Enlighten me on the 200 expo tags

YBO

YBO

Long Time Member
Messages
3,185
Did the nimrods actually see a decrease of 200 tags that were given to the Expo (MDF, SFW and whoever) or did the recipients actually receive an additional 200 tags above the already allocated tags for Utah hunters several years ago? Just curious
 
>Did the nimrods actually see a
>decrease of 200 tags that
>were given to the
>Expo (MDF, SFW and whoever)
>or did the recipients actually
>receive an additional 200 tags
>above the already allocated tags
>for Utah hunters several years
>ago? Just curious

There were/are/will be only 200 Expo tags, period!
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-29-16 AT 06:49PM (MST)[p]>>Did the nimrods actually see a
>>decrease of 200 tags that
>>were given to the
>>Expo (MDF, SFW and whoever)
>>or did the recipients actually
>>receive an additional 200 tags
>>above the already allocated tags
>>for Utah hunters several years
>>ago? Just curious
>
>There were/are/will be only 200 Expo
>tags, period!

That's not what the OP is asking. He wants to know if the 200 tags that are raffled every year were taken from the public draw pools or are additional tags that meant no loss of pool tags to the public in the DWR draws that everyone applies for.
 
They're Like Obama & Greenbacks!

When We need more!

We Print More!



[font color="blue"]"I Don't get No Sleep!I Don't get No Peace!"

Hey Founder?

Did You get Permission From shotgun1 before you made your Last
Post?
[/font]
 
I think premium tags should be only for your point system. Raffle off a few mgmt tags for Henries but the dang tags everyone build pints for make Utah enough. I just spend a license I don't use plus the drawing fees every year as a non res.Then if I ever draw I pay for the non res tag.
What a shame.
 
>LAST EDITED ON Feb-29-16
>AT 06:49?PM (MST)
>
>>>Did the nimrods actually see a
>>>decrease of 200 tags that
>>>were given to the
>>>Expo (MDF, SFW and whoever)
>>>or did the recipients actually
>>>receive an additional 200 tags
>>>above the already allocated tags
>>>for Utah hunters several years
>>>ago? Just curious
>>
>>There were/are/will be only 200 Expo
>>tags, period!
>
>That's not what the OP is
>asking. He wants to
>know if the 200 tags
>that are raffled every year
>were taken from the public
>draw pools or are additional
>tags that meant no loss
>of pool tags to the
>public in the DWR draws
>that everyone applies for.

Oops! My error! The tags are taken from the public OIL/LE/Premium LE draw pools which always reduces the number available to the public in the DWR draws. They are NOT additional tags.
 
Thank you Topgun for clarifying my question. So, originally (15 years ago.) the tags were taken back from the public and given to the expo? Or,did the public actually loose the 200 tags. In other words the, for example, the public had 1000 tags in 2001, yet in 2002 the public only received 980???
 
Using your numbers, your example is correct. 200 tags were taken out of the allotment to the general public. Now some will say those 200 tags, awarded at the expo, were also given to the public, in which case the total number of tags would be unchanged. 980 + 200 = 1000.

But your point is valid. If you didn't attend the expo and apply for the 200 tags, then you saw a decrease in available tags given out by the state.

Bill
 
>Only in Utah does 980+200=1000.

I think those boys are using the new math the kids are learning in school now, LOL!
 
I am sorry for my last post. I think the bottom line is that the 200 tags raise about 8,000.00 each as essentially otherwise illegal gaming revenue, most of which is kept by SF. So the sportsman, who attend the circus,as a group, pay about 50x as much money to get their permit.


It matters little whether the animals on the mountain gets over-depleted by 200 animals or the regular draw sportsmen lose the 200 permits. The question is do the odds go down a little or do the animals go down a little?

The issue for me, is what kind of a charity should people donate to that keeps 70-100% for themselves? And is the 30% even well spent?
 
I believe the 200 tags was 50% from resident and 50% from non-resident pools.

It would be interesting to know how many more LE tags are available now compared to 2006.

I was just looking through archives here in the forums going back to 2006 and earlier and it seems it's the same stuff about SFW. Crazy!!! 10 years ago expo tags and SFW were a hot topic.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
LIKE MonsterMuleys.com on Facebook!
 
Oh It's always a HOT Topic Alright!

The SFW has put some Pocket Change in your Pocket over the last 10 years!:D





[font color="blue"]"I Don't get No Sleep!I Don't get No Peace!"

Hey Founder?

Did You get Permission From shotgun1 before you made your Last
Post?
[/font]
 
>I believe the 200 tags was
>50% from resident and 50%
>from non-resident pools.
>
>It would be interesting to know
>how many more LE tags
>are available now compared to
>2006.
>
>I was just looking through archives
>here in the forums going
>back to 2006 and earlier
>and it seems it's the
>same stuff about SFW. Crazy!!!
>10 years ago expo tags
>and SFW were a hot
>topic.
>
>Brian Latturner
>MonsterMuleys.com
>LIKE MonsterMuleys.com on Facebook!

And since the hits were the same but NR's only got ~10% of the tags, that scheme hurt the NR's far more. Ten times as bad.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-01-16 AT 03:33AM (MST)[p]>>I believe the 200 tags was
>>50% from resident and 50%
>>from non-resident pools.
>>
>>It would be interesting to know
>>how many more LE tags
>>are available now compared to
>>2006.
>>
>>I was just looking through archives
>>here in the forums going
>>back to 2006 and earlier
>>and it seems it's the
>>same stuff about SFW. Crazy!!!
>>10 years ago expo tags
>>and SFW were a hot
>>topic.
>>
>>Brian Latturner
>>MonsterMuleys.com
>>LIKE MonsterMuleys.com on Facebook!
>
>And since the hits were the
>same but NR's only got
>~10% of the tags, that
>scheme hurt the NR's far
>more. Ten times as
>bad.

Founder, Zim,

Per Utah Code R676-55-3:
"(3) The number of wildlife expo permits authorized by the Wildlife Board shall be based on:
(c) a percentage of the permits available to non-residents in the annual big game drawings matched by a proportionate number of resident permits."

In other words, 10% non-resident permits (20 permits), 90% resident permits (180 permits).
 
I'm not a lawyer so I'm not sure what they are doing from that statement. The overall percentage might take a Henry Mountains buck tag from the nonresident pool and make up for it with nine resident turkey tags. It leaves a lot of discression as to what tags are taken and how to pick from hunts with less than 10 tags.

One thing for sure, in a two tag nonresident allocation hunt, one nonresident tag to the expo means no tags to the regular preference draw. One tag in a four tag quota means only one tag to preference. They do pull nonresident tags from high demand nonresident hunts and really add to the time required to draw a lot more than it appears on the surface.
 
Yep, lack of sleep can effect mathematical brain waves. Sorry. It should have read 800 instead of 980. Anyway, it still appears that the overall previous years tag numbers for hunters did not go down?? Or did it? Just remember 2+2=5...in today's world.
 
Yes, The original expo permits were pulled 50% from NRs and 50 % res,

Since that time the new code was created that EFA posted up.

I've pointed out to EFA, and others on the UWN that code
was NOT the case when the expo began.
But they still haven't figured that one out yet!


4aec49a65c565954.jpg
 
I've been out of the loop for a while. Thanks for enlightening me. So 10% non-resident and 90% resident.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
LIKE MonsterMuleys.com on Facebook!
 
Brian,
I'm not sure if there has been an 'adjustment' made, OR
that code were to be in affect to any new expo permits..?

What I do know is when the Expo was created,
Expo permits were split 50/50 between the residents and non-res...




4aec49a65c565954.jpg
 
"Per Utah Code R676-55-3:
(3) The number of wildlife expo permits authorized by the Wildlife Board shall be based on:
(c) a percentage of the permits available to non-residents in the annual big game drawings matched by a proportionate number of resident permits."

In other words, 10% non-resident permits (20 permits), 90% resident permits (180 permits)."

OK I had no idea it switched over from 50/50 to 90/10. Do you know what year that happened?
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-01-16 AT 09:23AM (MST)[p]Who knows how the DWR calcuates the Resident/Nonresident ratio? If you follow the link posted by Grizzly then you will notice that the ratio for 2016 was 72% from the resident pool and 28% from the nonresident. I am not sure if the Administrative Rule referenced by EFA (R657-55-3) is the provision that the DWR relies on to calculate the ratio. Even if it is, the DWR has failed to follow its own rules on other other issues so why follow them here?

-Hawkeye-
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-01-16 AT 09:31AM (MST)[p]Grizzly, thanks! Overall, 56 nonresident and 144 resident tags were pulled from the draw for the 200 expo permits. 23% of the tags were from the 20% nonresident allocation. Granted, some go to the nonresident only draw for those nonresidents who make the trip. Still, the preference quota of a small tag allocation hunt will be drastically affected on the hunts they pull a tag from.
 
Yes, Grizz, Thanks!

I appears to me they (The DWR) is trying to adjust numbers
to fit their code......Interesting.

And Zim,
If I remember correctly, the first year of the Expo permits
was 51% non-res and 49% resident?

Do you recall?


4aec49a65c565954.jpg
 
OK so one step further. If the law calls for a 180-20 split and the actual split is 144-56 how has the Wildlife Board not committed 74 factual material poachings by having residents hunt on nonresident tags and vice-versa. If I remember these are mandatory Felonies according to their own rules with minimum mandatory Jail Time large fines and the like.
 
>And Zim,
>If I remember correctly, the first
>year of the Expo permits
>was 51% non-res and 49% resident?
>
>Do you recall?

That is going back there a ways, but I remember 50/50. I have no doubt they initially set it there to make the pill easier for the residents to swallow because they were the only ones with a voice to legislators & UTDOW. So that's how SFW/DOW got it through. Nonresidents had no voice at all in the matter. But apparently once their foot was in the door the DOW shifted more from the resident side? This thread is the first I ever heard of the percentage shifting to 90/10 or 80/20 or 72/28. But I definitely believe it. There's lots of shady backroom politics at UTDOW.
 
>OK so one step further. If
>the law calls for a
>180-20 split and the actual
>split is 144-56 how has
>the Wildlife Board not committed
>74 factual material poachings by
>having residents hunt on nonresident
>tags and vice-versa. If I
>remember these are mandatory Felonies
>according to their own rules
>with minimum mandatory Jail Time
>large fines and the like.

Yes but remember UTDOW doesn't have to follow it's own rules or laws..........see the RFP scandal. This has also made poaching pretty much OK now too. No need for citizens to follow their rules and laws if their own UTDOW doesn't.
 
Ok so what the hell are we going to about it. They are not following their own rules. Everything is decided behind closed doors when it comes to sfw and now the dwr, how long do we have to put up with this crap.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-01-16 AT 05:37PM (MST)[p]Talk to your state representative about the matter. Utah resident or not. Reach out to as many people as possible.
 
I am seeing multiple situations where they are not following the administrative rules.
With all the emails I sent out to our states representatives concerning these many issues, apparently it was forwarded to Assistant Director Michael Canning and the executive director as well. Because Mr Canning sent me an email today.



Theodore Roosevelt's guidance concerning
conservation...
"The movement for the conservation of wildlife,
and the conservation of all our natural resources,
are essentially democratic in spirit,purpose and
method."

"We do not intend that our natural resources shall
be exploited by the few against the interests of the
majority. Our aim is to preserve our natural
resources for the public as a whole, for the
average man and the average woman who make
up the body of the American people."

"It is in our power...to preserve game..and to give
reasonable opportunities for the exercise of the
skill of the hunter,whether he is or is not a man of
means."
 
Nope Dude- here is the fix I think would help. Just forget the Expo next year and donating any tags anywhere. Pit them on the draw system and it will move the whole chain. Then the point creep will change dramatically.
 
>I tell you what to do.
> Whine and whine and
>whine and whine and whine
>and whine and whine and
>whine and whine and whine
>and whine and whine.
>
>
>Oh yeah go ahead and screw
>the future out of hunting.
>
So, insisting the DWR follow its own rules is screwing the future out of hunting? The DWR must not be very good at making good rules to begin with. Who do you think should get the job?
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-01-16 AT 09:37PM (MST)[p]>OK so one step further. If
>the law calls for a
>180-20 split and the actual
>split is 144-56 how has
>the Wildlife Board not committed
>74 factual material poachings by
>having residents hunt on nonresident
>tags and vice-versa. If I
>remember these are mandatory Felonies
>according to their own rules
>with minimum mandatory Jail Time
>large fines and the like.
>

I once asked the DWR at a Wildlife Board meeting about the 5% maximum per species figures for the Conservation tags and was told they were not hard figures, they were "guidelines". Maybe the 10%/90% non-resident/resident figures for Expo tags are also "guidelines", which allows them to shuffle them around a bit (or a lot).
 
Please ignore tristate. Debating with him is like trying to reason with a two-year old. In fact, it is worse because tristate is intentionally illogical.

-Hawkeye-
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-02-16 AT 03:56AM (MST)[p]>Please ignore tristate. Debating with
>him is like trying to
>reason with a two-year old.
> In fact, it is
>worse because tristate is intentionally
>illogical.
>
>-Hawkeye-

I know, Hawk, but it allows me to: 1)practice my keyboard skills, 2)work on my conversation skills with my preschool grandkids, 3)develop empathy for mentally, socially and emotionally underdeveloped adults and 4)develop more stamina listening to boring conversationalists in social settings I have to attend. Besides, I'm not debating with him, I'm just asking him simple questions the forum readers want to know the answers to!
 
Why don't they take their tags away from the regular draw before making the 90:10 resident/nonresident split? That wouldn't hit the few tag allocation units so hard.

I know they don't want to do a 90:10 resident/nonresident split on the expo tags because they are trying to give incentive for nonresidents to attend the event. Most of the tags not designated nonresident only go to residents simply because far more residents attend. The more travel time and cost, the harder it is to get people there....
 
>So, insisting the DWR follow its
>own rules is screwing the
>future out of hunting? The
>DWR must not be very
>good at making good rules
>to begin with. Who do
>you think should get the
>job?

What do you think I have been telling you? Who do you think loves you whining about a few hundred thousand dollars a year to SFW????? Who do you actually think has any incentive whatsoever to make sure there is more supply of the resource? Who do you think loves seeing you cry like titty babies over 200 tags for a decade while they let 40,000 tags turn stale each year. Yall love to talk about how smart you are and how dumb I am but Hawkeye has convinced you looking through a keyhole is going to solve your problems and none of you whining lemmings is smart enough to actually open the door and see what's on the other side.


Hawkeye,


Whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine.
 
>Why don't they take their tags
>away from the regular draw
>before making the 90:10 resident/nonresident
>split? That wouldn't hit the
>few tag allocation units so
>hard.
>
>I know they don't want to
>do a 90:10 resident/nonresident split
>on the expo tags because
>they are trying to give
>incentive for nonresidents to attend
>the event. Most of the
>tags not designated nonresident only
>go to residents simply because
>far more residents attend. The
>more travel time and cost,
>the harder it is to
>get people there....
Should be illegal to sell those raffle tickets and then have to be there to for them to be legit, what a scandal!
 
> Should be illegal to
>sell those raffle tickets and
>then have to be there
>to for them to be
>legit, what a scandal!


Why? The state has been selling yall raffle tickets for years. The reason you have to be there is to promote spending in the area of the venue. It promotes money and support from the non-hunting community. Perfect logic and not a scandal at all.
 
What I find amazing is how childish y'all are. You have to know by now I don't care what you call me so the only reason to do it is to receive acceptance from any other nimrod on here who wants to be in the too dumb to argue club.
 
Too Dumb to argue? or maybe unlike you, my favorite hobby isn't arguing on the internet and I have better things to do with my life then to argue with some city boy from TexASS.

Carry on liar.
 
>
>>So, insisting the DWR follow its
>>own rules is screwing the
>>future out of hunting? The
>>DWR must not be very
>>good at making good rules
>>to begin with. Who do
>>you think should get the
>>job?
>
>What do you think I have
>been telling you? Who
>do you think loves you
>whining about a few hundred
>thousand dollars a year to
>SFW????? Who do you
>actually think has any incentive
>whatsoever to make sure there
>is more supply of the
>resource? Who do you
>think loves seeing you cry
>like titty babies over 200
>tags for a decade while
>they let 40,000 tags turn
>stale each year. Yall
>love to talk about how
>smart you are and how
>dumb I am but Hawkeye
>has convinced you looking through
>a keyhole is going to
>solve your problems and none
>of you whining lemmings is
>smart enough to actually open
>the door and see what's
>on the other side.
>
>
>Hawkeye,
>
>
>Whine and whine and whine and
>whine and whine and whine
>and whine and whine and
>whine and whine and whine
>and whine and whine and
>whine and whine.

So, answer my question. Who do you think should be making the rules?
 
>
>> Should be illegal to
>>sell those raffle tickets and
>>then have to be there
>>to for them to be
>>legit, what a scandal!
>
>
>Why? The state has been
>selling yall raffle tickets for
>years. The reason you
>have to be there is
>to promote spending in the
>area of the venue.
>It promotes money and support
>from the non-hunting community.
>Perfect logic and not a
>scandal at all.
Well F#ck, why don't yall buy some landowner tags then?
 
Ok so as far as my post #29 the only responses I received were from Zim who noted that DWR is not bound to legally follow their own Administrative Laws and Elkfrom above who called the same Laws "guidelines"
I submit that Administrative Laws cannot be enforced as crimes by the fact that they are administrative Laws and enforceable normally by an ALJ but in Utah (due to the bizarre way Utah DWR is Settup) they are enforced by no one or only to extent DWR wants to enforce them, with the Wildlife Board itself acting as Judge. But not so fast...because as far as licensing and wildlife crimes; they are enforced in criminal court as a matter of Criminal Law. So in this matter of crimes being committed. It would seem to me that poachings have been committed because there was no underlying authority for 74 of these licenses to be issued in the first place. Additionally, poachings are an administrative issue only for matters like license suspensions. They are a criminal matter also if unlicensed hunting occurs.One needs to remember that hunting licenses are not the paper that they are written on. They are a right if obtained legally. It seems to me that unlicensed straight up hard core poaching has occurred. It just wasnt the people who shot the 74 animals that poached them. It was the DWR.
 
>An accountable DWR, and I ain't
>talking about money.

Accountable to who?

And you ain't talking about money? That's ALL you talk about.
 
>>An accountable DWR, and I ain't
>>talking about money.
>
>Accountable to who?
>
>And you ain't talking about money?
>That's ALL you talk about. How is this different?
 

Similar threads

J
Mule Deer and CWD
Replies
45
Views
2k
HIcountryman
HIcountryman
Simpleton
Mule Deer Proposal
2 3
Replies
218
Views
6k
Vanilla
Vanilla

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

C202439C-6521-471A-BFE9-83D69D554C5F.jpeg
Unreal Beast-of-a-Buck
Monster Muley
C9E4C3E9-0304-4C0F-B199-42A7008CD050.jpeg
bull 2.jpg
elk_LI (3).jpg
20951234-5D13-4DB7-954E-3E8FF3F3E204.jpeg
Huge Antler!
Image from iOS (1).jpg
IMG_8587.jpeg
image000000(3).jpg
DAB14CC8-BE85-4A1F-AF55-D16CAC3E5197.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom