Time to Shift Permits back into Public LE draw

>can conservation
>organizations such as SFW function/survive
>without welfare tags? Why
>is the public's responsibility to
>subsidize these groups instead of
>the members?
>
>-Hawkeye-

^^ I was leading around to this and is My exact thoughts you just beat me to it Hawkeye!
 
>This should come as no surprise.................
>I appreciate TriState and his
>unorthodox comments and questions.
>He's an out of the
>box thinker. If you
>only hear "one voice", how
>are you going to consider
>boarder and different perspectives.
>
>We have problems. We've always
>had problems to solve, since
>we rose up on two
>legs. We will always
>continue to have problems.
>Circumstances change, whether we like
>it or not, if you
>don't think out of the
>box, you continue to remain
>in the same rut your
>in. Those folks that
>consider "different" alternatives are the
>innovators and the ones that
>ultimately find solutions to issues
>that many of us keep
>trying to solve without changing
>the medicine we give the
>patient.
>
>You know the old adage: Albert
>Einstein said. Insanity: doing the
>same thing over and over
>again and expecting different results.
>
>
>I think TriState is brilliant and
>I appreciate his participation.
>We'd all be worse off,
>if his voice was silent.
> It's don't necessarily mean
>I agree 100% with everything
>he say's or how he
>say's it. So what?
> I learn from it,
>hearing other opinions is healthy
>and productive.
>
>Does silencing voices really appeal to
>you?
>
>DC

Good post lumpy
 
Gordy,
First and most importantly did you just say "bruh"???? Man that one caught me off guard. I never took you for a Provo All Star!!! Hmmm my dads plan. Yes he did play a role in setting the table but that doesn't mean it's being utilized. All it shows is another wonderful example of the Division not utilizing a tool to make the herd healthier and creating more opportunities.

Hawkeye,
Under valuing the 97,000 tags is much grander example of welfare than the conservation tags. Do I think there are too many conservation tags. Yes without question. I've preached that point for many many years. Do I also think that many hunters in Utah unvalue our wildlife resources ABSOLUTELY!
 
?? you know they won't let me in to Utah County.

You can only restrict hunters for so long. Told ya this the year we all bit into this poo pie of a plan.

It's about hit the point of diminishing returns, just like wealth tags. Wait till we get two hard winters in a row. You think generational loss is bad so we can carry excess bucks over one year? Wait till we lose two complete generations. It'll be catastrophic.

We've got sheep and goats, that maybe a couple hundred people will hunt over the next 25 years, if the herd don't go Rock Canyon. Meanwhile we've lost 160,000 deer tags for hunters.

Where is the payoff for blue collar guys like myself? All I see is loss and lobbied restrictions and graft.




"If the DWR was just doing its job, and
wildlife and hunting were the actual focus,
none of this process would even matter.
But that is not the focus or the goal in any
of this. The current DWR regime, and
SFW were born out of wildlife declines,
and are currently operated and funded
under that paradigm. Those 200 Expo
tags would not even be worth anything if
the focus was where it was supposed to
be, and wildlife and tags were plentiful.
But under the current business model,
that is how the money and power is
generated. It is generated through the
rising "value"(monitization) of a declining
resource. A resource that is supposed to
be being beneficially managed for the
masses that own that resource, ie. US.
The problem is obvious, hedging is not a
long term sustainable strategy, and
others have to lose, for some to win. In
this case it is us, the many, and our
resources, that are being forced to lose,
because there is a minority who's power
and money is derived from our loses."

LONETREE 3/15/16
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-07-17 AT 10:40PM (MST)[p]The pay usually comes after the results. We are still half or less of what our deer herds once were. We lost most of this 160,000 because the herd was gone Gordy. That is a truth that many won't acknowledge or even realize.

We could beat the hell out of this stupid subject forever here in Utah.

Back on subject, conservation tags back on the draw. Doesn't make that much of a difference in the odds. Do I like them, yes they serve a good purpose, is there too many, yeah I'd say yes to that too. Does any of it really matter if we continue to manage poorly and lazily. Nope none of it really does in the end.

Lee,
You know me and lots of other like me that spend the money to continue to hunt. To pretend we don't exist doesn't seem to win you many battles. Maybe it's time to change up the strategy???

Almost time to start scouting, Struck out in Utah so it's Idaho Muleys , New Mexico and Arizona coues deer! And a lot of chasing my pups! If you love it you find a way even if you're not a King!!!!
 
Tri I see your point on game in texas. And I know our winter mortality rate is nothing compared to wyoming. And no I don't believe alot of the what the dnr says I've seen how clean their work boots look I don't drink the coolaid they serve but there is a couple CO's that I actually think highly of in the area I hunt. As far as their big game biologists they would get smoked in are you smarter than a fifth grader.
 
2lumpy said, "You know the old adage: Albert Einstein said. Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

The funny thing is that's the entire point to this thread, people are sick of SFW/DWR (they are effectively one entity now) selling off public tags for their own personal financial gain. We're sick of doing the same thing, its time for a change.

2lumpy, you then then said, "I think TriState is brilliant..." I guess you and I probably wouldn't agree on much of anything ;-)

PS. This thread was informative, intelligent, and on-point as long as people ignored Tri's baiting... Too bad it got dragged down to his level again.

Grizzly
 
Grizz gets it... The reason I brought up the fiasco of a 29 magic unit
highly restrictive deer plan was to point out the fact that this plan was
supported by a loose knit group of individuals and one lobbyist org.
It was pushed through in spite of the two RACS that represent 80% of the States
hunters voting against it as well as RMEF, MDF and UBA in opposition. Ironically one of the "loose knit individuals" responsible for "Option Magical 29 Units" still ain't happy.

This happens when a system is over run by special interests. Wealth tags are a byproduct of a bigger problem.

We could potentially lose 20 million from the expo bid corruption and over the life of the conservation tag payola we've lost 10% x any federal match for the funds given to the groups to sell a permit. ( 10% x 4 real funds )

So ya fix it by.
1 wealth tag per LE species per group per RAC Region.
no 10% commission to the groups, all funds go back to the DWR.

Go to a three year period of phasing out bonus points. After three years
its straight luck of the draw with no waiting periods.

Forced public input via online survey when you purchase a hunting license.
This way the RAC/WB gets input from hunters that aren't the same dozen or so dudes that get paid to go to these meetings.






"If the DWR was just doing its job, and
wildlife and hunting were the actual focus,
none of this process would even matter.
But that is not the focus or the goal in any
of this. The current DWR regime, and
SFW were born out of wildlife declines,
and are currently operated and funded
under that paradigm. Those 200 Expo
tags would not even be worth anything if
the focus was where it was supposed to
be, and wildlife and tags were plentiful.
But under the current business model,
that is how the money and power is
generated. It is generated through the
rising "value"(monitization) of a declining
resource. A resource that is supposed to
be being beneficially managed for the
masses that own that resource, ie. US.
The problem is obvious, hedging is not a
long term sustainable strategy, and
others have to lose, for some to win. In
this case it is us, the many, and our
resources, that are being forced to lose,
because there is a minority who's power
and money is derived from our loses."

LONETREE 3/15/16
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-09-17 AT 11:09AM (MST)[p]>1) I agree 100% to keep
>youth tags at their current
>cost.
>
>2) the last figure I had
>was roughly 85,000 general deer
>permits. Is this still pretty
>close?
>
>3) Auction tags and the expo
>application fees generated roughly 6
>million in 2016. We probly
>don't/won't know what DWRs cut
>was exactly but I'm
>guessing 70%? The auction tags
>above include rmef, mdf, etc...
>
>
>4) using the above assumptions license
>would need to go up
>$50 each to cover 4.2
>million or $70 to pocket
>all 6, and that is
>only raising deer permit fees.
>Those auction funds include deer,
>elk, sheep, etc....
>
>So is getting rid of the
>auction tags and expo permits
>worth a $40-70 price
>hike for a general tag?
>Personally I would say yes,
>but I am not a
>resident so i don't count
>anyways.

Rather than dump the whole load onto general deer tags, it would be better to split the load proportionally per numbers between the 3 major sources of direct hunter generated funding, ie; licenses, application fees and permits. The license and application fees wouldn't have to rise as high as the permit fees because there are many more participants, but the amounts of each would be much easier to swallow because they wouldn't all hit us at the same time and we could better control our own costs per our personal priorities.

For instance, I don't apply for LE deer or LE elk because I don't need to in order to hunt them, so I apply for pronghorn and OIL moose. But during the pronghorn waiting periods I only apply for moose so that drawing an LE permit doesn't kick me out of the moose pool. I think I have 1 LE deer point and 2 LE elk points and 19 moose points, but I just drew my 4th archery antelope tag in 17 years (Pine Valley), so I'm good with that. I love hunting those critters so the moose will have to wait for another year or so. FWIW, I have 3 set ups on waterholes that I'm willing to share if you're interested. PM me. And, yes I have permission to hunt them along with anyone I take, even during the rifle season.

Edited: Although there are some good ones out there, I don't trophy hunt, so don't expect a world's record.
 
>Don't forget that in Utah to
>even apply you have to
>have, or buy, a license.
>
>Depending on how these funds are
>used they are eligible for
>a Federal Match.
>Also PR Funds are allocated according
>to License sales overall meaning
>we get more funds allocated.
>
>
>Best part is a large portion
>of these license buyers actually
>don't actually take anything.
>
>Carry on with the money woe's
>
>
>
>
>
>"If the DWR was just doing
>its job, and
>wildlife and hunting were the actual
>focus,
>none of this process would even
>matter.
>But that is not the focus
>or the goal in any
>
>of this. The current DWR regime,
>and
>SFW were born out of wildlife
>declines,
>and are currently operated and funded
>
>under that paradigm. Those 200 Expo
>
>tags would not even be worth
>anything if
>the focus was where it was
>supposed to
>be, and wildlife and tags were
>plentiful.
>But under the current business model,
>
>that is how the money and
>power is
>generated. It is generated through the
>
>rising "value"(monitization) of a declining
>resource. A resource that is supposed
>to
>be being beneficially managed for the
>
>masses that own that resource, ie.
>US.
>The problem is obvious, hedging is
>not a
>long term sustainable strategy, and
>others have to lose, for some
>to win. In
>this case it is us, the
>many, and our
>resources, that are being forced to
>lose,
>because there is a minority who's
>power
>and money is derived from our
>loses."
>
>LONETREE 3/15/16

And don't forget the $6.99 of the regular $10.00 permit application fee that goes to the DWR. In 2016 that amounted to $3.6M just for the buck/bull applications not counting the Antlerless, Turkeys, Cougars, Bears, Swans, Cranes, & Grouse draws.
 
>I don't agree that tags should
>be 400.00 either. However
>it's amazing how many people
>want their cake and to
>eat it too. The
>key to all of this
>is better management across the
>board. If the DWR
>had managed properly to begin
>with groups like SFW would
>have never gained a foothold.
> To this day they
>manage poorly.

If you think the DWR still manages wildlife poorly even with the EXPO and Conservation money, and then why are you so anxious, via the EXPO and Conservation permits, to give them even more money to waste? And what exactly constitutes proper management?
 
Lee,
Read the comment you quoted me on. I clearly stated I did not agree with moving tags to 400.00. I stated that if they did I would still pay it. You constantly do not pay attention.

Proper management would be healthier and larger herds along with more opportunity.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-11-17 AT 03:40AM (MST)[p]>Grizz gets it... The reason I
>brought up the fiasco of
>a 29 magic unit
>highly restrictive deer plan was to
>point out the fact that
>this plan was
>supported by a loose knit group
>of individuals and one lobbyist
>org.
>It was pushed through in spite
>of the two RACS that
>represent 80% of the States
>
>hunters voting against it as well
>as RMEF, MDF and UBA
>in opposition. Ironically one of
>the "loose knit individuals" responsible
>for "Option Magical 29 Units"
>still ain't happy.
>
>This happens when a system is
>over run by special interests.
>Wealth tags are a byproduct
>of a bigger problem.
>
>We could potentially lose 20 million
>from the expo bid corruption
>and over the life of
>the conservation tag payola we've
>lost 10% x any federal
>match for the funds given
>to the groups to sell
>a permit. ( 10% x
>4 real funds )
>
>So ya fix it by.
>1 wealth tag per LE species
>per group per RAC Region.
>
>no 10% commission to the groups,
>all funds go back to
>the DWR.
>
>Go to a three year period
>of phasing out bonus points.
>After three years
>its straight luck of the draw
>with no waiting periods.
>
>Forced public input via online survey
>when you purchase a hunting
>license.
>This way the RAC/WB gets input
>from hunters that aren't the
>same dozen or so dudes
>that get paid to go
>to these meetings.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>"If the DWR was just doing
>its job, and
>wildlife and hunting were the actual
>focus,
>none of this process would even
>matter.
>But that is not the focus
>or the goal in any
>
>of this. The current DWR regime,
>and
>SFW were born out of wildlife
>declines,
>and are currently operated and funded
>
>under that paradigm. Those 200 Expo
>
>tags would not even be worth
>anything if
>the focus was where it was
>supposed to
>be, and wildlife and tags were
>plentiful.
>But under the current business model,
>
>that is how the money and
>power is
>generated. It is generated through the
>
>rising "value"(monitization) of a declining
>resource. A resource that is supposed
>to
>be being beneficially managed for the
>
>masses that own that resource, ie.
>US.
>The problem is obvious, hedging is
>not a
>long term sustainable strategy, and
>others have to lose, for some
>to win. In
>this case it is us, the
>many, and our
>resources, that are being forced to
>lose,
>because there is a minority who's
>power
>and money is derived from our
>loses."
>
>LONETREE 3/15/16

And a rollback of the 5 year extension of the Expo contract.

And a 90% DWR direct/10% SFW split of the Expo tag application funds with a provision included in the contract to provide manpower for DWR determined projects. Sorry, Gordy, but I'm ok with that split for both the Expo and Conservation tags as long as the 90% goes directly back to the DWR and the manpower is provided. Plus, (Sorry, Hawkeye) as far as I'm concerned, the 10% could be considered private funding per compensation for the distribution of permits by the organizations and doesn't need to be publically audited. The IRS can do that and we can read the 990 form.

And a 5% limit on ALL LE & OIL permits taken out of the public draw. (It's currently 5% for the Expo and another 5% for the Conservation Program.)

Now, whether or not those provisions would tame the beast which has gotten out of hand (IMO) is yet to be seen, but I think those programs could be valuable if they were run as was intended when they were set up. Otherwise, shut 'em down!
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-11-17 AT 02:41PM (MST)[p]>Lee,
>Read the comment you quoted me
>on. I clearly stated
>I did not agree with
>moving tags to 400.00.
>I stated that if they
>did I would still pay
>it. You constantly do
>not pay attention.
>
>Proper management would be healthier and
>larger herds along with more
>opportunity.

I don't pay attention? Let's see. Just where in my response did I mention the $400 tags? I do see reference to the Expo and Convention tags and your support of them, but it seems that the $400 tags are not mentioned or addressed. But that's ok since you now say you would clearly support them by paying the $400 if they went to that amount. I wouldn't! And neither should you since you claim they are mismanaging the money we've given them. Besides, for $400, either of us could get an out-of-state deer tag and hunt in a state that manages their herds properly.

I could similarly address all your other posts, but all this petty sniveling over who says what and what they mean is nothing more than a distraction to the real ultimate issue which is: Should we manage hunted wildlife primarily for trophies or opportunity?

If you are sincere in your response, I look forward to your support; (1)to return to statewide archery deer hunting, (2)for the expansion of Extended Archery Areas, (3)for preventing the addition of more Limited Entry units as proposed by your father on the Mule Deer Committee, (4)for the prevention of an additional buck to doe ratio tier of 18-20 on the General Units as proposed by Wade Heaton, (5)for the prevention of a mandated up-front payment of permits as part of the application process, (6)for the dismissal of any claims of "overcrowding", (7)for the removal or prevention of any other actions and policies that have little or nothing to do with increasing herds/flocks/schools and providing more opportunities to hunt, trap and fish them, including those mentioned in this thread and (8)for the promotion of actions and policies that do increase the herds/flocks/schools and increase opportunities to hunt, trap and fish them including those mentioned in this thread. Thanks!
 
Lee,
When I get a free second I'll answer all your questions. But you're gonna have to wait a bit. I'm in another 90 hr work week so I'm little busy.

Hustle for the things you want. Or whine about not getting your own way. Let me know which one has worked for you.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-11-17 AT 09:59PM (MST)[p]>Hustle for the things you want.
> Or whine about not
>getting your own way.

I think most of us would agree with your word choice there. The powers-that-be really did "hustle" the average hunter for their own personal gain.

Grizzly
 
I want to make it perfectly clear that the folks at the DWR are good people that I support in their efforts to manage our wildlife resources. Sometimes these threads wander into territory that doesn't have a lot to do with the original intent of the subject.
One thing is clear to me-- we will most likely never see deer numbers that we had in the 60's. The landscape has changed too much-- habitat, roads, more people etc. In my opinion the current biologists, game managers within the DWR are absolutely determined to increase game numbers as well as the quality. But, I think that we all have to remember that there are real constraints that they have to deal with - those that want trophy animals, those that want more tags, private lands considerations, etc etc-- not to mention the federal requirements for dealing with sensitive species issues. The list goes on and on. Its my opinion that as far as having the opportunity for public input into the management decisions we have the best in the country. Just because we each don't get what we personally want, is no reason to beat up on the DWR. If you want something different, speak up and present your views. I absolutely know of some individuals that have done that and it has resulted in some important changes.
I personally believe that putting some of the conservation permits back into the general LE draws would benefit those hunters who rely on these draws to get a tag that would otherwise be unable to afford a high auction priced tag.
Also, I am specifically talking about LE elk and LE deer permits, not turkey, antlerless elk etc. The loss of a few tags by the conservation groups will not be their demise.I believe they will still continue to be a great help in wildlife flourishing in this state. Just my opinion--------
 
>I want to make it perfectly
>clear that the folks at
>the DWR are good people
>that I support in their
>efforts to manage our wildlife
>resources. Sometimes these threads wander
>into territory that doesn't have
>a lot to do with
>the original intent of the
>subject.
>One thing is clear to me--
>we will most likely never
>see deer numbers that we
>had in the 60's. The
>landscape has changed too much--
>habitat, roads, more people etc.
>In my opinion the current
>biologists, game managers within the
>DWR are absolutely determined to
>increase game numbers as well
>as the quality. But, I
>think that we all have
>to remember that there are
>real constraints that they have
>to deal with -
>those that want trophy animals,
>those that want more tags,
>private lands considerations, etc etc--
>not to mention the federal
>requirements for dealing with sensitive
>species issues. The list goes
>on and on. Its my
>opinion that as far as
>having the opportunity for public
>input into the management decisions
>we have the best in
>the country. Just because we
>each don't get what we
>personally want, is no reason
>to beat up on the
>DWR. If you want something
>different, speak up and present
>your views. I absolutely know
>of some individuals that have
>done that and it has
>resulted in some important changes.
>
>I personally believe that putting some
>of the conservation permits back
>into the general LE draws
>would benefit those hunters who
>rely on these draws to
>get a tag that would
>otherwise be unable to afford
>a high auction priced tag.
>
>Also, I am specifically talking about
>LE elk and LE deer
>permits, not turkey, antlerless elk
>etc. The loss of a
>few tags by the conservation
>groups will not be their
>demise.I believe they will still
>continue to be a great
>help in wildlife flourishing in
>this state. Just my opinion--------
>

Excellent post! Especially regarding the DWR. But I would also include some of the OIL permits in the return.
 
Nebo,
Effort is nice but results are the true judge. DWR has always been content with the status quo. Changes only happen when they are forced. It opens the door to more special interest groups and other influences. I've watched and played this game sense I was 5 years old. You say I pulled it off track, man it's the foundation of the track!
 
I saw that Tristate chimed in and decided not to read any comments at all. To everyone else but Tristate, was it another ruined thread?
 
>I want to make it perfectly
>clear that the folks at
>the DWR are good people
>that I support in their
>efforts to manage our wildlife
>resources. Sometimes these threads wander
>into territory that doesn't have
>a lot to do with
>the original intent of the
>subject.
>One thing is clear to me--
>we will most likely never
>see deer numbers that we
>had in the 60's. The
>landscape has changed too much--
>habitat, roads, more people etc.
>In my opinion the current
>biologists, game managers within the
>DWR are absolutely determined to
>increase game numbers as well
>as the quality. But, I
>think that we all have
>to remember that there are
>real constraints that they have
>to deal with -
>those that want trophy animals,
>those that want more tags,
>private lands considerations, etc etc--
>not to mention the federal
>requirements for dealing with sensitive
>species issues. The list goes
>on and on. Its my
>opinion that as far as
>having the opportunity for public
>input into the management decisions
>we have the best in
>the country. Just because we
>each don't get what we
>personally want, is no reason
>to beat up on the
>DWR. If you want something
>different, speak up and present
>your views. I absolutely know
>of some individuals that have
>done that and it has
>resulted in some important changes.
>
>I personally believe that putting some
>of the conservation permits back
>into the general LE draws
>would benefit those hunters who
>rely on these draws to
>get a tag that would
>otherwise be unable to afford
>a high auction priced tag.
>
>Also, I am specifically talking about
>LE elk and LE deer
>permits, not turkey, antlerless elk
>etc. The loss of a
>few tags by the conservation
>groups will not be their
>demise.I believe they will still
>continue to be a great
>help in wildlife flourishing in
>this state. Just my opinion--------
>


I agree with a lot of what you are saying , however, you mention "conservation permits", I believe "Expo Permits" should be included within the theory.
75% of the Conservation AND Expo permits should be returned to the drawings. The groups receiving the permits should be able to survive on their own memberships rather than the public's permits
my2scents
 
This has been a civil and informative discussion and I appreciate those that take part in this without the bullshiite thrown around.
 

Similar threads

L
No more governors tags for AZ
2
Replies
145
Views
6k
AZGuy
AZGuy
N
Western Hunt Expo. What is really going on?
2 3
Replies
202
Views
9k
Zim
Zim
F
Change UNIT-WIDE elk designation in New Mexico to RANCH ONLY!
Replies
54
Views
3k
MrRogers
MrRogers

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

Deer 1 trip.jpg
7F7D625D-C012-4EBB-AAB6-329275AC969C.png
fullsizeoutput_2ddd.jpeg
20230716_061519.jpg
VideoCapture_20211113-093348.jpg
C3214A3E-9EE2-4672-825A-363949BC2898.jpeg
IMG_2904 copy.jpg
20231014_183726.jpg
VideoCapture_20230816-174530.jpg
Big Bull Elk
20200903_195500.jpg
FB_IMG_1498518535895.jpg
Back
Top Bottom