# Sportsman Tag and Governor tag seasons



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Because of the Spider Bull fiasco then the DWR looked into the Disabled Hunting season extension for the physically challenged. People who weren't disabled (the hunter that killed the spider bull) wanted to use a crossbow and also have a 30 day extension before Sept 1 to kill that great bull.

Before we were allowed to hunt with a rifle during the archery hunt or ML hunt like the Sportsman tag and Governor tag holders do. We had the choice of 30 days before the hunt or 30 days after the hunt.

Here is the new criteria for disabled hunters.


Criteria for LE Extensions
LE hunts are different from GS hunts. Competition is lower, success rates higher, season dates often longer. 
1. Extensions are for Limited Entry and Once in a Lifetime (excluding CWMU's)
2. If the initial season is 21 days (3 weeks) or longer no extension will be approved.
3. Up to 10 days max can be approved post season only (no pre-extensions) in segments if needed.
4. Extensions to "Any Weapon" hunts cannot overlap a primitive (archery/muzzleloader) weapon hunt. Hunter given choice to use the primitive weapon 
during primitive overlap.
5. To minimize overlap issues LE extensions that overlap primitive hunts can have the choice of up to 10 day extension beginning concurrently with the 
general season deer hunt.
6. Primitive weapon hunts mayoverlap "Any Weapon" hunts but hunters must wear hunter orange and hunt with the primitive weapon type originally drawn.
7. A LE mule deer hunt cannot be extended past November 9th. Hunts with initial hunt dates in November will need to make any extensions prior to to the start 
of the November hunt dates.


Number 7 means no rifle hunts during the peak of the rut, but why do they still allow the Governors tag and Sportsman tag this opportunity.

Not a lot of disabled hunters are drawing LE tags every year because their isn't many disabled hunters and also because the draw odds aren't that great.

Why can't the Governor tag and Sportsman Tag be required to hunt with the same weapon for example if the archery hunt is going on then they also need to hunt with archery.

I also think they should only be allowed to hunt until the end of ML hunt.

Many will say they get extra opportunity because the governor tag holder is paying a lot of money. Well my argument against that would be.......Yes, he is, but he doesn't have to play the drawing odds game and he/she is guaranteed a tag.

Your thoughts??


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Not only should the sportsman tag and Governor tag holders be held to the same seasons as LE tag holders, but they should also be limited to one season--rifle, muzzy, or archery. I don't give a shizz how much dough they have forked out! Also, they should be automatically be put on the 5 year wait list once they have purchased one of these tags....


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> Not only should the sportsman tag and Governor tag holders be held to the same seasons as LE tag holders, but they should also be limited to one season--rifle, muzzy, or archery. I don't give a shizz how much dough they have forked out! Also, they should be automatically be put on the 5 year wait list once they have purchased one of these tags....


Will your comment apply to the DH program as well?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

nope...just the sportsman and governor's tag holders! Also, FWIW, the DHers don't get to shoot deer or elk with their guns during the archery season.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> nope...just the sportsman and governor's tag holders! Also, FWIW, the DHers don't get to shoot deer or elk with their guns during the archery season.


I guess the part of your comment that caught my eye was to do with hunting all three seasons. I'm not sure if a DH, when they draw a LE, get to hunt all three like they do on the general units.

FWIW, I do agree that those that hunt during a primitive hunt should be using that type of weapon. As far as the challenged individuals go, we should work with them to help them have a good experience.

But here is the but, is our hunting seasons becoming like our tax codes?


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

huntoholicquote(_*I'm not sure if a DH, when they draw a LE, get to hunt all three like they do on the general units.*_
No we must surrender our general season deer tag and only hunt what the LE tag is for. (archery, muzzy, or rifle) So no hunting with rifle during bow season. etc. The LE works the same for you as it does for me.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

The DWR also made the changes due to safety precautions, but I guess the person who has the governors tag or sportsman tag is more careful with their firearms so it's ok for them to hunt with a rifle during an archery hunt. :lol: :lol: :roll: :roll: :roll:

I guess I'm the most upset with the double standard.


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

YOTE welcome to UTAH home of the UTARDS.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> I guess the part of your comment that caught my eye was to do with hunting all three seasons. I'm not sure if a DH, when they draw a LE, get to hunt all three like they do on the general units.
> 
> FWIW, I do agree that those that hunt during a primitive hunt should be using that type of weapon. As far as the challenged individuals go, we should work with them to help them have a good experience.


My point was that the governor's tag holder gets to hunt with a rifle during whatever season he/she chooses...unlike the DH who must use the season appropriate weapon.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> I guess I'm the most upset with the double standard.


The double standard irritates me...basically, as it is now, if you have a lot of money, you can buy whatever tag you want in auction and hunt whatever species you want every year and do it during whatever season you want with whatever weapon you want. The whole concept of governor's tags is wrong...and I will NEVER agree that the ends justify the means. In other words, I don't care what the money goes to or how it is used.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

pheaz said:


> huntoholicquote(_*I'm not sure if a DH, when they draw a LE, get to hunt all three like they do on the general units.*_
> No we must surrender our general season deer tag and only hunt what the LE tag is for. (archery, muzzy, or rifle) So no hunting with rifle during bow season. etc. The LE works the same for you as it does for me.


I know this is a side track, but does a DH participant when they draw a LE tag get to hunt all three windows (archery, muzzy, rifle) (with the correct weapon) or just the time frame and weapon on the permit? Had not thought about it until this topic came up. Just curious


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

A DH only gets to hunt what ever season he put in for on a LE hunt. So if he put in for rifle he can only hunt the rifle season. 

I agree that the "special" tags that are given out need to hunt with the weapon that the season he is hunting in. Also if he is able to hunt outside of the season the game animal that he takes is not eligible for any "trophy" book entry.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> ...... but they should also be limited to one season--rifle, muzzy, or archery.....


Again sorry "coyoteslayer" for the side track, but "wyoming2utah" I guess I still see a double standard.

But then again I really dislike LE hunts to begin with.

Thanks "Critter" for the info.


----------



## hoghunter011583 (Jul 21, 2008)

Just how much are these gov. and sportsman tags?


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

hoghunter011583 said:


> Just how much are these gov. and sportsman tags?


I believe some are over a hundred grand..........


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> Again sorry "coyoteslayer" for the side track, but "wyoming2utah" I guess I still see a double standard.


That's just it; there is a double standard. If a DH draws an LE permit, he/she can only hunt one season. Yet, a governor's tag holder can hunt any of the seasons with whatever weapon he/she chooses, and he/she doesn't have a waiting period if he/she wishes to hunt the following year. There is a huge double standard and it is wrong.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

I do not think there is a double standard. Making things fair and equal for everyone is akin to communism. Is that really the mentality we want to apply here? Some of us folks work/have worked very hard for our money and when we spend it in massive quantities we expect something in return.

The governer's tag is sold at auction to the highest bidder. There rules of this tag are that you have a whole year to harvest whatever animal your tag is for and you can do it with any legal weapon in any region of the state. The balance is that there is an equivalent tag available to the public called the sportsman's tag. Same rules apply as the governor's tag. 

I fail to see what double standard or inequality this complaint is about. There are two (2) of these tags each year for each species, the odds of the tag holder hunting in the area you are hunting are slim. So if you think that the GOV/SM tag holder hunting with a rifle is going to hinder your bow hunt you are really complaining about a raindrop getting you soaked. The rules for these tags exist as they exist and we just have to deal with them. 

I could sit here and complain about it all I want the fact of the matter is that I want one of these tags. Maybe not all of us are able to pay for a governor's tag. I know that at the moment I can't. Perhaps in the future I will if all things work out in my favor. For now, every year I apply for the sportman's tag. If I get lucky then good if not then good for they guy who did.

Just because something is out of our reach it doesn't make it unfair. It just makes it reality.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I disagree 100%...The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation has been effective because it DOES maintain that all hunters are equal and that those with more money are not somehow entitled to more privilege.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Great post Madhunter!


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

MadHunter said:


> I do not think there is a double standard. Making things fair and equal for everyone is akin to communism. Is that really the mentality we want to apply here? Some of us folks work/have worked very hard for our money and when we spend it in massive quantities we expect something in return........


I humbly disagree. Some have worked very, very hard and others have not worked so hard. While you should be allowed value, ST & GT tagges allow you to hunt any area all year long, but that tag should not be allowed to mess up some other guys hunt who may have worked just as hard for his permit. Sorry the ST & GT guys should not be allowed to hunt with a rifle during a primitive hunt.

The other side of your comment is I'm not sure I want a monarchy either.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

wyoming2utah said:


> I disagree 100%...The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation has been effective because it DOES maintain that all hunters are equal and that those with more money are not somehow entitled to more privilege.


That is why the sportsman's tag exists. To balance out the privilege.


----------



## bugchuker (Dec 3, 2007)

Sounds like a lot of sour grapes in here. How many of those that dont like the rules have applied for a sportsmans tag? What about the Antelope Island Tag?


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

bugchuker said:


> Sounds like a lot of sour grapes in here. How many of those that dont like the rules have applied for a sportsmans tag? What about the Antelope Island Tag?


No sour grapes. Just a discussion on common courtesy.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Huntoholic, I see your point but I still think it's not an issue. The rules for the ST&GT are what they are even if we do not like them. The same could be said for the guy that drives 55mph in front of me on carpool lane of the fwy and doesn't get out. He just ruined my pace and he is not breaking any rules.

Again.... just because we do not like a particular rule doesn't singnify that it is unfair. There are only 2 of these tags in the entire state and the odds of a GT&ST hunter ruining someone elses hunt are very slim. More stalks get ruined by like weapons hunters not paying attention to what they are doing or if they are intruding on another hunter's stalk than anything else. Exactly the lack of common courtesy mentioned above.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

"Madhunter", your right. In the overall scheme of things, small potatoes. But just because its a rule does not make it right. We have all kinds of rules and laws that are just plain dumb.

We are not perfect and things change for the better and worst. But that should not stop us from reviewing things and taking corrective action when needed. That does not stop me from feeling compassion for the one archer guy who thought he was buying his hunt of a lifetime only to have a guy with a rifle banging away close by. It should be just as much a no big deal to require the ST & GT guys to use the same weapon as the hunt going on. Its not like they don't have enough time to hunt is it?


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Point taken. I guess we can agree to disagree.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

wyoming2utah said:


> I disagree 100%...The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation has been effective because it DOES maintain that all hunters are equal and that those with more money are not somehow entitled to more privilege.


So I thought I'd throw in my 2 cents on this one.

I believe in the North American Conservation Model as well and I believe that its basic principles are that wildlife is reserved for the non-commercial use of individual hunters and anglers and that game populations be managed in a way that they are sustained at a healthy level forever.

In practical terms these tags are so few in number they have no noticeable effect on our wildlife but do bring in dollars that are used fro conservation rather than profit.

Is it fair? Only each individual can answer that but there are a few things to consider. In reality is it fair that a guy can draw a San Juan elk tag with 1 point and others take 18? Are any of the conservation tags fair since many of us don't have the means to make a winning bid on them? What about the use of outfitters and guaranteed tags? How about landawner tags? None of these situation seems to put us all on a level playing field. I tend to buy into, at least somewhat, that making everything 100% equal is akin to adopting the 1980's Russian way of thinking.

IMO the 7 sisters were adopted to preserve hunting opportunities for the masses and sustain healthy wildlife populations forever. One could easily argue that the Sportsmans tags help do that.

Having said all that I think these programs should absolutely be kept at a minimum. Hunting wildlife should always be kept as a public resource for the public to have the opportunity to enjoy and hunting them should by far favor the masses. I personally believe the lust by the masses for bigger trophies in general is a far bigger threat to the North American Conservation Model than this program.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

MadHunter said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> > I disagree 100%...The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation has been effective because it DOES maintain that all hunters are equal and that those with more money are not somehow entitled to more privilege.
> ...


I don't think the sportsman's tag balances anything out. Sure I can apply for this tag, but do I really have the same legitimate chance of "winning" this tag via lottery as the rich guy who can "win" his tag via auction? How many tags have guys like Denny Austad bought at auctions? How many repeat sportsman tag "winners" have their been?

Is it sour grapes...**** straight. The system is unfairly tilted towards the rich guy. It shouldn't be that way. I get really irritated when people start throwing out the hard-work quotes because the guy who doesn't earn enough cash to "win" an auction often works much harder than the guy who does. Setting aside special permits for the rich is simply wrong on all accounts.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

And where would conservation be without these high dollar tags? This stuff takes money boys and girls and tons of it. You don't want to have tag prices go up do you? Of course not! So there are certain mechanisms in place that counter balance the massive expenses that the public simply cannot afford to bankroll.

Life itself is not fair. What makes you think think that the components of life will be? The only fair thing in life is that we all get 24 hours in a day. Other than that nothing is fair especially when we look at it from the sour grapes perspective. If the hard work argument irritates you too bad. Maybe you should work hard and smart. If the system is tilted toward the rich, get rich. I used to have that mentality also, the rich this and the rich that how come I don't get that? Well I began to work to get rich. It's working out pretty well. you should try it.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Gentlemen - just a friendly reminder to please keep the discussion civil here. I think there have been some excellent points made in this post and I have certainly learned quite a bit. Keep the discussion going, as I'm learning more and more. But in doing so, please don't make things personal. Please keep it on the merits/objections to the system of the Governor's Tag and Sportsman's Tag. 

Thanks!


----------



## bugchuker (Dec 3, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> MadHunter said:
> 
> 
> > wyoming2utah said:
> ...


I think every system is tilted in the advantage of the rich guy. The rich guys either make, or buy the ones who make, the rules. I cant honestly say if I had the coin I wouldn't be buying my share of the tags.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Gary, you are absolutely right. Making it personal is never the correct thing to do when talking about a public topic. I apologize to anyone I may have offended in my rant.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I really like this article on the subject and agree with the points made:
http://www.eastmans.com/mike/2007/06/a- ... eliminate/

I think Teddy Roosevelt was prophetic in his statement: "The rich...who are content to buy what they have not the skill to get by their own exertions, these are the real enemies of game."

This thread reminds me of one I started a few years ago...
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3077&hilit=conservation+tags+a+threat+to+hunting

Interesting to read....go back and read some of the comments; they almost seem prophetic themselves.


----------



## Farsider322 (Sep 30, 2008)

I agree that a GT holder should have to use a primitive weapon during the primitive weapon hunts. For one reason only....safety... A hunter using a rifle is unlikely to see another hunter wearing camo. He may be shooting at an animal and not realize that there is a camo hunter sneaking up on the same animal from the other direction. and Line of fire is not very forgiving with out hunter orange to alert him that there is another hunter in the area.

My second thought is that I am all for the auctions of the Governor's Tags. Without them the prices of general tags would have to increase for the revenue.
Wrong or right we the DWR needs the money from these tags. Now if you can show me a way to have the fees go directly into the DWR funds instead of the general funding, I would be very happy.

There is an avenue to voice opinions about all of these matters......the Rack meetings.

I think the first point should be addressed: GT holders should have to use the same weapons as everyone else during the primitive hunts. 

Unless, they don't have the means to purchase a bow or a muzzy. :roll:


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

MadHunter said:


> And where would conservation be without these high dollar tags? This stuff takes money boys and girls and tons of it. You don't want to have tag prices go up do you? Of course not! So there are certain mechanisms in place that counter balance the massive expenses that the public simply cannot afford to bankroll.
> 
> Life itself is not fair. What makes you think think that the components of life will be? The only fair thing in life is that we all get 24 hours in a day. Other than that nothing is fair especially when we look at it from the sour grapes perspective. If the hard work argument irritates you too bad. Maybe you should work hard and smart. If the system is tilted toward the rich, get rich. I used to have that mentality also, the rich this and the rich that how come I don't get that? Well I began to work to get rich. It's working out pretty well. you should try it.


Your right in that life is not fair. But to me this discussion is more about common courtesy and not sour grapes. It's one thing to be rich and grateful versus rich and forgetful. Last time I checked we are not governed by kings, at least not yet.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

W2U your post from Mike Eastman is an outstanding one. However, I believe that we should be able to have a mechanism that will bring in dollars for tags but keep the playing field level. Keep in mind that every privately sold conservation tag here in Utah must have it's publically available equal. That would be the check and balance. While the GT&ST are the exception to rules and regulations all other tags must follow season rules and regulations. The fact that Mr X paid 20K for a bull elk tag does not entitle him to a 400 inch bull. It just entitles him to the chance at a bull. The reciprocating tag holder SHOULD have the same chance at a bull elk as Mr X does at 20K.

The GT&ST should in my opinion remain as they are. However I am a firm believer that we do have way to many conservation tags coming out of the system (not counting the expo tags). This is the mechanism that we need to control and reduce. I hope that as amember of the UWC and/or any other conservation group we can push for the reduction of these pimp tags (I still want to know where the expo tag money goes).

Many of us talk a lot and don't do very much. I would suggest that if we as sportsmen do unite and put our money and our time where our mouth is we can reduce the need for these tags and increase the results of conservation projects. All we have to do is show up and give our time and put in some work. Volunteering is the best way that we can cut costs to the state. If 10% of the hunters in Utah (that's 10K hunters) gave at least 2 weekends of our time a year to a conservation projects we would make such an impact that the amount of labor costs that goes into these projects would be reduced if not practically eliminated. If we dedicate more then we cut more.

That's just my opinion.


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

AWESOME article Wyo2. That piece nailed it. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> This thread reminds me of one I started a few years ago...
> viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3077&hilit=conservation+tags+a+threat+to+hunting
> 
> Interesting to read....go back and read some of the comments; they almost seem prophetic themselves.


Great link. I enjoyed this trip down memory lane. I am astounded how much my views on this subject have changed in three years time. I suppose one can conclude I am easily swayed and have few/no convictions, or that I have matured and educated myself immensely. I assert it is the later, coupled with a couple of life changing events that caused a major paradigm shift in my view of the world, and specifically how I view hunting and game management.

While I think having ONE Governor's tag and ONE Sportsman's tag is not such a bad thing, the mentality that game management embraces from this program lead us dangerously close to the edge of a nasty cliff. The predictable fallout is being nurtured right in front of our eyes: the conservation permit program is the biggest example of how the unintended/intended consequences of such policies is EXTREMELY costly to sportsmen in general and to wildlife. We now manage deer/elk and other species based on their 'trophy' status, not on the health of the herd nor the health of the future of hunting.

Prophetic comments/assertions indeed, wyoming2utah. Thank you for helping open my eyes and helping educate me on many issues.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

wyoming2utah said:


> I really like this article on the subject and agree with the points made:
> http://www.eastmans.com/mike/2007/06/a- ... eliminate/
> 
> I think Teddy Roosevelt was prophetic in his statement: "The rich...who are content to buy what they have not the skill to get by their own exertions, these are the real enemies of game."
> ...


My last post was in reference to your comment that the North American Conservation Model would exclude these types of programs. I believe it does not because most of the dollars go back to conservation. I believe that guiding and outfitting does NOT violate the NACM UNLESS we start limiting hunters to make their businesses better.

Having said that I do believe that the exhange of wildlife for dollars in Utah is OUT OF HAND! I for one believe many of these programs need to be scaled back! I do not believe the sportsmans tags are the problem. It is the expo and conservation tag programs that have become a real problem.

I hear a lot of people complain about the CWMU program or landowner tag programs. While I can see the concern I have not seen a better solution be thrown out there.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

bullsnot said:


> ...... I believe that guiding and outfitting does NOT violate the NACM UNLESS we start limiting hunters to make their businesses better.......


I guess there in violation.........


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

Yep, exactly the sentence that caught my eye. If guides were only allowed on private land hunts we wouldn't have conflicts of interest. As they are allowed to guide on public land, they have a massive interest in places like the Henry Range, or the San Juan, or the Monroe, and people who make a good living off of guiding the few hunters who can afford it will certainly have a political and a financial interest in doing their utmost to keep things headed in the direction of trophy hunting. If Utah was known for more opportunity and a 360 bull now and again, no one would pay high prices for a statewide tag, but you bet more guys could hunt each year.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> My last post was in reference to your comment that the North American Conservation Model would exclude these types of programs. I believe it does not because most of the dollars go back to conservation. I believe that guiding and outfitting does NOT violate the NACM UNLESS we start limiting hunters to make their businesses better.


I disagree. The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation is completely based on the democratization of hunting and by the classifying of our wildlife as a public resource available to all, regardless of social class or title. It was away from the more British style of hunting out of which this model was born. The auctioning off of tags to the highest bidder is directly against the whole nature of egalitarian hunting opportunity. It is the setting aside of tags to the "elite" social class that has lead to very little hunting opportunity in Europe. And, with these auctions we are doing the same.

Let me put it this way: if we want hunting to remain an accepted and honorable sport to be carried on from one generation to the next, we MUST maintain as much public access and public opportunity as we currently have and even, to an extent, increase it. The decrease in the numbers of hunters and fishermen in our society today is directly attributed to hunting opportunity. These auction tags do nothing more than erode opportunity and distinguish an elite hunting class.

I say ban high-fence hunting, auctions for hunting permits, and return wildlife to the public!


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

wyoming2utah said:


> The decrease in the numbers of hunters and fishermen in our society today is directly attributed to hunting opportunity.


Although I agree with the principals of your statement I have to disagree with the part that I am quoting above. The decrease in hunters and hunting interest is not due to lack of opportunity, at least not 100%. It is due to many other social factors.

I agree that selling of conservation tags can be construed as having an elitist mentality, however the funding required for conservation to happen cannot be supported by the general hunting public. I believe that if we did away with these tags the public would have to fork out a higher price for a tag to make up for the loss of funding. I honestly believe that we would lose more hunters by raising prices for the public.

I believe the entitlement mentality is one we need to work on to reduce or eliminate. Entitlement has become so engrained in our society that it runs at all levels of it. Regardless of economic standing people believe they are entitled to the best of everything. We need to educate people against that sense and teach them to understand that paying 20K for a tag does not entitle them to a trophy it only entitles them to the chance at an animal just like the guy that paid 45dlls. What it does entitle him to is our thanks for being a generous contributor to conservation. If that is not enough for them then they should find a different sport and spend their money elsewhere.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

SteepNDeep said:


> Yep, exactly the sentence that caught my eye. If guides were only allowed on private land hunts we wouldn't have conflicts of interest. As they are allowed to guide on public land, they have a massive interest in places like the Henry Range, or the San Juan, or the Monroe, and people who make a good living off of guiding the few hunters who can afford it will certainly have a political and a financial interest in doing their utmost to keep things headed in the direction of trophy hunting. If Utah was known for more opportunity and a 360 bull now and again, no one would pay high prices for a statewide tag, but you bet more guys could hunt each year.


Agree with you but I don't recall Utah making any wildlife decisions to simply benefit outfitters. They can make a living but we aren't cutting tags to increase quality and make outfitters more money. Does that make sense? In other words they are making money from what's available out there but we aren't managing game herds for the direct benefit of outfitters. There may be some indirect situations but that's not the problem in Utah.

The problem in Utah right now is we are cutting tags to drive up the value of auction and expo tags. That's where the heart of our problem lies. Outfitters may be benefitting from that and even being used to further that cause but outfitters are not swaying the situation. Others are. Between the number of tags that are being allocated to auctions and the expo and the rule changes that are coming with them are actually hurting the public at large and benefits those with money. That is a true power tilting situation. Not just a percieved problem or a "sour grapes" problem. It's an actual problem.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

wyoming2utah said:


> I disagree. The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation is completely based on the democratization of hunting and by the classifying of our wildlife as a public resource available to all, regardless of social class or title. It was away from the more British style of hunting out of which this model was born. The auctioning off of tags to the highest bidder is directly against the whole nature of egalitarian hunting opportunity. It is the setting aside of tags to the "elite" social class that has lead to very little hunting opportunity in Europe. And, with these auctions we are doing the same.


I'm not completely disagreeing with you but the spirit of the model was to stop the elite from allocating the wildlife back to themselves for thier sole use. (That's what happened in Britain) The spirit of the model was NOT to eliminate ANY opportunity for a rich guy to buy a tag just because he has more money than someone else. That means the public at large can say it wants to sell a tag to the highest bidder so that those funds can benefit the public at large if it so chooses. The key is that the public at large is making that decision and not the elite.

Having said that I do NOT believe the public at large is OK with all of the conservation and expo tags being allocated and the funds being dispersed as it is now. So many tags hurts the public (by net lost opportunity) and much of the funds generated are not going back to public programs. Add to it we are cutting tags to make them more valuable which further hurts the public. That's where the real problem lies. The sportsmans program by itself has so few tags it does not hurt the public but in fact helps it by raising money it could not otherwise raise. Those funds may actually generate MORE opporunity for the public than they would have wihtout the program.

The thing is we should NOT start cutting public tags to raise the value of sportsmans tags!! That is against the spirit of the model IMHO.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

bullsnot said:


> ... They can make a living but we aren't cutting tags to increase quality and make outfitters more money. Does that make sense? In other words they are making money from what's available out there but we aren't managing game herds for the direct benefit of outfitters. There may be some indirect situations but that's not the problem in Utah.....


I humbly disagree.

While I know there are just regular folks that want more tagges cut, but please show me any outfitter that has stood up at a RAC meeting and said leave the tagges numbers the same.

Was it not reported that Mr Moss said he would not guide the governors tag, because it was so poor. You don't think he has some ears in the powers to be?

Not saying that guides are bad, far from it. But business wise I would think it is in their best interest to have less hunters on the mountain and bigger animals.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Huntoholic said:


> While I know there are just regular folks that want more tagges cut, but please show me any outfitter that has stood up at a RAC meeting and said leave the tagges numbers the same.
> 
> Was it not reported that Mr Moss said he would not guide the governors tag, because it was so poor. You don't think he has some ears in the powers to be?
> 
> Not saying that guides are bad, far from it. But business wise I would think it is in their best interest to have less hunters on the mountain and bigger animals.


Yeah there is that one boneheaded comment made by an outfitter. Let me just say this. Having seen much of the inner workings of what is happening I just don't think the outfitters are a problem, at least right now. They don't have much sway. If I were to rank, IHMO of course, who has the most say right now it would go something like this:

1 - Conservation Organizations
2 - Conservation Organizations
3 - Conservation Organizations
4 - Public at large
5 - Other interests (Cattlemen, etc) 
6 - Private Landowners
7 - Outfitters

Smart outfitters use conservation organizations to do their lobbying for them. Care to guess why? It certainly is in their best interest to have less tags but everyone sees through that.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

First - the issues limiting "opportunity" are limits *on* opportunity. While demand of hunters has increased, there is not, has not been, nor will there be an increase in habitats for deer and elk in Utah. In fact, it will go the other way. There have been improvements, sure. But there is no more land available unless we annex parts of our neighboring states. So supply will remain the same or shrink as wildlife habitats give way to human habitats.

Second - as a result of this, the number of hunting opportunities - tags - has been capped. To deal with more demand than supply, DWR has established what they hoped would be a fair and equitable system of allocating tags - a drawing. And with the points systems as implemented, a hunter that keeps trying against the odds, will sooner or later get a tag to hunt. But much as I hate it, it is about as fair and equitable as I think can be achieved. The draw system does not discriminate on age, gender, income, or any thing else you can think of. It is designed to favor those that go years without drawing a tag.

Third - Until we have the supply of big game and habitats to match the demand of hunters, some hunters are going to get screwed.

Fourth - This system, while the intent was to be as fair and equitable as possible, is destroying the hunting heritage in Utah. Because of a family cannot hunt consistently, the coming generations will not have hunting be part of their lives. Period.

Fifth and last - Taking two deer tags out of the public whole of 85,000 (or whatever the cap is right now) is statistically insignificant to any level of opportunity to the masses no matter how you look at it. In fact, I'll go as far to say that until the number of tags for conservation groups, auctions, or whatevers hits 1/2 of a percent of the total, we really don't have a lot to talk about opportunity being taken away. More opportunity is wasted because of weather, football games, honey-do lists, and who knows what, than is taken by these groups.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

GaryFish said:


> Fifth and last - Taking two deer tags out of the public whole of 85,000 (or whatever the cap is right now) is statistically insignificant to any level of opportunity to the masses no matter how you look at it. In fact, I'll go as far to say that until the number of tags for conservation groups, auctions, or whatevers hits 1/2 of a percent of the total, we really don't have a lot to talk about opportunity being taken away. More opportunity is wasted because of weather, football games, honey-do lists, and who knows what, than is taken by these groups.


The problem isn't necessarily the HUGE chunk of tags they get. It's that they lobby for continued cuts in the public portion to raise the value of their auction/expo tags all without a proportional cut to their chunk of the pie and without biological benefit to the herds. We just raised elk age objectives (meaning we have to cut tags to accomplish the goal) and cut 13,000 deer tags. Even when an elk unit is being managed within objective they still lobby for cuts citing poor "quality" on an annual basis during the RAC's and Wildlife Board meeting during the tag recommendation meetings. They successfully had 100 elk tags cut off of the Wasatch this year from the division recommendations and we are OVER objective on that LE elk unit. In fairness they don't have any general deer auction tags but there are those that have openly said they feel that the deer hunt model should be the same as the elk strategy. You see where I'm going with this right?


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

I see where you are going. I get that. To me, it only exacerbates the larger issue of more hunting demand than deer and elk. And if a hunter is only going to get a tag ever X number of years, all of a sudden the guy that was happy as could be shooting two points, all of a sudden wants a chance at a trophy class animal. Heck, I've NEVER in my life been a trophy hunter - but if I get one chance in my lifetime at a LE deer or elk, you can bet I won't be shooting a two point. So to me, the system has turned nearly all hunters into trophy hunters. Because if I only get to hunt once every 5 years, it better be good when I do get to go.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

First - We don't need to annex are neighbores ground. We just need to stop locking up ours for just a few.

Second - Yes they capped the tagges, then they took a 1/3 to 1/2 the huntable ground and only allow a few in. Then of the tag allotment for an area remaining they pull out percentages for different programs.

Third - We have plenty of huntable ground for the capped tagges if all the ground was open based on biology.

Fourth - I believe the system would be fair if not for it turning to look like our tax code. What is destroying hunting is the greed. 

Last - 2 tagges here, 15% there, 10% here all adds up for the general guy 18 to 100 years old. 1/2% was lost a long time ago........


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> I see where you are going. I get that. To me, it only exacerbates the larger issue of more hunting demand than deer and elk. And if a hunter is only going to get a tag ever X number of years, all of a sudden the guy that was happy as could be shooting two points, all of a sudden wants a chance at a trophy class animal. Heck, I've NEVER in my life been a trophy hunter - but if I get one chance in my lifetime at a LE deer or elk, you can bet I won't be shooting a two point. So to me, the system has turned nearly all hunters into trophy hunters. Because if I only get to hunt once every 5 years, it better be good when I do get to go.


To me, it isn't necessarily an issue of trophy hunting versus traditional hunting. It is about conservation organizations pushing for tag cuts in order to increase the value of tags sold at auctions. Let's face it, if opportunity were much higher the quality of animals across the state would be much lower and tags sold at auctions would go for much lower prices. So, organizations such as MDF, RMEF, and SFW have very real motivation to push for tag cuts--even if the cuts do NOT benefit the very wildlife they are supposedly trying to conserve--in order to bring in more money for their organizations. To me, it is very counterproductive... and, even worse, such auctions cut out the blue collar hunter. The blue collar hunter is sacrificing loads of hunting opportunity so that the elite class of hunters can fight out at an auction who gets to chase the monster elk or deer. To me, it is not about 1 or 2 tags sold at the auctions, it is about the loads of tags sacrificed in order to grow trophy animals so that conservation/auction tags go for the maximum price.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

wyoming2utah said:


> To me, it isn't necessarily an issue of trophy hunting versus traditional hunting. It is about conservation organizations pushing for tag cuts in order to increase the value of tags sold at auctions.


Yep! Long term I think the whole auction/expo tag situation will need an overhaul of some kind. In the short term, we as hunters in this state need to lobby for proportional cuts IMO. That means if the public loses 5% of tags so should those that do auctions and expo tags. It kind of makes me wonder if they start losing tags right along with the public what song they would sing.


----------

