# Improve The Odds



## Dukes_Daddy (Nov 14, 2008)

Effective but controversial ways to improve draw odds.

#1) Require 100% payment at the time of entry. Let the DWR hold the money for 90-120 days and then refund the credit card minus entry fee. Grandpa Bill, auntie Sue, cousin Fred, sister Nancy and my four kids wouldn't be in the draw next year. Tell me I'm unique in having everyone I know in the draw. Can't afford to have all apply if I have to pay upfront. 

#2) Use it or lose it! This turning tags back tags because it's not a good time in my life or I can't find a critter of interest is BS. Emergencies (death, illness) should be on a case by case basis. Don't know if you can get time off to scout and hunt this year then apply for a point only. 

Talk amongst yourselves and then tell me all the bad things about my plan. 

Oh one more idea. #3) Not registered to vote no hunts that require licenses. Can't show up to vote then you are limited to jackrabbits and coyotes.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I'll agree with you except for the last one. While being registered to vote is what everyone that is eligible to do it shouldn't be forced on someone who wants to hunt. 

It would be like you can't get a hunting license unless you show up to a RAC meeting. Now that would be a way to get hunters and fishermen to show up at them. Make it to where they have to pick up their tags at a meeting. eep:


----------



## Nambaster (Nov 15, 2007)

Hey Dukes, 
this sounds like a great way to improve odds of drawing a tag, however I don't think that the primary purpose of the division is to rain the worthy hunters with tags. The concept is to get that $10.00 applications fee and if people have to front the money for the tags then several of the applicants start to drop like flies. 

I feel that the $10.00 application fee goes to a worthy cause so I support the idea of people kamakazi-ing their money even if they don't have the funds to pay for the tags. 

I do agree with your use it or lose it theory. There should be very few exceptions to turn in a tag. 

One thing that I would not mind doing is pay more for tags.... If it increases draw odds that is......


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

Nambaster said:


> The concept is to get that $10.00 applications fee and if people have to front the money for the tags then several of the applicants start to drop like flies.


I believe the company in Fallon keeps 100% of this, no? If so, the DWR gets zero benefit from numbers applying.


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

I do like the use it or lose it idea. I think there has been a lot of abuse on that one. 

Here is a better formula to improve the odds: A. Figure out why there are fewer does and why the population is not replenishing its loses (i.e. cougars) B. Fix the problem (instead of all the hunter restriction side shows.) C. Increase tags as a response to increased deer numbers.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Sounds like a bunch of crap!

The division can't manage deer why would I want them managing my money

So because I have kids you want to make it hard for me to apply for me and them. Bs

You think your odds go up if someone is forced to use the tag instead of turning it in. Wrong they just pick the next in line.

No you want better odds manage with shorter range weapons.
Manage with lower age objectives.
Increase the waiting perriods. Is it fair that some people have drawn twice when I haven't drawn?

What the crap does voting have to do with hunting


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Huge29 said:


> I believe the company in Fallon keeps 100% of this, no? If so, the DWR gets zero benefit from numbers applying.


Actually, per their current contract, the company in Fallon (Utah Wildlife Administrative Services) only gets $3.01 (or less, for those above the set contract quota). The rest ($6.99+) is retained by the DWR, so the DWR does benefit.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> Actually, per their current contract, the company in Fallon (Utah Wildlife Administrative Services) only gets $3.01 (or less, depending on the number of applications). The rest ($6.99+) is retained by the DWR, so the DWR does benefit.


Good to know, I thought that the reason for the fee doubling about five years ago was for the administrative costs in Fallon??? I would sure think that $3 would cover costs.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

The best way to increase draw odds is to have more animals resulting in more tags available to the pool. I think this should be the sole focus as long as there is room for improved management practices. Anyone want to argue that there isn't room for improvement?----SS


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Huge29 said:


> Good to know, I thought that the reason for the fee doubling about five years ago was for the administrative costs in Fallon??? I would sure think that $3 would cover costs.


To be honest with you, I'm amazed that they get so little for all the work they do. Most of the printed stuff you think you're getting from the DWR (hunt reminder postcards, licenses, permits, lifetime license holder letters/questionaires, draw result letters, etc.) is actually printed and sent by UWAS (DWR pays postage). And the emails relating to the application process and harvest reporting process are sent from Fallon. They provide and staff 8 toll free phone lines and 1 fax line 24/7 from Jan 30 to Dec 31 (11 months). They contact declined credit card holders up to 4 times. They're the ones who correct application errors and provide online provisions for withdrawals and resubmits of applications. They collect internet applications, licenses and fees and send to DWR daily. They deposit these funds into a special account and transfer that credit card deposit info into a DWR account daily. And, of course, they maintain and update the applicant database. That's all I can remember off hand, but I'm sure I've missed some things. And we haven't even started the actual draw yet (with all the seperate hunts, eligibility, waiting periods, resident/non resident quotas, youth quotas, DH quotas, Lifetime license quotas, bonus and preference points, 50% rule, 1st-5th choices, etc.)! They earn their $3.01 alright!!


----------



## Kevin D (Sep 15, 2007)

Dukes_Daddy said:


> Effective but controversial ways to improve draw odds.
> 
> #1) Require 100% payment at the time of entry. Let the DWR hold the money for 90-120 days and then refund the credit card minus entry fee. Grandpa Bill, auntie Sue, cousin Fred, sister Nancy and my four kids wouldn't be in the draw next year. Tell me I'm unique in having everyone I know in the draw. Can't afford to have all apply if I have to pay upfront.
> 
> ...


#1- sounds like it's based on the inverted Robin Hood principle; i.e. steal tags from the poor to give to the rich. WTF??

#2- I can go along with.

#3- Is a legal can of worms.....that one ain't gonna happen. What are you gonna do with the Mennonites or Jehovah Witnesses that are religiously opposed to casting ballots??


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Kevin D said:


> #1- sounds like it's based on the inverted Robin Hood principle; i.e. steal tags from the poor to give to the rich. WTF??
> 
> #2- I can go along with.
> 
> #3- Is a legal can of worms.....that one ain't gonna happen. What are you gonna do with the Mennonites or Jehovah Witnesses that are religiously opposed to casting ballots??


Ditto, with military deployment added to #2.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Just curious how much you guys want to increase the odds? Is it BS that you dont draw with 16-17 bonus on really any unit, yes. But for those of you who have say, 11 points, when your time finally comes how many more hunters do you want on this hunt you have waited so long for?? 

I would be ok if they guarenteed the top 2 tiers to draw. IE if highest applicant had 17 points, both the group of 17 point applicants and 16 point recieved tags then the normal draw system became applicable. Given the availability of tags of course.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Dukes_Daddy said:


> Effective but controversial ways to improve draw odds.
> 
> #1) Require 100% payment at the time of entry. Let the DWR hold the money for 90-120 days and then refund the credit card minus entry fee. Grandpa Bill, auntie Sue, cousin Fred, sister Nancy and my four kids wouldn't be in the draw next year. Tell me I'm unique in having everyone I know in the draw. Can't afford to have all apply if I have to pay upfront.
> 
> ...


1) It was this way for a lot of years in Utah, Then it was determinded
doing this was aganst Utahs gambling/lottery laws ...
To do this (money up front) Utahs law would have to change ....
But, I'm ALL for it!

2) Turning tags back is some what of an issue, and changes have been
made there to aviod point banking----But I have used the 'surender'
proccess severval times over the last 12-15 years to my advantage.

3) Voting to apply for hunts?-- More red tape!----NO.


----------



## utaharcheryhunter (Jul 13, 2009)

swbuckmaster said:


> Sounds like a bunch of crap!
> 
> The division can't manage deer why would I want them managing my money
> 
> ...


Agreed!!^^^^


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

1. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. Ain't gonna happen again.

2. While I agree that the tags being turned in is a bunch of hogwash, the DWR just calls the next guy in line to see if he is willing to hunt an area that someone else has scouted but didn't find an animal that was big enough for him. It only changes the odds for the guy that takes the tag at the last minute.

3. As long as we're gonna require you to be registered to vote, let's require a current concealed weapons permit. Or how about an LDS Temple Recommend. If you ain't worthy to go to the temple, you ain't worthy to go huntin'. -


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

How about this...totally eliminate all LE hunts and open the entire state back up to hunting. Certainly, hunting pressure should be regulated to maximize herd health, but virtually closing huge tracks of prime hunting grounds to only allow a small number of hunters access does nothing except cause over crowding in the non limited areas, and limit overall opportunity. You guys have been duped by the guides and horn hounds. End the insane LE system NOW!


----------



## KineKilla (Jan 28, 2011)

goofy elk said:


> 1) It was this way for a lot of years in Utah, Then it was determinded
> doing this was aganst Utahs gambling/lottery laws ...
> To do this (money up front) Utahs law would have to change ....
> But, I'm ALL for it!
> ...


Is the current Sportsman's draw anything other than a legalized lottery? You buy a $10 ticket in the hopes that you will be the random winner...maybe it is legal because they are giving away hunting permits rather than cash prizes?


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

I also agree with the use it or lose it. Should be very few exceptions as a couple have stated.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

BPturkeys said:


> How about this...totally eliminate all LE hunts and open the entire state back up to hunting. Certainly, hunting pressure should be regulated to maximize herd health, but virtually closing huge tracks of prime hunting grounds to only allow a small number of hunters access does nothing except cause over crowding in the non limited areas, and limit overall opportunity. You guys have been duped by the guides and horn hounds. End the insane LE system NOW!


Good points. I hear hunters often justifying hunting as the best way to managing animal populations and the overall health of wild herds. While I personally agree with the concept, isn't stockpiling animals for large antlers and limited opportunity contrary to this justification?

To an extent, are we simply farming animals for sport? I can see how non-hunters could easily be turned off by this.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Turning in a tag cause your in a group and your using someone in that group to average higher in the draw is lame and that loop hole has been fixed. Unless they allow tags to transfer to youth. Then the abuse of the system will start back up.

Turning in a tag because you didn't find what your looking for doesn't hurt anyone and I bet its seldom ever used anyways. It dosent hurt your odds it actually helps your odds. You get one more chance at the tag. Besides if your not in the top pool your just in the lottery and you basically have the same odds as someone with zero points. 

So what's the big deal?

Everytime I read post about the utah draws it amazes me how little some people understand them. I'm not talking about the posters in this thread but an over all observation.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Good points. I hear hunters often justifying hunting as the best way to managing animal populations and the overall health of wild herds. While I personally agree with the concept, isn't stockpiling animals for large antlers and limited opportunity contrary to this justification?
> 
> To an extent, are we simply farming animals for sport? I can see how non-hunters could easily be turned off by this.


And what makes a LE hunt different than a high fence hunt?


----------



## bowhunt3r4l1f3 (Jan 12, 2011)

Huntoholic said:


> And what makes a LE hunt different than a high fence hunt?


Fence


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

bowhunt3r4l1f3 said:


> Fence


-BaHa!-

Seriously though... you guys pushing for the better odds, you guys have the chance at a guaranteed tag EVERY year. Just get your azz up to the convention auction and pony up the money. Cant afford to you say? Well STFU and welcome to the socialist non-rich working mans group.

-DallanC


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

DallanC said:


> -BaHa!-
> 
> Seriously though... you guys pushing for the better odds, you guys have the chance at a guaranteed tag EVERY year. Just get your azz up to the convention auction and pony up the money. Cant afford to you say? Well STFU and welcome to the socialist non-rich working mans group.
> 
> -DallanC


So, if I can't afford or choose not to outbid someone for an auction tag, I should forfeit my 1st amendment rights regarding that subject and my right to participate in the established process to change the current system?


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

swbuck:
I have seen known 5 or 6 people who have turned a tag back in just the last 2-3 years.
That is just in my little circle.
A friend of mine got a call just 2 weeks before the Lake Powell sheep hunt year before last to see if he wanted a tag turned back in. He only got to go over and look once before the hunt, and no chance to get into the kind of shape needed for a hunt like that.
He wanted me to go with, but at my age without a chance to get physically ready there was no way I was going to go. He went with his two boys in their 20's.
They worked their butts off and did not get into the sheep.
I would not have taken the tag myself. He did choose to take it I admit. But had very little chance to score. That is one of the toughest hunts there is.
I know another guy that drew the Henry's last year and "couldn't find anything big enough...." So he turned it back in.
I guess it's all in the perspective of the person.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

The reason they stopped having everyone pay up-front was not because of gambling or any issue along those lines. They stopped it because the Attorney General's Office counseled the UDWR that charging credit cards with no assurance of receiving the tag is not legal. Even though Colorado and Wyoming charge cards and then issue refunds the AG thought otherwise. They will not go back to a pay-up-front system because of this issue UNLESS they disallow the use of credit cards and go back to checks or debit cards- which would increase the cost to run the application service.

SW- I think you'd be surprised at how many people draw and then turn their tags back-in because of failure to find what they want. Someone drawing from the point pool who turns a permit in means they will draw the next year and can continually turn the tag in a get a point to keep drawing the tag. The alternate list are not given with preference to points so someone could draw the Books with 12 points, turn the tag back in and the alternate may only have 4 points, then the original guy has 13 and can draw the tag again the following year. The problem is that many alternates are called the same week the hunt starts, having no time to enjoy the permit. Also the high point levels are not cleared out as efficiently.

One way to curb point creep would be not allowing groups for hunts which take 5 points or more to draw.
You can curb point creep for deer by going to a one point system.
I don't see how you can curb point creep for the OIL permits, unless you go to a random draw--which tends to make sense because many OIL hunts have odds which take a lifetime + to draw.


----------



## Redman82 (Apr 12, 2012)

I finally drew out an archery Book Cliffs tag last year. My wife got sick. She required a bunch of different treatments and she is currently healthy. Our insurance plan had changed in March to a high deductible plan. We ended up with high medical bills. I decided to turn in my tag. I knew I wasn't going to be able to scout and I was limited on vacation time and hunting funds. Instead I helped her harvest her first buck. It was a small forked horn. But a trophy to me her and our kids who got to witness her take it. Was I wrong for turning in my tag? Should I lose all my points? and my money? What do you guys think is fair? I was very happy with the way the Utah DWR handled things.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Redman you are a example of when a tag should be able to be turned back in. But just because you have a tag and haven't been able to find that 400 pt bull elk or a 200 pt buck deer is no reason to turn the tag back in so that you can draw it again next year. It is legal to do it but not a good enough reason. 

I also think that if you drew as a group then you have to either turn all the tags back in as a group or eat it.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

A draw is gambling/lottery no matter how much money is put up front. Paying full fee up front only works the first year. After the sticker shock wears off, people just start to save for next year. Then, you pay out a lot of money first only to realize the same draw odds. 

They did this in NM last season. Everything used be just app fees. Then they implementented the pay up front and app #'s did fall. This season, apps increased by 35,000ish and odds are back to what they were.

The two ways to increase odds are 1) increase tag #'s - which isn't feasible and 2) decrease #of apps - how who knows.


----------



## papaderf (Aug 24, 2013)

well as for the topic at the rate were going the top point holders will only be hunting LE units our kids will not even have a chance unless we reevaluate the calendar and create new hunts so it breaks the odds down. Example 3 tags in the deer rut for 5 days on the le units or whatever but them hunters put in for a hunt they prefer increase the normal draw. Figure the same for other species that would work on new hunts. A le hunt is a special hunt not to trophy out but hell ya its nice to see these trophy animals and have a chance at it without buying a tag . Some people can't afford to put up money like some so quit trying to make it a rich man working man squabble. I do everything possible to get my kid and grandkids out. Yes dwr are a bunch of selfish idiots but if you can remember when we didn't see a big bull now it has to be 400. NEW HUNTS


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

papaderf said:


> well as for the topic at the rate were going the top point holders will only be hunting LE units our kids will not even have a chance unless we reevaluate the calendar and create new hunts so it breaks the odds down. Example 3 tags in the deer rut for 5 days on the le units or whatever but them hunters put in for a hunt they prefer increase the normal draw. Figure the same for other species that would work on new hunts. A le hunt is a special hunt not to trophy out but hell ya its nice to see these trophy animals and have a chance at it without buying a tag . Some people can't afford to put up money like some so quit trying to make it a rich man working man squabble. I do everything possible to get my kid and grandkids out. Yes dwr are a bunch of selfish idiots but if you can remember when we didn't see a big bull now it has to be 400. NEW HUNTS


OMG! Really...more LE hunts...Don't you guys see that it is the LE hunt system that IS the problem...now you want more of the state closed to hunting except for a very few lucky people/guys that live long enough or...and don't think for a minute that the rich aren't just buying those tags...be rich enough to just buy hundreds and hundreds of raffle tickets at the conventions and "win" a tag. END ALL THE LE SYSTEM NOW and give hunting back to the people.


----------



## papaderf (Aug 24, 2013)

I said the units that already le units! Because your right .landowners cwmu auction tags etc... Sooner or later they will probably be given to the highest bidder. But same amounts of tags just break the calendar to create some new hunts until heads are pulled out of the -O\\__-


----------



## chipp (Nov 20, 2009)

The people that are saying no to putting money up front I would say are the people that are putting there kids, grandmas, grandpas, aunts, and uncles into the draw. When you out in that 10$ application fee you are gambling and saying you can and will pay the permit fee so what is the problem with just paying first? That would help the draw odds more than anything. I myself put me, my girlfriend, and son in for hunts. Yes it would cost me out of pocket almost 900$ to put in but more than likely get it back. For those that put everyone they know in just so they can get one tag would cost then say 3,000$ instead of 100$. You tell me what would make it a better chance to draw a tag?


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

I've been looking into applying for New Mexico next year & I'm growing to like how they have set up their hunt dates. Utah currently runs 9 day hunts or longer... I think that Utah could really benefit by splitting these long seasons. 

For example take the LE deer (all units except AI)... since 2006 the average days hunted for archery is 7.6 days, muzzleloader is 4.5 days, and rifle is 4.1 days. Statistically a majority of hunters are done with their hunts before it is even half over! Do we really need hunts that last this long? You could split the archery into three 10 day or two 15 day hunts, the muzzleloader into two 5 day hunts, and the rifle into two 5 day hunts. That would give the applicant a choice between 6 or 7 hunts within a unit compared to the current 3.

Since you cannot increase the number of tags, and you cannot reduce the number of applicants... you could increase the number of options available for hunt dates. It wouldn't change the total number of tags or the total number of applicants, but it would change the distribution as guys choose between the 1st/2nd/3rd seasons of each weapon (also similar to Colorado as well, no? I haven't looked into applying there yet).

The odds are what they are and we'll not be able to change those until the number of tags are increased or the number of applicants are decreased... but we can change the distribution of applicants by providing more options. The "opportunity" guys get theirs because there are now more hunts to choose from (you could call it a false sense of choice), but the "trophy & solitude" guys get theirs too by there being less people out in each season.

Just thinking out loud.


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

chipp said:


> The people that are saying no to putting money up front I would say are the people that are putting there kids, grandmas, grandpas, aunts, and uncles into the draw. When you out in that 10$ application fee you are gambling and saying you can and will pay the permit fee so what is the problem with just paying first? That would help the draw odds more than anything. I myself put me, my girlfriend, and son in for hunts. Yes it would cost me out of pocket almost 900$ to put in but more than likely get it back. For those that put everyone they know in just so they can get one tag would cost then say 3,000$ instead of 100$. You tell me what would make it a better chance to draw a tag?


I put in for me... alone... all by myself. If I go in with a group for the general deer hunt everyone pays me back immediately. I don't like the idea of paying up front... there's something about paying money & having interest build on a credit card for a purchase that I don't even know will come to pass. This is what really turns my stomach about applying in New Mexico, but I'm going to do it to hunt with a friend that moved down there a couple years back... but I don't like it.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Now you have gone and done it. Not only did you mention the Colorado word buy you also suggested that the archery hunters have a shorter season. 

Two forbidden subjects in the same post. :shock:


----------



## papaderf (Aug 24, 2013)

Exactly 1999 . Hey rich guys wanna lend me 600$ I'll give it back after the draw when dwr pays me back,some of you are so young you can't remember when they did that already and drew interest on our money. Their is abuse on everything in life ,but I put my dad in because he didn't understand how times have changed in applying and didn't harvest due to having a minor heart attack up in the hunt but tells me thanks for a hunt he will never forget ever. So¿


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Ok. You don't want to wait 10 years for a bull elk? Guess what? There are several units that have 3-4 year point pools. Don't want to take your whole life to get a OIL tag? Well, the cow bison on the Henry's late season hunt was BP guaranteed for 2/3 people with 8 points this year, my brother will be the top point holder next year with 9 (assuming no switchover, but still 9-10 years for a wild bison? not too bad). Mt goat you say? there as nanny tags that you can get in under 7 years! There are deer units that don't take 20 years to draw.

The list goes on! You want more opportunity? it is there, just don't think you can get the biggest trophy! We don't need to rehaul the system, if you don't want to wait forever you can still have a great trophy hunt, just alter your expectations. If you want a chance at that 400" bull then suck it up because you will have to put in your dues. 

News flash, you cannot have your cake and eat it too.


----------



## Dukes_Daddy (Nov 14, 2008)

Wow that was interesting.

I still support pay up front and don't accept the money issue for 99% of hunters. Obviously in your mind you have the money budgeted somehow if you draw. $10 is easy. $400 makes you think and would eliminate "hey I'll put everyone in" BS. Jazz Games, smokes, beer, trucks, guns, new camo, etc, etc. The money is there for 99% but the will is weak.

Turn back of tags is wrong and abused. One post noted his wife. Yep he gets a pass and god bless him. I heard last week someone got a call for a buf tag. Really it's November. Tell me that wasn't someone who wimped out and will jump in again last year. I want legit chance at drawing in April and time to prepare. If you can't get your **** together oh well. Enjoy football.

Agreed the voting thing won't work. How about we add a clause to allow vets with foreign active service to earn double points. I'm not a vet but would gladly allow those who served to go to the front of the line. Sorry but I don't see national guard quartermasters who never deployed as anything but a part time job. 

Let the chatter begin!!!


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

It is funny how people get on here, bash the system and dwr, but want to impliment systems that took them 3 minutes to think up while at their computer? Like the people at the dwr aren't legitimately trying to do what they believe helps the system?

Why eliminate the LE hunts? So we have more opportunity? At what? A nice 2 point? Mark my words, it would take all but 2 years to destroy the LE habitat. Then bonus points are lost, preference points are all that matter. So for the first few years I would put in my children, who honestly are not ready to shoot a trophy, in on those hunts because we better get while the gettin is good.

LE hunts ARE opportunity. They are the opportunity to see/hunt animals that some people have only seen on tv shows. As a kid, you wanted to be a fireman. As a hunter, your fantasy is that once in a lifetime hunt. System isnt perfect, but most of us will get that fantasy fullfilled! Problem comes in that people want that Fantasy every year. Not how it works, would ruin the system. Think of your grandchildren! Its like saying we should have late season elk hunts at hardware ranch.

As for money up front, look at the government today. Give an entity a bunch of money that isnt theirs and see how they budget it! Too much room for error with refunds and such. You pay a ten dollar fee for the opportunity, dont be greedy now!

As for returns, the more we change the system the more opportunity for error. Just remember that. Not sayin its perfect, but it isnt the biggest flaw. I can deal with it.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

RandomElk16 said:


> It is funny how people get on here, bash the system and dwr, but want to impliment systems that took them 3 minutes to think up while at their computer? Like the people at the dwr aren't legitimately trying to do what they believe helps the system?
> 
> Why eliminate the LE hunts? So we have more opportunity? At what? A nice 2 point? Mark my words, it would take all but 2 years to destroy the LE habitat. Then bonus points are lost, preference points are all that matter. So for the first few years I would put in my children, who honestly are not ready to shoot a trophy, in on those hunts because we better get while the gettin is good.
> 
> ...


Actually these are topics that have been discussed for years. On this forum, at coffee shops, Sportsman Warehouse, in the field, at RAC meetings. You name it. Just because you may have only thought about it for 3 minutes doesn't mean the rest of have.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Actually these are topics that have been discussed for years. On this forum, at coffee shops, Sportsman Warehouse, in the field, at RAC meetings. You name it. Just because you may have only thought about it for 3 minutes doesn't mean the rest of have.


Oh sorry. New on the forum, dont drink coffee, shop while at sportsmens warehouse, hunt in the field, haven't heard it at the RAC(havent made many). I have thought about it more than three minutes because the threads been going a few days 

Now that you addressed the part of my post thats least significant, I would love to hear your response to the parts that would contibute further to the discussion.

Oh and voter requirements have been discussed? Clearly my post was directed towards those that weren't aware it use to be an upfront system, and really did think of these things on a whim. Topic isnt new, but some of the people discussing are new to the topic. So my statement was valid, but so was your response.


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

Dukes_Daddy said:


> I still support pay up front and don't accept the money issue for 99% of hunters. Obviously in your mind you have the money budgeted somehow if you draw. $10 is easy. $400 makes you think and would eliminate "hey I'll put everyone in" BS. Jazz Games, smokes, beer, trucks, guns, new camo, etc, etc. The money is there for 99% but the will is weak.


Utah currently _recommends_ that you submit your application with a credit card. The heartburn that I have is not the $400 or $3000 up front... it's the interest that will accrue on that amount over the course of the three months from application to drawing. Unless the DWR would commit to refunding me the tag price PLUS the interest accrued over the three months I'm opposed.



Critter said:


> Now you have gone and done it. Not only did you mention the Colorado word buy you also suggested that the archery hunters have a shorter season.
> 
> Two forbidden subjects in the same post. :shock:


Apparently. Which underprivileged group should I apologize to first? People from Colorado or bow hunters?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Dukes_Daddy said:


> Effective but controversial ways to improve draw odds.
> 
> #1) Require 100% payment at the time of entry. Let the DWR hold the money for 90-120 days and then refund the credit card minus entry fee. Grandpa Bill, auntie Sue, cousin Fred, sister Nancy and my four kids wouldn't be in the draw next year. Tell me I'm unique in having everyone I know in the draw. Can't afford to have all apply if I have to pay upfront.
> 
> ...


#1 I favor having to pay up front. Always have. Always will.

#2 I am indifferent to turning tags back in. People that are doing now still have to pay for the tag and I have seen the system tested more than once. The DWR does not refund the money an overwhelming majority of the time. I have no problem with it other than I do not like a judgement call being in the hands of others. Right now if your next door neighbor is a doctor and owes you favor he could easily sign a paper saying that you are physically unable to hunt and you get your money back. I do not like the idea of giving some the opportunity to turn it in (regardless of the situation) while others could not. I am either all in or all out on this one...............Actually, when the rubber meets the road, I am all in on this. Use it or lose it but you lose your points and your money and it applies to everybody regardless of the situation.

#3 Being registered to vote does not mean a person will vote and voting in of itself does not make it an informed vote. I see no reason to mix one with the other and don't like this idea at all. We have enough idiots that vote already IMO. That is another self evident truth.


----------



## Charina (Aug 16, 2011)

The three ways to increase odds are as follows. All others are tangential or derivatives of these three root methods.

A) Increase the number of target species.
B) Reduce the number of applicants/hunters.
C) Do away with current objectives.

My thoughts on each, in reverse order:

C) The LE units are just one of several objectives modalities set up across the state. While I personally don't like the mentality of many of the porn hunters (oops, I mean horn hunters - oh well, they seem to me to be rooted in the same mentality), there should be a variety of opportunities to be pursued. To each their own, and many prefer infrequent grand opportunities to frequent opportunity. I don't think that the few limited entry areas in the state really have that significant of an impact on the ability of the masses to hunt more frequently. I suspect that even if the areas were opened to general season, there still would be a drawing for general season tags, and the effect on average wait periods would be negligible. Even though I don't have a desire to apply for an elite unit, I don't particularly want them to go away either - all for a negligible gain in opportunity (other than the grand rush to get in there the first few years until the quality of the unit is no different than other general season units).

B) Alternatively the demand for tags could be reduced. Get used to demand outstripping supply. It is happening with energy (gas prices), food, commodities, and wildlife. It is only going to get worse. Perhaps you can all hope for a pandemic. I honestly don't see how forcing upfront cost of the tags does anything in the long-term. Perhaps many of you game the system in ways I haven't even considered, so I'm just ignorant of how it works. But when I put my step-daughters in for a hunt, it is because I want to give them an opportunity to hunt - and fronting the cost won't change that even if I have to borrow to do it. Perhaps you all are referring to getting tags for party-hunting - which is already illegal. (therefore, enforcement is the issue, not taking away opportunities for kids from less-well-to-do families) Also, I'm not understanding the claims of the group application gaming. A person in a group cannot surrender it except under very limited circumstances (military, injury, death), and the surrendering person does not get their bonus or preference points back unless the entire group surrenders the permits. 

A) Increase the supply by increasing the species' populations. Its surprising how many proposed 'solutions' ignore this, and only a few people have pointed it out. 

Although it would never fly, I would prefer to see hunting licenses to require basic competence similar to a driving license. Too stupid or too unethical? Then you shouldn't have a gun in your hand for hunting any more than you should be behind the wheel. How about that as one method to trim the demand! Ha ha


Edit: My thoughts in relation to C) were primarily towards Deer. Elk would be a different situation if the LE units were done away with. Still the supply/demand situation would exist, and quality would go down. I'm fine with hunting trophy elk every few years, as there is nothing preventing me from chasing spikes or any-bull anywhere else.


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

Charina said:


> Although it would never fly, I would prefer to see hunting licenses to require basic competence similar to a driving license. Too stupid or too unethical? Then you shouldn't have a gun in your hand for hunting any more than you should be behind the wheel. How about that as one method to trim the demand! Ha ha


Already done... it's that little blue card you get upon completion & passing of Hunter's Safety.


----------



## silentstalker (Feb 19, 2008)

I am completely against the pay up front method of draw. 

I am in favor of allowing tags to be returned. It does not hurt anyone. A tag still gets used by someone who receives the call and agrees to accept it. They get a great hunt and a hunter gets removed from the application pool.

IMO Utah has a very frustrating system due to many things. Changing the game after it starts is not cool and no matter what you do at this point will screw over someone.

One last thing, just because I have 17 points for moose does not entitle me to a moose over a brand new 14 year old hunter. The wildlife is a public resource that is owned by all. 

If you want better odds pick up a primitive weapon and go hunt! I have drawn 3 LE elk tags and a LE deer. All successful hunts with primitive weapons. The hunts were much more difficult but worthwhile. Its a trade off. If your applying for tough to draw units for any weapon tags you have made your decision to wait a long time to hunt.


----------



## Charina (Aug 16, 2011)

derekp1999 said:


> Already done... it's that little blue card you get upon completion & passing of Hunter's Safety.


That is a joke. It is just a "hoop" to jump through, that even my dog could complete. Been through it three times with the kids. The H/S course and test is not what I am envisioning.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Charina said:


> The three ways to increase odds are as follows. All others are tangential or derivatives of these three root methods.
> 
> A) Increase the number of target species.
> B) Reduce the number of applicants/hunters.
> ...


I think you're right on with A) & C). Those are things that are acceptable and doable, IMO.

And B) as you propose is also a good idea, but I'd hate to see it go beyond that, ie; further regulations designed or intended or even unintended to weed/ease out hunters from the pools. We've already seen several of those, but others have been or are being proposed and/or are being discussed. If further regulations are biologically based and will help with A), I'd be all for it, but any further regulations that are socially based would/will trigger a fight response from this household.


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

Charina said:


> That is a joke. It is just a "hoop" to jump through, that even my dog could complete. Been through it three times with the kids. The H/S course and test is not what I am envisioning.


And a competency course/test would just be another "hoop."
Basically, all we're talking about is adding so many "hoops" and so much "red tape" that it will be such a hassle that nobody will want to do it. That would accomplish your bullet point B though.


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

I have a question. How do we keep convicted felons from applying for LE or any other permits? I'm sure a lot of these guys just check the little box on the application that states they are legal to hunt. They are not supposed to be in posession of a firearm, so no need for them to be applying for permits. Right?


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Fowlmouth said:


> I have a question. How do we keep convicted felons from applying for LE or any other permits? I'm sure a lot of these guys just check the little box on the application that states they are legal to hunt. They are not supposed to be in posession of a firearm, so no need for them to be applying for permits. Right?


Or Per Utah Code 76-10-503;

Parolees
Illegal Aliens
Unlawful users of a controled substance
Found not guilty of a felony by reason of insanity
Been commited to a mental institution
Dishonorably discharged veterans
Renounced US citizenship ; among others

That should thin the ranks, don't you think?


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

elkfromabove said:


> Or Per Utah Code 76-10-503;
> 
> Parolees
> Illegal Aliens
> ...


Ha ha! yep, all those people too. That should thin it out a little.


----------



## fastcamo (Aug 27, 2012)

Critter said:


> Redman you are a example of when a tag should be able to be turned back in. But just because you have a tag and haven't been able to find that 400 pt bull elk or a 200 pt buck deer is no reason to turn the tag back in so that you can draw it again next year. It is legal to do it but not a good enough reason.
> 
> I also think that if you drew as a group then you have to either turn all the tags back in as a group or eat it.


Whoa whoa whoa, am I understanding this correctly? i haven't even read half way through this thread and what I'm comprehending is, I draw my LE tag and if I cant find anything big enough to take I just call DWR board and tell them and they take my tag back and I get to try again next year?-- if so that is the craziest thing I've ever heard.

I kind of wish they would throw age into the mix, like my dad and other older family members- archery hunters, but now its too physically demanding, move to the rifle and the odds decrease, I'm kind of afraid he or they will never draw.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

fastcamo said:


> Whoa whoa whoa, am I understanding this correctly? i haven't even read half way through this thread and what I'm comprehending is, I draw my LE tag and if I cant find anything big enough to take I just call DWR board and tell them and they take my tag back and I get to try again next year?-- if so that is the craziest thing I've ever heard.


Yup, yup, yup, you are understanding this correctly!

Per R657-42-4 *Surrenders.:*
(1) Any person who has obtained a wildlife document and decides not to use it may surrender the wildlife document to any division office.
(2) Any person who has obtained a wildlife document may surrender the wildlife document prior to the season opening date of the wildlife document for the purpose of:
(a) waiving the waiting period normally accessed and reinstating the number of bonus points, including a bonus point for the current year as if a permit had not been drawn, if applicable;
(b) reinstating the number of preference points, including a preference point for the current year as if a permit had not been drawn, if applicable; or
(c) receiving a refund as provided in R657-42-5.

In other words, no excuse need be given except if you want your refund! And if you happen to be at the max number of points, you're pretty much assured to get one every year until you do find MR. BIG because there's no limit to the number of times you can do it! In fact, if he lives on private property, you can raise him up yourself with food plots and suppliments until he's big enough!


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Another way to improve the odds, (or, at least keep them where they are) is to NOT pass the proposed mentor hunter program. For all it's current recognizable benefits to youth, the bad news is that 15 years down the road the point creep will become two lifetimes. For now, the kid is the only one able to apply for "his/her" tag, but with this program, dad, mom and 4 grandparents can also apply for "his/her" tag. That's the bad news. The good news is you won't have me in the pool.

Edited; I'm 72 with an irregular heart beat issue and only 13 points for moose. I might get lucky and draw but whether that happens or not, in 15 years I'll be done hunting one way or another. In other words, this proposal doesn't affect my odds much, but many of you, along with your kids, will likely rue the day you helped pass this proposal. Enough said, I don't want to hijack this thread. If you want to discuss this further, start another one.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

elkfromabove said:


> Another way to improve the odds, (or, at least keep them where they are) is to NOT pass the proposed mentor hunter program. For all it's current recognizable benefits to youth, the bad news is that 15 years down the road the point creep will become two lifetimes. For now, the kid is the only one able to apply for "his/her" tag, but with this program, dad, mom and 4 grandparents can also apply for "his/her" tag. That's the bad news. The good news is you won't have me in the pool.


I have done the math and where I sit in the point pool and am strongly thinking of dropping out of all the draws in Utah. Either that or wait until I am 75+ to draw. My problem is that I have quite a few points for a couple of draws but unless quite a few above me drop out then I have a very slim to no chance at drawing.


----------



## oldTimer (Jul 12, 2013)

It seems like there is a new thread every week or so suggesting ways to increase the odds of drawing a permit. The answer is obvious and simple to anyone who has taken a entry level economics course...

RAISE THE COST!

We DO NOT have to open things up to the highest bidder. 

I would be willing to guess that simply raising the non-refundable application fee to $200-$300 would solve the problem. Everyone who really wants to hunt will save and sacrifice to apply and all the people putting in for their wife, mother, father, aunts, uncles, in-laws, friends, neighbors, etc. etc. etc. would drop out and the people who REALLY want to hunt will be able to... 

Yes it is that simple! I'm begging you people, PLEASE, go to school and take economics 101.


----------



## papaderf (Aug 24, 2013)

WOW. Box of rocks for being smart and rich your probably sti the bed but were in Utah... . You do 101 average 5 kids and now these kids can't hunt because we need to raise the fee for a certain group of selfish people that worry about yourselves, its not even about rich or economics but take a kid or watch a kid hunt. Or better yet tell him he or she can't hunt because a group of people wanted their money up front. Go to oz and get a heart. Remember were hunters if I you were out there hurting I would help you. Stay on improving odds not crying about who is ?


----------



## oldTimer (Jul 12, 2013)

papaderf said:


> WOW. Box of rocks for being smart and rich your probably still pissn the bed but were in Utah m-n m. Mormons n Mexicans . You do 101 average 5 kids and now these kids can't hunt because we need to raise the fee for a certain group of selfish people that worry about yourselves, its not even about rich or economics but take a kid or watch a kid hunt. Or better yet tell him he or she can't hunt because a group of people wanted their money up front. Go to oz and get a gotdamn heart. Remember were hunters if I you were out there hurting I would help you. Stay on improving odds not crying about who is ?


Your post is illegible but I think what you are trying to say is that everyone is entitled, especially children, to whatever they want. Everyone, especially children, should get WIC, Food Stamps, Farm subsidies, health care, etc. etc. etc. Anyone who disagrees is heartless. Did I interpret what you were trying to say correctly?


----------



## papaderf (Aug 24, 2013)

you must be impotent person . To talk about kids and people. I like this forum too much to worry about you so keep it smart man.


----------



## oldTimer (Jul 12, 2013)

"The *problem with socialism* is that *eventually you* run out of other people's money" - Margaret Thatcher

"The problem with Utah's socialist draw system is that you eventually run out of opportunities to hunt"

I wish that the sate of Utah would sell brand new F150's for $10. I would by one for each of my children and derive infinite joy watching them 4-wheelin in our beautiful mountains.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

oldTimer said:


> It seems like there is a new thread every week or so suggesting ways to increase the odds of drawing a permit. The answer is obvious and simple to anyone who has taken a entry level economics course...
> 
> RAISE THE COST!
> 
> ...


Why so cheap? Let's raise it to $5,000 and the people who REALLY, REALLY, REALLY want to hunt will be able to since everyone who applies will draw a tag. After all, it's just a matter of having the right priorities!


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

oldTimer said:


> "The *problem with socialism* is that *eventually you* run out of other people's money" - Margaret Thatcher


Actually, the DWR is a self-sustaining government agency, the only one in Utah that I'm aware of, and the vast majority of the DWR's budget comes from hunters and fishermen, so it's not other people's money. It's our own. Those who are sponging off the system are the non-hunting/fishing general public who enjoy watching wildlife but buy no licenses or permits or hunting or fishing equipment. Only a very small portion of their Utah State taxes pays for wildlife, and the non-hunting/non-fishing non-residents pay nothing.



> "The problem with Utah's socialist draw system is that you eventually run out of opportunities to hunt"


It's true that there's a greater demand than a supply, but the system which we participate in does (or should be able to) close the gap to an acceptable degree by increasing the supply using our money for habitat improvements, transplants, highway crossings, fences, predator control, etc. and by managing the hunts for greater opportunity via the incentives to use primitive weapons, doe/cow hunts, keeping hunts out of the rut, spreading out the hunts, opening up private lands via walk-in access areas, etc.
But trying to close the gap by purposefully reducing the demand by weeding out hunters according to a government established income level and/or a degree of interest in the sport is socialism at it's finest!



> I wish that the State of Utah would sell brand new F150's for $10. I would buy one for each of my children and derive infinite joy watching them 4-wheeling in our beautiful mountains.


Apples to oranges! The State of Utah isn't authorized to sell brand new F150's at any price, let alone for $10. We believe it's not in our best interest and, since we have something to say about it per our political and legal system, we haven't allowed it.
But, per that same political and legal system, we have authorized them to manage our wildlife and, since we have something to say about it, we are able to influence the way they manage our wildlife according to our interests. This thread and many of the others is nothing more than us just trying to determine what those interests should be.


----------



## Kevin D (Sep 15, 2007)

oldTimer said:


> It seems like there is a new thread every week or so suggesting ways to increase the odds of drawing a permit. The answer is obvious and simple to anyone who has taken a entry level economics course...
> 
> RAISE THE COST!
> 
> ...


Economics 201 discusses regressive tax structures.....i.e. taxes that take a higher percentage of poor peoples income than rich peoples. Remember also from your econ classes that license fees are a voluntary user tax. 
Since wildlife in Utah is not owned by private enterprise but is owned equally by all the citizens of the state (refer to the Utah and U.S. Constitution) and administered in trust by the DWR, what you are proposing is that we raise taxes to the point that only the rich can afford to enjoy the benefits of a publically held trust. As I mentioned in an earlier post, this the inverted Robin Hood principle at it's finest.....*stealing from the poor to give to the rich! *(though clearly this would be a preferred option of Don Peay and his band of merry men.)

Sometimes a class in political science 101 adds to our understanding of the issue.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Old timer, you are not suggesting an increase in the tag price, but the actual application price? From $10 to $200 for a 2,000% increase? Non-refundable so only the die hard hunters are willing to gamble $200 and if they don't draw oh well? Wow.

You may have taken economics 101 but you must have skipped common sense 101.


----------



## hunting777 (May 3, 2009)

I really would like to put my two cents in on this one. First thing, with requiring the money up front. I am *fine* with that, only if you put the application time back a few months. As with me and I'm pretty sure many others out there. January and February are tough months financially. Most people are trying to recovery from Christmas. Plus the economy is struggling at that time. For me between me and my kids it would be tough to come up with 1000 bucks at that time. I like now that they don't take the money out till later in the year. By that time you should have your taxes back by then. I don't mean to tell you my sob story. But I know several good families that are in the same situation. 
Yes with what is being said, this will keep many people from putting in because of this. This will increase your odds. But hunting is a big part of my life. Hunting is already becoming a *rich man* sport. This would make just that much more harder form the *common* man to be able to hunt. 

With the turning in tags I agree, if you have a medical problem or an emergency go right ahead and turn them in. If you can't find your trophy animal, sorry your just out of luck. 

With the Voting thing, like said I think you are opening a can of political worms.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

It is funny that not that many years ago they required the money up front and it was in January that they wanted it. It didn't keep the majority of hunters from putting in for the hunts then. 

What it would stop is all the extra applications on a what if basis.


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

We cannot change the number of tags and we cannot change the number of animals available to hunt (at least not anytime soon it seems).

Therefore, the only option that we have to improve drawing odds is to place an additional "burden" on the applicant. This additional burden can take many different forms, some that have been mentioned in this thread alone (and don't assume that this is comprehensive, surely there are many more ways to burden the applicant):

increase application fee (financial burden)
require up front payment of tag (also financial burden)
increase tag fees (again... financial burden)
require re-certification or competency (burden of proof [of competency])
voter registration (burden of proof [of registration])
splitting seasons to creater more options (burden of choice)
You'll have to dramatically affect one or two (if not both) of the things that we hold most dear... our time and/or our money. It boils to making it more expensive or more difficult to apply.

I had read the rules about surrendering a permit but I guess I have just been naive and didn't think that abuse of that provision was as prevalent as many on this forum indicate. I would support allowing the surrender of a tag only under very specific conditions (health, military, etc.) and on a case by case basis. Simply not finding an animal that you would be satisfied harvesting does not seem justifiable in my mind and seems irresponsible. It also robs the subsequent holder of that tag of one of the greatest things a hunter can ever experience... the email that says "*SUCCESSFUL*."


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

After 7 pages of debate you now understand why I support
Going to a straight luck of the draw. 

End bonus points and waiting periods.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

provider said:


> I do like the use it or lose it idea. I think there has been a lot of abuse on that one.
> 
> Here is a better formula to improve the odds: A. Figure out why there are fewer does and why the population is not replenishing its loses (i.e. cougars) B. Fix the problem (instead of all the hunter restriction side shows.) C. Increase tags as a response to increased deer numbers.


This is on the right track. Currently deer are increasing, and have been increasing, so yes, understand why. Predators are not the limiting factor, nor have they been. Quit wasting money here, and put more into better understanding the science that is driving wildlife declines.

Add this to what BPTurkeys said, with some discussion about why, and you get at the heart of this.

Anyone that wants to understand this bigger picture, please read Joe Hutto's "The light in high places". In 1980 there were 80 tags to hunt Whiskey Mountain bighorn sheep in Wyoming's Wind River range. That number has been as low as 1 tag. Wyoming charges cards up front, what creates better odds, the supply or the demand side?


----------



## oldTimer (Jul 12, 2013)

elkfromabove said:


> Actually, the DWR is a self-sustaining government agency, the only one in Utah that I'm aware of, and the vast majority of the DWR's budget comes from hunters and fishermen, so it's not other people's money. It's our own. Those who are sponging off the system are the non-hunting/fishing general public who enjoy watching wildlife but buy no licenses or permits or hunting or fishing equipment. Only a very small portion of their Utah State taxes pays for wildlife, and the non-hunting/non-fishing non-residents pay nothing.


Absolutely false!

The UDWR receives money from both the Utah General Fund and the Federal government. An example of a Utah government agency that is not only self-sustaining but makes millions of dollars is the Utah Sate Trust Lands. That is because instead of selling our oil, coal, and gas (which belong to the people of Utah just like wildlife) to a lucky lottery winner for $10 they attempt to get a fair and honest price.

I am not rich and I would love to hunt for free, I would also like free food, shelter, clothing, health care, etc. but I realize that having the government provide everything for free is unsustainable.

Our current socialist drawing system is unsuitable. As I said in an earlier post: "The problem with Utah's socialist draw system is that you eventually run out of opportunities to hunt". This is already the case for OIL tags and is fast becoming the case for all other tags.

We DO NOT have to have a highest bidder system. Raising the price to a reasonable level would significantly help or resolve the issue.

Please answer this question: A deer tag is $40 and an elk tag is $50. Do you honestly believe that it is morally right and in the best interest of the wildlife of this state to cell a deer or elk tag for less than it cost for a tank of gas?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Socialism would be a system in which everyone gets a tag regardless. Under the public trust system that holds our wildlife for us, there must be an egalitarian system of equal access. A highest bidder system, does not provide for equal access, and while plutocratic arguments certainly contrast with those of socialism, they are no where nearer to the NAMWC, or American ideals, than socialism. Oil and gas are held in trust, for the peoples benefit, as is timber. The benefits to the people play out different, as does the mechanism for holding them in trust. There is still an equal access mechanism for oil and gas bidding. These differences in resource trust, have the same historical roots. Oil, gas, and timber go to the highest bidder, because that is supposed to be to the best benefit of the owner of said trust, we the people. And I can still, as an individual go cut timber. Selling all wildlife to the highest bidder, is not to the benefit, of the resource owner, we the people, and more specifically, we as hunters. Wildlife pays its own way, as do hunters. No one is getting a free ride.


----------



## DarKHorN (Mar 4, 2012)

8 pages of life I'll never get back sheesh.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

We have moved further and further to a highest bidder system in the last 30 years. Mostly under the guise of benefitting the owners of wildlife, we the people. The argument is that these increased revenues will benefit wildlife, and therefor they will benefit all owners, rich and poor. Yet in the last 30 years it has not been demonstrated that such highest bid systems benefit anyone but the highest bidder, and those with their fingers in the business of providing those tags to bidders.

Maybe if it could be demonstrated, that there is a benefit to the owners of wildlife, wildlife itself, and to hunter as a whole, that a highest bid system is beneficial, then maybe there would an argument. But currently, it is just a group of people, inaccurately calling the majority of hunters socialists, while pushing to further change the system to one of privilege over right, while proclaiming the opposite.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Everyone seems to want to improve the odds…. For themselves, while throwing everyone else under the bus.


----------



## Dukes_Daddy (Nov 14, 2008)

papaderf said:


> you must be impotent person . To talk about kids and people. I like this forum too much to worry about you so keep it smart man.


What are you trying to say?


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Lots of wise people commenting. 
Still y'all miss the darn forest for the trees. 

Look at the fiasco waiting in line creates. 
The Division can't increase permits where
Or when needed because hunters complain
About crowds and my favorite, quality being
Shot out. 

Now we are to the point that I've been preaching
For years, take your kids with you when you draw
Cause mathematically there is very little chance of
Them getting a chance. 

We don't need more 7 year old elk units, we need
More 5 year old age units with liberal tag allocations. 
We need to reclaim many of these units for any bull units. 
We need most of all to end the pyramid scheme
Peay sold us years ago it ain't helping hunters and
Sooner rather than later it will eat itself as far as 
Wildlife is concerned too.


----------



## Badger (Aug 27, 2013)

im·po·tent
ˈimpətnt/
adjective
1.
unable to take effective action; helpless or powerless
2.
(of a man) abnormally unable to achieve a sexual erection.
(of a male animal) unable to copulate.

I will leave it at that. You may want papaderf to expand.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

GBell said:


> Lots of wise people commenting.
> Still y'all miss the darn forest for the trees.
> 
> Look at the fiasco waiting in line creates.
> ...


Well said. I focus on science and the supply side of things, because they are at the root of the problem when it comes to deer and sheep, which tends to be my focus. Elk: yep, classic example of the flip side of the deer situation. With deer, we have had low numbers, so reducing opportunity and limiting peoples ability to hunt, has come under different terms, with different terminology. With elk, the resource is not so nearly limited, so those that be, limit hunting and opportunity under a different set of terms, with different terminology. It does not appear so clear to most watching and participating. I have said it for a long time, the current system thrives on reduced animals, and where that does not occur, reduced opportunity.

If we don't shift the paradigm back towards the NAMWC, with science driving management, then yeah, like you said, it will be our downfall. There is no incentive for science based management, that grows wildlife. The system is stacked the other way. It is by design, and inception, one of limiting hunters as a whole, while elevating the few, with no results or benefit, to justify such preference.

"Quality": This has no place in wildlife management. What makes any ones _feelings_ about the size of horns matter? In California in 1990, the people _felt_ that mountain lions should not be hunted. So they had a ballot initiative put up, and voted out lion hunting. This had no basis in science, or what was good for wildlife or hunters, it was how people _felt_ about the situation. "Quality" arguments are no different, and weighing them with precedent, is just asking for more trouble down the road. I wonder how PETA _feels_ about the quality of elk. Never know, they may agree with you, they may like lots of big 8+ year old elk running around too. They just may _feel_ that hunting them is wrong. And hey, if our _feelings_ on the matter hold weight, why would theirs not?


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

GBell,

I can attest to the "too crowded" being successfully used as an argument. I went to the Southern Utah RAC last spring. That was an argument specifically given by a member on the panel for the Panguitch unit. He said there was more pressure in 2012 than in the "old days". He said he didn't feel safe. Even though numbers and buck to doe ratios were increasing, the RAC suggested holding those numbers. There were not enough general hunters to note that it is not acceptable and to offer other suggestion like shifting tags to archery or muzz. 

The DWR also suggested at the RAC that the antelope had recovered from the decline 2-3 years ago on the Parker. They were suggesting hundreds of more permits. One guy on the panel just wouldn't believe there was that much recovery and a lot of members voted against the suggested increase. 

Only one person from the public stood up and stated the tag numbers are going in the wrong direction. Only one person on the panel pushed back against the tag cuts or lack thereof. 

I'll just say there is very little representation outside of trophy / exclusive hunting organizations. General hunters need to start showing up at the RAC's and saying they don't mind hunting pressure. They need to encourage more biological solutions instead of hunter restrictions. SFW certainly isn't going to do it, and they are the only ones showing up. The RAC and the Wildlife board is stacked against the general hunt. General hunters need to show up to the RAC and demand more 1) biological solutions instead of hunter restrictions 2) more tags as the population increases.


----------

