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 26 - 50 of 3534 questions

Q: Nonresident General elk and deer tags have gone to a new system to purchase tags in December of the prior year of the hunt. Is Fish & Game considering any changes to this process?

Nonresident General elk and deer tags have gone to a new system to purchase tags in December of the prior year of the hunt. Is Fish & Game considering any changes to this process? An example of a good change would be to allow Nonresidents the ability to purchase these tags as a group since most Nonresidents hunt with other Nonresidents.

A: 

Nonresident licenses and general season, over-the-counter tags, have been available to purchase beginning December 1 for last two decades. The Department did implement a few changes to how we sell those items beginning in 2021, based on the changes to nonresident tag limits and our options within the department electronic licensing system. We understand these changes have made it difficult to obtain the same tag for multiple hunters in a group, and our licensing office is working to determine how we may be able to offer this in future sales.
answered 10/14/2022

Q: Why will F&G not make antlers point/width restrictions for mule deer?

Why will F&G not make antlers point/width restrictions for Mule deer? The lack of yearling fork horn bucks on the winter range is very concerning. It seems that the buck to doe ratio is very low, at least in the portion of Southeast Idaho I run around in. Also, would it be a possibility that all Mule Deer hunts could be turned into a draw only proposition, or zones you have to stick to? Such as turning all general units into unlimited draws, or into different zones like elk so people have to choose a unit? Another issue I have with the Mule Deer management is pushing the blame on the mountain lion when the coyotes seem to do the most damage. Would there be a chance to possibly have bounties for coyotes to help the mule deer fawns survive? Utah used this strategy and it seemed to have helped the deer in their state a lot. I feel that the best way to have more/bigger bucks on the mountain is by antler point/width restrictions so that people cannot kill all of the young bucks before they are smart enough to avoid hunting pressure. We could have more deer total on the mountain by ramping up the take of coyotes.

A: 

We have tried antler point restrictions in eastern Idaho during the mid-2000s and it did not prove as a good tool to improve mature buck numbers. In fact, it reduced the adult 4-point portion of the populations and created lots of big 3 points. The reason was we focused all the hunting effort on that portion of the populations we were trying to reduce harvest on, thus limiting the population to grow any older bucks. We have worked to create a variety of hunting opportunities for mule deer throughout the state including general and controlled hunts with varying degrees of opportunity to meet the variety of interests of Idaho’s mule deer hunters. As far as predation on mule deer, we know that mountain lions and coyotes both can have impacts, but our research showed that mountain lion predation was a far great impact than coyotes on mule deer populations in most situations. In some areas, we can document that predation is a significant factor and in others, it is less of a factor in mule deer populations growth. We have also learned that summer range and winter severity are also important variables impacting mule deer survival and productivity. We are always trying to learn more about mule deer and improve our management of that iconic species.
answered 10/14/2022

A: 

We will be reviewing all the zones during the current elk plan update and looking at ways to improve bull survival in order to meet objectives in that zone. Spike hunting is one of the items we will be looking at very closely in the next plan.
answered 10/14/2022

Q: Has the commission ever considered different harvest regulations on size of mule deer available for harvest per unit?

Has the commission ever considered different harvest regulations on size of Mule Deer available for harvest per unit? I'm from Eastern Idaho and I feel that if there was an imposed minimum size on bucks that are harvested, we could see an increase of mature animals available for harvest each year. In some areas like 66, 67, 69 etc. I'd like to see a harvest minimum of 3 point or above. I think the quality of more mature bucks available for harvest would increase exponentially. Harvest might potentially drop, but from my observations, the quantity of animals in each of these units has been down for some time, and could use a regulation to save the seed bucks and help improve populations. To me, this would explain why the youth doe, and either sex hunts were either minimized or dropped completely. Would the commission ever be open to establishing minimum size available for harvest in areas like these that receive high pressure?

A: 

We have tried antler point restrictions in eastern Idaho in the mid-2000s in response to public encouragement. Unfortunately, it did not produce the desired effect on saving more bucks and allowing for them to get older. It actually reduced the number of 4 points in the population and made finding mature bucks even harder. Those trial areas were tested for 5 years and by strong public demand were subsequently removed. Youth doe hinting was dropped in response to severe winters that reduced deer populations and will be resumed once population estimates are at such levels to warrant those hunts again if needed to manage the population.
answered 10/13/2022

A: 

We are currently working on a revision of the elk plan to be released to the public during fall of next year. In our first meeting with the planning team, we did discuss the archery hunt timing and will be reviewing more detailed data to see if that may be warranted. Of course, those changes would not take place without a fully vetted public review and Commission adoption. Please keep a look out for the elk plan and sending in comments on the plan is always appreciated.
answered 10/13/2022

A: 

We are actually in the middle of a research project to look at that very question. We are collaring yearling bucks and measuring their vulnerability to harvest. That research should be concluding in 2024 and hopefully will give us insights into the effects of the 2-point hunt in that area. We look forward to sharing the results with the public as they become available in the future.
answered 10/13/2022

A: 

The Commission and the Department have looked at options for changes to the sawtooth tags including collecting public opinion surveys. The Commission reviewed the information and decided to stay the course with the current modification of alternate sale date and offering online and in-person opportunities to get tags.
answered 10/13/2022

Q: Are you studying mule deer in the Panhandle?

In the past, out northern Idaho IDFG have told us they cannot study mule deer in the Panhandle because it’s “too brushy and steep”. Our mule deer are obviously in serious decline. Habitat problems, predators, etc are to blame. I have spoken to IDFG many times about this and the reactions are in agreement, partially sympathetic but without any positive plans. IDFG should be aggressively working with the USFS, RMEF, MDF, etc to encourage forest management and as much controlled burning as possible plus looking at serious changes to predator management to reduce predators. It really is a black and white issue but it usually wrote away as complicated, while throwing in “climate change”, etc while our mule deer and other big game suffer. The forest management activities that IDFG points to in the panhandle are far less them they should be, none are in the upper Cabinets and Selkirks in traditional big game summer range. IDFG needs to push for th is and get off any political bandwagons regarding our National Forests! IDFG needs to seriously and publically address the shift of elk to valleys and quit releasing stable to increasing elk herds across the state without qualifying that with the shift of the herds due to predators and poor habitat..I was once very dedicated to attending IDFG public meeting and making these concerns known, including with the Commission. Sadly, there was a lot of listening but very little encouraging response or even just silence. It’s time for a shake up in IDFG and acknowledge these challenges and aggressively address them!

A: 

We are trying to do some research work on mule deer in the Panhandle and are finding ways to work on deer in those small island populations across the region. Mark Hurley in the Region 1 office is our principal researcher in that area and you can reach out to him if you have specific questions about the work we are doing in the Panhandle region. As far as habitat and large landscape changes, we agree that forest management is important to improve habitat. Our perspective is we are promoting federal, state land management agencies to manage habitat to increase big game range in the state and specifically in the north. We appreciate your previous attendance, encourage you to reconnect with our public meetings, and assure you that we are working hard to promote big game habitat work.
answered 10/13/2022

Q: Why is there no numeric objective for bulls or cows in all of the Panhandle Region?

Why is there no numeric objective for bulls or cows in all of the panhandle region? Although I would imagine IDFG has a population estimate of that zone or units where could it be found? I have read multiple articles that state the population of the Clearwater/lochsa region and that area would seem to have similar challenges doing population estimates. Additionally, without numeric objectives what are management decisions such as season length based on in the panhandle? For example, about 5 years ago the panhandle saw the addition of a cow season within a mile of private land. This came after a period with no cow season and still no numeric objective for cows or bulls. So what would something like that decision be based on with no objective?

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. We do not have elk numeric objectives in several elk zones in the state because we do not have population estimates for the zones. These zones are typically difficult to fly aerial surveys or the elk populations are dispersed widely that flying would not be effective.

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).

In other zones where we don’t have population estimates and populations numeric objectives, we manage elk populations using other objectives for harvest for example the percent 6 points in the harvest, number of bulls and cows in the harvest, success rates of hunters and hunter days as a metric of how the population is doing. We will be working on developing numeric objectives in the zones that don’t currently have them established as soon as we can estimate those populations, until then we will continue to manage with all the best available data we have available.

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

In the Panhandle zone, we had either-sex hunting in parts of the zone for years and then closed all the cow hunting when aerial survey and calf ratio data showed declines. Survival data from radio-collars plus calf recruitment data showed that elk populations were doing better in front country areas with mixed land ownership like Unit 5 and Unit 6 compared to backcountry areas such as northern Unit 4, Unit 7 and Unit 9. Those front country areas have high enough cow and calf survival to allow some hunter harvest of cows without causing the population to decline. The short general season cow hunt within a mile of private is in place because elk populations in those areas can sustain cow harvest.

answered 10/13/2022

A: 

The department does have some seasons that are the same day for example the third Saturday in October is the pheasant opener in eastern Idaho. As far as big game is concerned, the discussion on when to start a big game general hunts has happened several times during my 17-year career. That conversation has always come around to the conclusion that the date instead of the day was better suited for big game general season openers. However, we can see your point as it pertains to youth seasons and affording them as much opportunity to get in the field. The season setting process is coming up this winter and we encourage you to call your regional office and discuss your thoughts and ideas with the wildlife staff. As far as access, we know that times have changed and access has decreased. The Department is constantly looking for willing landowners to develop access agreements throughout the state and we are trying to grow that acreage to help hunters get more access on or through private land.

answered 10/12/2022

A: 

The Commission sets big game rules and seasons around March of each year to ensure they are incorporating the most current deer and elk information into the season recommendations. Those recommendations are shaped by things like mandatory hunter reporting October through December; aerial surveys in the following spring, and public comment periods prior to the March commission meeting. Those rules are then applied to the controlled hunts for that season, so the timeline for the drawings is based on the March season setting dates, the application periods established to allow hunters adequate time to apply, and the time needed to conduct the drawings once the applications have closed. 

answered 10/11/2022

Q: Units 37 and 37A: What is the plan for either hunter access to private property or to disburse the elk back to public lands?

Unit 37 and 37A were high quality elk units but not 40% to 60% of the elk populations stay on private property in the river bottom in large herds year around which creates access problems and inferior breeding. What is the plan for either hunter access to private property or to disburse the elk back to public lands?

A: 

We agree there have been changes in elk use of the landscape in units 37 and 37A. This is partly due to changes in private land management, but in large is a direct result of increases in hunter pressure.

Historically these units average around 466 general season elk hunters per year. As the elk population grew so did the demand to hunt them and hunter numbers peaked at approximately 992 general season hunters. This doubling of hunters on the landscape and the resulting pressure on the elk herd is believed to be a large contributor to why elk have found refugia in the private lands where pressure is greatly reduced. Recently IDFG made large changes to how nonresident general season tags are allocated and set zone-wide caps on elk tags. As these two hunts were historically about 31% nonresident hunters this change led to a dramatic reduction in total hunters on the landscape.

In 2021, following the nonresident caps being put in place there was approximately 523 general season hunters. This is roughly a 50% reduction in hunter numbers and should reduce pressure on public lands thus improve elk use of the accessible public lands. In 2021 we also shortened the general greenfield season from ending November 30th to ending October 31st. The intent was to reduce outside pressure off of elk so they may hopefully return to public land prior to the start of the controlled cow hunts. IDFG has also dedicated a technician to hazing and directing hunter pressure on those private lands that wish to participate in our depredation program. Admittedly there is a large preponderance of elk that utilize the private lands during hunting season and we are working diligently within our authority to address these issues.

It is our hope that the actions we have taken thus far will lead to less private land depredations and better sportsmen access to elk on public lands. However, it will take a few years to fully realize the results of these actions. The bull ratios across the zone, and in these units have all exceeded 25 bulls per 100 cows over the last three aerial surveys. As ratios as low as 8-10 bulls per 100 cows are all that is needed to maintain high productivity and genetic diverse elk populations there is little concern of population-level impacts at this time.

Thank you for the concern and you can be assured we are continuing to work on improving elk management and sportsmen opportunity within these units.

answered 10/11/2022

A: 

Many of the mule deer and elk migration routes that we've mapped to date are available to view in Ungulate Migrations of the Western United States, Volumes 1 and 2

Those two volumes can be accessed at the following links:

https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sir20205101

https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sir20225008

The plan is to publish additional mapped migrations in future volumes of this series.

answered 10/7/2022

A: 

There is not currently a proposal to institute a point system in Idaho. The Idaho Fish and Game Commission has seriously considered point systems in the past, as you noted, most recently in 2005 and 2010. In 2005, the Commission adopted a point system contingent on the Idaho Legislature passing a law that allowed the Fish and Game Department to charge a small surcharge on each application to cover the cost of implementing the system. The legislature debated a bill, but eventually rejected it and the point system was not implemented. In 2009, the legislature passed a law that allowed the Department to charge no more than $4.50 per controlled hunt application to fund a point system should the Commission implement one. In 2010, the Fish and Game Department proposed implementing a bonus point system (very similar to Nevada’s), but the Commission did not accept the proposal.

The Commission cited several reasons for not adopting a point system, including:

1) Adding increased complexity to the licensing system.

2) Impact on casual/youth hunters and other new hunters that would be disadvantaged by a point system.

3) Responding to substantive public perception that the Department was proposing a point system simply to increase revenues. Additionally, comment received during the public scoping process indicated broad public disagreement on the specifics of any single system. Areas of disagreement: bonus points vs. preference points, whether a point-only option should be implemented, which hunts or what species should the system apply to, and whether a point system should be mandatory or voluntary.

There was a lot of information presented to the Commission at that time, and if you want to do a deep dive, here’s a presentation that was produced in 2010 about bonus and preference points and how they might affect Idaho: https://idfg.idaho.gov/old-web/docs/licenses/controlledHunts/bonusPointsReport.pdf

Thanks for the question, and hope this helps.

answered 10/6/2022

Q: Can I get a refund due to fires in the area I intend to hunt?

There is a fire in the area I hunt. I do not have time to scout a new hunting location at this time for this season. Can I get a refund for my tag and hunting license?

A: 

Hunters and anyone else heading into the backcountry are advised to check with Forest Service ranger district offices or county sheriffs’ offices in their hunt area before heading out. Fire updates can be found online at: http://www.inciweb.org/state/13/. Additional fire information is available on the Fish and Game Hunt Planner at: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/ifwis/huntPlanner/. Fish and Game generally doesn’t close hunts or change seasons in response to fire restrictions. Most fires are not large enough to affect an entire hunt unit. Hunters can hunt later in the season (if the season is still open--keep in mind that we haven’t extended any seasons) or exchange general tags to hunt in a different area. But tags must be exchanged before the season begins. Hunters with controlled hunt tags may exchange them for general season tags before the controlled hunt begins. But controlled hunt fees would not be refunded. Fish and Game will consider requests for rain checks or refunds in the event that all access to a hunting unit is blocked by fire.

answered 9/10/2020

A: 

Congratulations! You are locked in to 2017 prices for 2018.  Just buy your annual license every year for as long as the Price Lock program is active and you will continue to pay 2017 prices each year.

answered 6/23/2017

A: 

Sorry, but the answer is no. To be part of the Price Lock program, you need to purchase or hold any valid 2017 resident annual license. To continue to stay in the program, you also need to purchase or hold a valid resident annual license in future consecutive years.

answered 6/23/2017

A: 

Price Lock is a win-win for you and Idaho Fish and Game. You are keeping your costs to fish, hunt and trap among the lowest in the West, and you are providing consistent funding for wildlife conservation, management and enforcement. In short, with Price Lock you are investing in Idaho’s fish and wildlife – making sure it is there next time you go hunting and fishing.

answered 6/23/2017

A: 

Idaho Fish and Game does not receive any general tax money from the State of Idaho.  Most operations are financed through the fees sportsmen and women pay to hunt and fish in Idaho.  The last fee increase for Idaho residents was in 2005.  The cost of managing the State’s fish and wildlife increase every year and has exceeded the funds generated by licenses, tags and permits for several years.  Fish and Game implemented a number of cost-saving measures during these lean times.  In 2017, The State Legislature approved a fee increase, which goes into effect in 2018.  The increase ranges from $1 to $6 dollars on licenses, tags and permits.

answered 6/23/2017

A: 

Fees for nonresident sportsmen and women were increased in 2009. At the time, this made Idaho’s nonresident fees higher than other western states. Today, Idaho’s nonresident license, tags, and permits are generally in the middle compared to surrounding states.

answered 6/23/2017

A: 

You are automatically locked into the lower 2017 prices for any and all other licenses, tags and permits for at least the next 5 years.

answered 6/23/2017

A: 

The Price Lock program will last at least for 5 years, through 2022. At that time, the Idaho Legislature and Idaho Fish and Game Commission will review Price Lock to decide if it will continue. If enough people participate in Price Lock, the program may be extended.

answered 6/23/2017

A: 

As long as the Price Lock program is active, you may purchase a 3-year resident license any time, or any year, at 2017 prices and receive all the benefits of being locked in. 

answered 6/23/2017

A: 

Yes.  To benefit from Price Lock, you will need to buy an annual license each consecutive year after 2017.

answered 6/23/2017

A: 

How much you save depends on what tags and permits you usually purchase.  In general, if you buy a 2017 license, you will save 20% on all your items every year you stay in the Price Lock program.

answered 6/23/2017