# conservation tags



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I believe that conservation tags take away opportunity from the hard working hunters and give opportunity to those with big, fat bank accounts. If we continue down this path, the first people that are going to lose interest are the blue collar folks that make up the solid hunting base and are the backbone of the Western culture. That is bad for hunting and bad for everyone involved.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> I believe that conservation tags* take away opportunity from the hard working hunters and give opportunity to those with big, fat bank accounts*. If we continue down this path, the first people that are going to lose interest are the blue collar folks that make up the solid hunting base and are the backbone of the Western culture. That is bad for hunting and bad for everyone involved.


Very telling once again. You wrongfully imply that rich people aren't hard working, and that all poor people are. When as a rule the exact opposite is true.

The first people who will lose interest is people like you who make themselves out as victims. :roll:


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> > I believe that conservation tags* take away opportunity from the hard working hunters and give opportunity to those with big, fat bank accounts*. If we continue down this path, the first people that are going to lose interest are the blue collar folks that make up the solid hunting base and are the backbone of the Western culture. That is bad for hunting and bad for everyone involved.
> ...


Oh please....you are really searching now aren't you? I am saying that the blue collar guy is just as hard working as the guy with a big bank account. I am saying that those conservation tags take away from hard working people....that doesn't imply that those who do have money don't work hard at all.


----------



## nickpan (May 6, 2008)

Dude give it a break.... honestly -#&#*!-


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

I voted yes in the way they are currently being used in Utah.
Look at what the statewide tags bring in vs the units that give up 5% 
it's quite a difference. Supply has outpaced the demand for these tags 
that they are worth no where near what they should be. 

Look at it this way. If we did away with the 5% rule and dropped it to say 1% 
then increased the statewide tags by a few and I mean a very few (-20) I would 
be willing to bet that within a few short years your net would be very close to what it is now.

Currently this program is a run away train.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wileywapati said:


> Supply has outpaced the demand for these tags
> that they are worth no where near what they should be.


What??? A tag is 'worth' more than what someone is willing to pay for it. To say the worth should be a certain value makes zero sense. :? If supply has outpaced demand, why did tags go for record amounts this year on several units?


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

Come on PRO you capitalist pig j/k you should be the one explaining it to me.
Diamonds gold stuff like this is valuable because it don't grow on trees like conservation tags
in Utah do.

If you cut these tags in half they would become twice as valuable to those that purchase them. If there weren't seven or eight wasatch tags given to each org you can't honestly tell me that bidding wouldn't be higher for the ones that were available???


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wileywapati said:


> If you cut these tags in half they would become twice as valuable to those that purchase them. If there weren't seven or eight wasatch tags given to each org you can't honestly tell me that bidding wouldn't be higher for the ones that were available???


There can be no more than seven tags issued TOTAL for a unit during a season, no need for hyperbole. :? They can't, under the current guidelines, issue more than 7 Wasatch any weapon conservation permits total. All the conservation groups have to 'share' the seven tags, they don't each get seven tags.

If the number of tags were reduced the demand would go up, but I doubt it would go up in proportion to the reduced supply of tags you propose. For example, they issued two choose your season tags for the Henries, both went for $90,000+. I seriously doubt if only one was issued it would go for $180,000+. I think we have a good/reasonable balance right now.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

350 is a good balance??? You don't see anything slightly askew with that???


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

I think it's a little excessive.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wileywapati said:


> 350 is a good balance??? You don't see anything slightly askew with that???


Not when I am able to see the whole picture, which it is* 5%* of the total tags issued. Being able to put it in perspective in key to making a reasonable conclusion.

I lost your phone number, I need to talk with you on the tele.


----------



## 1BandMan (Nov 2, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Out of lower class, middle class, upper middle class and upper class, what class would you say makes up the greatest population of hunters? I'd say the largest percentage of hunters are the lower, middle and some upper middle class far outweigh those of upper class that spend $300,000 per animal, but I'm just guessing (kind of an educated guess).
I'm just guessing but I'll also bet only 2 or 3% of the hunting population can afford and pay big money for hunting. Why should 2 or 3% of the population control 75% of the hunting opportunity???

How many people can afford to pay big bucks to hunt game....not very many, however the way things are going, money equates to opportunity. The small percentage is taking the largest percentage of trophy animals. Thus Wyomming2utah's issues.

I don't have an issue with with a few conservation tags, however I question numbers of tags as well.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

My opinion is that Conservation tags are good for the sport when they are sold to the highest bidder, 100% of the money goes to increasing the health of the herd, and their are very few tags given out. 

I don't like the way Utah currently handles them.


----------



## utfireman (Sep 7, 2007)

Hairy,

Your mistaken, how is the rich in control of 75% hunting opportunity!

And your small percent is taking just as much and maybe even less of the trophy animals then the majority percent is. Just a quick example is the world record muzzy bull taken last year, as well as the buck that was taken off the Henry's two years ago.


----------



## 1BandMan (Nov 2, 2007)

utfireman said:


> Hairy,
> 
> Your mistaken, how is the rich in control of 75% hunting opportunity!
> 
> And your small percent is taking just as much and maybe even less of the trophy animals then the majority percent is. Just a quick example is the world record muzzy bull taken last year, as well as the buck that was taken off the Henry's two years ago.


I don't know what percentage of the "rich" control as far as hunting opportunity goes, but I'll bet I'm not far off by much.
Guides, leases, land grabs, clubs, etc. is taking up a fair percentage of the opportunity.
Most folks cant afford to lease ground, buy ground if they still could, belong to a club, or hire a guide or guides etc.


----------



## blackdog (Sep 11, 2007)

Has anyone ever seen an itemized list of where 100% of the money raised with these consevation tags is being spent? I'd like to see one. 

Since we're talking "Conservation tags" and how good it is for Utahs wildlife, hunters and the economy. In 2010 the Hunt Expo along with our 200 tags that were stolen from the public draw will be in Reno Nevada, and don't forget, you must attend the expo to put in for those tags. I'am sure the good people from Nevada and California are really going to enjoy our tags. How does that taste Utahns?


----------



## skull krazy (Jan 5, 2008)

blackdog said:


> Has anyone ever seen an itemized list of where 100% of the money raised with these consevation tags is being spent? I'd like to see one.
> 
> Since we're talking "Conservation tags" and how good it is for Utahs wildlife, hunters and the economy. In 2010 the Hunt Expo along with our 200 tags that were stolen from the public draw will be in Reno Nevada, and don't forget, you must attend the expo to put in for those tags. I'am sure the good people from Nevada and California are really going to enjoy our tags. How does that taste Utahns?


If that is true, i don't like the sound of THAT one bit!! :evil:


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

blackdog said:


> Has anyone ever seen an itemized list of where 100% of the money raised with these consevation tags is being spent? I'd like to see one.
> 
> Since we're talking "Conservation tags" and how good it is for Utahs wildlife, hunters and the economy. In 2010 the Hunt Expo along with our 200 tags that were stolen from the public draw will be in Reno Nevada, and don't forget, you must attend the expo to put in for those tags. I'am sure the good people from Nevada and California are really going to enjoy our tags. How does that taste Utahns?


Yes, you can get the info on the various foundation websites and their publications.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

skull krazy said:


> blackdog said:
> 
> 
> > Has anyone ever seen an itemized list of where 100% of the money raised with these consevation tags is being spent? I'd like to see one.
> ...


Me neither, that would be horse ****.


----------



## blackdog (Sep 11, 2007)

Thanks Tye. I will try and find where it says where the money is being spent on the verious foundation websites and publications.

It's true. The Western Hunting and Conservation Expo will be held in Reno in 2010. As far as the tags go, we can only hope that Don Peay and SFW know that taking those tags to Reno would be a kick in the balls to Utah sportsmen and put them back in the public draw for 2010.


----------



## utfireman (Sep 7, 2007)

The rumor with the tags is, they are going to stay in Utah even thou the expo is somewhere else.

As far as the rich people controling our hunting is so wrong. EVERYONE is given the chance to show up and voice their concerns. I have seen it a few times when the rich have wanted something done, only to get it turned down due to the average joe hunter not wanting it. Sorry nutz, but the rich DO NOT control our hunting.


----------



## kingfish (Sep 10, 2007)

honkerfool said:


> Dude give it a break.... honestly -#&#*!-


i think the recent post have made some valid points on all this mess. so i say, carry on! lets hear some more!!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I really like the comments made in this article:
http://www.eastmans.com/blogs.php?reque ... ogref=mike


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Of course you do. :roll: You usually agree with drivel that is all about class warfare. Your pity party is getting beyond old. :?


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Of course you do. :roll: You usually agree with drivel that is all about class warfare. Your pity party is getting beyond old. :?


Again, as predictable as a 4:00 bowel movement, Pro disagrees with anything W2U posts regardless of the substance....


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

PBH said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > Of course you do. :roll: You usually agree with drivel that is all about class warfare. Your pity party is getting beyond old. :?
> ...


The only substance it had consists of what you remove from your orifice at 4:00. :? :wink:


----------



## utfireman (Sep 7, 2007)

I have read the comment's over and over when my magizine first came to me, and I strongly disagree with both Mike Eastman and guy named Mike who wrote this article. 

I use to be one who was against these tags. I hated them with a passion. But since I grew up some and was able to look at the big picture I have now come to love these tags. I love what has came from the money raised from the sell of them. I have personally seen where this money goes, it's gone to helping sheep, goats, buffalo, antelope, elk, and even deer. As a dedicated hunter it has helped improve the general season area that I hunt as well as those in the central unit. Almost anyone who has ever had a LE tag has been one who has benefited from the sell of these tags.

Giving up a small percent of these tags to raise this kind of money is the least that I can do. One thing that Wyoming has going for them, is the money that gets pumped into the wildlife due to the oil exploration. Colorado is starting to get the same thing. Now once we find a way to raise that kind of money without the sell of tags, I will be the first to step up and say give the tags back to the draw. But until then, I will say thanks for improving my wildlife!!!!!


----------



## 1BandMan (Nov 2, 2007)

utfireman said:


> I have read the comment's over and over when my magizine first came to me, and I strongly disagree with both Mike Eastman and guy named Mike who wrote this article.
> 
> I use to be one who was against these tags. I hated them with a passion. But since I grew up some and was able to look at the big picture I have now come to love these tags. I love what has came from the money raised from the sell of them. I have personally seen where this money goes, it's gone to helping sheep, goats, buffalo, antelope, elk, and even deer. As a dedicated hunter it has helped improve the general season area that I hunt as well as those in the central unit. Almost anyone who has ever had a LE tag has been one who has benefited from the sell of these tags.
> 
> Giving up a small percent of these tags to raise this kind of money is the least that I can do. One thing that Wyoming has going for them, is the money that gets pumped into the wildlife due to the oil exploration. Colorado is starting to get the same thing. Now once we find a way to raise that kind of money without the sell of tags, I will be the first to step up and say give the tags back to the draw. But until then, I will say thanks for improving my wildlife!!!!!


I'd really truely like to know for sure where the money goes in Utah. Do you have information/documentation on this??


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Harry Nutzack said:


> utfireman said:
> 
> 
> > I have read the comment's over and over when my magizine first came to me, and I strongly disagree with both Mike Eastman and guy named Mike who wrote this article.
> ...


The DWR has to account for every penny, it's on their website.


----------



## utfireman (Sep 7, 2007)

Let's not forget that the conservation group's also have to account for where money is spent.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

utfireman said:


> Let's not forget that the conservation group's also have to account for where money is spent.


Nothing like SEEING the money at work to help see the light! Glad you are coming around. I knew if I brow beat you long enough you would come over to the 'good' side. :mrgreen:

To bad we didn't have some of this cooler weather last weekend. Now get back to work!


----------



## 1BandMan (Nov 2, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Harry Nutzack said:
> 
> 
> > utfireman said:
> ...


I realize the the DWR has to account for the expendatures, however does all the money from that conservation tag make it to the DWR? I thought it was like all the other tags sportsmen pay for and the cash went into the "general fund".

I honestly want to see the checks and balances and if the conservation tag moneys go to conservation.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

From the Eastman article: "Advocates point out that one deer tag sold for $150,000 is worth it. But thousands of hunters must give up their hunts to produce an experience that a $150,000 deer tag bidder will purchase."

I know I can't get a response from the author, but can anyone here explain how one conservation tag, no matter the cost, requires "thousands of hunters" to "give up their hunts"?

It seems most of the posts in this thread gloss over this statement and assume it's true, but I don't see any logic in it. It doesn't make sense to me. Anybody?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

It doesn't go to the general fund, it goes to the DWR earmarked for wildlife and habitat.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> From the Eastman article: "Advocates point out that one deer tag sold for $150,000 is worth it. But thousands of hunters must give up their hunts to produce an experience that a $150,000 deer tag bidder will purchase."
> 
> I know I can't get a response from the author, but can any one here explain how one conservation tag, no matter the cost, requires "thousands of hunters" to "give up their hunts"?
> 
> It seems most of the posts in this thread gloss over this statement and assume it's true, but I don't see any logic in it. It doesn't make sense to me. Anybody?


As I understand it, the thought behind that is that in order to grow deer that are worth that kind of money, the state agency must tightly regulate the harvest of animals, reducing opportunity for the general public.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> It doesn't go to the general fund, it goes to the DWR earmarked for wildlife and habitat.


That is required by state LAW. Every conservation group has to account to the DWR where every penny is spent, in fact every group MUST get DWR approval BEFORE spending money on projects. UBA will be spending a good bulk of the money we received from conservation tags on reseeding the Lone Peak burn area. We had to get approval from the DWR and the Forest Service BEFORE we can go forward. We have approval and are now in the works to get seed on the ground once the plan has been drawn up by the Forest Service. Every group has to do the same, and many groups work together on these projects, as to get maximum results. The Lone Peak reseeding project while cost over $100,000.00, so this while take several groups and several government agencies to get it done.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> elkfromabove said:
> 
> 
> > From the Eastman article: "Advocates point out that one deer tag sold for $150,000 is worth it. But thousands of hunters must give up their hunts to produce an experience that a $150,000 deer tag bidder will purchase."
> ...


So, the author of the article is suggesting that DWR factors in their tag numbers these conservation tags on a _thousands to one ratio_ (say 2000 to 1), and if it weren't for the conservation deer tags (say 50) we'd have 100,000 more tags (and hunters) available? Wouldn't that be fun for both the hunters and the herd? With no big bucks, of course! Hmmm!!!


----------



## clean pass through (Nov 26, 2007)

Conservation tags have there place. Utah has given out way too many in my opinion. How many total including at the expo and the ones given to the highest bidder are there? Any how I voted I agree with conservation tags but I dont agree with the amount given out.


----------



## clean pass through (Nov 26, 2007)

Never mind I found the answer to my question about the total amount of tags. All I have to say is, wow, way too many!


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> So, the author of the article is suggesting that DWR factors in their tag numbers these conservation tags on a _thousands to one ratio_ (say 2000 to 1), and if it weren't for the conservation deer tags (say 50) we'd have 100,000 more tags (and hunters) available? Wouldn't that be fun for both the hunters and the herd? With no big bucks, of course! Hmmm!!!


Wow - that's a twisted spin! :lol:

He isn't talking about the DWR at all. The DWR would tend to agree with his point in as much as both Anis and Craig have on numerous occasions stated that we are not harvesting enough bull elk, which has created 1/1 bull/cow ratios and we are not harvesting enough bucks on units like the Paunsaugunt. Public politics won't allow it and like it or not, for better or worse, SFW is the primary influence involved in those politics.

But what Mike Veile (the author) apparently doesn't understand is that the con tag program isn't responsible for this mentality. Nor is SFW. It goes way beyond either and would persist with just as much passion even if con tags were discontinued.

The biggest threat to hunting is hunters, true enough. But if Veile wanted to get serious about the dangers of con tags, he'd talk about the fact that hunting organizations have no exclusive legal entitlement to those tags. Caring about wildlife is one thing, but everybody wants money.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Finnegan said:


> elkfromabove said:
> 
> 
> > So, the author of the article is suggesting that DWR factors in their tag numbers these conservation tags on a _thousands to one ratio_ (say 2000 to 1), and if it weren't for the conservation deer tags (say 50) we'd have 100,000 more tags (and hunters) available*?* Wouldn't that be fun for both the hunters and the herd? With no big bucks, of course! Hmmm!!!
> ...


It isn't my "twisted spin" (red). I just questioned (green) Mr Veile's spin by bringing his statement to it's logical conclusion. What else could he have meant? And where does he derive his figures (thousands of hunters per Conservation tag experience)? And who else but DWR would determine the Conservation tag count (bold)? Maybe I'm missing something here, but this article is full of questionable statements that most readers don't pick up as they read it. And I'm just trying to point this one out so that readers can make up their minds based on facts. It's a sad situation that so many hunters (and anti's for that matter) make these kinds of judgments only with emotions (orange), with logic out the window. You've probably heard the saying, "I've already made up my mind, so don't confuse me with facts". I may not persuade anyone one way or another, but at least they can't say, I didn't know or realize".

Now, the blue one! I have a question for you. How is it that those conservation organizations are able to obtain those tags if they are not exclusively legally entitled to them. Is someone breaking the law? Or are you saying any conservation organization can get them? Or any hunting related conservation organization? Or, again, am I missing something?

I certainly don't know as much about the Conservation Permit program as those involved, but I do know one thing about this program and all other DWR programs. *We need to crunch the numbers and primarily go by them, not just our emotions!*


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> I just questioned Mr Veile's spin by bringing his statement to it's logical conclusion. What else could he have meant? And where does he derive his figures (thousands of hunters per Conservation tag experience)? And who else but DWR would determine the Conservation tag count (bold)? Maybe I'm missing something here, but this article is full of questionable statements that most readers don't pick up as they read it. And I'm just trying to point this one out so that readers can make up their minds based on facts. It's a sad situation that so many hunters (and anti's for that matter) make these kinds of judgments only with emotions (orange), with logic out the window. You've probably heard the saying, "I've already made up my mind, so don't confuse me with facts". I may not persuade anyone one way or another, but at least they can't say, I didn't know or realize".
> 
> Now, the blue one! I have a question for you. How is it that those conservation organizations are able to obtain those tags if they are not exclusively legally entitled to them. Is someone breaking the law? Or are you saying any conservation organization can get them? Or any hunting related conservation organization? Or, again, am I missing something?
> 
> I certainly don't know as much about the Conservation Permit program as those involved, but I do know one thing about this program and all other DWR programs. *We need to crunch the numbers and primarily go by them, not just our emotions!*


Excellent post! You are correct and JUSTIFIED in questioning Mr. Veile's motives and numbers. They both come up short.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

I would like to see a full audit of this program. I know for a fact that groups that had 
_*NO 501 (c3)*_ designation sold these tags in years past. Not only is it on these groups but the DWR that must accept the responsibility for this B.S.

This program is a freaking sham that is driven by nothing more than cash. If we are going to play by the rules lets play by the rules.

Hey PRO C7??? New org???


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wileywapati said:


> Hey PRO C7??? New org???


WTH are you saying? :?



> This program is a freaking sham that is driven by nothing more than cash.


What a load! Speaking strictly for myself, but I was/am heavily involved in UBA's participation of the conservation program. Money had NOTHING to do with our desire to get involved in this process. We have been in the CP for the 2007 and 2008 seasons, and we have spent the money raised on a pinon-juniper removal program on the Vernon unit, a reseeding of the Nebo burn area last fall, and we will be helping reseed the Lone Peak burn area. We also are working WITH other conservation groups on water guzzler projects that will benefit deer/elk/big horn sheep/chuckars/turkeys/pronghorns. UBA is NOT getting 'rich' of being part of this program, that is a FACT. The guidelines, which are set by the DWR/WB are very clear where the money raised for these tags MUST be spent.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

http://wildlife.utah.gov/rules/R657-41.php


----------



## utfireman (Sep 7, 2007)

Thanks UBA!!!!!


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> It's a sad situation that so many hunters (and anti's for that matter) make these kinds of judgments only with emotions (orange), with logic out the window.


Emotions? Orange? You lost me.

"Public politics" isn't an emotion. It's a well known fact of wildlife management decisions in Utah and the dominating factor in the con tag program.

The "mentality" that the goal of wildlife management should be to raise trophy class animals isn't an emotion. It's another well known fact and again, the result of politics.

And yes, "passion" is an emotion, but I think it's a healthy one and I can tell you for a fact that there's plenty to go around on both sides of any issue. Without it, hunting would have already ended long ago.



elkfromabove said:


> Now, the blue one! I have a question for you. How is it that those conservation organizations are able to obtain those tags if they are not exclusively legally entitled to them. Is someone breaking the law?


No. The key word is exclusive. The organizations involved have been able to obtain those tags because they're aware of the program (some had a hand in creating it) and they're willing to make the necessary commitment. But it's just like hunting permits - hunters aren't exclusively entitled to those, either. Absolutely anybody can apply and purchase permits, even anti-hunters.



elkfromabove said:


> Or are you saying any conservation organization can get them? Or any hunting related conservation organization? Or, again, am I missing something?


I'm saying that the program is only one court challenge (at the most) from being opened up to anybody and everybody who's willing to play the game regardless of whether they represent hunters or not. As I'm sure you're aware, the cattlemen have recently figured that out and they've made a request to play. You figure they'll be the last? All that's required is a 501(c)3 and other organizations can set one of those up just as easily as some of the current con tag recipients have done. It's only *logical* that as the money generated by con tags increases and those figures get advertised, other organizations will take notice.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Finnegan said:


> I'm saying that the program is only one court challenge (at the most) from being opened up to anybody and everybody who's willing to play the game regardless of whether they represent hunters or not. As I'm sure you're aware, the cattlemen have recently figured that out and they've made a request to play. You figure they'll be the last? All that's required is a 501(c)3 and other organizations can set one of those up just as easily as some of the current con tag recipients have done. It's only *logical* that as the money generated by con tags increases and those figures get advertised, other organizations will take notice.


I think the program will hold up in court. I also believe the cattleman association is way off base and will NOT be issued conservation tags as they want the money for themselves, whereas the money generated from conservation tags has specific guidelines for where the money MUST be spent, as I put up a link that details that. To assert the conservation groups are raking in big piles of money from these tags is mis-leading at best. MILLIONS of dollars have been put directly toward projects that have benefited wildlife. In fact, I say the investment, a FEW tags, has brought a tremendous return in habitat restoration, habitat easements, animal transplants, fencing/bridges/underpasses for wildlife in high traffic areas of major freeways/highways, habitat improvements, etc.. The amount 'sacrificed' compared to the amount gained amounts to a major success story in conservation. No other state in the west comes close to Utah in conservation and money put on the ground in the last 10 years. UBA did NOT get involved in the conservation tag program for money, we did it so we can have a direct hand in improving hunting.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Finnegan said:


> elkfromabove said:
> 
> 
> > It's a sad situation that so many hunters (and anti's for that matter) make these kinds of judgments only with emotions (orange), with logic out the window.
> ...


Perhaps other groups could get those con tags, but they only get to keep 10% for "administrative purposes" (R657-41-9 (5)(a), while 30% goes directly to the DWR (R657-41-9 (4)(e), and 60% must be used in pre-approved eligible projects to benefit wildlife (R657-41-9 (5)(b). And they are audited annually by the DWR (R657-41-9 (6)(a)and(b) and even the "administative" revenue has to be accounted for. Why would cattlemen and/or anti's agree to all that for 10% "administrative" revenue if they weren't passionate (in positive way) about hunting?

Finn, you may respond to this post if you'd like, but I think I'm through with this, at least for now. These posts are gettin too darn long. And we can't talk to the author of the article to get his take on all of this.
My bottom line is that these conservation tags are absolutely a win/win/win/win program for the herds/DWR/Conservation groups/hunters. And the 253 total tags make little, if any, impact now on the average hunter's chances of getting a permit while the revenue from them will increase the herds/flocks and will give them a better chance in the future.


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

*Jealousy prevails*

I guess I should say that I was one of the nay sayers some ten or so years ago about conservation permits. For many of the same arguments that have been raised. However, I can attest to the fact that Utah is far better off today than we would have been without the conservation permits and the sportsmen organizations that lobby for them.

I remember back thirty years ago, when a Texas hunter paid $40,000.00 to kill a desert bighorn. Wow, that was a chunk of change. Then that same hunter paid Utah DWR a million dollars for about ten Desert Big horns to be transplanted into Texas. As I remember, Utah had five Desert and two rocky mountain bighorn permits available statewide at that time.

I remember attending countless big game board meetings in which nothing good was ever presented or agreed too that benefit the sportsman or the wildlife. True gridlock was the norm and the cattle and sheep men had no use for wildlife. Administration after administration continually raped the budgets of the DWR and never once was General funding put into the coffers of wildlife or its agencies. The only objective given was to remove wildlife off of the Wasatch front to keep people from calling about deer and elk eating their declarative shrubs.

Today, we are fighting about Conservation permits and how the general public maybe losing some opportunity to hunt and recreate. Back then, the number of Sheep permit available was seven and now, what, around fourty? Moose numbers and permits have gone up some thirty fold, the same with Mountain Goats. Use to be two permits on Lone Peak. Now with ten points you can draw a mountain goat and I see in the near future this animal being removed from once in a lifetime status. Utah is the premiere trophy elk area in the world and we are issuing more and more permits to hunt elk every year. This year was the best shape I have seen our deer herds in the past twenty years.

If you do not think conservation permits have played a part in an increase in general hunting opportunity in Utah, you are sadly misinformed. Google up some of those evil 501 C groups and see the evil deeds that they are doing with this conservation money. See how hunter access is being purchased from private property owner so that little Jimmy Givea**** can hunt and fish on land and water that has been off limits for decades. Or how millions of acres of pinion juniper forest has been railed for elk and deer winter habitat. How stream beds are being repaired to except native fish once again. See how conservation dollars are buying up live stock grassing permits at fair market value so that Johny Nitendo can go out with his buddies and harvest game that would not have been their otherwise. If we can do that with only 5% think of what we could do with 10%.

Look at the Million dollar check given at the expo that was presented to governor Huntsman last year to go into the state school trust land fund to allow hunter access to school trust land. Look at how fast the UEA and the education department is auctioning of this vital wildlife habitat to private hands. Just drive down highway 89 sometime out of Hatch to mount Carmal Junction and see all of the new summer homes going up on once state school trust ground that was sold off to provide funds to kill the voucher program. Maybe Sportsmen had ought to sew the state to get a refund of our money.

It would appear to me that the writer of said article is a little jealous of the amount of game in Utah and the amount of involvement sportsmen and women are making to improve the resource. You can bet your assests that Mikey and the boys from Eastmen are putting in every year for our ever increasing hunting permits.

Just my rant for the day......Big


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

+1


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

The $1 million check presented to the Gov was never used, as SITLA would not sell Tabby Mtn. SPORTSMEN fund the lease arrangement from SITLA 100%. Not cons tags. Not tax dollars. Only funded by through the sale of hunting licenses to you, me, and every other hunter. 

There are loopholes in the Cons Tag program which should be addressed. Not going to take the time to type them here and argue the points. I tend to think that some Con Tags are a good thing, yet Utah has gone over-board giving 550+ tags to Cons Orgs.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

[quote="Packout"

There are loopholes in the Cons Tag program which should be addressed. Not going to take the time to type them here and argue the points. I tend to think that some Con Tags are a good thing, yet Utah has gone over-board giving 550+ tags to Cons Orgs.[/quote]

I know I said I would bow out of this for a while, but I couldn't go up on the hill to try to fill my cow elk tag (family commitments), and I'm still at home, so I'm back in this fray.

I don't know about the $1 million dollar check! You may be right on that one, but I'm wondering where you got your 550+ Con Tag number? The following is summarized from the DWR website:

..........................*2008ConservationPermits*........................
.................................................................SFW?..............
*Species---DU-FNAWS-MDF-NWTF-RMEF-SCI-SFH-UBA--Total* 
BuckDeer---0-----0-----17-----2-----3-----1----7----2-----32
CowElk-----0-----0------5-----0-----5-----2----2----0-----14
BullElk------1-----1-----28-----4----15-----1---28----0-----78
BuckProng--0-----2------7-----0-----1-----0----9----0-----19
BullMoose---0-----0------2-----0-----0-----0----5----0------7
RMBighorn--0-----3------0-----0-----0-----0----0----0------3
DBighorn----0-----4------0-----0-----0-----1----0----0-----5
Bison-------0-----0------0-----0-----0-----0----2----0------2
RMGoat-----0-----0------2-----0-----0-----0----3----0------5
Turkey------3-----8-----18----18----1-----1----14---0-----63
Bear--------0-----1------5-----0-----0-----2----5----0-----13
Cougar-----0------0-----5------0----1-----0-----6----0-----12
*Total*-------*4*----*19*-----*89*----*24*---*26*----*8*----*81*---*2*---*253*
DU-Ducks Unlimited
FNAWS-Foundation for North American Wild Sheep
MDF-Mule Deer Foundation
NWTF-National Wild Turkey Foundation
RMEF-Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
SCI-Safari Club International
SFH-Sportsmen for Habitat which I believe is SFW, Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife renamed.
UBA-Utah Bowhunters Association.

So, the DWR website shows there's 253 Conservation Permits, which IMHO is an insignificant amount compared to the total permits given and considering the amount of revenue they generate. Are there others I'm not aware of? Also note, since this thread is Big Game, 25% (63) of those are upland game tags (Turkeys), and 10% (25) are predator tags (Bear, Cougar), so the total number of Big Game tags is 165.

And we're all curious about those loopholes because that is the crux of this debate. I'm not an attorney, but I don't see any loopholes that would be a problem. Enlighten us, please.


----------



## utfireman (Sep 7, 2007)

I am thinking he is adding in the 200 convention tags into that total as well. One think to keep in mind, of those 453 tags, a good portion of them are turkey tags. Not every tag is big game.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Conservation + convention tags, that's where the # came from.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Conservation + convention tags, that's where the # came from.


I missed those convention tags. I assumed  they were part of the count per organization. I checked the DWR website again, but never found anything about them. I wonder why they aren't mentioned? I think I'll ask somebody! Heads will roll!! (Maybe mine.)

In any case, I still stand by my belief that the amount, even if it is over 500, is insignificant. Putting them back in the system will make very little, if any, difference in a person's chances of drawing, but will cost us dearly in terms of revenue for habitat. (See my post July 16 under Big Money Hunts.)


----------



## one hunting fool (Sep 17, 2007)

It’s not the fact that the tags are few but that they hunt areas and are out of the price range for everyone to be considered. They should be given back to the draw to allow everyone a fair chance to hunt the area. (Fair as if the draw wasn't flawed enough) but the tags represent the mentality of the (what I feel is wrong IMO with the new generation) "I got to have it now and I am willing to pay whatever it takes, as long as its not my own time." The sudden gratification sense of entitlement mentality makes the reward cheap and is an insult to Ethical, Fair, treatment of all people. To be fair anyone regardless of color, race, nationality, or wealth, should be held to the same standards.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

one hunting fool said:


> It's not the fact that the tags are few but that they hunt areas and are out of the price range for everyone to be considered. They should be given back to the draw to allow everyone a fair chance to hunt the area. (Fair as if the draw wasn't flawed enough) but the tags represent the mentality of the (what I feel is wrong IMO with the new generation) "I got to have it now and I am willing to pay whatever it takes, as long as its not my own time." The sudden gratification sense of entitlement mentality makes the reward cheap and is an insult to Ethical, Fair, treatment of all people. To be fair anyone regardless of color, race, nationality, or wealth, should be held to the same standards.


It all comes back to "fair", and to money. :? The convention tags are not doled out to the highest bidder, but EVERY person who applies for them has the exact same chance to draw one or more of these tags. And like utfireman correctly pointed out, many of the tag numbers being put out there are turkey/predator/OIL tags. So, counting ONLY big game buck/bull tags the total is 129! Not even a drop in the bucket. It is 5% of the total tags issued. So, is this about "fairness" and money, or is it about benefiting the deer/elk herds?


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

one hunting fool said:


> It's not the fact that the tags are few but that they hunt areas and are out of the price range for everyone to be considered. They should be given back to the draw to allow everyone a fair chance to hunt the area. (Fair as if the draw wasn't flawed enough) but the tags represent the mentality of the (what I feel is wrong IMO with the new generation) "I got to have it now and I am willing to pay whatever it takes, as long as its not my own time." The sudden gratification sense of entitlement mentality makes the reward cheap and is an insult to Ethical, Fair, treatment of all people. To be fair anyone regardless of color, race, nationality, or wealth, should be held to the same standards.


Mr OH Fool,

Are you talking about the price Utah charges for a permit and the application Fee? If so I agree!

However, if you are trying to justify equality in hunting and how evil Conservation permits are, then I believe that you can not prove your point.... Utah has increased opportunity to hunt all huntable species as a result of no governmental stolen funds being raised by Non profit conservation groups and being put directly on the ground in conservation projects that would have otherwise been lost to the general fund by our true, (bound- by- ethics) state legislature.

If you are trying to assert the preamble of the constitution, by asserting that the government will provided equality in hunting, then you have never studied history or your college educators were on drugs at the time of lecture. When and what Governmental policies or programs have ever produced equality across the board for all of the People. Affirmative action?

The framers of our constitution realized that Government was our biggest enemy to freedom and prosperity and there-by limited its power to only the bear essentials.....It has taken two hundred years and the last fifty for the world owes me a living crowd to turn the good old USA to a Socialist republic where the government is expected to wipe your assets after defecation.

Freedom is only effective when free people with incentives are given the space to bring innovation to fruition.

Big


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

one hunting fool said:


> It's not the fact that the tags are few but that they hunt areas and are out of the price range for everyone to be considered. They should be given back to the draw to allow everyone a fair chance to hunt the area. (Fair as if the draw wasn't flawed enough) but the tags represent the mentality of the (what I feel is wrong IMO with the new generation) "I got to have it now and I am willing to pay whatever it takes, as long as its not my own time." The sudden gratification sense of entitlement mentality makes the reward cheap and is an insult to Ethical, Fair, treatment of all people. To be fair anyone regardless of color, race, nationality, or wealth, should be held to the same standards.


I don't want my answer to turn this into a political debate, but I just want to point out one concern I have about your post. You lump wealth in with color, race, nationality. Color, race, nationality are things we cannot control and, therefore, should not be a point of discrimination. However, to say that wealth is in that same category is to say that no matter how hard you work or how inventive you are, if you become wealthy, you won't be allowed to change your lifestyle because you'll be held to the same standards as everyone else. So what would be the point of working hard or smart? It reminds me of the crab fisherman who is asked why he doesn't put a lid on the crab pot. His answer is, "Even if a crab climbs up the pot trying to get out, the other crabs just pull him back in their own effort to escape. So none of them ever escape. Thus I don't need a lid!"

Your post appears full of emotion (jealousy, anger, and fear), but you state up front, "It's not the fact that the tags are few." You admit and agree that it's a fact that there are few conservation and convention tags, but once again, facts are out the window and emotion takes over. Let's work with the numbers and not the elusive emotions.

You also want things to be fair now, but are willing to forgo many habitat improvements which will improve you chances in the future. 
That seems to be the "new generation" attitude you adamantly dislike. And it's my observation that those who buy these tags are either your generation or even the previous generation, not the new generation.

Let's sit back and take a good look at this issue with our rational eyes. Those tags bring in a lot of money and man hours that is used for the improvement of wildlife habitat. They are so few in number that it has little effect on our chances of drawing or on our actual in-field hunting opportunities. They also promote the cooperation of government agencies (DWR/NFS/BLM) and sportsmen's organizations. Seems good to me!

BTW, I currently "belong" to the NRA and MDF (I think), but since I only "join" organizations for their magazines and I don't like either one, I'm '''resigning" as soon as the subscription and membership runs out. I actually consider myself unaffiliated and wish to remain so.


----------



## one hunting fool (Sep 17, 2007)

[quote="elkfromabove
I don't want my answer to turn this into a political debate, but I just want to point out one concern I have about your post. You lump wealth in with color, race, nationality. Color, race, nationality are things we cannot control and, therefore, should not be a point of discrimination.[/quote]

You mis read. I am saying that to sell governors tags or any tags to the highest bidder is wrong or should be. Because there is no fairness except for what one person can pay compared to another.

You have the governor's tag that goes for 25,000 the price of a new car. How much you willing to pay for a chance at a "spidy bull" what makes this fair because someone has more money than the other.

I am just saying and do not mean to piss everyone off that is we did something better with tags like this. I know the money generated helps a lot of wildlife foundations. But say I had an Uncle Bill Gates who every year bought every tag out there for me and the rest of his family and we decided to name this the gates hunting tradition. No matter how much you paid Uncle Bill would make sure I got this tag. Pretty soon even the wealthiest among us would complain of fairness. 
Why are we setting the bar on most (not all) the tags as a sell to the highest bidder. How does this benefit grandpa Moses living on Social security, or little Joe on his first year hunting that would dream of getting the governors tag, but could not afford it. 
There is fair (I have more money and I won the bid) and fair (we all paid $100-$1000 for a chance to be drawn and I won)
I am not against the tags just the system for which some are given out.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

It's not fair, you are correct and nor is life. Fair is an ideal propagated by unaccountable sects of society to rationalize their shortcomings.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> It's not fair, you are correct and nor is life. Fair is an ideal propagated by unaccountable sects of society to rationalize their shortcomings.


A perfect definition of the term "fair"!

If uncle Bill wants to buy every *conservation *tag and give them to family and friends, I say great! Who cares? And if you do, WHY? :?

There were almost 3000 LE elk tags available to the general public through the draw in 2008., there were 78 LE elk tags available through the conservation tag program in 2008. That is LESS than 3% of the total tags issued. If all 78 were put back into the general draw, it would increase ones odds of drawing a tag by LESS than .03%. In other words, it would NOT help at all in you acquiring a tag. But, the THOUSANDS of dollars raised by the sale to the highest bidder for those 78 tags helps INCREASE elk population numbers, resulting in MORE tags in the future for the LE draw.

Fair is where you take a pig to get a ribbon and top dollar at auction.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

one hunting fool said:


> You mis read. I am saying that to sell governors tags or any tags to the highest bidder is wrong or should be. Because there is no fairness except for what one person can pay compared to another.


So you propose a government run lottery instead?



> You have the governor's tag that goes for 25,000 the price of a new car. How much you willing to pay for a chance at a "spidy bull" what makes this fair because someone has more money than the other.


Every Monroe archery bull elk permit holder had a chance at Spidey for $45 plus a $10 application fee. Was it an equal chance? No, because the governor's tag holder could use a rifle (which is one reason he paid $?), but that was the only advantage the system gave him during the archery season. He had to pay extra for Mossback's services outside of the system.



> I am just saying and do not mean to **** everyone off that is we did something better with tags like this. I know the money generated helps a lot of wildlife foundations. But say I had an Uncle Bill Gates who every year bought every tag out there for me and the rest of his family and we decided to name this the gates hunting tradition. No matter how much you paid Uncle Bill would make sure I got this tag. Pretty soon even the wealthiest among us would complain of fairness.


First of all, relax, no one is **** off, baffled maybe, but not angry.
Second, I guess I have a different view of Uncle Bill. I think he's the fool, not me or you. I wish I had enough money to waste on a Governor's Tag, but I certainly wouldn't waste it on a Governor's tag. I'd have much better use for it. And let the wealthiest fight over it. That'll just drive the bids up and put even more money into our wildlife habitat!



> Why are we setting the bar on most (not all) the tags as a sell to the highest bidder. How does this benefit grandpa Moses living on Social security, or little Joe on his first year hunting that would dream of getting the governors tag, but could not afford it.


If the dream was big enough, little Joe would do something in his life so that he could afford it. It may be too late for grandpa Moses, but whose fault is that? And, again, we need to think about more than the present. These funds and projects aren't designed to see immediate results. The benefits for grandpa Moses and little Joe will be in the form of bigger herds/flocks, more trophy animals, and more tags available down the road.



> There is fair (I have more money and I won the bid) and fair (we all paid $100-$1000 for a chance to be drawn and I won)
> I am not against the tags just the system for which some are given out.


Now we come to the lottery. I'm not sure it's even legal and I'm positive the Utah legislators wouldn't allow it. And why would I pay $100-$1000 for a 1 in 10,000 chance of getting a Governor's tag when I can pay a $10 processing fee for a chance at a Sportsmans Permit which is the same thing.

Again, let's go by the numbers, folks. There may be some minor adjustments that need to be made, but the numbers are staring us in the face. This Conservation Permit Program is working!


----------



## 1BandMan (Nov 2, 2007)

I'd like to think that our hunting opportunities are getting to be more and there are more options for hunters to harvest game from spikes to trophy's. 

I, however, see hunting steadily heading towards an elitist group of folks. 

I wonder when the cutoff point will be, when the regular type folks throw in the towel because what is left for them, isn't worth going after. 

When this happens, can the elitists keep up what is left??

I've been told by Pro that my attitude mirrors some PETA activist. To tell you the truth, if hunting heads the way it appears to be going, my dislike and disagreement with PETA and what they stand for may not be anywhere near what it is right now. Humm... I'll bet now your gonna call me selfish and self serving right??


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Harry Nutzack said:


> I'd like to think that our hunting opportunities are getting to be more and there are more options for hunters to harvest game from spikes to trophy's.
> 
> I, however, see hunting steadily heading towards an elitist group of folks.
> 
> ...


No, at least I'm not going to call you selfish or self-serving, 'cause I don't even know you. However, I find your attitude puzzling. There are several people on this forum who think hunting is becoming elitist dominated, but I don't see it. What leads you to believe that? Anything specific? And why would that draw you any closer to PETA? Also, what is an elitist group of people. Again, are we talking about money?

Could it be that those who think that, are, themselves the elitists? And are separating themselves from the rest of the hunters by claiming to be victims? In every aspect of life, financial, educational, social, physical, emotional, mental, etc, there will be people who are better off or worse off than us and how we deal with that tells much more about us than them.

I think your first sentence is the correct direction hunting is going, and the numbers show it. Almost every game animal and many game bird numbers are growing, and those that aren't are struggling because of dwindling habitat due to housing development, changing farming procedures, weather, fires, lack of fires, etc. But hunting has minimal effect because the tags and licenses are regulated accordingly. Any lost hunting opportunities would likely come from situations beyond the control of DWR.

If you still feel elitists are taking over, then the best thing to do is something! Go to RAC meetings and speak out, send letters and emails to RACs, DWR, and the Wildlife Board, report violations, recruit new hunters, apply for as many permits as you can and/or send donations to the DWR. I'd rather see you on our side than PETA's!


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

one hunting fool said:


> You mis read. I am saying that to sell governors tags or any tags to the highest bidder is wrong or should be. Because there is no fairness except for what one person can pay compared to another.
> 
> You have the governor's tag that goes for 25,000 the price of a new car. How much you willing to pay for a chance at a "spidy bull" what makes this fair because someone has more money than the other.
> 
> ...


OH Fool,

You may recall that the Governors tags are brought into equality by the sportsmen permit drawing, which gives the same advantages with almost a six month season to any open unit for a particular animal and allows any legal weapon to be used, however only Utah residence may apply and it cost you $10 with no point accumulation and if drawn you pay the resident price for the tag. It is my understanding that for every Governors tag issued the same permit is issued to a Utah Sportsman's permit applicant through an open drawing lottery system.

Pro, help me out here, but didn't Doyal Moss take a Sportsmans permit holder up hobble creek back in 2000 and killed the first 400 + point B&C bull elk in Utah? As I remember the hunter was from out in Pro's zip code...

You might keep in mind that Utah offers youth hunting tags, early dates and extended seasons. We also allow handicapped hunters early hunts and modified hunting methods to try and level the playing field.

The system you portray, may not be as inequitable as you perceive it to be.....Big


----------



## one hunting fool (Sep 17, 2007)

You all assume that because I think this is a self gratifying got to have it now mentality that I could not afford to buy on of these tags. On the contrary I probably could and more. When my grandfather died he had more than 4 million in the bank. He got that by not spending it foolishly, on whatever fancy came to him. He never bought close from the store but picked up cloths that the D.I. or thrift store couldn’t sell. He bought and owned most of where Mesquite Nv. is, almost the whole corner of AZ right before Mesquite,(Littlefield,Az) so do not assume because I defend the poor not getting a fair shake that I myself can not afford T.P. because wife beaters where on sale. 
However; as was stated this is getting to be an elitist sport. And I place more value on a mans character than on his pocket book. All who are defending this and attacking anyone who isn’t sitting on the boy’s club side. Asking me why I care if someone bought the tags for 25 k and fairness is propagated by unaccountable sects. Blah,blah,blah,
Bull!!! Fair is the strong standing up for the weak expecting nothing for them selves. It is charity, faith, strength, and godly behavior, to see alienation and stand up against it. You all are more concerned with your own agenda to see anyone else’s. I have nothing to gain or loose. Just a sense of moral awareness, and Christian belief system. 
Your system is broke and now cares to fix it. Why? Do you stand to gain financially? is it because that the person who works hard for $7.00hr and pay's child support on top of that can not afford to pay a guide also? Or do you believe he has less right to move to the front of the line that someone who can pay to be there?
What is wrong with this picture? What is driving you all? It can not be just money I hope. Because everything you stated “dollars for wildlife, conservation awareness, protection for landowners” can all be served the same by making some changes. What would you loose other than maybe a guide service fee?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> Your system is broke and now cares to fix it. Why? Do you stand to gain financially? is it because that the person who works hard for $7.00hr and pay's child support on top of that can not afford to pay a guide also? Or do you believe he has less right to move to the front of the line that someone who can pay to be there?


Just a hunch, but I am guessing there are very few "hard workers" making $7.00 an hour that pay child support. It doesn't add up. You make yourself out to be some hero standing up for the down trodden. What a load. That guy who you *pretend* to care about that makes $7.00 an hour can't afford to hunt regardless of whether or not some rich guy buys a tag. If he is making LESS than minimum wage and paying child support he is bankrupt and most likely homeless, WTF does that have to do with LE elk tag? Get off your high horse, and admit it; this is nothing more/less than you having a Socialistic outlook at life. I hear Cuba has what you are looking for, give Castro a call.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> > Your system is broke and now cares to fix it. Why? Do you stand to gain financially? *is it because that the person who works hard for $7.00hr and pay's child support on top of that can not afford to pay a guide also?* Or do you believe he has less right to move to the front of the line that someone who can pay to be there?
> 
> 
> Just a hunch, but I am guessing there are very few "hard workers" making $7.00 an hour that pay child support. It doesn't add up. You make yourself out to be some hero standing up for the down trodden. What a load. That guy who you *pretend* to care about that makes $7.00 an hour can't afford to hunt regardless of whether or not some rich guy buys a tag. If he is making LESS than minimum wage and paying child support he is bankrupt and most likely homeless, WTF does that have to do with LE elk tag? Get off your high horse, and admit it; this is nothing more/less than you having a Socialistic outlook at life. I hear Cuba has what you are looking for, give Castro a call.


The guy making 7 bucks an hour does not want to hire a guide, otherwise he would find the money to do so. Is everyone in your world a victim of circumstance? Jesus.


----------



## utfireman (Sep 7, 2007)

The guy's name is Deidrickson, and his bull did put Utah and Doyle on the radar for big bulls. It was an average joe hunter who took that bull, also look at the buck killed on the Henry's two years ago. It was the SPORTSMAN'S tag holder who killed that buck, not the gov's tag holder. This poor me attitude is going to be the down fall of hunting. These tag's won't be the reason...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

utfireman said:


> The guy's name is Deidrickson, and his bull did put Utah and Doyle on the radar for big bulls. It was an average joe hunter who took that bull, also look at the buck killed on the Henry's two years ago. It was the SPORTSMAN'S tag holder who killed that buck, not the gov's tag holder. *This poor me attitude is going to be the down fall of hunting. *These tag's won't be the reason...


Amen!


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Good post utfireman.


----------



## one hunting fool (Sep 17, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> > Your system is broke and now cares to fix it. Why? Do you stand to gain financially? is it because that the person who works hard for $7.00hr and pay's child support on top of that can not afford to pay a guide also? Or do you believe he has less right to move to the front of the line that someone who can pay to be there?
> 
> 
> Just a hunch, but I am guessing there are very few "hard workers" making $7.00 an hour that pay child support. It doesn't add up. You make yourself out to be some hero standing up for the down trodden. What a load. That guy who you *pretend* to care about that makes $7.00 an hour can't afford to hunt regardless of whether or not some rich guy buys a tag. If he is making LESS than minimum wage and paying child support he is bankrupt and most likely homeless, WTF does that have to do with LE elk tag? Get off your high horse, and admit it; this is nothing more/less than you having a Socialistic outlook at life. I hear Cuba has what you are looking for, give Castro a call.


Are you so out of touch to the real world? I have 2 people in our company that do just that ok Min is $7.25 now but 2 months ago it was 6.25. They pay their child support one goes to school and still get his tags. I have respect for any man that has the strength to keep moving forward rather than give up. Tell me to get off my high horse your so high up there you can not see the struggle of the real world. As for me Pretending to care PRO I don't think you are qualified to say a **** thing about me as you have know idea who I am or what I do or have done in my life. If I didn't care I wouldn't waste my time with you I would bow to the awesomeness that is PRO Out doors. Can anyone have an opinion with out you attacking them personally or there character? For being a Pro you are a very small man


----------



## one hunting fool (Sep 17, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> [The guy making 7 bucks an hour does not want to hire a guide, otherwise he would find the money to do so. Is everyone in your world a victim of circumstance? Jesus.


what world Tree? I gave a sympol example. and no there are no victims in my world just poeple. some more selfish than others and care nothing about the suffering of the poeple as much as the animals. funny you mention Jesus do you know him? I do THANK GOD FOR THAT! you hug that tree! leave the people to me. we will see where that gets you.


----------



## utfireman (Sep 7, 2007)

I don't think he is picking on you, I have followed this post and I don't see it. I am glad that you and your coworkers are striving to move forward then behind, lord knows that many would take the easier road. But in my eye's, I see the average joe hunter has as much opportunity and quality of hunt as these rich guy's. I have seen this first hand on many LE and general season deer and elk hunts.


----------



## utfireman (Sep 7, 2007)

I have seen a guy that barely gets by month to month and he drew a Kiabab tag this year. He went and got a loan to pay for his guide. So I am with tree on this on, when there is a will there is a way. I have also seen an old man save for years and years and bought a quality land owner tag in New Mexico. Again rich and poor all have an equal chance.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

one hunting fool said:


> Are you so out of touch to the real world? I have 2 people in our company that do just that ok Min is $7.25 now but 2 months ago it was 6.25. They pay their child support one goes to school and still get his tags. I have respect for any man that has the strength to keep moving forward rather than give up. Tell me to get off my high horse your so high up there you can not see the struggle of the real world. As for me Pretending to care PRO I don't think you are qualified to say a **** thing about me as you have know idea who I am or what I do or have done in my life. If I didn't care I wouldn't waste my time with you I would bow to the awesomeness that is PRO Out doors. Can anyone have an opinion with out you attacking them personally or there character? For being a Pro you are a very small man


Dang it is funny to see socialists get all bent out of shape. :twisted: ANY grown man who makes minimum wages should NOT be hunting for elk, he should be improving his job skills so he can provide for himself/family! Having pity for his SELF MADE misery hurts him more than it helps him. Don't give him a hand out, give him a hand up. Your 'outrage' on this topic has nothing/LITTLE to do with you being the only concerned Utahan for the down trodden, in has to do with your disdain for those who have/get more than you in ALL areas, not just hunting. Don't come on here spouting a bunch of emotions based on NO facts, and expect to not get called on it. If you can't handle a DISCUSSION with adults, go hang out in the kiddie pool. How is it you get 'upset' about me 'attacking you personally', all while YOU do the SAME to me? Can you pot and kettle?


----------



## one hunting fool (Sep 17, 2007)

utfireman said:


> I have seen a guy that barely gets by month to month and he drew a Kiabab tag this year. He went and got a loan to pay for his guide. So I am with tree on this on, when there is a will there is a way. I have also seen an old man save for years and years and bought a quality land owner tag in New Mexico. Again rich and poor all have an equal chance.


I hear you and thanks. I have nothing to gain or loose the way it stands. and really i could care less because i put my time in on a tag every year and hope to draw and when i don't there is discouragement but its really half the fun. Its like pulling the one armed bandits the anticipation is half the fun. 
I just have no use for a person that cares so little for those that have so little. Or acts like if you don't have money your nothing. i grew up poor fought hard to be where i am and never forgot what it was like. i have worked as a guide, and still do for those that don't have the money to pay for one except this time i do it for the enjoyment. The doe tags we gave out. we could have sold the vouchers (according to DWR) but why it is better to give to the kids than increase our wealth. but why?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

one hunting fool said:


> utfireman said:
> 
> 
> > I have seen a guy that barely gets by month to month and he drew a Kiabab tag this year. He went and got a loan to pay for his guide. So I am with tree on this on, when there is a will there is a way. I have also seen an old man save for years and years and bought a quality land owner tag in New Mexico. Again rich and poor all have an equal chance.
> ...


utfireman is NOT in your corner here! :roll:

Your last sentence is very telling. You imply those who pay for a guided hunt and those that get paid for a guided hunt don't "give to the kids", which is awful arrogant and WRONG! You also imply increasing ones wealth is bad. Tell me almighty compassionate one, is it easier to GIVE if you have something to GIVE or when you have NOTHING? Think about it, how much does your downtrodden minimum wage earning have to GIVE when he has no money and has no free time vs a millionaire that has both money and time to assist others? The saying is, "To give is better than to receive", but you need to have something to give FIRST! Rich people are not evil, and someone who hordes their money is not a saint. Those who have abundance and share that abundance with others is a GOOD person. In fact, that person is at least as good of a person who makes minimum wage. The rich are not the enemy, wanting something for nothing is!


----------



## one hunting fool (Sep 17, 2007)

> Dang it is funny to see socialists get all bent out of shape.


A republican actually, and i have seen first had a socialist sociaty thrive it's called mormanism. two wives to spead the child bearing and have enough kids to work the fields and trade labor with neighbors to reduce the cost going out of the home. worked pretty well i would say.



> ANY grown man who makes minimum wages should NOT be hunting for elk, he should be improving his job skills so he can provide for himself/family! Having pity for his SELF MADE misery hurts him more than it helps him


are you really saying that only the well off have th right to hunt. most hunt for meat as a way of helping cut the hight cost of food.



> concerned Utahan for the down trodden, in has to do with your disdain for those who have/get more than you in ALL areas, not just hunting.


i have yet to meet this person!
care to show me who that could be? there is nothing i don't have that "I" did not earn and nothing i would change or take back.


> If you can't handle a DISCUSSION with adults, go hang out in the kiddie pool.


who you calling an adult? show me the way to the kiddy pool will you Kettle


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

one hunting fool said:


> > Dang it is funny to see socialists get all bent out of shape.
> 
> 
> A republican actually, and i have seen first had a socialist sociaty thrive it's called mormanism. two wives to spead the child bearing and have enough kids to work the fields and trade labor with neighbors to reduce the cost going out of the home. worked pretty well i would say.
> ...


are you really saying that only the well off have th right to hunt. most hunt for meat as a way of helping cut the hight cost of food.

NO, I am saying a grown man making minimum wage lacks ambition, and if he wants to get ahead he should be going to school/improving his job skills so he can earn a living. Spending time chasing LIMITED ENTRY deer/elk should be WAY down the list of priorities. Meat obtained from hunting is NOT cheap.



> concerned Utahan for the down trodden, in has to do with your disdain for those who have/get more than you in ALL areas, not just hunting.


i have yet to meet this person!
care to show me who that could be? there is nothing i don't have that "I" did not earn and nothing i would change or take back.

You missed the whole point here. :?



> If you can't handle a DISCUSSION with adults, go hang out in the kiddie pool.


who you calling an adult? show me the way to the kiddy pool will you Kettle 

It is south of north. :mrgreen: [/quote:2vka034k]

Here is my point, I don't care how much money ANY hunter has or spends on a hunt, I DO care when others make it an issue. Just go hunt, be grateful we can hunt, thank those that make it better, condemn those who are trying to take it away. The size of a hunters bank account does NOT define what kind of hunter he/she is. I am glad there are rich hunters willing to spend MILLIONS hunting in Utah, it keeps the cost down for those with smaller bank accounts. Of course, being a capitalist, I like businesses making HUGE profits, as that means FEWER people will be making minimum wage. 8)


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

I just want to make it perfectly clear, anyone who wants to pay for my tag this year or any year is welcome to do so. :mrgreen: Tree I think you have more money than you know what to do with, can you buy me a tag, please. I am going to start buying wheat and rice in bulk so I will survive after the economy crashes. Do you care if my family moves in, or better yet to do you care if we move our double wide into your yard. -/|\- -^|^- -Ov-


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Now, boys! Play nice or I'll send you to your rooms! Let's get this *adult discussion* back on course. It's about Conservation permits and other permits that are either auctioned off to the highest bidder or that give the hunter an "unfair" advantage over other hunters. The guide thing is a separate issue that happens outside of the system and has nothing to do with the draw or purchase of permits.

I'm not a guide nor am I wealthy nor do I belong to any of the conservation groups auctioning/distributing those permits. (OK, I guess I "belong" to MDF because I had to join to try out their magazine which I don't like and as soon as my membership (subscription) runs out, I'm unjoining). I also just received a voucher for a depredation antlerless deer hunt for my granddaughter from OH Fool, (Thank you), so I feel I can excuse myself from any of those so-called elitist self-centered groups that are one of the targets of this thread.

I guess I'm a boring old practical man who likes crunching numbers and gathering facts to get most of my answers, and I don't rely as much on emotions as some people do. I still have them in great proportion, but I know how elusive they can be. And on this issue, the numbers speak loud and clear. *This system of distributing permits is working well for the best benefit of the herds/flocks, all hunters, the DWR, the conservation groups, and the general public.* It requires some modifications at times, depending on the selling of land, weather, disease, fires, etc., but the basics need to remain intact.

To make the changes needed to make it "fair" according to some of you would require throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It would require: 
1) Standardizing the price of all tags, (Deer (doe and buck), Elk, Moose, Bison, LE tags, Premium LE tags, etc.) so that everyone could afford every tag equally. 
2) Either eliminating or placing in the standardized pricing, Conservation tags, Governor's tags, Convention tags, CWMU private tags, landowner tags, Youth tags, Combo tags, Dedicated Hunter tags, or any other tag that gives an "unfair" advantage in pricing or drawing to any one group trying to obtain one.
3) Eliminating the point system and any waiting periods so that everybody has an equal chance of drawing every year.
4) Standardizing the length of all seasons and eliminating any extended hunts.
5) And what about the limits placed on us to apply for only two species and draw only one tag in the LE/OIL draw? I'd like to hunt Desert Bighorn during my healthy-enough-to-hunt lifetime, but I don't have the points for that species. My 9 OIL points are just for bull moose. That's not fair! And I love archery hunting pronghorn (my favorite), but if I apply and draw for pronghorn, I can't draw for bull moose! That's also unfair!

My scenerio may not be the exact solutions we're looking for, but are we ready for those kinds of changes. And when we're done, we haven't made it fair, we've simply made it unfair to a different group of people. And we've crushed a vitally needed source of revenue for future hunters while we're at it. And none of us want that!


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> Let's get this *adult discussion* back on course.


Good luck with that. :lol:

But I'll give it a go. You're no doubt familiar with The North American Wildlife Conservation
Model, endorsed by the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies?

The 7 Basic Principles
(The Seven Sisters)

1. Wildlife is a public resource.
*2. Markets for wildlife must be eliminated.*
3. Wildlife must be allocated by law.
4. Wildlife can only be killed for a legitimate purpose. aka "The Code of the Sportsman"
5. Wildlife is an international resource
6. Science is the proper tool for the discharge of wildlife policy.
*7. Hunting must be democratic.*

Along with a substantial but unknown number of Utah hunters, I have concerns about #2 and #7.

In the last round of negotiations between the DWR and SITLA, SITLA proposed an outlandish number as fair compensation for allowing the public to hunt lands under their stewardship. Fortunately, that original number was negotiated down to a reasonable sum. But what's important to note here is that the original number was based upon the estimated value of the animals on their properties and that value was based entirely upon conservation tag values. I think responsibility requires us to recognize the ramifications of the fact that government agencies are now talking about the monetary worth of wildlife as a direct result of the conservation tag program.

Jim Karpowitz has openly stated that in his opinion, those who pay for trophy animals are the ones who should have the privilege to hunt those animals. That seems logical enough, but he's stating a fundamental shift in DWR policy...a shift that isn't democratic. He didn't say those who pay for the tags should hunt...he said those who pay for the animals should hunt. I think responsibility requires us to recognize the ramifications of the fact that the director of the state's wildlife agency is now talking about the monetary worth of wildlife as a direct result of the conservation tag program.

Don Peay asserts that the other western states will soon fall in step with Utah's program exactly for the reason you support the program - you can't argue with numbers. He's been saying that for years, now. But I believe he's wrong about that because you can argue with numbers.

The fact is that even after years of "success" with the program, the other western states haven't duplicated Utah's program. They haven't even come close and I don't think they ever will because you can look at the numbers or you can look at the whole story. The broader view includes recognition of the fact that money equates with influence - the very fact that is eroding our country as we speak. And while money is obviously essential to wildlife conservation, there are many ways to generate money. Conservation tags probably have their place among those ways, but there's a point at which wildlife becomes a commodity. When that happens, it's bad news for wildlife and it's definitely the end of any democracy of hunting. I'm betting other states will wisely choose to err on the side of caution and stay safely away from that invisible line.

And before the capitalist cheer team starts waving its pom-poms, let's get one thing straight. Conservation tags aren't purchased by rich hunters with money out of their own pockets. As a rule, conservation tags are purchased with corporate donations - tax deductible donations. A tax deductible donation is no more or less than a means of earmarking public money. And therein lies the "con" of conservation tags.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Finnegan said:


> And before the capitalist cheer team starts waving its pom-poms, let's get one thing straight. Conservation tags aren't purchased by rich hunters with money out of their own pockets. As a rule, conservation tags are purchased with corporate donations - tax deductible donations. A tax deductible donation is no more or less than a means of earmarking public money. And therein lies the "con" of conservation tags.


 -*|*- -*|*- Sorry finn, I couldn't resist. :lol: As a leading cheerleader of capitalism, you are mincing words here my friend. MOST successful businessmen have very few/no possessions/assets in their own name. The reasons are many fold, taxes/protection of said assets/liability are among them. So, while there are tax benefits to buying these tags, I don't care. If it brings more money into helping wildlife I am happier than it going to some study funded by tax payer money. What I am amuse by is how you believe that taxes paid by people/corps is "public money". Newsflash, this is NOT Cuba, the money belongs to the PEOPLE not the government! :roll:


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

Finnegan said:


> And before the capitalist cheer team starts waving its pom-poms, let's get one thing straight. Conservation tags aren't purchased by rich hunters with money out of their own pockets. As a rule, conservation tags are purchased with corporate donations - tax deductible donations. A tax deductible donation is no more or less than a means of earmarking public money. And therein lies the "con" of conservation tags.


Finnegan,

You bring up some valid arguments in your post as have others.

I love the fact that through our peer review process, only bits and pieces of the argument are pulled out and highlighted and then the author is crucified at dawn. There are some here that have quit a knack at ego busting. Let me take a crack at it.

I am a man of average means, I make a little more than $7.25 an hour, however by the time you take out taxes, income tax, medicare, social security, property tax, state licensing for my trade and the fees it takes to drive my vehicle, oh and gas tax among others. 45% of my check is gone just to the government. Now take out 50% of what is left to a divorce in which my only criminal offense was the fact that I am a male parent and loved my children and a faithful husband. But in Utah that is not a valid argument, because the male sex has no defense and no rights in a marriage with children. If you do not believe me, just go to court one day and sit though divorce hearings!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If you are a low life lawyer scum, meet me in the parking lot......Sorry off track..... With all that considered I bring home much less than minium wage. Now to my point. (I have met the first requirements of this forum by declaring myself a victim.)

The above quotation is somewhat flawed by the fact that all charitable donations are tax deductible and should in fact be declared as capitol income diversions. However, in my case I do not have enough right off power to deduct any charitable contributions, due in part to the fact that the fourth district court of Utah give all of my real property to the ex wife. Hence I take the standard deduction each year although I pay a full tithe to my church and donate about $750 to wildlife conservation efforts each year along with other charitable donations as well.

You squarely imply that all charitable donations to churches, hope groups, children's hospitals etc are in-fact diverted tax payers dollars and should thereby be state property and under state administration. Wow!!! this is a novel idea and very appropriately applied to the way government has been operating over the past fifty years. This is called income redistribution and started at the time US President Woodrow Wilson in-slaved all Americans with the Federal Reserve system and graduated income tax, which by the way is a violation of the United States Constitution.

What I gather from your post is that all private possession are really owned and controlled by the state and just tolerated under the stewardship of private management and hence forth we are all just extension of the state and under its total control. Which if you go through court proceeding you see is true, by- the- way.

Maybe we should be going through and comparing the ten points of Karl Marx Communist Manifesto and we can get a better idea of how the real system was designed. This will give you a better insight to the seven points outlined in the International Wildlife points of light.

I am a true believer in free capitalistic fair market principles and it amazes me how we as a "free" society have been ingrained with the Idea that we are just extensions of government and owe all things to government for their redistribution. It is one thing to be patriotic but quite another to give homage to false ideas. We the people is much more than the IRS and the implied falsies that are in play.

I am very appreciative of the people for what ever reasons who have stepped up and paid for the conservation permits, because each year I have a better chance of winning the lottery.......
Rant for the day.....Big


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Excellent rant!


----------



## one hunting fool (Sep 17, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Here is my point, I don't care how much money ANY hunter has or spends on a hunt, I DO care when others make it an issue. Just go hunt, be grateful we can hunt, thank those that make it better, condemn those who are trying to take it away. The size of a hunters bank account does NOT define what kind of hunter he/she is. I am glad there are rich hunters willing to spend MILLIONS hunting in Utah, it keeps the cost down for those with smaller bank accounts. Of course, being a capitalist, I like businesses making HUGE profits, as that means FEWER people will be making minimum wage. 8)


WOW well said PRO I actually agree with you for once. :shock: 
I have only one thing I can say. Being in marketing and having a degree in both Business and Logistics. (pat,pat) J/K I know that the supply and demand is governed by what people are willing to pay. Thus you make a tag 25,000 starting bid. It propagated the rise of tags to the rest. We are opening a flood gate that we can not close. Next we will be making 3 governors tags avail to the highest bidder. Then a governors LE unit up for bid, then all LE units are next ? closed to the draw limited to private auction.
Where do we draw the line?
If you can not see this as being a feasible problem in the future, with the anti gun lobbyist, anti hunters, and add in the greed of the government, better think again. 
I have nothing against people making money as long as we are protecting a "heritage" not eliminating it for the quest of the almighty dollar.


----------

