# Its only $5 what the big deal



## love2hunt (Oct 28, 2008)

So the Governor is set to sign into law a $5 raise on all big game tags for predator control. I would like to thank our legislature and special interest groups for getting this pushed through. If I thought it would help, I would not have a problem with it but seriously is it going to? I don't think it will. I know its only $5 dollars whats the big deal right? If you are a single hunter and only buying one tag its not, but if you have numerous hunters that you are paying for (wife and kids) it adds up quick. I am looking at an additional $40 this year for tags on the hope of killing Coyotes. With the cost of fuel, food, bullets and gear (which has also increased) I am going to have to take a loan out to go hunting. My question is who gets the money? Is this just another bank account Mr Peay day will have to draw from or will something productive actually be done with the money? Just another case of how a few think they know what is best for many.


----------



## blazingsaddle (Mar 11, 2008)

I for one applaud the increase. If and only if every red cent goes to predator control.
Some say we have no biological facts saying we have a predator problem, but its an effort that makes sense to me and warrants a solid effort. Even if its only for a few years.

The only thing I would like to see, is the price of youth tags to stay the same, and not increase. On a side note, if they find that the predator program is not working, they should reduce the tag price back down. ( I'm sure that will never happen though)
Money is tight these days, but I would willing to soak up a lot more than a five dollar increase if the desired results were being accomplished.


----------



## UtahMountainMan (Jul 20, 2010)

If the $5 is TRULY going to predator control I am more than happy to pay the extra $5. 

I would pay $200 if they would let me hang out of a helicopter with an automatic machine gun and blast coyotes.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

I don't like how it came about (process) or that it is going to bounties (I said this before in similar posts). However, I've been donating to this cause (coyote control by DWR with my big game app) for years so it doesn't really hurt me too much in terms of money.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Nevada charges a $3 predator fee on every single application....

They have been doing that for years trying to help control coyote numbers.

As far as the Utah $5 Fee,,I'm all for it!

I saw this coyote predation problem with deer getting worse constantly for
a few years now. Glad to see Utah recognize the situation and do something proactive.


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

So Nevada has been doing it for years. I know they have a guy that rides in a helicopter and shoots coyotes and that they do alot of trapping. 
BUT Nevada has more coyotes than almost any other state I've hunted, still! And the deer herd is not good at all.
So maybe Utah can take notice. 
I'm not trying to say coyotes are not a problem with the deer herds but I don't think by killing X amount of coyotes is going to magically increase the herds. 
Coyotes are to resilant of an animal. Maybe thats why NV has so many.
As for Utah doing it. I think it shouldn't be mandatory, leave it like it was. I do my own coyote control and don't want to pay someone to give me competition. :mrgreen: 
I know the saying that to really effect coyote populations you have to kill them at certain times. Thats why I hunt all but 2 month out of the year. This year though it might be every month.


----------



## Homer (Sep 1, 2011)

Shoot a dog, collect the fifty dollar bounty and you'll be ten bucks ahead for next year. Do this for five years, on the 6th year you wont even need to go out if you banked that ten bucks


----------



## shaun larsen (Aug 5, 2011)

UtahMountainMan said:


> If the $5 is TRULY going to predator control I am more than happy to pay the extra $5.
> 
> I would pay $200 if they would let me hang out of a helicopter with an automatic machine gun and blast coyotes.


+1! Id do the same!


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

JuddCT said:


> I don't like how it came about (process) or that it is going to bounties (I said this before in similar posts). However, I've been donating to this cause (coyote control by DWR with my big game app) for years so it doesn't really hurt me too much in terms of money.


Other than my tax deduction, it won't hurt me either because I'll just quit voluntarily donating.

Edited: You also need to know that this bill, S.B. 0087S01, is NOT exclusive to coyotes NOR to mule deer NOR even to big game and it's NOT targeted for bounties either.

Per the bill's appropriation clause:
"This bill appropriates: to the Department of Natural Resources - Division of Wildlife Resources: from the Predator Control Restricted Account, $600,000, subject to intent language that the appropriation shall be used for *a predator control program* to control populations of *predatory animals* that endanger the health of the *non-predatory wildlife *populations."

Edited again: It may very well be used for coyote control and to save mule deer per the Wildlife Board, but that's not the language.

Does that change how you feel about your $5 increase?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Tell ya what EFA,,
The information I'm gathering is claiming 200+ coyotes have been removed from
Monroe mountain alone over the last couple of weeks......................

I spoke with DWR personnel today, They are WELL AWARE of the coyote problem.
And as long as the money is going into their hands,,,I'm confident they'll spend it wisely..


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> Tell ya what EFA,,
> The information I'm gathering is claiming 200+ coyotes have been removed from
> Monroe mountain over the last couple of weeks......................
> 
> ...


I'm sure they will as long as they are allowed to by the Wildlife Board. I just wanted to point out that it isn't just coyotes nor big game that big game hunters are paying for. We need to know what we're getting for our $5. Like I said, it won't bother me. I'll still pay them to shoot coyotes (or whatever), just not voluntarily.


----------



## stimmie78 (Dec 8, 2007)

I just think that the $5 should be for all not just the hunters. Placing the burden on the hunters when it benefits many more groups just doesn't seem right in my mind. There should be a fee collected from all the ranchers with grazing permits. Fewer coyotes will benefit them quite a bit too.


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

Personally, I would like to see the nonresident hunting license increase to something resembling that of ALL our surrounding neighbors and use that money for paying coyote bounties. Then raise the non-resident tag application fee to reflect those of all our neighboring states of $14-$15 per species and have Utah collect the tag fees up front from non-residents and collect interest off of it for 4 months like every other state does. Let's see how much that coyote increase is to us then!


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

TUA,,,"I would like to see the nonresident hunting license increase to something resembling that of ALL our surrounding neighbors "????Quote.

In many cases, Utah already charges no-residents MORE than surrounding states.

Utah non-res elk,
Spike/general $388
limited entry $795
Premium LE $1,500

Utah non-res deer,
General season $263
limited entry $463
Premium LE $563

Surrounding states.
Wyoming non res elk , regular full price, BOTH general and LE ,, $591
Youth elk permits,, $289 (Best deal anywhere) AND better hunting.

Wyoming non res deer , regular full price, BOTH general and LE ,,$326
Youth elk permits,, $124 (Best deal anywhere) AND better hunting.
Youth antelope permits $124

Colorado, non-res deer ,, $346
non-res elk $576

Nevada , non-res deer ,, $ 240 + general license fee....

My point, Utah already charges non-res more in many cases..
with less quality on general units....
AND NOT very many limited entry non res tags compared to neighboring states.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

It bull ****. I know dam well that money is not going to go what it for. Now it going to coast me 200 bucks for my wife and I hunting. Man I wish my pay check would go up with all of these bull ****. I'm not for it.


----------



## HunterDavid (Sep 10, 2007)

As expected, it was signed by the Gov.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/5 ... s.html.csp


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

So when will the fifty dollar bounty go into effect?


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

ridgetop said:


> So when will the fifty dollar bounty go into effect?


That's the question ridge... There wasn't a "coyote" bill passed that specifically deals with bounties on the dogs, or even how much that bounty would/will be. SB245, is the bill that is paid out of the general fund, which comes from all tax payers in the state, not from hunting tags. That bill gives the Division authority to work with local governments to develop incentives-including monetary-to deal with the yotes. Whether or not bounties/increased bounty $$ will be part of those incentives is yet to be seen.

The second bill passed, SB87 will be funded by hunters with a $5 increase in tags. This bill does NOT specify coyotes, it is designated as a "predator" management bill that can/will include all predators that effect wildlife. No bounties mentioned in that bill either.

Kind of different than what everyone has been led to believe, or thought was going to be passed.... :shock:


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

stillhunterman said:


> ridgetop said:
> 
> 
> > So when will the fifty dollar bounty go into effect?
> ...


Didn't they have to change the wording to get everyone on board with the idea and also to do some damage control pertaining to the comments that Don made?


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

ridgetop said:


> stillhunterman said:
> 
> 
> > ridgetop said:
> ...


Well, I don't know the reasons for the language change, but from what I understand, it was changed last minute.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

I feel like the big landowners are getting the short end of the stick here. They are after all providing all the habitat and food..the deer do belong to them don't they?...for these millions of hungry dogs, and yet, they are getting none of the money. Now that's just plain wrong. I propose an increase of say 10 bucks and give the ranchers and farmers a little taste.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

I still need to read the bill, but I am curious: do walleye fall under the "predator control" bill????


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I want to know...if the lagomorph population explodes because we are killing all the 'yotes and cats, is the legislature going to come up with another bill and charge the hunters to kill the wascally wabbits so they don't eat out the bottoms of haystacks?

http://icwdm.org/handbook/mammals/Jackrabbits.asp

http://ddr.nal.usda.gov/bitstream/10113 ... 689212.pdf


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

If you want to collect on the coyote bounty this should help. Sorry it took me so long to get this info.

[attachment=0:2bnw1kzv]Counties with bounty.JPG[/attachment:2bnw1kzv]


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

speaking of lagomorph's....


....what about prarie dogs? If one of their main predatory controls is eliminated, what will keep them from overrunning the Parowan cemetary (airport, Cedar Municipal golf course, etc.)? I wonder if more money will be needed to relocate them?





FWIW -- I have no problem whatsoever with a coyote bounty. I don't have a problem with increasing that bounty. I'll probably turn in a few sets of ears myself -- gladly. 
What I do have a problem with, however, is calling it a "mule deer" program and charging hunters for it. Let's call this what it truly is: It's a ranching issue. Make them (ranchers) pay for it.


i still want to know if walleye fall under the definition of a "predator".


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

PBH said:


> What I do have a problem with, however, is calling it a "mule deer" program and charging hunters for it. Let's call this what it truly is: *It's a ranching issue. Make them (ranchers) pay for it.*
> 
> i still want to know if walleye fall under the definition of a "predator".


I wanna see you bring in a pair of Walleye ears. :mrgreen:


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

A couple of thoughts.

1. Do you get paid extra for bringing in a set of unusually large coyote ears?

2.


PBH said:


> i still want to know if walleye fall under the definition of a "predator".


Silly PBH, Of course not. Randy Parker and the ranchers derive no benefit from walleye reduction/eradication, so no dice. If you could somehow make a case to the Farm bureau that the eyes were somehow detrimental to farmers, then you may see it happen.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Catherder said:


> A couple of thoughts.
> 
> 1. Do you get paid extra for bringing in a set of unusually large coyote ears?


Yes you get some shiny new bracelets and they take care of your room and board for a while.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Fishrmn said:


> I wanna see you bring in a pair of Walleye ears. :mrgreen:


I shouldn't have to. I'm talking about the "Predator Control Bill" that "imposes a fee and creates an account to fund a program to control predatory animals." It would "creates a Predator Control Restricted Account within the General Fund;". The appropriation "shall be used to fund a predator control program to control populations of predatory animals that endanger the health of nonpredatory wildlife populations."

Further: "Money from the restricted account shall be used by the division to fund a predator control program to control populations of predatory animals that endanger the health of nonpredatory wildlife populations in the state..."

Nowhere does this bill mention coytes, ears, or bounties.

So, again, I want to know if walleye fall under this? I'd love to see big game hunters fund a walleye reduction program to protect other non-predatory wildlife populations, like perch...

....wait a second....perch are also a predator!! my Lord! I think we're on to something here!!

http://le.utah.gov/~2012/bills/sbillenr/SB0087.htm


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

PBH said:


> ....wait a second....perch are also a predator!! my Lord! I think we're on to something here!!


Maybe you have a point.

So at a $1 a piece, how many Fish Lake perch could you redeem in one day? Hmmmmmmmmmm, that could be some serious dough. -Ov-


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Catherder said:


> [
> 
> Maybe you have a point.
> 
> So at a $1 a piece, how many Fish Lake perch could you redeem in one day? Hmmmmmmmmmm, that could be some serious dough. -Ov-


I think many people are confusing the two bills. In the bill regarding predator control, I haven't seen anything that mentions bounties for ears, or any other bounty. It simply states that money collected from big game tags will be given to the DWR to use in the name of "predator control". So, I have to admit I think this is a good thing. Could we expect to see some fish management (walleye reduction / perch reduction) come out of this? Maybe some of that money could be used to eliminate perch from places like Forsythe Reservoir?

Of course, if a bounty came out of this bill that paid us to turn in "predators", then I think I just might turn into a perch fisherman!!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

PBH said:


> FWIW -- I have no problem whatsoever with a coyote bounty. I don't have a problem with increasing that bounty. I'll probably turn in a few sets of ears myself -- gladly.
> What I do have a problem with, however, is calling it a "mule deer" program and charging hunters for it. Let's call this what it truly is: It's a ranching issue. Make them (ranchers) pay for it.


All ranchers? Or just the ones behind this silly program? Because, if I am going to get billed for the removal of coyotes, I WILL be taking care of the 'deer problem' on my land the cheap and quick way. Funny how deer/coyotes on my property is 'my' problem, but if I take care of said problem as I see fit, you and others would be up in arms! I own/lease in excess of 10,000 acres in Sanpete and Juab Counties, and I have NO DESIRE to have the removal of coyotes on so much as a 1/4 acre parcel subsidized/funded by the public at large, let alone the hunting community. Painting with such a broad brush is counter-productive, yes?


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

What kind of fish is not predatory?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> What kind of fish is not predatory?


Touche!


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

Make the ranchers that have there sheep and cows in the hills pay that xtra cash. The ranchers like you pro should not have to pay it.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

We have lost more calves to foxes than we have to coyotes. Kill foxes! 

It is good to see that the UDWR will control the funds and have to opportunity to use how ever much they want in targeted removal.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> [ I have NO DESIRE to have the removal of coyotes on so much as a 1/4 acre parcel subsidized/funded by the public at large, let alone the hunting community. Painting with such a broad brush is counter-productive, yes?


yet, it's the hunting community that will be paying this, regardless of how you feel. Why is it my problem? Why should I have to fund it? It was the Farm Bureau that pushed this, and yet it was done in the name of Mule Deer? Do you not see anything wrong with this?

Obviously, I don't have to (fund the program). I have a choice. And, unfortunately, due to people like Don Peay more and more people like myself will find themselves moving away from hunting deer in this great state.



Iron Bear said:


> What kind of fish is not predatory?


the kind that are getting eaten!!

But, since you asked: June Suckers are not predatory. However, the walleye, white bass, catfish, anc carp in Utah Lake ARE. I wonder, with the new carp removal project at Utah Lake, maybe the State can chip in some funds from the new predator bill?

Pelicans are a major predator that has serious negative impacts on fish at Strawberry Reservoir. Cormorants are also a predator that plays a big role in Utah fisheries. I wonder how the Feds would feel if we started using State funds to control those predators? I guess it would just be yet another example of our State taxes fighting against our Federal taxes.

You cannot argue that the bill in question leaves some large holes that need to be filled. Things need to be defined so that the UDWR has a clear understanding of what those funds can, and should, be used for. The way it reads now, those funds certainly could be used in fisheries management. Should they be??


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

goofy elk said:


> TUA,,,"I would like to see the nonresident hunting license increase to something resembling that of ALL our surrounding neighbors "????Quote.
> In many cases, Utah already charges no-residents MORE than surrounding states.
> Utah non-res elk,
> My point, Utah already charges non-res more in many cases..
> ...


Not talking about TAG fees Goofy boy!? WTH, did you even read my post? I quote myself: "I would like to see the nonresident hunting license increase to something resembling that of ALL our surrounding neighbors and use that money for paying coyote bounties. "

I said *let's raise the NR License cost to reflect the cost of all the other states * not to mention that we don't require the TAG fees to be paid up front like ALL the other's do, so let's compare just the license fees, shall we? 
Nonresident Hunting License/Combo License Fees
Utah $65/80
Nevada $142/199, 
Arizona: $151/225.75
Wyoming: $260/NA
Idaho: $154.75/240
Montana: Species specific, $380+
New Mexico: Species Specific, $380+
Colorado: Species Specific, $450+

These are just the up front costs to apply... Utah keeps the $65/80, but so do many of the others states who require a hunting license purchase even to apply that is more than double our cost, and those who don't take your money up front for the tags and sit on the funds to collect interest that far exceeds the revenue generated by our license sales... BIG DIFFERENCE in how it's done.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

PBH said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > [ I have NO DESIRE to have the removal of coyotes on so much as a 1/4 acre parcel subsidized/funded by the public at large, let alone the hunting community. Painting with such a broad brush is counter-productive, yes?
> ...


 I think I have been crystal clear of my opposition to this added fee! And, when did I say it was YOUR problem? Why should I as a hunter, or as a rancher, fund it? I oppose such a fee whether it is funded by hunters or by livestock owners..............is that clear enough for you? :roll:


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

I think that all union employees and unions should pay a $0.05/hour tax since that is the true root of all evil; you can only fight fire with fire. :mrgreen:


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

TUA,,,,Wrong about Nevada.
Just put the boy and I in for deer,,,

You only pay the $142 or $199 IF YOU DRAW , or if you want bonus points.

Not sure why you put up Wyoming? ZERO hunting license fees there,, Tag only. 
Plus habitat stamp AFTER you draw.

Last time I put in for elk in New Mexico , it was tag price only too.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I think I have been crystal clear of my opposition to this added fee! And, when did I say it was YOUR problem? Why should I as a hunter, or as a rancher, fund it? I oppose such a fee whether it is funded by hunters or by livestock owners..............is that clear enough for you? :roll:


Pro -- why are you taking this so personal?

I don't recall ever pointing my finger specifically at YOU. Regardless of your personal stand on this issue, it was the Farm Bureau that pushed it. There is no argument in that. They did it in the name of 'mule deer improvement' so that they wouldn't have to pay for it, and sportsmen would. That is wrong. I am happy that we are both on the same side with this.

Out of curiosity, are you a member of the Farm Bureau?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

PBH said:


> Pro -- why are you taking this so personal?
> 
> I don't recall ever pointing my finger specifically at YOU. Regardless of your personal stand on this issue, it was the Farm Bureau that pushed it. There is no argument in that. They did it in the name of 'mule deer improvement' so that they wouldn't have to pay for it, and sportsmen would. That is wrong. I am happy that we are both on the same side with this.
> 
> Out of curiosity, are you a member of the Farm Bureau?


I could throw the same at you: Why are you taking this so personal? All hunters have to fund this not just you.................
No, I am NOT a member of the Farm Bureau.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

PBH, you should present your ideas and concerns to the RACs. That should be entertaining.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

Ok here is my question. Are they going to add 5 bucks on all tags next year or just deer tags ?


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> All hunters have to fund this not just you.................


Are hunters in general OK with this? I guess that's the true topic of this discussion. Maybe I am taking this personal -- but I should because i am the one paying for it even though ever bit of science out there says that it won't work. So, shouldn't I take it personal? On the other hand, my comments with you were because your responses sounded like you felt I called you specifically out. I didn't.



proutdoors said:


> No, I am NOT a member of the Farm Bureau.


Good. I think they are evil. You, on the other hand, seem like a pretty good guy -- you have some different perspectives and ideals that i don't necessarily agree with (including that picture of the gay cowboy you use for an avatar), but it's nice to have you around.

ridgetop -- why? It looks to me like the legislation has already provided a way for the DWR to allocate money towards predator control. Fish are predators and they also need control. What do I need to present at the RAC that hasn't already been granted?

FWIW -- Don Peay and the Farm Bureau have taught us all an important lesson. The RACs no longer matter. Why go through the RAC when we can just take it straight to legislation?


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

PBH said:


> Are hunters in general OK with this? I guess that's the true topic of this discussion.


Hmmm...Start a poll and see how the members of the UWN feel about it.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

I'm against it. I've said from the get go, that the cattlemen and woolgrowers are getting hunters to pay for their program.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

Fishrmn said:


> I'm against it. I've said from the get go, that the cattlemen and woolgrowers are getting hunters to pay for their program.


+1


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Fishrmn said:


> I'm against it. I've said from the get go, that the *SOME* cattlemen and woolgrowers are getting hunters to pay for their program.


I fixed it for you.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

PBH said:


> FWIW -- Don Peay and the Farm Bureau have taught us all an important lesson. The RACs no longer matter. Why go through the RAC when we can just take it straight to legislation?


A-FREAKING-MEN!


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

Goof, you're missing the point. The point I am making is Utah is missing multiple opportunities that other states have proven as more effective ways of raising revenues other than raising resident fees to benefit the landowners, cattle/sheepmen, nonresidents, etc... such as collecting all the nonresident application, license and tag fees up front and collecting MILLIONS in interest over the course of a few months... Other states make you buy a license that is double the NR cost of a UT license or make you PAY THE ENTIRE TAG FEE UP FRONT. 

Meanwhile (for now) other states aren't taking from an already limited resource and tag availability to allocate HUNDREDS of tags to special interest groups who use taxpayer dollars to fund their expo's and then aren't held accountable for either the funds generated (or at least haven't in the past) or the loss to the public. 

Other states don't allow the transfer of landowner tags to prevent monopolizing the hunting industry to the rich - let's make it mandatory that landowners can only make back off the tags an amount equal to the depredation caused to their farm crops, fences, etc... as it was intended in the beginning. 

Only UT takes hundreds of tags out of the general pool in order to bolster and support the ever privatization of hunting for a price, at least at this time UT is the only one... let's all pray it is shot down in MT, WY, CO and ID this coming year or the general hunting population won't even have that as a fallback option..


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

Take the money for the hunting expo and put that money towards it.Then look how much money they will get from that.I'm sick of people making this a rich man sport. it bull crap.


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

The funds will be available July 1st. $5 on any big game permits sold after that.

The $5 fee for predator control will be added to all big game permits, starting with the 2012 antlerless permits and any remaining big game permits sold after July 1, 2012.

Here is the link: http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/hunting/hu ... mation/762

I am okay with the $5. What I am not okay with is the manner in which it came about. Like was stated before going around the RAC's and through legislation is very tricky indeed.
Money for the DWR, good. Not getting public input and going through the process, bad.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

TopofUtahArcher said:


> Goof, you're missing the point. The point I am making is Utah is missing multiple opportunities that other states have proven as more effective ways of raising revenues other than raising resident fees to benefit the landowners, cattle/sheepmen, nonresidents, etc... such as collecting all the nonresident application, license and tag fees up front and collecting MILLIONS in interest over the course of a few months... Other states make you buy a license that is double the NR cost of a UT license or make you PAY THE ENTIRE TAG FEE UP FRONT.


Utah state law prevents this, and this is GOOD! Why legalize more theft? Charging someone for something they most likely will never receive is illegal for private businesses, why make it okay for the government to do so? I do agree there are other ways to increase revenues, but charging for a service/product never rendered isn't one of them, IMHO.



TopofUtahArcher said:


> Other states don't allow the transfer of landowner tags to prevent monopolizing the hunting industry to the rich - let's make it mandatory that landowners can only make back off the tags an amount equal to the depredation caused to their farm crops, fences, etc... as it was intended in the beginning.


 Sure they do. In fact, I can't think of a western state that doesn't give landowners permits, and they SHOULD. After all, wildlife are fed on private land, shouldn't the landowner be given something for feeding the critters?


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Which came first? Crummy hunting on public lands or high dollar private hunts and $100,000+ conservation tags?


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

The DWR manages all the big game predators (except for coyotes) with tags and generates money off of those tags. there are management plans for those animals and I doubt they have a plan for a mass attack on bear, cougar, or bobcat when the public is willing to do it and pay the DWR for the opportunity. 

Coyotes can be killed year round without any limits on how many can be killed.

Why did we need to add a $5 fee again?


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

I have emailed them about this. All I got to say is. they passed something with out even having a plan on how they are going to kill them and where and all of that. They are not answering the question every one wants to know. I think it bull. you should have everything ready to go if you are going to pass something like this. That means all of the questions your going to get asked have answer for them. have a list of what you plan on doing. Now come on pull your head out of Don Peay butt and get this **** together.


----------



## lobowatch (Apr 23, 2011)

dkhntrdstn said:


> I have emailed them about this. All I got to say is. they passed something with out even having a plan on how they are going to kill them and where and all of that. They are not answering the question every one wants to know. I think it bull. you should have everything ready to go if you are going to pass something like this. That means all of the questions your going to get asked have answer for them. have a list of what you plan on doing. Now come on pull your head out of *Don Peay *butt and get this **** together.


Think you answered your own question. DP jumped on the horse and took the reins, got together with his political buds and had this extra predator funding passed in a jiffy. The division didn't have time to plan for this, but they are in that process now. Ya I don't like how the push to pass this was shoved down our throats without any public input, but the end result is it will give the division more money to do thier thing. Almost half the funding is from taxpayers, and the rest is from hunters. From what I understand the way the bill is written it is target specific allowing the division to target times, areas, and best means to take down the yotes with the most efficient positive impact. Give em time to get organized and get things rolling. Heck, they been doing that for years already but more cashola will help.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

lobowatch said:


> Almost half the funding is from taxpayers, and the rest is from hunters.


Dang it, both of those groups include me. :lol:


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

dkhntrdstn said:


> I have emailed them about this. All I got to say is. they passed something with out even having a plan on how they are going to kill them and where and all of that. They are not answering the question every one wants to know. I think it bull. you should have everything ready to go if you are going to pass something like this. That means all of the questions your going to get asked have answer for them. have a list of what you plan on doing. Now come on pull your head out of Don Peay butt and get this **** together.


I see this totally different. Looks like SFW went in and got the funding for the DWR, allowing the DWR the ability to determine the best way to spend it. Thats a win/win.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

bwhntr said:


> dkhntrdstn said:
> 
> 
> > I have emailed them about this. All I got to say is. they passed something with out even having a plan on how they are going to kill them and where and all of that. They are not answering the question every one wants to know. I think it bull. you should have everything ready to go if you are going to pass something like this. That means all of the questions your going to get asked have answer for them. have a list of what you plan on doing. Now come on pull your head out of Don Peay butt and get this **** together.
> ...


I see this totally different. Looks like SFW went in and raised taxes on sportsman when the sportsman had already showen they didn't want the money to come from them. (via the voluntary contribution already available.)

So assuming the DWR wanted the money, it is a win for DWR and SFW but at the expense of the Sportsman.

And I'm for reducing predators.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Looking at the poll on the other thread. Majority of UWN members favor it. Where are you getting your stats? Who's doing the assuming???


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

bwhntr said:


> Looking at the poll on the other thread. Majority of UWN members favor it. Where are you getting your stats? Who's doing the assuming???


HUH???

Where did you learn math? Right now 18% of the vote is in favor of the $5 increase to fund the predator control projects through the UDWR. That means that 82% do *NOT* support the newly passed legislation.


> 1. I favor the current program as passed by the legislature with a $5 surcharge added to my tag fee for predator control.
> 14
> 18%


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

proutdoors said:


> Utah state law prevents this, and this is GOOD! Why legalize more theft? Charging someone for something they most likely will never receive is illegal for private businesses, why make it okay for the government to do so? I do agree there are other ways to increase revenues, but charging for a service/product never rendered isn't one of them, IMHO.





proutdoors said:


> So you're saying that charging every big game hunter a $5 fee for something they don't benefit from is illegal? I agree.
> 
> Sure they do. In fact, I can't think of a western state that doesn't give landowners permits, and they SHOULD. After all, wildlife are fed on private land, shouldn't the landowner be given something for feeding the critters?
> 
> ...


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Fishrmn said:


> bwhntr said:
> 
> 
> > Looking at the poll on the other thread. Majority of UWN members favor it. Where are you getting your stats? Who's doing the assuming???
> ...


Where did I learn math...Lol, it just happens to be a part of my career. Sometimes I am actually pretty good at it. 8) YOU need to do the math:

#1. 18% Favors the bill
#2. 27% Favors the bill, but would like to share the expense with others.
#3. 13% against the bill
#4. 15% against changing the predator program
#5. 6% Favors the bill and thinks we still need to do more
#7. 16% Favors the bill but wants to share the expense with ranchers.

According to my "limited" math skills that is 67% favoring the bill (for the most part) and 28% against it. _(O)_

Back to the original question. WHO is doing the assuming?????


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

bwhntr said:


> Looking at the poll on the other thread. Majority of UWN members favor it. Where are you getting your stats? Who's doing the assuming???


There is a poll showing 78% of the people polled didn't voluntarily contribute to the DWR when they had the ability to do so, if they weren't willing to do it voluntarily then they didn't want it.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Longfeather said:


> bwhntr said:
> 
> 
> > Looking at the poll on the other thread. Majority of UWN members favor it. Where are you getting your stats? Who's doing the assuming???
> ...


They? I am one who did not voluntarily contribute to the fund, yet I want it. So with that logic your assumptions are not correct.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

bwhntr said:


> Longfeather said:
> 
> 
> > bwhntr said:
> ...


No the logic is correct, you are just in denial. If people aren't willing to pay for it then they don't want to be taxed for it.

It is hypocritical of you to not voluntarily pay and then turn around and support forcing people to pay. I don't know you so I don't know if you are a hypocrite or not but your support of the bill why'll not willing to do the same thing voluntarily is hypocritical.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

TopofUtahArcher said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > Utah state law prevents this, and this is GOOD! Why legalize more theft? Charging someone for something they most likely will never receive is illegal for private businesses, why make it okay for the government to do so? I do agree there are other ways to increase revenues, but charging for a service/product never rendered isn't one of them, IMHO.
> ...


Who is being charged a $5.00 fee for something they don't benefit from? When I apply for a permit, I have to purchase a hunting license.....so I benefit right there......and I am charged an application fee......a fee that covers the expense of processing my application and conducting the draw....so I once again directly benefit from this fee......



TopofUtahArcher said:


> Contrary to the tone of your more recent posts, (please keep in mind I am a landowner too) I don't feel that wildlife is a commodity owned by private citizens of our state that is to be sold to the highest bidder. Now if you want to go and build a 10' high fence around your ground and chase all the native animals off before closing the gates I don't care what kind of animal you put in there and sell... but taking the native species and telling the taxpayers and permit holders who've made wildlife and hunting possible for a couple centuries that they can't access the wildlife - in my opinion is wrong.


[/quote]I have NO DESIRE to sell wildlife or profit from wildlife in any way ever again! I was a guide/outfitter for 20+ years, and I made several hunting videos and made a dang good living off of wildlife, and I have made a promise to my family and my God that I will NEVER make so much as a dime from wildlife. I do raise livestock, lots of livestock....and **** good livestock, and the best produce around, and I am completely content making a living off MY land and MY sweat! I don't charge people to hunt on my land....I have a large group of wheelchair bound hunters coming tomorrow morning to hunt/shoot pot guts. When/how/where have I asked...let alone 'told' the taxpayers anything except to cease telling me what to do with MY land?


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Longfeather said:


> No the logic is correct, you are just in denial. If people aren't willing to pay for it then they don't want to be taxed for it.
> 
> It is hypocritical of you to not voluntarily pay and then turn around and support forcing people to pay. I don't know you so I don't know if you are a hypocrite or not but your support of the bill why'll not willing to do the same thing voluntarily is hypocritical.


 :roll: I understand your stance and you now understand mine. It was real.

Am I a hypocrite? Absolutely.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

bwhntr said:


> I see this totally different. Looks like SFW went in and got the funding for the DWR, allowing the DWR the ability to determine the best way to spend it. Thats a win/win.


I may get flamed for this but I have to agree. The division has stated they need to do more with yotes and their only limitation has been money.

I just don't like the grandstanding that came with it....i.e. the "this will double our deer herd in a few years" message. It won't/can't happen by itself. This will have an impact but it won't double deer herds.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

I agree with Bullsnot. I hope the DWR makes the most of this funding and makes and impact were needed. The grandstanding was done as a publicity stunt. Like all other campaigns, political or otherwise, the agenda had to get pushed and that was the best way to get the people's attention. I am confident that the herds will not double. I am also confident that a scape goat will be found and some other publicity stunt will surface.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> bwhntr said:
> 
> 
> > I see this totally different. Looks like SFW went in and got the funding for the DWR, allowing the DWR the ability to determine the best way to spend it. Thats a win/win.
> ...


They have publically stated over and over that coyote/predator control were just ONE aspect of the Mule Deer Recovery plan. Does it really matter, as long as they got the funding for the DWR?


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

bwhntr said:


> They have publically stated over and over that coyote/predator control were just ONE aspect of the Mule Deer Recovery plan. Does it really matter, as long as they got the funding for the DWR?


Are you saying that as long as the DWR gets the funding it shouldn't matter what happens? or If the coyote killing works or not?

If that is what you are saying then of course it matters. I would be very upset if money that is very hard to come by was spent on something that beared no fruit. The limiting factors in growing deer herds are varied and complex. I believe that a more important factor than coyotes is habitat, quality/and quantity of habitat, human encroahcment, and highway mortality.

The impact from money being spent does matter. Especially when the money can be used on something with more bang for the buck. I think we all, as hunters, have a vested interest in killing as many predators to allow for growth of game herds. We are biased in that. However, we should spend the money wisely and not without regard for it's source or destination.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

bullsnot said:


> bwhntr said:
> 
> 
> > I see this totally different. Looks like SFW went in and got the funding for the DWR, allowing the DWR the ability to determine the best way to spend it. Thats a win/win.
> ...


You won't get any heat from me as long as the key phrase "*allowing the DWR the ability to determine the best way to spend it"* prevails! If that happens, it's almost certain it will ALL (from both bills) go to the professionals who actually know what they are doing! But, I suspect that will not be the case, so put on your Sunday best asbestos suit, my friend!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Me either...as long as the DWR is able to decide when and where and how the money is used to control the predators, I have no real problem....


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Me either...as long as the DWR is able to decide when and where and how the money is used to control the predators, I have no real problem....


+1

I do have a bunch of SFW friends that didn't know enough about it thinking they would be able to get the $50 (they weren't happy about finding out they MIGHT not be able to get that $50).


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

bwhntr said:


> They have publically stated over and over that coyote/predator control were just ONE aspect of the Mule Deer Recovery plan. Does it really matter, as long as they got the funding for the DWR?


Yes it matters but only because I see the bigger picture in all of this. Promising to double the deer herd in such a short time frame without a solid plan in ALL aspects is being somewhat dishonest don't you think? Maybe it's just because I bought a lemon from a used car salesman once and when I tried to take it back to him he blamed me and everybody else for the problems and then tried to sell me another car and didn't actually help me at all.....who knows.

But credit where credit is due, the extra funding is a good thing IMHO.


----------



## BLACKEYE (Feb 1, 2012)

YUUUUUP it matters this group has been @ the front of the pack for "big game conservation" for 15 plus years. 

Accountability has to start sometime. This group has been at the front 15 plus years and fell asleep @ the wheel. 

I clearly remember a time when the "ANSWER" was different with this "conservation" group and they were wrong then. WE MUST ASK are they still wrong?????

The continued failure and showmanship has to end sometime!!!
They dont reflect all sportsmen views for sure and represent few sportsmans VOICE!

JMHO!


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> bwhntr said:
> 
> 
> > They have publically stated over and over that coyote/predator control were just ONE aspect of the Mule Deer Recovery plan. Does it really matter, as long as they got the funding for the DWR?
> ...


What doesn't matter is how one part of the plan was made more public than the other. I don't think this was SFW's doing, but sportsman jumping to conclusions. The plan is aggressive and a they set the bar pretty high. Is this goal achievable? I don't know, maybe. The thing is the Mule Deer Recovery plan has a lot more to it than predator control. ALOT more.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

JuddCT said:


> I do have a bunch of SFW friends that didn't know enough about it thinking they would be able to get the $50 (they weren't happy about finding out they MIGHT not be able to get that $50).


...wait for it...


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

bwhntr said:


> JuddCT said:
> 
> 
> > I do have a bunch of SFW friends that didn't know enough about it thinking they would be able to get the $50 (they weren't happy about finding out they MIGHT not be able to get that $50).
> ...


 :lol:

I actually hope this doesn't happen as these guys ARE NOT experienced coyote hunters. :shock:


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

bwhntr said:


> The thing is the Mule Deer Recovery plan has a lot more to it than predator control. ALOT more.


Cool. Where can I find a copy of this plan? I'd like to check it out.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

bullsnot said:


> bwhntr said:
> 
> 
> > The thing is the Mule Deer Recovery plan has a lot more to it than predator control. ALOT more.
> ...


Don't think there is one Bull. But if you find it or get a copy from one of the guys that have it I'd like to read it as well.

BTW... wanna try to shoot some coyotes soon? Bounty or not.


----------



## lobowatch (Apr 23, 2011)

here ya go

http://www.sfw.net/mule-deer/


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

lobowatch said:


> here ya go
> 
> http://www.sfw.net/mule-deer/


Thanks lobo. Is there another link that's missing? All I really see on that page is predator control that is in any detail anyway and different than what is being done today. Bwhntr said there was a lot more to the plan than predator control and I'm not seeing that on the link.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

MadHunter said:


> BTW... wanna try to shoot some coyotes soon? Bounty or not.


Uhhhh....yeah!! We need to get out in the very near future.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> bwhntr said:
> 
> 
> > The thing is the Mule Deer Recovery plan has a lot more to it than predator control. ALOT more.
> ...


This is just a summary, from the website http://www.sfw.net/mule-deer/...



> We propose the following goals and solutions:
> (1) Double Utah's deer populations, to a minimum of 400,000 Mule Deer.
> (2) 3-5 years time frame to grow 400,000 deer. Pull out the stops to reach 400,000 deer quickly.
> (3) No Excuses. The status quo when it comes to Mule Deer is not acceptable. Better use of resources and winning combinations of multiple intensive management tools should be utilized for each struggling herd.
> ...


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Ooops...I missed deer relocation. All the other stuff is already being done but good for SFW for pushing members to do more! We should all do more.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

bwhntr said:


> bullsnot said:
> 
> 
> > bwhntr said:
> ...


So we're counting on SFW's wildlife biologists to provide the insight and methods and SFW's members to provide the money and manpower needed to bring Utah's mule deer population up to 400,000 in 3 to 5 years per THE (their) Mule Deer Recovery Plan?

Marvelous!

So what do we do with: http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/bi ... r_plan.pdf & http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/public_mee ... gement.ppt ?


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

They must have their own biologists doing their own studies and counts. I say DWR bios and SFW bios join forces. We can use SFW's plan and DWR's counts and we can double the deer to 600K. o-||


----------

