Utah license fee increase

[Wyatt.Carter]

I'm happy to take this conversation up on a side bar, but ,no, states cannot just charge 100X or 10K arbitrarily. There is case law on this that I am sure noone on this forum wants to read, but it is pretty clear. Any fees charged must be rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Excluding non-residents is not a legit interest. Preservation of state wildlife absolutely IS a state interest. But, in this case, Utah cites a desire to NOT draw funds from the state to fund the agency/wildlife. That position essentially admits that the state residents are not paying into the wildlife management in their taxes (no standing) and admits that the increases on non-residents are designed to prevent the state residents from having to pay into the system by punishing non-residents. That is not a legitimate interest. Maybe I am reading that wrong. Happy to consider another opinion.

Also, those same non-residents presumably pay Federal taxes, which to some extent fund the federal lands in the states. There may be other Federal funding ties, as well. So, non-residents can make an argument that they already pay for elements of the resource in the state. Not a terribly strong position, but it is rational. Point being that the legal elements of fees, as described here, are subject to a rational basis test if challenged on Constitutional grounds. Based on this short and incomplete analysis (not a legal opinion), it fails.

Also, we really need to stop taking the position, as a community, that fee increases are the way to manage wildlife. This knee jerk, "raise fees on non-residents," reaction should only occur when there is an absolute need for it. IF there is, no problem. I am sure that we are all willing to pay our way. If you don't like nonresidents, that is fine. Just lower tag allocations. That way you won't see non-residents in the woods. However, using punitive fees to do so is not supported by logic, or the Constitution. Lets all try to support each other moving forward, and not try to blindly impose punishments that are not related to a legit interest. I love hunting in the United States, both in my home state and elsewhere, and I have no interest in excluding anyone from enjoying the outdoors here or elsewhere.

I think you have a valid point. I'm wondering why they wouldn't raise fees for all applicants if their goal was to be self funded?

 

[realunlucky]

I think you have a valid point. I'm wondering why they wouldn't raise fees for all applicants if their goal was to be self funded?

Wyatt what state you live in? I'll happily crunch the percentage numbers of what residents vs non-residents and bet Utah residents pay more.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

 

[mfllood3800]

Utah DWR is finally listening to what we stated at meetings.
Glad they are reducing some tags
I specially complained about cow elk numbers and other groups complained about deer numbers

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[realunlucky]

Utah DWR is finally listening to what we stated at meetings.
Glad they are reducing some tags
I specially complained about cow elk numbers and other groups complained about deer numbers

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Reducing cow tags will effect the elk management plan which uses those tag numbers to count towards opportunity tags. Be interesting to see what happens. Utah sportsman are sure an entitled group until it comes to increased opportunity.

All these awesome SFW tags sold but animal numbers across the board are down interesting. Hope they finally cut those auction tags too.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

 

[mfllood3800]

Slight increases in prices isn't going to make very much difference in the amount of people you see or the amount of people in the draw. This year and maybe next year you should see a difference because of Covid19. When the economy turns back around you will see the NR numbers climb to pre-Covid19 levels and eventually exceed them.

Slight increases wont do a thing I can agree fully with that. But larger increases surely will. Because I believe a large increase of hunters in the last 5 years are not serious die hard hunters. They saw a video on YT and decided to try it. They wouldve likely quit soon anyway. Numbers are already showing a large decrease in hunters. Even after COVID is passed, many of these same folks will struggle financially and likely reprioritize their extra funds. A family trip to Disney land will trump his solo back country hunt, cause family comes first. It's way more, as you likely know, than just tag costs. A lot of other logistics go into this and will have an effect on them as well as other suppliers of products related to hunting, all trying to recover losses. I suspect classifieds will have a lot of hunters dumping stuff trying salvage money for other expenses now more important. That will also directly impact companies who sell or distribute these same items new.

I am glad Utah is trying to reduce the impact on main species herd numbers. They increased cost to NR as well as reduced tag numbers for key species that drew the most interest. These will have an impact, how much- we will wait and see.

 

[CorbLand]

Reducing cow tags will effect the elk management plan which uses those tag numbers to count towards opportunity tags. Be interesting to see what happens. Utah sportsman are sure an entitled group until it comes to increased opportunity.

All these awesome SFW tags sold but animal numbers across the board are down interesting. Hope they finally cut those auction tags too.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

To much money to be made there. Not going to happen.

I got a good chuckle about the late season muzzleloader hunt they opened. DWR says, yea theres enough deer to facilitate another hunt, this wont cause any problems. 3 months later....yea about that we are going to need to cut 10% of the general season tags.

 

[idahohikker]

I'm happy to take this conversation up on a side bar, but ,no, states cannot just charge 100X or 10K arbitrarily. There is case law on this that I am sure noone on this forum wants to read, but it is pretty clear. Any fees charged must be rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Excluding non-residents is not a legit interest. Preservation of state wildlife absolutely IS a state interest. But, in this case, Utah cites a desire to NOT draw funds from the state to fund the agency/wildlife. That position essentially admits that the state residents are not paying into the wildlife management in their taxes (no standing) and admits that the increases on non-residents are designed to prevent the state residents from having to pay into the system by punishing non-residents. That is not a legitimate interest. Maybe I am reading that wrong. Happy to consider another opinion.

Also, those same non-residents presumably pay Federal taxes, which to some extent fund the federal lands in the states. There may be other Federal funding ties, as well. So, non-residents can make an argument that they already pay for elements of the resource in the state. Not a terribly strong position, but it is rational. Point being that the legal elements of fees, as described here, are subject to a rational basis test if challenged on Constitutional grounds. Based on this short and incomplete analysis (not a legal opinion), it fails.

Also, we really need to stop taking the position, as a community, that fee increases are the way to manage wildlife. This knee jerk, "raise fees on non-residents," reaction should only occur when there is an absolute need for it. IF there is, no problem. I am sure that we are all willing to pay our way. If you don't like nonresidents, that is fine. Just lower tag allocations. That way you won't see non-residents in the woods. However, using punitive fees to do so is not supported by logic, or the Constitution. Lets all try to support each other moving forward, and not try to blindly impose punishments that are not related to a legit interest. I love hunting in the United States, both in my home state and elsewhere, and I have no interest in excluding anyone from enjoying the outdoors here or elsewhere.

Disagree basically from start to finish. And yes I’ve read the case law. I hope you get involved with a case where you’re challenging discriminatory non resident hunting fees because it would be really impressive to see the law changed but as is you’d probably get slammed.

 

[mfllood3800]

Reducing cow tags will effect the elk management plan which uses those tag numbers to count towards opportunity tags. Be interesting to see what happens. Utah sportsman are sure an entitled group until it comes to increased opportunity.

All these awesome SFW tags sold but animal numbers across the board are down interesting. Hope they finally cut those auction tags too.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

I agree. All these auction tags, special tags, even the old out dated Depredation tags are a total joke any more. These ranchers where I am at, take advantage of this like crazy. Even selling their depredation tags to locals. The whole thing is screwed up. For 3 years straight Utah sold an incredible, way above normal, antlerless tags. I asked them why. They replied the obvious, it's about cow to bull ratio. I suggested selling a whole bunch more bull tags then, cause I see way more bulls today verses 10 years ago. And I see way less cows today, then 10 years ago. But as long as the State is making $$$ it must be ok.

 

[mfllood3800]

To much money to be made there. Not going to happen.

I got a good chuckle about the late season muzzleloader hunt they opened. DWR says, yea theres enough deer to facilitate another hunt, this wont cause any problems. 3 months later....yea about that we are going to need to cut 10% of the general season tags.

EXACTLY. Their numbers are incorrect. When the biologist is tallying or when or where, needs revised. We screamed at the local meetings, and they pretty much told us no you hunters are wrong. We fought back and told them we are in the field every season, and know what we see.
Their management plan for 2020 reflects our concerns and to me, proves we were correct and they were arrogantly wrong.

 

[mfllood3800]

One of the things that need changing, is getting the ranchers off the advisory boards. Of course these ranchers want elk eliminated. They compete for the same grazing area as the ranchers lease their cows on. Plus these ranchers get their depredation tags anyway. Some of them 5 and 10 tags. It is a joke in the Beaver area. Cant speak for anywhere else in Utah as I don't go there.

 

[Chucklehead]

Yes! Because nonresidents have zero to stand on. I would love if WY, UT, etc. didn’t raise prices but to complain at all is pretty silly when those states could just institute a rule making it 100x more or provide way less tags and that’s fully their prerogative. The train is definitely on the tracks to regular price increases at least while there is heavy demand for deer and elk tags in the west.

Go ahead and raise that price 100x for NR or cut tags down to nothing like you want and see what happens in 10-20 years. I can tell you what will happen.

-RMEF, MDF etc. membership and funding plummets. Know why? Because NR aren't going to care about something they can't even hope to touch. Your game animals will then be managed by ballot box biology. The radical animal rights groups would outspend pro-hunting groups. They'd buy up the critical votes and get their agendas pushed through. Ask Colorado or Washington how that's going....

-Public land sell-offs on a large scale. Know why? Who the heck is going to call their state senators and tell them to vote down public land sell offs in the west if they are never going to go there. Once again, why would they care?Any area that could be exploited for natural resources would be bought/leased up. Money talks. You think political leaders in DC are going to turn down the cash from big oil/gas for a cause few seem to care about?

You need allies at the national level if you are going to keep things the way they are. You are hopelessly outnumbered, outvoted and out funded. Most public land is federally controlled. They can do with it as they will. Keep that in mind. You could be effectively forced out too.
Your animals will be managed by radicals via the voting booth. And your public lands (Assuming there would be any) would be full of more mines, gas/oil pumps, cattle/sheep or owned outright by the Koch brothers and Ted Turners of the world.

Now, I agree that states have a right to manage their wildlife as they see fit. That includes NR quota and price. That's not in contention here, but you keep circling back to it.
But it's more of a slippery slope than most realize and its obvious most haven't put any thought into it. They are just PO'ed some NR is in "their spot".
Keep thinking that NRs don't matter. See what happens. It may not cost you anything. In fact it your hunting would probably be better. For awhile anyway. But your children and grandchildren.....different story.
I'll stand on that....

 

[Jebuwh]

One of the things that need changing, is getting the ranchers off the advisory boards. Of course these ranchers want elk eliminated. They compete for the same grazing area as the ranchers lease their cows on. Plus these ranchers get their depredation tags anyway. Some of them 5 and 10 tags. It is a joke in the Beaver area. Cant speak for anywhere else in Utah as I don't go there.

That and getting SFW out of the cookie jar.

I feel like i constantly hear that hunters here only beg for opportunity and want to be able to hunt every year, but then 99% of hunters I talk to say they would be 100% okay hunting elk every other year if it meant having bigger healthier herds in some of the general units.

I think its more that Utah is a $ Opportunity state rather than a quality hunt state. Haha

 

[mfllood3800]

That and getting SFW out of the cookie jar.

I feel like i constantly hear that hunters here only beg for opportunity and want to be able to hunt every year, but then 99% of hunters I talk to say they would be 100% okay hunting elk every other year if it meant having bigger healthier herds in some of the general units.

I think its more that Utah is a $ Opportunity state rather than a quality hunt state. Haha

You wont get an argument from me on this.

 

[KineKilla]

That and getting SFW out of the cookie jar.

I feel like i constantly hear that hunters here only beg for opportunity and want to be able to hunt every year, but then 99% of hunters I talk to say they would be 100% okay hunting elk every other year if it meant having bigger healthier herds in some of the general units.

I think its more that Utah is a $ Opportunity state rather than a quality hunt state. Haha

I agree to a point. I have personally watched my opportunity plummet the last several years.

They say they base the tag numbers off of the biologists recommendations...either the biologists don't know how to count or need to get out in the field more.

As a lifelong Utah local and hunter I have had to unplug my freezer due to my inability to draw a general season deer or cow elk permit. Meanwhile I see more and more elk as well as more sheep and cattle on the mountain every year.

When the people making the wildlife herd decisions are the same people who stand to profit from their reductions, you've got a problem.

Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk

 

[dclv50]

As a nonresident Utah hunter I'm sad to see the price increase however Ill still pay it and be just as happy to draw. Thing get more expensive thats just life!

 

[Thunderer]

From a business and dollars gained by budget perspective here; states & politicians are missing the boat
Sure raise NR fees yet reduce # of tags to reduce NR hunter numbers in the field: good ole supply & demand.
ultimately resulting in budget and state economic $$$ lost due to less NR.

But resident hunters outnumber NR. And yes states have to provide for their residents, due to obligation.
So why not increase by 25% or even DOUBLE resident fees. Then state residents would biatch about something else besides NR hunters!

What do you feel would be "fair" split percentage resident vs non-resident?
I'll bet Utah residents pay considerably more than residents in other western states for hunting license.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

Utah residents do pay more than other western states on average for their license fees.

If the DWR, or any State Fish and Game dept for that matter, needs more money, they should to adjust the resident/NR split of tags to control the budget. NR's pay 10x more per tag on average. It's easy math to find out where the happy proportion of NR/R tags should be to fund all of the necessary conservation projects.