HB145

[BillyBoB]

HB0145

le.utah.gov

 

[BillyBoB]

It appears this legislation wants to make it so we cannot force public access with any of our programs like the changes that were made to the LOA program

 

[treedagain]

Suprising he is from the Basin?

 

[JakeH]

Time to get rid of the LOA program.

Everyone needs to write the WB and tell them if this passes to end the program.

 

[gundog2]

I understand the intent of the bill, which is not good, but I am not really familiar with the LOA program. What is LOA program.?

 

[elkassassin]

I'm Not Up On it as well!

I Believe That Would Be The LAND OWNERS ASSOCIATION?

 

[Hawkeye]

I agree. I would like to get rid of the Landowner Program and CWMUs. These programs were started under the guise of opening private lands to public but in reality they have resulted in less access to private lands and a ridiculous sense of entitlement from landowners. While it is true that landowners own their land they do not own the wildlife or the right to hunt that wildlife. I say eliminate the tag handouts and let these landowners go back up selling trespass fees to hunters who actually draw a tag from the public drawing. The over-commercialization of hunting and land owner/outfitter welfare is out of control in this state.

Hawkeye

 

[JakeH]

I understand the intent of the bill, which is not good, but I am not really familiar with the LOA program. What is LOA program.?

Land owners association.

It's the program that gifts tag vouchers to the land owners on LE units they ate good for the entireLE unit, they can then sell the vouchers or use them themselves. The rule has always been that In exchange for the vouchers they would allow public access on a 1 vs 1 ratio. So for every voucher they received they would have to allow 1 public hunter onto the LOA as well. This rule has always been very hard to enforce, and not a lot of the public knew it even existed.

There has always been one LOA that has had a "variance" (exception) to this rule and that has been the Diamond Mtn LOA. This year the division decided to improve the program for the public hunter as well as the people who bought vouchers and gave the LOA program two options

Option 1, keep the 1x1 ratio for public hunters, but they made new rules that they would pick the public hunters at random from the people that drew tags. These people would have the same rights as the people that bought vouchers. In addition the people that purchased vouchers would have access to the entire LOA meaning all the land owners land in the LOA. I'm not sure if this has been an issue for other LOA"s but on diamond where there are over 150 different land owners in the LOA they have never allowed everyone access, most only allow access to their land or just make them hunt the public land. So by allowing voucher people the right to hunt the entire LOA Iis kind of a big change.

Option 2: the ratio goes to an 80x20 split, so for every 10 tags given 2 public hunters would be allowed access to the LOA, but the vouchers would only be allowed to be used on the LOA and would not be good for the public lands on the unit. Also the new rules about vouchers having access to the entire loa would stand as well.

The Wildlife board passed the rules earlier last year, and the new rules take effect in 2024.

This is why the bill has been made. If you are really interested go look at the post I made several months ago about the subject, should be able to search LOA in the Utah section and you should be able to find it.

 

[gundog2]

Wow, thanks for the explanation. I thought I knew everything about hunting opportunities in Uthah, but I really was not aware of the LOA program.

 

[JakeH]

I have also written representative Chew and asked for an explanation for his reasoning for creating the bill.

 

[Airborne]

I have also written representative Chew and asked for an explanation for his reasoning for creating the bill.

What is Chew's email? If we get a few folks asking why it would help to get a response I think

 

[Airborne]

Found it: scottchew@le.utah.gov

He has quite the mustache, I bet it helps in getting basin votes

 

[JakeH]

What is Chew's email? If we get a few folks asking why it would help to get a response I think

I just got a call from him and had a very good, but a bit heated discussion with him.

I will put it this way, I feel he has been misinformed as he made several comments that was just un true.

He was under the impression that these new rules would allow a free for all to the public for access. This just isn't the case and I'm not sure how anyone could interpret that into the rules.

He also was not aware of the option 2 that would limit the public to 2 out of 10, but would also limit the vouchers to private land only.

He asked for me to send him option 2 as he knew nothing about it.

I sent him the video that the DWR put out that lays out the program and how it will work with direct time stamps to The new rules, but also encouraged him to watch the entire 30 min video as he will learn a lot from it.

I also directed him to contact the DWR and the wildlife board as I did not get the impression he had contacted them about this yet.

 

[elkassassin]

EASY There Airborne!

Found it: scottchew@le.utah.gov

He has quite the mustache, I bet it helps in getting basin votes

 

[scopenstalk]

How the eff could someone introduce a bill to change the law and be that ignorant..... What a freaking joke. I hate politicians

 

[Deerlove]

I agree. I would like to get rid of the Landowner Program and CWMUs. These programs were started under the guise of opening private lands to public but in reality they have resulted in less access to private lands and a ridiculous sense of entitlement from landowners. While it is true that landowners own their land they do not own the wildlife or the right to hunt that wildlife. I say eliminate the tag handouts and let these landowners go back up selling trespass fees to hunters who actually draw a tag from the public drawing. The over-commercialization of hunting and land owner/outfitter welfare is out of control in this state.

Hawkeye

I love the dwr spin when a new CWMU is introduced like it's a good thing.

 

[Hawkeye]

You have to love the “Utah Model” — hose the public while catering to landowners and outfitters, and then convince the public how great things are and that we are the envy of all western states. 🤡🤡🤡

Hawkeye

 

[elkassassin]

Where you Been Hawkeye?

 

[Hawkeye]

Elkster, I’ve been stuck at work. Too much work and not enough hunting.

How are things in the Basin? Did you finally draw an elk tag in 2022 or are you still building points?

 

[Vanilla]

Landowners lying to legislators about the evil public violating their private property rights and causing terrible legislation in Utah?

Where have I seen this before?

 

[Hawkeye]

Dejavu.

 

[JakeH]

Landowners lying to legislators about the evil public violating their private property rights and causing terrible legislation in Utah?

Where have I seen this before?

Is that the stream access issue you are referring to? Or something else all together?

 

[schoolhousegrizz]

Thanks for calling Jake, sad that some politicians are so ignorant.

 

[Robin_Hood]

Seriously, I've read the bill. I thought I could understand most of the bills that affect wildlife, I don't understand this one or the need for it.



Is this really the most important issues that could be addressed by the legislatures right now?

 

[SureShot]

Anybody tracking this one with inside knowledge of what's going on? It just sat there for several weeks and I thought maybe Rep. Chew had dropped it, but I see it had a fiscal note added to it today and I'm wondering if he's still trying to push it through.

The good news is the fiscal note says if it is passed, it could result in the end of the LOA program and result in a revenue loss for the state. I'm hoping that's a negative for the chances of the bill passing.

 

[JakeH]

Anybody tracking this one with inside knowledge of what's going on? It just sat there for several weeks and I thought maybe Rep. Chew had dropped it, but I see it had a fiscal note added to it today and I'm wondering if he's still trying to push it through.

The good news is the fiscal note says if it is passed, it could result in the end of the LOA program and result in a revenue loss for the state. I'm hoping that's a negative for the chances of the bill passing.

I've been wondering the same, I will send him another email for an update.

 

[fullcry]

While I understand there have been an abuse with these Programs.Diamond mt. Being a big one..I believe they do benefit the public hunter.
If these programs get dissolved there is no way any land owners are going to let hunters in their land just because they drew that area.
Private land hunting is huge money and they arnt about to help out the DYI guy.
Drop the program and we lose access.

 

[JakeH]

While I understand there have been an abuse with these Programs.Diamond mt. Being a big one..I believe they do benefit the public hunter.
If these programs get dissolved there is no way any land owners are going to let hunters in their land just because they drew that area.
Private land hunting is huge money and they arnt about to help out the DYI guy.
Drop the program and we lose access.

We don't have access now, or very little. I can't speak for all the other LOA's out there, only diamond. Currently a lot of the voucher tag hunters only hunt on public land or a small portion of the LOA that they bought the tag from.

The new rules actually gives access and in a fair way. I think most of the LOA's we're willing to work it out. Only Diamond was not willing to work with the division. And this bill is a direct result of that. I still think everyone should send an email to Chew about this and try and get an answer from him.

 

[2lumpy]

I tend to lean toward fullcry’s opinion of these LOA programs, however……… I believe it’s too late to turn back the clock because we’re trained the landowners to thinking differently, over the last 30 years.

If you try to turn the clock back, and stop giving out LOA tags and tell them they have to sell assess to someone they don’t select and monitor, at their expense, they’ll decide it’s not worth their trouble and call the DWR to get the animals off their property and as soon as DWR ignores the call for removal, they’ll kill them. Remember that’s now the law as well.

Over the years we’ve completely changed the hunting on private property concept in Utah and we are so far down the rabbit hole, there can be no turning it back. That’s why I believe, in the near future 99% of big game hunting will be on private land…….. we’ve built a system that is sucking everything that direction and little to no effort has be made to improve public land hunting. And no……. the habitat investments has primarily been specific to domestic live stock, not big game.

I know, I’m crazy………. Oh well. 😁

 

[Hawkeye]

While I understand there have been an abuse with these Programs.Diamond mt. Being a big one..I believe they do benefit the public hunter.
If these programs get dissolved there is no way any land owners are going to let hunters in their land just because they drew that area.
Private land hunting is huge money and they arnt about to help out the DYI guy.
Drop the program and we lose access.

Wrong. It is a myth to argue that LOAs and CMWU have created additional opportunities for the public. To the contrary, these programs incentivize private landowners to shut down their land, lead to a crazy sense of landowner entitlement, and further commercialize the sport of hunting. Once again, I vote to eliminate the tag handouts and let these landowners go back up selling trespass fees to hunters who actually draw a tag from the public drawing. If landowners were not given prized LE tags to sell to the highest bidder then they would be faced with a logical decision: Do I close my property to all hunting and receive no compensation or do I charge a reasonable trespass fee to average folks that actually draw a tag and allow them to hunt my property. If landowners want to kill all wild game on their properties then they would receive nothing. That scenario may be a possibility for crops and farmland but not many folks owning mountain property would do so.

Lumpy, you mention that no effort or habitat investment have been made to improve public land hunting over the last few decades. If that is true, then what on earth has been done with the tens of millions raised off our public tags by conservation organizations? We all hear about the amazing habitat restoration projects done each year. Have they not made any difference? Please clarify.

Hawkeye

 

[2lumpy]

I wish that too………. how you betting? Too far down the hole…….

 

[2lumpy]

Wrong. It is a myth to argue that LOAs and CMWU have created additional opportunities for the public. To the contrary, these programs incentivize private landowners to shut down their land, lead to a crazy sense of landowner entitlement, and further commercialize the sport of hunting. Once again, I vote to eliminate the tag handouts and let these landowners go back up selling trespass fees to hunters who actually draw a tag from the public drawing. If landowners were not given prized LE tags to sell to the highest bidder then they would be faced with a logical decision: Do I close my property to all hunting and receive no compensation or do I charge a reasonable trespass fee to average folks that actually draw a tag and allow them to hunt my property. If landowners want to kill all wild game on their properties then they would receive nothing. That scenario may be a possibility for crops and farmland but not many folks owning mountain property would do so.

Lumpy, you mention that no effort or habitat investment have been made to improve public land hunting over the last few decades. If that is true, then what on earth has been done with the tens of millions raised off our public tags by conservation organizations? We all hear about the amazing habitat restoration projects done each year. Have they not made any difference? Please clarify.

Hawkeye

Remember, 9 years ago I stopped trying to pay any attention. I’ve been really good at staying away from any involvement so I can only speak to older history and current empirical observations.

Deer, elk, antelope and moose have declined. Cougars and bears have increased.

Regarding MDF, the multimillions that’s been spent, I believe almost 95% has gone into gone into habitat projects, as per their mission statement.

Regarding SFW, they has a boarder mission, 95% of there conservation expenditures have gone into habitat, water conservation related to game fish, migrator bird projects, big game purchases/trades with other states, land purchase partnerships with State agencies for public use and access, big game transfer projects, urban/suburban big game projects, invasive species focused fishing tournament projects, youth hunting and fishing education/shooting projects, Utah State/BYU big game and predator research projects, highway hazard/morality fencing, migration studies, and more that do not come to mind at the moment.

Now ask me if I believe the State has managed big game well………. I do not.

All the conservation money in the world isn’t going to amount to a tinkers damn if the system and the people who are ultimately responsible…….. aren’t doing their job well.

I’m not trying to be a smart ass about this. It’s just my beliefs….. from my prospective.

The conservation money and the projects have been funded, and projects have been done, so who’s supposed to be accountable for the animals?

The conservations groups?

I don’t think so.

Yes, we can always nit pick the projects……. we never ALL agree on what’s a worthwhile expenditure, my acceptance will be different than anyone else. So would your’s…. I suspect.

 

[fullcry]

Lumpy I totally agree with you.
Nothing is going back to the old ways.
Sorry Hawkeye I disagree with you.
“what is reasonable access fee?”
Ranchers now know the value of the wildlife on their land. Many make improvements to build their property up.
Unfortunately Hawkeye you and I don’t get a vote.
The price to hunt just ain’t coming down anywere. EVERY guy you know is trying to lease ground anywhere they can.

 

[Hawkeye]

Utah has commercialized hunting and wildlife at a far greater pace than any other western state. CWMUs and LOAs or just two examples of the larger problem.

Hawkeye

 

[fullcry]

Agreed
But you’re fooling yourself if you think it’s not gonna spread even more to other states.
Wait and see what it looks like 5-10 years from
Now.

 

[BillyBoB]

Did anyone watch the recent CWMU advisory meeting? It’s on YouTube. They are interesting to listen to.

CWMU Advisory Committee 2/7/2023

AGENDAFebruary 7, 2023Cooperative Wildlife Management Unit (CWMU) Advisory CommitteeEccles Nature Center, 1157 South Waterfowl Way, Farmington, UT 840255:00...

www.youtube.com

 

[schoolhousegrizz]

Wrong. It is a myth to argue that LOAs and CMWU have created additional opportunities for the public. To the contrary, these programs incentivize private landowners to shut down their land, lead to a crazy sense of landowner entitlement, and further commercialize the sport of hunting. Once again, I vote to eliminate the tag handouts and let these landowners go back up selling trespass fees to hunters who actually draw a tag from the public drawing. If landowners were not given prized LE tags to sell to the highest bidder then they would be faced with a logical decision: Do I close my property to all hunting and receive no compensation or do I charge a reasonable trespass fee to average folks that actually draw a tag and allow them to hunt my property. If landowners want to kill all wild game on their properties then they would receive nothing. That scenario may be a possibility for crops and farmland but not many folks owning mountain property would do so.

Lumpy, you mention that no effort or habitat investment have been made to improve public land hunting over the last few decades. If that is true, then what on earth has been done with the tens of millions raised off our public tags by conservation organizations? We all hear about the amazing habitat restoration projects done each year. Have they not made any difference? Please clarify.

Hawkeye

Well said hawkeye. Plus once the landowners start shooting at animals on their land they will know it's no longer a safe haven and camp out there. They may try to get to the feed, but they will be much smarter about it.

 

[Hawkeye]

Agreed
But you’re fooling yourself if you think it’s not gonna spread even more to other states.
Wait and see what it looks like 5-10 years from
Now.

I never said these problems would not spread to other states. Unfortunately, they are spreading and likely will continue to spread . . . just like cancer. I’m just disappointed that Utah has led the charge to the point that other states refer to this as the “Utah model.” And after years of handing out and selling literally thousands of premium OIL and LE tags, public land hunting in Utah is not any better than any other western state. If we’re going to go down this road, let’s just call it what it is. We are commercializing hunting for the benefit of the wealthy, the landowners, the guides, the special interest groups, the politicians, etc. This movement is not benefiting the average sportsmen.

Hawkeye

 

[fullcry]

Agreed
However who says it’s supposed to benefit the
Average sportsman?
The average sportsman is a special interest group just like all the rest.
In fact, who do you think is financing all of these groups? You got it! US!!!
If guys weren’t willing to throw all this money around buying guns, going to shows, locking up land and put in for all these tags.
Well you get the picture…

 

[elkassassin]

Remember, 9 years ago I stopped trying to pay any attention. I’ve been really good at staying away from any involvement so I can only speak to older history and current empirical observations.

Deer, elk, antelope and moose have declined. Cougars and bears have increased.

YES!

Regarding MDF, the multimillions that’s been spent, I believe almost 95% has gone into gone into habitat projects, as per their mission statement.

YES!

Regarding SFW, they has a boarder mission, 95% of there conservation expenditures have gone into habitat, water conservation related to game fish, migrator bird projects, big game purchases/trades with other states, land purchase partnerships with State agencies for public use and access, big game transfer projects, urban/suburban big game projects, invasive species focused fishing tournament projects, youth hunting and fishing education/shooting projects, Utah State/BYU big game and predator research projects, highway hazard/morality fencing, migration studies, and more that do not come to mind at the moment.

YES!

Now ask me if I believe the State has managed big game well………. I do not.

RIGHT ON LUMPY!

All the conservation money in the world isn’t going to amount to a tinkers damn if the system and the people who are ultimately responsible…….. aren’t doing their job well.

YOU GOT IT!

I’m not trying to be a smart ass about this. It’s just my beliefs….. from my prospective.

The conservation money and the projects have been funded, and projects have been done, so who’s supposed to be accountable for the animals?

The conservations groups?

I don’t think so.

BUCKS = BUCK$! EVEN IF THEY'RE PISSCUTTERS I GUESS!

Yes, we can always nit pick the projects……. we never ALL agree on what’s a worthwhile expenditure, my acceptance will be different than anyone else. So would your’s…. I suspect.

NOT NECESSARILY TRUE!

 

[elkassassin]

Hey Hawkeye?

How Many years Have You Heard Me Bittching & Moaning?

25 GAWD-DAMNED Years Later A Few Are F'N Finally Starting To See The Light!

Comes Too Little Too Late!

This State Will Grow Quality Bucks & Bulls Just About Anywhere When Managed Properly Rather Than Being Managed For Money & Greed!

I never said these problems would not spread to other states. Unfortunately, they are spreading and likely will continue to spread . . . just like cancer. I’m just disappointed that Utah has led the charge to the point that other states refer to this as the “Utah model.” And after years of handing out and selling literally thousands of premium OIL and LE tags, public land hunting in Utah is not any better than any other western state. If we’re going to go down this road, let’s just call it what it is. We are commercializing hunting for the benefit of the wealthy, the landowners, the guides, the special interest groups, the politicians, etc. This movement is not benefiting the average sportsmen.

Hawkeye

 

[Hawkeye]

Elkster-

I think we all agree the state of Utah has done a piss-poor job when it comes to wildlife management. You will not get any argument from me on that point. The issue in this thread is whether the decision to commercialize wildlife, and the sport of hunting has helped or hurt the cause. I believe the answer to that question is clear as day.

And if you want to talk about “money and greed,” look no further then the same folks who are pushing for a system where a select few can buy a tag and hunt every year while the rank and file wait patiently in line for their turn. By the way Elkster, how long have you been chasing that SJ elk tag.

And if you’re looking for people to blame for the current state of hunting, which groups and individuals have had the loudest voice and essentially controlled the process for the last 20 years? If we are going to give these groups credit for the positive work they do, then they also have to take responsibility for the problems and failures that take place on their watch.

Hawkeye

 

[Vanilla]

And if you’re looking for people to blame for the current state of hunting, which groups and individuals have had the loudest voice and essentially controlled the process for the last 20 years? If we are going to give these groups credit for the positive work they do, then they also have to take responsibility for the problems and failures that take place on their watch.

Novel idea that the group that has forced its way into control of wildlife and wildlife decisions for the last two decades needs to take accountability for its pizz poor policy decisions once they were in charge.

Or we can just keep giving them all the seats at the table and blame the DWR.

I often wonder if people realize the DWR does not make policy, they only carry out policy dictated by the Wildlife Board. Who has controlled the Wildlife Board for the last 15-20 years almost completely? I wonder if that group should own any of the blame here? Or should it just be the DWR that is by law required to carry out these forced and poor policy decisions influenced and pushed by a certain group. I say we just keep handing this group millions of dollars off the government teet to see if another 10 years of their same crap will fix the problem! What could go wrong?

Interesting discussion, for sure.

It was fun to see Don Peay testify before the Utah legislature last week asking for $350k to go to Hunter Nation to lobby Wisconsin legislators on wolves. Because it will cost $350k to go to Wisconsin and lobby them for Utah’s interest in wolves. Again, we should just keep doing this. What could go wrong?

 

[JakeH]

Back to the original discussion.

I just had lunch with representative Chew to talk about this, he called me and wanted to go over some things.

So sounds like he doesn't feel like the bill will go anywhere, but he has been talking with both sides (DWR, and LOA) to try and get something resolved that would work for both sides. And he agreed that his initial information on the subject was not fully accurate.

That said, sounds like the bill will not be going anywhere.

He has actually been pretty open about the whole process, which I appreciate.

 

[2lumpy]

Back to the original discussion.

I just had lunch with representative Chew to talk about this, he called me and wanted to go over some things.

So sounds like he doesn't feel like the bill will go anywhere, but he has been talking with both sides (DWR, and LOA) to try and get something resolved that would work for both sides. And he agreed that his initial information on the subject was not fully accurate.

That said, sounds like the bill will not be going anywhere.

He has actually been pretty open about the whole process, which I appreciate.

Good for you JakeH. Your kind of concern and action is a great thing. Hope to see more of your generation involved at an elevated level. If the life style is going to continue, it’s got to be done by your age group. 👍👍👍

 

[Hawkeye]

Back to the original discussion.

I just had lunch with representative Chew to talk about this, he called me and wanted to go over some things.

So sounds like he doesn't feel like the bill will go anywhere, but he has been talking with both sides (DWR, and LOA) to try and get something resolved that would work for both sides. And he agreed that his initial information on the subject was not fully accurate.

That said, sounds like the bill will not be going anywhere.

He has actually been pretty open about the whole process, which I appreciate.

Jake, nicely done. Thanks for getting involved and working directly with your local legislator.

Did he explain what type of compromise he was trying to broker?

Hawkeye

 

[JakeH]

Jake, nicely done. Thanks for getting involved and working directly with your local legislator.

Did he explain what type of compromise he was trying to broker?

Hawkeye

No, but it sounded like the LOA was more willing to work with the DWR. I'm not actually sure there can be a compromise really, they have to follow the rules laid out in the new plan. But at least they have come back to the table to actually figure something out rather than just walking away.

He said something about the wording being wrong in one of the first drafts that had the land owners thinking they would have to open up there land to all uses. I got him straightened out on that in my firstcall with him, and after he looked into it further, and showed them how it would really be, they was more open to the rules it sounded like.

We will see how it goes.

 

[treedagain]

I think they should have to I open all there land for the next 10yrs to make up for BS they have pulled in the past. Locked gates, illegal posting, Hunter harassment. And mostly for the 🦬💩 variances. Plus another 5 for actually crying during the meetings.

 

[hossblur]

Novel idea that the group that has forced its way into control of wildlife and wildlife decisions for the last two decades needs to take accountability for its pizz poor policy decisions once they were in charge.

Or we can just keep giving them all the seats at the table and blame the DWR.

I often wonder if people realize the DWR does not make policy, they only carry out policy dictated by the Wildlife Board. Who has controlled the Wildlife Board for the last 15-20 years almost completely? I wonder if that group should own any of the blame here? Or should it just be the DWR that is by law required to carry out these forced and poor policy decisions influenced and pushed by a certain group. I say we just keep handing this group millions of dollars off the government teet to see if another 10 years of their same crap will fix the problem! What could go wrong?

Interesting discussion, for sure.

It was fun to see Don Peay testify before the Utah legislature last week asking for $350k to go to Hunter Nation to lobby Wisconsin legislators on wolves. Because it will cost $350k to go to Wisconsin and lobby them for Utah’s interest in wolves. Again, we should just keep doing this. What could go wrong?

So, perhaps, and I'm just snowballing here,

IF GUYS WHO ***** ABOUT THE DWR QUIT HANDING SFW MONEY EVERY FEB, maybe, just maybe they wouldn't be able to claim they represent 60, 000 Utah hunters based on attendance numbers?


Just a thought. I mean we could keep bitching AND supporting SFW, that's worked pretty good so far😳

 

[Vanilla]

I personally watched Don Peay pimp to two different legislative committees last week the “largest expo in Utah” that has 60,000 in attendance from every state in the union and 29 different countries around the world. So yes, it is being used as a huge factor influencing decisions at the highest level in the legislature. Peay also stated specifically in one of those two hearings that he was there representing SFW.

And yes, SFW is the organization I was referring to in my previous post above, just so nobody can mistake what I’m saying.

People can support any organization they choose. This is America and that is one of the beauties of living in a free society. But complaints about big game management in Utah by those that actively support SFW ring hollow for a lot of reasons. One major reason is what I articulated above.

 

[hossblur]

Shocking🙄, $fw keeps saying Peay has nothing to do with them. It's almost as if someone is lying