Utah NR Hunt Fees- Huge Increase

[Flingingarrowsbro]

On 3/19/2025 at 1:17 PM, Flatlander said:

Sounds good until you need public support for a federal issue like wild horses or wolf or grizzly bear reintroduction. If you are setting NR prices to appeal only to the 2,000 highest bidders for elk but the other 100 million people in the west don’t give a crap about your state and you are screwed.

I don’t think public support is affecting much how federal agencies operate. Grizzlies being re-introduced in WA, CO, the new wolves being released in Cochise county recently, feral horses running rampant on the rim etc etc etc. no. Few instances have support from the public but environmental groups have the upper hand with the endangered species act and other laws. The USFWS is overrun with greenies which doesn’t help. 
I don’t believe raising non-resident fees will change how sportsman support other sportsman. If I was priced out of applying for Utah, I wouldn’t turn against my values. I think the vast majority of sportsman are similar to me. I think raising fees across the board for residents and non-resident is needed. There would be more funds available for conservation and other things that would benefit wildlife and sportsman.

[coueswt]

Compare our non resident tags fees to any west state. NM is increasing their non resident fees also and compare to hunt quality with ours. 

[gonhunting247]

On 3/19/2025 at 3:03 PM, Couzer said:

Might as well not even have a non resident fee, just open it up as the same as residents so we can have public support across the nation. 

The NR caps on tags should keep it within the limits of what's exceptable to the majority of Residents when it comes to NR pressure/NR funds without only including the richest subset of hunters.

I do agree with the cost for NR being higher and I definitely participate at the current levels with no gripes whatsoever and appreciate the opportunity,  but selling out to the highest bidders, basically,  seems like a dangerous path to take. Just my thoughts and I understand there needs to be limits, so residents get a large majority of the opportunity. I would feel the same way if too many NR hunters piled into my area in OR (unlikely for now  )

[rhetmo]

Joe Rogan and Steve Rinella sold more hunting licenses than any agency  or wildlife organization, the sheer volume of bonus points and outdoor related items (pittman -robertson) sold the amount of money  they have and technology they have on hand and they have very little to show for it they are running out of excuses! Raise the prices insure the Quanity and quality!

 

[Crazymonkey]

As stated already  the cost is going  to price out most hunters and therefore decrease  the $$$ for  license  and app fees and what your missing  is there's  still going  to be a 20 % tag allowed  for non rez . People  need to look  at the whole  picture  not just the part they wish to see. Talk about  shooting  yourself  in the foot . The potential  loss of outa state license  fees and app cost will  be huge! That's  alot of free money  for our wildlife that goes away  . Are you guys who think  this is a great idea  going  to make up the lost revenue? Remember  the % of outa state tags would  not change  just the number  of people  who apply.  I've won a guided deer hunt in Utah  but for the cost of the outa state license and tags I probably  could  find a few better  things  to do with  the money  let alone the new regs going  in place for muzzleloader  and archery  in that state. 

[knothead]

All of you who want to raise fees and think things will get better, I have one question for you.  When was the last time a government agency raised their fees and things got better?  AZGFD leads the way for creative ways to come up with funds, but nothing seems to get better.  We have application fees, buy hunting licenses that very few NR's ever use, loyalty point program, pay for an ethical hunting point, ATV/UTV sticker, raffle limited tag, and other things I am probably forgetting.   Do we have more habitat, opportunity, wildlife or anything for that matter that benefits hunters/outdoorsmen or wildlife?  No.  All they do with these additional monies is hire more people (mostly in the non-game branch), fund pensions and pet non-big game species projects.  I support our department, but I want them to be a lean department and do more for big game species and hunters/fishers that pay the bulk of their everything.  Conservationist such as hunters and fishermen get bent over all the time and now we have people asking to raise our fees?!  If you think they need more money, donate to one of the AZ 501c3 organizations that do more for wildlife anyway. Crazy times.

[Couzer]

Raise fees on all out of state residents! Raise them, and they will pay!!!! I know it's my opinion, some won't agree!!!!

[wildwoody]

On 3/21/2025 at 10:41 AM, Flatlander said:

California is my top choice. Close to the beach. Close to the mountains. Low taxes. Moderate politics. You guys should give it a run.

37a

[HuntHarder]

I'm ok with higher Non-resident fees and I hunt non resident atleast a time or 2 each year.  It's a luxury to be able to hunt out of state imo.  It is already crazy expensive when you add in the total cost of the trip. 

 

I'd like to see the dollars used more effectively, but that's a whole different discussion.  

[Flatlander]

12 hours ago, Flingingarrowsbro said:

I don’t think public support is affecting much how federal agencies operate. Grizzlies being re-introduced in WA, CO, the new wolves being released in Cochise county recently, feral horses running rampant on the rim etc etc etc. no. Few instances have support from the public but environmental groups have the upper hand with the endangered species act and other laws. The USFWS is overrun with greenies which doesn’t help. 
I don’t believe raising non-resident fees will change how sportsman support other sportsman. If I was priced out of applying for Utah, I wouldn’t turn against my values. I think the vast majority of sportsman are similar to me. I think raising fees across the board for residents and non-resident is needed. There would be more funds available for conservation and other things that would benefit wildlife and sportsman.

I’d say that CO benefited big time last year from years of loyal hunters caring and getting involved. I don’t know if UT or NV would have seen the same results because so few people have hunted it over the years.

In terms of wild horses, public opinion is slowly turning and pressure is mounting to do something about it. Getting hunters to weigh in on public comment periods is absolutely a driver in that effort. During the last comment period for the Heber Wild Horse herds territory management plan, hunters flooded the public comments requesting the herd be reduced to pre-rodeo-chediski numbers. It was successful and the USFS is proposing to remove 900 horses.

ESA removals are similar. And had hunters mounted a stronger effort in CO when the wolf issue was on the ballot, the outcome could have been different. 

It’s just my opinion, but I think it’s wise to find an equitable price point that contributes significantly to wildlife conservation while also maintaining the interest of a broad community. On the contrary, if the suggested approach of intentionally excluding as many people as possible were to be taken (by pricing NR fees as high as possible) it’s inevitable that many people would be at a minimum disengaged and at worst vengeful about our state.

[stillatmaxpoints]

Cost of everything related to hunting has went up astronomically in the last several years, and NR, and R fees should go up accordingly. 

As far as the heber horses, 900 will not put much of a dent in the population, they have decimated the rangeland to a point where the legal permitted rancher there cannot run any cattle there for any length of time. The wild horse act of i believe 1972, stipulated that there had to be free ranging horses and or burros there when the act was passed, and there was not any there when the act was passed. If they don't remove every feral horse that is there, and keep it that way, then the feral horse problem will never be resolved long term.