Am i the only out of state hunter that thinks this is wrong?

[DRAFTSTUD]

This is a bad preceident that they are starting. I live in Louisiana and love to hunt out West. I can tell you that if a Typical profile of a NR Elk hunter was made, it would probably be a man in his mid thirties making 30K a year, driving that 30k pick-up that buzz was talking about. We all hear the talk of the rich NR going out west and hunting for the "Big One". But, what these G&F departments are doing is pricing the average Joe that worked overtime to earn his Tag money. And what really pisses you off, after you have spent all your money to support these G&f departments, they keep going after your wallet the next year or two. It has already gotten to the point that it's hard to get a group together for a "Hunt of a Lifetime".

 

[wyomingtim]

Schmalts - I may have an unpopular view on this. I grew up in TX, moved to Wyoming in 1999, and to Nebraska in 2003. I have always been a firm believer that if I want an affordable way to hunt elk, then I try like hell to move to a place that will allow that. I know that the high prices of non-res tags hampers the "common folk" in getting the opportunity to hunt certain species, but those fees are a way to earn revenue for states. I would love to head back to WY for elk next fall, but I don't think it will be possible. Too pricey for me. I just think that that is one perk for living in certain states. Probably a reflection on my strong support of State's Rights. If the states could operate more like a business, controlling a lot more than the feds, then you will see which states are doing what the people want. Besides, wouldn't it be nice to get all of the liberal tree huggin greenies in only a few states?

 

[schmalts]

Wy tim And Sako, mark my words, personal greed for tags by residents and F&G will hurt the residents in the future. The more high rollers you let get nonres tags the more power they will get over everything in hunting. Be happy a state allows 10% of tags to average Joe Taxpayer. If you make it so they cannot hunt they will say screw everyone in that state and vote against hunting in general on federal lands and other things like that. Nonres guys dont want more tags, they just want them fair and square, without games and hoops to jump through. We dont want to see our portion of the tags go to the rich just so the residents can save 5$ on thier tag fee. If a state needs money for habitat no one that hunts will crab about a small price hike across the board but you have to see that personal greed will kill the entire sport.
I admit myself if I lose a reasonable fair right to hunt federal land i would vote to have it shut down completely to punish the greedy pigs that pushed me out. All i want is a small amount of a states tags and be able to afford to take my son someday.
To make it so only the rich can do it is wrong, and shame on anyone who sits there saying "thats the way it is going" but wont do anything to stop or reverse it.
They are talking about raising deer tags here in wisconsin 15$ more next year to fight CWD. I could care less. If they said they were raising the nonres tags 150% more (proportionatly) I would fight for the nonres guys as well, that is just wrong. Habitat on any public land is everyones responsability, not just a nonresident.
Wyo tim, the move to that state so you can hunt is a terrible way to think.
There is plenty of hunting out there and the amount of tags will never change being if its for res or nonres. I never heard anyone bitch a whole lot about the amount a certain state gives out to nonres. But when you try to put the screws to only the smallest minority of the hunters that is wrong.
So many of us here live just to cross into the state next door to hunt once in a while. Thank god someone in the past made such things as federal forest and refuges. The states alone could not afford to run and keep hunting quality if it were not for federal tax money in a lot of areas. Now you sit and say the federal taxpayers should only hunt in their state regardless of how much federal tax he pays? you forget federal land is for all to enjoy, even if he can only hunt on drawing a small percentage of nonres tags, but you cannot shut him out completely or he will just say screw everyone and close it off to hunting in general if thats the way it will be.
JMO from a guy that lives to hunt,and waits and prays to draw a couple nonres tags here and there

 

[1_pointer]

Schmalts, I talked with a guy in my office that is on the RAC and this appears to be a done deal as the Wildlife Board voted and approved it. Not only that, but there are going to be some big changes with the trophy elk hunts in UT and I'm not sure they are good.

They will be increasing the number of tags nearly 3X as they are moving the hunts later in the year (out of the rut! ), which will decrease hunter success. So, to meet their harvest objectives they have to increase the # of tags. In addition, many of the areas they are now manageing for 7-8yr old bulls will be managed for 5-6yr old bulls. So, I predict that in the next couple of years there'll be lots of toads taken in UT, but in the long run I think they'll decrease the average quality of the animals taken and the experience. Limited entry units that had 50 hunters in them will now have 150 hunters in them. Part of the reason for doing this is to revamp the preference point system. The guy on the RAC said that there were quite a few hunters that showed up voicing displeasure at this, but I guess it fell on deaf ears.

 

[Sako7STW]

To make it so only the rich can do it is wrong, and shame on anyone who sits there saying "thats the way it is going" but wont do anything to stop or reverse it.


you forget federal land is for all to enjoy,

Ahh did you not see that I was not only a member of the RMEF but a volunteer? I would say that is doing something wouldnt you? Or do you not understand what the RMEF does and how they use those funds that I and many others spent countless hours raising? Did I say that I wanted the rich to get all the tags? NO!! I just simply stated that its a way things are going. I am with you, people need to stand up and fight it but it is a double edged sword in a since.

 

[BigHornRam]

"you forget federal land is for all to enjoy, "

But the animals on the federal land belong to the state. This may or may not be the best way to raise funds for wildlife management, but I'm not going to tell Utah how to run their state. Usually, those that complain the most, contribute the least. The money that is being raised is going to manage the resource. Is that a bad thing? Kinda like the guy that goes on the screaming deal hunt and then is not happy with the results. In most instances, you get what you pay for. Utah has been doing some impressive things with their wild sheep herds in the recent past and my hats off to all of the guys there that are working hard to make it a success.

 

[Tom]

Elkgunner, Here's the reference for where I got my number on the feed costs.
http://uvalde.tamu.edu/jrm/mar02/torstenson.htm

 

[schmalts]

"you forget federal land is for all to enjoy, "

But the animals on the federal land belong to the state. .

Animals dont do you much good without permission to hunt on our land now do they. You dont get it when you make such a comment. No one said they belong to the taxpayers, but a small amount of land use fee in the form of tags is only fair. Small amount I said so dont start a pissing match on that same old arguement. |oo
You need the land to graze your states animals on now dont you? who owns the land? all of us. How do we want some of the payback? reasonable amount of tags. Listen, this isnt about this who owns the land and who owns the animals bullshit pissing match, its about you making comment like that just because you dont want to give up any tags because of greed. It will bite you in the ass sooner than later with plans to rape money from the average sportsman like SFW is doing. You know, back to the who owns the animals bullshit.. what if the federal Govt funded to releas some sheep or elk on federal land, would you still say only the state can hunt them? that dumb comment of yours wouldnt hold piss then anymore once the feds animals started breeding with the states animals.

 

[BuzzH]

Schmalts,

I dont like this idea of the tag distribution either, it sucks.

However, BHR is right about the states having the "ownership" of big-game, and it has been upheld in courts.

This is just one more example of the NR and really ALL hunters taking a beating. The residents of Utah likely wont be voicing much protest about this one. Just like the AZ residents wont be railing the AZGF over the huge price increase for NR tags because of Taulman...never mind that many, many, many NR's stood behind the residents of AZ over the issue and agreed that Residents should get most of the tags. Its all about ME, ME, ME...and thats all there is to it.

 

[schmalts]

Buzz, its a bad deal for all of us and you are one of the few that can see what the future will be. I know about the state rights stuff and agree, but like i said, there has to be compromise when their animals are grazing on someones land enough of that arguement though.
Its sad to see hardly anyone stepping up to defend themselves from groups like SFW taking credit for anything good that comes from change for the better.

 

[BigHornRam]

Schmalts,

And you call Don Peay an arrogant prick?

I only put in for Utah's non resident sheep tags, so thats where my knowledge and focus lies with their game department. Over the last few years in Utah the number of non resident sheep tags keep increasing dramatically. They have a good program and it cost dollars to run it. If Utah feels that this is the best way for them to raise dollars to fund their management, then that is their business. I would rather have a 75% chance at 20 non resident tags, than a 100% chance at 10. Make sense?

And if non resident fees are so out of line, why are many of these draws at 100 to 1 or higher odds? The money goes to a good cause, deal with it.

 

[BuzzH]

BHR,

I dont think Schmalts is opposed to reasonable, or even increased fees or the UTDW making more money to fund projects...just not this way.

Hunting should not become simply a function of who has the $$$ and who doesnt. There are many hunters who are concerned about that.

I dont think that Utahs NR fees are out of line, I just dont think they need to be taking opportunity away from the NR's who have funded their G&F for years and hand that opportunity to a handful of people who attend a convention. Charge me another $20 if you want to raise more revenue.

 

[Calif. Hunter]

I've lost faith completely in the RMEF, after seeing them try to lock us out of state land . They may hold a grazing lease on the land, but they have no more right than any other welfare rancher to lock us out. This is on the Double H ranch in New Mexico that was bequethed to them. They get no respect, or money, from me anymore.

 

[schmalts]

Schmalts,

And you call Don Peay an arrogant prick?

I only put in for Utah's non resident sheep tags, so thats where my knowledge and focus lies with their game department. Over the last few years in Utah the number of non resident sheep tags keep increasing dramatically. They have a good program and it cost dollars to run it. If Utah feels that this is the best way for them to raise dollars to fund their management, then that is their business. I would rather have a 75% chance at 20 non resident tags, than a 100% chance at 10. Make sense?

And if non resident fees are so out of line, why are many of these draws at 100 to 1 or higher odds? The money goes to a good cause, deal with it.

Bighorn, the problem is he is raping elk tags to fund sheep. The nonres elk tags have actually not changed in years. With this latest cut they will surely be less than even a couple years ago. Fir instant the Pahvant unit there has been a couple out of the last few years where there was no nonres tags and if there was it was nore more than 1 or 2. He is getting two tags this year alone for that unit!! you dont understand that he is getting as many or more than the entire nonres pool for some units!!
Hey i agree he is doing great with sheep but there is a lot more elk hunters out there getting jack squat from his taking of tags. And dont you see he is just helping USO get more support? Nonres are getting fed up and fighting back. You said its true that the courts upheld the state owns the animals, but just a few months ago they also said the taxpayers of USA have the same right to hunt. It comes down to the fact he is just taking too much and giving to the rich.
Talk about arrogance, read this..... http://www.sfwsfh.org/press/site.pl?page=donofwildlife92603
He is taking a lot of credit by spouting tag numbers and herd numbers acting like it was all his doing rather than a joint effort of sportsman and F&G
He is gaining way to much power from someone that is not employed by the F&G
Beware, this guy is coming to your state to try and run it as well, he is not just trying to run UT, but all the west. I think he sounds like a Hitler to me and it really worries me. Am i the only one who sees total arrogance in this guy? He does what he wants and only what he wants. There is no voice of sportsman, he represents what he wants and thats it. we need a grooup similar to his but still asks the sportsman for input.

 

[BlackTimber]

I'm for it and against it at the same time. First I will state that I do not like Don Peay at all. Yet on the other hand I think as a whole he has done good for the wildlife in Utah. SFW has purchased winter land for deer and elk and that is good. But that is were my support stops. He does not represent the comman man and only catters to the rich. He does not support Bowhunting wich is my love and were my biggest intrest lie. He is all for high price tags, bid tags, (People actually bid 30K+ for a deer tag in Utah)

The only problem I have with this special "banquate Draw" is that he is taking away what few LE tags we have in the draw pool. I don't understand why the DWR can't just allocate a few more LE tags for this "speacil" purpose.

Leave our tags alone!!! :MAD

SFW does not stand for Sportsman For Fish and Wildlife as their decree states.

 

[BigHornRam]

Schmalts,

First of all, I've heard of but don't know Don P. Can't comment on him personally and know nothing about Utah elk.

I give credit to most of the gains in the Utah sheep to Utah FNAWS and the hard working Lee Howard. He is coming up here in a few days to pick up a trailer load of excess Montana sheep to take back to Utah, all on his own dime.

As for the feds helping us out with our game animals, the only thing they have given us are the mutts whether we wanted them or not. Thanks guys for all your help.

If elk is your bag, I would suggest that you join RMEF or the like and as a group try to get Utah and Don to see your point. Diplomatic dialoge could help with this issue in the future. I can imagine, if you spoke with Don the way you rambled on here to me, he most likely told you to go hump yourself.

 

[BuzzH]

Hey Paul, this is all the feds gave us?:As for the feds helping us out with our game animals, the only thing they have given us are the mutts whether we wanted them or not.

How about the millions upon millions of acres of public lands for OUR wildlife to live on?

Oh yeah, that too...

 

[BigHornRam]

Buzz,

I wish they would GIVE us our public land. The states would do a heck of a lot better job at managing them IMO.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Buzz,

I wish they would GIVE us our public land. The states would do a heck of a lot better job at managing them IMO.

With what money????

That might have been the stupidest thing you ever posted.... But I am open minded enough to realize you may come up with something even more stupid.... hump

 

[BigHornRam]

"With what money???? "

The money we would save when all of the federal employees got a pink slip. The 10 % that actually work could come to work for the state. The rest of the money would go to things like habitat improvement and mutt management.