Frequently Asked Questions

We get a lot of questions. We post here answers to questions we're being asked frequently. If you have a question not answered here, please contact us. Urgent questions should be directed to your nearest office. Some answers change over time; please take note of the "answered" date.

Displaying 1 - 25 of 3534 questions

A: 

Assuming you are an Idaho resident, a resident deer tag is valid for any general hunting season, and you can see which units are open for for regular tags in the Idaho Big Game Seasons and Rules.

You will notice there are regular and white-tailed deer tags available, and here’s a quick explanation of that. A regular tag is valid for both mule deer and whitetails, but in most units, you’re limited to hunting in October. A whitetail tag is valid only for whitetails, but provides more November hunting opportunities, particularly in the Clearwater Region.

Yes, the tags are valid on public land where there is a general season. You can also access lots of private land through our Access Yes! and Large Tracts programs that open up hundreds of thousands more acres to public hunting.

Good luck.

answered 11/6/2023

Q: I hunt unit 73 and have done so for the past 13 years. This past deer hunt we only saw 2 bucks and a handful of does. What I would like to know is when we are going to limit the amount of out-of-state hunters that are allowed to hunt in this unit?

I hunt unit 73 and have done so for the past 13 years. This past deer hunt we only saw 2 bucks and a handful of does. What I would like to know is when we are going to limit the amount of out-of-state hunters that are allowed to hunt in this unit. It was deplorable how many Utah vehicles we saw vs. the amount of deer we were able to see even with it being stated that we had an 80-100% kill-off due to our harsh winter last year. Why did the state allow the same amount of tags to be drawn?

A: 

We appreciate your question.

As you know, the Southeast Region mule deer herd suffered from greater-than-normal winter mortality last winter. Winter can have an overwhelming effect on mule deer. We currently manage Game Management Unit (GMU) 73 with primarily buck-only hunting, and have not had antlerless hunting over the majority of the unit since the winter of 2016/17. We have one small antlerless hunt that is near the town of Preston to reduce the number of deer in town, as well as one either-sex controlled hunt where 1 or 2 does are harvested annually. Other than those exceptions, antlerless hunting (doe hunting) is closed, and doe harvest is very low in the unit.

Since mule deer have the ability to increase and come back from difficult winter within 3-5 years, even with hunting pressure, we did not believe it was necessary to reduce tags numbers for resident or nonresidents this year. As for the nonresident participation in Unit 73 this fall, there were 240 possible nonresident tags sold for Unit 73, and on average, about 1,600 residents are estimated to hunt the unit. That is a fixed number of nonresident tags that is set every two years. We are not debating that you and your party saw lots of Utah license plates, but those 240 tags are the maximum deer tags for nonresidents.

Deer population growth occurs with increases in females and birth rates, and we are hopeful that environmental conditions will allow for that to happen over the next few years. As you know, Unit 73 has great habitat and potential for mule deer.

If you have further questions, let us know.

Zach Lockyer Regional Wildlife Manager Idaho Fish & Game – Southeast Region

answered 11/3/2023

Q: Why is the waiting period so short for big game controlled hunts?

Should be a minimum of 5 years. Allow better opportunity for other hunters. Whether its a great tag or not as good tag, the hunter knows how long the wait if drawn, and if it is worth it or no

A: 

Mandatory reports were started in the late 1990s and prior to that we did phone surveys to get a sample of hunters and then extrapolated from that to get a larger harvest estimate. We didn’t try to survey all hunters, just a statistically valid sample. 

Some hunters questioned the validity of our sampling and estimates and asked the pointed, and fair, question, “why don’t you just ask all of us.” 

So the Commission decided to go with mandatory hunter reports, and for a while, we had over 90 percent reporting. Over time, that dwindled, and the Commission considered instituting some kind of penalty for those who didn’t report, and for a while, a person couldn’t buy the next year’s hunting license until they reported. But by then, the data was too late to do any real good. The estimates were adjusted for the previous year with that new information if it changed the overall harvest, but it didn’t do us any good for setting the next year’s hunting seasons, which is done during winter. 

Commissioners also discussed having a fine for not reporting, but opted not to for the simple reason we try to be customer friendly, and fining hunters for not reporting could create bad blood and dissatisfaction and might not make the data any better. 

We’ve worked hard to publicize why hunter reports are important and why hunters should participate, and we’re starting to see a little progress. We also have some pretty sophisticated tools for building our harvest estimates that include mandatory hunter reports, follow-up phone surveys and adjustments for biases, such as people who harvest are more likely to report than those who don’t. 

We feel pretty comfortable that we’re getting accurate estimates, while knowing they’re still estimates, and for what it’s worth, even when we had 90 percent compliance, we still had to spend a lot of time cleaning up the data because we knew some reports were inaccurate. 

OK, about waiting periods. The Commission and staff have looked at a lot of different ways to improve drawing odds in controlled hunts, and as usual, we do things a little differently than other states. We try to spread hunters out over those controlled hunts so they have to be selective in what hunts they apply for, and that’s always a work in progress. 

Some of the ways we try to improve drawing odds for certain hunts is making hunters choose one species for our once-in-a-lifetime hunts (moose, bighorn sheep and mountain goats), and if you apply for any of those, you’re ineligible to apply for antlered deer, antlered elk or pronghorn hunts in the same year. 

We recently added pronghorn to the list of hunts where you have to sit out a year to participate again if you draw a tag to improve those odds a little. We also recently (within the last five years) made hunters wait five days to buy a capped elk zone tag if they applied for a controlled elk hunt. That was more an effort to reduce demand for those capped zones, many of which sold out in minutes or an hour or so (i.e. Sawtooth Zone tags), but it also forced elk hunters to decide which they wanted more: a chance for a controlled hunt, or a better chance for a capped elk zone. 

As mentioned earlier, this is still a work in progress, and the Commission is always looking at ways to improve the odds in certain controlled hunts that have extremely low odds. If you’re next question is “why don’t you have a point system?” That’s another discussion, but we still think the fairest system is where everyone has the same chances as everyone else in every drawing. 

Back to your original question, why not a longer waiting period? I think the short answer after all this long-winded one is we wouldn’t see a dramatic improvement in drawing odds unless we said after drawing a tag a hunter would have to sit out of all controlled hunt drawings for X number of years, or we would likely just be shifting those hunters to other controlled hunts and lowering those drawing odds. 

Finally, in controlled hunts with a high number of applicants and low number of tags, you don’t gain much by making a hunter sit out. For simple math, which is my favorite kind, if you have 100 hunters applying for 10 tags and the successful applicants sit out a year, you still have 90 hunters remaining in the pool, and that’s based on all those hunters returning the next year and no new ones applying (which is unlikely to occur). So you’ve gone from 1 in 10 odds (10 percent) to 1 in 9 odds (11 percent).

The Commission is always open to suggestions, and I’d encourage you to talk to or email your commissioner.

answered 4/27/2023

A: 

The reason there’s no archery season in Units 14 or 16 is because we try to offer a diversity of hunting opportunity, and I checked with our wildlife manager, Jana Ashling and she said not having an archery season in some GMUs, like Units 14 and 16,  allows rifle hunters the first opportunity at bulls where they haven't been disturbed prior to the hunt.

This is fairly common across the state where not all weapon types are allowed in each unit or elk zone and season. That applies to both deer and elk seasons. The goal is to provide a wide range of opportunities where hunters can find something that suits their preferences, but obviously, not all units can provide all types of hunting opportunities for every hunter.

answered 1/18/2023

Q: Is there any chance to have more opportunity on a late season deer hunts in southeast Region than what there is currently?

Is there any chance to have more opportunity on a late season deer hunts in southeast Region than what there is currently?

A: 

We will be setting big game seasons this winter, which will be the best opportunity to discuss season changes, and we will look at late season opportunities. Late season opportunities are coveted and result in higher success rates compared to earlier in the year as deer are more vulnerable. We try to strike a balance between opportunity and harvest throughout the region.

You can expect to see open houses in each region to discuss options for changes to the big game seasons. You can sign up for our emails here and get notice when the open houses start.

https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/IDFISHGAME/subscribers/qualify

answered 1/3/2023

Q: Several hundred elk are wintering along the freeway just outside Mountain Home towards Boise. This seems like marginal range for them? I contend the elk are there due to the urban sprawl between MH and Boise, is that the case?

Several hundred elk are wintering along the freeway just outside Mountain Home towards Boise. This seems like marginal range for them? I contend the elk are there due to the urban sprawl between MH and Boise, is that the case?

A: 

The area between Boise and Mountain Home sporadically gets elk herds during winter. It’s more weather driven than development driven. They don’t seem to mind the freeway traffic whizzing by, and in past years, they’ve staked out that area and remained there for periods of time during heavy snowfall. Then as weather conditions improved, they wandered back up in elevation, which moved them away from the freeway.

Those elk come from as far away as the Sawtooths and often winter on the south slopes of the mountains/Foothills you see between Boise and Mountain Home. Many end up on the Boise River Wildlife Management Area, which provides wintering range for thousands of deer and elk. The WMA encompasses 36,000 acres in the Boise Foothills, around Lucky Peak Reservoir and to the east to Blacks Creek Road. The WMA provides a lot of space for big game, but not all of them choose to winter there.

The elk herds that winter to the east tend to live at mid elevations north of the freeway and move down when the snow gets deep. There are numerous cattle ranches north of the freeway, and the elk have been known to get into haystacks and get run out of there, which could move them closer to the freeway. Or like the pronghorn that frequent that same area, they may just like it there.

As for forage, it’s pretty sparse, but elk don’t need a lot during winter. They can survive largely off the fat stored during summer, which is one reason you will see them bedded in one spot for many days. They’re resting and saving their energy.

Chances are good that with this warmer weather and snow melting off those mid elevations, the elk will wander away from the freeway and head back into the Foothills.

answered 1/3/2023

Q: I would like to hunt elk first time senior citizen I am not sure how to start with rifle?

I would like to hunt elk first time senior citizen I am not sure how to start with rifle?

A: 

For a first-time elk hunter, rifle hunting would probably be your best bet, or possibly a muzzleloader hunt. Idaho Fish and Game offers a variety of elk hunts, and if you have your heart set on getting a bull, good for you, but it will be a challenge. Overall success rates for elk hunters statewide is typically around 20 percent, and success rates for bull hunters tend to be lower.

For a first-time elk hunter, you would have a higher chance of success with an antlerless hunt. Cow elk hunts typically have a higher success rate for the simple reason there are more cows than bulls. We suggest a controlled hunt, which you could apply for in May. You can find a long list of antlerless hunts available in the Idaho Big Game Seasons and Rules brochure. There will be a new brochure out in the spring for 2023-24 prior to the controlled hunt application period. In the meantime, don’t hesitate to look at the 2022 version, which will give you a pretty good idea of what will be available for antlerless elk hunts. There will be some changes for 2023, but probably not dramatic ones.

We also mentioned muzzleloader hunts because there’s often antlerless hunts available for general tags in many elk zones. You don’t have to apply for a general tag, and you can see which ones are available in the rules and seasons brochure. It may be a little confusing at first, but here’s a quick explanation. Idaho has 28 elk zones, most of which offer general season hunting opportunities. You can only hunt in one zone, and most zones offer A and B tags for different types of hunts. You can only have one tag (A or B), but you get to all hunt all hunts available for that specific tag in that zone.

A good way to learn more about elk hunts and choosing a hunt is to look at Idaho Fish and Game’s “Hunt Planner” on the website, which provides more details on hunts, as well as harvest estimates by hunting unit and weapon types for both general and controlled hunts. You can also see what last year’s drawing odds were for controlled hunts to decide which tag you want to apply for.

This may all sound complicated, but it’s really not, and the large variety of hunts available lets you tailor where and how you want to hunt, and hopefully, get a tag for that. Fortunately, you will have numerous options whether you want to hunt bulls, cows, general or controlled hunts, and if you don’t draw a controlled hunt, there will still be general hunts available. Good luck, and good hunting.

answered 1/3/2023

A: 

Not sure where you looked for our harvest information, but we can help you out. You can find all of our big game harvest statistics on our Hunt Planner webpage. Scroll to the bottom and click on “Harvest Statistics.” You will find all the data for regular and controlled hunts, including Unit 37. 

And spoiler alert, if you’re looking at controlled hunt #2011 for Unit 37, there were 96 hunters in 2021 who killed 48 bulls for a 50 percent success rate. Sounds like a pretty good elk hunt. 

We’re in the process of collecting and compiling mandatory hunter reports for the 2022 season, which is just wrapping up, and the 2022 harvest stats will be available on the Hunt Planner before the big game controlled hunt application period starts on May 1. 

answered 12/16/2022

Q: How do you determine whether to have a unit be a controlled hunt or an over the counter type hunt? Is it related to access or population?

How do you determine whether to have a unit be a controlled hunt or an over the counter type hunt? Is it related to access or population?

A: 

That’s an excellent question, but not an easy one to answer because there are a lot of factors involved in that decision. 

Fish and Game strives to offer a variety of hunts because hunters are seeking a wide variety of experiences. Of course, we all want to hunt the prime areas of the state for a mature bull or buck and not have a lot of other hunters around, and if a hunter is lucky, he or she may get exactly that, but there are always tradeoffs.

And we might add there are basically two kinds of controlled hunts. One is where the number of hunters is controlled to provide a better hunting experience. The other is where the number of tags is limited, such as antlerless hunts, in order to limit the number of animals harvested.

When deciding whether to offer a controlled hunt, Fish and Game Commission and department wildlife managers try to balance hunters’ desires that are often mutually exclusive, such as the opportunity to hunt every year, but also have the opportunity for a “premium” hunt.

This balancing act is tricky, and to be frank, rarely satisfies everyone. So with all that in mind, let’s get to the meat of your question.

Hunters have repeatedly told us through surveys and direct contact that they want the opportunity to hunt deer and elk every year, which is why most of the state is open to general season hunting.

The decision to offer controlled hunts often revolves around several questions. The first question to be answered – whether it’s a controlled hunt or general – is whether the herds can sustain the harvest. That always comes first.

Then there’s the question of whether the area provides the opportunity for the experience a hunter wants, and how that hunt meshes with, or adversely effects, other hunts.

For an extreme example, let’s say we took Unit 39, which is one of the most popular deer and elk hunting units in the state, and proposed converting it to a controlled hunt.

We know the people who hunted in Unit 39 during a general season and didn’t draw a tag would have to go elsewhere, which would displace a lot of hunters to benefit a few. That would likely lead to overcrowding in other units, so the tradeoffs probably wouldn’t be worth it.

Another factor is whether the unit can support a hunt that meets hunters’ desires. If the goal is an opportunity to take a trophy-class buck or bull, there needs to be a reasonable chance of that happening. If you exclude some hunters to provide a premium experience, then hunters who draw the tags don’t have that experience, nobody wins.

We also know that after a whole hunting unit or elk zone is converted to a controlled hunt, there’s typically no turning back. The Fish and Game Commission could revert it, but that has not happened in recent memory, so converting a whole unit to a controlled hunt is essentially a permanent decision.

Now that doesn’t mean it’s always either/or because many units or zones have both controlled hunts and general hunts. But we also recognize there are still tradeoffs because there are a limited number of animals and hunting opportunities, so providing a premium opportunity for one hunter typically comes at the expense of another.

Those are the major considerations made between general and controlled hunts, but there are others, and hopefully, that gives you a better understanding of what factors are weighed before making that decision.

answered 11/7/2022

Q: Why won't Fish and Game change the general season for the Owyhee Mountain deer herds?

Why won't Fish and Game change the general season for the Owyhee Mountain deer herds? Predators are part of the problem, but the general rifle season is the major reason for the buck problem because the genetics are being killed out and it’s not the same quality of deer that were there 25 years ago.

A: 

We are doing a research project in the Owyhee on deer to address the very issue you bring up. We started it 2 years ago and are specifically looking at the effect of the 2 point season on the population. We are confident the results will give us better information on the effect of the 2 point general season helping us to do a better job of managing mule deer in the Owyhees. Predation, habitat changes from wildfires and drought have all changed the landscape and the deer populations. 

answered 11/2/2022

Q: I found a trail cam in the woods a mile from the road this year in unit 39 while elk hunting. It should NOT be legal to use trail cams as a aid for hunting at all. What is the department doing about the use of them?

I found a trail cam in the woods a mile from the road this year in unit 39 while elk hunting. It should NOT be legal to use trail cams as a aid for hunting at all. What is the department doing about the use of them?

A: 

The use of game cameras for hunting has been discussed by the Fish and Game commission in the past. This is a topic that may be discussed again in the future, although there are no current proposals to restrict them. 

There are a several things the department and commission consider when limiting hunter’s ability to use certain types of equipment. First, whether there is a biological implication, which would be a piece of equipment that leads to significantly higher harvest and the possibility of overharvesting game. 

Also, whether there is an infringement on fair chase. In the case of camera-equipped drones for spotting game, the Fish and Game restricts their use out of concerns for fair chase and the disruption of other hunters. 

There’s also the question of how you could write a rule that is enforceable. We realize other states have restricted game cameras, but it gets tricky determining when one is used in aid of hunting, and also whether the rule is understandable and can be enforced on the ground and held up in court. 

From a broader perspective, the department and the commission are constantly grappling with managing technology that ranges from muzzleloader bullets to electronics in scopes and rifles. Each of these technologies has hunters for and against them, and often the decision falls back on whether there’s a biological implication that the potential for increased harvest could lead a choice between allowing that device or restricting hunting opportunity to account for it. 

These are never easy questions, and typically quite divisive between hunters, especially when some have already bought the equipment when it’s legal to use, and then we restrict them. 

answered 11/1/2022

Q: How did CWD end up on the west side of the state before being discovered on the Eastern side where it’s bordered with areas that have CWD already?

How did CWD end up on the west side of the state before being discovered on the Eastern side where it’s bordered with areas that have CWD already?

A: 

Good question Kyle and one that doesn’t have a straightforward answer, or any complete answer really. The short answer is we don’t know how CWD got established in Unit 14, but we were as surprised as anyone. We determined CWD was most likely to show up in Idaho where we share a border with Montana or Wyoming, both of which have CWD. It seemed likely that at some point one or more CWD-positive animals could find their way to Idaho. We already know we have mule deer and elk that migrate back and forth between Idaho and those two states.

It’s possible that a CWD-positive animal or animals came into Idaho from Montana, but we don’t have anything to support or refute that. There’s been very little CWD sampling by either Idaho or Montana in much of that Bitterroot country around the border. However, it’s a long ways from Unit 14 to any known CWD-infected herds in Montana. The closest known infections are in white-tailed deer in Montana’s Ruby Range in Unit 332.

It’s also possible that people unknowingly brought CWD into Unit 14 by bringing one or more CWD-positive animals into the unit, either alive or dead. It’s possible that an Idaho resident hunting deer in a CWD-positive state harvested an animal (most likely a deer) that was infected with CWD and unknowingly brought it back to Idaho, processed it and dumped the carcass out in the woods. 

We’ll know a lot more about CWD in Idaho after this hunting season when we will have thousands more samples to help us understand CWD distribution and prevalence, but that may not help us learn anything about how it got into Unit 14 and we may never know unfortunately.

answered 11/1/2022

Q: why are elk otc options more intricate and deliberately planned vs deer otc? should they not be just a detailed and herd specific?

Why are elk otc options more intricate and deliberately planned vs deer otc? should they not be just a detailed and herd specific?

A: 

Over the counter opportunities for elk hunting were changed in 1999 and required hunters to choose the zone and the tag type ( A or B) for their hunts. This change was put in place because in portions of the state, we were overharvesting elk and specifically bulls. The zone system was devised to distribute hunters throughout elk country and allow us to better manage elk populations on a localized basis within specific boundaries.

 

As for statewide deer management we are still able to offer residents more flexibility to hunt deer over a broader area on a general tag with some controlled hunt opportunities and still manage the populations throughout the state within our herd objectives. 

 

You can be assured that we take deer management as serious as elk management, and despite mostly a statewide general deer season, each region has objectives to maintain healthy deer herds and ensure adequate buck/doe ratios and doe/fawn ratios to supply a sustainable long-term deer harvest while accounting for changing conditions, such as hard winters and disease outbreaks that can abruptly affect deer populations.

answered 11/1/2022

Q: Why does the State continue to tout elk populations when the Central Idaho herds have practically been eradicated? Why are so many tags issued for regions where elk populations are one bad winter from complete extinction?

I've hunted near Yellow Pine for the last 7 years purchasing tags for elk in 25 and 20A. In the last three years, I have seen a dramatic decline in elk populations to the point where one could say, the herds that inhabited the area are, 10-20% of what was an already depleted population. This is not representative of healthy ecosystem and is not the goal of wildlife agencies. You are tasked with management of populations throughout the state and within specific regions. Just because populations are booming near livestock and ag fields, does not mean all is well with elk herds in Idaho. My questions are many. Why does the State continue to tout elk populations when the Central Idaho herds have practically been eradicated? Why are so many tags issued for regions where elk populations are one bad winter from complete extinction? Do you think regions should be made smaller to more effectively management populations? Lastly, why did you allow wolves to diminish populations to the point that they are 10% of what they were prior to wolf reintroduction, despite having overwhelming support to cull these packs that are at least 1400% above required ESA objectives?

I'm doing my best to be respectful in this email but I am beyond frustrated with IDFG. Your lack of candor with the public and blatant inaction to address the issues facing these elk herds is infuriating. I spent years in the mountains learning these animals the places they inhabit. Everyone in the area (guides, residents and sportsman) were aware of the dramatic expansion of wolf packs and the direct correlation in elk herd depletion. It has now come to a point where I can't justify buying a tag to hunt this country I've grown to love and I won't be returning. Even the wolves have moved out of the area due to there being no elk. I think all Idahoans and sportsman who don't want to hunt state land off an ag field deserve and explanation as to why an agency tasked with management of wildlife populations, failed to act and more importantly, what you are going to do to recover these populations and prevent this from happening in the future?

I do appreciate you fielding my concerns. My continued support of this Agency will highly depend on your responses and the changes that you make going forward to address, what is a clear dereliction of duty by the Agency or the biologist monitoring the area.

A: 

We have no doubt that you have witnessed a big change in elk populations over the last 25 years. Wolves have definitely changed elk populations and elk hunting in most of backcountry Idaho. Wolf management is a difficult task as you well know. Many hunters carry a tag, but few ever see one during hunting season. The Commission has expanded wolf hunting and wolf trapping opportunities to increase harvest. Trappers regularly take more wolves than hunters on an annual basis. Managing wolf populations is a top priority for the department and we will continue to work on ways to reduce wolves in areas where they have negatively impacted elk populations. 

answered 11/1/2022

Q: Has there been any research on how eliminating youth doe hunts really affects age/trophy class?

Has there been any research on how eliminating youth doe hunts really affects age/trophy class? I just see that if young fawns are running with does that are shot at verse does that are not shot at, being at different levels of education/experience people once they do grow antlers? More out of curiosity for me. Just would like to see if there is some research on it.

A: 

We allow youth doe hunting only in places where deer populations can withstand the harvest. In fact, during the last big winter, we closed most of the youth antlerless opportunity for 2 years to ensure we are not overharvesting the doe portion of the population, and to help it recover more quickly.

Through decades of deer management, we’ve learned that youth doe harvest can enhance overall health of the population. Allowing youth to have the option of taking does also enhances buck survival, and that can help future buck hunting opportunities. Removing does in populations that are negatively impacting their habitat is one way to help increase the overall health of the herd. Increased herd health actually helps all deer be more productive from does having more twin fawns and buck having larger antlers as they mature.

answered 11/1/2022

Q: With mule deer populations at lower numbers than before “Snow-magedon “ , why have any doe seasons until the population can get their numbers up?

With mule deer populations at lower numbers than before “Snow-magedon “ , I don’t understand why you have any doe seasons until the population can get their numbers up. No rancher trying to build his herd up would be sending his cows to slaughter.

A: 

Great question. We manage antlerless opportunities throughout the state based on how the mule deer populations are doing. The Fish and Game Commission has the flexibility to change doe hunting opportunities annually, and Fish and Game’s wildlife managers recommend adjusting those doe opportunities for upcoming seasons following extreme winters. Those antlerless opportunities are usually eliminated, or drastically reduced in those situations, including controlled hunts and youth hunts. In those areas where deer populations have rebounded, or are showing population-level signs of exceeding their available habitat (such as when biologists start seeing low December fawn weights),  we establish antlerless hunting in an effort to help the overall deer population health by slowing its growth.  

answered 10/26/2022

A: 

As you are probably aware, Fish and Game detected chronic wasting disease in Idaho for the first time in mid November of 2021 when we were notified of positive results. Shortly thereafter, we held emergency hunts to harvest more animals to determine what areas have CWD, and what percentage of the animals within these populations have CWD. This was in addition to our usual statewide CWD testing. 

As of mid October, 2022, we have six positive animals including mule deer, white-tailed deer and elk, all detected last year in Unit 14 between Riggins and Grangeville. 

We are continuing intensive CWD monitoring in Units 14 and 15, as well as adjacent units and elsewhere in the state. By the end of the 2022 hunting season, we should have a better idea of the extent of CWD in Unit 14, as well as whether it exists in other units. 

At that point, the department and Fish and Game commission will create a longer-term action plan to contain it, which will be done in cooperation with hunters, landowners, outfitters, and other parties. CWD is something we take very seriously, which is why we’ve been testing for it since 1997. Fish and Game also has its 2021 Strategy for Chronic Wasting Disease.

answered 10/20/2022

Q: I have been hunting elk in the 66A area since 1986. The elk herd has decreased substantially since then. Is it true that F&G had several late cow hunts in the 90s harvesting approximately 4,000 head to reduce the elk herd?

I have been hunting elk in the 66A area since 1986. The elk herd has decreased substantially since then. Is it true that F&G had several late cow hunts in the 90s harvesting approximately 4,000 head to reduce the elk herd? I understand this was to appease the deer hunters?

A: 

First a little information on elk in 66A. Most of the elk that spend the summer and fall in 66A migrate into lower elevations of Unit 69 (Tex Creek Zone) to winter. Some also move into adjacent Wyoming to winter and depending on winter severity small numbers will remain in 66A for the winter. When we look at elk populations in this area we need to assess both the Tex Creek and Diamond Creek zones because of the seasonal movements between them. 

Based on our current data and information 66A likely has greater numbers of elk today than in its entire history. Elk behavior and distribution might be different than experienced in the late 80s and early 90s, but this elk herd is performing very well. When looking at old harvest reports, IDFG cannot find evidence of 4,000 female elk getting harvested. That level of harvest would have exceeded the number of elk available and is nothing more than a rumor.

From 1992 – 2001 average annual antlerless harvest in GMU 66A was 166 elk. In 1998, just over 400 antlerless elk were harvested in this unit which was the highest during that timeframe. For the past several years, total harvest (male and female) in 66A has been in the mid 400’s. IDFG plans to conduct an aerial survey in Diamond Creek (66A & 76) and Tex Creek (66 & 69) during the 2023-2024 winter. Our last survey, in 2018, estimated 4,251 total elk in Diamond Creek and 5,234 elk in Tex Creek. Both of these were significant increases from the 2013 survey. 

answered 10/20/2022

Q: Why has Idaho limited the nonresident elk tags so much?

Why has Idaho limited the nonresident elk tags so much? I have owned property in Idaho for 25 years but do not live in the state so I have to purchase a nonresident tag that I did not get this past year. Does the state realize how many thousands we spend on motels, groceries, fuel, and game processing? I talked to a game processor that told me his business was down 60 % so far this year. Locals process their own game and nonresidents are the bulk of his business. I understand the local guides are behind a lot of this but most of their clients are nonresidents. I don't think you realize how much we spend in your state.

A: 

The number of elk tags sold to nonresidents in recent years has not changed much statewide, but in 2021, the Fish and Game Commission restricted the number of nonresident tags sold in each individual uncapped elk zone, which continued in 2022. Both residents and nonresidents are limited in capped elk zones.

For decades, Fish and Game has limited the total number of nonresident elk tags to about 12,815. In 2021, the commission limited the number of nonresident tags sold in each uncapped elk zone in an effort to reduce crowding in some popular elk zones that did not already have a nonresident limit. That’s led to a redistribution of nonresident elk hunters as they’re now more spread out throughout the state.

This effort to redistribute nonresident hunters was not limited to elk. Nonresident deer tags also went from valid statewide to limited to one hunting unit.

answered 10/20/2022

A: 

Since we’re talking about the State of Deer and Elk, we assume you are referring to deer and elk hunters. You are correct we’ve seen some increases in the last decade, but we’re not at historic highs for either deer or elk hunters. You can see a graph below and the blue bars represent the total number of deer and elk hunters from 1982 to 2022. 

But we are addressing the issue of hunter crowding on several fronts. 

In response to complaints about crowding in some areas, the Fish and Game commission in 2021 capped nonresident tags in all elk zones and limited nonresident deer hunters to one hunting unit in an effort to redistribute them and reduce crowding in some popular elk zones and deer hunting units. 

We are also in the process of surveying hunters about the crowding issue, which started in 2021 and will continue in 2022, and this is a repeat of previous surveys regarding crowding. 

Here’s a summary from a 2019 report on hunter crowding: 

“Idaho resident hunters of elk, mule deer, and white-tailed deer perceived crowding at slight to moderate levels in the region they hunted in 2019. Levels of perceived crowding, based on a 1-9 rating of the most crowded day experienced, varied based on the species pursued and the region where an individual hunted (based on a selected elk management zone or game management unit). See the full report

We also surveyed mule deer hunters in 2017, and here’s a summary of the overall response: 

“2017 mule deer hunter survey results do not differ much from the 2007 results. Maintaining family traditions and the opportunity to hunt mule deer every year is important to the vast majority of Idaho sportsman and something they are not willing to give up. They value the diverse hunting opportunities that Idaho provides from general season hunting, and quality and high quality controlled hunts. When asked “Is there anything else you’d like to tell us about hunting mule deer in Idaho”, the number one response was “things are good – support current management”.

You can see the full report here, and page 5 for more details about hunter crowding

A similar survey of white-tailed deer hunters also showed overall favorable satisfaction with hunting.

However, we are fully aware that not everyone agrees with those assessments, and if this problem persists and grows, we will be asking hunters whether they prefer the current hunting management, or the inevitable trade offs that would be required to reduce crowding. Those trade offs could include further limits on tag sales for certain areas, being limited to one weapon type, split seasons, more controlled hunts, etc. 

But the essential questions hunters would have to face is whether they are willing to give up some of their hunting opportunity and variety of hunts to have fewer hunters in the field at the same time.

We might add that although we’ve seen an increase in deer and elk hunters in the last decade, we’ve seen similar numbers of hunters in past decades, and hunter numbers tend to fluctuate. However, with Idaho’s growing population and continued interest from nonresident hunters, we’re likely to see similar numbers of hunters in the foreseeable future. 

answered 10/20/2022

Q: What would of been the calf's chance of survival to spring without it's mother had I harvested the cow?

While on a cow elk hunt I could of harvested a cow who had this year's calf with her. But since they were by themselves and not with a herd I did not shoot the cow as I thought the calf would not survive the winter without it's mother. What would of been the calf's chance of survival to spring without it's mother had I harvested the cow?

A: 

The chances are pretty high of a calf surviving for several reasons. First, the cow is probably not lactating, so the calf is no longer directly reliant on its mother for nutrition. The mother has already taught the calf behavior that would help it survive, and although they appeared to be alone, there were likely other elk in the general area. Elk are pretty good at locating each other, so there’s a strong chance the calf would have rejoined a herd.

However, you clearly erred on the side of caution, and that’s rarely a bad choice.

To go deeper, elk calf survival depends on a number of factors, including disease, predators, nutrition, maternal care, weather and accidents. Generally, highest mortality in elk calves occurs during the first month of life, where predators can take a high percentage of calves. During the mid-summer through fall period, elk calves generally have higher survival rates.

Survival during winter varies considerably depending on how harsh winter conditions are, and what predators exist in the area. Elk calves are generally reliant on milk for the first month, but will continue to suckle for several months if allowed by the mother. Within a couple of weeks of birth, elk calves begin to eat natural vegetation, and by a couple of months old, they are capable of surviving without milk.

A significant factor when considering whether orphaning of elk calves results in higher mortality is whether the calf joins other elk. Generally, by July, elk cows and calves begin to form small groups. Orphaned elk calves that remain in an elk group, or find another group, are expected to have higher survival rates.

answered 10/18/2022

Q: If there is no numeric objective in the panhandle why are there more restrictive cow seasons, like in units 4 and 4a where only part of the units are open?

If there is no numeric objective in the panhandle why are there more restrictive cow seasons, like in units 4 and 4a where only part of the units are open?

A: 

A numeric objective (as seen in the big game regulation booklet) refers to the total number of bulls or cows the department is trying to manage for. Due to the dense forests in the Panhandle, aerial surveys cannot produce reasonable estimates of elk numbers for Units in the Panhandle Zone. The Panhandle does manage elk using other information such as cow:calf ratios, calf and cow survival, and hunter harvest data (and we are working on using remote cameras to get population estimates…stay tuned).

The 2014 Elk Plan produced population growth objectives for groups of units. For example, Units 4 and 4A have a goal to stabilize the population with a growth objective of up to 20% more elk. The Panhandle has management goals for elk, but they differ from much of the rest of Idaho’s elk zones.

Since the elk plan was adopted in 2014, we have been collaring cow and calf elk in Units 4, 6, and 7. The survival data has shown that calves have much higher survival in front country areas with mixed land ownership like the Silver Valley portion of Unit 4 and Unit 6 compared to backcountry areas such as northern Unit 4 and Unit 4A. Those front country areas have high enough cow and calf survival to allow some hunter harvest of cows without causing the population to decline.

answered 10/18/2022

Q: Is there a plan to make critter migration data available to the public?

Some states make the GIS layers available to the public (in different formats, .shp, kml, etc). It is sometimes generalized into polygons and lines of use areas like Summer Range, Winter Range, migration corridors etc. Is there a plan to make critter migration data available to the public?

A: 

This information was provided by our Wildlife Research Manager Shane Roberts: You can download a pdf fact sheet and map of each mule deer, elk, and pronghorn migration route we’ve mapped to date. Future migration mapping efforts will also be available for download at that link.

We don’t currently have the spatial layers associated with those maps available for download, but that information can be requested.

answered 10/18/2022

Q: What is the IDFG plan of action to get our elk back in northern Idaho?

Many of the northern Idaho units are either below objectives or don’t have objectives tied to them like in the panhandle. Northern Idaho used to be an elk Mecca and it has the potential to produce a lot of elk. That is not the case in most of northern Idaho’s backcountry. There are places you can walk a week and not see an elk track now. What is the IDFG plan of action to get our elk back in these areas? We have been waiting almost 20 years now to see if we could find a balance with wolves in these areas, and see elk herds rebound.we aren’t seeing any improvements, and I would argue the need for reintroduction of elk into some areas. I would like to know what is being done, besides opening more wolf seasons.

A: 

You are correct. The Clearwater Region was the only place outside of Yellowstone park that had elk in 1938 when the Department was formed. Those elk herds flourished in that area due to the large-scale burns of the early 20th century and since then those habitats have continuously grown back into conifer monocultures. The Department researched elk declines in the late 1970s in the Lochsa country. We are working to encourage forests and federal land managers to consider elk habitat when planning for future harvests and to try to get the best out of the work that does occur. Elk reintroduction is a tool but unfortunately not going to get us much gains until the habitat is improved. As for wolves, we have liberalized wolf hunting and trapping opportunities and even some targeted removal where elk populations are below objective.
answered 10/14/2022

Q: Would it be possible to further manage or even reduce the number of hunters at a given time during a general season while increasing quality animals?

My question has to do with managing ever-increasing numbers of hunters in Idaho and restoring quality hunting at the same time. Would it be possible to further manage or even reduce the number of hunters at a given time during a general season while increasing quality animals? I do realize that is a significant challenge! No doubt areas with significant deer and elk populations understandably attract a higher number of hunters, compounded with increasing numbers of hunters overall, it may be time to get creative in our thinking. To manage hunter numbers in high-use areas could there be a hunters choice split season, first half second half? At the same time, in order to address the quality of bucks specifically, would it make sense to adopt something similar to the A and B tag logic? Maybe an A tag for three points or less with B tags for 4 points or better. Couple this with the hunters choice, A tag first half or B tag second half of the season, I wonder if these ideas have the potential to reduce hunters numbers at a given time while allowing for increased quality for those that prefer 4 points or greater? Thanks for your hard work and creating a platform for public questions, comments and ideas!

A: 

We have been measuring hunter opinions and attitudes on hunter crowding and did this before the changes to nonresident tags limitations and since the change. Reducing congestion is a goal of the department, but understanding it fully before we come to the public and Commission with potential options is very important. Stay tuned.
answered 10/14/2022