[DallanC]

Those same friends also ran that big wheat farm in the west desert River Bed during the 1980s. Doves were crazy thick then, limit was 30 and you could fill it out there at the water holes.

South of that farm about 15 miles was a big pheasant farm that went broke one year and just turned all the birds loose. That was a fun month during pheasant season.

-DallanC

 

[BugBuilder]

I have a couple questions. I've looked but cannot find if the bill was signed yet or is it still on Coxs desk? I filled out a form to have him hit the pause button but it felt like a very generic form, will it even be seen before he signs it?
Next question, let's assume it passes. Does it go in effect this
year? Yes, I drew a cat tag with 8 points. Will they really refund or start it next year? I'm really not a fan of Snider. Wonder what he'll do to us next year?

 

[Vanilla]

I’ll reiterate- the cougar changes were not done by Snider. We can keep saying that, but it won’t make it true. The governor has not signed this legislation yet.

I think hunters that are asking him to veto this are doing unbelievable harm to hunters and anglers in this state. It is so much easier to work through the wildlife board to implement policies surrounding this new cougar license policy and leave all the millions in ongoing funding for hunting and fishing access in place. Or we can lose all that money and have the legislature get what they want on cougars anyway eventually.

I contacted the governor and asked him to sign it for that reason, and then asked him to direct the wildlife board to come up with rational rules to guide this policy on cats.

 

[BugBuilder]

Nilla, you are right, it was not Snider who made the last minute changes to it, I can still dislike him but not blame him for this one... The bill does do a lot of great things for the State and even though you feel it is "doing unbelievable harm" to try and stop this version, I feet bypassing the proper channels is also "doing unbelievable harm" to the hunters and anglers in this state. Politian's cannot bypass the system for their own gain or we will all lose in the end. It is just crappy they slid it through last minute knowing it would not have gone through if it would have had everything in it from the beginning. I would have supported it 100% without the late adds to it. BHA is not in favor of it as it stands. I did not ask Cox to veto but to be sent to interim study as BHA encouraged. It was a clean copy and paste from their letter into the form I sent. It is critical that these decisions are made by Wildlife Professionals and not Politicians with big Agg and other groups in their ears and back pockets. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out. Below is the email from BHA.

We have been pretty busy this Legislative Session. Here is another one for you...
HB469 Wildlife Related Amendments, sponsored by House Rep. Casey Snider was a generally positive wildlife bill that took a last-minute turn on the Senate floor on Wednesday, March 1st, particularly regarding changes to mountain lion harvest. Under the 3rd Substitute of this bill which was introduced on the Senate floor and passed this past Wednesday with a vote of 21-6-2, mountain lions would be subject to unlimited statewide harvest through trapping and hunting with a hunting license (and eliminating the tag requirement). Currently, mountain lions are managed by the Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR) as a protected species and harvest is regulated through tag allocation. In managing these populations, the Division has authorized much of the state as “unlimited” tag quota for mountain lions, but there are still 17 units currently that have a limited number of tags. While all of the implications and potential biological impacts of this bill are not yet clear, the language suggests that the Division will no longer have the authority to impact harvest if this bill is signed.
The bill has gone through some major changes since its introduction in the House Natural Resources Committee on February 23rd. Our Chapter was very supportive of the initial bill’s creation of the Wildlife Land and Water Acquisition fund, which would provide a long-term funding source for acquiring parcels to protect habitat and provide hunting and fishing opportunity, but we simply cannot justify supporting how these final inclusions regarding mountain lion harvest made their way into this bill at the final hour with no input from sportsmen or biologists. These types of wildlife management decisions should go through the Regional Advisory Council / Wildlife Board public input process. While we commend the sponsor for continuing to look for opportunities to protect wildlife as showcased in the original bill, the final additions made through the Senate are not in line with the North American Model of Conservation which is based upon science-based management and public involvement. When the fate of a charismatic keystone predator is sealed by a small group of legislators with no discussion or research, we are in trouble as a hunting community and are setting the wrong precedent. There are definitely some positives in this bill, but BHA is not willing to trade the North American Model of Conservation for ANYTHING.
HB469 has been passed by both the House and Senate and is on its way to Governor Cox for signing. Please reach out to the Governor to communicate these issues with this bill and encourage that it be sent to interim study to address the late inclusions with this bill.
Utah BHA
http://www.backcountryhunters.org/

 

[MrShane]

Those same friends also ran that big wheat farm in the west desert River Bed during the 1980s. Doves were crazy thick then, limit was 30 and you could fill it out there at the water holes.

South of that farm about 15 miles was a big pheasant farm that went broke one year and just turned all the birds loose. That was a fun month during pheasant season.

-DallanC

I don’t remember that wheat farm.
I religiously hunt every Dove Opener at my buddy’s hobby farm in Cache Valley.
It is crazy how over the years the ratio of Eurasians to Mourning Doves has changed.
We used to kill just a few Eurasians in our entire group.
Last year I only had three Mournings in my limit, and my groups’s ratio was very similar.

 

[Vanilla]

Nilla, you are right, it was not Snider who made the last minute changes to it, I can still dislike him but not blame him for this one...

Oh, you can absolutely like or dislike anyone you want for any reason you choose. This is still America, after all. I will keep pointing out Snider didn't make these changes every time I see someone say he did, however. I don't do it because I like Snider. I neither like nor dislike him as I don't even know him. I do this because I think facts and truth matter. Dislike Casey Snider if you want, I don't really care either way. But people need to quit saying Snide did something sneaky here, because he didn't.

Speaking of facts and truth mattering...that letter from BHA is problematic in this department.

Under the 3rd Substitute of this bill which was introduced on the Senate floor and passed this past Wednesday with a vote of 21-6-2, mountain lions would be subject to unlimited statewide harvest through trapping and hunting with a hunting license (and eliminating the tag requirement).

This isn't true. Just because the legislature eliminated the need to obtain a separate cougar permit does not mean that it is "unlimited statewide harvest through trapping and hunting." The same license that permits me to hunt cougars under this law permits to me to hunt geese in the exact same section. Do I get unlimited statewide harvest of geese? What about pheasants? Do I have unlimited statewide harvest of pheasants because of the same small game license? See below for more information on this...

...but we simply cannot justify supporting how these final inclusions regarding mountain lion harvest made their way into this bill at the final hour with no input from sportsmen or biologists.

I agree this process was dirty. I hate when the legislature does this. It happens often, and I dislike it every time.

These types of wildlife management decisions should go through the Regional Advisory Council / Wildlife Board public input process.

While all of the implications and potential biological impacts of this bill are not yet clear, the language suggests that the Division will no longer have the authority to impact harvest if this bill is signed.

These two quotes are where people are missing the mark a little bit here, and they just are not based in fact. While the law removes the need for an extra permit, it does not say that the Division (I assume they mean wildlife board...) loses the authority to impact harvest. Quite the contrary, actually. Let's look at the legislation itself:

258 (2) A hunting license authorizes the licensee to, according to this title and the Wildlife
259 Board's rules and proclamations:
260 (a) take small game; [and]
261 (b) hunt or trap cougar during a period beginning on January 1 and ending on
262 December 31; and
263 [(b)] (c) apply for or obtain a big game, [cougar,] bear, or turkey hunting permit.

I included the line numbers so it is easily referenced if anyone wants to check for themselves and not just trust my quoting of the bill. If signed by the governor, this is what the bill entitles one to do with a resident hunting license in Utah. (non-resident provisions in lines 276-281 are the same) You can take small game, hunt and trap cougars from January 1-December 31, and apply for other types of hunting permits that are separate like big game, bear, and turkey. This is the change. But what is this section subject to in lines 258-259? A hunting permit authorizes a licensee to do the following, "ACCORDING TO THIS TITLE AND THE WILDLIFE BOARD'S RULES AND PROCLAMATIONS." (emphasis added)

The Wildlife Board, right in state code, still has the ability to create rules governing the taking of cougars with a hunting license. Will they? I don't know. If they do, what will those rules be? I have no clue. However, BHA saying that signing this bill removes the Division's authority to impact harvest is patently false. The Wildlife Board could put a 1-cougar limit in place, just like they put limits on pheasants...even though my hunting license authorizes me to take pheasants. But it authorizes me to take them in accordance with the rules and proclamations of the Wildlife Board.

I'm not asking anyone to support what the legislature did with cougars, but I will call out false statements when I see them. There is still the opportunity to guide the policy through the RACs and Wildlife Board on the taking of cougars. Stay tuned, I'm sure the Division is working vigorously to try and give the Board some guidance, that as always, they can choose to follow or not.

 

[BugBuilder]

All good points. Sometimes my lack of education in these matters and my knee jerk reactions get the best of me....
Thank you for the clarity on some of these things but do you know that Snider did not know it would change at the end or was he aware that it would?

 

[Vanilla]

do you know that Snider did not know it would change at the end or was he aware that it would?

I do not know that. He knows that, however, and if you really want to know if this is the case or not, I'd suggest contacting him. I have never spoken to him as I haven't had a reason to, but I have a few friends that were VERY upset over the trail cam deal last year and he was very responsive, calling and talking on the phone to each of them and hearing them out and explaining his position. From what I understand, he is very accessible to folks that have concerns, and I'd suggest asking him that question. That is really the only way you're going to get the actual answer. The rest of us are just guessing.

You can find his contact info here: Representative Page | Utah House of Representatives

 

[T-dubs-42]

Thank you for the clarity on some of these things but do you know that Snider did not know it would change at the end or was he aware that it would?

Snider did know the changes were being made because they were the concession required to pass the senate. That is according to a text conversation posted by someone from Hushin on their Instagram story. The bill got circled the morning of the 1st and to get the votes the changes were made that afternoon. It passed less than 4 minutes after it was brought back on the floor, with apparently 7 more votes than it had that morning.

I’d also like to add that I have tried to reach out to Rep. Snider on a few different occasions, both for and against some of his work and have never received a response. I also tried to talk with him at a RAC meeting but he left early.

 

[Vanilla]

I don’t believe the question was whether he knew about it before it was voted upon on senate floor…of course he did! (Even if just a few minutes before.)

I think the question being asked is whether he was aware ahead of time that this would happen, meaning he was in on it realizing they’d just change it later and willfully didn’t bring it up in House. That is the answer none of us know, but he does. If someone wants to know that, go get the inform from the horse’s mouth, not people guessing on the internet.

That is odd he hasn’t responded to you. Even a buddy that ended up getting into a shouting match with him over the phone said he was very willing to talk to him and in the end they left the conversation with with mutual respect, even if he still vehemently disagreed with the policy he was pushing. I’ve heard from many people now that he has willingly engaged with them, even though they were contacting him to share displeasure for what he was doing. Oh well, he is a politician, after all! 😜

 

[T-dubs-42]

The house vote didn’t change number wise after the senate amendment so maybe he didn’t think would be necessary to bring it up. It was very popular in the house. I agree he’s the only one with all the details.

To be fair he was nodding off during that RAC meeting so I’m sure he was just ready to get home. I’ve heard he’s easy to talk to which is why I tried reaching out. I guess I wasn’t fired up enough to get a response but who knows?

I really hope the WB is given some leeway given the ambiguity in the language of the bill. I’m not confident it will be vetoed so come May it’s going to be a hell of a mess to sort out for everyone. Since the news has spread so far and wide I wonder if any lawsuits will come in?

 

[middlefork]

They are on it.

Group calls for Cox to veto Utah bill that opens door for year-round cougar hunting

A wildlife protection nonprofit is calling for Utah Gov. Spencer Cox to veto a bill that opens the door for year-round cougar hunting in the state.

www.ksl.com

"The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources currently operates predator management strategies that allow for more cougars to be taken in areas where mule deer are struggling the most. Faith Heaton Jolley, the division's spokeswoman, said deer populations in those areas have had some increases in recent years.

The division is currently reviewing the legislation to determine how the bill will impact the current rules and process regarding cougar hunting, Jolley said. She adds that the division will work alongside the Legislature, the Utah Wildlife Board and through a public process to "update our management and rules accordingly."

There are some other details that need to be sorted out, such as how many cougars one person can harvest annually. There will still have to be a provision where hunters report their kills so state wildlife officials can estimate harvest rates and determine how the law is impacting cougar populations in the state, too, Jolley said."

 

[backcountry]

The house vote didn’t change number wise after the senate amendment so maybe he didn’t think would be necessary to bring it up. It was very popular in the house. I agree he’s the only one with all the details.

To be fair he was nodding off during that RAC meeting so I’m sure he was just ready to get home. I’ve heard he’s easy to talk to which is why I tried reaching out. I guess I wasn’t fired up enough to get a response but who knows?

I really hope the WB is given some leeway given the ambiguity in the language of the bill. I’m not confident it will be vetoed so come May it’s going to be a hell of a mess to sort out for everyone. Since the news has spread so far and wide I wonder if any lawsuits will come in?

What would have merit for a lawsuit to move forward in the courts? Sincerely curious as I haven't seen anything yet that addresses that issue (maybe I missed an earlier explanation?).

 

[T-dubs-42]

I’m not sure the majority of these predator management cases have a lot of merit since most just end up being stall tactics. That doesn’t seem to stop some groups from trying. I can’t really think of anything that would stick but I would not be surprised to see at least some efforts come forward given the popularity of big cats.
It will be interesting to see if this bill is cited in other ongoing legal battles regarding state control of predators. It’s an interesting argument point for anti-hunting groups. “You see what happens when we turn over control to the states, it’s open season just like that”. Something along those lines.

 

[backcountry]

I'm not sure I follow. Are there other cases pending regarding Utah predator management?

 

[T-dubs-42]

I'm not sure I follow. Are there other cases pending regarding Utah predator management?

Not in Utah. I was referring to the grizzly cases of the past few years, Colorado wolf lawsuits, there was a cougar trapping one in New Mexico a few years ago, I think Washington has had to sort through a few black bear suits recently. Some of these are full of fluff and some have caused serious headaches.

 

[backcountry]

If I understand correctly aren't most of the cases you are referring to an issue of conflict between federal and state policy?

Per the Utah issue, wouldn't the relevant bill have to come into conflict with the Utah constitution or existing law/precedent for a case to move forward? Unless we are talking about the investment hunters have in points which would be a different issue. I'm less certain there but don't most states make it clear that the points aren't actually property of the individual?

 

[backcountry]

Took me a second but in Utah it's stated under 23-19-1:

 

[taxidermist]

Took me a second but in Utah it's stated under 23-19-1:

View attachment 155765

According to this, the way I look at it, is the state requires an individual to pay the $10 fee for application of a permit, tag, point, etc. But, after a monetary "investment" of said applicant to increase the chances of drawing said permit, tag, point, etc. The applicant (according to what I'm reading) does NOT "own" those accrued points. They are still the property of the state and can/could be revoked at anytime, for any reason, without a monetary reimbursement to said applicant by the state.

If this truly is the case, it sure doesn't give me that warm and fuzzy feeling that the hundreds of dollars one has spent on applications could be dismissed without prejudice, or a monetary value to the applicant. Just like that, 20+ points (a $200 value) for a single permit could vanish. NOT COOL!

 

[backcountry]

Yep and it's important to keep that in mind when investing in these systems. And it's really the only way to do it if we want the agencies and state truly empowered to manage wildlife to the best of their abilities. If points were property then we'd basically own a share (like stock) of the herd until we cash them out for a tag, which isn't tenable.

Instead they are more like having multiple lottery tickets with the understanding that they carry zero value outside the lottery & the state can change the rules or even existence of the lottery at any point.

We've seen some scary and inaccurate ideas shared about points on this forum in the recent past that are inconsistent with the aforementioned law/code/rule. If I remember correctly it was even floated to apply under a deceased family member's name to acquire the benefit of their points in a group application. Beyond the issue of fraud it tries to turn the points into something they are not, ie property.

Buyer beware on wanting them to be property as the implications on game management don't bode well when you truly game out the potential scenarios.