The below sheep related information is cut from the meeting minutes of the Idaho Fish and Game Commission Annual Meeting – January 19-21, 2005 at Fish and Game Headquarters in Boise, Idaho. (Complete minutes are at http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/about/commission/2005/jan.pdf)

January 19, 2005
Preference Points
Jim Unsworth, Chief, Bureau of Wildlife provided an update on the work of the subcommittee exploring bonus or preference point systems (Appendix 38, Exhibit 4). Commissioners Power, Wright, and Wheeler participated with Brad Compton and Jim Unsworth. Mr. Unsworth gave an overview of the controlled hunt systems in Idaho (random draws), Oregon (preference points), and Nevada (bonus points) including the pros and cons of each.
Estimated costs for Idaho would be between $3.50 - $6.00 per application if harvest reporting and the controlled hunt system are included. In-house cost would be $2.00 - $3.00 per application without harvest reporting. There would be more expense the first year or two for set up. Idaho currently charges $5.50 per application and would likely need to increase the application fee to about $10.00 to be revenue neutral. The current system costs the department under $20,000 to run.
In summary, Mr. Unsworth noted that point systems are costly and complicated and may not accomplish what hunters really want. They increase odds for one group but decrease the odds for others, including youth and newcomers to the state. It takes several years for the systems to build up and have an effect. They work well in easy to draw hunts, but there is still no guarantee to draw. Any point system increases in complexity and cost when it is changed over time to attempt to accommodate frustrated hunters. Then the system is broken. There is no perfect system, and each has pros and cons, and there will always be unhappy hunters.
Regardless of whether a point system is adopted, Idaho should continue to maintain single species for moose goats, and sheep, require all hunters to purchase a license first, not allow hunters to use points as currency or to buy points, and make it clear that there is no guarantee of drawing a tag.
Mr. Unsworth passed out information on drawing odds in Idaho and which would be improved by a preference points system. He also passed out information on Nevada’s and Oregon’s drawing odds (Appendix 38, Exhibit 5). Commissioner Irby asked why states have point systems if they don’t work and it costs money. Mr. Unsworth explained that it is because hunters get frustrated with not drawing.
Commissioner Wright stated that the potential problems, including the increased cost, can be overcome. Several years into a point system, hunters have a good chance of drawing, even if it is not guaranteed. With a points systems squared or preference points, over time, perseverance is rewarded and odds increase. With the Nevada system the odds increase up to 66%, and with the Oregon system the wait is longer but the odds get close to 100%.
Mr. Unsworth noted that point systems work well in easy to draw hunts but not in the hard to draw hunts.
If the hard to draw hunts constitute a large proportion of the hunters, the result is a lot of disgruntled hunters. He feels the Nevada system lets hunters know there is no guarantee of a tag, but there is a greater probability for perseverance. The Oregon system is more predictable for hunters, but the concern is that people may perceive there is a guarantee.
Commissioner Wright agreed that there would need to be a different solution with the hard to draw hunts. He favors the Nevada system and believes people would rather have their odds increase earlier instead of getting to 100% at some point. Commissioner Wright feels the Commission needs to put a point system in place and is concerned that if the Commission doesn’t act, the Legislature may.
Commissioners agreed that implementing a point system would make hunters feel the Commission is doing something. Commissioner Wheeler noted that charging a higher application fee would require legislative action while requiring the license fee up front could be done by Commission rule.
Commissioners agreed to add further discussion of a point system to the agenda for Thursday.

The workshop recessed at 6:56 p.m.

RULES
Public Hearing
Chairman Nancy Hadley called the public hearing to order at 7:03 p.m. She introduced Chairman-elect Marcus Gibbs and Commissioners Cameron Wheeler, Alex Irby, Gary Power, Wayne Wright, and Director Steve Huffaker. Staff introductions were made, and the Director gave an overview of the Agenda and action items for January 20 and 21 including non-biological rules for the taking of big game animals and biological
rules for moose, goat, and sheep. The hearing was opened for public comment.

Brad Moss, board member of Idaho Chapter Foundation for North American Wild Sheet (ICFNAWS), asked the Commission to consider changing the regulations for bighorn sheep from a ¾ curl requirement to any ram. He stated he has talked to several states that have any ram rules, and they indicated this is easier to control. Mr. Moss also talked to Dale Toweill in the Department’s Wildlife Bureau, who indicated that in the first two or three years this change might result in smaller rams, but not beyond that. He stated the change would not affect sheep biologically, and would eliminate the need for enforcement to monitor the size of the curl. He talked to the chairman of national FNAWs, who has sent a letter that Mr. Moss will forward to the Commission saying they have no problem with the proposed change. He responded to a question from Commissioner Gibbs that this change would be for both California and Rocky Mountain bighorns.

Tom Demorest, Diamond D Ranch, spoke on the big-game situation in Unit 27. He stated that three or four years ago the area got an influx of bears. They are seeing a good increase in big-horn sheep. The does this spring were in good shape with lots of fawns, and they saw an increase in mule deer, especially bucks. He would like to see a 3-point buck only for the whole season. He is concerned about elk and doesn’t see herds
growing. They are getting good recruitment, but they aren’t drawing from other areas. They have wolves in the area, but they don’t see them as much in the winter. He asked the Commission to extend the season on bobcats through the closing of mountain lion season.

Bob DiGrazia, past President of Idaho FNAWS, relayed his concern with dropping the 4-year-old and ¾ curl ram requirement. He stated that the biology on the issue is all over the board. He talked to the executive director of FNAWS and looked at the Wild Sheep and Goats Council’s data. He said there is no real science that says the change will do good for sheep. It would be a management tool for people who break the law. He feels we are coming out of precipitous decline of sheep populations and need to focus on transplanting sheep and procuring safe habitat. Efforts are better spent managing for all sheep than managing for a few trophy sheep that may be taken illegally. He would rather the Department focus on habitat and biology management that will put new sheep on the mountain.

Chuck Middleton, President of Idaho Chapter FNAWS, thanked the Department for efforts to increase sheep populations. Mr. Middleton shared a letter and photo of a trophy bighorn taken in Unit 11. Mr. Middleton asked that the Commission not adopt the Department’s recommendation to increase the number of permits in Unit 11. They are asking to continue with a restrictive harvest policy of only two rams harvested instead
of the proposed four. They feel an increase would impact the amount of money they are able to raise in the Super Tag lottery and FNAWs drawing.

Grant Simonds, Idaho Outfitters and Guides Association (IOGA), thanked the staff who presented at their annual meeting. The IOGA is in agreement with the proposal before the Commission on allocated controlled hunts that would require an agreement to be struck with an outfitter before an individual received a tag. He congratulated Dale Toweill and those who participated in the bighorn sheep transplants. With respect to the trophy species recommendations, the IOGA disagrees with adding 3 sheep permits in Unit 527-1 and reducing permits in Unit 527-4 and 527-2. Mr. Simonds also commented that their group appreciated the notes from Commission meetings that Jack Trueblood provided. These were a very useful tool, and he asked the Commission to consider providing that service again.

Terry Henrickson, spoke on the proposal for an any ram harvest. He stated that the opportunity is there all the time to take a young ram, but he is appreciative that he had to hunt four times to get a mature ram. The older rams are breeding rams, and he is concerned that young rams will be left as hunters go for bigger rams. He urged the Commission to stay with current rules.

Herb Meyr, from Mountain Home, Board member of ICFNAWS, has watched the restoration of bighorn sheep in Hells Canyon. It has been very successful but funding is the limiting factor. He supports the proposal to increase the number of tags in Unit 11. It is an easy unit to hunt with high success. He also observed that elk numbers in Middle Fork country are way down.

Chairman Hadley thanked the public for attending and for their comments. The hearing adjourned at 9:03 p.m.

January 20, 2005
The Commission meeting convened at 8:04 a.m. with Commissioners Hadley, Gibbs, Wright, Power, and Wheeler present.

Biological Rules for Moose, Sheep, and Goat :
Dale Toweill, presented trophy species recommendations for 2005-2006 for moose, bighorn sheep, and mountain goats (Appendix 38, Exhibits 7 and 8).
For bighorn sheep, staff proposed one new hunt and an increase in permits statewide from 72 to 80.
Proposed permit changes in several units were detailed. Unit 11 has become one of the most renowned in North America for bighorn sheep hunting. There was concern expressed in the public hearing that increasing the number of permits might jeopardize the quality of the hunt in that unit. The unit can support a harvest of 4 rams. Recruitment of legal rams into that unit has been increasing steadily under the 2 ram limit and is about 15% per year.
For mountain goats, staff recommended increasing permits from 40 to 57 and adding new hunts in several units based on survey data from 2004. Testimony at the public hearing included concern about populations in the Sawtooths. With a coordinated survey last year and significant new survey information, managers felt it was reasonable to offer new permits and open some units while still managing goats very conservatively.
The Department does manage goats for recreational value. There are two observation points in the Wood River Valley and the Sawtooths. Harvest recommendations should not adversely impact opportunities to watch goats. The state has had a decade of warmer than average weather, and sub-alpine habitat is declining. There are concerns about the health of the herds. Central herds seem to be growing, northern herds are stable, but eastern herds seem to be declining. The Department is working to build a consortium to evaluate how changes in vegetation and habitat impact carrying capacity.
05-09 Commissioner Wheeler moved and Commissioner Wright seconded a motion TO ADOPT BY
PROCLAMATION STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS ON MOOSE, SHEEP, AND GOATS AS CONTAINED IN EXHIBIT 7. The motion carried unanimously.

Preference Points
The Director went over the statistics on hunts that would be positively impacted with a preference points system (Appendix 38, Exhibit 17).
Commissioner Wright noted that there are reasonable pros and cons on both sides. He would like to see a system that would exclude sheep and mountain goats and some of the hunts for elk, antelope, and deer that have less than 10% drawing odds that would create a difficult situation in which to apply a point system.
For the majority of other hunts where odds are 10% or greater to draw, preference points make sense. The best two systems are Oregon and Nevada.
05-15 Commissioner Wright moved and Commissioner Irby seconded a motion THAT STAFF
MOVE FORWARD TOWARD THE FUTURE IMPLEMENTATION OF A POINT OR BONUS
SYSTEM THAT WOULD INCLUDE APPROPRIATE MOOSE, DEER, ELK, AND ANTELOPE
CONTROLLED HUNTS. The motion carried in a unanimous vote.

Dallas Burkhalter, Deputy Attorney General, pointed out that the January meeting is where all nonbiological rules are set. Big game regulations will be set in March. The public has not been scoped on any proposed point system.
Commissioners realize that it will take some time to put together recommendations, and it may not be possible to have something implemented for fiscal 2006. The subcommittee was adamant that any system pay for itself and not cost the Department, so legislation will need to be drafted. A system may actually generate additional revenue.
The Director stated that the staff proposal needs to look at a system that will increase the drawing odds for difficult to draw hunts. Increasing costs with a modification that may not Commissioner Wheeler stated that a point system is a complicated issue and not one that can be easily scoped. He feels it is up to the Commission to make these decisions.
Staff will meet with Nevada and Oregon officials to gather more information for a future proposal.

Adjournment
The Commission meeting adjourned at 12:55 p.m.

quote:

THAT STAFF
MOVE FORWARD TOWARD THE FUTURE IMPLEMENTATION OF A POINT OR BONUS
SYSTEM THAT WOULD INCLUDE APPROPRIATE MOOSE, DEER, ELK, AND ANTELOPE
CONTROLLED HUNTS. The motion carried in a unanimous vote.

RamDreamer, do you think they will implement a pp or bp for 06?

MNHunter,
I talked with a friend from Idaho a few days ago on this very issue (PP/BP). Taking the thoughts from that conversation and reviewing the commission meeting minutes, it appears to me that they will implement a system of some sort but that it will NOT include sheep or goats. Even if '06 implementation is the target, I question whether they can get it done that quickly. This issue seems to have heated up in the last six months in Idaho for some reason that I don't really know of. The odds there are so good that I don't see any reason for them to implement a different system, but there is always pressure to "tweak" things I suppose. What I must admit pains me in reading this (and seeing it happen over and over and over in other states) is the fact that only one or two other neighboring state's systems are examined to any degree. I don't know if it's the laziness of the personnel involved or the lack of outside the box thinking ability, but I sure which more extensive research on the options was done.

RamDreamer,
I hear what you mean. I thought it was odd that they only mention Oregon and Nevada when discussing pros and cons. As tempting as it may seem at first to want a PP/BP system in Idaho, I don't think it would be a good idea. If you get in the first year things look good. However, if you are young like me and just started applying a few years ago, well the systems in other states don't look so good. I guess the view is better from atop the PP/BP list than from the bottom!