Transfer tags to youth?

I am a youth and I am strongly against it. I can only imagine all the nonhunters that would start putting in just to get a tag and transfer it.
 
Great idea! Not.
4abc76ff29b26fc1.jpg
 
Basically, if a tag holder has a "permanent physical impairment" or injury that makes the holder "physically unable" to use the tag... they can give the tag to a Resident Youth (under 18) that is their child or grandchild.

The only other time a tag could be transferred to a Resident Youth (under 18) is when the youth has a "life-threatening medical condition". This does not require the youth be a child or grandchild.

The original permit holder cannot receive compensation and must accompany the child on the hunt.

Both cases require "prior written approval" from the division and only apply to Resident Youth.

I guess there could be a small chance of a non-hunter drawing a tag they didn't intend to use just to give it to their kid, but they must also have a physical impairment that prevents them from using the tag or give it to a child with a life-threatening condition. I don't see this system being abused in a real-world situation.
 
I don't care either way, but I would have to go along with grizzly the way the Bill is written.
 
In Arizona any parent or grandparent can transfer their tag to any hunt-legal youth(is 10 or up and has passed hunter safety). There are a few out there that have their relatives that never hunt put in specifically for their kids, but it honestly does not happen very often, based on all the people I know. I don't think it hurts things that much. Gives kids a better opportunity to hunt more than anything, which can never be a negative thing in itself.
 
"I would like to transfer my LE elk tag to this youth with a life threatening disease."

"Yes sir. The the name of the youth to which you want to transfer?"

"SFW."
 
>"I would like to transfer my
>LE elk tag to this
>youth with a life threatening
>disease."
>
>"Yes sir. The the name of
>the youth to which you
>want to transfer?"
>
>"SFW."


Your own state of Arizona already has this law in place. This bill has the endorsement of MDF, RMEF, SFW, and other local conservation groups.
There is nothing humorous about a youth with a life threatening disease.
 
Correct, Arizona allows a hunter to transfer a license to Hunt-of-a-lifetime to a youth with a life threatening disease.

I'm not only OK with this law, I donated my 2012 NR Arizona bull elk permit to HOAL.

Its amazing how selfish and one-dimensional people have become.

Take with both hands and give nothing back.
 
>Correct, Arizona allows a hunter to
>transfer a license to Hunt-of-a-lifetime
>to a youth with a
>life threatening disease.
>
>I'm not only OK with this
>law, I donated my 2012
>NR Arizona bull elk permit
>to HOAL.
>
>Its amazing how selfish and one-dimensional
>people have become.
>
>Take with both hands and give
>nothing back.
>
>

+1
I applaud your unselfish act. That is what this bill is all about.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-09-13 AT 12:24PM (MST)[p]Grizzly, the bill allows a disabled hunter to transfer their tag to any person regardless of age or relation. That portion of the bill is not just applicable to youth.
Also a youth does NOT have to have a life threatening condition to have a tag transferred to them. Mom can transfer her tag to junior as long as he is under 18. Your reading of the bill is incorrect.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-09-13 AT 01:09PM (MST)[p]What i have read does not mention a disabled hunter transferring his or her permit. It does say that anyone who would like to donate their tag to a unrelated youth who has a life threatening medical condition may do so. Acting as a mentor, the adult who donated the tag would be required to accompany the youth in the field. They may not receive compensation. The bill would also allow an adult to transfer his or her LE or OIL permit to a child, grandchild, stepchild, or legal ward of the permit holder under the age of 18. The same rules apply as to accompanying the hunter.
If this bill passes as expected, it will still have to be brought before the wildlife board. They will allow public input before the rules are set and the program is implemented. Each case of a tag being transferred will have to be approved by the UDWR. This is only my understanding of the bill. I hope it helps a little.
 
After having a little more time to digest this, here are my thoughts. The bill applies to only 3 situations. Only one of the 3 gives me pause. But I think it could be cleaned up some to remove my hesitancy. Here are the 3:

1- The tag holder has a permanent physical impairment that renders the person incapable of using the legal weapon the tag is for. These tag holders can transfer to anyone. This is the one I view as the highest possibility for abuse. However, it's not just someone with a disability. It's a physical impairment that makes them incapable of using the weapon the tag requires. I would like to see language added that says the physical impairment rendering you incapable of using the legal weapon occurred AFTER you applied for the tag. I'm not unsympathetic to those with physical infirmities and disabilities, but if you know you can't do the hunt, you shouldn't be allowed to then transfer it. That appears to me to be the biggest potential for abuse in this. Even without the language added, I'd hope the Division will not allow the transfer if the person had no intention of being able to do the hunt when applying.

2- Any tag holder would be able to transfer their tag to their minor child/grandchild or to a minor that they are the legal guardian of. I have no issue with this. If someone has a tag and they'd rather have their kid pull the trigger than them doing it himself, I am okay with that.

3- Transfer to a minor that is suffering from a life threatening illness. Again, I have zero issue with this and actually take my hat off to those willing to do this.

Grandma Gertrude can't put in for grandson Johnny here and just hand him a tag and send him into the hills. The Division still has to give written permission. The tag holder has to accompany the minor in the field and be present always. Tag holder still loses any bonus or preference points and all applicable waiting periods will still be enforced. I'd like to see some language added to help prevent what could be a large amount of abuse in the first group. But overall, I could easily support this change.
 
Okay, so let me get this straight so we are all on the same page. In a previous post I misread the statute and missed Section 2(b).

1. Anybody can transfer to an ill child;
2. An ill person can transfer to anybody;
3. Anybody can transfer to their own child/grandchild.

These are the three possibilities, right?

I see a couple of concerns... the disability should have happened after application but before opening day of the hunting season. There could be abuse there.

Also, if somebody is too disabled to hunt the tag on their own, how can they accompany the child in the field?

I really would like to include Arizona's provision (giving to sick children), though in Utah you can turn the tag back and keep your points... which I think isn't an option in Arizona. So I don't think it would be used as much in Utah. I think this is a great program and is very selfless of those that have participated.
 
Tick, Tick, Tick, until a few words are changed to make it your tag to "give" to anyone you please. Question, how does your family member who is too physically impaired to hunt the tag themself, follow the minor into the field? What is a physical impairment? Knee replacement? ACL? Here we go down that slippery slope, and with SFW behind it my Spidey senses are tingling. Rather than some convoluted law, how about SFW, and THE DON give up a few of their conservation tags to Make a Wish. Wouldn't need a law, or bill, they can do so willingly, have all the PR they can generate, and no one would oppose that.

I am telling you it will soon be" Sir, I have such and such an ailment, and I can't hunt my Pahvant tag, I have numerous medical bills and this kind sir Mr. Austad wants to generously help me out with them, however I would like to give him this tag in return for his "donation"". Are you goint to stop some poor guy from paying off his medical bills? This has bad and abuse written all over it.


"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 
Grizz looks like I need to type faster, I agree with your thoughts, obviously


"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-09-13 AT 04:45PM (MST)[p]>Okay, so let me get this
>straight so we are all
>on the same page.
>In a previous post I
>misread the statute and missed
>Section 2(b).
>
>1. Anybody can transfer to an
>ill child;
>2. An ill person can transfer
>to anybody;
>3. Anybody can transfer to their
>own child/grandchild.
>
>These are the three possibilities, right?
>
>
>I see a couple of concerns...
>the disability should have happened
>after application but before opening
>day of the hunting season.
> There could be abuse
>there.
>
>Also, if somebody is too disabled
>to hunt the tag on
>their own, how can they
>accompany the child in the
>field?
>
>I really would like to include
>Arizona's provision (giving to sick
>children), though in Utah you
>can turn the tag back
>and keep your points... which
>I think isn't an option
>in Arizona. So I
>don't think it would be
>used as much in Utah.
> I think this is
>a great program and is
>very selfless of those that
>have participated.


I THINK that situation #2 is incorrect. An ill person can only transfer tag to a intermediate family member that is under the age of 18. If it is not that way it should be. Really it should be no different then situation #3 thus eliminating all together a need for # 2 situation.

Now it's clear as mud right:)
Hopefully it is carefully thought out with public input before it is ever implemented.
 
Again, the impairment has to be something that prevents you from using the legal weapon for your tag. I'm not sure how a knee replacement, ACL, or heck, even a heart attack one is recovering from prohibits you from shooting a bow, muzzy, or rifle.

I may be reading it narrowly, but that's how it's written. I don't think spraining one's ankle is going to qualify.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-09-13 AT 07:30PM (MST)[p]The guy that's disabled to the point where he can't shoot is not transferring the license to another person the way the Bill reads. The way I read it means he would be in the field and the other person would be pulling the trigger for him, but it is still his license. I don't believe this could be abused very easily if the G&F has to approve each individual circumstance on a case by case basis.
 
The verbiage states it must be a "permanent physical impairment" (see below). At least that is they way I read it.

I don't think a sprained ankle would do it.

(i) the person possessing the license, certificate of registration, permit, or tag has a permanent physical impairment due to a congenital or acquired injury or disease; and (ii) the injury or disease described in Subsection (3)(b)(i) results in the person having a disability that renders the person physically unable to use a legal hunting weapon or fishing device;

Too much a can of worms. UDWR should just copy Arizona and make it simple.

If you tear your ACL before hunting season, you can always turn it back in anyway and draw it again next year.
 
I smell a rat with this proposed bill. I think it is a piece of gateway legislation that will be tweaked in future years to allow different types of abuses. In other words, this legislation is purposely being written to open up the door just a crack so in the future more revisions can be made to the buying, selling and transferring of bonus points and tags. Believe me this is just the start. I hate to say it but 10 years down the road we are going to wish we never opened the door on this even a crack.
 
>I smell a rat with this
>proposed bill. I think it
>is a piece of gateway
>legislation that will be tweaked
>in future years to allow
>different types of abuses. In
>other words, this legislation is
>purposely being written to open
>up the door just a
>crack so in the future
>more revisions can be made
>to the buying, selling and
>transferring of bonus points and
>tags. Believe me this is
>just the start. I hate
>to say it but 10
>years down the road we
>are going to wish we
>never opened the door on
>this even a crack.


I'll buy that. I don't trust DWR or the Board. In Utah, what SFW wants, SFW gets. They will eventually make this benefit them financially. I'm going to email my congressmen and tell them to vote NO. Thanks to the Original Post for bringing this to our attention.

Lots of discussion and no name-calling. Rare these days.
 
Here is the email I sent to my Representative and Senator. Their emails can all be found by putting in your address at http://le.utah.gov/GIS/findDistrict.jsp

--


Please vote NO on SB-61.

As an avid hunter and outdoorsman I just wanted to let you know my feelings on SB 61 (Hunting Permit Amendments). Though the intent of this legislation is commendable, the value of hunting permits today (sometimes selling for over $100,000 each at auction) only leads this type of system to quickly become ripe with abuse.

Many of these coveted tags now take 60+ years to draw through the public system and allowing Grandma to acquire a deer tag she never intended to use, just to give to her grandson, only takes that tag from somebody that has been waiting decades to be lucky enough to draw the tag through the legitimate system.

Tags supplied, by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, to Conservation Organizations can already be donated to another hunter if they so choose. This opportunity should be left to the individual organizations, and should not affect the public hunters without the financial means to play in that financial league. For every hunting permit the state issues as part of SB-61; somebody else, an Average Joe, lost an opportunity they have spent decades and thousands of dollars to acquire.

Also, there is a serious flaw in the bill. As written, the bill requires the Grantor (who is now unable to use the tag) to accompany the Grantee at all times. How can somebody simultaneously be unable to hunt and still accompany the hunter in the field?

This is a can of worms that should be left unopened. Thank you for your consideration.
 
>I smell a rat with this
>proposed bill. I think it
>is a piece of gateway
>legislation that will be tweaked
>in future years to allow
>different types of abuses. In
>other words, this legislation is
>purposely being written to open
>up the door just a
>crack so in the future
>more revisions can be made
>to the buying, selling and
>transferring of bonus points and
>tags. Believe me this is
>just the start. I hate
>to say it but 10
>years down the road we
>are going to wish we
>never opened the door on
>this even a crack.

This actually the best argument I've heard in opposition to the bill. Most of the other stuff just didn't pass the smell test for me. But this is something that is a possibility and has me re- thinking. (Again...)
 
I scanned this discussion and think there are some misconceptions about this bill and the program it's proposing. The focus is primarily on the mentoring process.

I think people are getting confused about lines 54-60 in S.B. 61, which are unrelated to this proposal. We agree: the original permit recipient must be able to accompany the youth into the field.

Depending on how the details work out, the adult mentor would likely be allowed to give a youth either a limited-entry or once-in-a-lifetime big game hunting permit.

If this bill becomes a law, the Utah Wildlife Board will obtain public comment on the program before deciding exactly how it will work. (So the public will definitely have a chance to weigh in via the RAC process.)

Board members will then set the rules needed to implement the program and determine which permits are eligible. No matter the type of permit, the adult mentor may not receive any form of compensation for allowing the youth to use it.

To take advantage of this opportunity, the mentor must also:
?Obtain prior approval from the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
?Be willing to forfeit applicable bonus or preference points and incur the appropriate waiting period
?Accompany the youth in the field throughout the hunt

An eligible youth must be:
?Younger than 18 years old
?A Utah resident
?The child, grandchild, stepchild or legal ward of the permit holder

This bill also allows eligible adults to give a permit to ? and mentor ? unrelated youth who are suffering from life-threatening medical conditions.

Many of the scenarios discussed earlier in this thread just won't play out in light of the pre-approval and mentoring requirements.

For those who are interested, the Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture and Environment committee discussed this bill during a hearing last Thursday. You can listen to the discussion, which might shed some more light on this proposed program.


Amy Canning
Communications Specialist
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
 
Amy, thanks for responding. In my post you will see that I said, "the intent of this legislation is commendable", which I believe.

Hopefully you can understand why so many of us are skeptical of the Board and their ability/desire to actively listen to hunters during the comment period; and why many of us believe this may become a "slippery slope" towards more tags being used by Special Interest Groups (read: SFW and MDF) considering the Board is so heavily influenced and occupied by individuals connected with those organizations.

If the desire is for a program to benefit seriously ill children, lets leave it there (like Arizona). Much less room for abuse.

I don't see a need for a Mentor Program being that the child/grandchild can always accompany the father/grandfather on the hunt and get all the experiences that go with it. We all know that actually pulling the trigger is the smallest part of a quality hunt. We would then avoid the potential pitfalls that worry so many, and maintain the intent of the bill.

Grizzly
 
Amy,

What about subsection (3)(b)? That is the portion that gives me the most pause and I see the opportunity for abuse. I don't have any issue with the youth portions. I do question what the intent of subsection (3)(b) is that you didn't address though.

Would love to here what the intent is behind that. Because I don't think it should be allowed if a person had the injury/disability prior to application to be able to transfer it.
 
>Amy,
>
>What about subsection (3)(b)? That
>is the portion that gives
>me the most pause and
>I see the opportunity for
>abuse. I don't have
>any issue with the youth
>portions. I do question
>what the intent of subsection
>(3)(b) is that you didn't
>address though.
>
>Would love to here what the
>intent is behind that.
>Because I don't think it
>should be allowed if a
>person had the injury/disability prior
>to application to be able
>to transfer it.

That's a good question, Vanilla, and I think it's where a lot of the confusion is coming from. There are multiple subsections in this bill. The only one that deals with this proposal is subsection 3c (lines 61-74). The other subsections ? including 3a (line 53), 3b (lines 54-60), and 3d (lines 75-78) ? are unrelated to the youth mentoring proposal.

Basically, all four subsections below section 3 are areas where the Wildlife Board can pass rules to make exceptions. None of the subsections have anything to do with each other. If you read the language right next to #3 (lines 49-51), it sets the framework for the four subsections below it.

The Board has already passed rules that address subsection 3b. You can read them in the Companion Hunting and Fishing rule (R657-12-5).

I hope this has helped clear things up a bit.
 
Amy,

The Companion Rule you posted already allows a disabled person to have their tag filled by somebody else, as long as they accompany them in the field.

So why do we need 3(b)? What does it change?

3(c) still allows Grandma to draw a tag she never intended to use just to give it to Little Billy (with no disability required of either party).

My Grandpa has maximum points for moose. Even though my little brother or sister would love to hunt moose this year, which this rule would allow... it doesn't seem right. We should all wait in line together. A 17 year old shouldn't jump in front of a 40 year old who has been waiting two decades.
 
I have read through this bill a couple of times trying to understand all that is at question here. I think that I could support this bill if a couple of items were cleared up for me.
1. If the person donating the tag and the person receiving the tag have to be on the hunt, why should they be able to transfer the tag in the first place?
2. In section 3C the term ?Visual signals? needs to be dropped from the bill. I have been able to successful communicate with my scout troop several hundred yards away using flags and several miles away using mirrors.
3. I think that it needs to be made clear that the disability or life threatening illness needs to be diagnosed after the tag donor applied for the tag.
4. Anyone donating a tag because of a disability or a life threatening illness should not be allowed to apply for any tags in the future.


400bull
 
>Amy,
>
>The Companion Rule you posted already
>allows a disabled person to
>have their tag filled by
>somebody else, as long as
>they accompany them in the
>field.
>
>So why do we need 3(b)?
> What does it change?
>
>
>3(c) still allows Grandma to draw
>a tag she never intended
>to use just to give
>it to Little Billy (with
>no disability required of either
>party).
>
>My Grandpa has maximum points for
>moose. Even though my
>little brother or sister would
>love to hunt moose this
>year, which this rule would
>allow... it doesn't seem right.
> We should all wait
>in line together. A
>17 year old shouldn't jump
>in front of a 40
>year old who has been
>waiting two decades.

I'm sorry, grizzly. I guess I didn't explain it well. Subsection 3(b) is part of current state law, and it was in existence before the companion hunting rule I referenced. In fact, it's the very law that authorized the Wildlife Board to go ahead and create the companion hunting rule in the first place.

In the case of subsection 3(c), it's just setting up the framework that would authorize the Wildlife Board to make a rule overseeing the mentor permit program. So, at some point down the road, if this bill becomes law, then the Wildlife Board would create a new rule that covers all the specifics about how the program would work.

Subsection 3(c) is new to this statute. Subsection 3(b) is an older part of the statute that was simply amended. They are completely unrelated.

And I guess I'm confused about your examples. If a woman is eligible to apply for a LE elk permit and draws it, and then decides to give it to her grandson (and actually accompanies him on the hunt), what's wrong with that?

Likewise, if your grandpa draws his moose permit this year, no one is going to take it away from him or force him to give it to your brother or sister. It will be completely up to him whether he wants to let a young relative have it instead.

No one is automatically jumping ahead of anyone else in this process. It will be a private decision by the permit recipients about what they want to do. I'm guessing that the majority of them will go ahead and hunt. But this legislation would at least give them the option of sharing their permit with a child or grandchild.

This legislation was proposed because the DWR has received many requests from parents and grandparents who wish to donate their big game hunting permits to younger relatives. The adults want to instill hunting traditions and heritage in the youth. This legislation offers them a memorable way to do it and spend time with the youth throughout the hunt.
 
Amy, obviously no offense to you. But I'm still not buying the true intent of this legislation. You state "adults want to instill hunting traditions and heritage in the youth. This legislation offers them a memorable way to do it...."

Here is my take; if adults want to instill hunting traditions in the youth, they can simply take them hunting...
So now today's youth won't be instilled with hunting traditions and heritage unless they are on a premier LE hunt??? Really?
 
>So now today's youth won't be
>instilled with hunting traditions and
>heritage unless they are on
>a premier LE hunt??? Really?

That's honestly not what I'm saying. I think most Utah hunters are already trying to instill hunting ethics and traditions in their kids and grandkids. I think it's something that happens with every trip into the field together, whether you're hunting big game, upland birds, waterfowl or jackrabbits. All the shots (hit or miss), the conversations, the cleaning of game, the campfire reminiscing ? they all make lasting memories and turn our young hunters into responsible adult hunters.

This legislation is just another option for the person who draws the permit. It might not be a program for everyone, but we have had hunters request it as an option. And for a young hunter, it would be a really amazing gift from a parent or grandparent. But like I said, I think the majority of those who draw the permits will probably use them themselves.
 
Sweet, looks like I need to start putting my my Mom, Dad, Mother-in-law, and Father-in-Law in every year so that by the time my kids are old enough to hunt they can use Grandma and Grandpa's Limited entry tags!!! I don't agree with this part of the bill but I will certainly do it because the way that the system is going it may be the only way my kids will ever get a Limited Entry tag because of stupid exceptions like this.

I agree with donating a tag to a terminally ill child and would rather see a hunt of a lifetime tag donation system like Arizona than anything in this bill.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-11-13 AT 10:30PM (MST)[p]>What about people who don't have
>kids?


You could keep the tag if you were able. Or if you could not physically hunt yourself, im sure you could be put in contact with a youth who meets the requirements to have the tag donated to them.(terminally ill)
 
"And I guess I'm confused about your examples. If a woman is eligible to apply for a LE elk permit and draws it, and then decides to give it to her grandson (and actually accompanies him on the hunt), what's wrong with that?"

This is exactly how Oregon's mentored youth program works. The kid hunts with, and on, an adults tag.
 
>"And I guess I'm confused about
>your examples. If a woman
>is eligible to apply for
>a LE elk permit and
>draws it, and then decides
>to give it to her
>grandson (and actually accompanies him
>on the hunt), what's wrong
>with that?"
>
>This is exactly how Oregon's mentored
>youth program works. The kid
>hunts with, and on, an
>adults tag.


See ELKMANDAN's example two posts above.

This country needs less "special interest groups". Kids can get all the memories in the world accompanying family on the hunt. Pulling the trigger is where the problems start.
 
I think a few of us can see the potential for abuse of any such program.

Remember the little thing called "unintended consequences".

There will be a bunch of non-hunters making application (actually there will be people making application FOR them) which will increase the points logjam. That's hardly what we need!

The current system counts on a certain amount of attrition. What's next? ......Points which never die?

I Vote NO!

Zeke
 
That's not how I read is Grizz...

(c) allow a resident minor under 18 years of age to use the resident or nonresident hunting permit of another person if:
(i) the resident minor is:
(A) the permit holder's child, stepchild, grandchild, or legal ward, if the permit holder's guardianship of the legal ward is based solely on the minor's age; or
(B) suffering from a life threatening medical condition;

I read the OR in there as very important... it separates line A from B... So either the minor is the child, stepchild, grandchild, legal ward... OR... they are suffering from a life threatening illness...

Aside from that, I'm not sure how abused the system would be, but plenty of old guys could technically put in for tags, draw them, and give them to grandkids... I think the part about them having to be in the field with the minor would limit the real abuse though...

"Therefore, wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion!" 2 Ne. 28: 24
 
How can you possibly regulate whether or not compensation is made to the party transferring the tag..??

"Therefore, wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion!" 2 Ne. 28: 24
 
ElkManDan said: "Sweet, looks like I need to start putting my my Mom, Dad, Mother-in-law, and Father-in-Law in every year so that by the time my kids are old enough to hunt they can use Grandma and Grandpa's Limited entry tags!!! I don't agree with this part of the bill but I will certainly do it because the way that the system is going it may be the only way my kids will ever get a Limited Entry tag because of stupid exceptions like this."

Yep, this screws current people trying to get a tag. If passed I'll have to keep up by putting my non-hunting mom into the draws. She does have Alzheimer?s; but hey, she can still walk and ride along in a Razor. She's also old enough to be exempt from hunter?s safety. My kids will benefit at the expense of others wanting to draw for themselves.

I'm against this.
 
I am a Utah resident. I have enough points to draw an early kiabab deer hunt in Arizona this year. I am going to draw the tag and give it to my 10 year old son. My boy has seen my shoot multiple deer, and elk. It will be awesome to watch my 10 year old son kill his first buck this year. I will enjoy the hunt more and so will he. I see no problems with me giving my tag to my boy. I lose my bonus points, I still get to hunt, only he pulls the trigger and will be ecstatic when he kills a little 4 point. It means more to him to pull the trigger than it does to me. I probably will not give him my elk tag when I draw it, but that is my choice. He can watch me shoot then. I like the AZ law, and would support it in Utah.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-12-13 AT 01:54PM (MST)[p]It seems like most of us agree with the principle that if a dad wants to let his son shoot his deer, then it is okay. It doesn't increase point-creep, it is still one-animal-for-one-tag, so the herd is not adversely affected and the kid will enjoy himself.

The big concern is with adding to point creep.

This system basically legislates a "straw buyer" program for big game tags.

Its a terrible idea in a place like Utah with our already ridiculous point creep.

The cynical side of me wonders if DWR knows this and is just looking for another way to increase revenue (by getting all the non-hunting parents/grandparents to start applying. A pile of new hunting licenses plus $10 application fees would raise a lot of money).

Our Congressmen that may support hunters, but don't do it themselves, have no idea the current value of these limited-entry tags or the log-jam that we currently face. On face value, this bill is a no-brainer. We need to let them know where this whole thing will blow up.

That's why I wrote my Congressmen and told them to Vote No. See my letter above (Post #24).

Grizzly
 
This topic has been focused so much on limited entry. I see this happening EXPONENTIALLY more in the general hunts than on LE tags.

So according to Amy, the portion of the bill that was uneasy about, (3)(b), was already on the Utah books? I've hunted in Utah for 20 years and I've never heard that. Learn something new every day, I guess.

I still support the provision of being able to give to your child a tag if you want, limited entry or general. And it wouldn't be tough for the DWR to spot the people trying to abuse this and not allow for the transfer. If a 73 year old man/woman just drew their first tag ever and are immediately trying to transfer it to someone else...I'd say decline the request. (as an example)
 
'Nilla, under what grounds would there be to decline their request to transfer? Remember (with point creep)in the future a 73 year old person drawing a coveted LE tag will not be unheard of. So for years and years the 73 year old hunts the general season with his kids and grand kids. Then finally he draws a premier tag, is it right to deny that transfer to a grandchild? I don't know the answer, just pointing out one of the many problems and lack of clarity this legislation could bring.
 
""I think a few of us can see the potential for abuse of any such program.

Remember the little thing called "unintended consequences".

There will be a bunch of non-hunters making application (actually there will be people making application FOR them) which will increase the points logjam. That's hardly what we need!

The current system counts on a certain amount of attrition. What's next? ......Points which never die?

I Vote NO!

Zeke"""


I agree with zeke. The point log jam has already made it so I will probably never in my life draw a LE elk tag. I have kids and wold like to see them have a chance some day but here in utah I already witnessed the abuse that grandma, mama and johny that never hunted did when they were sharing points and then turning them back in. I helped fight that and the last thing I want to see is the point abuse opened back up. This is a pandora box. Its just like the crossbow debate. The crossbow guys pull at your heart strings with handicap kids and young girls saying how unfair it is for them and how much more fair it would be if they were allowed to use a crossbow. They just want the law changed so the little girls can hunt with a crossbow. Then one year later the law is changed so every swing harry is carrying one.


My vote is no!

avatar_2528.jpg


who farted?
 
>'Nilla, under what grounds would there
>be to decline their request
>to transfer? Remember (with point
>creep)in the future a 73
>year old person drawing a
>coveted LE tag will not
>be unheard of. So for
>years and years the 73
>year old hunts the general
>season with his kids and
>grand kids. Then finally he
>draws a premier tag, is
>it right to deny that
>transfer to a grandchild? I
>don't know the answer, just
>pointing out one of the
>many problems and lack of
>clarity this legislation could bring.
>


But if someone had been on the general hunt their whole life, that LE wasn't their first tag. I have zero issue with the example you have given. I don't think someone hunting with their kids/grand kids for years, finally drawing a LE tag and passing it on to one of them is the abuse being talked about here.

For those against it, what if the rule required both the tag holder AND the recipient of the transfer to forfeit their points for that species? Would that help?
 
That's not a bad idea... losing all points for BOTH people. What about a maximum "donated" tag receipt limit of one per person?

For example, the same person couldn't receive a donated tag from Grandma, Grandpa, Mother, other Grandma, etc...

You could hunt off dad's tag once, but you could only receive one tag via this program in your life (only goes until age 18 anyway).

What are the pros/cons of something like that?

Grizzly
 
>I am a Utah resident.
>I have enough points to
>draw an early kiabab deer
>hunt in Arizona this year.
> I am going to
>draw the tag and give
>it to my 10 year
>old son. My boy
>has seen my shoot multiple
>deer, and elk. It
>will be awesome to watch
>my 10 year old son
>kill his first buck this
>year. I will enjoy
>the hunt more and so
>will he. I see
>no problems with me giving
>my tag to my boy.
> I lose my bonus
>points, I still get to
>hunt, only he pulls the
>trigger and will be ecstatic
>when he kills a little
>4 point. It means
>more to him to pull
>the trigger than it does
>to me. I probably
>will not give him my
>elk tag when I draw
>it, but that is my
>choice. He can watch
>me shoot then. I like
>the AZ law, and would
>support it in Utah.

I have sons, I get EXACTLY what your saying. BUT, HOWEVER, I am in these draws with both you and your son. With what your doing, YES, you give up your points, but your son is still in. If we go this route, then both parties should give up the points, then I have no problem.

I still think that it is sad we waste time with these kinds of bills, then watch as SFW tries to eliminate access and lands. For the handfull of kids that might benefit from this process, 10x that many will be cut out this year by tag cuts, landgrabs, etc.
"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 
I understand what you are saying, but I respectively disagree with you. If I draw the tag, why should it matter who pulls the trigger. If I pull the trigger, then my boy is still in the point pool with you. My points are gone either way. If I kept my points when I gave it to my son, then that would be an issue, but either way, you are taking those 7 deer points out of the draw. I would hunt it if I could not give it to my boy. My boy has 0 points this year, because he just turned 10, so it would not hurt him in the least, but no need taking 2 peoples points out of the pool. One deer hunted 1 persons points gone.

In AZ, it cost me $151 to get a bonus point, if someone that would not hunt, would pay for those 7 points, just to give there kid a mediocre deer tag when he was old enough to hunt, then good on them, but I do not see that happening very often.

I had not planned on giving the tag to him until recently. It just turned out to work out that way.
 
Again, I get your desire, totally. Although I have 2 boys so it might be hard to explain to the youngest how he got screwed. My kids still have 3 grandparents, 4 non hunting aunts/uncles. If it was legal that would give him 7 points a year, and believe me, I would pay the $70 for the app fees. We can pretend this is not going to happen, but lets be honest it will. But, I still think this is bad for hunting long term. My boys, will hunt deer on the manti with my family(which means looking at elk), and hunting elk on the north slope with my wifes family. While we have had a good run for elk the last few years, these aren't LE units, not trophy units. I hope they learn to love hunting for the experience and not for the points, record books, inches. I would prefer giving kids a head start on seasons, maybe a day or two. Or increasing the youth hunts. I don't think our sport survives with the continued "trophy hunter" mentality. We spend way to much time and capital on too few hunters and units IMO. BUT, good for you for worrying more about the kid, then yourself, we need WAY more of that!


"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 
AMY
is this law just for residents then.

"An eligible youth must be:
?Younger than 18 years old
?A Utah resident
?The child, grandchild, stepchild or legal ward of the permit holder"

so your NR Hunter points couldn't be pass on to his Kids/Grandkids who had a medical problem?

"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
>[Font][Font color = "green"]Life member of
>the MM green signature club.[font/]
 
It appears that only the youth must be a resident. So NR points could be transferred to a resident youth.

This could happen quite easily with grandparents living out of the state or in a divorce situation.
 
so the sick kid has be a UT resident to be able to use the points that his Grandpa or Grandma have paid for.
That kind of sucks to put it mildly.

"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
>[Font][Font color = "green"]Life member of
>the MM green signature club.[font/]
 
If you are going to let a parent / grandparent transfer their tag to someone else (youth?), then why not just authorize party hunting? It has taken years for the old tradition of party hunting in Utah to wither, and this legislation just re-opens that can.
In one example above, the poster says, what does it matter if his son pulls the trigger or he does, it is still just one dead animal. This is exactly what party hunting did, and it did have an impact on the herds.

I am opposed to this legislation. It is the camels nose under the tent. It WILL be abused in the future, and there are many more scenarios for abuse than pointed out above. Non-hunting parents (mothers?) and grandparents will be acquiring points solely for the purpose of transfer tags to their kids years in the future. And I do believe SFW will further pervert this in the future.

All of these tweaks to the preference point system, tag transfer, etc., is special interest politics at its worst. Sure, use kids as the pawn to get the emotional response, but it is still manipulating the system. Which all points toward the need to eliminate point systems in their entirety. A straight random draw each year eliminates all this monkeying around. But it also reduces the politicians power to pander to special interests, so it won't happen anytime soon.
Bill
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-19-13 AT 09:49AM (MST)[p]>If you are going to let
>a parent / grandparent transfer
>their tag to someone else
>(youth?), then why not just
>authorize party hunting? It has
>taken years for the old
>tradition of party hunting in
>Utah to wither, and this
>legislation just re-opens that can.
>

This is a fair comparison Llamapacker.

Passing tags/points around is the same thing as party hunting IMHO.

Sometimes we have to look back at history so we don't repeatedly make the same mistakes going forward. The F&G needs to look in the rearview mirror to see where they've been and decide not to go there again..... with regard to party hunting.

Zeke

PS: I do like a points system however. My personal experience with "random" is pathetic.
 

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