I like it, but I can also see a argument asking for just a season pass much like a state park pass however the cost of a year long fishing license isn't tat bad.

 

i LOVE this. It’s about time freeloaders quit riding on hunters dollars, all while many of them hate hunting to begin with.

 

The state should also suggest that it's a good idea to purchase a federal duck stamp to these refuge visitors/users.

 

I like this too, but who in the hell is going to enforce this? I mean I hunt a lot, and I get a license check maybe twice in 5 or 6 years.

 

I love all the comments about “the Kings land “ on the article. Almost no one that doesn’t hunt realizes that license fees pay for those areas.
I’d be glad to just ban spandex from Farmington Bay.

 

I love all the comments about “the Kings land “ on the article. Almost no one that doesn’t hunt realizes that license fees pay for those areas.
I’d be glad to just ban spandex from Farmington Bay.

But some of it fits sooooooo nice

 

The comments are pretty amusing until you realize these people vote too.
It's about time the non consumptive users pony up for access on WMA's.
Oh wait, we are discriminating.

 

We as sportsmen need to do a better job of helping non consumptive users understand that we foot the bill for conservation. The state should do an ad campaign explaining this to the people that are now going to be forced to pay. I also think that non consumptive users should be able to buy a “pass” many of them will uncomfortable about buying a license.

If like some are crying we should do, the state took money from the general fund to pay for these places we could kiss these places good bye

 

We as sportsmen need to do a better job of helping non consumptive users understand that we foot the bill for conservation. The state should do an ad campaign explaining this to the people that are now going to be forced to pay. I also think that non consumptive users should be able to buy a “pass” many of them will uncomfortable about buying a license.

If like some are crying we should do, the state took money from the general fund to pay for these places we could kiss these places good bye

Colorado did have a add campaign where they said "hug a hunter" for what the hunters did for conservation and the outdoor areas that everyone enjoys.

 

While the points made above are valid, I think there is more to this than just making the "spandex" crowd pay their "share", for WMA's. This makes it easier for CO's/LEO's to keep out folks like the homeless from setting up shop and deterring things like late night parties and other activities that may be detrimental to the mission of a WMA if they frequently occurred there.

Also, I don't think they have called it "spandex" since the 90's, have they? They're leggings/exercise wear now.

 

While the points made above are valid, I think there is more to this than just making the "spandex" crowd pay their "share", for WMA's. This makes it easier for CO's/LEO's to keep out folks like the homeless from setting up shop and deterring things like late night parties and other activities that may be detrimental to the mission of a WMA if they frequently occurred there.

Also, I don't think they have called it "spandex" since the 90's, have they? They're leggings/exercise wear now.

Okay, be honest, how much did you lose on LuLaRoe leggings for your wife before they went out of business?

 

I can see a possible legal battle on the horizon. Someone, or an organization will test the state to see how far they are willing to go.

I can see the news article with video already. A group of protesters laying/sitting on the entrance of the WMA opening morning of waterfowl season. Blocking "owner's" (the ******* bregage) from getting out.

Not all the areas are waterfowl areas I know. But who will be responsible to repair the lake fork road that washed out? Maybe the "dedicated hunters" needing hours?

 

I can see a possible legal battle on the horizon. Someone, or an organization will test the state to see how far they are willing to go.

I can see the news article with video already. A group of protesters laying/sitting on the entrance of the WMA opening morning of waterfowl season. Blocking "owner's" (the *** bregage) from getting out.

Not all the areas are waterfowl areas I know. But who will be responsible to repair the lake fork road that washed out? Maybe the "dedicated hunters" needing hours?

Speed bumps at the Farmington gate ain’t gonna be the only thing run over at a high rate of speed opening morning if protesters want to FAFO

 

I am just imagining a lawyer reading that back to G00SE in court.

Lawyer: "Now Mr. G00SE,when you posted that you meant that you would rather run over protesters than miss bird hunting, isn't that right?

G00SE: .....

Judge: "Answer the question Mr. G00SE"

G00SE: "Yes"

Lawyer: "Your Honor, I would like to enter into evidence my client's leggings with tire tracks that match the defendants truck"

 

I don’t stop for protestors blocking roads.

 

I would rather see a yearly pass that is good for all WMA's.. I think the non-hunting/fishing community would respond better to it. Everyone with a hunting/fishing license is exempt from purchasing the pass. Every other user has to pay for the pass.
The problem I see with a yearly pass is the money would end up in a general fund, just like the habitat stamp and state duck stamp money did in the 1990's. The monies generated from the WMA pass would have to belong to the DWR.

 

Arguably the most use of a WMA for non hunters/fishermen was the Henefer/Echo Angler access that was used as a launch point for rafts and tubes on the Weber river. Last year they had a contractor collecting a use fee for anyone that was not fishing to park.

It is also my understanding that the Timpanogas Front WMA is/was extremely popular for mountain bikers. And the Echo /Henefer WMA is popular with rock climbers.

These excess's along with homesteading on some is what lead to the whole discussion.
I could see pushback from a few effected groups but I'm not sure they have any legal claim.

 

it’s hard as you want to play nice in the sandbox with other types of users, however, part of me just wants to give all these cry babies the middle finger.

You’ve been enjoying a free ride for far too long. If they need to make it an “WMA entrance pass” so these tree hugging hippies and other whiners feel better about not buying a hunting or fishing license, then so be it. But hunters and anglers have been carrying the load for wildlife conservation only to be continually criticized by many of these people long enough.

No more free ride for them. If you want to enjoy what we have provided for you, pay your way.

I’m a bit ornery this afternoon I guess. Just no patience for the absolute stupidity I saw in those comments in the article. I usually don’t read the comment page, but checked it out based upon statements made here. What a conglomerate of morons! Just read the article. Take 7 seconds to understand the issue before spouting off. Is it that hard? It’s amazing that these people walk and breathe and live among us. Scary, indeed.

 

Yeah, reading the article comment board is an exercise in frustration. I generally don’t even try to debate in those forums anymore. The ignorance is too overwhelming.

 

The legislature could of just put into the bill that all users would need a hunting, fishing license, or a WMA stamp to access these areas.

Just saying that they require a hunting/fishing license will get the kind of responses that are in the comment section of the article. People who don't hunt and fish have no idea of where the money for hunting and fishing licenses go to. All they see is the state of Utah requiring them to have to purchase a hunting/fishing license to access properties that were paid for through their tax dollars. It doesn't mean a thing to them where the money actually came from.

The way that Colorado words it is like this:

In Colorado, access to State Wildlife Areas (SWAs) requires a State Wildlife Area Pass, or a valid hunting or fishing license. The State Wildlife Area Pass costs $46.48 annually, and includes a required Colorado Wildlife Habitat Stamp. Youths, seniors, and low-income residents can purchase annual passes for $10.07, and a one-day pass is available for $9. Additionally, a $29 Keep Colorado Wild Pass is available through vehicle registration, but it is only valid for State Parks, not SWAs, Colorado Parks and Wildlife says.

One thing that Colorado did do a few years ago to raise money was to have everyone who is licensing a vehicle in the state of Colorado to also purchase a State Park Pass unless they check a box to opt out of the pass. For me it saves me money on two vehicles where it is now cheaper to purchase the pass through my vehicle registration than it was for me to purchase separate passes the way that the CP&W charged for them.

 

The legislature could of just put into the bill that all users would need a hunting, fishing license, or a WMA stamp to access these areas.

Just saying that they require a hunting/fishing license will get the kind of responses that are in the comment section of the article. People who don't hunt and fish have no idea of where the money for hunting and fishing licenses go to. All they see is the state of Utah requiring them to have to purchase a hunting/fishing license to access properties that were paid for through their tax dollars. It doesn't mean a thing to them where the money actually came from.

The way that Colorado words it is like this:

In Colorado, access to State Wildlife Areas (SWAs) requires a State Wildlife Area Pass, or a valid hunting or fishing license. The State Wildlife Area Pass costs $46.48 annually, and includes a required Colorado Wildlife Habitat Stamp. Youths, seniors, and low-income residents can purchase annual passes for $10.07, and a one-day pass is available for $9. Additionally, a $29 Keep Colorado Wild Pass is available through vehicle registration, but it is only valid for State Parks, not SWAs, Colorado Parks and Wildlife says.

One thing that Colorado did do a few years ago to raise money was to have everyone who is licensing a vehicle in the state of Colorado to also purchase a State Park Pass unless they check a box to opt out of the pass. For me it saves me money on two vehicles where it is now cheaper to purchase the pass through my vehicle registration than it was for me to purchase separate passes the way that the CP&W charged for them.

Agreed that they messed this up. It's perfectly fine to expect users to pay, but the cyclist/photographer/birdwatcher has no clue why they're being forced to buy a hunting license to access the WMA.

And it's Lycra, now. Get with the times, jabronies.

 

Hunters and fishers beware! KSL is reporting that the general public will now need a hunting or fishing license to access certain Wildlife Management Areas within the state. On the surface this looks like a good thing, but I give fair warning that it could come back to haunt all hunters and fishers. By charging bird watchers, mountain bikers, photographers, wildflowers viewers, hikers, kayakers, canoeists, wildlife viewers, and other outdoor enthusiasts a license fee to enter the WMA's, you are giving them a stronger voice. Many outdoor enthusiasts oppose hunting and fishing and by allowing them to pay a fee they will now be able to start opposing hunting and fishing because their voice has been strengthened. As it was only hunters and fishers were funding these areas so their voice was strongest. Talk about shooting yourselves in the foot!

https://www.ksl.com/article/51305127/youll-soon-need-a-license-to-enter-these-utah-wildlife-management-areas

 

Hunters and fishers beware! KSL is reporting that the general public will now need a hunting or fishing license to access certain Wildlife Management Areas within the state. On the surface this looks like a good thing, but I give fair warning that it could come back to haunt all hunters and fishers. By charging bird watchers, mountain bikers, photographers, wildflowers viewers, hikers, kayakers, canoeists, wildlife viewers, and other outdoor enthusiasts a license fee to enter the WMA's, you are giving them a stronger voice. Many outdoor enthusiasts oppose hunting and fishing and by allowing them to pay a fee they will now be able to start opposing hunting and fishing because their voice has been strengthened. As it was only hunters and fishers were funding these areas so their voice was strongest. Talk about shooting yourselves in the foot!

This also may be a step towards the state requiring fees to access our public lands once they convince the federal government to give them control. If you like to hike, mountain bike, shoot coyotes, ride a motorcycle or ATV on public lands, the state of Utah wants your money.

 

Utah makes hunting and fishing a constitutional right // GOHUNT. The Hunting Company

 

Cutt, For decades the state has been wanting our money, and it's not going away. They are finding all kinds of ways to take money from the out of doors folks. Pay for a off road education course to be able to drive a ATV/UTV, Dirt Bike, etc. on public lands. Don't forget the AIS sticker and education course needed to float a watercraft.

And then they want to know why they are losing interest. Not the sharpest knives in the drawer making the decisions for Utah.

 

It’s amazing to me that people think it’s free to maintain public lands and programs for the use of those lands.

User taxes are the only taxes I willingly and gladly pay. We should be implementing these much more across the board, IMO.

Everything you look at costs money. Everything. I tell my kids nearly every day, “Nothing is free in this world.” Yet there are so many that want and expect it to be provided for free.

 

The impact of users on WMAs near populations is immense. It’s about time the users put some skin in the game. They should also include the restriction on the abused WMAs in Sanpete County.

Imagine paying $35 to access tens of thousands of acres. And that $35 is spent on maintaining those lands AND to buy more lands for wildlife.

“Oh the govt is ripping me off.” Such victim mentality in this case.

 

Hum, I got to think about that one for a minute. My first thought is that it will not give them a stronger voice than they already have in regards to apposing hunting and fishing. They will end up with a voice similar to the voice hunters/fisherman have in apposing their activities. I am currently not seeing any opposition to hunting and fishing on WMA's from the managers of these areas and indeed seem to making an effort to make WMA's open to all. The most effective opposition efforts seem to be directed towards politicians and political parties and not the managers of these areas.
Food for thought for sure.

 

As I stated previously, there are more than one reason to do this, but the obvious untapped source of user funding is simply too much for the state to overlook in this day of fiscal challenges. As for all the whining, I suppose it is human nature and come to expect it. Although anglers and hunters never bellyache, do they?

With respect to the move giving other users more of a voice in management, I believe this is actually somewhat true. However, I'm also of the opinion that our future will be more affected by our own behavior and broader societal changes, of which WMA management will hardly move the needle.

 

I largely support use fees though I'm not as upset up to snuff on the operating costs of northern WMAs. If they are going to fund new lines to increase CO oversight for those properties then this seems like a slam dunk given the problems they've had the last 4-6 years.

And it would seem wise for the state to create a different fee type for non-consumptive users that goes directly into conservation funds.

 

I am OK with requiring SOME sort of tag, as it would help cut down on the ****tification of our lands. Prime example is yahoos that dump old refrigerators and TVs, use them as targets and leave them for someone else to clean up.

 

all one has to do is drive down the road in January at Farmington bay. the road is absolute hell, and covered with photographers and bird watchers. I am happy for this to move forward. perhaps not a hunting license but at minimum a WMA pass.