Pay To Play, License needed to access certain WMA in Utah
JerryH
21 - 40 of 86 Posts
Joined
·
5,507 Posts
Explain that to the current BIG SHOTS in DC. They seem to do it on a daily basis. Pro this, pro that, seems any topic to better the USA is getting blocked in legal battles.
Joined
·
12,784 Posts
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.
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.
Joined
·
142 Posts
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!
Joined
·
142 Posts
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.
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.
Joined
·
7,005 Posts
Joined
·
5,507 Posts
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.
And then they want to know why they are losing interest.
Not the sharpest knives in the drawer making the decisions for Utah.
Joined
·
9,648 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Joined
·
2,085 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Joined
·
4,374 Posts
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.
And it would seem wise for the state to create a different fee type for non-consumptive users that goes directly into conservation funds.
Joined
·
44 Posts
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.
Joined
·
409 Posts
The thing that upsets me on this one, is my sweetheart does not fish, does not hunt, but loves coming with me to put her feet in the water and relax for the day while I fish, why in the absolute hell should I have to buy her a license to come along? I am already there and pay yearly for mine. She has no impact on the area. Doesn't litter, on the contrary she picks up other peoples garbage, as do I.
Joined
·
12,784 Posts
That's where the legislature screwed up, and should of said that everyone needs a WMA pass, or hunting and or fishing license.
Joined
·
4,374 Posts
Or accompanying someone with either just like state or national parks do.
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.
21 - 40 of 86 Posts
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
