Travis Bullock, owner of Mile High Outfitters, explains how Idaho’s rapid population growth and rising hunting demand are creating long-term challenges for wildlife management, tag allocation, and fair access for resident and non-resident hunters alike.
Highlights:
- Idaho’s exploding population has driven record demand for deer and elk tags, with non-resident pressure now exceeding sustainable supply levels.
- The state’s lottery and controlled hunt systems are structured to preserve resident hunting opportunities while generating essential revenue through higher-value non-resident tags.
- Idaho’s outfitter area and allocation system plays a critical role in protecting wildlife, preventing overcrowding, and maintaining one of the most balanced hunting frameworks in the West.
When I was born, Idaho’s population was about 700,000. Fifty-six years later, we are pushing 2 million, and with no signs of slowing down. This growth has put tremendous pressure on Idaho’s resources, including its wildlife. The greatest demand for tags comes from this growing population of new residents, and the Idaho Fish and Game Commission needs to do something about it, but they cannot limit residents until they get non-residents under control. Most states offer about 10% of their tags to non-residents. Idaho currently sells about 15% of its elk tags and probably closer to 12%-13% of its deer tags to non-residents. The commission needs to reduce non-residents closer to 10%.
The non-resident demand for deer and elk tags in the last decade has been borderline crazy. During the recession around 2010, Idaho couldn’t give away its elk and deer tags. Idaho Fish and Game (IDFG) had to go so far as to implement the selling of a second non-resident elk and deer tag to either a resident or non-resident just to balance their budget. Of course, having an unchecked wolf population at the time did Idaho no favors. Once Idaho implemented a wolf season and the world financial situation became the new normal, hunters once again started looking to come back to Idaho- and come back they did. Ironically, 15 years later, Idaho still chooses to sell two tags, even though the demand now exceeds the supply. Bottom line, demand for hunting in Idaho has never been greater.
Because of this great demand, Idaho has implemented a lottery system on their elk and deer tags for non-residents. This is not to be confused with the controlled hunt for elk and deer that will take place in May. What is the difference between a lottery and a controlled hunt, and why are they not lumped together since they are basically the same thing? I’m glad you asked. There are two major differences. First, in hunts where residents and non-residents have different limitations, this would qualify for a lottery tag. Idaho is bound and determined to give residents opportunities to hunt every year without going through controlled hunts (Go Idaho!). How long they can continue to offer these opportunities with the state’s population growth is anyone’s guess. The second reason for a lottery vs. a controlled hunt is that Idaho Fish and Game is limited to 10% non-residents in controlled hunts. They are not limited at this time in the lottery hunts. The revenue of a resident tag brings in about 5%-10% of what a non-resident tag brings. If you are the Fish and Game department and looking at your pocketbook, you are going to sell as many non-resident tags as possible. This is not an insult to the Fish and Game. This is just smart business, and since the Idaho Fish and Game receives no general fund revenue, they have to run like a business- kind of.
So why do outfitters in Idaho receive special treatment with allocated tags, and how is this fair? I’m glad you asked. Let’s go back to the beginning. The Idaho Fish and Game was established by the Idaho Legislature around 1900, and the Idaho Outfitters and Guides Licensing Board (IOGLB) was established by the legislature around 1960. The reason for the legislature forming the licensing board was twofold. First, they needed to “protect the health, safety and welfare of the public”. This is still the motto of the board. Secondly, and less known, is that it forced the outfitting industry in Idaho into an area system. The reason for this system was to protect both resident and non-resident, non-outfitted (private) hunters and the wildlife. Imagine being a private hunter, working hard to get into the middle of nowhere, and there are a dozen outfitters competing with not only each other, but the average guy who only gets a week each year to hunt. If you have hunted state land in Alaska or hunted Utah, Nevada or any of the other western states that have no limit on the number of outfitters per area, you know exactly what I mean. This area system, it required no more than one outfitter per area, thus reducing pressure on the game herds and allowing Idaho to fend off controlled hunts longer than its neighboring states. Make no mistake, the area system Idaho operates under is good for everyone except illegal outfitters and those who would hire them, but for this area system to work, Idaho outfitters need to stay viable.
Non-residents in Idaho purchase tags starting December 1st of the previous year. In 1985, Idaho outfitters were selling hunts at sport shows in January and found that the non-resident portion of deer tags had sold out the previous month. This led to outfitters approaching the legislature and getting the outfitter set-aside law in 1986. This law stated that licensed Idaho Outfitters could have access to 25% of the non-resident portion of elk and deer tags. The number of non-resident elk tags was 12,815, and the number of deer tags was 15,500. These numbers are still in place today. This allowed outfitters time to market their hunts. The set-aside law did not give outfitters access to controlled hunts.
In the mid-90’s, Idaho felt some growing pains, and along with negative impacts from the wolf reintroduction, IDFG formed the zone system for elk. At the same time, outfitters received new legislation called the allocation law. When the zone system was implemented, outfitters were forced from using the statewide, set-aside pool and had to be micromanaged by each zone. Most zones in central Idaho where outfitters operated took reductions. All three groups of hunters, including outfitted hunters, non-resident, non-outfitted hunters, and resident hunters, took equal reductions of tags, but here is the problem: residents just moved somewhere else around the state, and the total number of residents did not go down. Also, the quota of 12,815 nonresident tags did not go down. So even though all three user groups took reductions in certain zones, the only ones who took the reductions were the outfitted hunters because outfitters are mandated to specific areas, and the other two user groups were mobile. The result was that non-outfitted, non-resident hunters gained tags and non-resident, outfitted hunters lost tags statewide. On the positive side for outfitters, the allocation law did give Fish and Game the opportunity to allow some outfitted controlled hunt tags, although tags gained in controlled hunts were fewer than tags lost in the capped hunts.
Some would say it should be illegal to use an outfitter. Their jealous belief is that only hunters who need no support can hunt. I believe the elimination of outfitting would be similar to how alcohol was treated during the days of prohibition 100 years ago. There are always going to be folks willing to hire outfitting services, so we need to legalize it, tax it, and manage it. The other option is to make it illegal and try to battle it with state taxpayer dollars. Like IDFG, the Idaho Outfitters and Guides Licensing Board is paid for by outfitting and guide licenses and receives no general funds.
The balance here is to keep the legal outfitting industry viable with its highly restrictive area system that protects resident and non-resident, non-outfitted hunters while being fair to non-residents who choose not to hire an outfitter. Since the wildlife is owned by the state and managed for its citizens, it only seems fair that tags sold to non-residents bring as much revenue as possible to the state for its citizens. Allowing outfitted clients 20%- 25% of the non-resident portion of elk and deer tags seems a small price to pay to support the third-largest industry in the state. The fact that residents can still purchase over-the-counter tags and do not have to combat multiple outfitters in their favorite hunting spot says that our system works. At a time when our state government is looking at a half-billion-dollar shortfall, the extra tax revenue isn’t going to hurt.
I can tell you, after guiding in multiple states, being a private hunter, and being an outfitter, Idaho has it pretty good. Whether I were an outfitter or not, I would still want the system that we have here in my home state of Idaho. For those of you who hire an outfitter in Idaho, thank you for the added revenue you bring into our state. The jobs you create, the trail maintenance you support, and the sales tax for schools and roads make a huge difference for our citizens.