Back to News

ALERT: Idaho House approves decrease in nonresident tags, but increase in fees

Idaho House approves decrease in nonresident tags, but increase in fees

Photo credit: Dreamstime

If you aren’t an Idaho resident, you may have fewer hunting opportunities in the Gem State – and still have to pay 10% more. The Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) recently proposed offering fewer out-of-state big game hunting tags for specific hunting districts while also raising nonresident fees “so revenue would stay the same,” according to the Idaho Press

On Tuesday, the Idaho House voted 55-15 in favor of this legislation. According to Rep. Clark Kauffman (R-Filer), “the bill is aimed at reducing ‘the overcrowding from out-of-state hunters’ and ‘This is one of the highest priorities requested by the hunters of Idaho.’” However, because nonresident hunters make up “about 50% of the budget” for IDFG, Kauffman says that “the department is proposing to raise out-of-fees by about 10%, varying by type of fee, ‘just to stay even.’”

Nonresident wolf and veterans’ tags will not be affected by this legislation. 

“This is a tax that’s paid by somebody else,” said House Majority Leader Mike Moyle (R-Star), who was supportive of the bill, HB 330, “and as we talk about taxes, it’s always better if somebody else pays that tax other than Idaho citizens. So I think it’s an advantage to have something like this, where we put the burden on those who come to Idaho, use our resources, our lakes, our streams, our rivers and everything else, and they help pay for it. So this is a better way to go and it saves our sportsmen’s money.”

Footwear now live at goHUNT

However, not all of the lawmakers agreed that HB 330 was a good idea. Rep. Priscilla Giddings (R-White Bird), said her constituents had “expressed concerns” on whether increasing the cost of nonresident tags actually helped the overcrowding issue.

“I think that we can logically say no,” said Giddings. “I think that there are other ways that we can reduce congestion. One would be maybe by limiting the hunting season itself.” 

Giddings added that “Idaho could reduce its wolf population, to promote more elk and deer survival.”

HB 330 moves on to a Senate committee before moving to the full Senate for approval. Should the Senate vote favorably, it will then require the governor’s signature before becoming law. 

Increases would take effect Dec. 1 if approved. According to the Idaho Press, without the fee increase, the tag reductions would “reduce revenue to the department by between $5.4 million and $9 million a year.”


To voice your concern contact the Idaho Senate members through the link below:

List of all Idaho Senate members

Also, you can contact the Idaho Fish and Game Commission members to voice your concern through the link below:

List of all Idaho fish and game commission members

Stay tuned to goHUNT for further updates.


Log in or register to post comments.

Mark A. - posted 4 weeks ago on 03-06-2020 01:23:23 am
Lake Villa IL

Oh crap . A out of state donation expert will answer the phone shortly.

Mark A. - posted 4 weeks ago on 03-06-2020 01:17:11 am
Lake Villa IL

Fu&k IT. JUST send the money. It wont stop until us junkies stop buying tags. The real hunter. Oh crap no use.

Stephen T. - posted 1 month ago on 02-26-2020 05:49:25 am

Yes the statement may a little over the top no taxes won’t go down government spends and it doesn’t matter who’s on power. I’ve been doing this a long time and all you ever see is nonresident price hikes and nonresident tag cuts Idaho is better on price than a lot of states that are way out of line. Where do we think this ends in two years it will be the same bill of price hikes and tag cuts on nonresident. It’s always the nonresident hunter that gets hit over the head not any other group no cuts in fishing licenses limited mountains biker or hikers bird watchers No big fee hikes on anybody just nonresident hunters.

Christopher S. - posted 1 month ago on 02-25-2020 12:30:22 pm

Stephen T, sell it and save the taxpayers some money? Have you gone off the deep end? You seriously think they would cut your taxes if they sold off all federal lands? Good grief, tag prices go up once every ten years and people act like someone kicked their dog. I've officially heard it all now.

Stephen T. - posted 1 month ago on 02-24-2020 06:55:19 pm

I'm tired of paying for land that I'm getting priced out of and harder and harder to draw tags almost impossible to draw. That goes for all states. Just sell it and save us taxpayers some money.

Justin F. - posted 1 month ago on 02-17-2020 08:43:45 am

Without reducing the actual number of tags they won't solve the overcrowding problem. Would have been a great opportunity for resident hunters to step up and add 10-20% to their license and tag fees in an effort to fund more opportunity in their state.

bradley r. - posted 1 month ago on 02-15-2020 09:40:28 pm

Phill g. Spot on. As a non res this is sickening. "Overcrowding"? 10% of the elk hunters kill 90% of the elk. But non residents are paying 50% of the bill. More residents hunt Idaho than non residents and I understand every one wants their own little honey hole where the elk are numerous and the other hunters are non existent, but if you're hunting on public ground that's not going to happen. It's PUBLIC! Hint farther and harder. That goes for any game in any state. Non residents dont come there and just use your "resources", they buy groceries, gas, souvenirs, etc. They support your local businesses(Kauffman I would hope that your not that stupid to realize we as non residents bring more to the table than just using your land and rivers). If population of elk is the concern here, focus on the real problems. Private, or inaccessible landlocked ground or the major problem, your predators. Wolves, lions and bears. Start concentrating on eliminating more of those three and watch all your ungulates rebound. Don't take it out on us. Raise the resident fees. Were 70% of your hunters come from. The more restrictions and less opportunities and higher costs will just drive away your non residents. The same thing that is happening in Colorado. License fees have gone up and non residents have quit coming. I personally know about a dozen hunters just here in Pennsylvania that will no longer go to Colorado for that reason. Idaho seriously needs to rethink their new strategy

Vicky F. - posted 1 month ago on 02-15-2020 10:43:08 am

I have been hunting in Idaho for 38 years with my family and we love it. We are non resident from wisc. With all the wilderness and back country in Idhao. I suggest getting a mile or 2 away feom your rig so you don't run onto so many guys. in 12 days hunting last year I aeen 4 guys. They were res. Hunters that were using 4 wheelers illegally back of a gated road. The last 10 years i have seen less hunter due to the wolve pop. I think Idaho fish and game does a good job managing all the natural resources that Idaho has to offer. instead of just 1 group let all of us sportsman chip in a little so everybody can enjoy.

Ben H. - posted 1 month ago on 02-15-2020 10:03:22 am
wright, mn

This is just another selfish idea thats happening out west. NR tag increase, it was time. NR tags decrease with no change in Resident tags as they are using overcrowding as a reason??? Wow, give me a break. Another thing that is just poor is you should increase both residents and NR tag fees. The wildlife deserves that. Not just one half of the the hunting population getting fat while the other half picks up pace for them that causes the majority of the overcrowding anyways on FEDERAL land. Just powerstroking egos going on and its sad as all they are doing is splitting up the hunting public and continuing to turn us against each other. As this continues we will see our rights diminish, just sad.

Adam M. - posted 1 month ago on 02-14-2020 02:16:23 pm

John C. I understand your point. In your situation, I would do the same thing. That stinks that work took you away. But at the same time, you have an opportunity to hunt Nevada AND Idaho. What aggravates me the most is how everyone is hating on Idaho for this decision when in reality, Idaho is still cheaper and offers more opportunity, even after these changes, than most other western states (except probably Colorado). But what are my odds to come hunt bulls in Nevada? Arizona? Utah? New Mexico? Washington? Not that great, yet nobody is complaining about those states. I don't really have a desire to hunt other states at all. I enjoy hunting Idaho. Its a great place to live and a great place to hunt. I love the opportunity they provide. I couldn't care less about the trophy quality. They have limited entry units for guys who want that. But what really burns is how everyone bashes on Idaho when Idaho gives way more opportunity than other states and has for many many years. And the truth is is that not long ago, there were so many leftover nonresident tags that they were selling them at a discounted price for 2nd tags. I would assume due to the economy. So there apparently were fewer nonresidents before (unlike how everyone is saying that the number has always been the same). Don't get me wrong, I don't go around the mountain hating on non-residents. They are out there for the same reason I am. They love hunting. And when I do encounter nonresidents or any other hunter, I am polite, and respectful. I back out or go to another area if there are people there first. (However I did literally have two guys from Washington walk up as I had a bull at 50 yards and one of them literally emptied his quiver, after I had tried to get his attention). I like people having an opportunity to hunt, especially for guys back east who don't have that option to hunt western big game. But Idaho gets a lot of guys from neighboring states who's States manage for trophy quality management, therefore they have limited opportunity for their own residents much less nonresidents, and due to that fact, they just jump over to Idaho every year and buy a tag (or two!) and enjoy the benefits of Idaho at a really cheap price (compared to everywhere else). If I lived in Nevada and paid $300 for a resident elk tag, why wouldn't I go pay a little more in Idaho, it's almost the same cost. I'm not trying to hate or bash. Just trying to stick up for Idaho and more than anything point out the fact that other states are way more strict to nonresidents than Idaho is, even with the new changes.

Phill G. - posted 1 month ago on 02-14-2020 12:49:47 am
Plainwell, Michigan

It's weird to see people in support of this on goHUNT. Why are you on here? Why are you an insider? Surely not to research hunting another state because that would mean you're a NR and part of the same problem you're crying about. Are you that bad at hunting your own state? Oh right, you're probably hunting federal land. Got it. That's only yours. The NR people I run in to are serious, dedicated hunters who often have one shot to get this done and to be honest, if you're seeing other hunters, you're probably not far enough into the suck.

Jeff R. - posted 1 month ago on 02-13-2020 11:29:26 am

Pretty disappointing to hear. Let’s make someone else who is already paying the lions share, pay even more and get less. Sure makes me really think twice about hunting in Idaho.

John C. - posted 1 month ago on 02-13-2020 10:31:23 am

Adam M. I was an Idaho resident (born in cascade) but had to move to Nevada to make a decent wage like so many other Idaho residents. I would guess that a third to a half of Elko County residents are from Idaho or have Idaho roots for that reason. I probably have spent more money in Idaho directly or indirectly as a nonresident than if I stayed as a resident (I used an Twin Falls contractor for two roof jobs) because of the wage differential. You should be aware that we use a lot of Idaho contractors, construction managers, and Engineers in northern Nevada. I still buy a nonresident license and tags to hunt with family I don't mind paying more as a non resident but don't like getting fleeced just because I am non resident, increases should be across the board for all. The other problem is that by having 10% percent of people paying 50% of your funding you could have a problem with budget when the economy tanks and people are not spending money on tags. Between 2008 and 2016 Idaho sent me emails to buy license and tags to generate revenue. I have always bought a nonresident Idaho hunting license for birds to hunt with family but there were several years I did not buy big game tags because money was tight.
Overcrowding is not as simple as number of tags, we continue to loose access opportunities on private land because of development, sales to people or companies that wont let you on anymore or by hunting leases.
Anyway I had a point in mind when I started this comment and lost track of it! Bottom line is non residents shouldn't be treated as cash cows. Charge more at a reasonable rates but also charge the residents the same rate increases. Idaho resident rates are cheap and the residents should be grateful. Be respectful to non residents because you could be a nonresident somewhere someday! Or even a nonresident in your home state if you have move for work!

Steve G. - posted 1 month ago on 02-13-2020 09:41:36 am
Bentonville, AR

I am not from ID. I have hunted there the past two years. I love it! Last year where I went it was crowded to say the least and that ruined my hunt. So even with my ultra tiny sample size of experiences I can see why a lot of other guys would be complaining. And I can understand how a resident would feel more entitled to the opportunities there than an out of stater even though that's a flawed perspective.

If we're being honest, this is the first step in fixing the problem, per Rep Giddings, “Idaho could reduce its wolf population, to promote more elk and deer survival.” I have an archery tag to hunt ID this year. I'm looking into a wolf tag too. Anyone willing to help me out with that there it would be much appreciated. I'll be in the Pioneer Zone.

Christopher S. - posted 1 month ago on 02-12-2020 09:31:20 pm

Hey Don W. You can hunt wilderness areas in Idaho with a NR tag, by yo self. You gonna put up a Boycott Wyoming booth as well? They charge more, give fewer NR tags, and restrict NR from wilderness areas without a guide or resident sponsor. Your anger is misplaced my man. 11 years since tag prices for NR went up in Idaho. Something was going to happen eventually.

Adam M. - posted 1 month ago on 02-12-2020 05:25:24 pm

If all the nonresidents love hunting Idaho and helping the Idaho economy. Why don’t you move to Idaho? It will be cheaper hunting costs and you could spend your money in idaho 365 days a year. Or is it you don’t want to move to Idaho because then you will be the nonresident for your current resident state and it will hurt your chance to hunt in your current resident state since you would be considered a nonresident and they don’t offer much for nonresident hunting opportunities without waiting years and paying money for points every year and the nonresident tags are more expensive once you do finally draw?

Richard D. - posted 1 month ago on 02-12-2020 03:19:08 pm

As a NR hunter, this is disheartening. ID was on my list for a buddy and myself in 2021. We’ve hunted CO and WY in the past and were looking forward to ID OTC tags and seeing some different country. I get the argument from res. hunters with “overcrowding”. I’ve seen it in other states. But imo (which isn’t worth much to anyone but me) I can’t see the logic behind a fee increase AND a reduction in the number of available tags. Picking either one or the other would’ve been a better option. I have to agree with the argument about the majority of the hunting being on Federal property, as that’s always been the areas we’ve targeted in the past. Looking at the numbers provided in earlier comments about the number of NR tags sold vs. resident tags is interesting, to say the least. I can’t say that we won’t still consider ID next season knowing all of this. What does bother me more is the idea that ID’s resident hunters feel such animosity towards NR hunters, despite all the money we bring into local and state economies. I’ve never been hunting out of state and met a single person, hunter or otherwise, that wasn’t very friendly or welcoming. Am I missing something here or is this an accurate representation of how resident hunters in ID actually feel?

Tavaris H. - posted 1 month ago on 02-12-2020 03:07:23 pm

This is nothing more than a gimmick to appease Idaho residents, many of whom have fallen hook, line, & sinker for the notion that reducing a few nonresident tags will suddenly result in unintruded hunting experiences & opportunity. It’s FAKE NEWS that only a sucker would fall for. To accomplish their goal with any noticeable effect then they’d need to reduce ALL available tags by a certain percent right off the top. I’m confident that most resident hunters know that this will not make the slightest difference, they just support it because they simply don’t care since it doesn’t negatively affect them or their opportunities at all. Idaho legislators need to face the real facts however & deal with it; that is, the explosion of wolves have severely impacted hunter success, satisfaction, & sightings of game in the entire state. Stop blowing smoke up people’s as—s & attack the real problem related to their consistently negative wilderness experiences head on.

Adam M. - posted 1 month ago on 02-12-2020 03:06:23 pm

Thank goodness! As an Idaho resident, we get overrun by nonresidents. They come and stay the whole season. I don't see why Idaho (and Colorado) should have support everyone's OTC opportunities, mainly for the guys who live in states that have elk and mule deer. I can understand non-residents who live in states where they do not have those opportunities, but guys who live in western states that come to Idaho because their own state is limited entry/trophy managed and they build points in their own state and just jump to Idaho and buy a tag in Idaho every year because Idaho is OTC and almost as cheap as their resident state even at the non-resident prices, they have no room to complain. What are my odds of coming to your state and hunting? How much is it going to cost me? How many years do I have to wait and apply? Idaho (and Colorado) has supported not only our own residents but every other point system/limited entry western states residents as well. I wish they would do a reciprocating non-resident tag allocation. If you live in a western state with the same game and your state has very limited non-resident opportunity, then we will have limited opportunity for you. If you live in a state that has no elk/mule deer, then you get first dibs on non-resident opportunity tags. I can't believe how many people complain about this when they live in a state that has more strict non-resident opportunities than Idaho, even after the new changes. I'm glad they made they changes, I just wish it was a higher increase. It is still too cheap compared to other western states. Especially given the OTC opportunity.

Todd O. - posted 1 month ago on 02-12-2020 02:33:49 pm

Don W...go for it! Idaho can’t continue to be the ONLY state left with over the counter nearly unlimited mile deer tags and one of two states left that offers OTC elk tags that are essentially unlimited. You also going to boycott Wyoming who is doing the exact same thing on a much bigger scale? How about Arizona who cut non-resident tags? What about New Mexico who also cut the percentage of non-resident tags? Get real my friend. The demand far outpaces the supply and Idaho is sick of being every hunters “fall back” plan!

Don W. - posted 1 month ago on 02-12-2020 02:08:43 pm

We will set a booth at every Rocky Mountain elk foundation event in the US and Canada to boycott Idaho. I have hunted several years spending thousands of dollars in Idaho but this will be my last year if this bill is signed by the governor. We all support fish and game in Idaho but this is over the top bigotry. Thanks

Scott C. - posted 1 month ago on 02-12-2020 01:59:37 pm

Too Bad, this will hurt the state's economy more than helping with overcrowding.

Mark A. - posted 1 month ago on 02-12-2020 01:09:59 am
Lake Villa IL

How about a different idea. Earn a tag. Kill a wolve you get a tag. I'm talking about you residents. Read the book Democracy and why it will fail. Way to much sense of entitlement. You have a beautiful state full of great people. I hate to say it but your state is following a IMO bad path. Lead don't follow.

Kelsey E. - posted 1 month ago on 02-11-2020 07:57:22 pm

This article is misleading. A 10% increase is not much, but that is not what is going on here. Right now a NR hunting license is $153, it’s going up to $183.50. That’s a %17 increase. Not much compared to other state’s. Deer tag is $301.50, going up to $350. A 14% increase. Again, not much. Still cheaper than all other states but Utah. Elk right now is $416, going up to $650. That’s a 36% increase. Elk and deer tags are their money makers. I’m an Oregon resident and I hunt deer and elk in Idaho every year. I can tell you the overcrowding is not from non residents. There are only 12,500 NR elk and 14,000 NR deer tags available while there is no end to the amount of resident tags available with the exception of a few capped units. Anyone ever been in 39 opening weekend of deer season? It’s worse than Seattle traffic and it’s not a bunch non residents. Non residents contribute 57% of IDFG annual revenue. I highly doubt they will recover that percentage. It’s been nice to hunt Idaho for cheaper than other states on a general tag, but their non resident draw odds are impossible, and the fee increase will discourage a few hunters but anybody who has money to hunt out of state and is dedicated to hunting won’t be discouraged by this. The only discouraging thing is less NR tags. They will see that it’ll still be crowded and without us.

Christopher S. - posted 1 month ago on 02-11-2020 03:14:14 pm

Considering hunting as a NR in any state is a privilege, and not a right, these states could cut all NR tags and everyone would have to hunt their own state. AUM fees for native wildlife is one of the dumber ideas I've heard floated, right in line with Wyoming residents wanting out of state drivers to pay a toll on I80 and residents drive it for free... on a federally funded road.

Pat F. - posted 1 month ago on 02-11-2020 01:55:39 pm

Maybe nonresident fees and tag allocations should be tied to the amount of federal public land in Idaho! Many of their big game herds reside on federal land habitat that all U.S. citizens already pay for through our taxes. So, Idaho is already receiving support from nonresidents because much of their big game resides on these federal lands. My experience with hunter numbers in Idaho is not a nonresident problem, especially with multiple kills by a single hunter! Maybe the federal government should be charging Idaho, and other western states an AUM fee for the big game on federal lands just like they do for livestock grazing! Fair is fair!

Cody B. - posted 1 month ago on 02-07-2020 04:59:44 pm

Reducing the number of NR tags and adding 10% might make up lost revenue for IDFG but they are hurting the small towns that rely on the NR to support their economies. Major fail. They listened to the hunters but not the small business owners.

Jamie P. - posted 1 month ago on 02-06-2020 07:56:17 pm

People like House Majority Leader Mike Moyle (R-Star) kill me. He states "we need to put the burden on those who come to Idaho, use our resources, our lakes, our streams, our rivers and everything else, and they help pay for it". The last time I checked Idaho was part of the USA and the vast majority of those resources he's referring to are on federal land. There are far more tax dollars from outside of his state paying for those lands. Moyel's logic makes him sound like a California politican. People like him and logic like that is why I choose to live in Alaska.

Christopher G. - posted 1 month ago on 02-06-2020 07:37:15 pm

I'm a NR and I feel any state has the right to do with their resources as they see fit. The challenge is that if a state takes an exclusive attitude (limiting opportunity and increasing cost for example here) to their resources and the people who are paying for that experience don't get their value from the experience they are paying for. They are going to stop being willing to pay for the experience.

I'll probably keep Idaho as my "I still want to hunt out west state" because Colorado has so many hunters. I'll be willing to pay the extra, but that might also mean that I spend less at the local spots when I am not hunting. I also will likely not feel bad if Idaho suddenly starts losing revenue due to no one wanting to hunt their state and they start charging the residents more to makeup for the lack of NR's.

The door swings both ways. Good opportunity keeps people for the premium. Poor opportunity and people complain.

*Steps off soapbox*

Christopher S. - posted 1 month ago on 02-06-2020 06:59:16 pm

Caps on all zones is what they need to implement, because there are a handful of zones getting a majority of the traffic.

Christopher S. - posted 1 month ago on 02-06-2020 06:56:53 pm

For those complaining about tag prices going up... it's been over ten years since the last increase. You complained this much about everything else that has gone up in that time? I bet not. Western hunting has gotten extremely popular and game numbers are a finite resource. Something has to give. You can drink $2500 worth of coffee a year but complain about tag prices. If you want to hunt you'll make it happen.

matthew a. - posted 1 month ago on 02-06-2020 04:36:42 pm
Sheridan, WY

ID elk hunting isn't anything special-its really just average at best. With Colorado closer for 80% of NR elk hunters, why go there anyway? Residents: you will be covering the bill if this falls short - and I hope it does

RUSS H. - posted 1 month ago on 02-06-2020 06:11:51 am

out of state fee's are too high every where. they are making out of state hunting a rich persons sport.

Jeremiah U. - posted 1 month ago on 02-06-2020 04:29:01 am

X2..."Its their state and a privilege to be able to hunt there."

Jeremiah U. - posted 1 month ago on 02-06-2020 04:29:01 am

X2..."Its their state and a privilege to be able to hunt there."

Mark A. - posted 1 month ago on 02-05-2020 11:02:12 pm
Lake Villa IL

Sad to see another state raise prices. Ive only been in the game for a few years and already watched Wyoming raise prices as well as now hold my money for four moths. New Mexico now not refund license fee if not drawn. Colorado institute a qualifying license. Idaho welcome to the party of pushing costs off on nonresidents. I'm the problem along with many of you. I will still apply because i've fallen for western hunting. Until these states are left with piles of unsold tags they will continue down this road.

dan k. - posted 1 month ago on 02-05-2020 10:35:17 pm

idaho will just get my 1 tank of fuel at about burley,so i can get thru to utah or wyoming on my trip,,idahos pretty much just a camp trip like oregon until they get the wolfs reduced..definately will be my last "emergency" option june 5th if everything else tanks on the draws.

Jimmy H. - posted 1 month ago on 02-05-2020 09:32:51 pm

The post says nothing about reducing the overall number of tags or maybe I missed that. Only reducing NR tags so how does that reduce "congestion" maybe a sip of whiskey could clear my sinuses here as to the logic. You are correct about wolves not changing the number of hunters at a campsite but if wolves reduce the elk herd then that camp has hunters in camp for longer periods of time thus they do affect the number of people as the season continues. my 2 cents

Nathan F. - posted 1 month ago on 02-05-2020 06:01:37 pm

The number of wolves has nothing to do with how many people are at each campsite and each trailhead. I’m not talking about managing elk, I’m talking about managing people.

Glennon K. - posted 1 month ago on 02-05-2020 05:33:48 pm

Idaho had plenty of elk and plenty of area for re and NR before the wolves were brought in. Get rid of at least half of the wolves to get the right balance.

Scott H. - posted 1 month ago on 02-05-2020 05:16:34 pm
Saint Paul,MN

So if you add 10% to the cost of the hunting license $154.75+$15.47= $170.22, then take the Elk tag which is $416 + $41.6= $457.6, total cost of an elk tag is $627.82, making it a pretty cheap NR tag, OR is $588, still one of the cheapest non-res elk tag in the west, and a lot cheaper than MT $1089. Sucks, is just more in line with other states now. As a NR your only power is to not go, but lots of people to take your place, ID won't miss you. They still treat NR hunters better than Wyoming, at least you can hunt in a wilderness area in ID. Just saying...

Nathan F. - posted 1 month ago on 02-05-2020 05:08:52 pm

I’m a NR and I 100% support this. There are WAY too many hunters these days and every state should limit tag sales to try and maintain hunt quality. Quality hunting is already long gone, but this is a great step towards trying to at least provide a somewhat quality hunt.

Lance G. - posted 1 month ago on 02-05-2020 01:29:55 pm

I'm all for the state managing and setting quota's for their wildlife but I'm struggling to see the logic here. I'm probably biased as a NR, but NR otc big game licenses are capped (for elk its 12,815) and they have sold out almost every year for the last 20 years. So there isn't anymore non NR's now than there was 20 years ago. Maybe there were a bunch of residents buying second tags out of the non resident quota and now it's not as easy for them to do that?
Also, I generally don't look for big game in Idaho's rivers, streams and lakes (which Mr. Moyle seems to feel is the case). I do typically look for them on federally owned and managed land of which I consider myself a part owner. I am definitely paying for that via my federal taxes. Even though I would like to, I have yet to hunt in the great state of Idaho. This type of thing only makes it less likely for that to happen. At the end of the day, the wildlife is owned by Idaho residents and if they decide they don't want me to come and pay for their wildlife, as nonresidents already disproportionately do, that's cool too. I'm also probably going to be busy when they need external support for ESA issues, land transfer/access issues, or any other federal issue that might affect their state. I'll probably be focusing my efforts on petitioning my state gov't to limit those pesky NR's from hunting in my state instead ;).

Gary H. - posted 1 month ago on 02-05-2020 01:08:45 pm

Once again. A western state screw the non-resident hunters who feed their economy...

Sadly, people will still pay it. I for one will not. Idaho is just too far from home for me to hunt.

David G. - posted 1 month ago on 02-05-2020 01:00:14 pm

Not a big deal... but the overall message is clear: non residents are not welcome. I hunted in Idaho last year, and won’t be hunting there moving forward. The attitude towards nonresidents was not pleasant and it’s really not worth $600+ to hunt there. Good luck moving forward Idaho!

David B. - posted 1 month ago on 02-05-2020 12:58:15 pm

Ridiculous!!! I guess the non-residents don't bring anything at all to the Idaho economy while they're hunting on Federal Public land either so lets reduce the numbers that can come and charge them more. Idaho is already one of the worst managed states for big game and I won't be donating any more money to them.

Brent D. - posted 1 month ago on 02-05-2020 11:51:40 am
Parma, Idaho

Dan, that wolf issue is a mess...I hate this has happened in my lifetime, or even at all. Too many wolf lovers out there now to just do a total eradication, if people want to hunt them...go to AK or Canada.

dan k. - posted 1 month ago on 02-05-2020 11:48:54 am

Putting the screws to the non resident again,,Idaho needs to get there wolf problem fixed in a hurry,, as a non resident Idaho is certainly not at the best bang for the buck imo,,this just makes them even less temping to gamble that $154.50 to even apply

Adam A. - posted 1 month ago on 02-05-2020 11:06:44 am
River Falls, WI

I would be interested in a follow up article if this bill becomes law with numbers that show the decrease in department revenue. As a nonresident it already costs me 154.75 for my annual hunting license + 10 Depredation Fee + 14.75 just to apply for a chance to draw a controlled hunt for one (**and only one**) species. If I don't plan to hunt a OTC unit (which I have done the past 3 years) that money is a donation. If I'm already committed to your state on a $180 gamble with typically a 10% or less chance of drawing a tag you better believe I'm gonna spend another $300-400 on an elk,deer, or antelope tag to justify my $180 gamble. That means, the way I see it, your already forcing me to hunt your state :) and overcrowd your units. The only other option is not to apply for Idaho at all and decrease your revenue (which will be a much easier choice if my draw odds go down much more). Which way do your want it Idaho????? A guy/gal needs deeper and deeper pockets each year to play out west.

Brent D. - posted 1 month ago on 02-05-2020 11:02:33 am
Parma, Idaho

Giddings is being ridiculous. She just wants to keep the outfitters in the area happy. Idaho has been trying to reduce it's wolf population, you could give 10 tags to everyone, it's not going to help if you can't get to the wolves or find them.

Thomas L. - posted 1 month ago on 02-05-2020 10:52:36 am

I wish these western states would have a resident hunt first with primo dates and then a non-resident only hunt later. Win Win, I don't have to compete with residents and they don't have to compete with me. Less game gets pushed to private...

Phil K. - posted 1 month ago on 02-05-2020 10:36:44 am

Raising it 10%, nothing wrong with that, putting a quota on non-resident, understandable.
I am a non -resident and will be hunting Idaho this year. It is their state and a privilege to be able to hunt there.
Overcrowding hunt colorado, that is ridiculous, they need to do the same.
Now, the need to reduce the wolves.