BuzzH
Well-known member
I'm more concerned about public land.
And Utah says, Hold my Beer!
- Thread starter WapitiBob
- Start date
Frequently Banned Troll
Well-known member
Can’t say that I would but it’s my personal budget that would guide me. I’ll be buying a 5 year license this month but will likely drop out once I hunt antelope in Utah. Will let the 25 moose points I’ve got go away. No regrets the elk hunt was worth it.
I’ve been doing research today. Points vers draw odds.
I have enough elk points to burn them on an elk hunt that’s been one of my target hunts. I should draw this year.
The reality of drawing sheep, moose or bison with the low draw odds makes dropping out the right choice.
I’ve drawn a few stupid odd tags but the cost was $20, not $400.
Edwin
Active member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2019
- Messages
- 118
The only thing I know for sure, is that if buzz was born 20 years later he'd be crying louder than anyone else. But he got what he was entitled to so fck everyone
BuzzH
Well-known member
No, I wouldn't be, I've never felt entitled to a NR tag, ever.
seeth07
Well-known member
You should clarify that your concerned about public land in western states
BuzzH
Well-known member
Well, now, see that's where you're wrong. I care about public lands that I don't use as much, or more. In places that don't have lots of public lands, its likely more important to protect those and keep them public.
I've already posted that, several times, guess you missed it or read selectively.
Either way, I'm on my 38th year of working on behalf of public lands, please keep that in mind next time you post something so ridiculously wrong.
Whiskey Freak
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2020
- Messages
- 255
If I were a NR of Utah I’d go all in the first year of the price hike. A lot of people will say Hell no and it may improve your odds of drawing.
cgasner1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2016
- Messages
- 3,906
I’ll be angry but won’t walk away the first year gotta see how things shake out
Being from Montana, I can't really complain about what I have to pay in other states as a non-resident, in this case, Utah. My home state has the highest ratio of NR fees-to-R fees of any western state.
Trying to get resident fees bumped in any state is harder than changing the rotation of the earth. Yet, if we had resident fee increases it would surely go a ways toward western states, in this case Montana, weaning themselves from the non-resident teat and having residents complain about the influence non-residents and their agents (outfitters) have. We can't have it both ways.
I know this topic is about Utah, not Montana, but I suspect there are some Utah folks who have advocated for a resident fee increase the same as some of us have advocated for such in Montana. And I suspect if they advocated for such, they were in the minority of the resident hunting population and their fellow resident hunters gave them an earful.
So, we continue down this path, with the outcomes many are expressing on this thread; 1) continue increasing NRs prices so that more and more of the NR hunting population are wealthier and wealthier, resulting in more and more leasing, either directly or through the outfitters the wealthier NRs hire, 2) we end up with western states being more and more dependent on NR dollars, and 3) residents will continue to complain about the influence NRs have in their state wildlife policies, but they complain even more about small fee increases that would help offset the NR influence that they complain about.
With Wyoming pushing the limits of the Special pricing last year, I predicted that other states would see the elasticity in the price of western hunting, specifically elk hunting. Maybe this was in the works for a long time in Utah, but Wyoming surely showed the surrounding states that none of them are even close to the limits on NR pricing, at least for elk. I would suspect that other states will follow Wyoming's lead, especially when they see Utah doing the same.
I've resolved that rebalancing the NR-to-R fee structure in my state is not going to happen in my lifetime. I've given up trying to do that. And I have resolved that similar trends will continue in the ten other states where I apply as NR.
I have already dropped a lot of species in many states, and I suspect with age and "been there, done that," more states/species might fall off my radar as the value intersection of price-to-interest declines. When I do, that will be to the benefit of younger applicants, to whatever degree their finances and priorities allow. Even if/when I might drop off, I will still continue my advocacy and volunteerism for wildlife and public lands, as that is just part of my DNA.
I wish I knew an answer to the dynamics in place as it relates to NR v. R pricing. I don't know how to solve the political reality where the voting R gets an embarrassingly low fee on the backs of non-voting NRs.
One part of this discussion usually gets to NR tag supply. I do know the answer to the issue of NR tag "supply." A smaller percentage of hunters want to hear it or work towards it - For me to benefit from more NR tags, I need to help put more elk/deer/sheep/pronghorn on the landscape. For all but elk, we are at the lowest herd levels in my lifetime, and it is reflected in tag numbers available to non-residents. Some states/herds might be successfully countering the west-wide trends, but in totality, the herd numbers today are lower than 25 years ago.
I've come to realize that Hunt Talk is on the far end of the "generosity spectrum" when it comes to the generosity of time/money among the members here. For all of you who donate, volunteer, and advocate for wild places and wild things, I thank you. That time, money, and voice you give is the answer to the supply side of NR tags, or at least slowing the rate of decline in NR tag supply. Seeing how much of that happens among the Hunt Talk crowd makes it much easier for me to deal with some of the moderation this places requires. The best way for NRs to have more supply is by putting more critters on the landscape. The supply side of NR hunting might be a topic for a different thread.
Trying to get resident fees bumped in any state is harder than changing the rotation of the earth. Yet, if we had resident fee increases it would surely go a ways toward western states, in this case Montana, weaning themselves from the non-resident teat and having residents complain about the influence non-residents and their agents (outfitters) have. We can't have it both ways.
I know this topic is about Utah, not Montana, but I suspect there are some Utah folks who have advocated for a resident fee increase the same as some of us have advocated for such in Montana. And I suspect if they advocated for such, they were in the minority of the resident hunting population and their fellow resident hunters gave them an earful.
So, we continue down this path, with the outcomes many are expressing on this thread; 1) continue increasing NRs prices so that more and more of the NR hunting population are wealthier and wealthier, resulting in more and more leasing, either directly or through the outfitters the wealthier NRs hire, 2) we end up with western states being more and more dependent on NR dollars, and 3) residents will continue to complain about the influence NRs have in their state wildlife policies, but they complain even more about small fee increases that would help offset the NR influence that they complain about.
With Wyoming pushing the limits of the Special pricing last year, I predicted that other states would see the elasticity in the price of western hunting, specifically elk hunting. Maybe this was in the works for a long time in Utah, but Wyoming surely showed the surrounding states that none of them are even close to the limits on NR pricing, at least for elk. I would suspect that other states will follow Wyoming's lead, especially when they see Utah doing the same.
I've resolved that rebalancing the NR-to-R fee structure in my state is not going to happen in my lifetime. I've given up trying to do that. And I have resolved that similar trends will continue in the ten other states where I apply as NR.
I have already dropped a lot of species in many states, and I suspect with age and "been there, done that," more states/species might fall off my radar as the value intersection of price-to-interest declines. When I do, that will be to the benefit of younger applicants, to whatever degree their finances and priorities allow. Even if/when I might drop off, I will still continue my advocacy and volunteerism for wildlife and public lands, as that is just part of my DNA.
I wish I knew an answer to the dynamics in place as it relates to NR v. R pricing. I don't know how to solve the political reality where the voting R gets an embarrassingly low fee on the backs of non-voting NRs.
One part of this discussion usually gets to NR tag supply. I do know the answer to the issue of NR tag "supply." A smaller percentage of hunters want to hear it or work towards it - For me to benefit from more NR tags, I need to help put more elk/deer/sheep/pronghorn on the landscape. For all but elk, we are at the lowest herd levels in my lifetime, and it is reflected in tag numbers available to non-residents. Some states/herds might be successfully countering the west-wide trends, but in totality, the herd numbers today are lower than 25 years ago.
I've come to realize that Hunt Talk is on the far end of the "generosity spectrum" when it comes to the generosity of time/money among the members here. For all of you who donate, volunteer, and advocate for wild places and wild things, I thank you. That time, money, and voice you give is the answer to the supply side of NR tags, or at least slowing the rate of decline in NR tag supply. Seeing how much of that happens among the Hunt Talk crowd makes it much easier for me to deal with some of the moderation this places requires. The best way for NRs to have more supply is by putting more critters on the landscape. The supply side of NR hunting might be a topic for a different thread.
seeth07
Well-known member
I'm just pointing out that the national federal land transfer issue, the main core public lands issue of these times, almost exclusively has immediate impacts to western states, not eastern ones.
cgasner1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2016
- Messages
- 3,906
When you look at it compared to Idaho in sure someone would argue you’re still getting a deal. I wanna say they bumped the moose tag up to around 3200+ a couple years ago and they keep mid 300s between license fee and application fee. That’s one species. Utah lets you apply for more for less.
BuzzH
Well-known member
I'm not convinced that's true either. Those that want to divest the public of public lands make no distinction between which public lands they want in private hands. They want it all, make no mistake, they aren't fussy.
There is typically higher value in the sparce public lands found in areas with fewer acres of them, for obvious reasons. Supply/demand is a real thing.
When I advocate for public lands, in my minds eye, I'm not just thinking about my favorite pronghorn, elk, or deer area. I'm thinking of places I've worked in States I'll never hunt that have some absolutely wonderful public lands. I even think about public lands I've never seen, and never will see, that others find special to them for any one of hundreds of reasons.
In my eyes, public lands are public lands and they all are worth the saving.
our Idaho Resident fees are incredibly low, which I appreciate, but only one of my out of state family members will ever be able to pay the fees to come hunt with me
Buying my last Utah license tomorrow. The juice is not worth the squeeze going forward. Pretty soon I will do a ewe hunt in Montana and be done there as well. The states will drop off one by one and there will be some great memories. It was a good 30 years.
BuzzH
Well-known member
You better hurry in Montana, the sheep tags are drying up, even ewe tags.
Carnage2011
Well-known member
I’ll stay in the game in Utah. If I was only after elk though, I’d hang it up and just buy a NM landowner tag every few years. Just as good of quality and the price is about the same as a LE tag in Utah plus app fees and points.
LopeHunter
Well-known member
As long as us hunters keep paying and there are still so many unsuccessful applicants they will keep upping the ante to play the game.
You change the mix of hunters from out of state. Joe SixPack is priced out to Richie Rich.
Ritchie pays a Finder’s Fee. Outfitter does naughty things like put up fake Private Property signs on public land/blocks roads/locks gates and leases private land where goons chase elk off public to the private. Greed is a powerful drug.
Boo hoo. Poor little resident now has sadsies.
F&G needs to grow a set. eBay every tag. Non-resident and resident. No point system and no limit on how many tags you buy just as long as buy the correct residency status. I might pick up a couple of rut elk tags. Bring your crypto and see who swings the biggest checkbook around when seek to properly maximize tag revenues. Game on!!
I have love visiting and hunting Utah, but I think if this bill were signed, it would make Utah the most expensive state to hunt as a nonresident (general alone would take over my whole hunting budget). Sadly, I wouldn't be able to keep applying. Big Bummer. I do feal bad for the younger generation (especially if you are blue collar like me). I can't imagine the prices when my kids grow up. Sadly, things like this make anti-hunters win. Less hunters, maybe that is what they want. I just don't get why they have to go so high.
Similar threads
