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

Guest Post: Growler Is Dead

Today's guest post comes courtesy of Dirk Durham of Moscow, ID.  Dirk is one of the Pro Staff at elk101.com, a very valuable elk hunting site with a friendly forum.  Lots of good stuff on hunting elk in Idaho there as well.  Also check out extremeelk.com.  Extreme Elk Magazine will give you lots of good stuff to stew over, especially now that we're in the "off-season," so SUSCRIBE  now!  ~ J. Bunch

About a decade ago when giant bulls still wandered many back-country hideaways here in North Idaho, I matched wits with a monster of unforgettable proportions.  These were the days when it was not uncommon to find huge rubs on trees of eight inches or more in diameter, and pie plate sized hoof prints in the mud.  Large herds of cows were the norm, and wolves were a bed time story. "Growler Bull" was the name given to this behemoth by my brother Lance and I due to his unique bugle.  Many years and thousands of vocal cord-damaging bugles had given this old monarch his distinctive voice. Rather than a typical three note bugle, his was a raspy wheeze-like scream, minus the high notes.

 

My first encounter with the Growler was on the last day of bow season with with none other than Corey Jacobsen.  We had spent a long hard week chasing bulls, and had ran out of fresh buglers. Corey asked if I had any other spots where we could find a last minute bull. I scanned my memory bank and remembered a growly bugle that I had heard early in the season, but due to the nasty nature of the terrain my brother and I opted out, looking elsewhere for an easier target. When I mentioned the place, Corey jumped at the notion.

Daylight found us at the top of a large drainage with bugles in hand. Corey called and the Growler answered back immediately, almost like he had been waiting there for us to return. He was located on a ridge that plummeted deep into the drainage. Since the morning thermals were headed down hill we had to drop straight off  to get on his level, then side hill over to the bull.  No easy task due to the nearly vertical, brush choked hillside. We called, scrambled, and fought our way down and over toward the bull through ten foot high brush until we had climbed onto the bulls ridge.

I was in the lead with Corey following close behind when the bull decided to make his move.  With a thunderous crash, Growler herded his ladies our way with screaming guttural insults.  Cows started streaming by us at fifteen yards in a single file line. Cow number thirty went by with a spike following up the rear, and following them was an elk colored "army tank". His body dwarfed every cow in his harem, and his beautiful sweeping six point rack was equally impressive. With a very quiet cow call, I stopped him at eighteen yards… right behind a bark-less snag who's dead twisted branches covered his vitals. Meanwhile, the cows were all pooled up in the brush over by Corey, waiting for their marching orders.  At full draw and burning a hole through the branches with my site pin, the cows spooked returning on the same path they had just traveled. Confident the bull would take a step in my favor, I held my eighty pound round wheel bow at full draw for what seemed an eternity as the cows filed by. When the spike who was heading up the rear finally ran by, Growler lunged, turned, and following his harem to safety. Rubbing our eyes in disbelief, we giggled like school girls.

My next encounter with the old monarch was the following year. It was near the end of September again and had snowed a light skiff the night before. My brother Lance and I had several bulls answering our calls down and across the drainage. One bull's wheezy growly bugle had me zeroed in on his location. Struggling down through the cold, wet snow covered vegetation, we closed the gap with the bull. We set up shop, close as we dared, as I fired up again working the bull without much luck.  He wouldn't budge, but continued a constant flurry of bugles. I urged Lance to move forward and stalk in on the bull as I kept him talking. Lance got setup and I could see him in the distance motioning me to move up. Crashing down the hill like an elephant screaming insults was all the Growler needed to hear. He wheezed his reply and came in on a string to Lance.

At five yards, Growler passed behind a hemlock sapling allowing Lance to draw his bow. Since this was back in the days before D-loops, his arrow had been nocked for quite a while with his release putting pressure on the back of the nock, causing it to push forward. As Lance drew his bow, the nock pushed off the string causing it to fall, clanking against the riser then to the ground.  Miraculously, the bull looked the opposite direction allowing Lance to recover his arrow, and draw back  just in time for the Growler to turn around and return from where he came.

My last meeting with the giant bull was two years later. It had been pretty slow, due to warm dry conditions. I was camped by myself that year except for three guys who were across the same campsite from me.  One fellow at the neighboring camp had invited me over for a cold beverage when his compadres went to town that night, so I walked over to his camp to join him. We talked about elk hunting long into the night and then I bid him good luck and good night. When I awoke the next morning, the sun was fairly high and my pounding headache reaffirmed why cold beverages should come after your tag is notched. I shuffled around camp head hung low, loaded my gear and headed out to salvage the remainder of the day.

Mad at myself for being so foolish, I mumbled and scolded myself as I walked through the waist high huckleberry brush. I made a few quiet cow calls trying to disguise the cornflake crunching noise as I made my way across the ridge. Then it happened, Growler ripped a devastatingly growling bugle just out of site, less than fifty yards away in a thicket of hemlock saplings . Much to my chagrin, he was almost directly down wind. Backtracking a bit, I tried in a last ditch effort to gain the wind's favor, but with no luck. His huge hooves crashed off safely, back into his secret place.

With my skull splitting headache and uneasy stomach, I reasoned that if I were to bail off into the hole where the Growler had went, I could hang out till evening and perhaps get a second chance. Walking down the ridge on remnants of an old game trail, I dropped in elevation looking for an ideal place to make my set-up. Crash! A spike that was bedded about ten yards away jumped up running and barked, giving up my charade. With a quick witted idea, I turned the spike's bark into a series of grunts since he was still only about fifty yards away. Evidently, it worked like a charm because Growler fired up again. I positioned myself to where he would have to crest the ridge to see his challenger, giving me a perfect shot. He bugled five times within about one minute while he closed the gap. Brush began to pop and swish just out of sight and I readied my bow as the wind started fanning my sweaty neck. He crashed off, so I sprinted to an opening hoping to catch a glimpse of my unseen Growler.  I found a clearing just in time to watch him run up to the fringe of a huge, head high brush field. He began to make motions like he was going to rake his enormous rack, but instead he was trying to part the brush.  His giant rack was huge, freakishly long curly tines, beams with "baseball bat" like mass carried all the way back to his sweeping whale tails. Finally, he leaped into the thicket, and all I could do is watch as his head and horns floated through the sea of brush. I guess he didnt like the smell of barley and hops!

At this point in my life I was overtaken by my obsession to kill this bull. All I could do is eat, sleep, and plot against Growler. Hours of pouring over maps, running scenarios, scouting, and only talking to my closest of friends recounting all the details. I'm sure my wife was quite annoyed by my blank stare and bugling in my sleep for the next two years.

The following two seasons I couldn't find him. I checked all his old haunts and new areas where I thought he might have relocated to. I hadn't heard of any hunters bagging a bull of his magnitude in the area, and hoped he had temporarily moved away due to the new presence of wolves in the mountains.  In the spring following his second year hiatus, I learned of a local dirt bike enthusiast finding a huge dead bull in the trail at the bottom of Growler's drainage. Appeared to be a wolf kill. When I finally saw a picture of the rack, I had to hold back the tears. It was him. His horns had regressed a bit but were still very impressive and still carried all his old character, and some new.  Heartbroken, I did what any elk hunting fanatic would do, I set out looking for the next one. Call it crazy, but I've carried a picture of his rack every year since then, just to remind me to never give up till I put my own arrow or bullet into a bull of a lifetime like Growler.

Here we go boys! I was able to catch up with the guy who found Growler's rack……..Enjoy! ~ Dirk Durham

Read More

My New Christmas Present

Yeah, right.  Apparently I wasn't that good this year.

But you can dream along with me by viewing the specs and seeing all of the pics here.

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

Weird Weather Impacts Wildlife: Good & Bad For Hunters

I'm in Moscow, ID today, and I've got my sleeves rolled up at 9:00 am.  It's sunny and 40° outside.  And this is January 4th.  

Many waterfowlers around the state know what that means - bad hunting.  Or, at least not great hunting.  With the end of duck season just around the bend, more than a few folks are praying for bad weather to come quickly, or else this season will be considered a bust.

But while the mild winter might be leaving you twiddling your thumbs in the blinds, it could become a real boon to the mule deer population.  With the last several years of harsh winters, a break could mean better survival, and better hunting, not just this year, but into next year as well.

A Spokane Review blog today also contained this:

Jim Hayden, Idaho Fish and Game Department Panhandle Region wildlife manager, says he needs a lot more snow in a hurry in order to do his winter aerial elk surveys.

Normal snowpack is needed to concentrate the elk on wintering areas and make them stand out for the count.

More from KMVT here.

 

~ J. Bunch

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

Round 1: Selway Elk Zone vs. Salmon Elk Zone

This is the fourth 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.

Here we go comparing the Selway Elk Zone to the Salmon Elk Zone. First up, the Selway.

The Hunt

There are three any-weapon, antlered-only elk hunts in the Selway Zone.  One is on the A-tag, and ran from October1 - October 31 in 2011.  This over the counter tag had a quota of 647 tags.  These capped tags went on sale for non-residents on 12/1/2010, and for residents on 7/10/2011.  Those dates should be the same for the 2012 hunts.  In fact, the non-resident tags are probably already on sale.

The B-tag has two hunts, an early one and a late one.  The first ran from September 15-30, and the second from November 1 - 11.  In 2011, there were only 1,067 tags in the quota.  The beginning sale dates for these capped tags are the same as what was described above.

This has traditionally been a very popular hunt, so if you are planning on doing it, don't waste much time deciding to buy the tag, or else you may find that they've all sold out.

Location

Location: middle of nowhere.  And that is why some people love it.  This is wilderness.  You either hike or ride a horse in.  There are folks who will guide you in and set you up with a camp.  But that, of course, will cost some money.  Before you half-hazardly decide to hunt the Selway, you need to have a plan of attack.  How will you get in?  How will you get out?  How will you get a downed animal out?  There are three hunts to choose from: September, October, and November.  But expect to encounter any kind of weather in any of those months.  You can access the Selway Zone from the Montana side as well.

The Selway Zone sits south of the Lolo Zone and HWY 12, which runs from Kooskia up to Lolo Pass.  The east boundary is the Montana-Idaho border.  To the south is the Middle Fork Elk Zone (also a very isolated wilderness area).  To the west is the Elk City Elk Zone and HWY 95, which runs from Riggins on north up to Grangeville.

The Zone consists of game Unit 16A, 17, 19, and 20.

Terrain/Land Ownership

This is virtually 100% U.S. Forest Service and designated wilderness land.  You will not have a problem finding a place to camp, but there will be no road to that camp.  Maybe a back country airstrip, though.  The Zone consists of 1,617,051 acres or 2,526 square miles.  With only 647 tags available for the A-tag, and 1,067 B-tags, there is a lot of space.  You might be more likely to run into a wolf than you would another hunter.  Oops, you didn't want to hear that.  I mean you might be more likely to run into an elk than another hunter.  More on wolves later...

As for the terrain, it is rugged, plain and simple.  The eastern border of the Zone will have you on the divide, where the mountains generally peak somewhere around 8,000 ft. in elevation.  Typical elevations will see the drainage bottoms between 2,000 - 4,000 ft, and the ridge tops from 5,000 - 7,000 ft.  And it is one beautiful peak right after another, a wilderness we're grateful to have here in Idaho.

There's a good mix of timber and open country here.  Some sections to the north appear to be more timbered, with more open areas found in the southern and western sections.  The terrain does change from high precipitation forests along certain reaches of the Selway River, to drier, Pondorosa pined ridges and grassland habitat along the Salmon River.  This has been a popular place to hunt for its scenery, solitude, and its elk habitat.  If you want the rugged elk hunt, this is it.

Some areas of the Zone have been burned in recent years, creating good elk habitat.  Other areas are over grown, and have choked out the elk forage.  Researching burn areas before the hunt can give you hints on places that might be better feeding grounds than others.

Herd Health/Stats

When Lewis & Clark came through, there weren't many elk in this area that was once a more unadulterated forest.  Since then, fires and other human activity have mixed up the terrain quite a bit, offering better habitat for the elk population.  Populations continued to grow, and peaked in the '50's.  It then started to go downhill from there due to a lack of fires, hunting pressure, and other environmental factors.  By the '70's the elk population had decreased substantially, and the IF&G changed the hunt to antlered-only.  Unfortunately, the elk population has continued to decline.  Some of that is due to unfavorable habitat change, and some of it is predation - primarily wolves.

Wolves are well established in the Zone.  Current harvest reports show that 4 wolves have been harvested by firearms, and 4 have been trapped.  The Selway wolf hunting season started August 2011, and will continue through June 2012.  There is no quota on the number of wolves that can be harvested in the Zone, but it isn't a piece of cake to harvest wolves here.  It is clear that the IF&G wants to see the elk population rebound, and a lower wolf population is one of the primary keys to that objective.  Local reports have stated that the elk stick close to the timber - a quick hiding place when they need one.

The objectives are to have 4,900-7,300 cows, 1,325-1,950 bulls (of which they want to see 750-1,175 mature bulls).  The 2007 survey counted 3,381 cows, 934 bulls (of which there were 726 mature bulls).

A couple of observation hits, for what they're worth.  77% of the bulls counted were mature.  All categories are below objective.  Hmmm.

The calf retention has been horrible here, due mainly, I think, to wolves.  But no doubt winters have taken a toll the past 15 years.  There's been some tough ones that did some major damage.  There are no cow hunts in the Selway Zone.

On to the stats:

Elk/square mile: 1.7

Hunters/square mile: 0.46

Bulls/square mile: 0.37

Average hunter days: 6.73

Bull Harvest Percentage: 12%

Percent Spikes Harvested: 15%

Percent 6+ points Harvested: 55%

The Salmon Elk Zone

The Hunt

The antlered, any-weapon hunt for the Salmon Zone is found on the B-tag, and ran from October 15 - November 8.  The A-tag is for archery-only, and is for any elk.  The archery season for the Zone runs from August 30 - September 30 (in Units 21, 21A, and 36B only), and December 1 - 31 (in Unit 28 only).  For the any-weapon B-tag, there is a quota of 2,507 tags.  They go on sale on 12/1/2011 for non-residents, and on 7/1/2012 for residents.  Once they are gone, they're gone.

Location

The Salmon Zone starts at the little town of Clayton, and the eastern boundary of the Zone is HWY 93 as it zig zags north along the river to the relatively larger metropolis of Salmon.  From there, the boundary bolts away from the highway over to the convenient boundary that is the Montana-Idaho border.  It follows the border north, until it decides to break away from Montana, and heads west and south, defined by watersheds back down to Clayton.  There's cheap beer at the watering hole in Clayton (FYI).

Terrain/Land Ownership

The Salmon Elk Zone consists of 1,696,926 acres, or 2,651 square miles.  Of that, 83% is Forest Service, 12% is BLM, and the rest is private.  A great deal of the land is used for grazing, and there are some mining activities as well.  

I could go on and on about the terrain here, but there's nothing like seeing it for yourself.  I found this video representative of the terrain as a whole.  This was taken on the north end of the Zone.  Further south you will find steep, more open country around Challis.

 

Elevations range from 5,000 ft. to 8,000 ft.

Herd Health/Stats

Elk have always been in this area, but it held pretty low densities through much of the 20th Century.  Elk were translocated to the area from Yellowstone back in the 1930's in order to boost the population.  By the 1970's there was a stable herd, and numbers peaked in the 1990's.

The elk have a few habitat issues that demand management by the IF&G.  This zone has a healthy mule deer population, and the competition with the elk is a concern.  IF&G wants both species to maintain the highest numbers as possible.  There was a big fire in Unit 28 back 2000, and those kind of fires create excellent elk habitat.  But then on the predation side, wolves have taken care of business.  There are 4 well established packs in Unit 28 alone, and other packs wandering around the other units.  There is a careful balance between letting the herd get so big that it extends the carrying capacity of the Zone, and making sure it doesn't get destroyed by predators.  

There is a harvest limit of 40 in the Salmon Zone for the wolf season, and so far 19 have been killed.  The season lasts until March 31, 2012.  IF&G believes that wolves may provide some service to the elk herd here, keeping the herd within objectives, and within the carrying capacity of the habitat that they share with the mule deer.  I would rather let hunters take on that task than wolves, but that's just my opinion.

Objectives are for 4,600-7,000 cows, 975-1,425 bulls (of which 550-850 mature bulls are wanted).  2008 Surveys showed there were 6,182 cows, 884 bulls (of which 512 were mature).

A couple of notes on that: 1. 58% of the bulls were mature bulls, and 2. cows are within objective.

Now for the rest of the stats:

Elk/square mile: 2.67

Hunters/square mile: 0.99

Bulls/square mile: 0.33

Average hunter days: 5.9

Bull Harvest Percentage: 18%

Percent Spikes Harvested: 37%

Percent 6+ points Harvested: 26%

Analysis

It all depends on the experience that you want.  If you want the back country experience with a good shot at a mature bull, then the Selway Zone is your choice.  If you care most about just harvesting something, then it would appear that the odds are better in the Salmon Zone.

If your priorities are low hunter density and opportunities at mature bulls, then pick Selway.  If you don't mind seeing more hunters, and want a really good chance at getting a spike, then pick Salmon.

The Winner

There is no question in my mind that I would pick the Selway Zone if I had the choice between the two.  Don't take that wrong - I think the Salmon Zone is an excellent choice for a hunt.  But the Selway experience would sway me.  Both Zones have wolf problems.  But elk are still there for the taking, and hopefully if you go to one of these Zones you can harvest a wolf too.  

But in the end, this little exercise was to determine the best place for harvesting an elk, not for finding the best experiences, and not for trophy hunting.  Because of that, the Salmon Zone takes the prize.

~ 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