# SB61



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Would give the ability to transfer LE tags to kin. No money exchanged. 

Pretty pathetic, I hope you all see this is a milestone on how dismal and backwards our our hunting system is. Now if this bill passes hunting will become a legacy sport where you get to hunt a bull on Monroe in the yr 2050 because your grandpa started accumulating bonus points in 2012. Just another class of elite. Making the private hunt even more appealing. 

I'll leave it at that for now.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

More importantly, it proves how backwards our legislature is.


----------



## Nambaster (Nov 15, 2007)

Rubbing in the fact that I dont have a grandpa... I have his social security number will that work? :O•-:


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

SB 61 is a IHC health care bill...

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/02/prweb212822.htm

Couldn't find anything related to tranfering permits?


----------



## soules2007 (Oct 29, 2007)

This is great! lets say you have 19 LE points give 10 to your brother and keep accumulating and not wait five years to hunt! The wait period is void if you start accumulating points? No?


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

I don't have a problem with transfering tags to family members or re-selling them to the public for that matter. 

The original tag holder will still have to draw the tag like everyone else. If they want to re-sell it or give it away more power to them.

o-||


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Longfeather said:


> I don't have a problem with transfering tags to family members or re-selling them to the public for that matter.
> 
> The original tag holder will still have to draw the tag like everyone else. If they want to re-sell it or give it away more power to them.
> 
> o-||


Again, the problem is that someone will put all of their relatives in for bonus points. When their second cousin draws the tag that he didn't know he was putting in for, or didn't care that his name was being used, then sells the tag to the guy who has been putting in for his relative. The person who draws the tag should have EXACTLY two choices. Use the tag, or don't.


----------



## BradN (Sep 25, 2007)

Goofy,

It is not a IHC bill. Here is a link to the language of the bill:

http://le.utah.gov/~2013/bills/sbillint/SB0061.htm

I think the bill would not change things a lot. The bill is not terribly long and worth reading. The guts of the bill state:

(c) allow a resident minor under 18 years of age to use the resident or nonresident
hunting permit of another person if:
(i) the resident minor is:
(A) the permit holder's child, stepchild, grandchild, or legal ward, if the permit holder's guardianship of the legal ward is based solely on the minor's age; or
(B) suffering from a life threatening medical condition; and
(ii) the permit holder:
(A) receives no form of compensation or remuneration for allowing the minor to use the permit;
(B) obtains the division's prior written approval to allow the minor to use the permit; and
(C) accompanies the minor, for the purposes of advising and assisting during the hunt, at a distance where the permit holder can communicate with the minor, in person, by voice or visual signals;

The Division can refuse to transfer the hunting rights and the circumstances under which they can be used are limited. Transfer is only to a minor. Many have stated on this comment board that they would gladly give up their LE tag so that their kid could have an opportunity to hunt (given that some kids may never pull a LE tag given the tag plug).


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Thanks BradN, just went through it, have no probblem with it....

Exact same law as Arizona has...

Tranfer drawn permit to ones kin....be it general,LE or OIAL,,,,,,SO WHAT?

Nothing to do with transfering points..


----------



## BradN (Sep 25, 2007)

... and you can only transfer to a *minor* with the Division's consent.


----------



## blazingsaddle (Mar 11, 2008)

Although this bill may have good intentions, it will be abused.
People are already riding points from other family members that don't hunt as it is now. This will just open up an express lane for them.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

BradN said:


> ... and you can only transfer to a *minor* with the Division's consent.


Absoluty, I'm ALL for it!

Me and my wife both have moose tags in our future, it would be GREAT if
we had the option to let our kids pull the trigger......... 8)


----------



## BradN (Sep 25, 2007)

Blazing saddle wrote:


> People are already riding points from other family members that don't hunt as it is now. This will just open up an express lane for them.


I don't see it, but allow that I'm just blind. Spell out the scenario(s) that you think will be the express lane.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

Fishrmn said:


> Longfeather said:
> 
> 
> > I don't have a problem with transfering tags to family members or re-selling them to the public for that matter.
> ...


Isn't using someone elses name without thier permision already illegal?


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Looks more like being able to let your kid shoot your deer for ya.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> BradN said:
> 
> 
> > ... and you can only transfer to a *minor* with the Division's consent.
> ...


They should also do it in the reverse. For example adults could transfer their tag to their parent or grandparent that is over a certain age. I twould be great for a guy in his 70's who has no chance of drawing a OIL tag to get one from thier adult son or daughter.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Random thoughts--

It seems my kids are just as happy and excited to see me or my wife or their grandpa shoot an animal as they are when they shoot one. Anyone thinking that giving their 15 year old a sheep tag or ltd elk tag will keep the kid hunting is fooling themselves. The kids like it or don't but killing big animals won't make them like it more-- as I've seen this play out for years with my friends' kids after they shoot special animals.

If someone uses this to give general deer tags to their youth, then it just re-enforces the fact that every kid should get a deer tag-- not just the ones with grandmas who can apply every year. 

How will people choose between kids? I have 3 kids who may be youth at the same time. I draw an elk tag and give it to which one? Grandpa has 12 kids who qualify-- which one does he choose? How much planning does one family have to do to stay ahead of the point-gathering game?

A friend in AZ dealt with criticism when he didn't give his unit 10 bull tag to his son. 

I don't really care if the transferred tag is kept in the family, but I just see it as another cobbled together program that benefits the most serious/informed hunters and leaves the average hunter in the lurch. It might benefit me, but that means it hurts someone else.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

I think that the principle of this law could have some merit but needs to be revised a bit. I think that it would be nice to be able to go down to the DNR and sign a youth hunter onto a parent or granparents tag. Then, the law needs to require that the adult who was originally assigned the tag would have to be present with the youth in order for them to fill the tag. So basically, if grandma gets a tag, she has to go to the mountains for JR. to fill the tag. I like it because my family uses alot of game meat and I would like to give my kids a little extra opportunity especially with general deer and cow elk. Let the kids have some trigger time and fun will be had by all. 

Packout- In your case, you should be able to sign all three of your kids onto the tag, then any of them could fill it in your presence IF you wanted to let them. Also, the whitetail looks GREAT in my office, many thanks!

Just my thoughts.-----SS


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Springville Shooter said:


> Then, the law needs to require that the adult who was originally assigned the tag would have to be present with the youth in order for them to fill the tag. So basically, if grandma gets a tag, she has to go to the mountains for JR. to fill the tag.
> 
> SS


The law does require that. Still not 100% sure how I feel, but its not as broad as Iron Bear made it out to seem. I think I'm okay with this.


----------



## RichardClarke (Nov 5, 2011)

I'm probably being a hard a$$ here. I also admit I'm old school but I think this whole thing borders on "enabling". I think today's parents are enabling their kids way too much. Sooner or later they will learn life just ain't fair sometimes. They should also be taught patience and good things do comes to those who wait. 
Also why stop at just "minors". I have a bunch of LE elk points, but I don't have any children. If something happened to me I guess I couldn't gift my accumulated points to a hunting buddy. So I'm screwed because I don't have a kid to spoil and unfairly enrich. Also as it has been pointed out already in this thread. I have my doubts gifting kids valuable LE points is really going to engage that kid and make or break whether he becomes a hunter for life. This is not unlike all of the other "youth" type hunt bennies. It is a thinly disguised bribe to sway today's youth away from the Xbox or computer. My point is, little junior is going to be obese, lazy and stupid no matter what incentive for hunting the DWR tries to bribe them with.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I read the bill. I didn't see anything about gifting points. The notion is actually fairly narrow. With written permission of the Division a minor that is either your child or you are their legal guardian (or a kid with a life threatening illness) can fill your tag for you. 

Unless I'm missing something, this has nothing to do with points. If you draw a tag, it allows your kid to fill it for you. You lose your points. I would think all current applicable waiting periods and restrictions stay in place. The original tag holder even has to go into the field with the minor. I'm a little uneasy about it, but in my mind I can't come up with a reason to oppose this.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

RichardClarke said:


> I'm probably being a hard **** here. I also admit I'm old school but I think this whole thing borders on "enabling". I think today's parents are enabling their kids way too much. Sooner or later they will learn life just ain't fair sometimes. They should also be taught patience and good things do comes to those who wait.
> Also why stop at just "minors". I have a bunch of LE elk points, but I don't have any children. If something happened to me I guess I couldn't gift my accumulated points to a hunting buddy. So I'm screwed because I don't have a kid to spoil and unfairly enrich. Also as it has been pointed out already in this thread. I have my doubts gifting kids valuable LE points is really going to engage that kid and make or break whether he becomes a hunter for life. This is not unlike all of the other "youth" type hunt bennies. It is a thinly disguised bribe to sway today's youth away from the Xbox or computer. My point is, little junior is going to be obese, lazy and stupid no matter what incentive for hunting the DWR tries to bribe them with.


I think that your outlook on kids and mine are quite a bit different and I would consider your views much more new age than old school. In the old school, dads and grandpas took kids hunting and shared the best things in the world with them. I see kids as the single best thing in my life and I also recognize the role that the kids will have in our future. Quite frankly the BEST hunting experience that I have ever had was watching my daughter kill a great whitetail buck and cow elk this year. My kids are nothing like what you describe in your post. They are intellegent, driven, happy human beings who never cease to amaze me. Unfortunately, they are only with us for a short period of time especially during the "hunting with dad" years between whenever they pass hunter safety and when life get busy for them as they set off on their own. I, for one, am taking full advantage of the time I have and would gladly sacrifice of MYSELF for their benefit. No one is mandating that you have to sacrifice anything. If I choose to let my daughter fill my tag then that is my opportunity for the year. I am just not seeing the negative here. -------SS


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I started hunting in the late 60's ,early 70's, when a kid had to be 16 to shoot a deer.

WHAT A CROCK that was!

Thank gawd our hunting party was was liberal, and liked kids  8) 

My first buck was a good buck, hell, it hook me for life :!: 

My 15 year old has mounts already, antelope, turkey.
Plus 2 buck deer and cow elk..........He's hooked.

Good heavns my 9 year old has a 10" turkey on his wall!
Bird hunt'n fanatic he is! He's wanting big game tags NOW!

My theory, The sooner you get kids hooked , THE BETTER  :!:


----------



## RichardClarke (Nov 5, 2011)

So this is what our hunting heritage has turned in to? On a kid's 14th birthday, instead of Dad going down in the den and handing junior an old weathered pre-64 model 70, he will now hand him a birthday card with a LE bull elk tag in it? 
Also have any of you thought of the years subsequent to the one glory year? So let's say Junior is given a premier LE bull elk tag on Monroe Mountain. He kills a huge 6x6 and then....for the rest of his hunting life he will be walking his a.. off on a general season spike hunt. Any bets Junior will give up hunting because he is disillusioned and how can you top what he was given when he was just 15 years old? I am just saying, enough of the instant gratification. Patience is a virtue and a rare thing. Kids need to be taught more of it. We don't need anymore of "here son have this, you didn't pay for it, you didn't earn it or apply for it or wait for it, but here it is anyway".


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Come on Richard!,,,disillusioned, gratification, Patience's??? Their kids!

My kids KNOW, they don't do well in school, get in ANY trouble, NO hunting/fishing..

They do well in school, and stay out of trouble!

Works with my kids..........And I love it!


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Just my view, but I focus more on general hunts and antlerless for this use and not LE. For myself, my kids will be long grown by the time I ever draw. I would see this as more of an opportunity to let the youngan shoot that meat two point that you would have taken for the groceries or that cow elk that takes a year or two to draw. Another note is that my kids understand the draw as well as odds and have a full knowlege of the time investment involved to get a LE tag. I can promise you that if I chose to let one of mine fill a LE tag that I had drawn that they would be filled to the brim with thanks, appreciation, and respect for what I had done for them. I actually assigned my daughter the task of going through the Wyoming odds too see what tags were available with our points. She got right on it and was excited as she shared her findings with me. Kids get that way when they are loved and raised correctly.------SS


----------



## Igottabigone (Oct 4, 2007)

The bill does not only apply to minors. People who are essentially disabled can also transfer tags to another person regardless of age or relation.


----------



## RichardClarke (Nov 5, 2011)

Goofy, maybe I am going out on a limb here. But I am guessing you didn't do well in school. Or you wouldn't have offered up this fine piece of grammar:

Come on Richard!,,,disallusioned, gratifacation, patiences??? Their kids!


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

So can you imagine what point creep is gong to be like in 40 yrs? In 40 yrs the only tags drawn will be by people that have been waiting 40 yrs. So unless your second generation you will have little to 0 chance at a tag. This in most cases this bill insures that applicants will not drop out of the draw until they are successful. As it is today old age is catching up with many and they may have to drop out for that reason. 

I wonder what the average age is for successful applicants especially one's of OIL or premium LE tags like Henry's. And what is the age trend of successful applicants. I know I will be an old old old man if I ever get a chance at another Monroe LE elk tag.

And we are worried about recruitment and retention why?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

No IB,
That's why Utah has a 50/50 draw...

50% to high point holders, and 50% random draw...


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

Thread thief alert ! :shock: 
Easy solution, just get rid of the point system, no preferences, no abuses, purely democratic, purely random. All a point system does is cause contention within the ranks and one day it will buckle under its own selfish motives; especially as point creep inches higher and higher to exclude more people. I am thankful that this state at least gives half the tags to random, even then more names in the hat for the point guys.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

I think it can be used as a successful tool by many people to enrich their lives and that of their children. I am also sure that there would be others that at some point would probably regret signing a tag over. Quite honestly the thing that concerns me the most would be the parameters by which the transfer of such tags would be approved or denied. I am unclear on how that is to be defined. I am not the least bit concerned what parents do what with their tags. What concerns me would be how a board or an individual would approve or deny such a request.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I guess here is my question to those that are all bent out of shape that "junior" will get handed a LE tag. Why do you care? The tag holder had to draw the tag fair and square. It's not like there is an unfair advantage going on here. Once he does draw, his points are gone whether he keeps it or transfers it to junior. Why does it matter who actually pulls the trigger? (assuming it is legal to transfer to your kid and for him/her to pull the trigger)

Tag holder drops out of the draw pool and junior keeps his points, just as would happen if this law doesn't go into effect and tag holder pulls the trigger while junior looks on. I'm really failing to see how this changes ANYTHING from the current draw system and making people wait longer? 

It obviously puts the burden on the Division, but I can't help but think that in this written permission you're going to have to document why this transfer should take place. It appears the intent of the law in regards to the disabled tag holder is for someone that receives an injury or disability AFTER the draw takes place that prevents them from hunting with the specific weapon or device. If this law passes as written, and it's followed and enforced as written, I'm not seeing the abuse people are claiming will happen. It's just not there.


----------



## Igottabigone (Oct 4, 2007)

I don't read that intent concerning a disabled person anywhere in the language. Are you assuming this is the intent?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

It is just an assumption. Reading the bill as a whole and attempting to put two and two together. I know it's a stretch for some to believe, but I'm hopeful the Division does the right thing. It will be fairly apparent when the written permission is sought in almost all cases if its people just trying to play the system. I'm hopeful those people will be turned down. 

As for parent/guardian transferring tag to their minor child, I'm personally not coming up with any reason to ever oppose that. After going through it some I think it should be allowed. I don't think you'll see this with LE very often. And if dad wants to give up his tag he waited 15 years to draw, who cares? I don't. I think this will impact general hunts much more, when dad draws and a kid doesn't under the new stupid draw system.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

I think raising kids today is a bigger challenge than it's ever been before and our society absolutely depends on successful parents. Without them, our security and economy will falter. So if this gives them something they can use, (and it sure will), then I'm all for it. How they use it is up to them.


----------



## Renegade (Sep 11, 2007)

I am 100% in support of this law, which is weird because I believe legislators should stay completely out of wild game management. I've always believed that once you draw any tag, it's yours & since you bought it & they sold it to you under the assumption that you will kill the prescribed animal, that you should be able to use it, throw it away, sell it or give it away at your determination.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Finnegan said:


> I think raising kids today is a bigger challenge than it's ever been before and our society absolutely depends on successful parents. Without them, our security and economy will falter. So if this gives them something they can use, (and it sure will), then I'm all for it. How they use it is up to them.


TIMES 100! Parents and educators need more leeway to raise up the next generation right.-----SS


----------



## hossblur (Jun 15, 2011)

Pretty slippery slope the way I see it. So how long until a few words get changed and its your tag to sell? Why not? Using you guys language the guy who drew the tag will drop out of the draw, it should be your tag to do with what you want. Really isn't this pretty much what SFW does now? Here is the legal argument now, " I don't have kids, why am I discriminated against, I should be able to have my friend fill my tag if I want". Imagine how many friends Doyle and Denny would have. I love my boys, but I plan on shooting my moose, they will have their OIL chance, besides like was stated earlier, can you imagine the favortism argument when you let one kid shoot your OIL?


----------



## dark_cloud (Oct 18, 2010)

Renegade said:


> I am 100% in support of this law, which is weird because I believe legislators should stay completely out of wild game management. I've always believed that once you draw any tag, it's yours & since you bought it & they sold it to you under the assumption that you will kill the prescribed animal, that you should be able to use it, throw it away, sell it or give it away at your determination.


If you make it were people could sale the tag, the draws would be flooded with people trying to make a dollar. Very bad idea. I am against it 100%. Hows it it fair to the people that have waited 15 years for a tag, that a 14 year old has more points then hes been alive? Why do we have to give the youth every thing? Thats the problem with todays youth, they dont have to work and earn anything. They EXPECT everything.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

I am against everything except the youth transfer component of this proposal. I must say that I am a little taken back by some of the comments regarding youth. I don't think that giving the youth too much is a problem, I just think that many parents don't give enough of the right stuff like time and experience. In my opinion, there is no such thing as giving a kid too much of your time and attention. Hunting is one of the best bonding tools that we have as sportsmen and we only have a short window of time to pass on the traditions that mean so much to us. I think the spoiled lazy kids described on this thread are not the ones whose dads and grandpas are taking them hunting. And generally, kids who hunt are the ones who don't mind a little work, develope some patience, and don't have to be 70 degrees all the time to be happy. Take it easy on the young sportsman. The future of hunting is in their hands. Remember that they will be making the laws in a few short years so why don't we teach them right and provide them some opportunities that will set them on the right path? -----SS


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

dark_cloud said:


> Renegade said:
> 
> 
> > I am 100% in support of this law, which is weird because I believe legislators should stay completely out of wild game management. I've always believed that once you draw any tag, it's yours & since you bought it & they sold it to you under the assumption that you will kill the prescribed animal, that you should be able to use it, throw it away, sell it or give it away at your determination.
> ...


My son works. In fact he worked with me today for about 10 hours remodeling a home that we bought. He is 16 and if I were in the position that I wanted to give him my elk tag or a bison tag and help him harvest it I don't see we anybody else should have a problem with it. It's my tag. My son. What is the difference to anybody else if I am with him to harvest it or he is with me to harvest it? I don't get it. Maybe I have more respect and hope for some our youth than others. Maybe I'm blinded by pride in him.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I have a hard time seeing this as an issue of entitled youth that expect to be given everything. I seriously doubt a bunch of teenagers lobbied their senator to get this bill in front of the legislature.


----------



## RichardClarke (Nov 5, 2011)

TS30, I agree 100% with you. I also highly doubt teenagers lobbied to have this bill introduced. Frankly if they did, I wouldn't have nearly as much heartburn! When I read this bill over and then over again the scenario in which this would apply gets even more bizarre and dubious. Basically someone would have to be so handicapped or debilitated that they couldn't actually shoot a weapon, but they would still have to be within earshot of the youth on the mountain while the hunt is going on! This thing is a bizarre bill. I do not like where this legislation is heading. When the day comes that hunters can start reassigning tags to somebody else whose name is not on the original tag I believe we are going to have some serious problems. This SB61 is a wolf dressed in sheep's clothes.


----------



## BradN (Sep 25, 2007)

The sky is falling; the sky is falling. Not.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Sorry Richard, ur Ridiculous 'rant' type posts are kida weird.


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

This is a mess in the making, it has all the hallmarks of the typical: 
emotion + new way of allocating tags = more pressure on resource ------the same formula that we've seen before that usually leads to inequity and overall detriment. For emotion insert conservation for other beloved formulas, or "state revenue" - whatever. 

It's not about parenting - that's a 365 day a year times 25 or more year endeavor. This won't save or **** anyone's kid.

It does create a new way to hand out tags and no doubt it's great to be able to share if you want and especially cool is the "life threatening illness". I love that idea and who wouldn't?

That's the emotion part and who would argue with that? It's the new allocation method that invites the mess. Here is another formula:

Kid + already kid friendly options for draw = kid and his draw odds plus some other benefits of being a kid - That's what we have. 

The new formula could be:
Mom, Dad, Joint custody mom(dad), Gran, Gramps, Gran, Gramps, JC Gramps, JC Gran??? Anyone who will donate to life threatened child + already kid friendly options = kid and his draw odds multiplied by a possible factor of 9X plus. 

The other crazy thing is what determines life threatening? I am kind of a jerk so it's ok you can hate me. Still, my sweet daughter suffers with life threatening asthma - always. Still, her day to day is not that big of a deal. Not life threatening you say? I answer 5 plus hospital (the ICU flavor - you have to qualify for that upgraded service trust me) stays of longer than a week, one surgery for a collapsed lung, and an inversion like you had can put her breathing at severe risk - not life threatening, I know, she just can't breathe. So, what's up, is that life threatening? All I want to illustrate here is there is a mess brewing there. My kids life is threatened and I could win that in court but I almost guarantee you they would NEVER allow a tag to go to a kid with Asthma. Even though it will threaten her life on and off for as long as she lives. 

I went on there too long because of my personal feelings, but you see what I mean. Sure, there are myriad times when no questions need be asked, but there are equally as many where questions will be. This also will provide incentives for parents to teach their children another valuable lesson - how to lie, stretch, or cobble circumstances into getting things you want as they justify tag transfers. That will happen too. 

What about the person with no kids? He or she is more screwed than before in that kind of system. We already have people who put their mom, cousin, aunt, uncle, gramps, or whomever and then use that tag for themselves. Not only that, but just putting in isn't prohibitively expensive so the average Joe can afford to game the system like that. NOW, or under this it would make a "bad" into something "good". Now it would be like, why wouldn't you enter gramps - who happens to be in a rest home - for a San Rafael sheep or a Mountain goat tag (which he could never ever use) and as soon as it is drawn it gets transferred to the kid.

You guys this is a mess. This is one more way of making the previous mess of a system into another slightly bigger mess. Please don't drink the emotional Kool-Aid on this and recognize it for what it is. One more opportunity for us to transfer opportunity and rights to some other people upon whose wisdom we are going to rely to make the right decisions. One more way for people to game the system. I am not saying this is some kind of sideswipe or backdoor attempt. I bet the bill's sponsor believes this is the right thing for the right reasons. The bill's sponsor just may not see the whole picture, and it is even possible that he/she is just thinking about how to help his/her family. I don't know, but really, this just isn't on the balance a good way of making progress. It's a step in the wrong direction.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Good gawd, :roll: 
And here I thought they might just be trying to legalize dad handing JR the gun :!:
Silly me :lol: 

You know, it's been going on FOREVER :shock: 

I've got a 9 year old wanting to pull the trigger so bad on a little buck
it's going to be dang tough waiting for this kid to turn 12.........
Personally, I think big game hunting age should be 10, and SB61 should pass :!:

Heck, I'd gladly just get 1 more general deer PP , guaranteed deer tag, give it
to the kid at when he turned 10....BUT, I'll wait, hope SB61 passes, 
do it when he turn he's 12


----------



## Amy (Jan 22, 2009)

I scanned this discussion and think there are some misconceptions about this bill and the program it's proposing. The focus is primarily on the mentoring process.

Depending on how the details work out, the adult mentor would likely be allowed to give a youth either a limited-entry or once-in-a-lifetime big game hunting permit.

If this bill becomes a law, the Utah Wildlife Board will obtain public comment on the program before deciding exactly how it will work. (So the public will definitely have a chance to weigh in via the RAC process.)

Board members will then set the rules needed to implement the program and determine which permits are eligible. No matter the type of permit, the adult mentor *may not receive any form of compensation* for allowing the youth to use it.

To take advantage of this opportunity, the mentor must also:
-Obtain prior approval from the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
-Be willing to forfeit applicable bonus or preference points and incur the appropriate waiting period
-Accompany the youth in the field throughout the hunt

An eligible youth must be:
-Younger than 18 years old
-A Utah resident
-The child, grandchild, stepchild or legal ward of the permit holder

This bill also allows eligible adults to give a permit to - and mentor - unrelated youth who are suffering from life-threatening medical conditions.

Many of the scenarios discussed earlier in this thread just won't play out in light of the pre-approval and mentoring requirements.

For those who are interested, the Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture and Environment committee discussed this bill during a hearing last Thursday. You can listen to the discussion, which might shed some more light on this proposed program.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> And here I thought they might just be trying to legalize dad handing JR the gun :!:


This is exactly what this bill is intended to provide.

I think scrutiny is good, but as Amy said, some scenarios discussed previously are completely irrelevant.

Here's a link to search bills and get a clear picture of what is being proposed. There are currently several proposals that are pertinent to hunting and fishing that some may be interested in.

http://le.utah.gov:443/FloorCalendars/

HB 61

HB 68 - Public trust obligations (Stream access)

SB 92 - Tethering of animals (Hound pursuit)


----------



## dark_cloud (Oct 18, 2010)

Helping the youth is not a bad thing, you guys took my comment the wrong way. It just seems that the youth expect more then what we did growing up. I would dare bet that most of us started working for peanuts and had to go the extra mile to prove yourself at work. Now kids expect to be paid a good wage and do less, its the american way. I just don't see how its fair to pass bonus points along the way. If you want to draw a tag and pass it, thats fine, but to pass bonus points along the way would take the point creep to another level. I would pass a tag to my son or daughter as well, but to let them take my grandpas 18 points on moose, at age 14 is wrong. If your going to pass a tag, the original tag holder should be able to go into the field with the young hunter, not just pass their points.


----------



## BradN (Sep 25, 2007)

> Dark_cloud said: "If your going to pass a tag, the original tag holder should be able to go into the field with the young hunter, not just pass their points."


That *IS* what the proposed statute requires.


----------



## dark_cloud (Oct 18, 2010)

BradN said:


> > Dark_cloud said: "If your going to pass a tag, the original tag holder should be able to go into the field with the young hunter, not just pass their points."
> 
> 
> That *IS* what the proposed statute requires.


I understand this, there is just alot of talk about passing bonus points around, like they are gift certificates, that is what we dont want or need.


----------



## Amy (Jan 22, 2009)

dark_cloud said:


> I understand this, there is just alot of talk about passing bonus points around, like they are gift certificates, that is what we dont want or need.


Just to clarify, dark_cloud: There is nothing in this legislation about transferring bonus points to anyone. It is about permits only. The person who obtains the permit will lose their bonus points, whether they choose to hunt with the permit or give it to a young relative.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Amy ur the bomb :!: 8) 

How did we ever get along without you :?:

Please, DONT ever leave


----------



## Uni (Dec 5, 2010)

Thanks Amy.


----------



## Igottabigone (Oct 4, 2007)

Part 3(b) of the bill allows a person who is for all intents and purposes disabled to transfer the tag to anyone regardless of age or relation. Further, the person transferring the tag does NOT need to accompany the new tag holder in the field. How is this related to mentoring?

Further, in regards to accompanying a youth into the field, the bill only states that the person hunting be within eyesight to communicate with hand signals. Guarantee I could get grandma on a road she would be able to see grandson through binoculars or spotting scope a couple thousand yards away. This situation would comply with the bill as now written.


----------



## Igottabigone (Oct 4, 2007)

Part 3(b) of the bill allows a person who is for all intents and purposes disabled to transfer the tag to anyone regardless of age or relation. Further, the person transferring the tag does NOT need to accompany the new tag holder in the field. How is this related to mentoring?

Further, in regards to accompanying a youth into the field, the bill only states that the person hunting be within eyesight to communicate with hand signals. Guarantee I could get grandma on a road she would be able to see grandson through binoculars or spotting scope a couple thousand yards away. This situation would comply with the bill as now written.


----------



## dark_cloud (Oct 18, 2010)

Amy said:


> dark_cloud said:
> 
> 
> > I understand this, there is just alot of talk about passing bonus points around, like they are gift certificates, that is what we dont want or need.
> ...


Thanks Amy...Its nice to have someone that knows, clean the mud out of my eyes and ears.  Thanks again for all you do!


----------



## RichardClarke (Nov 5, 2011)

This is one of the provisions I am having difficulty with...

(C) accompanies the minor, for the purposes of advising and assisting during the hunt,
73 at a distance where the permit holder can communicate with the minor, in person, by voice or visual signals; 

Obviously the statute as proposed, states the original license holder doesn't necessarily have to accompany the minor "in person". The proposed statute says it can also be by "voice or visual signals". 

So does this mean dad can be on his cell phone sitting in his office in Salt Lake City while the 17 year old son and the son's ten friends are hunting bull elk on Monroe Mountain using dad's tag? The dad is most definitely accompanying him by "voice" as long as they are communicating via a cell signal and he doesn't have to be there "in person" according to the statute. 

If the proposed legislative language was tightened up to exclusively say "the original license holder must accompany the minor IN PERSON", it would be much better in my opinion.


----------



## Amy (Jan 22, 2009)

Igottabigone said:


> Part 3(b) of the bill allows a person who is for all intents and purposes disabled to transfer the tag to anyone regardless of age or relation. Further, the person transferring the tag does NOT need to accompany the new tag holder in the field. How is this related to mentoring?


I think subsection 3b has caused a lot of unnecessary confusion. There are multiple subsections in S.B. 61. The *only* one that deals with this youth mentoring proposal is subsection 3c (lines 61-74). The other subsections - including 3a (line 53, about transporting wildlife), 3b (lines 54-60, about companion hunting for disabled individuals), and 3d (lines 75-78, about transferring brine shrimp CORs) - are unrelated to the youth mentoring proposal.

Basically, all four subsections within section 3 are areas where the Wildlife Board can pass rules to make exceptions. None of the subsections have anything to do with each other. If you read the language right next to #3 (lines 49-51), it sets the framework for the four subsections below it.

Subsection 3(b) is part of current state law, and it's the very law that authorized the Wildlife Board to go ahead and create the companion hunting rule in the first place. You can read the specifics in the Companion Hunting and Fishing rule (R657-12-5).

In the case of subsection 3(c), it's just setting up the framework that would authorize the Wildlife Board to make a rule overseeing the mentor permit program. So, at some point down the road, if this bill becomes law, then the Wildlife Board would create a new rule that covers all the specifics about how the program would work. (After the public provides input via the RAC process.)



Igottabigone said:


> Further, in regards to accompanying a youth into the field, the bill only states that the person hunting be within eyesight to communicate with hand signals. Guarantee I could get grandma on a road she would be able to see grandson through binoculars or spotting scope a couple thousand yards away. This situation would comply with the bill as now written.


I'm not 100% sure, but I think this is one of the details that the Wildlife Board could provide additional clarification on when they establish exactly how the program would work.

I'm sorry about the long-winded explanation, but I hope this has helped clear things up a bit.


----------



## RichardClarke (Nov 5, 2011)

If you think about it; the result of SB 61 is actually going to "mentor" and benefit the youth of today who actually need the least amount of mentoring. The lynchpin on how this program works is based on lineage: child, grandchild, etc. So we need to consider two scenarios:

Youth #1 is 16 years old and both his father and grandfather hunt. Under the proposed legislation the youth can hunt on a transferred tag of either his father or grandfather if they so desire. Also it is reasonable to assume this particular youth is already being mentored and the hunting heritage is a big part of their family because his father and grandfather both hunt.

Youth #2 is also 16 years old, but this father does not hunt, in fact he doesn't live in Utah. This youth lives with his mother and live-in boyfriend, who also has no interest in hunting. Youth #2 wants to take up and continue hunting, and like Youth #1 obviously wouldn't mind hunting on a better tag. However he is completely excluded from the process. There is no mechanism in place that allows an adult to transfer their tag or mentor this youth. But more importantly he is the one who apparently needs to be part of a mentoring program and the type of person who could fall out of the hunting ranks permanently. He is the one the legislation should be written for, not Youth #1....


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

OMG Richard :shock: ,,,,, You've got to be kidd'in :?:

Using a 1 in a 1000+ sinerio for an example,,, Whats the point :?:

On top that, If SB61 passes,
I know the DWR and board will be smart enough to incorporate this bill
at the same time NOT changing current laws that work well...

For instance:
Adults must accompany
young hunters
Utah Code § 23-20-20
While hunting big game, a person
under 16 years old must be accompanied
by his or her parent, legal guardian or other
responsible person who is 21 years of age
or older and who has been approved by the
parent or guardian.
The Division encourages adults to be
familiar with hunter education guidelines
or to complete the hunter education course
before accompanying youth into the field.
While in the field, the youth and the
adult must remain close enough for the
adult to see and provide verbal assistance to
the young hunter. Using electronic devices,
such as walkie-talkies or cell phones, does
not meet this requirement.

A youth, 16 and over, receiving a LE/OIAL permit under this bill, if passed,
would/could likely be ' turned lose' to hunt on his/her own...If desired...

A youth under 16 would likely fall under this current law..


----------



## RichardClarke (Nov 5, 2011)

Goofy, you seem to have a difficult time understanding 8th grade level mathematics. Let me help you out here. First in my scenarios, I use the example that the youth is 16 years old. Virtually everything you cite is irrelevant because it applies to youth under 16 years old. Secondly, 50% of marriages end in divorce. Thus it is a very real circumstance to have a person other than a youth's natural father or grandfather attempt to mentor them. Therefore your comment on 1 in a 1,000 scenario is actually more like 1 in 2. I'm not sure what world you live in. But I see this legislation as proposed, as not being equitable to minors that desire to hunt, but do not have a father or grandfather to mentor them on a hunt. Again my point is; those are the youth we should be engaging in hunting and trying to mentor. What part of that logic don't you understand?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Just curious Rich,
How much experience do you have with/doing LE and OIAL hunts?

And 'mentoring' youth on these hunts?

Just so you know were I'm coming from,
Here a pic of my 14 year old son , and his first LE archery tag,,2012.

[attachment=0:mzupnp59]100_3541a-1.jpg[/attachment:mzupnp59]

You know Rich, may be I don't know 8th grade math,
BUT, I do know how to get kids hooked on hunting, and SB61 will help
that effort 8)


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

In fairness, Richard has a valid point. The kids from hunting families will benefit from this legislation. Kids from less-active hunting families won't benefit from this policy. There isn't a huge need to "hook" the current active hunters.

No doubt that this change will not hook Goofy's kids-- he has already instilled the passion in them, even BEFORE they could ever pull the trigger. But what about the 4 young men in my neighborhood who are the only hunters in their family? I have mentored them and they want to hunt. They'll never be able to partake in this policy change. 

I do think most of the heartburn over SB61 will not play out. If what Amy says is true, then this only deals with Ltd and OIL tags. If the transfer is only eligible to youth from 14 to 16 or 18 (the Board has expressed interest in lowering the current "youth" age from 18 to 17 or 16) then we are only dealing with a small number of hunters who draw the tag and have a qualifying youth. I am sure that most adults will have their kids/grandkids accompany them on the adult's hunt. 

Some of my most treasured memories afield occurred while my father had the tag and I tagged along. Kids don't need to make the kill, they just enjoy going out with Dad/Mom/Grandpa-- if the adults make it fun.


----------



## dark_cloud (Oct 18, 2010)

Packout said:


> In fairness, Richard has a valid point. The kids from hunting families will benefit from this legislation. Kids from less-active hunting families won't benefit from this policy. There isn't a huge need to "hook" the current active hunters.
> 
> No doubt that this change will not hook Goofy's kids-- he has already instilled the passion in them, even BEFORE they could ever pull the trigger. But what about the 4 young men in my neighborhood who are the only hunters in their family? I have mentored them and they want to hunt. They'll never be able to partake in this policy change.
> 
> ...


+1.......The only thing this does is help the youth in a hunting family. I dont see anything wrong with it, but to think we have to let kids pull the trigger every time on every hunt to get them hooked is not acurate. I have a ton of memories growing up without the gun in my hand. My son also has memories about my hunts, and cant stop talking about them. Hunting without a tag should just make them want to hunt more, if we give them a tag they want every year, they are just going to expect it every year.


----------



## BradN (Sep 25, 2007)

I don't think this bill has a thing to do with mentoring. It has everything to do with parents or grandparents that worry that their kid will never have an opportunity to do a LE or OIL hunt.

That said, why do you care what someone else does with his or her tag so long as it's not sold? 

If you're concerned about the kids who don't get mentored in hunting, go mentor them. 

This bill will not change the number of applicants in any significant way. You might have the grandfather who thinks he's too old to hunt decide to keep putting in for the draw for a few years. But, that won't alter YOUR odds significantly. 

I think some of you have been, in the words of #32, beating a dead horse to death.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Two things:
1) all hunting tags should be non-transferrable.
2) the state legislature shouldn't be writing or legislating hunting regulations or hunting tags.

I don't like this bill...despite its good intentions.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

OK, Reading through this thread a second time, I am still looking for any reasonable objections to this proposal. Objections that can cite an issue of fairness, biological concern, fiscal concern, or any other real issue. So far, all that I have seen is reasons why one might not take advantage of this opportunity personally. Much like I don't take advantage of deticated hunter, lifetime license, or other programs, this law doesn't force you to give up your tag, it only gives you the freedom to share. I think Amy did a great job of illustrating how this proposal will NEVER affect anyone's ability to draw a tag, will not affect draw odds, and will not provide unfair advantage to anyone. 

That leaves the following arguments from this thread:

--Kids are spoiled and don't deserve extra opportunity.--Personally, I don't think that it is anyone's business what opportunity I want to provide for my kids and applaude this bill that attempts to put more control back in the hands of the parent.

--Kids will come to expect better opportunity.--This only applies to kids who are not correctly instructed and nurtured into appreciating the opportunities that are theirs. 

--It's not fair to kids in non-hunting families.--Neither is the ability to drive at 16 for kids whose families can't afford a car or insurance. This is not a land of fairness(yet) it is a land of opportunity. It is my guess that there aren't too many hunting kids in non hunting families and even less who couldn't talk their dad into hunting with them if that was their desire. 

--It's not fair because in families with many children choices would have to be made.--I don't buy this. We all have to figure out ways to divide every other family resource between children, what makes this any different. If you can't figure out a way then don't participate.

In conclusion I applaude the attempt to give more freedom to individuals when it is possible. If enacted this law will not:

-Make it harder for you to get a tag.
-Allow anyone to profit from tag transfer.
-Increase harvest rates or overall tag numbers.
-Give anyone advantage or dis-advantage in the draws.
-Force anyone to give up their tag involuntarily.
-Excuse anyone from drawing out fairly, forfeiting points when drawn, or enduring wait periods.

So......let's hear any real argument against this proposal.-------SS


----------



## Daisy (Jan 4, 2010)

wyoming2utah said:


> Two things:
> 1) all hunting tags should be non-transferrable.
> 2) the state legislature shouldn't be writing or legislating hunting regulations or hunting tags.


Agreed.


----------



## RichardClarke (Nov 5, 2011)

I will response try to respond to Springville Shooter's post. However I will stop at point #1 in which he claims drawing odds will not change or cannot change under this proposal. SS you obviously do not understand the rules of probability. Let me explain. This proposal will retain more people in the universe (drawing pool) that will be applying for tags. If this proposal becomes law why would anyone ever drop out of the draw or reach a point in their life cycle when they will no longer keep applying? Currently there is a built-in rate of attrition. People drop out of the draw from one year to the next because they typically either draw a tag and cannot put in due to a waiting period or they simply reach a point in their life where they feel they are too old to continue putting in. With this legislation why would a person ever quit applying? Even someone deep into their 80's or 90's would have an incentive to apply for LE tags because if they drew they could simply transfer the tag to a minor within their lineage. It would not be unlike a corporation that had a policy where nobody could retire, employees would work until death or be on the payroll until death. How many job openings would there be? The rules of attrition impact probability. The longer one lives, works, or applies for a tag the outcome and probability changes. In a nutshell this legislation will keep more and more people in the drawing pool. There is virtually no incentive to drop out when they reach a point or age in their life when they become too old to hunt or apply for tags. That attrition factor will be erased under this new law.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Although I get the gist of your point, I find it highly unlikey due to the fact that:1. The person must actually be with the youth hunter during the hunt. This is the same rule that applies to youth hunters now. If you have ever been hunting with a youth, it is not something you will probably want to do in your 90's. 2. The program is only good for youth between the ages of 12-18, or 14-18 for LE and OIL, meaning that there is only a 4-6 year window for each youth to take advantage of this. Most LE tags take double that time to draw out. In my case, it is highly unlikely that I will draw out before my children are too old. As a result, I would get one shot at possibly hunting with a grandchild. 3. Do you really think that many people would pay the fees and go through the trouble even if they no longer had the desire to hunt themselves?

I think the biggest flaw in this thinking is that this proposal will give folks the ability to simply "give away" a tag. This is simply not true. What has to occur is that a parent, grandparent, or guardian has to sacrifice their own opportunity, then go to the field with a youth hunter investing the time, money, and work to "guide" the young hunter through the whole process. 

While I see your point and believe that your argument is credible, I don't think that the attrition phenomenon you describe will have any significant impact on draw odds.

One other benefit is that harvest rates will undoubtedly be less when young hunters are involved. I can tell you that my kill rate has never been lower than when hunting with my kids. There is simply too much to do in the form of teaching and oversight to give fair chase the attention needed to consistently fill tags. I literally worked for 3 solid years helping my daughter before she killed her first buck. I killed one buck myself during that time. 

One simple way to mitigate your worry would be to limit the scope to parents and grandparents period excluding great-grandparents from the equation. That would take care of most of your 80-90 year old folks who would be free to retire from hunting and leave the draw for everyone else satisfying the rules of probability ensuring a zero-net-gain.. 

Does that make sense?-------SS


----------



## dark_cloud (Oct 18, 2010)

Springville Shooter said:


> Although I get the gist of your point, I find it highly unlikey due to the fact that:1. The person must actually be with the youth hunter during the hunt. This is the same rule that applies to youth hunters now. If you have ever been hunting with a youth, it is not something you will probably want to do in your 90's. 2. The program is only good for youth between the ages of 12-18, or 14-18 for LE and OIL, meaning that there is only a 4-6 year window for each youth to take advantage of this. Most LE tags take double that time to draw out. In my case, it is highly unlikely that I will draw out before my children are too old. As a result, I would get one shot at possibly hunting with a grandchild. 3. Do you really think that many people would pay the fees and go through the trouble even if they no longer had the desire to hunt themselves?
> 
> I think the biggest flaw in this thinking is that this proposal will give folks the ability to simply "give away" a tag. This is simply not true. What has to occur is that a parent, grandparent, or guardian has to sacrifice their own opportunity, then go to the field with a youth hunter investing the time, money, and work to "guide" the young hunter through the whole process.
> 
> ...


The program is only good for youth between the ages of 12-18, or 14-18 for LE and OIL, meaning that there is only a 4-6 year window for each youth to take advantage of this. Most LE tags take double that time to draw out. :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?:

I think your forgetting that in this state everybody has lots of kids.... if the average house has 5 kids and they have 5 kids, thats 25 kids spaced out with 2 years apart with some overlaping. I would say there is a good window of around 20+ years that grandpa could put in for, to burn his tag on one of his grandkids.........So to say it doesnt affect drawing odds is not 100% right, it will.

It would have been nice to know they were going to do this 20 years ago, I would have put my grandma in for a bonus point every year for moose, then either one of my kids would have a moose tag with no problem. She is 85 and can go road hunting just fine.

You know how many people are going to bend the rules on this one????????
I dont really have a problem with the tag pass, but to think that it wont affect any draw odds is crazy. It might not affect them much, but there is always someone out there that will find the loop hole.

Theres alot of people that think the youth HAVE to have a big game tag to keep them excited about hunting. Have any of you tried upland game hunting with the youth, or waterfowl hunting. There is alot more action and shooting then when deer hunting, and your still spending family time and mentoring the youth as well. My son is hooked on bird hunting.

I know the draw system sucks, and my kids dont have a prayer for a OIL tag, but to keep grandpa in the draw for an extra 10-20 years is not going to help them out either. Both of my parents are still young enough that they will draw their moose, I have already drawn a mt. goat last year. This means that my son will have the same OIL points as me. He might be able to draw in the next 30 years for himself, I will just build points for my grandkids to hunt. So it is skipping a generation, and my son will likely have the same odds of drawing a tag as one of his kids (useing my points), 20+ years from now. If you think that I would drop out because I am to old your wrong, I would find a way to make sure the tag was drawn and filled and the state didnt get my $10 a year for the last 20+ years. Even if my son had to drag me around in a trailer with a bed in it, so one of my grandkids could fill the tag :mrgreen:


----------



## Uni (Dec 5, 2010)

I'm all for it if they do away with be able to buy a bonus point and you have to pay for the full tag price when you put in.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

My wife will start putting in for LE elk on Monroe for our unborn grandkid. It didn't take a genius mastermind to figure that out. Because if I get another tag in my lifetime it sure isn't getting mine.

One word *legacy*. And most of you should appose turning hunting opportunity into a legacy endeavour.

Or at least I would think the UWC would.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Good points and we actually discussed that very thing last night.

Ultimately, the issues brought up here can be put to bed or curbed by the wildlife board, who will have ultimate control if this passes the senate. I'd urge anyone who has concern over the unintended consequences to show up to the board meeting pertinent to the mentor program, so it can be brought up and discussed. In my mind, all valid concerns that may or may not be an issue.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Two more thoughts, again being a fence sitter on this topic:

A disabled parent/grandparent will be able to gift their permit without having to be along for the hunt-- the gov't can not discriminate due to disability. This idea will generate more money in license sales and PR returns as it will increase applications (by how much who knows).


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

I completely agree with what others have said about tags should not be transferable. It absolutely does have an impact on draw odds as it will create incentive to be in the draw where it otherwise wouldn't or may not exist. Many people do put in for others on an annual basis while they are the die-hard and true hunter - the rest are just placeholders. It shouldn't be that way, but it is and those who live comfortably in what they believe are gray areas will have more gray area to work with. I completely agree that for those reasons the full price should be charged up front and that would be a helpful piece of legislation. This is also discriminatory - no question. If the focus is families then it's a little late and hardly enough. The state had a very family focused hunting experience that I grew up with that was focused on opportunity. Wow! We had some good times in ways that ended as our crew could no longer hunt together. No doubt biology played a role in those changes, but not when we went from 5 to whatever on the general. 

We continue to trade the thrill of the hunt for inches, tags, and the say so of "conservation" organizations and the pressures of trophy hunting. This ends up being another small piece of less and not more and fits in perfectly with the trends. The sky isn't falling and this isn't some massive change. Still, it's one of those by degrees thing like the frog in the pot. 

I hope it doesn't pass. I have 4 kids and I wouldn't give them a tag if I drew it.


----------



## RichardClarke (Nov 5, 2011)

I am obviously 100% against this bill. It is wrong on so many levels, most of which have been already pointed out. However, let's talk about reality here. This bill will fly through and become law quicker than a .220 swift. I found out that in Utah if you want something changed regarding hunting or fishing it is always wise to pull out the "kids card". In reality when adults say something is "for the kids" it is usually for the adults....


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

RichardClarke said:


> I am obviously 100% against this bill. It is wrong on so many levels, most of which have been already pointed out. However, let's talk about reality here. This bill will fly through and become law quicker than a .220 swift. I found out that in Utah if you want something changed regarding hunting or fishing it is always wise to pull out the "kids card". In reality when adults say something is "for the kids" it is usually for the adults....


Kindly explain how this bill ever would be "for the adults"? First, you argue that the kids are given too much and that they should not recieve any preferential treatement, now, you argue that this bill is not for the kids anyway but for the adults. And what other levels do you speak of? You made an argument regarding the bill impacting drawing odds that could be true or could be severely over estimated by the cynics. What are the "so many other levels"? The way that I see it, this is a fairly simple concept; either you support giving parents more control over the use of their own big game tags or you don't. You apparantly don't, I do. Hopefully it will come down to a decision based upon the data/science available combined with the ruling public sentiment. I can live with it either way, I just like to see any form of opportunity handed back to the individual. I realize that alot of folks like to have everything spelled out for them in the law as well.

As far as the argument about parents who would not normally put in for the draw applying for 10-15 years, buying a licence that they will never use each year, spending the $50.00 or so that it costs each year to apply, simply to hope that they draw a tag when they have an eligible youth between the ages of 14-18, then having to go to the field and accompany the youth on the hunt that they themselves have no interest in, is not as likely to be a widespread practice as some would like to suggest.

Just curious. How many folks do you really believe this law would add to the application pool each year? I hesitate to guess beyond low, single digit percentages.----SS


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

I'm not Richard, but I'll take a crack at some of those arguments. 

For the adults - ANYONE would want to hunt any of the limited entry hunts, and many people surrender tags each year because of a million reasons. Draw somewhere else, have a schedule issue, whatever. This keeps the tag in play in more ways than you'd expect. It's for the adults just for the reasons you state - right to do what I want with what you perceive is yours. Trouble is - that does cut out someone else who has no child to work with - they can't play with these rules. 

Draw odds - Sorry but just realize that people cheat and game the system. This just provides an altruistic reason to feel good about putting in people who can't hunt. The accompanying thing is VAGUE and anyone with sense knows that people will walk all over it if their intent was never to hunt with the grandkid, but to give him the tag. In the existing system I know of a person who straight up hunted with his grandfather's tag for a bull elk. He went with grandpa a few times and they weren't having success. He went out alone when grandpa said I'm tired you go and he nailed a wall hanger. This only makes it seem even more right to those who don't know the difference. Lastly MATH just demands that if mom, dad, grandma, grandpa and in the case of illness - ANYONE can try to draw for a child. It's math man - that dang subject that plagued us all in school - can't run from it. 

All of that argument about money - putting in every year and all that is bunk. It's only money and not much at that for most people. The 10 dollar app fee equals 3 gallons of gas - LESS than 3 gallons of gas. Are you kidding me? The reality is that people put in without even asking their kin or there is a system set up where they just know each year the grandbaby puts in for them. It happens, a lot more than you think. Is it everyone? Heck no far from it. It still has an impact and no one can give it a percentage but it isn't 1% like you think. 

I wish it were accompanied with full price up front. I'm out of state and I can tell you it's great to be able to apply for tags as a non-res. However, it became way more expensive. If I thought it was expensive in Utah dang, it went up. I could never afford to put in for all the animals if full price up front was expected of me. The opportunity would be nearly $9,000 each year. In the end I would have to choose what I really wanted and go for that. 

Imagine people having to choose what they really want and pay the money up front (the money they would spend in any case if the drew the tag - not a rule out the poor man argument - the poor man has to pay for the tag when he draws it). THAT - Please someone support it would make it so that people would need to apply in earnest or more in earnest for what was theirs and what they wanted. Limited tags sell at auction for 50K or whatever - much more!?!?! You think that there aren't others who would pay a hundred bucks each year to enter the kin?


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

You bring up some legitimate points. I guess the difference between us is the speculation on how much people will take advantage of the system. Unfortunately, I don't see how we can ever be sure of the actual impact that would be imposed. 

As far as your idea about paying up front, I would much rather face tougher odds than push hunting any farther into the realm of the "rich man's sport". I say this unselfishly as I personally have the budget to pay upfront fees and high out-of-state fee. I also realize that the lionshare of sportsman cannot or will not put up that kind of money to continue hunting. It's a delicate balance that we must reach between resources and opportunity.

How does your opinion on this issue stand related to General and Antlerless tags that have far less overall value? If you take away the value factor, does that change your mind about the opportuntiy? I don't read in the bill that only LE and OIL tags are covered, however, it seemed that Amy from the DNR suggested that the bill would only cover LE and OIL. Not sure what reality is, but interested to know what those against the bill based on LE and OIL felt regarding General and Antlerless tags.------SS


----------



## RichardClarke (Nov 5, 2011)

Where to begin?
1) I have a fundamental issue with assigning or transferring tags to any individual who did not originally draw the tag. Simple as that. I believe this opens up a huge can of worms when the day comes that a tag holder can reassign a tag to someone else.
2) The impact on drawing odds. Certain units, especially the premier LE units, hinge on the tag allocation and number of applicants. A slight decrease in tags or a minimal increase in applicants can adversely impact the drawing odds. This proposal keeps people in the drawing system much longer. 
3) The idea for this proposal is allegedly "mentoring". But, as it has been pointed out previously, it seems the wrong youth will be mentored. This proposal does nothing for a youth hunter in a non-hunting family. Shouldn't we be recruiting or retaining that demographic of youth hunter??? Youths in hunting families are already being mentored. 
4) The original idea for the bill, according to Amy, was floated by adults. Youth did not rally at the Capitol, they did not petition the legislature, they did not raise this issue at a RAC meeting. The roots of the legislative intent are adults telling kids what they need to enjoy hunting.
5) This bill is a template. It merely gets the ball rolling. The devil is in the details which will ultimately be decided by the Wildlife Board. The Wildlife Board is prone to special interests and influence. What will the unintended consequences be?
6) Lastly, it is claimed that few people will even utilize or avail themselves of this bill. Uh, why have it then?? Why the need for this piece of legislation if it will be so rarely used?


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

SS - that is something that hadn't even occurred to me, the transfer of general tags. So, this would pull in turkey, cougar, bear, deer, cow, whatever. You kind of have me there where I am less passionate about that except that I agree with RichardClark when he says it just shouldn't be done. It's really another layer to an onion with too many layers to begin with.

Great childhood memory - standing at Parks in Orem buying an over the counter tag with my dad (how times have changed) and an old man starts barking about the rules and how you need a lawyer to hunt. He says "you have to be a **** criminal to hunt in this state." You know how long ago that was? At least 25 years. 

SS - why aren't you with me 100% on pay up front? All it would do is prevent people from putting in for more than they could get WHEN they draw. You know they own a cell phone, have cable - can't put that in up front even when you know you absolutely will pay when you play? No, I still don't understand any argument that claims it's a rich man's thing to pay up front. It would help this kind of mess some, not all, but some and it WOULD take some folks out of the draw pool - some of those who are currently gaming it.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

I object to the pay up front model because it allows the Government to hold your money for at least half a year with no interest, return, availability for other use, etc. Besides, if you add up the cost of a premium LE and an OIL, it is quite an investment with little chance of drawing a tag. I think quite a few of the folks apply for these tags planning on figuring something out if they win the lottery. I would not want to take that ability away from them even if it gave me better odds. Also, this practice would be a great burden on out of state applicants who contribute greatly by purchasing licenses each year when they apply. I also wonder what the cost is to the agency in handling all the deposits and refunds each year. I wonder if they collect some interest on the funds while they have them to pay for the processing? I know that it is inevidible to some extent, but I hate to price anyone out of hunting. I know it sounds strange, but I really don't want to get anyone out of the draw pool if they love hunting and want to pursue big game. I guess that at 5% of the U.S. population, I feel that we hunters are thin enough.

As for the general tags, here's a scenario for you. With the new management system in Utah, my family cannot expect to draw a tag where we hunt every year. Average would be more like every 2-3 years. So, as a father, if I wanted to give my 12 year old a chance to hunt each fall for a few years as she's learning the ropes, wouldn't it be nice if I could let her shoot a buck with my tag on a year that she didn't draw? Same scenario with cow elk. I know that I would appreciate this type of flexibility and would be more than glad to make the personal sacrifice in order to balance the new management plan with giving my new hunter the best possible start. Honestly I feel that the generals and antlerless tags would be a much better fit for this type of law than LE and OIL but I'm unclear whether or not that's on the table. I think it would be unfortunate to limit this law, if it passes, to LE and OIL. 

Just my thoughts.-----SS


----------



## grizzly (Jun 3, 2012)

If this bill passes, though I do not support it and have written my Congressmen in objection, I will begin applying my mother, father, and father-in-law (none of whom hunt, but all are exempt from Blue Card rules) for OIL and LE tags. I currently do not have kids, but by the time they are old enough to hunt, they will have three people building elk, deer, antelope, sheep, goat, and moose points for them. I figure my yet-to-be-born kids will have 16 points for each species by the time they can even buy a license. I bet that is more points than most of us have right now.

Those youth with less than three non-hunting grandparents will now be at a distinct disadvantage to my kids. I am in the position financially, though I know that many aren't, where I can take advantage of the system.

I know that I am being hypocritical for utilizing a system with which I disagree, but even though I do not support this bill; I will do what I can to increase opportunities for my children. I oppose this bill not for selfish reasons, but for selfless reasons. By the way, I DO support donating LE tags to disabled youth or youth with life-threatening illnesses.

This bill means that point creep increases dramatically (I just explicitly explained how), my kids can avoid waiting periods by jumping from species to species all while under 18. UDWR makes more money (which I believe is a major catalyst for this legislation in the first place). Everybody wins, at least those as fortunate to be in my kid's situation. Sound good?

HERE'S A POTENTIAL COMPROMISE-- When a youth receives a donated tag, both parties lose all points accrued and waiting periods apply. Also, a youth can only receive one "donated" tag in his life (the availability ends at 18 anyway).

Thoughts?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Hard to even read through this BS!

U Guys got a clue :?:


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

Puhleasse Goofy. You're a smart enough guy to work the systems to the best advantage as you can. You outlined that in another post on how and what you would put in for in each state - then turn in tags that don't make sense and use the ones that do. It's a big game, and this isn't only going to have the effect of helping some kids. You see the issues as clearly as you see the benefit. 

No one has illustrated the weaknesses and disparity this creates as well as Grizzly's post. I guess I should just welcome this change and view it as a new leg up for me and my kids. I'll get the wife going, add in mom, dad and the outlaws and start building points.

Remember when we patterned animals rather than tags? Sheesh.


----------



## hatch000 (Aug 4, 2011)

Too late to change things now. This system has been in place for too many years to make changes. Too many people invested with too much money. If it aint broke then don't try and fix it. This bill is trying to pass to save quite a few fellas that are afraid of losing there investment. But guess what, you paid to play the game. Whether it be your age or your health, what have you, you chose to put your money and time into something that didn't work out. It's a part of life. Crap happens. I know and think about it every year when I apply for special tags that the money I'm throwing at it might one day not work out and I may lose out on some money. That's the way the game is played.

Points creep is an issue. You have young kids that are going to fill dads tag but what happens with Juniors points? Do they disappear too? What about waiting periods? Does Junior now have a waiting period too?
Don't get me wrong, there might be a few pros with this bill but there is too many cons to justify the changes. For how long has this system been the way it is? That's right, too long. So leave it alone. If my son wants to hunt a LE or OIL tag, then I'm going to buy him points every year that I can and he will have his turn. I'm 34 years old and I started hunting when I was 29. My oldest son just started hunting and will be 14 soon. He will only be 5 points behind me but yet I'm 21 years older than him. So what if my boy loses interest to hunting because all he sees are tiny two points each year during the general hunts? Well then when he is my age, he will have the points necessary to draw some good tags if he so chooses to do so. Maybe he won't want to hunt and I will have waisted my money. But guess what. We all take chances and gamble alittle with systems like this. It's just the way it is and you pay to play the game or you don't play. So leave it alone.


----------



## hatch000 (Aug 4, 2011)

How and the world is the DWR going to enforce or know if there is going to be any compensation for the tag switch? How is the DWR going to know if the kid is being accompanied by the original tag holder? Someone please define for me life-threatening circumstances??? 
The answer is simple....it can't. Here we go again. The DWR putting it's faith in the honesty of the public. But nobody cheats right? Nobaody lies right? Give me a break.
This bill is creating more oppurtunity for people to break the rules because I know they don't have the man power to verify the child is being accompanied. I know the DWR can't make sure that no one is financially being compensated for the tag switch. So quit creating bills that you can't enforce the rules. There is already enough rules that the DWR can't enforce now.
Does the DWR stop all the rule, lw breaking poachers? NOPE!

When the DWR can enforce all the rules of law concerning our wildlife, then maybe, just maybe I'll reconsider my position on this bill. So that means catching every single poacher out there, making sure everyone has a hunting license and current registered atv's on the roads and abides by all the laws that already exist. So quit creating more rules and new laws that you can't enforce when you can't enforce all the rules and laws that are in place now.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Two things:
> 1) all hunting tags should be non-transferrable.
> 2) the state legislature shouldn't be writing or legislating hunting regulations or hunting tags.
> 
> I don't like this bill...despite its good intentions.


My how we all differ on things. W2u agrees with me on this issue woohooo! I put it in my journal lol.

I say no to this one and have kids.

Its sure funny how in order to get a law changed they always throw in a little girl or handicap kid and how it will change their life for the better.
The law gets passed and abused always does.

It reminds me of the cross bow argument and how only ones that should be able to use them were handicapped, then a few years later throw in little picked on girls, then its full on every swinging johnson.

After this gets passed and a few years later it wont even resemble the same form. Make it fair for everyone is easy on this one. Just say no to this bill!


----------



## RichardClarke (Nov 5, 2011)

swbuckmaster, I agree 100000% with what you are saying. For proof of the "kids card" working on regulation changes do some research on the history of the fishing regulation changes at Kolob Reservoir. For years and years a few disgruntled cabin owners at Kolob didn't like how the reservoir was being managed. They did the RAC thing, etc. They were getting nowhere. Then they decided to pull out the "kids card". All of the sudden they got smart and changed strategies and started saying their changes were "for the kids". Lo and behold the RACs, DWR and Wildlife Board took the ploy and changed the rules. It was the same tired argument that had been used for years, but it got awfully effective once they busted out the kids angle. Anytime you can pull on someone's heart strings with the "kids card" it will work in Utah. Shameful adults...


----------



## osageorange (Nov 20, 2010)

Have you ever noticed, just before an organization goes inept, then desolves into irrelevance, it refuses to take a position for or against anything of controversy or significance.................. Maybe it's just natural?


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Iron Bear said:


> So can you imagine what point creep is gong to be like in 40 yrs? In 40 yrs the only tags drawn will be by people that have been waiting 40 yrs. So unless your second generation you will have little to 0 chance at a tag. This in most cases this bill insures that applicants will not drop out of the draw until they are successful. As it is today old age is catching up with many and they may have to drop out for that reason.
> 
> I wonder what the average age is for successful applicants especially one's of OIL or premium LE tags like Henry's. And what is the age trend of successful applicants. I know I will be an old old old man if I ever get a chance at another Monroe LE elk tag.
> 
> And we are worried about recruitment and retention why?


I am fully going to agree with IB on this concerning the points creep. Attrition is the unfortunate benefit to those who are able bodied and willing to put in the time and put in for those tags every year. Would I like to see my son pull the trigger on a big bull? Yup, and I will encourage him to put in for his tags every year and hope like hell I'm alive when he does draw and hope to be able enough to be in the field if he has an opportunity (the bad word in these discussions). To be blunt, I'm kind of sick and damned tired of these polarizing pieces of hunting legislation coming up and driving a divide between hunters. How about this go the way of the RAC's and to the WB?


----------



## RichardClarke (Nov 5, 2011)

klbzdad, the reason this issue didn't get properly vetted through the RAC and WB process is the people backing this proposal didn't want public input. The way this was presented was not unlike a tax hike. In other words, it is a lot easier to just hike taxes and then deal with the fall out later. Same with this, the whole idea was to leave the public out of the initial process. The backers of this wanted the idea to be codified into law and then let the RAC and WB deal with the fall out. This is the exact opposite of how it should have been done. It should have been raised and discussed at the RAC level FIRST then advanced to the WB and then finally codified into law. But this was purposely done to keep the public's input out of the process until after the fact.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Oh, I'm fully aware that they didn't want public input on it. I know exactly the jokers behind it and what they want it to EVENTUALLY become. I really just don't have it in me (health issues) to pound this one out with some on this forum who support it. I will just say that the political hallway is full of dudes with big teeth and fake tans that claim they represent us all. To them, I say.....NOPE!


----------



## Bo0YaA (Sep 29, 2008)

*I say no to this one as well. *

However, if for some reason it passes....well the next day my wife and mother will be taking hunters safety even though they will never hunt, my kids do. Sorry to say it, but they will be part of the thousands that join the point pool for the single purpose of getting LE tags for my kids.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

OK, here goes something that you will rarely see on this forum. Taking into account the arguments presented, I am seeing that this proposal, as related to LE and OIL tags, would encourage illigitimate participation in the draw process by those( as described above by Booya) who have no interest or intention to hunt. Also true, I believe, is that conservation law enforcement does not have the resources to properly monitor and enforce the rules pertaining to this. So given these things, I too am now against the notion of transferring LE and OIL tags. 

However, I am not against the principle in general. I still believe that parents/adults should be given any possible freedoms to provide opportunity for youth. I still disagree with the arguments that youth are undeserving of special consideration due to laziness, or being spoiled. I also disagree with the argument that the law is unfair in that it only serves youth in hunting families. Newsflash.....these youth are the one's who will ultimately continue hunting traditions within the next couple decades. Bottom line is that if there are not enough of them who engage in the effort, hunting and opportunity will decline effecting our generation during our retirement years.

Given the reasons for my opposition to the particulars, I am not be opposed this bill in that it hands over the ability to craft these ideas to the RAC's. I am still for this idea as it pertains to general and antlerless tags where demand value is not high enough to promote corruption of the intent of the bill which is to allow parents and mentors to provide increased opportunity to new and young hunters. I have a good case in point this year in my own family. My 11 year-old daughter just passed hunter safety and will be 12 before any big game season opens. I put her in for general deer where we hunt and she may or may not draw out. I have enough points that I will draw a doe antelope permit this year and plan on harvesting one for fun and food. Say my first year hunter does not draw her general tag. Woundn't it be reasonable for me to be able to sign her onto my doe antelope tag in order to give her a chance to hunt? I realize that this is not essential to keep her interested, but what would it hurt? 

Other than the blanket argument that "tags should never be transferred", what would be wrong with this practice?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

RichardClarke said:


> klbzdad, the reason this issue didn't get properly vetted through the RAC and WB process is the people backing this proposal didn't want public input. The way this was presented was not unlike a tax hike. In other words, it is a lot easier to just hike taxes and then deal with the fall out later. Same with this, the whole idea was to leave the public out of the initial process. The backers of this wanted the idea to be codified into law and then let the RAC and WB deal with the fall out. This is the exact opposite of how it should have been done. It should have been raised and discussed at the RAC level FIRST then advanced to the WB and then finally codified into law. But this was purposely done to keep the public's input out of the process until after the fact.


The passing of SB61 will not put anything into place as far as regulation goes. This will all be done through the RAC and Board process. What the bill does do is allow for the division and board to craft a mentoring program with all of the things discussed here in mind if and when a proposal is made. It's similar to what passed several years back, allowing the division to have flexibility to change the opening day of the general deer hunt. Without changing state law/statute, they would not have the ability to even consider something regarding season changes. Have they changed anything regarding opening day of the deer hunt? No. But they now have the ability to introduce proposals that will allow them to do so if it becomes desired or necessary.

SB61 will allow the division and others to introduce proposals for mentoring and tag transfer. There is no proposal on the table to the legislature that would allow all of the things in the bill to go into effect next season, or any season for that matter. It simply allows the creation of a program that may or may not include all of the things mentioned in the bill. I would hope that those who have concern over the mentoring program would voice their opinions at RAC and board meetings when a proposal _is_ made.

I support the general concept, but there obviously are some things that need to be brought up and considered before any kind of proposal is passed. Getting kids more excited about hunting and retaining them as hunters so they can pass this on to future generations and expand our support base is a good thing, IMO.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Well Tree, I'm glad to see there is an issue you and I can 100% agree on


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Not one single one of us got "hooked" on hunting because of a LE or OIL hunt. And I would venture to say only very few of us was "hooked" on hunting with their first harvest. Most of us were "hooked" on hunting long before our first big game hunt. Grouse, Duck, Dove, Rabbit, Turkey? Most of us got hooked on hunting following dad through the woods hearing and smelling buck snorts eating kippered snacks and getting chastised for making too much noise. Are we loosing kids to hunting because they didn't get a big enough buck bull billy or ram? 

We cant mentor kids sufficiently with out coveted LE and OIL tags? 

Total BS.

"Point Banking" is what it is called.

SS, Your post shows great character. :O||:


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Disagree on this one IB,
When I grew up, and started hunting deer in the 70's, 
The general season hunting then was like , what LE hunts are today!

Heck , around our ranch from 1975 to the mid 80's was UNREAL!
ANY GIVEN DAY you could go within 5 miles from were I'm typing 
right now and see DOZEN's of 4x4 bucks! Nice ones too!

NOW, TODAY , do the same thing from were I'm sitting and NEVER SEE a deer!

Hunting for us, when we started,was/ is equal to todays, limited entry.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> Most of us were "hooked" on hunting long before our first big game hunt. Grouse, Duck, Dove, Rabbit, Turkey? Most of us got hooked on hunting following dad through the woods hearing and smelling buck snorts eating kippered snacks and getting chastised for making too much noise.


Exactly...hunting for most of us didn't have anything to do with the kill! Hunting became an extention for what we already enjoyed doing...


----------



## RichardClarke (Nov 5, 2011)

From my perspective: I started deer hunting in 1974. Back then I shot a few 4 points, but mostly a lot of 2 points. Looking back on those years and bouncing around in a 1974 Ford Bronco, my fondest memories were of my father and the small fork horns I shot. I remember my dad used to tell me "you can't eat the horns, and that one you got will taste mighty good". Kids are taught ethics and behavior from their parents. I was raised to approach hunting as a privilege, nothing more nothing less. I am in my 50's now and my heart rate still jumps whenever I see a buck with horns, regardless of size. But again, that is just me and my perspective...


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

This does seem unnecessary for the potential negatives and discriminatory nature of it. About the only piece I would keep would be life threatening illness as no one will plan or bank points solely for that reason. The point banking is an issue and there is no denying - just as some have said they will - it will add to the pool of applicants "hunters" that are really in it to draw for someone else. 

The good times began for me in the early 80's tagging along sometimes ruining dad's hunt. My dad was nuts in the best of ways. He took us into some crazy territory and was a great hunter who never harvested much of a big buck. My first deer were forked horns and there was hell to pay when we actually took one. I grew up hunting Water Hollow, Shingle Mill and Big Springs and dad taught us to drag deer out cause that's what people did. When that got rough on him we focused on Avintaquin where he hunted for decades as a boy. Of course we also hunted in a bunch of places around the state. It was a thrill to be able to hunt old reliable one weekend and go to some new place the next. One of our biggest trophies came with the best story, the hardest drag, and one of the smallest possible 4 points you can imagine. I also really miss hunting with my cousins and family. Really, we were less effective hunters when we did that, taking no more animals while having more tags. I have no idea if any of that plays out through some social factors, but we also didn't party hunt. We just thought we were having a party while we hunted. Good times, I miss them very much. I would love to draw out with my crew and their little kids and continue to introduce it all as we used to.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

First off,



wyoming2utah said:


> Iron Bear said:
> 
> 
> > Most of us were "hooked" on hunting long before our first big game hunt. Grouse, Duck, Dove, Rabbit, Turkey? Most of us got hooked on hunting following dad through the woods hearing and smelling buck snorts eating kippered snacks and getting chastised for making too much noise.
> ...


+1 guys, it was exactly the same for me. Very aptly put, right down to the kippered snacks and buck snort jokes, and in IB's case probably the same mountain.

As for SB61, I see the pros and cons, but as explained by Amy and Tree, the bill only empowers the Wildlife board to make changes in tag transfer regulations. With that in mind, the question becomes;

How much do you trust the Wildlife Board to do the right thing with this issue? :?: -Ov-


----------



## grizzly (Jun 3, 2012)

This is the email I sent to my Congressmen...

Please vote NO on SB-61.

As an avid hunter and outdoorsman I just wanted to let you know my feelings on SB 61 (Hunting Permit Amendments). Though the intent of this legislation is commendable, the value of hunting permits today (sometimes selling for over $100,000 each at auction) only leads this type of system to quickly become ripe with abuse.

Many of these coveted tags now take 60+ years to draw through the public system and allowing Grandma to acquire a deer tag she never intended to use, just to give to her grandson, only takes that tag from somebody that has been waiting decades to be lucky enough to draw the tag through the legitimate system.

Tags supplied, by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, to Conservation Organizations can already be donated to another hunter if they so choose. This opportunity should be left to the individual organizations, and should not affect the public hunters without the financial means to play in that financial league. For every hunting permit the state issues as part of SB-61; somebody else, an Average Joe, lost an opportunity they have spent decades and thousands of dollars to acquire.

Also, there is a serious flaw in the bill. As written, the bill requires the Grantor (who is now unable to use the tag) to accompany the Grantee at all times. How can somebody simultaneously be unable to hunt and still accompany the hunter in the field?

This is a can of worms that should be left unopened. Thank you for your consideration.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Catherder said:


> First off,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


+1

I don't see anywhere in the bill stating the intent for this legislation is to allow for the forming of a mentoring program. There are better ways and plenty of youth tags available especially with youth having access to over the counter archery this year to introduce kids to hunting. Turkey, dove, rabbit, COYOTE, and showing them the real experience they are in for make for better mentoring and character building when it comes to young hunters. My fondest memories of hunting had nothing to do with field dressing and processing deer or elk. Buck grunts and uncontrollable laughing followed by a soft "shush" from dad before he pulled the trigger reinforced the experience for me.

Funny my last post disappeared. Did I touch on a soft subject concerning a certain someone stepping down as a ranking member of a certain group and applying for a certain empty seat on a certain wildlife decision making body? :O•-:


----------



## RichardClarke (Nov 5, 2011)

The lynchpin in all of this obviously boils down to a matter of trust. Transferring tags from one hunter to another is unprecedented. Utah has never allowed for a tag holder to reassign a tag to someone who didn't originally draw the tag. This proposed bill changes all of that. Then we have to look closely at the Wildlife Board. They are a governing body that has shown, with their previous actions, that they can be greatly influenced by special interests. To me the course of action is obvious; we cannot open this door even just a small crack. If we do the snakes and rats will eventually slither in.


----------



## gottago (Mar 1, 2013)

*Re: SB0061*

SB 0016
This bill would allow residents who draw a tag for a rare hunt to potentially pass that tag on to a child or grandchild.

This all sounds fair and just, however, looking at what it takes to be in the upper group that has an increased chance of drawing one of these rare hunt tags draws a different picture. I am sure you are aware that residents (many tens of thousands) yearly pay $5 in the past but currently $10 to apply for one of these rare hunt opportunities. If they are unsuccessful, the DWR pockets the money and gives the applicant a "bonus point". This bonus point can be used to enhance future possibilities of drawing one of the rare hunts. Over time, this should help draw the hunt because the bonus points accumulate.

Case in point, I have six bonus points toward better chances to draw a rare hunt tag. That means I have applied, paid the required un-refundable fees, was unsuccessful on the draw and have been doing this for six years. A friend of mine has fifteen bonus points toward a rare hunt and has yet to be successful on the draw. This means he has supported the DWR and the state with his monetary funding for the application, purchased a big game license or combination license which is required to be purchased to apply for the rare hunt. This friend has patiently met the requirements for fifteen years in the belief that one day it would be "his turn".

What this bill will do is allow someone who is in line like myself with six bonus points and my friend with fourteen bonus points to be pulled to the "head of the line" ahead of the tens of thousands of other hunters who have been applying over the years. What a benefit to me. No! This is wrong. I can see it is wrong although I could potentially be one of those who could avoid years of applying and not being successful.

This is a hurtful bill that goes against the belief of fairness yet promotes "cutting the line because you are special". My view, instead of this being a good way to pass that tag on to a child or grandchild to ensure the heritage of hunting is passed on, could very well allow a fifty five year old to fall into the group of "child" and his son at thirty seven to be in the group of "grandchild". Again, wrong minded, the SB0016 bill would allow this to happen.

The DWR has made available this "flag ship" bonus points and made the process available to those who patiently waited for a future draw but, over time, has become restrictive to those unwilling to "wait their turn" so, following what seems to be going on in America, the direction is to change the law to their benefit over the "rights" of thousands of others. Hidden agenda here.

While youth, grand children and heritage are the "buzz words" used, the actual fact is many of us have supported hunting tradition in Utah and supplied the monies necessary to maintain what the DWR is today. We are the ones being overlooked with our dedication to tradition and heritage of hunting while the youth are just beginning to pay their dues.


----------



## BradN (Sep 25, 2007)

*Update on SB61*

On 2/26 this bill passed the Senate 23-6. It has now been introduced into the House, and is in Committee.

As I've stated earlier, I don't have a problem with this bill. But, those who do may want to direct their ire to their representative, not their Senator.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

gottago said:


> SB 0016
> This bill would allow residents who draw a tag for a rare hunt to potentially pass that tag on to a child or grandchild.
> 
> This all sounds fair and just, however, looking at what it takes to be in the upper group that has an increased chance of drawing one of these rare hunt tags draws a different picture. I am sure you are aware that residents (many tens of thousands) yearly pay $5 in the past but currently $10 to apply for one of these rare hunt opportunities. If they are unsuccessful, the DWR pockets the money and gives the applicant a "bonus point". This bonus point can be used to enhance future possibilities of drawing one of the rare hunts. Over time, this should help draw the hunt because the bonus points accumulate.
> ...


Nope.


> (c) allow a resident minor under 18 years of age to use the resident or nonresident
> hunting permit of another person if:


While I'm not in favor of this bill, it doesn't affect *your* draw results.


----------



## grizzly (Jun 3, 2012)

Fishrmn,

It DOES affect my draw results when this bill invents "perpetual points". Case in point... Instead of my grandfather's moose points, which he no longer has the desire to use, being lost to attrition and the next hunter in line drawing the tag... now he can give those points (in way of a tag) to somebody that hasn't waited a single year to hunt. There is a hunter, just like you and me, with over a decade worth of points that will be unsuccessful in drawing a tag so my little brother can hunt a OIL tag on Year One. UDWR wants to create another Special Interest Group.

With no attrition, points never die... point creep speeds up to "point explosion". Its a terrible idea.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

You're right. But your little brother can only use that tag in your example while he is still a minor. Under 18. I guess if your grandpa has several grandkids he could keep putting in until he draws, and then give the tag to whichever grandchild is still a minor. I'm still against the bill. Also, is it the UDWR that wants this? Or is it a lobbyist or a legislator?


----------



## RangerJoe (Nov 4, 2008)

Sounds like a decent law to me. If I'm dying and ironically draw a tag, bet your @ss I want my family to use it.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

I support this idea without reservation.

I would never tell anybody how to raise their kids, but if I was still in the business of raising kids myself, I sure wouldn't give one of them an LE tag. Not everyone will agree, nor should they - every kid is different. But my one and only LE hunt was a serious head trip. And I only had to account to myself...didn't have to measure up to Dad's expectations. I wouldn't wish that on a kid of mine.

Good fathers are becoming a rare commodity these days, and God bless every one of you. But I'm thinking that when you give your LE tag to your kid, he or she is well aware how special the opportunity is. Dad gave up his tag for me. And I'm thinking that your kid wants nothing more from the hunt than he or she wants your approval. So if the kid is successful, all is well. But if the kid doesn't fill the tag, regardless of what Dad says, that sense of approval might not be there.

Put it another way - kids should start out by just enjoying the experience with as little pressure to punch a tag as possible. Let them get their feet wet and build an experiential base before tossing them in the deep end. Do the ABC before the XYZ.

Saddest hunting story I ever heard from a kid, (and I get to hear a lot of them), was an incident in which the kid emptied her gun at a nice buck. Then Dad took the shot "for her". Sure, that's a rare aberration. But the point is that she was devastated because despite all the "Well done, I'm proud of you." statements that Dad made, she felt that she didn't measure up. That's no way to keep a kid hunting.

It bothers me just a little bit, but again, it isn't my place to tell another man how to raise his kids.

Still, Lee Robertson is rolling over in his grave.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Fishrmn said:


> gottago said:
> 
> 
> > This all sounds fair and just, however, looking at what it takes to be in the upper group that has an increased chance of drawing one of these rare hunt tags draws a different picture. I am sure you are aware that residents (many tens of thousands) yearly pay $5 in the past but currently $10 to apply for one of these rare hunt opportunities. If they are unsuccessful, the DWR pockets the money and gives the applicant a "bonus point". This bonus point can be used to enhance future possibilities of drawing one of the rare hunts. Over time, this should help draw the hunt because the bonus points accumulate.
> > Not exactly. The UDWR *doesn't* get that money. The company in Nevada that conducts the draw gets those funds. And they get it whether you're successful or unsuccessful.


Actually, you're both right and you're both wrong! Per the state UWDR office in Salt Lake, the $10 is held in a UDWR account, then after the draw is completed by the Nevada company (Utah Wildlife Administrative Services), a portion is paid to them for conducting the draw. Currently it amounts to $3.01 per application until a minimum number of applications is reached and then it drops to $1.25 per application. In other words, if the minimum for the hunt is 100 applications (nothing to do with tags) and they received 120 applications, the total would be $326.00, which is $301.00 for the first 100 plus $1.25 for each of the 20 applications over 100.

Now, how the minimums are determined or are broken down per hunt, I haven't been able to find out yet because they are contracted out by the Department of Finance and I was told a printout was a paper stack 2 inches high. She was unwilling to print me a copy and told me I could find it on the internet, but so far I haven't been able to find it on the internet, but I will!

In any case, UDWR keeps whatever they don't pay Utah Wildlife Administrative Services and uses it to print licenses, permits, unsuccessful (successful) notices, proclamations, etc., but how much is used for actually managing wildlife, I couldn't say.

How this plays into this discussion, I'm not sure, but it definately is a lot of money when you consider the number of applications for deer, elk, pronghorn, antlerless, bison, moose, RM Bighorn, Desert Bighorn, goats, cranes, swans, sage grouse, sharptails and lions and turkeys and bears, oh my!


----------



## gottago (Mar 1, 2013)

The local newspaper wrote the Director of the Division of Wildlife Resources said the bill was drafted to ensure that the heritage of hunting is passed down. Sounds like a support.


----------

