Utah Price Increase

[hoosierhunter11]

Holy ****. I just dove into the Utah points system last year. I honestly think I’m out. $$ likely is better served elsewhere. Seems like about $340 just to buy points for elk and deer.

 

[JBHunt_3]

This leaves a bad taste in my mouth, as someone who loves to hunt I apply in states across the west. Every states draw process is different and you have to play them differently. As a non resident Utah is mostly a long game, which I was fine with since I started applying in my early 20’s and have accumulated 8 or so points. I viewed the app fees in Utah as a donation for wildlife knowing I potentially wouldn’t be drawing for 20+ years. But increasing the application fees ~400% in 5 or 6 years seems ridiculous. Now I’m in a position to where I continue applying at these new extremely high costs or walk away and forget about the money I’ve already spent to accumulate the points I have.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PredatoronthePrairie]

Slightly off topic.

But I honestly think 406hunter has never added anything beneficial to this forum.

All he can due is hit the laugh emotion. Don't think I've ever seen an actual post. Must not know english, or is a twelve year old. One of the two.

 

[Chad E]

When MT doubled the price of deer/elk/combo tags, NR's freaked out and you could by tags OTC for a number of years. Once again it takes 2-3 years to draw now. People will still buy them.

While I agree with the basic premise of your post comparing montana to utah is apples to oranges. The leftovers in montana coincide with a big time downturn in the economy( same with the idaho slow sales during that time period). The montana system essentially garuntees a tag at 3 points with no qualifying license to purchase those points. Your are essentially garunteed a return on your investment. Wyoming is the other state that has seen large price increases on the special side. Again there are low point options and the ability to burn your points and get a tag to recoup your points is doable even though it may not be what you'd hoped for when you started.

With this proposal you would be into utah $240 a license and $32 species app fee to build points. Limited deer or elk tags are currently high teens to max points to procure without beating less than 1% odds.
Speaking only for myself here I apply in Utah for the random shot of drawing a limited entry tag while utilizing the general deer draw as a way to get some return on my investment. With a already purchased license I also take a shot at a couple oil species just incase lightening strikes. There's not way I could justify doubling the upfront investment for the radom low odds and with the general deer tag going to over $800 that's no longer a solid move either. By the time a guy would pull a limited entry tag he'd be into his tag 3 to 5x the tag fee in just points and licenses.
Demand is far out pacing supply on western tags so we haven't seen a huge drop in apps with recent price increases but I think this increase would test the system in a way that hasn't been yet. The question is does it make demand drop enough to continue to justify the investment for the improved odds?

 

[wapitibob]

It's unfortunate people are actually buying a license every year, especially when it's not needed to hunt big game in Utah.

 

[Timberline001]

Which Walmart can I go buy a general season deer tag at?

Let me know when you find out

 

[NRA4LIFE]

While I agree with the basic premise of your post comparing montana to utah is apples to oranges. The leftovers in montana coincide with a big time downturn in the economy( same with the idaho slow sales during that time period).

I'm not referring to leftover tags in that period. There were fewer people applying than they had tags, hence essentially OTC.

 

[HairyScandinavian]

This leaves a bad taste in my mouth, as someone who loves to hunt I apply in states across the west. Every states draw process is different and you have to play them differently. As a non resident Utah is mostly a long game, which I was fine with since I started applying in my early 20’s and have accumulated 8 or so points. I viewed the app fees in Utah as a donation for wildlife knowing I potentially wouldn’t be drawing for 20+ years. But increasing the application fees ~400% in 5 or 6 years seems ridiculous. Now I’m in a position to where I continue applying at these new extremely high costs or walk away and forget about the money I’ve already spent to accumulate the points I have.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's what they're banking on, they probably figure there's enough people invested in the long game that'll keep going.

 

[CorbLand]

Let me know when you find out

Probably one down in St George. Must be how all those people get them Pine Valley tags.

 

[Maverick1]

Slightly off topic.

But I honestly think 406hunter has never added anything beneficial to this forum.

All he can due is hit the laugh emotion. Don't think I've ever seen an actual post. Must not know english, or is a twelve year old. One of the two.

80 posts in just over two years as a member.

 

[Fitzwho]

Probably one down in St George. Must be how all those people get them Pine Valley tags.

I understand that it is still a draw for resident general deer, but it does only cost y'all $46 per tag.

On that point let's take General Deer into consideration. Based on 2023's permit numbers there were 64,725 general deer permits. With 90/10 split that makes it 58,250 resident/6475 NR tags. Residents pay a grand total of $2,679,500 for those 58,250 tags, that isn't proposed to change. Where 6475 NR GD tags brought in $2,706,550 from nonresidents at $418 per tag.

With proposed changes to $836 for a general deer tag, that makes nonresident investment into the DWR, just for general deer tags $5,413,000. This doesn't include app fees and license increases.

Not all nonresidents apply for every species, so just taking nonresidents with limited entry elk points into consideration: Before the 2024 draw there were about 36,900 nonresidents with elk points. Assuming that every one of them applied in 2024 for just the one species, they each paid $120 for a hunting license and $16 for the one application. That's $5,000,000. With proposed increases that's $10,000,000. Plus 33,000 that apply for LE deer ($1 million in application fees @ $32 each), 23,000 that apply for general deer ($730,000), 16,000 that apply for pronghorn ($500,000).

My statement is just that if this was truly about building the DNR's budget appropriately, which I am sure it needs, Residents would be taking an increase as well. Make Resident general deer tags the same price as limited entry deer ($94), that's all I would even propose to change, but Residents would revolt over even that.

State fish and game departments limit nonresident opportunities (totally reasonable) while still making those nonresidents pay for the majority of the department's budget (not as much). The numbers above basically line out that nonresidents currently cover about 50% (maybe slightly over), where the proposed numbers will make that closer to 70%.

This is coming from a guy that will continue to apply for most of the limited entry stuff, if I draw a $4500 sheep tag, I'm all about it.

 

[Forestryguy]

Too be fair. Non-resident hunting is not about 'opportunity'. For example, I see you are from Wisconsin. Last year hunters shot 189K deer per this article.

Deer harvested during this year’s Wisconsin gun hunt up 5.2%

Hunters registered 189,622 deer during the 2024 season, preliminary data shows.

spectrumnews1.com

That is 69K more elk than LIVE in Idaho and 115K more than live in Utah. In other words hunters in WI last year harvested 2.5 deer for every elk living in Utah. Elk, especially non resident elk, is not a 'opportunity' hunt. Adventure hunt, Destination hunt. Dream hunt. But not 'opportunity'.

2024 Estimated Elk Herd Populations by State

Top 5 Elk States & Links to Their Wildlife Agencies Where do you even begin as an out of state hunter to plan an archery or rifle elk hunt? Some states make it easier, and certainly more attainable, than others. Here are the top 5 states as of 2024 boasting the largest elk herds and links to...

rugidgear.com

Maybe I’m not following at what you are getting at. My original statement was a general statement about having people actively participating in hunting. Nothing to do with R vs NR opportunities. It was about anti hunters increasing costs to have more people stop being involved, therefore when ballot initiatives come more people will not care about voting prohunting. I am not opposed to paying more than residents to hunt out west, but these increases would be hard to swallow if I was applying in Utah.

I try to back most prohunting initiatives, even in places I will never hunt. That is to avoid the trickle down affect to places that I do hunt.

 

[Andrew12gauge]

Maybe I’m not following at what you are getting at. My original statement was a general statement about having people actively participating in hunting. Nothing to do with R vs NR opportunities. It was about anti hunters increasing costs to have more people stop being involved, therefore when ballot initiatives come more people will not care about voting prohunting. I am not opposed to paying more than residents to hunt out west, but these increases would be hard to swallow if I was applying in Utah.

I try to back most prohunting initiatives, even in places I will never hunt. That is to avoid the trickle down affect to places that I do hunt.

If this were a state where the wildlife department was run by anti hunters such as Colorado, California or Washington I could wholeheartedly understand your sentiment. The reality is that this has nothing to do with antihunters and the fact is that a few elites have showed them just how much some are willing to pay to kill an animal, I am not part of the group that is willing to pay those exorbitant prices. Call me crazy but I have higher priorities for my finances than hunting, and I would say if you asked most anybody who knows me they will tell you I am more addicted to hunting than most. I’ll go shoot some squirrels or rabbits and be happy before I pay $800 for a deer tag, I’ve not applied in Montana in years for the same reason.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CorbLand]

I understand that it is still a draw for resident general deer, but it does only cost y'all $46 per tag.

On that point let's take General Deer into consideration. Based on 2023's permit numbers there were 64,725 general deer permits. With 90/10 split that makes it 58,250 resident/6475 NR tags. Residents pay a grand total of $2,679,500 for those 58,250 tags, that isn't proposed to change. Where 6475 NR GD tags brought in $2,706,550 from nonresidents at $418 per tag.

With proposed changes to $836 for a general deer tag, that makes nonresident investment into the DWR, just for general deer tags $5,413,000. This doesn't include app fees and license increases.

Not all nonresidents apply for every species, so just taking nonresidents with limited entry elk points into consideration: Before the 2024 draw there were about 36,900 nonresidents with elk points. Assuming that every one of them applied in 2024 for just the one species, they each paid $120 for a hunting license and $16 for the one application. That's $5,000,000. With proposed increases that's $10,000,000. Plus 33,000 that apply for LE deer ($1 million in application fees @ $32 each), 23,000 that apply for general deer ($730,000), 16,000 that apply for pronghorn ($500,000).

My statement is just that if this was truly about building the DNR's budget appropriately, which I am sure it needs, Residents would be taking an increase as well. Make Resident general deer tags the same price as limited entry deer ($94), that's all I would even propose to change, but Residents would revolt over even that.

State fish and game departments limit nonresident opportunities (totally reasonable) while still making those nonresidents pay for the majority of the department's budget (not as much). The numbers above basically line out that nonresidents currently cover about 50% (maybe slightly over), where the proposed numbers will make that closer to 70%.

This is coming from a guy that will continue to apply for most of the limited entry stuff, if I draw a $4500 sheep tag, I'm all about it.

Is there a state in the intermountain west that nonresidents don’t pay for the majority of wildlife agencies budget?

Residents of Utah have a right to hunt and fish, per the state constitution. Nonresidents are extended the privilege to come here to hunt or fish. Just the way it is and if you want to do it, well your going to have to pay for it.

It is funny to me when people complain when states raise the prices for nonresidents and then continue to apply. Why do you think they keep raising the prices?

For the record, I really hate what intermountain western states have done to nonresidents. They wrote the book on bending over nonresidents and they just keep adding chapters.
If you don’t like the costs, you have to stop applying. It sucks, but it’s the only way.

 

[Weldor]

I just wish they would make others pay their way also. I.E. mountain bikers, campers, horseback riders, hikers, orv users (They already pay in most places) . Its a long list. The states would have plenty of income if they did . As I sit here a complain, I'm glassing out my kitchen window looking at mountain bikers camps that have been out there for months. No fees paid. Law states 14 days annually. That means once. Never seen it enforced. Try to leave your hunting camp out there and see how long before john law shows up. Rant over. AZ makes NR buy a license just apply ,been that way for awhile. Has not slowed them down at all.

 

[CorbLand]

I just wish they would make others pay their way also. I.E. mountain bikers, campers, horseback riders, hikers, orv users (They already pay in most places) . Its a long list. The states would have plenty of income if they did . As I sit here a complain, I'm glassing out my kitchen window looking at mountain bikers camps that have been out there for months. No fees paid. Law states 14 days annually. That means once. Never seen it enforced. Try to leave your hunting camp out there and see how long before john law shows up. Rant over. AZ makes NR buy a license just apply ,been that way for awhile. Has not slowed them down at all.

The only way a state could do that would be for state ground. If it’s federal, any of the funds would have to go back to the feds.

One of reasons that states can charge for hunting is because the states owns the wildlife, not necessarily the ground they reside on.

While it would be nice, one thing to remember is that one of the most effective argument for hunting is that hunters pay to manage it and that money benefits all people. If you bring everyone to the table, we lose that argument.

 

[maxx075]

Slightly off topic.

But I honestly think 406hunter has never added anything beneficial to this forum.

All he can due is hit the laugh emotion. Don't think I've ever seen an actual post. Must not know english, or is a twelve year old. One of the two.

You forgot to tag him @406huntermt

 

[CorbLand]

Also, this hasn’t been signed by the governor. He could still veto it.

Make your voices heard.

Contact | Governor Spencer J. Cox

governor.utah.gov

 

[Weldor]

The only way a state could do that would be for state ground. If it’s federal, any of the funds would have to go back to the feds.

One of reasons that states can charge for hunting is because the states owns the wildlife, not necessarily the ground they reside on.

While it would be nice, one thing to remember is that one of the most effective argument for hunting is that hunters pay to manage it and that money benefits all people. If you bring everyone to the table, we lose that argument.

It's state.

 

[Weldor]

Unfortunatley they do have a voice. most of the time way louder than hunters. I have seen way to much state land here restricted for hunting because of the user's I mentioned above. The state even outlawed target shooting on state land because of incidents with moutain bikers. (just one of the reason's they listed)