# life time license holders



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

So who was smart enough to buy one?

I didnt know they existed or I would have bought one!


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

When I bought mine it was after they were available for 4 or 5 years I believe and mine number is under 300. But at that time $500.00 was a lot of money to spend on a hunting and fishing license, but the conbo license each year was around $32.00 and I figured that it would be paid off in 15 years. Then a year later I was laid off of my job and ended up moving out of state to find work which made the deal even better. I know that there were a few parents that thought about buying them for their kids for presents but I don't know if they did it or not. Then when the time came to discontinue them I couldn't believe that more people didn't buy them. I know quite a few hunters that are now kicking themselves in the behind for not buying one.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

An interesting little antidote...when then Governor Michael Okerlund Leavitt's nephews heard that they were discontinuing the sale of the lifetime permits they called uncle Mikey and he promptly called the director of the DWR and made them open up the division headquarters even though it was a Saturday and normally closed so they could sell the boys the last lifetime licenses. ****, Leavitt was a little weasel..or should I just say it's good to be the king!


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

I have a buddy that his dad bought all his kids lifetime licenses. I wish I could have been part of that.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I had a chance at buying one but passed. I felt like it was/would be a way to cheat the system. Does the DWR not get most of their revenue from the sale of licenses? So the rest of us are now paying the balance of the current budget. Also, I think that only 20% of the tags for each sub unit should go to lifetime license holders. Even if they get their 3rd or 4th choice, they still get their guaranteed tag. The way I read it now, they could take all the tags in any given sub unit and that's wrong. I'm wondering how many lifetime tag holders donate a little extra to the DWR each year to help out? o-||


----------



## Guest (Apr 23, 2011)

Critter said:


> I know quite a few hunters that are now kicking themselves in the behind for not buying one.


im one of them... :x


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Just think how wonderful the perks of the lifetime permits will be under Option 2....... :O•-:


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

The only perk is that we still get a tag in the single area that we request.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Critter said:


> The only perk is that we still get a tag in the single area that we request.


That's a **** BIG perk, yes?


----------



## flinger (Nov 19, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> I had a chance at buying one but passed. I felt like it was/would be a way to cheat the system. Does the DWR not get most of their revenue from the sale of licenses? So the rest of us are now paying the balance of the current budget. Also, I think that only 20% of the tags for each sub unit should go to lifetime license holders. Even if they get their 3rd or 4th choice, they still get their guaranteed tag. The way I read it now, they could take all the tags in any given sub unit and that's wrong. I'm wondering how many lifetime tag holders donate a little extra to the DWR each year to help out? o-||


I don't understand the divisions recommendation either, that lifetime license holders get to pick whatever gs unit they want. The only thing I could think of for not putting a 5%-10% cap per unit(4000/80,000=5%) for lifetime licensee's was that they would have to put them in a draw and heaven forbid if they try to charge them $10 per year(what Nevada charges to process) to get a deer tag because they have to draw amongst them selves. So the state would probably have to end up paying $10 per lifetime person which would be about 4000 times $10 = $40,000 they don't want to spend. I think they are just hoping they will distribute themselves evenly among the units without doing an expensive draw, but I don't think that is going to happen, especially down the road when some units may end up being more desirable than others. I wonder how many DWR employees that helped come up with this recommendation have lifetime licenses? and how many of the board members that are going to vote on the proposed rule have lifetime licenses as well? Conflict of interest???? 
Give them what they paid for, a deer tag every year, not a deer tag on whatever unit they want every year. Some units will only have 500 tags or so and with 4000 lifetime licenses , how could they even pick what they wanted if they all wanted the same unit with 500 tags? Not to mention there would be none left over for anybody else in a regular draw. 
I've got friends that have lifetime licenses and kudos to them for doing the hard thing and buying them when they were available, but there doesn't have to be any more "perks" given to them, they've already got a great deal, and they know it.

Cap it at 10% per unit for lifetime that's 50% more than what what would be an even distribution at about 5%, have them pick up to 5 units if they want, more than likely they'll get one of them. I think they could manage to pay $10 for a draw process fee. Give them "Lifetime License Preference Points" as well if they don't get their first choice.

I'm sure the DWR has thought of all this stuff(they even told me that they are not guaranteed whatever unit according to their "paperwork"), I'm just wondering what made them choose to just forget about doing it the more fair way.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

proutdoors said:


> Critter said:
> 
> 
> > The only perk is that we still get a tag in the single area that we request.
> ...


I wouldn't consider it a "perk" since it was part of the agreement between the purchaser of the Lifetime License and the state. Now a perk would be alowing the license holder to apply for a hunt in LE areas for just the application fee instead of what the cost of the tag is.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

All I see here is bitterness over a deal that was offered and accepted and paid for with hard earned cash by honest citizens. The deal was mad, let the government stand by its promises. Maybe what we could do was let you boys buy a license this season and then change our minds about the terms of the hunts for this year...how about that? Like, maybe all you guys that draw a LE hunt, lets just cancel a couple of them out from underneath you, but oh yeah, keep your money 'cause some of us "not so lucky" guys didn't get a permit...well, why not, that's exactly what you want the DWR to do to the lifetime license guys.
In short, stop your **** whining and bitching about something so minor and move on...geez-oh-peez-oh.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

I couldn't afford a lifetime license at the time....I wonder how much the cost would be now if _they_ were to offer 'em up again? 2 or 3 grand?


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

.45 said:


> I couldn't afford a lifetime license at the time....I wonder how much the cost would be now if _they_ were to offer 'em up again? 2 or 3 grand?


$10,000 to $20,000. If they were offered tomorrow for $10,000 I'd be first in line to buy me my wife and boy each one.

-DallanC


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

.45 said:


> I couldn't afford a lifetime license at the time....I wonder how much the cost would be now if _they_ were to offer 'em up again? 2 or 3 grand?


Exactly, I was a teenager. I would dare bet that the state very much has the ability to cancel the whole deal! Just the same way that every contract that they sign such as a lease, or service contract while it may be for 10 years will ALWAYS have the contingency verbiage about the state budget. So, if they can weasel out of agreements up to hundreds of pages long, you better well know that they can easily weasel out of a $500 agreement signed 20 years ago. Not that I agree with it, but I can certainly see them making the argument about the net present value of that investment long having been met. :O•-: 
To say that it is not a perk, well that is probably an understatement, and Hell yes, I am jealous!
My brother's brother in law forgot to apply for a draw one year...long story short Mr. Karpowits ( I think??) gave him a call in about September asking him which tag he would like and please remember to apply next year. So, fortunately they have been good at keeping their end of the bargain, but if push comes to shove I could see that changing dramatically.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

Well let's see...Res. Combo license= $30 plus Res. Deer tag= $35, that = $65 a year. Now let's say that price is good for say 5 years= $325. Now let's double that for the next 5 years=$650, now lets double that for the next 5 years=$1300, OK, double that again for the next 5 years=$2600, oh geez, let's double it again for 5 more years=$5200. SO, that would have you paying $10,075 for the next 25 years for a combo and a deer tag...that's assuming that the license fee's doubles EVERY 5 years, and it has NEVER, EVER done that in the history of Utah hunting. 
You know, you guys that are saying you'll step up to the pump to the tune of 10 large, I got some nice Utah ocean beach property for sale I'd like to show you


----------



## longbow (Mar 31, 2009)

I bought a lifetime license back in the day. Shortly after, I found a killer deal on a house in Idaho so I packed up and moved. I lived there for 18 years, hunting as a Idaho resident and hunting deer and fishing in Utah every year. You could say I got my money's worth. I wished I would have bought my son one too.

Oh ya, I don't feel one bit bad.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

BPturkeys said:


> All I see here is bitterness over a deal that was offered and accepted and paid for with hard earned cash by honest citizens.
> 
> In short, stop your **** whining and bitching about something so minor and move on...geez-oh-peez-oh.


Let me type slowly for you......no bitterness on my part, and no whining or bitching on my part either. You and a few others are missing the point swbuckmaster was making; that the lifetime license holders must LOVE the new management plan being implemented next year. Whether this is an intended or unintended consequence matters not, as far as I am concerned. Fact of the matter is these folks will be able to acquire essentially a LE permit every year. I hold no bitterness, no envy toward those who obtained lifetime licenses, rather I see yet another flaw of the plan approved by the Wildlife Board.


----------



## littlebuck (Mar 16, 2008)

I have one,, sure nice not to worry about getting a license. I wish we would have gotten one for my wife.


----------



## Theekillerbee (Jan 8, 2009)

I bought one back in 1991, it was a lot of money back then, I was a kid making $3.35 an hour stocking grocery store shelves, but I bit the bullet and stepped up to the plate. I'm sure glad I did. Things have changed a lot since then. I have a buddy that I begged and pleaded with to go get one. One day he had the money in hand walking out the door when his Grandpa talked him out of it! Told him a car was a better investment! Probably the stupidest thing he ever did.

I understand the wildlife management is in a whole different league right now, but I made a deal with the state, and so far they have kept their part. Yes they could try to weasel out of it, but I doubt any judge would object to your not guilty plea of taking your deer every year with a permit that says lifetime. Heck, I still have my wall plaque that they used to send out to lifetime license holders. If you don't like the deal, it's probably because you are not invited to the party, so quit your whining and take it like a man.

If you are bugged that much by something that has been gone for many many years, move to Idaho, they still (last I checked) have lifetime licenses available to residents. It is on some strange scale on how old you are when you buy it.


----------



## 280Remington (Jun 2, 2008)

I wouldn't mind seeing the lifetime license holders getting this privilege taken away. My guess is this so-called "contract" is rather flimsy and could be easily invalidated. First off all there technically isn't a "general" deer season. Call it what you want folks, but we know have a limited entry deer season statewide. Thus what these people bought years ago doesn't exist today. 

People pay into their employers pension fund, they can lose that, you can lose money in a bank or a failed thrift and someday we might not even get out of Social Cecurity what we put in. These "contracts" can be circumvented or voided. It is high time Utah take a hard look at the life time license holders and end the gravy train. These are uncommon times and not a time for freeloaders. A simple calculation by the State could determine if each lifetime license holders is fully vested and has recovered their initial cash outlay. If they have, the party is over and they should be required to ante up each subsequent year from now on. If the license holders haven't recouped their original cash outlay, the state could do one of two things; give them a refund of the amount not yet realized, or continue to allow them into the program until they do become vested, then terminate the agreement under the grounds that the "product" or "type of season" they originally bought into no longer exists in Utah.


----------



## richsumm (Feb 28, 2011)

280Remington said:


> I wouldn't mind seeing the lifetime license holders getting this privilege taken away. My guess is this so-called "contract" is rather flimsy and could be easily invalidated. First off all there technically isn't a "general" deer season. Call it what you want folks, but we know have a limited entry deer season statewide. Thus what these people bought years ago doesn't exist today.
> 
> I think you hit this one right on the head. I have thought about moving and trying to buy an Idaho lifetime license for the benefit it gives - I can put in for there hunts and try to obtain a TAG every year without buying a new license each year. These Utah Lifetime License holders have had a good run and the state has been nice to them, but the time is close that they will change the program. They will still have a lifetime license and will not be required to buy another one but they won't be given a TAG. Then we will have to switch arguments they will say "we are getting hosed" and we will say they are still getting "what they paid for." However, I still wish i would have bought one. IT would have been beneficial and still will be when its changed.
> 
> I have to eat crow on this one, I looked up the Utah Code and they are "entitled to receive without charge a permit and tag" etc etc etc.


----------



## svmoose (Feb 28, 2008)

I'm not a lifetime license holder, but I don't know that they should just invalidate the contract. If I were a license holder I would be pretty upset,having made that investment during the right time. 

What I don't necessarily agree with is giving lifetime license holders the pick of the litter. A few of these units are going to get very difficult to draw and the lifetime holders will be able to take all of the tags, first choice. I personally feel like they should be in the draw with everyone else, and a limited percentage of the tags from each unit should be reserved for them. The application fee should still be charged. If everyone else that wants a tag has to pay an additional application fee, I don't see why lifetime hunters should be exempt. It's an additional fee - outside of the cost of the actual hunting permit.

This needs to be addressed by the WB and RACs before 2012, because it will be much harder to change after they've let this actually happen for a few years.


----------



## 280Remington (Jun 2, 2008)

I like the idea of a fee. Utah is without question one of the premier states when it comes to dreaming up fees. We have special handling fees, convenience fees, application fees, service fees, facility fees, etc. etc. An annual $35 "lifetime license holder" convenience fee isn't a bad way to go. 

Right now this whole thing is nothing but a subsidy. And the subsidy is being paid for by generations of young hunters that never had the opportunity to purchase a lifetime license. Just like Medicare and Social Security will someday need a major overhaul because times have changed, in Utah the lifetime license holder program will need to be overhauled as well.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

280Remington said:


> I like the idea of a fee. Utah is without question one of the premier states when it comes to dreaming up fees. We have special handling fees, convenience fees, application fees, service fees, facility fees, etc. etc. An annual $35 "lifetime license holder" convenience fee isn't a bad way to go.
> 
> Right now this whole thing is nothing but a subsidy. And the subsidy is being paid for by generations of young hunters that never had the opportunity to purchase a lifetime license. Just like Medicare and Social Security will someday need a major overhaul because times have changed, in Utah the lifetime license holder program will need to be overhauled as well.


What a load of garbage........


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> What a load of garbage........


+1


----------



## BERG (Dec 4, 2007)

Just how many beers you gonna have at every sitting .45? First it was only one, and now it's two...you may have a drinking problem. 

And +2


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

BERG said:


> Just how many beers you gonna have at every sitting .45? First it was only one, and now it's two...you may have a drinking problem.
> 
> And +2


 :lol: :lol:

I only have one every five years....I hope I live long enough to get my next one. :|

+3


----------



## flinger (Nov 19, 2007)

svmoose said:


> I'm not a lifetime license holder, but I don't know that they should just invalidate the contract. If I were a license holder I would be pretty upset,having made that investment during the right time.
> 
> What I don't necessarily agree with is giving lifetime license holders the pick of the litter. A few of these units are going to get very difficult to draw and the lifetime holders will be able to take all of the tags, first choice. I personally feel like they should be in the draw with everyone else, and a limited percentage of the tags from each unit should be reserved for them. The application fee should still be charged. If everyone else that wants a tag has to pay an additional application fee, I don't see why lifetime hunters should be exempt. It's an additional fee - outside of the cost of the actual hunting permit.
> 
> This needs to be addressed by the WB and RACs before 2012, because it will be much harder to change after they've let this actually happen for a few years.


+1 to svmoose

I think the Lifetime license holders should be grateful for what they got and not get greedy.

They could not of been guaranteed they would be able to hunt whatever "single area that we request" or most if not all would be hunting the Henry's or Paunsy or Books or Vernon every year at least until they killed every buck on the units.

Those who think that it's not a big deal or issue(BP) to give 4000 lifetime hunters the 1st pick with no cap per unit need to think about it for more than 2 seconds and not be so shortsighted. If anyone wants a chance at hunting Thousand Lakes when it becomes GS, good luck if you're not a lifetime holder according to this proposal.

It would be interesting if someone could post a picture of this "contract", so all would know for sure what was real and what is hearsay.

Also curious, what is UWC take on this?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

UWC is still looking at everything that comes with the changes. There's a lot to digest and discuss.

Personally, I can see where there stands to be huge conflict. There will inevitably be units that are much better and much more difficult to draw, I speculate there are GS units that in the not so distant future that will be more than a 5 year wait. Essentially letting LL guys have the first crack at the permits for these tags could be a huge fiasco. Things need to be worded so that a handful of units aren't near impossible to draw for they who don't have LL's. Do I think they need to take the licenses away, NO. Do I think that things need to be looked at carefully as not to give LL guys preferential treatment above and beyond their guarantee to get a GS deer tag every year? Sure. There were 200k,000 deer tags when they sold most of these tags. It's gonna take some careful consideration, but I believe there is a win/win out there.

Extreme positions won't solve anything. Coming up with viable solutions will.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

The lifetime license was enacted into law by the Utah legislature so any changes would need to be taken through them. The section that deals with it is Section 23-19-17.5 of the Wildlife Resources Code


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code ... 57-017.htm


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

The word "region" might cause some trouble........


----------



## Theekillerbee (Jan 8, 2009)

You've got to be crazy to think all the lifetime license holders will jump into one particular unit. Me and my family hunt the same unit every year. It's not by any means a premium unit, but it aint half bad either, and I wont change my hunt choice just because I can get into a better unit. If you have this attitude you are just like all the southern boys that thought every archery hunter in the state was hunting their unit because they could hunt statewide. When it came down to it, the studies and numbers showed that they still had the most huntable acreage per hunter who went down there. It was all a bunch of whining douche bags that couldn't handle other people hunting "their" mountain. Perhaps a cap on certain units is appropriate, but I honestly don't think it will be a problem.

I bought the lifetime license, and as such, I will hunt deer every year in this state until I croak.


----------



## hikein (Sep 19, 2007)

Subsidy? Oh heavens! Maybe I don't understand that word, but to date I haven't been given any financial assistance, or been paid by the state to go hunting. I'm the one that paid, in advance, for the privilege to hunt (and fish by the way). In fact, we LL holders subsidized the State of Utah by paying in advance for infrastructural and budgetary need of the Division. Unlike the mandatory nature of SS payments and benefits the LL was voluntary. That makes a big difference.

I know many LL holders and none of them are freeloading narcissist slobs. In fact, everyone I know had hunting and the future in mind of course, but also a good deal of pay-it-forward, altruistic, help wildlife mind set too. Most have a pretty good story about scrimping, starving, selling a pre-64 model 70 270(to pay for mine) to get theirs. 

In good faith we paid in advance, for a lifetime of hunting. You really want to take that away from people? Sad for you.

PM me if you'd like to form a group of LL holders. Perhaps we need to band together and insure we have a voice.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Theekillerbee said:


> You've got to be crazy to think all the lifetime license holders will jump into one particular unit. Me and my family hunt the same unit every year. It's not by any means a premium unit, but it aint half bad either, and I wont change my hunt choice just because I can get into a better unit. If you have this attitude you are just like all the southern boys that thought every archery hunter in the state was hunting their unit because they could hunt statewide. When it came down to it, the studies and numbers showed that they still had the most huntable acreage per hunter who went down there. It was all a bunch of whining **** bags that couldn't handle other people hunting "their" mountain. Perhaps a cap on certain units is appropriate, but I honestly don't think it will be a problem.
> 
> I bought the lifetime license, and as such, I will hunt deer every year in this state until I croak.


Agreed on all fronts, but throwing that out there aint a bad idea. Unfortunately, much of policy is enacted upon perception and the perception will undoubtedly be that LL holders are taking advantage etc. The southern "my mountain" analogy is a good one. Archers didn't get statewide for a year due to perception. Might as well have the machine operating on facts and being proactive is the only way to do that. The reality is that perception and lack of facts can get things taken away, don't let it happen. On the flip side, a lifetime license has it's boundaries.

There's a happy medium.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Each year, a lifetime licensee who is eligible to hunt big game *may* receive without charge, a permit for the region of their choice for one of the following *general deer hunts*:


All the DWR would need to do is change all the units in the state to LE units instead of calling them general season units and that would cause a lot of heartburn for lifetime license holders because the lifetime license isn't guaranteed a LE permit.

The word "may" isn't a guareeted deal either unless it said something like "shall"


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

It uses the term "region" as well, which doesn't exist anymore. Just pointing out what they might use in defense.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> It uses the term "region" as well, which doesn't exist anymore. Just pointing out what they might use in defense.


They changed it form what ever it was before there were regions to region so now they'll just change region to unit.

As far a everyone with a LL putting in for the best units that would be contradictory to what every one is saying about option 2 where every one wants to hunt where they have always hunted.

To me it sounds like there are a lot of sour grapes here that didn't buy a LL when they were available or couldn't because they were not available after 94. It would be interesting to be able to check the data base to see just how many LL holders are still hunting and just what regions they are putting in for now. The last that I read there were only around 3500 LL issued.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

This is another reason Option 2 isn't so great for Lifetime License holders because their contracts become worthless if everything becomes LE units and there is already some talk about putting bonus points and preference points into one category.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Just my opinion but I think the terms "general" and "limited entry" refer more to the management strategy of said units than how difficult it is to obtain a tag to hunt one of those units. Kind of like the misconception of the "100 year floods" concept. The term "100 year floods" is not meant to mean that floods only happen once every 100 years, rather it means there is a 1% chance that catostrophic floods can happen in any given year.

Limited Entry is probably a poorly chosen term in retrospect all though at the time it was created it made sense. Limited entry is really a "quality" unit compared to general unit which is managed for "opportunity". Having said that raising buck to doe ratios from 15:100 to 18:100 is certainly a quality change and contradicts giving out more opportunity. So I guess from that perspective general units are now more like a "hybrid" unit that have some quality strategies and some opportunity strategies. But nonetheless there is a clear distinction between general units and LE units. It's just semantics I suppose.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

In my opinion I would like for then to place the bonus and preference points into one group. I guess that I have been a little bit spoiled putting in for hunts here in Colorado in that if it says that it takes 10 points then it takes 10 points and you don't have somebody that has put in for only one year drawing the tag before you, but then that is a whole different subject. I also doubt that Utah will go to 100% LE hunts. If they do that are they going to start charging the LE tag price for every one that draws a tag or leave it where the general deer tags are now? 
Like I said before I am a little spoiled here in Colorado in that all the tags are the same price, it just takes longer to draw a tag for a lot better unit.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

I think there are advantages and disadvantages to each point system. (Colorados vs. Utah)

On one hand Colorados system is simple. On the other Utah recognizes there are different types of units for different types of hunters and tracks them seperately. I think it would be fairly easy to make an argument for either system. You could argue in rare cases where someone would've got a tag in one system and not the other and certainly the bonus tags vs. lottery tags percentage is always open to debate but I haven't been convinced that one has a big advantage over another. Both systems give hunters tags that are at the front of the line. There is debate on a lot of the details but at the end of the day it just kind of seems like there is more than one way to skin the same cat.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Critter said:


> In my opinion I would like for then to place the bonus and preference points into one group. I guess that I have been a little bit spoiled putting in for hunts here in Colorado in that if it says that it takes 10 points then it takes 10 points and you don't have somebody that has put in for only one year drawing the tag before you, but then that is a whole different subject. *I also doubt that Utah will go to 100% LE hunts. If they do that are they going to start charging the LE tag price for every one that draws a tag or leave it where the general deer tags are now? *
> Like I said before I am a little spoiled here in Colorado in that all the tags are the same price, it just takes longer to draw a tag for a lot better unit.


They could easily change all of the more desirable hunts such as the Pauns, Henry's and book cliffs to premium LE and charge the going rate for an LE tag.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

I think we should have one point system for deer. Judging just from the current proposal, tags should be awarded:

-The applicant's highest point total (either preference or bonus) after the 2011 draw will be the number of points the applicant has for 2012. For example, if I have 10 deer bonus points and 2 deer preference points then I would have 10 deer points for 2012. Or if I had 1 deer bonus point and 3 deer preference points then I would have 3 deer points for 2012.

- All tags in hunts requiring less than 5 points to draw shall be given on preference system (to the highest point holders). 

-All tags in hunts requiring more than 5 points to draw shall be given on a bonus system (half the tags to those with the most points and half the tags in a random draw).

-Dedicated hunter tags would be given just like any tag, with deer points and drawing during the regular draw. Only units within the 15-25 buck ratio would qualify for dedicated hunter tags.

The whole Lifetime License issues is tough to deal with. Certainly all should be able to agree that Lifetime Licensees should only be able to obtain a certain percentage of tags from each unit. Finding what that percentage is will cause the heart ache. Also, lifetime licensees would not receive preferential treatment for hunts requiring more than 5 points to draw.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Sounds reasonable. I'd surely like to hear pros and cons from both sides.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

I'm not disagreeing with you packout but I'm curious as to what we gain by going to one deer point system? (I'd ask the same question if the situation was reversed)

In a given 10 year period should I expect to get less tags or more tags based on combining the points? Should I expect to get a tag in an "LE" unit any more often or less often under a combined point system?

I've said before I don't really care if we combined the points....I'm just not seeing any real benefit OR loss by making such a change.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

It places everyone on the same level and simplifies the system. It makes people choose what type of hunt they are willing to wait for. I can not see why we would carry 3 point systems into the future (dedicated hunter, general, limited entry). 

A negative is you would have to deal with limited entry elk hunts and how you allow people to apply for them. 

There is no perfect answer.


----------



## Fritz (Mar 1, 2011)

I am very intrigued by the thought of combining the point systems. This would eliminate people who want to hunt every year from the LE draws and would eliminate the people who want to holdout for a premium tag from the general draw. I would also like to see them combine the point system for elk but keep the current system of only allowing a hunter to put in for one LE draw. If this were the case I would probably continue accumulating points in the LE elk system and go for general season deer permits. Thus I would have the opportunity to hunt deer almost every year and still have a chance at drawing an LE elk permit. 

It seems to me that this would lower the wait time on the premium units and increase the likely hood of being able to hunt every year on the general units. If they are going to keep the smaller general units, it seems like combining the points would be more fair.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

So, what about the waiting period after drawing a Henry/Pauns tag? How does that get implemented under a one point system?


----------



## IDHunter (Dec 17, 2007)

All of you guys that want to combine the points, would you still make people pick between elk and deer? If you allowed everyone to put in for both you will flood the system with a huge amount of point creep (See when they allowed nonresidents to put in for everything). If you didn't allow it, people who wanted to hunt LE elk would only get to hunt big game once a decade.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Deer and elk are separate point pools.


----------



## Fritz (Mar 1, 2011)

proutdoors said:


> So, what about the waiting period after drawing a Henry/Pauns tag? How does that get implemented under a one point system?


IMO they should still have the waiting period if you draw an LE unit. There should be a price to be paid for a great trophy opportunity and this would again help with the point creep in both the general and LE units.



IDHunter said:


> All of you guys that want to combine the points, would you still make people pick between elk and deer? If you allowed everyone to put in for both you will flood the system with a huge amount of point creep (See when they allowed nonresidents to put in for everything). If you didn't allow it, people who wanted to hunt LE elk would only get to hunt big game once a decade.


Not necessarily, the people who draw the general units every year would not be accumulating points. So even if you allow people to put in for both species, it seems to me that the point creep would actually decrease. However, I still think that they should only allow people to put in for one LE hunt for either species, in order to increase the trophy opportunities.


----------



## IDHunter (Dec 17, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Deer and elk are separate point pools.


I realize that. The way the system is now you have to choose between LE elk and LE deer. If you combine all of the deer points, making all deer area LE, would you begin to allow everyone to put in for both? If you do, you will see point creep on elk tags rapidly accelerate.


----------



## IDHunter (Dec 17, 2007)

Edited


----------



## IDHunter (Dec 17, 2007)

Fritz said:


> Not necessarily, the people who draw the general units every year would not be accumulating points. So even if you allow people to put in for both species, it seems to me that the point creep would actually decrease. However, I still think that they should only allow people to put in for one LE hunt for either species, in order to increase the trophy opportunities.


You might be right for deer but I don"t see any way point creep would decrease for LE elk. You would suddenly have everyone who has been putting in for LE deer to flood the elk system making it much harder to get a tag.


----------



## Guest (Apr 26, 2011)

IDHunter said:


> Fritz said:
> 
> 
> > Not necessarily, the people who draw the general units every year would not be accumulating points. So even if you allow people to put in for both species, it seems to me that the point creep would actually decrease. However, I still think that they should only allow people to put in for one LE hunt for either species, in order to increase the trophy opportunities.
> ...


yeah its gonna go on average from 7+ years to draw a LE tag, to 15+..... oh the joys of being a resident hunter from utah :roll:


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

IDHunter said:


> Treehugnhuntr said:
> 
> 
> > Deer and elk are separate point pools.
> ...


Gotcha, I realized that after I posted. That's definitely something to consider. Maybe LE and premium LE (BC, Vernon, Henry's etc.)? If you put in for premium you can't put in for LE elk?


----------



## Mrad (Mar 25, 2011)

I want to know where you come up with an "average" of 7 years to draw an LE tag??? Maybe I'm not understanding correct. Maybe for an antelope tag?

I believe the "average" for elk is soon to be more like 20-40 years elk and deer 10-20 years. Lets face it, LE elk or deer is at best a once or twice in a lifetime deal.


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

That all depends who you are and how much money you donate.


----------



## Mrad (Mar 25, 2011)

Ok so it's a once or twice in a lifetime to DRAW an LE tag. Pretty much every state has some way to beat the system if a guy has the mean$ to do so. 

I don't think the average Utah hunter has a clue as to how long it's going to take to draw a bonus tag out of the LE tag pool. But that is the one thing Utah has going for it with the 50/50 split, a guy could get lucky and draw a random tag.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I have a reletive that has drawn two LE elk tags and 3 LE deer tags and that was even with the waiting period. One of the elk tags was with 0 points and two of the deer tags were with 0 points. There is something about that that just isn't fare to the rest of us that put in and never get drawn. But then somebody needs to be lucky.


----------



## Mrad (Mar 25, 2011)

Your cousin is living a charmed life!

What tags has he drawn? I'm sure there's a few ****ty cwmu tags that can be drawn fairly easy, but even some of those are getting hard to draw.

I'd really like to hear what tags he's had.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

He has had two BC elk tags and one BC deer tag along a Vernon and a Elk Ridge deer tags. All of them have been rifle hunts. But he isn't the luckiest hunter that I know. A friend of mine in Provo has drawn a goat, desert bighorn, rocky mountain bighorn, bison, and a moose tag. He has filled all of them. I will admit that the bison and moose tags were drawn before the state went to the present system. I keep asking him what kind of glue that he uses on the hundred dollar bill that he attachés to his applications but he won't tell me.


----------



## Mrad (Mar 25, 2011)

Lucky dudes!


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

ridgetop said:


> I had a chance at buying one but passed. I felt like it was/would be a way to cheat the system. Does the DWR not get most of their revenue from the sale of licenses? So the rest of us are now paying the balance of the current budget. Also, I think that only 20% of the tags for each sub unit should go to lifetime license holders. Even if they get their 3rd or 4th choice, they still get their guaranteed tag. The way I read it now, they could take all the tags in any given sub unit and that's wrong. I'm wondering how many lifetime tag holders donate a little extra to the DWR each year to help out? o-||


Ridgetop, I felt and still feel that buying the LL was a way to invest in the future of our hunting heritage - maintaining hunting opportunity for our kids/grandkids that was promised, and because of the WB and certain "constituents" in our state we have now all but lost...

To answer your question about donations to the DWR, yes, on our part my father and I both spend the equivalent of 2-3 forty hour work weeks improving habitat every year through farming for wildlife on our WALK-IN Access property, and 40 hours a year for the dedicated hunter opportunity that is now in limbo, and CRP maintenance that is designated as such for wildlife enhancement, and local and regional DWR volunteer projects, etc...etc... all so that we can hopefully offer to my kids a chance to hunt public land on an over-the-counter tag in our home state once again some day.


----------

