[Vanilla]

I have seen a lot of posts on other hunting forums saying that this is reaching their breaking point and they are done with applying for Utah. The people with money to burn will keep applying like usual and have better odds with a lot of the peasants pushed out of their way. Everything is working according to plan!

CCG, you are spot on! I firmly believe that things like this are all part of a push from powerful influences that have figured out that death by a thousand cuts is the way to change hunting management forever in their favor. I know I'll be called a conspiracy theorist, and I don't really care anymore. These things need to be called out for what they are from here on out.

Here's the deal: For better or worse, one of the most influential people in wildlife and related policy matters in Utah has been Don Peay. Don has gone on the record repudiating the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. He has called it socialism and has advocated for the privatization of wildlife in America. These are not rumors, they are his words, and he has worked to make that happen. You think he's alone in this? Do you think this philosophy is extinct in the current SFW model? I don't want to turn this into a beat up SFW thread, but it is part of the discussion. Just to cite one aspect of this, does anyone remember when SFW was openly advocating ending the late elk hunt on the Dutton unit? Does anyone remember what the current SFW president said about why this should happen? I can't quote it word for word, but it was in an open meeting, so people can find it if they want it. He said too many "average Joe" hunters are killing giant bulls, and those bulls are valuable and could be sold, so we need to end that late Dutton elk hunt. Again, this happened in an open meeting, on the record. Not rumors, not hearsay, no hyperbole, this was the organization's official position, and not that long ago.

So now that we have the groundwork laid, let's look at all the things that have happened over the years.

We have tag reallocation to different types of hunts than historically have been in place. "If you really want to hunt, pick up a bow and go hunt!" How many times have you read that online in the last 10 years?

Antler point restrictions will give us bigger bucks to kill! We need those so we can get some age class in our deer.

Tag cuts. We are killing too many deer. We need to cut tags.

Let's take more and more of the public tags each year and put them into the conservation tag program in the name of "conservation."

Now weapon restrictions. "Oh, it's not big deal...just buy a new muzzy or go hunt a different unit." "Just buy a new rifle with open sights, or go hunt a different unit."

Now with potentially a huge increase in cost to hunt that seems to be a race to the bottom with all states...what do all these things have in common?

Each one of these things on it's own makes it harder for people to hunt. Not everyone can buy a new bow setup and go hunt. Not everyone can buy a new muzzy set up and go hunt. Not everyone can buy a new rifle and go hunt. Not everyone can just change units to go hunt somewhere different than they have grown up hunting and hunted their entire lives. Not everyone can afford to pay double for a hunting license or permit to go and hunt. And while each one of these things on it's own makes it more difficult to keep hunting, all of them in conjunction with each other make it flat out impossible for many to do it. Every step we take that makes it harder for people to hunt, we push more "casuals" or "average joes" or non-wealthy people away from hunting. Every single time we make it more difficult to do, we cut people out.

Yes, I have been saying that there is more to all these proposals than what is being talked about openly, and this hits it directly in the center of what I think is going on. Powerful forces know that you can't boil a frog by throwing it straight into boiling water. And eventually there is going to come a time where the "average Joe" is not only no longer able to kill the king's giant bulls, but won't be able to participate in hunting at all. And it will be because we as hunters consented to it every single step along the way.

We see one of these proposals and how it can benefit me personally, and I'm all about it. We don't think about how it impacts the whole, and we don't care. We simply look at how it benifits me in the here and now, and go for it. We have met the enemy to our hunting future, and it is us.

But, we can keep buying everything they are selling us on how great these proposals will be for "opportunity" when none of them actually produce anything but more restrictions to follow. I've often said my grandkids will likely not be able to hunt, but I won't see the death of our way of life in my lifetime. I am now of the belief that I will live to see the day.

Just wait until these same folks figure out how to monetize and commercialize fishing in the same way...

 

[Vanilla]

Don't white knight for Utah. This is a complete joke.

Don't misread what I said as supporting or defending Utah. This is bad what they are proposing. I've been pretty outspoken on not supporting any of this crap, and these cost increases are added to that list.

I'm not white-knighting for anyone. Well, maybe for myself. Since I've been trying to tell you all about this for years now!

 

[caddis8]

T

Don't misread what I said as supporting or defending Utah. This is bad what they are proposing. I've been pretty outspoken on not supporting any of this crap, and these cost increases are added to that list.

I'm not white-knighting for anyone. Well, maybe for myself. Since I've been trying to tell you all about this for years now!

The question that remains is are there bidets at the capital? @johnnycake Because this sort of ruling is only made by those with bidets to stick it to the peasants. And I have a bidet.

I'm no peasant. I make pretty good money, but even I have a limit. I pay a lot of money every year to shoot geese in field where only I have permission. I could certainly stop spending that money and go hunt out of state yearly. But cripes just taking my dad fishing is expensive! I usually have Idaho and Utah season permits (fishing only in Idaho), combo in Utah. I've had season Wyo. At one point I had Montana, Wyo, ID, and UT fishing permits. Idaho jumped their fishing permit a couple years ago. Wyoming's has been pretty expensive.

Nebraska, by comparison for a deer is pretty reasonable for non-res. I think it's like $300. But good luck finding public access at all.

 

[Catherder]

Waaaay back in the day when dad was alive, we would talk about this kind of stuff around the campfire on our hunts. Back then, he would grumble and predict that in the not too distant future, hunting would be for only the very rich and the average Joe six-pack would be excluded. Back then, my younger self would say that it may eventually happen but not for a while and some of the grousing was a bit "alarmist". Between these kinds of developments and the suspected imminent loss of a lot of our public lands privileges, it looks like he will be telling me "told you so" when we are at the happy hunting grounds. Or maybe I'm becoming like Dad myself also.

The interesting thing is that if such a thing occurred, I thought (or was told to think) that the downfall would come from wild eyed PETA types winning over a majority of the public sentiment. I now believe that is wrong. The events that will lead to most hunters demise from the game will be crafted by US, and will have been voted for by US.

 

[johnnycake]

Utah really hasn't been behind the curve on NR pricing. This is the 4th significant increase since 2019, and works out to about a 400% increase over those 6 years. Sure, many other Western states have been ratcheting up too in this same time frame, but none that I can remember have been this drastic over the same period. By example, Alaska did a 100% NR increase in 2018, but it was the first increase since like the early 90s.

I'm no peasant, but this one leaves me pretty pissed. I'll let the OIAL prices slide (moose in Alberta and Newfoundland suddenly are about the same cost for the same size expectations without needing to win the lottery though), and maybe even the LE. Honestly, I'll likely stop applying for those as I've got zero chance in drawing as a NR anyway, and now building the point bank just took a major cost increase, on top of the hit on the back end from winning. But given the demand and supply issue I bet those draw odds don't improve much. I do kinda think you'd be a moron to pay +$700 for a Utah buck pronghorn tag, given other options in better states.

But the GS deer/elk, antlerless, hunting license itself, swan, bear etc. Those are flat out absurd. I've been planning, and building GS deer points, in order to do some fun fall buck hunts with Grandpa for my cupcakes starting in 2026, and should've been able to get each of them tags 3-4 times before they hopefully move out of the house. But now that it's going to be $836 for a GS tag (and x2 + $240 if Mamacake or I need to be in a group to up their points) to probably go shoot a forky, f---- no. It's cheaper per person door to door (and more fun) to go down to SE AK and shoot multiple sitka blacktails each than to just buy one GS deer tag. Hell, the savings are big enough when it's all 4 of us to fully pay to bring my dad up and buy his NR license and tags for two bucks and a bear.

These recent NR price hikes in UT, ID, AZ, NM, MT, WY, and CO all bring me to a position that I have long resisted much to many of my AK resident friends' chagrin over the years. I'm no longer friendly or sympathetic in any format to NRs getting "fair" treatment in hunting and fishing up here in Alaska. Why should a UT resident be able to buy an otc AK moose tag for $800 plus a $160 license (less than a UT GS buck deer) when a UT moose costs an AK resident $4,484 + $240 on top of needing to win the lottery?

I started working this week on my AK state legislators and RHAK reps pushing for them to go for the throat on NR pricing. And I am far from alone. Right now my pricing position is still "moderate" compared to many I'm talking with and I'm arguing for $15k sheep; $10k bison, muskox, moose, goat, and brown bear; $5k caribou; $1k black bear, elk, and deer. Plus a 400% increase in the fishing, hunting, and trapping licenses.

 

[backcountry]

I've advocated for more direct relationships and agreements between states for years now. If we want prices for non-resident licensees to remain reasonable then we need to be sharing costs & privileges officially instead of informally. We need a multistate compact.

I don't like these increases but without some form of binding agreement we are going to continue to see states stick it to stakeholders who have no vote in future outcomes. And there will always be hunters willing to pay the sticker price no matter how many protest by not participating.

 

[Vanilla]

Like I said, we've identified the enemy, and his name is cake-eater!

Or something...

 

[johnnycake]

I've argued with lots of folks in Alaska, including the decision-makers, for years against the "unreasonable" restriction on NRs requiring them to be guided or hunt with a close relative who is a resident for brown bear, sheep, and goat.

That's done for from me. Not gonna advocate any more for improving NR benefits in AK.

 

[Packout]

I keep hearing rumors this was pushed by legislators to fund some of the bills they have passed recently to deal with access or acquisition of hunting/wildlife lands. That doesn't make it right.

Here is a response from a UDWR social media post. I'm not a fan of the word "our" in relation to a public agency. Nor do I like the term "market value" in relation to wildlife held in public trust.
"SB8 was passed during this past legislative session, which allows our Division to increase nonresident license fees up to double the previous cost. The bill does not mandate that those fees will automatically increase by double. Our division is reviewing the budgetary needs of our agency and the intended goals of the legislation (to purchase public land for the specific use of protecting wintering wildlife populations) and will evaluate each fee based on those needs and relevant market values of neighboring states. This legislation is designed to give our Division the tools needed to manage financial responsibilities for the foreseeable future."

I personally think these potential increases are garbage for many reasons and because it breeds posts like JC's. Tit for tat and that is that. Too soon the impact across the board is too great for the majority of hunters to hunt. It makes me sad to think how this impacts my kids' opportunities to hunt.

If they need funding to protect sensitive areas, I think everyone should throw in an extra $5 or $10 a year and carry the burden. Taking back the $500,000 from the wolf lobbyists each year would be the best place to start.

 

[johnnycake]

I agree with everything you wrote, Packout. And to be clear, it isn't just this latest UT increase to blame for my changed position. It's the cumulative actions of UT, ID, AZ, NM, MT, WY, and CO over the last handful of years, and this one is the final straw.

+15 years ago I applied for tags in all of those states (plus NV, OR, and WA) most years. That's been whittled down to only Utah for the last few years. And that's pretty much dead. I have little confidence that DWR will resist maximizing the price authority on these tags. Maybe not all at once, but they'll be at the ceiling in short order, maybe 3-5 years, if they don't go for it right away.

Tit for tat in economic game theory is a great way to ensure the worst outcomes for all players. But it's even worse for a player that takes the hit and keeps trying to cooperate.

 

[caddis8]

I've argued with lots of folks in Alaska, including the decision-makers, for years against the "unreasonable" restriction on NRs requiring them to be guided or hunt with a close relative who is a resident for brown bear, sheep, and goat.

That's done for from me. Not gonna advocate any more for improving NR benefits in AK.

Please no, pretty please? At least a couple of years till I come up? It's becoming compelling for me to move there. Serious.

 

[Critter]

All this is going to do is to stop the vast majority of non residents from hunting Utah. This will also affect the outfitters who are guiding on public lands and perhaps even the CWMU's.

Hunting out of state has always been a money loosing proposition for the non resident, but we do it because we love hunting. I know that the amount of money that I spend down in Arizona is quite a bit more than it should be, but even having to purchase a hunting license along with my tag still isn't too bad. Even deer and elk tags for the non resident are not out of sight yet.

Looking at the cost of a bison tag in Utah now for the non resident I can see most non residents doing ranch hunts now where you have a guide to do most of the work for you. I know a ranch down in Texas where you can do a bison hunt for $4500, and that includes guides and a 3 night stay in their lodge.

Utah may of just shot themselves in the foot if this bill was to provide more money for the DWR.

 

[johnnycake]

Looking at the cost of a bison tag in Utah now for the non resident I can see most non residents doing ranch hunts now where you have a guide to do most of the work for you. I know a ranch down in Texas where you can do a bison hunt for $4500, and that includes guides and a 3 night stay in their lodge.

Utah may of just shot themselves in the foot if this bill was to provide more money for the DWR.

There are reservation hunts and hunts in Canada for B&C eligible wild bison that are guided and only about double the proposed new tag fee ceiling for Utah.

But I'm pretty sure Utah would still sell every single NR OIAL and LE tag at triple the proposed ceiling. The demand is there. Utah will lose out on hunting license revenue and some app fees though, but I bet in the long run those are not big budget driver dollars.

 

[backcountry]

I keep hearing rumors this was pushed by legislators to fund some of the bills they have passed recently to deal with access or acquisition of hunting/wildlife lands. That doesn't make it right.

Here is a response from a UDWR social media post. I'm not a fan of the word "our" in relation to a public agency. Nor do I like the term "market value" in relation to wildlife held in public trust.
"SB8 was passed during this past legislative session, which allows our Division to increase nonresident license fees up to double the previous cost. The bill does not mandate that those fees will automatically increase by double. Our division is reviewing the budgetary needs of our agency and the intended goals of the legislation (to purchase public land for the specific use of protecting wintering wildlife populations) and will evaluate each fee based on those needs and relevant market values of neighboring states. This legislation is designed to give our Division the tools needed to manage financial responsibilities for the foreseeable future."

I personally think these potential increases are garbage for many reasons and because it breeds posts like JC's. Tit for tat and that is that. Too soon the impact across the board is too great for the majority of hunters to hunt. It makes me sad to think how this impacts my kids' opportunities to hunt.

If they need funding to protect sensitive areas, I think everyone should throw in an extra $5 or $10 a year and carry the burden. Taking back the $500,000 from the wolf lobbyists each year would be the best place to start.

I did find the relevant language in the bill ("All nonresident fees for the Division of Wildlife Resources may not exceed, but may be less
than, the amounts stated in the division's fee schedule") which makes me wonder how often the agency doesn't utilize the maximum fee allowed. Anybody know the answer to that? I can understand the agency response above but I'm skeptical they won't seek a way to maximize their revenue in the face of rising expenses (as we've seen the last 4+ years).

 

[MrShane]

If anyone, resident OR non-resident, that is complaining about this POSSIBLE fee increase and you also went to the Expo and supported such commercialization of our wildlife then you really need to think if you are going to attend or not next year.

 

[RandomElk16]

In 2019 a nonresident gs bull or spike tag was $393. In 2020 it increased by about 1/3 to $593. In 2025 it’s set to go to $1226!!! $1226 for a general season elk tag? What. The. F***! You reckon these other western states will follow suit? I’m starting to think it was a waste for me to ever get started in this nonresident points game. Everything is getting too stupid.

Do you know how much an elk tag is for a NR in Idaho?

Not saying we are as good.. but when you say follow suit, you sure it's not Utah following suit?

 

[colorcountrygunner]

Do you know how much an elk tag is for a NR in Idaho?

Not saying we are as good.. but when you say follow suit, you sure it's not Utah following suit?

I'll bet money that Idaho elk tag is better value than a $1226 spike tag with a near single digit success rate.

Edit: I just looked it up. Idaho nonresident elk tags are $651. Roughly half the proposed fees for our spikes and extremely poor and limited open bull hunting. What am I missing here?

 

[johnnycake]

I'll bet money that Idaho elk tag is better value than a $1226 spike tag with a near single digit success rate.

Edit: I just looked it up. Idaho nonresident elk tags are $651. Roughly half the proposed fees for our spikes and extremely poor and limited open bull hunting. What am I missing here?

And for context, the current Idaho prices went into effect in 2021, were not close to 100% increases, and had been in effect for years.

Nonresident fee increase takes effect Dec. 1 and 2021 nonresident deer/elk tags will be available then

idfg.idaho.gov

 

[colorcountrygunner]

 

[Airborne]

I hope that the DWR uses discretion and their brains on this one. Yeah they could probably up the OIL or LE tag costs a little and be ok within reason but not the general tags nor the huntin license--that's just stupid. I hope reason prevails and they don't max this out to stupid levels.

I really don't want Governor @johnnycake enacting some retaliatory tag tariffs on us poor pitiful Utard peasants!