The most accurate draw odds ever
Have a chance to win hunts and gear every month — over $100,000 per year
Access strategy & tips to help you apply & spend more time in the field
Statistics and historical data to find top producing trophy units
Detailed overview of how to apply and hunt in each state
Your quick dashboard for important dates, benefits, and the latest giveaways
Idaho considers big changes to nonresident hunting -
posted 5 months ago
@charlesS. I’ve heard multiple people say the same thing, but wildlife management has nothing to do with the land. Doesn’t matter if it’s state, Blm, or private. Wildlife management is done by the state. So the state can decide how they want to manage wildlife which includes how they allocate tags. It’s something that has already been taken to the Supreme Court and decided. And their new tag prices won’t price out nonresidents. I bet they will sell just as many tags as they did before. In fact if you read the gohunt article on out of state hunting, their new prices will put them not to much over average. The same thing happened in Montana and in Wyoming. Supply and demand. If they do prove to high and lose revenue then they will be forced to lower the price.
I'm not an Idaho Resident so of course I like the lower tag prices, but I could agree with this depending on the motive. If they are trying to reduce harvest and are restricting quotas then yes, residence deserve the top priority. If the cost of managing wildlife increases, then I believe the nonresidents should pay the bill if the demand for the tags are their. I agree with that whole hearted, but that doesn't seem to be the case. It doesn't seem to be a harvest or increased cost issue, it seems to be an over crowded issue. Why don't they just change their overall nonresident state quota, to unit by unit quota. You already have to designate your unit in Idaho for, So do the same for deer, bears, and turkeys, and just put a cap on each unit for nonresidents. Even if they let the resident general tag regulations stay the same and only make the nonresidents do it. They will still get the same amount of nonresident hunters, but it will spread it out. I think they are just trying to make more money like Montana and Wyoming did. If that's the case, just say it. Don't beat around the bush and try to justify it.
California becomes first state to ban commercial fur trapping -
posted 5 months ago
I've been dealing with a lot of this political stuff here in Nevada, helping the Nevada Trappers Association and was in charge of getting the info out on Instagram about the Nevada bills for the coyote calling contest and trapping restrictions. In doing so, I was able to learn a lot about how politics work. Its all been very similar to the California stuff and is the perfect example for the rest of the states. Here's some info on how the politics work on these issues for anyone who is interested.
It is very difficult for the opposition to ban trapping. And by opposition, I'm not talking about political party because here in Nevada we had a lot of help from both sides. By opposition, I'm talking about antis. The reason it is difficult to just come out and ban trapping is because not many people are against trapping. In most polls, people could care less about it and is why trapping as a whole isn't voted on by the people. Also, the facts prove that trapping is effective and the most humane way to balance the predator ecosystem for good. Its why all federal agencies use it. The antis know this so they use emotion, which will over come the facts for a lot of people, to try to limit recreational trapper participation. First they go after the "cruel" leghold traps. It's very easy to pull emotional strings by staging trapped pictures (an example is a puppy dead in a trap that is to big for the puppy to even set off clearly showing that the picture was staged and was used to tray to ban leghold traps in Nevada). This emotional string will get people to agree that cage traps are better. This greatly reduces trapping numbers because of how ineffective and expensive it is to use. Luckily a few die trappers were able to come up with cage designs and methods to make this work especially for high dollar bobcats. So to counter this, they pull the emotional card again by banning bobcat trapping. They are "cute" so they can get people to agree with it. Also they are very elusive so they can make people think they are rare which obviously isn't the case. Now that you can't trap bobcats and have to use cages, trapping anything else just isn't worth it. Now trapping numbers are low. One thing most people don't know is all hunting/fishing/trapping license sales are good revenue for state wildlife agency budget. So to ban trapping is a revenue loss which no State wants to take on. The way trapping is in most states, most States can't afford to ban it. So if you believe in the scientific facts about trapping or not, you can't afford the financial loss. This potential financial loss is the last saving grace. Well when you have less then 80 trapping license sold in a season, there isn't much financial loss if you ban trapping. If they would have had even 100 more licenses sold each season for the last couple seasons, the bill wouldn't have made it through the budget committee and trapping would still be allowed in California.
So what can we take for this? Support all hunting/trapping/fishing activities. Oppose all bills that will restrict any of these activities even if the bill seems to make sense and is something you think you can live with. Purchase licenses like trapping licenses (which is required in some states to sell fur regardless of harvest method), hunting license, fishing license, stamps, and depredation tags like Mt. Lion tags even if you don't think you will use it that season. Also participate anyway possible to help fight bills even if its just sending one email to one committee member when a restrictive bill is proposed. In Nevada we hammered the 2 bills that were proposed. One for coyote contest, and one for trapping. The trapping bill took more work, but we wouldn't settle on anything because we understand that losing even one trapper could be the difference in having trapping or having trapping taken away. Because of all the respectful comments, emails, and phone calls from the hunting/fishing/trapping community, we were able to stop the bills before they could be voted on. It has seemed like we were slowly losing the battle across the country the last last 10-15 years, but this year I feel like we turned the tables in almost every state. Even though California lost trapping, I think it will help the rest of us even more.
Remember this isn't just a trapping issue. We are just the smallest group so we are the biggest target for now. We can obviously see the antis doing the same thing with houndsman, and now coyote hunters. But its not just those groups, they are doing the same thing to a smaller scale with all hunting. If we stop them at the smaller groups, they wont have a chance to go for the bigger groups.
July INSIDER Giveaway: 8 Traeger Tailgater Pellet Grills -
posted 1 year ago
20 days past the end of the month......when will the winners be announced?
Breaking: Nevada’s new shed antler hunting restrictions -
posted 1 year ago
I don’t get why this law was even made. They say it’s so people don’t disturb wildlife in wintering ranges. First of all, it’s already illegal to harass wildlife. And if they worried about people just being in the wintering areas, why don’t they ban access to these areas? People are still hiking, walking dogs, and enjoying these areas. They can say what they want, but it’s all just a way to regulate more outdoor activities. The honest guys will stay home. The guys who were harassing wildlife will still be out there, but the honest guys won’t be there to report harassment and illegal motorized vehicles.
The way I look at it is animals will be just as harassed if not more than normal, and game wardens will have less eyes in the field. I have yet to see one pro in this law.