8:

The summit is tentatively scheduled for Sept. 7 through Sept. 9, but that's the beginning of archery season. Gamblin said he is hearing people's complaints, and the agency is trying to work it out.

"Because we hunt, too. The Fish and Game department understands inherently why that is of great concern to hunters," Gamblin said.

~ J. Bunch

Read More

Rex Rammell Will Seek Office Again

This is somewhat old news, but I wanted to wait a little while before I talked about it here.  I was thinking up a whole bunch of entertaining one liners to accompany this report.  But I was also entertaining interviewing Mr. Rammell for IDAHOMAN.COM, so I figured I shouldn't tic him off too bad yet.

But after some pondering, I really couldn't think of too many questions to ask Mr. Rammell once the interview got going.  I'm sure I would just end up asking him, over and over, "Really?!?"

If you do recall, I noticed that Rex had been out of the news for quite some time, and thus prophesied that it would be any day now that he would do something to get back under the spotlight.  Shortly after, he announced he would be running for the Idaho Legislature.

From the Boise Weekly:

Perennial political candidate Rex Rammell has confirmed that he once more will be running for office in 2012, this time for the House of Representatives in Idaho's District 7, currently represented by Republican Rep. Jeff Nesset and Democratic Rep. John Rusche (the minority leader).

Rammell pleaded guilty last August to criminal contempt, following accusations of jury tampering in Bonneville County.

District 7, once a rather small region including the City of Lewiston, is now significantly larger thanks to reapportionment. The district now includes part of Kootenai County and all of Shoshone, Clearwater and Idaho counties, and encompasses more than 13,500 square miles. It's larger than nine U.S. states.
In announcing his candidacy, Rammell said he believed there was "widespread corruption" in state leadership.

 Frankly, I think the entertainment value of this would be worth your vote, District 7.

~ J. Bunch

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

IF&G Summit: Classic Masterpiece of Bad Timing

As I let you know a little while back, the IF&G will be holding a Summit in Boise, an invitation to renew the social contract that we have with them.

The purpose statement of the Summit is as follows:

To convene and facilitate a conversation among Idahoans about the current model of wildlife management in Idaho; to keep it relevant to changing values, needs, and interests of Idaho; and to hear and understand what Idahoans expect from their state wildlife management agency, and how we can better serve them.

The Summit is scheduled for September 7-9, 2012.   But wait, isn't that opening weekend for archery hunters - one of the larger constituents for the IF&G?

Perusing the discussion boards, here's what a few Idaho bowhunters think about the timing:

"My first thought was that's opening week of archery season? But then I thought that Fish and Game has never been interested in what I have had to say in the past so why not have a "summit" during archery season. I guess they just don't "understand" that there are probably a-lot of hunters that already have commitments that time of year. I know I do and won't plan to attend. Really?? How about a month that doesn't have a hunting season! "

"Seriously - they are having a summit about what we want in wildlife conservation and management during archery elk season?  Man, that is how out of touch the agency has gotten."

"Goes to show who they really want to (hear) from."

Indeed, it does appear to be pretty insensitive, tacky, and ignorant.

~ J. Bunch

Read More

Announcing The Bear River Watershed Conservation Area

The U.S Fish & Wildlife Service is throwing another one at us, and it involves the Bear River - all parts of it in Utah, Wyoming, and Idaho, watersheds included.

The gist of this proposal at having a Conservation Area is that conservation easements would be attempted to be bought from willing sellers (you mean the feds have taken stuff from us unwillingly before? Noooo...).

From the Salt Lake Tribune:

It is an impressive area, one that provides critical habitat for all kinds of wildlife and numerous recreation possibilities for people. This is no wilderness area proposal full of rules and restrictions, but simply a map to provide a starting point for all involved interests to get going in this effort.

A main focus on the Bear River Watershed Conservation Area would be preserving natural resources through conservation easements from — and Thornburg emphasized this — willing sellers. Restoration efforts within the conservation area would be handled by landowners but could involve Fish and Wildlife Service partners like Ducks Unlimited and Trout Unlimited.

So it is a starting point.  Not full of rules and restrictions.  Just a starting point.  Not full of rules and restrictions.  But I would add a "Yet" to that.  Do we really trust that the U.S. F&WS will make this a better area for sportsmen and the public?  Or will this end up being another fight with the State of Idaho, ranchers, and farmers all screaming?

Here is the story.

Here is the U.S. F&WS page on the proposed Conservation Area.

~ J. Bunch

Read More

We Want The ESA To Go Extinct

There's talk of over-hauling the Endangered Species Act in the U.S. Congress, and Idaho Congressman Raul Labrador is one helping lead that charge.  From the Grand Forks Herald:

Republican Rep. Raul Labrador of Idaho, a member of the Natural Resources Committee, complained that the law is so broad that the federal government can intervene even if a species is only in one state.

“We’ve been confronted in Idaho with the potential listing of the slickspot peppergrass, which only exists within the state of Idaho,” he said.

The slickspot peppergrass is a rare desert flower that’s found only in the southwestern part of the state.

Those wanting to do away with the ESA point out that there are nearly 2,000 species under the Act, and only around 24 have seen recovery.  That's signals that the law is not very effective.

On the other hand, conservationists argue that it takes a long time for a nearly extinct species to recover.  So judging the ESA, enacted by Nixon, by the numbers we have now is unfair.

Of course neither argument really gets down to the nuts and bolts issue that our federal government has no money to be saving any species.  Do I need to link again to the National Debt Clock?

A step in the right direction would be doing away with the ESA altogether, and allowing the states to control their own issues.  The IF&G is taking the stance that they wish they had unadulterated control over grizzly, wolf, caribou management.  If more private money were invested in local chapters of conservation groups, and less going into a large "public" fund that keeps an inefficient bureaucracy in tact, the better.

Here's the full story from the Grand Forks Herald.

~ J. Bunch

Read More

IF&G Taking Comments On Upland Hunting Change Proposals

 Here are the proposed changes that IF&G has for all us upland game hunters:

1. Increasing chukar and gray partridge daily limits from 6 to 8

I have no idea why the limit was changed to 6 for 2011.  8 would be a nice reward for being in good enough shape to climb Everest, and for taking the time to train dogs.

2. Eliminating the Fall General Turkey Season in SW Idaho

This action will supposedly help out the Spring season harvest numbers.

3. Increase the possession limit for upland birds to three days limits instead of two days.

Sounds more than reasonable.

4. Open the chukar, gray partridge, quail, sage-grouse and sharp-tailed grouse seasons on the third Saturday of September.

Just don't make the season shorter on the back end.

5. Open cottontail and snowshoe hare seasons on Aug. 30 to coincide with forest grouse

The IF&G Commission will be setting 2012 Upland Hunting Rules at their meeting on January 25-27 in Boise.  You have two means of commenting on the proposals, if you should so choose.

From the Idaho Statesman:

Idaho Department  of Fish and Game will hold an open house to discuss proposed changes  for the 2012-13 upland bird hunting and furbearer trapping rules from 10  a.m. to 6 p.m. Wednesday, Jan. 4, at the Nampa regional office at 3101  S. Powerline Road. A complete list of the proposals will be at the open  house, and it is also available for comment at fishandgame.idaho.gov.   Written comments can be sent to Upland Game Comments, Idaho Fish and  Game, P.O. Box 25, Boise, ID, 83707.

~ J. Bunch

Read More

Our 3 Caribou: Counties Starting To Get Fired Up

About a month ago I reported that the Federal Guvmint is proposing that nearly 375,000 acres of North Idaho be designated as critical caribou habitat.  Now N. Idaho counties are forming a coalition to fight that proposal, realizing that the designation could hurt the economy and hamper public land access.

The Feds are taking your comments (how nice), but realize that your comment carries as much weight as the comment that comes in from the sand filled sandal of a dread-locked L.A. hippie.  And it seems that there's a lot of that type who like to tell us up here in the Northlands how to manage our wild.

From the CDA Press:

Bonner County is pressing ahead with efforts to challenge the designation of habitat for endangered woodland caribou.


The board adopted a resolution Tuesday insisting that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service coordinate with the county regarding habitat designation for endangered caribou. Commissioners also resolved to contact other commissions in the Panhandle, Montana and Washington state in order to build a coalition.

Commissioners here further hope to draw in state lawmakers, agencies and Idaho's federal delegation.

"I'm set up to contact Lincoln County, Pend Oreille County (and) Boundary County. Shoshone County proactively emailed me this morning. They want to join our coordination process," Commission Chairman Cornel Rasor said on Tuesday.

You can read the full article here.

~ J. Bunch

Read More

Interview With Idaho Waterfowl Association - Part 1

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 first part of the interview, with a couple more to follow in coming days.  Enjoy...  ~ J. Bunch

IDAHOMAN: What is the history here?  Who first initiated the idea of making licensing available for waterfowl outfitters?  And why?  And where does the issue sit today?

Answer IWA:  Jeremy, the Idaho Waterfowl Association (IWA) would like to thank you for allowing the IWA to address and give their side of a very contentious and confusing subject concerning a proposal to allow additional Outfitting and Guiding for Water Fowl in Idaho.  The IWA has been very involved in this issue for several years.  To say the least, it is a very confusing and complex issue that many Idahoans don’t understand.  Based on this, the IWA will give you our position and some history of the issue. 

For starters though, let me give you some information on the IWA.  The IWA is a waterfowl organization representing water fowlers and waterfowl habitat and those resources in Idaho.  More information on the IWA history, mission, how to join, and other interesting information can be found on our website:  Idaho Waterfowl Association

For years, there were only four (4) licensed outfitters for waterfowl hunting in Idaho. There was an informal moratorium on any further guiding for waterfowl that started in 1989.  In 1992, the Idaho Outfitters and Guides Licensing Board and the Idaho Fish and Game reinforced this temporary moratorium on any new licenses being issued for Waterfowl, Upland Game Bird and later Turkey Hunting.

The attached Policy (see below) – 2027 of the Outfitters and Guides Licensing Board fully outlines the moratorium and what the status was up to the establishment of the Outfitted Waterfowl and Turkey Advisory Work Group.

In 2009 the Idaho Outfitters and Guides Licensing Board (OGLB) asked the F&G to open up to discussion with a variety of groups and individuals to revisit the issue of outfitting and guiding for waterfowl and turkey.  The OGLB based its request to the IDF&G on what they said was an increased request from the public to guide for these wildlife species. 

The Outfitted Waterfowl and Turkey Advisory Work Group was formed on March 3, 2010 by a series of appointments made jointly by the Idaho Outfitters and Guides Licensing Board and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game.

After many meetings, both in person and by teleconference, the issue came to a stand still in December of 2010.  The sportsmen’s groups held tight the position that the request to expand outfitting and guiding for waterfowl be denied and to continue to implement and hold tight the existing moratorium for waterfowl and turkey hunting in Idaho.  This decision was based on many facts, but, the bottom line being that there was no demonstrated need to expand this activity, nor was there any documentation provided by those in favor of opening this activity up to further expansion.  This included both biological and economic data.

Then in August of 2011, the IWA found out that the OGLB, IF&G, and the Idaho Farm Bureau sent out a private land owner survey to approximately 800 land owners in Idaho asking them various questions about land ownership and outfitting and guiding for waterfowl and turkey in Idaho.  This survey was done with no notification to the Advisory Group even though some discussion about it had been mentioned prior to the close of the groups meetings in December of 2010.

Currently, the results of that survey are being tabulated by a third party with the results not being shared with the Advisory Group or the public as of this date.

As far as surveys go, in December of 2009, the IWA posted an online poll against outfitting/guiding for waterfowl in Idaho.  The IWA received 354 signatures against outfitting and guiding for waterfowl in Idaho and that poll also showed that outfitting and guiding, if allowed, would affect over 500 different individuals in Idaho.  The link to that on line petition is:  http://www.petitiononline.com/iwa12009/petition.html

The current status of the issue today is, the current moratorium prohibiting outfitting/guiding for waterfowl is still in effect with no resolution in sight.  The IOGLB hopes to have a resolution, even if it is at their own implementation in time for the 2012 waterfowl season.

IDAHOMAN: Could you please briefly explain and frame the current controversy over guiding/outfitting for waterfowl in Idaho?  Who are the players on each side of the issue?

Answer IWA: The current controversy over guiding/outfitting for waterfowl mainly comes from the aspect that the IOGLB insists that there is an increased need for this activity within Idaho.  The IWA and other sportsmen’s groups, and the Idaho Fish and Game has asked the group below, but specifically the IOGLB to demonstrate or show that there is an increased need for this activity.  The IWA and many many other waterfowl enthusiasts and general public have pushed back on this issue saying that there is NO demonstrated need to broaden this activity.  This push back is based on several factors, but one of the largest is that the IOGLB has not shown or attempted to show how many individuals or groups have actually requested to become a guide/outfitter in Idaho.

The IWA expanded its position on this in January 2011.  The IWA presented its position on guiding for waterfowl in Idaho to the Idaho Fish and Game Commissioners at their January Commissioners meeting.  The F&G was taking public comment on this issue, and Bryce Cook, IWA BOD representing the IWA presented the attached position letter to the IF&G Commission.

Further, the IWA has asked for specific information, as required by the IOGLB’s own regulations and in an Memorandum of Understanding with the IF&G that by August 1 of each year, it will provide information such as the number of each species taken by management area, and other pertinent information to each wildlife species being outfitted and/or guided for.  To date, the OGLB has not been able to show any harvest of waterfowl by any guides in Idaho even though this request has been made to them time and time again by the IWA and other sportsmen groups shown below.

In fact, the response the IWA has received is; “the data and information” does not exist.  The IWA position is that if the data and information does not exist, how the argument made by the IOGLB can hold any weight to show that there is a demand to expand this activity.

The advisory group consisted of eight voting members, four non-voting ex officio participants, and three staff. The advisory group members were self-nominated from stakeholder groups—landowners, sportsmen organizations, and outfitters. Group members were:  Voting Members:
Wally Butler	Idaho Farm Bureau	Landowners
Bryce Cook	Idaho Waterfowl Association	Sportsmen
Mike Lawson		Outfitters
Dan Jones	Potlatch Corp	Landowners (unable to participate)
Joseph Peterson	Flying B Ranch	Outfitters
Mike Reggear	Clearwater Management Council	Landowners
Grant Simonds	Idaho Outfitters & Guides Assoc.	Outfitters
Ryan Storm	Pheasants Forever & ISCAC *	Sportsmen
Paul Waldon	Idaho Turkey Federation	Sportsmen
Non-Voting Members
Wayne Hunsucker	IOGLB Board	Observer
Alex Irby	IDFG Commission	Observer
Jake Howard	IOGLB Executive Director	Observer
Virgil Moore	IDFG Deputy Director **	Observer
Staff
Dick Gardner	Bootstrap Solutions	Facilitator
Lance Hebdon	IDFG	Staff support
Jeff Knetter	IDFG	Staff support

* ISCAC – Idaho Sportsmen’s Caucus Advisory Council

** - Is now the Director of the Idaho Fish and Game

The group developed the following statement to try and clearly understand the problem they were trying to solve.

“The Idaho Outfitters and Guides Licensing Board has a statutory responsibility to consider applications for outfitting. There is currently a temporary moratorium on waterfowl and turkey outfitting applications. How can Idaho allow, or not allow, additional guiding and outfitting for waterfowl and/or turkey on private and/or public lands, while protecting and maintaining private property rights?”

The OGLB and the private land owners have tried hard to push that this is a private property rights issue. The MOU with the Idaho Fish and Game is clear on the issue of what commercial enterprises such as this are.  That MOU specifically states, that outfitting and guiding are a privilege and not a right.  http://oglb.idaho.gov/pdf/mou/mou_idfg.pdf

IWA and other sportsman’s groups, including the IF&G have consistently stated that private land owners have many different tools at their disposal as it affects outfitting and guiding on their private land, but, the sportsmen and IF&G have taken the stance that outfitting and guiding shall not be done since it is a privilege and not a right. Those who are on either side of this issue need to remember that guiding for waterfowl is a commercialization of waterfowl that actually belong to all of the public in Idaho.  By saying this is a private property issue, those pushing for more outfitting and guiding for waterfowl are trying to make waterfowl hunting theirs and only theirs for a price and it will be a high price at that.  And what does the public of Idaho get in return for this commercialization? One really needs to think about this when they are pushing for more and more guiding of Idaho’s public resources

Further, the framed issue also includes public lands, for which individuals representing private land owners are saying does not apply to these discussions, but, they had part in framing the issue, as shown above, and it does state and is very specific to include Public Lands in Idaho.  The issue surrounding Public Lands was discussed thoroughly, and has not been taken totally off the table as to whether or not outfitting and/or guiding can or should be allowed on public lands.

Below are two attachments supplied by the IWA:

Attachment #1. Letter From IWA to IF&G Commission 

January 26, 2011

Idaho Fish and Game Commission

Mr. Chairman and Commissioners:

My name is Bryce Cook and I am representing Idaho Waterfowl Association.  Please let me first start off by saying thanks for the opportunity to speak with you and the opportunity to participate in the advisory group over the last year.

You have all received a final report from the work of the advisory group.  Please allow me to focus on a few key points of this report and facts of the situation.

1.       Outfitting and guiding is not a property or personal right. Whether on private land or public the IOGLB has the authority to place restrictions.  Idaho Supreme Court decision in State v. Koller states, “We conclude the legislature intended to regulate commercial outfitting whether it occurs on public or private land and that such regulation is a reasonable use of the legislature's police powers.”

2.       IDFG commissions in the past have not supported outfitting and guiding for waterfowl.  Nothing has been presented to this current commission that should change past positions.

3.       There is lack of suitable habitat to support commercial interests and still meet the Idaho Statute requirements for IOGLB that outfitters do not interfere with the non-outfitted public.  There is a strong demand for the limited habitat.

a.        Key points on suitable habitat:

                                                               i.      Less than 0.7% of Idaho (374,716 acres) is public water larger than ½ acre, plus rivers (and at least 15,000 acres of Lake Lowell are closed to hunting, as well as other large bodies of water)  Source: Idaho Fish and Game

                                                              ii.      From 1997-2007 Idaho has lost over 500,000 acres of farmland. Source: Census of Agriculture 2007

b.       Evidence of strong demand for non-outfitted opportunity

                                                               i.      Idaho currently has 187,435 duck hunter-days and 110,244 goose hunter-days (average 2005-09).   Source: Idaho Fish and Game, based on Migratory Game Bird Permit Surveys.

c.        Idaho Statute Requirements:

                                                               i.      Source: Excerpt of Title 36 Chapter 21 of Idaho Statute (36-2101)

1.       “…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…”

4.       Outfitting would increase the loss of access for the non-outfitted public.

a.       Source: IDFG Survey of State Fish and Wildlife Agency responses to Turkey and Waterfowl Hunting 2010

                                                               i.      Two out of four neighboring states(Utah and Washington) that responded to the survey stated that waterfowl outfitting negatively affected waterfowl hunters.  Utah is even considering a ban on guiding in state managed WMA’s due to conflict.

                                                              ii.      Arkansas, which is a state with much more waterfowl habitat has implemented an outfitting/guiding ban on public land.

5.       The temporary moratorium on waterfowl outfitting has been an Idaho policy for ~20 years. It has had time to face any legal challenges of being ―arbitrary. In fact, to change it now may well be ―arbitrary.

6.       Some provisions proposed during the advisory group to protect the non-outfitted hunter may be hard to enforce. The IOGLB has very limited resources for enforcement of its regulations.

a.       According to IOGLB their free fund or savings account will be at zero balance by July, 2011, also they stated when this happens, “there will likely be an immediate effect on both customer service and enforcement processes.” Source: IOGLB Winter Newsletter 2009

7.       Throughout the entire advisory group process the sportsmen’s groups requested numerous times for demonstrated “need” for waterfowl guiding or outfitting.  The IOGLB could not and did not provide any documented or demonstrated need.

a.       The “need” of outfitters and guides to make money is not a substantial public need.

b.       The existing IDFG and IOGLB Memorandum of Understanding requires that outfitted/guided harvest for all species is to be reported.  These numbers were requested during the advisory group and could not be provided for existing grandfathered waterfowl outfitters by IOGLB. 

The reasons provided to support a permanent moratorium are based upon fact and surveys done throughout the advisory process.  The reasons provided against the moratorium by outfitters and landowners in the advisory group are not based on fact, nor has any reason been shown to go with anything but the permanent moratorium.  The desire by a few to profit off of the public’s wildlife should not be at the expense of the access and opportunity for the non-outfitted public.  Landowners are free to charge trespass fees and use leases as opportunity for financial gain with a permanent moratorium.  As stated previously, it is key that Idaho Supreme Court has declared that outfitting and guiding is not a private property right.

With all of the above in mind we, the Idaho Waterfowl Association, ask the IDFG commission to continue their support of no outfitting or guiding for waterfowl in the state of Idaho.  We also request that if IDFG consider any change in this position that they complete a thorough public comment period of the state’s waterfowl hunters.

Respectfully,

Bryce Cook, Idaho Waterfowl Association

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Attachment #2. Outfitters & Guides Act

1.00.00                        POLICY OF THE AGENCY

The Board has certain statutory powers and duties set forth in the Outfitters and Guides Act. These powers and duties not only include licensing qualified applicants but also enforcing the provisions of the Act for the conservation of wildlife and range resources (IC 36-2107(d)). The Board is further authorized to cooperate with federal and state agencies in matters of mutual concern regarding the business of outfitting and guiding in Idaho (IC 36-2107(e)).  Further the Board is obligated to consider when licensing an activity the accessibility of the area and its terrain and the effect such license would have upon the environment, the game and the number of persons that can be served (IC 36-2109(b)).

The Board has adopted certain rules as authorized by the Act which provide additional considerations when licensing an Outfitter. In evaluating an Outfitter application, the Board must consider the public need for the requested services, the accessibility and use of the area by the general public and the area requested and the effect such license would have upon the environment and game available for harvest (Board Rule 021.)

For the reasons provided in this document, it is Board policy that a formal “moratorium” be established regarding new applications and amendments to existing licenses for Outfitted Waterfowl, Upland Game and Turkey Hunting.      

It is Board policy that this “moratorium” be temporary and shall only be in place until a complete analysis and evaluation  can be conducted by the Board in cooperation with the Idaho Fish and Game Commission and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game and with other agencies, industry representatives, the outfitted public and the public at large so that objective information can be prepared and identified in a cooperative and collaborative fashion for the Boards consideration so as to make an informed and appropriate decision regarding these activities.  This policy does not affect Outfitters who are currently licensed to provide these activities.

2.00.00                        TABLE OF CONTENTS

3.00.00                        REFERENCES

4.00.00                        GENERAL

The following facts support this Moratorium:

-  The Board recognizes that an understanding has existed between the Board and the Idaho Fish and Game Commission since the July 10-14, 1989 Board meeting where a “moratorium” was placed on new outfitter licenses for waterfowl and upland game hunting.

-  Beginning as early as the August 23-27, 1992 board meeting and based on the recommendations of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, applications have been consistently denied for outfitted turkey hunting.  At their May 17-19, 2006 meeting, the Fish and Game Commission reaffirmed the IDFG Department’s opposition to upland game (including turkey) and waterfowl outfitting for the outfitting industry.  This opposition was again reaffirmed at the June 2008 board meeting where the Idaho Department of Fish and Game expressed concerns with outfitted turkey hunting and its affect upon general public access.

-  It is also recognized that discussions have occurred during IOGLB’s meetings with the Idaho State Senate Resources and Conservation Committee in the 2006, 2007 and 2008 sessions where Senators have expressed their concern with new outfitter licenses for waterfowl, upland game and turkey hunting.

It is recognized that private land owners or other business owners may be licensed as outfitters to provide equipment, facilities and services on those lands they own outright or under arrangements with other private land owners. The Board must strive for its decisions to be understood and fair and that the decision basis should be supported by the record as a whole.

The Board does not possess adequate facts, data and information concerning the nature of the upland game (including turkey) and waterfowl resources in the state of Idaho and the effect the issuance of new licenses or amendments for these activities may have upon such resources and the current  hunting access the public currently does or doesn’t enjoy. Further the public need for these outfitter services is currently unknown. 

It should be noted that historically the Board has licensed four outfitters who provide outfitted waterfowl hunting in eastern Idaho; the Board regularly licenses outfitters to provide upland game hunting to individuals who are granted private land shooting preserve permits by the IDFG.  Currently, there are nine outfitters providing these services statewide.  Additionally, the Board decided in 2004 to license six existing outfitters in the Clearwater Region to provide outfitter turkey hunting on lands that they own outright. 

There have been on-going discussions and concerns regarding these matters for a number of years and this policy and other combined IOGLB and IDFG efforts  are be taken to finally address these concerns so that appropriate and reasonable decisions can be made. 

5.00.00 PROCEDURE

The following are matters which need consideration in this matter:

-  Procedures and protocol are necessary for IOGLB staff (staff) and other agencies to gather information and data as reviewed in this policy in order for the Board can make reasonable and informed decisions when processing applications or requests for information regarding these activities.

-  Procedures and protocol are necessary for industry representatives, the outfitted public and the public at large to determine their positions on the access issues, need for such services, whether license opportunities exist and if so, what the license restrictions might be and to determine application requirements.

-  A review of issues or the past comments from the State legislature and a determinate whether legislative intervention is needed or whether new or revised statutes or rules are necessary.

-  A commonly recognized understanding of who the “public” is and how to understand “public need” must be determined.

-  It is recognized that a moratorium by it nature is not an appropriate response to this matter and as such it is temporarily in place until a final disposition is reached and set a foundation and support for  the record as a whole.  In this respect, a reasonable timeline must be established to arrive at recommendations to address this matter.  

Read More