Deseret Ranch Ut, Inflation gone wild…

257Tony

Long Time Member
Messages
3,978
CWMU were the end of public hunting in the state of Utah,I know of one in Wasatch county that has only 4500 acres.They get elk and deer tags.Someone mentioned 10.000 acres not so!Another CWMU I know of, has bidders bid on there permits and a 5 year lease for the hunting rights for that unit.

I do not agree with the program,I also agree that they should have to bid for our permits,And there season should be held to the same dates as public hunting.
Do any of you remember back when this movement started people were going all over the state with petitions to sign,
DON PAEY WAS ORGANIZER OF ALL OF THIS,IMAGINE THAT,
So there are your deep pockets!!
Which CWMU is this? Provide a name so we can verify they are getting around the acreage requirement, otherwise I'm calling BS.
 

Vanilla

Very Active Member
Messages
2,690
Hoss, there is nothing I could ever say that will make you be in favor of the CWMU program. I don't even want you to be in favor of it. You can not like it, and that is perfectly okay. I happen to think it's a pretty good program. Not perfect, but pretty good. And regardless of what you say, it increases opportunities to hunt in the state. If CWMUs went away, all those tags (not animals...I'm talking specifically tags) don't just all the sudden go back into the draw for the public to hunt even just on the public lands surrounding the present CWMUs.

So, yeah, some outfitters have been able to turn this into making a living. I don't hate them for it any more than I would you for what you decided to do to make a living. Increased hunting opportunities are a good thing IMO, even if that means some private enterprises get to benefit as well. If you wanted to pass a rule that public lands could no longer be included in any CWMUs, I would not hate that. Some places it makes a lot of sense to include them as there would be no possible way for anyone else to actually get to those areas, but even then, I wouldn't quibble with you over that.
 

Vanilla

Very Active Member
Messages
2,690
Which CWMU is this? Provide a name so we can verify they are getting around the acreage requirement, otherwise I'm calling BS.

Just to be clear, the 10K acres is for elk and moose. Deer, turkey and pronghorn is 5K acres.

 

257Tony

Long Time Member
Messages
3,978
Just to be clear, the 10K acres is for elk and moose. Deer, turkey and pronghorn is 5K acres.

Yep, the other guy was claiming there is a 4500 acre CWMU that is getting elk tags, I'm curious how they get around the established rules.
 

notdonhunting

Very Active Member
Messages
1,496
So, you're saying the state set up a corporate hunting system, in which the availability of guaranteed tags every year bring in hundreds of thousands of dollars? For which the state gets a fraction of?

Seems like a system set up decades ago, needs to be looked at.

Lots of could be conservation dollars that could be captured by an underfunded DWR.

Perhaps, the state should let the CWMUs bid for a SET number of tags each year. Let the high bidder, win. But better yet, the DWR wins every time. They have, the tags, which is what brings the cash.

Not the DWR job to hold down inflation, nor to create profit for a private corporation.
The CWMU is not selling a permit they are selling the right to hunt an elk on their property.
If you was to ask any CWMU operator how much for a elk permit to hunt their property they would tell you the state rate for trophy bull but they would also say it costs X-amount of dollars for the right to hunt on their property and X-amount of dollars to be guided on their property.
$$$+$$$$+$$$$=$$$$$
 

Vanilla

Very Active Member
Messages
2,690
Yep, the other guy was claiming there is a 4500 acre CWMU that is getting elk tags, I'm curious how they get around the established rules.

Yep, I get that. I should have quoted his post and not yours. Just took the most recent so I didn’t have to scroll.
 

Vanilla

Very Active Member
Messages
2,690
A quick look at the hunt planner for elk CWMUs:

Avintaquin Canyon CWMU has ~9400 acres.

Jump Creek has ~7200 acres.

So there are some below the “mandatory minimum.” There may be others.
 

hossblur

Long Time Member
Messages
8,190
The CWMU is not selling a permit they are selling the right to hunt an elk on their property.
What they If you was to ask any CWMU operator how much for a elk permit to hunt their property they would tell you the state rate for trophy bull but they would also say it costs X-amount of dollars for the right to hunt on their property and X-amount of dollars to be guided on their property.
$$$+$$$$+$$$$=$$$$$



Like I said earlier. No tag, that access is of no value.

They sell, repeat, YEARLY hunting.
 

hossblur

Long Time Member
Messages
8,190
You are 100 percent correct.
No tag no value to landowner elk not allowed on landowners property.
Big problem for herd objective on some units.


Let me correct.

No GUARANTEE of a tag.

That ability of a corporation to just scratch a check, is of value.

Yeah. I'm sure Deseret will shut down if UA paid double or triple for a tag. That $3k would bankrupt UA for sure🙄

It's not 1995 anymore.

Places like Deseret are glorified pheasant farms selling corporate retreats. It's not some dude saving his pennies to buy a chance to hunt 40,000 untouched acres.
 

smokepolejohnson

Active Member
Messages
965
There needs to be some program reform, the PHU days to the current CWMU program has seen very little change from the dwr in the 30 years of managing them, what was once a handful of northern Utah ranches with Deseret being the flag ship are so different than the modern day 125+ or so cwmus that we have now. They need to have stricter criteria and less landowners per CWMU. When you have a 5,000 acre CWMU with 10+ landowners just to get the minimum acreage creates such a nightmare for the public draw hunters. I’m sure Ken Clegg has some thing up his sleeve to improve it.
 

elkassassin

Long Time Member
Messages
29,654
PHU?

Most People Here Don't Have A Clue To What Them Were!

There needs to be some program reform, the PHU days to the current CWMU program has seen very little change from the dwr in the 30 years of managing them, what was once a handful of northern Utah ranches with Deseret being the flag ship are so different than the modern day 125+ or so cwmus that we have now. They need to have stricter criteria and less landowners per CWMU. When you have a 5,000 acre CWMU with 10+ landowners just to get the minimum acreage creates such a nightmare for the public draw hunters. I’m sure Ken Clegg has some thing up his sleeve to improve it.
 

Nebsy

Active Member
Messages
126
Well, I'm sure the landowner doesn't let them use the land for free. Are you suggesting some sort of additional tax on the outfitter that goes directly to the DWR? Deseret has 100 Bull Elk tags, let's say half go to residents and half to non residents. That's about $70,000 in license sales just off one unit.

What do you see happening if the CWMU program were to get shut down today? I see landowners continuing to sell guided hunts, they would just have to do it during the general seasons. We are never going back to the old days of knocking doors and getting permission to hunt these massive pieces of private land.
90% of tags go to the landowner. 1 in 10 goes to public. CWMU's are a good idea but the tag split is horrid. Remember.... the wildlife on the land belongs to the people of the state (if you subscribe to the U.S. constitution anyway). Minimum 50% of permits should go to the public imho.
 

Nebsy

Active Member
Messages
126
berryb, I’ve been told the same thing, regarding how much outfitters make. ie; not much per hunter. This came from a person I know well, that is not an outfitter but works in the hunting industry and while he’s not employeed by any outfitters, he spends hundreds of hours interacting with a lot of different owners of outfitting businesses.

One day we were on a trip together and he was telling me about an outfitter that amongst other hunts, sold over 150 cow elk tags per year. I was impressed. I said, wow, that’s a lot of money at $1,600 a pop. He laughed. “Not really”, he said

I said, “well, I know he doesn’t pocket the entire amount, how much does he net, off a cow elk tag “.

He broke down the costs, there were far more expenses than I expected, especially the fees paid by the outfitter to the government besides the typical business operating expenses and fixed costs. I wish I could accurately recall what that break down was, but it left very little, $150-$200 per hunter, barring any unforeseen, unexpected costs as I recall.

That’s not a lot per hunter. A lot of folks get a chunk of those high cost elk tags, not just the outfitter.

I know how much I want to get paid, per day, and so does the guy doing body shop repairs, the guy that repairs my fridge, the guy that fixes my teeth, the guy that rents me his aluminum boat, the guy who remodels my house, the guy who sells me a Big Mac, and on and on. The reality is, everything is expensive, outfitter fees are no exception.

My son took his wife skiing this weekend. Lift pass we’re $180 each. Golf green fees in Baniff, Alberta are up $299.00. Both locations are top of the line resorts, I grant you that but apparently Deseret’s hunts are of similar high end quality.

View attachment 64775

You can ski for less and you can golf for less but you dang sure can’t ski or golf cheap, no matter where you go.

berryB, your apparently in the outfitting business, would you be interested in breaking down the costs to someone like you, that is selling Utah elk hunts.m? Might be a surprisingly revealing reality.
I can ski and golf in my backyard for free. Just sayin'. I can also hunt deer and elk on my property. Except... I am unable to obtain a permit to harvest animals that reside on my land. Monopolistic practices exist across all venues.... Including hunting.
Government (at least U.S.) serves three purposes:
1- Defense
2- Protect individual liberties
3- Break up monopolies.

That's it. Government does not exist to tell citizens what insurance they are required to purchase or what tools they are allowed to possess. i.e. firearms.
 

Nebsy

Active Member
Messages
126
Hoss, there is nothing I could ever say that will make you be in favor of the CWMU program. I don't even want you to be in favor of it. You can not like it, and that is perfectly okay. I happen to think it's a pretty good program. Not perfect, but pretty good. And regardless of what you say, it increases opportunities to hunt in the state. If CWMUs went away, all those tags (not animals...I'm talking specifically tags) don't just all the sudden go back into the draw for the public to hunt even just on the public lands surrounding the present CWMUs.

So, yeah, some outfitters have been able to turn this into making a living. I don't hate them for it any more than I would you for what you decided to do to make a living. Increased hunting opportunities are a good thing IMO, even if that means some private enterprises get to benefit as well. If you wanted to pass a rule that public lands could no longer be included in any CWMUs, I would not hate that. Some places it makes a lot of sense to include them as there would be no possible way for anyone else to actually get to those areas, but even then, I wouldn't quibble with you over that.
Absolutely valid points. CWMU's are create public opportunities on private land. I think most people simply take issue with the splits. 90:10. Giving 90% of elk and deer permits (public resource) to the landowner is highway robbery. I suspect as population increases and the demand for permits increases... the public will start to raise voices and demand ratios that we see with moose permits. There is no explanation why moose is a 50:50 split while deer/elk remain 90:10. Other then... people recognize the value of moose permit more so than deer/elk. That must change.
Wildlife is a STATE'S RIGHT under the U.S. constitution. For those who do not understand.... that means that the wildlife in a state belong to the people of the state. NOT the owner of the land on which the wildlife reside.
Some states.... i.e. Texas, relinquish that right more readily to the landowner. There are economic benefits in doing so. I don't see much benefit to the wildlife species in doing so. Allowing landowners to isolate and dictate what happens to a population of deer/elk etc... is not beneficial to the species as a whole (most of the time). Rarely does a landowner care for the health of the species. Most care about generating profits over health of the species.
Utah hunters, imho, should demand a more reasonable split of permits. Ask yourself.... why are my sportsman's dollars/taxes etc being used to subsidize private landowners profits. The wildlife is YOURS... the peoples. NOT the landowners.
What do you think is a reasonable split on permits?
 

middlefork

Active Member
Messages
547
The 90/10 split is a result of negotiations between the state and land owner. It is a result of what is best for the land owner. Not the state.
The land owner could reverse the split to 90 public and 10 private and it would make no difference to the state.
Or the land owner could simply not participate at all and close the property to hunting or charge whatever trespass fees they find suitable.
The state may own the animals but they can't tell the land owner how to manage them.
 

Vanilla

Very Active Member
Messages
2,690
Nebsy, I think a lot of people share the thought that there should be a more even split of the permits. I wonder how many of those people have ever even applied to hunt a CWMU, however? I'll take a stab at a few of points you raise here:

1- I would not oppose working on a more even split of the permits between the public draw and those issued to the CWMU. I think if the state mandated a 50/50 split that you'd see various CWMUs drop out of the program and do what middlefork mentioned. I don't know that, that is just my hunch. We can say, "Well, that is their choice and screw them!" But all those tags don't all the sudden go back to a public draw. These permits are created specifically for the CWMU property, not permits that are removed out of the public draw and reserved for CWMUs. Therefore, if we disincentivize CWMU participation, we would in fact be losing permits and would reduce opportunity for state hunters. So yes, we could push for this change, but you'd have to do so delicately to not push CWMUs out of the program into just a strict trespass fee structure to hunt the land on otherwise available permits floating around out there. That result would be a major net-negative impact on public hunters.

2- Why are moose and deer/elk splits different? Simple, the amount of tags available are vastly different. You're talking splitting up 1-2 moose tags (or a handful on the bigger CWMUs in prime moose country) compared to dozens (or more) elk/deer tags. That's a simple supply and demand deal, there is nothing nefarious about it.

3- Wildlife belong to the state and are to be managed and held in the public trust for the state. But be careful what words you use here. States do not possess "rights" under the US constitution. Every time I hear people say "I'm for state's rights!" I cringe a little bit. States derive powers under the constitution, not rights. There is a difference. Read the 10th Amendment, it mentions nothing about rights. And I'm a big state's powers person!

4- Again, you are 100% correct that the animals do not belong to the landowners. But the fact that the wildlife belong to the states (IE, the people) means that states manage them in the public trust. We don't have high fences and these animals on CWMUs do not belong to the landowners as you pointed out. However, there is a biological incentive for the state in managing wildlife in the public trust to have landowners be good stewards of the land and the animals. The state has more control over that under the CWMU program than if the landowner went at it alone and allowed whatever hunters on for trespass fees they wanted.

Overall, the CWMU program (when run properly) is good for wildlife and hunters in general. There are some bad apples, and based upon watching a CWMU committee meeting for the first time recently, if people complain, they get dealt with swiftly! But well run CWMU programs, which I think most throughout the state are, increases opportunities for hunters that we would not otherwise have. So yes, we give landowners a benefit, but we the people also get a benefit. We can quibble about who should get what, but there has to be an incentive to participate and do it the right way, otherwise we all lose out.
 

Nebsy

Active Member
Messages
126
Nebsy, I think a lot of people share the thought that there should be a more even split of the permits. I wonder how many of those people have ever even applied to hunt a CWMU, however? I'll take a stab at a few of points you raise here:

1- I would not oppose working on a more even split of the permits between the public draw and those issued to the CWMU. I think if the state mandated a 50/50 split that you'd see various CWMUs drop out of the program and do what middlefork mentioned. I don't know that, that is just my hunch. We can say, "Well, that is their choice and screw them!" But all those tags don't all the sudden go back to a public draw. These permits are created specifically for the CWMU property, not permits that are removed out of the public draw and reserved for CWMUs. Therefore, if we disincentivize CWMU participation, we would in fact be losing permits and would reduce opportunity for state hunters. So yes, we could push for this change, but you'd have to do so delicately to not push CWMUs out of the program into just a strict trespass fee structure to hunt the land on otherwise available permits floating around out there. That result would be a major net-negative impact on public hunters.

2- Why are moose and deer/elk splits different? Simple, the amount of tags available are vastly different. You're talking splitting up 1-2 moose tags (or a handful on the bigger CWMUs in prime moose country) compared to dozens (or more) elk/deer tags. That's a simple supply and demand deal, there is nothing nefarious about it.

3- Wildlife belong to the state and are to be managed and held in the public trust for the state. But be careful what words you use here. States do not possess "rights" under the US constitution. Every time I hear people say "I'm for state's rights!" I cringe a little bit. States derive powers under the constitution, not rights. There is a difference. Read the 10th Amendment, it mentions nothing about rights. And I'm a big state's powers person!

4- Again, you are 100% correct that the animals do not belong to the landowners. But the fact that the wildlife belong to the states (IE, the people) means that states manage them in the public trust. We don't have high fences and these animals on CWMUs do not belong to the landowners as you pointed out. However, there is a biological incentive for the state in managing wildlife in the public trust to have landowners be good stewards of the land and the animals. The state has more control over that under the CWMU program than if the landowner went at it alone and allowed whatever hunters on for trespass fees they wanted.

Overall, the CWMU program (when run properly) is good for wildlife and hunters in general. There are some bad apples, and based upon watching a CWMU committee meeting for the first time recently, if people complain, they get dealt with swiftly! But well run CWMU programs, which I think most throughout the state are, increases opportunities for hunters that we would not otherwise have. So yes, we give landowners a benefit, but we the people also get a benefit. We can quibble about who should get what, but there has to be an incentive to participate and do it the right way, otherwise we all lose out.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. A few counterpoints...
1- CWMU's, imho, are unlikely to opt out. If they did they would lose all influence on permits for the said land. Selling 'trespass permits' during dates established as 'general season' hunts is no where near as profitable as what the CWMU's get to do now.... controlling the hunt dates and order in which hunters get to hunt. Participating as a CWMU gives the enterprise the opportunity to extend hunters, one at a time, over a much longer period than is available to general season hunters.
It is common knowledge that the public recipient of the 1:10 permit is given the least advantageous time period in which to hunt. Typically... last, after the rut and when weather creates disadvantages.

When people say that CWMU permits are not counted towards the number of permits within a region... they are fools. Doing so is to imply that the animals are somehow limited to residing solely on the CWMU. If that is the case then we've crossed a legal boundary by restricting the free movement of wildlife.

You'll have to explain to me how the public would lose permits. The herd size is unaffected if laws are enforced, regardless if a landowner participates as a CWMU. Permits are not 'created specifically for the CWM property'. They are allocated based on herd objective. Unless you're implying that the division allocates permits for reasons other than herd objective?
If herd is above objective and animals are not harvested on a piece of land... ultimately permit numbers will increase until the affective number of animals are harvested.

2- As for the difference between ratios on deer/elk vs moose, your argument doesn't really hold water. We all recognize that a moose permit holds more intrinsic value than a deer permit. You are essentially saying that it's ok to give 90% of one dollar bills to the CWMU but 50% of hundred dollar bills. This is VERY obvious. The value of tags by species should not change what percentage the public has an opportunity to receive.

3- Correct! I'll apologize for using the word 'right's as opposed to using the word 'powers'. As I read the 10th amendment... the 'powers' not specifically granted to the federal government are 'reserved' by the states. My interpretation of this is that states relinquish 'powers' to the government rather than fed 'granting' powers to the states. The power of the fed comes from the states. Not the other way around. Just as the power of all government... stems from the governed. Government serves the people. Government has power because the citizens grant power to the government.

4- Agreed.

I'll add some rhetoric... back when the state used to publish a list identifying who received permits, I was curious and looked at the results for cow elk on a CWMU that I will not identify (I don't want to be Epsteined). There were about 25 cow elk permits for said CWMU. Wouldn't ya know it.. 90% of the tag recipients shared the last name with the owner. Hmmm.. Isn't that interesting? Begs the question... do you think that CWMU owner intended to harvest all of those cows? Or, is it possible, that they intentionally absorbed those tags in order to prevent public hunters from hunting on the property? Is it possible that they wanted to micromanage the herd in that localized environment increasing the number of animals? Creating a bit of a refuge for elk and thereby making it easier for big bull hunters to harvest? One can only speculate. But.... clearly an abuse.
Perhaps more important is that they have eliminated the transparency that did exist. Today, what I described, can happen blatantly and you and I have no recourse to identify it.

I am not opposed to CWMU's. But... the system is WAY out of balance and corruption exists. It is the job of representatives on the WB to address these issues for the people of the state. NOT the individual with the most acres.
 

middlefork

Active Member
Messages
547
One doesn't need to look too far at other states to see that trespass fees they charge for access can be pretty lucrative.

The truth is that there is a market in every state to sell access for an opportunity to harvest an animal. I happen to think the CWMU program makes a nice perk to residents who want to access that opportunity at a reasonable price.

I don't think you need to try to convince anybody on here that a different split would be better for the public hunter. What you really need to do is convince the CWMU owners/operators that a different split would somehow benefit them more than the current split.

Maybe you can start with these guys.

 

Vanilla

Very Active Member
Messages
2,690
Alright Nebsy, you've got my attention! I'll address your statements below in (bolded replies.)
Thanks for the thoughtful response. A few counterpoints...
1- CWMU's, imho, are unlikely to opt out. If they did they would lose all influence on permits for the said land. Selling 'trespass permits' during dates established as 'general season' hunts is no where near as profitable as what the CWMU's get to do now.... controlling the hunt dates and order in which hunters get to hunt. Participating as a CWMU gives the enterprise the opportunity to extend hunters, one at a time, over a much longer period than is available to general season hunters.
It is common knowledge that the public recipient of the 1:10 permit is given the least advantageous time period in which to hunt. Typically... last, after the rut and when weather creates disadvantages. (This is simply not true. The CWMU being discussed in this very thread gave my dad prime dates right in the dead heat of the rut as a state draw hunter. My brother drew a deer tag on a different unit and was able to choose his dates all throughout the season as a state draw hunter. He hunted right along side a half dozen hunters that had purchased tags from the operator. So your "common knowledge" isn't factual knowledge, which is the only knowledge I really care about.)

When people say that CWMU permits are not counted towards the number of permits within a region... they are fools. (disagree...no reason to start name calling or implying you are smarter than anyone here...cause you ain't. It's possible for two reasonably intelligent beings to simply see an issue differently. I'd suggest anyone unable to see that is a fool.) Doing so is to imply that the animals are somehow limited to residing solely on the CWMU. If that is the case then we've crossed a legal boundary by restricting the free movement of wildlife.

You'll have to explain to me how the public would lose permits. The herd size is unaffected if laws are enforced, regardless if a landowner participates as a CWMU. Permits are not 'created specifically for the CWM property'. They are allocated based on herd objective. Unless you're implying that the division allocates permits for reasons other than herd objective?
If herd is above objective and animals are not harvested on a piece of land... ultimately permit numbers will increase until the affective number of animals are harvested. (It is very easy to explain how the public would lose permits. I'll continue to focus upon Deseret CWMU as that is the topic of this thread, so it's easy to stick there. Deseret resides entirely in the general season buck area of Chalk Creek/East Canyon/Morgan-South Rich unit. According to the harvest data and big game draw odds, Deseret had a total of 90 buck deer tags, 14 of which were in the public draw. If Deseret pulled out of the CWMU program, those 90 tags are not just being rolled back into the draw for Chalk Creek/East Canyon/Morgan-South Rich general season draw, and that draw doesn't possess 90 less permits because Deseret decided to become a CWMU. Now for elk, Deseret resides entirely within a general any bull elk unit. Deseret got 106 elk tags last year, 17 of which were in the public draw. If Deseret ceased to be a CWMU, they are not adding 106 more permits to the statewide general any bull elk permits available to the public. So it is actually quite easy to see how the public loses permits if the CWMU ceased to exist. Those 14 permits for deer and 17 permits for elk on just this one CWMU go away, they don't transfer to a different draw.)

2- As for the difference between ratios on deer/elk vs moose, your argument doesn't really hold water. We all recognize that a moose permit holds more intrinsic value than a deer permit. You are essentially saying that it's ok to give 90% of one dollar bills to the CWMU but 50% of hundred dollar bills. This is VERY obvious. The value of tags by species should not change what percentage the public has an opportunity to receive. (You've missed the point. If a CWMU only gets 2 moose permits, they can't split it at 90/10. If they get 4 moose permits, they can't split it at 90/10. In fact, not even all deer and elk quotas are 90/10 for all CWMUs, so operating based upon that is factually inaccurate and not helpful to the discussion. If you care about facts, that is. I assume you do, so it's helpful for us to remain factual.)

3- Correct! I'll apologize for using the word 'right's as opposed to using the word 'powers'. As I read the 10th amendment... the 'powers' not specifically granted to the federal government are 'reserved' by the states. My interpretation of this is that states relinquish 'powers' to the government rather than fed 'granting' powers to the states. The power of the fed comes from the states. Not the other way around. (Disagree, but this is a hunting forum, not a constitutional law forum, so it really doesn't matter.) Just as the power of all government... stems from the governed. Government serves the people. Government has power because the citizens grant power to the government.

4- Agreed.

I'll add some rhetoric... back when the state used to publish a list identifying who received permits, I was curious and looked at the results for cow elk on a CWMU that I will not identify (I don't want to be Epsteined). There were about 25 cow elk permits for said CWMU. Wouldn't ya know it.. 90% of the tag recipients shared the last name with the owner. Hmmm.. Isn't that interesting? Begs the question... do you think that CWMU owner intended to harvest all of those cows? Or, is it possible, that they intentionally absorbed those tags in order to prevent public hunters from hunting on the property? Is it possible that they wanted to micromanage the herd in that localized environment increasing the number of animals? Creating a bit of a refuge for elk and thereby making it easier for big bull hunters to harvest? One can only speculate. But.... clearly an abuse.
Perhaps more important is that they have eliminated the transparency that did exist. Today, what I described, can happen blatantly and you and I have no recourse to identify it. (I am not going to try and prove a negative. If you won't even name the CWMU, I can't even address that rumor. I'm sick of rumors and wild accusations in our hunting world these days. Either make the accusation with all the information, or don't make the accusation at all. Doyle Moss doesn't block roads like the rumors out there say he does, because if he did, we'd have videos posted all over the internet of such behavior. Deseret does not drop flour sacks via helicopter to herd animals away from the borders of the property, because if they did we'd have videos of it all over the internet. Again, make the allegation, or don't. I'm personally very sick of the vague rumors.)

I am not opposed to CWMU's. But... the system is WAY out of balance and corruption exists. (If corruption has happened, those that have been wronged need to report. I was shocked by how swiftly and seriously the CWMU committee was willing to punish CWMUs for indiscretions. If people who see these wrongs or corruption won't speak up, it is their fault it is happening. As for the balance, as I said before, we can quibble over what the exact ratio should be. I wouldn't object to changing it some. Those who think people won't opt out at 50/50 don't understand how lucrative a trespass fee on 200,000 acres for bull elk with a general tag could be.) It is the job of representatives on the WB to address these issues for the people of the state. NOT the individual with the most acres.

I think my bolded statements in the quote above sum things up pretty well.
 

Nebsy

Active Member
Messages
126
Alright Nebsy, you've got my attention! I'll address your statements below in (bolded replies.)


I think my bolded statements in the quote above sum things up pretty well.
Thanks for the response. It's valuable conversation. I am concerned that.. well.. hmmm how to put this? Are you saying that the division allocates permits based on the needs of the CWMU? I understood that permits are allocated based on herd objective and what is good for the population of animals. Or at least.. that is the way I understood it was supposed to be. If the division is says, "Well.. that piece of land is no longer being hunted so we will reduce the number of permits." That is just bad biology. And, I'd argue... the division would be forced to correct over time as a protected segment of the species population would began to reproduce at a higher rate spilling out of the non-hunted area. Hence, the number of permits being allocated would return the status quo. But.. perhaps I have a different understanding on the factors that determine permit numbers.
It begs the question; 'What determines the number of permits allocated within a geographical area?'
Is it biology? Or CWMU economics?
Never claimed to be the 'smartest guy here'. I'll take my chances. ha. If I think it something is foolish, I won't fear saying so. In spite of the risk of somebody questioning my intelligence. Question away.
It's all just opinions. Some will ultimately be more accurate than others. Time will tell.
We are debating predictions. You believe that changing permit ratios on CWMU's would negatively impact residents. I believe otherwise. We won't know until it actually happens. Let's test the hypothesis... ya know... trust the science. 90% of bull elk tags... 90%!!! go to the CWMU. Just doesn't sit well with me. It implies that the landowner 'deserves' 9/10 of the peoples wildlife. I'd suggest that CWMU's would generate the same amount of revenue with a 50:50 ratio based off supply and demand. IT IS NOT their wildlife. IT IS the publics.
The only people I hear arguing that the 90:10 ratio is good are those receiving a financial benefit from it.
 

Nebsy

Active Member
Messages
126
Alright Nebsy, you've got my attention! I'll address your statements below in (bolded replies.)


I think my bolded statements in the quote above sum things up pretty well.
Vanilla: One point and one, straight forward, question for ya...
Sounds like you are familiar with some great experiences on CWMU's. Awesome. That's a testament in the positive for CWMU's. Other people have had very different experiences on CWMU's. That is their truth. When they describe those experiences it is disingenuous for anyone to tell them they are 'factually incorrect'. It is true that CWMU's provide the best hunting opportunities to paying clients. Probably not all of them but many. It is simply a matter of varying experiences. You go on and say that those people who have had bad experiences need to step up and affect change. I agree. It would appear that is why many people are here discussing the issue. I suspect that some, perhaps many, of those who have a different opinion do not have great financial resources. They are not hunters dropping $30,000 for an elk permit. And let's be honest.. it's little guys taking on giants. What's the gross revenue for CWMU's in the state? IDK but I'd wager it's north of 20 million a year. I doubt that information is readily available to the public. That industry is going to fight to protect its wealth. I can't fault the blue collar guy for speaking his mind in hope of change.
Now for the question.. Are you, in any way, financially tied to a CWMU or benefitting directly or indirectly from the operation of a CWMU?
 

middlefork

Active Member
Messages
547
There are radio collar studies that show when elk are pressured they head to private land if it is available. The CWMU's and private lands elk tags are offered to combat this.

The area biologist and DWR determine the quantity of animals to be removed from the CWMU.

And lastly if the split isn't good enough for those who are receiving financial benefits there is no reason for them to participate.
 

Nebsy

Active Member
Messages
126
There are radio collar studies that show when elk are pressured they head to private land if it is available. The CWMU's and private lands elk tags are offered to combat this.
And if the landowner does not want the animals there... they can allow hunters to hunt.
The area biologist and DWR determine the quantity of animals to be removed from the CWMU.
Wait.. I thought herd objectives were established independent of private land ownership? Are you saying the division lies to us?
And lastly if the split isn't good enough for those who are receiving financial benefits there is no reason for them to participate.
Please define 'good enough'. From what I can see it always means.. 'more'. Can you show me an example of 'less' being 'good enough'?
 

Nebsy

Active Member
Messages
126
There are radio collar studies that show when elk are pressured they head to private land if it is available. The CWMU's and private lands elk tags are offered to combat this.

The area biologist and DWR determine the quantity of animals to be removed from the CWMU.

And lastly if the split isn't good enough for those who are receiving financial benefits there is no reason for them to participate.
Can you link me to proclamation page for info on 'private land' elk tags?
Again... I'm an idiot... I thought we had one species of elk. I'm not familiar with the 'private land' species. Legally.. who owns this species?
If you know of elk that are restricted to private land, do you mind telling me where they are? Last I checked... containing and restricting wildlife was illegal.
 

middlefork

Active Member
Messages
547
Can you link me to proclamation page for info on 'private land' elk tags?
Again... I'm an idiot... I thought we had one species of elk. I'm not familiar with the 'private land' species. Legally.. who owns this species?
If you know of elk that are restricted to private land, do you mind telling me where they are? Last I checked... containing and restricting wildlife was illegal.
 

middlefork

Active Member
Messages
547
And if the landowner does not want the animals there... they can allow hunters to hunt.

Wait.. I thought herd objectives were established independent of private land ownership? Are you saying the division lies to us?

Please define 'good enough'. From what I can see it always means.. 'more'. Can you show me an example of 'less' being 'good enough'?
They can also give 72 hour notice and fire away.

Herd objective is what the DWR would like unit wide. Private and public land combined. Numbers of animals supported on private lands is part of the equation for determining animals available for harvest.

I can't define 'good enough'. That would be up to individual operators. What I have seen is comments by operators saying that they would in fact drop out of the program if the tag split is substantially changed. Again I can't define the line in the sand.
 

Vanilla

Very Active Member
Messages
2,690
Now for the question.. Are you, in any way, financially tied to a CWMU or benefitting directly or indirectly from the operation of a CWMU?

Nope. Zero personal interest either directly or indirectly to any CWMU in the state. Other than the handful of tags me or my family members have drawn over the last 20+ years on different CWMUs around. I guess that is a personal interest, since I do actually have personal experience with multiple CWMUs. I've never purchased a tag, neither has anyone in my family. We've always been state hunters and have never had a bad experience. I've always felt like I was treated fairly, and my family members would tell you the same.

I think I've had 4 tags myself on two different CWMUs in my life. My first was in 1999. My dad drew at least 3 CWMU tags (both bull and cow tags) before he passed 12.5 years ago. Each of my brothers have had multiple CWMUs, and I have a nephew that's drawn one CWMU tag so far. So yeah, we've had experiences over a long period of time with multiple CWMUs. So while I'm not personally invested in the landowner side of the CWMU program, my family and I have CERTAINLY benefited from the public side.

No doubt there are people that have negative experiences. Some are the CWMU's fault, some are not. Every year I see people getting on forums complaining about something to do with a CWMU and I always ask, "Did you contact the operator prior to applying to ask about those things?" I'd say 9 out of 10 times the answer is no. That is on the hunter for not doing their homework, IMO. But on those occasions when a CWMU does wrong a public hunter, that public hunter needs to address it with the CWMU committee. Seriously, go watch a past meeting on YouTube. These guys don't screw around, and are not afraid to slap down a CWMU for mistreating the public hunter. If the hunter does not file the complaint but only complains online, I have zero sympathy for them. Sorry, not sorry.
 

Vanilla

Very Active Member
Messages
2,690
Wait.. I thought herd objectives were established independent of private land ownership? Are you saying the division lies to us?
Have you ever considered that the DWR is not lying to you, but maybe you just don't understand this quite as well as you think you do?

I've got an idea of where this one falls...
 

Nebsy

Active Member
Messages
126
Have you ever considered that the DWR is not lying to you, but maybe you just don't understand this quite as well as you think you do?

I've got an idea of where this one falls...
Just seeking knowledge here Vanilla. There seems to be disagreement on how CWMU's affect permit numbers. I seek clarification. The division counts population according to geographical areas. These areas have CWMUs incorporated within them. I keep hearing the argument that the CWMU permits do not affect the public permits. I fundamentally disagree. The total harvest within an objective area would include harvest within any CWMU incorporated within that area. Am I wrong there? If so.. explain how.
It's been repeated over and over in this thread... harvest on a CWMU have zero impact on the public permits. Unless that population of animals is being restricted to the boundaries of the CWMU (which is illegal)... the animals harvested (or not harvested) on a CWMU is absolutely going to affect future permit allocations (public).
Let's be honest... the rules for hunting on CWMU's are different from the rules on the public side of the fence.. less restrictive hunt dates, landowners set the dates essentially.

I find it interesting that the state allows variations in rules for CWMU's but not for private property owners of smaller pieces of land. By definition it lacks justice. i.e. If a deer drops an antler on my front yard this week, I cannot legally touch it. In spite of owning the property and paying the taxes on it. In spite of that shed antler, once shed, not being under the jurisdiction of 'wildlife'. Point is... there is always room for improvement.
I'm pleased that you have been able to utilize CWMU's. In fact, my entire purpose in this discussion is to enhance that utilization.
Best of luck to you.
 

Vanilla

Very Active Member
Messages
2,690
If a deer drops an antler on my front yard this week, I cannot legally touch it. In spite of owning the property and paying the taxes on it. In spite of that shed antler, once shed, not being under the jurisdiction of 'wildlife'.

Why can't you legally touch it?
 

Nebsy

Active Member
Messages
126
Straw Poll:
Which do y'all think CWMU's prioritize?

Wildlife?

or

Profits?

Don't get me wrong... they are not mutually exclusive and I'm sure many....MANY... CWMU's care about both. But... if they were unable to profit from the wildlife.. What percentage of operators do you think would manage their lands for healthy and sustainable wildlife populations?

Why do I ask? It's been presented in this string that landowners would choose to destroy the wildlife on their property if the state.. . aka us, denied the landowner the opportunity to profit off the wildlife.
 

Nebsy

Active Member
Messages
126
Why can't you legally touch it?
Antler gathering is legally restricted beginning Feb 1.
Yes... I understand one can complete the course etc etc. Point is.. the law is ridiculous. Laws have always existed regarding harassment of wildlife. As they have been unenforceable... the state creates more... unenforceable laws.
 

JakeH

Long Time Member
Messages
3,328
.. What percentage of operators do you think would manage their lands for healthy and sustainable wildlife populations?
Maybe the better question is how many are managing "their" land for healthy and sustainable wildlife population because of the CWMU program?

I would agree the 9 to 1 split should be looked at, but maybe not 50/50. I would think a 70/ 30 would be a fair allocation. Hell even 80/20 would double the public hunter allocation.

Simple fact is just because the land owner does not own the animals they still control the land the animals live on. You can't force them to do anything they don't want too. If you take away the incentive they will remove themselves from the program and therefore the public will lose access.
 

Vanilla

Very Active Member
Messages
2,690
I would agree the 9 to 1 split should be looked at, but maybe not 50/50. I would think a 70/ 30 would be a fair allocation. Hell even 80/20 would double the public hunter allocation.
Except for the fact that not all CWMUs are 90/10, so we should stop operating with that as our baseline. The rest I agree with.
 

Nebsy

Active Member
Messages
126
Maybe the better question is how many are managing "their" land for healthy and sustainable wildlife population because of the CWMU program?

I would agree the 9 to 1 split should be looked at, but maybe not 50/50. I would think a 70/ 30 would be a fair allocation. Hell even 80/20 would double the public hunter allocation.

Simple fact is just because the land owner does not own the animals they still control the land the animals live on. You can't force them to do anything they don't want too. If you take away the incentive they will remove themselves from the program and therefore the public will lose access.
There it is again, "they will remove themselves from the program..."
Nobody can KNOW that. Stop saying it as if its gospel. sheesh
Rather.. let's push for a better balance of permit ratios. Let's make a change and find out.
 

Vanilla

Very Active Member
Messages
2,690
We know there is a point for every CWMU where the cost/benefit analysis would tilt them to no longer participate. We don't know what that is, and it is probably different for every one of them based upon their tag allotment, how much they normally sell a tag for, etc. That is absolutely gospel, because it is just basic economics.

So I guess it's worth it to some to just push it as far as you can until it breaks, but I know the result of that will be less tags for the public, so I'd rather not see that happen.

And I know you're going to ask how it means less tags, but I already explained it above. I am not going to explain it again. It's rather simple, actually.
 

Nebsy

Active Member
Messages
126
We know there is a point for every CWMU where the cost/benefit analysis would tilt them to no longer participate. We don't know what that is, and it is probably different for every one of them based upon their tag allotment, how much they normally sell a tag for, etc. That is absolutely gospel, because it is just basic economics.

So I guess it's worth it to some to just push it as far as you can until it breaks, but I know the result of that will be less tags for the public, so I'd rather not see that happen.

And I know you're going to ask how it means less tags, but I already explained it above. I am not going to explain it again. It's rather simple, actually.
I don't believe you have a complete understanding of the biology... i.e. mortality/natality.
If you believe in the free movement of wildlife populations in and out of private lands then... not killing animals on one side of the fence will, over time, lead to greater harvest on the other side of the fence in order to maintain herd objectives. Not gospel. Biology.

We know there is a point for every state citizen where the cost/benefit analysis would tilt them to no longer participating. We don't know what that is, and it is probably different for every one of them based on their hunting opportunities or lack of. If citizens do not receive a benefit by giving away their birthright... the result will be less tags for the private.

So I guess it's worth it to some to just push it as far as you can until it breaks... Yup.. profiteering of landowners will be pushed until it breaks. The pendulum swings both ways.
Citizens (public permits) SHOULD be pushing back against profiteers until an equilibrium is established.
In my opinion, the current system is far from equilibrium.
 

middlefork

Active Member
Messages
547
Here is a link to all things CWMU. Read everything and understand it. Then when you have that understanding feel free to talk to both the CWMU association and DWR with your concerns. It is they who you need to try to sway to your thinking. Not a few guys on here.

Have fun.

 

Gator

Long Time Member
Messages
17,683
Ya I can see listing it on the paperwork they send for the public cow hunts because if you choose the guided option, the guides work for free and most people may not know that. The other is guys paying that much for a hunt don't need to be told how much to tip and if they are unsure about the behind the scenes people they'll ask. 10% to 20% of the hunt price is standard...the jerks get balanced by the very generous and it all works out.
Dang I knew I should add that to my steel building contract's 20% that would just about paid 1/3 of my crew wages.
Sweet deal for the guys who get it.
Didn't one of the outfitters get a huge deal of money for the Payroll he claimed from the Govt recently.
 

ihunt4200

Active Member
Messages
120
Holy smokes Hoss, let me tell you, your numbers are uh skewed to say the least. There is very little money in outfitting. It costs a whole bunch that's for sure, but there's a reason why most outfitters have a 'real job' and then the outfitting.

Mossback made the leap from outfitting to a brand. Now they market that brand into merchandise, movies, online presence, advertisement, and sponsorship, why? Cause there ain't no money in outfitting. There's profit to be made in hats, and sweaters, and dvd's, and those are sold and marketed when state and world class animals are killed, but again, I say, there ain't no money in outfitting.

Mossback never in the history of ever got paid $175K for a hunt. They might've helped generate that kind of revenue for a tag at an auction that benefitted the state and a conservation organization or from a landowner who profited, but the hunter would have paid $10-20K for an absolutely dolled out top of the line, every spotter and benefit available hunt and that's what the outfitter is in it for.

There's absolutely a conversation to be had about money and its place in hunting. We can go till we are blue in the face about limited entry, expo's, and conservation org's. I'll hammer all day long on the division, management, ETC ETC. However, going after outfitting, and the run of the mill hunters who try to bridge business with what they love is missing the mark IMO. Its fairly obvious to anyone who has been around the industry long enough that those guys aren't getting rich.

Now, don't confuse those guys with the couple who bridged the gap from outfitting to a brand. That's back on that money's place in hunting topic above.
Berrys got a point~ Outfitters make no money on the tags. The state makes the most and whatever conservation group who is selling it is 2nd in line for their 10%. Or the landowners get the money and have to divide with others it if they area part of the CWMU. The outfitters do bring in the big money clients to buy the tags but are only paid for the guide service. People can cry and complain all they want about the CWMU but in reality its private land that people own. What you going to do about it? The other option is for no one to be able to hunt them then you can welcome all those people into your favorite unit or to make your odds at ever drawing a tag less a reality as the draws odds only get worse than they already are. But your math is flawed by emotion not any logic what so ever.
 

ihunt4200

Active Member
Messages
120
Make the outfitters BUY the tags via auction. The DWR keeps 100%, the outfitter can then go get and and make whatever lease deal he wants.

If an elk is worth $25k. The the state(the taxpayers) should pocket that. The animals are OURS.

The TAG is the money. No one is forking over $25k to hang out with a guide for a weekend.

Notice $fw doesn't sell it's tags for cheap. Why do we?
all auction tags are a 90/10 split with the state and the .org who was "graced" the tag (from the state) to get the most money out if it they can~ so they go to outfitters who bring in the deep pocket, high rollers to bid against one another jacking up the price until whomever wins. Then the state gives the .org a reach around and all is good. Outfitters don't make a dime off tags.
 

hossblur

Long Time Member
Messages
8,190
all auction tags are a 90/10 split with the state and the .org who was "graced" the tag (from the state) to get the most money out if it they can~ so they go to outfitters who bring in the deep pocket, high rollers to bid against one another jacking up the price until whomever wins. Then the state gives the .org a reach around and all is good. Outfitters don't make a dime off tags.


Hate to break it to you, but the tags sell themselves.

No I'm no is paying $300k to hang out with Doyle.
 

Vanilla

Very Active Member
Messages
2,690
It’s not true that the outfitter doesn’t make money on tags. Don’t mix up conservation permits at auction versus landowner/CWMU tags. The very CWMU that spawned this discussion has an outfitter that makes money off of “leases” sold for tags and some limited tags reserved to sell as well.

So in general the outfitter may not make money off selling tags for hunts on public land, that is not universally true. And for CWMU tags, that doesn’t apply as cleanly.
 

Hoot

Member
Messages
58
Outfitting is a sweet gig. The state gives you the materials (animals), and the outfitter gives back???????


Lumber, livestock, mining, petroleum, all pay for the resource they sell.

Outfitters, pay nothing.

In a sane world the outfitter would be charged a percentage. The tag holder does, although it's barely anything, compared to the price of the hunt.


And we wonder why Utah is covered with CWMU, and outfitters
The animal is paid for by the hunter, that’s the tag fee. Outfitter isn’t making money for the animal, just the help to find one.
 

hossblur

Long Time Member
Messages
8,190
The animal is paid for by the hunter, that’s the tag fee. Outfitter isn’t making money for the animal, just the help to find one.

Oil is paid for by the end user as well, yet oil companies get to contribute. Same as timber companies, miners, etc.
 

Hoot

Member
Messages
58
Oil is paid for by the end user as well, yet oil companies get to contribute. Same as timber companies, miners, etc.
I could be wrong but the industry’s you referred to, the he companies buy the products and re sale them to the end consumer. Outfitters don’t buy animals and resale them. But hey it’s all in how you want to look at it.
 

Vanilla

Very Active Member
Messages
2,690
I could be wrong but the industry’s you referred to, the he companies buy the products and re sale them to the end consumer. Outfitters don’t buy animals and resale them. But hey it’s all in how you want to look at it.

Yes, you are wrong. Outfitters go buy tags all the time then re-sale them to the end customer. The CWMU that started this very thread has an outfitter that sells every private tag the CWMU gets to the end customer.


PS- that is an AWESOME bull in your profile picture. Let’s hear some details and get some more pics of that bad boy!
 

hossblur

Long Time Member
Messages
8,190
I could be wrong but the industry’s you referred to, the he companies buy the products and re sale them to the end consumer. Outfitters don’t buy animals and resale them. But hey it’s all in how you want to look at it.

Check Mossbacks website.
 

Hoot

Member
Messages
58
I didn’t think about the tag buying and re selling.
I overlooked that. To answer your original question, the outfitter does pay a percentage. Not to the DWR but for the use of public lands, private lands is up to the landowner. Forest service and Blm charges a percentage to use public lands.
 

300WBYMULES

Active Member
Messages
115
Deseret has been selling those elk hunts for that amount for along time. They cater to the tv celebrities these days. Flip on any outdoor show and you’ll see someone hunting Deseret.

Neat place and it’s nice that we have places where the game animals are not pressured to extinction like on so many of Utah’s public general areas. I’m in favor of the CWmu program for what it means for conserving wildlife. I’ve hunted and guided on them. The ones I have experience on were awesome properties. I’ve hunted Deseret for mule deer and it remains one of my favorite deer hunts and I hunted it on a tough year several years ago.
 

Sup

Member
Messages
13
Ya. If there was no CWMU system, of course landowners would sell hunts.

But they WOULDNT have guaranteed, year after year customers simply buying their way around the draws.

That in turn would tamp down inflation and cost on tags.

There's only so many dudes that can swing $20k a year, and if they were subject to the draw, and waiting periods, the landowner would need to be more competitive.

Granted there are a very small handful of outfitters who own land. Deseret being one.

But the vast majority of outfitters/guides contribute zero to the resource, and suck up the gravy. A $289 tag, nets Mossback $175,000. Kinda seems like WE the owners of the wildlife, need to renegotiate that deal.


The prices on CWMU are for guarantee tags, and long seasons.

With 2week seasons, those tag pric s plummet. With non guaranteed tags, and customers in the draw, they plummet more.

You can't ask $20k for a hunt, if the customer base didn't draw a tag

Become a guide then, if you think you can get so rich and it's so gravy. What's stopping you?
 

Sup

Member
Messages
13
Thanks for the thoughtful response. A few counterpoints...
1- CWMU's, imho, are unlikely to opt out. If they did they would lose all influence on permits for the said land. Selling 'trespass permits' during dates established as 'general season' hunts is no where near as profitable as what the CWMU's get to do now.... controlling the hunt dates and order in which hunters get to hunt. Participating as a CWMU gives the enterprise the opportunity to extend hunters, one at a time, over a much longer period than is available to general season hunters.
It is common knowledge that the public recipient of the 1:10 permit is given the least advantageous time period in which to hunt. Typically... last, after the rut and when weather creates disadvantages.

When people say that CWMU permits are not counted towards the number of permits within a region... they are fools. Doing so is to imply that the animals are somehow limited to residing solely on the CWMU. If that is the case then we've crossed a legal boundary by restricting the free movement of wildlife.

You'll have to explain to me how the public would lose permits. The herd size is unaffected if laws are enforced, regardless if a landowner participates as a CWMU. Permits are not 'created specifically for the CWM property'. They are allocated based on herd objective. Unless you're implying that the division allocates permits for reasons other than herd objective?
If herd is above objective and animals are not harvested on a piece of land... ultimately permit numbers will increase until the affective number of animals are harvested.

2- As for the difference between ratios on deer/elk vs moose, your argument doesn't really hold water. We all recognize that a moose permit holds more intrinsic value than a deer permit. You are essentially saying that it's ok to give 90% of one dollar bills to the CWMU but 50% of hundred dollar bills. This is VERY obvious. The value of tags by species should not change what percentage the public has an opportunity to receive.

3- Correct! I'll apologize for using the word 'right's as opposed to using the word 'powers'. As I read the 10th amendment... the 'powers' not specifically granted to the federal government are 'reserved' by the states. My interpretation of this is that states relinquish 'powers' to the government rather than fed 'granting' powers to the states. The power of the fed comes from the states. Not the other way around. Just as the power of all government... stems from the governed. Government serves the people. Government has power because the citizens grant power to the government.

4- Agreed.

I'll add some rhetoric... back when the state used to publish a list identifying who received permits, I was curious and looked at the results for cow elk on a CWMU that I will not identify (I don't want to be Epsteined). There were about 25 cow elk permits for said CWMU. Wouldn't ya know it.. 90% of the tag recipients shared the last name with the owner. Hmmm.. Isn't that interesting? Begs the question... do you think that CWMU owner intended to harvest all of those cows? Or, is it possible, that they intentionally absorbed those tags in order to prevent public hunters from hunting on the property? Is it possible that they wanted to micromanage the herd in that localized environment increasing the number of animals? Creating a bit of a refuge for elk and thereby making it easier for big bull hunters to harvest? One can only speculate. But.... clearly an abuse.
Perhaps more important is that they have eliminated the transparency that did exist. Today, what I described, can happen blatantly and you and I have no recourse to identify it.

I am not opposed to CWMU's. But... the system is WAY out of balance and corruption exists. It is the job of representatives on the WB to address these issues for the people of the state. NOT the individual with the most acres.
It's their own land. I don't come into your house and tell you how much air to breathe in your house or what you can and can't do in your house. Why do you want the government telling homeowners what they can and cannot do inside their own home. Government is never the answer. Stay free my friend.
 

Sup

Member
Messages
13
I could be wrong but the industry’s you referred to, the he companies buy the products and re sale them to the end consumer. Outfitters don’t buy animals and resale them. But hey it’s all in how you want to look at it.
E&P (upstream oil companies) extract the oil. They usually don't buy it (from a wholesaler or someone up the chain). Similar to an outfitter in a way - they don't buy the commodity, they go bust their hump for it.

But outfitter has to pay landowner a Sheeeet ton.

How much does color country pay for the lease (or split with the church). The outfitter usually works his/her arse off and doesn't get to keep a whole lot of the pot, at the end of the day.

What kind of jobs do you guys all have? Are they 4am to 10:30pm, grind your butt of 7 days a week type jobs? All for shitty pay and no benefits? Lemme know, I'm curious.
 

hossblur

Long Time Member
Messages
8,190
Become a guide then, if you think you can get so rich and it's so gravy. What's stopping you?


Buy your own land then if you want to run a CWMU.

The CWMU was set up to help out ranchers, and offer access to average hunters


The guides bastardized it to private hunting clubs complete with yearly guaranteed tags.
There should be an OWNED ACREAGE requirement.
 

hossblur

Long Time Member
Messages
8,190
E&P (upstream oil companies) extract the oil. They usually don't buy it (from a wholesaler or someone up the chain). Similar to an outfitter in a way - they don't buy the commodity, they go bust their hump for it.

But outfitter has to pay landowner a Sheeeet ton.

How much does color country pay for the lease (or split with the church). The outfitter usually works his/her arse off and doesn't get to keep a whole lot of the pot, at the end of the day.

What kind of jobs do you guys all have? Are they 4am to 10:30pm, grind your butt of 7 days a week type jobs? All for shitty pay and no benefits? Lemme know, I'm curious.


Ya. You might want to check out tax statements. The outfitters ain't hurting. Yeah, I caught how you swapped from outfitters to guide in the same paragraph.

Welcome to the forum, new dude. Here's ya a hint, your not the only guide in here, so before you try to spin too hard, might want to read a little👍

Or come in both guns blazing.

If it sucks so bad and you make no money, why do it? Glory? Instafame? Likes?
 

Sup

Member
Messages
13
Ya. You might want to check out tax statements. The outfitters ain't hurting. Yeah, I caught how you swapped from outfitters to guide in the same paragraph.

Welcome to the forum, new dude. Here's ya a hint, your not the only guide in here, so before you try to spin too hard, might want to read a little👍

Or come in both guns blazing.

If it sucks so bad and you make no money, why do it? Glory? Instafame? Likes?
I'm not a guide. I'm a cpa.

So, is it guides you hate or outfitters?
Become an outfitter then, if you thinks it's so lucrative.
Or buy a ranch if you think that's the investment that will get you Yuge returns.

Just not sure why people don't put their money where their mouth is. Or why they complain so much but then want government to fix their problems. I'm all for less government, not more. Government aint the answer to all your problems.

#BigGovSux
Stay free my friend
 

Sup

Member
Messages
13
Buy your own land then if you want to run a CWMU.

The CWMU was set up to help out ranchers, and offer access to average hunters


The guides bastardized it to private hunting clubs complete with yearly guaranteed tags.
There should be an OWNED ACREAGE requirement.

Agreed on buying own ground.
Free country. Can do what you want with your own money.

And agreed on the CMWUs were setup to help ranchers and help public hunters (which helps wildlife by encouraging ranchers to give them refuge instead of wiping them out).

How are they not accomplishing both of these objectives (helping ranchers and allowing public to hunt some of the best ground ever)?

The outfitter pays a SHEEEEET ton to the rancher (money helps rancher). If the rancher thinks it's worth more, raise his fee or find a new outfitter. It's a free country. Good little (or big) revenue stream to rancher (definition of helping rancher). How does that not help rancher?

This incentivizes rancher (and all other vested parties) to support wildlife sustainability and provide them a sanctuary. How does that not help wildlife?

And some lucky john q public hunters get to hunt these places for free every year. How does that not help john q public.

Whithout them, there would be 100x less quality game. So john q public would not have the awesome game nor would he able to hunt such a bad azz place for free.

checks all your boxes, I agree.
What more do you want?

What would you institute to make it better? Let's be productive and posit some ideas and work constructively together to improve upon this. Let me know what you would do to make it even better. newtons law is everywhere. Gotta look at the pros and cons of instituting each little change. Let me know how you would make it better. Wish we could say everyone can hunt it and everyone can shoot a two hundo, but that's not how life works (unless you live in lib fantasy eutopia (which is why we are seeing inflation right now - if EVERYONE gets a new car like it's the oprah winfry show, you're gonna have some dire consequences)).
 

SS!

Long Time Member
Messages
5,968
I'm not a guide. I'm a cpa.

So, is it guides you hate or outfitters?
Become an outfitter then, if you thinks it's so lucrative.
Or buy a ranch if you think that's the investment that will get you Yuge returns.

Just not sure why people don't put their money where their mouth is. Or why they complain so much but then want government to fix their problems. I'm all for less government, not more. Government aint the answer to all your problems.

#BigGovSux
Stay free my friend
I remember in 4th grade we were being taught how to make molds. We were allowed to chose whatever phrase or initials we wanted the limiting factor being at max 3 letters. My friend wanted to do Sup because it was his favorite saying. After letting the molds dry all week Friday came to break them open and show everyone. By now you’ve probably guess what his said. PUS. It was hilarious. The name stuck as long as I knew the kid. Which wasn’t long since he took his life a few years later. Looking back I guess he really was a Pus!
 

hossblur

Long Time Member
Messages
8,190
Agreed on buying own ground.
Free country. Can do what you want with your own money.

And agreed on the CMWUs were setup to help ranchers and help public hunters (which helps wildlife by encouraging ranchers to give them refuge instead of wiping them out).

How are they not accomplishing both of these objectives (helping ranchers and allowing public to hunt some of the best ground ever)?

The outfitter pays a SHEEEEET ton to the rancher (money helps rancher). If the rancher thinks it's worth more, raise his fee or find a new outfitter. It's a free country. Good little (or big) revenue stream to rancher (definition of helping rancher). How does that not help rancher?

This incentivizes rancher (and all other vested parties) to support wildlife sustainability and provide them a sanctuary. How does that not help wildlife?

And some lucky john q public hunters get to hunt these places for free every year. How does that not help john q public.

Whithout them, there would be 100x less quality game. So john q public would not have the awesome game nor would he able to hunt such a bad azz place for free.

checks all your boxes, I agree.
What more do you want?

What would you institute to make it better? Let's be productive and posit some ideas and work constructively together to improve upon this. Let me know what you would do to make it even better. newtons law is everywhere. Gotta look at the pros and cons of instituting each little change. Let me know how you would make it better. Wish we could say everyone can hunt it and everyone can shoot a two hundo, but that's not how life works (unless you live in lib fantasy eutopia (which is why we are seeing inflation right now - if EVERYONE gets a new car like it's the oprah winfry show, you're gonna have some dire consequences)).

I'm not interested in "improving" CWMU. Especially on the outfitters side.

Want to possibly improve it for the owners of the wildlife(the citizens of the state), you make CWMU follow the same waiting periods everyone else does. Without GUARANTEED yearly customers, prices moderate, possibly making them "affordable" for average folks.

Could also eliminate the write-offs buisness gets to use to populate CWMU client lists.

It is funny you talk about "less government", while defending a CWMU, which is solely dependent on special gov cutouts. Or do you get 3 month long seasons, and no waiting periods?
 

hossblur

Long Time Member
Messages
8,190
Agreed on buying own ground.
Free country. Can do what you want with your own money.

And agreed on the CMWUs were setup to help ranchers and help public hunters (which helps wildlife by encouraging ranchers to give them refuge instead of wiping them out).

How are they not accomplishing both of these objectives (helping ranchers and allowing public to hunt some of the best ground ever)?

The outfitter pays a SHEEEEET ton to the rancher (money helps rancher). If the rancher thinks it's worth more, raise his fee or find a new outfitter. It's a free country. Good little (or big) revenue stream to rancher (definition of helping rancher). How does that not help rancher?

This incentivizes rancher (and all other vested parties) to support wildlife sustainability and provide them a sanctuary. How does that not help wildlife?

And some lucky john q public hunters get to hunt these places for free every year. How does that not help john q public.

Whithout them, there would be 100x less quality game. So john q public would not have the awesome game nor would he able to hunt such a bad azz place for free.

checks all your boxes, I agree.
What more do you want?

What would you institute to make it better? Let's be productive and posit some ideas and work constructively together to improve upon this. Let me know what you would do to make it even better. newtons law is everywhere. Gotta look at the pros and cons of instituting each little change. Let me know how you would make it better. Wish we could say everyone can hunt it and everyone can shoot a two hundo, but that's not how life works (unless you live in lib fantasy eutopia (which is why we are seeing inflation right now - if EVERYONE gets a new car like it's the oprah winfry show, you're gonna have some dire consequences)).


Oh ya.

CWMU can pay the going, commercial rate(priced by the square foot) for every acre of PUBLIC land they incorporate into their private COMMERCIAL hunting buisness.


Since your a CPA, I'm guessing all that cash tip money, is always reported right? Like it is in construction, right?
 

Sup

Member
Messages
13
Oh ya.

CWMU can pay the going, commercial rate(priced by the square foot) for every acre of PUBLIC land they incorporate into their private COMMERCIAL hunting buisness.


Since your a CPA, I'm guessing all that cash tip money, is always reported right? Like it is in construction, right?
Be a guide or outfitter then, if you think a little tip under the table is the best thing since sliced bread. A waiter at a fancy restaurant makes much more in tips than a guide. Do you hate waiters too? Do you hate construction workers that do "cash" jobs?

The entire premise of cwmu is a few guaranteed tags. Without them, it's just a ranch like any other ranch. How could you have a cwmu without some guaranteed tags? What would the landowner's incentive be? It would then be your average ranch with average game and average everything and john q public would not have a bad arse place to hunt for free.

What "write-offs" are you speaking of that ranchers and/or outfitters utilize to populate a client list? Entertainment was eliminated as a deduction in 2017 TCJA. Is there another one I'm unaware of? Are they not a business, like every other small business?

So you're solution is 2 things:

1) eliminate a deduction for outfitters (or ranchers) - This deduction is already gone. So item one is completed, in your favor.

2) Eliminate guaranteed tags - If we do that, then there is no CWMU's at all. Then it's just a regular ranch like all other ranches, leasing their land to an outfitter.

So, 1 is complete (in your favor) and 2 would eliminate cwmu's all together.

Sounds like you just hate cwmus altogether and want them gone for good. I get that. You're entitled to your own opinion. I'm glad there are varying opinions out there. Monolithic think (group think) is never a good thing. It results in an erosion of freedoms.

Just remember, with no cwmu's, john q public doesn't have the opportunity to hunt bad azz places either. Everything would be just a regular ranch like other states with no cwmu's (or the like) with crappy game and no access whatsoever. At least with a cwmu, you have a chance to hunt it for free.

And with no cwmus, ranchers aren't as incentivized to harbor wildlife. They'd be more inclined to kill off the elk than feed them all year and improve their habitat and existence. And this is all done with NO gov money.

Do you have any other ideas to help improve on this issue?
 

hossblur

Long Time Member
Messages
8,190
Be a guide or outfitter then, if you think a little tip under the table is the best thing since sliced bread. A waiter at a fancy restaurant makes much more in tips than a guide. Do you hate waiters too? Do you hate construction workers that do "cash" jobs?

The entire premise of cwmu is a few guaranteed tags. Without them, it's just a ranch like any other ranch. How could you have a cwmu without some guaranteed tags? What would the landowner's incentive be? It would then be your average ranch with average game and average everything and john q public would not have a bad arse place to hunt for free.

What "write-offs" are you speaking of that ranchers and/or outfitters utilize to populate a client list? Entertainment was eliminated as a deduction in 2017 TCJA. Is there another one I'm unaware of? Are they not a business, like every other small business?

So you're solution is 2 things:

1) eliminate a deduction for outfitters (or ranchers) - This deduction is already gone. So item one is completed, in your favor.

2) Eliminate guaranteed tags - If we do that, then there is no CWMU's at all. Then it's just a regular ranch like all other ranches, leasing their land to an outfitter.

So, 1 is complete (in your favor) and 2 would eliminate cwmu's all together.

Sounds like you just hate cwmus altogether and want them gone for good. I get that. You're entitled to your own opinion. I'm glad there are varying opinions out there. Monolithic think (group think) is never a good thing. It results in an erosion of freedoms.

Just remember, with no cwmu's, john q public doesn't have the opportunity to hunt bad azz places either. Everything would be just a regular ranch like other states with no cwmu's (or the like) with crappy game and no access whatsoever. At least with a cwmu, you have a chance to hunt it for free.

And with no cwmus, ranchers aren't as incentivized to harbor wildlife. They'd be more inclined to kill off the elk than feed them all year and improve their habitat and existence. And this is all done with NO gov money.

Do you have any other ideas to help improve on this issue?


First, I own a construction company, and my CPA has said for years he's convinced every contractor has safe full of cash, so I'm well aware of how cash works, as you are too.

Second. Do some research. Start with places such as United Sportsman. There were clubs and trespass fees long before CWMU.

Third, unless your, you're , yer name is homer, we don't try to show superiority by grammar checking auto correct.

4th Few CWMU own enough ground to "harbor" wildlife year round to start with so that's a falsehood.

5th. I agree. If landownership was required, then outfitters wouldn't be involved. Pretending every CWMU is Deseret is stupid. Most are a hodgepodge of smaller places outfitters pay hunting fees for IF the ranches go CWMU. Without those extended seasons, guaranteed tags, and waived waiting periods, those fees would be much smaller.

That's the $$$ in CWMU. Guaranteed, repeatable buisness.

You, your, yer are correct. I'm not a fan of CWMU. I've watched how it went from helping a few bigger ranches, swallowing up most of N Utah. I've also watched as it became a non land owning, outfitter driven, enterprise.
 

Sup

Member
Messages
13
First, I own a construction company, and my CPA has said for years he's convinced every contractor has safe full of cash, so I'm well aware of how cash works, as you are too.

Second. Do some research. Start with places such as United Sportsman. There were clubs and trespass fees long before CWMU.

Third, unless your, you're , yer name is homer, we don't try to show superiority by grammar checking auto correct.

4th Few CWMU own enough ground to "harbor" wildlife year round to start with so that's a falsehood.

5th. I agree. If landownership was required, then outfitters wouldn't be involved. Pretending every CWMU is Deseret is stupid. Most are a hodgepodge of smaller places outfitters pay hunting fees for IF the ranches go CWMU. Without those extended seasons, guaranteed tags, and waived waiting periods, those fees would be much smaller.

That's the $$$ in CWMU. Guaranteed, repeatable buisness.

You, your, yer are correct. I'm not a fan of CWMU. I've watched how it went from helping a few bigger ranches, swallowing up most of N Utah. I've also watched as it became a non land owning, outfitter driven, enterprise.
First, I own a construction company, and my CPA has said for years he's convinced every contractor has safe full of cash, so I'm well aware of how cash works, as you are too.

Second. Do some research. Start with places such as United Sportsman. There were clubs and trespass fees long before CWMU. Correct, ranches (landowners) leased their land out prior to cwmu. If no cwmu, then they can/will still lease their land out. Nothing changes. It will just reduce the rancher/landowner's income as there is less value in it for them. It would be like other states with zero management plans such as cwmu (think montana - some of the best muley habitat, but one of the worst states for mule deer).

Third, unless your, you're , yer name is homer, we don't try to show superiority by grammar checking auto correct.

4th Few CWMU own enough ground to "harbor" wildlife year round to start with so that's a falsehood. Correct, lots of wildlife migrates. Making an asset more valuable/produce more revenue for the landowner and everyone involved promotes better management of the asset by all parties and drives up production (supply). econ 101

5th. I agree. If landownership was required, then outfitters wouldn't be involved. Pretending every CWMU is Deseret is stupid. Most are a hodgepodge of smaller places outfitters pay hunting fees for IF the ranches go CWMU. Without those extended seasons, guaranteed tags, and waived waiting periods, those fees would be much smaller. Incorrect - you have to own land to make a cwmu. You can't say I don't own any ground, i'm just going to make a cwmu in the middle of forrest service. It wouldn't work for multiple reasons (your hunting/game would still be exactly the same as before, since it's public, therefore you have no management control over it).

Also, incorrect on, "if you own the land, then no outfitter will be involved." Majority of ranchers/landowners do not do their own outfitting. They use an outfitter to do all the hard work. Prime example would be this thread. Lands (wild country outfitters) do not own the deseret. They are simply the outfitter. The landowner (LDS) just leases out to wild country (wild country pays the landowner quit handsomely. The landowner owns the land but still uses an outfitter.

Typically, about half of the gross revenue ends up with the landowner. In turn for this financial incentive, the landowner has to give up some things too. S/he / they must allow some free public hunting. But, everyone involved is incentive to manage the area for bigger, better, more game. It's a win win for everyone.


That's the $$$ in CWMU. Guaranteed, repeatable buisness. Correct, that's the exact reason for them. To allow ranchers/landowners to make more money in turn for allowing some public to go on and also incentivizing them to harbor more and better game. Without that, it would just be a regular ranch with less game.

You, your, yer are correct. I'm not a fan of CWMU. I've watched how it went from helping a few bigger ranches, swallowing up most of N Utah. I've also watched as it became a non land owning, outfitter driven, enterprise. Correct, there is a lot more money in the industry now. It's a double edge sword. Giant deer and elk now flourish on many cwmus. And not by coincidence - it's all a direct result of concentrated management efforts by all involved. And the hunting public gets to reap this reward too. Some of the lucky public gets to hunt them for free and the management practices spill over to surrounding areas. Also, camo doesn't cost $10 a shirt now. Also, in the info era, there are forums all over the internet that guys (and gals) spend their lives on (and money in ad sales). Also, guys and gals spend $5k on a rifle now, not $350. A LOT has changed. I guess we can't have our cake and eat it too is what I'm saying. If we want highly managed areas (i.e., bad azz game), we are going to have to give a little up. It's a give and take.

Is your wish to eliminate all cwmus? I'm just trying to figure out what your fix is? I hear your frustration with cwmus (understandly so) - there are pros and cons (like everything in life), but other than that, I'm not sure what your suggesting we do with them. Get rid of them? That's fair, but just remember, without them there wouldn't be sanctuaries of bad azz game which we the public can have a shot at hunting (for free and/or if you want to pay) and enjoy the spillover effect to surrounding areas. Get rid of that and we have neither.
 
Last edited:

Sup

Member
Messages
13
@Sup

Curious.

You've made 6 posts. All on a Deseret thread that was last relied to 2 months ago.

Why?

You drew/bought a Deseret tag?

Just a real interesting way to start membership

No, haven't done either. I wish!
I just read all the complaining about cwmus on this thread and I know there's 2 sides to every coin. There's a TON of positives that come with them too. Both perspectives need some light shed on them is all.
 

HikeHunt61

Active Member
Messages
487
Do other western states have CWMU-like laws? Beyond the reservations in AZ, nothing like that exists (unless you count BigBo ranch- but they have no control over permits). Pretty sure WY has nothing like it either. Montana, Idaho, Colorado maybe?
 

Gator

Long Time Member
Messages
17,683
A safe full of Money $hit i knew i was doing something wrong for the last 40 years.
Are you sure it wasn't a PIGGY back.
 

Sup

Member
Messages
13
Do other western states have CWMU-like laws? Beyond the reservations in AZ, nothing like that exists (unless you count BigBo ranch- but they have no control over permits). Pretty sure WY has nothing like it either. Montana, Idaho, Colorado maybe?
CO - Ranching for Wildlife
UT - CWMUs
NV - landowner tags
CO - Landowner tags
NM - Landowner tags
 

berrysblaster

Very Active Member
Messages
2,030
Just a reminder that this all started because some dude thought Deseret was expensive, it’s the most economically priced hunt in the state currently. To purchase a wasatch rifle/muzz cons tag and guide ran 30-50k this year. $23k for Deseret is a bargain 😂
 

treedagain

Long Time Member
Messages
5,843
CO - Ranching for Wildlife
UT - CWMUs
NV - landowner tags
CO - Landowner tags
NM - Landowner tags

Let me guess, your last name is Black, Lemon or Heaton? Way to many pages you have written unless you are vested in the CWMU program.
Nice 1st 6 posts for a "new" member.
 

Sup

Member
Messages
13
Last name is Jovanovich. I'm a cpa in Montana. Feel free to call me to discuss. Just not sure why all the hate. Pros and cons to everything. Lots of shade thrown with little solutions provided. I'm more of a solution oriented person is all. Try not to complain much and just take care of myself and family and not complain that the neighbors house is bigger or they have a fancier car and it's not fair.
 

hossblur

Long Time Member
Messages
8,190
A safe full of Money $hit i knew i was doing something wrong for the last 40 years.
Are you sure it wasn't a PIGGY back.


He said that after Covid and how suddenly dudes had huge increases, almost as if people quit touching cash for a few months😁
 

hossblur

Long Time Member
Messages
8,190
Last name is Jovanovich. I'm a cpa in Montana. Feel free to call me to discuss. Just not sure why all the hate. Pros and cons to everything. Lots of shade thrown with little solutions provided. I'm more of a solution oriented person is all. Try not to complain much and just take care of myself and family and not complain that the neighbors house is bigger or they have a fancier car and it's not fair.


There it is.

I too just figured you were yet ANOTHER Heaton, Moss, or lemon.

Google how many acres of public land these CWMU incorporate into their outfits.

Second, you are woefully incorrect in how CWMU are coming to be now, the numbers of wildlife they feed/winter.

Deseret is the oddity, not the norm. The biggest and baddest deer in elk in Utah do not come from CWMU. So again your wrong.

My guess, is you're a CPA for a CWMU or outfitter, and have a pretty one sided view.

We have high fence units in Utah. We dont need another corporate entity, then combine that with the 500+ conservation tags. There is plenty of opportunities for wealthy dudes.

Like I said, with 2 week seasons like everyone else, and waiting periods, it would drive the costs down for the public at large. It's those 3 month windows and guaranteed yearly buisness that inflate the costs. And like it or not, but the PUBLIC owns the animal. Without it, the land is just that. A 60/40 split might be fair, but pretending dudes are paying $25k for a chance to hike a MTN, is silly. They pay for the elk. Be that MTN, or prairie, don't matter
 

SS!

Long Time Member
Messages
5,968
Last name is Jovanovich. I'm a cpa in Montana. Feel free to call me to discuss. Just not sure why all the hate. Pros and cons to everything. Lots of shade thrown with little solutions provided. I'm more of a solution oriented person is all. Try not to complain much and just take care of myself and family and not complain that the neighbors house is bigger or they have a fancier car and it's not fair.
You must be related to Nic?
 

Sup

Member
Messages
13
There it is.

I too just figured you were yet ANOTHER Heaton, Moss, or lemon.

Google how many acres of public land these CWMU incorporate into their outfits.

Second, you are woefully incorrect in how CWMU are coming to be now, the numbers of wildlife they feed/winter.

Deseret is the oddity, not the norm. The biggest and baddest deer in elk in Utah do not come from CWMU. So again your wrong.

My guess, is you're a CPA for a CWMU or outfitter, and have a pretty one sided view.

We have high fence units in Utah. We dont need another corporate entity, then combine that with the 500+ conservation tags. There is plenty of opportunities for wealthy dudes.

Like I said, with 2 week seasons like everyone else, and waiting periods, it would drive the costs down for the public at large. It's those 3 month windows and guaranteed yearly buisness that inflate the costs. And like it or not, but the PUBLIC owns the animal. Without it, the land is just that. A 60/40 split might be fair, but pretending dudes are paying $25k for a chance to hike a MTN, is silly. They pay for the elk. Be that MTN, or prairie, don't matter


I get you're angry and hate cwmu's.
Your suggestion is shorten their season and gives most the tags to the public?

If you deflate the cwmu down to nothing, then you will have nothing on the cwmu to hunt. And you won't have many cwmus left. So you are just wanting to kill the cwmu?

Again, they provide a TON of benefit to the public too (and the wildlife). Without them, you have no public benefit.

If I feed 500 elk on my hay fields every night, i should have some say in how to manage them bastards. "Owned by the public" is not the same thing as "Let me and everyone onto your place and rape it." It's still America and we have still have property rights (both real and personal). At least for now anyways.

I've never been one to hate on someone else simply because they have more than me and whine about it and whish them ill. Just too liberal of a thing for me to do.
 

hossblur

Long Time Member
Messages
8,190
I get you're angry and hate cwmu's.
Your suggestion is shorten their season and gives most the tags to the public?

If you deflate the cwmu down to nothing, then you will have nothing on the cwmu to hunt. And you won't have many cwmus left. So you are just wanting to kill the cwmu?

Again, they provide a TON of benefit to the public too (and the wildlife). Without them, you have no public benefit.

If I feed 500 elk on my hay fields every night, i should have some say in how to manage them bastards. "Owned by the public" is not the same thing as "Let me and everyone onto your place and rape it." It's still America and we have still have property rights (both real and personal). At least for now anyways.

I've never been one to hate on someone else simply because they have more than me and whine about it and whish them ill. Just too liberal of a thing for me to do.

You can build a 10 ft fence.

That's how I keep my dogs in and the neighbors out.


Or, perhaps we can address the MTN permits where ranches feed off the public, then ***** when the public's animals come down the MTN. $7.00 bale's here.
 

Sup

Member
Messages
13
You can build a high fence and keep the public out of your place and shoot any animal that comes onto it, but a rancher has to turn his land over to john q public.

You clearly don't own land.
If you did, you'd understand.

It's useless trying to reason with the whoa is me crowd.

Good day.
 

hossblur

Long Time Member
Messages
8,190
You can build a high fence and keep the public out of your place and shoot any animal that comes onto it, but a rancher has to turn his land over to john q public.

You clearly don't own land.
If you did, you'd understand.

It's useless trying to reason with the whoa is me crowd.

Good day.

Logic would say if you built a fence around your property, the wildlife problem would be over.

It useless arguing a local issue with a guy who lives 2 states away, who has some incorrect notion.

Here's a hint, so you know. There were guides responding to this thread, and guys liking it. Some, ACTUALLY guided CWMUs. Some, ACTUALLY guided Deseret. Perhaps locals know more than you🙄

Feel free to stick around, or tell your client, you stuck up for them.

But don't assume, when the only posts you e ever posted are all in defense of something or someone, dudes won't notice👍
 

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