Utah raised NR fees.

[Bigjay73]

Reminds me of 2 lessons I've learned along the way. Life isn't fair, and supply and demand. I'd be willing to bet the amount of apps Utah receives in the future goes up or at least stays the same.

 

[LopeHunter]

Nothing about how Utah does things surprises me. There is still no shelter-in-place there yet, correct?

If I had to pick one state in America that was operating with several parallels to a theocracy then would say Utah. I have traveled through Utah, hunted in Utah and done business in Utah. Stores close on Sundays even entire shopping malls. The entire SFW rise and Convention debacle followed years later by the rigged bid process for the current contract would not happen in any other state but perhaps Idaho. When "fitting in" and "taking care of our own" is the mantra then state resources can be diverted to SFW that then can use resulting funds to lobby in D.C. and whatever else they felt was appropriate. The mandated audits were winked at. That is how "partnerships" are managed in a theocracy. You can't really see where the government ends and the SFW begins and is deemed no one's business that normally could question how public resources are used and diverted. Not in Utah. Salute the steeple and keep your opinions to yourself.

So, not surprised.

 

[Kiwi]

I just started applying for UT points this year, and had to laugh when the next month they raise the NR cost. But for me the increase cost is insignificant compared to the cost of the whole trip. Taking 10 days + off work is the biggest cost by far. And I'm extreme grateful I can apply as a NR alien.

 

[grizzly_]

My concern is more about the "my" license plate vs. "your" license plate mentality. It's not good for our sport. Nobody is a better or worse person/hunter because of their zip code. Maybe some sort of Western State Compact would be helpful where we could recognize we're all connected and we all need each other for hunting to survive.

I'm not willing to pay $700 for a bad elk tag and I'll gladly pay $1500 for a good elk tag. Heck hundreds of tags sell every year in Utah alone for many times more than that. The market is surely there for increased prices. But does that mean we should?

I'm lucky enough to be in a position that my budget isn't severely impacted by a tag increase, but that's not the case for so many others. Ultimately, this anti-NR tribalism hurts everybody in 49 states and I'm not sure it really helps many people in the 1 state they call home. It just seems to propagate the "me vs. them" fight.

 

[Bigjay73]

I dont see it as an us vs them mentality. I see it as we have a group of people living, working, and paying taxes year round within this border, and they deserve a discount on fees. That coupled with the fact that states have a resource desirable enough for people to pay a hefty amount for NR fees, and you have the current system.

 

[BuzzH]

Wait until the raise the preference points through the roof nationwide. They are already high by most peoples standards for what you are getting... but they are going to attack that soon... Its coming just wait and see.
That is when it is going to hit everyone so hard you feel it in your shoes. When just applying for a point costs you 300$/year/state.
They already make you buy a small game license to get points in Utah and for a decent hunt you are 10 years out if you were on the ground floor 5 years ago......

To put things in perspective. The state of Georgia issues preference points for free....even to non-residents. That is how bad we are all getting taken to the cleaners across the country by these state agencies when we buy points.

And for you guys who "have been there and done that" are content with limiting non-resident hunters. I have news for you, the less non-resident hunters footing the bill, the higher your resident license fees are going to become. So its a double edged sword that you might want to be careful grabbing a hold of.

I personally save like Randy did and accept the fees but I can see how some can not nor will they ever be able to enjoy hunting the west. I feel sad for them.

I have however accepted the fact that across the board my western PP and BP hunts are going to be one and done type of hunts. I will not have the life longevity or the money to play this points game two times.

Couple things.

1. You are not required to apply for a NR tag in any state.
2. You aren't required to apply for points in any state.

To put things into some real perspective comparing getting points for deer, turkeys, etc. that Georgia offers, is not the same as gaining points for moose, sheep, goat, elk, etc. I cant think if one thing in Georgia I would gain points for to hunt.

I don't feel sad for people that cant afford to hunt as NR, they all live in a state that has Resident hunting opportunities that they probably aren't even taking full advantage of. Also, if its really about "the experience", for a couple hundred dollars you can come to Wyoming and have a pocketful of antlerless permits, permits that don't even require points to draw.

Also, if you're trying to make NR hunting affordable to everyone, its never going to happen. The sad fact of the matter really is, that even if Wyoming, Montana, Colorado offered free tags, there is a large portion of the United States Citizens that still could not afford to hunt in those places. News flash, but minimum wage jobs don't do a whole lot to promote or allow NR's to afford even the gas money to get to Western States. let alone rifles, tags, ammo, binoculars, hunting clothes, backpacks, game bags...yada yada.

Again, that's why I think its more important to worry about the opportunities that we have as Residents of the states we live in....long before we pander to and worry about NR's.

Its just a fact that NR hunting has always been a luxury, not even close to a necessity.

 

[Losing_Sanity]

Yup. And like the point I made in my prior post, that is also a reality. Part of the human condition; if we don't see something that benefits us, we are less likely to advocate for it. But, that doesn't change my opinions about the lens through which non-residents might want to look at things. The incomplete view that non-residents are being picked on and residents are getting a free ride is incomplete, and at times, insulting in the narrowness of thought from which such comment is made. It doesn't do any good to the bigger challenges we all are a part of.

In my case and many I know, the huge financial sacrifices residents make is part of what drives their passion for protecting public land and access. There are some red-eared politicians who has stated, "You residents are getting a free ride." My reply raises my blood pressure so much that I have to look down at my wedding ring and remember my wife's wisdom; It's OK to get mad, but you don't have to swear. If non-residents want to simplify it to "I can't hunt there, so I'm busy today," I understand where they are coming from, but that is not the solution either.

Both points are realities. In a simplified world it can be looked at as a binary either/or situation. It is not that. There are multiple realities involved.

You have heard me say many times that it shouldn't all be on the back of non-residents, that residents need to pay more. Nothing I've posted changes any of that.

I, for one, am not implying or saying that its an attack or picking on non-residents. I am however saying that it is a business and as such they will charge an exuberant amount because there is always someone who will pay it. And until it affects the person with money, it don't and will not matter. I also am not implying life is fair, life is not fair.

It is not rational to think that everyone can afford, or even are able, to pull up and move to a state they would like to hunt in. Even if they sacrificed everything to do that, they still may have the dream of hunting elsewhere in this country, like maybe Alaska. The sad fact is they may never be able to due to supply and demand. Most Fish and Game would rather have one non-resident to ten resident. It's a money issue. It's just the luck of life.

It is what it is, and money will always be taken first and foremast over availability for the average. Plain fact of life.

 

[hossblur]

Yup. And like the point I made in my prior post, that is also a reality. Part of the human condition; if we don't see something that benefits us, we are less likely to advocate for it. But, that doesn't change my opinions about the lens through which non-residents might want to look at things. The incomplete view that non-residents are being picked on and residents are getting a free ride is incomplete, and at times, insulting in the narrowness of thought from which such comment is made. It doesn't do any good to the bigger challenges we all are a part of.

In my case and many I know, the huge financial sacrifices residents make is part of what drives their passion for protecting public land and access. There are some red-eared politicians who has stated, "You residents are getting a free ride." My reply raises my blood pressure so much that I have to look down at my wedding ring and remember my wife's wisdom; It's OK to get mad, but you don't have to swear. If non-residents want to simplify it to "I can't hunt there, so I'm busy today," I understand where they are coming from, but that is not the solution either.

Both points are realities. In a simplified world it can be looked at as a binary either/or situation. It is not that. There are multiple realities involved.

You have heard me say many times that it shouldn't all be on the back of non-residents, that residents need to pay more. Nothing I've posted changes any of that.

just razzing ya


In My idealistic world the man states would get together and "cap" tag prices for other mtn states.

It's amazing to me that the same elk I hunt in the Uintas in Utah, if I want to hunt in Wyoming cost 200x as much. I literally hunt the fence between Wyoming and Utah, they cross back and forth daily.

Sure NR should pay more. But my $35 deer tag will cost Buzz $398. Seems a bit harsh?

As we do more and more migration studies we see more and more how one states wildlife, actually isn't.
It well known the deer on the Arizona strip are Utah Deer. Utah elk jump the fence to avoid pressure in the Uintas only to be shot in Wyoming.

Wyoming and Utah State a reservoir. So does Utah and Arizona.
We should be able to standardize tag prices as well.



And ya. Given circumstances, I'll be sticking in state this year as well

 

[utah400elk]

Utah is a very beautiful state with great LE hunting. I lived there for 20 years and was glad to move away. I will always apply there and love many things about the state. That being said...I am glad I moved away. Any state can raise or lower their fees. It’s up to us, as hunters, to decide if we choose to apply. If it seems unfair, don’t apply.

Personally, my costs have gone up a lot because my son now hunts with me. However, I will find away for us to apply together and will find at least one “big” western hunt a year for us. I hope it’s is Utah one day.

Good luck to everybody in the draws this year! Just hoping better luck for my son.

 

[ErictheRed]

This R v. NR tribalism crap is getting old.

UT raised fees.

WY is constantly pushing adjusting ratio reductions to limit NR tags and already has Wilderness Area rules.

ID just raised their fees, shut down spring NR tags due to CV-19, and is implementing elk unit quotas for NR.

NM adjusted their allocation math that screws NR and now has nonrefundable licenses.

That's four western states just right there... Any others I missed?

Might be time for a little Utah doctrine...it is the great equalizer....

 

[dan.kirkpatrick]

if they would at least kept the increase reasonable,,id say 5-10% would be no big deal,,but 25,38,48%??? were talking highway robbery and greediness!! /this will definately lower utah on my list of "bang for the buck" hunts,especially the general deer that ive been doing for the last 8 years,,i thought the general deer was a pretty decent hunt for $268 even with the marginal quality and hunting pressure during the gen deer.I think they have been coherting with idaho on price increases.

 

[Losing_Sanity]

For the price increase, they will get fewer people applying. It might mean less money, at least in the beginning, but better odds of drawing with fewer people for those who can afford it.

 

[dan.kirkpatrick]

just pricing out the blue collar man,,bunch of b s//i dont like it

 

[F250]

There are times when it seems nonresidents are only welcome in western states to help keep public land public. Then it's, "thanks for your help, now stay home. I don't want you hunting in my state".

 

[Blacktailbc]

I’m close to a limited entry deer tag, so I’ll play along for a couple years. After that I will be out. Not sour grapes, just the investment does not justify the returns. The general tag hunting in Utah is less than stellar.

 

[Hawk Tuah]

My concern is more about the "my" license plate vs. "your" license plate mentality. It's not good for our sport. Nobody is a better or worse person/hunter because of their zip code. Maybe some sort of Western State Compact would be helpful where we could recognize we're all connected and we all need each other for hunting to survive.

I'm not willing to pay $700 for a bad elk tag and I'll gladly pay $1500 for a good elk tag. Heck hundreds of tags sell every year in Utah alone for many times more than that. The market is surely there for increased prices. But does that mean we should?

I'm lucky enough to be in a position that my budget isn't severely impacted by a tag increase, but that's not the case for so many others. Ultimately, this anti-NR tribalism hurts everybody in 49 states and I'm not sure it really helps many people in the 1 state they call home. It just seems to propagate the "me vs. them" fight.

The idea in your first paragraph is nice in theory, but pretty tough in practice. Every year states try to strike a balance on keeping residents happy while also capitalizing on nonresidents without driving to many away.

The biggest reality, however, is that states, by law, can only discriminate financially against other states in two ways: college tuition and hunting/fishing licences and tags. It is unlikely this will change.

At the end of the day it is about supply and demand. Yes, I wish there was a more happy medium where residents paid a little more and nonresidents a little less, but they charge ot because people will pay it. Government bureaucracies do not look at trimming costs to save people momey. They just look at how they can get more money coming in.

 

[Losing_Sanity]

It comes down to a "pay to play" concept. And as long as there are people who can afford to pay and will pay, the cost will go as high as they can get away with. Participation will drop some in the beginning, but it will go back up. Because in human nature, people only care when it affects them. It's not discrimination per say, it is that Fish and Game a business run organization. In some aspects they have to be. They are selling a product, hunting access and trophy game.

It would be interesting to see the reaction of people who support this and say "it's not that bad" if the whole dynamic changed. Say if a state fish and game changed their non-resident model to a "blue collar non-resident" model. One that would reduce the cost to a reasonable amount that a average person could afford to participate. And put the stipulation that no one that who make over $100K a year, no professional hunters, and no video recording companies can apply. Of course this is just hypothetical, but you would see big money get involved to change it in a hurry.

 

[Trial153]

We should just bite the bullet and go full capitalist. Buy the tag allocations from the states, market them and sell them. Land owners, same thing. Auctions? Hell yea. Public land? Lease it to outfitters and companies that sell the tags.

The fact is with each passing year we are creating less and stake holders in the game. And one way or another it will bite us in the ass.

 

[1_pointer]

This would be such a kick to the nads if I wasn't a NR in places that I'd like to be an R...

This is how it will continue to go as the NRs can only play by the rules given to them and they don't get a say. Nothing will change it, just have to decide if the screwing is worth it.

 

[runningmt]

Seems like quite a few of the western states have raised NR fees recently, but if you think about it, they’ve remained the same for a long, long time.

I am first and foremost a hunter, but I also downhill ski occasionally. The local ski hills (Bridger Bowl, BigSky) raise their fees every year. If they only did that every 10-12 years, the increase would be enormous.

I remember back 7 years ago or so Montana raised elk and deer, and elk/deer combo quite substantially. People were saying “no one is ever gonna pay that, I’m never paying that!”, we’ll, guess what? After a year or so, everybody realizes, well, I guess if I want to go, I have to pay.

It all comes down to priorities. I don’t have a motorcycle, or a boat, or a sports car, or a lake cabin. I don’t go out drinking or shopping, and I drive an 18 year old truck. I hunt, that’s what I do.

I’m not thrilled about the increase, but I dream of hunting Desert Sheep in Utah every night.