Why shut-out non-residents?

xitnet

Active Member
Messages
207
Why does Utah issue 50 tags for the Henry?s and only 1 goes to non-resident? Or 62 to San Juan Elk Ridge and only 4 to non-residents? If these areas are federal land, then it would be only fair that 10-20% of the tags go to non-residents. IMHO, I don't think it's fair when states can all but eliminate non-residents on federal land.
 
I'm not saying that the system is fair, but the state manages the big game not the Feds. (Lets be happy its not the Feds) Would I like to see 15% to 25% goto non-residents state wide. Well hell yes. I agree with you more opportunity, more tags for non-residents. However we dont need to apply in Utah but its our choice.
 
So the states do not receive any federal money? If that's the case, they would be money a head allowing more non-residents in for the higher fees.

I sent this email to Utah Game and Fish:
Hello,
Why does Utah issue 50 tags for the Henry?s and only 1 goes to non-resident? Or 62 to San Juan Elk Ridge and only 4 to non-residents? If these areas are federal land, then it would be only fair that 10-20% of the tags go to non-residents. IMHO, I don't think it's fair when states can all but eliminate non-residents on federal land.

Utah now collects an out-of state fee to apply but does give out of state hunters a reasonable chance to draw.

Would you please explain your decision?
Thank you,
xxxxxxxx


And I sent this one to my Senator and Congressman:
Hello,
Why does Utah issue 50 deer tags for the Henry Mountains and only 1 goes to non-resident? Or 62 deer tags to San Juan Elk Ridge and only 4 to non-residents? If these areas are federal land, then it would be only fair that 20% of the tags go to non-residents. IMHO, I don't think it's fair when states can all but eliminate non-resident hunting on federal land.

Utah now collects an out-of state fee just to apply but does not give out-of-state hunters a reasonable chance to draw. Most western states with federal land are doing the same thing. They collect our money, the federal government's money and keep the hunting to themselves. It's just wrong!

Is there anything you can do to help? Legislation to require 20% of tags on federal land to go to non-residents would be fair.
Thank you,
xxxxxxxx
 
There absolutely should be more non-resident opportunity in Utah for hunting opportunities on FEDERAL land. It has gotten so bad (only 1 non-res tag out of 50 for Henry's mule deer) that I am about in favor of eliminating all hunting on Federal lands.

I'm told to be "grateful that the Feds aren't controlling wildlife decisions in the Western states", and then watch Utah limit non-resident opportunity to 2%. At that level of "fairness", I'd just as soon take my chances with the Feds.

I know the current law lets the states determine the allocation of hunting opportunities, but there is no constitutional right to hunt on FEDERAL land, unless ALL the people of AMERICA agree. The privilege to hunt on FEDERAL land can be taken away, and IMO, we are close to reaching the point where I'd just as soon give the animals a break.

There is no justification for allocating 98% of hunting opportunities on FEDERAL land to residents only. IMO, it is greed, pure and simple.

HT
 
I would like to encourage anyone who believes this is wrong to write their Congressman and Senator. The states are to self absorbed with the ?it's all about me? to do the right thing.
 
Your numbers are ridiculously wrong-

Utah gives the following for permits on the Henry Mtns--

Archery- 6 Resident 1 NonRes
Rifle- 21 Res 1 NonRes
ML- 6 Res 1 NonRes
Manage- 9 Res 1 NonRes
That equals= 42 Res and 4 NonRes

Then Utah auctions 2 or 3 Henry Tags, which I would wager go to more NonRes than Residents. Then Utah gives 2 tags to the "Convention" which is open to all people of the World.

So Residents have the opportunity to obtain 47 tags.
Non-Residents have the opportunity to obtain 9 tags.

Kind of different than your 50 to 1 rant.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-28-10 AT 08:57AM (MST)[p]Packout,
You're right. Didn't realize they offered the archery and muzz tag to non-residents. So that's 3 trophy tags out of 52 offered. Still less than 6% of the tags. Is that about right? We're talking about draw hunts, not who has the fat pockets full of money. It's still wrong!

Edit....The San Juan doesn't offer archery or muzz to non-res so I think the 4 out of 62 number is correct.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-28-10 AT 09:10AM (MST)[p]

just wondering. I am a UT resident, but most of my hunting is done in other states. some states are great to the NR (WY, CO..) some not so much.

So, I tend to agree on this, it would be nice to see the NR get at least one bonus tag on the Henry's.

But, just be glad it isn't "up to 10%" like some states...they can go YEARS without a NR drawing a tag in good units, because it is "up to" 10%, not guaranteed 10%..

could be better, but it dang sure could be worse!
 
It seems as though one of the underlying base issues is that each western state has it's "own" system and percentages that go to non-residents. I have always thought it would be interesting if the western states could get "together" and decide what the percentage should be and then make it the same for all states. Not sure if this could ever happen as there is a large variation from state to state. Just a thought.
 
X- First that was a good response and I can agree with some of it. Also, my first post was a little harsh. You have to understand the rules of Utah's game. Utah usually only offers NonResidents 1 permit of every 10 issued (10%) based on each Hunt, not each unit. Sometimes they fudge in favor of the Non-Resident sometimes it is fudged in favor of residents, but for the most part the rule holds.

I agree with RedDog, there should be at least one bonus permit in the rifle category. But if you are looking at only draw permits then you can not use the 50 or so number. You have to look at the 42 - 4 number. That means there were 46 permits and NonRes got 4 (against the above rule I mentioned, but the Archery and ML fudge is in favor of the NonRes while the Rifle fudge is in favor of the Res).

The San Juan holds more true to the UDWR strategy:
Archery- 9 Permits - 9 Res 0 Non Res (there is no 10% available)
Rifle- 27 Permits - 24 Res 3 Non-Res (Fudged toward Non-Res 11% of permits)
ML- 9 Permits - 9 Res 0 NonRes (there is no 10% available)

Now if you want to include the Auction/Landowner/Convention Permits into this topic then it is Residents who are giving up the opportunity on the Henry Mtns.
The Henry Mtns would have around 50 tags and which means Residents should get 45 and NonRes should get 5. You would only gain one.

The San Juan might look a little different, not much though. You'd gain a permit in archery and ML, but nothing in rifle.

It seems hard for guys who live in deer rich, Whitetail states to comprehend why Western States are so conservative with their permits. Mule deer are a struggling commodity. While a guy in Kansas or Texas or Illinois or West Virginia can hunt deer every year, maybe shoot a handful, guys in Utah might go 1 or 2 years without a tag for average units. Every state rations their wildlife in favor of their residents. Every State gouges Non-Residents in fees.
 
Its pretty simple... The game belongs to the state. You can go wander around the BLM in the Henry Mountains all you want anytime you want. You just cant shoot a deer unless you are one of the chosen few. Same thing goes for any unit and state that has public land. If you dont like their system, dont play their game. I am a non-resident and I take my chances, but I have my own state(Colorado), where I get "home field advantage". Thats the way it is, if you dont like it, stay home.

That being said, there is no reason you cant hunt almost every year in almost any state you want if you take the time to figure out their system. I hunt Utah every year. You dont have to have a Henrys tag to shoot a big buck.
 
Packout,
Thank you for helping me understand the states and the hunters in it position on this subject. You?re right we get to hunt deer every year in Texas if we can find a place. This state is for all intent and purposes, privately owned and hunting is expensive. The high fence areas down south make me ashamed to be from here. Fortunately, I live in the northern panhandle where the closest high fence farm is 200 miles south.

Thought I counted 52 all weapon total trophy tags in the Henry?s draw with 3 going to non-residents. Might be wrong again like I was in my first post. If all states would open up more tags to non-res, everyone would have a better chance at a quality hunt in various states. Oh well, I'll have 6 points for next years draw.

Appreciate the explanation
 
DKMULEYBUCK,
"Thats the way it is, if you dont like it, stay home."

Wondered how long it was going to be before someone said that. LOL
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-28-10 AT 11:21AM (MST)[p]Im not saying its a perfect system, I would love to hunt the Henrys. But turn it around, what about the people that live near those units. Just think if they watched dozens of non-residents draw tags while they were kept out of their own backyards! Thats how it used to be in Colorado. We fought tooth and nail to get a 90/10 split, and eventually compromised on the 65/35-80/20 that we have now. I live near unit 61, and before the non resident quotas were put in effect, 61 was being drawn by almost 70% non resident!

So while I understand your frustration, I believe the locals should have first chance at their own deer.
 
DKMULEYBUCK,
Reread what I said. We are in agreement with the locals having the best chance for a draw. I think a 80/20 split on federal land is fair. Wish the split was that high. If it was, I wouldn't be whinning like a two year old.
 
You are seriously complaining about UT?! Sure UT isn't quite as nice to the out of stater as WY or CO, but Holy Crap there are so many states that are way worse than UT to the non-resident. UT tries to give a straight up 10% of tags to the non-resident and does it by each individual hunt and weapon type. They even lump the sheep hunts to give more tags to the NR. You want to talk about states that are stingy or have wierd non-resident tag allocation laws then look at about North Dakota, Oregon, Idaho, Arizona, etc. the list goes on. At least UT has a set number of permits allocated specifically to non-residents.

While WY is nice to non-residents in the proportion of tags they allocate I can't believe the guide requirement for wilderness areas. If ever a state game law gets challenged that is the one I hope gets taken to court.

Dax
 
Yep, I'm complaining about Utah. They're not allocating 10% to non-res tags. 4 out of 62 or 3 out of 52 is not 10%. Even if it was, still think it needs to be around 20%. That goes for all states, not just Utah.
 
>Yep, I'm complaining about Utah. They're
>not allocating 10% to non-res
>tags. 4 out of 62
>or 3 out of 52
>is not 10%. Even if
>it was, still think it
>needs to be around 20%.
>That goes for all states,
>not just Utah.

xitnet:

Like you, I am a non-resident of Utah, but we have to understand some very important things.

1. There is no correlation to land ownership and the opportunity to hunt game that may live or mirgration through such land.

2. The states hold the game in trust for the citizens of the state. Not for the benefit of the landowners (whether private or public land), not the federal government, and not for the benefit of us non-residents.

To think that the hunting opportunity on Federal land should be allocated in some manner more beneficial to non-residents implies that you want hunting opportunity to be tied to land ownership. Take that to the next step and see if that is really what you want. I know I don't want it.

This system of states holding wildlife in trust is not an accident. If you study the court cases as to how this has happened, you will learn a lot about why we have this system in the United States. Google the words "Public Trust Doctrine wildlife" and you can read all about it. Focus on Martin v. Waddell and Geer v. Connecticut.

It may not be what non-residents like, but I fully accept that Utah is charged under the Public Trust Doctrine to manage its wildlife and hunting opportunity for the benefit of its citizens, who are the beneficiaries of the Public Trust as it exists in Utah. All other beneficial uses are secondary to thier citizens and the citizen's standing as the primary beneficiaries of the Public Trust.

There is no connection to landownership and hunting opportunity, unless the state wants that to be the case. And to date, the only state I know having made such movement is Texas. Some like that, and others don't.

Federal land is owned by all citizens. Private land is owned by private citizens. Are you saying that you think private landowners should get allocated special hunting oppportunity due to their ownership of land? In effect, creating a private property right in wildlife where none currently exists.

I understand what you are saying, and what you wish for. But, that is not going to happen in the United States.

When the colonies declared independence from England, the states retained all rights previously held by the King, one of those being the rights in wildlife.

The colonies, and each state join the Union thereafter, granted some powers and rights to the Feds when the Union was formed and when the successive states were admited to the Union. One right the states have never granted to the Feds is the trusteeship of wildlife within their borders. The states have retained those rights on purpose.

It is with good reason that the states have maintained the rights of wildlife. Not by accident. I am not a big fan of Federal management in much of anything, and I think the wildlife recovery of the last 100 years is in large part due to the state's retention of their role as trustees of wildlife within their borders. And their fiduciary duty to manage wildlife for the benefit of their trust beneficiaries - the citizens of their state.

Until that changes, non-residents need to get used to the notion that their is no correlation to the states allocation of hunting opportunity and land ownership, whether public or private land. Just the way it is under our system of governement and laws, and hopefully will never change, even though I apply for a Utah tags every year and hope to draw as a non-resident.

Happy Hunting!


"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
I'm not sure calling them federal lands is accurate. I believe they are state lands.
I think there should be at least 1 non-res tag every other year if there are less than 10 res permits. For example if a hunt has 5 res tags and then the next year has 5 res tags, that is 10 tags in 2 years give up 10% at that point to the non-res. I feel units should offer a non-res bonus tag for 1 of the hunts in the unit if there are more than 20 tags for res.
It could be alot worse, look at Oregon. Just my 2 cents worth.
 
BigFin,
Thank you for the well thought out and eye opening response.

No, I really don't want the feds managing the wildlife. But at the same time, I don't want to be extorted for money from the states just to have a chance to hunt. The low draw odds and the increased fees have turned the out-of-state hunters in to the cash cow without offering a fair return.

So what's the answer when states like Oregon and Utah want to extort money? At this point, the only answer is to stay home or bend over.

IMHO, the right answer is for the states not to charge more than $5.00 for an application or increase the number of tags. To use wildlife on federal land as a daggling carrot to non-residents is not right.

Most of us on this site are trophy hunters. To this end, we are our own worse enemy. To achieve trophy quality, tags need to be limited and areas managed. With lower tag numbers comes less revenue. To increase revenue, states have put the burden on the non-residents with application fees. At the same time they have decreased the non-res tags to keep the in state hunters happy. The in state hunters should bear the burden of finance if they are the ones reaping the benefit. Out-of-state hunters already pay substantially more for a tag.

Not sure what the answers are but the current state of affairs is screwing the non-residents.
 
Utah does not let nonresidents draw 10% of the tags in the regular draw, it's more like 7.5% after the expo tags are taken, and really more like 5% of the primo hunts if they take one of the two nonresident tags...Whatever, it's not 10%.
 
xitnet:

What you point out is correct. It is a supply and demand issue.

Supply of opportunity is limited, especially the quality opportunities that some states provide by having very limited tags.

And demand seems to be very high, almost to the point where price will never be a deterrent to selling the tags.

Add that to the facts of the Baldwin case where the US Supreme Court said states can charge whatever they want for non-resident hunting tags, and it doesn't look good for non-residents having lower fees and more tags.

Until demand comes down, supply goes up, or states decide they want to be charitable to non-residents, the situation you describe will probably continue.

Just part of the deal when wanting to hunt in other states. Utah has some great hunting, so I expect to pay a lot just to stand in line, and I expect I will be standing in line for a long time.

Hope you luck and draw a tag, just not my tag :).

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
BigFin,
Thank you again for the reasoned response. I really appreciate the lessons in the law because I'm not up on it. I've learned a lot. Guess I'll stand in line with you and hope for the best.

Good luck on your quest. You deserve a trophy for being a gentleman and explaining the problem.
Take care
 
i agree, but for you guys who think utah is bad- have you ever looked at oregon? are tag system to non-residents is a crock of ^%$#, should be illegal.

EVERYONE is a non-resident in all but 1 state. you would think that the states, and hunters, would figure this out and give a better split.
 
I just wish Colorado would get onboard with restricting Nonresidents. My formally beloved GMU 35 might still be a decent area. Instead it was raped by the Utah boys starting in 2004 by our overly generous nonresident tag percentages LOL!
 
I can understand the frustration and I agree that the NR need a few more tags. That being said, if you look at the odds of some of the other hunts besides places like the Henry's, San Juan, and Book Cliffs the odds are actually better for NR than they are for residents. It takes less points to draw a NR tag for the Wasatch than a resident tag. A bear tag is really lopsided for NR than for Residents. I have 7 bear points and my NR buddy was a lock at 3. So it really is not totally accurate to compare the tag numbers vs the odds but I do understand the gripe and wouldn't mind seeing a few more NR tags head your way.

It's always an adventure!!!
www.awholelottabull.com
 
Last time i checked non resident get to put in for all species instead of just one. so you have more chances than we do.
Ive been waiting for 12 years for an elk tag and i hope to draw but next year i can only put in for one species while you get to put in for all three.
 
AWHOLELATTABULL and TsTewy,
Sounds like you guys aren't any better off. Can I take my 6 Henry's points and put in for bear? :)
 
i agree with xitnet,

out of the seven states (az, nm, nv, ut, co, wy, montana), i think ut has the worst res/nr draw ratio. is it true that all the states listed above give up to 10% of their draw tags to nr?

please let me know.
 
This subject comes up all the time. With the exception of a very select few of us, most dont have deep pockets, so we all have to play the same draw game if you apply for multiple states.

The wildlife are managed by each individual state, even if they are located on federal land. You can camp and go sight seeing all you want on public land, but, like it or not, the draw most likely wont change much.

Everyone here wants to hunt, but the states cant open up the flood gates and let everyone that wants to go that year go. Even though it seems like they do in some areas. This would be a totaly different discussion if we were all hunting elbows to a**holes every year. The quality in the in the high demand hunt areas would be destroyed, and the areas that seem to have poor hunting quality would be even worse.

I think most states are trying to find ways to increase opportunity, I just hope they regulate it so there will still be some good areas out there 10 years from now. That way if I finally do draw a tag, it will be worth it.

www.muleybulloutfitters.com
 
I wasn't trying to be a ##### with my comment, but I think you really should look at a few things. Let's look at the numbers as if you are a resident, and we will see what kind of odds you're looking at so maybe you'll understand what all of us face and not just you non-residents. The rifle hunt doesn't give exact numbers, but I can assure you that they are worse than the muzzleload and the archery. You said you'll have 6 points next year which means that your 2009 points are 5 which means you should look at the 4 point column on your draw odds. In the muzzleload you have 403 people either with you or ahead of you. With only giving out 3 bonus tags, it could take you 134 years to draw. That's as a resident. The archery tag could take you up to 64 years to draw with 194 people being grouped with or above you. I could understand your complaint if you had 20 points and couldn't draw, but bro, you have 6 points. Even as a resident, you can see how challenging it is to draw this tag. The odds are progressively getting worse and worse. Even if they allowed one more, it wouldn't do anything to help you or anyone. I would suggest finding a different unit to put in for if you want to hunt deer in utah in your lifetime.
 
I agree, Utah is horrible.

That is why non-residents should not apply in the first place. Just kidding, but maybe the reason it is such a highly sought after tag in the first place is that Utah is doing it right. Maybe my 14 points as a resident is evidence that I don't have it that easy either.
 
RE: I agree, Utah is horrible.

BigFin -

One of your points is flat wrong. You state, "The states hold the game in trust for the citizens of the state". Would you please site the legal case(s) that establish this principle.

The states have been granted stewardship of the wildlife within their borders, but that is a long way from wildlife being "owned" by the citizens of the state. The one post stating that "locals should be able to hunt their deer" speaks volumes. The locals do not own "their" deer.

Regardless of the above, why not look at this as a public access and use issue, in so far as Federal land is concerned? At this time, the ONLY use for which states discriminate against non-residents on Federal land is hunting. There is no tolerated discrimination for any other use. None.

IMO, if the states want to discrimate against non-residents on a use of Federal land, then that land should not be available for the use of hunting. For those residents who believe they have a God-given right to hunt on Federal land, try hunting in one of the Federal National Parks in Utah. Regardless of the "ownership" of the animals, the use of Federal lands for hunting is a privilege, not a right, and in the face of gross-injustice, it can be taken away.

Now, like most on this board, I strongly support residents having a preferential opportunity for draws in their home states. Most non-residents understand the arguments in favor of resident preferences. But it is a matter of degree. When the best that can be said of the puny non-resident allocation offered in Utah is that "Oregon is worse", well that's not saying much.
 
RE: I agree, Utah is horrible.

LAST EDITED ON Mar-01-10 AT 11:56AM (MST)[p]>>Regardless of the above, why not look at this as a public access and use issue, in so far as Federal land is concerned? At this time, the ONLY use for which states discriminate against non-residents on Federal land is hunting. There is no tolerated discrimination for any other use. None.<<

Not quite true.

I won't speak to other states, but in AZ ANYONE can legally hunt on Federal land for birds, small game, predators -- including lion -- with nothing more than a hunting license (plus a tag for lion). I imagine the laws are similar in other western states, including Utah.

What they can't do is hunt and kill any game that requires a special lottery permit. And that includes both residents and non-residents. So though the permit numbers for NR are less than for residents, there is NO discrimnation involved to keep NRs from hunting on federal land. In fact, the same rules apply to state and private lands.


Lastly, on a percentage basis, there are a lot more residents who do not get permits each year for any given hunt than there are NRs. I know because I'm one of them. :)

TONY MANDILE
48e63dfa482a34a9.jpg

How To Hunt Coues Deer
 
RE: I agree, Utah is horrible.

HT, I believe you are the misguided one. State wildlife laws are based on the principle that states own the wildlife within their borders to be held ?in trust? for their citizens - irregardless of where the wildlife resides. In fact, Utah law in Section 23-13-3 states, "[a]ll wildlife existing within this state, not held by private ownership and legally acquired, is the property of the state." Accordingly, the state including Utah, have primarily shouldered the responsibility to manage wildlife and the Federal government has only preempted state law when necessary to manage or conserve wildlife species that occupy multiple states. In my opinion, the states are far better suited to manage wildlife within their borders than the detached federal bureaucracy because the states are better able to monitor and respond to wildlife needs and threats, and to establish cooperation with landowners and other agencies while hopefully recognizing the social value that wildlife has to the residents of the state.
 
RE: I agree, Utah is horrible.

>BigFin -
>
>One of your points is flat
>wrong. You state, "The states
>hold the game in trust
>for the citizens of the
>state". Would you please site
>the legal case(s) that establish
>this principle.
>
>

HornToad - Normally when someone makes a statement as bold as that which is shown above, they make sure of the points they are talking about.

Most people who know something about wildlife law in this country, the Public Trust Doctrine, and how the states came to be the trustees of wildlife, don't make such statements as you have made.

And, most who understand trust law and what trusteeship is, would not have made the following comment.

"The states have been granted stewardship of the wildlife within their borders, but that is a long way from wildlife being "owned" by the citizens of the state.

Trusteeship is different than stewardship. I don't believe I used the term ownership, but if I did, it should have been "trustee."

I see you preface your statements later on with "IMO." I would suggest that most of what you stated was made under the context of "IMO." None of what you stated is based on fact, law, or historical precedent of how wildlife came to be an asset held in trust by the states.

You and I don't have to like it, but as non-residents, that is how it is for us in this country.

So long as people continue to be uninformed/misinformed about the states trusteeship of wildlife, their fiduciary duties to their citizens, and fail to see that land ownership and wildlife opportunity have no correlation, there will continue to be non-residents who are frustrated.

Lack of understanding and the resulting frustration non-residents may have will not change the fact that Utah has a fiduciary duty to manage their wildlife resources primarily for their citizens. Us non-residents need to get over it, and realize that where ever the wildlife in UT is living, we have no claim to it, other than what the state of UT is willing to share with us.

If you really do want to learn more about this concept, I would suggest the following reading, as I stated in one of the previous posts.

Start with a Google search of "wildlife Public Trust Doctrine." Read the cases of Maritin v. Waddell, Geer v. Connecticut, Baldwin v. State of Montana, and maybe even the writings that Sax did, and Susan Horner's most recent study on the concept.

Read the USSC majority opinion on the 1842 Martin v. Waddell case. Here is the piece that established the trust notion, which goes back to the separation from England, to English Common Law, to Magna Carta, to Roman Law. This idea I stated in the post is not something I just made up. Goes back a few years before any of us were arguing about it.

----> "Whilst the fundamental principles upon which the common property in game rests have undergone no change, the development of free institutions has led to the recognition of the fact that the power or control lodged in the State, resulting from the common ownership, is to be exercised, like all other powers of government, as a trust for the benefit of all people, and not as a prerogative for the advantage of government, as distinct from the people, or for the benefit of private individuals as distinguished from the public." <-----

I suspect once you read that stuff detailing what the Public Trust Doctrine is, and that the United States Supreme Court has relied upon the Public Trust Doctrine since 1842, as the premise for establishing the states' trusteeship in wildlife, you might change that post.

From that, I fully support Utah doing whatever it feels like doing with respect to sharing wildlife with us non-residents. I sure hope to draw one of their tags someday, but that will probably not happen. Like some have said, if I don't like it, I don't need to apply.


"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
RE: I agree, Utah is horrible.

My point is that the matter is simply not as clear-cut as stated in your post. If it were, more states, as good trustees for their citizens, would adopt 100% allocations to residents, and tell non-residents to stay away. The fact is that there is an historical legal tension in this matter, which is why all of the western states chose to have some non-resident allocation. As stated in my earlier post, it is a matter of degree.

And it is not a matter of whether all can hunt rabbits on Federal land in Utah. The allocation of opportunity for big-game hunting is decidedly discriminatory. And, IMO, in Utah, excessively so.

The above said, I do not believe that hashing these matters out on the MM forum will change things much. And the situation will likely only get worse as resident population pressures continue to grow in the Western states. But this mind-set of, "The states have an unfettered right to discriminate, and I'll just be content, and appreciative, with whatever scraps are thrown my way", is decidedly off-putting.
 
RE: I agree, Utah is horrible.

I would like to thank everyone for their thoughts and insights to this topic. I've learned a lot and now feel bad for my fellow hunters that live in the draw states. When a local hunter has 14 points and can't draw it's a poor system at best.

Bayside,
No problem guy. I realize at 56 years old, my future doesn't hold a Henry?s tag in it. I'm really just building some points to change to a different area later on. The only glimmer of hope in the past was drawing the bonus tag. Since Utah removed it, I know there's no chance at all. Think last years bonus tag went to someone with 6 points so the chance was there.

Besides, I've killed my muley of a lifetime in 2007 here in the Texas panhandle. Don?t think I could top it even in the Henry?s. So I'll probably just put in for the easier draw unit and come enjoy the scenery.

Good luck to everyone in this years draw!
 
RE: I agree, Utah is horrible.

LAST EDITED ON Mar-01-10 AT 06:26PM (MST)[p]Blah blah blah, Federal Land this Federal Land that....BS. Get over it. It is Federal Land and you have every right to use it the same way the residents of the state it lies in has. The only right you do not have is to shoot wildlife.

I know the argument will now turn to why does the State get to decide who does what with the wildlife. Well its because it lies within its boundaries and its government manages it and pays for it. Feel free to come to any Western State and use the Federal Land within it just as anybody else...you can even hunt the animals still, just shoot them with a camera!
 
RE: I agree, Utah is horrible.

Well sremim, you have the blah blah blah down pat. Too bad there wasn't any substance after it.
 
RE: I agree, Utah is horrible.

I will still disagree with your claim that UT doesn't give 10% of tags to non-residents. In hunts with 10 tags or more they almost always give 10% to non-residents. I just looked at the proposed numbers for 2010 and it looks a lot like a straight 10% to me ( http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/info/2010-03-04.pdf ). Good luck to you in the draws.

Dax
 
RE: I agree, Utah is horrible.

LAST EDITED ON Mar-02-10 AT 09:56AM (MST)[p]You say no substance because you know its true. You can use federal land all you want.
 
RE: I agree, Utah is horrible.

Daxter,
My numbers came from the draw odds page on this website for what was issued in the Henry's in 2009. It shows a 52/3 split. I've been in contact with Utah today and they are proposing a 44/5 split this year. That's perfectly acceptable if a bonus tag is included. It will keep my $65 a year flowing in to Utah for a slim to none chance. Without a bonus tag, there's no point in applying.

The bottom line is Utah can use the money and most of us don't mind sending them a little every year for that slim chance.

sremim,
We're talking about hunting deer, not hiking or bird watching. I do understand what you're saying. Just don't 100% agree with it. Nothing personal.
 
RE: I agree, Utah is horrible.

xitnet,

you seem to be in the same boat as I am in several other western states.

I have less than max points in AZ, CO, WY, and NV for deer. I have the best deer unit in each respective state picked out and I would love to hunt each one of them, sometime.

The difference between you and I is that I'm going to pick out a unit in each state that I can draw without max points and I'm going to draw each one of them in the next 2-7 years. Then I"m going to do it over again on an even less popular unit.

I also don't have enough points to draw the Henry mtns here in my home state of Utah. Do I want to hunt the Henry's, you bet I do. Am I smart enough to know that I can never draw it unless I get astronomically lucky? Yes, I am, therefore I never, ever apply for the Henry mtns. I always apply for other limited units because I can draw them in 3-8 years and go hunting for big bucks. I've drawn 3 limited entry deer tags in Utah over the last 20 years of applying. Each was drawn with 5-7 points except the first and it was drawn with 3.

My point is: you have to realize that not everyone in the west is going to be able to hunt 13b in AZ, 21 in CO, Henry mtns in Utah, xxx late in NV, 45 in Idaho, 2b in NM, and 101 in Wy. It just can't happen. Use your luck somewhere else and get a tag on a unit that takes less points and go hunting. Most guys don't kill huge bucks on these #1 units when they draw anyway. They kill "nice" bucks. The same size they could have killed on a less desired unit in half the amount of applying time.

It only takes one buck to make you happy, and there's one that size on every limited unit in Utah. Mark me down as a resident of Utah that won't draw the Henry mtns in my lifetime. I'd rather enjoy 5 or 10 more great hunts instead of 30-40 more bonus points. I like collecting large antlers instead of bonus points.

DeerBeDead
 
RE: I agree, Utah is horrible.

Travis,
I agree with everything you said. I know there's slim to no chance of receiving a Henry?s tag. I'll change areas in a few more years to where the odds are better. The only reason I keep putting in for the Henry?s is because I have a good friend that lives and works outdoors there every day. If I won the jackpot and received a tag, the chance at a big deer would be a given.

If Utah will issue one bonus tag for that slim chance, they'll continue to receive my application money. If not, there's no point in applying.

Thank you for the insightful reply.
 
RE: I agree, Utah is horrible.

Damn you Travis, you're giving away all the secrets. LOL! Seriously though,Travis has given you some very sound advice.

I'd rather hunt every few years than maybe once in my lifetime on the Henry's or 13B.I'll take my luck in the field over the draw any day.I know of a handful of big bucks killed in the last few years and not one of them came from the units deerbedead listed above.

Mike
 
RE: I agree, Utah is horrible.

Henry Mountains archery 8 resident permits 1 Nonresident permit
Muzzle 8 resident permits 1 Nonresident
anyweapon 23 resident permits 3 Nonresident
Managment 18 resident permit 2 Nonresident

2010 = 57 resident permits total
7 Nonresident total

Wish Colorado and Arizona had those odds. Don't know why your complaining about better than 10%
 
RE: I agree, Utah is horrible.

The "advice" is reasonable and I'm sure that there are big bucks seen, missed and killed everyear in the "not hot" units. I have been lucky enough to hunt many of these and many that aren't listed. I have always tried to find a little out of the way "secret", up and coming unit and a few times I've been ahead of the curve but not always. All that said the "advice", while sound, doesn't always fit everyone. For me I have a couple of goals left in my hunting life and one is to hunt a secret (LOL) unit in Arizona the only western state I've not hunted Mule Deer in. I would also like to try the "secret" unit in Utah even though I've hunted many places in the state. So in the short term I will find tags a different way and hope that I draw one of these secret places like I did last year in Nevada. Best of luck to all of you.
 
Travis as mentioned above I think you nailed it. You make some great points. There are nice animals taken every year from units less desirable. People put in for these because they have a shot at drawing. Good luck and I will let everyone know when I draw my LE elk tag on the Wasatch with 1 point this year, lol.
 
Utah is not the only state with low percentages of tags going to non-res. Actually they used to give a whole lot more before the other surrounding states cut back. They cut back and people still apply for the limited opportunities. I do think that on the OIL hunts that non-res don't have much of a chance in getting a tag, but neither do the residents with Max points. Honestly I have accepted that if I want to hunt in any state as a non-res I have to do the general public hunts that are not greatly sought after or over the counter tags, because no matter where you go or what you hunt the opportunities for a top notch hunt are slim in the west, except for antelope. But Utah does shut non-res hunters out of the special hunts in a sense by not offering very many. You have three choices. Win the lottery in the draw or a state lottery and by an auction tag or I guess you should move to Utah if you want to ever get a Henry Mt. tag or an OIL tag. Try the lottery! Utah auctions hundreds of tags each year.

Good luck,

Dillon
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-03-10 AT 12:12PM (MST)[p]I dont feel Utah shuts out non-residents. Besides we got residents that wait 12-15 years to draw a Elk or Deer tag in their own state. I can actually draw my Moose tag easier as a non-resident than I can as a resident. I even tried to apply as a NR and the UTAH DWR would not allow me to. Not alot of sympathy here !!!
 
RE: I agree, Utah is horrible.

""If Utah will issue one bonus tag for that slim chance, they'll continue to receive my application money. If not, there's no point in applying.""

xitnet, you are not understanding Utahs draw system, you seem to think that a "Bonus Tag" is the tag that is given that everyone has a chance for, when in reallity a bonus tag is geven when there is at least 2 tags and the bonus tag goes to only people with max points.

So if there are 4 Tags geven, two of those will be bonus tags that only the people with max points can draw the other two go to everyone includeing the people with max points.

If there is only 1 tag given, then there is no bonus tag and everyone includeing the guys with max points are all lumped into one draw.

So if there is no Bonus tag then it dose you no good to have a welth of points because there are no bonus tags given.


Jake H. SHED OR DEAD IT DONT MATTER TO ME!!!
458738e374dfcb10.jpg
 
JakeH,
You're right! I had it turned around. Thank you for taking the time to explain it.
Good hunting
 
You would have thought this thread would have brought Zim out of the woodwork.

Wasn't this issue beat to death back with the USO lawsuits? If I remember right Harry Reid helped get that legislation through.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-06-10 AT 12:53PM (MST)[p]WOW! The state really thinks vernon is doing that well to up the tags. As a Utah resident I'm pissed. Why are we giving nonresidents more than 10%? I'm joking.
The odds seem to look better now that the link has been posted for us to look at. It appears that Utah is doing what they said they would with the nonresidents.
I can understand the frustration about the bonus tag on the Henrys. Looks like there may be 1 this year. It seems the residents are losing a few, while the non residents are gaining some. GOOD LUCK TO ALL IN THIS YEARS DRAW!
 
why not make all the tags equally availiable to any one that wants to buy one, only instead of having a set price lets have an auction on them instead. The more you bid the better tag your gonna get residents and non residents alike
 
>Yep, I'm complaining about Utah. They're
>not allocating 10% to non-res
>tags. 4 out of 62
>or 3 out of 52
>is not 10%. Even if
>it was, still think it
>needs to be around 20%.
>That goes for all states,
>not just Utah.



where are you getting your tag numbers from?

looks like there are 42 RES TAGS ON SAN JUAN NOT 62!

33 RES TAGS ON HENERIES NOT 50!!!!
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom