# Proposed Lifetime License Changes



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

With the rapidly increasing point creep problems on some of our deer hunting sub-units. I propose a change in the way the lifetime license holders receive their general deer tag.
- If deer season within a specific unit takes five or more preference points to draw. That season within the specific unit would then be subject to limitations.
1) No more than 5% of the total tags for that season would go to a lifetime license tag holder.
2) The dedicated hunter tags would drop from 15% to 10% for these hard to draw units.
3) No more than 5% would go to the youth only permits on these units.
That would leave 80% going to the general public. I believe this would help towards the point creep issue.
The same limitations would apply to a brand new unit. Ex. would be a LE unit that has changed to a general season unit( like the thousand lakes unit).
OR
A unit that receives greater than a 20% permit cut for that year.

To accomplish this, the LL holders would apply through the draw. They would draw first and have up to five choices to pick from.
If they choose only one hard to draw unit and didn’t get drawn, then they would qualify to get a leftover tag of their choosing.
Does this make sense?
Could something like this work?


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

I’d rather not see any changes made. Anything further will be managing for feelings instead of wildlife. What we have now is ok. If we focused on increasing animal numbers, the permit numbers would naturally increase, decreasing point creep, giving people more opportunities to hunt those units. The issue isn’t the draw or general hunt structure, issue is low population numbers. Let’s figure out to to fix that problem before we start worrying about what’s “fair”.

but that’s just me.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I think it's going to take decades to get deer herds back up to a level that increasing point creep won't be a problem.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

There are not that many LL holders in the grand scheme of things. And quite a few of them are also in the dedicated hunter program. At least that was my observation when I had my Thousand Lakes tag. Just about everyone I talked to had the LL and were in the DH program. 

I'm not near a actual computer to pull up the info on LL holders but I believe that few are asking for their tags but it could be around 3000 active LL holders.

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I found the info on LL holders.

There are 3561 eligible resident license holders and there were 3527 tags issued. 

There are 332 non resident license holders and there was 332 tags issued.

I didn't look to see if they listed the number of LL holders that are also in DH program.

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


----------



## 7mm Reloaded (Aug 25, 2015)

It would be interesting to know what sub-units most these 3527 people are hunting every year


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

I say offer the LL to residents again. Only this time, the cost would be very expensive. Say 10K?? Help the "Rich" take over hunting quicker. Hunting is becoming a slow death to the average hunter anyway. Just make it quick, no suffering.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

7MM RELOADED said:


> It would be interesting to know what sub-units most these 3527 people are hunting every year


That would be very good info. to be able to look at.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

You can find it on the DWR site.

I looked at a few of them but I needed a place to write them down at which I don't have right now while traveling.

You also need to remember that their tags are spread over three different general seasons 

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk

The info is on this page on the DWR site





__





Big game drawing odds and points report


Download all reports in PDF format




wildlife.utah.gov


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

Easy solution to all this where we could keep LL holders as they are and issue more tags and less sitting on the sideline:

1. Archery hunters have to pull back and release their bow strings with their fingers, no releases

2. Current ML & any weapon hunts are now open sight flint lock muzzleloader hunts, no sabots

That's it!

All I hear is how we need to decrease this and decrease that. This would put tags is a lot more pockets and still kill the same # of deer

I'm not trying to make others hunt the way I do because I have never shot a flintlock and I haven't hunted with my recurve in many many years. There is a reckoning happening within our state--our human population is BOOMING and demand on wildlife ever increasing. 3K LL tags back in the bucket isn't gonna solve crap in the long run. You guys want to sit on the sidelines and I want to hunt. Put down the fancy rifle, scope, rangefinder, and pick up a deer tag

Or ya'll just keep spinnin the wheels and taking opportunity from one to give to another... we get what we deserve


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

The problem with restricting archery and muzzle loaders to the more primitive types is that it would push them back onto the general rifle seasons.

I have always thought that they should look at the DH program and see if they are getting the benefits out of it that they were expecting and if not revamp it. 

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

ridgetop said:


> 1) No more than 5% of the total tags for that season would go to a lifetime license tag holder.
> 2) The dedicated hunter tags would drop from 15% to 10% for these hard to draw units.


As a LL holder, I actually would not oppose the general concept in your proposal, but I don't agree with the splits you outlined. I certainly would not support DH getting a higher percentage of the allocation than LL holders. I also think it would be fine to allow youth a higher allocation than you have proposed.

So, my modified version of your proposal would be a unit that takes 5+ PPs (based upon data from the prior year, so everyone knows what we are doing when we apply) or a unit that has a 20% cut in tags from the year before, then LL holders are capped at 10% of the tags, youth at 10% of the tags, and DH at 5% of the tags, then I would not oppose this.

I personally believe that the LL discussion every year is a boogie man people are chasing that simply doesn't exist. But if there does become an issue with LL holders taking all the available tags for certain units, and that is an ongoing problem that creates a 5+ PP situation to draw, then I would not object to the *modified* layout above.


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

Critter said:


> The problem with restricting archery and muzzle loaders to the more primitive types is that it would push them back onto the general rifle seasons.


There wouldn't be a general rifle season in my proposal Critter--you can hunt with a bow ya pull back with your fingers or hunt with a flintlock--that's it! Ya have a couple of flintlock seasons INSTEAD of a ML & any weapon season


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

What they need to do is a month long archery season. Then an early “primitive” muzzleloader hunt the end of September, no scopes, no pellets, no sabots and then the end of October a modern muzzleloader season and then put the rifle hunt as the LE late season that we have now for muzzleloader. You would be able to increase permit numbers, you’d still have that “general hunt” and less animals would get killed. You could take it one step further and make the rifle hunt open sights only. But tag numbers are so limited as it is, it wouldn’t make a difference.

you could also make the October hunt a HAMS hunt to give more people an option to pick their weapon.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

I could see a justification for doing away with high powered scopes but the notion of doing away with all rifle (seasons) is untenable. I'm 100% supportive of "primitive" weapon seasons but the notion I'd have to purchase yet another weapon to be allowed to hunt public wildlife is an elitist solution. To put it simply, I and many others can't afford to purchase more firearms for a hunt we are already equipped for. It also seems odd to "solve" the LL issue by excluding a different group.

As a newer hunter, I think it's fair to highlight what I've learned quickly: easy access to plentiful big game hunting on public land is a relic of the past, at least in the continental west. We can't go back to that. And trying to solve such an impossible problem by shifting favoritism between subsets of the stakeholder group is only likely to cause more infighting. Adjusting permit quotas and season dates is one thing; actively excluding one of the largest and most popular hunting styles is completely different.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

What do equipment restrictions and changing season dates have to do with Ridge’s proposal on LL? 😂


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Vanilla,

Airborne proposed (seriously?):



> 2. Current ML & any weapon hunts are now open sight flint lock muzzleloader hunts, no sabots


And then clarified with Critter that



> There wouldn't be a general rifle season in my proposal Critter--you can hunt with a bow ya pull back with your fingers or hunt with a flintlock--that's it!


Another person has mentioned season date changes.

I assume all are counter-arguments to LL being the big issue.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

Vanilla said:


> What do equipment restrictions and changing season dates have to do with Ridge’s proposal on LL? 😂


If there’s more tags issued, there would be less to bitchh about by guys who think LL dudes are stealing all their tags and that’s not fair, which is where all this is coming from.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

As a new hunter I'm definitely jealous of the LL holders. It was a shortsighted choice on the State's part but I couldn't blame any hunter or fisherman from jumping on such an opportunity. Not their fault the state didn't have even a basic understanding of population growth and implications for pressure on wildlife. 

I'm not sure how the state could change the parameters of those licenses anyways without jeopardizing key trust in their word/commitment.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

backcountry said:


> I could see a justification for doing away with high powered scopes but the notion of doing away with all rifle (seasons) is untenable. I'm 100% supportive of "primitive" weapon seasons but the notion I'd have to purchase yet another weapon to be allowed to hunt public wildlife is an elitist solution. To put it simply, I and many others can't afford to purchase more firearms for a hunt we are already equipped for. It also seems odd to "solve" the LL issue by excluding a different group.
> 
> As a newer hunter, I think it's fair to highlight what I've learned quickly: easy access to plentiful big game hunting on public land is a relic of the past, at least in the continental west. We can't go back to that. And trying to solve such an impossible problem by shifting favoritism between subsets of the stakeholder group is only likely to cause more infighting. Adjusting permit quotas and season dates is one thing; actively excluding one of the largest and most popular hunting styles is completely different.


No one is looking to exclude rifle hunters entirely. You still can apply for the LE hunts, general elk hunts, antlerless, etc...

your statement about public access to great big game hunting is in the past is no where near correct. As a new hunter, that just means you haven’t had the time or experience to find these places. They do exist and they are all over the west. Open your mind and expand your boundaries. Just because it’s not in your back yard, doesn’t mean it’s not out there.

Muzzleloaders are fairly inexpensive compared to other rifles and bows. It’s not hard to find a few hundred dollars throughout the year to buy a gun to hunt with. If we want to focus more on finding more opportunities to get guys out hunting instead of trying to improve deer numbers, everyone has to sacrifice something. A less effective weapon is one of the solutions that will likely be look pretty hard to get more people out hunting.

it’s coming, if we like it or not. I’d be looking at preparing now, not when it actually goes into effect. We all will have to make adjustments to our hunting styles with the way we are looking at “fixing” things. I’d rather see us go a different route, but it’s hard for guys to see the bigger picture in the long term situation. Instant gratification is what people want. Technology and season changes is the route people are going to take to make that happen.


----------



## CHIEF_10_BEERS (Mar 24, 2021)

I think they should leave the LL the way it is. Dudes whining, crying and wanting the rules changed to benefit them because they cant draw a tag every year is getting old. Besides that the Lifetime License issue will eventually take care of its self. 
PS I don't have a Lifetime License. I wish I did.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

There are two things that have become certainties when talking about big game hunting in Utah: 

1- Lifetime licenses are a problem all the sudden after they haven't been sold in almost 30 years. 
2- Archers will look for more opportunities in the face of rifle hunters. It's interesting, because I don't know that I've ever heard a rifle hunter propose cutting opportunities for archers, but the other way it sure seems to happen a lot. I'm not sure that's a fight archers really want to have in a state that values social sciences as much as biology for wildlife management strategies.


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

Anyone that says they cannot afford a flintlock hasn't looked at their price. You can get a good one for under $350--sell your high powered rifle and buy one, hells bells save a dollar a day for year and buy one! Ridge wants to limit LL tags, I'm trying to come up with solutions so we don't have a Monster Muleys 3 page war of LL holders vs tag hungry jealous dudes calling each other names. We need to be looking outside the box here to create more of the 'pie', not pissin fits fighting over the crumbs. If increasing deer herds were simple or easy we would do it but it is not so here we are.

This ain't archery vs rifle vs traditional vs transgendered

This is about huntin and not huntin. Me, I'm on the huntin side, ya'll can sit on the fence if ya want


----------



## robiland (Jan 20, 2008)

Vanilla said:


> There are two things that have become certainties when talking about big game hunting in Utah:
> 
> 1- Lifetime licenses are a problem all the sudden after they haven't been sold in almost 30 years.
> 2- Archers will look for more opportunities in the face of rifle hunters. It's interesting, because I don't know that I've ever heard a rifle hunter propose cutting opportunities for archers, but the other way it sure seems to happen a lot. I'm not sure that's a fight archers really want to have in a state that values social sciences as much as biology for wildlife management strategies.



Vanilla, why do you think they have become a problem all of a sudden after 30 years? Honest question! 

My thought is this. Maybe since we used to have over 250,000 deer tags back then. now we have less than 75,000. The resource is becoming rare and harder to draw a tag. Also, we all know we no longer have have general season tags. There has been talk for several years to do 1 deer draw, not 2. But the LL holders are the "thorn in the side" of that idea. 

My best friend and hunting partner has a LL tag. And he went for the 1000 lakes area for the 1st 2 years it switched over. It was a fun hunt and he shoot a great deer the last year we were there. Now he hunts the Wasatch unit since its close to home. 

I wish I had one, but i decided back then not to buy one. Never thought it would be like this. Time has definitely changed. And I am sure this will need to be tweaked or changed to keep up with the changes.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

My honest answer is that I don’t believe they are a problem. At all. Some try to make them a problem, but I don’t buy it. So I continue to roll my eyes a bit when this annual topic arises. But, if someone could show me data that LL holders are causing this insane point creep we are worried about, I’m open to a concept of potential quotas on units. But nobody has shown me that, so I’m opposed. 

And we need to get off this notion that general season deer doesn’t exist in Utah. That’s false. It does not require everyone that wants one to be able to get a tag OTC to be general season. Lots of people don’t get general season elk tags as well. If you want to say there is no general season deer units, that’s fine. Institute the 5 year waiting period on every single tag on every unit in the state, charge the LE tag fee, and call it limited entry. Until then it is not limited entry in Utah.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

Vanilla said:


> It's interesting, because I don't know that I've ever heard a rifle hunter propose cutting opportunities for archers, but the other way it sure seems to happen a lot. I'm not sure that's a fight archers really want to have in a state that values social sciences as much as biology for wildlife management strategies.


Think maybe it’s because rifle guys know they have the most effective weapon? Even on a good year, archery guys don’t make a dent in the population. Even with all the improvements in archery technology, you still have to be a decent hunter to find success consistently. With a rifle that’s not the case all the time. Archery guys have the worst seasons, least effective weapon and only 1/4 of the total permit numbers. Rifle pool is the exact opposite.

there is some opportunities to be pulled from the rifle hunts to spread throughout the other weapon hunts if that’s what the state wants to do. Not much more to be pulled from the archery group unless you want to make it trad bows only.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Airborne said:


> Anyone that says they cannot afford a flintlock hasn't looked at their price. You can get a good one for under $350--sell your high powered rifle and buy one, hells bells save a dollar a day for year and buy one! Ridge wants to limit LL tags, I'm trying to come up with solutions so we don't have a Monster Muleys 3 page war of LL holders vs tag hungry jealous dudes calling each other names. We need to be looking outside the box here to create more of the 'pie', not pissin fits fighting over the crumbs. If increasing deer herds were simple or easy we would do it but it is not so here we are.
> 
> This ain't archery vs rifle vs traditional vs transgendered
> 
> This is about huntin and not huntin. Me, I'm on the huntin side, ya'll can sit on the fence if ya want


If your proposal would ever come up for a vote, God help us, I would do my best to sink it. Plain and simple.

I appreciate your concern for herds but forcing all to hunt in your proposed way isn't a solution. Some of us have bought the weapon we prefer and invested time and energy developing skill (comparatively minimal to those here) with it. And I think numbers show many of us like and prefer the rifle hunt. Expecting all of us to sell our rifles to buy your preferred weapon type isn't reasonable.

Not to mention, I'm not sure I would want to be on your side legally given the recent passage of Amendment E. Fully eliminating general season rifle hunting for big game would sure be a fun first court case for the amendment that I'm guessing would make it to the Utah Supreme Court. It could succeed but it's a mighty narrow path given the millions of Americans that use rifles as a "traditional method" to hunt.

"Reasonable regulation" definitely includes altering rifle hunt tag numbers and seasons but not likely wholesale elimination.

Is that stance sittin on the fence?

PS...my vote for Amendment E seems pretty smart given some of these ideas shared here


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

> No one is looking to exclude rifle hunters entirely. You still can apply for the LE hunts, general elk hunts, antlerless, etc...
> 
> your statement about public access to great big game hunting is in the past is no where near correct. As a new hunter, that just means you haven’t had the time or experience to find these places. They do exist and they are all over the west. Open your mind and expand your boundaries. Just because it’s not in your back yard, doesn’t mean it’s not out there.
> 
> ...


Opportunity exists. Not like the past, which was exactly what I said in my first post.

I can tell you I'm subscribing to a "solution" that forces me to sell my rifle to buy a muzzie. Plain and simple.

Expecting the average hunter to find the money and time to hunt out of state like you are hinting at ignores the reality of our lived experience. Not all of us have the means to pay out of state fees, travel expenses or the time to travel like that. Even my days of justifying a solo backpack hunt in the Boulders is on hold for at least the next 6 years, likely longer.

This is looking more like a solution in search of a problem to me. And most people I know aren't going to sit back quietly while a handful of people try to eliminate the general season rifle hunt. Sorry, but that's the fastest way to splinter hunters into ever smaller factions if there ever was one.

I'm more than happy to fight for a decreasing odds of a chance to rifle hunt every year if the other option is it's elimination. And I can do that while doing my best to support proposals that increase our herds.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

backcountry, here is the deal: This is a false dichotomy being set up by people wanting things to be their way. We are not facing a situation where our two choices are simply eliminate the rifle hunt or cut its numbers. (I realize you aren’t saying that, but that is how it’s being framed all the sudden.) 

Rifle hunting is not the limiting factor for our deer herds. And giving all the tags to archers and muzzy hunters is not the silver bullet to the problems people are saying exist either.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

DWR's never going to change the LL system as they have no appetite for potential lawsuits that WILL happen. 

-DallanC


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Vanilla,

I fully agree on false dichotomy. I personally don't think we need major changes to the LL, DH or general season structure.

I'll clarify given it seems my earlier comment was misinterpreted. The era of plentiful herds for the number of hunters (that exist in that era) to hunt every year in the fashion they want is over. That was the ideal I was sold on and it took adjusting on my part. There are still opportunities but we all know it's not like it was 30 years ago and never will be again. It's disheartening but I'm still hoping to pursue big game and even teach my daughter at some point.


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

Hey Niller->Rifle hunting IS a limiting factor on how many tags the state issues. Higher success %, less tags. You can only take so many bucks off the landscape. False dichotomy or not I can go ahead and step aside and you and Ridge can argue about LL tags all day--won't be the first and won't be the last. Yeah--I know I took the thread sideways but I already know the outcome of this old debate and so do you. At least I'm not trying to take your LL tag away! 

Hey backcountry--ya know you could teach your kid how to hunt deer EVERY SINGLE YEAR up on Panguitch Lake if we were a flintlock state, but now ya can wait and hunt every other year so yeah you do like to sit on fences--at least half the time anyways! (I assumed you being a cedar city gentleman hunted there, maybe ya don't but ya get my drift)

Also FOR THE RECORD-->flintlock and finger release bows ARE NOT my preferred method to hunt so stop saying it--it's an idea I have so that a heck of a lot more people CAN HUNT. You guys got a better practical and easy idea to get more hunters in the field then by all means let's hear it! Making more deer isn't practical and easy--wish it were but it ain't


----------



## robiland (Jan 20, 2008)

For the discussion of rifle vs archery vs muzzy. None of them are the problem. We are not hunting does. We are hunting bucks. Bucks dont give birth!!!!! Its the does that need to grow and the fawns that need to survive, PLAIN AND SIMPLE!!!!


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

The number issue 1 limiting tags is hands down Mother Nature and horrific winters. We had 280'000 tags over the counter until the winter of 83. Mass winter kill of herds... it took a decade to begin major recovery when we got hit with the 93-94 winter. I doubt we've ever seen winter kills of that magnitude. There were entire elk herds killed in single canyons. THAT is when tags were really cut down to the 90'000'ish cap we live with today, and we went to region hunting, to be able to adjust seasons according to regional recovery.

One can argue its hunters keeping populations from recovering, if that was true, why aren't deer populations exploding in our national parks where hunting isn't allowed?

Its a complicated cause of issues, Weather is clearly #1, from winter kills to snowfall during fawning to moisture / forage growth. Second is predators, third automotive. IMO of course.

-DallanC


----------



## Irish Lad (Jun 3, 2008)

backcountry said:


> I'm not sure how the state could change the parameters of those licenses anyways without jeopardizing key trust in their word/commitment.


Exactly what I was thinking.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

Look at what this state has become! LL permits were offered and many jumped on it. I could have but didn't because I was sure I wouldn't be staying in Utah to live. Here I am, living in Utah. 

When these LL permits were sold, I'm sure the DWR never could have imagined just how bad of shape the current numbers of deer throughout the state would be. Well, I think to bring the count back up, offer less permits. It's not rocket science for he!! sake. Oh, but wait.... People would be complaining that they didn't get to hunt. Stop your whining and if you don't like it, take up fishing! 

It just rely piss's me off when special interest groups get involved and try to make hunting better for themselves and their bankrolls.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Airborne,

Setting up the argument as you can only do A or B is clearly a false dichotomy. And choosing the status quo in that scenario is a thoughtful, reasonable choice when the other option is the eradication of your preferred hunting method during the general season.

And to be clear you are also trying to argue we need to sacrifice higher success rates as hunters in trade for increased opportunity. I love my time in the field even though I've never harvested a big game animal but I'm not likely to conclude "you know what would make that better, even less odds of success". The status quo is also a fine, reasonable choice in that proposal.

I could hunt Panguitch every year under your proposal if I bought a muzzleloader, learned to 
shoot a new weapon and taught myself how to get better at stalking for closer shots for a lower success weapon/hunt. Or, I could recognize the status quo is the better option for my preferences.

If that is sitting the fence then the phrase has no meaning in your usage.

PS...sorry for causing confusion with my phrasing of preferred proposal the second time.


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

Ok backcountry-- Never said mine was the only way--just proposed "A" and said "B" would be the result. There are a lot of way to get to "B" meaning more tags and opportunity. Even good ole MooseMeat threw out some good ideas in post #14, I asked for more ideas in post #32--still haven't gotten any from ya but it's probably easier to debate dummies like me than come up with solutions--unless ya don't want a solution and that's fine too.

When I roll an idea out I usually like to take it to a level 10--do I want to see the level 10 happen...maybe but it's more for show. I want to get folks that are smarter than me thinkin about other solutions that might be a level 6 or 7 and be better than my extreme position on level 10. I use this tactic when setting pricing margins at work to influence sales reps and I am trying to use it here. MooseMeat caught on--wish others would

Of course I do feel bad taking over Ridge's thread--it was a D move on my part so I will move along.


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

I have been at the cabin for a couple of days, so I'm late to this party........


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

That's fair Airborne. My principle exception is I sincerely believe the status quo is the best solution I've seen to the current dynamics. We didn't get the current structure without some thought about wildlife populations and human dynamics. Mistakes were made and will continue to be but the policy balance found now seems to be considerate of historic obligations (LL), experiments to rebuild herds and/or habitat (DH) and current pressure (general season). 

The only thing I'd change is the Expo cronyism but that's am old canard that I have no control over.

I would prefer we have to draw for antlered and antlerless within the same system (ie choose a priority each year) but I can't see how that doesn't also lead to serious infighting hence not advocating for it. It's been talked about plenty here as well. 

I guess I'm finally coming around to the perspective that we need to stop tweaking the system so much.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Returning to the original question, I do think it is reasonable to cap the percentage of tags in a unit that go to LL and DH applicants. Those that exceed that percentage can get a tag to a second choice. That said, the effect of LL holders on point creep is minimal except in a very few units and the overall effect on statewide point creep is negligible. 

A quick thought on the "Primitive weapon ideas". Yes, going to more primitive weapons would lower hunter success and could, in theory, allow more tags to be issued. But would it really help? A significant percentage of current hunter would say "screw it" and give up hunting. We have driven away/cut in half the number of deer hunters in the state from when I started hunting deer. Has it helped? Nope, and we are still bi*&%ing about overcrowding. Also, where do you draw the line? If we went to a loincloth and spear, then everyone in the state could hunt for a couple months and not kill very many deer, but not a lot of folks (except Tushycake) would want to. Do I have the answers? Not really, but I'm cautious about any magic solution that will "fix" things. Option 2, coyote bounties, $fw, millions in conservation dollars, killing cougars, and umpteen other things promised to fix the deer herd, but all have failed to match the hype. 

I guess I'm content with things as they are with some tweaks here and there.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Airborne- the “let’s take tags away from the vast majority of Utah hunters and give them to the vocal whiny minority of Utah hunters” dead horse is no less dead than the LL dead horse argument. We’ll continue to have the same discussions year after year.

Nobody will take away my LL. I assure you that. We may regulate the deer permit aspect, but I’ll still have a combination hunting/fishing license for the rest of my life. That isn’t going away, ever, until I go away. But even the deer permit regulation part, folks better have a very compelling argument for doing so.

If hunters get our way, eventually we’re going to regulate ourselves out of hunting entirely. It seems that only when nobody gets to hunt at all will some hunters be satisfied with the cuts to hunting opportunities.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> As a LL holder, I actually would not oppose the general concept in your proposal, but I don't agree with the splits you outlined. I certainly would not support DH getting a higher percentage of the allocation than LL holders. I also think it would be fine to allow youth a higher allocation than you have proposed.
> 
> So, my modified version of your proposal would be a unit that takes 5+ PPs (based upon data from the prior year, so everyone knows what we are doing when we apply) or a unit that has a 20% cut in tags from the year before, then LL holders are capped at 10% of the tags, youth at 10% of the tags, and DH at 5% of the tags, then I would not oppose this.
> 
> I personally believe that the LL discussion every year is a boogie man people are chasing that simply doesn't exist. But if there does become an issue with LL holders taking all the available tags for certain units, and that is an ongoing problem that creates a 5+ PP situation to draw, then I would not object to the *modified* layout above.


The way I was looking at it, there are a certain percentage of LL involved in the DH program every year. I'm sure at least 2 or 3 percent. Which would be lowering the actually 10% to the general public that wants a DH tag. So if you had a max of 5% to LL and max 10% to DH. With the LL tag holder taking away some of that 10% in the DH pool. Then it would be close to the same numbers for LL and the general tag holder receiving either a LL tag or a DH tag. Hope that makes some sense.
This would only apply to the high demand units that take 5+ years to draw. The units that see a tag reduction, already are loosing the DH tags for that year. In many cases there won't be any DH tags available in the draw. Just like last year. 
Also, the LL tag holders would be only competing against themselves for those 5% tags. They would probably get their 1st choice tag every other year or at worse every third, once they gained a preference point or two for those high demand units. They would probably always get their second or third choice tag every year.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

Well, if I was God, course I ain't, I would just open up the big game season(all species) on the first of Sept. and close it on some future date, yet to be determined by "best" game management practices. In the name of fairness, weapon choice would be controlled by having alternating two or three or maybe even four day hunts throughout the hunting season limiting the choice of weapons too the various legal weapons. Hunting areas remain the same( GS or LE, etc) and tag numbers would be determined by a yearly "best" herd management practices.
Simple, clean and FAIR!
I know, its a little outside the box, but what we got now is a total joke.


----------



## flinger (Nov 19, 2007)

IMO, the way they've issued LL deer tags has been a problem since 2012 when they went to smaller units. It's sad to see how the DWR hasn't tried to address this with some of the units like Thousand Lakes which has been overwhelmingly favored percentage-wise by LL holders every year since then. See attachments for a snapshot of 2020 ratios. During RAC meetings the biologists have mentioned they recommended more tags on Thousand Lakes than they wanted to in large part because LL can pick whatever GS unit they want. It appears like many in the southern region are beginning to catch up to the Thousand Lakes. It's been interesting to see some of the weapon type and unit combinations favored by LL over the years. And the DWR has told us the LL holders don't hotspot. SMH Still happening, I know I would too!

I'm with Vanilla again. Leave the licenses alone, but look at a better way for issuing deer permits to LL holders. I think Ridge is headed in the right direction. 5%-10% cap per unit/hunt season seems like something reasonable at the moment. The percentage of LL holders to GS deer tags will change every year, it just happened to be about 5% last year. Maybe just a plus 2% over whatever that percentage it is for the year and make that the cap for each GS unit hunt or unit hunt season. Really, the LL holders bought their deer licenses when the B/D ratios were generally single digits and there were unlimited deer tags, major crowding. It seems like the DWR could be giving them more than they bargained for IMO. I realize there are many things that are not the same as there was pre-1994 which you can argue, but imo the quality of hunt has definitely increased since then with regards to B/D ratios and crowding. Maybe the DWR should also be worried about others bringing up lawsuits regarding giving out more than was bargained for. It would actually be nice to know what they actually bargained for, but I've yet to see any kind of original paperwork. I suppose it could have been verbal, but I keep hearing there are written contracts. It comes across like it's some sort of secret or something. They might as well just get it going through the courts because it will likely happen eventually from either side of the issue, then we can all just move on with whatever the outcome is.

The sooner it gets figured out the sooner the trophy hunters could possibly make some 3rd or 4th tier GS B/D ratio units as well, which I know many are just waiting for an opportunity to create. If someone really wants to make a change it will probably have to start in the legislative or judicial branches, similar to how the legislature had to get involved with the baiting issue that the DWR didn't want to tackle on their own. The older I get, the less I seem to care about this sort of stuff, but it's interesting to think about sometimes.


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

We need to have a thumbs down key for dislike as well as the thumbs up key........
that would give us a better way to get a general opinion on some of these discussions. 
just saying.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

Stop worrying about a few LL licensee holders. When they bought their LL they where promised that they would have a general season deer tag EVERY YEAR FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIFE! The state is keeping that promise, as they should. Period, end of discussion. The rest of use...just get over it.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

I dunno why this is even a discussion right now. One clown brings up baiting and trail cams in the legislature and now everyone wants to attack all forms of hunting in this state to make it “better”.

ive yet to see 1 proposed idea that makes it “better” for everyone where hunters and animals benefit from it. All I’ve see talked about is find a way to manage feelings, fairness on a social level or restrict certain hunters to make their success less obtainable so maybe other can find easier success in the future.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

If you want things to be better for the animals, you’ve got to start managing animals and not hunters. This is the one thing that people regularly overlook, and why nothing changes even when we make big changes to the system.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> If you want things to be better for the animals, you’ve got to start managing animals and not hunters. This is the one thing that people regularly overlook, and why nothing changes even when we make big changes to the system.


That's why we should leave it to the Biologist to manage deer populations but it should be up to the people to manage how they will be hunted.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

ridgetop said:


> That's why we should leave it to the Biologist to manage deer populations but it should be up to the people to manage how they will be hunted.


I’d submit that is what we already do. There certainly has been no shortage of changes on how we hunt them in my lifetime. And yet here we are, decades later talking about even more changes to how we hunt them, expecting a different result.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I heard several comments saying that the dwr should do the right thing and let the LL tag process stay the same. What happens if the DWR gives up on the book cliffs next year and makes it a general season unit with 200 rifle tags. I can promise you most if not all of those 200 tags would be taken by the LL tag holders. Is that doing the right and just thing? There needs to be limits put in place.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

That’s a terrible decision for those LL holders. The smart ones will eat up all the archery tags. That’s the hunt all the big bucks get killed on anymore! 😜

Again Ridge, if we can ascertain that the problem exists, some reasonable regulations might be in order. But I think your splits are off, as articulated above. And I’m not sure the problem exists.


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

ridgetop said:


> I heard several comments saying that the dwr should do the right thing and let the LL tag process stay the same. What happens if the DWR gives up on the book cliffs next year and makes it a general season unit with 200 rifle tags. I can promise you most if not all of those 200 tags would be taken by the LL tag holders. Is that doing the right and just thing? There needs to be limits put in place.


It seems to me as if you’re interested in limiting one group to appease another group.

Honestly, this discussion of limiting hunting, and hunting opportunities, for the few that think it’s unfair is growing old.

Leave the LL tags alone. If hunting a certain unit is so important to an individual, there are other avenues to get a tag. For the vast majority of hunters, hunting is not an economical way of acquiring meat. Let’s be honest, it’s all about killing the “giant,” “stud,” or whatever else is the buzz word of the week.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

CPAjeff said:


> It seems to me as if you’re interested in limiting one group to appease another group.
> 
> Honestly, this discussion of limiting hunting, and hunting opportunities, for the few that think it’s unfair is growing old.
> 
> Leave the LL tags alone. If hunting a certain unit is so important to an individual, there are other avenues to get a tag. For the vast majority of hunters, hunting is not an economical way of acquiring meat. Let’s be honest, it’s all about killing the “giant,” “stud,” or whatever else is the buzz word of the week.


I don't think you get what I'm suggesting. Most all other groups have a limit.
Dedicated hunters are capped at 15%
The youth are reserved 20%. Why not 80 or 90%?
Nonresidents are capped at 10%.
rifle hunters get 60% of the tags on a unit, no more.
Why not have a cap on LL tags per unit?
Why is it ok the LL tag holders can get 100% of the tags on any sub- unit?
It seems like the right thing to do is put a cap on how many LL tags are available on each sub-unit, IMHO.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Go on a little walk about for a week without service and come back to this. Glad the world is still spinning.


----------



## ns450f (Aug 28, 2018)

I purpose income based tag costs.

If you make under $60,000.00 a year tag prices stay the same.
$60,000 - $100,000 a year should see a 30% increase in tag prices.

$100,000 - $200,000 a year should pay double.

More than $200,000 a year and taham should be 10x more than normal. But the tag holder should be able to deduct his guide expenses from the cost of the tag.

Honestly I am just trolling here, but this is how we do our regular taxes and in a way hunting tags are a tax....


----------



## MrShane (Jul 21, 2019)

Just like fish, we need a deer ‘hatchery’.
The DWR raises a couple thousand deer and puts out two point ‘planters’ right before the season.
Sports could even follow the truck around like they do on pheasant season to ambush a banged up **** with a ten inch tail.


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

I will throw in my 2 cents and then put my shields up.
They stopped selling lifetime licenses in 1994, the amount of people holding those tags should be decreasing every year somewhat due to age and death.

Now for my proposal that I will need to put my shields up for. Put the hunting age back to 16.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

All the angst about a perceived problem on what amounts to 3 general season units.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

This thread and hundreds similar over the last few years all deal with "management or mismanagement" of a Natural Resource. Whos to blame.....Biologists or Public? Maybe its both. The question I have is..... If the State could increase the numbers of the Deer population throughout the state, where are they to winter????? Most of the winter range has been eaten up by Urban Sprawl. I'm sorry but I hate to think it, but it is reality. We will never see the numbers rebound to a point where 50% of the hunters pass a fork horn on the hunt to search for a "mature" buck. 

Rules, regulations, laws are in order to keep the hunter from destroying a resource. We (hunters, most of the hunting community) cant regulate ourselves so the rules have to be made. I've had many hunts in "the good old days" and YES, there is such a thing! That a 24" 4X4 was passed up. Now days its a cluster finding a decent buck to even look at! 

Hate to be the doubting downer in the party but I assure you, it isn't going to get any better, just the same as it is now or worse.


----------



## Irish Lad (Jun 3, 2008)

ridgetop said:


> I don't think you get what I'm suggesting. Most all other groups have a limit.
> Dedicated hunters are capped at 15%
> The youth are reserved 20%. Why not 80 or 90%?
> Nonresidents are capped at 10%.
> ...


I'm not sure what LL folks were told when they bought their license, but I believe there wasn't sub units then. They deserve to get what they were told.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Irish Lad said:


> I'm not sure what LL folks were told when they bought their license, but I believe there wasn't sub units then. They deserve to get what they were told.


They were told they get to hunt deer each year. Not that they get first pick of all the hardest to get tags and causing point creep to get worse on those units. I'm sure that was never the intent.


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

Sorry guys.....we were told we get to pick our hunt. 
It's not our fault that it got changed to sub units. 
We put ourselves on the line and spent the money to get the LL. Picture us going to our wives and telling them we were spending $500 on a hunting license ?
It often didn't go over very well. 
I literally did the ROA on it and was able to justify it that way. It paid for itself in 15 years. When you are in your early 30's that not a hard sell. (I'm 64 now)
What would it cost for 15 years of hunting and fishing licenses today ?? Not to mention the standing in line at one point, and then having to be in a drawing now ??
But there is a whole lot of us that are getting older and will be done before long. 

I've tried to stay out of this discussion, but I couldn't do it any longer. 
Feel free to slam me.......


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Back when I bought mine it was a weeks worth of take home pay+. It was a tough check to write for a lifetime of small game, fishing, and a deer tag. 

But even if they took away all the LL's then who would you blame?

The biggest problem that I have seen over the years is the DH hunters pressuring certain areas for 3 months.

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

2full said:


> I literally did the ROA on it and was able to justify it that way. It paid for itself in 15 years. When you are in your early 30's that not a hard sell. (I'm 64 now)


That same ROA worked out well when I bought mine at 13 years old as well. Best $500 I’ve ever spent! Bar none.

And potential LL holders were told at the time that they’d get a general season buck permit on the unit of their choice for the rest of lives if they purchased the lifetime hunting and fishing license.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

In reviewing the data Flinger presented, the unit where the biggest problem occurs is the Thousand Lake unit. It is a small unit with relatively low number of overall tags. I wonder how much of this would sort out automatically if Thousand Lakes would be merged into another larger unit? It was a similar deal with the old "loophole" in the general deer draw. (Most of the "loophole" players used Thousand Lakes to keep their run going) 

Nevertheless, the data would suggest that it is a pretty localized problem for only 2-3 units. I hunt the Boulder and much of the unit has been struggling, generally speaking, so many LL guys may move on anyway.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Which goes back to my basic question:

How can the state change the parameters after such an explicit commitment? I can see the desire from others to revisit the issue but all of us should be hesitant to change the specifications of a contract by the state after the buyers are fully vested. 

It was a short sighted offer on the agencies part but it seems like an issue baked into the system at this point. We just have to wait it out.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Catherder said:


> In reviewing the data Flinger presented, the unit where the biggest problem occurs is the Thousand Lake unit. It is a small unit with relatively low number of overall tags. I wonder how much of this would sort out automatically if Thousand Lakes would be merged into another larger unit? It was a similar deal with the old "loophole" in the general deer draw. (Most of the "loophole" players used Thousand Lakes to keep their run going)
> 
> Nevertheless, the data would suggest that it is a pretty localized problem for only 2-3 units. I hunt the Boulder and much of the unit has been struggling, generally speaking, so many LL guys may move on anyway.


That right there is part of the problem. My proposal would help stop hot spotting the better units.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

backcountry said:


> Which goes back to my basic question:
> 
> How can the state change the parameters after such an explicit commitment? I can see the desire from others to revisit the issue but all of us should be hesitant to change the specifications of a contract by the state after the buyers are fully vested.
> 
> It was a short sighted offer on the agencies part but it seems like an issue baked into the system at this point. We just have to wait it out.


It will take decades to "wait this out". My proposal has nothing to do about taking away tags. It's only to prevent a unit from being taken up by a high percentage of LL tag holders. The LL tag holder will still get their tag each year.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

If LL buyers were told they could "choose their unit" each year and were guaranteed that tag, maybe Joe Hunter should apply for a tag other than the so called "hot spot" units. We all have the choice of where we apply for tags, I wouldn't push the blame on the LL hunters , I'd place the blame on the individuals applying for those units that are the most difficult to draw.


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

A couple of posts have mentioned the sub units. I don't care for them anyway. It has really limited where people in our area can hunt.
There are 4 units that meet at center street and main street in Cedar City.
We used to hunt Bumblebee, Pinto, New Castle, Hamblin Valley, Buckhorn, Panguitch, Websters Flat, Swains Creek, Kolob, Kannara, etc.....etc.....
Now we are stuck picking one of the 4 units. 
Where the Beaver people got a big circle drawn around them. They can still hit all their favorite spots. So I'm not a fan of the way the sub units were done anyway.

I know, I know.....I need some cheese with my whine. 
But it has always bugged me and I had to get it out.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

ridgetop said:


> It will take decades to "wait this out". My proposal has nothing to do about taking away tags. It's only to prevent a unit from being taken up by a high percentage of LL tag holders. The LL tag holder will still get their tag each year.


If the state promised them they could hunt the unit they wanted then your proposal would be a failure to follow through on those obligations. It's truly that simple.

Now, you seem comfortable with that sort of change. I am not. These individuals bought into a commitment and it's on the state to follow through. The public should really be skeptical of encouraging a government agency from reneging on such transactions.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

I wasn't hunting when the subunits were designed.

Is there not a wildlife population based reason for their existence? It seems from a superficial observation that these are highly pressured units and the herds can't sustain the extra harvest. Is that untrue?


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

For those that remember, the LL holders were brought up repeatedly when Opt2 was being discussed. And that they could exceed the number of tags for any particular micro-unit. Most didn't care, they wanted to ram Op2 down our throats. What was the quote at the DWR meeting? "Lets get this done".

The irony, we didn't need Opt2. The current micro unit "boundary's" existed back when we had 5 regions... and that they were managed independently. We had units like the Nebo's season length adjusted independently from other micro units in Central Region due to harsher winter kill and herd population, that actually happened just a year or two before they forced Opt2 on us. People used it as an example of why we needed micro units... I used it as an example of why we didn't need micro units.

/shrug

I also brought up people getting screwed in a micro unit if we had a major fire that burned out the unit... now its happened twice. Probably will happen again this year if the drought persists. A larger region allows some relocation of hunters if a micro area becomes unhuntable or needs specific management.

I cant imagine going back to 5 region hunting... but would support it.

-DallanC


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

I cant imagine going back to 5 region hunting... but would support it.

Just eliminate ALL the regions and go back to state wide hunting...… The way the herds numbers are dwindling it wont make a difference in ten years anyway. Remember the slogan back in 95 with all the bumper stickers? "Nothing alive in 95" I'm lazy, but I'd like to see what the numbers were in 95-97 compared to today.


----------



## FeartheTurtle (Mar 8, 2021)

Since it's getting close to thirty years since the lifetime licenses stopped going on sale (1994?) I think this problem will take care of itself within the next decade or two. The lifetime license holders I know are all in at least their 50's or 60's.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I actually know a number of grandparents who purchased LL for their grandchildren when the kids were 5 and younger. But still you only have xxxx amount of LL holders. 

The program had been running for few years when I purchased mine and my license number is under 300.

But as for the LL holders sucking up all the tags in a unit, when I hunted Thousand Lakes right after they put it back to a general tag area everyone that I talked to had both the LL and DH tag I was the only one that I knew of that just had the LL and I talked to a lot of hunters.

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

DallanC said:


> I cant imagine going back to 5 region hunting... but would support it.
> 
> -DallanC


This would certainly alleviate Ridge's concerns about sucking up all the unit's available permits. And we all know Option 2 hasn't done what they claimed it would do for the state. I would 100% support a return to the 5 region permits and managing micro-populations as necessary within those regions. That would be GREAT for Utah deer hunters and not any worse for Utah deer. 

Let's do this, Dallan! What say ye, Ridge? You joining our bandwagon?


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

My LL number is 586. 
Everytime I go to the fish and game office to get a tag they comment on it, no one has seen one that low. I bought wayyy before the big rush.

Oh ya, and I've been on that bandwagon for a long time !!


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

2full said:


> My LL number is 586.
> Everytime I go to the fish and game office to get a tag they comment on it, no one has seen one that low. I bought wayyy before the big rush.
> 
> Oh ya, and I've been on that bandwagon for a long time !!


Mine is 285

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Vanilla said:


> This would certainly alleviate Ridge's concerns about sucking up all the unit's available permits. And we all know Option 2 hasn't done what they claimed it would do for the state. I would 100% support a return to the 5 region permits and managing micro-populations as necessary within those regions. That would be GREAT for Utah deer hunters and not any worse for Utah deer.
> 
> Let's do this, Dallan! What say ye, Ridge? You joining our bandwagon?


I agree with you guys, but I doubt SFW and their hand-picked minions on the WB would ever give up on their first golden plan that they promised would "save the deer herd". 

Which brings up a related question. How's the application for the WB coming?


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

I think the issue I have is with Lifetime License holders who lobby the RACs and Board to reduce Public Deer permits, which in turn provide a higher quality hunt for those who choose that(those) unit(s) and have an assured permit. The idea of managing some units at 21-24 bucks per 100 doe under the general season format was in part pushed by holders of LLs who know they are assured a tag every year.

We can argue all day about what LL holders deserve with their LL, but in the end the Rule lays it out pretty well. That Rule has been in place for decades and was modified to deal with the unit management strategy. Decades of precedent. They get a hunting license to cover game animals/birds/fishing and they get a General Season Deer permit if they apply for it at the proper time. Long after 1994- Utah implemented the requirement to have a hunting license just to apply in the draw which the LLs are benefitting from outside what they thought they bought at the time.

I doubt the lifetime hunting license will go away and when it gets down to few left I'd hope the management is not held hostage because of them.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I think that us LL holders need to lobby the legislature so that we can pass them down to someone




Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Packout said:


> Long after 1994- Utah implemented the requirement to have a hunting license just to apply in the draw which the LLs are benefitting from outside what they thought they bought at the time.


Help me understand this one better. I’m not comprehending the extra benefit outside what was originally purchased.


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

Critter said:


> I think that us LL holders need to lobby the legislature so that we can pass them down to someone


So... Kind of make them like Packer season tickets. 
I can see that.


----------



## flinger (Nov 19, 2007)

Packout said:


> Long after 1994- Utah implemented the requirement to have a hunting license just to apply in the draw which the LLs are benefitting from outside what they thought they bought at the time.


Good point. Maybe next time the state considers raising fees for hunting licenses they should just add a stamp instead that is required for anyone to apply in the draws, except General deer. If i had to guess that's all the small game/bird hunting license is to many is just a pass to apply in the draw.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I would wager that just about all of the LL holders also make use of the small game hunts that the license allows.

Fishing, perhaps not but I would also bet the most take advantage of that also. I know that I do. 

No stamps were talked about or required and in order to get it to where a LL holder would have to purchase a stamp you would need to get the legislature involved. Just like the law that was passed to allow us to purchase the LL.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

No LL here but I've had a deer tag every year for 50 + years along with a combination license. I might fish a few times a year and occasionally shoot a grouse but I enjoy being able to make the decision.
I will again make the argument that it is not people hunting that are creating the problem. If the problem is over harvest then just close it down. But right now it is all about who and how.
If LL people are the last 3500 deer permits in Utah good on them. I hope they share their story.


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

I use the fishing part of my LL tag quite a bit. The small game a little bit. 
It's nice not having worry about it.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

flinger said:


> Good point. Maybe next time the state considers raising fees for hunting licenses they should just add a stamp instead that is required for anyone to apply in the draws, except General deer. If i had to guess that's all the small game/bird hunting license is to many is just a pass to apply in the draw.


I’m still waiting to understand better what is the good point here. I’m not being obtuse, I really don’t understand, and would like to understand. What additional advantage was added post 1994 that LL holders didn’t bargain for?

PS- There are a number of LL holders that bought it just for the fishing. Someone posted a number at one point of the LL holders that never even obtained a single deer tag in their life. I know of a family that has them that only bird hunts. They don’t fish and have never big game hunted. But they hunt a lot of birds. The LL was and is still definitely not only about a deer tag. But it’s a nice bonus, for sure.


----------

