# forced to by a permit



## one hunting fool (Sep 17, 2007)

Does anyone else have a problem with being forced to by a permit in order to apply for a hunt? The rules state 


Notice:

A new requirement to have a valid hunting license prior to applying for or purchasing a big game permit went into effect July 1, please be sure the permit purchaser meets this requirement. 

My Dad and older brother have not hunted in years. this year I thought I had them all talked into all of us putting in for a Deer tag in the southern unit and hunt our old (my Dads Old Stomping ground) hunting camp. My dad grew up hunting it, his family built a cabin on it back in the 70's and my brother and I where carried over every inch of it when we where kids, it’s where we both got our first deer. Neither my brother nor dad fishes anymore either. So buying a permit that they are not going to use for a chance at maybe drawing the tag or maybe not drawing the tag was to them not worth the money. Me I buy it anyway because I hunt and fish. But to ask some one to buy a permit when they are not going to use it unless they draw is both unfair to the potential new hunters and to the old timers that are set in the one area. 
Why can't the DWR just make it "you have to purchase this permit if you draw type deal"? 
Could someone explain it to me? I would really like a good answer so I can understand where they are coming from on this and what the point is for it.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

The DWR pulled the data and found that 60+% of applicants for draw tags didn't buy a license of any kind. By requiring ALL applicants to 'invest' something into the product they hope to harvest, it makes ALL wishful hunters vested in the 'price' of having animals to hunt. I see it as a no brainer. If someone wants to hunt, they should be willing to do their part to ensure there is something to hunt. Utah is behind in doing this, most western states have had this requirement for several years.


----------



## ramrod (Apr 15, 2008)

a friend of mine bought 4 permits for his family and no one drew anything, I know he isn't very happy. If the money is going to good use like buying land for winter range or buying land to make public, help out wildlife habitat, cutting back permits to make a more enjoyable hunt I don't have a problem with paying a little extra. but if they are going to spend it poorly I would have a problem with this also. does anyone know what planes the DWR has for this extra income?


----------



## campfire (Sep 9, 2007)

The way I understand it the "hunting " license gives you the right to hunt small game and apply for big game permits. So if you hunt small game as well the cost is the same.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

campfire said:


> The way I understand it the "hunting " license gives you the right to hunt small game and apply for big game permits. So if you hunt small game as well the cost is the same.


Good point, they also LOWERED the cost for a general deer/elk tag. So, if you hunt small game or fish, as well as hope to draw a permit, the investment is nil. What it does is 'force' those who just apply and then when they don't draw stay home and invest NOTHING into wildlife, to actually help with the 'costs' to have animals to hunt.


----------



## archerben (Sep 14, 2007)

The changes actually made it cheaper to hunt in Utah for many people. For example, I buy a combination license, a deer tag, and an elk tag every year. It used cost me $135/year to purchase everything. It now costs me $110/year. Regardless of the permit fee changes, I full support the move to require a hunting license to apply for a permit. It turns every applicant into a hunter which brings in more federal dollars as well due to the increased number of hunters in the state.


----------



## GSPS ROCK (Sep 14, 2007)

Are they forcing you to apply for any hunts? If you don't like the requirements then it is simple don't apply.


----------



## threshershark (Sep 7, 2007)

I'm in favor of the change as well. There were a large number of non-hunters applying for LE big game tags and receiving bonus points for doing so (mostly this was a hunting member of the family submitting applications for a brother, spouse, aunt, grandfather, etc.) Then if anyone ended up with a tag, the hunter would fill it. This is illegal but I see it every year. At least now each applicant is contributing to wildlife management.



ramrod said:


> a friend of mine bought 4 permits for his family and no one drew anything, I know he isn't very happy...


I'm not saying the above is what is happening here by any means, but if the 4 family members are actually hunters then these licenses are not wasted. Certainly they will be out hunting upland birds, waterfowl, antlerless, or over-the-counter big game like elk during the year. Plus (if it's general season deer like I'm assuming) all 4 now have a preference point for next year's general season and should draw tags for the unit of their choice.

In addition, Utah was a huge favorite of non-resident hunters who also contributed very little to game management in Utah. This requirement brings Utah up to par with other Western states so that non-resident hunters who wish to enjoy our resources also share in the costs.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

Im glad they did the change.It save me a coupel bucks now. They also want more people to get in to small game hunting as well. It didnt better the draws this year. THey got as many if not more apps this year. Im glad it been done. Nice Job DWR.


----------



## Hunter Tom (Sep 23, 2007)

I also think this was a great move by DWR. Has anyone seen the numbers yet on whether this affected the number of applicants?


----------



## mack1950 (Sep 11, 2007)

i waiting patiently to see what the odds charts are gonna say for this year. but i honestly beleive it s gonna take alot more than what the dwr applied this year to see any major impact on total application numbers. to be honest i honestly believe that the the dwr would have to have the applicants pay up front at the time of appling to see and significant allteration of numbers. its one thing to pay 10 for the family to apply for limited area elk are the 280.00 per family member that would and could have a real impact on the total applications for unit


----------



## Bustin Bucks (May 27, 2008)

I also agree with this I think if someone is serious about hunting they will not have a problem with it and most of us would normally buy one anyway. The best part about it is that the people that want the tags might get them now instead of the people who put in for the tag draw and dont even go it might help stop these kind of people from applying.


----------



## FishlakeElkHunter (Sep 11, 2007)

I am going to have to agree with a lot of what others have said!!! If you dont like it.......Then dont apply!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It is that plain and simple. I would bet most of us that are serious buy a Combination anyway......I think it was a GREAT idea to do this. I hope all the crying little babies do not get this changed back!


----------



## Patman (Apr 16, 2008)

I have to say I don't like this way of taxing me to enjoy a resource I already pay so much for. And, the argument of if you don't like it don't hunt to me seems childish and selfish. 

This ends up costing many people who just big game hunt more money. No one in my family, other than myself, hunts for small game but now i have to buy them a small game license before they can apply to hunt to big game hunt????

The DWR knows people will pay for this stuff, and they can say they did for all the right reasons but in the long run it is for your money. Plain and simple. 

What is next 20 dollar aplication fees.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Patman, you make a few good points. Those who only hunt big game are now paying more, but what percentage of hunters does that? I also agree with the "if you don't like it don't hunt" is not how we should view it.

Even if every big game hunter who only hunts big game were to stop applying for hunts, the DWR would make MORE money than under the old system. The feds match every penny spent on a hunting license to the state, and with deer/elk tags selling out each year the revenue will increase significantly. It is about money, that is true. But, money is NEEDED to manage wildlife, and to protect wildlife, and to improve habitat. Those who consider themselves hunters should be vesting a minimal amount to the animals they wish to hunt. The 'let others fund it' doesn't cut it todays world. Those who are unwilling to be part of the solution are part of the problem.

Application fees goes to a private company in Fallon Nevada, NOT to the DWR.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

Patman said:


> I have to say I don't like this way of taxing me to enjoy a resource I already pay so much for. And, the argument of if you don't like it don't hunt to me seems childish and selfish.
> 
> This ends up costing many people who just big game hunt more money. No one in my family, other than myself, hunts for small game but now i have to buy them a small game license before they can apply to hunt to big game hunt????


First of all; how much do you "already pay...?" Seriously! When I hear such statements I must question the accuracy. What payment are you referring to?
Second, why would *you* buy your relatives a license? it was alluded to very softly and politely earlier and you apparently did not pick up on it (do not take this as big attack, but I am simply trying to be a little more direct than what the previous 7 or 8 posts were as they already covered most applicable points). Hunters buying Aunt Jennie and great uncle Jethro and both grandmas a license is also a problem and a problem that this new plan was meant to also cure. Dear great grandma, age 97, does not hunt and has not hunted for 40 years so a license bought by you (it sounds like you insinuate that) is illegal if you fill the tag and is also not equitable to all of the real hunters only putting in for them self. Again, no disrespect intended, simply I think you may have missed the points already made, so I made them a little more bluntly. I do appreciate your idea of more taxes...,but as already mentioned this new plan costs less for me and in theory (don't know the reality yet) improves my chances of drawing as everyone's great grandma is no longer putting in for my same hunt each year. So, Patman please clarify on this?


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Huge29 said:


> First of all;how much do you "already pay...?" Seriously! When I hear such statements I must question the accuracy. What payment are you referring to?
> Second, why would *you* buy your relatives a license? it was alluded to very softly and politely earlier and you apparently did not pick up on it (do not take this as big attack, but I am simply trying to be a little more direct than what the previous 7 or 8 posts were as they already covered most applicable points). Hunters buying Aunt Jennie and great uncle Jethro and both grandmas a license is also a problem and a problem that this new plan was meant to also cure. Dear great grandma, age 97, does not hunt and has not hunted for 40 years so a license bought by you (it sounds like you insinuate that) is illegal if you fill the tag and is also not equitable to all of the real hunters only putting in for them self. Again, no disrespect intended, simply I think you may have missed the points already made, so I made them a little more bluntly. I do appreciate your idea of more taxes...,but as already mentioned this new plan costs less for me and in theory (don't know the reality yet) improves my chances of drawing as everyone's great grandma is no longer putting in for my same hunt each year. So, Patman please clarify on this?


I agree this is happening and also agree all should be investing a little each year for a chance to hunt in the future.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

I like it and I like everything everyone has stated on this subject.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

It ain't a tax. It's a user's fee. If you don't want to use the resource, you're not "taxed" to help pay for it. If you wanna use it, you're gonna pay a user's fee.

I can buy a license for anyone I so choose to buy one for. Whether it's for my son, daughter, dad, mom or grandparent. I CANNOT, however, hunt for them. I can give it as a gift, but can't use it myself. The practice of banking points is completely different than buy a license for someone, and needs to be corrected.

Fishrmn


----------



## Chaser (Sep 28, 2007)

Think about all the out-of-staters that won't apply now because they don't want to pay $65 to $80 just for a license which will give them a CHANCE at drawing a permit. As many have already said, the majority of sportsmen and women in Utah don't hunt deer only. They also hunt grouse, pheasants, ducks, geese, and even more than hunt go fishing. For the majority, this change has made it cheaper, and from my point of view, it will also increase their chances of drawing a big game tag. For once the government has made a law change FOR the majority instead of against it. Thanks DWR!


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

This also helps solve another problem (banking points) not fully explained in the previous posts; using greatgrandma's, uncle Charlie's, and great aunt Martha's accumulated points to boost my chances of drawing by applying as a group. We get to average the points between the four of us and since the other three have 4 points and I have 0, (3 hunters x 4 points = 12 points, then 12 points divided by 4 applicants = 3 points each.), I now have 3 points. And, of course, if we draw, we turn in the other three tags and they retain their points for the next time I can draw, while I keep and use my tag now. In the meanwhile, I'll just buy points for the other three until "our" 5 year waiting period is up. By then they'll have 10 points each (4 previous points, 1 for this year, and 1 each year for the next 5 years.) and we'll get to average 30 points between 4 of us which will then give me 7 points. (And so on and so on.) 

But as it stands now I will (I mean they will) each have to buy a hunting license each year to even get the bonus points and it's gonna get expensive. Hopefully for the rest of us, too expensive.

Bonus points were too cheap ($5) until now! And this new hunting license requirement helps shut down that loophole in the system!


----------



## Patman (Apr 16, 2008)

Prout, Huge 29 & all others

I view this 2 ways 1 as a sportsman and 2 as a tax payer. I already pay into the system by purchasing so much stuff from Sportsman, Cabelas & various other outdoor retailers. The taxes I pay for those items go to the DWR (or DNR as they are called now). That is how I already pay for my fair share of the states great outdoors. There are plenty of residents who don’t pay a cent.

I never claimed to be applying to hunt with any of my geezer relatives. I do however pay for the hunting licenses and application costs of my children. If, or should I say when, they don’t draw that money is a gift to the state of an unused small game license.

For all those of you who believe hunting licenses ‘fixed’ illegitimate group applications I would say look at the numbers. The number of people seeking elk hunting licenses did not go down nor will it ever. I met a man at Lee Kay who claimed he did group applications. From the looks of his ride and rifles money wasn’t an issue to him. 

I know originally the application cost was to be used by Fallon as a cost of the service. I don’t believe that can still be the case. Look at the numbers of people who apply at 20 bucks a pop. Either Fallon is making a killing or the money is used elsewhere by the DNR.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Patman said:


> Prout, Huge 29 & all others
> 
> I view this 2 ways 1 as a sportsman and 2 as a tax payer. I already pay into the system by purchasing so much stuff from Sportsman, Cabelas & various other outdoor retailers. The taxes I pay for those items go to the DWR (or DNR as they are called now). That is how I already pay for my fair share of the states great outdoors. There are plenty of residents who don't pay a cent.


You're partially right about that. You pay taxes when you buy hunting stuff at Sportsman's and other places, but they are federal taxes, called Pittman-Robertson taxes. And they are distributed by the feds according to the number of hunting licenses sold in each state. Utah used to sell 300,000 hunting licenses, prior to 1993. After the bad winter kill, the number of deer tags was capped at 97,000 permits. Utah lost over 66 percent of the Pittman-Robertson funds that they were getting. The states that continue to require a license before you get a tag, were getting our share of the taxes that you were paying. That doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

The Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to cooperate with the States, through their respective State fish and game departments, in wildlife-restoration projects. However, per statute, no money apportioned under this chapter to any state shall be expended until the state in question assents to the provisions of this chapter and has passed laws for the conservation of wildlife, which includes a prohibition against the diversion of license fees paid by hunters for any other purpose than the administration of said state's fish and game department. The Act also provides for grants for hunter education programs and a mechanism for a multi-state conservation grant program.

The state of Utah doesn't get a dime of your money unless they play by the rules. Why would they go to the trouble of playing by the rules, and then let another state get a greater share of the pie?

And the last time I looked, it isn't a small game license anymore. It's a hunting license. You can hunt anything you'd like with it, but you need a deer tag to hunt deer, an elk tag to hunt elk, moose tag to hunt moose, etc.

I can't find it now, but Utah law prevents the UDWR from profiting from the actual draw. The company in Fallon Nev. is the ONLY one profiting from the increase to a $10 application fee.

Fishrmn


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

This is not a big deal for resident "hunters" since they normally would buy a license anyway, but the non-resident hunter that comes to join his family for an annual hunt/vacation/reunion, etc, is going to feel as if he is getting screwed a little, but probably will apply anyway. One thing to remember is: 
YOU CAN GET TWO APPLICATIONS OUT OF ONE LICENSE, so the cost is really only half of what you are figuring if you are an every year hunter. 
As to the guys that buy those licenses for everybody in the family...we all know someone that does that but when you jump them about it they always claim..."oh, my wife really did shot that deer"...please, give me a brake! If this helps stop those sleeze balls..Great! (My apologies to all those fine lady hunters out there...I didn't mean to imply that there aren't plenty of wives that really do shoot their own deer)


----------



## Doc (Sep 11, 2007)

For those saying they want to see how this year's number of hunters compare to the past, you don't have anything to compare. They also lowered the age to 12, throwing into the mix an additional two year group that previously couldn't apply which makes it impossible to compare.

I personally know several people, and their families who decided it was time to quit hunting with the changes. It partially defeats the purpose of the DWR wanting to entice new hunters to the sport.

I don't care one way or another for myself because I buy the combination license anyway, but this is the new policy and as others have said, participate or not. For those who participate, and find they have lost hunting support in the future and perhaps find their sport limited more and more, my now non-hunting friends will simply say, "Live with it."


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

You can't really beat the matching funds rationale. If they can gain access to federal money then it should be done. 

With a "broken" draw system it also makes sense to at least make those who abuse the system pay more money for it. 

Recruitment is a complex issue that money is only one part of. Since people are willing to pay the end price of the tag, you can't really argue that the up front cost was too much. 

Of course, I am with others. I see the draw as such a mess that I believe the full price should be paid up front- in addition to the hunting permit. That doesn't turn anything into a rich man's sport, it just makes hunters have to plan ahead to cover the cost they would incur if they were to draw. Makes perfect sense and that would actually change the draw odds in favor of those who would use the tags legally.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Doc, how do *YOU *suggest we fund wildlife? If people (kids) don't hunt because they are unwilling to buy a license, how do YOU explain the FACT that every other western state requires such and somehow still has hunters? How do you 'replace' the funds matched by the Pittman-Robertson act? Answer, you can't.

As for the point banking, I see NO connection between the new license requirement and decreasing point banking. I also am strongly AGAINST making people pay up front, all that would do is punish the youth/lower income hunters. If we want to stop/reduce point banking, simply make the ability to turn a tag back more difficult to do. Make it so you can only return a tag because of a grave injury/illness verified by a doctor, military duty, death, otherwise you EAT THE POINTS AND THE TAG when you draw out. Then 'grannie' is less likely to apply. We should punish the offenders ONLY and not everyone, which making people pay upfront would do. Why should I be required to pay up front for a service I have yet to receive? Seems nonsensical to me.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

Patman maybe you should take your kids small game hunting so there linc is not a wast to you. That why you get to spend more time with them in the great out doors.You never know they might love small game hunting. 

For the out of staters if they can offord to come here and hunt then they can offard the extra 80 bucks or so for there linc. Yep it more money for the dwr but they need the money to help the wildlife.


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

Pro- I don't agree with your reasoning. How does putting in for a Bison that costs 600 dollars become less expensive when you actually draw then when you apply? If you can't afford it in 3 months from when you apply, why can you afford it now? Basically, if someone were to draw, under your line of reasoning, then they wouldn't have the money or would have to find a way and scramble to get it. Both of our fathers would tell us that this is not how we should approach a purchase that will end up costing 1000 or more including any new gear, scouting, or the trip itself. 

Besides, the good old US of A has plenty of credit cards. If people want it, they get it, affordable or not.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> As for the point banking, I see NO connection between the new license requirement and decreasing point banking. I also am strongly AGAINST making people pay up front, all that would do is punish the youth/lower income hunters.* If we want to stop/reduce point banking, simply make the ability to turn a tag back more difficult to do. Make it so you can only return a tag because of a grave injury/illness verified by a doctor, military duty, death, otherwise you EAT THE POINTS AND THE TAG when you draw out.* Then 'grannie' is less likely to apply. We should punish the offenders ONLY and not everyone, which making people pay upfront would do. Why should I be required to pay up front for a service I have yet to receive? Seems nonsensical to me.


There ya go!

The UDWR is prohibited by law from taking your money for big game tags "up front". There are several reasons for it, all good by the way.

Do you pay for your house before you know if you get to build it? Do you pay for your car before you have a driver's license? Do you pay for a meal before you eat it?

Fishrmn


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

SteepNDeep said:


> Pro- I don't agree with your reasoning. How does putting in for a Bison that costs 600 dollars become less expensive when you actually draw then when you apply? If you can't afford it in 3 months from when you apply, why can you afford it now? Basically, if someone were to draw, under your line of reasoning, then they wouldn't have the money or would have to find a way and scramble to get it. Both of our fathers would tell us that this is not how we should approach a purchase that will end up costing 1000 or more including any new gear, scouting, or the trip itself.
> 
> *Besides, the good old US of A has plenty of credit cards. If people want it, they get it, affordable or not.*


How about this example; I applied this year for LE elk and drew out. I had my wife and 15 year old daughter just build points. Should they have to pay $280.00 each for a point? If so, why? They had no intention of drawing this year, because we KNEW I would draw, yet they wanted a point to increase their odds of drawing in the future. If my 15 year was required to pony up $280.00 for a tag down the road, she likely would not have applied.

Your comment about just putting it on a CC, affordable or not, speaks volumes. :?

I still fail to see what benefit(s) paying upfront for a service you have yet to receive bring. I see it as a way to lower the odds for some to draw, while making it worse for others. how does that help anything? And, if one can just put it on a credit card, what would stop the point bankers from doing the same? Wouldn't a simple change to how/why successful applicants can turn a tag back in and keep their points be MORE effective and only affect those abusing the system? Isn't that the goal here? Or, are you trying to decrease the number of applicants to help you draw? :roll:


----------



## one hunting fool (Sep 17, 2007)

I hunt all the hunts offered and for me this fee change helped because you are right I did lowered my fees. But how many families just hunt one sport? Why should they pay because the sportsman wants better resources? I see this as an other Habitat stamp that was used just for upland game to help with habitat then added to the tags then added to every tag now has been absorbed as a hunting fee. Why does it make sense that someone that just wants to hunt deer on there own property in southern region has to buy a permit for hunting small game and fishing? Oh I know you can just buy the hunting permit but why when it’s cheaper to buy the combo. I love the mentality that “if you don’t like it don’t hunt”. Ok and how about if you don’t like it all the private land owners cut off access to there land and force everyone to public. Because all the old time land owners that grew up with my dad have decided to go CWMU combine there land and close up land that surround public lands that way they only have to allow 2 or 3 people a year on there land and only on days they want them. I am not talking about small range lands but places that could change hunting in this state forever. Maybe that’s what Pro wants but I doubt it’s what the rest of us want. I personally don’t like it but your forcing land owners to change the way they let people hunt. If there kids have to pay just to see if they can get a permit to hunt land that’s been in their family sense the pioneers came to Utah, then they will just close the land off and the rest can fight over what’s left. If this happens it will work out for my family because my Dad owns land that is in this new Co-Op. and I will get a tag every year. Instead of drawing a tag but what will happen when you can not get on land from Koosharem, to Loa, to Richfield. 
Maybe this is what “THOSE” who are for the new changes are hoping for guides would make a lot more money if there where more areas to guide. Right Pro


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

Pro- I hoped you'd take that bait. 

Yes, putting it on a credit card does speak volumes- why be prepared for what I want when I can have it now and pay later. Read in some sarcasm there please. 

Exactly my point. PAY up front for what you intend to HAVE. Listen, I intend to draw every time I put in and am thus really disappointed when I don't. I don't apply with a card that is maxed out, I have the (debit card) funds ready to be spent and go through that thought process as if I will draw. I have no qualms about trying to get points ( a little banking there for you eh?  ) and not having to pay up front for THAT. I agree with you there and have applied for only the point in years when I knew I couldn't afford the time, the trip, and the tag. 

That is actually a great argument for paying up front. If you can't afford it now, you still gain points and prepare for the future. When you are ready to pay for play you pay up front - quite the opposite of using a credit card.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Most people apply knowing they will NOT draw, while I appreciate your optimism, it is NOT reality to have everyone expect to draw every year. I hopes to draw for several years, but it was only the last two years I expected to draw.

You have yet to answer what is the purpose of paying up front. What would it improve, and how? I see it as a way to decrease the number of LEGITIMATE applicants, which I see as near-sighted and poor policy.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

SteepNDeep said:


> Makes perfect sense and that would actually change the draw odds in favor of those who would use the tags legally.


What makes you think that those who don't want the UDWR to have hundreds of their dollars tied up for months at a time are more likely to use the tags illegally? And why would the person who wants to buy a tag that could be worth $20,000 or more (the current bidding for some limited entry auction tags) not be willing to put up a couple of thousand for a couple of months if it meant he could get better odds of getting a tag. By paying up front, you only make it difficult for those who don't have money laying around, you don't stop the person who has the funds available to manipulate the system. The system is the problem. The fix is to make it impossible to bank points.

Fishrmn


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

Fishrmn said:


> Do you pay for your house before you know if you get to build it? Do you pay for your car before you have a driver's license? *Do you pay for a meal before you eat it?*


I just tried this at Taco Bell and the kid told me "no tacos for you, one year!" I did like your insight on the Pittman/Robertson Act, thanks!

One hunting fool-I don't know how any of the increased draw fees by $5 and the requirement to buy a hunting license that resulted in a lower deer tag results in old landowners only participating in coops/CWMU's??? I think you actually agree with Pro, from your comments, don't you? I think you are trolling and this is not the fishing section, you aren't going to catch anything here :evil: Secondly your dad's neighbors created coops before this change, therefore the old system is at fault, right? You are clearly baiting, cool it! In no way did Pro ever make any insinuation of elitism or preferential treatment to the rich, he said just the exact opposite, I promise, re-read it. We will have to agree to disagree since none of your post made any sense to me brother.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

one hunting fool said:


> I hunt all the hunts offered and for me this fee change helped because you are right I did lowered my fees. But how many families just hunt one sport? *Why should they pay because the sportsman wants better resources?* I see this as an other Habitat stamp that was used just for upland game to help with habitat then added to the tags then added to every tag now has been absorbed as a hunting fee. *Why does it make sense that someone that just wants to hunt deer on there own property in southern region has to buy a permit for hunting small game and fishing?* Oh I know you can just buy the hunting permit but why when it's cheaper to buy the combo. I love the mentality that "if you don't like it don't hunt". Ok and how about if you don't like it all the private land owners cut off access to there land and force everyone to public. Because all the old time land owners that grew up with my dad have decided to go CWMU combine there land and close up land that surround public lands that way they only have to allow 2 or 3 people a year on there land and only on days they want them. I am not talking about small range lands but places that could change hunting in this state forever. *Maybe that's what Pro wants but I doubt it's what the rest of us want.* I personally don't like it but your forcing land owners to change the way they let people hunt. If there kids have to pay just to see if they can get a permit to hunt land that's been in their family sense the pioneers came to Utah, then they will just close the land off and the rest can fight over what's left. If this happens it will work out for my family because my Dad owns land that is in this new Co-Op. and I will get a tag every year. Instead of drawing a tag but what will happen when you can not get on land from Koosharem, to Loa, to Richfield.
> *Maybe this is what "THOSE" who are for the new changes are hoping for guides would make a lot more money if there where more areas to guide. Right Pro*


Lets address the high-lighted parts for now:
1)Are you serious? :? EVERY hunter/sportsman should be wanting to invest in what they enjoy.
2)Do you think if there are fewer animals on public land it would have no/little effect on populations on private land? CWMU's are not in a vacuum, they ARE affected by surrounding factors.
3)How does requiring people to buy a hunting license affect landowners deciding to turn their land into CWMU's or not? How does ANY of that benefit me? I guide *100%* on *PUBLIC* land. :roll: 
4)This new requirement helps the 'average Joe' more, by far, than any guide service. Please explain how I will 'profit' from this requirement, that is now standard in EVERY western state?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Fishrmn said:


> By paying up front, you only make it difficult for those who don't have money laying around, you don't stop the person who has the funds available to manipulate the system. The system is the problem. *The fix is to make it impossible to bank points.*


BINGO!


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Huge29 said:


> Fishrmn said:
> 
> 
> > Do you pay for your house before you know if you get to build it? Do you pay for your car before you have a driver's license? *Do you pay for a meal before you eat it?*
> ...


Maybe I should have said: Do you pay for a meal before you _order_ it?
  I was thinking more of a restaurant, instead of fast food.

They didn't make you pay for everything on the menu before you ordered, did they?

Maybe we'll see restaurants make you pay for the most expensive meal when you walk in the door. Then they'll refund you the difference between that price, and the price of your meal. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Fishrmn


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

you pay up front all you are doing is leting NV clet intrest off of your money for aleast 4 months. when you can have it doing the samething for you instead of them.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

Fishrmn said:


> Huge29 said:
> 
> 
> > Fishrmn said:
> ...


 I am sure that you know that I was just stirring the pot, right?  
I think you are on to something...that should discourage any one from banking, leave that up to us bankers, we hate extra competition -oOo- (dang credit unions!!) :wink: :lol:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Fishrmn said:


> Maybe we'll see restaurants make you pay for the most expensive meal when you walk in the door. Then they'll refund you the difference between that price, and the price of your meal. :lol: :lol: :lol:


Maybe a restaurant should make it pay when you walk in, let you 'expect' to receive a meal, then when the food runs out, refund your money. :? :mrgreen:

Nice Seinfield referrence Huge (AKA the taco nazi). -()/>-


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

Say it with me...drawing. Draaaawwww. The restaurant thing is funny, but not a good example. 

Pro- having to pay up front discourages those who want to draw using someone else’s identity. If you don’t think that happens then you are a bigger optimist than I am. For years it has been 5 bucks a chance. Heck of a raffle don’t you think? Why not try to cheat when supply is ever tightened by those who want it tighter. You are a big advocate of creating opportunities for more trophy hunting that don’t currently exist. I am glad you do want the banking eliminated, but the next logical step is making people pay for it up front. The argument that this separates the rich from poor is ridiculous. What does one do that puts in for the draw but never intends to pay for it? Explain that one to me. 

Can wealthy people pay more and pay full price for 6 tags for others hoping to draw one? Yes, but rich people don’t have to do this to hunt. If you can afford to hunt a 20,000 dollar hunt (example provided) then you don’t wait for years and pay for other people anyway. You just pay for the hunt. In either case the wealthy guy gets his way. You’re already an advocate of the convention and sportsman’s tags – for other reasons- which still come via the mechanism of a rich person buying what they want. Big deal, nothing new. None of that has anything to do with the poor/middle income guy putting in his 6 buddies. I take issue with that, and if the [email protected][email protected] takes a bigger hit or if it prevents him from doing it, I am happy. If it prevents those who aren’t truly prepared than I am also happy. I am certainly against the poor or rich crook either way, I hope a boulder falls on them while hunting. I am not against the poor hunter, but, seriously, this sport is not for the poor. As we all well know, the meat you get from hunting doesn’t end up being cheaper than beef all costs considered. Steak for that matter. That old whine is truly that as none of these poor folk would be affected anyway as they INTEND to draw the very SAME tag they are putting in for by paying the exact same dollar amount for which I am pleading. Do you think they will draw and then be mad because now they have to go find money for it? Heck no. Anyone that draws may have to scrape the money together, but they are happy to pay when they draw. 

The full cost. What a concept. Actually expecting to pay for that thing which you are intending to buy. No legitimate hunter should be trying to purchase something they can’t afford – we both agree on that as you discourage the use of a credit card. And everyone who signs their name signs something to the effect that they intend to purchase the thing so why not go all the way? It will teach youngsters to save and pay for, in advance, the things they want. It will probably teach some adults some lessons as well.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

SteepNDeep said:


> Pro- having to pay up front discourages those who want to draw using someone else's identity. If you don't think that happens then you are a bigger optimist than I am. For years it has been 5 bucks a chance. Heck of a raffle don't you think? Why not try to cheat when supply is ever tightened by those who want it tighter. You are a big advocate of creating opportunities for more trophy hunting that don't currently exist. I am glad you do want the banking eliminated, but the next logical step is making people pay for it up front. The argument that this separates the rich from poor is ridiculous. What does one do that puts in for the draw but never intends to pay for it? Explain that one to me.


Does not making it harder to turn a tag back in accomplish the SAME end result, hell even better results, while NOT punishing the non-offenders? Again, why punish those who are not abusing the system?



> Can wealthy people pay more and pay full price for 6 tags for others hoping to draw one? Yes, but rich people don't have to do this to hunt. If you can afford to hunt a 20,000 dollar hunt (example provided) then you don't wait for years and pay for other people anyway. You just pay for the hunt. In either case the wealthy guy gets his way. You're already an advocate of the convention and sportsman's tags - for other reasons- which still come via the mechanism of a rich person buying what they want. Big deal, nothing new. None of that has anything to do with the poor/middle income guy putting in his 6 buddies. I take issue with that, and if the [email protected][email protected] takes a bigger hit or if it prevents him from doing it, I am happy. If it prevents those who aren't truly prepared than I am also happy. I am certainly against the poor or rich crook either way, I hope a boulder falls on them while hunting. I am not against the poor hunter, but, seriously, this sport is not for the poor. As we all well know, the meat you get from hunting doesn't end up being cheaper than beef all costs considered. Steak for that matter. That old whine is truly that as none of these poor folk would be affected anyway as they INTEND to draw the very SAME tag they are putting in for by paying the exact same dollar amount for which I am pleading. Do you think they will draw and then be mad because now they have to go find money for it? Heck no. Anyone that draws may have to scrape the money together, but they are happy to pay when they draw.


So, your solution is to only stop the 'poor criminals' and not the 'rich criminals', good policy. :?

I assume you don't have kids that are of hunting age. Run the costs for a family that has four hunters living under one roof applying for LE elk tags and OIL tags. Now tell me how this family, that is fairly certain that all four will NOT draw the same year, can afford to have all four APPLY, not DRAW. You seem to interchange the two, DRAW and APPLY FOR are NOT the same thing.



> The full cost. What a concept. Actually expecting to pay for that thing which you are intending to buy. No legitimate hunter should be trying to purchase something they can't afford - we both agree on that as you discourage the use of a credit card. And everyone who signs their name signs something to the effect that they intend to purchase the thing so why not go all the way? It will teach youngsters to save and pay for, in advance, the things they want. It will probably teach some adults some lessons as well.


The full cost for a product you likely will NOT receive, what a scam. How about we teach the youth that the system isn't just set up for the rich, and/or those with several points already in the 'game'? What is so strange about allowing a 14 year old to acquire a hunting license, while also acquiring points for a future time when he can BOTH afford the tag AND when he has the points to draw a tag, while also going on LE/OIL hunts with family/friends?

Why go to extremes? Why not punish the abusers by making the provisions to turn a tag in more stringent, and THEN if/when the abuse continues do your over-kill reactions? :idea:


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

Well, I'm glad you leave the door open to the possibility. I am OK with making it harder to turn in a phony tag, but how about not having it be drawn to begin with? Plus, anyway, who under my scenario- guy applying for multiple tags in someone else's name- would turn in a tag they (under someone else's name) drew? Your scenario of making it hard to turn in does not cover the straight up cheater. 

Correct- I don't have kids of hunting age, and that is part of my perspective. It doesn't change the fact that you can teach your kids to prepare for something. I have 3 by the way. Kind of like saving for a mission or college or whatever. My first job was selling chicken eggs from chickens I cared for, then paper route, tilling, grocery store shelf stocking etc. You're basically telling me that it is ok to fund some awesome experience for your kid just because he/she exists. 

This is where personal priority comes full circle. You are all about creating demand, high dollar hunts, and more trophy experience, (most in the name of "conservation") but when it hits you back by making your family sacrifice you back down. 

BS

If you want to champion those causes, then let the individual for whom the tag is intended make the sacrifice on their own choice and own account. I can't help it if it is expensive for you and your family (it's expensive for any regular person myself included) and frankly it isn't fair for you to have an advantage by bunching up and averaging points that others wouldn't have as they hunt alone. On this one you are protecting yourself and the way you want to use the system, but it doesn't favor individual hunters who play by the rules. It does favor groups, and IMO it still does favor those who still want to put in for everyone and their dog and then use the tag as their own. 

There is NO getting around it. When you apply for SUCCESS you expect to pay the money. I am OK with you not paying it for a bonus point only draw. I would rejoice at them changing both things. Make it harder to turn in tags, and make it a full price up front draw for tag - not the preference point, but for a SUCCESS on the email/letter. Otherwise, it's just gambling and it hurts all of our draw odds as I gaurantee you there are people cheating this broken system.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

There was a time when Utah made you pay up front. Then if you didn't draw, they sent your money back. That ain't gonna happen again. You might as well get over it. The Utah legislature has made it illegal for the UDWR to take money for something that they cannot provide. It is also illegal for them to take your money, hold it in escrow, earn interest on said funds, and then return them to you.

There are a bunch of guys who think that paying up front would be a great thing, but it just ain't gonna happen. They can only accept your money for a tag when you actually draw the tag. State law guys.

As for the rich just buying the $20,000 tag and not participating in the draw. How do you think they got rich enough to afford the $20,000 in the first place? A lot of them get rich by being cheap, conniving, opportunists. They'll still play the point banking scheme and hope to get a cheap tag while they've got enough to buy the high dollar tag. Then they can hunt twice for $20,200 while the rest of us can't hunt at all, while we wait to get enough points to draw a tag. Not all of them of course, but some will. The point banking, returning tags needs to be fixed.

Fishrmn


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

SteepNDeep said:


> You're basically telling me that it is ok to fund some awesome experience for your kid just because he/she exists.


What are you saying here? :? I **** well think it is "ok" for *me* to fund some awesome experience for *my* kids just because they exist. I do NOT however, expect you or anyone else to fund awesome experiences for *my* kids, if that is what you are implying.



> This is where personal priority comes full circle. You are all about creating demand, high dollar hunts, and more trophy experience, (most in the name of "conservation") but when it hits you back by making your family sacrifice you back down.


Let me very clear, I have NO problem being able to pay upfront for me, the wife, and my daughter. This is NOT about me, it is about HUNTERS in general. Right is right, and wrong is wrong, and making people pay up front is WRONG. And, as pointed out, it is ILLEGAL in Utah.



> If you want to champion those causes, then let the individual for whom the tag is intended make the sacrifice on their own choice and own account. I can't help it if it is expensive for you and your family (it's expensive for any regular person myself included) *and frankly it isn't fair for you to have an advantage by bunching up and averaging points that others wouldn't have as they hunt alone.* On this one you are protecting yourself and the way you want to use the system, but it doesn't favor individual hunters who play by the rules. It does favor groups, and IMO it still does favor those who still want to put in for everyone and their dog and then use the tag as their own.


Do you pay attention at all? I DREW MY TAG THIS YEAR! I did NOT use my wife/daughter to help draw a tag. They are building points so that THEY can hunt LE RIFLE elk in Utah in the hopefully not to distant future. You are WAY out of line to imply I am "using" the system, but don't want others to "use" the system. Who exactly has been VERY vocal about making it more difficult to turn a tag back in? Just because I am AGAINST paying up front doesn't mean I can't afford it, nor does it mean I am "abusing" the system. It simply means I believe it would punish hunters who desire to have tag, while doing little/NOTHING to curtail the abuse. Hopefully the wife doesn't read how you have implied she is building points so I can get another tag, I dare say she could out hunt MOST on this forum, as could MANY women I know, a few who frequent this site. :roll:


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Fishrmn said:


> There was a time when Utah made you pay up front. Then if you didn't draw, they sent your money back. That ain't gonna happen again. You might as well get over it. The Utah legislature has made it illegal for the UDWR to take money for something that they cannot provide. It is also illegal for them to take your money, hold it in escrow, earn interest on said funds, and then return them to you.
> 
> There are a bunch of guys who think that paying up front would be a great thing, but it just ain't gonna happen. They can only accept your money for a tag when you actually draw the tag. State law guys.
> 
> ...


Got a bit of a belief going there eh?

I'll throw out the possibility that it is a lot easier to be right about not having, when those who do have it, got it the "cheap and conniving" way.


----------



## Patman (Apr 16, 2008)

It seems to me most proponents of the paying upfront system believe it will increase their draw odds by reducing the number of hunters. This is simply not the case. I have friends and family who hunt in Arizona. They pay upfront for the cost of the license yet it hasn't helped them draw any earlier than me. I took my brother-in-law Travis 14 years to draw his elk license for the 5-B south unit. 

Steep-N-Deep nothing is stopping you from paying up front for your tag, do it if you so choose. I should not be required to pay upfront for a hunting license, I may never receive, because you think it will increase your drawing odds. Changing to a pay upfront system will, however, give the state probably millions of dollars to collect interest on for a few months. 

*()*


----------



## Doc (Sep 11, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Doc, how do *YOU *suggest we fund wildlife? If people (kids) don't hunt because they are unwilling to buy a license, how do YOU explain the FACT that every other western state requires such and somehow still has hunters? How do you 'replace' the funds matched by the Pittman-Robertson act? Answer, you can't.
> 
> The best way to fund wildlife is for the state lawmakers to grow some cajones and fund the DWR. That allows DWR to manage for the benefit of the animals and takes away some of the big business influence. It also places some responsibility on those people that want to see wildlife but don't want to hunt. (The bad thing about that is it would aslo give a bigger voice to antihunters and take away hunters argument that we are the ones supporting wildlife.)
> 
> ...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Doc said:


> Hunting has to change to continue, those changes are unacceptable to some and that is a FACT. The intent of my origianl post is simply to point out the FACT there is more than one problem facing the future of hunting, one happens to be recruiting, another happens to be funding. Addressing these two problems is not always mutually agreeable.


I realize there are MANY obstacles to overcome in recruiting new hunters and to retain existing hunters. I just don't see how making 'hunters' invest in what they supposedly enjoy, will add another obstacle. I see it as a great way to keep the cost of hunting LOWER.

I also agree with the state needing to step up and fund the DWR better than they have, but I believe they are starting to come around. The sad reality is funds are tight and about to get tighter, so I don't expect a big windfall from the state, not with folks looking for money for education/roads/health care/etc. I also prefer those who benefit the most to pay their 'fair share', and not just expect animals to be there when they do little/nothing to make it possible. It is PAST time for hunters to step and get involved, instead of sitting around whining about the state of wildlife.


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

All I really mean is there are some advantages to applying as a group. Totally legal, but not necessarily the right policy to have. Every applicant ought to be treated equally. I agree with your argument about turning in, I already said that. I still dislike that people can straight up cheat if they have minimal funds and a few names to throw in.  We all would flip a lid over some guy going down to the Henry’s and killing a bison without a tag. Same goes for a bighorn sheep, moose, elk or whatever. Because it’s poaching. Tag poaching is happening, and, yes, I believe we should discourage it in the same way we discourage other forms of poaching. Full price would help that. No, not in every case, but yes, in some. Does it matter if you catch/prevent or discourage 1 poacher in 10? Yes, it does. Yes, it would also help draw odds. And again, every single applicant looking for a tag fully hopes to draw same said tag and they will pay same dollars anyway. If it is illegal for the state to run it this way (which I doubt) then it ought to be changed. One more weapon against poaching is something every responsible hunter should commend. I am still saying the money should be refunded each year, but I do believe people ought to pay up front. I think the benefits outweigh the excuses. Hunting has been pricey for the last 20 years. I’ve never seen my dad not have to sacrifice some to have the fun that is hunting. Same holds true for me now. 

Pro, you’re all about convention tags. Those are much more exclusive to the statewide hunting population than having to have the state hold on to our funds for a few months. Whatever one loses in interest pales in comparison to gas, food, hotel, etc. to get a shot at those. You basically have no legs to stand on in this one.

Oh- and I didn't mean to mess with you and your family. I'm sure you're all good folks, good neighbors and probably better hunters than I am. Sorry for coming across that way.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Apology accepted.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

SteepNDeep said:


> Pro, you're all about convention tags. Those are much more exclusive to the statewide hunting population than having to have the state hold on to our funds for a few months. Whatever one loses in interest pales in comparison to gas, food, hotel, etc. to get a shot at those. You basically have no legs to stand on in this one.


I beg to differ, but that is another debate that needs it's own thread. Oh, and I have TWO healthy legs holding me up just fine. :wink:


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

What? Tree :shock: Are you Pro's wife or daughter?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Oh, I thought you were apologizing to me, my bad. :wink:


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

All right then. I'm sorry you are married to Pro. :mrgreen: 

Feel better?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

SteepNDeep said:


> All right then. I'm sorry you are married to Pro. :mrgreen:
> 
> Feel better?


You're not sorry, you're jealous! *\-\*


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

Ughhhhhh, now I have to buy another keyboard. Cheerio vomit wreaks havoc on a computer.


----------



## one hunting fool (Sep 17, 2007)

Pro you stated that all states require you to buy a tag to enter a draw that is incorrect. I entered in CO, WY, and WA and have not purchased a tag yet. I will be glad to purchase the recommended tag when or if I draw but asking me to by a tag for a state that I have no intention in hunting UNLESS I draw a tag is asinine. You also state that I should have to invest in the wildlife programs just for the opportunity to draw. What is the fee for a tag for and where does this money go if not to the wildlife programs. By your way of thinking I should pay for every bike trail in the state along with maintenance for upkeep because I may cross it when hunting and leave my foot prints on the trail therefore I used it. Also in this way of thinking I am going to require anyone using the hwy between Ogden and the northern Utah border to stop in my town and buy fuel because you are using our recourses and looking at our natural beauty. And my town has to put up the up keep for trash on the road and maintenance to the highways, also we have to provide help and road side assistance for any stranded motorist. And it’s not fair that only my town has to pay taxes on this and not everyone who potentially could want to use it. Either that or I am just trying to get as much as I can for as little effort as possible. As you have stated in more than one posting wildlife is a renewable resource that does not need special treatment to thrive. (This was in your not relocating over populated elk herds to more less populated areas). So why all of a sudden does the DWR need a boost to the wildlife program of at least 60% (your numbers not mine) that is not going to increase opportunity to the hunter or sportsman?
The fact is this cut on some tags will be temporary and next year there is a proposed increase of the amount that was cut from this and last years tags. So how does this help the hunter / sportsman in the long run?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

SteepNDeep said:


> All right then. I'm sorry you are married to Pro. :mrgreen:
> 
> Feel better?


Feeling _better_ today is going to be a difficult task, I already feel wonderful, due in part, to your apology.

All y'all galdurnsumbeeches have a great day!


----------



## marksman (Oct 4, 2007)

Along the lines of PRO's idea. How about if you apply for a hunt as a group then you must either hunt as a group or return the tags as a group. That would keep people from putting in with their grannies and such and then returning all the tags but their own.


----------



## one hunting fool (Sep 17, 2007)

marksman said:


> Along the lines of PRO's idea. How about if you apply for a hunt as a group then you must either hunt as a group or return the tags as a group. That would keep people from putting in with their grannies and such and then returning all the tags but their own.


i think that is a good idea. but didn't the granny and the uncle and everone have to apply every year just like the rest of us. if they put in there time then who are we to complain.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

SteepNDeep said:


> If it is illegal for the state to run it this way (which I doubt) then it ought to be changed.


It *is* illegal for the UDWR to take your money for something that they cannot guarantee that they have to give you in return. If you didn't draw the tag, they *can't* take your money. Doubt all you want, that's the way it is.

You may not like it, but it is the law. It used to be the other way around, but the problems associated with refunds, record keeping, postage, security and such prompted the *legislature* to change the law. If my memory serves me correctly, there was some legal eagle who argued (successfully) in court that since the state of Utah cashed his client's check for the price of a limited entry tag, and the bottom left line of the check said it was for said tag, they had to give him a tag. One lost lawsuit, one changed law. They *CAN'T* take your money for something that you may not be able to buy.

I know there are guys who like the idea of paying up front, but as the saying goes: "Been there, done that, got the t-shirt, ain't goin' back."

Fishrmn


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

one hunting fool said:


> marksman said:
> 
> 
> > Along the lines of PRO's idea. How about if you apply for a hunt as a group then you must either hunt as a group or return the tags as a group. That would keep people from putting in with their grannies and such and then returning all the tags but their own.
> ...


We complain because granny and uncle DIDN'T apply every year. Big bad hunterman did it in their behalf, which anyone can do. In fact granny and uncle may not even know they applied, 'cause everything comes to big bad hunterman's mail box. And, of course, all group hunts have to be on one credit card, so guess who's that is? All you need is a SS# and birthdate for someone born before January 1, 1966 so you don't have to prove Hunter Safety. And we can quietly get that at granny's next birthday party. Neat, huh?

Topped with the point banking scenerio, that's one helluva loophole that needs to be closed. And basically, we're debating on the best way to do that.

I'm not against paying up front because I do it all the time, and so do you, when we pay taxes, go to the movies, buy fast foods, take the kids to the swimming pool, and, in fact, we buy a hunting license BEFORE we hunt, not after. But if paying up front for a permit we may not draw, with a refund due later, is now illegal, then so be it. But I still think that requiring buying a hunting license will slow down point banking and it will put venison (and/or grouse, quail, rabbit, ducks, elk, etc.) on the table, if not now, later. Without everyone footing the bill now, there may not be any "later".

And I do like the idea of either the whole group hunts or turns in tags. (Why didn't I think of that?)


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> I'm not against paying up front because I do it all the time, and so do you, when we pay taxes, go to the movies, buy fast foods, take the kids to the swimming pool, and, in fact, we buy a hunting license BEFORE we hunt, not after. But if paying up front for a permit we may not draw, with a refund due later, is now illegal, then so be it. But I still think that requiring buying a hunting license will slow down point banking and it will put venison (and/or grouse, quail, rabbit, ducks, elk, etc.) on the table, if not now, later. Without everyone footing the bill now, there may not be any "later".
> 
> And I do like the idea of either the whole group hunts or turns in tags. (Why didn't I think of that?)


Except you don't pay to get your kids into a swimming pool knowing that some of them aren't going to get into the pool because it is already at capacity. You don't pay for your food knowing that some of it isn't going to be available. You don't pay for movie tickets to a show that is already sold out. You can still hunt with your hunting license, just not for those animals that require a tag that you haven't drawn. Since there is a finite number of tags available it would be unethical to "sell" more tags than there are tags.

Taxes are an entirely different situation. You don't pay your taxes up front. Most people allow the status quo of withholding allowances. These are estimated to equal your tax burden. If it exceeds your taxes, you are given a refund, if they fall short, you are required to pay the difference on or before April 15th. You can set up quarterly payments if you would rather do it that way. Most businesses do.

End point banking now. Apply as a group, draw as a group, and sacrifice points as a group if one person surrenders a tag. After all, if one person doesn't qualify in the group, the group is disqualified in the draw.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Fshrmn, Perhaps paying up-front is as much a matter of perspectives as anything. I just had a medical procedure done this morning (ccccolonoscsccccopy! whew, I said it!) which required me to make an up-front insurance co-pay of $150 without me knowing whether or not I would even survive the d*** thing. And my daughter and son-in-law are trying to rent out their home here in Enoch so they can get a permanent place up north where her new job is, and they are asking for the first month, last month and cleaning deposits, up-front. In any case, I won't quibble 'cause it appears we're mostly on the same side.

We agree on the whole group in or out thing, and depositing the full amount of the tag with a refund to those who don't draw is no longer an issue. What I would like to see ironed out is the original theme of this thread, ie: being required to buy a hunting license in order to apply for big game tags., And I believe it's in everyone's best interest to require it, even those who don't draw this time, 'cause they'll reap the benefits later on. (I don't imagine I'll ever use Legacy Highway, but I'm sure my kids and/or grandkids will, so it's in my best interest in the long run to help pay for it, which, of course, I've done.)


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

There are lots of things that we pay for at the time of use, or just before we use them. But using your daughter's case as an example. What if the owner of the place she's looking at took first and last month's rent and a cleaning deposit from a dozen couples who were looking to rent the same place. Then 4 months after they've all paid, the landlord says to eleven couples: "Sorry. You guys didn't get the apartment. I'll send you a check for a refund in a couple of weeks." If your daughter is one of the eleven couples that didn't "draw out" on the apartment, she'd have paid for something that she didn't buy, and the landlord would probably be getting sued. You can't make people pay for something that you don't have.

Fishrmn


----------



## HJB (May 22, 2008)

They put this law into effect to weed out all the cheapskate whiners like yourself. The draw should be for the true hunters that care about the animals they hunt. If you are simply just putting in for a hunt, so that you can go benefit from all the money that we have spent producing bigger better animals, Than you don't deserve to hunt here.
I'm glad they started this law.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

HJB said:


> They put this law into effect to weed out all the cheapskate whiners like yourself.


Who's the whiner, or cheapskate?

If you're talking to me, I paid $500 for my hunting license when I bought it (16 years ago). Of course it's a lifetime license, and I gave my permission for the UDWR to put it in an escrow account. They're still using the interest on the money I paid them to fund habitat projects, transplants, pay for exchanging animals with other states, etc, and will do so *forever*.

My son wasn't born when the lifetime licenses were still available. He has to have a license before he can draw. I think that is the way it should be. If for no other reason than to get Utah's rightful share of the Pittman-Robertson funds.

Fishrmn


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

You gave them permission to use it in an escrow account? You mean the money you gave them for the permit you bought? No one is going to cry for you when you have one of those. Smart investment, good for you. HJB hit it. Let's get the tags to those who care. Let's also be for anything that weeds out cheaters, and let's throw some support behind a good idea like trying to get matching funds. Like the DIV has stated- many people put their name in the hat (what idiot wouldn't when a market price tag 20,000K goes for 16 easy payments of what used to be 5 dollars- WTF!?!?!?) and they NEVER bought any hunting tag. 

No brainer. Love the new change. Totally willing/informed on buying the new tag. Still wish we could push that full price thing. I heard you about the law.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

SteepNDeep said:



> You gave them permission to use it in an escrow account? You mean the money you gave them for the permit you bought? No one is going to cry for you when you have one of those. Smart investment, good for you. HJB hit it. Let's get the tags to those who care. Let's also be for anything that weeds out cheaters, and let's throw some support behind a good idea like trying to get matching funds. Like the DIV has stated- many people put their name in the hat (what idiot wouldn't when a market price tag 20,000K goes for 16 easy payments of what used to be 5 dollars- WTF!?!?!?) and they NEVER bought any hunting tag.
> 
> No brainer. Love the new change. Totally willing/informed on buying the new tag. Still wish we could push that full price thing. I heard you about the law.


That was the agreement. They get the money. You get the lifetime license. The money went to the escrow account to be used for those types of things (can't be used to pay salaries, buy vehicles, expenses like utilities) in perpetuity. It wasn't enough by itself, but with 4,000 other lifetime license holders, we put $2,000,000 into that account. The legislature took a million out to help fund the Kamas fish hatchery remodel, but I figure that is a good investment that will provide benefits for many years to come. The other million provides $100,000 (based on a 10% return) each and every year for a special project. And it will continue to do so long after I'm dead and buried. So, even my great great grandkids will benefit. Don't cry for me, it was the best investment, especially in regards to wildlife, I've ever made.

One thing that "*might*" slow down the point bankers would be to require a hunter safety certificate for all hunting licenses. That way, Grannie would have to take hunter safety (and pass) before she could be used to help bank points for the guys doing the banking. Maybe Grannie knows what's going on now and is okay with it. But if her name is being used, and she doesn't know about it now, she would at least have to know about it and therefore be willing to be an accessary to the scheme.

Fishrmn


----------



## marksman (Oct 4, 2007)

one hunting fool said:


> marksman said:
> 
> 
> > Along the lines of PRO's idea. How about if you apply for a hunt as a group then you must either hunt as a group or return the tags as a group. That would keep people from putting in with their grannies and such and then returning all the tags but their own.
> ...


Yeah they did apply like all of us but this keeps someone from then returning all thier tags and keeping his then applying with them in a group a couple years later and getting another tag because their high number of points bring up his average. That way if they put in and they draw then they have to go hunting. And if one member of the group can't then either he has to loose his points or they all have to wait until next year.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Fishrmn said:


> There are lots of things that we pay for at the time of use, or just before we use them. But using your daughter's case as an example. What if the owner of the place she's looking at took first and last month's rent and a cleaning deposit from a dozen couples who were looking to rent the same place. Then 4 months after they've all paid, the landlord says to eleven couples: "Sorry. You guys didn't get the apartment. I'll send you a check for a refund in a couple of weeks." If your daughter is one of the eleven couples that didn't "draw out" on the apartment, she'd have paid for something that she didn't buy, and the landlord would probably be getting sued. You can't make people pay for something that you don't have.
> 
> Fishrmn


If you get a refund, you don't BUY or PAY FOR anything! All you do is allow the entity receiving your money the use of it for a time, which is what your bank does, your insurance company, your retirement fund provider, your state and federal government, and your mutual fund/stock broker. You didn't "invest" in a lifetime license, you BOUGHT an item that was on sale! You don't get a financial return later on and you received the item right away and still have it. What the DWR did with the purchase price is their concern. It just so happens that they reinvested it to your (and my) benefit, and we can thank you for that.

You bought a lifetime license knowing it would help build the future of the hobby/passion you love so dear, and now you're telling us that we shouldn't do the same?


----------



## one hunting fool (Sep 17, 2007)

marksman said:


> Yeah they did apply like all of us but this keeps someone from then returning all thier tags and keeping his then applying with them in a group a couple years later and getting another tag because their high number of points bring up his average. That way if they put in and they draw then they have to go hunting. And if one member of the group can't then either he has to loose his points or they all have to wait until next year.


Ohhhh I see Brilliant... I guess I would not figure that because I just don't think on the lines like that. But I could see how that is not fair. 
I would still like to get back to the why we have to pay for tags that now one intends on using. As I posted no other stated I applied for this year required me to buy a tag to put in for there premium hunts. It is asinine to expect a non resident to pay for an out of state combo license at $150- 195 a pop just for the chance to draw. As Pro stated I would not be making a contribution to this state if I did not draw (other than the non-refundable charge that I expect) However; if I did draw I would make a bigger contribution than most residents that year. (non Res tag being what they are) not to mention Guides, fuel, accommodations, food, the thousands of dollars I would spend to make sure my contribution paid off for me as close as guaranteed as I could make it. For that matter anyone that has 3 or 4 kids that you might want to put in on the youth draw you have to buy a tag RIGHT AFTER CHRISTMAS. Does the DWR not realize most people are on a budget or do they just not care about getting kids involved as other states do? We need new management!!! Tell me where to go and I'll preach it to the choir.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

So, how about if we just made this whole thing simple by going back to the way it was, but raise the price of the tags and points to meet the rising costs to the DWR.? No one would have to buy an unwanted license or pay up-front, except for the application processing fee charged by the Fallon NV company. We could also require every hunter to pass the hunter safety class, and require group hunters to apply as a group, hunt as a group or turn in tags as a group. Or eliminate group applications entirely!

How much of a price increase? I'm sure the DWR or some accounting firm hired by the state could figure that out and let us know in a couple of years. If it's not too much, we'll still have the number of hunters we have now and nothing will change. If it's a lot, we'll probably eliminate some hunters, which will only increase the odds of drawing for those who stay and will reduce the number who apply for multiple tags, increasing those odds also.

We'll undoubtedly lose some federal money, but we can always increase the price of the tags again to make that up. And the DWR can start charging for events that are now free. (Goat watching. nature hikes, free fishing day, snow geese watching, RAC meetings, etc.) Or we can close the regional offices and lay those people off since everything is going on line anyway. And maybe ask more of the Dedicated Hunters in order to cut some field staff. There are lots of ways we haven't even thought of to make up for inflation that hits us all, even the DWR.

What?


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> If you get a refund, you don't BUY or PAY FOR anything! All you do is allow the entity receiving your money the use of it for a time, which is what your bank does, your insurance company, your retirement fund provider, your state and federal government, and your mutual fund/stock broker. You didn't "invest" in a lifetime license, you BOUGHT an item that was on sale! You don't get a financial return later on and you received the item right away and still have it. What the DWR did with the purchase price is their concern. It just so happens that they reinvested it to your (and my) benefit, and we can thank you for that.
> 
> You bought a lifetime license knowing it would help build the future of the hobby/passion you love so dear, and now you're telling us that we shouldn't do the same?


I think you should invest in the sport. I think the buying a license is a great idea. But paying up front isn't investing a dime in the sport. The money that would be refunded doesn't do the DWR any good. In fact it would cost them money. They would have to expend resources on keeping track of it. They would have to issue refund checks. They'd have to mail the refund checks. How is that investing in anything. And when I bought my license, they didn't take my money for something that they couldn't/wouldn't provide. Big game tags aren't on sale when they are in the drawing process. And if there are tags left over, you can buy them on a first come first served, over the counter process. You don't actually draw a tag. You get your name drawn that allows you to complete the sale. If your credit card purchase doesn't clear, you don't buy the tag.

Heck, let's just make it all an auction. Tags go to the highest bidder. That'll teach 'em. There's gotta be a dozen or so guys who would pay a couple hundred thousand to be the only one hunting elk in the state. Then the DWR wouldn't have to deal with all of us cheapskates.
Fishrmn


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Fshrmn, So what's your bottom line? If I understand you (irrespective of your satirical auction idea), you don't object to buying a hunting license in conjunction with purchasing a tag, but only if your name is drawn to purchase a tag? And only after the fact. In other words, you're not objecting to the amount of money, but would insist the draw should happen before you spend any money, other than the $10 processing fee? Or are you objecting to the AMOUNT of money as well? Or the fact that we are now required to purchase a tag before we can even apply? 

I haven't read the Pittman-Robinson? Act, so maybe I need to do that to answer my own concern which is; What defines a "hunter" for the purposes of receiving that federal money? Is it someone who purchases an actual hunting license?, someone who APPLIES for a permit?, someone whose name is DRAWN for a permit?, someone who takes the hunter safety class?, someone who once did any of those things?, someone who does it this year? or what?
And how can the Utah DWR comply with those mandates most amiably (without p***ing everybody off).

There's also the recruiting aspect to consider, the fairness to all hunters to consider, the inflation factor, the health of the herds, the weather, etc. etc. When all is said and done, somebody's still gonna be p***ed off. This year it's your turn! Maybe your objections will be noticed enough to change things and next year it'll be my turn or heaven forbid, PRO's turn. (Sorry PRO, I couldn't resist.) RAC meetings, folks!!!! And letters and emails to the DWR!!

You know my current position. I think the mandatory license up front helps hunters focus more and gets them more involved. And it helps the future of hunting at the same time.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

elkfromabove said:


> Fshrmn, So what's your bottom line? If I understand you (irrespective of your satirical auction idea), you don't object to buying a hunting license in conjunction with purchasing a tag, but only if your name is drawn to purchase a tag? And only after the fact. In other words, you're not objecting to the amount of money, but would insist the draw should happen before you spend any money, other than the $10 processing fee? Or are you objecting to the AMOUNT of money as well? Or the fact that we are now required to purchase a tag before we can even apply?
> 
> I haven't read the Pittman-Robinson? Act, so maybe I need to do that to answer my own concern which is; What defines a "hunter" for the purposes of receiving that federal money? Is it someone who purchases an actual hunting license?, someone who APPLIES for a permit?, someone whose name is DRAWN for a permit?, someone who takes the hunter safety class?, someone who once did any of those things?, someone who does it this year? or what?
> And how can the Utah DWR comply with those mandates most amiably (without p***ing everybody off).
> ...


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Sorry about that! I haven't got this reply/quote/highlight thing down yet. I just wanted to correct the word "tag" in my last sentence, first paragraph. It's "license"! If there are other misstatements, you'll have to correct them yourself 'cause I don't catch them all.


----------



## one hunting fool (Sep 17, 2007)

so whats wrong with increasing draw tag prices, and having people buy a hunting licence only if they draw the area the live in? that way the money is still comming in but you are not forcing people to pay for something they are not using. and if you do not draw the area but still want to hunt you have to buy a tag and get a licence over the counter?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

one hunting fool said:


> so whats wrong with increasing draw tag prices, and having people buy a hunting licence only if they draw the area the live in? that way the money is still comming in but you are not forcing people to pay for something they are not using. and if you do not draw the area but still want to hunt you have to buy a tag and get a licence over the counter?


You lost me. What are you suggesting?


----------



## one hunting fool (Sep 17, 2007)

I am suggesting instead of making people buy a permit for $26.00 just for the chance to draw a tag in an area. Why not make it so if you draw the tag for the area you put in for you then buy the tag and the license as a combo deal. That way people that only want to hunt one area or nothing are not out $26.00 a hunting license they are never going to use.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

one hunting fool said:


> I am suggesting instead of making people buy a permit for $26.00 just for the chance to draw a tag in an area. Why not make it so if you draw the tag for the area you put in for you then buy the tag and the license as a combo deal. That way people that only want to hunt one area or nothing are not out $26.00 a hunting license they are never going to use.


You need to read further back to read about federal matching funds as well as simply having more revenue for the DWR by the requirement to make everyone buy a license-two fold revenue producer.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

What does that accomplish? The whole point of requiring a hunting license is to get people to invest in hunting WHILE they wait to draw. Your idea would NOT do that. Seems to just make things more confusing that it already is. :?


----------



## one hunting fool (Sep 17, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> What does that accomplish? The whole point of requiring a hunting license is to get people to invest in hunting WHILE they wait to draw. Your idea would NOT do that. Seems to just make things more confusing that it already is. :?


The whole idea is to be able to afford to hunt with the rising cost to everyone not just the DWR. And as I stated earlier no other state that I have applied to requires you to buy a tag before you draw. You pro complain about people being invested. Why should someone else invest in a renewable resource while not getting the tag they want?

It's like making you buy insurance for a Porsche and driving a Ford. If I have to buy a hunting license I **** well better be able to hunting the area I want. Especially if I do not hunt small game.

Next you will defend the DWR for forcing us to buy fur bearers licenses because knows one invests in trapping?

How are we encouraging kids to get involved this way? Making fathers pay more and more to get there kids involved and never giving them a break?
You must have more disposable income than me.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

one hunting fool said:


> The whole idea is to be able to afford to hunt with the rising cost to everyone not just the DWR. *And as I stated earlier no other state that I have applied to requires you to buy a tag before you draw.* You pro complain about people being invested. Why should someone else invest in a renewable resource while not getting the tag they want?


You are NOT required to buy a 'tag', you are required to buy a license. I dare say if you apply for ANY western state you are required to at a mimimum be required to buy a license. The cost to manage wildlife is immense, if only those who hunt elk in 2008 fund the costs the tag price would be in the thousands per tag, whose kid can afford that?



> It's like making you buy insurance for a Porsche and driving a Ford. If I have to buy a hunting license I **** well better be able to hunting the area I want. Especially if I do not hunt small game.


I thought this was about getting kids hooked on hunting. What better way than getting them hunting small game while they wait to draw a big game tag? I have a friend whose 10 year son has now killed a swan and a turkey already, he is a hunter for life now. If his dad waited to he could draw a deer tag the kid could easily get side tracked by football or some other NON-hunting activity/past time.



> Next you will defend the DWR for forcing us to buy fur bearers licenses because knows one invests in trapping?


I don't trap anymore, but I assume one is/should be required to have some sort of permit to trap.



> How are we encouraging kids to get involved this way? Making fathers pay more and more to get there kids involved and never giving them a break?
> You must have more disposable income than me.


The cost for a kid to hunt is LESS in todays market than when I was a kid, and they can hunt at a younger age. I had to wait until I was 12 for small game and 16 for big game. I am all for getting youth involved in huntinig. I also am all for having something there for them to hunt when they get a tag, and that takes MONEY, like it or not.

My income has NOTHING to do with this, this is NOT about me, it is about hunting in general. Let's keep it there. _(O)_


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

I believe in Nevada and Idaho you have to buy a hunting license and if you ask for a refund on the hunting License if you don't draw then you don't gain a point. Colorado and Wyoming then you have to buy a habitat stamp.

I think there is two solutions to keep people from abusing the system:

1. If a person (there old granny) draws a tag and they decide to turn the tag back in then they shouldn't be rewarded a point and no refund given.

2. You can only return a tag *once* in a 10 year period.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> Fshrmn, So what's your bottom line? If I understand you (irrespective of your satirical auction idea), you don't object to buying a hunting license in conjunction with purchasing a tag, but only if your name is drawn to purchase a tag? And only after the fact. In other words, you're not objecting to the amount of money, but would insist the draw should happen before you spend any money, other than the $10 processing fee? Or are you objecting to the AMOUNT of money as well? Or the fact that we are now required to purchase a tag before we can even apply?


I guess I had better clarify. You *don't* buy a tag first. You buy a hunting license. It allows you to hunt in the state of Utah. You can hunt pheasants, grouse, rabbits with no other requirements. You'll need a migratory bird (duck) stamp to hunt ducks and geese. You'll need special *tags*, which must be purchased (some available only in a draw) to hunt sandhill cranes, swans, elk, deer, moose, bison, bighorn sheep, mountain goats, and others.

I am all for the concept of requiring a license first. Whether you draw a tag or not, you are investing in the management of the resource of wildlife. And Utah will get it's share of the Pittman-Robertson funds.

The UDWR *cannot* take your money for a tag which you haven't drawn, and may not draw. It is fraud if they *sell* more tags than they have available. If they take your money, in the amount of the price of a tag, it is the same as selling you the tag. They *CAN'T* take your money for a tag before you are drawn.

Fishrmn


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> The UDWR cannot take your money for a tag which you haven't drawn, and may not draw. It is fraud if they sell more tags than they have available. If they take your money, in the amount of the price of a tag, it is the same as selling you the tag. They CAN'T take your money for a tag before you are drawn.


I'm against paying upfront, but Colorado makes you pay upfront so how are they able to get away with it? They must have a different law than Utah.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> > The UDWR cannot take your money for a tag which you haven't drawn, and may not draw. It is fraud if they sell more tags than they have available. If they take your money, in the amount of the price of a tag, it is the same as selling you the tag. They CAN'T take your money for a tag before you are drawn.
> 
> 
> I'm against paying upfront, but Colorado makes you pay upfront so how are they able to get away with it? They must have a different law than Utah.


They must. And they either haven't had a lawsuit, or they've written their law to avoid one. 'Cause if they take your money in the form of a check, and you write on the lower left line of the check that it is written for a hunting tag, and they cash it, and they don't give you the tag, they've committed fraud.

Pro said something about giving you a refund and not getting a point. If you want the point you give up your prepaid amount. Looks like they've written their law much differently.

Fishrmn


----------

