# Youth "party hunting" might be legal? **Poll added**



## CROC

There is not a lot posted on this but one of the up coming hunting changes that is on the list to be discussed is letting youth without a tag take a big game animal with their grandparents tag.

http://wildlife.utah.gov/wildlife-news/1296-big-game-hunting-changes-to-be-discussed.html


----------



## Huge29

Interesting! I will guess that it assumes the youth just did not draw a tag, but has otherwise purchased a big game or combo license and therefore passed the safety course??


----------



## swbuckmaster

Stupidest proposal I've ever heard. This will only lead to abuse and point creep. Now I will have to buy tags for my grandparents and parents to keep up with the point creep

I'm so sick of these entiltment mentality programs. Our youth have plenty of opportunity. This proposal is a bad idea!


----------



## Kwalk3

swbuckmaster said:


> Stupidest proposal I've ever heard. This will only lead to abuse and point creep. Now I will have to buy tags for my grandparents and parents to keep up with the point creep
> 
> I'm so sick of these entiltment mentality programs. Our youth have plenty of opportunity. This proposal is a bad idea!


Agreed. It will perpetuate an already bad problem. Not being able to pull the trigger never stopped me from tagging along with my dad.

I'm all for youth having opportunity, but this seems like a stretch.


----------



## Huge29

swbuckmaster said:


> Stupidest proposal I've ever heard. This will only lead to abuse and point creep. Now I will have to buy tags for my grandparents and parents to keep up with the point creep
> 
> I'm so sick of these entiltment mentality programs. Our youth have plenty of opportunity. This proposal is a bad idea!


Can you come explain this to the 14-year old neighbor girl who has not drawn for deer two consecutive years? I would assume that this is only applicable to general hunts and not LE?? Clearly, this would really mess things up if it were applicable to LE and OIL hunts. The further details were supposed to be posted two days ago, but I could not locate them anywhere. Entitlements is getting to be a good catch word, but I don't think it is at all applicable here. You wouldn't allow your daughter to shoot your deer? My 8-year old son has been begging to get to shoot a deer for two years now, shooting a bush at the pheasant farm just was not good enough. I don't see it getting passed as it clearly would lead to a lot of bad practices, I just don't see it getting approved, but I like the sentiment.


----------



## Kwalk3

Huge29 said:


> Can you come explain this to the 14-year old neighbor girl who has not drawn for deer two consecutive years? I would assume that this is only applicable to general hunts and not LE?? Clearly, this would really mess things up if it were applicable to LE and OIL hunts. The further details were supposed to be posted two days ago, but I could not locate them anywhere. Entitlements is getting to be a good catch word, but I don't think it is at all applicable here. You wouldn't allow your daughter to shoot your deer? My 8-year old son has been begging to get to shoot a deer for two years now, shooting a bush at the pheasant farm just was not good enough. I don't see it getting passed as it clearly would lead to a lot of bad practices, I just don't see it getting approved, but I like the sentiment.


I like the motive behind it, but I see it being abused, especially if it does apply to LE hunts.


----------



## Mach1

I'm actually ok with this proposal pending it has still has rules that have to be followed and is only applicable with certain tags.


----------



## goofy elk

If I'm not mistaken, the law that was passed, ONLY applys 
to LE and OIAL permits------The law said nothing about general permits...

Heres what I'm going to do,
Draw my moose tag, Put a magnifying scope on my 50 cal ML,
And let one of my kids shoot it..//.. No BS.

Then, repeat the proccess when my wife draws, let the other kid shoot.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

If it is all good why not just lower the hunting age then? Require that the tag is put in as a party tag and they must hunt with that party that they drew with? 

I see no reason to allow a person to hunt off of another person's tag. EVER. Maybe the girl next door needs to be taught that the mule deer are struggling and just because she is young it does not give her any more of a right than the next person to harvest an animal. There are other animals that can be hunted. 

Maybe it is the parent or the grandparent that is starting to feel entitled that they should be able to do what they want with their tag. If this isn't an entitlement issue I am not sure what is. Maybe we should let them drive with our drivers licenses as well.


----------



## goofy elk

Requirements, as I understood them, when the law was passed.

1) applys to LE and OIAL tags only.

2) Shooter has to be aproved through the DWR, meet hunters safety/age requirments.

3) Origanal tag holder HAS to accompany the youth with aproved tag.

4) NO PARTY HUNTING, Only one shooter.


----------



## Uni

Like the rule as long as it doesn't include LE hunts.


----------



## swbuckmaster

Maybe your next door neighbor is lieing about putting her acutally into the draw. Never heard of a kid getting the shaft two years in a row. Maybe he needed to put her into multiple areas. So she had multiple chances. Maybe he should have put her in for the muzzy hunt. Last but not least why didn't he get her a bow tag. She would have been able to hunt if he really wanted her to.

If your kid is sitting out for two years in a row its your fault. There is so much opportunity for the kids if you open your eyes. Why didn't he get her a cow tag. Why didn't he get her a spike tag. Why didn't he take her across the border for an antelope doe tag. Why didn't he get her a antelope buck tag. Did he try to get her a buck tag in idaho? That's cheep and easy!

O but I'm entilted to hunt one area every year. I have kids and see this rule as nothing but trouble. I don't support it one bit. Party hunting is bad practice! Believe it or not but there are still tards that practice party hunting.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Maybe we should let them drive with our drivers licenses as well.


Isn't this already done? Don't kids have to get a learner's permit before they get a DL that requires them to drive with someone licensed already?

I like the idea....


----------



## Springville Shooter

I really like the concept, but I agree with some that there could be issues regarding LE tags. I'm not even so worried about OIL because lets face it, if you're not already way into the pool, you're not getting a OIL tag. I especially like this for general tags bacause it gives parents and grandparents flexibility to give added opportunity to youth without hurting anything. I will tell you this. If I could, I would let one of my kids shoot my cow elk every year. We like the meat and I get little thrill from harvesting them. The kids would gain much more from the trigger or string time. I see this as added opportunity. SW is right about one thing, if your kid is not hunting, its your fault. Until there are no more left over tags, this argument holds no water.---SS


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

wyoming2utah said:


> Isn't this already done? Don't kids have to get a learner's permit before they get a DL that requires them to drive with someone licensed already?
> 
> I like the idea....


I was referencing his comment about the the 8 year old and the 14 year old next door. Haven't seen an eight year old drive on public ground in quite some time.

The idea sucks.


----------



## Bears Butt

Goofy, when was this topic discussed in the RAC or Wildlife Board meetings?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

I may not have a problem with it if the kids get the same waiting requirements, lose what points they have and/or it counts against their lifetime hunt as well. Sorry........and btw I have two kids as well. They have hunted every year that they have chosen to. Wyoming, Idaho and Utah.


----------



## Vanilla

Here is the link to the law, as passed and is on the books: http://le.utah.gov/code/TITLE23/htm/23_19_000100.htm

Here is the specific part that is relevant to the discussion here:

(3) In accordance with Title 63G, Chapter 3, Utah Administrative Rulemaking Act, the Wildlife Board may, by rule, make exceptions to the prohibitions described in Subsection (2) to:
(c) allow a resident minor under 18 years of age to use the resident or nonresident hunting permit of another person if:
(i) the resident minor is:
(A) the permit holder's child, stepchild, grandchild, or legal ward, if the permit holder's guardianship of the legal ward is based solely on the minor's age; or
(B) suffering from a life threatening medical condition; and
(ii) the permit holder:
(A) receives no form of compensation or remuneration for allowing the minor to use the permit;
(B) obtains the division's prior written approval to allow the minor to use the permit; and
(C) accompanies the minor, for the purposes of advising and assisting during the hunt, at a distance where the permit holder can communicate with the minor, in person, by voice or visual signals;

As you can see, there is no mention of LE, OIL, or general tags. The law applies to all "resident and non-resident hunting permits." Here are the requirements of the law...assuming the WB approves it as written:

1- You must assign the tag prior to the hunt. You can't just decide in the moment the youth can use your tag.
2- You must get written permission from the DWR prior to the hunt to have the assignment valid. Again, it's not party hunting. It's maybe party drawing, but certainly not party hunting. 
3- The original tag holder has to accompany the youth into the field and be close enough to communicate with them, as described above. All the talk of putting grandma in is a red herring, unless grandma is in good enough shape to go out and chase big game in the field. If so.....good for her, and good for the youth that gets the tag!

Of course, how this looks in the proclamation is entirely up to the WB. They won't be able to expand the law, but they could restrict it if they want. They could adopt it as written and allow it for any resident or non-resident hunting permit. The WB could make this apply to LE tags only by rule. Or they could not adopt the rule at all.

I like the rule generally. Assuming my children want to hunt when it comes time for them, it is going to be a great benefit to them. If you don't like the rule, you certainly don't have to assign your tag to anyone and you can continue to hunt exactly as you have been in the past. I would be in favor of restricting this to general tags only and not letting it apply to LE hunts. But if they do apply it to LE hunts and you give up your max elk points for your kid, removing you from the pool and giving him a 2nd opportunity....well, lucky for that kid! I know my kids won't get my LE points. But they will probably get my general deer tag every year if they don't draw. And I think that's pretty cool I can do that. (assuming the WB adopts the rule)

The talk about saying your kid can hunt if they want is a bit of a fallacy for some people. Not everyone has the ability to go to Idaho, Wyoming, etc to hunt. Some people like to be able to go out opening weekend of the deer hunt with their family and call it a year. If that's their cup of tea, good for them. Your way of hunting is not everyone's. Your ability to hunt is not everyone's. Again, if you don't want to assign your tag, don't. Pretty simple.


----------



## bowhunt3r4l1f3

"(B) suffering from a life threatening medical condition;" 

You gotta admit that's pretty cool right there!


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

sorry but a drive to Wyoming or Idaho and pitching a tent may add another $60 to the cost of the hunt. Food and other supplies that would be needed would be used anyway. Non-resident youth tags in those states are cheap as resident tags here from what I have experienced and can be purchased over the counter in most cases. It doesn't take big bucks just a little extra effort.

On top of that those that don't take their kids on a Wyoming antelope hunt are really missing out. Not to mention bear hunting in Idaho.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

bowhunt3r4l1f3 said:


> "(B) suffering from a life threatening medical condition;"
> 
> You gotta admit that's pretty cool right there!


I am very cool with that one.


----------



## goofy elk

Bears Butt said:


> Goofy, when was this topic discussed in the RAC or Wildlife Board meetings?


As TS30 has posted, only the law allowing it has passed so far.
It's going to the RAC/Board NOW...And likely will be pushed thru for 2014.

Insider info is telling me it will only be approved for LE and OIAL permits only.


----------



## Critter

I wouldn't mind seeing it for the general deer hunt but a LE or OIL tag should be out of the question. But is the division figuring that those of us that are putting in for the LE or OIL tags are going to be way too old to go on these hunts once we finally draw them?


----------



## Vanilla

goofy elk said:


> Insider info is telling me it will only be approved for LE and OIAL permits only.


That seems so utterly bass-akwards to me. So the one tag I can draw every 10-15 years (or more) is the one I can assign? I think it should be exactly the opposite. Any general tag can be assigned. LE and OIL excluded from the rule. However, I'm not going to lose sleep if they apply it to all resident and non-resident hunting permits.

I guess I better start talking to the RAC and WB members.


----------



## RandomElk16

So when this 12 year old first time shooter takes a moose with grandpa's tag, is he still allowed to put in for his own moose tag? Getting a twice in a lifetime hunt? I can see people having mom, grandpa, etc.. put in just so the kid can keep shooting. No intent on them actually using it.

Maybe it is different now, but as a youth I drew every year and was allowed to hunt all three seasons. Drew a cow tag every year in an area where even with increased tags I now have 3 bonus points.

Isn't there hunting ages for a reason? I know that i could shoot very well at 8, and I am sure said 8 year old can, but why have requirements if we are going to start letting 1st graders into the field with 300's?

I heard there was a law where grandparent can transfer Bonus Points, is that so? Makes more sense to me.


----------



## High Desert Elk

It sounds to me like this is a way to choose who you reasign your tag to. I would speculate that something would be put in place to keep that youth from ever getting another OIL tag again for that species. Now, if they were to make it where the original draw guy was out of the pool for OIL tags for that species as well, 1) they would have to make sure they really wanted to transfer the tag, and 2) it actually takes two out of the pool in the long run increasing odds for others. I may be wrong.

Anyway, I think it's a neat idea and would do it in a heartbeat if my kids qualified. It is pretty tough these days to take a kid hunting. There is a lot involved, mostly with conflicting schedules for both adult and youth. I can only dream of taking my kids hunting in a very controlled environment.


----------



## Vanilla

I am unaware of any law allowing people to transfer their bonus points to someone. This law also does nothing to change the age requirements for hunting. Sorry, but where do you guys come up with this stuff?


----------



## RandomElk16

TS30 said:


> I am unaware of any law allowing people to transfer their bonus points to someone. This law also does nothing to change the age requirements for hunting. Sorry, but where do you guys come up with this stuff?


I heard the bonus point transfer this year, and thus the reason I asked. Given that they are considering allowing party hunting, then I don't see why bonus point transfer is such a far-fetched thing. Using a tag that isnt yours seems more of an out there idea. The age thing was mentioned because earlier someone mentioned their 8 year old kid and the that was followed up by people asking what age would be allowed. But I personally never assumed they would break an age requirement. Just contributing to the conversation


----------



## RandomElk16

Only thing I find on DWR is points are non transferrable. Yet they are considering Tag transfers?


----------



## derekp1999

If I'm not mistaken Arizona has a similar youth opportunity program that doesn't seem to cause too many problems with their system.

As long as the original "tag drawer" must be close enough to communicate and mentor the youth I'm all for it. 

I'm early 30's & harvested my first big game animal just a few years ago so as of right now I wouldn't give up my tag to my kids yet (they aren't old enough, but even if they were I wouldn't give it to them... I still get a thrill out of pulling the trigger). But, down the road after I've harvested a few more & I begin to gain as much satisfaction in being outdoors with my children & grandchildren it might be quite the honor to give one of them that experience then go share it with them.


----------



## Vanilla

Yes, AZ has this program and from what I've heard it has been viewed positively. Their hunting system hasn't crumbled into the abyss people act like will happen here. 

Again, this is NOT party hunting! Only one person has a tag, and only one person gets to hunt. That is decided before the hunt, not in the field. 

It would be really good for everyone to educate themselves on what the law actually says, then form their own opinion on if they like it. Go read the law. You may be surprised how simple it is.


----------



## Packout

I don't mind the "life-Threatening" illness part-- in fact anyone should be able to assign their permit to a youth for that reason. The rest of it seems like a can of worms. 

If this passes, I wonder which grandchild will get the opportunity to shoot Gpas animal? I hope my kids are better at guilt tripping Gma than their cousins. hahaha 

It'll be a cash cow for the UDWR with all the additional Gpas and Gmas applying for tags to give to their grandkids and great-grandkids.


----------



## PBH

my grandfather-in-law is starting to show his age. I'm not sure exactly how much longer he'll be able to hunt. But he's still hunting. In the 14 years that I've been hunting with him, he's never shot at a deer. He's never even raised his rifle when presented an opportunity. I'm sure that the reason is that the opportunity to be out hunting with his own son, his grandsons, and now his great-grandkids outweighs the desire to fill his own tag. He could care less about killing his own deer at this point in life -- he's killed plenty and has nothing left to prove. 
BUT -- I can't imagine the thrill he would have to hand his rifle over to his great granddaughter and say "here -- you take the shot". I'd like to be there to witness that moment. For this reason alone, I support this proposal.

Obviously, some will abuse it. There will be loopholes that some will exploit. I still support it and think it would be a good thing for most of us.

keep in mind:


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


grandpa, grandma, or whoever can't just sign over the tag and say "have at it". They have to be in the field with the grandchild. A great opportunity!


----------



## Packout

PBH- The point I see from your story is you don't have to shoot one to have a great time afield. You also bring up another issue-- grandpa is unsuccessful, but now the tag will get filled. More pressure on the resource. 

The idea will only benefit kids fortunate to have a grand parent who is healthy enough to get out and hunt? This justifies party hunting, the very thing the UDWR has worked so hard to curb over the past 30 years.


----------



## Huge29

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Maybe it is the parent or the grandparent that is starting to feel entitled that they should be able to do what they want with their tag. If this isn't an entitlement issue I am not sure what is. Maybe we should let them drive with our drivers licenses as well.


 We already do, it is called a learner's permit, that is a good example actually. Maybe you don't have kids, but I would gladly let my son fill my tag, so would my dad let my son. I think this is already happening to an extent. I do see the potential problems, I buy a point one year while my son applies, we alternate every year and nearly guarantee one tag per year, which is likely less tags issued than through normal applications???


----------



## Fishrmn

I'm guaranteed a tag every year. (lifetime license) So now my son can hunt every year until I'm in my grave. Sorry folks, this isn't a good concept. If you wanna buy your child's or grandchild's tag... great. But let's not allow someone to put in for a tag and then let someone else use it.


----------



## swbuckmaster

Packout is exactly right. It will favor the families that can afford to put grandparents into the system. It will favor families who still have grandparents alive giving little spoiled johnny more chances at the tags then his peers. 

I'm all for the special ill child getting a last wish but not for a regular kid like my own recieving special treatment over another child. 

My oldest has never not drawn a deer tag in utah. There are still left over tags to be drawn, so when I see people saying there kid doesn't have a tag for two years in a row I have to call bs. In fact I will wadger my girls will have a deer tag in hand every year till they turn 18. Also like stated you don't have to have a tag in hand to enjoy the hunt. My kids didn't need to be the shooter when grandpa shot his elk. 

I never hunted till I was 17. Never had parrents that hunted. I can't for the life of me see that were loosing recuitment in hunting when kids can hunt from the time there 12 and up for big game and 12 and under for small game. 

This is only going to increase the point creep!


----------



## Critter

I personally think that this would work fine in the *GENERAL DEER HUNT *but not on a LE or OIL hunt. That is unless the grandkid or whoever gets to take the shot is now out of the draw for that animal on a OIL and is subject to a waiting period and loosing what points they have on a LE animal.


----------



## DallanC

Packout said:


> If this passes, I wonder which grandchild will get the opportunity to shoot Gpas animal? I hope my kids are better at guilt tripping Gma than their cousins. hahaha


Its too bad they went to the "must own a license to put in for the draw", up until then "Gma" had one heck of alot of bison points :shock:

-DallanC


----------



## PBH

Packout said:


> PBH- The point I see from your story is you don't have to shoot one to have a great time afield.


nope. not in my eyes. But, why do we hunt? There is always an "end goal" in mind. We don't always meet our goals, but we can have a good time in the process. Completing the goal may make it even better.



Packout said:


> You also bring up another issue-- grandpa is unsuccessful, but now the tag will get filled. More pressure on the resource.


hmmm. Not exactly. First, kids may not always hit their target. Thus, allowing them to get some shots in. Practice makes perfect.

Second -- success isn't always measured in tags being filled. Having grandpa allow grandson to shoot may be success without hitting the target.

third: pressure on the resource? The tag was granted based off numbers to manage the resource. Whether or not that tag is filled isn't going to hurt the resource -- those numbers are already accounted for. If success rates began to climb to high, then maybe tag numbers for future hunts would be lowered? I don't find this argument (more pressure on resource) to be valid. The number of tags being handed out wouldn't change. The person pulling the trigger might.



Packout said:


> The idea will only benefit kids fortunate to have a grand parent who is healthy enough to get out and hunt? This justifies party hunting, the very thing the UDWR has worked so hard to curb over the past 30 years.


Not necessarily. What about the father (like myself) that might hand the rifle over to my daughter and say "you take the shot"? Why wouldn't I want my own daughter to fill my tag for me, as long as she is hunting with me (assuming she doesn't already have a tag)? We'd still only be filling 1 tag -- and if she's not allowed to take the shot, I'll take the shot myself and still fill the tag.

Further -- _why shouldn't it be limited to those fortunate enough to have a grandparent, parent, or legal guardian healthy enough to get out and hunt?_

Like I said before -- some people will abuse it. There will be some that will work very hard to find a loop hole and exploit it. But for many of us, this would be a great opportunity.


----------



## PBH

swbuckmaster said:


> Packout is exactly right. It will favor the families that can afford to put grandparents into the system. It will favor families who still have grandparents alive giving little spoiled johnny more chances at the tags then his peers.


I don't understand this argument.

If grandma draws a tag, so what? She can either go out and hunt, or stay home. Either way, the tag was drawn. It's gone. It's no different than if I draw a tag. I can hunt, or I can eat it at home.

So, if spoiled little johnny get's to pull the trigger -- what difference does that make? It's still grandma's, or my tag. Who gives a flying zero calorie cranberry Sprite who pulls the trigger? The tag still remains the person who drew it. Their tag is spent. It's gone. done. If it's a OIL -- big deal, it's still a one-time rodeo. How would this change anything? Even if Johnny has 8 grandparents -- that doesn't mean Johnny is getting any additional tags. If all 8 grandparents allow him to pull the trigger all 8 times -- it's still the grandparent's tag! If he ends up with 8 bison on his wall -- well, they'd probably be his anyway because grandma and grandpa will die and those heads would be passed on to Johnny because he's the spoiled hunter anyway.

I guess I just don't see it like you guys. maybe I'm dense. It has been kind of a long Friday....


----------



## Dodger

swbuckmaster said:


> Packout is exactly right. It will favor the families that can afford to put grandparents into the system. It will favor families who still have grandparents alive giving little spoiled johnny more chances at the tags then his peers.


That depends. Is a dead grandparent just subject to a severe medical condition? ;-)

I don't like this idea in any form. I think Swbuckmaster is right and it will just cause further point creep.

If you want to shoot, draw a tag. It's the fairest system. One person. One tag. No gaming the system. No confusion. No gray areas.


----------



## High Desert Elk

I have to wonder how many tags go unfilled due to hunting horns? I would presume this system would not allow a youth to fill multiple tags for one species. Drawing a tag has nothing to do with hard work and merit. It's a lottery system. Party hunting is two hunters on one tag. This proposal is still one hunter on one tag. The adult is gifting their tag to a youth. When you draw a tag, it is essentially your property now and should be able to do with it as you please in accordance to the law.

I hunt to get an animal, I won't sugarcoat it with some other reason. I can enjoy the outdoors with friends and family a heck of a lot cheaper than using the reason of hunting.


----------



## swbuckmaster

If it goes into effect my kids grandparrents that don't hunt will now be putting in for tags. That's four more applicants in just my family alone. That's a lot of point creep that just pilled on to my chances and everyone else's. If everyone else does the same all your doing is throwing money down a hole. It gives you the same odds at a tag but costs more. It doesn't help them draw a tag any sooner! It doesn't help point creep. Whats so hard to understand? 

It also gives the life time liscense holders more leverage to stroke the system even longer. Big mistake!

No the only fair system is one chance at the tag. My kids are no different than any other adult or kid that wants to hunt.


----------



## willfish4food

Perhaps I'm just the idiot that doesn't get things, but here goes.

I don't understand the point creep argument. If I draw a tag, whether or not I let my kid use the tag I'm still out of the pool and she's still in. no more points will be awarded either way. If the argument is that more grandparents and parents will put in for the hunts than would otherwise, lets think about that. How many Grandparents that don't already put in for the drawings are going to spend the money to put in for a point every year with the hopes that in 12-16 years, when they've got enough points for an LE/OIL hunt, they're healthy enough to go hiking around in the mountains AND they've got a grandchild that wants to go hunting? I just don't see it happening. For parents too, if they're not into hunting enough to already be putting in for the drawings, do you really think they'll start putting in while their kids are young in the off chance that their kids might be interested in hunting when they're old enough? I'm sure there will be a few more people who apply for points to help junior have more opportunity, but I don't think its going to be enough to even feel the difference when it really comes down to it. 

I also don't understand why some people are calling this party hunting. It's not like Grandpa can take his 4 grandsons out, send them into the hills in different directions, sit in camp and wait for one to come back with an animal to tag. The youth shooter has to be approved and documented by the DWR and the tag holder has to be with the shooter during the hunt. 

Lastly, can someone who's in favor of making the youth sit the waiting period and surrender their points explain the rational behind that? If I draw my LE tag and choose NOT to let me kid use it, one person hunts, one person loses points and one person sits out for the waiting period. If I choose to let my kid use the tag, still only one person hunts, but two people lose points and two people sit out the waiting period? That just doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## High Desert Elk

Simple fact is there are less opportunities for a youth to hunt today than yesterday. Think back how many hunts you were able to go on with an OTC deer tag that are now a draw. Supply and Demand dictates that a draw was inevitable, the demand far outweighed the supply. It's a great opportunity to allow a youth the chance to hunt. The proposal is solid if: adult hunter forfeits tag to the youth hunter, adult hunter must accompany the youth hunter, both adult hunter and youth are permanently out of a point pool for OIL and at the end of the line for LE hunts. I don't see how point creep will be an issue, the youth with no points will not be able to get OIL points and the 1 or 3 they have for LE hunts will be wiped out along with the adults used to get the tag in the first place.


----------



## Huge29

*??*

I like the idea, but the details/rules have to be right to avoid some of the issues mentioned, however, your two thoughts here seem contradictory to me:


swbuckmaster said:


> It will favor the families that can afford to put grandparents into the system. It will favor families who still have grandparents alive giving little spoiled johnny more chances at the tags then his peers.
> This is only going to increase the point creep!





swbuckmaster said:


> If your kid is sitting out for two years in a row its your fault. There is so much opportunity for the kids if you open your eyes. Why didn't he get her a cow tag. Why didn't he get her a spike tag. Why didn't he take her across the border for an antelope doe tag. Why didn't he get her a antelope buck tag. Did he try to get her a buck tag in idaho? That's cheep and easy!


On one hand you are saying there is no excuse to not be hunting as you can spend $100 to go out of state for a tag then spend a few hundred in gas, etc take more time off of work for extra travel time. Then you later say it favors the rich, which is it? It seems inconsistent to criticize someone for not spending an extra $400 then say that this essentially favors the rich who can afford the $10 app fee and $30 big game license, it is still cheaper to stay here.  
I don't BS you on not drawing two straight years, I had to look it up myself on the draw odds, there are like 8 people with two preference points for the Monte Cristo area and they had listed several backup options, didn't draw any two consecutive years. 
Don't get me wrong, this would have to be done under very specific guidelines and done carefully, but I do like the idea. I don't agree with the LE/OIL idea. I really can't imagine that this will pass the DWR, they pass so many regs that border on being ridiculous restrictions just to make the laws much easier to enforce or to make the lottery more "fair", this seems to be contrary to that.


----------



## CROC

Whether this is proposal is considered party hunting or not, In my opinion is how the "Party Hunting" philosophy gets started, "We have 3 tags in the group who cares who shoots what as long as we have paid our dues for getting the tags and we only shoot 3 animals it's all good". Why are you who are applying for tags putting in if you don't want the opportunity to shoot an animal when you finally draw? I have up and coming hunters as well, if I find a trophy for them on their first hunt it will be the luck of the draw just like if they draw the first year they apply. BUT it will be their tag not someone else's.


----------



## swbuckmaster

willfish4food said:


> Perhaps I'm just the idiot that doesn't get things, but here goes.
> 
> I don't understand the point creep argument. If I draw a tag, whether or not I let my kid use the tag I'm still out of the pool and she's still in. no more points will be awarded either way. If the argument is that more grandparents and parents will put in for the hunts than would otherwise, lets think about that. How many Grandparents that don't already put in for the drawings are going to spend the money to put in for a point every year with the hopes that in 12-16 years, when they've got enough points for an LE/OIL hunt, they're healthy enough to go hiking around in the mountains AND they've got a grandchild that wants to go hunting? I just don't see it happening. For parents too, if they're not into hunting enough to already be putting in for the drawings, do you really think they'll start putting in while their kids are young in the off chance that their kids might be interested in hunting when they're old enough? I'm sure there will be a few more people who apply for points to help junior have more opportunity, but I don't think its going to be enough to even feel the difference when it really comes down it.


You don't understand the point creep argument then you say "im sure there will be a few more people who apply for points to help juinor have more opportunity, but i dont think its going to be enough to even feel the difference"

It will increase just in my family eight chances at the draws. I'm a perfect example. My parrents don't hunt. My wifes parrents don't hunt. My grandparrents don't hunt and my wifes grandparrents doesn't hunt. That a couple hundred bucks and eight chances at the draw. Ten chances at the draws if you include my kids chances at the draws. Na that doesn't hurt your odds. Na you won't feel that. Na you don't think there will be any abuse. Na that doesn't favor the more fortunate.

It will happen more than you think it will. This is why I fought so hard to get the point banking by non hunting grandma. Going in as a group with non hunting grandma to average your low points with her high points. Thus giving you the advantage of skipping over others in the draw. Then granny turns the tag back in and gets her points back and you go on a hunt. This was bs and was happening all the time. Its still happening with the le hunts cause I'm doing it. The only difference is I'm stuck on a party application. Party applications make it harder to draw a tag. This new loop hole allows my kids to apply seperatly at the draw and it increases their odds tremendously!

As long as there are loopholes in the system you can bet there will be people abusing the system!


----------



## Vanilla

In my mind there is a BIG difference between the two things you explained. If I get my tag and hand it over to my kid, that's not abusing the system. That is doing exactly what the system is designed for. 

What you describe for LE hunts with grandma is abusing the system. Just because you do it doesn't mean everyone will. I have never put my non-hunting mom in for a tag or point, and I won't start now. I hope your non-hunting parents, parents-in-law, and grandparents are in good shape and ready to go on a hunt with your kids, if you really intend on abusing the system like this. I guess if some people callously disregards the rules and laws now, they will continue to do so in the future. There are plenty out there that don't follow the law now. 

Look, I'm not going to tell anyone they have to like the idea. Reasonable minds can disagree on stuff like this. If you don't like the idea, that's okay. But what I will tell people they are dead wrong on is all the doomsday hogwash I hear that isn't true factually. If you don't like it, that's fine.


----------



## Dodger

But like it or not TS30, that's how the system works. The system described by Swbuckmaster is exactly what is happening in utah. And every time you put in for hunts, you have to compete with granny. 

That's not against the rules. The rules allow it. It's a gray area that the current rules allow. 

Making this youth tag transfer change introduces more gray area that can be abused. It's going to take everyone longer to draw a tag because now 8 more people will be building up points for junior to go hunting.


----------



## BPturkeys

Nothing is more traditional in hunting than for a parent of grand parent letting their child/grandchild shoot their first deer on their tag. I have no problem with this tradition becoming legal under some circumstances.
(1) One tag, one deer! Both the youth and the adult can not both have a tag. The youth can only fill one tag and only once in his lifetime...his first deer! 
(2) Only one gun! Traditionally dad or grandpa carried the gun and handed it over to the youth for close supervision only after the deer has been spotted and selected for harvest.

Basically, in the old days and maybe even today, youths followed the hunter 
/parent around learning for the first few years, then, the year before he was "old enough to carry a gun" he was allowed to "shoot and gut" his first deer on dad/granddad's permit. 
*Great tradition! Let's make it legal!!*


----------



## Vanilla

I don't see any gray area in this law. What is allowed and required for the assignment of a tag is very clear (assuming WB adopts it as legislature wrote it). I don't understand where the gray area is at. Please explain.


----------



## swbuckmaster

Your right there isn't a grey area its a green area, legal loop hole good to go on increasing point creep and abuse. Sign it into law! 

Don't hate the players hate the game. Those in the know are working the system legally!


----------



## willfish4food

swbuckmaster said:


> It will increase just in my family eight chances at the draws. I'm a perfect example. My parrents don't hunt. My wifes parrents don't hunt. My grandparrents don't hunt and my wifes grandparrents doesn't hunt. That a couple hundred bucks and eight chances at the draw. Ten chances at the draws if you include my kids chances at the draws. Na that doesn't hurt your odds. Na you won't feel that. Na you don't think there will be any abuse. Na that doesn't favor the more fortunate.


I'm referring to the LE hunts, and no, I don't think that your FOUR (great grand parents don't count. The law says " the permit holder's child, stepchild, grandchild, or legal ward") new applicants with one point will make a difference to those who have enough points to actually be relevant in the drawings. I also think that your situation is not the normal situation. Neither sets of my kids grandparents live in Utah and I doubt they're on board with buying an out of state license to apply for the point every year so that they can then pay the out of state tag fee when they draw and pay for airfare out here for the hunt. Again, I'm not saying that nobody will do that, I'm just saying that I don't think very many will. 



> It will happen more than you think it will. This is why I fought so hard to get the point banking by non hunting grandma. Going in as a group with non hunting grandma to average your low points with her high points. Thus giving you the advantage of skipping over others in the draw. Then granny turns the tag back in and gets her points back and you go on a hunt. This was bs and was happening all the time. Its still happening with the le hunts cause I'm doing it. The only difference is I'm stuck on a party application. Party applications make it harder to draw a tag. This new loop hole allows my kids to apply seperatly at the draw and it increases their odds tremendously!


Well, I guess you're right, you are a perfect example of the abuse that could happen. If people want to abuse the system and find the loopholes they will. I find it amusing that you seem to be the one most vocal about how abused this proposed adjustement will be and you're also one of the people that's abusing the current group application system. Abuse that you call BS on the one hand and then participate in the abuse on the other hand. 



> As long as there are loopholes in the system you can bet there will be people abusing the system!


Yeah and they're probably the people who whine and cry about the rule not being fair and then as soon as it's in place they're the ones taking advantage of the system and ensuring it's not fair.


----------



## Vanilla

willfish4food said:


> Well, I guess you're right, you are a perfect example of the abuse that could happen. If people want to abuse the system and find the loopholes they will. I find it amusing that you seem to be the one most vocal about how abused this proposed adjustement will be and you're also one of the people that's abusing the current group application system. Abuse that you call BS on the one hand and then participate in the abuse on the other hand.


^^^^^ What he said. Don't preach to me about abusing the system while your hands are dirty in this.

The only abuse will be done by those that are already okay with abusing the system, and are currently already abusing the system. I guess we'll just have to count that as a wash. We can't not pass good rules and punish those that can benefit because unethical people will abuse them.


----------



## Uni

TS30 said:


> ^^^^^ What he said. Don't preach to me about abusing the system while your hands are dirty in this.
> 
> The only abuse will be done by those that are already okay with abusing the system, and are currently already abusing the system. I guess we'll just have to count that as a wash. We can't not pass good rules and punish those that can benefit because unethical people will abuse them.


+1.


----------



## swbuckmaster

Funny its abuse if I work the system but its not if you guys work it. 

Why should I turn my tag in, I want to hunt. Its easy to turn my mom, dad, wife and her parrents tags over they don't hunt. There not that old and they should be able to go on any le hunt if they draw. I haven't been on one le or oil hunt where you couldn't hunt from a wheeler except goats.


----------



## Dodger

TS30 said:


> ^^^^^ What he said. Don't preach to me about abusing the system while your hands are dirty in this.
> 
> The only abuse will be done by those that are already okay with abusing the system, and are currently already abusing the system. I guess we'll just have to count that as a wash. We can't not pass good rules and punish those that can benefit because unethical people will abuse them.


Please. Are you telling me you calculate both your AMT and Income tax every year and pay the one that is more like you are supposed to do?

Here's the thing, what SW is doing is legal. If you don't like the system, change the law. But let's not pretend like he's doing something wrong, shall we?

What SW is doing increases point creep. It makes it so you have to have more points to be able to get a tag. That's how the system works. Allowing youths to hunt with grandparents/parents/step-parents will do the same thing. Everyone is going to put in everyone that's eligible to get more opportunities to go hunt.

If this becomes law, people will do the same thing. Your opportunities to hunt will be decreased because you will need more points to be able to go hunt. They do it because the law allows it. Anyone that doesn't do it will be able to stand in their ivory tower casting buckets full of aspersions on the people below. But, the people below will be out hunting while you are sitting on your couch thinking about next year.

If anything, the system we have needs to be reformed to minimize point creep. That's why one person, one tag, and one point per year needs to be the flat rule. No group tags, no assigning your tag to someone else. It's a simple fair system. But no one wants it because those who take advantage of the available loopholes will lose their advantage. Those who actually hunt in big family groups won't be able to have everyone walk out of camp with a rifle on opening morning. Those who don't know what others are doing don't know that they should care how the group hunting loop hole can be exploited.

We all have to live with the system. Making the system simple and fair should be the goal, not making sure granny can assign her tag to sonny.


----------



## Elkaholic2

Not to change the subject or anything.....

I would like to see more price reductions in youth tags and licenses. They have ample opportunity with some special hunts that only they have access to. But my kids are little now and won't be able to hunt for 8 more years. For my brother, it would cost him 390 dollars in licensing taxes just to take his boys and girl out. I don't know about most People. But that's a lot of money just to spend time with your kids. I can think of a lot more things that are cheaper to do to spend time. The dwr is trying in some areas. But I feel they are missing the boat on where it really counts!

Just my 2 cents


----------



## Vanilla

Don't complain to me about point creep if you are part of the problem. One of the single most hypocritical posts I've ever read. 

Like I said, reasonable minds can disagree on the benefits of the law. But if you sit and pizz and moan about point creep and then pull the unethical crap listed here....man, that's seriously something else. I don't even know how to respond to that.


----------



## High Desert Elk

I wonder what it would be like if there was no point system at all for anything? Would that mean you may never draw for anything, but the other guy is lucky enough to draw frequently? Now that wouldn't seem fair.


----------



## Dodger

TS30 said:


> Don't complain to me about point creep if you are part of the problem. One of the single most hypocritical posts I've ever read.
> 
> Like I said, reasonable minds can disagree on the benefits of the law. But if you sit and pizz and moan about point creep and then pull the unethical crap listed here....man, that's seriously something else. I don't even know how to respond to that.


What don't you understand about working within the law? Do you buy guns on gun exchange or ksl? Do you know you're using the gun show loop hole?

I have 3 points on an LE elk and 4 on a OIL sheep. My dad, wife, brothers, sisters, and everyone else I have ever hunted with in my entire life have ZERO points. None.

I put in for a group tag one time in college with my brother and 2 room mates. We drew the southwest area. All of us hunted. All unsuccessful. My brother hasn't applied since. My room mates moved out of state.

Don't insinuate I have done anything hypocritical, unethical, or that I have abused the system.

What SWbuckmaster does makes it harder for me to draw. I can't keep up, even if I gamed the system because I don't even have anyone to do a group tag with. But he's operating within the system. It's not illegal.

I'm against anything that makes point creep worse which is what this tag assignment will do.

Don't give me the reasonable minds law school double speak. Reasonably informed people see what this will do. It will make it harder for people like me to get a tag.

I want an apology.


----------



## Huge29

Dodger said:


> Don't insinuate I have done anything hypocritical, unethical, or that I have abused the system.
> 
> What SWbuckmaster does makes it harder for me to draw. I can't keep up, even if I gamed the system because I don't even have anyone to do a group tag with. But he's operating within the system. It's not illegal.
> ...
> I want an apology.


If anyone, regardless of their name or JD title, is having a non hunter apply current is not only unethical, it is 100% illegal, period! That is party hunting, but I lost track pages ago if you guys were talking about reality or still in fantasy land as to who would do what or who actually does what. An apology....seriously, have you become a yewt fan now? Kind of sounds like it with all of the drama. :mrgreen: It must be a bye week for a few teams or something, we need something to distract...


----------



## Dodger

Huge29 said:


> If anyone, regardless of their name or JD title, is having a non hunter apply current is not only unethical, it is 100% illegal, period! That is party hunting, but I lost track pages ago if you guys were talking about reality or still in fantasy land as to who would do what or who actually does what. An apology....seriously, have you become a yewt fan now? Kind of sounds like it with all of the drama. :mrgreen: It must be a bye week for a few teams or something, we need something to distract...


You'll have to run that by me again Huge. The way people are manipulating the system now is to have their wives put in for points while they can't (during the LE wait or whatever) and build up OIL points for two species at once. Once hubby is done with his waiting period or his OIL hunt, wife has 5 points or however long it took to get the OIL tag they start putting in as a group. Hubby instantly gets half of wife's points.

That's the system. It is 100% legal. I never said I liked it. In fact it hurts someone like me because I don't do it. I can't be competitive in the points arms war. Would I like to see the rules changed to prevent this? Yeah. Do I want to see new rules that let you start doing the same thing with grandma and grandpa for kids? No.

That's not hypocritical. And if we were being intellectually honest, you'd see I am arguing that the system should be changed to close this loophole. I'm not going to fault people for using the flaws in the system to their advantage. It's what people do when governments run wild with regulations. But I can say that I don't want to see new regs that will exacerbate the problem. How can I be a hypocrite when I've never been on anything but a general season hunt for anything in my life and I have 3 points?

He asked how he should respond. My suggestion is an apology. Besides, I know enough lawyers to know when the "reasonable minds can differ" line comes out, everything after that is an argument intended to save face rather than win by changing minds.

The yewts are sorry enough that they are a constant apology. Actually the ute fans are kind of like the hunting point system. It used to be that you could have a ute ball cap. Then you had to get a U license plate to keep up with the Mathesons. Then you have to get a U window flag to keep up with the Eccles and another to keep up with the Wittinghams. Next thing you know you've got a crimson club sticker to keep up with old Bernie, even though he dropped you like a bad habit because you loved him while he hated your gun laws. Then you have to get those stupid little family stickers on the back window of your car in little red ute stickers like Urban Meyer, which you saw as he drove away on his way to a high class lady after he wham-bammed thank you-mamm'ed you. If utes didn't keep up with the Ute colors race utes find themselves with no alternative but to choose the right and just wear a BYU ball cap. :mrgreen:


----------



## oldTimer

The Utah Big Game Guidebook clearly states:

Protection from discrimination: The Division
receives federal financial assistance from the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. Under Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990, the Age Discrimination
Act of 1975, Title IX of the Education Amendments
of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior and
its bureaus prohibit discrimination on the basis of
race, color, national origin, age, disability or sex.
If you believe that you have been discriminated
against in any program, activity or facility, or if
you desire further information, please write to:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Office for Diversity and Civil Rights Programs—
External Programs
4040 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 130
Arlington, VA 22203

Isn't offering special privileges based entirely on age blatant age discrimination? How is this proposal or any other "youth" only opportunities not illegal? Is there a possible class action here?

There is already a huge problem in the draw system with people putting in family members who really could care less about hunting. Now the DWR wants to promote having everyone in Utah families put in so little "Billie" can hunt an OIL hunt at age 14? If they want more money why don't they simply raise the application fee?

BTW: if they ever allow point transfer, I will personally use the internet to recruit hundreds of applicants in order to transfer the points to my grandkids.


----------



## High Desert Elk

"Isn't offering special privileges based entirely on age blatant age discrimination? How is this proposal or any other "youth" only opportunities not illegal? Is there a possible class action here?"

Kinda like telling a 13 yr old they can't hunt, but a 14 yr old can? Or a 40 yr old with more experience that will have the advantage over a 15 yr old isn't using age to an advantage?

Just wondering.


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger

I give my solemn oath and promise that if legalized I will immediately start adding to the point creep for the sole purpose of getting my kids primo tags in areas I have never been able to draw.


----------



## Dodger

oldTimer said:


> The Utah Big Game Guidebook clearly states:
> 
> Protection from discrimination: The Division
> receives federal financial assistance from the U.S.
> Fish and Wildlife Service. Under Title VI of the Civil
> Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
> Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with
> Disabilities Act of 1990, the Age Discrimination
> Act of 1975, Title IX of the Education Amendments
> of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior and
> its bureaus prohibit discrimination on the basis of
> race, color, national origin, age, disability or sex.
> If you believe that you have been discriminated
> against in any program, activity or facility, or if
> you desire further information, please write to:
> The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
> Office for Diversity and Civil Rights Programs-
> External Programs
> 4040 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 130
> Arlington, VA 22203
> 
> Isn't offering special privileges based entirely on age blatant age discrimination? How is this proposal or any other "youth" only opportunities not illegal? Is there a possible class action here?
> 
> There is already a huge problem in the draw system with people putting in family members who really could care less about hunting. Now the DWR wants to promote having everyone in Utah families put in so little "Billie" can hunt an OIL hunt at age 14? If they want more money why don't they simply raise the application fee?
> 
> BTW: if they ever allow point transfer, I will personally use the internet to recruit hundreds of applicants in order to transfer the points to my grandkids.


Discrimination based on age can only be discrimination against the elderly. Youth is not a protected class of people, at least from discrimination.

Otherwise, having to wait until you were 18 to vote would be age discrimination. The same is true for anything 16 to drive 18 to buy a rifle or a shotgun but 21 to buy a handgun and drink, etc.


----------



## RandomElk16

TS30 said:


> Yes, AZ has this program and from what I've heard it has been viewed positively. Their hunting system hasn't crumbled into the abyss people act like will happen here.
> 
> Again, this is NOT party hunting! Only one person has a tag, and only one person gets to hunt. That is decided before the hunt, not in the field.
> 
> It would be really good for everyone to educate themselves on what the law actually says, then form their own opinion on if they like it. Go read the law. You may be surprised how simple it is.


You seemed to be pretty confident on this that we were all crazy for calling it party hunting or seeing it as a gray area:

http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/info/2013-11_rac_packet.pdf

Go to the Utah Hunter Mentoring Program section. Read highlight #1 where it states that both the mentor and the youth can carry a firearm.

Sure only one animal can be taken, but if me and grandpa go to the henry's it sure sounds to me like we can party hunt, increase our odds, and walk around in a GIANT gray area you said in another post does not exist with this rule.

I did read the law which you stated is simple but clearly did not read yourself.


----------



## Vanilla

The law, passed by the legislature, mentions nothing of "sharing", only "assignment" and "transfer." The administrative rule that the DWR is proposing that the RACs and WB adopt is a change from how the law was written, and I don't support it. You're either all in, or all out. Make your choice, and stick with it. You're right, the way the proposed administrative rule reads is party hunting. However, the way the statute reads is not. That is something I will ask the WB to go away from on this rule.

As I have stated *multiple times*, the legislature didn't make the rule, they only gave the WB the authority to make the rule with a few general restrictions. We still don't know what the final rule will look like once the WB gets done with it. It could look exactly like this, be modified some, or rejected in its entirety. If you have a feeling either way on this issue, I suggest you quit sitting on this forum pizzing and moaning about it, and go to a RAC meeting, talk with your regional reps, and get communicating with the WB. I know I will.


----------



## derekp1999

Are there are loopholes in the system currently, yup... but how many people actually manipulate the system? The small minority, and I mean very small... probably the same percentage of hunters that visit these forums (the great majority DO NOT).

Take this current loophole...
What is preventing a resident from applying as a non-resident and putting in for every species available, build up points for 8... 10... 15 years, then begin putting in again as a resident? If I select non-resident for 15 years and apply for every species available for 15 years I would be 90 years ahead of any resident and I draw a pronghorn, deer, and elk in my first 3 years as a resident. As long as I'm cool with paying non-resident fees for a general deer tag every year... what's stopping me?!? But honestly, how many people do this?

Gosh, I hope I didn't give anybody any ideas...


----------



## Critter

derekp1999 said:


> Take this current loophole...
> What is preventing a resident from applying as a non-resident and putting in for every species available, build up points for 8... 10... 15 years, then begin putting in again as a resident? If I select non-resident for 15 years and apply for every species available for 15 years I would be 90 years ahead of any resident and I draw a pronghorn, deer, and elk in my first 3 years as a resident. As long as I'm cool with paying non-resident fees for a general deer tag every year... what's stopping me?!? But honestly, how many people do this?
> 
> Gosh, I hope I didn't give anybody any ideas...


A resident can not apply as a non resident already. Now if you want to change your address to one out of state and declare your residency in the other state then go ahead.


----------



## derekp1999

Critter said:


> A resident can not apply as a non resident already. Now if you want to change your address to one out of state and declare your residency in the other state then go ahead.


If a guy REALLY wanted to he would still find a way to do it (anyone want to split the cost of a PO Box in ID with me???).

Same goes for those that would take advantage of this tag transfer system... those that would take advantage of it to increase their opportunity at the expense of others will find a way.


----------



## Fishrmn

Ready to change your fishing/hunting privileges to non resident? Driver's license? Insurance? W4 forms? Employment? Ready to face the consequences? Might wanna do more research on what happens when they find out, and they will. There was a time when you could have gotten away with it. A lot less likely now.


----------



## goofy elk

derekp1999 said:


> If a guy REALLY wanted to he would still find a way to do it (anyone want to split the cost of a PO Box in ID with me???). .


Dont even try that one........They watch it..And U wiil be ban from Utahs draws,,,....


----------



## derekp1999

Fishrmn said:


> Ready to change your fishing/hunting privileges to non resident? Driver's license? Insurance? W4 forms? Employment? Ready to face the consequences? Might wanna do more research on what happens when they find out, and they will. There was a time when you could have gotten away with it. A lot less likely now.





goofy elk said:


> Dont even try that one........They watch it..And U wiil be ban from Utahs draws,,,....


Just playing Devil's advocate. I would never do that just as I would never start putting my grandmother in just to increase my own chances of getting a tag. (But you don't know me & so how would you know that I would or wouldn't do it . The PO Box comment was very much tongue in cheek.).

As I posted earlier, I like the program and think that _when used properly_ will provide a fantastic experience for both the youth and the mentor. I also see how it could be abused and you'd have to be a fool to ignore that.

The point is, regardless of the program there will ALWAYS be somebody that will try to "work the system" to their benefit at the expense of others. It's a lesson that I'm trying to get through to my six year old son... just because you can doesn't mean that you should.


----------



## hockey

This is the dumbest idea possible. But if they pass it I am going to start planning for our 2030 hunt right now.
I'm gonna start putting my wife in for deer points next year, with the point creep and age of our kids I figure somewhere around 2030 she will have enough points for a Book Cliffs hunt and we will have a granddaughter or grandson old enough to use her tag.
But.... I wouldn't bet that by 2030 Utah has any deer left to hunt


----------



## GaryFish

Interesting thread. My own thoughts -

Almost categorically, I'm opposed to anything that further complicates our tag dispersal system. I'd be pleased as punch to go back to the days of no points, no preferences, no nothing - every year is a fresh draw, period. Odds are the same. If you MUST have a draw system (demand exceeds supply), then just go straight up, random draw every year. Period. Someone mentioned Arizona' system - Arizona just changed things from having 37 different types of hunting and fishing licenses, to a fraction of that. They recognized they had gotten just too dang wrapped around the axle. Utah is headed there if not there already. 

Second, the thing with this kind of "situational ethic" is that once the line is crossed, then it is just a matter of negotiation. Like the guy that was offered $10 million by the rich guy that wanted to sleep with his wife. Once he said yes, then the offerer knew who he was dealing with, and it was only a matter of negotiating price. If we are going to allow transfer of tags, then lets go all out. Sure, it took me 18 years to draw that Henry Mountain deer tag, but the guy willing to pay me $50,000 for it would sure cover my kid's college education, so I'm selling it. Why not? One tag, one animal, so who cares who shoots it?

I grew up in a culture of "party hunting" and it never set well with me. Groups liked to inventory tags, so if they had the opportunity to "limit out" for the group, they would. At an early age, I let everyone know my deer/elk/bear tags were MINE, and not subject to the "group hunt." Same thing with fishing - I'd catch my own limit thank you very much. 

If we are going to allow a tag to be transferred, then lets go all out and allow the tag holder to do with it as he/she pleases - use it, give it away, sell, or trade it - one tag means one dead animal right? No matter who pulls the trigger? And if we don't like that, then no tag transfer at all.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

so then everybody that doesn't even hunt finds out that they can sell tags if they draw. Next thing you know not only is Joe hunter putting in for his family, Joe Not Hunter is doing it as well. Did that cross your mind when you were thinking about going all out? After that the SFW will be paying people to become members with the stipulation that they agree to transfer any drawn game tag to them for a set price, which in turn the SFW auctions off for a hefty profit. Going all in will just make a bad situation far worse.


----------



## GaryFish

Exactly my point Mr. Muleskinner. Yes, I knew EXACTLY what you so eloquently pointed out. But transferring tags is transferring tags - One tag still equals one animal. But if you work hard, make lots of money, inherit even more, then you can hunt OIL every year, all the best LE hunts every year, and still no reduction in tags, but someone lucky enough to draw the golden ticket gets to buy a new truck or send his kid to college. Win-Win!


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

How about that? I am eloquent.


----------



## willfish4food

Hey, minds can be changed by threads like this. I didn't know that was possible. Originally I was for this proposal with a couple of lingering questions. After reading the posts you've all put up, I think I have a pretty good grasp on the negative unintended consequences that could come along with this law. But, I also see the merit of what the law is trying to accomplish. If I were king of the DWR, here's how I'd change the proposal:

1. A child ages 12-18 could be the one time recipient of a tag from a parent, step-parent, etc. for his/her first tag, and only if the minor hunter was unsuccessful in drawing their own tag. I think this could be tracked by customer ID number. If the child has ever had a tag regardless of if it was obtained in the drawing or "gifted" to them, then they could not be the recipient of any other tag. This would increase the odds of a hunter being able to hunt in-state for their first time. It's incredibly disappointing for a first year hunter to miss the hunt because they didn't draw; this would reduce the chances of that happening. 
2. I would leave the provision for the terminally ill child unrestricted. 
3. Once the tag is "gifted" it becomes the property of that child. The mentor's tag is invalidated and a new tag is issued by the DWR to the child. 
4. Any points used in obtaining the tag are surrendered just as if the tag was not gifted, but the receiving child's points, if they had any, would not be taken. Any applicable waiting period would be enforced on both the mentor and the child.



> What is preventing a resident from applying as a non-resident and putting in for every species available, build up points for 8... 10... 15 years, then begin putting in again as a resident? If I select non-resident for 15 years and apply for every species available for 15 years I would be 90 years ahead of any resident and I draw a pronghorn, deer, and elk in my first 3 years as a resident. As long as I'm cool with paying non-resident fees for a general deer tag every year... what's stopping me?!? But honestly, how many people do this?


While I recognize that the OP of this comment is just playing devil's advocate, the suggested situation is not a loophole&#8230; It's fraud and illegal. Completely different from what SW is claiming he does in the group application process. I'm going to give SW the benefit of the doubt and assume he doesn't really do that, and he was only trying to add validity to his argument. But, if he did, while it is incredibly selfish and screwing his fellow hunters out of tags, it's completely legal.


----------



## derekp1999

willfish4food said:


> It's fraud and illegal. Completely different from what SW is claiming he does in the group application process.


By definition, "fraud" is intentional deception made for personal gain. Seems to me that _intentionally_ putting in Grandma Gertrude in for a tag with no _intent_ for her to ever utilize the tag herself but with the _intent_ to gift it to you or to little Johnny is exactly intentional deception for your personal gain. In my mind fraud is fraud, whether explicitly illegal (as the "suggestion" in my original post is) or a legal "loophole." Just sayin'. It's semantics, I know... you can justify or rationalize the action/behavior any way you'd like.

I do like your additions of making it a one time opportunity for the youth and it has to be their first tag... that would seem to close some of those "loopholes." 
Just a thought but could you also cap the number of times an adult can transfer their tag? Maybe make that a one time opportunity or incur a waiting period before another tag can be gifted for the adult as well. For example, my grandfather has a lifetime license & this would deter him from getting his tag and gifting it every year.
I still think it could be a good program, some additional thought will need to go into it to button down the details.


----------



## massmanute

Mr Muleskinner said:


> sorry but a drive to Wyoming or Idaho and pitching a tent may add another $60 to the cost of the hunt. Food and other supplies that would be needed would be used anyway. Non-resident youth tags in those states are cheap as resident tags here from what I have experienced and can be purchased over the counter in most cases. It doesn't take big bucks just a little extra effort.
> 
> On top of that those that don't take their kids on a Wyoming antelope hunt are really missing out. Not to mention bear hunting in Idaho.


Plus the cost of an out of state license, plus the cost of additional days off-work and/or missed school days, plus, in some cases, additional costs for lodging and meals, or additional cost of camping gear, and so forth.

For those that are in a position to travel, good for them. Not everyone is as well situated. For some people a 20 minute drive for a same-day hunt is about what they can manage.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

massmanute said:


> Plus the cost of an out of state license, plus the cost of additional days off-work and/or missed school days, plus, in some cases, additional costs for lodging and meals, or additional cost of camping gear, and so forth.
> 
> For those that are in a position to travel, good for them. Not everyone is as well situated. For some people a 20 minute drive for a same-day hunt is about what they can manage.


In many cases the non resident tag is cheaper. The hunts are also very long and they can be scheduled around school. My kids have never had to miss a day for hunting in Wyoming or Idaho. Lodging is no different if you have a trailer or a tent. Tents are next to free on KSL or one can most always be borrowed. Factoring in the cost of food that would be purchased regardless just doesn't make sense to me. It's not like people go without eating while hunting in state and you don't have to eat out just because you are hunting out of state.

I guess it may apply most to those that want to drive 20 minutes and then road hunt for the day and more often than not that money would be better off spent on beef at the store. Success rates hunting that way are horrible. No different than anything else though if people want to make it a priority they probably could it off a lot cheaper than you realize. I have gone on antelope hunts in Wyoming that we left SLC at about 2 AM and was back to SLC that same evening with tags punched.


----------



## massmanute

Incidentally, way back when I was a child, during the Paleolithic Era, one could buy a tag and have a friend go and hunt. My family did that a time or two. We bought a tag, our neighbor enjoyed the hunt, and we enjoyed the meat. It was, as I recall, legal, but that loophole was soon closed.

Of course, that was back in the days when Utah had a lot of deer, and there was none of this business about accumulating points and drawing out on a deer tag. You just went to the store, bought your big game or combination license, and the deer tag came along with it. Then you hunted anywhere in the state that was legal.


----------



## massmanute

Mr Muleskinner said:


> In many cases the non resident tag is cheaper. The hunts are also very long and they can be scheduled around school. My kids have never had to miss a day for hunting in Wyoming or Idaho. Lodging is no different if you have a trailer or a tent. Tents are next to free on KSL or one can most always be borrowed. Factoring in the cost of food that would be purchased regardless just doesn't make sense to me. It's not like people go without eating while hunting in state and you don't have to eat out just because you are hunting out of state.
> 
> I guess it may apply most to those that want to drive 20 minutes and then road hunt for the day and more often than not that money would be better off spent on beef at the store. Success rates hunting that way are horrible. No different than anything else though if people want to make it a priority they probably could it off a lot cheaper than you realize. I have gone on antelope hunts in Wyoming that we left SLC at about 2 AM and was back to SLC that same evening with tags punched.


Road hunting? Now that remark was really uncalled for.

My uncle and his wife and 11 kids used to live in Northern Utah. They would drive up in the mountains, about five minutes, then either camp or if it was the same day just get out of the car and hike up the hill for their hunt. They did not have a lot of money or spare time. He was a school teacher and had many other responsibilities. They could have never gone on an out of state hunt.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

massmanute said:


> Road hunting? Now that remark was really uncalled for.
> 
> My uncle and his wife and 11 kids used to live in Northern Utah. They would drive up in the mountains, about five minutes, then either camp or if it was the same day just get out of the car and hike up the hill for their hunt. They did not have a lot of money or spare time. He was a school teacher and had many other responsibilities. They could have never gone on an out of state hunt.


Didn't intend any offense. Just pointing it out.

That said I can see how parents with 11 kids would not have time to hunt. Their priorities were doing other things.


----------



## massmanute

Realistically speaking, how much harm would it do to let a kid hunt on his dad's or granddad's tag? It must represent a fairly minute fraction of hunters in this state and therefore a fairly minute fraction of the potential deer harvest.


----------



## Fishrmn

massmanute said:


> Incidentally, way back when I was a child, during the Paleolithic Era, one could buy a tag and have a friend go and hunt. My family did that a time or two. We bought a tag, our neighbor enjoyed the hunt, and we enjoyed the meat. It was, as I recall, legal, but that loophole was soon closed.
> 
> Of course, that was back in the days when Utah had a lot of deer, and there was none of this business about accumulating points and drawing out on a deer tag. You just went to the store, bought your big game or combination license, and the deer tag came along with it. Then you hunted anywhere in the state that was legal.


I don't believe it has ever been legal in Utah to allow someone else to hunt, or shoot your deer for you. Socially accepted, yes. Legal, no.


----------



## Dodger

massmanute said:


> Realistically speaking, how much harm would it do to let a kid hunt on his dad's or granddad's tag? It must represent a fairly minute fraction of hunters in this state and therefore a fairly minute fraction of the potential deer harvest.


That's the narrow focus question. Most of the debate here has focused on the unintended consequences for allowing that. It wouldn't just be letting a kid hunt on his dad or granddad's tag. It would have an effect on the points system and everyone else's opportunities to hunt.

It's not just about shooting a deer. It's about opportunities to shoot the deer for everyone.


----------



## massmanute

Dodger said:


> That's the narrow focus question. Most of the debate here has focused on the unintended consequences for allowing that. It wouldn't just be letting a kid hunt on his dad or granddad's tag. It would have an effect on the points system and everyone else's opportunities to hunt.
> 
> It's not just about shooting a deer. It's about opportunities to shoot the deer for everyone.


Again, realistically speaking, how big would be the impact on the odds of drawing a tag? I don't know the numbers, but my guess is that the impact would be small.

Look at it this way. Kids of that age group represent only a small fraction of the state's population. Plus, among hunters it is likely that only a fraction of families would take advantage of this special tag system. Given the small numbers, it's hard for me to believe that the overall impact would be all that great.


----------



## massmanute

Fishrmn said:


> I don't believe it has ever been legal in Utah to allow someone else to hunt, or shoot your deer for you. Socially accepted, yes. Legal, no.


Does anyone have a collection of hunting proclamations from the 50s and early 60s so we can check this out?

(Back then the rules were posted in "Proclamations", not these new fangled "Guide Books" and such.)


----------



## Critter

I started to hunt in the mid 60's and it was never legal to shoot someone else's animal. Was it done, yes all the time. If there were 20 deer tags in camp there were 20 deer shot and all the women went home on Sunday night after the opening with their deer in the truck and the men never did kill anything on opening weekend.


----------



## Fishrmn

critter said:


> i started to hunt in the mid 60's and it was never legal to shoot someone else's animal. Was it done, yes all the time. If there were 20 deer tags in camp there were 20 deer shot and all the women went home on sunday night after the opening with their deer in the truck and the men never did kill anything on opening weekend.


^^^^ yup ^^^^


----------



## massmanute

Critter said:


> I started to hunt in the mid 60's and it was never legal to shoot someone else's animal. Was it done, yes all the time. If there were 20 deer tags in camp there were 20 deer shot and all the women went home on Sunday night after the opening with their deer in the truck and the men never did kill anything on opening weekend.


By the mid sixties it was already not allowed.

Our neighbor was very fastidious about everything that was hunting-related. Although I was young at the time and did not read hunting proclamations, according to our neighbor it was perfectly legal at the time when he was doing this. Then they changed the rules and he no longer hunted for our venison.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

*31% of the Utah population is under 18 years of age. That is 868,000 kids as of 2010.*

*At the very least roughly 2% of the population hunts. (this number is based solely off of those that just rifle hunt for deer) according to the articles I have read. Two percent of the 868,000 that would be eligible to hunt off of another tag would be 17,360.
*

*Utah Population Expectancy*
Over the past decade, Utah has had the third-fastest annual population growth rate in the United States, next to Nevada and Arizona. Because of such a fast and high population growth rate, the projection for the year 2060 is expected to be about an approximate 146% over the next 50 years to about 6.8 million people. The state of Utah grows so rapidly due to the high quality of life in the state and the shape of the economy.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/49000.html


----------



## Critter

massmanute said:


> By the mid sixties it was already not allowed.
> 
> Our neighbor was very fastidious about everything that was hunting-related. Although I was young at the time and did not read hunting proclamations, according to our neighbor it was perfectly legal at the time when he was doing this. Then they changed the rules and he no longer hunted for our venison.


I probably read every proclamation from the time that I was old enough to read and I never remember it being legal. But then just because it was accepted a lot of people may of thought that it was legal.


----------



## massmanute

Critter said:


> I probably read every proclamation from the time that I was old enough to read and I never remember it being legal. But then just because it was accepted a lot of people may of thought that it was legal.


Just out of curiosity, did, let us say, the 1958 Utah Big Game Proclamation specifically state that a deer had to be taken by a tag holder who was present at the time of harvest and who had shot the deer himself?


----------



## Dodger

massmanute said:


> Again, realistically speaking, how big would be the impact on the odds of drawing a tag? I don't know the numbers, but my guess is that the impact would be small.
> 
> Look at it this way. Kids of that age group represent only a small fraction of the state's population. Plus, among hunters it is likely that only a fraction of families would take advantage of this special tag system. Given the small numbers, it's hard for me to believe that the overall impact would be all that great.


Realistically, you'd have 3 or 4 people putting in for a kid every year. If 100 kids in this state have 3 people putting in for them, they should theoretically hunt 3 times more than everyone else. That's 3-400 hunts per species per year. Say there are 4000 LE tags every year (there might be more or less, I don't care to look it up). That's 10 percent of tags every year going to these kids off mom's/grandpa's/grandma's tags with only 100 kids taking advantage of the new system. Now imagine if 1000 kids do it, which is a fraction of the 60,000 who drew for the GS deer season, not to mention the seasons for all of the other species.

That starts to look pretty realistic to me.


----------



## massmanute

Mr Muleskinner said:


> *31% of the Utah population is under 18 years of age. That is 868,000 kids as of 2010...*l


It is not the under-18 population that is the relevant figure. Only a fraction of the under-18 population is old enough to hunt, probably about 25% of the 31% you mentioned. If so, that would put it in the 8% range. Plus, of those children who are in hunting families I dare say that only a fraction of them are likely to be taking advantage of this provision in the law. Let us say it is half of the families. That would bring the number down to 4% of hunters who would be taking advantage of this provision. In my book that is a minimal impact. Even 8% would be a fairly small impact.


----------



## massmanute

Dodger said:


> Realistically, you'd have 3 or 4 people putting in for a kid every year. If 100 kids in this state have 3 people putting in for them, they should theoretically hunt 3 times more than everyone else. That's 3-400 hunts per species per year. Say there are 4000 LE tags every year (there might be more or less, I don't care to look it up). That's 10 percent of tags every year going to these kids off mom's/grandpa's/grandma's tags with only 100 kids taking advantage of the new system. Now imagine if 1000 kids do it, which is a fraction of the 60,000 who drew for the GS deer season, not to mention the seasons for all of the other species.
> 
> That starts to look pretty realistic to me.


Earlier in this thread TS30 posted the wording of the law. If I read the law correctly, the tag transfer program does not create any additional tags for a family with kids. It only specifies (broadens) who may take a deer on a tag held by a family member, e.g. father or whomever.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

massmanute said:


> It is not the under-18 population that is the relevant figure. Only a fraction of the under-18 population is old enough to hunt, probably about 25% of the 31% you mentioned. If so, that would put it in the 8% range. Plus, of those children who are in hunting families I dare say that only a fraction of them are likely to be taking advantage of this provision in the law. Let us say it is half of the families. That would bring the number down to 4% of hunters who would be taking advantage of this provision. In my book that is a minimal impact. Even 8% would be a fairly small impact.


I knew I would have something in there that I did not account for. Even if it were 50% of the 25% that you throw out that is still 2170 kids. I just don't see it being necessary. It is to me entitlement any way you cut it. I don't like it and never will. The ONLY case I can see that I would support would be if either party were terminally ill.


----------



## RandomElk16

Well whats nice about this is even though my gray haired father didnt draw the henry's tag this year with 16 points, I figure if I put the wife in now my kid should be hunting the henry's in his early twenties at the latest. Not sure how many points he will need at that point if he is competing with the other soccer moms. 

Then again, this is america. No one would ever abuse the system like this.


----------



## massmanute

There has been some discussion of deer populations, hunter populations, and so forth. There is an interesting document that is relevant to the discussion. It was approved Dec. 4, 2008, and it is called "UTAH DIVISION OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES STATEWIDE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR MULE DEER". It contains a lot of interesting statistics.

According to Figure 1, the annual deer harvest in Utah peaked in about 130,000 deer in about 1961. There were about 200,000 hunters afield at that time. Hunter success rates were really high.

The number of hunters peaked at about 250,000 in about 1990. There were about 75,000 deer taken at that time. By 2007 the number of hunters had dropped to roughly 85,000 and the number of deer taken was roughly 30,000. This is roughly 25% of the harvest compared to the peak years.

Interesting, in the early years of the graph (going back to 1925) the number of hunters afield and number of deer taken was miniscule.

Anyway, I guess the bottom line is that, for whatever reasons, deer hunting in Utah is pretty much snake bit these days. This fact is probably at the root of all the bickering taking place.


----------



## RandomElk16

Mr Muleskinner said:


> I knew I would have something in there that I did not account for. Even if it were 50% of the 25% that you throw out that is still 2170 kids. I just don't see it being necessary. It is to me entitlement any way you cut it. I don't like it and never will. The ONLY case I can see that I would support would be if either party were terminally ill.


I would propose and back the terminally ill portion under its own separate section. I believe any tag, OIL LE or general should be transferable to terminally ill. I doubt anyone would get on here and argue its the same thing, because it is vey different. As much as I scratch my head about Randy's White Peaks ranch, I appreciate what they did for Logan Bateman.


----------



## Dodger

massmanute said:


> Earlier in this thread TS30 posted the wording of the law. If I read the law correctly, the tag transfer program does not create any additional tags for a family with kids. It only specifies (broadens) who may take a deer on a tag held by a family member, e.g. father or whomever.


It doesn't change who is ELIGIBLE to put in for tags. But since grandma wouldn't put in on her own to go hunt with the way things currently stand, putting in for little Johnny gives Johnny an extra chance to draw. It does create ADDITIONAL tags for a family with kids because without grandma's points, they wouldn't draw as many tags.

If you get more points, you'll get more tags. Does grandma have a right to a tag? Of course. Should grandma be able to apply for a tag with the sole intention to assign her tag to Johnny? No. Will she if she's given the opportunity? You bet your sweet bippy.


----------



## Dodger

RandomElk16 said:


> I would propose and back the terminally ill portion under its own separate section. I believe any tag, OIL LE or general should be transferable to terminally ill. I doubt anyone would get on here and argue its the same thing, because it is vey different. As much as I scratch my head about Randy's White Peaks ranch, I appreciate what they did for Logan Bateman.


I'm not specifically disagreeing about this. I just want to ask a purely hypothetical question.

Should someone who is terminally ill get to hunt in front of a 75 year old man who has put in for 35 years on a OIL tag?

If so, why?


----------



## willfish4food

Dodger said:


> I'm not specifically disagreeing about this. I just want to ask a purely hypothetical question.
> 
> Should someone who is terminally ill get to hunt in front of a 75 year old man who has put in for 35 years on a OIL tag?
> 
> If so, why?


I'd say yes, because if the terminally ill person did not hunt in front of the 35 year drawing participant than the person who actually drew the tag in the first place would. The terminally ill person is not taking the tag from the person that's been putting in their time; drawing system did that. The terminal person just happens to be the beneficiary of someone's extreme generosity.


----------



## massmanute

Dodger said:


> It doesn't change who is ELIGIBLE to put in for tags. But since grandma wouldn't put in on her own to go hunt with the way things currently stand, putting in for little Johnny gives Johnny an extra chance to draw. It does create ADDITIONAL tags for a family with kids because without grandma's points, they wouldn't draw as many tags.
> 
> If you get more points, you'll get more tags. Does grandma have a right to a tag? Of course. Should grandma be able to apply for a tag with the sole intention to assign her tag to Johnny? No. Will she if she's given the opportunity? You bet your sweet bippy.


Keep in mind that the law says that the tag holder ("grandma") has to be in the field with the surrogate hunter and be close enough to the hunter to be able to communicate by voice or hand signals.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

There are going to be differing opinions. It doesn't mean that it is bickering. The whole privilege vs. right is typically where the line in the sand is drawn from what I have seen. I think this thread and the right vs privilege run hand in hand. 

I would love to think that hunting is a right that I was born into but simple mathematics just don't allow that to be the case. Population growth alone has dictated that game animals must be managed. There has been more than one species that those that had the "rights" to hunted to the point of extinction. Many, many more species have become endangered or limited to the point that they are very highly regulated. (bison, brown bear to name a couple). Some that used to roam in great numbers can no longer be harvested at all.

Those that believe that they are entitled or have a given right to hunt or do as they see fit need to open their collective eyes. :shock:


----------



## massmanute

Mr Muleskinner said:


> There are going to be differing opinions. It doesn't mean that it is bickering. The whole privilege vs. right is typically where the line in the sand is drawn from what I have seen. I think this thread and the right vs privilege run hand in hand.
> 
> I would love to think that hunting is a right that I was born into but simple mathematics just don't allow that to be the case. Population growth alone has dictated that game animals must be managed. There has been more than one species that those that had the "rights" to hunted to the point of extinction. Many, many more species have become endangered or limited to the point that they are very highly regulated. (bison, brown bear to name a couple). Some that used to roam in great numbers can no longer be harvested at all.
> 
> Those that believe that they are entitled or have a given right to hunt or do as they see fit need to open their collective eyes. :shock:


As for me, I do not advocate hunting as an unrestricted right, but rather a right that is subject to reasonable regulations.

Actually, there aren't many rights that are completely unrestricted. Take the right to practice one's religion. This does not allow one to practice human sacrifice, as was done, for example, among the ancient Phoenicians, or to practice temple prostitution as was done in ancient Babylon, or to allow the murderous practices of the Thuggee as was done in more recent historical times in India.


----------



## RandomElk16

Dodger said:


> I'm not specifically disagreeing about this. I just want to ask a purely hypothetical question.
> 
> Should someone who is terminally ill get to hunt in front of a 75 year old man who has put in for 35 years on a OIL tag?
> 
> If so, why?


35 bonus points??? What an unlucky sob! I agree with willfish though. Someone else drew the tag. And the terminally ill will most likely not have 35 years to become an unlucky sob.



massmanute said:


> Keep in mind that the law says that the tag holder ("grandma") has to be in the field with the surrogate hunter and be close enough to the hunter to be able to communicate by voice or hand signals.


 Is this in the legislative version? I did not see this in the RAC packet.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

massmanute said:


> As for me, I do not advocate hunting as an unrestricted right, but rather a right that is subject to reasonable regulations.


"Reasonable Regulations"

If there were ever a term that sounded like "Affordable Healthcare" you just nailed it. Reasonable and Affordable are purely subjective.


----------



## massmanute

RandomElk16 said:


> 35 bonus points??? What an unlucky sob! I agree with willfish though. Someone else drew the tag. And the terminally ill will most likely not have 35 years to become an unlucky sob.
> 
> Is this in the legislative version? I did not see this in the RAC packet.


I think it is from the Utah Code. Please see the post by TS30 on the second page of this thread.

The actual wording is "life threatening" rather than "terminally ill."


----------



## massmanute

Mr Muleskinner said:


> "Reasonable Regulations"
> 
> If there were ever a term that sounded like "Affordable Healthcare" you just nailed it. Reasonable and Affordable are purely subjective.


You don't believe there is such a thing as reasonable regulations?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

massmanute said:


> You don't believe there is such a thing as reasonable regulations?


Sure, but what I find reasonable others may not and vice versa. Subjective.


----------



## Dodger

massmanute said:


> Keep in mind that the law says that the tag holder ("grandma") has to be in the field with the surrogate hunter and be close enough to the hunter to be able to communicate by voice or hand signals.


Right. Set up a walkie talkie and you're good to go.

This could never be abused. -O,-


----------



## Dodger

RandomElk16 said:


> 35 bonus points??? What an unlucky sob! I agree with willfish though. Someone else drew the tag. And the terminally ill will most likely not have 35 years to become an unlucky sob.


That's why it's a hypothetical question. My point is that people can be cheated by the assignment of tags. I think GaryFish was right on with his post a few pages back.


----------



## massmanute

Dodger said:


> Right. Set up a walkie talkie and you're good to go.
> 
> This could never be abused. -O,-


Nice try, but I don't think a walkie talkie wouldn't qualify. Here's the wording:

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


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

The fact that right now the tag transfer is opposed to almost a 2:1 margin (based on the poll) would tell me that this idea is not reasonable to those that have voted.


----------



## derekp1999

massmanute said:


> Nice try, but I don't think a walkie talkie wouldn't qualify. Here's the wording:
> 
> "(C) accompanies the minor, for the purposes of advising and assisting during the hunt, at a distance where the permit holder can communicate with the minor, in person, by voice or visual signals;"


There is a current rule already in place for youth hunters stating that walkie-talkies would not suffice:

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


----------



## Dodger

massmanute said:


> Nice try, but I don't think a walkie talkie wouldn't qualify. Here's the wording:
> 
> "(C) accompanies the minor, for the purposes of advising and assisting during the hunt, at a distance where the permit holder can communicate with the minor, in person, by voice or visual signals;"


What do you think "by voice" means? If anything, the language is MORE in favor of using a walkie talkie because it makes a distinction between "in person" and "by voice."



derekp1999 said:


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


Notice the wording of the bolded portion is different from the wording of the proposed law change? For the youth to be able to hunt an adult has to accompany the child into the field. That can be any adult, NOT NECESSARILY the adult that assigned the tag to the child. The adult that assigns the tag only has to be within "voice" communication.

If Dad is on the mountain and can provide verbal assistance to the child while Grandma is on the W/T, the wording of the law is met.


----------



## massmanute

Dodger said:


> What do you think "by voice" means? If anything, the language is MORE in favor of using a walkie talkie because it makes a distinction between "in person" and "by voice."
> 
> Notice the wording of the bolded portion is different from the wording of the proposed law change? For the youth to be able to hunt an adult has to accompany the child into the field. That can be any adult, NOT NECESSARILY the adult that assigned the tag to the child. The adult that assigns the tag only has to be within "voice" communication.
> 
> If Dad is on the mountain and can provide verbal assistance to the child while Grandma is on the W/T, the wording of the law is met.


Here is what the Division says about the proposed new law:

"The Hunter Mentoring program allows a non-licensed youth hunter to accompany their parent, stepparent, grandparent or legal guardian into the field. Once an animal is found, the youth can take the animal and then tag it with the mentor's tag."

According to this, the person has to be a parent, stepparent, grandparent, or legal guardian, and the method has to also have a tag. I read this as meaning that if grandma is the tag holder then she has to be on the mountain with the youth hunter. Perhaps it is possible to read this another way.

Here is the the web reference.

http://wildlife.utah.gov/wildlife-news/1296-big-game-hunting-changes-to-be-discussed.html

Does anyone have the web reference to the specific wording of the proposed changes?


----------



## derekp1999

Dodger said:


> Notice the wording of the bolded portion is different from the wording of the proposed law change? For the youth to be able to hunt an adult has to accompany the child into the field. That can be any adult, NOT NECESSARILY the adult that assigned the tag to the child. The adult that assigns the tag only has to be within "voice" communication.
> 
> If Dad is on the mountain and can provide verbal assistance to the child while Grandma is on the W/T, the wording of the law is met.


You are right, you would need to meet the wording for both regulations... I was just pointing out that there is already a law on the books regarding youth hunters and W/Ts being inappropriate. 
By my interpretation/understanding you would obviously need to comply with both regulations... the adult that drew the tag would need to accompany the youth AND said adult would need to be within "voice distance" for cummunication (e.g. NOT via W/T).
So Granny isn't hanging out at the trailer sipping Metamucil if her tag was transfered to little Johnny. She would need to be out there with him close enough to voice communicate (and for my grandma that would have to be pretty close cause she doesn't speak very loudly anymore) to comply with the proposed regulation AND the regulation already in place.
She better get a good thermos!

massmanute... I read it the same way.


----------



## High Desert Elk

Mr Muleskinner said:


> The fact that right now the tag transfer is opposed to almost a 2:1 margin (based on the poll) would tell me that this idea is not reasonable to those that have voted.


I think it's because most people had the opportunity to hunt as a youth when they reached the legal age every year, and still do to this day.

I can count on one hand plus 3 the amount of deer I have taken over the span of my hunting life. Maybe it's 'cause I'm just a piss poor hunter...


----------



## willfish4food

Dodger said:


> What do you think "by voice" means? If anything, the language is MORE in favor of using a walkie talkie because it makes a distinction between "in person" and "by voice."
> 
> Notice the wording of the bolded portion is different from the wording of the proposed law change? For the youth to be able to hunt an adult has to accompany the child into the field. That can be any adult, NOT NECESSARILY the adult that assigned the tag to the child. The adult that assigns the tag only has to be within "voice" communication.
> 
> If Dad is on the mountain and can provide verbal assistance to the child while Grandma is on the W/T, the wording of the law is met.


I think you're misreading the provision. In the law it reads


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


At the end the "in person" part is not part of a list, rather, it's indicating that communication must be in person as appose to by proxy. i.e. by voice in person (not via cell phone) or by visual signals in person (not via video baby monitor).

The way it's worded in the November RAC agenda is much more clear to that point. 


> (e) The Hunting Mentor accompanies the Qualifying Minor while hunting at a distance where the Hunting Mentor can communicate with the Qualifying Minor by voice or hand signals


----------



## Critter

High Desert Elk said:


> I think it's because most people had the opportunity to hunt as a youth when they reached the legal age every year, and still do to this day.
> 
> I can count on one hand plus 3 the amount of deer I have taken over the span of my hunting life. Maybe it's 'cause I'm just a piss poor hunter...


Could it be that you consider yourself a poor hunter or a more selective hunter?

In the years that I have hunted I have gone from kill the first buck and kill one every year to what I am now, a selective hunter that will only kill a deer or elk every few years. I quite possibly pass up more deer than the average hunter sees. This year I had the chance to kill a number of bucks but passed on all of them, not because they were poor shots or out of range but rather I would of liked for the hunter that I was with to take the shots, which he didn't. Now in my mind he isn't much of a hunter. He wanted meat for his freezer but passed up on a number of bucks.


----------



## willfish4food

massmanute said:


> Does anyone have the web reference to the specific wording of the proposed changes?


I think someone else posted the link earlier in this thread. Is this what you're looking for?

http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/info/2013-11_rac_packet.pdf

The new rule in question is item number 8. You can read the memorandum in full by clicking on the bookmark on the left, or scroll down to page 72/101


----------



## swbuckmaster

Comedy relief sponsored by buckmaster


----------



## Dodger

massmanute said:


> Here is what the Division says about the proposed new law:
> 
> "The Hunter Mentoring program allows a non-licensed youth hunter to accompany their parent, stepparent, grandparent or legal guardian into the field. Once an animal is found, the youth can take the animal and then tag it with the mentor's tag."
> 
> According to this, the person has to be a parent, stepparent, grandparent, or legal guardian, and the method has to also have a tag. I read this as meaning that if grandma is the tag holder then she has to be on the mountain with the youth hunter. *Perhaps it is possible to read this another way.*


That's my point. This can be abused by people reading it how they want to and having a good argument to do it.



derekp1999 said:


> You are right, you would need to meet the wording for both regulations... I was just pointing out that there is already a law on the books regarding youth hunters and W/Ts being inappropriate.
> By my interpretation/understanding you would obviously need to comply with both regulations... the adult that drew the tag would need to accompany the youth AND said adult would need to be within "voice distance" for cummunication (e.g. NOT via W/T).
> So Granny isn't hanging out at the trailer sipping Metamucil if her tag was transfered to little Johnny. She would need to be out there with him close enough to voice communicate (and for my grandma that would have to be pretty close cause she doesn't speak very loudly anymore) to comply with the proposed regulation AND the regulation already in place.
> She better get a good thermos!
> 
> massmanute... I read it the same way.


Communicating "by voice" is all that is required by the law.



willfish4food said:


> I think you're misreading the provision. In the law it reads At the end the "in person" part is not part of a list, rather, it's indicating that communication must be in person as appose to by proxy. i.e. by voice in person (not via cell phone) or by visual signals in person (not via video baby monitor).
> 
> The way it's worded in the November RAC agenda is much more clear to that point.


I'm not. Look at where the comma is. It puts "in person" _in the list_, not out of the list.

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

I understand what you're saying but the commas are important. If they meant to say the "permit holder can communicate with the minor in person*,* by voice or visual signals," they would have put the comma after person as I have in that sentence.

If they ment to say that the "permit holder can communicate with the minor in person, by voice or visual signals," they are following the normal list format in the English language. A, B, and C or A, B or C.


----------



## massmanute

High Desert Elk said:


> I think it's because most people had the opportunity to hunt as a youth when they reached the legal age every year, and still do to this day.
> 
> I can count on one hand plus 3 the amount of deer I have taken over the span of my hunting life. Maybe it's 'cause I'm just a piss poor hunter...


Is it true that most youths have the opportunity to hunt now that there is the quota/lottery system in place?

Here my deer hunting experience: six hunts in three different decades spread over about a five decade span, in two different states, with two deer in the bag. (It could have been three deer, but during my first year I wanted a buck, so I didn't shoot the doe that was 20 feet from me and unaware of my presence.) I suppose I am about at the low end of average for success rate.


----------



## wyoming2utah

I don't mind any part of this "party hunting" law as long as the person giving the tag up is there in person along with the youth doing the shooting. Any other way, I don't like it. So, the way the comma is place, as Dodger points out, would make this a bad thing in my eyes.


----------



## willfish4food

Dodger said:


> I'm not. Look at where the comma is. It puts "in person" _in the list_, not out of the list.
> 
> "(C) accompanies the minor, for the purposes of advising and assisting during the hunt, at a distance where the permit holder can communicate with the minor*,* in person, by voice or visual signals;"
> 
> I understand what you're saying but the commas are important. If they meant to say the "permit holder can communicate with the minor in person*,* by voice or visual signals," they would have put the comma after person as I have in that sentence.
> 
> If they ment to say that the "permit holder can communicate with the minor in person, by voice or visual signals," they are following the normal list format in the English language. A, B, and C or A, B or C.


You are correct the commas are very important in this instance. I'm fairly certain a list with a conjunction in American English typically has a comma in front of the conjunction whether that conjunction is "and" or "or". In which case the ",in person," is a parenthetical element that is specifying how the communication is to take place.

Either way, you are correct that since the wording can be ambiguous it should be cleared up. Which is what I think the did by changing it to, "(e) The Hunting Mentor accompanies the Qualifying Minor while hunting at a distance where the Hunting Mentor can communicate with the Qualifying Minor by voice or hand signals"


----------



## massmanute

willfish4food said:


> I think someone else posted the link earlier in this thread. Is this what you're looking for?
> 
> http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/info/2013-11_rac_packet.pdf
> 
> The new rule in question is item number 8. You can read the memorandum in full by clicking on the bookmark on the left, or scroll down to page 72/101


Thanks for the link. It clears up one questions. The youth has to be a child, stepchild, grandchild, or legal ward of the hunting mentor (or is suffering from a life threatening illness).

Also, the mentor has to accompany the youth while hunting at a distance 
where the Hunting Mentor can communicate with the Qualifying Minor by voice or hand signals.

This pretty well eliminates grandma in the trailer with a walkie talkie.


----------



## derekp1999

Dodger said:


> Communicating "by voice" is all that is required by the law.


No... the law states "While in the field, the youth and the adult must remain close enough for the adult to see *and* provide verbal assistance to the young hunter. Using electronic devices, such as walkie-talkies or cell phones, does not meet this requirement."
That's a little bit more specific than "by voice" being the only requirement.

I just pulled up the RAC packet and gave this proposal the once over & have to say that it's not what I had previously read or heard...
From the RAC packet:
Some highlights of the program are:
1. Permits are shared not transferred, meaning both the mentor and the participating minor can carry a firearm in the field. However, only one animal may be taken per permit.
2. The program is applicable to all big game permits.
3. The mentor may not receive any form of compensation for participating in the program.
4. To qualify for the program, a minor must be a Utah Resident between the ages of 12 and 17, possess a Utah Hunter's Education number, and either be the child, stepchild, grandchild, or legal ward of the mentor or be suffering from a life threatening medical condition.
5. The mentor may be either a resident or a nonresident, but must be at least 21 years of age
and must be able to legally possess a firearm.​6. There is an administrative process established in rule to track permit sharing.

My understanding was that it was a tag transfer system and that one tag would equal one gun. Item #1 clearly states otherwise, this is party hunting in my opinion.
I think I'll change my vote now...


----------



## KineKilla

o-||

Been a LONG and interesting read thus far. Time for my $.02...

Most hunters agree that "Party Hunting" is frowned upon (let alone illegal), and swear they would never participate in such a thing. At the same time most people with some years in their bag remember when it was commonplace to have this happen...they also will quite often tell you about how great hunting in the state used to be, how much fun and how many great memories they have of being out spending time with family and harvesting the occasional great deer was and how they wish it was still "how it used to be"...

Well, you can't have your cake and eat it too...or can you? I imagine you can as long as you are eating someone else's cake, while bogarting your own.

I see my tag every year as a binding contract between the state and myself. I sign it stating that I will be the one that fills it, no one else, and will do so lawfully. I uphold my end...I expect them to uphold theirs. These animals are not to be used as leverage or used to generate revenue for the DWR (although that is exactly what they have become).

I don't believe there is a rule stating that youth hunters can't accumulate preference or bonus points, so rather than give away my tag, or try to draw tags for other people just to give them away...why not just start buying points for these youngsters so they can get their own tag? It may be selfish but, hey I'm not going to just give my tag away to my son so he can shoot the animal that I've waited so long to draw out on...he has to learn that patience and waiting your turn are just a part of life. 

It makes the end result that much sweeter in my book.


----------



## massmanute

Regarding party hunting as a general principle, can some of you explain why you favor it or oppose it? Is there some fundamental ethical consideration that goes to some cosmic core value, or is it more along the lines of "I don't like it" or "I like it?"

I will note that party hunting is legal and regulated in some states (e.g. Minnesota) or provinces (e.g. Manitoba) and banned in others, (e.g. Utah, Indiana, North Dakota.)

For sake of discussion, let us assume that any answer is valid and not to be attacked by others. These answers could range from simply "I prefer such and such..." to other answers that may be supported by various facts or opinions or core values.


----------



## RandomElk16

The more we discuss, the less I see a reason for it. Everyone mentions their kid having an opportunity to hunt. Really?!!!! I bought my muzzy tag over the counter and filled it. There is tons of opportunity for youth, without driving far. Everyone should have multiple units near them(within 2 hours) and they can put them in order of preference. Archery and muzzy are almost a general hunt guarantee. Well, archery is actually a guarantee. 

I feel like if you save up for what feels like a lifetime to get that special hunt and don't want to hunt it, give the opportunity to someone else who has waited that long and don't bother putting in!! I would never teach my kid to cut in line. Especially if that line started before he /she was born.


----------



## willfish4food

I've gone from liking this proposal to hating it. I could get behind it if a few key changes were made, but in the end I see it as a whole lot of new law and a lot of opportunities for abuse, for little to no improvement in the system. 

Like it or not, waiting for a "good" tag and disappointment when you don't draw the tag you want is part the hunting experience these days. Ultimately, the youth should understand that you have to work hard and sometimes wait for the things you want, and that's true for hunting as well.


----------



## Lonetree

In theory I don't have an issue with the law as proposed, I mean it sounds "noble" enough. But in the bigger scheme of things it is a law of heredity, It goes against the egalitarian nature of the NAMWC. But why would that surprise anyone, that is where we are going in this state, some just won't see it until they are completely steam rolled by it. 

Funny, some of the people that propose this stuff, claim to be on the side of the sportsman. Sold Out!


----------



## derekp1999

massmanute said:


> Regarding party hunting as a general principle, can some of you explain why you favor it or oppose it? Is there some fundamental ethical consideration that goes to some cosmic core value, or is it more along the lines of "I don't like it" or "I like it?"


For me, I just don't like it. I filled my very first tag at 29 years old... so I was not a "youth" by any stretch of the imagination. I walked up onto my first buck and my grandfather offered to put his tag on it so that I could continue hunting. I told him no, that was my first buck so my tag was going on it. I kind of felt like he offered to take that "first" away from me. I've had a sour taste in my mouth regarding party hunting after that.



RandomElk16 said:


> There is tons of opportunity for youth..


There is a lot of opportunity for youth in Utah: 

There is currently a percentage of all tags drawn are reserved for youth
There are specific youth only archery deer tags (I understand the demographic for these tags is small & there were many leftover this year.)
There is a provision that an any weapon general deer tag obtained by a youth is essentially a single year dedicated hunter tag
There are youth only elk hunts.
That's quite a bit of additional opportunity already out there for those 12 to 18. I'm not saying that I wouldn't mind more... but I'm not sure that this is right way to do it now.



willfish4food6 said:


> I've gone from liking this proposal to hating it. I could get behind it if a few key changes were made.....


Ditto


----------



## massmanute

massmanute said:


> Regarding party hunting as a general principle, can some of you explain why you favor it or oppose it? Is there some fundamental ethical consideration that goes to some cosmic core value, or is it more along the lines of "I don't like it" or "I like it?"
> 
> I will note that party hunting is legal and regulated in some states (e.g. Minnesota) or provinces (e.g. Manitoba) and banned in others, (e.g. Utah, Indiana, North Dakota.)
> 
> For sake of discussion, let us assume that any answer is valid and not to be attacked by others. These answers could range from simply "I prefer such and such..." to other answers that may be supported by various facts or opinions or core values.


One additional note. In some cases party hunting is not only tolerated but required by the law. For example, in Abruzzo, Italy (admittedly, not part of the US) to hunt wild boar you have to be in a party of at least 25 hunters.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

For me I guess a lot of it stems from the fact that we were raised by a single mother in Northwest Wyoming. Money was tight and if we could afford a big game tag it was up to me and my brother to make it count. Not filling a tag meant more to us than it did to most. That has always stuck with me. I never had the help (other than hunting with friends) and took great pride in the successes that I/we did have. Having somebody else shoot or tag my animal was out of the question. Still is and I have passed that same belief onto my son. That goes for small game and fishing as well.

Amazing to me how small game hunting is always left out of the equation when people talk about opportunity. Not pointing a finger. It just seems that it doesn't even count to some people. We basically lived off of fish, rabbit, deer, antelope, elk and the produce that we grew. Searched the canals for asparagus and walked the alleys to pick rhubarb that grew wild. Went to the orchards to pick fruit.

The entitlement thing really hits a sore spot with me.


----------



## massmanute

Mr Muleskinner said:


> ...Amazing to me how small game hunting is always left out of the equation when people talk about opportunity. ...


Speaking of small game, I wonder why rabbits are not seriously hunted by many people in Utah. I'm talking about small game hunting, not vermin killing. Cottontail is delicious table fare, fun to hunt, and reasonably plentiful in Utah.

I don't know about jack rabbit, having never eaten one, but at least one person I talked to said they are actually pretty good.

When I lived in Wisconsin I hunted squirrel a couple of times, and guess what. Squirrel is quite delicious! At least Wisconsin squirrels are good. I don't know about Utah squirrels.

By the way, does anyone know where one can hunt feral pigeons in locations not too far from Salt Lake? I'd be interested in giving that a try.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

I have had jack rabbit several times. Nothing wrong with it at all. Every time I have had it has been slow cooked. Check the livers for spots like I do rabbit. If it is healthy it is good to go. If not pitch it.

Yes squirrels cook up quite good as well. Haven't had feral pigeons but I know where you can get a seagull or two.


----------



## oldTimer

It has been my experience that youth hunters do not need to shoot a 400+ Bull to be happy. Most of the kids I know are thrilled just to be able to hunt and are excited to shoot even an antlerless animal. If you agree with that can I suggest a compromise given that the DWR is obviously hell bent on providing youth as much "opportunity" as possible even if it means bending everyone else over a barrel?

Lets give everything except LE and OIL to youth (including all small game and general season). Lets not allow anyone over 17 to even apply or participate but let the people over 17 who have put in for years continue to put in for LE and OIL tags without having to compete with all of spoiled, entitled, little Jonnies huge Utah family. Is that asking too much?


----------



## Springville Shooter

In the beginning, I was for this because I'm a huge proponent of individual freedom and responsibility. In other words, I think I can generally make better choices for myself than the government can. After discussing this previously, I was made aware of potential abuses that I had never even thought of. I am now of the opinion that, sadly, we as a society are provably not capable of managing ourselves in this manner. So, I guess that it's best for big brother to dictate the minute details of our lives such as how we choose to use a deer tag.----SS


----------



## GaryFish

If we want youth opportunity, I suggest we create a "Youth Opportunity Tag." One for deer, and one for elk. Here are the parameters:
-Kid gets the tags upon completion of his hunters safety course.
-Tag is good one deer (or elk), either sex, and any non-LE unit.
-Hunter can hunt archery, muzzle loader, AND rifle seasons.
-Tag is transferable from one year to the next, meaning that in year 1 of hunting, Junior does not fill his/her tag, he can use it the next year without having to apply for any kind of draw.
-Tag is good until Junior turns 18, or until it has been filled.
-Once filled, Junior applies for tags just like every one else. 

This way, Junior gets to hunt, has ample opportunity, and can be introduced to the sport that we all know and love. He/she can spread out the tag over as many years as he wants, but can only harvest one deer and one elk. But then, he/she can begin applying just the same.


----------



## Vanilla

You want to know the best thing about this whole deal? If you feel youth have enough opportunity as it is, and you feel that this is a stupid idea, then keep your tag. Don't give it to your kid or to a kid with a terminal illness. Keep it for yourself. 

Nobody is going to begrudge you for doing so.


----------



## swbuckmaster

GaryFish said:


> If we want youth opportunity, I suggest we create a "Youth Opportunity Tag." One for deer, and one for elk. Here are the parameters:
> -Kid gets the tags upon completion of his hunters safety course.
> -Tag is good one deer (or elk), either sex, and any non-LE unit.
> -Hunter can hunt archery, muzzle loader, AND rifle seasons.
> -Tag is transferable from one year to the next, meaning that in year 1 of hunting, Junior does not fill his/her tag, he can use it the next year without having to apply for any kind of draw.
> -Tag is good until Junior turns 18, or until it has been filled.
> -Once filled, Junior applies for tags just like every one else.
> 
> This way, Junior gets to hunt, has ample opportunity, and can be introduced to the sport that we all know and love. He/she can spread out the tag over as many years as he wants, but can only harvest one deer and one elk. But then, he/she can begin applying just the same.


Garry that sounds like a terrible idea. First the dwr sells tags for a ratio of bucks they expect to be killed. Now if you are automatically giving a youth a tag that displaces someone else. Now if that youth keeps his tag cause he can't get'er done that displaces another person for another year.

Reason two
My daughters example. She drew when she was 12. She would be done hunting till she's 17 in your senerio. The way it is right now she can hunt every year If I apply smart in the drawings. She can already hunt elk every year if I want to put her in. Kids don't need to kill big crap to want to keep hunting! Parrents shouldn't have to see their kids kill big crap to get them out hunting!


----------



## massmanute

GaryFish said:


> If we want youth opportunity, I suggest we create a "Youth Opportunity Tag." One for deer, and one for elk. Here are the parameters:
> -Kid gets the tags upon completion of his hunters safety course.
> -Tag is good one deer (or elk), either sex, and any non-LE unit.
> -Hunter can hunt archery, muzzle loader, AND rifle seasons.
> -Tag is transferable from one year to the next, meaning that in year 1 of hunting, Junior does not fill his/her tag, he can use it the next year without having to apply for any kind of draw.
> -Tag is good until Junior turns 18, or until it has been filled.
> -Once filled, Junior applies for tags just like every one else.
> 
> This way, Junior gets to hunt, has ample opportunity, and can be introduced to the sport that we all know and love. He/she can spread out the tag over as many years as he wants, but can only harvest one deer and one elk. But then, he/she can begin applying just the same.


This seems like a pretty good proposal to me.

I do see two potential objections to it however. One is that it increases the number of tags in circulation whereas the current official proposal does not increase the number of tags because it relies on filling a "conventional" tag via other means. Some would likely object to increasing the number of tags issued, whereas some might not.

The other is that there is no mentoring aspect to it, so it does not accomplish one of the goals of the existing proposal in which mentoring is a required part. Again, some might object to this whereas others might not.


----------



## GaryFish

Mentoring would have to be part of that. I should have put that in.


----------



## willfish4food

swbuckmaster said:


> Reason two
> My daughters example. She drew when she was 12. She would be done hunting till she's 17 in your senerio. The way it is right now she can hunt every year If I apply smart in the drawings. She can already hunt elk every year if I want to put her in. Kids don't need to kill big crap to want to keep hunting! Parrents shouldn't have to see their kids kill big crap to get them out hunting!


Why would your daughter be done? The last point in GF's post says that once the tag is filled she would apply for a tag like everyone else. Not that she'd be done till 17.


----------



## willfish4food

swbuckmaster said:


> First the dwr sells tags for a ratio of bucks they expect to be killed. Now if you are automatically giving a youth a tag that displaces someone else. Now if that youth keeps his tag cause he can't get'er done that displaces another person for another year.


+1 on this one. Although a good portion of these youth would probably already have tags even without GF's idea. How many, I would have no idea of knowing.


----------



## derekp1999

GaryFish said:


> If we want youth opportunity, I suggest we create a "Youth Opportunity Tag." One for deer, and one for elk. Here are the parameters:
> -Kid gets the tags upon completion of his hunters safety course.
> -Tag is good one deer (or elk), either sex, and any non-LE unit.
> -Hunter can hunt archery, muzzle loader, AND rifle seasons.
> -Tag is transferable from one year to the next, meaning that in year 1 of hunting, Junior does not fill his/her tag, he can use it the next year without having to apply for any kind of draw.
> -Tag is good until Junior turns 18, or until it has been filled.
> -Once filled, Junior applies for tags just like every one else.
> 
> This way, Junior gets to hunt, has ample opportunity, and can be introduced to the sport that we all know and love. He/she can spread out the tag over as many years as he wants, but can only harvest one deer and one elk. But then, he/she can begin applying just the same.


Gary, I kind of like this thought. It would be tough to regulate the number of potential tags that could be floating around out there after several years, I could see this snowballing... maybe just to put a little control on those numbers you have the youth decide between deer or elk? I know a lot of families that prefer to hunt one species over the other. Or make it like the DH program where it's limited to 3 years from the date that the hunter's safety course was completed... the tag expires at the end of year 3 and they have to begin putting in the drawing. You'd have to figure out how to control that snowball somehow.
I agree that there would need to be a mentoring aspect to it.

This was the first year that I knew of the additional youth archery tags... how many regular archery tags were removed from the pool to accomodate those youth tags? I can't imagine that the DWR reduced it too much (if at all) expecting the harvest to be very small from those tags.

SW, I see it differently... my 12 year old son would be given an "opportunity tag" for one deer and/or one elk. With that tag he could hunt archery, muzzleloader, and rifle on any general unit in the state. Say he fills the deer tag in his 2nd year... he's had 2 years to hunt any general unit in the state, for all seasons, under one tag. At that point, I begin to put him in the regular draw (applying smart as you stated), and he still draws a general tag every year for the remaining years he's a youth.

Just like everything else... a couple tweaks here & there and if used properly (not abused... nice wish) is a good thought and _could_ be a good program.

But, I reserve the right to change my mind.


----------



## swbuckmaster

Some of you guys act like the youth are starved of opportunity in this state! Your making up all these worst case scenarios to push bad policies.

My daughter just turned 13
This is her hunting resume























































































She drew the rifle deer tag two years in a row in two different units. Had chances the first year but couldn't get it done with a rifle.

Drew a cow elk tag the first year as well. She got a bonus point this year so next year we will more than likley have a chance at another cow next year.

If my kids don't draw the rifle tags first choice. Second choice is muzzy. Last choice is archery. They will have a tag!

If for some freak reason they don't you can get a rifle spike elk tag or any bull tag and hunt.

Throw in chances at bears, turkeys, water fowl, small game ect. I can't financially keep up with the opportunity the youth have in this state.

Still have cheep idaho deer and wyoming antelope. Great youth opportunitys

Last but not least shed hunting and hunting with friends and family that have tags










No excuses for kids to be not in the field! If they are its your fault as a parrent or mentor!

Few clips


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

Poor girl needs to get out of the house a bit more. ;-)


----------



## Critter

You have now gone and spoiled her. What is she going to do when she discovers boys? :shock:


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

http://wildlife.utah.gov/wildlife-news/1296-big-game-hunting-changes-to-be-discussed.html


----------



## GaryFish

swbuckmaster, that just might be the absolute best post I've seen on this site for a very long time. And clearly, the best post in this entire thread. Thanks!


----------



## KineKilla

Critter said:


> You have now gone and spoiled her. What is she going to do when she discovers boys? :shock:


I guess she'll have to teach them how to hunt!


----------



## massmanute

Mr Muleskinner said:


> ...Yes squirrels cook up quite good as well...


Speaking of squirrel, the October 2013 issue of Field and Stream, pp. 36-37 has a procedure for making braised squirrel with bacon, mushrooms, and pinot noir. It sounds pretty fancy. It's supposed to work well for rabbit or duck as well.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

pinot noir goes great with rabbit.

The best thing I have found to pair with duck is called Black Holding Tank by Dutchman Vineyard. Every vintage taste like crap.


----------



## swbuckmaster

We have ate them before ha ha

Anything tastes good after a few hours in a crock pot


----------

