[Vanilla]

HB0469

le.utah.gov

Am I understanding this correctly that there will no longer be a cougar hunt draw? I’m guessing this is a hot topic for many.

 

[pockypie]

I asked my friend at DWR what's going on; they talked to their boss and was told it's going to be a **** show and none of this came from them. If passed they will be refunding everyone's application fees and tag fees.
Other states have a similar setup with a tag included in a license, but the way this was done is obviously shady AF and Casey Snider is not working with DWR on this at all.

 

[middlefork]

It has passed.

I doubt we will see some massive kill rate. The houndsmen should be upset I think.

 

[middlefork]

Casey Snider sits on the Northern Region RAC. Obviously somebody is whispering in his ear...

 

[3arabians]

So it’s harvest objective statewide now?

I tried to go through the attached but it’s a lot.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[one4fishing]

I’m getting tired of Snyder making waves all the time.
He put the right to hunt in the constitution then he fought trail cams.
Anybody notice his name on the favors to the developer in Kimball Junction? I mean I thought all republicans were against big government but he’s taking local power away from Summit County.
I don’t even know what’s in this bill, but with Snyder on there I’m getting a sick feeling already. Guess I better read up.

 

[Catherder]

Wow, there is a lot of meat on this bill besides the cougars, but yeah, buy a small game or combo license and bang.


What about this part? (This might be good if the Freedom caucus succeeds in whacking Pittman/Robertson, like they are threatening.)


23-19-47. Portion of revenue from license, permit, stamp, certificate of
291 registration, and Wildlife Heritage certificate fees deposited in Wildlife Habitat Account.
292 (1) Fifty cents of the fee charged for any of the following licenses or stamps shall be
293 deposited in the Wildlife Habitat Account created in Section 23-19-43:
294 (a) a one-day fishing license; or
295 (b) a one-day fishing stamp.
296 (2) Three dollars and fifty cents of the fee charged for any of the following licenses or
297 permits shall be deposited in the Wildlife Habitat Account created in Section 23-19-43:
298 (a) a fishing license, except any one-day fishing license;
299 (b) a hunting license;
300 (c) a combination license;
301 (d) a furbearer license; or
302 (e) a fishing permit, except any fish stamp.
303 (3) Four dollars and seventy-five cents of the fee charged for any of the following
304 certificates of registration, permits, or Wildlife Heritage certificates shall be deposited in the
305 Wildlife Habitat Account created in Section 23-19-43:


Or this?

23-21-8. Wildlife Land and Water Acquisition Program.
339 (1) As used in this section, "program" means the Wildlife Land and Water Acquisition
340 Program created in Subsection (2).
341 (2) There is created a program known as the "Wildlife Land and Water Acquisition
342 Program" under which the division may lease or acquire land or water assets that achieve one
343 or more of the following:
344 (a) protect and enhance wildlife populations;
345 (b) provide the public the opportunity to hunt, trap, or fish; and
346 (c) conserve, protect, and enhance wildlife habitat.
347 (3) In making a decision as to whether to lease or acquire land or water assets, the
348 division shall:
349 (a) consult the relevant state or county resource management plan;
350 (b) prioritize leases or acquisitions that involve land that:
351 (i) is adjacent to land already owned by the division; or
352 (ii) provides access to other public land;
353 (c) develop a management plan for the land or water asset in a manner consistent with
354 Section 23-21-2.1; and
355 (d) facilitate grazing as a management tool if consistent with the management plan
356 described in Subsection (3)(c).
357 (4) The division shall annually report to the Natural Resources, Agriculture, and
358 Environmental Quality Appropriations Subcommittee regarding how the division expends
359 money in the program.



I like these two parts of the bill.

 

[T-dubs-42]

Sandall and Snider are making a career of circumventing the DNR to get their own viewpoints put into law. I have spoken with Rep. Snider before and he is apathetic towards the view of everyday sportsman. He has degrees in ecology and environmental law so he is very crafty in getting what he wants in this subject; few in the legislature knows much about wildlife so he portrays himself as an expert and they believe him. Even if you despise cougars you should be up in arms that these two are continually avoiding the public process and making their own stuff up as they go. A lot of people said the same things about trail cams and knew they would come back for more and that is exactly what is happening. Please consider reaching out to Gov. Cox and ask him to veto this bill so that it can go through the proper processes. We as sportsman really can't let them continue to set this precedent. https://cs.utah.gov/s/submit

 

[Vanilla]

Catherder, the first section you shared is already current law. The only change in that section was just below where you cut off in line 310 removing “cougar permit” from the law, since this makes a cougar permit obsolete. A note in general on legislation for anyone reading…any language that is not underlined in a bill is existing language already in the code. Underlined language is new proposals, and language with the strike through is current language proposed to be removed.

I don’t think this law change will impact cougar numbers at all. The amount of cougars killed without dogs is really small, and there is a reason for that. I don’t see houndsmen all the sudden wanting to take a bunch more people out to kill more, but maybe? On top of that, the real change here is simply LE tag draws are gone. Wildlife Board still can set limits and season dates. I have a small game license that allows me to hunt pheasants, but I can’t hunt them 365 days per year. WB sets seasons and limits.

It will be interesting what they do with all these LE tags that were just drawn that now seem obsolete though.

 

[Vanilla]

Sandall and Snider are making a career of circumventing the DNR to get their own viewpoints put into law. I have spoken with Rep. Snider before and he is apathetic towards the view of everyday sportsman. He has degrees in ecology and environmental law so he is very crafty in getting what he wants in this subject; few in the legislature knows much about wildlife so he portrays himself as an expert and they believe him. Even if you despise cougars you should be up in arms that these two are continually avoiding the public process and making their own stuff up as they go. A lot of people said the same things about trail cams and knew they would come back for more and that is exactly what is happening. Please consider reaching out to Gov. Cox and ask him to veto this bill so that it can go through the proper processes. We as sportsman really can't let them continue to set this precedent. https://cs.utah.gov/s/submit

Be careful what you wish for here. The Wildlife Board only exists because the legislature said do. The only powers that the wildlife board have is what the legislature tells it that it has. The legislature could repeal the wildlife board tomorrow and take back its power to regulate these matters entirely. Or they could give them all to the DWR to do unilaterally. This is the legislature’s choice how this works, so accusing them of stepping out of their lane is really incorrect.

I can imagine the response of legislators that hear people say that them acting circumvents the public process might respond that all their committees and discussions on bills are part of the public process. Follow the legislation and come up to the Capitol and participate. (Or do it online…)

I absolutely think it’s a mistake to try and manage wildlife through the legislative session. That is much better done by the Board, IMO. (Assuming the board doesn’t do stupid things…just speaking in theory.) That said, it’s not out of line for Utah legislators to amend Utah code. That is their job. Suggesting otherwise is simply incorrect, and the legislature can dictate to the Board anything they deem necessary. That is their role.

 

[Catherder]

Catherder, the first section you shared is already current law. The only change in that section was just below where you cut off in line 310 removing “cougar permit” from the law, since this makes a cougar permit obsolete. A note in general on legislation for anyone reading…any language that is not underlined in a bill is existing language already in the code. Underlined language is new proposals, and language with the strike through is current language proposed to be removed.

Thanks for the clarification. I was not sure how that worked when I was reading through proposed bills during legislative sessions.

I tend to agree with you on it not impacting cougar numbers significantly, but I do see a few getting popped during the big game seasons opportunistically.

I have to wonder if all of these recent "wildlife regs by legislator" are due to legislative dissatisfaction with the Wildlife board and "the process" as we say here. Snider may or may not deserve outsized criticism (or praise?) for his introduction of all these bills, but I remember something a rep told me when I was having an extended conversation with him during the stream access battles. He explained that in both houses of the legislature, different reps become the de facto "expert(s)" on certain topics. For instance the "crime guy", or "the agriculture guy"or the "Healthcare guy" etc. that the other reps go to to ask their opinion on certain topics that they themselves don't know as much about. It seems apparent that Snider is the "wildlife guy" and maybe these bills he puts up are actually responses from a variety of legislators responding to complaints from constituents and distilling their actions into what Snider puts out with more skill than they can.

 

[Vanilla]

I have spoken with Rep. Snider before and he is apathetic towards the view of everyday sportsman.

I don’t know Snider from Adam, and I have no clue if he’s a good guy, bad guy, or anything in between. It’s okay to disagree with his legislation, but I find it hard to comprehend this notion above. Especially in a discussion about a bill that he got $1 million per year of ongoing, non-lapsing money specifically to acquire hunting and fishing opportunities for the public.

I think there is more going on here than a real analysis of what he’s done for the every day sportsman.

 

[taxidermist]

It has passed.

I doubt we will see some massive kill rate. The houndsmen should be upset I think.

"F" the houndsman!!!! They got their cake and are now eating it. They now have a monopoly on the fall bear hunts.

 

[taxidermist]

Maybe these two dip-chits are favoring the rush of Californian's into the state and trying to make them feel more welcome.

 

[Catherder]

Maybe these two dip-chits are favoring the rush of Californian's into the state and trying to make them feel more welcome.

I just have to ask how killing more cougars and increasing hunting and fishing opportunity is welcoming to Californians? 🤷‍♂️

Most "blue" blooded liburl Californians I know favor closing the cougar hunts (as they did there) and are ambivalent to opposed to hunting in general. .

 

[Critter]

I don't think that they will kill more cats. I am sure that the WB will place a harvest objective on each unit and once that is reached they'll shut it down.

I like the ability to shoot one if I see it while out doing other things, but this could cause a few problems for the hounds men who chase them for a living. If they have a client coming in and all of a sudden the objective is met they are going to loose out on some money.

 

[middlefork]

I've had three cougar encounters in my life. The total elapsed time may be in the 10 second range.

Not saying it can't or won't happen but I think any encounter is a lot more random than people think. There is a good reason hounds are preferred.

 

[T-dubs-42]

Be careful what you wish for here. The Wildlife Board only exists because the legislature said do. The only powers that the wildlife board have is what the legislature tells it that it has. The legislature could repeal the wildlife board tomorrow and take back its power to regulate these matters entirely. Or they could give them all to the DWR to do unilaterally. This is the legislature’s choice how this works, so accusing them of stepping out of their lane is really incorrect.

I can imagine the response of legislators that hear people say that them acting circumvents the public process might respond that all their committees and discussions on bills are part of the public process. Follow the legislation and come up to the Capitol and participate. (Or do it online…)

I absolutely think it’s a mistake to try and manage wildlife through the legislative session. That is much better done by the Board, IMO. (Assuming the board doesn’t do stupid things…just speaking in theory.) That said, it’s not out of line for Utah legislators to amend Utah code. That is their job. Suggesting otherwise is simply incorrect, and the legislature can dictate to the Board anything they deem necessary. That is their role.

I understand the role of the legislature in Wildlife, particularly here in the state. I was also tracking this bill as were a few others that I know. So I guess that sort of counts as participation. The issue at hand here is that Sandall made no mention of withdrawing protection for cougars until the very last second and then the bill was put up for vote. That was a scummy move. I don’t care if it’s cougars, electric school buses, or new funding for who the hell knows what, that particular move is done in bad faith. I suspect strongly he knew the division and a large number of hunters would be against this measure and that’s why he did it this way. If your argument is that I can’t criticize elected officials because they might take their ball and go home then I think that says a lot about the numbness that has developed after years of legislative abuse.

 

[Kevin D]

This is a bad, bad law. This law bypasses the public process already in place removing the DWR, the Wildlife Board, biologists, and the general public from having a say in how Utah wildlife is managed. No matter what your stance is on the hunting or harvesting cougar, this bill is bad for wildlife management. This latest law is a continuation of developing a pattern of removing the public process and the input of experts in the field and putting it in the hands of politicians and their lobbyists.

 

[Vanilla]

If your argument is that I can’t criticize elected officials because they might take their ball and go home then I think that says a lot about the numbness that has developed after years of legislative abuse.

That actually isn’t my argument at all. In fact, my very next post after the one you quoted, which also had your post quoted in it replying to you said:

I don’t know Snider from Adam, and I have no clue if he’s a good guy, bad guy, or anything in between. It’s okay to disagree with his legislation, but I find it hard to comprehend this notion above. Especially in a discussion about a bill that he got $1 million per year of ongoing, non-lapsing money specifically to acquire hunting and fishing opportunities for the public.

I think there is more going on here than a real analysis of what he’s done for the every day sportsman.

And I’ll reiterate, I think there is more going on here in the analysis than just an objective view of what Snider is doing.

My biggest beef with the response to this legislation (no specifically from you, but the narrative is loud all over) is that the legislature is somehow doing something wrong by changing Utah code. I agree it’s not my preferred way of managing wildlife, but people that keep saying the legislature shouldn’t and/or can’t do this are simply wrong. And they should be careful what they wish for.

I’ve got to be honest, between this bill appropriating significant amounts of money into a new fund that never existed before specifically to provide hunting and fishing opportunities for the public and the constitutional amendment to put the right to hunt and fish into the constitution…Snider has done a lot for the average Joe like me.