Utah Convention Tags

U

Utah400Elk

Very Active Member
Messages
1,270
It looks like, after only a couple of years, some of the consevation groups that got the original 200 permits for the convention are now asking for more tags. It is listed on the agenda for the upcomming RACs in Utah. I wonder what happened to the 200 permit max for five years?
 
This is what is proposed for the upcoming RAC meetings.

Because the way that Utah allocates the Once in Lifetime tags based mostly on small units, because of rounding issues, often times, the desired 10% allocation to Non Resident Hunters is Not accomplished.

For 2008,

There were 23 Total Rocky Mountain Bighorn Tags issued, only 1 to a Non Resident (1 tag short)

There were 36 total Desert Bighorn Permits issued, only 2 to Non residents (1 tag short)

Tere were 91 Mountain goat tags issued and only 7 Non resident permits (2 tags short)

There were 184 Moose tags and only 16 non resident Moose permits (2 tags short)

And there were 172 Bison, of which 17 were non resident ? the only OIL species to meet the objective. (even)

The proposal would be to Allocate ONE tag of EACH Once in a Lifetime species to NON Residents (Bighorn, Desert, Moose, Goat, and Bison) and make these permits available to those Non Residents who attend the Western Hunting Expo. Non residents would have to validate in person, purchase the non resident hunting license, etc. These five permits would be NON Resident only.

The DWR would annually decide which units these permits would be available from.

The groups participating in the Expo have also contributed substantially, millions of dollars for moose, goat, bison and wild sheep conservation and restortation, and a lot of that money has come from non residents. The Expo partners will continue to invest millions of dollars into conservation efforts for these five species and Utah?s elk, deer, antelope and wild turkey populations and habitats.

These 5 permits would allow the Expo partners to continue to expand the marketing of the Expo to Non residents in particular, who bring in substantial tourism dollars and conservation dollars to the state.

The State of Utah has allocated $100,000 each of the past two years to help market and promote the Expo ? an indication that the state supports the Expo concept - and there is strong legislative support for the continued expansion of the Expo to bring people into Utah.

An SFW or Expo partnership representative will be at each RAC meeting to Answer Questoins.

It looks like the proposal is trying to give non residents their 10%. Some states give more than 10% to non res, and some far less. I hunt in other states. I would hope that all states would try to be fair. I don't have enough info to make my decision yet. I would not jump to conclusions. What are your thoughts? Greg
 
So we give the NON residents a chance at five more tags? When it going to end? Why not make it FIVE hundred to give them more incentive to come to Utah? WTF!!!!!!
 
Them Arizona boys are going to hand you a kleenex Deerlove, they have to give 50% of "their" tags to non residents because of the USO lawsuit!!










48288e6577d023b6.jpg
 
I don't think they (the conservation groups) are out to help the non-residents. My problem is them trying to change the rules midway through the original five year proposal. If they are really trying to help the non residents why not add the tags to the general draw and make the tags open to all non residents not just the ones that attend the expo. Why take such a large proportion (half in some instances) of the nonresident tags and give them to the convention? I also remember the conservation groups saying they would not ask for more tags within the five years. Now two years later, the 200 tags are not enough?
 
NOOOO!!!!!

If they aren't meeting the % level (and if they feel they must) then seperate out the draw pools and give it to a NR stiff like me who's trying to draw ONE OIL tag ANYPLACE before he dies!

Utah already throws 90% too many tags at that stupid convention.

Either that or drop the 'gotta be there' crap. Some have to work for a livin.
 
I prefer Utah award the "missing" non-resident tags in the General Draw.

If FNAWS SLC can not attract out-of-state people with 200 tags then why will 205 tags get the job done? I suspect all special interest hunting organizations started out with noble intentions but are in some cases becoming pigs at the trough where getting more free tags and more members is displacing the original goal of improving wildlife numbers.

We can maximize income for wildlife improvement by auctioning off every single tag in Utah but this perpetuates the pace at which big game hunting is not attainable for most of us. It also creates a flash point of emotion between the majority of hunters who only can hope to get drawn vs. those the few who can afford to buy tags at auctions or travel to out-of-state conventions.

I buy into the logic that taking a few tags from the general draw can be an investment. Auction one of each species. Then do a lottery at $5 per entry for one of each species. That is enough in my opinion. But when dozens of tags are removed from the General Draw like today in some states including Utah, the logic falters for me.
 
Thanks for reminding me Slam I feel a whole lot better about us Utards whoreing out our wildlife.
 
You don't get it.

It's ok to whore out the wildlife when your a sportsmans group.
I always found it perplexing that any sportsman group would restrict how sportsman could get a tag.

They want these expo tags because that is the only draw for thier conventions. They don't think people will come if the expo tags aren't offered. Thier way of thinking is more expo tags = more attendees.
 
If us non residents did get the 10% you would get alot more of us to come to the convention and we do spend more money than the residents of Utah per person on average. It makes econonic sense and this whole wildlife issue is about econonics. I don't think they should allocate 5 more tags though. How about somehow making sure we get our 10% of the 200.
 
Hey, I think it is a good idea. You guys are forgetting how much Utah's wildlife benefits from the money raised with these tags that are taken out of the general drawing.

I had never even applied for pronghorn in UT before drawing one of the convention tags this year. I appreciate the generosity of my Utah brethren in giving me the opportunity. Maybe next year it will be desert sheep!!!!
 
I agree that by not limiting how many Utah folks can draw the 200 tags that it reduces the interest in an out of stater spending money to travel to SLC when local Utah folks are the bulk of the applicants. I attended in 2007 and 2008 and the list of winners for 2008 tag draw reads like a list of Utah residents. Takes the edge off it for me to see so few tags go to out of staters.

here is an idea, FNAWs and SFW etc could buy some Mexico and Canadian tags along with buying some transferable tags here in the States and then use those purchased tags in a lottery as a magnet to get folks to a convention.
 
The Peay train and SFW is plowing onward...I frickin' told you so. I dont feel one bit sorry for the Residents of Utah.

It wont be long and you'll lose even more permits and more opportunity because "its really whats best for wildlife". Keep telling yourselves that every year you dont draw..."its really best to sell MY (meaning the publics) wildlife out to the highest bidder and to the 1 in a trillion draw odds at the expo."

You reap what you sow.

Keep trusting the SFW crowd...they'll look out for the average guy.

What a joke.

But, on the other hand, my chances of drawing a tag as a NR just went up. Gotta like that.

Maybe I should join SFW...
 
Here is a real dumb idea.... Why not put those tags that were shorted the 10% of nonresident tags into the drawing they were shorted from?? You know, the drawing that we all been applying for and waiting in for well over a decade? That would make too much damn sense i guess.
 
Schmalts, that's a terrible idea. I only have one sheep bonus point. Figured I might as well put in the draw this year since I had to buy a license for the convention any way.

This way, I'll have a chance every year, and probably better odds than those who have been applying for well over a decade. Yep, sounds good to me!
 
I do not see how five more tags will increase the amount of people that attend. I hunt every year out of state, and am all for treating non residents fairly. Non res. bring in more money per tag, which means more revenue for the state. But my question is, if it is really about giving the non res. their 10%, why not just give it to them in the regular draw?
Conservation tags bring in a lot of money, and are a needed thing, but when is enough enough? I read once that Utah gives out more conservation/auction tags than all the other western states combined. You can't tell me that Utah has got it figured out, and the other states are not up to par.
One more thought, if the expo is such a great revenue builder, why doesn't the SFW have an expo in other states? It would be interesting to see how many other states would fork over 200 of their tags to an expo.
 
I dont know...the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of having more tags for the expo.

I think maybe having 200 for residents and 200 for non-residents would bring in even more money.

Thats going to be what I ask SFWUtah for when I join...wheres the link to the membership drive?

I want things to be fair in Utah, and I wont quit fighting until I have a desert sheep, elk, deer, bison, moose and goat.

I dont care if the Residents ever draw...its all about me...and of course my NR $$$ that will do so much to help Utahs wildlife.

I'm now lock-step in line with the Peay train and SFW.
 
Why stop at 200 Resident tags and 200 Non-resident tags? Bump the cost per entry to $500 from $5 to keep out the riff raff that will do a silly DIY hunt. Outfitters need love, too.
 
Wow! Just when you thought this process couldn't get more screwed up. But, thanks for the antelope tag I drew at the Expo last year, and my buddy thanks UT for the moose tag he drew at the Expo this year.

If your guys from UT put up with this system, I guess that is your business. As a non-resident, I will gladly come down and apply for these extra tags that you don't have a chance of drawing.

But, don't any of you think about coming to MT and spinning off some of our sheep tags, or any tags. We already have two of these tags, and that is enough. All this, just to raise some money by selling only to non-residents. There would be a march on the capital in most other states.

But if that works for UT, I am willing to give you guys my $5 for the opportunity to draw.

The UT guys are probably getting the notion that hunters in other states look at this process and shake their head. Are the political skids greased that well in UT, or what?

Personally, I would tell the non-profit ogranizations to "Stick It!" and demand those tags stay in the resident draw. But, since I have not say in your wildlife, I will call the Hilton and make my reservation for next February, hoping I get to come home with one of these tags.

Thank you for your generousity.

Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
>So we give the NON residents
>a chance at five more
>tags? When it
>going to end? Why
>not make it FIVE hundred
>to give them more incentive
>to come to Utah? WTF!!!!!!
>



Stupid people will never understand. Get it through your thick skull, know what was being talked about when this whole resident nonresident debate started. If Utah doesnt start pursuing that 10% #, lawsuits are going to happen
 
LAST EDITED ON May-28-08 AT 08:50PM (MST)[p]>Hey dumbasses, guess what it was
>the sportmens groups that made
>alot of tags available to
>be put in the general
>draw. Do you realize that
>singlehandedly conservation groups built up
>populations of wild sheep that
>led to and increase from
>2 tags to right around
>70 tags in a little
>over 20 years.

Dumbass reporting for duty. Here is an example of one unit in Montana. Twenty eight years ago 28 sheep were reintroduced nearby and this year there will be over 80 tags available for this one hunting district. Amazing, and guess what, no whoring of tags. Look around the West and you will see lots of these success stories. None are due to triple digit convention tags. I don't live in UT, so do what you seem to think is the only way to improve wildlife and habitat. I will pass and continue to pick up my OTC deer and elk tag while having an opportunity to hunt the biggest sheep in the country.

BTW, you are welcome for the 180 sheep MT sent you in 2005...and the 42 last year.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-28-08 AT 11:17PM (MST)[p]>LAST EDITED ON May-28-08
>AT 07:39?PM (MST)
>
>Hey dumbasses, guess what it was
>the sportmens groups that made
>alot of tags available to
>be put in the general
>draw. Do you realize that
>singlehandedly conservation groups built up
>populations of wild sheep that
>led to and increase from
>2 tags to right around
>70 tags in a little
>over 20 years. And sheep
>are not the only such
>story. You lazy SOB's sit
>back and b#i#t#c#h#, but will
>never lift a finger will
>ya.

Hey Dumberass:

Since you are such a know it all about the guys who find Utah's system of catering to the rich to be a perversion of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, I feel obliged to reply to your ignorant comments.

I am not going to list all of the times I have lifted much more than "fingers" and donated many, many, thousands of dollars to conservation groups. Working to start the youth hunting programs in MT. And other things I have volunteered and contributed to that benefited all hunters, not just us rich guys.

Doing so doesn't mean that I, and other guys with the money to "play the game," should have any more access to tags than those guys who aren't quite as fortunate.

If you want to see how lazy of an SOB I am, come to MT. I will give you my address and you can come tell me how lazy I am. After we straighten that out, I will haul your self-proclaimed "energetic" ass up to the hills and show you the thousands conserved acres that our local groups have as proof for our lazy efforts. Efforts that have resulted in excess sheep that we generously donate to Utah, when they need Rockies.

Efforts that have increased game populations and public access. Measured in tens of thousands of acres, not hundreds of acres. Not just for us financially fortunate guys. And not done with the money that comes from pimping tags.

I am the luckiest SOB that ever walked the planet. The good fortune and rewards of hard work don't make me any more "qualified" for extra tags than other guys.

If Utah wants to "Texify" the state, go ahead. If the money guys who get the benefit from this class system of hunting think that conservation tags for the rich is good for the future of hunting, they are smoking crack.

I am more than happy to share the hills and fields with other hunters, even though I could spend my life hunting private preserves if I so choose. It is the "average Joe" hunter who makes up the bulk of the hunters in this country and are equal beneficiaries of the public trust which holds wildlife for the citizens. The further we go down the path of excluding the average working guy and his family, the more we lose his important support, dollars, and volunteer hours.

Like I said, go ahead and do what you want in UT.

Next time you come on here calling people lazy SOBs who won't lift a finger, dumbasses, and such, you might want to think about the efforts of those you are speaking so profanely of. I would bet they have done more than their share for wildlife and hunters, not just for themselves. They are probably volunteers and donors to all the conservation groups. Maybe they just think wildlife belongs to the people and should be allocated equally, regardless of the change in our pockets.

Dumberass!


"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run ut of money!"
 
amen- BIGFIN i dont mind sharing tags with the nonresi's but where the hell does the money go really after its been filtered through i would like to see all the money coming in and where it goes
 
At my advanced age, the memory is certainly not what it used to be, but as I recall, didn't half of the convention tags come out of the non-resident draw when this was first done? I don't know about other species, but for elk, non-residents are not getting any where near 50% of the expo tags for elk, and anyone who expected them to when attendance in person was required has smoked too many funny cigarettes.

The bigger question is does this system raise the maximum dollars for wildlife for the number of tags provided? There is no way to know, since no one seems willing to publish teh statistic on entries sold, expenses, amount donated, etc. Again, my tired brain seems to recall some promises that were made about all of this information being published, but could certainly be wrong about that.

Oregon does publish the statistics for their very limited auction and raffle big game tag program, and here are the numbers:

12 auction tags raised $ 344,000.00. Sponsoring organizatons by statute keep 10%, remainder goes to various big game programs.

12 raffle tags: 67,427 tickets were sold raising $ 215,000.00. Again, sponsoring organizations by statute keep 10%.

So, Utah has 500 tags in their program, some are not big game, but some, particularly elk, are several times more valuable than any of the Oregon tags, so basic math would indicate that Utah should be realizing around 11,000,000 per year from this program, with sponsoring organizations keeping 1.1 million.

No way to know, obviously, but I would be surprised if the dollars realized are any where close to that. Too many tags chasing limited number of buyers to maximize return per tag, which ought to be the goal.

Scoutdog
 
I am very pro-non-ressy as I am a non-ressy in every state but one...

The way my state gives out tags in the public draw vs cashflow tags and convention tags.....I have to go non-ressy to hunt decent animals and units......taking my Utah earned paycheck and spending it outside of Utah....

I think adding 1 of each tag to the OIL DRAW for our fellow non-ressy makes a hell of alot more sense than 5 OIL tags at some convention that very few non-ressy's can/will attend....

Robb
 
Very nice Bigfin, keep up the hard work.

mtmiller, that first sentence of yours brought a much needed laugh to my morning. Thank you.
 
Does this remind you of the wolf lovers situation. Just PLEASE give us 300 pairs and will be happy. Ten years later (two years for $ tags) they want to change the rules. Where's Don Hunting100 and Pro on this????
 
LAST EDITED ON May-29-08 AT 03:09PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON May-29-08 AT 12:52 PM (MST)

If it's only about money lets just raise the price on all the tags to what the market will bear. I'm sure the state could sale all its tags at much higher prices. In fact I bet some of the PETA types would buy lots of tags for the money to go to conservation groups. CWMU's get $10,000+ for elk tags. Lets just run all the LE tags like that. The state could hire guides for $1000 each and make big money. Then all us poor Utards could enjoy WATCHING all the progress made. It's amazing to me that all the sudden tags are the only thing that raises money. All those banquets years ago must have just been for fun.

Why not just make it part of the CWMU program. As part of their agreement with the state so many tags per year for the convention. Those tags aren't going to the public anyway and can be quality hunts.

As far as the OIL hunts maybe we should rename them NIL as in 'Never In Lifetiem' because that is what most of us are looking at. Kind of hard to swallow. Tell people that. 'We want you to support these groups with tags but by doing so you are reducing you chance to ever hunt these species...ever'.
 
NO MORE TAGS FOR CONSERVATION GROUPS!!
Enough is enough!
Wake up Utards!
I now have to live to be 210 years old (I've done the math!) to draw a desert bighorn sheep tag. I don't dare do the math on an elk tag- I only have 1 point.
These tags come from the draw.
When does it stop? 250? 300?
The rhetoric is the herds are doing so well we can give out more and more tags, so a couple of conservation tags won't matter.
Do you ever see the conservation groups saying "okay, we have accomplished what we need to so let's give these tags back to the drawing". IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN!
 
It seems like most people want no more tags for the expo. If non res are short on their 10%, then they should pick alternates or figure something else out. I just got the info I previously posted and passed it on. I wanted to get feedback from others. I'm sure 5 more tags would get more non res to the expo. I'm sure it would raise more money for habitat and wildlife. I can pass on what feedback I have heard to date. I think 200 expo permits is enough as well. I will tell you though, Utah is do huge projects for wildlife. A lot more than other states. Utah is loosing a lot of winter range in areas. This equal less permits for res and non res in the future,without these conservation projects. My PERSONAL OPINION after thinking about it more, 200 permits is enough. Give more permits out in the regular draw to non res up to 10%. Good night.
 
"An SFW or Expo partnership representative will be at each RAC meeting to Answer Questoins."

Well, its too bad what you want...the deal is done. They (SFW) arent there to answer questions about "IF" there will be more expo tags...they're there to answer your questions regarding how and why its going to happen.

Thats the way its done...but dont forget...its all about what best for wildlife. Money is always the only answer.
 
There would still only be 200 total tags at the Expo. Same 5 year commitment. Just a minor tweek to make it work better.

Here is the situation.

Because of small units, small number of permits, and rounding off issues, non residents were NOT given 10% of the permits in the 2008 Utah state offered draw. It is the Utah policy - NOT law to try and get Non res. 10%.

However Non Residents get 0% of the public draw tags on CWMUs.

For Example, for Rocky Mountain Bighorn permits, there are two on the Newfoundlands, 3 on the North Slope, 1 on Timp, So Non Residents would never get a tag on these units - until they reach ten on the unit with normal rounding calculations.

IN 2008, there were 23 Rocky Mountain bighorn tags, Non residents got 1 in state draw, 1 short.

36 Desert Bighorn tags, 2 non residents, 1 short for the 10%.

Goats 91 tags, 7 to non residents, two short

Moose 184, 16 to Non residents, 2 short.

Bison 172, 17 to non res. right amount.


So, since the state draw didn't produce the correct non res. allocation, the proposal to the RAC/Board would be to take one permit of each species and offer it to Non Residents only at the Expo.

5 tags would be removed from tags already allocated, so total stays at 200.

One other option Expo partners are considering, depending upon the outcome, we might just add five other tags - moose hunt in Canada, dall sheep hunt in Alaska, etc. to the drawing and see how that goes. This would have nothing to do with the 200 state tags, just an enhancement to the Expo draw.



The reality is that because herds are expanding - won't try and convince anyone why that is happening, you believe or you don't - the new permit could come from future growth, not be "taken" from anyones draw pool in the future.

The real question is 3 choices. 1. Don't address the rounding issues and Non Res. get what they get - typically a tag or two less. 2. Go ahead and figure out a way to address the rounding issue in normal draw. 3. provide the extra non resident tag to those who attend the expo.


Some other information, because of the neraly $1 Million in habitat investment in the Henry Mts. the Bison herd has been allowed to expand from 260 to 310 Bison, and the SFW goal is to do more work and get so 400-425 head can be sustained. That will be about 20 sustainable extra bison tags a year - 200 tags over 10 years for henry mts. alone. Book Cliffs if transplant is done could add 30-40 tags a year, every year.

Also, SFW is working on getting the RMP and other issues resolved so that the DWR can start a new herd and have 300 or so Bison in the Book Cliffs

ON wild Sheep, nobody said a word this last go around when the State cut 4 Desert Sheep tags from the San Rafael in 2008. SFW and FNAWS did, and there will be probably $100,000 spent down there over the next few months - already have invested $550,000 in San Rafael - to find out what is the problem, what is the solution, and what can be done to increase the herds and increase tags for the future. Until someone comes up with the money to find the problem and fix it, San Rafael tags will be 4 tags short a year, and if there is a die off or predation issue that isn't fixed, that could lead to 10 tags a year gone for ten years, that is 100 tags lost to ##### about.

I am not going to get into a point counter point debate on this one.

I pointed out the problem, and our proposed solution to non resident license draw issue.
 
SPIN DOCTOR you made a agreement STICK to it!!!! Put the damn tags back in the draw if it's so unfair to the NR. You give them a bone and then they come back wanting a steak. FICKEN RIDICULOUS!!!
 
My solution would be to put all the expo tags into the regular draw and forget proping up a expo with the tags.
 
What percentage of the expo money actually hits the ground? There has been recent news about charities and expenses. I just did a little research on RMEF. Nearly 80% of their banquet and subscription money went to expenses. 80 PERCENT. How much of the money going to organizations goes to employees and administration? Full time fund raisers make more money than the organizations. I would hope that the state wouldn't fall for these types of things but I'm sure they do. I'm betting the wildlife only gets a small share of what is coming in.
 
Don:

I appreciate you taking time from your schedule to answer questions about the expo/convention tags. I was at the original RAC meeting in the Central Region when you said the tags come from both non-resident and resident tag allocations. If what you said was true, then any OIL tags offered at the convention could theoretically be counted as open to non-residents. I am now a non-resident so the additional tags will help me, but it is still unfair. If these conservation groups are trying to assist the non-residents why are they not proposing both options to the RACs (more tags in the general draw or more tags for the convention)? Also, if this is a proposal to fix the tag allocations why would these groups not try and add the tags to reach the 10% in the 2009 draw and not add tags to the convention?

It is clear that conservation groups have done a great deal to help wildlife in Utah. However, every time somebody questions the conservation tags/convention tags numerous wildlife projects are cited as to the reason for the tag numbers. This is a specific time when the number of tags is not in question just their distribution. I don't see the convention as the place to bring non-resident tag numbers up to the 10%. The convention places an unnecessary burden on the non-residents wishing to hunt in Utah.
 
Don, Thanks for your comments. It sounds like most would want option number 2. Find a way to get closer to 10% in the regular draw. If the expo leaders want to increase expo attendance, buy a couple more hunts if necessary. Even have non res only draw on some. If this will give wildlife more return in the long run. This is my opinion. What is the lastest wolf lawsuit news?Thanks for all you do.
 
Here is an idea. If one tag per species will truly make a difference in balancing the nonresident 10 percent quota ratio. Have a Nonresident Sportsman tag, with application process and procedure similar to the resident sportsman tag. Granted this will not make more tourist $$$ but it seems a more equitable scenario as far as fairness to nonresidents.

I beleive there are many better options than segregating 5 expo tags for the nonresidents which can and will open a can of worms. Comes down to equity for the discrepancy or a draw for the expo.
 
I like the idea Travis. I think it is a great way to open the tag to the non-residents and possibly raise some money for the wildlife. If they charged $10 or so it would raise a far bit on money and still be open to all the non-residents, not just the ones that attend the expo.
 
Thats a good idea mulepacker, if they did'nt have the expo. I think one problem is when everyone had to buy a license to apply, they had a decrease in non res attending the expo. If they don't have enough interest to book motels, etc. they wont be able to scheduel the expo center. They are trying to make it more fair for non res and get more attendance. If things don't work out, the expo may move to another state. The expo leaders want to be sucessful. It's a good and positive event for hunting and wildlife. It's more complicated than this. I don't have all the answers. From what I was told today there will not be more than 200 tags. Brainstorming how to get more non res to the expo. Not sure what is going to happen.

Wolf update. Attorneys representing SFW,SCI, State of ID,WY,MT, and USFWS made good arguments why states should be able to manage wolves in the above three states. Judge Malloy should make a ruling ASAP.
 
One reason we are trying to tweek the tags adding five, taking away five for still total of 200 is this.

Between year one, and year two, the State imposed the mandatory $65 license. A lot of non residents felt that most of the Expo tags went to residents - true 85% did because 85% of the applicants were residents, and with the %65 license and low odds, non resident participation is down substantially.

Non residents attending the Expo is important, it is important from tourism standpoint, tax revenue standpoint, which in turn puts millions of tax money into wildlife conservation.

So, this tweek was proposed, realizng that the current state allocation system in normal draw did not achieve the goal of 10% to non residents, and to try and give the non residents 5 tags - high profile tags - to get them into SLC and attending the Expo.

Cautious optimism on the wolf ruling which will be out by next week. the goal is to NOT impose an injunction and stop the planned state management of wolves.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-30-08 AT 08:33PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON May-30-08 AT 08:15?PM (MST)

So this proposal is not intended to help the non-residents get to the 10% as much as it is a proposal to try and again subsidize the expo? If boosting the non-resident attendance is the goal why try and sugar coat the idea as a way to reach the 10%? Another question, do we have your word Don, that 200 will be the number and no higher? Also it looks to me like the non-residents were already given (by your numbers) 15% of the connvention tags. What 10% are the conservation groups trying to reach?
 
LAST EDITED ON May-30-08 AT 08:35PM (MST)[p] I vote for option #2
Quit trying to hold a carrot in front of a horse to get them to come to the expo that is failing for NR. Most guys have a home life and job and limited vacation. I also would like to see the number of nonresident attandance by state because I bet the bulk came from the states next door that could carpool and drive over. Have you really thought about how much it costs for a NR to fly across the country, room, board, rental car to attend that thing? friggin joke. The state got the extra money it needed out of the nonres from having to buy a lisence and it was good to know the money went right into the F&G rather than a closed book org and expo.
Put the tags where they belong in the NR state drawing.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-30-08 AT 09:25PM (MST)[p]Like I've already said, SFW has already done this deal. You're wasting your time suggesting good solutions.

The 5 tags that are "added" and then "taken away" (nothing like a good batch of double-talk) will not be given out anywhere but at the expo. They wont be allocated through the public draw...there aint enough money in it for SFW, SLC, and Utah.

The goal of SFW is not to make things "fair" for NR...if that really was the case, they would just flat out fight for the NR allocation to reach 10% via the public draw.

Their goal is to flat get money into SLC and Utah. The expo trumps whats really fair to NR and Residents. Its all about the money and the power play for tags.

Its as simple as that.

I'll take 2-1 odds that there will be more (5) NR tags available at next years expo.

The expo has now become a money monster...and it needs fed via tags.

All the suggestions in the world will not be making a difference in the outcome...its a done deal. Game, set, and match for SFW.

Its for the best.
 
Well, I read the one response earlier in the thread as implying I am probably too dumb to understand the complexity of game and habitat management or maybe the implication is I should be more grateful so must avoid asking any detailed questions because no answers will be given point by point by their leadership.

Well, okay then. Hand me the kool-aid so I can get this over with now. Mmmmmm...good kool-aid. I now believe that tag allocations should be controlled by organized non-profit groups that know more than mere hunters who pay taxes and buy licenses. A state can not hope to successfully manage game and habitat without those groups. All those groups are fiscally prudent and no one in their leadership is self-serving. At no point in the future will a state have the skills to function without these groups continued influence.

Burp.
 
>
>
>There would still only be 200
>total tags at the Expo.
> Same 5 year commitment.
> Just a minor tweek
>to make it work better.
>
Non-Residents have nothing to worry about.Pass me the "kool-aide"
David
 
Just simply put a tag of each OIL species for the non-ressy in each of the OIL units....simple deal and the 10% excuse is all BS.

Is it not more about the current handful of non-ressy's that are vendors or on a Con org that attend the Expo already so they can have their own little private OIL draw?

Add one OIL tag to each of the current OIL species/units and it is simple.

Robb
 
Don,

This is exactly the problem I have with SFW. Again you are using smoke and mirrors to deceive the public into thinking SFW is helping sportsman.
So now we have deciphered that it is not about getting equity for the nonresidents but creating a draw for nonresidents to come to Utah so that we see the tourist dollar influx that was promised the Governor when he bought off on giving the original 200 tags to the expo. HMMMMMMM maybe the expo isn't working out as planned. However, why do we go back to robbing from Peter to pay Paul. I believe that the nonresidents already have a chance at those five tags, they do not need to be segregated.
Personally I don't thik SLC is going to draw a crowd year in and year out. In fact I believe the appeal to residents will wain. However, since attendance is mandatory there will still be a crowd just not the enthusiasm. So I challenge the expo managment to do their jobs find a way to meet your promises without using tags. What happens when these 5 tags do not meet your expectations. Are you going to stop using tags or just keep going to the same well?
Maybe it is time the Expo leaves Utah. Of course I imagine other states will be a little less likely to give 200 of their public tags to a private enterprise. Looks like The DON is between a rock and a hard spot. With the cost of travel the expo has truly made mandatory attendance an issue that divides the wealthy from the middle class when it comes to applying and having a chance at expo tags. Even if you live next door the expo is an expensive chance at a tag with very low odds of drawing.
I still think if you want nonresident dollars to funnel into the division there are better ways than coercing nonresidents into coming to Utah.
Rumor has it FNAWS is looking to move their convention, is this true?
 
The Wild Sheep Foundation has committed to having their convention in Reno in 2010.

from the "Heartland of Wyoming"
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-04-08 AT 09:57AM (MST)[p]After the RAC meeting last night, I am more comfortable with the proposal.
 
Don put it this way last night at the RAC, we can give these tags to Non Res that do not have to come to Utah to apply for these tags. Or we can give these tags to the non res that are coming to the state and spending their money here, (the expo). If I understood it correctly last night it goes as follows: The tags do not come out of the general pool, they are coming from the 10% already alloted to the nonres. Also they are not additional to the 200 expo tags, they will be in place of other tags. Which tags, I don't know. It would not seem fair if they took out 5 turkey tags for these, but who knows?
I personally am on the fence on this still. I understand that we might encourage more nonres to come to the expo, and spend possibly thousands of dollars into our economy, but is that not catering to a select few? What makes them any different then the guy from Arizona that can't make the trip for other reasons, being lack of money, or work engagements, or anything else.
Its hard enough to draw a non res tag in this state, why make it harder for them? Just having to be present for the expo cuts out a huge percentage of people that can/will apply for these new tags.
 
How can it be the tags do not come out of someone else's hide? There are only so many tags that can be given out in total while still practicing responsible game management.

If you agree with me that tags are limited by responsible game mangement then the next issue is how the limited tags are alloted to meet demand that is several times the number of tags.

The methods used in Utah are Resident vs. non-resident in general draw, auction tags with no restriction on resident and non-resident, lottery tags with no restriction on resident and non-resident, lottery tags for non-resident only in the proposed major change to the Expo, the Landowner tags, and I think there are "poaching reward" tags.

I strongly feel that every tag you shift from the general draw is one-step closer to making big game hunting more difficult on Joe Worker and easier for John Moneybags.

If Utah wants to maximize revenues then auction every tag or raise application and license fees by a factor of 10x. Obviously since demand outstrips supply of tags the answer is to increase price until demand and supply are about equal.

You will nudge Joe Sixpack aside and the John Moneybags will be happy to hire outfitters, rent big SUVs and spend a lot of entertaining and hunting. As I recall from SEC filing posted on MM, there are close ties to outfitters within this Expo web that is sucking up tags from the general draw.

I imagine Joe Sixpack will not be very happy with this Brave New World of Hunting. I guess that is okay when the Expo and generating revenues is your goal.
 
That makes sense to me. Why not just make it so anybody that wants to apply for a tag in Utah (residents and non-residents) must apply for the tags in person at the Salt Lake Expo. Think of all of the dollars that would be spent by the people in Monticello, St George, Vernal, Phoenix, Etc. to get the tags. From gas money to hotel stays money would be spent and the tourism dollars would pour into Utah (Salt Lake City to be exact). I think they should also make it so people have to purchase a ticket for the expo for the draw.

Obviously I am not for it. The hunting license requirement for nonresidents will generate money for wildlife. I thought that was the goal of the EXPO. If the nonresidents are already buying a hunting license (how much are they $65.00) which is generating money for wildlife, than why make it so they now have to spend money to travel just to apply? The nonresidents are NOT allotted 10% of the OIL tags. This is a new spin to try and change the rules. Furthermore, what about the numbers Don already posted about the nonresidents getting 15% of the Expo Tags. Will the nonresidents be forbidden from applying for the other OIL tags in the convention?
 
I'm a nonresident of Utah that attended both of the expos the last two years. I'm also part of the dedicated hunter program and enjoy coming to Utah every fall.

Let me see if I understand this right. As a nonresident I have the chance to draw 200 convention tags, while the residents can only draw 195. If I was a resident I would be furious.

I'm so tired of the way that these tags are being handled that if this proposal gets approved, I will not be attending next year. If the goal is to increase nonresident participation, they better focus on those hunters that are blind to the big picture.
 
So they are not Extra Tags from the OIL units....they are now coming out of the current non-ressy OIL tag pool...?

If that is accurate then that means there will be basically no OIL tags for non-ressy's in the hunt application draw...in certain OIL units....

I never realized the Expo had fallen so much from lack of $$$ that the carrot on the end of the stick trick is still being used/needed to draw a few non-ressy's to the Expo?

Sad deal...

Robb
 
>Don put it this way last
>night at the RAC, we
>can give these tags to
>Non Res that do not
>have to come to Utah
>to apply for these tags.
> Or we can give
>these tags to the non
>res that are coming to
>the state and spending their
>money here, (the expo).

Yep, it's all about the money. Don is looking out for the guys with the big bucks, and not the average Joe. If anybody can not see that, they are blind.
 
Rob, They are new tags. they are not out of the non res pool. Sorry to disappoint, but the expo has done very well. John
 
Perhaps it would be helpful if Don, John or someone else from SFW or one of the other conservation groups would explain in detail how the proposal would work. I was not able to attend the RAC meetings and it sounds like a lot of the people who attended still don't understand the proposal.

As it stands right now, I am on the fence with regards to expo tags. I don't like the idea funneling 200 tags into a limited pool that many people never have a chance at drawing. I did not attend the expo the first year but gave in and went last year. As luck would have it, I drew a great deer tag for the upcoming season. Does that make me a hypocrite for questioning the expo and the propriety of expo tags? Even with this tag in my pocket, I still have major concerns regarding conservation permits and expo permits. A detailed explanation might alleviate some of my concerns regarding thsi latest proposal.

Hawkeye
 
John
If the EXPO is doing so well why the need for the nonresident tags? dkpeay said: ?Between year one, and year two, the State imposed the mandatory $65 license. A lot of non residents felt that most of the Expo tags went to residents - true 85% did because 85% of the applicants were residents, and with the %65 license and low odds, non resident participation is down substantially.?
So the question becomes, is Don right when he says the non resident expo participation is down substantially or are you when you say ?the expo has done very well??
Could you also answer the question as to what % of the tags has (in the past two expos) gone to the non-residents? Don said (by a little simple math) that 15% of the convention tags went to the nonresidents. If that is the case why is the expo/SFW asking for more non-resident tags? One final question, is SFW and the expo wanting nonresidents to travel to states to put in for the draw? If so that is a very slippery slope.
 
John,

So if the 5 tags are awarded does that mean as residents we will only have a chance at 195 tags?

Still waiting for an answer on FNAWS or the Wild Sheep Society or whatever it is called continued participation?
 
The way I understood it, yes us residence would only have a chance at 195 tags. They would swap out 5 original tags for these 5 OIL tags.
It was a long night, and this topic was the last of the evening. I could be wrong but John and Don made it sound as if the Non res were going to get these tags no matter what, we just have to choose how, it be through the regular draw, or the expo.
I think the thought is give the 5 tags to the people that are going to come into Utah and dump possibly thousands of dollars into our enconomy from gas, hotels, food, expo money, ect. Which makes some sense to me. But You would then be catering to Joe Moneybags, not the common man that could not make it.
If other states started doing this with some of the out of state tags I put in for, I would be furious.
 
I agree most of us would be furious if we had to travel to each state we want to apply to have a chance at drawing big game tags. Is a good deal for residents, of course, to create barriers for non-residents to apply. We are all non-residents in every state state but one so is short-sighted to build a wall around a state that takes money to scale over to apply for tags. I also read somewhere that a chunk of non-residents apply to a state because they either grew up there or have relatives in that state. If that is the case, some non-residents have roots even in states they do not currently reside.

Did anyone actually understand how 5 tags can be awarded at the Expo without impacting the regular draw? I thought there was no legal requirement for 10% of general draw tags to go to non-residents. If the 10% is not binding then just because the math shows non-residents fell 5 tags short of 10% does not mean a mistake was made in the general draw which the Expo must now remedy. Anyone who can explain where I am mistaken?

By the way, I attended the Expo the first 2 years as a non-resident. The Expo was exciting in 2007 and the 200 tags created a lot of buzz on the exhibit hall floor. Then there was the negative issue when the Expo draw odds were not promptly released. Took a lot of badgering and that raised a red flag in my mind.

Anyone curious what the % of non-resident applications at Expo was in 2007 vs. 2008 after the license requirement went into effect?
 
I am a resident of Utah, but I hunt in several other states so I tend to look at this issue from a Non-resident's perspective and here is what I don't understand:

The main reason for adding these 5 non-resident tags is to get the percentage of non-resident tags up to the 10% the state of Utah allocates.

So instead of putting these 5 tags into the current state draw system, we are going to offer them through the draw at the expo.

So if I am a non-resident that is currently applying for a OIL tag in the state of Utah, I am currently getting "screwed" because the state is not issuing the 10% of tags it says it will.

So if the fix was to put these additional tags back into the draw system, I would still only pay $10 to apply.

However, if the fix is to issue these through the show draw, then I must attend the show, which means I have to pay for an airline ticket (if I live far enough away), a hotel room, a rental car and a show entrance fee. All this just to "get my name in the hat". So much for the $10 application fee...

Is this still "screwing" our fellow non-resident sportsmen?
 
More More More!!! When does it end?? If we were to give say three hundred convention tags and say an even five hundred conservation/wealth tags are we going to be OK for a few years???

I would like to see an EXACT ACCOUNTING of where every penny from these convention tags went. I would like to see an EXACT ACCOUNTING of where every penny from every conservation tags went. I would like to see a corporate declaration of every entity that was either sold or awarded a conservation or convention tag in the last five years. That was the promise, remember??

I would like to see an independent audit conducted on both programs by a firm with no vested interest.

Lets see the ratio's!! Lets judge the efficiency of these programs and see if we are getting a good return or if what we are seeing is smoke and mirrors.

Finally I want to know why the original five groups that lobbied for these tags all of the sudden went down to three and why the tags were awarded with a change midstream??
 
+1 WW
I look at it from the majority of the non res hunters point of view, most can not/will not travel out of state for their name in hat drawing. Its one more step to catering to the money crowd.
By the way, there is NO PENALTY if utah does not not allow a full 10% of the nonres tags. All though, I think we should give out that if not more to nonres.
 
I agree with many of the posts that say Utah is propping up outfitters with conservation tags, etc. If they really were only trying to help wildlife, there are other ways to go about it without going to the highest bidder. For instance, create a separate draw for those tags that is an affordable lottery with all proceeds going into a Trust, like the NV PIW system. A well invested Trust generates income forever!! Which, eventually would allow Utah to put the tags back into the Bucks, Bulls and OIL drawing.
 
1. IF ONLY 15% OF THE PEOPLE GOING TO CONVENTION ARE FROM OUT OF STATE, I WONDER HOW MANY DOLLARS ARE BEING GENERATED FOR TOURISM AS PROMISED?

2. IF TAGS ARE SO IMPORTANT WHY DOES UTAH HAVE TO FURNISH 200? THESE ARE NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS THAT ALL STATES BENFIT FROM. WHY DOESN'T UTAH FURNISH 20 PERMITS AND THEY GO ELSE WHERE FOR THE OTHER 180 TAGS.

3. IF UTAH NEEDS THE MONEY WHY DON'T THEY DO A TAG AUCTION AND CUT OUT THE MIDDLE MAN?
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-07-08 AT 08:11AM (MST)[p]I heard that at a RAC, SFW agreed to keep it at 200 tags. To do so, they would probably give back 5 TURKEY tags. Gee thanks!! How generous!! Wow, I cannot believe the good faith! Heaven forbid a couple decent deer and elk tags might be given back to the general draw.

Before any additional tags should be allocated, the public is owed a detailed summary of money generated at the convention off these tags and a detailed expenditure summary of where this money is going. Where is this money going? And I dont want to hear a generic "habitat" reply. Lets have a DETAILED summary.
 
>LAST EDITED ON Jun-07-08
>AT 08:11?AM (MST)
>
>I heard that at a RAC,
>SFW agreed to keep it
>at 200 tags. To
>do so, they would probably
>give back 5 TURKEY tags.
> Gee thanks!! How
>generous!! Wow, I cannot
>believe the good faith! Heaven
>forbid a couple decent deer
>and elk tags might be
>given back to the general
>draw.
>
>.
>
LOL, what a fricking joke. Some day the guys will see through the greed and catering when they cannot hunt because the rich slowly wittle away your chances
 
Allright, I am going make a reasonable proposal that will hopefully provide the public with the information they want while at the same time lay these issues to rest. Here we go:

1. SFW and/or the other organizations involved with the Hunting Expo will provide the pubic with a detailed accounting of every penny generated from the expo and where those funds were spent. We do not want a list of projects completed over the last year. We want to know where every penny was spent.

2. SFW and/or the other organizations involved with the Hunting Expo will provide detailed information regarding the Expo over the last two years. This information should include, the number of people who attended the Expo, the number of people who applied for any tag, the number of people who applied for each specific tag, and the exact drawing odds for each specific tag.

3. SFW and/or the other organizations involved with the Hunting Expo will provide a detailed explanation of the proposal that was presented to the RACs regarding allocating 5 OIL tags to nonresidents only. Please explain the impetus for this proposal and how the proposal would work.

What does everyone think?

Hawkeye
 
Many people have asked for the things in your proposal. However, the canned response is (just like you said) a list of all projects completed in the last couple of years. This list does not include an accounting of the money spent from the groups, just a total dollar amount for the project. My problem with the convention, conservation tags has always been the lack of accountability from the conservation groups. I have only seen one report on the conservation tags. It showed, most groups could account for 50%-70% of the money required (90%). The report showed the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent by the groups doing great projects for the wildlife but it also showed the hundreds of thousands of dollars that were not spent and were not accounted for.

I am now a nonresident in Utah. Thankfully, I have drawn a great OIL elk tag (Not a miss print, limited entry elk tags in Utah are basically OIL). I will no longer support the DWR and the wealth tags from Utah. I will hunt in other states. I would caution the people in Utah to take a close look at the proposal to make non residents travel to Utah to apply for their tags. We are all non residents in other states! The short sighted prospect of tourism dollars (currently being used as the proverbial carrot on a stick by the expo to explain the request for the OIL nonresident tags) could and should backfire.
 
Arizona uses the carrot trick also with there Hunter Safty point program...If you want that extra point you have to travel to AZ for a course, and if you take it online you still have to go to AZ for the field day.

Of course that is a one time deal and not a yearly...but if you want a tag in the BEST areas you better have that hunter safty point...thats all that seperates most in the high point pool.
 
Just remember, half (100/200) of all the convention tags came from the non-resident pool!!!!!!!!!! Now they just want to give back five. What is the big deal? If it is about "fairness", half of the convention tags would go to non-residents. Of coarse that would have never passed the RAC's in the first place.

I say put ALL the convention tags back in the main draw pool (I don't know why I say this given that I just drew my tag).
 
Hawkeye,

Great idea that you have...one problem though.

SFW does not need to be accountable for anything except serving itself and the rich clients and outfitters they represent.

SFW also does not have to answer the tough questions...they never have and never will. Pay particular attention to past threads regarding the items you listed. Never a straight answer.

This latest deal is over and its a waste of time to suggest that SFW would listen to Utah Resident and Non-Resident hunters on any issue that the board doesnt agree with.

Just look at the tone of the posts by the SFW members here, in particular Peay. They arent asking for advice on whether or not the 5 tags should be given to NR's. Its more like, "hey, we're going to do this and here's why...now, shut up and like it."

Typical.
 
My thoughts exactly, Hawkeye.

To add to what Hawkeye said:

List where CONSERVATION TAG money is being spent.

AND

List where CONVENTION money is being spent.


Any organization should have transparency and accountabilty. Lets have it here. It is time.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-10-08 AT 08:10PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jun-10-08 AT 08:09?PM (MST)

>Allright, I am going make a
>reasonable proposal that will hopefully
>provide the public with the
>information they want while at
>the same time lay these
>issues to rest. Here
>we go:
>
>1. SFW and/or the other
>organizations involved with the Hunting
>Expo will provide the pubic
>with a detailed accounting of
>every penny generated from the
>expo and where those funds
>were spent. We do
>not want a list of
>projects completed over the last
>year. We want to
>know where every penny was
>spent.
>

>
>What does everyone think?
>
>Hawkeye
What do i think??

I think your just talking to yourself because none of your proposals will be heard, considered, executed. Thinking out loud and wishfull thinking are the same on this issue.
But hey, i will do one thing for you, I will say something that may sound familiar as poster that comes here once in a while to thump his chest and put all your worries to rest. here goes....
Elk permits are up 300%, sheep tags are up one billion percent, junipers are being chained, coyotes are slain on sight, and you can praise it all on us, or you can sit around and not contribute and complain, yadaa yada yada, we are great and other states practices suck because they are doing just fine without having hundreds of wealth tags... We want to kill wolves...
blah blah blah
UT residents and F&G are too stupid to think of limiting tag numbers so we lobby for it and take all the credit, blah blah blah
Without us UT would have no elk or deer blah blah blah.
Without wealth tags it would be the end of quality hunting in UT blah blah blah thump thump thump. There is no other way to raise money because UT residents are too cheap to pay a little more for their own tags and licenses blah blah blah, thump thump thump, Gotta go, got a lunch date with the President
P.S. no you cannot see the odds report and financial statements you ask for.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-11-08 AT 08:22AM (MST)[p]My purpose in putting forth a "proposal" was simply to show that the public is not asking for anything improper or unreasonable. We simply want an accounting so that we can determine how a public resource is being utilized. Not for a second did I believe that SFW was going to log on in response to my proposal and post all of the requested information. I personally think that SFW and the other groups do a lot of good things but they could do a better job of answering questions, providing information and courting the average hunter.

Hawkeye
 
"they could do a better job of answering questions, providing information and courting the average hunter."

Nope, there isnt enough money it for them to court the average hunter...and thats a fact.
 
Buzz, when they know there wrong it's crickets (silence). When something good gets done it's on BILLBOARDS!!!!
 
schmalts,
That is some funny stuff right there and very true. LOL falling off my chair.

Deerlove,
Also very true. LOL

I'm getting kind of tired of the same old Fred Astaire from SFW. Their song and dance is really getting old.
 

Similar threads

PleaseDear
SOLD 2017 Polaris RZR2/570
Replies
12
Views
1k
PleaseDear
PleaseDear
MADD hunts
DIY & Semi Guided Mexico hunts available
Replies
0
Views
540
MADD hunts
MADD hunts
Bigbucks
Fillmore Pahvant vs Plateau Boulder Muzzleloader Elk
Replies
16
Views
2k
wstrntines
wstrntines

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

My '23 Muley Pack Out.jpg
Buck's 2023 Muley
20211113_145919.jpg
06B0E348-C55B-48FB-99E8-EC928D6CAEB2.jpeg
4835458C-B154-4FB2-B639-B5962AFEC30B.jpeg
photo 2.JPG
779BCDB9-7E9C-48E0-9C32-549BF9D929BB.jpeg
P1089297.jpg
HPIM0367.JPG
A1E3A891-771A-47F2-B093-591D288F9D95.jpeg
MTC_0115.JPG
FDD6E81C-DA24-4572-A4E5-8ECF7F5C8EC8.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom