New Land owner association rules

[JakeH]

Anyone interested in the new LOA rules here is the proposal for the new rules that if accepted by the WB will go into effect in 2024.

Send in your comments to the board if you approve of the new rules or not, there really has been no comment from the general public on this and most people didint even know it was happening. I myself knew it was in the works but had no idea they had released the proposal and it was in the RAC process.

Here is a link that should get you to where you can submit a comment. Go to the "proposals/share your feed back" link under the list of RAC meetings for May/June
https://wildlife.utah.gov/agendas-materials-minutes.html

On a side note if you want to watch a bunch of whiny a$$ entitled land owners that have been taking advantage of the current system for way to long realize there free ride is coming to an end watch this from the NE region RAC

 

[SureShot]

I didn't have much of an opinion until I listened to all of the whining members of those LOAs (it wasn't just in the NE RAC, but it has been mostly from the Diamond Mountain LOA). Now, I'm very much in favor of the recommendation and hope the wildlife board shows the same backbone they have on other recent issues and passes it.

 

[JakeH]

I didn't have much of an opinion until I listened to all of the whining members of those LOAs (it wasn't just in the NE RAC, but it has been mostly from the Diamond Mountain LOA). Now, I'm very much in favor of the recommendation and hope the wildlife board shows the same backbone they have on other recent issues and passes it.

Right, the fact they let them get away with the "variance" for as long as they have is crap to begin with. If you are getting public tags you need to be allowing public on the LOA. That's been the rule for the entire existence of the program.

Add in the fact that a bunch of the LOA voucher tags are only used to hunt public ground because the LO's wont allow them access to the land.

Hell I bet at least a 1/3rd of there land are small little tiny chunks of 5 to 40 acres, they have 160 land owners in their LOA program. There should be a requirement of "x" amount of land to be counted into the LOA program. I would put the cap at 100 acres personally. How many public tags would that open back up to the public?

Currently the Diamond LOA gets 51 deer tags, and 35 elk tags. If there really is a 1/3rd of the LOA that really shouldn't be in the LOA that would free up 17 deer tags, and 11 elk tags.

 

[treedagain]

Gonna be some big changes on Diamond. LOL
So pretty much all tags will be unit wide? LOA and LE.

 

[treedagain]

I can see them going to the 2nd option. WIN-WIN
more tags for the public.

 

[Bowbuster]

The Lo’s are afraid to mention what the real reason they don’t want public to access and hunt their land is….. is because their high paying clients aren’t going to pay those extremely high prices to not be the only hunter chasing the biggest trophy that they’ve been advertising all summer.
Lotta truth to that!

 

[JakeH]

The Lo’s are afraid to mention what the real reason they don’t want public to access and hunt their land is….. is because their high paying clients aren’t going to pay those extremely high prices to not be the only hunter chasing the biggest trophy that they’ve been advertising all summer.
Lotta truth to that!

With the diamond loa this would actually open up a ton of land for a good chunk of the guys that buy vouchers. Currently unless you bought your voucher from one of the bigger properties you really don't have much land to hunt so they end up just hunting the private, but even then they are excluded from most of the private. This opens up the entire loa for the voucher guys too. Which is also the way it should be.

Diamond has gotten away with there Bastardized system for way to long. And they are throwing a tantrum like two year olds because they are not getting there way.

As far as the other loa programs I cannot speak to them as I know nothing about them.

 

[Gator]

So the small 160 ac farmland isn't covered unless the owner or owners draw a general unit permit just to hunt their own land. I guess that old saying (If I feed them I eat them).

 

[JakeH]

So the small 160 ac farmland isn't covered unless the owner or owners draw a general unit permit just to hunt their own land. I guess that old saying (If I feed them I eat them).

As long as they have 100 acres of cropland they get 1 tag.

 

[BillyBoB]

These LOA’s have been the gift that keeps on giving and I’m glad to see some potential big changes to the program. It’s been long overdue.

 

[treedagain]

I can see them going to the 2nd option. WIN-WIN
more tags for the public.

 

[treedagain]

I did not see, but will they be private land only?

 

[JakeH]

I did not see, but will they be private land only?

If they choose the second option they will be private land only, but they will only receive 80% of the tags allotted to them. The other 20% will be given to public hunters that still get to hunt all of the loa lands.

 

[treedagain]

If they choose the second option they will be private land only, but they will only receive 80% of the tags allotted to them. The other 20% will be given to public hunters that still get to hunt all of the loa lands.

Perfect. That will limit them and make it a better public hunt.

 

[Gator]

So the guy is a alfalfa grower and saler has 20 to 30 deer or elk a night visiting his field. He gets one tag.
Has 5 or 6 kids to feed, One deer sure didn't go far in my family back home there was 14 of us counting mom and dad.
Most know alfalfa is called green gold for a reason.
Now days a lawsuit is just around a corner.
If someone gets hurt it may be simpler to haul him off our property. LOL
did they at one time they make a count at nighttime to see how many animals was on the property and would then either pay for the amount of feed or issue Dep tags.

 

[JakeH]

So the guy is a alfalfa grower and saler has 20 to 30 deer or elk a night visiting his field. He gets one tag.
Has 5 or 6 kids to feed, One deer sure didn't go far in my family back home there was 14 of us counting mom and dad.
Most know alfalfa is called green gold for a reason.
Now days a lawsuit is just around a corner.
If someone gets hurt it may be simpler to haul him off our property. LOL
did they at one time they make a count at nighttime to see how many animals was on the property and would then either pay for the amount of feed or issue Dep tags.

They still have other ways to deal with deportation issues. And can still get doe tags. This is for buck tags that are increasingly in short supply and really has nothing to do with deportation. They call them land owner appreciation tags. It's to help incentives them allowing deer on their land.

Don't confuse the two issues.

 

[JakeH]

So the guy is a alfalfa grower and saler has 20 to 30 deer or elk a night visiting his field. He gets one tag.
Has 5 or 6 kids to feed, One deer sure didn't go far in my family back home there was 14 of us counting mom and dad.
Most know alfalfa is called green gold for a reason.
Now days a lawsuit is just around a corner.
If someone gets hurt it may be simpler to haul him off our property. LOL
did they at one time they make a count at nighttime to see how many animals was on the property and would then either pay for the amount of feed or issue Dep tags.

And further more times have changed, most people are not using wild game as the main food supplement, back when you was a kid I'm sure it was much different then it is today.

 

[Gator]

Yes Sir that adds to the killing of Doe's/ Cow's then the unit animals count turns in to a huge down fall. If it only one farm maybe it's ok. Add a dozen farms to the problem and now everyone local is pissed off at the farmer for killing doe's a
and cows.
Remember the farmer/ hay grower over by Monroe/Richfield that killed alot of Bulls several years ago because he wasn't getting any money help with his feeding alot of animal's problems.
another farm (Farnsworth) over by Moab was fenced off because they didn't want to pay for the alfalfa the deer and elk was eating all winter.
sorry but deer and elk eat a whole lot more feed than what a tag for a single doe or cow is worth to a farmer in meat.

 

[elkassassin]

Hey JakeH?

I'm Not Being Smart!

But Did You Mean Depredation?

Or Are We Deporting Deer Now?

 

[JakeH]

Hey JakeH?

I'm Not Being Smart!

But Did You Mean Depredation?

Or Are We Deporting Deer Now?

LMAO yes depredation. But hell we aint deporting people so maybe we should start using that money to deport deer LOL

 

[JakeH]

Yes Sir that adds to the killing of Doe's/ Cow's then the unit animals count turns in to a huge down fall. If it only one farm maybe it's ok. Add a dozen farms to the problem and now everyone local is pissed off at the farmer for killing doe's a
and cows.
Remember the farmer/ hay grower over by Monroe/Richfield that killed alot of Bulls several years ago because he wasn't getting any money help with his feeding alot of animal's problems.
another farm (Farnsworth) over by Moab was fenced off because they didn't want to pay for the alfalfa the deer and elk was eating all winter.
sorry but deer and elk eat a whole lot more feed than what a tag for a single doe or cow is worth to a farmer in meat.

If the deer are there and they dont want them there that is really the only option they have. Its the DWR's responsibility to work with the land owners to find a resolution. My family has 100 to 200 local deer that live on ours and surrounding farms year round, with a bunch more that pull in for the winter. deer are not near as destructive as the elk are and most farms can live with the deer. Elk are a whole different problem, and can be devastating. That said they dont have the right to just kill the whole herd off at will, and doing so will just cause more problems.

The solution is not to give them unlimited buck tags, as that does nothing to fix the problem. If you want less deer you got to kill the does or move them somewhere else by harassment to get them to move on there own, or transplant (deportation lol).

Not really sure what you are getting at Gator, what is your problem? and what is your solution?

 

[elkassassin]

I Think We Need To IMPORT Some Deer!

LMAO yes depredation. But hell we aint deporting people so maybe we should start using that money to deport deer LOL

 

[LittleBull]

Anyone interested in the new LOA rules here is the proposal for the new rules that if accepted by the WB will go into effect in 2024.

Send in your comments to the board if you approve of the new rules or not, there really has been no comment from the general public on this and most people didint even know it was happening. I myself knew it was in the works but had no idea they had released the proposal and it was in the RAC process.

Here is a link that should get you to where you can submit a comment. Go to the "proposals/share your feed back" link under the list of RAC meetings for May/June
https://wildlife.utah.gov/agendas-materials-minutes.html

On a side note if you want to watch a bunch of whiny a$$ entitled land owners that have been taking advantage of the current system for way to long realize there free ride is coming to an end watch this from the NE region RAC

Be careful what you wish for. I don’t see landowners going for either option. So what are the other possibilities. Pissed off landowners not wanting to feed animals that aren’t theirs. 🤷‍♂️ Diamond has turned into a decent LE unit because of the current system. My money is on it going back to the general unit before landowners would let either of these things happen. Try and put yourself in each landowners shoes. What would you do?

 

[treedagain]

Be careful what you wish for. I don’t see landowners going for either option. So what are the other possibilities. Pissed off landowners not wanting to feed animals that aren’t theirs. 🤷‍♂️ Diamond has turned into a decent LE unit because of the current system. My money is on it going back to the general unit before landowners would let either of these things happen. Try and put yourself in each landowners shoes. What would you do?

General season? Go for it. 1-2 years of good hunting then it will be like the rest of the south slope. Anybody who knows Diamond knows how stupid it would be for that to happen.

 

[Gator]

Here one point Farnworth farm was 160 of alfalfa on top of South Mesa. Now wouldn't it be better for the deer and elk to feed there all winter instead fencing it off. DFG should of paid for the amount feed lost.
Pissed off landowners not wanting to feed animals that aren’t theirs or getting ANY thing for those said animals.
So how much money does your family make for feeding those animals.
You do know it cost to grow the product they eat right.

 

[JakeH]

Be careful what you wish for. I don’t see landowners going for either option. So what are the other possibilities. Pissed off landowners not wanting to feed animals that aren’t theirs. 🤷‍♂️ Diamond has turned into a decent LE unit because of the current system. My money is on it going back to the general unit before landowners would let either of these things happen. Try and put yourself in each landowners shoes. What would you do?

They never should have been allowed to do what they've been doing in the first place, that is not what the program was implemented for. I don't see it going back to general season. If they are going to be stubborn and not allow the DWR to help them manage the game on the range land by including them in the LOA program or by allowing hunters onto there land to help disperse them to other areas then they get what they get.

Currently they receive over 80 vouchers for deer and elk, those vouchers are selling for $8,000 - $12,000+ for deer and $10,000 - $14,000+ for elk. They are easily averaging $10,000 per voucher. That is over $800,000 they are being compensated every year. You telling me that isint worth it to them to figure out a system that works for both them, the DWR. And the public?

Either way they can't say the DWR hasn't attempted to help them mitigate the cost of having the game on their property.

 

[joevegas]

I didn't have much of an opinion until I listened to all of the whining members of those LOAs (it wasn't just in the NE RAC, but it has been mostly from the Diamond Mountain LOA). Now, I'm very much in favor of the recommendation and hope the wildlife board shows the same backbone they have on other recent issues and passes it.

Hey SureShot, you and most Utah folk will know better than I do but-I have heard from several reliable sources that Mossback stepped in recently and snagged up most of the landowner vouchers this year in the diamonds. Anybody heard anything? I had a southslope tag last year for the first time and also noticed there were very small chunks (1/2-2 acres) of land. One of the most awesome places I have ever hunted!! Was really hoping to go back this year as that was the first landowner voucher I had ever purchased. 7 months later-the pricing literally tripled.

 

[JakeH]

Here one point Farnworth farm was 160 of alfalfa on top of South Mesa. Now wouldn't it be better for the deer and elk to feed there all winter instead fencing it off. DFG should of paid for the amount feed lost.
Pissed off landowners not wanting to feed animals that aren’t theirs or getting ANY thing for those said animals.
So how much money does your family make for feeding those animals.
You do know it cost to grow the product they eat right.

Gator, Diamond has no agriculture on it, it is all 100% range land.
So your point isn't comparable.

But to your point, I am betting that land owner would not have worked with the DWR in any capacity that would have helped in any way. Some people dont care about the wildlife and will do anything they can to try and take advantage of the system, I'm betting the DWR weighed there options and could see that the land owner was not going to help them so they chose to fence off the fields. You cant win them all.

As far as what my family gets? nothing, a few depredation tags every once in awhile, and the satisfaction of having lots of deer running around. All of the surrounding farms are the same way. Its not always about money.

 

[LittleBull]

They never should have been allowed to do what they've been doing in the first place, that is not what the program was implemented for. I don't see it going back to general season. If they are going to be stubborn and not allow the DWR to help them manage the game on the range land by including them in the LOA program or by allowing hunters onto there land to help disperse them to other areas then they get what they get.

Currently they receive over 80 vouchers for deer and elk, those vouchers are selling for $8,000 - $12,000+ for deer and $10,000 - $14,000+ for elk. They are easily averaging $10,000 per voucher. That is over $800,000 they are being compensated every year. You telling me that isint worth it to them to figure out a system that works for both them, the DWR. And the public?

Either way they can't say the DWR hasn't attempted to help them mitigate the cost of having the game on their property.

I honestly don’t see what the big problem is. I’ve had both deer and elk tags on Diamond. Both bought and drawn tags. All tags are good for the whole unit. I preferred to hunt public ground. (Especially for elk) I would dare bet the majority of tags given out on Diamond, either through the draw or landowner tag, gets hunted on private or has some private access. The private land on Diamond gets hunted plenty. The landowners are happy with the current system because, and I agree with you,they are getting compensated. And it’s not hard to understand that without the landowners cooperating with the DWR there would not be a LE unit on Diamond. So does anyone really believe they are going to let any and all tag holders have free run of their place. I don’t think they will. All I’m saying is the majority of the people are happy with the current system. There are a few loud ones doing most of the whining. Is that cause to blow up the whole system and risk pissing off landowners and losing a good LE unit. I don’t think so. Like it or not the wildlife management divisions in every state rely on a partnership with landowners. Some states more than others. Some units more than others. If states are going to claim ownership of the animals, they need to compensate those whom the animals adversely affect. Which they have been doing. Don’t ruin a good thing because of a few whiny b!tches! But I guess that is how our society is going now days cry racism, sexism, or that mean evil rich man has it too good and you’ll get your way.

 

[JakeH]

I honestly don’t see what the big problem is. I’ve had both deer and elk tags on Diamond. Both bought and drawn tags. All tags are good for the whole unit. I preferred to hunt public ground. (Especially for elk) I would dare bet the majority of tags given out on Diamond, either through the draw or landowner tag, gets hunted on private or has some private access. The private land on Diamond gets hunted plenty. The landowners are happy with the current system because, and I agree with you,they are getting compensated. And it’s not hard to understand that without the landowners cooperating with the DWR there would not be a LE unit on Diamond. So does anyone really believe they are going to let any and all tag holders have free run of their place. I don’t think they will. All I’m saying is the majority of the people are happy with the current system. There are a few loud ones doing most of the whining. Is that cause to blow up the whole system and risk pissing off landowners and losing a good LE unit. I don’t think so. Like it or not the wildlife management divisions in every state rely on a partnership with landowners. Some states more than others. Some units more than others. If states are going to claim ownership of the animals, they need to compensate those whom the animals adversely affect. Which they have been doing. Don’t ruin a good thing because of a few whiny b!tches! But I guess that is how our society is going now days cry racism, sexism, or that mean evil rich man has it too good and you’ll get your way.

LMAO you honestly believe most of the tags are hunting on private???? you are kidding yourself. How many tags have you had and how many of them did you kill on private?

The problem is they are not following the rules that was laid out to start the program, they changed the rules to suit there needs. Diamond has plenty enough ground to be a LE whether the land owners help or not, you make it sound like the unit is only a LE because the LO made it so. BS. And it is not going to be a free for all on the private land, there will be set rules in place that the LOA will make that the public and voucher hunters will have to follow.

It is clear to see that because you have bought vouchers in the past you want it to stay the way it is, good for you on having the ability to do that. It is clear that is the only reason you have to say what you are saying.

Fact is these tags are public tags that are pulled from the public draw the whole reason they started the program was to benefit the LO, and the public equally. You say "why ruin a good thing" a good thing for who??? the Land owners! and the people with enough money to buy vouchers and bypass the system that's who. The public have gotten the short end of that stick for far to long, you can call me a whiny b!tch all you want but the fact of the matter is they have not been following the rules set up for this program from the very start, the LO's are getting all the benefits while the public hunters get shorted tags, and have to deal with increased pressure from the vouchers that are given out.

This has nothing to do with the rich man having it too good, this has to do with them taking advantage of a public resource and not following the rules that was put in place, or using there power to change the rules to fit there wants.

 

[Gator]

None and zero
Who is saying why ruin a good thing? Sure isn't me.
Yes SOME landowers are milking the system for sure BUT that isn't the small farmer who isn't Rich.

 

[treedagain]

LMAO you honestly believe most of the tags are hunting on private???? you are kidding yourself. How many tags have you had and how many of them did you kill on private?

The problem is they are not following the rules that was laid out to start the program, they changed the rules to suit there needs. Diamond has plenty enough ground to be a LE whether the land owners help or not, you make it sound like the unit is only a LE because the LO made it so. BS. And it is not going to be a free for all on the private land, there will be set rules in place that the LOA will make that the public and voucher hunters will have to follow.

It is clear to see that because you have bought vouchers in the past you want it to stay the way it is, good for you on having the ability to do that. It is clear that is the only reason you have to say what you are saying.

Fact is these tags are public tags that are pulled from the public draw the whole reason they started the program was to benefit the LO, and the public equally. You say "why ruin a good thing" a good thing for who??? the Land owners! and the people with enough money to buy vouchers and bypass the system that's who. The public have gotten the short end of that stick for far to long, you can call me a whiny b!tch all you want but the fact of the matter is they have not been following the rules set up for this program from the very start, the LO's are getting all the benefits while the public hunters get shorted tags, and have to deal with increased pressure from the vouchers that are given out.

This has nothing to do with the rich man having it too good, this has to do with them taking advantage of a public resource and not following the rules that was put in place, or using there power to change the rules to fit there wants.

To say that most tags are used on private is laughable. Completely opposite, most tags are used on the public.. Like I said....make it general, let them loose 800k In vouchers plus guide fee's
In fact on some years they got more than their fair share because they had GUARANTEED tags when the public got tag cuts.

Those that know Diamond know the truth.

 

[JakeH]

None and zero
Who is saying why ruin a good thing? Sure isn't me.
Yes SOME landowers are milking the system for sure BUT that isn't the small farmer who isn't Rich.

Gator I wasn't replying to you in that post. I was talking to littlebull.

Go to post 28 to see my response to you. There are two separate conversations going on in this thread lol

 

[BeDawg]

I think they should turn it into a general hunt, allow a ton of tags.

Let the landowners have doe and cow depredation tags.

In return, make 2 other general units LE that have more public land and less LO. Win Win situation.

 

[treedagain]

I think they should turn it into a general hunt, allow a ton of tags.

Let the landowners have doe and cow depredation tags.

In return, make 2 other general units LE that have more public land and less LO. Win Win situation.

1-2 years of GS and that's it for Diamond. 800k down the drain for the landowners. Imagine the trucks and orange everywhere. It would be like WW3. And I know exactly where I would be sitting.

Sign me up.

 

[BacDoc]

I don’t have a dog in the fight, but don’t understand why the land owners on Diamond should have to allow public access to their private property. I’ve been fortunate to be involved in elk and deer hunts there for over 20 years, and have never had a problem finding a place to hunt. Why is Diamond different than any other limited entry unit just because it has a higher percentage of private property. Private is still private. I’ve watched the quality of animals dramatically improve along with chances for success. I find myself envious sometimes over what others have, but that’s my problem. Just because the value of these tags have increased dramatically, is no reason to change the rules. The only problem I’ve had hunting on Diamond is “guides” on public land acting like the whole mountain is private. If I was to change anything about landowner tags, I would make a portion of them private land only, like Colorado does. I think some of the doe and cow tags are that way now. Maybe some adjustments need to be made,but let’s not throw out the baby with the bath water. 🤠 BacDoc. (Bern Cook)

 

[Bowbuster]

What baffles me is if you watch the meeting every LO said the same thing about how the elk are eating all their feed for their cows but when a hunter wants to hunt they say NO unless… they are somebody important that’s got something to offer “$$”. If they truly wanted the elk off their property wouldn’t you encourage hunters to come in and move them out. Them damn LO’s deep down truly want to attract the biggest animal to their property so they can sale their vouchers for the outrageous prices they can get. They’re turning it into a business.

What sparked this whole issue up is a hunter bought a voucher from a particular LO and then was told he couldn’t hunt the property that the voucher was for. The LO told him to just hunt the public, the tag is good unit-wide, he said.
That is not what this program was designed for. There is no easy way to fix this. Both sides have some big decisions to make.

 

[JakeH]

I don’t have a dog in the fight, but don’t understand why the land owners on Diamond should have to allow public access to their private property. I’ve been fortunate to be involved in elk and deer hunts there for over 20 years, and have never had a problem finding a place to hunt. Why is Diamond different than any other limited entry unit just because it has a higher percentage of private property. Private is still private. I’ve watched the quality of animals dramatically improve along with chances for success. I find myself envious sometimes over what others have, but that’s my problem. Just because the value of these tags have increased dramatically, is no reason to change the rules. The only problem I’ve had hunting on Diamond is “guides” on public land acting like the whole mountain is private. If I was to change anything about landowner tags, I would make a portion of them private land only, like Colorado does. I think some of the doe and cow tags are that way now. Maybe some adjustments need to be made,but let’s not throw out the baby with the bath water. 🤠 BacDoc. (Bern Cook)

You know what why is Diamond different than any other limited Entry unit in the state? that is a very valid question. Currently Diamond is the only LOA program in the state that is not required to allow access to there land for the vouchers they received.

And you are right, if they do not want to allow public access they shouldn't have too. But if they want to be in this program to receive these public tags that is the price that the state has deemed they should pay. And I for one fully agree that it is a fair compensation.

 

[Gator]

Bowbuster
What happens when a hunter gets hurt on that Private land?
Do they just smile and walk away.

 

[treedagain]

It was explained in the video. The landowner per state statute would not be liable unless they charge more than $1
The Diamond LO association already tried that loophole

 

[treedagain]

Basically the way I see it
1. Leave it the same and the whole unit is open and keep there 800k
2. Reduced LO tags and they can avoid giving the access they should have given in the 1st place. And get there 640k
3. Get mad and loose alot of $$$ and go GS

I say get pissed and make it a GS. I would love to hunt it again and again. If they go GS by far the best hunting would be on public.

 

[JakeH]

Basically the way I see it
1. Leave it the same and the whole unit is open and keep there 800k
2. Reduced LO tags and they can avoid giving the access they should have given in the 1st place. And get there 640k
3. Get mad and loose alot of $$$ and go GS

I say get pissed and make it a GS. I would love to hunt it again and again. If they go GS by far the best hunting would be on public.

Had a conversation with a member of the wildlife board last night, he said the dwr had ran the numbers on the vouchers and they are actually selling for closer to 1.2 million 😳

It was a very good conversation.

 

[Bowbuster]

Bowbuster
What happens when a hunter gets hurt on that Private land?
Do they just smile and walk away.

That is a very good question! I am far from a lawyer in any sense so they would have to answer that for me.
I understand there are some folks that are sue happy especially when the land owner has deep pockets. I for one wouldn’t act any different if I got hurt hunting somebody’s Private land nor BLM, the thought wouldn’t even cross my mind to hold the LO responsible for my accident and try to sue. That is just stupid in my opinion

 

[JakeH]

Bowbuster
What happens when a hunter gets hurt on that Private land?
Do they just smile and walk away.

This has already been addressed, there are state laws in place that protect the land owners.

You sure seem very concerned for these guys. What's the rub?

 

[ReelGame]

Just thinking from a landowner's perspective, would some say screw the "publics" wildlife and just make a high fence and build their own private buffalo or elk herd. Would losing thousands of acres of critical winter range/summer range/any range be worth it to not provide some kind of compensation that's fair? I don't know, just something to think about. Even though it's just "range land" private property rights are still providing the public's wildlife the feed it needs to survive and then be shot by a public hunter.

 

[treedagain]

You don't think 1.2 million plus guide fee's are enough?
Make it general season.

 

[ReelGame]

Isn't this is about more than just Diamond Mountain? Why are some so fixated on screwing Diamond Mountain loa that the rest of the states wildlife has to potentially suffer? I don't care about Dm in particular but I do care about utah wildlife. If every unit has to be made General season so be it, but be consistent. Any bull state wide.

 

[SureShot]

The program's not changing that much for any of the other LOAs.

 

[ReelGame]

The program's not changing that much for any of the other LOAs.

That's one of the issues with the proposal, why are there not loa's in every unit in the state? Wasatch...Lasal... Manti...Nebo...private land is just as valuable for wildlife as diamond mountain private land.

 

[JakeH]

That's one of the issues with the proposal, why are there not loa's in every unit in the state? Wasatch...Lasal... Manti...Nebo...private land is just as valuable for wildlife as diamond mountain private land.

Because the land owners haven't created one.

If a group of land owners want to create an LOA In one of those units and they meet the requirements they are welcome too.

 

[ReelGame]

Because the land owners haven't created one.

If a group of land owners want to create an LOA In one of those units and they meet the requirements they are welcome too.

Easier said than done. 50%+ doesn't seem reasonable for some units. Public is missing out on some access in some of those larger private land units by having the 50% requirement. If you bring up diamond Mountain has 160 plus landowners that are cooperating to form one, it will probably go away if this proposal passes. Not very likely any new ones will be formed if this proposal is passed. I guess that's what some people want though. Lose lose situation here.

 

[treedagain]

Easier said than done. 50%+ doesn't seem reasonable for some units. Public is missing out on some access in some of those larger private land units by having the 50% requirement. If you bring up diamond Mountain has 160 plus landowners that are cooperating to form one, it will probably go away if this proposal passes. Not very likely any new ones will be formed if this proposal is passed. I guess that's what some people want though. Lose lose situation here.

Nope it is a win win...Diamond LOA has perverted the rules in their favor. If they choose to turn away 1.2 million in vouchers and guide fee's and make it a GS, that's their loss.

All the other LOA's follow the rules and have no issues with that? Why is Diamond different

Make it a GS and then it will be WIN-WIN for me, I would love to hunt it again.

Most large blocks of private ground are in CWMU'S already.

My question is why does the Diamond LOA go to a CWMU? Anyone who knows Diamond knows why.

 

[ReelGame]

Nope it is a win win...Diamond LOA has perverted the rules in their favor. If they choose to turn away 1.2 million in vouchers and guide fee's and make it a GS, that's their loss.

All the other LOA's follow the rules and have no issues with that? Why is Diamond different

Make it a GS and then it will be WIN-WIN for me, I would love to hunt it again.

Most large blocks of private ground are in CWMU'S already.

My question is why does the Diamond LOA go to a CWMU? Anyone who knows Diamond knows why.

Read much??? Again I don't particularly care what happens to diamond Mountain so why are you asking me about it? Make the whole state general season for all I care. Would that be OK with you? More than just the diamond Mountain private landowners care about this rule and have issues with not being compensated for the publics wildlife eating for free.

 

[JakeH]

Read much??? Again I don't particularly care what happens to diamond Mountain so why are you asking me about it? Make the whole state general season for all I care. Would that be OK with you? More than just the diamond Mountain private landowners care about this rule and have issues with not being compensated for the publics wildlife eating for free.

There are programs for them to get on board with if they want to put forth the effort. If they don't meet the requirements then they don't meet the requirements.

And this is far from a lose lose scenario.

But you seem to have an ax to grind, do you have a specific scenario that you want to bring up? What unit do you own land in that you want a tag for?

 

[JakeH]

Easier said than done. 50%+ doesn't seem reasonable for some units. Public is missing out on some access in some of those larger private land units by having the 50% requirement. If you bring up diamond Mountain has 160 plus landowners that are cooperating to form one, it will probably go away if this proposal passes. Not very likely any new ones will be formed if this proposal is passed. I guess that's what some people want though. Lose lose situation here.

I can only speak to the diamond loa, and too the point of them having 160 land owners, I think it's BS the way it is currently set up. Personally I feel they should do away with the 50% of land acreage, but replace it with a set limit of land a land owner can have to contribute to the loa. Personally I feel that should be at least 100 acres.

If you did a 100 acre limit that would exclude 50-75% of the land owners on the diamond loa.

 

[ReelGame]

That fellow on the board, Mr Heaton, was spot on with his comments during board discussion. The LOA rule was and still is broken and needs a complete overhaul. It was disappointing to see just Band-Aids come out of the committee. The public resource is trespassing and getting fed for free. There is not a program for all landowners in the state to get compensated fairly. Spot on.

I think I'd rather just see the whole state be general season though so there would be no need for loa's. Oh wait some people just want to grow big bulls and bucks off the backs of private landowners but then gripe when a landowner gets a tag to kill just one of the hundreds of elk they feed.

 

[treedagain]

That fellow on the board, Mr Heaton, was spot on with his comments during board discussion. The LOA rule was and still is broken and needs a complete overhaul. It was disappointing to see just Band-Aids come out of the committee. The public resource is trespassing and getting fed for free. There is not a program for all landowners in the state to get compensated fairly. Spot on.

I think I'd rather just see the whole state be general season though so there would be no need for loa's. Oh wait some people just want to grow big bulls and bucks off the backs of private landowners but then gripe when a landowner gets a tag to kill just one of the hundreds of elk they feed.

Mr Heaton, same Heaton who makes tons of $$$ of the backs of that public resource. Let's see how well he would doing if they made the pauns a general season.

 

[treedagain]

Mr Heaton, same Heaton who makes tons of $$$ of the backs of that public resource. Let's see how well he would doing if they made the pauns a general season.

Same Heaton who send me some pretty unprofessional words when I emailed him on the trail cam ban?
Our public resource fills there bank account$$$$

Make the state general season, NO LE, CWMU OR LANDOWNER TAGS.

 

[JakeH]

That fellow on the board, Mr Heaton, was spot on with his comments during board discussion. The LOA rule was and still is broken and needs a complete overhaul. It was disappointing to see just Band-Aids come out of the committee. The public resource is trespassing and getting fed for free. There is not a program for all landowners in the state to get compensated fairly. Spot on.

I think I'd rather just see the whole state be general season though so there would be no need for loa's. Oh wait some people just want to grow big bulls and bucks off the backs of private landowners but then gripe when a landowner gets a tag to kill just one of the hundreds of elk they feed.

Lmao, how much land do you own? Or who's vouchers are you buying?

Can you show me on the dolly where the bull elk touched you?

Give me a break, you can blame the diamond mtn loa for these new rules, which really are not new, just clarified better. The rule has always been that if you want vouchers you need to allow access. Why they let them get away with the variance for 30 years is beyond me, but it's a new age, hunting is light years different then it was even 20 years ago. If you are a land owner and want compensation then enroll in the program set up some rules that the public hunters can follow and get your check. The diamond mtn LOA brings in 1.2 million for there 80+ vouchers. That's a number that one of the board members provided me that he got from the DWR. That's not a made up number. Plus guiding fees on top of that whatever that adds up too.

I'm sure the other loa's are getting well compensated as well. Hell look what Doyle is doing with 1 paunsugant voucher. Or the guy that runs the outdoor show with the 10 Vernon vouchers. They are bringing in some cash. If the land owners are to stubborn to set up some rules and figure it out then that's on them.

 

[Hawkeye]

The landowners own the private property in the unit. The State of Utah and the public own the animals in the unit. There has to be a balance and compromise in order for this to work. From my perspective, the State of Utah has kowtowed far too long in favor of special interest groups, guides, outfitters, and private landowners. It’s time for the pendulum to swing back in favor of the general public. The landowners have been getting compensated more than fairly. If they don’t like the rules, then they don’t have to participate in the LOA. Well done Wildlife Board!

Hawkeye

 

[ReelGame]

Haha just what I expected from the peanut gallery. How predictable. I actually don't personally own any hunting land but I can see past the end of my nose though and how whiney both sides can be, but at least most of the landowners arguments make sense and many actually contribute to wildlife. Seems like the average public hunter just wants to spend their efforts on new gadgets and toys they can use to kill the critters better. It's nice to see someone on the board stand up for the minority and the big picture. Too bad he's pretty much alone. Carry on.

 

[treedagain]

Haha just what I expected from the peanut gallery. How predictable. I actually don't personally own any hunting land but I can see past the end of my nose though and how whiney both sides can be, but at least most of the landowners arguments make sense and many actually contribute to wildlife. Seems like the average public hunter just wants to spend their efforts on new gadgets and toys they can use to kill the critters better. It's nice to see someone on the board stand up for the minority and the big picture. Too bad he's pretty much alone. Carry on.

Yep, that someone was a landowner himself making his living off the public resource.

 

[JakeH]

Haha just what I expected from the peanut gallery. How predictable. I actually don't personally own any hunting land but I can see past the end of my nose though and how whiney both sides can be, but at least most of the landowners arguments make sense and many actually contribute to wildlife. Seems like the average public hunter just wants to spend their efforts on new gadgets and toys they can use to kill the critters better. It's nice to see someone on the board stand up for the minority and the big picture. Too bad he's pretty much alone. Carry on.

Lmao, I guess you missed the part where he said he pretty much started this process off. And there is a reason he had to recuse himself from the vote, he owns one of the largest cwmu's in the state. He also never said he was against letting public hunter's onto private. But he also never really stated what he wanted the program to look like. He wasn't happy with the end product. But he never once said what he wanted the program to look like.

 

[JakeH]

Haha just what I expected from the peanut gallery. How predictable. I actually don't personally own any hunting land but I can see past the end of my nose though and how whiney both sides can be, but at least most of the landowners arguments make sense and many actually contribute to wildlife. Seems like the average public hunter just wants to spend their efforts on new gadgets and toys they can use to kill the critters better. It's nice to see someone on the board stand up for the minority and the big picture. Too bad he's pretty much alone. Carry on.

So you don't own land, but you didn't say you have never bought a voucher.....

 

[ReelGame]

I wouldn't waste money on a voucher and I've already wasted too much time with you guys. Good luck on your quest to run Utah's wildlife into the dirt.

 

[schoolhousegrizz]

Well if the LO's are so worried about the elk ruining their land, why not let hunters harvest some of them? LO's just need to make strict rules on their land. A MINIMUM of $10,000 dollars per tag, jeez quit complaining. If you don't like it then pull out of the program and don't allow anyone on your land. If you want the benefits of selling tags you are going to have to let some public hunters on as well. Like was said, LO's don't own the animals. So if you are GIVEN tags to animals that you don't own, then you need to allow public hunters as well. Especially when the private hunters hunt OUR public lands and our animals because they were sold a PRIVATE land voucher.

Shout out to the dwr and the wildlife board they have got some guts and a spine of steel. Way to stand up for Public Lands Hunter's. Don't let these landowners persuade you from doing what is right. It is a good deal for public land hunters and for landowners. And they are not being forced to do anything, if they don't like it then get out of the program (they won't because they want their tags). You need to know that for every Angry landowner there are probably 500 happy public land hunters. And also, I'm sure there's some land owners that get it. Thank you so much!

 

[schoolhousegrizz]

Here's another idea land owners. There are fences that can be built that would keep elk and deer off of your property. Just go ahead and build those around your property. That's a win-win. Then they won't go on to your private ground and ruin it, and we can hunt them on public land. But I'm sure it's just easier for you to sell a $15,000 tag that was given to you for free. I get it, but then don't get upset when in return part of the deal is you have to allow public Hunters access to shoot some of the animals that you complain about.

 

[Elkslayer2015]

I heard the landowners are pulling out JakeH

 

[treedagain]

Gonna be hard to make up that 1.2 million.

 

[JakeH]

I heard the landowners are pulling out JakeH

Yeah I've herd they have been extremely unreasonable and rude through the whole process. Pretty sad really.

 

[buck-fever]

Like everything in life, depends on which side of the fence you set.

 

[Gator]

Dang they was rude too.